The Hermeneutics of Abomination: On Gay Men,

Canaanites, and Biblical Interpretation

Ken Stone

Abstract

A number of readers have claimed that injunctionsagainst male homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible are aimed
at cultic prostitution supposedly practiced by non-Israelites. Although several scholars have questioned the
historical basis for this claim, less attention has been given to the ideological assumptions that underlie the
hermeneutic argument. While cultic prostitutes may or may not have existed, the Hebrew Bible does attempt to
link non-Israelitepopulations to sexual practices that are considered unacceptable by its authors. This attempt is
an example of a common rhetorical move whereby the “other”is defined in relation to deviant sexual practice.
Ironically,gay readers who rely upon this hermeneutic strategy participate in a process, already begun in the Hebrew
Bible and taken further by its readers, in which sexual practice becomes the basis for insult, stereotyping, and
condemnation. Since the reliance upon such a common mode ofethnic stereotyping cannot be accepted, gay and
gay-affirmative readers need to replace such a “hermeneuticsof abomination”with a critical study of the relations
between gender ideologies and assumptions about sexual practice that are presupposed by the biblical texts.

f
A debates about homosexuality continue to take place
in religious, political, and social contexts, it is important for
thinkers on all sides of the debates to reflect critically on the
assumptions that frame the discussion. Toward that end, the
present article examines a particular hermeneutic argument
that has been deployed by a number of gay-affirmative
readers of the Hebrew Bible. Although I raise a number of
critical questions about this hermeneutic, my intention is
not to attack gay-affirmative readings. O n the contrary, after
discussing some of the problems that seem to me to underlie
a number of those readings, I return in my conclusions to
some brief suggestions about alternative gay-affirmative ap-
proaches to biblical interpretation. My focus, however, is on
a disturbing hermeneutic practice that has implications far
beyond contemporary debates about same-sex relationships.
Elements of this hermeneutic practice d o appear in some
gay-affirmative interpretations ofthe Hebrew Bible, but they
can also be found in much biblical scholarship and, indeed,
in the biblical texts themselves.
The Question of “Cultic Prostitution”
in the biblical texts. That object (it is further claimed) was
not homosexuality as such, but rather cultic sexual activity
or sacred prostitution. This practice (it is still further
claimed) was fairly common among Israel’s neighbors and
included as a subset the practice of homosexual sacred
prostitution. What is actually condemned, then, is not male
homosexuality in general (still less female homosexuality,
which is not even mentioned in the Hebrew Bible), but,
rather, a certain sort of religious sexual practice. T h e appar-
ent prohibition of male homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible
is thus linked to the condemnation of idolatry.
There are, to be sure, gay-affirmative interpretations of
the Hebrew Bible that make n o mention of this argument
(see, e.g., Comstock). Nevertheless, various forms of the
argument can be found throughout the literature on homo-
sexuality and the Bible (see, e.g., Horner 1978: 59-85;
Edwards 1984: 47-69). In addition, popular versions of the
argument circulate in both written and oral form within
lesbian and gay religious communities.
It should be noted that formulations of this argument
generally make a number of important points. It is certain,

T h e specific gay-affirmative interpretations that serve
as my point of departure can be summarized, in a n admit-
tedly simplistic fashion, as follows. While the Hebrew Bible
does appear to condemn male homosexuality, this appear-
ance (it is claimed) is at least partly mistaken and is based
on a failure to perceive differences benveen homosexuality
as we know it today and the precise object of condemnation
Ken Stone, Ph.D. (Vanderbilt University) is the author of SEX,
HOXOR,AND POWER IN THE DEUTEROSOMSTIC HISTORY (Shef-
field, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996),and Gender and Homo-
sexuality in Judges 19: Subject-Honor, Object-Shame! JOURNAL FOR
THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 67 (1995): 87-107. He is
Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible at the Chicago Theological
Seminary, 5757 South University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637
(e-mail: 735 13.602@compuserve.com).

