Responses to Dr. Weima on The Film 1946

Two weeks ago, Dr. Jeff Weima published an article on The Film 1946. That film is receiving quite a bit of attention across the continent and in the CRC. Its message is that for the first time in 1946 a word in the Bible was incorrectly translated and thus has adversely affected an entire culture. Since the publication of Weima’s article there have been some critiques of it.

The first response came from a person who uses the pen name The Left Reverand Lebowski. His response raises questions about the correct translation of Hebrew words as well as other considerations so let’s consider these claims.

In getting at the correct translation of ZACHAR this author turns to some of the Old Testament background. ZACHAR  is used in Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman . . .” He claims the ESV and Weima give a “wooden translation” of the term when they simply translate the word as “male.” The Left Reverand claims, “The word conveys more than a simple question of biology but innocence and purity.” Now it must be pointed out that Brown, Driver and Briggs, a standard lexicon of biblical Hebrew, does not give the definition of innocence and purity to the word. So first, if The Left Reverand has discovered a more accurate translation of a word than the standard reference works have arrived at over hundreds of years of study, it seems reasonable to think that it would take more than several paragraphs in an article to establish this new translation as legitimate.

Second, if this translation was more accurate, then in Leviticus 18:22 we would have, “You shall not lie with a pure (or innocent) male as with a woman . . .” It doesn’t make sense to contrast an “innocent male” with “a woman.” Contextually it makes more sense that the contrast is simply a matter of biology. Plus, if that was the correct translation it leaves open the possibility that a man could have sex with an impure male. That doesn’t make sense either.

Third, Leviticus 20:13 says that if a man lies with a male, they shall both be put to death. If the correct translation is that the male is innocent, and let’s assume for the moment that his participation was not consensual, it would make no sense that he would also be sentenced to death. Lebowski was asked about this, but he has not responded.

Lebowski critiques Weima’s assertion that “the Judaism of his [Paul’s] day was unanimous in denouncing homosexual activity.” Lebowski says that in order to claim that the Sodom and Gomorrah story denounces homosexual activity one must stretch it beyond its prohibition of gang rape and broken Bedouin hospitality laws. It is not necessary to “stretch” that story. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, Jude 7 teaches us, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire . . .” Gang rape is a specific crime; labelling what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah as sexual immorality puts those actions in a broader category. There are no words in all of the Bible indicating that what happened at Sodom was gang rape. Male to male sexual acts are sexually immoral in all cases.

It is interesting to note that one of the main researchers of 1946, Kathy Baldock, commented on Weima’s paper. She stated several times that he is incorrect in his critique of the film. When asked if she could provide one such example of how his exegesis is incorrect, she replied that she has “PLENTY” of research online in the form of videos, a book and a website. The purpose of her doing the research for this film has to be to help educate people, to correct an errant understanding. Since she has already done the research, she should be quite knowledgeable concerning this material. It seems reasonable to think that such a person could select any one of the points Weima makes and in 15 minutes could provide a counter argument. Teachers and professors work to educate people in the classroom. They present the relevant material. They don’t just stand in front of the class and point to reams of material on the Internet and say, “Go read it.” Would it be unreasonable to take her response to indicate that she does not, in fact, have any rebuttals?

The material presented here is by no means exhaustive concerning what Lebowski and Baldock have presented. Do these points cause reasonable doubt concerning what they have claimed?

You are invited to add your thoughts to this dialogue. Are the above good questions for Lebowski and Baldock? If not, why not? Do Lebowski and Baldock raise legitimate concerns?