The recently released Queen James Bible, according to its publishers, is a new version that is translated “in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.” Here is what they say on the Bible’s Amazon purchase page:
Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this—only interpretations have been made. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!
“The edits,” say the Bible’s publishers, “all confirm that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and therefore renders such interpretations impossible.”
While the King James Bible is the most popular English Bible, this new version, they argue, is truer to the man himself:
Commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most Christians, King James I was a well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as “Queen James.” It is in his great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so.
The publishers of this “big, fabulous Bible,” I might add, have remained anonymus, listing the author as God and the contributor as Jesus Christ.
In an interview with he Christian Post, Christopher Yuan, an adjunct instructor of the Bible at Moody Bible Institute, said that these ”revisionist interpretations which attempt to affirm homosexual sex and relationships have been around for decades. This is just another attempt to make these revisionist interpretations official or more mainline.”
Here’s are a few of examples (my emphasis):
Jude 1:7
King James Version:
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Queen James Version:
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after nonhuman flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Leviticus 18:22
KJV:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.
QJV:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination.
Romans 1:27
KJV:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
OJV:
Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
The Editor’s notes offer a full account of the changes made in the new translation along with the reasoning.
December 14th, 2012 | 11:49 am
A modest proposal: invent a “straight” Bible, a “transgendered” Bible, a “bisexual” Bible, a “fill in your urge” Bible, a “San Francisco” Bible, a “Kansas” Bible, and then let readers vote with their dollars.
Hurrah for “choice!” Just another happy day in the neighbourhood.
December 14th, 2012 | 11:58 am
It really does seem fanciful to suppose that a code of laws, for that is what Leviticus is, should have been so utterly misunderstood by those who were to interpret and apply it. That is should have happened in the case of laws divinely revealed is simply preposterous.
December 14th, 2012 | 12:10 pm
The overall idea is so horrible that one wonders if the anonymous creators of The Queen James Bible are not homophobes playing dirty tricks. The campy name and the use of the word fabulous to describe the product are reminiscent of gay culture of the 1950s. To whom is this going to appeal?
December 14th, 2012 | 12:12 pm
I don’t get it. If
“…in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this.”
then why not stay with the original King James, which was published a bit before 1946?
December 14th, 2012 | 12:16 pm
David, cut the ad hominem. “It’s so bad, those who disagree with me must have done it, because people who agree with me are better than that.”
Now, had you suggested The Onion had done it, that would have been a different story.
December 14th, 2012 | 1:08 pm
David, cut the ad hominem. “It’s so bad, those who disagree with me must have done it, because people who agree with me are better than that.”
Mike Melendez,
Try to conceal your personal animosity.
To say, “The overall idea is so horrible that one wonders if the anonymous creators of The Queen James Bible are not homophobes playing dirty tricks,” is not an “ad hominem” attack against anyone. The core thought is that The Queen James Bible is a horrible idea. I did not say, “This is so bad it is obviously the work of homophobes trying to make gay people look bad.” I don’t know who is behind it. I don’t know why they would choose such utter anonymity. (The ownership of the domain name of the web site is concealed.) The book is not registered with the Library of Congress. If you would like me to rephrase, I could say, “A group of homophobes trying to make gay people look bad could hardly have come up with a better idea. If this is the work of gay people, they ought to have their heads examined.
I would be interested in knowing more about the people behind this. I don’t believe they are scholars. They may be utterly sincere, but I am suspicious of anyone who seeks to hide his or her real name. I don’t know why anyone would waste money on this book. If you want the KJV, get a nice copy for less than $34 and print out the changes listed on the book’s web site.
An article I just discovered associates the project with San Francisco Episcopal minister Reverend J. Pearson of Holy Innocents Church.
December 14th, 2012 | 1:28 pm
I do not like the ‘Queen’ or the ‘Fabulous’, but one could argue that to embrace the stereotype is a show of strength. However, being that the bible before 1946 allowed for abuses by homophobes, to produce a version that makes it impossible to do so is a good idea.
