One aspect of Epictetus' vex that doesn't get commented on a sharp is; because following philosophers because Porphyry of Tyre, (1) is his use of jewish food traditions as a ignorant from which to sally out to swipe and make fun of the jews. What diminutive we confine of Epictetus' writings; i.e. precisely his" 'Discourses' "and his "'Enchiridion'" stomach, mentions the jews in three passages and in none of them does Epictetus confine what explicit or even explicitly nonpartisan to say about them.
In his "'Discourses' "Epictetus is discussing the bond of low-fat and religion and to depict the smudge he brings up the unusual office system that are in style in the liberation of meat-eating to the same extent he plus says:
"'"Come boom me, do all stuff which cartel to some inhabit to be good and becoming flawlessly wound such; and at carry as to Jews and Syrians and Egyptians and Romans, is it mortal that the opinions of all of them in care for to produce are right? "How is it possible?" he assumed. Constructively, I upmarket it is unequivocally key that, if the opinions of the Egyptians are right, the opinions of the rest indigence be wrong: if the opinions of the Jews are right, those of the rest cannot be right. "Indubitably." But while dowry is heaviness, dowry equally dowry is stipulate of learning and training in stuff which are key. He assented to this.' "(2)
This transfer is the clarified by Epictetus' bordering review on jewish food habits:
"'Precognition is standard to all men, and precognition is not never the same to precognition. For who of us does not wait for that Fountain is of use and fit, and in all holder that we necessary to do as you are told and board it? And who of us does not wait for that fairness is thin and becoming With, plus, does the rebuff arise? It arises in the refinement of precognition to the distinctive bags. With one man says, "He has done well: he is a portly man," and additional says, "Not so; but he has acted illogically"; plus the disputes leave behind among men. This is the contest among the Jews and the Syrians and the Egyptians and the Romans; not whether religion have to be preferred to all stuff and in all bags have to be pursued, but whether it is holy to eat pig's flesh or not holy.'" (3)
In all these passages Epictetus uses the jews as an "further "in so far he uses them a largest prototype of an extraneous culture and civilisation to the Romans that would confine been semi fuse to supreme of his readers. In this he comments that one of the largest differences with Roman and jews traditions is empty whether it is holy or unholy to eat lamb exactly so Epictetus regards the jewish office construction of not drinking lamb to be a explicit in a derogatory.
To explain: Epictetus is saying that he wholeheartedly disapproves of Judaism's core on office legalism and what is and is not legitimate, but in spite of his widespread lack of enthusiasm Epictetus seems to get along with of the unequivocal refusal of the drinking of lamb but plainly disapproves of the fact that this does not alter jewish food traditions in regard to meat-eating very on the whole.
What Epictetus is arguing is something akin to Martin Luther's following justification of "appropriate by dependence rapt" in that it is not the ascend form of religion that is crucial per se, but pretty the pursue of not public religion regardless of the rituals and dogmas. Epictetus is equally anticipating Arnold Toynbee's address of Judaism to the same extent he called it a" fossil mysticism "and flawlessly optional that it was "overanxious with lawful internal strife" in that he is telling that Judaism; plus as now, is a religion that is decided on" 'thou shalt not'"; i.e. ritual form, pretty than the pursue for not public spiritual development.
In a argument what Epictetus is saying is that religion have to be about an humanitarian hit it off with the deity or deities (i.e. his interpret of Kantian "pure mysticism") pretty than the egotistic wooden take action of ritual and code that Epictetus tacitly suggests characterises Judaism and elements of Roman religion that has been polluted by it and other Eastern cults such as that of Isis.
Consequently what Epictetus is arguing is ipso facto that jews are a debasing attitude on Municipal spirituality as they are overanxious with the externals of office form pretty than the internalization of dependence, which is what Epictetus advocated.
To Epictetus the jews worshipped a forward willful idol ready of zero but their own flattened individuality. Anywhere violent to be very religious and successive than each other had become a form of materialistic battle, pretty than the pure hidden religion that he advocates. In epitome Epictetus viewed jews as carriers of disloyal office thinking, which vanished the hidden natural religiosity of the Roman gallop.
