| NOTE: Some postings may have been deleted at the discretion of Ben
Boxer. Erotic pictures posted on the regular version of the list are automatically
deleted from the digest and are archived separately. Viewing them requires
a password available only to members. Profiles posted to the list are
also moved into a separate viewing area, but do not require a password.
Click here to browse through
them.
In this issue: -Gay Bible? (43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Question for the Christians (or otherwise) on the list:
Of the many available translations of the Bible,
only one is named for a gay man. Which Bible is
that? Given the slavish adherence to Biblical
condemnation of homosexuality by
fundamentalist and other Christians, it strikes me
as a point of interest in that the Bible is so often
used to deprive us of our human rights.
King James
Not only deprived of the human rights, but
also deprived of the love of GOD.
God loves a Sinner, it's humans that dictate
GOD, that is wrong.
hey, a good book to read, "the Jesus Puzzle", was he
myth, or historical, or myth made into historical and
then made into a god...interesting reading especially
for those of us who believe in a god but not in all
the other biblical myth/stories ..... King James; even this devout pagan knows that.
gabriel The King James version of the English bible, of course. Did you know that some ignorant fundamentalists have referred to him as St. James, as in "the St. James bible". The irony is delicious.
George of Boston.
Which Bible is named for a gay man? The King James Version. (As of this writing, Strac, Gabriel and George of Boston have all sent in the right answer.) The mere mention of King James in ecclesiastical circles naturally inspires heated denials that he was gay. Many of the arguments that he WAS gay center around references by his contemporaries: "James was fond of leaning all over his beautiful young (male) favorites"; he "passionately kissed" his "favorites" in public, with reference to his engaging in "French kissing" them; some individuals "rejoiced to have the King's legs soon in their arms upon their return to court," considered a reference to a sexual position, i.e. on the bottom. He also articulated in his writings that he "loved" someone of the same gender and is said to have "justified homosexuality many times." Wags of the day often toasted him in private with "God save the Queen" or spoke of "Queen James." The King was born during the time of the Reformation and held the Roman Catholic religion in contempt. Roman clerics tried to kill him more than once. He had been taken from his Catholic mother to be reared in his native Scotland as a Protestant. He was a weak and delicate boy who proved no match physically for his stern male tutors, but was a brilliant student. His mother, Mary Queen of Scots, had been deposed in 1567 and was executed in 1587 after 19 years in prison. His father, Lord Darnley, who was known to be at least bisexual, took as a lover his Catholic wife's papal emissary from Rome, an Italian male. The Italian was murdered by Mary's detractors, and the syphilitic Darnley was himself murdered in 1567 in a house he kept for his gay assignations.
He wanted to place the Bible in the hands of the common man. The Roman Catholic Bible was in Latin, thus assuring that it remained in the hands of the priesthood. He commissioned the Authorized King James English Bible in 1611.
Both the late Princess Diana and Prince Charles
share a common ancestor in King James, ditto for
the current Princes William and Harry. Long live
the Gay Gene!
THANK YOU for the history lesson. I fled from a
conservative Christian background, one that seemed to
ignore the facts of history and deal only in hate. It
is so refreshing to find out the truths behind what
happened in our past! Bob, that is so true for so many! I ran across the following statement recently which I consider a sane approach for a religious group, in this case the Presbyterians, who now allow their ministers to perform same-sex unions in Presbyterian churches as long as the ceremonies are distinguished from standard marriage rites. The Southern Presbyterians published this article of faith in 1983: "Any interpretation of Scripture is wrong that separates or sets in opposition love for God and love for fellow human beings.No interpretation of Scripture is correct that leads to or supports contempt for any individual or group of persons either within or outside of the church."
I am not shilling for the Presbyterians nor do I
advocate anybody's getting involved in the
religious con games that masquerade as serious
spiritual business, but I do share the sentiments
expressed above. Was King James gay? I don't get it.
Bob and Harley
Happy birthday, King James!
