Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Philosophy?

7/28/2019 Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Philosophy?

1/8


2/8

CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271

Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299

2

Largelyasaresultofaseriesofscholarlybooksandarticleswritteninrebuttal,allegationsofearlyChristianitys

dependenceonpaganphilosophybegantofadeintheyearsjustbeforethestartofWorldWarII.Today,intheearly

1990s,mostinformedscholarsregardthequestionasadeadissue.Theseoldarguments,however,continueto

circulateinthepublicationsofafewscholarsandintheclassroomanticsofmanycollegeprofessorswhohavenever

botheredtobecomeacquaintedwiththelargebodyofwritingsonthesubject.

Forexample,inawidelyusedphilosophytext,thelateE.A.Burtt,aprofessoratCornellUniversityduringthepost

warperiod,arguedthatPaulstheologywasdependentonideasborrowedfromtheHellenisticworld.2Similar

claimscan

be

found

in

awidely

used

history

of

philosophy

textbook

by

W.

T.

Jones,

aprofessor

of

philosophy

at

CaliforniaInstituteofTechnology.3ThomasW.Africashistorytext,TheAncientWorld,makesrepeatedassertions

aboutChristianitysdependenceonpagansystemsofthought.4Whileitistruethatsuchexamplesexhibita

surprisinglackofacquaintancewiththescholarlyliterature,thefalseclaimscanstillcauseharmwhenbelievedby

uninformedpeople.

ThisarticlewillprovidethereaderwiththemostimportantclaimsmadebyproponentsofanearlyChristian

dependenceonpaganphilosophyduringtheHellenisticage.5Iwillfocusonthreemajorclaims:(1)theclaimthat

elementsofPlatosphilosophyappearintheNewTestament;(2)theclaimthattheNewTestamentshowssignsof

havingbeeninfluencedbythesystemknownasStoicism;and(3)theallegationthattheancientJewishphilosopher

Philo(whosethoughtwasanoddmixtureofPlatonismandStoicism)wasasourceofJohnsuseoftheGreekword

logosasadescriptionofJesus(John1:114),andalsoaninfluenceonthethinkingofthewriteroftheBookof

Hebrews.Inthecaseofeachsetofclaims,Iwilldirectthereadertoinformationthatpointsouttheweaknessesofthe

assertions.

Itshouldbeobviousthatthissubjectistoovasttobecoveredadequatelyinoneshortarticle.Hence,Iwillalsodirect

thereadertomoredetailedtreatmentsofthematerial.Forexample,everythingdiscussedinthisarticleiscovered

muchmoreextensivelyinmybook,TheGospelandtheGreeks.6

Myfocus,itshouldbeunderstood,isonthewritersoftheNewTestamentwhomChristiansregardasdivinely

inspiredrecipientsofrevealedtruth.ThewellknownChristiancommitmenttotheinspirationandauthorityofthe

NewTestamentdocumentsdoesnotobligeChristianstohavethesamecommitmentforChristianthinkerswho

wroteafterthecloseoftheNewTestamentcanon.Studentsofchurchhistoryrecognizethepresenceofvarious

unbiblicalideasinmanyoftheearlychurchfathers,suchasOrigen(A.D.185254).7MyconcerniswithallegationsofpaganideasinthedocumentsoftheNewTestament.

INFLUENCEDBYPLATONISM?

ThissectionwillexaminethemajorargumentsthatwereonceusedinsupportoftheviewthattheapostlePaul

borrowedfromPlatonism.Bythetimewefinishwewillnotonlybetterunderstandwhysuchclaimsareseldom

madeanymore;wewillalsohavecausetomarvelathowanycarefulstudentoftheNewTestamentcouldeverhave

thoughtthechargeshadmerit.

Thepublications

that

assert

aPauline

dependence

on

Platonism

tend

to

focus

on

asimilar

collection

of

charges.

