The Bible Has Always Been Anti-Gay

I was sent this short interview by a friend of mine who also had this sent to him. The one giving the interview is a homosexual named Ed Oxford. He's publishing a book entitled, Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay, a title obviously insinuating that the Bible wasn't against homosexuality originally. This is a common line of argumentation that commits numerous exegetical fallacies, and so I thought I would briefly point out the errors in such reasoning.

First, it is important to note that this entire argument hinges on all sorts of assumptions about the translated text. The question cannot be solved in translation but in the original languages. I can only assume that a particular fallacy of illegitimate referential transference is being committed here, as it often is in these apologetic pieces that seek to justify homosexuality as a non-sinful behavior and ordered disposition.

First, we must ask the question as to whether the two passages in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) should be translated as knabe “boys” as Luther does. The word zākār is simply the Hebrew word for “male.” What age the male is has to be brought out by the context. Sometimes the male is a newborn, sometimes he’s a mature animal who is brought along to mate with a female, sometimes he’s a mature male who can produce semen, is of marriageable age, has sex with women, goes to war, and is between the ages of 20 and 60. In other words, the word does not carry the concept of age with it. The male can be of any age just like the word female can refer to any age. It does not refer to any specific male until the context makes that clear, and if it does not make it clear, then the referent remains contextually generalized. In other words, if the context does not specifically include a referent to these males as boys, then translating the word as “boy” is incorrect, as it limits what is generic. If the text prohibits activity with X, and the context does not specify that the prohibition is specifically a type of X (i.e., Xa as opposed to Xb), then to limit it to only Xa ignores the context, supplies an alternate context, and changes what is being prohibited. 

Hence, these passages condemn male-to-male sexual relationships, i.e., homosexual relationships, in general, regardless of the nature of the specific relationship in which the activity is practiced.

Of course, the claim that the church has not condemned homosexuality in its beliefs and translations of the sacred text throughout its history is just a flat out lie. All non-procreative sexual activity has been condemned from the beginning. Notice as well that the Vulgate, the translation that had been the Bible for the church for over a thousand years before Luther translates these texts correctly as males having sex with males in general, and not specifically referring to adult-to-boy relationships. Instead, Luther’s translation and the translations that follow it are employed as a diversion, as though they made up the correct translation of these texts and that the church had always seen these texts in that light.

Furthermore, the LXX translation, which has been both the translation used by the early church and even the apostles, translates zākār as arsen “male.” In fact, Paul gets his compound word from the two words found in Leviticus 18 and 20 arsenos and koitē, i.e., “bedding a male.” Nowhere in these texts is there an indication that these condemnations are limited to a specific relationship between the males. In fact, even if one were to argue that 1 Corinthians has a specific relationship mentioned because both the giver and receiver in the sexual act are mentioned (I would dispute that this limits the relationship to an age group at all because malakoi, again, generalized, just refers to any male who has submitted his body to be used in a lewd sexual act or to take on the female role in a male-to-male act, without reference to age), he gives no such context in 1 Timothy 1:10, where only the arsenkoitai “male bedders” are mentioned. 

His appeal to a Latin lexicon is an odd one. For one, the Latin word praedico means to preach and has nothing to do with the subject. I can only assume that the interviewer misunderstood the word he was trying to use. The other word he uses, paedico, which he seems to think has something to do with children means "to practice sodomy," and has nothing to do with children. I can only assume he thinks the word comes from a similar sounding word in Greek (paedo), but this is Latin (the Latin word for a male child is Liberi, or  Pueri for the word "boy"), and the word he references here comes from the cognate paedor "dirt," "filthiness" and not some word referring to children (Oxford Latin Dictionary 1411). Luther is not getting his translation from it.

So why did Luther translate 4 out of 80 texts as knabe “boy” instead of his normal translation of the term zākār as Männlein, Männlich, Mann, or Mannsbuild, i.e., “male”? One of those texts is one of two that make it obvious that it is referring to having a male child. Hence, he uses both knabe (Isa 66:7) and jünge “young” (Jer 20:15), so those two are merely contextual. The “males” in question in those two prophetic texts are clearly children. However, numerous texts indicate clearly that the males are children in the Pentateuch and throughout, and yet, these are translated by Luther correctly as “male.” 

If I were to guess, I believe Luther was not trying to exclude homosexuality from these four texts (Lev 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9; and 1 Tim 1:10), but point it directly at the Pope specifically. There is no question that the term zākār simply means “male,” and does not carry any referent from other texts over as a part of its meaning. Hence, when not limited to an age group by what is made explicit or implicit in the context, the term is generic and refers to any male of any age. Hence, men between 20 to 60 years of age, animals old enough to mate, women having sex with males, males having seminal discharges, etc. all indicate that the term can be applied to a male of any age in any situation. Luther affirmed this by translating this way 75 out of the 80 times that it is used.

One of the problems, however, in having someone who wants to speak to his culture translate the Bible is that he is tempted to direct his translation at particular people or situations. In this case, Luther incorrectly limited passages that were generic in nature, i.e., meant to cover all male-to-male relationships, to speak directly to adult-to-child relationships because he was in a battle against the Pope and Rome.

It’s not a secret that Luther loathed the Pope and his cardinals. It was said that Pope Leo X would throw “parties” where a giant cake was delivered and out of it would jump little naked boys. Luther had critiqued the Pope and his cardinals for their pederasty. Leo X had vetoed a bill that would limit the amount of boys cardinals kept for their sexual appetites. Luther argued that it was vetoed because “otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy” (Warnunge D. Martini Luther/ An seine lieben Deudschen, Wittenberg, 1531). 

Oxford relates that he has suspicions concerning the use of the term “homosexual” because of the background of the sexual revolution, but seems to evidence no suspicion when it comes to Luther’s polemical disposition toward the Pope and the gross sexual immorality being practiced by these powerful men his day. It is also no secret that Luther’s translation is polemical toward the teachings of Rome, evidenced in his translation of numerous texts (e.g., “faith alone” rather than “faith”—although there is contextual warrant for this example).

Hence, the translation was polemical, not linguistically responsible. The great irony is that a translation once meant to condemn a sexual perversion is now being used to condone one, since, if these texts are limited to a specific male-to-male relationship, it is argued that they do not condemn other male-to-male relationships outside of them. 

This is a species of what I call “context replacement.” The context does not limit the relationship in any way by specifying, explicitly or implicitly, what age the males involved might be. Hence, a faulty background is inserted to provide the context so that it can be limited, and what was once prohibited by the generalized statement is now permitted by the specific that supposedly is not being addressed.

This same type of fallacy is committed when interpreters attempt to argue that this refers to an uncommitted male-to-male relationship, or an act of male-to-male prostitution, etc. The passage does  not limit the extent of the relationship because it is prohibiting any and all male-to-male sexual relationships. The same is understood when the law prohibits murder or adultery. We are not assume that one cannot murder only a specific group, whereby making it permissible to murder any group outside of that group, nor are we to limit adultery in such ways. Likewise, generalized prohibitions are not limited to groups, but instead go beyond specific limitations to encompass any and all situations. 

When I discuss homosexuality, however, I make note of these fallacies but then attempt to enlighten people concernig the larger creational trajectory of the Bible that argues for the goodness of procreative sexual activity and the chaotic/evil nature of anticreational activity. Understanding the larger framework in which these exampled prohibitions reside is helpful to avoid these types of bad arguments, even if one does not know the original languages. The overall context of the Bible is clear, even if these texts seem blurry to the non-linguist. The Bible is absolutely creational, and has, and always will be, therefore, anti-gay.