Book Reviews |
Milgrom, Jacob - Leviticus 17-22. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Reviewed by Tom Hanks. Not often do top scholars provide us with the good ready-made sound-bites we need for debates with our fundamentalist friends, but such is the case with orthodox Jewish rabbi Jacob Milgrom’s long awaited second volume on Leviticus that covers the chapter with the infamous “clobber texts” commonly cited against “homosexuals” (18:22 and 20:13). When Milgrom’s final volume is published, he will have given us some 3000 pages on Leviticus, which is probably more than most of us will want to edify ourselves with on that particular book. Many have been content to point out the inconsistencies of fundamentalists, who cite the book as their authority for condemning “homosexuals” but simply ignore the 90%+ of the book’s other teachings that neither Jews nor Christians consider binding today. However, sandwiched in between the clobber-text chapters is Leviticus 19:18, which Jesus, James and Paul cited as the most important commandment: “love your neighbor as yourself” (see Mk 12:28- 31; Lk 10:25-28; Mat 22:39; 25:31-46; James 2:8; Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8-10; cf. Lev 19:34; Mat 5:43; Deut 6:5). Then Leviticus 25, with its instructions regarding the Jubilee Year (inscribed on the American Liberty Bell), contains what is commonly viewed as the most radical social-economic legislation in the Bible--provisions for liberation of slaves, debt cancellation, ecological concerns, and a radical redistribution of the land far more advanced in justice ideals that anything put into practice in the world so far (in addition to Sharon Ringe’s classical study, Jesus, Liberation, and the Biblical Jubilee (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), see now Ross and Gloria Kinslers’ The Biblical Jubilee and the Struggle for Life (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999). So although most Christians today unashamedly prefer pork to Leviticus, a commentary of the depth of Milgrom’s at least makes us inquire whether the book that proved so important to Jesus, James and Paul is not worth at least a brief second look. I would recommend reading at least Milgrom’s insightful and fascinating pages on the clobber texts in full (1565-70; 1748-50; 1784-90), but since 3000-page multi-volume commentaries on Leviticus are not easily available to many, I will summarize and briefly critique the rabbi’s important conclusions. Summary 1 Most significant—and extremely important for the correcting misinterpretation of the New Testament clobber texts as well—Milgrom confirms Saul Olyan’s conclusion that the only act prohibited in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 is male-male anal sex: “as one lies with a woman. miskebe issa, literally ‘as the lyings down of a woman’ (cf. miskab sakar, Num 31:17, 18, 35 [P], referring to vaginal penetration. i.e., defloration; hence, in this case it must indicate anal penetration; Olyan 1994:183-85). It is a technical term (cf. 20:13)” (Milgrom, p. 1569). As I have often pointed out, this prohibition—and the New Testament texts that echo it— were given in historical contexts where condoms were not available: Hence, in effect, all the so- called “clobber texts” in the Bible say not a word against “homosexuals” nor homoerotic conduct generally, but simply taught our fundamental modern principle of “safer sex”: avoid anal sex (except with condom). Fundamentalist Jews and Christians may believe that the Holy Spirit verbally inspired the clobber texts to inerrantly teach safer sex—something they usually do not want to permit in public schools, since its more fun to have pregnant teenagers and single moms to preach against—but with Milgrom’s interpretation, the only thing that might legitimately be clobbered with the clobber texts is disregard for the fundamentals of safer sex. 2 To explain the rationale behind the Levitical prohibitions of male-male anal sex, Milgrom concludes that they “specifically address the fear of a stagnant birth rate” (1785). And he raises the logical question: “However, particularly now, when the paramount issue is not birth increase but birth control; when populations explosions, especially in underdeveloped countries, is a major cause of the famines and wars that ravage the earth, does this biblical criterion (for ancient Israel!) carry universal validity?” (1785-86). After citing the commands to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28; 9:1), he answers: “But the truth is that we have not only filled the earth, we have over-filled it” (1787). 