Join us for a very special event as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Dr. Michael Brown debate the question, “Is Homosexuality America’s Greatest Moral Crisis?” This is a debate that you don’t want to miss! What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Is homosexual practice worse than other sins? Have evangelical Christians demonized the homosexual community? And does homosexual activism really present a moral threat to America? This vital debate could not be more relevant, coming just one day before the elections, and in the midst of daily news stories regarding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, same-sex marriage, and the bullying and suicide of gay young people. What should our response be? Admission to the debate is free; an offering will be received to help cover the expenses. There will be audience Q & A at the end of the debate.  For a live webcast of the debate, click here.                             Biographies: Michael Brown (Ph.D., New York University) is president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, NC, a professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary and Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (Charlotte), host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio broadcast, the director of the Coalition of Conscience, and the author of 20 books. He is actively involved in world missions and spiritual renewal movements, and he is committed to helping spark a gospel-based, moral and cultural revolution. He is a recognized leader in Jewish evangelism and is widely considered to be the world’s foremost Messianic Jewish apologist. For an article on Dr. Brown’s recent lecture on homosexual activism, published in the Christian Post, click here. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, international best-selling author of 22 books, is a world renowned broadcaster, relationship expert, speaker, and organizational entrepreneur. Rabbi Shmuley served as host of the award-winning national TV show, Shalom in the Home on TLC and as Oprah’s marriage, parenting, and relationships expert on her Oprah and Friends national radio network, hosting the daily Rabbi Shmuley Show. In 2007 Rabbi Shmuley was labeled “a cultural phenomenon” and “the most famous rabbi in America” by Newsweek magazine, and in 2007, 2008, and 2009 was named as one of the ten most influential rabbis in the country.  For Rabbi Boteach’s article on a Jewish view on homosexuality, published in the Wallstreet Journal and the Jerusalem Post, click here.

Comments

• Saturday, November 06, 2010

  Larry

  HOMOSEXUALS & CHILDREN

  Many homosexual leaders have admitted that there is a natural link between a homosexual orientation and child sexual abuse.

  Studies on the frequency of homosexual child molestation

  For example; Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.

  A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles.”

  Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that”. . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories” for sexual activity;’ These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old. Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.” A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that ” . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”
  A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual

  Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.
  In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that “The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.” Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals have acted as “chicken hawks” - that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.
  In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger.

  There are occasional scientific attempts to deny or obscure the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of active homosexuals also molest children. These studies are invariably afflicted with one or more fatal flaws.

  A typical example, oft-quoted by gay rights activists, is the July 1994 Pediatrics article by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer that finds that “Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.” The fatal flaw of this study is that it studied sexually abused children with a mean age of just 6.1 years. Children of this young age are usually targets of true pedophiles, those persons with no sexual attraction to adults of either sex. By contrast, homosexual pedophiles are usually classified as “ephebophiles,” persons sexually attracted to pubescent or post-pubescent underage children.

  The “ten percent” myth

  There is much propaganda claiming that homosexuals comprise about ten percent of the population in the United States and in many other nations. Even the names of many homosexual organizations and initiatives reflect this number: ‘The Ten Percent Foundation,” “Project Ten,” and the “One in Ten Club” are a few examples. Some leading homosexual authors continue to insist that one in ten persons are born “gay.”

  As Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen claim in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, “. . . it is simply a matter of the odds—one in ten—as to who turns out gay, and who straight. Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself.” Kirk subsequently boasted about how effective the homosexual propaganda campaign has been when he said that “When straights are asked for a formal estimate, the figure played back most often is the ‘10% gay’ statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years.” The purpose of the “ten percent” figure is to create in the public mind an easily-remembered “everyone knows” idea that homosexuals make up a much larger percentage of the population than they do in reality.

  The original source of the “ten percent” statistic is Alfred Kinsey, the world’s most famous sex researcher. His best-known “finding” held that ten percent of the male population is “more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. This is one male in ten in the white male population.” Kinsey also claimed that four percent of all males are exclusively homosexual throughout their entire lives.  This percentage is not only the basis of the homosexual-rights “ten percent” claim, but also serves as a cornerstone of the sex education classes being taught in the United States and much of the rest of the world today.

  Researcher Bruce Voeller explains how the mere constant repetition of this statistic made it true in the minds of many, I campaigned with Gay groups and in the media across the country for the Kinsey-based finding that “We are everywhere.” This slogan became a National Gay Task Force leitmotif. And the issues derived from the implications of the Kinsey data became key parts of the national political, educational, and legislative programs during my years at New York’s Gay Activist Alliance and the National Gay Task Force.

  After years of our educating those who inform the public and make its laws, the concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become a generally accepted “fact.” While some reminding always seems necessary, the 10 percent figure is regularly utilized by scholars, by the press, and in government statistics. As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling made it SO. In fact, the numbers are much smaller. There have been a number of major studies gauging the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. The aggregated results of these studies surveyed more than 218,000 men in several countries and show that 2.6 percent of the male population has ever had a homosexual experience in their lives.  So much for the “ten percent” myth.

  Definitions and calculations

  The John Jay study on the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States defines “pedophiles” as people who “exhibit recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, urges or behaviors related to sexual contact with a prepubescent child over a period of at least six months duration.” When people speak of the current crisis being a problem involving “pedophile priests,” they are addressing only a small portion of the situation. According to the John Jay study, most of the sexually offending priests are not true pedophiles. They are, instead, “ephebophiles,” who “exhibit these same fantasies, urges or behaviors towards post-pubescent youths.” Generally, the John Jay study recognized that pedophilia can be defined as the molestation of children aged ten and younger. The National Review Board study defines “ephebophilia” as “homosexual attraction to adolescent males,” a definition that certainly is validated by quotes by “gay rights” activists elsewhere in this artic1e.

  The John Jay Study clearly shows that, as the age of the victims rises, the percentage of victims decisively shifts from primarily female to overwhelmingly male. The results of the study stand in stark contrast to United States Department of Health and Human Services statistics, which show that male-on-male child sexual abuse in the USA comprises only 14.4% of all sexual abuse committed by males. In other words, in the general population of males who sexually abuse minors, only one in seven molest boys. In the population of priests who sexually abuse minors, six in seven molest boys. Figure I graphically depicts the numbers of alleged victims of sexual abuse incidents, grouped by gender and age. One can clearly see the percentage of victims is overwhelmingly male.

  Many experts have claimed that there is a much higher percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood than there is in the general population. Let us assume for a moment that the concentration of male homosexuals in the priesthood is four times greater than it is in the general population-about ten percent. We find that a homosexual priest is (85.3%/10.0%)/(14.70.0%) = 52 times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest. If we use the more reasonable assumption that five percent of all priests are homosexual ’ (still about twice the average in the general population), we see that a homosexual priest is (85.3%/5.0%)/(14.7%/95.0%) = 110 times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.

  It is well known (and logical) that homosexuals with a desire for young children purposefully seek employment that will bring them into proximity with the greatest number of children possible. The most “promising” jobs of this nature include clergymen working in youth ministry, Boy Scout leaders and schoolteachers. This is primarily why homosexual teachers have been involved in more than eighty percent of all recorded cases of teacher/pupil sex. And it may also explain why homosexuals are trying so hard to force the Boy Scouts of America to accept practicing homosexuals as leaders. Some homosexuals may see such acceptance as one more step toward achieving general social recognition and approval for homosexual activity, and nothing more. For homosexual child molesters, however, such recognition by the Boy Scouts would provide more ready access to children they can abuse.

  A nationwide survey of school principals showed that they received 13 times as many complaints about homosexuals sexually molesting students than they did about heterosexuals molesting students.  Other studies have shown that homosexual teachers are from 90 to 100 times more likely to molest students than heterosexual teachers. Supporting quotes by active homosexuals as further evidence of the strong connection between active homosexuality and child molestation, many homosexual leaders have openly admitted that there is a natural link between a homosexual orientation and child sexual abuse.

  Many homosexual organizations and leaders not only admit to, but support, the sexual abuse of children by homosexuals. An editorial in the San Francisco Sentinel, a member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalist’s Association, claimed that the love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous. We must not be seduced into believing misinformation from the press and the government. Child molesting does occur, but there are also positive sexual relations. And we need to support the men and the boys in those relationships.

  The notorious North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), one of several organized pedophile groups, almost always has a photo of a pre-teen boy on the cover of its NAMBLA Bulletin, as well as many others in its pages.

  Pedophile Philip Hutchinson’s poem entitled “Choirboy” is entirely typical of the fare found in the Bulletin; “You look like a cherub, but you’re worldly-wise. You’d love to have me think you’re newly-born, but I can spot the twinkle in your eyes; you know damned well how much you turn me on. Between us, you’re the satyr—I’m the saint, so shed your sacred robe and bare your skin, surrender to my touch without restraint, and later, put your halo on again.”

  One of NAMBLA’s flyers says that there is no age at which a person becomes capable of consenting to sex. The age of sexual consent is just one of many ways in which adults impose their system of control on children. . . Amazing as it may seem in this child-hating and homophobic society, boy lovers [pederasts] find boys attractive and like their spontaneity and openness. Convicted pedophile and NAMBLA member David Thorstad has said that “I think that pederasty should be given the stamp of approval. I think it’s true that boy-lovers [pederasts] are much better for children than the parents are . . .”

  Like the “ten percent” myth, the concept that adults can legitimately have sex with children originated with the A1fred Kinsey team. Sex educator and Alfred Kinsey co-researcher Wardell Pomeroy said that “People seem to think that any [sexual] contact between children and adults has a bad effect on the child. I say that this can be a loving and thoughtful, responsible sexual activity.”

  Interestingly, while the mainstream press and liberal groups systematically pillory the Catholic Church, they entirely ignore the well organized efforts by professional associations to decriminalize and normalize child sexual abuse. There exists a determined effort to decriminalize and destigmatize sexual relationships between adults and children in preparation for “normalizing” them. For example, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the group’s psychiatric manual of mental disorders. At about the same time, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition in December 2002 discussing whether pedophilia should remain a mental disorder. As early as 1988, a leading American psychological journal, Behavior Today, claimed, “Pedophilia may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. This raises the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights.”

  Frequency of molestation by individuals

  Among the general class of male sexual deviants (both homosexual and heterosexual), pederasts (boy molesters) are found to be much more prolific in their offenses than pedophiles (girl molesters). The most extensive study performed on the relative degree of predatory behavior of these two classes of male sexual deviants found that 153 pederasts sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years, while 224 pedophiles molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years. This means that each pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each pedophile molested an average of 20 girls-a ratio of 7.5 to one.

  Confession of a Monsignor

  It is clear, even without reference to the numerous reports throughout the recent years, that homosexuals have infiltrated the ranks of the clergy to an astonishing degree. In some corners of the Church, such behavior has long been seen as acceptable. To cite just one recent example, Msgr. Richard Sniezyk, appointed to head the Diocese of Springfield-in-Massachusetts after its bishop resigned amid sexual abuse allegations, said in an interview that the

  recent scandal in the Catholic Church stems from a belief among some priests during the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s that sex with young men was “acceptable”: Monsignor Richard S. Sniezyk, 66, the leader of the Springfield Diocese until the Vatican names a bishop to replace Thomas L. Dupre, said that as a seminarian and then a young priest … he heard of priests who had sex with young men, but “no one thought much about it” because priests didn’t recognize how mentally and emotionally damaging their behavior was … “It was that era of the ‘60s most of it took place from the mid- ‘60s to the early’ 80s- and the whole atmosphere out there was, it was OK, it was OK to do.”

  It is easy to look back on the crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States and place blame on the Vatican, on the bishops, on the seminaries, or even on our society’s permissive attitude toward sexuality in general. But much terrible damage has already been done -to the victims, to the Church, and to the souls of many whose faith has been shaken or even destroyed by the scandal.

  We often hear from the homosexual-rights movement that “gays” are “born that way.” This may or may not be true, depending on which of the hundreds of conflicting studies we choose to believe. In the most fundamental sense, this point is irrelevant. We are all born with weaknesses, a direct result of our fallen natures. We can deal with these weaknesses in one of two ways. We can accept them as crosses given to us by God, and we can glorify his Name by struggling to overcome them with the aid of his grace. Or we can simply give in and use the “born that way” excuse, the weak and cowardly road that is a vote of no-confidence in God’s grace and its ability to save us.

  Alcoholism has been proven to be genetic. Yet our spouses do not accept the “born that way” excuse if we arrive home stinking drunk every night. Kleptomania may indeed also be genetic, yet no court in the land has ever accepted the “born that way” excuse as a defense against shoplifting charges.

• Sunday, November 07, 2010

  Larry

  The Health Risks of Gay Sex

  JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.

  
  As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, it is my duty to discourage it.
  

  Notice to Reader: “The Boards of both CERC Canada and CERC USA are aware that the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one that deeply affects the personal lives of many North Americans. Both Boards strongly reiterate the Catechism’s teaching that people who self-identify as gays and lesbians must be treated with ‘respect, compassion, and sensitivity’ (CCC #2358). The Boards also support the Church’s right to speak to aspects of this issue in accordance with her own self-understanding. Articles in this section have been chosen to cast light on how the teachings of the Church intersect with the various social, moral, and legal developments in secular society. CERC will not publish articles which, in the opinion of the editor, expose gays and lesbians to hatred or intolerance.”

  
  Note: “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” is also available in pdf format here.
  Contents
  Executive Summary
  Levels of Promiscuity
  Physical Health
  Mental Health
  Life Span
  Monogamy
  The Health Risks of Gay Sex
  Introduction
  I. Differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships
  A. Promiscuity
  B. Physical health
  1. Male Homosexual Behavior
  a. Anal-genital
  b. Oral-anal
  c. Human Waste
  d. Fisting
  e. Sadism
  f. Conclusion
  2. Female Homosexual Behavior
  C. Mental health
  1. Psychiatric Illness
  2. Reckless Sexual Behavior
  D. Life span
  E. Definition of “monogamy”
  II. Cultural Implications of Promiscuity

  Conclusion
  Appendix A
  Definitional Impediments to Research
  Endnotes
  Executive Summary
  Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. They are:
  •  Levels of Promiscuity

  Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.

  Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.
  •  Physical Health
  Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.
  •  Mental Health
  It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.
  •  Life Span
  The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.
  •  Monogamy
  Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.
  Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable.
  back

  The Health Risks of Gay Sex
  Introduction
  Back in the early 1980s, while working at Beth Israel Hospital, I vividly remember seeing healthy young gay men dying of a mysterious disease that researchers only later identified as a sexually transmitted disease — AIDS. Over the years, I’ve seen many patients with that diagnosis die.
  As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, it is my duty to discourage it.
  When sexual activity is practiced outside of marriage, the consequences can be quite serious. Without question, sexual promiscuity frequently spreads diseases, from trivial to serious to deadly. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 65 million Americans have an incurable sexually transmitted disease (STD).1
  There are differences between men and women in the consequences of same-sex activity. But most importantly, the consequences of homosexual activity are distinct from the consequences of heterosexual activity. As a physician, it is my duty to inform patients of the health risks of gay sex, and to discourage them from indulging in harmful behavior.
  back

  I. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
  The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages — or even more so.2 Medical associations are promoting somewhat similar messages.3 Nevertheless, there are at least five major areas of differences between gay and heterosexual relationships, each with specific medical consequences. Those differences include:
  A. Levels of promiscuity
  B. Physical health
  C. Mental health
  D. Life span
  E. Definition of “monogamy”
  back
  A. Promiscuity
  Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.‘“4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6
  In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.8
  The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.9 That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10 This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.
  Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences — indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.11 The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.12 A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.13 As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.14 Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city’s gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
  “Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.“15
  A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.16 Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.
  Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.18
  back

  B. Physical Health
  Unhealthy sexual behaviors occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy. Although both male and female homosexual practices lead to increases in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the practices and diseases are sufficiently different that they merit separate discussion.
  1. Male Homosexual Behavior
  Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women19 not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. A British researcher summarizes the danger as follows:
  “Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either ‘active’ or ‘passive,’ since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. . . . Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. . . . In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.“20
  Although the specific activities addressed below may be practiced by heterosexuals at times, homosexual men engage in these activities to a far greater extent.21
  back
  a. Anal-genital
  Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.
  The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.
  Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24
  The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:
  Anal Cancer
  Chlamydia trachomatis
  Cryptosporidium
  Giardia lamblia
  Herpes simplex virus
  Human immunodeficiency virus
  Human papilloma virus
  Isospora belli
  Microsporidia
  Gonorrhea
  Viral hepatitis types B & C
  Syphilis25
  Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27
  A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent),29 they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.30
  Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. 30 Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.31
  Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:
  hemorrhoids
  anal fissures
  anorectal trauma
  retained foreign bodies.32
  back
  b. Oral-anal
  There is an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections documented among male homosexual practitioners because of oral-anal contact. In fact, there are so many infections that a syndrome called “the Gay Bowel” is described in the medical literature.33 “Gay bowel syndrome constitutes a group of conditions that occur among persons who practice unprotected anal intercourse, anilingus, or fellatio following anal intercourse.“34 Although some women have been diagnosed with some of the gastrointestinal infections associated with “gay bowel,” the vast preponderance of patients with these conditions are men who have sex with men.35
  “Rimming” is the street name given to oralanal contact. It is because of this practice that intestinal parasites ordinarily found in the tropics are encountered in the bodies of American gay men. Combined with anal intercourse and other homosexual practices, “rimming” provides a rich opportunity for a variety of infections.
  Men who have sex with men account for the lion’s share of the increasing number of cases in America of sexually transmitted infections that are not generally spread through sexual contact. These diseases, with consequences that range from severe and even life-threatening to mere annoyances, include Hepatitis A,36 Giardia lamblia, Entamoeba histolytica,37 Epstein-Barr virus,38 Neisseria meningitides,39 Shigellosis, Salmonellosis, Pediculosis, scabies and Campylobacter.40 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) identified a 1991 outbreak of Hepatitis A in New York City, in which 78 percent of male respondents identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual.41While Hepatitis A can be transmitted by routes other than sexual, a preponderance of Hepatitis A is found in gay men in multiple states.42 Salmonella is rarely associated with sexual activity except among gay men who have oral-anal and oral-genital contact following anal intercourse.43 The most unsettling new discovery is the reported sexual transmission of typhoid. This water-borne disease, well known in the tropics, only infects 400 people each year in the United States, usually as a result of ingestion of contaminated food or water while abroad. But sexual transmission was diagnosed in Ohio in a series of male sex partners of one male who had traveled to Puerto Rico.44
  In America, Human Herpes Virus 8 (called Herpes Type 8 or HHV-8) is a disease found exclusively among male homosexual practitioners. Researchers have long noted that men who contracted AIDS through homosexual behavior frequently developed a previously rare form of cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma. Men who contract HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex or intravenous drug use rarely display this cancer. Recent studies confirm that Kaposi’s sarcoma results from infection with HHV-8. The New England Journal of Medicine described one cohort in San Francisco where 38 percent of the men who admitted any homosexual contact within the previous five years tested positive for this virus while none of the exclusively heterosexual men tested positive. The study predicted that half of the men with both HIV and HHV-8 would develop the cancer within 10 years.45 The medical literature is currently unclear as to the precise types of sexual behavior that transmit HHV-8, but there is a suspicion that it may be transmitted via saliva.46
  back
  c. Human Waste
  Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes.47 This practice exposes the participants to all of the risks of anal-oral contact and many of the risks of analgenital contact.
  d. Fisting
  “Fisting” refers to the insertion of a hand or forearm into the rectum, and is far more damaging than anal intercourse. Tears can occur, along with incompetence of the anal sphincter. The result can include infections, inflammation and, consequently, enhanced susceptibility to future STDs. Twenty-two percent of homosexuals in one survey admitted to having participated in this practice.48
  e. Sadism
  The sexualization of pain and cruelty is described as sadism, named for the 18th Century novelist, the Marquis de Sade. His novel Justine describes repeated rapes and non-consensual whippings.49 Not all persons who practice sadism engage in the same activities. But a recent advertisement for a sadistic “conference” included a warning that participants might see “intentional infliction of pain [and] cutting of the skin with bleeding . . . .” Scheduled workshops included “Vaginal Fisting” (with a demonstration), “Sacred Sexuality and Cutting” with “a demonstration of a cutting with a live subject,” “Rough Rope,” and a “Body Harness” workshop that was to involve “demonstrating and coaching the tying of erotic body harnesses that involve the genitals, male and female.“50 A similar event entitled the “Vicious Valentine” occurred near Chicago on Feb. 15-17, 2002.51 The medical consequences of such activities range from mild to fatal, depending upon the nature of the injuries inflicted.52 As many as 37 percent of homosexuals have practiced some form of sadism.53
  back
  f. Conclusion
  The consequences of homosexual activity have significantly altered the delivery of medical care to the population at-large. With the increased incidence of STD organisms in unexpected places, simple sore throat is no longer so simple. Doctors must now ask probing questions of their patients or risk making a misdiagnosis. The evaluation of a sore throat must now include questions about oral and anal sex. A case of hemorrhoids is no longer just a surgical problem. We must now inquire as to sexual practice and consider that anal cancer, rectal gonorrhea, or rectal chlamydia may be secreted in what deceptively appears to be “just hemorrhoids.“54 Moreover, data shows that rectal and throat gonorrhea, for example, are without symptoms in 75 percent of cases.55
  The impact of the health consequences of gay sex is not confined to homosexual practitioners. Even though nearly 11 million people in America are directly affected by cancer, compared to slightly more than three-quarters of a million with AIDS,56 AIDS spending per patient is more than seven times that for cancer.57 The inequity for diabetes and heart disease is even more striking.58 Consequently, the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS detracts from research into cures for diseases that affect more people.
  back

  2. Female Homosexual Behavior
  Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.59 However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion’s share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,60 and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.
  Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies associated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.61 Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men.62 Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.63
  Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.64 Consequently, the lesbians’ median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women.65 Lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men.66 The study “demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non- WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports.“67
  Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.68 Intravenous drug abuse was nearly six times as common in this group.69In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.70 Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.71
  In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as “crabs,” genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported.72 Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.73
  back
  C. Mental Health
  1. Psychiatric Illness
  Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts, among selfprofessed gays and lesbians.74 Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people’s unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal. They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth.75 Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems, the medical literature suggests other conclusions.
  An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.76 So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.
  The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.77 Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.78 The researchers found “that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life.“79 Researchers actually fear that methodological features of “the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people.“80
  The Dutch researchers concluded, “this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed.“81 The researchers offered no opinion as to whether homosexual behavior causes psychiatric disorders, or whether it is the result of psychiatric disorders.
  back
  2. Reckless Sexual Behavior
  Depression and drug abuse can lead to reckless sexual behavior, even among those who are most likely to understand the deadly risks. In an article that was part of a series on “AIDS at 20,” the New York Times reported the risks that many gay men take. One night when a gay HIV prevention educator named Seth Watkins got depressed, he met an attractive stranger, had anal intercourse without a condom — and became HIV positive. In spite of his job training, the HIV educator nevertheless employed the psychological defense of “denial” in explaining his own sexual behavior:
  “[L]ike an increasing number of gay men in San Francisco and elsewhere, Mr. Watkins sometimes still puts himself and possibly other people at risk. ‘I don’t like to think about it because I don’t want to give anyone H.I.V.,’ Mr. Watkins said.“82
  Another gay man named Vince, who had never before had anal intercourse without a condom, went to a sex club on the spur of the moment when he got depressed, and had unprotected sex:
  “I was definitely in a period of depression . . . . And there was just something about that particular circumstance and that particular person. I don’t know how to describe it. It just appealed to me; it made it seem like it was all right.“83
  Some of the men interviewed by the New York Times are deliberately reckless. One fatalistic gay man with HIV makes no apology for putting other men at risk:
  “The prospect of going through the rest of your life having to cover yourself up every time you want to get intimate with someone is an awful one. . . . Now I’ve got H.I.V. and I don’t have to worry about getting it,” he said. “There is a part of me that’s relieved. I was tired of always having to be careful, of this constant diligence that has to be paid to intimacy when intimacy should be spontaneous.“84
  After admitting to almost never using condoms he adds:
  “There is no such thing as safe sex. . . . If people want to use condoms, they can. I didn’t go out and purposely get H.I.V. Accidents happen.“85
  Other reports show similar disregard for the safety of self and others. A1998 study in Seattle found that 10 percent of HIV-positive men admitted they engaged in unprotected anal sex, and the percentage doubled in 2000.86 According to a study of men who attend gay “circuit” parties,87 the danger at such events is even greater. Ten percent of the men surveyed expected to become HIV-positive in their lifetime. Researchers discovered that 17 percent of the circuit party attendees surveyed were already HIV positive.88 Two thirds of those attending circuit parties had oral or anal sex, and 28 percent did not use condoms.89
  In addition, drug use at circuit parties is ubiquitous. Although only 57 percent admit going to circuit parties to use drugs, 95 percent of the survey participants said they used psychoactive drugs at the most recent event they attended.90 There was a direct correlation between the number of drugs used during a circuit party weekend and the likelihood of unprotected anal sex.91 The researchers concluded that in view of their findings, “the likelihood of transmission of HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases among party attendees and secondary partners becomes a real public health concern.“92
  Good mental health would dictate foregoing circuit parties and other risky sex. But neither education nor adequate access to health care is a deterrent to such reckless behavior. “Research at the University of New South Wales found well-educated professional men in early middle age — those who experienced the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s — are most likely not to use a condom.“93
  back
  D. Shortened Life Span
  The greater incidence of physical and mental health problems among gays and lesbians has serious consequences for length of life. While many are aware of the death toll from AIDS, there has been little public attention given to the magnitude of the lost years of life.
  An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The study concluded that if 3 percent of the population studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78 percent for men in general.94 The damaging effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison -cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years of life expectancy.95
  The impact on length of life may be even greater than reported in the Canadian study. First, HIV/AIDS is underreported by as much as 15-20 percent, so it is likely that not all AIDSrelated deaths were accounted for in the study.96 Second, there are additional major causes of death related to gay sex. For example, suicide rates among a San Francisco cohort were 3.4 times higher than the general U.S. male population in 1987.97 Other potentially fatal ailments such as syphilis, anal cancer, and Hepatitis B and C also affect gay and bisexual men disproportionately.98
  E. “Monogamy”
  Monogamy for heterosexual couples means at a minimum sexual fidelity. The most extensive survey of sex in America found that “a vast majority [of heterosexual married couples] are faithful while the marriage is intact.“99 The survey further found that 94 percent of married people and 75 percent of cohabiting people had only one partner in the prior year.100 In contrast, long-term sexual fidelity is rare among GLB couples, particularly among gay males. Even during the coupling period, many gay men do not expect monogamy. A lesbian critic of gay males notes that:
  “After a period of optimism about the longrange potential of gay men’s one-on-one relationships, gay magazines are starting to acknowledge the more relaxed standards operating here, with recent articles celebrating the bigger bang of sex with strangers or proposing ‘monogamy without fidelity’-the latest Orwellian formulation to excuse having your cake and eating it too.“101
  Gay men’s sexual practices appear to be consistent with the concept of “monogamy without fidelity.” Astudy of gay men attending circuit parties showed that 46 percent were coupled, that is, they claimed to have a “primary partner.” Twenty-seven percent of the men with primary partners “had multiple sex partners (oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend . . . .“102 For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years.103 And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years.104 Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.
  back

  II. CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF PROMISCUITY
  “Don’t tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” ~ African proverb
  The societal implications of the unrestrained sexual activity described above are devastating. The ideal of sexual activity being limited to marriage, always defined as male-female, has been a fence erected in all civilizations around the globe.105 Throughout history, many people have climbed over the fence, engaging in premarital, extramarital and homosexual sex. Still, the fence stands; the limits are visible to all. Climbing over the fence, metaphorically, has always been recognized as a breach of those limits, even by the breachers themselves. No civilization can retain its vitality for multiple generations after removing the fence.106
  But now social activists are saying that there should be no fence, and that to destroy the fence is an act of liberation.107 If the fence is torn down, there is no visible boundary to sexual expression. If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia? The polygamist movement already has support from some of the advocates for GLB rights.108 And some in the psychological profession are floating the idea that maybe pedophilia is not so damaging to children after all.109
  Lesbian social critic Camille Paglia observes, “history shows that male homosexuality, which like prostitution flourishes with urbanization and soon becomes predictably ritualized, always tends toward decadence.“110 Gay author Gabriel Rotello writes of the changes in homosexual behavior in the last century:
  “Most accounts of male-on-male sex from the early decades of this century [20th] cite oral sex, and less often masturbation, as the predominant forms of activity, with the acknowledged homosexual fellating or masturbating his partner. Comparatively fewer accounts refer to anal sex. My own informal survey of older gay men who were sexually active prior to World War II gives credence to the idea that anal sex, especially anal sex with multiple partners, was considerably less common than it later became.“111
  Not only has the practice of anal sex increased, condom use has declined 20 percent and multi-partner sex has doubled in the last seven years,112 despite billions of dollars spent on HIV prevention campaigns. “In many cases, the prevention slogans that galvanized gay men in the early years of the epidemic now fall on deaf ears.“113 As should be expected, the health-care costs resulting from gay promiscuity are substantial.114
  Social approval of gay sex leads to an increase in such behavior. As early as 1993, Newsweek reported that the growing media presence and social acceptance of homosexual behavior was leading to teenager experimentation to the extent that it was “becoming chic.“115 A more recent report stated that “the way gays and lesbians appear in the media may make some people more comfortable acting on homosexual impulses.“116 In addition, one of the goals of GLB advocates’ quest for domestic partner benefits from employers is to motivate more gays and lesbians “to come out of the closet.“117 If, as suggested above, being “out” results in a greater incidence of promiscuity, employer decisions to provide domestic partner benefits may have a negative impact on employee health. Indeed, giving gays and lesbians the social approval they desire may ultimately lead to an early death for employees who otherwise might have restrained their sexual behavior.
  Research designed to prove that gays and lesbians are “born that way” has come up empty — there is no scientific evidence that being gay or lesbian is genetically determined.118 Even researcher Dean Hamer, who once hoped he had identified a “gay gene,” admits “there is a lot more than just genes going on.“119
  back

  CONCLUSION
  It is clear that there are serious medical consequences to same-sex behavior. Identification with a GLB community appears to lead to an increase in promiscuity, which in turn leads to a myriad of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and even early death. A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees and society in general.
  back

  APPENDIX A
  Definitional Impediments to Research
  Unfortunately, endeavors to assess the actual practices and the health consequences of male and female homosexual behavior are hampered by imprecise definitions. For many, being gay or lesbian or bisexual is a political identity that does not necessarily correspond to sexual behavior. And investigators find that sexual behavior fluctuates over time:
  “[P]eople often change their sexual behavior during their lifetimes, making it impossible to state that a particular set of behaviors defines a person as gay. A man who has sex with men today, for example, might not have done so 10 years ago.“120
  Defining the terms becomes even more difficult when people who identify as gay or lesbian enter heterosexual relationships. Joanne Loulan, a well-known lesbian, has talked openly about her two-year relationship with a man: “‘I come from this background that sex is an activity, it’s not an identity,’ says Loulan. ‘It was funny for a while, but then it turned out to be something more connected, more deep. Something more important. And that’s when my life started really going topsy turvy.’” While critics complain that “You can’t be a lesbian and be having sex with men,” Loulan sees no contradiction in the fact that she “adamantly refuses to call herself a bisexual, to give up the lesbian identity.“121
  Several high-profile lesbian media stars that have abandoned lesbianism further illustrate the difficulty in defining homosexuality. An article about the now defunct couple, Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres, said, “Although the pair never publicly discussed the reason for their breakup, it has been heavily rumored that Heche decided to go back to heterosexuality.“122 Heche married a man on Sept. 1, 2001.123
  As recently as June 2000, pop-music star Sinead O’Connor said, “I’m a lesbian . . . although I haven’t been very open about that, and throughout most of my life I’ve gone out with blokes because I haven’t necessarily been terribly comfortable about being a lesbian. But I actually am a lesbian.“124 Then, shocking the gay world that applauded her “coming out,” O’Connor’s sexual identity fluctuated again when she withdrew from participating in a lesbian music festival because of her marriage to British Press Association reporter Nick Sommerlad.125
  Although women get most of the press coverage of fluctuating between same-sex and heterosexual relationships, men can experience similar fluidity. Gay author John Stoltenberg has lived with a lesbian, Andrea Dworkin, since 1974.126 And a 2000 survey in Australia found that 19 percent of gay men reported having sex with a woman in the six months prior to the survey.127 This fluctuation in sexual “orientation” inhibits the creation of a fixed definition of homosexuality. As one group of researchers stated the problem:
  “Does a man who has homosexual sex in prison count as a homosexual? Does a man who left his wife of twenty years for a gay lover count as a homosexual or heterosexual? Do you count the number of years he spent with his wife as compared to his lover? Does the married woman who had sex with her college roommate a decade ago count? Do you assume that one homosexual experience defines someone as gay for all time?“128
  Despite the difficulty in defining homosexuality, the one thing that is clear is that those who engage in same-sex practices or identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual constitute a very small percentage of the population. The most reliable studies indicate that 1-3 percent of people — and probably less than 2 percent — consider themselves to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, or currently practice same-sex sex.129
  back

  Endnotes
  1.  “Tracking the Hidden Epidemics: Trends in STDs in the United States, 2000,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), available at http://www.cdc.gov.
  2.  Becky Birtha, “Gay Parents and the Adoption Option,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 04, 2002, http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/ 2787531.htm; Grant Pick, “Make Room for Daddy — and Poppa,” The Chicago Tribune Internet Edition, March 24, 2002, http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi- 0203240463mar24.story
  3.  Ellen C. Perrin, et al., “Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, 109(2): 341-344 (2002).
  4.  Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).
  5.  Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
  6.  Leon McKusick, et al., “Reported Changes in the Sexual Behavior of Men at Risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84 — the AIDS Behavioral Research Project,” Public Health Reports, 100(6): 622-629, p. 625, Table 1 (November- December 1985). In 1982 respondents reported an average of 4.7 new partners in the prior month; in 1984, respondents reported an average of 2.5 new partners in the prior month.
  7.  “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999).
  8.  This was evident by the late 80’s and early 90’s. Jeffrey A. Kelly, PhD, et al., “Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/ Human Immunodeficiency Virus Risk Behavior Among Gay Men in Small Cities,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 152: 2293-2297, pp. 2295-2296 (November 1992); Donald R. Hoover, et al., “Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10): 1190-1205, p. 1203 (1991).
  9.  A lesbian pastor made this assertion during a question and answer session that followed a presentation the author made on homosexual health risks at the Chatauqua Institute in Western New York, summer 2001.
  10.  Paul Van de Ven, et al., “Facts & Figures: 2000 Male Out Survey,” p. 20 & Table 20, monograph published by National Centre in HIV Social Research Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, February 2001.
  11.  Rotello, pp. 43-46.
  12.  Ibid., pp. 165-172.
  13.  Hoover, et al., Figure 3.
  14.  “Basic Statistics,” CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.)
  15.  Figures from a study presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America meeting in San Francisco and reported by Christopher Heredia, “Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2001, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/26/MN7489 3.DTL.
  16.  Catherine Hutchinson, et al., “Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991).
  17.  Katherine Fethers, Caron Marks, et al., “Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345- 349, p. 347 (October 2000).
  18.  James Price, et al., “Perceptions of cervical cancer and pap smear screening behavior by Women’s Sexual Orientation,” Journal of Community Health, 21(2): 89-105 (1996); Daron Ferris, et al., “A Neglected Lesbian Health Concern: Cervical Neoplasia,” The Journal of Family Practice, 43(6): 581-584, p. 581 (December 1996); C. Skinner, J. Stokes, et al., “A Case-Controlled Study of the Sexual Health Needs of Lesbians,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 72(4): 277-280, Abstract (1996).
  19.  The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) recently published a press release entitled “Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” (July 17, 2002), http://www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710gaythings.html. The list includes: HIV/AIDS (Safe Sex), Substance Use, Depression/ Anxiety, Hepatitis Immunization, STDs, Prostate/ Testicular/Colon Cancer, Alcohol, Tobacco, Fitness and Anal Papilloma.
  20.  R. R. Wilcox, “Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male Homosexuals,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981).
  21.  Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: a Definitive Survey, pp. 140-141, Table 11, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994; Rotello, pp. 75-76.
  22.  Rotello, p. 92.
  23.  Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, “Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).
  24.  S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, “Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men,” Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).
  25.  Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990); “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/; “Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/.
  26.  “Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men — King County, Washington, 1997-1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 48(35): 773-777 (September 10, 1999).
  27.  Heredia, “Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most.”
  28.  “Changing Patterns of Groups at High Risk for Hepatitis B in the United States,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 37(28): 429-432, p. 437 (July 22, 1988). Hepatitis B and C are viral diseases of the liver.
  29.  Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, “Sexual Behavior of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales,” British Medical Journal, 298: 1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents,” Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992). See appendix A.
  30.  Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., “Changing patterns of anal cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994).
  31.  James Goedert, et al., for the AIDS-Cancer Match Study Group, “Spectrum of AIDS-associated malignant disorders,” The Lancet, 351: 1833-1839, p. 1836 (June 20, 1998).
  32.  “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/; J. E. Barone, et al., “Management of Foreign Bodies and Trauma of the Rectum,” Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 156(4): 453-457 (April 1983).
  33.  Henry Kazal, et al., “The gay bowel syndrome: Clinicopathologic correlation in 260 cases,” Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 6(2): 184-192 (1976).
  34.  Glen E. Hastings and Richard Weber, “Use of the term ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome,’” reply to a letter to the editor, American Family Physician, 49(3): 582 (1994).
  35.  Ibid.; E. K. Markell, et al., “Intestinal Parasitic Infections in Homosexual Men at a San Francisco Health Fair,” Western Journal of Medicine, 139(2): 177-178 (August, 1983).
  36.  “Hepatitis A among Homosexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992).
  37.  Rompalo, p. 1640.
  38.  H. Naher, B. Lenhard, et al., “Detection of Epstein-Barr virus DNA in anal scrapings from HIV-positive homosexual men,” Archives of Dermatological Research, 287(6): 608- 611, Abstract (1995).
  39.  B. L. Carlson, N. J. Fiumara, et al., “Isolation of Neisseria meningitidis from anogenital specimens from homosexual men,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 7(2): 71-73 (April 1980).
  40.  P. Paulet and G. Stoffels, “Maladies anorectales sexuellement transmissibles” [“Sexually-Transmissible Anorectal Diseases”], Revue Medicale Bruxelles, 10(8): 327-334, Abstract (October 10, 1989).
  41.  “Hepatitis A among Homosexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992).
  42.  Ibid.
  43.  C. M. Thorpe and G. T. Keutsch, “Enteric bacterial pathogens: Shigella, Salmonella, Campylobacter,” in K. K. Holmes, P. A. Mardh, et al., (Eds.), Sexually Transmitted Diseases (3rd edition), p. 549, New York: McGraw-Hill Health Professionals Division, 1999.
  44.  Tim Bonfield, “Typhoid traced to sex encounters,” Cincinnati Enquirer, April 26, 2001; Erin McClam, “Health Officials Document First Sexual Transmission of Typhoid in U.S.,” Associated Press, April 25, 2001, http://www.thebody.com/ cdc/news_updates_archive/apr26_01/typhoid.html. A representative of the Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, confirmed this report and provided a link to the AP story on October 4, 2002.
  45.  Jeffrey Martin, et al., “Sexual Transmission and the Natural History of Human Herpes Virus 8 Infection,” New England Journal of Medicine, 338(14): 948-954, p. 952 (1998).
  46.  Alexandra M. Levine, “Kaposi’s Sarcoma: Far From Gone,” paper presented at 5th International AIDS Malignancy Conference, April 23-25, 2001, Bethesda, Maryland, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/420749.
  47.  “Paraphilias,” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, p. 576, Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles, pp. 554-555, New York: Summit Books (1979).
  48.  Jay and Young, pp. 554-555.
  49.  Sade, Marquis de, Justine or Good Conduct Well Chastised (1791), New York: Grove Press (1965).
  50.  Michigan Rope internet advertisement for “Bondage and Beyond,” which was scheduled for February 9-10, 2002, near Detroit, Michigan, http://www.michiganrope.com/ MichiganRopeWorkshop.html. The explicit nature of the advertisement was changed following unexpected publicity, and the hotel where the conference was scheduled ultimately canceled it. Marsha Low, “Hotel Ties Noose Around 2-Day Bondage Meeting,” Detroit Free Press, January 25, 2002, http://www.freep.com/news/locoak/ nrope25_20020125.htm.
  51.  Allyson Smith, “Ramada to host ‘Vicious Valentine’ Event,” WorldNet Daily, February 14, 2002, http://www.worldnetdaily. com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26453; “Vicious Valentine 5 Celebrates Mardi Gras, Feb 15-17, 2002,” http://www.leatherquest.com/events/vv2002.htm.
  52.  The sadistic rape of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising on September 26, 1999, left him dead. See Andrew Sullivan, “The Death of Jesse Dirkhising,” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 1, 2001.
  53.  Jay and Young, pp. 554-555.
  54.  Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, “MSM: Clinician’s Guide to Incorporating Sexual Risk Assessment in Routine Visits,” http://www.glma.org/medical/clinical/msm_assessment. html.
  55.  S. Bygdeman, “Gonorrhea in men with homosexual contacts. Serogroups of isolated gonococcal strains related to antibiotic susceptibility, site of infection, and symptoms,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(5): 320-324, Abstract (October 1981).
  56.  As of January 1, 1999, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimated the cancer prevalence in the United States to be 8.9 million. “Estimated US Cancer Prevalence Counts: Who Are Our Cancer Survivors in the US?,” Cancer Control & Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, April 2002, http://www.cancercontrol.cancer.gov/ocs/prevalence. In 1999, the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated 1,221,800 new cancer cases in the US and an estimated 563,100 cancer related deaths, “Cancer Facts and Figures 1999,” p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 1999, http://www.cancer.org/ downloads/STT/F&F99;.pdf; in 2000, the ACS estimated 1,220,100 new cancer cases and 552,200 deaths from cancer, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2000,” p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2000, http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F00;.pdf; in 2001, the ACS estimated a total number of 1,268,000 new cases of cancer and 553,400 deaths, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2001,” p. 5, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2001, http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F2001;.pdf. This results in an estimated growth of 2,041,200 new cancer cases over the past three years and an estimated 10,941,200 people with cancer as of January 1, 2002. In 2001 there were 793,025 reported AIDS cases. “Basic Statistics,” CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm.
  57.  The federal spending for AIDS research in 2001 was $2,247,000,000, while the spending for cancer research was not even double that at $4,376,400,000. “Funding For Research Areas of Interest,” National Institute of Health, 2002, www4.od.nih.gov/officeofbudget/ FundingResearchAreas.htm.
  58.  Ibid.; “Fast Stats Ato Z: Diabetes,” CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 04, 2002, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ fastats/diabetes.htm; “Fast Stats A to Z: Heart Disease,” CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 06, 2002, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/heart.htm.
  59.  Gay and Lesbian Medical Association Press Release, “Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” (July 17, 2002), http://www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html. The list includes Breast Cancer, Depression/Anxiety, Gynecological Cancer, Fitness, Substance Use, Tobacco, Alcohol, Domestic Violence, Osteoporosis and Heart Health.
  60.  Michael, et al., p. 176 (“about 1.4 percent of women said they thought of themselves as homosexual or bisexual and about 2.8% of the men identified themselves in this way”).
  61.  See Appendix A.
  62.  Skinner, et al., Abstract; Ferris, et al. p. 581; James Price, et al., p. 90; see Appendix A.
  63.  Katherine Fethers, et al., “Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000).
  64.  Ibid., p. 347.
  65.  Ibid.
  66.  Ibid.
  67.  Ibid., p. 348.
  68.  Ibid., p. 347, Table 1; Susan D. Cochran, et al., “Cancer- Related Risk Indicators and Preventive Screening Behaviors Among Lesbians and Bisexual Women,” American Journal of Public Health, 91(4): 591-597 (April 2001); Juliet Richters, Sara Lubowitz, et al., “HIV risks among women in contact with Sydney’s gay and lesbian community,” Venereology, 11(3): 35-38 (1998); Juliet Richters, Sarah Bergin, et al., “Women in Contact with the Gay and Lesbian Community: Sydney Women and Sexual Health Survey 1996 and 1998,” National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales, 1999.
  69.  Fethers, et al., p. 347 and Table 1.
  70.  Barbara Berger, Shelley Kolton, et al., “Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21: 1402-1405 (1995).
  71.  E. H. Koumans, et al., “Preventing adverse sequelae of Bacterial Vaginosis: a Public Health Program and Research Agenda,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 28(5): 292-297 (May 2001); R. L. Sweet, “Gynecologic Conditions and Bacterial Vaginosis: Implications for the Non-Pregnant Patient,” Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8(3): 184-190 (2000).
  72.  Kathleen M. Morrow, Ph.D., et al., “Sexual Risk in Lesbians and Bisexual Women,” Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 4(4): 159-165, p. 161 (2000).
  73.  Ibid., p. 159.
  74.  For example, Judith Bradford, Caitlin Ryan, and Esther D. Rothblum, “National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2): 228-242 (1994); Richard C. Pillard, “Sexual orientation and mental disorder,” Psychiatric Annals, 18(1): 52-56 (1988); see also Mubarak S. Dahir, “The Gay Community’s New Epidemic,” Daily News (June 5, 2000), http://www.gaywired.com/story detail.cfm?Section=12&ID=148&ShowDate=1.
  75.  Katherine A. O’Hanlan, M.D., et al., “Homophobia As a Health Hazard,” Report of the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, pp. 3, 5, http://www.ohanlan.com/phobiahzd.htm; Laura Dean, et al., “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Findings & Concerns,” Journal of the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, 4(3): 102-151, pp. 102, 116 (2000).
  76.  “Netherlands Ends Discrimination in Civil Marriage: Gays to Wed,” Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Press Release, March 30, 2001, http://lambdalegal.org/cgibin/ pages/documents/record?record=814.
  77.  Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001).
  78.  Ibid.
  79.  Ibid., p. 89.
  80.  Ibid., p. 90 (emphasis added).
  81.  Ibid.
  82.  Erica Goode, “With Fears Fading, More Gays Spurn Old Preventive Message,” New York Times, August 19, 2001.
  83.  Ibid.
  84.  Ibid.
  85.  Ibid.
  86.  “Officials Voice Alarm Over Halt in AIDS Decline,” New York Times, August 14, 2001.
  87.  “A uniform definition of a circuit party does not exist, partly because such parties continue to evolve. However, a circuit party tends to be a multi-event weekend that occurs each year at around the same time and in the same town . . . .” Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., “The Circuit Party Men’s Health Survey: Findings and Implications for Gay and Bisexual Men,” American Journal of Public Health, 91(6): 953-958, p. 953 (June 2001).
  88.  Ibid., p. 955.
  89.  Ibid., p. 956.
  90.  Ibid., pp. 956-957, Tables 2 & 3.
  91.  Ibid., pp. 956-957.
  92.  Ibid., p. 957. The authors’ recommendation was more education.
  93.  Julie Robotham, “Safe sex by arrangement as gay men reject condoms,” Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 2001. Data source: 2000 Male Out Survey, National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia.
  94.  R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. “Life Expectancy Hits New High in 2000; Mortality Declines for Several Leading Causes of Death,” CDC News Release, October 10, 2001, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/mort2k.htm. Nevertheless, it remains a significant factor in shortened life expectancy for homosexual practitioners.
  95.  Press Release, Smoking costs nation $150 billion each year in health costs, lost productivity, CDC, Office of Communication, April 12, 2002, http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/ pressrel/r020412.htm.
  96.  Hogg, et al., p. 660.
  97.  Ibid.
  98.  “Hepatitis A vaccination of men who have sex with men — Atlanta, Georgia, 1996-1997,” Morbidity and Mortality Report, CDC, 47(34): 708-711 (September 4, 1998).
  99.  Robert T. Michael, et al., p. 89.
  100.  Ibid., p. 101.
  101.  Camille Paglia, “I’ll take religion over gay culture,” Salon.com online magazine, June 1998, http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/ paglia/gayculture.htm.
  102.  Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., p. 955.
  103.  Joseph Harry, Gay Couples, p. 116, New York: Praeger Books, 1984.
  104.  Marcel T. Saghir, M.D. and Eli Robins, M.D., Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation, p. 57 Table 4.13, p. 225 Table 12.10, Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1973.
  105.  The existence of limited homosexual relationships in primitive cultures, or even extensive homosexuality in declining civilizations, such as those cited by advocates of same-sex marriage, does not challenge the existence of a prevailing norm. See, for example, William N. Eskridge, Jr., The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, Chapter 2, New York: The Free Press, 1996.
  106.  Joseph D. Unwin, “Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour,” pp. 18-19, reprint of Oxford University Press publication of speech given before the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society, March 27, 1935.
  107.  For example, see the website of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, Inc., http://www.ncsfreedom.org.
  108.  “The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections . . . .” 1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU, Policy #91, p. 175.
  109.  Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002; Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” Psychological Bulletin, 124(1): 22-53 (July 1998).
  110.  Paglia, June 23, 1998.
  111.  Rotello, p. 42.
  112.  Goode, August 19, 2001.
  113.  Ibid.
  114.  See Michael Hamrick, The Hidden Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits, pp. 3-4 (Corporate Resource Council, 2002).
  115.  David Gelman, et al., “Tune In, Come Out,” Newsweek, p. 70, November 8, 1993.
  116.  “Iowa study suggests tolerance of homosexuals is growing,” Associated Press, March 23, 2001.
  117.  Sally Kohn, The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for Employee Benefits, p. 1, the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, http://www.ngltf.org/ downloads/dp-/dp_99.pdf.
  118.  John Horgan, “Gay Genes, Revisited,” Scientific American, p. 26, November 1995.
  119. 

• Sunday, November 07, 2010

  kats101

  This was a thought-provoking debate that was well worth the time to watch.  It seems that Dr. Michael Brown did present the core of the evangelical concerns as this relates to the activism component.
  Shmuley- I was disappointed in what appeared to be your lack of compassion for those who suffer from sexual preoccupations that our present day society generally views as despicable.  In my line of work I have dealt with some who have been both victims and perpetrators of pedophilia (defining this term in a generalized sense).  Many perpetrators had also claimed the history of being victimized.  Of course, that does not make such behavior OK.  However, at varying levels such persons did realize acting on (and thinking about) such behavior is wrong, and that was a primary treatment issue for such folks who did indeed experience a severe life challenge.
  You seemed outraged at a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia.  However, if we are loosely defining pedophilia as an adult’s desire for a person under age of what society determines as the age of consent (18 in our case?), then how many past and present societies are guilty of this since there have been many throughout history that married a female off after she started menstruation? Comparing today from yesteryear, growing up as a teenager in the 1970’s in the U.S.A., the idea of teenagers and young adults involved in romantic/sexual relationships seemed to be much more tolerated.
  Shmuley- you did bring up an excellent point that the Sabbath is not honored as it should be.  You even gave benefit to the “gentile” Christians that we use Sunday as our Sabbath.  You were being kind since many (including myself) do not honor the Lord’s day(even if we change it to Sunday) as it was meant to be. And yes, you are very right that throughout the Bible (specifically our Old Testament), not keeping the Sabbath was very anger-provoking to the Lord (along with the worship of idols, offering children to the idols, ignoring God in general, minimizing/denying His power, greatness, omnipotence, etc.)  In effect, breaking the first four commandments in particular seemed to be the most detrimental to the individual and to society.  So, thank you for bringing that up because we as Christians should reflect positively our love and honor for God Almighty, and in a way that we are a more solid testimony. However, that does not mean we must be perfect before we can express our concerns in other arenas since we humans, especially with God directing, are certainly capable of multitasking if that is the need.

• Monday, November 08, 2010

  Larry

  Jesus is our Sabbath Rest
  As you know, the Sabbath is one of the oldest institutions in the world, dating, as the Bible makes clear, from the very earliest appearance of man upon the earth, when God blessed and hallowed the Sabbath. Later, it was part of the Law given to Moses and Israel. Many Christians today are troubled—considerably at times—by the question: “Should we be observing the Sabbath yet today?” There are certain Christian groups who feel that this is the case; in fact they insist that we are not genuine Christians unless we observe the commandment of God to keep the Sabbath continuously. It is those claims that I want to examine now as we look at this record from the book of Genesis for the seventh day.
  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation. (Genesis 2:1-3)
  We must try to unfold the riddle of this passage, the hidden mysteries which God delights to hide within these simple words. We will look together at seven facts which will open to us the remarkable truth that is hidden in this strange institution of the Sabbath. It seems strange that after 2000 years of Christian teaching the Sabbath is still little understood, though its true meaning is of crucial importance to us.
  The most outstandingly noteworthy thing that this passage indicates, which differs completely from the other days of creation is the absence of any reference to an evening or a morning. The record of all the other days of creation closed with the words, “and there was evening and there was morning, (a first, second, etc.,) day.” But there is no reference to evening or morning in this passage. This helps to confirm what we have already seen in these “days” of creation: that these “days” do not primarily emphasize time, but development. The evening and morning were indicative of a developing process, beginning in a rather incomplete state and moving toward light. But on this seventh day there is no evening and morning. In fact, twice in this brief passage we find the word, “finished,” occurring. “Thus the heavens the earth were finished” (Gen 2:1a) and “God finished his work” (Gen 2:2b). Obviously there is no need for development, no place for it. The work of God is complete on the seventh day, and therefore no evening or morning is mentioned.
  Therefore, whatever the Sabbath is (which we will see as we go along), it is a perfect thing. It is always the same whenever we experience it. It is not something to grow into; it is something to step into and to discover it to be exactly what it always is perfect, finished. That is our first clue.
  Let us now look at the second. It is obvious from this passage that the supreme meaning of sabbath is rest. In fact, the word “seven,” the word “sabbath,” and the word “rest,” are all the same basic word in Hebrew, Shabat, seven, sabbath, rest. Therefore, the heart of the meaning of sabbath is rest. That is its primary significance.
  Let us not misunderstand that. That does not mean rest as we often think of it. When we have been working hard and are weary and tired we need rest in order to restore our strength. But this is not the significance of the word here. It simply means the ending of activity, the cessation of effort. God was not tired by his creative work, he did not need to rest to restore strength. He did not stop because he was fatigued; he stopped because he was through. The Hawaiians have a very expressive word for it, pau. It means finished. He is pau, finished; and so he stopped. That is what we do when we are through with something, we stop. And this is what God did. He stopped because he was through. He had done all he intended to do and he rested in the midst of a perfect creation. Therefore the true sabbath, we will learn from this clue, is not the keeping of a special day but the ending of a specific effort. That is what sabbath means.
  As a third point here, the specific effort from which God rested was creation. The text says, “So God rested from all his work which he had done in creation” (Gen 2:3). This is the last account of any creative activity. Man was made and then God rested, and there has been no creation since. Man is the last effort of God in creation, on the physical level. Therefore this sabbath, this rest upon which God entered, is still continuing today. God is not creating physically today. God is ceaselessly active in many, many ways, but not in creation. In the fifth chapter of John, when Jesus was in the synagogue the Jews were very distressed because he had healed a man on the sabbath day. The Pharisees accused him of breaking the Sabbath and Jesus answered them by saying, “My Father is working until now, and I am working,” (cf, John 5:17). His argument was that it was proper for him to do a deed of mercy on the sabbath day because he was simply imitating his Father who was ceaselessly active in mercy and love on his sabbath day, his long rest. God had stopped creating but he was still busy in a thousand different ways. Thus the sabbath means that God’s creative activity has ended.
  Even evolutionists acknowledge this. Interestingly enough, many evolutionists admit that man is the end of the evolutionary ladder, and that nothing further has been evolved since the producing of man. We cannot agree with them as to how man came into being, but it is interesting that they agree at this point that there is no further evidence of development beyond man.
  As a fourth point we must therefore recognize that the weekly sabbath, i.e., Saturday, is not the real sabbath. It never was, and it is not now. It is a picture or a reminder of the real sabbath. The true sabbath is a rest; the Jewish sabbath is a shadow, a picture of that rest. All the Old Testament shadows pointed to Christ. They were predictions, foreviews, of the coming of the One who would fulfill all these remarkable things. Every lamb that was brought as an offering was a shadow of the work of Christ. Every burnt offering, every bit of incense that was offered, was a picture of the fragrance of Jesus Christ. The tabernacle was a shadow of him. The high priest, in his garments and his office, was a shadow of Christ as our High Priest. Read the book of Hebrews and you will see how beautifully all this is brought out. These Old Testament shadows were looking forward to the coming of the One who would fulfill these and thus end them. When the work of Jesus Christ was finished the shadows were no longer needed.
  When the Lord came, and his work was ended, making possible the true fulfillment of God’s intention in the Sabbath, the picture was no longer needed. The weekly sabbath ended at the cross. Paul specifically says this. In the letter to the Colossians he confirms it to us. In Chapter 2, beginning with Verse 13, he says,
  And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it [not him; it, the cross].
  Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:13-17)
  That should make it clear. This is why the claims of the Seventh Day Adventists, the Seventh Day Baptists, and other groups, that Christians changed the sabbath, are absurd, ridiculous. They claim that the Pope changed the sabbath by a papal edict from Saturday to Sunday, and that around the third or fourth century Christians began to celebrate Sunday rather than Saturday, out of obedience to this papal edict. But nothing could be further from the truth. History does not corroborate that in any degree. The Sabbath has always been Saturday and it always will be. It is the seventh day of the week. Sunday has always been the first day of the week. It has never been a sabbath, and it is pure legalism to call it a sabbath or to treat it as one. It is not a day of rest or restricted activity and it is not designed as such. It is the first day of the week; to Christians, the Lord’s Day.
  The shadow-sabbath ended at the cross, as Paul has made clear. The next day was the day of resurrection, the day when the Lord Jesus came from the tomb. On that day a new day began—the Lord’s day. Christians immediately began to observe the Lord’s Day on the first day of the week. They ceased observing the Sabbath because it was ended by the fulfillment of its reality in the cross, and they began to observe the first day of the week. This is what you find reflected in the book of Acts. Justin Martyr, who writes from the 2nd century, says,
  But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, when he changed the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ, our Savior, on the same day, rose from the dead.
  A fifth fact about this: Though this shadow-sabbath, i.e., Saturday observance, ended at the cross, the true sabbath, the rest of God, God’s ceasing from effort, continued and still continues today. That sabbath, in its application to us, is defined for us in Hebrews 4, Verses 9 and 10:
  So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God [it is available to us now]; for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. (Hebrews 4:9-10)
  That is what the true sabbath is, to cease from your own labors, your own efforts, your own activity; to cease from your own works. “Well,” you say, “if I did that I would be nothing but a blob, an immobile inactive piece of flesh.”
  Exactly! Of course you would. But the implication is that you cease from your own efforts and depend on the work of Another. That is the whole import of the book of Hebrews, another One is going to work through you. This is why Paul cries, “Not I, but Christ. I no longer live, but Christ lives in me,” (cf, Galatians 2:20). This was also the secret of the life of Jesus, as we have seen. He himself said, “It is the Father who dwells in me who does the work,” (cf, John 14:10). “The Son can do nothing by himself,” (cf, John 5:19). This is the secret of the Christian who learns “it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,” (cf, Phil 2:13). So the secret of true Christian life is to cease from dependence on one’s own activity, and to rest in dependence upon the activity of Another who dwells within. That is fulfilling the sabbath, the true sabbath.
  That true sabbath, we read in Genesis 2, God blessed and hallowed. As we have already seen in this series, blessing is connected with fruitfulness and dominion. God blessed the animals and said, “Be fruitful and multiply.” He said to man, “Be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over all the earth.” That is what blessing means, to make possible both fruitfulness and dominion. When God “hallowed,” or “sanctified” (KJV), the sabbath, he assigned it a specific function to perform. That is what sanctification always is—to put to a proper or intended purpose. Thus God designated the true sabbath to the function of producing blessing (fruitfulness and dominion) for man. This is why the Lord Jesus declared, “the sabbath is made for man; not man for the sabbath,” (Mark 2:27). So the true sabbath rest is to rest on Another, and this is the divine provision to produce fruitfulness and abundance of victory in a Christian’s life.
  Let us look at that a little closer because that is God’s provision for living adequately today. Are you adequate? Do you find yourself able to cope with the situations in life into which you are thrust day after day, moment by moment? Are you confident? Are you capable? Are you panic-proof? Are you filled with fruitfulness, fragrance, abundance? God’s rest is designed to produce that. God said it would. He makes it available for that purpose and it is the only thing that will do it; there is no substitute.
  I’m afraid most of us fit the self-description of someone who said he was a mouse studying to be a rat. By our best efforts we can rise to a high level of mediocrity—inadequate, unable. Why? Simply because we are depending on our effort. We are either extroverts, confident that we can do things and therefore frequently falling flat on our face; or we are introverts, so afraid to try anything that we don’t even dare show our face. It is all because we are looking to ourselves as our resource; our background, our training, our gifts, our talents, our education, etc. It either results in feeling that we have what it takes and can be confident, able, and powerful; or, as we look at ourselves we say, we don’t have what it takes and therefore we can’t take it and we won’t even try. So we become either over-confident and under-equipped, or under-confident and overworked, trying constantly to make up by activity what we lack in results.
  God knew that this would be our problem. He understands us. Nothing is hidden from him; he knows exactly the way we operate. Therefore he has designed an adequate provision for our weakness, teaching us how to operate on an entirely different basis, to no longer look to oneself but to look to the one who dwells within; to expect him to do something through you, using your mind, your will, your emotions, your feelings, but it is he who does the work. But unless you begin to count on his working you will never experience it.
  Right here comes the seventh factor, the one serious problem which remains. Christians say again and again, Why is this so difficult to do? Why do I have so much trouble? Why is it that Hebrews 4:11 goes on to say, “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.” Why must we work at this?
  Some seem able to learn it, and from time to time we see someone virtually come alive and their Christian life is simply transformed by learning to operate on this principle. They lose their egotism, as extroverts; or they lose their introverted feeling of self-consciousness. They begin to do things and to enjoy them, experiencing the blessing and excitement of Christian living.
  Others say, “I see all this, and I want to do it too. I know what is said about how to rest, but I try it and it doesn’t work. Why? Why do we fail?” The answer is given, I think, in a word of the Lord Jesus, recorded in Matthew 11, words we well know:
  “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)
  Notice that twice in that passage is the word rest. One rest is given, the other is found: One is experienced when we first come to Jesus Christ. He gives us rest. Do you remember when you came to Christ? You simply believed what the Scripture said, that on the cross of Calvary he took your place, he died for you; he bore the punishment for your sin; he was wounded for your transgressions, he was bruised for your iniquity; and you believed that. Immediately there was a sense of peace flooding your heart, a quietness. You felt no more guilt, no more fear of death, no more need for painful efforts to win Brownie points with God. You were resting on the work of Another. Christ paid it all; you were freely forgiven. What a sense of rest that was! He gave it to you.
  But as you went on as a Christian you found that problems began to return and failures came. Your Christian life became boring and dull, barren and uninteresting. You knew something was wrong and you resolved to try harder, to give yourself more fully to Christian activity, to throw yourself into it with more zeal and effort. This you did, and for awhile things went better, then it seemed to ebb out again into the same old thing. You ended up bored and disillusioned, disenchanted, discouraged. What is the answer? Well, it is what our Lord said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, and you will find rest,” (Matt 11:29-30a)
  Back in the days of the old West the oxen teams that came across the prairies were yoked together with a great, wooden yoke, made to fit over the necks of two oxen. A yoke is always made for two, never for one. Jesus was a carpenter, and in the carpenter shop in Nazareth he often made yokes. From this he draws this very apt simile. “Enter into the yoke with me,” he says, “you on one side; I on the other.” A yoke is also a symbol of servitude, of controlled labor and activity. It means the end of self-service. When an ox is yoked, he is no longer free to do what he wants to do. He is under the direction of the owner, the driver. To be yoked means the end of running his own life and seeking his own way. This is what Jesus means. He did this. “He learned obedience by the things which he suffered,” the writer of Hebrews tells us (cf, Heb 5:8). He learned to do what he did not want to do, because God wanted him to do it. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me,” he says (Matt 11:29a).
  When you enter into the yoke with Jesus you expect the Father to take over the program of your life. You may be surprised what he does with it. You no longer have the right to decide what you are going to do with your life. It does not make any difference what time of your life you enter into this yoke, whether you are a youth at the beginning of your adult life, or whether you are a man sixty years old, with a great business depending upon you as the executive head. It does not make any difference. When you enter into the yoke with Jesus Christ you give up the right to determine what your life may be. You expect him to direct you.
  It is his job to give the orders; it is his job to make you know what he wants you to do. He may make some dramatic changes, or he may not. He may leave you right where you are, doing what you are doing now, or he may tell you to stop it all, at great cost perhaps, outwardly, and leave it and go some place else to do something else. But one thing is certain, one thing he surely will do, no matter if he sends you some place else or leaves you right where you are—one thing he will certainly do: He will remove you from the spotlight, out of the center of things; he will enroll you in school. And do you know what the curriculum will be? “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart,” (Matt 11:29b KJV). He will begin to teach you humility—how not to be the center of attention, how to be content with letting someone else get all the credit. He will enroll you in the school that cancels out ego satisfaction. That is the principle by which the world lives, in its delusion. It is the thing that is destroying human life; the desire to be a god, your own god; to run your life to suit yourself. This can never be for those who are called to be Jesus Christ’s—“you are not your own, you are bought with a price” (cf, 1 Corinthians 6:19b-20a).
  The reason why you cannot enter into the joy and glory and excitement of the rest which God has provided in ceasing from your own activities and resting upon his, is because, in some way or another, you are protecting some area of the ego, the self-life, saying, “This is mine; keep your hands off.” As long as you do that you cannot have rest.
  “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it die, it brings forth much fruit.” (John 12:24 KJV)
  Rest is the secret of human fruitfulness. As you consent to this, a wonderful thing will begin to happen. You will find rest. Jesus said you would. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest.” (Mathew 11:29 KJV). Rest, with all it implies in terms of fruitfulness and dominion; reigning, ruling, producing that which is worthwhile and satisfying in life. That is the secret of life. This is why Jesus said, “If any man will save his life, he shall lose it. But if he shall lose his life for my sake, he shall find it,” (cf, Matt 16:25, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24). He will find rest, he will fulfill the sabbath for that is what the sabbath is. It is God’s divine provision for us. In the only judgment that is ever worthwhile, the judgment before the assembled hosts of heaven, when every life is reviewed as to whether it was worth the living, whether it hit the target or not, the secret of a success that will merit the words of Jesus, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant,” is to learn the rest of God. Anyone who learns that (and to the degree that you learn it) is keeping the Sabbath as God intended the Sabbath to be kept.

