Reading scripture can be a daunting exercise.  Whether the Old or New Testaments, absent study of history, archeology and practice in reading and interpreting complex texts, it’s easy to come to false conclusions, to make mistakes of degree and illusion. The greatest danger, however, is imposing contemporary beliefs on peoples and cultures of the past, seeing in their writings and lives, ideas and practices that would never have occurred to them. That’s confirmation bias, finding what we expect to find, what we believe ought to be there regardless of what is. An example has recently occurred at the University of Dayton:

Graphic: Artemesia Gentileschi. Esther before Ahasuerus NET DT1440. WikimediaCommons.org. Public Domain.

A professor at the University of Dayton suggested in an op-ed that the Bible paints gender as a spectrum.

University of Dayton Professor of Hebrew Bible Esther Brownsmith wrote a piece in January for the Dayton Daily News in which she argued that scripture “portrays gender as a colorful spectrum.”

Though she warns her audience that the bible was written in a patriarchal tone, she believes that it still contains examples of people “reimagin[ing] and reshap[ing] their gender identities,” and one of her examples in the Dayton Daily News opinion piece was the claim that “Mordecai breast-fed his cousin Esther.”

To note there is no rational evidence for such practice, which if done exclusively would result in the rapid death of babies from starvation, then and now, should be obvious. To say there is no scriptural support might be a little less so for many.

Brownsmith refers to Mordecai “bringing up” Esther in the book of Esther 2:7, which reads in full: “He was bringing up Hadassah, that is Esther, the daughter of his uncle, for she had neither father nor mother. The young woman had a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai took her as his own daughter.”

The article notes at least one apparently female scholar that thinks there might have been a sort of miracle of a man—Mordecai--producing milk, but also notes most scholars think that a translation error or purposeful confirmation bias. Then, and now, the rational person reading that scripture would think well of Mordecai for taking on the responsibility of caring for Esther, and for loving her as his own daughter. Her upbringing prepared her to save her people. Clearly the passage suggests Mordecai cared for, nurtured, Esther, not personally nursed her, which neither he, nor a contemporary man pretending to be a woman could do. God is particularly clear on the whole man, woman and nothing else matter. It takes a particular mindset to warp that passage, or any additional mention of Mordecai or Esther, into a contemporary account of trans “chestfeeding.” The Bible is quite clear about miracles. They are not ambiguous and certainly not to the degree of creating contemporary, virtue-signaling chestfeeding out of Esther 2:7.

Brownsmith was instead using her translation of scripture as a defense for Christians who support transgenderism. She adamantly states that “as a professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Dayton, I believe that scripture and trans rights are not at odds.”

What passes for “trans rights” these days are rights above and beyond what other Americans enjoy, license to trample on the liberties of others. These amount to a demand everyone adapt to the wishes and delusions of a tiny portion of the mentally ill population. In the contemporary “it’s all about me” generation, this is unsurprising, but it is not practical, and if allowed to persist, damaging to us all.

The Bible, for example, does not mention abortion, yet that has not kept many from finding support for it, and any other principle, practice or philosophy they favor therein. Notice Brownsmith does not go so far as to say the Bible approves of transgenderism.  In fact, it does not mention it at all. The closest verse is the Old Testament’s Deuteronomy 22:5:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man [men’s clothing], neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

“Closest” in that there is no actual mention of transgenderism in the scriptures. Deuteronomy 22:5 can only rationally be said to relate to contemporary cross-dressing.  One could as easily believe the connection between cross-dressing and transgenderism refutes Brownsmith’s belief and more accurately suggests God thinks both an abomination—sin.

When you’re reading into scripture what isn’t there, what’s to restrain your imagination or stop you from confirming your bias?

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.