| Revision as of 23:00, 1 January 2020 editPandaWent (talk | contribs)142 edits →Proposed edit of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:45, 1 October 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers807,945 editsNo edit summary |
| (61 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} |
|
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|listas=Bible And Homosexuality|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=b|importance=|ethics=yes |social=yes }} |
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=b|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|ethics=yes|social=yes }} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=b|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=b|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies| class=B|listas=Bible And Homosexuality}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
| Line 21: |
Line 22: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Center for American Progress interview with Gene Robinson == |
|
== "Traditionalist" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought about adding it to the Sodom article but decided against it: |
|
I've removed "traditionalist" from ''These two verses have historically been interpreted by Traditionalist ] and ] 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
1) The similar view of the Anglican Communion is already covered. |
|
: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 , what do the rest of you say? ]]</span> 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
2) It is unclear whether Robinson argues for the homosexual rape thesis |
|
::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? –] (] ⋅ ]) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"This is not a story about two men who fall in love and pledge themselves to a monogamous, faithful, lifelong intentioned relationship. This is about homosexual rape. No one is arguing for homosexual rape—or any kind of rape—because it is an act of violence." |
|
|
or for the inhospitality thesis |
|
|
"Within the scriptures themselves, homosexual rape is not the right interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah—yet those who argue against homosexuality keep using it." ] (]) 16:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Janet Edmonds == |
|
== Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or not == |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box |
|
|
| title = |
|
|
| title_bg = #C3C3C3 |
|
|
| title_fnt = #000 |
|
|
| quote = There is a clear consensus against inserting the word "Traditionalist" in the sentence.<p>] (]) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
| width = 30%|halign=left}} |
|
|
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top--> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
This rfc is being opened to attract more discussion on the following subject and to gain consensus one way or the other: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found her work on this blog: T. |
|
The second sentence in the article currently reads: |
|
|
|
She is: |
|
|
|
|
|
"The author, Janet Edmonds, is a longtime member of Bethesda United Methodist Church in Bethesda, Maryland. Currently, the official policy of the United Methodist Church does not allow self-avowed practicing homosexuals to be ordained ministers, nor does it allow United Methodist clergy to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies or to hold these ceremonies in United Methodist churches. In addition, The United Methodist Book of Discipline currently states that, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” Janet wrote this booklet in September 2016 to help people understand that the Bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is a sin and with the hope of someday changing these United Methodist rules. As Christians, we are asked to seek justice. It is the author’s hope that this booklet will help to bring justice for LGBTQ individuals who have been condemned far too long." |
|
<i>"These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."</i> |
|
|
|
It is cited once by . ] (]) 17:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
I propose to insert word "Traditionalist" so that the sentence reads: |
|
|
|
|
|
<i>"These two verses have historically been interpreted by <b>Traditionalist</b> Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."</i> |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ? ]]</span> 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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 Misplaced Pages led me to find that {{tq|Initially, canons against sodomy were aimed at ensuring clerical or monastic discipline, and were only widened in the medieval period to include laymen.}} in ] and that {{tq|lesbianism is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible}} in ]. 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 ], 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 {{tq|against homosexual acts in general}} may be inaccurate. The text in ] 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''. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
**{{reply|Rosguill}} 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 20:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Roscelese. ]] (]) 19:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Roscelese. ] (]) 01:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment:''' {{re|Wekeepwhatwekill}}, this Rfc was premature, in my opinion. I realize you are a new user (welcome to Misplaced Pages!), but do have a look at ] next time, before jumping straight to the Rfc process after ]. Thanks, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. While I sympathise with {{u|Wekeepwhatwekill}} 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 ] 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 {{u|Rosguill}}'s suggestion. Finally, {{replyto|Wekeepwhatwekill}} I agree with {{u|Mathglot}} that there was ] prior to raising this RFC. ] (]) 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. ] | ] 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::*'''Comment''' - ] and ] It seems that it's well enough understood ] ] two Misplaced Pages articles written about it, and both cover the religious component of Traditionalism. |
|
|
:::] and ] - 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. ]]</span> 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment:''' I am tempted to agree with you ] 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. --- ] (]) 19:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ruth and Naomi == |
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, Coogan renders the ] view, but we shouldn't reject the opposite view as totally inadequate. I don't consider feminist theology as ]. Minority should not be conflated with fringe. ] (]) 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree, and would also note that verses from Ruth are apparently recited at weddings. Misplaced Pages does not purport to interpret the Bible, just to document its interpretation by others. –] (] ⋅ ]) 02:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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: ] and ]) ] (]) 01:16, 31 December 2019 (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: |
|
|
{{Quote|text= |
|
|
The Greek word ''arsenokoitai'' ({{lang|grc|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 {{lang|grc|ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην}} means "male", and {{lang|grc|κοίτην}} "bed", with a sexual connotation.<ref name="pregeant">{{cite book|last=Pregeant|first=Russell|editor=Stefan Koenemann & Ronald A. Jenner|title =Knowing truth, doing good: engaging New Testament ethics|publisher =Fortress Press|year =2008|page=252|isbn =978-0-8006-3846-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5kvAQEFk5K8C&lpg=PA252}}</ref> 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''. '']'' 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 "]".<ref name="Scott">{{cite web|url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=MALAKO%2FS |title=Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', entry μαλακός |publisher=Perseus.tufts.edu |date= |accessdate=2014-03-11}}</ref> Nowhere else in ] is malakoi used to describe a person. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
New: |
|
|
{{Quote|text= |
|
|
In the letter to the Corinthians, within the list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: ] ({{lang|grc|μαλακοὶ}}) and arsenokoitai ({{lang|grc|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' ({{lang|grc|ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην}}) meaning "male", and koitēn ({{lang|grc|κοίτην}}) meaning "bed", with a sexual connotation.<ref name="pregeant">{{cite book|last=Pregeant|first=Russell|editor=Stefan Koenemann & Ronald A. Jenner|title =Knowing truth, doing good: engaging New Testament ethics|publisher =Fortress Press|year =2008|page=252|isbn =978-0-8006-3846-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5kvAQEFk5K8C&lpg=PA252}}</ref> 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".<ref name="Scott">{{cite web|url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=MALAKO%2FS |title=Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', entry μαλακός |publisher=Perseus.tufts.edu |date= |accessdate=2014-03-11}}</ref> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 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. |
|
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: While Martin Luther's translation is interesting. I think it is more relevant to the interpretation section (or even ]). It's a historical interpretation that I couldn't find any modern translation using. ] (]) 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: 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 ]. Would you be more happy with the line being changed to: |
|
|
{{Quote|text= |
|
|
"...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.<ref>David F. Greenberg, ''The Construction of Homosexuality'', 1990. Page 213: |
|
|
:"The details of Boswell's argument have been challenged by several scholars — to this nonspecialist, persuasively.<sup>166</sup> These challengers suggest that arsenokoites was coined in an attempt to render the awkward<sup>[Page 214]</sup> phrasing of the Hebrew in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 into Greek,<sup>167</sup> or that it derives from an almost identical construction in the Septuagint translation of the Leviticus prohibitions.<sup>168</sup> A neologism was needed precisely because the Greeks did not have a word for homosexuality, only for specific homosexual relations (pederasty) and roles ..."</ref> |
|
|
}} ] (]) 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
I thought about adding it to the Sodom article but decided against it:
1) The similar view of the Anglican Communion is already covered.
2) It is unclear whether Robinson argues for the homosexual rape thesis
"This is not a story about two men who fall in love and pledge themselves to a monogamous, faithful, lifelong intentioned relationship. This is about homosexual rape. No one is arguing for homosexual rape—or any kind of rape—because it is an act of violence."
or for the inhospitality thesis
"Within the scriptures themselves, homosexual rape is not the right interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah—yet those who argue against homosexuality keep using it." 2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:A57A:AF0B:2B41:B90F (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
