(c) Eelatiun to Christianity. — Many facts make this an interesting subject of study. Even the
OT, and Apocalyptic books such as Sirach, 4 Mac- cabees, and Wisdom of Solomon had been affected by Stoicism. And, with so many points of contact in their ethical teaching, it is small wonder that Stoicism and Christianity have been suspected of influencing each other. Again, Tarsus, the home of St. Paul, was likewise a great centre of Stoic teaching, and it is supjiosed that the great Apostle shows traces in his writings of this early associa- tion. In regard to Seneca, too, a tradition arose that he became a disciple of St. Paul and a Chris- tian. A full discussion of the value and bearing of these facts is given in Lightfoot (see Literature). On the acquaintance of St. Paul with Stoic litera- ture and ideas as shown in his speech on the Areo pagus we have already remarked. Striking coin- cidences occur between the language of the Gospels and the Pauline E]iistles and the sayings of Seneca and Aurelius. It may certainly be acknowledged that in these two pagan writers we reach the high- water mark of non-Christian ethics. For various reasons it is not possible to say certainly whether indebtedness exists on the one side or on the other. But in relation to fundamental principles many vital differences separate them. Each system starts from different premisses and reaches different conclusions.
(1) The Stoic conception of God was materialistic and pantheistic. Fatherhood in any real sense was thereby excluded. Divine love and paternal care were impossible and fellowship with the Father of our spirits was out of the question.
(2) Self-repression, with the object of attaining complete 'apathy,' was the fundamental demand of Stoicism, but how the ordinary man was to effect this it did not show. In any case, his re- sources were restricted to himself : there was no place for a Saviour, and the weak were left to fail.
(.S) In regard to a future life, the Stoics leave us with a feeling of great uncertainty. One wonders, indeed, that they should have desired it. At most they thought of it as a bare possibility. Such continuance could only be an endless rotation, re- sulting probably in experiences as un[ileasant as in this life. In the presence of such contrasts we are therefore obliged to conclude that, however many or close the resemblances between Christi- anity and Stoicism, they were in vital matters fundamentally different. That St. Paul should show some acquaintance with Stoic teaching was inevitable, and that he did not openly expose its weakness was probably due to the fact that the system was never likely to trouble those to whom he preached. As for Seneca, he would doubtless encounter Christians at Rome, but probably in cir- cumstances that would leave him indifferent to their principles and beliefs.
. Literature. — The leading sources are : Diogenes Laertius, de Vitis Phitosophoniin, vii. ; Cicero, de Finitnis ; Plutarch, de Stoicfrnun Repugnantiis, and de Placitia Philosophorum ; works of Seneca, Epictetus, and M. Aurelius. Of modern authorities we may refer to E. Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans^ and Sceptics, Eng, tr., London, 18S0 ; H. Ritter, llistnry of Ancient Pliilosophii, Eng. tr., iii. [Oxford, IS.i!)) ; A. Grant, TIte Ethics of Aristotle, 2 vols., London, 1866: W. W. Capes. Stoicism, London, 1880; W. L. Davidson, The Stoic Creed, Edinburgh, 1907; J. B. Lightfoot, PHlippians*, London, 1878, 'St. Paul and Seneca,' p. 270 ff. ; artt. 'Stoics' in EBr^i, UDB, and EBi.
J. W. LiGHTLEV.
STONING.— The three Greek verbs in the NT tr. ' to stone ' are Xi9o/3oX^u, XiSdfu, and /v-araXi^afw. The LXX almost invariably employs the lirst of these as the equivalent of the Heb. synonyms %u and on, which mean (1) the pelting of stones by a mob at a person who has merited their ill-will (Ex 8* 17*, 2 Ch 24-»f- ; cf. He 11", Ac 5-«) : (2) the infliction of the death-penalty by stoning (Lv 20-, Dt 13").
The method which an enraged crowd took of exe- cuting vengeance with the weapons lying readiest
STu^■lXG
STU^i.NG
5L"J
to their liand came to l)e eniiiloyeil afterwards as a re^riilar ami le^"! metliinl of iiiflietiii}; tlio deatliM'iitfiue on a (riiiunal. Stoiiini; is the only form of caiiital punisliment recognized in the Mosaic Law. To stoiio an ollVuder with stones means the same tliini; as to pnl him to deatli, tlie two expres- sions beinj; siimetinR's used togetlior as synonymous (Lv 2U'-). Wherever stoninj; is not explicitly stateil to l>e the mode of executiim, it is implied. The Pentateuch gives no details as to the manner in which the punishment was to he carried out. Cer- tain restrictions, however, were specified, as that (1) tlie stoning should take place outside the city (Lv 24'^ Dt 17^ ; cf. Ac 7^'), and that (2) the witnesses, of whom two or more were necessary to secure con- viction, were to cast the first stone, and then all the people (Dt 13" 17™-; cf. Ac 7°«). Deatli by stoning is the penalty prescribed in the I'entateucli for various ofl'ences against religion and morality. Blasphemy occupied a prominent place among the former (Lv 24"* ; cf. 1 K 21'^ Ac fi'^).
For iiifornialion as to the |)rocess of stoning in NT times, reference is necessary to the Rabbinic law, which lays down the rules and precautions to be observed in carrying it out (Mishna, Sank. vi.). These were intended to secure (1) that the con- demned person should have every o])portunity of obtaining a reversal of his sentence on the way to execution, by the production by himself or others of fresh evidence in his favour ; (2) that his sutler- ings should be shortened as much as was possible in the circumstances. After sentence was pro- nounced, the criminal, in the absence of further evidence suificient to establish his innocence, was preceded by a herald or crier, whose function it was to announce, in terms of a prescribed formula, the name and parentage of the offender, and the nature of his offence, together with the names of the witnesses. The place of execution was outside the town. On his arrival there, he was divested of his clothing, apparently by the witnesses, a loin- cloth alone being left him. Failing a natural eminence somewhere in the vicinity, he was placed on a jilatform tw'ice the height of a man. It was then the duty of one of the witnesses to precipitate him violently to the ground, in the hope that the force of the concussion would produce a fatal etl'ect. In the event of this effect not being attained, the second witness was to cast a heavy stone on his chest. If he survived this treatment, the by- standers completed the dispatch of the unhappy victim by stoning him.