366
σπερµολόγος οὗτος λέγειν; οἱ δέ, Ξένων δαιµονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς
> 1 ειναι ΄
ὅτι τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῖς εὐηγγελίζετο.
1 οτι τον |. . . . ενηγγελιζετο om. by D, Gig., one of these places where ex- planatory clauses are omitted in D, and also by Blass in B, and Hilg. Blass, p. x., cf. xiv. 12, xvii. 18, “a scriptore potius in a adjecta puto, qui videret ea lectoribus
vel omnibus vel quibusdam vel necessaria esse vel utilia’’. writer scrupled to appear to class Invovs among the δαιµονιο..
It is possible that the Ramsay, St. Paul, p.
242, thinks the clause foreign to Luke’s fashion; apparently a gloss, suggested by
ver. 32.
superstitious fears which were the chief cause of the miseries of humanity, Epi- curus opposed the popular Polytheism, and regarded the gods as living a life of passionless calm far removed from mun- dane strifes and sorrows, ‘careless of mankind”. The Stoics branded Epicurus as an Atheist, but the materialistic creed of Epicurus and his followers had at all events this merit, that its bold criticism of existing beliefs was serviceable in undermining the prevailing acceptance of a gross and crude mythology, whilst it helped to assert in contradistinction to a paralysing fatalism the doctrine of the freedom of man’s will (see F. C. Cony- beare, ‘‘Epicureans,” Hastings’ B.D. ; Westcott, ‘‘ Epicureans,” B.D.?; Wallace, Epicureanism).—Ztwixav : The Stoics, so called from the Stoa Pecile at Athens where Zeno of Citium, the founder of the school, 340-260 B.c., met his pupils, and where his successors debated (Capes, Stozcs, p. 30), spoke in their theology of a providence ruling the world, of a first cause and a governing mind. But their creed was essentially Pantheistic, al- though the verses of Cleanthes’ Hymn {the most important document of the Stoic theology,’ Ueberweg) seemed to breathe the accents of a higher and nobler belief. But no devotional phrases could disguise 2 Pantheism which regarded the world as the body of God, and God as the 5ου] of the world, which held that apart from external nature the Supreme God had no existence which identified Him with fate and necessity, while the history of the universe was an unfolding of the providence of God, but a providence which was but another name for the chain of causation and consequences, in- violable, eternal. The leading maxims of the ethical system of the Stoics was the injunction to live according to nature, although the expression of the rule varied in the earlier and later schools. But as this life was best realised in conformity to the law of the universe, in conformity -with reason as the highest element in
man, the Stoic ideal, in spite of its recog- nition of virtue, became not merely stern and intellectual,but impassive and austere; in aiming at apathy the Stoic lost sym- pathy with the most ennobling and ener- getic emotions, and thus wrapped up in the cloak of his own virtue he justified, at least from an ethical point of view, the description which classed him as the Pharisee of Greek philosophy. In ad- dressing an audience composed at all events in part of the representatives of these two great philosophic schools it may be said that St. Paul was not un- mindful of his own former training in the early home of Stoicism (see on p. 235). And so in speaking of creation and providence, of the unity of nations in the recognition of all that was true even in Pantheism, St. Paul has been described as taking the Stoic side against the Epicureans, or at least we may say that he in his speech asserts against some of the cardinal errors of the Epi- cureans the creative and superintending power of God. But to the Stoic and Epicurean alike the Christian Creed would proclaim that All’s Love, yet all's Law ; to the Stoic and Epicurean alike, the Pharisee and Sadducee of the world of philosophy, the bidding came to repent and obey the Gospel, no less than to the crowd whom sages and philosophers de- spised: ‘‘ Paulus summa arte orationem suam ita temperat, ut modo cum vulgo contra Philosophos, modo cum Philoso- phis contra plebem, modo contra utrosque pugnet,” Wetstein; see Capes, Stoicism ; Lightfoot, Philippians, “St. Paul and Seneca”; Zahn, Der Stoiker Epikiet und sein Verhdliniss zum Christenthum;Ueber- weg, Hist. of Phil.,i., p. 185 ff.; Ren- dall, Marcus Antoninus, Introd. (1898) ; Gore, Ephesians, p. 253 Π.--καί τινες ἔλεγον: these are generally taken to in- clude the philosophers, and the remarks following are referred to them ; sometimes the first question to the Epicureans, and the second criticism to the Stoics. But it has recently been maintained that we