Thinking Out Loud with Alan Shlemon - The Claim about Homosexuality in the Film 1946 Is Irrelevant

Episode Date: May 16, 2021

An upcoming film claims that Christian opposition to homosexuality is based on a 1946 mistranslation of a Greek word in the RSV Bible. Alan explains why their argument doesn’t change the Christian understanding of sexuality.

An upcoming new film claims the translators of the RSV Bible wrongly inserted the word homosexuals in the New Testament back in 1946. I want to talk about the film and its claim on this May 2021 episode of my podcast, Thinking Out Loud with Alan Schliemann. An upcoming documentary film claims the RSV translators of the Bible wrongly inserted the word homosexuals in a New Testament passage back in 1946. Now, the film is appropriately titled 1946, The Mistranslation That Shifted a Culture. And it basically tells a tale of how a 21-year-old seminary student wrote a letter to the translation team to alert them of this alleged error. Now, although the RSV translators ended up changing the translation in 1971, it was, according to the film, apparently too late.

And the film claims that the subsequent English translations, like the NIV or ESV or whatever, have basically followed the RSV's lead and have also wrongly used the word homosexuals, which they also claim has led to decades of mistreatment of the LGBTQ community. Now, the good news is that it's very easy to spot the fallacies and the mistakes that are made in this film. The bad news is that very few people are going to be able to spot them. And, you know, though the film hasn't been released, I have watched the trailers, I've read the film's website, and I've closely followed the news of its development. And so I am admitting that my assessment that I'm about to make here is limited to sort of the

aforementioned information, all right? But I'm also claiming that some of the central claims of the film appear to be evident based on the website and the trailers that are available on the website. So you can just check them out and you can tell me if you think I'm mistaken about this. Now, when the film comes out, I'm happy to make any adjustments based upon what the film actually shows. But my suspicion is that a lot of the claims that I'm able to detect from just the previews and the website and from what I know

about Progate Theology advocates and in particular the people who have been involved in the production of this film, I'm suspecting I'm accurate. But again, I'm willing to concede that maybe I get something wrong. But we'll see when the film comes out. Now, if you watch the trailer of the film and the other videos that are on the website,

you get the sense that this film contains all the ingredients that are necessary to satisfy today's theological conspiracy theorists, much like Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code did when it came out. And so in this film in 1946, basically you have old white men deciding what the Bible says. You got, you know, a scripture that's been adulterated. You know, there's a false theological narrative that's been wrongly imposed on an unsuspecting church population. You have a young seminary student who, in 1959, confronts the authority of an entire Bible

translation team. Thereby, he speaks truth to power. And then finally, you have these, you know, noble and honest researchers who travel to Yale University and scour 90 boxes of notes. to Yale University and scour 90 boxes of notes. And, you know, and they're trying to discover the truth, you know, any kind of clue that might reveal the truth. And after three days of digging, guess what? They find that letter that seminary student wrote. They find it and it's signed by this guy named David S. Well, who is David S, you know? And they just, you know, do some more digging and more investigation. They discover his last name and they find out, oh my gosh, guess what? He's still alive. And they even interview him in the film. Now, all this excitement that's generated by the trailer, I'm going to argue is completely unwarranted because even if the film's claims are true, it doesn't matter one bit. The entire

documentary is a non sequitur, which means nothing follows from the fact that a seminary student called out the RSV translation team. And there are two reasons why. The first reason is that the Greek word that's in question does appropriately condemn homosexual sex. You see, one of the central claims of the film centers around the Greek word arsenokoitai, which is found in 1 Corinthians 6.9. Now, don't be distracted by the film's big hubbub about a 21-year-old seminary student's corrective that he wrote 70, I'm sorry, 62 years ago. Okay. Now, whether his rebuke was right or wrong is completely irrelevant. What matters is what does today's best scholarship say about that Greek word? Now, pro-gay theology advocates like the the ones who created this film, love to point out that Paul invents a new Greek word, this Greek word arsenokoitai,

