Jul 28
Queerly unclear vice lists
I have been in two minds whether to continue with the series looking at the texts most often deployed in discussions, arguments and battles over the potential re-evaluation of Christian teaching on same sex relationships. Partly this is because there promise to be more interesting engagements such as that Mike Higton is currently starting, Partly it is the sense of futility of picking over the field of a battleground long since scavenged for treasure. Partly it is a sense of not really knowing what to do with two of the New Testament texts. I will (if I stay the course) come to Romans in a subsequent post. Here are 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 from the NRSV.
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:8-11)
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers– none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
I will get to the gory detail, but it seems to me that we need to note that these are lists, and the rhetorical effect of a list is not normally the drawing of detailed attention to any one listed vice, but to make a more general point. In the case of 1 Timothy there is very little context to appreciate the general point. It stands between an abrupt opening dealing with false teachers, and a section dealing with Paul’s conversion from his own sin as a persecutor, interestingly also characterised in an ethically generic way as being “a man of violence”. What we seem to have is a list of sins which appear to blur Torah into secular law, and associate the offences listed with false teaching.
Even so, one must doubt that any of the false teachers the letter has in view were so easily distinguishable: no community will regard as a teacher that most heinous of offenders in the Roman world, the parricide. It would be foolish to assume any human community didn’t have liars in it, and even more foolish given all our experience, to assume that in any ecclesiastical dispute there would not be some on both sides who would simply accuse the other of lying! So the list ranges between sins it is highly unlikely anyone has committed, to those some (many?) have almost certainly committed. The most that can be said with certainty about the list overall is that a range of sinful behaviour is associated with false teaching, and this recitation is followed by the example of a man famously rescued from both false teaching (blasphemy) and unethical behaviour (a man of violence) by the mercy of God.
It seems to me that the same is likely in the vice-list from 1 Corinthians. In so far as there is evidence of fornication, adultery, greed and drunkenness at least, around in Corinth, it seems to be going on the present and not the past. Yet “this is what some of you used to be” seems to suggest otherwise. It has long seems to me that the most likely interpretation of this list is that it is a typical piece of Jewish characterisation of the Gentiles, and what Paul is saying is, effectively, “some of you used to be Gentile sinners but you were converted – now leave your old life behind.” The list again does not mean that there was at least one of each type of sinner within the Corinthian church, just that this is Paul’s characterisation of their way of life. The bulk of the letter attests to the way in which both some of these types of behaviour were in fact not only past but present, and for all except a particular and difficult case of apparent incest, Paul seeks to cajole and argue them into changed behaviour, rather than casting them out.
Embedded within both lists as one of these “typical” sorts of sinner, is the one the NRSV chooses to translate as “sodomites” – ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai). As far as I can see, whether reading conservative authors like Robert Gagnon, or liberal ones like Dale Martin, in the end what we think this word means is a best guess. The argument from etymology (not one I normally like) is, in the absence of better arguments from usage, something to which we have to give more weight. That etymology indicates something like “those (men) who go to bed with men”. It seems to me quite likely that it’s a made up word, possibly within Jewish or Christian circles (based on the language the Greek Bible used to translate Leviticus), and probably as a term of abuse. Since the first use of the word we know about is in these lists, and much of its subsequent usage is also in lists, we don’t have much help in finding out whether it had a precise or a general meaning. It could have a very broad context, and include a wide range of sexual activity between men. It could have a much narrower context, whether in the context of allowing oneself to be a passive partner, the abuse of a slave, rape or the “educational relationships” between men and boys, or something else. The point about a best guess is that we don’t know. Most of the English translations not only make it sound as though we know.
I haven’t said anything about the other word sometimes enlisted in the argument. That malakoi (μαλακοί) means “soft ones” or “the effeminate” is fairly clear. However, since effeminacy could also mean anything from being far too interested in women’s company, and dressing up to seduce them, through cowardice, to being a man willing to be penetrated by another and so on and so on, we need more context to know how to translate it here. It could just as easily be paired with the preceding adulterers (μοιχοί) as the following arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται.) It is better, probably, to look for a neutral and inclusive term such as the NJB’s “the self-indulgent” than risk being wrongly specific.
This is where it is important to remember just how much interpretation goes into reading and translation. If “the Bible said” what the NET says: “The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God” – if that was the text, we might all know better where we stood. But it does not, and there is far too much interpretation in such a translation. It is this sort of sure and certain over-interpretation which raises a suspicion (however unjustified) of other influences affecting the reading.
In short, I find that these texts have comparatively little to say. Some form of not entirely clear sexual activity between men is listed in two vice lists, one aimed at distinguishing the behaviour of pre-conversion Gentiles from the life that fits the kingdom of God, the other at distinguishing the sort of sinful behaviour that might characterise false teachers. Both lists appear to be associated with what one can be redeemed from. But whatever the behaviour is, the writer(s) of these vice lists take(s) it as axiomatic that it is wrong, and seriously wrong at that. But in my view that’s part of the problem. There’s no hint of theological reflection at all, so we have no idea why they’re saying what they’re saying about whatever form of sexual activity between men they have in view. We’re not quite sure precisely what is condemned, and we’ve no idea why, not on the basis of these texts. We are however, pretty sure it’s condemned. That makes the task of faithful interpretation more difficult than is often admitted.
Previous posts in this series are:
Gay questions to straight answers
Texts of Queer Terror (1)
The stranger angel: texts of queer terror (2)
July 28th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Hi Doug - thanks for taking on the boring lists - now about “some of you used to be” or as I recall another translation “such were some of you”. It is possible this refers to a Gentile thing as you suggest - but for me it refers to the abuse of a gift. It might be paired even with the cleansing of the 10 lepers - when only one returned to give thanks. The change of mind associated with turning to Christ might indeed immediately - must eventually - result in a change of behaviour and attitude towards what God has provided. I recall a woman from Waglisla a small town (map name Bella Bella) on the west coast of BC where I met a woman saved from alcohol - it was literally a same-day repentance - a complete cold-turkey removal of her passion - in the mercy of Christ and by her sudden knowledge of the power of his death for her. She knew something new in her mind and body which immediately gave her power and self-control over herself.
Such were some of you is a recognition that real and powerful thanksgiving has just occurred - and Spirit inhabits the flesh of the convert with great joy. I have seen this happen more than once - and what to do - just give thanks.
Now about same-sex behaviour in this regard - if violent, if exploitive, if unequal in power - then the growth to the full manhood or womanhood of the individual is not achieved. Sure I am rereading this - but I think it is consistent withthe rhetoric of the list of sins. I am not rereading it at the expense of faith in the death of Christ and the giving of the power of the Spirit to the faithful. (Aside: For me, the Gospel does not work at all if I assume the Spirit is dependent on some action of the convert - No the Spirit is poured out on all flesh - and some are given a special gift of a power response to perceived need.)
I hope this is accurate - too long a comment - but thanks again.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
But my point: slay a homosexual in the Spirit and what you have is a redeemed homosexual in Christ - not a hetrosexual (necessarily). Any other conclusion sets us up as judges of God and God’s work in us. All heterosexuals need the same treatment of course.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
The meaning of 1 Cor 6.9-11 was not obscure to the early church, in its Greek milieu, as any study of the history of exegesis will show. It’s only the passage of time and a change in language and outlook in the late 20th century that has obscured understanding. Gagnon handles all these questions, and answers Dale Martin, on his site (robgagnon.net).
July 28th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Or not. You, Mark, seem convinced by Gagnon. You will simply have to accept that some of us are not – at least not on every issue.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:17 am
Doug,
May I also say that who amongst us hasn’t hated his brother and thus become a murderer as well? Your point that in the community, these sins can be found is well-taken.
If you keep up this exploration, can we expect “Gay questions” to be up on the top next to “39 Articles,” or is that too much heat? I say as long as you’ve got something to write, keep going for it.
-JAK
July 29th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Doug, Gagnon deals with all five examples that Martin discusses (Sib. Or., Acts of John, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, Bardesanes) plus five other texts or groups of texts that Martin leaves out, incl. references to ‘arsenokoitai’ in Origen, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Eusebius, and early translations into Latin, Syriac and Coptic (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 303-339).
This is a much broader range of evidence, and if Gagnon is to be refuted, you must show where his readings fail, as well as the contradictions he points out in Martin’s work (p. 324).
Of course I accept that some will not be convinced - just as I don’t expect unanimity on evolution, AGW, the cause of Aids etc. Not everyone can cross the pons asinorum. But the testimony of the early Greek speaking church is pretty impressive here.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:07 am
I’m really appreciating this series of yours - you’re really taking it upon yourself to make your readings as unbiased as you can, and it shows. Your interpretations also show a clear head, and make good sense to anyone not blinded by their predispositions.
Thanks.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Mark, I think you’re missing the point. When words first (and frequently) occur in lists, we lack the context that enables us to be any more precise than some kind of generic “men having sex with men” which is what I suggest is in view. And that needs to be hedged round by qualifications that a more specific form of behaviour may be in view.
