Not so New here wrote: ” … are now outdated, while the homosex prohibition remains very, very, very important.”
This is claimed arguing that the word arsenokoîtai in 1 Cor 6:9 is a “compound” of ársen and koítä in Lev 20:13, the law parallel (If a man… then…) to the cultic purity taboo in Lev 18:22, and that consequently all of Lev 18 (intentionally mis-translated as “incest”, Moloch, “homosexuality” and “bestiality”) is brought forth into the NT under the name of “Holiness Code”, thereby turning 1st Temple Levitical cultic purity taboos into “moral” “law” for the Christian congregation.
Well, some of them ;=)
Point 1. arsenokoîtai is probably Corinthian slang never used in writing before 1 Cor (middle of the 50-ies). The Old Latin transla-tion (perhaps only ¾ of a century later) gives it as masculorum concubitores; male bedfellows.
Now, since pre modern bedfellows always were of the same gender (or in the case of wet-nurses, of “none”), most probably arseno-koîtai refers to male “bedfellows” in a secondary sense; well endowed men who prostituted themselves with both men and women (= xärai; widow).
Self supporting women were called “widows”, since widows – and the occasional elder sister standing in for a younger brother, such as Martha in Luke 11 – enjoyed some but not all, of the legal, political and economical rights only men had in Antiquity.
Until the 13th century (Thomas Aquinas’ Summa contra gentiles?) arsenokoîtai was discussed as prostitution.
Point 2. present “moral” is a 12th century Scholastic concept; before, moral meant life, way of life, cf Plutarch’s Moralia: Lives of Famous Men (some of them imaginary, such as the Persian King Sardanapalos – ever even more lascivious than a woman ;=)
Point 3. the fact that two words happen to stand side to side in one context in one text does not make a different word in an other context in a text several hundred years later into a “compound”.
;=)
Nor did anyone think about anything of the sort before the mid 16th century, when this claim was invented by Dr Johannes Calvinus who, because of his Indo European Integrism, needed scriptural “proofs” where the Scholastics simply could do with the bare “verity” of their Neo Platonist Absolute Truth (= the communion of the little nous, the mind/sperm of the male academic with the big Nous, The Highest Being).
According to late 20th century Roman exegesis the man responsible for the present mis-translation of arsenokoîtai as “man-fucker” was Thomas Aquinas in his Summa contra gentiles. I haven’t checked, so I cannot say whether this is factual or an in-reading of late-modern social prejudice, but it is clear that 1 Cor 6:9-11 was not among the several “words” (most of them later abandoned) claimed by the 12th century Scholastics to refer to their Neo Platonist/Gnosticist category Spilling of Semen without procreationary purpose (the Spilling of Semen was of course “heterosexual” to them – had they known the word ;=)
So Roman late 20th century exegesis claims that koítä; bed, is a verb meaning to lay (with) – according to Pater Zerwick 1966 (note to Rom 13:13) it is an euphemism, according to Boswell 1980 (referring to the same) it is gross...
Middle of the road Calvinist exegesis, however (such as the New York-Stuttgart “Novum” of the International Bible Societies), still claim it’s a noun, translating it “bed, marital relationship (Heb 13:4), sperm (koítän exo conceive Rom 9:10) sexual impurity (Rom 13:13)”.
Of course “bed” is the only one among these that is correct, but we can take that an other time…
Thing is they both u n d e r s t a n d koítä as sex. And this is a very interesting example of how the different theological traditions sometimes come to “explain” the same Neo Platonist teaching in ways not only incompatible, but mutually exclusive.
They agree on their Neo Platonism, but they have not coordinated their techniques ;=) Which gives the lie away…
The truth remains that koítä means the Bed of the Master and Mistress, the only Bed there was in the pre modern House. Household members slept on mats and cots on the floor or in the attic all through the 19th century.
Stable boys slept together in the hay – blankets were for the horses!
Conclusion: Dr Calvinus’s claim that 1 Cor 6:9 somehow “saves” a Neo Platonist interpretation of the Levitical cultic purity taboos and the Tradition (LXX and NT nómos is not “law” but Tradition, remember) of the elders as “law”, bringing it into the Christian congregation (contra Mark 7 et al) as Social legislation for Geneva and the other cities of the Plain, makes practically all of post 16th century radical Neo Platonist theology (= Calvinism) dependant on the sexualization of the word Bed.
Which is why they get so upset about the “shell-fish argument” that they discard the kosher taboos of Leviticus 11, but exalt the cultic ones of Leviticus 18.
This – not to mention Dr Calvinus’s defence of usury – threatens the order of things, for without the distortion of the Spilling of Semen as anti-gay being “proved” by Saint Paul’s Corinthian slang word arsenokoîtai in 1 Cor 6:9, much of 20th century Calvinism falls; the congregational discipline, the authority of the Pastor, the “moral” teachings – Transformation itself.
As Rome is not Integrist, nothing of this really matters to them – they still can invent freely according to their nous/NOUS concept of “natural law”.
This is claimed arguing that the word arsenokoîtai in 1 Cor 6:9 is a “compound” of ársen and koítä in Lev 20:13, the law parallel (If a man… then…) to the cultic purity taboo in Lev 18:22, and that consequently all of Lev 18 (intentionally mis-translated as “incest”, Moloch, “homosexuality” and “bestiality”) is brought forth into the NT under the name of “Holiness Code”, thereby turning 1st Temple Levitical cultic purity taboos into “moral” “law” for the Christian congregation.
Well, some of them ;=)
Point 1. arsenokoîtai is probably Corinthian slang never used in writing before 1 Cor (middle of the 50-ies). The Old Latin transla-tion (perhaps only ¾ of a century later) gives it as masculorum concubitores; male bedfellows.
