Thursday, July 12, 2012

Yes, Paul Really Said That

It was bad enough this week when General Convention decided to open all positions in the Church -- clergy, lay and volunteer -- to all those for whom their sex (gender) is like their apparel, i.e., chosen to fit the mood and the occasion. Then it voted to violate ECUSA's Constitution by authorizing a "rite" for same-sex blessings which, until it also amends the Rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer, it has no power to authorize.

But the low point of the week was surely when the House of Deputies decided to attack a certain Bible translation (the English Standard Version) for using the word "homosexuality" to translate a passage from St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. The contortions they went through in trying to avoid dealing with that reality say all one needs to know about the place of Holy Scripture in today's Episcopal Church (USA).

When Resolution A061 authorizing certain new translations came to the floor of the House of Deputies, the Standing Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music had, after a public hearing, voted to enlarge the list of approved versions which it originally submitted in its Report to the General Convention.  As the SC originally had it, Canon II.2 ("of Translations of the Bible") would have been amended to add two more contemporary translations to the list already in that Canon, as follows (numbers will identify each translation throughout this article):

Existing Translations Authorized

1. Authorized (King James) Version (1611)
2. Revised English Version (1881) [English Standard Version]
3. Revised American Version (1901) [American Standard Version]
4. Revised Standard Version (1952)
5. Jerusalem Bible (1966)
6. New English Bible and Apocrypha (1970)
7. R.S.V. Common Bible (1973)
8. New International Version (1978)
9. New Jerusalem Bible (1987)
10. Revised English Bible (1989)
11. New Revised Standard Version (1989)

New Versions Proposed in the SC Report

12. The Message (2002)
13. Common English Bible (2011)

After the public hearing on the Resolution, the SC amended it to add these translations:

New Versions Added After Public Hearing

14. Contemporary English Version (1995)
15. Contemporary English Version Global (2005)

And in the course of debating the Resolutions on the third day, the House adopted an amendment adding the English Standard Version (an adaptation from the R.S.V.) to the list:

Version Added by the HoD (July 7, 2012)

16. English Standard Version (2001)

Thus, before the 77th General Convention, there were eleven versions of the Holy Bible authorized for use in worship services in the Episcopal Church (USA). And at the 77th Convention, a total of five new versions were proposed to be added to those, and were approved in the House of Deputies.

Or, that is, until a Deputy brought to the floor, at the last minute before adjournment on the fifth day (July 7), a motion to reconsider the Resolution in the form that had passed the HoD just twenty minutes or so earlier (the form with the five new translations listed above). Specifically, the Deputy announced that he was making the motion because he had "discovered" -- in just the time since the Resolution had passed -- that the English Standard Version used the word "homosexuality" in translating chapter 6, verse 9 of First Corinthians.

He announced that he was "shocked", and felt "betrayed", that the House would propose to use such an anachronistic translation in today's Church. Didn't everyone know that St. Paul, who lived two thousand years ago, could have known nothing about the "long-term commitments" and deep, mutual love which characterize today's same-sex relationships? And that to ascribe a modern, only recently developed word like "homosexuality" to the sins of temple prostitution which he was denouncing was a complete case of category mistake? [N.B.: I have paraphrased the Deputy's remarks from the various accounts on the blogs. If anyone who was there has a more accurate transcription, I will be happy to post it.]

To rectify this horrendous error, the House quickly voted to "reconsider" the Resolution, which meant that it would be considered again, de novo, on the next day, and in the form as proposed by the Standing Committee (i.e., with the two proposed originally, plus the two Contemporary English versions, but without the ESV language). In just a matter of minutes, it was as though "l'affaire E.S.V." had never happened.

The offending passage -- which so "shocked" the betrayed Deputy  -- appears (as stated) in First Corinthians (ch. 6, v. 9). Here is how the ESV (16) translates that verse (along with the rest of Paul's sentence, in verse 10). Please note that in this excerpt, and in all the quotes that follow, I have bolded the particular translation's equivalent, in each instance, of the language which gave offense to certain Deputies:
Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 
[The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.]
Well, and what about the two Contemporary English Versions which the House of Deputies also adopted, in its collective wisdom? Here is how they each translate the same passage (14, 15):
Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual 10  will share in God’s kingdom. 
[The Holy Bible: The Contemporary English Version. 1995. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.]
There's that "word" again! How could that possibly have slipped by the gay police? So will the Contemporary English versions have to be removed from the list, as well?

But wait -- we have only just begun to review how the other proposed recent versions translate that passage in Paul's letter.  Here's how The Message (12 - a paraphrased version, which makes no effort at  word-for-word accuracy) puts it:
Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. 
[Peterson, E. H. (2005). The Message: The Bible in contemporary language. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.]
Maybe that language is loose enough to pass the Deputies' strict standards. After all, no one in the Church today is into "abusing" sex, is one? So that language couldn't describe any contemporary Episcopalians, and so must be all right. But what about the Common English Bible, which the Deputies adopted without objection? Here is its version of the passage (13):
Don’t be deceived. Those who are sexually immoral, those who worship false gods, adulterers, both participants in same-sex intercourse, h 10 thieves, the greedy, drunks, abusive people, and swindlers won’t inherit God’s kingdom.   

hOr submissive and dominant male sexual partners.
[Common English Bible. 2011. Nashville, TN: Common English Bible.]
Whoa! What did we just read? "[B]oth participants in same-sex intercourse"? Explained in a note as meaning "submissive and dominant male sexual partners?" How did that recommendation ever get past the diligent gay censors in the HoD?

The New Revised Standard Version (11) is very popular in Episcopal churches today, and is an update of the 1952 RSV (4). Here is how it translates 1 Cor. 6:9:
Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10  thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 
[The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. 1989. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.]
The original 1952 RSV (4) simply called them "homosexuals" (translating, as it noted, two Greek words with the one term in English), while the Revised English Bible (10), and its predecessor, the New English Bible (6) -- two other versions on the already approved list -- used the now politically incorrect term "sexual perverts." That language clearly expresses the illiterate prejudices of an earlier generation, before the American Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality" from its official list of mental disorders in 1973. Yet, inexplicably, all three versions remain approved by the Episcopal Church (USA) for Sunday and daily worship.

Working backwards through the already approved list, we next have the New Jerusalem Bible (9), a version favored in the Roman Catholic Church. Its translation of St. Paul runs:
Make no mistake—the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, 10  thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 
[The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985. New York, NY: Doubleday.] 
Is that language an improvement over the 1966 original Jerusalem Bible (5), which uses the words  "catamites, sodomites" for "the self-indulgent, sodomites" of the 1985 update? Since "catamite" is a Greek term for a boy used by a pederast, it is not exactly friendly language, either.

What about one of the most widely used of all translations (though not so much in ECUSA, since its  recent revisions have not been listed in the Canon), the current New International Version? It says:
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men a10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  
a [NIV Note:] The words "men who have sex with men" translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.   
[The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.]
 The 1978 NIV (8 - the one that ECUSA officially approves) translated what it now says means "men who have sex with men" as "male prostitutes [and] homosexual offenders". It would thus seem that by the standards of today's majority in the House of Deputies, no version of the NIV should be on the list.

And here is the New American Standard Bible (1995), the successor to the 1901 version: 
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 
[New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.] 
The original version (3) of 1901, as well as its English counterpart of 1881 (2), uses the same word "effeminate" for the first class of offenders, but what the 1995 update translates as "homosexuals", the earlier versions translate as "abusers of themselves with men" - a phrase which their contemporary,  Oscar Wilde, would have understood without difficulty.  
At last we come to the venerable King James Version (1), which now reads (in the light of the more recent wordings reviewed above) just the same:

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10  nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  
[The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized [King James] English Version. 1873 (cxix). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]

To summarize what we have learned from this little excursion: there was practically no change in the official translations of the Bible from the 17th until the 20th century, when the new coinage "homosexual" began to replace the earlier descriptions of "men who abuse themselves with men." The translators viewed the two descriptions as functionally equivalent renditions of Paul's original Greek (see the Appendix at the end of this article). Seen in this context, the sudden affronts at the ESV's use of "homosexuality" become foolish and perverse.

And what happened in the House of Deputies the next day (July 8)? Did the shocked and affronted Deputy admit to his Biblical ignorance, and did all the ones who voted to reconsider the addition of the ESV withdraw their objections?

Of course not -- do you think these people are capable of admitting that they made a huge mistake, and were wrong? Rather than face ludicrous embarrassment over its Biblical naïveté, the GLBTQI faction in the House of Deputies immediately swept the issue under the rug, by sending someone to the microphone before debate could begin to move to recommit the Resolution to the Standing Committee. That person made a motion to recommit the whole matter to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, for "further study" in the interim until the next General Convention.

