No matter how far society progresses toward equal rights and protections for the LGBTQ community, it seems there will always be a vocal group of Christian fundamentalists who want to remind us that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.
It’s easy to see how that literal reading of the Bible has influenced conservative ideology and the culture at large, as its been weaponized against queer people again and again. From the moral panic in the ’80s around the AIDS crisis, to the modern-day wave of “Don’t Say Gay” legislation, the foundational religious text has been used to justify decades of anti-LGBTQ fear and hatred from the political right.
But, what if the inclusion of the word “homosexuality” in the Bible was a mistake—a simple matter of human error?
That question is at the core of a controversial new documentary called 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, which alleges that a minor accident in translation is responsible for much of the vehement homophobia that’s plagued our culture for so long, including during this year’s midterm elections season, where we saw Republicans demonize drag queens, accuse LGBTQ people of being “groomers”, and call for the banning of queer books.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Related: Homophobic nun goes ballistic trying to stop models from kissing in viral video
Directed by Sharon “Rocky” Roggio, the journalistic doc points out that the word “homosexuality” first appeared in the Bible in 1946, after a committee had gathered to provide an updated translation of the book from Greek to English. But, as a group of experts have deduced over decades of research, the word’s use was a mistranslation of the original text.
The verse in question—1 Corinthians 6:9-10—is widely recognized as follows: “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 homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
However, as 1946 outlines, “homosexuality” was an incorrect misinterpretation and amalgamation of two different Greek words. In an interview with The Daily Beast, Roggio provides further clarity:
“We’re talking about a word, a medical term that has a connotation of a group of people that have an orientation, as opposed to what the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts are referring to, which is an aggressor, somebody who was an abuser—somebody who has abused someone else, and there is a victim on the other side. It’s a very different connotation.”
Related: Dear Religious Right: Stop using The Bible as a weapon of homophobia
As the documentary delves into the evidence, it also comes across an old letter to the translation committee, which pointed out the error and even warned, “misinformed and misguided people may use the [mistranslation] as a sacred weapon.” Talk about foresight! As the time, the committee recognized their mistake, and even took steps to correct it, but in many ways, the damage was already done.
“The domino had already fallen,” scholar Dr. Ed Oxford says in 1946. “And that word followed through to all of the other mainline translations that we have today… I started weeping because I was thinking about all the damage that had been done over the last 60 years.”
Though it won’t premiere until this weekend at the DOC NYC festival, 1946 has, unsurprisingly, already become a flashpoint, with many attacking its legitimacy and attempting to debunk its claims. As The Daily Beast notes, its director has received threats, there are viral social media posts decrying the film, and there’s even a book that was published refuting the evidence—all before anyone has seen it.
“The opposition is quite vocal about our film, trying to debunk it because they’re afraid,” Roggio says, acknowledging how shocking her work will be to many, Christian or otherwise. “We’re literally unmooring them and pulling the anchors out from underneath.”
“We’ve been hit by the conservative audience,” she continues. “We’ve been hit by the atheist audience. We’ve been hit by LGBTQ people who have been hurt by the church and who have now left the church, because they feel that we are subscribing to religious supremacy by even playing along in this dialogue.”
Related: The 6 hottest pieces of tea Jerry Falwell Jr.’s pool boy spilled in last night’s bombshell Hulu doc
And while outrage was expected, Roggio and her filmmaking team maintain their purpose was not to attack the Bible, but to point out a very real issue of mistranslation—a minute one that’s nevertheless had an outsized impact on our world.
“Our movie is more than just theology. It’s history. It’s society. It’s politics. It’s law. It’s oppression. It’s how, again, these words have meaning. We as a group of people have had to negotiate the text. A group of people over time have had to pick and choose which verses stand out, which verses we follow—which verses play out in our land and our law. To really be an honest reader of Christian scripture, we have to find a way where we’re not oppressing people, where we’ve contextualized the text—we understand where it comes from and how it impacted a group of people.”
1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture premieres November 12 at the DOC NYC Festival—you can find festival information here, and more about the documentary on its official website.
abfab
Homo sex is a sin…blah blah blah….and a wonderful one. Even the Pet Shop Boys say so!
abfab
Please watch Life Of Brian. One very big mistake.
Creamsicle
The historical erasure of Biccus Diccus is a crime
cuteguy
Women and their periods making them dirty is in the Bible and was not a typo. So why aren’t they asking women to ask forgiveness for their “sins”?
wikidBSTN
There are a number of other passages that are “read” to condemn homosexuality. It’s not just this passage from Corinthians. Nevertheless, I believe if read literally and properly (not omitting select words) the Bible does not condemn homosexuality at all. What is does condemn is persons acting against “their” nature – that is to say, perverting “their” nature. For gay people, homosexuality is their nature.
abfab
What? No spell-check?
GlobeTrotter
I wrote an essay on this very topic years ago after exhaustive research on the subject of homosexuality in the Old Testament. Turns out that nowhere in the Bible is the practice of homosexuality condemned or even mentioned, for the simple fact that the concept of homosexuality as we know it, i.e. a lifestyle built on same-sex attraction, didn’t exist in the ancient world. You can’t condemn something that didn’t exist.
Ancient peoples would be surprised, maybe even shocked at our modern take on homosexuality, meaning a specific sexuality with same-sex attraction and relationships, marriage, etc. In the ancient world, there was no such thing as “homosexuality” per se. Sexuality hadn’t been invented yet, so who you were attracted to was of no consequence. In the ancient world, your most important duty was to get married and sire children. THAT’S IT! No one gave a flying fig if you loved each other, if you preferred sex with the same or opposite gender, these ideas simply did not exist at the time. If you felt a genuine attraction to other men, it simply didn’t matter in the whole scheme of life. You would get married, have children, and whether you were allowed to act our your same-sex attraction, well, that was a different matter altogether.
Many societies, especially the Greeks and Romans, didn’t care whether you slept with men or women. As long as you were married and had children, your extra-marital activities were a question for a man and wife to decide. It should be mentioned however that 99% of women did NOT have much of a say in the extra-marital activities of their husbands, as equal rights hadn’t been invented yet. Our Woke audiences will be appalled to learn that women had very few rights back in ancient times. In Mediterranean societies women had the rights that their fathers or husbands allowed them, for the most part.
Anyway, references in the Old Testament to homosexuality are a mistranslation by the scholars who translated the Bible at the court of King James, i.e. the King James Bible is a direct reflection of the biases prevalent in 17th century England, which comes as quite a surprise since although homosexuality was illegal at the time, it’s most ardent practitioner was King James himself! Anyway, I digress. The mistranslated term in the King James Bible actually refers to a practice common among pagan societies where children were sexually exploited, especially in certain pagan ritualistic practices. These practices were being slowly adopted by the ancient Jews who had come under the influence of their pagan neighbors, and included among other things the worship of pagan gods (e.g. the golden calf Baal). This condemnation of this pedophilic practice in the Hebrew Bible was simply subsumed under the term “sodomy” by the translators at King James’ court, and lo and behold, homosexuality came to be specifically condemned for the first time in the Bible.
And the rest, as they say, is history!
thebaddestbabby
um, citation please?
GlobeTrotter
Since I can’t upload documents or include links, I’ll just give you a quick summary. It all started in Leviticus 20:13, which was translated by the King James Bible as:
“And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
However, the original Hebrew text states:
“And if ISH (“man”) lies with ZAKAR (“young boy”), as with ISHA (“woman”), both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
The Bible was condemning the pagan practice of pederasty, a practice that was making increasing headway into ancient Jewish society at the time on account of their close proximity to other pagan cultures. Had Leviticus meant to condemn homosexuality, it would have prohibited an “ish” from lying with another “ish” as with “isha”, which it does not.
Proof of this can be found in other early translations of the original Hebrew. For example in German, Leviticus 20:13 was translated by Martin Luther in 1545 as:
“Wenn jemand (“male person”) beim KNABEN (“boy”) schläft wie beim Weibe (“woman”), die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen.”
Translation: If a MALE PERSON sleeps with a BOY as with a WOMAN, they have both committed an abomination and shall be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Do a Google search for “Leviticus ish zakar” and I’m sure you’ll find plenty of articles and sources.
History is full of bad or intentional biblical mistranslations having serious societal repercussions. Another one off the top of my head, Isaiah’s so-called prophecy foretelling the coming of Jesus at Isaiah 7:14 – “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel”. Problem is, Isaiah said NO SUCH THING! In the original Hebrew the text says “Behold, a YOUNG MAIDEN shall conceive and bear a son”. He was referring to the country of Israel producing its king, not some future coming of the Messiah. There are dozens of other examples.
