Excerpts from Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation With
Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible, vol. 3; Yale University
Press, 2007):
Thus the difference between the biblical
legislation and other Near Eastern laws must not be overlooked: the Bible
allows for no exceptions; all acts of sodomy are prohibited, whether performed
by rich or poor, higher or lower status, citizen or alien.
Many theories have been propounded to provide a
rationale for this prohibition. One must surely exist, since this absolute ban
on anal intercourse is unique not only in the Bible but, as shown in Olyan’s
(1994; 1997a) recent, comprehensive study, in the entire ancient Near Eastern
and classical world. To be sure, a rationale is given with staccato
emphasis—the pollution of the land—in the concluding exhortation (vv. 25, 27,
28), but it does not explain the individual prohibitions in the list, which, as
shown (see introduction) must be older. Olyan (1994: 197–204) faults the regnant
explanations, namely, idolatry (Snaith 1967; Boswell 1980), blurring of
boundaries (Douglas 1966: 41–57; Thurston 1990), wasting of male seed
(Eilberg-Schwartz 1990: 183; Biale 1992: 29), and mixing of semen with other
defiling liquids (Bigger 1979), on the grounds that either they do not share
the same universe of discourse of the list or, conversely, their rationale for
the list does not fit this very prohibition. (page 1566)
The common denominator of all the prohibitions, I
submit, is that they involve the emission of semen for the purpose of
copulation, resulting in either incest and illicit progeny or, as in this case,
lack of progeny (or its destruction in the case of Molek worship, v. 21). In a
word, the theme (with Ramban) is procreation. This rationale fully complements
(and presupposes) P’s laws of 15:16–18. Semen emission per se is not forbidden;
it just defiles, but purificatory rites must follow. But in certain cases of
sexual congress, it is strictly forbidden, and severe consequences must follow.
Indeed, it is the assumption that H is fully
cognizant of P that throws light on an anomaly that, to my knowledge, no
previous scholar has dealt with: Why is masturbation—the willful spilling of
seed—not proscribed? (page 1567)
An ancillary question concerns birth control. May
a married couple practice coitus interruptus? The example of Onan (Gen 38:8–10)
is irrelevant. His act is condemned because he refused to act as the levir and
thus denied an heir to his deceased brother. Analogously to the case of
masturbation, the silence of our text would permit the inference that birth
control was not prohibited as long as the couple reproduced itself…
Female sexual relations are nowhere prohibited in
Scripture, nor anywhere else (to my knowledge) in the ancient Near East.
Surely, lesbianism was known! Gerstenberger’s (1996: 297) conjecture that these
prohibitions, composed by men for men, evidence neither knowledge nor interest
in female relations is a stab in the dark; besides, it is refuted by one of the
main rationales behind these prohibitions (see note on “to uncover nakedness,”
v. 6). Hebrew Scriptures ignored it (contrast Rom 1:26) because in the act no
bodily fluids are lost (cf. Pope 1976: 417). The legal reason for
interdicting anal intercourse (see below) is the waste, the nonproductive
spilling, of seed—the equivalence of Onanism (Gen 38:9–10)—which, in this case,
does not occur.
Finally, it is imperative to draw the logical
conclusion of this discussion for our time. If my basic thesis is correct that
the common denominator of the entire list of sexual prohibitions, including
homosexuality, is procreation within a stable family, then a consolatory and
compensatory remedy is at hand for Jewish gays (non-Jews, unless they live
within the boundaries of biblical Israel, are not subject to these laws; see
chap. 20, comment d): if gay partners adopt children, they do not violate the intent
of the prohibition. The question can be asked: Why didn’t the biblical legist
propose this remedy? The answer simply is that this option was not available,
since ancient Israel did not practice adoption (cf. Tigay 1972; Knobloch 1992;
the alleged cases of Est 2:7; Ezra 10:44 [the latter MT is suspect; cf.
Williamson 1985] reflect foreign practice). (pages 1568-69)
[Milgrom observes that Lev 18:22 "must indicate anal penetration" and believes that the plural indicates "the context of illicit carnal relations" from which he wants to draw the following conclusion:]
Thus since illicit carnal relations are implied by the term miškĕbê ʾiššâ,
it may be plausibly suggested that homosexuality is herewith forbidden
for only the equivalent degree of forbidden heterosexual relations,
namely, those enumerated in the preceding verses (D. Stewart). However,
sexual liaisons occurring with males outside these relations would not
be forbidden. And since the same term miškĕbê ʾiššâ is used in
the list containing sanctions (20:13), it would mean that sexual
liaisons with males, falling outside the control of the paterfamilias,
would be neither condemnable nor punishable. Thus miskĕbê ʾiššâ,
referring to illicit male—female relations, is applied to illicit
male—male relations, and the literal meaning of our verse is: do not
have sex with a male with whose widow sex is forbidden. In effect, this
means that the homosexual prohibition applies to Ego with father, son,
and brother (subsumed in v. 6) and to grandfather—grandson,
uncle—nephew, and stepfather—stepson, but not to any other male. (page 1569)
