• Jesus as Philosopher: The Moral Sage in the Synoptic Gospels by Runar M. Thorsteinsson (2018)

To end this mini-series, I’d like to talk a bit about Jesus and Philosophy. In the previous posts I looked at atonement vs forgiveness with Plato and Aristotle, and here I will think more generally with Jesus as a Philosopher in Mark.

If Walsh’s thesis is correct, then the Gospels arose out of networks of intellectually elite Greco-Roman writers, and thus the intertextuality with the Jewish scriptures should be mirrored with Greco-Roman poetry and philosophy, as this was part of the educational and intellectual context. And we see the influence of the philosophical schools on Jesus, most notably with the 2018 work Jesus as Philosopher: The Moral Sage in the Synoptic Gospels by Runar M. Thorsteinsson. Thorsteinsson shows that New Testament writers “associated the person of Jesus with contemporary philosophical schools and figures in order to better persuade their audience that Jesus was the ideal human being, one in whom they should believe as the Messiah” (2018, p. 178).

Ancient philosophy wasn’t just conceptual hopscotch, but the way or art of living. The wise person lived according to rational and ethical principles, phronesis, just in Jesus’ case he lived so as to be the Law Incarnate, love of God above all else and love of neighbor as self, to the point of love of enemy more than self. For instance, “citing the Cynic teacher Demetrius, Seneca observes that it is far better to possess only a handful of philosophical maxims that one continually follows and puts into practice than to have a vast and thorough knowledge of philosophy that is rarely or never used (Ben. [On Benefits] 7.1.3)” (Thorsteinsson, 2018, p. 16).

In this way, changing one’s outlook was a major transformation in how you understood life and so was no small thing, like the soldier at the cross proclaiming the crucified criminal Jesus the Son of God/an Innocent man:

A basic motif among all the philosophical schools was the motif of change, for all of them advocated a change in one’s way of life, whether in social, political, or religious terms. Ideological, psychological, and intellectual self-examination and change should result in such a change in one’s way of life. Common to all the philosophical schools was also the conviction that human beings have gone astray on a sea of ignorance and are therefore in urgent need of ‘therapy’. (Thorsteinsson, 2018, pp. 18-19)

The main influence on Jesus’ portrait seems to be the Stoics, as they would have been the most pervasive and encompassing philosophical school at that time. Thorsteinsson examines all three Synoptics, but for an example, consider Mark’s Jesus-as-philosopher:

The topics discussed include ascetic appearance, abandoning one’s family, attitude towards material possessions and outward appearance, Jesus and the philosophers as messengers of God, the wisdom of Jesus, the philosopher’s emotions, and the philosopher’s suffering and death. (Thorsteinsson, 2018, p. 179)

From Walsh’s framework we should note ascetic living reflects Essene ideas, but also the philosophy of the Cynics. Just as Mark clothes John the Baptist in the garb of Elijah to make a theological point, so too the emphasis on asceticism in outward appearance might point to philosophical ideals. Further reflective of the Stoics and Cynics was the belief that love of one’s brotherhood should take precedence over familial ties. Mark’s Jesus also aligns with the Stoic idea that material possessions are unimportant, but shows himself superior to many philosophers (with the exception of at least one Stoic) that material possessions are not simply a matter of indifference (adiaphoron), but should be sold so that the proceeds can be given to the poor. Mark’s Jesus is the wise man par excellence who is a master of argumentation and debate: “It is most clearly presented in Jesus’ debates with Jewish scholars, for whom Jesus typically lays logical traps. The image is reminiscent of the figure of Socrates in Plato’s discourses” (Thorsteinsson, 2018, p. 179).

In Mark Jesus’ anger (temple tantrum) and fear (Gethsemane) seem to fall short of the philosophical ideal, but this is resolved when we consider Jesus acting out of the mandates of love of God and neighbor, and so Jesus’ anger at the temple reflects the righteous indignation wrath of God, while Gethsemane highlights Jesus’ exemplary faithfulness to God’s plan in the face of terrible fear, which shows him to be more noble than the philosophers who have overcome fear. And so “[o]n other occasions, Jesus is presented as a person of great mental strength and authority who knows no fear and acts like the ideal philosopher. Contrary to common opinion, the feeling of love expressed and emphasized by Jesus does not differentiate him from contemporary philosophical sages” (Thorsteinsson, 2018, p. 180).

Stoics, Cynics, and Epicureans felt that suffering was an important part of a sage’s mission and quest for virtue. Jesus’ death most resembles that of Socrates. The question, then, is whether we are to understand the martyr’s statement in Mark 10:45 as akin to 4 Maccabees, or rather to Socrates’ prayer to Asclepius in the Phaedo, both of which seem to illustrate different aspects of perhaps internally contradictory Yom Kippur sacrificial imagery? Epictetus says: “And now that Socrates is dead the memory of him is no less useful to men, nay, is perhaps even more useful, than what he did or said while he still lived” (Discourses 4.1.169). Regarding Socrates, we read from Epictetus: “If we were useful to men by living, should we not have done much more good to men by dying when we ought, and as we ought” (Discourses 4.1.168-169).

