https://helda.helsinki.

fi

Epictetus’ view on Christians : A Closed Case Revisited

Huttunen, Niko
2017

Huttunen , N 2017 , Epictetus’ view on Christians : A Closed Case Revisited . in A

Klostergaard Petersen & G van Kooten (eds) , Religio-Philosophical Discourses in the
Mediterranean World : From Plato, through Jesus, to Late Antiquity . Ancient Philosophy &
Religion , no. 1 , Brill , pp. 306-322 .

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/308698

acceptedVersion

Downloaded from Helda, University of Helsinki institutional repository.

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.
Please cite the original version.
 Epictetus’ Views on Christians: A Closed Case Revisited

Niko Huttunen

The earliest Roman sources on Christians are dated to the beginning of the second

century. Tacitus (Annales 15:44), Suetonius (Nero 16.2), and Pliny the Younger

(Epistulae ad Trajanum 10.96) are the sources that are quoted time and again. Their

contemporary, the Stoic Epictetus, has won less consideration. He never

unambiguously speaks of Christians, but I am going to show that two passages

actually refer to them (Discourses 2.9.19–21 and 4.7.6). Both instances are easily

confused with Judaism, which has led some scholars astray. There are also

philological difficulties that require profound consideration. I will show that Epictetus

gives us quite a moderate assessment of Christians, in contrast to Tacitus, Suetonius,

and Pliny the Younger. I suggest that this is due to the philosophical elements in

Christian teachings.

Epictetus lived around 50–130 CE. He was born as a slave and was brought

early on to serve in Rome in close contact with Nero’s court.1 Later he was freed, then

banished from Rome during the reign of Domitian. Thereafter Epictetus founded a

school in Nicopolis, today in Northern Greece, close to the Albanian border. As he

became famous for his teaching, the school attracted students from the Roman well-

to-do families. Among those students was Arrian of Nicomedia, who attended

Epictetus’ lectures for some years in the first decades of the second century. His notes

are our primary source of Epictetus’ teaching. Nicopolis is mentioned in the Epistle to

1
For these contacts, see F. Millar, “Epictetus and the Imperial Court,” JRS 55 (1965):141–48. The
following presentation of Epictetus’ career and his Discourses is based on N. Huttunen, Paul and
Epictetus on Law: A Comparison (LNTS 405; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 4–5.
Titus (3:12), though it is not clear whether there was a Christian community in

Epictetus’ lifetime. The city, however, was an important harbour on the route to

Rome, and it surely did not avoid Christian influences.2 We also know that Epictetus

was in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians.

Epictetus’ neutral or even moderately positive view of Christians is quite

interesting in comparison to Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, who counted Christianity

as being among the criminal superstitions. Scholars have often taken these three

sources as representatives of the Roman view of Christians. For example, John

Granger Cook analyses these three and some other Roman texts on Christians in his

book Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians: From Claudius to Hadrian. The result

is that the Roman picture of Christianity is nothing but negative:

Probably the Roman intellectuals and governors like Tacitus and Pliny
were so disgusted at the phenomenon of Christianity that they lacked the
inclination to make any profound explorations into the nature of early
Christian faith, morality, and ritual practice. What I have sought to do
during this project is develop a sympathy for the Romans’ shock when
they had to deal with this ‘other’ – these Christians who were so difficult
to conceive using the categories they were familiar with.3

Cook’s profound study on the texts of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny adds considerably

to our understanding. However, it is an overestimation to understand their shock as an

overall Roman view. One would get another picture when reading two of Epictetus’

texts, Discourses 2.9.19–21 and 4.7.6. Cook passes over the latter briefly,4 while he

does not mention the former at all. His procedure is indicative of a more general

tendency in scholarship on the subject. This scholarly negligence is surely due to

2
For Nicopolis’ character as a city, see for example J.D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus: A New Translation
with Notes and Commentary and an Introduction to Titus, I and II Timothy, the Pastoral Epistles (AB
35; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 255.
3
J.G. Cook, Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians: From Claudius to Hadrian (WUNT 261;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 2.
4
Cook, Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians, 173.
Adolf Bonhöffer’s classic Epiktet und das Neue Testament, which deals with parallel

texts in depth but delivers only a short discussion on Discourses 4.7.6; furthermore, it

passes over the other passage with superficial references.5 Scholars routinely refer to

Bonhöffer’s classic text.6

A recent example of Bonhöffer’s authority is A.A. Long’s magnificent

monograph on Epictetus. Long’s subject is not Epictetus’ relationship towards

Christians, and it is understandable that he passes over the theme with brief remarks.

Long supposes that Epictetus mentions Christians,7 but he shares Bonhöffer’s view of

the very remote relationship between Epictetus’ thinking and the New Testament:

“Notwithstanding striking verbal parallels, there is no strong reason to think that one

has directly influenced the other.”8 As we see here, the discussion on Epictetus’ view

of Christians is strongly steered by Bonhöffer even today.