36
 Scone, “The Hermenetctics of Abomination”
for example, that the Hebrew Bible does not condemn
female homosexuality, though there is less agreement about
why this is so and what conclusions we ought to draw from
this silence. One can also affirm that, whatever the biblical
attitudes toward homosexual practices, the authors of the
biblical texts had no familiarity with the specific cultural
forms and subjectivities associated today with lesbian and
gay communities. A great deal of historical and cross-cul-
tural research suggests that socio-cultural manifestations
and conceptualizations of sexual activities in general, and
sexual and social activities between men or between women
in particular, are extraordinarily diverse (see, e.g., Dover,
Greenberg, Halperin, Lancaster, Ortner 6r Whitehead, and
Winkler). This being the case, there is no obvious reason
why biblical views on sexual matters ought to be exempt from
the sorts of historicizing analysis that even lay readers of the
Bible often apply to biblical views of, among other things,
the creation and structure of the universe, the ordering of
the nations of the world through fictive genealogies, or the
defiling potential of menstruation. The argument that bibli-
cal condemnations of homosexuality are actually condem-
nations of cultic prostitution is in fact one attempt at such
an historicizing analysis, even if it is (as I shall argue below)
a flawed one.
The origins of this particular interpretation are, how-
ever, rather complicated, and they predate current contro-
versies about the relationship between religious
communities and sexual minorities. Indeed, gay and gay-af-
firmative readers who utilize this argument generally rely
upon historical-critical sources that express little or no in-
terest in debates about homosexuality. One source that is
frequently cited in this regard is Norman Snaith‘s commen.
tary on Leviticus and Numbers, in which Snaith argued that
homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus “on account of its
association with idolatry” (Snaith: 126). This association
was made in the minds of the authors of Leviticus, according
to Snaith, by their observation of the sacred or temple
prostitution that, Snaith assumed, was practiced among
Israel’s neighbors and was always in danger of being taken
up by the Israelites themselves.
IfSnaith, writing thirty years ago, belonged to a minority
of scholars in his belief that the Levitical condemnations of
male homosexuality were actually condemnations of cultic
prostitution, the belief in cultic prostitution itself, as an
institution practiced among Israel’s neighbors, has been
much more widespread. Indeed, there are numerous writings
on the religion and history of Israel that attempt to distin-
guish Israel from its Canaanite neighbors by arguing that the
Canaanites practiced what Albright, for example, refers to
as “sexual abuses in the service of religion” (Albright 1968:
132). In a fascinating series of interpretive moves, “Canaan-
ite religion” has for decades been conflated with a vaguely
defined “fertilityreligion,” which in turn has been associated
with so-called sacred, cultic, or temple prostitution. These
characterizations ofwhat is sometimes called the “Sex Cult”
(Wolff: 14) often aim at a moral differentiation of Israelite
religion from Canaanite religion and, consequently, a justi-
fication of the sharp condemnation of the Canaanites that
one finds in the Hebrew Bible. Such condemnation was
necessary, argues Hans Walter Wolff, to combat “the inroads
of a Canaanite sexual rite into Israel” (ibid.).
The belief among biblical scholars in some sort of “tem-
ple prostitution” has by no means disappeared (see, e.g., Day;
cf. van der Toorn). Nevertheless, the link between Canaan-
ite religion and ritual sexuality has recently come under a
great deal of criticism from scholars who point out that the
evidence for cultic sexual activities among Israel’s neighbors
is, in fact, rather minimal. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, for exam-
ple, is one of several scholars who argue on the basis of this
lack of evidence that the Hebrew Bible itself does not believe
in such activity. The qedeshim and qedeshot, often identified
as “cultic prostitutes,” are indeed religious functionaries
condemned by the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, Frymer-
Kensky points out that there is no unambiguous evidence
that sexual activity formed part of their duties or even that
the Hebrew Bible claims as much (Frymer-Kensky: 199-202;
see also Westenholz, Henshaw, Hooks, and Bird).
Following a different line of argument, Robert Oden
argued several years ago that the Hebrew Bible does posit
the existence of sacred prostitution among Israel’s neigh-
bors, but went on to point out that little or no other con-
temporary evidence can be adduced to support such a claim.
Oden concludes that the charge is not historical fact but
rather ideological accusation, an accusation that emerged as.
part of an attempt at symbolic self-definition. Trying to
soIidify the boundaries of their own religious and ethnic
identity, the authors of the biblical texts defined Israel over
against a caricature of her neighbors and predecessors, a
caricature that included the accusation of cultic prostitu-
tion.
