Monday, September 5, 2022

Sin-pan Daniel Ho on ἀρσενοκοίτης and μαλακός in 1 Corinthians 6

  

. . . the word ἀρσενοκοίτης and μαλακός are rare in the OT. ἀρσενοκοῖται is a combination of two nouns. These two words, ἄρσην and κοίτη, are directly related to the phrase ἄρσενος κοίτην in Lev. 20:13 and the first and last word of the clause ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην in Lev. 18:22. Thus, this compound word is properly created by Paul, like another category of sinners, εἰδωλολάτραι (‘idolaters’), preceding it in 6:9, according to his inherited Jewish tradition. Thus, it fulfils the criteria of word agreement and rarity. On the question of availability, I have argued that allusions to Lev. 18 are already present in 1 Cor. 5 by the phrase ‘father’s wife’ as well as the issue of incestuous union. Thus, it is not difficult for the Corinthian audience to recognise the allusion of Lev. 18:22 again when they read this new compound word ‘men-bed’ created by Paul—so, it passes the test of availability. The plural noun ἀρσενοκοῖται in 1 Cor. 6:9 is properly understood as a reference to males committing same-sex intercourse without qualification, or, simply, practising male homosexuals.

 

Concerning the evil person, μαλακός, this term is not found as a connotation of vice in Scripture. It denotes various meanings in a nonmoral sense. However, the context of the vice list in 6:9–10 is helpful at least in two ways: (1) it is a vice, with its meaning is confined to certain sinful acts, and (2) it is listed with other sins.

 

The word μαλακός connotes sin/vice, and in the context of listing various condemnable sins can only be found in Philo’s De spec. leg. 3 (v. 31, 39, 40). It is expressed by a similar word, μαλακίας, which denotes the acts these μαλακοὶ commit. It satisfies the criteria of word agreement and rarity—in the context of vice lists. Μαλακίας is mentioned in the context of Philo’s interpretation of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue and Lev. 18. Thus, it is still indirectly related to Scripture.

 

In vv. 31 and 39, μαλακίας is associated with unmanliness ἀνανδρίας. In vv. 30–31, it is an interpretation of Deut. 24:3–6 about the sin of illicit remarriage—a man remarries his divorced wife. There are two interesting points about μαλακίας here: (1) μαλακίας refers to a voluntary sexual union of a person with his ex-wife—thus, μαλακίας does not connote coercive and exploitive acts here; (2) it is improper to translate μαλακίας here as effeminate or feminine because it is a negative comment against the first husband who marries his ex-wife again. There is no evidence in the context to indicate that he did it because he is feminine or effeminate. On the other hand, both meanings of the terms μαλακίας and ἀνανδρίας can be derived from the following clause, ‘… eliminated from his soul the hatred of evil’, and probably means loss of guilty conscience in committing sin.

 

In vv. 39–40, Philo condemns pederasty (cf. 3.37). Contrary to popular understanding, the most striking observation is that the noun μαλακίας together with unmanliness (ἀνανδρίας) does not describe the boys or penetrated men, but those men who have sex with boys. Philo condemns these boy-lovers as μαλακίας, not the boys:

 

And the lover of such may be assured that he is subject to the same penalty. He pursues an unnatural pleasure and does his best to render cities desolate and uninhabited by destroying the means of procreation. Furthermore he sees no harm in becoming a tutor and instructor in the grievous vices of unmanliness (ἀνανδρίας) and effeminacy (μαλακίας) by prolonging the bloom of the young and emasculating the flower of their prime, which should rightly be trained to strength and robustness … The reason is, I think, to be found in the prizes awarded in many nations to licentiousness and effeminacy (μαλακίας) … (Philo, De spec. leg. 3.39–40 [Colson, LCL])

 

μαλακίας is therefore unlikely to refer to boys or womanish male prostitutes but rather to the pederast, the active partner (man) who penetrates the boy. Moreover, according to De spec. leg. 3.40, pederasty is regarded as boasting behaviour in the social ethos.

