Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #27403 in Books
• Published on: 2000-04
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 152 pages

From Library Journal
Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest, has done careful reading in current biblical scholarship about homosexuality. While cautioning against viewing biblical teaching as "the last word on sexual ethics," he stresses the need for accurate understanding of what the biblical "facts" are and concludes that "the Bible supplies no real basis for the condemnation of homosexuality." Using the studies of Yale historian John Boswell (Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, LJ 7/94), New Testament seminary professor L. William Countryman, and others, Helminiak examines the story of Sodom (where the sin was inhospitality), Jude's decrying sex with angels, and five texts-Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:27, I Corinthians 6:9, and I Timothy 1:10-all of which, he concludes, "are concerned with something other than homogenital activity itself." Highly recommended for all libraries.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
Believing that the translation of the Bible they use consists of the inerrant word of God, some Christians cite a handful of passages to justify their condemnation of homosexuality. But historical biblical scholarship holds that these believers' conception of inerrancy is naively based, for English versions of the originally Hebrew and Greek scriptures are rife with problematic translations. Some scholars further maintain that the supposedly antihomosexual passages are not blanket condemnations of homosexual persons and acts. Indeed, in some cases, these verses aren't about homosexuality at all; they meant quite different things to those for whom they were first written, peoples whose social conceptions of sexuality were vastly different from ours. Helminiak provides cogent, accessible precis of these revisionist findings on the Bible's six major passages and few minor references that seem to denounce homosexuality. The Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today, he concludes; those who seek to know outright if gay or lesbian sex is good or evil . . . will have to look elsewhere for an answer. An extremely valuable contribution to popular gay and biblical studies. Ray Olson

Customer Reviews

An excellent popularization of modern biblical scholarship
As Father Helminiak points out, the Bible has no concept of homosexuality, which is a modern concept and word. What one can study is what the Bible says about what we would class as some forms of homosexual behavior. But the biblical authors lacked the concept, and so could not classify anything as homosexual. Therefore, there can be no general condemnation of homosexual behavior (our concept) in the Bible, like it or not. That's the fact.

There are only a few texts in the Bible that clearly refer to homosexual behavior, and a few others, which may do so. However, to mention something, even in the Bible, is not always to condemn it. The contrary assumption is simply the fallacy of special pleading.

Most of the points Dr. Helminiak makes are nothing new to anyone who has seriously looked into the subject.

The Sodom story in Gen. 19:1-29 is really about the abuse of strangers, who according to the mores of the area should be offered food and shelter. It is well known that no text in the Bible interprets the sin of Sodom as homosexual behavior, but a whole host of other things. Helminiak makes the very apt point that it is really those who give a hard time to the strangers and outsiders in our time (which would include homosexuals in great part) are the ones really guilty of the sin of Sodom.

Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are parts of the Holiness Code, a body of (ritual) uncleanness laws. The Holiness Code explicitly tries to keep the Israelites different from the pagans whose practices were considered impure, and probably involves a religious aversion to mixing of kinds (as sewing two kinds of seeds in a field or using to kinds of thread to make a cloth). The term translated as "abomination" in the King James Version is simply a term for uncleanness. Easily provable.

Helminiak makes a good case that the only thing that would have really counted as sexual intercourse for the ancient Hebrews was penile penetration in either vaginal or anal sex. This would explain why the ancient Jews had little concern for lesbianism or many other sexual activities.

In Romans 1:24-27, we find that Paul does not actually say that the sexual activity referred to is wrong, simply that it is a consequence and even punishment for idolatry. Paul was at that point addressing the Jewish Christians in Rome. Helminiak plausibly maintains that Paul maintains there are two sorts of consequences of idolatrous worship. There are impure, socially disapproved activities, as in 1:25-27, and there are other things which really are wrong, as in the listing in 1:28-32.

The sin lists in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10 may not even refer to homosexuality at all. "Malakos" simply means soft, and in times past was regarded as referring to the self-indulgent or even those who masturbate. "Arsenokoites" occurs in the Bible these two texts only, and no one really knows for sure what it means.

