Was Homosexuality Originally a Sin? Leviticus 18 Reanalyzed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- Was Homosexuality Originally a Sin? Leviticus 18 Reanalyzed
People often turn to the Bible to justify and explain homophobia, arguing that it is a sin - but did the Bible originally condemn same-sex relationships? Dr. Josh summarizes a recent research article by Dr. Idan Dershowitz that suggests Leviticus 18 originally condoned homosexuality.
Here is a summary video that gives a more general overview of this argument: • Homosexuality and the ...
Dr. Idan Dershowitz
Homepage: www.dershowitz...
Academia: harvard.academi...
Revealing Nakedness and Concealing Homosexual Intercourse: Legal and Lexical Evolution in Leviticus 18: Prepublication, available on Academia.edu and will be published in 'Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel', vol. 6, 2017.
New York Times article: www.nytimes.co...
𒀭Support Digital Hammurabi!𒀭
Books by Digital Hammurabi Press:
NEW!
The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament
Joshua Bowen (2021)
(tinyurl.com/4j...)
Learn to Read Ancient Sumerian for the Absolute Beginner
Joshua Bowen & Megan Lewis (2020)
(tinyurl.com/ya...)
Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?
Joshua Bowen (2020)
(tinyurl.com/y6...)
Learning to Pray in a Dead Language: Education and Invocation in Ancient Sumerian
Joshua Bowen (2020)
(tinyurl.com/2f...)
Patreon - bit.ly/2EJVEdj
PayPal - bit.ly/2PUp49A
Shirts and Swag - bit.ly/2QKAuSH
Amazon Wishlist - amzn.to/2CsDhak
Website - bit.ly/2V0ZaVw
Twitter - bit.ly/2T6uJLV
Contact - digitalhammurabi@gmail.com
----------
For general information and sources relating to the Ancient Near East, we recommend these websites:
ABZU - bit.ly/2Cr1A8u (collection of free and open-access data)
University of Chicago Oriental Institute - bit.ly/2RcIiMl (great collection of free books and articles)
Livius.org - bit.ly/2Gzj5rx (general encyclopedia on the ancient world)
ETCSL - bit.ly/2QJsAZS (Sumerian literature)
ORACC - bit.ly/2QJsL7u (collection of projects relating to Mesopotamia)
EPSD - bit.ly/2PY99aw (Online Sumerian dictionary)
CDLI - cdli.ucla.edu (Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative)
----------
Music: www.bensound.com
Wow, great topic/video. A while back I read a book about homosexuality in the Ancient world and how it was more accepted. Anyway when they discussed the ancient Hebrews the author claimed that the passage in Leviticus was originally against male temple prostitution and that the word for "abomination" in Hebrew was actually "unclean". The book also argues that later more devout Jewish groups like the post exile Aaronite and others during the Hellenistic periods edited the scriptures as a way to stop the influence of "Foreign" homosexual customs from traditional Jewish culture. Its been a while since I read it, but it was an interesting read. I tried too take the book with a grain of salt because of how widespread and accepted it claimed homosexuality was back then seemed hard to believe. Anyway great topic Dr. Josh keep up the good work.
I've also read/heard somewhere (I can't remember the source, to be honest) that these verses only meant to outlaw ritual homosexual sex that was practiced by other religions in the area, but same sex relationships were not forbidden in one's private life.
I'm also curious what is the correct reading of other biblical texts that some people claim to describe same sex couples, like Naomi and Ruth's or David and Jonathan's stories. Are these really love stories or just someone is reading into them something that isn't there? Were they accepted by the contemporary culture?
I have heard a Finnish cleric say the Bible was only against the rape of male POWs. And that would be what the Bible meant. I don't know how accurate this is but as member of the LGBTQ minority I appreciate that my beloved Finland has so many clerics who accept us. And are even willing to marry us. Not that I personally want to get married but I appreciate that it is an option for those who do.
jrpone Sowing two seeds in one field and having sex with a woman that is menstruating were also described as abominations so people should be more careful when translating text as this happens a lot in the Bible.
Hello do you remember the book you read
the old laws are all gone as the NT God said.....
And christians claim the word never changes, baloney! My brother was gay and disowned by my christian father and stepmother because of this kind of stuff, my father even calling him an abomination. Thanks for this info. I first came across your name through the non-sequetor RUclips channel yesterday. You have an easy to understand way of talking about textual criticism and I enjoyed watching many of your videos. Thanks for your hard work.
Jay Eldridge Is there actual evidence that the scripture was changed though? Like other manuscripts that were copied before the refactor was added on?
You have to remember that the Hebrew language is structured differently from English, you may think the sentence is structured strangely but not so to the ancient Hebrew.
But the syntax in the Hebrew is strange; that is part of the argument.
@@flashman76 I have evidence! The word "Homosexual" was made up in 1892, so of you have a bible saying"Homosexuals" will not inherit the Kingdom of God, you have for yourself a CORRUPT VERSION or Copyrighted version of the original word of God... which CLEARLY IS CORRUPTED BY MEN.
@Mattman Wow. Thou art learned.
@Robbie Saunders Oh dear. In passage you’re talking about the word in the original Greek is ἀρσενοκοίτης which means a man who has sexual activity with another man. If one of the modern day translations using the word homosexual that’s just because the language has been update, the meaning is the same.
Thank you so much for this insight. I always found those verses awkward, making little sense compared to the surrounding verses. After all I learnt from you about textual criticism this is a compelling explanation.
@@officernasty467 He's not twisting the Bible even in the slightest. He is reading the pentateuch, in the original Hebrew, and showing the ways it was changed. If you read Hebrew and want to show how these Bible scholars could be wrong, then make a response. Pointing at the English translation and saying, "NUH UH!" isn't exactly compelling.
@@AlphaOfCrimson dude , even christ says do not be gay ( basically ) so chill keyboard warrior xD it's wrong to eyes of the lord you deny what God has said ???? Smfh
@@AlphaOfCrimson and when did I point fingers ? Hahah I'm pretty sure and you and another individual just went pointing literally correcting things you believe in ? ARE YOU SERIOUS ? xD
@@eddiebrewster6992 and what kinda PhD do you have to correct what translations say??? XD
@@officernasty467 Not once have you actually brought a counter argument to the people you have been responding to. Try to not use ad hominems, straw-men, or use slurs to try and avoid engaging with their arguments. It really does not look good for you, buddy.
I find this very interesting, but I don't think any christian would accept these arguments.
Do you have any physical evidence of similar changes in the old texts that could at least prove that it changes?
Hi Thomas! The study of textual criticism is the basis for this type of analysis. We know of redactions that take place in cuneiform texts, for example, and we have the physical tablets to demonstrate it. We obviously have no originals of the biblical texts, so we must use appropriate methodologies to analyze these manuscripts :-)
Bro gay= unholy . This guy is twisting the bible smfh
@@officernasty467, how do you know that the Bible of today is not a twisted version of the original?
@@thomasfplm Perhaps hearsay eventually leading back to the Chicago Statement en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy www.churchcouncil.org/1-biblical-inerrancy-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy.html Article X says that inerrancy applies to the original statements, not to corrupt translations and bad edits, and that the originals can be "ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy". They don't say how. Since they didn't say how, the document seems to be proclaiming inerrancy of scripture that is unavailable.
God looks at our soul and spirit as able to understand how much He l9ves us(at the ppint to have given His life just to have back all and everyone that ubderstanding this point will be able to throw in the bin everything else of their oast and restart from that moment a totally personal relationship and talk with Him, and this as it is by His Grace and Mercy toward ALL THE HUMANS is also for the LGBT..
I was sent here by Dear Mr. Atheist. What an interesting discovery that fundies are sure to discredit with some offhand bullshit. I will keep it in mind nonetheless.
I was sent here by Mr Atheist too actually
I wasnt sent by Mr Atheist, good channel though, but i can tell you what Anderson would say he would say the kjv is perfect so this is clearly corrupted. Silly i know but nifb id insane.
@@ParanormalEncyclopedia but Mr Anderson will not tell you that the KJV online bible tools would actually debunk his own interpretation. This is why we can keep his Bapticult Church on watch..
@@TheRealEddieBrock One more reason that dishonest scum bag shouldn't be taken seriously.
@Jessie L.A. Maybe you are the one "possessed" by "demons" or "evil energy" and are unable to see or hear the truth that the Bible has been changed and edited so many times that it is no longer accurate or relevant, if indeed it ever was. I mean, even if you say you aren't possessed or are cleared, how can we believe you? It may be that you can't think right about anything and your demon or evil energy is directing you to mislead us with your writings here.
Wow, this was so beautifully explained. Thank you so much you wonderful human.
Haha hello, it's me, except now I know who I am :)
As an atheist, that makes no sense.
A. Wouldn't early manuscripts not feature the verse if it was changed.
B. Deuteronomy 4:2 states " You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. " It's weird that some "reviser" would contradict the verse and that none of his fellow Jews noticed.
C. Why would the reviser even do that? Did he just not like gays? What non-biblical reason is there to not like gays?
D. You didn't even touch on at all on the worse Leviticus 20:13. If Leviticus 20 and 18 have been changed wouldn't that put doubt into the entire book of Leviticus?
A: We don't HAVE any early manuscripts pre-Persian period. None survived
B: The verse in Deuteronomy is not talking about the book of Leviticus. And we know for a fact that scripture WAS edited repeatedly. We DO have later manuscripts that show changes. Whether or not it was 'supposed' to happen, it did
C: Tons of people don't like gay people. Are you really shocked that anyone could possibly dislike gay people? I don't get this point at all
D: Because that's not what this video is about. Digital Hammurabi was explaining a specific research paper on a specific verse. This is not their personal pet theory. They're just explaining what the research paper says for those who don't have access to it or find it too complicated to understand
It’s not a plausible conclusion. It is more exact to interpret “the nakedness of your father” as your wife’s father, whether she’s your mother or not. This aligns with the conclusion of the verse which only mentions the fact that “..she is your mother.”
Moreover, a few chapters later, there are parallel verses that discuss the consequences of the aforementioned prohibited activities in this chapter; the parallel verse for, “the nakedness of your father”, states the following, “And a man who lies with his father’s wife has revealed the nakedness of his father...” (Leviticus 20:11). The verse clearly elucidates what is meant by “the father’s nakedness”.
Additionally, we find, “A man shall not take his father’s wife, so that he does not uncover his father’s nakedness.” (Deuteronomy 22:30)
Again, the intent is clear regarding “the father’s nakedness”.
Dr. Dershowitz overlooked a more basic approach.
Now, “The nakedness of your mother”, is meant to include a mother out of wedlock.
And the verse then concludes, as we said, with, “she is your mother”, to emphasize that even your step-mother is like your mother, a relative.
Furthermore, even if homosexuality was being discussed, there is no reason to obviate the need for an additional prohibition over a general prohibition. This idea is by no way foreign to the text, as many prohibitions involving incest already include the additional prohibition of a married woman, or others.
For example: Not sleeping with a daughter-in-law is already in force with her being married.
Or, for example, sleeping with one’s mother can include up to three prohibitions, namely, being married, being your mother, being your father’s wife.
Furthermore, to understand “the father’s nakedness” as qualifying and limiting homosexual behavior, would also imply that homosexual behavior would be “ok”with a brother, a maternal uncle, etc. There is no coherent or logical reason to assume this limitation of kin, especially considering that a brother is a lot closer than a paternal uncle
Dr. Dershowitz’s interpretation appears to be a lazy attempt at Biblical exegesis.
I found your channel because of that fantastic video you did with Aron Ra talking about biblical prophecies.I am an atheist who grew up in a religious home, and I have been slowly teaching my mother and father how they have been misled by certain things. Mostly regarding the truth behind homosexuality (that it is not a choice etc.), how our country has really made a huge mistake with the sweeping drug prohibition we started in the 70s, and a few other things.
I am definitely going to show this video to my mother, who I suspect will appreciate listening to the opinion of someone as accomplished and learned as you Dr. Josh,. You really did a great job breaking it down for the layman to understand how it doesnt make sense that those passages suddenly switch meanings, and the most logical conclusion as to why.
A big thank you is in order for you and your wife Dr. Josh, you two are awesome! I subbed and look forward to watching all of your content. I'm a bit of a history buff, so all of this stuff is super interesting!
Thank you so much, I really hope this video helps explain things to your mother! Josh did a series on textual criticism of the Bible which may be of interest, as it helps to explain how the different manuscripts and texts the Bible is made of came to be one document, and all the work that goes into actually understanding what’s written in the Bible now!
Thank you for your kind words! I’m so glad that you’re enjoying our work ☺️
Megan
@Marty Wheeler yes its true!!!
At first, my head wasn’t really catching on, but at the end, it all made sense and I was like “woah, that’s pretty cool!”
If you read Daniel 1:9 KJV as I have, pretty clear God led Prophet Daniel to the prince of the eunuchs and there was TENDER LOVE Between the two *MEN/MALES*
@@robbiesaunders9602 Interesting thought, but at a quick glance, the etymology I see for that word implies it's more like the love one feels for a baby in the womb. A desire to nurture. Non Hebrew speaker here, just did a little research.
Nooooo it’s not, he’s claiming conspiracy without proof.
@Bazı insanları hiç anlamıyorum don't bring corrupt bible versions to me EVER. Corruptible man.
It seems like the additions of the second verses fit well with the perception that women are the property of their husbands. "Your father's nakedness" could mean your mother, because your mother would have belonged to your father and her nakedness would have belonged too him too. To me it sounds very possessive.
It does sound possessive sheesh! We’re not anyone’s property, that’s what ppl thought waaay back then. It’s bs
Tyler, I want to thank you for explaining how all women have felt since the beginning of modern society. You clearly have an insight that us “modern women” don’t. 😪 And by the way... what we GET is the freedom of choice (we’re still fighting for aspects of it in 2019). To choose our careers and our futures the way men have had the luxury of doing for the many years where our only future was that at home.
Thanks for the clear presentation! My mother in law is Protestant Christian and I am a Catholic, and she is always trying to convert me. One of the topics we clash on is gays will not enter heaven. I say they will be judged by their actions, like Jesus said, not by their sexuality. She then cites Old Testament laws that now I understand are taken out of context. Having to defend my faith, has made it stronger. Which is why my mother in law can’t stand me lol
It doesn't sound like this is the consensus view, though. As much as I would like to believe this, it sounds like it's just one scholar's idea. I wouldn't let the Bible off the hook for homophobia yet.
Oh, we're definitely not, we're just trying to share information :)
This is so interesting and enlightening. You've got a new subscriber (and yes, I know this is an old video shhh)
this is totally believable what you present here. My question is , could it be possible that uncovering the nakedness of your uncle could have actually meant his wife because of the fact that women were considered property so uncovering your the nakedness of your fathers brother means his wife. i'm not a scholar and was just curious if this would be possible. I actually prefer the interpretation presented in the video but am curious. its hard to understand a culture that long ago
I really need help! What about Leviticus 18:22? Do you believe it was added later also?
Nope
@David Fortmeyer Hey man, if you want to screw some raw meat or a cantaloupe, you do you. As far as I know, the bible does not say not to fuck steaks and melons, does it? Just keep in mind that you have to bathe after and you're unclean until evening as men always are after emissions of semen, assuming the cantaloupe pleasures you adequately :)
I agree that the bible is a (terrible) document that does indeed condemn homosexuality (see also Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 for example) but your argument makes no sense because those things aren't prohibited in the bible.