I just checked Amazon and have seen where the ‘goodly traditional Christians’ are out in their numbers, spreading their hate. The mere fact that all their disagreements are based on their hate and not challenging the historical basis on which the QJV Scholars based their interpretation, tells that those hate-mongers are not concerned about truth.
Love will win in he end. The QJV is a start.
December 14th, 2012 | 1:41 pm
I see only a slight difference between this special interest Bible and those already available on the market: The Possibility Thinker’s Bible, The Patriot’s Bible, God’s Little Princess Bible, Life Recovery Bible, Woman Thou Art Loosed Bible, etc. ad nauseum. All of these, including the Queen James Version, aim to tame the scriptures and use their authority to legitimate a certain way of life.
December 14th, 2012 | 3:07 pm
I just checked Amazon and have seen where the ‘goodly traditional Christians’ are out in their numbers, spreading their hate.
Putt,
Yes, it is amazing how often people defending Christian ideas, especially Biblical ones, become angry and hostile. Many of the Amazon reviewers have read only a little bit about the book and feel qualified to condemn it. Interestingly, all the “reviews” are dated either yesterday or today. And only a little less amazing is how seldom Christians who aren’t angry or hostile step in and say, “Now, now . . . let’s remember what Jesus said about being angry and calling names.”
December 14th, 2012 | 4:29 pm
“Now, now . . . let’s remember what Jesus said about being angry and calling names.”
Jesus is described as angry and calls people names at several points in the Bible. What he doesn’t do is condescend to them.
December 14th, 2012 | 6:19 pm
(2 Peter 2:1-10) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. (KJV)
December 14th, 2012 | 8:53 pm
Patrick, YES.
December 15th, 2012 | 12:01 am
[...] appreciate getting survival gear for Christmas, perhaps they would enjoy getting a new Bible. The Queen James Bible, to be precise. Look, I really can’t make this stuff [...]
December 15th, 2012 | 12:05 am
IF you read the original languages the bible was written in, Hebrew and Greek, then the English translations are correct and any attempt to change the wording is just self-serving. God is God, God said what He meant and meant what He said, and you can change it anyway you want to, but that does not change what God Himself actually said. The surgeon general has said that smoking is directly linked to lung cancer, and I can go around telling people “no, this is what he really meant” and tweak it anyway that I want, but does it make what I said the truth? Of course not!
December 15th, 2012 | 1:45 am
What is interesting however is no serious Biblical student or scholar can take these new translations seriously. All one must do is look at the syntax of what is available In the Hebrew and Greek to see that these revisions are simply an attempt to cover up the truth.
December 15th, 2012 | 8:44 am
Patrick -
We are not Jesus. His righteous anger (and frustration with Pharisees or those conducting business in the temple) does not give us the authority to bully. You will never, never reach the gay community with that attitude.
December 15th, 2012 | 12:59 pm
Leviticus contains a code of laws for the government of the Jewish people. It does not discuss “homosexuality,” but warns (18:22) against a specific act and then, (20:13) prescribes capital punishment as the penalty for transgression.
Is it not obvious that, in such a case, the forbidden act that attracts so severe a penalty would be defined with precision? A fair reading of the text bears this out; no commentator, Jewish or Christian has had the least difficulty in defining Mishkav Zachor.
December 15th, 2012 | 5:12 pm
Michael PS,
But certainly it is legitimate—especially for Christians—to try to understand the underlying principles of Leviticus to determine what force (if any) its prohibitions should have today. Also, we note that Leviticus 20 has the following:
No one would claim Christians are bound by 20:18, which seems to be not a mere matter of ritual cleanliness, but a matter of morality.
Also, if Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 specifically prohibit anal intercourse between two males, they do not prohibit anything at all between two females, nor do they prohibit any number of possible sex acts between two men.
As I am fond of pointing out, adultery in Jewish Law must involve a married woman. It was not adultery for a married man to have intercourse with an unmarried woman, since adultery was a violation of the rights of a husband to possess his wife. Wives, on the other hand, had no rights to possess their husbands, so a married man having sex with an unmarried woman was not adultery. Should we adhere to the Old Testament view of adultery?
The Queen James Bible is a very misguided endeavor, but it is not at all as apparent as some think how to apply Old Testament prohibitions to contemporary (Christian) life (if they should be applied at all).
Carolyn above says, “God is God, God said what He meant and meant what He said, and you can change it anyway you want to, but that does not change what God Himself actually said.” If only it were that simple even for believers! It is not even clear how the first verse in the first book of the Bible should be translated, nor does it support the notion of creation ex nihilo.
December 15th, 2012 | 8:21 pm
David Nickol,
I would think the question of which OT laws the Christian “today” is obligated to obey is irrelevant to the question of how we go about translating a document most faithful to the surface grammar of the text, the author’s intended meaning, and cultural context of which he is a part.
And as for your question of why the prohibition of sexual female-female relations are not mentioned alongside the prohibition of male-male relations: Ancient law codes, being didactic, do not need to be “consistent” with our modern, precision-oriented expectations; the condemnation of male homosexuality applies by exension to female homosexuality, just as laws that say “If a man…” do not mean a woman can get away with the same act with no punishment. It’s also questionable how widespread such behavior would have been anyway, given how closely guarded daughters would have been in the ancient household.
December 16th, 2012 | 1:56 am
Ancient law codes, being didactic, do not need to be “consistent” with our modern, precision-oriented expectations; the condemnation of male homosexuality applies by exension to female homosexuality . . .
Walt,
Please note what Michael PS says at December 15th, 2012 | 12:59 pm:
I think he is quite correct here. You can’t say Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit “male homosexuality” and then conclude if “male homosexuality” is forbidden, then “female homosexuality” is also forbidden. What Leviticus prohibits is anal intercourse between two men. Jewish Law did not generalize from that and forbid sexual acts between women. The concept of “homosexuality” as you want to apply it here was thousands of years in the future for the authors of Leviticus.
If we go with your theory, we need to explain why Leviticus 18 and 20 go on to specify both sexes in forbidding bestiality:
just as laws that say “If a man…” do not mean a woman can get away with the same act with no punishment.
In trying to interpret an ancient text and an ancient law code, you can’t “make stuff up” off the top of your head. The Old Testament prohibitions, particularly the sexual ones, do specify the genders involved.
I would think the question of which OT laws the Christian “today” is obligated to obey is irrelevant to the question of how we go about translating . . .
Having the most accurate translations and interpretations of what Old Testament laws meant in Old Testament times is purely academic unless those laws somehow apply to us today. It is a very good question why Leviticus 20:13 should be taken to condemn “male homosexuality” while Leviticus 20:18 should be totally ignored:
A common explanation is that Old Testament “moral law” still holds while “ritual law” does not (for Christians). But there are problems with that scheme, and one of them, it seems to me, is that Leviticus 20:18 is a moral law, not a law about ritual cleanliness.
December 16th, 2012 | 3:12 am
This version only alters 8 verses which isn’t much. There always were a few more things involved in fully grasping what the Bible does say about the “homosexuality” word it never uses. What Jesus thought about for example what today we call homophobia is hidden in plain sight, never properly translated in the Sermon on the Mount. Christians need to reflect more deeply on all this, actually there’s quite a lot to discover.
See YouTube talk
“Gay…..Christians, Marriage, Jesus?”
at:
http://www.bit.ly/TIRE90
December 16th, 2012 | 7:27 am
David Nickol
Every reason given for a divine commandment which bases itself on human needs from any consideration of the concept “need,” whether intellectual, ethical, social, national—voids the commandment from every religious meaning. If they are meant to benefit society or if they maintain the social structures then he who performs them does not serve God but himself or society or his people. In any case, he does not serve God but uses the Law of God for his own benefit and as a means to satisfy his ownneeds. The reason for the commandments is the worship of God
December 16th, 2012 | 7:18 pm
David Nickol,
“The concept of “homosexuality” as you want to apply it here was thousands of years in the future for the authors of Leviticus.”
