the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Dictionaries
Epicureans
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or The Epicurean philosophers are mentioned only once in the NT, viz. in Acts 17:18. During his second missionary journey St. Paul met with them in Athens. Though he stayed there not more than four weeks, the Apostle was deeply moved by the sight of so large a number of statues erected in honour of various deities. Not content with preaching in the synagogue to Jews and proselytes, he sought pagan hearers in their famous market-place, thus imitating Socrates 400 years before. The market-place was ‘rich in noble statues, the central seat of commercial, forensic, and philosophic intercourse, as well as of the busy idleness of the loungers’ (Meyer, Com. on Acts, Eng. translation , 1877, ii. 108). As the ‘Painted Porch’ in which the Stoics taught was situated in the market-place, and the garden where the Epicureans gathered for their fraternal discussions was not far away, it is not surprising that some members of these two schools of philosophy were among the Apostle’s listeners. Athens was the home and centre of the four great philosophies founded by Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus. The two first, however, had at this time been supplanted by the two last; thus, in encountering the Stoics and Epicureans, St. Paul was face to face with the most influential philosophies of the day. Unfortunately, we know but little of the character of the interview or its results. The discussion was probably not hostile on the part of the philosophers, though Cheyne seems to incline to this view (Encyclopaedia Biblica , vol. ii. col. 1323 n. [Note: . note.] ). That St. Paul’s teaching must have been antagonistic to theirs seems obvious.
1. Epicurus and the Epicureans
(1) Epicurus.-Epicurus was born in 341 b.c., probably at Samos, an island off the coast of Asia Minor, and lived about 70 years. His father Neocles was an Athenian, who had gone to Samos as a colonist after the Greeks had expelled a large number of the natives. His occupation was that of a humble schoolmaster, and his son is said to have assisted him for some time. At the age of 18 Epicurus left for Athens, returning home a year later to Colophon, where his father now lived. Of the beginnings of Epicurus’ acquaintance with philosophy our knowledge is slight and uncertain. Two of his teachers were Nausiphanes, a disciple of Democritus, and Pamphilus, a Platonist. But, as the former owed much to Pyrrho, the well-known Sceptic, it is hardly likely that Epicurus failed to share in that obligation. He claims to have been his own teacher, and this is true to the extent that he rejected the prevalent philosophies of his time and turned to such predecessors as Democritus, Anaxagoras, and Archelaus. It was at Mitylene that he began to teach philosophy, and at Lamp-sacus his position as the head of a school was recognized. He returned to Athens in 307 b.c., and settled there for the remainder of his life. There he purchased a house and garden, the latter becoming famous as the home of a large band of men and women who became his devoted disciples and friends. He died in 270 b.c. He had never enjoyed robust health, and his general feebleness and ailments were the ground upon which his enemies based charges of evil living.
(2) The Epicureans.-The community lived its own separate life. The calls and claims of public life were ignored and the usual ambitions of men stifled. From all the political upheavals through which Athens passed the Epicureans held strictly aloof, exemplifying their principles by indifference to environment and the endeavour to extract the maximum of tranquil gratification from life by the prudent and unimpassioned use of it. They passed their time in the study of Nature and Morality, and their friendly intercourse with each other supplied the necessary human elements. Most serious charges were made from time to time against both Epicurus himself and the community, but the accusers were generally either disaffected ex-disciples or rivals, and their motives were malicious. One cannot but admit that the ideal of ‘pleasure’ was well calculated to produce the most disastrous results except in the case of the noblest of men; and it is hard to believe that the garden contained only such. Yet consideration must be given to the extraordinary devotion of the brotherhood towards their head, in whom they recognized their deliverer from the worst fears and desires of life. An example of their unceasing allegiance to their master may be found in the statues erected in Epicurus’ honour after his death. Simplicity was the note of the community’s life. For drink they had water with a small quantity of wine on occasion, and for food barley bread. In a letter Epicurus writes: ‘Send me some Cynthian cheese, so that, should I choose, I may fare sumptuously.’ And during the severe famine which afflicted Athens, Plutarch informs us that the Epicureans lived on beans which they shared out from day to day (Demetrius, 34). But the bond which held this remarkable company together was the personality of Epicurus, who regarded his followers not only as disciples but as friends.
2. Teaching.-Epicurus is said to have written 300 books, but all have disappeared, and we are dependent for our knowledge on writers two centuries later. This misfortune is probably due to the teacher’s habit of summarizing his system so that the disciples might commit it to memory. His reputed lack of style may have contributed to the same end. Nevertheless, the main outlines of his teaching are clear enough, though on important details uncertainty prevails. Epicurus had no interest in theories, except as they aided practical life. Mere knowledge was worthless, and culture be despised. His theoretical teaching treated of Man and the Universe (his Physics); his practical teaching used the knowledge so gained for the regulation of human conduct (his Ethics). Underlying these was his peculiar Logic. Real Logic of the Aristotelian type he could not tolerate. All he wanted was a criterion of truth, or to ascertain the grounds on which statements of fact could be based. This is usually called the Canonic.
