Suppose Pat, a Christian, believes that a certain group of people (Group X) should be able to do things that haven't previously been allowed, and that it's a matter of human rights for Group X. Suppose that such a belief by Pat would require interpreting the Bible in a different way from how it has been interpreted before, but Pat believes that this new interpretation is legitimate. Furthermore, Pat is passionate about giving Group X what Pat believes are human rights.
Meanwhile, suppose that Lee, also a Christian, does not believe that the new interpretation of the Bible is legitimate, and, although Lee is sorry not to be able to give members of Group X what they want, Lee cannot in conscience go against what Lee believes the Bible says. Lee believes that to do that would not only be wrong, but would also encourage the people in Group X to do things that are actually sin and thus harmful behavior, according to Lee's interpretation of the Bible. Therefore Lee believes that allowing these things would not be doing the people in Group X a kindness.
When Pat and Lee are discussing this issue with each other online, not knowing each other personally apart from the discussion, would it be legitimate for Pat to assume that Lee has malicious reasons or motivations for holding Lee's beliefs? Would it be legitimate for Pat to flatly deem Lee a bigot or prejudiced?
Similarly, would it be legitimate for Lee to assume that Pat has malicious reasons or motivations for holding Pat's beliefs? Would it be legitimate for Lee to flatly deem Pat is immoral or loose in Pat's beliefs?
I contend that none of the above assumptions is legitimate. Without evidence otherwise, both Pat and Lee should be assumed to have arrived at their beliefs sincerely and with good intentions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
105 comments:
Yup (says this Pat).
Not if Lee is knowingly making false statements about what the bible says.
It is OK to say "I interpret the bible to mean X and Y".
It is even OK to say "my interpretation is the only orthodox interpretation". It is arrogant, and it is silly, but it's still OK.
It's OK to have new interpretations, and recycle old ones. Interpretations go in and out of style, and all interpretations were new at one time or another.
But it is not OK to say "the bible says", as if literally, what it most demonstrably does not literally say.
That is a lie.
And a lie that is aimed at disenfranchising certain classes of people fits a pattern of human behavior that is historically correlated with prejudice, bigotry, and even genocide.
Pat should be intolerant of such intolerance and not be convinced when Lee claims that his lies are merely a matter of conscience.
Even if Lee says that his intolerance is a matter of conscience it cannot be tolerated, for whenever it is tolerated it always leads to tyranny and oppression.
Pat should never make the mistake of tolerating intolerance for the sake of showing impartiality in his tolerance.
that didn't take long...
Jodie, if Pat doesn't know Lee except through that discussion, how does Pat know that Lee is "knowingly" making false statements, and that Lee's statements are "aimed at disenfranchising certain classes of people" rather than aimed at obeying Scripture? That is what I am asking about in this blog posting. What kinds of assumptions are fair to make? Do you think that Pat is somehow able to discern that Lee is lying and has malicious intentions merely from what Lee believes? In other words, do you think that Lee's beliefs in themselves are a justification for Pat to assume that Lee is a liar and a hater? In that case, is everyone who believes the same as Lee a liar and a hater?
(Oh, and how do you know that Pat and Lee are male?)
Hmmm,
I wonder if it is a lie to say the Bible says we must forgive our enemies or the bible says to care for the needy?
"how does Pat know that Lee is "knowingly" making false statements, and that Lee's statements are "aimed at disenfranchising certain classes of people" rather than aimed at obeying Scripture?""
By Lee's own words. How can Lee aim to obey Scripture without knowing what scripture says? If Lee knows what Scripture says, Lee is lying. If Lee does not know what Scripture says, Lee is making up Scripture, also a lie.
Only Lee knows which kind of lie Lee is telling but either way, Lee is knowingly lying, and Pat knows it.
The lie has an effect. Perhaps Lee's purpose in perpetuating the lie is not in the effect. In that case Lee is a clumsy liar. Maybe Lee has no purpose at all. Lee could just be a pathological lier.
But a lie still serves a purpose even if the liar is agnostic of that purpose (Lee could merely be someone's "useful idiot").
Pat should only be interested in Lee's actions and in the consequences of Lee's actions.
Pat should not tolerate prejudice and bigotry, nor the lies that enable them.
That's a nice defense, Jim (thanks!), and there's a lot of truth in it, but you are assuming a bit in it, too: that Jodie grumbles WHENEVER someone speaks the truth, and that he pounds on ANYTHING fair and reasonable.
True, we've seen a lot of things that look like that's what Jodie does, but in more likelihood, Jodie really does think that those things he writes against are untrue, unfair, and unreasonable.
But, Jim, you have a point that I was about to make myself, and that is, Jodie, that you seem to think that Lee would be knowingly lying about what the Bible says, because Pat's interpretation of the Bible IS what the Bible says, and Lee knows that. In fact, however, Lee does not know that. You seem to have excluded that possibility; I'm not sure why.
Jodie, you accused me of something similar on another blog, and it caught me completely by surprise, because I did not in fact "know" that the Bible said something other than what I had asserted it said. I have read the Bible cover to cover many, many times, and it sure seems to me that it says what I think it says. So when you say that it does not say that, and that I'm lying about what it says, I can't figure out how you came up with that.
The only explanation that I can think of for this is that, as Jim said, you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is what the Bible evidently says, and other people's interpretations are wrong (and, also, that everyone knows all of this). So you are saying what you earlier said was silly and arrogant: "My interpretation is the only correct interpretation." That's what you imply when you say that people are lying when they say that the Bible says something different from what you say.
So, you could say that I've read the Bible wrong and misinterpreted it. That's a perfectly fair thing for you to say. But to say that I'm lying about what the Bible says is unfair and also untrue. It's based on an unwarranted assumption about me: that I would lie. (That's not unlike the unwarranted assumption that you also made about the genders of Pat and Lee; that assumption might provide another clue that you are capable of making unwarranted assumptions.)
Another thing--Pat may not know that Lee is very much opposed to genocide, so why should Pat show intolerance towards Lee merely because some third parties might make a wrong use of views that are partially similar to Lee's views? Some other third parties might make a wrong use of views that are partially similar to Pat's views, and hold orgies. Should Lee be intolerant to Pat on this account? I say no. No scapegoating!
In the long run, I'd like this blog posting to show people (on both sides of the question, by the way) that demonizing opponents is unhelpful. It's much better to debate ideas than it is to view opponents as evil and therefore dismiss what they say.
Debbie
Small explanation: Jodie posted a comment, Jim replied to it, then I replied to both comments, but in the interim Jodie removed his original comment and re-posted an almost identical version which now appears after Jim's comment.
Debbie,
“It's much better to debate ideas than it is to view opponents as evil and therefore dismiss what they say.”
In spite of my reply to your husband, I agree. But I have been expelled from several Fundamentalist blogs for doing just that. While arguing ideas, I’ve been called all sorts of names, and accused of all sorts of heresies. Fundamentalist and right wing pastors and authors jump almost immediately to the line of defense that to disagree with their ideas and interpretations is to disagree with Scripture and even with God. And then when I still disagree with their ideas, I am accused of being from the devil (Screwtape?!) and usually excommunicated.
Fundamentalists typically confuse what scripture says with what they interpret scripture to say, and by assuming that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God, they confuse their own biased interpretations of Scripture with God’s will. While accusing liberals of allowing subjective interpretations of the Bible, they commit the ultimate act of subjectivism and close their eyes and ears to all other outside evidence.
Now, thinking of your example, when you said on another self described Fundamentalist blog that the bible said something, you were using the language of facts and data. You were saying that one can open the Bible, chapter and verse, and read what it says. If I said “no, it’s not there” that also was not a matter of interpretation, but a matter of facts and data. If on the other hand what you meant to say is that having read and studied the bible, it seems to you in your own personal understanding and interpretation that it means such and such, then that’s what you should have said.
Then it becomes an idea we can discuss, not a lie about a God given truth spelled out in the bible chapter and verse that we must blindly follow even if it hurts and disenfranchises a whole class of people.
As a linguist I assume you know this. I assume you know the difference between what the bible says and your interpretations of the bible’s text. I also assume you know that your vocabulary projects a belief system. But the belief system you are projecting is the same one used to kill off the Native Americans in the 1700s and 1800s, to oppress and kill the Jews around the globe for centuries, to segregate and oppress peoples of African descent, and to deny gays and lesbians the same rights and privileges we give ourselves.
Exactly the same language. Call ‘them’ unrepentant sinners and cursed by God according to the Scriptures, and that justifies doing anything you want to them. Vilify then torture and kill them, burn their babies with white phosphorus, or turn your eyes away when someone else does.
And so it would seem you are doing the very thing you say you are trying not to do by trying not to do it.
As a linguist it should be clear to you that what you need is a new vocabulary.
I had to remove a comment by Jodie because it contained insulting, rude, and factually untrue remarks that he made about someone (not me.)
