I was recently told that the word “pais” could mean a male concubine such as when it is used in Matthew chapter 8 in the story of the centaurion. Has anyone ever heard of “pais” being used in this manner?
“p(a)edicabo ego vos et…”?
Male concubine is the extended meaning. Often, pais is used as a male slave child, sexual or non-sexual.
So, without any contextual aid, it is impossible to distinguish between a sexual and non-sexual slave child?
“p(a)edicabo ego vos et…”?
Isn’t that from Catullus, “I will f*** you…”
Why are you citing that qoute?
The Romans evidently couldn’t match the native genius of the Greeks for sexual vocabulary, and so borrowed a lot from them. Pedico is ultimately derived from παῖς.
it’s not so much “I will f*** you”, as “I will bugger you”. I believe a long time ago the good Benissimus translated it as ‘i will make you my boy’.
the expletive,however, to me at least best translates Catullus sexual hostility which is the heart of the poem. “I will sodomize” is probably the best literal translation.
Haha! now we are talking about an interpretation of the poem! that’s a whole different matter. I haven’t read the poem in quite some time, but doesn’t Mr C react to his friends accusations that he is too effeminate by a range of sexual ‘expletives’, while claiming that just because his poems may talk of kisses and cuddles, he is still a real man?
I really just intended to point out a connexion between the word ‘pais’ and sex with boys.
Or female slave, or son, or daughter. It is used in prophesy of Christ as Son of God.
I don’t know how common the sexual extended(?) meaning is but I did not see a reference in the lexica I checked. (LSJ was not available on Perseus.)
LSJ just defines it as a slave and does not refer to whether it is sexual or non-sexual
there isn’t any indication that in this particular passage of Matthew παῖς should be taken to mean anything else than a “child”.
I do not see why, then, we should force the passage to imply more than it says at first glance.
by the way, I don’t recall to have met, during my reading of the Gospels, an occurrence of παῖς in the meaning of “servant, slave”.
my impression is that this was a classical/classicizing usage rather than a meaning of the word in the current speech of the day more or less reflected in the NT.
maybe someone with better knowledge of Biblical Greek will confirm or refute my impressions.
Luke 7 uses pais in one verse and doulos in another for the same person.
Matthew 8 tells of the same incident and also uses pais.
Luke 15:26 is more likely one of his servants than one of his childeren.
Matthew 14:2 uses pais for what has to be servants.
thanks for clarifying that, Bert!
it seems, then, that in our passage (Matthew 8 ) παῖς could mean “servant” after all, since Luke 7 where δοῦλος is used obviously refers to the same incident. I should have been more careful with the scriptural cross-references which are neatly ordered in the margins of my Nestle-Aland edition…
still, had it not been for the parallel beteen Matthew and Luke, nothing in the Matthew passage alone suggests what exactly is meant by παῖς. I wonder why this is so and why the author of the Gospel used such an ambivalent term when he could have easily escaped any ambiguity by simply using another word.
after all, clarity has always been considered a virtue of Greek prose, and this should hold true especially when one aimed at converting people of relatively humble origin and non-Greek provenance (as was the case of the Gospels, I imagine).
I think you might find it helpful to relate the term to the semantic range of the English word “boy.”
Following the posted arguments, linguistically, I would assume that reading Pais to mean the Centurion’s homosexual lover would be a fair interpretation of Pais in this context-- that is given the ambiguity of the word, and that the author could have used a more precise word for a mere servant. I also thing the cultural context supports this meaning. Given our understanding of Greek and Roman society in the first century and in the hostile atmosphere of Judea – why would a centurion bother to go ask a Jewish rabbi about a mere servant? I suppose that just as the word pais might mean merely servant, there might have been a Roman centurion inclined to begging for the a transient healer to heal his servant, slave boy. – lol Given the linguistic arguments and given the culture, I’m betting my money on this being a very special kind of “boy” to this centurion. Especially, if as is likely, the dude is Greek.lol Sorry, I could not resist that ancient barb.
Re: MATTHEW 8:5
The Centurian knew that Jesus was so powerful
to heal his servant with just speaking the word,
and knew all about his life too. Do you think that
if the Centurian was living in sodomy with his servant
that he would even come face to face with Jesus and
dare to ask such a favor for his servant, knowing that
Jesus who is the Word, condemns sodomy and those
who practice it?
What an insinuation to make!
If you want to know the Greek translation
of a Biblical word, you must get into the Spirit
of the Word.
And be careful not to blasheme.
5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum,
there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick
of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord,
I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof:
but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me:
and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another,
Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this,
and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them
that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found
so great faith, no, not in Israel.
…13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way;
and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.
And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
Getting back to the topic of this forum (not the blasphemous false statements of JOJA), I know very little about Greek but quite a lot about the Roman army and politics. The short version is that Centurions were not allowed to be married. They were not allowed to have ever been married. Therefore they did not have children. No Centurion would EVER admit to having an illegitimate child either, because at best they would lose their position, and perhaps be banished or exiled. However, it was not unknown for a Centurion to fall in love with a woman in the area he was serving in, and after his “commission” expired he would marry her. The reasoning was both practical and political. Firstly & most importantly, Centurions were selected from the general geographic area in which they served, were made Roman citizens if they weren’t already, and marriage would potentially involve a high military officer in local political intrigue which the Romans didn’t think would encourage loyalty to Rome rather than to local political intrigues.
Centurions were high-ranking officers, and had servants; in the ancient world, including Jews in Judea/Israel, servants were almost always slaves (often indentured, “bondservants”, those who couldn’t pay their debts; just as often, captured during a military operation and kept as a slave rather than killed). Often, a Centurion’s slaves were servants to the men under his command as well, including for “sexual favors”.
So “pais” in Matthew could not possibly be the Centurion’s child. I would think it would be understood as “boy” in the sense of having a particular fondness for the person, and a sexual relationship would certainly be implied. Elsewhere in the Matthew passage the pais is refered to as “doulos”, the formal word for “slave”, but the Centurion himselff uses a term of endearment. This endearment is also clear in how others describe the sick slave to Jesus.
I can’t help but scold JOJA for his post: he repeats false and anti-Christian teachings. Nowhere does Jesus condemn sodomy or anything even hinting at homosexuality. And if we take Jesus at his word (that means he is not lying in order to lead us into temptation and false teachings), He came to do away with rigid adherence to Old Testament laws, EXCEPT to have no other god before Him/God, love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As for whether a sinful Centurion would dare to seek out Jesus, where in the world did you, joja, get the idea that the NT presents Jesus as unapproachable by sinful people. This is the wackiest twisting of the NT I have seen in a long time. This forum is seeking to seek out the meaning of NT text, not to be twisted by preconceived homophobic falsehoods.
Gotta say I agree. I was surprised to read above that Jesus condemned homosexuals. It was he who said that some people are eunuchs from birth. What is a eunuch from birth? These are people born without sexual affection for women, who could be trusted over a harem. With all of his preaching about turning the other cheek, about showing mercy to all (except for the religiously hypocritical), spending time with prostitutes without condemning them, and these subtle hints about his ideas regarding people who are not “normal” (in addition to this text in Matthew, where he clearly doesn’t get upset that the centurion makes this request), I just don’t see a Jesus who hates homosexuals or condemns homosexuality. That just doesn’t appear anywhere in the text of the Gospels. Rather, it is in Paul’s letters that such opinions surface. I find often that Christians can/do not distinguish between what Jesus said and what others wrote in the NT.
It’s not uncommon to hear “Jesus said” followed by a quote from Paul or John.
The sexual meaning is implicit in their status as slaves. Slaves could be used as sex objects in any occasion.