Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Natural Law?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Natural Law?
  • Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:51:45 -0400


> From: Christopher Hutson


> 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
Dear Christopher,

I have not read this book. It is a good point he makes. I agree also that
natural law is cultural. I think that was even part of the discussion among
the Stoics and their critics at the time. According to Stower's translation,
we still have to reckon with the phrase "are a law unto themselves." What
does that mean? It seems to me Paul is not saying the gentiles who "do the
things of the law" are keeping the holidays and new moons, etc. Rather he is
saying they are not committing murder, etc. It seems possible to me that
Paul has the Stoic notion of natural law on his mind here, not Torah.

And thank you for your kind remark (which I deleted but took note of).

Liz
>
Lisbeth S. Fried
Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University
51 Washington Sq. S.
New York, NY 10012
lqf9256 AT is3.nyu.edu
lizfried AT umich.edu




  • RE: Natural Law?, Christopher Hutson, 06/17/1999
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • RE: Natural Law?, Liz Fried, 06/18/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page