Paul Among the Stoics:

The Writings of Epictetus and Seneca as a

Heuristic Model for Investigating Paul's
Language in Romans 1:18-32

1
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction to Stoicism ............................................................................................................... 4
Stoicism within Ancient Philosophy ................................................................................................... 4
Roman Stoicism ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Rejection of Passion ................................................................................................................................. 7
Natural Law ................................................................................................................................................. 8
History of Interpretation ........................................................................................................... 10
Form ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
Concepts ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Terms and Phrases ................................................................................................................................. 12
Engberg-Pedersen .................................................................................................................................. 13
Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Paul and the Stoics: A Comparison ......................................................................................... 16
Paul and Epictetus .................................................................................................................................. 17
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Paul and Seneca ....................................................................................................................................... 20
A Stoic Reading of Romans 1:18-32 ........................................................................................ 25
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 27

2
Introduction
In discussion of Paul’s ethics, Graeco-Roman ethical and philosophical language is often
referenced but in a strikingly vague manner. When this is explored further, various parallels
can be drawn between Paul and Stoicism, but far fewer scholars attempt this. Paul’s sexual
ethics can be analysed in light of the Cynic-Stoic marriage debates, particularly in passages
such as 1 Corinthians 7, but once again this is an area seldom explored, despite clear benefits
such as contextual information regarding the understanding of sex and marriage in the First
Century. Finally, in the study of perhaps the most explicit reference to homoeroticism in the
New Testament, Romans 1:18-32, one would expect to find almost nothing at all, but would
instead be surprised to find many commentaries mentioning the presence of Stoic language
and argumentation. Unfortunately, this is as far as this study goes and this is then moved on
from with no further comment. Background information and definitions of words are assumed
on the basis of Paul’s Jewish heritage and alternative readings are rarely suggested.1
In spite of significant discussion on Romans 1, philosophy in Paul and sexual ethics,
very little is done to bring these issues together and to provide a philosophical reflection on
Paul’s language in Romans 1 with reference to specific Stoic texts. It is possible that this
could be because there is little to say on the subject, but on the other hand perhaps this is an
area that simply hasn’t been adequately studied. My aim, therefore, is to explore whether such
a study can shed any light on the meaning of the text, by means of comparing Romans 1:18-
32 to the writings of two Stoic philosophers contemporary to Paul: Epictetus and Seneca.
For this reason, this study may appear at times to be rather speculative. This is
intentional, as my only goal is to discover whether such a study is beneficial, rather than to
make any new or groundbreaking suggestions on the nature of the text. Instead of taking a
broad-brush approach to references of the Greek language in the Ancient World, as some

1
Banister gives a good overview of the assumptions on scholarship in his article on the
passage: Jamie A. Banister, ‘”Homoios” and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27’, JBL
128.3 (2009), pp. 569 – 590 [569-70]
Many scholars reference homoeroticism without any discussion on what this refers to or the
context behind it. See for example, William Hendriksen, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2002), pp. 77 - 79, Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), p. 37. Others, such as Fitzmeyer and Dunn,
include limited discussion on the terms, whereas Jewett has given the most comprehensive
information, though this is still largely within the confines of traditional interpretation. Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York:
Doubleday, 1993), p. 285, James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (Dallas: Word, 1988), p. 64,
Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Augsburg: Fortress Press, 2007), pp. 183 - 186

3
writers do2, my analysis is limited to the two aforementioned writers and their influences.
This is not intended to suggest that the Platonic or early church usage and interpretation of the
language of Romans 1:18-32 is not important, but merely to acknowledge that there are
hundreds of possible analyses and my remit is the Roman Stoic understanding of Epictetus
and Seneca. As I have already noted, generalisations and vague statements about “the views
of the Stoics” or “ the ethics of the Ancient World” are more often than not, unhelpful.
My plan is as follows. I will begin with a brief outline of what Stoicism was and how
it developed in the Ancient World, with particular reference to the Roman Stoicism prominent
at the time of Paul and its distinctive emphases, such as natural law. I will then give an
overview and analysis of Paul and Stoicism in scholarship, particularly over the last century. I
will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of what has been achieved, seeking only to
demonstrate that there is a clearly identifiable link between Paul and Stoic thought. Following
this, a more specific analysis of two Roman Stoic philosophers, Epictetus and Seneca, will be
given, with reference made to similarities in language and form to Romans 1. Finally, I will
summarise my findings by discussing if and how such study can impact a reading of Paul’s
comments in Romans 1:18-32.

Introduction to Stoicism

Stoicism within Ancient Philosophy

Zeno of Citium founded Stoicism after his move to Athens in 3123 as a school largely
influenced by a combination of Cynicism and the works of Socrates.4 Rising to prominence in
the period that can be best described as ‘Middle Platonism’5, it has typically been split in to
three distinct periods: Early Stoicism, Middle Stoicism and Roman Stoicism.6 To make any

2
Diana M. Swancutt, ‘“The Disease of Effemination”: The Charge of Effeminacy and the
Verdict of God (Romans 1:18- 2:26)’ in Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson (eds.)
New Testament Masculinities (Leiden; Brill, 2004), pp. 169 - 210,
B. J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Reponses to Female Homoeroticism
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)
3
F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics (London: Bristol Press, 1989), p. 7
4
D. Sedley, ‘The School, from Zeno to Arius Didymus’, in B. Inwood (ed), The Cambridge
Companion to Stoics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 7-33 [9]
5
Troels Engberg Pedersen, ‘Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transitional
Period in Ancient Philosophy’ in Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen and Ismo
Dunderberg (eds.), Stoicism in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), p.
1
6
Thorsteinsson, Roman Stoicism, p. 14

4
generalisation on the school is challenging, as at each stage its adherents were more than
willing to make adaptations and corrections on the comments of their predecessors,7 though
up until the period of Roman Stoicism the core ideas remained largely the same. Sedley notes
that one of the distinguishing factors of early Stoicism was its ‘intellectualist identification of
goodness with wisdom and the consequent elimination of non-moral “goods” as indifferent’8,
whilst Skinner comments that the originally Cynic ideas of virtue and living according to
nature represent Stoicism’s primary arguments.9 They were also often characterised by their
denial of excessive passion and emotion, which both formed the basis for their criticisms of
other schools such as the Epicureans, and led to them being accused of hypocrisy and
extremism.10

Roman Stoicism
In the scope of all of the Stoic schools of philosophy, it is the so-called Roman Stoics that will
prove most useful to my current study, both because of their proximity to Paul in history and
the larger number of comparisons that are drawn between their writings and Paul’s. 11
Epictetus, for instance, makes reference to all humanity as a body who should act in ways that
compliment one another (Ira 2.31.7), and in striking similarity to Paul’s language in Romans
7:19-20 and 7:24, writes ‘I want something, and it does not happen… I do not want
something, and it does happen; and what creature is more wretched than I?’ (Diatr. 2.17.18)
Comparison could be made to Stoicism at a wider level, but because of instances like the
above, it is obvious that comparing Paul to writers contemporary to him will be most
profitable.12
Thorsteinsson defines Roman Stoicism simply as ‘Stoic philosophy as it was
understood and presented by Stoics who were or had been residents of the city of Rome in the

7
Sandbach, The Stoics, p. 15 notes how Chrysippus adapted some of what Zeno said in to
what would later come to be known as orthodox Stoic belief.
8
Sedley, ‘The School’, p. 10
9
M. B. Skinner, Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
2014), p. 205
10
Swancutt, ‘Disease of Effemination’, pp. 169 - 210
11
It must be acknowledged that in some cases, the Stoic writings are dated later than Romans.
This is not necessarily a problem, as if the language and concepts used are similar, this
potentially demonstrates common knowledge of a school of thought, which I will argue is
Roman Stoicism. Given that scholars do not contend that Paul influenced Epictetus’ writings
for example, it is significant that similarities can be drawn despite their later composition.
12
See discussion in Runar M. Thorsteinsson, ‘Paul and Roman Stoicism: Romans 12 and
Contemporary Stoic Ethics’, JSNT 29.2 pp. 139 – 161 [140], who chides Esler for his lack of
engagement with those most directly contemporary to Paul.

5
First Century BCE and the Romans’ responsive reception of it.’13 These Stoics; Seneca,
Epictetus and Musonius Rufus in particular, are of particular concern in studying The Letter
to the Romans ‘with respect both to the social setting of the audience and to the chronological
and spatial framework.’14 Owing largely to the writings of Cicero15, Stoicism had risen to
become perhaps the most prominent philosophical school of the day in Century Rome,
leading to many Stoic judges in positions of authority.16 This is most true in the case of
Seneca, who was alive at the same time as Paul and was a chief advisor to Emperor Nero at
the time that Romans was written.17
By the First Century, Stoicism had developed significantly from its earlier roots, still
holding to the “tripartite” division of philosophy in to the areas of logic, physics and ethics,
but by this point focusing primarily on ethics.18 While the earliest Stoics were arguably
theoreticians, Sandbach argues that those in Rome in the First Century were much more
concerned with the practical outworking of their philosophy.19 Perhaps owing to this and
perhaps to its rise in prominence, there was also a significant shift in areas such as the
universal society and natural law, with Cicero bringing further definition to these ideas and
Epictetus employing city-state language to explain the universe. Thorsteinsson also notes that
Roman Stoicism was the first strand of the school to explicitly endorse the idea of total
equality between all people20, while Asmis comments on the prominence of its concern for
the ‘altruistic love for others.’21 It should of course be noted that this did not remove all social
barriers but means that in regards to attitudes towards women, Stoic writers during this period

13
Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study
of Ancient Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 18
14
Thorsteinsson, Roman Stoicism, p. 19
15
It is interesting to note that whilst Thorsteinsson credits Cicero with popularizing Stoicism
in Rome, he does not consider him in his primary study of Roman Stoicism, whilst Engberg-
Pedersen considers him to be the most complete source for Stoic ethics. See discussion on this
in Thorsteinsson, Roman Stoicism, p. 13, 20, Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics, p. 46
16
Diana M. Swancutt, ‘Disease of Effemination’, pp. 169-170
17
Such trends would continue until the Stoic Emperor, Marcus Aurelius in the 2nd Century.
After this point Stoicism slowly began to decline, perhaps as a result of its near universal
acceptance by this time. For discussion on this, see Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context
of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (London; T&T Clark, 2002), p.
338
18
Thorsteinsson, Roman Stoicism, p. 18
19
F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics (2nd Ed., Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989), pp. 16 - 17
20
Thorsteinsson, Roman Stoicism, p. 16
21
Elizabeth Asmis, ‘The Stoics on Women’ in Julie K. Ward (ed.), Feminism and Ancient
Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 68 - 92 [74]

6
were surprisingly egalitarian22, whereas Epictetus’ former status as a slave surely indicates an
awareness of the lower spectrum of society.
Having placed Stoicism within its wider context of philosophical thought in the
Ancient World and narrowed our study down to the Stoicism of First Century Rome, I will
now briefly consider two of the distinctive features of this Stoicism: attitudes toward passion
and the concept of natural law. When we turn to the writings of Epictetus and Seneca, some
awareness of these themes will be profitable.

Rejection of Passion
An area of significance within the Stoic thought of this period is its typically negative view of
passion and desire, indicated by notable statements of Seneca such as ‘only with the
extirpation of the passions, including sexual desire, can we be free and self-sufficient’23, as
well as the indication that the wise man will be free from desire. (De Ira 1.16.7) This has led
scholars such as Martin24 and Veyne25 to claim that they rejected passion altogether, although
Ellis raises the point that there is some ambiguity regarding what passion is, referencing
examples such as Seneca’s position on grieving for a friend.26 In referencing Epictetus, he
demonstrates that Seneca’s seemingly absolute dismissal of passion in itself is not universally
held, arguing that it is instead excessive desire and a loss of control that is condemned.27
There is, of course, the idea of the “four negative passions” that result as a consequence of
inappropriate desire, but there is nevertheless some ambiguity regarding what is seen as an
appropriate level of emotion and what is condemned.28

22
This said, Swancutt maintains that the Stoic judges of Rome “hypermasculinised” their
ethics and depicted their opponents as foolish and effeminate. I will discuss references to the
effeminate later, but in this instance would consider her statement an exaggeration, as
references to such figures surely take issue with their “inappropriate” behaviours, rather than
femininity per se.
Swancutt, ‘Disease of Effemination’, p. 174
23
Dale B.Martin, ‘Paul without Passion: On Paul’s Rejection of Desire in Sex and Marriage’
in Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Saviour (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2006) pp. 65 - 76 [70]
24
Martin, ‘Paul without Passion’, p. 71
25
Paul Veyne, Seneca: The Life of a Stoic (New York: Routledge, 2003), p. 55
26
J. Edward Ellis, Paul and Ancient Views of Sexual Desire: Paul’s Sexual Ethics in 1
Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 1 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), p. 115
27
Ellis, Paul and Ancient Views, p. 170
28
Sorabji, for instance, notes Seneca’s distinguishing between voluntary emotional judgments
and involuntary “first movements” of emotions that aren’t condemned. See Richard Sorabji,
‘Stoic First Movements in Christianity’ in Steven K. Strange and Jack Zupko (eds.), Stoicism:

7
 That wrong passion is denounced but duty is encouraged is also demonstrated by the
Roman Stoic position on marriage, which runs contrary to other schools in not dismissing it
completely, as the Cynics do, but attaching significance to it and holding it in its proper place.
Hierocles, for instance, sees marriage as important as the ‘first and most elementary’
relationship in the city-state. (Hierocles 52.26.7)29 30 This does not diminish the negative view
of passion held by Stoic philosophers, but illustrates that an equally great concern is proper
action within society; the reason that Epicureanism is so heavily criticised is due to its effects
on civil duty. As Sandnes considers, according to Cicero, ‘a philosophy that avoids pain and
seeks pleasure does not work for the common good of the city… Epicureanism is an
enterprise in selfishness.’31
As will become more obvious later, the Stoic emphasis on correct desire and its
resulting benefits for the state, as opposed to the socially regressive pursuit of passion is an
idea of key importance and will prove significant in our study of Epictetus and Seneca. Such
information also enhances our reading of Romans 1 as it brings clarity to the assumptions
behind the use of the Stoic concepts of natural living.

