Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: justification: a pre-Pauline doctrine?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: justification: a pre-Pauline doctrine?
  • Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:31:16 -0400


> From: Jon Peter [mailto:jnp AT home.com]

I wrote:
> > Along with this I've been wondering about the notion of Natural
> Law. It is
> a
> > Platonic notion I believe. Conversations recorded in the Talmud
> between a
> > rabbi and a Gentile discuss the notion of Natural Law and
> compare it with
> > the Oral Law. The concept of natural law of course preceded Paul. When
> Paul
> > discusses gentiles who are righteous naturally, could he be referring to
> the
> > Platonic concept of natural law?
>
>
To which Jon replied:

> In theory, maybe (but perhaps via Stoicism rather than Platonism). Here is
> the Encyclopedia.com blurb:
>
> NATURAL LAW = theory that some laws are fundamental to human nature and
> discoverable by human reason without reference to specific
> legislative acts
> or judicial decisions. It is opposed so-called positive law, which is
> customary or legislated and is conditioned by history and subject to
> continuous change. ROMAN LAW, drawing on theories of Greek STOICISM,
> recognized a common cause regulating human conduct; this was the basis for
> the later development by GROTIUS of the theory of international law. St.
> THOMAS AQUINAS, SPINOZA, and LEIBNIZ all interpreted natural law as the
> basis of ethics and morality.

Yes. Exactly. This was the argument recorded in the Talmud. The gentile
argued that Natural Law was more perfect since it was unchanging. Of course,
the rabbi argued that the torah was also unchanging.
>
>
> > If so, could this Platonic concept be
> > Paul's source for justification without the Torah?
I think it is Platonic, but the Stoics may have gotten it from Plato or the
Zeitgeist.

> >
>
> In my opinion it would be a stretch to say that Paul’s source for
> Justification was a Greek philosopher, simply because of the way Paul
> expresses his idea: It is intricately connected with the vocabulary,
> thought, and theological issues of Habakkuk and Torah.
>
> But I do think it very likely that Paul knew Stoic, Platonic and
> other Greek
> teachings, including possibly natural law. He writes things like:
> "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…"
> Romans 2:14
>
> Paul is clearly writing here about a biblical idea, though, which just
> happens to be similar to the Stoic idea of natural law. Paul
> continues in v
> 15, "…Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
> conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean
> while accusing
> or else excusing one another…" Here Paul’s "written in their
> hearts" phrase
> is unmistakably taken from the new covenant of Jer 31.33.

>
> Best regards,
>
> Jon
>
Dear Jon et. al.

I am wondering if Paul's interpretation of the "new covenant written on
their hearts" is not informed by the Stoic understanding of Natural Law. It
seems to me that Paul's Greek would not be so excellent had he not studied
the Greek writers and thinkers. He must have read them, and he did not live
in a vacuum.
Why wouldn't he be influenced by them?

Jeffrey suggested in another post: "As to the ultimate source for Paul's
belief that justification occurs apart from "works of the Law", I would look
to his "call" experience as the source for this, not Plato." Perhaps I
should have said the Stoics, then, not Plato. But whether you call it a
"call" or a "conversion" I think Alan Segal's book is relevant here. Segal
has shown that conversion experiences are characterized by a change in
*community.* They are sociological. They are characterized by people who
associate with the new community prior to the conversion experience. They
associate on the margins, and they need the authority of the conversion
experience to join the community as full-fledged members. Segal tried to
show that this was true of Paul, that Paul associated with a gentile
Christian community, and indeed probably hovered on the edge of that
community prior to his call experience. Scholars argue against this by
saying that Paul did not conceive of himself as changing communities. They
argue it was a prophetic "call" not a "conversion."

To me it is a 'conversion," not a "call." If *I* heard a voice on the road
to Damascus saying "why are you persecuting me?" I would not interpret it as
Jesus talking to me. I would interpret it as YHWH. We have to ask why Paul
interpreted it as Jesus. The answer can only be that, psychologically
speaking, he had already converted before his call. If Paul interprets a
heavenly voice as Jesus, then he has already come to the conclusion that
Jesus is alive and in heaven. Psychologically speaking, he has already
converted, had already joined a new community, probably of gentile
christians, and existed at most likely at the edge of that community.

But a conversion (or call) experience has to have an intellectual component,
not only a sociological component. Paul's interpretation of the Jeremiad
passage is not derivable from the OT by itself. Jeremiah has God say "This
is the covenant I will cut with the Israelites after those days, declares
YHWH, I will put my torah in their midst and on their hearts I will write
it." YHWH's *torah* includes the special laws, not simply the so-called
natural laws. Of course, the LXX would have simply said nomos. (What is
the corresponding verse in the LXX?) I am wondering if Paul's recognition
that a gentile could be righteous apart from the law may have been informed
by Stoic concept of natural law. The Stoic idea of natural law could have
led him to his interpretation of the biblical passages. It is, after all,
not the Torah that Paul refers to, but something else. I am wondering if it
is Natural Law. "My law" to Paul may be Natural Law.


I have started reading Donaldson's book on Paul's mission to the Gentiles.
(I forget the exact title now and I don't have it handy.) I have only just
begun it, but what I find interesting about it is that he does not take the
mission to the gentiles for granted. He understands it as a problem to be
solved. If we realize that the call experience is the *apex* of something
(as well as the beginning of something else), then we have to ask what
informed Paul's beliefs, both intellectually and socially, which brought him
to that experience.

Best,
Liz

Lisbeth S. Fried
Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University
51 Washington Sq. S.
New York, NY 10012
lqf9256 AT is3.nyu.edu
lizfried AT umich.edu





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page