I don't understand. The old German version translated זכר (male) into young boy and then later in 1983 an American financed a German translation because there weren't enough Christians in Germany (!?). The new translation correctly translates it to male. So that proves that the Americans wanted to influence how Germans think about homosexuals.
If I understood this correctly then this is one of the worst research that I have read on hn.
I don’t follow your argument from having read the article. It says the original version was against sleeping with young boys, not men. And the 1983 version changed it from young boys to homosexuality. The author argues the original word was Greek and the text was to denounce Pederasty, which was a strange Greek practice. He also argues this change in word was deliberately made by as part of a larger anti gay agenda
"Despite what some scholars allege, arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek literature with our modern meaning of homosexual. The best evidence available today indicates that arsenokoitai described shrine prostitutes. That is the learned opinion of Philo, a contemporary of both Jesus and the apostle Paul and one of the most widely read Jewish intellectuals in the first century."
"Because the Jewish view was that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 (Deu 23:17) prohibited shrine prostitution, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with a meaning unfamiliar to most of his readers.
And because arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek text from AD 57 to AD 1450, to refer to two men or two women in committed partnership, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with that meaning, which would have baffled his first century readers."
Regarding the word that the "Latin lexicon from 1483" apparently used to translate the arenokoitai word, the Greek language did have a specific word for that:
"The word pederasty derives from Greek παιδεραστία (paiderastia) "love of boys",[1] a compound derived from παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover"."
So we can be sure that that Latin lexicon is wrong. If Paul wanted to mean "boys lover" he had an existing word for that, and didn't have to use "arsenokoitai" ("those who sleep with men").
I agree with you in that the Literal translations may not be the accurate translation. (E.g. the phrase "to sleep with someone" taken literally means something different in regular use).
But there does appear to be extants after AD 57 as noted in the following link, though they offer little to help in the translation.
"The closest meaning of arsenokoitai over five hundred years of translation was men who took the active role nonprocreative sex. Arsenokoitai did not define what we would call the sexual orientation of a person; it indicated the role played in the sexual act."
He goes on to argue that "homosexual" first appeared in the bible in the RSV version in 1946. This, he argues, changed the intrinsic meaning of arsenokoitai from the act of sleeping with men to a label describing men who sleep with men.
In his view, it was the act, not the person, that God was condemning, and this appeared to be subtly changed in the 1946 RSV version.
Further correspondence was found with the publishers of RSV where one of the authors admitted it as an error:
"The exchange between the young seminarian and Dr. Weigle indeed proves the decision to use the word “homosexuals” was an error. Dr. Weigle even admitted so in one of his letters. He responded that he understood David’s insights and concerns and that there was likely a better word or expression choice than “homosexuals.” "
Sure. I don't dispute that the author of the text in the NT was probably inspired by Leviticus. And both Leviticus and NT use "men" there.
I don't agree that codefreakxff's claim that "the original version was against sleeping with young boys, not men" is correct. Because Greeks had the specific word for that and didn't use it there, but used the word arsenokoitai.
Searching even more, this internet poster even argues that the Paul used that rare word (with "men") because he used the more common for "fornicators":
"Centuries before Paul, the πορν- porn- root referred only to prostitutes & prostitution. But over the centuries, the meaning expanded to include all illicit sexual contact. Paul had already used the word πόρνοι pornoi to mean fornicators. What that meant is that Greek, for all intents and purposes, no longer had a word that specifically referred to having sex for money. That alone was reason to create a new word for it."
That actually sounds strange to me, that at Paul's time there was not a specific word for prostitutes.
The original Hebrew version is also not that original.
The Hebrew Bible we have was written in the time of the 2nd temple we know that some passages were changed as the Dead Sea scrolls have slightly different versions also in Hebrew and we also know that some books that ended in it were likely written in Persian during the Babylonian exile period and then translated back into Hebrew.
The Hebrew bible also omits some Jewish works like the books of the Macabees/Heshmonaim which were likely written in Greek.
While the Hebrew bible has pretty much remained untouched for 2000 years its hard to know exactly how many edits and translation it had prior to that.
It’s also important to note that as it was a work of litterateur the language could’ve have easily changed.
For example a Platonic relationship during the time of Plato was an insult a tongue and cheek jab at the fact that Plato liked to take his students to a cave for some private tutoring; however the use of the term today is drastically different than shtooping young boys.
If you are going to go down that path then you have to ask what is the Bible. I mean, you could say that the "original Bible" is the Code of Hammurabi from 1754 BC and say that the "original Bible" doesn't mention Homosexuality.
But as you say, the Hebrew bible has pretty much remained untouched for 2000 years. We can go back about 400 years earlier if we include the Dead Sea scrolls. While there are some differences, so much is the same that there is no reason to assume that Homosexuality was added in at that point.
I find it hard to believe that זכר meant anything other than male back when the Bible was written. זכר is use when referring to how people were made (Man and Woman were created), זכר is used when telling Noah what animals to bring on the ark (two by two came to Noah, to the ark, male and female), and when talking about what animals to sacrifice.
I agree it's poorly worded. When I read that, I took it to mean there wasn't enough of a market in Germany to justify a new German translation because of the expense of such a translation, so an American company financed it.
I couldn't quickly find the number of Christians in Germany in 1983. According to Wikipedia, Germany as of 2017 was 57% Christian and as of 2018 had a population of ~83 million... If there weren't many Christians there in the 80's, it seems there are plenty there now.
How complicated can a new translation be? Harry Potter was officially translated into Ancient Greek and Latin and was unofficially translated into Esperanto.
You know it doesn't actually matter right? Transgender people / Trans-the-concept doesn't appear in the Bible at all. Not a single word. And yet, Christians still vigorously claim they're "against God" and "immoral".
And why? Because at the end of the day, many Christians (and lots of other people tbh) construct a byzantine mansion of circular reasoning, to justify their shitty bigoted feelings towards LGBT+ people.
I find it hilarious when people assume Biblical translation is some arbitrary discipline than can be easily fudged based on individual, cultural and political biases.
People may choose to interpret it however they like, but we have the original words. Anyone who learns ancient Greek can interpret it for themselves and those will never change.
The consensus for the last 2000 years is that Arsenokotes means homosexual. You can just make up your own categories years and declare the we got it wrong all along. There is not a shred of historical evidence that proves otherwise.
If I understood this correctly then this is one of the worst research that I have read on hn.
https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-arsenokoitai-mea...
"It’s a compound word: “arsen” means man and “koite” or “koitas” or “koitai”—depending on a verb or a noun—means bed."
But there are different interpretations about what that "those who sleep with men" meant:
https://www.gaychristian101.com/what-did-paul-mean-when-he-u...
"Despite what some scholars allege, arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek literature with our modern meaning of homosexual. The best evidence available today indicates that arsenokoitai described shrine prostitutes. That is the learned opinion of Philo, a contemporary of both Jesus and the apostle Paul and one of the most widely read Jewish intellectuals in the first century."
"Because the Jewish view was that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 (Deu 23:17) prohibited shrine prostitution, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with a meaning unfamiliar to most of his readers.
And because arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek text from AD 57 to AD 1450, to refer to two men or two women in committed partnership, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with that meaning, which would have baffled his first century readers."
Regarding the word that the "Latin lexicon from 1483" apparently used to translate the arenokoitai word, the Greek language did have a specific word for that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
"The word pederasty derives from Greek παιδεραστία (paiderastia) "love of boys",[1] a compound derived from παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover"."
So we can be sure that that Latin lexicon is wrong. If Paul wanted to mean "boys lover" he had an existing word for that, and didn't have to use "arsenokoitai" ("those who sleep with men").
But there does appear to be extants after AD 57 as noted in the following link, though they offer little to help in the translation.
http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/1-corinthians-1-timothy-s...
"The closest meaning of arsenokoitai over five hundred years of translation was men who took the active role nonprocreative sex. Arsenokoitai did not define what we would call the sexual orientation of a person; it indicated the role played in the sexual act."
He goes on to argue that "homosexual" first appeared in the bible in the RSV version in 1946. This, he argues, changed the intrinsic meaning of arsenokoitai from the act of sleeping with men to a label describing men who sleep with men.
In his view, it was the act, not the person, that God was condemning, and this appeared to be subtly changed in the 1946 RSV version.
Further correspondence was found with the publishers of RSV where one of the authors admitted it as an error:
http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/forging-a-sacred-weapon-h...
"The exchange between the young seminarian and Dr. Weigle indeed proves the decision to use the word “homosexuals” was an error. Dr. Weigle even admitted so in one of his letters. He responded that he understood David’s insights and concerns and that there was likely a better word or expression choice than “homosexuals.” "
It's an interesting story, if factual.
I don't agree that codefreakxff's claim that "the original version was against sleeping with young boys, not men" is correct. Because Greeks had the specific word for that and didn't use it there, but used the word arsenokoitai.
Searching even more, this internet poster even argues that the Paul used that rare word (with "men") because he used the more common for "fornicators":
https://www.quora.com/How-has-usage-of-the-term-arsenokoitai...
"Centuries before Paul, the πορν- porn- root referred only to prostitutes & prostitution. But over the centuries, the meaning expanded to include all illicit sexual contact. Paul had already used the word πόρνοι pornoi to mean fornicators. What that meant is that Greek, for all intents and purposes, no longer had a word that specifically referred to having sex for money. That alone was reason to create a new word for it."
That actually sounds strange to me, that at Paul's time there was not a specific word for prostitutes.
Cool, just to clarify, the word means 'male', not 'man', and is applied to animals as well as humans.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἄρσην#Ancient_Greek
The Hebrew Bible we have was written in the time of the 2nd temple we know that some passages were changed as the Dead Sea scrolls have slightly different versions also in Hebrew and we also know that some books that ended in it were likely written in Persian during the Babylonian exile period and then translated back into Hebrew.
The Hebrew bible also omits some Jewish works like the books of the Macabees/Heshmonaim which were likely written in Greek.
While the Hebrew bible has pretty much remained untouched for 2000 years its hard to know exactly how many edits and translation it had prior to that.
It’s also important to note that as it was a work of litterateur the language could’ve have easily changed.
For example a Platonic relationship during the time of Plato was an insult a tongue and cheek jab at the fact that Plato liked to take his students to a cave for some private tutoring; however the use of the term today is drastically different than shtooping young boys.
But as you say, the Hebrew bible has pretty much remained untouched for 2000 years. We can go back about 400 years earlier if we include the Dead Sea scrolls. While there are some differences, so much is the same that there is no reason to assume that Homosexuality was added in at that point.
I find it hard to believe that זכר meant anything other than male back when the Bible was written. זכר is use when referring to how people were made (Man and Woman were created), זכר is used when telling Noah what animals to bring on the ark (two by two came to Noah, to the ark, male and female), and when talking about what animals to sacrifice.
I couldn't quickly find the number of Christians in Germany in 1983. According to Wikipedia, Germany as of 2017 was 57% Christian and as of 2018 had a population of ~83 million... If there weren't many Christians there in the 80's, it seems there are plenty there now.
And why? Because at the end of the day, many Christians (and lots of other people tbh) construct a byzantine mansion of circular reasoning, to justify their shitty bigoted feelings towards LGBT+ people.
I would have liked to hear more about this. What are the other 2 passages, what do they say, and how might it have been changed over time?
People may choose to interpret it however they like, but we have the original words. Anyone who learns ancient Greek can interpret it for themselves and those will never change.
The consensus for the last 2000 years is that Arsenokotes means homosexual. You can just make up your own categories years and declare the we got it wrong all along. There is not a shred of historical evidence that proves otherwise.