Has Letter to Romans been studied at secular law schools?

Tim said:

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.

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.

I too graduated from law school almost thirty years ago and have practiced ever since (as a litigator) and the only place I have heard the letter to the Romans read or discussed has been in church, a Bible study class, or when I spent some time studying at a Seminary.

Isn't interesting how soft the accountability was for all things written or spoken prior to the internet?  Casual or unintentional plagiarism, assertions without proofs, quotes without citations, urban/theological/ecclesiastical myths, etc. - all were far more readily accepted without challenge prior to today's fact-checker-in-the-pew racing to Google, Wikipedia, or Snopes.

But, regardless of whether "truth" originates from the pulpit, the pen, the pew, or the web, we are always left with Pilate's quandary, "What is truth?" 

Epistemology is everything.

MJ. Smith said:

JRS said:

Isn't interesting how soft the accountability was for all things written or spoken prior to the internet?  Casual or unintentional plagiarism, assertions without proofs, quotes without citations, urban/theological/ecclesiastical myths, etc. - all were far more readily accepted without challenge

Not if you had my professors ... class of 68

Just speaking in broad generalities.  I fully acknowledge your point w/r to academia (or at least one would hope so).  Class of '78 - but only because four years of Navy came first.  Then class of '87 for the ThM - but only because through hard work, grit, and determination was able to squeeze a four year curriculum into nine.   [;)]

JT (alabama24) said:

Rick Carmickle said:

As my favorite lawyer, Abraham Lincoln, once said, "Don't believe everything you hear on the internet."

Actually, that wasn't Lincoln. He was much too early for that. It was Churchill.

Pretty sure it was Martin Luther King, Jr. lol

GaoLu said:

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."

I find this reasoning a bit odd. I'm not a lawyer and, hence, I'm not familiar with norms of courtroom logic, but I am familiar with argument and logic in general and while I wouldn't question Paul's arguments or conclusions--and Paul does use some arguments which could be formalized (e.g. a fortiori in Romans 5 comes to mind off the top of my head)--I don't think it would be considered a masterful presentation of logic by contemporary analytic standards. That's not to say that Paul's logic or reasoning, for the purposes he is trying to accomplish, is deficient. It just isn't even aimed at doing such a thing and so it would be misguided to expect it to meet the criteria of a "game" Paul isn't trying to play, so to speak.

We've probably all heard it said that "The Bible isn't a systematic theology textbook" or "Theology textbook" the point being made here is valid. The same applies to logic or rhetoric textbook. The Bible provides us all of the material we need for a theology textbook. It provides some material we can make use of for a textbook in rhetoric or logic. 

Lew Worthington said:

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.

For posterity's sake, best cite which school, class, year, and professor.

Hi,

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

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.

David Paul said:

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

David Paul said:

Bob said:

David Paul said:

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.

Bob

David Paul said:

Bob said:

Thanks,  I know where you stand now.

Bob

Kinda sorta, I suppose, but not really. Care to explain how "being led by" and "openly defying" can share the same space? Keep it philosophical rather than theological if you like...if you can.

No thanks.  I know where you stand.  That‘s fine with me. 
Bob

Bob said:

David Paul said:

Bob said:

Thanks,  I know where you stand now.

Bob

Kinda sorta, I suppose, but not really. Care to explain how "being led by" and "openly defying" can share the same space? Keep it philosophical rather than theological if you like...if you can.

No thanks.  I know where you stand.  That‘s fine with me. 
Bob

Well, I asked because I honestly don't get where you stand, so I thought an explanation might help. Oddly and ironically enough, though, I have now come to know where you stand, too.

I apologize for the  mis-pronunciation.  

Bob

DMB said:

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.'

David Paul said:

Bob said:

David Paul said:

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.

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.

DMB said:

Kiyah said:

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?

From the above cited book ('Echos'), the author breaks the issues into 5 groups (you'd be in #3 and 5, I assume):

Great discussion. I've added this book to my wishlish. Too bad it's not in a bundle or a base package <shakes fist at Faithlife>.

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.

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.