Jesus as philosopher: the moral sage in the synoptic gospels runar m. thorsteinsson - The ebook is r

https://ebookmass.com/product/jesus-as-philosopher-themoral-sage-in-the-synoptic-gospels-runar-m-thorsteinsson/

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you

Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels 1st Edition Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll (Eds.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-synopticgospels-1st-edition-stephen-p-ahearne-kroll-eds/

ebookmass.com

All that Jesus Commanded: The Christian Life According to the Gospels John Piper

https://ebookmass.com/product/all-that-jesus-commanded-the-christianlife-according-to-the-gospels-john-piper/

ebookmass.com

The Relationship Between the Ministry of Jesus and that of John the Baptist Recorded in the Four Gospels Paul C. Jong

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-relationship-between-the-ministryof-jesus-and-that-of-john-the-baptist-recorded-in-the-four-gospelspaul-c-jong/ ebookmass.com

Narratives of Migration, Relocation and Belonging: Latin Americans in London 1st ed. Edition Patria Román-Velázquez

https://ebookmass.com/product/narratives-of-migration-relocation-andbelonging-latin-americans-in-london-1st-ed-edition-patria-romanvelazquez/ ebookmass.com

Plant Micronutrient Use Efficiency: Molecular and Genomic Perspectives in Crop Plants 1st Edition Mohammad Anwar Hossain

https://ebookmass.com/product/plant-micronutrient-use-efficiencymolecular-and-genomic-perspectives-in-crop-plants-1st-editionmohammad-anwar-hossain/

ebookmass.com

eBook Online Access for Organic Chemistry 5th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-online-access-for-organicchemistry-5th-edition-ebook-pdf/

ebookmass.com

Cowboy Firefighter Christmas Kiss Kim Redford

https://ebookmass.com/product/cowboy-firefighter-christmas-kiss-kimredford-2/

ebookmass.com

Oswaal CBSE Sample Question Papers Class 10 Social Science Book (For 2023 Exam) 25 September 2022 Edition Oswaal Editorial Board

https://ebookmass.com/product/oswaal-cbse-sample-question-papersclass-10-social-science-book-for-2023-exam-25-september-2022-editionoswaal-editorial-board/

ebookmass.com

Mixed-Phase

Clouds Observations and Modeling Constantin Andronache

https://ebookmass.com/product/mixed-phase-clouds-observations-andmodeling-constantin-andronache/

ebookmass.com

Shoot the Bastards Michael Stanley

https://ebookmass.com/product/shoot-the-bastards-michael-stanley/ ebookmass.com

JESUSASPHILOSOPHER

JesusasPhilosopher

TheMoralSageintheSynopticGospels

RUNARM.THORSTEINSSON

GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom

OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©RunarM.Thorsteinsson2018

Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2018

Impression:1

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove

Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer

PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable

LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017961183

ISBN978–0–19–881522–8 Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY

Acknowledgements

Thisstudyisthemainresultofaresearchprojectinitiatedatthe CentreforTheologyandReligiousStudiesatLundUniversityin 2011.Theprojectwas financedbytheSwedishResearchCouncil (Vetenskapsrådet).IamgratefultotheCouncilforthisopportunity, aswellastotheCentreforTheologyandReligiousStudiesatLund Universityforprovidingmewiththenecessarylocusandtoolsto workontheproject.IamalsogratefultotheTheologicalResearch InstitutionattheUniversityofIceland(GuðfræðistofnunHÍ)fora grantenablingalinguisticrevisionofthestudy.IthankAnnaBenassi forgreatlyimprovingitslanguage.Needlesstosay,anyerrorsthat remainaremyown.

IwishtoexpressmygratitudetotheSeniorNewTestamentSeminar atLundUniversityforcommentingonChapter4aswellasonthe projectasawholeatitsverybeginning.IalsowishtothanktheSenior NewTestamentSeminarattheUniversityofCopenhagenforahelpful discussionofChapter3.IamparticularlygratefultoTroelsEngbergPedersenfordetailedcommentsonthatchapter.Igivemythanksto theFacultyofTheologyandReligiousStudiesattheUniversityof Icelandforgivingmetheopportunitytocontinuetoworkonthe project,andforgrantingmeresearchleaveduringtheautumnof 2016tocompleteit.

Finally,IamdeeplygratefultoOxfordUniversityPressforacceptingthisworkforpublication.IwishtothankthestaffofthePressfor workingwithmetocompletethework.Iamthankfulaswelltothe anonymousreadersforthePresswhocommentedonthe finaldraft andmademanyhelpfulsuggestions.

Iwishtodedicatethisbooktomymother,RutMeldalValtýsdóttir.

RunarM.Thorsteinsson

Reykjavik June2017

ABAnchorBible

Abbreviations

ABRLAnchorBibleReferenceLibrary

ANRWAufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt:Geschichteund

KulturRomsimSpiegelderneuerenForschung. Editedby H.TemporiniandW.Haase.Berlin/NewYork,1972–

ANTCAbingdonNewTestamentCommentaries

BNTCBlack’sNewTestamentCommentaries

CBETContributionstoBiblicalExegesisandTheology

CQClassicalQuarterly

ECEarlyChristianity

FRLANTForschungenzurReligionundLiteraturdesAltenundNeuen Testaments

HDRHarvardDissertationsinReligion

HSCPHarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology

ΗΝΤ HandbuchzumNeuenTestament

HTKNTHerderstheologischerKommentarzumNeuenTestament

HTRTheHarvardTheologicalReview

ICCInternationalCriticalCommentary

JBLJournalofBiblicalLiterature

JRTheJournalofReligion

JSNTSupJournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament:SupplementSeries

JTSTheJournalofTheologicalStudies

KNTKommentartillNyatestamentet

LCLLoebClassicalLibrary

LNTSTheLibraryofNewTestamentStudies

LSJLiddel,H.G.,R.Scott,H.S.Jones,AGreek–EnglishLexicon.

