1. “… I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.” Gal. 1:14Google Scholar.

2. “… a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me …” 2 Cor. 12:7Google Scholar.

3. Sandmel, S., a Jewish theologian who is critical of Paul, entitled his book The Genius of Paul (1958)Google Scholar.

4. Translated and quoted by Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law 63 (1983)Google Scholar.

5. Paul, Pope John II in his Introduction to the New Code of Canon Law xiii–xiv (1983)Google Scholar.

6. “… radical criticism of the Torah is the inalienable mark of Paul's theology.” Kasemann, E., Commentary on Romans 187, 189 (Bromley, G. trans. 1980)Google Scholar.

7. Sandmel, supra note 3, at 48.

8. Stendahl, K., Paul Among Jews and Gentiles 70 (1976)Google Scholar. Agreeing with Stendahl is Betz, H.D., Galatians—A Commentary 8–9 (1979)Google Scholar. Professor Hübner does not believe “that the law possessed any attraction for Gentiles in general. In my opinion [he continued] there was no way that Paul could have converted majorities by Judaistic behavior.” (Letter to Jerome Hall of June 11, 1985, cited hereinafter as Letter).

9. Sanders, E.P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 29 (1983)Google Scholar. “Paul there (Gal. 3:10; 5:3Google Scholar) stresses that one who is circumcised is obliged to fulfill the whole law. Obviously this should be enough to discourage the Galatians from being circumcised and searching for justification in the law ….” H. Räisänen, supra note 4, at 95, 261. Paul is “opportunistic, because he wants to make it religiously and sociologically easy for Gentiles to become Christians …” Beker, J.C., Paul, The Apostle 43 (1980)Google Scholar. “To all appearances, in the Galatian congregation the demand for circumcision is … a requirement which can be fulfilled even if it's a highly painful one for those involved.” Hübner, H., Law in Paul's Thought 25 (1984)Google Scholar.

10. Sanders, J. A., Torah and Paul, in God's Christ and His People 132 (Jerrell, J. and Meeks, W. eds. 1977)Google Scholar.

11. “The Epistle to the Romans has been extensively interpolated.” Schweitzer, A., Paul and His Interpreters 145 (1915)Google Scholar.

12. See Hall, , Biblical Atonement and Modern Criminal Law, I J. Law and Relig. 281–83 (1983)Google Scholar.

13. Davies, , Paul and the Law: Reflections on Pitfalls in Interpretation, 29 Hastings L.J. 1459 (1978)Google Scholar.

14. Stendahl, supra note 8, at 5, 23, and Beker, supra note 9, at 45, 69 ff. 94-95.

15. “The apologetic letter, such as Galatians, presupposes the real or fictitious situation of a court of law, with jury, accuser, and defendant.” Galatians is a “debate.” Betz, H.D., Galatians—A Commentary 24 (1979)Google Scholar.

Relying on classical rhetoric, especially Aristotle's Rhetoric I, 3, 1358b, 5–20Google Scholar, Professor George A. Kennedy criticizes Betz' characterization of Galatians as “forensic”; instead, it is “deliberative rhetoric.” Kennedy, G., New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism 145–46 (1984)Google Scholar. “Forensic” in Aristotle's rhetoric was restricted to proceedings in courts of law, to past facts and to justice or injustice. But “forensic” now has a wider connotation, e.g., “an argumentative exercise in the form of a speech or thesis … belonging to courts or to public discussion and debate.” Webster's International Dictionary Accordingly, “forensic” in this essay includes all of Aristotle's genres and more. Aristotle said: “Forensic speaking either attacks or defends somebody.” Rhetoric 1358b, 10-11. Cf. Gal. 1:6–9Google Scholar; 2:4, 5, 11; 3:1, 3; 4:17; 5:10, 12; 6:13. This raises questions not only about Kennedy's statement that Paul did not write a defense—“instead he preached the gospel of Christ” (Kennedy, supra 144-45)—but also, and more importantly, whether Aristotle's genres are mutually exclusive. There are obviously linguistic differences between classical rhetoric and modern usage. For example, Kennedy, a classical scholar, writes that “exhortation … is not regarded as a part of judicial rhetoric by any of the ancient authorities.” Id. at 145. But in modern usage exhortation is at the heart not only of trial lawyers' arguments but also of the speeches of politicians and legislators. In this essay, “forensic” is used in a current, extensive sense.

16. Wuellner, , Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans, in The Romans Debate 153 (Donfried, K. ed. 1977)Google Scholar. For Professor Wuellner “situation” does not mean the theological or social or political situation, but the “argumentative situation.” Id. at 155. Professor Wuellner writes that “despite the parts you lift up as forensic, I continue to see in the overall argumentation of Paul in Romans the epideictic [in Perelman's interpretation] or demonstrative element or emphasis prevailing.” Letter, June 29, 1985. Regarding the form of Galatians, see Betz, supra note 15, at 16-23. For the form of appellate court decisions, see Witkin, B.E., Appellate Court Opinions Ch. 5 (1977)Google Scholar.

17. “The Law is the Pentateuch, the first five books …” Introduction to the R.S.V. xxv, xviii (1962)Google Scholar.

18. Davies, supra note 13, at 1460-61. Cf. “The Greek word which we translate as law (nomos) is used [in ancient Greece] to mean ethical custom, commerical custom, religious rites, law in general, a rule of law, and social control as a whole.” 1 Pound, R., Jurisprudence 27 (1959)Google Scholar.

19. See Hall, J., Foundations of Jurisprudence 55 ff. (1973)Google Scholar.

20. Dodd, C.H., Gospel and Law, 73, 76, 77 (1951)Google Scholar. The italics are Dodd's. Cf. “… ‘the law of Christ’ remains a puzzle.” Betz, supra note 15, at 300. “… the ‘Law of Christ’ is not literally a law.” Räisänen, supra n.4, at 81. See Schillebeeckx, E., Jesus—An Experimentation in Christology 249–56 (1981)Google Scholar.

21. Dodd, C.H., New Testament Studies 136–42 (1952)Google Scholar. Cf. Hall, supra n.19, at 24-28.

22. Recent studies are Cohn, , Prolegomenon to the Theory and History of Jewish Law, in Essays in Jurisprudence in Honor of Roscoe Pound 44 (Newman, R. ed. 1962)Google Scholar; Schreiber, , Jewish Law and Decision Making (1980)Google Scholar and Dorff, , Judaism as a Religious Legal System, 29 Hastings L.J. 1331 (1978)Google Scholar.

23. S. Sandmel, supra note 3, at 58.

24. Betz, supra note 15, at 260. David summed them up in 11 injunctions in Ps. 15. Compare the listing in Isaiah 33:15Google Scholar.

25. Daube, D., Studies in Blibical Law 42 (1947)Google Scholar.

26. Kent, C.F., Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents (1907)Google Scholar.

27. In his Letter, supra note 8, Professor Hübner wrote: “As regards the form of Old Testament law you must by all means see Alt, Albrecht, “Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts” in Alt, A., Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israels, 278–332 (Munich, 1959)Google Scholar.

28. Frimer, , The Role of the Lawyer in Jewish Law I J. Law and Relig. 297 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. “First of all, the Gospels portray Jesus emphasizing individual piety and practice. This puts him pretty squarely in the category of the Pharisees. Many Christians today may be surprised at this, for the New Testament's mention of Pharisees conjures up a picture of nitpicking legalism mixed with downright hypocrisy. This image exists not because of the contrast between the Christian movement and the Pharisees, but precisely because of the closeness of the Christian interpretation to Pharisaism.” Oxtoby, W., The Meaning of Other Faiths 26–27 (1983)Google Scholar. “[T]he Pharisees, and they alone, developed the belief in the resurrection …” Hereford, R.T., The Pharisees 171 (1924)Google Scholar. Acts 23:6–9Google Scholar. See Finkelstein, L., The Pharisees (2 vols. 3d ed. 1962)Google Scholar. See also, Luke 13:31Google Scholar.

30. E.g., in his frequent comments on circumcision Paul, cites Gen. 15:18Google Scholar but he does not cite Gen. 17:10Google Scholar or Lev. 12:3Google Scholar where God commands circumcision. In Galatians Paul does not say that Abraham was circumcised after the promise; he does say that in Rom. 4:10Google Scholar. In Rom. 4:6Google Scholar Paul quotes Ps. 32:1Google Scholar to support “righteousness apart from works,” but “works” does not appear in Ps. 32. Cf. “… no one will today seriously suggest that we should follow Paul in his exegesis.” Räisänen, supra note 4, at 72.

31. Stendahl, supra note 8, at 46. So, too, Beker writes: “Paul is a theologian, probably the most important—if not earliest—theologian of the primitive church.” Supra n.9, at 353.

32. “Actual letter style can only be found in the introduction and conclusion of the (Romans) letter …. Throughout there is a continuous change between first, second and third person. This is obviously not the way one writes a letter or a didactic treatise.” Jervell, The Letter to Jerusalem, in Donfried, supra note 16, at 70, 71.

33. Roberts, W.R., translator of Aristotle'sRhetorica 1325 fnGoogle Scholar. in The Basic Works of Aristotle (McKeon, R. ed. 1941)Google Scholar.

34. In his Letter, supra note 8, Professor Hübner wrote: “In his diatribe questions, in my opinion, Paul picks up the arguments of his opponents which he then admittedly reduces to absurdity. To this extent there is a dialogical moment in Romans after all.”

“…reasoning is ‘dialectical’ if it reasons from opinions that are generally accepted.” Aristotle, , Topics Book I, 100a, 30Google Scholar. See Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., The New Rhetoric—A Treatise on Argumentation (1969)Google Scholar and Recasens-Siches, , The Logic of the Reasonable as Differentiated from the Logic of the Rational, pub. in Essays in Jurisprudence in Honor of Roscoe Pound 192 (Newman, R. ed. 1962)Google Scholar.

35. Attorney for the Damned 491–532 (Weinberg, A. ed. 1957)Google Scholar.

36. Famous American Jury Speeches 992–1090 (Hicks, F.C. ed. 1925)Google Scholar.

Hübner: “The forensic apologia of Galatians is not the juristic thinking of Pharisaic rabbinical provenance. And the lawyer Darrow is to be compared to a rabbinical jurist even to a lesser extent.” Letter, supra note 8. Hübner also wrote that my “objections to (his) hypothesis approach Paul too much with modern conceptual categories.” As I understand these statements, and also his book, this is precisely what distinguishes his historical perspective from that expressed in this essay. Even if the writer is mistaken about the actual character of Pharasaical argument, that does not invalidate the interpretation of Galatians as “forensic” in a modern sense of the word.

37. See Wuellner, supra note 16, at 126.

38. Aristotle, , Rhetoric 1358b, 2–4Google Scholar.

39. J. Munck, quoted in Sanders supra note 9, at 179. So, too, Gaston, , Paul and the Torah, Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity 55 (Davies, A.T. ed. 1982)Google Scholar.

40. W.D. Davies, Review of Galatians by H.A. Betz, quoted in Sanders supra note 9, at 180.

Hübner does “not believe that the Galatian communities had Jewish-Christian members.” Letter, supra note 8.

41. Baur, F.C., Paul 331 (1876)Google Scholar, quoted by Drane, , Why Did Paul Write Romans?, Pauline Studies for Bruce 210 (1980)Google Scholar. Munck thought they were Gentile Christians. Sanders, supra note 9, at 179.

42. Beker, supra note 9, at 70.

43. Donfried, supra n. 16, at xiv.

44. Id. at 62-63.

45. Stirewalt, The Greek Letter-Essay, in id. 176-77. “… in Romans we have a letter addressed to a specific community and, as it appears, only to that community.” Gamble, H., The Textual History of Romans 137Google Scholar, quoted by Beker who italicized the last four words. Beker, supra note 9, at 70.

46. Manson, To the Romans and Others, in Donfried, supra note 16, at 15, citing Acts 20:16Google Scholar.

47. Prof. Munck “claims that the Judaizers' of Galatians were not Jews but Gentiles recently circumcised … who were now insisting on circumcision for other Gentiles ….” Davies, W.D., Christian Origins and Judaism 182–3 (1962)Google Scholar.

48. Räisänen, supra note 4, at 183. So, too, Betz, supra note 15, at 7.

49. Gaston, supra note 39, at 53.

50. Sandmel, supra note 3, at 112.

51. Räisänen, supra note 4, at 176. His italics.

52. Stendahl, supra note 8, at 7. Hübner: “I consider Stendahl's concept to be fundamentally wrong.” Letter, supra note 8. Cf. “One error of the students of Comparative Religion … they come to ascribe to the Apostle the creation of a ‘religion’ [citing Reitzenstein]. Nothing of the kind ever entered into his purpose. For him there was only one religion, that of Judaism.” “… in primitive Christianity Jesus is … not thought of as a god but only as a heavenly being … It was only later in the Greek and Gnostic theology that He was deified.” Schweitzer, supra note 11, at 227 and 194. “Paul is in fact convinced that he has never seceded from Judaism, since the Christian confession means for him the completion of his Jewish faith.” Schoeps, H., Paul 237 (trans. Knight, H. 1961)Google Scholar.

