Corpus-Paul

["John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>]

Following up on Jeffrey Gibson's suggestion, might I bring focus to 
our discussion under the heading of Logos/Christos as Soter? Also, 
Dieter has suggested that it is best to deal with Paul in one letter; 
thus, I will focus on Romans. However, I do want to draw from some of 
his other letters to make the case for a Gentile/Jewish audience 
conversant with Greco-Roman philosophical thought as opposed to the 
traditional picture of an 'average man on the street' Gentile who may 
have been initiated into the mystery religions but who was primarily 
wrapped up in his own passionate pursuit of pleasure for its own 
sake. I want to work from the point in the discussion between Jim 
West and Tim Gallant that provoked my involvement:

Tim wrote:
4. What would Christos mean to a Gentile? Frankly, I doubt it would 
have meant much apart from explanation. Soter would have meant more, 
and that puts us in the "political" realm. But Paul could scarcely 
have got very far in his message without identifying this soter who 
rivalled Caesar as in fact a Jew, and his political significance as 
rooted in Israelite history. If that is anywhere close to the mark, 
we are already getting into "Messiah territory."

Jim West has also made the suggestion (which I would benefit from his 
clarifying):

Jeffrey B Gibson wrote:
 it seems to me, even if you've assessed correctly what's in Rom 1-2,
>there's nothing there that has to be drawn from Cicero.  It is all
>thoroughly Jewish.

Jim responds:
A closer parallel might be the Wisdom of Solomon.

John continues:
Connections have been made between the Greco-Roman Wisdom tradition 
(starting with Heraclietus and moving to his use in Philo) and John 
1:1ff via the use John makes of ho Logos in that context ("Word" in 
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Merril C. 
Tenny "John: Gospel of Belief"). Also, F.F. Bruce in his Colossians 
commentary has argued for a Colossian heresy akin to the Jewish 
Merkabah. The Greco-Roman enlightenment (Jaspers' Axis Age) ideas 
develop from the mystical traditions and the mystery religions. 
However, they transform the images of myth and the ritual of the cult 
into philosophical discourse. This means that they bring the mystery 
rituals 'down to earth' by looking at the gods and what was causing 
the havoc regularly depicted in the pantheon (i.e. Hesiod and Homer) 
which had always been thought to determine what was going on in the 
political/social realm.

It is interesting that the NIDNT article uses Philo as the link to 
Heraclietus as well as Jewish Wisdom writings to make the connection 
between the Greco-Roman use of Logos and John's use. Also, John makes 
a direct link between ho Logos and Christos who is the incarnate 
Logos just as Wisdom becomes incarnate in the wisdom literature (cf. 
Lady Wisdom in Proverbs which has sometimes been linked to 
Colossians). This shows that there is some ground being gained for 
the idea that Logos develops in Greco-Roman thought and influences 
Jewish thought.

We can link Paul's Jewish thought in Romans 1-2 more directly to 
Greco-Roman thought through the idea of Logos as Soter. Tim has 
pointed out that the Romans looked to Caesar as a political savior. I 
would agree and further argue that this was similar to the Jewish 
expectation as reflected, for example, in Acts 1:6 'will you at this 
time restore the kingdom to Israel?' Note, however, that the focus of 
the NT turns not to a political kingdom but to the condition of the 
soul as the means to happiness in this life and in the next.

Plato linked the soul to the polis. There appears to be a 
misunderstanding in Biblical scholarship regarding the focus of Greco-
Roman thought. A.E. McGrath (Iustia Dei) appears to take the focus on 
the Republic in Cicero and Plato as an indication that human 
happiness or salvation is to be found in the polis, according to 
Plato and Aristotle. This is a misunderstanding of the direction of 
Greco-Roman thought. Rather, Plato uses Socrates to prove that 
justice is ultimately a condition of the soul which results in 
happiness even though it means suffering injustice. To make his 
point, he turns to the polis because it is 'the soul writ large.' 
Consequently, many have taken the Republic to be more abouts politics 
than psychology (i.e. 'soul study').

Plato argues that the constitution of the soul is the same as the 
constitution of the polis. For example, as the ideal polis is ruled 
by a Philosopher-King who pursues Logos for its own sake (rather than 
for power or money), so the soul is made up of a divine or higher 
(logistikos) and a fleshly/earthly/lower element (alogistikos or 
epiqumhtikos):

"would you not say that there was something in the soul bidding a man 
... and something else forbidding him, which is other or stronger 
than the principle which bids him? ... the forbidding principle is 
derived from reason (logos) and that which bids and attracts proceeds 
from passion and disease ... the one with which a man reasons, we may 
call the rational principle (logistikos) of the soul, the other, with 
which he loves and hungers and thirsts and feels the flutterings of 
desire (epiqumia) may be termed the irrational (alogistikos) or 
appetitive (epiqumhtikos), the ally of sundry pleasures and 
satisfaction" (Republic.IV.439D)

The higher element is called logistikos from Logos because of its 
being sourced in Logos and its constant participation in Logos. The 
lower element is called epithumatikos because it is made up of 
epithumia which tend to war against the higher elements in a man. 
This is part of Plato's theology: "he who is a philosopher ... and is 
entirely pure at departing, is alone permitted to reach the gods. And 
this is the reason ... why true votaries of philosophy abstain from 
fleshly lusts and endure and refuse to give themselves up to them ... 
because they dread the dishonor of evil deeds' (Phaedo.82). And it is 
part of his political philosophy as well which is fully developed in 
his Republic and his Laws. From this root comes the four branches of 
phisophical thought that are at a zenith at the time of the NT: 
Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic and Epicurean.

I would argue that Paul builds on this theology in his Epistle to the 
Romans. In what follows, I am assuming that it is understood that 
Cicero reflects Plato's thought as well as the other branches from 
Plato evident at the time of the NT. I can move into the details if 
anyone wishes to challenge this assumption.

1. Plato wrestles with the mythic figures of Hesiod and Homer while 
Paul takes the Jewish slant that the nations have changed the glory 
of the creator into images made to look like men. Plato cannot 
believe that the gods of Hesiod and Homer are truly gods because they 
behave so much like men. Paul assumes that the gods are man-made 
objects of worship. 

2. For Paul the primary emphasis is on the salvation of the 
individual by his participating in the death and resurrection of 
Christ. For Plato the polis is the soul 'writ large' and Logos is the 
preserver or savior of a man's virtue:  'Reason (Logos) .... is the 
only indwelling preserver (swthr) of virtue throughout life in the 
soul that possesses it.' (Republic.VIII.549). Aeschylus' Prometheus 
is the divine benefactor who suffers injustice despite his being 
just. He becomes the exemplar for the man who pursues justice in the 
soul regardless of the suffering that results.

3. For Paul, human depravity is the result the suppression of an 
innate revelation of the divine within. For Plato human depravity is 
the result of the disconnection of the higher self from logos and the 
pursuit of virtue.

We can connect these concepts more directly by using Cicero's Laws 
and Plato's Republic and comparing them with Paul's thought in Romans 
1-2:

1. Romans 1:20: God has made himself understood through the things 
that he has made. (cf Cicero Laws I.24-25; 61)

2. Romans 1:21 The basic human problem is that man is not thankful 
(cf. Cicero Laws.II.16)

3. Romans 1:23 Human depravity is the result of cultures' rejection 
of the knowledge of God. For Plato the depravity of the polis and the 
soul begins when Logos is pursued for purposes of power or wealth or 
honor rather than for its own sake (Republic.VIII.549)

4. Romans 1:28 the final stage of human depravity is anarchy of the 
home and the individual. For Plato, the initial abandonment of the 
pursuit of Logos for its own sake results in a proclivity from an 
Aristocracy through to Democracy and, eventually, anarchy 
(Republic.VIII.562-3)

5. Romans 2:15 'they show the work of the Law written in their 
hearts' and for Cicero the Law is right reason in comanding and 
forbidding (Laws I.44)

6. Romans 2:20 "Law is the embodiment of knowledge and the truth" for 
Cicero, Law is also an embodiment of truth (I.19, 42-44)

Key to understanding Paul's thought is the quote from Habakkuk 1:4 
'the just shall live by faith.' Habakkuk goes on to describe the 
other side of the story: the unjust man whose soul is not upirght. He 
pursues his passions which create frustration in those overwhom he 
rules to the point that the house he builds for himself through 
injustice caves in upon him. This is the same conclusion that Plato 
came to in his understanding of the anarchy in the state. It derives 
from anarchy in the soul because of soul pathology. The problem that 
is addressed in his Republic is the rationale for being just in a 
world that is ruled by the 'interest of the stronger.'  Plato's 
solution is to follow the exemplar of Prometheus who suffers 
injustice rather than dealing injustice to the men whom he has 
created. 

Would not such parallel developments not recognize one another when 
the similarities are underlined? Would it not behoove the Jew to step 
out form his halakah for a moment to see what the Gentile looks like 
apart from his being initiated into his religion? Would the Gentile 
not be motivated to look more closely at the prophetic thought of the 
Jew since there was such a similarity between the idea of a just man 
who subordinates passion to his faith in God and his own idea that 
passion must be ruled by Logos?

Is it the conclusion of those on this list that I am like  a "fellow 
named Garner who kept saying the same thing when he proposed again 
and again that the earth was hollow and was illuminated from the 
inside by a small sun." I welcome arguments outside of the ad hominem 
to refute my thesis.

Paul uses nomos/rex and the proclivity caused by epithumia in the 
same sense evident in Cicero and Plato. The large issue in Romans is 
how the Jewish element and the Gentile element can come to terms with 
one another through love. But the cultures appear to be saying the 
same thing in terms of what is wrong with the soul and what it needs 
to get out of its depravity.

Your thoughts are welcome

Regards,

John Brand

B.A. (Providence College, 1980)
M.Min. (Providence Seminary, 1990)