Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Natural Law?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Christopher Hutson <crhutson AT salisbury.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Natural Law?
  • Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:34:17 EDT



Liz wrote:

>
>No, I meant the righteous *Gentile*. He remains a Gentile but is considered
>righteous. I think it's in the Talmud. But I'm wondering how early the
>concept goes.
>
>
>Along with this I've been wondering about the notion of Natural Law. It is
a
>Platonic notion I believe. Conversations recorded in the Talmud between a
>rabbi and a Gentile discuss the notion of Natural Law and compare it with
>the Oral Law. The concept of natural law of course preceded Paul. When Paul
>discusses gentiles who are righteous naturally, could he be referring to
the
>Platonic concept of natural law? If so, could this Platonic concept be
>Paul's source for justification without the Torah? (I'm sorry, I don't have
>my NT with me at present, so I can't give you the verses where he refers to
>gentiles keeping the law naturally.)
>


Liz, I have not responded to you before, but I enjoy reading your posts.

I think you may have in mind Romans 2:14

hOTAN GAR EQNH TA MH NOMON EXONTA FUSEI TA TOU NOMOU POIWSIN,
hOUTOI TA MH NOMON EXONTA hEAUTOIS EISIN NOMOS.

This has often been read to support a theory of Natual Law. That is, many
interpreters read FUSEI as modifying POIWSIN, "they do by nature the things
of the Law." But you might want to take a look at Stanley K. Stowers, _A
Rereading of Romans_ (Yale U. Press, 1994). In chapter 3, he takes up this
verse and points out that

(a) a Greek adverb normally follows the verb it modifies, so that FUSEI here
modifies EXONTA and not POIWSIN, and

(b) the traditional reading makes TA MH NOMON EXONTA redundant.

Stowers prefers to read the verse something like this: "For when the
gentiles, who by nature do not have Torah, do the things of the Law, these,
even though they don't have the Law, are a law unto themselves." Stowers
takes pains to show that "nature" here is a cipher for "culture." That is,
most folks view their own culture as "what's natural" and other culturers as
"unnatural." Paul here distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles as those who
"by natue" have Torah and those who don't. He uses similar language in Gal
2:15. So Stowers argues that FUSEI here does not support the view that Paul
worked from Natural Law. The upshot is that it's not so clear that Paul was
working from a concept of natural law.

I find Stowers' arguments challenging and insightful, certainly worth
considering as one works through Romans. If you have read this book, I
would be interested in your assessment of it.

XPIC

------------------------------------
Christopher R. Hutson
Hood Theological Seminary
Salisbury, NC 28144
crhutson AT salisbury.net
------------------------------------



  • RE: Natural Law?, Christopher Hutson, 06/17/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page