In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27?sfns=mo
- How many of our readers were aware of what the text says when properly translated?
- What other parts of of the Bible have surprised you when you read better translations?
- What implications does this have for us today?
- What do you think.
Image is from Wikimedia Commons. Illustration is of translation —literal vs intentional.
Quote is attributed to the original essay it comes from.
In concept this is old news to those of us who have been reading Luther’s translation, but much of the detail in the article is new to me. Presumably it was the Luther translation as to which JS remarked, approximately, that the German translation was better than the KJV he knew. But at least Leviticus 20:13 was not corrected in the unfinished JST. I guess it wasn’t really an issue of the same significance in antebellum America as it had been in the ancient [Greek] world.
It has been clear to many for quite some time, that the church’s current position on homosexual relations between monogamously committed, married homosexuals is not legitimately based on the Bible, but must have its foundation (solid or not) elsewhere. Proof texting to a poor or uncertain translation does not seem to be a good way of determining the Lord’s will for anyone — on this or any other subject.
I’m glad you posted this. I read the following piece a little while ago – perhaps you saw it too?
View at Medium.com
It’s bothered me for a long time that our biases and discrimination on LGBTQ+ issues have been so culturally engrained when there is in fact so little said on the subject in the Bible to start with and then translation makes a huge difference too. The LDS church and other religions continue instill huge harm.
Interesting. I pulled up Biblehub and compared their different English translations, and none of them rendered this verse as referring to a young male. Many translated the Hebrew zakar as “male” (no specific age or other qualifier). Since biblehub uses Strong’s concordance, I checked to see other uses, and there were some places (like Lev. 12:2) where the context clearly implies male child, and the English translations used some variation of male child. Of course, I recognize that this is going back to Hebrew and not Greek, and that may change how one translates the passage.
I guess I would be curious where the German translators chose to interpret this as young boy in these verses and not male (generic)?
But doesn’t the problem that you’re pointing out cut both ways? I mean, if all translations are subject to the discretion and biases of the translator, aren’t we just as likely to find some newer (and possibly unintentional) translations in favor of whatever the cause de jour is, in this case homosexuality? MrShorty’s perusal of BibleHub suggests the issue isn’t as cut and dry as laid out in, say, Di’s linked article. So are we all just interpreting the Bible to say what we want it to say?
jimbob’s comment reminded me of the account of the Ethiopian eunuch and Phillip — where the Ethiopian explained that he could not understand scripture unless someone helped him understand it. We are fond of saying that this is a reason having living prophets and apostles is so valuable and necessary — to help us accurately and authoritatively interpret scripture. The problem is, how do we know when prophets and apostles are giving us “God’s interpretation” of scripture, and when is their interpretation likewise influenced by cultural and social influences.
I don’t want to get distracted by the way this plays into presentism and other issues, but rather hope we can discuss other translation issues and surprises.
Thanks.
https://simplicable.com/new/presentism
Reading today’s norms into yesterday’s scriptures and peoples. I think it is very possible to over read the point by imposing the current popular view of the week.
We do know that the KJV is deeply flawed as translations go, yet it’s the preference of our Church for a few main reasons: 1) because the JST was based on it (and it’s what Joseph Smith read), 2) because the Ludlow & McConkie footnotes were all based on the KJV, 3) because the BOM includes KJV cut / pastes, and 4) because it sounds more “biblical” in using “thee” and “thou” and “gavest” and so forth. That last one is a weak sauce argument, but I swear it’s just right there under the surface. We have Gen Conf talks lauding the use of “thee” without regard for what it actually means in the context of the day. Mormons are not great bible scholars, perhaps least of all some of our most vocal top leaders.
But maybe that goes to the heart of what the problem is with scriptural scholarship and translation. So let’s say you get back to the earliest and best translation. It was still not written by God. It was written by a *possibly* inspired human. If so, can’t an even-more inspired modern person do one better? Mormons don’t believe in sola scriptura for good reason. The scriptures are often full of crap. The inspiration brought in by the reader is an essential characteristic to making them valuable.
But we don’t seem to take either approach seriously. We instead seem to want it both ways, making us the worst type of proof texters. When the scriptures don’t say what we want, we pretend they do rather than just pointing out that they are a fallible guide like everything else. Protip: they often fail to say what we want them to say.
We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly, but we prefer the Bible as translated incorrectly in the KJV. Because some things that are true are not useful, or even downright dangerous. Like accurate and intelligible Bible translations.
