Category: Scottish Rite
-
==THE MANFREDINGI==
THE MANFREDINGI
Matfried
It took a while and many hours of frustration, prayer and persistence. Many times you want to throw your hands up in the air and just quit but that is when ‘Passion’ takes over. Genealogy, is mainly a jigsaw puzzle to be solved by logical and deductive reasoning.
After spending two weeks and sixteen hour days, getting little to no sleep, cross referencing every suggested, possible and/or logical relation, sifting historical data and crunching all the numbers… It finally became apparent,Mattfrid II, Graf von Eifelgau-Orleans was the only logical person to be the father of Mattfrid I, von Wied (Same person as Matfrid III, Graf von Eifelgau).
But first let us jump back to a later descendant.
Matfried III, von Wied (Engersgau, 1093-1123/1129), had, yet another road block, in this line. He (Matfrid III) had, from multiple sources, three fathers to chose from: [A] Ruckerus von Wied; [B] Wigger III von Engersgau (Beilstein); [C] Richwin IV, Graf von Wied.
Having dealt with ‘Ruckerus’ and deduced that, while he could be Matfrid III’s father, it was more likely, Richwin IV, Graf von Wied, was his father. Then in the ‘Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia‘ (ref. 2b), it made the claimMattfried III ( von Wied, also Engersgau ) was the son of Wigger III von Engersgau– to justify the ‘Engersgau’ surname. It further stated (Pg. 824) that ‘He’ (Mattfried III) was related to the Matfrid’s (d’Orleans) but ‘suggested’ through a matrilineal line.
This is ruled out, with all the evidence compiled, that it’s not only likely but logical that Mattfried III (von Wied-Engersgau) was related to the Matfrid I, d’Orleans (Manfred V) but instead through the patrilineal line.
Matfrid I, von Wied and Matfrid III, Graf von Eifelgau (d’Orleans) dates are very similar.
Wikapedia states: “The third Matfrid, presumed son of the second, was active in the period 867 to 878″ (ref. 1b)
In the, ‘Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia‘, it states: “Matfrid III, the son of Matfrid II, flourished 867-878 as a count in Lotharingia and also in Eifelgau. He appears to have property in the part of Lothar II’s realm that went to Charles the Bald in 870, probably in the Waberngau and in the Verduner Gau. In 877, with other magnates he was appointed at Queirzy as counselor to Charle’s son, as often as he should be in the Meuse region. Matfrid III followed his father as lay abbot St. Vaast, and died about 883.” (ref. 2b)
Matfrid I, von Wied is cited to have been born between 850-860 and that he died around 886 that is only a three year difference between both Matfrid’s date of death. Neither Matrfrid (Matfrid I, von Wied or Matfrid III, von Eifelgau (d’Orleans) has a specific or set date for their death. Due to the lack of information and/or evidence, there’s really not a good reason, to believe they are or were different people.
(Well, unless your a descendant of the Hapsburg’s :P)
As if we weren’t deep enough into bizarre common attributes and seemingly coincidental mirrored numerical values we stumble upon, yet another ‘Manfredingi’, grand son of ‘Manfred V‘… Manfredo VII conte di Lodi e Milano, Conte del Sacro Palazzo d’Italia- Count of the ‘Sacred Place’ in Italy. Who was born around 850 (same asMatfried I, Graf von Wied) and died when? You guessed it, in 886!
Manfredo VII conte di Lodi e Milano AKA: Manfredo, Marquis di Lombardia; AKA: Matfried I, Graf von Wied (AKA: Matfrède III, Graf von Eifelgau). Born about 85O in Italy, is presumed to have been at least 15 years of age by the time his son Manfredo was born. Married before 866. He died in 886 in Italy, rather he was beheaded in the year 886 by Lambert.
Matfrid I (Manfred V), von Eifelgau Compte d´Orléans
“Ipotesi sull’origine ei filii Manfredingi”
See: Descendants of Matfried comte d’Orleans at MedLands.
Parentage Unknown- Maybe…
Suggested parents: Guagenfred, comte de Verdun and Theudelinda of Kent.
Well it’s known, you just have to keep sifting and cross referencing until you find the common denominators. In many substantiated, unsubstantiated online sources it is said that Adrien, Comte d’Orléans (Udalriching), Count of Orléans and Waldrada von Hornbach was Matfrid I (Manfred V), d’Orlean’s parents. This was not a ‘made-up’ theory, instigated by ignorant people, it was actually suggested by ‘Academia’, to be the most plausible father based on the limited information available.
