Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive 6

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Bible and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105100901/http://orthodoxbahamas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/THE_RUDDER_Copyright__Ralph_J._Masterjohn_2006.pdf to http://orthodoxbahamas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/THE_RUDDER_Copyright__Ralph_J._Masterjohn_2006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213024345/http://jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm to http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"Most" churches
There is an edit war going on as to whether the lead should say "Most Christian churches continue to maintain the long-standing understanding of these passages" or "Many Christian churches continue to maintain the long-standing understanding of these passages". I added a citation for "most" but it was removed on the basis of "Cited source doesn't actually support statement". Now, the source in question says "The traditional case for saying that homosexual acts are inconsistent with biblical teaching can be unraveled quite easily. But that conclusion, whether it is right or not, is not the conclusion of most churches." StAnselm (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At issue in the article is not whether "most churches" believe "[t]he traditional case for saying that homosexual acts are inconsistent with biblical teaching can be unraveled quite easily," but whether "[m]ost Christian churches continue to maintain the long-standing understanding of these passages," including the Sodom story that is explicitly mentioned by the article before the quoted statement. "These" must be understood to include that story in the article, which does not currently support that assertion, which is questionable, and which the cited source also fails to support. Note the strangely equivocal language on Sodom. Until the statement is properly supported or recast, "most" cannot be used. I will remove it. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * if I'm understanding you correctly, then, your issue is not with "most" but with "the long-standing understanding". Is that correct? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, my initial issue was with "most" with regard to the Sodom story. I then had an issue with a source and what it actually says. See below. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - please stop your edit warring. The original wording was "most", and you have not yet gained consensus to change it - instead, you have made four reverts. The source above is saying most churches reject the author's conclusion - i.e. most churches do not believe the traditional case can be unraveled quite easily - i.e. most churches accept the traditional position that "homosexual acts are inconsistent with biblical teaching". That seems virtually identical to "continue to maintain the long-standing understanding of these passages". StAnselm (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One can agree on general "biblical teaching" regarding a subject without having the same passages in mind and/or without interpreting all those passages the same way (note the Sodom story). Your source is equivocal on Sodom, speaking in terms of "a standard view of the passage" (159), presumably among at least one other "standard view." It's strange language that won't permit your use of the source. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this is: a) only in the lead; and b) completely unsourced. There is very little discussion in the body over the history of interpretation and nothing should be in the lead about it without well-sourced, fleshed-out discussion in the body that can be summarized in the lead.  Also, is this article meant to be focused only on Christian interpretation of these issues?  If so the title of the article should be changed. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that certainly cuts the Gordian knot. StAnselm (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, you might want to take a look at the sourcing of the lead in Homosexuality in the New Testament. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jytdog. I think his/her recent edit is a good starting point. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this is about "the Bible" it isn't clear that the attitude of "churches" is relevant (there being an endless variety of both Jewish and Christian denominations, congregations, ideologies, etc. etc.). This would seem to be the topic of Christianity and homosexuality. It is, as far as I can see, undisputed as a plain matter of textual record, that both the OT and the NT condemn male homosexual acts. Of course, since the bible condemns all sorts of everyday things (linsey-woolsey), that fact is open to interpretation, but such interpretation will be denominational and has little or no place in a presentation of the philological facts.
 * It is not clear what is the purpose of a page combining "summaries" of Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible and Homosexuality in the New Testament side by side, without any attempt to link the two topics. Especially because the sections are not actual summaries of the main articles but seem to contain material which is not present in the main page. This is a problem of copy-editing and should be fixed via split-section or at least WP:SS.
 * Since these pages are clearly difficult to maintain (because they keep being edited by people who are have some kind of personal investment in the topic), I do not see how a duplication of the pages is helpful in any way. --dab (𒁳) 08:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's a question of overlap (resulting in potential POV forks or inconsistency within Wikipedia), but completely disagree that disputes over the meaning or context of passages are not appropriate in this article. I think splitting this one to the other two could be fine, with the note/awareness that the passage in Jude is treated here as commentary on the Hebrew Bible rather than its own thing as the Pauline passages are. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Bible and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060227005417/http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2002-4.pdf to http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/pdf/2002-4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the recent change because adding "alternative" does not clarify anything about the interpretations; the edit's only function seemed to be to prejudice the reader against perfectly legitimate interpretations. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Revert
I removed the "three decades" original research - it is unsupported by the sources and indeed I'm able to find documentation of this interpretation that's over a century old. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1, among many others. Where do the sources say "three decades"? Can you provide a page number? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My sources for "three decades" were the sources cited. To change the time frame back, provide sources to substantiate an earlier time. Pete unseth (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, your "three decades" was original research that you now know for a fact is inaccurate yet will not revert? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be unclear. I am perfectly willing to be reverted, if we can find an acceptable source. Until then, I do not know what is inaccurate. Not always clear what sources are considered primary or secondary. Humbly hoping we can find a way to say all this clearly.Pete unseth (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole paragraph ((seems)) to be original research because it seems to be sourced to primary sources. The paragraph says that "some authors have interpret the relation between David and Jonathan as sexual" and then put the authors books where they the authors suggested it was sexual as sources for that statement. I had access to the first source but I haven't seen the second one.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want, "According to Boswell and Halperin, David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship." This is fine, it is used with attribution. By the way, Michael Coogan disagrees with them in a recent book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * primary sources where? The cited sources are certainly not primary; are there others to which you are referring? as I've pointed out, this doesn't seem to be some idiosyncratic theory supported by only one or two people; listing all the people would be disruptive. The text pre Pete's inaccurate OR addition is best. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , The first source is certainly a primary source. Notice what the paragraph says and what the source says. The first source is an author nothing in the source says "some authors think" or "some authors says". This is an inappropriate use of sources. Even if attributed we certainly need secondary sources that analysis primary sources. We don't want Wikipedia to be the secondary source that analysis primary sources. Otherwise I don't understand your objection of the word "three decades" it is just the same as the whole paragraph. I haven't checked the second source but I am pretty  sure that it is also a primary source.-SharabSalam (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding how we reference secondary sources here, unless what you're proposing is that we flat-out write "Jonathan and David were a gay couple" or whatever. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't understand how you can't see the problem of the paragraph as I am seeing it. Let me make it simple. This is how I see the paragraph.

