Re: Rom 1

On Tue, 27 Sep 1994, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

> 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
> proposed??

There are two issues here: 

(1) About what the real (as opposed to falsely imputed) characteristics of 
homosexuality and heterosexuality are, from our various contemporary points 
of view (religiously and phenomenologically); and

(2) About what Paul's understanding of (1) might have been, other than 
what we can surmise from what he wrote.

Neither of these are accessible by mere Biblical interpretation.  They are 
properly points of religious belief and scientific understanding.

Maybe I should clarify: I am only interested in knowing whether mine is a 
*likely or even possible* interpretation, not an *inevitable or 
even necessary* one.  For that reason I would like to know more about what 
linguistic or textual factors might be relevant for dismissing my reading as 
impossible or extremely unlikely.

Greg Jordan