I really started this thread to find out what the original language meant at the time it was written and to the people to whom it was directed (i.e. Jewish people). I hope we can keep on that track, at least approximately.
A pederast is a man who has anal intercourse (as the top) with a boy or teen. Just to keep that clear, because I hate blurring the distinction between gay sex and sex with boys.
This thread, if that’s what you mean, is only an attempt to get a clear and correct understanding of what those Hebrew words mean. Not to determine if anyone should live their life by them, or take them seriously. What exactly do they mean is the only question intended here.
Not wrong, but way aside from the targeted point of this thread.
I am trying to understand how Judaism worked through this verse, and that is the illumination I am seeking. Others are free to seek their own illumination, elsewhere if possible.
I’m not an expert on Ancient Greece, but from what I understand of the relationshop between teenage boys and grown, married men, there wasn’t supposed to be any anal sex. Within the context of Greek pederasty, I’ve never seen a historican define it strictly as anal sex.
If you are talking about what is in Leviticus, that book was theoretically written before Rome, and before even the Archaic period of Greece. It is far more likely that a set of Jewish laws was comparing Jewish mores and rules to the cultures around them, whatever they were.
My comment about pederasts was made for the reason I stated, and had nothing to do with ancient practices.
With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings-of a woman. (An) abomination is that
It is not an easy passage to translate. It’s been a while since I read some rather detailed discussion on it. The main issue is “lyings-of”.
That said, the scholarly consensus is that the intent is that it prohibits being the insertive or active partner in male-male sexual intercourse. The sexual ethic of the day was that sex was divided into an active partner and a passive partner. The sin is in the man forcing the other male into the passive, or female role.
And yeah, that gives me a sort of “rapey” vibe. As if no man would actually consent to being the passive partner, so it must be forced.
The issue with translating this as homosexual is that it is very much restricted to a specific sex act, and not the full conceptual package of what “homosexual” means today. It definitely does not prohibit female same sex intercourse, as the concept didn’t even make sense, and women were the property of men in their life.
The idea of being understood as laying in the same bed is weak. Because, well, that would still just be a euphemism for same sex intercourse.
Oh, and the term for male is not one that refers to young men, let alone a child. So pederasty is not in view here.
I was saying contemporary Christian teaching is same sex sexual behaviour is sinful, though maybe I should have said traditional Christian teaching.
I agree with leahcim that the bible only really speaks of homosexual acts rather than a personal identity. If someone personally identifies as a kleptomaniacs does that make it OK for them to steal and anyone who says theft is wrong is a “kleptophobe”.
Thus the prohibition is against a man joining with another male partner in order to gang rape a woman.
I agree- the idea that the prohibition is about lying down in the same bed is strained.
Even Paul is not all that down on homosexuals. He lists a certain type of gay sex as a sin, along with drunkenness, and many others-
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
****Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] **10 **nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
And there are other translations-
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in the KJV (we’ll get to the NIV momentarily) reads:
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [μαλακοὶς], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [ἀρσενοκοῖται], 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
When it comes to homosexuality and the Bible, the two key words in this passage are the Greek words μαλακός (malakós) and ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoítēs), which I’ve bolded in the text above.
μαλακός literally means “soft.” The KJV translates it as “effeminate.” This word was widely used in the ancient world and has a broad range of meanings, including “effeminate.” It appears several other times in the New Testament where it is usually translated as “soft.” But, given that this is just a list without any further context, no one knows for sure exactly what Paul had in mind when he included it in his list of immoral behaviors. It might be referring to weakness of character, or cowardice, or some other moral (but not necessarily sexual) shortcoming.
These posts are off topic. This thread is attempting to be a narrow discussion of the literal translation of a passage of the bible. It is not about the broader moral questions that passage might raise. Even though this is IMHO, this is a very specific, targeted discussion.
Edited to add
After discussion with the other mods, we have decided not to issue a warning for @Jegpeg, however, while this post does represent the viewpoint of many modern Christians, it should be noted that this also comes across as an attack on homosexuals by comparing them to someone who commits illegal acts or has a mental illness. Please refrain from similar posts in the future.
And yet “bed” is one of the meanings of that Hebrew word (apparently). Can we discuss why that usage is strained? To me, it sounds sort of metaphorical. Starting with the idea that the only time two people (man and woman) lie in a woman’s bed is for sex/procreation (not sure if that is correct). So two men lying in a woman’s bed is imitating that, but they can’t procreate, so it’s a bad action. I suppose two men might lie in a man’s bed, and not be considered to be imitating sex with a woman because sex is just not done in a man’s bed. This line of reasoning leads me to suspect that two men fooling around together with anything short of actual penetrative intercourse is of no interests to the religious law. The location restriction makes sense only in light of other, more basic, rules about sex between men and women. I’m not sure if I’m explaining this clearly.
I don’t believe the “bed” is meant to be taken literally. I believe it is a euphemism. Just as “uncovering his feet” can be a euphemism for uncovering a man’s genitalia. I think it is an injunction against a man topping another man. Whether that extends to other sexual conduct i leave to people more knowledgeable than i, but if so, it’s probably rabbinical, rather than a Torah law.
I would call that metaphorical rather than euphemistic, and it’s one that I’ve never heard. In any case, I don’t think we’re that far off in our two interpretations as they stand so far.
I’ve read that it’s a fairly common interpretation of Ruth being told to go to Boaz while he’s in bed and “uncover his feet and lie down, and he will tell you what to do”.
If you look at the section, they are not talking about sleeping arrangements or beds at all— it is about forbidden sexual practices (incest, bestiality, stuff like that). That is, “lying with” means fucking, and they are against a man topping another man; that is what it says.
What, if anything, does the Torah have to say (or is interpreted to say) about anal sex between a man and a woman? That might be relevant to interpreting “lie with as with a woman”.
Short answer: Deprecated as wasting fertility (and interpreted to be the irregularity in Er’s and Onan’s intercourse with Tamar that got them slain: Genesis 38:6-8), but not prohibited in marriage.
Only a biased site thinks that is the right translation. I checked over a dozen translations, that is the only one that had that idea. And i even posted an outlier translation.
With the caveat that some rabbis will consider anything other than missionary-position vaginal sex a violation of the commandment “Thou shalt be holy.”