Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>]

John,
This is a very interesting proposition. I am not prepared to undertake
investigating it presently, but here are some questions that come to mind to
explore. You have spun a story from these different interpreters spanning
hundreds of years, and from different ethnicities and cultures. Where might
it benefit from some alteration and nuance? How widely was the story as you
understand it understood by 1) anyone then or 2) anyone since when reading
Cicero or Paul? If you can find corroboration, say in some elite, then I
want to know if there is any evidence that anyone other than an elite,
representing some small percent of the population, shared this understanding
of the story. And I want to know if and how a non-elite would relate to  it.
Then, I want to know if the kind of audience Paul's letter's rhetoric as
well as historical situational probabilities for their makeup (as non-elite,
e.g.) suggests they would have known about, understood, and adopted that
narrative, and understood Paul to be employing it, and in the direction for
which you argue. What are the other options for how they might relate to and
interpret Paul's language?

In addition to spending some time with Stan Stowers' Rereading Romans, I
suggest you (and members of the list either interested in or dismissive of
your thesis) take a look at the new Daniel Boyarin book, Border Lines, which
develops a logos theme in trying to sort out Christian and Jewish communal
developments and the eventual distance that resulted. Very interesting; will
require some time to digest, and folks more familiar than I am with some
aspects of the thesis to weigh in on it.

Regards,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/


on 1/21/05 10:34 AM, John Brand at jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca wrote:

> 
> 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)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul