What do you think?
Rate this book
Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire
“An explosive, fascinating book that reveals how the Bible cannot be used as a rulebook when it comes to sex. A terrific read by a top scholar.� —Bart Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus
Boston University’s cutting-edge religion scholar Jennifer Wright Knust reveals the Bible’s contradictory messages about sex in this thoughtful, riveting, and timely reexploration of the letter of the gospels. In the tradition of Bart Erhman’s Jesus Interrupted and John Shelby Spong’s Sins of Scripture , Knust’s Unprotected Texts liberates us from the pervasive moralizing—the fickle dos and don’ts—so often dictated by religious demagogues. Knust’s powerful reading offers a return to the scripture, away from the mere slogans to which it is so often reduced.
Boston University’s cutting-edge religion scholar Jennifer Wright Knust reveals the Bible’s contradictory messages about sex in this thoughtful, riveting, and timely reexploration of the letter of the gospels. In the tradition of Bart Erhman’s Jesus Interrupted and John Shelby Spong’s Sins of Scripture , Knust’s Unprotected Texts liberates us from the pervasive moralizing—the fickle dos and don’ts—so often dictated by religious demagogues. Knust’s powerful reading offers a return to the scripture, away from the mere slogans to which it is so often reduced.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 20, 2011
116 people are currently reading
1,084 people want to read
About the author
Jennifer Wright Knust
5Ìýbooks18ÌýfollowersJennifer Wright Knust is Assistant Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Boston University. She came to BU from the College of the Holy Cross, where she taught Religious Studies for five years. At BU, she is appointed to the faculties of the School of Theology and the College of Arts and Sciences and is affiliated with the Religion Department, Judaic Studies, and the Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies Program.
A graduate of the University of Illinois, Urbana, she earned her Master of Divinity from Union Theological Seminary (New York) and then served as an American Baptist pastor before returning to New York City to earn her Master of Philosophy and Doctorate of Religion from Columbia University. She has published widely on the New Testament, Christian history, ancient rhetoric, the transmission of the Gospels, and the interpretation of sacred texts by early Christian writers. Her recent publications include a study of sexualized name-calling among ancient writers (Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity, Columbia University Press 2005), an analysis of the transmission and reception of the story of the woman taken in adultery ("Early Christian Re-Writing and the History of the Pericope Adulterae," Journal of Early Christian Studies 2006), and a forthcoming volume on sacrifice in the ancient Mediterranean world (Ancient Mediterranean Sacrifice, edited with Zsuzsanna Varhélyi, Oxford University Press). She was inspired to write her most recent book, Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire, by her mother, who taught her that the Bible should never be used as a cover for cruelty and self-righteousness.
Professor Knust has been the recipient of a number of prizes and awards, including fellowships from the Association of Theological Schools-Henry Luce III Foundation, the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American Association of University Women. She has also participated in a number of specialized seminars and research projects, including the Summer Program in Advanced Palaeography at the American Academy in Rome and the Summer Program in Medieval Greek at the Gennadius Library, Athens. A recipient of various teaching awards, she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on the New Testament, early Christianity, the history of the Bible, gender theory, women and religion, the Gospels, and ancient Greek.
Ordained by the American Baptist Churches, USA, Professor Knust remains an active member of the First Baptist Church of Jamaica Plain, where she directs the children's Sunday School, and maintains close ties to her home church, the First Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, Maine. Born in California, she has lived all over the country before landing (finally) in New York, Maine, and Massachusetts.
Together with her partner Stefan Knust, she has raised two wonderful sons, Axel and Leander.
A graduate of the University of Illinois, Urbana, she earned her Master of Divinity from Union Theological Seminary (New York) and then served as an American Baptist pastor before returning to New York City to earn her Master of Philosophy and Doctorate of Religion from Columbia University. She has published widely on the New Testament, Christian history, ancient rhetoric, the transmission of the Gospels, and the interpretation of sacred texts by early Christian writers. Her recent publications include a study of sexualized name-calling among ancient writers (Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity, Columbia University Press 2005), an analysis of the transmission and reception of the story of the woman taken in adultery ("Early Christian Re-Writing and the History of the Pericope Adulterae," Journal of Early Christian Studies 2006), and a forthcoming volume on sacrifice in the ancient Mediterranean world (Ancient Mediterranean Sacrifice, edited with Zsuzsanna Varhélyi, Oxford University Press). She was inspired to write her most recent book, Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire, by her mother, who taught her that the Bible should never be used as a cover for cruelty and self-righteousness.
Professor Knust has been the recipient of a number of prizes and awards, including fellowships from the Association of Theological Schools-Henry Luce III Foundation, the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American Association of University Women. She has also participated in a number of specialized seminars and research projects, including the Summer Program in Advanced Palaeography at the American Academy in Rome and the Summer Program in Medieval Greek at the Gennadius Library, Athens. A recipient of various teaching awards, she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on the New Testament, early Christianity, the history of the Bible, gender theory, women and religion, the Gospels, and ancient Greek.
Ordained by the American Baptist Churches, USA, Professor Knust remains an active member of the First Baptist Church of Jamaica Plain, where she directs the children's Sunday School, and maintains close ties to her home church, the First Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, Maine. Born in California, she has lived all over the country before landing (finally) in New York, Maine, and Massachusetts.
Together with her partner Stefan Knust, she has raised two wonderful sons, Axel and Leander.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
November 29, 2014
Frankly, I read this book to try to get some support for my "I'm a Christian and I have premarital sex and I don't think that makes me terrible!" tirade. I get quite a lot of disapproving looks due to my choices, even though I'm a 22 yr old adult in a monogamous relationship. So I thought maybe I'd read up on other views and have some good arguments. Too bad her supporting evidence was weak (even though there were 50 pages of it in the bibliography) and not well argued. Honestly, due to my extremely conservative upbringing, I could have taken every one of her points and given scripture that disagreed.
This book is probably the last I'll read on the subject for awhile. I've decided that if confronted about my life's decisions by my family, church, etc., my grand defense will be that it's my life and my choice. Or maybe "none of your beeswax" will suffice.
UPDATE:
I am now 23 and engaged to the aforementioned partner. The scandals continue.
FURTHER UPDATE: I am now 25, an atheist, and married to that same partner. Bam.
SOME NAVEL-GAZING INTROSPECTION:
This review is the perfect example of my non-faith journey of the past few years. I was a Christian who was very unsettled in my heart because I simply could not get behind much of what I was supposed to believe. This particular subject is a little shallow..."I want to have sex but am not supposed to! Wah!" but it was much deeper than that. I have never believed that people of other faiths were going to hell. I didn't believe that Jesus was the only way to heaven...or really that there was a heaven/hell, if I'm honest with myself. I have never believed that being gay was wrong. I've never believed religion had anything to do with morality. But you can't have it both ways. People like commenter Adam below, Mr. Very Concerned About a Stranger on the Internet's Sex Life, ensure that one cannot be part of a religion without committing 100%. Sure, there are people who get away with that and have a contented heart, and that's fine. They can pick and choose and still sleep at night. I wasn't one of them, though. I'm an all or nothing woman.
So this review was just a small example of that. I went looking for ways to reconcile my head and my heart, and I just couldn't do it. Nothing made sense. I didn't believe the very basics of my faith, so I tried and tried to find ways around dealing with that.
A quote I like by Karen Moning states "The most confused we ever get is when we try to convince our heads of something our hearts know is a lie." My head was a battlefield trying to live something I didn't agree with.
Slowly, I decided to cut the bullshit. If I wasn't 100% Christian, then I wasn't Christian. I needed to own it. This was difficult, because I've been raised to believe that non-Christians go to hell. That was pounded into my head since birth. I was brainwashed. So, for awhile, I felt like I was making a decision that was sending me to hell. Even though I didn't believe in hell, the thought was still there. I was choosing to go to hell.
But then one morning I wasn't as scared. My confidence grew. I began seeing how disturbing and negative it had been for me to constantly fight what I truly felt with what I was supposed to believe.
And the freedom from Christianity has been undoubtedly more freeing than the freedom from "sin." I never received freedom through Jesus. I got it through myself.
This book is probably the last I'll read on the subject for awhile. I've decided that if confronted about my life's decisions by my family, church, etc., my grand defense will be that it's my life and my choice. Or maybe "none of your beeswax" will suffice.
UPDATE:
I am now 23 and engaged to the aforementioned partner. The scandals continue.
FURTHER UPDATE: I am now 25, an atheist, and married to that same partner. Bam.
SOME NAVEL-GAZING INTROSPECTION:
This review is the perfect example of my non-faith journey of the past few years. I was a Christian who was very unsettled in my heart because I simply could not get behind much of what I was supposed to believe. This particular subject is a little shallow..."I want to have sex but am not supposed to! Wah!" but it was much deeper than that. I have never believed that people of other faiths were going to hell. I didn't believe that Jesus was the only way to heaven...or really that there was a heaven/hell, if I'm honest with myself. I have never believed that being gay was wrong. I've never believed religion had anything to do with morality. But you can't have it both ways. People like commenter Adam below, Mr. Very Concerned About a Stranger on the Internet's Sex Life, ensure that one cannot be part of a religion without committing 100%. Sure, there are people who get away with that and have a contented heart, and that's fine. They can pick and choose and still sleep at night. I wasn't one of them, though. I'm an all or nothing woman.
So this review was just a small example of that. I went looking for ways to reconcile my head and my heart, and I just couldn't do it. Nothing made sense. I didn't believe the very basics of my faith, so I tried and tried to find ways around dealing with that.
A quote I like by Karen Moning states "The most confused we ever get is when we try to convince our heads of something our hearts know is a lie." My head was a battlefield trying to live something I didn't agree with.
Slowly, I decided to cut the bullshit. If I wasn't 100% Christian, then I wasn't Christian. I needed to own it. This was difficult, because I've been raised to believe that non-Christians go to hell. That was pounded into my head since birth. I was brainwashed. So, for awhile, I felt like I was making a decision that was sending me to hell. Even though I didn't believe in hell, the thought was still there. I was choosing to go to hell.
But then one morning I wasn't as scared. My confidence grew. I began seeing how disturbing and negative it had been for me to constantly fight what I truly felt with what I was supposed to believe.
And the freedom from Christianity has been undoubtedly more freeing than the freedom from "sin." I never received freedom through Jesus. I got it through myself.
May 27, 2012
This book Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire by Jennifer Wright Knust is a gem. It is scholarly yet flows easily. Written for an educated audience that is also Bible-literate there is much to learn from Knust’s presentation of current issues as portrayed in Jewish and Christian scripture. Here is a religious scholar who is also an ordained Baptist pastor and yet she is able to speak critically about these sacred texts; one wonders if her windows are bullet-proof.
Knust does not shy from any issues. She tackles menstrual emissions, semen, gay marriage, adultery, bodily parts, sex between humans and angels, sexual politics, miscegenation laws, kashrut, and circumcision. Surely I left a dozen topics out. I found her to be very thorough: she references the scriptural canon, books that didn’t make the final cut, historical documents, and the words of the great luminaries of whichever time period under discussion. One cannot ask for a more comprehensive study in the short space of about 300 pages.
The overall message of her book is that the Bible does not speak with one voice. She relates this to the contemporary push among Christian activists to formulate one view of scripture then present it as the *only* view. One point she makes clearly is that the Bible does not state that the definition of marriage is one man/one woman. This simply is not found in scripture.
In fact, the overall message of the New Testament is “celibacy for the strong; marriage for the weak.� She uses not only the words of Paul to make this point but corroborative gospel accounts. It is indeed bizarre that Christian pastors tend to encourage, promote, and support marriage when they should be focusing on lifetime celibacy. I cannot imagine a preacher telling a congregation that they need to commit their lives to celibacy in order to focus on the Lord’s work.
I have a vivid memory from long ago, Jesse Jackson on TV shouted to a crowd of black activists, “Be fruitful and multiply.� Obviously he was addressing racial inequalities and wanted more blacks born to displace white privelege but, as a preacher, his message should have been, “People, stop having sex altogether, this is the message of Christian scripture.� Yeah, right. And the Mormons, are they taking the New Testament message of celibacy seriously? Me thinks not.
If the NT’s focus on lifetime celibacy were taken seriously we’d have less and less fundamentalist Christians, not more. Celibacy is for the strong; marriage is for the weak. Though what kind of marriage is difficult to pinpoint, there are so many versions of marriage and quite a number of possible sexual relationships as presented in the Bible - not just among the villians but among the heroes as well!
Knust does not shy from any issues. She tackles menstrual emissions, semen, gay marriage, adultery, bodily parts, sex between humans and angels, sexual politics, miscegenation laws, kashrut, and circumcision. Surely I left a dozen topics out. I found her to be very thorough: she references the scriptural canon, books that didn’t make the final cut, historical documents, and the words of the great luminaries of whichever time period under discussion. One cannot ask for a more comprehensive study in the short space of about 300 pages.
The overall message of her book is that the Bible does not speak with one voice. She relates this to the contemporary push among Christian activists to formulate one view of scripture then present it as the *only* view. One point she makes clearly is that the Bible does not state that the definition of marriage is one man/one woman. This simply is not found in scripture.
In fact, the overall message of the New Testament is “celibacy for the strong; marriage for the weak.� She uses not only the words of Paul to make this point but corroborative gospel accounts. It is indeed bizarre that Christian pastors tend to encourage, promote, and support marriage when they should be focusing on lifetime celibacy. I cannot imagine a preacher telling a congregation that they need to commit their lives to celibacy in order to focus on the Lord’s work.
I have a vivid memory from long ago, Jesse Jackson on TV shouted to a crowd of black activists, “Be fruitful and multiply.� Obviously he was addressing racial inequalities and wanted more blacks born to displace white privelege but, as a preacher, his message should have been, “People, stop having sex altogether, this is the message of Christian scripture.� Yeah, right. And the Mormons, are they taking the New Testament message of celibacy seriously? Me thinks not.
If the NT’s focus on lifetime celibacy were taken seriously we’d have less and less fundamentalist Christians, not more. Celibacy is for the strong; marriage is for the weak. Though what kind of marriage is difficult to pinpoint, there are so many versions of marriage and quite a number of possible sexual relationships as presented in the Bible - not just among the villians but among the heroes as well!
July 15, 2011
�(T)he truth of the Bible is never obvious, but always in need of further thought and study.� (p. 244)
Jennifer Wright Knust’s Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire should terrify fundamentalists of any stripe. It should make even mainstream and liberal believers squirm in their seats for if her logic is carried to its end, her argument undermines the idea that there is a “Word of God� that is a meaningful, universal guide to human conduct. In her conclusion, the author emphasizes that readers of the Bible bring their own desires to the reading, and impose their own interpretations on the texts. To illustrate her point, she writes that Paul in his letter to the Galatians didn’t care about the historical or social context of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar. He needed to find a justification that Gentiles didn’t need to adopt Jewish law. And he found it after some creative theologizing that reduced Ishmael and Isaac to symbols for those who lived “according to the flesh� and those who lived “according to the promise� (p. 242).
Knust’s conception of what a believer’s proper relationship to scripture deserves to be quoted in full:
Where is the Bible’s authority if you can find nearly any interpretation reflected somewhere within it? Why is Fred Phelps� interpretation that “God hates fags�* less authoritative than Chris Levan’s that “It (scripture) simply asks if the relationship is functioning according to principles of justice and dignity? Does the partnership demonstrate mutual trust and compassion? Is so, it is blessed by God� (website Religious Tolerance.org, accessed July 2011)?
This is a problem I have with the conclusion, not with the rest of the book. The bulk of this work is devoted to what the Bible says about sex, desire, marriage, gender, purity, and other issues. It’s lively and well written and will provide plenty of ammunition to those who like to debate such matters with conservative religious friends and relatives (however fruitlessly).
* Or the less obnoxious interpretation that says God may not hate homosexuals but he certainly doesn’t think their behavior is OK.
Jennifer Wright Knust’s Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire should terrify fundamentalists of any stripe. It should make even mainstream and liberal believers squirm in their seats for if her logic is carried to its end, her argument undermines the idea that there is a “Word of God� that is a meaningful, universal guide to human conduct. In her conclusion, the author emphasizes that readers of the Bible bring their own desires to the reading, and impose their own interpretations on the texts. To illustrate her point, she writes that Paul in his letter to the Galatians didn’t care about the historical or social context of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar. He needed to find a justification that Gentiles didn’t need to adopt Jewish law. And he found it after some creative theologizing that reduced Ishmael and Isaac to symbols for those who lived “according to the flesh� and those who lived “according to the promise� (p. 242).
Knust’s conception of what a believer’s proper relationship to scripture deserves to be quoted in full:
“Nowadays, the sense that reading scripture is a creative, imaginative act has too often been lost, despite the creativity it took for New Testament writers and early Christians to claim that the law and the prophets are, when read correctly, all about Jesus Christ. Paul, Matthew, Irenaeus, and Origen came to the Bible with convictions about what should be found in its pages and, employing a variety of interpretive methods, they found what they wanted. But, unlike many contemporary readers, they did not attempt to hide their interpretive work from their audiences. Instead, they sought to persuade their readers that their interpretations were valuable by revealing the principles they brought to bear on the texts they read, whether they were arguing that Gentiles should come to God as Gentiles, that Jesus’s birth was miraculous, or that the church is the best arbiter of divine truth. They did not assume that quoting a few choice verses out of context could serve as sufficient proof of what the entire Bible says and therefore of what God says as well.
“It is time for us to admit that we, too, are interpreters hoping to find our convictions reflected in biblical texts, and have been all along. Looking to the Bible for straightforward answers about anything, including sex, can lead only to disappointment. When read as a whole, the Bible provides neither clear nor consistent advice about sex and bodies, as the material presented in this book demonstrates. If one set of biblical books interprets polygamy as a sign of God’s blessing, another set argues that celibacy is the best option for the faithful. If one biblical writer condemns those who engage in sex before marriage, others present premarital seduction as central to God’s plan. Just about every biblical commandment is broken, and not only by biblical villains. Biblical heroes like Abraham, Moses, and David also violate the commandments of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus, and Jesus is represented radically reinterpreting earlier scriptural teachings, including commandments regarding divorce. When it comes to sex, the Bible is often divided against itself.
“It is therefore a mistake to pretend that the Bible can define our ethics for us in any kind of straightforward way; such an interpretive strategy will only lead us astray while also preventing us from taking the Bible as seriously as we should. Even more tragically, a refusal to acknowledge that we are active interpreters might make is seem as if the only possible choice is between accepting the Bible as literally true or rejecting the Bible altogether. Christians should not and need not be asked to make this choice. Since neither the Bible nor a particular interpretation can limit what particular stories and teachings must mean, it is up to readers to decide what a biblically informed and faithful sexual morality might look like. If the New Testament writers were willing to admit that they were constructing their theological and moral perspective with biblical texts but not because of them, then what is preventing readers today from adopting the same strategy? The Bible provides neither a shortcut to the real work of interpretation nor a simple solution to the important task of figuring out what it means to be human and yet in love with God.� (pp. 244-45)
Where is the Bible’s authority if you can find nearly any interpretation reflected somewhere within it? Why is Fred Phelps� interpretation that “God hates fags�* less authoritative than Chris Levan’s that “It (scripture) simply asks if the relationship is functioning according to principles of justice and dignity? Does the partnership demonstrate mutual trust and compassion? Is so, it is blessed by God� (website Religious Tolerance.org, accessed July 2011)?
This is a problem I have with the conclusion, not with the rest of the book. The bulk of this work is devoted to what the Bible says about sex, desire, marriage, gender, purity, and other issues. It’s lively and well written and will provide plenty of ammunition to those who like to debate such matters with conservative religious friends and relatives (however fruitlessly).
* Or the less obnoxious interpretation that says God may not hate homosexuals but he certainly doesn’t think their behavior is OK.
May 30, 2011
Raised as a fundamentalist Baptist but having drifted from the dogma, I am sympathetic to the author's point of view and was looking forward to well-argued and footnoted exposé of the Bible's internal contradictions.
What I got was certainly well-footnoted, but argued? Not so much. I measure these kinds of books in their ability to sway people of other viewpoints. This book plays to the like-minded but is unlikely to convert the born-again.
My key complaint is the author's tendency to cherry-pick translations, and even more disturbingly, to fall back on her own personal "my translation" in a substantial portion of cases. The unconvinced or cynical would suspect she was just making stuff up when she couldn't find a translation that matched her thesis. She's a self-proclaimed Biblical scholar, but one earns scholarly respect by proving an understanding of precedent, then challenging it defensibly. To ignore precedent as often as she does, without first having proven her authority to do so, is to invite suspicion/presumption of bias, or worse, incomplete understanding of existing opinion.
As a Baptist minister, the author would undoubtedly know that many fundamentalists consider the King James Bible to be the last authoritative translation, and to convince this audience, she would need to go back to King James and expose internal inconsistencies using that text. I do assume that they are there, but I am not a scholar myself, so my opinion is immaterial. I was looking for a scholar who would take this approach.
I am still looking.
What I got was certainly well-footnoted, but argued? Not so much. I measure these kinds of books in their ability to sway people of other viewpoints. This book plays to the like-minded but is unlikely to convert the born-again.
My key complaint is the author's tendency to cherry-pick translations, and even more disturbingly, to fall back on her own personal "my translation" in a substantial portion of cases. The unconvinced or cynical would suspect she was just making stuff up when she couldn't find a translation that matched her thesis. She's a self-proclaimed Biblical scholar, but one earns scholarly respect by proving an understanding of precedent, then challenging it defensibly. To ignore precedent as often as she does, without first having proven her authority to do so, is to invite suspicion/presumption of bias, or worse, incomplete understanding of existing opinion.
As a Baptist minister, the author would undoubtedly know that many fundamentalists consider the King James Bible to be the last authoritative translation, and to convince this audience, she would need to go back to King James and expose internal inconsistencies using that text. I do assume that they are there, but I am not a scholar myself, so my opinion is immaterial. I was looking for a scholar who would take this approach.
I am still looking.
November 29, 2014
Jennifer Knust's central thesis is that the Bible cannot be taken as a guide to sexual behavior because it is entirely and completely self-contradictory on the subject. This is a provocative thesis, so surely she has convincing evidence and powerful arguments on her side, right??
Well, she has arguments. Lots of them. Knust's approach is to bombard the reader with every possible argument against whatever aspect of Biblical sexuality she is attacking. She will even present two different arguments against a text even if they seem mutually contradictory. And she holds up strange fringe interpretations of passages as proof of those passages supposed incoherence.
In fact the author seems drawn, almost compulsively, to the weirdest interpretations she can find. If any scholar or interpreter in history has ever read something particularly bizarre into a passage, she takes it as gospel. This happens throughout the book, but perhaps the most glaring example is the chapter in which she claims that Biblical authors were obsessed with protecting people from having sex with angels. This startling claim is based on a four word tag to Paul writing in regards to women in worship where he recommends they cover their head "because of the angels."
I'll grant this is a somewhat strange aside in Paul's writing, but your average reader probably wouldn't leap from these four words straight to the conclusion that Paul was paranoid about sexually aggressive angels. For Knust, however, this is the only possible explanation, and once stated will be taken as fact throughout the book. Similarly, the ideas that David and Jonathan were gay lovers and that Ruth administered oral sex to Boaz in the middle of a crowded barn obviously need no further defense.
Knust can't seem to tell a good argument from a bad one. On the occasions that she does offer up something that makes the reader go "hmmm" she will inevitably follow it up with one that is so ridiculous that the reader is likely to forget about the first one entirely.
She deploys all sorts of logical fallacies in her zealous pursuit of her thesis. Frequently she will claim that passages forbidding this or that sexual behavior cannot be valid because the Israelites in other texts engage in that very behavior. But the fact that the Israelites were extremely bad at following Mosaic law is almost the entire point of the Old Testament. It's hard to credit that a Bible scholar and theologian would not know this, so it simply seems dishonest.
Knust also cherry picks the passages she quotes with a fervor that would make any Bible-thumper blush. And just to make doubly sure the text says what she wants it to say, she frequently uses her own translations for passages. There are many, many extant translations that have been vigorously vetted by large committees of experts, but when these don't say what Knust wants she just rolls her own. At least, that is how it will come across to many readers.
The author also claims that since the Bible was once used to defend the institution of slavery that it cannot be trusted on sexual issues. Why this is the fault of scripture rather than the fault of the defenders of slavery is not made clear. Even more troubling for Bible believers, if they were to accept this argument it is not clear why it would not simply discredit the entire Bible end to end rather than just the parts about sex and sexuality.
In fact it's hard not to shake the conviction that this is just what the author is after. Although 'Unprotected Texts' is book-ended by proclamations of faith in and respect for the scripture, the actual meat of the material reads like something a very arch atheist academic might write.
This brings up the question of who exactly the author is writing FOR. From the beginning and ending, where she repeatedly notes that she is an ordained pastor, you might expect she is writing to fellow adherents of the Christian faith. But the text itself is extremely academic, steeped in the post-modern style of a typical liberal arts professor. And frankly, the weaker her arguments the more academic Knust gets.
This confusion is most evident in the final chapter which is about circumcision and impure discharges. While these topics do relate somewhat to sex, very few religious people these days are concerned about either; but Knust goes and on and on at great length as though she is delivering an obscure thesis paper on the subject to a group of seminarians. In addition, after enumerating the many ways in which the Bible is remarkably consistent on the topic of menstrual impurity across the Old and New Testaments, she concludes this chapter by claiming she has demonstrated precisely the opposite!
