Re: Rom 1

    On Sept. 27, Greg Jordan wrote:
>     The males "set aside" (_aphentes_ participle form) their 
>characteristic behavior with females.  The verb here could be used to 
>"putting away" one's wife in a divorce.  Here is the "active" part of 
>their sin.  Just as the already-believed-in God was set aside and 
>exchanged for something lesser, created animals; here the 
>already-practiced sexuality is set aside and exchanged for something 

Exegetically, two things trouble me about the translation?? (much more of an interpretation I think than an attempt to just render the Greek accurately into 
English).  First, to understandthe passage this way, Paul has to already believe something the passage is seemingly being said to assert:  that Paul thought 
there were multiple kinds of homosexuals, those who chose it and those destined to it without any choice involved at all (hence the stress on the possibly 
passive tone) when we have no evidence besides the passage in question that
Paul wold ever make such a distinction.  Positing such a concept for a 1st 
century Jew is, IMHO, somewhat anachronistic.  Indeed, even now, living in 
1994, I don't accept this distinction and have yet to see anything that would
pass for reputable scientific evidence to the contrary.  Second, it seems to
rely on several possible, but by now means certain meanings and significances
for Greek words.  While graning those possibilities (and I would not want to 
discount the research that went into Mr. Jordan's formulation, I have to 
ask myself if Paul's hearers would have put all those possibilities together
to get that meaning, or if a seemingly plainer understanding would have
been more likely.  If Paul had meant to say the proposed alternative, I would 
have expected him to be more clear about it.  Perhaps since no one else has 
responded, I'm the only one who does not agree witht he translation being

Ken Litwak
Richmond, CA