Now, since pre modern bedfellows always were of the same gender (or in the case of wet-nurses, of “none”), most probably arseno-koîtai refers to male “bedfellows” in a secondary sense; well endowed men who prostituted themselves with both men and women (= xärai; widow).
Self supporting women were called “widows”, since widows – and the occasional elder sister standing in for a younger brother, such as Martha in Luke 11 – enjoyed some but not all, of the legal, political and economical rights only men had in Antiquity.
Until the 13th century (Thomas Aquinas’ Summa contra gentiles?) arsenokoîtai was discussed as prostitution.
Point 2. present “moral” is a 12th century Scholastic concept; before, moral meant life, way of life, cf Plutarch’s Moralia: Lives of Famous Men (some of them imaginary, such as the Persian King Sardanapalos – ever even more lascivious than a woman ;=)
Point 3. the fact that two words happen to stand side to side in one context in one text does not make a different word in an other context in a text several hundred years later into a “compound”.
;=)
Nor did anyone think about anything of the sort before the mid 16th century, when this claim was invented by Dr Johannes Calvinus who, because of his Indo European Integrism, needed scriptural “proofs” where the Scholastics simply could do with the bare “verity” of their Neo Platonist Absolute Truth (= the communion of the little nous, the mind/sperm of the male academic with the big Nous, The Highest Being).
According to late 20th century Roman exegesis the man responsible for the present mis-translation of arsenokoîtai as “man-fucker” was Thomas Aquinas in his Summa contra gentiles. I haven’t checked, so I cannot say whether this is factual or an in-reading of late-modern social prejudice, but it is clear that 1 Cor 6:9-11 was not among the several “words” (most of them later abandoned) claimed by the 12th century Scholastics to refer to their Neo Platonist/Gnosticist category Spilling of Semen without procreationary purpose (the Spilling of Semen was of course “heterosexual” to them – had they known the word ;=)
So Roman late 20th century exegesis claims that koítä; bed, is a verb meaning to lay (with) – according to Pater Zerwick 1966 (note to Rom 13:13) it is an euphemism, according to Boswell 1980 (referring to the same) it is gross...
Middle of the road Calvinist exegesis, however (such as the New York-Stuttgart “Novum” of the International Bible Societies), still claim it’s a noun, translating it “bed, marital relationship (Heb 13:4), sperm (koítän exo conceive Rom 9:10) sexual impurity (Rom 13:13)”.
Of course “bed” is the only one among these that is correct, but we can take that an other time…
Thing is they both u n d e r s t a n d koítä as sex. And this is a very interesting example of how the different theological traditions sometimes come to “explain” the same Neo Platonist teaching in ways not only incompatible, but mutually exclusive.
They agree on their Neo Platonism, but they have not coordinated their techniques ;=) Which gives the lie away…
The truth remains that koítä means the Bed of the Master and Mistress, the only Bed there was in the pre modern House. Household members slept on mats and cots on the floor or in the attic all through the 19th century.
Stable boys slept together in the hay – blankets were for the horses!
Conclusion: Dr Calvinus’s claim that 1 Cor 6:9 somehow “saves” a Neo Platonist interpretation of the Levitical cultic purity taboos and the Tradition (LXX and NT nómos is not “law” but Tradition, remember) of the elders as “law”, bringing it into the Christian congregation (contra Mark 7 et al) as Social legislation for Geneva and the other cities of the Plain, makes practically all of post 16th century radical Neo Platonist theology (= Calvinism) dependant on the sexualization of the word Bed.
Which is why they get so upset about the “shell-fish argument” that they discard the kosher taboos of Leviticus 11, but exalt the cultic ones of Leviticus 18.
This – not to mention Dr Calvinus’s defence of usury – threatens the order of things, for without the distortion of the Spilling of Semen as anti-gay being “proved” by Saint Paul’s Corinthian slang word arsenokoîtai in 1 Cor 6:9, much of 20th century Calvinism falls; the congregational discipline, the authority of the Pastor, the “moral” teachings – Transformation itself.
As Rome is not Integrist, nothing of this really matters to them – they still can invent freely according to their nous/NOUS concept of “natural law”.
Från diskussion på Father Jake Stops the World (länk till höger)
2 kommentarer:
Integrism är föreställningen om en helig skrift, i sig själv uppenbarelse och så att säga fallen intaeger från skyarna; odelad och ofelbar.
Föreställningen om den heliga skriftens sufficiens och harmoni.
Det är Hellenismens och (åtminstone Egyptisk) Islams skriftuppfattning, rakt motsatt Judendomens och Kyrkans historiska Bibelsyn.
Faran med integrismen är att om allting som står är lika ofelbart och nödvändigt, så måste allting stå - och det gör det inte.
Och om lärorna måste överensstämma med texten, säger erfarenheten att det är texten som ändras efter lärorna.
2:a årtusendets skiftande läror stoppas in i Bibeltexten.
1900-talets bibelöversättningar, som alla är skrivna för var sitt marknadssegment, är tydliga exempel på det.
Integrismen har alltså blivit stor i Amerikansk 1900-talscalvinism på ett sätt som den aldrig varit förut.
Hoppas detta i någon mån svara på din fråga.
Kyrkans uppfattning är alltså att Bibeln inte är e n skrift, utan Kyrkans samling av olika skrifter, samlad av Kyrkan själv i Tiden och vittnande om Kyrkans tro.
Den är inte själv uppenbarelse; inte Guds Ord. Det är Kristus Jesus som är Guds Ord, Skapelseordet, jfr 1:a kapitlet i Johannes evangelium.
Skicka en kommentar