Can anyone recommend a good book that tells all about King James? He certainly sounds more interesting now.
Bob says:
Harley barks:
J T asks:
Ben Boxer responds to all the above (with "woofs" to Harley): His gay love affairs were the scandal of the Continent. A poem written in France in 1623 celebrated the King's passion for the younger Duke Of Buckingham, "the most beautiful man in Europe," the same George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham who appears as a pivotal chatracter in the Dumas-pere novel, "The Three Musketeers":
"Apollo with his songs Here is a silverfoxy love letter written by King James to his George: "I desire only to live in the world for your sake, and I had rather live banished in any part of the world with you, than live a sorrowful widow-life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband." It seems fairly clear that their relationship paralleled modern gay "dad/son" relationships. King James was more than 20 years his senior. Some of James's courtiers, none of whom possessed the integrity of the venerable cleric Sir Thomas More in the previous century at the court of Henry VIII, were so jealous of the King's favoritism for Buckingham that they went out into the streets of London and collected beautiful young men and boys, scrubbed them clean, powdered and perfumed them in the fashion of the day, and paraded them around the throne. They hoped to attract the King's attention to someone who would be under their control and thus enable them to influence James by proxy in the royal bedchamber. It was the same ploy used during the reigns of heterosexual monarchs, most famously in France. That letter can be read, along with others from the lives of many famous gay men who have lived during the past 2000 years, in "My Dear Boy," an anthology of gay love letters including one written by Marcus Aurelius, the old Roman emperor who figures in the beginning of Russell Crowe's current hit movie, "Gladiator." The book, by Rictor Norton, is published in England by the Gay Men's Press. Their web site is http://www.gmppubs.co.uk/cgi-bin/web_store/web_store.cgi An excellent book dealing exclusively with King James is Lady Antonia Fraser's "King James I." Fraser is a delightful historian who pulls no punches. You can find it at Amazon.com.
Good reading! Wow, ben! I think that is so interesting about King James!
Bob and Harley Slightly dubious on a couple of historical points - Rizzio was Queen Mary's Secretary and I've never come across any evidence of an affair with Darnley, who was implicated in his murder. Otherwise, right on. You've got to watch those Scots.
All the Best,
Bob Mac" wrote:
Ben Boxer replies: "Mary Queen of Scots" by Antonia Fraser tells the Queen's story colorfully. You can find it in a search by title at Amazon.com. The Italian musician, Rizzio (also spelled Riccio), who became her secretary, was also a Papal spy sent to insinuate himself into Scottish Court life in Rome's continuing campaign to destroy Protestantism in the British Isles by whatever means at hand. That surely qualifies him as a Papal emissary. The devoutly Catholic Queen Mary found so much comfort in his companionship, having been cast adrift in the Protestant sea of Scotland, that he was later accused of being the father of her unborn child, the soon-to-be King James VI. Some gay historians have conjectured that Rizzio, a hot Italian cub known to be bisexual, serviced Darnley's sexual needs during Mary's pregnancy. A film starring Vanessa Redgrave, 1971's "Mary Queen of Scots," accepted the theories of gay historians in depicting Rizzio (actor Ian Holm) and Darnley (actor Timothy Dalton as a blond) in bed together proclaiming their love for each other, obviously after a bout of hot sex. This was quite daring in 1971. The film also pulled no punches in Mary's later confrontation with Darnley over his "boys" picked up in the streets of Edinburgh with whom he partied at his fuck pad outside the castle walls. Darnley was later persuaded by rebel Scot noblemen -- led by her half-brother -- to turn on Rizzio to save his own life. It was they who swore that Rizzio was the father of his child. It scared the shit out of him. The unborn King James was Darnley's only hold on the Scottish throne on to which he had married, although he, like Mary, was a Stuart and in his own right could have laid claim to it. He could not afford to lose the child and joined the conspirators in helping to murder poor Rizzio in the presence of the Queen. This was also depicted in the Redgrave film. Was any of it historically accurate? Ask Rizzio. Ask Darnley. I wouldn't bet my life on the historical accuracy of anything, given the multiple agendas of all writers from historians to Biblical scholars. Let's use the examples of two famous cases in the Bible, since that is under discussion at the moment. Consider Luke 22:39-45: Jesus prays before betrayal.