Without questioning Bonhöffer’s great merits, one should be more careful

with his works. In a response to Rudolf Bultmann’s article, in which he has

questioned Epictetus’ Stoic orthodoxy, Bonhöffer claims in an offended tone that his

own scholarly life’s work was dedicated to proving that Epictetus presents “the pure,

the genuine and the coherent theory of the old Stoicism.”9 Here we see a tendency in

Bonhöffer which is later questioned. Long points out that, despite the fact that

5
A. Bonhöffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten
10; Gießen: Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann (vormals J. Ricker), 1911), 41–44, 72, 273.
6
For the significance of Bonhöffer’s view on the subsequent study, see J. Hershbell, “The Stoicism of
Epictetus: Twentieth Century Perspectives,” in ANRW II.36.3 (ed. W. Haase and H. Temporini; Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 2150–63, 2161.
7
A.A. Long, Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 17, 110.
8
Long, Epictetus, 35.
9
“Ich darf wolhl darauf hinweisen, daß meine wissenschaftliche Lebensarbeit hauptsächlich dem
Nachweis gewidmet ist, daß wir dem kostbaren Vermächtnis, das uns Arrian von seinem Lehrer
hinterlassen hat, im wesentlichen die reine, unverfälschte und konsequente Lehre der alten Stoa, deren
ursprüngiche Zeugnisse uns fast ganz verloren gegangen sind, vor uns haben” (Bonhöffer, “Epiktet und
das Neue Testament,” ZNW 13 (1912): 281–92, 282; my English translation).
Bonhöffer’s works are “indispensable for close study of Epictetus relation to the Stoic

tradition,” “they tend to overemphasize his doctrinal orthodoxy.”10

I claim that Bonhöffer’s tendency also affects his assessment of the passages

on Christians. The most eye-catching example is the word πάθος in its positive

meaning (Discourses 2.9.20). I will return to this term below. At this moment, it is

enough to note that the Stoics usually understood it in the negative sense. Bonhöffer

generally claims that “Epictetus’ conception of the essence and the origin of the πάθη

is compeletely similar to the old and the genuine Stoicism.”11 Surprisingly, he does

not discuss Discourses 2.9.20 in his lengthy chapter on the passions. I cannot avoid

the impression that a profound discussion on Epictetus’ references to the Christians

would have contributed to ruining this rigid view of Stoic orthodoxy. As this view is

relativised today, one can be open to a more relaxed assessment of Epictetus’

relationship to early Christianity.

In his Epiktet und das Neue Testament, Bonhöffer shot down all attempts to

find Christian influences in Epictetus’ texts. His main object of attack was Theodor

Zahn’s inaugural speech as a vice-principal of the University of Erlangen.12 In this

speech, Zahn proposed that Epictetus had known the New Testament writings and

embraced ideas from it “as long as they are not in contrast to his dogma.”13 Thus Zahn

did not question Epictetus’ philosophical orthodoxy. He emphasises that Epictetus

10
Long, Epictetus, 36.
11
“Epictets Ansicht über das Wesen und den Ursprung der πάθη entspricht vollständig den
Anschauungen der Alten, echten Stoa” (Bonhöffer, Epictet und die Stoa. Untersuchungen zur stoischen
Philosophie (Stuttgart: Verlag von Ferdinand Enke, 1890), 278; my English translation).
12
T. Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verhältnis zum Christentum. Rede beim Eintritt des
Prorektorats der Königlich Bayerischen Friedrich-Alexanders-Universität Erlangen am 3. November
1894 gehalten (Erlangen: Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Nachf, 1895). Since the king of Bavaria
was the honorary principal, whom Zahn blesses at the end of this speech, the office of the vice-
principal meant in practice that he handled the tasks of the principal.
13
“Aber auch religiöse Ideen und Lebensregeln des Neuen Testaments konnten den Epiktet ansprechen
und, soweit sie seinem Dogma nicht geradezu widersprachen, von ihm angeeignet warden” (Zahn, Der
Stoiker Epiktet, 29; my English translation).
differed from Christians on many points and that “he did not become a Christian,

because he was a Stoic and wished to die as a Stoic.” He was not even a friend of

Christianity or Christians.14 This was a moderate statement, but it was too much for

Bonhöffer. Zahn claimed that Epictetus’ views were not fully coherent, which is

basically due to inconsistencies in old Stoic theory but is strengthened by non-Stoic

influences.15 Bonhöffer defends Epictetus’ consistency and in a detailed analysis –

partly based on an article by Franz Mörth,16 who had already criticised Zahn – shoots

down every sporadic parallel Zahn presented as proof of Christian influence on

Epictetus.17

A few years after Bonhöffer’s Epiktet und das Neue Testament, Douglas S.

Sharp published his Epictetus and the New Testament. Sharp concluded that “it is

doubtful whether Epictetus was acquainted with the New Testament.” The linguistic

similarities are mostly due to the fact that both are written in the koine of their time.18

The case was closed, and Bonhöffer has become the main authority on the consensus

since then. However, there is one caveat in Bonhöffer’s profound work, which has yet

to be investigated in detail: the two passages, Discourses 2.9.19–21 and 4.7.6, which

14
Zahn Der Stoiker Epiktet, 33–34.
15
Zahn Der Stoiker Epiktet, 10.
16
F. Mörth, “Epiktet und sein Verhältnis zum Christentum,” in Jahresbericht des mit hohem
Ministerial-Erlaβ vom 20. Jänner 1895, Z 29,755, mit dem Öffentlichkeitsrecht beliehenen
fürstbischöflichen Gymnasiums am Seckauer Diözesan-Knabenseminar Carolinum-Augustineum in
Graz am Schlusse des Schuljahres 1908/1909 (Graz: Selbstverlag des f.-b. Knabenseminars, 1909), 1–
22.
17
Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet, 29–34; Mörth “Epiktet;” Bonhöffer, Epiktet, 30–42.
18
D.S. Sharp, Epictetus and the New Testament (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1914), 135, 137. One may
also note that even a larger common background produces parallels, which at first sight are striking. A
good example is Ζήτει καὶ εὑρήσεις (Discourses 4.1.51), which closely resembles ζητεῖτε καὶ εὑρήσετε
(Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9). Mörth (“Epiktet,” 22) already notes that even Plato uses a similar phrase. L.
Willms (Epiktets Diatribe Über die Freiheit [4.1]. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Band 1–2
[Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu Griechischen und lateinischen Schriftstellern; Heidelberg:
Universitätverlag Winter, 2011], 263–65) sees numerous parallels for this saying in philosophical texts.
Thus, on closer analysis this striking parallel does not provide any ground for the theory that Epictetus
was influenced by the New Testament.
more or less clearly speak of Christians. Quite surprisingly, they have been left

without further consideration.