In making this argument, Oden builds upon the influ-
ential work of anthropologist Fredrik Barth, who named as
one of the sets ofcriteria by whichethnicgroups differentiate
themselves “basic value orientation,” “the standards of rno-
rality and excellency by which performance is judged”
(Barth: 14, quoted by Oden: 133). Oden’s appeal to Barth‘s
work as a tool for understanding certain biblical comments
on the sexual practices of other nations is significant. Even
if Oden’s work needs to be read together with that of
Frymer-Kensky and others (who suggest that the accusation
of sacred prostitution may actually postdate the biblical
texts), Oden has indeed pointed to a process that already
begins in the biblical texts themselves. Specifically, the
biblical texts do link the establishment of Israelite identity
37
 BIBLICALTHEOLOGY BULLETIN
to “standards of morality” that include a certain distinction
between proper and deviant sexual practice.
This link is articulated among other places in chapters
18 and 20 of Leviticus-those chapters, in other words,
where male homosexual contact is forbidden. Both chapters
set up a sharp, rhetorical distinction between the Israelites
and the population that, according to the biblical narratives,
dwelt in the land before the Israelites. While the proscrip-
tions against certain sexual acts are assumed to be relevant
to both the Israelites and the other nations, these nations
are mentioned primarily because they have already been cast
out of the land. They suffered this fate, according to the
discourse of Leviticus, because they practiced those “abomi-
nations” that God is now forbidding to the Israelites.
Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these
practices the nations I amcastingout before you have defiled
themselves. Thus the land became defiled; and I punished
it for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and
commit none of these abominations,either the citizen or the
alien who resides among you (for the inhabitants of the land,
who were before you, committed all of these abominations,
and the land became defiled); otherwise the land will vomit
you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was
before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations
shall be cut off from their people. So keep my charge not to
commit any of these abominations that were done before
you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD
your God [Lev 18:24-30, NRSV].
This rhetoric serves first and foremost as a warning to the
Israelites (and perhaps, ifwe date these verses duringor after
the exile, as an after-the-fact explanation at a time when the
Israelites, too, have been removed from the land). Never-
theless, it also serves to differentiate the other nations from
the Israelites, to assert their unwillingness to follow the path
that God wishes Israel to follow, and to justifi the removal
of the nations from the land that God has promised to the
Israelites.
Only a small step was required for biblical scholars to
move from reading a passage such as this to attempting to
describe the supposed sexual abominations of the Canaan-
ites. If it is true that many scholars went further in their
reconstructions than either the biblical texts or the non-bib-
lical evidence should have allowed, the impetus to such a
“hermeneutics of abomination” is nevertheless present in
biblical texts such as Leviticus. The link between sexual
abomination and the ethnic Other has already been made.
The forging of such links is by no means simply a
characteristic of biblical texts and biblical scholars. On the
contrary, the tendency to define the Other on the basis of
the Other’s supposed deviant sexual practices, and SO to
define oneself by way of contrast, is extremely widespread.
As Sander Gilman suggests, “For a secure definition of self,
sexuality and the loss of control associated with it must be
38
Vol. 27
projected onto the Other” (Gilman: 24). Anthropological
research seems to confirm that the tendency to condemn
members of other ethnic groups on the basis of their sup-
posed sexual habits and family practices often results not
from empirical observation of activities that conflict with
one’s own norms but, rather, from attempts at self-definition
(cf., e.g., Abu-Lughod: 48).
This point seems particularly relevant when we are
speaking about the Canaanites. One might argue that the
vehemence with which the abominations of the Canaanites
have been denounced, by both biblical texts and biblical
scholars, is related to the severity of the ambiguity of Israelite
identity. That ambiguity is much more apparent today than
it was when Albright, Snaith, and others wrote. Not only has
it become increasingly difficult to differentiate the Israelites
from their neighbors on the basis of sexual practice; the
differentiation of Israelites and Canaanites as such is much
more problematic today than it was once thought to be (see
Lemche). While it was once standard to distinguish clearly
between Israelite and Canaanite religions, many contempo-
rary scholars of Israelite religion now agree with the alterna-
tive conclusion that “it is essential to consider biblical
religion as a subset of Canaanite religion” (Coogan: 115);
and whereas biblical scholars, following the biblical texts,
once assumed a sharp demarcation between Israelite and
Canaanite populations and cultures, a growing number of
historians accept the view that “the Israelite societies and
their culture were an integral part of the Canaanite scene
and should be seen as a continuation of the Late Bronze
traditions rather than as intrusive” (Ahlstrom: 118). Such
conclusions indicate that a rhetorical distinction between
Israelite and Canaanite sexual practices probably needs to
be discarded as well. Attempts to use the supposed existence
of Canaanite cultic prostitution to account for biblical con-
demnations of male homosexuality simply reproduce this
distinction, a distinction that probably has less to do with
historical reality than with symbolic ideology.
Critical Reflections
Now, if my concern here were simply historiography or
the use of historical research by gay-affirmative readers, I
might conclude at this point with a gesture that is fairly
standard in discussions of biblical theology. Having pointed
out the growing implausibility of a historical scenario upon
which a theological argument has been made to rest, I might
simply urge that gay-affirmative readers find a more plausible
historical reconstruction upon which to build their case. I
wish instead, however, to turn aside from the question of
ancient history and religion in order to point out two addi-
tional reasons why the use of this scenario by gay and
gay-affirmativeinterpreters ought to be viewed with a critical
 Stone, “The Hermeneutics of Abomination”
eye. The first of these reasons can be referred to as an irony;
the second, as a legacy.
The irony emerges in a discussion by philosopher Iris
Marion Young of the relations between the establishment of
self-identity and the demonizing of the Other. Young, build-
ing upon Julia Kristeva’s notion of the Abject, points out
that much of this demonizing takes place because of the basic
insecurity occasioned by the presence of the Other. This
insecurity arises in part because the Other is not quite so
different from oneself as one might wish to believe. The
Other challenges the security of the boundary of one’s Self.
Hence, xenophobia arises as part of an attempt to establish
those boundaries and avoid the “fear, nervousness, and
aversion’’ (Young: 146) that result from this potential fluid-
ity.
It is perhaps easy to imagine a scenario in which, in the
exilic or post-exilic era, authors concerned about the estab-
lishment ofIsraelite boundaries might succumb tosuch “fear,
nervousness, and aversion” and articulate it in relation to
laws about proper and improper sexual conduct. The irony
involved in the contemporary appropriation of this discourse
by gay and gay-affirmativereaders is that, as Young suggests,
“Homophobia is the paradigm of such border anxiety”
(Young: 146). This paradigmatic status can be explained in
part when the category of homosexuality is compared with
such categories as race and gender, categories that, accu-
rately or not, are often thought to rest upon visible biological
differences. The category of homosexuality, on the other
hand, is one whose differentiation from its supposed oppo-
site, heterosexuality, is generally considered to be more
difficult to establish. One can never quite be certain that the
person beside whom one is sitting is heterosexual; and, this
being the case, one’s own heterosexuality becomes more
uncertain and more in need of being affirmed to others and
to oneself.
Given Young‘s argument that homophobia is the very
paradigm of border anxiety, gay and gay-affirmative readers
who make use of a theory about Israelite condemnations of
Canaanite cultic prostitution may be utilizing a hermeneutic
that rests upon an extremely dangerous series ofgestures. In
this series, someone (say, an “Israelite”or a “heterosexual”)
attempts to establish an identity by making a supposedly
clear and unambiguous distinction between Self and some
Other (say, a “Canaanite” or a “homosexual”). In order to
do so, the subject making the distinction seizes upon quali-
ties or characteristics-often exaggerated or, in some cases,
made up altogether-with which one can represent to one-
self and to others the distinction between Self and Other.
This representation then becomes, almost always, a basis for
condemnation of the Other. One need only compare the
lurid references to supposed Canaanite cultic sexual prac-
tices, on the one hand, with contemporary sensationalized
descriptions of the sexual practices ofgay men, on the other
hand, to recognize a possible rhetorical parallel. Precisely
because such a series of moves has often been used in
anti-gay rhetoric, it is ironic and disturbing that gay readers
of the Bible have been so quick to accept and make use of
the Bible’s own “hermeneutics of abomination” when it has
seemed convenient to do so.
That gay-affirmative readers have seldom noticed this
irony is perhaps due to the legacy to which I earlier referred.
