The Bible supports marriage equality

As we can see from Lev 18:22 and 20:13, the bible does NOT prohibit homosexuality. It is concerned with the possibility that the possible product of a male impregnating another male would have to be disowned by one of the two males.  It is also concerned that the result of that disowning would be the end of the family line of one of the two males (which is the "dying, they will die in their blood" coda to Lev 20:13).

We see from Ruth that not only does the bible not prohibit homosexuality among women, it has furnished a paradigm for how a woman can construct a viable contract-for-life with a female partner, while at the same time completing a contract to provide offspring to the family of that partner.

The bible does NOT prohibit homosexuality, and DOES support marriage equality.  It is written very clearly in the text.

The story of Ruth: same gender marriage (women)

Al tifg’I vi leazvekh leshuv me’acharai’ikh.  Ki el asher telkhi elekh.  Uvasher talini, alin.  Amekh ami.  V’eloha’ikh elohay.   Ba’asher tamuti amut.  Ko ya’aseh YHWH li, v’ko yosif ki hamavet yafrid bene uvenekh.

“Do not urge me to leave, to turn from following you.  Where you go, I will go.  Where you stay, I will stay.  Your people are my people.  Your god is my god.  Where you die, I will die.  God will do this for me, this and more, for [only] death will separate us.”

This is beautiful and romantic.  It has been used, wrongfully, in marriage ceremonies for ages.   Why wrongfully?  Because historically, marriage ceremonies have been held between a man and a woman.  So how is this used wrongfully?  Because the speaker of these words is female, and we know from the verbs that the audience for them is also female.  Ruth says this to Naomi, the mother of her now-deceased husband.   This is the first recorded contract between women.

The book of Ruth is female-centric to a degree that is exceptional in the canon.  The story starts out in a very recognizable, traditional manner:  we are given the time:  the time of the judges.  We are told the place:  Moab.  We are told that  the story is about a family:  Elimelech , a man from Bethlehem, and Naomi his wife.  They have two sons Mahlon and Chilion, and two daughters-in-law Orpah and Ruth.

Then the narrative changes: Elimelech dies.  Naomi has completed her contract to provide his family with heirs.   Then both sons die.  Orpah and Ruth have not completed their contracts, and since she is also without the man to whom she was contracted, Naomi cannot provide them with other sons so they can complete their contracts.  Naomi decides to return to Judah because she has heard that G-d provides for the people there. 

Naomi tells her brides (כלתיה) to return to their mothers’ house (בת אמה) rather than to their fathers’ house.  By itself, it is exceptional that she instructs them to return to the house of their mother, rather than to their fathers’ house (for contrast, see Tamar/Judah).

Orpah agrees and leaves.  Ruth refuses, saying “Al tifg’I vi leazvekh leshuv me’acharai’ikh.  Ki el asher telkhi elekh.  Uvasher talini, alin.  Amekh ami.  V’eloha’ikh elohay.   Ba’asher tamuti amut.  Ko ya’aseh YHWH li, v’ko yosif ki hamavet yafrid bene uvenekh.  Do not urge me to leave, to turn from following you.  Where you go, I will go.  Where you stay, I will stay.  Your people are my people.  Your god is my god.  Where you die, I will die.  God will do this for me, this and more, for [only] death will separate us.’” 

Ruth constructs a viable contract-for-life with another woman:  Naomi.

Naomi and Ruth return to Bethlehem, Elimelech’s hometown.  Naomi hears about Boaz, a man of the family of her dead husband.  She tells Ruth to go out into the field near him, he may be favorably disposed towards Ruth because of her connection to his kinsman.

Ruth goes into the field, where she meets Boaz, the kinsman of her dead husband’s father.  Boaz tells Ruth he has heard of her and commands his male servants to look after her and make sure they leave something for her to recover to eat. (in contrast with the Levite of Judges 19, who throws his concubine out into the mob, and dismembers her after the mob has satisfied itself in abusing her).

Naomi tells Ruth that she should go to the threshing room and put herself under Boaz’s protection (so to speak).  Ruth goes, finds Boaz, and settles in with him.  He wakes, finds her and tells her that while he is indeed kin to her dead husband’s father, there is someone who is closer kin than he.  He tells her that if the nearer kinsman does not assume his obligation to complete Ruth’s contract, he himself will do it.  In the morning, he gives her food and sends her back to Naomi.

Boaz finds the nearer kinsman, and in front of a minyan (10 men of the city) tells him that Naomi is selling the land of her dead husband, and as close kin, the kinsman has the option to buy it.  The kinsman agrees to buy the land from Naomi.  Boaz tells him that Ruth is included in the sale of the land, and that in acquiring her, the kinsman would be producing heirs for Ruth’s dead husband, rather than for himself.  The kinsman refuses the deal, saying it could harm his own inheritance.  He gives the option to Boaz, who accepts, and acquires Ruth and the land.

The contract Boaz enters into is not, strictly speaking, a Levirate marriage:  he is not a brother who is assuming the contract of his deceased brother.  However, it is a form of Levirate marriage in that by accepting the contract, Boaz is knowingly providing offspring for his dead relative’s line rather than for his own.

The story of Ruth is revolutionary:  Naomi, whose husband and sons have died, instructs the women with whom her husband made contracts for progeny that they should return to their mothers’ houses.  One of those women refuses and constructs a viable contract-for-life with her.  She arranges for that woman to be acquired by a kinsman of her dead husband’s so that woman can complete the contract, initially constructed by the males of the family, to provide heirs for the male’s family.   She does this to safeguard the future of a woman who was “foreign.”  Thus, while the contract constructed between men for the preservation of the male line is kept, the contract-for-life, created by the women, to stay together until death, is also preserved.

Judges 10:1-30 Patriarchal narrative without Divine intervention

Judges 19:1-30 is known as the story of the rape and dismemberment of the concubine.  It is an odd narrative.  It seems to be an encapsulation of the Patriarchal narratives, but this encapsulation presents the tales of the Patriarchal narratives as they might have ended without the intervention of G-d.  We note that the protagonist is identified in relation to those around him.  First, he is “a Levite.”  Then, when he is with his female companion’s father, he becomes “the son-in-law.”  When he is with his servant, he is identified as “the master.”  In this way, the man is a malleable character, without his own identity, reflecting those around him.

* In those days, there was no king in Israel.  A Levite man stayed in the remote hill country of Ephraim, and he took יקח לו    a woman concubine  פילגשׁ from Bethlehem of Judah.

The man is identified by his tribe, Levite, and by his region, Ephraim.  The woman is identified by her city, Bethlehem.  He “took” her, yiqach, indicating there was a contract of some kind (money, conquest or intercourse is not stipulated).  He did NOT take her as “bride,” כלה  but as concubine   פִלגשׁ.  There has been a great deal of speculation about the exact nature of the status of the pilgash.  Since we lack specifics, the only thing that can be said is that it is evident the status is not comparable to the status of “bride”  כלה .  It is conjecturable that the pilgash was a woman the progeny by whom would not constitute a continuation of the family line.

* His concubine whored  תזנה אליו  against him and went from him to her father’s house, to Bethlehem in Judah, and she was there for four months.

In this, we hear echoes of Tamar/Judah, both in the verb and in the return to her father’s house.  Unlike Tamar/Judah, this text tells us that she whored, rather than simply dressing herself in the costume, and that she returned, presumably voluntarily, to her father’s house (where, by contrast, Judah sent Tamar in his attempt to evade the full execution of his contract with her, the “bride” he took to perpetuate the family line).

* Her husband rose and went after her to speak tenderly to her and bring her back.  A servant and a pair of donkeys were with him.  At her father’s house, they saw the girl’s father, he was glad to greet them.

In contrast with the story of Tamar/Judah, the Levite, identified as “her man,” went after her to speak tenderly to her.  Judah, when confronted with the tale that Tamar had played prostitute, demanded her death.

* His father-in-law, the girl’s father, seized יחזק him and he stayed with him for three days, and they ate and drank and lodged there.

