rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (02/05/85)
In the interest of quelling a virulent outburst of bigotry in this news group that frankly disgraces it, I'm reposting summaries of John Boswell's analysis of scriptural passages purporting to censure gay sexuality. Some people on this net are devoid of memory: the same outburst occurred just weeks ago in net.religion. The initial posting of the Boswell sum- maries occurred last fall in reaction to precisely the same tired misuse of a handful of biblical passages. 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!) MORE OF CAPRIO'S QUOTATIONS C = Confraternity Edition (Challoner-Douai + new research & translation) OT = Old Testament; NT = New Testament; KJV = King James Version RSV = Revised Standard Edition Numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in his book CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE, & HOMOSEXUALITY (University of Chicago Press, 1981, $9.95 in paperback). All errors of fact or interpretation are mine. ======================================================================= > "For this reason God gave them over to degrading > passions; for their women exchanged the natural function > for that which was unnatural, and in the same way > also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and > burned in their desire toward one another, men with men > committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons > the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not > see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over > to a depraved mind, to do things which are not proper,.." > Romans 1:26-28 (NASB) "Unnatural" is Latin CONTRA NATURAM, Greek PARA' PHY'SIN, in KJV ren- dered "against nature", but accurately translated "beyond nature" or "in excess of nature" (in NT usage the preposition PARA' expresses exceeding, not opposition, for which the preposition KATA' is used). (107-113, 114) The concept of "nature" Paul uses, & the primary sense of the word in antiquity, is that of the character, or defining property, of an entity, not nature as "the physical universe" or "all God's creation", nevermind nature as in the medieval doctrine of "natural law", deve- loped 1,000 years later. Thus, when Paul speaks of the "nature" of a person or group of people, he refers to personal constitution or group character (customs, culture including ethical heritage), resp. In the passage above, he talks of persons abandoning their character- istic sexuality ("the natural function"), i.e., heterosexuality, for homosexual liaisons ("that which was unnatural"), thus contradicting their sexual orientation: in other words, the entire passage refers ONLY to heterosexuals! What Paul charges them with is not homosexual- ity per se, but infidelity to their inherent make-up (as heterosexuals). What is "unnatural" is not homosexuality, but heterosexual indulgence in it. St. John Chrysostom agrees and emphasizes Paul's careful use of the word "abandon". The idea of homosexuality as innate was common in the Hellenistic world Paul lived in, but even if Paul & other Jews drew no distinction between gays and straights who dabbled in homosex, the above passage ONLY refers "to homosexual acts committed by heterosexuals" (109), & the accusation is NOT one of indulging in homosexual acts per se, but of being unfaithful to one's inherent sexual orientation. Remaining parts of the text that some have tried to use homophobically are (footnote 72, 112-113): "Degrading passions", "vile affections" in KJV, is Greek PATHE' ATIMI'AS, two words "of very broad interpretation" (112). PATHOS, "passion", is a very common word & has no moral import. ATIMIA is "dishonorable". But "whence arises the dishonor -- from the act itself, from God's attitude toward it, or from the attitude of the community?" (112) Boswell cites Paul: in 2 Cor 6:8, 1 Cor 15:43, and 2 Cor 11:21 ATIMIA means "ill repute IN CONTRAST to wickedness" (113). In 1 Cor 11:14, ATIMIA applies to long hair on a man, and in Rom 9:21 & 2 Tim 2:20, to chamber pots: hardly sub- jects possessing great moral gravity. So ATIMIA at best refers to Burger Court-like "community standards", rather than fundamental moral values. St. Jerome, author of the Vulgate, & other Greek exegetes understood it this way as well. The only other words that could possess moral weight are PLANE', "error" (KJV), its 4 instances in Pauline writings denoting mere "mistakes", and ASCHEMOSY'NE, "that which is unseemly" (KJV), occuring a few more times in the NT: in 1 Cor 12:23 it's applied to body parts, "uncomely" (KJV), & in 1 Cor 13:5 it's variously rendered as EST AMBITIOSA by Jerome (Vulgate), "behaveth itself unseemly" (KJV), "is arrogant" (RSV), "is ambitious" (C) -- not much agreement here. In 1 Cor 7:36, "behaveth himself uncomely" (KJV) refers to a father who refuses marriage for his virgin daughter, maybe an example of poor judgment or parental selfishness but hardly a matter of "moral failure" (113). Furthermore, ASCHEMOSYNE is the pri- vative (the contrary, formed by adding a negating prefix) of the noun SCHE'MA, whose many meanings all involve the idea "of appearance or form" (113). And in his epistles Paul "does not associate it [SCHEMA] with any clearly discernible moral purpose" (113). Furthermore, the above verses (26-28) follow a passage (19-23) condemn- ing the Romans for rejecting monotheism even though they understood the idea, and the entire section is devoted to the general topic of the in- fidelity of the gentiles. Thus just as heterosexual