University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A historical study of the Stoic influences in Paul's Letter to the Romans

(USC Thesis Other)

A historical study of the Stoic influences in Paul's Letter to the Romans

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A HISTORICAL STUDY OP THE STOIC INFLUENCES IN PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Religion University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts - by Edward V. Wright June 1945 UMI Number: EP65146 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Olssartalien Pubi sb*ng UMI EP65146 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuesf ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 This thesis) written by ........ EOTÂRD..Y....WRIGHT........... under the direction of Ais. Faculty Committee, and a pp ro ved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Council on Graduate Study and Research in partial fu lfill ment of the requirem ents f o r the degree of X u MASTER OP ARTS Dean l é u J r A Secretary F acu lty Com m ittee ^ ^ C hairm an f'-.l , , ( V ( f.. i ' f ' I TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED ... 1 The problem ....................... 2 Statement of the problem ......... 2 Importance of the s t u d y................. 2 Definitions of terms u s e d ................. 5 Judaism . . . . . . . . . . ............. 5 The Law .................. 8 Stoicism.............. 9 Stoic Diatribe ..................... 11 Haustaf eln .............................. 12 Organization of the remainder of the thesis. 13 II. PAUL'S BACKGROUND . ................ 15 The contribution of Judaism . .......... 15 The Rabbinic method ................... 20 Graeco-Roman influence at Tarsus ...... 24 Contemporary Stoic influences ............... 27 III. PAUL'S CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY ............. 31 The ruin of mankind.......... 32 The remedy .......................... 32 Ethical deductions . ....................... 37 IV. STOICISM, ITS DOCTRINE.......... 39 Historical outreach of Stoicism........... 40 ill Logic .................................... 55 Physics ............ 57 Ethics.................................... 59 V. THE ROMAN CHURCH AND STOICISM.............. 63 Comparisons between Stoicism and early Christianity............ 65 VI. PAUL'S LETTER TO THE ROMANS................ 71 Paul's purpose ............................ 71 Particular instances of Stoic influence . . 74 Use of the Stoic diatribe............... 76 Pauline and Stoic conception of public service ...... ................... 80 Haustaf e l n .............................. 82 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................... 84 Summary ................... 84 Conclusions ....................... 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... 89 "Be like the headland, on which the billows dash themselves continually; but it stands fast, 'till about its base the boiling breakers are lulled to rest." Marcus Aurelius "But -God commendeth his love toward us, in that,,while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." St. Paul Romans 5:8 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED Paul's lottor to tiio Romans has been called the great est work of Christian theology. It came from the pen of a man who wrote with a purpose. The letter was to precede Paul's visit to the Roman church, hence it was to bear tes timony of the apostle's faith. That the letter has been of great importance cannot be refuted. From the time of Augustine it had immense influ ence on the thought of the West, not only in theology, but also in philosophy and even in politics, all through the Middle Ages. At the Reformation its teach ing provided the chief intellectual expression for the new spirit in religion. For us men of Western Christen dom there is probably no other single writing so deeply embedded in our heritage of thought.^ While Paul had not personally visited Rome he was well acquainted with the philosophic background of his contempor aries at Rome. He was aware of the presence of the Judaisers who were, as they were in other churches, trying to get the Christians to conform to the legalistic aspect of Judaism. He was also aware of the influence that Stoicism was wielding i G. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (New York: Harper and Brothers,,1932), p. xiii. 2 among the people of Rome. This study has as its objective the task of rethinking the possible influences of"Stoicism in Paul's letter to the Romans. I. THE PROBLEM Statement of the problem. To what extent was Paul influenced by pagan moralists? It is the purpose of this study to point out the particular areas where Stoicism and Paul's conception of Christianity overlapped. Specific examples are studied to try and determine the extent of Stoic influence and where possible to note the meaning that must have been conveyed to the first audience of the epistle. Importance of the study. To the modern reader, the Epistle may seem to be little more than an abstract statement of doctrine, but this is only because we have lost the key. If we only knew something of the Roman Church of that day, we should doubtless see new meaning in the Epistle as a whole, and in many passages in it which now appear point less and academic.1 Dr. Scott states the importance of such a study clearly. It is impossible to understand a document that v/as written nearly two thousand years ago for an audience of that day and age without a knowledge of contemporary thought. If the 1 E#P. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament (New York; Columbia University Press, 1936), p. 158. 3 underlying meanings are to be brought out in the light for present day understanding, we must have some knowledge of the Roman Church of Paul's time. There is no doubt that Stoicism was a highly potent factor in the mind of every thinking man of Rome, Christian as well as pagan. There is no doubt that Paul was also painfully aware of the Stoic influence and the inroads it had made on the philosophy of thinking people. For these reasons it is almost imperative that much thought and study be given to the Stoic influences in Paul's letter to the Romans. A word of caution is in order lest the reader get the impression that there are proven relationships between Stoicism and Paul's letter to the Romans. The parallels that will be pointed out do not imply a direct relationship. It should be stated that relationships cannot be established with any degree of certainty. If we were to feel that every phrase used by Paul which has a Stoic flavor was consciously borrowed from some Stoic teaching, we would be in hopeless confusion, for when we do not stop with the phrases themselves which seem similar, but read them in their contexts, very often we find them a diameter's distance apart, and with a complete contradiction on a near-by page.l This word of caution will serve the careful student in ^ Morton Scott Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930), p. 38, good stead. Paul at one time lived under influence that was Stoic and consequently used the same language. In interpret ing the Christian message he used terms that were readily understood by the Stoics. Morton Scott Enslin in his book. The Ethics of Paul, presents the basis for evaluating parallel passages: Evidence of dependence is not found by amassing proof texts, but on the basis of unity of purpose and the use of phrase and expression so strikingly unusual as to be explicable on no other basis. And of this we have little or no evidence in Paul. The similarities are precisely such as we would expect. Both Paul and the Stoic held the highest of moral standards, but Paul's abhorrence of immorality is completely and satis factorily explained on the basis of his Jewish heritage.1 D. W. Riddle in his book. Early Christian Life, points out the fact of similarity between Stoic form and Pauline form but goes on to say that Paul's ethic was presented in Stoic form but was not Stoic in origin.^ This author states: ...Stoic influence is alleged because Paul's use of particular words which are supposed to be character istic of the philosophic moralists of his day. There is, however, a much more convincing fact which seems to suggest the influence of Stoicism: there is extensive 1 Morton Scott Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930), p. 38-39. 2 d. , W. Riddle, Early Christian Life (New York: Willett,.Clarke, and Company, 1936), p. 5^1 and detailed parallel between the literary form of his letters and the particular vehicle by which the Stoic messages were expressed, the diatribe.1 Thus forewarned we can conlude two facts: First, Paul used the same terminology the Stoic philosophers used. Second, while the terminology used was the same, the intent and purpose was different. As will be shown, Paul came by this usage of Stoic form rightfully. He was reared in a city that sheltered one of the three main Stoic universities. As a religious thinker he naturally moved in the same realm of thought as the Stoics. He also had to come to terms with the moral demands of his religion. Almost inevitably he would express himself in the thought -forms of his enviornment. This would be true both from the standpoint of the propaganda interest of the Christ ian movement and in the interest of clarity. II. DEFINITIONS OP TERMS USED. Judaism. Before the Graeco-Roman period, Israel had come into close contact with Egypt, Syria, Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia. It was while Israel was under Persian domination (539-333 B.C.) that Israel tried to establish a second strong 1 D.W. Riddle, Paul, Man of Conflict (Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1940), p. 38. 6 center of Jewish thought. The best of the nation was at Babylon, hence the need for a restoration in Judea. It was in the century 444-333 B.C. that Judaism developed and there first appeared the ritualism, legalism, and traditionalism, that so characterized the Judaism of Paul's time. There is, however, an important distinction to be noted when speaking of Judaism. Early in the history of Judaism there appeared a cleavage between what has been called Pales tinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism. In 333 B.C. the Jews passed under vassalage to Alexander; from his death in 323 B.C. they were subjects of the Lagids of Egypt until Antiochus the Great annexed Palestine, under whose suzerainty they remained until 167 B.C. Then, taking advantage of the difficulties of Syria, they asserted their independence, 167-63 B.C., until Pompey interfered in the affairs of Palestine. With the rise of the Arsacid kingdom of Parthia by suc cession from Syria in 249 B.C. the Eastern Jews came under Asiatic rather than Greek influence, and with the rise of the Sassanid power and the rehabilitation of Persia in 226 A.D. the Eastern Dispersion was left to pursue its own course.1 When Alexandria was founded in 331 B.C., a new day dawned for the Jewish Diaspora. At that time Alexander transported many Jews to that city and gave them equal munic ipal rights with the Macedonians and the Egyptians. This act of equality greatly increased the voluntary flow of Jews into 1 S. Angus, The Mystery Religions and Christianity (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925), p. 23. 7 the Hellenistic world at large. These Jews of the Diaspora did not lose their distinctive characteristics as Jews, but they with their Law, ritual, synagogue service, and Greek Bible made an impact on their new environment. These Jews away from their homeland were quite missionary- minded. We have record that the Jews won multitudes of con verts and adherentsNo doubt this Diaspora Judaism gave a missionary impetus to Paul's thinking. Another contribution Diaspora Judaism made in Paul's thinking was a recognition of the value and impact of Greek philosophy. Paul being a Jew of the Diaspora was well ac quainted with Stoicism and its far reaching moral implications. In the Book of Acts we have the account of Paul's background as being at Tarsus.^ It is true that this information comes from secondary sources but there are no good reasons why it cannot be considered valid. Diaspora Judaism was characterized by a more liberal attitude than Palestinian Judaism. While the Jews of the Dis persion retained their old ritual and strict adherence to the Mosaic Law, they were greatly influenced by Greek culture and thought. 1 Matthew 23:15. 2 Acts 9:11. 8 Long before the beginnings of the Pharisaic reaction Jews went over to Egypt in great and in creasing numbers, where almost a hundred years be fore the Chasidim they became so Hellenized that the old Bible was of no use to them in the original Heb rew and had to be translated. The translation which was made showed that even the few who could still read the old language at all had forgotten the original meaning of many of the words, and were primarily thinking in Greek terms., Jewish children now had Greek names.1 Law. In order to fully understand what was in Paul's thinking when the word "law" is used, it will be necessary to define the word. In the letter to the Romans the word law is used in a two-fold manner. There is first the Law of Moses that was given to the Jews as a complete revelation of the will of God given in terms of precepts and prohibit ions. This Mosaic Law was the way of salvation to the individ ual and the nation. It was to be obeyed to the letter. The Mosaic Law imposed certain rituals and ceremonies to be observed. These were necessary for salvation in the mind of the Jew. Circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with man. The man who was circumcised was looked upon as having fulfilled part of the covenant with God. In order to keep the Law there were certain fast days to be observed. There were certain sacrifices to be offered. All these the faithful Jew observed in his keeping of the Law. 1 Erwin R. Goodenough, Bg; Light, Light (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935), p. 6. 9 This Law was a literal law. There was yet another law in the thinking of Paul. That was the natural law that was common to all men. In Romans 2:14-15 Paul writes of Gentiles having not the law (Mosaic) and yet having a law (natural) written in their hearts. Here Paul comes very close to the Greek moralists. Plutarch asks, "Who shall govern the governor?" and replies, "Law, the king of all mortals and im mortals, as Pindar called it; which is not written on papyrus rolls or wooden tablets, but is his own reason within the soul, which perpetually dwells with him and guards him, and never leaves the soul bereft of leadership."1 Thus for Paul there are two primary meanings of the word law. First, the Mosaic Law given as a special revel ation to the Jews. Second, the natural law that is inher ent in the universe and common to all mankind. Stoicism. Historically speaking. Stoicism was founded in Athens by Zeno of Cyprus around 300 B.C. There are three major divisions in the chronology of the school. The Early Stoa including three major leaders; Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus who founded and shaped the school. The Middle or Transitional Stoa in which the philosophy of the school spread throughout the Hellenistic world. In this period Diogenes, Panaetius, and Posidonius gave further polish to the school. Diogenes protected the philosophy from the ^ Richard Hope, "A Comparison of the Teachings of Paul With Those of Stoicism." (unpublished Master's thesis* The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1925), p. 4. 10 attacks of Carneades the Skeptic by his oratorical defenses but it remained for Panaetius and Posidoniüs to contribute respectively a literary polish and humanization of the Stoic ethic. In the third period or Later Stoa the phil osophy was primarily in the hands of such Roman philosophers as Cicero (106-43 B.C.), Seneca (3-65 A.D.), Epictetus (50- 130 B.C.), and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 A.D.). Stoicism was rooted in the moral instincts of Semitic thought plus the scientific knowledge of the Greeks. Added to these two is the influence of Roman law and education. However, in Paul's time this later influence had not come about as a potent factor in Stoicism. The Stoic sciences'were Logic, Physics, and Ethics. The Stoic Logic included also Rhetoric (the art of style) and Epistemology (the theory of knowledge). The Stoic Physics was not merely an observation of natural phenomenon or scientific investigation of nature's laws, but rather an investigation of the ontological status of all creation. Their great achievement was their cosmogony or theory of the world, and their theology or philosoph ical conception of God. Their physics, therefore, was preeminently ontology: it was science of being— occupied with the three great entities, God, the world, and the human soul.l ^ William L. Davidson, The Stoic Creed (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), p. 48. 11 In the last place Ethics was the crowning science of the Stoic philosophy. It was a substitute for religion. You may feed the imagination on cosmogony, you may sharpen the intellect by logic, you may train literary faculty through rhetoric, but you cannot nourish the.soul, or produce a robust, manly char acter, unless you bring your cosmogony into a definite immediate relation with living, and utilize your logic and your eloquence for the defence and establishment of life-directing truth.