The particular legacy I have in mind is the recurring ten-
dency to link constructions of ethnic boundaries with accu-
sations of sexual deviance. This link is incredibly persistent
across time and space, and has been pointed out by, among
others, Edward Said in his well known critique of Oriental-
ism. I draw attention to Said’s work because I suspect that
the tradition among Orientalists of attributing to the “Ori-
ental Other” a supposedly exotic and deviant sexuality may
lie behind much of the discourse on Canaanite sex cults that
recurs throughout the literature on Israelite history and
religion. The ties between modern biblical scholarship and
the sort oforientalism criticized by Said are perhaps far more
numerous than biblical scholars have usually cared to rec-
ognize.
But one need not go so far afield to find the legacy with
which I am here concerned. On the contrary, there is a long
history in the United States of attributing sexual deviance
(variously defined, of course) to ethnic and racial minorities
(cf.Hernton). This history has already been noted in relation
to biblical hermeneutics by Randall Bailey, who locates
himself as an African American biblical critic who has “lived
my life. ..in a society that has used sexual stereotyping as
a means of sanctioning its racist practices.” From this loca-
tion, Bailey criticizes biblical texts in which the “use of
sexuality by either innuendo or graphic detail functions
literarily as part ofan agenda ofdiscrediting these individuals
and nations and thereby sanctioning, or sanctifying,Israelite
hatred and oppression of these people” (Bailey: 124). The
section of Leviticus 18 quoted above is certainly one such
biblical text.
In light of the devastating consequences of this legacy,
I suggest that the apologetic approach to biblical condem-
nations of homosexuality, which interprets such condemna-
tions as a reaction against supposed Canaanite sexual
abominations, ought to be abandoned as a theological argu-
ment by gay and gay-affirmative readers. Even if it could be
shown that ancient non-Israelite sexual practices were in
some remarkable way different from ancient Israelite sexual
practices, such a differentiation should not be used theologi-
cally to excuse or justify the narrated extermination of
ancient peoples. Yet this is exactly how such differentiations
have been used by readers of the Bible in the past (Albright
39
 BIBLICALTHEOLOGY BULLETIN
being perhaps the most notorious example; see Albright
1957: 280-81) and, indeed, by the Bible itself.
Hence, the use among gay and gay-affirmative scholars
of a “hermeneutics of abomination” fails not simply on the
basis of historical criteria. It fails also, and perhaps more
importantly, when it is weighed against ideological and
moral criteria. Not only does such a hermeneutic display
structural similarities to homophobic reactions against gay
men, lesbians, and their sexual practices; it also replicates a
hermeneutic process that has been used, and no doubt
continues to be used in some places, to justify the oppression
of marginalized ethnic populations. Indeed, I submit that it
is the hermeneutic, and not the sexual practice, that needs
to be recognized today as an abomination.
A Possible Alternative
Although it is not possible to articulate in detail here a
“positive” gay-affirmative approach to biblical hermeneu-
tics, the largely “negative”comnients that 1have made above
do require some further comment. In particular, I wish to
point briefly to a possible alternative approach to gay and
gay-affirmative readings of the Bible that could avoid many
of the historical and ideological problems noted above.
The starting-point for such an approach would be a
recognition of the importance of gender ideology for most
condemnations of homosexuality. The crucial role played by
rigid gender constructions in the negative assessment of
homosexuality has already been noted in relation to texts
from both the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Stone: 69-84; Olyan:
204-05; Fewell & Gunn: 107-08; Boyarin) and the Second
Testament (e.g., Brooten). Indeed, it has long been argued
by anthropologists of gender that the domination ofwomen,
certain constructions of gender, and negative attitudes to-
ward homosexuality are linked in many (though perhaps not
all) cultures (see, e.g., Rubin; Gilmore: 12; Lancaster:
235-78).
Even a qualified acceptance of this point may indicate
an alternative approach to the problem of homosexuality,
hermeneutics, and the Bible that avoids some of the dificul-
ties noted above. Specifically, gay and gay-affirmativeinter-
preters need to recognize, as feminist interpreters have
recognized for years, that biblical thought and language has
been shaped decisively by ancient constructs of “male” and
“female.” Such constructs include quite rigid notions of
“proper” sexual behavior for members of each gendered
class. The influence of these notions cannot simply be ex-
plained or interpreted away. Rather, they require modem
readers who do not share and do not wish to support such
rigid assumptions about gender to abandon apologetic ap-
proaches to the Bible and its statements about gender and
sexuality in favor of a critical assessment of the Bible’s
40
Vol. 27
historical and cultural determination and its variable social
and theological functions (cf. Schiissler Fiorenza).
