Comment by gumby | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gumby | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Not only is there to such consensus, but there is an important (important beyond religious issues) lack of consensus of what is the most accurate text to be translated.

Modern societies weren't the first to find absurdities and contradictions in holy texts. Early scholars decided to search for the "actual" underlying meaning. For if the gods are infallible, and failures in the text must be human failures trying to translate their gods' word into lowly human expression. In christianity this "hermeneutic" scholarship laid the groundwork for modern linguistics, hermeneutics and semiotics.[1]

As for translations: I was surprised to learn that the biblical supposed prohibition on homosexuality dates in the English bible as far back as...1946. [2]. Which makes some sense; until at least Pope Urban, the Catholic Church was happy to perform both mixed sex and same sex marriages [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hermeneutics

[2] https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphillips/the-bible-does-not-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#Pol...

Just to be clear, the oldest texts unambiguously condemns male-on-male sex under penalty of death:

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

(NIV translation https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A...)

The translation just doesn't use the specific word "homosexuality" which would be misleading and anachronistic anyway. The modern idea about homosexuality is about being attracted to persons of the same sex. Leviticus doesn't concern itself about any of that, it condemns the specific act of two men having sex.

You can argue that the Bible doesn't condemn sex between women though.

Male on male sex was also a fact of life across many Christian communities, including/especially with monks, eunuchs, and other segregated communities, and people were certainly not frequently put to death for this. You can look up medieval crimes and punishments around the 12th century I think for a decent record of this.

Note I am being super reductive, lmk if you want better sources.

I'm just pointing out the biblical prohibitions against male-on-male sex is not a recent invention as the GP comment suggested.

Of course people did it anyway.

The bible prohibits many things that never really took root as social mores; I think the transition into society is super fascinating and arguably is an invention of sorts.

Interesting that you chose a modern translation (1973). I just randomly scrolled to another (the orthodox jewish bible) and it says no such thing: "If an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha..." So I don't think you can say "just to be clear"

I am neither gay nor part of any religion so I don't have a dog in this fight. But I am interested in hermeneutic philosophy, translation, and, separately, the nature of disagreement.

> "If an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha..."

What does that mean then?

The prohibition on homosexual intercourse is ancient. What your [2] says is that the word "homosexuality" did not appear in an English Bible until 1946, which is unsurprising, since the word didn't even enter the English language until the end of the 19th century.

Also your [2] is highly eisegetical.

>Which makes some sense; until at least Pope Urban, the Catholic Church was happy to perform both mixed sex and same sex marriages

That's not what your [3] says.

>Nevertheless, Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church.

>Alan Bray saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of brothers") as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

John Boswell died of AIDS. No mention of how Alan Bray died, but he was also homosexual. Hardly impartial sources.

I don’t particularly see how how this person died has a bearing on what he said.

Heterosexuals also have relevant biases. And your statement regarding John Boswell's death is crass and offensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com