Even if we tried to attribute we would be using primary sources. This problem seems to can only be solved by quoting directly from their books. Like this That way we would avoid our editorial interpretation of primary sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PRIMARY so you can correct your mistaken impression of what a primary source is. Boswell's book might be a primary source in Boswell's article; it is not a primary source in articles on the subject of his scholarship! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a question: here is the paragraph:
 * "but in the last three decades has been interpreted by as of a sexual nature."
 * Who are these some authors? Aren't they Halperin and Boswell?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. We specify "some authors" because it is preferable to making the statement as though it were an uncontested fact, but it's a statement about the Bible and homosexuality, not about Halperin's work or Boswell's work. Please see WP:PRIMARY. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you said yes then these sources are primary sources because the sources are (Boswell, John. Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Vintage, 1994. (pp. 135–137)) and Halperin, David M. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. New York: Routledge, 1990. (p. 83)
 * you keep telling me to read WP:PRIMARY but I see this
 * Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. The passage obviously analysis what primary sources are saying.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They are reliable secondary sources, which is why we are referring to them to interpret the primary sources, instead of to the primary source itself. I don't understand what about this you need explained to you. Meanwhile, what is your justification for removing a source and adding a claim about "three decades" which not only does not appear in the sources, but which is demonstrably incorrect? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , where are the secondary sources? The justification is that we haven't reached consensus yet, please don't hurry, everything should first be settled in the talk page. We don't want editwar.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "We don't want editwar" is not a justification for removing sourced content and adding unsourced content that you know is objectively false. You can avoid an edit war by not edit warring. This is a separate issue from your bizarre and persistent misunderstanding of what constitutes a primary source (it isn't the multiple secondary sources already cited). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , the whole passage should probably be removed unless you provided a secondary source. The two sources are primary sources. Is the source that you added less than 30 mins ago the secondary source?--SharabSalam (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a secondary source because it "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." The author has read the opinions of other authors and reports them. While the term "some authors" would be weasel wording if it was the conclusion of Wikipedia editors, "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." In this case there is a significant minority view that there was a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. The fact that the person reporting their views may disagree with them is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I understand now. I didn't know that the Bible was the primary source here. It seemed to me that the sources were primary and that the passage was an analysing of these sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please Remove Blaspheme
Please remove the section suggesting that the affection between David and Jonathan was one of a carnal nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.126 (talk • contribs)


