Thursday, August 15, 2013

SCHOLARSHIP OR TRADITION?


When I published a post recently entitled WHAT DID SODOM DO?, questioning the traditional understanding that the city of Sodom was destroyed by God (Genesis 19) for homosexual behavior, I expected to receive comments, but I only received two, as follows:
  • Very thought provoking. My hesitation is that the early Jewish scholars seemed to think/feel that Sodom sin was Homosexuality. They were much closer to the culture and language than we will ever be; therefore I give their view considerable weight. As King Agrippa once said "Almost thou persuaded me."
  • How does one know what early Jewish scholars thought? Is the Bible a stand- alone document or are additional resources required?
After reading these two comments, I began to wonder, what is it that "the early Jewish scholars" knew that was not available to me?  While I recognize that my study was not exhaustive, I could find little in the biblical text that would lead me to agree with these "scholars."  Yes, of course, their knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and other ancient tongues was undoubtedly much greater than my own, but there seemed to be no hidden meanings in the biblical text that could be discovered by linguistic expertise.

I suspected that I needed to do some studies of Hebrew words that might tie Sodom's destruction to homosexual behavior.  While I found there were certain words such as TO'EBA - "abomination" which were used to describe homosexual acts, the word was also used of all sorts of sexual, religious and ethical misbehavior and I found no direct connection to Sodom's sin and destruction.

I decided to examine some of the inter-testamental literature.  I consulted the Apocrypha -- those books which are found in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) but not in the Hebrew Bible.  I found but one reference, in The Wisdom of Sirach (ca .180 BC):  "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride ..." (16:8, Goodspeed Translation).  Hmm, nothing there.

I went to the books known as the Pseudepigrapha -- those Jewish writings so named because they were apparently falsely attributed to biblical authors.  (All quotes are from J.H. Charlesworth's edition).  As with the biblical texts most are concerned primarily with the destruction of the city and not with the specific sin or sins that brought this on.

Well, I did find a few that could be construed as alluding to homosexual behavior.
·      The Testament of Naphtali (ca. 150 BC), "... so that you do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature.  Likewise the Watchers (angels in Genesis 6, who cohabited with women) departed from nature's order" (3:4, 5).  This could very well be a passage the New Testament author Jude was thinking of in Jude 6, 7.  See also Paul's reference to homosexual behavior as "against nature" in Romans 1:26, 27.
·      The Testament of Benjamin (ca. 150 BC), speaks of the "promiscuity of the Sodomites" and "actions with loose women" (9:1).  This looks to me like heterosexual promiscuity.
·       The Testament of Levi (ca. 150 BC), speaks of greed, profanation of married women, "intercourse with whores and adulteresses" "... your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah" (15:5, 6).
·       Jubilee (160-140 BC), speaks of "the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah ... " and that "they were polluting themselves and they were fornicating in their flesh ... "
·       2 Enoch (1st century AD), has a clear reference to pederasty:  "the sin which is against nature, which is child corruption in the anus after the manner of Sodom" (10:4).  However, this reference is found in only one late manuscript.

As can be seen, the later Jewish writings add little to the biblical material.  We must also consider that these writings were much later than the latest dated canonical books.  The last book of the Hebrew Old Testament (Malachi) is dated around 435 BC -- nearly 300 years before the texts mentioned above.  And the actual destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was somewhere around 1900 BC.  How much can we trust stories of events written that long after the actual events?  Where did the information come from?

If I may digress, I'd like to draw a parallel with our own day, with the thinking of "Christian scholars."

When I was in my early teens, I recall reading on the front page of my home town newspaper (11/1/1950) that the Pope (Pius XII) had just issued a bull declaring that Mary, the mother of Jesus had been taken bodily to heaven.  This doctrine was known as "the Assumption of Mary."  Of course, to a 13 year old the word "bull" grabbed my attention first; the next word that grabbed me was "assumption."  I questioned my mother, who was a Roman Catholic, as to how the pope could, after over 1900 years, make such a claim.  She very uncomfortably explained that this "truth" had always been known and he was only making it official.  I, by this time was beginning to become a bit skeptical concerning such traditions.

