Holy Censorship or Mistranslation? Love, Gender and Sexuality in the Bible

By K. Renato Lings

Although the Supreme Court of India decriminalized same-sex relationships in a historic ruling in 2018, societal attitudes remain largely unchanged. One of the reasons cited for this is that religion, which has a pervasive hold on people's mindsets, takes a conservative view of such matters. Two landmark books - I Am Divine, So Are You and Behold, I Make All Things New - attempted to correct that misconception by putting forth perspectives on sexuality from Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. They recast religion as an ally, not an adversary, of queer emancipation.

Taking the series forward, Holy Censorship or Mistranslation? does a close reading of the Bible and some of its key translations, and shows that negative Christian attitudes to sexuality are not rooted in the sacred text but in centuries of tradition. Mistranslations into Greek, Latin and other languages that occurred early, and the serious errors that continue to be made by modern translators, are responsible for the unwarranted controversies. Combining meticulous scholarship with an accessible writing style, this book offers essential insights into a subject that affects millions..

• Language: English
• Publisher: HarperCollins India
• Release date: Jul 7, 2021
• ISBN: 9789354225420

K. Renato Lings

Born in Denmark, K. Renato Lings holds degrees in Spanish, translation studies and theology. In addition to studying Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Nahuatl (Aztec), he has written and taught extensively on biblical interpretation, translation, and issues relating to gender and sexuality. He lives in Spain.  

Book preview

Introduction

If you wish to influence the masses,

a simple translation is always best.

– Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832)

Polemic

For centuries, a certain form of love has been the object of exclusion, condemnation, persecution, mistranslation and censorship. The fact that it has not yet found its rightful place in a variety of Christian churches is evidenced by the bitter controversies about homosexuality and the Bible which have raged for decades. The prominence of the subject in church life and the mainstream media has spawned the publication of a series of books and articles expressing a wide range of views. Although the debate has often been heated, it has tended to be circular without leading to any noticeable degree of theological resolution. On the contrary, divergent positions in the ecclesiastical landscape seem to have hardened.

‘Homosexuality’

One of the main problems with contemporary theological debates about sexuality lies in the vocabulary. In relation to same-sex love, most people talk about ‘homosexuality’ as if it were a clearly defined concept that is always relevant for discussing gender and sexuality through the ages, including in the world of the Bible. However, there are weighty reasons for questioning this approach. From a historical point of view, ‘homosexuality’ is a very youthful term dating from 1869. Hungarian–German journalist Karl Maria Benkert (Károly Mária Kertbeny, 1824–82) invented the word ‘homosexual’ by taking homo from the Greek adjective homoios (‘the same’) and sexual from the Latin noun sexus (‘sex’ or ‘gender’). It is unsuited for describing intimate relationships in ancient societies, where social structures were rigid and hierarchical (see below). Therefore, the frequent use of ‘homosexuals’ and ‘homosexuality’ in Bible translations since 1946 is highly problematic (White 2015: 35).

Over the past decades, gender activists and academia have ceased to discuss the concept of homosexuality in isolation. It has become customary to widen the circle to include bisexual and transgender people. Indeed, the current English acronym LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) is being extended to encompass additional groups such as intersex and queer (or ‘questioning’). While ‘intersex’ refers to people who were born with some features or characteristics of both biological sexes, queer or questioning may briefly be described as a wider, collective term for certain individuals who feel uncomfortable with the established categories. This leads to the longer acronym LGBTIQ, which in some circles is being replaced with LGBTIQ+ to accommodate future addenda. I am aware of the importance of each letter. However, due to the inconvenience of long acronyms, I will use LGBT as shorthand in this book except where IQ+ should be stated explicitly.¹

The very word ‘homosexuality’ has entailed a rather unilateral focus on people’s sexual orientation. The many other components inherent in close relationships between two persons, including affection, mutual care and companionship, deserve at least as much attention. Indeed, sexuality often plays a lesser role than tenderness and togetherness. To avoid misunderstandings, it is advisable to use different words. In this book, I rarely talk about homosexuality, giving preference to ‘same-sex relationships’, ‘same-sex love’ and ‘same-sex intimacy’, all of which adequately fit biblical contexts.

Equality vs Hierarchy

An important aspect when discussing intimate relationships in biblical times is equality versus hierarchy (Helminiak 2000: 86). Since the 1970s, people in western countries have come to regard equality in marriage between a man and a woman as ideal, and legislation has followed suit. However, during the centuries in which the books of the Bible were written, notions of equality were unusual. Social structures were hierarchical with a monarch, prince or chief at the top and a range of subjects divided into classes or strata. At the bottom of the social pyramid was a large group of slaves. Children were regarded as their parents’ property (Lund 2006: 211). Generally, men had more rights than women, which also applied to husbands in relation to their wives. In many cases, married men were significantly older than their spouses (Loader 2013: 33), which further reinforced gender inequality because older people enjoyed more respect than the young.

A similar picture emerges when it comes to same-sex relationships. Here, too, the principle of equality prevails in today’s western world in relation to female or male couples. This contrasts with the hierarchy of earlier times, which mandated major gaps in terms of social status and age difference. In summary, ancient same-sex relationships do not translate as today’s homosexuality, and homosexuality cannot be translated ‘backwards’ into classical texts, including the Bible.

Motivation and Target Audiences

Given the cultural complexity affecting people’s sexuality throughout the ages, it is not only justified but necessary to embark on a close examination of relevant biblical passages. In the pages of this book, I review all sacred texts that deal with, or are believed to deal with, intimate same-sex relationships. My personal motivation is based on curiosity coupled with a life-affirming approach to Christianity. In addition, I am drawn to the theological and spiritual depth that characterizes the books of scripture. The specific purpose of Holy Censorship or Mistranslation? is to investigate what the texts really say from a linguistic and literary perspective and to assess how important or relevant they are for contemporary discussions on gender and sexuality.

This book is addressed to several audiences: (i) Bible translators; (ii) theologians; (iii) LGBT Christians; (iv) families, friends and colleagues of the latter, and (v) Bible readers at large. In relation to Bible translators, the role of translators is paramount. Their contribution to the entrenchment of misogyny and prejudices against sexual minorities has been the object of limited research. This is surprising considering the fact that translators are crucial intermediaries between the biblical world and most readers. One of the main purposes of this book is to highlight the possible – and even likely – link between current English Bible versions on the one hand and negative attitudes towards same-sex love on the other.

Bible Translation

In most chapters, I discuss texts based on linguistic and literary criteria. I then investigate how the passages have been translated into modern English. In the process I have detected a variety of translation errors. Several misinterpretations originated in ancient times and have never been corrected. Gradually, they have become so entrenched that today’s translators often do not see the mistake. Against this backdrop, it is relevant to launch a hypothesis: the popular notion that the Bible condemns same-sex intimacy has arisen in the centuries after the texts of the scripture were composed.

Talking about the translation of scripture is important because the whole area often referred to as homosexuality has been fraught for years. There is every reason to be careful and critical when it comes to studying stories, passages and verses that deal with – or appear to deal with – sexual issues. If current Bible editions miss or distort significant points, controversies are bound to follow. A considerable part of the opposition in various church communities to same-sex partnerships or same-sex marriage can be traced to the Bible versions that people habitually use.

If current English Bible translations are compared with those published in other languages, a series of similarities are detectable. Indeed, many of the same mistakes are found. Such is the case with versions in Danish, Swedish, German, French and Spanish. Regardless of nationality and ecclesiastical affiliation, modern Bible translators are essentially children of a longer, shared theological tradition.

This problem is reinforced by well-established Bible dictionaries of respectable age. Such dictionaries can have a long shelf life indeed, and some offer expressions that sound biased and out of date today (Helminiak 2000: 110). At the same time, it is intriguing to note that some older Bible versions tend to be more accurate than those published after the Second World War. This has to do with the current popularity among translators of the so-called dynamic method. Briefly put, it adapts the language of biblical texts to contemporary usage while simplifying it. The aim is to make scripture easily understood by people with little or no previous knowledge of the Bible. In many ways, this method gives the translator a free hand. However, as will be seen from the examples discussed in this book, it involves a series of pitfalls.

English Versions

Some Bible translators take an ‘academic’ approach to the ancient texts as they strive to present them to contemporary readers in understandable English. Occasionally they use footnotes to alert readers to difficulties in the Hebrew or Greek. Such is the case, for example, with the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible. By contrast, within the ‘dynamic’ method the ideal is to produce a Bible in ‘plain’ everyday language, which implies avoiding all complex terminology and favouring words and phrases familiar to most people today. Two representative examples are the Good News Bible (GNB) and the New Living Translation (NLT). In a large intermediate group, one finds the New International Version (NIV) and the Revised English Bible (REB). For the purposes of this book, I choose to engage with a series of different versions that are well-suited for illustrating the translation issues discussed.