53. Rom. 2:6-7, 13Google Scholar is discussed in text infra at 234-236.

See Sutherland, , Statutory Construction 315, § 51.05 (4th ed. 1973)Google Scholar. Sutherland added “… unless it appears that the legislature intended to make the general act(s) controlling.” The Cal. Civ. Code § 3534 (Deering 1984)Google Scholar provides: “Particular expressions qualify those which are general.” See Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Co., 353 U.S. 222, 228-29 (1957). The classical maxim is Lex specialis derogai legi generates.

“Concrete instructions can help control interpretations of the general or theoretical statements about the relationship between behavior and the law.” Sanders, supra n.9, at 94.

54. See Wigmore, J., 3A Evidence § 1008 (Chadbourn, ed. 1981)Google Scholar. Cf. “If a witness shall willfully and knowingly swear falsely, his testimony shall be disregarded entirely, unless corroborated by circumstances or other unimpreached evidence.” See Ga. Code Ann. (supp. 1981) § 38–1806(b)Google Scholar.

Cf. After noting that Luke interprets Paul's Damascus experience three times (Acts 9, 22, 26Google Scholar) Schillebeeckx writes, “The second and third accounts are in point of fact a way of discussing and thus interpreting, the first Damascus narrative …,” Jesus 362 (1981)Google Scholar.

55. “It was common in rabbinic thought to claim that the patriarchs observed the whole Torah … before it was actually given.” Ruether, R., Faith and Fratricide 38 (1974)Google Scholar.

56. “The concept of ‘curse of the Law’ is strange and occurs only here in Paul.” Betz, supra note 15, at 149. Paul's frequently reiterated thesis “where there is no law there is no transgresssion” Rom. 4:15Google Scholar, and that the law brought him knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20Google Scholar) anticipates recent American scholarship e.g., “… the criminal law is the formal cause of crime. That does not mean that the law produces the behavior which it prohibits …, it means only that the criminal law gives behavior its quality of criminality.” Michael, J. & Adler, M., Crime, Law and Social Science 5 (1932)Google Scholar. Regarding the modern principle of legality—nullum crimen sine lege, see Hall, J., General Principles of Criminal Law Ch. 2 (2d ed. 1960)Google Scholar.

57. Justification by faith alone is a “Pauline Creation.” Bornkamm, G., Paul 115 (1971)Google Scholar. Cf. Matt. 5:17 ffGoogle Scholar. and Luke 16:17Google Scholar. In view of Paul's legal training and his life as a Pharisee, it is difficult to accept Shoeps' thesis that Paul “failed to grasp the inner meaning of the Mosaic law namely, that it is an instrument by which the covenant is realized … he tears asunder covenant and law, and then represents Christ as the end of the law.” Schoeps, supra note 52, at 218, 213.

58. “In the course of his work among Gentiles he had fully internalized the Gentile point of view and identified himself with it.” Räisänen supra note 4, at 258. So, too, Sanders, supra note 9, at 152-3.

Hübner: “What Räisänen and Sanders say is untenable and misjudges the essense of Paul's experience of his call.” Letter, supra note 8.

59. Luther, , 25 Works—Lectures on Romans 330 (Oswold, H. ed. 1972)Google Scholar.

60. In Galatians, “Paul aims at an either/or decision since all is either won or lost.” Beker, supra note 9, at 45. Beker draws a nice distinction between a “polemic of persuausion” (Romans) and a “polemic of confrontation,” a “combat” letter (Galatians). Id. at 104. “It is further remarkable, that all five of the groups of metaphors just mentioned [justification, reconciliation, forgiveness, redemption, adoption] are taken from the practice of law.” Deissmann, A., Paul—A Study in Religious History 176–77 (2d ed. 1927)Google Scholar.

“Paul found in the sacred texts what he was looking for, and often interpreted them against their original intention.” Räisänen, supra note 4, at 73; also id. 95 note 13.

For distinctions between proof (demonstration) and persuasion (psychology) see Michael, & Adler, , The Trial of an Issue of Fact, 34 Col. L. Rev. 1228, 1236, 1239–40, 1481–86 (1934)Google Scholar.

61. Paul's appeal “was obviously crowned with success, for the Galatians remained a Pauline Christian community,” Schoeps, supra note 52, at 78.

62. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

63. Schweitzer, supra note 11, at 160.

64. Schoeps, supra note 52, at 278.

65. Räisänen, supra note 4, at 6.

66. Beker, supra note 9, at 95. Beker detects “occasional inconsistencies.” Id. at x; but he also writes (consistently?) that the logic in Galatians is “often inconsistent.” Id. at 57-58.

67. Baeck, L., Judaism and Christianity 163 (1958)Google Scholar. After noting that Paul's epistles have been criticized as “disjointed, loose, full of warmth and zeal,” John Locke (1632-1704) wrote that Paul “knew how to prosecute his purpose with strength of argument and close reasoning … He is certainly a coherent, argumentative, pertinent writer.” Locke, John, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul 14–16 (London, 1823)Google Scholar.

68. Sandmel, supra note 3, at 57, 66. The extent of differences in interpretations of religious language is shown in Räisänen's rejection of “the popular explanation that the law is annulled as a way to salvation while remaining in force as the expression of God's moral will. This explanation runs counter to 2 Cor. 3:6Google Scholar …” Räisänen, supra note 4, at 83.

69. Räisänen, supra note 4, at 83.

70. “We must not, therefore, simply assume that the mention of the angels was made to emphasize that the law is not divine.” (citing Acts 7:30, 35, 53Google ScholarGal. 4:14Google Scholar and Deut. 33:2Google Scholar). Bring, R., Commentary on Galatians 159–60 (1961)Google Scholar. So, too, Dahl, N.A., Studies in Paul 173 (1977)Google Scholar.

71. “Thus the Law is not evil but they are evil to whom it was given ….” Luther, supra note 59, at 279.

“… grace revealed itself originally in the law. This was perverted when the law was misunderstood, as a demand for achievement. In this persuasion, however, the law brings death …” Käsemann, supra note 6, at 198.

72. “As a former Pharisee he could not distinguish between the cultic and the ethical Torah, as later Christianity did, for to him the law was indivisible.” Käsemann, id. at 186.

73. Sandmel, supra note 3, at 45.

74. “Side by side with his numberless moral exhortations to Christians to battle against sin, there are confessions of Paul the Christian himself, testimonies that even one who has experienced the new creation still knows at times the old deep sense of sin.” A. Deissmann, supra n.60, at 179. Cf. Gal. 2:17Google Scholar.

“But the only concrete sin qua sin in his life, the sin which he mentions, is that he persecuted the church ( 1 Cor. 15:9Google Scholar).” Stendahl, supra note 8, at 14.

75. Even if Paul was not conscience-stricken, unless his unhappy experience as a Jew is premised, “it becomes unintelligible how and why Christ superseded the law.” “When he indicts the Jew for transgressing the law or for boasting … he must have known something of both in his own Jewish life.” Beker, supra note 9, at 241. “We can never exclude with certainty the possibility that Paul was secretly dissatisfied with the law before his conversion call.” Sanders, supra note 9, at 152. And see supra note 56. Sandmel writes of Paul's “inability to live up to the Law” and of “the personal, subjective difficulty which the Law occasioned for Paul.” Supra note 3, at 28, 29, 33, 48, 56.

If, as some maintain, the Galatians were attracted to the law and if it is assumed that this was also true of Gentiles generally, the question arises—why did not Paul agree with the Judaizers and thereby win more converts? That he did not do this, that, indeed, he did the very opposite as regards salvation, supports the thesis that (1) the Galatians were unique; for (other) Gentiles the law would be a burden and handicap conversion. Or (2) Paul had such a serious personal problem with the law that despite its attractiveness to Gentiles he could not use it even to increase conversion.

76. Sanders, supra note 10, at 132.

77. Id.

78. Beker, supra note 9, at 74, 77, 78, 81, 86, 99. “Romans 1:18–4:25Google Scholar, then is essentially a dialogue with the Jews.” Id. at 83. “To be sure, the direct dialogue with the Jew ceases with Rom. 5:1Google Scholar …” Id. at 78.

Cf. “… the Jews become the main topic only in Romans 9-11. In Romans 1-4 even taking into account 2:17-29, Paul's view is focused on the Gentiles.” Sanders, supra note 9, at 30.

79. See supra text accompanying note 51.

80. Sanders, supra note 9, at 123.

81. Id. at 128.

82. Id. at 130.

83. Id. at 128-29. Cf. Hübner: “In Romans 2:6f-13Google Scholar Paul was not ‘un-Pauline,’ since these passages are directed at Romans 3:9Google Scholar, but Romans 3:9Google Scholar is the premise for the argumentation of Romans 3:21 ffGoogle Scholar. Consequently, I see no difference in Chapter 2 from that which is found elsewhere in Romans. Sanders and Räisänen construct contradictions here where none exist.” Letter, supra note 8.

“When Paul sought to be a Jew to Jews, it was not just formally but materially toto caelo different from when he sought to be a Greek to the Greeks.” Barth, K., Church Dogmatics, IV/3/2, p. 877 fnGoogle Scholar.

84. Sanders, supra note 9, at 131.

85. Id. at 131-32.

86. Id. at 148. Compare this generalization with the statements quoted in the text above, and also: “There is, first, the famous statement that those who do the law will be righteous Romans (2:13)Google Scholar.” Id. at 125.

87. “Thus Cullmann writes on the basis of Rom. 1-3: ‘All divine salvic efforts … his revelation in the law could in principle already have led men to salvation, had Gentiles and Jews responded to them with faith.’” Translated and quoted by Räisänen, supra note 4, at 151-52.

So, too, Locke, J., A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul; 249–50 (London 1823)Google Scholar.

88. Sanders, supra note 9, at 132.

89. Sanders, , On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism in Donum Gentilicium 103–04 (Bammel, H., Barrett, C. & Davies, W.D. eds. 1978)Google Scholar.

90. Ridderbos, H., Paul: An Outline of His Theology 135 (1975)Google Scholar quoted in Sanders, supra note 9, at 124.

91. That Jews were the primary target (even “man,” e.g., 2:1, clearly refers to Jews) is evident from 1:21, 32. From 1:18-2:8 Paul accuses the Jews of practically all the crimes and sins which the prophets levelled against them. There follow immediately the crucial verses 2:6-7, 13. Later verses such as 2:17-18, 23 reinforce the opinion that Paul was primarily addressing Jews. “It is plain from … the whole tenor of this chapter (Rom. 2) that St. Paul, by these words means the Jews …” John Locke, supra note 87, at 262.

92. Sanders, supra note 9, at 66, ital. added, and 85; Räisänen, supra note 4., at 145; Beker, supra note 9, at 86 and 235; Betz, supra note 15, at 165.

93. Plato, , The Republic 379–80 (Jowett, B. trans. 1898)Google Scholar. For criticism that Plato was unfair to Aeschylus, see Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus 87 (1971)Google Scholar.

94. Räisänen, supra note 4., at 158-59.

95. “Paul's assertion of the sin-engendering nature and purpose of the law is … ‘infantile absurdity.’” The last two words are Loisy's, translated and quoted in Räisänen, supra note 4., at 13. Parkes, J. finds Romans 5:20Google Scholar ridiculous and “offensive to all Christian conceptions of God.” Jesus, , Paul and the Jews 129 (1936)Google Scholar.

96. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932).

97. “… in fact the law was given for the purpose of leading up to righteousness by faith, even though negatively (3:22, 24); Sanders, supra note 9, at 67.

98. Hübner, H., Law in Paul's Thought (1984)Google Scholar.

99. Id. at 55. After referring to studies that find the interval between the two epistles to be from three to six months, Räisänen adds that even two years would be a short time “for the alleged development.” He concludes: “But I do not find any straightforward development from any one extant letter to another.” Räisänen, supra note 4, at 8-9.

100. Hübner, supra note 98, at 63.

101. Id. at 61-63.

102. Id. at 63.

103. Id. at 65.

104. IV Blackstone, , Commentaries on the Laws of England, 21Google Scholar.

105. Hübner, supra note 98, at 53.

106. Id. at 7.

107. Id. at 21-23. Hübner makes two points in support of his interpretation: (1) “Godfearing men who did not undergo circumcision, but assuredly committed themselves to observe the essentials of the law.” And (2) “those in Jerusalem could not be in agreement with … the law as enslaving power.” Letter, supra note 8.

