Conviction of Sin  		A meta-exegetical or methodological essay   In article <May.14.02.10.06.1993.25123@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:  >I can't post it all at once, so it will come piece meal and not daily.  I look forward to reading it.  When I got to the library last week, it was with the object in view to look at some articles that have appeared over the last few years, since my previous look at the literature.  Un- fortunately, they had moved the journal back-issues, so I didn't get a look at the articles I was hoping to find.  I will continue to reserve my own judgment on _arsenokoitai_ until I have seen the latest scholarly work, and I can hope that REXLEX's posting may give some meat to chew on.  However, what I *can* do now, is to point out the methodological issues -- what needs to be shown for anything to be concluded in this matter. If the article REXLEX posts addresses these issues, so much the better; if not, you will perhaps understand why the problem is hard.  >                 James B. DeYoung  writes, _in abstractu_:  >this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai, deriving it >from the LXX of Lev 20:12 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual >orientation and behavior  	[it is only a minor point, but let me make it anyway; De Young has 	already contradicted his own prior assertion in this abstract that 	the ancient analysis of these issues was concerned with actions and 	NOT with orientation.  I doubt this will have much bearing on the 	article as such, but thought I should point it out from the start.]  The hypothesis De Young is advancing is that Paul a) coined the word and b) his intended meaning for it was in reference to the Levitical law.  The questions I wish to raise are  	1.)  how would one go about confirming the truth of this hypothesis? and	2.)  what follows if one accepts (or stipulates, for the sake of the 	     discussion) that it is correct?  Note that b) is independent of a); I consider b) far more plausible than a), which seems merely to be a counsel of despair over finding nothing in the literature contemporary with Paul to clarify this word.  So far as I know, Paul does NOT in general invent words anywhere else in his letters.  Unless you have an otherwise-established pattern of coinages, it is *not* sound methodology to assume it -- particularly if he gives no hint in the immedi- ate text to "fix" the coinage's meaning for his audience.  As yet, the extract presents no evidence at all.  What do we need to confirm or reject the hypothesis? (which, I should say at the outset, I find somewhat plausible; I certainly know of nothing which makes it an *impossible* way of construing this problem passage.)  I'm going to set aside for the moment the question of whether Paul might have coined this usage, to look at the more tractable question of what it means.  For this there are, in principle, two kinds of evidence that can be adduced, internal and external.  That is, we can look at the text of Paul's letter for clarification or look outside that to prior or contemporary writings that Paul might have relied on, or to derivative writings that have some claim of access to Paul's meaning.  The single WORST problem with this word in Corinthians is that there IS no internal evidence for Paul's meaning.  He uses the word totally without an explanation or hint as to his meaning, save that its inclusion in a list of negatives implies that it has for him SOME negative meaning.  We are left, as the only "internal" clue, with the etymology or formation of the word -- which is indeed the reason that De Young (and others before him) have associated it with the Leviticus prohibition of men VERBing with other men, where VERB is some standard euphemism for having sex ("lie" in Leviticus, "bed" in Greek).  One problem is that "bedders" (_-koitai_) is not, as far as I know, USED that way in Greek.  THEREFORE, I offer one serious test which de Young's hypothesis *must* pass or be rejected:  	o  find a body of Greek texts contemporary with Paul (or not much 	   prior to his day) such that the _X-koitai_ formation implies 	   "men who have sex with X"  [obviously, the "best case" is to 	   find such usages of _arsenokoitai_ itself.]  such texts would be confirmation that the word *can* be read that way. It is worth emphasizing that compound words are NOT in general under- standable by projecting what the READER may imagine by the juxtaposition of the roots.  Existence of such parallels doesn't *prove* the hypothesis correct -- but it goes a long way towards making such a usage (whether or not original with Paul in the specific case of X == _arse:n_) possible of comprehension by his readers.  My "test" moves in the direction of external evidence.  If Paul does NOT in his text explain his word (and he does not), then he has to expect his readers to already know the word (which stands against its being a coinage) or to expect that it mimics word formations that they *do* know, such that they can guess his meaning without too much floundering.  External evidence, that is, texts other than Paul's own and lexicographic or social/historical considerations that might be adduced, then come into the picture.  *If* there are other uses of the word, not dependent on Paul, which *have* sufficient internal (contextual) evidence -- or some gloss by a contemporary scribe -- to show a derogatory reference to male homosexu- ality, or similar _-koitai_ formations used in similar ways, *then* one has grounds for  	o  denying that Paul coined the word and	o  assuming that his readers might understand his meaning  Do you see the problem?  