"But they are clearly often used euphemistically of Sexual intercourse."
Well we also use "bed" that way in English so that's not an excuse for not translating them as "bed". Just translate the word as what the word means and let grammar and context determine how it's being used.
The Greek Koiten/Koitus was definitely used that way hence being the origin of our word "Coitus". But I can't help but suspect the Hebrew Mishkab only came to be used that way because of the Septuagint using Koiten to translate Mishkab.
This isn't just about the Homosexuality clobber passages, the other five times the KJV translated "Mishkab" as if it were a verb were in totally Het contexts and are also verses where a break down of the Hebrew Grammar shows it's being used as a noun. They are Judges 21:11-12 and Numbers 31:17, 18 and 35. The difference between those five and the two verses in Leviticus assumed to be about Homsexuality is those verses suggest the bed belongs to the Zakar (male) while in Leviticus the bed belongs to the woman or wife.
All seven verses are definitely about some type of sex happening, but whether or not the word for bed is being used as a noun or a verb can make a big difference in what a verse means. And the number of times even the KJV translated this word as a Noun regardless of if sex is involved dwarf these seven occurrences.
The most hyper literal unbiased translations of Leviticus 18:22 tend to be something like "And with male not lay bed of woman; abomination-her."
In my initial analysis of the Leviticus clobber verses I talked about the theory some have proposed that it means "Thou shall not lie with a male in a Wife's Bed", but was ultimately dismissive of it. Back then I stressed the Pagan context of Leviticus 18 but was also willing to slightly throw anal intercourse under the bus. Today I'm not as comfortable with that.
The grammar of The Hebrew supports some from of the "Wife's Bed" interpretation. But other aspects of it are still unclear.
What if that reading opens the door for it to not even be a gay act at all? Looking at the very literal translation, what if it's about having another male lie with your wife? Something many ancients practiced under the right circumstances. The problem there is I also want to encourage Christians to be more open to Non-Monogamous arrangements.
The fact that the word 'Tovah" (commonly translated "Abomination" or "Detestable" but I feel is perhaps best rendered "Taboo"). has a feminine pronoun attached to it is fascinating. Many scholars pointing this fact out don't see it as really relevant. But I think it could be.
Traditional interpretations say the reference to "womankind" in the verse is just as an analogy, "don't do with a male what you're supposed to do with a woman". And that includes my own past desire to see anal sex a key factor.
But this ignored fact of a feminine pronoun attached to Tovah suggests that this is in fact a crime or offense for which the wife is the victim, or the one being wronged.
Which would mean if it were about having another male sleep with your wife, the issue would be if she's okay with it or not. And going back to the gay option, if your wife is a Fujoshi who's totally cool with you banging a guy in her bed then that's not an issue either.
Regardless of all that, it's certainly NOT a verse condemning all male Homosexuality.
Traditionalists may on this or other disputes throw a "these heretics can't even agree with each other" argument at a post like this. But that's not evidence their view is right, it's evidence their view is one of many. But it's inevitable people will think that way when they've been used to their interpretation being the default.
Fortunately I don't think we're under The Law anymore and so am not that concerned with knowing what these two obscure verses want people to not do. But I do address these Torah passages because I want LGBT Jews to know that the G-d of Abraham is cool with them.
Update: Here's an interlinear Bible showing what I'm talking about.
The Feminine Pronoun attached to Tovah is Eua spelled Aleph-Vav-Heh.
The translation on the side is just the AV (Authorized Version) more commonly known as the KJV.
If this interpretation is true, wouldn't it it have made better sense for Leviticus 20:13 to refer to the forbidden married man as the איש, rather than the זכר?
ReplyDeleteNo my argument has nothing to do with if the Male is married or not.
DeleteIs it the איש who's married and being commanded to not lie with a male in his own wife's bed then?
DeleteI don't have Hebrew character memorized, this would be easier for me if you spelled them using English letters.
Delete