Reading 'Unprotected Texts' was not entirely without value. I will grant that the author is clearly very widely read on her topic. I did learn some things, and, as I said, she occasionally stumbles across a compelling argument that made me want to dig deeper. But readers who want a serious re-examination of what the scripture says about sex will be disappointed. Readers who came simply to point and laugh will, I suppose, be amused when they aren't being bored to tears.
Readers of this book who are Christians will find the author's attitude and intellectually dishonest arguments off-putting. Readers of this book who are not Christians will find it lacks academic rigor. Both kinds of readers will probably wind up confused about who, exactly, this book is for.
The fact is that the author is trying to fit her square peg of a thesis into the round hole of actual Biblical texts. It just doesn't work. This book is poorly argued and it's not going to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced that the Bible doesn't have anything useful or important to say about sex.
Well, she has arguments. Lots of them. Knust's approach is to bombard the reader with every possible argument against whatever aspect of Biblical sexuality she is attacking. She will even present two different arguments against a text even if they seem mutually contradictory. And she holds up strange fringe interpretations of passages as proof of those passages supposed incoherence.
In fact the author seems drawn, almost compulsively, to the weirdest interpretations she can find. If any scholar or interpreter in history has ever read something particularly bizarre into a passage, she takes it as gospel. This happens throughout the book, but perhaps the most glaring example is the chapter in which she claims that Biblical authors were obsessed with protecting people from having sex with angels. This startling claim is based on a four word tag to Paul writing in regards to women in worship where he recommends they cover their head "because of the angels."
I'll grant this is a somewhat strange aside in Paul's writing, but your average reader probably wouldn't leap from these four words straight to the conclusion that Paul was paranoid about sexually aggressive angels. For Knust, however, this is the only possible explanation, and once stated will be taken as fact throughout the book. Similarly, the ideas that David and Jonathan were gay lovers and that Ruth administered oral sex to Boaz in the middle of a crowded barn obviously need no further defense.
Knust can't seem to tell a good argument from a bad one. On the occasions that she does offer up something that makes the reader go "hmmm" she will inevitably follow it up with one that is so ridiculous that the reader is likely to forget about the first one entirely.
She deploys all sorts of logical fallacies in her zealous pursuit of her thesis. Frequently she will claim that passages forbidding this or that sexual behavior cannot be valid because the Israelites in other texts engage in that very behavior. But the fact that the Israelites were extremely bad at following Mosaic law is almost the entire point of the Old Testament. It's hard to credit that a Bible scholar and theologian would not know this, so it simply seems dishonest.
Knust also cherry picks the passages she quotes with a fervor that would make any Bible-thumper blush. And just to make doubly sure the text says what she wants it to say, she frequently uses her own translations for passages. There are many, many extant translations that have been vigorously vetted by large committees of experts, but when these don't say what Knust wants she just rolls her own. At least, that is how it will come across to many readers.
The author also claims that since the Bible was once used to defend the institution of slavery that it cannot be trusted on sexual issues. Why this is the fault of scripture rather than the fault of the defenders of slavery is not made clear. Even more troubling for Bible believers, if they were to accept this argument it is not clear why it would not simply discredit the entire Bible end to end rather than just the parts about sex and sexuality.
In fact it's hard not to shake the conviction that this is just what the author is after. Although 'Unprotected Texts' is book-ended by proclamations of faith in and respect for the scripture, the actual meat of the material reads like something a very arch atheist academic might write.
This brings up the question of who exactly the author is writing FOR. From the beginning and ending, where she repeatedly notes that she is an ordained pastor, you might expect she is writing to fellow adherents of the Christian faith. But the text itself is extremely academic, steeped in the post-modern style of a typical liberal arts professor. And frankly, the weaker her arguments the more academic Knust gets.
This confusion is most evident in the final chapter which is about circumcision and impure discharges. While these topics do relate somewhat to sex, very few religious people these days are concerned about either; but Knust goes and on and on at great length as though she is delivering an obscure thesis paper on the subject to a group of seminarians. In addition, after enumerating the many ways in which the Bible is remarkably consistent on the topic of menstrual impurity across the Old and New Testaments, she concludes this chapter by claiming she has demonstrated precisely the opposite!
Reading 'Unprotected Texts' was not entirely without value. I will grant that the author is clearly very widely read on her topic. I did learn some things, and, as I said, she occasionally stumbles across a compelling argument that made me want to dig deeper. But readers who want a serious re-examination of what the scripture says about sex will be disappointed. Readers who came simply to point and laugh will, I suppose, be amused when they aren't being bored to tears.
Readers of this book who are Christians will find the author's attitude and intellectually dishonest arguments off-putting. Readers of this book who are not Christians will find it lacks academic rigor. Both kinds of readers will probably wind up confused about who, exactly, this book is for.
The fact is that the author is trying to fit her square peg of a thesis into the round hole of actual Biblical texts. It just doesn't work. This book is poorly argued and it's not going to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced that the Bible doesn't have anything useful or important to say about sex.
February 23, 2021
Contents:
Introduction � Why the Bible is not a sexual guidebook
Chapter 1 � The Bible and the joy of sex
Desire in and out of controlled
Chapter 2 � Biblical Marriage
There is no single view of marriage presented in the Bible
Chapter 3 � The Evil Impulse
Disordered and Ordered Desire
Chapter 4 � Sexual Politics
God’s Wife. Cursing the Canaanites, and Biblical Sex Crimes
Chapter 5 � Strange Flesh
The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men
Chapter 6 � Bodily Parts
Circumcision, Semen and the Products of a Woman’s Womb
Conclusion � So I Hear You Have Five Husbands
Acknowledgements, Notes, Bibliography and Index
A very interesting and enlightening read, at least in parts. I was not surprised at the conclusion � that it’s more or less up to the reader to interpret what she/he reads in the Bible. This will certainly help as far as that is concerned, with regard to sex and desire. There are contradictions aplenty and various interpretations which shows how living and relevant the Bible remains.
Jennifer Wright Knust’s book is scholarly, well researched, accessible and readable. It is not salacious in the least (sorry if I disappoint!)I learnt quite a bit from it and now see certain Biblical characters in a different light, especially the women: Ruth, Esther, Jezebel, The Woman of Samaria�.But also David, Jonathan, Ham and many others. The inhabitants of Sodom were severely dealt with because of their attempts at raping angels. I was unaware of the intermittent sexual relations between Man/Woman and the Angels (chiefly fallen ones) throughout the Bible.
The chapter on bodily parts was a little too much and not recommended to be read prior to, during or after a meal. All those discarded foreskins removed with a flint knife. Vari-coloured menses, ejaculations and discharges; these could all do serious damage to your digestion. (My imagination was not up to picturing the Divine foreskin and umbilical cord, once in the possession of Charlemagne, it seems)
3.5, call it 4*
Introduction � Why the Bible is not a sexual guidebook
Chapter 1 � The Bible and the joy of sex
Desire in and out of controlled
Chapter 2 � Biblical Marriage
There is no single view of marriage presented in the Bible
Chapter 3 � The Evil Impulse
Disordered and Ordered Desire
Chapter 4 � Sexual Politics
God’s Wife. Cursing the Canaanites, and Biblical Sex Crimes
Chapter 5 � Strange Flesh
The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men
Chapter 6 � Bodily Parts
Circumcision, Semen and the Products of a Woman’s Womb
Conclusion � So I Hear You Have Five Husbands
Acknowledgements, Notes, Bibliography and Index
A very interesting and enlightening read, at least in parts. I was not surprised at the conclusion � that it’s more or less up to the reader to interpret what she/he reads in the Bible. This will certainly help as far as that is concerned, with regard to sex and desire. There are contradictions aplenty and various interpretations which shows how living and relevant the Bible remains.
Jennifer Wright Knust’s book is scholarly, well researched, accessible and readable. It is not salacious in the least (sorry if I disappoint!)I learnt quite a bit from it and now see certain Biblical characters in a different light, especially the women: Ruth, Esther, Jezebel, The Woman of Samaria�.But also David, Jonathan, Ham and many others. The inhabitants of Sodom were severely dealt with because of their attempts at raping angels. I was unaware of the intermittent sexual relations between Man/Woman and the Angels (chiefly fallen ones) throughout the Bible.
The chapter on bodily parts was a little too much and not recommended to be read prior to, during or after a meal. All those discarded foreskins removed with a flint knife. Vari-coloured menses, ejaculations and discharges; these could all do serious damage to your digestion. (My imagination was not up to picturing the Divine foreskin and umbilical cord, once in the possession of Charlemagne, it seems)
3.5, call it 4*
February 21, 2011
Worthwhile, extensive review of Biblical sources that present conflicting opinions on sexual morality.
Knust says "the Bible offers no viable solution to our marriage dilemmas. There is no such thing as a single, biblically based view of legitimate marriage." Under the Sinai covenant, "marriage unites free Israelite men with as many women and slaves as they can reasonably support" and "from the perspective of the Hebrew Bible there is nothing inherently wrong with visiting a prostitute." Initially Israel only prohibited intermarriage with the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 7:1-4) but after the Babylonian exile, in the 6th century BCE, restrictions on intermarriage seemed to become more severe and Ezra said that Israelite men should immediately divorce all foreign wives. Later, Jesus discouraged but didn't forbid marriage.
Something useful I learned: Biblical texts frequently make metaphorical references to prostitution in conjunction with literal references to idolatry, insofar as worshipping other gods is considered a kind of promiscuity. (More generally, enemy tribes are accused of sexual misbehavior as a form of rebuke.)
Another curiosity: Assyrian law from the 12th century BCE recognized veils as a privilege reserved for married women and concubines and simultaneously established severe corporal punishment for prostitutes and slaves (both unmarriageable castes) who dared to veil themselves. Tertullian, a 2nd century Christian from North Africa, said women should veil themselves so as not to sexually tempt angels.
And: Bestiality, incest, and adultery are forbidden multiple times in the Bible, but homosexuality is forbidden only in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13).
And: Unlike many other scholars, Knust doesn't believe the Canaanite temple servants called by the title "qdsm" were "sacred prostitutes," after all.
Knust says that Biblical literalism "will only lead us astray while also preventing us from taking the Bible as seriously as we should." Readers need to "acknowledge that we are active interpreters". Specific moral conclusions are "up to readers to decide". After all: "If the New Testament writers were willing to admit that they were constructing their theological and moral perspective with biblical texts but not because of them, then what is preventing readers today from adopting the same strategy? The Bible provides neither a shortcut to the real work of interpretation nor a simple solution to the important task of figuring out what it means to be human and yet in love with God."
Knust says "the Bible offers no viable solution to our marriage dilemmas. There is no such thing as a single, biblically based view of legitimate marriage." Under the Sinai covenant, "marriage unites free Israelite men with as many women and slaves as they can reasonably support" and "from the perspective of the Hebrew Bible there is nothing inherently wrong with visiting a prostitute." Initially Israel only prohibited intermarriage with the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 7:1-4) but after the Babylonian exile, in the 6th century BCE, restrictions on intermarriage seemed to become more severe and Ezra said that Israelite men should immediately divorce all foreign wives. Later, Jesus discouraged but didn't forbid marriage.
Something useful I learned: Biblical texts frequently make metaphorical references to prostitution in conjunction with literal references to idolatry, insofar as worshipping other gods is considered a kind of promiscuity. (More generally, enemy tribes are accused of sexual misbehavior as a form of rebuke.)
Another curiosity: Assyrian law from the 12th century BCE recognized veils as a privilege reserved for married women and concubines and simultaneously established severe corporal punishment for prostitutes and slaves (both unmarriageable castes) who dared to veil themselves. Tertullian, a 2nd century Christian from North Africa, said women should veil themselves so as not to sexually tempt angels.
And: Bestiality, incest, and adultery are forbidden multiple times in the Bible, but homosexuality is forbidden only in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13).
And: Unlike many other scholars, Knust doesn't believe the Canaanite temple servants called by the title "qdsm" were "sacred prostitutes," after all.
Knust says that Biblical literalism "will only lead us astray while also preventing us from taking the Bible as seriously as we should." Readers need to "acknowledge that we are active interpreters". Specific moral conclusions are "up to readers to decide". After all: "If the New Testament writers were willing to admit that they were constructing their theological and moral perspective with biblical texts but not because of them, then what is preventing readers today from adopting the same strategy? The Bible provides neither a shortcut to the real work of interpretation nor a simple solution to the important task of figuring out what it means to be human and yet in love with God."
May 28, 2012
Everyone who uses the phrase, "but the Bible says" should be required to read this book. The author, an ordained pastor and assistant professor of religion who holds a doctorate in religion and a master of divinity, points out that almost any position on matters sexual can be bolstered by what's actually in the Bible. After discussing all sorts of contradictions and differing interpretations on celibacy, sex before or during marriage, multiple marriages and bodily fluids (just to name a few subjects) she says, in the conclusion, that when she teaches on this subject she always asks what the students want to Bible to say. Because, she says, whatever we wish for, we can probably find. We are not "passive recipients of what the Bible says, but active interpreters who make decisions about what we will believe and what we will affirm." She adds that early followers of Jesus knew they were interpreting scriptures, a creative act. We seem to have forgotten that. She hasn't and has written a book that proves it.