Jodie, I am not responsible for what people on other blogs do. (And, by the way, has Viola called herself a fundamentalist? If so, then I guess it's OK to say that she is one, but I would not describe her that way. I know that someone on yet another blog said, in a somewhat tongue in cheek way, something like "if holding to basic orthodox beliefs means 'fundamentalist' then I guess I am one", and Viola may have said something along the lines of "me too", but it was not the classic definition of "fundamentalist.") So anyway, don't try to make me guilty of what other people do. If you'll remember, I am talking about people on both sides of the question, so it's not OK to say "I don't have to do the right thing, because the people opposed to me don't do the right thing." (But I believe you were expelled from Viola's blog for disregarding her blog policies, not for your beliefs. Other people with beliefs similar to yours are still allowed on her blog.)
And, as for excommunicated, have you really been excommunicated? So that you are not allowed to take communion in a PCUSA church? Or are you misusing the word?
Now, as for the issue in your comment, I am thinking of the actual words in the Bible, not of my interpretation of them. I am not going to go through the Bible and find all the references to homosexual sex, but here is one of them, I Cor. 9:6: "Don't you know that evil people will not receive God's kingdom? Don't be fooled. Those who commit sexual sins will not receive the kingdom. Neither will those who worship statues of gods or commit adultery. Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts." Now, I am aware that people have recently disputed the meaning of the Greek word for "commit homosexual acts," and that they have also recently disputed the interpretation of it, finding novel ways to think of how people in Bible times might have primitively been thinking, instead of allowing them cultural sophistication. But you cannot say that the Bible does not use this Greek word, and when I say that the Bible says it, I am not lying or speaking of my interpretation, but instead I am talking about what the Bible actually says.
Again, if other people have used beliefs similar (but not the same as) mine to do horrendous, oppressive, murderous things, I am not responsible for that, since I am opposed to it. I cannot be responsible for the acts that people do. What if someone with beliefs similar to yours said, "Let's jail the people who are opposed to homosexual sex?" Should you be responsible for that? It would be quite similar to what you are accusing me of. And don't say it can't happen. Already pastors in places like Sweden have been put in jail merely for preaching evangelical viewpoints on homosexual sex.
Contrary to your assertion, calling someone an unrepentant sinner does not justify doing anything we want to them. You are confusing people like me with other, unreasonable people, who are not numerous. Don't overgeneralize. That borders on hysteria, or at least unjustified fear of everyone who believes differently from you.
By the way, Jodie, you were not accused of being from the devil (Screwtape). You were accused of acting kind of like Screwtape. There's a big difference. Try to read more carefully. It might save you a lot of grief.
Debbie,
If you are going to delete my response to Jim, then I suggest you delete his diatribe against me as well.
It would be only fair.
I can substantiate every claim about him that I made. But I understand that as his wife it might be too painful for you to keep it posted. Fair enough. So delete his as well.
Debbie,
Responding to your post...
Regarding Viola's blog, you are mistaken about why she deletes me. I have satisfied all of her requirements and then some, but she deleted those posts as well.
I'm not making you guilty of what other people do; just of being loyal to them in spite of what they do. It’s kind of admirable in a way. In the proper context it would even be a virtue.
But as in a court of law, if you are hanging with a group of people robbing a liquor store and one of them kills the store manager, you could be convicted of murder just as well.
According to Webster’s it is quite correct to use the term excommunicate in the sense of being excluded from fellowship in a group or community. It is also possible to use it in the original Latin sense which means to remove from communication. Either will do. I think the context is obvious.
I don't honestly remember what comment you made that I said was a lie, but if you find it and I said so, then bring it over. I am sure I can defend my claim.
What translation of the Bible are you using? My NAS Bible has for 1 Cor 9:6 the following:
“Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?”
The language of the text you posted is a very biased culturally targeted version of contemporary English. Not likely that it is a translation at all.
"Already pastors in places like Sweden have been put in jail merely for preaching evangelical viewpoints on homosexual sex."
What exactly is your point? Already Evangelical pastors in places like Uganda are supporting their government's application of the death sentence for the crime of merely being a homosexual.
Maybe the Swedes believe such preaching is like preaching anti-Semitism? You preach against a class of people in one place, and someplace else someone will use it as an excuse to lynch members of that class.
Maybe we could learn a thing or two about ethical preaching from the Swedes.
"calling someone an unrepentant sinner does not justify doing anything we want to them. "
Neither does calling Jews “Jesus killers”.
But we don’t because we learned and have accepted corporate responsibility for the kind of evil that results from preaching such bad theology. I thought that was your point, to not vilify people you don’t agree with.
Jodie, I'd like to see you try to substantiate those claims you made against Jim. No one has been able to so far, because they're not true. But be my guest and give it a try. However, knowing how illogical the things you say are, I bet you will produce something that you will claim to be substantiation, but that is not, but that you will insist is.
If you don't see my point in what I said about the Swedish pastor, then you aren't able to read and/or understand well, and it would be useless for me to state it again. And in fact, as for continuing this whole topic of discussion, it's not fruitful; you appear to have a closed mind. I'm done with discussing this with you, because I can't see any end to it. You appear to be determined to consider those who disagree with you as bad-intentioned people, without knowing them, and merely because of their views. That's really a shame.
Sorry, I got the reference turned around. It was I Cor. 6:9.
So much for fairly debating ideas, huh? Back to ad hominem contempt.
For a minute there you almost had me. I thought maybe you really meant what you said.
Do you want me to put my post to Jim back up? So I can go through it line by line? Or will you just delete his?
I still want to know what translation were you quoting from.
The whole sentence in the NAS version says
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God"
Doesn't read at all like what you quoted. Interesting that covetous, drunkards, and revilers are all on equal footing with homosexuals.
But what is wrong with being effeminate? Lots of effeminate men manage to be heterosexual and we ordain effeminate men all the time.
Does that apply to effeminate women too?
My personal favorite is "revilers". I have met lots of unrepentant revilers in the pulpit. I bet you have too. Somehow they don't seem to get the same bad press that homosexuals get. Neither do the covetous.
Check out the King James:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
No mention of homosexuals at all, and neither of these says anything about male prostitutes, and the word sin is also missing entirely.
Seems like the translators can't agree on what English word for the Greek conveys the proper meaning. But the translation you were using goes further out on a limb and clearly represents a severely biased interpretation. Whose is it?
Debbie, maybe you really think you are logical, but garbage in, garbage out. I am not arguing against your logic, I am arguing against your presuppositions. They are wrong. And because they are wrong, your logic can't help you. The best logic algorithms in the world can't find the right answer if the starting presuppositions are wrong.
In addition your logic is fraught with fallacies and mistakes. I recommend you get a refresher copy of Copi and brush up.
Finally I have to say that I think I understand your point about a pastor in Sweden, however I don't know the details. My point is that it is nothing compared to the atrocities the Evangelical Episcopalians are willing to tolerate out of their new African leadership in order to escape ordaining gays and lesbians.
I may not agree with the Swedes censoring what they consider to be hate language from their Christian pulpits, but they are making a whole lot more sense than the Evangelical Episcopalians who refuse to oppose the "kill the fags" laws. I imagine they would shut down Muslim pulpits for fomenting hatred towards their boggy men too.
Why do YOU ignore the issue?
Let me repeat myself. The vocabulary of the American Fundamentalist and Evangelical communities is going to have to change if they are to return to the roots of the Gospel and the teachings of Jesus. Otherwise I think they will just disappear into the garbage heap of sectarian cults that have come and gone throughout the centuries.
Jodie:
NIV.
I never said that covetous people, drunkards, and revilers were NOT on an equal footing with other sinners, including those who practice homosexual sex. When covetous people ask to be ordained without repenting of being covetous, I will oppose that. When drunkards ask to be ordained while continuing to get drunk and not repenting of it, I will oppose that. Etc.
Jodie: done with this. You don't listen, because I have said the above before. This will go around in circles.
Yes, to substantiate the charges against Jim, you do have to list them again along with the evidence for each. But I will not reprint them without that substantiation, which actually does not exist, because I happen to know that they are not true. By making such charges, you are, perhaps unwittingly, one of the very revilers you mentioned.
NIV ?? Wow.
I stopped reading the NIV when I saw how badly they mangled the Psalms.
The Greek word for "soft" is the same used by Jesus when talking about rich people in castles wearing fine (soft) clothing (Mat 11:8), and here it gets translated into various sexual words, including "effeminate" and "male prostitute" depending on the translation, without any obvious reason or context. It could have meant what we would call "fat cats". People who live high on the hog wearing fine clothing while others are naked and starving around them.
That would actually fit the context better, with thieves and gluttons and whatnot.
The word for "bed-man" got translated into "homosexual" after the English word was finally invented, but could just as easily have meant "lazy bum who stays in bed all day".
My understanding is that it lacks precedent in Greek literature as well. Nobody really knows what that word meant. It just got translated that way one day and it stuck.
Using sola-scriptura as the standard for translating and interpreting these passages, one would never guess at a sexual meaning to those terms.
And here they have been used to generate a major wedge issue to divide and tear down the Church.
It's really a travesty, I think. Not the work of the Holy Spirit at all.
The word for "those who commit sexual sins" or in other translations "fornicator", is the word used for someone who keeps company with prostitutes.
Jesus was accused of this, as you recall. Obviously, if you assume the Scripture is the inerrant word of God, the passage has some issues.
As I said before, it all depends on your assumptions.
OK, about Jim. As I re-read what I wrote, I think I never accused him of anything. I just compared his writing to mine and objected to his self-righteous tone, given his own record. So maybe you could be more specific about what you want me to substantiate.
Jim on the other hand accused me saying "Things that are truly good, you consider evil. Things that are harmful and perverse, you laud as good. And you can't stand for light and truth and goodness to be written"
If that is not false witness it is certainly a baseless and defaming accusation. Specifically, what harmful and perverse things have I lauded as good? What light and truth cannot I not stand? What truly good things have I said are evil?
Where we stand right now you think his diatribe is worthy of note, but my response to him is not. I protest your lack of fairness.
And finally I have to ask why you would you not agree to ordain an unrepentant reviler (such as myself perhaps, or Jim for that matter, or any other number of people who shall remain nameless)?
Is this where we come full circle? Was it you who stated that it would be un-scriptural to ordain un-repentant sinners? If so, can you point me in scripture where you get that?
Finally, Debbie, I am listening to you. I just don't agree with you. It's what happens when people debate ideas. And I give you the benefit of the doubt when I tell you why I don't agree. Why don't you respond in kind?
Jodie, I said I was done debating these issues. We have done so many times before, and it's fruitless to do it again.
You have certainly missed a number of other accusations that you made against Jim. Are you not reading carefully?
Jodie, I have not dismissed you as an evil opponent. I have never said that you were evil. I have just said that it is fruitless to continue a discussion when we are not going to persuade each other, no matter how many times we go back and forth.
That is quite different from saying that one of us is either evil or good. Please don't make unwarranted inferences.
You will notice that I said that Jim made some assumptions in his comment as well, and that he should not have. The difference is that you went further and made a number of assertions about Jim's employment and purposes in life that were qualitatively different from the kinds of things that he said. There was a difference of degree and of venom that I will not allow on this blog. If you want to make the same assertions again, they will have to be accompanied by proof.
Jodie, yes, Jim worked for the IRD, and yes, Jim has worked freelance for the Layman, but what you said about the nature of his work for them, and what they have paid him to do, was insulting and incorrect.
Again, I'm done debating with you, not because I have no intention of following through, but because the discussion goes nowhere. Neither of us will convince the other. It is for that reason that I don't respond to your points, and for no other reason. I am also now going to stop responding about Jim. It is silly playing back and forth and so I am going to stop.
I realized that I have been too lax with my comments policy, and on further reflection, I have removed several comments, by more than one person, that were rude and/or mean-spirited towards another person.
Debbie,
thank you.
here are few other quotes that are mean spirited and or rude and dismissive:
"Don't overgeneralize. That borders on hysteria...".
"By the way, Jodie... Try to read more carefully. It might save you a lot of grief."
"knowing how illogical the things you say are, I bet you will produce something that you will claim to be substantiation, but that is not, but that you will insist is."
"If you don't see my point ... then you aren't able to read and/or understand well,"
"you appear to have a closed mind."
"Are you not reading carefully?"
"Neither of us will convince the other. It is for that reason that I don't respond to your points, and for no other reason. "
Do you see the pattern there?
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Enjoy the Holy Days. God broke a lot of rules to bring Jesus to us. Go out and celebrate.
Jodie,
This one comment of mine, "knowing how illogical the things you say are, I bet you will produce something that you will claim to be substantiation, but that is not, but that you will insist is", probably went too far in speculating what you might do, but it was based on previous instances of illogical interpretations you had made of things I had said.
The rest were all responses to things you had written, and they were not about your personality or about you as a person. For example, asking if you were not reading carefully was an appropriate response when, several times in a row, you did not seem to get the sense of what I and/or other people had written.
Now, this is the end of this topic as well. No more on homosexuality, no more on Jim, no more on what comments are rude. Back and forth is not useful.
And what do you think would be useful?
Debbie
If I'm beating a dead horse please delete my comments.
Sticking ONLY to the 1 Cor passage and the two specific words that have been interpreted by some to refer to sex between two males (I think we all agree that the rest of the behavior terms related to persons refer to sin) the first word is a bit more complicated that has been suggested here. The word translated effeminate can mean a whole complex of things depending on context. (Jodie I'm not sure that saying Jesus used the word is as simple as it sounds. One has to presume that Jesus spoke Aramaic and I'm not even sure there is a word in Aramaic that carries the myriad connotations that the Greek word has.) It can mean everything from bathes often, wears perfume and puts oil in one's hair to attract women into fornication or adultery to being the receiving partner in anal sex between two males. I do need to say that the way the gospel writer uses the word is probably not the way Paul would use the word. So to automatically translate the word as the modern meaning of effeminate is to really misuse the word.
The word that is often translated homosexual literally means "man lier" or "man bedder." Some have taken the word to be a word that joins two words from the LXX in Leviticus that refers to sex (specifically anal sex) by two men. Having said that the word occurs no where else in the Bible and, as far as I know, is not found in Greek literature in that period (the mid 1st century). Some, like my friend Jack Rogers have taken a cautious approach and suggested that we can't know what the word means because it occurs only once. Others see it as a reference to Leviticus. Personally I lean toward this translation. As to whether the two words are related and therefore refer to the inserting partner and the receiving partner (the latter being the effeminate one) is clearly a matter of some debate.
Curiously some who advocate for homosexual sex within a two person faithful lifelong (intended) partnership are beginning to say that the traditional interpretation is correct but does not refer to committed long term partners, that there was no such thing in the ancient world. I think this is a matter for debate.
Having said all of that I think Debbie is correct. If we can talk with one another instead of at or past one another we are more likely to make progress. I have become convinced that this cannot be done in blogs or on the internet. I think it takes long term face to face conversation and prayer. I was part of a 2 year long covenant group that did just that. At the end of two years we were friends but we still disagreed. The most important thing is that we saw each other as brother and sister in Christ.
Bob,
I don't think those two words were used by Paul with any sexual connotation whatsoever.
It would be interesting to find out when they first acquired one.
(Sorry Debbie, John and I can talk on his own blog if you wish)
Jodie
I think at this point our presuppositions tend to guide our interpretations. I admit it is a difficult passage. Certainly the Leviticus passages are easier to interpret. However it is my opinion, whatever the word for effeminate may mean in context, that the word for men bedding or men liers does refer to sex between two male. FWIW. And it is also my opinion that the LXX translation governs the 1 Cor translation. From what O jave read I think the present consensus among serious Biblical scholars on both sides of the aisle is that men bedders should be heard as sex between two males. Whether this refers to consenting, equal partners is up for debate. That depends on how one interprets the Greek work that is often translated effeminate. And that is where we wander into the quicksand.
Leviticus clearly refers to male/male anal sex. What that meant in the cultural context is open to debate.
Yes, but the Leviticus text says lots of things. So much so that we can't use it as a guide.
And as far as the bed-man word, as you said, it has no other context. No way to know what it meant.
An honest biblical translation would be to leave the literal translation in, whether bed-man, or man bedder, and put a note on the side of the page that says "we don't know what the heck this means".
Then, at least, people would be less eager to use it as an excuse to split the church.
And that is the key here. On what basis do we take it upon ourselves to split the Church over untranslatable words that appear in the bible once or twice?
This is not the will of the Holy Spirit.
Interesting discussion on the Greek word.
I am not personally acquainted with anyone who has used it as an excuse to split the church, though, since the people I know are trying to keep the church together.
How is it working for them?
Bob,
You said "it is also my opinion that the LXX translation governs the 1 Cor translation."
I would like to hear your reasoning on that. Do you have any points of reference nailed down on those verses, in those texts, that would prove that story over the reverse? What can we really prove concerning the lineage of what we now call the LXX? What would the LXX that Paul could have read actually look like? What real evidence do we have that Paul, a Hebrew's Hebrew, would have made use of a LXX? Also, what do we really know about the lineage of the Hebrew Testament texts? It has been my understanding that the Hebrew texts weren't standardized until generations after the time of Christ.
I know Gagnon tries to make part of his case using a LXX, 1 Corinthians 6:9 connection, but he never produces even a shred of evidence that could satisfactorily answer the questions I posed above.
It all looks like speculation and wishful thinking to me. If you want to believe it, then fine, there isn’t substantial evidence against it, but if you want to disbelieve it, that’s fine too, because there isn’t substantial evidence to support it either.
Katie
Check commentaries on unrelated and non controversial subjects. Quite often Paul's Greek quote from an OT source is the exact same wording as in the LXX. If you compare that same passage to the standard Hebrew text (granted compiled in its present form centuries later) you find that Paul's quote is not a translation from the Hebrew.
Of course I will grant you that some of the texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to the LXX than the Masorite text. But if you look at a variety of scholars who have written commentaries on Paul's letters, even if you limit yourself only to the texts that all scholars agree come from Paul you will find that most scholars believe Paul quotes from the LXX. I didn't think this was a matter of debate.