FROLIC
Nice work, I’m convinced you’re right! After the first mainline mistranslation in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) in 1946, it was bias/prejudice (some may add hate) and pure laziness that led future translators to use the same mistranslation. They were translating copies of copies, or not translating directly from the original language it was written in. This is why the same mistranslation wound up in the New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), New Living Translation (NLT), and the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). These versions were all published for the first time after 1946 (1978, 2001, 1971, 1996, and 2017). Like a disease, the more it was mistranslated, the more it was weaponized. Once it became weaponized, Christians willfully chose only the versions that use the mistranslation as the only “legitimate” versions, to satisfy their growing hatred for us LGBTQ+ folks. The CHRISTIAN HATE has gotten so bad now that it can’t be reasoned with. The only chosen preference that really exists is the typical mainline or evangelical Christian’s preference to embrace HATE as a biblical virtue to satisfy their own bias.
abfab
The Bible says being gay is fine, as long as you’re high.
“A man who lays with another man should be stoned.”
Leviticus 20:13 ESV
~~~~~~~
I think Jesus might have been gay.
He never said anything about homosexuality, but he did say “Get behind me, Satan.”
FROLIC
LOL!
inbama
The earliest recorded use of the terms homosexual and heterosexual was a letter from Austrian writer Karl Maria Kertbeny to Karl Heinrich Ulrich dated May 6, 1868.
Kangol2
Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, often considered one of the founders of modern gay history and culture, originally coined the term “Urning” (Uranian), for a man who loves other men, and “Dioningin” (female Dionian), for a woman who loves women, before Kertbeny’s use of “homosexual.” Additionally, he became the first German person to speak out publicly against anti-gay laws, and one of the first in modern Europe.
Mister P
Who cares what the bible says. We should not be running our modern society according to anything in an old book of fiction.
JClark
Amen!
Jim
Yes scribes made errors. And yes scribes purposely changed text.
(The “he who is without sin” story is, alas, not in the original)
So anyone who wants to say it is to be taken as gospel (yeah, I know) should get over themselves.
stanley
The Bible also condones slavery so maybe it’s not a moral authority.
abfab
I’d rather reread Helter Skelter for the tenth time. Or Go Ask Alice or just about anything else.
stonercharles
It was NOT an error, think about it!!! They knew what the word meant and they know why they chose that word….
preppyesque
Who cares what a irrelevant fairy tale manual has to say? Even if I actually believed any of that stuff, everyone knows that Lucifer has always had more fun.
ralphb
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if the wording was changed in the Bible or not. Haters love to hate. The Bible was and is just an excuse and a prop. Most “Christians” that I have known over the years have never even read it all the way through, thoughtfully. I have no belief in any religion, and I prefer it that way.
abfab
“Nothing proves the man-made character of religion as obviously as the sick mind that designed hell.”
-Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
Joshooeerr
It’s not like this one mistranslation is the only thing wrong about the bible or the christian churches. The text and the religion is suffused with twisted bronze-age values and superstitions that no thinking 21st century person should accept. Some christians will respond with “ah, but the New Testament” and “Jesus… blah blah blah” then try to make a case for accepting the utterly ludicrous, and, frankly, seriously sick, story and underlying “he died for our sins” concept of the crucifixion and resurrection. That is the point when you know they are utterly brainwashed, incapable of independent thought and a danger to others. There really is no defending this dangerous nonsense.
abfab
“Nothing proves the man-made character of religion as obviously as the sick mind that designed hell.”
Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
FreddieW
Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
I have a simple solution, one I followed myself nearly 20 years ago. My solution is much easier than swallowing the unconvincing interpretations that gay Christians swallow to feel good about their religion. Here it is:
Just stop believing. It’s that easy. There’s nothing wrong with you, and you can live a moral life without the Bible and without going to church.
JeffBaker
I’ve been monitoring religious broadcasters for about thirty years now and I’ve heard these good “Christians” say that there are no mistranslations in the Bible since it came from a long line of original sources. But that’s not proof: “The Little Prince” was mistranslated in its English translation while the author was still living. They only caught the error a few years ago.
abfab
God free
And happy
I have been saying that all of my life. But knock yourselves out people. Go for it. Just stay out of the policy making in the US. You eff everything up, and you still end up no where special.
FreddieW
Many years ago, I attended a class at a local gay-friendly church that advertised it was going to deal with the “clobber” passages. If you think denying the historicity of Sodom and Gomorrah and explaining away Paul’s homophobia in Romans and 1 Corinthians is legitimately dealing with the Bible, then maybe they dealt with those passages. I think it was false advertising.
They were dealing with the “clobber” passages by disbelieving them, all while claiming to be Christian believers. That struck me then as inconsistent and dishonest. It still strikes me that way.
If you’re going to disbelieve, then be honest about it. What? You mean you can be honest about being gay but can’t face what your religion says about it? Try to see everything as it really is. Then be happy with who and what you are, because all the Bible verses and prayers and faith in the world won’t change it. You can leave it behind, for straight people to try.