RT Article
T1 Should We Translate St Paul's παρα φυσιν as Contrary to Nature? Text versus Received Dogma in the Translation of St Paul
JF Theology & sexuality
VO 20
IS 2
SP 129
OP 150
A1 Wilson, Michael P.
LA English
PB Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group
YR 2014
UL https://www.ixtheo.de/Record/1779665768
AB 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.
K1 Sexual Intercourse
K1 Lesbianism
K1 Homosexuality
K1 para phusin
K1 contrary to nature
K1 Romans
K1 Jerome
K1 Paul
K1 Plato
DO 10.1179/1355835815Z.00000000046