• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Aristotle and Romans 7

  • Thread starter angellous_evangellous
  • Start date
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I was reading Aristotle last night and I came across a long passage that reminded me very much of Romans 7:13-25. Aristotle is distinguishing voluntary action from involuntary action. Like the "law", the animal nature of humans is designed to lead them to goodness, but very often can lead humans to wickedness if the person is uncontrolled and does not live rationally. In the end, Aristotle forces everyone to be accoutable for all of their actions.

First, Romans 7:

Romans 7 ESV
7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Compare to Aristotle, written 300+ years before Romans:


Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, 2.1222b-1225b (and following is related...). This work is available online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0050. If that doesn't work, try http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ and it is in classics.

The clearest example from Aristotle, I think is:

[1223b][1] so that the uncontrolled man will act unrighteously by acting in conformity with desire. But unrighteous action is voluntary. Therefore he will be acting voluntarily, and action guided by desire is voluntary. Indeed it would be strange if those who become uncontrolled will be more righteous. -- From these considerations, then, it would appear that what is in conformity with desire is voluntary; and from this the opposite follows, for all that a man does voluntarily he wishes to do, and what he wishes to do he does voluntarily, but nobody wishes what he thinks to be bad. But yet the uncontrolled man does not do what he wishes, for being uncontrolled means acting against what one thinks to be best owing to desire; hence it will come about that the same person is acting voluntarily and involuntarily at the same time. But this is impossible. And further, the self-controlled man will act righteously, or more righteously than lack of control will; for self-control is goodness, and goodness makes men more righteous. And a man exercises self-control when he acts against his desire in conformity with rational calculation. So that if righteous action is voluntary, as also unrighteous action (for both of these seem to be voluntary, and if one of them is voluntary it follows of necessity that the other is also), whereas what is contrary to desire is involuntary, it therefore follows that the same person will do the same action voluntarily and involuntarily at the same time.

And later 1225a
For in cases where the presence or absence of such circumstances depends on the agent himself, even the actions that he does without wishing to do them he does willingly and not under compulsion; but where in such cases the circumstances do not rest with himself, he acts under compulsion in a sense, though not indeed under compulsion absolutely, because he does not definitely choose the actual thing that he does but the object for which he does it; since even in the objects of action there is a certain difference.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
NetDoc said:
The truth is the truth... what was your point again?

I just wanted to share an interesting parallel. Romans 7 is notoriously difficult for interpreters, and this passage will help us understand the various interpretative difficulties. I don't know if any commentators have noticed it before... if not, I'll write an article on it...
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I have found more parallels to Romans 7

Euripides (480-406 BCE) “That which is good we learn and recognize, yet practice not the lesson, some from sloth, and some from preferring pleasure in the stead of duty.” Hippolytus 379-83

Plato (427-347 BCE) “... most people... say that many, while knowing what is best, refuse to perform it...” Protagorus 352d

Aristotle (384-22 BCE) “The man... who does not think the action right before he comes under the influence of passion” NE 7.2

Plautus (c 254-184 BCE) “I know what sort I ought to be, but I couldn’t be it, poor fool.” Trinummas

Ovid (43BC-17CE) “I see the better and approve it; but I follow the worse.” Metamorphosis 7.21
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Plutarch expounds on Euripides Frag. 841 in Moralia 446a and 33e. Plutarch writes that we must find joy and not grief in our circumstances and not be lead astray in wickedness because of a lack of self-control.

‘No, indeed,’ we shall say, ‘but you must find joy and not grief in your lot be but moderate, since Not for good and no ill came thy life from thy sire, Agamemnon;71 and: Alas, from God this evil comes to men, When knowing what is good, one does it not. ‘No, rather is it bestial,’ we reply, ‘and irrational and pitiable that a man who knows the better should be led astray by the worse as a result of a weak will and soft living.72

The association that Plutarch makes with the lack of self-control and animals is quite popular and applied to virtually every area of life. Such a person is not qualified to teach others.73

Plutarch explains the difference between incontinence (a0kprasi/a) and intemperance (a0kolasi/a) in Moralia 446a. The crucial difference is that an incontinent person is Plutarch quotes Euripides again when he lists the sayings of intemperate persons.

But the fact is that temperance belongs to the sphere where reason guides and manages the passionate element, like a gentle animal obedient to the reins, making it yeilding in its desires and willingly receptive of moderation and propriety; but the self-controlled man, while he does so not without pain, nor by persuasion, but as it plunges sideways and resists, as though with blow and curb, he forcibly subdues it and holds it in, being the while himself full of internal struggle and turmoil.74

Such an attitude surely is parallel to some statements by Paul elsewhere, but the self-controlled person would never admit to completely losing control due to the shame and wickedness associated with it.75 From my perspective, it seems that the following from Plutarch fits the confession of Romans 7.19:

But incontinence, with the aid of reason, preserves its power of judgment intact, yet by its passions, which are stronger than its reason, it is swept along against its judgment. That is why incontinence differs from intemperance, for in it reason does not even fight; in the case of incontinence reason argues against the desires as it follows them, whereas with intemperance reason guides them and is their advocate; it is characteristic of intemperance that its reason shares joyfully in the sins committed, whereas with incontinence the reason shares in them, but with reluctance; with intemperance, reason is willingly swept along into shameful conduct, whereas with incontinence, it betrays honor unwillingly.76

After explaining the difference between incontinence (a0kprasi/a) and intemperance (a0kolasi/a), Plutarch goes on to list examples of each from literature. Our parallel to Romans 7.19 is listed with a0kolasi/a.77

But the sayings of incontinence are otherwise and different: A mind I have, but Nature forces me. and Alas! From God this evil comes to men / When knowing what is good, they do it not;78 and The spirit yields and can resist no more,/ Like anchor-hook in sand amid the surge.79

footnotes:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/71 Moralia, 33e-f.


http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/72 Moralia, 33e-f. fh/somen .... a1gesqai.



http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/73 Such a person is bound to fail as a teacher. "This, then, is the natural task of practical reason: to eliminate both the defects and the excesses of the passions," Moralia 444c. (last line)



http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/74 Moralia, 445b-c. Compare to tame animals in Epictetus and Paul’s beating himself.



http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/75 Long footnote here... Moralia 445e; Aristotle; Epictetus/.///



http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/76 Moralia, 445e.



http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/77 Euripides Frag. 841



http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/78 Cf. James... the one who knows the good ... Plutarch follows up on this statement by noting that such a person is like one blown about by the wind, Moralia 446b.



http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/79 Moralia 446a. Plutarch compares the intemperate person to a ship that mindlessly sails directly into disaster and the incontinent as one who searches for harbor and unwillingly crashes into a reef of shameful conduct. Cf. Paul... I beat my flesh into submission and shipwrecking the faith... Plutarch’s immortal conclusion is “For neither is the wise man continent, though he is temperate, nor is the fool incontinent, though he is intemperate,” Moralia, 446c.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Both posts 5 and 6 are exerpts that I edited out of a paper that I submitted this past Saturaday for a Romans course. I was convinced at the last minute that none of the references are exactly parallel to Paul and will need more work before I used them in an arugment.
 

Defij

Member
It should come as no surprise that in the writings of Paul we might come across many parallels to great Greek philosophers of antiquity past. For starters, Paul was from Tarsus. Now Tarsus was a huge sprawling metropolis of the ancient Greek world. Paul, according to his own writings, was educated greatly in Tarsus. It is very plausible that Paul was greatly influenced by Greek philosophy and thought before he went to Jerusalem to sit at the feet of Gamaliel and learn about his Jewish history. Interesting parallel though.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Defij said:
It should come as no surprise that in the writings of Paul we might come across many parallels to great Greek philosophers of antiquity past. For starters, Paul was from Tarsus. Now Tarsus was a huge sprawling metropolis of the ancient Greek world. Paul, according to his own writings, was educated greatly in Tarsus. It is very plausible that Paul was greatly influenced by Greek philosophy and thought before he went to Jerusalem to sit at the feet of Gamaliel and learn about his Jewish history. Interesting parallel though.

Tarsus was a center for Stoicism in the time of Paul. Many NT scholars have identified several Stoic technical terms in Paul. Troels Engberg-Pederson has outlined how Paul thought as a Stoic in his recent book Paul and the Stoics.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
There is literally thousands of parallels in other faiths/non-faiths to Christendom. Only comes to show me that we are wired the same.

Just like at my sig....:D
 

Aqualung

Tasty
It only goes to show ME that in the beginning we all followed the same faith, but then people apostasized and corrupted their religions, but you can still find traces of the one true religion in them.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
CrossEyedMary said:
It only goes to show ME that in the beginning we all followed the same faith, but then people apostasized and corrupted their religions, but you can still find traces of the one true religion in them.

Then why bother if they are ALL bound to apostasize?? ;)
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
I was reading Aristotle last night and I came across a long passage that reminded me very much of Romans 7:13-25. Aristotle is distinguishing voluntary action from involuntary action. Like the "law", the animal nature of humans is designed to lead them to goodness, but very often can lead humans to wickedness if the person is uncontrolled and does not live rationally. In the end, Aristotle forces everyone to be accoutable for all of their actions.


Hello,

Below is part of a post I put forward that relates somewhat to your general ideas. The focus is different ( and is was part of a larger discussion), but maybe you will be interested.


Romans 7:19-25

The passage:



19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.​
20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
The above is a great scripture. Now, my guess is that were I to ask one like yourself the meaning I would get something like: the above demonstrates the fallen and miserable state of man. Paul speaks as a victim of his own sinful nature: constantly born down by the evils of the flesh. This wretched man can only hope for the redeemer Christ to pull him from his despair. And thus we can see it is not anything Paul, as a fallen man can do (and thus we reject the pride of any works based approach), but only through Christ that any hope is possible. Am I close?

The exegesis:

I have noted you state a few times that context is important. I agree. Context does not simply mean the verses that surround a chosen passage or even the book or the Bible proper, but actually entails the entire socio-cultural milieu any piece of literature was written in. The Greco-Roman World is the context. Paul as a Hellenized Jew was fully able to communicate to a Greek speaking audience on their own terms. A simple example would be his referencing the Greek poet Aratus when speaking to the Aeropagus on Mars Hill (Book of Acts). In Romans a similar tact is taken.

If I asked 'what is going on in verse 19?' My guess is the reply from yourself would be something connected to the notion of Original Sin and man's sinful falleness. This would be an anachronistic reading of the text that is only possible by one divorced from the linguistic-cultural context of the passage. I'll illustrate: if I asked what does "to be or not to be" mean? Some might give a response on existential angst. Most would tie it to Shakespeare. Some may even tie it to Hamlet. The above phrasing from verse 19 would have a similar impact on a Greek speaking audience. The phrase is a medean turn. What does that mean? It refers to Medea from Greek Tragedy.* The phrase is most commonly found in Euripides's "Medea':

"I am being overcome by evils. I know that what I am about to do is evil but passion is stronger than my reasoned reflection "

It can also be found in the larger literature of contemporary's and near contemporary's of Paul. For example. Epictetus:

"What he wants to do he doesn't do, and what he doesn't want he does."

Ovid's Medea:

I see the better and approve it, but I follow the worse"

Verse 24's phrase Paul's uses is almost an exact phrasing of his contemporary Seneca who wrote in his Medea Tragedy:

"O wretched woman that I am!" The phrase is "talaiporos ego anthropos".

What is going on here? Why would Paul refer to a figure from Greek myth and why this specific phrasing? The reason is because the figure of Medea and the phrasing was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to illustrate akrasia which refers to weakness of the will or lack of self mastery. Attaining self mastery was a central principle in Greek and Roman Thought. This is why writers in Athens would often sing the praise of their mortal enemies the Spartans (often seen as those most able at self mastery). It is one of the reasons why Stoicism became the dominant ethos of the Roman world. It is also why Greco-Romans might become interested in Jewish Thought. The Law of Moses was portrayed as a vehicle for self mastery (Philo is a simple example of this). What Paul is skillfully doing in the passage is both showing how it is pathe that leads to wrong doing (hamartein), but also he is engaging in a trope when he turns the notion back on his audience. "Medea" was used as an illustration of the dangers of the foreign: the evils that can occur when the other is let within. The Romans/Greeks were very aware of the barbarorum and sought to maintain the divide. Paul's use turns the Romans/Greeks into the other vis-a-vis the Law of Moses. They are compared to the foreign Medea, the ones who have gone against the good and corrupted themselves. Once this is established, Paul then is able to show it is not adherence to a foreign law of Moses that will bring self mastery, but rather through Christ via the spirit."
 

opuntia

Religion is Law
I believe that Paul was laboring to explain to the saints how divine law works.

First, if one is not informed about a certain law, his or her ignorance will save them to a certain degree from the consequences of that law (Acts 17:30). It is not fair or just to punish someone who was not informed about a law. Paul said that he was alive until the law came into being in his life (Romans 7:9). This may seem odd to categorize law as a death mechanism; but one is alive (Romans 2:12-15) while there is no law, almost like children upon whom the law cannot take hold until they are of sufficient age to comprehend a law and its consequences. Life of another sort then takes place in the person (Ephesians 4:20-24).

Second, the law it says (Hebrews 4:12; Revelation 1:16) is a sharp two-edged sword. According to the aforementioned verses concerning the sword, Jesus spoke the words of life (John 15:3) or essentially giving rules on how a Christian was to conduct him- or herself (Matthew 5-7). The law eventually is to free the person (John 8:31-36) from sin(1 John 3:4).

Thirdly, a person who is truly alive is the one who knows the law and lives by the law even though he or she need not be reminded of the law (Jeremiah 31:31-34). So, by the law one will die and be revived (Romans 12:2).

Eventually, the law will be done away with, there being no need to teach proper functions to spiritual beings (Revelations 21:1-7; Galatians 3:24) or full adults in the kingdom of God.
 
Top