Hi,
I heard in one of sermons I listened to online, that Romans was studied at secular law schools to show how brilliant Pauls' argumentation is. I was tring to find any proof or source but couldnt. Maybe someone heard that before.
I searched for Romans NEAR "law school" and found a quote in the Bookstore (i.e. in books I don't own). It was in Leland Ryken's Literary Introductions to the Books of the Bible and said: "Until recently, Romans was studied in American law schools in order to teach students the art of presenting an argument". I'd consider Ryken to be a fairly reliable source.
I heard in one of sermons I listened to online, that Romans was studied at secular law schools to show how brilliant Pauls' argumentation is. I was tring to find any proof or source but couldnt. Maybe someone heard that before. I searched for Romans NEAR "law school" and found a quote in the Bookstore (i.e. in books I don't own). It was in Leland Ryken's Literary Introductions to the Books of the Bible and said: "Until recently, Romans was studied in American law schools in order to teach students the art of presenting an argument". I'd consider Ryken to be a fairly reliable source.
Hm. It could be one of those urban myths, though. I find another hit, very much like this, in a book I own (no footnote or any other discussion):
[Francis] Schaeffer pointed out that, until recently, Romans was studied in American law schools in order to teach students the art of presenting an argument.
Udo W. Middelmann, “Introduction,” in The Finished Work of Christ: The Truth of Romans 1-8 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), viii.
It could well be that Ryken is quoting Meddelmann (or Schaeffer) with or without attribution. Interestingly, in Schaeffer's books there is no search hit, and none in the remainder of "The Finished Work" either.
In addition, such a statement is so poorly defined (How recent? Which schools? Harvard in the last 300 years, perhaps?) that it is likely to be true since ancient rhetoric has been studied with whatever classical writings people had available.
I will add that Elijah's logic in his confrontation with the prophets of Baal was studied by a class I took at a secular university in the "History and Philosophy of Science" department.
Dr. Jack L. Arnold in his Introduction To Romans mentions a similar un-credited statement:
"Law schools have been known to require their students to memorize Romans because of its masterful logic. Never has there been a book like Romans — it is profound in doctrine but extremely practical."
As Newbie Mick has pointed out Middlemann writing the introduction to Schaeffer’s book attributes this statement to Schaefer.
Ryken in his book attributes the statement to Middlemann rather than Schaeffer.
Assuming Middlemann knows whether he said it or not, we’d habe to go with Ryken getting his attribution of the quote wrong and Schaeffer being the more likely source out of the two. The issue is we don’t know when Schaeffer allegedly said this but could say if there is any truth to it, it would had to have occurring in a time period before Schaefer made the statement so looking at Law Schools in recent times may be the wrong time period to be looking for evidence of it happening if it did at all.
For posterity's sake, best cite which school, class, year, and professor.
I was searching for an answer to the same question. I graduated in engineering in 1974 and I was hearing this claim that Romans was used to train lawyers in law school around that time. This was well before many of the lawyers commenting on your post had graduated.
Regardless, there may be truth to the statement. Yale, Princeton and Harvard Universities all started out as Divinity Schools with the major purpose of training ministers. The Yale School of Law started around 1810 per Wikipedia (under a different name). Yale itself was founded in 1701 as the Collegiate School, renamed to Yale College in 1718.
These Universities were heavily engaged in the faith communities of the time (e.g. Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc.). Using Romans as an instruction tool in a law school would be consistent with the roots of these colleges. However, I doubt that would have been a practice much beyond the 1920s, if even that late. This is all speculation. To get a definitive answer, a historian would need to go back to the 1700s and 1800s to review the curriculum in use in at least the better known law schools to find an answer. Unfortunately, I'm still active in my career and don't have the time.
Dan
https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v27n1/9_Hensler_vol_27_1.pdf may be of interest here--particularly the footnotes.
Sounds like an anecdotal thing that could have happened when Scripture and the classics were given higher priority than today. But as others have pointed out, being able to substantiate it is apparently a lot harder.
Given the Bible's own testimonty that Paulus's method of communication is obtuse, problematic, and given to getting people destroyed (not to mention prophecy's general sentiment), I find the premise of this thread to be confoundingly absurd. On the other hand, I am not even slightly surpriised to find evidence of people taking this proposal seriously, or even actively supporting or advocating it.
Paulus was an astoundingly bad exegete on many levels.
Wasn‘t Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Are you commenting on the Holy Spirit also?
Bob
Paulus was an astoundingly bad exegete on many levels. Wasn‘t Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Bob
Wasn‘t Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Acts 21:4, 14 ...so apparently not.
