1. That homosexual CULT IDOLATRY already existed in Canaan before the time the Israelites entered the land and THAT is what is being prohibited in the Leviticus passages.
The first point is easily proven by the Bible Itself:
Leviticus 20:5: "... then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut him off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Moloch."
(The whoring mentioned in this verse is very relevant since there is debate if these priests where in actuality male prostitutes)
Now go to 1 Kings 14:24 and 22:46:
"There were even male shrine prostitutes Kadesh (qā·ḏêš) in the land... "
"He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes (haq·qā·ḏêš)... "
This is also backed by the historical record.*
The second point clinches it because Leviticus 18;3 states the Israelites were not to do the practices of the Canaanites:
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
Now if it can be shown that the Canaanites did not practice homosexuality as a norm outside of their cult ceremonies or even prohibited homosexual practice, that means homosexuality was not one of the Canaanite "practices" God is forbidding to the Israelites and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 falls ONLY in the 'cult male prostitution' category the Canaanites DID practice.
Records from the Canaanite civilization are silent on homosexuality either way, but In his book "The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship," Frederick Greenspahn states the Canaanite law codes where directly copied from Mesopotamian Law Codes and what do we find in MALC (Mesopotamian Law Code), Tablet A: 19, 20? A rumor of homosexuality being slanderous and a general prohibition of homosexuality outside of idolatry. We can now say homosexuality was not only not a "practice," but it was also prohibited by the Canaanites if they indeed copied Mesopotamian Law.
(note; there was no variance in views within the Mesopotamian Nations on homosexuality. What you read here is all there is on it.)
The Hittites would also have copied the Mesopotamian Law Codes on homosexuality because they lived in the same era and were close neighbors to the Canaanites and that's what ancient neighbors did, but nothing is stated outright about homosexuality either way with the Hittites. What we do have though are several Hittite historical documents that hint at how homosexuality was held by these people. One is the; "Siege of Ursu" text that had a Hittite army commander criticizing his men for acting as "Kulessar," what historians believe is acting like a passive homosexual. The other is an exorcism text called the "Ritual of Anniwiyani" whose purpose was to exorcise an "effeminate" demon.**
As for Egypt? The land the Israelites left to go to Canaan whose "practices" they were ALSO forbidden to follow by God? Even homosexual desire was condemned according to the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and Derrick Sherwin Bailey states the ancient Egyptians regarded homosexual practices as; "... morally objectionable and personally degrading."
So there you have it. Homosexuality was rejected by the Egyptians, whom the children of Israel left, and from the evidence shown, also forbidden by the Canaanites whose land the children of Israel were entering. This would make "homosexuality" not one of the practices God forbids in Leviticus with the two lands and that would make homosexuality ONLY in the context of Canaanite idolatry the Canaanites probably abhorred as a people outside of idolatry.
This is an angle no researcher has gone into as far as I know.
"There were even male shrine prostitutes Kadesh (qā·ḏêš) in the land... "
"He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes (haq·qā·ḏêš)... "
This is also backed by the historical record.*
The second point clinches it because Leviticus 18;3 states the Israelites were not to do the practices of the Canaanites:
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
Now if it can be shown that the Canaanites did not practice homosexuality as a norm outside of their cult ceremonies or even prohibited homosexual practice, that means homosexuality was not one of the Canaanite "practices" God is forbidding to the Israelites and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 falls ONLY in the 'cult male prostitution' category the Canaanites DID practice.
Records from the Canaanite civilization are silent on homosexuality either way, but In his book "The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship," Frederick Greenspahn states the Canaanite law codes where directly copied from Mesopotamian Law Codes and what do we find in MALC (Mesopotamian Law Code), Tablet A: 19, 20? A rumor of homosexuality being slanderous and a general prohibition of homosexuality outside of idolatry. We can now say homosexuality was not only not a "practice," but it was also prohibited by the Canaanites if they indeed copied Mesopotamian Law.
(note; there was no variance in views within the Mesopotamian Nations on homosexuality. What you read here is all there is on it.)
The Hittites would also have copied the Mesopotamian Law Codes on homosexuality because they lived in the same era and were close neighbors to the Canaanites and that's what ancient neighbors did, but nothing is stated outright about homosexuality either way with the Hittites. What we do have though are several Hittite historical documents that hint at how homosexuality was held by these people. One is the; "Siege of Ursu" text that had a Hittite army commander criticizing his men for acting as "Kulessar," what historians believe is acting like a passive homosexual. The other is an exorcism text called the "Ritual of Anniwiyani" whose purpose was to exorcise an "effeminate" demon.**
As for Egypt? The land the Israelites left to go to Canaan whose "practices" they were ALSO forbidden to follow by God? Even homosexual desire was condemned according to the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and Derrick Sherwin Bailey states the ancient Egyptians regarded homosexual practices as; "... morally objectionable and personally degrading."
So there you have it. Homosexuality was rejected by the Egyptians, whom the children of Israel left, and from the evidence shown, also forbidden by the Canaanites whose land the children of Israel were entering. This would make "homosexuality" not one of the practices God forbids in Leviticus with the two lands and that would make homosexuality ONLY in the context of Canaanite idolatry the Canaanites probably abhorred as a people outside of idolatry.
This is an angle no researcher has gone into as far as I know.
“Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel.”
- Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics; p.130.
*Two more resources on the Kadesh backing my claim:
*Two more resources on the Kadesh backing my claim:
"The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament" by John Grey.
“The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Histoical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew qadesh-qedeshim” by Phyllis Bird.
**To the ancients, a passive male, willingly, was what they would have the closest definition of a "homosexual," at least in their minds. A male who was penetrative in a homosexual act, either to humiliate the defeated in battle, as a sexual outlet, or in worship practices, were never considered males only desiring males.
How much the ancients knew about a 'gay orientation' as we understand it today is for another discussion.
**To the ancients, a passive male, willingly, was what they would have the closest definition of a "homosexual," at least in their minds. A male who was penetrative in a homosexual act, either to humiliate the defeated in battle, as a sexual outlet, or in worship practices, were never considered males only desiring males.
How much the ancients knew about a 'gay orientation' as we understand it today is for another discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment