Comments on: Are Biblical laws about homosexuality eternal? http://blog.oup.com/2012/01/homosexuality/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:42:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Keep Scriptural Semantics Away from Law | For the Ears http://blog.oup.com/2012/01/homosexuality/#comment-246335 Keep Scriptural Semantics Away from Law | For the Ears Thu, 05 Jan 2012 23:16:39 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=17827#comment-246335 [...] Here is an interesting blog post from Oxford University Press about the reaction to a book called The Bible Now, which explores the place of scripture in modern society. Reviews have been favourable, with the notable exception of comments about the chapter on homosexuality, which suggest that the authors have brought a liberal agenda to bear on their analyses. [...] [...] Here is an interesting blog post from Oxford University Press about the reaction to a book called The Bible Now, which explores the place of scripture in modern society. Reviews have been favourable, with the notable exception of comments about the chapter on homosexuality, which suggest that the authors have brought a liberal agenda to bear on their analyses. [...]

]]> By: Timothy Lee http://blog.oup.com/2012/01/homosexuality/#comment-246321 Timothy Lee Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:04:56 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=17827#comment-246321 As you said, it would be possible to respond that this particular offense is not subject to the relativity of human morality because it concerns something that is offensive to Yahweh. However, you say that can not be the case because the text merely says the thing is offensive and not, as elsewhere, offensive to Yahweh. But how can that be the case when these chapters are specifically attributed to Yahweh i.e. both chapters begin with a statement by Yahweh that what he is about to say to Moses should be repeated to the Israelites. I would think that when someone says that something is offensive, without any qualification, that means that the thing is offensive to that person or to those whom that person represents. So it seems that since this text is clearly attributed to Yahweh it is meant that Yahweh finds this thing to be an offense. A cursory examination of the usage of this word in the Pentateuch supports this conclusion. A simple search for the word to’ebat reveals that the word is used 25 times in the Pentateuch. It occurs twice in Genesis, once in Exodus, six times in Leviticus, and 16 times in Deuteronomy. The two in Genesis and the one in Exodus have already been referenced in the article. The six in Leviticus all occur in the chapters in question; 5 in chapter 18 and 1 in chapter 20. Out of the 25 uses of to'ebat in the Pentateuch, seven, all from the 16 in Deuteronomy, have the word as a part of the phrase to’ebat yhwh. The references are as follows: Deuteronomy 7:25, 17:1, 18:12a, 22:5, 23:19, 25:16, and 27:15. All seven of these places in Deuteronomy in which this phrase are used speak of Yahweh in the third person, whereas Yahweh is speaking in the six places in Leviticus. The word occurs a total of 114 times in the Hebrew Bible; 25 in the Pentateuch, 34 in the Writings, and 55 in the prophets. Of the uses of the word in the prophets, many if not most are used where the author is quoting from Yahweh, but none of those make use of the phrase to’ebat yhwh. As regards the 34 uses in the writings, the phrase to’ebat yhwh occurs several times in the book of Proverbs, but again, these all speak of Yahweh in the third person. To repeat, it seems that there is no instance in which to’ebat yhwh is used when it is Yahweh who is speaking. That is not hard to believe since people who speak of themselves in the third person tend to have their sanity questioned. As you said, it would be possible to respond that this particular offense is not subject to the relativity of human morality because it concerns something that is offensive to Yahweh. However, you say that can not be the case because the text merely says the thing is offensive and not, as elsewhere, offensive to Yahweh. But how can that be the case when these chapters are specifically attributed to Yahweh i.e. both chapters begin with a statement by Yahweh that what he is about to say to Moses should be repeated to the Israelites. I would think that when someone says that something is offensive, without any qualification, that means that the thing is offensive to that person or to those whom that person represents. So it seems that since this text is clearly attributed to Yahweh it is meant that Yahweh finds this thing to be an offense. A cursory examination of the usage of this word in the Pentateuch supports this conclusion. A simple search for the word to’ebat reveals that the word is used 25 times in the Pentateuch.

It occurs twice in Genesis, once in Exodus, six times in Leviticus, and 16 times in Deuteronomy. The two in Genesis and the one in Exodus have already been referenced in the article. The six in Leviticus all occur in the chapters in question; 5 in chapter 18 and 1 in chapter 20. Out of the 25 uses of to’ebat in the Pentateuch, seven, all from the 16 in Deuteronomy, have the word as a part of the phrase to’ebat yhwh. The references are as follows:
Deuteronomy 7:25, 17:1, 18:12a, 22:5, 23:19, 25:16, and 27:15.

All seven of these places in Deuteronomy in which this phrase are used speak of Yahweh in the third person, whereas Yahweh is speaking in the six places in Leviticus.

The word occurs a total of 114 times in the Hebrew Bible; 25 in the Pentateuch, 34 in the Writings, and 55 in the prophets. Of the uses of the word in the prophets, many if not most are used where the author is quoting from Yahweh, but none of those make use of the phrase to’ebat yhwh. As regards the 34 uses in the writings, the phrase to’ebat yhwh occurs several times in the book of Proverbs, but again, these all speak of Yahweh in the third person.

To repeat, it seems that there is no instance in which to’ebat yhwh is used when it is Yahweh who is speaking. That is not hard to believe since people who speak of themselves in the third person tend to have their sanity questioned.

]]>