rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (09/29/84)
CAPRIO'S QUOTATIONS Every so often biblical passages purporting to censure gay sexuality get posted to the net by presumably devout netters, perhaps as a kind of public service to the unrighteous. I imagine a poster thinking, "This will silence both silly religious liberals who seem incapable of recalling what the Bible actually says AND irreligious homosexual publicists who sim- ply cannot tolerate the idea that there is at least one tradition/institu- tion/faith that makes no "allowance" for homosexuality, no matter what de- gree of accomodation secular institutions and attitudes are willing to make for "gays"." I then imagine a warm proprietary glow enveloping the poster, mixed with a renewed disdain for the spinelessness of worldly ethics; phrases like "our Bible" float subliminally in his mind; finally, a weary sigh escapes his lips: though virtue is its own reward, those who will bear witness to the truth are doomed to repeat themselves in the company of the insensate (most netters) -- how many times before has he quoted holy writ to these helium heads? As a vehicle for rebutting those who cite scripture, I'm using Don Caprio's recently posted list of biblical passages traditionally used to justify Christian homophobia, followed by summaries of John Boswell's explications of these passages. Lines from Mr. Caprio's message begin with an angle bracket. I've added a few more passages he didn't include. Numbers in curly brackets refer to page numbers in Boswell's book CHRIS- TIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE, & HOMOSEXUALITY (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1981, $9.95 in paperback). All errors of fact or interpretation are mine. OT = Old Testament, NT = New Testament I offer apologies in advance if any references to Judaism or Jews below seem to slight or criticize either: the clumsiness of my summarizing is to blame. ======================================================================= > Here are some biblical references for the homosexuality [read "homophobia"] > issue: "Some"? In fact, these are most of the biblical passages construed as expres- sing disapproval of gay sexuality, and, except for the Sodom story, the ones most important for making the homophobic case. Moreover, the entry below from Leviticus is "the only place in the OT where homosexual acts per se are men- tioned" {100}. The Sodom & Gomorrah episode does not mention or even likely imply homosexuality. The trend in scholarship since 1955 is to view it as a fable about (violation of) hospitality, not sexuality. Boswell points out that the homosexual interpretation is "relatively recent" and that no OT references to the episode so interpret it. {92-99} > "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; > it is an abomination." > Leviticus 18:22 (NASB) > "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who > lie with a woman, both of them have committed a > destestable act;..." > Leviticus 20:13 (NASB) "Abomination" & "detestable act" are both translations of the Hebrew word TOEVAH meaning "something which is ritually unclean for Jews" {100}, but not usually something "intrinsically evil" {100-103}. Eating pork or having sex during menstruation is also "toevah". Throughout the OT it designates "those Jewish sins involving ethnic contamination or idolatry" {100}, often as the stock phrase "toevah ha-goyim", "the uncleanness of the gentiles" {100}. "Toevah" often means "idol" {100}. The first passage above immediately follows a prohibition of idolatrous & orgiastic religious rites: And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch. Leviticus 18:21 (KJV) The openings and purposes of both chapters, 18 & 20, are similar: to provide guidelines to distinguish Jews from the pagans they lived among. Chapter 20 details how "ritual cleanliness" is kept, and the beginning of chapter 18 includes: After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I shall bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.... Leviticus 18:3 (KJV) Although both chapters include prohibitions (eg., against incest and adultery) of acts that are instrinsically wrong, Maimonides & other Jewish commentators agree that their mention here concerns "their function....as symbols of Jewish distinctiveness" {101}. By contrast, recall that homosexual acts are mentioned nowhere else in the OT. Even more to the point, Greek Bible texts, which along with the Vulgate (Jerome's authoritative Latin translation, made from Greek texts) were the versions of scripture used in Orthodoxy & Catholicism, sort "toevah" into two Greek terms, ANOMIA (violations of law or justice) & BDELYGMA ("infringements of ritual purity or monotheistic worship"), and use the latter to characterize "abomination" and "detestable act", thus clearly indicating that Christian translators & editors believed that ritual purity and not morality was at stake. In addition, the OT counted for little as a source for a detailed moral code in the early (& even later) church. Christ's "new dispensation" annulling the "old law" was taken seriously. Also, by the 2nd century, most Christian converts weren't Jewish, and belonged to cultures many of whose most widespread customs were "toevah", such as eating pork & shellfish & bloody meat, cutting beard & hair, clothing oneself in more than one type of fabric at a time, practicing hybridization, etc. In fact, Mosaic Law was felt to be so burdensome that as early as circa 49 AD, the Council of Jerusalem decided only four OT prohibitions bound gentile Christians, namely to abstain from idol offerings & from blood & from what is stran- gled & from immorality. Acts 21:25 (C - the Confraternity Edition) Some have used this passage homophobically: but neither "idol offerings" ("pollutions of idols" in KJV), referring to the eating of food offered to idols, nor "immorality" ("fornication" in KJV) refer to homosexuality. "Fornication", Latin "fornicatio", a precise term in moral theology, from Greek "porneia", is nearly always distinguished from homosexuality. In fact, the Latin term referred exclusively to heterosexual acts. And while "porneia" is somewhat ambiguous in Greek, "it is clearly distinct from 'bdelygma'" {103}, under which Leviticus categorizes homosexual acts. To sum up, the Levitical prohibition of homosexual acts is NOT tantamount to a condemnation of them as inherently wrong. And by the second century AD, it was largely irrelevant to the mass of Christian converts. [For Boswell on Leviticus & Acts, see pages 100-106. Appendix 1, "Lexico- graphy & Saint Paul", 335-353, analyzes in detail key terms in NT passages alleged to condemn homosexual persons or acts.] TO BE CONTINUED (Oh no! Another series!)