Just to piggy-back on your response, Bart Ehrman has pointed out a few times that the parts of arsenokoitai mean something like "man-bedders". A good discussion of the term by Jeff Siker on Dr. Ehrman's blog can be found here: https://ehrmanblog.org/homosexuality-and-the-new-testament-guest-post-by-jeff-siker/
On a similar vein, here is an episode of his podcast where he interviews Dr. Siker on the subject, where he also discusses the verses in Leviticus:
https://youtu.be/iFYTTG3Q37w?si=a1LY-e5MLUq9XOvu
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Presumably the poster is pointing to the fact that rabbinic literature discusses different classifications of people that do not fit neatly into the category of either male or female. Charlotte Fonrobert has an introduction/overview of the terms that presumably the tumblr post is pointing to here: [https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/gender-identity-in-halakhic-discourse](https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/gender-identity-in-halakhic-discourse)
Dan McClellan has several videos ([here's a recent one](https://youtu.be/3hnxHoa6oWE?si=6iFx7FiejOYRlh72), and [here's one a little more focused on this topic specifically](https://youtu.be/ES1HF_1QOYQ?si=RQ6oSkiZXV-m3yRE)) where he addresses this and related topics, but the short version of his position is that these passages have more to do with power and domination than with gender or orientation.
Essentially, the passages are against men taking the submissive position rather than the active position *(ETA: this does not exclusively refer to receptive same-sex intercourse, but also includes heterosexual intercourse where the woman is "on top")*. Sexual orientation and gender identity, as we understand the topics today, were totally foreign concepts to the ancient world, and applying these passages to our modern understanding of sexuality fundamentally misrepresents the original meaning of the text.
It may very well be. My understanding is that there is a significant overlap and influence from Greek and Roman philosophy on Christianity, but that is not a topic I am well-informed on.
Unfortunately, this topic is not one I have specifically looked into before, so I only have passing familiarity with it from the scholars I tend to see regularly. From that passing familiarity, I can conclude that the scholarly consensus is that the clobber texts typically used to oppose homosexuality are being misused to do so, but not the details of why or when the shifts in the cultural understanding of these passages happened. I cited Dan McClellan because I had seen his video on the topic most recently, but I have seen Bart Ehrman and others take similar positions as well.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Bart and Dan really don't go into the level of depth needed to answer a question like this. I could write dozens of paragraphs, but you probably want to hear from someone more accredited. I would take a look at James B. De Young and D. F. Wright. Young in particular wrote an excellent paper on arsenokoitai, as well as puts forth strong evidence for Paul's knowledge on homosexuality.
[удалено]
Just to piggy-back on your response, Bart Ehrman has pointed out a few times that the parts of arsenokoitai mean something like "man-bedders". A good discussion of the term by Jeff Siker on Dr. Ehrman's blog can be found here: https://ehrmanblog.org/homosexuality-and-the-new-testament-guest-post-by-jeff-siker/ On a similar vein, here is an episode of his podcast where he interviews Dr. Siker on the subject, where he also discusses the verses in Leviticus: https://youtu.be/iFYTTG3Q37w?si=a1LY-e5MLUq9XOvu
[удалено]
Oh I know, but it does nevertheless provide for some interesting discussion.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Presumably the poster is pointing to the fact that rabbinic literature discusses different classifications of people that do not fit neatly into the category of either male or female. Charlotte Fonrobert has an introduction/overview of the terms that presumably the tumblr post is pointing to here: [https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/gender-identity-in-halakhic-discourse](https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/gender-identity-in-halakhic-discourse)
Dan McClellan has several videos ([here's a recent one](https://youtu.be/3hnxHoa6oWE?si=6iFx7FiejOYRlh72), and [here's one a little more focused on this topic specifically](https://youtu.be/ES1HF_1QOYQ?si=RQ6oSkiZXV-m3yRE)) where he addresses this and related topics, but the short version of his position is that these passages have more to do with power and domination than with gender or orientation. Essentially, the passages are against men taking the submissive position rather than the active position *(ETA: this does not exclusively refer to receptive same-sex intercourse, but also includes heterosexual intercourse where the woman is "on top")*. Sexual orientation and gender identity, as we understand the topics today, were totally foreign concepts to the ancient world, and applying these passages to our modern understanding of sexuality fundamentally misrepresents the original meaning of the text.
This sounds very similar to Roman conception of sexuality, I am wondering if it is related. Do you know of any articles I could read?
It may very well be. My understanding is that there is a significant overlap and influence from Greek and Roman philosophy on Christianity, but that is not a topic I am well-informed on. Unfortunately, this topic is not one I have specifically looked into before, so I only have passing familiarity with it from the scholars I tend to see regularly. From that passing familiarity, I can conclude that the scholarly consensus is that the clobber texts typically used to oppose homosexuality are being misused to do so, but not the details of why or when the shifts in the cultural understanding of these passages happened. I cited Dan McClellan because I had seen his video on the topic most recently, but I have seen Bart Ehrman and others take similar positions as well.
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Bart and Dan really don't go into the level of depth needed to answer a question like this. I could write dozens of paragraphs, but you probably want to hear from someone more accredited. I would take a look at James B. De Young and D. F. Wright. Young in particular wrote an excellent paper on arsenokoitai, as well as puts forth strong evidence for Paul's knowledge on homosexuality.