Effeminate

I just realised the word effeminate is in the Bible.

1 Cor 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

What is "...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ". Does that phrase refer to gays?

Originally posted by Rajk999
I just realised the word effeminate is in the Bible.

1 Cor 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit t ...[text shortened]... ]"...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ". Does that phrase refer to gays?

What is "...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ". Does that phrase refer to gays?

I am not an expert in Koine Greek, but I think the meaning is quite elusive. The Greek has oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai which literally translates as 'the soft and those who sleep with men'. It is a curious expression. Malakos, when normally referring to persons, means 'morally weak' or 'lacking in self-control' (see Liddell and Scott, 2c), not a homosexual (I believe in classical Greek, at least, thelys would be the usual term for an effeminate man).

Arsenokoitai is also vague. This is a Pauline neologism not attested elsewhere in Greek. It is a compound of arsen, the New Testament term for a man, and koitos, a bed. Obviously Paul is not talking about any sexual relations with a man since Paul condoned married life. This must refer to some illicit sexual activity. But is it prostitution or homosexuality? The gender of arsenokoitai is not indicated (it is a first declension, which generally contains feminine nouns, but the -ai ending is simply a result of the nominalising -es morpheme), so Paul could be referring to any illicit sex more severe than fornication or adultery.

Nor is the Latin clear either. Jerome's translation in the Vulgate is a simple example of word-for-word substitution: molles et masculorum concubitores ('the soft and those who sleep with men'.) Molles in Latin could refer to a homosexual man but it could have any number of meanings. Nor does Jerome make any decision as to the gender of the arsenokoitai: the gender of concubitores could be masculine or feminine.

In short, the meaning isn't clear. Your translation for arsenokoitai is, however, even more obscure and I don't countenance the expression 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. Arsen never refers to mankind. Anthropos is always the word for man, whether male or female.

Personally, I do not think that it is implausible that Paul is referring to homosexuals. The expression could be taken as an example of the rhetorical technique, hendiadys, i.e. 'soft people who sleep with men'. That would then more obviously refer to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. The meaning however is lost on us. Perhaps for the sake of modesty, Paul did not want to refer to homosexuality or prostitution explicitly. But what matters is the functionality, not the descriptive value, of the line: avoid illicit sex.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What is "...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ". Does that phrase refer to gays?

I am not an expert in Koine Greek, but I think the meaning is quite elusive. The Greek has oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai which literally translates as 'the soft and those who sleep with men'. It is a curious expression. Malakos, ...[text shortened]... s the functionality, not the descriptive value, of the line: avoid illicit sex.[/b]

I think if you look at almost every bible translation, it's referring to homosexuality.

Originally posted by galveston75
I think if you look at almost every bible translation, it's referring to homosexuality.

Actually, that is not what I find. I find that most translations are equally vague. In fact, the very translation Raj gave was even more obscure.

Anyway, I have supplied strong philological reasons why I think the text is vague. I am quite certain that if I checked commentaries, I would be confirmed on this point and I am quite confident in my knowledge of Latin and Greek.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Actually, that is not what I find. I find that most translations are equally vague. In fact, the very translation Raj gave was even more obscure.

Anyway, I have supplied strong philological reasons why I think the text is vague. I am quite certain that if I checked commentaries, I would be confirmed on this point and I am quite confident in my knowledge of Latin and Greek.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

The first ten I looked at here used the term homosexuality.

Originally posted by galveston75
http://www.biblegateway.com/

The first ten I looked at here used the term homosexuality.

Well, not all translations take that choice, so clearly this is a point of contention. The assumption that it refers to homosexuality, I maintain is unjustifiable. It is being explicit where Paul, possibly deliberately, is being vague.

Some translations are clearly being inventive and it is possible to see many of them ideologically driven, whether one way or another:

men who have sex with men
male prostitutes or homosexual offenders
homosexuals or sodomites
men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex
the effeminate or liers with mankind
those who commit adultery of any kind

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What is "...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ". Does that phrase refer to gays?