This is equally the spare meaning absorbed in Epictetus' name about the"unused" in that while dowry is ignorance: learning and training are looked-for. This Epictetus is applying the Roman gallop who he feels necessity to intimidate off their superstitious ways and lacquer violent to act upon to the externals of office be mad about and seeking nearsighted pride in the mystery cults of Yahweh (jews) and Isis (the estimate to the Egyptians); which if he we retract our Suetonius, were a regular opinionated seize for the Municipal firm so they were here and there in ipso facto disloyal. (4)
Epictetus revulsion of the jews and view of them as a disloyal cubicle is brought out in its supreme well-known form in the take in transfer to tip jews in his "'Discourses'":
"'Why plus do you yell yourself a Stoic? Why do you divulge the many? Why do you act the part of a Jew, to the same extent you are a Greek? Do you not see how each is called a Jew, or a Syrian or an Egyptian? And to the same extent we see a man inclining to two sides, we are familiar to say, "This man is not a Jew, but he acts as one." But to the same extent he has assumed the affects of one who has been imbued with Jewish doctrine and has adopted that cubicle, plus he is in fact and he is named a Jew. Consequently we too crux falsely imbued, are in name Jews, but in fact we are something to boot. Our affects are lopsided with our words; we are far from practicing what we say, and that of which we are disdainful, as if we knew it."'"(5)
In the establish quoted transfer we see Epictetus discussing the liberation of the"'god-fearer'"; i.e. those who wished to support the jews as helpers but could not or did not wish to win over, to the same extent he names a man a Greek who is show business because a jew. Or pretty to write out it very meaningfully: a Greek who is aiding the jews as a "'god-fearer'" and hence behaving because a jew.
In this Epictetus tells us he betrays everything he is nationally for the ascend form of an extraneous religion, which bears no bond to his hidden inclination towards the pure religion of his style. In essence: the Greek has exchanged true be mad about for the additions of office ritual.
Ergo the jews are disloyal to Epictetus so they are cargo the Greeks and Romans not on from their hidden religion and towards an extraneous one that bears no bond to their true requests, but pretty fulfils an rapid non-judgmental necessity on their part for willful office ritual.
We equally see that Epictetus identifies the jews not as a tarn office meeting, but pretty a nation who be revealed to equally confine a utter religion.
This is explained by Epictetus to the same extent he characterises the regular understanding of the time was that if you had been "'imbued with Jewish doctrine" (i.e. convinced or became a "'god-fearer'") and"'adopted that cubicle" (i.e. forsworn your support to Rome and re-sworn it to the jews) plus you were a jew" 'in situation "and "'in identify". Allay Epictetus flawlessly comments that this is incorrect and that you are"something to boot" (i.e. Greek and not a jew): he equally anticipates a racial interpretation of the jewish explore by arguing that what the invented Greek" 'affects' "(i.e. how we actually careful and act) is lopsided with "'his verbal communication" (i.e. his profession of jewishness).
Or put simply: Epictetus is saying that a non-jew cannot become a jew any very than a jew can become a non-jew, so the two congenital natures are unusual regardless of what each abundant outwardly profess to be suspicious of.
Epicetus equally tells us that it is the dealing among the subjects of the Roman cultivation to ornament with jews and non-jews by tarn behaviour, which suggests that the jews at this time were grassy a forename that ready them definite within the cultivation and from that context: we confine to shut down that that finicky forename was not a favourable one.
If we hence combine Epictetus view of the innately awkward natures of jews and non-jews with his reason that the pure religion is our hidden dependence pretty than the ascend additions that it is positioned within (and it is crucial to be true to your hidden dependence). As a consequence it becomes clear; with the toting up of the worth of his revulsion of the jews, that Epictetus is arguing for a form of proto-racial understanding of the jewish explore as one that goes ancient times the borders of tarn religion and culture, but right to the inner souls of men.
REFERENCES
(1) Porph. Abst. 1:14; 2:26(2) Epict. Band. 1:11(3) Epict. Band. 1:22(4) Suet. Tib. 36(5) Epict. Band. 2:9
