From paragraph #171 of Natural Right & History, in the discussion of the mutability and immutability of natural right:
The Thomistic interpretation is connected with the view that there is a habitus of practical principles, a habitus which he call “conscience” or, more precisely, synderesis. The very terms show that this view is alien to Aristotle; it is of Patristic origin.
“It is of Patristic origin” or perhaps, “it is of the Patristic, Origen”. See his homilies on Ezekiel. One cannot emphasize this point enough: the moral conscience is apparently not a Greek invention. Is this invention the crisis of classic natural right? Is this what allows Thomas to so easily turn natural right into natural law? What about the comparison between the Nichomachean Ethics 1134b and Rhetoric 1.13.2? To the Kuzari? But first:
The doctrine of synderesis or of the conscience explains why natural law can always be duly promulgated to all men and hence be universally obligatory. It is reasonable to assume these profound changes were due to the influence of belief in biblical revelation. If this assumption should prove to be correct, one would be forced to wonder, however, whether the natural law as Thomas Aquinas understands it is natural law strictly speaking, i.e., a law knowable to the unassisted human mind, to the human mind which is not illumined by divine revelation. (p.163, emphasis not in original)
I’ll note only two circumstantial coincidences. The Platonic chariot appears in a dialogue that occurs outside of the city walls. Maimonides notes that the Account of the Chariot (III 6) implies an understanding of its audience as being outside the city: comparing two mean, one from a settle population and another from desert nomads, “the former knew that city people know in what state the ruler rides, [Isaiah] did not describe that state, but said only: I saw the ruler…whereas the people of Exile required these details [from Ezekiel].” The biblical Chariot, like the Platonic one, is outside the city. The biblical Chariot is a picture that is only possible outside of the Second Table, outside of the “minimum requirements for society” (NRH 158). The second circumstance: I usually write in this space in the dead of night, seeking the morning sun; at this moment, I am writing in the middle of the afternoon awaiting the evening dusk.
p.s. Origen postulates a parallel between Ezekiel and Christ on the basis of Luke 3:23, Matthew 3:13, and Luke 3:21. See the Scheck translation, p.32-3.
p.p.s. There are many, many, benefits to the current fashionable love for habitus, doxa, and field in my academic community. But much, much more resides on the surface of these concepts than their first impression admits. And the first impression is already powerful.