Martha Nussbaum and “Christian” Scholarship on the Stoics


Martha Nussbaum and “Christian” Scholarship on the Stoics
            by Philip A. Gottschalk

@2010  Thomas J. Marinello and H. Drake Williams, eds., My Brother's Keeper: Essays in Honor of Ellis R. Brotzman. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock

            One main question will be addressed in this paper:  Was Martha Nussbaum in her book, Therapy of Desire,[1] correct to ignore “Christian” scholarship on Hellenistic philosophers, particularly with regards to the Stoics?  Since it is often said that Paul’s epistles show an influence by and congeniality with Stoic philosophers, an interesting study would be to examine this question of just how far Paul was influenced by the Stoics, particularly by Seneca, as he and Paul lived nearly coterminously.  This essay will examine whether there was an influence and how their ideas and writings were similar or dissimilar.
            This examination will use explicitly Christian sources. A determination was made to use New Testament scholarly studies, rather than philosophical commentary.  The reason is that New Testament scholars would probably not know or care about any more arcane philosophical debates, but would more critically analyze any similarities and differences, even though they might “favor” Paul.  A further decision was made to use, in the main, evangelical scholars, as their theological and critical framework is known to this author. Their opinions about higher critical New Testament scholarly issues, such as questions of dating Paul’s epistles and his life history, etc. can show what influences these factors might have had one way or the other.
            Before beginning this exposition, however, it is necessary to say that although this question may seem a tangential one, a reading of Nussbaum’s book will be evident from the examination of parallels between Paul and Seneca below.  Issues of substance related to the content of both writers will be entertained as a part of the treatment of supposed similarities.
            Ronald Nash’s book, Christianity and the Hellenistic World was first consulted, especially Part I on Hellenistic Philosophy.[2]  Dr. Nash is an evangelical professor of Philosophy and the Department Chairman of Western Kentucky University’s philosophy program.  Relying on his mentor’s, Dr. Gordon Clark’s (Ph.D. Syracuse in Classical philosophy), work in the area, Nash also drew on other evangelical sources, such as an earlier study, “St. Paul and Seneca,” by the Rt. Rev. Dr. J.B. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, which appeared as an appendix to his commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians,[3] and a book by Dr. Jan Sevenster of the University of Amsterdam, Paul and Seneca.[4]  While Dr. Nash’s book is a fine beginning and correct in the main, Lightfoot’s appendix is much more comprehensive.  This essay will rely mainly on Lightfoot for information, though Sevenster’s introduction and first chapter will be used to compare and verify Lightfoot’s information.  An article by David DeSilva, “Paul and the Stoa:  A Comparison,”[5] was also consulted which, though more brief than Lightfoot’s examination, covers essentially the same material and arrives at similar conclusions.

I.  Historical Considerations
Supposed Correspondence Between Paul and Seneca
Perhaps one of the most obvious reasons for Nussbaum’s dislike of Christian commentary on Seneca concerns a series of fourteen letters which supposedly represent correspondence between Paul and Seneca.  To a medieval mind this correspondence was irrefutable proof of the influence of Christianity on the most enlightened mind in Roman Society.  Unfortunately, as all agree, they were a fraud, probably of the fourth century, though the only extant copies date from the ninth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.  The literary qualities of the letters are marginal.  Jerome seems to suggest that they were widely accepted and though his comment is ambivalent, many read them with approval.  Augustine seems to have relied on Jerome for his view of the correspondence.[6]
Paul before Gallio
However, besides this forged correspondence whose influence could be attributed to the medieval mind’s inability to conceive of two books disagreeing there are at least several other historical, or seemingly historical, reasons to suppose some contact between Paul and Seneca.  First of all, Paul is brought to trial before Annaeus Gallio in Corinth (Acts 18:12-17).[7]  Gallio was the brother of L. Annaeus Seneca.  Seneca’s De Ira was dedicated to M. Annaeus Novatus, that is Gallio.  M. Annaeus Novatus was adopted by the Roman rhetorician, Junius Gallio.  Seneca’s De Vita Beata, therefore, is dedicated to Gallio.[8]  Some, therefore, supposed that Gallio told Seneca about Paul’s case.  All commentators agree, however, that the incident described in Acts 18 apparently left little impact on Gallio’s mind and he probably did not communicate anything about Paul to Seneca as Gallio quickly dismissed the case.[9]
Paul, the prisoner, remanded to Burrus?
Another potential link between Paul and Seneca was supposedly the stratopedarchos (oJ stratopedavrcoj") of the Prefect of the Praetorian Guard to whom Paul was turned over upon arriving in Rome (Acts 28:16). Though the reading in the earliest and western Greek manuscripts omits this reference it is supported by many miniscules and Byzantine manuscripts in addition to some manuscripts of the Vulgate and translations such as Syriac, Coptic and Slavonic.[10]  F.F. Bruce, the late biblical scholar of the University of Manchester, says laconically, “[it is] probably a d [D] reading,” i.e. it is surely a scribal gloss added to the original text.  The text without the inflated reading is supported by the famed Bodmer papyrus 74 (seventh century) and the codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus.  The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament apparatus gives the shorter reading an “A” rating, which means there is almost no dispute that the shorter reading is the original text.  Applying the textual critical principle of lexis brevis then there seems to be little or no textual evidence for the reading.  In other words if the case for Burrus meeting Paul is based on this slender thread, most Biblical scholarship would reject it.  If that were not bad enough, Bruce also says,
The prefect of the praetorian guard (at this time, AD 60, who was Afranius Burrus) was too exalted an officer of state to take formal delivery of a prisoner like Paul… the camp commandant satisfies the requirements of our text (which is in any case doubtful).[11]


So it seems highly unlikely that Paul would have met Burrus or that Burrus would have told Seneca, who then supposedly met Paul during his period of house arrest for two years in Rome, before either being executed under Nero or being released.  (Acts 28:30)
Spanish Connection
One further “romantic” element which supposedly connects Paul and Seneca and which pious tradition supports is that since Seneca was from Corduba (Cordoba), Spain, and Paul expressed a desire to go to Spain in his letter to the Romans (15:24, 28) some direct connection must exist between the two.  One theory of Paul’s imprisonment supposes that he was released after his “first” trial in Rome (Acts having been written before the “first” trial which on this view ends in his release) followed by Paul’s “fourth missionary journey” to Spain.  Since it was supposed that Paul knew Seneca, the further supposition was made that Seneca supported Paul in his trial.  Seneca appealed to Nero, Seneca’s pupil, on Paul’s behalf thereby securing Paul’s release. Then Seneca further supported Paul in encouraging him or perhaps inspiring him in the first place to go to Spain.  However, as Sherwin-White shows it is highly unlikely that Nero would have heard Paul’s case at all.[12]
            The historical evidence for any meeting between Paul and Seneca seems extremely slight, if even plausible.  Any similarities in thought must be judged then not on supposed historical acquaintance but on verbal or thematic similarities.[13]


II.  Verbal and Thematic Similarities
Both Lightfoot and DeSilva give exhaustive lists of verbal parallels between Paul and Seneca, as well as Paul and Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.  Space does not allow nor is it necessary to duplicate these lists since Lightfoot and DeSilva have covered the ground so well.  However, some basic facts resulting from these comparisons are especially interesting for the philosophical question of the influence of Stoicism upon Paul and later Christians, and/or the influence of Christianity upon later Stoics.
            Though there are many similarities in vocabulary, wording and superficial resemblance of ideas, Lightfoot can write rather flatly, “It can only excite our marvel that anyone, after reading a few pages of this writer [Seneca], should entertain a suspicion of his having been in any sense a Christian.”[14] Nash quotes Albert Schweitzer as saying that there are “only external resemblances.  They are not really analogous.”[15]  In his address on Mar’s Hill, the Aeropagus, Paul does once quote a few lines from the Stoic poets, Epimenides and Arastus, when speaking to a mixed gathering of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers.  (Acts 17:28)  However, Nash says that this only shows that Paul had a “familiarity with Stoic writings” and compares such an acquaintance to an English speaker quoting a few lines from Shakespeare.[16]
            Paul was from Tarsus, which, according to Lightfoot, “was at this time a most important, if not the foremost, seat of Greek learning.  Of all the philosophical schools, the Stoic was the most numerously and ably represented at this great centre.”[17]  He also notes that there were “six or more well-know Stoic teachers whose home was at Tarsus.”[18]  In a footnote he cites Strabo’s list:  Antipater, Archedemus, Nestor, Athenodorus surnamed Cordylion, and Athenodorus son of Sandon.  He also adds à la Zeller from Diogenes Laertius that Zeno and Heracleides were from Tarsus.[19]  Thus, it is highly likely that young Saul of Tarsus was exposed to Stoic teaching at least before he went to Jerusalem to study Torah under Gamaliel.  (Acts 22:3)  Lightfoot notes that the names of Seneca’s province and city are Phoenician.  Seneca’s “own name, though commonly derived from the Latin, may perhaps have a Shemitic [i.e. Semitic] origin, for it is borne by a Jew of Palestine early in the second century.”[20]  To this comment he adds a footnote from Eusebius’ Church History concering the name Σεννεκa'" (Sennekas) or Σενεκa'" (Senekas) occurring in the list of early bishops of Jerusalem.[21]
            While all of this may seem somewhat strained, Lightfoot speculates that Stoicism, being a foreign influence in Greece, since the founder, Zeno, was not Greek but a native of Citium and “was probably of Shemitic race, for he is commonly styled ‘the Phoenician,” was influenced by “the Oriental spirit.”[22]  Later he notes that “the teachers of this school generally were in all likelihood indebted to Oriental, not Jewish, sources for their religious vocabulary.”[23]  Lightfoot identifies this spirit with a tendency towards “intense moral earnestness” and an emphasis on “intuition.”[24]  DeSilva speculates that the “link between Stoicism and Paul” was the literature of Hellenistic Judaism, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, which, for instance, reflects the Stoic “doctrine of natural revelation,” i.e. that the Creator is evident in the creation.[25]
Differences Still Outweigh Similarities
After producing an impressive list of verbal similarities Lightfoot declares that
An expression or a maxim, which detached from its context offers a striking resemblance to the theology or ethics of the Gospel, is found to have a wholly different bearing when considered in its proper relations…. Stoicism and Christianity are founded on widely different theological conceptions; and the ethical teaching of the two in many respects presents a direct contrast.[26]

DeSilva comes to a similar conclusion saying, “Finally, it should be noted that terms of central importance to Stoic philosophy, such as logos and pneuma, are used entirely differently in Paul with no discernible connections with Stoic usage.”[27]
Paul and Seneca as Writers and Men     
The writing styles of both men also are very different.  Sevenster can say
Seneca’s writings are those of a conscious artist.  They are intentionally literary.  This not only applies to those writings which are obviously presented as literary works, such as his tragedies, but also to the letters which for form’s sake are addressed to one particular person.  His letters to Lucilius too are “really nothing but short philosophical treatises.”[28]

This would support Nussbaum’s similar statements.[29]  Seneca’s self-consciousness as an “artist” is completely dissimilar to Paul’s lack of intentional “artistry” in his epistles (though he is not without style).  “This definitely does not hold for Paul’s letters….”[30]  They are not moral treatises, but real personal letters, though not “personal;” the context is very important.  They are “not works of literature, not doctrinal or ethical discourses, but letters written to certain churches dealing with topical situations.”[31]
            Likewise the two men differed greatly in character.  Lightfoot and Sevenster both point out Seneca’s many “inconsistencies.”  Sevenster says Seneca “was shamefully blind to all his pupil Nero’s atrocious crimes,” which included matricide, fratricide and the murder of his first wife.  “Seneca’s whole career displays a certain duplicity which gives rise to grave doubts about his strength of character,”  such as praising Cladius while alive (ad Polybium de Consolatione) and then bitterly satirizing him after his death (Ludus de Morte Claudii).[32]  Having finished his treatment of Seneca’s “duplicity” Lightfoot says with typical British reserved disdain, “From Seneca it is refreshing to turn to Epictetus.”[33]  On the other hand, Sevenster writes of Paul, “Likewise in the Acts of the Apostles not the slightest attempt is made to describe Paul as a personality; no interest is shown here in his character as such.”[34]   This seems like quite an oversimplification since it is generally regarded that Luke did in fact present Paul’s character as sincere and earnest, if at times fiery, and as being too quick to speak. The picture of Paul in Acts does include real descriptions of Paul as a person (e.g. his boldness in proclaiming his new-found Savior even in the face of repeated threats of death and even stoning, Acts 14:19-31) as well as his “human side,” such as his intemperate words to the high priest at his trial before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (Acts 23:3).  Their deaths, though perhaps nearly coterminous, were brought about by very different means:  having no other recourse Seneca “bled his veins” to avoid being tortured by Nero as a result for his part in the conspiracy of Piso, while Paul died a martyr unwilling to renounce the Lord he loved.  For all these reasons we must question Nussbaum’s vaunting of Seneca as a moral example.  Sevenster says rather flatly, “he is seldom any longer regarded exclusively as the noblest representative of classical humanism among the Romans, as some classicists of the past have done.”[35]


II. Substantive Differences[36]
Theology
Stoic theology is unabashedly pantheistic.  In spite of references to God as Father, the Logos (logo"), and even the “Holy Spirit” (Sacer spiritus, pneu'ma a@@gion) there is no kinship at all between Seneca and Paul’s conceptions of God.  Submission to God in Seneca means a deterministic resignation to live “according to nature.”  Submission to God for Paul means committing oneself to the providential care of a loving Father.
Goal in Life
The Stoic goal was ataraxia (a*taraxiva) or lack of disturbance, along with apatheia (ajpaqeiva) or indifference and eudaimonia ( eu[daimoniva) or “the flourishing life.”  Paul’s goal in this life was “to be pleasing to the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:9) and “to know Christ and make Him known.”  (Philippians 3:10)
Anthropology
Stoic anthropology saw man as sinful, but sinfulness meant being separated from the One à la Stoic monism / pantheism.  If the Stoic emphasized cosmopolitanism it was because all men were only constituent parts of the cosmos in any event.  Salvation was found in extirpation of desire and eventual death.
            Paul also saw men as sinful, but sinfulness meant deliberate rebellion against the revealed will of a loving God.  The “cosmopolitan” element in Paul’s thought is inspired by “oneness in Christ” not by metaphysical monism.  Salvation for Paul involves a reordering of desire to “accord with Nature” as God created it and intended it.  Such salvation comes through Christ’s substitutionary atonement alone and death is viewed as a great victory because this body shall be resurrected to dwell eternally with Him in the New Jerusalem.
Ethics
The Stoic ethic was austere and intensely personal.  Sympathy and pity were eschewed.  No source of power to attain these high ideals was forthcoming.  The Stoic sage was a master of himself.
            For Paul ethics are the result of a changed relationship between God and man, and therefore between men.  Sympathy and pity, as well as humility were for Paul virtues.  Unlike Stoicism, Christianity offered a new power source for attaining its high ethical standards, i.e. the power of the risen Christ in the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.  Lightfoot concludes his study with the following words:
In all ages and under all circumstances, the Christian life has ever radiated from this central fire.  Whether we take St. Peter or St. Paul, St. Francis of Assisi or John Wesley, whether Athanasius or Augustine, Anselm or Luther, whether Boniface or Francis Xavier, here has been the impulse of their activity and the secret of their moral power.[37]

Death
Death was nothing to fear for Seneca.  Suicide was a way to “master fate.”  The Stoic was not to fear death since it too was “natural.”  Death meant the end of personal existence at least, if not annihilation.
            For Paul death was not to be feared; “For me to live is Christ, to die is gain.”  (Philippians 1:21)  Suicide for Paul would be unthinkable.  God alone holds the power of life and death, and even if He allows someone else to take ones life, there is no warrant for taking ones own life.  Death is not the end of personal existence, but only the beginning of an eternal, bodily existence with Christ.


Conclusion:  Was Nussbaum Right to Ignore “Christian” Scholarship?
If by “Christian” scholarship on the Hellenistic philosophers, particularly the Stoics and Seneca in particular, Nussbaum was thinking of medieval Christian scholarship based on forged correspondence between Paul and Seneca and representing an uncritical and uncontextulized reading of the Hellenistic philosophers (a “Christianizing” of them, if one will), then even evangelical biblical scholars would agree that she was correct in her decision to ignore their commentary.  Lightfoot says,
St. Jerome was led astray either by his ignorance of philosophy or by his partiality for stern asceticism, when he said that “the Stoic dogmas in very many points coincide with our own.”  It is in the doctrines of the Platonist and Pythagorean that the truer resemblances to the teaching of the Bible are to be sought.  It was not the Porch but the Academy that so many famous teachers, Justin Martyr and Augustine, found to be the vestibule to the Church of Christ.[38]

Whatever a twenty first-century Christian might say about Lightfoot’s choice of philosophical “vestibules”, at least he is honest about Jerome’s ignorance of philosophy.  On critical issues of historical fact the medieval church inherited some seriously flawed views.  Regarding the pseudepigraphic correspondence Lightfoot says, “St. Augustine, as generally happens in questions of historical criticism, repeats the language of Jerome and perhaps had not seen the letters.”[39]  Still, when Nussbaum does engage Augustine, for instance, her treatment is much less subtle than her handling of Seneca, not to mention not nearly as sympathetic.[40]
            It seems also that those characteristics of Seneca’s which separate him from earlier Stoics are precisely the “human” traits that make Seneca’s thought appear more “Christian.”  Her own choice of Seneca as a hero, rather than Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, is telling.  Lightfoot says, “Cato was the most perfect type of the school:  but M. Aurelius was the better man, because he was the worse Stoic.”[41]  She has chosen to spend much time with De Ira, for instance, which is among Seneca’s earlier works and less compatible with Christianity.[42]
            In the end it seems that Stanley Hauerwas is correct to question Nussbaum on her hermeneutical grid, her tradition by which she reads any author. [43] It also seems that Hauerwas is correcet to ask Hussbaum how it is that her view of values based on “autonomy” does not collapse into Nietzsche’s view that values are arbitrary.[44]  Nussbaum herself says that Nietzsche in his “attack upon pity” and
defense of mercy, should be understood – as he himself repeatedly insists – not as a boot-in-the-face fascist, and also not as an innocuous refusal of moral self-indulgence, but as … a position he derived from his reading of Epictetus and Seneca.[45]

If Nussbaum herself says that Nietzsche was inspired by Epictetus and Seneca, especially Seneca, does it not seem fair to ask if she has not also ended up with an ethic based on arbitrariness which is quite similar to Nietzsche’s, though she is unwilling to admit it?
            She answered Hauerwas’ question about her hermeneutical grid by saying that rather than being a “Nietzschean” she is unabashedly a “welfarist social democrat.”[46]  In reply to a question at the Institute of Philosophy at the Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain) concerning her “faith” she said that her “faith” was like Spinoza’s, a comment which Dr. Hermann DeDijn strongly objected to.  Her lack of “faith” seems more evident in her more “humanistic” and “naturalistic” choices which she makes for exposition in her book.
            Finally Nussbaum has said that the American fathers were deeply influenced by the Stoics and other Hellenistic philosophers.[47]   Perhaps this is true, but one might ask, “Were they self-consciously pantheistic Stoics (or even deists influenced by Stoics) or were they Christians who had read the Stoics as a part of their classical education, much as the Apostle Paul seems to have done?”  While the topic is currently being hotly debated, evidence seemingly would fall on both sides.  Thomas Jefferson’s famous “holey” Bible would perhaps be an evidence in Nussbaum’s favor.  Jefferson simply cut out of the Bible the passages he did not like, particularly anything which spoke of the miraculous.[48]  Other biblical higher critics may be more subtle than to cut passages out of the Bible physically, but no less ruthless in their putting Scripture “under the critical knife.”
            In conclusion in all fairness to Nussbaum she appears to be correct that “Christian” scholarship, if one means medieval Christian scholarship and perhaps Christian scholarship up until the end of the nineteenth century, was not worth consulting in order to get a clear picture of what the Hellenistic philosophers have to say (assuming the “Christian” scholars all relied upon forged correspondence and “Christianized” the pagan philosophers they read).  She certainly is correct that we get a much clearer picture of their pantheism, lack of sympathy and morbid tendencies, as well as their lack of power, by reading them for themselves (rather than through a “Christianized” lens).  She might, though, have gained some insights into the Hellenists’ failures and relative successes by a careful comparison of what the Christians found interesting and revolting in the works of Hellenistic philosophers.  Honest and thorough scholarship leaves no stone unturned and allows no prejudices to deter it from a complete search for truth, wherever it might be found, however unpromising the site might seem to a would-be researcher due to his or her own prejudices.[49]


