![]() There are two reasons why.įirst, the Greek word in question does appropriately condemn homosexual sex. Nothing follows from the fact that a seminary student called out the RSV translation team. The entire documentary is a non sequitur. Even if the film’s claims are true, it doesn’t matter. Guess what? He’s still alive, and they even interview him in the film!Īll the excitement generated by the trailer, however, is unwarranted. It’s signed by “David S.” Who’s that? Digging deeper, they discover his last name. After three days, they find the letter the seminary student wrote. Finally, there are the noble and honest researchers who travel to Yale University to scour 90 boxes of notes and discover clues that reveal the truth. You have a young seminary student who (in 1959) confronts the authority of an entire Bible translation team, thereby speaking truth to power. ![]() There’s a false theological narrative that’s been wrongly imposed on an unsuspecting church population. In 1946, you have old, white men deciding what the Bible says. If you watch the trailer and the other videos on the film’s website, you get the sense the film contains all the ingredients to satisfy today’s theological conspiracy theorists, much like Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code did when it came out. I admit that my assessment is limited to the aforementioned information, but some of the central claims of the film appear evident based on what they’ve made available on the website. Though the film has not been released, I’ve watched the trailers, read the film’s website, and have closely followed the news of its development. The good news is that it’s easy to spot the fallacies in this film. The film claims that subsequent English translations followed the RSV’s lead and wrongly used the word “homosexuals,” which led to decades of mistreatment of the LGBTQ community. Although the RSV translators ended up changing the translation in 1971, it was apparently too late. The film, titled 1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted a Culture, tells the tale of how a 21-year-old seminary student wrote a letter to the translation team to alert them of the alleged error. A rebel and an influencer, Trotter worked hard to create his enigmatic persona – maybe to his own detriment.An upcoming documentary film claims the RSV translators of the Bible wrongly inserted the word “homosexuals” in a New Testament passage back in 1946. Trotter’s name isn’t mentioned much anymore. And perhaps the saddest thing of all is his legacy. The sad thing, as some of his devotees say in the film, is that we’ll never see what he would do next. The documentary shows some of the vulnerability behind the control freak. He said at the time he planned to travel the world with his wife Rochelle. He shocked the dining industry when in 2012 he announced the closing of Charlie Trotter’s restaurant, after 25 years. He reportedly refused treatment after suffering a seizure and collapsing while out for a run. His family described him as terrified of doctors and medical tests going back to a traumatic childhood experience. Charlie Trotter projected fearlessness – except when it came to his health. Some of those who thrived went on to their own brilliant careers.Īn admirer of farm-to-table originator Alice Waters, Trotter championed vegetarian menus before they were a thing and made bold business decisions – from serving a degustation (tasting) menu that changed every single day to banning foie gras from his restaurants for ethical reasons. Trotter was said to create and nurture an incredibly intense and difficult work environment where many buckled under the pressure. His life is also seen through the lens of rivals like Alinea founder/chef Grant Achatz, who worked for Trotter early in his career. Trotter’s story is told by some of those closest to him – Ehrlich, his mother, his sister Anne, his food industry friends such as chef Emeril Lagasse. Trotter changed the way Americans viewed fine dining, plain and simple. ![]() But it’s what brought him accolades – the Michelin stars, the 10 James Beard Awards, the rabid foodie clientele, the 14 cookbooks, the line of organic gourmet foods, the PBS cooking show, the cameo in a Julia Roberts movie (in which he parodied himself) and the widespread celebrity, at a time chefs were just starting to achieve pop culture stardom. The tyrannical, perfectionistic restaurateur that “Charlie” projected was not the visionary, uninhibited, adventurous “Chuck” his family and early friends knew.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |