Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Musings on Pauline Studies

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: MillerJimE AT aol.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Musings on Pauline Studies
  • Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 01:17:23 EDT


<< but the Romans text is
unambiguous. Paul abhored same-sex unions of any sort
-- between women (Rom 1:26) and men (Rom 1:27), men
and boys, etc.
Loren Rosson III >>

I have already published anterior reasons for reading Romans 1:26 as
heterosexual and 1:27 as specific to pederasty. Those who read these texts
in the ancient culture seem to back me up.
Clement of Alexandria (Pedagogue 2.10) quotes the two verses after
explicating Plato and Philo's agricultural metaphor for sexuality -- seed is
to be sown only when and where you expect it to grow (women don't sow seed,
you see). Immediately after quoting Romans 1:26-27 he goes on for a few
livid paragraphs attacking anal sex, a widely accepted alternative to vaginal
coitus at the time. A scoliast to Clement, Anastasius, confirms the
heterosexual reading of Romans 1:26. Later Augustine, De Bono Conj. 11-12,
would confirm this heterosexual reading.
Returning to the 2nd century, Athanagoras (Embassy 33-34) identified the
people in Romans 1:27 as "paiderastoi", and paralleled them with the
adulterers (moichoi) who remarry after a spouse dies. This pairing of
pederasts and adulterers is rather common. I know of no other patristic
commentator who explicates Romans 1:27, but would be interested in finding
more.
I do think there are very good reasons for understanding Romans 1:26 as
alternative heterosexual activity and Romans 1:27 as specific to pederasty.
Jim Miller




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page