So it is written, in black and white in I Cor 6:9-11, across the spectrum of English Bibles. Well, not quite. The NASB (New American Standard Bible) translates the Greek word arsenokoitai as'effeminate men'. Whereas the NIV (New International Version) translates the word as 'those who have sex with men' and the NKJV (New King James Version) as 'homosexuals'.
This is a review of Michael Wood's new book "Paul on Homosexuality", published in 2011. It provides a scholarly insight into the Greek word arsenokoitai, which has caused untold pain and suffering over the centuries to G-d's gay and lesbian children.
I am listing Wood's own words from the book in italics.
It is alarming that the translators' own prejudices against effeminate men are now taught as God's own prejudices. The God who is discussed in modern translations is, in many ways, the opposite of the God who is discussed in the original Bible - the only Bible . ...God wants his children to lovingly accept the dispositions of all manners of men (and women).
Paul constantly focused on the just, fair, altruistic treatment of people. In his society, the unjust, unfair, unkind treatment of others was found in abundance everywhere. But perhaps no mistreatment of others was more visibly on display than the cruel injustice committed against young boys. During Paul's day, young boys were sodomised routinely and regularly (emphasis mine throughout). For men, sex with young boys was often more desirable than sex with women. This is illustrated in a play written by Quintus Novius, a near contemporary of Paul. One character nonchalantly proclaims, 'everyone knows that a boy is superior to a woman'. The character then proceeds to explain the attributes of boys that turn everyone on.
What age were these boys? The upper limit was determined by body hair. The moment hair formed on the buttocks or face, the boy was too old to be desired for sex. There is no getting away from it. Roman men were attracted to young boys up to a certain age - that age may be defined as the point after puberty that the body developed hair on the buttocks and on the face (Professor Ray Laurence, 'a history of pleasure in imperial Rome').
What was the lower age limit? There wasn't one! The youngest boys were open to be raped. And raped they were... en masse. In many cases, men preferred the youngest boys. They took pleasure in their screaming and wailing produced by the destruction of their virgin innocence (Prof Lawrence, p80).
For wealthy men, owning a stock of slave boy-toys was one of the most common status symbols of the day. The sons of the family greatly desired their fathers' stock of slave boys. The satirist Martial, another near contemporary of Paul, wrote that sons so desired to rape their father's slave boys that they got busy doing so the very night of their father's death; before the corpse was even cold, the sons went straight for the slave boys (Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality, 2nd edition).
Moses' famous Ten Commandments are knows as the Decalogue. The Didache, a first-century Christian work, used the 'murder, adultery, steal' order (i.e. the 6th, 7th and 8th commandment) as follows: don't murder (6), don't commit adultery, don't rape young boys, don't have sex with prostitutes (7), don't steal... In early Christian 'sin lists', the prohibitions relative to the seventh commandment refer to either Adultery (sex with a married woman), Raping slave boys or Sex with prostitutes. It is extremely important to recognise how common it was for the earliest Christians to list 'raping young boys' relative to the seventh commandment. This is a critical piece of information, for it allows us to understand the precise meaning of the ancient Greek word 'arsenokoitai'.
I would just like to pause there for a moment. For the sake of brevity, I am only highlighting the key sentences relating to 'arsenokoitai', the word that has caused so much misunderstanding. Wood goes into much more detail and I urge you to obtain a copy of his book. His is one of the best I have read on the subject of Homosexuality and the Bible.
Wood continues: As previously documented, early Christian sin lists consistently listed the rape of slave boys relative to the seventh commandment, which was only natural, given that raping slave boys was the most common form of marital unfaithfulness at that time.
It cannot be emphasised enough that raping slave boys was associated with the seventh commandment. The Didache documents 'not raping young boys' as an extention of the seventh commandment. The Epistle of Barnabas documents 'not raping young boys' as an extention of the seventh commandment. Clement of Alexandria documents 'not raping young boys' as an extention of the seventh commandment.
The arsenokoitai, then were the rapists of young slave boys!
Modern conventional Bibles claim that no homosexual shall enter the kingdom of God. From a historical perspective, virtually every heterosexual Roman male was both a womaniser and a rapist of young boys. Given that 1. Timothy 1:9-10 used arsenokoitai relative to the seventh commandment, we know that the passage was actually condemning those heterosexual rapists of slave boys, not homosexuals.
Once again, we find that... Bibles contain a prejudicial statement which is patently erroneous... Note: The Messianic Scriptures (NT) were written in Koine Greek, the 'lingua franca' of the day.
- Does any Koine Christian sin list mention homosexuality relative to the seventh commandment? No, none do. Do Koine Christian sin lists mention raping young boys relative to the seventh commandment? Yes, very much so. Therefore, only 'rapists of young boys' matches 1. Timothy's use of the Decalogue in this passage.
- Historically speaking, were the rapists of slave boys heterosexual or homosexual? When it came to adult sex, they slept with women, not men. It was the macho heterosexual men who were raping slave boys. "Homosexuals" is historically incorrect. Therefore, only 'rapists of young boys' matches the real-world situation being addressed in 1. Timothy 1:9-10.
Conventional translations replace 'boy rapers' with homosexuals. Were the rapists of slave boys inherently unloving? Yes, very much so. Are homosexuals inherently unloving? No, of course not.
Stay tuned for part two.