9thednwithrevisedsupplement.Oxford,1996

NCBCNewCenturyBibleCommentary

NIGTCNewInternationalGreekTestamentCommentary

NovTNovumTestamentum

NovTSupSupplementstoNovumTestamentum

NRSVNewRevisedStandardVersion

NTSNewTestamentStudies

OSAPOxfordStudiesinAncientPhilosophy

SBLABSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureAcademiaBiblica

SBLDSSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureDissertationSeries

SBLSBSSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureSourcesforBiblicalStudy

SCHNTStudiaadcorpushellenisticumNoviTestamenti

x Abbreviations

SNTSMSSocietyforNewTestamentStudiesMonographSeries

STACStudienundTextezuAntikeundChristentum/Studiesand TextsinAntiquityandChristianity

SVFStoicorumveterumfragmenta.H.vonArnim.4vols.Leipzig, 1903–24

TDNTTheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament. EditedbyG.Kittel andG.Friedrich.TranslatedbyG.W.Bromiley.10vols.Grand Rapids,1964–76

ThHThéologieHistorique

THKNTTheologischerHandkommentarzumNeuenTestament

TLNTTheologicalLexiconoftheNewTestament.C.Spicq.Translated andeditedbyJ.D.Ernest.3vols.Peabody,MA,1994

WBCWordBiblicalCommentary

YCSYaleClassicalStudies

ZNWZeitschriftfürdieneutestamentlicheWissenschaft

Introduction

PurposeandApproach

ThewordsofSocrates,forsomestrangereason,stillendureand willendureforalltime,thoughhehimselfdidnotwriteorleave behindhimeitheratreatiseorawill.

(DioChrysostom, Or.54.4)

THEPURPOSEANDAIMOFTHESTUDY

Largelyduetotheage-oldJudaism/Hellenismdivideandthedistinctiontraditionallymadebetweentheologyandphilosophy,Jesusof Nazareth,asaJewand ‘sonofGod’,isusuallyassociatedwithJewish/ theologicalasopposedtoHellenistic/philosophicalthoughtandway oflife.Recentresearchhasshownthatthis ‘Jerusalemvs.Athens’ distinctionishighlymisleadingandresultsinsomeveryunfortunate invitationstoanachronism.LongbeforethetimeofJesus,largeareasof Palestine/Israel/JudeaweredeeplyinfluencedbyHellenisticthought andwayoflife,asweremostareasaroundtheMediterranean,andthe distinctionbetweentheology(orreligion)andphilosophyisbyand largeamodernphenomenon,virtuallyalientotheancients.However, whilemany,ifnotmost,NewTestamentscholarswouldprobablyagree withthesenewinsights,fewhavefullybroughtthemintoplaywith respecttothepersonofJesus.Asliterature,mostoftheNewTestament writingshavebeenwellstudiedintheirGraeco-Romancontext,but whenitcomestotheportrayalofJesushimselfinthesewritings, especiallyintheSynopticGospels,thescholarlylandscapeprovesto bequitedifferent.Itappearsthatthecloseronegetstothepersonof Jesus,thestrongerthegripofthetraditionalJudaism/Hellenismdivide

2 JesusasPhilosopher

andthestrongerthedenialthatearlyChristianityhadanythingtodo withphilosophy.

Tobesure,therearesomevaluablestudiesavailablerelatedtothe subjectofJesusandancientphilosophy,butthesearerelativelyfew andsomeofthemrestonratherweakmethodologicalfoundations. TheproblemfacingNewTestamentscholarshipinthisareaisprimarilyhermeneuticalandhastodowiththeperspectiveandmindset oftheinterpretersthemselveswhocarryout(ordonotcarryout)the research.DespiteallscholarlywillingnesstomovebeyondthetraditionalJudaism/Hellenismdivide,thereisstillagreatreluctance amongscholarstobringphilosophyinasarelevantaspectofNew Testamentexegesis.Andsomeofthosewhodobringinphilosophyas suchseemratheruncertainabouthowexactlytoapproachthesubject.Arecentbookentitled JesusandPhilosophy (2009)mirrorsthis problemwell:inhisprefacetothebook,theeditorrightlystatesthat ‘nosubstantialscholarlybookhasbeendevotedtothetopicofJesus andphilosophy’ . 1 Theeditortheninformshisreadersthatthis particularbook ‘fillsthisgapintheliteratureofphilosophy’ and ‘offerswide-rangingsubstantialcoveragethatwillbeofinterestto philosophersandtootherreaders,includingscholarsandstudentsin theology,religiousstudies,andhistory’.Andyet,outof fivechapters thatdealwith ‘Jesusinhis first-centurythoughtcontext’,including thegeneralintroductionofthebook,onlytwochaptersreallydiscuss thetopicofJesusandphilosophy.2 Somewhatironically,noteventhe editor’s(primarilyhistoricallyoriented)introduction,entitled ‘Introduction:JesusandPhilosophy’,dealswiththequestion itcontains muchaboutJesus,butnotmuchaboutJesus andphilosophy. 3 Thereis clearlyaneedforfurtherresearchinthisneglectedaspectofearly Christianity,researchthatisopen-mindednotonlytowardsa ‘theologicalJesus’ butalsotowardsa ‘philosophicalJesus’ . Themainpurposeandaimofthepresentstudy,then,istomake somecontributiontosuchresearchbyexaminingthewaysinwhich earlyChristianauthorsmayhaveassociatedJesusofNazareth/Jesus

1 PaulK.Moser(ed.), JesusandPhilosophy:NewEssays (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,2009),vii.

2 ThetwochaptersarethoseofLukeTimothyJohnson(seesection ‘WhatIs AddressedandWhatIsNot?’)andPaulW.Gooch(whodealswiththeapostle Paul’sunderstandingofChrist).

3 PaulK.Moser, ‘Introduction:JesusandPhilosophy’,in JesusandPhilosophy: NewEssays (ed.P.K.Moser;Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009),1–23.

Christwithcontemporaryphilosophicalschoolsand figuresandused suchassociationstopersuadetheiraudiencethatJesuswasnotonly onaparwiththesephilosophical figures,butalsosuperiortothem: thatJesuswasineverywaytheidealhumanbeing.Thestudy concernsbothwhatJesusdidandwhathesaid(orissaidtohave said).Ratherthansimplyservingasinterestingparallels,theGraecoRomantextsreferredtoanddiscussedareprimarilyusedasameans tobetterunderstandtheGospels’ portraitofJesus.Themainfocusof attentionispointedattheinterpretationoftheSynopticGospels themselves.Tothebestofmyknowledge,thereisnothorough studyavailabletodaythatdealswiththesubjectunderdiscussionas definedinthenextsection.4

WHATISADDRESSEDANDWHATISNOT?JESUS OFTHEGOSPELSANDTHEHISTORICALJESUS

ButthereisanotherproblemfacingNewTestamentscholarshipin thisrespect,inadditiontotheunderlyinghermeneuticalproblem. Thereisalsoamethodologicalone,namely,theproblemofhowto dealproperlywithour(lackof)sourcesonJesus.Ithastodowiththe questionofwhetherwedecidetofocusonthe ‘historicalJesus’ orthe figureofJesusasnarratedinearlyChristiantexts.

OnescholarinparticularhasaddressedthequestionoftherelationshipbetweenthehistoricalJesusandcontemporaryphilosophers. Inanumberofstudies,F.GeraldDowninghasarguedthatJesusof Nazareth,i.e.thehistoricalJesus,canbestbeunderstoodinanalogy totheCynicteacher.5 Pointingtoanumberofimpressiveparallels

4 Translationsofbiblicaltextsfollow(mostly)theNRSV.Unlessotherwisenoted, translationsofclassicaltextsfollowtheLCL.

5 See,inparticular,F.GeraldDowning, ChristandtheCynics:JesusandOther RadicalPreachersinFirst-CenturyTradition (Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress, 1988);F.GeraldDowning, CynicsandChristianOrigins (Edinburgh:Clark,1992). SeealsoBernhardLang, JesusderHund:LebenundLehreeinesjüdischenKynikers (Munich:Beck,2010);F.GeraldDowning, ‘JesusamongthePhilosophers:TheCynic ConnectionExploredandAffirmed,withaNoteonPhilo’sJewish-CynicPhilosophy’ , in Religio-PhilosophicalDiscoursesintheMediterraneanWorld:FromPlato,through Jesus,toLateAntiquity (ed.A.KlostergaardPetersenandG.vanKooten;Ancient Philosophy&Religion1;Leiden:Brill,2017),187–218;JohnMoles, ‘CynicInfluence uponFirst-CenturyJudaismandEarlyChristianity?’ in TheLimitsofAncient Introduction:PurposeandApproach

4 JesusasPhilosopher

betweenthesayingsofJesusandthesayingsofCynicphilosophers, andprovidingahelpfuloverviewofthe(potential)presenceof CynicisminandaroundGalileeatthetimeofJesus,Downinghas contributedmuchtothescholarlydiscussion.However,asHans DieterBetzhasrightlypointedout,thereareseveralseriousmethodologicalshortcomingsinDowning’sstudies,amongwhichareour lackofsourcesonCynicism,aswellasthetendencyofDowningto co-optanytextthatmentionstheCynicswithapprovalasapristine specimenofCynicism(e.g.DioChrysostom,Epictetus).6 Aneven largerproblem,Iwouldadd,hastodowiththesourcesonthe historicalJesus.LikeSocrates,thephilosophicalsageparexcellence, Jesusdidnotwriteanythinghimself(asfarasweknow).Instead,our knowledgeofhimisintimatelyboundtotheancientChristianwritingsandauthorswhotellhisstory,astorythatisdeeplyshapedbythe authors’ ownfaithinhimasthepromisedMessiahand ‘sonofGod’ . Thatdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatwecannotknowanythingabout thehistoricalJesus.ThereareindeedsomecriteriainuseinNew Testamentscholarshipthatmayhelpusdrawsomeplausibleconclusionsabouthisactualwordsandwayoflife.7 Also,thequestionof Jesus’ socialcontext andespeciallyhisrelationshiptoneighbouring philosophicalschools ishighlygermanetothepresentstudy.However,thedifficultiesinvolvedinattemptingtodeterminewhichsayingsdoordonotcomefromJesushimself,andexactlyhowhelived, areenormous.8 Thecollectionsofsayingsthatwe find,forinstance,in theSynopticGospels,whicharearguablythebestsourcesavailablein thisrespect,arenoteasilyremovedfromtheirnarrativecontext,which inturnisdeterminedbythetext’soverallpurposeandargumentative structure.Hence,whilecertainlyworthcarryingout,undertakings

Biography (ed.B.McGingandJ.Mossman;Swansea:TheClassicalPressofWales, 2006),89–116.Cf.alsotheindependentbutinmanywayssimilarapproachinBurton L.Mack, AMythofInnocence:MarkandChristianOrigins (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1988).

6 HansDieterBetz, ‘JesusandtheCynics:SurveyandAnalysisofaHypothesis’ , JR 74(1994):453–75.

7 See,e.g.JohnP.Meier, AMarginalJew:RethinkingtheHistoricalJesus,Volume1: TheRootsoftheProblemandthePerson (ABRL;NewYork:Doubleday,1991);Gerd TheissenandDagmarWinter, TheQuestforthePlausibleJesus:TheQuestionof Criteria (trans.M.E.Boring;Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnox,2002).

8 See,e.g.thecriticaldiscussioninLukeTimothyJohnson, TheRealJesus:The MisguidedQuestfortheHistoricalJesusandtheTruthoftheTraditionalGospels (New York:HarperOne,1996).

suchasDowning’sstudiesofJesusandtheCynicsremainrather speculativeinsubstance.Amoremethodologicallysoundandthus morepromisingapproachistofocusonthephilosophicalcontextof the ‘literary’ or ‘narrative’ Jesus;thatis,Jesusasportrayedby,inthis case,theSynopticGospels.

LukeTimothyJohnsonhasrecentlysuggestedfourappropriate waystoapproachthetopicofJesus(ofthecanonicalGospels)and philosophy,dependinginpartonthequestionofwhatismeantby ‘philosophy’ (whatismeantby ‘philosophy’ inthepresentstudyis discussedinChapter1).9 Oneapproachiswhatheterms ‘thehistoricalJesusassage’,whichcorrespondscloselytotheapproachtakenby Downingandothers,inwhichJesusisconsideredasahistorical figurewhosesayingsintheGospelsareusedasabasisforcomparing himwithcontemporaryphilosophicalsages(Johnsonhimselfisscepticaltowardsthisapproach,preciselyforthemethodologicalreasons mentionedabove).AnotherapproachistofocusonhowtheGospel narrativesrenderthecharacterofJesus,especiallyinrelationtothe questionofhowheembodieshisownteaching,andhowhethus becomesanexampletothereadersandhearersofthetext.Inthis way,theGospelnarrativesarereadasvehiclesof ‘characterethics’ , comparabletothesortofethicstaughtinthephilosophicalschools. Johnsoncallsthisapproach ‘thenarrativeJesusasmoralexemplar’ . Thethirdapproach, ‘thenarrativeJesusasrevealingGod’ ,concentrateslessonJesus’ humanity(asinthe firsttwoapproaches)and moreonthataspectofhischaracterthattranscendsordinary humanity his ‘divinity’ ordivinecharacteristics,accordingtothe Gospelnarratives.Thisapproachtakesseriouslythelarger ‘mythic’ storyofJesus,whetherexplicitorimplicitinthetexts,andreadsitin thecontextofcontemporaryphilosophy.Inthefourthapproach, whichislabelled ‘Jesusandnarrativeontology’,thefocusisaimed atthenatureoftheGospelnarrativeitselfasnarrative,andthe ‘ontologicalimplicationsofreading’,where ‘ontological’ refersto thewayinwhichthenarrativecompositionandperformancebrings intoexistencesomethingthat ‘previouslydidnotexist’,and ‘the peculiarsortofpresenceittherebyestablishesintheworld’ (Johnson

9 LukeTimothyJohnson, ‘TheJesusoftheGospelsandPhilosophy’,in Jesusand Philosophy:NewEssays (ed.P.K.Moser;Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2009),63–83.

admitsthatheis ‘onlyatanearlystageofthinkingaboutthis perspective’).10

Johnson’ssuggestionsareveryhelpfulinprovidinganoverviewof someofthewaysinwhichthetopicinquestioncanbeapproached. Givenmymethodologicalpreferencetofocusonthe ‘narrativeJesus’ ratherthanonthe ‘historicalJesus’,thepresentapproachbroadly correspondstoJohnson’ssecondapproach.Moreover,ancientGreek philosophywascommonlydividedintoethics,physics,andlogic, where ‘physics’ referredtothestudyofthenatureoftheworldand includedsubjectsliketheology,cosmology,andcosmogony.Insimplifiedterms,ifthe firsttwoofJohnson’sapproachesaretaken together,onecouldsaythattheycorrespondroughlytothe fieldof ethics,whilethethirdapproach,involvingthe ‘mythic’ dimension, findscorrespondenceinphysics(Johnson’sfourthapproachneednot concernushere).Theaimofthepresentstudyistodealprimarily withthe first fieldofphilosophicalinquiry,viz.ethics.Butitshouldbe notedthatthedivisionbetweenethicsandphysicsisnotalwaysthat clear-cutinGraeco-Romanphilosophy.InStoicism,forinstance, physics,includingtheologyandcosmology,wastypicallyconsidered theveryfoundationofethics,andthelatterwasinaconstantdialogue withtheformer.Thismeansthattheethicalaspecttendstohold handswiththe(meta)physicalaspect.Myintentionistoconcentrate primarilyontheformer,althoughthelattermayoccasionallycome intoview.

Theaim,then,isnottoengageinthesearchforthe ‘historical Jesus’,althoughthestudymaycertainlyhavesomeimplicationsfor thatenterprise.Rather,itistheJesusoftheGospelswhoisunder discussion,andparticularlythequestionofhowtheGospelauthors portraythepersonofJesusincomparisontoportrayalsofleadingor ideal figuresinthephilosophicalschools,whetherhistorical(e.g. SocratesorDiogenes)ornot(e.g.theidealStoicsage).Stoicphilosophy appearstobeofparticularimportancehere,as ‘[t]heStoicdoctrineof thewisemanwasfamous indeednotorious throughouttheHellenisticperiod’ . 11 Infact,inarecentarticleStanleyK.Stowerssuggests thatJesusintheGospelofMatthewisa figurelargelyshapedbytheStoic

10 Johnson, ‘JesusoftheGospels’,79–80.

11 GeorgeB.Kerferd, ‘TheSageinHellenisticPhilosophicalLiterature(399 B C E –199 C.E.)’,in TheSageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast (ed.J.G.Gammieand L.G.Perdue;WinonaLake:Eisenbrauns,1990),320.

ideaofthesage.12 AccordingtoStowers,MatthewdrewuponStoic ethicsbecausehe ‘inherited’ aJesuswhowasknownasateacherbutdid nothaveanyclearandelaboratedethicalteachingsthatwouldmake himsimilarto orrather,superiorto otherprominentteachersof Graeco-Romanculture.Stowers’sargumentsandconclusionsareof greatinteresttothepresentstudy,andhisapproachisagoodexample, albeitstillquitearareone,ofthescholarshipneededtofruitfullybring (back)togetherthetheologicalandthephilosophicalinNewTestament exegesis.Earlierresearchhascertainlypaidsomeattention,forinstance, totheparallelsbetweenthe figureofSocratesandthe figureofJesus,13 butnotfromtheperspectiveofbringinginphilosophyinthisway, namely,asaninherentpartoftheprocessbywhichthewritingsofthe NewTestamentwereformed.

Questionsthatwillberaisedinthisstudyincludethefollowing: HowdoestheauthorinquestionspeakofJesusinrelationtocontemporaryphilosophy?DoweseeJesustakeonacertain ‘philosophical’ roleintheGospels,througheitherhisstatementsandreasoning orhiswayoflife?Inotherwords,doweseehim ‘philosophize’ ina waysimilartothephilosophers?WeretheGospelauthorsinspiredby descriptionsofidealphilosophersintheirowndescriptionsofJesus? InwhatwayisJesus’ conductanalogoustothatofleadingphilosophical figuresinGraeco-Romanantiquity,accordingtothesetexts? Conversely,inwhatwaydoeshisconductdifferfromtheirs?In general,whatisthesignificanceofGraeco-Romanphilosophyfor theearlyChristianunderstanding,narrative,andimageofJesus? WhileanumberofGraeco-Romansourcesarepresentedanddiscussedinthestudy,theemphasisisontheinterpretationofthe Gospeltextsandtheirportrayalsofthe figureofJesus. Itcanandshouldbeexpectedthatdifferentwritingsgiverise todifferentanswerstotheseandotherrelatedquestions.Careful attentionmustthereforebepaidtothepeculiarfeaturesandsetting ofeachwriting,includingcloseawarenessofthewriting’shistorical context ifwecansayanythingreasonableaboutthat aswellas

12 StanleyK.Stowers, ‘JesustheTeacherandStoicEthicsintheGospelofMatthew’,in StoicisminEarlyChristianity (ed.T.Rasimus,T.Engberg-Pedersen,andI.Dunderberg; GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2010),59–75.

13 ErnstBenz, ‘ChristusundSokratesinderaltenKirche’ , ZNW 43(1950–1): 195–224;KlausDöring, ExemplumSocratis:StudienzurSokratesnachwirkunginder kynisch-stoischenPopularphilosophiederfrühenKaiserzeitundimfrühenChristentum (Wiesbaden:Steiner,1979). Introduction:PurposeandApproach

8 JesusasPhilosopher

itsargumentativestructure,ethicalteaching,andtheology,especially inrelationtothe figureofJesus.InthisstudyIhavechosentoconfine mytreatmentofancientportrayalsofJesustotheSynopticGospels oftheNewTestament,Mark,Matthew,andLuke(includingsome portionsofActs).ThereasonfornotincludingtheGospelofJohnis this:IthinkIwillsurprisenoonebyclaimingthat,ofallthecanonical Gospels,therelationshipbetweenJesusandancientphilosophyis mostlucidintheGospelofJohn,whichinturnexplainswhythere hasindeedbeensomeresearchonthatGospelinthisrespect,notleast inrelationtoitsprologue.14 I,ontheotherhand,wishtodealwith earlyChristiannarrativesofJesuswhosephilosophicalcontextisless apparentandhasnotreceivedscholarlyattentionofanysimilar scope.WhathasbeenundertakeninthisrespectfortheGospelof JohnhasbeenleftundonefortheSynopticGospels.

Asthediscussionaboveindicates,thepresentstudyisinspiredby narrativecriticismoftheGospels.Thestudydoescertainlynotclaim tobea ‘narrative-critical’ study.Itmerelyseeksaidfromthis approachwhenappropriateforpresentpurposes,includingtheanalysisofthecharacterizationofJesusandtheemphasisonreadingeach Gospelseparately,initsownright.ItshouldalsobeclearthatIwill notaddresstheso-called ‘Synopticproblem’15 inthisstudy,but wheneveritcomestothequestionoftherelationshipbetweenthe SynopticGospelsIwilljoinmostscholarsinassumingMatthew’sand

14 See,e.g.thereferencesinHaroldW.Attridge, ‘An “Emotional” JesusandStoic Tradition’,in StoicisminEarlyChristianity (ed.T.Rasimus,T.Engberg-Pedersen,and I.Dunderberg;GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2010),77;GeorgevanKooten, ‘The “TrueLightWhichEnlightensEveryone” (John1:9):John,Genesis,thePlatonic Notionofthe “True,NoeticLight,” andtheAllegoryoftheCaveinPlato’sRepublic’ , in TheCreationofHeavenandEarth:Re-interpretationsofGenesis1intheContextof Judaism,AncientPhilosophy,Christianity,andModernPhysics (ed.G.vanKooten; ThemesinBiblicalNarrative8;Leiden:Brill,2005),149–94.Formorerecentliterature,seeTroelsEngberg-Pedersen, JohnandPhilosophy:ANewReadingoftheFourth Gospel (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017);GeorgevanKooten, ‘TheLastDays ofSocratesandChrist:Euthyphro,Apology,Crito,andPhaedoReadinCounterpoint withJohn’sGospel’,in Religio-PhilosophicalDiscoursesintheMediterraneanWorld: FromPlato,throughJesus,toLateAntiquity (ed.A.KlostergaardPetersenandG.van Kooten;AncientPhilosophy&Religion1;Leiden:Brill,2017),219–43.

