NRSVue edits homosexual passages

[Gregorikos]

The new NRSVue, released early last week, removed at least 7 negative references to homosexual behavior that were clear in the 1989 NRSV.

1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 1 Kings 15:11-12; 1 Kings 22:46; and 2 Kings 23:7.

Here are the New Testament passages:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (1989 NRSV)

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (2021 NRSVue)
===

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (1989 NRSV)

this means understanding that the law is laid down not for the righteous but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who engage in illicit sex, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (2021 NRSVue)

The problem of course is that "illicit sex" can be a lot of things- prostitution, incest, inappropriate behavior with animals. Yet this passage is universally held to be about a same-sex union of some kind.

 

[Taodeching]

That is very sad. They want to be lovd by the world, they care not for God and His truth

 

[Michie]

SMH.

 

[Lady Bug]

I'm not a KJV Onlyist but it's the new, revised translations that spring up like weeds that are emboldening people like KJV Onlyists who proclaim that newer Bible translations have their own sneaky agendas.

 

[hedrick]

On 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim. translation of "arsenokoitai." I hope at some point we'll hear a justification, but let me give you a conjecture. The roots mean male beds, with an implication of sexuality. They have a footnote "meaning of Gk uncertain." Since this seems to be the first use and almost all later uses are quotations or allusions to this without further explanation, that's a reasonable warning. But from the roots, we can reasonably guess that it refers to male sex of some kind, and by appearance in this list it is obviously illicit. So I think they're simply punting on a more specific meaning.

Translators are not bound by what most people think it means, but by what it actually means, to the extent that they can find that out.

Many modern translators think the two words together mean the passive and active partners in same-gender sex. The distinction is one that was commonly made in the 1st Cent. For them, a free male could only play the active role. It was, depending upon the area, either illegal or immoral for a free, adult male to play the receptive role. For that, only slaves or youths were acceptable. Today we would consider that approach sexual exploitation, because the receptive partners either had no choice or were pressured into it. If Paul mentioned both roles because of that, I might translate both together as "exploitative same-gender male sex." But this view of the meaning of the two words seems recent, and a consequence of the arguments over homosexuality. So I'm a bit skeptical that people may be reading what they want to see into the text.

 

[hedrick]

Deuteronomy 23:17. Strong's says temple prostitute. The Word commentary translates "pagan priest." NET translates temple prostitute. NIV translates "male prostitute." HCSB "cult prostitute"

1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:11-12, 2 King 23:7 NIV, NET, HCSB translate male prostitute or male cultic prostitute.

These sources are certainly not pro-gay.

 

[Gregorikos]

Deuteronomy 23:17. Strong's says temple prostitute. The Word commentary translates "pagan priest." NET translates temple prostitute. NIV translates "male prostitute." HCSB "cult prostitute"

1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:11-12, 2 King 23:7 NIV, NET, HCSB translate male prostitute or male cultic prostitute.

These sources are certainly not pro-gay.

They certainly aren't. And aside from the Word Commentary, all of them make it plain that it's a male engaging in sexual activity.

Whereas in the NRSVue:

Deuteronomy 23:17 “None of the daughters of Israel shall serve in an illicit shrine; none of the sons of Israel shall serve in an illicit shrine.

There is nothing sexual about that.

1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:11-12, 2 King 23:7 in the NRSVue is "illicit priest." One could safely say that all priests other than Levites serving the God of Israel were "illicit priests." That phrase means very little.

 

[Paidiske]

Deuteronomy 23:17 “None of the daughters of Israel shall serve in an illicit shrine; none of the sons of Israel shall serve in an illicit shrine.

There is nothing sexual about that.

Well, given what we know about the local fertility cult at the time, there is a clear sexual implication.

It's an awkward word to translate. We don't know exactly what the original word means. To translate it as "sodomite" is to convey a precision we can't be sure about. Whether engaging in "illicit sex" is too vague is a question that I think is up for debate. I think it would be better to use the latter, with an explanatory footnote that some sort of same-sex male coupling seems to be evisaged but the exact meaning and context is unclear, than to use the former which may be misleading.

 

[Gregorikos]

Well, given what we know about the local fertility cult at the time, there is a clear sexual implication.