 * WP:NOTTHEOCRACY, WP:NOTCENSORED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the recent change to the lede because it begs the question re: many debated passages, which the article discusses. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are already 3 sections in this talk page called "revert". Please name the issue at the head of the section. Not always "revert". I don't know what you are talking about so I don't know what this section should be named.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Boy
I've reverted "boy" back to "male" in the Leviticus because if I recall correctly, a previous RFC established a consensus translation to use in this article. Also, I don't see "boy" in any of the other translations cited in the link. Are you perhaps misremembering? There's some thought that the prohibition stems from a cultural context of pederasty or of male sacred prostitution, but I'm not aware that it's specifically considered a translation issue with "boy". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Middat Sedom
I don't have time to add this now, but here's a useful reference on middat Sedom or Sodom-like conduct in the Talmud. In general, the Sodom and Gomorrah article has some clarifications about the Jewish position historically that may be useful here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

But actually
I've removed the Creech section. We discuss the "arsenokoites" situation extensively in the article and it is not at all as unambiguous as the addition claimed. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Traditionalist"
I've removed "traditionalist" from These two verses have historically been interpreted by Traditionalist Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general. The semantic value added by "traditionalist" is already added by "historically" - we're not suggesting that the interpretation was objectively correct and eternally valid, only that this is how it has generally been read. If there are significant historical examples of non-traditionalist movements interpreting the verse in other ways, we can discuss that. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal (granted, I'm the one who inserted "Traditionalist" to begin with). The current wording gives the impression that All Christians and Jews view homosexuality and the bible in that same way, and that's simply not true, that's why I inserted the word "Traditional" (as opposed to "inclusionists").    However, I was bold, you reverted, now it get's discussed. I Support adding "traditional into the sentence as it appears in my revert, what do the rest of you say?  Necromonger...  We keep what we kill 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current wording does give that impression. It says that this has been the historical interpretation of the verse, which I think it would be hard to contradict. Beyond what we already include in the article about how recent interpretation has emphasized the historical context of the verse as distinguishing Israelites from their idolatrous neighbors, what is it that you feel is missing? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ruth and Naomi
IMHO, Coogan renders the WP:MAINSTREAM view, but we shouldn't reject the opposite view as totally inadequate. I don't consider feminist theology as WP:FRINGE. Minority should not be conflated with fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would also note that verses from Ruth are apparently recited at weddings. Wikipedia does not purport to interpret the Bible, just to document its interpretation by others. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or not

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This rfc is being opened to attract more discussion on the following subject and to gain consensus one way or the other:

The second sentence in the article currently reads:

"These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."

I propose to insert word "Traditionalist" so that the sentence reads:

"These two verses have historically been interpreted by Traditionalist Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."

I propose to make this change because:

1.) Since not all Christians support this interpretation, it would make the wording more accurate, as the current wording, IMHO makes it look like all Christians support that interpretation.

2.) There is no source being used to support the current sentence as it stands.

I have attempted to add the word "Traditionalist" once, Roscelese doesn't support this and has removed it, as is her right. We started a discussion, and so far it's been only her and I. So I now welcome more eyes and hands to this discussion. What do you think ? Necromonger... We keep what we kill 14:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't believe that the current wording, with "historically", gives the impression that all Christians support this interpretation, and adding "traditionalist" is implying that throughout history, "non-traditionalist" movements have interpreted the verse in other ways, which I think would be difficult to support. See the rest of my argument further up the talk page. It would take 2 seconds to support the claim that historically, this verse has been interpreted as a prohibition on homosexuality, if indeed a suitable source isn't already in the article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would oppose the addition of "traditionalist" per Roscelese above. However, I do agree that the current wording is problematic without a source, and may even be inaccurate. A few minutes of reading other relevant articles on Wikipedia led me to find that Initially, canons against sodomy were aimed at ensuring clerical or monastic discipline, and were only widened in the medieval period to include laymen. in History_of_the_Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality and that lesbianism is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible in Homosexuality in Judaism. While a more thorough review of relevant literature would probably find that interpretations of these verses as being prohibitions on homosexual activity were the norm historically, it seems a stretch to say that these verses were interpreted as "clear overall" prohibitions, since exceptions to their clarity and overall-ness are attested by reliable sources. I would thus propose that we change the at-issue text to read These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as prohibitions against homosexual acts in general.
 * That having been said, while I'm proposing this as a short term improvement and compromise, even this solution may be inaccurate, particularly w/r/t Jewish attitudes for the following reasons:
 * It's not clear that Jewish prohibitions against lesbian acts stem from this verse; they are most directly taken from the Talmud, and it's unclear if the rabbis of the Talmud were using these verses as the basis of their rulings
 * Describing Jewish prohibitions as being against homosexual acts in general may be inaccurate. The text in Homosexuality in Judaism currently suggests that while intercourse was prohibited, attraction was not, which means that homosexual acts short of intercourse may have been considered permissible.
 * Thus, until proper sources are provided, it may be best to rewrite the sentence to read These two verses have historically been interpreted by Christians as overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general. signed,Rosguill talk 18:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with removing "clear overall", and also with substituting "traditionally" for "historically" if that would address any of WKWWK's concerns. Now that you bring it up, it may in fact be worth noting male homosexuality in our sentence, or addressing some of these other concerns - I was mostly, as I said, concerned by implying things that were incorrect through the use of "traditionalist". Like I said, the current wording does not state or imply, imo, that no Christians interpret the verse differently or accept gay people. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Roscelese. StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Roscelese. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:, this Rfc was premature, in my opinion. I realize you are a new user (welcome to Wikipedia!), but do have a look at WP:RFCBEFORE next time, before jumping straight to the Rfc process after only a brief discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks to those who have contributed their considerable scholarship to various aspects of this issue! One clear problem would be capitalizing "Traditionalist" since there's no formal group so designated in these faiths. But basically, the article shows the complexity of the issue and any such simplification in the lede would be unhelpful. Jzsj (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I sympathise with regarding the perhaps overly broad nature of the statement, the use of a capitalised "Traditionalist" label is poorly defined, not particularly neutral and generally unhelpful. I would support the use of more neutral words like "many" or "most" instead of "Traditionalist" to qualify the statement (ideally with a reliable source to support it). While it is not the question of this RFC, I also support the removal of the phrase "clear overall" from the statement as per 's suggestion. Finally,  I agree with  that there was insufficient discussion prior to raising this RFC. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Traditionalist is not defined. I agree with the above suggestion to add something like "some" or "many". That would necessitate some well sourced discussion elsewhere in the article. It's never too soon for an RfC. The more the merrier. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - User: Morgan_Leigh and User:203.10.55.11 It seems that it's well enough understood to have   at least  two Wikipedia articles written about it, and both cover the religious component of Traditionalism.
 * User:203.10.55.11 and User:Mathglot - the rfc was more or less an IAR move. The discussion on this page involved myself and another user and we didn't agree.  Time elapsed an no one else joined this discussion.  Dispute resolution, is then, the correct course.  A third opinion on this issue seemed incorrect as it's contentious, therefore an RFC seemed to be the correct course for this as multiple opinions could be gained this way, and yes, it wouldn't be the normal way to go about this, I'm aware. It was, again, an IAR approach.  Necromonger...  We keep what we kill 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am tempted to agree with you Wekeepwhatwekill however, there was no evidence provided for inserting this term, and without that and thus left as-is, I would oppose on that grounds. Some of the discussions above discuss what Traditionalists mean (as that term has different meanings in different contexts) and thus overall it seems this entire issue needs clearer definitions via credible resources. --- FULBERT (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition of homoerotic passages
Reading this article I note that it lacks references to several sections of scripture with homoerotic overtones. The section on David and Jonathan seems underdeveloped for the amount of debate occurring today, for example, and lacks reference to troubles that translators have with the Hebrew "ag higdil" - today very politely and possibly bowlderized as "David wept the more" - in 1 Samuel 20:41 (Michael Coogan's views notwithstanding, even Coogan's own NRSV commentary notes that the Hebrew is incomprehensible - Oxford UP 2018). There's also Jacob and the Angel and Joseph as Sissy Boy, each supported by scholarly analyses that point out homoerotic overtones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Changed bible translation from KJV to NRSV
I've changed some of the translations of bible passages used from KJV to NRSV to reflect a more mainstream academic English language bible translation (See: WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:ABIAS) PandaWent (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

- Just adding my thanks for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edit of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 section
I'm going to re-write 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 section as follows:

Original: "The Greek word arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται) in verse 9 has been debated for some time, and has been variously rendered as "sodomites" (NRSV), "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "men who have sex with men" (NIV) or "practicing homosexuals" (NET). Martin Luther translated the term as Knabenschaender, or pederasts. Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] means "male", and κοίτην [koitēn] "bed", with a sexual connotation. Paul's use of the word in 1 Corinthians is the earliest example of the term; its only other usage is in a similar list of wrongdoers given (possibly by the same author) in 1 Timothy 1:8–11: In the letter to the Corinthians, within the list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi is a common Greek word meaning, of things subject to touch, "soft" (used in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 to describe a garment); of things not subject to touch, "gentle"; and, of persons or modes of life, a number of meanings that include "pathic". Nowhere else in scripture is malakoi used to describe a person."

New: "In the letter to the Corinthians, within the list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: Malakia (μαλακοὶ) and arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται).

Arsenokoitai (translated 'sodomites' in above translation) is a word first used by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and later in 1 Timothy 1). It is a compound word from the Greek words 'arrhēn / arsēn' (ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην) meaning "male", and koitēn (κοίτην) meaning "bed", with a sexual connotation. Arsenokoitai has been variously rendered as "sodomites" (NRSV), "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "men who have sex with men" (NIV) or "practicing homosexuals" (NET).

Malakoi (translated 'male prostitutes' in above translation) is a common Greek word meaning, of things subject to touch, "soft" (used in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 to describe a garment); of things not subject to touch, "gentle"; and, of persons or modes of life, a number of meanings that include "pathic"."

Removed:
 * Nowhere else in scripture is malakoi used to describe a person. - Point should be made in the interpretation section
 * Martin Luther translated the term as Knabenschaender, or pederasts. - Irrelevant to discussion

If no objections, I'll edit accordingly. PandaWent (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * OBJECT: Please leave reference to pederasty in place. Martin Luther's translation of the word is hardly irrelevant inasmuch as it (1) bears witness to the point that several scholars make that Paul was specifically writing about (underage by today's standards) temple catamites, (2) is representative of a number of translations, and (3) was in widespread use in the US up to the late 19th century and informed a number of cultural stereotypes about gay men during a period in which homosexuality was pathologized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While Martin Luther's translation is interesting. I think it is more relevant to the interpretation section (or even Homosexuality in the New Testament). It's a historical interpretation that I couldn't find any modern translation using. PandaWent (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This section presents various ways in which an obscure Greek neologism has been rendered in modern translations. If the KJV is modern, so too is the Luther Bible. You'll find the same in Swedish and Norwegian etc. translations from this era as well; these, like the Luther Bible, have Paul indicating that pederasts will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. These are foundational translations and the discussion would be incomplete without them. - Metanoia2019
 * I left the KJV in there as a large number of modern bible readers (not scholars) will use that translation. Happy to remove if it makes you more comfortable? For simplicity, I'll move the sentence about Luther's translation to the interpretation section so it is still in the article as it has relevance just not to the introduction of that section PandaWent (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Please leave reference to KJV in place. Please leave references to pederasty in place; these belong to the body of well-known translations of the word, rather than interpretations of it.
 * How about, this sentence at the end of that paragraph: "Historical translations have translated into English as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV) and Martin Luther translated the term as Knabenschaender, or pederasts."
 * That way we're prioritising more up to date scholarship while also mentioning important historical translations? PandaWent (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, though I think most serious scholars these days would say that we can't really know exactly what Paul meant - hence the wide array of translations we see here and the reams and reams of books currently in print on the topic all with competing viewpoints. And I disagree that we can call the NIV or NEV scholarship as such. But in the interest of moving forward, what about "...or "practicing homosexuals" (NET), while Martin Luther and others translated the term as 'pederasts.'"

OBJECT: I also don't think you can quite say that this was a word "first used by Paul"; he appears to be borrowing it from the Septuagint translations of Lev. 18:22 and 20:23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty confident Paul was the first person to use the word. Although, as you've noted, it is likely he is borrowing from the Septuagint. Which is noted in detail on Homosexuality in the New Testament. Would you be more happy with the line being changed to:
 * "...first used by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and later in 1 Timothy 1) although many scholars consider it to be adapted from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23." PandaWent (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. None of us can say with metaphysical certainty that Paul - or anyone for that matter - was the first to use this word. It would be more accurate to note that this is the first recorded usage of what appears to be a neologism. And disagree that we can say that Paul wrote 1 Timothy as a majority of scholars find conclusive evidence that 1 Timothy is pseudoepigraphic. Is the Greenberg excerpt new? It feels tangential and editorializes a bit. - Metanoia2019
 * How about: "...first recorded use by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and possibly later in 1 Timothy 1) although many scholars consider it to be adapted from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23"
 * The Greenburg ref was used on the New Testament and Homosexuality article but if you can find another reference I'm happy to add/replace the Greenburg one PandaWent (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this would work better without the reference to 1 Timothy 1. Or for clarity, "and later in 1 Timothy 1, attributed to Paul." I can live with the Greenberg, though I wish he hadn't editorialized. Somewhere here though we will want to note the number of scholars who believe that the section of Leviticus 18 in which verse 22 appears was added to the text by a later writer. That would be unwieldy here of course. Maybe best to link up to the section on Leviticus and go from there? - Metanoia2019
 * Nicly worded. So how about: "...first recorded use by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and later in 1 Timothy 1, attributed to Paul) although many scholars consider it to be adapted from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23" PandaWent (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks for suggesting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

I don't believe it's appropriate to suggest that the translation as "sodomites" etc. isn't also "interpretation." There isn't really a good reason to separate out the discussion into a subsection. I do however approve of the use of a topic sentence in the section. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: additional sources
Addendum: additional source on the topic in case anyone's interested is Dale B. Martin's 2006 book Sex and the Single Savior. It's all about historical shifts in interpretations of biblical texts on the topic, what the Bible has been allowed to mean over time. The adds to the point I'm trying to make: that this reading of the David and Jonathan story has historical staying power is fascinating and very much worthy of mention on this page, but it didn't serve the point to which it was attached. Is this really inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I presume you are intending to make a point here having nothing to do with Ellis, as you named someone else entirely. If so, kindly open a new discussion topic. You can do this after the fact, by simply adding a section header just above the word addendum above. Place it between double-equal sign delimiters, like this: , using whatever section title seems to best summarize your intent in opening the new discussion. Also, please always sign your posts like this:   HTH, Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Mathglot The literature on the topic is fascinating and extends far beyond Ellis, which I hope will now be clear. Read if you'd like. Or don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added the section title "Addendum: additional sources" above your 04:25, 23 Jan comment. I can't read your mind, and if you intended this to be part of the previous discussion, you can make it into a subsection header instead of a new H2 section header, if you prefer. Feel free to change the section title itself, I merely copied your first three words, as an apparent good title for it; or you can call it "Martin's book", or "New sources" or whatever you like. If you find the section header not helpful, you may remove it. Regarding section titles, signatures, indenting, and other aspects of Talk page discussions, I'll leave you a comment on your user page about some of the conventions that help keep discussions moving smoothly, so we can concentrate here on the content and not on the mechanics of it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the fascinating literature: any other parts of the literature on the topic that you find relevant, and which are based on reliable sources, may certainly be added to the article, in accord with content policy, such as neutral point of view, due weight, and others. Feel free to add such content directly to the article, if you wish. Or, if time is a factor, just list your sources here, and some other editor may find it, and add something. Mathglot (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Havelock Ellis
Whether we keep the Ellis reference or not, "some sexual scholars" is a terrible phrasing. Beyond that, however, I think you're making a couple of unencyclopedic leaps of logic. Ellis wasn't a biblical scholar or, for that matter, a historian, yes? So his opinion may be admissible in suggesting that "even" Victorians who didn't consider homosexuality a disease or a sin didn't think that Jonathan and David's relationship was romantic, but writing that he "concluded" that there was no evidence is a little strong for what we actually have. Ideally a secondary source would note this sort of thing. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that it's poor phrasing, I just couldn't come up with something better on short notice; feel free to improve. Maybe something like, "even Ellis...". The one point perhaps of disagreement, is that the fact that Ellis isn't a biblical scholar is neither here nor there; the article is about the intersection of two topics, and we should no more discard experts in sexuality who are ignorant of history and the Bible, than vice versa. If anything, the culture being steeped in Christianity as it is, it's likely (but remains to be proven) that Ellis, other sexual experts, or indeed anyone of his time would have some acquaintance and training in the Bible (which does not make him an expert in that topic, granted) but the converse is certainly not true.  I'm fine with changing "concluded" (unless that is what the source says). Just because he concluded something (if he did) doesn't make it any more, or less, likely to be true.  As long as we provide in-text attribution, it really doesn't matter what he thought or concluded, as long as we report it accurately. I guess I was mostly objecting to the offhand disregard of his opinions, being from 1908 (exclamation point).  One might well add opinions by Freud, and Hirschfeld, from around the same time period, and by von Kraft Ebbing before that, if they can be quoted on the topic. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Metanoia2019, please join the discussion, instead of edit warring. You made your view clear, in summary form, in this edit, complaining that the citation from Ellis is from 1908, exclamation point. Indeed it is; and Freud's views on the topic are from 1905, Hirschfeld's activism for homosexuals a decade earlier, and the views of von Krafft-Ebing, a decade before that. So what? I see citations to both Old and New testaments which go back millennia in the article, so complaining about a 1908 scientific article by a giant in the field of sexuality seems ironic. When your edit was undone, you immediately reverted here to enforce your preferred version. Please don't do that; instead, observe WP:BRD and discuss. You're still a new editor, so other editors will cut you some additional slack, but as you've been actively editing here and on related topics, you need to get on board with Wikipedia's core principles of consensus and collaboration, and part of that means discussing here, and not edit-warring. See also WP:Dispute resolution for additional guidance. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Mathglot I see more recent, scholarly sources now and that's fine. Is it possible that you would like to make the point that this reading has stood the test of time over the course of a century? That's fine if so, but you will need to write a sentence to make that point in order to keep on topic WP:TOPIC. No, a citation from 1908 from a scholar with a complicated legacy cannot serve as "some sexual scholars" or however this read at the time. No, reverting is not "ironic," though I don't know which word you meant to use. Please remember to assume WP:FAITH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On-topic? The topic has two nouns connected by a conjunction; one half the article's topic, so to speak, is sexuality.  Ellis is one of the premier early authors in that field, so, ipso facto, relevant.  When I wrote above, I did not know if he knew anything about the Bible or religion, but presumed it likely; turns out he was quite conversant with the topic.
 * By the way, please always sign your Talk page posts using WP:4TILDES, and observe the conventions of Talk page discussions which include proper indentation; you can read about this at WP:THREAD. Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Mathglot I stand by what I said. The article is fine now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 13:44, January 23, 2020 (UTC)