^ The Stoic Diatribe. The essential contrast between Paul and such Stoics as Seneca and Epictetus can best be shown by a comparison of passages that are alike in style and have much in common. An examination of Paul's use of the Stoic (diatribe leaves the reader without a doubt that Paul was fully aware of this popular, hortatory form of address that was so common to the Stoic philosophers. In many cases the diatribe style is characterized by a series of short, pointed questions with the speaker speak ing as the one questioned. ( ie. Romans 6:1. Shall we con tinue in sin, that grace may abound?). The diatribe is also characterized in many instances by the term, "God forbid!". In their public addresses the ^ Ibid., p. 48. 12 the Stoics often used this term. Interestingly enough, Paul uses the term frequently in his letter to the Roman Church. Other short, familiar words that are used both by Paul and his Stoic contemporaries are, "0 man!" and "Be not deceived!". Undoubtedly Paul listened to Stoic orators many times and the fact that he used this universally accredited form of popular address cannot be doubted. Haustafeln. Literally speaking this word means "house tablet". D.W. Riddle writes of the word as meaning a "table of household duties".^ Practically speaking it is a form of moral exhortation used widely by the Stoics. We find Paul using the same form in giving moral direction to his churches. In Colossians 3:18-4:1 we have a good example of this. Paul writes: Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is pleasing unto the Lord.2 This passage in Colossians might well be quoted from some of the Stoic writings except for the Christian flavor that Paul has given it. Such"Christianization" as was given was slight and elementary; in the present case if the words "in the Lord" or "fearing the Lord" are omitted, the code does ^ Riddle, 0£. cit., p. 56. 2 Colossians 3:18-20. 13 not differ from conventional Stoic morality.^ III. ORGANIZATION OP REMAINDER OP THE THESIS The remainder of this thesis will be devoted to the task of trying to discover the contemporary influences in Paul's life, especially his early life. These influences will be divided into two parts. The first part examining his Judaistic enviornment and the second part giving atten tion to the Roman influences at Tarsus. With this information the next step is to crystallize our conception of Paul's idea of Christianity. Just what Paul means by the "gospel" and "law" when he writes to the Roman Church. An effort will be made to point out Paul's ethical deductions and conclusions in his letter. The three-fold emphasis of the Stoic doctrine (Logic, Physics, and Ethics) will then be investigated along with a study of the historical outreaches of the Stoic philosophy itself, especially the influence Stoicism had in Rome at the time of Paul. Paul's letter to the Roman Church will then be inspected for possible Stoic influences. The use of the diatribe will 1 Ibid., p. 56. 14 be brought forth as well as the familiar catalogue of vices and virtues (Haustafeln). Then the idea of the individual's responsibility toward the organized State will be examined both from Paul's viewpoint and the Stoics' viewpoint. In this area attention will be given to the similarities in the Pauline teaching as shown in the thirteenth chapter of Romans, and the modified Stoic teaching after Stoicism had been adapted for Roman use. Following this will be a summary with the conclusions reached in the study. CHAPTER II PAUL'S BACKGROUND There has been no man, save Jesus himself, who has made a more significant contribution to Christian Theology than Paul the Apostle, He is sometimes described as having an affliction of the eyes, as being subject to epileptic attacks, as being small and unimposing in stature, yet behind all these futile attempts at description, there was a stalwart soldier of Jesus Christ. He was beaten of men, Shipwrecked not once but three times. Often in cold and nakedness, in hunger and thirst, yet he rose above all these afflictions to magnificent heights. It is fortunate that we have authentic letters from the Apostle Paul. These constitute the very best kind of bio graphical material. In many cases his letters are unstudied and portray the true Paul in an excellent manner. The letter to the Galatian Church is a good example of this source material. The contribution of Judaism. That Paul was a Jew of the Diaspora is an established fact. In his quotations from the Old Testament he refers not to the Hebrew Bible but to the Septuagint or Greek Bible. The Greek Bible was not used by 16 the Palestinian Jews and would be considered heretical by them. To the Diaspora Jews the Septuagint was a very vital contribution to their religion. Many of these Jews born away from Palestine probably knew no Hebrew at all. Even in Palestine Aramaic was the language of the people. Hence, when we deduce Paul as being of the Diaspora on the basis of his use of the Septuagint, we have fair grounds for doing so. The account of Paul's life in the book of Acts places his birth at Tarsus, the capital of the province of Cilicia. His parents were Jews, and his father possessed the rights of Roman citizenship. Tarsus was one of the great educational centers of the known world. In the halls of its famous university many of the greatest men of that period would be heard. We do not know just how long Paul lived at Tarsus but in his early life he was sent to Jerusalem to receive instruction from the rabbis there. That Paul studied for the Rabbinate under Gamaliel comes from secondary sources, yet the tradition seems reasonable in the light of Paul's use of Rabbinical forms of argument. Although Paul received much of his training from the rabbis in Jerusalem, he must have had considerable contact with the teachings, customs, and attitudes of the Jews of the Diaspora. In Philippians (5:5) Paul speaks of his 17 parentage as being of the stock of Israel. In II Corinthians the same claim is made by Paul (11:22). He writes as one who is pointing back to his ancestral home. While he is of the Diaspora he retains his consciousness as that of a Jew. Hellenism, the culture into which the Jews of the Dias pora found themselves, was a powerful influence changing all it touched into a likeness of itself. E.R. Goodenough writes of it as a magnificent quicklime, turning everything it touched into its own nature.^ For Diaspora Judaism it meant a broader interpretation of the age-old creeds and customs that had been handed down to them by their fore fathers. It meant a partaking of the adventuresome attitude of the Greeks. The shreds of literature we have from Greek Judaism before Philo, and the full achievement re corded by Philo's time, indicate that here again the Jews were captivated by their neighbors' religion and thought.2 What was this influence the Graeco-Roman world seemed to wield over these Jewish communities? Did all powerful Hellenistic thought swallow other cultures? If so, what 1 Erwin R. Goodenough, Bg] Light, Light (New H^ven: Yale University Press, 1935), p. 3. 2 Ibid., p. 4. 18 was the outcome of such a confluence of culture? Into this atmosphere the Jew brought his faith and his Scriptures with their oriental stories and conceptions. He met not Aristotle or Zeno, but the mystic philosophy which was transforming every other oriental mythology into a mystery religion. In an enviornment where the folk religions of Isis and Attis, and later of Mithra and Christianity, were one after the other being made into mysteries by the Greeks on the model, and with the philosophic foundation, of Or pheus, was Judaism alone to escape? Could and did the Jew keep his orientalism intact, or did his synagogue too tend to become a 9e.oC<re>s , and his whole tradition a typology of this mystic philosophy? It must at once be said that the thesis of this book is that Judaism in the Greek Diaspora did, for at least an important minority, become primarily such a mystery.1 It is extremely precarious to try and trace the steps by which the Jews of the Diaspora assimilated the aspects of the mystery religions but it appears that the Jews assimilated the mysteries and yet retained their own status as Jews (in their own eyes). Yet since a Jew could not now simply become an initiate of Isis or Orpheus and remain a Jew as well, the amazingly clever trick was devised, we do not know when or by whom, of representing Moses as Orpheus and Hermes-Tat, and explaining that the Jewish "Wis dom" figure, by translation, "Sophia", was identical with that ".Female Principle in nature" which Plutarch identified as Isis! All that now needed to be done was to develop sufficient skill in allegory and the Torah could be represented as the , par- excellence, whereby Judaism was at once transformed 1 Ibid., p. 7. 19 into the greatest, the only true. Mystery*1 Thus the door was wide open for the Jew to come in and assume a rightful place in the mystery religions. Many did embrace this mystery aspect so much as to later say that the Greeks borrowed it from them, and not that they had borrowed from the Greeks. It is not assumed that all Jews of the Diaspora em braced the mysteries as they did at Alexandria.- Judaism at Tarsus was different from the Judaism at Alexandria ' even though they both were departures from Palestinian Judaism. When the attitude of the Diaspora Jews is understood it is not hard to understand how Paul could break with the Mosaic Law as the ultimate source of authority and raise the banner of faith as the criterion of salvation. Added to this Hellenistic influence is the extreme dissatisfaction Paul had in finding salvation by conforming to Torah. He was sensitive in his nature and was torn inside by the fail ure of Torah to give him peace of mind. No matter how thorough his instruction might have been at Jerusalem in the Rabbinic school of thought, the liberal izing influence of Greek thought had made an impression on ^ Ibid., 20 young Paul’s mind. The Rabbinic Method. When Paul went to sit at the feet of Gamaliel, he had before him the centuries of Jewish thought. The Jewish nation (formerly the Israelitish people) had gone through many refining processes. Having common enemies and a common goal of expulsion of these enemies tend ed to bring the embryonic Jewish nation together in thought as well as in principle. It was not, however, until after the Babylonish captivity that the Jewish thought began to solidify. Through the study of the sacred Scriptures and the discussions of generations of scholars the nation began to define its form of worship, its ethical standards, and its religious conceptions. Hot least in importance were the rules of law for the observance of religious rites. These goals of semi-unity were not reached without much conflict between parties and sects that provoked many grave religious and political crises, but in the end the goal was the unification of Judaism. The beginning of the period of unification is usually placed at the time of Ezra when he arrived in Jerusalem from Babylon in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7,8). Much credit has been given to Ezra for the setting of the pattern of the law, but there is no substantial evidence to confirm 21 this statement, "Judaism...was not a new kind of religion introduced from Babylonia, but a normal and fruitful growth on Palestinian soil. The Jews under Persian rule had no political existence, they had only a national religion. In the preservation of their religion lay the key to the preservation of the nation itself. The Jews were often criticised by their neighbors for their aloofness in things religious, but their leaders must have seen the value in keeping true to their faith. Subsequent history has proven the value of their foresight. For the purposes of this study, a detailed examination of the rise of Palestinian Judaism is not in order. These pertinent facts are pointed out to show some of the under lying issues of Palestinian Judaism. To understand Palestinian Judaism it is necessary to bear in mind the two-fold aspect of the religion that had been stamped upon it by foreign oppression. First, it was a national religion. Jehovah is the god of Israel, Israel is the people of Jehovah. There is no trUe god but the god of Israel, he alone must be worshipped. The second aspect of their religion is the uniqueness of Jehovah. For all ^ George Foot Moore, Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), p. 16. 22 the other nations of the world there could be no true God but Jehovah. Ultimately there would be a Golden Age in which all nations would turn from idolatry and worship Jehovah (Zeehariah 14:9). This then was the attitude of Palestinian Judaism. What of their creeds and practices? For the Jew there was but one source of authority pertaining to creeds and prac tices. That authority was the revealed will of Jehovah; the Law. The Law can be easily understood by dividing it into four parts: 1. Civil laws that dealt with persons and things. The relationship between master and slave, man and wife, strangers and natives were all considered fully. Con cerning the affairs of taxation, debt, property, tithes, maintenance of priests, first fruits, and poor laws all these were ordered. 2. Criminal laws that dealt with the offenses against God and against man. In offenses again God such items as Sabbath-breaking and blasphemy were fully prohibited. In offenses against man things as murder, adultery, and marriage were defined. 3. Judicial and constitutional laws dealt with Judges, royal powers, and duties of princes. 4. Ecclesiastical and ceremonial laws dealt with the sacrifices, holy objects, and holy seasons. Such was the Law that the Palestinian Jew revered. The 23 Law bound him to his fellow man and to Jehovah and was not to be taken lightly. The Law was God centered. "The leading principle of the whole is its theocratic character, its reference of all action and thoughts of men directly and immediately to the will of God.The Law thus became the molding influence of Jewish character. The Pharisees, representing the ex treme of this position systematized this feeling. Against this position were the Sadducees who had as their basis "the idea of a higher love and service of God, independent of the Law and its sanctions.and the Essenes who tried to burst the bonds of the formal law, and assert its ideas in all fulness, freedom, and purity. In spite of these surface dissentions, there was a strong undercurrent of undying devotion to the Law on the part of the Palestinian Jew. It was into this enviro‘ nment that the youthful Paul was thrust. His early training had no doubt been greatly in fluenced by Diaspora Judaism and now he was being subjected to training in an enviornment sympathetic to Palestinian Juda ism. ^ William Smith, Dictionary of the Bible (Hew York: Fleming Revell Company, n.d.), p. 358. 2 Ibid., p. 598. 24 Graeco-Roman influence at Tarsus. To this strange background there must be added yet another ingredient before the picture of Paul’s early enviornment will be complete. This is the Graeco-Roman influence ab Tarsus. In the books of Acts (16:37) Paul speaks of his Roman citizenship. Undoubtedly this citizenship reveals the fact that Paul’s parents were more than Jews of the Dias pora. They were Jews that had been granted citizenship by Rome. Our knowledge of the synagogue of the Diaspora is painfully inadequate, except in Alexandria. For this reason we must draw from Paul’s own letters as to the prob able teaching of a Oilician synagogue. We know from his quotations that they used the Greek Bible. But we do not know the ritual of a Oilician synagogue. One must wonder whether it was comparable to the synagogues of Alexandria. If it was, a high degree of Greek influence would have to be recognized as effective in Paul’s enviornment. For some of the Hellenistic synagogues were far removed from those of the Palestinian pattern, with their Scripture lessons read from the Greek (not, as in the traditional pattern, from Hebrew and then translated into the vernacular), and their rituals almost all, if not wholly, in Greek. The implication of this is as important as the fact: people whose needs were such that synagogues with liturgies in the vernacular were provided were so much a part of Hellenistic life that they knew no Hebrew, and had lost much of the flavor of ancestral Judai sm.1 1 D.W. Riddle, Paul, Man of Conflict (Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1940), p. 44. 25 Another significant item in Paul’s writing is worthy of note. The Pharisees, of whom Paul was one, made it their duty to interpret the Law. As a result there were many interesting traditions that grew up* These interpretations were non-statutory and dealt with the non-legalistic aspect of the sacred writings. These were known as "haggada”. The strict legalism of the Torah was given the name, "halacha" (from the Hebrew verb "walk"). Now in Paul’s letters there are several examples of "haggidlc” interpretation of Scripture but there is not a single instance where he uses the "halachic" interpretation. What does this mean? "...Judaism was very dear to Paul, but statutory Torah was not. Jewish lore, Jew ish teaching, and the Jewish people he loved and appreciated; Torah on thé statutory!' side he understood only as ’the Law’, and this repelled him.When this fact is fully understood I it is not hard to see how a man could be so zealous for Judaism in persecuting the Christians and yet turn on the Rabbinic teaching of the Law and repudiate it entirely as the ultimate way of salvation. Paul was then influenced by Diaspora Judaism and Pales tinian Judaism coupled with the Graeco-Roman influence that was his as a resident of Tarsus. This Graeco-Roman influ ence can be better understood if the culture, religious, and 1 Ibid. p. 47. 26 economic factors of Tarsus \ are better known. Tarsus was situated in the Oilician plain, seventy to eighty feet above sea level, and about ten miles from the southern coast of Cilicia. Tarsus was a city with a popu lation of not less than half a million. "Thus it was... a metropolis for three provinces, a center of communication for Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Assyria."! Tarsus was than a center of interest for a considerable area surrounding the city. It was at the pass of the Oilician Gates where the great caravans came on the trade route. It was located on the Cydnus river and had access to the sea. It was no mean city. It was a city of books and learning with a great university within its walls. Thus it was important that in a certain Jewish home, otherwise unknown to us, at a date nearly co incident with the emergence\%>f Roman imperialism, a male child was born. Ostensibly he was only one more unit of the population of the Hellenistic age, one more of the Jewish minority in the Graeco-Roman world.^ He was just another male child in the eyes of many but in the eyes of subsequent history he was the "apostle to the Gentiles." ^ W.M. Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1907), p. 97. 2 Riddle, o£. cit. p. 25. 27 It is not unreasonable to think of Paul participating in the Greek games at the gymnasium that was built at Tar sus. Roman rule had taken the scepter of Tarsus from the Greeks but the culture imposed on the city remained. Rome did not try to destroy Greek culture but treated the two, Roman and Greek, as a unit in the task of training the oriental mind at Tarsus. With the synthesis of Greek and Roman culture being superimposed on the people of Tarsus there came the inevit able philosophic speculation that the Greeks loved. Contemporary Stole influences. Into the Tarsian picture comes a man of whom little is known. He was highly influential in promoting the study of Stoic philosophy in Tarsus. Not only did his influence spread in Tarsus but it went to Rome in the person of Emperor Augustus. Athenodorus Cananites (74 B.C. - A.D. 7) so called from his birthplace, Canana, near Tarsus, was a friend of Strabo, from whom we derive our knowledge of his life. He taught young Octavian (afterwards Augustus) at Appllonia, and was a pupil of Posedonius at Rhodes. Subsequently he appears to have lectured in the great cities of the Mediterranean. His influence over Augustus was strong and lasting. He followed him to Rome in 44 B.C. In later years he was allowed to return to Tarsus in order to remodel the constitution of the city. He succeeded in setting up a timocracy in the imperial inter est. He was a learned scientist according to Eusebius, 28 and helped Cicero in the composition of De Officiis.^ Athenodorus was thoroughly Stoic in his philosophic orientation. According to the best opinions he was a stu dent of the great Stoic, Posidonius who also taught Cicero. "Athenodorus is mentioned in such close relation with Pos idonius, the leader of the Stoic school of philosophy at Rhodes, that he may therefore be called his pupil. When Athenodorus was lecturing at Apollonia, the youth ful Augustus came there to finish his education. Augustus and Athenodorus came such staunch friends that Athenodorus followed Augustus to Rome. In the later years of Atheno dorus ’ life he returned to Tarsus. It was at this time that his influence at the University of Tarsus began to be felt. He lectured on Stoic principles of ethics, logic, and physics. He not only lectured on the Stoic idea of public service but he reorganized the Tarsian constitution. At a lecturer at the university, Athenodorus in true Stoic fashion would gather his audience to him and teach them by the lecture method. There was no discipline then as is evident in the universities of modern times. The univer sity of Tarsus allowed any new person who wanted to and could attract an audience to expound their views. If the new lecturer could gain a regular hearing, he remained to work. 1 Arnold, E.V.,"Athenodorus," Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, II, 504. 2 Ramsay, o£. cit., p. 217. 29 living from whatever his ability could command. A lecturer was permitted to enter any city as a wandering scholar, and might publicly begin to dis pute and to lecture (as Paul did in Athens and in Ephesus and elsewhere), if he could attract an audience. The city could, if it thought fit, interfere to take cognizance of his lecturing, and either stop him, if it seemed advisable, or give him formal permission to con tinue. Apparently there was no definite or uniform rule in the matter, but each individual case was determined on its own merits.! That Paul was influenced by Athenodorus is an open ques tion. This great Stoic philosopher was influential in civic as well as university affairs. His opinions were on the lips of every intelligent Tarsian. ^ ' Paul can hardly have been more than an infant when the greatest of pagan Tarsians died. But the influence of Athenodorus did not die with him. He was long wor shipped as a hero by his country, and his teaching was doubtless influential in the University of Tarsus after his death.^ It is interesting to note the extent of the influence of the University of Tarsus. It is the one example in his tory of a State being ruled by a university. This was due to the great influence that Athenodorus had with the Roman Emperor, Augustus. The picture of Paul’s background finally begins to take form. He was born a Jew in a Roman province. He had the 1 Ibid., p. 229. 2 Ibid., p. 223. 30 strict teaching of a father who was a Pharisee, yet in this was blended the peculiar attitude of Diaspora Judaism which was different from Palestinian Judaism. Not only was he reared in a Jewish environment but he also came under the direct influence of Greek thought and culture. No doubt his references to the Greek games comes from his early back ground. He thought of himself as one who was running a race. Then too, the influence of the University with its Stoic leader contributed something to the thought-life of this young Jew. Added to all this was the strict teaching he received at the feet of Gamaliel. Paul the sensitive, con scientious man that he was, was still an individualist. It is little wonder that his unique personality was so versatile that he was able to "be all things to all men.He under stood both Jew and Gentile. He was the cosmopolitan man of the Graeco-Roman world. He could write with ease to the great church at Rome, the hub of the known world, and with equal ease write to the melting-pot city of Corinth. In the person of the Apostle Paul there was a great combination: an unusual personality with unparalleled training and education for his great task. ! I Corinthians 9:22. CHAPTER III PAUL’S CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY Coming out of an envirdnment such as Paul had with all its heterogenous influences, his conception of Christianity is most interesting. There is no single letter that was written by the great Apostle that reveals his idea of Christ ianity better than his letter to the Roman church. C.H. Dodd writes of this letter as the first great work of Christian theology. E.F. Scott writes concerning this letter^ "It is the most ambitious of all his letters - the only one in which he tries to present his thought in systematic fashion, care fully weighing every sentence and word." ^ Of all the letters of Paul, the one to the Roman church can give a better picture of Paul’s conception of the message and mission of Christ because it in itself is a testimony of Paul’s beliefs. He is writing the letter as a statement of the nature of his teachings. He had never visited the Roman church but was very anxious to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. Naturally he wanted this letter to be well received, for it was his ambassador - so to speak - rep- ^ Scott, 0£. clt., p. 155. 32 resenting him until he could come personally. The ruin of mankind. After greeting the Roman church and expressing his desire to visit them, Paul plunges immediately into his views of the condition of man without salvation through Christ. Paul points out the terrible situations that exist among wicked men everywhere. Then he turns on the moral ists (2:1) and cautions them about judging others just because they themselves are morally upright in the sight of others but inwardly are wicked. After upbraiding the wicked, Paul turns to the heathen and expounds his conception of the law that is written into the very framework of the universe, man included. He points out that some of the heathen obey this law which is good, while the Jew who has had Torah causes the Gentile world to blaspheme God because of the Jews* actions. After accusing all men, Paul then shows the remedy in the gospel of Christ for all, the Jew first and then the Gentile. It is faith in Jesus Christ as Messiah that saves, not the Law. The Jew has relied on the Law and has failed. The Gen tile has relied on philosophy and much learning and has failed. All men fail in their desire to attain righteousness except those who live by faith. The remedy. This faith is made possible by the death of 33 Christ* God has set forth Jesus to be a "ransom” (Moffatt) provided for all who have faith and receive him as such* Goodspeed speaks of Christ as a "saci^ifice of reconciliation" to be taken advantage of by faith* At this point in his development of his conception of Christianity, Paul brings in an idea that he has previously used in his Galatian letter. Abraham, who was revered by all good Jews everywhere, was justified before God not by works, but by the same faith that Paul is speaking of. Abra ham lived long before the Law was given, therefore the faith that Paul advocates as the grounds of righteousness was before the Law. It is important that an understanding of Paul’s concept ion of the Law be had. Coming from a background of varied influences it is not hard to conceive of Paul treating the Law differently than the Palestinian Jew who worshipped the Law as the way to God. Otto Pfleiderer brings out very clearly the implications involved in Paul’s refuting the Law as the means by which the Christian attains righteousness: He (Paul) has been convinced by the law itself of the impossibility of righteousness by the law (inasmuch as the perception of sin comes by the law, Romans iii. 20); he has died to the law, has entirely released himself from it, no longer, therefore, acknowledges it as the standard by which he is to pass a moral judgment on himself, so that 34 being without the law would be sin or Gentile unrighteous ness; on the contrary, he is conscious that in being with out the law he has not only not become, godless, but that he has died to the law precisely for the great purpose that he may henceforth live wholly with his entire self to God; he knows that his dying to the law is being crucified with Christ, whereby the natural self, which being fleshly could never have attained to righteousness by works of the law, is done away, and Christ, the holy spirit of the Son of God, has come to life, and gained mastery in him.l For Paul the-'the Law awakens consciousness of sin. Therefore by the Law there will always be sin. This will never do. So Paul dies to the Law and throws himself on the mercy of God completely. He rests his entire self in the fact that God forgives him through the atonement of Christ on the cross. Thus he, in his faith, has new freedom. The opposition that Paul meets in maintaining this position (particularly from the followers of James) points out the fact that there is no dif ference between the Christian then and the heathen Gentile. The Gentile recognizes no Law and is not subject to itT then how, they ask, is the Christian different. Paul responds in writing that along with this emancipation from the Law there is given a new power that creates in man a higher life. This is the beginning of the positive side of Paul’s con ception of Christianity. Before he writes of the lost condition ^ Otto Pfleiderer, Paulinism (London: Williams and Norgate, 1891), Vol. II, p. 19. 35 of man and his sinfulness. Now he writes of the blessedness of a man who has been justified and is now guided by the spirit of God. Paul in the seventh and eighth ..chapters draws the contrast between the man who is struggling to be justified by the Law and the man who lives by faith in Jesus Christ. We can hardly doubt that Paul in the seventh chapter of Romans is not des cribing his own experiences before he had his experience on the Damascus road. The picture is indeed wretched. Under the Law the man suffers untold agony seeking deliverance from the flesh, that is from sin, but under grace the individual is a new creature in Christ. Paul finally rises to untold heights in his paean of triumph in the concluding verses of the eighth chapter: For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.^ Grace, then is the second key to Paul’s conception of Christianity. Everything is the gift of God. There is noth ing that man can do to attain to righteousness. It is the free gift of God by faith in Christ. We see then that the ^ Romans 8:38-39. 36 two words, faith and grace, unfold to us the meaning of Paul’s religion. From chapters nine to eleven in Paul’s letter, the theme of the letter changes somewhat. Perhaps it would not seem much of a change if we knew more about the Church at Rome. At any rate, the Apostle now tries to determine what place Israel has in God’s plan. He points out the fact that God had intended the Jews to be the recipients of his grace but they had preferred the birth-and-work condition to that of faith. They rejected the chief corner-stone (Christ in Paul’s thinking) that became an offense to the Jews. In spite of this rejection God will save Israel (11:26). The foregoing was not part of Paul’s conception of Christianity, but it does reveal the much misunderstood doctrine of predestination. Paul writes thus to show the Jews that salvation is not something that man does, but is by the grace of God. Not something to attain by works but as a gift of God through Christ. He writes of predestination to show the Jews that there is a place to stand where men can be sure of their salvation. If there were not a great element of the sovereignty of God in salvation, man could never be sure of his salvation. It is almost certain that Paul never 37 intended that Christian men should be tormented contemplating the future with fear lest they were not of the "elect". Ethical deductions. In the twelfth chapter of his letter, Paul introduces a subject that has not had too much attention in his conception of Christianity heretofore. He now writes of the ethics of Christianity. All men are to be diligent in business, mindful of the poor, doing good and avoiding evil, and maintaining an attitude of love toward all.. This new ethic is to be from within. The new disposition produced by faith in Christ demands a different kind of life. Before salvation the Law was obeyed by compulsion, now the Christian is concerned about his fellow man’s welfare because the divine Spirit is dwelling in him. The ethical content of life is also determined by this same standard of the indwelling Spirit. Since the Christian is a Christ filled man, he must set up just as high an ethical criterion for himself as he does for the Deity. The fact that a Christian has the divine Spirit makes it necessary for him in the ethical realm to repro duce a God-like type of life. This requirement is fre quently emphasized by Paul, in his demands that the body be kept pure as a proper dwelling-place for the Spirit, and that the fruits of the Spirit be made manifest con stantly. 1 Paul’s Christianity takes a new turn in the thirteenth chapter. Here the Christian is to be in subjection to the 1 Shirley Jackson Case, The Evolution of Early Christ ianity (Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1914), p. 351. 38 rulers and magistrates for they are allowed to rule because God ordains it so. In a later chapter this will be dealt with more fully; it will suffice here to say that in Paul’s conception of Christianity, the Christian is to subject him self to his rulers. In the several concluding chapters of his letter, Paul again touches on the social ethics of Christianity admonish ing the church at Rome to be kindly affectioned one to the other and to continue in prayer for him that he might visit them. By way of summing up, Christianity for Paul is universal. It is for all men. It is not only for all but it is the free gift of God’s grace to all who exercise faith in the Messiah- ship of Jesus. It was on these grounds that he asks the church at Rome to welcome and support him. He was coming to them and to the strange regions that lay beyond them, confident in his high calling. "For 1 am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto Salvation. 