So, I accepted this possibility with some reservation. Throughout this research, the evidence of multiple instances of confusing and obscuring the lineage, were encountered. If it happened once or even twice you could assume it to be human error but more than three times… I don’t think so. It is more than obvious that this is a deliberate attempt to eliminate competition at the time this line and other parallel lines are competing for familial elevation and tenure.
The question then is, ‘why… Why this line in particular?’
That is the pestering question that haunts my ongoing research. Again, as before, amid frustration with prayer and quiet meditation God has pointed the way- God being Love, then Love has pointed the way… A love of my familial heritage and ancestors.
‘Manfred III (Manfred V)’ and Matfried I d’Orleans Connection and Parentage
Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans, Duca di Neustria d’Italia, Duca di Tuscia was born in 770, while Matfrid I Graf von Eifelgau, Comte d’Orleans has conflicting dates of 795 or 800. This is easy to understand when you cross reference and compare each ‘Manfredingi’.
First, the 795 date is simply misunderstood information, 795 was symbolic of birth, or rebirth for Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans because this is the date his father ‘Guagenfred I, Comte de Verdum‘ died; and being Catholic, probably went through a public, ceremonial baptismal inauguration (symbolic of birth or re-birth), shortly after his father’s death in 795. The 800 date is also, easily understood, because this is the date Manfred V, d’Orleansofficially assumed the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’.
Matfrid I, Graf von Eifelgau (d’Orleans), in some sources, is said to have been denied his hold on the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’, while, Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans is said to have resigned the post and title. Both ‘Matfrid I‘ and ‘Manfred V‘ not only held the Matfrid (Manfred) name but also the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’ simultaneously. Which is uncanny, to say the least, not to mention, ‘Matfrid I‘ and ‘Manfred V‘ both died in Italy in 836, even more uncanny…
Aripert II di Lombardia, King of the Lombards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aripert_II
Aripert II (also spelled Aribert) was the king of the Lombards from 701 to 712. Duke of Turin and son of King Raginpert, and thus a scion of the Bavarian Dynasty, he was associated with the throne as early as 700. He was removed by Liutpert, who reigned from 700 to 702, with the exception of the year 701, when Raginpert seized the throne. After his father’s death, he tried to take the throne, too. He defeated Liutpert and the regent Ansprand’s men at Pavia and captured the king, whom he later had strangled in his bath. He seized the capital and forced Ansprand over the Alps. He was firmly in power by 703.
He thence reigned uninterrupted until his death. His reign was a troubled one. In 703, Faroald, duke of Spoleto, attacked the Exarchate of Ravenna, but Aripert refused to assist him, for he wanted good relations with papacy and empire. He tried nevertheless to assert his authority over Spoleto and Benevento in the Mezzogiorno. He nursed friendship with Pope John VI by donating vast tracts of land in the Cottian Alps to the Holy See. This friendship helped him little, for he had many rebellions to deal with and many Slovene raids into Venetia.
In 711, Ansprand, whom he had exiled, returned with a large army from the duke of Bavaria, Theudebert. Many Austrians (the men of Venetia and the east) joined the returning regent and battle was joined by Pavia. Aripert fled to his capital when the tide went against him, but he horded the treasures and tried to cross over into Gaul by night. He drowned in the River Ticino and Ansprand was acclaimed sovereign. He was the last Bavarian to wear the Iron Crown.
Alternate Story
Reginbert 1: King of the Lombards in Italy (r 700).
He was Duke of Turin before succeeding as King. On the death of his cousin, King Cunnincpert I in 700, he rose in rebellion and marched eastward with a strong army and met Ansprand, the guardian of the Boy King Luitpert on the plain of Novara. He defeated Ansprand and his allies and won the crown. However he died three months later, he had two sons- Aripert and Gumbert.
Gumbert, Prince of the Lombard’s
Born ca: 665, and died in France in Exile in 700, at an unknown date. On the death of their father in 700, Gumbert’s elder brother Aripert II succeeded to the throne, but he had to fight Ansprand and his allies for the throne and Aripert being Victorious, Ansprand fled, leaving his family behind. King Aripert II in revenge , mutilated Ansprand’s wife and one of their daughters.
Ansprand returned with an army in 712, and was Victorious, and Aripert II was advised by his supporters to flee to France and raise an army to fight for his throne, however he was drowned crossing the river Tecino.
Gumbert made it successfully to France with his three sons, fearing that Ansparnd would take revenge on his sons, for what his brother Aripert had done to his wife and daughter.