January 28, 2015
1. The real sluts in the Bible, we learned, were women like Jezebel, the evil wife of King Ahab of Israel and rival of the prophet Elijah. I knew this story well. King Ahab made the mistake of taking Jezebel, daughter of King Ethbaal of the Sidonians, as his wife. Following her lead, he went and served Baal, her idolatrous god (see 1 Kgs. 16:31). Seduced by the foreign queen, Ahab abandoned the one true God, Yhwh, for Baal, the perverse god of the Canaanites, and pretty soon both Israel and Ahab’s morals were on their way down a slippery slope from which it would not be easy to recover. Ruthlessly persecuting Elijah and other legitimate prophets of Yhwh, Jezebel invited 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the goddess Asherah to join the royal court. But, the Bible assured us, she would not succeed forever. As Yhwh promised, she would eventually be overthrown—tossed over the palace walls, her flesh to be eaten by dogs. Even so, when the day of her demise finally arrived, she flaunted her slutty ways one more time. Hearing that the royal family had been massacred by Yhwh’s choice prince Jehu, she “painted her eyes, and adorned her head, and looked out of the window� (2 Kgs. 9:30), taunting the new claimant to the throne. Unluckily for her, however, the palace eunuchs had changed sides, and they pushed her out this very window. She was trampled to death by horses and then left for the dogs. By the time the dogs were done with her, only her skull, her feet, and the palms of her hands remained. Sluts, the Bible taught us, deserved what they got.
Could that be how the Islamic veil was installed?
2. Try to read Song of Songs, a love poem attributed to King Solomon, and daughters of Jerusalem if possible.
3. The biblical patriarch Judah, for example, was quite content to solicit a prostitute while out on a business trip, offering her a kid from his flocks in payment for an opportunity to “go into� her. It was only later, when he learned that this “prostitute� was actually his daughter-in-law Tamar that he became angry. Sentenced to death for playing the whore, Tamar stood up to her father-in-law, proving to him that he had been her one customer. She was forced into the ruse by Judah, she explained, since he failed to give her the support she was due after the death of her husband, Judah’s son. Repenting of his mistake, Judah let her live, admitting, “She is more in the right than I, since I did not give her to my [living] son Shelah� (Gen. 38:26). With her life spared and pregnant with Judah’s sons, Tamar went on to bear twins, Perez and Zerah, one of whom became an ancestor of both King David and Jesus. Does the Bible have a problem with prostitutes or prostitution? Not necessarily, I have come to learn.
Prostitution?! Say incest to the least, what the hell is going on? Jesus and David was born to the ancestry of a perverted sexual encounter.
4. Solomon’s harem included seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines. Women, however, are permitted only one husband at a time. So, this is not special to Muhammad?
5. Deuteronomy commands Israelite men to stone to death any young woman who fails to remain a virgin prior to marriage. If the woman does not bleed on her wedding night, she is to be executed on the doorstep of her paternal home “because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house�. How can Islam be to blame for these rules if Islam was as a matter of fact derived from Judaism.
6. allowing the Jews to execute all those who seek to destroy them "Jewish festival of Purim"
Most if not all of Jewish stories end in a bloody massacre and they are not barbaric.
7. , from the perspective of the Bible, the worst form of sexual deviance was not sex outside of marriage or even incest and bestiality but sex with angels. Sexual mixing between Israelites and foreign women or, even more troubling, between God’s people and angels was widely denounced, with the attempted rape of angels by the men of Sodom recalled as a particularly egregious example of improper human lust.
Sex with angles, creepy but let's wait and see.
8. Bible truly means or what the Bible must truly say. The Bible is complicated enough, ancient enough, and flexible enough to support an almost endless set of interpretive agendas.
That's what is really hated about religion, the Bible clearly telling stories about the slaves, and how their male master is in charge of them sexually, but the Bible says love the neighbor so the soul of the book rejects slavery, WTF! if we used the same principle in medical textbooks you'll have no hospital survivors.
9. The Song of Songs, an ancient biblical love poem that speaks frankly of towering breasts, flowing black locks, kissable lips, and the joy of sexual fulfillment, offers a particularly striking example of this phenomenon, but other biblical passages are nearly as forthright. Ruth, King David’s grandmother, conspires with her mother-in-law, Naomi, to seduce Boaz, one of Naomi’s wealthy relatives. “Uncovering his feet,� a Hebrew euphemism for uncovering a man’s genitals, Ruth succeeds at gaining a home for herself and for Naomi, a woman she has promised to love until they are parted by death. By loving both her mother-in-law and her partner, Boaz, Ruth’s bold desire secures a future for herself and her family. The love between Naomi and Ruth is paralleled by the devotion of Jonathan to David, a friendship so strong that Jonathan comes to love David more than he loves women. After Jonathan’s death, when David spies the beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he invites her for a sexual rendezvous in the palace, though he already had many other wives to enjoy. The child of their adultery dies, but Bathsheba later becomes pregnant with Solomon, the famously wise king and the purported author of the Song. In these biblical passages, sexual longing refuses to be limited to the love between a husband and wife, or even between a man and a woman. In the case of the Song of Songs, desire’s heat can be applied not only to the love between a woman and a man, but also between humanity and God.
Are those the great prophets?
10. Read this way, “With great delight I sat in his shadow, and his fruit was sweet to my taste� can be understood as a reference to oral sex offered by the woman to the man’s “tree�
Is this really attributed to king Solomon, the great king of the Jews.
11. Described as descendants of the incestuous union of Lot and one of his daughters (see Gen. 19:30�38),
Wtf did I just read
12. Ruth and Naomi have returned to Israel, secured an inheritance for themselves, and, with the assistance of Boaz, one of Elimelech’s relatives, given birth to a son, Obed, the grandfather of David.
If the claims made in the books are genuine, then I'm fucked royally in what I know as facts of life.
13. These thoughts are so dangerous that it would be better to cut off a body part than to succumb to them. Perhaps Jesus did want some of his followers to self-castrate.
It was illegal in the Roman empire and was followed by loss of status, yet a lot of devout followers did it anyway following the teachings of Matthew.
14. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.
I'm having the fun of my life reading this book.
15. As this statement implies, Jewish tradition expected men to initiate divorce, though actual practice was much more complex.
The similarities between Islam and Judaism is simply non deniable.
16. Exodus and Deuteronomy assume that, given a chance, men will take multiple wives and have intercourse with as many of their slaves as they like.
Tell me more about feminism.
17. From Reverend Young’s perspective, heterosexual, married sex is the salve that God has provided to cure the ills of contemporary America.
And they say middle eastern religious authorities are crazy.
18. emphasized the ties of the Christian “family� over traditional kinship relations, calling Jesus’s followers “brothers� and “sisters,�
Who also emphasized the concept of the religious family! Muslims.
19. Jewish writings known as the Mishnah, advising husbands and wives to provide regular sex to each other. Husbands in particular were required to give their wives sexual satisfaction, and on a regular basis
November 8, 2012
The premise of the book is fascinating: Have we completely misunderstood what the Bible says about sex? And if we have misunderstood it, is there another legitimate way to interpret some of the more misunderstood passages?
Those are legitimate questions, but we will have to wait for someone more skilled at interpreting the Bible than Knust to answer them. It constantly seems like she has already made up her mind to arrive at particular conclusions (such as the legitimacy of extra-marital, homosexual and polyamorous sex) and then finds a way to have the Bible say this. This method of knowing what you want to find before you look is disingenuous and dangerous.
Knust approaches the Bible like it is secret literature of a bygone era and sees no authority to it. She treats it with no more reverence than the tablets of Hammurabi or an inscription on the inside of the Gaza pyramid. Because of this, when there is an obvious interpretation to a Scripture passage she doesn't like, she ascribes it to the prejudices of the people who lived when that book was written.
There are a number of Bible stories that she addresses where she could have legitimately brought up controversial interpretations - and she completely misses these opportunities.
Her conclusions are beyond ludicrous at times. She suggests that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers. There is no textual reason she believes this...she just struggles to understand how two women could love each other with such devotion without getting sexual.
It is a waste of time reading this.
Those are legitimate questions, but we will have to wait for someone more skilled at interpreting the Bible than Knust to answer them. It constantly seems like she has already made up her mind to arrive at particular conclusions (such as the legitimacy of extra-marital, homosexual and polyamorous sex) and then finds a way to have the Bible say this. This method of knowing what you want to find before you look is disingenuous and dangerous.
Knust approaches the Bible like it is secret literature of a bygone era and sees no authority to it. She treats it with no more reverence than the tablets of Hammurabi or an inscription on the inside of the Gaza pyramid. Because of this, when there is an obvious interpretation to a Scripture passage she doesn't like, she ascribes it to the prejudices of the people who lived when that book was written.
There are a number of Bible stories that she addresses where she could have legitimately brought up controversial interpretations - and she completely misses these opportunities.
Her conclusions are beyond ludicrous at times. She suggests that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers. There is no textual reason she believes this...she just struggles to understand how two women could love each other with such devotion without getting sexual.
It is a waste of time reading this.
October 24, 2012
I read this at about the same time as I read God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says by Michael Coogan. And then I got busy and waited a bit to write this review, so I'm afraid the two books are now hopelessly and inextricably smooshed together (yes, that's a technical term) in my brain. So please keep that in mind as you read the review...
Dr. Knust pulls out some fascinating contradictions about sex, marriage, and the body - both male and female - in the Bible between Genesis and Revelation, as well as some interesting contrasts and parallels. Early on, she explains her approach to this book of scripture as she describes the way her mother taught her as they read together. "Never once did my mom ask me to silence my questions about the Bible and its stories, nor did she tell me that I was silly or bad to wonder what these stories might be teaching me. My mom took me and my questions seriously. The bible was ours to read, question, wonder about, and deliberate, and sometimes it was the questions that mattered more than the answers." She continues: "the Bible was not a collection of policy statements that had to be obeyed or a weapon designed to enforce particular views about morality, but an invitation to think about who God might be and what it means to be human." I appreciate this kind of honest interaction with the biblical text.
For example, Dr. Knust invites us to compare the acclaimed Jewish heroine queen Esther and Jezebel, the wicked queen whose very name has become synonymous with immorality. Each of them was "asked to serve as a representative of her religious faith from a young age." Each "remain[ed] faithful to her ancestral god once she was placed in the court of a foreign king" and "was not asked to agree to the match." Both women took the opportunities available to promote their people and the worship of their respective gods. And both "arranged for the deaths of their enemies." Dr. Knust, with only a bit of tongue-in-cheek, uses this as an example of biblical "slut shaming" - similar to what happens in middle-schools and other settings all over the world today.
Another example of these inherent contradictions in the Bible, or perhaps the contradictory positions that individuals can hold with supposed biblical support, Dr. Knust also mentions that in the 1700s and 1800s, both pro-slavery and abolitionist groups found, in their minds, incontrovertible scriptural basis for their positions.
One challenge for those of us reading the Bible thousands of years after it was written, is the vastly different culture and society that existed then. The institution of marriage then was so completely distant from what we think of when we say "marriage" today as to be almost incomparable. "State-sponsored marriage is not a matter of morality and piety but of privileges meted out to some and denied to others."
A primary difference - perhaps THE primary difference when talking about marriage - is that "the assumption that women are the property of the men in their families, to be disposed of as their fathers, brothers, and husbands see fit, informs much of biblical literature." For example, a careful reading of David and Bathsheba's affair shows that, according to the prophet Nathan, David's sin is not the immorality of adultery, so much as his violation of Uriah's property rights by sleeping with his wife. "Marriage, as the Sinai covenant codes imagine it, is...a legal arrangement guaranteeing the rights of fathers, husbands, and masters over Israelite women, children and slaves...Marriage unites free Israelite men with as many women and slaves as they can reasonably support." Dr. Knust reiterates that "these are ancient stories designed to address the needs and circumstances of Israel, not twenty-first century Christians and Jews."
Of course, various translations can influence our understanding as well. For example, a great deal of the confusion regarding the sin(s) of Sodom results from some basic differences in translation. While scripture specifically defines these sins as pride, lack of generosity to the poor, and lack of hospitality toward strangers (see Isaiah 1:10-17 and Ezekiel 16:49-50), the false idea that the sin was that of homosexuality persistently hangs on even in modern English language (i.e. the word "sodomy"). This is perpetuated by modern translations that use "sodomy" and "sodomite" for a myriad of Greek words meaning "soft" "cowardly" and "fornicators" in the New Testament.