3 Milgrom sees some validity for the ancient priestly concerns to procreate in the case of Jews today, since a third of them were killed in the holocaust and in America more are lost through negative birth rates and intermarriage. However, “To Jewish homosexuals I offer an unoriginal solution. As a compensation for your loss of seed, adopt children” (Milgrom, 1787). Christian fundamentalists, who commonly visit Leviticus only long enough to pick up a couple of clobber texts, will not at first be happy to learn that this orthodox rabbi, the world’s leading expert on Leviticus, concludes (1) that only male-male anal sex (without condoms) was prohibited, (2) that the reason for such prohibitions was the need to maximize population growth (either after the Exodus or the Exile, depending on the dating of the texts), (3) that such a rationale makes no sense in the modern world, (4) and that we should therefore now encourage Jewish gay males to compensate by adopting children. But Falwellian fundamentalists can hardly accuse the scholar who has provided this commentary on Leviticus of unprecedented detail, of not “taking the Bible seriously”. It will be fascinating to see if Milgrom’s massive work encourages fundamentalists to take Leviticus more seriously—how they will seek to apply the book’s Jubilee provisions (celebrated by our pious founding fathers with the inscription on the Liberty Bell), for instance, to land distribution in Texas? Will we simply be treated to another example of the prejudice masked by “selective literalism” and incoherent argument, which has characterized fundamentalists throughout the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam? The Holy Spirit has surprised us with Milgrom’s historic contribution, representing a major reversal of centuries of religious prejudice—should we not hope and pray she will do it again? 1 Although Milgrom clearly and explicitly affirms his acceptance of Saul Olyan’s conclusion that Leviticus condemns only male-male anal sex, frequently he lapses into inaccurate, anachronistic references to “homosexuality” in the Hebrew texts. Thus, he recognizes that the sin of Sodom (Genesis 18) is specifically the attempted gang rape of angel visitors. However, repeatedly he refers both to the sin of Sodom, as well as the actual gang rape and murder of the Levite’s concubine at Gibeah (Judges 19) as involving “homosexuality” (1788-1799)! Modern readers without access to the original Hebrew can only be confused by such anachronistic importations of a modern scientific term denoting the sexual orientation of persons, including lesbians, when the texts involve show no interest or knowledge of the sexual orientation of the persons involved, but rather describe violent acts by males, whom today would be viewed as mainly bisexual, but perhaps including hetero- and homosexual. Such anachronistic importations of modern scientific terms are especially dangerous for fundamentalist readers, who (instead of taking seriously the original historical context) are ever tempted to imagine that the Holy Spirit was inerrantly inspiring the biblical writers to know more about modern science that “secular scientists” do. Had Milgrom familiarized himself with Mark Jordan’s recent works, he would have realized that in the Bible Sodom is a place, not a sin, and that the “sin” of “sodomy” was an invention of late medieval monks—who then left both western ecclesiastical and political law perpetually confused by their refusal to define this horrorific “unspeakable sin”. 2 Personally, I agree with the Milgrom’s explanation that the best rationale for the Leviticus prohibitions against male-male anal sex is the concern to maximize population growth (already recognized by “Ramban”, Moses Maimonides, 1138-1204 C.E.). Such a rationale fits the immediately adjoining prohibitions against sex with women during her “menstrual uncleanness” (18:19), child sacrifice (18:21), and sex with animals (18:23). When we recognize that the entire book of Leviticus comes from the same priestly source of the Pentateuch that also gives us the first creation narrative of Genesis, with its command to “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28), the legitimate concern of exilic priests to maximize population growth is easily appreciated. Modern readers can quickly see that such prohibitions would be especially important in historical contexts in which the population was small (after the Exodus or in Exile), but may not in every case be wise guidelines in the modern world characterized by population explosion. However, as Milgrom recognizes (1566), alternative rationales commonly are suggested by modern scholars: the association of the practices with idolatry (Lev 18:1-2, 