–Which part of our concept of “homosexuality” do you think is so recent? What I mean by “homosexual” is the act or behavior of sleeping with someone of the same sex, not what we and the APA today understand as “the condition of being attracted to members the same sex.” I should have made that clear.
However, just because there is no word in Hebrew denoting what we mean by “homosexual” today, it doesn’t follow that the Ancient Hebrews had no ability to draw a distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex relations. In fact, I find your claim that the Jews had no concept of same-sex relations too incredible to be believed in light of Genesis’ strong heterosexual affirmation of God’s intended purpose of sex, which was “to be fruitful and multiply.” Since anybody in the ancient world would notice neither a MM pair nor a FF pair could produce offspring, the Jews in particular would have perceived those kinds of sexual relations as falling outside of God’s plan. This much is indisputable. Though this context may not be enough for you to conclude the Jews condemened ALL same-sex relations, it is certainly enough to suggest–in the very least–that they could draw the same distinction we draw today.
“What Leviticus prohibits is anal intercourse between two men.”
–Yes, and anal intercourse, in case you forgot, falls under our concept of a “male homosexual act.” So the Hebrew meaning of “male lying with a male” overlaps with the meaning contained in our concept “homosexual.” Hebrews may have lacked a word that translates nicely into our word for “homosexual” but surely they had a conceptual understanding of the meanings of “two men having sex” and “two women havining sex.” Yes?
“You can’t say Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit “male homosexuality” and then conclude if “male homosexuality” is forbidden, then “female homosexuality” is also forbidden.”
–On what ground do you make that judgment if you mean “same-sex relations is not ok between men, but ok between women?”
For in Deut 27:22-3 it says, “Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother.”
Because the passage only uses “he” in condemning the act of sleeping with one’s sister, your logic forces us to conclude it was therefore permissible for a girl to sleep with her sister? So heterosexual incest was banned, but homosexual incest was permitted? I don’t think this follows.
And what about all these other passages in Leviticus 18:6-18 that prohibit a person from sleeping with his grandchildren, his father, and his aunt? All these sexual prohibitions were meant to apply to male Israelites. But are you seriously telling me because the feminine pronoun “woman” was omitted, these sexual prohibitions were open to women? I find that hard to stomach, and not merely because of my moral sentiments.
“The Old Testament prohibitions, particularly the sexual ones, do specify the genders involved.”
–No, the sexual prohibitions in the OT do not always specify genders. They are mixed. In Deuteronomy, the pronoun “he” is often used in condemnations of sexuality. But in Leviticus, “you” in “you shall not” is used.
So we have a problem. In many passages one gender is prohibited something that is permissible for the other gender. But in other passages both genders are prohibited that action absolutely, like murder, even when the only pronoun used in the passage is “he.” So how can you tell this is not one of those behaviors prohibited for both genders? What is your interpretative key that allows you to make that judgment? I gave you my own interpretative key for concluding we have good reason to believe the Jews condemned FF sexual relations as well, namely, the theological saga contained in Genesis (not to mention the Jewish practice of condemning same sex relations throughout Jewish history)–So what is yours? I have trouble with your judgment because you just stipulate it, just as you stipulate that the Hebrews had no concept of same-sex relations.
“Having the most accurate translations and interpretations of what Old Testament laws meant in Old Testament times is purely academic unless those laws somehow apply to us today. It is a very good question why Leviticus 20:13 should be taken to condemn “male homosexuality” while Leviticus 20:18 should be totally ignored:”
–You’re missing my point, so I will just repeat it. I am saying which Old Testament Laws Christians do and do not think apply to them today has nothing to do with how scholars go about translating those Laws from Hebrew to English. The former is a theological question, the latter is a purely hermeneutical question. Michael PS is right: our “needs” ought not to rewrite what God’s Law, in fact, SAYS, independent of our demands for expediency.
December 16th, 2012 | 7:53 pm
Michael PS,
What you say seems inconsistent to me with a number of key points in the New Testament. For example, when Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment, according to the line of thinking you present, it would only be reasonable to say, “All commandments are from God. It is not up to anyone else to rank them.” Instead, Jesus cites two commandments—love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. There’s a somewhat similar story about Hillel (from Wikipedia):
Or Paul says (Galations 5:14), “For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
All these imply that there is an underlying point to God’s commands. They are not arbitrary. They have a purpose. If you understand the purpose, in a certain sense you don’t need the commands.
December 16th, 2012 | 8:17 pm
Scott wrote,
“I see only a slight difference between this special interest Bible and those already available on the market: The Possibility Thinker’s Bible, The Patriot’s Bible, God’s Little Princess Bible, Life Recovery Bible, Woman Thou Art Loosed Bible, etc. ad nauseum. All of these, including the Queen James Version, aim to tame the scriptures and use their authority to legitimate a certain way of life.”
The marketing gimmickry of those versions may be tacky and the study notes of questionable usefulness, but at least none of them went out of their way, with pride, to not merely twist or deny but to CHANGE the very Word of God.
December 17th, 2012 | 3:02 am
I have no qualms about the interpretative schema that draws a distinction between “moral” law and “ritualistic” law to the Old Testament. But I have take issue with how the “gay-friendly” version goes about goes about applying that schema to the Leviticus passage:
The word for “abomination” in the Leviticus passage is “toe’vah”–meaning something along the lines of “ritually offensive” or “idolatrously offensive” as opposed to “morally offensive.” The word-for-word sentence as it is written in the text runs like “male sodomy is idolatrously offensive (Toe’vah).” But gay-friendly version takes this to mean, “Idolatrous (toe’vah) male sodomy is offensive.” But the latter rendering is not found in the surface grammar of the text, and is clearly motivated. These two statements do not mean the same thing, and the difference is crucial:
Grammatically, the passage means male sodomy is prohibited because it is an idolatrous offense. It does not mean some alleged “version” of sodomy, “idolatrous” male sodomy, is a prohibited, while implying just plain old sodomy is ok.
Also, some people abuse the ritual/moral distinction further. They assume if the Hebrews thought an action was a ritualistic or idolatrous offense, the same action must have been permissble outside that ritual or idolizing. That’s like saying even though David Koresh’s sexual abuse of women in the confines of his idolatrous worship of himself is wrong, sexually abusing women outside Waco compound is ok. I don’t see how this conclusion follows. Were the Hebrews moral relativists now?
December 17th, 2012 | 8:12 am
Well, there had be some kind of Hebrew moral relativism or development because what Leviticus executes Deuteronomy doesn’t. The male prostitute is not allowed to present his earnings as offerings to the Temple. But this situation tells us as many scholars believe the Law doesn’t all derive from Sinai but was edited and evolved or that the Law was “utopian”. By this one means it described certain ideals to a pre philosophical society via laws that wouldn’t necessarily apply in all cases. Some Law was the equivalent of abstract assertion.
But the whole subject of Bible and homosexuality is less obvious and more complex than some would make out. That is why I suggested earlier people might like to ponder my YTube talk at
http://www.bit.ly/TIRE90
at least some of whose perspectives are not known or considered by either gays or straights whether conservative or revisionist.
That Leviticus almost certainly refers to ritual prostitution seems guaranteed by the fact we know male prostitutes acted and dressed as females in ancient rituals. Most gays don’t see themselves as lying with a man as with a women, it’s almost exactly what they don’t intend or wish to do, but it makes sense if you are thinking in terms of a prostitution organized like so much drag.
December 17th, 2012 | 8:20 am
This sounds like “Queen Lutiebell” attempted what he considered a barbaric yawlp. The softened “clobber verses” have been around the periphery of the Episcopal Church for some time prior to moving into their mainstream in 2003. The verses are usually used in conjunction with the assertion that Old Testament figures such as Ruth and Naomi, Johnathan and David, etc., are really same-sex couples in a long-term, committed, loving relationship.