• Friday, December 03, 2010

  Larry

  What Have Homosexuals
  &
  Jews Got in Common?

  BOTH BLASPHEME THE NAME & PERSON OF JESUS MESSIAH!

  The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name
  By James Kirkup

  As they took him from the cross
  I, the centurion, took him in my arms-
  the tough lean body
  of a man no longer young,
  beardless, breathless,
  but well hung.

  He was still warm.
  While they prepared the tomb
  I kept guard over him.
  His mother and the Magdalen
  had gone to fetch clean linen
  to shroud his nakedness.

  I was alone with him.
  For the last time
  I kissed his mouth. My tongue
  found his, bitter with death.
  I licked his wound-
  the blood was harsh
  For the last time
  I laid my lips around the tip
  of that great cock, the instrument
  of our salvation, our eternal joy.
  The shaft, still throbbed, anointed
  with death’s final ejaculation

  I knew he’d had it off with other men-
  with Herod’s guards, with Pontius Pilate,
  With John the Baptist, with Paul of Tarsus
  with foxy Judas, a great kisser, with
  the rest of the Twelve, together and apart.
  He loved all men, body, soul and spirit. - even me.

  So now I took off my uniform, and, naked,
  lay together with him in his desolation,
  caressing every shadow of his cooling flesh,
  hugging him and trying to warm him back to life.
  Slowly the fire in his thighs went out,
  while I grew hotter with unearthly love.

  It was the only way I knew to speak our love’s proud name,
  to tell him of my long devotion, my desire, my dread-
  something we had never talked about. My spear, wet with blood,
  his dear, broken body all open wounds,
  and in each wound his side, his back,
  his mouth - I came and came and came.

  As if each coming was my last.
  And then the miracle possessed us.
  I felt him enter into me, and fiercely spend
  his spirit’s finbal seed within my hole, my soul,
  pulse upon pulse, unto the ends of the earth-
  he crucified me with him into kingdom come.

  -This is the passionate and blissful crucifixion
  same-sex lovers suffer, patiently and gladly.
  They inflict these loving injuries of joy and grace
  one upon the other, till they dies of lust and pain
  within the horny paradise of one another’s limbs,
  with one voice cry to heaven in a last divine release.

  Then lie long together, peacefully entwined, with hope
  of resurrection, as we did, on that green hill far away.
  But before we rose again, they came and took him from me.
  They knew not what we had done, but felt
  no shame or anger. Rather they were glad for us,
  and blessed us, as would he, who loved all men.

  And after three long, lonely days, like years,
  in which I roamed the gardens of my grief
  seeking for him, my one friend who had gone from me,
  he rose from sleep, at dawn, and showed himself to me before
  all others. And took me to him with
  the love that now forever dares to speak its name.

  James Falkender Kirkup, writer, translator and poet; born South Shields, Co Durham 23 April 1918; died Andorra 10 May 2009. Kirkup spent 91 years on this earth, but he will spend ETERNITY in the Lake of Fire.
  Now we will see what the Jews have to say about Jesus Messiah:
  Toldot Yeshu
  This is a derogatory version of the life of Jesus, growing out of the response of the Jewish community to Christianity. The tradition presented here is most commonly dated to approximately the 6th century CE. The text it self is closer to the 14th c. There is no scholarly consensus on to what extent the text might be a direct parody of a now lost gospel. H.J. Schonfield argued that it was so closely connected to the Gospel of the Hebrews that he attempted to reconstruct that lost work from the Toldot. There is not just one version of the story, and I have not found Goldstein vorlage on line, but there seems to be a version in Hebrew here.
  Text from Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, pp. 148-154. Most of the notes are mine, but they are clearly marked ([G] = Goldstein, [AH] = me)
  In the year 3671[1] in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah.
  Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing.
  At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will.
  Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam. Whereupon Yohanan went to Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah and related to him the tragic seduction. Lacking witnesses required for the punishment of Joseph Pandera, and Miriam being with child, Yohanan left for Babylonia.[2]
  Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu. On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition.
  One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah[3]. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it.[4] After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee.
  After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene[5] ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraved the letters of God’s Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten.
  Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters.[6]
  He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’”
  The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest.
  When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu. They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his disciples, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders of Jerusalem to visit them. Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive him as a lord. He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah.
  The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the accusation: “This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone.” Yeshu replied, “The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: ‘And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,’ and I am he; but as for them, Scripture says ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.’”
  Queen Helene asked the Sages: “What he says, is it in your Torah?” They replied: “It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: ‘And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.’ He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah.”
  Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: “This is a true sign.” She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu’s dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel.
  Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him.
  The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: “Wage no battle.” He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen. She trembled with astonishment.
  Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done.
  When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: “It is spoken of me, ‘I will ascend into heaven.’” He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone.
  The elders asked Iskarioto to do likewise. He did, and flew toward heaven. Iskarioto attempted to force Yeshu down to earth but neither one of the two could prevail against the other for both had the use of the Ineffable Name. However, Iskarioto defiled Yeshu, so that they both lost their power and fell down to the earth, and in their condition of defilement the letters of the Ineffable Name escaped from them. Because of this deed of Judah they weep on the eve of the birth of Yeshu.
  Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name.
  Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch[7]; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover.
  [8] Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto[9] apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages.
  Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk[10], for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” They buried him outside the city.
  On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.
  Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu’s followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, “This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven.” Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.
  The disciples went out among the nations—three went to the mountains of Ararat, three to Armenia, three to Rome and three to the kingdoms buy the sea, They deluded the people, but ultimately they were slain.
  The erring followers amongst Israel said: “You have slain the Messiah of the Lord.” The Israelites answered: “You have believed in a false prophet.” There was endless strife and discord for thirty years.
  The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man, Simeon Kepha, for help. Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed toe them: “I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I will give you a sign as Yeshu has done.”
  Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a true disciple. He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, “Your new moons and your feasts my soul abhorreth.” They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering. All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife to an end.
  [1] About 90, BC. [G]
  [2] Some traditions say ‘Egypt’. [AH]
  [3] Sexual impurity (incest, adultery, prostitution, etc.). [AH]
  [4] In one version of this admission, she confesses that not only is Yeshu the product of an illicit union, but she was ritually unclean from menstruation at the time as well (Sexual contact even with a woman’s husband is not lawful during, or, in Rabbinic law, for some time after, menstruation). [AH]
  [5] Salome Alexandra. [G]
  [6] Consistent, apparently, with the general tenor of Jewish criticism of Jesus’ miracles going at least as far back as Celsus (2nd c.) this tradition does not deny Jesus’ ability to perform miracles, accusing him instead of practicing magic. This version even accepts the divine origin of the miracles, attributing them to his misuse of the divine name, with its inherent powers. In the Alphabet of Ben Sira, Lilith is accused of the same crime, using the power of the name to escape from the Garden of Eden. [AH]
  [7] Some traditions say ‘Egypt’. [G]
  [8] In a variation on the story, Judah is able to out-miracle Yeshu in the sign contest without defiling him. Yeshu is discredited and arrested, and, as in this story, his followers are able to break him free, but he still remembers the Ineffable Name. He escapes to Egypt in hopes of learning Egyptian magic as well (regarded as the best magic in the world). Judah comes to Egypt and infiltrates the disciples, posing as one himself. It is from this vantage point that he is able to cause Yeshu to forget the magical Name, resulting in the later’s desire to return to Jerusalem and relearn it. Judah sends warning to the Sages, along with his plan to arrest him. [AH]
  [9] Aramaic: Ga’isa. [G]
  [10] Or cabbage stalk. [AH]
  Prepared by Alan Humm
  E-mail me:

  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

  Last Modified May 2009

  JESUS IN THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

  In Jewish Legend:

  The Jewish legends in regard to Jesus are found in three sources, each independent of the others—(1) in New Testament apocrypha and Christian polemical works, (2) in the Talmud and the Midrash, and (3) in the life of Jesus (“Toledot Yeshu’”) that originated in the Middle Ages. It is the tendency of all these sources to be-little the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death. In view of their general character they are called indiscriminately legends. Some of the statements, as that referring to magic, are found among pagan writers and Christian heretics; and as the Ebionites, or Judæo-Christians, who for a long time lived together with the Jews, are also classed as heretics, conclusions may be drawn from this as to the origin of these legends. For polemical purposes, it was necessary for the Jews to insist on the illegitimacy of Jesus as against the Davidic descent claimed by the Christian Church. Magic may have been ascribed him over against the miracles recorded in the Gospels; and the degrading fate both on earth and hereafter of which the legends speak may be simply directed against the ideas of the assumption and the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish legends relating to Jesus appear less inimical in character when compared with the parallel passages which are found in pagan authors and Christian sources, more especially as such legends are fixed and frequently occurring themes of folk-lore; and imaginations must have been especially excited by the historical importance which the figure of Jesus came to have for the Jews. The earliest authenticated passage ascribing illegitimate birth to Jesus is that in Yebamoth. iv. 3. The mysterious phrase (“that man”) cited in this passage as occurring in a family register which R. Simeon ben Azza is said to have found seems to indicate that it refers to Jesus (see Derenbourg in “R. E. J.” i. 293), and here occur also the two expressions so often applied to Jesus in later literature— (= “that anonymous one,” the name of Jesus being avoided) and (=“bastard”; for which in later times was used). Such a family register may have been preserved at Jerusalem in the Judæo-Christian community.It ought also to be added that many of the legends have a theological background.

  Birth of Jesus.
  The Jews, who are represented as inimical to Jesus in the canonical Gospels also, took him to be legitimate and born in an entirely natural manner. A contrary statement as to their attitude is expressed for the first time in the “Acts of Pilate” (“Gospel of Nicodemus,” ed. Thilo, in “Codex Apoc. Novi Testamenti,” i. 526, Leipsic, 1832; comp. Origen, “Contra Celsum,” i. 28). Celsus makes the same statement in another passage, where he refers even to a written source (ἀναγέγραπται), adding that the seducer was a soldier by the name of Panthera (l.c. i. 32). The name “Panthera” occurs here for the first time; two centuries later it occurs in Epiphanius (“Hæres.” lxxviii. 7), who ascribes the surname “Panther” to Jacob, an ancestor of Jesus; and John of Damascus (“De Orthod. Fide.” iv., § 15) includes the names “Panther” and “Barpanther” in the genealogy of Mary. It is certain, in any case, that the rabbinical sources also regard Jesus as the “son of Pandera” (), although it is noteworthy that he is called also “Ben Sṭada” () (Shabbath. 104b; Sanh. 67a).It appears from this passage that, aside from Pandera and Sṭada, the couple Pappus b. Judah and Miriam the hairdresser were taken to be the parents of Jesus. Pappus has nothing to do with the story of Jesus, and was only connected with it because his wife happened to be called “Miriam” (= “Mary”), and was known to be an adulteress.The one statement in which all these confused legends agree is that relating to the birth of Jesus. Although this is ascribed only to the Jews, even in Celsus, the Jews need not necessarily be regarded as its authors, for it is possible that it originated among heretics inimical to Jesus, as the Ophites and Cainites, of whom Origen says “they uttered such hateful accusations against Jesus as Celsus himself did” (“Contra Celsum,” iii. 13). It is probable, furthermore, that the accusation of illegitimacy was not originally considered so serious; it was ascribed to the most prominent personages, and is a standing motive in folk-lore (Krauss, “Leben Jesu,” p. 214).The incident of Jesus concerning the dispute with the Scribes was copied by the rabbinical sources (Kallah 18b [ed. Venice, 1528, fol. 41c]; comp. N. Coronel, “Comment. Quinque,” p. 3b, Vienna, 1864, and “Batte Midrashot,” ed. Wertheimer, iii. 23, Jerusalem, 1895). All the “Toledot” editions contain a similar story of a dispute which Jesus carried on with the Scribes, who, on the ground of that dispute, declared him to be a bastard. Analogous to this story are numerous tales of predictions by precocious boys.

  Shabbath 104b
  MISHNAH. IF ONE WRITES TWO LETTERS IN ONE STATE OF UNAWARENESS,1 HE IS CULPABLE. IF ONE WRITES WITH INK, CHEMICALS, SIKRA,2 KUMOS,3 KANKANTUM,4 OR WITH ANYTHING THAT LEAVES A MARK ON THE ANGLE OF TWO WALLS OR ON THE TWO LEAVES [TABLES] OF A LEDGER, AND THEY [THE TWO LETTERS] ARE READ5 TOGETHER, HE IS CULPABLE. IF ONE WRITES ON HIS FLESH, HE IS CULPABLE: HE WHO SCRATCHES A MARK ON HIS FLESH, R. ELIEZER DECLARES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING; BUT THE SAGES EXEMPT HIM. IF ONE WRITES WITH A FLUID, WITH FRUIT JUICE, WITH ROAD DUST,6 OR WITH WRITER’S POWDER,7 OR WITH8 ANYTHING THAT CANNOT ENDURE, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. [IF ONE WRITES] WITH THE BACK OF HIS HAND, WITH HIS FOOT, WITH HIS MOUTH, OR WITH HIS ELBOW; IF ONE WRITES ONE LETTER NEAR [OTHER] WRITING,9 OR IF ONE WRITES UPON WRITING;10 IF ONE INTENDS WRITING A HETH BUT WRITES TWO ZAYYININ; ONE [LETTER] ON THE GROUND AND ANOTHER ON A BEAM; IF ONE WRITES ON TWO WALLS OF THE HOUSE, OR ON TWO LEAVES OF A LEDGER WHICH ARE NOT TO BE READ11 TOGETHER, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. IF ONE WRITES ONE LETTER AS AN ABBREVIATION,12 R. JOSHUA B. BATHYRA HOLDS HIM LIABLE, WHILST THE SAGES EXEMPT HIM.
  GEMARA. DYo [ink] is deyutha, SaM [chemical] is samma [orpiment]; SIKRA: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said, Its name is sekarta. Kumos is Kumma. Kankantum: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in Samuel’s name, The blacking used by shoemakers.13
  OR WITH ANYTHING THAT LEAVES A MARK. What does this add?14 — It adds what was taught by R. Hanina: If he writes it [a divorce] with the fluid of taria,15 or gall-nut [juice], it is valid.16 R. Hiyya taught: If he writes it with dust,17 with a black pigment, or with coal, it is valid.
  HE WHO SCRATCHES A MARK ON HIS FLESH, [etc.] It was taught. R. Eliezer said to the Sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches18 [in the form of charms] upon his flesh?19 He was a fool, answered they, and proof cannot be adduced from fools.20

  IF ONE WRITES ONE LETTER NEAR [OTHER] WRITING. Who teaches this? — Said Rabbah son of R. Huna, It does not agree with R. Eliezer. For if [it agreed with] R. Eliezer, — surely he maintained, [for] one [thread] added to woven stuff, he is culpable.21
  IF ONE WRITES UPON WRITING. Who teaches this? Said R. Hisda, It does not agree with R. Judah. For it was taught: If one had to write the [Divine] Name,22 but [erroneously] intended to write Judah [YHWDH]23 but omitted the daleth,24 he can trace his reed [writing pen] over it and sanctify it: this is R. Judah’s view;25 but the Sages maintain: The [Divine] Name [thus written] is not of the most preferable.
  It was taught: If one writes one letter and completes a book26 therewith, [or] weaves one thread and completes a garment therewith, he is culpable. Who is the authority? — Said Rabbah son of R. Huna, It is R. Eliezer, who maintained: [For] one [thread] added to woven stuff, he is culpable. R. Ashi said, You may even say that it is the Rabbis: completing is different.
  R. Ammi said: If one writes one letter in Tiberias and another in Sepphoris,27 he is culpable: it is one [act of] writing but that it lacks being brought together. But we learnt: IF ONE WRITES ON TWO WALLS OF A HOUSE, OR ON TWO LEAVES OF A LEDGER WHICH CANNOT BE READ TOGETHER, HE IS NOT CULPABLE? — There the act of being brought together is lacking;28 but here the act of bringing together is not lacking.29
  A Tanna taught: If one corrects one letter, he is culpable. Now, seeing that if one writes one letter he is not culpable. if he [merely] corrects one letter he is culpable?30 — Said R. Shesheth: The circumstances here are e.g., that he removes the roof [i.e.. the upper bar] of a heth and makes two zayyin thereof. Raba said: E.g.. he removes the projection of a daleth and makes a resh thereof.31
  A Tanna taught: If one intended writing one letter,
  1.  V. supra 67b.
  2.  A kind of red paint.
  3.  Ink prepared with gum.
  4.  Vitriol used as an ingredient of ink.
  5.  Lit., — lead’.
  6.  Mixed with water to produce a weak ink. — Others: in the dust of the roads, i.e., one traces writing therein with his finger.
  7.  The refuse of writing material, or the coloured sand strewn over the writing (Rashi and Jast.). Others: in writer’s powder.
  8.  Or ‘in’.
  9.  I.e., near a letter already written, so as to complete the word.
  10.  To make it clearer.
  11.  Lit., ‘lead’.
  12.  I.e., a letter followed by a short stroke or point to indicate that it is an abbreviation, e.g. [H].
  13.  In the above the Hebrew of the Mishnah is translated into the more familiar Aramaic used by the amoraim. V. Git., Sonc. ed., p. 71, n. 2.
  14.  V. p. 492. n. 5.
  15.  A sort of ink. Rashi: either fruit juice or rain water. V. Low. Graph. Requisiten, pp. 158, 161. v. Meg.. Sonc. ed., p. 103.
  16.  Hence it must be regarded as durable and therefore involves culpability in connection with the Sabbath.
  17.  So cur. edd. Rashi reads: with lead.
  18.  Incisions.
  19.  Which proves that scratches are important. and so one should be liable therefore. In the uncensored text this passage follows: Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? — Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? — His mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? — It is as we say in Pumbeditha: This one has been unfaithful to (lit., ‘turned away from’ — satath da) her husband. — On the identity of Ben Stada v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 456, n. 5.
  20.  His action was too unusual to furnish a criterion.
  21.  V. infra 105a. The same principle applies here too.
  22.  The Tetragrammaton; the reference is to a Scroll of the Law, in which the Tetragrammaton must be written with sacred intention.
  23.  In this word the waw (W) is a vowel.
  24.  Thus writing YHWH-the Tetragrammaton-after all, but without sacred intention.
  25.  Thus he counts retracing as writing.
  26.  Rashi: of one of the Hebrew Scriptures.
  27.  Two towns of Galilee.
  28.  Before the two letters can be read as one the paper must be cut away. so that they can be put together.
  29.  E.g.. if the letters are written on the edges of two boards.
  30.  Surely not.
  31.  In a Scroll of one of the Biblical books. This constitutes a complete labour, because one may not permit a Scroll of Scripture to remain with an error.
  Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin
  Folio 67a
  That is merely a mnemonical sign.1
  MISHNAH. A MESITH IS A [SEDUCING] LAYMAN,2 AND HE WHO SEDUCES AN INDIVIDUAL3 SAYING, ‘THERE IS AN IDOL IN SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE; IT EATS THUS, IT DRINKS THUS, IT DOES SO MUCH GOOD AND SO MUCH HARM. FOR ALL WHOM THE TORAH CONDEMNS TO DEATH NO WITNESSES ARE HIDDEN TO ENTRAP THEM, EXCEPTING FOR THIS ONE. IF HE INCITED TWO [TO IDOLATRY], THEY THEMSELVES ARE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, AND HE IS BROUGHT TO BETH DIN AND STONED. BUT IF HE ENTICED ONE, HE MUST REPLY, I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WISH TO DO SO LIKEWISE [COME AND PROPOSE IT TO THEM TOO].’ BUT IF HE WAS CUNNING AND DECLINED TO SPEAK BEFORE THEM, WITNESSES ARE HIDDEN BEHIND A PARTITION, WHILST HE WHO WAS INCITED SAYS TO HIM, MAKE YOUR PROPOSAL TO ME NOW IN PRIVATE. WHEN THE MESITH DOES SO, THE OTHER REPLIES, HOW SHALL WE FORSAKE OUR GOD IN HEAVEN TO GO AND SERVE WOOD AND STONES?’ SHOULD HE RETRACT, IT IS WELL. BUT IF HE ANSWERS, ‘IT IS OUR DUTY [TO WORSHIP IDOLS], AND IS SEEMLY FOR US, THEN THE WITNESSES STATIONED BEHIND THE PARTITION TAKE HIM TO BETH DIN, AND HAVE HIM STONED. IF HE SAYS, ‘I WILL WORSHIP IT’, OR, ‘I WILL GO AND WORSHIP’, OR, ‘LET US GO AND WORSHIP’; OR, ‘I WILL SACRIFICE [TO IT]’, ‘I WILL GO AND SACRIFICE’, ‘LET US GO AND SACRIFICE’; ‘I WILL BURN INCENSE, ‘I WILL GO AND BURN INCENSE’. ‘LET US GO AND BURN INCENSE’; ‘I WILL MAKE LIBATIONS TO IT’, ‘I WILL GO AND MAKE LIBATIONS TO IT, LET US GO AND MAKE LIBATIONS, ‘I WILL PROSTRATE MYSELF BEFORE IT’, ‘I WILL GO AND PROSTRATE MYSELF’. ‘LET US GO AND PROSTRATE OURSELVES’. (GUILT IS INCURRED).4
  GEMARA. A MESITH IS A LAYMAN. Thus, only because he is a layman [is he stoned]; but if a prophet, he is strangled. WHO SEDUCES AN INDIVIDUAL: thus, only if he seduces an individual; but if a community, he is strangled. Hence, who is [the Tanna of] the Mishnah? — R. Simeon. For it has been taught: A prophet who entices [people to idolatry] is stoned; R. Simeon said: He is strangled.5 Then consider the second clause.6 A maddiah7 is one who says: ‘Let us go and serve idols’: whereon Rab Judah observed in Rab’s name: This Mishnah teaches of those who lead astray a seduced city. Thus it agrees with the Rabbis [who maintain that these too are stoned, not strangled]. Hence, the first clause is taught according to R. Simeon; the second according to the Rabbis! — Rabina said: Both clauses are based on the Rabbis’ ruling, but proceed from the universally admitted to the disputed.8 R. Papa said: When the Mishnah states A MESITH IS A HEDYOT,9 it is only in respect of hiding witnesses.10 For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done? — A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him,11 but he cannot see them. Then the person he wished to seduce says to him, ‘Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me’; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; ‘But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols’? If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: ‘It is our duty and seemly for us’, the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to the Beth din, and have him stoned.12
     
  MISHNAH. A MADDIAH IS ONE WHO SAYS, ‘LET US GO AND SERVE IDOLS’. A SORCERER, IF HE ACTUALLY PERFORMS MAGIC, IS LIABLE [TO DEATH]. BUT NOT IF HE MERELY CREATES ILLUSIONS.13 R. AKIBA SAID IN R. JOSHUA’S NAME: OF TWO WHO GATHER CUCUMBERS [BY MAGIC] ONE MAY BE PUNISHED AND THE OTHER EXEMPT: HE WHO REALLY GATHERS THEM IS PUNISHED: WHILST HE WHO PRODUCES AN ILLUSION IS EXEMPT.
  GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: This Mishnah teaches of those who lead astray a seduced city.14
  A SORCERER, IF HE ACTUALLY PERFORMS MAGIC etc.
  Our Rabbis taught: [Thou shalt not suffer] a witch [to live]:15 this applies to both man and woman. If so, why is a [female] witch stated? — Because mostly women engage in witchcraft. How are they executed? — R. Jose the Galilean said: Here it is written, Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live; whilst elsewhere is written, Thou shalt not suffer anything that breatheth to live.16 Just as there, the sword is meant, so here is the sword meant too. R. Akiba said: It is here stated, Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live; whilst elsewhere it is said, [There shall not a hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through;] whether it be beast or man, it shall not live.17 Just as there, death by stoning is meant, so here too. R. Jose said to him, I have drawn an analogy between ‘Thou shalt not suffer to live’ written in two verses, whilst you have made a comparison between ‘Thou shalt not suffer to live’, and ‘It shall not live’. R. Akiba replied: I have drawn an analogy between two verses referring to Israelites, for whom the Writ hath decreed many modes of execution,18 whilst you have compared Israelites to heathens, in whose case only
  1.  I.e., in both the reference is to something done for the first time: there to coition; here to profanation. But the similarity ceases at this point.
  2.  Heb. hedyot. As opposed to a prophet.
  3.  Heb. hedyot. But not a whole community. On the Heb. term hedyot, v. p 456, nn. 2 and 3.
  4.  The seducer by using any one of those expressions incurs guilt and is executed; v. Rashi (supra, 61a) who refers it to the seduced person.
  5.  V. infra 84a.
  6.  I.e., the next Mishnah, which is really part of this.
  7.  Who is stoned, as stated in the Mishnah on 53a, of which all the subsequent Mishnahs in this chapter are explanations.
  8.  Lit., ‘nor only this, but that also).’ When the Mishnah states, [HE] WHO SEDUCES AN INDIVIDUAL, it is not intended to exclude a multitude, but merely to commence with the universally agreed law. Then the next Mishnah adds that the same applies to the seduction of a multitude, though this is not admitted by all.
  9.  [H], [G] rendered in Mishnah, ‘LAYMAN’, also means ignorant, ignoble.
  10.  I.e., hedyot is not used in the sense of a layman as opposed to a prophet, but in the sense of ignoble; so dastardly in his action, that he is not shewn the same consideration as other malefactors, but hidden witnesses are set to entrap him. There is no dispute between Rabina and R. Papa, both teaching that the two clauses agree with the Rabbis; but Rabina explains the phrase, ‘HE WHO SEDUCES AN INDIVIDUAL’, whilst R. Papa deals with ‘A MESITH IS A HEDYOT’.
  11.  Otherwise, they could not testify.
  12.  In the uncensored editions of the Talmud there follows this important passage (supplied from D.S. on the authority of the Munich and Oxford Mss. and the older editions) ‘And this they did to Ben Stada in Lydda ([H]), and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada was Ben Padira. R. Hisda said: ‘The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But was nor the husband Pappos b. Judah? — His mother’s name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman’s hair? ([H] megaddela neshayia): — As they say in Pumbaditha, This woman has turned away ([H]) from her husband, (i.e., committed adultery).’ T. Herford, in ‘Christianity in the Talmud’, pp. 37 seqq, 344 seqq, identifies this Ben Stada with Jesus of Nazareth. As to the meaning of the name, he connects it with [G] ‘seditious’, and suggests (p. 345 n. 1) that it originally denoted ‘that Egyptian’ (Acts XXI 38, Josephus, Ant. XX, 8, 6) who claimed to be a prophet and led his followers to the Mount of Olives, where he was routed by the Procurator Felix, and that in later times he might have been confused with Jeshua ha-Notzri. This hypothesis, however, involves the disregard of the Talmudic data, for Pappos b. Judah lived a century after Jesus (Git. 90a), though the mother’s name, Miriam (Mary), would raise no difficulty, as [H] megaddela neshayia may be the result of a confusion with Mary Magdalene (v. also Box, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, pp. 201f, for other possible meanings of Ben Stada and Ben Pandira) Derenbourg (Essai note 9, pp. 465-471) rightly denies the identity of Ben Stada with Jesus, and regards him simply as a false prophet executed during the second century at Lydda.
  13.  I.e., the illusion of doing something, whereas in fact he does nothing.
  14.  Cf. supra 53a.
  15.  Ex. XXII, 17.
  16.  Deut. XX, 17. This refers to the war of extermination against the seven races inhabiting Canaan before the Conquest by Joshua. They would naturally be killed by the sword.
  17.  Ex. XIX, 13. This refers to the taboo placed upon Mount Sinai before the Theophany.
  18.  And yet at Sinai stoning was chosen.
  Sanhedrin 67b
  one death penalty is decreed.1 Ben ‘Azzai said:2 It is here written, Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, whilst [immediately after] it is said, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.3 Now, this is placed in proximity, teaching that just as the latter is stoned, so is the former. Thereupon R. Judah said to him: Shall we, because of this proximity, exclude the former [from the easier death implied by an unspecified death sentence] changing it to stoning?4 But [reason this:] The ob and yidde’oni were included among other sorcerers.5 Why were they singled out?6 That other sorcerers may be assimilated to them, and to teach thee, just as the ob and yidde’oni are stoned, so are all other sorcerers stoned. But even according to R. Judah, are not ob and yidde’oni two statements teaching the same thing, and two statements teaching the same thing cannot throw light upon anything else?7 — R. Zechariah answered: For this very reason R. Judah is generally said to maintain that even two statements singled out for the same purpose illumine the proposition as a whole.8
  R. Johanan said: Why are they [sorcerers] called Kashshafim?9 — Because they lessen the power of the Divine agencies.10
  There is none else besides Him:11 R. Hanina said: Even by sorcery.12 A woman once attempted to take earth from under R. Hanina’s feet.13 He said to her, ‘If you succeed in your attempts, go and practise it [sc. sorcery]: it is written, however, There is none else beside him’. But that is not so, for did not R. Johanan say: Why are they called mekashshefim?14 Because they lessen the power of the Divine agencies? — R. Hanina was in a different category, owing to his abundant merit.15
  R. Abaye b. Nagri said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Abba: Belatehem refers to magic through the agency of demons, belahatehem to sorcery [without outside help].16 And thus it is also said, And the flame [Heb. lahat] of the sword that turns of itself.17
  Abaye said: The sorcerer who insists on exact paraphernalia18 works through demons; he who does not works by pure enchantment.
  Abaye said: The laws of sorcerers are like those of the Sabbath: certain actions are punished by stoning, some are exempt from punishment, yet forbidden, whilst others are entirely permitted. Thus: if one actually performs magic, he is stoned; if he merely creates an illusion, he is exempt, yet it is forbidden; whilst what is entirely permitted? — Such as was performed by R. Hanina and R. Oshaia, who spent every Sabbath eve in studying the Laws of Creation, by means of which they created a third-grown calf and ate it.19
  R. Ashi said: I saw Karna’s father20 blow his nose violently and streamers of silk issued from his nostrils.
  Then the magicians said unto Pharoah, This is the finger of God:21 R. Eleazar, said: This proves that a magician cannot produce a creature less than a barley corn in size. R. Papa said: By God! he cannot produce even something as large as a camel; but these [larger than a barley corn] he can [magically] collect [and so produce the illusion that he has magically created them], the others he cannot.
  Rab said to R. Hiyya: ‘I myself saw an Arabian traveller take a sword and cut up a camel; then he rang a bell, at which the camel arose.’ He replied, ‘After that, was there any blood or dung? But that was merely an illusion.’
  Ze’iri happened to go to Alexandria in Egypt and bought an ass. When he was about to water it, it dissolved, and there stood before him a landing board.22 The vendors then said to him; ‘Were you not Ze’iri, we would not return you [your money]: does anyone buy anything here without first testing it by water?‘23
  Jannai24 came to an inn. He said to them, ‘Give me a drink of water,’ and they offered him shattitha.25 Seeing the lips of the woman [who brought him this] moving,26 he [covertly] spilled a little thereof, which turned to snakes. Then he said, ‘As I have drunk of yours, now do you come and drink of mine.’ So he gave her to drink, and she was turned into an ass. He then rode upon her into the market. But her friend came and broke the charm [changing her back into a human being], and so he was seen riding upon a woman in public.
  And the frog came up, and covered the land of Egypt.27 R. Eleazar said: It was one frog, which bred prolifically and filled the land. This is a matter disputed by Tannaim. R. Akiba said: There was one frog which filled the whole of Egypt [by breeding]. But R. Eleazar b. Azariah said to him, ‘Akiba, What hast thou to do with Haggadah?28 Cease thy words and devote thyself to ‘Leprosies’ and ‘Tents.‘29 One frog croaked for the others, and they came’.
  R. AKIBA SAID, etc.
  1.  Viz., decapitation. Consequently, no true analogy is possible.
  2.  His full name was Simeon b. ‘Azzai. There were four companions each named Simeon, so for short they were referred to by their patronym (Rashi in Ab. IV, 1).
  3.  Ex. XXII, 19.
  4.  R. Judah does not regard the proximity of two subjects, [H] as a method of exegesis.
  5.  I.e., in the verse, Thou shalt not suffer a sorcerer to live.
  6.  In Lev. XX, 27.
  7.  This is in accordance with the exegetical principle that if a general proposition is stated, and then one part thereof is singled out for special mention, the latter illumines the former; but not if two are singled out. For if they were intended to convey a teaching with respect to the proposition as a whole, only one should have been singled out, from which the second (together with the rest of the general statement) would be derived.
  8.  R. Judah does not agree with the limitation expressed above, and it is precisely from this verse that he deduces that even two statements may be singled out to convoy a teaching for the whole; v. Kid. 35a.
  9.  [H]
  10.  I.e., making incantations of death against those for whom Heaven has decreed life (Rashi); and in general seeking to interfere with the course of events as decreed from above. The word is treated as an abbreviation, thus Keshafim, Kahash, Famalia, Ma’alah. (Lessens [the] Family on High).
  11.  Deut. IV, 35.
  12.  I.e., not even sorcerers have power to oppose His decree.
  13.  To perform magic against him.
  14.  [H] Hebrew form of Kashshafim.
  15.  Therefore God should certainly not permit any sorcerer to harm him.
  16.  In the references to Pharoah’s magicians, two words are employed to denote their art: belatehem, ([H]) e.g., Ex. VII, 22 (with their enchantments); and belahatehem ([H]) Ex. VII, 11.
  17.  Gen. III, 24, thus lahat is referred to an action taking place of itself; similarly, belahatehem connotes sorcery performed without extraneous aid.
  18.  Demanding particular properties for different kinds of magic.
  19.  V. p 446, nn. 9, 10. It thus all depends as to whose help is invoked in performing the miraculous.
  20.  He was a magician.
  21.  Ex. VIII, 19; this refers to the plague of lice, which they could not imitate.
  22.  The ass had been a product of sorcery, created out of a landing board. Things thus created reverted to their original form when brought into contact with water.
  23.  The scholars of the first century referred frequently to Egypt as the original home of magic arts (Blau, Das aljudische Zauberwesen, pp. 37-49). Sorcery was very rife in Alexandria, and was practised by Jews too, who were more influenced by pagan ideas in this city than in any other place of their dispersion. Among the less intelligent, Jewish and pagan, witchcraft were freely indulged in (Schurer, Geschichte, 3rd ed., III, 294-304). It is not clear in this passage whether Ze’iri had bought the ass from a Jew or Gentile, but the fact that such particular respect was shewn to him would seem to indicate that the vendor was a Jew.
  24.  Rashi observes that this is the reading, not R. Jannai; for a scholar would not practise witchcraft.
  25.  A drink prepared of flour and water. Cf. Lat. ptisanarium, a decoction of barley groats
  26.  By this he recognised her to be a witch, probably muttering a charm.
  27.  Ex. VIII, 6.
  28.  Haggadah, also aggadah, from Nagad, to narrate, denotes the narrative, and homiletical portions of the Talmud.
  29.  [Nega’im and Ohaloth, two subjects in the Talmud and name of two tractates dealing respectively with uncleanliness of a corpse and leprosy, subjects of extreme difficulty and thus suited to R. Akiba’s keen dialetics.]
  Sojourn in Egypt.

  The sojourn of Jesus in Egypt is an essential part of the story of his youth. According to the Gospels he was in that country in his early infancy, but Celsus says that he was in service there and learned magic; hence he was there in early manhood. This assumption may serve to throw more light on the obscure history of Jesus than the account found in the Gospels. The Talmud also says that Jesus was in Egypt in early manhood. R. Joshua b. Peraḥyah is said to have fled with his pupil Jesus to Alexandria in order to escape the persecutions of the Jewish king Yannai (103-76 B.C.); on their return Jesus made a remark on the not faultless beauty of their hostess, whereupon R. Joshua excommunicated him; and when Jesus approached him again and was not received he set up a brick for his god, and led all Israel into apostasy (Sanh. 107b; Soṭah 47a; Yer. Ḥag. 77d). This account is supplemented by the statement, made on the assumption that Ben Sṭada is identical with Ben Pandera, that Ben Sṭada brought magic from Egypt (Shab. 104b). The story that Joshua b. Peraḥyah, a contemporary of Simeon b. Sheṭaḥ, was the teacher of Jesus, is not clearly stated in the various “Toledot”; it is saidmerely that Jesus was named after this brother of his mother. The assumption that Joshua b. Peraḥyah was the uncle of Jesus is confirmed by Ḳirḳisani, who wrote about 937 a history of Jewish sects (ed. Harkavy, § 1, St. Petersburg, 1894; comp. “J. Q. R.” vii. 687). The references to Yannai, Salome Alexandra, and Joshua b. Peraḥyah indicate that according to the Jewish legends the advent of Jesus took place just one century before the actual historical date; and some medieval apologists for Judaism, as Naḥmanides and Salman Ẓebi, based on this fact their assertion that the “Yeshu’” mentioned in the Talmud was not identical with Jesus; this, however, is merely a subterfuge.

  Jesus as Magician.

  According to Celsus (in Origen, “Contra Celsum,” i. 28) and to the Talmud (Shab. 104b), Jesus learned magic in Egypt and performed his miracles by means of it; the latter work, in addition, states that he cut the magic formulas into his skin. It does not mention, however, the nature of his magic performances (Tosef., Shab. xi. 4; Yer. Shab. 13d); but as it states that the disciples of Jesus healed the sick “in the name of Jesus Pandera” (Yer. Shab. 14d; ‘Ab. Zarah 27b; Eccl. R. i. 8) it may be assumed that its author held the miracles of Jesus also to have been miraculous cures. Different in nature is the witchcraft attributed to Jesus in the “Toledot.” When Jesus was expelled from the circle of scholars, he is said to have returned secretly from Galilee to Jerusalem, where he inserted a parchment containing the “declared name of God” (“Shem ha-Meforash”), which was guarded in the Temple, into his skin, carried it away, and then, taking it out of his skin, he performed his miracles by its means. This magic formula then had to be recovered from him, and Judah the Gardener (a personage of the “Toledot” corresponding to Judas Iscariot) offered to do it; he and Jesus then engaged in an aerial battle (borrowed from the legend of Simon Magus), in which Judah remained victor and Jesus fled.The accusation of magic is frequently brought against Jesus. Jerome mentions it, quoting the Jews: “Magum vocant et Judæi Dominum meum” (“Ep. lv., ad Ascellam,” i. 196, ed. Vallarsi); Marcus, of the sect of the Valentinians, was, according to Jerome, a native of Egypt, and was accused of being, like Jesus, a magician (Hilgenfeld, “Ketzergesch.” p. 370, Leipsic, 1884). There were even Christian heretics who looked upon the founder of their religion as a magician (Fabricius, in “Codex Apocr. Novi Testamenti,” iii. 396), and public opinion at Rome accused all Christians of magic (W. M. Ramsay, “The Church in the Roman Empire Before A.D. 170,” pp. 236, 392, London, 1897). The Apostles were regarded in the same light (“Acta Petri et Andreæ,” ed. Bonnet, § 8). Neither this accusation nor that concerning the birth of Jesus is found in the canonical Gospels, but it occurs in the apocryphal accounts; e.g., “Gesta Pilati,” ii. 1; “Acta Pilati,” version B, ii. 3, iii. 1; ib. i. 1 (μαγεΊαι; comp. γόης ἐστιν = “he is a magician”); ib. in ed. Tischendorf, 2d ed., p. 216, “maleficus est”; ib. p. 338 (“Zeit. für die Neutest. Wissenschaft,” 1901, iii. 94), with which comp “veneficus” = “poisoner” (“Evang. Infantiæ Arab.” ed. Thilo, § 36). Somewhat different is the accusation that Jesus imposed upon the people and led them astray (comp. Bischoff, “Ein Jüdisch. Deutsches Leben Jesu,” p. 20, Leipsic, 1895: , often also , and in the Greek texts πλανός, λαοπλανός; comp. πλανᾷ τὸν ὅχλον = “he deceives the people”; John vii. 12). As Balaam the magician and, according to the derivation of his name, “destroyer of the people,” was from both of these points of view a good prototype of Jesus, the latter was also called “Balaam.”
  The Disciples of Jesus.

