I can think of many things you might have said as to why you disagree with that translation, but this is not an effective one, nor is it good argumentation.
I am not married (so to speak) to that interpretation, indeed I wrote about some of the questions that it raises, which to me make an interesting discussion. You seem to want to brush it off the table with an ad hominem charge of bias and so to end that part of the discussion entirely.
Another vote for Dan McClellan’s videos on this topic. He is a scholar of the Bible, holds multiple degrees up to doctorate, and speaks/reads/comprehends the languages the Bible was written.
One in important point he brings up repeatedly is that how we understand “homosexual” and how prior civilizations understood “homosexuality” are quite different.
He takes a very scholarly approach that I think dovetails with the OP’s desire for knowledge and understanding.
Here is an introductory video just under 10 minutes long (a lot of his videos run to an hour, sometimes more). If you find this video helpful then I encourage you to watch more on this topic by this man. If you can’t stand this guy then don’t.
I never tried to lung with a man, but it sounds breathtaking.
How about my other points?
For those who would rather read than watch, here is a discussion of Dan’s ideas-
- The terms in question used in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are arsenokoitai and malakoi. The former term is a specific reference to a man who “inserts” into another man, while the latter term reference the man who “receives” it. Those verses, therefore, are condemning the actual sexual acts. (This also applies to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). They aren’t commenting on our modern notion of “sexual orientation.” McClellan is correct when he says, “The Bible cannot possibly be saying homosexuality as a reference to sexual orientation is an abomination because the concept of sexual orientations didn’t exist at the time in any way that remotely resembles the way we think about them today” (171).
- He also is correct when he says the biblical authors viewed those acts “cultic, exploitative, and abusive acts,” and that “The idea of a loving, monogamous homosexual relationship wouldn’t occur to them” (171). I would add that they probably saw such acts as being part of the cultic “worship” in pagan temples. And yes, the idea of a monogamous homosexual relationship wouldn’t have occurred to them. Basically, yes, those Bible verses are condemning specific sexual acts between men, and yes, they were probably viewed in the context of pagan worship, but no, they aren’t commenting on what we in the modern world call “sexual orientation.”
My understanding is that the Jewish (and Islamic) interpretations are that a prohibition of a specific act is a prohibition against that specific act, that is, there is no prohibition against being super gay.
Really? “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”= Kosher law forbids mixing any kosher meat (mammals) with dairy products. (also Chicken, Poultry, etc )
In relation to the whole meat+ dairy issue, two points:
Different Jews actually do have slightly different interpretation of that law. For examples, Sephardic Jews extend that to not mixing fish and dairy whereas Ashkenazim have no problem with fish and dairy together and only prohibit the combination with land/air animals (mammals and birds). With the usual disclaimer that this is meant to be a general statement as I’m sure you could find exceptions if you looked hard enough. So while the law as stated in the Torah seems pretty straightforward different groups of Jews have come up with differing ways of observing it, possibly more strict than originally intended.
Also, I have recently heard something about a Canaanite fertility ritual involving literally boiling an animal in the milk of the mother than gave birth to it. I can not confirm or deny that this is a thing at this point (I’m trying to research it) but IF such a ritual existed the original intent might have been to prohibit that particular ritual and not a more general rule. Which is interesting food for thought. A prohibition against a specific act becoming a more generalized prohibition.
Those rules are Talmudic in origin, not scriptural. Look into the concept of “building a fence around the Torah”.
I was talking about Interpretations, in answer to that post.
Do try to keep up.
FWIW, I understand the sole reference to the “Canaanite fertility ritual” thus referenced to be from an Ugaritic text called “The Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods”, but the specific part of the tablet that references the ritual were damaged to the point where the reading is pretty much confirmed to have been a “motivated” reading (to provide a back story for the commandment).
Before watching this, can you specify what you mean by “this topic?” For myself, I don’t happen to be interested in what the rest of the bible says about homosexual acts, only to understand better this one verse. Yes, that’s a narrow focus.
On this general point, which includes the idea that there was no condemnation of the condition of having the sexual orientation of “homosexual” because that concept didn’t exist, I understand this is probably true. It is no comfort at all to me, in so far as I might care about what the bible says, to be told that I am okay as a person even though my sexual urges are an abomination and I must not follow any of them, ever. Passionate celibacy holds no appeal for me.
This is a side issue, however.
How about this point? Can you and will you acknowledge that the part of your post that I quoted would have been better omitted as it was based on ad hominem, and served no useful purpose in the discussion? (Here is that quotation again:)
You are suggesting that there is a “building the fence around the Torah” interpretation that proscribes homosexuality in and of itself. Please provide a citation.
I never had the impression Judaism was overly concerned with what thoughts run through a person’s head, only what they do. Eating meat and dairy is an act, not a mental state, so it is not an analogous interpretation.
This is true. And also, Judaism does not, in general, prohibit sexual desire that would be inappropriate to directly fulfill. (Lusting in your heart, so to speak.) I studied Talmud with a group for a few months. And one of the passages we read was about a young sage who was very attractive. He used to hang out near the exit of the women’s mikvah.