You can keep dragging Gagnon in if you want, but I’ve said over and over again that this series is not about arguing with secondary writings, but (bearing many secondary writings in mind) trying to think out loud in conversation with the text of scripture. I’m not trying to cover every base, or mount an argument. If you think that’s what should be done, get yourself a blog and go of and do it, but don’t keep asking me to do something I’ve said I’m not doing here, now, and in this series. Thanks.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Doug, I understand you to be trying to grasp what Paul meant by ‘arsenokoitai’. This is a necessary task. I’ve done a doctorate in biblical studies (Hebrew Bible) and before that some work in synchronic and diachronic linguistics. I’m by no means an expert in all this but I think I understand the issues. I’m glad at least that you agree that ‘arsenokoitai’ means ‘men having sex with men’; did you know that Martin even doubts this narrow definition and thinks it could include heterosexual behavior (’Arsenokoites and Malakos’, pp. 118-23)? Gagnon’s own work here draws closely on the late David F. Wright of Edinburgh (from LXX Lev 18.22; 20.13 and rabbinic sources). If we accept this minimal definition, the other question concerns whether the term *also implies exploitation, pederasty, violence, idolatry etc - as some revisionists argue. This is where we must consider the word in the context of first century Jewish beliefs about homosexuality (incl. Josephus and Philo) as well as Gentile beliefs and practices - to say nothing of reading Paul in the context of his own writings. In the light of Romans 1.24-27, do you really think Paul would have approved of loving, consensual, non-idolatrous, non-prostitution same-sex relations among the Corinthians? Over to you, Doug.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Well, you’ll just have to wait for the post on Romans, Mark. But I still suggest you get your own blog, because I’m doing this the way I want to, so there’s no point you going on about Gagnon or Martin. I also note that you say in your comment: “I’m glad at least that you agree that ‘arsenokoitai’ means ‘men having sex with men’”. Since I said in the body of this post: “Some form of not entirely clear sexual activity between men is listed in two vice lists” which is pretty much the same point, I’m forced to wonder whether you;re actually reading my posts, or merely skimming them in search of something to disagree with.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Doug, be assured, I’m reading your posts, and ‘men having sex with men’ is your own summary in #8 above. I see from titusonenine that the bishop of Dudley (in England?) has also proposed that ‘arsenokoitai’ doesn’t denote ‘what we experience today’, and has drawn this reply from ‘Peter dH’:
“The cultic meaning has been debunked, and adding “power relationship, and promiscuity” to that is a fig leaf that isn’t convincingly supported either. The links with discussion of homosexuality elsewhere in scripture, with the same word in extrabiblical text, and the parallel between the word’s derivation from “arsen” (male) + “koite” (bed) and that of similar words like “metrokoites” (incest with the mother) all suggest that “homosexuality” is a pretty good translation. See the BDAG Greek-English lexicon for a potted discussion and references.”
Of course, ‘homosexuality’ is a 19th century neologism; the Bible’s focus is on people’s actions.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Doug, I find this helpful.
In a way, the conventional term “vice list” leads us astray, because it makes us think that the point is to list vices (”Don’t do the following things: murder, adultery, male-bedding, effeminacy…”). But that really isn’t the point at all, in this context. Rather, they conjure to mind a set of images of the morally degraded. The juxtaposition invites us to focus on the paradigm or archetypal cases of the obviously sinful, not to explore the outer boundaries of the conduct they engage in. Drunkard doesn’t mean everyone who drinks, or even everyone who ever gets drunk, or every alcoholic. Reviler doesn’t mean everyone who ever says anything unkind. And I don’t see why “ponce” or “nancyboy” (or however else you want to translate these contested words–I’m deliberately trying to use somewhat vague slang to avoid the false impression that we are dealing here with anything as precise, or neutral, or modern, as “homosexual”) needs to be understood in any other way. It’s not that the words might not in principle cover such cases, but rather that the word is not being used in order to define comprehensively the scope of proscribed conduct, but rather to call to mind certain types (sterotypes?) of “sinner”. The boundaries are left vague–and indeed, perhaps that too is part of the point.
These are not so much lists of vices as a gallery of strongly drawn caricatures of the vicious, set up not in order to clarify doubts about what behaviour is acceptable (”Hmm … I feel like doing some reviling before my drunken orgy but I wonder what Paul would say”) but in the service of some other point.
In short, getting away from a lexicographer’s concern to define the full range of possible semantic reference of each word, and shifting the focus to the rhetorical work the words are doing in their context is important. For my own part, I think this is important when one comes to look at the Romans 1 passages too, but I look forward to seeing what you make of them.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Yes, Mark, Kendall Harmon’s post is quoting the Bishop of Dudley in England (a suffragan bishop in Doug’s diocese of Worcester I believe), David Walker, not to be confused with the other Dave Walker, the cartoonist, with whom he is pictured here.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
[...] Queerly unclear vice lists. [...]