(9 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...As you may know, I did a free blog webinar on April 23, on the question “Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?” The answer is not as obvious as most people think. For one thing, it is deeply embedded in biblical and other ancient understandings of sex and gender, which ain’t the understandings of most people today. Does that matter? Watch it and see.
Here is the webinar, including the Q&A at the end. Enjoy!
Excellent study and enjoyable.
Dr. Ehrman, in light of the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey by the United States Supreme Court in June 2022, would you consider doing a free blog webinar on the question “Does the Bible Condemn and Prohibit Abortion?”
Good idea. THanks.
Bart, thanks for uploading this video. May i ask three questions :
1. Do you find it odd that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 essentially repeat each other in quick succession, with the latter adding the penalty of death ? I don’t see why the writers couldn’t simply add the death penalty provision to Leviticus 18, and leave out 20 altogether.
2. I find the choice of words in Leviticus 20:13 interesting – why is it ” a MAN lying with a MALE as with a WOMAN ? Why not “a male lying with a male as with a female” or a “man lying with a man as with a woman”? Is there something going on here ?
3. do you think it’s reasonable to conclude that in a time of short life span and high infant mortality, it’s not in any way surprising that practices that interfered with replenishing the population were frowned upon ? By which I mean things like abortion, divorce, contraception, homosexuality – and this replenishing the population may be the “real reason” behind these beliefs, over and above what is written ?
Thank you.
1. That kind of thing happens a *lot* in the Hebrew Bible, and it’s often a bit strange at first sight….
2. I haven’t checked the Hebrew — sorry.
3. Nope, don’t find it surprising at all.
Is that a “P” vs “H” thing? Different voices/sources in Leviticus?
Sorry — not sure I understand the question! But yes, possibly different sources. Though if you read enough student papers you realize that one source can be redundant as well.
No it didn’t. The concept of human sexual orientation did not exist in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century. All men and women were assumed and considered to be “straight” by virtue of their birth gender. Leviticus was interested in the equality of all before God.
There were levels of offensive things. #1. was something offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was culturally offensive to other peoples and cultures, #3. was something which was just generally “offensive”, with no further relational attribution.
The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It’s not related to either God or anyone else.
Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons. Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)
Not sex. Class. It’s about class and status.
If same sex relations were only No 3 in terms of offensive behavior, why is the death penalty called for in Leviticus 20:13 ?
Thank you.
Death was the punishment for all sorts of things in Hebrew culture, not just for things offensive to God.
“Sins that were punishable by death include: homicide, striking one’s parents, kidnapping, cursing one’s parents, witchcraft and divination, bestiality, worshiping other gods, violating the Sabbath, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, and male with male intercourse (there is no biblical legal punishment for lesbians).”
The fact that woman with woman sexual activity does not offend the “class” structure is more support for this view. The text ITESLF determines the level of offense by what it actually says. It’s not a matter of opinion.
You’re welcome.
Thanks for that reply. I was generally aware of what you write – I guess my point is that death is the most severe penalty you can impose, and if the Hebrews were imposing death for a “3rd category” offense, one has to wonder what they would impose for an offense of the first (most severe) category ? Death three times ?
A very clean explanation of the paradigm of the time and how it differs from todays culture.
Does Numbers 5:11-28 describe induced abortion for a woman who’s pregnant from adultery?
It looks like dirt from the floor is used to cause an infection.
Yes, it looks like that (though it’s not an infection for teh ancient authors, since they knew nothing about such things; it’s the act of God, or, depending on your perspective, magic.)
Great webinar. I think in it you basically repeat what you have written in several of your books, but it’s really nice to see you present live. Thanks so much for making yourself available in this way.
Does your view of this issue take into account that while Paul is generally addressing a Graeco-Roman audience and their culture, he is basically telling the converts that they must separate from that culture and accept the morality imposed by the Jewish culture, which, as you point out, forbids homosexual activity. In those places where Paul makes lists of activities that prevent one from gaining a spot in the New Kingdom, homosexual activity generally makes the list. I understand that technically the prevailing culture of the time did not really have a concept of ‘homosexuality’ as it refers to human sexuality in general, and therefore to speak of it in modern terms is maybe not appropriate, but still, the Jewish morality proscribes such activities, does it not? And I don’t see where Paul ever excuses such.
There were, of course, a range of views of homosexual sex in the Greek and Roman worlds, but yes, in the Jewish tradition, because of Leviticus 18 etc., it was thought to be sinful, and Paul would simply have assumed that was right, given his devotion to Torah. (My point is that he is not talking about sexuality; he had no concept of that.)
That was a good listen. Thanks for posting it!
You don’t usually say that “the Bible” favors or disfavors a particular thing. In the video, you say that the Bible proscribes homosexual conduct (but not homosexual identity, as that was not known to exist in ancient times). Is “the Bible” as a whole really consistent enough in condemning homosexual conduct to support ypur statement? When you said that, I noticed that it contrasted with your usual approach of assessing the messages of individual books on their own merits.
Ah, thanks. I was speaking shorthand. In this case, of course, there is no counternarrative.
Were some eunuchs (“born eunuchs”) possibly homosexuals? Was Jesus referring to this in Matthew 19:12?
Thanks in advance!
Ah, good question. But no, I’m afraid the author is referring to males without apparent genitalia (their testacles hadn’t dropped). The passage is not referring to same sex sexual relations.
My parents (and extended family) are/were Strict Fundamentalists (Pentecostal/ evangelical/charasmatic). Among other things (like makeup and nail polish), they condemned homosexuality in the strongest religious terms. Everything in their world was/is Black and White. They would not entertain any shades of grey as related to what they decided was going to send you to Hell and homosexuality was on that list.
In 1960 a wonderful person came into our family (at the time, I was 10 years old and 4th youngest of 5 children the oldest of 3 boys being 20). This person was a Christian and was funny and entertaining and talented and (like everyone) loved my mom’s cooking and hospitality so he was a frequent visitor and we all loved him and looked forward to his visits. In 1970 he played the organ at my wedding. By then, we’d known for a while that he was gay. He was still a beloved member of my family. Was he still going to Hell?
This person was far superior in all ways than the people who condemned him to Hell.
Dear Bart,
Homosexual behaviours are not linked to a specific component of the genome.There is no proof.Most male and female individuals (70-80%) who identify as “gay” in adolescence and adulthood show much fluidity in their sexual orientation(s).
Even if that was the case, same-sex behaviour,like incest which was relatively normal in Ancient Egypt and Persia and totally legal in France since the Napoleonic Civil Code,would not necessarily be considered by many as normal or the best way to organize one’s family in terms of biological and health related costs.
I also found your presentation of the concept of pederasty very interesting.I feel you judged it not as criminal,probably because criminalized pedophilia (like homosexuality) is a modern construct and because until 1920 in the US the age of consent was 9-10, (7 in Delaware).
I don’t think you are aware that many individuals in the US/UK seek professional psychological counselling in order to address unwanted same-sex attraction which may create difficulties with their families (parents,spouses, children) and communities.Would you consider these efforts as normal,similar to those who struggle with unwanted (previously criminalized) legal behaviours (pornography,alcohol,gambling),or would you judge these psychological interventions as morally wrong?
Many thanks for creating safe spaces for exploration of sensitive issues.
to continue…I’ve wondered if they would have received the education Dr. Ehrman is providing on this topic and reconsidered their views. Thank you, Dr. Ehrman, for this interesting and insightful information.
My amazing !! ,,, all loving !! ,,, all caring !! all compassionate !! lesbian daughter was created by God in Gods image ,,,, and so beautiful she was created ,,, God, made her ,, a lesbian image of himself. I could not have been more proud of who she has become!
Thank you for your post, Bart !
Why do so many english translations (ESV) of Exodus 21: 22 – 24 seem to suggest the opposite of your interpretation in the webinar? Is the Hebrew ambiguous or very clear in favor of your interpretation?
I’m not sure what you mean. In what way do the English translations suggest something else?
Dr. Ehrman, can you please post this? Thank you for what you do. If you dont give up, neither will I.
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
(1) And he said, “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.”
(2) Jesus said, “Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.”
“These secret the spoke Didymos wrote
Wrote Didymos spoke the secret these
Whoever interpretation sayings experience
Experience sayings
Interpretation, whoever
Jesus
Him
Seeks until he
Become he
He astonished
Will all
All will astonished
He
He
Become he
Until seeks
Him
Jesus”.
(30) Jesus said, “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him.” (31) Jesus said, “No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him.”
“Jesus,
There! Gods
Gods are one with
Jesus
Prophet in village
Heals who?
Who heals
Village
In prophet Jesus
With one are gods
Gods there! Jesus”
Line 46- Due to word limit.
“John become kingdom
Acquainted child
To of
Said Yet lowered
Should his the
Superior
No baptist Until women
Those
Jesus
I just watched this video on Sex and Sexuality. I really learned a lot. I wish that everyone could see this and open their minds a little. Thank you for your discussion of this subject.