Yes, it would take a couple of weeks to investigate but also inspiration. One needs the help from on High. I'm praying, taking communion, having God lead the way. The ancient Greeks thought inspiration a big part of gaining knowledge.

I've sent a feeler to another academic, maybe he would help. From the Phaedrus 277 b
"First, you must know the truth about the subject that you speak or write about; that is to say, you must be able to isolate it in definition, hand having so defined it you must next understand how to divide it into kinds, until you reach the limit of division;..."

This is the first act.

"Since, then, man had a share in the portion of the gods, in the first place because of his divine kinship he alone among the living creatures believed in gods, and set to work to erect altars and images of them". (Protagoras, 322 a)

Here Protagoras sees that all men, everywhere have an ""instinct"" towards religion. I agree. Everywhere, at all times, all men are religious.

"…all men do in fact believe that everyone shares a sense of justice and civic virtue. …for a man cannot be without some share in justice, or he would not be human." (Protagoras, 323 a-c)

In this section, all men have a ""sense of justice"", or they would not be men. A sense of justice is instinct.

To be consistent, we don't have a Natural Religion. All men are religious, but then, we would have to have divine revelation to have the correct one. God would have to implant an instinct in order for man to fit religion. If man did not have an instinct for religion, man would not be religious.

I think the same here goes for justice. Protagoras uses the word 'sense', and I see instinct, and I think the Stoics put the word 'nomos' to this and created a "Natural Moral Law" or in their words a "natural law" which deals with morals and ethics. Is this an instinct, but not a law which is specific. For me, I think there is a confusion of 'instinct' with 'law'. The terms 'natural law' and 'laws of nature' are to be restricted to the metaphysical laws which are embeded in the cosmos, which run and guide the cosmos. For me, the Stoics went on a wild goose chase and invented something novel, the 'natural law', 'physeos nomos' for the instinct that all men have. There is NO moral 'law' that guide all men specifically into morals and ethics. God implanted a sense of justice in all men, so when divine revelation came, it would guide their instinct. Even apes and gorillas, herd animals, have a very marginal instinct of justice. We as herd animals, (Aristotle's 'social animal'), exhibit this sense of justice.

I think the Stoics started themselves and everybody else on a wild goose chase because they did not have divine revelation. Does anybody want to weigh in on this? have an opinion? correct my opinion? I believe the Cynics and the Stoics messed up the transmission of the natural law and everybody followed their que. I'm trying to straighten out this mess. What do you think?

See in olden times Archaic Greek, nomos, meant custom. Only later on, did 'nomos' take on the meaning of 'law'. Is this the meaning of 'custom' the Stoics meaning? Did they return the word 'nomos' to mean custom? Custom in the sense of man's natural way of things. Is this what they mean by 'physeos nomos'?

You may like also to check this important excerpt from Gregory of Nyssa's Catechetical oration, page 20: "since that alone is unchangeable in its nature which does not derive its origin through creation, while whatever by the uncreated being is brought into existence out of what was nonexistent, from the very first moment that it begins to be, is ever passing through change, and if it acts according to its nature [in Greek: kata physin] the change is ever to the better, but if it be diverted from the straight path, then a movement to the contrary succeeds..."

That is interesting. I believe it did leave the straight path.

In his paper, "Recovering the Original Cosmopolitan's Challenges", Eric Brown writes:
"It is difficult to pinpoint where and when the decisive turn was first made, but cosmopolitanism became far easier after the fifth-century Sophists began to insist repeatedly on the distinction between nature (physis) and law or convention (nomos)."

For the Sophists there was a difference between 'physis' and 'nomos'. They did not use the term 'law of nature' but nomos meaning convention. From this professor, it seems that he is intimating that there is a difference between the phrases.

I have written an article ["Christ, Reason (Logos) and Greek philosophy"] describing the importance of the Logos and what it entails for Christians.