…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 fo woman.
Miskbe means “bed, bedroom, couch, intimate, rest, sleep” – in other words, the act of lying or the place of lying.
******
Thus, he translates the verse so far as “And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman.”
******
Shouldn’t there be a “not” in that sentence?
*****
[12] Lings moves his work to the Hebrew word used for “lyings.”[13] This word appears in the plural, which Milgrom misses and, according to Lings, it is only found in these Lev. 18:22 and Genesis 49:4. The singular version of the Hebrew word is used frequently.[14] According to Ling the reference in Genesis 49:4 depicts “lyings” as incest.[15] Lings argues that the term “lyings” refers to an action that is of “arguably illicit nature.”[16] He claims we must follow the principle of seeking out the more difficult reading and not to take the easy way out when we translate a biblicaltext.[17] If we take into account Genesis 49:2 then, we discover the text refers to forbidden act of incest.[18]
*****
Did you read this? There is one other place in the Bible that uses this exact spelling of this word – and it is a reference to incest.
Gen 49:4
“Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence, because you went up to your father’s bed; then you defiled it—he went up to my couch!”
That, in no way, means that the reference in Lev 18 would or could only refer to incest.
This word, in general, is used dozens of times and means what I wrote before – a place or act of lying. In both of these passages, it is used as a euphemism for something sexual, obviously.
This argument is almost 100% specious…and he still is going to have to deal with the idea of “like with a woman”.
*****
Finally, Ling discusses the noun for “woman.” The KJV uses the word “womankind.” While the word used for “male” is clearly referenced elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible for all ages, the one used for “woman” refers to an adult woman. In fact, many times the word is translated as “wife” in English.[19] It is important to note that the Hebrew presents an adult woman only, but uses a non-specific noun for the male. The text can be talking about a young boy or a grown man, but “woman” is clearly a grown woman. Furthermore, Lings considers the context in which Lev. 18:22 is written. He explains that the passage “deals with various illicit relationships in the sexual realm: one marrying two sisters (18:18), intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19), infidelity (18:20), and bestiality (18:23).”[20] Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest.
*****
Wow, that is a dishonest statement. ONLY if you already accept his premise, is it mostly about incest. So now his argument is proof for itself. Typically once I see this kind of junk, I stop reading, but I will continue for your sake. However, know that I am now convinced that this is nothing more than proof-texting. He is taking each word independently and trying to rearrange each word so that when he brings them back together, they mean what he wants them to mean.
Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20. In Leviticus 18 the order of the topics is ambiguous, but in chapter 20 the so-called homosexual law appears within a list referring to incest.[21] Lings’ linguistic study leads him to conclude that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 continue the theme of incestuous relationships.[22] Thus, the passage should be paraphrased: “Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives.”[23] Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 forbids male incestuous relations.” https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/
*****
The section is 20 is also NOT merely about incest with a young person at all. It is about a sex within a family. John the Baptist, in the first century would say that this is forbids adult Herod from marrying His adult sister-in-law. That being said, that incest is mentioned in the passage doesn’t at all mean that the entire passage is about incest!
Look at his paraphrase! A total change in any possible meaning of the actual wording. Remember it? So you don’t have to scroll back up:
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 fo woman.
Miskbe means “bed, bedroom, couch, intimate, rest, sleep” – in other words, the act of lying or the place of lying.
“You not lie (with) a male bed woman such abomination”
Now to:
“Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives.”
Do you see how much work had to be done to make the passage say something very different from the meaning of the words?
The scholarship on the Hebrew words wasn’t horrible at first, as I understand it… especially since the language has so much flexibility for theoretical conversations. However, he has taken a totally counter-scholarly theory and presented it as anything other than an extremely theoretical. Actually, what he has actually done is take each Hebrew word, and offer an extremely unlikely interpretation of each one with almost no good evidence and then combine each of those into a total meaning that he is wanting to create. So, it is more like 3-5 separate theories combined. I can see now why there isn’t a lot of scholarly work debunking his work. It probably isn’t being taken very seriously in that world.
*****
In your article (she is referencing my article on the biblical views of homosexuality), you state, “For the Christian, though, the most important reference is Jesus. When a First-Century Jewish Rabbi used a phrase like “sexual immorality”, what would he have been referencing? Almost certainly the sexual components of these passages! Jesus likely is referencing these passages that talk about sex when he references “sexual immorality” as well.
I would think that a first century rabbi would be thinking of these passages anytime that phrase was dropped. (eg. Matt 5:32, 15:19, 19:19)” A little bit further on you also explain, “But Jesus has the authority to interpret the Hebrew law. He does so about food (Mark 7:19, Acts 10), divorce (Matt 5:32), Sabbath practices (Mark 2:27), and others. Sometimes He determines them to be NOT applicable in the way people were applying them. In other times, He makes it clear that other laws were still in clear application as written.
Sexual immorality was one in which Jesus was clear. They still apply. I think we are left with the same sexual restrictions and freedoms taught in these passages – sex is a gift and totally free when between a husband and wife, but still must never include sex outside of the marriage, sex in times of sacred dedication, sex with family members, sex with animals, or sex with someone of the same genetic sex.”
If K. Renato Lings is correct, and those passages are referring to male incest rather than male sexual relationships in general, then the fact that Jesus spoke against sexual immorality and was referencing those specific passages simply means that He was teaching against male incest.
*****
Of course, this is the “if”. This is the whole argument.
Of course, if these passages are about incest and not homosexuality, then 2 of the main passages in the Bible about homosexuality actually aren’t about homosexuality. However, I think he is clearly wrong about his efforts to make his case.
Also, even if he were to be correctly about these 4 theories that he has plus the combination of them, he still has numerous other biblical passages to deal with that, as clear as these are, are even more clear. Keep in mind that with the exception of the references of Jesus, I would consider these relatively unimportant to the modern argument...
1 thought on “Engaging with Homosexual “clobber” passages – Part III”