Socrates, like Jesus and many first- and early second-century CE philosophers, thought that the philosophical sage was sent by God to execute a divine mission:

The true philosopher is in fact sent by Zeus to human beings as a messenger (angelos [*Paul also calls Jesus this]), with the purpose of showing them that they have erred (Diss. [Discourses] 3.22.23; on Epictetus himself as a ‘witness called by God’, see 1.29.47; on the divine calling of Socrates, see 3.1.19). After all, the Stoic sage is ‘the reformer of sinners’ (corrector peccantium), as Seneca explains (Ira [On Anger] 2.10.7). This fits nicely to the work of Jesus. He too was sent by God (Matt. 10.40) in order to show his fellow human beings, sometimes by way of the method of ‘exhortation’, that they were following the wrong path in their lives. His message was that they should ‘repent’ (metanoeite, 4.17) and turn to God, for the kingdom of heaven was near (cf. also 12.41; and 3.8, 11 on John the Baptist). He came to call ‘not the righteous but sinners’ (9.13). (Thorsteinsson, 2018, p. 83)

Just as “The philosophical sage was first and foremost the incarnation of wisdom and moral virtue” (Thorsteinsson, 2018, p. 27), Jesus was the law incarnate giving a new interpretation of the law (e.g., love of enemy): “LIVING LAW,” what the Stoics called ‘the living image of all the virtues’ (virtutium viva imago), a ‘truer exemplar’ (certius exemplar) of a sage than previous ones. Regarding the Stoic Musonius on the philosopher being the “living law,” we read:

‘In general’, he says, ‘it is of the greatest importance for the good king to be faultless (anamarteton) and perfect (teleion) in word and action, if, indeed, he is to be a “living law” as he seemed to the ancients, effecting good government and harmony, suppressing lawlessness and dissension, a true imitator of Zeus and, like him, father of his people’ (8.64.10-15). Here Musonius refers to the necessity of being ‘perfect’ and a true follower of the laws, similar to Jesus’ reference to commandments of the Jewish law (Mark 10.19), as well as his demand that the rich man be perfect in his devotion (‘You [only] lack one thing’ [hen se hysterei], 10.21). (Thorsteinsson, 2018, p. 50)

Jesus was recognized for his wisdom (Sophia), the mark of the philosopher. This seems to stress that Jesus’ wisdom comes from God, not an elite upbringing, much like Paul would later stress that his ideas about Jesus came from Jesus directly, not from man. In fact, if Paul’s letters are inspiring Mark’s, the narrative about Jesus the carpenter and his band of peasants may be a literary device. Jesus acknowledged wisdom, such as that of the Syrophoenician woman, and hence granted her request. Jesus’ wisdom causes wonder/amazement (exethaumazon), which Aristotle says is the birthplace of a new philosophical outlook: “All in all, the image of Jesus drawn by Mark in these stories is of a man who is not only a wise man, but the wise man, the wisest of them all” (Thorsteinsson, 2018, p. 58). Similarly, we see the idea of metanoia or a turning around of the soul like when Saul’s eyes are opened by the forgiving death of Stephen (like the forgiving death of Jesus), and Saul becomes Paul.:

Luke’s Jesus did not see it as his role to punish sinners but to bring them to repentance: to urge them to review their disposition to life and to God, and thus to realize their poor state of being and act accordingly. Plato spoke of the object of education as a ‘turning around of the soul‘ (Republic, 518Dff): the word epistrophe, later used by Christians of conversion, is applied to the effects of philosophy, meaning thereby an orientation of focusing of the soul, the turning of men from carelessness to true piety, for which conuersio is used by Cicero (On the Nature of the Gods, i. 77). The concept of metanoia, which is essentially the same in Luke (and Acts) as in both Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature, is used to ‘convey a change in thinking that usually leads to a change in behavior and or way of life.’ As Gregory E. Sterling notes, some Hellenistic moral philosophers recognized repentance as a virtue. It represents the moment of truth when the individual must chose [sic] between continuing on a course that has been shown to be wrong or reorienting her or his life to a new course. Hierocles of Alexandria captured the thrust of this view when he wrote: ‘Repentance (metanoia) is the very beginning of philosophy: the flight from both senseless deeds and words and the first preparation for a life that is without regret.’ [Commentary on the Golden Chain 14.24-29]…. The central feature, therefore, of the role of the philosopher as God’s messenger is to cure human beings from their weaknesses and help them to attain a good life; in other words, the role of the philosopher turns out to be the salvation of human beings (soteria)’…. In the Graeco-Roman world, the term ‘saviour’, soter was applied to the Roman emperor and other Hellenistic rulers, as well as in the mystery religions and the cult of the healing god Asclepius. It could also be used of philosophers. (Thorsteinsson, 2018, p. 165)

Walsh points out that the Gospels very much take place within an ancient philosophical standpoint. For instance, you can’t understand the function of pneuma in the Gospels without understanding Stoic physics. The Gospels are using the philosophical terminology of the period, like logos and phronesis. The gospel writers are elite writers who know the landscape and are engaging with it. In this regard, Erin Vearncombe notes that Jesus’ mathetes, as “disciples,” reflects a distortion of the original meaning of that word, “student,” which often suggested “student of a philosopher.”