Romans 1:24–28 and Same-Sex Practice: Some Exegetical Remarks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See comments in file

Needs more  work on primary and secondary literature. The essay is presented as an exegesis but a significant  amount of it is given over to studies of modern theory. As a  counterpoint- engagement with   Jewish (e.g., Philo) and Latin (e.g., Juvenal) is just not there, along with  any reflection of the issues of using such texts critically.

Bill Loader's New Testament and Sexuality (2012)  is a hugely problematic omission given his wisdom on the problems of reading ancient texts as a meanss of attempting to resolve modern issues.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Needs more  work on primary and secondary literature. The essay is presented as an exegesis but a significant  amount of it is given over to studies of modern theory. As a  counterpoint- engagement with   Jewish (e.g., Philo) and Latin (e.g., Juvenal) is just not there, along with  any reflection of the issues of using such texts critically.

Bill Loader's New Testament and Sexuality (2012)  is a hugely problematic omission given his wisdom on the problems of reading ancient texts as a meanss of attempting to resolve modern issues.

Thank you. Applied.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers a helpful contribution to a highly important topic. It should, however, be slightly improved concerning its engagement with the most recent New Testament scholarship on sexuality and the body.

Please find my comments in the document that I have attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This paper offers a helpful contribution to a highly important topic. It should, however, be slightly improved concerning its engagement with the most recent New Testament scholarship on sexuality and the body.

Thank you. Applied.

Remarks done within PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the overarching conclusion of the paper, that Rom 1 does "not relate to the conscientious same-sex oriented person within an exclusive, durable relation in serving love." So, across the board, this paper is pushing on open doors with this reviewer.

Following are some suggestions for strengthening the paper even further.

1 - In the abstract, I recommend moving the final sentence up, immediately following the phrase, "The conclusion is that Romans 1:24-29" 'does not relate..." Then, say something like, "Rather, this pericope refers to same-sex..." I think this will significantly help your reader understand your major claim without falling into a hermeneutic of suspicion. I was unclear of your major argument, and suspicious, until reading the final line. My reception would have been much more easily gained if I had encountered the last sentence earlier.

2 - In parts 1-4, you give a quite detailed and technical overview of the scholarship you engaged and its relevance to the text. In the course of doing so, I find it particular difficult to identify your own argument / what these voices are doing for you. At minimum, a paragraph at the end of each section would be very helpful for your readers to be able to follow your argument more clearly and jump on board with your argument.

3 - In 2.3, you write that "Acts 28:17-29 provides the only information about Paul's relation to the congregation in Rome." This simply is not true. Romans 16 clarifies that Paul does have some connections in Rome, either personal or secondarily.

4 - The argument that Rom 1:18-32 involves Paul's critique of "pagan" idolatry is present in much secondary scholarship. But this is not the end of the story... that conclusion is not a given. Several scholars have recognized that Rom 1:18-32 represents Paul's critique of both gentile and Jewish idolatry (See King, Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1-9: Who's Speaking When and Why It Matters, or Jonathan Linebaum, God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul's Letter to the Romans.

5 - On page 5, there is a textual problem (in my draft). Between lines 246 and 247, it seems there is material missing. The text simply ends "should be linked..." with a new paragraph starting afterwards. Should be linked to what?

On the whole, I think the paper is headed a helpful direction. For this reviewer, addressing the issues above would make it even better.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

I agree with the overarching conclusion of the paper, that Rom 1 does "not relate to the conscientious same-sex oriented person within an exclusive, durable relation in serving love." So, across the board, this paper is pushing on open doors with this reviewer.

Following are some suggestions for strengthening the paper even further.

1 - In the abstract, I recommend moving the final sentence up, immediately following the phrase, "The conclusion is that Romans 1:24-29" 'does not relate..." Then, say something like, "Rather, this pericope refers to same-sex..." I think this will significantly help your reader understand your major claim without falling into a hermeneutic of suspicion. I was unclear of your major argument, and suspicious, until reading the final line. My reception would have been much more easily gained if I had encountered the last sentence earlier.

Applied.

2 - In parts 1-4, you give a quite detailed and technical overview of the scholarship you engaged and its relevance to the text. In the course of doing so, I find it particular difficult to identify your own argument / what these voices are doing for you. At minimum, a paragraph at the end of each section would be very helpful for your readers to be able to follow your argument more clearly and jump on board with your argument.

3 - In 2.3, you write that "Acts 28:17-29 provides the only information about Paul's relation to the congregation in Rome." This simply is not true. Romans 16 clarifies that Paul does have some connections in Rome, either personal or secondarily.

Applied.

4 - The argument that Rom 1:18-32 involves Paul's critique of "pagan" idolatry is present in much secondary scholarship. But this is not the end of the story... that conclusion is not a given. Several scholars have recognized that Rom 1:18-32 represents Paul's critique of both gentile and Jewish idolatry (See King, Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1-9: Who's Speaking When and Why It Matters, or Jonathan Linebaum, God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul's Letter to the Romans.

Thank you.

5 - On page 5, there is a textual problem (in my draft). Between lines 246 and 247, it seems there is material missing. The text simply ends "should be linked..." with a new paragraph starting afterwards. Should be linked to what?

Corrected.

On the whole, I think the paper is headed a helpful direction. For this reviewer, addressing the issues above would make it even better.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Short comments in the file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: I think this sentence is out of place and should go at the end  saying. This pericope does not refer to same sex-oriented.....

Remark: Thank you. It makes sense and I did so.

Comment 2: Replace like with "following"

Remark: Thank you. I did.

Comment 3: 

You m might cite here Gnuse, Robert. (2015). Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality. Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture. 45. 68-87. 10.1177/0146107915577097.

Remark: Thank you. I did.

Comment 4: You might reword the footnote- it leans dangerously close to the antiSemitic

Remark: Thank you for good advice. I rewrote it.

Comment 5: A reference would be useful

Remark: Thank you. I did: Skinner, Marilyn B. Sexuality in Greek and Roman culture. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Comment 6: Beware Foucault on history- he  is not a relaible historical interpreter.  See both Camille pagia and J.G. Merquior

Remark: Thank you. I rewrote it to present an alternativeview as well and provided a reference.

Comment 7: But note Stoics rejected the concept of slavery as a natural state.....

Remark: Thank you for note.