A close reading of these two passages will show against all doubt that they

speak of Christians and that Epictetus knew something about Christians and their

teachings. He even borrowed some expressions from them, which is the most

interesting result for further study. As Epictetus cited Christian expressions, there may

be more of them in the Discourses. This reopens a discussion that Bonhöffer and

some others had closed a hundred years ago. Moreover, a close reading of these

passages also shows that the Roman attitude towards Christians was not only hostile,

but that there was room for a more relaxed assessments than what Tacitus, Suetonius,

or Pliny had provided. It is possibly no coincidence that it is a philosopher in the end

who loosens the discussion. This situation is certainly due to the philosophical

components in Christian teachings. In what follows I analyse first Discourses 4.7.6, as

it is the clearer case; then I proceed to Discourses 2.9.19–21, before arriving at a

conclusion with suggestions for further study.

1. Galileans (Discourses 4.7.6)

In the beginning of Discourses 4.7, Epictetus speaks of children and lunatics who do

not fear the tyrant, his guards, and their swords. Because of their lack of

understanding, children and lunatics can be fearless before such threats (sections 1–5).

From lunatics Epictetus proceeds to the Galileans, who are also fearless: “Therefore,

if madness can produce this attitude of mind toward the things which have just been

mentioned, and also habit, as with the Galileans, cannot reason and demonstration

teach a man that God has made all things in the universe?” (εἶτα ὑπὸ μανίας μὲν

δύναταί τις οὕτως διατεθῆναι πρὸς ταῦτα καὶ ὑπὸ ἔθους οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι· ὑπὸ λόγου δὲ
καὶ ἀποδείξεως οὐδεὶς δύναται μαθεῖν ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πάντα πεποίηκεν τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ,

Discourses 4.7.6; trans. W. A. Oldfather, LCL). The reference to God as a creator is

the beginning of an extensive argumentation that one can attain fearlessness through

philosophical demonstration (sections 6–11). Children, lunatics, and Galileans are just

a starting point for this argumentation; as they do not fear the tyrant, the guards, and

the swords, the fear does not automatically follow from certain outer circumstances.

Fear or fearlessness is rather up to the person who feels or does not feel the fear.

Epictetus concludes that this fact makes it meaningful to seek philosophical reasons

for fearlessness.

Thus Epictetus uses children, lunatics, and Galileans to introduce the audience

to the philosophical discussion. They are not the center of his focus; therefore the

reference to them is just a passing one. Does Epictetus really mean ‘Christians’ when

he speaks of Galileans? Most scholars have held this identification as a self-evident

fact. Bonhöffer is among them.19 Martin Hengel, however, presented an alternative

interpretation: the Galileans are Zealots. He referred to the fact that during the Jewish

War Epictetus lived in Rome, where it was possible to learn the details of the war in

Palestine. Hengel also notes that, according to Josephus, the Jewish resistance

movement sicarii – which he lumps together with the Zealots – became very famous

(Jewish War 7.409–421, 433–450).20

19
Bonhöffer Epiktet, 41–43. Similarly, for example, Zahn Der Stoiker Epiktet,, 26–27; K. Hartmann,
“Arrian und Epiktet,” Njahrb 8 (1905): 248–75, 267; Mörth “Epiktet,” 21; W.A. Oldfather, See
sources: Epictetus (1928a), xxvi; (1928b), 363 note 1; H.W.F. Stellwag, See sources: Epictetus (1933),
173; H. Karpp, “Christennamen,” in RAC 2 (ed. T. Klauser et al.; Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1954),
1114–38, 1131; M. Spanneut, “Epiktet,” in RAC V (ed. T. Klauser et al.; Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann,
1962), 599–681, 628; J.N. Sevenster, “Education or Conversion: Epictetus and the Gospels,” NovT 8
(1966): 247–62, 254–55; S. Benko, “Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries
A.D.,” in ANRW II.23.2 (ed. W. Haase and H. Temporini; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 1055–118,
1077; Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (London: B.T. Batsford, 1985), 40; Hershbell
“The Stoicism of Epictetus,” 2161; T. Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul. The
Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 132–33.
20
M. Hengel, Die Zeloten. Untersuchungen zur Jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I
bis 70 n.Chr. 2. (2d rev. ed.; AGJU 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976),,60–61. Hengel, however, makes a
 The German historian Eduard Meyer already tackled the hypothesis of the

Galileans as Zealots in the beginning of the twentieth century. He denied it, as one

cannot reliably explain how Epictetus could incidentally refer to a group that had been

defeated several decades earlier. Meyer suggested that “Galileans” must refer to the

Christians.21 This is a reasonable suggestion, as the group must be known to the

students being lectured to without further explication. Christians are the clearest

candidate for such a group.

This being the case, some scholars have seen the words οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι as a later

addition, since Epictetus must have seen the Christian grounds for fearlessness as

being negative rather than as just a habit. Alternatively, the word “habit” is emended

to some more negative term.22 However, all the emendations of the text are highly

hypothetical and unnecessary. The manuscript reading is understandable, and it does

not appreciate Christians in such a way that one should doubt its non-Christian

origin.23 Syntactically (μέν – δέ) Christians are on the side of the lunatics against

distinction between the sicarii and the Zealots in another place (Die Zeloten, 49). S. Applebaum (“The
Zealots: the Case for Revaluation,” JRS 61 [1971]: 155–70, 164) had identified Galileans with Zealots
before Hengel. It is also unreliable to think that Galileans refer to some other resistance movement
during the Jewish war (for such a hypothesis, see S. Zeitlin, “Who were the Galileans? New Light on
Josephus' Activities in Galilee,” JQR 64 [1974]:189–203).
21
E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums in drei Bänden III: Die Apostelgeschichte und
die Anfänge des Christentums (Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta'sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger, 1923), 530 n. 1.
There was also a quite unknown Jewish group called Galileans in the second century (Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Trypho 80; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.22.7). Though this group seems to be
somewhat critical towards the state authorities (mishnah Yadayim 4:8), as Epictetus’ fearless Galileans
before the tyrant, it is still unreliable to assume that Epictetus would incidentally refer to this kind of
minor group.
22
I. Schweighäuser (See sources: Epictetus [1799a–d/1800], 1799c, 913–915) and J. Barnes (Logic and
the Imperial Stoa [Philosophia Antiqua: A Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy 75; Leiden: Brill,
1997], 63 n. 157) have seen οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι as an emendation. Several scholars have been inclined to
change the word ἔθους to a more negative one. See the textual apparatus in Schenkl’s edition; K.
Meiser, “Zu Epiktet IV 7,6,” Hermes 45 (1910): 160; P. Corssen, “Zu Epiktet, Διατριβαί IV 7,6,”
BphWS 30 (1910): 832; A.J. Kronenberg, “Zu Epiktet IV 7,6,” BphWS 30 (1910):1623.
23
Cf. the account of Christ in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, which is surely a Christian addition or – if
Josephus himself wrote something about Jesus – fully rewritten by some Christian. The tone is
unmistakably that of a Christian: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to
call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as
accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When
Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us had condemned him to be
crucified, those who had at first come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third
those whose fearlessness is based on reason and demonstration. Thus, Christians are

as unphilosophical as lunatics. There is, however, a difference between the lunatics

and the Christians: the latter are not mad, but rather habit is the apparent reason for

their fearlessness.24

What, then, is the ἔθος, the habit? According to Troels Engberg-Pedersen,

Epictetus perhaps “means that the Christians were brought up more or less blindly,

that is, without ‘reason and demonstration’, to have their strange beliefs.”25 This is

true, but one can be more precise. Zahn saw this clearly when he noted that “the habit

to good – and the question is about this here – is something which Epictetus holds in

no little reverence.”26 The word ἔθος and its cognate ἐθίζω are technical terms in

Epictetus’ philosophy.27 Habit emerges in thinking and acting without elaborated

consideration. Habits are developed from birth, and as they are strongly rooted, it is

difficult to change them. Epictetus says, “In the course of years we have acquired the

habit (εἰθίσμεθα) of doing the opposite of what we learn and have in use opinions

which are the opposite of the correct ones” (Discourses 2.9.14; trans. W. A.

Oldfather, LCL. Cf. 3.19.4–6).

To fight bad habits one can use contrary habits (Discourses 1.27.4–6; trans.

W. A. Oldfather, LCL), which are activated with short sentences or “canons”

day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless
other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this
day not disappeared” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.63–64; trans. L. H. Feldman, LCL.). Ulrich
Victor (“Das Testimonium Flavianum. Ein authentischer Text des Josephus,” NovT 52 (2010): 72–82)
has recently defended the authenticity of this passage. While he argues with certain success that the
words “if indeed one ought to call him a man” are a fixed topos in antiquity and that “the Messiah”
should be understood as a proper name “Christ,” he does not explain how a Jew would admit that
prophets were speaking of Christ. This idea sounds too Christian to have come from Josephus’ pen.
24
Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet, 27.
25
Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self, 133.
26
“Die Gewöhnung zum Guten – und um ein solches handelt es sich hier – schätzt Epiktet nicht
gering” (Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet, 41 n. 27; my English translation).
27
It may be added that Epictetus also uses the word ἕξις as an equivalent of ἔθος. For habit in
Epictetus, see B.L. Hijmans, Jr., ἌΣΚΗΣΙΣ. Notes on Epictetus’ Educational System (WTS 2; Assen:
Van Gorcum, 1959), 64–65; and Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, 127–28.
(κανόνες). 28 One should memorise them in order to have them at hand in practical

situations; for example, “When death appears to be an evil, we must have ready at

hand [the canons] ‘It is a duty to avoid evils’ and ‘Death is an inevitable thing’”

(Discourses 1.27.7; trans. W. A. Oldfather, LCL, revised). The short canons recall the

deeper philosophical truths and thus help the person to maintain his or her

philosophical character.

As Epictetus speaks about the habit of the Galileans, he possibly presupposes

that Christians had canons of their own. And they really had.29 For example, the

sentence “[n]either circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a new creation is

everything!” is called a canon by Paul (Galatians 6:15–16; NRSV; cf. 1 Corinthians

7:19).30 Epictetus acknowledged that Christian canons are not pure madness, though

they were surely strange beliefs to him. In Epictetus’ ranking, Christian fearlessness is

an admirable result derived from the wrong reasons. His words do not reflect the

prejudices Tacitus or Suetonius expressed.

There is no reason to think that Epictetus would have known Christians or

Christianity very deeply. However, he seems to know more than he says and to expect

the same knowledge from his audience. Otherwise a passing reference could not be

understandable. Zahn has rightly noted this point.31 It becomes very clear that

Epictetus and his audience had some contacts with Christianity when we turn our

attention to the passage in Discourses 2.9.

28
For the canons in Epictetus, see R.J. Newman, “Cotidie Meditare: Theory and Practice of the
Meditatio in Imperial Stoicism,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und
Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung II.36.3 (ed. W. Haase and H. Temporini; Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 1473–1517, esp. 1496–1502.
29
For the use of the word κανών in Christian writings, see for example H.W. Beyer, “Κανών,” in
TDNT 3 (ed. Gerhard Kittel; trans. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974), 596–
602.
30
Fourth Maccabees says, in the good Stoic way, that vicious emotions (πάθη) are ruled by those, who
“philosophise the whole canon of the philosophy” (πρός ὅλον τὸν τῆς φιλοσοφίας κανόνα φιλοσοφῶν)
(4 Maccabees 7:21–22; my translation).
31
Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet, 27.
2. Christians as Baptised Jews

In Discourses 2.9 Epictetus claims that a Stoic philosopher should not only speak of

philosophy, but also do according to its doctrines.32 He compares a Stoic to a Jew:

(19) Why, then, do you call yourself a Stoic, why do you deceive the
multitude, why do you being a Jew act the parts of Greeks? (20) Do you
not see in what sense men are severally called Jew, Syrian, or Egyptian?
For example, whenever we see a man halting between two faiths, we are
in the habit of saying, “He is not Jew, he is only acting the part.” But
when he adopts the pathos33 of the man who has been baptized and has
made his choice, then he both is a Jew in fact and is also called one. (21)
So we are also counterfeit “baptists,” Jews in words, but in deeds
something else, not in sympathy with our own words,34 far from applying
the principles which we profess, yet priding ourselves upon them as being
men who know them.

(19) τί οὖν Στωικὸν λέγεις σεαυτόν, τί ἐξαπατᾷς τοὺς πολλούς, τί

ὑποκρίνῃ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν Ἕλληνας; (20) οὐχ ὁρᾷς, πῶς ἕκαστος λέγεται
Ἰουδαῖος, πῶς Σύρος, πῶς Αἰγύπτιος; καὶ ὅταν τινὰ ἐπαμφοτερίζοντα
ἴδωμεν, εἰώθαμεν λέγειν οὐκ ἔστιν Ἰουδαῖος, ἀλλ’ ὑποκρίνεται’. ὅταν δ’
ἀναλάβῃ τὸ πάθος τὸ τοῦ βεβαμμένου καὶ ᾑρημένου, τότε καὶ ἔστι τῷ
ὄντι καὶ καλεῖται Ἰουδαῖος. (21) οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς παραβαπτισταί, λόγῳ
μὲν Ἰουδαῖοι, ἔργῳ δ’ ἄλλο τι, ἀσυμπαθεῖς πρὸς τὸν λόγον, μακρὰν ἀπὸ
τοῦ χρῆσθαι τούτοις ἃ λέγομεν, ἐφ’ οἷς ὡς εἰδότες αὐτὰ ἐπαιρόμεθα.
(Discourses 2.9.19–21; trans. W. A. Oldfather, LCL, slightly revised)

Epictetus speaks of two kinds of Jews. First, there are Jews whose deeds do not

follow their words. Second, there are real Jews whose deeds follow their words after

baptism and choice. I claim that the latter group actually refers to Christians. In order

to demonstrate this, I first go through some text-critical problems and then proceed to

a close the reading of the text.

The text-critical problems are not due to the manuscript, but rather to the

emendations. The metaphoric use of the Jews is somewhat confusing in the

32
See also Bonhöffer, Epictet und die Stoa, 11–13; Long, Epictetus, 107–12.
33
Possible translations of this Greek word are discussed below.
34
An alternative translation for the ‘words’ is ‘reason’, but the context prefers the former.
manuscript text. In section 19 the basic identity is that of a Jew who does not practice.

In section 20, however, there is a non-Jew who is playing the part of a Jew. Finally, in

section 21 Epictetus speaks of persons who are Jews with respect to their words while

they are non-Jews with respect to their deeds. So the question is: Did Epictetus deliver

a metaphor in which the basic identity is that of a Jew or that of a non-Jew?

Section 21 can be seen in either way. Thus the real tension is between sections

19 and 20. An editor of Epictetus’ Discourses, Heinrich Schenkl, solved this tension

with an emendation in section 19.35 Instead of reading with the manuscript that “you”

are a Jew acting the part of Greeks (Ἰουδαῖος ὢν Ἕλληνας), he emended the text to

say that “you” are a Greek acting the part of a Jew (Ἰουδαῖον ὢν Ἕλλην). Schenkl’s

emendation was then accepted by W. A. Oldfather in his edition, published in the

Loeb Classical Library (1925–1928, with several reprints).