108. Id. at 63, 65.

109. Id. at 65.

110. Id. at 55.

111. Id. at 66. Hübner wrote: “the interpretation of Romans 2 from a forensic perspective cannot be correct [along] with your view that this chapter also serves a mission to the Jews. In Romans (and in Rome!) the question concerned an internal Christian discussion.” The writer specified a few verses and was not generalizing about Romans 2. Professor Hübner also wrote: “I consider your remarks in Romans 2:6f-13Google Scholar to be correct in part.” Letter, supra note 8.

112. Hübner, supra note 98, at 63, 81.

113. Id. at 5.

114. Id. at 54.

115. See Aristotle's comment on the importance of the audience in the text supra at note 38.

116. Hübner, supra note 98, at 26, 78-79, 81-82.

117. Hall, J., General Principles of Criminal Law Ch. 2 (2d ed. 1960)Google Scholar.

118. Hübner, supra note 98, at 26, 78.

119. Id. at 4. “We would have to suppose that when he wrote Galatians Paul was prepared to deny what he had been taught and believed in all his life, that God gave the Law …” Sanders, supra note 9, at 67.

120. Hübner, supra note 98, at 26.

121. Hübner, supra note 98, at 26, 30.

122. Id. at 29.

123. Id. at 26, 28, 32. Hübner writes that his interpretation that angel was the “orginator,” not the “mediator,” “is supported by many.” Letter, supra note 8.

124. Hübner, supra note 98, at 32.

125. Hübner does not discuss the possibility that Paul had problems with the Law when he was a Pharisee. As regards the distinction drawn in the text, it may be recalled that in the Apology and in Crito, Socrates does not criticize the law; he criticizes the jurors and others who administered the law. After quoting Mt. 23:23 E. Schillebeeckx writes: “Neither Jesus nor Paul directs his point against the law as such, but against autocratic compliance with the law.” Schillebeeckx, E., Paul the Apostle 28 (1983)Google Scholar.

126. See Hall, J., Law, Social Science and Criminal Theory 33 (1982)Google Scholar.

127. For ProfessorSanders, 1 Cor. 9:19–23Google Scholar is “hyperbolic.” Sanders, supra note 9, at 186. Interpreting those verses to mean that Paul lived according to the law in order to reach a stated goal, he finds an “intrinsic improbability—almost impossibility … how could he have been a Jew to the Jews and to the Gentiles in the same church?” Granted. But in the forensic perspective only speech is relevant, and 1 Cor. 9:19–23Google Scholar were words addressed to members of his church who, far from being offended by them, would admire Paul's skill and dedication. In defense of Paul's veracity, it should be noted that the contexts immediately preceding 1 Cor. 9:19–23Google Scholar include “proclaim the gospel,” “preach the gospel,” “entrusted with a commission” and again “preaching” in verse 18, which is immediately followed by 19-23 where the crucial word is “became.” Given that context, it is surely possible that when Paul said “became,” he had in mind “preached.” How much of an exaggeration is it to say that for Paul “living” meant “preaching”?

128. “Justice can be reached only if both the demand of the universal law and the demand of the particular situation are accepted and made effective for the concrete situation. But it is love which creates participation in the concrete situation.” Tillich, P., Love, Power, and Justice 15 (1954)Google Scholar.

129. See Hall, J., Plato's Legal Philosophy, in Studies in Jurisprudence and Criminal Theory Ch. 3 (1958)Google Scholar.

130. “The new man needs no law.” Luther, quoted in Whale, J.S., The Protestant Tradition 96 (1955)Google Scholar.

“Nothing is more false than to say to somebody: since I love you and you love me, I don't need to get justice from you or you from me, for love eliminates the need for justice. Such language is used by people who want to avoid the obligations which are connected with justice.” Tillich, supra note 127, at 82.

131. Tillich, id. at 83. For Calvin's “didactic” view of law, see Calvin, J., Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. XX, Bk. 2, Ch. 7, § 12-13 and at 349-59, 659 (McNeill, J.T. ed. 1960)Google Scholar.

132. In his letter Professor Hübner wrote: “A dialogue between representatives of legal and theological science is a scientific desideratum. It is precisely the theologian's question about law in the New Testament that makes dialogue with a lawyer a necessity.” He also said he will be giving a joint seminar with a colleague who is a legal scholar. Letter, supra note 8.