From: Jmp51145@aol.com Subject: Re: Gay Bible?
Dear List,
Hugs, I am edified that you used Fr. Raymond Brown's scholarship, in this fascinating discussion of the KJV. Fr. Brown is accepted by most non-fundamentalist Christians, including Catholics, as a trustworthy scholar. However, the fundamentalist Catholics have also consigned him to the pits of hell--because he gives such a practical way of believing and trusting in truths that last--and not being hustled by tricksters out for money/power! I'm one of those who have benefitted from Fr. Brown in my faith-life, in being able to believe in God without depending on magical tricks, smoke and mirrors, or as I call it, "science fiction religion." The mystery of life, the meaning for which we all strive so hard, does not fit in our heads but in our hearts. In whatever religion (or non-religious program) we freely choose as a vehicle for our spirituality, the decision itself is "faith"--that leap in the dark of trust, even when our heads urge caution. Sorry for the sermon. N.
Nils1935@AOL.COM wrote, in part:
Ben Boxer comments: I know you are devoutly Christian. I respect that, even admire it in someone like you whom I personally know to be a generous, loving, thoughtful believer. What I cannot accept, however, is the idea of a trustful leap in the dark unsupported by reason. I can perhaps best illustrate that at this moment in history by referring to the theocratic Taleban government of Afghanistan which has, in my estimation, voided what it claims is faith by ignoring reason. In the name of Allah, they have brought great suffering on the Afghanis, particularly the women, and now have begun to destroy the artifacts of their own earlier civilization, which they regard as idols -- priceless Buddhist statuary more awesome than any in the world. The Taleban stubbornly continue this desecration despite vigorous protest from other Moslem nations, even Iran and Saudi Arabia -- cradle of Islamic civilization. They are "fundamentalists" who believe that their interpretation of Islamic scripture is the only true path to Allah. They make me think of no one so much as the Spanish conquistadors who, under the aegis of the Church, wiped out nearly all traces of Aztec, Mayan, Olmec, Incan and other native cultures of the "New World" -- to civilization's eternal regret. Destroying the artifacts of previous man's worship in the name of Allah, or of God, if you wish to make a distinction between the two concepts of Deity, has not been the worst of it. Entire races of man and now, in Afghanistan, the entire female population, have endured endless suffering. Such militant "faith" does not include love, and certainly not reason -- which, to me, is the function of the mind with which humanity has been blessed.
I like Prof. Jack Rogers's Rule of Love: “Let all interpretations be in accord with the ‘rule of love’, the twofold commandment to love God and to love our neighbor…If you hear someone interpreting Scripture in a way that does not elevate love for God or enhance love for neighbor, you should question the validity of that interpretation. It is no good to say that even though a person may behave in a hateful and harmful way, the theology of that person is sound…The rule of love... remind[s] us to look at the results, not just the theory, when evaluating the correctness of someone’s interpretation.” "Christ had John, and I have George." George Villiers was the son of a penniless Leicestershire squire and was introduced to King James in 1614 when he was 22 and James was 48. It is now believed that their first sexual union took place in August 1615 while they were spending a few days together at Farnham Castle. Three years later, the King stood up in front of his Privy Council to justify his homosexual passion for the young man: "You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George." The King promoted his "dog Steenie" into the nobility by degrees, finally naming him the first Duke of Buckingham. King James, who died of gout at age 59, is buried at Westminster Abbey. An equally magnificent tomb to his left holds the remains of George, who was stabbed to death by an assassin at the age of 36, three years after the death of his royal lover. To James's right is the tomb of his other great love, Ludovic Stuart, Duke of Richmond and Lennox. Ludovic Stuart was the son of Esme Stuart, a handsome and cultivated, rather bearish, redheaded man who had been King James's lover when the King was a lanky lad of 14 in Scotland (and Esme's son Ludovic was a child of six). Scandalized by the teen-age King's affair with the older man (Ludovic's dad), the Scottish Court sent Esme into exile. Several years later, as the King of England, James got sweet revenge on the Scots by taking Esme's son into his heart and his bed.
A final note from Ben Boxer: I guarantee that after this thread, you will never pick up a King James Bible again without clasping it more warmly in memory of our good "Queen" James! Nor will you visit London without making a pilgrimage to the tombs of James, George and Ludovic at Westminster Abbey! Long live the Gay Gene! Bravo! I am constantly amazed at the "gay history" I am discovering and being taught. As a child is the conservative south, I can remember watching everyone around me "recoil in horror" at the "new" problem of homosexuals after the Stonewall uprisings. Then, as word of AIDS began to spread into the "straight" suburbs, I watched as everyone paniced over gays "recruiting (sp?) because they can't reproduce" and spreading the "plague" that God had visited on them. All the time, the church I was brought up in was acting like gay was something new. History tells a wonderfully different story! So, here I am at 40 years old, finally beginning to be able to look at myself in the mirror with pride and not shame. It is great to know the history of Queen James and others and feel a sense of pride to carry that history on. Thanks for the info!
btw.....I am about ready to make my first pilgramege
from LA to Palm Springs to check out some wonderful
Silver Fox scenery I keep hearing about. Any suggests
where I should go when in the desert?
Dear Bob, You and your former fellow churchgoers might enjoy going to a major fine arts museum and looking with care at the Greek vases from 2,600 years ago. In particular, look for red & black vases, and look at the side the curators turn toward the wall. Then tell us if male/male sexuality is new. Good sexy vases are not easy to find since they were frequently bought for the pleasure of private collectors. As a young man, I was distressed by the fact that nearly all translations of Homer's "Iliad", composed for oral transmission about 3,300 years ago, disguised the fact that the hero Achilles was a man lover. In this epic poem, Achilles was angry that he had been cheated of his share of the spoils of war, and was grieving over the death in battle of his lover Patroclus. The two themes are carefully interwoven by the poet. But by mis-translating one key word that occurs in the opening line of the poem and recurs throughout the poem, one is easily misled into thinking that Achilles was a totally hetroid warrior. Not so! Or look at the epic of Gilgamesh. The world's oldest piece of literature is about the same sex love affair between a king and his subject. Or look at the Biblical account of the love between David and Jonathan. This stuff didn't all start with Stonewall in June, 1969. Ignorance is so comforting.
George of Boston.
George of Boston writes:
Ben Boxer adds: Some of Martial's immortal lines: "You pluck your chest and your shins and your arms, and your shaven cock is ringed with short hairs. This, Libienus, you do for your mistress' sake, as everybody knows. For whose sake, Labienus, do you shave your ass?"
The first true novel is a work by first-century Roman writer Petronius called the "Satyricon" which chronicles gay adventures in Ancient Rome. "Satyricon" is more than passingly reminiscent of the goings on in the 21st century's "Queer As Folk" on Showtime! It was made into a spellbinding film in 1969 by the great Italian director Federico Fellini. It told the story of two gay young men fighting over the affections of a boy,
who go their separate ways and wander on a hypnotic
journey through the streets of decadent Rome. I'm totally in agreement with what you say, Ben. I do not think that one needs to fry one's brains in order to make "that leap in the dark"--and I don't. "Faith" is non-intellectual, but must be balanced with some healthy intellectualism. I.e., we get evidence both from outside ourselves and from our own minds, and then we might be faced with a spiritual reality that can't be dealt with intellectually. E.g., meaning of life, point of existing, why should I get up in the morning, etc. Sort of, is there life before death? Consider the AA 12 Step Program (as an example of a profoundly spiritual and non-religious movement). I'm not a "friend of Bill" but I have great respect for this program--it works! The first Step is intellectual recognition of the person's lack of control over his/her life---and there is no magic, smoke or mirrors, no science fiction about the Program. Very quickly Step 3 invites the person to an act of faith--in God as the person understands God (that Higher Power might be the group itself and not any sort of divinity as commonly understood). That takes a leap in the dark, and is not an intellectual leap but a spiritual one. I am not insisting that you or anyone accept my reasoning here, and I understand why. I'm only trying to point out that maybe we're talking apples and oranges, very different fruit. I like both apples and oranges, by the way. And I'm also convinced that God as I understand God, loves all kinds of fruit, no matter what so many "true believers" think and do... I'm sure that there are some folks out there who are very disturbed that I and lots of others claim to be believers, and we don't leave our brains at the church doors. Hugs. Nils1935@AOL.COM wrote: ...we're talking apples and oranges, very different fruit...I like both... I'm also convinced that God...loves all kinds of fruit, no matter what so many "true believers" think and do...
Ben Boxer cheers: Haha... There IS a site that has been created to counter Fred's site, the name of which is "GodLovesFags.com"... I just checked the URL, and it's still in existence. About a year ago, they hacked into Fred's domain and had all of his web visitors routed directly to the "http://www.GodLovesFags" site, and it remained that way for about two months. We locals got a huge kick out of it, of course, because Fred was so intensely horrified by it. Haha. Small victories. It caused quite a stir. Hahahaha.
Terry in KC What I'm understanding is that those individuals who are more left-brained, linear thinkers have some difficulty with the concept of "faith." Of course, that only makes perfect sense. It can't be photographed, logged in. or explained. But that is the beauty of faith... Whatever your belief or non-belief in a higher power. Faith requires no logic, or training, or historical record or evidence... It simply exists in it's own place, beyond all of these things. And the beauty is that when you have it, you have no need to have it acknowledged or written about or documented. It simply exists as part of your spirit -- solid and strong and permanent... Regardless of how one has been trained or brought up in any particular denomination or religious environs or community. I'm thankful to be an artist with no left-brain activity whatsoever in this case, as it exists very easily for me. In it's complete lack of science, it makes perfect sense to me. It's ethereal, intangible... elusive. Real world analogy... I hate paying bills, and avoid it with every ounce of my being. Yet I know that I am not in charge of my life, something greater is... That Higher Power that Nils1935@AOL.COM spoke of. Somehow, and I don't know exactly how... My bills always get paid and I stay in the black. Even when I KNOW I'm not making enough to make ends meet... I seem to always have enough. I can't figure it out... It is beyond my grasp, and if you were to look at the numbers, one would probably say "How the fuck is this happening, it makes no sense!" And yet it does happen. I just keep believing that I'm not in charge, and that it will all work out somehow... and somehow, some way... it LITERALLY always does. I guess I have "faith" that I will be taken care of... and I am. I have no other way to explain this phenomenon.
Peace Excellent idea. I recall a Gay Pride march a lot of years ago in Albuquerque, NM. I walked with the Dignity/Integrity/MCC group (with two gay Jews marching with us!). The Fundies on the sidewalks were furious that we were "claiming" to be Christians, and advertising that fact. My only concern was that they might have what we used to call apoplexy from seeing us. At the city park where the march ended, the police made them stay away from us, because they had no permit to march or to have a public meeting in the park. The police also made them turn off their loud speakers, for which they had no permit. A policewoman came over several times to encourage us, saying that her little brother was gay and she had no use for the so-called Christians cursing us. She also said that she and the other police were busy ticketing all their cars, parked haphazardly and quite illegally (in the name of the Lord, I suppose). When we finished our rally, those poor folks rushed over to confront us with Bibles and mouth-frothing rhetoric. I began to speak up, saying matter of factly that I am a Bible believing Christian, that Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior (already for many years). One young woman, her beautiful face twisted with hate, kept snarling that it was not possible for any of us sinners to have Jesus in our hearts. I laughed and said we'd let Jesus decide which hearts to enter. She was not persuadable, no logic or reasoning, no intellectual endeavor could reach her (get it, Ben?). What was totally frustrating to her was our calm insistence on following Jesus, just as we are. I finally stopped trying to reason with her and began to pray out loud, which only made her and her group angrier....so our group of believers began to pray out loud for them. They came close to apoplexy. I hate the notion of prayer as weapon, but what the heck! There already are web sites, for MCC, e.g., and other groups--not to fight the Fundies and other Crazies in our society, but to simply proclaim their Faith in peaceful, non-violent ways. N.
Dear Nils, BobMac Subject: Re: Gay Bible?
Dear Ben, That business of the Taleban barbarianism, destroying art work--on top of the dreadful mis-use of the Holy Koran, disturbs me, as does all such insanity in the name of God. Their inhuman treatment of women contradicts the Holy Q'uran. If you publish this note, some of the fundamentalist Christians who might read it will have hissy fits over my respect for the Holy Koran and the Prophet Mohammed, may his name be blessed. Nils.
Nils wrote:
Ben Boxer responds:
Nils wrote:
Ben Boxer responds:
Nils wrote:
Ben Boxer responds: Of course there are serpents among us, and even our own turn against us. The mythos (not a false story, but a story teaching values, which becomes a part of us) of the temptation in the Garden, of a snake telling Eve that God was lying, is a story repeated so often in our own lives--even each of us has at times turned against the basic values we hold. Growing up is the hardest thing we do in life, I think. And by the way, lest free-thinking Fundamentalists (and Fundies are in every group) jump to admonish me, I am aware of the rest of the Garden Mythos: Adam followed Eve, then blamed her when caught at it. And I also know that the snake got the blame in the end....because cultures surrounding early Judaism elevated serpents to divine status, so the folks took a swipe at their neighbors' religions by making the snake the Original Tempter. Fascinating history we have as humans! Nils. How very true. Ben, given the depth of your study I wonder if you might enlighten me on something, going back to King James... Given his evident homosexuality, how is it that he proudly stamped his approval on the most conservative interpretation of what we call the "Bible"? Granted, I understand the political pressure of the time, and his having to hide his romantic interludes from the church, but have historians come up with any legitimate reason for his acquiescence?
Thank you.
Terry in KC writes:
Ben Boxer responds: King James might have replied in much the same way. His religion was one thing; his sexuality was another. He once said that "Holiness [is] the first and most requisite quality of a Christian (as proceeding from true fear and knowledge of God)." Such fine philosophical notions did not hinder his homosexual activity. I think here of Philippe, the brother of King Louis XIV of France. Openly gay, Philippe used his religion to his own ends and was often seen piously at prayer kneeling on a priedieu (prayer bench) sometimes carried around behind him. He fawned over handsome lovers at his own gay Court which aped Louis' elaborate Court at Versailles. He married twice for reasons of state (the first being to Henrietta, a granddaughter or our King James), and had children, but under duress. He would hang specially blessed holy medals on his dick when he fucked Henrietta, hoping she would get pregnant quickly so he wouldn't have to perform his husbandly duties for too long. He was even seen en route to his wife's bed chamber wearing priestly garb, with his rosary in his fingers and whispering Hail Marys and Our Fathers. We can guess what he was praying for! He paraded around in plumes and jewels and cosmetics, but was a fantastic horseman who led troops into battle and was adored by his men. His super-heterosexual brother the Sun King (Louis XIV) was crazy about him and wouldn't let anybody speak ill of him and sent into exile any of Philippe's male lovers whom he thought were unfaithful or were a danger to the throne. Philippe's wife Henrietta died young after giving him children. The second time, he married a Bavarian princess who spent most of her time on horseback out hunting. She only owned horse-riding habits (special clothing) and ball gowns and may have been a dyke. All the royal families of modern Europe were directly related to