Tyndale or Tanakh? Tracing the Metamorphosis of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

There is a consensus among scholars that the prohibited act in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is anal intercourse between males, and translations typically read as if the prohibitions were directed to the active party; below, for example, are the renditions from the NJPS: Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence (Lev. 18:22). If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death – their bloodguilt is upon them (Lev. 20:13).

So a man is not to lie down with a male in the same way that he would lie down with a woman, that is, in order to sexually penetrate the party he was lying down with; in the second passage, the passive party is found culpable along with the active party.

The predecessor of the NJPS was the 1917 JPS, whose renderings of the passages are materially the same: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination (Lev. 18:22). And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Lev. 20:13).

The wording here is exactly the same as that of the Revised Version (or English Revised Version) and the American Standard Version. So was the NJPS translated from scratch, or is it a modernized version of the 1917 JPS, which is dependent upon the RV and the ASV?

A case has been made in recent biblical scholarship that the sense of the original Hebrew isn’t that of a male lying down with another male as he would lie down with a woman in order to sexually penetrate the woman but rather that of a male lying down with another male in order to be penetrated as if he were the woman. In other words, the passages were directed toward the passive party rather than the active party; the argument is made that the passages actually read as follows:¹ ‘v’et zachar lo tishkav mishkevei isha’ and with a male you shall not lie down lyings down of a woman (Lev. 18:22a); ‘v’ish asher yishkav mishkevei isha’ and a man who lies down with a male lyings down of a woman (Lev. 20:13a).

Here, it is argued, to “lie down lyings down (mishkevei) of a woman” means to lie down the way a woman would lie down in order to be the passive party during coitus; free, adult Israelite men were being enjoined from doing this. Although “lying down lyings down” might seem an unusual turn of phrase, it is right at home with other Hebrew phraseology employing cognate accusatives such as “sinning sins” and “dreaming dreams.”²

This raises the question that if the prohibitions were originally directed toward the passive party, how did they get turned around as if to apply to the active party? Answering that question requires a little scholarly detective work, following the translation of the Hebrew into the Latin of the Vulgate, the Latin of the Vulgate into German, the influence of a particular German translation of the Vulgate on Martin Luther, the influence of Luther’s own German translation upon William Tyndale, and Tyndale’s influence on subsequent English translations, perhaps up to and including the NJPS.³

When the Hebrew was translated into the Latin of the Vulgate, the passages were rendered as follows: cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo, with a male you shall not be joined in womanly copulation (Lev. 18:22a); qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo, a man who sleeps with a male in womanly copulation (Lev. 20:13a).

Whereas the Hebrew versions of the Levitical passages employ concrete imagery describing the act of a man’s lying down the way a woman would lie down, the language of the Vulgate is more abstract, “womanly copulation” perhaps leaving some readers wondering whether it was the passive party or the active party who was being addressed; such ambiguity may have influenced subsequent attempts at translating from the Latin.

In 1466 Johann Mentelin produced the first printed German translation of the Vulgate in Strassburg; the German was a fairly straightforward rendering of the Latin:⁴ Nicht vermiſche dich mit dem menlichen in weiplichen vnkeuſchungen, Do not join yourself with the male in womanly copulation (Lev. 18[19] 22a); Der do ſchlefft mit einem menlichen in weiplichen vnkeuſchunge, Whoever sleeps with a male in womanly copulation (Lev. 20[21]13a).

The printed German translations of the Vulgate produced by Heinrich Eggestein in Strassburg in 1470–1472 and by Jodocus Pflanzmann in Augsburg in 1475 essentially followed the Mentelin wording.

The printed German translations of the Vulgate produced by Günther Zainer in Augsburg in 1474–1476 and in 1477, however, although following the aforementioned printings in the wording of Leviticus 18:22, featured a significant departure in the wording of Leviticus 20:13: Der do ſchlafft bei einem knaben in weiblicher vnkeuſchung, Whoever sleeps with a boy in womanly copulation (Lev. 20:13a).

Although the Leviticus 18:22 passage of this printing follows the others in referring to a male, the Leviticus 20:13 passage refers to a knaben or boy.⁵ The translator most certainly didn’t have in mind an admonition against a man’s lying down to be anally penetrated by a boy; rather, the translator construed the passage as dealing with the activity of the active rather than the passive party and took it as an admonition against a man’s lying down with a boy as if with a woman. Subsequent German editions by other printers followed suit, incorporating “boy” into Leviticus 20:13. Included among these were the printings by Johann Sensenschmidt of Nürnberg in 1476–1478; by Anton Sorg of Augsburg in 1477 and 1480; by Anton Koberger of Nürnburg in 1483; by Johann (Reinhard) Grüninger of Strassburg in 1485; and by Johann Schönsperger of Augsburg in 1487 and 1490.

The appearance of this anomaly in the Leviticus 20:13 passage raises a couple of questions: First, why was it not also found in the Leviticus 18:22 passage? And second, why did the translator render the Latin masculo “male” as the German knaben “boy”? The most obvious explanation for the difference between the sets of passages is that they were probably translated by different parties. As to the second question, the translator may have been attempting to restrict the scope of the passages solely to exploitive sexual activity such as pederasty, the implication being that acts between consenting adult males would not fall within the scope of the passage.⁶ Smuggling “boy” into the German translation may have also been veiled finger-pointing done in the context of possible ongoing sexual abuse of boys by clerics at the time.

When Martin Luther produced his translation of the Pentateuch in 1523, both passages had knaben or “boy” instead of the expected “male”:⁷ Du ſolt nicht bey knaben liegen wie beym weyb, You shall not with (a) boy lie as with the woman (Lev. 18:22a); Wenn yemand beym knaben ſchlefft wie beym weybe, If anyone with the boy sleeps as with the woman (Lev. 20:13a).

Although Luther had boasted of translating directly from the Hebrew – and this is evident in much of his work – it doesn’t appear to be the case here. He was a Vulgate scholar in his own right, he had familiarized himself with the preceding German translations of the Vulgate, and here he appears to be drawing from those sources more than actually translating from the Hebrew. Following the lead of the translator who smuggled “boy” into Leviticus 20:13, Luther went on to make Leviticus 18:22 also conform to that structure by substituting “boy” for “male” in that verse as well.

Of particular interest is Luther’s use of “wie beym” in the Levitical passages; a man is not supposed to lie down with a boy or sleep with a boy “as with” a woman. This “as with” phraseology is not found in the original Hebrew, nor in the Greek of the Septuagint, nor in the Latin of the Vulgate, nor in any of the German translations of the Vulgate. It does, however, later show up in William Tyndale’s English translation of the Pentateuch in 1530:⁸ Thou ſhalt not lye with mankynde as with womankynde (Lev. 18:22a). Yf a man lye with the mankynde after the maner as with womã kynd (Lev. 20:13a).

It is obvious here that Tyndale didn’t translate the Levitical passages from the Hebrew but rather appropriated them from Luther, with one conspicuous divergence: he knew – probably from his familiarity with the Vulgate – that the passages dealt with males rather than boys, and so employed the word “mankynde” in his translation. Of course “mankynde” could also include boys, so by his choice of that word he wouldn’t necessarily come across as attempting to challenge the translation produced by the leading figure of the Reformation, Luther himself. The common denominator in both translations is that they are mistakenly directed to the active party rather than the passive party as indicated in the Hebrew. Subsequent English translations right on up to the present have tended to follow Tyndale in the substance of their renderings of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the NJPS perhaps being no exception.

In conclusion, the actual reading of the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 directs those prohibitions to the passive party in male-on-male sex; free, adult Israelite men were being admonished not to submit to anal penetration by another male. German translations of the Vulgate, however, changed the sense of Leviticus 20:13 to make it apply to an active party engaging in pederasty, and Luther adopted that reading and extended it to Leviticus 18:22 as well. Tyndale followed Luther in making the passages apply to the active party but parted company with Luther as far as specifying that the passive party was a boy. Modern English translations – including the RV and ASV – have tended to follow Tyndale, the result being that the passages have been mistranslated for five centuries. A popular current interpretation of the passages is that they only applied to idolatrous or exploitive acts by the active party; but if the passages are in fact directed to the passive party, then any instance of male-on-male anal penetration would have to be considered taboo.