(a) Canonic.-The criteria of truth or reality according to Epicurus may be grouped under two heads.-(1) Sensation. Every sensuous impression received by the mind is produced by something other than itself, and is infallibly true. When these feelings are clear, distinct, and vivid, the knowledge they afford is real. Even the sensations of the dreamer and lunatic are true, since they are caused by some other object operating on the mind. Any error arising from sensations is due not to the sensations themselves but to the mind’s misinterpretation of them. But Epicurus does not make clear what that vividness is which is reliable and incapable of misinterpretation. (2) Conceptions or pre-conceptions, i.e. ideas which have been left in the mind by preceding sensations. Here memory, which recalls past impressions, and reasoning, which interprets them, have been active, with the result that the mind unconsciously confronts every new sensation with impressions which may modify any effect it may make. These conceptions, the repetition of earlier observations, are true. But it is well that they should be brought from time to time into immediate connexion with the sensation itself. Thus, if a distant square tower appear round, closer examination will discover the error and modify the impression for the future. It is difficult to see how Epicurus would apply this admirable criterion to his theory of the ‘atoms’ and the ‘void.’
(b) Physics.-Epicurus relied on the senses alone as the true basis of knowledge, and they reveal only matter in motion. Consequently, matter is the only reality. The incorporeal is the same as the non-existent, i.e. void, and this applies even to mind. When Epicurus explains the nature of matter, the influence of Democritus is at once evident. The immediate impression of the senses suggests large masses of matter, but this is not reliable. In reality the apparent masses are composed of extremely minute, invisible particles or atoms which differ only in weight, size, and shape, and, though near to each other, do not touch. Around each is a void. By analogy he argues that this is true not only of the nearer world but also of that which is most distant. He reaches this explanation by the elimination of all other possible theories. Atoms then being presumed, in what way do they move? Aristotle had taught that celestial bodies move in a circular manner, and fire upwards. But Epicurus claimed that the only movement of which we are aware is that of the fall of bodies to the earth-downward movement. All atomic movement then is eternally straight downward. But this brings us to the conception of relative stagnation, as every body is moving in the same direction and at the same rate. To avoid this difficulty, Epicurus fell back upon our individual experience of power to resist forces and cause them to deviate from their original direction. He then claimed for atoms something of the same power. How, where, and when this strange power operates we are not informed; but, by assuming it, Epicurus arrives at an explanation of those vast aggregates of apparently concrete combinations of which our senses are conscious. The only difference between mind and matter is that the former is composed of minuter and rounder particles which pervade the body like a warm breath. To explain our consciousness of taste, colour, sound, etc., Epicurus resorts to a curious theory. In addition to the primary particles which each body possesses, there are secondary particles which vary in each case. These ‘thin, filmy images, exactly copying the solid body whence they emanate,’ are continually floating away from it; and when they reach the various human organs, they produce within the mind the sensations of which we are conscious. This theory also accounts not only for our visions of the ghosts of departed friends, whose secondary particles may float about long after their death, but also for our perceptions of the gods; for, though they are composed of much finer particles than mortals, their ‘films’ may fall with impact upon the human organism.
Though charged with atheism, Epicurus never questioned the existence of the gods, though he taught their remoteness from, and indifference to, human concerns. He ridiculed ancient mythology, whose effect on men had been wholly injurious, and explained such portents as eclipses, thunder, etc., on purely natural grounds. He likewise denounced the belief in fate-a belief he considered even more hurtful than the belief in Divine intervention. His teaching being frankly materialistic, Epicurus naturally disbelieved in immortality. For these reasons, he argued, man need have no fear: the gods do not concern themselves with him; there is no such thing as fate; and death is nothing but the end of all.
(c) Ethics.-Passing by the idealism of Plato and Aristotle, Epicurus had recourse to the doctrine of Aristippus of Cyrene, who taught that ‘pleasure’ is the supreme good and ‘pain’ the sole evil. Socrates, while admitting the importance of pleasure, regarded the pleasures of the mind as greater than those of the body. Aristippus preferred the latter because of their greater intensity. His ideal was the intensest pleasure of the passing moment, entirely undisturbed by reason, its greatest foe; not merely the absence of pain, but pleasure that was active and positive. The difficulty be found in attaining this ideal led him to allow some value to prudence as an aid thereto.
Epicurus differed from Aristippus in the following respects: men should consider less the fleeting pleasure of the moment and aim at that of the whole life; intense, throbbing ecstasy is less desirable than a tranquil state of mind which may become perpetual; indeed, at times, the highest possible pleasure may be merely the removal of pain; the pleasures and pains of mind are more important than those of body, because of the joy or distress which may be accumulated by memory and anticipation. Much greater emphasis is likewise laid on the virtue of prudence, which he calls ‘a more precious thing even than philosophy.’ Prudence is in fact the chief virtue of all. By its means rival pleasures are judged; and even momentary pain may be chosen, that a tranquil life may be furthered.
Epicureanism does not indulge in high moral ideals or insist upon any code of duties, whether public or private, save as these may minister to one’s own pleasure, but neither does it inculcate (in theory) low, sensual delights. These have their place, but what that place is must be decided by prudence, with a view to securing a complete life of tranquil pleasure. Epicurus is to be regarded as the founder of Hedonism.
Literature.-Lucretius, de Rerum Natura; Diog. Laert. de Vitis Philosophorum, bk. x.; Cicero, de Finibus, de Natura Deorum, Tusculanœ Disputationes; Plutarch, Disputatio qua docetur ne suaviter quidem vivi posse secundum Epicuri decreta, adv. Colotem; E. Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, Eng. translation , London, 1880; W. Wallace, Epicureanism, do. 1880; J. Watson, Hedonistic Theories, Glasgow, 1895; articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica 11, Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , Encyclopaedia Biblica ; Histories of Philosophy, by Ritter, etc.
J. W. Lightley.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Epicureans'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/e/epicureans.html. 1906-1918.
