This article deals with the problem of male homoeroticism and anal intercourse in two verses of the Book of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) belonging to the textual set called the Holiness Code (H). The article comprises two parts. The first represents a philological analysis and interpretation of these two texts, while the second is an attempt to understand the anthropological framework and behavioural patterns lying behind the texts. In the first part, the standard interpretative and translation tradition considering the active (insertive) partner as the primary addressee of the proscription is critically examined. The article inquires into the crucial Hebrew idiom, miškǝvê 'iššāh, "the lying down of a woman", which represents the central clue to a proper understanding of the two texts. The article rejects the mainstream interpretative and translation tradition. Based on a new lexical, syntactic and semantic analysis, it proposes an alternative translation and interpretation which sees the passive (receptive) partner as the addressee of the proscription. The second part of the article discusses the two main interpretative frameworks for the anthropological interpretation of the two texts. The first is "shame and honor dialectics" and the second is the prohibition of the mixing of kinds, in this case the mixing of gender roles. The latter is regarded as principal. It means that the Holiness Code condemns miškǝvê 'iššāh, "the lying down of a woman", with another male, i.e. the acceptance of the receptive sexual role within inter-male anal intercourse, as a culturally relevant expression of "cross-gendering".
This study is a contribution to the lively discussion over the past twenty years comparing the ideas formed by T.G. Masaryk, Friedrich Naumann and M. Hodža during the First World War. The author mainly focuses on comparing ideas from their key well known publications (Masaryk's The New Europe, Naumann's Mitteleuropa, Hodža's Federation in Central Europe). He states that all three politicians agreed that Europe in the future had to be democratic, but their specific ideas about its character and about the importance of nation states differed. Naumann's plan was to create a democratic Central Europe under German leadership, which Masaryk and Hodža refused outright.