15 Onthe ‘Synopticproblem’,see,inparticular,thethoroughstudiesofDelbert Burkett, RethinkingtheGospelSources:FromProto-MarktoMark (NewYork:T&T Clark,2004);DelbertBurkett, RethinkingtheGospelSources,Volume2: TheUnityand PluralityofQ (Atlanta:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,2009).A fine,brieferoverview canbefoundinMarkGoodacre, TheSynopticProblem:AWayThroughtheMaze (TheBiblicalSeminar80;London:SheffieldAcademicPress,2001).

Luke’sdependencyonMark.Othersource-criticalquestions,suchas thatoftheexistenceof ‘Q’,donothavedirectbearingonthestudy: themainattentionispaidtothenarrativeformofeachGospelinits ownright;thatistosay,thenatureofeachauthor’sportrayalofthe characterofJesus,mostoftenirrespectiveofthesource-criticalcontext,although,whenappropriate,therelationshipbetweenMatthew andLuke,ontheonehand,andtheirsource,Mark,ontheother,are touchedonoccasionally.GiventhenatureoftheSynopticGospelsas ‘synoptic’ (‘seentogether’),somerepetitionisnecessary.Asarule, IdonotdiscusstherelationshipbetweentheGospels’ portrayalsof JesusandthepossiblewordsandactionsofthehistoricalJesus.

Inspiredbythenarrativeapproach,ItreattheGospels firstand foremostasliteraryworks.Also,thechoiceoftopicsdiscussedis basedonmyassessmentofrelevantpassagesinthethreeGospels.

ThechoiceofGraeco-Romansourcesisimportantaswell.Sincewe aredealingwiththecharacterizationofacertainpersoninthe(late) firstcentury CE,itseemsmostappropriatetoconsultGraeco-Roman sourcesfromroughlythesameperiodinordertoseehowthe philosophicalsagewasperceivedandcharacterizedinthatperiod. ThisincludesinparticularthesourcesoflateStoicism inthiscase, Stoicsinthe firstandearlysecondcentury CE (oftenreferredtoas RomanStoicism).Butother(roughly)contemporaryGraeco-Roman sourcesareconsultedaswell.

Itshouldbenotedattheoutsetthatthisstudydoesnotarguethat theGospelauthorsnecessarilyknewthewritingsand/orteaching lessonsoftheGraeco-Romanphilosophersunderdiscussion.The possibilitythatthiswasthecaseisnotexcluded,butitisnotargued fororpresumed.Rather,itispresumedthattheGospelauthorswere inonewayoranotherfamiliarwithGraeco-Romantraditions,literary ororal,inwhichtheyengagedontheirownpremises.Needlesstosay, theGospelsandtheirauthorswere firmlyrootedinJewishteaching, belief,andwayoflife.ButtheywerealsopartoftheirGraeco-Roman context,whetherlingual,literary,ideological,orsocial.Tobeginwith, theauthorsallwroteinGreek,theinternationallanguageofthetime, notinAramaic.Obviously,theiraudience,whetherJewsorGentiles, alsospokeorknewGreekandwereprobablylocatedinthediaspora, i.e.inaGraeco-Romanenvironment,perhapsRomeorAntioch.16

16 SeethediscussionsinAdelaYarbroCollins, Mark:ACommentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:Fortress,2007),96–102;UlrichLuz, Matthew1–7:ACommentary

TeresaMorganhasrecentlypointedoutthat,althoughtherewere certainlydifferencesbetweenphilosophicaldoctrinesandpopular ethics,17 therelationshipbetweenthetwoseemstohavebeencloser thanscholarshaveoftenassumed:

Itisclearthatsome ‘literary’ works,thoughwrittenbymembersofthe socialandculturalelite,hadamassaudiencefromatleastthesixth century BCE wellintolateantiquity.ForemostamongthemisHomer, followedbynewcomicplaywrights,especiallyMenander,Plautusand Terence,farcesandmimes.Oratoryofallkindswasdeliveredtomass audiencesinlawcourts,publicassembliesandtowncouncils.During theprincipate,epideicticoratory,deliveredonbehalfofatownin honourofvisitingdignitaries,tohonourlocalbenefactorsandpoliticians,ortomarkaspecialoccasionofalmostanykind,byrhetorswho wereoftenpaidbycitiesofemperorsthemselvestopractiseandteach theirskill,wasaprimeformofpublicentertainment.Inaleastsome placesandtimes,itwascommonfortheworksofhistorianstobe publiclyreadandhonouredintheirnativeoradoptedtowns.Even philosopherscouldbecomelocalcelebrities.18

Thisappliedto figureslikeDiogenestheCynicandSocrates: ‘[I]t seemslikelythathighphilosophyandthecultureinwhichitlived sharedmanyoftheirhero-figuresandethicalconcerns,andthat charactersliketheSevenSages,SocratesorDiogenesdidnothave tomovefromonepartoftheculturetoanother,becausetheywere alwayscommontoall.’19 Moreover,

Mostimportantofall,theworldsofpopularethicsandhighphilosophy werenotsegregated,anymorethantheworldsofproverbsorfablesand highliteraturewere.Thebestwecandotocharacterizetherelationship isprobablytosaythatinhighphilosophyandpopularethicswe find twostreamsofculture,ultimatelyrisingfrommanyofthesamesources, whichsometimesmingle,eachinfluencingtheother,andsometimes runseparately,alongroughlyparallelterrain.Evenwhentheydonot mingle,theyarecloserinsomewaysthanwemightexpect,avivid reminderthatourscholarlydistinctionbetweenpopularandhigh (trans.J.E.Crouch;Hermeneia;Minneapolis:Fortress,2007);FrançoisBovon, Luke1: ACommentaryontheGospelofLuke1:1–9:50 (trans.C.M.Thomas;Hermeneia; Minneapolis:Fortress,2002),8–10.

17 TeresaMorgan, PopularMoralityintheEarlyRomanEmpire (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,2007),333–40.