Translation vs Paraphrase

The idea of producing Bibles in everyday language was launched at the time of the Reformation. A famous case was Martin Luther’s German translation published in 1545. Luther’s accessible, popular style meant a clean break with the Latin-influenced idioms that had plagued previous Bible editions in the German-speaking world. The growing tendency among today’s Bible translators towards linguistic simplification gives rise to some concern. Undoubtedly, there will always be a need for special Bible editions for children and young people. However, the idea of a simplified Bible for adults is a relatively modern invention. It did not exist in ancient times when the texts were not perceived as everyday language. By following in Luther’s footsteps and using the dynamic method, modern translators may be able to eliminate the problem of difficult, archaic language. But at the same time, they risk creating new misunderstandings and conflicts.

The scriptures contain multiple religious and poetic expressions that belong to the learned or cultured sphere. Consequently, they are not immediately suitable for simplification. As their lofty style has always differed considerably from everyday language, such formulations have contributed to highlight the religious nature of the texts. It is significant that biblical interpretation in ancient times was the privilege of a small, educated élite for a simple reason: most people were illiterate.

Especially in the domain of gender and sexuality, a major translation mistake framed in simple language may have a devastating effect on unsuspecting readers. Several examples are offered in this book. Most chapters conclude with an assessment of the performance of English Bible translators. An additional problem must be pointed out: many Bible translators and publishers are opposed to footnotes. Nevertheless, all experienced exegetes know that the Hebrew Testament contains words, expressions and passages whose meaning is contested, uncertain or simply unknown.

For translators, it is legitimate to put their cards on the table and acknowledge defeat by saying, ‘unclear text’. Since this does not happen in most versions, readers are presented with the erroneous impression that translators are always sure of what different words and phrases mean. Undoubtedly, it would be more honest to provide short notes wherever unsurmountable difficulties appear in the Hebrew or Greek sources. Such a procedure shows due humility vis-à-vis the Bible and respect for the readers.

Style, Quotations and Transcriptions

In this book, English spelling tends to follow the norms established in Canada. Regarding direct Bible quotations, I use my own translation unless stated otherwise.

With respect to phonetic transcriptions, the Hebrew consonant ע (ayin) merits a special comment. In Classical Hebrew it represents a guttural sound. In this book, I use the character ћ to transcribe ayin in certain Hebrew words. Examples are ћezer, ‘sustainer’, zaћaqah, ‘outcry’, and yadaћ, ‘know’.

In the transcript of Hebrew and Greek words, the letters ch in both cases reproduce a pronunciation similar to ch in the German word Bach and Scottish loch. In Hebrew contexts, ch represents the letter ח (chet), which occurs in bachar, ‘select’ or ‘choose’, Chawwah, ‘Eve’, and ruach, ‘wind, breath, spirit’. In Greek words the transcription ch corresponds to the letter χ (chi) as in moicheia, ‘infidelity’, and Christos, ‘Christ’.

The cover image

In the Roman Catholic tradition, Jerome (ca. 345–420 CE) is the patron saint of translators. His famous Vulgate translation of the entire Bible into Latin (382–405 CE) became hugely influential during the Middle Ages and beyond. The cover image of this book is an artistic representation of St Jerome in the Scriptorium created during the period 1480–90 by the Master of Parral. The original painting belongs to the Museum of the Fundación Lázaro Galdiano in Madrid.

PART ONE

Marriage, Sex and Knowledge

One Flesh

The Language of Sex

To Know in the Biblical Sense

1

One Flesh

We should not read back our notions of marriage on

the basis of romantic sexual attraction into the text.

– William Loader (2004)

Did God create one or two people at the very beginning? Were Adam and Eve married before they left the Garden of Eden? Was Lot a dirty old man? Is the saying ‘to know in the biblical sense’ biblical? At what age did people marry in antiquity? How old was Mary when she gave birth to Jesus? Who were the eunuchs acting in different parts of the Bible? Does the Bible accept same-sex relationships? Was the apostle Paul a repressed gay man? Is the word ‘homosexuality’ relevant for discussing the Bible?

The best place to search for answers to these questions are the biblical stories themselves. The specific words and phrases used in Classical Hebrew or Hellenistic Greek provide the necessary information. However, a long, ascetic church tradition characterized by fear of human erotic impulses has misinterpreted the biblical data, a problem that still manifests itself in the Bible versions published in the twenty-first century (Lings 2013: 617–20). Therefore, in the three initial chapters of this book, the ancient terminologies related to marriage, sex and ‘knowing’ are explored. A biblical view of same-sex love is presented in chapters 11–14, while a powerful vision of gender is discussed in chapter 16. These tools enable us to interpret some of the legal texts, sophisticated narratives, nerve-racking dramas and theological debates that add colour and variety to the Hebrew and Greek Testaments.

Life Choices

In today’s world it is often argued that the notion of Christian marriage, according to the so-called creation order in Genesis, only applies to couples formed of one man and one woman. According to this logic, relationships consisting of either two men or two women do not live up to this basic requirement. However, if the biblical narrative is meant to be taken seriously to the point of being normative for people’s daily lives, other interesting details merit close attention.

In Gen 1:29, where the Creator speaks of food that is apt for human beings, the narrator explicitly suggests that a human being should be a vegetarian or perhaps even a vegan (cf. 2:16; 3:17–19). Nonetheless, in today’s world how many Christians stick to vegetarian or vegan diets motivated by this passage in Genesis? In many countries a vegetarian lifestyle is perfectly possible, but worldwide only a minority puts it into practice. This example shows how Bible readers can be selective when it comes to paying attention to those parts of scripture that affect their life choices.

With respect to marriage, how clear and straightforward is the biblical message? Historians have documented the extent to which the role of marriage, including its social importance, has changed repeatedly since ancient times (Thatcher 1999: 68–70). Geographically and culturally, considerable diversity has existed between countries, regions, peoples and tribes. Put differently, marital arrangements have not always looked like the ones generally practised in today’s world. For instance, in numerous ancient cultures no religious importance was attached to weddings. Marriage was regarded as an alliance between two families or clans (Terrien 1985: 166; Loader 2013: 40), and economic matters were discussed during premarital negotiations. For the most part it was up to parents to select a suitable partner for their son or daughter.¹

Historically speaking, the idea of having a church wedding is relatively recent (Stuart 1995: 113). At the Council of Trent in 1563, the Catholic Church decided that only weddings performed by a priest would be legally valid (Karras 2005: 157). In Scandinavia, laws permitting weddings on church premises were enacted in the fifteenth century, but the form of church ceremony with which most Scandinavians are familiar did not come about until 1685. Throughout the Middle Ages and well into the modern era, the idea of marrying for love was virtually unheard of. Until the end of the nineteenth century, marital legislation in Denmark did not mention the word love. Only following the rise of the Romantic Movement in the nineteenth century have love and feelings of attraction been accepted in the western world as a valid basis for marriage.² In some other parts of the world, however, family concerns are still paramount.

Below, I will look at three issues: (i) what the Bible has to say about love in relation to marriage; (ii) the expressions and phrases used by the biblical writers to explain the formal framework in which marriage takes place; and (iii) the role of the creation story.

Love and Marriage

The picture of marriage offered by the Bible is a complex one. When the subject is in focus, few cases of actual love are depicted. The first example is found in the story of Abraham and Sarah’s son Isaac, who dearly loves Rebecca (Gen 24:67). Some years later his son Jacob falls in love with his cousin Rachel. However, he has to wait seven years for her (Gen 29:18–20). Elcanah, father of the prophet Samuel, clearly loves his wife Hannah (1 Sam 1:5, 8). That a woman loves the man she is going to marry is stated only once in the Hebrew Testament. Such is the case of Mikhal, daughter of Saul, who falls for David (1 Sam 18:20, 28).

As the choice of spouse is made for the couple by their parents, love is no requirement for marital relationships. Abraham arranges his son Isaac’s marriage to Rebecca (Gen 24:2–7); Laban gives two of his daughters to Jacob (29:15–30); Saul unexpectedly gives his daughter Merab to a man named Adriel (1 Sam 18:19), and he grants Mikhal permission to marry David (18:27). Subsequently he single-handedly dissolves Mikhal’s marriage and gives her to another man (25:44).

Monogamy and Polygamy

In the two Testaments, marriage takes different forms. In large stretches of the Hebrew Testament the norm is polygamy or, to be exact, polygyny, a technical term that applies to a man marrying several wives. In Gen 4:19 a man named Lamech is reported to have two wives. Regarding the twin brothers Esau and Jacob, the former first marries two women and later a third (Gen 26:34; 28:9; 36:3–4). Jacob only wants his cousin Rachel but, in a fairly short time, three additional women become his wives (Gen 29–30). Elcanah, father of Samuel, has two wives named Peninnah and Hannah. His favourite is Hannah, despite her being childless (1 Sam 1:5). Some kings in Israel are known to have had a considerable number of wives. Over time, David acquires a harem (2 Sam 3:2–5), but the most spectacular example is delivered by his son Solomon. In 1 Kings 11:3 it is stated that he, at the height of his power, has no fewer than 700 wives of princely stock along with 300 concubines.

To complete this picture, it is worth mentioning that polygyny is not the only arrangement available in the Hebrew Testament. Regularly, only one wife per husband is listed. Thus, Isaac marries Rebecca (Gen 24:67), a priest named Jethro gives his daughter Zipporah to Moses (Ex 2:21; 18:2), and Samson’s mother is the only wife of a man named Manoah (Judg 13:2). The Book of Ecclesiastes invites male readers and listeners to enjoy life in the company of ‘a woman you love’ (9:9). Eventually the monogamous tendency prevails. Around the time when the Greek Testament is written down, monogamy has become the norm (1 Cor 7:2; 1 Tim 3:12). However, at no point is it possible to speak of legal equality between the spouses because a husband consistently enjoys more rights than his wife. In the Hebrew Testament she is regarded as his property (Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21; 24:1–4). Similarly, the authors of several Greek Testament letters admonish wives to be subject to their husbands in no uncertain terms (Col 3:18; 1 Tim 2:11–15; 1 Pet 3:1).

To Take a Wife

Attached to the institution of marriage, a detailed terminology was in place in biblical times to describe the various elements involved. These included betrothal (engagement), dowry, wedding and, finally, consummation through sexual intercourse.³ A series of Bible passages describe a man ‘taking’ a woman, i.e., he makes her his wife. The Book of Genesis has many examples of laqach, the Hebrew verb for ‘take’, in this role. The very first occurrence is in 6:2 where a group of mythological ‘sons of gods’ (or ‘sons of God’) find earthly women attractive. This motivates all of them to take a wife to whom they subsequently ‘go in’ (6:4). The outcome is a number of children who grow up to become giants and heroes. From a literary point of view, this unusual text is the preamble to the account of Noah’s ark and the flood (6:13).

In Gen 11:29 a man named Abram takes a wife called Sarai; in Gen 17 YHWH changes their names to Abraham and Sarah.⁴ Following Sarah’s death, Abraham decides to remarry by taking a woman named Keturah (25:1). Towards the end of Gen 24 Isaac takes his cousin Rebecca, making her his spouse. In the story of Sodom, Lot has two ‘sons-in-law’, i.e., young men who are meant to take his young daughters when they reach the appropriate age (19:14). For his part, David commits a heinous crime by orchestrating the death of Uriah, a soldier, leaving the way open for himself to take Uriah’s beautiful wife Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:27; 12:9–10).

In the Bible, then, a man may take a wife, but it does not happen the other way around. Occasionally parents may take a young woman on their son’s behalf. Such is the case of Hagar who goes to Egypt to take a wife for her son Ishmael (Gen 21:21), and Abraham sends his senior slave to the town of Nahor where he is to take a wife for his son Isaac (24:10). In Judg 14:1–3 Samson makes his parents nervous by asking them to take a young woman for him. He finds her very attractive, but the situation is made complicated by the fact that she is a Philistine and lives with her people, who are hostile to the Israelites. Just as parents or future husbands ‘take’ a wife, it is up to the woman’s father or brothers to ‘give’ her to a worthy candidate. This happens in Gen 29:19 where Laban gives Rachel to Jacob, and in the land of Midian Jethro gives his daughter Zipporah to Moses (Ex 2:21).

The Gospel of Matthew, penned in Greek, contains an example of how the ancient expression of ‘taking’ in relation to marriage is still in use around the first century CE. In 1:20, Joseph is told to take the pregnant Mary, which he does in 1:24. In this episode as well as all the cases mentioned above it is clear that customs and traditions in biblical times are radically different from what is expected and done in our own time. In today’s world few Christians, if any, advocate a return to the biblical way of arranging marriages. Most people find the thought of taking and giving a woman antiquated. In the twenty-first century, at least in the western world, the ideal partnership, including marriage, is built on legal and social equality. Moreover, most people prefer to make their own