It was his great grandson Manfred V (Matfrid I, von Eifelgau), Comte de Orleans, who in 834 returned to Italy on the request of his nephew, King Lothaire I, King of Italy (Future Emperor).
Basic Facts:
- Were a line of Nobles of subalpine Italy stemming from Manfred V (or Matfrid I Comte von Eifelgau), Comte de Orleans (765–836)
- Manfred V inherited the title Comte de Orleans in 800 from a separate (extinguished) line of the family founder
- Branches of the family included the Guasco, the Boidi and the Trotti
- In 712 AD Aripert II, Prince of the Lombard’s, was forced to flee his holdings in Northern Italy, along with his family count forbears.
===== Matfried =====
It took a while and many hours of frustration, prayer and persistence. Many times you want to throw your hands up in the air and just quit but that is when ‘Passion’ takes over. Genealogy, is mainly a jigsaw puzzle to be solved by logical and deductive reasoning.After spending two weeks and sixteen hour days, getting little to no sleep, cross referencing every suggested, possible and/or logical relation, sifting historical data and crunching all the numbers… It finally became apparent, [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-II-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151257772 Mattfrid II, Graf von Eifelgau-Orleans] was the only logical person to be the father of [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Mattfrid I, von Wied (Same person as Matfrid III, Graf von Eifelgau)].
But first let us jump back to a later descendant.
[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Matfried III, von Wied (Engersgau, 1093-1123/1129)], had, yet another road block, in this line. He ([http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Matfrid III]) had, from multiple sources, three fathers to chose from: [A] [http://www.geni.com/people/Ruckerus-von-Wied/6000000020814941815 Ruckerus von Wied]; [B] [http://www.geni.com/people/Wigger-III-im-Engersgau-Beilstein/6000000011196917359 Wigger III von Engersgau (Beilstein)];
[C] [http://www.geni.com/people/Richwin-IV-Graf-von-Wied/6000000020802709328?through=6000000020814941815 Richwin IV, Graf von Wied].Having dealt with [http://www.geni.com/people/Ruckerus-von-Wied/6000000020814941815 ‘Ruckerus’] and deduced that, while he could be [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Matfrid III’s] father, it was more likely, [http://www.geni.com/people/Richwin-IV-Graf-von-Wied/6000000020802709328?through=6000000020814941815 Richwin IV, Graf von Wied], was his father. Then in the ‘[http://books.google.com/books?id=0Sdo1gNF4D8C&pg=PA1497&lpg=PA1497&dq=matfrid+III.+of+orleans&source=bl&ots=XlPqjnOKLf&sig=cfpqg_YVxnqBaFUvTGj-UpQo66A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V3uqUej6C9DoiwKGs4DYBQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=matfrid%20III.%20of%20orleans&f=false Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia]’ (ref. 2b), it made the claim [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Mattfried III ( von Wied, also Engersgau )] was the son of [http://www.geni.com/people/Wigger-III-im-Engersgau-Beilstein/6000000011196917359 Wigger III von Engersgau]- to justify the ‘Engersgau’ surname. It further stated (Pg. 824) that ‘He’ ([http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Mattfried III]) was related to the [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid’s (d’Orleans)] but ‘suggested’ through a matrilineal line.
This is ruled out, with all the evidence compiled, that it’s not only likely but logical that [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Mattfried III (von Wied-Engersgau)] was related to the [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I, d’Orleans (Manfred V)] but instead through the patrilineal line.
[http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid I, von Wied] and [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid III, Graf von Eifelgau (d’Orleans)] dates are very similar.
Wikapedia states:” “The third [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matfrid Matfrid], presumed son of the second, was active in the period 867 to 878″”
(ref. 1b)In the, ‘[http://books.google.com/books?id=0Sdo1gNF4D8C&pg=PA1497&lpg=PA1497&dq=matfrid+III.+of+orleans&source=bl&ots=XlPqjnOKLf&sig=cfpqg_YVxnqBaFUvTGj-UpQo66A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V3uqUej6C9DoiwKGs4DYBQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=matfrid%20III.%20of%20orleans&f=false Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia]’, it states: ””Matfrid III, the son of Matfrid II, flourished 867-878 as a count in Lotharingia and also in Eifelgau. He appears to have property in the part of Lothar II’s realm that went to Charles the Bald in 870, probably in the Waberngau and in the Verduner Gau. In 877, with other magnates he was appointed at Queirzy as counselor to Charle’s son, as often as he should be in the Meuse region. Matfrid III followed his father as lay abbot St. Vaast, and died about 883.” ”
(ref. 2b)[http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid I, von Wied] is cited to have been born between 850-860 and that he died around 886 that is only a three year difference between both Matfrid’s date of death. Neither Matrfrid ([http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid I, von Wied] or [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid III, von Eifelgau (d’Orleans)] has a specific or set date for their death. Due to the lack of information and/or evidence, there’s really not a good reason, to believe they are or were different people.
===== (Well, unless your a descendant of the Hapsburg’s :P) =====
As if we weren’t deep enough into bizarre common attributes and seemingly coincidental mirrored numerical values we stumble upon, yet another ‘Manfredingi’, grand son of ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V]’… Manfredo VII conte di Lodi e Milano, Conte del Sacro Palazzo d’Italia- Count of the ‘Sacred Place’ in Italy. Who was born around 850 (same as [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfried I, Graf von Wied]) and died when? You guessed it, in 886!
Manfredo VII conte di Lodi e Milano AKA: Manfredo, Marquis di Lombardia; AKA: [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfried I, Graf von Wied (AKA: Matfrède III, Graf von Eifelgau)]. Born about 85O in Italy, is presumed to have been at least 15 years of age by the time his son Manfredo was born. Married before 866. He died in 886 in Italy, rather he was beheaded in the year 886 by Lambert.
=== Matfrid I (Manfred V), von Eifelgau Compte d´Orléans ===
”“Ipotesi sull’origine ei filii Manfredingi””See: [http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/FRANKISH%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc169575361 Descendants of Matfried comte d’Orleans] at MedLands.
=== Parentage Unknown- Maybe… ===
Suggested parents: ”'[http://www.geni.com/people/Guagenfred-I-Comte-de-Verdum/6000000020958773698 Guagenfred, comte de Verdun]”’ and ”'[http://www.geni.com/people/Princess-Theudelinda-de-Verdum/6000000020959363839 Theudelinda of Kent]”’.
Well it’s known, you just have to keep sifting and cross referencing until you find the common denominators. In many substantiated, unsubstantiated online sources it is said that [http://www.geni.com/people/Adrien-Comte-d-Orl%C3%A9ans/6000000007316403023 Adrien, Comte d’Orléans (Udalriching), Count of Orléans] and [http://www.geni.com/people/Waldrada-von-Hornbach/6000000003827237317?through=6000000007316403023 Waldrada von Hornbach] was [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I (Manfred V), d’Orlean’s] parents. This was not a ‘made-up’ theory, instigated by ignorant people, it was actually suggested by ‘Academia’, to be the most plausible father based on the limited information available.
So, I accepted this possibility with some reservation. Throughout this research, the evidence of multiple instances of confusing and obscuring the lineage, were encountered. If it happened once or even twice you could assume it to be human error but more than three times… I don’t think so. It is more than obvious that this is a deliberate attempt to eliminate competition at the time this line and other parallel lines are competing for familial elevation and tenure.
The question then is, ‘why… Why this line in particular?’
That is the pestering question that haunts my ongoing research. Again, as before, amid frustration with prayer and quiet meditation God has pointed the way- God being Love, then Love has pointed the way… A love of my familial heritage and ancestors.
=== ‘Manfred III (Manfred V)’ and Matfried I d’Orleans Connection and Parentage ===
[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans, Duca di Neustria d’Italia, Duca di Tuscia] was born in 770, while [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I Graf von Eifelgau, Comte d’Orleans] has conflicting dates of 795 or 800. This is easy to understand when you cross reference and compare each ‘Manfredingi’.
First, the 795 date is simply misunderstood information, 795 was symbolic of birth, or rebirth for [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans] because this is the date his father ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Guagenfred-I-Comte-de-Verdum/6000000020958773698 Guagenfred I, Comte de Verdum]’ died; and being Catholic, probably went through a public, ceremonial baptismal inauguration (symbolic of birth or re-birth), shortly after his father’s death in 795. The 800 date is also, easily understood, because this is the date [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V, d’Orleans] officially assumed the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’.
