This is a case of modern morals trying to square a round hole.
Here’s what the new American Bible standard says (which is considered the most accurate English translation by Bible scholars)
If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their [j]own deaths upon themselves
That’s it, not man and child but man and male. As in, lumping in homosexuality with pedophilia (that old chestnut).
Right, but the two words used are “man and male” not “man and child”. That’s a more broad statement, not a more narrow one. As in it’s lumping in pedophilia with homosexuality. You’ll also notice the punishment isn’t for the “man” to be put to death, it is for BOTH to be put to death. So even if we take the argument “by male it means male child” you have to square away that it immediately calls for you to put that child to death. You’ll also take note that this says nothing about “man and girl”. If this was truly a condemnation of pedophilia then why is it limited to male children?
Well, that’s clear from other bible verses, because you pay 50 shekels of silver and get yourself a new child bride in that case. (Deut 22:28-29)
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, 29 then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.
The bible very clearly knows what girls are yet has no real punishment for raping them.
If this was truly a condemnation of pedophilia then why is it limited to male children?
I think the verse in Deut you quoted explains it nicely. A female was just another man’s property and as long as they aren’t married “rape” was just claiming them. If the women was married both were put to death.
In the end I don’t put much stock in this just being a mistranslation as the precedent seems to be homosexuality was sinful, but the argument did have a little more logic behind it than I thought it would when I first read the headline.
To my understanding this difference between man/male just equals homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia. If it were to protect kids from pedos, it surely would use a word describing children, not male.
At the time it was written, both women and girls were property. They were not something to be protected, except that if they were damaged the owner was to be compensated.
Good question. Because they think gays are irreparably trainted and should die?
You’re trying to apply modern sensiblities and logic to a “how to survive in the middle east as a goat herding tribe” manual. It’s not always going to make sense.
Except they had a Hebrew word for boy which the author choose not to use. Making the verse general. The author intended to say any adult man who has sex with any male of any age.
It would be like me saying “do not use your stuff to steal property”. Property includes stuff.
https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/
There were two different words used for “man”.
This is a case of modern morals trying to square a round hole.
Here’s what the new American Bible standard says (which is considered the most accurate English translation by Bible scholars)
That’s it, not man and child but man and male. As in, lumping in homosexuality with pedophilia (that old chestnut).
Even there it uses two separate words. I thought it was a weird stretch until I actually read into it.
Right, but the two words used are “man and male” not “man and child”. That’s a more broad statement, not a more narrow one. As in it’s lumping in pedophilia with homosexuality. You’ll also notice the punishment isn’t for the “man” to be put to death, it is for BOTH to be put to death. So even if we take the argument “by male it means male child” you have to square away that it immediately calls for you to put that child to death. You’ll also take note that this says nothing about “man and girl”. If this was truly a condemnation of pedophilia then why is it limited to male children?
Well, that’s clear from other bible verses, because you pay 50 shekels of silver and get yourself a new child bride in that case. (Deut 22:28-29)
The bible very clearly knows what girls are yet has no real punishment for raping them.
I think the verse in Deut you quoted explains it nicely. A female was just another man’s property and as long as they aren’t married “rape” was just claiming them. If the women was married both were put to death.
In the end I don’t put much stock in this just being a mistranslation as the precedent seems to be homosexuality was sinful, but the argument did have a little more logic behind it than I thought it would when I first read the headline.
To my understanding this difference between man/male just equals homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia. If it were to protect kids from pedos, it surely would use a word describing children, not male.
At the time it was written, both women and girls were property. They were not something to be protected, except that if they were damaged the owner was to be compensated.
Children and women were considered property at that time, so it makes sense to have used the words they did.
If the verse is against pedophilia (“man shall not lie with boy”), why does it say both the rapist and the victim needs to be killed?
Good question. Because they think gays are irreparably trainted and should die?
You’re trying to apply modern sensiblities and logic to a “how to survive in the middle east as a goat herding tribe” manual. It’s not always going to make sense.
Except they had a Hebrew word for boy which the author choose not to use. Making the verse general. The author intended to say any adult man who has sex with any male of any age.
It would be like me saying “do not use your stuff to steal property”. Property includes stuff.
Interesting. Why aren’t Jewish people against LGBTQ then? I thought this explained it.