See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230465600

An argument against the use of the word 'homosexual' in english translations

of the bible

Article in The Heythrop Journal · April 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00496.x

CITATIONS READS

4 62,291

1 author:

Cristina Richie
The University of Edinburgh
42 PUBLICATIONS 195 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cristina Richie on 08 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

HeyJ LI (2010), pp. 723–729

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE USE OF THE

WORD ‘HOMOSEXUAL’ IN ENGLISH
TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE
CRISTINA RICHIE
Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, USA

The epistle 1 Corinthians was written by the Apostle Paul to the church at Corinth that he
founded. Paul was engaged in a series of dialogues through letters with his church
regarding matters of morality and Christian behavior.1 The theme of I Corinthians is the
connection between dissensions in the church and immorality among the believers.2 In this
letter, Paul sets out to correct doctrinal errors [6:12, 7:1], elucidate matters of faith
[Chapter 8, 15] correct practices [Chapter 11–12, 14], and encourage the fledgling church
[4:14]. Various immoralities are plaguing the new church, and Paul, as the founder, exhorts
the church to change her ways.
Chapter 5, in which Paul rebukes an incestuous relationship, and chapter 7, which
juxtaposes the gifts of celibacy and marriage, act as an inclusio for chapter six, which sets
up an argument that the lawsuits of the church are a result of immorality in general [vs. 1–
8], and sexual licentiousness in particular [vs. 9–20]. Although it may not be hard to
imagine strife being caused by selfish and otherwise immoral behavior, there are two words
used in the vice list of verses 9–10 which are inaccurate when translated as many English
Bibles do. Chapter six, verse nine has produced much debate in the translation of two
particular words: malakoi and arsenkoitai.3 In the New International Version, these words
are translated as ‘male prostitute’ and ‘homosexual offender’, respectively. Taking into
account the cultural background in which this epistle was written and the original Greek
meaning of the words in both Biblical and extra-Biblical literary sources, however, reveals
this translation to be anachronistic and imprecise.
In chapter 6 the types of people who will ‘not inherent the Kingdom of God’ are listed,
with reference to a range of sexual sins as a general category into which other libidinous
sins are fitted.4 The salacious sins of malakoi and arsenkoitai are both masculine terms; the
breadth of interpretations and the emotional response evoked by these verses have created
a heated controversy in recent decades.5 As a result the pericope in which these words are
located has provoked translations that are overstated, ambiguous, or misleading. In order
to determine a more accurate translation, the etymology of the words in question will be
discussed first, then the background against which they should to be understood. Probing
extra-biblical sources as well as understanding the cultural background of this letter are
imperative for arriving at a correct translation of these words.
Within the Bible itself, verse nine in chapter six is the only place malakoi is used in an
explicitly sexual sense in the New Testament. The other places the word appears are
Matthew 11:8, which refers to ‘fine’ clothes, and Luke 7:25, where it refers to ‘soft
clothing’. The Liddell–Scott Jones Lexicon6 defines the word as: ‘1. Soft: a fresh-plowed
[fallow] 2. Of all things subject to touch: soft, tender, youthful [looks], 3. In a bad sense, of

r The author 2009. Journal compilation r Trustees for Roman Catholic Purposes Registered 2009. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600
Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
724 RICHIE

persons: yielding, remiss, feeble, also faint hearted, effeminate, and cowardly’. The third
definition given by Liddell-Scott Jones, effeminate, appears in extra biblical sources like
Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics, which says, ‘Hence some people who are even very soft
[emphasis mine] about certain things are brave, and some who are hard and enduring are
also cowardly.’7 Additionally, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance8 concurs with this
translation and defines the word as, ‘soft, i.e. fine [clothing]; fig. a catamite: - effeminate,
soft.’ These definitions have led to the translation of malakoi as effeminate, and include the
King James Version, American Standard Version, Webster’s Bible, the New American
Standard Bible, Young’s Literal and the Darby’s Translation.
These translations were undoubtedly influenced by the Vulgate version of 1 Corinthians
6:9, which translates the Greek malakoi by the Latin molles. In Latin writings there are
several unique words that are used both for the unmanly and for eunuchs. These words are
molles, effeminate, semivir and eunuchi.9 Within the Bible molles is not used sexually –
molles, much like the Greek malakoi, is not used in reference to a person’s sexual identity,
but with reference to their moral character. The Vulgate uses molles to describe the palatial
opulence of a King’s clothing [Matthew 11:8], a slothful character who will not work
[Proverbs 18:9], or someone who is soft or delicate in disposition [Isaiah 47:1]. Yet the vice
list in 1 Corinthians 6 is clearly set in the midst of sexual vices. A cursory reading of the text
could lead one to believe that Paul wished to disdain individuals who were overly indulgent
in fabrics or excessive in comfortable lifestyles, but the pericope that follows the vice list of
6:9–10 is about sexual immorality.
The chapters surrounding chapter 6 deal with sexual mores and not with ‘effeminate’
men. A translation that takes into account the sexual depravity of the malakoi must be
addressed. There is no valid reason to translate molles as ‘effeminate’ when taken in the
context of Paul’s concern with purity in the body of believers. The translation ‘effeminate’
is insufficient for a number of reasons. The first is that Paul would not rank effeminacy
with the other vices in this passage; although he sometimes was concerned with
appearance, as in 1 Timothy 2:9, the appearance of an individual never made a vice list.
The second reason this is not an accurate translation is the subjectivity of what constitutes
an effeminate man: in early Christianity, eunuchs were counted as effeminate because of
their associations with paganism. ‘Christian writers denounced castration of men as
typical of all that was immoral and effeminate in pagan culture’10 because of the pagan
priests who underwent castration. Conceptions of effeminacy change from era to era. A
translation of malakoi as ‘effeminate’ would render the Bible vulnerable to every alteration
in the hegemonic estimation of effeminacy. During the Reformation, ‘effeminate’ was a
label used in disdain for a young man effeminately dressed.11 By contrast, during the
1600’s and the 1700’s, men who wore wigs, stockings, and dressed in luxurious velvet were
not considered effeminate, but rather fashionable. In the contemporary Western world,
men who have intellectual interests are sometimes considered effeminate by those who
pursue athletic success. Altering the Bible to keep up with trends in the language is not the
role of the biblical interpreter. An honest hermeneutic must seek to find what a certain
word meant during the era in which it was written, lest the Bible become domesticated to
the fashions of a period other than the one in which it was composed. The translation of
malakoi as ‘effeminate’ is not accurate, nor is it what Paul had in mind when he wrote
the letter.
Another troublesome translation of malakoi that has appeared in English versions of
the New Testament is ‘male prostitute’. The New Living Translation, New International
Version and Hebrew Names Version have this. The ‘male prostitute’ conjectured could
 AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE USE OF THE WORD ‘HOMOSEXUAL’ 725

have been a boy who was subject to abuse,12 or a grown man serving in the temple. While
the prevalence of temple prostitutes makes this translation a possibility, the lack of
external evidence renders it unlikely, and a more precise definition should be considered.13
When malakoi is taken in conjunction with the other word in question, a clearer
translation can be established. The next word on the vice list, arsenkoitai, is used in one
other place in the Bible: 1Timothy 1:10. There is a paucity of extra biblical literature
from this time period containing this word. This may be because Paul coined the word and
is the originator of the term.14 Bibles in English has translated it in various ways
throughout the centuries; early English editions used the term ‘sodomite’, or the phrase
‘abusers of themselves with mankind’. These expressions are vague at best and confusing
at worst.
The word ‘sodomite’ that is used in the Young’s Literal Translation is traced back to the
story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, where two angels appear in Sodom and
arrive at Lot’s house. The men of the city demand they bring out the guest/angels to have
intercourse with them. Lot responds by offering them his virgin daughters instead. This
story is usually interpreted as showing how disgraceful same- gendered intercourse is, but
the Sodomites had several moral failings, none of which is indicated by the word
arsenkoitai. The most obvious is the demand by the villagers for same-sex gang rape. This
vicious act of molestation demanded by the men of the town, with no regard for the safety
or interests of Lot’s guests, is shocking and depraved. Also noteworthy is the questionable
ethical judgment of Lot, who offers his daughters in their stead. There are other Biblical
texts that refer to the situation of a woman who becomes desecrated in such a way, and
which provide some suggestion that the gender of the victim is not as important as the act
of rape,15 as in the case in Judges 19, where the sexual predator initially wants to rape a
man, but settles for a woman. Lot’s ethical laxity was passed to his progeny through the
incestuous conception by Lot’s daughters in the latter half of Genesis 19.
There is no evidence that the people of Corinth were engaging in offenses like gang rape,
or the offering of daughters to be molested, or an incestuous relationship between father
and daughter, that the ‘Sodomites’ – and Lot’s family – participated in. The translation as
‘sodomite’ is therefore misleading and too broad. Identities based on geographical regions
should just refer to the people who live there, not to various forms of perversion.
‘Sodomites’ should naturally mean ‘people dwelling in Sodom’, not ‘people who
participate in a type of immorality.’16 Additionally, since women were included in the
sexual impurity of Sodom, and the word arsenkoitai is a masculine term, the genders do
not align.
Although most translations of malakoi and arsenkoitai render each word separately,
two translations conflate the terms, collapsing them into one. The English Standard
Version and Revised Standard Version translate arsenkoitai and malakoi by the same
English word. Depicting malakoi and arsenkoitai through a single term like ‘sexual pervert’
[RSV], or ‘men who practice homosexuality’, [ESV with footnote], is lexically
unacceptable17 and imprecise. Bauer believes that translating malakoi and arsenkoitai by
the same word or phrase to be too broad.18 A translation of ‘sexual pervert’ may include
malakoi and arsenkoitai, but it also encompasses other ceremonially unclean acts – like the
ones in Leviticus 18. Also, because the term ‘pervert’ in English typically means a
distortion of what is ‘natural’, it could be applied to any form of non-procreative sex [in
menopause, or with contraception] or any type of activity that does not represent a
‘natural’ act. Likewise, the translation of ‘men who practice homosexuality’, even with the
footnote that says, ‘The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and
726 RICHIE