It's not making excuses for the LGBT community, it's making excuses for the bible and, yes, that is indeed a problem.
Even the KJV has been translated so many times that taking it literaly is stupid. Just take the general meaning.
Dr. Josh, I know you respect Dr. Brown’s scholarship so I’m gonna leave a quote from him about this subject. He then argues that "an earlier edition of Leviticus ... may have been silent on the matter of sex between men." (Note carefully: He means a nonexistent edition of Leviticus. A Leviticus that is the figment of his own imagination. A Leviticus without a shred of textual manuscript support in any ancient language at any period of time.)
Not only so, but Dr. Dershowitz even claims that "there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men."
As someone trained in the same scholarly field as Dr. Dershowitz, I can say without equivocation that this is nothing more than scholarly fabrication and should be rejected as complete and utter nonsense.
Let's remember that 1) there is not one positive word in the Bible about homosexual practice, 2) every reference to homosexual practice in the Bible is categorically negative, and 3) every scriptural example of marriage and family is heterosexual.
How, then, does Dr. Dershowitz come to such outrageous conclusions?
He first observes that in the ancient Near Eastern world, "outright prohibitions against homosexual sex whether between men or women - were practically unheard-of[.]"
While it is true that such prohibitions are largely lacking in the surrounding ancient world, there are some laws that prescribe harsh punishment for certain acts of male sodomy. So this is an overstatement.
More importantly, it appears that homosexual acts were part of ancient Near Eastern idolatrous culture - in other words, part and parcel of the pagan culture the Bible condemns. No wonder, then, that more emphasis was not put on prohibiting these acts. In fact, Leviticus confirms this, stating that sinful acts like these were widely practiced in the surrounding ancient world. Israel was not to follow their example! (See Leviticus 18:1-3, 24-30.)
But that is not the heart of Dr. Dershowitz's argument.
Using a "little detective work," he claims to have discovered that the alleged "original" text of Leviticus 18 forbade only homosexual incest. All other homosexual acts were permitted.
Not only is this argument entirely without textual support (something that needs to be repeated over and over again), but it makes for the bizarre idea that in ancient Israel, men could have sex with as many men as they desired, without penalty, so long as they were not close blood relatives. Yet they could have sex only with the woman (or women) they were married to, and at that, with certain purity guidelines.
Being gay in ancient Israel made for quite the party life, and with God's alleged sanction, at that.
What is the "discovery" that Dr. Dershowitz has made to support this claim?
He argues that in Leviticus 18:7 and 18:14, the specific wording of the Hebrew text masks the fact that originally, the verses outlawed sex between a man and his father or mother (v. 7) and between a man and his uncle (v. 14). In the current version of Leviticus (again, the one and only version we have), he writes, "A law prohibiting sex with one's father fades away, and a law against sex with one's uncle is reinterpreted as a ban on sex with one's aunt."
As for Leviticus 18:22, which explicitly prohibits sex between two men (see also Leviticus 20:13), that was allegedly added at a later time in Israelite history. As Dr. Dershowitz writes, "In addition to having the prohibition against same-sex relations added to it, the earlier text, I believe, was revised in an attempt to obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible."
Of course, same-sex relations had never been permissible in ancient Israel (to say it once more, there is zero evidence to support the opposite position), while the two verses cited by Dr. Dershowitz do not support his thesis.
To respond briefly:
1) Because all homosexual relations were forbidden, there was no reason to forbid specific homosexual acts.
2) In contrast, because many heterosexual relations were permissible, it was important to single out which ones were forbidden, which is what Leviticus 18 does.
3) Leviticus 18:7 and 14 forbid sleeping with the wife of your father or the wife of your father's brother, acts that would also directly shame your father. As rendered in the New Jewish Publication Society Version, respectively, "Your father's nakedness, that is, the nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover; she is your mother - you shall not uncover her nakedness." And "Do not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother: do not approach his wife; she is your aunt."
4) There is no textual evidence - not the slightest linguistic clue of any kind - that Leviticus 18:22 was added later to this chapter.
5) What we call "the Bible" today is based on the texts that we have - in other words, the Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek texts that have been passed down through the generations. It is not based on some reconstructed texts created out of thin air.
That means that for all those who hold these texts to be God's Word, the matter has long been settled: homosexual practice is forbidden by God, but there is the possibility of forgiveness, redemption, and new life for all who put their trust in the Redeemer.
(Michael Brown earned his Ph.D. from New York University in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures and has published Old Testament and Semitic articles in peer-reviewed journals as well as contributed to major academic works and authored scholarly monographs on Old Testament subjects.)
Interesting. Any thoughts on who it is addressing? I am a gay man, and therefore appreciate that people are looking into this stuff, but I find it interesting that the text excludes women as agents in the having sex process. I'm not sure whether women were allowed to be literate or not at this time and in this location, but would you agree that it seems that the text is not addressing women? Is the rest of the passage similarly exclusive of women as addressees, or could it be that the original actually included women as readers and the later edits came from a more patriarchal context (rather than a more homophobic one).
I think it's pretty likely that Dershowitz is correct, I just thought I'd play devil's advocate for a second.
ooooo that's a very interesting point. the second person words like you and your definitely need to be clarified. another interpretation could be that it was addressed to both gay men and women, and straight men and women (hell, even bi men and women lol)
I'm always rolling my eyes when I read the Bible because it's so much of it is geared towards men and men alone. Every verse is like "a man should not do incest" and I'm over here thinking "so a woman can do incest?" I know that's obviously not the case but some gender inclusive (or at least neutral) nouns would have been nice, lol
We kind of take for granted that we're allowed to look at religious texts for ourselves and interpret it for ourselves. But historically it was tradition that we have to have someone qualified to interpret religious texts for us, so like a rabbi.
But you would be correct to notice that it's addressing men alone. Depending on the time period WLW sex was thought of as illegitimate sex, as in it's not actually sex. We have ancient Arabian writings that actually notate orgasm through tribbing as a cure for women to get rid of too much heat in their labia.
Men having sex with men, however, was permitted but not the union in a legally binding sense between a man and a man. The idea of homosexuality as an identity is a very very recent development in history, so the behavior was not attributed to identity at all.
Can someone help me to understand this? Leviticus 18:22 speaks specifically about a man lying with a man, and is addressed very briefly in the beginning of the video. However, throughout the rest of this video it is not mentioned again. What about verse 22? Isn't that the relevant verse about homosexuality because it specifically speaks about a man lying with a man?
That section of the chapter would not have been part of the original; it would have been part of a later redaction.
A Man Lies with a man as a man not a woman
@@DigitalHammurabi Ok, but so what? It's still part of the final redaction of the text that was considered authoritative for thousands of years.
Digital Hammurabi Since this part of the Bible is in the Old Testament laws, wouldn’t it have been outlawed anyways (when Jesus declares these laws old in the NT)? This doesn’t seem to be one of the moral laws that could still be applicable, and was more specific to the Jewish people at the time remaining different from the Romans. Even if it was about homosexuality itself, wouldn’t this no longer apply to modern Christians because it was an Old Testament Jewish law? Why do Christians use Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 and treat them as applicable today, but not verses like Leviticus 20:18 (about not having sex with females on their periods)?
Last time I watched this video I thought I was a girl, thank you for being an important step in my self understanding.
Good luck on your journey of self discovery.
The thing is though, if this was a huge translation error than surely bible translators would correct it by now but, so far they haven’t. A reason to be skeptical of your claims?
Hard to change such a thing without being branded as a heritic, methinks.
That's probably what that guy who added "clarifications" to the Bible thought after it had been in circulation for over a century.
It's not a translation error. It's (in theory) scribes around 2,300 years ago making the conscious decision to change the text. And then their new version of the text became the standard.