I do not think the Queen James Bible will become a bestseller but will remain a queer curio relegated to a lower shelf for the sake of appearing diverse.
December 17th, 2012 | 8:38 am
“Truer to the man himself?”. Should we therefore remove references to pride, vanity, oppression, bloodguilt, filiel impiety, and other vices King James might be accused of?
December 17th, 2012 | 4:14 pm
Rollan Mcleary,
“there had be some kind of Hebrew moral relativism or development because what Leviticus executes Deuteronomy doesn’t…..That Leviticus almost certainly refers to ritual prostitution seems guaranteed by the fact we know male prostitutes acted and dressed as females in ancient rituals.”
–This is wrong for two reasons: (1) What Leviticus prohibits is male sodomy. What Deuteronomy prohibits is male prostitution. Those are not the same thing. The Hebrew words for male and female prostitute are “qadesh” and “qedeshah respectively, and are found in the Deuteronomy (23:17-18) passage you mention. But “qadesh” (male prostitute) is NOT found in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. Instead the word “Zakhar” is used which just means “man,” “mankind,” or “males.” And “ZAKHAR” does not mean “male prostitute.” So it is just plain false that Deuteronomy and Leviticus are referring to the same thing. Your baseless assumption that Leviticus is referrring to “male temple prostitution” is an outside interpretation superimposed onto the text that is nowhere found in the Hebrew grammar. After all, since Hebrew already has a word for “male prostitute” such as “qadesh” why didn’t the author of Leviticus use it? He had a word for it. So why didn’t he use it if “male prostitute” is what he really meant?
(2) And even if the punishment for ritual prostitution was different than male sodomy, both actioins are still prohibited by Jewish Law. This is not moral relativism at all.
Lessening punishment for the same crime is not moral relativism either. It is just a practice of mercy.
Moral relativism is the view that what is wrong in one culture can be right in the next. But that the Jews believed male sodomy was wrong when the Canaanites practiced it in the context of their rituals but “ok” for the Hebrews outside ritual is simply absurd given the seriousness with which they held the offense. Again, it is akin to saying the sexual abuse of women is wrong when done in the context of David Koresh’s worship of himself as the Messiah, but sexual abuse of women is ok when done outside the Waco Texas compound for non-ritual purposes. Really?
December 17th, 2012 | 6:00 pm
This approachable almost laughable special pleading. Don’t kid yourself the male prostitutes didn’t engage sodomy. And it was male prostitutes were purged from the temple area under Josiah and amounted to the main religious concern for the Hebrews in this area. We hear about that purge, not about executions of “ordinary” people.
There are I fancy all sorts of explanations for the cited contradiction within the Torah, one radical answer would be that since the last edit of same was post exilic (we know this from apocryphal Esdras btw which says the original Law was lost at the fall of Jerusalem and had to be reconstructed), the Leviticus text, virtually identical with a passage in the Zoroastrian scriptures which are the most anti gay in history, could have been influenced by that. However I realize all that’s heresy to those who see no editing at work at all and think everything comes direct from Sinai. And I am not saying values derived from Zoroaster are the explanation. I merely stress one has to be a bit open on this subject, not carrying on as though only one statement can cover everything.
But as said one shouldn’t kid oneself ritual homosexual acts were not part of what ancient temple rituals were about. This is why QJV is really not far out at all in bringing in its Molech reference and stressing the ritual aspect of the Leviticus ban. Of course, another way you could read Leviticus is that since it’s the priestly book it bans “homosexuality” for priests. Be that as it may, I am more interested and I think all Christians should be (seeing they don’t reckon to observe the old Law to the letter anyway) is what the NT has to say. In this connection numbers of significant things are said in the course of my talk at
bit.ly/TIRE90
December 17th, 2012 | 9:40 pm
The fact the authors of this version won’t put their names to it should be a big warning. A Strongs Concordance and a pair of Greek & Hebrew dictionaries will prove the QJV illegitimacy.
December 17th, 2012 | 11:54 pm
Rollan,
Do you not read my posts? I never denied male sodomy was part of Canaanite temple rituals and that the Hebrews condemned it. What I denied was your insinuation that the Hebrews thought male sodomy outside the temple was ok. I repeat, you have no basis in the Leviticus text for this interpretation for 3 reasons:
(1) Nowhere does the language of Leviticus mention male temple prostitution in either chapter 18 or 20. In both passages it condemns male sodomy pure and simple: “A man shall not lie with another man as with a woman.”
(2) Even if Leviticus mentioned temple male sodomy, what grounds do you have for thinking the Jews allowed male sodomy outside the temple? Why would they condemn the behavior in one context but allow it another? For the last time, it is akin to saying David Koresh’s sexual abuse of women was wrong when done in the context of his idolatrous ritual orgies that praised him as the new “Messiah,” but ok when done outside the Waco Texas compound for non-ritual purposes. I seriously doubt the Jews were moral relativists given the seriousness with which that took the offense of male sodomy. It was punishable by death.
(3) Your interpretative logic entails ridiculous results. If the mere proxity of any mention of “Molech” next to a prohibition in the text means the Jews allowed the same behavior for themselves, then your logic forces you to conclude the Hebrews thought bestiality outside the temple was “ok” too. For we find the prohibition of having sex with animals right after the prohibition of male sodomy in Leviticus 18.
Leviticus 18:22-4: “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.”
Can we say that no such prohibition existed if you wanted to have sexual relations with an animal, as long as it wasn’t having to do with a religious rite? Are you ready to bite this bullet? If not, then you need to stop assuming the mention of “Molech” is a “contextual clue” that leads you to draw this conclusion. It clearly isn’t, unless you think the Jews freely practiced bestiality. What do you not get about that?
“the Leviticus text, virtually identical with a passage in the Zoroastrian scriptures which are the most anti gay in history, could have been influenced by that.”
–Suppose that were true. You just unwittingly conceded my point that the Leviticus text is pretty “anti-gay.”
December 18th, 2012 | 1:26 am
What I am really saying is that the Torah is and always was a more open system than you and conservatives make it out to be (not to mention something that cannot be and normally is not a full and complete guide for Christians anyway).
No, I don’t follow the logic about the equivalence in abomination of the assumed sodomy with for example bestiality and I don’t think the Torah did. How could I? Note that in Deuteronomy 27 though incest and bestiality do make the curse list, the same sex activity doesn’t. It was already being seen as something of a different order I suspect. Also the Law and its interpretation has always been developing; it’s almost an article of Jewish faith that it should. The eunuch starts off as someone quite banned from the place of worship. By the time of Isaiah he is seen as almost priveleged and potentially superior, someone the Law is beginning more to embrace. The Leviticus text re same sex relations is noted as rather corrupt, Jewish commentary today is still arguing just what precisely it does say and mean and how it should be applied. What laypersons did in the earliest times probably wasn’t too closely monitored, there almost certainly was a considerable difference between what priests and laity observed. The real threat of “homosexuality” was sterility, failure to add to the tribal numbers. It has been noted how even the court of David don’t seem to grasp all the regulations or perhaps didn’t have the version of Torah we possess. It was only in the post exilic era that legal observance was exactly and almost penitentially observed in anxious desire to secure blessing and avoid further exile. I have already said however the Law may be utopian. The fact something is declared a capital offence didn’t automatically mean that was how it was understood and treated in practice anywhere outside of the region of Sinai. On the whole the rabbis have tended to take the view that Thou Shalt Not Kill and the preservation of life overrides the need to execute people unless for the most heinous, obvious offences.
I think you are looking at a subject very literally and would-be logically with little regard for history and cultural input. What arguably Jesus thought and at least tactfully implied in this difficult area of the Law I indicate in the talk along with other things as mentioned before at
bit.ly/TIRE90
Let’s leave it there, I don’t think we could ever agree form such very different perspectives. However in my talk I do introduce some elements of thought and evidence which are wholly original if anyone cares to look into them.
December 18th, 2012 | 4:34 am
jason taylor, there is the very important word called CONTEXT, and so you cannot just argue whether if people are going to challenge ”pride, vanity, oppression, bloodguilt.” All these are addressed in a particular context and furthermore, these you have listed all lead to misery WITHIN themselves, being gay does not lead a man to a life of misery, it is the attitude from society that causes a gay person to be depressed and suicidal: so the [problem] is not the gay person, it is society!
December 18th, 2012 | 4:56 am
A big concordance and a Hebrew dictionary will only support the QJV general assertion that what we have been taught for centuries with regards to Leviticus 18:22 is rather UNCLEAR. Because when the verse is transliterated it reads that a man should not lie in the BED of a woman: this therefore gives a whole different interpretation. That is the problem we have today – Translation vs Interpretation. The KJV had superimposed its interpretation, instead of giving us the best translation possible. The QJV has done the same, but it is for those who care to challenge to go get their concordances and dictionaries and see which of the two is closer AND more practicable realistically.
December 18th, 2012 | 8:21 am
Putt
The literal reading is “and with male not you shall lie lyings-of [mshkbi] a woman”
The rabbis understood “mishkeve isha” to parallel “mishkav zachar” the lying of a male in Numbers 31:18. They explain the plural “mishkeve” because, whilst a woman may be penetrated in two ways, a man can only be penetrated in one.
The construction of a text by those who are part of a living legal tradition of interpretation and administration has a strong claim to be treated as preserving the original sense.
December 18th, 2012 | 9:26 am
Putt,
Also supporting Michael PS’s explanation of “mishkeve isha” is that the Hebrew word “mitah” or “bed” is nowhere found in Leviticus 18:22
December 18th, 2012 | 10:56 am
Rolland,
“Note that in Deuteronomy 27 though incest and bestiality do make the curse list, the same sex activity doesn’t.”
–Neither does murder, lying, stealing, usury, or sorcery make the curse list in Deuteronomy 27. Does that mean the condemnation of these things elsewhere in the Old Testament were not really condemnations at all? Were the Hebrews rethinking their moral views on these things too?
“It was already being seen as something of a different order I suspect.”
–So the Israelites were rethinking their views on murder and lying too? For some reason the thousands of prohibitions mentioned in other documents are not mentioned in Deuteronomy 27 which has but twelve curses. But WHAT the reason for the absence of all the others is highly speculative. For all you know, pieces of the original documents were lost. But you go ahead and give yourself the license to draw a conclusion about the moral views of the authors. Based on what? Absence of evidence? Here is an alternative explanation of that absence: Maybe the authors(s) of Deuteronomy felt murder, lying, stealing, and male sodomy didn’t deserve mentioning because these criminal activities were very uncommon the time the document was written; and of the offenses that WERE listed, he wanted to bring emphasis to these offenses merely as a literary device because the authorities were having particular trouble at the time with their own people violating the commandments condeming these behaviors found in Leviticus. That is certainly a plausible interpretation, is it not? I’m sure there are many other possible explanations.
The point is that the absence of a prohibition in one book that is contained in another does not automatically license your view that the Hebrews suddenly starting permitting these behaviors.
No doubt some perceptions of the Hebrews changed throughout the centuries, like the Eunich being condemend one day and elevated to holy status the next. But male sodomy is NOT one of these things we find ever being elevated to holy status. After all, we find male sodomy STILL being condemned later in Romans and Corinthians too. Whereas heterosexuality is commended throughout the Bible, not once is a homosexual relationship mentioned in anything but negative terms. So I find very little merit in your intepretation.
“The real threat of “homosexuality” was sterility, failure to add to the tribal numbers.”
–Ya think?
December 22nd, 2012 | 3:44 pm
Hurray! As long as we are editing the parts of the Bible that groups don’t like, let’s remove all references to wine so as to not upset non-drinkers. Also all references to animal sacrifice for PETA folks. May also want to tone down the violence too for the sake of sensitive souls. The Bible needs a kinder gentler crucifixtion.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact