Roman Stoicism / being lectures on the history of the Stoic philosophy with special reference to its development within the Roman Empire

by Edward Vernon Arnold

Common influences.

456. It is necessarily a difficult task to estimate the influence of Stoicism upon the historical development of Christianity, and it is impossible to do so without trenching upon ground which is highly debateable. Upon parallels between phrases used by Stoic and Christian writers respectively not too much stress should be laid[2]. Many of these can be traced back to common sources from which each religion drew in turn. From Persism the Stoic creed inherited much through Heraclitus, and Christianity through Judaism. The kindred doctrines of Buddhism and Cynism present themselves to our view in Christianity in the Sermon on the mount, and in Stoicism through the discourses of Epictetus. Individuals in either camp were also influenced in varying degrees by a wave of feeling in favour of asceticism and resignation which spread over the whole Greco-Roman world about this time, resulting from exaggerated attention being paid to the individual consciousness at the cost of social and political life. We should therefore endeavour to keep our eyes steadily fixed on the essential features of Stoicism rather than on its details, and inquire how these were regarded by Christian teachers in successive generations.

Progressive influence of Stoicism.

457. A starting-point is obviously afforded us by the speech of St Paul upon Mars’ hill, in which he accepts a verse from the Stoic poet Aratus[3] as a text upon which to proclaim the fatherhood of God. This Stoic doctrine (like many others to which he refers in his writings) is treated by Paul as embodying an elementary truth, and as a starting-point for fuller knowledge; from any other point of view philosophy is regarded as a snare and an imposture[4]. A generation later we find that the editor of the fourth gospel boldly places the Stoic version of the history of creation in the forefront of his work[5]. Later on in the second century we find the doctrines of the double nature of the Christ and of the variety inherent in the Deity becoming incorporated in technical Stoic forms as part of a defined Christian creed. From whatever point we regard the Stoic influence, it appears during this period as an increasing force. We shall speak of it here as the ‘Stoic strain’ in Christianity; meaning by this that a certain attitude of the intellect and sympathies, first developed in Stoicism, found for itself a home in early Christianity; that men, Stoics by inheritance or training, joined the church not simply as disciples, but to a large extent as teachers also. This point of view can perhaps best be explained by a sketch of the development of Christian doctrine as it might be regarded by fair-minded Stoics, attached to the principles of their philosophy but suspicious of its close relations with the religion of the State, and ready to welcome any new system which might appeal to their reason as well as to their moral sense.

Jesus from the Stoic standpoint.

458. A Stoic of the time of Vespasian (A.D. 69 to 79) might well be supposed to be made acquainted with the beginnings of Christianity by some Christian friend. The story he would hear would take the form of one of those ‘oral gospels’ which are now generally supposed to have preceded the shaping of the ‘gospels’ of our New Testament, and to have corresponded generally to the common parts of the first three gospels and some of the narratives of the fourth[6]. He would thus learn that the founder was a Jew named Jesus, the son of Joseph a carpenter of Nazareth[7]. This Jesus had in his childhood sat at the feet of the philosophic Rabbis of Jerusalem[8], and had learnt from them to interpret the documents of Hebraism, ‘the law and the prophets,’ in the sense of the world-religions, and by the principle of allegorism to give a new and truer meaning to such parts of them as seemed obsolete or incredible[9]. Upon reaching manhood he had been shocked to find that the general body of the Pharisees, to which his teachers belonged, was far more interested in maintaining prejudices of race and class than in boldly proclaiming principles of world-wide application; and that whilst freely avowing their own opinions amongst friends, they held it indiscreet to reveal them to the crowd[10]. After a period of prolonged reflection and inward struggle[11] he resolved on coming forward as a teacher in his own name.

The wise man.

459. At this point our Stoic would assuredly be impressed by the ‘strength and force’ of character displayed in the preaching of the young Jesus, and would so far be disposed to rank him with Socrates and with Zeno. In the content of Jesus’ teaching he would at once recognise some of the prominent characteristics of Zeno’s Republic. For Jesus too spoke of a model state, calling it the ‘kingdom of heaven’; and in this state men of all nations were to find a place. Not only the ceremonies of the old Hebrew religion, its sacrifices and its sabbaths, were to be superseded[12]; the temple itself at Jerusalem was to cease to be a place of worship[13]; the social and economic system of the Jewish people was to be remodelled; the rich were to be swept away, and the poor to enter into their inheritance[14]. Men’s prayers were no longer to be offered to the God of Abraham, but to the Father in heaven, surrounded by spirits like those of Persism, the Name, the Will, the Kingdom, the Glory and the Majesty[15]. That Jesus also spoke, after the Persian fashion, of rewards for the good and the wicked in a future existence might interest our Stoic less, but would not be inconsistent with the traditions of his own sect.

The emotions in Jesus.