Focused discussion, Lev. 18:22

[mkgal1]

The whole section was prefaced with a description showing these were the practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites, which is why you cannot just separate them out.

Again, the acts are condemned on their own merits, and it does not say that it is only in the context of idol worship.

Are you willing to say that incest and sex with animals was wrong only because of its association with idol worship?

Will get to the rest later.

I realize that.....and I assure you, in my mind I'm not separating them out. But....for the sake of clearer discussion, I'm trying to focus on this verse (because there's a lot wrapped up in just this one line).

If anyone is seeming to separate out behaviors....it seems more likely that you are. I've categorized these under purity/ceremonial issues, and you are rejecting that idea. If these *aren't* purity/ceremonial issues (in this context).....then what's with the mixing of seeds/the mixing of yoked animals/mixing of fabrics that are forbidden? Are you suggesting those are also condemned on their own merits? Or is it that you don't find those detestable so God doesn't any longer either (using your own standards to judge those things)?

I've offered several articles that explain why this is in the context of ritual purity (along with the guidelines of other purity issues like mixing seeds/mixing of yoked animals/mixed fabrics). This is one of the main reasons why there're different schools of thought on this (and it's not going to be settled in this thread).

By your logic (at least what I am getting from your posts).....if you're going to discount this as ceremonial/purity issues....then I hope you're not wearing a fabric blend and aren't trimming your beard and sideburns.

As to your comment about incest and sex with animals? I don't understand that line of reasoning. It's not that black and white (the whole group of instructions don't neatly fit into categories of "acceptable" and "detestable"--no matter what the situation) and that's why I keep repeating the importance of context.

Let me put it this way--with an analogy: If I had a peptic ulcer and went to the doctor for advice, the doctor would, most likely, give me a list of self-care things to do/not do. It may be things like, "don't smoke and avoid alcohol and coffee, don't take aspirin. If the ulcer is mild....take an over-the-counter antacid to neutralize the stomach acid". That doesn't mean that once the ulcer is healed that smoking is okay.....and that drinking alcohol isn't an issue any longer. These instructions are addressing this one particular topic---a peptic ulcer (it's not a list of pros and cons of each substance or list of general good/harmful substances). To discuss the use of each of those things and their effects on the body would be a different discussion. Like you've actually brought up, yourself---putting things together in a certain context has meaning (and---in this case---I'm of the belief that "purity" and the stringent practices of not mixing unlike things is the context--the framework).

The sexuality issues are being pointed out---in this context---as to how they are attributed to worshiping false gods (just like some of those practices on the ulcer self-care list can be harmful in more than one situation and others can have their merits in certain cases---so can these practices). In another context.....things may appear differently and are no longer grouped together.

Also.....another article I read late last night (that I may have linked already---I'm not sure) stated that it'd be very unlikely that two men living together as a couple in this era was very unlikely to be culturally accepted. This was a time that God was rebuilding the population of Israelites and having children was a priority (for the people as well as God). In bringing that to a personal level---I'd never bring up something for my child to do or not do that's not even a possibility or completely out of their character (there are too many things that *do* apply to be concerned with the things that *don't* apply). For illustrative purposes---I'd never say to my child who was fearful of bugs and had texture issues with food, "make sure you don't eat those rose beetles". I'd not be concerned with that.

 

[mkgal1]

The word meaning is not just about ritual impurity, but about something that is a complete affront or horrible sin. You do not have to be a scholar to look at the word usage and see for yourself what the word means.

I'm limited in what I have access to. I also wasn't raised in Hebrew ways and language, so that's why I'm trusting the Rabbis when they write that there are several meanings of "abomination" used in the Bible (even when most of the lexicons I have access to use the same root word for all). The clue is something you've pointed out first---that there're different consequences for behaviors that seem to fit into the same rule violations (as in Lev 15:24--where the two are just considered unclean for 7 days and Lev 20:18--where the two are exiled from their community).

 

[mkgal1]

Tall.....you asked earlier about the significance of the Holiness Code (considered to be chapters 17-26 of Lev). From what I'm understanding....that whole segment of Lev is considered to have been for priests and that's why the purity standards are so much more stringent. It's also considered that since Levitical priesthood ended in AD 70 then that's not applicable to anyone any longer. There's at least one entire book devoted to the study of that....here (The Sanctuary of Silence) written by an acclaimed Rabbi....Rabbi Israel Knohl.

 

[LinkH]

Tall.....you asked earlier about the significance of the Holiness Code (considered to be chapters 17-26 of Lev). From what I'm understanding....that whole segment of Lev is considered to have been for priests and that's why the purity standards are so much more stringent. It's also considered that since Levitical priesthood ended in AD 70 then that's not applicable to anyone any longer. There's at least one entire book devoted to the study of that....here (The Sanctuary of Silence) written by an acclaimed Rabbi....Rabbi Israel Knohl.

Jesus said not to be called rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. Who calls Israel Knohl a rabbi? I don't know about that. He's a professor at a university. Does he promote the whole J-E-P-D theory? I haven't read the book. I read a bit about it. J-E-P-D doesn't fit well with the sayings of Christ and the apostles, IMO. Does he make the same arguments about gay sex that you believe in?

His Wikipedia article says he wrote about a 'myth' of a messianic leader rising from the dead.

It seems like you are convinced that there is something special about the word to'ebah that will let you dismiss Leviticus teachings on homosexual behavior. But you can't quite argue out your line of thought in favor of it clearly in light of how to'ebah is used in other contexts. Does your theory really hold water when you examine the word in these other contexts? If you can't follow the line of reasoning yourself, then you shouldn't believe in it based on a book by someone who may not even recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Does he believe that God spoke to Moses?

We have to be very careful about accepting scholarship from people who don't share certain common beliefs from our faith. If an academic doesn't believe that God revealed the future to prophets, then he might date Daniel very late, after the events were fulfilled. If he doesn't believe that God spoke to Moses, he might try to ascribe the Torah to various human origins. If he doesn't believe Christ rose from the dead, he might just describe it as the continuation of some kind of cultural myth.

 

[tall73]

Does he promote the whole J-E-P-D theory? I haven't read the book.

Ok, I got a chance to read some of the references now. Yes, it is tied to the same notions as the documentary theory. But in this case the proposal is a priestly source (P), and a Holiness Code source (H). The H source is viewed as a possible later revision.

However, the notions espoused are not quite as presented by Mkgal. I will address some of it now, perhaps some later. Having some outside issues that are making my time limited.

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus said not to be called rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. Who calls Israel Knohl a rabbi? I don't know about that. He's a professor at a university.

For goodness sake, Link! Israel Knohl is *a* rabbi (there's more to becoming a rabbi than just being a professor at a uni) ....that doesn't mean that I'm following him around for 24 hrs a day for several years wishing to be like him and calling him my "master" (which is what I understand that verse to mean--drawing the comparison to the talmid-rabbi relationship of Jesus' day). Jesus and John the Baptizer were both considered rabbis (and I can't think of anywhere where Jesus chastised anyone for calling John the baptizer "Rabbi". But that's all another topic........

For the topic of Hebrew language and culture (which the book of Leviticus is a large part of)---it makes sense to me to rely on someone that's spent their entire life immersed in that. It's not worth attempts to discredit him.

 

[mkgal1]

According to Jacob Milgrom, in his 3000 page Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus, (Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, pp. 1518-1519, 1539), incestuous sexual relationships involving father and daughter, brother and sister, nephew and aunt, uncle and niece were common in Egyptian society, even among non-royals.

Moses, Aaron and Miriam were born into an incestuous, nephew-aunt relationship which originated in Egypt.

“And the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.” Numbers 26:59.

“And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister

(his aunt) to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses.” Exodus 6:20.

Marriages between close family members were not prohibited for God’s people until after Israel left Egypt, around 1450 BC. When God gives Moses the Holiness Code, before Israel enters the land of Canaan, He carefully prohibits pagan practices, cultic practices, sexual practices which might encourage Israel to serve the fertility goddess.

Ancient Jewish rabbis, in Sanhedrin 54a, discuss Leviticus 18:22 in the context of incestuous pederasty between a son and his father.

Because God placed the prohibitions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the context of pagan religious practices, many have concluded that the Holiness Code is dealing with pagan religious practices, not homosexuality as we know it today.

