• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

THE SUPERFLUITY OF THE LAW IN PHILO AND PAUL: A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS THE SUPERFLUITY OF THE LAW IN PHILO AND PAUL: A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS By JOHN W. MARTENS, B.A. M.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy McMaster University © by John Martens June, 1991 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (1991) McMaster University (Religious Studies) Hamiltont Ontario TITLE: The Superfluity of the Law in Philo and Paul: A Study in the History of Religions AUTHOR: John W. Martens B.A. (University of Toronto) M.A. (McMaster University) SUPERVISOR: Professor Stephen Westerholm NUMBER OF PAGES: xv: 390 11 ABSTRACT This thesis looks at two seminal Jewish thinkers of the 1st century C.E., Philo of Alexandria and the Apostle Paul, and compares their distinct views of the Mosaic law with Graeco-Roman discussions of law. Specifically, it asks how Graeco-Roman discussions of "higher' law - the law of nature (nomos physeos), the unwritten law (agraphos nomos), and the living law (nomos empsychos)­ influenced, or might have influenced, Philo and Paul in their attempts to understand the Mosaic law in an Hellenistic environment. Each of these forms of Graeco-Roman law implied a depreciation of the written, or civil, law. Did Philo, who adopted each of these forms oflaw, imply such a depreciation of the Mosaic law? Did he intend, as a number of scholars have argued, to claim that the Mosaic law was a second best choice for the truly wise person? This thesis sets Philo squarely in the context of these Graeco-Roman discussions, in order that not only his dependence but also his uniqueness may be seen in his adoption of these ideal forms of law. The case of Paul is somewhat different. Paul did claim that the law of Moses was abolished for the Christian. His radical response to the Torah has no precedent in Jewish thought, yet for the most part his view of the law seems not to be dependent upon Hellenistic thought. Was he nevertheless influenced by these Graeco-Roman discussions in his extreme reaction to the 111 continuing validity of the la~ of Moses for the Christian? Was he influenced, particularly, by the law of nature, which claimed that the sage was not bound by the written law, or by the living law, which replaced the written law with the king, the living law? This thesis compares Paul's thought on the law to these Graeco-Roman discussions of the "higher" law. The thesis begins with an overview of the concepts of "higher law," and then moves to a study of law in Philo and in Paul. It finishes with a comparison of Philo and Paul and their responses to the Mosaic law. It contends that in their views of the Mosaic law Philo remains true, even in the face of Hellenism, while Paul rejects the law, because of his experience of Jesus Christ and the present eschatological reality in which he lived. IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In the time it takes to write a dissertation, one accumulates almost as many debts as notes. This is an attempt to make restitution for a number of outstanding debts. I would like first of all to thank my family for their constant support over the many years of my studies. They have always encouraged me. I would also like to thank the Familie Raysz of Rottenburg am N eckar for becoming our family in Germany and for the kind use of their computers at the critical first stage of writing. I have been blessed, and that is the proper word, with a committee which has supported me and stood by me throughout the many years of my programme. Dr. Brad Inwood, of the Dept. of Classics, University of Toronto, came late to the project, but his immense learning and considerable kindness have helped me to avoid a number of problems and to find many solutions. He has made it clear to me that "the community of scholars" is not simply an empty phrase. Dr. B.F. Meyer has guided me not only through his astute reading and critical comments, but through his book Critical Realism and the New Testament. He has taught me not only to wonder how one practices Biblical criticism, but why one ought to practise it. v My supervisors Dr. Alan Mendelson and Dr. Stephen Westerholm have both been wonderful. Dr. Mendelson taught me to love and appreciate Philo and, so far as I have learned the lessons, to read Philo. His comments throughout the process of writing the dissertation have been insightful and thoughful. He has made this a much better dissertation than it could have been without his constant watchfulness and care. Dr. Stephen Westerholm has been my supervisor for seven years, and in those seven years he has taught me more than I could have expected. He stood by me at the beginning of my sojourn at McMaster when others might have decided it was not worth the trouble. He has helped me at each stage of my programme, with practical and academic advice. He has guided this dissertation from its inception and has carefully guided me in my research. He has read the drafts with precision and has made so many helpful corrections and comments, that it is fair to say that without him I would not be at this stage. I hope that someday I can repay him by doing for a student what he has done for me. Finally, I must attempt to repay my family. Jacob was born as Jo-Ann and I began our research. After three years, two dissertations are coming to completion, but one wonderful life has just begun. Jacob has made every day a delight and has allowed me to put aside my research in order to play and to read books with good stories and pictures. Jo-Ann has been a wonder. She has supported me and given me every advantage so that I could complete my vi dissertation. At the same time, Jacob was born and she began working on her dissertation. She has given me all the time I needed and has made our home a safe-haven. Some debts, of course, can never be repaid, but I thank her from the bottom of my heart. VII TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTMCT ............................................. III ACKN"OWLEDGEMENTS .................................. V T.ABLE OF CONTENTS .................................. VIII ABBRE'V'IA.TIONS ...................................... XIII INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE: ''HIGHER'' LAW AND THE SUPERFLUITY OF THE LAW IN GREEK THOUGHT ............... 11 I. Agraphos Nomos: Unwritten Law ................. 14 A) Laws which were not written .................... 15 B) Custom ..................................... 17 C) Unwritten, but Eternal ......................... 22 D) Conclusions ................................. 29 II. Nomos Physeos: The Law of Nature ............... 31 A) Origins ..................................... 32 B) Nature ..................................... 36 C) The "Common" Law ........................... 40 D) The Law of Nature ............................ 41 E) Where Does one find the Law of Nature? ........... 44 F) Who Follows the Law? ......................... 46 G) Conclusions ................................. 52 III. Nomos Empsychos: The Living Law .............. 55 A) Early Greek Forerunners of the Living Law Ideal ..... 57 B) The Pythagorean Fragments of the Hellenistic Period . 66 C) The Followers ................................ 74 D) The King as Law: Roman Evidence ............... 80 Vlll 1. Inscriptional Evidence ..................... 83 2. The Historians .......................... 84 a) Philo .................................. 84 b) Pliny .................................. 85 c) Suetonius .............................. 85 d) Dio Cassius ............................. 86 3. Philosophers and Poets .................... 88 a) Pomponius Porphyry ...................... 88 b) Seneca ................................ 89 4. The Lawyers ............................ 89 a) Gaius ................................. 89 b) Ulpian ................................. 90 5. Comments: The Historical Evidence .......... 90 E) Conclusions ................................. 91 IV. The Task ................................... 92 CHAPTER TWO: PHll..O AND PHYSIS ...................... 93 I. Physis: The Power of Life and Growth .. ...... " 95 II. Physis: The Inherent Character of Things ........ 96 III. Physis: The Order of the Cosmos ............... 105 IV. Physis: The Nature of God ................... 110 V. Philo's Scheme of Nature .................... 113 VI. Nature and Law ........................... 114 CHAPTER THREE: PHll..O AND THE LAW .................. 116 I. Nomos Physeos: The Law of Nature ............ 117 II. Agraphos Nomos: The Unwritten Law ........... 121 III. Nomos Empsychos: The Living Law ............ 128 IV. The Law of Moses .......................... 135 V. Other Codes of Law ......................... 142 VI. Conclusions ............................... 143 IX CHAPTER FOUR: THE UNITY OF THE LAW ................ 147 I. Who Follows the Law ....................... 148 II. Higher Law and the Law of Moses ............. 151 A) The Law of Nature and the Patriarchs ........ 151 B) The Living Law and Present-Day Rulers ...... 157 C) The Law of Nature in Philo's Day ............ 161 D) The Law of Nature and the Law of Moses ..... 169 III. Philo's Contribution: The Unity of Law .......... 173 A) The Living Law ......................... 174 B) The Unwritten Law ...................... 177 C) The Law of Nature and the Law of Moses ...... 180 D) Conclusions ............................ 183 CHAPTER FIVE: PAUL AND THE SUPERFLUITY OF THE LAW 190 I. Paul and the Problem of the Law .............. 190 A) The Abolition of the Law .................

Load more

  407

Copy Link