* On the fourth day, they woke early, and he rose to go and the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, Sustain yourself with a piece of bread, and go after.

*  They sat and they ate the two of them together and they drank.  The girl’s father said to the man “Please be willing to make your heart merry”

* The man rose to go, but he urged his son-in-law again, and he stayed.

* He rose to go on the morning of the fifth day, and the girl’s father said, “please stay your heart and wait until afternoon.”  And they both ate.

* The man rose to go, he and his concubine and his servant.  His father-in-law said to him, “behold, now the day is now drawing close to evening.  Please spend the night here and make your heart happy.  Tomorrow you will wake up and go on your way home.

* But the man was not willing to stay, and rose and went, and came opposite Jebus, which is Jerusalem, and with him were two saddled donkeys and his concubine.

We seem to have an encapsulation of the Jacob/Rachel narrative, in that the girl’s father insists on the Levite remaining (as Laban required Jacob to stay and work for Rachel’s hand.)  The concubine, we note, is listed among his possessions.  His servant is not mentioned.

* They were near Jebus when the day was spent.  The youth said to his master, “Please come and let us turn to this city of Jebusites and stay in it.”

* His master said to him, “We will not turn in to a city of foreigners who are not Israelites.  We will go further to Gibeah.”

The Levite, who, while at his father-in-law’s house was referred to as “the man,” now is referred to in relation to his servant as “his master.”

* He said to his servant, “Come, let’s approach one of these places, and we will will stay in Gibeah or Ramah.”

* They travelled and went further and the sun went down on them near Gibeah which belonged to Benjamin.

* They turned there to come to stay in Gibeah, and he went in and sat by the road of the city, for no man took them into his house to stay.

In this narrative of wandering, we hear echoes of the story of Abraham.

* An old man came from his work in the field in the evening. The man was from the hill country of Ephraim and he lived as a foreigner in Gibeah.  The men of the place were Benjaminites.

The old man was a countryman of the Levite’s.

* He lifted his eyes and saw  the wayfaring man on the road of the city.  The old man asked, “where are you going and where have you come from?”

* He said to him, “we are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote hill country of Ephraim.  I am from there, and I went to Bethlehem in Judah.  I am going to the house of G-d, and no man will take me into his house.

* There is straw and fodder for our donkeys, and I have also bread and wine, [my girl is] your maidservant and the young man [is] with your servants.  There is no lack of anything.”

* The old man said, “Peace to you, only let all your needs are on me.  Only do not stay on the road.”

* He took them into his house, with the donkeys, and they washed their feet and ate and drank.

* Their hearts were merry.  The men of the city, certain worthless men, surrounded the house, pounding on the door and spoke to the man who was master of the house, the old man, saying, “Send out the man who came into your house so we can have sex with him.”

This scene recalls the story of Lot.  The differences in the Lot narrative are that Lot was the protagonist and the guests who were demanded by the hooligans of the city were malachim.  In this narrative, our protagonist is not a malach, and his host is identified as an old man, hence, presumably, incapable of offering him much protection.

* The man who was the master of the house went out to them and said to them, “My brothers, please do not do evil  תרעו after this man came to my house.  Do not do this foolishness  נבלה. 

The first verb used by the old man,   תרעו , is the same verb we find in the Lot narrative:  “do evil.”

* Here is my daughter, a virgin and his concubine.  I will bring her out to you and you may rape  ענו them and do to them what is good in your eyes.  Do not do anything to this man.”

In the Lot narrative, Lot offers both of his daughters to the hooligans.  The malachim, in intervening and blinding them, forestall any need on his part to actually go through with his offer.  In this narrative, there are no malachim to intervene, and the old man, the master of the house, offers his own daughter and the concubine of his guest for the pleasure of those who have menaced his house.   This is the only occurrence of the verb “anu.”  Exactly what it means, we don’t know. It is variously translated as “ravish” or “humble.”  “Humble” seems to be rather...tame as a possible interpretation.

* But the men would not listen to him.  The man seized  יחזק his concubine and sent her to them outside, and they had sex with her and abused her all night until morning and when dawn broke, they let her go.

