NRSVue edits homosexual passages

[seeking.IAM]

Would any of our Greek Orthodox members care to comment on how they interpret the text in their reading of Greek texts? I don't see any Orthodox comments to this thread discussing Greek.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Just guessing by the fact that my father was making his assessment long before the LGBT stuff was gathering steam, I'd say your last paragraph is more a result of modern day social pressure than the modern translations of the passage.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Ok, you have a point there. I'm just saying that they are all somewhat less, uh, virulent than the Greek, at least from what I was told. I don't claim to be a Greek authority, not even a scholar, really.

 

[jamiec]

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.

Cultic prostitution is a sacred activity (its moral status is, of itself, totally irrelevant to its status as a sacred activity). What a cross-dressing acolyte of a deity, or a cultic eunuch, or a cultic prostitute, or a cultic homosexual, might do, is a long way from modern same-sex activity, which is secular, not cultic.

The sacred/holy is not necessarily benign or moral - the moralisation of the sacred is a result of the ethical monotheism of (parts of) the religion of the OT; which Jesus then radicalised. The sacred is the realm of the "non-profane", of the *mysterium tremendum*, of the numinous. And when manifested, it may, or may not, be (what a culture regards as) morally good. The "terrifying splendour" of the Sumerian gods, and the "terror of JHWH" in Israel, both convey something of the "dangerousness", the "unrationality", the inconceivable, awe-full, unhuman, intrinsically inaccessible "Otherness" of numinous beings, AKA deities.

What is needed is translation as accurate as is humanly possible - regardless of whether it upsets people, doctrines, or Churches. A perfect translation of the Bible would probably be deeply upsetting to every kind of Christian.

The word in the Hebrew of Deut 23.17 is from the root *qdsh*, "holy", "consecrate[d]"; in context, "holy/sacred [persons]": Deuteronomy 23:17 Hebrew Text Analysis The translation "perverted one" does not do justice to the text.
1 Kings 14:24 also uses the same root *qdsh*.
So does 1 Kings 15.12 (v. 11 contains nothing nigh the matter).
So does 2 Kings 23.7.

"Cult/male/temple prostitute(s)" miss the aspect of the sacredness of these people. Perhaps "consecrated person(s)", with an explanatory note, would be the solution.

That these people were sacred, is presumably to be understood as contrasting with the sacredness of Israel, its priests, its religion, its ethics - all of which are defined by its God and His covenant.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

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.

The definitive commentary on the Hebrew text of Leviticus is the three-volume work by Jewish Biblical scholar Jacob Milgrom [1923-2010], Leviticus: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary (1–16, 1991; 17–22, 2000; 23–27, 2001) in the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series (90 volumes) published by Yale University Press. He understands Lev. 18:22 to be speaking of sodomy; and he also understands Rom. 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9, Gal. 5:19 and 1 Tim. 1:10 to be speaking of sodomy. In another place, he writes, “The Bible allows for no exceptions: all acts of sodomy are prohibited, whether performed by rich or poor, higher or lower status, citizen or alien.

In 2008, the Roman Catholic Church gave us the very fine commentary on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians by top-notch biblical scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer [1920-2016]—also in the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series. Unlike Gordon Fee and Anthony Thiselton, Fitzmyer frequently quotes ancient Greek and Latin writers, quoting verbatim in the original languages, on the subject of homosexuality and sodomy. He also frequently quotes writers that are more contemporary and concludes that the words malakos and arsenokoites refer respectively to the passive and the active partner in acts of sodomy.

Nonetheless, the updated edition of the NRSV is a very fine contribution to the fruit of Biblical scholarship.

 

[hedrick]

The definitive commentary on the Hebrew text of Leviticus is the three-volume work by Jewish Biblical scholar Jacob Milgrom [1923-2010], Leviticus: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary (1–16, 1991; 17–22, 2000; 23–27, 2001) in the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series (90 volumes) published by Yale University Press. He understands Lev. 18:22 to be speaking of sodomy; and he also understands Rom. 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9, Gal. 5:19 and 1 Tim. 1:10 to be speaking of sodomy. In another place, he writes, “The Bible allows for no exceptions: all acts of sodomy are prohibited, whether performed by rich or poor, higher or lower status, citizen or alien.