For

instance,Paulswritingsaresupposedtoreflectadualisticviewoftheworldaviewthatissaidtobeespecially

clearinhisallegedlyradicaldistinctionbetweenthehumansoulandbody.Moreover,itisclaimed,Paulmanifests

thetypicalPlatonicaversiontothebodyasbeingevil,aprisonhouseofthesoul,fromwhichtheChristianlongsto

bedelivered.Untilthisdeliveranceactuallycomesbymeansofdeath,thePaulineChristianissupposedtodenigrate

hisbodythroughvariousasceticpractices.


3/8


Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299

3

TheobviousfirststepfortheChristiantotakeinallthisistoaskthepersonmakingtheclaimstoproducetheNew

TestamentpassagesinwhichPaulssupposedPlatonismappears.Romans7:24istheverseusuallycitedinsupportof

theclaimthatPaultaughtthatthehumanbodyisaprisonhouseofthesoul: WhatawretchedmanIam!Whowill

rescuemefromthisbodyofdeath?

ItisobviousthatPaulinthisverseusesneitherthewordprison(phylake)northeideathatthebodyisaprisonofthe

soul.Asamatteroffact,nowhereinScripturedoesPaulwriteofthebodyintermsofaprison.Inalllikelihood,Paul

inRomans7:24usedthewordbodymetaphorically.

Anotherversecriticssometimesappealtointhisconnection8isRomans8:23: Notonlyso,butweourselves,who

havethefirstfruitsoftheSpirit,groaninwardlyaswewaiteagerlyforouradoptionassons,theredemptionofour

bodies. Ifanything,thisversedisprovestheclaimthatPaulwasaPlatonist,sincetheredemptionthatPaulawaitsis

theglorythatwillfollowhisbodilyresurrection.NoselfrespectingPlatonistwouldeverteachadoctrineofbodily

resurrection.BasictoPlatonismisthebeliefthatdeathbringshumanstoacompleteandtotaldeliverancefrom

everythingphysicalandmaterial.

AlmosteveryauthorwhousedtoclaimthatPaulwasinfluencedbyPlatonismreferredtotheapostlesrepeateduse

ofthewordfleshincontextsassociatingitwithevil.IfPaulreallytaughtthatthesoulisgoodandthebodyisevil,

thenthecaseforhisallegeddependenceonPlatonismmightbegintomakesomesense.9Theimportantquestion

here,however,concernswhatPaulmeantbythewordflesh.PhilosopherGordonClarkwarnsagainstacareless

readingofPaulthatwouldmake fleshmeanbody.Instead,Clarknotes, alittleattentiontoPaulsremarksmakesit

clearthathemeans,notbody,butthesinfulhumannatureinheritedfromAdam.10TheologianJ.GreshamMachen

whowroteduringtheperiodwhenthisviewwasmostacceptedelaboratedontherealsignificanceofPauls

useofthetermflesh:

ThePaulineuseoftheterm flesh todenotethatinwhichevilresidescanapparentlyfindnoreal

parallelwhateverinpaganusage....Atfirstsighttheremightseemtobeaparallelbetweenthe

PaulinedoctrineofthefleshandtheGreekdoctrineoftheevilofmatter,whichappears...inPlato

andinhissuccessors.Buttheparallelbreaksdownuponcloserexamination.AccordingtoPlato,

thebodyisevilbecauseitismaterial;itistheprisonhouseofthesoul.Nothingcouldreallybe

moreremotefromthethoughtofPaul.AccordingtoPaul,theconnectionofsoulandbodyis

entirelynormal,andthesoulapartfromthebodyisinaconditionofnakedness....thereisinPaulnodoctrineoftheinherentevilofmatter.11

Paulscondemnationof flesh asevil,then,hasabsolutelynoreferencetothehumanbody.Heusesthetermsarxor

fleshinthesecontextstorefertoapsychologicalandspiritualdefectthatleadseveryhumantoplaceselfaheadofthe

Creator.TheNewInternationalVersion(NIV)makesthisclearbytranslatingsarxas sinfulnature. Forinstance,

Romans7:5,averseoftenusedassupportfortheclaimthatPaulregardedmatterasevil,reads: Forwhenwewere

controlledbythesinfulnature[sarx],thesinfulpassionsarousedbythelawwereatworkinourbodies,sothatwe

borefruitfordeath. NoneofthetextsinwhichPaulusessarxinitsethicalsensecansupporttheclaimthathewasa

Platonicdualist.

TheclaimthatPaulbelievedmatterisevilisalsocontradictedbyhisbeliefthattheultimatedestinyofredeemed

humanbeingsisanendlesslifeinaresurrectedbody,notthedisembodiedexistenceofanimmortalsoul,asPlato

taught.Paulsdoctrineoftheresurrectionofthebody(1Cor.15:1258)isclearlyincompatiblewithabeliefinthe

inherentwickednessofmatter.

EffortstofindanevilmatterversusgoodspiritdualisminPaulalsostumbleoverthefactthathebelievedinevil

spirits(Eph.6:12).TheadditionalfactthatGodpronouncedHiscreationgood(Gen.1:31)alsodemonstrateshowfar

removeddualismisfromtheteachingoftheOldandNewTestaments.


4/8


Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299

4

AsfortheclaimthatPauladvocatedaradicalasceticismthatincludedtheintentionalharmingofhisbody,12thefact

isthatPaulwrotetheNewTestamentsstrongestattacksagainstasceticism(e.g.,Col.2:1623).GordonClarkcorrectly

observesthatPaulwas notmotivatedbyadesiretofreeadivinesoulfromabodilytomb,muchlessbytheideathat

painisgoodandpleasureevil.Rather,Paulwasengagedinarace,towinwhichrequiredhimtolayasideevery

weightaswellasthesinwhichsoeasilybesets.WillingtosufferstoningsandstripesforthenameofChrist,henever

practicedselfflagellation.13

WemustconcludethattheauthorswhoclaimedPaulwasinfluencedbyPlatonismandthecollegeandseminary

professorswho

passed

these

theories

along

to

their

students

were,

at

the

least,

guilty

of

sloppy

research

and

shoddy

thinking.Itiseasytosuspectthattheirprimarymotivationwasadesiretofindanythingthatmightappearto

discredittheinspirationandauthorityoftheScriptures.

INFLUENCEDBYSTOICISM?

StoicismwasthemostimportantphilosophicalinfluenceonculturedpeopleduringthefirstcenturyA.D.Stoic

philosopherswerematerialists,pantheists,andfatalists:theybelievedthateverythingthatexistsisphysicalor

corporealinnatureandthateveryexistingthingisultimatelytraceablebacktooneultimateuniversalstuffthatis

divine.TheythoughtthatGodandtheworldwererelatedinawaythatallowedtheworldtobedescribedasthe

body

of

God

and

God

to

be

described

as

the

soul

of

the

world.

Unlike

the

God

of

Judaism

and

Christianity

who

is

an

eternal,almighty,allknowing,loving,spiritualPerson,theStoicGodwasimpersonalandhenceincapableof

knowledge,love,orprovidentialacts.TheStoicfatalismisseenintheirbeliefthateverythingthathappensoccursby

necessity.

ThemajorcontributionoftheStoicphilosopherswasthedevelopmentofanethicalsystemthatwouldhelptheStoic

liveameaningfullifeinafatalisticuniverse.Tofindgoodandevil,Stoicstaught,wemustturnawayfromwhatever

happensofnecessityinourworldandlookwithin.Personalvirtueorviceresidesinourattitudes,inthewaywe

reacttothethingsthathappentous.ThekeywordintheStoicethicisapathy.Everythingthathappenstoahuman

beingisfixedbythatpersonsfate.Butmosthumansresisttheirdestiny,wheninfactnothingcouldhavebeendone

thatwouldhavealteredthecourseofnature.Ourdutyinlife,then,issimplytoacceptwhathappens;itistoresign

ourselvestoourunavoidabledestiny.Thiswillbereflectedinourapathytoallthatisaroundus,includingfamily

andproperty.Thetrulyvirtuouspersonwilleliminateallpassionandemotionfromhis(orher)lifeuntilhereachesthepointthatnothingtroublesorbothershim.Oncehumanslearnthattheyareslavestotheirfate,thesecretofthe

onlygoodlifeopentothemrequiresthemtoeliminateallemotionfromtheirlivesandacceptwhateverfatesends

theirway.

ThefactthattheStoicsoftendescribedthisattitudeofresignationas acceptingthewillofGod isnodoubt

responsiblefortheconfusionbetweentheirteachingandtheNewTestamentsemphasisupondoingGodswill.But

theideasbehindtheStoicandChristianphrasesarecompletelydifferent!WhenaStoictalkedaboutthewillofGod,

hemeantnothingmorethansubmissiontotheunavoidablefatalismofanimpersonal,uncaring,unknowing,and

unlovingNature.ButwhenChristianstalkaboutacceptingthewillofGod,theymeanthechosenplanofaloving,

knowing,personaldeity.

Decadesago,itwasfashionableinsomecirclestoclaimthattheapostlePaulwasinfluencedbyStoicism.Aslateas

1970,ColumbiaUniversityphilosopherJohnHermanRandall,Jr.,attributedthestrongsocialemphasisofPauls

moralphilosophytoStoicism.14Paulsstressuponinwardmotivesasoveragainsttheoutwardacthasbeensaidto

evidenceaStoicinfluence.15TherewasatimewhensomeclaimedthatarelationshipexistedbetweenPaulandthe

StoicthinkerSenecawhowasanofficialinNerosgovernmentduringtheapostlestimeinRome.16Andtherecanbe

noquestionthatPaulquotedfromaStoicwriterinhisfamoussermononMarsHillinAthens(Acts17:28).


5/8


Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299

5

PaulsquotingfromaStoicwriterprovesnothing,ofcourse.AsaneducatedmanspeakingtoStoics,itwasbothgood

rhetoricandawaytogaintheattentionofhisaudience.ThoughPaulandSenecawereinRomeatthesametime,

thereisnoevidenceofanypersonalcontactandplentyofevidencethattheirrespectivesystemsofthoughtwere

alientoeachother.Whenproperlyunderstood,SenecasStoicethicisrepulsivetoaChristianlikePaul.Itistotally

devoidofgenuinehumanemotionandcompassion;thereisnoplaceforlove,pity,orcontrition.Itlacksanyintrinsic

tietorepentance,conversion,andfaithinGod.EvenifPauldiduseStoicimagesandlanguage,hegavethewordsa

newandhighermeaningandsignificance.InanycomparisonbetweenthethinkingofPaulandStoicism,itisthe

differencesand

conflicts

that

stand

out.

TwootherinstancesofallegedStoicinfluenceremaintobeconsidered.ThefirstconcernstheStoicsuseoftheGreek

wordlogosasatechnicalterm.ItisthissametermthatJohnusesthroughoutthefirstfourteenversesofhisGospelas

anameforJesusChrist.SincetheimmediatesourcefortheNewTestamentuseoflogosisusuallysaidtobethe

JewishphilosopherPhilo,whosesystemwasasynthesisofPlatonismandStoicism,Iwillpostponecommentonthis

pointuntilthenextsection.ThesecondinstanceofallegedStoicinfluenceconcernsthebeliefofearlyStoics(300200

B.C.)thattheworldwouldeventuallybedestroyedbyfire.ThisledsomecriticstochargethatPetersteachingin2

Peter3thatGodwillendtheworldbydestroyingitbyfireechoestheStoicdoctrineofauniversalconflagration.

Unfortunatelyforsuchcritics,theirtheoryfallsapartonceonenoticesthesignificantdifferencesbetweentheStoic

beliefandPetersteaching.Foronething,theStoicconflagrationwasaneternallyrepeatedeventthathadnothingto

dowiththeconsciouspurposesofapersonalGod.AsphilosopherGordonClarkexplains, TheconflagrationinII

Peterisasuddencatastropheliketheflood.ButtheStoicconflagrationisaslowprocessthatisgoingonnow;ittakes

alongtime,duringwhichtheelementschangeintofirebitbybit.TheStoicprocessisanaturalprocessinthemost

ordinarysenseoftheword[thatis,itissimplytheordinaryoutworkingoftheorderofnature];butPeterspeaksofit

astheresultofthewordorfiatoftheLord.17Furthermore,theStoicconflagrationispartofapantheisticsystem

whiletheconflagrationdescribedbyPeteristhedivinejudgmentofaholyandpersonalGoduponsin.

Asifthesedifferenceswerenotenough,theStoicfireendlesslyrepeatsitself.Aftereachconflagration,theworld

beginsanewandduplicatesexactlythesamecourseofeventsofthepreviouscycle.Thehistoryoftheworld,inthis

Stoicview,repeatsitselfaninfinitenumberoftimes.ContrastthiswithPetersviewthattheworldisdestroyedby

fireonlyonce,likethefloodofNoahstime.

PerhapsthemostdecisiveobjectiontotheclaimofaStoicinfluencein2PeteristhefactthatmajorStoicwritershad

completelyabandonedthisdoctrinebythemiddleofthefirstcenturyA.D.Thecriticwouldhaveusbelievethatthe

writerof2PeterwasinfluencedbyaStoicdoctrinethatStoicthinkershadcompletelyrepudiated.Itislittlewonder

thatmostscholarsabandonedtheoriesaboutaStoicinfluenceupontheNewTestamentdecadesago.Thisleavesus

withthethirdandlastofourpossiblephilosophicinfluencesontheNewTestament,thefirstcenturysystemofthe

Jewishthinker,Philo.

INFLUENCEDBYPHILO?

Atthe

beginning

of

the

Christian

era,

Alexandria,

Egypt

an

important

center

of

the

Jewish

Dispersion

had

becomethechiefcenterofHellenisticthought.ThelargecolonyofJewswhoclaimedAlexandriaastheirhome

becameHellenizedinbothlanguageandculture.WhilestillobservingtheirJewishfaith,theytranslatedtheir

ScripturesintotheGreeklanguage(theSeptuagint).ThistendedtoincreasetheirculturalisolationfromtheirHebrew

rootsbecausetheynowhadevenlessincentivetoremainfluentintheHebrewlanguage.Giventheintellectual

interestsoftheAlexandrianJews,itwasonlynaturalthatthearrivalofsuchphilosophicalsystemsasPlatonismand

StoicisminAlexandriawouldeventuallyaffectthem.


6/8


Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299

6

ThegreatestoftheAlexandrianJewishintellectualswasPhiloJudeaus,wholivedfromabout25B.C.toaboutA.D.

50.PhilosworkillustratesmanyofthemostimportantelementsofthesynthesisofPlatonismandStoicismthatcame

todominateHellenisticphilosophyduringandafterhislifetime.HeisthebestexampleofhowintellectualJewsof

theDispersion,isolatedfromPalestineandtheirnativeculture,allowedHellenisticinfluencestoshapetheirtheology

andphilosophy.18

Philohasbecomefamousforhisuseofthetermlogos.19Itisimpossible,however,tofindanyclearorconsistentuseof

theword

in

his

many

writings.

For

example,

he

used

the

word

to

refer

to

Plato

sideal

world

of

the

forms,20

to

the

mindofGod,andtoaprinciplethatexistedsomewherebetweentherealmsofGodandcreation.Atothertimes,he

appliedlogostoanyofseveralmediatorsbetweenGodandman,suchastheangels,Moses,Abraham,andeventhe

Jewishhighpriest.Butputtingasidehislackofclarityandconsistency,hisuseoflogoshasraisedquestionsabouta

possibleinfluenceofAlexandrianJudaismonsuchNewTestamentwritingsasJohnsGospelandtheBookof

Hebrews.

Sixtyyearsago,theviewthatthewriterofthefourthGospelwasinfluencedbyPhilosuseoflogoswassomethingof

anofficialdoctrineincertaincircles.21Withfewexceptions,however,thedriftofscholarshiphasbeenawayfrom

PhiloasasourceforJohnsLogosdoctrine.Butashappenssooften,newsofthischangeinscholarlyopinionwas

slowinreachingsome.Andso,JohnHermanRandall,Jr.,wrotein1970that inhisPrologueabouttheWord,the

Logos,[John]isadoptingPhiloJudaeus earlierPlatonizationoftheHebraictradition.22Andinhishistoryof

philosophytextbookthatisstillwidelyused,eveninsomeevangelicalcolleges,W.T.Jonesclaimsthatthe

mysticismoftheFourthGospelwasgroundedinthePlatonismofHellenisticAlexandria.23

MostcontemporaryNewTestamentscholarsseenoneedtopostulateaconsciousrelationshipbetweenPhilo(or

AlexandrianJudaism)andtheNewTestamentuseoflogos.Theypointoutthatalongsidethephilosophicaland

Philonicviewsoflogos,thereweretwosimilarbutindependentnotionsintheJudaismofthetime.Oneofthesewasa

preChristianJewishspeculationaboutapersonifiedWisdomthatappearsinProverbs8:2226.24Otherscholars

advanceadifferenttheorythatseesaconnectionbetweentheNewTestamentuseoflogosandsuchOldTestament

expressionsas TheWordofGod and TheWordoftheLord. InmanyOldTestamentpassages,suchexpressions

suggestanindependentexistenceandpersonificationoftheWordofGod.25

Thesetwolinesofthoughtmayhavemeritandthereaderisencouragedtoexaminethemmorefully.However,foranumberofyearsIhavebeenrecommendingadifferentapproachtotheproblem,onethatrecognizesapossiblelink

betweentheimplicitLogosChristology26oftheBookofHebrewsandtheProloguetoJohnsGospel.

InChapter6ofmybook,TheGospelandtheGreeks,Iexploreanumberoffascinatingconnectionsbetweentheauthor

oftheBookofHebrews(whomItaketobeApollos)andAlexandrianJudaism.Ipointtoindicationsthattheauthor

ofHebrewsmayhavebeenanAlexandrianJewtrainedinPhilosphilosophypriortohisChristianconversion.His

purposeinwritingHebrewswastowarnothermembersofhiscommunityofconvertedHellenisticJewsagainstan

apostasythatwouldresultintheirrejectingChristandreturningtotheirformerbeliefs.Inthecourseofhismessage,

thewriter(Apollos?)arguesthatsinceChristisabetterLogos(ormediator)thananyofthemediatorsavailableto

themintheirformerbeliefs,27areturntotheinferiormediatorsoftheirpastwouldmakenosense.

Iftheargumentinmybookiscorrect,thenseveralinterestingpossibilitiesopenup.Foronething,theauthorof

Hebrews(whoeverhemaybe)deservesthetitleofthefirstChristianphilosopher,sincehewasclearlytrainedinthe

detailsofAlexandrianphilosophy.ButthewriterofHebrewsdoesnotusethisphilosophicalbackgroundto

introduceAlexandrianphilosophyintoChristianthinking;ratherheusesChristianthinkingtorejecthisformer

views.Furthermore,thisreadingofHebrewspointstotheexistenceofaChristiancommunitythathadahighly

developedLogosChristology.ButtheirapplicationoftheconceptoflogostoJesusChristdidnotamounttoan


7/8


Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299

7

introductionofpaganthinkingintoChristianity.Onthecontrary,theirChristianuseofLogoswasdevelopedin

consciousoppositiontoeveryrelevantaspectofPhilosphilosophy.Oncethispossibilityisrecognized,theproper

sourceofJohnsuseoflogosinJohn1:114mayreflecthisowncontactwiththethoughtofthiscommunityof

convertedHellenisticJews.

Whollyapartfrommyownspeculationonthismatter,PhilosLogoscouldnotpossiblyfunctionasadirectinfluence

onthebiblicalconceptofLogos.28(1)PhilosLogosMediatorwasametaphysicalabstractionwhiletheLogosofthe

NewTestamentisaspecific,individual,historicalperson.PhilosLogosisnotapersonormessiahorsaviorbuta

cosmicprinciple,

postulated

to

solve

various

philosophical

problems.

(2)

Given

Philo

scommitment

to

Platonism

and

itsdisparagementofthebodyasatombofthesoul,PhilocouldneverhavebelievedinanythingliketheIncarnation.

PhilosGodcouldnevermakedirectcontactwithmatter.ButtheJesusdescribedinHebrewsnotonlybecomesman

butparticipatesinafullrangeofallthatishuman,includingtemptationtosin.Philowouldneverhavetolerated

suchthinking.(3)PhilosLogoscouldneverbedescribedastheBookofHebrewspicturesJesus:suffering,being

temptedtosin,anddying.(4)TherepeatedstressinHebrewsofJesus compassionateconcernforHisbrethren(i.e.,

Christians)isincompatiblewithPhilosviewoftheemotions.PhilowasinfluencedbytheStoicdisparagementof

emotion,anditisclearthatheviewstheattainmentofapathy(freedomfrompassion,emotion,andaffection)asa

muchmoreimportantachievementthansympathyandcompassion.

Readersmaypursuethesemattersmorefullyintheworkscitedinthesidebar(SuggestedReading),andinthe

hundredsofworkscitedinthebibliographiesinthosebooks.Thepurposeofthisarticlehasbeenmerelytointroduce

thereadertothefactthatoverthepastcentury,variouswritershaveattemptedtounderminetheauthorityofthe

NewTestamentbyaffirmingthatsomeofitsteachingswereborrowedfrompaganphilosophicalsystemsoftheday.

Acarefulstudyofthisissuerevealsthisclaimtobefalse.Perhapsthemostseriousquestionstillremainingiswhat

weshouldthinkofthescholarshipofauthorsandprofessorswhocontinuetomaketheselongdiscreditedclaims.

Dr.RonaldNashisProfessorofPhilosophyatReformedTheologicalSeminaryOrlando.Thelatestofhis25books

areBeyondLiberationTheology(Baker),WorldViewsinConflict(Zondervan),andGreatDivides(NavPress).

NOTES

1AnessentialChristianbeliefisonewhich,iffalse,wouldfalsifythehistoricChristianfaith.Forexample,ifeitherthe

incarnationortheatonementortheresurrectionofJesusshouldturnouttobefalse,theChristianfaithasithasbeen

knownfromitsinceptionwouldbefalse.2SeeEdwinA.Burtt,TypesofReligiousPhilosophy,rev.ed.(NewYork:Harper,1951),3536.3SeeW.T.Jones,TheMedievalMind(NewYork:Harcourt,BraceandWorld,1969),ChaptersOneandTwo.4SeeThomasW.Africa,TheAncientWorld(Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1969),460.SeealsoThomasW.Africa,The

ImmenseMajesty:AHistoryofRomeandtheRomanEmpire(NewYork:Crowell,1974),34042.5Initsmostnarrowsense,theadjective Hellenistic isappliedtotheperiodofhistorybetweenthedeathof

AlexandertheGreatin323B.C.andtheRomanconquestofthelastmajorvestigeofAlexandersempire,theEgyptof