Not everyone will agree with this suggestion, of course,
and ’those persons (male or female, heterosexual or homo-
sexual) who hold traditionalist ideas about the function of
scripture will be particularly troubled by it. In any case, to
suggest the value of an approach to homosexuality and the
Bible via a critical understanding of gender ideologies is not
to imply that other approaches could not also be taken.
Nevertheless, such an approach not only has the advantage
of treating biblical attitudes toward homosexuality in the
context ofwider networks ofsocial and cultural codes rather
than in isolation from such networks; it may also allow gay
and gay-affirmativereaders of the Bible to build upon (with-
out replicating exactly) the significant amount of biblical
and theological scholarship that has been produced in the
area of feminist hermeneutics.
Works Cited
Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1986. VEILEDSENTIMENTS:HOSOR AND Po-
ETRY IN A BEWUINSOCIFIY. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Ahlstrom, GBsta w. 1986. WHO WERE THE ISRAELITES?winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Albright, \Villiam Foxwell. 1957. FROMTHE STONEAGETO CHRIS-
TIANITY:, MOSOTHEISLf AND T H E HISTORICAL PROCESS. Sec-
ond Edition. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
1968. YAHWEH AND T H E GODS OF CANAAN: A HISTORICAL
ANALYSIS OFTWO CONTRAS~XG FAITHS.London: The Ath-
lone Press.
Bailey, Randall C. 1995. They’re Nothing but Incestuous Bastards:
The Polemical Use of Sex and Senurlity of Hebrew Canon N ~ T -
TUtitVS. Pp. 121-38 in h 4 D I K G FROhf THIS PLACE VOLUME
I: SOCIAL LOCATION AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE
UNITEDSTATES. Edited by FemandoE Segovia and Mary Ann
Tolbert. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Barth, Fredrik. 1969. Introduction. Pp. 9-38 in ETHNICGROUPS
AND BOUNDARIES: THESOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF CULTURE
DIFFERENCE. Edited by Fredrick Barth. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown.
Bird, Phyllis. 1989. “To Phy the Harlot”: An Inquiry into an Old
Testament Metaphor. Pp. 75-94 in GENDER AND DIFFERENCE
IN ANCIENT ISRAEL. Edited by Peggy L. Day. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press.
Boyarin, Daniel. 1995. Are There Any Jews in “The History of
Sencality”! JOURNAL OF THE HISTORYOF SEXUALITY 5/3:
333-55.
Brooten, Bernadette J. 1996. LOVE BETWEEN WOMEN:EARLY
CHRISTIAN RESPONSES TO FEMALE HOMOEROTICIShf. Chi-
cago, I L University of Chicago Press.
Cornstock, Gary David. 1993. GAYTHEOLOGY WITHOUTAPOLOGY.
Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press.
Coogan, Michael David. 1987. Canaanite Origins and Lineage:
Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel. Pp. 115-24 in
ANCIENT ISRAELITERELIGION. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr.,
Paul D. Hanson, & S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press.
Day, John. 1992. Canuun,*Religionof. Pp. 831-37 in THEANCHOR
BIBLEDICI-IONARY, Volume 1. New York, NY: Doubleday.
 Stone, “The Hermenetitics of Abomination”

Dover, Kenneth. 1989. GREEKHOMOSEXUALITY. Second Edition. Oden, Jr., Robert A. 1987. Religioics Identity and the Sacred Prostitu-
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. tbn Acaaation. Pp. 131-53 in THEBIBLEWITHOUT THEOL-
Edwards, George R. 1984. GAYLESBIAN LIBERATION: A BIBLICAL OGY: THETHEOLOGICAL TRADITION AND ALTERNATIVES TO
PERSPECTIVE. New York, NY: The Pilgrim Press. IT. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Fewell, DannaNolan, and David M. Gunn. 1993. GENDER, POWER, Olyan, Saul M. 1994. “And uith a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying
AND PROMISE: THESUBJECT OF THE BIBLE‘SFIRSTSTORY. Down ofa [Y‘omun”: onthe Meaning and Signifuance of h i r i a i s
Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. 1822 and20:~3.JOURNALOFTHEHlSTORY OFSEXUALITY 5R:
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. 1992. IN T H E WAKEOF T H E GODDESSES: 179-206.