18 Morgan, PopularMorality,4. 19 Morgan, PopularMorality,283.

cultureisprobablyoftentoosharp,andthatthelandscapeofethicsin theRomanEmpireisultimatelyonelandscape.20

Havingnotedthis,itisimportanttostressthatthepresentstudyis notsomuchconcernedwiththequestionifthe audience ofthe Gospelauthorswereinsomewaysfamiliarwithphilosophicalteachingsandideas.Rather,itisthe Gospelauthorsthemselves thatare primarilyunderconsiderationinthisregard,thatistosay,the questionwhethertheywerefamiliarwithandmadeuseofphilosophicalideastoportraythepersonofJesus.Itseemsveryunlikelythat theywouldhavebeenunacquaintedwithsomeofthephilosophical traditionsoftheirclosestenvironment.Luke,forone,wasatleast familiarwiththeStoicsandEpicureans(Acts17.18),someofwhom seemtohaveconvertedtoChristianity(v.34),andheknewof Seneca’syoungerbrother,Gallio(18.12–16).Itseemsfairtoassume thatLukealsoknewsomeofthephilosophers’ teachingsandtraditions.Giventheirclosecorrespondence literarily,ideologically,and historically italsoseemsfairtoassumethattheauthorsofMarkand Matthewenjoyedasimilar,ifnotasoutspoken,frameofreference, includingsometraditionsaboutthephilosophicalsage.

MORALCHARACTER,CLASSICALVIRTUE THEORY,ANDEARLYCHRISTIANITY

AstudyofhoweachGospelauthorportraysthecharacterofJesus clearlybenefitsfromtheapproachofnarrativeanalysis,whichfocuses ontheliterarycharacterofJesus.Butthereisanotherformof characterinthecontextofwhicheachliterarycharacterofJesusis analysed,namely,characterasacross-literaryandcross-culturalidea: theidealmoralperson.Thepresentdiscussionfocusesontheideal personorcharacterasdevelopedandaccountedforinancientphilosophicaltheoryandliterature.Thisfallsunderthecategoryofethics, which,asInotedabove,isthephilosophical fieldwithwhichweare primarilyconcerned.InthisregardIalsoreferredabove,more specifically,to ‘characterethics’ relatingtooneofLukeTimothy Johnson’smethodologicalsuggestionsofapproachingthesubjectof

20 Morgan, PopularMorality,299.

‘Jesusandphilosophy’,usingJohnson’sownterminologyinthat respect.However,inordertoavoidconfusion,itshouldbenoted herethatIwillnotmakefurtheruseofthisterminology,duetoits ratherunclearframeofreferenceinthescholarlydiscussion.Tobe sure,theterm ‘characterethics’ hasbeeninsomeuseinrecentbiblical scholarship,especiallywithintheSocietyofBiblicalLiteraturegroup of ‘CharacterEthicsandBiblicalInterpretation’,aswellasinthe group ’spublishedproducts,21 wherethetermappearstobeapplied assomekindofalternativetothemorewidelyusedphilosophical conceptof ‘virtueethics’,withadistinctreligious-communal flavour. Butwhileitisevidentlyusedasatermforethicsthatinonewayor anotherfocusesontheroleofcharacter,thereisaremarkablelackof cleardefinitionofwhatismeantbytheterminthesepublications, anditspreciserelationtovirtueethicsisnotexplained(althoughit shouldbe).22 Forthisreason,Idonotusetheterm ‘characterethics’ inthefollowingdiscussion.

Itisratherthe fieldofvirtueethicsthatprovidestheproperethical frameworkforthepresentstudy;thatis,insofaras ‘virtueethics’ referstoancientvirtuetheoryandnotitsmoderncounterpart,23 the latterofwhichcertainlyinvolvesareturntoancientGreekethicsbut naturallyexpandsitinaccordancewithmodernknowledgeand needs,andisinconstantdialoguewithothermodernethicaltheories. Generallyspeaking,thiswasinfacttheonlykindofethicsinGraecoRomanantiquity.AsJuliaAnnasexplains, ‘InthetraditionofWestern

21 WilliamP.Brown(ed.), CharacterandScripture:MoralFormation,Community, andBiblicalInterpretation (GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2002);M.DanielCarrollR.and JacquelineE.Lapsley(eds), CharacterEthicsandtheOldTestament:MoralDimensionsofScripture (Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2007);RobertL.Brawley (ed.), CharacterEthicsandtheNewTestament:MoralDimensionsofScripture (Louisville: WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2007).

22 Noneoftheintroductionstotheworkscitedinthepreviousnoteincludesany cleardefinitionorexplanationoftheterm ‘characterethics’.UnlessIammistaken,the onlyattempttodefinetheconceptatthebeginningofeachworkisfoundinthe forewordof CharacterEthicsandtheOldTestament,writtennotbytheeditors themselvesbutbyWalterBrueggemann,whosedefinitionisactuallyquiteambiguous, leavingunclearthe ‘character’ partoftheconcept: ‘“Characterethics” referstoaway ofthinkingaboutandinterpretingthemorallifeintermsofaparticularvisionofand apassionforlifethatisrootedinthenurture,formation,andsocializationofa particularself-consciouscommunity’ (p.vii).

23 Onthemodernversionofvirtueethics,seeMichaelSlote, FromMoralityto Virtue (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1992);RosalindHursthouse, OnVirtue Ethics (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999).

philosophysincethe fifthcentury BC,thedefaultformofethicaltheory hasbeensomeversionofwhatisnowadayscalledvirtueethics;real theoreticalalternativesemergeonlywithKantandwithconsequentialism.’24 Aristotlewasthe firsttoclearlyformulatethestructureof classicalvirtueethics,butthetheorywasfarfrombeingconfinedto Aristotelianphilosophy,foritwasbasictoancientGreekethicsin general.25 Itsmainemphasiswasnotsomuchonindividualmoral preceptsortheidentificationofuniversalprinciplesapplicableinany situationasitwasonthelifeofeachhumanbeingasawhole.Inother words,insteadofsingleactions,itwastheagenthim-andherselfwho wastheprimaryconcern.Thetheorythusemphasizesbeingrather thandoing.Thestartingpointofallancientethicaltheorywasthe questionofwhatkindofpersonandcharacteroneis,whichinturn determineshowoneactsinagivensituation.Inmodernterms, classicalvirtuetheorymightthereforebedescribedasa ‘top-down’ approach,fromthewholetotheparts,wherethe ‘whole’ standsforthe person ’slifeandcharacterandthe ‘parts’ applytoindividualactions determinedbythe ‘whole’.Thequestionofcharacteristherefore essentialtoancientGreekethics.

Inclassicalvirtuetheory,virtueisastateofbeing,adispositionto actinaccordancewithrightreason.Avirtuouspersonisthusa personwhopossessesidealcharactertraitsandactsaccordinglyin anygivensituation notbyhabit,butratherbywayofconsciousand continuousreflectionuponhisorherlifeasawhole.Virtuehasan affectiveaswellasanintellectualaspect,anditalwaysinvolvesan appealtoreason,i.e.to phronēsis or ‘practicalreason’.Ineffect,this meansthatthevirtuouspersondoestherightthingfortheright reasonandhastherightfeelingsandemotionsaboutit.26 Having phronēsis,whichunderliesalltheothervirtues,meanstohavethe dispositionandabilitytomaketherightjudgementabouttheappropriatewaytoactandtoliveandtounderstandfullythereasonsand principlesunderlyingthatjudgement.Toreceivesuchanunderstandingandabilityisamatternotjustofnaturaltraitsbutalsoofaprogress ofintellectualdevelopmentandpracticaltraining.Itisamatterof

24 JuliaAnnas, ‘VirtueEthics’,in TheOxfordHandbookofEthicalTheory (Oxford HandbooksinPhilosophy;ed.D.Copp;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2006),515.

25 SeethediscussioninJuliaAnnas, TheMoralityofHappiness (NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,1993),3–24.

26 Annas, Morality,55–6.SeealsoAnnas, ‘VirtueEthics’,516–17.

degree,whichexplainswhymostancientphilosopherstakethefully virtuousperson,theperfectmoralbeing,tobeanideal(withveryfew exceptions).Inthefollowingdiscussion,weshallseethatthephilosophersmademuchuseofidealcharactersasameansofguidingtheir audiencetowardsthegoalofbecomingfullyvirtuousbeings.Itshould benotedthat ‘virtueethics’ ismodernterminologyandwasnotused bytheancientsthemselves.Asweshallsee,althoughtheGospel authorsdonotusetheword ‘virtue’ (aretē),letalone ‘virtueethics’ , theirdiscussionandpresentationofJesusindicatesthattheirmoral valuesandteachings,inspiredbyaHellenisticframeofreference,were partlyshapedbyancientvirtueethics.

WhiletheHebrewscripturespaymoreattentiontoindividual moralcommandmentsandhardlycontainsuchathingasanoverall orunifiedtheoryofvirtue,theydoincludesignificantpresentations oftheidealmoralcharacter,especiallyinthewisdomliterature.27 Itis oneofthethesesofthisstudythatinadditiontothemoraldemands ofJewishwritingsandtraditions,theSynopticGospelauthorsdrew moreorlessonancientvirtuetheoryintheirattempttointerpret andpresentthemoralmessageandcharacteroftheirideal figure, JesusChrist.28

Unlessotherwisenoted,translationsofclassicaltextsarefromthe LoebClassicalLibrary.TranslationsofNewTestamenttextsare sometimesmyown,butmostoftentheyarefromtheNewRevised StandardVersion.29

27 AsisrightlypointedoutinJeanPorter, ‘VirtueEthics’,in TheCambridge CompaniontoChristianEthics (ed.R.Gill;Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2001),99.

28 Itgoeswithoutsayingthatit may alsohavebeenamongthegoalsofJesus himselftobringinsomeofthebasicsofclassicalvirtuetheory(evenifhedidnot recognizeoridentifythemassuch),butthatisaquestionthatdoesnotconcern ushere.

29 Forconsistency,IhavechangedUSspellingintheNRSVintoBritishspelling.

PhilosophyandPhilosophicalSages

intheGraeco-RomanWorld

PHILOSOPHYASAWAYOFLIFE

Verymuchunlikethemodernconception,inthe firstcentury CE philosophywasconsidered,aboveall,awayoflife.Whateverthe differencesbetweentheancientphilosophicalschools,theyallshared thebasicpurposeoftryingtoestablishabondbetweenphilosophical discourseandwayoflife.1 ItwasmainlyPlato,withhishighly successfulportraitofSocrates,whosetthestageforthisdevelopment inancientphilosophy.AccordingtoPlato’sportrait,knowledgeis notsomethingpurelytheoretical;itis firstandforemostavirtue embodiedbyacertainwayoflife.AsPierreHadotexplains, ‘Doing philosophynolongermeant,astheSophistshadit,acquiringknowledge,know-how,or sophia;itmeantquestioningourselves,because wehavethefeelingthatwearenotwhatweoughttobe.’2 Onthis point,Aristotleagreedwithhismentor: ‘Inthepracticalsciencesthe endisnottoattainatheoreticknowledgeofthevarioussubjects,but rathertocarryoutourtheoriesinaction.Ifso,toknowwhatvirtueis isnotenough;wemustendeavourtopossessandtopractiseit,orin someothermanneractuallyourselvestobecomegood’ (Eth.nic. 10.9.1–2[1179a33–b4]).3 FromHellenistictimesonwards,thiswas abasicunderstandingthatwassharedbyPlatonists,Peripatetics,

1 PierreHadot, WhatIsAncientPhilosophy? (trans.MichaelChase;Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress,2002),55.

2 Hadot, WhatIsAncientPhilosophy? 29.

3