There seem to be some positive accounts of homosexual relationships in the Bible, although the Bible could not categorize them in that way. It seems quite likely that David and Jonathan had a love relationship, as can be gleaned from 1 Sam 18:1-4, 1 Sam. 20:16-17. Saul himself may have had a sexual relationship with David, if an alternate reading of the vowelless Hebrew text in 1 Sam 16:21 is correct. His outburst in 20:30-31 may indicate he is jealous of Jonathan's relationship with David. David's lament for both in 2 Sam. 1:19-27 is very revealing, especially that the love of Jonathan was better than the love of a woman.

There have been more speculative interpretations of the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, and also between Daniel and the chief eunuch in Nebuchadnezzar's court, but the evidence is scant.

However, it is quite likely that Jesus encountered a man in homosexual relationship. The Centurion who pleaded for a cure for his very dear servant in Matt. 8:5-13 and Lk. 7:1-10 may well been in love with him. It was common for a Roman slave owner to use slaves for sexual purposes, and soldiers often took along a male sexual partner. Matthew and Luke do not relate that Jesus reacted to any of this, but simply commended the Centurion's faith and told him his dear youth was healed.

Among the spurious texts, the old King James Version mentions "sodomites," a clear mistranslation, in Dt. 23:17; I Kgs 14:24, 15:12, 22:47; and 2 Kgs 23:7; although the same term in Gen 38:21 clearly means some kind of prostitute. The usual translations are cult prostitute, temple prostitute, or sacred prostitute.

How one evaluates something depends on the standards used. This is a work of popularization, depending in great part of research done by others, and it's a remarkably good one. It introduces one into biblical interpretation, placing a text in its historical context, determining the meaning of the actual words, and shows how such methods of study apply to the biblical texts that mention some sort of homosexual behavior. Dr. Helminiak also briefly summarizes some of the research into changing Christian attitudes toward homosexual behavior over the centuries and provides some references.

Helminiak does not cover all the scholarly interpretations of the texts, but then neither does any other book I am aware of. Sometimes, I prefer other interpretations, but I cannot exclude his. John Boswell and Robin Scroggs are well worth reading, as well. But he raises most of the major questions and provides intelligent answers. Also, it's a very clear read. It fully merits a 5 star rating.

Excellent Scholarship on Matters Causing Much Pain to Christians
This book is clearly written, well documented, and provides a detailed examination of all passages in the bible which appear to refer to homosexuality. It also contains important reflections on the nature of translation, interpretation, and changing views in society and how they influence our approach to the perceived law of God. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is concerned with homosexuality and Christianity. Even the most old fashioned fundamentalist will find things here to ponder. In a day and age when so many gay Christians are suffering persecution, inspite of their ardent desire to be united with the church, we owe it to ourselves to become informed on these topics. There is much scholarly debate on the subject, and we ought to seek knowledge in this area for our sake and the sake of all God's children. This book is an excellent start and a very thorough overview of the field.

Being Honest About the Bible
Helminiak's most important contribution to Biblical scholarship is not a new or creative viewpoint, but a readable summary of what we already know. And for me, the major revelation in Helminiak's book is not that homosexuality is okay, but that the Bible gives us what we need to understand this issue. A Christian only has to read Romans to learn that unrighteousness and uncleanness are two different things. The New Testament makes it clear that unrighteousness is inherently wrong, while uncleanness is not. And Paul clearly identifies homosexuality as uncleanness (Romans 1:26-27). We cannot honestly conclude from scripture, then, that homosexuality is wrong. This is only a small part of the Biblical evidence Helminiak presents, and all the evidence leads to the same conclusion.

With this information available, why do well-meaning Christians still argue that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong? I suggest that there are at least four reasons. First, the Bible has been mistranslated, and second, we read what we've been taught into scripture. Third, many Christians don't understand important Biblical concepts, such as uncleanness. And finally, people cling to their opinions so zealously that they even end up reinterpreting God's Word to avoid changing their own minds. As Helminiak suggests, Christians should get clear as to why they believe what they do, and stop imposing their own views on scripture. It's time to be honest about what the Bible says.