More on GLBT in the Bible, Part 2

This gloss is much distorted in (especially late modern) translations. Ai tä gàr thäleiai autån does not mean “even their women”…. their c-ts would be correct, the word thäxä means shaft...

Thälu is so Misogynic not even the Misogynic Pastorals use it!

Tän fusikän xräsin is the usual use, another 4-letter word. The xräsin which is parà fúsin, is besides the usual. Dative. That is, in this case, being used from behind... Woman is for ever an object, to Hellenism…

The men are eksexaúthäsan; inflamed, with Passion, dis-honour-able Passion. But the object is turned not only front/back, but outwards in; the women are described as subjects of the phrase, although being objects, being used...

Tän asxämosúnän katergazómenoi kaì tän antimistían än édei täls plánäs autån en eautoîs apolambánontes; the shameful (the secret parts) working the reward (!) of their mis-take (!) falling back in themselves.

“The right use of women” according to Hellenism – procreation – is what is addressed.

And it’s mis-take, not “error” as in most translations. Just a mis-take – and its interesting after a Millennium of ever worsening propaganda, to read the old Byzantine hater Patriarch Johannes Chrysostomos (Mouth-of-Chrisma) – for certain anti Gay and anti Jewish – (Epist. Ad Rom. Homilia IV, in Migne: Patrologia graeca XII, 1862, p. 415-416), gently taking much later anti gay propa-ganda to pieces, explaining passion as the mis-take of the men madly burning with lust – all words from Romans 1.

Translation from page 415 in Migne, of Joh. Chrys’s Academic Greek (very different from Bible Greek or Koíne, so somewhat leaning on Migne’s Latin translation) “[Paulos] rids them of every excuse in this case, teaching that their women “exchanged the natural use”. One cannot say, he remarks, that they did this being denied lawful intercourse, or that they were forced to this madness because they couldn’t fulfil their want.

Only those may exchange something that have it. Thus he taught: “They exchanged God’s truth against a lie.”

About the men it’s the same, but with a different expression, with the words “they quit the natural use of woman”. Equally he denies them with these words any excuse when he shows not only that they possessed pleasure, but left it in the pursuit of another; dis-honouring the one which was according to their nature, they sought another which was beyond their nature.

That persons of the same gender fall in love obviously was a rather neutral matter in the 1st Millennium, even for someone like Joh. Chrys. “Burning” wasn’t, “Lust” wasn’t, “Madness” wasn’t.

According to Mona West, one of the authors of The Gay Bible Commentary, Johannes Chrysostomos is one of the first, who around 400 AD effaced the character of Daniel and others in the Bible, as Eunuchs. Eunuchs being very much visible (and unpopular) in Court and Church (“the heavenly whining” of the castratos) in the Byzantion of the day (as in other grand pre Modern courts. There are still some very old ex courtier eunuchs around in Turkey and China to this day).

But as suggested above, the very word Eunuch is absent from most translations today. Thank you Chrys!

1 Cor 6.9-11 The focus of this passage, as much of the Bible written in the order of the 10 Commandments, is primarily loyalty to the Household, moixeía; 7th Commandment, oúte moixoì, oúte malakoì, oúte arsenokoîtai.

Originally it’s the Husbander’s, the pater familias’ loyalty towards his House (think Count Almaviva in Figaro as the opposite attitude malakós; sloppy, in Greek; forgetful of his House, ever pursuing his little pleasures). The 10 Commandments originally having been written to the Husbander in the 2nd person masculine imperative! With Ezraism (398 BC) this devolved on the members individually; each man. Even poor members of the local Synagogue were Heads of their own Household.

This represents an individualisation; indeed the first emancipa-tion of Humanity.

With Paul the Household becomes the House-Congregation, the living Body of Christ. Whatever breach of the 7th Commandment, indeed the past itself, has vanished in Baptism: 1 Cor 6:11

“All this you were, but you washed yourselves and were sanctified and made righteous in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Sprit of our God. Amen”

alias 1 Tim 1:10 The word used in this mid 2nd century “parallel” to 1st Cor 6:9-11 (probably old Polycarp’s boys in Smyrna, after Polycarp’s death in AD 154/5) is a different form from arseno-koîtai; bedfellow (translated so in the Old Latin; masculorum concubitores, perhaps only 75 years after Paul), dative plural, arsenokoítais; men in bed-s. This passage wasn’t translated the same as 1 Cor 6:9 before the 1960ies, probably because as a different form, and a different word it was considered different.

alias 1 Tim also beats Paul by the number of Commandments addressed; 6 against 4 (most later so called "Catalogues of Sin" have only 2 or less ;=). The focus in these are not the 10 Commandments, but congregational discipline; obedience – in some translations Godly obedience… As usual in the NT some Commandments are never mentioned, such as the Great 4th, the Sabbath.

Judges 19:22 This was not read (even less translated) as anti Gay before Bailey 1955, that is, it appears only after it was conclu-sively shown that the Sodom story was material; indifference in the face of God’s suffering Creation, not sexual Gnosticist, and that, moreover, the anti Gay reading of the Sodom story was Hellenist, inter Testamental at best, and never part of any Tradition before Integrism, the new “proof”-reading of 16th century Renaissance (itself a resurgence from the schools of Antiquity). In defence of the indefensible most late modern Bibles (starting with the English language Jerusalem Bible 1966) ína gnåmen autón; that we may know him = say hello to him, is rendered “that we may abuse him”.

This reached Sweden in the last State Bible 2000!