WOMEN, CULTURE, AND THE BIBLICAL TRANSFORMATION OF Ortner, Sherry B., and Harriet Whiteheads, editors. 19&1.SEXUAL
PAGANM m . New York: The Free Press. MEANINGS: THECULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER AND
Gilman, Sander L. 1985. DIFFEREKCE AND PATHOLOGY: STEREO- SEXUALITY. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
TYPES OF SEXUALITY, RACE. AND MADNESS. Irhaca, NY: Cor- Rubin, Gayle. 1975. The Traffic in R’omm: Notes on the “Political
nell University Press. Economy’’ of sex. Pp. 157-210 in TOWARD AN ANTHROPOL-
Gilmore, David D. 1987. Inrrodicction: The Shame of Dishonor. Pp. OGY OF WOMEN. Edited by Rayna Reiter. New York, NY:
2-21 in HOSOR AND SHAME A” T H E UNITY OF T H E MEDI- Monthly Review Press.
TERRANEAN. Edited by David D. Gilmore. Washington, DC:
American Anthropological Association. Said, Edward. 1978. ORIENTALISL!. New York, NY: Random House.
Greenberg, David E 1988. THECOSSTRUCITONOF HOMOSEXUAL- Schiissler Fiorenza, Elisakth. 1984. BREADNOT STOSE: THE
ITY. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. CHALLENGE OF FEMINIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.Boston,
Halperin, David. 1990. ONE HUNDRED Y U R S OF HOMOSEXUALITY MA: Beacon Press.
AKD OTHER ESSAYSON GREEKLOVE.New York. NY: Rout- Snaith, Norman H. 1967. LEVITICUS AND NUhlBERS. Camden, NJ:
ledge. Thomas Nelson & Sons.
Henshaw, Richard A. 1994. FEMALE AND MALE:THEmLnC Stone, Ken. 1966. SEX, HOSOR. AND POWER IN T H E DEUTEROSO-
PERSOWEL:THEBIBLEAND T H E REST OFTHE AXCIENTNEAR LtISTIC H I ~ O R Sheffield,
Y. UK: Sheffield Academic Press.
EAST.Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications. T i m , Karel van der. 1989. F m k Prostituciori in PQJ7MItof VOUJS
Hernton, Calvinc. 1988. SEX A N D b C I S h t IN AhtERICA. New York, in Ancient Israel. JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 108:
NY: Doubleday. 193-205.
Hooks, Stephen M. 1985. SACREDPROSTITUTION IN ISRAEL AND 1992. Prostitution (Cultic). Pp. 510-13 in THEANCHORBIBLE
THE ANCIENT NEAREAST.Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew Union DICTIONARY. Volume 5. New York, NY: Doubleday.
College. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1989. Tamur, Qedesa, Qadistu, and
Homer, Tom. 1978. JONATHAN LOVEDDAVID:HOMOSEXUALITY Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia. HARVARD THEOLOGICAL
IN BIBLICAL T l k t E . Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
REVIEW 8213: 245-65.
Kristeva, Julia. 1982. POWERS OF HORRORA N ESSAY ON ABJEC-
TION.Translated by Leon S. Roudiez. New York, NY: Colum- Winkler, John J. 1990. THEC ~ N ~ R AOF I NDESIRE:
T ~ THEAN-
bia University Press. THROPOLOGY OF SEX AND GENDER IN ANCIENT GREECE. New
Lancaster, Roger. 1992. LIFEIS HARD:MACHlSstO, DANGER.AND York, NY: Routledge.
THE INTlhIACl OF POWER IN NICARAGUA. Berkeley, CA: wolff, Hans Walter. 1974. HOSEA:A COMMENTARY ON T H E B O O K
University of California Press. OF THE PROPHETHOSEA.Translated by Gary Stansell and
Lemche, Niels Peter. 1991. THECANAANITES AND THEIR LAND: edited by Paul D. Hanson. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
THETRADITION OF THE CANAANITES. Sheffield, UK: Shef- Young, Iris Marion. 1990. JUSTICEAND T H E POLITICS OF DIFFER-
field Academic Press. ENCE. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

41