BetteTheRed said:
Sounds simple, right? Sounds like just what you wanted to do? Not so fast…
- If you are going to do what I’ve challenged you to, then you cannot read an English translation of the Bible. Translations rely on all sorts of scholars and experts in both the original languages, the Biblical literature, and the theory of translation.
- You cannot simply read a critical edition of the Greek or Hebrew text. Those critical editions are also produced by scholars, who painstakingly compile the readings in manuscripts so as to give translators and other scholars convenient access to the text.
- You cannot use an original Greek or Hebrew manuscript that is held in a library or museum. Libraries and museums are likewise places of academic research and scholarship.
When you’ve done that, do get back to me. Or, alternatively, just acknowledge that you are entirely dependent on scholars for your access to the Bible throughout the process: study of original manuscripts, collation of readings in critical editions, translations into your native language, and the commentaries and other such helps that hopefully your pastor uses even if you do not."
It sounds simple because it is simple.
It simply ignores what you have pointed out. That there is no translation we can lay our hands on that scholars haven't had their mitts all over first. Translators bring their biases into their work.
Consider 1 Timothy 1: 10.
If you read the NIV then you believe that the text rebukes homosexuality. If you read the GNT3 you read ἀρσενοκοίταις, among the list of rebukes. The Geneva Bible of 1599 renders ἀρσενοκοίταις, as buggers, basically any male who penetrates another person (male or female) anally. The KJV renders ἀρσενοκοίταις, as "them that defile themselves with mankind" (terribly specific) while the NKJV renders ἀρσενοκοίταις, as Sodomite which is specifically anal rape.
If you know nothing but the mechanics of buggery or sodomy you might easily confuse it for Gay intimate relations. It generally doesn't describe Lesbian intimate relations so I guess we are cool with gal on gal stuff.
It was a scholar who put the word homosexual in the NIV. Other scholars have chosen words for centuries in the English language which generally outline a non-consensual activity. Interestingly buggery could be considered consensual but it does not specifically mean guy on guy action.
So the various translations have had scholars come up with three basic trains of thought.
Those who engage in anal sex
Those who engage in anal rape
Those men who are physically intimate with other men even if they stay away from the anal stuff.
Add to that some scholarly opinon that suggests ἀρσενοκοίταις, is aimed at shrine prostitution and you have a different fourth possibilty.
But if you simply read scripture you will simply go with whatever translation choice was made by the translation team without even asking yourself if the translation team may have been off target.
Like 1 Corinthians 13 in the KJV which opts to mistranslate ἀγάπη as charity rather than love. Though if you aren't a scholar you probably wouldn't ever know that.