Another that I'll throw in here is the tradition that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.  She has been portrayed that way in many, many movies and not a few sermons.  Again, there is no basis in the Scripture for such a portrayal.

Traditions can, of course, be quite helpful in the study of Scripture.  To our understanding of the Gospels, for instance, a study of contemporary Jewish practices and traditions will shed much light.  But we should be very careful about reinterpretation based on myths and stories from a later era.

Most likely, Jesus was familiar with the Jewish tradition of his day that God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual behavior.  Just imagine how shocked his hearers must have been when they heard him say to his disciples:  "Into whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your city that clings to our feet, we shake off at you.  Yet know this, that the Kingdom of God has come near.'  I'm telling you that it will be easier for Sodom in that day than for that city!"

Can't you just see the heads shaking and hear the tsk-tsks?

14 comments:

Trent said...

Interesting thoughts Bill. Its true that its not spelled out and based on assumptions because its the sin obviously described in the narrative. It reminds me to not make assumptions and speak when Scripture has not. :) Bottom line is that we know it was destroyed because of Sin, even if different then that described, and we know homosexuality is a sin as well. Thanks for making me think! :)

Canadian Atheist said...

I'm friends with a Jewish Chaplain. We often collaborate on writing articles together. You might find what he has to say about homosexuality etc. interesting and informative. Here's the link:

http://enoch2699399.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/23/10826656-sin-abomination-and-evil-a-scriptural-primary-source-linguisitic-analysis

Anonymous said...

Actually it seems that Sodom was destroyed because there were not ten righteous people there. seems like the only righteous person was so insensitive to sin everyone thought god's judgment was a joke. Sound familiar?

Trent said...

Canadian that was an interesting article, but he was not consistent IMO. He said "While homosexuality is forbidden (Leviticus 18:22) as is lesbianism (Leviticus 18:3) for Jewish people, so is combining wool with linen (Shotnis), and eating meat and milk in less than several hours. (Kashrut).

None of this is sin or evil. None of this destroys Jewish communities, or estranges us from G-d." He is able to state that, and ignore that it actually says Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It [is] an abomination. I don't think it says that about mixing wool and linen. He also ignore Lev 20:13 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood [shall be] upon them punishment.

I dislike when people ignore passages of scripture to try and make a political statement. I still hold that it is a sin.. like adultery, and others of immorality but that Scripture is still clear that God loves the person and that I am deserving of death as well.

Canadian Atheist said...

Dear Trent,

He does address it. The passage you quote and say he ignores, uses the word 'abomination' in English.

The article says: "Finally there is abomination. Abomination is not the pejorative term in Hebrew and Aramaic it turns out to be in Indo-European languages like English. It is used simply to denote that this is conduct that is other than the societal norm. That doesn't make it a sin or evil. It does mean that it is other than how most handle things."

As you see, it is not the societal norm.

And as the article says, which I think is the most poignant part: "Gossiping, speaking cruelly to or about people with alternative lifestyles does destroy lives, reputations, communities; and rips us apart as a unified Jewish People. That all estranges us from G-d."

You may also hold it as sin (a completely irrational belief) but I'd take the word of a Jewish rabbi (it's their religion after all) over yours. No offense or anything.

I do like your ending paragraph, since that's basically what the bible teaches. People just like to take one thing (in this case homosexuality) and pick on that, while ignoring all the other supposed sins.

I guess that too goes against Christianity. After all, Jesus said something about the plank in ones eye, and about throwing the first stone.

Bill Ball said...

