The Influence of Philosophy on Early Christianity Submitted to Dr. Jim Papandrea for Philosophy in Early Christianity an Independent Study By Carol Korak January 26, 2012 The Influence of Philosophy on Early Christianity Hellenistic philosophy is the root of Christian theology, and according to Allen and Springsted in Philosophy for Understanding Theology, Christian theology could not exist without the intellectual curiosity that was unique to ancient Greece.1 The Greeks were persistent in asking how and why questions concerning the things around them, and even about themselves. Early Christians, especially the apologists before Irenaeus, believed theology was the best philosophy at the time. The purpose of theology is to pursue and understand God’s divine revelation.2 The elements of some of the early Greek philosopher’s theories regarding creation, the soul, and salvation are reflected in the development of early Christian thought. The purpose of this paper is to explicate some of these Greek philosophies and their influence on early Christianity. The philosophers most influential for Christianity are Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, the Melesians (Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes), Heraclitus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, and Socrates. This paper will concentrate primarily on Aristotle’s and Plato’s influence on the Jewish and Christian understanding of creation, time, rational human soul, and Stoicism’s influence on Paul’s moral teachings. George Boys‐Stone, in Post‐Hellenistic Philosophy: A Study of Its development from the Stoics to Origen, identifies the time span from 100 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. as the period during which Greco‐Roman philosophy begins to have substantial influence in Jewish and Christian thought. In the First Century, Middle Stoicism is Christianity’s dominant philosophy, but it is replaced by 1 Diogenes Allen and Eric O. Springsted, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 2 ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), xvii. 2 Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 279‐80. 1 Neo‐Platonism by the middle of the third century.3 This time period is often referred to as the Transition Period in ancient philosophy. 4 What makes it unique is that during this time, most philosophers, to some degree, adopted ideas from philosophies outside of their own. According to Engberg‐Pedersen, the Stoics were more willing to show openness toward Platonism than the Platonists, who explicitly wrote against Stoicism while adopting Stoic ideas that enforced their own philosophies. This process of identifying with a primary philosophy and adding elements from others is referred to as absorption.5 There are four events which are credited as catalysts for this change. They are: 1. The First Mithradatic War (89‐85 B.C.E), which resulted in the closure of four primary philosophical schools in Athens, and meant Athens was no longer the center of philosophy in Greece 2. Andronicus of Rhodes produced an edition of Aristotle’s works circa 60‐40 B.C.E. which impacted philosophizing in the centuries to come 3. Early in the First Century C.E., Tiberius Claudius Thrasyllus produced a copy of Plato’s writings in which Plato is thought to have introduced the dividing of the dialogues into the tetralogies that are still in use today 4. In Alexandria circa 25 C.E., Eudorus of Alexandria began to transform the Stoicized Platonism of Antiochus of Ascalon (the father of Middle Platonism), as influenced by Neopathagoreanism.6 This transformation leads to Neo‐Platonism which eventually replaces Middle Stoicism as the dominating philosophy in Jewish and Christian thought. Plotinus (204‐270 C.E.) is considered to be the last of the Middle Platonic philosophers.7 However, Philo of Alexandria (cir. 45 B.E. – 45 3 George Boys‐Stone, Post‐Helenistic Philosophy: A Study of Its Development from the Stoics to Origen (Oxford: Oxford Press, 2001), v. 4 C.f. Robert M. Berchman, From Philo to Origen: Middle Platonism in Transition (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984). 5 Troels Engberg‐Pedersen, "Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transitional Period in Ancient Philosophy," in Stoicism in Early Christianity, ed. Tuomas Tasimus, Troels Engberg‐Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 4‐8. 6 Ibid., 2‐3. C.f. J. M. Dillon, "Eudorus," in The Oxford Classic Dictionary, ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996a), 565. 7 Edward Moore, "Middle Platonism," in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy(www.iep.utm.edu/midplato, 2004) (accessed 12/23/2011). This is a peer‐reviewed academic resource. 2 C.E.), who played a major role in the development of Middle Platonism, also became a significant influence in Alexandria, as can be seen in the works of both Clement of Alexandria (cir. 150‐216 C.E.) and Origen (cir. 184 – 255 C.E.).8 Although beyond the scope of this paper, I would be remiss if I did not give a brief description of the other philosophers’ contributions. The Melesians are best known for introducing the problem of the “One and the Many”, and supporting the idea that the universe was born of a craftsman.9 Heraclitus offered the logos as the means through which the balance of opposites is maintained, offers it as that which gives unity to the multiplicity of the universe, as it “runs through all opposition” to maintain balance.10 More will be said about the concept of opposites later in this paper. Parmenides gives us the definition of “to be” as a full and complete existence, forever unchangeable and therefore ontologically real.11 Pythagoras defines the [rational] soul as a divine and immortal being,12 and Socrates, as the teacher of Plato and Aristotle, provides the foundational philosophy for their understanding of creation and the soul. Creation and Time From the beginning of the written record, there is evidence that humans have pondered the creation of the cosmos and the meaning of life. The two most studied sources today are the writings of ancient Greek philosophers, and for Christians – the Bible. There are two opposing views when it comes to creation and they center on the question, “Does the universe have a beginning?” Plato and Aristotle argue that the matter from which the cosmos is constructed has 8 Engberg‐Pedersen, 3. Allen and Springsted, 11. 