Clobbering back with the Clobber texts: Taking the Bible Seriously - Are There Clobber Texts in the Bible? Rev. Dr. Thomas Hanks Part 3: The New Testament: Beginning With Jesus, Not Paul |
1 Corinthians 6:9 -
lists (note the literary genres), which consist of terms that hardly carry the precision necessary for laws nor the greek philosophical framework to justify speaking of "ethical absolutes" (1 Corinthians 5:9-10,11; 6:9-10). A term like "jealousy" may appear in a list of vices (Galatians 5: 20; 2 Corinthians 12:20), yet in another context be viewed as a virtue (Paul's "jealousy" for his churches, 2 Corinthians 11:2; see also "coveting" or "strong desire"), which is positive in some Biblical contexts (as also today: "I covet your prayers"). Paul refers to "drunkards" in 1 Corinthians 6:10, but even traditionalist churches now commonly tip their hat to modern psychology and offer pastoral help through "Alcoholics Anonymous" (rather than simply old time rescue missions for "drunks"). However it would be erroneous, malicious and cruel to translate the Greek word for drunks as "alcoholics," because that is a modern word based on modern scientific understanding and refers to a different group of persons. Since many who are "alcoholics" according to modern medicine have not touched a drop of alcohol for years, we should never think of translating "drunkards" in Paul's vice lists as "alcoholics" just to make Paul sound modern. Obviously popular rhetorical language in ancient vice lists can provide no firm basis for "ethical absolutes"--much less exhaustive pastoral guidelines for complex human conditions. We shall not here entertain ourselves with the incredible variety of translations proposed for the two words used in this "clobber text" as a basis for condemning "homosexuals." The first (Greek: malakoi) means "soft" and until quite recently was commonly understood to be a euphemism for masturbation. In the modern translation most favored by evangelicals malakoi is translated "male prostitutes" (NIV). But neither "male prostitutes" (who can service women as well as men) nor "gang rape of angels" (Genesis 19) is what 19th century physicians had in mind when they began to understand the diversity in human sexual orientation and coined the term "homosexual." While malakoi ("soft") is a common word, the second word in dispute (arsenokoitai) is quite rare and may have been coined by Paul himself. Modern scholars have written hundreds of pages bewailing the difficulty of understanding precisely what Paul meant and translating it accurately for modern readers. Today's readers, however, can easily understand the problem if they realize that Paul simply puts together two very common words: "males" (masculine) and "bed(s)", so "males-bed(s)" would be the most literal translation. "Bed(s)" here, of course, is not literal, but should be taken to be a euphemistic reference to activity we would call "sexual." Elsewhere "bed" is commonly used euphemistically in this sense (Hebrews 13:4, singular; Romans 13:13, plural). In Romans 13:13 the plural "beds" undoubtedly points to continuous, irresponsible "sexual activity" and probably it is the quality of the relationships (oppression, domination, harm), not the number of partners, that Paul objects to. (Old Testament polygamy and levirate marriage are not condemned in the New Testament.) The impossibility of extracting legally precise universal "ethical absolutes" from rare, ambiguous words used euphemistically is classically illustrated here. What can be wrong with multiple "beds" (Romans 13:13)? We might ask friends who pride themselves on taking the Bible "literally" whether Paul intended to exclude from God's kingdom that paragon of wisdom in the Hebrew Scriptures, King Solomon (who had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but might have managed to sleep with each of them in the same royal bed). And surely Paul would not have condemned his co-worker Aquila, who itinerated all over the Roman empire, probably sleeping in more "beds" than George Washington -- but presumably always with Priscilla! The kind of "males" Paul sees as excluded from the new human community in formation might have been (1) male prostitutes sexually serving women; or (2) male prostitutes sexually serving both women and men; (3) male pederasts who engage in sexual liaisons with "soft" adolescents (the classical Greek pattern often was not "promiscuous"); (4) males who submit other males to (unprotected) anal sex, which could be either (a) consensual or (b) forced; (5) male sexual activity that involves exploitation, oppression, coercion, violence, or irresponsibilty; or (6) any sort of genital sexual activity involving only males. What the reference to "males" bed(s) clearly excludes is the possibility of sexual activity involving only women (who might be of lesbian or bisexual orientation). Hence lesbians in Corinth could assume that Paul would have no problem with their participation in the new human community. The clear omission of any reference to lesbian sexual activity makes any translation of arsenokoitai as "homosexuals" completely unwarranted (and disguises the cultural patriarchy operative behind the text). Hence, correcting the error of previous editions, the new edition of the standard Greek lexicon, Frederick W. Danker, ed. (University of Chicago Press, 1998), will not include "homosexuals" as a possible translation of arsenokoitai (personal conversation with Dr. Danker). Originally, like "alcoholics," the term "homosexual" was used to promote the view that the desire for same-gender sexual relations should no longer be viewed as a sin or vice ("sodomy") but rather as a kind of mental illness. Like "alcoholics," this medical term referred to a mental condition, which in many cases was not expressed in practice. In the 1970's, in the light of new studies, the informed scientific consensus shifted, and homosexuality came to be viewed, not as a mental illness, but as a normal human variant variant like lefthandedness, green eyes, or red hair. Hence the religious term describing what had been thought to be a sin ("sodomy") and the medical term for what had been thought to be a mental illness ("homosexuality") were increasingly abandoned in favor of the words "gay" and "lesbian." Due to lack of linguistic data, probably we will never be sure precisely what Paul had in mind. In fact, the use of ambiguous, euphemistic language