![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, I went to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mysfan4life's lj to check out the fuss (for anyone who's not in Supernatural fandom or who doesn't follow Fandom Wank, she disapproves of homosexuality, incest, and women working outside the home), and discovered some questionable statements she made regarding homosexuality in the Bible. To which I proceeded to respond in an essay of slightly under 1000 words. If anyone's interested, my response is under the cut. Also, I realize that my response doesn't end so much as stop, but I figured that after implying that her Lord and Savior might have been gay, I really had nowhere else to go. (Not meaning any offense to the Christians on my flist; my discussion of Jesus is written in the context of strong homosocial relationships in the Bible, and I'm certainly not presuming to define the nature of his love one way or the other.)
Homosexuality in the Bible
Actually, looking at the social context of Sodom and Gomorrah, the crime that the townspeople were committing wasn't sodomy, but inhospitality. In the ancient Middle East--as in other places, including much of Europe well into the medieval period--offering harm to a guest was pretty much the greatest social transgression imaginable. The townspeople's demand that Lot release his visitors so that they could rape them wasn't a sign of their sexual degeneracy, but of their willingness to transgress their social obligations. This is evident both from the historical context and from the Bible itself. Ezekiel 16:49 reads: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."
This isn't to say that the Old Testament doesn't discuss homosexuality in negative terms, of course; the most common passage touted against homosexuality comes from Leviticus 18: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." However, that passage also is open to reinterpretation. A number of Biblical scholars have suggested that the reason this act is an abomination is due to the intention behind it; if it's done "as with a woman," that implies that the man being addressed is using another man simply as a substitute, despite a lack of emotional connection. These scholars further say that loving, committed homosexual relationships are entirely different from the one described here.
Even if you choose not to follow these scholars' interpretation of Leviticus 18, however, there's still ample reason to question the word "abomination." Though the term is a very negative one in English, the Hebrew word "tovah" simply means "forbidden" or "ritually unclean." So, for instance, Moses said to Pharoah that the Hebrews' sacrifices would necessitate killing animals that were "abominations," because the Egyptians believed that cows and oxen were sacred; the implication isn't that the Hebrews were disgusted by these animals, but that Moses recognized their religious significance for the Egyptians. Some of the other acts that the Old Testament calls "abominations" are: eating seafood that lacks fins and scales, eating certain birds, and eating all insects other than locusts.
Romans 1:24-32 similarly functions in a very different social context from today. Paul was writing in a Graeco-Roman world in which homosexual acts were viewed as inherently hierarchical and (in his view) exploitative/degrading. The highly circumscribed social and sexual roles that the two lovers were supposed to follow would have been anathema to Paul, who believed that all were equal before Christ. His condemnation of homosexual sex, then, was more a condemnation of inequality than of homosexuality.
As for the story of Lot and his daughters, the girls' actions aren't due to "Sodom's influence." In fact, their seduction of their father is seen as a positive thing within the Biblical context. The rationale given by them--of believing that they were the last human beings and it was their responsibility to replenish the earth--is validated elsewhere in the Bible. The first validation comes from Genesis, in which the descendants of Adam and Eve populate the entire earth. :) The second validation is that the sons each of these daughters bore after sleeping with their father, Ammon and Moab, became the patriarchs of great nations. Indeed, Moab was one of the ancestors of King David, who in turn was one of the ancestors of Jesus. Throughout the Bible, being the father or mother of a great nation is one of the highest honors to which someone can aspire, and the ancestors of King David hold an even more privileged position.
Nor are Lot's daughters the only instance in which a supposed sexual sin is justified by the circumstances. So Tamar contrives to sleep with her father-in-law, Judah, when he refuses to marry his youngest son to her--as he was bound to do, according to the levirate marriage law, after her husband died. When her intrigue is discovered, Judah praises Tamar, saying, "She hath been more righteous than I." (Genesis 38:26) Tamar also became one of the ancestors of King David. Similarly, Ruth crept into Boaz's bed not only when they were unmarried, but when she was essentially engaged to his cousin--again, as a result of the levirate marriage law. (It's important to note here that engagement in ancient Israel was almost as binding as marriage, and that if a woman had sex with someone else while she was engaged, she was guilty of adultery.) She is praised for her actions by Boaz, and she becomes another ancestor of King David (after Boaz persuades his cousin to relinquish his claim on Ruth.
While I don't know of any Biblical or historical scholarship that might answer your claim that homosexuality was "rampant" in Biblical times, three of the most loving and deeply felt relationships in the Bible were homosocial. (The extent to which they were homoerotic, as well, is of course unanswerable.) Ruth's words to Naomi, "For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you live, I will live; your people shall be my people, and your God shall be my God," continue to be used in (both heterosexual and homosexual) marriage services, across religious denominations. The relationship between David and Jonathan is similarly emotionally charged. As Samuel 1:18 states, "Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul." Later, when Jonathan has been killed, David laments, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." Finally, in the New Testament, there's the unnamed Beloved Disciple, who's never been positively identified but who traditionally has been read as John the Evangelist. While on the cross, Jesus addresses his mother, saying to her regarding his Beloved Disciple, "Woman, here is your son."
mysfan4life's lj to check out the fuss (for anyone who's not in Supernatural fandom or who doesn't follow Fandom Wank, she disapproves of homosexuality, incest, and women working outside the home), and discovered some questionable statements she made regarding homosexuality in the Bible. To which I proceeded to respond in an essay of slightly under 1000 words. If anyone's interested, my response is under the cut. Also, I realize that my response doesn't end so much as stop, but I figured that after implying that her Lord and Savior might have been gay, I really had nowhere else to go. (Not meaning any offense to the Christians on my flist; my discussion of Jesus is written in the context of strong homosocial relationships in the Bible, and I'm certainly not presuming to define the nature of his love one way or the other.)Homosexuality in the Bible
Actually, looking at the social context of Sodom and Gomorrah, the crime that the townspeople were committing wasn't sodomy, but inhospitality. In the ancient Middle East--as in other places, including much of Europe well into the medieval period--offering harm to a guest was pretty much the greatest social transgression imaginable. The townspeople's demand that Lot release his visitors so that they could rape them wasn't a sign of their sexual degeneracy, but of their willingness to transgress their social obligations. This is evident both from the historical context and from the Bible itself. Ezekiel 16:49 reads: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."
