SUMMARY of article by Dr. Renato Lings in Theology & Sexuality, Dec. 2009:
'The "Lyings" of a Woman: Male-Male Incest in Lev. 18:22?'
Written by Steve Parelli of http://www.othersheep.org/
Whenever the issue of Bible and homosexuality is discussed, Leviticus 18:22 is quoted. However, do we know for certain what this short verse means? What exactly are "the lyings of a woman"? This arcane expression is found in the original Hebrew. Despite their unusual nature, these words belong to what many regard as a clear prohibition of homosexuality. In most Bible translations and commentaries Leviticus 18:22 is presented as such. For example, the New Revised Standard Version suggests this rendering: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
It is a well-known fact that Lev. 18:22 ignores female homosexuality. Only Israelite males are addressed. In addition, there has been considerable debate as to the specific nature of the sexual act proscribed. Some think the verse describes anal penetration while others take the view that reproduction and the loss of valuable semen is the main concern of the Levitical legislator. The debate is far from over.
In his article, Danish scholar Renato Lings has performed a close reading of the original Hebrew. He emphasizes that the wording is anything but straightforward. A literal translation may sound like this: And with (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings (of a) woman. (An) abomination (is) that. To most English speakers such language is incomprehensible. To reach some form of clarity in accordance with modern English style, many translators have opted for a simple solution. They have taken the unfamiliar noun "lyings" and converted it to two familiar prepositions, namely, "as" and "with." This procedure is problematic. Only at the very beginning of the sentence does the Hebrew feature the preposition "with" (Hebrew eth). The preposition "as" (Hebrew ke) is entirely absent.
Renato Lings points out another underresearched issue: incest. In a recent scholarly work, Dr. David T. Stewart has suggested that Lev. 18:22 addresses the often-ignored issue of male-male incest. He bases his view on the fact that the primary concern of chapter 18 is precisely male-female incest: incest with mother, stepmother, aunt, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc. A supplementary clause in Lev. 18:22 proscribing male-male incest would make perfectly good sense. Dr. Lings backs up this hypothesis with supporting evidence located in Lev. 20 and the book of Genesis.
The original Hebrew phrase is extremely difficult to translate. However, the incest link provides valuable insight into its possible meaning. In his article Dr. Lings arrives at the conclusion that incest is indeed a major factor in this text. It should be taken into account whenever Lev. 18:22 is discussed.
The complete article is available for purchase via this link:
http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/TSE/issue/current
Renato Lings may be contacted at:
biblioglot@gmail.com
I hadn't heard the theory of male-male incest before. I thought Lev 18:22 was in the context of society's need for population growth and therefore that male seed not be wasted in sexual acts other than those leading to reproduction. The word 'abomination', as far as I know, has a different meaning to how we use it, and more infers that it was 'not the done thing' in view of the social decree issued. Of course this is only one theory and I'm open to consider others.
Meg's Israeli friend might be able to shed some light on this passage, especially with regards to the meaning of words in the original language. She provided an excellent presentation about Jonathan and David and no doubt would have some knowledge about this reference too.
yep....I thought I'd actually read everything on the Lev. verses before.....this was a new one on me.....so thought I'd put it up here.
I know of about half a dozen different theories now about what those verses mean.
Every time I hear a new one from someone who has studied the hebrew and the culture of the time I dont find it confusing. I just reminds me that those verses are not as black and white as we were taught to believe. We may never know.....as we weren't there at that time and situation. It was obviously clear to the Hebrews.
I must admit I found it interesting that the context of those other verses of incest and prohibitions of relationships with relatives interesting that it it suddenly mentions male same sex behaviour.......this theory would explain that.
In his article, Danish scholar Renato Lings has performed a close reading of the original Hebrew. He emphasizes that the wording is anything but straightforward. A literal translation may sound like this: And with (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings (of a) woman. (An) abomination (is) that. To most English speakers such language is incomprehensible. To reach some form of clarity in accordance with modern English style, many translators have opted for a simple solution. They have taken the unfamiliar noun "lyings" and converted it to two familiar prepositions, namely, "as" and "with." This procedure is problematic. Only at the very beginning of the sentence does the Hebrew feature the preposition "with" (Hebrew eth). The preposition "as" (Hebrew ke) is entirely absent.
Thanks for this interesting thread AVB,
I am curious to know if the first preposition is actually in the verse Lev 18.22 or is Renato talking of sentences in general.
But translation into English is highly problematic in any case and substituting words to make English sense is treading on dangerous ground in order to make for readable English as we can be reading into the text what isnt there.
Sometimes there are no cultural equivalents what does one do then? In the jungles of Papua New Guinea in the Sepik region they hated bread when the missionaries shared it. Jesus is the bread of life???? I dont think so - their staple was a sago paste which for most westerners is fairly bland and revolting but its their version of what bread is to us. So the Wycliffe bible translators translated "Jesus is the sago paste of life" when translating into that local language. That was easy, there are many instances where there is no cultural equivalent or no current equivalent today's culture. So to say its tricky is an understatement.
Makes me think about all the rest of the verses too - the whole bible.
thanks deafant.......the thing that I always point out is that the verses assumed to be speaking about homosexuality need to be looked at in the light of the historical and cultural contexts as well as the original languages to understand the true meaning. When one does this it doesn't take long to realise these verses are not speaking about same sex orientation as we know it today but same sex activity by heterosexuals, rape, prostitution and within the contexts of idolatrous worship.
Well at least this theory is actually looking at the CONTEXT - what the other verses in the chapter are about. I've seen another good one that does the same. It's one of the most irritating things about some people's interpretation of certain verses, how they just lift it out as a single sentence.
I spend my working life trying to choose words carefully because I know that in 5, 10 or 20 years time people have to rely on the actual words, not what might have been meant but isn't on the page. It's bad enough in that situation. Doing it with something several thousand years old from another language... tricky!
Hi orfeo
Yeah good points about context and our responsibility in being clear about what we write. 
LOL, I just wrote this whole big long responce and then read it back and decided it was too controversial to post In the end we all have our own ideas about what God thinks and one day we will all know for sure. Our understanding of God is limited to our understanding of the world. God Himself suffers no such limits and blessed be the day when we can fully appreciate all of God's wisdom as it was meant to be understood.
I believe that it is more important to God to be glorified within our belief systems and to be the centre of our motivations and intentions than it is to have complete understanding of whether He is really talkng about gay men or male incest. It's a controversial point because it means that two people who believe totally different things can both be glorifying God and the objective rightness or wrongness of said beliefs takes a backseat. You won't hear that preached from a pulpit.
An interesting theory. I think we need to be very careful with interpretations that are 'left field' even though it can be useful to be open to ideas that are not limited by a narrow focus. The crux of the Leviticus texts in terms of removing their status as clobber passages, remains as both context and Old Testament status in light of the Gospel. The Levitical codes were written for a specific group of people who were ordained by God to achieve specific goals as a nation at that time in Hebrew history. Any doubt about this is quickly removed when other OT texts referring to male sexual practices are examined, such as Onan being destroyed because he spilled his seed on the ground. Our opponents in the modern church are also quite comfortable ignoring many Levitical commands that to most people today are actually quite horrific. Cherry picking scriptures to take literally is a dangerous game. The glorious Gospel message, with it's central themes and priorities for Christians, brings Leviticus into a right context for us today.
My warning about being very careful with such new theories, is based on my belief that we need to keep our arguments about the clobber passages simple and straight-forward. Going too far into left field can have the opposite effect, by raising hackles in the opposition to the point that they are not open to what should be a fairly sensible, convincing and obvious argument that requires no further analysis.
However, with those who are more open to such debate, it does show clearly that interpretation is not black and white and that the modern world struggles to know exactly what the intent or purpose of many OT laws was all about.
It is an interesting concept and thanks for putting it up here. I hadn't heard it before.
I agree we should try to keep the discussion simple on the clobber passages. Paul says in many places the Old Testament law no longer applies. (eg All of Galatians, Acts 15, Rom 10:4, Phil 3:2 etc)
If anyone tries to claim that just because the topic is homosexuality, none of those verses apply (and most do), then Lev 19:37, Lev 20:22 and Gal 3:10, 5:3 says they MUST obey the WHOLE law. We get absolutely no choice about that.
When your children throw a tantrum and curse you or your wife, how many of them have you killed lately? Lev 20:9 says you must.
Lev 19:17 says "Do not hate your brother in your heart" I often ask people, thinking of your gay brothers and sisters in Christ, does that verse get a tick or a cross?
True David.....I think one of the things I find valuable about hearing different interpretations/theories from scholars is that it makes it even more obvious that these verses are not black and white as previously stated. To single out a verse and condemn a group of people on ones own interpretation is criminal. And of course most people who do that have no knowledge of the historicial and cultural backgrounds or the original languages. They only read an english version through the lens of their existing cultural bias's......dangerous stuff..
Hmmm ... okaaay ... male incest? ... interesting topic
Me thinks I'm gonna have to go away and think about this a wee bit more. Where is Sandy? I reckon she would have something to say on this 
I bring you the gift of these 4 words: I believe in you
Blaise Pascal - French Scientist and Philosopher
You must look into other people as well as at them
Lord Chesterfield - British Peer and Statesman
Volunteer Moderator
Freedom 2 b[e] Forum