Natural Law
A key Stoic concept that was near universally held is that eudaimonia, usually translated as
happiness, is the end goal of life and can be achieved by living virtuously, or ‘in accordance
with nature’, which Lee notes is espoused by Diogenes Laertius (Vit Phil 7.97), who accredits
the idea to figures such as Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus.32 This idea of living according to
nature and reason is seen by Cicero (Off 1.4.11-14) and Epictetus (Diatr. 1.6.19, 2.9.2-3)33 as
what distinguishes humans from animals, and can also be expressed through the idea of
koinos nomos, the natural law in accordance with which everything is ordered. This

Traditions and Transformations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 95 –
107 [97] for more discussion though this will doubtlessly be explored in more detail later.
29
Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1
Corinthians 7 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), p. 81
30
See also Deming’s comments on Epictetus’ criticism of the Cynics for not marrying,
Deming, Marriage and Celibacy, pp. 84 – 85; The issue at hand here is clearly one of honour
and duty, as well as the role of relationships with others in the community.
31
K. O. Sandnes, ‘Paul and Socrates: The Aim of Paul’s Areopagus Speech’, JSNT 50
(1993), pp. 13-26 [17 – 18]
32
Michelle V. Lee, Paul, The Stoics, and The Body of Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), p. 59
33
Lee, The Body of Christ, pp. 61 - 62

8
‘corresponds more to a mental disposition than to a set of moral rules’34 and illustrates a point
of departure between early Stoics such as Zeno, who argued that this knowledge was limited
to sages, and Roman Stoics such as Cicero, who held that it is common to all people and the
gods, forming the basis of a common society.35 A further difference appears in that whilst
Zeno condoned the sharing of sexual partners and a common form of dress for all people,
later Stoics would claim that any sex outside of the confines of marriage was contrary to
nature.36
There is significant debate around the extent to which this idea of nature was set in
stone, with Stowers noting that for orthodox Stoics, nature’s law was not considered fixed37,
whilst Koester argues that before the writings of Philo, it was never considered as a ‘superior
guide and criterion for morality and institutional law’. 38 Huttunen rightly disputes this,
questioning how, according to Koester; Epictetus’ reference to the concept of a “law of
nature” can possibly be proof that such a concept did not exist.39 It should also be noted that
the development of the language of the universal community in Cicero, Epictetus and Seneca
meant that a link was drawn between the rule of the state and the order of the universe, as well
as how one acted in the state being a reflection of ones accordance with nature. This idea will
be explored further at a later stage, but demonstrates that at the time of the Roman Stoics,
natural law was no less of a prominent concept.
Knowledge of this is also greatly beneficial to our study of Epictetus and Seneca as
such a key concept was taken for granted, often without explanation, but undergirded many of
their key arguments, as well as Paul’s argument in Romans 1.

34
Lee, The Body of Christ, p. 63
35
Lee, The Body of Christ, p. 62
36
Stowers, A Re-Reading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1997), p. 180
37
Stowers, Re-Reading of Romans, p. 111
38
Helmut Koester, ‘NOMOS PHYSIS: The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought’ in
Jacob Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell
Goodenough (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2004), pp. 521 - 541 [530]
39
N. Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus on Law: A New Comparison (London: T & T Clark,
2009), p. 43

9
History of Interpretation
The idea of similarities between Stoicism and Paul is not original to my study.40 In fact,
Colish demonstrates in her work that ‘the possibility of a connection between Stoicism and
the New Testament… has been a topic of interest and controversy from late antiquity to the
present.’41 Nevertheless, the subject was brought to the forefront of scholarship initially in the
early 20th Century, followed by further prominence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Scholarship on this subject can be grouped under the broad categories of the analysis of Stoic
argument form, concepts and terms/phrases.

Form
For instance, Bultmann has suggested that the ‘diatribe’ language of Paul’s argumentation
bears resemblance to that of the Stoics, having written his dissertation on the subject in
1910,42 in which he analyses the language of Paul alongside that of philosophers such as
Seneca and Epictetus. He notes their means of argument as dialogical, characterised by saying
and counter-saying, as well as exaggeration and rhetorical questions.43 This idea has since
been further propagated by Stowers, who contends that the ‘basic form’ and ‘stylistic
features’, as well as the use of indictment and false conclusions of Paul are characteristic of
diatribe argumentation.44 In Romans in particular, he suggests that this is used as a protreptic,
demonstrating Paul’s intention to teach his audience.45 This can perhaps best be seen in
passages such as Romans 2, in which Paul appears to set up and object to various beliefs and
statements in the process of making his argument.46

40
References to Stoic language in Paul can be found as early as 1895 by Lightfoot and 1910
by Weiss; J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan, 1895), p.
200, Johannes Weiss, Der Erfe Korintherbrief (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
1910), pp. 157 - 159
41
Marcia I. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (Leiden:
Brill, 1985), p. 17
42
R. Bultmann, The Style of the Pauline Preaching and the Cynic-Stoic Diatribe
(Unpublished PHD Dissertation)
43
W. Baird, History of New Testament Research: Volume 1 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress,
1992), p. 282
44
Stowers, A Re-Reading of Romans, pp. 176 - 177
45
Stowers, A Re-Reading of Romans, p. 178
46
For more on diatribe language in Paul, see A. J Malherbe, ‘ME GENOITO in the Diatribe
and Paul’ in Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 25 –
33, and Stanley E. Porter, ‘The argument of Romans 5: can a Rhetorical Question make a
difference?’, JBL 110 (1991), p. 655 - 677

10
 It should be noted however, that this does not necessarily suggest an explicit link
between Paul and Stoicism in itself, as this style of argument was common to various
Hellenistic writers and schools, and it is possible that Paul may have been aware of it without
any specific knowledge of any particular philosophical school. Further, Bultmann himself was
not convinced of a Stoic link; he argued instead that the differences far outweighed the
similarities between the two systems of thought.47 In later work he would go on to compare
Epictetus and Paul in their ethics48, concluding that there is clear common ground but
ultimately this is superficial as Paul’s ethics stemmed from a ‘revelational experience’,
whereas Epictetus’ were merely culturally devised.49
Nevertheless, this work formed an important early stage in scholarship on the
subject, paving the way for later developments post-new perspective. 50 More recently,
comparison has been made between vice lists in Pauline passages such as Romans 1:29-31
and Galatians 5:19-21.51

Concepts
At a conceptual level, parallels have also been drawn between Paul and Stoic belief,
specifically regarding the idea of the cosmopolitan or ‘universal society’.52 Scholars have
highlighted this apparent set of ethical ideals that unites all people, with some arguing that it
is a point of significant affinity between Paul and Stoic philosophers53, whereas others see it
as a point of departure, as for Paul the community is limited to the Church rather than to
extending to the whole world.54 This also undergirds Stoic opposition to other philosophical
schools: they are seen as rejecting civil responsibility. It has also been highlighted that Paul’s

47
W. D. Dennison, The Young Bultmann: Context for His Understanding of God (Brussels:
Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 2008), p. 68
48
R. Bultmann, ‘Das religiöse Moment in der ethischen Unterweisung des Epiktet, and das
Neue Testament’, ZNW 13 (1912), pp. 97 - 110
49
Dennison, The Young Bultmann, pp. 67 - 68
50
Discussion of the overall progression of Pauline philosophy will not be given here but it
must suffice to say that the study of Paul in relation to ancient philosophy has benefited and
gained traction as a result of the abandonment of the so called “Jewish Hellenistic divide”.
Where previously Paul’s Jewish and Hellenistic backgrounds were considered opposite
extremes of interpretation, they can now be analysed side by side, acknowledging that Paul
likely took influences from both.
51
Dunn, Romans, p. 53
52
Lee, The Body of Christ, p. 13
53
Lee, The Body of Christ, p. 13
54
Barclay, ‘Security and Self Sufficiency’, p. 69

11
statement of equality in Galatians 3:28 bears similarities to Stoic dismissals of social
functions and gender.55
Additionally, the idea of a Stoic interpretative framework is propagated by Brookins,
who argues that the concepts of “wisdom” and the “wise man” of 1 Corinthians are rooted in
Stoic sayings of paradox.56 Particular examples of this include the language of “rich” and
“kings” in 1 Cor 4:8 and Cicero’s De Finibus 3.7557, and a comparison of Stoicorum Veterum
Fragmenta 3.590 and 1 Corinthians 3:21: ‘all things are the wise man’s/all things are yours’.58
He argues, therefore, that Paul is attempting to cast the Corinthians as thinking of themselves
as Stoic wise men.59 Further examples of conceptual links include Lee’s comparison of the
“body” language in Corinthians60 and Engberg-Pedersen’s concept of the “material spirit”.61
Such ideas usually look at an entire letter or several key chapters and see overarching themes,
rather than focusing on particular verses or phrases.
One further area of specific interest to my current study is that of sexual ethics,
which has also seen a rise in prominence in recent years. Books have been published that give
an overview of Paul’s sexual ethics at a general level, such as Ellis’ ‘Paul and Ancient Views
of Sexual Desire’ 62 , as well as more specific studies such as Will Deming’s ‘Paul on
Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7’63 and Martin’s The
Corinthian Body.64 As I will note below, however, there has not been as much discussion
regarding language of sexual ethics and Romans, which I find problematic.

Terms and Phrases

Finally, comparisons have been drawn between Paul and Stoicism on the basis of Paul’s
usage of particular terms and phrases. Some words that have been analysed are typically
known for their Jewish or wider Greek usage. For example, Huttunen has written a lengthy

55
David A. DeSilva, ‘Paul and the Stoa: A Comparison’ JETS 38.4 (1995), p. 549 – 564
[555],
M. Schofield, The Stoic Idea of the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. xii
56
Brookins, Corinthian Wisdom, Stoic Philosophy, and the Ancient Economy, p. 161
57
Brookins, Wisdom, p. 161
58
Brookins, Wisdom, p. 162
59
Brookins, Wisdom, p. 163
60
Lee, The Body of Christ, pp. 29 - 58
61
T. Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011)
62
Ellis, Paul and Ancient Views of Sexual Desire
63
W. Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians
7 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004)
64
Martin, The Corinthian Body

12
comparison of Paul and Seneca’s usage of nomos and has come to the conclusion that Paul’s
concept of the law involves the interpretation of the Torah ‘with Stoic methods’,65 whilst the
aforementioned study of sophia in Corinthians has highlighted Stoic influence.66 DeSilva and
Barclay have also commented on Paul’s use of autarkeia, comparing Epictetus’ Enchiridion
48 with 2 Corinthians 9:8 and Philippians 4:13, though noting that Paul’s sufficiency is based
on God, rather than the self.67 Lastly, it has been highlighted that many of the words used by
Paul in regards to sexual ethics, particularly in Romans 1, have roots in or similarities with
Stoic texts. These include the antitheses apthartos/phtartos, in 1:23, the term epithymia in
1:24 and the contrast between living kata physin and para physin.68

Engberg-Pedersen
Perhaps the most notable scholar to have considered Pauline and Stoic thought in recent years
is Troels Engberg-Pedersen, who has published many articles regarding various similarities
over the past 20 years or so, culminating in the release of his book Paul and the Stoics which
was released in 2000.69 His approach is distinct from that of many others in that he admits
that it is not necessarily theological, but anthropological and ethical, seeking to establish
systematic links between Paul and Stoic thought.70 For Pedersen, this understanding makes
the best use of the text and explains the language of participation and conversion in Paul as
‘the phenomenon of conversion conceptualised as a story’71 and ‘a moral progress of turning
away from self-seeking (egoism) to other-seeking (altruism).’72
Such an analysis is interesting but in the view of many scholars, overstates the
connection between Paul and Stoicism. His strength in having established clear links on

65
Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, p. 155
See also L. Aejmelaeus and A. Mustakallio, The Nordic Paul: Finnish Approaches to Pauline
Theology (London: T & T Clark, 2008), p. xiii
66
See footnote 23 above. For more, see discussion in S. Stowers, ‘A “Debate” Over
Freedom’: 1 Corinthians 6:12-20,’ in E. Ferguson (ed.), Christian Teaching: Studies in Honor
of Lemoine G. Lewis (Abilene: Abilene Christian University, 1981), pp. 59 – 71
67
De Silva, ‘Paul and the Stoa: A Comparison’, JETS 38.4 (1995), pp. 549-564 [550],
J. M. G. Barclay, ‘Security and Self Sufficiency: A Comparison of Paul and Epictetus’,
Auditu 24 (2009), pp. 60-72 [65]
68
DeSilva, ‘Paul and the Stoa’, pp. 551-552
M. Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective (Fortress Press,
Minneapolis, 1998), pp. 104 – 105
Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 64
69
Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000)
70
Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics, p. 30
71
Engberg- Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics, p. 31
72
Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics, p. 32

13
various levels within the writings of Paul is unfortunately eclipsed by accusations that his
view is anti-apocalyptic and theological, guilty at times of attempting to make everything
Paul says Stoic first and Jewish-Christian second. Nevertheless, his point is at least
understandable in that a link is often undermined altogether on the basis of theological
differences, often to the detriment of proper analysis.73 This need not be the case, though
perhaps Engberg-Pedersen goes too far in the other direction. Whilst I have not engaged
directly with his work much in this study due to his lack of engagement with Epictetus and
Seneca, he must nevertheless be acknowledged as a figure of key influence in this area of
study.

Summary
This study has acted as a brief overview of much of the mainstream scholarship on Paul and
Stoicism over the past century or so and demonstrates that there is a growing trend of drawing
comparisons between Paul and Stoic thought. This has been established on the basis of style
of argumentation and writing form, concepts and finally on particular words and phrases. It
should be noted, however, that besides a few exceptions, much of this scholarship is relatively
superficial and under explored, often found within footnotes or short chapters within books on
wider philosophical influence on the New Testament. On one hand this is to be expected due
to the specific nature of Stoicism, but studies such as Deming’s study of Stoic-Cynic language
regarding marriage and Huttunen’s comparison of nomos in Paul and Epictetus demonstrate
that such work can provide helpful social background to the Biblical text.
The area that I find most lacking in terms of the committed study of particular Stoic
texts is that of sexuality and sexual ethics. In what continues to become a more prominent
area of study, a lack of awareness of the philosophical and social context of the world in
which Paul wrote is problematic. Given that there is a reasonable amount of work on sexual
ethics in the Ancient World and in Paul, as well as on Stoicism in Paul, it seems strange that
not many have connected these two subjects together. Especially given the trend in Romans
commentaries to mention the Stoic language that is used, a lack of detailed analysis that this
has on the text is troubling.

73
This is exhibited by Bultmann’s previously noted suggestion that Christianity and Stoicism
are incompatible on the basis of different theological assumptions. See also the Metzger quote
in David A. DeSilva, ‘Paul and the Stoa’, p. 549: ‘…for the theological presuppositions and
the springs of Paul’s actions were very different from those of a Stoic philosopher.’ This may
be true, but too often spells the end of the discussion.

