About the Project
In the early Roman Imperial period, philosophy is increasingly understood as τέχνη περὶ βίον/ars vitae, the "art of living": What is true life and how does one get to it? Who can impart this "know-how"? And - last but not least - what is life's foundation?
In addition, the line between "philosophy" and "religion" in this era is not as sharp as one often assumes: there is much that is "religious" in philosophy and, conversely, much that is "philosophical" in religion. Therefore, no one should be surprised that the New Testament gospels participate in the philosophical discourse of their time, especially with regard to the theme of life. Jesus is asked "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Mk 10:17 [cf. Mt 19:16; Lk 18:18]) and according to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus even claims to be life itself (John 14:6). This finds its theological foundation in the fact that Jesus presents the God of Israel not as "a God of the dead, but of the living" (Mk 12:27 [cf. Mt 22:32; Lk 20:38]).
The evangelists thus deal with the theme of life by means of an exemplary individual figure. But let us now turn the tables: are the gospels in this respect "loners" in the literature of their time? The philosopher and priest of Apollo, Plutarch of Chaeronea, not only wrote "ethical-moral" treatises on how to live a successful life (e.g., That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible), but also "life portraits" of famous Greeks and Romans. In Jewish Hellenism, too, philosophizing can be based on the descriptions of exemplary individuals, such as we find it in the writings of Philo of Alexandria on the patriarchs of Israel. What does the observation of the way the evangelists deal with the theme of life contribute to the analysis of the Plutarchean and Philonic "portraits of life"? Are they also used to think through the manifold questions concerning life and perhaps even to lead the readers towards life?
When this concern has been clarified in a first step, it will be asked in a second step to what extent the "life portraits" of these three corpora function as a means of indirect polemics. It is widely accepted in research that the gospels also served to communicate with their addressees concerning how to deal with competing religious currents. The portrayal of Jesus as the new Moses, the confrontation with the Pharisees, and the understanding of the law in Matthew's Gospel, for example, make sense under the assumption that the evangelist wanted to clarify some burning religious questions for his community in the face of competing offers. Can Philo's Patriarchal Lives also be read in this sense, namely as an instrument in the confrontation with other circles of the Jewish community in Alexandria? And does it make sense to read Plutarch's Parallel Lives as a continuation of his confrontation with Stoics and Epicureans, or even with contemporary understandings of what it means to be a ruler?