Excursus on Romans: Exegesis on 2:14, Part 2

IN PART ONE OF THIS SERIES, we reviewed the Greek text in Romans 2:14 and concluded that there is no way to determine the difference between a adjectival dativus actoris and an adverbial dativus modi or dativus instrumenti. A dativus actoris relates to a "who"? A dativus modi relates to an "in what manner"? A dativus instrumenti relates to a "by what means"? Whatever kind of dativus the word physei is, it cannot be learned from the form of the noun: they all are the same.

Since we don't have commas to help us in Greek, we look at the syntax. What about syntax? Is the fact that the word φύσει located after the phrase ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα mean that it does not refer to ἔθνη (gentiles who do not have the law)? Since φύσει precedes the phrase τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν (those who do the law) does that mean that it refers to that phrase that follows?

St. Paul Writing an Epistle

The argument supporting the majority interpretation seems to have the upper hand when syntax is considered. The argument is that if Paul or any writer of Greek had intended to say that the Gentiles by nature lacked something, namely the law, the term "by nature" (physei) would not have been placed at the end of the phrase he was modifying, but would have been placed before the noun it was modifying, such a construction being the more natural construction. What seems quite clear is that physei is never used in any instance in the New Testament in a manner where it modified a noun (i.e., as a dativus auctoris or in an adjectival sense) and was placed post-positively, that is after the noun. There is, however, no instance where the term physei was used pre-positively when it was used adverbially in the sense of a dativus modi or dativus instrumenti. In fact, there is no instance in the New Testament where the term physei was used as a dativus modi or dativus instrumenti, i.e., adverbially at all. So the argument by syntax is not absolutely conclusive, but it leans heavily in support of the traditional understanding.***

St. Paul uses the term physei three other times in his epistles: Galatians 2:15, 4:8, and Ephesians 2:3. Do these provide any instruction as to St. Paul's usage of the dative noun physei?

ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοὶς

However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods

ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημεν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest

In each of these instances, physei is used as a dativus auctoris, since in each instance it is clear that the term "by nature" refers to a noun, and not a verb (Jews, Gods, children of wrath). It is adjectival, not adverbial. Now, what is apparent is that, when used in this sense, St. Paul places the dativus auctoris before the modified noun, between a definitive article and the noun (and so also before the noun), and between a noun and its genitive modifier. In no instance does St. Paul place the dativus acutoris post positive, after the noun it modifies. This would suggest that Paul is not using the term physei as a dativus auctoris in Romans 2:14, as, if he followed his habit in these other verses, one would anticipate the term physei to be before the noun it modifies, so that St. Paul would have said placed φύσει either before the word Gentile (ἔθνη) or somewhere before ἔχοντα. He would not have placed a dativus auctoris, a dative used adjectively, post-positively.

Since in none of these other instances is physei used in a dativus modi or dativus instrumenti (i.e., in an adverbial sense modifying a verb), we cannot use these instances to help inform us as to whether St. Paul would have placed a dativus modi or instrumenti pre-positively, that is, before the verb he was intending to modify.

While we are at it, we might as well review the only other instance of the use of physei in the New Testament, namely in the Epistle of James (3:7):

πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν, ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ

For every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of the rest, is tamed, and hath been tamed, by the nature of man (Douay Rheims)

St. James uses a dativus auctoris pre-positively, not post-positively. Following St. Paul's practice, St. James place the term physei when used as a dativus auctoris before the noun it was modifying, and never after that noun.

So it seems that those who want to read St. Paul's words and construe them to mean something along these lines--"For when the Gentiles who have no law by nature do the things of the law, these having no law, are a law unto themselves"--have no warrant.

Excursus on Romans: Exegesis on 2:14, Part 1

THERE IS SOME CONTROVERSY regarding St. Paul's teaching of the natural law in his epistle to the Romans, specifically involving Romans 2:14. The controversy revolves around which of two general ways that verse should be interpreted. Specifically, the controversy involves the term "by nature" (φύσει), and whether it refers to the things that Gentiles do (that are in conformity with the Mosaic law) or to the Gentiles (who do not have the Mosaic law) themselves. Another way of looking at the problem is whether the term "by nature" (φύσει) is used adverbially (modifying a verb) or adjectivally (modifying a noun). More technically, the word φύσει is a noun in the dative case. But that noun is not used in its nounal sense, that is, as a dativus, an indirect object of any verb. Rather the question is whether it is being used as a dativus instrumenti or dativus modi, a dative of instrument or a dative of manner which refers to the action of "doing the things of the law," or whether it is used as a dativus auctoris, a dative of agent that refers to the "Gentiles."*

The traditional way of looking at the matter, and certainly the majority view, is one that views the verse as saying that the Gentiles by nature do the things of the law (which implies the existence of a natural law which the Gentiles follow). The majority view is found summarized in Bertke:

In the Greek text φύσει ([by] nature) belongs grammatically to ποιῶσιν [doing]. In other words, the Gentiles do by nature the things of the law. Had Paul wanted the word φύσει to modify the phrase "who have not the law" [τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα] thus excluding the concept of a natural law, then perforce φύσει would have had to be placed either before the article τὰ or between τὰ and ἔχοντα. In the actual construction φύσει can only belong to ποιῶσιν. The identity of the Gentiles in the passage is clearly determined by the appositional phrases used in the description. The phrases τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα [which have not the law] and οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες [these not having the law] in verse 14 can mean only that Paul is speaking of pagans in the strict sense of the word, i.e., people with, at best only primitive revelation.**

The second way, out of the mainstream, is to construe the verse as referring to Gentiles who by nature have not the law (which does not imply a natural law). Those who interpret the verse in the latter sense, are perhaps impelled to do so in an untoward and mistaken zeal to make everything sub gratia (under grace), and nothing sub lege (under law).