14
 On this basis I will now turn my attention to the writings of two Roman Stoic
philosophers, Epictetus and Seneca, in order to attempt to solve this problem by directly
comparing them to Paul. In doing this I hope to determine whether or not it is possible to
apply such study to the text of Romans 1 heuristically.

15
Paul and the Stoics: A Comparison
I will now begin to compare Paul with the writings of Epictetus and Seneca. As has been
previously noted, there is a rather wide pool of writers that could have been chosen from and
the habit of scholars if often to quote a variety of philosophers vaguely and sparingly. As a
result of this, I have been specific in my choice of both the philosopher and, where possible,
of the texts that I will analyse. Nevertheless, my study is limited and I will be focusing
primarily on a few specific similarities rather than fully analysing potential differences in the
text. This should not be taken as a lack of awareness or interest in such departures, but as my
question concerns whether or not further study on the subject could benefit a reading of Paul,
to some extent it must be taken for granted that he has differing theological presuppositions
and intentions to those I will compare him to. It will not be assumed, however, that any
similarities are positive, as it could also prove to be true that Paul is evoking certain ideas in
order to critique them. This is also slightly beyond the remit of this work but will be
commented on in my final overview, a Stoic Reading of Romans 1:18-32.
One final introductory comment must be made on the absence of the mention of
Philo, as it is arguable that no study of the history of Christian natural law is complete without
an analysis of the writings of Philo of Alexandria. It must also be noted, however, that this is
not a study of Christian natural law.
In some ways it would seem to be beneficial to study Philo: like Paul, he was also a
Hellenistic Jew; he was active at a similar time to Paul; he was known for his blend of Jewish
and Greek, particularly Stoic, philosophy; and he is the figure who Koester argues first
explicitly makes a link between natural law and objective societal ethics. But in light all of
this it can be easy to become sidetracked and achieve little more than a comparison between
two First Century Jewish thinkers. As Huttunen remarks in his own study of Paul and
Epictetus, a comparison between Jews will inevitably lead to questions regarding whether
similarities are based on their common Jewish background rather than their philosophy.74 It is
of course possible that Paul’s knowledge in or influence from Stoicism comes from Philo or
its wider influence within Hellenistic Judaism, but in order to stay true to my goal of
comparing Paul with Epictetus and Seneca, I have chosen to consider Stoicism only within
philosophy, rather than within Judaism. As a result of this, Philo will not be engaged with.

74
Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, p. 154

16
Paul and Epictetus
The first philosopher to whom I will compare Paul is Epictetus, who is of interest particularly
in his comments on living according to natural law. A near contemporary of Paul, he lived
between 55 and 135CE and was, among other places, active in Rome.75 As a slave he had
originally been a student under another Roman Stoic, Musonius Rufus. Alongside many
philosophers of this period, none of his works exist in their original form but in a list of
sayings compiled by one of his students, Arrian.76
Firstly, it is helpful to note language regarding God that Epictetus uses, as this
provides some of the backbone to his arguments regarding ethics. In Disc. 1.12.1-7, he
outlines views that suggest that gods do not exist or are inactive (12.1), are involved in the
affairs of people at a general level only (12.2), and the view of Odysseus and Socrates, that
God is involved in all areas and issues (12.3). Before ultimately endorsing the latter option,
his assertion in 12.7 is that one should inquire in to all of these possibilities ‘before he
subordinates his own will to him who administers the universe’, just as ‘good citizens submit
to the law of the state’. In his commentary on this passage, Dobbin notes that this was a
common idea, of seeing the city as a mini version of the universe, governed by God.77 In the
first instance, then, this shows that he believes God is present in the governance in the
universe.
He also criticises those who travel to see a statue of Zeus, claiming instead that God's
works can be seen and known everywhere, conditional on ‘the faculty of taking a
comprehensive view of what has happened in each individual instance, and the sense of
gratitude.’ (Disc. 1.6.1) With this in mind he is able to claim that Zeus is present in his works,
and asks ‘will you not yearn to behold these works and know them?’ (Disc. 1.6.24) Huttunen
notes that ‘gratitude is a basic attitude, the lack of which will destroy the right understanding
of providence.’ Divine providence can be seen, then, but only as a result of careful and
measured gratitude and reverence.78
For Epictetus, failure to understand what is worth desiring leads to error and unsound
judgment, the results of which are various vices. A key example of this downward
progression of a person is perhaps best exemplified in Epictetus’ response to a student of his

75
John Barclay, Security and Self-Sufficiency, p. 60
76
Robert Dobbin, Epictetus: Discourses and Selected Writings (London: Penguin Classics,
2008), p. vii
77
Dobbin, Epictetus, p.142
78
Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, p. 39

17
who expresses that he is feeling homesick. Epictetus takes issue with his protégé’s claim “it is
good to be at home”, seeing this as evidence that they have ‘disobeyed the divine governance
of which we should be content instead of yearning after things that we do not have.’79 This
incorrect judgment on the value of external things is seen as stemming from a lack of
gratitude towards God, and leading to one of the four negative passions: wrong desire. This
seems like a somewhat tedious and minute problem for such a severe rebuke, but he claims
that it shows that his student is not really a Stoic and will be punished as severely as someone
who pretends to be a Roman Citizen.
This link between an incorrect intellectual understanding and the resulting
consequence of inappropriate behaviours is also common to Paul. Huttunen notes three times
that this ‘process of decline’ is described in Romans 1: 1:21-24, 25-27 and 28-32, in which
they ‘knew God… [but] did not honour him as God or give thanks to him’ (1:21), ‘exchanged
the truth about God for a lie’ (1:25) and ‘did not see fit to acknowledge God’ (1:28).80 Whilst
this has typically been given Jewish significance and described as occurring three times to
emphasise the depths of the depravity of the Gentiles, there is another way to read this.
Similarly to Epictetus’ student, they have been exposed to the knowledge and works
of God, which have clearly been displayed in the world (1:19-20). Rather than acknowledging
him, they do not show gratitude towards God and as a result, become disillusioned about what
is praiseworthy. As Epictetus’ student turns his attention to homesickness as an expression of
wrong desire, so the “they” of Romans 1 turn their praise towards idols and one another. In
both cases this sin takes place at the mental stage and is expressed through incorrect desire: if
the student in Epictetus had had the “right knowledge” of what is worthy of praise he would
have understood that his feelings were wrong, whilst the people in Romans would not have
sinned. But in both cases their punishment is to be found in the vices that they perpetuate,
with the student becoming a braggart, vainglorious, full of envy and pity (Disc 3.24.42.43),
and those in Romans also full of envy and strife, becoming boastful, foolish and faithless.
Further question arises regarding the meaning of the three instances of ‘God gave
them up’ in 1:24, 1:26 and 1:28, as this is an addition that is specific to Paul. This has
typically been understood as ‘the resigning of direct control over what is thus passed on’81,
rather than God instigating the problems or causing them to act in the way that they do. In this

79
Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, p. 51
80
Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, p. 51
81
Dunn, Romans, p. 73

18
way God’s wrath is somewhat metaphorical82 in that it ‘becomes concrete in the idolatry and
vices in and of themselves’, rather than worsening the problem itself.83

Therefore, in what appears in Paul to be a process of:

Failure to acknowledge God è God’s wrath èDebased mind è Vices

This can instead be expressed by Epictetus’ pattern of:

False Perceptions è Incorrect desires è Vices (God’s Wrath)

Since, for Epictetus, desiring the wrong things is seen as representing both a failure to
recognise the order of God in the universe and a mind that fails to acknowledge what is
proper, Paul’s pattern of decline is therefore reminiscent of Epictetus’s. For both writers,
there is an order of the universe that is easily perceivable by all and should be acknowledged
and followed. Adherence to this common order is a result of the acknowledgement of God,
and a failure to do so leads either directly or indirectly to an inability to see what is rightly
desirable and will eventually result in God’s wrath, revealed through various vices. In both
cases, these vices do not come directly as a result of God but are allowed as a result of the
wrong action of the people. Once again, it should be noted that since Epictetus was active
after Paul what can be highlighted here is not one author having been influenced by the other
but a strain of thought that is shared by both writers.

