Was Homosexuality Mistranslated in the Bible?

Introduction: Addressing the 1946 Homosexuality Translation Claim

The claim that "homosexuality" was an invented term first introduced into the Bible in 1946 has gained traction among cultural commentators and theologians. This argument, often associated with the documentary 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, suggests that the term’s inclusion in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was a mistranslation of the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi. (1) Proponents of this theory argue that these words refer specifically to exploitative relationships, such as pedophilia or temple prostitution, rather than consensual same-sex partnerships.

However, a thorough linguistic and historical analysis demonstrates that this claim does not hold up under scrutiny. Not only were monogamous homosexual relationships known in antiquity, but early Jewish and Christian writers consistently opposed both male and female same-sex relations, irrespective of whether they were exploitative or consensual. Furthermore, the assertion that Jesus was pro-LGBTQ simply because he did not explicitly condemn homosexuality relies on a flawed logical framework.

Understanding the historical, linguistic, and theological context surrounding this issue is essential for a faithful interpretation of Scripture. This article will examine the Greek terminology, historical evidence, early Jewish and Christian perspectives, and Jesus’ teachings while incorporating expanded scholarly sources for a well-rounded response.

Linguistic Analysis: Greek Words in Biblical Context

Arsenokoitai: A Closer Look at Meaning and Usage The Greek word arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοίτης) appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The term is a compound of arsēn (male) and koitē (bed), strongly indicating sexual relations between males.

While arsenokoitai is rare in Greek literature, scholars widely believe it echoes the prohibition found in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. The Septuagint’s rendering of Leviticus 18:22 reads:

"καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός"
(Kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gynaikos), meaning "And with a male, you shall not lie as with a woman."

The structural similarity between arsenos (male) and koitē (bed) suggests that Paul intentionally borrowed from the Old Testament Greek phrasing, reinforcing that arsenokoitai refers broadly to male same-sex relations rather than exclusively exploitative cases.

Malakoi: Effeminacy and Moral Weakness In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul also condemns malakoi (μαλακός), a word often translated as "effeminate" or "soft." While in some contexts malakoi refers to physical softness, its placement alongside arsenokoitai suggests a moral weakness related to indulgence in sexual immorality.

Historical Context: Same-Sex Relationships in Antiquity

Same-sex relationships existed in antiquity in various forms:

• The Sacred Band of Thebes – A military unit composed of male lovers, demonstrating that same-sex relationships were bonded by loyalty and commitment.

• Emperor Hadrian and Antinous – Hadrian’s mourning of Antinous after his death illustrates that same-sex romantic relationships were acknowledged at the highest levels of society.

• Greek and Roman Literature – Authors like Plato (Symposium) and Aristophanes (Thesmophoriazusae) examined same-sex attraction beyond temple prostitution or coercion.

These examples show that homosexual relationships were well-known in antiquity, countering the claim that biblical prohibitions only addressed abusive or transactional relationships. (2) Despite the presence of committed homosexual relationships, biblical authors consistently opposed all forms of same-sex relations based on divine moral principles rather than cultural ignorance.

Expanded Jewish Commentary:
Early Jewish writers also reinforced the Christain position against same-sex relations. Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, condemned homosexuality in his writings, describing it as unnatural and contrary to divine order. Rabbinic traditions within the Talmud further illustrate how Jewish thought treated same-sex behavior as inconsistent with God’s design.

Early Christian Thought: Continuity of Biblical Teachings

Early church fathers upheld biblical prohibitions against same-sex relations:

• John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans) – Interpreted Romans 1:26-27 as condemning homosexual acts as unnatural and inherently sinful.

• Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus) – Warned against violating natural sexual roles.

• Augustine (City of God) – Viewed same-sex relations as distortions of God’s intended order.

These writings demonstrate continuity between biblical teachings and Christian doctrine.

Jesus and LGBTQ: Addressing the Logical Fallacy

A common argument suggests that Jesus was pro-LGBTQ because he never explicitly condemned homosexuality. However, this is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy that assumes absence of evidence equates to endorsement.

Scriptural and Cultural Considerations

1. Jesus Affirms Male-Female Marriage –
   In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus explicitly refers to Genesis, affirming male-female marriage as God’s design.
   
   

2. Jesus Did Not Explicitly Address Every Sin –
   Jesus never directly condemned bestiality or incest, yet no one assumes he approved of such behaviors.
   
   

3. Jewish Cultural Context –
   Homosexuality was widely rejected in 1st-century Judaism, making explicit condemnation unnecessary. (3)

Theological Reflection: Balancing Truth and Grace

While Scripture speaks clearly on the issue of homosexuality, Christians must approach the conversation with both conviction and compassion. Upholding biblical truth does not require hostility toward individuals who identify as LGBTQ. Instead, believers are called to extend grace while affirming God’s moral standards, pointing to redemption and restoration through Him.

Conclusion: Preserving Biblical Integrity

The claim that "homosexuality" was an invented term first introduced into the Bible in 1946 fails to stand up to linguistic and historical scrutiny. Faithful interpretation requires engaging with Scripture honestly, considering linguistic nuances, historical context, and theological consistency.

In today’s culture, biblical integrity matters more than ever. While modern debates attempt to redefine scriptural teachings, the Christian response must remain grounded in truth while extending Christ’s love to all people.