Read on Twitter
OK, I've been asked by a few folks to redo the thread on same-sex relationships in the Bible so that it's easier to follow b/c 2017 Twitter threads were weird.
So here we go! Same-sex relationships in the Bible! Same classic taste, exciting new packaging.
1/x THREAD
So here we go! Same-sex relationships in the Bible! Same classic taste, exciting new packaging.
1/x THREAD
"Bible" of course means my Bible, the Hebrew Bible, but really I'll focus on Torah, the 5 books of Moses.
We're going to look at two main sources, and then do some broader overview stuff.
So! Let us begin. Sodom.
We're going to look at two main sources, and then do some broader overview stuff.
So! Let us begin. Sodom.
Lot & his peeps are visiting, bad guys want to rape them.
Is the sin of Sodom sodomy, though?
Yes, that's where sodomy got its name. But no, it's not the sin if you read the damn text in Biblical context.
We're in Genesis 19. https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.19?lang=bi&aliyot=0
Is the sin of Sodom sodomy, though?
Yes, that's where sodomy got its name. But no, it's not the sin if you read the damn text in Biblical context.
We're in Genesis 19. https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.19?lang=bi&aliyot=0
Verses 4-6 at the link above.
First of all, what the bad guys wanted was rape and domination--not a loving, engaged, respectful, consensual connection.
First of all, what the bad guys wanted was rape and domination--not a loving, engaged, respectful, consensual connection.
Second, it's clearly a violation of notions of hospitality. "don't do anything to these men, they have come under protection of my roof."
Go to Judges 19. There's a parallel story--like actually parallel, clearly and intentionally using the same language, though TW it's awful-- where the rape does happen, and the person raped is a woman--and it's clearly a horrific sin. https://www.sefaria.org/Judges.19?lang=bi
The sin is assaulting guests, we don't do that. The gender of the guest isn't the q.
Read Judges 19 next to the Sodom story and you'll see that they were written intentionally to echo each other. I'll leave it to the Biblical scholars viz which was first or etc.
Read Judges 19 next to the Sodom story and you'll see that they were written intentionally to echo each other. I'll leave it to the Biblical scholars viz which was first or etc.
Another Biblical text--the book of Ezekiel--makes it clear what the sin was.
"Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquillity; yet she did not support the poor and the needy." https://www.sefaria.org/Ezekiel.16.49?ven=Tanakh:_The_Holy_Scriptures,_published_by_JPS&lang=bi
"Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquillity; yet she did not support the poor and the needy." https://www.sefaria.org/Ezekiel.16.49?ven=Tanakh:_The_Holy_Scriptures,_published_by_JPS&lang=bi
The Rabbis of the Talmud go very clearly in this direction. Here's a piece I wrote about Rabbinic understandings of Sodom and their resonance for today: https://forward.com/opinion/370241/trumps-washington-modern-day-sodom/
Why was Sodom destroyed?
Exploitation. Lack of hospitality. Lack of care for the vulnerable.
Had nothing to do with the specifics of what people did or wanted to do in bed (except that it wasn't consensual.)
Exploitation. Lack of hospitality. Lack of care for the vulnerable.
Had nothing to do with the specifics of what people did or wanted to do in bed (except that it wasn't consensual.)
So, OK. Sin of Sodom isn't sodomy, despite how the people who invented that word may have misread that text. What about Leviticus?
Do not lie with a man the lyings of a woman; it is abhorrent. (Leviticus 18:22) (also see 20:13). There are a few readings of this.
Do not lie with a man the lyings of a woman; it is abhorrent. (Leviticus 18:22) (also see 20:13). There are a few readings of this.
One is that what's being forbidden is, again, rape & domination, given Holiness Code context forbidding eg incest, or cues from Sodom.
Also some suggest it's a way of applying all the anti-incest stuff in the Holiness Code to male relatives.
Also some suggest it's a way of applying all the anti-incest stuff in the Holiness Code to male relatives.
OR it could be problematic bc associated w/idolatry. Some have theorized that male-male sex happened in Canaanite temple cults.
In which case connecting that verse with not sacrificing your kids to Moloch makes a bit more sense.
In which case connecting that verse with not sacrificing your kids to Moloch makes a bit more sense.
