Christianity and Greco-Roman Moral Discourse

Last updated on: August 10, 2020 at 7:41 am by Michael F. Bird

Christianity and Greco-Roman Moral Discourse 2020-08-10T07:41:49-04:00 Michael F. Bird

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Here is a guest post by Max Lee (North Park University) about his book Moral Transformation in Greco-Roman Philosophy of Mind: Mapping the Moral Milieu of the Apostle Paul and His Diaspora Jewish Contemporaries (WUNT 2. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2020).

The book will appeal to anyone interested in how early Christianity interacted with its Greco-Roman environment. I attempt something grand and ambitious here: to map the moral universe of the ancient Mediterranean world from which both Diaspora Judaism and early Christianity emerged.

It was Johan Thom (2003), a classicist at Stellenbosch University, who first described the problem and project of trying to find the interconnectedness between diverse moral topoi, or topics of mutual concern, between various religious and philosophical groups in antiquity. My book posits the thesis that moral transformation is an effective way to find internal coherence and interconnectedness between such topoi as emotional control, ethical action and habit, character formation, moral progress, training, mentorship, and deity. It develops systemic models to organize what the major philosophical schools of the Apostle Paul’s day, especially Platonism and Stoicism, taught about the transformation of a vicious soul into a virtuous or perfect person.

The book also functions as a type of handbook which gives a “big picture” view of Platonism and Stoicism as systems of philosophy. The teachings of an individual philosopher are read in their contingent, historical particularity and for how they cohere with the overall tenets of a given philosophical school. This project thus develops independent models of contingency and coherence for each Greco-Roman philosophy of mind. The method was applied by J. Christiaan Becker to Pauline theology (2000), and I have modified it for ancient philosophy.

On one hand, as Abraham Malherbe has argued, every philosopher and their treatises should be examined independently in their own contingent right (i.e., lex Maherbe). Yet, on the other hand, every philosopher of a particular school (e.g., Stoicism and Platonism) is united by one’s fidelity to the teachings of the founder (e.g., Zeno/Cleanthes/Chrysippus and Plato, respectively), and so we can also talk about ‘systems’ of a school based on the interpretation of the founder’s texts and a coherence between its different members. In my study of Platonism, I analyzed mainly the works of Plato, Plutarch, Alcinous, and Galen, and for Stoicism, Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Musonius Rufus, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Hierocles.

There are benefits to constructing systemic models for Platonism and Stoicism. Sometimes NT scholars mistakenly read Greco-Roman philosophy through the lens of their classical founders or scholarchs without understanding the areas of continuity and innovation between, for example, Plato and his Middle Platonist heirs, or between Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus with their Neostoic adherents. The danger here is interpreting or contextualizing ancient philosophical thought from the standpoint of the classical era (5th century B.C.) and missing out on the innovations made in the Greco-Roman era (1st century B.C. to 2nd century A.D.). The idea of mentoring disciples towards moral progress, for example, is a relatively new development among Roman Stoics and not originally taught by the old Stoa. Thus, the models differentiate for the reader areas of continuity and innovation in philosophy between the classical and Roman periods.

Another benefit is the synoptic picture of Greco-Roman antiquity a study of Platonism and Stoicism provides. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (2017) calls this era “the Transitional Period” during which Stoicism and Platonism dominated the moral and intellectual environment of the Roman Empire. During this period, there was considerable interaction between the two philosophical schools where the adherents of each school engaged, rejected, redefined, and appropriated select concepts from their rivals without necessarily compromising their own sectarian identity or school allegiance.

I provide a taxonomy of interaction types between rival schools of thought. I initially posit six basic types of interactions: eclecticism, refutation, competitive appropriation, irenic appropriation, concession, and common ethical usage. These can provide the basis for detecting Paul’s own interactions with concepts of “rival” philosophical and religious traditions. While Paul may not have employed all six types, the taxonomy provides a checklist of possibilities for how he may have interacted with moral discourse of a specific sect, or more widely with a common ancient ethical tradition shared between several sects.

Take, for example, competitive appropriation. This interaction type is the adoption of another school’s linguistic inventory – that is, a rival school’s technical terminology or idioms – in order to redefine and take over what these terms really mean. It is a hostile semantic commandeering of the language deployed by a rival school in order to subordinate the rival’s philosophical concepts to one’s own. Though this is still a controversial topic of debate in New Testament scholarship, some scholars (e.g., N.T. Wright, Richard Horsley, Warren Carter, among others) have argued that Paul’s anti-imperial gospel appropriates key terms of the Empire – such as κύριος or εὐαγγέλιον – and redefines them in distinctly Christian terms.

This is just one of the six basic interactions which Paul could be employing in his letters. For more suggestions, see this blog post (here). There may be more types than the six, and Paul may not utilize all the types which I catalogue in my book (e.g., I doubt that Paul exercises any form of concession to Greco-Roman moral traditions). But having a basic taxonomy gives the biblical interpreter a starting point for critically identifying Greco-Roman allusions in the New Testament. These are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and foundational but not exhaustive.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 6, 2020

Exciting New Novels set in the New Testament World

Next Post

August 12, 2020 Luke Timothy Johnson - Constructing Paul

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Bible Lands Blogosphere Book Review Calvinism Colleges & Universities Ecclesiology Emerging Adulthood Evangelicalism Foreign Affairs Gospel of John Greco-Roman World Humor Just War N. T. Wright Old Testament Resurrection Terrorism Theological Education Travel Uncategorized Writing

Select a Month September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the only female judge of Israel?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Deborah Ruth Esther Hannah

Books by This Author Books by Mike Bird

See All Titles »