All as σκύβαλα beside the μέγιστον τῶν ἀγαθῶν: Philippians 3:7–11 in Dialogue with Epictetus

Religions Pub Date : 2024-07-09 DOI:10.3390/rel15070829
Laurie A. Wilson
{"title":"All as σκύβαλα beside the μέγιστον τῶν ἀγαθῶν: Philippians 3:7–11 in Dialogue with Epictetus","authors":"Laurie A. Wilson","doi":"10.3390/rel15070829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Philippians 3:8, Paul holds all things to be loss (ζημία) and even dung (σκύβαλον) in comparison with Christ. Similarly, beside a precise conception of the good (ἀγαθὸν), Epictetus considers earthly achievements and physical benefits as “indifferents” (ἀδιάφορα), which he defines as things that are neither good nor evil. This paper employs a comparative analysis of Paul and Epictetus to examine the tension inherent in both authors as they seek to explain the sufferings and enjoyments of human existence in light of humankind’s ultimate end. Despite Paul’s strong language, he still recognizes the value of temporal goods, including release from prison, recovery from illness, and financial assistance. Thus, a person can value these benefits when they are joined to the greatest good, as illustrated by Augustine’s conception of ordered loves. Like Paul, Epictetus affirms the lesser value of indifferents, particularly when they enable participation in the good. This paper argues that both Paul and Epictetus acknowledge a secondary value in things that are joined to the supreme good, but that Paul differs from Epictetus in classifying them as goods that can be rightly desired and in acknowledging temporary sufferings to be an evil even as they can bring about good.","PeriodicalId":505829,"journal":{"name":"Religions","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15070829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Philippians 3:8, Paul holds all things to be loss (ζημία) and even dung (σκύβαλον) in comparison with Christ. Similarly, beside a precise conception of the good (ἀγαθὸν), Epictetus considers earthly achievements and physical benefits as “indifferents” (ἀδιάφορα), which he defines as things that are neither good nor evil. This paper employs a comparative analysis of Paul and Epictetus to examine the tension inherent in both authors as they seek to explain the sufferings and enjoyments of human existence in light of humankind’s ultimate end. Despite Paul’s strong language, he still recognizes the value of temporal goods, including release from prison, recovery from illness, and financial assistance. Thus, a person can value these benefits when they are joined to the greatest good, as illustrated by Augustine’s conception of ordered loves. Like Paul, Epictetus affirms the lesser value of indifferents, particularly when they enable participation in the good. This paper argues that both Paul and Epictetus acknowledge a secondary value in things that are joined to the supreme good, but that Paul differs from Epictetus in classifying them as goods that can be rightly desired and in acknowledging temporary sufferings to be an evil even as they can bring about good.
一切都如同σκύβαλα旁的μέγιστον τῶν ἀγαθῶν:腓立比书》3:7-11 与伊壁鸠鲁的对话
在《腓立比书》3:8,保罗认为与基督相比,万物都是亏损(ζημία),甚至是粪土(σκύβαλον)。同样,除了对 "善"(ἀγαθὸν)有精确的概念外,伊壁鸠鲁还将世俗的成就和物质利益视为 "无用之物"(ἀδιάφορα),他将其定义为非善非恶之物。本文通过对保罗和伊壁鸠鲁的比较分析,研究两位作者在试图根据人类的终极结局来解释人类生存的苦难和享受时所固有的紧张关系。尽管保罗使用了强烈的语言,但他仍然承认世俗之物的价值,包括从监狱中释放、从疾病中康复以及经济援助。因此,正如奥古斯丁的有序之爱概念所表明的那样,当这些利益与最大的善结合在一起时,人就会珍视它们。与保罗一样,伊壁鸠鲁也肯定了冷漠者的次要价值,尤其是当它们能让人参与善的时候。本文认为,保罗和伊壁鸠鲁都承认与至善相连的事物具有次要价值,但保罗与伊壁鸠鲁的不同之处在于,保罗将它们归类为可以正确渴求的物品,并承认暂时的痛苦是一种恶,即使它们可以带来善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信