In 2008, the Roman Catholic Church gave us the very fine commentary on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians by top-notch biblical scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer [1920-2016]—also in the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series. Unlike Gordon Fee and Anthony Thiselton, Fitzmyer frequently quotes ancient Greek and Latin writers, quoting verbatim in the original languages, on the subject of homosexuality and sodomy. He also frequently quotes writers that are more contemporary and concludes that the words malakos and arsenokoites refer respectively to the passive and the active partner in acts of sodomy.

Nonetheless, the updated edition of the NRSV is a very fine contribution to the fruit of Biblical scholarship.

Note that NRSVue translates Lev 18:22 and Rom 1:27 in the usual way.

This is also a seriously misleading for Milgrom with regard to Lev 18:22. While the quote you give is accurate, it's also near the beginning of a longer discussion. He thinks the prohibition in Lev 18:22 was to encourage children in a stable family, and that modern gay Jews can comply by adopting. (The prohibition, he says elsewhere, does not apply to non-Jews.) He also suggests that the prohibition might only apply to sex between close relatives, i.e. that it corresponds to prohibitions against incest for opposite gender sex.

This gives the relevant section of his commentary on Lev 18:22: The Hadley Rectory: Jacob Milgrom on Homosexuality

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Would any of our Greek Orthodox members care to comment on how they interpret the text in their reading of Greek texts? I don't see any Orthodox comments to this thread discussing Greek.

Literally, the word ἀρσενοκοῖται means malebedder (n.) Lit: "Male Bed." αρσενος (male), κοιτην (bed). Sexual connotation denoted.

Although the word arsenokoitēs appears nowhere in Greek literature prior to Paul’s use of it, it is evidently a rendering into Greek of the standard rabbinic term for “one who lies with a male [as with a woman]” (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). (Despite recent challenges to this interpretation, the meaning is confirmed by the evidence of the Sybilline Oracles 2.73). Paul here repeats the standard Jewish condemnation of homosexual conduct.’, Hays, ‘First Corinthians’, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching, p. 97 (1997).

So the word itself is unique within Koine Greek. It does not refer specifically to the Greek practice of pederasty or male prostitute. Even if these translators try to update the word, the voices of the church fathers still speak against homosexual acts. John Chrysostom wrote, "No one can say that it was by being prevented from legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven to this monstrous insanity... What is contrary to nature has something irritating and displeasing in it, so that they could not even claim to be getting pleasure out of it. For genuine pleasure comes from following what is according to nature. But when God abandons a person to his own devices, then everything is turned upside down."

 

[seeking.IAM]

Literally, the word ἀρσενοκοῖται means...John Chrysostom wrote, ...

Thank you for posting this Greek translation as well as the words of John Chrysostom.

 

[hedrick]

Literally, the word ἀρσενοκοῖται means malebedder (n.) Lit: "Male Bed." αρσενος (male), κοιτην (bed). Sexual connotation denoted.

Although the word arsenokoitēs appears nowhere in Greek literature prior to Paul’s use of it, it is evidently a rendering into Greek of the standard rabbinic term for “one who lies with a male [as with a woman]” (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). (Despite recent challenges to this interpretation, the meaning is confirmed by the evidence of the Sybilline Oracles 2.73). Paul here repeats the standard Jewish condemnation of homosexual conduct.’, Hays, ‘First Corinthians’, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching, p. 97 (1997).

So the word itself is unique within Koine Greek. It does not refer specifically to the Greek practice of pederasty or male prostitute. Even if these translators try to update the word, the voices of the church fathers still speak against homosexual acts. John Chrysostom wrote, "No one can say that it was by being prevented from legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven to this monstrous insanity... What is contrary to nature has something irritating and displeasing in it, so that they could not even claim to be getting pleasure out of it. For genuine pleasure comes from following what is according to nature. But when God abandons a person to his own devices, then everything is turned upside down."

There are many examples of words that don't mean the same thing as their roots. This is a conjecture. Maybe even likely, but a conjecture.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

The LGBTQ agenda is, of course, to normalize and celebrate these practices, so it follows that efforts to water down the Bible verses would be in furtherance of that agenda. They can scarcely hope (can they?) to revise the verses to the extent of encouraging normalization and celebration, but they can hope to neutralize them as they are doing.

The reality is, the homosexual orientation and homosexual practices, male and female, were condemned in Judaism. They were condemned as depraved because they were believed to be characteristic of pagan cultures and contrary to God's plan in creating male and female bodies.

The efforts to twist these verses into prohibiting only "active male" homosexuality or "forced" homosexuality or "idolatrous" homosexuality are nonsense. They ignore the reality of the Jewish view of the homosexuality orientation and homosexual practices, both in the time of Jesus and Paul and for generations before them.

Again I note the overlap between those who promote Universalism and those who promote the LGBTQ agenda. The connection and the End Times implications seem obvious to me.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

There are many examples of words that don't mean the same thing as their roots. This is a conjecture. Maybe even likely, but a conjecture.

That is why I then quoted Chrysostom. For Orthodox, if the church fathers speak with a relatively uniform voice on a particular subject, then that is the way the church should take it.

 

[roadoftravel]

Is the NRSV UE support gay relations or not??? It sounds like they just changed the words like they do in every version I read.... It's a little bit different but it is scary if it is supporting gay relations.. I'm a fan of the RSV and NRSV and thinking about getting the NRSV ue but not if its gay!!!

 

[hedrick]

Is the NRSV UE support gay relations or not??? It sounds like they just changed the words like they do in every version I read.... It's a little bit different but it is scary if it is supporting gay relations.. I'm a fan of the RSV and NRSV and thinking about getting the NRSV ue but not if its gay!!!

The key text is Rom 1. It hasn’t changed. However arsenokoitai is translated ambiguously, with a note that the meaning is unclear.

 

[roadoftravel]

The key text is Rom 1. It hasn’t changed. However arsenokoitai is translated ambiguously, with a note that the meaning is unclear.

Is it worth buying??? Are there previous versions that are gltb?

 

[roadoftravel]

I read Romans They still call out males having sex with males and they talk about unnatural relations.... I'm confused I thought people were saying this translation was for glbt????

 

[hedrick]

Is it worth buying??? Are there previous versions that are gltb?

Probably. Study of manuscripts and understanding of words has changed in 30 years. If you normally use the NRSV you'll probably want to use the NRSVue. If not, not.

At first glance you won't see much change. From RSV to NRSV language was modernized and gender-free language used where the original language was gender-free. I haven't read it much, because it's not yet available in Logos, but from what I've seen there's no similar overall change in style from NRSV to NRSVue. Just lots of details, which you won't notice without detailed comparison.

Lots of people will focus on the translation of arsenokoitai, but Rom 1 and Lev remain unchanged.

When it shows up in Logos I'll make more extensive comparisons.

 

[roadoftravel]

Probably. Study of manuscripts and understanding of words has changed in 30 years. If you normally use the NRSV you'll probably want to use the NRSVue. If not, not.

At first glance you won't see much change. From RSV to NRSV language was modernized and gender-free language used where the original language was gender-free. I haven't read it much, because it's not yet available in Logos, but from what I've seen there's no similar overall change in style from NRSV to NRSVue. Just lots of details, which you won't notice without detailed comparison.

Lots of people will focus on the translation of arsenokoitai, but Rom 1 and Lev remain unchanged.

When it shows up in Logos I'll make more extensive comparisons.

. Awesome!!! I love the RSV and NRSV but KJV is great but if I would've read the KJV first I would be been too discouraged to study the bible.... I'm looking forward to NIV and AMP

 

[TedT]

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.

....I agree but even the KJV does indeed have its own sneaky eisegetic agendas...just not about this topic.

 

[Lady Bug]

....I agree but even the KJV does indeed have its own sneaky eisegetic agendas...just not about this topic.

I don't use KJV like I used to. What kind of agendas?

 

[Andrewn]

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.

This is quite reasonable.

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

NRSVue translates "malakoi" into "male prostitutes." This is likely inexact. I suspect this word refers to effeminate transvestites.

Male cult prostitutes (qodeshim) were usually castrated transvestites. NRSVue translation "illicit priests" is most unfortunate.