which is found in 1 Corinthians 6.9. And since there are no instances of that word being used in Greek literature elsewhere, they often will try to call into question any translation that implicates homosexuals. translation that implicates homosexuals. Now, there are at least two reasons why translators have chosen the word homosexuals, or they've sometimes chosen other phrases that basically means the same thing. But there's at least two reasons why translators have chosen this idea for the English rendering, okay? So here's the first reason. idea for the English rendering, okay? So here's the first reason. The word arsenokoitai is formed by combining two Greek words, okay? The first Greek word is arsen, which means male, and the second Greek word is koite, which means lying with, like to bed with, okay? So arsenokoitai

literally means, if you just take those two component words and slap together, which is what Paul did, they literally mean men who lie with a male. So in one sense there, it's not surprising that the most prominent English translation today, the NIV, which I'm talking about the 2011 version of the NIV or 2011 revision, 2011 version of the NIV, or 2011 revision, basically translates this Greek word as, quote, men who have sex with men, end quote. Okay, so that's the NIV translation, men who have sex with men. And since such behavior, that is men who have sex with men, is consistent with what male homosexuals do, it's not a stretch to see why many translation teams,

and not just the 1946 RSV translation team, have chose to render the Greek word as homosexuals, okay? Now, personally, I don't care for the translation homosexuals. I'd much prefer a more sort of literal rendering, which is men who lie with a male, or as the NIV has put it,

men who have sex with men. I think that's a much better way to kind of characterize the translation there. But whatever, okay? Now, it's also worth noting that ancient Jews used the Hebrew phrase mishkaf zakor, or zakar, which means lying with a male, describe male to male sexual contact. In other words, having a Jew invent the Greek word or the Greek term arsenokoitai follows the same pattern of condemning homosexual behavior by referring to the euphemism men who lie with a male, right? euphemism, men who lie with a male, right? So all this being said, this is one reason why I think the translation teams have chosen homosexuals to represent this Greek word arsenokoitai, okay? But there's a second reason that I think solidifies this translation.

Remember, the word arsenokoitai comes from two Greek words, arsen and koite, which appear together in this Greek word arsenokoitai. But they also appear together in two Greek Old Testament verses. Now, remember, the Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew, but the Apostle Paul had available to him what was called the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. And there are two verses in the Greek Old Testament, which Paul had available to him, which have these component words, arson and coite, together. And these two verses are Leviticus 18.22 and Leviticus 20.13, which are the very two verses

in the Mosaic law that condemn homosexual behavior. You know, so Leviticus 18.22 simply says, you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination. And Leviticus 20.13 is almost identical in that. So in other words, listen carefully to this. Paul invents a new Greek word that literally means men who lie with a male. And the two component words that are used to create this new word are found together in the two mosaic prohibitions of homosexuality in the Old Testament. So that's why modern translation teams, composed by the way of expert scholars, not just 21-year-old seminary students, have rendered the Greek word as homosexuals in the case of the NASB or the ESV. In the case of the NIV or the CSB, they've

translated it as men who have sex with men. In the case of the NLT or the HCSB, they've translated it as practice homosexuality. Or in the case of the NRSV, they've translated as sodomites. It's also why the film's claim about a seminary student's corrective letter doesn't matter. Maybe the RSV translators were right. Maybe they were wrong. Who cares? What matters, as I said before,

is what does today's best scholarship reveal about the meaning of arsenikoitai. We know that the Greek word is referencing the sexual behavior of homosexuals. But this, however, is not the only reason why I believe the film's claim is irrelevant. The second reason that the film's claim is irrelevant is that there's many other passages in scripture that corroborate the Bible's prohibition of homosexual sex. In other words, even if it were true that the first Corinthians passage was poorly translated, which I'm not

saying it was, it still wouldn't mean that homosexual sex was biblically permitted, which is what the filmmakers want you to eventually believe. Okay. And in fact, there are several passages in scripture that either rule out homosexual sex or they condemn it specifically. So for example, let me go to the former point. In Matthew 19, 4 through 6, Jesus basically teaches that marriage is about one man with one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime. Now that alone rules out homosexual sex since he's quoting the Genesis account of creation, which presupposes a male-female arrangement of sex and marriage. Furthermore, Jesus specifically condemns porneia, which is

the Greek word that's translated sexual immorality, in Mark 7 21, which is the Greek word that's translated sexual immorality, in Mark 7, 21, which is a Greek word that his Jewish listeners would have understood to mean the prohibited sexual behaviors of Leviticus, and one of which was, of course, homosexual sex. Now, not only is homosexual sex ruled out by the Bible's teaching on sex and marriage, out by the Bible's teaching on sex and marriage, but there are also multiple passages that specifically prohibit homosexual sex. I've already mentioned two of them, Leviticus 18.22 and Leviticus 20.13, but also we have New Testament passages like Romans 1.26-27. So in other words, the Bible indirectly rules out homosexual sex by virtue of

its teaching on sex and marriage, and it directly prohibits homosexual sex by citing it as a sin. Okay. This is why I'm saying the film is a non sequitur. It doesn't matter what a seminary student offered the RSV translation team, okay, as a corrective, right? The translators of the RSV could have been correct or incorrect. Either way, we can look at the Greek text, as by the way, legions of scholars since 1946 have, and determine the correct meaning of the word arsenikoite. But as I've said, even if it was mistakenly translated, it wouldn't have any impact on the Bible's teaching on homosexual sex since the Mosaic Law, since the Apostle Paul, and since even Jesus himself taught that homosexual sex is a prohibited behavior.

So, despite Scripture's clear teaching, I'm afraid that many people will still be misled by this film. And, you know, what's ironic about it is that the trailer quotes the 21-year-old seminary student who warns the RSV translators. Listen to what he says. Quote, misinformed and misguided people may use the RSV translation of 1 Corinthians 6, 9-10 as a sacred weapon. End quote. Right? Now, of course, the real problem is that this film will misguide and misinform people by casting doubt on the univocal voice of Scripture and 2,000 years of church teaching on the matters of sex, marriage, and homosexuality.

You know, scripture warned us that a day will come when those who profess the name of Christ will reject the teaching of Christ, you know, and it even explains why they'll make films like 1946. You know, prior to his execution, Paul warned his protege, Timothy, that a time will come when they will not endorse down doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. This is what Paul writes in 2 Timothy 4, 3-4. This is what Paul writes in 2 Timothy 4, 3-4. You see, same-sex attraction is a desire.

The filmmakers are the teachers, and Scripture's teaching on sexuality is the sound doctrine they are unwilling to endure. This film will tickle the ears, will turn away many more from the truth, and perpetuate the myth of progate theology. That's why it's important to inoculate believers against the false claims of this film. And that way, when Christians come across them, they won't be caught off guard. Believers need to know and understand the claims of this film. And by the way, why those claims are wrong before they come across them in conversation. So look, I get it. Nobody wants the Bible, which is God's word, to rebuke their behavior. I mean, I certainly don't.

I'd much prefer that my immoral thoughts and deeds be condoned and not condemned. But when we find our lives at odds with God's will, the solution is not to change his words or their meaning. It's to change our life, no matter how significant the change. In fact, Jesus said that if we want to be his disciples, we have to deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and follow him. This is Matthew 16, 24. You know, the cross represented Jesus giving up his life, and we are called to do the same. No matter what, following Jesus will cost us, but thankfully, Jesus promises it's totally worth it. Well, that's all I have for you today.

If you enjoy my thoughts on these different topics like apologetics and theology or hermeneutics, be sure to rate or review my podcast on iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts on. And thank you for listening. I will talk to you guys next time. Bye.