So to suggest that Paul takes two words in the LXX and conflates them into one word in 1 Cor. is within the realm of probability.
So if we were talking about a non controversial passage I suspect we would all agree that a word that looks like two words joined together, two words that have clear definitions mean what they meant when used together a separate words in a sentence. Because we are talking about a controversial passage that some don't want it to say what it says.
But you don't have to listen to me. Talk with Greek Orthodox scholars. They've been using Greek both as a spoken and a scholarly language for centuries. Check sermons from the early Greek Fathers on the subject and the passage. Check commentaries from the same time period. The closer you are to the original letter and the closer you are in spoken language to the original author the more likely you are to find a correct interpretation of the passage.
As to the question of people splitting the Church, I don't see the PCUSA as the Church. It is part of the Church. Nevertheless I don't plan on leaving the PCUSA in this lifetime.
I should have added that sometimes Paul changes the text of the LXX to fit his intended message. It isn't that he switched to a translation of the Hebrew text. Rather he changes the words of the text to say what he wants to say.
This BTW was an accepted method in the 1st century, Greek or Hebrew. It may have also been accepted in Latin as well but I don't read Latin and can't comment.
We all want translation and interpretation to be simple. It isn't. It takes hard work. I try to do the hard work. I may not always be right but I try.
I am willing to debate the meaning of Greek words with those who know Greek. Those who don't do not have the right to an opinion. They are only quoting what others say. There is no substitute for doing the primary research and translation yourself.
I agree that the church universal is The Church, and that schism technically should only refer to that universal church. On the other hand, any kind of church split always ends up hurting many people, and it also causes many other people to leave any kind of church at all; they just say, "I'm not going to be in any church if this is how church people behave." So a church split is often a bad witness, as well as hurtful, and is definitely something to be avoided.
As far as how well it's working out for us and our friends, to try to keep the PCUSA as well as individual churches together, it's not completely in our hands--it depends also on all factions as well as on national leadership and on the entire membership--but all we can do is work towards that end, always keeping in mind submission to the authority of God.
Debbie
Agreed. The Church is a bunch of sinners. Praise Jesus we are a bunch of saved sinners. So why go and look for a more perfect assembly? There is no such thing. God placed us here for a reason. We each have to do the task God has placed before us where we are.
Bob,
"So to suggest that Paul takes two words in the LXX and conflates them into one word in 1 Cor. is within the realm of probability."
I won't dispute that it is possible. We're just haggling over the probabilities.
You haven't really answered the critical questions though. What Greek (or Hebrew for that matter) words were actually in the Leviticus passage that Paul might have relied upon? How can this be tied down as something resembling a fact rather than just speculation? I'm sure lots of scholars have opinions on this, but who actually has facts? There's an awful lot of dust, and not much hard text.
Other questions to consider: Where did Paul get his Torah? Did he travel with it? Did he have it when he was being lowered in a basket, thrown in prison, traveling at sea, floating in the sea, being chased out of town, stoned? Is it possible he had it committed to memory?
"It isn't that he switched to a translation of the Hebrew text. Rather he changes the words of the text to say what he wants to say."
That adds a whole other level of complexity to an already nearly impossible problem, doesn't it?
Kattie
There is no such thing as certainty in history. There is only possibility, probability, improbability and impossibility.
Impossibility: there is strong evidence that the person under discussion was dead before the event happened.
In the present situation one has to remember that in a mostly non literate culture one memorized texts.
However from a Biblical historian's or a Biblical theologian's perspective you are asking the wrong questions. The question at hand is not how Paul had his text from the LXX. The fact is in many cases he quotes from a document (and we are unable to go back and discover how he does so). We don't know how Paul quotes from a the LXX in a way that in many places is word for word an exact quotation of what we have today as the LXX. We do know that his quotes, in some places are word for word quotes from the LXX.
That is the way it is. So given the data at hand it is more likely that Paul quotes from the LXX than from what became the Masoretic text.
And factor in that Paul lived and worked as an artisan in an environment in which Koine Greek was the language that it was necessary to know to conduct business.
Or put it differently. We know that Paul often quotes the LXX exactly. We also know that he and others of his time period had no qualms about changing some of the words in a quotation so that they fit the author's purpose.
That is the way it is. As translators and Biblical theologians we deal with it. And we make decisions about the meaning of the text which is based in some cases, when there is no controversy, that we all agree.
In this case I suggest that the writer has referred to a text in Leviticus. I suggest it is a probability. If you can present evidence that I am wrong please do so.
I do know that the meaning of words in language changes over time. I also know that when an author takes two words and makes one word out of them s/he is probably taking the meaning of the two previous words and conflating them so that the new word expresses the meaning of the two original words. You may not want scholars to operate in such a way but we do.
Again in the case of a non controversial passage we most probably would not be having this discussion.
But let's get back to Debbie's original question: how are Christians to behave when two people disagree on the translation or meaning of a particular passage? Can we accept the possibility that the other may be right and I/we might be wrong?
As a translator I believe I am correct but accept the possibility that I am wrong. I have not seen sufficient evidence to change my mind. What I see is special pleading, that in this particular case a word cannot mean what most would take it to mean. Explain to me why two words from an extant text and rather well known extant text at the time of the writing which conflates two words produces a word that cannot be translated. Otherwise I have to believe (as a higher level of probability) that either the author was using a word well known at the time (but shows up in no other documents) or puts together two well known word into one to communicate a message that grows out of the meaning of the two words. I think the latter is of higher probability. Show me how I am wrong.
Writers intend to communicate. Would a writer use a word that shows up in no other extant text that the readers could not understand? Or would the writer use language intended to convey meaning? Most of us want others to understand what we seek to say. I am merely suggesting that Paul was doing the same. Show me somehow that I (from a different usage of the word) am wrong.
However please remember that I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. Are you?
Bob,
So I take it from your answers above that you know of no evidence at all that the LXX that Paul might have been familiar with contained the wording (specifically the two words) that some scholars believe Paul combined to form arsenokoitai.
"In this case I suggest that the writer has referred to a text in Leviticus. I suggest it is a probability. If you can present evidence that I am wrong please do so."
Sorry Bob, the burden of proof is on you.
Who were the people who produced the EXISTING LXX translations that contained those two words? What relationship/knowledge would they have had, if any, to any of Paul's writings?
Sorry for stalking you guys, but I have a suggestion. Let's try this from a different perspective.
Context is everything.
Arseno was a common word for 'man'. Used in different contexts, as in English, it can have different meanings.
Koitai is rooted in the word for 'bed' and it too has multiple meanings depending on the context. And we find several in the Bible.
As in English, going to bed with so and so is often a polite way of saying 'having sex' with so and so. But it doesn't have to mean that, and it could in fact not mean that, so the context is important to complete our understanding of what it means.
1 Cor 6:9-10 is just a list of vices. If you put two words together that always require context to be properly understood, and then give them NO context, then you have no data from which to perform a translation.
The only honest thing to do is to throw your hands up and admit defeat.
As an example I have thrown out a plausible translation that also fits the biblical, cultural and historical context. Paul does in fact talk about how to make a living in Corinthians. He did not have much respect for laziness. Or bums. We have all seen the scenes of Greco Roman rich people, hanging around doing nothing and lying in bed all day, wearing fine clothes, getting drunk, getting rich by theft and cheating others, surrounded by hookers, verbally abusing the staff.
Think the headquarters of "The Sopranos".
Paul would not have had any patience for such, when others around him were starving and didn't have enough clothes to stay warm.
Paul says "you used to live that way until you were cleansed"
Jesus also placed his sympathies with the poor and those who shared with them.
So what are the facts? At some point people began to interpret Paul as having been talking about male sexual practices.
The question there is when and why? We don't know. Maybe someday we will find out. Maybe then it will be clear that it is either a mistake or absolutely what he meant.
In the mean time, we have no choice but to set the text aside and not use it in the ongoing polemic regarding the roles of homosexuals in the church, or for that matter regarding the inherent sinfulness, i.e. the inherent opposition to God that is implied in being one.
Paul goes on to say in that passage that all things are lawful. All things.
The homosexuality polemic that divides the Church today is contrived. It looks in the wrong place, it fights over the wrong topic, it is based on false assumptions, or assumptions that cannot be verified, and it injures the Church. If one member of the body hurts, the whole body hurts, and what we have here is much more than one member of the body hurting.
If it injures the body of Christ it literally is anti-Christ. The topic is.
And as prophesied, it comes to us disguised as righteousness.
There is something fundamentally wrong when we permit the injury of the body of Christ in the name of righteousness.
The only possible solution is to place the topic at the foot of the cross and stop talking about it.
Homosexuality must become a non-topic.
Kattie
As you probably know very well there are no extant texts of the LXX from the 1st century. That we have the Dead Sea Scrolls is a gift from God. If that is the ground of certainty then we must also say that we don't know what was in any of Paul's letters because we don't have any copies before the 4th century. Or even that there were letters of Paul before the 4th century. Further we know that the standard for copying a document, at least a NT document, was nowhere near as high as it is today. We could say that we know little or nothing about the 1st century because all the documents are later copies.
