From: martillo@cpoint.clearpoint.com (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) Subject: Re: Leviticus 18:22 In article <32556@cup.portal.com>, geoffp@cup.portal.com (Geoffrey Scott Puterbaugh) writes: > Dear Joachim, > Although I know no Hebrew, I suspect your scholarship > to be sound. But I would warn against your usage of other terms: > (pederasty = active anal intercourse) and > (catamite = passive anal intercourse). The words are much > more than that. As you well know, "paiderasteia" meant > (to the Greeks) simply "the love of boys" -- and, according > to Dover, many areas thought anal intercourse within "paiderasteia" > was taboo. "Catamite" seems to derive from "Ganymede." > Both terms are "semantically iridescent," with multiple > meanings and layers of meanings -- as is the term "sodomy." The point is valid. The correct term for pederast as I used it would be paedicator while the catamite should perhaps be called a male paedicand. Obviously a human female can also be a paedicand. Paedico, paedicare is a Latin verb meaning to penetrate the anus. > But your main point, derived entirely from focusing on the > words of Leviticus 18:22, is also problematic. You seem to > slight the context: Leviticus 20:13 explicitly specifies the > death penalty for *both* parties involved. This would negate > your perception that the Hebrews subscribed to the common > (pederasty = OK) (catamite = bad) paradigm. Leviticus clearly > calls for both parties to the transaction to be killed. When you read the Biblical text, you either assume they are competently redacted (a secular approach) or you assume that every word or letter counts (which is how religious Jews read the text). Leviticus 20:13 is transcribed as follows: w'i$ 'a$er yi$kab 'et-zakar mi$kbey 'i$ah tow`ebah `a$u $neyhem mowt yuwmatu dmeyhem bam. A close translation would be And a man being that he keeps reclining with a male a reclination of a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination, indeed they shall be put to death, the blood is upon them. If this passage had merely been an amplification of Leviticus 18:22, by the rules of Biblical Hebrew syntax and grammar, it would have bee written: w'i$ 'a$er *$akab* 'et-zakar mi$kbey 'i$ah tow`ebah `a$u $neyhem mowt yuwmatu dmeyhem bam. translated And a man being that he *has reclined* with a male a reclination of a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination, indeed they shall be put to death, the blood is upon them. In other word, not mere commission of the act but rather the repetitive practise of the act seems operative here. Thus while being a male paedicand is bad being a professional male paedicand (say a paid male prostitute or a ritual male prostitute) is seriously criminal and both the professional male paedicand and the paedicator are put to death for anal intercourse. In general Leviticus 20 seems to refer to certain standard semitic religious political factional practices which the ancient Hebrews rejected. There were middle eastern groups where clan-based wife-swapping or sister-brother incest were practiced or where the father-in-law had sexual rights to his daughter-in-law. In some cases, the verse is probably referring to political movements to which affiliation might be shown by repeated engaging in one of the listed practices or to which affiliation might be established by engaging in one of the listed activities with a professional practitioner as a form of initiation. A person who joined such a faction (maybe an ancient Middle Eastern version of the Masons, Rosicrurians or Marxist-Anarchist secret societies) would be rejecting the ancient Hebrew ideology and would at least be treated as a pariah and perhaps be executed. Between the two verses I would describe the ancient Hebrew attitudes toward homosexuality as follows: A male paedicand is ignoble -- a free-born male hebrew should never act as a male paedicand, otherwise his masculinity is in doubt. A paedicator seems relatively neutral and there is no obvious question about his masculinity. A professional male paedicand who offers himself for money or out of political or religious conviction is a major criminal who may be executed. A paedicator who uses such a professional is committing a major crime (and may be demonstrating some dastardly political or religious convictions) and may be executed. Analyzed in this way, the situation for the male paedicand is not much different than for a female, who submits to anal or vaginal intercourse except that a female can legalize