Dr. Knust also touches on the analogy used throughout the Bible of God or Christ as the bridegroom and Israel or the church as his sometimes unfaithful wife. She discusses circumcision and bodily fluids such as semen and menstrual fluid. She investigates the Bible's presentation of prostitution and sexual desire in this wide-ranging book. While I don't agree with all of her conclusions, I appreciate the frank discussion and raising of issues as food for deep thought and conversation.
For more book reviews, come visit my blog, .
Dr. Knust pulls out some fascinating contradictions about sex, marriage, and the body - both male and female - in the Bible between Genesis and Revelation, as well as some interesting contrasts and parallels. Early on, she explains her approach to this book of scripture as she describes the way her mother taught her as they read together. "Never once did my mom ask me to silence my questions about the Bible and its stories, nor did she tell me that I was silly or bad to wonder what these stories might be teaching me. My mom took me and my questions seriously. The bible was ours to read, question, wonder about, and deliberate, and sometimes it was the questions that mattered more than the answers." She continues: "the Bible was not a collection of policy statements that had to be obeyed or a weapon designed to enforce particular views about morality, but an invitation to think about who God might be and what it means to be human." I appreciate this kind of honest interaction with the biblical text.
For example, Dr. Knust invites us to compare the acclaimed Jewish heroine queen Esther and Jezebel, the wicked queen whose very name has become synonymous with immorality. Each of them was "asked to serve as a representative of her religious faith from a young age." Each "remain[ed] faithful to her ancestral god once she was placed in the court of a foreign king" and "was not asked to agree to the match." Both women took the opportunities available to promote their people and the worship of their respective gods. And both "arranged for the deaths of their enemies." Dr. Knust, with only a bit of tongue-in-cheek, uses this as an example of biblical "slut shaming" - similar to what happens in middle-schools and other settings all over the world today.
Another example of these inherent contradictions in the Bible, or perhaps the contradictory positions that individuals can hold with supposed biblical support, Dr. Knust also mentions that in the 1700s and 1800s, both pro-slavery and abolitionist groups found, in their minds, incontrovertible scriptural basis for their positions.
One challenge for those of us reading the Bible thousands of years after it was written, is the vastly different culture and society that existed then. The institution of marriage then was so completely distant from what we think of when we say "marriage" today as to be almost incomparable. "State-sponsored marriage is not a matter of morality and piety but of privileges meted out to some and denied to others."
A primary difference - perhaps THE primary difference when talking about marriage - is that "the assumption that women are the property of the men in their families, to be disposed of as their fathers, brothers, and husbands see fit, informs much of biblical literature." For example, a careful reading of David and Bathsheba's affair shows that, according to the prophet Nathan, David's sin is not the immorality of adultery, so much as his violation of Uriah's property rights by sleeping with his wife. "Marriage, as the Sinai covenant codes imagine it, is...a legal arrangement guaranteeing the rights of fathers, husbands, and masters over Israelite women, children and slaves...Marriage unites free Israelite men with as many women and slaves as they can reasonably support." Dr. Knust reiterates that "these are ancient stories designed to address the needs and circumstances of Israel, not twenty-first century Christians and Jews."
Of course, various translations can influence our understanding as well. For example, a great deal of the confusion regarding the sin(s) of Sodom results from some basic differences in translation. While scripture specifically defines these sins as pride, lack of generosity to the poor, and lack of hospitality toward strangers (see Isaiah 1:10-17 and Ezekiel 16:49-50), the false idea that the sin was that of homosexuality persistently hangs on even in modern English language (i.e. the word "sodomy"). This is perpetuated by modern translations that use "sodomy" and "sodomite" for a myriad of Greek words meaning "soft" "cowardly" and "fornicators" in the New Testament.
Dr. Knust also touches on the analogy used throughout the Bible of God or Christ as the bridegroom and Israel or the church as his sometimes unfaithful wife. She discusses circumcision and bodily fluids such as semen and menstrual fluid. She investigates the Bible's presentation of prostitution and sexual desire in this wide-ranging book. While I don't agree with all of her conclusions, I appreciate the frank discussion and raising of issues as food for deep thought and conversation.
For more book reviews, come visit my blog, .
February 14, 2011
goodreads does not allow half ratings, but I really give the book 3.5 stars, rather than just three. It's a fine read in many ways: nice prose style, accessible, clear, and engaging. Certainly pleases you in the department of readability.
As far as the merits of the work as a piece of Biblical Scholarship my opinion of it is a little lower. This book certainly demonstrates that the Bible has no unified view of sexuality or sexually permissible behavior. But then again, that conclusion could not really be doubted by anyone with an open mind who actually reads an compares the various books that make up the Bible.
There are some very interesting discussion of sex and sexuality throughout post-biblical Christian tradition (it was odd to learn of the Medieval cult of Jesus Christ's "foreskin"!!!!!) and several of the Biblical stories (most notably the story of Ruth and the tale of the lovers who sing out in "Song of Songs") were rather nicely explained and conveyed.
I found the author's intimation that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship to be unwarranted by the texts and the traditions. She is very convinced that a few phrases here and there prove that David and Jonathan "got it on," but the bulk of scholarship simply does not support this reading and it seems pretty clear to me that it is a very "wishful thinking" reading of the text.
Don't get me wrong: I would love it if a major biblical hero had a gay relationship, I would be the first to celebrate it! But It seems that, in this case, the evidence is simply lacking.
All in all, then, I enjoyed the read and do recommend the book to those interested in the relationship between. religion and sexuality. Indeed, the the book is not particularly exceptional as a work of scholarship it is a very fine popular writing on the issue. When so many condemn the sexual acts of us as "against the Bible" it is nice to be able to explain clearly, carefully, and with texts to back it up, that the Bible teaches inconsistent views of sex, and that some of what it teaches is just plain, silly, antiquated, or even down-right wrong.
As far as the merits of the work as a piece of Biblical Scholarship my opinion of it is a little lower. This book certainly demonstrates that the Bible has no unified view of sexuality or sexually permissible behavior. But then again, that conclusion could not really be doubted by anyone with an open mind who actually reads an compares the various books that make up the Bible.
There are some very interesting discussion of sex and sexuality throughout post-biblical Christian tradition (it was odd to learn of the Medieval cult of Jesus Christ's "foreskin"!!!!!) and several of the Biblical stories (most notably the story of Ruth and the tale of the lovers who sing out in "Song of Songs") were rather nicely explained and conveyed.
I found the author's intimation that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship to be unwarranted by the texts and the traditions. She is very convinced that a few phrases here and there prove that David and Jonathan "got it on," but the bulk of scholarship simply does not support this reading and it seems pretty clear to me that it is a very "wishful thinking" reading of the text.
Don't get me wrong: I would love it if a major biblical hero had a gay relationship, I would be the first to celebrate it! But It seems that, in this case, the evidence is simply lacking.
All in all, then, I enjoyed the read and do recommend the book to those interested in the relationship between. religion and sexuality. Indeed, the the book is not particularly exceptional as a work of scholarship it is a very fine popular writing on the issue. When so many condemn the sexual acts of us as "against the Bible" it is nice to be able to explain clearly, carefully, and with texts to back it up, that the Bible teaches inconsistent views of sex, and that some of what it teaches is just plain, silly, antiquated, or even down-right wrong.
May 22, 2023
� [Introduction: Why the Bible is Not a Sexual Guidebook]
� Anecdote of moving to Evanston Illinois. Here popular girls mock her a slut.
o As studies of the slut phenomenon in American high schools have shown, when it comes to being called a slut, the story is pretty much the same: A girl who is a misfit for one reason or another is selected (she’s the new girl, she develops breasts earlier than the other girls, her hair is different—whatever). Eventually she assimilates, keeps quiet, attention moves away.
o Still, every time I hear people accuse one another of sexual misdeeds, I have to wonder: what is really going on here?
o Those girls called me “slut� not because I was one—whatever that might mean—but because they were afraid of being labeled the slut themselves or, worse, of being asked to become one too.
o Sex can be used as public weapon
o At twelve, however, my Christian upbringing did little to help me handle the shame of being the designated slut. If anything, I had learned to hate sluts as much as the popular seventh-grade girls hated me.
o We all understood exactly what this biblical passage meant: we were supposed to be nice to tax collectors and prostitutes if we had the misfortune to run into one, but, for God’s sake, we were never to become one ourselves. We might feel sorry for prostitutes—that was our Christian duty—but we should avoid them at all costs.
o The real sluts in the Bible, we learned, were women like Jezebel, the evil wife of King Ahab of Israel and rival of the prophet Elijah.
� Revolve, a “Biblezine,� a bible-focused version of Seventeen
o “Sexually active girls are nearly three times more likely to at- tempt suicide than girls who are not sexually active,� Revolve warns in the margins of Luke 12:46�13:24.
o From the perspective of the editors of Revolve, then, a good girl serves God by being beautiful, but not sexy. She is pleasing to boys, but she never tempts them to sin. Filled with Christian love, she is ready to give away everything to others but her body. A girl like this succeeds at being the good Christian that God wants her to be, Revolve insists. If she fails, however, perhaps she, too, will find herself tossed over a wall and eaten by dogs (Jezebel’s fate)
� The Bible and the “Good Girl�
o Grounding an impossible double standard in the New Testament, Re- volve pretends that the Bible speaks with one voice about what God wants from teenage girls.
o The Bible fails to offer girls—or anyone—a consistent message regarding sexual morals and God’s priorities. A THESIS
o Bible doesn’t even consistently object to prostitution! EG Tamar, who births an ancestor to David and Jesus
o Some books establish marriage as only valid context for intercourse. Exodus and Deut are big on polygamy as norm.
o The New Testament letter 1 Timothy also promotes marriage as the only appropriate context for sex, but it goes further, linking the state of a woman’s soul before God to her status as a wife and mother.
� Misrepresenting the Bible
o Still, the fiction that there is a single biblical sexual standard is repeatedly invoked, and not only in the pages of Revolve.
o Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for Southern Baptist Convention supports a court decision that marriage is between one man and one women. According to this brief, the Southern Baptists have no choice but to oppose same-sex marriage—they are duty bound to defend an understanding of marriage that is rooted in “bibli- cal standards.� They cite Divine Command Theory
� Citing but not quoting several biblical books, the ERLC claims that sexual conduct outside of the bonds of a marriage between one man and one woman fails to meet the Bible’s mandates, demeans the dignity of the individual, and is an expression of sin
� But the passages they choose do not even address biblical marriage directly!!!
� P 9 for list
� These passages do not promote a single definition of mar- riage, let alone one sexual standard, and none addresses the set of cultural and historical circumstances currently informing the United States Dis- trict Court of the Northern District of California in 2010.
� Taking the Bible seriously
o I’m tired of watch- ing those who are supposed to care about the Bible reduce its stories and its teachings to slogans. The only way that the Bible can be regarded as straightforward and simple is if no one bothers to read it.
o Patently immoral suggestions
� Slaves obey your masters
� Aware of the death-dealing potential of commandments like “slaves, obey your masters,� abolitionists like Daniel Goodwin argued that Chris- tianity must be founded not in particular passages but in general princi- ples drawn from the whole of the New Testament witness.
� Siding with Queen Esther
� How different is Esther from Jezebel?
� Faithful to ancestral Gods, arrange death of enemies, employ femininity to advance goals
� Opening the Bible
o At the moment, sexuality is the central biblical battleground, as interpreters everywhere are asked to take sides on a whole host of sexual-political questions: Should we be for or against gay marriage, for or against the availability of abortion, for or against the submission of women to their husbands, and for or against women’s political leadership?
o Rather than getting caught up in these debates by attempting to pull the Bible over to a particular side, this book invites readers to encounter the full complexity of the biblical witness, taking both the diversity and the peculiarity of the Bible into account.
o Sluts should Live
� A Few fantastic Things
o Ch 1 will tell us the Bible has a much more expansive understanding of sex and sexual desire than is often thought.
o Ch 2 marriage was held up as an ideal by many biblical writers, but their ideas about “good marriage� consistently fail to cor- respond to our own.
o Ch 3 by the time the New Testament was written, many Jews and Christians thought that sexual desire was a problem to be solved, not a blessing given by God. The truly faithful should therefore attempt to overcome desire altogether.
� Ends chapter with story of her home church in Boston burning down
o Reading about sex in the Bible is akin to taking on a life of faith as Pastor Ashlee and Martin Luther King Jr. describe it. Pasting a plastic smile on what are sometimes death-dealing commandments and disturb- ing stories will not lessen their potential for harm (21)
o The Bible is complicated enough, ancient enough, and flexible enough to support an almost endless set of interpretive agendas.
o Ancient people had bodies, too, and their bodies were as vulnerable to wounds and as in need of caresses as ours are today.
o The Bible doesn’t have to be an invader, conquering bodies and wills with its pronouncements and demands. It can also be a partner in the complicated dance of figuring out what it means to live in bodies that are filled with longing, both to touch and to be touched. 22
� [Chapter 1: The Bible and the Joy of Sex: Desire in and Out of Control]
� Christian educator Bonnie Park says sex is Russian roulette. Scare-tactics of abstinence-only education: teenagers who engage in premarital sex are risking both their lives and their bodies
o Boys cannot control their animalistic impulses without the assistance of God, strong parenting, and a godly girl.
o Girls responsible for monitoring both their own desires and those of the boys who long to touch them.
o As this chapter shows, passages celebrating sexual pleasure outside the bonds of marriage can be found within the Bible and, remarkably, no one dies. THESIS of CHPT.
