Leviticus

Hey y'all.  I was naive to think that tackling the two clobber passages from Leviticus would be as simple as translating a couple of words and explaining the context of the passages.  Leviticus has turned out to be anything but simple.  Not least of all because I fought against reading the Anchor Bible Commentary series’ handling of Leviticus.  It was written by a scholar named Jacob Milgrom, a Conservative Rabbi.  His tome on Leviticus spans three books and several thousand pages.  I don’t know that it was the size of the study so much as his “conservative” status that frightened me.  But, I finally broke down and read it.  I agreed on some points, disagreed on others and learned a great deal.  It is a must read for anyone hoping to do a serious scholarly study of any part of Leviticus.  In addition, I used several other resources (New Interpreters Bible, Martin Noth’s Leviticus: A Commentary, various translations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Old Testament Parallels, a couple of versions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.). I will try to keep this as short as possible and still cover the important parts.

When we read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we need to understand that the translation that we are reading is an interpretation by the translators.  What I mean is that, more often than not, the translator is putting his or her own preconceived notions into how they translate the words.  For example, the NIV translates 18:22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”  JPS “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.”  NRSV “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”  The NRSV is closest to the way I would translate it.  The NIV translates “zachar” as “man,” the JPS makes it plural with “mankind,” and the NRSV translates it correctly as “male.”  “Zachar” is singular/masculine and means “male.”  There is a Hebrew word for “man;” it is “ish.”  There is also a word meaning “humankind” – “adam” (different than h’adam or Adam).  So, translators are putting their spin on the text as they translate it.  The words translated as “sexual relations” by the NIV actually mean “a place of lying, a couch, or the act of lying.”  The connotation may be sex, but the Hebrew does not spell it out that way.  20:13 is translated by the NIV “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” while the JPS has “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” and the NRSV has “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”  Again, here, there are translational problems.  “Has sexual relations” is the same phrase as in 18:22, “lies with” except that in 20:13 it is plural.  Two words are used in 20:13 that the NIV translates “man.”  One is “ish” which means “man” while the other is “zachar” meaning “male.”  JPS makes it plural which is also a mistake.  The verse reads in Hebrew, “And a man (“ish”) which lies down with a male (“zachar”) as with (or in/on the couch of) a woman (“ishah”)…” The author clearly knew the difference between “ish”/man and “zachar”/male.  He chose to use the different words for a reason.  I explain all of this in order to show how bias can creep into a translation and to give a little bit of background about our verses.

To understand our verses we need to understand the cultural context in which they were written.  So I tried to look at the law codes of Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, etc.  While there are many law codes, I came across the same problem with translators that I have with biblical translators.  Milgrom states that there are no other condemnations of adult same sex sex other than in Leviticus in the Ancient Near East.  (pg 1566)  Which is interesting and I only wish I could ask him which law codes he looked at.  (He passed in 2010.)   For example, in Old Testament Parallels, Matthews and Benjamin claim that the Middle Assyrian Code does have a prohibition against homosexuality.  Article 20 “If one citizen has homosexual relations with another, then the sentence, following due process, is castration.” (pg 73)  I find this translation suspect as the word “homosexual” is a modern word with no apparent parallels in the ancient world.  I would love to know how exactly the phase is worded in the original cuneiform.  Also, various translations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead leave me scratching my head.  Spell 125 has a negative confession that talks about some sort of sexual encounter.  The confessor says (translated variously as) “I have not committed acts of impurity, neither have I lain with men” or “I have not masturbated; I have not copulated with a catamite” or “I have neither misconducted myself, nor copulated with a boy” or I have not committed acts of impurity, neither have I lain with men” etc.  Milgrom says the translation should read, “I have not copulated with a boy,” but he does not note which translation he is using or if he translated the verse himself.  (pg 1566)  None of the translations I read were parallel (not that I could read hieroglyphics anyway), so I could not see if their original versions were different (there are MANY versions of the Book of the Dead).   I am not an Egyptologist, so I have to rely on other scholars which frustrates me to no end when there are this many opinions as to what is actually being said.  And, okay, I know… I’m a control freak.  Lol

We also need to look at the immediate context in Leviticus.  Chapters 18-20 are a single unit where YHWH is having the Israelites set themselves apart from Egyptians and Canaanites.  The laws in 18 and 20 are similar though in different orders for different reasons.  18 appears to be the oldest list, according to Milgrom.  The author of chapter 20 appears to have had 18 in front of him when writing.  That 18:22 is a later addition seems obvious to me because the language changes from “uncover the nakedness” to “lie with.”  Why the author didn’t keep the same language when adding the verse is beyond my ability to prove, but maybe the phrase was common during his time and he did not want to confuse the people. 

Milgrom and others conclude that the lists are condemning incest.  (pg 1569) The phrase “As one lies with” is used to refer to illicit heterosexual unions everywhere but in these two verses.  Therefore, some scholars conclude that what is being condemned are the homosexual liaisons that are parallel to the heterosexual liaisons in the lists.  In other words what is being condemned is incest.  Milgrom goes on to also say that the only relationships that are under the scrutiny of these laws in 18 and 20 are the Jews and non-Jews living in Israel.  (pg 1790)  Milgrom suggests that the homosexual Jews residing in Israel could abide by the spirit of the law by adopting children as a way of making amends for the loss of seed, since their loss does not lead to procreation which he also suggests as a reason for the laws.  (pg 1787)

I personally found Milgrom a little confusing because he was inconsistent in his conclusions about why these lists were included.  It made his conclusions about what was being condemned in 18:22 and 20:13 a little muddled.  I think the incest argument is the strongest for various reasons, not the least of which is the “ish”/”zachar” wording.  I hope this helps some.  If you have any questions, please ask.  It is hard to compress hundreds and hundreds of pages of reading and dozens of pages of research into a single blog post.  Remember: God loves you!