Why Unnatural? The Tradition behind Romans 1:26–27
In his discussion of Romans 1:26–27, Robin Scroggs raised two important questions which have been the subject of much debate since the publication of his 1983 book. One is the question of why this passage mentions women at all in its remarks concerning same-sex acts. Scroggs commented:Since there ar...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
1997
|
| Dans: |
Harvard theological review
Année: 1997, Volume: 90, Numéro: 3, Pages: 263-284 |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Édition parallèle: | Non-électronique
|
| Résumé: | In his discussion of Romans 1:26–27, Robin Scroggs raised two important questions which have been the subject of much debate since the publication of his 1983 book. One is the question of why this passage mentions women at all in its remarks concerning same-sex acts. Scroggs commented:Since there are no Old Testament laws prohibiting female homosexuality, why does Paul include it here? If Paul is dependent on a preformed tradition for these two verses, he of course found it in that tradition. Why the tradition included it is a question to which I see no answer. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1475-4517 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Harvard theological review
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0017816000006349 |