gentiles abandoned their sexual orientation through homosexual adventures, so they also abandoned belief in one god, to which their knowledge of things (obtained through exercise of intellect, characteristic of all humans, even pagans) leads them. Editors of the Confraternity Edition place the title "Punishment of the Idolators" in front of verse 24, emphasizing a general, theological pur- pose involving the gentiles for the succeeding verses. The sexual refer- ence in verses 26-27 is "quickly dropped" once "the point is made" (109) and Paul returns in verse 28 to the general theme of infidelity. Thus, EVEN IF all Boswell's explications above were wrong, the quoted passage is merely a sexual analogy briefly adopted to illustrate a general thesis, & is of minor importance, in Paul's brief against the gentiles. So if we substitute Boswell's emendations in the KJV text (more accurate than NASB) & edit KJV for clarity, an accurate translation ought to re- semble the following: For this God gave them up to dishonorable interests, for even their women did change the characteristic use into that which went beyond their characters: and likewise, also the men, abandoning [closer to the Greek than KJV's "leaving"] the characteristic use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is inappro- priate, and receving in themselves that reward [KJV has "re- compense"] of their mistakes which was suitable [KJV has "meet"]. Romans 1:26-27 where "characteristic" & "characters" refer to sexual orientation, here specifically heterosexual, and "interests" represents Greek PATHE, a very broadly-defined word, closer to "enthusiams" or "interests of some intensity" than the English word "passions", which has an implicit erotic and pejorative sense. NOT THE END (BUT I'M HALFWAY THERE!) Subject: Boswell shows "The Bible says it's so" Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss Numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in Boswell's CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE, & HOMOSEXUALITY (University of Chicago Press, 1981, $9.95 in paperback). All errors of fact or interpretation are mine. ======================================================================= > "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? > Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters > nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders > nor thieves not the greedy nor drunkards nor swindlers will > inherit the kingdom of God. > And that is what some of you [the Christians of Corinth] were. > But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified > in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ > and by the Spirit of our God." > 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV) Why is this passage taken from NIV, and not NASB, like the others? Could it be the NASB version is not as homophobic? I'll take the same liberty and offer another variant of this text, taken from the Roman Catholic Confraternity Edition of the Bible (based both on the Rheims-Douai edition and on new research & translation). Note the differences: LAWSUITS BEFORE PAGANS: PUBLIC LITIGATION [heading inserted by editors] Or do you know that the unjust will not possess the Kingdom of Heaven? Do not err: neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers Nor the effeminate nor sodomites nor thieves nor the covetous nor drunkards nor the evil-tongued will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (C) First note how imprecise translation can be: eg., "swindlers" in NIV becomes "the evil-tongued" in C, hardly the same thing. And note how easily the eye glosses over variants that seem synonymous but whose small difference in meaning may be what counts: NIV's "the greedy" & C's "the covetous". Covetousness can simply be the desire to have without seeking or resulting in possession; it also tends to be applied to the immediate environment. Greed often implies active attempts to acquire and successful possession. The word also suggests that anything, however remote or abstract, can become the object of the "passion" it denotes. For moralities emphasizing acts or end-results or the evil of depriva- tion, this perhaps tiny difference in meaning would be absolutely crucial. CONTINUED Subject: Boswell shows "The Bible says it's so" Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss THE LAST OF DON CAPRIO'S QUOTATIONS Numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in his book CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE, & HOMOSEXUALITY (University of Chicago Press, 1981, $9.95 in paperback). All errors of fact or interpretation are mine. Bible Versions: =============== JB Jerusalem Bible (in English) JBF JB in French; JBG in German; JBI in Italian; JBS in Spanish KJV King James Version RSV Revised Standard Version NAB New American Bible NEB New English Bible C 1941 Confraternity Edition , based on Rheims-Douay & new research C1 1953 Confraternity Edition, based on Rheims-Challoner & new research NIV ??? GN Good News For Modern Man LB Luther's Bible LS Sainte Bible ======================================================================== 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (continued) Boswell (337-8) supplies more evidence of the vagaries of translation for the words: Greek PLEONEK'TAI: covetous C,C1,KJV greedy RSV,GN,NIV grabbers NEB usurers JB misers NAB Greek HARPAGES: swindlers NEB,JB,NIV evil-tongued C1 extortioners KJV robbers NAB,RSV greedy C lawbreakers GN "fornicators"/"the sexually immoral" purport to translate