I am not an expert in Koine Greek, but I think the meaning is quite elusive. The Greek has oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai which literally translates as 'the soft and those who sleep with men'. It is a curious expression. Malakos, ...[text shortened]... s the functionality, not the descriptive value, of the line: avoid illicit sex.[/b]

Thanks for that. What is interesting is that Paul is being vague in describing homosexuality [if he is in fact doing that], but being very clear with other sins which people downplay in many churches ...

The Covetous, The Drunkards, The Revilers.

Do churches excommunicate people guilty of these sins?

So now, to me at least, we are smack dab in the middle of the same debate from the other thread.

And I'll ask the panel:

If effeminate refers to homosexuality; does it mean practicing homosexuals, or, must it include all people, even those whom simply have homosexual tendencies?

This is an absolutely crucial point when it comes to Christian doctrine.

Originally posted by sumydid
So now, to me at least, we are smack dab in the middle of the same debate from the other thread.

And I'll ask the panel:

If effeminate refers to homosexuality; does it mean practicing homosexuals, or, must it include all people, even those whom simply have homosexual tendencies?

This is an absolutely crucial point when it comes to Christian doctrine.

Ok .. well since you have a weak stomach [as you displayed in the other thread] careful what questions you ask .. 🙂

Originally posted by Rajk999
Ok .. well since you have a weak stomach [as you displayed in the other thread] careful what questions you ask .. 🙂

You don't know the half of it. Last night K Conrau had me googling and I got to learn that there is such a thing as a "prostate orgasm."

Until last night, I thought a man could not have orgasm without ... well you know... "spilling his seed."

I guess I learned differently. And I got to see diagrams and everything.

It was great.

😞

Originally posted by sumydid
You don't know the half of it. Last night K Conrau had me googling and I got to learn that there is such a thing as a "prostate orgasm."

Until last night, I thought a man could not have orgasm without ... well you know... "spilling his seed."

I guess I learned differently. And I got to see diagrams and everything.

It was great.

😞

TMI ... 🙁

Originally posted by Rajk999
Thanks for that. What is interesting is that Paul is being vague in describing homosexuality [if he is in fact doing that], but being very clear with other sins which people downplay in many churches ...

The Covetous, The Drunkards, The Revilers.

Do churches excommunicate people guilty of these sins?

What is interesting is that Paul is being vague in describing homosexuality [if he is in fact doing that], but being very clear with other sins which people downplay in many churches ...

This is a point I overlooked in my first post. We are hard put to determine whether Paul was being unclear or whether it is just unclear to us. Possibly in Paul's community, arsenokoitai was an unambiguous term. We can never know because the term is not found contemporaneously. It may be a well-known colloquialism; it may be his own neologism.

Again, I do not think it is implausible to interpret this as a reference to some kind of homosexuality. Malakia and mollitia would naturally be associated with the passive partner in anal sex, at least to the Greco-Roman mind. The arsenokoites would then probably be the active partner. But how do we know what Paul exactly had in mind. whether situational homosexuality, prostitution or pederastry? Paul never speaks of any homosexual orientation either.

But what Paul exactly means is irrelevant. We are ignoring the speech-function of this passage. Paul is not cataloguing sins for the sake of his readers' erudition. Paul is making a theological statement 'Sinners will not possess the kingdom of God'. The speech-function is hortative: Live morally. The specifics of the individual immoral acts is not directly relevant to this speech-function.

Originally posted by Rajk999
TMI ... 🙁

I just wanna go over in the corner and lie down in the fetal position, stick my thumb in my mouth, and say with a whimper, "Mommy please make it stop...." 😞

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, not all translations take that choice, so clearly this is a point of contention. The assumption that it refers to homosexuality, I maintain is unjustifiable. It is being explicit where Paul, possibly deliberately, is being vague.

Ok you can understand it as you see. But the Bible is saying something different.