Philippe, whose children survived as Louis XIV's did not. This may account for so many gays in modern royal houses. Long live the Gay Gene! As for our King James, he was a Head of State as the King of England (and the British Isles). Secondly, he was Defender of the Faith and Head of the English Church. Thirdly, he was a husband and a father. Fourthly, he was a homosexual person. Vary the order as you wish, but I think those are the standard priorities, given his time and place. As Defender of the Faith and Head of the Church, he commissioned the Bible translation. There, his role ended. He was its patron, its sponsor, as a patron will commission a painting. He does not do the painting; the artist does. I would consider his action as much political as religious. He was the King of a population 50 percent Catholic and 50 percent Protestant. The Catholic Bible was in Latin, its teachings dispensed by the priesthood, who hated him and were involved in many attempts on his life. By having it translated into the language of the layman and widely circulated among them, he doubtless sought not only to edify the people, but also to unify the nation as a whole. We cannot lift him from his time and place. The religious animosities of his time were one of the factors that would lead the way to civil wars and the execution of his willful son, King Charles 1, and to a very conservative government under Cromwell before the Stuart kings would be restored. Remember, too, that his was the age of the Puritans and so-called Pilgrims, a counter-reaction to the bawdiness of the previous Elizabethan age. They represented an essentially conservative thought which would have been at high odds against anything hinting at homosexuality. His "stamp of approval" was really no more than an authorization to translate the Bible, thus providing funds and support for the scholars who accomplished it. It may be that his influence was felt to a degree and could be called liberal for its times. The original edition of "his" Bible, published in 1611, included the Apocrypha (the so-called "lost books" of the Bible) which was later removed and also annotations in the margins giving alternate translations of some verses.
I do not know, but I wonder if perhaps there were hints in those side notes. Maybe our Jamie (as some intimates called him) had the scholars put in a good, although veiled, word for us there! RogueKC@AOL.COM wrote: Given his evident homosexuality, how is it that he proudly stamped his approval on the most conservative interpretation..... The KJV is not really a "conservative" translation. It is, rather, what appears to be the preferred translation of the religious right, based, probably, on the fact that it is what they grew up hearing. When, some years ago, I was learning a little Koine Greek and doing my own translations, I'd usually come closer to the KJV than most of the more modern ones -- the KJV and the RSV (Revised Standard Version). There are a couple of modern language translations far more burdened by the translators' "conservative" bias than is the KJV. In its time the KJV was a really wonderful translation. Largely the scholars went back to the best available Greek texts and translated into the then current English, doing a pretty darned good job of it. With time the English has become difficult to understand. (Eg, we tend to hear the thee and thou as formal and "distant" when at the time it was an "intimate" form of address, similar to the Spanish "tu") Any translation carries the weight of the bias of the translators and this is especially true when it is not always possible to know just exactly what the original Greek (for the New Testament) meant almost 2000 years ago. And then _which_ Greek text is "original" as there are variations in the earliest manuscripts.
Hal Excellent points, Hal. Thanks.