So by your standard how do we know anything about the early church?
I have presented what evidence there is using the normal standards of scholarship. You have said that it doesn't exist and suggest that the normal standards of scholarship do not apply in this case. That is why I called it special pleading.
Oh, and you took Paul's statement that all things are lawful out of context. He was arguing that there are standards of behavior for Christians even if we are set free from the law.
What I can say is this: you have stated that you believe we cannot know the meaning of the word arsenokoitai and have offered an argument and what you consider to be evidence. I have said that we can. I too have presented an argument and offered evidence. Neither of us are convinced by what the other offered as argument or evidence. Can we both say this is my best translation (not interpretation) of the text. And don't we both need to say of course I might be wrong.sesseusen
I suppose I better add this: all translation includes interpretation.
Pastor Bob,
I think you meant to address that last post to me? At least the second half of it.
Frankly I don't know what your argument is, and what evidence you provided for it. Something about the LXX having something against homosexuals? It somehow relates to the vocabulary in 1 Cor 6:9? I thought you agreed the vocabulary in 1 Cor is unique. Did that post get lost?
I don't disagree with your stated context for the "all things are lawful" quote.
For the record, what I wish I could convince you (and Debbie, and Jim, and Viola, and Tobby and etc) is that homosexuality needs to become a non-topic. That we simply do not know enough about the topic to to use it as a religious criteria.
(Ever wonder why we do not ordain High School dropouts? Is it because High School dropouts are unrepentant sinners?)
We have gone around in circles for years and nothing comes of it except acrimonious church splits, and the middle leaving the church in droves because they can't stand the venom from the right and from the left. Who can blame them?
I myself have offered up my other cheek over and over again, and every time I do I get it slapped.
The Holy Spirit will not tolerate it anymore. As in the letters to the Seven Churches, He will simply remove his candlestick from our churches and move on.
Do you really honestly disagree?
Jodie
First I would point out that all arguments on why people are "leaving" the church tend to avoid the stats that come out from the research wing on the GA offices. The reasons for denominational decline are that we are not keeping our children in the denomination and have not done so since the 1970s and that members of mainline denominations do not consider faithfulness to the PCUSA "name brand" are the two primary reasons for decline.
Congregations leaving the denomination provide only a very small portion of those who leave. Those who seek to make an argument that members are leaving the denomination because of any particular reason are not looking at the available stats.
As for homosexuality becoming a non issue I would agree. Let's just put the 1978 definitive guidance back in place and agree to put the issue aside. I suspect this is not what you mean. What you want is for those who disagree with you to shut up and sit down.
As for your remarks that refer to Revelation: do you mean to suggest that those who disagree with you are somehow causing Christ to drop the PCUSA as part of the Church? Or do you mean that because of the disagreement on this particular issue, all too often shrill and unloving, Christ would withdraw from the PCUSA?
Would I prefer to deal with other, more important issues? I sure would! But you all keep bringing it to me so I keep responding.
Can we know what various authors and editors meant when they spoke about sex between two men in a few places in the Bible? Sure we can! The Leviticus references, in a context that refers to other sexual sin, speak to sex between to men. How to apply those passages to the Church in today's world is a matter for debate. I would much prefer to talk about the application than translation or interpretation. But as long as folks say that the Bible says nothing about homosexual sex I will respond by saying yes it does. Unless someone can convince me that "lying with a man as with a woman" in context does not refer to sex between two men.
Maybe we could agree that the Bible in a few places says that sexual relations between people of the same sex is wrong. Then we could have a healthy conversation about how to apply those texts in today's world or if those texts refer to any behavior in today's world.
As to my references to the LXX it is rather simple.
1. When Paul uses Old Testament quotes in his letters they tend to read more like LXX texts than quotations translated from the Hebrew text.
2. That the LXX in Leviticus that talks about sex between two men as with a woman uses two Greek words arsen and koitai.
3. That it is more likely than not that Paul conflates those two words and makes one word, arsenokoitai, to refer to sex between two men, naming such behavior, along with others listed in that passage as sinful.
"So by your standard how do we know anything about the early church?"
Bob, you seem to be missing the direction I was pointing you toward. I wasn't trying to establish a standard. What I was trying to do was point to the possibility that there are other hypothesis (besides Paul being influenced by the LXX) that would fit the known arrangement of real data. In fact, there is one, which I find rather intriguing, that is simpler, which has the same degree of actual ancient evidentiary support (meaning none at all) as the hypothesis you accept as truth. That hypothesis is that the LXX, as we know it today, was influenced by the Christian narrative, so, we turn your hypothesis around 180 degrees and it still all seems to work. We might not like the taste of that hypothesis, but nonetheless, it still seems to fit the known data. We’ve got two mutually exclusive hypothesis which fit the known conditions, so what knowledge have we really got?
Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. As I see it, In this case, to accept your hypothesis, we have to buy into two major premises. First that Paul’s LXX contained the two words in question, and second that Paul’s combined word in 1 Corinthians was influenced by them. The hypothesis I put forth only suggests that the LXX we have today (which has been extrapolated to Paul’s time) was influenced by the Christian narrative. I see the second hypothesis as the simpler of the two. Personally, I am not advocating either one.
“When Paul uses Old Testament quotes in his letters they tend to read more like LXX texts than quotations translated from the Hebrew text.”
Yes they do. How did it really get to being that way?????
I tend to agree with Jodie when he said: “The only possible solution is to place the topic at the foot of the cross and stop talking about it.”
Jodie, you know that the reason for not ordaining high school dropouts has to do with an education requirement for ordination. Don't be silly and pretend that there is only one requirement (repentance of sin) for ordination.
And don't say things like "Ever wonder why we don't ordain high school dropouts?" to Pastor Bob or anyone else about such an obvious thing. You are getting really close to insulting people and may have to be removed when you write like that. Anyone with Pastor Bob's intelligence obviously knows why we don't ordain high school dropouts, and it's insulting to imply that he a) doesn't know and b) might never have wondered why.
Bob,
I think you comment "What you want is for those who disagree with you to shut up and sit down." is an overly hostile mischaracterization of what I wrote, and it is blatantly incorrect. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.
I understand better now what you are trying to say regarding the wording of the LXX as we know it. I agree with Kattie’s assessment that the LXX has known errors in translation and could even be doctored post NT times, and I also agree that what you are proposing is only a hypothesis for which there is no supporting evidence.
I am not a Greek expert but I am completely fluent in a Greco-Roman language (Portuguese) and know a thing or two about translations and language structure. But I think I can argue from the English language alone that without further contextual evidence, it is not obvious at all that to “bed a man as you would bed a woman” is the same thing being a “bed-man” or “bedder-man”, or “man-bedder”. Language definitions require usage and context. Now take that problem and let a Chinese speaking person who only knows English from a textbook try and translate those phrases into Mandarin Chinese. Good luck with that.
Finally, again, I would be very careful about the usage of Leviticus or Deuteronomy to define the act of being in opposition to God. Nobody looks at those passages without putting on serious cultural filters. We may not all agree on said filters, but heavy filtering is the norm. The interpretation of those passages has always been completely subject to the cultural matrix of the reader.
I believe it is a huge mistake for the Church to split over such flimsy documentation. I believe that is in fact an act in opposition to God.
Debbie,
Once again you insult me with condescension, call me names, and refuse to try to understand me even a little. There was no insult in what I said to Bob, intended or unintended.
My point with my off topic parenthetical remark was that our denomination can treat ordination standards merely as a matter of Presbyterian order, just as ordination itself is only a matter of order.
The requirement for higher education is a perfect example of an arbitrary yet closely guarded requirement that has nothing to do with sin or biblical exegesis. And the level of required education varies from country to country.
Yet we never fight with each other over our differences.
Therefore you and anybody else has the option, if they wish, to still oppose the ordination of homosexuals in the same way they oppose the ordination of people who do not meet certain educational standards, without making an acrimonious polemic out of it, without insulting their existence, morality, anatomy or brain chemistry, or their ranking before the thrown of God.
It is a possible solution for our denomination, to put it to a vote without the use of any inflammatory, demonizing or degrading language. We can all hereby agree that to be ordained the following list of requirements shall apply, and make up a list. And we can all agree to abide by the vote, regardless of the outcome.
We can even agree to bring it to a vote every number of years, just to be sure the majority are all on the same page.
What is not OK is to continue injuring the body of Christ for the putative sake of righteousness.
Give me one good reason why that can't work.
Jodie
Re: Educational requirements. Actually the denomination DID have a big fight about educational requirements back around 1800. Those in the east insisted on high educational standards, including Greek and Hebrew. Those in the west said, "But we need pastors!" Which led to the split off of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Well, there were other reasons too.
What I found most curious was the in the 80s and 90s we moved to first lay preachers and then lay pastors with no debate over educational requirements or discussion of the issues back n 1800. We Americans tend as a group to ignore history and even forget it ever happened.
I'm not arguing for or against lay pastors. Just noting that education requirements can be acrimonious.
Oh, and you can add the various attempts to make Certified Christian Education an ordained position with membership in presbytery for those ordained to that position. Hasn't happened. I've watched this one since at least the mid 80s. It hasn't been acrimonious. Presbyteries just seem to brush the idea aside. Personally I think the reason is that pastors of churches with CCE's don't want their CCEs to have vote in presbytery or for the COM to oversee the relationship between the pastor and the CCE and the sessions of those churches don't want the presbytery to set salary requirements for CCEs.
Kattie
I know other hypotheses are available and possible. The one you have suggested is one such hypothesis. As you say we are dealing with probability, not an absolute.
As to your hypothesis I find it less probable. It fails to ask the question why the early Church would change that particular section of Leviticus. If the early Church changed sections of the LXX one would expect that they would have some connection the need of the Church to have the LXX say something different for primary causes related to the gospel.
There actually is a way to check. Curiously in certain passages the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to a reading of the LXX translated back into Hebrew than the Masoretic text. To answer our question we could compare the current best text (most probable according to the best textual critical methods) with one or more (if there is more than one) texts of Leviticus (assuming that the Leviticus text in the Dead Sea Scrolls includes appropriate chapters of Leviticus).
This would lead to answer to one of our questions: what words did the Hebrew text of Leviticus use prior or during the 1st century AD. Of course this would not answer our question about what words the LXX at the time used. But it might bring us closer.
Jodie
The core difficulty with having a non acrimonious debate over ordination of homosexuals who are sexually involved and say such behavior is not sinful is that it IS both a Biblical and a moral question. If it was not a moral question then we wouldn't be having the conflict.
Jodie, I never called you a name, nor did I insult you. I was not condescending to you, either, or refusing to try to understand you. I was asking you not to be insulting. Now, my husband thinks that the way you phrased "Ever wonder why we don't ordain high school dropouts" was not insulting, so apparently I did misunderstand you (but did not refuse to try to understand you), so I will take back what I said about it, and I am sorry for being oversensitive.
"The core difficulty ... If it was not a moral question then we wouldn't be having the conflict."
Indeed. My core difficulty with that, as I said, is that there is something fundamentally wrong, a trick of the Devil, to be willing, able, and go through with, injuring the Body of Christ for the sake of a moral question.
The moral answer to the moral question has to be to place the topic at the foot of the cross as a spiritual sacrifice for the sake of the Body.
Something to be done in the name of, and for the name of, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Bob,
I meant to come back to this other topic of why people are leaving the denomination and the Church in general. It deserves somebody creating a separate post. Maybe you can make one.
"The reasons for denominational decline are that we are not keeping our children in the denomination and have not done so since the 1970s and that members of mainline denominations do not consider faithfulness to the PCUSA "name brand" are the two primary reasons for decline."
Those are elements, but I don't think they address the root cause.
Granted I have not done a scientific survey, but I have given it lots of thought over the years and I can reasonably predict when somebody is about to either switch churches or quit church altogether, and I have lots of friends who look at me dumbfounded when the topic of church membership comes up.
The way I look at it is there are basically two categories. People who quit and people who don't stay.
At the root of the reason people quit is conflict and unsatisfactory resolution to conflict. Church fights destroy the spiritual lives the by-standers, the losers, and a good number of the winners. If you ask them why they are quitting you can see it in their eyes. The words sometimes don't even matter. It's like asking a divorcing couple why they are getting divorced. I've heard lots of reason, but at the core is exhaustion from all the conflict and a desire to move on with life. It' s the answer you get when love has died.
The second category, for people who don't stay, (like those kids you mentioned, or lack of name brand affiliation) is that they have no reason to stay. Seems trivial, but there it is. You need a reason.
The PCUSA gave up its reason for existing in the late 60s and early 70s. It used to exist for the purpose of building schools, hospitals and other similarly devoted churches around the world. That required pooled resources and a network of interconnected congregations. It was a great calling that required a great commitment. Like WWII, or the Moon program, or solving world hunger. A reason outside ourselves that caused us to rise above ourselves with passion, and become greater than the sum of the parts.
Ironically, what are the two biggest infrastructure problems that have come up in our society since the late 60s? Education and health care.
Debbie,
Once you decided I had been insulting, you gave yourself permission to go down a whole different path.
Apology accepted. Thank you.
"If the early Church changed sections of the LXX one would expect that they would have some connection the need of the Church to have the LXX say something different for primary causes related to the gospel."
No, one would not expect that at all. It could very easily be cultural or political. I'm surprised you would make such a romantic claim.
"Curiously in certain passages the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to a reading of the LXX translated back into Hebrew than the Masoretic text."
I agree it's a curiosity, but I wouldn't try to read too much into that.
"To answer our question we could compare..."
I invite you to have at it. You may have more resources available to you than I have. I would like to know if such an undertaking bares any fruit.
"But it might bring us closer."
Perhaps.
Other things to keep in mind:
Jerome produced the Vulgate from Hebrew text rather than the LXX
Lucian was strongly criticized by his peers for undertaking a revision of the LXX that more closely followed the Hebrew.
The Westminster Divines clearly stated that to resolve controversy we should refer to the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. Those of us who are ordained in the PC(USA) are expected to be guided by our Confessions, and those ordained in several other denominations are required to subscribe to the Westminster.
A moral question for a Christian can only be answered by obedience to the Lord. Laying something before the cross is giving up our own way, our own will to Jesus Christ, therefore this issue means, for the Christian who believes that homosexual sex is sin, accepting the fact that we must go on standing (or kneeling: )) in obedience to Christ. No matter how wearying it becomes. We do not just leave a moral question at the cross, we find the answer in God’s word and as Paul writes “Let love be without hypocrisy, abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.”…the rest is good too.
Jodie, I did not decide you were insulting; you WERE insulting. You called someone something derisive related to his work, without any factual basis. You may disagree with a point of view, but you may not use an extreme term (such as "professional rightwing propagandist") to describe it unless you have proof that the person actually writes propaganda instead of a sincere point of view.
Kattie
I will look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and try and come up with an answer.
Jodie
I think you comment "What you want is for those who disagree with you to shut up and sit down." is an overly hostile mischaracterization of what I wrote, and it is blatantly incorrect. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.
I should not have attributed sch motives to you. I apoligize/ However this is my experience in some circles. The message seems to be that if I would grow up of do more study then I would agree with those who disagree with me.
As to the PCUSA and its reason for existing I wouls suggest, along with the motives you have mentioned, we no longer present reasons why the PCUSA should be chosen over other denominations. Some of this, granted is the societal percesption that there is no real difference betwen main line denomintations. But the other reason is that we don't present the uniqueness of the Presbyterian tradition.
People in American tend to seek a tradition that has particular tenants. We, to the outside world have dropped our distintiveness.
As to the stats this reason is rather low except when you consider the possiblity that youth leave the Church because it gives then no reason for staying. Maybe if we made it more clear why we are distinctive you and young adults would stay.
Again the stats say that people are more likely to stay with a congregation if the congregation makes demands on them. Our problems, given these stats, is that we do give a strong motive to stay based on our reformed tradition.
Kattie
What do you mean by using the word "romantic?"
Bob,
Yup. We can find lots of reasons for the Presbyterian denomination to be dying, and no reasons why it should stay alive.
And yet, conflict management skills coupled with a concrete vision for a mission would turn over a whole new leaf.
I think the best guide Paul left us regarding our conduct of doctrinal disputes is found in Galatians. The whole letter must be taken as a whole, the first half a case study in conflict, the second half the lessons learned, but there are some salient parts that I would underline here:
From Gal 5:14-21
"For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
I am particularly impressed by the place of enmities, strife, disputes, and dissensions up there with immorality, impurity and idolatry.
It is, I think, supremely ironic that folks are willing to give themselves over to strife and dissensions in order to fight what they perceive as immorality and impurity. This is what I am talking about when I say there is something deeply wrong in proceeding to injure the Body of Christ in the name of morality.
It is fundamentally un-scriptural to behave that way. If Paul is right, people who behave that way will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
No. Putting things at the foot of the cross means giving up strife and dissensions as well as everything else, in order not to devour one another, in obedience to the Lord.
And Paul then followed up with the fruits of the Spirit, against which there is no law:
"Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"
Don't see much of that in the current polemic. A good sign that it is not a fruit of the Spirit.
That would be step two. Step one, everybody shut up and sit down. Step two, measure every step forward against the list of the fruits of the Spirit. Failing the test, go back to step one.
Debbie,
I think you just switched back to a subject you said you didn't want to talk about anymore. (I was happy with your decision to delete everything, drop the whole subject, and move on. Jim slapped me, I slapped him, we are done.)
If you want to rehash old deleted posts, then you need to put the whole exchange back up in its entirety for context.
Its a great example of how people can devour one another.
Otherwise, neither I nor anybody else will have any idea what you are talking about.
I say move on.
The problem with what you're saying, Jodie, is that the sequence of events (over the last 30-some years) is basically this: first, people tried to get GLBT people ordained. Only then did people who are opposed to it react; before that, they weren't generally dealing with the issue at all. The strife was originally started by the people who want the GLBT ordination. It's not fair to blame the strife on the people who are reacting. They are just defending current standards, and what they believe to be Biblical truth. This is what Bob meant earlier when he said that some people, when they say they don't want us to fight, mean that what they actually want is for those on our side to be quiet and accept what the other side wants.
I've been around as an adult in the PCUSA all those 30-some years. I've seen it happen.
It all adds up to this: the people who are defending cannot be blamed for fighting by those who have attacked them. I am not saying that you, Jodie, or any other individual has personally attacked any other individual, but the pro-GLBT ordination faction did make the first move and try to change the standards, and in that sense, it is the attacking side, and the other side is the defending side.
Jodie
As to the decline of membership in the PCUSA I again refer you to the stats.
I would also note that Galatians is a rather angry letter. Paul doesn't call for unity. Rather he calls for unity around a particular gospel. He argues that the true gospel cannot be put aside to accomidate those who disagree. Galatians is acutally one of the more confrontational letters of Paul.
Jodie, I was merely answering your assertion that I had "decided" you had been insulting.
"I will look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and try and come up with an answer."
Great! Let us know what you find.
"What do you mean by using the word "romantic?""
A whim rather than by necessity or reason.
I might not have objected had you not used the term "the Church" (capital C).
Bob,
I don't think that is the only thing Paul was doing in Galatians. The real fight had already taken place, and a solution had already been found. The Galatians were getting wrapped around the axle after the fact.
The key to reading Galatians is to fold it in half and read it from both ends towards the middle.
The left side is the conflict. It is ugly. The right side is what we learn from the conflict. It's as beautiful as it gets.
And his method is the method we need to follow here. Both in the conflict and in the solution.
Give it a shot.
Debbie,
We were talking about my exchange with Bob. Your rehash seemed to come out of the blue to me.
For the sake of keeping the peace I am not responding to it.
Jodie
To say that the problem over Judaizing (trying to require Gentiles to obey the Law completely) was not solved before Galatians was written. The Council of Jerusalem most probably had happened already but that didn't stop the Judaizers from continuing their critiques. Paul says that there are those who come with a different gospel. This was ongoing behavior.
I would consider Galatians a fairly early letter from Paul. Romans continues to deal with the same issues. Philippians, written by Paul or not, again deals with the same issue. So the problem was not solved. It was merely beginning. And in Philippians Paul or another writer goes a bit over the top, I think. Suggesting that the Judaizers castrate themselves? That's level 5 conflict!
The Church (and denominations as part of the Church) do not and should not sweep problems under the rug. HOW we deal with the conflicts in important.
Kattie
If by my use of the Church you meant that the whole Church approved of and participated in any changes made in the LXX I would agree with you. Such changes do tend to be made by smaller groups, usually one community or several joining together to deal with a particular issue.
My guess, however, is that sex between 2 men was not a matter of controversy in the early Church or parts of the Church. At the very least we don't see such controversy in the Gospels. That we do see 2 mentions of the behavior (if we agree that 1 Cor. and Romans actually talk about sex between two people of the same sex) (and I would suggest that the letters to Timothy were not written by Paul), given the contexts in which they are written the two passages do not suggest that it was a large problem in the early Church.
Of course you would say that Romans 1 and the ! Cor. passage do not talk about sex between 2 people of the same sex. Does that mean the issue simply didn't come up in the early Church? That everyone agreed? That it was not an issue of the day? If it was mentioned there had to be a reason. If it was not mentioned we should also ask why.
"Of course you would say that Romans 1 and the ! Cor. passage do not talk about sex between 2 people of the same sex."
When did I ever say that!?
You seem to be making it terribly monochromatic.
My contention has always been that there is not a blanket condemnation of all same sex sexual activity in the Bible. I believe the current disagreement is not with whether or not some kinds of same sex sexual activities are condemned as sinful. It's clear to me that there are same sex sexual activities that are sinful (heterosexual too), and that the Bible says something about that. It's just a matter of which kinds (context, intent, etc).
Why did the Didache (late first to early second century document) list so many major and minor sins, but the only same sex sexual sin mentioned was perderasty?
Kattie
Now I'm a bit confused. Yes, we haven't talked about Romans 1 before. But through this long response to Debbie's post you have regularly asserted that one cannot know what Paul meant by arsenokoitai by considering the meaning of arsen and koitai in the LXX version of Leviticus! And that therefore we cannot know what Paul means by the use of the word and therefore we cannot assert that the passage refers to sex between two men.
So if you now say that the passage clearly speaks to sex between two men I am more than a bit confused.
As to whether the Bible speaks against all sex between two people of the same gender or not, I believe I suggested earlier that this should be our primary subject of conversation.
So have you decided that we agree?
Or maybe we could go through the passages that may speak about sex between two people of the same gender and talk about what we each think the text refers to.
An example: I think the text in Deut. refers to sex with male cult prostitutes. Could we begin by agreeing on that?
Bob,
I think you're confused because you haven't really been paying attention to the various options.
I find there to be a big difference between sex between two men, sex between to males, or sex with boys (as Luther would contend).
"As to whether the Bible speaks against all sex between two people of the same gender or not, I believe I suggested earlier that this should be our primary subject of conversation."
I've never disagreed with that.
"So have you decided that we agree?"
I'm sure that we agree on many things.
So what about my Didache reference?
Kattie
1st I am setting up a new hard drive on a computer with windows 7 so I'm a bit busy.
As to Luther's translation (and the Didache reference if it in any way to the 1 Cor. passage) the only way you can get pederasty out of the 1 Cor. passage is to combine two terms: arsenokoitai and the word for "soft" which I am not going to look up in the Greek right now. Then you have to assume that the word for soft refers to a child. Given the times when 1 Cor. was written I'm not sure when a boy became a man in Greco Roman society. Let's go ahead and include young men just past puberty until they are accepted as men by family and society. Does soft refer to youth? Personally I find that to be a stretch of the meaning of the word.
As to the Leviticus references I don't see how one could get pederasty out of the Hebrew or Greek meanings. Or Romans for that matter. But I'm willing to discuss it.
After I put the system on the new hard drive. :)
"As to Luther's translation (and the Didache reference if it in any way to the 1 Cor. passage) the only way you can get pederasty out of the 1 Cor. passage is to combine two terms:…"
Sorry, but it looks to me like you're offering up someone's Kool Aid here. I don't think that would be a very scholarly approach, so be careful. No, it's not the "only way", and it doesn't look to me like Luther read it that way.
"(and the Didache reference if it in any way to the 1 Cor. passage)"
I never claimed it did, but I think it does give an indication of the mindset of the early church. I think it's odd that this is the only same sex sexual sin mentioned in a whole long list of major and minor sins. Rob Gagnon would try to have us believe that ALL same sex sexual activities were considered the worst kinds of sin. I just don't see it, why would the authors of the Didache go to the trouble of specifying only one when it's all supposedly horribly bad? The Didache has been highly regarded as a teaching tool for those coming into the church for nearly two thousand years. It almost made the cut to be part of the canon. I think it speaks more loudly concerning same sex sexuality by what it leaves out (given its context) rather than what it includes.
“As to the Leviticus references I don't see how one could get pederasty out of the Hebrew or Greek meanings. Or Romans for that matter. But I'm willing to discuss it.”
There are all sorts of unprovable hypothesis concerning what the Leviticus references mean. It doesn’t have to be about pederasty, and the 1 Corinthians stuff doesn’t have to be a reference to the Leviticus stuff. It does make for an interesting and useful tale to tell our kids though. The original Leviticus statements were made more than 3000 years ago when the Israelites were confronted with the Canaanites who apparently practiced fertility rituals to Molech and Ashtoreth. It could very well have to do with that. There’s no reason that I buy in to, that requires us to interpret all specific scriptural passages as if they are describing activities that occur in today’s culture or even occurred during the first century AD.
I think we tend to warp the real meaning in an attempt to justify our bad behavior toward faithful homosexuals as loving.
"I think we tend to warp the real meaning in an attempt to justify our bad behavior toward faithful homosexuals as loving."
Speak for yourself, Kattie. Personally, I don't know anyone who behaves badly toward faithful homosexuals, unless you call not ordaining them bad behavior. I'm not saying that there aren't people who behave badly towards them; I'm just saying that I don't find any in the renewal leadership of the PCUSA.
"Speak for yourself, Kattie."
I most always do. In this case I was doing just that.
"unless you call not ordaining them bad behavior."
I do for some, but that's just part of the bad behavior I see.
"I'm just saying that I don't find any in the renewal leadership of the PCUSA."
I'm not doubting your word on that.
Great, thanks, Kattie.
Kattie
Not having Luther in front of me and not sure that I have his comments on this passage in the office I'll ask you a question: when Luther refers to the passage in 1 Cor. Does he take arsenokoitai and the word translated soft as one practice or behavior of does he translate them as separate words? It seems to me that to get pederasty out of the passage you need to take the two words and make them one, soft referring to a child.