active partners in consensual homosexual acts’, goes beyond the condemnation of Paul
and could include any man-to-man act on a spectrum from holding hands to intercourse,
and any activity in which an ‘active’ and a ‘passive’ male could cooperate. The disregard
for academic integrity in translating the two words as one, or by a single phrase, is evident.
Finally, in the last four decades ‘homosexual’ has appeared as a translation for
arsenkoitai in English bibles. When the New American Standard Bible, the earliest that
uses the term ‘homosexual’, was written, ‘homosexuality’ was still considered a
psychological disorder. It was with this mindset that the translators opted for the word
‘homosexual.’19 Cultural shifts should not influence translations, however; the duty of the
exegete is to understand the word in question in its original context, and then to bring it
accurately into the new language. Injecting a vacillating contemporary estimate into a
biblical word is eisegesis, and does scant justice to what the author intended to say to the
culture he was addressing.
Other versions that contain this translation are the New International Version, the New
Living Translation and the Hebrew Names Version. The use of the word ‘homosexual’ is
inevitably anachronistic, however; it uses a modern word to for an ancient reality. ‘The
Bible reflects the culture of the day’20; the burden for those who interpret it is thus to know
the culture in which the Bible was written, and to be able to avoid ambiguities of
contemporary culture that may inadvertently work their way into a translation. The
option for the word ‘homosexual’ is an example of translators reading their own culture
into a concept that was foreign to the Biblical period.
‘Homosexual’ today means one who is only attracted to members of the same sex, and
includes women.21 The terms malakoi and arsenkoitai, however, are not words about
feelings or attractions; they refer to actions that a male performs. The Greek arsenkoitai is
a masculine word that has a natural gender of masculine and cannot be attached to a
woman. The prefix arsen- is Greek for male or man. Women would not have been labeled
with an adjective that has a masculine natural gender.
Contemporary definitions of sexuality refer more to attraction than to one’s behavior;
when individuals define their sexual identity, they refer primarily to attraction. If current,
ongoing genital activity were a prerequisite for defining sexual identity, then virgins,
widows and the celibate would have no claim to sexual identity. However, such individuals
typically have strong feelings about their sexual identity, even if they are not currently
sexually active. Translating a Greek word that is based on activity by an English word that
is based on attraction blurs this distinction.
The concept of homosexuality was not coined until 186922; although there has been
same-sex intercourse throughout the ages, these actions were not necessarily ‘homosexual’
as this term is understood today. For a book written in AD 5523 it would thus be
inappropriate to translate either of these words as ‘homosexual’, especially as there is an
equivalency for these words in modernity, though the social milieu has changed. The
sexual relationship between the malakoi and the arsenkoitai that occurred in Corinth
endures on the modern social scene, however. In Corinth and in Hellenistic society
generally, the relationship between the two was lauded, although many people today
disapprove of it. The two terms exist in conjunction and must be taken as two sides of a
coin that was constructed in classical Greek culture.
The term arsenkoitai is meant to be taken as the opposite of malakoi,24 - hence their
placement in succession in the list of vices in 1 Corinthians 6:9. The type of sexual
expression of arsenkoitai must be understood in conjunction with the previous word
malakoi and with the cultural background of the letter to the Corinthians.
 AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE USE OF THE WORD ‘HOMOSEXUAL’ 727

Paul, writing to his church in 55 AD, lived at a time when it was common Greek practice
for an older man to initiate an adolescent boy into the ways of adulthood. These
adolescents ‘were the object of adult male sexual attention and also educated the boys in
the habits and ways of manhood and of citizenship’.25 The adolescents were often the sons
of friends, and it was common for two male friends to exchange their sons for reliable
training. This Greek practice, called ‘Greek pederasty’ was an erotic relationship between
men and boys; although the Romans forbade pederasty with free boys in the Lex Scantina
[pre-Cicero], this did not exclude contact with boys for homoerotic service.26 In contrast,
because the Greeks idealized friendship between men, they extended this glorification to
sexual associations. The notion of friendship between two men as being more pure than
that between a man and woman can be seen in Hellenistic art, poetry, literature, and also in
sexual relationships.
In the sexual pederastic relationship, the older man was married to a woman, and
engaged in these activities because in antiquity, same-gender male sexual activity ‘was a
not uncommon occurrence in Greek society, which considered the noblest form of love to
be friendship between men’.27 This relationship was characterized by an inequality
between the youth or malakoi, and the older man or arsenkoitai; the two were
disproportionate in age, social status and power. This relationship was so idealized in
the society of the time that it had penetrated into Paul’s congregation, and he argued
strenuously against it.
Besides the practice of pederasty that was common in Corinth, the church there
had other concerns with sexual morality. Chapter six, which contains the vice list in
verses 9–10, is flanked by a harsh rebuke to a man who ‘has his father’s wife’28 and a
debate over which is more virtuous: celibacy, or chastity within marriage.29 Poor choices
in sexuality and lives consequently displeasing to God, which included in the congrega-
tion the incestuous couple, a pederast and a catamite, and lustful individuals
from all stages of life30, were destroying the unity of the body of Christ and
were contributing to quarrels and divisions.31 As the founder of the church, Paul felt it
his duty to realign the members of the Church to a sexual morality excluding sex with
young people.
The usage of malakoi and arsenkoitai in both Biblical and non-Biblical sources and the
cultural milieu in which 1 Corinthians was written render the translation ‘homosexual
offender’ unnecessarily vague and seriously misleading. Paul intended the term malakoi to
refer to a catamite, or the boy in the Greek boy/man arrangement, and arsenkoitai to refer
to a pederast, or the man in the same relationship. These terms are not synonymous (unlike
‘homosexual’) but complementary. Bauer has long stressed these translations to the words
in question, but has been widely ignored, to the detriment of readers who are confused and
of congregations which are disturbed by the ensuing disputes.
Paul forbade the catamite/pederast relationship for several reasons. He appreciated that
these interactions were at times ‘deeply troubling and damaging’ to the youth.32 A boy
would often experience both physical and psychological distress in giving over both his
body and mind to a man ‘initiating’ him into the ways of adulthood. The malakoi and
arsenkoitai also fit the vice list because of the adultery involved for the older, married man.
Even though the catamite was younger and of the same gender, the wife of this man was
not being held in the esteem of the marriage vow. Discarding these terms, which Bauer
supported, has caused confusion over the correct interpretation of this verse; some have
attempted to force a contemporary conception into an older notion in order to appear
‘relevant’.
728 RICHIE

Pederasty or pedophilia did not end with Hellenistic culture; it simply is not as tolerated
as it was then. However, adult individuals and groups such as the North American Man/
Boy Love Association [NAMBLA] continue to perform illegal and lewd acts on minors,
and attempt to give the impression that male homosexuals are actually pedophiles.
Translating the Greek malakoi with the English ‘catamite’ and arsenkoitai with the
‘pederast’ shows that Paul’s intentions in 55 A.D. are still relevant to contemporary
culture.
The loose and inaccurate translation of malakoi and arsenkoitai should not be tolerated
in the English Bible, any more than it should be used to persecute adult homosexuals who
engage in legal and consenting relationships. Serious damage has been done by the careless
interpretation of these words, attempting to inject a distinct social agenda into Paul’s
actual message, which was to avoid sexual immorality like pederastic relationships, and to
strive to remain in fellowship with one another so as to avoid unseemly and improper
wrangling.

Notes

1 Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,
2000), 334. The interactions between Paul and Corinth may include: the first letter they wrote him [1 Cor. 7:1], his letter
in response [1 Cor.], a sorrowful letter he wrote them [2 Cor. 2:3–4] and the epistle that is in the canonical Bible [2 Cor.].
2 1 Corinthians 3 New International Version.
3 Although debate surrounding the translations of these words goes beyond Biblical Scholasticism and into the
realm of church polity, gay rights and hate crimes, a few recent publications that show the controversy over translations
in theological circles are: Robert L. Brawley, ed. Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), Tom Horner, Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978) [with annotated bibliography], Dan O. Via and Robert A.J. Gagnon,
Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) [with select bibliography], Donald J.
Wold, Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), and an
ongoing dialogue between Walter Wink and Robert A.J. Gagnon, which includes Robert A.J. Gagnon, ‘Are There
Universally Valid Sex Precepts? A Critique of Walter Wink’s View on the Bible and Homosexuality,’ Horizons in
Biblical Theology 24, no.1 (June 2002): 72–125, ———, ‘Gays and the Bible: A Response to Walter Wink,’ Christian
Century 119, no. 17 (Aug. 14-27, 2002): 43–44, Walter Wink, ‘A Reply by Walter Wink,’ Christian Century 119, no. 17
(Aug. 14-27, 2002): 43–44, Walter Wink, ‘Homosexuality and the Bible,’ Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions
of Conscience for the Churches (ed. W. Wink; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 33–49 and ———, ‘To Hell With Gays? [A
Review of Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice]’ Christian Century 119, no. 13 (June 5-12, 2002): 32–34.
4 R. Paul Caudill, First Corinthians A Translation with Notes. (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1983), 141.
5 English Bibles, which have emerged in recent decades, include: NASB [1963 for the New Testament, 1971 for the
complete Bible], NIV [1973], NKJV [1982], NLT [1996], Hebrew Names Version [1997], ESV [2001].
6 H.G. Liddell and R. Scott Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 486.
7 Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), Book 3 section 1229b.
8 James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), 46.
9 Matthew Kuffler, The Manly Eunuch (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 35.
10 Kuffler, 249.
11 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1989), 350, 642. In Book II, Chapter VIII, Section 44, Calvin observes, ‘A youth clothed effeminately and
over-luxuriously.’ This description is in the section on the 7th commandment- against adultery. Also in Calvin, Book
IV, Chapter XIX, Section 27, he notes, ‘Whence the clerical tonsure had its origin, is abundantly clear from Augustine
alone (De Opera. Monach. Et. Retract). While in that age none wore long hair but the effeminate, and those who
affected an unmanly beauty and elegance, it was thought to be of bad example to allow the clergy to do so. They were
therefore enjoined either to cut or shave their hair, that they might not have the appearance of effeminate indulgence.’
12 John H. Elliott, ‘No Kingdom of God for Softies? or, What was Paul Really Saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 in
Context,’ Biblical Theology Bulletin 34 no. 1, (Spring 2004): 28.
13 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000), 135.
14 David E. Malick, ‘The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,’ Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (October-
December 1993), 484.
15 Judges 19 has a nearly identical beginning as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah- a traveler comes into a city and
a villager demands to have physical access to him. The man offers his virgin daughter and concubine; the villager
 AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE USE OF THE WORD ‘HOMOSEXUAL’ 729

accepts a woman and violates the concubine all night. In response the man who offered his daughter and concubine
slaughters the woman and carves her into twelve parts.
16 Although the region of Corinth was made into a verb during the period of early Christianity [‘to Corinthianize’],
this was a relevant concept to the people of the time. ‘Sodom’ does no longer exist- only a region which once contained
the city of Sodom. Conflating an ancient city with any number of sexual practices is too ambiguous.
17 Bauer, 135.
18 Ibid.
19 The NASB was complied from 1963–1971, and it was not until 1973 that the Board of Directors of the American
Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM).
20 R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 102.
21 Oxford American Dictionary.
22 Elliot, 33.
23 Henry Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2000), 774.
24 Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 339.
25 Enid Bloch, ‘Sex between Men and Boys in Classical Greece: Was It Education for Citizenship or Child Abuse?’
Journal of Men’s Studies 9, no.2 (Winter 2001): 183.
26 Bauer, 135.
27 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds in Early Christianity. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2003), 70.
28 1 Corinthians 5:1 New International Version.
29 1 Corinthians 7:1 New International Version.
30 In chapter 7 Paul mentions the lust of the unmarried [v.8], the married [v. 5] and the widow [v.8], effectively
covering every possibility in life.
31 1 Corinthians 1:10–13, 3:3, 6:6–8, 11:17–34, 12:12–27 New International Version.
32 Bloch, 183.

View publication stats