Should we translate St Paul's para physin as "contrary to nature"?: text versus received dogma in the translation of St Paul
It is indefensible to translate Paul's παρα φυσιν (para phusin) at Rom. 1:26 and 11:24 as "contrary to nature" (contra naturam) and to imply the unspoken rider "and therefore uniquely hateful to God." Yet the tradition that does so is almost as old as the Greek text itself....
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic/Print Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis
[2015]
|
| In: |
Theology & sexuality
Year: 2014, Volume: 20, Issue: 2, Pages: 129-150 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Bible. Römerbrief 1,26
/ Bible. Römerbrief 11,24
/ Exegesis
/ Nature
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament NBE Anthropology VA Philosophy |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | It is indefensible to translate Paul's παρα φυσιν (para phusin) at Rom. 1:26 and 11:24 as "contrary to nature" (contra naturam) and to imply the unspoken rider "and therefore uniquely hateful to God." Yet the tradition that does so is almost as old as the Greek text itself. There is a plethora of subtle nuances to παρα + acc., but a flat negative is not one of them. When Rom. 11:24 is so translated, it is reduced to nonsense. Plato's The Laws supplies a clear, cogent and directly relevant distinction between μη (not) and παρα (beyond, beside, etc.) in relation to sexual behaviour. Naturalness is a multivalent concept, not bivalent. The naturalness of a behaviour is a question of degree. Unnatural behaviour is impossible. The argument here is lexicographical, textual and philosophical. Theology must follow the text, not drive it. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1355-8358 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Theology & sexuality
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1179/1355835815Z.00000000046 |