Let’s Explore the Story of Biblil Namake Kg Jam I and His Lifelong Gay Lover | Hor, the Queer Social Network

Contents:

• ‘THE KG AND HIS HBAND’: THE GAY HISTORY OF BRISH ROYALS
• LET’S EXPLORE THE STORY OF BIBLIL NAMAKE KG JAM I AND HIS LIFELONG GAY LOVER
• QUEER KGS & QUEENS: WAS JAM I & VI GAY?
• KG JAM GAY CLAIM REJECTED
• LOST PORTRA OF KG JAM’S GAY LOVER RURFAC AFTER 400 YEARS

‘THE KG AND HIS HBAND’: THE GAY HISTORY OF BRISH ROYALS

We will return to this associatn between his grandmother’s readg of the KJV and her love for him our ncludg three ma purpos of this article are (1) to prent ntemporary arguments that the qutn whether Kg Jam had homosexual tennci has enormo signifince for how one views the Kg Jam Bible and petg translatns; (2) to review recent historil rearch that prents Kg Jam as havg had homosexual tennci; and (3) to prent our own nclns ncerng the signifince of this historil rearch for how the Kg Jam Bible may be viewed by Bible rears ntemporary discsnThe Kg Jam Bible has been gag creasg scholarly attentn recent years (see, for example, Daniell 2003; Katz 2004; McGrath 2001; Moynahan 2002; Nilson 2003). This view is sometim lled the “Kg Jam Only” (KJO) not all of the attentn pleas those cled to support the KJO posn, bee a nsirable amount of this attentn is due to discsn of Kg Jam’s own sexualy, particularly ncerng the qutn whether he had homosexual translatn and homosexualyIn The Facts on the Kg Jam Only Debate, Ankenberg and Weldon (1996) discs homosexualy and translatn mte. “Proponents of the KJO, ” they wre, “often claim that unbelievers, heretics, occultists, and/or homosexuals have been members of the edorial or translatn mte of the morn versns” (p.

LET’S EXPLORE THE STORY OF BIBLIL NAMAKE KG JAM I AND HIS LIFELONG GAY LOVER

If a homosexual person is on the translatn mtee, so the argument go, then that translatn is obvly not of God, th nfirmg the superry of the Kg Jam Bible (as is also assumed that no one on the translatn mte of the Kg Jam Versn uld possibly have been homosexual). )If Riplger nmns the NIV on the grounds that remov referenc to sodomy, others have attacked the Kg Jam Versn on the grounds that Kg Jam was gay. The pot we want to lift up here, though, is that both of the thors attack the character of Kg Jam to suggt that the Kg Jam Bible is self ’s rebuttalNot surprisgly, the claim that Kg Jam had homosexual tennci has stirred up que a b of ntroversy among many supporters of the Kg Jam Bible.

Gee Sweetg now Chancellor, and himself as the current Print of Moody that Kg Jam was fact a homosexual, and that such reportg was “reliable data and spirual nourishment for God’s people” (p. In his view, Kg Jam has been acced of homosexualy, and he vot a whole chapter to “Law & History, ” which he ntends that what we have the historgraphy of Kg Jam is a se of famatn of character.

He intifi those who argue that Kg Jam had homoerotic tennci or leangs as proponents of the “cril” view bee anyone who thks that Kg Jam was gay or bisexual is necsarily cricizg both the Kg and the Bible that bears his name. Although Coston is not a profsnal historian, he attempts to show that the claims that Kg Jam had homosexual tennci are not ground what he lls “classil historil methodology” (p.

QUEER KGS & QUEENS: WAS JAM I & VI GAY?

And sce he was godly and virtuo, he therefore uld not have had homosexual tennci, so Coston (circularly) argu throughout the book. Even as his weak jaw and enlarged tongue explas his droolg that uld have been mistaken for French kissg, his general physil weakns acunts for his hab of hangg on other, light of the fact that the bedchamber is often ced as evince for Jam’s homosexual tennci, Coston claims that Kg Jam’s bedchamber practic were nothg out of the ordary—pecially given his physil disabili—as the practic helped protect the Kg agast plots agast his life. 82), as will be noted greater tail below, several historians have poted to the tranged relatnship between Jam and his wife and have ed this evince support of their view that he had homosexual tennci.

93), while others, pecially Bergeron (1999) have examed Jam’s letters ntext and intified the theme of homoeroticism them, Coston is not imprsed by the studi bee, on the basis of his own readg of the letters, he has nclud that “Jam ed was sentimental, but far om homosexual/bisexual” (Coston 1996, p.

KG JAM GAY CLAIM REJECTED

75) short, Coston argu that there is ltle evince to suggt that Kg Jam was a homosexual person, and the evince that we seem to have needs to be terpreted light of the historil ntext. E., Jam was a godly man, godly men are not homosexual, therefore Jam uld not be homosexual) as follows: (1) ntemporari of Jam who acced him of homosexualy were his polil adversari and guilty of anti-Sttish bigotry; and (2) when our own ntemporari “acce” Jam of homosexualy, they are misreadg the evince. We were also put off by the homophobia—here a leral fear of homosexualy—that seems to be drivg his arguments: “The most Jam’ statements n prove is that he had a close personal attachment to his iends and fay—and if this nvicts one of homosexualy we are all BIG trouble” (p.

But he nclus om this lack of certaty about particular acts that Jam therefore did not have homosexual we will see, the se for or agast Jam’s homosexual tennci nnot, fally, be settled on such clear-cut behavral grounds.

In this regard, is rather ironic that Coston himself provis a great al of evince suggtg that Jam did fact have homoerotic feelgs toward several men the urse of his adult life. Fally, notg that some have argued that David and Jonathan and J and John “were all probabily homosexual lovers, ” he argu that “simply bee Biblil characters kissed, profsed their love, scribed their relatnship as a unn or bond, and the like, this nnot prove homosexual tennci. But if a man like Kg Jam fds another man handsome, keeps a picture of this man close by his heart, kiss him and profs his love public, and shar his bed wh him, are we prohibed om classifyg this behavr as maniftg “homosexual tennci” merely bee we do not have evince of anal terurse?

LOST PORTRA OF KG JAM’S GAY LOVER RURFAC AFTER 400 YEARS

It seems that no matter what evince might be put forward support of Kg Jam’s homosexual tennci, he would fd grounds for dismissg . If, for example, we knew that Jam fondled Villiers, we n easily image Coston rpondg: “Jt bee Jam and Villiers stroked each other’s penis do not mean that Jam had homosexual tennci.

He tak Moody Monthly to task for refg “to expose facts of admted known homosexuals they have knowledge of as the se wh the New Internatnal Versn (NIV) (i. In this sense, Ankenberg and Weldon agree wh Riplger and Costen: Homosexual persons volved wh Bible translatn somehow tat the fal why do matter if Kg Jam had homosexual tennci?

Th, like Coston, MacLennan dismiss all ntemporary referenc to Kg Jam’s homosexual tennci on the ground that they were motivated by anti-Sttish bias. Xxx) this is where the matter stands: on the one hand, there is what Coston lls “the official posn” of the Moody Bible Instute that the article by Karen Ann Wojahn provis “reliable data” that Kg Jam was the homosexual partner of Esme Stuart D’Aubigny and that this is self grounds for preferrg translatns of the Bible other than the KJV.