According to the emended text, Epictetus is speaking of Greeks who in some

respect play the part of Jews, but who should become Jews in every respect. Scholars

reading the emended text have usually presented it as a reference to the Gentile God-

fearers who are assumed to become proselytes.36 This had created the odd feature that

the conversion to Judaism was based on proselyte baptism, without a word about

circumcision. Scholars have been at pains to explain this, either by finding a covert

reference to circumcision or claiming that there were uncircumcised proselytes.37 The

problem, however, is not in the manuscript text, but rather in Schenkl’s and

Oldfather’s editions.

35
For the earlier emendations, see Schenkl’s text critical notes.
36
See, for example J.G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and
Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 77.
37
J. Ysebaert (Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development [Græcitas
Christianorum Primæva 1; Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt N.V., 1962], 20 n. 2) proposes that pathos
denotes the circumcision and Sharp (Epictetus, 134–35) that the participle ᾑρημένου means that.
Conversion without circumcision is proposed by N. McEleney (“Conversion, Circumcision and the
Law,” NTS 20 (1974): 319–41, 332) but rejected by J. Nolland (“Uncircumcised Proselytes?” JSJ 12
(1981): 173–94; 179–82).
 The manuscript reading is admittedly difficult but nevertheless

understandable. It is clear that the Jew is a metaphor for the Stoic. As Epictetus

assumes that his audience consists of Stoics, the basic identity in the metaphor is that

of “being a Jew” (section 19). This is Epictetus’ own understanding. As these “Jews”

are non-practicing ones, they deceive the multitude (οἱ πολλοί). In section 20

Epictetus presents the understanding of the multitude: when words and deeds are in

tension with each other, the common people base their understanding on deeds and,

consequently, see the basic identity as that of a non-Jew (section 20). In section 21,

Epictetus admits that a Jew becomes a real Jew when his or her deeds are concomitant

with Jewish words.

The manuscript text does not speak of non-Jews becoming Jews. Therefore the

common view that Epictetus is speaking of proselytes is wrong. Epictetus is speaking

of two kinds of Jews. The manuscript provides a situation where Jews who are not

following their faith are supposed to make a change in their conduct after baptism and

choice. I claim that the baptised Jews are actually Christians. The word βεβαμμένου is

in the perfect tense, denoting “a completed action the effects of which still continue in

the present.”38 The perfect tense rules out renewed purification rites and indicates a

single baptism which has an ongoing effect.39 As Epictetus is not speaking of non-

Jews becoming Jews, there is no question of a proselyte baptism. One cannot avoid

the thought that he is referring to Christian baptism.

However, there is not only one baptism. In section 21 Epictetus says, “we are

also counterfeit ‘baptists (παραβαπτισταί)’, Jews in words, but in deeds something

38
H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1984), 434 (§ 1945). This is the
basic meaning of the perfect tense. Smyth also lists other meanings, but the context of Epictetus’
passage does not indicate any of them. It is safest and most natural to keep the basic meaning here.
39
On the purification rites, see for example J. Thomas, “Baptistes,” in RAC I (ed. T. Klauser et al.;
Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1950), 1167–1172; E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE –
66CE (London: SCM Press, 1992), 222–30.
else” (trans. Oldfather, LCL). As there is no mention of baptists earlier, we should

assume that the counterfeit baptists are negative counterparts for the Jews who have

adopted the πάθος of the baptised person. This comparison also presumes that the

word βαπτιστής means a baptised person. Although we usually tend to think that this

word denotes the person who baptises in contrast to the baptised one, this kind of

differentiation is not necessary. The word can also denote persons who practice self-

immersion.40 In theory, it could denote both the one who takes the proselyte baptism

and the one who practices the repeated ablutions of mainstream Judaism (see, e.g.,

Leviticus 15; Numbers 19). The latter is the probable alternative, as the passage by no

means refers to the proselyte baptism.

The prefix παρα- denotes that there is something wrong in these baptisms. The

counterfeit baptists, so to say, “misbaptise” and, thus, their baptism is somehow

invalid.41 This seems to reflect disputes over baptism: all the Jews have invalid

baptisms (section 21), while real Jews have a valid baptism (section 20). As the valid

baptism is the Christian baptism, Epictetus reproduces the Christian and anti-Jewish

view. Justin Martyr makes plain that Christians do not accept Jewish ablutions but

prefer the Christian baptism (Dialogue with Trypho 14.1; 19.2). There is something

similar going on in Epictetus’ metaphorical contrast between the counterfeit Jews and

the real Jews.42 Epictetus’ words for Christians, who are the real Jews, undoubtedly

reflect a Christian self-understanding. This self-understanding is seen in the New

Testament (Romans 9:6–8), not to speak of later Christian literature.43

40
See the names of certain Jewish sects; K. Rudolph, “The Baptist Sects,” in The Cambridge History of
Judaism 3 (ed. W. Horbury, W.D. Davies, and J. Sturdy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999), 471–500).
41
This is the earliest occurrence of the word παραβαπτιστής. Later we encounter it in the church
fathers, who use it to refer to the persons who commit schismatic baptisms; G.H.W. Lampe, A Patristic
Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961): παραβαπτιστής.
42
Rudolph (“The Baptist Sects,” 482) speaks of a rivalry between Christian and proselyte baptism.
43
L.H. Feldman, Virhe. Vain pääasiakirja.Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and
Interactions From Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 196–200; S.G.
3. Loan Words

I have already mentioned that the word πάθος is one that instantly catches the eye of

the one who knows Epictetus’ philosophy or Stoic philosophy in general. In Stoic

philosophy it denotes the morally questionable passions. Epictetus also uses it in this

negative sense – except here.44 Keeping this general background in mind, it is odd that

Epictetus makes a moral example of a Jew with the πάθος. One can suppose that

πάθος is a loan word from some source.