10 Ibid., 13. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., 14. 9 3 always existed and has no beginning; however, both have different ideas as to how the matter becomes organized. Each theory will be unpacked later in this paper. According to David M. Carr, the first sentence of the creation story in Genesis is a bit unclear as to whether matter was in existence when God began to create. He says Genesis 1:1 can be read as either an independent sentence, which summarizes what follows, or as a temporal phrase describing what it was like when God began to create.13 What is clear, however, is that God is creating order from the watery chaos through his spoken word. The story is inherited from Israel’s cultural environment and is reminiscent of the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish, but with a twist. In Genesis, God’s authority is unchallenged making it supreme. Genesis 1‐2 establishes God’s authority over all of creation, including humankind, by making clear that there is an ontological difference between creation and creator, the ousia or substantia of God is not part of creation. As we shall see, this is not the case with Aristotle’s First Cause (unmoved mover). In Genesis, the cosmos has a beginning and so does temporal time. For monotheists, anything that has a beginning is created and cannot be defined as ultimate. On the other hand, the God in Genesis has no beginning or end, and is not dependent on anything outside of it. Thus, God can be defined as ultimate.14 Aristotle’s model of creation is different both ontologically and epistemologically than the one found in Genesis, for he takes the world’s existence for granted. He is concerned with understanding the mathematical principles governing the world’s existence. He is most concerned with an object’s status in reality and he approaches this by differentiating between the potentiality and the actuality of matter: 15 13 David M. Carr, "Genesis," in New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 11. Cf. Footnote for Genesis 1:1. 14 Allen and Springsted, XV. 15 Ibid., XVI. 4 “. . . the fulfillment of what exists potentially, in so far as it exists potentially, is motion‐namely, of what is alterable qua alterable, alteration . . . It is the fulfillment of what is potential when it is already fully real and operates not as itself but as movable that is motion. What I mean by ‘as’ is this: Bronze is potentially a statue. But it is not the fulfillment of bronze as bronze which is 16 motion. “For ‘to be bronze’ and ‘to be a certain potentiality’ are not the same.” In other words, matter has potential to be something else, and it is through its attribute of motion that potentiality is converted to reality. Aristotle defines four primary forms of matter: fire, water, air and earth, and goes on to say, Further it is evident that motion is an attribute of a thing just when it is fully real in this way, and neither before or after. For each thing of this kind is capable of being at one time actual, at 17 another time not. He defines motion as: . . . the fulfillment of the movable as movable, the cause of the attribute being contact with what can move so that the mover is also acted on. The mover or agent will always be the vehicle of a form, either ‘this’ or ‘such’, which when it acts, will be the source and cause of the change, e.g. 18 the full‐formed man begets man with what is potentially man. When Aristotle claims being comes from non‐being, because of matter’s potentiality, he is claiming that being comes from this potentiality and not from what actually exists. In Book VIII of Physics, he addresses the problem of how motion can begin if the universe was or is ever at rest. In other words, motion has to have a beginning. Moreover, these things also must either have a beginning before which they had no being, or they must be eternal. Now if there was a becoming of every movable thing, it follows that before the motion in question another change or motion must have taken place in which that which was 19 capable of being moved or of causing had its becoming. He rectifies the problem by claiming that some things are movable and other things are motive, depending on condition: 16 Aristotle, "Physics," in Internet Classics Archive, ed. Daniel C. Stevenson (Web Atomics, 1994‐ 2009). http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.nb.txt (accessed 12/17/2011). 3.1. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., 3.2. 19 Ibid., 8.1. 5 So if the motion was not always in process, it is clear that they must have been in a condition not such as to render them capable respectively of being moved and of causing motion, an done or 20 other of them must have been in the process of change. . . Aristotle’s First Cause is ontologically different than what is found in Genesis, for this being is not only motive but also ontologically part of the universe. He defines the primary source of motion as locomotion. Everything that is in locomotion is moved either by itself or by something else. In the case of things that are moved by themselves it is evident that the moved and the movement are together: for they contain within themselves their first movement, so that there is nothing in 21 between. There are two types of locomotion; continuous and successive. Continuous locomotion is circular and therefore eternal. Aristotle could be opening the door here for the possibility that God, as an eternal being, is mutable. He describes successive motion as having a beginning and an end, for it is based on change.22 Based upon his understanding of nature, he concludes, there has to be a first unmoved mover, one who is unchanged by encounter, in order to explain the existence of all other motion. In order to support his idea that the universe is eternal, he also needed to prove that motion is eternal because for him time is the measure of motion. “That there never was a time when there was not motion and never will be a time when there will not be motion.”23 So it is on this claim that he also argues for an eternal First Cause. “There is something that comprehends them all, and that as something apart from each one of them, and this is the cause of the fact that some things are and others are not of the continuous process of change.”24 For Aristotle, all things in reality are, in the process of becoming. Whether it is in the beginning of becoming a reality, or in the process of degradation, matter is always in motion. 20 Ibid. Ibid., 8.2. 22 Ibid., 8.7. 23 Ibid., 8.1. 24 Ibid., 8.4. 21 6 The First Cause however is different. It is a being that has become, through its own locomotion, exalted and unchangeable, and who not in the process of becoming and is now immutable. Plato’s story of creation is found in his dialogical writing Timaeus. In the story, Timaeus, the voice of Plato, asks questions that help delineate between that which is ultimate, for which has no becoming and is unchanging. What is not ultimate is in a perpetual state of becoming. It is in many ways similar to the creation story in Genesis, but it contains no creative element, for Plato’s craftsman creates the cosmos by copying Forms which already exist in God’s mind.25 Like Aristotle, it is a story of order being made from chaos using the same four pre‐existing elements of matter (water, fire, air, and earth), but there is no creation ex nihilo. Each element consists of a combination of triangles, isosceles and scalene, which combine to form the basis of all matter.26 Order is brought about by placing limits on the irrational motion of matter to make them predictable and orderly. These limits, however, do not create forms which are identical to that found in the divine mind, but forms which only reflect those found in the divine mind because they contain variables.27 Plato’s variables are akin to Aristotle’s qualities. Like Genesis, Plato asserts that the world has a beginning, by distinguishing between creator and creation, by disseminating between necessary and contingent being. Contingent beings have a beginning and an end, and are dependent upon God for their existence. Necessary beings are eternal and self‐sufficient.28 “Created . . . being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now 29 that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause.” 25 Allen and Springsted, 3. Plato, "Timaeus," in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961). 27 Allen and Springsted, 4. 28 Ibid., xxi. 29 Plato, "Timaeus," (Project Gutenberg, 427‐347 BCE). www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1572 (accessed 12/23/2011). 88. 26 7 In Plato’s scheme, the cosmos is “framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind” by a being that is necessary (unchangeable).30 The divine mind, the realm in which Forms (eternal things) are conceived, does not exist in the sensible world. That, which is seen, by the senses in the visible world, is a reflection of these ideas. According to Plato, God creates out of goodness and generosity and not out of necessity or the result of an internal compulsion (Plotinus) to enrich himself with that which is not divine.31 Plotinus’ idea is inconsistent with Scripture. In Genesis, nothing is external to God prior to creation and nothing external prompted God to create. It is through creation that God establishes His relationship with the cosmos. Plato, in order to maintain the ontological distinction between creator and creation, the creator father creates a divine being, which he calls the Soul, as the intelligent craftsman of the cosmos. This being contains both divine and material elements, a third type of being, which has a beginning: Out of the indivisible and unchangeable, and also out of that which is divisible and has to do with material bodies, he compounded a third and intermediate kind of being, partaking of the nature of the same and of the other, and this compound he placed accordingly in a mean between the indivisible, and the divisible and material. He took the three elements of the same, the other, and the being, and mingled them into one form, compressing by force the reluctant and unsociable nature of the other into the same. When he had mingled them with the being and out of three made one, he again divided this whole into as many portions as was fitting, each portion being a 32 compound of the same, the other, and the essence. This concept of being is reflected in the later christological debates surrounding the distinction and unity of the two natures of the incarnate Christ. Order is established through the intertwining of the soul with the fundamental matter. Now when the Creator had framed the soul according to his will, he formed within her the corporeal universe, and brought the two together, and united them centre to centre. The soul, 30 31 32 Ibid. 89 Allen and Springsted, xxii. Plato, "Timaeus." 91. 8 interfused everywhere from the center to the circumference of heaven, of which also she be is the external envelopment, herself turning in herself, began a divine beginning of never ceasing and rational life enduring throughout all time. The body of heaven is visible, but the soul is invisible and partakes of reason and harmony, a and being made by the best of intellectual natures, is the 33 best of things created . . . This model has an element of panenthiesm. The father creator is so pleased with the results that he decides to make the cosmos eternal: When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still or like the original; and as this was eternal, he sought to make the universe eternal, so far as it might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting, but to bestow this attribute in its fullness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity; and this 34 image was called time. Like Aristotle, Plato’s cosmos is always in motion, but is stable and predictable in accordance with the natural laws of its design.35 Unlike Aristotle, for Plato creation is also the beginning of temporal time, and the planets and stars were created as a heavenly race and are the means through which time is measured.36 The rest of the dialogue progresses much like Genesis with the orderly creation of the day and night, of the heavens and the earth, the creatures of the sea and of the land, and finally a creature with the attribute of reason. By identifying Plato’s Forms with the divine mind, Plato’s World Soul becomes the primary influence of early Christianity’s understanding of the Logos. Plato’s divine mind only conceives objects and but does not create them, that is the work of the World Soul whose function is to order the visible universe.37 The sensible world, therefore, only expresses the 33 34 35 36 37 Ibid., 93‐4. Ibid., 94. Allen and Springsted, 3. Plato, "Timaeus.", 95‐6. Cf. See Plato’s Laws 9 marks of intelligence of the divine mind.38 The World Soul is the model Arius adopts for his pre‐ existent logos as the agent of creation. After reading Timaeus, it is also easy to see why some early Christians gravitated toward Doceticism, with its dualistic understanding of creation and the origin of the [World] Soul. Plato’s understanding of creation can be located somewhere between that of Gnostic dualism and what is found in Genesis. The Human Being and the Soul Christianity is influenced by Hellenistic understandings of the soul. Socrates is the first to associate the soul to both motion and intelligence.39 In Timaeus, three tribes of mortal beings are created by the heavenly race: plants, animals, and human beings. The members of the heavenly race (stars and planets) have a beginning and are made from the same material as that of the World Soul, which allows them to make and beget living creatures.40 This hierarchy can also be said of the natural order found in Genesis. One type of mortal being, human beings, contain a divine part, the rational soul created through the direct agency of God. It is this soul that makes human beings capable of rational thought and guides those willing to pursue justice. Plato thought that if a human being was able to live a righteous life and learn to love, this divine soul would return to the heavenly realm. If not, it would continue to “pass into a woman” to be reborn in the flesh (reincarnation).41 In this model, the soul has fallen into the sensible world ‐ its destiny. This concept is embraced by Origen and is reflected in his idea of reincarnation as 38 Plato, "Sophist," in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), 265c,e. 39 Plato, "Republic," in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), 1.353d. 40 Plato, "Timaeus.", 96‐7. 41 Ibid., 97‐8. 10 the Christian model of purification and salvation.42 Christian Gnostic mythology is also engendered in this scenario. The influence of Socrates on Plato can be found in Plato’s Phaedo, a dialogue which takes place near the end of Socrates’ life. The conversation revolves around the immortality of the soul. Socrates offers three arguments to prove his point. He begins his argument by basing it on his understanding of opposites. First, Socrates believes all opposites are generated from each other. . . . good and evil, just and unjust—and there are innumerable other opposites which are generated out of opposites. And I want to show that in all opposites there is of necessity a similar alternation; I mean to say, for example, that anything which becomes greater must become 43 greater after being less. Therefore, life is generated from death and death has to generate life: Then, suppose that you analyze life and death to me in the same manner. Is not death opposed to life? Yes. And they are generated one from the other? Yes. What is generated from the living? The dead. And what from the dead? . . . I can only say in answer—the living. Then the inference is that our souls exist in the world below? That is true. And one of the two processes or generations is visible—for surely the act of dying is visible? Surely, he said. What then is to be the result? he replied. And what is that process? Return to life. And return to life, if there be such a thing, is the birth of the dead into the world of the living? Quite true. Then here is a new way by which we arrive at the conclusion . . . that the living come from the dead, just as the dead come from the living; and this, if true, affords a most certain proof that the souls of the dead exist in some place out of which they come again. Yes, Socrates, he said; the conclusion seems to flow necessarily out 44 of our previous admissions. The soul is the source of life and therefore must be pre‐existent. According to Socrates, when the soul enters a body it forgets what it knows and has to recover the knowledge it contains. This is the goal of Gnosticism ‐ to remember the knowledge of the soul in order to return to the divine realm. 