Greek POR'NEIA; "sodomites"/"homosexual offenders", Latin SODOMITIA from Greek ARSENOKOI'TAI; "the effeminate"/"male prostitutes", Greek MALAKOI'. ARSENOKOITAI receives widely varying renderings: "homosexuals" (RSV,NEB,JBS), "perverts" (JBI), "sodomites" (C,NAB,JB), "child molesters" (LB,JBG), "people with infamous habits" (LS,JBF). Note the range of these translations: they can all be understood as referring to homosexuals only if you assume the mod- ern stereotype that homosexuals are effeminate, promiscuous, & pederastic, only if you're homophobic after the current fashion. Whatever the original meaning of the term ARSENOKOITAI, the single source of these translations, the translations provide a virtual analysis of the modern stereotype of homosexuality. This in itself should make us suspicious. But the Greco-Roman world did not associate any of the components of the modern stereotype with homosexuality. Take the term MALAKOI, "effeminate"/ "homosexual offender". All English translations invest it with a homosexual meaning, but none of the best foreign translations do (ie, JBF). It means, literally, the "soft [ones]": MALAKOS, ("sexually immoral" in the above), meaning "soft" in the sense of "sick, weak-willed, wanton", never generi- cally described gay people or acts in Greek, but did denote "masturbation" for all Christians until the Reformation and for Catholics until this century (p. 107). It's an extremely common Greek word. The ancients did not associate homosexuality with effeminacy. If anything, popular homosexual folk heroes (historical lovers like Harmodios & Aristo- geiton, or legendary figures like Hercules) and then-common ideas about the origin of sexuality tended to attribute hypermanliness to gay men and congenital feminine qualities to heterosexual males (Plato's SYMPO- SIUM, posted to net.motss a while back, provides a famous version of this). Patristic texts never use MALAKOI to denote effeminacy, but other words such as THELY'DRIOS, ANDRO'GYNOS, TON ANDRO'N HOI GYNAIKO'DEIS. Moreover, "effeminacy" in ancient texts can be a descriptive term, rather than one of moral censure, despite the strong ancient sanction against effeminacy in adult free males (this was the "official" public attitude, at any rate; who knows how much actual life deviated from it? I don't think anyone has tried to research this topic). For example, otherwise virtuous & manly figures (like kings & generals etc.) are called MALAKOS in the sense of "effeminate" merely to indicate a gentle disposition or the fact that as children they were raised predominantly by women. The fact that clearly homosexual people were occasionally described as MALAKOS does not clinch a homosexual sense for the word any more "than the application of `proper' to `Englishman' is proof that `proper' means `English'." (340) Nor did ancients associate child molestation with homosexuality. Both Greeks and Romans had strict & very clear laws to protect children, yet homosexuality flourished in both societies as a legitimate & extremely common form of sexual & emotional expression (see chapters 1 & 2). But let's examine an "offending" term in detail to get a glimpse of Boswell's analysis. What did ARSENOKOITAI mean? The prefix ARSENO- simply means "male". Its relationship to the second half of the compound is ambiguous: in bald English the compound means "male fuckers," but it is not clear whether "male" designates the object or the gender of the second half. The English expression "lady killer," when written, conveys the same ambiguity: in speech, emphasis would indicate whether "lady" designates the victim or the gender of the "killer," but in print there is no way to distinguish whether the phrase means "a lady who kills," or "a person who kills ladies." This is a particularly revealing parallel, since a third and largely unrelated meaning (i.e., "wolf," or "Don Juan") is actually the common sense of the term but could not be deduced from the con- stituent parts, a telling example of the inadequacy of lexico- graphical inference unsupported by contextual evidence. (342) But can't we decipher ARSENOKOITAI by analogy to other similar Greek compounds? It's very tricky. For example, PAIDERASTAI', from PAIS, "child", here "male child", and ERASTAI, "lovers", means "boy lovers". But PAIDO'TROTOS, from PAIS and TROTOS, "wounded", means "wounded by children" and not "a wounder of children". And PAIDOPO'ROS, from PAIS and POROS, "passage", meaning "through which a child passes", contains no relation of either subject or object between the two halves of the compound. The "obvious" relationship between the two parts of compounds of this sort is not susceptible of formulation without careful analysis of individual cases. It would certainly be wrong to assume that because "pyromania" refers to an obsession with fire, "nymphomania" must describe an obsession with brides: in fact, it describes the opposite, an obsession with men, and the prefix "nympho-" ("bride"), although a noun, acts as the modi- fier of "mania" rather than its object. (342-343) Furthermore, compounds with ARSENO- follow a general pattern: those that use "male" as an object are spelled ARRENO-, those that use it as a subject are spelled ARSENO-. The few exceptions to this pattern: ...are generally words in which no confusion between adjective and object could arise, such as ARRENO'PAIS ["male child"], or in which the semantic import of the word would be the same regardless of the grammatical relation of the constituent parts... (343) ARSENOKOITAI thus means "males who fuck". In fact, it referred to prosti- tutes. Male prostitutes who took the active role sexually were common in the Hellenistic world of Paul's day, servicing women and men. (344) If Paul's use of ARSENOKOITAI is a case of metonymy (a figure of speech in which one thing stands for another by virtue of a relation obtaining between the two; eg., "We read VIRGIL", that is, we read the POEMS of Virgil), then it means (prostitutes') CLIENTS (of BOTH sexes). NOWHERE in the "vast" Greek literature on homoeroticism does the term ARSENOKOITAI appear: not in Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch; Josephus, Philo (even though both incorrectly believed Sodom was destroyed to punish homosexuality); John Chrysostom, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. (345-348) Even more persuasive is the fact that, for example, John Chrysostom, who "wrote copiously" & mistakenly about homosexuality in regard to every biblical text that could conceivably suggest it, NOT ONCE men- tioned homosexuality in his exegesis of those texts (Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10) that contain the word ARSENOKOITAI. (348) [As a homophobe, Chrysostom was in a small minority of opinion in the early church.] Boswell then shows that the Latin translation of ARSENOKOITAI ("mas- culores concubitores") in the works of Latin church fathers also pro- vides no support for a homosexual interpretation. (348-349) What about PORNEIA? "In Attic Greek PORNEIA were houses of male pro- stitution, in which POR'NOI practiced their trade quite legally and with little stigma..." (336) "...in the Koine of the New Testament PORNEIA is a feminine singular and no longer applies to male brothels. What it does apply to is less clear..." (336-337) English translators often render it as "immoral". It also legitimately suggests "prostitu- tion" since POR'NE kept its meaning of "female prostitute". The other common translation of PORNEIA is "fornication", which: ...is equally if not more misleading, since (a) popular use of this word is considerably at variance with its technical mean- ing in moral theology [FORNICATIO referred exclusively to hete- rosexual indulgence in the early church; "Beginning in the 8th century some prominent theologians did subsume homosexual be- havior under FORNICATIO, but by the period of the Scholastics the older use again prevailed." (footnote 42, 103)], and (b) it too originally meant prostitution--a fact which was known to Latin writers throughout most of Christian history and influ- enced their understanding of Paul's attitudes in ways in which it does not affect modern readers unaware of the etymology of the term. (footnote 4, 337) The word PORNEIA retains a vagueness or generality without any homosexual sense in its other occurrences in the New Testament (see page 412 of the Index of Greek Terms for references in Boswell), which is reflected in the modern renderings "fornication" (my childhood pastor thought fornica- tion was ANY interest in sex at all, & would deliver thunderous sermons while most of the congregation quietly listened, having no idea what he was talking about) and "sexual immorality". Thus, Corinthians 6:9-10 denounces sexual excess, adultery, prostitution, lack of character, & other time-honored vices, but not homosexuality. Analysis of terms, context, & the Hellenistic environment all refute a homosexual interpretation. The only conceivable way to connect the text to homosexuality, & it is far-fetched, is to introduce precisely those modern homophobic assumptions that directly contradict what we know to be ancient attitudes & ideas on homosexuality, sexual behavior, & sexuality, and even then all the contrary results of philological analysis must be ignored. Thus, "male fucker" can become "child molester" (LB,JBG) ONLY if you posit that all homosexuals have always lusted after small children, in gross contrast, by the way, to ancient Greek PAIDERASTEIA ("pederasty"), which involved teenagers, usually 14-18 years old. [See Kenneth Dover's acclaimed & ground-breaking study, GREEK HOMOSEXUALITY (Harvard U. Press, 1977).] Another point should be made: about reliance in general on scripture. Boswell notes (p. 92) just how slight a role (what we know as) the Bible has actually played in the formation & development of Christianity. Catholicism did not officially establish the "canon" (or approved version) of the Bible until the Council of Trent in 1546! Wide consensus about the contents of the New Testament dates only from the 8th century. The most popular and venerated literature of early Christians included many apocryphal books and excluded some later approved (e.g., the Apocalypse). [In short, the Bible as we know it was NOT the scripture of the "primitive church", a church which served as a model & ideal not only for ALL the Protestant reformers, but for evangelical Christians down through the ages as well.] The New Testament itself was not "THE ONLY OR EVEN THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN ETHICS [my capitals]", and the elaborate prescriptions of Mosaic Law in the Old Testament were most often deemed mainly or wholly irrelevant to Christians by early church leaders, thinkers & adherents (chapter 4, "The Scriptures", pp. 91-117, repeatedly illustrates this point). I've only mentioned SOME of the more important points Boswell makes in his analyses. He has much more to say, & I urge interested netters (once again) to READ his book. This series was taken primarily from Chapter 4 and Appen- dix 1. END OF SERIES