[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I, Graf von Eifelgau (d’Orleans)], in some sources, is said to have been denied his hold on the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’, while, [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans] is said to have resigned the post and title. Both ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I]’ and ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V]’ not only held the Matfrid (Manfred) name but also the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’ simultaneously. Which is uncanny, to say the least, not to mention, ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I]’ and ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V]’ both died in Italy in 836, even more uncanny…
===Aripert II di Lombardia, King of the Lombards===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aripert_IIAripert II (also spelled Aribert) was the king of the Lombards from 701 to 712. Duke of Turin and son of King Raginpert, and thus a scion of the Bavarian Dynasty, he was associated with the throne as early as 700. He was removed by Liutpert, who reigned from 700 to 702, with the exception of the year 701, when Raginpert seized the throne. After his father’s death, he tried to take the throne, too. He defeated Liutpert and the regent Ansprand’s men at Pavia and captured the king, whom he later had strangled in his bath. He seized the capital and forced Ansprand over the Alps. He was firmly in power by 703.
He thence reigned uninterrupted until his death. His reign was a troubled one. In 703, Faroald, duke of Spoleto, attacked the Exarchate of Ravenna, but Aripert refused to assist him, for he wanted good relations with papacy and empire. He tried nevertheless to assert his authority over Spoleto and Benevento in the Mezzogiorno. He nursed friendship with Pope John VI by donating vast tracts of land in the Cottian Alps to the Holy See. This friendship helped him little, for he had many rebellions to deal with and many Slovene raids into Venetia.
In 711, Ansprand, whom he had exiled, returned with a large army from the duke of Bavaria, Theudebert. Many Austrians (the men of Venetia and the east) joined the returning regent and battle was joined by Pavia. Aripert fled to his capital when the tide went against him, but he horded the treasures and tried to cross over into Gaul by night. He drowned in the River Ticino and Ansprand was acclaimed sovereign. He was the last Bavarian to wear the Iron Crown.
===Alternate Story===Reginbert 1: King of the Lombards in Italy (r 700).
He was Duke of Turin before succeeding as King. On the death of his cousin, King Cunnincpert I in 700, he rose in rebellion and marched eastward with a strong army and met Ansprand, the guardian of the Boy King Luitpert on the plain of Novara. He defeated Ansprand and his allies and won the crown. However he died three months later, he had two sons- Aripert and Gumbert.
Gumbert, Prince of the Lombard’s
Born ca: 665, and died in France in Exile in 700, at an unknown date. On the death of their father in 700, Gumbert’s elder brother Aripert II succeeded to the throne, but he had to fight Ansprand and his allies for the throne and Aripert being Victorious, Ansprand fled, leaving his family behind. King Aripert II in revenge , mutilated Ansprand’s wife and one of their daughters.
Ansprand returned with an army in 712, and was Victorious, and Aripert II was advised by his supporters to flee to France and raise an army to fight for his throne, however he was drowned crossing the river Tecino.
Gumbert made it successfully to France with his three sons, fearing that Ansparnd would take revenge on his sons, for what his brother Aripert had done to his wife and daughter.
It was his great grandson [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V (Matfrid I, von Eifelgau), Comte de Orleans], who in 834 returned to Italy on the request of his nephew, King Lothaire I, King of Italy (Future Emperor).
===Basic Facts:===
# Were a line of ‘Blood Royals’ and Nobles of subalpine Italy stemming from Manfred V (or Matfrid I Comte von Eifelgau), Comte de Orleans (765–836)# Manfred V inherited the title Comte de Orleans in 800 from a separate (extinguished) line of the family founder
# Branches of the family included the Guasco, the Boidi and the Trotti
# In 712 AD Aripert II, Prince of the Lombard’s, was forced to flee his holdings in Northern Italy, along with his family count forbears. -
On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Elazar wrote: “For my Jewish brethren searching for a Biblical basis for sanctioning homosexuality, I provide you with words from Rabbis Marc Angel, Hillel Goldberg and Pinchas Stopler in their joint article published in the Winter, 1992-93 edition of Jewish Action Magazine;” Well, here’s another viewpoint: Bible Review, December 1993, p. 11 DOES THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY? by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom: “The Biblical prohibition is addressed only to Israel. It is incorrect to apply it on a universal scale.
This past Yom Kippur, September 25, 1993, my synagogue invited me to explain the afternoon scriptural reading, the list of forbidden sexual liaisons in Leviticus 18. I chose to focus on what is today one of the most frequently quoted passages in the entire Bible, “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).
What I said may be both good news and bad news to my Christian friends, depending on their position on gay and lesbian rights. This Biblical prohibition is addressed only to the Jews. Non-Jews are affected only if they reside in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere (see the closing exhortation in Leviticus 18, verses 24-30). Thus, it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale.
But I spoke to my fellow Jews, who are required to observe this prohibition. What is the rationale for this prohibition? In a previous column, I noted that the Bible’s impurity rules are part of a symbol system representing the forces of life and death. Israel is required to avoid these impurities and adhere to the laws commanded by God, who promotes the forces of life. Thus in the same chapter we read, “You shall heed my statutes and my rules, by doing them one shall live” (Leviticus 18:5). A man who discharges semen, whether intentionally or otherwise, is declared impure and must purify himself by bathing (a sort of re-baptism) before he is permitted to enter the Temple or touch sacred (sacrificial) food (Leviticus 15:16-18). Why? Because semen stands for life, and the loss of semen symbolizes the loss of life.
Note also that in the entire list of forbidden sexual unions, THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST LESBIANISM. Can it be that lesbianism did not exist in ancient times or that Scripture was unaware of its existence? Lesbians existed and flourished, as attested in an old (pre-Israelite)
Babylonian text and in the work of the lesbian poet Sappho (born c. 612 B.C.E., during the time of the First Temple), who came from the island of Lesbos (hence lesbianism). But there is a fundamental difference between the homosexual acts of men and women. IN LESBIANISM THERE IS NO SPILLING OF SEED. Thus life is not symbolically lost, and therefore lesbianism is not prohibited in the Bible.
My argument ostensibly can be countered by a more comprehensive biblical injunction. The very first commandment, given to Adam and repeated to Noah, is “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1,7). The descendants of Noah–the entire human race–are duty-bound to fulfill this commandment. But the truth is that we have not only filled the earth, we have over-filled it. This does not mean, however, that the commandment should be thought of as no longer in force–especially among Jews, who have lost a third of their members in our lifetime. I recall an incident during a premarital interview from the early years of my rabbinate. The starry-eyed bride declared her noble intention to have twelve children to compensate for the tragic loss of six million killed in the Holocaust. I gasped, “Must you do it all by yourself?”
I have since come to regret my flippant reply. This couple regarded their forthcoming marriage as a sacrament not just between themselves, but with the >Jewish people. The problem has worsened for American Jews. Because intermarriage is rife and the Jewish birth rate is low, American Jewry, once at zero population growth, has dipped into the minus column. Were it not for a steady stream of converts, the extinction of American Jewry would be even more imminent. For us the divine command, “Be fruitful and multiply” is truly in force.
To Jewish homosexuals I offer an unoriginal solution. As compensation for your loss of seed, adopt children. Although adoption was practiced in the ancient world (as attested in Babylonian law), there is no Biblical procedure or institution of adoption. As a result the institution of adoption is absent from rabbinic jurisprudence. Yet there are isolated cases of a kind of pseudo-adoption in the Bible. For example, Abraham, long childless, complains to God that Eliezer of Damascus, his steward, will inherit him (Genesis 15:2). And barren Rachel beseeches her husband Jacob, “Here is my maid Bilhah–go into her that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too may have children” (Genesis 30:3). Adoption is certainly a possibility today.
Lesbian couples have an additional advantage. Not only do they not violate biblical law, but through artificial insemination each can become the natural mother of her children.
Thus from the Bible we can infer the following: Lesbians, presumably half of the world’s homosexual population, are not mentioned. More than ninety-nine percent of the gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of male Jewish gays subject to this >prohibition. If they are biologically or psychologically incapable of procreation, adoption provides a solution. I hope the Eternal, in love and compassion, will then reckon their spilled seed as producing fruit. Jacob Milgrom.” (Bible Review, a publication of the Biblical Archeology Society 3000 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20008, 202 387 8888
-
Published on Mar 24, 2013
DISTURBING AND APPALLING Recording of the February 24th, 2013 phone call in which Lila Tolui, Fiancé of de Vere places a phone call to Sir James Robert Wright, Board Member of de Vere’s company, and describes the scene in which Nicholas de Vere was found and alleges sinister activity / ritual slaying / foul play. This conversation has been publicly denied by the British authorities, until an anonymous intel source provided it from Wright’s tapped phone lines in Los Angeles.
-
DISTURBING AND APPALLING Recording of the February 24th, 2013 phone call in which Lila Tolui, Fiancé of de Vere places a phone call to Sir James Robert Wright, Board Member of de Vere’s company, and describes the scene in which Nicholas de Vere was found and alleges sinister activity / ritual slaying / foul play. This conversation has been publicly denied by the British authorities, until an anonymous intel source provided it from Wright’s tapped phone lines in Los Angeles.
Dragon Sovereignty International 