That's how the Rabbis sometimes read it.
"Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, 'What is the meaning of the word to’eva [abomination]? To’e ata bah [you will go astray because of it]" Talmud Nedarim 51a
"Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, 'What is the meaning of the word to’eva [abomination]? To’e ata bah [you will go astray because of it]" Talmud Nedarim 51a
Which made sense in their world, when homosexuality and Greco-Roman culture were so intertwined--the things that happened at the bathhouse to Aphrodite and etc.
Here's another theory, from @IdanDershowitz, both the popular summary: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opinion/sunday/bible-prohibit-gay-sex.html
And the more academic paper, if that's your jam: https://www.academia.edu/36473338/Pre-print_Revealing_Nakedness_and_Concealing_Homosexual_Intercourse_Legal_and_Lexical_Evolution_in_Leviticus_18?ends_sutd_reg_path=true
Another Rabbinic read:
Said Raba, Bar Hamduri explained to me as follows: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman [lit. the lyings of a woman]” -- Who is a male who has two “lyings?” Conclude: this is an androginus. (Talmud Yevamot 83b)
Said Raba, Bar Hamduri explained to me as follows: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman [lit. the lyings of a woman]” -- Who is a male who has two “lyings?” Conclude: this is an androginus. (Talmud Yevamot 83b)
AKA here they read Leviticus as saying don't have vaginal sex with an intersex person. Which, OK, isn't very intersex-folks affirming, but is a MUCH narrower way to understand the verse. And yes, it's an exegetical choice, but y'all, we all make choices when we read. You, too.
If you think the verse in Leviticus is clear, that's only because you're bringing your own assumptions and baggage with it, or you're reading a VERY bad translation. As you can see above, the meaning is far from straightforward.
Some Jews who embrace Jewish law--which ultimately did read Leviticus as about homosexuality--say, OK, so no anal sex, but other stuff yes.
(Note that if two people of whatever gender are together, what they decide to do & not do in bed is their own damn business.)
(Note that if two people of whatever gender are together, what they decide to do & not do in bed is their own damn business.)
All this to say, there are LOTS of ways to read these Biblical texts that affirm & celebrate loving partnerships of all gender combos.
Also, you will note that lesbianism is nowhere in this thread. Why? BECAUSE IT'S ABSENT FROM THE BIBLE! (Sorry, Ruth/Naomi shippers)
Also, you will note that lesbianism is nowhere in this thread. Why? BECAUSE IT'S ABSENT FROM THE BIBLE! (Sorry, Ruth/Naomi shippers)
(Sorry, I'll buy the argument about David and Jonathan-"Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.”--but Ruth and Naomi always felt like a stretch.)
ANYWAY. Female homosexuality isn't in the Bible.
ANYWAY. Female homosexuality isn't in the Bible.
Probably because the worldview was that if there wasn't a penis involved, it couldn't possibly be sex.
Rebecca Alpert has a great essay on this in my anthology Passionate Torah, if you're interested. https://bookshop.org/books/the-passionate-torah-sex-and-judaism/9780814776056
Rebecca Alpert has a great essay on this in my anthology Passionate Torah, if you're interested. https://bookshop.org/books/the-passionate-torah-sex-and-judaism/9780814776056
Ah, couple more things on Leviticus. Here's a piece arguing that, based on context cues for where else mishkav is used (uh, lying-place, but perhaps actually bed!) to suggest that what's prohibited is a man having sex with a *married* man! https://www.academia.edu/37045399/A_New_Interpretation_of_Lev_18_22_par._Lev_20_13_and_its_Ethical_Implications
And this! Click into the tweet to see the text pic. https://twitter.com/TheRaDR/status/1138774051088982018
And while not Biblical per se (well, mostly, anyway), if this thread if of interest this book probably will be as well. (There are a ton of queer Jewish resources, not gonna list them all, but @KeshetGLBTJews
is certainly a major one also.) https://bookshop.org/books/a-rainbow-thread-an-anthology-of-queer-jewish-texts-from-the-first-century-to-1969/9780990515562
is certainly a major one also.) https://bookshop.org/books/a-rainbow-thread-an-anthology-of-queer-jewish-texts-from-the-first-century-to-1969/9780990515562
