coitu femineo

Latin Learning Latin
1

The Levitical prohibitions against male-on-male sexual intercourse are usually translated in such a way as to suggest that it is the active, rather than the passive, partner who is addressed or being spoken about, e.g.:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18.22 RSV)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Lev. 20.13 RSV)

I’ve come across an article that suggests that in the original Hebrew, it was the passive partner who was being addressed or spoken about, that he was not to lie down as a woman would with a male. Are there any nuances in the Latin translation that might also suggest this was the case?

Lev. 18.22a: cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo

Lev. 20.13a: qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo

Thank you.

2

There is actually a large amount of material that has been published on this since the mid-1970’s or so, and a review of the commentary literature in general might be helpful. I suspect also that there would be more than one monograph or article out there. As it is, I see nothing in either the Hebrew, Greek LXX, or Latin which indicates either active or passive in terms of the activity. I would read it as a general statement that would encompass both.

3

Since it appears that you know Hebrew, I’d like your opinion of this scholar’s reasons for maintaining that the passages are addressed to the passive partner. The relevant portion of his article is the full paragraph in the middle of page 205:

http://rbedrosian.com/Sex02/Walsh_2001_Leviticus.pdf

4

Sorry, I know it’s the “Learning Latin” board, but still thought I’d drop in, since this is an interesting subject. I don’t know Hebrew and only a little Latin, but I had a look at what the LXX (Rahlfs-Hanhardt) says. I don’t know anything about this debate, haven’t even read the article linked by Archimedes, and don’t know much about Bible studies or Biblical Greek, and even less about the LXX than the NT. I just had a look at the Greek text and give my thoughts.

  1. 22 καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν. 23 καὶ πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν οὐ δώσεις τὴν κοίτην σου εἰς σπερματισμόν ἐκμιανθῆναι πρὸς αὐτό. καὶ γυνὴ οὐ στήσεται πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν βιβασθῆναι, μυσαρὸν γάρ ἐστι.

(κοίτην γυναικός has a variant κοίτην γυναικείαν)

καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός

The way I see this, this is somewhat ambiguous if taken out of context. “with a male, you shall not lie the intercourse of a woman” or “with a male, you shall not lie the intercourse in the manner of women”. I guess with the passive verb κοιμηθήσῃ, you’d be temptated to interprete it as designating specifically a woman or passive partner, but according to LSJ s.v. κοιμάω this sense “to have intercourse” is developed from “go to bed/sleep” and medium/passive is regularly used of both senses and both sexes. (But compare κύω “to conceive”; according to LSJ, act. is used of men but passive of women). So, as far as I see, κοιμηθήσῃ could mean either man or woman.

But if we look at the larger context here, I think it’s clear that all these instructions given here in the second person are given to men. This is clear when we look at what follows right after:

καὶ γυνὴ οὐ στήσεται πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν βιβασθῆναι

“a woman shall not put herself next to any four-legged (animal) to be mounted upon”

Instructions that pertain to women are in the third person. [So looking at the larger context, it seems very clear to me that at least in the LXX, Lev. 18.22 is addressed to the active partner. [EDIT: my logic here is flawed.]]

One more thing of interest:

καὶ πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν οὐ δώσεις τὴν κοίτην σου εἰς σπερματισμόν ἐκμιανθῆναι πρὸς αὐτό



18. 20 καὶ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου οὐ δώσεις κοίτην σπέρματός σου ἐκμιανθῆναι πρὸς αὐτήν.

I’m not completely sure if κοίτην σου εἰς σπερματισμόν and κοίτην σπέρματός σου should be taken together or if it’s rather εἰς σπερματισμόν ἐκμιανθῆναι and σπέρματός σου ἐκμιανθῆναι that go together, but to me it looks like that ἐκμιανθῆναι “ejaculate” is crucial. It’s not like it would be ok to copulate with animals if no ejaculation takes place, but rather that the terminology of how one exactly gets defiled is important. I didn’t see any of this ejaculation business in the Finnish or English translations I checked, so I wonder if it’s there at all in the Hebrew.

But I wonder how different the Hebrew version is from the Greek one.

5

καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός

Hmm. The more I think about it, the less sure I am about this. Actually I’m not sure at all anymore that this could not mean something to the effect of “you shall not accept the feminine role in intercourse with a man”.

But the way I see it, I think this is about something specific – this either specifically forbids intercourse in the active role or in the passive role, but I don’t think both.

I’ve lately read Plato’s Phaedrus commented by Harvey Yunis. There was a lot of discussion there about taking the active and passive roles in anal intercourse. Basically, in Plato’s world taking the passive role is bad for you, because it degrades you and destroys your reputation. Taking the active role is bad, because it’s bad for your partner – it’s immoral to take a young boy and destroy his future.

6

Sorry, this is really becoming a monologue.

  1. 22 καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν. 23 καὶ πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν οὐ δώσεις τὴν κοίτην σου εἰς σπερματισμόν ἐκμιανθῆναι πρὸς αὐτό. καὶ γυνὴ οὐ στήσεται πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν βιβασθῆναι, μυσαρὸν γάρ ἐστι.

Perhaps indeed we have an opposition between two ways a man could have intercourse – κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμός (and the similar κοίτη σπέρματός at 18.20), the “intercourse that produces seed” or “such intercourse as begets offspring” on the one hand and κοίτη γυναικός “intercourse in the feminine way” on the other. The first would refer to the active part and the second to the passive. Note that only κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμός/κοίτη σπέρματός causes one to defile oneself by ejaculation (ἐκμιανθῆναι). κοίτη γυναικός does not, and in this respect it’s similar to case of the woman who has intercourse with an animal.

So, while I’m not sure at all of all this, as far I can see the Greek text could very well be interpreted like this. An attempt at translation:

“With a man, you shall not have intercourse in the feminine way, for it is an abomination. And with any four-legged animal, do not have such intercourse as begets offspring, so as to defile yourself with it by ejaculating. And a woman shall not put herself next to any four-legged animal to be mounted upon, for it is foul.”

7

Bravo! This is the same sense I was getting out of the Greek as well as the Hebrew, and I wanted to see if our Latin experts discerned a similar nuance in the Latin reading. BTW, the Hebrew verb here is conjugated as 2nd person singular masculine, the gender not apparent in the Greek conjugation of the verb.

8

Wow, a great deal being said here. First of all, the article presents a plausible, but I don’t think definitive argument. In other words, even if it is completely correct, I don’t think an ancient reader of the text would conclude somehow that the active role was acceptable while the feminine role wasn’t. The text really condemns both roles regardless of what the precise emphasis of מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה, MiShKeBeY )iShaH, is. As is often the case, the LXX rendering κοίτην γυναικός is a rather literal rendering of the Hebrew construct (as Paul pointed out, one would expect the adjective γυναικεῖαν instead), though appears to be used as some sort of adverbial accusative rather than literally reflecting the prepositional prefix found on מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י, MiShKeBeY. Jerome’s translation is actually bit more idiomatic, Cum masculo non commiscearis coitu femineo, quia abominatio est, since he uses the ablative coitu.

9

Leviticus 18:22: וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

Leviticus 20:13: וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תֹּועֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מֹ֥ות יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃

My Hebrew is very limited, but the verb תִשְׁכַּ֖ב/יִשְׁכַּ֤ב seems to be transitive in these sentences, with אֶת־זָכָר֙ as direct object. אֶת is the marker of the direct object, isn’t it? Does this suggest that the prohibition applies to the active partner (and the translation calls for a less euphemistic transitive verb)? Perhaps because it’s assumed that the passive partner would be a slave, not even rising to the level of a person to whom the prohibition could apply?

זָכָר֙ not אִ֗ישׁ , i.e., masculus, not vir, as in the Latin? Same in the Greek: arshn, a masculine creature, not anhr, a man.

10

Wait! Hebrew is all Greek to me, but if I understand your post correctly, אֶת־זָכָר֙ is the part translated as μετὰ ἄρσενος? If it so, what does it change if Hebrew has a direct object where Greek has an indirect one with μετά? Can’t the passive partner as subject have the active partner as object, is there something in Hebrew usage that prevents this?

As far as I see, in the Greek version (and I think it’s always possible they changed the meaning in translation), it all boils down to the exact meaning of κοίτην γυναικός. Otherwise, I think the Greek allows both interpretations. To understand κοίτην γυναικός, I would need to know a lot more about the Hebrew this is translated from, about LXX usage and parallels from other texts of this sort. So I only take this as an exercise.

You know Greek a lot better than I do, Qimmik – what do you think about it?

Anyway, to sum up what I think is in favour of this probihition being addressed to the passive participant:

  1. the probition is expressed in a way that is parallel with the prohibition of women having sex with animals. In neither case is there a mention that the person should not ἐκμιανθῆναι himself/herself, but there’s just a general statement, “for it is foul/an abomination”.
  2. There seems to be an opposition between κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμόν (and κοίτη σπέρματός at 18.20) on the one hand and κοίτη γυναικός on the other, as if the two acts were fundamentally different from the point of the view of the addressee. If the point is to condemn intercourse with men in the role of the active partner, why not say μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην σου εἰς σπερματισμόν or the like?

That’s true and clear from 20.13. But there’s an important implication, which I think is also pointed out in the article. As far as I understand, all these instructions and probitions in the second person are addressed to free Israelite men. When something applies to women, slaves, foreigners etc., the third person is used. So, if the passage in question is really a prohibition of submitting to being the passive participant in male-on-male intercourse, what 18.23 + 20.13 really means is “You (= free Israelite men) shall not submit to another in sexual intercourse – if that happens, both must be put to death.” If this interpretation is the correct one, this would mean that free Israelites were free to do whatever they wanted with slaves, prisoners of war, foreigners etc., as long as they remained in the active role.

That’s much more in line with the mores of other vaguely contemporary societies than a general prohibition of all homosexual behaviour. At least in Athens, it seems to me that what was really seen as problematic was sex with a freeborn citizen as the passive partner. What was done with slaves, foreigners etc. was not such a big deal.

11

My suggestion is that the transitive verb with a direct object implies that the subject, the target of the prohibition, is the active partner, and the text doesn’t prohibit the passive role because the assumed partner, a male creature, is beneath consideration. (The Hebrew verb, to “lie” or “sleep”, may not normally be transitive, but here it is, I think, because it has a direct object.) The Latin and Greek translations don’t use an active verb (like the KJV), so this may be something that’s lost in translation.

Getting back to Latin (since this is “Learning Latin” and not “Learning Hebrew”), Vergil Eclogue 3.8-9:

novimus et qui te, transversa tuentibus hircis,
et quo—sed faciles Nymphae risere—sacello.

Two goatherds are engaging in mock-insulting banter. One goatherd says to the other “We all know who (nom.) . . . you (acc.), as the goats looked askance, and in what grotto–but the free and easy nymphs laughed.” A transitive verb is coyly omitted, but the implication is that the other goatherd, the direct object of the omitted verb, took the passive role in same-sex activity.

12

Well, when it comes to the syntax of this particular Hebrew verb, I have no competence whatsoever, and of course that’s a crucial point.

However: If you still wanted to say in Hebrew “You shall not submit to another man”, is there some other construction that would be more natural? I mean that that’s not the most typical thing to say, so in a way it might be expected to be said in a somewhat convoluted way, using verbs that are usually used otherwise etc.

“the text doesn’t prohibit the passive role because the assumed partner, a male creature, is beneath consideration”
That’s true of course if the assumed active partner is addressed. All this changes, of course, if the whole point is that this is specifically a prohibition for Israelites to accept the passive role. There is some similarity with the bit that prohibits women (and probably Israelite women here are meant) submitting to animals, so the whole idea is not entirely superfluous.

This is interesting but I admit I’m puzzled. Got to learn Hebrew one day.

13

But it can also be a preposition meaning “with”!

14

Actually, it looks like you’re right about that. So much for my Hebrew. I should stick to languages I know, like pig Latin.

15

Truth be told, my Hebrew is a bit rusty, and when I first tackled the passage, I tried to read the preposition as the direct object marker as well!

16

I thought the vocalization was different, but it’s not when joined to a noun. I guess “male” rather than “man” covers boys as well as adult males.

My pig Latin is getting rusty too. I have trouble remembering the vocabulary and the grammar.

17

Is there any significance in the fact that commisceberis is passive “be joined” instead of active “join”?

18

That’s a very interesting observation. Hebrew has תִשְׁכַּ֖ב, TiShKaB in the Qal, an active form, “lie down.” The LXX has κοιμηθήσῃ, also a passive form. I’m not sure what triggered this for the ancient translators, except to say that somehow the passive form for them communicated best what they thought the Hebrew was saying. Of course, a different Vorlage is also possible.

19

What are your opinions of this exegete’s take on coitu femineo?

20

Just a thought… Those who translated this into Latin were from another time and another culture than those who had originally written it. For a Roman, it would have been natural to think that it is degrading for a man to submit to another, so they could have interpreted it like this even if it wasn’t the original idea. I say this as a word of caution, I’m still attracted to the idea that this was specifically a prohibition of the passive role.

I don’t know enough Latin to have any opinion on this Latin form.