The King James Version is also copyright free. It is the reason that so many quotes in sermons are converted to KJV quotes when the sermons are published.
Even the NET Bible has been moving away from free and easy citation. From the Wiki “The NET Bible’s approach towards copyright comprises a full copyright license[1][3] which is explained in its “Ministry First” statement,[4] both of which emphasize its openness and free availability. The publishers claim that “after 10 years, the NET Bible is still the only major modern translation that can be downloaded free in its entirety and used seamlessly in presentations and documents.”[4] However, as of October 2010, the NET Bible’s copyright statement is over 1500 words long, and contains different conditions for generic copyright, diglots and bible quotations in multiple formats, including commercial and non-commercial publications”
Quoting from a version other than the KJV can be a nightmare of licensing and payment requirements.
I see that you want to stay away from presentism discussions, but I’m going to persist at least one time . . .
Yes there are poor translations and yes there have been occasions where a better translation is enlightening, but more often than not when I look through several good and better translations and then go back to (usually) KJV, I find the same message was there all along. More often than I find a poor translation, it feels like a failing is in approaching the scriptures with a predetermined answer or reading, especially to make a point in a talk or lesson. We tend to find what we’re looking for. When I take a step back, trying to read without preconceived ideas whether from other people’s presentations or from my prior reading, I often find the new and better message in even the older translations.
There’s a certain kind of validation when almost the same phenomenon occurs with the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants, where there is supposed to be no translation issue. Despite the ‘original’ being in English, I often find those scriptures speaking to a different point than the one for which they are frequently quoted.
With more time I would come up with examples, but not today . . .
Which is why the new versions and translations from Deseret Book are so exciting. That means that they can be quoted in conference without getting advance permission or paying licensing fees.
I’m very hopeful about them. Now, we just need a few more books.
I want to refer to the translation issue I personally find most earth-shaking, that of the Hebrew for young woman to the Greek for virgin. It’s pretty clear how that would alter Christian perspectives on the birth of Jesus. I’m referring to Bart Ehrman’s blog only where he compares the Jesus-is-deity perspective of Luke with Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus’s birth as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.
The blog post is here: https://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-jesus-born-of-a-virgin-in-matthew-and-luke/
So, that may not be presentism in the present, but it does appear to be presentism at the time Matthew was written. It also seems like rhetorical support for a political agenda. I think Ehrman also says that the idea of Jesus as the Messiah was roundly rejected by the Jews because the Messiah would come in power and lay waste to the enemies of God’s chosen people, so the intent of Matthew was perhaps not realized.
Angela, don’t we now know that the JST, instead of being based on the KJV, was largely based on Adam Clarke’s bible commentary?
Link to the BYU article on Clarke’s commentary: http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296
We have to keep the KJV (which I am not a fan of, I prefer current verbiage) because the BoM was written to be intertexual with the KJV. Call it copy and paste or whatever.
One of the biggest drawbacks of the BoM is that we don’t have the original source to lookup the original language that a word or phrase is translated from. The work around for this is we can go to the KJV and look up that term and (generally) we can get a deeper picture.
Also, I personally believe that when the BoM does an exact copy of the bible, I don’t believe that it means that the KJV was correct, I believe it means that you can go to those passages that the BoM is quoting from, and use a newer translation. Example, Sermon on the Mount or Isaiah. Because the text is almost 100%, I can go to the ESV or NRSV and get an updated version of the passages.
christiankimball — well said.
Angela C — we need to do something about proof texting. Boyd K. Packer was the last general authority to really take avoiding proof texting to heart, and then he died not that long after he gave a talk where he brought up that he had changed a talk based on being told his quote was a proof text. He never got to develop that point further.
“What other parts of of the Bible have surprised you when you read better translations?”
I found very interesting Joseph Smith’s commendation of the bible in German, where the word “create” is more closely aligned with English “to form” from substance that already exists, like a potter that take clay and makes something of it. The current English meaning of “create” seems to mean “ex nihilo”, from nothing; poof, magic, here is Earth and the universe when a moment ago there was neither, and no substance.
That more clearly establishes what the Bible almost says, that at the beginning, the Earth was already here, but “null” or “void” without life or light. The substance existed and the story must start somewhere on what is otherwise a continuum with neither beginning nor end. The story begins at its beginning but not necessarily was it also the earth’s beginning.