1 ^ Scott, Ibid., p. 169. CHAPTER IV STOICISM, ITS DOCTRINE Much has been written about the Stoics but surprisingly little is known to popular thought of this once great phil osophy# That it is not worthy of renown cannot be said. Trench declares that "the Stoic porch was the last refuge and citadel of freedom". Lecky also tells us that "in the Roman Empire almost every great character, almost every effort in the cause of liberty, emanated from the ranks of Stoicism. " ^ Stoicism was a noble philosophy. It embodied nearly all the higher ideals of Christianity and yet it is today in comparative obscurity in the mind of the common man. Even as Christianity pushed back Islam in Spain, so did the philosophy of the Galilean absorb Stoicism. This is rightly so, but Stoicisni has much of value in it to merit our study. To stem the tide of deterioration, and, if possible, to produce in men a healthy robust moral nature, which would be able to resist the temptations to degeneracy that on every hand presented themselves, and which would yield inward and abiding peace in the midst of. the except ional difficulties and trials that were inseparable from the exigencies of the times^ - was one great object that Stoicism served^ and for thé accomplishment of which it 1 Frederic May Holland, The Reign of the Stoics (New York: Charles P. Somerby, 1879), p. 13. 40 was consciously called into existence.1 Historical outreach of Stoicism. The founder of this noble school of thought was Zeno of Cyprus. Zeno’s father was a merchant who made many trips to the sea ports of the then known world. As Zeno was somewhat a studious lad, his father purchased several of the philosophic writings and took them home to his son. Among these writings were the teachings of Socrates. These, young Zeno devoured with great interest. It vjas soon apparent that Zeno would be above the average in the pursuits of philosophy. As fortune would have it, Zeno’s father was somewhat indulgent and allowed his son free course to pursue whatever his fancy compelled him to investigate. When Zeno was about thirty years of age, he happened to meet in a bookstore with Crates the Cynic philosopher. He soon formed his acquaintance and was invited to attend some of Crates* lectures. He was so well pleased with the lectures that he became one of Crates’ disciples. This new interest was short lived as Zeno became dissatisfied with some of the peculiar customs of the Cynics and consequently he left the school. Zeno’s next interest was in the Megaric philosophy of 1 William L. Davidson, The Stoic Creed (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), p. 21. 41 Stilpo. Perhaps it was due to his encounter with Cynicism that he did not enter wholeheartedly into the Megaric school. At any rate he observed it from a slight distance and carefully noted the good qualities of the school. In Zeno’s system of Stoic thought, many Megaric influences can be noticed. Zeno went his way attending the lectures of Xenocrates, Diodorus Chronos, and others until he became interested in Polemon who had succeeded as director of the famous Academy founded by Plato. Polemon was aware of the fact that Zeno was no common man. He at one time accosted Zeno and being aware that Zeno was collecting thoughts for his own philosophy said, "I am no stranger to your Phoenician arts, Zeno; I per ceive that your design is to creep slyly into my garden and steal away my fruit." 1 After twenty years of sampling and collecting thoughts from different schools, Zeno did start his own school of thought. He chose a place for his school that was called the poecile or "Painted Porch" that was a public portico. This portico, being the most famous in Athens, was called "the Porch". It was from this distinction that Zeno and his followers were called "men of the porch".^ 1 Charles ÏÏ.S. Davis, Greek and Roman Stoicism and Some of its Disciples (Boston: Herbert B. Turner & Co., 1903), p. 52. 2 Ibid., p. 53. 42 Of the teachings of Zeno, only a few fragments remain, hut his successor, Gleanthes, has left us the lofty hymn which Paul quoted on Mars’ hill.l Gleanthes succeeded Zeno as president of the school and was in turn succeeded by Chrysippus. These three men are credited with the founding of the Stoic school. In the next period of Stoicism’s history (Transitional period) there are three men who are prominent: Zeno of Tarsus, Diogenes of Seleucia, and Antipater of Tarsus. Following the period of Transition came the Roman period or Later Stoa. In this period there are also three men who stand apart as leaders of the school. They were Seneca, Epic tetus, and Marcus Aurelius. In the foregoing few words a span of years from 300 B.G. to 180 A.D. were covered. In order to get a clear picture of contemporary Stoicism in the time of Paul, let us go back to the early days of the Roman Empire. 1 Gleanthes* "Hymn to Zeus”. Most glorious of the Immortals, many named. Almighty forever. Zeus, ruler of Nature, that governest all things with law, Haili for lawful it is that all mortals should address Thee. For we are Thy offspring, taking the image only of Thy voice, as many mortal things as live and move upon the earth. Therefore will I hymn Thee, and sing Thy might forever. 43 As far back as recorded history goes, the Roman people were religions people. In the early days the Romans were primitive people whose religion was a result of their interest in temporal things. They had gods of the seed-time and gods of the harvest that had to be appeased for bountiful crops. They had gods of the elements, gods who were guardians of their flocks and herds. Then besides these gods there were miscellaneous gods for special occasions. In the next period of the history of Roman religion, the Etruscan element entered to a large degree, and no man could have the freedom to choose his own gods. He was now born into an enviornment that provided gods ready-made. Ancestor dictum controlled his worship. Later on when commerce began to be evident among the primitive people of the Italian peninsula, new ideas on rel igion began to filter in. When the Greek ideas came in they began to soften and civilize and bring a sense of skepticism about established mores and customs. It is not easy to divide the religious history of Rome into separate and distinct parts, yet for convenience sake we may speak of two divisions - one, through the close of the Second Punic War about 200 B.C. and the other, from that time 44 on up to 31 B.C. at the Battle of Actium. At the time of the Second Punic War, some of the Greek gods were being considered by some of the Romans in their worship. This was a gradual infiltration. The Romans were trying to maintain their position as a separate people, not dependent on any other power or people for anything. This condition of infiltration continued until the time of Cara- calla. An example of this infiltration is the cult of Hercules. Hercules was a Greek god and the cult established itself in southern Italy as a result of commerce. The cult was estab lished at Tibur and spread to Rome. By the time the Hercules cult arrived at Rome it was considered a Latin-Sabine cult, not a Greek one. Another example that might be cited is the worship of the goddess Ceres. Ceres was the goddess of the grain. (Introduced as a result of the use of Sicilian grain). With Ceres came Mercury who protected the merchants. About this same time came the Oracles which gained popularity rapidly and spread throughout Rome. It was not long before the old Roman deities had lost all their vitality. All that was left was the old ritual and ceremony that was fast losing status in the eyes of the people. 45 Added to this psychological fact (loss of status on the part of the Roman deities) was an economic factor in Rome’s religious life. After the Second Punic War, Rome found her self a world power. Many private fortunes had fallen to the armies that pillaged the lands* The erstwhile land-owners now dispossessed could not turn to manual labor, for such was performed by slaves, consequently they migrated city-ward. In Rome was a great mass of people, middle-class, who had nothing on their hands or minds. When a situation like this presents itself, philosophic speculation arises. Athenodorus, whom we met in Tarsus, had as one of his star pupils, Augustus, later emperor of Rome. Athenodorus was lecturing at Apollonia when the youthful Augustus came there to finish his education in the autumn of 45 B.C. In the short six months that the Roman lad spent at Apollonia, the wise and able teacher, Athenodorus, acquired a life-long influence over the boy. When Augustus returned to Rome to take up the scepter that had been laid down by his well known uncle, Julius Caesar in March 44 B.C., Athenodorus followed him. It goes without saying that with Athenodorus went the new philosophy of Stoicism. It would not be fair to the facts of history to intimate that Stoicism gained entry into Rome through Augustus alone. 46 There are two leaders of Stoicism that had just as much to do with the advent of Stoicism into Rome as Athenodorus did. Contact with the Roman directing class (155 B.C.) may be said to mark the transition from the Old to the Middle Stoa which, in turn, gave place to another dev elopment after Cicero’s murder (43 B.C.). Two men of power, encyclopaedic learning, and remarkable influence, overshadowed their contemporaries: Panaètius of Rhodes (c. 189-109 B.C.) and his pupil, Posidonius of Apamea in Syria, (135-51 B.C.), Cicero’s master. 1 It is interesting to note that tradition credits Posidonius with the position of teacher to Athenodorus in the letter’s youth. Once in Rome, Stoicism spread rapidly and its creeds and doctrines were on the lips of everyone who was philos- sophically minded. By this time Stoicism as a philosophy was beginning to run to a set form. . Of course it must be recognized that any philosophy will have variations from time to time and from locale to locale, but as a rule the good work of crystallization that was begun by Chrysippus (282- 209 B.C.) was evident. It is true that the Stoic conception of immortality began to make its entry into the system in the Transition Period but this was in all probability due to the Mysteries. ^ B.A.G. Puller, A History of Philosophy (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 19381, p. 22TT 47 Of the philosophers that Stoicism could boast of in Rome, only four will be given recognition before passing to Stoic doctrines: Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Of the latter very little will be said as he lived and exercised his influence after the time of Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome. ...Cicero was officially an adherent of the old Academy, but found much in the very similar liberal wing of Stoicism to arouse his sympathies. Seneca, though professing independence, was a Stoic at heart. ...finally we have the slave Epictetus, and the phil osopher- king Marcus Aurelius. To the translations and comments of Cicero and Seneca we owe most of our know ledge of the older school; to the discourses of the slave and the Emperor our most profound insight into what Stoic teaching might mean to noble and thoughtful men.l Cicero did not wich to be classified as a Stoic, yet fate seems to have placed him at the cross-roads to direct the thoughts of men into Stoic patterns. The antagonistic judgments, to say nothing of the acrimonious disputes, converging upon Cicero, prove him a pivotal figure. His qualities and defects do not con cern us here; his unique importance admits no denial. The fact is, he stood at the cross roads. Although he disliked Stoicism for years, fate made him the bridge between the Middle and Later (or Roman) Stoa.2 Cicero would remain a devotee of the Academy but his sense of judgment in eases of point v/ould turn him to the 1 Ibid., p. 227. 2 R.M. Wenley, Stoicism and its Influence (Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1924), p. 26. 48 Stoic point of view. He had to admit, for instance, "that individuals must live under the eye of a great Taskmaster."! Compare this admission with Cleanthesf "Hymn to Zeus" to see the Stoic parallel. Cicero interpreted the Greek mind to the Roman philoso pher. He stood as a bridge and stood well for later Stoicism owes its course to Cicero. "the Stoicism of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius owes its course to a combination of forces. Posidonius and Cicero were the dominant personal factors."2 Lucius Annaeus Seneca was born in Cordova, Spain, about 8 B.C. His father was a distinguished man enjoying the priv- elege of Roman knighthood and the friendship of many distin guished Romans. As a young man Seneca traveled in Greece and Egypt, and in obedience to his father’s wishes, he pleaded in the courts of law and achieved no mean success. As an advo cate Seneca was a success but he gave up this work fearing the jealousy of Caligula who sought to destroy him. After spending some time in seclusion, Seneca return to public life and eventually became the tutor of Hero. This was in the year 49 A.D. Hero was quite tractible and likeable when he was a young man, but upon coming to his maturity he grew worse and worse. He was suspicious of Seneca having listened to evil counsellors 1 Ibid., p. 34. ^ Ibid., p. 36. 49 who accused Seneca of having exorbitant wealth. In due time he was accused of treason and ordered put to death. Seneca’s murder was one of the vilest acts in history. He was an old man who bad been falsely accused* Nevertheless, when his time came to die, he left this life showing to all the world the noblest of the Stoic virtues. As he was accosted by the Emperor’s soldiers who were to put him to death, his tory tells us that there was not a dry eye in the entire group. C.H.S. Davis in his notable work on Greek and Roman Stoicism writes: "all who were present melted into tears. He endeavored to assuage their sorrows; he offered his advice with mild persuasion; he used the tone of authority."! When Seneca was about to be executed, his wife begged that she too might be killed with him. At first Seneca re fused, but upon seeing her insistence and feeling that her great love for him should be allowed its course, he gave his consent. These words were no sooner uttered, than the veins of both their arms were opened. At Seneca’s time of life the blood was slow and languid. The decay of nature, and the impoverishing diet to which he had used himself, left him in a feeble condition. He ordered the vessels of his legs and joints to be punctured. After that operation he ! Davis, op. cit., p. 150. 50 began to labor with excruciating pains. Lest his suf ferings should overpower the constance of his wife, or the sight of her afflictions prove too much for his own sensibility, he persuaded her to retire into another room. His eloquence continued to flow with its usual purity. He called for his secretaries, and dictated, while life was ebbing away, that farewell discourse, which has been published, and is in everybody’s hands. In order to hasten his death, Seneca also took hem lock, and had himself suffocated in a vapor bath. His wife was saved against her wishes by the soldiers at the entreaty of her slaves and freedmen. Seneca’s body was buried privately without ceremony, as he had directed by his will (A.D. 65).1 Thus died one of the noblest Stoics that history records. Unfounded tradition holds that Paul and Seneca were corres pondents but this is in all.probabilities not true. Of Epictetus very little is known. We do not know when he was born but it was sometime before the end of Nero’s reign (68 A.D.). We do know that he was born at Hierapolis in Phrygia. He was the slave of Epaphroditus, à freedman of the emperor Nero, and who had once been one of his body guard. It is not known exactly how a slave would get much of an education. We do know, however, that Epictetus was allowed to attend the lectures of C. Musonius Rufus, a Stoic philosopher. Perhaps our answer to Epictetus’ education lies in the 1 Ibid., p. 152. 51 custom that was prevailing at that time among the great of Rome. The nobility had as slaves, grammarians, poets, phil osophers and other learned men. Much the same custom as wealthy men today amassing great libraries that are foreign to their tastes. Epictetus is believed to have left Rome when the edict was delivered against philosophers. How he obtained his freedom is a question that has not been answered. Whether he ever returned to Rome again is doubtful. At any rate, he did open a school at Nicapolis where he taught philosophy until he was an old man. Epictetus did not leave a single writing from his own pen that we know of. Most of his works are a result of the efforts of his pupil, Arrian, afterwards the historian of Alexander the Great. This great philosopher has, in the opinion of the writer, made a lasting contribution to a study of the comparison of the doctrines of Stoicism with Christianity. Under the sur face of popular Stoicism there were many parallels with Christian thought. Epictetus crystallized them and brought them to light. Epictetus was the prophet, preacher, and theologian of the Stoic sect. A figure of unique grandeur, v/ith 52 the moral stamina of Socrates, and a reverent piety, no one, as Pascal shows, among philosophers, has more truly recognized man’s duties toward God and himself. No other philosopher before him has revealed precepts so much in accordance with the spirit of Christianity. Epictetus formulated clearly enough the doctrine which was expressed in the hymn of Cleanthes, that we are the offspring of God, and he rises to a height of lyric fervor when he speaks of the providence of God, of the moral beauty of his works, and the strong insensibility of un grateful men. He felt he owed all to God; that all was his gift, and that we should be grateful not only for our bodies, but for our souls, and reason by which we attain to greatness.... Ought we not, when we are digging and ploughing and eating, to sing this hymn to God? "Great is God who has given us such implements with which we shall cultivate the earth; great is ^od who has given us hands, the power of swallowing ouf"fopd; imperceptible growth, and the power of breathing while we sleep."1 A comparison of Paul’s ideas of God’s gifts with the depend ence that Epictetus shows toward God will reveal many simi larities.