I don’t know what is more bizarre, the fact that evangelism follows the Bible in detail or the fact that a lot of Biblical detail features sordid stories that include tales of incest, necrophlia and rape. This is the Bible I’m talking about and a forensic researcher has written a paper about this while researching a book.
I’m reading a paper from the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine titled ‘References to Paraphilia and Sexual Crimes in the Bible’. Call it writer research.Call it whatever you want, but it is really writer research. I was actually researching something for a mystery story and became sidetracked by the title in one of my searches.
Anywho, I agree with the paper’s author, a professor of forensic medicine. He introduces his paper by saying that, “Few topics in the realm of human behavior are more fascinating, exciting, or perhaps contentious and controversial than sex.” Few can disagree with that statement. He also defines paraphilias as being:
“characterized by arousal in response to sexual objects or situations not part of normal arousal-activity patterns, and which may interfere with a capacity for reciprocal, affectionate sexual activity.”
Incest isn’t considered a paraphilia, but is considered a crime, and the Bible contains a lot of it! For example, Moses was conceived via an incestuous union:
And Amram took him Joch’ebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty and seven years.
There is also Lot, he whose wife turns into a pillar of salt. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by God, and this situation is ironic and, well, contradictory to say the least, Lot is left with his two daughters and the dilemma of repopulating. The onus seems to fall on the daughters (why are women placed in these compromising situations?) to repopulate via …you guessed it…sexual intercourse with their dad.
And Lot went up out of Zo’ar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zo’ar:and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
So what do Lot’s daughter’s do? They ply him with alcohol. I’m not kidding!
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is
the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben–am’mi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
Notice how some Biblical names, like Ammon are similar to the names of ancient Egyptian gods, like Amun? Anyway, that’s beside the point. What is going on in the Bible? And children are encouraged to read the wretched thing! I can think of more appealing things than having sex with a hundred year old man. The Bible is contradictory, in that later references don’t approve of incest, but it still doesn’t explain why it is approved of in earlier references. The very first reference of incest in the Bible is that which occurs via Adam and Eve, right through to their son Cain.
The Biblical rules of rape tend to make modern day Sharia Law female friendly. No joke. According to the paper’s author Anil Aggrawal, “The Bible clearly lays down the law of rape. If the woman who was raped was already married, then the penalty was death. If she was unmarried, the ravisher must pay 50 shekels of silver to her as
well as marry her. And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”
Also, there appear to be shades of ’sadism and necrophilia’ in Salome’s dance of the seven veils. The quick part of the story is that John the Baptist didn’t approve of the impending marriage between Salome’s mother and Herod Antipas (her uncle), because a relationship with a brother-in-law was considered incestuous. Thus, John had to be silenced but they couldn’t kill him openly because he was revered as a prophet. Moving along, Salome lived with her mother and Herod, and during Herod’s birthday party, danced for Herod – her stepdad and uncle. After the veils were gone, she was next to nothing or almost nothing and Herod, in the presence of his guests, was so thrilled that he promised to give her anything she wanted. Salome requested John’s head on a plate and Herod was unable to reverse his oath, so complied (I’m guessing he didn’t mind).
So there you have it, a quick tour of Biblical perversity. If you want to read further and have access to journals online, you can read the journal article below or email me for a copy.
Aggrawal, Anil. 2009. ‘References to the paraphilias and sexual crimes in the Bible’. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 16. 109-114.If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed.
No related posts.