As for Leviticus Rosemary Rad Reuther insists the passage cannot refer to cultic sexual behavior. Her given reasons is that the passage does not use the word that would normally be used for cultic behavior (as compared with the word used in Deut.) and that the Leviticus passages are (for the most part) in lists of sexual sins. She does make the point that the rest of the sexual sins mentioned have a tendency to refer to male behavior and that they all (except for the passage that refers to men having sex together) speak of uncovering the nakedness of another male, even though the passages refer to having sex with a woman. Thus having sex with your uncle's wife is uncovering the nakedness of your uncle. These sins are all (besides being shameful before God) sins against the male who is husband of the female. It seems that the female is a possession of the male. Reuther then goes on to say that all of the references, including the passage about male/male sex grow out of patriarchal viewpoints on sex.
I don't think you can get worship of gods through the use of sacred prostitutes out of the Leviticus passages. Nevertheless I find Reuther's analysis interesting.
"Does he take arsenokoitai and the word translated soft as one practice or behavior of does he translate them as separate words?"
Separate.
1 Corinthians 6:9
"Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder"
"As for Leviticus ..."
I certainly didn't state that it had to be cultic behavior, only that there were a lot of unprovable hypothesis. The fact that a particular word isn't used in Leviticus that is used in Deuteronomy doesn't really prove anything, particularly when different authors may have been involved.
You might look up Luther's translations of Leviticus 18 and 20. Once again he refers to sex with boys.
Leviticus 18:22
"Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel."
Leviticus 20:13
"Wenn jemand beim Knaben schläft wie beim Weibe, die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen."
Kattie,
Interesting hypothesis for two reasons. One, if this is not a proper translation of Leviticus, there is virtually nothing in the Scriptures against the common Greek practice of having sex with boys.
Paul took on Greek philosophy head to head. For example, the pivotal metaphor in Romans of a man divided against himself as if in civil war, with his will at the mercy of the flesh, is in the face of Plato's Republic and the Greek philosophy that reason was the antidote to chaos.
The Greek philosophers also praised the virtues of sex with boys, and specially sex between men teachers and boy disciples.
So as Paul took on Greek philosophy, one would expect that he would have attacked this particular sexual practice specially hard.
I think it is hard to make the case that he did, but I would expect to find it nevertheless. Sooner or later with the Helenization of Christianity, the issue most certainly came up.
And maybe that is the origin of the interpretation of Paul's writings.
But under best of circumstances, the modern American polemic puts the cart before the horse. The overwhelming evidence is that Paul was preaching Christ against Greek philosophy. If sex was of interest, it was of passing interest, and it was only as another weapon in his arsenal. As it was in Levitical and Deuteronomical writings whose purpose was to set the apart-ness of the people of Israel.
This needs to be balanced by Jesus who taught us to break the rules of apart-ness in order to extend God's blessings to all of humanity.
BTW, was the 1 cor text supposed to speak of sex with boys? I don't know German, but I passed the text through Google's translator and it translated the German for 'soft' as 'effeminate' and the word for 'arsenokoitai' as Sodomite.
("Sodomite": another case of incestuous translations on the heals of bad theology. A "Sodomite" ought to mean someone who fails to practice good hospitality.)
I don't read German either but I ran the Leviticus passage through Google translator and Luther does use the word boy. That, however, is not what the Hebrew says. It simply uses the word "male." And while the word can refer to a boy it is more likely to mean man. You can find the word used for male animals as well. In Leviticus it can mean male as in descendants of Aaron, male as in priests, him and male as in male child (as over against a female child).
In Leviticus 7:6 Luther translates the word "männlich" and the whole verse "Was männlich ist unter den Priestern, sollen das essen an heiliger Stätte; denn es ist das Allerheiligste."
I may not read German but I can cut and paste.
So while one can wonder why Luther translated the word as he did in 18 and 20, it is only used in the Hebrew in Leviticus to refer to a male child when speaking of the days a woman is unclean after giving birth to a male child. Lev. 12:2. (There is another reference in 12:7 that talks about the offering given for an atonement to cleanse a woman after she has given birth to a male child but says the same offering is to be given for a female child.
Jodie
I put the whole 1 Cor. 6:9 passage from Luther through Google translate twice and got effeminate and homosexuals both times.
But if you look at the Leviticus passage in comparison you see Knaben in Leviticus and Knabenschander in 1 Cor. It looked to me as if Luther put two words together (as, curiously, I have maintained Paul did!)
Now curious, I put just the word Knabenschander through the translator and got Sodomite. I tried just schander and got defiler. I tried just Knaben and got boys.
So Knabenschander means defiler of boys, Sodomite or homosexuals depending how you put it through the translator.
I'm sure Kattie is correct about Luther. I think Luther has missed the meaning in Leviticus and 1 Cor. Certainly in Leviticus where even he uses the word to mean man elsewhere.
"It simply uses the word "male." And while the word can refer to a boy it is more likely to mean man."
To me, it clearly could be either one.
"I think Luther has missed the meaning in Leviticus"
I find it interesting though that this wording remained intact in the German translation maybe until the 1980's (certainly well into the twentieth century, long after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls). This translation was also widely used in more than one denomination. Personally I think he may have had it right. If someone can prove it wrong, and I really mean prove it, not Gagnon's hand waving and discredited source nonsense, then maybe I won't be offended and insulted when someone (like Debbie or her husband) makes light of it, assumes I don't know what I'm talking about, or refers to me as unorthodox. I still have the Didache and nearly twenty generations of German speakers on my side regardless.
I believe time is running out for those who believe in the homophobic interpretations of the Scriptures. The more Archeology we do, the more I think it looks like Luther was right.
Have a Happy New Year celebration Folks!
Kattie, by the way, you still haven't understood what Jim was saying; he was never making light of Luther's translation and never will. Nor have nor would I.
PLEASE do not count on what the Google translator tells you, or any other machine translation engine for that matter. It is still a very inexact science, and what is available on the web for free is flawed. That's not to say that a lot of work hasn't gone into it, and these machine translation engines are quite marvelous, but it's a very difficult problem, and they can't be counted on yet to be without errors. So if a translation really matters to you, this is not the thing to rely on.
Kattie
My point, simply was that there are other places in Leviticus that the word cannot mean boy. Even Luther uses it as man in other places.
The big problem with Leviticus 18 and 20 is that kacar does not have context. The verse before refers to molech. The verse after refers to sex with animals. The verse with molech at least implies that one sacrifices children to molech. Outside of that the context is sex between a man and a women that are forbidden because they refer to sex with relatives.
I think Luther got it wrong. Why he chose sex with boys is beyond me since he uses the same word for men in other places, but I'm not Luther and I suspect he doesn't explain his translation in other places.
As to being homophobic I guess according to your interpretation I am. I look at myself as someone who is just trying to get the translation right but I could be wrong about myself.
And I'm not sure what you mean by archeology. Maybe you could explain it.
I do know that in some of the ancient world the man penetrating the other man was claim superiority because he used the other man as a woman. This comes from Babylonian writings. But again I could be wrong as to how it applies to Hebrew texts.
Still I think Luther missed it in Lev. 18 and 20 simply because he translated the same word as man in other places. And there is no context in 18 or 20 to suggest a change in translation.
"you still haven't understood what Jim was saying; he was never making light of Luther's translation and never will."
Speak for yourself Debbie. What makes you think I was referring to Jim making light of Luther's translation?
"I look at myself as someone who is just trying to get the translation right but I could be wrong about myself."
Me too, there is that total depravity stuff to contend with.
Kattie, this is what made me think it: It is where you said, speaking of Luther's translation, "maybe I won't be offended and insulted when someone (like Debbie or her husband) makes light of it".
These comments are going on pretty long. The site is taking up a lot of space, and I propose that we shut off the discussion at this point.
Debbie,
Oh, I get it. You are "Assuming Intentions". Interesting that you don't appear to take my word for it. I did that for Jim, how about you? If you'll go back and look at the quote that I reported from Jim, you will notice that he wasn't even in conversation with me then.
Sorry, Kattie, I wasn't assuming anything. I was basing my answer on what you wrote: "maybe I won't be offended and insulted when someone (like Debbie or her husband) makes light of it", which sounds like you still didn't understand Jim's (or my) attitude towards Luther's translation (which I had explained as Jim's having said in his blog posting meant something like "obscure in that particular context"). From what you say now, though, I guess that I have no idea what those words ("maybe I won't be offended and insulted when someone (like Debbie or her husband) makes light of it") meant that you said. I was going by the normal meaning of them. Perhaps you can explain what you meant so that I can understand.
For what it's worth, I am also not in general assuming that you are evil or bad-intentioned or have bad motives. What I said was purely about the words I quoted from you in a recent comment ("maybe I won't be offended and insulted when someone (like Debbie or her husband) makes light of it").
Debbie
One last comment: those who want to continue talking about the translation and interpretation of Hebrew and Greek words and passages are invited over to my blog to talk about it there:
http://tullyrobert.blogspot.com/
Bob, that sounds great, since this really has gone to a different topic from the original post! Have a good discussion, everyone!
Post a Comment