  Celsus (i. 62) says there were ten or eleven apostles. A passage of the Talmud (Sanh. 43a) ascribes five disciples to Jesus: “Matthai” (Matthew), “Nakai” (Luke), “Nezer” (Nazarene, a general designation for Christian in antiquity), “Boni” (probably the Nicodemus mentioned by John), and “Thoda” (Thaddæus). The following are mentioned in the “Toledot” (Huldricus, p. 35): “Simeon” (Peter), “Matthia” (Matthew), “Elikum” (Luke), “Mordecai” (Mark), “Thoda” (Thaddæus), and “Johannos” (John)—that is, the four evangelists plus Peter and Thaddæus. Paul is mentioned in another connection, and (p. 48) Judas “the betrayer”: it is to be noted that the last-named does not occur at all in Talmudic legends. The Twelve Apostles are mentioned in other versions of the “Toledot” (ed. Wagenseil, p. 19; ed. Bischoff, p. 21), while still other versions frequently mention a following of 300, 310, 320, 330 men. It is especially striking that all these disciples are described as eminently wise and learned, while according to Celsus (i. 63, ii. 46) the disciples of Jesus were common men, toll-keepers and seamen, an assumption that agrees to some extent with the canonical Gospels.

  The Doctrines of Jesus.

  In all the editions of the “Toledot” the doctrine of Jesus is summed up in the statements that he was the son of God, born of a virgin mother, a descendant of David and the promised Messiah; this he proved from passages of Scripture, in the rabbinic-Talmudic manner. In connection with these statements he is also represented as engaging in disputations with Jewish scholars. The only specifically Christian doctrine mentioned by the Talmud is (Shab. 116a, b) that the law of Moses has been annulled and the Gospels put in its place—the well-known Christian doctrine of the abrogation of the Law; the saying of Jesus, “I have not come to take away the law of Moses, but to add to it,” is also cited (ib.). In the “Toledot” the doctrine of abrogation is put into the mouth of Peter, and the latter, secretly intending to separate the Christians from the community in the interest of the Jews, promulgates the following tenets: Jesus suffered the pain and punishment of death in order to redeem from hell those that believe in him (comp. I Cor. xv. 26, 55); believers shall not hurt the Jews (comp. Acts iii. 26); one who deserves to be accompanied one mile only shall be accompanied two miles; both cheeks shall be offered if one cheek has been struck (comp. Matt. v. 39-41); instead of the Sabbath, Sunday shall be kept holy; Easter shall be celebrated instead of the Passover, Pentecost instead of the Feast of Weeks, etc.; circumcision is abrogated, and the dietary laws annulled. All these doctrinesare merely external, while the essential points of the teachings of Jesus are hardly alluded to.Jesus performed all his miracles by means of magic, as stated above. These miracles are not specified in the Talmud, but they are in the “Tole-dot”; they are partly such as are mentioned in the Gospels, as the healing of the halt, blind, and leprous, and are somewhat different in nature, though based on the Gospels, as the story of Jesus walking on the sea on a heavy millstone (“Toledot”—ed. Wagenseil, p. 14; ed. Huldricus, p. 43; ed. Bischoff, p. 25; MS. Adler, in Krauss, “Leben Jesu,” p. 119; comp. Matt. xiv. 25, xviii. 6). Other miracles are derived from apocryphal accounts, as the story that Jesus fashioned birds from clay or marble and put life into them; this occurs also in the “Gospel of Thomas,” in “Evang. Infantiæ Arab.” § 36 (Thilo, ib. i. 111), and in the Koran. These legends are much amplified in the later “Toledot,” although the substance remains the same.

  Trial and Death of Jesus.

  The Talmudic account of the manner of executing a person guilty of leading the people astray (Sanh. 67a) would be of signal historical importance if it were certain that it referred to Jesus. The proceeding against one who incites others to deny the religion of their fathers consists in convicting him of his guilt by means of concealed witnesses, as follows: The accused is placed in an inner room with a light, so that witnesses unknown to him and watching him from an outer room can see and hear him clearly. Then a companion says to him: “Tell me again what you told me in confidence [in regard to renouncing our religion].” If he does so, the other replies: “How could we leave our God in heaven and serve idols?” If he recants now, it is well; but if he says, “It is our duty and we must do it,” then the witnesses outside take him into court and he is stoned. “Thus they did with Ben Sṭada at Lydda, who was hanged on the eve of the Passover.” This passage refers to Jesus only if he is regarded as identical with Ben Sṭada; this can hardly be assumed in view of the reference to Lydda. The frequently repeated statement that Jesus was condemned for inciting to apostasy () is based on Sanh. 43a; there is added the entirely improbable statement that forty days before the condemnation of Jesus a herald called upon any one who could say anything in his favor to come forward and testify, but that no one appeared.The proceeding is related very differently in the “Toledot”; although the several editions of the same differ in detail they agree in substance. The following account is found in a rather old edition (see Krauss, l.c. pp. 43 et seq.). The scholars of Israel took Jesus into the synagogue of Tiberias and bound him to a pillar; when his followers came to liberate him, a battle occurred in which the Jewish party was worsted and his disciples took him to Antiochia. On the eve of Passover he entered Jerusalem riding on an ass (comp. Matt. xxi. 4-17), disguised—according to several editions—so that his former disciple Judas had to betray him in order to secure his seizure. He was executed on the eve of the Passover festival, which was also the eve of the Sabbath. The executioners were not able to hang him upon a tree, for he had conjured all trees, by means of the name of God, not to receive him, and therefore they all broke; he was finally received by a large cabbagestalk (comp. Targ. Sheni to Esth. vii. 9). He was buried on the same day, in conformity with the Law, and the apostates, his disciples, wept at his tomb.According to the “Toledot” his disciples sought for his body in the tomb, but being unable to find it they used the incident as proof before Queen Helena that he who had been slain had ascended into heaven. It then appeared that a man—sometimes called “Judas the Gardener” (Judas Iscariot), sometimes, indefinitely, the “master of the garden”—had taken the body out of the grave, used it as a dam to keep the water out of his garden, and had flooded the tomb. Then there was joy again in Israel; the body was taken before the queen at Jerusalem, and the Christians were shamed. Three points deserve notice in this account: (1) The fact that the body was stolen. According to Matt. xxvii. 64, the Pharisees asked Pilate to guard the tomb so that the disciples might not steal the body and say that Jesus had ascended into heaven; but when the report was nevertheless circulated that Jesus had ascended, the Pharisees bribed the soldiers to say that the body had been stolen by the disciples (Matt. xxviii. 13). The “Gospel of Nikodemus,” § 13 (Thilo, ib. i. 616), adds that the Jews still persisted in this statement. A similar story is known to Justin (“Dial. cum Tryph.” § 108; comp. § 17) and Eusebius (“Hist. Eccl.” ch. iv. 18), while in the pseudo-Clementine “Recognitiones” (i., § 42) this assertion is ascribed to “others” (probably the Jews). (2) The statement of the theft of the body and the statement of the gardener who was afraid that the multitude of disciples might destroy his lettuce-beds were both known to Tertullian (“De Spectaculis,” § 30). (3) The insult offered to the body in the streets of Jerusalem is alluded to in the Koran (see below).

  The Resurrection.

  It is clear, therefore, that the Jewish legends deny the resurrection of Jesus; the halakic assertion that Balaam (i.e., the prototype of Jesus) had no part in the future life must also be especially noted (Sanh. x. 2). It is further said: “The pupils of the recreant Balaam inherit hell” (Abot v. 19). Jesus is accordingly, in the following curious Talmudic legend, thought to sojourn in hell. A certain Onḳelos b. Ḳaloniḳos, son of Titus’ sister, desired to embrace Judaism, and called up from hell by magic first Titus, then Balaam, and finally Jesus, who are here taken together as the worst enemies of Judaism. He asked Jesus: “Who is esteemed in that world?” Jesus said: “Israel.” “Shall one join them?” Jesus said to him: “Further their well-being; do nothing to their detriment; whoever touches them touches even the apple of His eye.” Onḳelos then asked the nature of his punishment, and was told that it was the degrading fate of those who mock the wise (Giṭ. 56b-57a). This most revolting passage was applied in the Middle Ages to another Jesus (e.g., by R. Jeḥiel, in the Paris disputation; “Wikkuaḥ,” p. 4, Thorn, 1873). A parallel to the story is found in the statement of the “Toledot” that when Judas found he could not touch Jesus in any way in theaerial battle, he defiled him. This feature naturally especially angered Christians (see Wagenseil, “Tela Ignea Satanæ,” p. 77). According to a passage in the Zohar (Steinschneider, “Polemische Litteratur,” p. 362) the same degrading fate is meted out to both Jesus and Mohammed.Legends regarding Jesus are found in Mohammedan folk-lore. Although the innocence of Mary is most emphatically asserted, there are such striking parallels to Jewish legends that this material must certainly have been taken from Judaism into the Koran. In that work, also, it is stated that Jesus formed birds out of clay and endowed them with life (sura iii. 43); both the Koran and Jalal al-Din (in Maracci, “Refutatio Alcorani,” fol. 114b, Patavii, 1698) refer to the peculiar clothing worn by the disciples of Jesus; and in Ibn Said (Maracci, l.c. fol. 113b) is found the statement that the body of Jesus was dragged with ropes through the streets.

  Karaites and Samaritans.
  The cardinal point in the Jewish legends concerns the birth of Jesus. This question is discussed by both the Samaritans (“Chronique Samaritaine,” ed. Neubauer, p. 18, Paris, 1873) and the Karaites, as may be seen in a recently published passage from the work of the Karaite Judah Hadassi (“J. Q. R.” viii. 440). Other essential points are that Jesus performed his miracles by conjuring with the name of God (ib. viii. 436), and the legend appended to the “Toledot” editions regarding the finding of the cross (ib. viii. 438). The Karaites, however, had their own “Toledot.” Meswi al’Akkbari, the founder of a Karaite sect, engaged in similar polemics against the Christian doctrines (“R. E. J.” xxxiv. 182).

  Antichrist Legends.
  The Jewish legends referring to Jesus can not be regarded as originally purely Jewish, because the Christian Antichrist legends also make use of them. The Antichrist is born of a wandering virgin, the latter being, according to one version, a Danitic, hence Jewish, woman, while the father belongs to the Latin race (corresponding to the Roman soldier Panthera). Similar details are found in the Armilus legend (Bousset, “Der Antichrist,” p. 99, Göttingen, 1895; Krauss, “Das Leben Jesu,” p. 216).Bibliography:
  Mehlführer, Jesus in Talmude, Altorf, 1699; Andr. Conr. Werner, Jesus in Talmude, Stade, 1738; D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque, Orientale, ii. 349; Wagenseil, Tela Ignea Satanœ, Altorf, 1681 (where the Confutatio of the Toledot is separately paged); Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, i. 105, 133, 249, passim; Von der Alm, Die Urtheile, Heidnischer und Jüdischer Schriftsteller über Jesus, Leipsic, 1864; Hoffmann, Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen, ib. 1851; G. Rosch, Jesusmythen, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1873, pp. 77-115; Jüdische Sagen über das Leben Jesu, by Conard, in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, pp. 164-176, Erlangen and Leipsic, 1901; Baring-Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels, 1875; Laible, Jesus Christus im Talmud (with Appendix-Die Talmudischen Texte, by G. Dalman), Berlin, 1891 (has been transl. into English); Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach Jüdischen Quellen, Berlin, 1902; R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 1-96, London, 1903.G. S. Kr.

  
  JESUS IN THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

  JESUS OF NAZARETH.

    By : Joseph Jacobs   Kaufmann Kohler   Richard Gottheil   Samuel Krauss

  In History:
  Founder of Christianity; born at Nazareth about 2 B.C. (according to Luke iii. 23); executed at Jerusalem 14th of Nisan, 3789 (March or April, 29 C.E.). His life, though indirectly of so critical a character, had very little direct influence on the course of Jewish history or thought. In contemporary Jewish literature his career is referred to only in the (interpolated) passage of Josephus, “Ant.” xviii. 3, § 3, while the references in the Talmud are for the most part as legendary as those in the apocryphal gospels, though in an opposite direction (see Jesus in Jewish Legend). Under these circumstances it is not necessary in this place to do more than to give a sketch of the main historical events in the public career of Jesus, with an attempt to ascertain his personal relations to contemporary Judaism; for the theological superstructure based upon his life and death, and certain mythological conceptions associated with them, see Jew. Encyc. iv. 50a, s.v. Christianity.

  Sources of Life.
  In the New Testament there are four “Gospels” professing to deal with the life of Jesus independently; but it is now almost universally agreed that the first three of these, known by the names of “Matthew,” “Mark,” and “Luke,” are interdependent, corresponding to the various forms of contemporary Baraitot, while the fourth, the Gospel of John, is what the Germans call a “Ten

• Tuesday, April 24, 2012

  lll8888

  Do you Know Gucci ? It is the symbol of high society and luxury life. All product printed GUCCI will be sold with a very high price. I am love the gucci so much , and i used to buy it from
  Gucci Purses On Sale store.
  fhj

• Thursday, May 03, 2012

  xujie001

  coach factory outlet has a big heart and a healthy appetite, and a wicked swing with a chainsaw. After a knee injury ended his career as a defensive lineman in college, Coach salvaged his Physical Education degree(barely)and landed a job teaching health at the local high school in his hometown of Savannah.If you want to have the latest Coach arrivals, coach factory online may be a good choice. It provides its members with actually beneficial?prices?and high quality services.coach factory outlet online featured with stylish leather bags and signature materials, and carry this bag, it can designate people seem to be captivatingly feminine and good-looking. Why not to buy one when it is at an affordable price?

  f

• Thursday, May 03, 2012

  xujie001

  Welcome to buy Discount Louis Vuitton Bags and Authentic Louis Vuitton in our louis vuitton sale.Absolutely guaranteed quality and making every details greatest in products our company principle.We are glad you come to join in our louis vuitton outlet online store, because the winter is upcoming now, Louis Vuitton released many new handbags to feedback our customers.If you want to catch up to the latest vogue, having louis vuitton Handbags of the latest styles can absolutely satisfy you.Just visit LV outlet webpage and select the most suitable products for yourself.<br>

  aqq114

• Thursday, May 03, 2012

  xujie001

  handbags and purses of coach outlet online are beautiful, classic designs made for sophisticated customers to make an emphatic style statement.My friend is dying to get a coach purse at coach outlet store because all of her friends have them at work. They earn great reputation from many people.coach outlet will send you a coupon in the post to use in their upon only after you type a achieve. The Coach bags are customarily somewhat many than the ones in the stores.<br>

  0212weref

• Thursday, May 03, 2012

  xujie001

  Bright colors, exquisite workmanship, durable material and up-to-date style all lead to the great fame of the goods in coach outlet.The coach outlet store online are utilized for formal event in company area that will display your excellent taste.Not only does a briefcase make is easier to carry things.Lots of women like which usually amount normally include a coach outlet online ,it provides coziness to many girls that don’t even think it is a great bushel of great interest directly to them.<br>

  53tfrre

Next Page