[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Rom. 1:26-27
On Tue, 27 Sep 1994, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> Gregory Jordan:
> "physis" in Rom 1:26-27 is not the individual preferences and practices of
> this or that person. Physis here = what Paul sees as "normal" sexual
> behavior which = male/female relations. What's "physis" for Paul here and
> elsewhere is what conclusions he draws based on common experience and what
> he thinks as the divine plan.
I'm not sure what your basis for this definition of _phusis, phusik-_ is
since it is nowhere else so used in the New Testament (cf. Romans 2:14,
11:21, 1 Corinthians 11:14, Galatians 2:15, 4:8, Ephesians 2:3, James 3:7,
2 Peter 1:4, 2:12, Jude 10). Hays basically agreed with this fact, and so he
explained his definition in other ways, many of which had little to do with
Biblical texts or language. I'm wondering if you have the same or
different approaches to the word _phusis_.
> I cherish no illusions that my demurring will check your
> enthusiasm in the slightest, but I simply thought it would be OK to report
> that from my standpoint your argument isn't working well with the texts in
> question. Call it the teacher symdrome, offering criticism of work!
> Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
Thank you for taking the time to critique it - I am just a little
curious about your specific reasons for demurring. Thanks.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
References: