To browse Academia. Scholarly discussions o f patristic interpretations o f Rom ans 1 :2 7 have overlooked the fact that Am brosiaster revised his reading o f the passage. In the first version o f his com m entary on Rom ans, Am brosiaster understands verse 2 6 to refer to " unnatural " sexual relations betw een w o m en and m en, whereas in the second and third versions he understands the verse to refer to " unnatural " sexual relations betw een w om en.
The paper exam ines the differences betw een the three versions, explains Am brosiasters remarks, and situates his interpretation w ith in the moral o u tlo o k and exegetical tradition o f Latin Christian writers.
(mh=ltZrrHZQD2CzIJhb)1.jpg "SEX AGENCY Freiburg")
Keywords Ambrosiaster, fem ale hom oeroticism , hom osexuality, Rom ans 1 The thesis has a two-fold focus. According to an older interpretation, however, they engage in nonprocreative sex with men. In this article, I present hitherto unnoticed material in support of the latter interpretation. Fourth, linguistic features of Rom a more readily support the analβoral interpretation than the femaleβfemale interpretation. This article provides evidence that Romans bβ27 was interpreted by the early Christian church as a reference to the sexual practices of the goddess cults, and was used as an attack on polytheistic religions, not a reference to homosexuality.
I clarify the rhetorical usefulness of the goddess cults for the early church in making the antipolytheistic case in relation to the Patristic contrast between free will and determinism. While the early church did not originally interpret Romans b as female homogenitality, a transition to this view is apparent as the Western Roman Empire began to collapse. A queer theory lens is incorporated into the discussion about Romans 1 by introducing cultural practices of gender, sexuality, and religion uncommon today.
Romans is arguably one of the most cited biblical arguments against homosexuality. This article seeks to give a context from which to better understand Paul's admonition, by reexamining some of the exegetical and hermeneutical considerations, and their use in contemporary dialectic.
