Bruno Bauer, Christ and the Caesars [Fictional Jesus]

[GakuseiDon]

Well, I'll certainly look forward to what you find out to show that the NT was authored in the 2nd century by writers who were very comfortable with the Stoic philosophy of the Roman statesman Seneca. To date on this thread, you've seemed to have only dumped out a lot of quotes with the words "Bauer" and "Seneca" in them somewhere. But evidence is always welcomed. Good luck!

[Leucius Charinus]

What is the issue (if any) of finding common ideas in both Seneca and Paul?

Maybe the gospels and Paul are riffs on the work of Seneca?

Lightfoot seems to have listed a great many Stoic riffs which I have listed above. What would such a gig achieve?

Was the NT being pitched at the senatorial classes by the incorporation of this Stoic theology?

Would it be safe to say that Roman senators may have had familiarity with the writings of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius et al.?

And yes Seneca was Roman, but he spent a lot of time in Alexandria.....

One of the major differences between the theology of Christianity and that of Stoicism is the presence of the personal spirit of Jesus. The Stoics (and Platonists) had a theology which featured the presence of a "guardian spirit" (Greek "daimon", Latin "Daemon") allocated at birth to each man to be "the leader of his life". OTOH the Christians introduced a theology by which the "Holy Spirit" of Jesus obviated the need for this personal divinity - the "daimon".

So the devils ["guardian spirits"] besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

So Jesus casts the Greek "daimon" [δαίμων] into the swine.

Powerful display of propaganda here.

Stoic theology was Roman, and probably well known in Rome and Alexandria.





LC

[Leucius Charinus]

There is evidence to suggest that the theology of Jesus was

Stoic theology (with a few twists).

See the thread on Bruno Bauer for some details behind this claim.



LC

[Peter Kirby]

I'm not sure if you should be using the words "Stoic theology," when a more apt description would be Stoic ethics.

Also this does not seem to be directly on point for the OP, which is asking about the "life story details" and not the content of the teaching in the sayings.

[Leucius Charinus]

I'm not sure if you should be using the words "Stoic theology," when a more apt description would be Stoic ethics.

A great percentage of the Stoic sayings listed by Lightfoot's treatment make reference to God, or divinity, or indeed a "Holy Spirit".

One only example ....

• Still more strikingly Christian is his language, when he speaks of God, who is near us, is with us, is within,' of ' a holy spirit residing in us, the guardian and observer of our good and evil deeds [13],'

I don't see a problem in classing these sayings as theological. Distinctively Stoic with roots in Platonism.

My base line is an attempt at seeing equal mindedly the god of Jesus and the god of the Stoics and Platonists.

Take god out of the picture and the discussion resolves to ethics without theology.





LC

[Peter Kirby]

I'm not sure if you should be using the words "Stoic theology," when a more apt description would be Stoic ethics.

A great percentage of the Stoic sayings listed by Lightfoot's treatment make reference to God, or divinity, or indeed a "Holy Spirit".

One only example ....

• Still more strikingly Christian is his language, when he speaks of God, who is near us, is with us, is within,' of ' a holy spirit residing in us, the guardian and observer of our good and evil deeds [13],'

I don't see a problem in classing these sayings as theological. Distinctively Stoic with roots in Platonism.

My base line is an attempt at seeing equal mindedly the god of Jesus and the god of the Stoics and Platonists.

Take god out of the picture and the discussion resolves to ethics without theology.

Well it's only a word. Of course, I said nothing wrong; ethics is still "more apt." I did not deny any kind of "theological" aspect to Stoicism. And this is still not the topic of the OP.

COMPARING SENECA’S ETHICS IN EPISTULAE MORALES TO THOSE OF PAUL IN ROMANS

But Lightfoot's analysis does touch a bit on the "theology," so you could of course rope them both in if you like.

Then again every monotheism everywhere will show several parallels...

[Peter Kirby]

If you want to bump your threads, that's fine. But don't derail other threads doing so. Split from:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1308

[neilgodfrey]

A very interesting read (I think) re the influence of Stoicism on Paul's thought is Troels Engberg-Pedersen's Paul and the Stoics.

I attempted to outline his main thesis at at Paul and the Stoics - 1. To my own mind the thesis also explains why Paul had no need for a historical Jesus (or even why a historical Jesus would have been at cross purposes with what his gospel was all about): Why Paul Did Not Need a Historical Jesus.

There's a very rough draft showing a few strands of thought from Aristotle through the Stoics to Paul at http://vridar.info/xorigins/engped/engped1.htm.

Engberg-Pedersen, from what I understand, moves the Paul-Stoic link beyond the points of contact relating to ethics and builds on the fundamentals of the philosophy to enable followers to attain new identities (or "conversion experiences" and the building of new communities). Instead of living in the Logos of Reason converts live in the Christ figure (the Wisdom and Spirit of God) which essentially is Paul's substitute for the Stoic Logos/Reason.

It may sound highly intellectual and no doubt did require some nous on the part of Paul but for converts it may be seen as a poor-man's substitute for sophisticated Stoicism.

[Peter Kirby]

I should say that I do appreciate the concept of Stoic influence on the NT and welcome further explanation of these ideas.

[neilgodfrey]

I have uncovered a related post I had forgotten about: Christian conversion – an idea crafted by Paul from ancient philosophy

Looks like I had intended to continue this series with more details but too many other interesting things came along before I had a chance to write them up. Maybe I should return to this and try to complete it all. Or maybe others have read Engberg-Pedersen and subsequent discussions and have their own perspectives.