NRSVue edits homosexual passages

[pescador]

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.

People will always reject sound scholarship if the results don't agree with their closed minds.

We are blessed to have many translations available to us. The ones that I own and use are excellent: the NIV, the NRSV, the NET, the ESV, and the HCSB. I have read the NRSVue online at biblegateway.com and so far think it is excellent.

It's a foolish statement by the KJV people to claim that newer Bible translations have their own sneaky agendas. The King James translation was created by the order of a secular king to codify his personal view of what the Bible should say. The Geneva Bible was an excellent translation but King James I didn't like the accompanying notes that criticized "the divine right of kings". It was (and is) a politically-motivated translation; it caused many to flee his despotic rule and flee England with their Geneva Bibles.

It is the purpose of any translation to communicate the ancient writings in a form that is best understood by the people reading it. Not only must the language be clearly translated, but the thoughts and ideas of a long-dead culture must be communicated to us who are alive today. We all understand the world through the lens of our own culture. The newer translations take our cultural understanding, as expressed in our thoughts and vocabulary, into account.

Nobody alive today lives in the culture of early 17th century England. It make make some people feel "holier than thou" to claim that the KJV is the correct word of God, but it's a delusion. Give me a carefully-created, scholarly translation, written for me to understand God's truths, and I am satisfied.

 

[Andrewn]

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).

There seems to be general agreement about the meaning of "arsenokoitai":

NKJV: sodomites.
NASB20: homosexuals.
NIV11: men who have sex with men.
NRSVue: men who engage in illicit sex. In NRSV89 it was rendered "sodomites".
NET: practicing homosexuals.
ESV: men who practice homosexuality.
CSB: males who have sex with males. In HCSB it was rendered "anyone practicing homosexuality".

We are blessed to have many translations available to us. The ones that I own and use are excellent: the NIV, the NRSV, the NET, the ESV, and the HCSB. I have read the NRSVue online at biblegateway.com and so far think it is excellent.

There is agreement that "malakoi" has to do with homosexuality. But no agreement as to what it actually means:

NKJV: homosexuals.
NASB20: [untranslated]. In NASB95 it was rendered "effeminates".
NIV11: [untranslated].
NRSVue: male prostitutes.
NET: passive homosexual partners.
ESV: [untranslated].
CSB: [untranslated].

The 3 translations offered are inadequate. NKJV and NET may imply an application to lesbianism or even to celibate people with homosexual tendency. And the translation offered in NRSVue is also inadequate given that the Greek word does not imply monetary gain as in prostitution.

 

[pescador]

There are people who have a knee-jerk reaction to any new translation. As soon as one appears they have the need to attack it, even if that attack hinges upon one difficult-to-translate word.

In my opinion, it is sad that they have this compulsion. No translation is "perfect"; in fact it's impossible. There are too many differences between the source and destination languages, the differences between the source documents used, and the cultural understanding of the recipients.

 

[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."

I haven’t been able to verify the reference to the Sybilline oracles. The translation I checked used a euphemism that probably meant same gender sex, but nothing in the context suggested it. Book II. The most expilict reference I could find has

• “Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life). Do not arsenokoitēs, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has laboured his wage. Do not oppress a poor man.” The Sibylline Oracle: 2

The Bible and Same Sex Relationships, Part 8: Male-Bedders – the meaning of ‘arsenokoitai’ | FutureChurchNow by Graeme Codrington That agrees with the translation pointed to by Wikipedia, except that that translation seems to see arsenokoitai as same gender sex. If so, there’s certainly nothing in the context to suggest it, so I don’t see how you can say that this passage supports it. Indeed this passage is commonly cited as evidence that arsenokoitai *didn’t* refer to same gender sex.

 

[pescador]

I haven’t been able to verify the reference to the Sybilline oracles. The translation I checked used a euphemism that probably meant same gender sex, but nothing in the context suggested it. Book II. The most expilict reference I could find has

• “Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life). Do not arsenokoitēs, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has laboured his wage. Do not oppress a poor man.” The Sibylline Oracle: 2

The Bible and Same Sex Relationships, Part 8: Male-Bedders – the meaning of ‘arsenokoitai’ | FutureChurchNow by Graeme Codrington That agrees with the translation pointed to by Wikipedia, except that that translation seems to see arsenokoitai as same gender sex. If so, there’s certainly nothing in the context to suggest it, so I don’t see how you can say that this passage supports it. Indeed this passage is commonly cited as evidence that arsenokoitai *didn’t* refer to same gender sex.

Why are you all discussing one word? Isn't a new translation of the Bible worth discussing beyond this?

 

[hedrick]

Why are you all discussing one word? Isn't a new translation of the Bible worth discussing beyond this?

It's because whenever there's a new mainline translation, people try to find things that conservatives will object to.

Until Logos issues it (it's in progress) I won't have a full assessment.

 

[Andrewn]

NRSVue translation "illicit priests" is most unfortunate.

What are "illicit priests"?

1) A new video game.
2) A rock band.
3) Catholic priests who engage in child abuse.
4) Drug dealers.

It's because whenever there's a new mainline translation, people try to find things that conservatives will object to.

Back in 1970's, the RSV was rejected by conservatives perhaps because of the translation of one word "alma" in Isaiah. The conservatives introduced the NASB and NIV that were far worse than the RSV and, in my opinion, resulted in deterioration of conservative theology and teaching.

Meanwhile, the NRSV was introduced rendering the "spirit of God" into "a wind from God" in Gen 1:2 and using inclusive language that made the Psalms, for example, unreadable. The NRSVue seems to continue on the same politically correct trajectory.

In the beginning of the 21st century, conservatives changed 7.67% of the words in the RSV and introduced the ESV. It is good but it came out 20 or 30 years too late. The appetite among conservatives has shifted to watered down Bibles and they now seem to fall in love with the NLT, which is even worse.

 

[pescador]

It's because whenever there's a new mainline translation, people try to find things that conservatives will object to.

Until Logos issues it (it's in progress) I won't have a full assessment.

It's available on biblegateway.com and will be published as a conventional book on August 16. I doubt there will be any changes made by then.

 

[BPPLEE]

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, beastiality. Yet this passage is universally held to be about a same-sex union of some kind.

Beware Liberal NRSVue Bible Translation Update

 

[pescador]

Beware Liberal NRSVue Bible Translation Update

juicyecumenism.com is certainly an unbiased authority on Scripture? Seriously? How about a valid, neutral source? One can find propaganda anywhere without looking too hard!

 

[BPPLEE]

juicyecumenism.com is certainly an unbiased authority on Scripture? Seriously? How about a valid, neutral source? One can find propaganda anywhere without looking too hard!

Okay After 30 years, the NRSV gets an update: Here’s what that means – Baptist News Global

 

[pescador]

Okay After 30 years, the NRSV gets an update: Here’s what that means – Baptist News Global

That is a far better, more balanced review. Thanks!

 

[Gregorikos]

Why are you all discussing one word? Isn't a new translation of the Bible worth discussing beyond this?

Because that word is used in both of the New Testament verses I cited in post #1, and the translation of that word is the subject of the thread.

 

[Gregorikos]

It's because whenever there's a new mainline translation, people try to find things that conservatives will object to.

Until Logos issues it (it's in progress) I won't have a full assessment.

It's funny you would think that's my motive, considering that I've been a daily NRSV reader for years, greatly anticipated this update, bought a copy of the NRSVue the day it came out, and have read it daily ever since. Apparently that's quite a lot more than you can say. I didn't even think to check 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 until someone else brought it to my attention.

 

[hedrick]

It's funny you would think that's my motive, considering that I've been a daily NRSV reader for years, greatly anticipated this update, bought a copy of the NRSVue the day it came out, and have read it daily ever since. Apparently that's quite a lot more than you can say. I didn't even think to check 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 until someone else brought it to my attention.

I have a copy in their cheesy interactive app. But I normally use Logos, so I won’t make serious use until that is out.

 

[pescador]

Because that word is used in both of the New Testament verses I cited in post #1, and the translation of that word is the subject of the thread.

Unfortunately. Don't you think that a new revision of a translation has more to offer in discussion than how a single word is translated?

 

[hedrick]

It's funny you would think that's my motive, considering that I've been a daily NRSV reader for years, greatly anticipated this update, bought a copy of the NRSVue the day it came out, and have read it daily ever since. Apparently that's quite a lot more than you can say. I didn't even think to check 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 until someone else brought it to my attention.

So the comment doesn't apply to you. But if you do a web search for "NRSVue" you'll see just how much its treatment of those words shows up in postings.

 

[Gregorikos]

Unfortunately. Don't you think that a new revision of a translation has more to offer in discussion than how a single word is translated?

I do. And it's still my go-to translation, despite this unfortunate issue. I think overall the NRSVue is an improvement over the 1989 edition.

 

[hedrick]

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.

I don’t speak Hebrew, so I’m not the ideal person to do this, but I tried to check out 1 King 14:23.

Hagedorn, in his commentary on 1 Kings (published 2005) says
“The “sanctified ones” (NRSV “temple prostitutes”) are often connected with cultic prostitution, but there are no signs of sexual acts committed at cultic places in Israel. Rather one should think of the segregation of certain people for a deity; this would contradict the common thought of a life fulfilled by producing offspring. It is currently impossible to determine the character of the group any further; in any case, the custom of cult prostitution at a sanctuary is not attested—in contrast to normal prostitution, which was practiced in Israel.”

Here’s what the Anchor Bible commentary says:
“There were even male prostitutes in the land. This translation of Heb qādēš, lit., “sacred, consecrated person,” is based on the contextual understanding of its use in Deut 23:18–19, where prostitution by both sexes is prohibited. The four references to qādēš/qĕdēšîm in Kings (1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; 2 Kgs 23:7) offer no insight into the cultic role of these “consecrated” persons, and just what was found abhorrent in their behavior. They were banned by Asa (15:12) and rounded up one last time by Jehoshaphat (22:47); cf., too, the note that there were “houses of sacred males” in the Temple precinct, likely introduced during the reign of Manasseh (2 Kgs 23:7). The almost universal understanding that the term refers to cult personnel who engaged in sexual acts (undertaken out of oath or obligation) has not stood up to the scrutiny of scholarly investigation, which concludes that there is no evidence for ritual prostitution (i.e., sexual intercourse performed within the context of a fertility cult) in Israel, Canaan, or any other area of the ancient Near East; rather the references seem to be speaking about licentious behavior and debauchery (see Gruber 1983; Frymer-Kensky 1992, 199–202; van der Toorn 1992b; Tigay 1996, 480–81, 540–41; Bird 1997).”

So while it’s not entirely clear what those priests did, they probably were not cultic prostitutes. Hence the translation “illicit priests”. In my opinion "illicit" is not a word that people use normally, so I think the translation is clunky, but probably OK in terms of meaning. They're priest who are disapproved, but more specific info isn't clear.

It would be extremely odd for this to be an ideological issue with NRSV translators. No liberal that I’m aware of would support cultic prostitution, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

It appears that this is simply updated scholarship.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

This argument is substantially unsupportable, because if we look at the Canon Law of the Early Church, we see Arsenokoetia defined clearly as referring to certain unnatural sexual acts, and married couples were penanced for these even more severely than homosexuals. See the canons of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great and St. John the Faster.

It is contextually obvious St. Paul is talking about homosexuality, which is also unambiguously forbidden in the Old Testament, so this is not a new thing, and this is how the early church interpreted it.

Ancient Rome on the other hand was very tolerant of homosexuality, so the Church was not winning any friends by opposing it.