Very Hot Topic
HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE
Embarking on Such a Study
By Bruce L. Gerig
Two atomic bombs - There are many hot topics today, in politics, religion, race and sex; yet none make heads turn more than sexual matters that seem to ‘deviate’ from the norm. Moreover, when one turns to see what the Bible says about homosexuality, you can be sure that you are in for a bumpy ride, finding homophobic scholarly writing as well as hostile public opinion. Yet, nothing has quite been the same since two ‘atomic bombs’ exploded in the mid 20th century (and I'm not referring to Japan). The first double explosion came with Indiana University zoologist Alfred Kinsey’s monumental statistical reports, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), which thoroughly rattled the Christian world. Kinsey wrote that human sexual behavior was best described as extending across a spectrum from "exclusively heterosexual" to "exclusively homosexual," which he measured on a scale of 0-6. More specifically, he reported that 50% of his male respondents by age 45 had experienced some psychic or overt homosexual experience, 37% had had at least one homosexual experience to the point of orgasm, and 3-16% (ca. 9.5%) of those aged 20-35 (moving past adolescent experimentation) appeared to be exclusively homosexual. Correspondingly, he reported that among his female respondents, by age 45, 28% had experienced some psychic or overt homosexual experience, 13% had had at least one homosexual experience to the point of orgasm, and 1-3% (ca. 2%) appeared to be exclusively lesbian.1 His surprisingly high figures for homosexuality, as well as for premarital sex, extramarital sex, and masturbation (93% among males and 62% among females, and without causing harmful physical effects2) met with expressions of moral outrage, as well as serious criticism, e.g., for having a sample that was too middle-class and too well-educated, and where blacks and the elderly were underrepresented. Yet Kinsey and his colleagues conducted face-to-face interviews that were amazingly detailed, he was a master interviewer who could get people to reveal their deepest secrets, he included many 100% group interviews (rather than just random sampling), and he and his staff collected a massive 20,000 interviews in less than three decades.3 Subtracting Kinsey’s figures for categories 5-6 (those who are exclusively homosexual, or more or less so) from those figures in categories 2-6 (excluding those who are exclusively heterosexual, or more or less so, in categories 0-1) suggests that 6% of males and 12% of females in Kinsey’s study might be classified as more than incidentally bisexual.4 Kinsey argued that one should not label people as “heterosexual” or “homosexual,”5 but his statistics do not really support his idea that a large group of the population is essentially “bisexual.” In fact, later studies confirmed that homosexual activity occurs more during adolescence, and then declines with age to a decreased minority with an exclusive state. Moreover, a controlled study by Michael Bailey of self-described gay men, straight men, and bisexual men revealed surprisingly that almost all of the last group responded only to gay erotica, suggesting some form of self-denial. Still, Angela Pattatucci and Dean Hamer found with a lesbian sample studied over 12-18 months that there was significant (20%) bisexual movement back and forth.6
Later sex surveys called into question Kinsey’s high incidence rate for homosexuality. British psychologists Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman (2005) summarize the results of numerous statistical studies, done in Britain, Norway, Australia and elsewhere, which suggest that only 2-3.5% (ca. 2.75%) of all men are exclusively gay and 0.5-1.5% (ca. 1%) of all women are exclusively lesbian.7 Social anthropologist Frederick Whitam and his colleagues (1983, 1998), studying frequency and manifestation of homosexuality across different cultures (Brazil, Peru, the Philippians, and the United States), concluded that, regardless of culture, gay men constitute no more (and probably less) than 5% and lesbians 1% of the population and that these percentages remain stable over time.8 Timothy Taylor (1997) has noted that homosexuality has been around since prehistoric times; and Wilson and Rahman suggest that probably homosexuals have existed throughout history pretty much to the same extent as they do today.9 Using estimates of 3% for exclusive gay males and 1% for exclusive lesbians, from the world population total (6,641,159,276) and the U.S. population total (303,146,461) at the beginning of 2008 EST (and with males and females evenly divided, since opinions differ on which may be the larger group), one may estimate at this time that there are over 99.6 million (approaching one billion) gay males and 33.2 million lesbians in the world, and over 4.5 million gay males and 1.5 million lesbians living in the United States. These figures include the young who eventually will turn out to be exclusively homosexual.10
The second atomic bomb, dropped shortly after the Kinsey reports, was Derrick Sherwin Bailey's book Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955), which cast doubt upon the traditional reading of the Bible on homosexuality, especially the Sodom story; and this also sent shock waves crashing through Christendom. Bailey, an Anglican clergyman in Britain, noted in his study that the idea that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality is actually nowhere found in Scripture but rather originated after the OT was completed, in later Jewish texts outside the Bible which connected the Sodom story to the Jewish abhorrence of Greek paiderastia (adult male love for an adolescent boy).11 He argued that Biblical writers knew nothing about the modern understanding of "inversion," as a condition, but addressed only "perversion," homosexual acts engaged in by heterosexuals in certain circumstances. Therefore the Bible does not speak of or condemn true homosexuals nor prohibit their efforts to fulfill their “natural” sexual desires.12 However, Bailey’s view that yada (lit. “to know” the male visitors, Gen 19:5) meant only “to get acquainted with” instead of “to have sex with”13 did not find widespread scholarly acceptance.14 Moreover, Bailey’s contention that homosexual acts were “relatively uncommon in Israel” and were severely punished when they did occur15 was countered by Middle-Eastern anthropologist Raphael Patai (1960), who argued instead that a gulf often exists between strict moral laws and actual mores (customs) or practice. Patai’s view that homosexuality was “rampant” in Biblical times may be an exaggeration (it is difficult to support this from existing evidence); yet he may be right in suggesting that as long as homosexual acts took place in secret with no witnesses they were overlooked, while public orgies of any kind would have been severely punished (as with the incidents at Sodom and Gibeah).16
In a decade or so, the work of Bailey and his colleagues on the Wolfenden Committee (which studied homosexuality and its legal aspects between 1954-57, finally issuing a tolerant report) would lead the British Parliament to decriminalize homosexual conduct between consenting adults, 21 or over, in England and Wales (1967).17 Not until 36 years later, however, would the Supreme Court overturn all sodomy laws in the United States, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas (6/26/03).18 Although some of Bailey's assertions have been rejected, his basic view on the misinterpretation of the Sodom story and that the Bible does not address homosexual orientation were enormously influential and opened up an era of objective (non-homophobic) and illuminating research on those Biblical texts that may be related to homosexuality. However, one must avoid the mantra, “You cannot read the Bible literally,” which fails to distinguish between searching for what ancient authors meant to convey to their audiences and the quite separate question of how Biblical proscriptions from ages long ago should or should not be applied to later, very different social settings. In any case, hundreds of books and articles have been published during the last half of the 20th century and up to present day, which have greatly enhanced our Biblical understanding of key words, passages, and contexts related to this theme (cf. “A Selected, Annotated Bibliography” at the end). Still, after the turn of the century, a new batch of vitriolic, homophobic books appeared, drawing often unwarranted conclusions from Scriptural texts and seeking to apply archaic thinking and ancient rules to a very different, modern time. An excellent discussion of this is found in Jack Rogers’ book Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality (2006).
Difficulties in studying homosexuality - However, is “homosexual” an appropriate term to use in historical research? Also, what causes homosexuality? Relating to the first question, the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed. 2005) defines a “homosexual” person (or “homosexual,” as a noun) as one who is “sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.” Probably it would be better to add “primarily or exclusively” to this definition, or as the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2006) words it, one “having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.” As an adjective, then, “homosexual” may be applied more broadly to anything “involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex,” e.g., as in “homosexual desire.”19 It was the German-Hungarian writer/translator Karl Kertbeny who first used the terms Homosexual (a noun) and Homosexualität (“homosexuality”) in a private letter in 1868 and then in a printed pamphlet in 1869; and then they first appeared as English words in 1892, in Charles Chaddock’s translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s famous handbook on sexual deviance, Psychopathia Sexualis. Interestingly, these terms originated not in medicine or science but, with their simple dictionary definitions, for use in advocating that the (Prussian) state should not interfere with the private sexual life of its citizens or jail men who engaged in consentual same-sex activity.20
However, the French social historian Michel Foucault argued in his very influential History of Sexuality (3 vols., French 1976-84, English trans. 1978-86) that “sexuality” and “homosexuality” came into existence only as these terms and concepts appeared in the 19th century in medical and psychiatric discourses, after which people viewed themselves as “subjects of sexuality.”21 Before the 19th century, “sodomy” existed (although a “confused” category) as a canonical and judicial “aberration” (deviation), until it was succeeded by the “homosexual” as a “personage” and a “species.”22 Sexuality must not be thought of as a stubborn natural drive, he wrote, but as a “historical construct” (way of conceptualization) formed by social forces.23 Foucault’s work was significant because he showed the value of focusing on the local and particular in historical research. Yet, there was considerable unease and debate about various of his ideas, even among those who found him useful (Larmour et al.).24 For example, “gravity” existed before Newton gave it a name, people had “blood types” before this was discovered, and OT scholars write about ancient “religion” even though there was no Hebrew word for this (Ackerman).25 Scholars speak of the “colonial U.S.” and “ancient Greece,” although these expressions are later conventions (Boswell).26 In other words, a reality can exist before it is given a name. Moreover, contrary to Foucault’s assertion that it was in the mid 19th century that “homosexuality” replaced “sodomy” as a radically different model, sexual categories in history more often seem to overlap and continue side by side, even as contradictory and conflicting forces, which can be seen, e.g., in the ongoing use of the word and concept of homosexual “sodomy” into our own time (Sedgwick).27 In his desire to accentuate differences between homosexual practices in the ancient past and the modern West, Foucault failed to realize that noting similarities between different cultures and periods can, at the same time, be useful.
Numerous of Foucault’s assumptions were thrown into question by Yale medieval historian John Boswell’s equally influential book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980). Here Boswell noted that gai in the Provençal language (spoken in southern France during medieval times) was used in the 13th-14th centuries in courtly literature to refer to a “lover” (gaiol) and more specifically to an openly homosexual person. This area and period were “noted for gay sexuality, and some troubadour poetry was explicitly homosexual.”28 Boswell defined a “homosexual” person as someone who has “a predominate homosexual erotic interest,” and a “gay” person as one who is conscious of their same-sex erotic inclination as a distinguishing characteristic.29 Still, it is often difficult to know just how much self-awareness or self-acceptance persons displaying some form of same-sex desire in the past actually had; and it is not always easy either for the scholar to distinguish between simple “friendship” and friendship which had an erotic component or center to it. The text and context, and cultural setting, must be carefully studied for whatever clues they may offer. For example, Homer did not speak of the erotic nature of the love between Achilles and Patroclus, in the Iliad, because he thought that this would be obvious to the educated in his audience; rather, it would have surprised the ancient readers if eroticism had not been present.30 Moreover, Boswell noted that in the Early Middle Ages (500-1100) attitudes toward homosexuality grew ever more tolerant until in the early High Middle Ages (1100-1250) a gay subculture blossomed, particularly in southern European urban centers, with its own special literature, argot (slang), and artistic conventions.31 During this period even the barbarian Celts publicly honored homosexual relations and some German males fulfilled a role not unlike the berdache later among the American Indians, who adopted feminine social roles and became sexually passive to another man.32 Homosexual relations were especially associated with the clergy; and homosexuality is well attested in England, Italy, Germany, Spain, Scandinavia, and the Holy Land during this time.33 It would appear that same-sex relationships probably existed throughout history, in all cultures and periods; and in times of social tolerance homosexual subcultures were even able to flourish.34 This view, that both nature and nurture play a role in forming a person’s sexuality, referred to as “essentialism,” is generally contrasted with “constructionism,” which holds that social forces alone form a person’s sexual desire, although it remains difficult to explain why some people cross-grain against so many social forces, facing social ostracization, persecution and even death, in pursuit of same-sex love. Many terms have arisen throughout history to refer to same-sex love and to persons who displayed this; however, today “homosexual” and “gay” have achieved vernacular (common language) and global usage,35 and “homosexuality” is still commonly used by theologians (e.g., Wink, Walter, ed., Homosexuality and Christian Faith, 1999; and Balch, David L., ed., Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture,” 2000), as well as by some historians (e.g., Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe, Islamic Homosexualities, 1997; and Craig Williams, Roman Homosexuality, 1999).