Epictetus’ use of a loan word is visible in the fact that it creates tensions in the

passage. The πάθος is qualified as the πάθος of the person who is baptised and who

has made the choice. This expression assumes that the person has the πάθος after the

baptism and the choice. Surprisingly, Epictetus adds that a person should also adopt

the πάθος that he or she has already received as a baptised person and as a person who

has made the choice. The baptism and the choice, which qualify the πάθος, do not fit

with the requirement to adopt the πάθος.

The πάθος acquired through baptism and choice is certainly considered too

ritualistic by Epictetus, who tends to prefer rational operations. For example, it is not

enough to attend the Eleusinian mysteries. He says that one should also understand

“that all these things were established by men of old time for the purpose of education

and for the amendment of our life” (Discourses 3.21.15; trans. W. A. Oldfather,

Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70–170 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995):
295–96.
44
Other occurrences include: Discourses 1.4.26; 1.27.10; 2.18.11; 3.1.8; 3.2.3 (two times); 4.1.57;
4.8.28; fr. 20. For the Stoic definition of πάθος, see M. Forschner, Die stoische Ethik. Über den
Zusammenhang von Natur-, Sprach- und Moralphilosophie im altstoischen System (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995),,114–23; and T. Brennan, “The Old Stoic Theory of
Emotions,” in The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy (ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen and J. Sihvola; The
New Synthese Historical Library 46; Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998), 21–70, esp. 21–
39. Bonhöffer (Epictet und die Stoa, 276–84) has analysed Epictetus’ use of the Stoic philosophy on
πάθος rather than the use of the word itself.
LCL).45 A similar moral emphasis is visible when he speaks about baptism. One does

not get the πάθος through the ritual of baptism, but through conscious adoption. Thus

the baptism and the choice have lost their significance in Epictetus’ thinking.

Therefore I am inclined to suppose that the Greek expression τὸ πάθος τὸ τοῦ

βεβαμμένου καὶ ᾑρημένου is best understood as a loan expression. The word πάθος

has a deviant meaning here; βάπτω and the perfect tense of ᾑρημένου are hapax

legomena in the Epictetan corpus. The other expression related to the baptism, the

substantive “counterfeit baptist” (παραβαπτιστής), is rare in Greek. It should also be

counted among the loan expressions.

Unfortunately, we cannot show any exact source for these loan words.

Generally speaking, they fit well within the Christian usage. The word βαπτιστής and

its derivates are philologically a Christian phenomenon, as they occur only in

Christian texts, with two exceptions. Those two are Epictetus and Josephus. In

Epictetus it seems to be a Christian loan word, and Josephus uses it when speaking of

“John called the Baptist” (Jewish Antiquities 18.116). Thus the word ‘baptist’ occurs

even in Josephus’ usage in a theme closely related to the Christians.

When it comes to choice, one can note that Justin Martyr speaks of it in the

context of baptism. It is possible that Justin is dependent on earlier tradition, which

also influenced Epictetus, who was older than Justin. According to Justin, the

converts are baptised so that they become children of free choice (προαιρέσεως) and

knowledge. They have chosen (ἑλομένῳ) the rebirth (First Apology 61.10.). Justin

speaks of Christ’s πάθος, meaning his suffering (e.g., Dialogue with Trypho 74.3;

45
H.-J. Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions
(London: T&T Clark, 2003),103–05.
97.3), but not in the context of a baptised Christian. In this respect, better analogies

are found in the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary of Epictetus.

For Ignatius the πάθος is an important concept, and its root is in Christ’s

πάθος – that is, Christ’s suffering.46 Christ’s πάθος is the constituent for the Christian

communities (see, e.g., the introductory salutations in Ignatius, To the Ephesians and

To the Trallians). It also ensures the effect of baptism, as Christ was baptised so that

he could cleanse water through his suffering (Ignatius, To the Ephesians 18.2).47

Ignatius also speaks of choice and πάθος in the same context. He says that Christians

should freely choose (αὐθαιρέτως) death and thus join in Christ’s suffering (Ignatius,

To the Magnesians 5.2). Ignatius presents no clear source for Epictetus’ loan words.

However, it helps us to reconstruct the enigmatic meaning of the πάθος in Epictetus’

text. Epictetus may refer to Christians who are ready for suffering because of their

beliefs. This interpretation fits in well with what Epictetus says of the Galileans’

fearlessness in the face of violence.

4. Conclusions and Further Paths for Study

Discourses 4.7.6 shows quite clearly that Epictetus knew Christians and their use of

canons in habituation. The passage on Jews and real Jews (Discourses 2.9.19–21)

utilises Christian views. Epictetus even borrows expressions from some unknown

Christian source, whether textual or not. What is interesting in these two passages is

the fact that Epictetus mentions Christians in passing. Granted that these passages do

not betray any interest in Christianity per se, but they do betray a self-evident

46
W. Bauer and H. Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Polykarpbrief (Die
Apostolischen Väter II; Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 18; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1985), 21; W.R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius Of Antioch
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 85–86.
47
Bauer and Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius, 42.
knowledge of Christians, even among the audience. Epictetus does not explain who

the Christians are or what their beliefs are. He seems to expect that his audience

knows enough to understand his points. He even expects that the audience knows the

Christian suprasessionist theology, which proclaims Christians as the real heirs of

Judaism. Thus the passing references to Christians indicate a more profound

knowledge of Christians.

This fact reopens the discussion of Epictetus’ relationship to Christians, which

Adolf Bonhöffer closed over a century ago. The discussion, however, should be

framed anew. Bonhöffer is right when he supposes that Epictetus would not have

supplemented his philosophical system with Christian thought.48 His Discourses,

however, shows that Epictetus used different motifs from everyday life to illustrate

his Stoic philosophy. Christians were presented as examples of fearless people whose

words and deeds were in harmony. As Epictetus even uses some expressions from

Christian sources, one can legitimately ask whether there might be even more in the

Discourses. The case closed by Bonhöffer should be opened again, but in a reframed

version.

First, it is unnecessary to limit the study to Epictetus’ relationship with the

New Testament. There is much more early Christian literature, which is relevant for

the comparison. Epictetus’ πάθος has a good equivalent in Ignatius’ epistles. Second,

after Mörth’s, Bonhöffer’s, and Sharp’s evaluations, one should not simply pick up

parallels and make claims of dependences in a parallelomanic way. This was Zahn’s

deficiency. In many cases the similarities can be explained with reference to a

common cultural and linguistic background, without forgetting the philosophical

elements in Christian literature. On the other hand, the fact that Epictetus cites

48
Bonhöffer, Epiktet, 72–81.
Christian expressions increases the probability that some similarities are due to

Epictetus’ contact with Christians.

In order not to fall into the trap of parallelomania, one should concentrate on

those Epictetan passages that include a special hint – for example, that of quietly

waiting for the cross in Discourses 2.2.19–20. In that context, Epictetus blames those

who incite the judges in court. This procedure will ruin the case. On the other hand, if

one likes and wants to provoke the judges, why not keep quiet? “Why do you mount

the platform at all, why answer the summons? For if you wish to be crucified, wait

and the cross will come” (εἰ γὰρ σταυρωθῆναι θέλεις, ἔκδεξαι καὶ ἥξει ὁ σταυρός).

There are two points here which attract interest. First, one should wait for the cross

without answering the summons, like Jesus, who did not “answer, not even to a single

charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed” (Matthew 27:14). Second, the

students were from well-to-do families, presumably Roman citizens who were

practically never punished with the cross.49 To be sentenced to death on the cross is

just a theoretical or symbolic idea for them. Does Epictetus hint to Jesus as an

example, as he openly refers to Socrates’ example just before the reference to the

cross? A further analysis of this and possibly other passages may show whether or not

one can find more contacts between Epictetus and early Christians, in addition to

Discourses 2.9.19–21 and 4.7.6.

John Granger Cook tried to develop sympathy for the Romans’ shock in the

face of the otherness of Christianity. His profound and excellent book tells us how

Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny beheld Christians with disgust. However, Epictetus

shows that the Romans did not only feel pure disgust when observing Christians.

49
On the rare exceptions, see M. Hengel, Crucifiction in the Ancient World and the Folly of the
Message of the Cross (London: SCM Press, 1977):,39–45.
While Pliny thought that Christianity was madness (amentia, Epistulae ad Trajanum

10.96.4), Epictetus held a different view. Epictetus thought that Christians and

madmen had similarly inadequate philosophical grounds for fearlessness, but he did

not lump these groups together. He admits that the Galileans bravely attained virtuous

conduct through habituation. In this respect, Christians are braver than the common

people, who are not trained for a fearless encounter with threats. Thus Epictetus’

statement is quite a laudable one.

This raises the question of the relationship between early Christian religion

and ancient philosophy. In a way, Epictetus counted Christians as above-average

people, close to the category of philosophy. Christians are not madmen, but they are

not fully philosophers either. They do not belong to the multitude, but rather to the

Jews who practice what they preach and who can be compared to real Stoics with

their blameless conduct. That Epictetus sees Christians in proximity to philosophy

may be a mirror effect of the philosophical elements in Christianity. Christians had

been acquainted with philosophical themes since Paul,50 and in the second century

there are clear examples of Christian philosophers, Justin Martyr being the main

one.51 There are also other examples of moderate accounts of Christians among the

pagan philosophers during the late second century.52 It is possible that the

50
For Paul and philosophy, see for example A.J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989); T. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2000); and Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self; G.H. van Kooten,
Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in
Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosphy and Early Christianity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament 232; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); E. Wasserman, The Death of the Soul in
Romans 7. Sin, Death, and the Law in Light of Hellenistic Moral Psychology (Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 256; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); Huttunen, Paul
and Epictetus; R.M. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of
Ancient Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
51
On Justin’s Christian philosophy, see Thorsteinsson, “By Philosophy Alone: Reassessing Justin’s
Christianity and His Turn from Platonism,” Early Christianity 3 (2012): 492–517..
52
Huttunen, “In the Category of Philosophy? Christians in Early pagan Accounts,” in Others and the
Construction of Early Christian Identities (ed. Raimo Hakola, Nina Nikki, and Ulla Tervahauta;
Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 106; Helsinki, 2013), 239–281.
philosophical elements in Christian teachings induced different philosophical

assessments due to the shock of otherness, as experienced by Tacitus, Suetonius, and

Pliny. Epictetus is the earliest representative of the moderate view.