coitu femineo

[Paul_Derouda]

@Barry Hofstetter

The LXX has κοιμηθήσῃ, also a passive form.

According to LSJ, the passive in κοιμηθήσῃ is regular with the meaning “go to bed/sleep” (because the active would mean “put someone else to sleep”. The idea of intercourse is euphemistic development from “go to bed”, so I don’t think we can conclude anything from the Greek passive form.

[Paul_Derouda]

@Archimedes

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

You will not have sex with man on a woman’s bed…? Is that what he claims this means? Sounds like a case of special pleading. It would be quite different from the other prohibitions in this passage. And he doesn’t give any explantion as to what could be to meaning of such a prohibition. I’m not believing it until someone makes a very good case for it, and he does nothing of the sort.

[Barry_Hofstetter]

@Paul Derouda

@Barry Hofstetter

The LXX has κοιμηθήσῃ, also a passive form.

According to LSJ, the passive in κοιμηθήσῃ is regular with the meaning “go to bed/sleep” (because the active would mean “put someone else to sleep”. The idea of intercourse is euphemistic development from “go to bed”, so I don’t think we can conclude anything from the Greek passive form.

Good observation, Paul. The Greek simply is a kind of deponent here that means what the Hebrew means in the passive form. Not so the Latin. Commisceo is a fully regular transitive verb, and here could only rendered “you shall not be united with,” or “you shall not be mixed with…” (BTW, the Clementine Vulgate has commiscearis instead of commisceberis). Interestingly enough, the Douay-Rheims, a direct translation from the Latin, has:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind…

But I’m depending on L&S for my range of meaning, so maybe I’m missing a development in later Latin for the verb, or the DR is giving less of a literal translation than wont to do…

[Victor]

@Barry Hofstetter

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.

This must be right. Whilst subsequent discussions about active and passive roles may have been interesting, common sense suggests that all that is referred to by the two instances of coitu femineo is a man having intercourse with another man in a way that emulates the way a man typically has intercourse with a woman. Which role the man takes is not mentioned, and therefore surely not critical. If anything more specific had been intended, it would almost certainly have been explicitly stated.

[Barry_Hofstetter]

@Paul Derouda

@Archimedes

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

You will not have sex with man on a woman’s bed…? Is that what he claims this means? Sounds like a case of special pleading. It would be quite different from the other prohibitions in this passage. And he doesn’t give any explantion as to what could be to meaning of such a prohibition. I’m not believing it until someone makes a very good case for it, and he does nothing of the sort.

And to comment specifically on the Latin, the supine from what verb? If he means from coeo, that’s just silly, and it’s kind of distraction – I don’t think anyone has ever taken it from anything except from coitus, the noun (which, admittedly, like a number of 4th declension nouns, derived from the the 4th principal part of the verb). But where does the word mean “bed?” Here is L&S:

cŏĭtus, and another orthography coetus (only distinguished in signif. by use;
v. infra), ūs (dat. coetu, Cat. 64, 385; 66, 37), m. coëo.
In gen.
Abstr., a coming or meeting together, an assembling: eos auspicio meo atque ductu primo coetu vicimus, Plaut. Am. 2, 2, 25.— Hence,
Concr., an assemblage, crowd, company; in this signif. coetus alone is used: quae (opiniones) in senatu, quae in omni coetu concilioque profitendae sint, Cic. Fin. 2, 24, 77; 2, 4, 11; id. Rep. 6, 13, 13: ad divinum animorum concilium coetumque proficisci, id. Sen. 23, 84; id. de Or. 1, 8, 30; id. Verr. 2, 5, 72, § 186; Liv. 3, 38, 11; 27, 35, 3; Quint. 2, 15, 18; 2, 9, 2; 8, 4, 8; Cat. 46, 8; 64, 407; Verg. A. 5, 43; Ov. M. 3, 403; 11, 766; 15, 66: in domum Pisonis, Tac. A. 4, 41; id. H. 4, 45.—
Esp.
A uniting, joining together, combination; so in both forms.
Coetus, Lucr. 1, 1016; 1, 1047; 2, 919; 2, 1003; 5, 429: ceterum amnium coctus maritimis similes fluctus movet, Curt. 9, 4, 9: stellarum coetus et discessiones, Gell. 14, 1, 14.—
Coitus: ut recens coitus venae resolvatur, Cels. 2, 10 fin.: umoris, id. 5, 18, 31: sordium in auribus, id. 6, 7, 7: syllabarum, Quint. 9, 4, 59: vocum, Gell. 1, 25, 16: osculi, Poët. ap. Gell. 19, 11, 4: luna morata in coitu solis biduo (i. e. at new moon), Plin. 2, 9, 6, § 44. —
Sexual intercourse, coition (not in Cic.); in this signif. only coitus is used.— Of men, Ov. M. 7, 709; Suet. Calig. 25; cf. Quint. 8, 6, 24; Gai Inst. 1, 64; 1, 87.—Of animals, Col. 6, 24, 3; 6, 23, 3 (Cod. Polit. coetus); Cels. 2, 1 fin. al.—
Transf., of plants: palmarum, Plin. 13, 4, 7, § 35.— Also of ingrafting, Plin. 17, 14, 24, § 103.

