Should We Translate St Paul's παρα φυσιν 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. There is a plethora...
| Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
|---|---|
| Τύπος μέσου: | Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο |
| Γλώσσα: | Αγγλικά |
| Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Φόρτωση...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Έκδοση: |
Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group
2014
|
| Στο/Στη: |
Theology & sexuality
Έτος: 2014, Τόμος: 20, Τεύχος: 2, Σελίδες: 129-150 |
| Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά: | B
contrary to nature
B Homosexuality B Sexual Intercourse B Plato B Romans B Lesbianism B Jerome B Paul B para phusin |
| Διαθέσιμο Online: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Σύνοψη: | 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: | 1745-5170 |
| Περιλαμβάνει: | Enthalten in: Theology & sexuality
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1179/1355835815Z.00000000046 |