THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSLATING ARSENOKOITAI BY "HOMOSEXUALS" Historical Grounds A refutation of the foregoing opposition to the traslation of arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" begins with the historical and cultural evidence. Since virtually everyone acknowledges that the word does not appear before Paul's usage, no historical settings earlier than his are available. Yet much writing reveals that ancient understanding of homosexuality prior to and contemporary with Paul. The goal is to discover wheither the ancient s conceived of homosexuality, particularly homosexual orientation, in a way similar to present-day concepts. Peterson, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs claim that the homosexual condition, desire, propensity, or inversion -whatever it is called- cannot be part of the definition of the term. They assert this either because the term is limited to acts of particular kind (Boswell, active male prostitutes; Scroggs, pederasty) or because the homosexual condition was unknown in ancient times (Bailey; Petersen). The following discussion will show why neither of these positions is legitimate. Attention will be devoted to the latter postion first with the former one being addressed below under "Linguistic Grounds." In regard to the latter position, one may rightfully ask, did not the homosexual condition exist before 1869? Is it only a modern phenomenon? Yet if it is universal, as alleged today, it must have existed always including ancient times, even though there is lack of sophistication in discussing it. Indeed, evidence show that the ancients, pre-Christian and Christian, not only knew about the total spectrum of sexual behavior, including all forms of same-sex activity (transvestism included), but also knoew about same-sex orientation or condition. Petersen admits (190 n. 10) that Plato in "Symposium" (189d-192d) may be a "sole possible exception" to ancient ingnorance of this condition. He discounts this, however, believing that even here "acts appear to be the deciding factor." However, this is a very significant exception, hardly worthy of being called "an exception," because of the following additional evidence for a homosexual condition. The "Symposium" of Plato gives some of the strongest evidence for knowledge about the homosexual condition. [24] Plato posits a third sex comprised of a maile-female (androgynon ("man-woman"). Hence "original nature" palai physis, consisted of three kinds of human beings. Zeus sliced these human beings in half, to weaken them so that they would not be a threat to the gods. Consequently each person seeks his or her other half, either one of the opposite sex or one of the same sex. Plato then quotes Aristophances: Each of us, then, is but a tally of a man, since every one shows like a flatfish the traces of having been sliced in two; and each is ever searching for the tally that will fit him. All the men who are sections of that composite sex that at first was called man-woman are woman-courters; our adulterers are mostly descended from that sex, whence likewise are derived our mancourting women and adulteresses. All the women who are sections of the woman have no great fancy for men: they are incllined rather to women, and of this stock are the she-minions. Men who are sections of the male pursue the masculine, and so long as their boyhood lasts they show themselves to be sliced of the male by making griends with men and delighting to lie with them and to be clasped in men's embrasces; these are the finest boys and striplings, for they have the most manly nature. Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind. Well, when one of them -whether he be a boy-lover or a lover of any other sort- happens on his own particular half, the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be induced to leave each other's side for a single moment. These are they who continue together throughout life, though they could not even say what they would have of one another (191d-192c) [25] Should these two persons be offered the opportunity to be fused together for as long as they live, or even in Hades, Aristophanes says that each "would unreservedly deem that he had been offered just what he was yearning for all the time: (192e). Several observations about this text are in order. Lesbianism is contemplated, as will as male homosexuality (191e). "Natural interest" (ton noun physei), (192b) refelects modern concepts of propensity or inclination. The words, "born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man: (paiderastes te kai philerastes gignetai), (192b) reflect the modern claims "to be born this," i.e., as homosexual. The idea of mutuallity ("the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love," 