Biblical Translation Research

[Magus55]

Hey All!

Need some help. I'm over on CF, and I'm constantly participating in discussions on homosexuality and biblical inerrancy.

I've attempted countless times to explain why the Bible never condemns homosexuality (for 1. since the concept didn't exist, and 2. since the Hebrew and Greek don't support it), however, conservatives continue to claim the modern English Bible is infallible, and it says Homosexuality is a sin.

I've analyzed the Hebrew and Greek of the 5 "clobber" passages, and tried to explain the problems with modern day translations, and how translator bias has incorrectly interjected homosexuality into the Bible.

I've also tried to explain the history of Bible translation, and how most English Bibles are based off the Tyndale Bible, which was known to have lots of errors, and the Masoretic text for OT, as well as the texts for the NT show that many liberties have been taken with the English Bibles.

Of course, this has been a waste of time as the conservatives stick their fingers in their ears and insult my "liberalism" and claim my research is completely wrong.

Anyway, while I know it won't do any good - does anyone know of some links to some reputable biblical research on the history of Biblical translation, as well as the verses relating to homosexuality? I'm having trouble finding sites that aren't heavily conservatively biased, or Gay Christian support sites (which won't go over well as unbiased research).

Are there any peer-reviewed ( if this is the right term) studies on Biblical text history and the homosexuality debate?

Thanks!

[Goodchild]

IMO, nothing will satisfy the group you are trying to educate. Anyone who accepts that any English bible (such as the KJV) is 'infallible' already has their head so far in the sand with their fingers in their ears that nothing short of time travel to when the words were first written would satisfy them ... and even then they'd probably still disagree.

[Politesse]

If you cannot procure sources to defend your viewpoint, why are you convinced that it is true? Where did you get your information, if not from activist sites and the like? In which case, are you really confident that those sources were trustworthy?

[Magus55]

If you cannot procure sources to defend your viewpoint, why are you convinced that it is true? Where did you get your information, if not from activist sites and the like? In which case, are you really confident that those sources were trustworthy?

My viewpoint is based on the original Hebrew and Greek. I'm just look for complete sources on translation history. I know what the Hebrew and Greek say.

[Ray Moscow]

Hmmm ... how is a man "lying with a man" not homosexual?

The Bible's condemnation of homosexual acts -- and calling for those who perform them to be killed -- is one of the main moral problems with the Bible, in any language.

The churches and most Christians are way more moral than the Bible in this regard. IMO, it's not a problem of misinterpreting the Bible so much as a horror of what it actually says.

[Magus55]

Hmmm ... how is a man "lying with a man" not homosexual?
Because in Hebrew, there are several words referring to lying. In Leviticus 18, the word used for a man lying with a man is the word used to refer to forced or deceptive sexual relations. In addition, it adds the clause "in beds of a woman". The verse is saying A man shall not force another man to have sex as he does with a woman. In other words, putting the man in the "bottom" or passive sexual role like a woman. This was being done in the pagan sex rituals described in the surrounding chapters, and in a patriarchial society where men were shameful if they behaved like a woman, it was a major faux pas.

[columbus]

Hmmm ... how is a man "lying with a man" not homosexual?

The Bible's condemnation of homosexual acts -- and calling for those who perform them to be killed -- is one of the main moral problems with the Bible, in any language.

The churches and most Christians are way more moral than the Bible in this regard. IMO, it's not a problem of misinterpreting the Bible so much as a horror of what it actually says.

I once heard about two orthodox jewish men who lived together all their lives, and were highly respected in their community, partly because they had given up family to devote their lives to God, living in chastity. What nobody in the community knew was that they had decided that if they never ever "did it" lying down, they hadn't done anything wrong:evil:

Tom

[Ray Moscow]

True -- it's not the sex, it's the lying down that will get you Torah-killed.

[Lugubert]

The very first thing to remember when discussing Bible and homosexuality is that it’s nowhere stated that Sodom was condemned because of alleged sexual misbehaviour. Sodom’s sins were lack of hospitality and wronging the rights of less resourceful people.

I regard this document (http://brycerich.com/docs/sodom.pdf) as sufficiently scholarly. To understand what was going on in front of Lot’s house, you should look at 1) the investigation of the use of the crucial word yada', 2) the usage notes on men vs. people.

