A former student had recently read a series of books and arguments regarding the “clobber” passages in the Bible about condemning homosexuality.  She was curious about several of their arguments.  I started with a look at the main author – K. Renato Ling.

I do not want to make an ad hominem error – and I am not going to.  However, it is important to understand that the argument being made by Ling is that 99% of all Hebrew scholars, past and present, are translating the Hebrew here incorrectly.  And that only a very small percentage – Ling in its leadership – are translating it correctly.  I am also not a Hebrew scholar, but I am able to look at the reams of research that exist on this topic.  Here are the words from the article:

About his book:  “Love Lost in Translation is the first book ever to take a critical look at the ways in which Bible translators have misunderstood the texts commonly believed to deal with homosexuality.”

This isn’t accurate – plenty of others with much stronger pedigrees have looked critically at these before. He is just among the first to come to a different conclusion that the thousands before him. Therefore, since he is first and almost only, he needs to have some significant bona fides in order to hold the stance that he has special insight.  He is not especially trained in Hebrew more than the thousands of Jewish Hebrew scholars and Christian Hebrew scholars and non-religious Hebrew scholars.  What he IS more experienced in is the plight of being homosexual, since according to his website: 

“Renato’s teen years were very lonely. Because of social taboos surrounding homosexuality, he took refuge in “the closet.” Haunted by depression, he was ready to implode by age 18 and tried to find a way out of this emotional turmoil…”

In other words, he is very strongly motivated psychologically to find a way to make his homosexuality biblically acceptable.  I am not claiming that makes him wrong in his conclusions; I do think it may help explain why his conclusions are very different from almost all of the scholars who study these. I am also very curious about his degrees.  His website indicates that his degrees are “CandPhil” and a “CandArt”… those mean that he was accepted for a degree, but never finished it (if I am understanding this correctly)… later,” he was awarded a doctorate in 2006 for his thesis: Restoring Sodom: Towards a Non-sexual Approach.”  

Let me take this first opportunity to note that if all that he experienced as a younger man was that homosexuality was “taboo”, then I think he was merely experiencing the biblically sound understanding that homosexual behavior is sin. However, if he means that he was on the receiving end of abuse, neglect, bullying, etc. then what he experienced is more than the taboo, but he was on the receiving end of sin, and his desire to find approval makes even more sense. To abuse, bully, or even refuse to love is, in and of itself, sin for a Christian! It is appropriate to disagree about certain teachings; it is appropriate to be honest about what the Bible says. It is never appropriate for a Christian to be abusive. That is sin… and IF any sin is worse than any other, cruelty to another human made in God’s image would be significantly worse.

Now, back to his credentials as the foundation for his expertise, that he is primarily a gay-rights activist (he is a member of several LGBT organizations), doesn’t mean his arguments have validity or don’t have validity, but I can find no evidence that Lings is a Hebrew scholar.  His bio says:  “K. Renato Lings holds advanced degrees in Spanish, Translation, and Theology. He has studied Latin, Greek and Hebrew and published books in Spanish (2011) and English (2013) on sexuality and biblical interpretation.”

I don’t know what it means that he “studied” them.  Furthermore, K. Renato Lings makes an interesting argument for how the Bible could have been translated incorrectly in this passage. Lings holds degrees in Spanish, Translation Studies, and Theology. In addition to studying Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Nahuatl (Aztec), he has written and taught extensively on biblical interpretation, translation, and issues relating to gender and sexuality.   After digging, it looks like he has a ”PhD in Theology” from Exeter University.

I see no evidence in his training that would make me expect to gain any special insight from him – especially not in the arena of “for the first time ever” kind of insight.  I think there is very good reason to suspect that he is engaging in “eisegesis” – carefully seeking to interpret the Bible in such a way that I backs his preconceived notions and preferences.  What do you think?  

*****

Lings discovers that the text is not self-explanatory in contrast to the version of most commentators. The Hebrew text is far more complex than English translators disclose.[7] Lings thus maintains that the English text should be translated on the basis of Hebrew linguistics. He builds on the work of David Stewart and the idea that this passage is really about male on male incest.[8] First, Lings notes that the word used for “man” is not the typical noun used for “man.” Instead, a word which translates to male occurs here. This noun for “male” includes both young and adult males.[9] Therefore, Lings translates the text of Lev. 18:22 as “And with a male you shall not lie.”[10]

*****

So far, I would agree with his wording if that part of the verse, except that he is leaving out the words at the end of the verse.  The ESV translates the same line as “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.”

Now that Lings has solved the linguistic problem with “man” and “male,” the first half of the verse is pretty straight forward. However, difficulties with translation start as one turns to the next phrase, “As with a woman” (NRSV). Lings contends that translators have taken liberties here by including the word “as”.[11]  Many translations also include particles “with” or “like.”  According to Ling, these words are not part of the original Hebrew text. 

To say that these “words” are not in the passage is technically accurate.  However, this is the normal status of the Hebrew language.  Participles are commonly understood in the Hebrew rather than put in place.  A participle is clearly called for here, and that is why every scholar in the past includes one in this passage.  However, present or not, the meaning of the passage would still be clear.

The passage, so that you know actually goes like this: “tiskab et zakar miskbe issah hiw toebah”

The word that seems to be his point of contention is “miskbe”.

Tiskab mean to lie down.  Hebrew words typically have several meanings – sometimes several dozen meanings!  It makes it one of the toughest languages to translate.  This word literally means every form of “lying” with.  Sleeping, napping, lying alongside, lodging, make bed… etc.

Zakar means male.  It can be a reference to any kind of male.

Issah means woman – almost any kind of woman.

Miskbe means “bed, bedroom, couch, intimate, rest, sleep” – in other words, the act of lying or the place of lying...

More in Part III