Paul and Stoicism December 3rd 2012 Ben Woodring

In this paper, Ill be exploring the possible influence that Hellenistic philosophy, specifically, Stoicism, may or may not have had on the apostle Paul. First, I will offer a short description of Stoic thought. Then we will explore one of the words or concepts that both Stoicism and Pauls corpus have in common and whether or not the use of this word or concept constitutes a borrowing or influence on Pauls part. We will then look more deeply at a particular text in Pauls corpus and explore how our reading of this text might be shaped by a Stoic influence. Finally, we will attempt to come to a conclusion about the possibility of such influence, and discuss the effects this influence might have on our views of the development of Christianity. To begin, it is of first importance that we have a short introduction to Stoicism so that we may better identify its features in our exploration of Paul. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Stoic doctrine is divided into three parts: logic, physics, and ethics. Stoicism is essentially a system of ethics which, however, is guided by a logic as theory of method, and rests upon physics as foundation. Briefly, their notion of morality is stern, involving a life in accordance with nature and controlled by virtue. It is an ascetic system, teaching perfect indifference (apathea) to everything external, for nothing external could be either good or evil. Hence to the Stoics both pain and pleasure, poverty and riches, sickness and health, were supposed to be equally unimportant.1

"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Stoicism. June 18, 2008. http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism.

It would be helpful, then, to give a short description of the Stoic conception of these three parts of their doctrine. First is Stoic logic, All knowledge, they said, enters the mind through the senses. The mind is a blank slate, upon which sense-impressions are inscribed Since all knowledge is a knowledge of sense-objects, truth is simply the correspondence of our impressions to things. How are we to know whether our ideas are correct copies of things? The Encyclopedia goes on to conclude that for the Stoics the sole criterion of truth is this striking conviction, whereby the real forces itself upon our consciousness, and will not be denied. There is, thus, no universally grounded criterion of truth. It is based, not on reason, but on feeling.2 Secondly, the physics of Stoicism: The fundamental proposition of the Stoic physics is that nothing incorporeal exists.3 In this sense, the Stoics were materialists. However, they still believed in a God, simply put, they believed that God the Stoics declared that God is absolute reason. This is not a return to idealism, and does not imply the incorporeality of God. For reason, like all else, is material.4 God, in Stoicism was a kind of divine fire, and, The human soul is part of the divine fire, and proceeds into humans from God. Hence it is a rational soul, and this is a point of cardinal importance in connection with the Stoic ethics.5 This leads directly into the Stoic view of ethics. The Stoic ethical teaching is based upon two principles already developed in their physics; first, that the universe is governed by absolute law, which admits of no exceptions; and second, that the essential nature of humans is reason. Both are summed up in the famous Stoic maxim, Live according to nature. For the Stoic,

2 3

Ibid. Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.

Virtue, then, is the life according to reason. Morality is simply rational action. It is the universal reason which is to govern our lives, not the caprice and self-will of the individual.6 Now that weve given a summary of Stoicism, we can move on to an examination of some of the terminology that Paul and the Stoics have in common. The two words I want to look at are, conscience, logos, and determinism. Conscience, in Greek, or, conscientia, among the Roman Stoics, is a common part of Stoic philosophy, Marietta, in his helpful article Conscience in Greek Stoicism, suggests that: The Hellenistic concern for ethics and the individual's inner attitudes fostered the development of the concept of conscience. The term syneidesis and its cognates were used in reference to both ethical and non ethical matters. The Greeks did not distinguish between conscience and consciousness as speakers of English do. The ethical and non-ethical aspects (which are distinguished by the English word "conscience") were conveyed by the same word, and only the context indicated the moral quality of the object of the consciousness.7 The suggestion is, that this usage of the word is exactly what Paul has in mind when he is writing, in fact, Gilbert goes as far as to say: But practically far more important was Paul's introduction into Christian thought of the Greek (Stoic) conception of "conscience" (). The term is found in the New Testament only in Paul's letters, in Hebrews, and I Peter. In Paul's use, which "corresponds accurately to that of his Stoic contemporaries," the word has a somewhat wider significance than our "conscience" (e.g., I Cor. 8:8-10; comp. I Cor. 4:4), yet in general it has an ethical sense and denotes the faculty or power of judging the moral quality of actions (Rom. 2:15; I Cor. 10:29). Through this one

6 7

Ibid. Marietta, Don E. "Conscience in Greek Stoicism." Numen 17, no. 3 (December 01, 1970): 176-87. doi:10.1163/156852770X00027.: 178.

term Paul has made us heirs of one of the noblest achievements of Greek thought.8 Now, Gilbert is writing in 1909, so the question presents itself, where does modern scholarship stand on this question? In Gaffneys Matters of Faith and Morals, we see the assertion reiterated in 1987, he states: Only in the Wisdom of Solomon do we find a plain case of suneidesis meaning conscience, and the strongly Hellenistic character of that work only confirms a supposition that the idea of conscience is a legacy from Greece. That supposition is reinforced by the New Testament, where it is entirely absent from the Gospels but present thirty times in other, especially Pauline, writings.9

It would be appropriate now to examine some of Pauls uses of suneidesis and examine them in light of what we now know about the word, and its usage in Stoic thought, to see if there is conflict, or not. The first passage Id like to examine is 1 Corinthians 8:711: However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience (suneidesis), being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idols temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience (suneidesis) is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 10 Here, Paul argues that eating meat offered to idols, for one whose conscience does not forbid him, is acceptable, however, if a Christian brother, whose suneidesis is weak will be compelled to fall because the stronger brother has exercised his Christian liberty.

Gilbert, George Holley. "The Greek Element in Paul's Letters." The Biblical World 33, no. 2 (February 1909): 11322.: 116. 9 Gaffney, James. Matters of Faith and Morals. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1987.: 117. 10 1 Cor 8:7-11 (ESV)

It seems, that this usage by Paul of suneidesis does in fact fit within the semantic range of the Stoic understanding, which could be thought of as