Doctor X

DM:

About two years ago, the Journal of Biblical Literature published a good article on the Leviticus Codes which demonstrates that it is not a behavior but a position that is condemned.

In other words . . . better to give than receive. . . .

This rule applies to class--rape of, say, prisoners of war was considered a valid action in the region and there is no reason to suspect it was not amongst the people of the time. Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, the only "rules" were that one does not "receive" from one of a lower class. Thus, the passage--to greatly simplify the argument--prevents this debasement rather than the behavior of homosexuality. I know I quoted the damn thing someplace earlier.

The KJV does not at all translate the passage well.

FYI

--J.D.

mark9950

A man lie with mankind like a woman.men have a penis and women have a vagina?

The only way the above can be done is if a man has anal with a man and a women,which hetero sodomy there is nothing wrong as long as thay are married.

Hebrews somewhere talking about the marriage bed


Talk about hypocritical?

-DM-

You are always safe, of course, when you use a qualifier such as "may" with regard to what someone imagines, but the fact is that Bible translators are generally experts in the languages (Hebrew and Greek, for example) from which they are translating. I tend to trust them much more so than I do a gay person who is trying to convince us that the Greek which is here translated "eunuch" means "homosexual"--especially given both the Old Testament injunctions against homosexuality and given what Paul [allegedly] said regarding homosexuality.

Unfortunately all of the search links to that essay which I could find, including Malik's home page itself, were broken. There is, however, an essay which may be essentially the same: IS THE BIBLE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY?. If you know how to get to Malik's page, simply cut and paste the URL into vBulletin. vBulletin will do the rest.

I did. What is it that you hoped that I would get out of it?

-Don-

-DM-

I'm sorry, but I am usure what you mean by "a position."

It isn't just the KJV which translates this passage in this fashion.

KJV: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

ASV: And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

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

YLT: And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

DNT: And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them.

NASB: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

NIV: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

NCV: If a man has sexual relations with another man as a man does with a woman, these two men have done a hateful sin. They must be put to death. They have brought it on themselves.

GWT: When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.

NLT: The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Believer's Study Bible commentary: LEV 20:13 Homosexuality carried the death penalty in ancient Israel and is as strongly denounced in the N.T. as in the O.T.

---------

Further, if taken in context with the next three verses it seems quite clear that no matter what you mean by "a position," sexual relations, per se, are the subject of these verses:

LE 20.14-16: And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them..

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: "LEVITICUS 20:9-18
Whoever cursed father or mother was to be punished with death (Lev 19:3); “His blood would be upon him.” The cursing of parents was a capital crime (see at Lev 17:4, and for the plural Ex 22:1 and Gen 4:10), which was to return upon the doer of it, according to Gen 9:6. The same punishment was to be inflicted upon adultery (v. 10, cf. Lev 18:20), carnal intercourse with a father’s wife (v. 11, cf. ch. 18:7-8) or with a daughter-in-law (v. 12, cf. Lev 18:17), sodomy (v. 13, cf. ch. 18:22), sexual intercourse with a mother and her daughter, in which case the punishment was to be heightened by the burning of the criminals when put to death (v. 14, cf. Lev 18:17), lying with a beast (vv. 15, 16, cf. ch. 18:23), sexual intercourse with a half-sister (v. 17, cf. Lev 18:9 and 11), and lying with a menstruous woman (v. 18, cf. Lev 18:19). The punishment of death, which was to be inflicted in all these cases upon both the criminals, and also upon the beast that had been abused (vv. 15, 16), was to be by stoning, according to vv. 2, 27, . . . ."

-Don-

Scandal

Hi DM,
What am I supposed to be feeling SAFE about? I don't know you but you seem a bit smug in your opinion regarding biblical translations. Do you consider the word SEEM safe too?

Anyway, Faris Malik IS qualified IMO to translate the word eunuch from the passage that we are discussing.

He has researched the subject of eunuchs and ancient conceptions of sex and gender identity for at least 8 yrs. Try going to www.well.com/user/aquarius/bio.htm

I doubt if your expert Bible translators have spent near as much time on one word.

You said: "I did. What is it that you hoped that I would get out of it?"

I don't know, I didn't get much out of it....on second thought, never mind.

-DM-

I was referring to what is safe, not what you are supposed to feel when it comes to speculating about what another person might imagine.

"Secure" in my opinion would be a more accurate word to describe how I feel than "smug."

And yes, I definitely consider it safer to qualify with "seem" than to state what amounts to speculation as if it were fact, don't you?

I would have to know something about his qualifications. At this point I know nothing about his qualifications. At this point, knowing that the vast majority of the research to attempt to prove that the Bible and/or Jesus do not really condemn homosexuality, or that "born eunuch" really means "homosexual" has been done by gay persons who obviously have a vested interest in the outcome of their research causes me to be suspicious with regard to their conclusions. At this point, I tend to trust Bible translators more than I trust gay researchers where there is a vested interest in a given outcome. Of course, the fact of the matter is that most Bible translators also happen to be Christians (at least in the case of translators of the NT) and they also have something of a vested interest, usually, in translating so that there are no major changes to traditional theology.