in a vice list may indicate that Paul had nothing "precise" in mind, but rather used popular derogatory terms (cf. "cocksucker" and "mother-fucker" today) to condemn male sexual activity that was coercive, oppressive, unloving, or irresponsible (in the patriarchal context). In 1 Corinthians 6:9 our surest guide is probably the immediate context: the new humanity (God's "kingdom" ) is characterized above all by justice (Matthew 6:33, often misleadingly translated as "righteousness"). Paul is basically concerned to warn against people who are adikoi (unjust, oppressors, irresponsible, exploiters). As the first term in the vice list, adikoi provides the framework; the following words in the vice list illustrate types of behavior that commonly involve injustice and oppression (see Romans 1:17-18, 28-32). Dale B. Martin, in the most recent scholarly study of the few relevant extra-Biblical contexts, shows that this usage pattern of grouping arsenokoitai with property sins of oppression and exploitation is also evident in those contexts (1996:117-136). However, same-sex male genital activity characterized by justice, freedom, love, wisdom and responsibility hardly falls under Paul's condemnation in this vice list. And a lesbian relationship is totally off the patriarchal horizon, as it was in the case of Lev. 18 and 20. 1 Timothy 1:10 -
Timothy 1:10. Since the "pastoral" letters (1-2 Timothy and Titus) probably were written by a disciple of Paul years after the Apostle's death, the meaning of males-bed[s] (arsenokoitai) could well be somewhat different in this later context. The omission of malakoi ("softies," adolescents or young male prostitutes?) may indicate a broader euphemistic reference. However, again lack of linguistic data (repeated usage in clear contexts) makes it impossible to do more than suggest theories of greater or lesser probability. What is clear in both texts is that the absence of any reference to lesbians or any understanding of sexual orientation makes the translation "homosexuals" totally unacceptable. If arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is understood to refer to the active, insertive male in exploitative, unprotected anal sex, and malakoi to the soft, passive penetrated male, then 1 Timothy 1:9 condemns only the active party. 1 Timothy 1:9 would then be similar to Leviticus 18:22, which condemns only the active partner, while 1 Corinthians 6:9 would be similar to Leviticus 20:13, which condemns the passive partner as well. At any rate, it is anachronistic to make Paul's disciple sound like he knew all about modern psychology, sexual orientations and the Kinsey scale. Our modern paraphrastic translations love to give the impression that the Bible is quite "up to date." This may make traditionalists feel good, but hardly furthers the cause of accurate interpretation of the book they want everyone to take seriously. Genuine respect for ancient literary works is not best demonstrated by dragging them into the modern world and passing them off as the latest expert on a TV talk show -- rather it is expressed by the painful, slow process of entering into the ancient world and trying to understand its distinctive languages, thoughtforms and questions. The Apostle Paul was not "Dr. Ruth" and neither was his disciple who penned 1 Timothy 1:10. Conclusion -
linguistic data and complaining about the impossibility of defining with legal precision exactly whom Paul intended to exclude from the new humanity (God's kingdom) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. It never seems to occur to them that Paul may have purposely chosen ambiguous, euphemistic language, since his intention was not to enslave readers to a new legalism. Rather the Apostle sought to celebrate Christian freedom and teach readers to think for themselves and be guided by God's Spirit in sexual behavior that is consensual, just, loving, responsible and wise. Even harsh critics of Paul recognize him to be one of the greatest minds that has influenced Western thought. It is an insult to his purely human intelligence to suggest that he opted for vague words and euphemistic language if his aim was a legal precision that could produce ethical absolutes in the sexual area. And what more might we say to traditionalists, who insist that an omniscient God "verbally inspired" such writings as "inerrant Scripture"? Do they honor God by arguing that God set out to establish a clear ethical absolute (excluding all homosexuals from the Kingdom) -- but tried to do so by orating against "softies" and "males- bed(s)"? Most often Paul treats activities we would call sexual under the categories of "uncleanness" and "sexual irresponsibility" (porneia). Rather than legal, ethical precision, the Apostle's ambiguity may be intentional and manifest his missionary sensitivity to cultural differences in sexual matters. As William Countryman has pointed out, coffee may be considered "clean" in the cup, but "dirty" when spilled on a shirt. Similarly, practices such as polygamy or levirate marriage may be "clean" in certain African cultures, but scandalously "dirty" in modern America. In Buenos Aires the standard greeting between males is the kiss Paul so often commanded -- but this is a crime on the streets of homophobic London! The Apostle Paul certainly traveled widely enough to be sensitive to such cultural differences in the sexual area -- and hence may intentionally have avoided trying to produce a new legalism in sexual matters for the first century churches. The sexual "norms" Paul established for his churches (by lifestyle and teaching) were basically the same that Jesus had emphasized: liberation from all oppression, justice, love, and peace in new viable human communities characterized by great diversity and mutual respect. Those who prefer compulsive heterosexuality, marriage, procreation -- or, at the other extreme, total sexual abstinence -- as binding on all, must look elsewhere to rationalize their legalistic sexual ideologies. |
next page |
| Other Sheep Websites Other Sheep English Other Sheep Spanish Argentina Other Sheep Foundation Executive Director |
| This website was reconstructed in June of 2007 Visits made to this web page since June 2007 |
| "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in also." John 10:16 |
Writings on this page... Tom Hanks on the Clobber texts Other Sheep Founder, 1992. Other Sheep Theologian and Director of Mission |