SUMMARY of article by Dr. Renato Lings in Theology & Sexuality, Dec. 2009:

‘The “Lyings” of a Woman: Male-Male Incest in Lev. 18:22?’

Written by Steve Parelli of http://www.othersheep.org/

Whenever the issue of Bible and homosexuality is discussed, Leviticus 18:22 is quoted. However, do we know for certain what this short verse means? What exactly are “the lyings of a woman”? This arcane expression is found in the original Hebrew. Despite their unusual nature, these words belong to what many regard as a clear prohibition of homosexuality. In most Bible translations and commentaries Leviticus 18:22 is presented as such. For example, the New Revised Standard Version suggests this rendering: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

It is a well-known fact that Lev. 18:22 ignores female homosexuality. Only Israelite males are addressed. In addition, there has been considerable debate as to the specific nature of the sexual act proscribed. Some think the verse describes anal penetration while others take the view that reproduction and the loss of valuable semen is the main concern of the Levitical legislator. The debate is far from over.

In his article, Danish scholar Renato Lings has performed a close reading of the original Hebrew. He emphasizes that the wording is anything but straightforward. A literal translation may sound like this: And with (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings (of a) woman. (An) abomination (is) that. To most English speakers such language is incomprehensible. To reach some form of clarity in accordance with modern English style, many translators have opted for a simple solution. They have taken the unfamiliar noun “lyings” and converted it to two familiar prepositions, namely, “as” and “with.” This procedure is problematic. Only at the very beginning of the sentence does the Hebrew feature the preposition “with” (Hebrew eth). The preposition “as” (Hebrew ke) is entirely absent.

Renato Lings points out another underresearched issue: incest. In a recent scholarly work, Dr. David T. Stewart has suggested that Lev. 18:22 addresses the often-ignored issue of male-male incest. He bases his view on the fact that the primary concern of chapter 18 is precisely male-female incest: incest with mother, stepmother, aunt, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc. A supplementary clause in Lev. 18:22 proscribing male-male incest would make perfectly good sense. Dr. Lings backs up this hypothesis with supporting evidence located in Lev. 20 and the book of Genesis.

The original Hebrew phrase is extremely difficult to translate. However, the incest link provides valuable insight into its possible meaning. In his article Dr. Lings arrives at the conclusion that incest is indeed a major factor in this text. It should be taken into account whenever Lev. 18:22 is discussed.

The complete article is available for purchase via this link:

http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/TSE/issue/current

Renato Lings may be contacted at:

biblioglot@gmail.com

I hadn’t heard the theory of male-male incest before. I thought Lev 18:22 was in the context of society’s need for population growth and therefore that male seed not be wasted in sexual acts other than those leading to reproduction. The word ‘abomination’, as far as I know, has a different meaning to how we use it, and more infers that it was ‘not the done thing’ in view of the social decree issued. Of course this is only one theory and I’m open to consider others.

Meg’s Israeli friend might be able to shed some light on this passage, especially with regards to the meaning of words in the original language. She provided an excellent presentation about Jonathan and David and no doubt would have some knowledge about this reference too.

In his article, Danish scholar Renato Lings has performed a close reading of the original Hebrew. He emphasizes that the wording is anything but straightforward. A literal translation may sound like this: And with (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings (of a) woman. (An) abomination (is) that. To most English speakers such language is incomprehensible. To reach some form of clarity in accordance with modern English style, many translators have opted for a simple solution. They have taken the unfamiliar noun “lyings” and converted it to two familiar prepositions, namely, “as” and “with.” This procedure is problematic. Only at the very beginning of the sentence does the Hebrew feature the preposition “with” (Hebrew eth). The preposition “as” (Hebrew ke) is entirely absent.

Thanks for this interesting thread AVB,

I am curious to know if the first preposition is actually in the verse Lev 18.22 or is Renato talking of sentences in general.

But translation into English is highly problematic in any case and substituting words to make English sense is treading on dangerous ground in order to make for readable English as we can be reading into the text what isnt there.

Sometimes there are no cultural equivalents what does one do then? In the jungles of Papua New Guinea in the Sepik region they hated bread when the missionaries shared it. Jesus is the bread of life???? I dont think so – their staple was a sago paste which for most westerners is fairly bland and revolting but its their version of what bread is to us. So the Wycliffe bible translators translated “Jesus is the sago paste of life” when translating into that local language. That was easy, there are many instances where there is no cultural equivalent or no current equivalent today’s culture. So to say its tricky is an understatement.

Makes me think about all the rest of the verses too – the whole bible.

Well at least this theory is actually looking at the CONTEXT – what the other verses in the chapter are about. I’ve seen another good one that does the same. It’s one of the most irritating things about some people’s interpretation of certain verses, how they just lift it out as a single sentence.

I spend my working life trying to choose words carefully because I know that in 5, 10 or 20 years time people have to rely on the actual words, not what might have been meant but isn’t on the page. It’s bad enough in that situation. Doing it with something several thousand years old from another language… tricky!

LOL, I just wrote this whole big long responce and then read it back and decided it was too controversial to post In the end we all have our own ideas about what God thinks and one day we will all know for sure. Our understanding of God is limited to our understanding of the world. God Himself suffers no such limits and blessed be the day when we can fully appreciate all of God’s wisdom as it was meant to be understood.

I believe that it is more important to God to be glorified within our belief systems and to be the centre of our motivations and intentions than it is to have complete understanding of whether He is really talkng about gay men or male incest. It’s a controversial point because it means that two people who believe totally different things can both be glorifying God and the objective rightness or wrongness of said beliefs takes a backseat. You won’t hear that preached from a pulpit.

It is an interesting concept and thanks for putting it up here. I hadn’t heard it before.

I agree we should try to keep the discussion simple on the clobber passages. Paul says in many places the Old Testament law no longer applies. (eg All of Galatians, Acts 15, Rom 10:4, Phil 3:2 etc)

If anyone tries to claim that just because the topic is homosexuality, none of those verses apply (and most do), then Lev 19:37, Lev 20:22 and Gal 3:10, 5:3 says they MUST obey the WHOLE law. We get absolutely no choice about that.

When your children throw a tantrum and curse you or your wife, how many of them have you killed lately? Lev 20:9 says you must.

Lev 19:17 says “Do not hate your brother in your heart” I often ask people, thinking of your gay brothers and sisters in Christ, does that verse get a tick or a cross?