 * When I asked you to contribute to the discussion here, I was hoping to hear you support your revert of the Ellis material based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Merely stating that "The article is fine now" is not policy-based support, it's merely an "I just don't like it" argument. Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear about the locus of the content disagreement, it is this revert of yours, removing reliably sourced content from the article, for the second time. I object to that, and plan to restore it at some point, absent a valid, policy-based reason not to do so within a decent interval, or a consensus not to.  I take Roscelese's objections to heart, and am open to changes in wording in that passage in order to mitigate that. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Mathglot One more then I'm out. You're trying to make a point about how this reading has stood the test of time. That's great. I've provided scholarly literature to support that claim. It includes a full and fascinating scholarly bibliography. Try as hard as you wish to dance around this with html formalities, I *still support* your point. I encourage you to take a moment, think about how best to say this, and then add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  15:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome
welcome!

As other editors have pointed out, some of the material you added doesn't meet our standards for reliable sourcing - if you look at what else is cited in the article, we rely on a lot more books and journals than news and blogs. (Er, not entirely, it looks like we could do some cleanup - the Edmonds source is not good, although it reflects common interpretations that it should be easy to find a better source for.) After all, so much has been written about the Bible over the centuries that we can afford to limit ourselves to scholarly work! If there's content that you are interested in changing, I would suggest looking in Google Books and JSTOR for material from scholarly presses.

I'll also note though that Leviticus was written in Hebrew and the arsenokoitai issue is with the Greek books. There are some translation questions with Leviticus all the same, but it's not an issue of having to guess what the original was and whether it really meant "male"; we know what the original was. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this addition. Please 1. review the sources you're citing - there is no serious argument about whether or not "arsenokoitai" appears in Leviticus because Leviticus was written in Hebrew, not Greek, and 2. consider looking for the topics you're interested in in better sources - such as the question of why the word translated as "mankind" isn't ish. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not review the previous edit & reversion, but if someone wanted to take up a similar issue, Lings, quoted within, discusses "man"/"male"/"mankind" & "woman"/"female" –StJohn57 02:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"Distinguished"
"Distinguished" is part of the guy's title, not an editorial opinion. I see what you're saying about it coming off as biased, but it's also unclear to me whether saying he is a "Professor of Religious Studies" is a misrepresentation or not. It also occurred to me that we could simply call him "of the University of North Carolina" but that of course would omit the department that he comes from, which may not be desirable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"saints"
I've reverted the change of heading to refer to David, Jonathan, Ruth, and Naomi as "saints", which is inappropriate on several levels and also obscures the content of the section. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)