If Paul coined the word, then he REQUIRES his readers to share enough context with him to COMPREHEND his coinage and its intent -- in this case that they would (stipulating De Young's guess) understand him to be referring to the Levitical "universal" prohibition of male-male sex (this, mind you, in a context where Paul has emphasized at least to OTHER congregations (and so one assumes to the Corinthians -- how else to explain 1 Cor. 6:12, and the Corinthians having to be pulled back from overinterpreting their freedom?) the NON applicability of Torah law to his gentile converts!)  Among the considerations that make it implausible for Paul to have coined the word, its first element is archaic -- _arse:n_ is an old Attic or Ionic form of what in even classical (let alone koine) times would be assimilated as _arre:n_.  To me, this implies that we are even more than usually needful of external evidence to pin down meaning and usage.  What is Paul doing inventing a word in obsolete Attic formation?  And if he *didn't* coin the word, but picked it up like the others in his list as common terms of derogation, then his meaning will be -- for his readers -- constrained by that common meaning (since he gives no other.)  I cannot emphasize enough that Paul DOES NOT TELL US what he means by this word.  We (and his original readers) are guessing.  They, at least, had a contemporary context -- and maybe Paul had used this very word and explained it in great detail to them in person.  But we have no trace of evidence of that, and to *suppose* it is mere fantasy.  So -- we are *desperately* in need of external evidence about this word. And it seems to be exceptionally meagre.  That is precisely the problem. I can think of several more or less equally plausible hypotheses about the word:  	a)  it was a standard gutter term of abuse for (some or all, maybe 	    very specific, maybe very general) homosexual male activities  	b)  it was a term of abuse used by Jews about the awful homosexual 	    Greeks (which may or may not be consciously associated on their 	    part with the Leviticus passage)  	c)  Paul invented the term -- and again there may or may not be an 	    association with Leviticus in his doing so.  He may or may not 	    intend the word to have an explicit and universal application 	    with absolute and clear boundaries.  [Since none of his OTHER 	    words in that list have such character, this last seems to me 	    about the *least* plausible of the hypotheses I'm advancing.]  Of these, I'd say off the top of my head that a) is most plausible -- but I still have reservations about that, too.  If the word NEVER appears before Paul, and in later uses has some evidence of depending on Paul, then one can opt for Paul's coining it.  If it does appear before him, he might *still* have coined it being unaware of prior use (in which case, his coinage is inherently confusing!) but one should normally demote c) on the basis of any earlier uses (especially if they can be shown to have been at all common in the places Paul traveled.)  In either of the a) or b) cases, one has to take into account Paul's relation to the community of usage he picked the word up from -- and whether it be from the Greek or Jewish communities, Paul's relations are hardly straight- forward!  There is, so far as I have yet seen, little or no external evidence to aid us in selecting one of these (or some other) hypothesis.  Your guess is as good as mine (or maybe worse or maybe better, depending on a lot of things). But it remains -- so far -- guesswork.  And I don't know about you, but I for one WILL NOT equate human guesswork with the will of God.  By all means be convinced in your own conscience about what Paul is getting at -- as he says elsewhere on what was in HIS day a major controversy of somewhat this same character (Romans 14:22-23)  	"Hold on to your own belief, as between yourself and God -- and 	consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going 	against his conscience.  But anybody who eats in a state of doubt 	is condemned, because he is not in good faith, and every act done 	in bad faith is a sin."  For my part, I cannot see any way to resolve Paul's meaning in the use of _arsenokoitai_ without directly applicable external evidence -- and by the nature of such external evidence, it will never reach to certainty of constraining Paul's own intent.  Paul, like Humpty Dumpty (and me, and all the rest of us) *will* use words in ways that are personal choices -- and sometimes leave his readers puzzled.  If that puzzlement leads you to God, it may be blessed -- if it should lead away (as some of Paul's words HAVE led some people), then Paul's intense communicative effort to contrive his meaning in our souls may have some regretable consequences. I have always found Paul to be a fantastically reliable guide -- if I read him "in the large", if I can see him lay out his position in detail and hammer it home time and time again.  I am much less certain about his meaning in his many brief and cryptic passages (such as this one.)  In my usual discursive way, I have gone on at great length about the first of my intended meta-exegetical points -- what would be needed to confirm that Paul a) coined or b) in any case meant the word to mean the same as the Leviticus prohibition.  My second point is to *stipulate* this hypo- thesis, and follow up what it implies for both his initial readers and for later Christians.  Given my verbosity, this will be tomorrow night's meditation :-)