[1] Martha C. Nussbaum. Therapy of Desire:  Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics.  Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1994.
[2] Ronald H. Nash. Christianity and the Hellenistic World.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 1984, 67-80. 
[3] J.B. Lightfoot. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians.  London:  MacMillan, 1903, 270-333. 
[4] Jan Nicholas Sevenster.  Paul and Seneca.  Leiden:  Brill, 1961, 1-25. 
[5] David DeSilva.  “Paul and the Stoa:  A Comparison,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38/4 (December 1995), 549-564. 
[6] Lightfoot, Philippians, esp. 329-333.
[7] A.N. Sherwin-White. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.  Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1963, 99-112, especially 99. 
[8] Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, 8.
[9] While there is independent confirmation of Gallio’s proconsulship in Achaea between 51-52 AD, no records were kept of such proconsulships in Rome.  Sherwin-White gives a detailed account of the veracity of the account in Acts as per Roman sources of his day.  He denies that “Luke” could have easily looked up a corresponding name to “throw into” his account.
[10] The UBS text reads:  {Ote deV eijshvlqomen eij"  JRwvmhn, ejpetravph tw'/ Pauvlw/ mevnein kaq= eJautoVn suVn tw'/ fulavssonti aujtoVn stratiwvth/.  The Byzantine text adds: oJ ejkatovnarco" parevdwken touv" desmivou" tw'/ stratopedavrcw'/ The Greek New Testament.  Former editions edited by Kurt Aland et al., Fourth Revised edition edited by Barbara Aland et al., Stuttgart:  Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies, 1994, 516.
[11] Bruce, F.F., The Acts of the Apostles.  The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary.  Third revised and enlarged edition.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdman’s, 1990, 536-537.  Sherwin-White, 109, confirms Bruce’s conclusion on the matter.
[12] Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 112.
[13] If this extended treatment of the historical evidence seems extreme it is well to remember that as recently as the middle of the nineteenth century A. Fleury, a French scholar in his work, Saint Paul et Seneque (Paris 1853) seriously defended this view.  cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, 278, note 1.
[14] Lightfoot, Philippians, 294.
[15] Nash, Christianity, 75.
[16] Ibid., 74
[17] Lightfoot, Philippians, 303.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid., 277.
[21] Ibid..
[22] Ibid., 273.
[23] Ibid., 302.
[24] Ibid., 274-275.
[25] DeSilva, Paul and Stoa, 562, 563.
[26] Lightfoot, Philippians. 293.
[27] DeSilva, Paul and Stoa, 551.
[28] Ibid, 23.
[29] Nussbaum, Therapy, 337.
[30] Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, 24.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid., 16, also Lightfoot, Philippians, 312.
[33] Ibid., 313.
[34] Sevenster, Paul and Seneca. 18
[35] Ibid., 15, though Kreyher compares Seneca’s lack of courage for martyrdom with that of English Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.  cf. also Richard Krant.  “Soul Doctors” Ethics 195 (April 1995), 613-625, esp. 618 on Nussbaum’s idealization of Lucretius, as well as other misrepresentations, particularly of Stoics, 622, 623.
[36] In this section a summarization of supposed main conceptual similarities which are merely verbally similar, though substantively opposed will be given.  For references one may turn to either Lightfoot or DeSilva.
[37] Lightfoot, Philippians, 327.
[38] Ibid., 294.  One could also see two books by Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, New York:  Dorset Press, 1967 and Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (1966) for confirmation of the deeper influence of the Neoplatonists than the Stoics.
[39] Lightfoot, Philippians, 330.
[40] Nussbaum, Therapy, 18, 19.
[41] Lightfoot, Philippians, 317.
[42] Ibid., 98, Lightfoot says, “It appears that the Christian parallels in Seneca’s writings become more frequent as he advances in life.”, 98; see also footnote 2 on the same page.
[43] Hauerwas, Stanley H.. “Can Aristotle Be a Liberal?” Soundings 72.4 (Winter 1989), 675-691)
[44] Ibid., 686. And if Hauerwas is correct Alasdair MacIntyre would ask her the same question.
[45] Nussbaum, Therapy, 4, 5.
[46] Nussbaum, Martha C.. “Reply to Hauerwas” Soundings 72.4 (Winter 1989), 765-770, esp. 767.
[47] Nussbaum, Therapy, 5.
[48] Colin Brown. Miracles and the Critical Mind.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1984, 76, 77.
[49] See Gregory L. Jones. “The Love which Love’s Knowledge Knows Not:  Nussbaum’s Evasion of Christianity” Thomist 56 (2) April 1992, 323-327, for further critique of Nussbaum’s hermeneutical grid.