� Many Waters Cannot Quench Love; Desire and the Song of Songs
o History of Songs on p 25 however risqué the Song of Songs may be, its canonical status has never seriously been questioned.
o The Writing
� Attributed to Solomon, but its post exilic when Israel was vassal of Persia or Hellenized As such, the Song may express Israel’s longing for a time when Jerusalem was independent of foreign domination and Solomon’s original temple still stood tall, at the height of its glory.
� If this interpretation is correct, the Song employs human desire to offer a poetic description of Israel’s love for her land while also expressing a sentimental longing for the glory the nation once enjoyed.
� But the Song also recalls the great love poetry of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia
� Like these earlier poems, the Song does not shrink from describing genitalia, sexual intimacy, and climax.
o The meaning
� the metaphorical language of the Song does not require readers to envision particular sex acts and positions.13 Sexually explicit interpre- tations are possible, not obvious, and ready to be discovered by an en- terprising reader eager to find them.
� The Song of Songs is a poem, and, as such, interpretation is left open. Its metaphors remain ambiguous, even as they heighten desire through text, pattern, and language, mimicking the rhythm of sexual intercourse and titillating with sensual, luxuriant imagery. Climax is hinted at rather than described, leaving it to readers to supply what the poem refuses explicitly to reveal.
� In addition to the lovers, other characters appear throughout the poem, who either encourage or interrupt the fulfillment of the couple’s sexual longing.
� Her mother, her brothers (who make her work vineyard), daughters of Jerusalem (cheer her on), violent men (who want to control her), male representatives of city (also try to control her)
� The poem therefore rejects the view that men can or should control women. It also displays no in- terest whatsoever in defending marriage as the only appropriate setting for love.18 These lovers pursue their love urgently, without consulting the wishes of others. Marriage is beside the point.
o Who are they?
� In addition to undermining the importance of marriage, the Song of Songs fails to meet expectations about male and female roles, exhibit- ing a remarkably open attitude toward gender. The dialogue form of the poem introduces the phenomenon. Though it is usually possible to detect whether the poet is speaking in the voice of a man or a woman in the original Hebrew (like many other languages, Hebrew nouns, pro- nouns, adjectives, and verbal forms have gender), some verses remain opaque, and so it can be difficult to discern who, exactly, is speaking
� Many of these images are rooted in ancient tastes and ideals, some of which no longer resonate. They are also metaphorical, in- tended to provoke admiration and awe, not to describe a “real� woman or man.
� Breasts like fawns, teeth like flock of shorn sheep
o How to interpret these? Augustine says teeth are church leaders, shearing sinners away from their errors.
o Rashi says neck is reference to teachers of law
o 14C medieval interpretation says the womens cheeks are red, like the red blood of Christ’s passion
o The Love Between God and his Wife
� Interpreting the Song not as an erotic dialogue between a man and a woman but as a description of the love affair between God and Israel, the second-century Rabbi Akiva declared that the Song of Songs is not only an important book, but the “holiest of the holies.�
� Patriarchs as God’s wives, later male Christians as the woman to God or Jesus� man
� Big talk on mystics here
� In this way, me- dieval readers of the Song took on male and female roles at will, pursuing erotic fulfillment in the arms/breasts/wounds of a loving God.
� But Ruth Clung to Her: The Love Affair of Ruth and Naomi
o the book of Ruth seems to share Ahmed’s basic insight: families can be formed by love and desire, whether or not they are recognized by institutional bodies. To the writer of Ruth, family can consist of an older woman and her beloved immigrant daughter-in-law, women can easily raise children on their own, and men can be seduced if it serves the interests of women.
o Directly before Song in Jewish Bible; only HB book devoted to telling the story of a non-Israelite woman. Ruth is a descendent of Lot, Abraham’s brother. She is a Moabite (descendants of that incestuous union). Much of Bible hates the Moabites.
o Ruth reports that during time of judges there was a famile that Judean Elimelech and his wife Naomi went to Moab to seek relief. Their sons marry local women. Then all three sons die. Naomi and her daughters in law fend for themselves, then return to Judah with the daughters in law. There is no way for Levirate marriage to proceed, there are no more sons. Orpah stays behind. Ruth does not.
o Ruth’s covenant with Naomi, a kind of marriage contract.
o By the end of the book, Ruth and Naomi have re- turned to Israel, secured an inheritance for themselves, and, with the as- sistance of Boaz, one of Elimelech’s relatives, given birth to a son, Obed, the grandfather of David.
o Continuing the Family line
� Is it about Naomi and Ruth’s devotion? About Levirite marriage? Geneology?
� Regardless, their love is central.
� Ruth gleans Barley from Boaz’s field, and he catches her eye, and she is given more places to glean.
� Naomi notes that Levirite marriage would apply to Boaz. Naomi tells her to go uncover her feet
� Implied sexual incounter that night.
� Boaz takes Ruth as wife, then births Obed. Naomi becomes Obed’s wet nurse. Obed will be father of Jesse
o Nursing Obed
� To the book of Ruth, the family of Israel can include a family made up of two women and a baby, conceived at their initiative. Ruth and Naomi are in this way the conduits of wholeness and well-being, and not only for themselves, but also for the whole community, particularly the women, who rejoice at their good fortune
� Lurking behind the book of Ruth, however, is a story not only of successful female love and empowerment, but also of male-dominated property rights and inheritance.
� The book never questions the view that women are property, subject to exchange between men; the legal transaction between Boaz and Naomi’s other male relative includes Ruth and a plot of land as a combined purchase, treating them as equivalent “goods.�50 Moreover, the final sign of blessing in this book is a male child, through whom prop- erty—and women—can pass to the next generation of propertied men.
� Still, despite these undercurrents, like the Song of Songs, the book of Ruth presents an unexpected understanding of the place of desire in human life while also redefining what a proper family might look like.
� Your Love to Me was Wonderful: Desire and the Love of King David
o 1 and 2 Sam focus on David, his rise, his exploits, his military success. David’s sexual partnerships and erotic alliances serve to cement political ties or undermine them, demonstrat- ing God’s favor or carrying out God’s punishments, and displaying the overarching perspective of the editor: monarchy comes at a cost.
o The people plea for a king: Sam says no, come on. Finally he appoints Saul. And then Nathan anoints David
� Jonathan and David
o Sensing that his father’s reign will fail, he makes a formal covenant with David, asking his friend to remain faithful to him and to his descendants, whatever happens over the course of the struggles with Saul. Sealing the covenant with an oath, David swears by his love for Jonathan, “for he loved him as he loved his own life�
o Jonathan killed by Philistines, Saul kills himself, David sings a lament for them both
o Saul: “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s naked- ness?� (1 Sam. 20:30). This charged vocabulary of shame and nakedness implies that Jonathan’s disgrace is sexual as well as political, at least from the king’s perspective.
� Some say language of love is typical vocabulary in ane covenants, so this is not erotic but the love of a king for his subjects. In other words, love language does not necessarily refer to erotic intimacy and desire. Or does it? 42
� Bathsheba
o Newly minted as king of Israel and residing in the capital city, David cements his political alliances by taking additional wives and concubines, displaying the wealth and stature befitting his new status.65 He also undertakes several military and sexual conquests, including the conquest of Bathsheba, the wife of his Hittite commander.
o She is seen bathing. She is wife of Uriah, and sent for anyway. She becomes pregnant. Uriah is brought home, implicitly encouraged to sleep with his wife, but Uriah keep soldier’s vow of celibacy. So David has Joab (general) send Uriah to front lines.
o Nathan tells a parable of a shepherd and a ewe-lamb: rich man steals a poor mans ewe-lamb to spare killing his own flocks. David says the rich man deserves to die: Nathan is like that’s you.
o Neither David nor Bathsheba are punished! Others pay for their adultery: first Uriah the Hittite is murdered, then the son they produce dies, and, finally, David’s concubines are raped by one of his other sons.
o Bathsheba as Ewe-Lamb
� David did steal another man’s property.
� Some place blame on Bathsheba (did she arrange her own seduction) (did she resist) (was she not fine with pregnancy?) (she knew it would help her status) (was she not an EQUAL partner of not a seductress)
� Desire In and Out of Control (46)
o The Song of Songs, the book of Ruth, and the cycle of stories associated with King David demonstrate that biblical perspectives on sexual desire and family ties remain much more complicated than is often thought.
o NO appropriate expression of desire
o NO nuclear family idealized
o No simple message regarding the meaning and limits of desire can be found.
o SUMMARY The Song of Songs reacts against this assumption by refusing to limit sexual desire to marriage, even for the woman. By contrast, both the book of Ruth and the story of David presuppose that, in the end, the point of marriage and family is to continue the male line. In Ruth, this goal must be managed with the assistance of women, but only after the men who “own� them agree to the arrangement. Thus, Boaz must check with another male rela- tive of Naomi’s before he can take Ruth as his wife. Similarly, in 2 Samuel, the prophet Nathan accuses David of violating Uriah’s property rights, not Bathsheba, when the king seduces her. In these stories, women function as units of exchange in negotiations between men, though these same texts are willing to entertain the productivity of extramarital sex and homoerotic love.
February 15, 2019
Not as ‘sensational� as the cover art (and the endorsement of prof. Bart Ehrman on it) suggests.. this book has many arcane literary references which shows the author's scholarly awareness of the ancient historical times, yet is clearly written with the general audience always in mind, thus the book and argument flows really easily � even for most laypeople to understand.
While I won’t be too quick to jump on to Dr. Knust’s conclusion on many things implied in the book, I find her resourcefulness helpful and will be useful for future study in this dialogue of human sexuality and the Bible.
(3.5/5)
While I won’t be too quick to jump on to Dr. Knust’s conclusion on many things implied in the book, I find her resourcefulness helpful and will be useful for future study in this dialogue of human sexuality and the Bible.
(3.5/5)
September 3, 2021
The basic message is simple: if you think you know and understand all that the Bible says about sex, sexuality, and bodily fluids, you are probably wrong. Among other things, the Bible is not really all that clear and key passages have been interpreted in contradictory ways, even within the Bible itself. The author's demonstration of those contradictions may at times be too much detail and too many alternate conclusions of biblical interpreters, but it is solid scholarship and useful for folks who want to learn more. And if you want to know where Knust gets all this stuff, nearly the last third of the book is footnotes. Bible nerds rejoice.
August 2, 2012
What does the Bible have to say about sex? Many contradictory things. If all the Bible's sex-related prohibitions were literally enforced, we'd have to stone or at least kill about a quarter of the population.
Knust breaks up the book into topics (e.g., marriage; desire/lust; body parts; the relationship between the sexes; etc.) and lays out in detail everything the bible offers on each topic. She takes care with the issue of translations, and how those have affected what we think the Bible says. She also provides contemporaneous writings in the societies where the various books of the Bible were written to show the context for the biblical texts. She drops in a few personal anecdotes, some of which feel not quite on point, or not particularly interesting. My biggest beef with the book is its redundancy. She tells you what she's going to tell you; then she tells it to you; then she tells you what she just told you. This strategy may work great for a lawyer making an oral argument that lasts less than half an hour, but it drives this reader crazy. Knust could have used a good editor to eliminate all these redundancies. At bottom, this is a highly informative book for anyone interested in the topic.
Knust breaks up the book into topics (e.g., marriage; desire/lust; body parts; the relationship between the sexes; etc.) and lays out in detail everything the bible offers on each topic. She takes care with the issue of translations, and how those have affected what we think the Bible says. She also provides contemporaneous writings in the societies where the various books of the Bible were written to show the context for the biblical texts. She drops in a few personal anecdotes, some of which feel not quite on point, or not particularly interesting. My biggest beef with the book is its redundancy. She tells you what she's going to tell you; then she tells it to you; then she tells you what she just told you. This strategy may work great for a lawyer making an oral argument that lasts less than half an hour, but it drives this reader crazy. Knust could have used a good editor to eliminate all these redundancies. At bottom, this is a highly informative book for anyone interested in the topic.
October 22, 2015
A fascinating book exploring the diverse texts regarding family and sexuality in the Scriptures. Knust is a careful scholar who opened my eyes with regards to a number of issues. She still sees Paul as fundamentally opposed to women and equality, however, and I am not convinced this reading is accurate. Still, it is a book well-worth wrestling over.
April 1, 2022
I will be honest: the title grabbed my attention because it was stuck in the middle of the local HPB's "religious studies" biblical prophecy section and I misread the title as Unprotected Sex: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions and did a double-take to reread what I thought I had read.