^ Everywhere in the writings of Epictetus there lives a spirit that is comparable with the essence of Christ ian doctrine. While Marcus Aurelius was much later than Paul and con sequently did not influence Stoic thought in Paul’s time, no study of Stoicism is complete without a few words about this great philosopher. He was born April 25, 121 A.D. and ascended the throne in 161. He died March 17, 180. His family came from Spain and served in Rome in some of the ! Ibid., p. 138. 2 For comparison see Romans 5:15,18; 6:23. I Cor. 7:7, 13:2; II Cor. 9:15; Eph. 2:8, 3:7, 4:7. 53 highest offices of the State. When he was seventeen years of age he was adopted by Antonins Pius, the successor of Hadrian and Faustina, the daughter of Pius, was chosen for his wife. When Antoninus died, he ascended the throne, took Antoninus’ name, gave half the government to an adopted brother, Gommodus, and began to rule. He ruled for nineteen years, able and wise in his deliberations. Of the personal life and character of Aurelius, it was above reproach. He lived the very highest type of life from a moral standpoint. He was one of the purest, gentlest, and most conscientious of men. His whole life was given to self-inquiry, ever seeking to refine his nature that he might be a better man to his fellow men. While Marcus Aurelius was one of the most benign, con scientious rulers that ever ascended the throne of Rome, he persecuted the Christians severely. He looked upon Christ ianity as a foolish and boundless superstition. He felt it to be his duty to protect the religion of the state from the inroads of this sect. It was because of the separate char acter that Christianity imposed on its early converts that 54 the heavy hand of the Roman State fell upon the Christians. Their existence endangered the life of the empire and there fore must he put out of the way. Marcus Aurelius saw in the now religion an immoral superstition and a mysterious political conspiracy. If he had only seen the true picture of the Christian’s faith, his noble instincts would have drawn him to this way of life, rather than persecuting its adherents. That the integrity of Marcus Aurelius was not valid can not be doubted. He was a good man, striving always to the end of his life, trying to uplift the downtrodden. He brought heathenism as near as in its strength and wisdom it could come to Christianity; and he seems to carry to a higher point and nearer to the Christian faith the great religious ideas which formed the basis of the Roman Stoic school. "It seems", says M. Martha, "that in him the philosophy of heathendom grows less proud, draws nearer, and nearer to a Christianity which it ignored, or which it despised, and is ready to fling itself into the arms of the Unknown God."! Much could be written about this great Stoic philosopher but such is not within the scope of this study. No investi gation of Stoicism, however brief, would be complete without a few words about Marcus Aurelius. In him we find the com plete man that Zeno started out to produce nearly 500 centuries before. 1 Ibid., p. 176. 55 Concerning the doctrine of Stoicism itself at the time of Paul’s letter to the Romans, we find it easily understood hy dividing it into its three natural parts. Logic, Physics, and Ethics. In logic they were the followers of Aristotle and the Cynics* In physics they were the followers of Hera clitus, Socrates, and Aristotle. Their ethics follows the pattern established by Socrates. Logic. The Stoic system of logic is widened to include Rhetoric and Dialectic, or Theory of Knowledge. Chrysippus, one of the founders of the school, was largely responsible for systematizing their logic. Chrysippus addressed himself to the task of assim ilating, developing, and systematizing the doctrines left to him. He created their formal logic and contributed much that was of value to their psychology and epistemology. In short, Chrysippus made the Stoic system what it was.! To the Stoic, logic was a necessity for mental happiness. Everything must go through the gate-way of reason. Marcus Aurelius persecuted the Christians and rejected their phil osophy because it was based on blind belief, not on systematized logic. It naturally follows that the Stoics would base their ! Arnold, E.V.,"Stoicism," Hastings’Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, XI, 861. 56 logic on sense perceptions which furnished the materials that were fashioned by reason. In this way skepticism was confounded because each representation of an object implied the existence of the object itself. To the Stoics, the soul is a blank tablet upon which the finger of experience writes. Out of the mind (that the experiences have written on) comes two classes of concepts. The first are produced by the mind itself spontaneously. These are common to all men because all men (according to the Stoics) develop under practically the same experiences. These are called, "natural concepts", "primary concepts", or "common notions". These form the criterion for our com mon belief. This is of great value in pointing out parallels between Stoicism and Christian doctrine as Paul portrays it in his letter to the Romans. He writes in this letter of the "law" that is common to all men.^ Out of these primary concepts comes the idea of God. "Implanted in us", says Seneca, "are the seeds of all ages and of all arts; and out of the hidden the master, God, pro duces our faculties." (De Beneficiis, iv.6).2 Seneca goes on to say that there is no man anywhere that does not have within the frameowrk of his mind the idea of a god or gods. This does not mean that the individual comes into the world 1 See Romans 2:14-15. 2 Davidson, 0£. cit., p. 65. 57 with the concept of God already in his mind. It does mean that through sense perception there arises the sense that there must be some power that is greater than man that controls the universe. This is a logical deduction from sense exper ience. The problems of logic from the Stoic’s point of view determine the nature andvalidity of knowledge. They grap pled with this theory but without great success. It is true that they foreshadowed such men as Descartes and Spinoza but they erred in their doctrine of tabula rasa as rep resenting the mind at birth. They had implicit faith in reason. Their great forte vzas in their doctrine of sense perception. While it was immature in many ways, yet it was invaluable in that it pointed out that reality was given in perception. This necessitated a distinction between hasty inference and calm unprejudiced assent. These qualities lifted Stoicism above the ordinary speculation of the street corner philosopher. Physics. When the word "physics" is used to designate a division of Stoic thought, the word does not mean physics in the modern scientific usage. It means rather the meta physical explanation of the world. Questions concerning cosmology, psychology, and theology are investigated with 58 an effort to answer the questions in a manner compatable to reason. For their physics as a system, the Stoics turned back to Heraclitus of Ephesus (535-475 B.C.) who held the view of eternal change. The fact of change so impressed Heraclitus that he concluded that fire was the original "stuff" out of which the world was made as fire was always changing. Since everything is always changing, the forever changing fire must be the material of the universe* The classic illustration of Heraclitus* view is that it is impossible to step into the same river twice because the river will be a different river by the time you step in the second time. The Stoics did not go wholeheartedly with Heraclitus but interjected their own peculiarities into the explanation of the universe. They held the position that there was a principle of force that held the world together in spite of the change. This force was alive. Cleanthes taught the world to be a macrocosm to which man is exactly correspondent as a microcosm. Upon death man is absorbed into this great force or power and loses his identity. Thus we find Stoicism to be essentially pantheistic. Next, this world power or force is material and yet not material in a mechanical sense for it 59 includes mental and spiritual characteristics.. This force or power is summed up in the term Active Reason or Thought and Will. Now follows the conclusion that if everything is material so the human soul is material. This soul material is characterized as a fiery current diffused through the body that grows with the body. Ethics. Of all the divisions of the Stoic philosophy, their Ethics is the most important for our study. Primarily, Stoicism was a moralistic philosophy. The purpose of the leaders was to produce men who could resist the evils of the day and keep calm repose in their souls in the face of difficulties. "Prom Crates of Thebes (Cynic) Zeno found moral enthusiasm v/hich seeks good at however high a price, and welcomes want and suffering as the discipline of individual character."! Have you not hands, foolish man? Has not God made them for you? You might as well kneel and pray to be cured of your catarrh. Take care of your disease, rather; and do not murmur. Well; and has he given you nothing in the present case? Has he not given you patience. Has he not given you magnanimity? Has he not given you fortitude? When you have such hands as these, do you still seek for aid from another? But we neither study nor regard these things. For give me but one who cares how he does anything, who does not regard the mere success of anything, but his own manner of acting.2 1 Arnold, o£. cit., p. 943. 2 Epictetus, Discourses (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1918), p. 166. 60 To the Stoic, ethics was the crowning glory of his philosophy. It was the one science into which all the other phases of speculation converge and find, meaning. You may feed, the imagination on cosmogony, you may sharpen the intellect by logic, you may train literary faculty through rhetoric, but you cannot nourish the soul, or produce a robust, manly character, unless you bring your cosmogony into a definite immediate relation with living, and utilize your logic and your eloquence for the defense and establishment of life-directing truth.! For Epictetus, who might well speak for the Stoic interpretation of ethics, there are three topics with which it is concerned; the desires and aversions, the impulses and acts (including duty) and the assents or the relation of the will to truth and falsehood. The one who would be happily adjusted to the world must be continually looking inwardly to ferret out anything that would disturb the tranquillity or disharmony between the individual and his enviornment. For the Stoics, happiness and virtue are one and the same. To be happy is virtuous and to be virtuous is to be h-8.ppy. They go yet another step. To be happy and virtuous is a wise condition, therefore it is the rational way of meeting life. The source of this s tate of happiness lies within the ! Davidson, o£. cit., p. 184. 61 individual. The Epicureans sought pleasure from external sources hut the Stoics cultivate an apathy that shuts out all the hurtful things in life. They felt the universe responded to this rational attitude. The universe itself was rational, therefore man must respond in a rational way to he happy. Emotions were not tolerated as they were not rational. The ruling principle in each man is a strength of mind, a determination to remain untroubled. The man who was ruled by reason was virtuous, the man who was not ruled by reason was vicious through and through. In the extreme sense of the word, sal vation was only for the Stoic philosopher. B.A.G. Puller writes : Salvation obviously was reserved for the Stoic sage alone. The number of the elect, then, approximated zero, the number of the damned, infinity. The human race was almost entirely in a state of total depravity, utter folly, and complete unhappiness.! While this is an example of Professor Fuller’s well-known subtle sarcasm, it represents the position that Stoic ethics was establishing. When the Stoic leaders realized the impli cations of such a position, concessions and modifications were forthcoming. This softening process produced an ethic ! Fuller, op. clt., p. 208. 62 that was one of the finest by which men were inspired and consoled in their dealings with each other and their en viornment. In the formulation of Stoicism, the founding philosophers had little use for social institutions. Under the Roman rule they modified their views somewhat but in the main, social institutions were considered artificial. In considering this phase of Stoic ethics. Dr. Puller continues: Zeno adhered to the Cynic view that such organization.^ is altogether artificial and conventional and that in an ideal society composed of perfectly virtuous men there would be no marriage, no family organization, no church, no judicial procedure, no government, no money.! Prom the ideal point of view. Stoicism saw little use in social institutions. As time went on the philosophers saw the practical necessity of social institutions and admitted them as a part of an imperfect society. The ethics, as a whole, of Stoicism were good. They produced some of the kindest men that history records. It is true that in our modern knowledge the Stoic speculation in the field of psychology was somewhat wrong, but the essence of their insistence on an obligation to duty and consideration of what was morally right or wrong produced good men. ^ Ibid., p. 209. CHAPTER V THE ROMAN CHURCH AND STOICISM Unfortunately Ulie information concerning the group of Christians at Rome is quite limited. We have no direct sources to which we can go for information. For this reason we must pry into all the possible contemporary occurrences with the hope of arriving at correct conclusions. We know that there was a large Jewish population in . Rome that was making proselytes regularly. We know also that there were riots in the Jewish quarter that led Emperor Claud ius to banish all Jews from the city in 49 A.D. He expelled the Jews from Rome because they kept rioting at the instigation of Chrestus (Judaeos im pulser e Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit). Nothing further is known of this Chrestus. The name was common among slaves. He may have been an agitator of servile origin. But Chrestus is an extremely common misspelling for Christus in Greek and Latin (the pro- nounciation of e and i scarcely differed in the Greek of this period).1 We do hot:know'just what the rioting was all about but in I Corinthians 16:15 we have the record of Aquila and Pricilla at Corinth after having been expelled from Rome. ^ Dodd, o£. cit., XXVi 64 It was a common occurrence for the Christians and Judaizers to get into arguments over the keeping of the Mosaic Law. It is entirely possible that such an occurrence happened that resulted in the banishment. One thing is certain* If the Judaizers did not cause trouble of this sort in Rome, it would be the first place in the Christian churches that it failed to happen. We know that by 49 A.D. Christianity had been introduced into Rome. In the conclusion of the letter to the Romans Paul.sends greetings to his "fellow-workers" who are laboring at Rome.^ They may have been at Rome for many years. The Church under Domitlan had many of its followers in the higher classes and even in the imperial family. Paul writes mentioning those of Caesar’s household who were in the faith. This indicates the movement to the slaves and freed men of the royal house. There is another shred of evidence that seems substantial and that is found in the twenty-eighth chapter of Acts v/here the account of Paul’s reception by Christians on the Appian way is recorded. This young and vigorous church had its teaching in part ! Romans 16;3-15. 65 from the Jewish Christians. Many of them had come from the far outreaches of the Roman empire filled with this new rel igion. It is not hard to imagine the soldiery or profess ional political men coming back converted to the disciple- ship of Christ. If among the many legions that Rome sent out across her far flung empire, there were not some who became Christians, it would be strange indeed. Comparisons between Stoicism and early Christianity. Here then was this group of Christians in Rome. Their doctrine of ethics was not too far removed from their Stoic contempor aries. Where they did differ, and that radically, was in their basis for belief. The Stoics believed everything to be conformable to reason. The Christians lived by a naked faith in Christ as the future ruler of the world. When Paul wrote to the Roman church it seems very evident that he made it clear that there are many things spiritual that must be understood only in the light of conversion. He wrote those often quoted lines, "the just shall live by faith".! This was cutting across the doctrine of the Stoics, but for Paul it was the essential key to Christian knowledge. Again he writes, "the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."2 He deals with subjects that are ! Romans 1:17. 2 Romans 8:7. 66 not in the realm of validation by sense experience. This the Stoics would object to strenuously. Lest we get the wrong picture of the comparisons between early Christian thought at Rome and Stoicism, let us consider some of the moral exhortations given by Paul in the twelfth chapter of his letter to the Romans. Prom the ninth verse on to the close of the chapter the words could have come from the pen of Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius as well as from Paul. He writes, "...not slothful in business, fervent in spirit... rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation...bless them that persecute you; bless and curse not." Then in the fifteenth verse: "Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits." This could be and was Stoic phil osophy as well as Christian teaching. The grand old man, Seneca, taught and practiced just such teaching. In the opening portions of the twelfth chapter of Romans we have another instance of similarity between Pauline Christ ianity and Stoicism. The Stoics kept their body in subjection against the evils of the world. Paul writes to the Christians, "Present your body a living sacrifice." The Stoics would say that the individual should not give in to the demands of the 67 world but rather seek to obey the universal law that is written in every fibre of life. Paul says we should not be conformed to the world but transformed by the renewing of our minds. Strength from within that holds the individual secure from distress without. Seneca writes, "One sovereign remedy against all misfortunes is constance of mind."! It should be kept in mind that comparisons or parallels do not make relationships. There can be many similarities without a single direct relationship. For lack of evidence these comparisons must be classified as simple parallels and nothing more. Relationships cannot be established on the evidence we have today. Nevertheless it is interesting to try and discover the traces of similarity between Paul’s letter and Stoicism. It is hardly credible that Paul was not aware of Stoicism at Rome and the great danger there was of the newly won Christians becoming moralists instead of Christians through Stoic influence. Between Stoicism and Christianity there were many ideas that were closely connected in content. For example consider the Divine Universal Law as revealed in Seneca and Epictetus. ^ Seneca, Morals (New York: John B. Alden, 1884), p. 96. 68 This Law develops into the character of a kindly Providence, Between this Providence and the Stoics there arises a rel igious sense of fellowship.! Today in modern interpretation of the religion of Jesus, there is a social compulsion to be reckoned with. In Stoicism this same emphasis is manifested. Thus it is easy to see how students of the ethic of Stoicism believe they had found in Christianity the phil osophical religion they were seeking, while Christians, on the contrary, thought they had found among them some ideas borrowed from the Bible, or a point of support in general natural knowledge.2 Troeltsch points out in his book. Social Teaching of the Christian Church, some areas in which Stoicism and Christian ity differed. In spite of the element of Theism that mani fested itself in Stoicism, the old pantheistic teaching con tinually cropped up. This pantheism does not take into ac count the will of God which is opposed to evil. Then too, the Christian philosophy pointed to a coming Kingdom of God while Stoicism looked back to the Golden Age that was gone forever. While the Golden Age was gone they looked to the upper classes to prepare themselves to carry on the cultural . ! Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christ ian Church (New York: The Macmillan CoV, 1931)> Vol. I, p. 66. 2 Ibid., p. 67. 69 and moral knowledge for posterity. Christianity in contrast to this was concerned with all, the lower classes as well as the upper classes. To narrow down the contrasts let us turn to the fundament al difference between Stoicism and Paul’s conception of Christ ianity. For Paulin!sm, with its doctrine of sin and redempt ion, and its offer of the help of love and grace through the marvelous powers of Christ-Mysticism, set ideas in motion which were quite foreign to the doctrine of the Stoics, and which were able to build up a community which gave every promise of being permanent.1 Thus for Paul the source of help and strength in an evil world was found in Christ, but for the Stoics the well-spring of uprightness was within themselves. As the Christian communities became more firmly estab lished, and began to penetrate into the upper classes, more and more they began to assimilate the ideas of Stoicism into their own ethic and sociology. "the Christian church did this when it felt the necessity for placing its new and unique treasure upon a basis of general scientific knowledge."^ Might not it be supposed that Paul was aware of these ! Ibid., p. 6 8. 2 Ibid., For a detailed exposition of this subject see page 175, 70 areas of similarity and conflict between Stoicism and Christ ianity? He might have endeavored to chart a course for the Christians at Rome that would incorporate the ethical values of Stoicism and yet veer away from the doctrines that would rob Christianity of the unique character of its philosophy. Then too, besides charting a course through stormy waters for the Christians, might not Paul have hoped to win some of the Stoics over by starting on common ground with them. Such a thought is entirely possible and not unworthy of the opti mism of the great Apostle. CHAPTER VI PAUL'S LETTER TO THE ROMANS At last we stand on the threshold of the letter Itself. We have tried to give a critical examination of the writer and his background, of contemporary Stoic thought, of para llels between Paul's conception of Christianity and Stoicism. Now let us examine this great treatise itself. C.H. Dodd places the time of the writing in the first quarter of the year 59 A.D. It was written from Corinth to the church at Rome to go before Paul's anticipated visit and to acquaint the Christians there with, his views of Christ ianity. He...desired the Romans to be with him whole heart- edly: how could he awaken in them the necessary sympathy and enthusiasm? Only in one way; they must be made to feel...that the message of Christ was for all mankind. It was a new religion, with an inner principle of its own, to which all men alike were able to conform... 1 Paul's purpose. The letter was a true letter. It was not an abstract theological treatise. It was formal because Paul Was not personally known to the Roman Church and could not write intimately. He was anxious for a good impression as he planned to visit the church as soon as the way opened. Natur ally he wanted to be well received. He wrote to acquaint the 1 Scott, 0£. cit., p. 160. 72 church with the nature of his teaching. He had in the past been disturbed to no end by the Judaizers who would come in and try to enforce the injunctions of the Mosaic Law upon newly converted Christians. He wrote theologically in order to state clearly his teaching. M. S. Enslin points out the enormous debt that Christ ianity in the succeeding generations owes to Paul for his clear cut determination to keep Christianity clear of the Mosaic Law. He points out three areas in which Paul cleared the way. First, he taught freedom from the Jewish Law. Second, he retained the value of Jewish morality and insis tence on purity of family life. Third, he wrote of a great fellowship, not only with the Lord, but with fellow believers.! In Rome, as elsewhere, Christianity had begun as a Jewish movement and, even in the minds of the Gentile converts, the idea persisted that it was somehow depend ent on Judaism. Paul was known to have broken with the law, and for this reason even those who admired his Christian zeal were inclined to regard him with some suspicion. ^ Of all the dangers that Paul had to endure, the Judaizers were among the worst. They were a constant worry to him. In ! Enslin, o£. cit., xii. 2 Scott, o£. cit., p. 159. 73 his letter to the Romans his battle with these opponents / is clear. Paul was un-Jewish and anti-Jewish at times in his struggle against the Judaizers. To be sure, he never admitted it— in fact, he seems never to have been conscious of it— that his way of life, including his theological conceptiôns, was un-Jewish. He thought with utter sincerity, that his way of life was Judaism as Judaism ought to be.! Paul views Judaism as a legalistic way of life that cannot be fulfilled by the man who is tormented by the de sires of the flesh. There must be another level of life than the purely legalistic. To Paul after his conversion, there was another way, it was the way of the spirit. "Paul said that a person by nature lived on the flesh level until he responded to the now providentially offered message of Jesus. Then his nature was changed'. Naturally in Paul's mind it was necessary for everyone to meet this standard of living the spirit-filled life. The Jews had missed the mark by his zealous devotion to Torah. The Gentiles missed this way of life in their search for wisdom. God, in offering his son to a world in an evil state, supplied what noth Jew and Gentile had searched for ! Riddle, o£. clt., p. 57. 2 Ibid., p. 148. 74 and had failed to find. What to do to bring the Jews to a place of realizing the inadequacy of the Mosaic Law? The answer was to explain the true meaning of the Law. To this end Paul addressed him self as far as the Jews were concerned. Paul's method was simple in content; "No one is pronounced acquitted by doing what Torah requires." and "Everyone is pronounced acquitted by faith in Christ."! Thus he disposed of Torah as the way to righteousness. Particular instances of Stoic influence. To say that Paul disposed of Torah and let it go at that is erroneous. He did retain the ethical teachings that were, as he recognized, a part of God's scheme for the world. The Stoics had a law that was written in the very being of the world. It was a moral law that produced righteous men. ' Paul knew this and wanted to retain the value of moral law and yet put Torah in its rightful place. In the second chapter Paul points out the fact that the Gentiles have a law written in their hearts that compels them to do the things that the moralistic Hebrew scriptures command. That this conception of law written in the heart of man is Stoic, is highly probably, Enslin writes. 1 Riddle, op. cit., p. 148. 75 The most important moral tem, the crowning tri umph of ethical n o m e n c l a t u r e , , conscientia, the internal, absolute, supreme judge of individual action, if not struck in the mint of the Stoics, at all events became current coin through their influence.^ It is significant to note that Paul uses the same word, cfkLtTi-s ^ conscience, that was originally Stoic. This inward law was part of the Stoic cosmology. For the Stoics all the universe was guided by a moral law that was written into all things. This law was independent of temporal change, governing the realm of national institutions. Such a principle is homogeneous with knowledge and results in self-control. Knowledge of this law leads men to accept the good, and so ensure happiness. It was a form of pantheism in which all living things participated. After death the soul of man went to be with the eternal principle of life thus losing individual identity within the whole. More of immortality developed later in Stoic philosophy, but the im portant thing here is this law that is governing the uni verse that Paul recognizes and gives place to it. The Christians at Rome were no doubt aware of the fruits of Stoicism. It is likely that many of the Christians that Paul is writing to were Stoics at one time and had developed ^ Enslin, o£. cit., p. 98, 76 an appreciation of the Stoic conception of natural law. For Paul to set aside the law (natural law as well as Torah) would not be tolerated by the Christian's who were aware of the moral values of natiiral law. For the Stoics law had an honorable and worthy history and had proven itself a part of their philosophy. The logos (reason) which had been an ethical or psychological principle to the Cynics, received at Zeno's hands an extension throughout the natural world, in which Heraclitean influence is unmistakable. Reading the Ephesian doctrine with the eyes of a Cynic, and the Cynic ethics in the light of Her'acliteanism, he came to formulate his distinctive theory of the uni verse far in advance of either. In taking this immense stride and identifying the Cynic "reason" which is law for man, with the "reason" which is the law of the uni verse, Zeno has been compared with Plato, who similarly extended the Socratic "general notion" from the region of morals--of justice, temperance, virtue--to embrace all objects of thought, the verity of all things that are. ! This is perhaps the reason that Paul in the letter to the Romans takes care to differentiate between Torah and natural law. Use of the Stoic diatribe. Another fruitful area in making comparisons between Paul's Roman letter and Stoicism is in his use of the Stoic diatribe.2 The diatribe is a short, hortatory form of address that was pe culair to the Stoic ^ Hicks, R.D., "Stoicism," Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, XXI, p. 861. 2 See page 11 for detailed definition. 77 teachers. When the Stoic philosophers would lecture to their pupils in diatribe style^ they would speak in short, direct, pointed statements. Paul in writing to the Roman Church uses this form of address intermittently: from the third through the eleventh chapters. For example in Romans 3:3 ff. : For what if some did not believe? Shall their un belief make the faith of God without effect? God for bid! ...what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? God forbid! .l^let us do evil that good may come? ...what then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise. Then again in the same chapter in the twenty-seventh verse and following: Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. Is he God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. For purposes of style compare the above quotations from Paul's letter with the following from the writings of the slave philosopher, Epictetus: How far does the proper sphere of grammar extend? As far as the judging of the language. Of music? As far as the judgment of melody. Does either of them con template itself then? By no means...how then? Do all these advantages seem small to thee? God forbid! (Dis. Book I, ch. 1.). 78 Both men in their writing ask questions that are short and terse and then answer their own questions in almost the same breath. Both use an emphatic negative that is loosely translated as "God forbid!" In his discourse on Providence, Epictetus illustrates this style in a distinct manner. And are there none at Olympia? Are you not heated? Are you not crowded? Are you not without good conven iences for bathing? Are you not wet through when it happens to rain? Do you not have uproar, and noise, and other disagreeable circumstances? But, I suppose, by comparing all these with the merit of the spectacle, you support and endure them. Y/ell, and have you not received faculties by which you may support every event (of life)? Have you not received greatness of soul? Have you not received a manly spirit? Have you not re ceived patience? What signifies to me anything that happens, while my soul is above it? What shall discon cert or trouble or appear grievous to me? Shall I neglect to use my powers to that purpose for which I received them; and shall I lament and groan at every casualty?l Thus we see the characteristic answer aspect of such writing that marks the Stoic diatribe. The question.is asked and is answered by the same speaker. With this in mind consider the following selection from the sixth chapter of Romans; What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we that ! Epictetus, The Discourses and Manual (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1916), p. 59. 79 are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Enow ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid11 A word more is in order to point out the common use of the emphatic negative that is common to the Stoic dia tribe. Epictetus says (Book II, xxiii.), "What then; does anyone dishonor the other faculties? God forbid! Does anyone assert that there is no due or excellence in the faculty of sight? God forbid!" (Book III, xxiv.) "Do you wish your children to be like him? God forbid!" For comparison examine the words of Paul when he writes (Romans 11:1), "I say then, hath God cast away his people? God forbid! (vs. 11) I saw then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid!" An examination of the foregoing should point out the similarity of literary form in Paul's writing and in the Stoic philosopher's writing. We cannot infer that Paul was writing this as a result of his early contact with Stoicism necessarily. We can say, however, that Paul was using the "coin of the realm". He was using the form of writing that was in vogue due to Stoic influence. ^ Romans 6:1-3,15. 80 It is not in the book of Romans alone that these Stoic influences are felt. We find them in Galatians and the Corinthian letters as well.^ Pauline and Stoic conception of public service. In the thirteenth chapter of Romans Paul writes: Everyone must obey the authorities that are over him, for no authority can exist without the permission of God; the existing authorities have been established by him, so that anyone who resists the authorities sets himself in opposition to what God has ordained.2 While this is from Paul it could well be Stoic dictum. For comparison consider the selection from Zeno's "Commonwealth": The perfect state embraces the whole world, so that a man says, not "I am a citizen of Athens", but "I am a citizen of the world". The laws of this state must be prescribed by nature and not by convention.^ For Zeno the laws of the state are prescribed by nature, taking a pantheistic view as he does. For Paul it is not ! For further investigation of Paul's use of the dia tribe, see: Romans 3:1,3,9,27 ff; 4:1,3; 6:1,15; 7:7,13; 8:31; 9:14; I Cor. 4:7,21; 5:12; 6:15, 7:18,27; 9:1; 10:19. II Cor. 11:21 ff., 29 ff; 12:18. Galatians 1:10; 3:19,21. For contrasts see Epictetus' Discourses, Book I, 1, 13; 2,35; 5,10; 8,15; 9,32; 11,23; 12,10; 19,7; 26,6; 28,19; 28,24; 29,9; Book II, 8,26; 23,23. Book III, 1,42; 7,4; 17,4; 23,13; 23,25; 24,10; 24,13; Book IV, 7,27; 8,26; 11,24; 11,33; 11,36. 2 Romans 13:1-2a. (Goodspeed) 3 Arnold, o£. cit., p. 861. 81 nature that determines the law of the state but God who or dains it. > After coming under Roman influence. Stoicism held it to be a man's duty to honor the established state. The Em pire in the mind of the Stoics was the.salvation of the world. Wars, both foreign and civil had weakened nearly every nation of the ancient world. When the Roman Empire took the scepter of authority, men's hearts began to beat faster with hope. Perhaps with the rise of Roman Imperialism a world that was free from fear of v/ar could be brought about. In one sense of the word this was true. Rome united, built roads, policed the seas against pirates, put down petty disturbances within her domain, and in general brought about a fairly reasonable state of affairs. Pax Romana has been hailed as the Golden Age of the ancient world. This Imperial hope was undoubtedly fostered and engineered as a political device. Poets were used and rewarded for singing it, and orators were encouraged to employ it in their public speeches. But it was more than a clever device of party manipulation. It had a natural origin and a basis in human nature and human needs.1 The Stoics looked upon government as a vital and neces ^ Ramsay, o£. cit., p. 49 82 sary part of the administration of the affairs of man. The Stoics encouraged participation in the affairs of the state. Obedience to the die turns of the state was admonished. Into this enviornment came the Christians who were taught to worship God the Father. Paul was fearful lest the church compromise itself by disloyalty to the appointed government. Such a situation would be dangerous to the church, especially at Rome. Therefore it was the duty of each and every Christian to obey those in authority for the powers that be are ordained of God. Paul's theology so differed from the Stoics* that it would hardly be true to the facts to say he gave this in junction through Stoic influence in his life. Paul gave his plea because he was fearful that the Roman government might persecute the church. History proved his fears to be well grounded in a very few years. Haustafeln. There is yet another field in which Paul's writings have a point in common with Stoicism. That is in making a catalogue of general moral exhortations. D.W, Riddle in Early- Christian Life points out the unmistakable example of the Haustafeln in Colossians 3:18-4:1. This table of household duties is conventional Stoic morality. Paul writes 85 to the Colossians: You married women must subordinate yourselves to your husbands, for that is your duty as Christians. You who are husbands must‘love your wives and not be harsh to them. Children, always obey your parents, for that is your duty as Christians. You who are fathers, do not irritate your children or they may lose heart.1 Riddle in quoting Weidinger accuses Paul of taking over the Stoic literary form (Haustafeln) and using it for his own purposes. He says Paul "Christianizes" the literary form and puts his own moral exhortations in it.2 Riddle goes yet another step and says the presence of a Haustafeln in Paul's letter is abnormal. Be this as it may, Paul was again using the "coin of the realm" when he used the table of household duties. Such a table was common to the pagan moralists and was in current use in Paul's time. Would it be unlikely that he would use a current literary form? In the opinion of the writer Paul uses the Haustafeln with intention of doing so. ! Colossians 3:18-19. (Goodspeed) 2 Riddle, op. cit., p. 56. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Paul was indeed an unusual man. Coupled with this face he was born at a time when his unusual abilities could be utilized in the extension of the church in a very profitable way. He writes that he was as "one born out of due season" (I Cor. 15:8), but viewing the scene objectively, he was the man for the job. Paul's work was to establish the Christian religion among the Gentiles. He was to be a bridge between Judaism and the forthcoming Gentile Christians. He, in a sense, had to be both Jew and Gentile to perform his unique funct ion. Summary. Paul was a Jew. He was a Jew in every sense of the word. He was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and zealous beyond words. No one could have been in such subjection to Torah as Paul was unless he were a Jew. Lest the picture become too vividly Jewish in the orthodox sense, it must be remembered that Paul was of the Diaspora. His paternal home was at Tarsus. He was of parents who were Roman citizens. His Judaism before his instruction at Jerusalem was that of the Diaspora t I i ! ■ . , ' r I 85 and not that of the Palestinian type. He took a more mys tical attitude toward the Scriptures. He used the Septua- gint, not the Hebrew Bible. Young Paul no doubt played Greek games with his young Greek companions. The love of the games was imbedded in his thinking and is found coming up again and again in his writing.! It is reasonable to suppose that the Stoic Uni versity at Tarsus made some contribution to Paul's thought- life in his formative years. The school was a political as well as cultural influence and thereby had a considerable contact with the Tarsians. While Paul presumably was too young to be a student at the university, the words of the revered Stoic philosopher Athenodorus were household words for several generations. Would it be beyond the bounds of probability to suggest that Paul as he watched Rome's legions march through Tarsus, was influenced by the culture of Rome? On the contrary, it is highly probable that he knew of the Roman gods who went with the Roman soldiery wherever they went. Not gods in the old sense of Roman household gods, but gods in the sense of pagan philosophies. Many of the Roman soldiers carried with them 1 For Paul's references to games see I Cor. 9:24-25, Ephesians 6:12, I Cor. 15:32. 86 the teachings of Mithraism wherever they went. Paul then, was influenced in his formative years by Diaspora Judaism, Greek philosophy, and Roman culture. If his teachings at the feet of Gamaliel were added, the pic ture would be conplete. .Paul with his heterodox background became the Apostle to the Gentiles. He was well qualified for this important job because of his background. James, close as he was to Hebrew ways, could never have said, "I am all things to all men that I might by all means save some."! It was Paul who Was qualified to say that. In Paul's letter to the Roman Church can we say that he was partly Stoic in his writing? It is true that there are many Stoic influences in the letter. Are these influences from Paul's background? Does he bring them forth because they are in current use in Roman, ^culture, or are they part of P aul'8 make-up ? Conclusions. It would be unfair to Paul to take him out of his contemporary setting and make great speculations as to his personal thought-life. Paul was a man who built up.a ! I Corinthians 9:22. 87 store of experiences and based his judgments on these past experiences. To say he was influenced by Stoicism would be right. He did live in an enviornment that.philosophically speaking, was Stoic- It is therefore reasonable to say that he used Stoic forms of expression and Stoic terminology. Paul differed from the Stoics in many ways, but the chief difference was in his interpretation of life. Paul, after his conversion experience on the Damascus road, looked at every plan of salvation through the glasses of faith and grace. Salvation was by faith in Jesus as Messiah. This sal vation was the gift of God through his boundless grace. Paul's theology differs from the Stoic theology. They were pantheistic, he was a theist. Paul's conception of God was that of a personal, interested Father. The Stoics con ceived of a great world soul Into which all men's souls finally went and lost their identity. This world soul is the source of all life and power. Paul's epistemology is different from the Stoics* science of knowledge. The Stoics looked upon the mind at birth as a blank tablet upon which the finger of experience writes. "Knowledge of the external Logos was obtained through the in ternal Logos (or reason) of man. 1 Arnold, o£. cit., p. 862. 88 Paul believed in Divine revelation. He looked to God for guidance. The Spirit of God revealed the will of God to men. Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.! With these basic differences before us we must not be too hasty in concluding the Stoicism of Paul. It is true that there are Stoic influences in his letter to the Romans. The use of the Stoic diatribe, Haustafeln, natural law. Stoic morality, etc., is too clear cut to be mistaken. Paul then, being the cosmopolitan, versatile man that he was, couched his message in contemporary language. He used the Stoic literary form, expressions, and terminology because it was in current use in Rome. Paul was, in every sense of the expression, "all things to all men." To the Jew he could write with an understanding of Jewish thought. To the pagan moralists, he could write as one who knew Stoicism. He was well fitted for the task that he felt was his in carrying the gospel to all men. ! I Corinthians 2:9-10. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Angus, S., The Mystery Religions and Christianity. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925. 314 pp. A historical study of the mystery religions and the contact that the Mysteries made with Christianity. Arnold, Vernon E., Roman Stoicism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 37911. 436 pp. A series of lectures on the historical development of Stoicism with special reference to its development within the Roman Empire. "Stoicism," Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. XI, 861. Cadoux, Cecil John, The Early Church and the World. Edin burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1925. See pages 78, 110, 112, 209, 239, 255, 270, 328, 330, 351, 359, 376, 525, and 543. An excellent history of the relationship between the early church and the state. Capes, W.W., Stoicism. London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1880. 251 pp. A criticism of the moralists in Stoicism. Case, Shirley Jackson, The Evolution of Early Ctoistianity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1914. 369 pp. A good study of first century Christianity and its relation to the contemporary religious enviornment. Cicero, De Re Republica, De Legibua. New York: G.B. Putnam's Sons, 1ÜÜ8. 519 pp. Translated by Clinton Walker Keyes. Davidson, William L., The Stoic Creed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907. 274 pp. A classic study of the Stoic phil osophy. The study of Stoic Logic, Physics, and Ethics is unrivaled. Davis, Charles H. Stanley, Greek and Roman Stoicism and Some of its Disciples. Boston: 190 pp. A brief history of ^Eoicism with biographical material of its leaders in Roman times. 90 Dodd, C.H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romana. New York: Harper and Brothers, .1932. 246 pp. An excellent ex position of the Moffatt Translation of the Bible. Enslin, Morton Scott, The Ethics of Paul. New York: Har per and Brothers, 1930. 335 pp. This, book contains much good material on the Stoic diatribe. A good book on Paul's ethics. Epictetus, Discourses, The Enchiridion, Fragments. Translated by Thomas Wentworth Higginson. Boston: Litile Brown and Company, 1918. 284 pp. A standard work on Epictetus. Frost, S.S., The Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers. New York: Garden CitynpuBTishing Co., 1942"% 314 pp. Fuller, B.A.G., A History of Philosophy. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1938. 659 pp. This classic work is unequaled in giving a comprehensive view of any subject in philos ophy. Goodenough, Erwin R., By Light, Light. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935. 413 pp. A study of the beginnings of Judaism, influences that colored Judaism, and an ex planation of the mystic elements in Diaspora Judaism. Goodspeed, Edgar J., A History of Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1942. 299 pp. A good study of the early Christian literature. __________, The Complete Bible, An American Translation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939. p. 142- 154. Hicks, R.D.,"Stoicism," Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, XI, 861. Holland, Frederic May, The Reign of the Stoics. New York: Charles P. Somerby, 1879. 227 pp. The history, religion, and philosophy of the Stoics with maxims of self-control, 86If-culture, benevolence, and justice. Hope, Richard,"a Comparison of the Teachings of Paul with Those of Stoicism." Unpublished Master's thesis. The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1925. 45 pp. 91 Kerr, John E., to Introduction to New Testament Study. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1892. 326 pp. Lovejoy. Ora A., "The Intorduction of Stoicism into Rome." Unpublished Master's thesis. The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1919. 100 pp. Moffatt, James, A New Translation of the Bible. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922. 1348 pp. Moore, George Foot, Judaism. Cambridge, Mass: The Harvard University Press, 1927. pp. 552. This book is unexcelled in the field of the historic rise of Judaism. Good material on the rise of Judaism beginning with Ezra and continuing on through the Diaspora. Nestle, Eberhard,K KAINK AlA^ifKgfîambrldge t The Cambridge University Press, 1904. 668 pp. Pfleiderer, Otto, Paulinism. London: Williams and Norgate, 1891. Vol. II., p. 3-38. to exposition of the original position of Paulinism towards Jewish Christianity. Ramsay, W.M., The Cities of St. Paul. New York: George H. Doran Company, 1907. 235 pp. Archaeological and historical evidences of the cities that Paul visited on his mission ary journeys. Riddle, Donald Wayne, Paul, Man of Conflict. Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1940. 224 pp. A good study of Paul's background and work in the early church. , Early Christian Life. New York: Willett, Clarke and Company, 1936. 256 pp. Seneca, Morals. (A Happy Life, Benefits, Anger, and Clemency.) New York: John B. Alden, 1884. 395 pp. Scott, Ernest Findlay, The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1936. p. 154-168. Paul's theology in Romans, his missionary interests, date and occasion of his epistle, and the form and purpose of Paul's writing. , The Varieties of New Testament Religion. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1943. 305 pp. 92 Stock, St. George, Stoicism. London: Archibald Constable and Company, 1908. 105 pp.* A study of the philosophy among the Greeks and Romans with Stoic philosophy given special examination. Thayer, Joseph Henry, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. New York: American Book Company, 1886. 727 pp? Troeltsch, Ernst, The Social Teaching of the Christian Church. New York: The Macmillan Company, XÏÏ31. Vol. I., 435 pp. _________ , Christian Thought, Its History and Application. London: The University of London Press, 1923. lV9 pp. Wenley, R.M., Stoicism and its Influence. Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1924. 171 pp. An excellent survey of the story of Stoicism: the contemporary setting of the beginnings and the influences that have continued down to the ninteenth century. Westcott, Brooke Foss, and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941. 618 pp. Weymouth, Richard Francis, The New . Testament in Modern Speech. Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1939. 712 pp. Windelband, G., A History of Philosophy. New York: The Mac millan Comp any, 19 21V Translated by James H. Tufts. Zeller, Edward, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1908. Translated by Sarah Frances Alleyne and Evelyn Abbott. Américain Standard Edition of the Revised Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1901. Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, Limited.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A historical study of Japan's religious movements in relation to the post-war era

PDF

A study of the Oxford Group movement and its influence in Southern California

PDF

An historical study of the Augsburg Confession as an influence on the creeds of certain Protestant churches

PDF

A study in the objectives of the local church

PDF

Factors in Paul's conception of value: His apprehension of the good

PDF

A sociological study of the influence of religion, education, and family in producing conscientious objection

PDF

A study of Tenrikyo: With special reference to the teaching of God and man

PDF

A social study of the Japanese Shinto and Buddhism in Los Angeles

PDF

A study of word parallelism significant to the dragon motif in the Old Testament

PDF

The historical study of religious education in Buddhism in Japan

PDF

The influence of the League of Schmalkald on the Protestant Reformation

PDF

The apostles and the Twelve: A study of the apostle-concept in the New Testament

PDF

A study in the unification of certain Protestant church denominations in the light of their historical beginnings

PDF

A study of the recreational programs of the churches in the Wilshire district of Los Angeles

PDF

A study of the influence of Essenism upon early Christianity

PDF

A study of selected teaching methods in the Old and New Testaments

PDF

A study of the use of motion pictures in the programs of certain Protestant churches

PDF

A study of the Christian Citizenship Program in certain churches in Southwest Los Angeles

PDF

Eschatological existence: The meaning of eschatology: A study of Rudolf Bultmann's understanding of eschatology in the New Testament

PDF

The growth and development of the idea perfection in historic Christianity

Asset Metadata

Creator Wright, E. V. (author)

Core Title A historical study of the Stoic influences in Paul's Letter to the Romans

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Master of Arts

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,philosophy, religion and theology

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c39-351198

Unique identifier UC11313997

Identifier EP65146.pdf (filename),usctheses-c39-351198 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP65146.pdf

Dmrecord 351198

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Wright, E. V.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA