Skip to content

Podcast brief

St. Paul's Letters and Their Debt to Stoic Philosophy

Troels Engberg-Pedersen talks with Peter Adamson about how deeply Stoic philosophy shaped St. Paul's theology and language.

A Stoa brief of an episode from History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps

HoP 500c Troels Engberg-Pedersen on St Paul and the Stoics

With Troels Engberg-Pedersen Published 41 min

Listen to the original episode

The episode belongs to its makers. This page summarizes its arguments in Stoa's words and points to the moments where they are made. Brief updated .

The brief

Troels Engberg-Pedersen argues that St. Paul's letters are shot through with Stoic philosophy, not as loose borrowing but as a working framework for his theology. He lays out three levels of evidence, moving from the surface to the structural.

The first level is vocabulary: Paul uses specifically Stoic terms like duties and progress. Taken alone, this could be coincidence. The second level is practice: Paul's constant moral exhortation throughout his letters mirrors Stoic paranesis, the kind of exhortation found in Seneca's letters, even though Paul uses a different Greek word for it. The third and strongest level is conceptual. In Romans 7 and 8, Paul uses the Greco-Roman idea of akrasia, the lack of self-control underlying the Stoic account of passions, to describe life under Jewish law, and then uses the Stoic concept of pneuma to describe what overcomes it. Engberg-Pedersen takes this as evidence that Paul is doing philosophy, not just quoting it.

The comparison runs deep. Where the Stoic sage reaches a cognitive recognition that only life in accordance with nature is good, the Christian reaches a cognitive acceptance that God's act in Christ is the only thing that matters. Both describe the pivotal change as a shift in reason or understanding, not emotion. Engberg-Pedersen also draws out Paul's cosmopolitanism, his claims that ethnicity, status, and gender are indifferent before Christ, and his materialist reading of pneuma as a physical substance rather than an immaterial Platonic spirit, pointing to Paul's argument about resurrected bodies in 1 Corinthians 15.

Adamson raises the natural objection: isn't Paul a theologian rather than a philosopher, and doesn't reading him through Greek categories understate his Jewish framework? Engberg-Pedersen responds that the line between theology and philosophy is itself a later invention. Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics all treated God and ethics as proper subjects of philosophy.

The conversation leaves open how far this reading should go, but it gives a concrete way to test it: look at where Paul's vocabulary, practice, and core concepts all point in the same direction, as they do with pneuma.

Strongest arguments

Paul's Greek vocabulary shows direct Stoic influence

5:38

Engberg-Pedersen notes Paul uses specifically Stoic terms like duties (kathekonta) and progress (prokope), which could be haphazard borrowings on their own. He treats this as the first and weakest level of evidence for Stoic influence.

Paul's moral exhortation mirrors Stoic paranesis

6:11

Paul constantly engages in moral exhortation throughout his letters, a practice that matches Stoic paranesis as seen in two letters of Seneca. This is treated as a second, stronger level of evidence that Paul's thought was shaped by Stoic practice, even though Paul uses a different Greek term for it.

Paul uses Stoic philosophical concepts to explain Christian transformation

7:15

In Romans 7 and 8, Paul describes life under Jewish law using the Greco-Roman concept of akrasia, which underlies the Stoic account of passions, and then describes the arrival of the pneuma, a distinctly Stoic concept, as overcoming this state. Engberg-Pedersen argues this shows Paul himself doing philosophy, not merely borrowing words.

Christian conversion parallels the Stoic sage's cognitive transformation

9:26

Just as the Stoic comes to recognize through reason that only living in accordance with nature is truly good, with everything else becoming indifferent, the Christian comes to accept that God's loving act in Christ is the only thing that truly matters. Engberg-Pedersen stresses that in both systems the transformation is cognitive, brought about by reason in Stoicism and by the pneuma in Paul, not an emotional shift.

Pauline communities parallel the Stoic cosmopolitan community of sages

15:31

Paul describes believers as citizens of an alternative polis whose true citizenship is in heaven, language Engberg-Pedersen connects to the Stoic ideal of the sage as a citizen of the world living in a notional community with other sages. Unlike the Epicureans, the Stoics had no actual colonies, so Paul's realized communities represent a concrete application of this Stoic idea with some differences.

Eudaimonism properly understood already includes other-regarding ethics

18:52

Engberg-Pedersen argues that the common view that eudaimonism conflicts with altruism rests on a misunderstanding influenced by Kant. Aristotle's eudaimonia already centrally includes justice, an other-directed virtue, and Stoic ethics takes this further, so Paul's communal and loving ethics fits within a eudaimonist framework rather than opposing it.

Paul applies the Stoic idea of indifference to ethnicity and worldly status

27:45

Paul declares that being a Jew or Greek, slave or free, man or woman is indifferent before Christ, paralleling the Stoic doctrine that externals like wealth and family are indifferent. He extends this to questions of marriage and slavery, arguing believers should treat these as unimportant because the world's present form is passing away, a distinctly Jewish apocalyptic addition to the Stoic concept.