You need to know that in Jewish law, women are not allowed to have sex when they have their period, because the menstrual blood makes them unclean. So after their period is over (plus a few days) they go to the mikvah to ritually cleanse themselves, and then they can have sex with their husbands.
So this attractive young man used to position himself where all the newly sexually available women would see him, so that they would have beautiful children (with their husbands) though sympathetic magic. I think it was understood both that they would be attracted to him, and that he enjoyed seeing them, even though they would have been dressed “modestly”.
The prohibition against a man topping another man is absolutely about the sexual action, and not about same-sex love, which is pretty commonly described between men in Jewish sources.
E.g. David and Jonathan, who clearly have something resembling a romantic relationship between them, even if it is a chaste one.
Also, men are encouraged to study Talmud in pairs, and it’s clear that sometimes those pairs are very close.
As an aside, one of my favorite Jewish jokes involves such a pairing.
Moshe and David are talking together after their weekly Talmud study.
“David,” Moshe says, “We’ve known each other for twenty years, and I’d like to ask you a favor. My daughter Chava is getting married next week. Would you do me the honor of being one of her witnesses?”
David smiles and responds “I’d love to, Moshe, but I can’t. I’m not actually Jewish. I took an interest in Judaism a long time ago, but I never actually got around to converting.”
“Impossible!” Moshe responds. “We’ve been studying Talmud together every weekend for fifteen years!”
David responds; “I find it intellectually stimulating.”
Moshe says “But you never miss any of the High Holidays! I’ve never even seen you miss Shabbat!”
David: “What can I say? I love the community I’ve found here.”
Moshe: “But you’re shomer Shabbat! You know as well as I do that the Talmud says a Gentile isn’t allowed to keep Shabbat!”
David: “I’ve actually been breaking it in secret all these years. When I leave the house for shul on Shabbat morning, I slip a key into my pocket.”
Moshe: “But we have an eruv!”
David: “Feh. I don’t hold by that eruv.”
Taking bits of the Bible out of context has led to a lot of trouble in this world. Yes, you asked a very specific question but the greater context is required. Judaism, from my experience, is more concerned with orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. Correct practice rather than correct belief. Belief does, at some point, enter into religious life but how you act rather than your internal landscape is what is discussed for the most part. For someone who is not Jewish the concern is even more so with actions rather than internal feelings/beliefs/urges.
The people who wrote Leviticus 18:22 did not have a concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation. They were forbidding a specific act. Thus, your sexual urges and desires to perform such an action would not be the “abomination”, only the act itself.
So now the question is the specific act meant by the verse.
What, exactly, is meant by “lying with a man as with a woman”? The usual interpretation I’ve heard/read, in more blunt and modern terminology, is one man penetrating another man with his penis, typically with implications of it being anal sex. That’s the act - it says absolutely nothing about any other form of intimacy between men. Indeed, the Bible is chock full of men kissing other men, embracing other men, and otherwise carrying on in a manner much of contemporary Anglophone society would see as “gay”. I don’t see any prohibition against oral sex, unless you want to interpret that as “lying with a man as with a women”. But many do not, and in one (in)famous case a powerful politician even denied that oral sex was in fact sex within our lifetime. But he’s Christian so maybe that doesn’t count for this discussion.
Anyhow, moving along, you might also ask how modern Judaism interprets that verse, seeing as Leviticus is Jewish in origin. Reform Judaism fully recognizes same sex marriage, whether male or female. Conservative Judaism is, well, more conservative but as of 2012 the Conservative branch recognizes and provides guidance to same-sex couples.. Officially, they’re not OK with anal sex between men but sex in some form other than anal, marriage, households, and raising kids in a same sex partnership is not only OK but tolerated and even in some places celebrated.
I will note, however, that there are some technical details involving exact terminology involving a religious union versus a civil or secular union. I don’t think going into the weeds on that helps answer your question. The descendants of the people who wrote Leviticus 18:22 are not wholly united over the interpretation of that verse but a lot of them interpret it narrowly and don’t have a problem with same sex partners being full members of the community and fully participating in community life while openly living as a same sex couple. Does that answer your question? I don’t know - it’s the best I can offer. Leviticus 18:22 prohibits anal sex, it does not say anything about anything else.
I am even less a homosexual man than I am a Biblical scholar or student of the Torah so I can’t speak for the greater implications of barring anal sex from homosexual practice but not other forms of homosexual intimacy or sex play, but that’s how I read the verse. No anal sex between men, nothing said about anything else. That’s also how a lot of other Jews view it, including people who know a heck of a lot more about Jewish law and observance than I ever will. YMMV.
And also, even male on male anal sex is only punishable under Jewish law of it’s witnessed by two practicing Orthodox men. Which means in practice it’s never really been punishable.
(If it’s not too much of a hijack)
What, then, is the Jewish interpretation of the commandment against “coveting” (Exodus 20:17)?
Your explanation is perfectly clear. It’s your thinking that isn’t clear.