42 Lewis Ayers, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth‐Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford Press, 2004), 22. 43 Plato, "Phaedo," in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns(Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press, 1961), 70d‐72a. 44 Ibid. 11 Second, Socrates believes that unless the soul is able to remain pure during its time associated with the flesh, it will have to be reincarnated. However, if it is successful it returns to the realm of the invisible where God exists, and remains for eternity: “into the realm of purity, and eternity, and immortality, and unchangeableness.”45 Third, Socrates puts the “philosopher” on a special plane. He believes the knowledge, obtained through philosophy, allows one’s soul to go beyond reality and into the divine realm of the invisible, where the soul can contemplate the “absolutes” and gain the divine knowledge which breaks the cycle of reincarnation.46 The foundation of Socrates’ teaching on the immortality of the soul can be found in Plato’s Phaedrus, and is based on his belief that the soul is motive, “For that which is in motion is immortal . . . “47 Therefore, the soul is not only the source of life, but is also its source of motion, for in Genesis it is not until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” that “man became a living being.”48 For Socrates, the soul is immortal because it is the source of life, which means it has to be immortal, and according to his understanding of opposites, it is impossible for opposite ideas to co‐exist. For Jews and Christians, the soul is immortal because of its divine origin. The human soul (anima) is fashioned after the World Soul. It is an intelligent being which inhabits the flesh as the World Soul inhabits the cosmos, which allows it to have its being both in the invisible and visible realms. Because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, early Christians added the component of the resurrected glorified body to Socrates’ teaching of the soul’s return to the presence of God in the divine realm. Epistemology 45 Ibid., 78c‐79d. Ibid., 79d‐83c, 82c. 47 Plato, "Phaedrus," in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), 345c‐246a. 48 The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, Third ed. (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), Genesis 2:7. 46 12 Aristotle’s epistemology focuses on the principles under which the cosmos operates. What validates his claims is reason. In Genesis, the Israelites’ belief is the result of God’s self‐ revelation to Abraham. 49 The process is initiated by God and not by humanty’s desire to understand his surroundings. In Genesis, God reveals himself to Israel through the generous act of creation, and not creation itself, which coincides with that of Plato and Socrates. Creation is seen as an effect of God and is not capable of revealing His divine essence. God reveals Himself again through the Incarnation and the new Israel, the Church. During Jesus’ ministry, a glimpse of God’s nature is revealed through his teachings. According to Springsted and Allen, God’s unknowability “springs from [His] inherent nature” and an “inexhaustible fullness” that is beyond human comprehension.50 Thus, humanity can only know God by His acts that relate directly to us. Principles of Stoicism in Pauline Ethics According to Runar Thorsteinsson, the influence of Stoicism in Pauline ethics can be readily be seen in Paul’s letters to the Philippians, the Galatians, but especially in his letter to the Romans (chapters 12‐15), where he is laying out ethical guidelines for living in Christian community.51 Historically, Stoicism had been divided into three emphases: logic, physics, and ethics, but by the First Century, we are told by Cicero that ethics is the primary subject.52 Paul’s First Century Roman Stoic contemporaries were Seneca (cir. 1‐65 C.E.), Musonius Rufus (cir. 25‐ 100 C.E.), and Epictetus (cir. 55‐135 C.E.), and all were involved in the practical application of ethics.53 49 Allen and Springsted, xvii‐xviii. Ibid., xxiv. 51 Runar M. Thorsteinsson, "Stoicism as a Key to Pauline Ethics in Romans," in Stoicism in Early Christianity, ed. Tuomos Rasimus, Troels Engberg‐Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010), 15. 52 Cicero, "De Finibus," 3.6. 53 F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics, 2nd ed. (London: Duckworth, 1989), 19. 50 13 When Paul was writing his letter to the Romans (cir. 55‐58 C.E.), Seneca was serving as counselor to the young Nero. 54 Thorsteinsson argues that Paul, while proclaiming the good news, modifies the standard components of First Century Stoic ethics for a more specific application within the Christian community, and I will be offering several of those examples. First, he bases this conclusion on what he considers are clear allusions to standard Stoic terminology. For example, Paul’s use of λογικος, to define the proper way Christians are to serve God, alludes to the way Stoics describes the relations between man, as endowed with reason (λογικοι), and God as λογος.55 Second, another parallel can be seen between Seneca’s, Epictetus’ and Paul’s very similar ideas about worship. For all three, proper worship means striving to follow and imitate God, who defines that which is morally good. For Epictetus, it is guided by the “Law of Zeus;”56 and for Seneca it meant wholly devoting one’s self to a particular way of life and world view: The honor that is paid to the gods lies, not in the victims for sacrifice, though they be fat and glitter with gold, but in the upright and holy desire of the worshippers. Good men, therefore, are pleasing to the gods with an offering of meal and gruel; the bad on the other hand, do not escape 57 impiety although they dye the altars with streams of blood. In Romans 12:1, Paul teaches that proper worship no longer requires a literal sacrifice of their bodies, but that they should live their lives as an embodiment of God’s will and ways in the world. Third, there is a similarity between the importance Stoicism puts on the necessity for the transformation of the mind, as the necessary foundation for moral living, and Paul’s call for transformation through the renewal of the mind in Romans 12:2.58 According to Seneca, “One who has learned and understood what he should do and avoid, is not a wise man until his mind 54 55 56 57 58 C.f. M. T. Griffin, Nero: The End of a Dynasty (London: Bastford, 1984), 67‐82. Ibid., 22‐3. Epictetus, "Dissertationes," 1.30.4‐5; 2.14.12‐13;2.17.23‐5. Seneca, "De Beneficiis," 1.6.3. Thorsteinsson, 24‐5. 14 is metamorphosed into the shape of that which he has learned.”59 In other words, for both Seneca and Paul, living transformed lives is confirmation of intellectual transformation. The difference between the two is that for Paul it begins with a spiritual transformation, that takes place through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Fourth, First Century Stoic ethics is centered on the four traditional virtues ‐ prudence (φρονσις), moderation or self‐control (σοφρουνη), justice (δικαιοσυνη), and courage (ανδρεια).60 Seneca claims the primary purpose of philosophy is to offer direction to people, within society, to achieve a society in which unity and mutual care for one another is prevalent.61 According to Runar Thorsteinsson, Paul’s call for humilityness and moderation (Romans 12:1‐6) from members of the body of Christ, and his emphasis on individual gifts and function given by God for the benefit of the whole, coincides with First Century ethical Stoicism.62 In addition to this, Paul’s description of the Christ as the head the church, and the Church as its body, is analogous to the one used by Seneca that describes Nero, as the head of the empire, and calls for its citizens to act with humilityness, moderation and love toward one another.63 Seneca writes: What if the hands should desire to harm the feet, or the eyes the hands? As all the member of the body are in harmony with another because it is to the advantage of the whole that the individual members be un harmed, so mankind should spare the individual man, because all are born for a life of fellowship, and society can be kept unharmed only by the mutual protection and 64 love of its parts. 59 Seneca, "Epistulae Morales," 94.47‐8. Thorsteinsson, 26. C.f. J. E. Annas, The Morality of Happiness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 73‐84. 61 Seneca, "Epistulae Morales," 5.4. 62 Thorsteinsson, 26. 63 Seneca, "De Clementia," 1.21.4; 1.11.2; 1.4.3; 1.5.1. 64 Seneca, "De Ira," 2.31.7. 60 15 These metaphors not only share share parallel language and form, but the underlying principles of these metaphors are the same: 1) they illustrate that the whole is dependent upon its parts; and 2) they each teach the Stoic principle of universal humanity – every human being is sacred. Paul’s call in Romans 12:14 to bless those who persecute you, also reflects Stoic teaching. This raises the question as to whether or not Paul’s teachings may have their roots in the teachings of Jesus. Stanley Stowers points out, however, that if Paul knew that Jesus had such a teaching, he does not use either the idea that Jesus was a teacher of ethics even though the later teachings found in Matthew and Luke would later overlap with his own teachings.65 Both Epictetus and Musonius argue against revenge, and in Epictetus’ case he even calls for compassion.66 Fifth, in Romans 13:8‐10, Paul reiterates many of the commandants given to Moses which speak toward living in community, but emphasizes the importance of love towards one’s neighbor as fulfilling the law. This coincides with Seneca’s moral teaching, which says that one must live for one’s neighbor, [as] if one would live for one’s self.67 Putting the needs of others on the same level of urgency as one’s self also helps to affirm the sacredness of all of humanity. Lastly, the Stoic understanding of indifferent things might explain Paul’s reasoning for maintaining one’s condition or circumstance in I Corinthians: However that may be, let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything. Let each of you remain in the 68 condition in the condition in which you were called. 65 Stanley K. Stowers, "Jesus the Teacher and Stoic Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew," in Stoicism in Early Christianity, ed. Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg‐Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010), 59. 66 Thorsteinsson, 29. C.f. Epictetus, 3.22.54. Musonius Rufus, "Fragment 41.136." 67 Seneca, "Epistulae Morales," 48.2; 95.52. 68 The New Oxford Annotated Bible, I Cor. 7:17‐20. 16 Paul’s reasoning may also be based on his belief that the Parousia would occur during his lifetime. In Discourses, Epictetus divides “things” into two categories: things that are within our control and those that are not.69 Included in the category of those things that are within our control are: conception, choice, desire, aversion, or anything else that is our own doing. According to Huttunen, the goal of Epictetus’s philosophy is to live a life of serenity.70 Epictetus categorizes things, which are not within our control, as either “external things” or “materials.”71 He considers “external” or “material” things as indifferent because he believes that it is discernment which leads to our judgment on external things, and not the things themselves.72 Based on this definition, Paul categorizes a person’s social situation as an indifferent thing, and therefore not relevant. For Huttunen, when this concept is applied to I Corinthians 7:21‐2, it confirms that Paul indeed shares Epictetus’ Stoic theory of values: external things are indifferent. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. He also points out that Stoic ethical theory, as an interpretative tool, is rarely offered in commentaries on this verse.73 Conclusion: Many of the elements and principles found in ancient Greek philosophy were embraced by early Jewish and Christian theologians, as they worked to understand who God is, as revealed in creation and His interactions with humankind. The ancient Greeks are responsible for asking 69 Niko Huttunen, "Stoic Law in Paul?," in Stoicism in Early Christianity, ed. Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg‐Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic), 42. 70 Ibid. 71 Epictetus, 1.29.2. 72 Ibid., 2.5.1. 73 Huttunen, 44‐45. 17 the why and how questions from which the concepts of creator, creation, time, the know‐ability of God, moral codes, and the human soul were developed, but there are many important differences between what they conclude in their original context according to how these concepts are used in Christian thought. Even though written after Genesis, Plato’s model of creation and time offers the best fit for the creation story found in Genesis 1‐2. Although beyond the scope of this paper, one has to ask the question – Was Plato influenced by Moses? First, Plato’s model offers an ontological distinction between creator and creation by distinguishing between necessary and contingent beings, and defining necessary beings as eternal and self‐sufficient. Aristotle’s First Cause is ontologically the same as that found in the material world. Second, Plato agrees with Genesis that time begins with creation, not so with Aristotle. Aristotle claims the cosmos is eternal based on his theory of eternal motion. Third, both Genesis and Plato claim, unlike Aristotle, creation was conceived through reason by a divine mind. Remember, Aristotle believes creation is the result of the interaction of matter, based on a potential to become different realities resulting from collision happening because of matter being in motion. Genesis and Plato disagree, however, on the existence of matter prior to creation, because Plato, like Aristotle, believes matter is eternal. The Genesis story promulgates nothing existed prior to creation. In other words, God creates ex nihilo. Fourth, the order of creation in Timaeus is quite similar to what is found in Scripture, even though creation does not take place through the spoken word. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Plato’s [World] Soul, created as an intermediary between creator and creation, is the concept that is adapted (Gospel of John) by early Christianity for understanding the Logos as the agent of creation. Plato’s intelligent craftsman creates the cosmos, based on ideas in the Divine Mind, by using existing material. Arius later adopts the [World] Soul as the pre‐existent 18 Christ for his adoptionist theology, which is truer to Plato’s understanding. Also, Plato’s [World] Soul is a being containing both divine and material elements. This concept is a forerunner to the two‐nature christology orthodoxy adopted in the Fourth century. This connection would not have been made without the work done by Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria as he tried to reconcile Jewish Scripture with the Platonic understanding of God. Philo took his belief that God acted through intermediaries, including the Logos, and identified it with Plato’s Forms based on Aristotle’s two spheres of being – qualified and unqualified.74 Socrates, being the first to associate the soul to both motion and intelligence, lays the foundation for several different arguments supporting the eternity and immortality of the soul. Aristotle’s theory of motion is not used by Judaism, or the Early Church, as part of their understanding of creation or the human soul. On the other hand, Plato understands the [rational] soul as a divine element and the source of life, which is fully embraced by both Judaism and Christianity. According to Genesis 2, the soul, as the source of life, is received as God breathes life into the form made from the dust. Therefore, humanity is created containing both divine and material elements, and has the ability to create just like Plato’s craftsman. Socrates is also considered the original source for Origen’s soteriology of reincarnation and theology of eternal creation, and supports Gnosticism’s soteriology, which requires the soul to “remember” what it has forgotten in order to return to the divine realm. Another concept that is most helpful for early Christianity is the concept of opposites. In Phaedo the idea that life is generated from death and death generates life, is foundational for Christian baptism and resurrection. 75 Through the Sacrament of baptism, it is believed that one dies to the self and is 74 C.f. See page 15 of my thesis, Created or Uncreated: The Influence of Philosophy and Cultural Normatives on the Development of Opposing Interpretations of Christ as Logos Leading up to Nicaea. 75 Luke 9:23‐4, John 12:24‐7. 19 raised into new life in the Spirit; and through Christ’s death and resurrection, believers, when their time of earth ends, pass from mortality to immortality through the promise of eternal life. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, uses many of the principles found in First Century Ethical Stoicism, especially as taught by Paul’s contemporary, Seneca. This allows Paul to use terminology and concepts, which are already familiar to his audience, as a model for living in Christian community. For both, the community is to be centered on worship, which for the Romans is to be accomplished through the embodiment of God’s will and ways in the world, as revealed through Jesus Christ. Transformation of the mind is also an important part of both Stoicism and Christianity, because for both, the embodiment of unity and moral living can only be accomplished when the mind forgets its selfish ways and lives for the care and love of others. Both the Stoics and the Early Church realized that transformation of the mind, which is confirmed through the living of a transformed life, is one reason why, by the Second Century, new converts to Christianity had to live as catechumens for 1‐2 years before they could be baptized. Living a transformed life proved one was living into their faith. Stoicism and Paul’s message in Romans, as well as in I Corinthians and Galatians, serves to give the same direction to society through the traditional virtues of prudence, humility, self‐control, justice and courage. Lastly, it is hard to believe that the metaphors used by Seneca and Paul were coincidental. Given Paul’s late in life conversion, one feels compelled to conclude that Paul was not the originator of the concept. During Paul’s travels throughout the Roman Empire, he could have encountered it and saw its value for life in Christian communities. As demonstrated, the influence of Greek and Jewish philosophy in the development of Christian Theology cannot be ignored. The early Church theologians used the principles and concepts offered by these 20 philosophers as they strove to understand the meaning of their experience of the incarnation, the work it accomplished, and its meaning for humankind. 21 Works Cited Allen, Diogenes, and Eric O. Springsted. Philosophy for Understanding Theology. 2 ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Annas, J. E. The Morality of Happiness. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Aristotle. Physics Internet Classics Archive, edited by Daniel C. Stevenson: Web Atomics, 1994‐ 2009. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.nb.txt (accessed 12/17/2011). Ayers, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth‐Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford Press, 2004. Berchman, Robert M. From Philo to Origen: Middle Platonism in Transition. Chico: Scholars Press, 1984. Boys‐Stone, George. Post‐Helenistic Philosophy: A Study of Its Development from the Stoics to Origen. Oxford: Oxford Press, 2001. Carr, David M. "Genesis." In New Oxford Annotated Bible, edited by Michael D. Coogan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Cicero. "De Finibus." Dillon, J. M. "Eudorus." In The Oxford Classic Dictionary, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996a. Engberg‐Pedersen, Troels. "Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transitional Period in Ancient Philosophy." In Stoicism in Early Christianity, edited by Tuomas Tasimus, Troels Engberg‐Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg, 1‐14. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. Epictetus. "Dissertationes." Griffin, M. T. Nero: The End of a Dynasty. London: Bastford, 1984. Huttunen, Niko. "Stoic Law in Paul?" In Stoicism in Early Christianity, edited by Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg‐Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg, 39‐58. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. McKim, Donald K. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. Moore, Edward. Middle Platonism. 1/9/2004 ed. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: www.iep.utm.edu/midplato, 2004. (accessed 12/23/2011). The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Third ed., Edited by Michael D. Coogan. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. 22 Plato. Timaeus: Project Gutenberg, 427‐347 BCE. www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1572 (accessed 12/23/2011). ________. "Phaedo." In The Collected Dialogues of Plato, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press, 1961. ________. "Phaedrus." In The Collected Dialogues of Plato, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961. ________. "Republic." In The Collected Dialogues of Plato, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961. ________. "Sophist." In The Collected Dialogues of Plato, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961. ________. "Timaeus." In The Collected Dialogues of Plato, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961. Rufus, Musonius. "Fragment 41.136." Sandbach, F. H. The Stoics. 2nd ed. London: Duckworth, 1989. Seneca. "De Beneficiis." ________. "De Clementia." ________. "De Ira." ________. "Epistulae Morales." Stowers, Stanley K. "Jesus the Teacher and Stoic Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew." In Stoicism in Early Christianity, edited by Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg‐Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg, 59‐92. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. "Stoicism as a Key to Pauline Ethics in Romans." In Stoicism in Early Christianity, edited by Tuomos Rasimus, Troels Engberg‐Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg, 15‐38. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010. 23