Romans 1:26-27 Variants II
Julian Smith
Well, a few of you diehards out there still don't want to admit that
Romans 1:26-27 condemns homosexuality, irrespective of gender, so I
thought it might be fun to have a look at how _other_ folks have
translated this passage. Now I know a lot of modern "scholars" heap
scorn upon these works, because, seeing as they're old, they must be
no good...the fact is, however, that the folks who wrought these works
were usually _excellent_ translators, well schooled in Greek, Latin
and Hebrew, far better than today's "candidates" who consider
themselves experts if they study it a couple of years. Many of them
produced translations so sublime that they have had an enormous
literary and cultural influence on the English language; many were
fine theologians as well as translators. I'd _much_ rather throw in
my lot with professional Biblical scholars and translators like
William Tyndale, Gregory Martin, Constantine Tischendorf, Westcott and
Hort, and the many others whose tireless efforts over several
centuries inspired and influenced these translations, than an amateur
debutante like Mr. Halsall and his "defenders", who know "just enough Greek
to criticize, but not enough to understand".
So, just for fun, here are the versions of Romans 1:26-27. Now
don't go assuming jsm...@epas.utoronto.ca must be some kind of great
bibliophile because he got all these old versions together. They're
all in one place, the _New Testament Octapla_ by Luther Weigle, and I
added a few of my own texts from my library; took me only a few
minutes to type them. Lots of "gay apologists" like to quote all
kinds of "rarefied scholarship" to prove how brilliant they are...it
usually turns out they've distorted what the texts say, and show
almost no first-hand knowledge of the actual texts. Weigle prints the
_full_ New Tastement text of all 8 versions. Here they are (warning
to the "gay apologists"...hit delete now, because you aren't going to
like this...these translators say things that would make you folks
_blanch_, if you weren't aware of them!)
Tyndale Bible: "For this cause God gave them up unto shamfull lustes.
For even their wemen dyd change the naturall use unto the unnaturall.
And lykewyse also the men lefte the naturall use of the women, and
brent in their lustes one on another. And man with man wrought
filthynes, and receaved in them selves the rewarde of their erroure,
as it was accordynge."
Great Bible: "Wherefore, God gave them up unto shamefull lustes: For
even their wemen dyd change the naturall use in to that whych is
agaynst nature. And lyke wyse also the men, lefte the natural use of
the woman, and brent in their lusts one wyth another, men wyth men
wrought fylthynes, and receaved to them selves the rewarde of theyr
erroure, as it was accordynge."
Rheims Bible: "Therefore God hath delivered them into passions of
ignominie. For the women have changed the natural use, into that use
that is contrarie to nature. And in like manner the men also, leaving
the natural use of the woman, have burned in their desires one toward
an other, men upon men working turpitude, and the reward of their
errour (which they should) receaving in themselves."
King James: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of
their error which was meet."
Geneva text: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature. And likewise also the men left the natural use of the
women, and burned in their luste one toward another, and man with man
wroght filthines, and received in them selves such recompense of their
errour, as was mete."
Bishop's Bible: "Wherefore God gave them up unto shamefull lustes, for
even their women did chaunge the naturall use, into that which is
against nature. And likewise also, the men left the natural use of
the woman, and brent in their lustes one with another, and men with
men wrought filthinesse, and received in themselves the reward of
their errour (as it was according)."
Revised Edition, 1881; American Standard Version, 1901: "For this
cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for the women changed their
nartural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the
men, leaving the natural use of the men, burned in their lust one
towards another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in
themselves that recompense of their error which was due."
Revised Standard Version, 1960: "For this reason God gave them up unto
dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women
and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing
shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due
penalty for their error."
Confraternity Edition: "For this cause God has given them up to
shameful lusts; for their women have exchanged the natural use for
that which is against nature, and in like manner the men also, having
abandoned the natural use of the woman, have burned in their lusts one
towards another, men with men doing shameless things and receiving in
themselves the fitting recompense of their perversity."
Jerusalem Bible: "That is why God has abandoned them to degrading
passions; why their women have turned from natural intercourse to
unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural
intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing
shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their
perversion."
RSV, Catholic Edition, 1966: "For this reason God gave them up to
dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women
and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing
shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due
penalty for their error."
NIV, 1973: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In
the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts
with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion."
There are several other versions, but they all say the same story.
And what a story it is! Here, in the text, we read competent
translators and redactors rendering key words like "unnatural",
"contrary to nature", "against nature", "filthyness", "perversity",
"perversion", "indecency", "turpitude", "vile affections", "errors",
and all the rest. And this is from a collected aggregate of over a
_thousand_ translators, editors and scholars (KJ had 54, RSV had 32 on
the committee and 50 denominational representatives, NIV had over a
hundred, and so on), some of whom were first-class world famous
theologians to boot.
Now I suppose one or two could say that these translations are _all_
wrong, even though they are easily verified by appeal to the original
Greek text. Some might try the sophistical claim that, seeing as
these Bibles were _revised_, they must have been in error, right? The
trouble is, that even if we look at textual variants and printer's
errors, as you can see by the above texts, these obviously were not
the verses affected. Some may charge the translators with
"homophobia", as though this were a catch-all term of opprobrium
designed to stifle debate. If that is so, unless all the translators
have _equal amounts_ of this mythical stuff, why aren't these
"mistranslations" even harsher, and in _varying_ degrees, than they
are?
Folks, it's time to put up or shut up, if you can. I've given you
lots of competent works done by _professional_ scholars, as opposed to you
guys and gals, who at best can offer a "well, maybe we can say this,
and it won't be too much of a violation to the spirit of the words in
the text, I think" sort of special pleading...where are your _texts_?
If you want to say "dildoes", where's the text? If you want to say
"female superior intercourse", where's the text? If you want to say
"alongside nature but not against her, a sort of we're chummy with
Nature but never contrary to her" para physin, where's the text?
If you want me to post the relevant Analyses, Syntheses, Commentaries,
Lexicons and all the rest, fine, but they'll only drive the nails
still deeper into the coffin of hopelessness (I checked them, you
see...I don't like posting something I may later have to retract, so I
_read_ before I post, unlike some of the rather naive, wishful-thinking
"Oh-it-must-be-so-because-I'm-uncomfortable-with-texts-that-don't-validate-
my-lifestyle" type of "dissenters" on this list.).
To those that parade their so-called "learning" as professional
scholars, and deny the plain meaning of this text: you do not know
what you are talking about. Advice: try placing scholastic integrity
above ideology for a change, and remember that scholarship swayed by
politics is nothing more than propaganda.
Yours
Julian