You are right to be skeptical, as the guy in this video has VERY CLEVERLY, though slightly, twisted things 'just a bit' to "claim" that the Scriptures condone men laying with men, "It doesn't!" no more than it does for a man to lay with his mother or sister!. And No, I'm NOT homophobic, I'm just SINophobic
Shalom, Maranatha and much blessings to you in Yeshua Messiah
@@WayneLeWagI get it. One scholar says male on male anal sex is condoned.... so that MUST BE WHAT IT REALLY MEANS! In come the atheists and all the rest of the alphabet gang, quick to instantly agree with said scholar as it aligns with the LGBT agenda. Woohoo. LGBT rainbow is spreading rapidly.
Before I say my piece, I need to emphasise that I am completely opposed to homophobia, and that there is no excuse for the abuse and hatred of gay people. Nevertheless, I am a religious Talmidi Jew. The idiom 'to uncover someone's nakedness' has the primary meaning of 'having forbidden sexual relations'. However, it can also mean, 'to bring shame upon someone (eg Ezek 23.10, cf also Nah 3.5), or 'to dishonour someone' (eg Ezek 22.10). 'Nakedness' can also mean 'vulnerablity', as in Gen 42.9, or Isa 20.4. It can even have two of these meanings in the same sentence or passage - it is NOT an impossible lexical shift (consider the 2 English clauses, "It's raining cats and dogs out there, so my rain-sodden cat came in out of the rain" - we would not argue that because the word 'cat' in the second half of the sentence was a real cat, a lexical shift is not possible, so it must literally be raining cats and dogs). Lev 18.8 literally says, '[The] nakedness of the wife of your father you shall not uncover; it is the nakedness of your father'. With the knowledge of the various English meanings of this Hebrew idiom, it is best translated as: 'You shall not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would BRING SHAME on your father'. The repetition of ervat (nakedness) is for literary style in Hebrew, not "an impossible lexical shift". My personal take on the offending Lev 18.22, is that (unfortunately), women were sort of seen as property in those days, and to be dominated by a man - not a mindset I personally agree with, BTW. My understanding of Lev 18.22 is therefore that two men in a relationship were to be equals, not one man as the submissive property of another: "You shall not lie with a male in the same way as one beds a woman; that is a detestable thing." It is notable that there is no condemnation of female homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible, and that is in line with how women's status was perceived in those times
Late to the game, but did this editorial process take place around the time of anti-Greek cultural sentiments in the Levant? I had read an article some time ago that suggested changes like the ones you listed were in response to Second Temple elders wanting to remove the more liberal and cosmopolitan Greek influence from Jewish life.
Wait watching the video over, it seems god doesn’t want people to be incest.
If the P source didn't have condemnation of homosexuality, but the redactor altered it to make it condemn homosexuality, that underscores the fact that it condemns homosexual behavior. If it was left unaltered from the P source, then the redactor might have included it to condemn it or he might have included it just to pass on what his sources were saying. But since he altered to to make it condemn homosexuality, we have strong reason to think the redactor was plainly trying to say same-sex relations are wrong.
making the redactor homophobic, homophobia is sin
Doesn't this only really work if we assume the Torah was being read to and used as guidance for only males? Haha sounds like females can do whatever they want cos the Torah isn't directed to them at all lol
I believe homosexuality is okay by God, trying to find all the facts to support my belief. A lot of Christians believe it's wrong and I think it CAN cause great damage in many ways. Thanks for putting out this open minded, philosophical content.
Same! I'm kind of in the same position on proving gay-affirming Christianity. It was spurred on by lots of doubts about my faith. So when I was reading Leviticus, I nearly had a panic attack as I thought "Is my whole religion a lie?!" and then I remembered "Oh, yeah, long live the patriarchy. This isn't new" lol
I am not sure where this man (Dershowitz) is getting his evidence that Leviticus was rewritten to accommodate newer translations/customs, but the Bible is very clear on this matter, not just in Leviticus 18, but also in Leviticus 20, Verse 13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." This was a sin so grievous in Gods eyes that it deserved a capital punishment. Different laws of the land apply today of course, but the point is, this specific act was no doubt a sin in God's eyes.
In Genesis 2:18-25 and Mark 10:6-9 God and Jesus speak of how a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and become one. That is specifically and explicitly the only marriage and sexual intercourse that is condoned in the Bible (a married man and woman). Any other sexual act falls under the category of fornication or adultery. To elaborate, if two homosexuals get married, God does not honor or accept their marriage anywhere in the Bible and does in fact find their acts as an abomination. So they are still committing fornication per the Bible. This also applies to heterosexuals, God does not condone sleeping around etc even when it is a man and a woman, He only condones a man who is married to a woman "knowing each other" or "revealing each others nakedness" however you want to say it.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul speaks of fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, and many other types of practicing sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Again this seems somewhat cut and dry, especially when you compare it to Paul's solution to the problem in 1 Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Very specific and clear directions here.
Paul was an ignoramus and a God botherer. Who cares what he thinks?
There's a reason he mentioned the couplets part in Genesis. Leviticus 20 is restating Leviticus 18. If changes were made to one, they were likely made to the other so that objection doesn't work in this case. (Also, you mentioned capitol punishment. You realize disrespecting your parents is on that list right? It's not a hard list to get on honestly.)
Finally. The biblical marriage you're referring to allowed for man to have multiple wives. Does this mean you're fine with polygamy?
(I'm also curious, what's wrong with being effeminate?)
Anything written by Paul is centuries after the fact, so it is completely irrelevant to what was in Leviticus. Genesis is also irrelevant as it had a different author, but it doesn't specifically forbid anything, it only assumes heternormity. At best you could call this implicit. If changes were made to part of Leviticus, and I think the argument is fairly good, then likely other insertions were added as well. They are quite common in the bible there are thousands of things not original to the text.
To go against what He created Doesnt make sense in His Love..
Fascinating. I'm coming here right after the "Did Moses Write the Torah" interview so I'm wondering how valid this kind of theorizing is (based on arguable, minor inconsistencies in the text). I'm always down for understanding sexuality historically. Like, it's a given that the Torah is only talking about cisgender male-on-male penetrative sexual intercourse and doesn't address anything else that we associate with modern homosexuality (a sexual and/or romantic union between two adult male partners, living together, potentially adopting, having a long-term relationship that is as valid as a straight relationship, etc.). So if it wasn't originally prohibited, what did these relationships look like? Why did it become prohibited and in what contexts? So many questions. Cool idea though, thank you!
I have a bad memmory but Ham was cursed after seeing his naked dadda right? Was that "uncover the nakedness"? Or is other terms used?
Are there any thoughts as to why the change in viewpoint occurred?
It's been a few years, are there any leading OT Hebrew scholars who have confirmed Dr. Dershowitz's analysis?
this is one of my fav videos of yours.
I had that same sweater Doc... in the 80's. Just kidding... no really.
The chapter (2 Samuel 1; KJV) is a eulogy to his ‘brother’ Jonathan. David is expressing his love for his brother and likening it to the love of a woman. David is very saddened by the death of Saul and Jonathan, nothing more. All David is doing is expressing how he care for Jonathan; as we would a best friend who died.
These videos are meant to twist doctrine to justify sinful behavior as taught in Isaiah 5:20; KJV, “Woe into them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
There is no light found here!
aryahomeyet Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
If you think this evil is good, then I don’t know what to do for you
Exactly, this guy didn’t even mention our Lord once
@@oopsiepoopsie2898 ....this passage you people keep using over and over again is just getting really annoying!