We don't need to take the word of Jewish OR Christian rabbis or scholars. While they may be helpful, all we need to do is check out the uses of the word TO'EBA or "abomination" in the OT using a concordance. Its primary uses in the Torah are to describe forbidden sexual practices (5 times in Leviticus 18 alone) and forbidden worship practices. Proverbs uses the word to describe unethical practices that "nice" people may be guilty of.
It usually seems to mean something abhorrent and especially to the LORD. Your rabbi friend seems to be mistaken. Leviticus 18:24-30 sure sounds to me like "estrangement".

Canadian Atheist said...

Well, that's too bad then. I still find his explanation makes more sense, but if you'd rather go the hard route, then we'll never see eye-to-eye when it comes to same-sex relationships. It's too bad when Christians take that route, because I think they're on the losing side of history. This type of hardline Christianity (especially when they're hijacking Judaism and their holy book and incorporating it into their own) breeds intolerance, hatred and backlash. I personally think it's the single biggest reason why many churches are seeing their numbers dwindle.

That's my take anyhow. I guess you fella's are free to believe whatever you wish.

Bill Ball said...

Hmm. so I'm taking "the hard route." Actually I thought I was simply attempting to understand the meaning of a word in an ancient document. Words have meanings and we are not free to make them mean whatever we'd like them to mean.
I don't see where disagreement about the meaning of a word necessitates a blanket condemnation.

Canadian Atheist said...

That's true, Bill, which is why I gave you a link to an article written by an actual Jew, who speaks the language and whose religion it was originally. Many Christians seem to think they can translate and interpret a religion that isn't really theirs to begin with. If you'd like to interpret it as 'something abhorrent and especially to the LORD', then that is your choice. To me that's the 'hard route' and one that will see Christianity come to odds with the rest of society. In time, I think we'll be looking back at history and see that the hard-nosed Christians were on the wrong side of history. Much like we do the ones who opposed freeing the slaves.

Trent said...

CA, I just thought I would address that. I believe that all sin including homosexuality is abhorrent to God. However Jesus Christ his son died for them just like me. Tere will always be people who like to point at sins that are not their issue, but that does not make truth any less truth. Whether you prefer the Rabbi's ignoring context, or you feel Christianity will disappear someday has nothing to do with if it is true or not. (note, I understand you may not agree, but your argument seemed to do with preference rather then fact) Reading through scripture, with all of its warts, incest from famous biblical figures, sex, murder and more, makes it clear that the Bible is history, not a argument to convince you to be a Jew or a Christian.. or a Jewish Christian. If what Jesus did for you won't convince you I don't know what will. Consider though that every religion in the world is how you get there. Biblical Christianity is the only one that its already done for you, and you just believe in the one who did it for you. No tithing, good works, or anything else makes a bit of difference. Anyway, have a great day and I will continue praying for you.

Grace and Truth
Trent

Canadian Atheist said...

Hello Trent,

"If what Jesus did for you won't convince you I don't know what will."

No, a human sacrifice won't convince me of a loving God. Perhaps someone known as Jesus was crucified, but that in no way proves your religion is any more true than say, Islam or the worship of Odin.

"Tere will always be people who like to point at sins that are not their issue, but that does not make truth any less truth. Whether you prefer the Rabbi's ignoring context, or you feel Christianity will disappear someday has nothing to do with if it is true or not."

I agree with the thrust of your argument here. I don't think it's true, which is why I think the Bible is a horrible measuring stick for calling homosexuality an abomination. In Bill's post about slavery (Where Were We), he asks where the Christian organizations were when humanity was struggling with that issue. The answer is that about half were justifying slavery using the bible. Perhaps Bill will be writing another 'Where Were We?' post when it comes to the topic of homosexuality.

Trent said...

CA said "No, a human sacrifice won't convince me of a loving God. Perhaps someone known as Jesus was crucified, but that in no way proves your religion is any more true than say, Islam or the worship of Odin."

If it was a human sacrifice then of course not. IF it was who he claimed to be, then it should. I do not know you or your education or background. Have you researched the reliability of the Bible?

CA said "I agree with the thrust of your argument here. I don't think it's true, which is why I think the Bible is a horrible measuring stick for calling homosexuality an abomination. In Bill's post about slavery (Where Were We), he asks where the Christian organizations were when humanity was struggling with that issue. The answer is that about half were justifying slavery using the bible. Perhaps Bill will be writing another 'Where Were We?' post when it comes to the topic of homosexuality."

Using things out of context you can justify anything just about. Also, depending on your framework, marriage between a man and a woman may be an abomination. You are trying to defend one Sin of many that are an abomination because.. ? Just like many Christians like to pick that sin to attack, you are picking that one to defend. Ultimately, whether you agree or disagree, the question is, IS God there, and does he consider it a sin. I am not picking out that sin to attack, I am just saying that for any believer of the Bible to try and eliminate it as a sin, he is not consistent, and if you can pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible, then its all relative and it becomes silly.

Thanks for your friendly interaction.

Grace and Truth
Trent

Canadian Atheist said...

Dear Trent,

"If it was a human sacrifice then of course not. IF it was who he claimed to be, then it should."

There is no reliable evidence that he was the son of God. In that time period, there were many people who claimed to be the Messiah. Throughout history there have been people who claimed to be God.

"Have you researched the reliability of the Bible?"

Yes. It's part of the reason I'm an atheist, since I grew up a Christian.

"Just like many Christians like to pick that sin to attack, you are picking that one to defend"

Sin is a religious construct. I don't base my morals on what one holy book or another calls a sin, because I don't believe their God claims are true.

"and if you can pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible, then its all relative and it becomes silly."

Exactly. Ever tried to live by everything said in the bible? It's impossible. In the bible, for example, slavery is justified. There are instructions within for both slave masters and slaves to obey.

'Slavery is wrong' wasn't good enough for God. This is why people used the bible to justify slavery and why I pointed out Bills last post 'where were we'.

"Thanks for your friendly interaction."

Same to you Trent. I enjoy our conversations. :)

Trent said...

CA said "There is no reliable evidence that he was the son of God. In that time period, there were many people who claimed to be the Messiah. Throughout history there have been people who claimed to be God."

Well.. I guess what do you consider evidence? His claims.. his actions. As "evidence demands a verdict" argues, you could prove the ressurection in a court of law. I would consider that evidence.

"Have you researched the reliability of the Bible?"

CA said "Yes. It's part of the reason I'm an atheist, since I grew up a Christian."

It appears that you are saying it is not reliable. I am open to discussing that.

CA said "Exactly. Ever tried to live by everything said in the bible? It's impossible. In the bible, for example, slavery is justified. There are instructions within for both slave masters and slaves to obey."

Fun place to start. First as a Non Jew, I have no reason to live by everything. Much is History. That said, the Bible is about Liberty. It allows people to sell themselves into slavery, but it also allows them to be freed every 7 years. I would do that in a heart beat if it saved my children from starvation. It allowed for slaves to stay in servitude IF they chose voluntarily. Some people are more comfortable. Why is slavery wrong? I AGREE that mistreatment is wrong? IS servitude an acceptable punishment rather then death? No where do I see me commanded to be a slave or have them however. In the New Testament, it teaches contentment. If a slave, then serve your master well. If you have slaves, treat them well. I know some slaves were treated as trusted members of families, and some "workers" today are treated worse then many slaves. What is your basis for considering slavery wrong? (I agree that forced servitude for color of skin is wrong, but even that I would be curious what your basis is for saying it is wrong) I know this is a can of worms, but thought it would be fun to discuss. My point is, the fact that is gives instructions of how to deal with bestiality does not mean it justifies Bestiality. It just acknowledges it takes place and establishes rules for it to protect people.

CA said 'Slavery is wrong' wasn't good enough for God. This is why people used the bible to justify slavery and why I pointed out Bills last post 'where were we'.

I think you and I agree, that using the Bible to justify something does not equal the Bible says something right? :)

Grace and Truth
Trent