How Christians redacted anti-homosexuality into the text

Letter to Romans does not prohibit homosexuality because the text did not prohibit homosexuality,

However, in Romans proposed the notion that Christianity was a formula for being adopted into the Judean heritage (which IS what Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibited) and by this adoption, became an heir of the “promise” which was then denied to Judeans. 

In other words, the Greco-Romans who read and misunderstood the text did exactly what Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit: grafted themselves into someone else’s ancestry, disowned their own heritage, and dispossessed the original heirs.

Arguably, the “judaizers” (if such existed) were trying to tell Paul’s communities that they could not be adopted into Judaism, they would have to become Judeans and undergo surgery.

Also arguably, the “judaizers” were a no more than boogeymen (like the blood libel or Apion’s claim that there was a statue of a golden ass in the holy of holies) who were used as a threat against anyone who claimed that early Christian understanding of the text was flawed.

As the notion of Christianity as adoption grew, the understanding of the text had to be modified to avoid  conflict with the text it was trying to overrule and assert ownership of.

The reference to Abraham in 1 Cor and in Romans jumps over Moses/Torah and David/Temple, so the new cult would not have to worry about participating in either,  creating a premise by which early Christians could claim to have been included in God's promise without ever having been subject to the law.

Both 1 Corinthians and Romans have the feel of a bad student riffling through the text to find supporting quotes, messing most of them up.  1 Cor uses the Sarah/Hagar narrative to bastardize Judeans.  Romans uses the Abraham narrative to disown them.

These quotes are interspersed with theology that sounds like reworked Platonic philosophy, in good Greek, and with injunctions to the community about money in bad Greek.

Josephus wrote a great deal in consistently poor Greek.  Pauline scholars choose to believe the good Greek  evident in certain of the Pauline letters was an indication that Paul was educated, rather than believing that Paul, if it was he, was not very competent in Greek, and that the inaccurate quotations and the pseudo-philosophical theology might have been constructed and inserted by a Greco-Roman (or more than one).

Judean text citations are generally by keyword (dibbur matchil in gamara).  The word is used with the intention of recalling to the minds of the audience the narrative with which it is associated (elusethai, “to loosen” is used in the giving of the Torah, regarding shoes:  loosen your shoes, the ground you are standing on is holy…”).  It was not customary to cite the Navi’im as oracles because they were not oracles.

By contrast, the Greco-Roman practice of citation was to find something that could be used to match the situation, even if it needed to be tweaked to make the match, a practice evolving from “interpreting” “oracles” given by intermediaries who were usually drugged.  The “oracular speech” had to be tweaked to arrive at a meaning that could be made to fit the circumstances.  That is what we see happening in 1 Cor, Romans…