However, what is known today in the life sciences about the possible causes of homosexual orientation? To answer this, one must look at the findings in genetics, neurology and anatomy; and one key question is whether androgens (male sex hormones, of which testosterone is key) play a major role in the womb in effecting an infant’s sexual orientation. A broad range of animal studies (with guinea pigs, rhesus monkeys, macaque monkeys, rats, hamsters, ferrets, pigs, and zebra finches) have shown that when testosterone is blocked in a male fetus, the later adult sexual behavior will be female-like; and, conversely, when a female fetus is treated with testosterone, the later adult sexual behavior will be male-like.36 Of course, hormone manipulation cannot be done on human fetuses; yet two lines of evidence come from CAH women and from CAIS men. Females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) have a genetic disorder which disrupts the synthesis of cortisol in the adrenal glands, which results instead in the release of a male sex hormone that is converted into testosterone. In these genetic females (with XX chromosomes) this causes a masculinization of the genitalia (e.g., clitoral enlargement or appearance of a fully-formed penis and empty scrotum), a condition which is usually corrected surgically when diagnosed early. However, a number of controlled studies of adult CAH women show that about half experience lesbian imagery or behavior; and this is not easily explained by other possible factors. Conversely, males with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) have a genetic defect which prevents them from being sensitive to prenatal androgens; and because of this they turn out to be convincingly female in almost every way, with female body features, genitalia and behavior. In adulthood, almost all of these genetic CAIS ‘men’ report attraction to other men. Overall, such studies show that “too much androgen in genetic female infants and too little or none in genetic male infants can produce elevated rates of homosexuality.37 Scientific findings have shown that other factors can also affect sexual orientation. Ray Blanchard (2001) found that the more older brothers a male child has the greater chance there is that he will turn out gay (increasing from ca. 2% to 6%). He further estimated (2004) that 28% of all gay men owe their sexual orientation to their fraternal birth order. It is believed that this is because the more sons a mother has the more her system reacts to subsequent male fetuses, suppressing testosterone, to rebalance her own sex hormones.38 Wilson and Rahman conclude that increasing evidence from intersex conditions, fraternal birth order, auditory differences, growth patterns, finger-length ratios, and cross-sexed brain features tie prenatal sex-hormone variation, at certain critical points, with the formation of sexual orientation.39
Difficulties in studying the Bible - Coming to such a Biblical study, one is faced with another set of difficulties: First, there is the problem of distorting, personal bias. Decades ago, Oxford University classicist Kenneth Dover in his ground-breaking study on Greek Homosexuality (1978) laid bare the impact of prejudice on earlier studies on ancient Greece, which ignored evidence, distorted translations, and manipulated conclusions relating to homosexuality, stemming either from a "vengeful hatred" on the part of heterosexual scholars or an overreaction in the other direction by "secret homosexuals."40 This same difficulty exists in the study of the Bible and homosexuality, although there is much less homophobia and more objectivity in Biblical scholarship today. Second, sometimes personal prejudice appears in subjective Bible translations. References throughout this study to various English translations are intended to remind the reader that translations always have an interpretative element, and so are open to homophobic twisting. For example, “sodomite(s),” found in the King James Version (Deut 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7), is a completely erroneous translation given to the words qadesh/qedeshim, (Strong, #6945), which literally mean “holy [man/men]” and so more recent translations generally render these as “[male] temple prostitute(s)” (Moffatt, NEB, NIV, GNB, NRSV, REB) or the like. Nor should “sodomites” be used to translate arsenokoitai (Strong, #733) in 1 Cor 6:10 (JB, NRSV, NJB), the exact meaning of the Greek which is still debated, but which has no connection to Sodom. Nor is "homosexual(s)" any more acceptable here (RSV, NASB, LB, NIV, NKJV, CEV), since neither Hebrew nor Greek had any word which designated “someone who had a same-sex orientation,” or “someone who resided in Sodom.”
Third, to complicate matters further, we face ambiguous sexual euphemisms in the Bible, general terms that are also used to refer to sexual parts and acts. Sometimes this is clear from the text, and sometimes not; and often translations give just the euphemism, without making clear its real sexual meaning. For example, the Hebrew words for “thigh” (yarek, #3409; cf. Gen 24:2, KJV), “foot/feet” (regel/regellim, #7272; cf. Isa 7:20, KJV), “hand” (yad, #3027; cf. Isa 57:8: the word is omitted from KJV but translated as “nakedness” in NRSV), "flesh" (basar, #1320; cf. Lev 15:2-3, KJV), “[fluid] spout” (shophka, #8212; cf. Deut 23:1, and Brown), "nakedness" (‘erwa, #6172; Ex 28:42, KJV), and “shame” (aschēmosynē, #808; cf. Rev 16:15, KJV) are all used to refer to the penis or male genitals. Words for “feet,” “flesh,” “nakedness” and “shame” are also applied to female genitalia.41 Ruth did not come and uncover Boaz’s “feet,” but rather his “genitals,” as a marriage proposal (Ruth 3:7). Rehoboam’s youthful counselors advised him to brag that his little finger was bigger than his father’s “penis,” not “loins” (yarek; 1 Kings 12:10, KJV).42 Fourth, we only have passing homosexual references in the Bible, brief and off-handed statements that often raise more questions than they answer. For example, we read that a man “shall not lie with a male as with a woman” (Lev 18:22, NRSV), but why was this condemned? Because this dishonored the male in a patriarchal society, it wasted seed (semen), it improperly mixed substances (a purity issue), it prohibited visiting pagan cult same-sex prostitutes,43 or homosexuality was simply wrong? It should be noted that the Hebrew word (to‘eba) for “abomination” simply refers to “something offensive,”44 e.g., shepherding was considered to‘eba by the Egyptians (Gen 46:34). One must consider many facets of a passage like this and of Israelite life and of ancient thought in general before coming to a conclusion, and then sometimes even the scholars do not agree.
Besides such difficulties, one is faced with larger differences of opinion about the Bible. In the 17th century, a new "rationalism" led to a break for many with traditional Christian doctrine. For example, John Locke, the English philosopher, held that all ideas should come either from experience (the senses) or reason (reflection), although he believed in a transcendent Creator because material causes "could never produce that order, harmony, and beauty which are to be found in nature." Yet, he was put off by private revelations that some said in his time they had received from God and by a "readiness for violence and cruelty" which he often saw in the church; so he looked to reason to show the way. He believed that only one Christian doctrine was essential, a belief in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, while all other doctrines were unverified tradition and could be left to how anyone wanted to interpret them. Unfortunately, this arbitrary selection and severe reduction of doctrine opened the door to a belief that would topple over into deism (belief in a God who created the world, then left it) and which eventually lost its distinctive Christian character altogether (Johnson).45 On the other hand, Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French physicist and theologian, began with the belief that reason could comprehend the mysteries of faith; however, at age 31 he then had a "conversion" when he discovered "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and not of philosophers and men of science." His faith centered on the Person of Christ as Saviour and Lord (as did Locke's), but he held that reason was not superhuman but had its limitations and distortions. Moreover, Pascal saw a sinister tendency in human reason alone to end in irrationality; and he doubted that human life by itself would lead to sweetness and light. He came to rejoice in Christian truth (revelation) as transcending, even defying, human reason (cf. Paul, 1 Cor 1:18-25) and he wanted to preserve the original character of Christianity and its teachings.46 These two diverse paths of thinking (trusting primarily in human reason or trusting primarily in Biblical revelation) would continue to divide the Church, ever widening as the decades and centuries passed.
In our own time, in the 1980s there occurred a widespread reaction (Postmodernism) against the Modernist views of Liberal Protestantism, which had conceived as its task the giving of ethical guidance to society, as it looked forward to a social upward movement in human progress and prosperity.47 However, after two world wars and countless holocausts and faced with a deteriorating environment and frightening new diseases, hope for such progress wilted. Instead, Modernist students identified with the skepticism of Jacques Derrida and other "deconstructionists," who viewed even language as "unstable" and so they came to emphasize subjectivity, pluralism, relativism, openness, and personal reading of texts.48 On the positive side, this further encouraged various "liberation" theologies and thinking, including "queer studies."49 On the negative side, many Postmodernists gave up any belief in a real God, they saw no "meganarrative" (overall plan of salvation) in Scripture, and many were left with only negative propositions and shifting sand. However, Paul Lakeland distinguishes between three categories of Postmodernists: (a) those who passively accept that there is no deep meaning in life, (b) those who critically accept some parts but reject other parts of this philosophy, and (c) still others who have turned away from Postmodernism to return to traditional Christian belief. New-traditionalists in this latter group once again affirm the great tenets of the Apostles' and Nicene creeds and a belief in Divine revelation in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, which supports these creeds and which Jesus and the apostles viewed as both inspired and reliable.50 As Hans Frei and other countermodernists at Yale University contend, secular thought has adulterated the Gospel, and premodern theology needs once again to be asserted. Christian revelation is simply superior in its truth claims to all other secular, philosophical, and religious worldviews.51 Frei holds that Derrida is simply "wrong-headed" in his view that ancient texts cannot be read as author communication, applying traditional principles of literary interpretation. Understanding the Bible is not creating "many meanings," but asking how the text was used and in what context. A search for the "literal sense" of a text leads one to search for what was the intent of the author in communication.52 There is no space here to discuss all of the claims of unreliability that have been placed on the Bible,53 but we have sought at least to lay out some important preliminary thoughts. Those who hold that the Bible derives solely from human writers are free to simply discard those ‘unacceptable’ passages, e.g., on homosexuality. However, those from traditional backgrounds who view the Bible as Divine revelation given to human authors, it is very important, even critical, to approach such a study on a more traditional level. Hopefully all will find in it a message of salvation in the atoning work of Christ, as well as a message of love and grace for those who were created GLBT and who are called to become God’s children in Christ.
