Does Leviticus Really Have a Secret History? By Peter West

     Does the Bible prohibit homosexuality? By that I mean, if you pick up the book and read various passages do you find an explicit condemnation of homosexual practices? Remember, this was a book written long ago by God (we believe), so it is possible that there could be a “slight” conflict between its contends and modern politically correct culture. Simply read chapter 18 of Leviticus, if you dare. Do it at night, under the bed, with a torch so no-one sees you, including spy cameras. Generally, the liberals agree that the Bible does condemn homosexuality and say, “well, too bad for the book, as gay practices are  correct and  good.” Ok, I will not discuss that,  suffering from intellectual cowardice. However, there is another approach to this debate, which rejects the common assumption here, that the Bible, especially Leviticus, does condemn homosexuality:
  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opinion/sunday/bible-prohibit-gay-sex.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion

     The reference is to a theological paper by Idan Dershowitz, “Revealing Nakedness and Concealing Homosexual Intercourse: Legal and Lexical Evolution in Leviticus 18,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, vol. 6, 2017, pp. 510-526. I managed to find a pre-print version on the net. The argument seems to be that some earlier document from which Leviticus was rewritten did approve of male-to-male sexual penetration. Don’t be offended for any primary school kid would have heard about that. The author discusses in detail the uses of the expression “uncover nakedness.” As well, various ancient Near Eastern texts are examined, which as I read it, basically went along the lines of Leviticus 18 as we know it, so wouldn’t that undermine the Harvard academic’s case? I could not find proof of the claim that the existing manuscript is a historical homophobic construction, which could mean that the author is wrong, or that I am simply out of my depth here. However, this guy is not, and he offers a refutation:
  http://www.gopusa.com/?p=50901?omhide=true

“The first huge problem with Dershowitz’s interpretation is the utter and complete lack of any textual evidence whatsoever for his proposition. The authoritative version of the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew text from which the Old Testament is translated) contains no alternative readings from any other extant Hebrew texts. (I checked my copy of the Masoretic Text just minutes ago.) Further, there is likewise no variant in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Masoretic Text that was produced in the third and second centuries before Christ. If these additions and emendations the writer imagines had actually happened, the Septuagint would reflect them. It doesn’t. So the writer’s theory fails to find any support of any kind in either the Hebrew text or the Septuagint translation. His theory should be ash-canned on those grounds alone.

The second huge problem with Dershowitz’s theory is that he utterly botches the interpretation of the phrase “to uncover the nakedness of.” The phrase is correctly interpreted as euphemism for sexual intercourse, as Dershowitz does. But the phrase always refers to a woman, and never to a man. For instance, he uses this verse to support his argument: “The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness” (emphasis his). The phrase “the nakedness of your father” is a reference to his wife; as her husband, her “nakedness” belongs exclusively to him and to no one else. So “the nakedness of your father” means the “nakedness of your mother” in this prohibition. This explains Genesis 9:22 where we find that Ham’s sin was that he “saw [another euphemism for intercourse] the nakedness of his father.” If the “nakedness of his father” represents a nakedness that properly belongs to Noah alone, then it is a reference to Ham having incestuous intercourse with his own mother. Canaan, then (Genesis 9:25), would be the offspring of this illicit union, which is why Canaan and his descendants were under the curse of God from day one.

Likewise, the author tries to make his point with another verse, but only confirms the theory I am advancing here.  “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother.’ Simple enough, right? The following gloss, however, may give you whiplash: ‘you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.'” The solution to Dershowitz’s puzzlement is simple: “the nakedness of your father’s brother” is a nakedness that belongs to him alone, and therefore refers to his uncle’s wife. Thus the phrase is, as Moses goes on to declare, a prohibition against a man sleeping with his aunt.”

     I hope that this explanation answers any questions raised by liberals about Leviticus 18. Still, we still have things like this to explain:
  https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/01/6-year-old-school-children-write-gay-love-letters-accepting-diversity/