The actions that God did litteraly depends on how you see it
Christian Stuff yeah I don’t think genocide is good
@@oopsiepoopsie2898 I understand that and I can really relate, I don't like genocide either nor does God, but when God punishes someone it's supposed to feel uncomfortable so people don't do wicked actions again. God does not want to punish anyone but in order to teach people a lesson it has to be done in order to keep peace and balance. At least that's the way I see it
Thank you 🙏
Hey Dr. Josh, After 30+ years as a Christian, I left the faith two weeks before Christmas 2022. I took a break from geeking-out theology mid-July 2022 and started researching the origins of the Hebrew Bible and then the New Testament. After wrestling with Biblical contradictions, I read the _"Human Faces of God"_ by Thom Stark and then watched almost all of Richard Elliot Friedman's courses on RUclips. Then I started listening to MythVision every single day, all day, listening to many different Biblical scholars, including you. I have a growing collection of scholarly books on the subject and your two _"Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament"_ books are in my Amazon wishlist. I also followed _"What Your Pastor Didn't Tell You"_ and _"Beneath the Bible"_ for a Christian perspective. I noticed over time the secular scholars seemed to be more honest with the text.
The nail on the coffin for me with Christianity, after the Old Testament fell apart, was Dennis R. MacDonald's comparison of Mark (and the other Gospels) to the Homeric Epics. It's so eerily similar that it is beyond coincidence. I'm still deconstruction everyday and this video is another reason I no longer believe the Bible has divine origins. Love your content. Keep it up!
🥹
What book do you think is best religious book since you think the Bible is not true ?
@@FireHill20 What do you mean by "best religious book"? I am not convinced any religions are true. The "best" religious book is up to your preferences. It is my _opinion_ that the Bible is the best and most fun book to study but I'm biased because I grew up studying it. My second choice would maybe be the Quran and the Hadiths. I am not convinced that any holy book is from a supernatural transcendent being. They are all 100% manmade.
@@icypirate11 I mean best religious book like one has good lessons and morals
@@FireHill20 Mother Goose and many other children's books.
While we are at it, why is Deuteronomy 22:5 so down on cross dressing? I've seen the verse weaponized against trans people, but it seems to be about cross dressing.
I can see some nutjob Christian saying that it condemns trans people outright, not knowing the science behind transgenderism, as people who, as female souls, put on male flesh and vice-versa. 🙄
I really enjoyed the video, do we know if theres evidence that the text was edited or added on to? Id love to learn more about this
I think that homosexuality has always existed. Not just between males but also between females. The Roman’s and the Greeks used to do that. Pretty sure that the Semitic tribes and the Arabs as well.
Nothing new…
I'm sorry, but I think what you read at 2:17 makes everything quite clear. Your mother's nakedness is considered part of your father's nakedness. A woman's intimacy is considered part of a man's intimacy. Which is in perfect tonekeeping with the bible's view of women as pretty much property of their spouses.
So when it says you should not uncover your father or your uncle's nakedness, it makes sense for it to mean their spouse. It's basically just a corollary of thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.
And even if Dr. Dershowitz's analysis was correct. I don't agree that not condemning something is necessarilly condoning it. I mean, sure, if the bible said nothing else against homosexuality then yes, homosexuality should be fine according to the bible; but that's not the case, is it?
Take your example of the restaurant; sure, "no breakfast after 10" implies that anytime before 10 you can get breakfast. But if the restaurant also says "open from 8 am to 10pm". Then there's also no breakfast before 8; even if the first sign doesn't specify. Same applies to this.
Plus, as far as I can tell, at no point did you give any explanation that demonstartes that the "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman" line wasn't there originally. So even if this proved that all the rest was edited, nothing you said proves or hints that that line wasn't there originally.
Don't get me wrong; I'm an atheist and 100% for LGBT rights. In fact, I don't go by labels, but I am in a same-sex relationship. I just think this doesn't prove at all that homosexuality isn't a part of the bible.
I mean, IF ANYHTING, all you proved is that the bible is full of edits and is therefore unreliable. Which I still don't think this manages to prove, but is already well known through other means anyway.
I mean, if they had actually intended to edit these verses to fit their homophobic views, why not simply delete the verses that spoke of same-sex prohibitions altogether? Or just leaving them as they are, since they were (in your view) already adding a line that prohibited any kind of same-sex intercorse? The "implicit" condoning would be overuled by the explicit condemning anyway.
We’re not trying to prove anything, merely to provide an overview of an argument recently made by an academic who spends his time studying this material ☺️ this is definitely no kind of smoking gun, but may provide some insight for non-specialists into how this particular portion of the text may have originally been understood.
Thank you very much for your comment!
@@DigitalHammurabi No, I totally get it. I'm not trying to DISPROVE it either. Just sharing my thoughts on this. Thanks for sharing!
Of course! Thank you for sharing 😁
my reaction: this may be evidence that the scripture changed, but it doesn't change the fact that both prior and later forms would have been treated as God's valid commands. going to bed with your uncle and going to bed with your wife are both insest. how does that affect the prohibition in the later verse about two guys?
A little late to this video, but I am wondering what
Dr. Josh thinks of the comparison of mishkevei ishah in Leviticus as compared to mishkevei aviyka in Genesis 35 where Reuben slept with his father's concubine. With aviyka seemingly a male/father connotation as described similarily to the example Ani YHVH 'Elohey 'Avraham 'Aviyka -"I am the Lord,
the God of your father Abraham" (Gen. 28:13).
Given that most research that I could find available online, mishkevei (plural) means layings of/beddings of and ishah is connotated with women. It is just weird how in Leviticus most English translations say "laying as with women" but does not do the same with Genesis 35. I.E. "went up on to your father’s bed".
If the word mishkevei means the same thing, if the meaning is not altered by whatever word is subsequent. Then it almost sounds like either Reuben slept with his father's concubine as one supposed to do with men/his father or alternatively in Leviticus two men were in a woman's bed (implying gang rape).
I apologize if this is poorly written or explained as this is not my field, just was interested after some online research into the matter. Either way, thanks for the content and I can't wait for the release of your second volume of your book!
It's a very interesting idea, but it still reads as a marital/property claim to me, where wives' bodies and sexuality belonged to their husbands.
For instance, let's look at: "The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness." Let's simplify and substitute "body" for "nakedness" and "use for sexual purposes" for "uncover": "The body of your father's wife you shall not use for sexual purposes; it is your father's body [to use for sexual purposes]."
Then it discusses not having sex with sisters: neither your own sister nor your father's or mother's sisters (as these are blood relatives).
This also works with verse 14: "Do not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, do not approach his wife; she is your aunt": "Do not use for sexual purposes the body belonging to your father's brother, do not approach wife of your father's brother; she is your aunt [and so of the same status as your father's sisters and your mother's sisters]."
I will admit it seems weird to apply my understanding to verse 7: "Do not uncover the nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother, she is your mother, you are not to uncover her nakedness": "Do not use for sexual purposes the body belonging to your father and the body belonging to your mother, she is your mother, you are not to use for sexual purposes her body." Why bother adding the "nakedness of your father" when the "nakedness of your mother" should suffice, especially as the verse specifies the reason to not use her body for sexual purposes is because she is your mother? It could just be mirroring the verse prohibiting sex with your father's wife generally (as your father's wife isn't necessarily your mother) that have the reason for not having sex with your father's wives because their bodies are for your father's sexual use. This verse could be emphasizing that while you should not have sex with any of your father's wives as their bodies are for your father's sexual use, you definitely should not have sex with your mother as she is your mother (plus her body is for your father's sexual use).
I'm probably missing a lot as I can only read these verses in English; could the original verses be understood in the way I am interpreting their English translation?
I totally disagree with the Dr. on his analysis of the text. We can make the Bible say whatever we want in order to make it agree with our own personal way of thinking. God made male and female and there is a distinction in the sexes.
Sex and sexual orientation are not the same thing. There is evidence of homosexuality in 400+ species other than just humans. It is a natural expression in biological life. Get over it, folks.
Can you do more Leviticus laws and what they really mean?
But what about scriptures in the new testament
This is purely a summary of an academic argument made about one specific passage ☺️
@@DigitalHammurabi hey so if i was a 7yearold kid manipulated by someone else that is also a male, does it count?
@@snakelover5314 DH didn't answer and I found your comment years later, but I read b. Sanhedrin 52b in the Talmud on line and it says a male child under the age of 9 shall not be held accountable for make-on-male sexual contact but the older male would. So you would be in the clear as that 7 y.o. boy.
Paul is incorrigibly homophobic; Jesus seems to be the exact opposite!
this sadly doesn't address the lie with another man like a woman is an abomination line. I'd be curious if anyone has some resources about that as it would seem to make sense if it was a later add on or another misunderstanding.
"The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness." implies that "father's nakedness" is not referring to sexual intercourse with your father. Whenever the chapter refers to a male's nakedness, I believe it is referring to their wife's nakedness, which they own, as their own, in a sense. This is just a misinterpretation of the text imo
Also leviticus 18:22 was not addressed
So what does that say about Noah and Ham
I dont even understant this video.
Jason Franklin Yeah, I was afraid of that after I published it. The argument could have been made clearer.
Essentially, the original writer(s) would have simply written a list of laws against invest, which included laws against sleeping with your father and your uncle. This implies, “You can sleep with other men, just not THESE men.”
A later editor (during the Persian Period), who believed homosexuality to be impure, added additional phrases and verses to the original laws to make them refer only to women. But this made the verses in a very strange form, which we can see in the original Hebrew.
You don't understant, huh? Interesting.
I have a question: around the 5:45 mark you say that the original writings just said don't uncover your father's nakedness, your mother's nakedness etc. and that a later redactor came in and added the second part of those verses as a clarification. If that's right (and I might be misunderstanding you) then wouldn't that mean the original text did have something to say about male on male relations?
Also, if text was added, do we have early copies of Leviticus where for example Lev. 18:22 (the abomination passage) wasn't a part of the original Pentatuch? As you say things were added when the social norms of the Jewish societies changed.
I looked up the Dead Sea Scrolls, their copies don't have either Lev. 18:22 or Lev. 20:13.
Is there any evidence that additions were added to the ancient manuscripts? Like for instance have any manuscripts been found that were copied before the additions were added on?
Carnal minded people will never understand spiritual text. The fact that you would go that far to justify something that is obviously wrong is crazy to me. Let me just take religion out of it for a minute. Say God said it wasn’t wrong. Now take pleasure out of sex what are you left with. The only reason why we have sex Like every other animal, for the purpose of reproduction. God could have made Adam a friend instead of giving him Eve. But he made Eve for the obvious purpose that they can reproduce. Eve is literally a man that came from the rib Adam with a womb birth “woman”
Cool story bro.
I heard about this interpretation, and ill be honest, im having a hard time and im having a bit of a crisis in myself.
I am bisexual, and i suppress alot of myself, and im not happy, but im concerned ill be wrong if this isnt the true interpretation
I'm so sorry for your struggle :( I (Megan) am also bisexual, and a Christian. I don't know if my perspective will help, but maybe! My belief is that if God made us, then he gave each of us the sexuality that we possess. If it is a sin to be gay, or bi, then God created that sin...so it's not sin, but the way that we are supposed to be. As long as we do our best to not harm other people, and to leave the world in a better state than we found it...I think God would have no problem with who we love.
I realize that this doesn't help if you believe a literal translation of the Bible, but if you can think of it less as a divine text, and more of an effort by a specific group of people to explain their idea of the divine, it may help a little.
Don’t let ppl confuse you the Bible say it’s an abomination.... 1st Corinthians 6- 8:9 the devil wants company please don’t be deceived
If you want more RUclips stuff on this Matthew Vines has a good starter video, and he recommends a guy who gets deep into Romans 1. Also, Christians are only unaffirming because of politics, I kid you not. Check out talks titled Walking the Bridgeless Canyon for insight into that.
Try not to have such a hard time over it. Give up on that horrendous book for finding advice on how to live, it's messing with your head. It shouldn't matter to you what the bible authors thought about homosexuality. The writers, or redactors, of leviticus thinks its a sin, but it shouldn't matter to you. Why do you care so much about the approval from an ancient Jewish priest? I think that is to be expected from the priest classes, but bugger 'em. Figure it out for yourself whether its right or wrong.
Matthew Vines is legit
His og talk - ruclips.net/video/ezQjNJUSraY/видео.html
TEDxTalk inspired by him - ruclips.net/video/zWvLJNaVgrI/видео.html
***BONUS*** LGBT+ affirming Christian channel that agrees with him - ruclips.net/video/6-3BgPNetio/видео.html
His channel - ruclips.net/user/TheReformationProjectfeatured
I'm kind of on the back end of the research stage of deciding if I can still morally identify as a Christian or not and that first link was a good jumping off point for me. Know that you and your identity are loved, friend! By this Christian and by so many others regardless of religion. I wish you the best on your journey.
Seriously, when is everyone going stop trying to make sin ok,, you can’t change God’s word. He made them male and female not male and male or female and female.
Do you have any specific critiques of Dershowitz’s argument?
Just a suggestion for the future. Maybe quote something that actually refers to marriage or not allowing homosexuality when you try to condemn homosexuality.
When you just say "God made then male and female!" Everyone else is just thinking "Ugh... yeah... we know...and?" It doesn't actually contribute anything and kind of makes you look like a ditz. Just saying.
Then what about the verse against MSM? Was that added too?
Do we have the original Hebrew writings?
I’m not denying this possibility but I just want to double check.
Brought here by AronRa and Paulogia
translation of hebrew masoretic text ,and from JPS bible especially. 'Leviticus 18:22,says the fol lowing: wë’et-zakar lo’ tishkab mishkëbey ‘ishah
/ to’ebah hw (JPS). the literal
translation of this verse is “do not lie (with) male,
the lyings/beds of woman / this is abhorrence” .Then its been assumed 'do not lay with a male in the way a woman does,or the fashion of a woman' but there is no proof it said that. it only says do not lay with male (in/upon?) bed of woman. The translators have often been leaving out that this a woman's bed.They did not think about adultery ritualism yet the hebrews did. Leviticus 15:16-18 is about sperm's uncleanness. deuteronomy 23:9-11,leviticus 15:4. This is because the pheremones of sperm in clothing could go into the air and would go into other people's area,and therefore it ritually represented adultery and or fornication of unintentional sexual mingling with those who were not married to the couple whom that sperm was alone dedicated for in the marriage bed.
I don't see any arguments about the bible condoning homosexuality rather condemning incest.
@K Mountain God is imaginary. No god is real. Sins are man-made to control the population.
@K Mountain You are just trying to justify your homosexual behavior in a doctrine that so blatantly considers it an abomination. I feel sorry for you.
@K Mountain DOCTRINE! Has nothing to do with a god. I don't consider homosexuality an abomination. I have gay friends whom I value so much. I am in support of LGBT marriage and adoption. I simply hate the fact that homosexuals would embrace a doctrine that considers them an abomination.
@K Mountain I am a proud atheist. And I would rather have children be taught logic and reason rather than justifying torture (Exodus 21:20-21), child abuse (Psalm 137:9), genocide (Isaiah 13:16) and slavery (Ephesians 6:5).
Reading the comments, it seems you made it somewhat unclear as to where your stance on the issue is, i.e. do you support the argument or not. I myself wasn't too sure about it until I read some of your replies here.
One glaring issue here would have to be the lack of mss at any stage without the verse that is supposedly a later addition.
I would certainly agree that the language used in Leviticus 18 is confusing, though.
All in all, while it is hypothetically possible that verse 22 was a later addition, I'd say the lack of evidence [in mss] lowers the probably of that, perhaps a bit too much.
Our view on the subject is actually quite irrelevant :) all this video is intended to do is present a recent academic argument on the subject in a manner that is accessible to non-specialists.
Thank you for your comment!
Oh, yeah, of course, I know this is intended to be a presentation. What I meant is that that intention of the video - to be a presentation of an argument without supporting or debunking it - isn't as clear as it perhaps should be.
I kinda seemed like you were supporting it in the video, which you weren't particularly doing as you were merely presenting it, and I guess some sort of clarification might have avoided some confusion.
Thank you too for the reply, by the way. The confusing aspect aside, the video was pretty great. Keep up the good work!
Ah, I see! Thank you, we'll endeavor to be more clear next time :)
Imagine hating gay people and calling rainbows abominable in 2020 lol
Nice! Of course, there'll be hell to pay in getting this properly distributed...🤔
Can you explain "Deuteronomy 25:12 you are to cut off her hand. You must show her no pity."?
Maybe the passages were talking to both men & women. Then the parts about uncovering your father's, uncle's, brother's nakedness would be telling women not to have relations with their fathers, brothers or uncles. Just a thought as it appeared to me that you assume those directives were only being given to men.
I don't think you can analyse or re-analyse a document without having the original document, which doesn't exist anymore.
Leviticus 20:13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. This seems pretty clear and comes before 18. Am I missing something
That one has confused me too. But every verse before and immediately after this is about incest. I get the same "someone messed with this" vibe from this random single verse about homosexuality.
adultery
New subscription via Shannon Q and Aron Ra
Thank you for subbing! Glad to have you ☺️
As far as I am aware Samaritans share the first few books of the bible. I was wondering if scholars have made comparisons between this and the Jewish versions, or are these identical?
they are indeed different
what about leviticus 18:22 which explicitly condemns homosexuality?
By the way this is for arguments sake. I'm not some christian trying to discredit him.
Why do some many "god hates gays" types give off such strong closeted energy? There's probably an obvious answer i'm not quite getting...
This is how you can make a virtue out of sin. The video omits at Lev. 18.7 the following verse, after which it says: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. (RSVCE, Lev.18:8). In my opinion, this verse reinforces verse 7 again: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness." So having a sexual relationship with your mother is like having a sexual relationship with your father. What about verse 14: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. "?
For me, the various sexual avoidance rules initially indicate a different social position for men and women. The sexual relationship with one's own mother is equivalent to the sexual relationship with the father - the mother disappears here, so to speak. Does it now follow that a sexual relationship with the mother would be permitted if the mother is a single parent? I do not think so. For me, just as little does it follow from the fact that a sexual relationship is expressly excluded only with relatives of the same sex that homosexual relationships with non-relatives are suddenly allowed.
The father's brother's wife must be seen in a broader context defined by kinship terminology. Based on ego/ego, the following sexual relationships are forbidden:
a) to the father (F)
b) to the mother (M)
c) to the sister (either natural or step-related) (Z)
d) to one's own son-daughter (SD) or daughter-daughter (DD); for their nakedness is your nakedness
e) to the father's wife's daughter (daughter shown with concubines, she too is a blood relative), FD
f) to the father's sister (FZ); "... because she is physically related to your father" or "for she is your father's near kinswoman."
g) to the mother's sister (MZ), "... because she is related to your mother" or "for she is your mother's near kinswoman."
h) to father's brother's wife
Only the father's brother's wife (FBW) is not specifically mentioned, but rather hidden behind the father's brother (FB):
h') to the father's brother, i.e. to the father's brother's wife.
So are sexual relations with the paternal uncle allowed if it's only about his wife? I do not think so....
In my opinion, relatives a) to g) differ from h) in that all persons are assumed to be related to the ego. This is only not done with the wife of the father's brother, she is simply the "aunt". And I dare to add: intercourse with the mother's brother's wife will be just as forbidden as intercourse with the father's brother's wife:
Father's brother (FB) and mother's brother (MB) are structurally equal, as are their wives. And it is their wives who are further removed from ego than two other women in the same generation, namely father sister and mother sister. Although FZ and MZ (f and g) correspond to each other, they are also related to the father or mother.
The supposed problems of interpretation can therefore be explained more easily with family distance than with subsequent editorial insertions, which allegedly had the purpose of retrospectively lifting an alleged toleration of homosexuality again...
See, I've always interpreted this differently, with the references to "your father's nakedness" referring directly to your mother's body, because in relation to ancient Hebrew law, they were the same thing (that is, a man, for all intents and purposes, owned his wife, and therefore her nakedness belonged to him). Same with the uncle/aunt verse. In that case, the whole section wouldn't actually have referred to same-sex relations at all. It's interesting to have that view challenged. Not that it matters, really, since I'm gay and atheist, but still.
I was told that "A man shall not sleep with a male as a women. It is an abomination." Was a poor translation that originally condemned a same sex relation with a child (whether it's your child or not)
Do you not think it reasonable that 'uncovering the nakedness' is referring to Hebrew ideals of not profaning the marriage bed? 'Uncovering the nakedness' is a euphemism after all, it's not as if there aren't more direct Aramaic phrases for saying 'have sex with'.
Both cases where you're claiming there is direct prohibition to same-sex familial interactions are in regards to women the recipient is related to *through marriage,* so the clarification that it is dishonouring your father and uncle(blood relatives) in regards to their marriage bed is quite relevant. I find it interesting that v15 is omitted here, which prohibits sleeping with your daughter-in-law immediately after you're told not to sleep with an aunt-through-marriage but doesn't repeat the aspect of it being an uncovering of your brother presumably due to proximity to the verse before. So the structure of the passage actually supports the widely accepted interpretation more than this supposedly redacted perspective on the text.
Beyond the structure itself, consider that there's redundancy in regards to sisters, step sisters through your mother, step sisters through your father, including from a previous marriage and more. *All of this emphasis and clarification revolves around women related to the male reader* in various ways and the men are only referenced to the extent that they inform those relationships. Which actively supports the idea that homosexuality is being treated separately.
Simply taken on balance, there's 11 prohibitions that are distinctly relating to female relatives(12 if you count sleeping with a mother and her daughter as 2), compared to the 2 that are being disputed here which reference male relatives and their wives and the 1 that specifies a brothers wife without direct mention of the brother being uncovered.
In summary nothing about the passage supports the idea of the decrees against incest being contingent for the later decree against homosexual activity. Read it for yourself though, seriously; this video barely quotes the source material.
After the incest section there is a prohibition against sleeping with a women during her period, a prohibition against the practice of sacrificing babies to Molech, a prohibition against adultery, *then* the prohibition against gay sex followed by a prohibition against bestiality. After which the text states that these very things are the reason God will hand the land over to the Israelites(from nations including the Hittites mentioned in the video) who are commanded not to defile themselves in these ways.
Now I realise some may find this confronting because it means that living by Judeo-Christian values consistently and treating the Bible as trustworthy means eschewing sexual behaviors some are drawn to in ways that others are not. I would encourage you to focus on the question of where your value lies; if it is to be found in Christ, as I believe, everything else does take a back seat. I believe God loves homosexuals as much he loves any other sinful people, which is all of us in case anyone has given the impression your sin is somehow worse than theirs. That's between you and God ultimately, I can only share the truth to the extent I am aware of it.
Fantastic video. Thanks Dr Josh!! :)
please forgive my childish humour ( i do value the content you provide ) but the unintentional pun in the title made me giggle . perhaps ' re-examined ' would have been more fitting in this context ?
I think it was a bit vague tho, there are verses that woman and man should be the only ones that can get married and homosexuality goes against God's nature, will you make another video about homosexuality again? But more analytical and detailed?
I know that there are lots of euphemisms in the Bible relating to sexuality, so it is natural enough to consider that "uncovering nakedness" might be one such euphemism. And perhaps it is. But it seems to me that there are also some reasons to think that the phrase might have been meant to be taken literally.
Consider the incident of Noah's nakedness while drunk (Genesis 9): "Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness." Here it seems that there is a serious issue with Noah's nakedness being uncovered in a literal sense (rather than in a euphemistic sense). Also consider that Adam and Eve had made clothing for themselves out of concern over being seen naked. Is this not a literal concern over having their nakedness uncovered rather than a euphemism about a sexual act?
Ann Guinan, analyzing some 1st Millenium BCE Mesopotamian texts she published that discuss the seeing of genitalia, proposed that the literal seeing (no euphemism) of genitalia could have been a grievous crime: "Observation could be a breach of boundary."
You take one man's word over thousands of other people's interpretation. Now you sound like the ancient theorist!
Just because you haven't heard it before doesn't mean this is the only person that has ever talked about it. I mean did you think multiplication was just something your teacher made up on the spot when you were taught in the third grade? Back in the day, there were "thousands" of people preaching about an awesome warrior savior then suddenly a voice says "he's peaceful and his name's Jesus." Most people didn't believe. But low and behold, it was the Truth.
Don't knock it just because it's unfamiliar.
Except they don't. At no point did they say they personally hold this view. They are explaining what a research paper says in common English. That's it.
Just thinking about if I brought this up as an argument: I still don’t see why it wouldn’t of been the original author who wanted to clarify that they weren’t condoning homosexuality. Anybody? This is just a theory of course, but I still see a glaring hole in the argument.
The issue is the Hebrew grammar. As it stands, Dershowitz argues that the syntax is not only odd, but the second part of these two verses essentially negate the meaning of the first half of the lines.
@@DigitalHammurabi Now THAT is something I don't know much about, but that does make sense. I've taken many bible classes in college and I might ask my professor tomorrow what he thinks about it. He can read 25 different languages and has written 3 books, I'm sure he can clarify something for me. xD
Who is your professor? Please let me know what he thinks! :-)
@@DigitalHammurabi For privacies sake, I think it's best if I didn't say! But, yeah I'll come back soon with a response!
Of course! I thought that, if he can read 25 languages, I probably already know who he is :-)
I believe everything i see on youtube ! ... He said "someone else said it". - So it MUST be true!
Alright then what’s your approach on this topic
@@randyandy98 Well i suppose two things come to my mind.-First, i dont see any evidence of these statement. - Another way of contemplate it would be that he is working for the devil. Devil meaning slanderer, accuser, liar.
He didn't say it must be true. So you are commenting out of a false perception
@@MrEVAQ What ? Read the comment again.
@@saxoragnhildssn5443 You are mocking Dr.Bowen for treating this as true, but Dr.Bowen doesn't necessarily think this is the absolute truth. So your remark against him is based on a false premise
You never see God in the Bible blessing anyone for being homosexual.
Do you consider that a strong argument?
Jesus had 2 fathers though. He was all fine.
Lance Wells Would you like to come on the Skylar Fiction Show with us and make your case?
Well, if you want to do more than just type, email skylarfictionshow@gmail.com.
Lance Wells If you would like to send me a copy, I will make time to review it.
Nice sweater Dr. Josh
It says don't sleep with your parents, siblings, aunties and uncles but I'm curious about cousins. Are you allowed to sleep with your cousins? I grew up Muslim and it's pretty normal in my culture for cousins to marry eachother so I was just wondering if it was normal in Christianity at all?
That is an interesting question; I’ll look into it :-)
@@DigitalHammurabi thank you
Ummmmm, but doing my own research there is another way to view Lev. 18:22. The focus should be on Lev. 18:21 (when Molech is mentioned), remember Lev chapter 18 is mainly discussing sexual sins/sexual prohibitions. Now Lev. 18:21 is talking about slaughtering kids to the idol Molech, NOW, what is sexual wrong about slaughtering kids?????, There are too many verses discussing slaughtering kids in Shrines (hint, hint- temple/shrine prostitution) but Kings 1 and 2, Ezekiel (and more), read the other verses surrounding Molech (Molech and MIlcom is the same idol god) GOOGLE bible verses that mention Molech........Not to mention the word "beds" is missing from Lev 18:22, (it should read in beds of women)
I think that it is fantastic that you are doing that kind of research! :-) I think that understanding the redaction history (even generally) of Leviticus will shift the topic of discussion completely away from condemning homosexuality. I think that I would argue that even that section of Leviticus 18 was a later redaction... isn’t biblical research fun?? ;-)
A Man Lies with a man as a man not a woman
Case closed, I guess? ;-)
@@DigitalHammurabi the homophobia ends today good news
And right after Lev. 18:22 is Lev. 18:23 which prohibits copulation with an animal. It seems that the common theme linking the three verses together is the perceived wastage of "seed", meaning descendants and sperm.
I don't think that the word. uncover. mean sexual in the original text. In ancient time that was used for ultimate shame. Noah got drunk and he was found naked uncovered. They stripped Jesus of his garments which was Ultimate shame in ancient times. I think that's sexual came in later as it was redacted
I'm a bit tipsy because I have drunk Scottish whiskey and Finnish Koskenkorva, so I'm also a bit emotional. So as a trans lesbian who is bi-curious I want to express my appreciation for doing this video. I may be an atheist anti-theist myself but I know there are religious people who are good people, if this helps them to accept LGBTQ individuals it is awesome!
Thank you so much!
I love you brother or sister but gay = unholy please dont keep twisting the bible. No hate I swear just get your shit right smfh
Officer Nasty ok boomer
Awesome video! Thanks for sharing!
Some people argue leviticus 18:22 was falsely added at a later date offers on the other hand argue that it is mistranslated and should read do not lie with a boy oi as with a woman bye boy a little boy
Interesting! I read in the Talmud that the Rabbis who discussed Leviticus 18:22 and Deuteronomy 23:17 clearly equated homosexual sex with anal intercourse between a man and a woman.
Even so, Deuteronomy 23:17 refers to a prohibition of male and female "sanctified" sex workers at the Temple or any other. (Eh, wot?) The verse that follows, verse 18, confirms this by forbidding the wages of a rent girl or the hire of a rent boy to be brought into the Temple. This of course implies that homosexuality was otherwise condoned by the writers of the Bible until Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 appeared in scripture as it reads now.
Still, the Christians beginning with Paul elevated the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 to be condemning all same-sex relationships and even same-sex attraction as evidence of God's abandonment of the LGBTQ+ person! And they consider his uninformed opinion as "the Word of God"!!
Well no one told David and Johnathan, Ruth and Naomi, nor Jesus and Lazarus a.k.a. John the beloved disciple that.
and another thing people dont get god changes like O.T and N.T are two types of people. god would punish you for being the kin of someone else. we dont know how god has changed in the past 2000 years for all we know he could be the chillest dude to exist. god has changed and mostly in the past 2000 years has changed his views.
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
rape
So would lesbianism be allowed?
Came here because of a link on Christian channel
People go and say stuff like, “they haven’t found a gay gene, there fore you cannot have a gay baby.” I mean that doesn’t make much sense to me at all. Like ok, I get where people come from in this yet, and don’t get me wrong, people do bad things cause of environmental issues, but if someone lives a great life without any problems and murders someone without any reason on purpose, and the parents haven’t killed anyone nor even thought of it. That’s possible. I have no hate towards anyone, alright, I might dislike actions but I never hate. So don’t take that as the vibe I’m trying to give off.
very interesting. writing is rewriting, i guess
Great presentation. ( my other comment disappeared lol. Might have been too much though 🤪)
No but during the time of Noah it wasn't productive and was then seemed bad because the earth needed to repopulated later when it was used in war to humiliate enemy captives it was deemed to be sinful regardless of relationship.
I feel like I'm watching the last part of "A Few Good Men".
> Why would you say this if this was true
> Well, I... uh....
> And furthermore you said
> Yeah, but....
> And originally you said this but now it says this
well, what this verse says by this conclusion: yes you can have homosexuality and bestiality too or pedophilia. how about that?