Paul's pneuma is a physical, Stoic concept rather than an immaterial Platonic one

30:41

Engberg-Pedersen argues that later Christianity's Platonist influence led readers to treat pneuma as immaterial spirit, but Paul's own usage, especially his cosmological argument in 1 Corinthians 15 about resurrected pneumatic bodies, only makes sense if pneuma is understood as a physical substance, as it is in Stoicism.

Disagreements

Whether Paul should count as doing philosophy at all

36:46

Adamson plays devil's advocate, suggesting some listeners would object that Paul is a theologian, not a philosopher, and that reading him through Greek philosophy overstates its role and understates his Jewish theological identity. Engberg-Pedersen responds that the sharp distinction between theology, ethics, and philosophy is itself a later, anachronistic imposition, since Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics all discussed God and ethics under the heading of philosophy.

Concepts discussed

  • Indifferents Things outside the mind's own activity, such as bodily states or externals, are indifferent and should not be judged good or bad.
  • Eudaimonia The overall fulfilled state of a person's life that Greek ethical theories treat as the highest human good.
  • Cosmopolitanism All other cities and communities are like families within one highest city, which frames how a person should regard everything and everyone.
  • Progress The person making progress is recognized by expecting benefit and harm only from himself, not blaming others, and quietly correcting himself.

Philosophers and works discussed

  • St. Paul
  • 1 Corinthians By St. Paul.
  • Philippians By St. Paul.
  • Romans By St. Paul.

Questions this episode answers

  • How did Stoic philosophy influence St. Paul's letters?

    5:38

    Engberg-Pedersen traces three levels of influence: Paul's use of specifically Stoic vocabulary, his practice of moral exhortation paralleling Stoic paranesis, and his deeper use of Stoic concepts like akrasia and pneuma to explain Christian transformation.

  • Is the Stoic doctrine of indifferent things reflected in Paul's writing?

    27:45

    Yes, Paul applies the Stoic idea of indifference to declare that ethnicity, social status, slavery, and marriage do not matter before Christ, though he gives it a distinctly Jewish apocalyptic twist by linking it to the coming end of the world.

  • What does pneuma mean in Paul's letters and is it material or immaterial?

    30:41

    Engberg-Pedersen argues Paul's pneuma should be understood as a physical, Stoic-style substance rather than an immaterial Platonic spirit, pointing to Paul's cosmological argument in 1 Corinthians 15 about pneumatic resurrected bodies as evidence it must be material.

  • Can eudaimonist ethics accommodate altruism and concern for others?

    18:52

    Engberg-Pedersen argues that eudaimonia is widely misunderstood through a Kantian lens as purely self-interested, when in fact Aristotle's eudaimonia already includes justice as an other-regarding virtue, and Stoic ethics goes further, so a eudaimonist framework can fully accommodate other-directed love and community.

  • How does Paul's idea of the Christian community compare to the Stoic cosmopolitan sage?

    15:31

    Paul describes believers as citizens of an alternative heavenly polis, paralleling the Stoic ideal of the sage as citizen of the world living in community with other sages, though Paul's communities were concretely realized unlike the merely notional Stoic community.

  • Did Paul think ordinary believers could achieve the perfection of a Stoic sage?

    24:00

    Unlike the Stoics, who treat the perfect sage as extremely rare, Engberg-Pedersen argues Paul believed his fellow believers had already achieved this perfected state upon receiving the pneuma, even though moral exhortation continued as a reminder of an ideal already attained rather than one still to be reached.

Related primary passages

I consist of a little body and a soul. Now to this little body all things are indifferent, for it is not able to perceive differences. But to the understanding those things only are indifferent, which are not the works of its own activity.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 6.32 Read in context

Marcus locates the boundary of the indifferent inside the person, at the edge of the mind's own activity.

The condition and characteristic of a vulgar person, is, that he never expects either benefit or hurt from himself, but from externals. The condition and characteristic of a philosopher is, that he expects all hurt and benefit from himself. The marks of a proficient are, that he censures no one, praises no one, blames no one, accuses no one, says nothing concerning himself as being anybody, or knowing anything: when he is, in any instance, hindered or restrained, he accuses himself; and, if he is praised, he secretly laughs at the person who praises him; and, if he is censured, he makes no defense.

Epictetus, Handbook 48 Read in context

This is the clearest checklist the Stoics give for recognizing someone making progress.

my nature is rational and social; and my city and country, so far as I am Antoninus, is Rome, but so far as I am a man, it is the world. The things then which are useful to these cities are alone useful to me.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 6.44 Read in context

Marcus holds two citizenships at once, local and cosmic, without collapsing one into the other.

Sources

  1. Epictetus, Handbook Primary text, Stoa library
  2. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Primary text, Stoa library
  3. History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, HoP 500c Troels Engberg-Pedersen on St Paul and the Stoics Podcast episode, original episode