It was an interesting book to read, I guess. I was not that impressed with it, overall, but what I was impressed with was the thirty-three (33!!!!) pages of bibliography in the back of the book. I thought that was quite impressive indeed. It did loose me in some parts, but I still managed to finish it in far less time than I thought I would. I don't necessarily agree with everything she says in the book, nor do I agree with her interpretations, but that is fine. The book is her opinion and her interpretations intermixed with what she learned while researching the material.
She does make good points throughout the book, though, and some interesting observations, so that was cool. One thing that she says constantly throughout the book is that we need to read what was written in terms of the "source material" and the times in which it was written and stop putting our modern interpretation(s) and understanding on Scripture. Fair enough, and a valid point. She is not saying that what is written on the pages of each biblical book cannot and does not speak to us today, but she does counsel against reading it completely from a modern mindset. I can agree with that.
She makes an interesting comparison between Rahab and the two spies she saved by helping them to hide (although she claims the spies lied to Joshua in their report to him about the land of Canaan and its inhabitants). She points out that when the spies were with Rahab, they were the fearful ones who showed their lack of trust in Yahweh by hiding while she showed her trust in their God by trusting Him to protect her for helping protect His servants. She does make a good point that the spies quoted her when they told Joshua that the land was living in fear of the Israelites; she was the one who told the Israelite spies about how fearful the residents of the city and surrounding land were (135).
She also made an interesting observation about David, Bathsheba, and Nathan. She points out that while David had coveted his neighbor's wife and gotten her pregnant while she was still married to another man, he did not actually violate the law. Neither did Nathan accuse David of breaking either commandment. Instead, Nathan accused David of stealing another man's property (44). Since Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, was a Hittite, she claims the Sinai codes did not apply to what occurred between David and Bathsheba. Non-Israelite generals belonged to a separate legal category from free Israelites. According to her, an Israelite could not commit adultery if he slept with the wife of a foreigner, so, ergo, David did not commit adultery, and that is why David and Bathsheba were not stoned for their sin. The two may have violated the spirit of the law, but they did not violate the letter of the law and that is why Nathan emphasized David's violation of Uriah's property rights over the gravity of David's adulterous affair (60).
In fact, her final three-four sentences in the last paragraph in the books are probably her best points in the book, in my opinion. She points out that "it is a tragedy, not a triumph, every time some young person somewhere is crushed by the weight of taunting and shame inspired by cruelty masquerading as righteousness." I agree. She goes on to say, "If human bodies matter to God as much as some ancient Israelites, Jewish Sages, and early Christians taught, then surely they deserve better both protection and high regard, no matter what. The Samaritan woman desired living water capable of quenching thirst forever, not still water trapped in a bucket and only available for one thirsty afternoon. When it comes to the Bible, may we imitate her example, seeking abundant life in all the interpretations we offer" (248).
However, as often as she warns the reader to beware interpreting Scripture based on personal morals and prejudices, even chiding those with whom she strongly disagrees, she will then go and re-interpret a biblical verse to say what she believes it says (she says she goes to the original Hebrew texts of the O.T. and Greek texts of the N.T.). Which is funny, because she comes across as interpreting the Bible how she wants to read it as opposed to how some verses may have been "traditionally" interpreted or understood.
Also, she claims that the Song of Solomon is a "love song/poem" about two unmarried people having consensual sex and even being protected by some family members. I have never understood it to be about consensual sex between unmarried partners, nor have I ever read any articles, commentaries, or explanations about this book that support such a claim, but that is what she claims. She also claims that Ruth engaged in oral sex with Boaz in order to entrap him into marrying her; why else would she have spent the night with him, right? To me, that is a "liberal interpretation" of what transpired that night, and there is definitely a strong divide between liberal interpretations and conservative interpretations of this passage. However, if The Book of Ruth truly takes place during the time of the events described in The Book of Judges, it makes sense that Boaz encouraged her to remain in the structure with him because it was not safe for a woman to wander alone around the countryside and especially at night without it involving any kind of sexual activity between the two of them.
She also goes on a bit about the "love affair" between David and Jonathan, claiming they were sexually involved with each other. However, as every source I looked at indicated Jonathan was, at minimum, ten years older than David when David went to live in the king's palace as a young teenager, that makes Jonathan a pedophile and abusive at the very beginning of their hypothetical, supposed "love relationship." I don't believe the men were lovers, period, but she clearly wasn't thinking through what she claims happened between these two men and how it would have been an abusive relationship with an older man taking advantage of a young teenager if what she claims is true.
Another "thing" she does that stood out to me (bugged me) was when she said "sexual behavior labeled objectionable is tolerated in one biblical book and even promoted in the next", how she says that because something is in the Bible, the Bible clearly supports this activity (139). Take incest - the Bible has passages in it where it is revealed that incest occurred. However, just because incest occurred in the Bible does not mean that the Bible condones or approves of incest. That is like saying that because murders and killing and lying and adultery mentioned in the Bible, then clearly the Bible approves of murders and killing and lying and adultery. I didn't care for the way she twisted passages in the Bible like that to mean something else other than what was shared.
Then you have her comments about Jesus completely disapproving of marriage. If He truly disapproved of marriage, then why did He take on a disciple who was married (Peter)? That really, truly makes zero sense to me, to be honest, and she never really explains how she would justify Jesus taking on a married man if He opposed marriage as much as she claims He did. Furthermore, she makes a false claim about what Jesus said on page 102; she claims that Jesus explicitly forbade remarrying and that getting remarried equaled adultery. This is not what Jesus said; what He said was that if a man divorces his wife for any reason other than sexual sin and then remarries, that man commits adultery. What happens if a spouse dies of natural causes? Jesus never said that if the man's wife died of natural causes, he could never remarry (or vice-versa). And yet, the author would have the reader believer that Jesus forbade any remarriage and equated remarrying for any reason as the equivalent of adultery.
She also has a chapter devoted to random "stuff" the early church discussed and argued about ("early" as in 100-200 A.D. and beyond) which was really bizarre to me and the most boring part of the book.
Finally, the book kinda came across as "self-serving" when she claims that sex outside of marriage is okay and that the Bible actually supports this kind of behavior because the author (at the time the book was published) had had a child and was still living with the child’s father. So, yeah, it felt like she was justifying and defending her own relationship, in some ways, by writing this book.
As I said at the start, it was a relatively interesting book, and it held my attention throughout most of the book. It did start to get a little long in the tooth towards the end, and I kept flipping to the end to see how many pages I had left to read. She does make some good points and some interesting points throughout the book, but I felt they were few and far in between. She does make some valid points; I cannot deny that, but then she seems to really be reaching in other points. Some things I strongly disagreed with her about. Other stuff, I really did not care. One thing that stood out to me, though, was that we as Christians need to be better about expressing Yahweh's love to one another and to people that we encounter. A second thing that stood out to me was that because each of us are hand-created by Yahweh in the womb, each person we encounter is worthy of being treated with dignity and respect. I'd probably rate it 2.4 - 2.6 stars, rounded down to 2. In any case, I am glad I took a chance on reading the book.
It was an interesting book to read, I guess. I was not that impressed with it, overall, but what I was impressed with was the thirty-three (33!!!!) pages of bibliography in the back of the book. I thought that was quite impressive indeed. It did loose me in some parts, but I still managed to finish it in far less time than I thought I would. I don't necessarily agree with everything she says in the book, nor do I agree with her interpretations, but that is fine. The book is her opinion and her interpretations intermixed with what she learned while researching the material.
She does make good points throughout the book, though, and some interesting observations, so that was cool. One thing that she says constantly throughout the book is that we need to read what was written in terms of the "source material" and the times in which it was written and stop putting our modern interpretation(s) and understanding on Scripture. Fair enough, and a valid point. She is not saying that what is written on the pages of each biblical book cannot and does not speak to us today, but she does counsel against reading it completely from a modern mindset. I can agree with that.
She makes an interesting comparison between Rahab and the two spies she saved by helping them to hide (although she claims the spies lied to Joshua in their report to him about the land of Canaan and its inhabitants). She points out that when the spies were with Rahab, they were the fearful ones who showed their lack of trust in Yahweh by hiding while she showed her trust in their God by trusting Him to protect her for helping protect His servants. She does make a good point that the spies quoted her when they told Joshua that the land was living in fear of the Israelites; she was the one who told the Israelite spies about how fearful the residents of the city and surrounding land were (135).
She also made an interesting observation about David, Bathsheba, and Nathan. She points out that while David had coveted his neighbor's wife and gotten her pregnant while she was still married to another man, he did not actually violate the law. Neither did Nathan accuse David of breaking either commandment. Instead, Nathan accused David of stealing another man's property (44). Since Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, was a Hittite, she claims the Sinai codes did not apply to what occurred between David and Bathsheba. Non-Israelite generals belonged to a separate legal category from free Israelites. According to her, an Israelite could not commit adultery if he slept with the wife of a foreigner, so, ergo, David did not commit adultery, and that is why David and Bathsheba were not stoned for their sin. The two may have violated the spirit of the law, but they did not violate the letter of the law and that is why Nathan emphasized David's violation of Uriah's property rights over the gravity of David's adulterous affair (60).
In fact, her final three-four sentences in the last paragraph in the books are probably her best points in the book, in my opinion. She points out that "it is a tragedy, not a triumph, every time some young person somewhere is crushed by the weight of taunting and shame inspired by cruelty masquerading as righteousness." I agree. She goes on to say, "If human bodies matter to God as much as some ancient Israelites, Jewish Sages, and early Christians taught, then surely they deserve better both protection and high regard, no matter what. The Samaritan woman desired living water capable of quenching thirst forever, not still water trapped in a bucket and only available for one thirsty afternoon. When it comes to the Bible, may we imitate her example, seeking abundant life in all the interpretations we offer" (248).
However, as often as she warns the reader to beware interpreting Scripture based on personal morals and prejudices, even chiding those with whom she strongly disagrees, she will then go and re-interpret a biblical verse to say what she believes it says (she says she goes to the original Hebrew texts of the O.T. and Greek texts of the N.T.). Which is funny, because she comes across as interpreting the Bible how she wants to read it as opposed to how some verses may have been "traditionally" interpreted or understood.
Also, she claims that the Song of Solomon is a "love song/poem" about two unmarried people having consensual sex and even being protected by some family members. I have never understood it to be about consensual sex between unmarried partners, nor have I ever read any articles, commentaries, or explanations about this book that support such a claim, but that is what she claims. She also claims that Ruth engaged in oral sex with Boaz in order to entrap him into marrying her; why else would she have spent the night with him, right? To me, that is a "liberal interpretation" of what transpired that night, and there is definitely a strong divide between liberal interpretations and conservative interpretations of this passage. However, if The Book of Ruth truly takes place during the time of the events described in The Book of Judges, it makes sense that Boaz encouraged her to remain in the structure with him because it was not safe for a woman to wander alone around the countryside and especially at night without it involving any kind of sexual activity between the two of them.
She also goes on a bit about the "love affair" between David and Jonathan, claiming they were sexually involved with each other. However, as every source I looked at indicated Jonathan was, at minimum, ten years older than David when David went to live in the king's palace as a young teenager, that makes Jonathan a pedophile and abusive at the very beginning of their hypothetical, supposed "love relationship." I don't believe the men were lovers, period, but she clearly wasn't thinking through what she claims happened between these two men and how it would have been an abusive relationship with an older man taking advantage of a young teenager if what she claims is true.
Another "thing" she does that stood out to me (bugged me) was when she said "sexual behavior labeled objectionable is tolerated in one biblical book and even promoted in the next", how she says that because something is in the Bible, the Bible clearly supports this activity (139). Take incest - the Bible has passages in it where it is revealed that incest occurred. However, just because incest occurred in the Bible does not mean that the Bible condones or approves of incest. That is like saying that because murders and killing and lying and adultery mentioned in the Bible, then clearly the Bible approves of murders and killing and lying and adultery. I didn't care for the way she twisted passages in the Bible like that to mean something else other than what was shared.
Then you have her comments about Jesus completely disapproving of marriage. If He truly disapproved of marriage, then why did He take on a disciple who was married (Peter)? That really, truly makes zero sense to me, to be honest, and she never really explains how she would justify Jesus taking on a married man if He opposed marriage as much as she claims He did. Furthermore, she makes a false claim about what Jesus said on page 102; she claims that Jesus explicitly forbade remarrying and that getting remarried equaled adultery. This is not what Jesus said; what He said was that if a man divorces his wife for any reason other than sexual sin and then remarries, that man commits adultery. What happens if a spouse dies of natural causes? Jesus never said that if the man's wife died of natural causes, he could never remarry (or vice-versa). And yet, the author would have the reader believer that Jesus forbade any remarriage and equated remarrying for any reason as the equivalent of adultery.