FOOTNOTES: 1. Kinsey 1953, pp. 487-88; cf. Kinsey 1948, pp. 650-51. 2. Kinsey 1953, pp. 166-68, 173; cf. Kinsey 1948, pp. 499, 514-16. 3. Tripp, C.A., “Kinsey, Alfred C.,” EH, I, pp. 662-65; Boxer, pp. B7, B9; Kinsey 1948, p. [v]; Kinsey 1953, p. [v]. 4. Kinsey 1953, p. 488; cf. Wilson & Rahman, pp. 16-17. 5. Kinsey 1948, p. 647. 6. Wilson & Rahman, pp. 17, 21, 25. 7. Ibid., pp. 17-22. 8. Ibid., pp. 23, 168. 9. Ibid., pp. 23, 24. 10. U.S. Census Bureau, “World POPClock Projection,” and “U.S. POPClock Projection.” 11. Bailey, p. 27. 12. Ibid., pp. x-xi, 169. 13. Ibid., p. 3. 14. Cf. Furnish, in Siker, p. 19; Nissinen, p. 46; Bird, in Balch, pp. 147-48; and Rogers, p. 70. 15. Bailey, p. 59. 16. Patai, pp. 152-53, 159; cf. Gen 19:1-29 and Judg 19-20). 17. Janes, Dominic, “England,” GHC, p. 278. 18. Religious Tolerance.org. 19. New Oxford American Dictionary, “homosexual”; American Hertage Dictionary of the English Language, “homosexual.” 20. Ackerman, p. 5; Herzer, Manfred, “Kertbeny, Karola Maria…,” EH, I, p. 660. 21. Foucault II, pp. 3-4. 22. Foucault I, pp. 37, 43. 23. Foucault I, pp. 103, 105-06. 24. Larmour et al., pp. 5, 21-33. 25. Ackerman, pp. 5-6. 26. Boswell 1982-83, p. 93, n. 4. 27. Sedgwick, pp. 1-66, esp. 45. 28. Boswell 1980, p. 43, n. 6. 29. Ibid., p. 44. 30. Ibid., pp. 46-47. 31. Ibid., pp. 207-09, 265. 32. Ibid., pp. 183-84. 33. Ibid., pp. 189ff, 233. 34. Cf. Garton, p. 20. 35. Aldrich, pp. 11-13. 36. Spong, pp. 72-74; LeVay, pp. 115-121. 37. Wilson & Rahman, pp. 75-76. 38. Ibid. pp. 98-99, 103. 39. Ibid., pp. 145-46. 40. Dover, p. vii-viii. 41. Bandstra, B.L. & A.D. Verhey, “Sex; Sexuality,” ISBE, IV, 1988, pp. 432-33; Patai, pp. 141-42. 42. Bandstra & Verhey, op. cit., pp. 431-32. 43. Milgrom, p. 1566. 44. Waltke, B.K., “Abomination,” ISBE, I 1979, p. 13. 45. Johnson, pp. 334-40; Cross, p. 832; Wolterstroff, pp. 118-33, 227-46. 46. Johnson, pp. 347-50; Cross, pp. 1035-36; Davidson, pp. 9, 75-108. 47. McGrath, p. 93. 48. Lakeland, p. xiv. 49. Taylor & Winquist, pp. 304-08. 50. Lakeland, pp. 10-11. 51. Ibid., pp. 42-43. 52. Frei, pp. 8-18. 53. Cf. McDowell, passim.
Ackerman, Susan. When Heroes Love. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
Aldrich, Robert, ed. Gay Life and Culture: A World History. London: Thames & Hudson, 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 4th ed. 2006.
Bailey, Derrick Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. London: Longmans, Green, 1955.
Balch, David L., ed. Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Bird, Phyllis A. “The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberation concerning Homosexuality: Old Testament Contributions,” in David L. Balch, ed., Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture.” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 142-176.
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
------------. “Towards The Long View: Revolutions, Universals and Sexual Categories,” Salmagundi, 58-59, Fall 1982 – Winter 1983, pp. 89-113. Saratoga Springs, NY: Skidmore College.
Boxer, Sarah. "Truth or Lies? In Sex Surveys, You Never Know," New York Times, 7/22/00, B7, B9.
Brown, Francis, et al. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, coded with Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000.
Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. 1974.
Davidson, Hugh M. Blaise Pascal. Boston: Twayne, 1983.
Dover, Kenneth J. Greek Homosexuality. New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1978.
Encyclopedia of Homosexuality (EH), ed. Wayne R. Dynes. New York and London: Garland, vols. I-II, 1990.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, vols. I-III. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, French 1976, English trans. 1978, reprint 1990. The Use of Pleasure, French, 1984, English trans. 1985, reprint 1990. The Care of the Self, French 1984, English trans. 1986, reprint 1988. English translations by Robert Hurley. New York: Random House, Vintage Books (reprints).
Frei, Hans W. Types of Christian Theology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Furnish, Victor Paul. “The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context,” in Jeffrey S. Siker, ed., Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate.” Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994, pp. 18-35.
Garton, Stephen. Histories of Sexuality: Antiquity to Sexual Revolution. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Gay Histories and Cultures (GHC), ed. George E. Haggerty. Vol. II: [Male Gay Histories and Cultures]. New York and London: Garland, 2000.
Greenberg, David F. The Construction of Homosexuality. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1988.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, vols. I-IV, 1979-1988.
Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. Britain: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1976.
Kinsey, Alfred C., et al. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia and London: W.B. Saunders, 1953.
------------. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia and London: W.B. Saunders, 1948.
Klein, William W., et al. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas, London, Vancouver and Melbourne: Word, 1993.
Lakeland, Paul. Postmodernity: Christian Identity in a Fragmented Age. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.
Larmour, David H.J., et al. “Introduction: Situating the History of Sexuality,” in Rethinking Sexuality, ed. D.H.J. Larmour, et al., eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998, pp. 3-41.
LeVay, Simon . Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press, 1996.
McDowell, Josh. New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell, 1994.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22 (Anchor Bible). Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000.
Murray, Stephen O., and Will Roscoe. Islamic Homosexualities. New York and London: New York University Press, 1997.
New Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. 2005.
Nissinen, Martti. Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. Trans. by Kirsi Stjerna. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.
Patai, Raphael. Family, Love and the Bible. London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1960.
Religious Tolerance.org, “Decriminalizing Same-Sex Behavior: Part 3,” accessed 1/2/08 online at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws6.htm
Rogers, Jack. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistomology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.
Spong, John Shelby. Living in Sin? San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Strong, James. Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible… Nashville: Abingdon, 1890, reprod. 1980.
Taylor, Vincent, and Charles Winquist, eds. Encyclopedia of Postmodernism. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
United States Census Bureau, “U.S. POPClock Projection,” accessed at the beginning of 1/1/08 online at http:///www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
United States Census Bureau, “World POPClock Projection,” accessed at the beginning of 1/1/08 online at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html
Williams, Craig A. Roman Homosexuality. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Wilson, Glenn, and Qazi Rahman. Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen, 2005.
Wink, Walter. “Homosexuality and the Bible,” in Homosexuality and Christian Faith, ed. W. Wink. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999, pp. 33-49.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. John Locke and the Ethics of Belief. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
TRANSLATIONS: Contemporary English Version, 1995. Good News Bible, 2nd ed. 1983. Jerusalem Bible, 1966. King James Verison, 1611. Living Bible, 1976. Moffatt, James: The Bible, 1922. New American Standard Version, 1960. New English Bible, 1970. New International Version, 1978. New Jerusalem Bible, 1985. New King James Version, 1982. New Revised Standard Version, 1989. Revised English Bible, 1989. Revised Sandard Version, 1946.
© 2003, 2008 by Bruce L. Gerig
|Main Menu||Back to Homosexuality & the Bible|