192b) is present. Aristophanes even speaks of "mutual love ingrained in mankind reassembling our early estate" (ho eros emphytos allelon tois anthropois kai tes archaias physeos synagogeus, 191d). The concept of permanency ("These are they who continue together throughout life," 102c) is also present. Further mention of and/or allusion to permanecy, mutality, "gay pride," pederasty, homophobia, motive, desire, passion, and the nature of love and its works is recognizable. Clearly the ancients thought of love (homosexual or other) apart from actions. The speakers in the Symposium argue that motive in homosexuality is crucial; money, office, influence, etc. . . bring reproach (182e-183a, 184b). They mention the need to love the soul not the body (183e). There are tow kinds of love in the body (186b) and each has its "desire" and "passion" (186b-d). The speakers discuss the principles or "matters" of love (187c), the desires of love (192c) and being "males by nature" (193c). Noteworthy is the speech of Socrates who devotes much attention to explaining how desire is related to love and its objects (200a-201c). Desire is felt for "what is not provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack." This is the object of desire and love. Socrates clearly distinguishes between "what sort of being is love" and the "works" of love (201e). This ancient philosopher could think of both realms -seaual acts as well as disposition of being or nature. His wors have significance for more than pederasty. [26] In summary, virtually every element in the modern discussion of love and homosexuality is anticipated in the Symposium of Plato. Petersen is in error when he claims that the ancients could only think of homosexual acts, not inclination or orientation. Widespread evidence to the contray supports the latter. [27] Biblical support for homosexuality inclination in the contexts where homosexual acts are discribed adds to the case for the ancient distinction. In Rom 1:21-28 such phrases as "reasoning," "heart," "becoming foolish," "desires of the heart." and "reprobate mind" prove Paul's concern for disposition and inclination along with the "doing" or "working" of evil (also see vv. 29-32). Even the catologues of vices are introdiced (I Tim 1:8-10) or concluded (I Cor 6:9-11) by words describing what people "are" or "were," not what they "do." Habits betray what people are within, as also the Lord Jesus taught (cf. Matt. 23:28). The inner condition is as important as the outer act; one gives rise to the other (cf. Mt 5:27). Petersen errs regarding other particulars too. Transvestism apparently was accepted by the ancients. It was practiced among Canaaniteds, Syrian, people of Asia Minor, as well as Greeks, according to S.R. Driver. [28] Only a few moralist and Jewish writers are on record as condemning it. For example, Seneca (Moral Epistles 47.7-8) condemns homosexual exploitation that forces an adult slave to dress, be beardless, and behave as a woman. Philo also goes to some length to describe the homosexuals of his day and their dressing as women (The Special Laws III, 37-41; see also his On the Virtues, 20-21, where he justifies prohibition of cross-dressing). Even the OT forbade the interchange of clothing between the sexes (Deut 22:5). Petersen is also wrong in attributing to Christianity the creating of the "new labels" of "natural" and "unnatural" for sexual behavior. These did not begin with Paul (Rom 1:26-27) but go as far back as ancient Greece and even non-Christian contemporaries used them. Plato, the TEST.NAPH., Philo, Josephu, Plutarch, and others used these words or related concepts. [29] Linguistic Grounds The research of Wright and Mendell cited, as well as ancient writers documented above, shows that arsenokoitai is a broad term. It cannot be limited to pederasty or "active male prostitutes"; nor can it be limited to acts. It must also include same-sex orientation or condition. The main difficulty, however, with Petersen's study and that of others before him, lies in the area of linguistics or philology pertain to the modern term "homosexuals." Petersen has an erroneous concept of dictionaries and meaning when citing the incompatibility of the English and Greek terms. The preceding historical evidence demonstrates that ancient concepts of homosexuality, though primarily understood as sexual acts, cannot be limited to acts alone. It is plausible, then, that the term arsenokoitai may include both acts and orientation or desire -at least in the contexts of Rom 1, I Cor 6 and I Tim 1. Paul knew about the immorality in Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus (note the similarity of Eph 4:17-24 and 5:3-12 with I Tim 1 and I Cor 6). A subsequent question arises: is the modern term "homosexual" limited to orientation or inclination, excluding acts or behavior? Petersen answers in the affirmative and cites as support both the creator of the word and the meaning he assigned to it, as well as the standard dictionary, Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary. In n. 9 (190), however, Petersen acknowledges that Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971) does include a reference to one who "practices homosexuality" and "same-sex sexual activity" after the definitions referring to inclination and preference. He dismisses this as a "popularized, perhaps Americanized usage," as "slang," and as a "corruption of the original meaning." He characterizes Webster's lexicographers as "ignorant of the psychological facts of the case, even though they may be correctly recording the use of the word in popular speech" (190). Yet Peterson has overlooked several important points or principles. The first one concerns lexicography. Once a word has entered the stream of society it is defined by its entire context -what the users mean by it, regardless of its original definition. Dictionaries reflect usage, including the changes in a word's meaning. It is apparent that popular and scholarly usage of "homosexuals" today has come to include "same-sex behavior"; indeed this may now be the more prominent definition. If this be so, in light of the breadth of meaning of arsenokoitai, "homosexuals" is a closer approximation of its meaning than believed by Bailey, Boswell, Petersen, and others. A second principle is that words are constantly changing in meaning. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged second ed., 1965) does not include "practice" under the definition of "homosexual" and uses only the words "sexual relations between individuals of the same sex" as the second definition of "homosexuality." Webster's definitions have changed in the span of just six years (compare the 3rd ed. cited above). For Petersen to restrict the meaning to an earlier one and to call the later definition a "corruption" is unfortunate. The meaning of a word may change by being deepened, by being given new value, by taking on a new meaning, or by being given a new concrete application. In the case of "homosexuals," it appears that several of these kinds of changes are occurring because of the increasingly frequent use of the word in different contexts ranging from popular speech to scholarly circles. A third principle is that words usually mark out a field of meaning. That is, words usually do not have a point of meaning, i.e., a very small area of meaning. The historical-cultural study above show that homosexuality -or whatever word describes it- existed in various forms including prostitution, pederasty, lesbianism, orientation, and mutuality. The Greeks and Romans employed scores of terms to describe such orientation and behavior. Therefore, it is plausible that such a term as arsenokoitai has a broad meaning when its etymology is simply "male-bed" or "lying with a male" assuming that the context does not restrict it to a narrower meaning. A fourth principle stems from the preceding. Since no two words have exactly the same area of meaning, no true synonyms exist within a language and no exact equivalents occur between languages. This allows arsenokoitai to be translated "homosexuals" even though it is somewhat imprecise to do so. Terms in two languages can never be exactly equivalent because their context can never be identical (given at least, the time span). They do not share the same area of meaning. It may well be that "sodomist" better represents the idea of arsenokoitai, since both terms in their moral and biblical settings represent contexts closer to one another. It may be that Benkert in 1869 misread or was unacquainted with the history of homosexuality in ancient times. He may have unwittingly altered the whole discussion of the subject by limiting his new term to the homosexual condition. Petersen asserts that translating arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" is anachronistic (the ancients had no concept equivalent to homosexual desire; the English term is limited to homosexual desire), but he is conclusively in error as the above historical-cultural evidence and linguistic principles show. Certain terms such as arrenomanes ("mad after males"), 4th c. A.D. show that there was a "cognitive structure" for the homosexual condition before 1869 (cf. I Cor 6:11, "and such were some of you"). The most that can be said for Petersen's position is that the ancients may not have had a term of exclusive sexual categories (whether a person is "homosexual" or "heterosexual"), whereas moderns do have one or at least may refer to one's primary attraction. Hence the contemporary concept of a homosexual may be slightly different from the ancients, who spoke only of what they considered to be a number of equal options. Yet some evidence indicates that "exclusively homosexual" persons were identifiable to the ancients (see n. 27 above). Both the Greek and English terms appear broad enough to cover such cases and cannot be limited to acts. Petersen has decidedly overstated the case for both the ancients and the modern era. Summary of Reactions to the New Interpretations It is improper to be prescriptive as to the meaning of arsenokoitai. It is better to descriptive. In surveying those who have written on the meaning of the term, Bailey Boswell and Scroggs have erred or have been incomplete when they, respectively, define the term as "perverts," "male sexual agents" or "active male prostitutes," and "pederasts." It is more credible that historical and cultural evidence supports the conclusion that the term is broad enough to include both the various forms of homosexual acts and the homosexual condition, inversion or orientation. The studies by Wright and others supply the linguistic evidence for the more general sense of "homosexuals." As to the assertion by Petersen that the English "homosexuals" should not be used to render arsenokoitai, it is evident that the English and the Greek words are sufficiently broad to make them fair and suitable equivalents. Because of usage in various historical and modern contexts, each must include both homosexual behavior and orientation or condition. SUPPORT FOR THE PAULINE ORIGIN OF ARSENOKOITAI Some final questions remain to be answered regarding the source of Paul's term. As Mendell points out, anyone wishing to explain Paul's meaning must answer three questions.[36] Where does he get the word? Why does he use such an arcane word in speaking to his audience? If the word is ambiguous, as Boswell affirms, how can he expect to be understood? It is a reasonable position that Paul coined the term based on the juxtaposition of the two words arsenos and koiten in the LXX of Lev. 20:13 (cf. 18:22), though absolute proof of this is impossible. It may be suggested that the criteria of style, practice, familiarity with the LXX, and context make this a highly plausible conclusion, however. Paul has the practice of coining terms, it appears. For example, in I Tim 1:3 and 6:3, Paul used a term he had probably originated. The word heterodidaskaleo ("to teach a different doctrine") does not occur before Paul and only afterward in Ignatius to Polycarp 3:1.[37] Hence in the scope of eight verses Paul has possibly coined two terms, though one of them he had used earlier in I Cor 6:9. In general, statistics show that Paul probably coined many terms. There are 179 words found in Paul and nowhere else in pre-Christian Greek literature. Of these, 89 occur only one time. Other statistics support the theory that Paul had a creativity in choosing vocabulary. [39] In addition, Paul displayed considerable dependence upon the LXX. He usually quoted from the LXX rather than the Hebrew of the OT when he quoted the OT. Out of 93 quotations of the OT classified by Ellis, Paul used the LXX 14 times, but only 4 times did he quote the Hebrew. [40] Obviously Paul was familiar with and used the LXX. More particularly, the NT frequently uses the portion of Lev 18-20. The structure and content of these chapters mark them as special. Often identified as the "code of holiness," these chapters (unlike the remainder of Lev) are universal in their scope, much the same as the Ten Commandments of Ex 20 and Deut 5. The Jews held Lev 19 to be a kind of summary of the Torah, a central chapter in the Pentateuch. This respect carried over to the writers of the NT where chapters 18-20 are widely used. They are cited by Christ, Paul, Peter, and James. [41] "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is from Lev 19:18. When Paul alludes to 19:19 in 2 Cor 6:14 to illustrate the ban on unequal yoking, he coins a word heterozygountes ("being unequally yoked") that is found nowhere before him. Yet the adjective form heterozygo ("unequally yoked") occurs in 19:19. The LXX probably suggested the coinage to Paul. Most importantly, both of the contexts where arsenokoitai appears suggest that Paul was thinking of the Levitical "code of holiness." [42] First Cor 5 has many allusions to Lev 18-20. The theme is moral separation, as it is in Leviticus. Topics include distinction from the Gentiles (5:1; cf. 6:1-6; Lev 18:3, 24-30; 20:23) and future inheritance (kleronomeo ["I inherit"], 6:9, 10; Lev 20:23-24). The law of loving your neighbor (Lev 19:18) is reflected in 6:8. Of the ten vices in I Cor 6:9-10, only one (drunkards) is not found in Lev 18-20. It is feasible, then that both malakoi and arsenokoitai came from Lev 20:13 and pint to the passive and the active same-sex roles. Leviticus 20:13 said that both persons were to be put to death (the penalty is not found in 18:22). The Corinthian list of vices may be a summation of Lev 20:23-24 (cf. 18:29-30). The same observations apply to I Tim 1:10. In the context Paul begins with perversions of teaching regarding the Mosaic Law (vv. 3-8), moves to legislation in general (vv. 9-10), and ends with the gospel (v. 11). With the Law of Moses so dominant, it is not surprising that the list of specific vices corresponds in order to the fifth through the ninth of the Ten Commandments. Since the list uses both single terms and doublets to refer to the Ten Commandments, it is more probable that andrapodistais ("slave-dealers") goes with the following "thieves" rather than with the preceding arsenokoitai. This militates against Scrogg's narrow sexual definition ("slave-dealers who procure boys as prostitutes," 120) of the term. Hence pornois and arsenokoitai represent the sixth commandment. The preceding discussion justifies the claim that Paul coined the word in question. No one else in Hellenistic Judaism used the term before Paul. Two questions remain. Why did Paul coin such a term? It may be suggested that he sought to demonstrate the relation of believers to the Law of Moses, in particular to show that the universal standards of the Law (derived from Ex 20 & Lev 18-20) were still valid. Paul assumed his readers' acquaintance with Judaism: note references to "Satan" (I Cor 5:5), the "Day of the Lord" (I Cor 5:5), "leaven" and "unleaven" (5:6-8), "Passover" (5:7), and judging angels (6:3). He quoted Deut 17:7 in 5:13. Since Lev 18-20 became central to the Day of Atonement, it was natural for Paul to refer to this section of Leviticus (cf. chaps. 16 & 23). The topic of the believer's relationship to the Law or law is the main point in 1 Tim 1. Finally, how could Paul expect his Greek readers to understand the term? Compounds involving arseno- and arreno- and koite- abounded. The Greeks were adept at forming compounded Greek words. [43] Therefore Paul coined a word that brought quick recognition. The word is general, reflecting the passage in Lev 20:13. Paul did not use androkoites ("male having sex with a male"), which would not have suggested a reference to pederasty. His term expressed gender but not gender and maturity; he condemned "males who lie with males of any age." [44] It agrees with the three fold use of arsen ("male") in Rom 1:27 where Paul condemns same-sex activity. This theory also explains why the word did not catch on with the secular world after Paul. The Gentiles did not appreciate the biblical context of OT moral legislation. Paul was ahead of and contrary to his time. Perhaps for the same reason "sodomist" and "sodomy" are fading from general secular usage today. CONCLUSION It seems quite likely that Paul himself coined a new term which he virtually derived from the LXX of Lev 20:13. No other current explanation is as practical as this. If this be true, there are significant consequences, assuming that Paul wrote prescriptively. Obviously he viewed the moral law (derived from Lev 18-20; Ex 20) as authoritative for his Christian audience. Since he and his readers in Corinth and Ephesus knew also about same-sex orientation or condition, sufficient reason exists to apply his term to those today who are inverts or homosexuals in orientation. [45] English translations are justified in their use of words such as "homosexuals" or "sodomists". Besides, these terms should not be limited to acts or behavior. Just as an adulterous orientation or condition is wrong, so is a homosexual one. [46] In addition, it appears that lexicons and dictionaries (e.g. BAGD, TWNT, NIDNTT, EDNT) are too narrow in limiting, explicitly or implicitly, the term to male sexual activity with men or boys. However, since he referred to behavior in his lists in I Cor 6 & I Tim 1, he excluded from the kingdom of God all those who engage in same-sex behavior, including forms of pederasty, prostitution, or "permanent mutuality." The term malakoi used with arsenokoitai probably refers to the passive agent in same-sex activity and comes under similar condemnation. Other applications follow from the contexts involved. First, homosexual behavior is cause for church discipline in light of the context of I Cor 5-6. Certain religious bodies that approve a homosexual lifestyle have rejected scriptural authority. In addition, homosexual orientation should be a concern for church counsel and exhortation with a view toward molding a heterosexual orientation. Second, homosexual behavior is proper focus and concern of legislation in society and of the sanction of law, according to the context of I Tim 1:8-11. This suggests that "gay rights" is a misnomer. The movement has no legitimate claim to protection by the law. footnotes ___________________________ 22 W.L. Petersen, "Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by 'Homosexuals'? (I Cor 6:9; I Tim 1:10)" VC 40 (1986): 187-91. 