And those, dear folks, are the people whom you have elected to play at being "the Episcopal Church" once every three years -- at your expense. I hope you are pleased with the manner in which they carry out God's work in your name.

* * * * * * * * * * *


For the sake of completeness, and just so we cannot be accused of overlooking anything, let's look at some other translations of the Bible, starting with the more modern first. Here's how another respected recent version, the New English Translation (N.E.T.) renders it, with word-for-word accuracy:
Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 6:10  thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 
[The NET Bible (First Edition; 2001). Biblical Studies Press.]
And what about the Catholics? Are the modern translations which they now use any different?

Here's the popular New American Bible, the version used today in most Roman Catholic Churches:
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 
[Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees, Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, & United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board. (1996). The New American Bible: Translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources and the revised New Testament.]
And here is how the former Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, translates the passage in his own recent  version of the New Testament:
Don't be deceived! Neither immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor practicing homosexuals of whichever sort, 10  nor thieves, nor greedy people, nor drunkards, nor abusive talkers, nor robbers will inherit God's kingdom. 
[Wright, N.T. The Kingdom New Testament: a Contemporary Translation. 2011. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.]
To complete the survey of modern translations, here is Kenneth Wuest's expanded New Testament Translation, which "uses as many English words as are necessary to bring out the richness, force, and clarity of the Greek text":
Stop being deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor those who are of a voluptuous nature, given to the gratification of sensual, immoral appetites, neither men who are guilty of sexual intercourse with members of their own sex, nor thieves, nor those who are always greedy to have more than they possess, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit God’s kingdom. 
[Wuest, K. S. (1997). The New Testament: An expanded translation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.]
These recent translations seem to be pretty consistent. All use or refer to the words "homosexual" or "homosexuality" to describe the acts which St. Paul was cataloguing as barriers to the kingdom of Heaven.

Let's stack up some more, both newer and older, just to be sure we are not missing anything:
Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10  or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 
[Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 3rd ed., 2007. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.] 
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. 
[The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.]
Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality10  no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. 
[The Holy Bible : Holman Christian standard version. 2009. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers.] 
Neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners, 10  nor thieves, nor greedy persons, not drunkards, not abusive persons, not swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 
[The Lexham English Bible. 2012 (W. H. Harris, III, E. Ritzema, R. Brannan, D. Mangum, J. Dunham, J. A. Reimer & M. Wierenga, Ed.). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.]
Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom. 
[The Everyday Bible : New Century Version. 2005. Nashville, TN.: Thomas Nelson, Inc.] 
Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts 10  or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves—none of these will possess God’s Kingdom. 
[The Holy Bible : The Good News Translation (2nd ed., 1992). New York, NY: American Bible Society.] 
Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men, 10  nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor abusive persons, nor the rapacious, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
[The Holy Scriptures: A new translation from the original languages (Darby, J. N. [1890] 1996). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.
Finally, let's look at two other ancient translations besides the Authorized Version of King James, just to  complete this survey. I start with the Catholic Douay-Rheims version, whose New Testament rendition into English (1582) from the Vulgate predates the King James by nearly thirty years:
Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: 10  Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God. 
[The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. 2009. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.]
And for those who read Latin, here is the Vulgate itself, which dates back to St. Jerome's translation in the fifth century:
nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri 10 neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt 
Biblia Sacra Vulgata: Iuxta Vulgatem Versionem. 1969 (electronic edition of the 3rd edition). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
"Molles" is Latin for "soft, effeminate ones." And one doesn't have to know very much Latin in order to be able to figure out Jerome's "masculorum concubitores" to translate St. Paul's Greek.  

The translators have been fairly consistent for more than 1,400 years, have they not? The words they are dealing with, in Paul's original Greek, are malakoi ("soft, effeminate ones", i.e., the passive partners) and arsenokoitai (literally, something like "guys/bums abed", i.e., the active ones) (οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται). Paul was using Koine Greek slang, which like any ancient slang has been out of use for so long that there are few instances of it in the Greek texts we have extant today, to describe the homosexual behaviors in which men then engaged.

More recent ink has been spilled over possible other interpretations of those two slang words than I care to acknowledge, or to link or discuss here. My point in reviewing all the translations of Paul from that of Jerome to those of the latest New Testament scholars is to show how off-base those would-be interpretations are. They are perfect examples of eisegesis -- reading one's own meaning into the words of Scripture -- rather than exegesis, which is reading out of Holy Scripture the meaning which their divinely inspired authors had in mind when they wrote.

Paul knew perfectly well what he was talking about, and so can we.


  1. Delegates, had they dug a little deeper into scripture, would have discovered that occasional claims are made that Jesus Christ was murdered and then came back to life after a few days.

    Liberal heads would have exploded.

  2. One must realize that most of these people have had no theological training. And that includes their priests and bishops.

    David Katzakian

  3. Well, A.S., I appreciate your taking the time to post the various versions of Paul's famous words of rebuke in translation. Yet, as I read the list I keep coming upon the word "adulterers" and I recall Our Lord's teaching that those who divorce and remarry are adulterers, true? Hence the Church of Rome's ban on divorce...yet I can recall many, many folks who are counted traditional Episcopalians yet have been blessed in Church marriage rites in their second marriage...might you clarify this preference for one sin over another for me?

  4. SFiTC, been there; done that.

    Use the Guide to This Site more frequently to see if I have already posted on a question that you have. For instance, you will find a number of posts on the Church and Christian marriage linked at this page.

  5. ASH

    When did the church (or any church) pass a resolution embracing divorce as something natural and holy? I don't recall such a resolution, and I would have opposed it if they had tired. Anyway, I am happily married to my college sweetheart, who I met at a Halloween Party near Jackson, Mississippi in 2001. So I wasn't planning to researching for the resolution anyway.

  6. TRR (and SFitC), please: let's not hijack this thread over into a discussion of marriage and divorce. (And no, TRR, there's been no such Resolution by ECUSA.)

    It serves only to distract from the point of the article, which has to do with the current left-wing reading of St. Paul's catalog of obstacles to making it to the kingdom of Heaven -- and their blindness to the fact that his catalog specifically lists practicing homosexuality as one of its items. The other items on the list are for other posts, or at least for another day.

  7. Fair enough, A.S....back to reading my And thank you for the links on Christian marriage - you are a true treasury of traditional theology in case no one has mentioned that today!

    Pax et Bonum!

  8. Exasperation is warranted. The noble host has listed a veritable super-highway's length of explanation, evidence, deduction, proofs, and sound reasoning concerning falsely foisted arguments by people who must refer to themselves as "gay" because their true indentifier is more accurate and disgusting.

    We have sympathy with the Reformed Reinhardt; I am certainly more of a loose cannon. My striving is to be more concise, brief, and well-structure in thought and presentation. TRR is one whose words are well crafted and weighty with truth. But we must first drive a stake into the heart of the falsity that the sin of Sodom was "inhospitability" That is foremost to-day.
    The sin of Sodom was that the angels found the men to be practicing an abomination. And, even offered Lot's hospitality, the men demanded that the visiting angels be presented outside, "that they might know them".
    The rest is, we might say, history.

    Our little study group will be reviewing the Venerable Curmudgeon's Catalogue of Translations of the words of Saint Paul from the various sources so as to be refreshed with and armed by the truth and the certain knowledge it provides.

    As always, thank you all for the time. And accept the prayer,"Almighty Father, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough!
    El Gringo Viejo

  9. Do you know why they struck the TEV from the list?

  10. C. Wingate, the only grounds we know of are those stated by the Deputy in his motion to reconsider (as recited above): that he was "shocked" by the translation, and felt "betrayed" -- because after a 20-minute search of the text, he found it used "homosexuality" to translate the passage of St. Paul which is the topic of this post.

  11. I am not a Greek scholar, but in my opinion any English translation of arsenokoitai that doesn't include the "F" word is a mistranslation. That word is the only word in English, attested for centuries, that exactly translates the Greek word. "Lie with," "sleep with," "have sex with," etc., are all euphemistic, and do not reflect the word used by the apostle (or in the Septuagint to translate, for example, Leviticus).
    People arguing from different viewpoints can reasonably differ on what implications Paul's coinage of such terms have in context, but pussyfooting around the words he used undercuts the arguments on both sides.

  12. VB, I try to keep this blog from earning a "NSFW" designation, since a number of its readers wear the collar, and many more may still be offended by foul language. It is very hard to read Paul without our post-Victorian sensibilities getting in the way; moreover, my readings indicate that Greeks and Romans (I can't say anything about Jews) were much more frank in talking about and performing the sex act than we still living in the shadow of the Victorians could conceive. (Hence your moniker, right?)

    At any rate, the "F" word might certainly have been less shocking to Paul than it is to some of us, and so would not have had the same force with his audience -- especially those in Corinth, who regularly saw it all! My compromise with anachronism was to use an Elizabethan slang term for essentially the same thing.

  13. Curmudgeon,

    The general editor of the English Standard Version is J. I. Packer who is also a clergyman in good standing of the Anglican Church in North America and a fierce critic of liberal Anglican/Episcopalian mishandling of the Scriptures. The ESV is widely-used in the ACNA and among theologically conservative Anglicans in general. The ACNA Prayer Book and Common Worship Taskforce has proposed and the ACNA College of Bishops has approved the use of texts from the ESV in the ACNA Prayer Book. Strikes me that this may have more to do with liberal Episcopalians' dislike of the ESV than its choice of words. They associate it with the ACNA and theological conservatism. The particular choice of words was not the real objection to the ESV. It simply provided a convenient excuse for questioning its use in the Episcopal Church. How would it have sounded if someone had objected to the addition of the ESV on the Episcopal Church's list of authorized translations on the grounds that clergy and congregations in the ACNA used the ESV? It would have sounded really petty.

  14. RBJ, what you say might well be true. I drew my conclusion from the startling suddenness of the Deputy's making an objection to the passage of the Resolution just 20 minutes after it was passed, and giving the specific instance of finding that one word in that one passage as the reason for his "shock" and feeling of "betrayal."

    Had there been a general animus against the ESV among the Deputies for the reasons you describe, I would have expected a more contentious debate before passage, if not a rejection of the proposed amendment separately when it was made from the floor.

    But the amendment passed, and then the amended Resolution passed, each without notable dissent, until the Deputy suddenly leapt to the microphone and shouted "Betrayal!" And from then on, the behavior of the faction that sought reconsideration has been too pathetic for words, as they have sought to bury the Resolution again without having to speak about their ignorance of what is in all the other translations that ECUSA has approved, as well.

  15. I agree with you, ASH...the fact that ACNA uses a particular translation would not have been problematic for any number of folks - for reading aloud it is a fine version and for many folks that was their primary concern.

    I prefer my NRSV with commentary by Oxford and Anchor Bible but I also like a number of the other versions you listed.

    I would guess what caused the uproar is a conservative deputy chose to point out the word homosexual to a liberal deputy after passage, eliciting the cry of betrayal...

    For myself, I accept the meaning of the language as given, although I find only a plain reading of the text of questionable value and validity, but so it goes.

    Further thoughts, ASH?

  16. On May 31 when we relinquished all real and personal property to TEC , we left behind an NIV pulpit Bible and 150 NIV pew Bibles. Within 2 weeks we had donated a new ESV pulpit Bible and 175 new ESV pew Bibles including 24 large print editions for our seniors. And yes we are an ACNA parish and I for one am glad TEC didn't approve the ESV.

    David Wilson+
    The Anglican Parish of Christ the Redeemer in the South Hills
    Canonsburg PA

  17. The RSV first edition (published 1952) has a different reading: "nor homosexuals". It appears that the second edition (published 1971) reads as noted above. The wording of the first edition text at 1 Corinthians 6:9 can be found on the Internet Archive at:

  18. AEV, thank you for that correction - my software gave me, as you pointed out, the second edition of that translation. I have fixed the text accordingly.

    And here is the link to the original RSV that AEV posted. It could come in handy some day.

  19. Curmudgeon,

    I will allow that in the case of the deputy in question what you say may be true. At the same time the suddenness of the discovery still strikes me as suspect. Did the deputy accidentally come across the offending word or was he looking for something in the ESV that he could use to object to its authorization? The connection between the ESV and the ACNA may not have been a primary motivator but I suspect that it may have been a contributing factor for some deputies. In any event I don't think that we'll ever really know and I see no gain in pointless speculation.