21, 24-30; 20:1-8, 22-27; see John Boswell, 1980); the blurring of rigid patriarchal gender boundaries (Mary Douglas 1966; Bernadette Brooten 1996); the wasting of precious male semen; or the mixing of male semen with other defiling substances (blood, feces). In our contemporary debates it is important to keep the focus on the quite limited nature of the acts prohibited in Leviticus: male-male anal sex. Rationales for such laws may be multiple and may change over history. We do not need to await for the achieving of scholarly consensus regarding the cause(s) of heterosexuality or right-handedness, any more than we do for understanding why some people are homo/bisexual, left-handed or bi-dexterous. We may learn to tolerate persons engaged in consensual adult behavior that does no obvious harm (Romans 13:8-10) and let the scientists continue their investigations and debates. If it is incoherent and unjust to withhold deny basic human rights to persons who are heterosexual and right-handed until scientists can clearly agree on the cause(s) of these characteristics, the same applies to persons who are differently endowed. 3 However perceptive exegetically, several of Milgrom’s attempts to ward off fundamentalist brandishing of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as clobber texts, may appear irrelevant or weird to Christian readers. 3.1 Contextually, of course, Milgrom is correct to observe that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are directed only to Jewish males in the Holy Land and for infractions of these laws threatens them with expulsion from the land (18:24-30; 20:22-24): “these regulations were binding only in Israel (and its resident aliens, 18:26), but not in other countries” (1750). Hence “it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale” (1786), so “over ninety-nine percent of the gays, namely non Jews, are not addressed” (1787). The ban is “limited to male Jews and inhabitants of the holy land” (1790). Such an argument may work wonders with Jewish fundamentalists, but not with Christians, who must deal also with New Testament texts. 3.2 Milgrom’s student David Steward has pointed out (1569) that the “lyings with a woman” always in the Hebrew Bible is used “only for illicit heterosexual unions” (1786). He agrees with Steward that this implies that the prohibition of male-male anal sex “does not cover all male-male liaisons, but only those within the limited circle of the family,” but such anal sex acts “with unrelated males are neither prohibited nor penalized” (1786). While this observation is a helpful reminder that the main emphasis in both Leviticus 18 and 20 is on prohibitions of what we would designate as “incest” (see 1 Cor 5), the rabbinic logic involved probably will not carry much conviction with modern Christian readers. Milgrom, however, finds much coherence in the combined emphasis in Leviticus 18 and 20 to avoid incestuous unions producing illegitimate offspring, and to maximize legitimate births in stable patriarchal households by avoiding non-procreative sex.
18:22, which penalizes only the male who anally penetrates another male (often rape), and Leviticus 20:13, which condemns both males to death. Although he successfully avoids making such a law normative for modern societies, he fails to come to grips with Bernadette Brooten’s point (1996) about the horrendous injustice of condemning victims of anal rape and child abuse to death along with their violators, and the cruelty of ancient notions of contamination as “unclean” those who suffered this kind of sexual abuse. 5 Repeatedly Milgrom makes clear that Leviticus only prohibits male-male anal sex, and that the Hebrew Bible has not a word to say against lesbian sex. However, not having read James Miller’s studies, Milgrom (1750) fails to recognize that in Romans 1 the issue also is only anal sex, that Romans 1:26 refers only to women who offer themselves for anal sex with males (to avoid procreation), and that the link between Romans 1:26 and 1:27 is anal sex (26, females with males; 27 males with males), not our modern scientific construct of “homosexuality”. |
| Other Sheep Websites Other Sheep English Other Sheep Spanish Argentina Other Sheep Foundation Executive Director |
| This website was reconstructed in June of 2007 Visits made to this web page since June 2007 |
| "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in also." John 10:16 |
Book Reviews on this page... review by Tom Hanks Other Sheep Founder, 1992. Other Sheep Theologian and Director of Mission |
Book Reviews |
|
"I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also."
John 10:16 NRSV
John 10:16 NRSV
| Other Sheep Websites |