George of Boston The Old Testament is comprised of Hebrew Scriptures. Spoken Hebrew has vowels. Written Hebrew normally has no vowels. Changes in, or omissions of, the vowels alter the meaning of a root. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament didn’t have vowels added until medieval times. The margin for error is vast. Christian Scriptures (New Testament) were written in Koine (“common”) Greek (as Hal pointed out above), NOT the classical Greek of Homer, Euripides, etc., nor in modern Greek. There are no other literary compositions in the same language as the New Testament. Koine Greek was the spoken Greek of the day in the time of Jesus. Aramaic, however, was the first language of almost all New Testament authors, which therefore influenced how they wrote Greek. There were four languages in the world of the average first-century Palestinian Jew: Aramaic, the primary spoken language of Jesus and his disciples; Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world; Latin, the official language of the Roman empire, and Hebrew, used in Jewish religious liturgy and scripture. “(Pontius) Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.’…and it was written in [Aramaic], in Latin, and in Greek.” - John 19:19-20 “It is very likely that the disciples, and Jesus himself… would be equally at home when speaking in Greek as in Aramaic, and probably knew enough of Latin to get along with official business.” -- Prof. D.F. Hudson Jesus was an oral teacher, not a writer. Stories about what Jesus said and did existed only in oral tradition for a minimum of 30 years after his death. Gospel authors wrote on papyrus, the most common writing material of the time. Papyrus is a dried, pressed plant product, not intended for long-term preservation of documents. So, we have no originals of any Biblical books. We have only many copies. The most common version in Greek today is “Nestle-Aland” edition, aka the Greek New Testament published by United Bible Societies, UK. It is updated every 10 years based on the latest linguistic and archeological discoveries. Latest update: 1993. The New Testament, then, is more like an evolving product than a fixed product! The KJV (King James Version) is still used as the standard Bible by many Christians, esp. fundamentalists. Published in 1611, it is mostly an English translation of "Textus Receptus," a Greek reference text prepared by Erasmus in 1516. Biblical archeology and research have turned up hundreds of new manuscripts since Erasmus. Impious wags say that if you want to increase the accuracy of the Bible, grab a shovel and start digging. How can anyone be sure that the condemnations of homosexuality, for example, are accurate? Also, some sources name a certain cult of morally rigid rabbis at the Temple of Jerusalem in the 7th century BC as the authors of those rules in Leviticus that include our damnation. Why should gay people today be subject to rules applied to a culture of 2400 years ago?
We need our own Emancipation Proclamation. Where is our Abraham Lincoln? Are you hiding on the list, Abie?
Ben Boxer wrote: Thanks for the flattery, Ben, but I am neither a Greek scholar nor a translator, lol. The seminary professor who taught my one year of Greek would find that a real hoot! I did learn enough to know not to trust anybody's translation 100% if the passage is important.
I did have the pleasure of studying under some _real_ scholars, including
Ray Brown -- already mentioned by someone -- for a seminar or two. Most of
them -- unlike the likes of Fred Phleps -- would readily admit that they too
made mistakes and that there was always room for improvement.
Ben, Aramaic is still used in some Jewish prayers, like the prayer for the dead, and some of the Passover songs.
Bob and Harley
For your information: Aramaic is still spoken in parts of Syria, Iraq, and
Turkey as well as by certain communities in Israel. Aramaic is still spoken? I had thought it was a dead language, only in the prayer books. I had never heard of it being actually spoken. Thanks for the clarification.
Bob and Harley
Dear Bob and Harley,
Yishai End of silverfoxesclub-digest V1 #163
|
James had become King James VI of Scotland in
1567 when he was 13 months old and acceded to
the English throne in 1603 as King James VI & I,
the first King of what he liked to call Great
Britain. His ascension forever joined the crowns
of England and Scotland. He designed the British
flag in 1603 by combining England's red cross of
St. George with Scotland's white cross of St.
Andrew.
Several years afterward, Buckingham (George) wrote to James asking "whether you love
me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham, where the bed's head could
not be found between the master and his dog." Buckingham jokingly called himself James's dog, as in
a letter addressed to "Dere Dad and Gossope" (gossip, from godparent, meaning chum) and closing
"Your most humble slave and servant and dog Steenie."
Just as James had other loves, so had George carried on a torrid affair with the great Sir Francis Bacon (left), a philosopher whom some modern scholars identify as the "real" William Shakespeare. Bacon was older than King James by five years. Obviously, George was a true foxhunter! 
Look at the attached image. It is a detail from a Greek bowl of 2,600 years ago depicting "a chain of voluptuousness," in the words of Martial, first-century gay Roman poet. You can read some of