  20. For the last day, I've thought about how to respond. I'm not sure I have much to add to what has already been said, but I'll give a few anecdotes:

    At the beginning of every school year, I always find at least one student who thinks he can charm me (as he charmed his high school teachers) into letting him get away with the most slick behavior and slovenly performance, especially when it comes to doing their reading assignments and discussing them in class. Now I make students write on a reading-related topic for 20 minutes before discussing the reading in class (which saves me lots of these sorts of problems). But before I did this, I would get lots of these sorts of responses: "Well, I didn't read it, but I think what the author wants to say is..."

    (ASIDE: Yes, college students today do say things such as this...subsidized tuition and Pell Grants mean that the deserving and undeserving sit side-by-side in the lecture halls of America's colleges and Universities.)

    Honestly, when I first read about these people suddenly 'discovering' what the text of the ESV said, I thought about me dealing with slick-minded 18-year-olds: people who (1) don't read the bible and (2) haven't scanned any of these translations in question but (3) think that being a drinking buddy with the bishop (thus 'earning' their right to be at GC) entitles them to vote on things of which they know nothing.

    In my classroom I have the authority (for now) to put the breaks on this sort of stuff (because believe me, those sorts of students love to talk and be noticed), whereas at GC no one but Jesus himself can walk into that inane den full of Mr. Collins types and tell them to go home before they further damn themselves.

    I truly think that we have gotten ourselves into this mess because the GC is a magnet for the wrong types of people--just like our colleges and universities have become a magnet for the wrong sorts of people (slacker students, professors who don't teach or hold students accountable, ideological personalities, career administrators, etc.) Anyway, that is a whole different can of worms...for another time.

    Another anecdote I can offer comes from a friend of mine who is a priest and a chaplain in central Mississippi. He told me he went to a chaplain's meeting in New York City and that he and the other chaplains were scheduled to attend a mass somewhere (the celebrant, as it turned out, was to be Mary Glasspool!) and the worship bulletin...instead of having the scripture readings from the Psalm, Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospels...had excerpts from novels or other secular readings printed under the BCP's "The word of the Lord" and "Thanks be to God".

    Also, my wife tells me that the local rector here, on his blog, never has scriptures posted on it.

    What we're all getting at is that the Bible isn't important to these people. They only care about having an institution for their own use. But there is one way they could prove us wrong:

    Has anyone uncovered a complete Biblical translation (not an existing translation that is just 'edited' out) that has been done from a revisionist point of view? I haven't seen one. (Otherwise they would use this, and not deconstructionist interpretive tactics.) If there is no such bible, I think that indicates a totally lack of sincerity for these people who use the line, "We're all Christians here and true to the faith, but we just want to make sure no one feels left out."

    Sinfulness and humanist ideology...nothing more.

  21. RR, The publication of an ESV (Episcopal Standard Version) has been discussed at Stand Firm under the same post title. Many are thinking that by GC2015 it will have been published and I suggested that there would be a resolution at GC78 to make this Bible translation the ONLY authorized version in TEC.

    Hopefully not but given Johnson's Law of Episcopal Dynamics, you just never know....... I know .....scary thought.

    SC Blu cat Lady

  22. Curmedgeon, my comment was not meant as a criticism of the decorum and standards you maintain for this blog. It was an observation about the respect due the actual words of scripture, and the duty of the translator to provide the most accurate and literal version, within the constraints of intelligibility. My preference for the franker term is not entirely a reflection of the second part of my "moniker," although sometimes it must seem so to other parties. Thanks for this useful posting, by the way.

  23. @The Reformed Reinhardt,

    You inquired whether "anyone (has) uncovered a complete Biblical translation (not an existing translation that is just 'edited' out) that has been done from a revisionist point of view?"

    While I don't have any specific details about what might has been edited out, there are indications that something translated from a strongly revisionist viewpoint has been published in the recent past (circa 2004).

    It is named Good as New, allegedly inverts the teachings on fornication, adultery and 'abusers of themselves with others,' was praised by Rowan (Williams, unfortunately, rather than Atkinson), and only one who has read it knows what other and sundry causes of the current leftist culture it might champion.

    A WND article is available here. Mind you, it appears to be solely the New Testament. The Google search engine offers "Good as new Bible online" as one of the search options, but none of the links I tried actually led to an online edition, so our best be is probably Amazon if you are determined to have a copy. I would probably try my local lending library first. Alternatively you might well find a used copy in good condition at BestWebBuys, a bot which includes the major booksellers as well as many smaller and exclusively online sellers of used/new books..

    From the WND article it sounds quite outrageously provocative, if not actually anti-Christian.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer