Won't this upset the assholes?

[Minimalist]

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/harvard...-sex-fine/

Harvard Bible scholar says passage condemning gays was rewritten — original specifically said gay sex was fine

“Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed,” he writes.

Apparently it didn't come straight from fucking god!

[Ravenshire]

And if it changes one single christer mind I'll be floored with shock.

[Minimalist]

I'm happy just to piss them off!

[downbeatplumb]

And if it changes one single christer mind I'll be floored with shock.

They only hold true to the passages that meet their current prejudices.

[Angrboda]

I've reached the end of my free articles for the New York Times.

Damn paywalls.

(Reading an opinion piece about the Dershowitz article, his reasoning seems rather thin.)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Instead of [enter name of your own oh-so-special holy book here], I wish people would take their cues on gay sex from a REALLY authoritative source, Dorothy Parker:

'As I grow older and older,
And totter towards the tomb,
I find that I care less and less
Who goes to bed with whom.'

Boru

[emjay]

I've reached the end of my free articles for the New York Times.  

Damn paywalls.

(Reading an opinion piece about the Dershowitz article, his reasoning seems rather thin.)

Perhaps you just need to clear your cookies to get access again?... unless they store your IP address... as that seems to be the only way they could know how many articles you've read. For me it says four free articles left.

I think the full article is very interesting and a compelling argument. Basically, if I'm understanding the logic correctly... which I might not have... or not fully, it all focuses on Leviticus Chapter 18 and how Lev 18.7 and Lev 18.14 are the only two verses in that paragraph that mention (potentially) homosexual incest, whereas all the rest only mention heterosexual incest. But that those two verse are ambiguous; the first, Lev 18.7:

"The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness"

And the second, Lev 18.14:

"You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother.
[*] you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt"

Arguing that the latter parts of each were added/edited at a later date, to obscure what could otherwise be considered exceptions to a general rule... in order to be consistent with the overall prohibition of homosexual sex in Lev 18.22. Ie if they only said "the nakedness of your father you shall not uncover" and "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother", then it could be implied that these were exceptions... ie based on incest alone... to a general rule that did not explicitly prohibit homosexual sex.

*Not sure if it's a full stop, comma, or semi-colon here as they article splits those two lines into two quotes, for its commentary, and I don't have the same version of the Bible as he does to compare.

----

Not that I think any of this really matters in a world of "Paulianity" posing as Christianity, but nonetheless I think it is an interesting argument.

[Angrboda]

I've reached the end of my free articles for the New York Times.  

Damn paywalls.

(Reading an opinion piece about the Dershowitz article, his reasoning seems rather thin.)

Perhaps you just need to clear your cookies to get access again?... unless they store your IP address... as that seems to be the only way they could know how many articles you've read. For me it says four free articles left.

I think the full article is very interesting and a compelling argument. Basically, if I'm understanding the logic correctly... which I might not have... or not fully, it all focuses on Leviticus Chapter 18 and how Lev 18.7 and Lev 18.14 are the only two verses in that paragraph that mention (potentially) homosexual incest, whereas all the rest only mention heterosexual incest. But that those two verse are ambiguous; the first, Lev 18.7:

"The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness"

And the second, Lev 18.14:

"You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother.
[*] you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt"

Arguing that the latter parts of each were added/edited at a later date, to obscure what could otherwise be considered exceptions to a general rule... in order to be consistent with the overall prohibition of homosexual sex in Lev 18.22. Ie if they only said "the nakedness of your father you shall not uncover" and "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother", then it could be implied that these were exceptions... ie based on incest alone... to a general rule that did not explicitly prohibit homosexual sex.

*Not sure if it's a full stop, comma, or semi-colon here as they article splits those two lines into two quotes, for its commentary, and I don't have the same version of the Bible as he does to compare.

----

Not that I think any of this really matters in a world of "Paulianity" posing as Christianity, but nonetheless I think it is an interesting argument.

The argument that a specific prohibition need not be made if a general one were already in place is logical, except that it's violated all the time in reality. We often voice both specific and general prohibitions indiscriminately without regard to overlap, so that point is rather weak.

As to the other, if I'm understanding him correctly, he's implying that a prohibition against uncovering a [man's] nakedness followed by a specification of it being applied to a related female is an indication that editing has occurred. If that is his argument, I suspect it is contradicted by the fact that, IIRC, in the bible, a man's nakedness not only extended to his own , but also to that of any wife or any daughter, as women were his property and therefore uncovering them was uncovering his nakedness. If that's the case, there is no sign of editing so much as a misunderstanding of cultural convention.

(Btw, thank you for the tip on clearing my cookies.)

[emjay]

Perhaps you just need to clear your cookies to get access again?... unless they store your IP address... as that seems to be the only way they could know how many articles you've read. For me it says four free articles left.

I think the full article is very interesting and a compelling argument. Basically, if I'm understanding the logic correctly... which I might not have... or not fully, it all focuses on Leviticus Chapter 18 and how Lev 18.7 and Lev 18.14 are the only two verses in that paragraph that mention (potentially) homosexual incest, whereas all the rest only mention heterosexual incest. But that those two verse are ambiguous; the first, Lev 18.7:

"The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness"

And the second, Lev 18.14:

"You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother.
[*] you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt"

Arguing that the latter parts of each were added/edited at a later date, to obscure what could otherwise be considered exceptions to a general rule... in order to be consistent with the overall prohibition of homosexual sex in Lev 18.22. Ie if they only said "the nakedness of your father you shall not uncover" and "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother", then it could be implied that these were exceptions... ie based on incest alone... to a general rule that did not explicitly prohibit homosexual sex.

*Not sure if it's a full stop, comma, or semi-colon here as they article splits those two lines into two quotes, for its commentary, and I don't have the same version of the Bible as he does to compare.

----

Not that I think any of this really matters in a world of "Paulianity" posing as Christianity, but nonetheless I think it is an interesting argument.

The argument that a specific prohibition need not be made if a general one were already in place is logical, except that it's violated all the time in reality.  We often voice both specific and general prohibitions indiscriminately without regard to overlap, so that point is rather weak.

Yeah, I understand that and tbh see this a bit like a Necker cube; sometimes seeing your interpretation and sometimes seeing his, switching between the two, both seeming to make full sense when in focus. From the skeptical POV there's also the feeling that perhaps he is taking things a bit too literally... as you say in your example logical but not how it works in practical terms... but also just in the sense that some things may have been implicit. After all there is the implicit understanding that it is addressed to men, but there may also be the implicit prohibition of male-male sex basically as the complete opposite of the idea of its explicit absence as an exception to the general rule... ie the difference between not stated because it is implicitly allowed, and not stated because it's implicitly understood by everyone to be not allowed. So more Necker Cubishness

As to the other, if I'm understanding him correctly, he's implying that a prohibition against uncovering a [man's] nakedness followed by a specification of it being applied to a related female is an indication that editing has occurred.  If that is his argument, I suspect it is contradicted by the fact that, IIRC, in the bible, a man's nakedness not only extended to his own , but also to that of any wife or any daughter, as women were his property and therefore uncovering them was uncovering his nakedness.  If that's the case, there is no sign of editing so much as a misunderstanding of cultural convention.

I think I see what you're saying here, since it is more like how my own Bible's phrase it... in terms of the disgrace involved:

eg Lev 18.14

"You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt."

So yeah, that makes sense also, and brings me back to the Necker Cube on this question also... that different translations suggest different things, but assuming that as a scholar, he'd have access to the most accurate source material. Anyway, it wasn't that I was seeing this as a smoking gun... for instance, I'd like to know if he has any bias in this question... but it's still interesting to me, and something I'd like to follow to see how it develops.

(Btw, thank you for the tip on clearing my cookies.)

I take it it worked then... cool

[Minimalist]

Religitards steadfastly refuse to accept that this holy horseshit served a political and propagandistic purpose.  They love to think it is GODLY when all it is is manly!

Archaeology Professor, Israel Finkelstein, has this charming little notation in The Bible Unearthed in which he makes it clear that the story of Lot's daughters fucking their fathers.... which some religitards would say makes it true because of the Criteria of Embarrassment served a completely different purpose when put into the context of the time.  Finkelstein holds that this torah shit was concocted in the late 7th century.



Forget all this bullshit about holy daughters fucking their father - this is about the disreputable lineage of their enemies in Moab and Ammon.

Similarly, it would seem to me that fucking the sheep and goats would be a bigger problem for herding cultures like the primitive Judahites.  But homosexuality was common among the Greeks and when the Greeks came tearing through the neighborhood in the late 4th century BC it could well have provoked a scornful reaction from the pro-Persian Judahites who started telling tales about them.  Frankly, it makes a lot more sense than some silly god giving a shit where you stick your dick!