Summary
Dunn acknowledges the Stoic influence on the passage. He notes that the language at play in
1:20 of “for God has shown them” is not typical of Biblical writings of either Old or New
Testaments but of Stoic thought in philosophical texts and Hellenistic-Judaism.84 The idea
that God can be seen in the universe through reason is clearly advocated by Paul here. While
the sources that he mentions do not include Epictetus as a result of an analysis of only the
precise language being used, I would argue that Epictetus epitomizes what he describes, as we

82
Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, p. 51,
C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London:
T & T Clark, 1975), pp. 109 – 11
83
Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, p. 51
84
Dunn, Romans, p. 57

19
have seen above. An ‘invisible realm of reality, invisible to sense perception, which can only
be known through the rational power of the mind’85 is consistent with Epictetus’ parallels
between the city and the universe.
I would consider Dunn correct, then, in his assessment that Paul builds his argument
by evoking a picture that does not stem from a traditional Jewish worldview, but think that
this is wider reaching than he claims and can be seen throughout the whole passage, rather
than only in a few instances. His claim that this language is deliberately used is certainly true,
but I find the idea that this is simply for apologetic purposes to be unconvincing.86 Instead, it
is my view that this model forms the basis of what Paul is doing in Romans 1:18-32. This can
also be seen in his condemnation of the “you” of Romans 2:1-10, which extends the verdict
given in chapter 1 to those who judge others. This will now be further demonstrated by an
exploration of the language used in the writings of Seneca.

Paul and Seneca

Context can also be gained from Seneca, albeit less explicitly than in the case of Epictetus.
There is no parallel structure that can be drawn other than in similarity to the pattern of
descent in Epictetus, but themes can nevertheless be extracted and used to aide our
understanding of Paul. On one level, despite occurring at a more thematic level, it could even
be argued that any parallels that can be seen between Paul and Seneca are more telling than in
the case of Epictetus, owing to the dating of the texts. Whilst Epictetus wrote after Paul
meaning that any similarities only highlight common influences, Seneca was a key figure in
Rome and an advisor to the Emperor, making it even more likely that those in the church in
Rome had been exposed to his teaching.87 Born at the beginning of the Common Era and
active until he was forced by Nero to commit suicide in 65 CE88, Seneca was a well known
author and statesman as well as a philosopher, resulting in perhaps the widest appeal and
lasting influence of the Roman Stoics.89
This comparison can be drawn on the basis of Seneca’s communal ethics and more
explicit denunciation of passions. Given Epictetus’ portrayal of what happens when God is
not acknowledged and the mind is darkened, and Seneca’s contribution toward the virtue of
duty, it may be possible to read Romans with a wider significance than is typically assumed.

85
Dunn, Romans, p. 58
86
Dunn, Romans, p. 58
87
Swancutt, Disease of Effemination, p. 193
88
Thorsteinsson, Roman Stoicism, p. 22 - 23
89
Thorsteinsson, Roman Stoicism, pp. 23 - 24

20
 Can the mind be wrong, even if it is that of a sage and filled with wisdom? The
answer for Seneca was clearly yes, arguing as a result of this that more than simple precepts
are needed to live a virtuous life. He argues that nature in itself is not sufficient but ‘has given
us the seeds of knowledge’ if not knowledge itself. (120.4) This means that there are many
kinds of virtue depending on the situation, but social responsibility is always a key concern.90
As has previously been alluded to, Roman Stoicism emphasised that humanity is part of a
larger “body”, the benefits of which should be sought over the good of the individual. This
was seen as a foundational principle on which ethics were built, closely connected to the idea
of natural law.91 Cicero made reference to the link between the necessity of amputation from
the body and need for some to be ‘cut off from what may be called the common body of
humanity’ for the greater good (Cicero, Off 3.6.32), whilst Seneca argues, to quote Lee, that
‘one’s participation in the universal state is the primary factor in determining proper
behavior.’92 It is even arguable that the source of Seneca’s ethics runs contrary to Epictetus’
on this basis.
Vining notes the similarity between Romans 1:22 in its juxtaposition of the wise and
the foolish with language that is implicit in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales, pointing to 90.24 as a
key example of deterioration following humankind’s ‘corrupted faculty of reason’. Further, in
similarity to Romans 1:32, not only do they do commit these acts, but they are also pleased by
them (Ep. Mor. 39.6)93 This represents a similar, if not more general, pattern to that of
Epictetus. She notes that for Paul, this problem ‘is not rooted in an error of judgment but in
disobedience’94, but as we have already noted, for Epictetus this also stems from the lack of
acknowledgement of God. Seneca’s concept of reason may be less established in the divine,
but is similar enough in its link between cosmic and human nature.95 In what is an interesting
and helpful comparison between Paul and Seneca, Vining, like others, notes clear affinities
between the two writers, but ultimately does not take them any further towards a closer link.
On the basis of these similarities and a wider shared context of the understanding of social

90
Gretchen Reydams-Schils, The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility and Affection (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2005), p. 16, 29
91
Lee, Body of Christ, p. 99
92
Lee, Body of Christ, p. 97
93
Peggy Vining, ‘Comparing Seneca’s Ethics in Epistulae Morales to Those of Paul in
Romans’ Restoration Quarterly 47 (2005), pp. 83 - 104 [87-88]
94
Vining, ‘Epistulae’, p. 88
95
For discussion on how this concept of cosmic nature leads to ethical ideals, see Seon Yong
Kim, ‘Paul and the Stoic Theory of Oikeiosis: A Reponse to Troels Engberg-Pedersen’,
Novum Testamentum 58 (2016), pp. 71 – 91 [80]

