"Seven Case
Studies in the
Torture of
Texts"

on this page...

1. Sdom &
Gomorrah

2. Sodom in Jesus'
Teaching

3. Jude 7:  Sodom
Again

4."Sodomites" in
Five Hebrew
Scriptures (incorrect
translation)

5. Lev 18:22; 20:13

6. "Male-bed(s)" in
two pauline
vice lists - I Cor 6:9;
I Tim 1:10

7. Rom 1:16-27  A
Pretext out of
Context

Bibliography


VIOLENCE TO THE BIBLE? OR INSPIRED BY THE BIBLE?
                            by Rev. Dr. Thomas D. Hanks


                      Introduction:  Homophobia as Murder

    Woe to the city of oppressors, rebellious and defiled!....
           Her officials are roaring lions,
           her rulers are evening wolves that leave nothing for the morning....
                   Her priests...do violence to the law.
    The Liberator within is just and does no wrong.
           Every morning this Sovereign dispenses justice,
                   each dawn without fail....
                                                           Zephaniah 3:1-5

Zephaniah describes Jerusalem as a place where official interpreters so tortured the ancient Hebrew
Scriptures that they actually suffered "violence"! Bringing the tradition of the Spanish Inquisition to
the New World, when Balboa came to Panama and found 40 transvestites amongst the indigenous
population, he promptly had them killed by feeding them to his dogs. Early in the Nazi reign of terror
(1934) Hitler first executed military leaders accused of homosexuality. Later he had tens of
thousands of civilian homosexuals imprisoned (along with Jews and other scape-goated minority
groups), forced to wear a pink triangle, and finally killed. Were these examples of violence inspired
by the Bible--or rather a result of the kind of violence done to the Bible by homophobic official
interpreters?

                   Seven Case Studies in the Torture of Texts

1.  Genesis 19:1-25. Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Historically, the Bible text most often cited to justify gay-bashing has been the Genesis
    narrative about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Especially since the 12th century
    (which witnessed a veritable explosion of anti-semitism and homophobia in Europe; Boswell
    1980), clerics commonly have resorted to harrangues in which "sodomy" has been defined as
    anal sex between males, denounced as the sin most abominable to God, and set forth as the
    explanation for the destruction of the two pagan cities. Late medieval burning of "faggots," and
    the death penalty prescribed for "sodomy" in Europe and the Americas were easily justified by
    the appeal to Genesis 19. Still today, "evangelists" plea (for funds) to save the nation from the
    "sodomites/homosexuals."

    1.1 Here's how the story begins: "The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening...." (Gen. 19:
    1). Not a word is said about sexual relations between human beings. Rather we read how
    certain men attempted to rape (anal sex) angels! If that is what all our "anti-sodomy" laws had
    sought to kill and imprison people for, no one would ever have been convicted (unless they
    actually had managed to rape an angel!).

    1.2 Second, the story proceeds to tell how all the men of sodom (not just 1 or 10%) made a
    determined attempt to rape the angel visitors (Genesis 19:4-11). This was not a proposal for a
    loving consensual relationship, but the violence of a mob intent on gang rape and humiliation
    of unwelcome foreigners. That in this narrative God harshly judges the attempt of gang rape
    against angelic messengers hardly provides any rational basis for condemning same-sex
    relations between adult humans that are consensual and loving. We might compare the case
    of King David, whom the prophet Nathan rebuked for his adultery with Bathsheba and murder
    of her husband (2 Samuel 12). To read into that text the notion that God condemns all
    "heterosexuality" would do violence to the Scriptures. Yet that is precisely the kind of text-
    torturing that official interpreters have perpetrated for centuries in the case of the Sodom
    story.

    1.3 What is obvious from a careful reading of Genesis 19 is easily confirmed by looking up the
    48 Bible references to Sodom: Sodom is condemned for violence and "oppression" (which
    included what we could call "rape"), refusal of hospitality, and failure to show solidarity with the
    weak and poor (Ezekiel 16:46-49)--but never for "homosexuality" nor any ancient linguistic
    approximation. The Bible never speaks of "sodomy" (a linguistic invention of the monk, Peter
    Damian, 1007-72 AD), since in the Bible Sodom is only a place name, never a sin (Mark
    Jordan, 1997). Only in the inter-testamental apocryphal literature did Jewish writers begin to
    use the Sodom story to condemn certain kinds of same-sex genital behavior common in the
    Greco-Roman culture of their overlords. Significantly, Jesus rejected these "homophobic and
    xenophobic" interpretations so popular with his fellow Jews, and returned to the original
    meaning of the story as a warning against cruel refusal of hospitality (Mt. 10:15; Lk. 10:12).

2.  Sodom in Jesus' Teaching (Mt. 10:14-15; Lk. 10:11-12)

    So long as everyone knew that the sin of Sodom was "sodomy," it was obvious that Jesus
    declared God's judgment against homosexuals. However, when biblical scholars recognized
    that the Genesis story about Sodom had been misinterpreted and that the KJV had
    mistranslated five Old Testament texts, a theological crisis surfaced: Jesus not only had
    avoided the homophobic mistakes of centuries of Christian scholarship--he had even
    anticipated the "modern" perception that the real sin of Sodom was the refusal of hospitality
    and the resort to violence against strangers.

    When Jesus commanded his disciples to undertake a mission to nearby towns, taking no
    provisions for their journey, he concluded (Mt. 10:14-15; compare Lk. 10:11-12):

    If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you
    leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and
    Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

    In Genesis 18 Abraham had provided a classic example of Ancient Near Eastern hospitality for
    God's angel visitors--which Genesis 19 then contrasted with the refusal of hospitality, mob
    violence and attempted gang rape on the part of the men of Sodom. Clearly Jesus rejected
    the homophobic use of the Sodom story that had become popular in certain Jewish circles of
    his time and called his disciples back to the original contextual intent of Genesis 19 as a
    condemnation of refusing hospitality to strangers and resorting to violence against them.

    However, once Jesus' intent is understood, all traditional homophobic theologies are thrown
    into crisis: Jesus promised eternal life to all who believed in him and obeyed his commands--
    but (contrast homophobic fellow-Jews of his day!) he spoke not one word against same-
    gender sexual acts. Jesus' words, like the scores of other Bible texts on Sodom, had become
    part of the arsenal used to promote violence against sexual minorities. But when Biblical
    scholars began to rediscover the original meaning of the Sodom story, the main bastion of
    purported Biblical support for homophobia was gone. Jesus had not promoted violence
    against sexual minorities--his words had been tortured and suffered from the violence of
    homophobic official interpreters. And to the great embarrassment of modern evangelical
    missionary societies (which commonly require males to be married), it was noted that Jesus
    sent out his disciples in same-gender male couples (see also Paul and Timothy, etc.)!

3.  Jude 7 (by Jesus' brother): Sodom again.

    Of the 48 biblical references to Sodom, only Jude 7 focuses on what we would call the "sexual"
    dimension of Genesis 19. At first glance, this emphasis might appear to contradict Jesus' own
    focus on Sodom's refusal to be hospitable to homeless travelers:

    "Similarly, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to
    immorality (Greek: ekpornesasai), and going after flesh different (Greek: sarks hetras)."

    Remarkably, Jude here employs the very Greek word (hetras) from which we get the word
    "heterosexual"--one whose sexual orientation results in a preference for the "other" sex, the
    "different" gender. Scholars agree that Jude's reference to "flesh" that is "different" signifies
    precisely the flesh of the (non-human) angels in Genesis 19, interpreted in relation to Genesis
    6:1-4, where angels ("Sons of God") are said to have had sexual relations with women (see
    Jude 6). Thus the HarperCollins Study Bible note explains: "The Sodomites attempted sexual
    relations with angels" and the footnote to Jude 7 indicates that the Greek literally reads "went
    after other flesh." Similar linguistic data and interpretation are given in the Roman Catholic
    Jerusalem Bible (see details in recent commentaries).

    From the Greek or any adequate translation, no one would dream that Jude 7 intended a
    condemnation of "homosexuality"--although one might misinterpret the Greek in a comic
    literalistic fashion and suppose that a condemnation of "heterosexuality" is implied. But have
    our official interpreters fairly translated the text--or tortured it and done violence to it?
    Shockingly, the most recent scholarly translation represents the worst kind of violence to the
    text. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) renders the Greek "sent after other flesh" (its
    own note!) as "pursued unnatural lust"! And the New International Version translates the key
    phrase: "perversion."

    Evidently the NRSV has imposed upon Jude's language its understanding of Romans 1, where
    Paul speaks about gentile sexual uncleanness that is "unnatural" or "against nature" (see
    below on Romans 1). The NIV may be influenced by antiquated Freudian notions of
    homosexuality as a kind of "perversion" of original heterosexual desires (assumed to be
    universal). Surprisingly, the old King James version, without the help of modern Greek
    scholarship and Freudian psychology, did much better, rendering the key phrase in Jude by
    "strange flesh"! Obviously, in Jude 7, as in Genesis 19, the reference to Sodom and the
    males' attempted gang rape of angels provides no basis for promoting prison sentences or
    mob violence against homosexuales. Here we have another clear case of official interpreters
    torturing the text and doing violence to the Bible.