She also has a chapter devoted to random "stuff" the early church discussed and argued about ("early" as in 100-200 A.D. and beyond) which was really bizarre to me and the most boring part of the book.
Finally, the book kinda came across as "self-serving" when she claims that sex outside of marriage is okay and that the Bible actually supports this kind of behavior because the author (at the time the book was published) had had a child and was still living with the child’s father. So, yeah, it felt like she was justifying and defending her own relationship, in some ways, by writing this book.
As I said at the start, it was a relatively interesting book, and it held my attention throughout most of the book. It did start to get a little long in the tooth towards the end, and I kept flipping to the end to see how many pages I had left to read. She does make some good points and some interesting points throughout the book, but I felt they were few and far in between. She does make some valid points; I cannot deny that, but then she seems to really be reaching in other points. Some things I strongly disagreed with her about. Other stuff, I really did not care. One thing that stood out to me, though, was that we as Christians need to be better about expressing Yahweh's love to one another and to people that we encounter. A second thing that stood out to me was that because each of us are hand-created by Yahweh in the womb, each person we encounter is worthy of being treated with dignity and respect. I'd probably rate it 2.4 - 2.6 stars, rounded down to 2. In any case, I am glad I took a chance on reading the book.
December 30, 2024
Jennifer’s argument in this book is that there is no single sexual ethic in the “Christian� Bible and surrounding Judeo-Christian texts. She proves her point by examining the similarities, differences and even contradictions between various Judeo-Christian texts, the law of the land and customs of the surrounding culture.
Jennifer shows that Song of Songs is more likely about two sexually active single people than two single virgins who are abstaining. She delves into the book of Ruth, the story of David and Bathsheba contrasted with the story of David and Jonathan (which may have been a sexual relationship), ideas about ownership of women, and the commonplace acceptance of polygamy in Old Testament times. She further contrasts polygamy with the elevation of celibacy in the New Testament.
I found chapter four particularly illuminating. Jennifer explains that when the Bible refers to “adulterers� and “prostitutes� it is simply a label to distinguish between “us� and “them.� The label itself often has no sexual basis. We have little or no evidence that temple prostitutes existed, for example, and most likely refers to people serving other gods. The Israelites were often just as “adulterous� as any other nation in terms of actual sexual behavior and also in terms of their relationship to their God—the figurative “adultery� AKA “idolatry� they committed by worshipping other gods. So when we read lists in the New Testament about “fornicators,� or the “sexually immoral� etc. we can see that this is more of a code-word for “outsiders� and less of a reference to actual sexual behavior.
Jennifer talks about rape, incest and divorce laws evolving over time. She writes about Eunuchs and Sodomites and their treatment within Judeo-Christian texts. She studies the Nephilim and the mating of humans with spiritual beings; a discussion which lends itself to Jesus� own “miraculous� conception and the emphasis on (or idealization of) Mary’s “purity.� The final chapter is all about bodily fluids like menstrual blood and semen, childbirth, the ritual of circumcision, and the customs and thought processes around “cleanliness� in the Bible.
Jennifer convincingly demonstrates that “sexual laws are irregularly enforced and subject to constant revision, both in America and in the Bible.�
Jennifer shows that Song of Songs is more likely about two sexually active single people than two single virgins who are abstaining. She delves into the book of Ruth, the story of David and Bathsheba contrasted with the story of David and Jonathan (which may have been a sexual relationship), ideas about ownership of women, and the commonplace acceptance of polygamy in Old Testament times. She further contrasts polygamy with the elevation of celibacy in the New Testament.
I found chapter four particularly illuminating. Jennifer explains that when the Bible refers to “adulterers� and “prostitutes� it is simply a label to distinguish between “us� and “them.� The label itself often has no sexual basis. We have little or no evidence that temple prostitutes existed, for example, and most likely refers to people serving other gods. The Israelites were often just as “adulterous� as any other nation in terms of actual sexual behavior and also in terms of their relationship to their God—the figurative “adultery� AKA “idolatry� they committed by worshipping other gods. So when we read lists in the New Testament about “fornicators,� or the “sexually immoral� etc. we can see that this is more of a code-word for “outsiders� and less of a reference to actual sexual behavior.
Jennifer talks about rape, incest and divorce laws evolving over time. She writes about Eunuchs and Sodomites and their treatment within Judeo-Christian texts. She studies the Nephilim and the mating of humans with spiritual beings; a discussion which lends itself to Jesus� own “miraculous� conception and the emphasis on (or idealization of) Mary’s “purity.� The final chapter is all about bodily fluids like menstrual blood and semen, childbirth, the ritual of circumcision, and the customs and thought processes around “cleanliness� in the Bible.
Jennifer convincingly demonstrates that “sexual laws are irregularly enforced and subject to constant revision, both in America and in the Bible.�
April 5, 2021
TL;DR There is no single view on marriage presented in the Bible, but a whole lot is said about farming and owning slaves.
The Bible says that God made sex fun and pleasurable, because God wants you to have sex and “be fruitful and multiply,� but the Bible is also not the Kama Sutra.
The Bible doesn’t condone prostitution or gay sex, unless you’re a proper Israelite man or woman. If you are (a proper . . .), wasting sperm by putting in anywhere else but a (human and non-menstruating) lady’s vagina is a sin against God, and you’re better off never getting married at all.
Also, rape is wrong, period.
Male masturbation, wrong (ladies, have at it).
Adultery, wrong.
Bestiality, gross and wrong.
And King David was definitely the top and Prince Jonathan was a bottom. And that women were merely ambassadors of their fathers, so when you wrong a lady, you’re going to have to face her father. Also, children, women, and slaves share one thing in common: they need to obey the father/master without question (which is such BS, but that’s an aside).
The Bible doesn’t say anything explicitly about homosexuality being wrong or gross, except to clarify that it’s a waste of sperm if it doesn’t end up making a baby. The end.
The Bible says that God made sex fun and pleasurable, because God wants you to have sex and “be fruitful and multiply,� but the Bible is also not the Kama Sutra.
The Bible doesn’t condone prostitution or gay sex, unless you’re a proper Israelite man or woman. If you are (a proper . . .), wasting sperm by putting in anywhere else but a (human and non-menstruating) lady’s vagina is a sin against God, and you’re better off never getting married at all.
Also, rape is wrong, period.
Male masturbation, wrong (ladies, have at it).
Adultery, wrong.
Bestiality, gross and wrong.
And King David was definitely the top and Prince Jonathan was a bottom. And that women were merely ambassadors of their fathers, so when you wrong a lady, you’re going to have to face her father. Also, children, women, and slaves share one thing in common: they need to obey the father/master without question (which is such BS, but that’s an aside).
The Bible doesn’t say anything explicitly about homosexuality being wrong or gross, except to clarify that it’s a waste of sperm if it doesn’t end up making a baby. The end.
June 16, 2021
Don't put your "feet" on Jennifer's big flowery couch!
I came across the author giving biblical opinion on tv and decided to watch her Ted Talk and email her at work. Despite my obvious weird stalker-like approach She obviously had a good sense of humour and was kind enough to reply. I'm not sure if this book is needed in most of England but addresses the hideous use of selected Bible extracts in the US to justify hate in regard to same-sex marriage. The bible was written by people, mostly Jewish men and ranks men above women, women above slave and every new above Gentile. Of course it does. Jennifer rightly makes the point that we have wishes and by nature and design we seek confirmatory bias. The Bible is the perfect source with which to justify our desire and beliefs as being God's will. As a person of no belief I am greatly pleased to see this view expressed by a person of obvious faith but it did leave me wondering if the Bible is not just a collective expression of different views and not the product of any actual Devine revelation. I guess that's my faithless Englishness again!
I came across the author giving biblical opinion on tv and decided to watch her Ted Talk and email her at work. Despite my obvious weird stalker-like approach She obviously had a good sense of humour and was kind enough to reply. I'm not sure if this book is needed in most of England but addresses the hideous use of selected Bible extracts in the US to justify hate in regard to same-sex marriage. The bible was written by people, mostly Jewish men and ranks men above women, women above slave and every new above Gentile. Of course it does. Jennifer rightly makes the point that we have wishes and by nature and design we seek confirmatory bias. The Bible is the perfect source with which to justify our desire and beliefs as being God's will. As a person of no belief I am greatly pleased to see this view expressed by a person of obvious faith but it did leave me wondering if the Bible is not just a collective expression of different views and not the product of any actual Devine revelation. I guess that's my faithless Englishness again!
July 20, 2023
Knust provides an accessible exercise in biblical interpretation, with representations of sex, desire, and bodies as her case studies. On one level, she pushes her readers beyond the sort of proof-texting and eisegesis that do violence to a text. In the process, she demonstrates how the reading of passages like Paul's valorization of celibacy or Jesus's remarks on divorce might best be read if we're trying to honor their most immediate contexts. What emerges is the sort of hermeneutic suggested by the book's subtitle: approaching the bible as multivocal on the matters at hand. On another level, Knust invites the reader to see how honoring the interpreter's own wishes and values is not in and of itself a source of violence but, in a variety of ways, a vital component of interpreting scripture. The cumulative effect of this book is an informative journey that provides more tools for reading the bible faithfully than it might take away. While I found that this adventure in biblical studies sometimes gets bogged down in the details of exegesis, I greatly enjoyed reading it and felt enriched by the ride on which Knust took me.
October 2, 2020
“The Bible provides neither a shortcut to the real work of interpretation nor a simple solution to the important task of figuring out what it means to be human and yet in love with God.� -Jennifer Wright Knust. This is one of my favorite quotes of the book. While Knust does a thorough job at countering the moralistic views around sexuality with sound biblical research, her foundation for that is given credibility by understanding the broader experience of meaning making, and the complexities of humanity, and allowing space for the details of treasuring scripture and keeping it sacred by actually taking it seriously. Any writer who challenges "T" truth is a needed, and often prophetic voice in my mind. Knust dispels close-minded views on gender, and attitudes about sexuality by revealing how scripture is rather remarkably doing the opposite- being open, and inviting us to have honest, and developing interpretation. As one who values questions over answers, this book is a refreshing and candid look into the difficulty of contradictory but also abundant and rich beauty, especially when we do not force into narrow interpretations. So much damage has been done by flawed hermeneutics around sexuality by the Church, and we need more books like these to heal. Expansive notes and index. (As an American Baptist myself, I was thrilled to know that Knust is as well!)
Read
January 29, 2024pg 247, “Left behind with human books and human bodies but without simple solutions in sight, the Bible, with all its contradictions, can seem like an unsatisfactory source of comfort, but it does not have to be so. By admitting that we, too, have longings and commitments, that we, too, are invested not only in God's body but in the body of biblical texts and the bodies of those whom we love, we acknowledge both our limitations and our desires, opening ourselves up to the divine Word instead of closing our minds and hearts by acting as if we already know what God thinks and wants.�
March 10, 2019
Good book! Thorough and long but great insight.
Very thoughtful survey of the Bible and the information that it contains regarding marriage, sex, sexuality. This was not a quick read, some of the middle chapters were a bit tedious but I appreciated the thorough review. I also really appreciated the insight in the last chapter (offers a good summary in a much more concise manner).
Very thoughtful survey of the Bible and the information that it contains regarding marriage, sex, sexuality. This was not a quick read, some of the middle chapters were a bit tedious but I appreciated the thorough review. I also really appreciated the insight in the last chapter (offers a good summary in a much more concise manner).
May 19, 2023
Worthy of my time. Recommended!!
I started reading this book a few years ago on my Kindle while at the gym. When Covid cane to town, our gym closed for a half year. Attention turned elsewhere as I always have plenty to read. I didn't realize how close to the end of the book I was until just now when i tapped my Kindle expecting the next chapter and was taken to the bibliography instead. Highly recommended.
I started reading this book a few years ago on my Kindle while at the gym. When Covid cane to town, our gym closed for a half year. Attention turned elsewhere as I always have plenty to read. I didn't realize how close to the end of the book I was until just now when i tapped my Kindle expecting the next chapter and was taken to the bibliography instead. Highly recommended.
July 26, 2024
This was a detailed, well-written, interesting, and thorough investigation into sex and sexuality throughout the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. It shows how the Bible has no singular sexual ethic and how the Bible cannot be used to express a singular theory on sex and sexuality, despite how many have tried to claim that the Bible is clear and explicit on this topic.
July 27, 2019
Interesting but poorly supported opinions
The book reveals numerous connections and contextual facts impinging on Biblical interpretation. However, the alleged contradictions often reflect anachronistic and illogical readings. Don’t trust the author’s conclusions.
The book reveals numerous connections and contextual facts impinging on Biblical interpretation. However, the alleged contradictions often reflect anachronistic and illogical readings. Don’t trust the author’s conclusions.
December 28, 2022
Although the author is an academic, she doesn’t write in a convoluted style, which I appreciate. Her points are thought provoking, yet straightforward. They challenged me I’m surprising ways. Overall, I greatly appreciate this type of scholarship.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.