23 K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, Harvard Univ, 1978) 1 n. 1. 24 We are conscious of the fact that Plato's writings may not reflect Athenian society, or that the speakers in "Symposium" may not reflect Plato's view. However, it is assumed that they do, and with this agrees Dover (Homosexuality 12) and other evidence cited below 25 The translation is that of W.R.M. Lamb, Plato: Symposioum LCL (Cambridge: Harvard Univ, 1967) 141-143. Note the reference to "adulteress." If there is a homosexual condition derived from birth or the genes, logically there must also be an adulterous conditon derived from birth. 26 Elsewhere in the Symposium we are told that it is the heavenly love to love the male and young men (181c) but this must not be love for boys too young; the latter should be outlawed (181d-e). Such love of youths is to be permanent (181d), lifelong and abiding (184a). Where homosexual love is considered a disgrace, such an attitude is due to encroachments of the rulers and to the cowardice of the ruled (182d -an early charge of "homophobia"?). In Athens it was "more honorable to love openly than in secret" (182d -an ancient expression of "coming out of the closet"). Mutality was present ("this compels lover and beloved alike to feel a zealous concern for their own virtue," 184b). For Petersen to label the Symposium a "possible" exception to his position is inadequate and misrepresentative. It is a significant witness to Greek society hundreds of years before the time of Christ. 27 Dover (Homosexuality 12, 60-68) finds homosexual desire and orientation in Plato's works (Symposioum and Phaedrus) and elsewhere. Philo writes of those who "habituate themselves" to the practive of homosexual acts (The Special Laws 3.37-42; cf. De Vita Contemplativa 59-63). Josephus says that homosexuality had become a fixed habit for some (Against Apion 2.273-75) Clement of Alexandria on Matt. 19:12 writes the "some men, from birth, fhave a natural aversion to a woman; and indeed those who are naturally so consitited do well not to marry" (Miscellanies 3:1) It is addressed in Novella 141 of Justinian's Codex of laws (it referes to those "who have been consumed by this disease" as in need of renouncing "there plague," as well as acts). Pseudo Lucian (Erostes 48) and Achilles Tatius (Leucippe and Clitophon II.38) speak of it. Finally Thucydides 2.45.2 has: "Great is you glory if you fall not below the standard which nature has set for your sex." Boswell (Christianity 81-87) cites poets (Juvenal, Ovid), witers (Martial), statesmen (Cicero), and others who describe permanent, mutual homosexual relationships, even marriages. Even emperors could be either gay-married (Nero) or exlusively gay (Hadrian), Boswell says. Scroggs (Homosexuality 28, 32-34) admits that both inversion and perversion must have existed in the past. He discusses possible references to adult mutual homosexual and lesbian relationships, but dismisses them (130-44). 28 See specifics in S.R. Driver A critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh:1895) 250. He observes that the prohibition of cross-dressing in Deut. 22:5 is not a "mere rule of conventional propriety." See also Dover, Homosexuality 73-76, 144. 29 Plato in his last work, in which he seeks to show how to have a virtuous citizen, condemned pederasty and marriage between men as "against nature" (para phosin)(Laws 636a-b; 636c; 836a-c; 838; 841d-e). According to TEST.NAPH 3:4-5 the sodomites changed the "order of nature." THe Jewish writers, Philo (On Abraham 135-137) and Josephus (Ant. 1.322; 3.261, 275; Ag. Ap. 2.199; 2.273, 275) label sexual deviation as "against nature." Finally,, first century moralist such as Plutarch (Dianlogue on Love 751c-e; 752b-c) spoke of homosexuality as "against nature." Christians clearly did not invent the labels "natural" and "unnatural". See J.B. De Young, "The Meaning of 'Nature' in Romans 1 and Its Implications for Biblical Prosecriptions of Homosexual Behavior" JETS 31/4 (Dec 1988):429-41. 