sexual intercourse with one male through marriage (actually by becoming contractual property according to Hebrew legal theory). > And so does the probable Persian source for the Levitical > prohibitions -- the Zoroastrian texts cited by Horner > ("David Loved Jonathan," Philadelphia, 1978). I will take a look at this, but in many respects Hebrew attitudes are so anomalous that I prefer a self-consistent reading of the Hebrew text to comparative analysis of Hebrew texts with similar texts of other Middle Eastern religious political groups. > So you have your work cut out for you, if your goal is to > assert that the Hebrews were very much like all the other > cultures around the Mediterranean sea. They weren't. > They had a *death penalty for homosexuality* -- and it passed > into Christianity with the rest of their teachings. I am not so sure that ancient Hebrews had a death penalty for homosexuality. I believe they had a death penalty for paid, ritual or political homosexuality. Such death penalties were not unknown in the classical world. Later Hebrews in the Roman period did interpret such verses as indicating a death penalty for all voluntary homosexual acts, but even so it is not obvious why such a penalty for homosexual acts should have passed over into Christianity especially when so much Hebrew legal theory and penalties were ignored by the early and later Christian communities. > Best regards, > Geoff Puterbaugh Party on, dudes! Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami ----- From: martillo@cpoint.clearpoint.com (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) Subject: Re: Leviticus 18:22 In article , zvs@bby.oz.au (Zev Sero) writes: > In an article about a fortnight ago posted to many groups, Joachim > Martillo (martillo@cpoint.clearpoint.com)asserted that Leviticus 18:22 > is not, as is generally assumed, a blanket prohibition on male-to-male > sodomy, but only on receptive anal sex. He based this theory on his > interpretation of `mishkvei isha' as an abstract noun, rather than as > a plural; he also understands the words `et zachar' as meaning `with a > male', instead of making `a male' the object of the verb `tishkav'. > Thus, he translates the sentence: `And you shall not lie with a male > as a woman does (i.e. being penetrated)'. > Followups to that article were directed to soc.culture.jewish, and I > responded there, pointing out the contradiction with 20:13 which > disproves martillo's reading, and then challenging his interpretation > of the words. I also found it difficult to understand how it would be > possible to engage in legal penetrative anal sex without being either > an accomplice to a capital crime, or a rapist. 18:22 describes an act which is an abomination (being a paedicand) while 20:13 describes an act which is an abomination and a capital offense (anal intercourse with a "professional" paedicand) for both the paedicator and the paedicand. If both verses are describing exactly the same offense, we would have to explain the redundancy. I tend to assume that the masoretic text was competently redacted and assume therefore that meaningless repetition is generally absent from the text. Since the Mosaic Law and its morality were only binding on Hebrews, it is possible that a Hebrew paedicator could use a non-Hebrew paedicand without violating or causing a Hebrew to violate 18:22. There are certain parallels with golden age Roman practice where it was considered illegal or immoral for a free-born Roman to act as a paedicand. > I'm not sure whether my article got out, but at any rate, Geoffrey > Scott Puterbaugh (geoffp@cup.portal.com) responded, also pointing out > Leviticus 20:13. > martillo responds to this point, slightly modifying his argument. He I did not modify my argument. I merely analyzed a different verse. > now tries to establish that `yishkav' in 20:13 means a continuing > action (referring again to the receiver, not to the penetrator, in > line with his previous reading of `mishkvei isha'), i.e. a prostitute, > and only in such a case does the crime attach to both participants. > He also says that in light of this reading, since 18:22 and 20:13 are > not discussing precisely the same case, there is no indication that > the death penaltyin 20:13 applies to casual receptive sex which is > forbidden in 18:22. I should point out that the type of analysis, which I have performed, is hardly unknown in rabbinic Judaism. > To quote martillo: > In other word, not mere commission of the act but rather the repetitive > practise of the act seems operative here. Thus while being a male > paedicand is bad being a professional male paedicand (say a paid male > prostitute or a ritual male prostitute) is seriously criminal and both > the professional male paedicand and the paedicator are put to death for > anal intercourse. > And his understanding is summarised as: > 1.Receptive anal sex is forbidden (`lo tishkav mishkvei isha', 18:22). > 2.Penetrative anal sex is nowhere forbidden (not defined as `mishkvei isha'). > 3.A habitual bottom (`yishkav', 20:13) is subject to the death penalty. > 4.The partner of a habitual bottom is also executed, as an accomplice. > \end{what-went-before} > Again, I have problems with this interpretation. My objections to his > treatment of `et' and `mishkvei' still stand. Though such usage is not > unknown, they are not common, and there is no reason to assume unusual > meanings for words when the usual meanings are perfectly applicable. > In particular, the Talmud specifically comments on `mishkvei' as a > plural noun, rather than an abstract. For 'et to indicate the accusative the object of 'et must almost invariably be determined. Neither in 18:22 nor in 20:13 is zakar determined as hazakar. The standard interpretations (both Jewish and non-Jewish) of 'et zakar understand the phrase as 'with a male' (cum masculo in the Vulgate). The construction lo' ti$kab mi$kbey 'i$ah in 18:22 is fairly common in Biblical Hebrew with the sort of interpretation which I have proposed. For example Ezekiel 28:8 has la$a#at yowriduwka wamatah memowtey #alal beleb yamim. where we again see a plural noun used as an abstract noun in an inner (cognate) accusative construction (where an intransitive noun takes a cognate noun or an abstract noun or related meaning as an object -- to die a terrible death or to live a long life are examples -- also to fight a terrible battle is somewhat similar because the accusative sense of a terrible battle is very different than the accusative sense of a terrible man would be in the phrase to fight a terrible man). The Vulgate translates Ezekiel 28:8 as: Interficient, et detrahent te; Et morieris in interitu occisorum in corde maris. As for the Talmudic analysis, I have respect for the sages of the Roman period but I do not necessarily accept that they were always correct in their understanding of how Ancient Hebrews understood Ancient Hebrew. Also the pharisees represented one of political factions among Jews. Their politics often colors their analysis. I suspect that Saducees and Samaritans may have at least as faithfully preserved an understanding of ancient Hebrew as the pharisees just as well into the 19th century the Qara'ite understanding and analysis of Biblical has been at least defensible as the Rabbinical understanding of Biblical Hebrew. Also just as the founding fathers immediately disagreed about the meaning of the US Constitution, possibly the Ancient Hebrews immediately disagreed about the meaning of various Pentateuchal verses. In the case of homosexuality, the sages of the Talmud have some major problems with the mores of the Roman Empire. As a consequence the sages may have colored their understanding of the verses with meanings which simply were not present for ancient Hebrews. > His new argument, that `yishkav' refers only to a continuing action, > and if the penalty applied to casual incidents then `shakhav' would > have been used, is, IMO, untenable. Actually, the technical argument is that 'a$er yi$kab is by context essentially like a subjunctive of tendency equivalent to Latin qui (ut) cubet (Gildersleeve and Lodge, Latin Grammar, 631). > Chapter 18 prohibits a whole list of offenses, mostly sexual, without > prescribing penalties. Chapter 20 goes through an almost identical > list, assigning penalties to these (already defined) crimes. There is > a clear relationship between the two chapters, and the language used > for each crime in the two chapters matches. Thus, to allege that > 18:22 and 20:13 are not describing the same crime, seems ludicrous. But if these are all the same crimes with the same penalties, we have to wonder why there are two lists. I would argue that one list is describing activities which are reprehensible and which must not be committed. The other list contains behavior patterns which make a person liable to serious punishment. > Further, the verbs used to describe the crimes in Chapter 20 are all > of the same form: future tense singular. In particular, the word In fact these forms are not future tense singular but rather Biblical Hebrew imperfective tenses whose meaning depends strongly on context. It is very wrong to understand Biblical Hebrew in terms of Modern Israeli Hebrew grammar or Roman-Medieval period New Hebrew grammar. In fact lo' ti$kab is precisely equivalent to Latin ne cubito ('al ti$kab would be precisely equivalent to Latin noli cubare) while 'i$ 'a$er yi$kab is equalent to Latin qui cubet. I would argue that most modern Jews understand Leviticus 20:13 through the influence of the Vulgate which gives this verse as Qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo, uterque operatus est nefas, morte moriantur: sit sanguis eorum super eos. in which ti$kab corresponds to dormierit which is a future perfect indicative tense and which is a very incorrect correspondence with a Biblical Hebrew subordinate oblique imperfective tense. > `yishkav' is used five times, to describe a man lying with > a. his stepmother > b. his daughter in law > c. a male > d. a menstruating woman > e. his aunt. > In addition, `yikakh' is used three times, and `yinaf', `yitein' and > `tikrav' are used once each. All future tense singular verbs, and all > except `tikrav' refer to the male, penetrating, partner in a sexual > act. The clear meaning in all these cases is : > if at any time in the future anyone does act A (in contravention of > Chapter 18), both participants in the act shall receive penalty B. And this is the point -- in chapter 20 the operative verbs are all represented as subordinate oblique imperfective tense while in chapter 18 the Hebrew phraseology is quite different and the verbs are all non-subordinate jussive imperfective tenses. In neither case can the tense be equated with the Modern Israeli Hebrew future tense. > This is also evident from the fact that in the entire chapter, after > each case is introduced with a future tense verb, all subsequent verbs > are in the past tense. In particular, this includes the verb `asu' in > 20:13. This use of the future tense to assign a penalty to a single > offense (not just a continuing one) is, in fact, the most common form > the Bible uses for this purpose. Throughout the Bible, we find > `a person who *will do* act A shall receive penalty B'. On the > contrary, I can't recall a single instance of the past tense being > used; and yet I don't think that martillo will allege that the > Bible never prescribes punishment for isolated offenses but only for > habitual offenders. Actually, the forms in Leviticus 20 are very unusual for the definition of crime and penalty. More typical are Exodus 21:15 umakeh 'abiw w'imow mowt yuwmat or Exodus 21:16 wegoneb 'i$ umkarow wenimSa' byadow mowt yuwmat. By these examples if paedication by itself were the capital offense we would expect Leviticus 20:13 to read as follows: we$okeb 'et-zakar mi$kbey 'ishah, tow`ebah `a$u $neyhem mowt yuwmatu with similar modification of the other verses in Leviticus 20. > In summary, it is clear from the text that 18:22 prohibits all anal > sex between males, to both participants, and 20:13 prescribes the > death penalty even for a single offence. In Biblical Hebrew 18:22 is most probably an expression of distaste for the paedicand, while with Biblical Hebrew grammar 20:13 is most correctly understood as making a capital offense for both parties paedication with a "professional" paedicand which identifies the participants with some faction which rejects ancient Hebrew ideology and mores. I would understand the other verses in Leviticus 20 similarly. > As I pointed out in my previous article, while it is commonly assumed > that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 refer to all male-to-male sex, in fact > they only refer to anal sex, but this does include both partners. The reading can only be justified unequivocally if you misunderstand the Biblical verses by reading them with Modern Hebrew or New Hebrew grammar. > Zev Sero - zvs@bby.oz.au Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami From: martillo@cpoint.clearpoint.com (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) Subject: Re: Leviticus 18:22 In article <1990Aug23.153714.22747@cs.columbia.edu>, ari@cs.columbia.edu (Ari Gross) writes: > In article <7058@cpoint.clearpoint.com> martillo@cpoint.clearpoint.com (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: > >> To quote martillo: > >> In other word, not mere commission of the act but rather the repetitive > >> practise of the act seems operative here. Thus while being a male > >> paedicand is bad being a professional male paedicand (say a paid male > >> prostitute or a ritual male prostitute) is seriously criminal and both > >> the professional male paedicand and the paedicator are put to death for > >> anal intercourse. > Martillo's initial posting on this topic did not, for the most part, warrant > any serious reply. With a sign off of "Party On", it was hard to give his > posting any intellectual credibility. But let us just examine some excerpts > of the above paragraph, taken from his posting: > "not mere commission of the act but rather the repetitive practice of the act > seems operative here" > All the transgressions in the Torah are for ONE-TIME OFFENSES;where is there > EVER, anywhere else in the OT, a concept of "doing it once is not so bad, > just don't become a repeat offender"? Every offense mentioned in the Torah > as a prohibitive act is for a single transgression thereof, and there is > no reason to believe that this case is THE exception. Perhaps I was unclear, but I am quite reasonably interpreting Leviticus 18:22 as forbidding free Hebrews from being paedicands (shokbey mishkbey ishah) while I am interpreting Leviticus 20:13 as making paedication a capital crime when the paedicand acts for professional, ideological or cultic reasons. The distinction would be analogous to the distinction between simple extramarital sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse with a professional, ideological or cultic prostituture. > You might want to cite me "lo yiyeh kadesh bivnei yisrael" > [and similarly 'kidesha bivnot yisrael'] but of course this refers not > to an act but to a profession as by yehuda and tamar "ayeh hih hakedsha > ba'enayim?". This is similar to other professions the Torah tells us to > avoid [e.g., 'machshefa']. It is in no way similar to the verse in > parshat ha'arayot of "lo tishkav". I was not arguing such an interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 which fairly clearly forbids a free Hebrew male from reclining a reclination of a woman which given usual Biblical Hebrew periphrasis in sexual matters fairly clearly means that a free Hebrew male is forbidden to let himself be fucked in the ass. > All the 'acts' mentioned in parshat ha`arayot refer to one time > commission of the transgression, and this is consistent with the language > used there. In Leviticus 18, you are correct. But if you properly understand Biblical Hebrew syntax and grammar, Leviticus 20 strongly implies tendential, customary or repetitive activity. > BTW, the meaning of the verb "tishkav" is used consistently in the > OT and is not in agreement with your translation. Even a cursory reading > of the relevant verses makes that very clear. I assume you mean my reading of lo' tishkab mishkbey 'ishah and not the simple translation of shakab as recline. As far as I know these two verses and one or two other similar constructions are the only instances of shakab taking an object. Interestingly enough I am checking Willian Gesenius Lexicon of the Old Testament and these are the only case of shakab taking a direct object and in his words -- cum accusativo cognato i.e. with a cognate accusative. Mishkbey 'ishah is quite reasonable interpreted as a qualified abstract noun by the rules of the formation of biblical abstract nouns and by the example of expressions like memotei tahalu'im (Jeremiah 16:4) or memotei halal (Ezekiel 28:8). > Martillo, if you want to "party on" go right ahead but do not > "screw up" or convolute biblical verse in order to do so. I am merely suggested a resonable interpretation of the verses on the basis of current understanding of Biblical Hebrew syntax and grammar. If you can argue reasonably by showing a greater understanding of Biblical Hebrew syntax and grammar, go ahead and maybe I will agree and admit error, but merely asserting the correctness of traditional rabbinic interpretation because they are tradition rabbinic interpretations won't wash especially because Talmudic sages did in fact admit some problems understanding certain cases of Biblical Hebrew syntax, grammar and expression. As a consequence, I see no reason at all to accept traditional interpretation especially given the somewhat opaque syntactic structure which the verses being discussed. After all if Leviticus 18:22 really meant what you wish it to mean, wouldn't the following have been better. ubzakar lo' titen shekobtka and unto a male, thou (male) shalt not give your copulation which is perfectly good Biblical Hebrew as far as I know and would clearly forbid a Hebrew male from either being paedicator or paedicand.