That URL didn't work for me before and still doesn't work for me.

The amount of time spent researching one word does not necessarily have anything to do with the accuracy of one's research, of course, although other things being equal, it should.

Hmmn. I was hoping to find out.

-Don-

Scandal

Damn Don, I was hoping that you would be able to read Malik's essay.

Yes, I agree that it is good to qualify a speculation with 'seem' or 'may' rather than stating it as a fact.

You say secure-toes, I say smug-tatoes.......

Toto

I thought that Uta Ranke-Heinemann's Eunuchs of the Kingdom of Heaven might throw some light on this, but she seems not to be very interested in the exact definition of eunuch, although she does refer to eunuchs with wives, which doesn't make sense under any definition.

I was able to get to that link. The author searched literature from all ancient and some modern cultures (from his Intro:

It would be nice if he had identified this source, but I gather from Chapter 1 that he is relying on the Roman jurist Ulpian:

He goes on to list references in the Code of Hammurabi to the offspring of eunuchs, and intriguing passages to the laws of Manu, the Talmud. He seems to be making a case that "eunuch" can refer to any male with any sexual abnormality.

I am not interested enough in this topic to read through all of this right now. I think that the basic problem with the thesis here is that ancient societies did not recognize a category of "homosexual", which is a modern invention. But it does appear that "eunuch" has a broader definition that I originally thought.

Scandal

Thanks for the post Toto!

Doctor X

DM and Others:

I thought I had discussed this on another thread . . . so bear with me . . . I am not sure how the Hebrew will work out. . . . I will try to provide the English as best as possible. Unfortunately, these journals "assume" you know the language!! Assume that mistakes . . . "is that a Zayin or a Vav?" . . . are mine. Much of this post is a summary of Walsh's paper referenced below.

"lying with a male the lying down of a woman":

Saul M. Olyan wrote a paper in the Journal of the History of Sexuality where he discussed Lev 18:22 and 20:13 and demonstrated that the laws refer specifically to male-male anal intercourse rather than male-male sexual contact in general . . . Clinton is still safe [Stop that.--Ed.]

Olyan discussed the meaning of ה$א יבכ$מ--Het-Shin-Alef Yod-Bet-Kaf-Shin-Mem--"the act or condition of a woman's being penetrated" or "vaginal receptivity"--which occurs in the Hebrew Bible in only these two verses. A correlative phrase exists--רכז בכ$מ--Resh-Kaf-Zayin Bet-Kaf-Shin-Mem--"lying down of a male"--contained in Num 31:17-18; 34 and Judg 21:11-12, which distinguish between virgins and non-virgin. Non-virginal women have known רכז בכ$מ--Resh-Kaf-Zayin Bet-Kaf-Shin-Mem--"lying down of a male." Olyan concludes that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 which prohibit the "lying with a male the lying down of a woman" considers anal penetration analogous to the vaginal penetration of a woman by a man.

The paper then compares the Israelite legislation to that in other ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures:

Thus, Walsh argues one should not consider that the Leviticus laws apply to the active partner rather than the receptive partner since this deviates from Greek, Roman, and even Assyrian understanding. Regarding the Assyrians, Walsh notes that condemnations directed to the active partner seem to occur only in cases of coercion.

Olyan concludes that the Levitical laws, "ban all male couplings involving anal penetration, seemingly those coerced and those voluntary; those with men of higher status, equal status, or lower status; those with men of one's own community or another community."

Walsh agrees that the laws "refer specifically to the penetrative act," and footnotes another scholar, Boyarin, who states based on the same textual analysis, "As the Talmud understood it, male-male sexual practices other than anal intercourse are not prohibited by the Torah. . . ." He disagrees with Olyan that the laws addres both partners, active and passive. He notes that Olyan considers "to lie with" and "to know" are synonymous and interchangeable. He argues to the contrary:

Walsh continues by noting that Olyan recognizes that "Iraelite legislation is, by and large, addressed to the free male Israelite citizen. . . . Other social classes were not addressed directly by the laws; they were spoken about, but they were not spoken to." Walsh concludes:

Thus, DM, they do indeed prohibit a "position" rather than a "relationship." English translations that you cite involve interpretation--as do all translations. They interpret the passage, if you believe Olyan and Walsh, incorrectly to prohibit an entire behavior which would seem rather strange given the external evidence from the ancient world. Leviticus would have been more specific methinks.

--J.D.

References:

Boyarin D, "Are There Any Jews in 'The History of Sexuality'?" Journal of the History of Sexuality 5 (1994): 339-40.

Olyan SM, "'And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman': On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13," Journal of the History of Sexuality 5 (1994): 179-206.

Walsh JT, "Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Who is Doing What to Whom?" Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 201-209.

[Edited to correct a reference.--Ed.]