On 1), I haven’t done the calculations myself, but regard them and the discussion as entirely trustworthy: The gathering wanted to know (in the normal sense) who the strangers were. Fully understandable: the Sodomites had recently been at war. The recently settled Lot had let two strangers into the city. Might they be spies?

On 2), I can add that of the 16 Bibles in 21 languages that I have checked, in v. 4 it’s the “men” in most languages. Exceptions are Russian zjiteli “inhabitants” and Hindi logõ “the people”. My understanding of the Hebrew ’anšê coincides with Russian and Hindi: it’s the people, “old and young, all the people” (KJV v. 4), “small and great” (v. 11). How sexual can a situation become, when grannies and children are present, in a city that’s nowhere referred to as kinky?

I might add that my reasoning on 1 and 2 above was approved by my Professor, OT expert on the commission creating the Swedish Bibel 2000.

[Roo St. Gallus]

Magus55...

I don't know as whether it will help you or not, but Bart D. Ehrman has a set of published works which should be of considerable help in your discussion, albeit not of particular help in the homosexuality issue. Dr. Ehrman chairs the Religious Studies Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a noted biblical scholar who has taken to writing for the popular market. I find Dr. Ehrman a pleasurable read and a guiding intellect in understanding the scriptural sources and explain why the scriptures...his speciality having been the corruption of the scriptures by what was to become the 'orthodox' aspect of Christianity....at least one other being what is referred to as "gnostic". I think his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament is fascinating, not least of all because the the copious footnoting, providing the reader even more fascinating insights on related topics....which did wander.

His Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a nice quick read...

His bibliography is at the end of his wiki cite, and there are other titles which might be of interest to you. He does not expend much time on the Old Testament. However, I would note that you pay close attention to his personal educational background.

His Jesus historical adjudges the man to have most likely existed and to have been a badly misguided godsoaked madman, who expected the Kingdom of God to come into existance upon his sacrifice.

The historical sources have been tampered with through two to five thousand years, and translated through at least three, if not more languages before they have arrived four us to read.

[columbus]

Lugubert is clearly illustrating the problem with using modern translations of ancient texts. The context and culture are so different that there is no way to tell what somebody meant when they wrote what they did.

If the ancient audience of Genesis knew that Sodom had been recently under attack, and knew what the words meant to them in the context of the times, they would get a whole different meaning from the words of Genesis than a modern person who doesn't know this.

Tom

[Jobar]

Hi, Magus!

You might look at some of the references at the end of this article:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

I'm sure most of those would be considered too liberal by your target audience, but some of the Jewish writers might pass muster.

[Politesse]

If you cannot procure sources to defend your viewpoint, why are you convinced that it is true? Where did you get your information, if not from activist sites and the like? In which case, are you really confident that those sources were trustworthy?

My viewpoint is based on the original Hebrew and Greek. I'm just look for complete sources on translation history. I know what the Hebrew and Greek say.

How is it based on the Hebrew and Greek? What are the sources of your information on those languages? You weren't born with a knowledge of those tongues; but if you cannot produce a source that would seem trustworthy to someone who disagrees with you, it seems to me good reason to critique your own "knowledge" and wonder whether it might proceed more from bias than fact.

[Ray Moscow]

After messing about with lexicons and such for some years, I finally realised that the chances of me improving on a translation made by experts with doctorates and years of study in those languages was pretty slim.

[Magus55]

After messing about with lexicons and such for some years, I finally realised that the chances of me improving on a translation made by experts with doctorates and years of study in those languages was pretty slim.

None of which removes bias from the equation. The fact that all modern English Bibles are financially backed by conservative denominations, with those same like-minded people being the primary buyers, makes ensuring the translation aligns with your particular beliefs even more important. Bible publishing is big business. All modern English Bibles are based on the original Tyndale Bible - which was heavily scrutinized for being altered to attack the Catholic Church. The KJV was made after King James ordered the translators to ensure that their translations aligned with Church of England teaching, and were more Christianized than their predecessors. Modern Bibles have continued the tradition of altering it to meet the standards of a particular group or society.

And the fact that one translator 50 years ago, decided to add the word homosexual to a Corinthian passage that has never in Biblical history been translated that way, nor is there any such thing in Greek or Hebrew, makes it quite obvious that translators are quite biased.

[Politesse]

And the fact that one translator 50 years ago, decided to add the word homosexual to a Corinthian passage that has never in Biblical history been translated that way, nor is there any such thing in Greek or Hebrew, makes it quite obvious that translators are quite biased.All translations are biased. Why do you believe your translation to be more accurate? How do you know, for instance, that there is "no such thing" in Greek or Hebrew? Especially in the case of the former, since we have very few surviving documents written in Koine Greek: the Bible itself, and a handful of letters... that's not enough to conclude that a word used in a certain letter was an invention of the author, or to make a solid conclusion about its meaning. That's akin to doing a study of Shakespeare and concluding that the English had no word for "bestirred".

[Roo St. Gallus]

It is a rarified world, but there have clearly been mistranslations, some of which were motivated by doctrinal concerns and others which were subject to changes over time that resulted in bad mistranslations...like the whole bit about Jesus' mother being a virgin.

I suggest you, too, read Misquoting Jesus.

[Politesse]

Do you mean me? I've also studied language and textual criticism of the Bible for years, in volumes rather more scholarly than an excellent but brief popular work. Obviously, there have been many translations and translation errors in the history of Biblical translation, and plenty of passages whose meaning is simply unknown, something I would argue is the case here.

But the more important lesson to learn is that every translation, especially of passages whose meaning is ambiguous or unclear, is deeply politically charged. In this case, I think Magus' problem with finding resources stems from the fact his view on the meaning of, for instance, the Corinthians passage, is in fact unsubstantiated by evidence. And it's not actually very likely to be correct. Arsenokoites is an unknown entity, but the weight of reason suggests that it does mean what it sounds like, koites between arsenos; especially since there actually is a known Greek word for male-to-male intercourse (beyond any shadow of doubt), and it is linguistically very similar: androkoites. Since andros and arsenos are interchangeable synonyms, androkoites and arsenokoites probably are too. It's not certain. But it's extremely likely.

Which is why I don't think the pro-homosexual argument concerning the Corinthians passage is based on logic and evidence, but rather a desperate political need for the passage to mean something other than what it seems to. I think it is a misguided need, and that a belief that every word of the Bible must be followed and a belief that homosexuality is acceptable are contradictory. Better to abandon literalism altogether, and drop the persecution of homosexuals because it is wrong, rather than because someone has spun in implausible argument that the Bible says it is.

[Roo St. Gallus]

So what?

EVERY writer is a propagandist.

The point is that any biblical source is dubious at best.

If one reads the NT with an eye to what is was that the main character condemned, I doubt that a homosexual would have been an issue...he was, after all, depicted as hanging with tax collectors, publicans, and the ritually unclean...and protecting a woman who had reputedly committed a travesty deservant of death by stoning. He condemned the upright and and well-heeled for their hypocrisy and noted that one was condemned by what came out of one's mouth, not by what put in it.

Yet...Modern theogogues want to have him condemning anyone for having relations with one of the same gender.

Is there any wonder why the intelligent are so offended by extremely conservative, fundamentalist and bigoted Christianity.

If you insist that this is the teaching of the founder, then I wish the resultant product a quick conceptual death and consignment to the dust heap of history...because the much-vaunted "love" is a LIE.

[Politesse]

So what?So nothing, I guess. But if you want to make a scholarly argument, expect scholarly critique, you know?

If one reads the NT with an eye to what is was that the main character condemned, I doubt that a homosexual would have been an issue...he was, after all, depicted as hanging with tax collectors, publicans, and the ritually unclean...and protecting a woman who had reputedly committed a travesty deservant of death by stoning. He condemned the upright and and well-heeled for their hypocrisy and noted that one was condemned by what came out of one's mouth, not by what put in it.

Yet...Modern theogogues want to have him condemning anyone for having relations with one of the same gender.If you mean Jesus, I quite agree. But Jesus did not write Paul's letters, Paul did. And Paul was bigoted peace of shit with delusions of personal grandeur and importance that far outpaced his real contributions to the church. Whether he actually wrote about it or not, I've no doubt he would have been as piously appalled by nocturnal activities the Castro as he was by the supposed excesses of Corinth, like his modern counterparts. Prudes and demagogues are the same in every generation, especially the ones who've decided God is speaking through their ignorant prejudices.

Is there any wonder why the intelligent are so offended by extremely conservative, fundamentalist and bigoted Christianity.No.

If you insist that this is the teaching of the founder, then I wish the resultant product a quick conceptual death and consignment to the dust heap of history...because the much-vaunted "love" is a LIE.I can't speak to Jesus' beliefs concerning sexual morality, but the hypocritical hatred some of his would-be followers harbor toward gays, he would certainly condemn with quick and cutting words.

[Roo St. Gallus]

And yet...Though they can establish authority of several of the epistles as being the same, several claiming that authority are not. Of those which are, there are very strong indications of interpolations by later authors. Redactions.

Sorry, I'm just a lay person with a set of attitudes. I speak no Latin, no Greek, no Hebrew...but I do know that the documents which most correspondents refer are in English and were consequently translated through at least two other languages, in exceedingly polemical situations, over thousands of years. Mistakes, fatigue and outright tampering are rife in all the scriptures, not to mention the several hundreds of years of teaching and writing and proliferation of a wide variety of different beliefs about salvation and Jesus, much of which was subsequently actively suppressed by secular power at the behest of 'the orthodox'. Then, it become concerted tampering with a mind to steal the competition's thunder and smoke and co-opting their gospel message.

Despite all this, the people Magus55 chooses to converse with will most likely cite 'the Bible', or 'the New Testament', with an absolute ignorance of the history of the documents he cites and the pitfalls of its claims. They don't care. But since Magus55 asked, I thought I might throw in my two-bits and recommend somebody who writes for the popular market....somebody who is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College....who has a background similar to those whom Magus55 chooses engage.

Just a thought.

[Ray Moscow]

The most quoted bit in the NT about homosexuality is Romans 1, which says that God makes people homosexual because of idolatry. I like to point out the Christians that homosexuality is God's idea, to punish idolatry.

Romans 1:24-27: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

KJV, which is a bit obtuse, but you get the idea.


The Torah says flat out that men who have sex with other men must be killed.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


So much for the "Good Book", our guide to living.

[Magus55]

The most quoted bit in the NT about homosexuality is Romans 1, which says that God makes people homosexual because of idolatry. I like to point out the Christians that homosexuality is God's idea, to punish idolatry. Yes, and Paul's target audience in that verse is heterosexuals.






The Torah says flat out that men who have sex with other men must be killed.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


So much for the "Good Book", our guide to living.It doesn't say that in Hebrew. Hebrew has more than one word for "lie". The word used in the Leviticus verses is the same word used for forced sexual acts.

Not to mention, in the context of what else is being discussed in those surrounding verses, its talking about pagan worship, sacrificing children to Molech etc. The way of the Caananites and Egyptians, which the Israelites were not to copy.

[Magus55]

All translations are biased. Why do you believe your translation to be more accurate? How do you know, for instance, that there is "no such thing" in Greek or Hebrew? There is no word in Hebrew for homosexual, at least not classical Hebrew. The only word in Hebrew that some translators cite in the OT as sodomite or homosexual is Qadesh. Qadesh, however, means temple prostitute in Hebrew. It has never meant homosexual. Greek has the word paiderasste, which refers to the "boy love" behavior common in Greek society, but Paul didn't use that word when addressing the Greeks. One would think Paul would use a word commonly understood to refer to male on male sexual behavior, instead of inventing a word that to this day, has never been explained as to its true meaning.

Especially in the case of the former, since we have very few surviving documents written in Koine Greek: the Bible itself, and a handful of letters... that's not enough to conclude that a word used in a certain letter was an invention of the author, or to make a solid conclusion about its meaning. That's akin to doing a study of Shakespeare and concluding that the English had no word for "bestirred".

The word Arsenokoites, which is found in Corinthians and Timothy, was created by Paul. The word has never been used prior to Paul's use of it in the Bible. That word, however, has never been clearly defined. It has been translated as numerous things throughout history, including kidnapper, and from Martin Luther until the mid 19th Century, masturbator. Only in the last 50 years, since the homosexuality cultural issue has blossomed, have translators decided to translate that word to homosexual. Which is very misleading, since Paul directed that word at only men, not women, and yet by classifying it as homosexual, they have condemned lesbians as well.

[Ray Moscow]

Magnus, I think you're dancing around the main issues here. Of course there is no concept of "homosexuality" in the Hebrew Bible, in the modern sense, simply because it's a modern concept.

What's being condemned, and actually carries the death penalty, is homosexual sex, for both men involved. The context is not "forced" sex, although no doubt that would be included. Did you miss that aspect that "both" men had committed an "abomination" and were to be killed?

Yes, the Hebrew Bible condemns homosexual sex, quite openly and clearly. Why obscure what ought to be obvious?