It's an awkward word to translate. We don't know exactly what the original word means. To translate it as "sodomite" is to convey a precision we can't be sure about. Whether engaging in "illicit sex" is too vague is a question that I think is up for debate. I think it would be better to use the latter, with an explanatory footnote that some sort of same-sex male coupling seems to be evisaged but the exact meaning and context is unclear, than to use the former which may be misleading.

I agree. I would have been fine with that.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think the NRSVue would have been influenced by the controversy over homosexuality in the OT references, since no one would associate cult prostitution with gay Christians. I certainly hope the OP isn't implying such a connection. (I assumed it was, since the KJV could leave that impression, and listing those passages in this thread wouldn't make any sense otherwise.) Lev 18:22, which is the verse that most nearly applies, is translated as usual.

I don’t have as complete a set of OT commentaries as NT. The Word commentary says calling it something like "cult prostitute" is misleading. Why? I think they mean that it would lead readers to think of what the term prostitute normally means. A priest, even of a fertility cult, would be a different thing. Unlike the actual prostitute in the next verse, which is a different word. The KJV translation, sodomite, is even worse, because it gives the reader no clue that the person was a pagan priest.

While the Word commentary on 2 Kings translates temple prostitutes, they note that the meaning of the verse is not clear, in part because it's not clear just what the activity they translate as cultic prostitution is: "Little is known of the practice except that it is roundly condemned by the OT, especially Deuteronomy (see 23:18–19)."

Here it is in NRSV

"He broke down the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of the LORD, where the women did weaving for Asherah."

It is not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps more a more generic term than male prostitute may be needed, since weaving is not an activity typically associated with prostitution, as the commentary notes. The following (NRSVue) makes more sense:

"He broke down the house of the illicit priests who were in the house of the LORD, where the women did weaving for Asherah."

I suspect the term illicit is used because it's not clear that they were actually pagan. There was forbidden worship associated with YHWH.

I'm certainly not an OT expert, but my impression is that there's a uncertainty about the meaning of a lot of words in the OT. I think we're seeing an example.

 

[hedrick]

There's also an issue in Deut 23:18. What is literally "wages of a dog" is translated by NRSV as "wages of a male prostitute." The Word commentary says that recent discoveries suggest that dogs were associated with some pagan cults, and thus "price of a dog" actually makes sense. That's how they translate it. NRSVue has "wages of a dog." I'd be curious what they mean.

 

[Gregorikos]

I don't think the NRSVue would have been influenced by the controversy over homosexuality in the OT references, since no one would associate cult prostitution with gay Christians. I certainly hope the OP isn't implying such a connection. (I assumed it was, since the KJV could leave that impression, and listing those passages in this thread wouldn't make any sense otherwise.) Lev 18:22, which is the verse that most nearly applies, is translated as usual.

I don’t have as complete a set of OT commentaries as NT. The Word commentary says calling it something like "cult prostitute" is misleading. Why? I think they mean that it would lead readers to think of what the term prostitute normally means. A priest, even of a fertility cult, would be a different thing. Unlike the actual prostitute in the next verse, which is a different word. The KJV translation, sodomite, is even worse, because it gives the reader no clue that the person was a pagan priest.

While the Word commentary on 2 Kings translates temple prostitutes, they note that the meaning of the verse is not clear, in part because it's not clear just what the activity they translate as cultic prostitution is: "Little is known of the practice except that it is roundly condemned by the OT, especially Deuteronomy (see 23:18–19)."

Here it is in NRSV

"He broke down the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of the LORD, where the women did weaving for Asherah."

It is not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps more a more generic term than male prostitute may be needed, since weaving is not an activity typically associated with prostitution, as the commentary notes. The following (NRSVue) makes more sense:

"He broke down the house of the illicit priests who were in the house of the LORD, where the women did weaving for Asherah."

I suspect the term illicit is used because it's not clear that they were actually pagan. There was forbidden worship associated with YHWH.

I'm certainly not an OT expert, but my impression is that there's a uncertainty about the meaning of a lot of words in the OT. I think we're seeing an example.

Well I think we have to make that connection, Hedrick. The tactics of the LGBT apologists is to systematically negate every Bible reference to homosexual activity, which are all negative. Looking at the NRSVue, they have negated two of the three primary NT references by making them about sex in general. Doing so is very suspect, given that virtually everyone understands these verses as applying to some kind of same-sex activity. Coincidentally or not, they have negated 5 OT references by making them appear to be not about sex at all.

And there is definitely a connection of some kind between the translators and LGBT apologists.

 

[hedrick]

Well, given what we know about the local fertility cult at the time, there is a clear sexual implication.

It's an awkward word to translate. We don't know exactly what the original word means. To translate it as "sodomite" is to convey a precision we can't be sure about. Whether engaging in "illicit sex" is too vague is a question that I think is up for debate. I think it would be better to use the latter, with an explanatory footnote that some sort of same-sex male coupling seems to be evisaged but the exact meaning and context is unclear, than to use the former which may be misleading.

Even if the term indicates a fertility cult and sex (both of which are unclear), it would seem odd for a fertility cult to have same-gender sex. You would think a male priest would have sex with women.

It appears that this is a controversial area among scholars today. E.g. one viewpoint is that there were no cult prostitutes in ancient Israel, and Deut 23:17 is referring to ordinary prostitutes: Review of Lipinski, Edward. “Cult Prostitution in Ancient Israel?” | Academy for Temple Studies The NRSVue translators obviously didn't consider the reference to be ordinary prostitutes but they may believe that it's not so clear that priests of illicit temples are necessarily prostitutes.

 

[hedrick]

Well I think we have to make that connection, Hedrick. The tactics of the LGBT apologists is to systematically negate every Bible reference to homosexual activity, which are all negative. Looking at the NRSVue, they have negated two of the three primary NT references by making them about sex in general. Doing so is very suspect, given that virtually everyone understands these verses as applying to some kind of same-sex activity. Coincidentally or not, they have negated 5 OT references by making them appear to be not about sex at all.

And there is definitely a connection of some kind between the translators and LGBT apologists.

Even if the passages quoted involve temple prostitution, why would you think it is same-gender sex? Not all disagreements about Biblical texts are about the LGBT question.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The new NRSVue, released early last week, removed at least 7 negative references to homosexual behavior that were clear in the 1989 NRSV.

1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 1 Kings 15:11-12; 1 Kings 22:46; and 2 Kings 23:7.

Here are the New Testament passages:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (1989 NRSV)

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (2021 NRSVue)
===

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (1989 NRSV)

this means understanding that the law is laid down not for the righteous but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who engage in illicit sex, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (2021 NRSVue)

The problem of course is that "illicit sex" can be a lot of things- prostitution, incest, inappropriate behavior with animals. Yet this passage is universally held to be about a same-sex union of some kind.

The question here is not whether they changed something 'universally held' to be something a bit different, but whether they are accurate.

Notice how most of the translations/versions change the King James: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," becomes in the ESV: "...neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners..." Yet even the ESV is somewhat more technical and less 'indecent' than the Greek, but at least it is something.

As my (Bible languages scholar, NT Greek authority) dad said, the Bible is a lot less socially acceptable in its language than translators like it to be.

This does not, of course, defend the NRSV, but in the tradition of historical Biblical scholarship —not many of the versions/translations are accurate there— it is not far off from the rest of them.

 

[hedrick]

The question here is not whether they changed something 'universally held' to be something a bit different, but whether they are accurate.

Notice how most of the translations/versions change the King James: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," becomes in the ESV: "...neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners..." Yet even the ESV is somewhat more technical and less 'indecent' than the Greek, but at least it is something.

As my (Bible languages scholar, NT Greek authority) dad said, the Bible is a lot less socially acceptable in its language than translators like it to be.

This does not, of course, defend the NRSV, but in the tradition of historical Biblical scholarship —not many of the versions/translations are accurate there— it is not far off from the rest of them.

It's interesting how a consensus has developed since the LGBT controversies that these two words refer to passive and active partners in same-gender sex. ESV is an example. There's been lots of scholarship on same-gender sex in ancient cultures, but I'm not aware of any developments that would connect it with these two words. But where previously there were varying and ambiguous translations, now evangelical translations unambiguously identify the words as passive and active partners in same-gender sex and mainline translations warn us that we still aren't sure what the words mean.

I've checked a number of commentaries on 1 Cor. It seems that both terms are unclear. Looking at Fee's commentary: "The first word, malakoi, has the basic meaning of “soft”; but it also became a pejorative epithet for men who were “soft” or “effeminate,” most likely referring to the younger, “passive” partner in a pederastic relationship—the most common form of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. In many instances young men sold themselves as “mistresses” for the sexual pleasure of men older than themselves. The problem is that there was a technical word for such men, and malakos is seldom, if ever, so used. Since it is not the ordinary word for such homosexual behavior, one cannot be sure what it means in a list like this, where there is no further context to help"

Similarly, the roots to arsenokoitai are male and a vulgar expression for sex. But there's no real sign for how they are connected. (Before the recent discussions, for example, one guess was male prostitutes.)

However by putting them together, it somehow becomes unambiguous that they mean the passive and active partners in same-gender sex. OK then.

Thiselton also warns us (after a long discussion similar to Fee's, except that he finds the connection with Lev 18:22 likely):

"On the other side, however, overattention to lexicographical, contextual, and historical detail should not blind us to Vasey’s reminder that in the society of imperial Rome Jews and Christians saw a “form of homosexuality [which] was strongly associated with idolatry, slavery and social dominance. It was often the assertion of the strong over the bodies of the weak.” This no doubt colored Paul’s perception, and coheres with certain attitudes related to wealth, status, manipulation, and power at Corinth."

The problem with this caution is that if same-gender sex was in fact associated with slavery and social dominance, the passive partner was a victim. It's certainly possible that Paul didn't have the modern concern about taking advantage of slaves and low-status people, but I would hope for better from him.

 

[Gregorikos]

This does not, of course, defend the NRSV, but in the tradition of historical Biblical scholarship —not many of the versions/translations are accurate there— it is not far off from the rest of them.

I disagree, it's VERY far off from the rest of them, which almost universally say the word in question (arsenokoites, Strongs #733) - refers to homosexual activity. And on that point, every argument I have ever heard, both pro gay and anti, agrees. The pro-gay arguments I have heard all say it is an abusive, denigrating, BDSM type of scene, and doesn't reflect a "loving, consensual gay relationship." But they still admit it's a gay encounter of some kind, as virtually all Bible translations attest. But the NRSVue has removed teh gay component entirely. That makes it very far off from the rest of them.

 

[hedrick]

I disagree, it's VERY far off from the rest of them, which almost universally say the word in question (arsenokoites, Strongs #733) - refers to homosexual activity. And on that point, every argument I have ever heard, both pro gay and anti, agrees. The pro-gay arguments I have heard all say it is an abusive, denigrating, BDSM type of scene, and doesn't reflect a "loving, consensual gay relationship." But they still admit it's a gay encounter of some kind, as virtually all Bible translations attest. But the NRSVue has removed teh gay component entirely. That makes it very far off from the rest of them.

No, not everyone agrees. If you check any recent commentary you'll find contrary opinions quoted. There's reasonable agreement that we don't have enough usage (other than quotations of Paul without other context) to know from usage. So people conjecture based on the roots, or based on the roots appearing in Lev 18:22.

A lot of arguments take the form "Paul must have created it, since we don't have any texts before him that used it. It would have reminded any Greek-speaking Jew of Lev 18:22. So that's what it means." But it's not like we have huge numbers of contemporary texts that would speak of these things. A lot of words don't mean what you'd think they do based on the roots they're made from. If you have to guess, this is the guess I'd make. But do you really want a guess?

In a text that is widely used to condemn people we should have more certainly than conjecture.

 

[hedrick]

I will admit that the NRSVue is probably making a judgement in 1 Cor 6:9. As noted, if you had to guess, arsenokoitai probably refers to Lev 18:22.

It's pretty common in translating the Bible, particularly in the OT, to use conjectural translations, and add a footnote saying that it's a conjecture. I suspect they didn't use the conjecture here because of the way the passage is used.

 

[hedrick]

One more thing: Evangelical translations now understand malakoi and arsenokoitai as passive and active roles in same-gender sex. I can understand connecting arsenokoitai with Lev 18:22. It's a conjecture, but it's reasonable. But if that's true, that passage was understood by Jews as meaning male same-gender sex in general. There's no sign that I know of that Jews understood Lev 18:22 as prohibiting only the active role. Why would we conjecture that the word means specifically the active role? If Fee (who uses this translation) is right, there's no evidence that malakoi was used for the passive role.

I'd expect some other guess for malakoi with ansenokoitai being translated either "same-gender sex" or "male same-gender sex."