Now he could make the case from the Hebrew and Greek. Both words can mean “bed” (a place for lying down) in a neutral sense, but normally it means the place where sexual activity takes place, and I think that must be it contextually in Lev 18:22.

[Paul_Derouda]

@Victor

@Barry Hofstetter

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.

This must be right. Whilst subsequent discussions about active and passive roles may have been interesting, common sense suggests that all that is referred to by the two instances of coitu femineo is a man having intercourse with another man in a way that emulates the way a man typically has intercourse with a woman. Which role the man takes is not mentioned, and therefore surely not critical. If anything more specific had been intended, it would almost certainly have been explicitly stated.

Well, the way I see it, whether anything specific is intended depends on the exact meaning of κοίτη γυναικός (I’m only commenting the Greek version). I don’t see why it couldn’t mean “intercourse of a woman”, “intercourse like a woman”, and thus be an explicit statement that the passive role is intended.

I’ll reiterate what I think supports the idea that this might be the case: The probition is expressed in a way that is somewhat parallel with the prohibition of women submitting to animals. Neither is called κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμόν (or κοίτη σπέρματός), which I suppose means something like “such intercourse as begets offspring” and would refer explicitly to the active part. Also, unlike with other offenses, there is no mention that in committing this offense ἐκμιανθῆναι occurs, which is only to be expected if the passive role is meant, but rather there’s just a general statement, “for it is foul/an abomination”. Then, κοίτη γυναικός and κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμόν occur closely one after the other and there seems to be some sort of opposition between them.

So, while I certainly don’t claim to be sure about this, as far as I understand there’s a possibility that the terms κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμόν and κοίτη γυναικός are expressly used in opposition to each other and explicitly mean “in the active role” and “in the passive role” respectively.

[Victor]

@Paul Derouda

Well, the way I see it, whether anything specific is intended depends on the exact meaning of κοίτη γυναικός (I’m only commenting the Greek version). I don’t see why it couldn’t mean “intercourse of a woman”, “intercourse like a woman”, and thus be an explicit statement that the passive role is intended.

I’ll reiterate what I think supports the idea that this might be the case: The probition is expressed in a way that is somewhat parallel with the prohibition of women submitting to animals. Neither is called κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμόν (or κοίτη σπέρματός), which I suppose means something like “such intercourse as begets offspring” and would refer explicitly to the active part. Also, unlike with other offenses, there is no mention that in committing this offense ἐκμιανθῆναι occurs, which is only to be expected if the passive role is meant, but rather there’s just a general statement, “for it is foul/an abomination”. Then, κοίτη γυναικός and κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμόν occur closely one after the other and there seems to be some sort of opposition between them.

So, while I certainly don’t claim to be sure about this, as far as I understand there’s a possibility that the terms κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμόν and κοίτη γυναικός are expressly used in opposition to each other and explicitly mean “in the active role” and “in the passive role” respectively.

I’m a little disorientated. Doesn’t βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι straight after καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετά ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός effectively rule out the idea that only one sexual partner is referred to?

[Paul_Derouda]

@Victor

I’m a little disorientated. Doesn’t βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι straight after καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετά ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός effectively rule out the idea that only one sexual partner is referred to?

Well, couldn’t the point of ἀμφότεροι be specifically that “both parties have done a terrible deed”, i.e. an explicit negation of the idea that only the who submits is guilty – the point being that this would not refer to any man-on-man anal intercourse, but a case where the passive partner is a free Israelite man (someone who is referred to in the second person, while women, slaves, foreigners etc are referred to in the third).

It’s a whole list of sexual offences where all parties involved are held to be responsible. Compare 20.16: καὶ γυνή, ἥτις προσελεύσεται πρὸς πᾶν κτῆνος βιβασθῆναι αὐτὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἀποκτενεῖτε τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὸ κτῆνος: θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν. Even the animal is ἔνοχος!

[Victor]

@Paul Derouda

Well, couldn’t the point of ἀμφότεροι be specifically that “both parties have done a terrible deed”

Yes, that’s the point. Did I ever imply otherwise? I can’t see where, if I did.

[Archimedes]

@davidhan

I like the language of the Jewish people, 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!

I’m actually a Gentile…