This isn't to say that the Old Testament doesn't discuss homosexuality in negative terms, of course; the most common passage touted against homosexuality comes from Leviticus 18: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." However, that passage also is open to reinterpretation. A number of Biblical scholars have suggested that the reason this act is an abomination is due to the intention behind it; if it's done "as with a woman," that implies that the man being addressed is using another man simply as a substitute, despite a lack of emotional connection. These scholars further say that loving, committed homosexual relationships are entirely different from the one described here.
Even if you choose not to follow these scholars' interpretation of Leviticus 18, however, there's still ample reason to question the word "abomination." Though the term is a very negative one in English, the Hebrew word "tovah" simply means "forbidden" or "ritually unclean." So, for instance, Moses said to Pharoah that the Hebrews' sacrifices would necessitate killing animals that were "abominations," because the Egyptians believed that cows and oxen were sacred; the implication isn't that the Hebrews were disgusted by these animals, but that Moses recognized their religious significance for the Egyptians. Some of the other acts that the Old Testament calls "abominations" are: eating seafood that lacks fins and scales, eating certain birds, and eating all insects other than locusts.
Romans 1:24-32 similarly functions in a very different social context from today. Paul was writing in a Graeco-Roman world in which homosexual acts were viewed as inherently hierarchical and (in his view) exploitative/degrading. The highly circumscribed social and sexual roles that the two lovers were supposed to follow would have been anathema to Paul, who believed that all were equal before Christ. His condemnation of homosexual sex, then, was more a condemnation of inequality than of homosexuality.
As for the story of Lot and his daughters, the girls' actions aren't due to "Sodom's influence." In fact, their seduction of their father is seen as a positive thing within the Biblical context. The rationale given by them--of believing that they were the last human beings and it was their responsibility to replenish the earth--is validated elsewhere in the Bible. The first validation comes from Genesis, in which the descendants of Adam and Eve populate the entire earth. :) The second validation is that the sons each of these daughters bore after sleeping with their father, Ammon and Moab, became the patriarchs of great nations. Indeed, Moab was one of the ancestors of King David, who in turn was one of the ancestors of Jesus. Throughout the Bible, being the father or mother of a great nation is one of the highest honors to which someone can aspire, and the ancestors of King David hold an even more privileged position.
Nor are Lot's daughters the only instance in which a supposed sexual sin is justified by the circumstances. So Tamar contrives to sleep with her father-in-law, Judah, when he refuses to marry his youngest son to her--as he was bound to do, according to the levirate marriage law, after her husband died. When her intrigue is discovered, Judah praises Tamar, saying, "She hath been more righteous than I." (Genesis 38:26) Tamar also became one of the ancestors of King David. Similarly, Ruth crept into Boaz's bed not only when they were unmarried, but when she was essentially engaged to his cousin--again, as a result of the levirate marriage law. (It's important to note here that engagement in ancient Israel was almost as binding as marriage, and that if a woman had sex with someone else while she was engaged, she was guilty of adultery.) She is praised for her actions by Boaz, and she becomes another ancestor of King David (after Boaz persuades his cousin to relinquish his claim on Ruth.
While I don't know of any Biblical or historical scholarship that might answer your claim that homosexuality was "rampant" in Biblical times, three of the most loving and deeply felt relationships in the Bible were homosocial. (The extent to which they were homoerotic, as well, is of course unanswerable.) Ruth's words to Naomi, "For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you live, I will live; your people shall be my people, and your God shall be my God," continue to be used in (both heterosexual and homosexual) marriage services, across religious denominations. The relationship between David and Jonathan is similarly emotionally charged. As Samuel 1:18 states, "Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul." Later, when Jonathan has been killed, David laments, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." Finally, in the New Testament, there's the unnamed Beloved Disciple, who's never been positively identified but who traditionally has been read as John the Evangelist. While on the cross, Jesus addresses his mother, saying to her regarding his Beloved Disciple, "Woman, here is your son."
From:
no subject
- Jesus never mentions homosexuality; the Gospels don't discuss the issue at all.
- The passage in Leviticus can apparently also be read as 'shall not lie with a man in a woman's bed' according to some sources (thus signifying that women are unclean rather than sex).
- The New Testament references can be read, not as a condemnation of homosexuality, but of temple prostitutes, according to some sources.
I can look up where I saw these references if you like.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm)
To summarize, the parts I'm specifically referring to from this page are:
Overview of Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"
The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation.
An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Also, his writing style is very similar to the John who wrote Revelations, and the letters to the faithful members in 1st, 2nd and 3rd John.
I love this paper. People need to understand not to take everything in the scriptures at face value. Things have been translated incorrectly repeatedly, and to learn the original meanings of the words, parables and metaphores you need to understand the languages of the time and all thier little nuances.
Well done. This was fun to read.