 

Concerning the criterion of availability—whether or not the audience could draw upon the meaning of μαλακίας in Philo’s De spec. leg. 3—it is not as certain as the allusion to the compound word ἀρσενοκοίτης in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. However, as Philo of Alexandria had been appointed as the principal of the Jewish embassy to Rome in A.D. 39–40 and had made apologetic defence for the Diaspora Jews in Alexandria against the anti-Semitism of Gaius (Josephus, Ant. 18.259–60; cf. Philo, Legat. 1.239–354), he was probably well-known and respected among Diaspora Jews, in particular in Corinth where there were frequent commercial activities with Rome. One well-known achievement of Philo was his re-interpretation of the Pentateuch in the language of Greek philosophy so that the Torah was made sensible even to non-Jews. In addition to the fact that Apollos, another influential leader and teacher in the Corinthian church, was a Hellenistic Jew who came from and was probably educated in Alexandria (Acts 18:24; 19:1), he had probably known Philo and had introduced his exegetical works to the Corinthian Christians. Therefore, it is reasonable for the audience to consult Philo’s commentary on the Ten Commandments when they heard Paul’s repeated echoes of the Pentateuch in 1 Cor. 5, in particular echoes of Lev. 18 in 1 Cor. 5:1 and 6:9 (by the compound word ἀρσενοκοῖται).

 

In sum, the vice μαλακός indirectly evokes the sixth commandment and Lev. 18. In the cultural ethos, people in the upper social class boasted of their sexual relations (μαλακία) with boys. In the list of various sins in De spec. leg. 3, μαλακίας refers to adultery (3.30–31) or ‘boy-lovers’ (3.39–40). As Paul has already mentioned adulterers right before μαλακοὶ and it is juxtaposed with males committing same-sex intercourse, μαλακοὶ in 1 Cor. 6:9 is probably translated as boy-lovers/pederasts in the context of 1 Cor. 6:9.

 

There has been much debate about whether Paul condemns homosexual relations in 1 Cor. 6:9. One focus of the debate lies in the meaning of these two virtually new words in the NT: ἀρσενοκοίτης and μαλακός. Dale Martin argues against the translation of this word ἀρσενοκοίτης as a compound word derived from Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. He argues that the semantic meaning of this word should be found in the contemporary text of Paul: Sib. Or. 2.73. In Sib. Or. 2.73, this word is also mentioned in the context of a vice list which is mainly related to social injustice. Thus, Martin argues that the meaning of this word is related to economic exploitation through sexual means. Concerning the meaning of μαλακός, Martin concludes from his word study of μαλακός in ancient Graeco-Roman literature that ‘[T]here is no question, then, about what malakos referred to in the ancient world. In moral contexts it always referred either obviously or obliquely to the feminine. The meaning of the word is clear, even if too broad to be taken to refer to a single act or role. Malakos means “effeminate”.’

 

It seems that Martin’s interpretation is questionable. Concerning his interpretation of ἀρσενοκοίτης:

 

1.   Moral instructions in Sib. Or. 2 are not confined only to social justice but also include sexual purity, such as keeping virginal purity and guarding love among all in 2.65. They are unrelated to economic exploitation.

2.   Besides book 3 and some portions of book 5, there is no certainty for the Jewish provenance of other books of Sibylline Oracles. Most scholars tend to regard the provenance of Sib. Or. 2 as Christian or Jewish work reworked by a Christian. In other words, if there is any connection between Sib. Or. 2 and 1 Corinthians, it is a study about how 1 Corinthians influenced Sib. Or. 2, not the other way around.

3.   It is not uncommon for Paul to create new vocabulary by combining two words. Another new word, εἰδωλολάτραι, found earlier in 1 Cor. 6:9, is also a compound word, translated literally as ‘idol-worshippers’. Like ἀρσενοκοῖται, it is not found in the Jewish Scriptures, though the sin it conveys is apparent according to the Torah.

4.   The whole of 1 Cor. 5–6 resonates with OT echoes, in particular the echo of Lev. 18:8 in 1 Cor. 5:1. It is thus reasonable to assume that Paul also recalls the same chapter, Lev. 18 (v. 22 as well as v. 13), for moral instructions of the Corinthian Christians.

 

Concerning his interpretation of μαλακός as feminine or effeminate, Martin’s word study does not take into account the semantic meaning of malakos in Philo’s De spec. leg. 3.31–40, while De. Spec. leg. 3 bears the closest parallel context with 1 Cor. 6:9–10: the context is that of listing condemnable sinful acts. (Sin-pan Daniel Ho, Paul and the Creation of a Counter-Cultural Community: A Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Cor. 5:1–11:1 in Light of the Social Lives of the Corinthians [Library of New Testament Studies 509; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015], 113-17)