The verb used for the man and his concubine is the same verb used for the man and the concubine’s father: יחזק.  The verb used for the men and the concubine is the same verb used for by the men regarding their intent towards the man.  It is also the verb used by the hooligans of the Lot narrative regarding Lot: ידע .   In this instance, the verb is elucidated by its accompaniment “abused.”

* At the dawn of the day, the woman came and fell at the entrance of the house of the man where her master was, until it was light.

Where previously, she had been identified as “the girl” or “the concubine,” after a night of torture, she is now identified as “the woman.”

* In the morning, her master arose and opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, and behold, the woman his concubine had fallen in the entrance of the house, her hands were on the threshold.

We note the verse does NOT tell us that her master was going out to see how she has spent the night.  He was going out to go on his way.  From the text, it would seem that he had already determined that she was no longer his possession.

* And he said to her “Get up and let’s go.”  There was no answer.  The man took her on the donkey and rose up and went to his place.

* He came to his house, and he took the knife and he seized  יחזק  his concubine and he cut her up   נתח  into twelve pieces and he sent her through all the borders of Israel.

The verb used  נתח  does not simply mean “cut up.”  It is used in reference to those animals sacrificed at the Temple.

* All who saw said  “Nothing has happened, and nothing has been seen like this since the day the Israelites came up out of the land of Eqypt until this day.  Consider this, take counsel and speak.”

            We have a conflation of Patriarchal narratives that is unrelieved by the advent and intervention of G-d or of angels.  What is most horrifying about this narrative is not that a woman was abused, nor it is that she was given over to abuse by a man whose property she was (who, in theory, might have been expected to protect her).  What is particularly horrifying about this narrative is the historical span in which the abuse of the woman, and the man’s right to hand her over to abuse, was the norm.  In its own context, this narrative illustrates for us how the patriarchal narratives could have ended differently, had it not been for Divine intervention.  Arguably, that was the author’s agenda, because the narrative opens “there was no king in Israel”—no king indicates lawlessness, absence of justice, absence of mercy. Both culturally and theologically, G-d was melech hamalachim—the king of kings.  When there is no king, there is no justice, no mercy, and evil abounds. 

There are two significant things to note in the text.  The first is that the verb חזק changes in usage from "seizing" (by the girl's father) for positive purposes in the beginning of the text (to feed/shelter/entertain the Levite), to "seizing" for negative purposes at the end of the text  (to throw the girl out among the hooligans.

The second is in the coda:  Those who saw what was done said "nothing [like this] has happened and nothing like this has been seen from the days that the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt until this day.  Consider this, take counsel and speak."  We are not told if "this" refers to the Levite's throwing his concubine out to be abused, to the abuse inflicted on her by the mob or to the butchery of the girl by the Levite.  Or if "this" refers to the story as a whole.  The text does not give us any indication if this coda was intended as an expression of approval or of disapproval of the actions of the Levite and/or the mob.  We are left with a disturbing text and an amibguous  coda.  All we can say for certain is that the tenor of the text changes from kindness at its beginning to intentional brutality at its end.

The tale of Sodom prohibits bullying, not homosexuality

* And two messengers (angels) came to Sodom in the evening.  And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom, and he saw and rose to greet them, and they bowed, faces to the ground.

The traditional translation of this is “he bowed, his face to the ground.”  The problem with that translation is that the verb “bowed” is third person plural—THEY bowed.  However, since the “they” in question were “מלאכים” (messengers/angels), translators have felt uncomfortable translating the word accurately, preferring for this plural verb to have as its subject the singular individual Lot.

* And he said, behold, please, my lords, please turn to the house of your servant and stay   and wash your feet and rise and go on your way.  And they said no, [we will stay] on the road (ברחב) at night.

* And he urged them strongly, and they turned to him and came to his house, and he made for them a feast unleavened and baked and they ate.

* Before the men lay down, the men of the city of Sodom surrounded the house, from the young to the old, all the people of the quarter.

* And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight?  Send them out to us so we will know (נדע) them.

* And Lot went to them in the doorway and shut the door behind him.

* And he said, Please, my brothers, don’t do evil (תרע).

* Behold, please, I have two daughters who have not known a man.  I will bring them to you, and you can do to them what is good in your eyes.  But to these men, please do not do anything because they have come under the shelter of my roof.

This is where it gets interesting:  Lot tells the men of the city not to do evil (and he uses the singular masculine future form rather than the plural masculine future in command—תרע—suggesting that he is going to make an agreement with them as with a single party).  He refuses to send his guests the messengers (angels) out to the men of the town, instead offers them his daughters to do to them “what is good כטב in [their] eyes.” 

It says quite a lot about socialization that commentators have chosen to notice only the desire of the men of the city to “know” (נדע) the guests/messengers/angels, yet seem to overlook the fact that the men of the city have stormed the house and bullied and threatened Lot.  The acts of group harassment and intimidation would seem to count for much less than the suggestion of sexual activity.  However, it seems that Lot was amenable to bullying, since he was willing to donate his daughters to the pleasure of the men of the village.  While daughters were useful property, as females they were not considered “people” in the sense that their autonomy was respected.  They were simply reproductive vehicles whose value lay in the advantageousness of the social contracts they could be used for.  So, as reprehensible as it is to us today, in his time and up until the advent of female sufferage, Lot’s offer of his daughters to assuage the harassment  and bullying of the men of the city was seen as proper use of female offspring: to create an advantageous contract.  In this case, the contract of offering his daughters in place of the guests was a contract to ensure his own safety, which was threatened.

It is notable that Lot says his daughters have not known a man—this indicates not simply that they are virgins, but also that they have no experience to distinguish acceptable sexual conduct from unacceptable sexual conduct.  Lot is offering them sacrifices who cannot complain that the treatment they receive is out of the norm because they have no experience of a sexual norm.

Commentators in the NRSV claim that in protecting the messengers (angels), Lot was acting with “oriental hospitality.”  This seems to suggest that somewhere there existed a social norm in which it was acceptable for groups of men to demand that visitors be provided for their sexual entertainment.  However, I have never encountered any report or study that claims that any culture has sexual use of guests/foreigners as part of its social behavior.  It is therefore more likely that the behavior of the men of the village was simply rude and discourteous

* And they said, Stand aside, and they said, one came as a foreigner and he is a judge judging  (שׁפט ישׁפט  or, if we accept that the doubling of the verb in present/future indicates intensification “he is REALLY judging”) now, we will do evil to you from them, and they pressed as a man באישָׁ against Lot strongly, and they came to break the door.

This is the second time “ישׁפט” is used.  The first time is in Gen 16:5, when Sarai says to Avram:  “I was wrong about you:  I gave my maid into your arms and she will see that she conceived and I will be despised in her eyes.  The Lord will judge (ישׁפט) between you and me.”  The use of ישׁפט in the Lot narrative suggests that the men of the city are equating Lot with G-d in passing judgment on them.  And they resent him for it.  There is no indication in the text that the men of the city are unhappy at not having sex with the guests.  Rather, the suggestion is that they are displeased that they have not succeeded at intimidating someone they perceived to be an ignorant foreigner (who, presumably, would accept nighttime bullying and harassment as a social norm).

* And the men stretched out their hands and made Lot enter his house with them and they closed the door.

            The verse is usually translated to indicate that the “men” means the guests.  However the verb used is יביאו

This is the hifil (causative) binyan, indicating that Lot was compelled to enter.

* And the men who were in the doorway of the house were struck with blindness, from the great to the small, and they wearied finding the door.

This is usually translated as “they struck the men who were at the door of the house with blindness…so they wearied themselves to find the door.”  But that doesn’t make sense:  if we understand “the men” of the previous verse to refer to the guests, then they had already pulled Lot into the house and closed the door, leaving the men of the city on the other side.  If, however, we understand that the men of the city succeeded in forcing themselves into the house, then we understand that once inside, they were struck with blindness and could not find the door to leave.  From this, we can infer that they did, in fact, enter the house forcibly and with intent to do harm.  Note there is no indication that they have succeeded in having sex with anyone.

Arguably, the confusion in the text over which men are inside the house and which are outside is deliberate:  both the men who are messengers/angels and the men of the city are identified as “enashim” without any qualifiers of “ha’ir” or “malachim.”  It is conjecturable that this deliberate confusion reflects the chaos of the scene as it is played out.

* And the men said to Lot, Who else is here?  Your daughters and the men they are contracted to and all those of yours in the city you brought to the place.

Because we are destroying this place because their outcry is so great before G-d, and G-d sent us to destroy it.

            The guests tell Lot to get all his people together and flee the city because objections to its residents has become so great that G-d has decided to destroy it.  There is no claim that G-d is objecting to the citizens’ request for sex with men.  More likely, the objections have been to the citizens’ behavior in engaging in harassment and intimidation.  The city is destroyed because its inhabitants are bullies, not because they have sex with men.

Abba, in Aramaic, is NOT "Dad," So much for Jesus calling God "Dad."

Post Vatican II doctrine holds that a salient aspect of Jesus' radicalism was that he had the audacity to call G-d "Dad."

This hypothesis is based on the recognition that אבא means Dad.  In modern Hebrew.

So, assuming post-Vatican II doctrine is correct, not only was Jesus audaciously radical, he was linguistically 2000 years ahead of his time.

However, if one assumes that Jesus was speaking Aramaic (which is generally supposed to have been the vernacular of the period and location), אבא, in Aramaic means "the father."

Aramaic, while using Hebrew letters, has something of a different grammatical structure:  in Hebrew the definite article  הַ  is attached to the noun as a prefix. In Aramaic, the definite article is א and it is attached to the noun as a suffix.

Thus in Hebrew "the father" would be האב, while in Aramaic, it would be אבא.

This is also consistent with social practice of the era--the male parent, as owner, lord and master of his family, was not generally treated with familiarity--that radical shift in familial behaviour was a creation of the 20 century, following the adoption of universal sufferage.  In the ancient world, the male parent (immanent as well as transcendent) was understood to be owner, lord and master of his domicile/domain, and that primacy was unquestioned.  Until the advent of universal sufferage.

The notion that the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton was lost is fiction

Popular wisdom has it that the pronunciation of the Name was "lost," but that it was pointed with the vowels for Adonay.  The transliteration of the consonants YHWH + the vowels for Adonay = Jehovah.

Well....not quite.

Jehovah is the product of the combination of YHWH + the vowels for Adonay.  That part is correct.  The incorrect part is that the text was pointed with the vowels for "adonay."

Why is this incorrect?  because texts of the time were without spacing between words and lacked nekudot (vowel points).

So how do we get "Adonay" as the name substituted for the Name that cannot be pronounced?

The LXX.

We find in the LXX that the Name is not transliterated from Hebrew into Greek (an impossibility because Greek lacks a consonantal sound approximating the soft "h" of ה .  So there was no means by which the Name could be represented as its full complicated verb.  The Name that was substituted in the text was one that would be recognized by all, Greek-speaking/literate Judeans and Greeks/Romans, as a Name to be respected:  κυριος , "lord."

The coda to Lev 20:13, "dying, they will die," is not necessarily a threat

Lev 20:13 contains a coda that Lev 18:22 does not have:  מות יומתו דמיהם בם:  dying, they will die, their blood on/in them.

That sounds dire.  But is it?

Bible scholarship says that when the very is duplicated, as this is
(מות יומתו) it acts as an intensifier.  Thus, "dying they will die" should be interpreted as "they're REALLY going to die."

That still sounds dire.  But is it a threat, or a statement of fact, based on the presumption that a male, attempting to impregnate another male, will fail to do so, and the result of that failure will be that both lines of descent are extinguished due to lack of progeny?  Conversely, it could also mean that the successful impregnation of a male by a male would result in one of the two having to disown the progeny, thereby ending his own family line.

Either situation would make the coda true without making it a threat of harm or punishment to be meted out.