Cleopatrain30B.C.Butinabroadersense,thetermreferstothewholecultureoftheRomanEmpire.WhileRome

achievedmilitaryandpoliticalsupremacythroughouttheMediterraneanworld,itadoptedthecultureoftheHellenisticworldthatprecededRomesrisetopower.6SeeRonaldH.Nash,TheGospelandtheGreeks(Richardson,TX:ProbeBooks,1992).7Formoreonthis,seeGordonH.Clark,ThalestoDewey(Jefferson,MD:Trinity,1989),21017.8SeeGeorgeHolleyGilbert,GreekThoughtintheNewTestament(NewYork:Macmillan,1928),8586.9SeeWilliamFairweather,JesusandtheGreeks(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1924),290.10Clark,192.


8/8


Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299

8

11J.GreshamMachen,TheOriginofPaulsReligion(NewYork:Macmillan,1925),27576.12SeeGilbert,8687.13Clark,193.14JohnHermanRandall,Jr.,HellenisticWaysofDeliveranceandtheMakingoftheChristianSynthesis(NewYork:

ColumbiaUniversityPress,1970),155.15Fairweather,296.16SeeJ.B.Lightfoot, St.PaulandSeneca, inJ.B.Lightfoot,St.PaulsEpistletothePhilippians(1913;reprint,Grand

Rapids:Zondervan,1953),270333.LightfootarguesagainstthepossibilityofaStoicinfluenceinthisoldessay.His

polemicserves

as

an

example

of

the

importance

once

attributed

to

such

views.

17Clark,191.18Formoredetails,seeClark,195210andNash,Chapters56.19TheGreekwordlogoswasatechnicalterminseveralancientphilosophicalsystems.Itsphilosophicusagegoesback

toHeraclitus(about500B.C.).ItwasthenusedbytheStoics,severalhundredyearslater,someofwhominfluenced

Philo.20ForanexplanationofPlatostheoryoftheforms,seeNash,Chapter2.21TypicaloftheseolderworksisG.H.C.MacGregorandA.C.Purdy,JewandGreek(London:Nicholson&Watson,

1937),337ff.22Randall,157.23Jones,52.24Formoreonthis,seeNash,8486.25SeeNash,8688andJamesD.G.Dunn,ChristologyintheMaking(Philadelphia:Westminster,1963),218.26WhenIsaythattheLogosChristologyofHebrewsisimplicit,Iamreallymakingtwopoints:(1)theChristologyof

HebrewsrelatesJesusChristtoaLogosconceptthatdoeshaveaffinitiestothingsthewritercouldhavelearnedfrom

Philo;(2)butsincethetermLogosisnotactuallyappliedtoJesusinHebrews,itisimplicitinthesensethatitmustbe

derivedfromacarefulexaminationoftheauthorslanguage.Thatis,anumberofveryspecialGreekwordsthatPhilo

appliedtohisLogosareusedbythewriterofHebrewstodescribeJesus.SeeChapter6ofmyGospelandtheGreeks.27Torestateapointmadeearlier,Philoappliedthetermlogostoallofthefollowing:theangels,Moses,Abraham,and

theLeviticalhighpriest.ItshouldbenotedthattheauthorofHebrewsarguesthatJesusisbetterthaneachofthese.28ThepointsthatfollowareperfectlyconsistentwithmytheorythatChristianHellenistsadvancedtheirviewofthe

LogosinconsciousoppositiontoPhilossystem.

SUGGESTEDREADING A.H.Armstrong,AnIntroductiontoAncientPhilosophy(Boston:Beacon,1963). GordonH.Clark,ThalestoDewey(Jefferson,MD:TrinityFoundation,1989). RonaldNash,TheGospelandtheGreeks(Richardson,TX:ProbeBooks,1992). RonaldWilliamson,PhiloandtheEpistletotheHebrews(Leiden:Brill,1970).

Documents

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Philosophy?