 

[tall73]

I realize that.....and I assure you, in my mind I'm not separating them out. But....for the sake of clearer discussion, I'm trying to focus on this verse (because there's a lot wrapped up in just this one line).

If anyone is seeming to separate out behaviors....it seems more likely that you are. I've categorized these under purity/ceremonial issues, and you are rejecting that idea.

Yes, the idea must be rejected, because the two sections that deal with abominations and things done by the Egyptians and Canaanites deal with horrible moral problems, not just ritual purity issues.

If these *aren't* purity/ceremonial issues (in this context).....then what's with the mixing of seeds/the mixing of yoked animals/mixing of fabrics that are forbidden? Are you suggesting those are also condemned on their own merits? Or is it that you don't find those detestable so God doesn't any longer either (using your own standards to judge those things)?

And here again is where you are not understanding our contextual argument, or perhaps even the arguments of the articles you are posting.

We are suggesting that chapter 18 lists a bunch of things that are all called abominations. These are things the previous inhabitants were driven out for. These are repulsive things.

The things in chapter 19 which you keep referencing include both some ritual and some moral items. However, they are not singled out as things the previous inhabitants were punished for.

Now, what SOME of your sources are stating is that they believe that Leviticus was made up of multiple documents which were redacted, or combined, to form one document. In other words, they don't think that Leviticus was one complete work by a single hand. As such they see from 17-26 as being different because they think they were different original source documents with some different notions, and characteristics, that were then stuck together.

And notice, this source you posted does not think it was only for the priests:
http://www.steventuell.net/?p=664
These two chapters come from a portion of Leviticus called the Holiness Code (Lev 17—26). Jewish scholar Israel Knohl neatly summarizes the distinctive message of these chapters: “the holiness of God is emphasized, and this is taken to imply a call to holiness addressed to the Israelites in general” (Israel Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 2). So Leviticus 19:2 states, “You must be holy, because I, the LORD your God, am holy.”

He believes it is addressed to the Israelites in general. The designations of priest sources and holiness code sources is only to show they think there are two original documents of which elements were combined, or redacted into one document. The source names speak to who they think wrote it, or some of its characteristics. It is not saying that the holiness code was only for priests. And in any case, this is document theory, which is debated in many different directions, and is not stated in the text.

Also, note from the other Google book you cited that they are not suggesting that the things in the holiness code are only rituals at all. Notice:

It is, however, difficult to claim, as does Knohl, that P's legislation is devoid of ethical elements, so that sins against the Lord's commandments (Le 4:2; 5:17) only refer to cultic matters, and that "the interpenetration of ethical and cultic considerations" comes only later, with the Holiness School.

Knohl was claiming that (P) was devoid of ethical elements and only referred to cultic matters. However Milgrom (one of the foremost authorities on the book of Leviticus) indicates exceptions to this. But both agree that "interpenetration" of ethical AND cultic elements occur in the holiness school. In other words, they claim just the opposite of what you have been saying. Both see ethical and purity concerns in the Holiness code. We clearly see this for instance in Lev. 19. where we have laws related to not mixing fabrics, but also laws related to improper balances, or cheating people. One is ethical, one is related to the Israel being distinct from other nations under the terms of the covenant.

However, yes, you are correct in that both Milgrom and Knohl see the sins in the "holiness code" as impacting the purity of the land, and determining whether God vomits them out. However, this is even more strongly stated in 18 and 20 of the abominations that particularly offend God.

 

[tall73]

The sexuality issues are being pointed out---in this context---as to how they are attributed to worshiping false gods (just like some of those practices on the ulcer self-care list can be harmful in more than one situation and others can have their merits in certain cases---so can these practices). In another context.....things may appear differently and are no longer grouped together.

a. They are NOT being pointed out in relation to idolatry, as the text in Lev. 18 does not say that. You are adding to the text and calling it context.

b. Is there any situation in which sex with animals has its merits?

 

[tall73]

Also.....another article I read late last night (that I may have linked already---I'm not sure) stated that it'd be very unlikely that two men living together as a couple in this era was very unlikely to be culturally accepted. This was a time that God was rebuilding the population of Israelites and having children was a priority (for the people as well as God). In bringing that to a personal level---I'd never bring up something for my child to do or not do that's not even a possibility or completely out of their character (there are too many things that *do* apply to be concerned with the things that *don't* apply). For illustrative purposes---I'd never say to my child who was fearful of bugs and had texture issues with food, "make sure you don't eat those rose beetles". I'd not be concerned with that.

Again, you are stating arguments the text does not state.

David's adultery with Bathsheba was not about idolatry, but was still wrong.

Amnon raping his sister was not about idolatry but was still wrong.

And we can point to the case in Judges of attempted homosexual rape (yes, this involves violence, and domination, not just sex, all of which would be condemned as well, and no I am not saying every homosexual today is a rapist or violent) that was not stated to be about idolatry at all. The point is the text condemns the action, not the setting.

Incest, sex with animals, adultery, etc. are wrong in every setting, idolatry or otherwise. And the prohibition of male on male sex is also not put in any context to limit it, but condemned as an action.

 

[tall73]

Lev 18:27 says these particular abominations made the land unclean (page 60).

Yes, the land was made unclean. And to understand why that is important you have to understand the nature of sin in the Pentateuch. This is something that Milgrom (referenced in your articles,) and other scholars have studied for years, but is also obvious in the text. Sin defiles. Milgrom, his student Gane, and many other have presented models for all the details. But what they all agree on is that the text speaks of the

a. land
b. sanctuary
c. camp

being defiled, polluted, made unclean, etc. by sin.

I am going to try to spell out a basic outline on the subject referencing a variety of texts.

God dwelt in the midst of the people in the sanctuary, where He would appear to them over the mercy seat. Now of course Solomon notes at the dedication of the Temple that the whole heavens cannot contain God, but this is where God chose to set His presence, and dwell among His people.

Exo 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.

In the Garden of Eden God walked with Adam. But Adam was expelled due to sin. God no longer walked with man face to face, but instead he set up a system of sacrifice, etc. to show the concepts of an animal, the sacrifice, taking on the punishment and guilt of the offerer.

In the law of Moses this became more codified with every element of this sacrificial system being spelled out. God dwelt in the midst of the camp of Israel on their journeys, and then when they entered the land He would set His name on one place where He would dwell and this would become the center of their religious experience. God dwelt as the King in their midst. And just as Esther could not just approach the king without getting permission etc., so God spelled out who could approach Him, and to what degree. Instead of Adam and Eve face to face we have priests, and a high priest. The people could only go so far. They could not enter the holy place with the altar of incense, or the lampstand, etc. And only the high priest would go in once per year, on the Day of Atonement, into the most holy place, where the ark was, and where God would dwell above the mercy seat. He would go in once per year to make sacrifices which pointed to the cleansing and removal of all the sins committed throughout throughout the year.

Lev 16:33 He shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.
Lev 16:34 And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins." And Aaron did as the LORD commanded Moses.

The common people were to avoid becoming unclean, or sinning, because this would bring sin to the sanctuary, the land, the camp, etc. where God dwelt. Sin was essentially viewed almost as a contagion. Here are just a smattering of various texts that speak about it:

The job of the priests was to minister to remove uncleanness. The rationale is explained:

Lev 15:31 "Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst."

People that could not be immediately cleansed had to be removed from the camp so they did not defile the camp, because God dwelt in their midst:

Num 5:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
Num 5:3 Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.

Lev 12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

The holy and righteous God chose to dwell among them, but sin is to be kept from the camp, from the sanctuary, etc. God the holy King is separate from sin.

However, at the same time, sins defile the sanctuary. And therefore cleansing is needed.

The greater the sin the further into the sanctuary the priest had to go to achieve the cleansing. A common person's sin would be dealt with by blood offering in the courtyard. A sin by the whole camp, or the priest, would have to be taken into the holy place at times. And on the Day of Atonement atonement making blood was brought into the very presence of God to make cleansing for all the sins of the people.

 

[mkgal1]

I have just a couple of minutes, so I'll respond to this:

Is there any situation in which sex with animals has its merits?

No.....but that's why I went through the whole analogy of a person having a peptic ulcer. The school of thought that makes sense to me (based on people that know the Hebrew language and culture well) is that---in this specific case---this wasn't an abomination for moral issues (that's not the context it was being addressed)---it was a purity issue. There are different reasons/different scenarios and not everything fits neatly into the same box each and every time. I don't believe that Egyptians/Canaanites and even the Israelites were attracted to animals and God had to steer them away. The beastiality (and other sexual practices that were prohibited) was all a part of rituals (from what I'm reading).

A doctor may say coffee is a horrible idea with an ulcer.....but that doesn't mean it's *always* horrible. Likewise.....drinking alcohol is harmful with an ulcer....but it's harmful for *different* reasons when a person is tired and has to drive home that night. One can't draw conclusions if something isn't specifically being addressed.

 

[mkgal1]

Again, you are stating arguments the text does not state.

Sometimes a little background understanding is necessary---especially since this text was directed to a specific group of people (for a certain time). Why is it that what I'm reading is that most Jews realize this text no longer applies (and this was given to their ancestors)...but gentiles of today want to cling to two passages out of it to use against others (and it wasn't even addressed to us or our ancestors)?

 

[tall73]

Now some sins are said also to pollute the land. These are usually severe sins which call for judgment. Here is something of an explanation of this, from the book of Numbers.

Num 35:33 You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.
Num 35:34 You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the LORD dwell in the midst of the people of Israel."

Sins are seen as defiling the land.

The inhabitants of the land before the Israelites also built up polluting sins. Once they reached the breaking point, God acted. We see this referenced in Genesis where God, speaking to Abraham, predicts the slavery in Egypt, but then says Abraham's people will return to this land, but not yet. The people still living in the land were still being shown mercy for a time.

Gen 15:13 Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.
Gen 15:14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.
Gen 15:15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.
Gen 15:16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

The Canaanites were already wicked, but God was giving them time, while knowing that eventually their wickedness would be too great to put up with, and judgment would be needed. He was going to use Abraham's descendents for that judgment, but not yet.

Now God elaborates on the things that caused this eventual judgment in Lev. 18. And the list is not pretty. It includes incest, sex with animals, adultery, sacrificing children to Molech, etc. and it includes male with male sex acts.

These were severe crimes which were so bad that even the land was seen as polluted just by them being performed within it.

Lev 18:24 "Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean,
Lev 18:25 and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
Lev 18:26 But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you
Lev 18:27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean),
Lev 18:28 lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.

The people of the land did all these things, these abominable things, most of which you agree you could never endorse. And by doing so they polluted the land. It is a way to describing just how severe their actions were. They were so foul that even the place they lived was disgusted with them and vomited them out.

All of these things in this chapter are called abominations, with the same word used of male on male sex in the passage. And all of these things ARE abominations. And they are moral, not just ritual in nature.

And that is why God punished even the prior inhabitants for them, precisely because they were not just about covenant regulations, separation, etc. but they were about horrible things that should not be done.

Now the further signs of separation that God gives, no mixing of fabrics etc. underscores that they were not to be like the people before them. They were not to imitate them. They were to be separate from them.

 

[tall73]

There were different words for "abomination" in the original Hebrew.

We were looking at all the same word in Hebrew, as you acknowledged as well. In fact, even the source you reference says:


The word rendered “abomination” in the Leviticus passages is to’ebah in Hebrew. Its basic sense is something disgusting.
http://www.steventuell.net/?p=664

Then he notes how it is used in various contexts. However, when speaking of Lev. he says:


In the book of Leviticus, to’ebah appears only 6 times, in only two chapters: Lev 18:22, 26-27, 29-30 and 20:13. In each context, to’ebah is used together with other words, rendered wickedness (zimah) or perversion (tebel).

Of course, he acknowledges that it is only used in those two chapters in Lev. And later he acknowledges that it is applied to various things that no one would condone, such as sex with animals, etc.

However, he goes on to say it is only about ritual purity, though how could it be, because God punished the former inhabitants for these things, and they did not have the purity codes God gave to Israel.

His answer is the rule on sex with a woman who is menstruating, so I will examine that next.

 

[tall73]

I have just a couple of minutes, so I'll respond to this:


No.....but that's why I went through the whole analogy of a person having a peptic ulcer. The school of thought that makes sense to me (based on people that know the Hebrew language and culture well) is that---in this specific case---this wasn't an abomination for moral issues---it was a purity issue. There are different reasons/different scenarios and not everything fits neatly into the same box each and every time. A doctor may say coffee is a horrible idea with an ulcer.....but that doesn't mean it's *always* horrible. Likewise.....drinking alcohol is harmful with an ulcer....but it's harmful for *different* reasons when a person is tired and has to drive home that night.

But what you have not explained, and what some of those same scholars have not explained, is why the people of the land before were cast out for doing these things that you say were only ritual?

They didn't have God's purity code. But these things were still wrong. And this rationale is applied to ALL of the things in that section. We are grouping them together because the text groups them together:

Lev 18:27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean)

God judged a gentile nation for their wickedness, and He specifically points to these objectionable things as a large reason for that.

 

[tall73]

I'm limited in what I have access to. I also wasn't raised in Hebrew ways and language, so that's why I'm trusting the Rabbis when they write that there are several meanings of "abomination" used in the Bible (even when most of the lexicons I have access to use the same root word for all). The clue is something you've pointed out first---that there're different consequences for behaviors that seem to fit into the same rule violations (as in Lev 15:24--where the two are just considered unclean for 7 days and Lev 20:18--where the two are exiled from their community).

Actually, what I pointed out was that there is already a law for contact with blood from a woman's menstruation, and a penalty for intentionally having sex with a woman during the time of her menstruation.

Let's look at Lev. 15:

Lev 15:19 "When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.

Touching just her, not the blood, would make someone unclean until the evening.

Lev 15:20 And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean.
Lev 15:21 And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:22 And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:23 Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening.

Anyone who touches the things she comes into contact with will be unclean until the evening. However, next we have not just indirect contact, but direct contact with blood from menstruation.

Lev 15:24 And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.

While certainly there are trends and cycles one cannot always tell the immediate onset of menstruation, and sometimes throughout a person's life there may be irregular cycles, etc. If a man is lying with the woman and the blood comes upon him, actual contact with the blood, then he is unclean seven days, the same as she was from the condition in the first place.

Now, in Lev. 18 and 20 however another element is added. Someone is not just laying with the woman and gets blood on him. Instead he intentionally uncovers her nakedness so as to have sex with her at this time.

Lev 18:19 "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.
Lev 20:18 If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

The additional part that called for greater punishment was the intent of having sex with her during this time, rather than lying by her and coming into contact with the blood of her menstruation.

 

[tall73]

I'm limited in what I have access to. I also wasn't raised in Hebrew ways and language, so that's why I'm trusting the Rabbis when they write that there are several meanings of "abomination" used in the Bible (even when most of the lexicons I have access to use the same root word for all).

What the authors have been claiming is that the word may be used different ways, as determined by context. But even the one making that argument noted that in Lev. the term is used only in chapters 18 and 20. And those sections specifically list the things God found so repulsive among the gentiles that inhabited the land before the Israelites that He judged them.

How can that just be about Israelite holiness codes if the nations before them were punished without even having Israelite holiness codes?

Lev 18:27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean),

 

[tall73]

Tall.....you asked earlier about the significance of the Holiness Code (considered to be chapters 17-26 of Lev). From what I'm understanding....that whole segment of Lev is considered to have been for priests and that's why the purity standards are so much more stringent. It's also considered that since Levitical priesthood ended in AD 70 then that's not applicable to anyone any longer. There's at least one entire book devoted to the study of that....here (The Sanctuary of Silence) written by an acclaimed Rabbi....Rabbi Israel Knohl.

You have misread your own sources.

One of your sources said the holiness code was for the whole of Israel, I quoted it above.But here it is again:

These two chapters come from a portion of Leviticus called the Holiness Code (Lev 17—26). Jewish scholar Israel Knohl neatly summarizes the distinctive message of these chapters: “the holiness of God is emphasized, and this is taken to imply a call to holiness addressed to the Israelites in general” (Israel Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 2). So Leviticus 19:2 states, “You must be holy, because I, the LORD your God, am holy.”

The priestly source was the part before that, and it was not limited just to the priests either. Knohl indicated that the priestly part was just talking about cultic concerns. But both Knohl and Milgrom, etc. agreed that both ritual and moral items were talked about in the holiness code.

Even in the review you cite we find the opposite of what you think it is saying.

The "Holiness School" is shown to be active subsequent to that of the Priestly Torah and, in fact, to be responsible for the great enterprise of editing the Torah.

He thinks the holiness school came later and dealt with MORE than just ritual elements, expanding what was just a law for a cloistered group, dealing with cultic concerns, to something more. Of course, Milgrom already showed the earlier priestly source dealt with more than just ritual elements, so the premise had problems to begin with.

The conclusion describes the changes that occurred in the Priests' worldview as an attempt to come to terms with the socio-religious crisis that had brought about a disjunction between ritual and ethics. In response to this crisis, the priests developed a wider conception of holiness, one that integrates ethics and ritual in one sphere.

In other words, he thought the earlier (P) source (not chapters 17-26) only dealt with ritual concerns, but the holiness code (H) edited this to deal with a more widespread morality that expanded to the whole land, and to ethical/moral concerns, not just ritual ones.

This is the same thing we see in your earlier source which critiqued Knohl:

It is, however, difficult to claim, as does Knohl, that P's legislation is devoid of ethical elements, so that sins against the Lord's commandments (Le 4:2; 5:17) only refer to cultic matters, and that "the interpenetration of ethical and cultic considerations" comes only later, with the Holiness School.

Knohl thinks that the holiness code blends ethical and cultic considerations, and therefore was an important revision of the original priestly source that expanded it to the whole nation.

You have essentially misunderstood him and then claimed he said the opposite, that the holiness code is only for the priests, and only about ritual things. But the references you have posted do not show that.

 

[tall73]

According to Jacob Milgrom, in his 3000 page Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus, (Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, pp. 1518-1519, 1539), incestuous sexual relationships involving father and daughter, brother and sister, nephew and aunt, uncle and niece were common in Egyptian society, even among non-royals.

Moses, Aaron and Miriam were born into an incestuous, nephew-aunt relationship which originated in Egypt.

All true. And certainly Milgrom was indeed prominent in his field (he is now deceased), and was considered one of the most accomplished scholars in Leviticus. Yes, He was Jewish. No, he was not Christian. That does not mean everything he said is invalid either, not by a long stretch. But please note, that you have to understand some of the big issues in the debate to really know what they are talking about. So at times you have misunderstood the discussion of source theory, or not understood the nuances and disagreements about the nature of sin transmission, etc.

This topic is in many ways regarding the methods of transmission of sin, defilement, the nature of contamination and purgation, etc. And even Milgrom began to give some concessions on some of his models on the transmission of sin, etc. when his student Gane began to challenge him on these things with additional evidence from the text and composed a different model which Milgrom indicated could be correct.

Why do I mention all of that? Because these scholars all come from their own backgrounds as well. Milgrom was a Jewish scholar, conservative, but not orthodox. Which means he would have viewpoints different than orthodox scholars on the text. Just as the source you quoted from earlier which is put out by a group solely dedicated to pentecostals who believe homosexuality is correct is quite likely to have a different take than the group they split from over that issue.

Gane is actually an Adventist, and his model is strikingly similar to the general Adventist model with some modifications. He comes at it from a Christian perspective, though from what some would call a heterodox denomination. Yet his view was published in the Zondervan commentary series, and is gaining traction in evangelical circles. I would hold to a position somewhat closer to Milgrom's on some points, but also recognizing some things about Ganes. However, I would reject the central tenant of Gane's theory as completely going against the particulars of the text. Now I am not putting myself in their league at all regarding credentials. But that is the reason they publish and then folks look at it, to see if it matches up. I became interested in the subject some years back due to theological issues that I was having with the Seventh-day Adventist church which led me to a years long study of the Levitical system, etc.

I heard Gane lecture on the subject, and wrote only very briefly to Gane on some of his ideas, and I just don't understand how he reconciles certain aspects.

My point is scholars say things all the time. You still have to look and as is it true. And no that does not mean discrediting them. You have to look at the evidenced they present. Hence you saw Milgrom correcting Knohl in one of your sources. And we see Gane correcting Milgrom on some points, since he studied under him and found some other, more plausible explanations on some points. And you see others, (not just me) critiquing some of Gane's points.

The purpose is not to question the person. The purpose is to examine the conclusions based on the evidence. That was a disclaimer before I get into some of the particulars.