DISPATCHES










I
think it was Umberto Eco who said that he dreaded reading the Bible as a teenager, until
he discovered how much sex was in it. He had a point: as early as Genesis 2, God
says, "It is not good for a man to be alone" (a belief I've long subscribed to), and he makes
first the animals, then Eve. I'd rather not comment on the order of these events — the

implications are clear to those who want them to be clear — I'd rather point out that Adam
gets a partner in Eden faster than most of us would at a sex addict's convention.


    

And such is the nature of the Bible as a whole: couplings are common, incest
omnipresent and innuendo aplenty. The Good Book does not lack for good parts,
especially the Old Testament — you just have to sift through endless lists of progeny and
litanies of the scourges inflicted on the Israelites to get to them.


    

Take the story of Abraham and Sarah (originally Abram and Sarai), the second sexually active couple
in Genesis. In the course of a few chapters, Sarah, while pretending to be Abraham's
sister to protect him, gets abducted into the Pharoah's harem (bad Pharoah, bad Pharoah),
proves herself to be Abraham's half-sister, gets released, then gets taken into Abimelech's
harem (who is warned by God not to go near her), gets released, convinces Abraham to
have a baby (Ishmael) with the maid Hagar, and eventually has a baby with him herself
(Isaac). So much happens so fast in the Bible, that reading it for naughty bits is like trying
to distinguish body parts in scrambled adult channels on TV. If your attention wavers for
even an instant, you risk missing the enchilada.


    

Amid all the wham-bam sex tales in the early books of the Old Testament, the most
interesting involve Lot and his daughters. Lot, you'll remember, was the one man in
Sodom that the Lord decided to save from the fire and brimstone. So he sends two angels

to Lot's house to warn him of the destruction and give him instructions for getting himself
and his family out of Dodge. Now the inhabitants of Sodom were not called Sodomites for
nothing, so when they see the two male angels — certified hotties — going into Lot's house,
they want a piece of the action. "Both old and young, all the people from every quarter"
circle around Lot's house, banging on his door, calling, "Where are the men which came in
to thee this night? Bring them to us that we may know them." Among the fabulous
euphemisms for sex in the King James translation, "to know" is one of my favorites. I
envision a mob of sex fiends hemmed in around Antonio Sabato Jr., screaming, "We want
to know you, we just want to know you." You get the point.


    

Lot realizes he has a difficult situation on his hands. So he goes out to the throng,
locking the door behind him, and says:

"I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters
which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to
them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they
under the shadow of my roof."

Here is a good example of what can transpire in the course of a few Biblical words.
You scan the line, scan it again, and say to yourself, In place of the angels, did Lot just
offer the crowd his virgin daughters to do with what they will? I mean, being a good host
is nice and all, but that seems a bit extreme. The mind reels — not unproductively — at what
would befall the innocents if they were cast to the awaiting wolves.


    

Thankfully, the angels intervene. They pull Lot back into the house and blind the

Sodomites pressing against the door. Then they facilitate Lot's exit, with wife and
daughters in tow, but, in their flight across the plain, Lot's wife makes the mortal mistake
of looking back (like many of us toward old relationships) and is turned into a pillar of salt.


    

Yet the saga of Lot and his daughters is not over. Having fled to the town of Zoar, he
eventually becomes afraid and moves himself and his daughters to the mountains.
Apparently it's a little underpopulated up there, and his daughters begin to despair of
ever getting nookie. The older says to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a
man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our
father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of the father."
Ah, the old Get Dad Drunk and Have Him Impregnate Us trick — pretty sneaky, Sis!
So on consecutive nights the daughters get Lot schnookered and go lie with him (again, a
nice euphemism, though not as good as "come in unto"). Lot, the sod, doesn't seem to
notice either time. Eventually each of his daughters gives birth to a son.


    

Now, mind you, all this has happened in the first twenty pages of the Bible (at least in my
edition). This is some kind of book. By comparison, the first twenty pages of Best
American Erotica 1999
contain nowhere near as much sex, and a fraction of the
scandal. True, conventional erotica tends to have more adjective-heavy descriptions of sex
than one finds in the Holy Book (the Song of Solomon is the exception, as we will see),
but for sheer quantity of nudge nudge, the Bible is up there.


    

By and large, the Old Testament is a very weird document, full of bizarre and rather
unsavory tidbits that the New Testament tried to smooth over. Even God himself had to be
rendered kinder and gentler the second time around, for in the Hebrew books he was
forever casting plagues and famines down on the people, and insisting on himself as a

"consuming fire" and a "jealous God." In Isaiah 3, for example, the "haughty" daughters
of Zion with their "wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go and making a tinkling
with their feet" will be smote down by the Lord, and he will discover their "secret parts."
Ooh. Best take off those bangles before it's too late.


    

But my favorite Old Testament oddity occurs in Deuteronomy 23, where, in a list of
all those who will not make it to Heaven, it is written: "He that is wounded in the
stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
Rum thing, not only do you have to go through this life without the priviest of privies, but
the gates of Paradise are closed to you to boot (and the fact that you can sing a decent
falsetto is pretty minor recompense). Yet the intrigue of this passage doesn't end there:
why, in fact, are the memberless or the crushed-testicled not welcome into the New
Jerusalem? Interesting question. There are numerous medieval theological debates about
whether angels eat and drink, piss and shit (and where it goes if they do), but I've
never heard anyone ask if they screw. Yet here is evidence that the celestial
nightclub serves up more than just juice and cookies. Perhaps this is not the venue to
reinscribe us in thirteenth-century scholastic arguments, but the point is still intriguing: if it
was just sex the elect were after, the penis would be enough. But if the balls are also
necessary, this suggests a certain import to the physical male orgasm itself. To my mind,
this complicates Aquinas' notion that the postprandial material discharge of angels is only a
vapor (but not a flatulence, mind you); for even if we agree that angel excretion is but gas,
what are we to do with angel jizz? I'm sure Aquinas would have said it was some kind of
noumenal hand lotion.




Even in the briefest of introductions to sex in the Old Testament, no account can ignore one of
the most erotic, exquisite texts not just in the Bible, but in the whole history of Western
literature: the Song of Solomon.
In all the reams of Biblical interpretation, this is the text
that has received the most treatment. The reasons are twofold: the Song of Solomon is
sufficiently explicit to be embarrassing to the anti-sensuality of the later Christian church,
and thus required extensive backpedaling. This is the obvious, confessed reason so many
monks spilled their ink on its pages. The other, only slightly less obvious, is that it is very
fun to read, and decidedly arousing, especially if the only other thing you're reading is
Samuel and Jeremiah's accounts of the punishments visited upon the wicked.


    

In effect, the Song of Solomon is generally agreed to be a dialogue between two lovers
(although I, for one, detect more than two total speakers, but that truly is a debate

outside our scope), one called Solomon (not necessarily the famous King who appears
elsewhere in the Old Testament), the other his unnamed lover, who, by some accounts, may
have written the piece. Orthodox Christian interpretations attempt to downplay the hot and
heavy eroticism in the Song by saying that the female lover is the Church, Solomon is
Christ and their love is the spiritual union of the material Christian apparatus with the
higher spiritual forces.


    

Yeah right. The Song begins: "The song of songs, which is Solomon's. Let him kiss me with
the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine." If the point here was supposed
to be that the Church wants to merge itself with the love of Christ the Savior, there
would have been considerably less distracting ways of saying it. No — the Song of
Solomon is a love poem, and the love is a very corporeal one. That it made it into the
foundational book of Christianity is a mystery beyond my comprehension. But, like the
Psalms, here is a part of the Bible that can be read purely for the love of its poetry.


    

I'm touched all the more by the Song for the occasional odd chord it strikes. Such compliments as "thy neck is
like the tower David builded for an armory" or "they hair is as a flock of goats, that
appear from mount Gilead" have perhaps lost some of their charm in the last few thousand
years (a modern adaptation might be: thy hair is like dark-suited businessmen, leaping out
of skyscrapers on Black Monday). And there are moments that seem downright overdone: "My beloved put in his hand by
the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him."


    

For the most part, though, the poem's imagery is most pleasantly evocative. A few
highlights: the lover says that her beloved "feeds among the lilies" and that her hands,
when she rises up to him, are "dropped with myrrh." And Solomon, meanwhile, says to her, "Thy
lips, O my spouse, drop as honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue." And she back
to him: "Blow on my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into
his garden, and eat the pleasant fruits." Heart be stilled!



Fan though I am, I hadn't read much of the Bible until I went to graduate school and, on a
rather prolonged lark, decided to become a medievalist. As a result, I found myself a
late twentysomething pagan having to read the whole of the Good Book. I did it straight
through — not quickly, mind you, but steadily. What I discovered between the now
worn-off covers of my Red Letter edition corresponded so minimally to what I had
anticipated I wondered if I had the right religion. The sex and sexual oddities were only
some of the Bible's unforeseen pleasures (others include the almost James Bond-like
coolness of Christ, the beauty of Paul's prose, the phenomenal stories of Job and Ruth,
the bombast of Ezekiel, et cetera.). Having now read the entire Bible multiple times over, I am
still a pagan, but I'm all for placing copies in every hotel room. It's the most
influential book in Western culture, and it's a lot better than TV.






©1999
Jack
Murnighan and Nerve.com

Commentarium (14 Comments)

Aug 11 00 - 5:18pm
ggg

Jack zu saugen:

'Now the inhabitants of Sodom were not called Sodomites for nothing, so when they see the two male angels certified hotties going into Lot's house, they want a piece of the action. "Both old and young, all the people from every quarter" circle around Lot's house, banging on his
door, calling, "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them to us that we may know them." Among the fabulous euphemisms for sex in the King James translation, "to know" is one of my favorites. I envision a mob of sex fiends hemmed in around Antonio Sabato Jr., screaming, "We want to know you, we just want to know you." You get the
point. '

this is distressing. i do get the point, and the point is to get a couple of cheap yucks out of nerve's readership. rejoice in the euphemism alway: and again i say rejoice. but you're talking about a 400-year-old ENGLISH euphemism, and thereby misleading your readers.

many biblical scholars (notably, john boswell) quibble about the translation "know," pointing out that the original verb "yada" is NOT the one that's generally used in the OT to translate into carnal knowledge. of 943 usages of "yada" all but 10 are in the context of becoming acquainted. the *other* word that often got king-jamesed into "know" was "shakab" -- this one's unambiguously sexual. anyhow, it is *not* cut-and-dry that the bastards at the door were libidinous; they may have just wanted to fuck *with* somebody.

yada yada yada.

furthermore, against the common perception that homosexual behavior was THE abominable sin for which the LORD destroyed sodom, note that the prophet ezekiel, channeling yahweh, spake otherwise: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance
of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Eze. 16:49, 50). the "abomination" referred to here, BTW, is in fact "tow'ebah", which translates literally to "idol worship". in ezekiel and elsewhere, sodom is consistently refered to as the "sister" of jerusalem, and the authors often (e.g., Isaiah 3:8-9; Jeremiah 23:14, and Ezekiel 16:51) rank jerusalem as significantly more slatternly.

Now, mind you, this was a very entertaining ramble. verily did i chuckle with many chuckles till the sides of my sides did ache. i just start to itch when i see that commonest of oversimplifications (if not downright obfuscations) being perpetuated by the Certifiably Bright.

Sep 11 00 - 1:34pm
Ella

I told you the Holy Bible is worth reading.

Oct 19 00 - 8:04pm
erq

Oh, how wonderfully satisfying an article.

Yeah, I too read the entire Bible at a fairly young age and wondered if I had the right book. This couldn't be the same as the one they talked about in my Episcopalian confirmation class. Maybe they thought the language of the King James version would hide everything from us. But some of us had already struggled through Shakespeare. Nothing was hidden.

And nothing I've read since could even compare.

Nov 15 01 - 1:15pm
acq

Sometimes I am surprised that those who think the Bible is....the Holy Book, and condemn others based on the Scripture for "fornication" etc. don't pause and wonder at the irony...

Jan 02 02 - 2:24am
AW

As a christian and religion major who found may way to this web site, I was pretty impressed. I was actaully surprised it didn't mention Hoseah being married to a prostitute. I have enjoyed the rich literature in the Bible for years and am glad to see other people discovering all the great stuff in there.

Feb 20 02 - 11:53pm
av

It's an interesting article but hardly deep enough for one who claims to be a medievalist - I think the writer does not understand how to work at the level of multiple interpretations - the bible is both a "readerly" text and a "writerly" text ... so it can be handled in many ways and the way he has chosen to do it is kind of juvenile for those who have "been there done that" in terms of seeing the sex and incest stuff - however the last line has "the ring of truth" (i am sure the writer hasnt read that book by j.b. phillips - highly recommended) when he says that it is more interesting than tv - congrats anyway you should get a lot of response to this piece ...

Jul 05 02 - 3:13pm
T.M.

Did the one lover say she shitted her pants at the sight of her lover??????????

Nov 02 02 - 11:49am

fuck off

Nov 27 02 - 12:42pm
E.P.

The Bible Inherently has Sex whithin it as any anthology of history. Of course there was incest rampant among the verses and stories because there were a limited amount of People(families) around(line of Adam plus some oddly scattered people in the world[Genesis]). Oddly enough, the initial rule was to be fruitful and multiply. And if anyone can tell me how homopsexuality can bring about children(no adoption, no artificial insemenation, no cloning) let me know.

Jun 11 03 - 9:27am
WC

One of the most interesting things I've ever read by a professing pagan. Did Murningham ever notice that pagans get the least and worst sex in the Bible? Maybe it ain't only celestial...?

Oct 01 10 - 3:11pm
serialcrack

Yes, sure, I like it, Interesting and educational. Please continue to write more interesting post in your website.

Feb 08 11 - 10:24am
Rapidshare Lillian

Man, you wrote a long text.

Feb 18 11 - 6:50am
Download Alyson

Each month, we get hundreds of questions from our readers

Aug 29 11 - 5:25pm
Missy

If you're reading this, you're all set, padnrer!