Jesus as Philosopher: The Philosophical Sage in the Synoptic Gospels examines the possible ways in which the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, were inspired by contemporary philosophical traditions about the ideal philosophical sage in their description of their ideal human being, Jesus Christ. Runar M. Thorsteinsson considers the following questions: How does the author in question speak of Jesus in relation to contemporary philosophy? Do we see Jesus take on a certain 'philosophical' role in the Gospels, either by his statements and reasoning or his way of life? In what way are Jesus' words and actions analogous to that of leading philosophical figures in Graeco-Roman antiquity, according to these texts? Conversely, in what way do his words and actions differ from theirs? While Thorsteinsson discusses a number of Graeco-Roman sources, the emphasis is on the question of how these parallel texts help us better to understand the Gospel authors' perception and presentation of the character of Jesus. While the fields of theology and ethics are often intertwined in these texts, including the philosophical texts, Thorsteinsson's main focus is the ethical aspect. He argues that the Gospel authors drew in some ways on classical virtue ethics. The study concludes that the Gospel authors inherited stories and sayings of Jesus that they wanted to improve upon and recount as truthfully as possible, and they did so in part by making use of philosophical traditions about the ideal sage, especially that of Stoicism and Cynicism.
Christianity is commonly held to have introduced an entirely new and better morality into the ancient world, a new morality that was decidedly universal, in contrast to the ethics of the philosophical schools which were only concerned with the intellectual few. Runar M. Thorsteinsson presents a challenge to this view by comparing Christian morality in first-century Rome with contemporary Stoic ethics in the city. Thorsteinsson introduces and discusses the moral teaching of Roman Stoicism; of Seneca, Musonius Rufus, and Epictetus. He then presents the moral teaching of Roman Christianity as it is represented in Paul's Letter to the Romans, the First Letter of Peter, and the First Letter of Clement. Having established the bases for his comparison, he examines the similarities and differences between Roman Stoicism and Roman Christianity in terms of morality. Five broad themes are used for the comparison, questions of Christian and Stoic views about: a particular morality or way of life as proper worship of the deity; certain individuals (like Jesus and Socrates) as paradigms for the proper way of life; the importance of mutual love and care; non-retaliation and 'love of enemies'; and the social dimension of ethics. This approach reveals a fundamental similarity between the moral teachings of Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism. The most basic difference is found in the ethical scope of the two: While the latter teaches unqualified universal humanity, the former seems to condition the ethical scope in terms of religious adherence.
Thorsteinsson's study of Romans poses a thoroughly argued challenge to Pauline scholarship. His argument has the potential of invalidating the reading of Romans 2 hat has contributed to a perception of Paul as utterly negative towards his fellow Jews and first-century Judaism. Among matters of scholarly dispute is the function and identity of Paul's interlocutor(s) in chapter 2 of Romans. Scholars agree universally that the individual addressed in 2:17-29 is a Jew, but with respect to the identity of the interlocutor of 2:1-5, there is no consensus. The majority of scholars hold that the interlocutor is a Jew throughout the chapter. A weighty minority argues that the individual addressed in 2:1-5 is a Gentile and that there is a shift of interlocutor in 2:17. In his investigation into the pros and cons of these positions, Thorsteinsson endeavors to challenge both majority and minority. Basic to his approach is to allow the larger context and framework of the letter to be of help in assessing the function and identity of Paul's partner(s) in dialogue. Thus the epistolary structure and setting of Romans, the relationship between Paul and his audience, the identity of the audience, and the dialogical style of the letter are used to ascertain the function and identity of Paul's interlocutor(s) in Romans 2. By engaging an imaginary interlocutor, Paul utilizes a well-established epistolary technique in Greco-Roman antiquity. Thorsteinsson concludes that Paul wrote Romans to a particular group of people in a specific, contemporaneous situation. The letter's message arose out of Paul's missionary obligation to proclaim God's "good news" to Gentiles in Rome. The minority view that Paul's interlocutor in 2:1-5 is a Gentile is combined with the majority opinion that there is but one interlocutor throughout the chapter. In sum, "the common opinion that Romans 2 contains Paul's piercing critique of his fellow Jew should be rejected. The individual censured in the chapter is not a Jew . . . " but a Gentile who claims to be a Jew.
Runar M. Thorsteinsson presents a challenge to the view that Christianity introduced an entirely new, better, and decidedly universal morality into the ancient world. Presenting evidence from Stoic and Christian texts from first century Rome, he emphasizes the similarities between the two belief systems.
Thorsteinsson's study of Romans poses a thoroughly argued challenge to Pauline scholarship. His argument has the potential of invalidating the reading of Romans 2 hat has contributed to a perception of Paul as utterly negative towards his fellow Jews and first-century Judaism. Among matters of scholarly dispute is the function and identity of Paul's interlocutor(s) in chapter 2 of Romans. Scholars agree universally that the individual addressed in 2:17-29 is a Jew, but with respect to the identity of the interlocutor of 2:1-5, there is no consensus. The majority of scholars hold that the interlocutor is a Jew throughout the chapter. A weighty minority argues that the individual addressed in 2:1-5 is a Gentile and that there is a shift of interlocutor in 2:17. In his investigation into the pros and cons of these positions, Thorsteinsson endeavors to challenge both majority and minority. Basic to his approach is to allow the larger context and framework of the letter to be of help in assessing the function and identity of Paul's partner(s) in dialogue. Thus the epistolary structure and setting of Romans, the relationship between Paul and his audience, the identity of the audience, and the dialogical style of the letter are used to ascertain the function and identity of Paul's interlocutor(s) in Romans 2. By engaging an imaginary interlocutor, Paul utilizes a well-established epistolary technique in Greco-Roman antiquity. Thorsteinsson concludes that Paul wrote Romans to a particular group of people in a specific, contemporaneous situation. The letter's message arose out of Paul's missionary obligation to proclaim God's "good news" to Gentiles in Rome. The minority view that Paul's interlocutor in 2:1-5 is a Gentile is combined with the majority opinion that there is but one interlocutor throughout the chapter. In sum, "the common opinion that Romans 2 contains Paul's piercing critique of his fellow Jew should be rejected. The individual censured in the chapter is not a Jew . . . " but a Gentile who claims to be a Jew.
Thorsteinsson's study of Romans poses a thoroughly argued challenge to Pauline scholarship. His argument has the potential of invalidating the reading of Romans 2 hat has contributed to a perception of Paul as utterly negative towards his fellow Jews and first-century Judaism. Among matters of scholarly dispute is the function and identity of Paul's interlocutor(s) in chapter 2 of Romans. Scholars agree universally that the individual addressed in 2:17-29 is a Jew, but with respect to the identity of the interlocutor of 2:1-5, there is no consensus. The majority of scholars hold that the interlocutor is a Jew throughout the chapter. A weighty minority argues that the individual addressed in 2:1-5 is a Gentile and that there is a shift of interlocutor in 2:17. In his investigation into the pros and cons of these positions, Thorsteinsson endeavors to challenge both majority and minority. Basic to his approach is to allow the larger context and framework of the letter to be of help in assessing the function and identity of Paul's partner(s) in dialogue. Thus the epistolary structure and setting of Romans, the relationship between Paul and his audience, the identity of the audience, and the dialogical style of the letter are used to ascertain the function and identity of Paul's interlocutor(s) in Romans 2. By engaging an imaginary interlocutor, Paul utilizes a well-established epistolary technique in Greco-Roman antiquity. Thorsteinsson concludes that Paul wrote Romans to a particular group of people in a specific, contemporaneous situation. The letter's message arose out of Paul's missionary obligation to proclaim God's "good news" to Gentiles in Rome. The minority view that Paul's interlocutor in 2:1-5 is a Gentile is combined with the majority opinion that there is but one interlocutor throughout the chapter. In sum, "the common opinion that Romans 2 contains Paul's piercing critique of his fellow Jew should be rejected. The individual censured in the chapter is not a Jew . . . " but a Gentile who claims to be a Jew.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.