09-06-2020, 05:59 PM
When I was an Evangelical Christian I would not have listened to much information outside my theological circle that would contradict some beliefs that held to innerancy of the bible.
The process of opening up to say a biblical scholar such as Bart Ehrman would only come later, and now I love reading and learning from his books. I am amazed to learn just how ferocious the early century writers fought over what went into the New Testament.
Another biblical scholar, Idan Dershowitz, had written a piece called The Secret History of Leviticus I thought appropriate to the subject of the thread. A careful consideration on what he wrote could change ones perspective if they are not locked within the framework of fundamentalism. Is what he wrote plausible?
A couple snippets that stood out after reading.
"Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed. An earlier edition of Leviticus, then, may have been silent on the matter of sex between men."
And "If a later editor of Leviticus opposed homosexual intercourse, you might wonder, wouldn’t it have made more sense for him (and it was probably a him) to leave the original bans on homosexual incest intact?
No. The key to understanding this editorial decision is the concept of “the exception proves the rule.” According to this principle, the presence of an exception indicates the existence of a broader rule. For example, a sign declaring an office to be closed on Sundays suggests that the office is open on all other days of the week.
Now, apply this principle to Leviticus 18: A law declaring that homosexual incest is prohibited could reasonably be taken to indicate that non-incestuous homosexual intercourse is permitted."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opini...y-sex.html
The full article.
The process of opening up to say a biblical scholar such as Bart Ehrman would only come later, and now I love reading and learning from his books. I am amazed to learn just how ferocious the early century writers fought over what went into the New Testament.
Another biblical scholar, Idan Dershowitz, had written a piece called The Secret History of Leviticus I thought appropriate to the subject of the thread. A careful consideration on what he wrote could change ones perspective if they are not locked within the framework of fundamentalism. Is what he wrote plausible?
A couple snippets that stood out after reading.
"Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed. An earlier edition of Leviticus, then, may have been silent on the matter of sex between men."
And "If a later editor of Leviticus opposed homosexual intercourse, you might wonder, wouldn’t it have made more sense for him (and it was probably a him) to leave the original bans on homosexual incest intact?
No. The key to understanding this editorial decision is the concept of “the exception proves the rule.” According to this principle, the presence of an exception indicates the existence of a broader rule. For example, a sign declaring an office to be closed on Sundays suggests that the office is open on all other days of the week.
Now, apply this principle to Leviticus 18: A law declaring that homosexual incest is prohibited could reasonably be taken to indicate that non-incestuous homosexual intercourse is permitted."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opini...y-sex.html
The full article.