21
roles, I will now argue that an exploration of Seneca can demonstrate that Paul’s language in
Romans 1 is deliberately exaggerated.
In his Ep. Mor. 122, Seneca describes as contra naturam, the Latin equivalent of the
Greek phrase, a variety of things ranging from the drinking whilst fasting of certain
individuals (122.6) to those who crave roses during the winter (122.8) and exchange their
fashion for that of women. (122.7) Similarly to Epictetus, Seneca appears to view a range of
things as against nature, arguing that depravity comes in to the soul as a result of vices, the
abandonment of the natural order. (122.5) Unlike Epictetus, however, what is emphasized
here is proper social order: as the result of a lessened focus on God, Seneca’s ethics are more
appropriately deemed as culturally devised. Winkler argues that instead of nature, ‘culture’
should be read, but this is perhaps a bit too strong. Instead, it should be acknowledged that
culture is an important determining factor but this is not to say that there is no idea of
objectivity whatsoever. 96
There is also a clear link in the types of lifestyles of those who are condemned here.
Those who sleep by day and are awake throughout the night; who drink excessively; eat
without any physical activity; seek to dress like women and attempt to look boyish. As with
Epictetus, these people have lost sight of the correct order and fall prey to many vices are
presented as worthy of death (122.3, 122.10). This is presented as something to be
distinguished from and in such a flurry of negative behaviours, surely does not represent an
individual but a type that is to be avoided. Such a picture is undoubtedly similar to those
condemned by Epictetus in Diss. 1.9.26, who have become little more than ‘bellies, entrails
and genitals’ as a result of their pursuit of pleasure.
Whilst under Roman Stoicism the constraints of who could be considered virtuous
were widened from the Stoic sage only to the potential for anyone based on their common
reason,97 this is not to say that all were viewed positively. There were still distinctions made,
particularly in the condemnation of Epicureans, who were also seen as repudiating social
responsibility.
It is my opinion that a key example of the ‘type’ that is being described in these
passages is the image of the Cinaedus, or effeminate, who are regularly condemned in ancient
literature, notably in Epictetus but also implicitly in Ep. Mor. 122.7. It is not completely
impossible that such descriptions refer literally to people who are engaging in all of the above

96
John J. Winkler, The Constraints of Desire: Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient
Greece (New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 22
97
Thorsteinsson, Roman Stoicism, p. 32

22
behaviours, but I find it more likely that such passages are intended to exaggerate the
description of those who do not live virtuously. McMullen argues that it was often the case
that such behaviours ‘point to a way of life imported as a package’98, demonstrating that one
need not have committed them all to be categorised as such, whereas Swancutt shows how
this was extended further to any who did not live in the Stoic way, showing that in some
instances the charge of effeminacy is a blanket term that covers all indulgences.99
That this is the case is also demonstrated by the language about women in Ep. Mor.
95, which makes a clear link between the pursuit of passion and the abandonment of a passive
sexual role, followed by the affliction of illnesses usually typical to men. This also follows the
pattern of Romans 1:23-28, though with women as the subject rather than men. What is
interesting, however, is the use of the language surrounding sexual roles. In the Romans
passage, Brooten notes the significance of the women being described as actively acting
unnaturally, whereas the men passively “abandon” what is proper.100
Given the significance of Epictetus’ claims that the Cinaedus destroy their
masculinity through their passive actions and Seneca’s statement here that women are
intended ‘to feel love passively’ (95.21), there is little doubt that there is a perceived social
impact of the subversion of these roles. This is especially significant given that this is the
same letter in which Seneca would spell out his rules regarding ‘our duties in human
relationships’. (95.51) Epictetus would also condemn homoeroticism on the basis of imagery
regarding roles in a theatre, which is intended to ‘exemplify bad models of behaviour.’101
This idea of Oikeiosis, or considering others, is key within Stoic thought and is the
basis on which Engberg-Pedersen argues Paul’s argument in Romans 1 rests.102 If both Stoic
and Christian thought represent the idea of finding commonalty in something outside the self
(God/Reason) that will impact how one engages with others, the behaviours represent in
Romans 1:23-28 is seen, as with pictures of descent in Epictetus and Seneca, as the ultimate
expression in self-seeking, both as a result of a misunderstanding of the source of
commonality and the lack of willingness to take ones place in the bigger picture of society.
Swancutt summarises: ‘thus, from its emphasis on the importance of knowledge and
judgment, unnatural sex, and failure to do one’s natural public duties… Romans 1:18-32

98
R. Macmullen, ‘Roman Attitudes to Greek Love’ Historia 31 (1982), pp. 484 - 502 [486]
99
Swancutt, ‘Disease of Effemination’, p. 174
100
Brooten, Love Between Women, p. 245 - 246
101
A. A. Long, Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life (Oxford: Oxford University
Pres, 2004), p. 242
102
Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics, pp. 200 - 201

23
coheres with criticisms ancients thought Stoics used to censure the “uncivilized” and to prove
themselves more sagacious than rival philosophers.’103 If this is the case, this has significant
implications for the reading of Romans on the basis of Stoic language and argumentation.
Paul would in effect be drawing a picture of depravity on the basis of Stoicism as well as
Judaism, which would widen the traditional reading of the text. This would also account for
the “universal” nature of Paul’s indictment, as whilst he clearly does not mean to indicate that
all have committed unnatural sexual acts, all have turned away from God.

103
Swancutt, ‘Disease of Effemination’, p. ?

24
A Stoic Reading of Romans 1:18-32
The use of language regarding sex in Romans 1:26-28, then, is intended to act as an
exaggerated condemnation of self-directedness. Stowers and Sanders have taken issue with
the traditional reading of the passage as a universal condemnation of sin and idolatry on the
basis of the wild and specific behaviours that are described.104 For this to be true of everyone,
or even of all gentiles, the implication would appear to be that they had committed the acts
that are described. A better reading, I would argue, is that through their behaviours, the people
described in the scenario given by Paul are subverting their social roles and obligations
toward the community by means of turning away from both the acknowledgment of God,
represented in Stoicism by reason, and the common good.
In a Christian re-reading of Stoic ethics, Paul is taking the ideas of natural law on the
basis of divine revelation and proper behavior as a member of the state and combining them
together as a condemnation of excessive passion and self-directedness. The focus of Paul’s
condemnation is not on the unnatural acts in themselves, but what they are seen to represent.
Given that Roman Stoics across the board condemned passion and the pursuit of pleasure but
presented as an ideal the sage who is virtuous and performed his duty, the image of one who
engages in extra-marital, adulterous, non-procreative and lustful sex is the ultimate image of
depravity. In one metaphor, he is able to vividly set up an exaggerated picture of everything
the Stoic virtues do not represent, before suddenly turning on his applauding audience with
the statement ‘you, the judge, are doing the very same things’ in 2:1.What can be found in
these Stoic texts, then, is an image of those who know the truth but turn from it, who do not
acknowledge God and fall in to vices as a result, who cast off restraint and social convention
and are regarded as such as examples of a variety of vices.
Further discussion could be had regarding the identity of the judges in Romans 2 to
whom this passage is addressed. Compelling arguments are raised by Swancutt, who contends
that those who “judge” in Romans 2:1 are literally Roman Stoic judges, condemned by Paul
for their hypocrisy105, and Campbell, who takes a different view entirely, arguing that the
whole section is intended to represent the viewpoint of an opponent of Paul, who Paul will
later ridicule and disprove.106 Either of these positions would result in a thought provoking
engagement with the text, but for the purposes of this work I am holding to the traditional

104
Stowers, ‘Re-Reading of Romans’, p. 83
105
Swancutt, ‘Disease of Effemination’, p. 174
106
Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Re-reading of
Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 931 - 936