30 The philological research byMendell, in particular, is comprehensive and convincing. He finds Boswell wrong on many points including his observations about the Latin exoleti (5); the prevalence of active male prostitution (6); the meaning of koitai as a coarse and active word (7); the meanings of compoounds of loit- (7-10); the prevalence of arsenokoitai in the church fathers (11-18); the law in Roman societ (13); the statements of Sextus about Greek law (13); and secular uses (18-19). In appendices Mendell devotes detailed examination to how compounds are formed, including those with koitas (25-28), and such comounds in astrological settings (28-29). Our own philological study confirms Mendell's observations. Mr. Tim Teebken assisted this writer in searching Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. THe search revealed thousands of occurrences of forms of koit-, mix-, and phthor-. Paiderast- occurs 200 times and androbatein ("practice unnatural vice"),ansromania ("mad after men") and arratourgia ("filthy lewdness") and arrntopoieo ("do unmentionable vice") occur only rarely. LSJ cites these and other words referring to "unnatural vice." 31 Petersen's refernce to the "psychological facts of the case" begs the question. If he is referring to Kinsey and other studies, the "facts" have been disputed. Many psychologists use "homosexual" to cover both orientation and behavior, and have seen many people change from homosexuality to heterosexuality. These include such psychologists (who have published) as Bergler, Anna Freud, Haddon, Hatterer, Janov, Socarides, Kronemeyer, van den Aarweg, and Keefe. Various groups, such as Homosexuals Anonymous of Reading, Pennsylvania, assist homosexuals in changing their orientation and behavior. 32 These principles come from J.D. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis (Dallas: DTS, 1974) 143-49, who derives them from such sources as E. Nida, C.S. Lewis, and F. Fisher. See also C. Thiselton, "Semantics of NT Interpretation," in New Testament Interpretation (I.H. Marshall, ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 75-104. 33 Grassmick, Principles 147-148. See also G Yule, The Study of Language (Cambridge: Univ Press, 1985) 176-77. 34 Ibid, 144. 35 An observation of Mr. Teebken who assisted in this project. 36 Although the existence of a homosexual orientation or conditio has been assumed, we are not thereby stipulating what is its cause or duration. Neither does Paul. He merely uses a word that covers both what a homsexual is and what he does, and at least for the latter he assigns culpability. Investigation of the cause and duration are beyond the scope of this study. 37 Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI" 20. 38 Paul also uses rare terms found elsewhere outside the NT only. One such term is andrapodisteis which occurs in I Tim 1:10 and is important to the meaning of arsenokoitai. Scroggs defines the former term as "those who steal boys for sexual purposes" and uses it to define the preceding arsenokoitai as "pederasts." The word occurs in many pagan writers (e.g. Aristophances, Plato, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Polybius, Dio Chrysostom). In Philo (Special Laws 4.13) it is uded generally of a kidnapper who steals people to reduce them to slavery. It appears that Scroggs is again too narrow in his definition and fails to appreciate the structure of OT background of the list of vices of I Tim 1:9-10. 39 For example, there are 433 words used only in both secular Greek and Paul. Of these 203 occur but once in Paul. More interestingly, 175 words occur only in both the LXX and Paul. Of these 31 occur but once in Paul. OF this last group 5 of the 31 are combinations of two words similar in pattern to that of arsenokoitai. See R. Morgenthaler, Statistik Des Neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes ('73 rpt; Zurich: Gotthelf-Verlag, n.d.) 175-80. The numbers are out calculations. 40 E.E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the OT (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957) 150-52. Some of the remainder of Paul's quotations are in agreement with both the LXX and Hebrew (19 times), and in others he agrees with neither. 41 Specific citations are available in J.B. De Young, "The OT Witness to Homosexuality: A Critical Assessment of the Prohomosexual Interpretation of the OT" (an unpublished paper read at theNW section, Evangelical Theological Society, Portland, Oregon, May 4, 1985) 22-23. 42 Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI" 21-24. 43 Ibid., 21, 25-28. 44 Ibid., 6 n. 14. "Androkoites and it congate verb are much less frequent (c. 13 occurrences in secular papyri ranging from 30 BC to AD 140 [most before Paul] and apparently a few others [3?] in the church fathers). THere are c. 50 occurrences of arsenokoitai, apparently all post-Pauline. 45 One may cite additional reasons for including "adult-adult mutuality" as well as orientation or condition in Paul's term as the context and wording of Rom 1:26-27 make clear. See De Young, "Nature" 439-40. 46 It may be that one should distinquish between sexual feelings (amoral) and sexual lust or desire (immoral).