Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 1. Cor. 6:9-10

Expand Messages
  • ualarauans
    ... Right, it s Leviticus 18:22. Hebrew: we et-zakhar lo tishkav mishkvei isha: to eva hu. Septuagint: KAI META ARSENOS OU KOIMHQHSHi KOITHN GUNAIKOS: BDELUGMA
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Michael Erwin <merwin@...> wrote:
      > [...]
      > I've read that arsenokoites is a reference to Leviticus 18 and one
      > other chapter.

      Right, it's Leviticus 18:22.

      Hebrew: we'et-zakhar lo tishkav mishkvei isha: to'eva hu.

      GAR ESTIN.

      KJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is

      The term ARSENOKOITHS seems to have been intentionally formed from
      words of this passage.

      > Since we don't have Leviticus, we don't have Wulfila's
      > translation of those passages either.

      I'd suggest the following reconstruction:

      jah miþ gumakundamma ni ligais ligr qinons: andaset auk ist.

      The etymological figure ligan ligr (or galigri) may have sounded
      foreign. Better ideas?

      > However, it's possible that the omission comes from the translation
      > instead of the Greek source. I suppose that Gothic culture may have
      > worked with different categories regarding sex,

      This is very likely. I remember Procopius made report of
      homosexuality practised among the Heruls. Or was it just a slander?

      > [...]
      > Kalkjo (f) suggests *kalkeis (m) (or phrases such
      > as wair-*kalkeis and, to the shame of mankind, magus-*kalkeis) but
      > inventions pose several problems.

      If kalkjo is indeed kalkjo F.-on then the male equivalent could be
      *kalkja M.-an as well or even likelier. The attested dat. pl.
      kalkjom (Luc. 15:30) may also suggest *kalki F.-jo, and in this case
      masculine *kalkeis M.-ja is quite regular. I wonder could
      kalkinassus have referred rather to women's adultery while the Greek
      word to translate (MOICOI) is masculine?

    • llama_nom
      ... For Old English, I can only find bléaþ (a-stem). If it had been an i/ja-stem, the vowel would be mutated in West Saxon: *blíeþe.
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@...> wrote:

        > ON blauðr is a-stem while its cognates (OE bleaðe, OS blôthi) are i-
        > or ja-stems. What could be the Gothic form?

        For Old English, I can only find 'bléaþ' (a-stem). If it had been an
        i/ja-stem, the vowel would be mutated in West Saxon: *blíeþe.


        That still leaves the disagreement between OE and ON on the one hand,
        and OHG blôdi and OS blôði on the other. Sometimes such variations
        may be due to the word having once been a u-stem. The OED suggests
        this possibility in the case of OE íeþe : ON auðr : Go. auþj-. But
        this isn't a surefire way of predicting the declension in Gothic, cf.
        Go. hauns (a-stem? i-stem?) : OE héan : OHG hôni. So, for all we
        know, *blauþ- could have been an a-stem, ja-stem or u-stem in Gothic:
        ?*blauþs, ?*blauþeis, ?*blauþus. (On its own the Old Norse a-stem
        carries less weight as evidence than the West German forms, since many
        adjectives were reassigned to the a-stem declension there.)

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.