Vigihae Christianae 41 (1987), 396-398, E. J.

Brill, Leiden

Translating
(1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)

In a recent note in this journal 1 William L. Petersen takes me to task for my

use of the English word 'homosexual' etc. in my discussion2 of the meaning of
the verbal noun, , which is first attested in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1
Timothy 1:10. Since Petersen misrepresents my argument, some response is
called for, even in advance of the further study of the subject that he promises
(187). In the meantime he offers us the literal rendering, 'the ones (mase.) who
lie/sleep with men', which shows at least that he accepts my explanation of the
linguistic structure of the word.
Given Petersen's agreement with me on this point, it is strange that he should
attribute to me a meaning of 'homosexual' which focusses on orientation, im
pulse or 'affectional preference' rather than sexual acts (189). The heart of my
argument is that the inspiration for the neologism lies in the Greek
of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 LXX (126-129). My enquiry takes as its starting-
point the Levitical ban on male homosexual acts. Furthermore, I find confirma
tion of this interpretation from the evidence of the early Latin, Syriac and Cop
tic versions of the Pauline texts, which all paraphrastically preserve the verbal
force of 'those lying with men' (144-145). In fact, the renderings of -
cited by Petersen from my article themselves preponderantly speak of homosex
ual practice or acts (187his listing is by no means complete). Even when the
actual words used do not make this unambiguously clear, the context normally
does so (e.g., 'the homosexuality encountered among the Greek world'', 145).
The title of my article needs no apology. If 'Homosexuals' lacks the qualifica
tion provided by the article itself,3 'Prostitutes' is even more imprecise. Such
shorthand is normal in titles. The words gain their meaning from the debate
with John Boswell to part of whose book 4 my article is a response.
Petersen's objections to my vocabulary stem from indefensible assumptions
about the proper use of 'homosexual'. He argues that the noun ('a homosexual')
should only be employed in the sense given to it by those who first coined it
about a century agoi.e., to denote propensity or desires rather than
behaviour. But linguistic usage does not stand still, and 'homosexuals' has come
in common English parlance to refer also to those who engage in homosexual
activity, irrespective of their known or unknown orientation. Perhaps the most
frequent usage is one that combines the references to propensity and activity,
viz., those orientated towards members of the same sex who engage in sexual
acts with them. Indeed, the time may not be far off when 'homosexual' will need
some qualifier in order to indicate persons sexually orientated towards their own
sex, without reference to conduct.
But with breathtaking inconsistency, Petersen apparently sees no need to im
pose a similar restriction on the adjective 'homosexual' or the noun 'homosex
uality.' He accuses my approach to - of excluding 'heterosexuals who
engage in homosexual acts' (189without any evidence that this is my inten-
 TRANSLATING 397

tion, which it certainly is not) This may be a slip on his part, for on his
premisses heterosexuals cannot engage in 'homosexual' acts To put it another
way it makes linguistic nonsense to confine the noun 'homosexual' to persons
of same-sex orientation, but to allow the adjective 'homosexual' of same-sex ac
tivity when that orientation is indisputably lacking, as in Petersen's statement
about heterosexuals
On his premisses, it should be equally unacceptable to apply any of the forms
of the 'homosexual' word-group to persons or behaviour in antiquity, when it
is agreed that no category of individuals defined by same-sex preference
('homosexuals') was known to exist Sir Kenneth Dover should not have entitled
his fundamental work Greek Homosexuality (London, 1978), nor S Lilja his
more recent study Homosexuality in Republican and Augustan Rome (Helsinki,
1983) Indeed, Petersen will probably have to find fault with virtually every
scholar careless enough to use 'homosexual' etc with reference to the ancient
worldor any world prior to the last hundred years or so Scholarly discourse
cannot tolerate such a straitjacket, and Petersen will simply have to adjust to
this larger, if for him more uncomfortable, linguistic freedom
He is aware, of course, that modern English dictionaries have begun to record
the changing meaning of 'homosexual' as a noun (190 9) 5 But even if it is
grudgingly allowed that 'homosexuals' are 'those who engage in same-sex sexual
behaviour', nothing would be gained in Petersen's book, for this latter category
'did not exist in antiquity' This statement can only mean that no-one in anti
quity lumped all such people together (It can scarcely mean that no modern stu
dent can construct such a category in talking about antiquity ) Unless Petersen
is playing the male/female card again ( e , ignoring that the whole of my article
concerns the precise import of a Greek word which everybody agrees denotes
males), his assertion is overturned by the unqualified condemnation in
Hellenistic Judaism and primitive Christianity of all 'those (males) who engage
in same-sex sexual behaviour' At the very least the issue is subjudice, for exam
ple in the interpretation of Romans 1 26-27 (where it should also be noted that
Paul is almost unprecedented in condemning male and female homosexual con
duct alike), to say nothing of itself (Why did Paul not choose one
of the common current words or phrases denoting pederasty, but a novel term
reflecting the less restricted Levitical ban 9 )
One other criticism by Petersen deserves a comment, because it relates to a
point basic to my argument When I assert that John Boswell 'failed to demon
strate any use of etc in which it patently does not denote male
homosexual activity', Petersen finds me guilty of 'self-evident tautology', on the
grounds that 'active male prostitution' (Boswell's meaning of the term) is 'male
homosexual activity' (191 n 12) Two responses are demanded () Petersen has
forgotten or misread Boswell, who construes the compound in such a way that
it says nothing about the sex of those whom the male prostitutes serve The
were the Greek equivalent of the Latin drauci or exoleti, e , 'male
prostitutes capable of the active role with either men or women', Eusebius's
usage shows that 'the did not necessarily engage in any homosexual
activities', the word 'had only a tangential relation, if any, to homosexuality' 6
(n) My statement is strictly accurate as it stands I claim that denotes
398 D F WRIGHT

'male homosexual activity' without qualification, Boswell denies this, restricting

its reference, in so far as it refers to homosexual activity at all, to the role of
the active male prostitute, who is included in the much broader scope of the
term in my interpretation (The heterosexual engagements of Boswell's male
prostitutes fall outside my definition of the word ) The context of the discussion
in my article obviates the imprecision alleged by Petersen
One or two other criticisms advanced by Petersen are best left for another oc
casion

NOTES

'Can be translated by "Homosexuals" 7 (1 Cor 6 9, 1 Tim 1 10)', VigChr

40 (1986), 187 191
2
'Homosexuals or Prostitutes9 The Meaning of (1 Cor 6 9, 1 Tim 1 10)',
VigChr3S (1984), 125 153
3
Note Petersen's silly quibble that my use of 'homosexuals' makes include
female homosexuals (189)
4
Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, Chicago and London, 1980
5
In this note he rightly seizes the sense in which I use 'Homosexuals' in my title, but
he shows no cognizance of this in his text He also charges the compilers of a distinguished
English dictionary with being 'ignorant of the psychological facts of the case, even though
they may be correctly recording the use of the word in popular speech'
6
Boswell, op at , 344, 351, 342

Edinburgh, New College, Mound Place D F WRIGHT

 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.