4.  Deuteronomy 23:17-18: "Sodomites" in Five Hebrew Scriptures?

    While the 16th century King James Version managed to outshine modern translations by its
    more literal rendering of Jude 7, the same cannot be said of five Old Testament texts where in
    the KJV the word "sodomite" was used to translate the Hebrew word kadesh (which had
    nothing to do with Sodom). Best known and most helpful for understanding the meaning of the
    original Hebrew is the text in Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (KJV):

    There shall be no whore (kedeshah) of the daughters of Israel,
    nor a sodomite (kadesh) of the sons of Israel.
    Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore (zonah),
    not the price (earnings) of a dog,
    Into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow:
    For even both these are abominations unto the LORD they God.

    The Hebrew text employs two words for female prostitute: first "kedeshah," literally a
    "holy/consecrated" person (feminine), and then "zonah," here perhaps synonymous, but
    generally any kind of female prostitute. The Hebrew word the KJV mistakenly translated
    "sodomite," really has nothing to do with the city Sodom, but is simply the masculine form
    (kadesh) for the corresponding male cult prostitute (literally, "holy/consecrated" person).
    Most often cultic prostitutes served members of the opposite sex (in pagan rites believed to
    promote fertility); certainly nothing in the text would indicate the author is thinking exclusively
    or even primarily of same-sex genital activity. However, the KJV's utterly unwarranted
    introduction of "sodomite" to translate the Hebrew reference to a "temple prostitute" prompted
    four centuries of English-speaking Christians to think that Deuteronomy was condeming all
    same-gender male sexual activity.

    The same kind of translation error was repeated in four other Old Testament texts in the KJV
    (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). Modern translations correct this error and
    render the Hebrew kadesh as "temple prostitute" (see NIV; NRSV). However, for four
    centuries many readers of the KJV believed that Deuteronomy's Law gave them grounds for
    persecuting, torturing and killing those they called "sodomites." In the 19th century kindlier
    forces from the Enlightenment struggled to reduce the punishment to lengthy prison
    sentences. But had Deuteronomy itself inspired all this violence? Or had the texts been
    tortured by translators and official interpreters who imposed their own hatred and homophobia
    on the Bible?

5.  Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. Bring back the Death Penalty?

    If any biblical text could be accused of promoting violence against homosexuals,
    Leviticus 20:13 might appear to be guilty:

    If a man lies with a man, 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 (Lev. 20:
    13).

    Especially so, since it does not simply reflect a ferocity common in the Ancient Near East, but
    goes far beyond any hostile, homophobic attitudes reflected in other ancient cultures.
    Christian interpreters commonly dismiss such texts in Leviticus as one of the barbaric portions
    of the Old Testament that are simply best ignored. Even orthodox Jews must read through 10
    chapters of Leviticus (detailed instructions for animal sacrifices and priestly vestments) before
    they find a single verse considered normative today. And Christians will find not a single
    provision they consider normative before they reach chapter 18. Many would even wait until
    Chapter 19, where the command to love our neighbor occurs--a norm both Jesus and Paul set
    forth as of permanent validity (Mk. 12:31; Rom. 13:8-10). Jesus also made the radical Jubilee
    Year provisions of Leviticus 25 central to his own sense of mission and purpose (Lk. 4:18-19).

    But precisely what kind of male-male sex act demands the death penalty? The language is
    euphemistic, but recent investigations have demonstrated that it refers to (unprotected!) male-
    male anal penetration (Saul Olyan 1994; Daniel Boyarin 1995). In the Ancient Near East, to
    sexually penetrate another male "like a woman" was a common way to violently humiliate
    prisoners of war and strangers (see Sodom). However, it also became a common practice of
    prostitutes serving in idolatrous pagan cults (see Dt. 23:17-18 above). Probably the word
    "abomination" in each of the Levitical texts points to unsafe, abusive sex acts in the context of
    idol worship.

    However, although associated with fertility rites in idol worship, male-male anal sex was a
    recipe for sterility, not fertility, and priestly sexual instructions in Leviticus commonly seek to
    fulfill the command to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28, from the priestly source "P"). As the
    modern tragedy of AIDS has made clear, unprotected male-male anal sex is also medically
    dangerous. Priestly authors writing centuries before condoms strongly opposed a male
    practice they knew to be commonly violent, unjust, humiliating, idolatrous and always infertile;
    unknowingly they also protected Israel from the scourge of many diseases that can be
    transmitted by unprotected anal sex.

    Is it possible to hold that even in the cases of Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22 official interpreters
    have tortured and violated the texts? Yes! The most common technique has been to strap the
    texts into a kind of time machine, transport them to the 20th century, and force them to try to
    answer modern questions about "homosexuality." With this technique interpreters ignore what
    the texts sought to say in their original context and try to make them say whatever our culture
    dictates: prison sentences for "practicing lesbians," for instance. However these patriarchal
    texts speak only about males and say not a word against lesbians or other women engaging in
    any same-gender sexual practice. Glibly reading into the texts the modern scientific concept of
    sexual orientation and "homosexuality" fails to respect their prescientific character, including
    patriarchal assumptions about male superiority and need to maximize population growth.

    Leviticus knew nothing about modern gays in loving relationships who engage in oral sex,
    mutual masturbation, (as well as anal sex with condoms). To grab two verses by the throat,
    ignore the immediate context and book in which they occur, and force them to provide
    simplistic answers to complex modern questions is to violate both the texts and the ancient
    Holiness Code in which they occur. Anyone who cites a text demanding death penalty for
    idolatrous Israelite males engaged in anal sex without condoms as support for prison
    sentences for modern lesbians is either hypocritical or terribly self-deceived.

6.  "Males-bed(s)" in two pauline vice lists (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10)

    With the sudden disappearance from the homophobic arsenal of the 48 biblical texts dealing
    with Sodom, including the only text from Jesus himself, only a handful of potential weapons
    remained. Clearly, creativity was desperately called for, and in 1946 the translators of the
    original Revised Standard Version of the New Testament made their modest contribution.

    In two pauline vice lists we encounter a rare, obscure term, probably coined by Paul himself
    from two common words (male + bed; Greek: arsenokoitai; cf. the English "chair + man =
    chairman). The Greek, however, uses the specific term for males and is plural, so "chair(s)-
    males" would be a better analogy. With such a term the etymology could not tell us whether
    such males would prefer sitting to walking or standing (lazy), prefer to command others
    (bossy) rather than be "facilitators", like to lounge around in chairs with a woman or another
    male--or plural "women" or "males"--(sex addicts or promiscuous), or get paid to do so
    (prostitutes, with either or both genders).

    Similarly, the etymology of Paul's analogous term "bed(s)-males" tells us very little: bed(s) is a
    common euphemism for sexual activity, here with males as the condemed protagonists;
    females/lesbians are not the protagonists, but might be the partners of the condemed males.
    For further specification we must rely on relevant usage, which is quite limited. Had Paul
    preferred clarity and explicitness, common terms were available to him in Greek, so his
    creativity and ambiguity may be quite purposeful in the rhetoric of his vice list.

    In 1 Cor. 6:9 "bed(s) males" is preceded by a common word meaning "soft," which the KJV
    here translated "effeminate." "Bed(s)-males" the KJV translated "abusers of themselves with
    mankind," and even into the 20th century theologians (especially Catholic) cited the text to
    condemn masturbation (which came to be called "self-abuse"). However, the original Revised
    Standard Version (1946) of the New Testament rendered both "soft" and "bed(s)- males" with
    the single new scientific term "homosexuals." Of course, by 1946 most doctors and
    psychologists had come to recognize masturbation as normal and healthful, while
    homosexuality (no longer simply the sin or vice of "sodomy") had come to be viewed as an
    illness. Thus suddenly did the Apostle Paul sound more up-to-date than the Kinsey reports
    (1948). A hitherto obscure, ignored Cinderella of a text, with the touch of the translators'
    magic wand, was suddenly transformed into a prophetic oracle: for countless pious Bible
    readers it became obvious that God had inspired Paul with insight into the scientific matters
    about sexual orientation that were not clarified to the world in general for 1900 years.
    Lesbians commmonly came to be condemned on the basis of the mistranslation
    "homosexuals" even though anyone who knew anything about the Greek original knew that
    the pauline term specified males and excluded females.

    Scholars pointed out, however, that whatever "bed(s)-males" might refer to, Paul's term
    describes some kind of sexual act(s), not "orientations." As a Jew, Paul probably had in mind
    the prohibition in Leviticus of (unprotected) male-male anal sex. In later translations,
    homophobic creativity responded with a host of alternatives: "practicing homosexuals" (NAB;
    but in Paul's context, most engaging in same-sex acts were probably bisexuals and
    heterosexuals); "homosexual offenders" (NIV; lesbians had to remind sexist male translators
    that women also exist and could be homosexuals, but were not the "bed(s)-males" Paul
    referred to). In desperation the New RSV in 1989 backtracked to the point of repeating the old
    mistake of the King James mistranslation of Deuteronomy and translated "bed(s)-males" as
    "sodomites" (which even the King James translators were wise enough to avoid at this point).
    And thus, alas, Paul found himself plucked from the exhilerating peaks of Freudian-Kinseyan
    scientific chic ("homosexuals") and plunged back into the netherworld of prescientific,
    medieval ignorance ("sodomites").

    All the while, scholars who investigated the matter thoroughly tended to conclude that Paul
    probably coined the term "bed(s)-males" to refer to older males who took advantage of young
    adolescents (paedophiles), or to young male prostitutes (possibly cultic) serving either males
    or females. The use of "bed(s)-males" in 1 Tim. 1:10 without the accompanying "soft," made
    difficult any precise distinction between penetrator and the one penetrated in anal sex. What
    both texts make clear, however, is that the sexual vices in the lists are examples of activities
    that are "unjust" or "oppressive," reflecting an abuse of authority or power: some kind of
    sexual exploitation, not a consensual relationship of love between equals (Dale Martin 1996).

7.  Romans 1:26-27. A Pretext out of Context?

    Romans 1:26 refers to women, probably in heterosexual anal intercourse. Early church fathers
    until around 400 A.D. (Clement of Alexandria, Anastasios and Augustine) agreed in
    interpreting 1:26 that way. John Chrysostom (344-408) is the first to suggest a reference to
    female homoeroticism! Romans 1:27 then refers to (unprotected) male-male anal intercourse
    (cf. Lev. above; Miller 1995; 1998).

    7.1 The gentile sexual desires and practices Paul refers to are described from the Jewish
    perspective only as "uncleanness" (making unfit for Temple worship), not as sinful. As he
    advances (deconstructs) his argument, Paul shows that from the Christian perspective,
    "nothing is unclean in itself....all things are clean" (14:14,20; Greek literally, followed by KJV
    and NRSV). The NIV does violence to the text three times: by inserting the word "sinful" in
    Romans 1:24 and then twice inserting the word "food" in Romans 14:14,20 (compare "pure" in
    Titus 1:15).

    7.2 The rhetoric of Paul's sermon illustration in Romans 1:24-27 undergoes a similar
    deconstruction as the argument of the book advances in the evaluation of practices that are
    "against nature." Reading Romans 1:26-27 out of context, one easily leaps to the conclusion
    that anything "against nature" must be sinful (a notion common in Jewish and pagan
    philosophical thought when Paul wrote). However, in Romans 11 Paul deconstructs this
    interpretation, using exactly the same Greek phrase (par phusin, against nature) to insist that
    it is God who continually so acts by converting the Gentiles and inserting them "against
    nature" into the olive tree (symbol for Israel). Obviously any miracle extolled in Scripture is
    "against nature"! The linguistic link between Romans 1:16 and 11:24 is commonly ignored by
    homophobic interpreters; and even when noted, they often fail to point out that it is God who
    acts against nature in Romans 11:24.

    7.3 Appealing to common Jewish attitudes in Romans 1:24-27, Paul speaks of the gentile
    sexual acts as involving social stigma, and loss of honor. However in Romans 3:21-26 Paul
    glories in the cross (Gal 6:14), demonstrating that it is precisely in Jesus' crucifixion (the most
    shameful experience imaginable) that God accomplished our redemption. Hence Christians
    can "boast" (3x: Romans 5:2-3,11) in their salvation accomplished through this shameful act
    and maintain a hope that "does not put to shame" (5:5; cf. Hebrews 12:2 which describes
    Jesus as "despising the shame" or social stigma of the cross).

    7.4 Scholars agree that Paul's profound and subtle argument (appealing alternately to Jewish
    and gentile readers) only reaches its point in the call for mutual hospitality and the setting
    aside of traditional prejudices: "Accept one another, then, as Christ accepted you, in order to
    bring praise to God" (15:7). Sodom-like refusal of hospitality is not to characterize the five
    house churches in Rome. Jews were free to maintain their traditional distinctions about
    "unclean" gentile practices, but they were not to impose such distinctions on gentile converts.
    In Romans 16 Paul's warm greetings to households involving all types of "sexual minority"
    living arrangements (only three married couples!) confirms this understanding. Homophobic
    interpretation does violence to Paul's liberating gospel by reading 1:26-27 out of context,
    mistranslating key related verses, and failing to follow Paul's argument to the end. Properly
    interpreted, Romans 1:26 does not refer to lesbian sex, and in 1:27 Paul refers only to
    abusive (probably paederastic) unprotected anal sex. He thus transcends the homophobia
    common in his cultural context and stands in basic continuity with Jesus, who never spoke
    against homosexuals, but supported the poor, the oppressed, the weak, the sexual minorities
    and the marginalized of his day.


CONCLUSION

    Although the the number of homosexuals killed in the Nazi Holocaust was small compared to
    the millions of Jews killed (probably because Jews were more easily identified), recent studies
    contain abundant evidence indicating that sexual minority representatives killed in the last
    1000 years may well exceed the six million Jews estimated to have been killed in the
    Holocaust. If we could indeed draw a straight line of historical causality from Leviticus to Hitler
    (as some claim), few would want to consider the Bible a helpful guide for modern life -- much
    less divinely inspired. Above we have outlined an alternative hypothesis: that a few biblical
    texts have been arbitrarily selected, violently misinterpreted, and then used as a pretext to
    rationalize common human fears and hatreds. A more thorough study of the texts and the
    history of their interpretation amply supports the conclusion that the Bible has suffered
    repeated violence from offical translators and interpreters. Properly interpreted it provides no
    rational basis whatsoever for promoting prejudice and violence against sexual minorities.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Arthur, L. Robert (1994). The Sex Texts: Sexuality, Gender and Relationships in the Bible. P.
    O. Box 8291, Omaha, NE 68108.

    Boswell, John (1980). Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of
    Chicago.

    Boyarin, Daniel (1995). "Are There Any Jews in 'The History of Sexuality'?", Journal of the
    History of Sexuality 5/3:333-355.

    Brooten, Bernadette J. (1996). Love Between Women. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Cantarella, Eva (1992/88). Bisexuality in the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale.

    Comstock, Gary David (1991). Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men. New York: Colombia
    University.

    Countryman, L. William (1988). Dirt, Greed and Sex. Philadelphia: Fortress.

    Edwards, George R. (1984). Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective. New York: Pilgrim.

    Grau, Günter, ed. (1993/95). Hidden Holocaust? Gay and Lesbian Persecution in Germany
    1933-45. New York: Cassell.

    Hanks, Thomas D. (1997). Are There Clobber Texts in the Bible. St. Louis, MO: OTHER
    SHEEP.

    Helminiak, Daniel A. (1994). What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.San Francisco:
    Alamo Square.

    Herek, Gregory M. and Berrill, Kevin T., editors (1992). Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence
    Against Lesbians and Gay Men. London: Sage.

    Jordan, Mark D. (1997). The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. (Chicago: University
    of Chicago).

    Martin, Dale B. (1996). "Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences", pp. 117-
    136 in Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality Robert L. Brawley, ed. (Louisville: Westminster John
    Knox).

    Miller, James E. (1995). "The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?"
    Novum Testamentum 35:1-11.

    (1997). "Pederasty and Romans 1:27" JAAR 1997 (in press). (1998). "Romans 1 Revisited"
    (awaiting publication).

    Nissinen, Martti (1998). Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. Chicago:
    Minneapolis: Fortress.

    Olyan, Saul M. (1994/97). "'And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman':
    On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13," Que(e)rying Religion: A
    Critical Anthology, Gary David Comstock and Susan E. Henking, eds. (New York: Continuum),
    398-414 = Journal of the History of Sexuality 5/2:179-206.

    Scroggs, Robin (1983). Homosexuality in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress.


The Rev. Dr. Thomas D. Hanks, copyright 1999

    OTHER SHEEP:
    Multicultural Ministries with Sexual Minorities. 319 N. 4th St.,
    Suite 902; St. Louis, MO 63102 USA. Fax: (1-314) 241-2403

    Related materials are available from our offices and websites:

    www.othersheep.org www.otrasovejas.org  
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
Counter
 
PICTURED ABOVE
Rev. Dr. Tom Hanks,
Theologian / Director
of Mission.
Buenos Aires, 2006
"I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.  I must bring them also."  
John 10:16 NRSV
Other Sheep Websites