Part 2: Egypt
Gen. James Green
L ET’S START a review of different authors, ancient and contemporary, about pedophilia (along with homosexuality).
In the Book of the Dead (cpt. 125), in a piece entitled, “The Protestation of Guiltlessness” or the so-called Negative Confessions, the deceased appears before the judge in the next world to establish his innocence with regard to the effects of pollution. He says, “I have not had sexual relations with a boy. I have not defiled myself…I have not been perverted; I have not had sexual relations with a boy” (lines A20-21, B27; A NET 34-35).
Wow!, even ancient Egypt had restrictions against child molestation. D. J. Wold points out that pedophilia, the act of pederasty, jeopardized the man in the next world (Out of Order, p. 58). Egyptians know that as Goy Robins says, “The Sterile nature of the relationship could have hindered rebirth into the next world.” In other words, homosexuality would be inconsistent with their belief. It must be said that in all probability, the non-conformance of homosexual/pedophilic roles to the ideas of family life would have precluded exclusive homo/ped relationships in ancient Egypt.
Gordon Wenham notes that, “it may be that the Egyptians saw nothing immoral in homo acts where there was mutual consent.” He goes on to state, “if this is correct, there would appear to be very little difference between their attitude and those of the Assyrians and Hittites.” Of course, these are authors who see NOTHING WRONG because they themselves are homos/peds. This is a BIG problem today. THERE ARE “CHRISTIAN” AUTHORS WHO ENDORSE SUCH SINFUL PRACTICES (as we’ll see in John Boswell’s book, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 1980, 424 pgs.).
Wisdom of Ptahhotep (WOP)
HANS GOEDICKE’S “WOP,” the “Suicide” of the Book of the Dead, and a late Heracleopolitan historical inscription (references 3). The key term in Ptahhotep’s admonitions is the masculine hmthrd, the object of “nk” (=to have sexual intercourse). According to Wold, the term is apparently a synecdoche applied to a “vulva-boy,” i.e., a boy with whom sex is conducted (see Goedicke, 1967, p. 100). This is referring to pederasty (p. 101). For proof I have that quote:
“Maxim 32 is clearly an admonition to abstain from making paederastic advances after meeting objections to the less serious homosexual sports. It strikes one, however, as curious, that there is no strong attitude taken against paederasty per se, but that the admonitions; stress only a regard for the attitude of the partner and a prohibition against overruling it. Compared with the later indications...the attitude is much more lenient. While later homosexuality seems to be condemned in principle, the earlier view is less dogmatic in its morality, and stresses only the necessity for the consent of the party involved.”
In the “Suicide,” reference is made to a “lad against whom it is said: ‘he belonged to the one whom he hates.’” Apparently a youth had sexual relations under circumstances not to his liking. Goedicke (1967:102) notes that “the immorality of his deed lies not in the homosexual act, but the lack of an emotional justification. By implication it seems that homosexual relations were not considered morally wrong as long as they were based on mutual consent.”
In the Heracleopolitan text, a man claims: “I did not wish to love (mrt) a youth. As for a respectable son who does it, his (own) father shall abandon him in court.” Goedicke points out this special use of the verb mr: “I am not aware of another instance where mr ‘to love’ applies to a homosexual relationship, but this is a special use of the otherwise common term. To find the object of the homosexual interests denoted as nds ‘youth’ is curious, in comparison with the use of hrd in Ptahhotep and in the ‘Suicide.’ “ This passage is unique in that it not only denies the action of same-gender sexual contact but also condemns performers of it. Goedicke summarizes (p. 102):
From this passage it could be concluded that HOMOSEXUALITY WAS NOT ONLY MORALLY OBJECTIONABLE, BUT WAS AT SOME PERIOD LEGALLY PROSECUTED. In its attitude the passage antecedes that reflected in the Book of the Dead. In its stern objection to homosexual practices it conforms with the attitude widely current in the ancient Near East. Why the Instructions of Ptahhotep take a considerably more relaxed stand on the question remains obscure.
Goedicke’s observation seems to run counter to Wenham’s conclusion, but one must be aware of the time frame with respect to the practice of homosexuality in ancient Egypt. Until the end of the first millennium B.C., no prohibition or legal ramifications of same-gender sexual contact can be found. What effected a change in Egyptian attitudes toward homosexuality, then, cannot be shown. At the very least, it cannot be said that the view of the biblical writer in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was “widely current” in the ancient Near East; some diversity of practice is reflected in the various sources. The categorical position of the Bible against
homosexuality was apparently not assumed in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, or Egypt. -end quotes-
Homosexuality in Egypt did exist, but with caution because of the fertility question. Cultic prostitution was also common, but held to certain practices and specific roles of the participants.
CONSIDER LEV. 18:22, the verse against male/male sex. The New Jewish Publication Society version (NJPSV) uses the word “abhorrence;” RSV= “abomination” as does the KJV; NIV has “destable.” The issue is the word “male.” Male includes all members of the gender, which includes infants, children, adolescents, and, of course, adults. The word “man,” on the other hand, may be used exclusively of the adult of the “male” gender. Since a man is always a male, but a male is not necessarily a man, pederasty could be legitimated according to some translations.
The NJPSV uses “male” as does the RSV and others. The NIV uses “man” and the KJV uses “mankind.” The KJV’s “mankind” may include both male and female genders. These English renderings of “zakar” do not mean exactly the same thing.
D.J. Wold, Ph.D in Biblical and Judaic studies (UC at Berkeley) writes:
“Neither ‘man’ nor ‘mankind’ is accurate.” He tells us that the NJPSV and the RSV are correct: both use ‘male.’” True. the Hebrew zakar is cognate to Akkadian zakrulzikaru (see CAD Z 23, 110). He points out that both terms mean the “male” as opposed to the “female” of the species. But the Hebrew has another word for “man” as an individual and still another that can refer to either an individual man or to humankind (or adam, םדא). The former is used in the casuistic law at Lev. 20:13 (where the death sentence is pronounced upon both males). It is also pointed out that the ambiguity of IS (as in IS, שיא=man in Hebrew) and adam may cause some confusion, but context normally makes clear which idea is meant.
There is no ambiguity in zakar; it always refers to the male gender. The Arabic cognate dhakar (male) preserves the proto-Semitic meaning; by synecdoche, Wold tells us, dhakar is also translated “penis” (Wehr 1976:310 is cited). So, the term zakar refers to anyone with a penis, and its antonym is neqeba (“female”).
Below I have presented a clear picture of this contrast found in Genesis 1:26, 27:
God Knows Best!
WITH ALL this Politically Correct BS, it is time to put the promoters of this in their rightful place: in disgrace!
When God created the man/male and the woman/female, He left out the promotion of same-sex sex and the transgender. Period!
So, when the Levitical legislator chose the word/term “zakar” in Lev. 18:22, he prescribed ALL sexual relations between males of the human species. The NORMAL/NATURAL (as opposed to the abnormal/unnatural) sexual orientation of the “male” was (only) for the female. Period! Scholars point out that (as I have at times) the writer of Lev. could have expanded upon this term to prohibit sex between specific categories of males (e.g., boys, between adult males and boys, between adult males, between boys and older men etc., etc.), since Heb. words exist for these various categories. But no need, the term zakar (Lev. 18:22) excludes ALL male sexual relations.
We can rightly say that Lev. 18:22 includes the CRIME of pederasty. The Holiness Code (which is eternal=for all time, and for all people) forbids sex between ALL males of the species.
I HAVE WRITTEN against his book, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality in several earlier articles. He was prof. at Yale Univ. in History and Languages. He died at age 47 (of HIV/AIDS). His book was winner of the 1981 American Book Awards for History. Rightly so, he certainly did his research. But, being a staunch Roman Catholic, and gay!, he did his share of defaming God and His Word, which I point out.
Prof. D.J. Wold mentions Boswell (p. 104, 5) in accordance with our study of Lev. 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (RSV).
It might also be observed that there is considerable room for doubt about precisely what is being prohibited. The Hebrew reads literally, “You shall not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man.” Jewish moralists have debated for a millennium about exactly what constitutes “the sleep of a woman” and who is technically a “man”: see, e.g.. in the Talmud Sanhedrin 7.4.53A; and Maimonides’ commentary in the Code 5.1.14. Moreover, since the actions of the kadeshim were specifically labeled as toevah (e.g.. in 1  Kings 14-:24), one might well infer that the condemnations in Leviticus were in fact aimed at curbing temple prostitution in particular rather than homosexual behavior in general. This was not the usual understanding of the later Jewish tradition, but it is suggested by the LXX, upon which Christian moralists drew.Boswell echoes Sherwin D. Bailey, his mentor, who earlier penned, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955), who protested that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for “inhospitality,” not for homosexuality. This theme has been carried into today’s homo camp.
Of course Boswell is going to defend his same-sex sex stance. On pages 93 and 94 of Boswell’s CSTH, he summarizes Bailey’s thesis, “…when the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, ‘that they might know them,’ they meant no more than to ‘know’ who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality, but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers—I have refuted their claim in articles found in our Gay Way series. That claim has been even refuted by homosexual and lesbian authors themselves!
But back to note 34: Both Bailey and Boswell fail to consider the term “zakar.” At least Bailey recognized the translation “male,” but misses the meaning of miskebe issa.
In 1975 (pp. 58, 59, 156) he writes:
This qualification may mean that the intention was to penalize only such homosexual acts as approximated to normal heterosexual coitus in so far as they involved penile intromission, and that either no cognizance was taken of other acts, or they were dealt with as pollution and were punished less severely. On the other hand, mishkebhey ishshah may signify any lying with a male by another male for sexual purposes, such intercourse being only permissible heterosexually. Probably the latter is the more likely interpretation, but it is not certain; and the alternative suggested should not be overlooked when considering the application of the Mosaic laws to modern problems. . .
Although the laws in the Holiness Code of Leviticus refer to “lying with mankind as with womankind,” the meaning of this phrase is ambiguous. All that can be said with any assurance is that it must at any rate include sodomy, which one law forbids as an abomination to the Lord, and another punishes as a capital offense; but whether or not it also relates to other acts must remain a matter for conjecture. -end quote-
“To propose that the legislator is suggesting that certain sexual positions that a man might assume with a woman are forbidden with men while others are acceptable or that pederasty or any other sexual union between males is permitted by this text is to revert once again to HUMPTY DUMPTY’S METHODOLOGY OF TWISTING WORDS. The issue here is not how sexual intercourse should be practiced between males, but that it cannot be practiced between males under any circumstances.”
Paul’s Romans One
ROMANS ONE has been a thorn in the side of homosexuals (I have articles on this also). The word “nature” Paul identifies with the created order…a world designed by God and conduct within this world. Those who INDULGE in forbidden sexual practices (para physin) are DEFYING the Creator—their Creator.
The argument is: Was Paul condemning ALL sexual practices (outside of one man/one woman in marriage) or was he only condemning pederasty? At least the homo camp considers this SIN. Lesbian author Bernadette Brooten, who authored Love Between Woman (1996), believes that Paul was condemning ALL sexual acts, not just pedophilia.
There are both heterosexual and homosexual authors who have written in favor of and against what Paul wrote. Sexual DISORDER, or AGAINST NATURE is the theme of Romans one.
In a critical review of Robin Scrogg’s New Testament and Homosexuality (1983, he favors it, along with pro-homo authors Dennis Altman, S.D. Bailey, J. Boswell, W.L. Countryman, George Edwards, Victor Paul Furnish, David F. Greenburg, Tom Horner, Martti Nissinen, Pim Pronk, Walter Wink, B. Brooten, K. J. Dover, Suzanne Pharr, Candace Chellew-Hodge and others. I either have their books or have read their articles), D.F. Wright summarizes the proper attitude toward Paul’s view (which is God’s view) of same-gender sex:
“Perhaps he was capable of seeing the connections…between the Old Testament condemnation of homosexual acts, its sexual anthropology grounded in Genesis, in divine creation and contemporary sexual disorder in Mediterranean society. Perhaps he had the insight to embrace a condemnation of pederasty, respectable and disreputable alike, in a more comprehensive verdict that judged all homosexual behavior, male and female, to be contrary to God-given nature. Perhaps--what a thought!--the New Testament may even have something directly to say about homosexuality today” (1985).
There is no way one can deny Paul’s condemnation of ALL same-gender sex.
BOSWELL, in an effort to negate the possibility that (Greek) “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” refer to homo conduct, he presents another a priori argument that uses this syllogism, “The word pornoi in 1 Tim. means ‘prostitution,’ arsenokoitai appears with it in context; therefore, arsenokoitai means ‘prostitution.’”
Robert Gagnon (The Bible and Homo Practice, 2001, p. 338) writes: “The occurrence of malakoi and arsenokoitai in the vice list in 1 Cor. 6:9, and of arsenokoitai in the vice list in 1 Tim. 1:10, confirm our reading of Rom. 1:24-27.” He goes on to say, “In 1 Cor. 6:9, the term malakoi has most in view males who actively seek to transform their maleness into femaleness in order to make themselves more attractive as receptive or passive sexual partners of men; arsenokoitai has most in view men who serve as the active sex partners of the malakoi.” He makes it clear by writing, “Neither term can be widened in meaning to include heterosexuals or narrowed in meaning to exclude certain non-exploitative forms of homo intercourse.” Well said.
The Greek term found in these vice lists, collectively, indicate that arsenokoitai has intertextual connections to the Levitical prohibitions of same-sex sex, and to the exclusive endorsement of monogamous marriage of Gen. 1 and 2.
Lack of Substantial Evidence
IF ONE was to really study what Boswell’s book presents, one will find lots of cheating/misleading. Over the years, both homo and hetero camps reject his book for lack of substantial evidence in his presentation of homosexuality. By this I mean his use of certain Greek/Hebrew (and other) words.
One scholar (straight) has said, “Today, there is strong opposition to this view. One of the leading voices is that of John Boswell, who uses an entire appendix entitled ‘The Lexicography of Saint Paul’ to strip the homosexual meaning from malakoi and arsenokoitai, after stating that ‘no modern translation of these terms are very accurate’” (1980, p. 339).
Boswell spends several pages—339-341 identifying what he sees as 3 lexical errors:
1) malakos is wrongly associated with homosexuality (he says this word means masturbation!);
2) malakos is sometimes applied to gay persons in classical literature, but denies homosexuality;
3) malakos and arsenokoitai at 1 Cor. 6:9 represent that the active/passive homo roles cannot be lexicographically supported.
He then turns to 1 Tim. suggesting that the association of pornoi and arsenokoitai concerns prostitution, male heterosexual, and, perhaps in one case, male homosexual. At least he had to admit it, though begrudgingly. Well, anyone who digs deep into these Greek/Hebrew words will find HOMOSEXUALITY Period!
Boswell certainly presents plenty of historical evidence of these abominations—proving that they were common in many societies. But he takes care not to go too far, for that would blow his New Testament cool—that the New Testament did not present homosexuality in a true light. Really? You can’t get around what Paul wrote—using THE SAME GREEK/HEBREW WORDS Boswell uses to PROVE that this abomination was common—even praised!!—in pre-New Testament times.
CLASSICAL GREEK sources show both passive and active roles, effeminate and aggressive roles. We find two classes of homos described in Greek literature:
ἐρόμενος or eromenos=passive role;
πας or pais= boy, child;
ἐραστής, or erastes=active role,
which meant (in Greek art) chasing, capturing, subduing, and performing anal or intercrural sex with the eromenos (see Kenneth Dover’s study, 1989). Here is a sample:
Hellenistic poetry suggests that after the fourth century [B.C.] there was a certain shift of taste towards feminine characteristics in eromenoi. The adolescent Philinos in Theokritos 7.105, with whom Aratos is despairingly in love, is malthakos, “soft,” “unmanly.” . . . Hapalos, “supple,” “tender,” “soft” (Asklepiades 20, Meleagros 76), distinguishes adolescence from maturity, not simply female from male; there are other words, e.g., habros (Polystratos 1) and trupheros (Meleagros 61), which convey a suggestion of soft living, delicacy and fastidiousness, and thus indirectly a suggestion of effeminacy, without specifically indicating a female physique.”