Paulus was an astoundingly bad exegete on many levels. Wasn‘t Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Bob Acts 21:4, 14 ...so apparently not.
Thanks, I know where you stand now.
The prophets told him what would happen. It doesn’t necessarily follow he was disobeying God. Another possibility is that the prophets told him the what and let their human feelings led to their warnings not to go (Like Peter’s response to Jesus telling of His suffering and death). Based on Jesus’ encouragement to Paul in prison, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
But I think going further will turn this into a debate. So, I’ll just stop here with listing this counterpoint.
I'm always surprised when we agree ... maybe statistically it's unavoidable. Being a member of the Literal Denomination (separate the Writings from 'stands'/later-doctrines), I think (?) I'm pretty opposite your takes, especially in the jewish Bible.
https://www.logos.com/product/168013/echoes-of-scripture-in-the-letters-of-paul
I just found this one. It's (very) slow going ... the gentleman seems to select each word choice carefully, so demanding 'why'. But it starts out in the same opinion as yours ... that acceptance of bouncy Pauline exegesis demands a later theology(s).
Ironically it's from Yale. Maybe the author is a theology-lawyer. Smiling.
I'm always surprised when we agree ... maybe statistically it's unavoidable.
This is funny!! So very dry. [I am not referencing Mr. Paul, here.]. As a general statement on life, its great. Akin to the Who's; 'The simple things you see are all complicated.'
Are you able to advise which Schaefer book this Udo Middleman quote was derived?
I don't think Paul was a bad exegete. I think Paul (being Jewish and a Pharisee) took a more midrashic approach to interpreting and applying scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Neither the ancient writers nor the Holy Spirit are obligated to abide by our modern and western standards of what constitutes good vs. bad interpretation. And there are different approaches to interpretation even in our context so why wouldn't there be in Paul's?
As for Acts, I do believe Paul was let by the Spirit to go to Jerusalem (Acts 20:22) and the prophets were warning him by the Spirit that he would face hardship there. The Spirit also warns Paul he would face hardship (Acts 20:23). We just had this discussion in a Bible study at my church. Is it possible that they were all hearing from the Spirit about Paul's impending imprisonment but had come to different conclusions about what Paul should do about it? The prophets heard rightly from the Spirit about imprisonment but they weren't privy to everything Paul had already heard from both the Spirit and Jesus himself.
I heard Stanford law school 100 years ago had Romans as required reading. My how times have changed. Probably couldn't even find a bible there now let alone required reading.
I heard Stanford law school 100 years ago had Romans as required reading
Welcome to the forums ... and please don't be misled by our OT rabbit trails. The forums are actually for the discussion of FaithLife software products and electronic resources.
I don't buy into hearsay evidence but the history of the Stanford Law school (founded in 1893) notes that it was 1600 years after the initial law education (Roman law) Roman Legal Education - A Companion to Ancient Education - Wiley Online Library. I would suggest that there is a bit of urban legend floating around here bolstered by a misunderstanding of the reference to "Roman". BTW I don't buy into speculative evidence either, even when it is my own.
I went to Law School as well, and certainly it was never mentioned when I was there. Of course, what I COULD see (you know, in times past before everyone got all "Separation of Church and State!" (which is quite funny since this is Canada, not the US...) would be some Christian teacher bringing Romans into his classes as an example of good argumentation. From there of course, it can only get turned into "Law schools used to require studying Romans!", as people will do...
Just my two cents.
C.
When you have been "educated" beyond your own intellect, you show off your education which is void of true wisdom and common sense...of course, most secular thinking gets its roots from people who have never even read the Bible, except on the surface, if that. If you had ever really "open-mindedly read the Bible (not a book for class), it would be impossible to have your attitude, without dismissing most of what you read.
Welcome to the forums. Please follow forum guidelines in your next posts. Personal attacks are inappropriate.
Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums. Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc. Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions. Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together. Please do not use our forums to sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products promote or link to competitors promote affiliate links or discounts point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable) post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion. Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question. Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com. If a user is a repeat offender, we may temporarily suspend their account. If the offenses continue, we reserve the right to permanently ban the offender's account from the forums either by shadow banning it or blocking it entirely. Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.
Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.
Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.
One of my mentors earlier in life was our county attorney who graduated from Kansas University School of Law in the mid 1980s prior to when he came to Christ. He shared that they looked at Paul‘s book to the Romans from the point of view of its example as a legal argument. It was a part of one class, not necessarily a full class in the curriculum. But it was instrumental in his coming to Christ.
I’m sure all of these years later that it is most likely no longer utilized, but he is someone I know personally who experienced it.
