In this instalment, I consider the broader contextual situation, both in terms of the biblical text of Leviticus, but also the cultural context of both ancient Near East and Mediterranean societies. This is fairly straightforward and graphic but is necessary if we are going to have an intelligent discussion regarding what the biblical texts say, or don't say, about same-sex intimacy. So, as they say on television–but revised for reading: "The following article contains graphic context...much like real life. Reader discretion is advised."
******************
3.
Broader Contextual
Considerations
3.1 The
Holiness Code and the Book of Leviticus
Our two passages are located in a section of
Leviticus known as “the Holiness Code” which includes chapters 17–27. Jacob
Milgrom notes that in the Holiness Code “two critical changes occur: ritual
impurity becomes moral impurity; and the domain of the sacred expands,
embracing the entire land, not just the sanctuary, and all of Israel, not just
the priesthood.” Thus, there is a “decided emphasis on ethical behavior and the
granting of civil equality to the resident alien.”[1]
We can see this in chapters 18 and 19 in that the resident alien is held to the
same ethical standards in terms of both blessing and punishment (18:26). As we
have already noted, the individual can defile the land through his disobedience
and thus, like the Canaanites before him, be vomited out by the land. Many
scholars see the Holiness Code as a development of the earlier legal codes,
probably written in the late eighth century BCE.[2]
What is of note is that no other biblical law code contains any law even
remotely related to same-gender sexual intimacy. It is only found within these
two chapters of Leviticus.
3.2 Other
references to same-gender sex in the Hebrew Bible
All scholars would agree that this law is not found
elsewhere but would disagree on whether same-gender sexual intimacy is demonstrated
or prohibited by means of other Hebrew Bible texts. The texts most often cited
are Gen 19:1–11 and Judg 19:22–26. However, what seems quite obvious in these
two, almost identical, narratives is that rampant homosexual desire was not the
motivation of the towns’ people, but rather rampant pride, violence and
prejudice. Their plan was not the result of same-sex attraction. Their
intention was gang rape for the purpose harming, humiliating and dominating the
strangers. According to the narratives, the Sodomites did not get a chance to
carry out their plan—being blinded by the visiting angels—and the men of Gibeah
took the Levite’s concubine and ravished her all night to the point of death.
The author of Genesis 19
makes it clear that the entire male population of Sodom gathered around Lot’s
house demanding access to his guests (v. 4). If their motivation was unbridled
homoeroticism, then other biblical texts that reference Sodom would point to its
universal homoeroticism as “the”—or a least “a”—reason for its destruction. Sodom
is indeed referenced in several other texts in the Hebrew Bible (and the New
Testament) but not once is the reason for its destruction given as same-gender
sexual intimacy.[3]
Even in the extrabiblical literature of Second Temple Judaism, the sin of the Sodomites
is never connected to their sexuality.[4]
David Gushee notes that “[t]he
men of Sodom want gang rape…[and] I would also suggest that the men wanted to
dominate, humiliate and harm the male visitors precisely by treating
them like defenseless women…It is about a town that had sunk to the level
of the most depraved battlefield or prison” (emphasis is Gushee’s).[5]
As Bird concludes, these narratives clearly indicate that “male honor is
threatened by homosexual intercourse” where “sexual behavior [is] governed by
views of gender roles and sexual honor.”[6]
The goal of the Sodomites’ and Gibeahites’ demand “to know” the foreigners was
to dominate, humiliate and control. While the Sodomites were prevented from
doing so by divine intervention, the Gibeahites did the next closest thing by
ravishing the Levite’s concubine, thus humiliating him.
3.3 Ancient
Near Eastern law codes, culture and same-gender sex
It is widely agreed that there is very little
evidence of “same-sex erotic interaction” from the ancient Near East, but what
there is supports the idea that in these patriarchal cultures maintaining
defined gender roles was crucial. So, when it comes to male-to-male sexual
acts, the penetrator takes on the active male role, while the penetrated is the
passive “female.”[7]
One briefly stated Middle Assyrian Law (A. 20) states, “If a man sodomizes his
comrade and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty, they shall
sodomize him and they shall turn him into a eunuch.”[8]
As Martti Nissinen notes, “The Middle Assyrian Laws decrees that a man who has
raped another man be raped and castrated himself; his manly honor was to be
disgraced, and he was to lose his masculinity and change his gender identity
permanently.”[9]
In
contrast to the paucity of Near Eastern same-gender references, there are numerous
resources available to help us appreciate same-gender sexual relationships
among the ancient Greeks and Romans. Nissinen notes that the composition of the
Holiness Code “belongs to the post-exilic situation of the fifth century BCE,
when the Jewish community attempted to detach itself from outsiders.”[10]
Thus, it seems reasonable to consider the attitudes of the ancient Greeks. Among
Greeks it was acceptable for male citizens to have same-sex relations with
those of lower social status such as a youth, a slave, or a foreigner. However,
to be sexually involved with another male citizen, the penetrator violated his
partner’s masculinity and the citizen who allowed himself to be penetrated
“detach[ed] himself from the ranks of male citizenry
and classifi[ed] himself with women and foreigners.”[11]
If Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are indeed a
prohibition against all manner of man-to-male sexual intimacy, then certainly
this biblical law contrasts with the cultures surrounding Israel in its past
and present. But is this an all-encompassing prohibition or does it
prohibit something more specific? Various other questions need to be asked and
answered before a determination can be made.
[2] Milgrom, Leviticus, 175; Richard S.
Hess, Leviticus, The Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2008), Kindle ebook, V. “The Holiness Code,” loc. 6111.
[3] Deut 29:23; 32:32; Isa 1:9f, 3:9; 13:10; Jer
23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam 4:6; Ezek 16:46–50; Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9; Matt 10:15;
Luke 10:10–12; Rom 9:29; 2 Pet 2:6–10; Jude 6–7. Instead, the sins of Sodom
that are highlighted are abuses of public justice, adultery, lying, pride,
excess food, prosperous ease and lack of care or mocking of the poor.
[6]
Phyllis A. Bird, “The Bible in
Christian Ethical Deliberation concerning Homosexuality: Old Testament
Contributions,” in Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of
Scripture, ed. David L. Balch (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2000), 148.
[7] Bird, “The Bible in Christian Ethical
Deliberation,” 158; Jean Bottero, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the
Gods, Trans. Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1992),191.
[8]
Ca. 1076 BCE. As translated by
Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor,
Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
1977), 160.
[9] Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the
Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, Trans. By kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1998), 43.
[10]
Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, 38.
No comments:
Post a Comment