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

460. Whilst recognising this strength of character and sympathizing generally with the gospel message, our Stoic could not fail to observe that the Christian tradition did not claim for the Founder the imperturbable calm which the wise man should under all circumstances possess. From time to time his spirit was troubled[16]; sometimes by Anger, as when he denounced in turn the Pharisees, the scribes, and the traders in the temple; sometimes by Pity, as when he wept over Jerusalem; by Fear, as in the garden of Gethsemane[17]; then again by Shame, as in the meeting with the woman taken in adultery[18]; and even by Hilarity, as when he participated in the marriage revels at Cana. Yet perhaps, taking the character as a whole, a Stoic would not be surprised that the disciples should remember only the sweetness, the patience, and the perseverance of their master; that they should account him a perfect man[19], attributing his faults to the weakness of the body[20], and not to any taint of soul; and finally that they should accept him as their Lord and their God[21]. For all these points of view, without being specifically Stoic, find some kind of recognition within Stoicism itself.

Mythologic Christianity.

461. But as our inquirer proceeded to trace the history of Christianity after its Founder’s death, he would soon find the beginnings of division within the Christian body. He would learn, for instance, that the Christians of Jerusalem, who even during their Master’s lifetime had been puzzled by his condemnation of Hebrew traditions, had quickly relapsed upon his death into the ways of thinking to which in their childhood they had been accustomed. They had become once more Hebrews, and even ardent advocates of an obsolete ceremonialism; and in this respect they seemed entirely to have forgotten the teaching of their Founder. But their allegiance to his person was unshakeable; and they cherished the conviction that during the lifetime of most of them he would rejoin them, and establish that earthly kingdom which in their hearts they had never ceased to covet. In view of this imminent revolution, quite as much as out of respect for the teaching of the Sermon on the mount, they encouraged their members to spend their savings on immediate necessities, and soon fell into dire poverty. To Christianity as an intellectual system they contributed nothing; ‘little children’ at heart[22], they were content to live in a perfect affection one towards another, and their miserable circumstances were cheered by visions of angels and a sense of their master’s continual presence[23]. From this company our Stoic might easily turn aside as from a band of ignorant fanatics, displaying the same simplicity and conservatism as the idol-worshippers of Rome, with the added mischief of being disloyal towards the majesty of the empire, and a possible danger to its security[24].

Philosophic Christians.

462. In startling contrast to this band of simple-minded brethren would appear the Christian propagandists whose temper is revealed to us in the latter part of the book of Acts, in the epistles of Paul, the first epistle of Peter, and the epistle to the Hebrews. These fiery preachers, equally attached to the name of their Lord, might appear to have been singularly indifferent to his person and his history, and even to have paid little heed to the details of his teaching as recorded in the oral gospels[25]. But they were entirely possessed by his secret—the transmutation of Hebraism into a world-religion; and they had an ardent desire to present it to the Roman world in a form that would win intellectual assent. Into this effort they threw their whole personality; all the conceptions which filled their minds, some of them childish and common to them with uncivilised peoples, others derived from Jewish tradition or Hellenistic philosophy, were crudely but forcibly fused in the determination to present ‘the Christ’ to the world, as the solution of its difficulties and the centre of its hopes. The outpourings of these men were as unintelligible and unsympathetic to the fraternity at Jerusalem as they are to the average church-goer to-day; only breaking out here and there into the flame of clear expression when at last some long-sought conception had been grasped[26]. Of such preachers St Paul is for us the type, and we may describe them as the ‘Paulists.’ Paul himself is self-assertive in tone, as a man may be who feels himself misunderstood and misjudged in his own circle[27]. But an ardent Stoic might well have recognised in him a kindred spirit, an intellect grappling boldly with the supreme problems, and laying the foundations of a new philosophy of life.

St Paul and Stoicism.

463. Paul was a man of Jewish descent, intensely proud of his nationality; but nevertheless brought up in the city of Tarsus, which had for centuries been a centre of Hellenistic philosophy of every type[28], and more especially of Stoicism[29]. This philosophy is to Paul’s mind entirely inadequate and even dangerous; nevertheless he is steeped in Stoic ways of thinking, which are continually asserting themselves in his teaching without being formally recognised by him as such. Thus the ‘universe’ (κόσμος), which to the Stoic includes everything with which he is concerned, and in particular the subject-matter of religion, becomes with Paul the ‘world,’ that out of which and above which the Christian rises to the ‘eternal’ or spiritual life.’ Yet this contrast is not final[30]; and whether or not the Pauline ‘spirit’ is derived from the Stoic πνεῦμα, the Pauline system, as it is elaborated in detail, increasingly accommodates itself to that of the Stoics. Our supposed inquirer would examine the points both of likeness and of contrast.

The Paulist logic.

464. The teaching of Paul was, like that of the Stoics, positive and dogmatic[31]. He accepted unquestioningly the evidence of the senses as trustworthy, without troubling himself as to the possibility of hallucinations, from which nevertheless his circle was not free[32]. He also accepted the theory of ‘inborn ideas,’ that is, of moral principles engraved upon the heart[33]; and for the faculty of the soul which realizes such principles he uses the special term ‘conscience’ (συνείδησις)[34]; conscience being described, with a correct sense of etymology and possibly a touch of humour, as that within a man which becomes a second witness to what the man says[35]. From another point of view the conscience is the divine spirit at work in the human spirit[36]. Closely associated with conscience in the Pauline system is ‘faith’ (πίστις), a faculty of the soul which properly has to do with things not as they are, but as we mean them to be[37]. The Stoic logic had failed to indicate clearly how from the knowledge of the universe as it is men could find a basis for their hopes and efforts for its future; the missing criterion is supplied by the Paulist doctrine of ‘faith,’ which may also be paradoxically described as the power always to say ‘Yes[38].’ The fraternity at Jerusalem appear to have been alarmed not so much at the principle of faith, as at the manner in which St Paul used it to enforce his own doctrines; we find them by way of contrast asserting the Academic position that ‘none of us are infallible[39].’ We may here notice that the next generation of Christians again brought the theory of faith into harmony with Stoic principles, by explaining that the power of knowing the right is strictly dependent upon right action[40].

Paulist metaphysics.