Hmm, I see that automoderation (censorship) has been placed on me. Took rather longer than I expected. I’m reminded of James Damore’s epistle at Google.
Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
I wish you’d just ban me rather than deciding what of my writing readers can safely see. Several here would have done that long ago. Protect them from unapproved thoughts you must. It is difficult for me to not participate in the interesting topics here.
Michael 2 — I haven’t placed you on auto moderation, just take a deep breath.
On the topic at hand, yes the translation is very interesting. I also have a Strong’s Concordance and visit Biblehub (and quote from it) to get a variety of interpretations of scriptures.
In high school I and a buddy went hiking in the mountains following a well-worn path. We came to the top of a high cliff with no obvious way down. We retraced our steps and thus discovered why the path was well worn.
It would have been nice to have some sort of warning; “this path is not useful”. It wasn’t harmful, just not useful.
Truthfully, we are all sinful. Some twist God’s Word to fit what they want for themselves in order to rid feelings of guilt. We see the forbidden fruit, and begin to reason in our minds how we may attain it. Is anyone interested in truth? Truth, real truth sometimes HURTS. Since Adam & Eve first sinned in the garden, we have had a sinful nature which is in opposition to God, if we are being truthful with ourselves we realize this. God knows our motives. The Bible must be viewed as a WHOLE, not picking apart and pulling a verse here & there trying to get it to say what we want it to. That’s the stuff cults are made of. There are other places which talk about this subject, if someone is truly serious they will SEARCH the scriptures, ALL of them which pertain to a given subject. We’re in trouble and headed down a slippery slope, when we use one verse and try twisting the verse to give it the meaning we want. 2 Timothy 4:3 says there will come a time when people will do just this…twist the truth to fit what their itching ears want to hear. Wake up! Romans 1:27-32 is another place where this subject of man with man & women with women is spoken of. Also, go back to the garden in Genesis, how did God create us? Certainly not as Adam and Steve? There really is so much when one begins to dig, and prayerfully consider God’s Holy Word. We are all sinful and desire our own sin more than we desire obedience to God. We must humble ourselves before Him and diligently seek His truth. Those who choose to crucify the flesh, and endure with obedience to God will receive a crown of life. The Bible must be studied as a whole, with much prayer. There is so much untruth in the world today, God’s word offers us the only absolute Truth. Blessings☺️
Fascinating find. Thought I would add a find of mine.
2 Peter 2:4 – For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Greek – ei gar ho theos aggelon hamartesanton ouk epheisato alla seirais zophou tartarosas paredokan eis krisin teteremenous
Tartarus, which in Greek mythology is a deep abyss, so deep it would take an anvil nine days to fall from earth to there, where the Titans and other prisoners were held and tortured, is translated as hell. In other places in the NT, hell is translated from the Greek hade or from the Hebrew Gehenna. Yet one more of many instances of Hellenism in the Bible.
Languages and translations are so fascinating to me. I only have moderate fluency in a couple besides English, but every once in a while I like to look up Youtube videos of Disney musical pieces in foreign languages in which the native speaker has put subtitles at the bottom with direct translations back to English. It’s fascinating how they have to draw a balance between original meaning and still making the piece artistic and lyrical for foreigners. Kind of make you wonder how much of an effort was made to make the KJV more poetic, and at what cost.
It’s no less fascinating with scripture. Although I don’t follow it as actively, I try to keep an ear to the ground as to what scholars in and out of the Church have to say. Although I’m sure there is some bias involved, I feel like for every new or improved translation that seems to go against LDS doctrine, there are at least one or two that seem to confirm it, more or less compelling me just to be satisfied to get what I can out of the translation we have. I was recently surprised to learn that “giants” in the Old Testament” can be translated to mean “giants of men” or “people of prominence.” I’ll admit that translation seems to rob a few feelings of adventure from me.
I can say I’ve also gained a greater testimony of “as far as it is translated correctly” just from seeing all the mistakes made in the Book of Mormon translation from English to my mission language. “Wilderness” got translated into “desert,” making the Americas appear a vast wasteland, but there were also just one or two minor doctrinal changes as well. I believe they have a new translation since I served seventeen years ago.
Malinda, I hope and pray that neither you nor one of your ancestors ten generations back was conceived illegitimately. If so, you shouldn’t be going to church at all:
Deuteronomy 23:2 – No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord
Or are you twisting that passage in order to rid feelings of possible guilt that you or an ancestor in the past 200 years was conceived illegitimately? You should do your genealogy, there could be some real truth that could really, really hurt. The Bible really should be viewed as a whole. We should have complete trust that all oral traditions of ancient Israelites made their way to scribes, many of whom wrote down these oral traditions hundreds of years after they first originated, with exactness of how they first appeared in their original form. We should have complete trust that the people who were present at Jesus’s sermons remembered every word exactly or that there were literate people present at those sermons who had with them writing instruments (wax tablets, papyurs, ink, etc.) during these sermons and were able to write the words down exactly as he said them and that these original attendees transmitted these words with exactness to others until decades later when the Four Gospels were actually compiled and constructed. We should also have complete trust that all of Jesus’s relevant sayings, all the relevant words of ancient Hebrew prophets, and all the words of the early apostles were gathered and compiled by an ecumenical council in the 5th century into a single book now called the Bible.
“Also, go back to the garden in Genesis, how did God create us?”
Well the woman was created from the rib of Adam. It is just logical.
As to Stephen R. Marsh’s assertion that the German translation of Lev. 20:13 uses the phrase, “young boy” instead of “man.” I don’t know which translation he is referring to, but it is NOT the Luther translation, as some of the comments seem to assume. The Luther translation says, „Wenn jemand bei einem Manne liegt wie bei einer Frau, so haben sie getan, was ein Greuel ist, und sollen beide des Todes sterben; Blutschuld lastet auf ihnen.“ “Manne” is the old-fashioned Dative case version of “Mann,” the German Word for man.
The Church no longer uses the Luther bible, even though JS praised it. I do not know offhand which version is used.
As to Angela C’s point about “thee” and “thou.” Those words originally conveyed familiarity and closeness in English, I.e. a God we could approach as a loving, close father without fear. BKP tried to re-interpret those words as conveying respect, and was generally successful, in that most Church members followed his cue. But he was factually wrong. In any event, in German, Church member still use “du” in their prayers, the second person singular pronoun that one uses with familiar friends, rather than the respectful version, “sie.” Were we to use the respectful 2nd person pronoun in KJV-era English, it would be “ye.”
The point about “arsenokoitai” was quite helpful. Thanks!
Amen to Eli’s comment on problematic translations of the BOM into different languages!
The first Chinese translation of the BOM was …. interesting. It was to be the joint effort of two men, but they disagreed greatly about how to approach translation: as literally as possible, even though the end product would be stilted; or a freer translation that would better convey the spirit of the BOM. The literalist took matters into his own hands, mailed his version to Salt Lake, and said that it had been approved (it hadn’t). Salt Lake took his word and published his version, and missionaries were burdened for more than 40 years with a translation that Chinese people on Taiwan had great trouble understanding.
A re-translation was submitted in 1998, but Chia Chu-ren, a Canadian-Chinese who was born in Mainland China, and who served as Area Authority for PRC members, objected to it, pointing out that the Re-translation was still in a version of written Chinese that most people in the PRC would have trouble understanding. So it was re-done, and the revised version of the revised version finally was published in 2008. It is much more understandable, and much closer to the Mainland China version of Mandarin. (Mandarin in Taiwan and PRC mutually intelligible, but different. a little greater than the difference between British and American English.)
Those who like sausage should not watch how it is made. The same principle applies to reading works in translation!
I suspect that the same principle applies to the books we now have in the Bible. How did they wind up being included, and some written testaments left out? Martin Luther disliked the Book of James so much, because it emphasized works so much, that he almost left it out of his translation of the Bible. He called it, “The Epistle of Straw.”
I think the Church realizes these problem, otherwise why has it been systematically re-translating the original translations of the BOM, for many years?
Taiwan Missionary, Apparently there are assertions of multiple Luther translations:
“3 Mose 20:13 Luther Bibel 1545 (LUTH1545)
13 Wenn jemand beim Knaben schläft wie beim Weibe, die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen.”
In this allegedly 1545 version, it is not Manne, but is Knaben. I think Luther’s translation of the Pentatuach appeared in 1523, the complete Bible translation was published in 1534. I have not yet found those versions on line. There were also a number of changes thereafter, still in the 16th century and later — all called the Luther translation. In any event,
Luther “never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious.
He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html
What Luther version you are quoting?
Yes, Luther once called the book of James an “epistle of straw”. But he not only included it in the canon, but came around to an interpretation that is not far off from the common reading — pretty much abandoning his “straw” epithet:
“We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. ‘Without works’ is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. [LW 34: 175-176]. ”
I think there is an awful lot I don’t know about Luther, but I begin to think he can be quoted in support of just about anything — rather like Brigham Young!
I think Taiwan Missionary was quoting the 1984 “Luther” version. In that regard, it is interesting to note that it was an American company that funded the creation of a 1983 version which was allegedly the first time “homosexual” appeared in a German Bible. See the article Stephen cited. Whatever happened with the alleged Luther version in the 1980s was clearly unknown to both Luther and JS. Good luck to all untangling this mess. I’m not convinced Luther had Leviticus right, but I am convinced that proof-texting (and keeping what one arbitrarily or culturally still likes out of OT “abomination” appellations and discarding those that one arbitrarily or culturally doesn’t like) is not any reliable guide to God’s will for any particular person. If needed, best to look for guidance elsewhere I think.
JR:
Thanks for the info you presented! Yes, Knaben, referring to boys, is certainly different than Manne, and I am actually relieved by your update, because it lends support to Marsh’s opinion post’s assertion, which is more in line with my own personal views.
The version of the Luther Bible I cited is from a hardcopy edition I purchased while on my mission in Taiwan, of all places, in 1978, at the Chinese School Union Bookstore. It was copyrighted in 1972 by the Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, and published by the Bibelstiftung Stuttgart, and the introduction says that the last revisions to the Luther NT were made in 1956, and the Last OT revisions were finished in 1964! So evidently, as your comment suggested, what is commonly called the Luther Bible has multiple versions, and is a work in progress, that was periodically revised.
As to being able to quote Luther for just about anything: point well taken. A great man who was also, by today’s standards, a terrible anti-Semite.
>>Quoting from a version other than the KJV can be a nightmare of licensing and payment requirements.<<
And somewhere, Jesus is tipping over tables and throwing chairs…
My understanding is that the “Fair Use” principle would protect anyone quoting the Bible, including in General Conference.
It’s true that copyright can prevent the church or anyone else from republishing a protected translation of the Bible with notes and annotations, but there is an enormous divide between quoting in a sermon and republishing the whole book. Somewhere in that area you can cross the line between “fair use” and copyright infringement. But quoting a few verses from the Bible in a sermon or magazine article is so clearly in the fair use zone, that if anyone tried to sue for infringement they would just rack up legal fees.
caveat: I’m not a lawyer. If you are, feel free to educate me.
Aside from the that, I’m enjoying the translation discussion, but I have little to add.
Michael 2. Regardless of whether the German Bible supports creation as an “organization” or not, it is quite clear that the author of Hebrews believed in a creation “ex nihilo.” By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. – Hebrews 11:3.
I comment on the biblical language concerning homosexuality in the comments to this old blog post:
https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/06/06/homosexuality-and-the-bible/
Thanks Kevin!
>
Instead of proof texting and delving into individual scriptural passages, and their translations, I think it is more important to catch the spirit of the NT and Christ’s teachings. That tells me that Church treatment of LGBTQ+ is not Christlike. Quoting Lev from the OT is ridiculous.
Taiwan Missionary … in German-speaking countries the official bible in the Church – for at least the last 4o years, if not longer – has been the Einheitsübersetzung, the „unified translation,“ which is the also the official version of the Catholic church. Why? I don‘t know.
It‘s ironic that German scripture and prayer language use the familiar „Du“ for referring to God as you, but Church members and missionaries use the formal „Sie“ with each other.
I don‘t think it‘s still the case, but back when I was a Germany Missionary, we were not allowed to use the informal „du“ at all, not even with children or animals, which made missionaries even weirder to the general population than we already were. This was one of several inane rules I did not follow on my mission and is probably the reason I baptized so few people, since missionary work in Germany was otherwise wildly successful.
Apologized for the tangent there, I would now like to turn the time back over to more germane commenters.
Eugene “This was one of several inane rules I did not follow on my mission and is probably the reason I baptized so few people, since missionary work in Germany was otherwise wildly successful.”
Will readers on this blog know this is a sarcastic comment contrary to fact? Good for you for speaking German instead of germanic missionese. I did the same.
Thank you, Eugene!
Do you know how the Einheitsübersetzung renders Leviticus 20:13. It would be nice if it were Knaben rather than Manne, which is one of the issues of the original OP..