25
view that Paul’s audience are Jewish.
This also retains the sentiment behind traditional readings that state that Paul’s
intention in Chapter 1 is to gather the agreement of those in Chapter 2, only to also condemn
them by accusing them of the same sins. The key difference, however, is that this reading
demonstrates the full force of the language that is being used, showing the philosophical and
social emphases of Paul’s argument, rather than clinging to an analysis of Jewish themes
only. Nevertheless, any references to Jewish language in the passage are not harmed by this
reading but enhanced, as it is likely that the same Stoic ideas that are at play in Epictetus and
Seneca had also informed the Hellenistic-Judaism of the author of the Wisdom of Solomon
and Philo.
At the start of this study I claimed that my goal was to discover whether or not such
an analysis of specific Stoic writings could be helpful in the pursuit of a better understanding
of the language used in Romans 1:18-32. It is my view that the evidence speaks for itself and
that this goal has been achieved, demonstrating that the writings of Epictetus and Seneca can
in fact be used heuristically in the study of Paul. The specifics of my investigation are not
groundbreaking; nor should they be. My simple argue was that there has not been enough
specific study, despite many vague comments, into the Stoic background of Romans 1 and in
particular, Paul’s sexual ethics in the passage.
In light of this I demonstrated first that Epictetus’ pattern of descent mirrors Paul’s as
a result of an incorrect view of desire, linked to a lack of acknowledgement of God in the
universe. In what looks at first glance to be a different model of the universe, it can actually
be shown that this is an idea not typically found within Judaism, which is common to both
Paul and Epictetus. I then showed that Seneca’s ethics are much more culturally devised and
based on the concept of social roles, the breakdown of which is seen as representing wider
issues within humanity. This helps clarify the purpose of the passage in Romans 1. Much
more detailed inspection could be committed to this, both in the areas that I have covered and
in to a specific exegesis of the passage itself, but it is nevertheless undoubtedly true that this
brief overview of themes in Epictetus and Seneca has worked heuristically to the benefit of an
understanding of Paul’s language in Romans 1:18-32.

Word Count: 8,001

26
Bibliography
Aejmelaeus, L., and Mustakallio, A., The Nordic Paul: Finnish Approaches to Pauline
Theology (London: T & T Clark, 2008)

Asmis, Elizabeth, ‘The Stoics on Women’ in Julie K. Ward (ed.), Feminism and Ancient
Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 68 - 92

Baird, W., History of New Testament Research: Volume 1 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress,
1992)

Banister, Jamie A., ‘“Homoios” and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27’, JBL
128.3 (2009), pp. 569 – 590

Barclay, J. M. G., ‘Security and Self Sufficiency: A Comparison of Paul and Epictetus’,
Auditu 24 (2009), pp. 60-72 [65]

Brooten, B. J., Love Between Women: Early Christian Reponses to Female Homoeroticism
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)

Bultmann, R., The Style of the Pauline Preaching and the Cynic-Stoic Diatribe (Unpublished
PHD Dissertation)

Bultmann, R., ‘Das religiöse Moment in der ethischen Unterweisung des Epiktet, and
das Neue Testament’, ZNW 13 (1912), pp. 97 - 110

Campbell, Douglas A., The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Re-reading of Justification

in Paul (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009)

Colish, Marcia I., The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill,
1985)

Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London:
T & T Clark, 1975)

Deming, Will, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians
7 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004)

Dennison, W. D., The Young Bultmann: Context for His Understanding of God (Brussels:
Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 2008)

DeSilva, David A., ‘Paul and the Stoa: A Comparison’ JETS 38.4 (1995), p. 549 – 564

Dobbin, Robert, Epictetus: Discourses and Selected Writings (London: Penguin Classics,
2008), p. vii

Ellis, J. Edward, Paul and Ancient Views of Sexual Desire: Paul’s Sexual Ethics in 1
Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 1 (London: T&T Clark, 2007)

27
Engberg-Pedersen, T., Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000)

Engberg-Pedersen, T., ‘Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transitional Period
in Ancient Philosophy’ in Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg
(eds.), Stoicism in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010)

Engberg-Pedersen, T., Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011)

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 285, James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (Dallas: Word, 1988)

Hendriksen, William, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), pp. 77 - 79, Peter
Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1994)

Huttunen, N., Paul and Epictetus on Law: A New Comparison (London: T & T
Clark, 2009)

Jewett, Robert, Romans: A Commentary (Augsburg: Fortress Press, 2007)

Kim, Seon Yong, ‘Paul and the Stoic Theory of Oikeiosis: A Reponse to Troels Engberg-
Pedersen’, Novum Testamentum 58 (2016), pp. 71 – 91

Klauck, Hans-Josef, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman

Religions (London; T&T Clark, 2002)

Koester, Helmut, ‘NOMOS PHYSIS: The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought’ in
Jacob Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell
Goodenough (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2004), pp. 521 - 541

Lee, Michelle V., Paul, The Stoics, and The Body of Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006)

Lightfoot, J. B., Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan, 1895)

Long, A. A., Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life (Oxford: Oxford University Pres,
2004)

Macmullen, R., ‘Roman Attitudes to Greek Love’ Historia 31 (1982), pp. 484 - 502

Malherbe, A. J, ‘ME GENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul’ in Paul and the Popular
Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989)

Martin, D. B., The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999)

Martin, Dale B., ‘Paul without Passion: On Paul’s Rejection of Desire in Sex and Marriage’
in Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Saviour (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2006) pp. 65 - 76

28
Nissinen, M., Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective (Fortress Press,
Minneapolis, 1998)

Porter, Stanley E., ‘The argument of Romans 5: can a Rhetorical Question make a
difference?’, JBL 110 (1991), p. 655 - 677

Reydams-Schils, Gretchen, The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility and Affection (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2005)

Sandbach, F. H., The Stoics (2nd Ed., Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989)

Sandnes, K. O., ‘Paul and Socrates: The Aim of Paul’s Areopagus Speech’, JSNT 50 (1993),
pp. 13-26

Schofield, M., The Stoic Idea of the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999)

Sedley, D., ‘The School, from Zeno to Arius Didymus’, in B. Inwood (ed), The Cambridge
Companion to Stoics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 7-33

Skinner, M. B., Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
2014)

Sorabji, Richard, ‘Stoic First Movements in Christianity’ in Steven K. Strange and Jack
Zupko (eds.), Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), pp. 95 – 107

Stowers, S., ‘A “Debate” Over Freedom’: 1 Corinthians 6:12-20,’ in E. Ferguson (ed.),

Christian Teaching: Studies in Honor of Lemoine G. Lewis (Abilene: Abilene Christian
University, 1981), pp. 59 – 71

Stowers, S., A Re-Reading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1997)

Swancutt, Diana M., ‘“The Disease of Effemination”: The Charge of Effeminacy and the
Verdict of God (Romans 1:18- 2:26)’ in Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson (eds.)
New Testament Masculinities (Leiden; Brill, 2004), pp. 169 – 210

Thorsteinsson, Runar M., ‘Paul and Roman Stoicism: Romans 12 and Contemporary Stoic
Ethics’, JSNT 29.2 pp. 139 – 161

Thorsteinsson, Runar M., Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of
Ancient Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)

Veyne, Paul, Seneca: The Life of a Stoic (New York: Routledge, 2003)

Vining, Peggy, ‘Comparing Seneca’s Ethics in Epistulae Morales to Those of Paul in

Romans’ Restoration Quarterly 47 (2005), pp. 83 - 104

Weiss, Johannes, Der Erfe Korintherbrief (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1910)

29
 Winkler, John J., The Constraints of Desire: Anthropology of Sex and Gender in
Ancient Greece (New York: Routledge, 1990)

30