A Question of Accuracy
Some time ago an article was brought to my attention that charges modern Bible translation with changing the meaning of the original text of the Bible. These questions, of course, come up from time to time. There are often those, from inside and outside of the church, who question translation accuracy in order to support a particular agenda. The problem for many Christians is that we generally do not know the original languages. So when one of these challenges arises, it can cause us to question not only the teaching of our own church, but the very teaching of the Bible itself. And so, I have written this article to reassure you that yes, our modern Bible translations are accurate to the original languages.
My goal is not to interpret the texts we look at here. Rather, I will focus on answering the question, “Do the verses in question show that our modern translations are inaccurate?”
So what is the particular charge? Ed Oxford, a graduate of Talbot School of Theology, claimed, in an article he published in 2019 (Has Homosexual Always Been in the Bible?), that the word “homosexual” is absent from biblical teaching along with the concept itself, and was not including in Bible translations until 1946. Instead, he claims that the original concept taught in the Bible is a very narrow one: pederasty. Pederasty is the abominable practice of men having sexual relations with young boys. And, as Mr. Oxford brings up in his article, this truly was a major problem in the Greco-Roman world. Some of the historical context given in that article is, sadly, accurate. But that context specifically refers to the Greco-Roman world, the world of much of the New Testament but not the Old Testament.
In order to judge the accuracy of our Bible translations, let’s look at the linguistic evidence Ed Oxford gives in the order he presents it.
Leviticus
Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (ESV)
Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (ESV)
Mr. Oxford only looks at this verse based on the koine Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX). The phrase in red above is the one in question and this phrase breaks apart his arguments right here at the beginning. He claims the word “arsenokoites (Greek: αρσενοκοιτης)” is used, but it is not. Rather, the two root words of that compound are used instead. In fact, there is no evidence “arsenokoites” was even present in the Greek language until the 1st century AD. What he has done here is called “semantic anachronism.” Basically, he has taken the (possible) meaning of a later word and imported it onto its much earlier parts. That is not only unhelpful, but also a faulty method of understanding and translating language.
So what are the root words used? First we have “arsenos (Greek: αρσενος).” This simply means “male.” A good example of this is Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” No age distinction is present, merely a distinction between male and female. The second word in the compound, present in both Leviticus verses, is “koite (Greek: κοιτη).” This word originally referred to the act of lying down and thus became used for sexual intercourse and later on even referred simply to a bed. In Leviticus it definitely refers to sexual intercourse.
The LXX (and modern English translations) ends up being a good translation of the Hebrew, which literally reads (18:22) “and do not lie down with a man as you would lie down with a woman.” The Hebrew of the OT almost always uses euphemisms for intercourse and the word used here, “mishcab (Hebrew: משכב)” is a common one. The word for male here is “zacar (Hebrew: זכר),” which is a generic word for males of any age.
Put simply, when looking at Leviticus the article uses the possible meaning of a later word to define two separate words in a book that was written centuries earlier in a different language. The modern translations stand firm.
I Timothy
I Timothy 1:10 “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine . . .” (ESV)
The phrase in question, marked in blue above, is the word “arsenokoites (Greek: αρσενοκοιτες).” In this case, Ed Oxford has recorded the Greek correctly. But what exactly does this word mean? The earliest record of this word is found in the poetry of imperial Rome (no earlier than ~30BC, though more likely within the 1st century AD). This means that the use here in I Timothy is one of the earliest recorded uses of the word. Looking at the uses of this word throughout the Roman literature we find out that it could either refer to intercourse between a man and a boy (pederasty) or between two males of any age (homosexuality). Both uses can be easily identified. Here in I Timothy (as well as the other NT use in I Corinthians 6:9), Paul, a well educated Jew you often refers back to the OT, is most likely referring back to Leviticus and the prohibitions there regarding homosexuality. Once again, the modern translation stands firm.
But what about Latin?
In the first question that Mr. Oxford answers he writes this: “Last week at the Huntington Library I found a Lexicon from 1483. I looked up arsenokoitai and it gave the Latin equivalent, paedico and praedico.” Could it be that Luther based his translation on this? Sure, that is very possible. But that does not mean it is correct. Although Latin and Greek have many similarities, there are many times when they do not have direct equivalents. As the Reformers found out when they began studying the Greek New Testament instead of only the Latin Vulgate, sometimes Latin did not accurately convey the meaning of the Greek. This is one of those cases.
Old Translations Compared
So what about the charge that using the word “homosexuality” is purely modern and that all older translations referred to some form of pederasty? Let’s look at the evidence:
1611 KJV: “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselues with mankinde, for men-stealers, for liars, for periured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,”
1599 Geneva Bible: “To whoremongers, to buggerers, to menstealers, to liars, to the perjured, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to wholesome doctrine,”
Wycliffe Bible (1382-1395): “and lechers, to them that do lechery with men, lying-mongers and forsworn, and if any other thing is contrary to the wholesome teaching,”
1526 Tyndale Bible: “and whormongers: to them that defile them selves with mankynde: to menstealers: to lyars and to periured and so forth yf ther be eny other thinge that is cotrary to holsome doctrine” (Notice that this is identical to the 1611 KJV which often directly copied Tyndale)
Those are the 4 most common, old English translations and all 4 refer to homosexuality in general, not merely pederasty. Ed Oxford mentions German translations. I cannot argue one way or another about those as I do not know German. But even if the older German translations do mention pederasty instead of homosexuality, that does not make them right. On the contrary, the preponderance of evidence weighs heavily toward the current english translations for every verse mentioned in this article. Yes, the word “homosexual” is a relatively modern word, but it is one that accurately captures the meaning of both the Hebrew and Greek portions of the Bible. Certainly, if people insist that we use only older language in our translations then we could start using the term “buggerer” again. But, personally, I don’t think that would be an appropriate or helpful term for us to use.
Our final conclusion, then, is this: yes, despite what many people today want to think our modern Bible translations are very accurate.
May we always seek to clearly understand all that is taught in God’s Word.