St. Paul by El Greco

The Greek text, along with various English variants, followed by the Latin Vulgate, is provided below:

ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν, οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος.

For when the Gentiles which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law these having not the law are a law unto themselves. [King James]

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves. [New American Standard]

For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves. [Douay Rheims]

For when Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves. [English Revised Version]

Cum enim gentes quae legem non habent naturaliter quae legis sunt faciunt eiusmodi legem non habentes ipsi sibi sunt lex. [Vulgate]

Manifestly, the most common translations follow the notion that the term φύσει (by nature) is being used adverbially, not adjectivally, or as a dativus modi or dativus instrumenti and not a dativus acutoris.

The transliteration and direct translation of the Greek may is as follows:

ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν, οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος.

hotan gar ethnē ta mē nomon echonta physei ta tou nomou poiōsin, houtoi nomon mē echontes eautois eisin nomos.

When for (the?) gentiles the not law having by nature the [things] of law they do, these the law not having to themselves are law.***

The problem, of course, is lack of punctuation in the Greek text. The lack of punctuation can add vagaries to the text, and, without the added benefit of punctuation, the relationships between the words can result in ambiguity, as it does in this case. The word by nature (φύσει) straddles the two possible phrases it can modify. It either modifies the phrase before it--ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα--or it modifies the phrase that comes after it--τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν. Punctuation, had it been part of the Greek text, would have helped clarify whether the term "by nature" modified what comes before it or what comes after it. Since there is no comma, we have to imply one. We have to ask ourselves where the implied comma should go in the text: "Gentiles who do not have the law by nature do what the law requires." Does it come before or after the phrase "by nature"? Does the verse read: "Gentiles, who do not have the law by nature, do what the law requires"? Or rather does the verse read: "Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires"? This is another way of asking whether the term φύσει is a dativus auctoris or a dativus modi or dativus instrumentali.

Without punctuation, we have to have recourse elsewhere. For help, we have to resort to syntax, grammar, vocabulary, customary usages, context, etc.

The question, one would hope, would be resolved by grammar. Is there any way to tell whether the word φύσει, a noun in dative form, is being used as a dativus auctoris, a dative with reference to the actor, adjectivally? Or is it rather being used as a dativus modi or dativus instrumenti, a dative with reference to an action, i.e., adverbially? Unfortunately, grammar does not yield an absolute answer. There is no way to distinguish between dativus auctoris and dativus modi or dativus instrumenti, at least that I have found.

___________________________________
*See Systematische Grammatik der griechischen Sprache Syntax - Kasuslehre, Dativ.
**Rev. Stanley Bertke, The Possibility of Invincible Ignorance of the Natural Law (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1941), 3-4 (Quirmbach, Joseph, Die Lehre des Hl. Paulus von der naturlichen Gotteserkenntnis und dem naturlichen Sittengestz, in Strassburger Theologische Studien, Band VII, Heft 4, 1906, p. 67.) Bertke also cites to M. J. Lagrange, O.P., Épître aux Romains, Paris: J. Gabalda et Fils, 1914, p. 49 ("Paul ne s'inquiète pas ici principe des action, mais de leur norm exterieure. La nature, c'est-a-dire la lumière de la raison naturelle, à défaut de la Lois, a dit aux gentil ce qu'ils devaient faire et éviter.") [My translation: Paul does not concern himself with the principle of action here, but with its external standard. Nature, that is to say the light of natural reason, in the absence of the Law, informed the Gentiles that which they had to do and [that which they had to] avoid.]
***See Table below:

ὅταν	when: conjunction.
γὰρ	for: conjunction, postpositive.
ἔθνη	(the) Gentiles: noun, neuter gender, nominative case, plural. The definitive article is implied.
τὰ	the: definitive article (neuter, plural), referring to ἔχοντα which refers to the gentiles.
μὴ	not: negative particle, negates, the phrase "τὰ . . . . νόμον ἔχοντα."
νόμον	law: noun, singular, masculine gender, accusative case.
ἔχοντα	(they) who have/hold/possess: verb, present, active, participle, used in a nounal form of the verb, ἔχω (I have, hold possess).
φύσει	(by) nature: noun (φύσις), dative case, singular, female gender.
τὰ	the:(see above)
τοῦ	(of) the: definite article in genitive, singular, masculine case, refers to the noun law, νόμου.
νόμου	(of) law: noun, masculine gender, genitive case, singular.
ποιῶσιν	do: verb, present, active, subjunctive mood, third person plural form of ποιέω, I make or do.
οὗτοι	these: noun, plural, masculine, in dative case.
νόμον	law: noun, accusative case, singular, masculine.
μὴ	not: see above.
ἔχοντες	(they) have: verb, present, active, participle, used as noun in nominative case, plural, masculine.
ἑαυτοῖς	(to) themselves: 3rd person plural reflexive pronoun, female gender and dative case.
εἰσιν	(they) are: verb, present, active, indicative, third person plural form of εἰμί, (I) am.
νόμος	law: nominative case.