STATEMENTDA242

WASTHENEWTESTAMENT INFLUENCEDBYPAGANPHILOSOPHY?
byRonaldNash

Summary Manycollegestudentsstillencounteroutdatedchargesthatfirstcentury ChristianityandtheNewTestamentwereheavilyinfluencedbypagan philosophicalsystems.Prominentamongsuchclaimsarethefollowing:(1) elementsofPlatosphilosophyappearintheNewTestament;(2)theNew TestamentreflectstheinfluenceofStoicism;and(3)theancientJewish philosopherPhilowasasourceofJohnsuseoftheGreekwordlogosasa descriptionofJesus.Eachoftheseclaimsmaybeeasilyanswered,afactwhich challengesthebadlyoutdatedscholarshipthatcontinuestocirculatethese allegationsinbooksandlectures. DidtheChristianityofthefirstcenturyA.D.borrowanyofitsessentialbeliefs1fromthepaganphilosophicalsystems ofthattime?WasfirstcenturyChristianitytheChristianityreflectedinthepagesoftheNewTestamenta syncretisticreligion(i.e.,areligionwhichfuseselementsofdifferingbeliefsystems)? Christiancollegestudentsoccasionallyencounterprofessorswhoanswerthesequestionsintheaffirmativeandthen attempttousetheclaimthattherearepaganrootsbehindthewordsoftheNewTestamenttounderminethefaithof Christianstudentsintheirclasses.ManyChristianswhohearallegationsliketheseforthefirsttimearestunnedand findthemselvesatalossaboutthebestwaytohandlesuchclaims.Thepurposeofthisarticleistoprovidesuch ChristianswiththehelptheyneedtoanswerchargesthattheNewTestamentwasinfluencedbypaganphilosophy. Inaseparatearticlethatwillappearinthenextissueofthisjournal,IlltackletherelatedissueofwhethertheNew Testamentwasinfluencedbypaganreligioussystemsofthefirstcentury. ABRIEFHISTORYOFTHEISSUE Duringtheperiodrunningroughlyfrom1890to1940,scholarsoftenallegedthattheearlyChristianchurchwas heavilyinfluencedbysuchphilosophicalmovementsasPlatonismandStoicism.Specialattentionwasgiventothe JewishphilosopherPhilo(d.A.D.50)whosethought,itwasclaimed,canbetracedintheuseofthewordlogosasa nameforJesusChristintheearlyversesofJohnsGospel. CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299 1

Largelyasaresultofaseriesofscholarlybooksandarticleswritteninrebuttal,allegationsofearlyChristianitys dependenceonpaganphilosophybegantofadeintheyearsjustbeforethestartofWorldWarII.Today,intheearly 1990s,mostinformedscholarsregardthequestionasadeadissue.Theseoldarguments,however,continueto circulateinthepublicationsofafewscholarsandintheclassroomanticsofmanycollegeprofessorswhohavenever botheredtobecomeacquaintedwiththelargebodyofwritingsonthesubject. Forexample,inawidelyusedphilosophytext,thelateE.A.Burtt,aprofessoratCornellUniversityduringthepost warperiod,arguedthatPaulstheologywasdependentonideasborrowedfromtheHellenisticworld. 2Similar claimscanbefoundinawidelyusedhistoryofphilosophytextbookbyW.T.Jones,aprofessorofphilosophyat 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).7Myconcerniswithallegationsof paganideasinthedocumentsoftheNewTestament. INFLUENCEDBYPLATONISM? ThissectionwillexaminethemajorargumentsthatwereonceusedinsupportoftheviewthattheapostlePaul borrowedfromPlatonism.Bythetimewefinishwewillnotonlybetterunderstandwhysuchclaimsareseldom madeanymore;wewillalsohavecausetomarvelathowanycarefulstudentoftheNewTestamentcouldeverhave thoughtthechargeshadmerit. ThepublicationsthatassertaPaulinedependenceonPlatonismtendtofocusonasimilarcollectionofcharges.For instance,Paulswritingsaresupposedtoreflectadualisticviewoftheworldaviewthatissaidtobeespecially clearinhisallegedlyradicaldistinctionbetweenthehumansoulandbody.Moreover,itisclaimed,Paulmanifests thetypicalPlatonicaversiontothebodyasbeingevil,aprisonhouseofthesoul,fromwhichtheChristianlongsto bedelivered.Untilthisdeliveranceactuallycomesbymeansofdeath,thePaulineChristianissupposedtodenigrate hisbodythroughvariousasceticpractices. CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299 2

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 readingofPaulthatwouldmakefleshmeanbody.Instead,Clarknotes,alittleattentiontoPaulsremarksmakesit clearthathemeans,notbody,butthesinfulhumannatureinheritedfromAdam.10TheologianJ.GreshamMachen whowroteduringtheperiodwhenthisviewwasmostacceptedelaboratedontherealsignificanceofPauls useofthetermflesh: ThePaulineuseofthetermfleshtodenotethatinwhichevilresidescanapparentlyfindnoreal parallelwhateverinpaganusage....Atfirstsighttheremightseemtobeaparallelbetweenthe PaulinedoctrineofthefleshandtheGreekdoctrineoftheevilofmatter,whichappears...inPlato andinhissuccessors.Buttheparallelbreaksdownuponcloserexamination.AccordingtoPlato, thebodyisevilbecauseitismaterial;itistheprisonhouseofthesoul.Nothingcouldreallybe moreremotefromthethoughtofPaul.AccordingtoPaul,theconnectionofsoulandbodyis entirelynormal,andthesoulapartfromthebodyisinaconditionofnakedness....thereisinPaul nodoctrineoftheinherentevilofmatter. 11 Paulscondemnationoffleshasevil,then,hasabsolutelynoreferencetothehumanbody.Heusesthetermsarxor fleshinthesecontextstorefertoapsychologicalandspiritualdefectthatleadseveryhumantoplaceselfaheadofthe Creator.TheNewInternationalVersion(NIV)makesthisclearbytranslatingsarxassinfulnature.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. CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299 3

AsfortheclaimthatPauladvocatedaradicalasceticismthatincludedtheintentionalharmingofhisbody,12thefact isthatPaulwrotetheNewTestamentsstrongestattacksagainstasceticism(e.g.,Col.2:1623).GordonClarkcorrectly observesthatPaulwasnotmotivatedbyadesiretofreeadivinesoulfromabodilytomb,muchlessbytheideathat painisgoodandpleasureevil.Rather,Paulwasengagedinarace,towinwhichrequiredhimtolayasideevery weightaswellasthesinwhichsoeasilybesets.WillingtosufferstoningsandstripesforthenameofChrist,henever practicedselfflagellation.13 WemustconcludethattheauthorswhoclaimedPaulwasinfluencedbyPlatonismandthecollegeandseminary professorswhopassedthesetheoriesalongtotheirstudentswere,attheleast,guiltyofsloppyresearchandshoddy thinking.Itiseasytosuspectthattheirprimarymotivationwasadesiretofindanythingthatmightappearto discredittheinspirationandauthorityoftheScriptures. INFLUENCEDBYSTOICISM? StoicismwasthemostimportantphilosophicalinfluenceonculturedpeopleduringthefirstcenturyA.D.Stoic philosopherswerematerialists,pantheists,andfatalists:theybelievedthateverythingthatexistsisphysicalor corporealinnatureandthateveryexistingthingisultimatelytraceablebacktooneultimateuniversalstuffthatis divine.TheythoughtthatGodandtheworldwererelatedinawaythatallowedtheworldtobedescribedasthe bodyofGodandGodtobedescribedasthesouloftheworld.UnliketheGodofJudaismandChristianitywhoisan eternal,almighty,allknowing,loving,spiritual Person,theStoicGodwasimpersonalandhenceincapableof knowledge,love,orprovidentialacts.TheStoicfatalismisseenintheirbeliefthateverythingthathappensoccursby necessity. ThemajorcontributionoftheStoicphilosopherswasthedevelopmentofanethicalsystemthatwouldhelptheStoic liveameaningfullifeinafatalisticuniverse.Tofindgoodandevil,Stoicstaught,wemustturnawayfromwhatever happensofnecessityinourworldandlookwithin.Personalvirtueorviceresidesinourattitudes,inthewaywe reacttothethingsthathappentous.ThekeywordintheStoicethicis apathy.Everythingthathappenstoahuman beingisfixedbythatpersonsfate.Butmosthumansresisttheirdestiny,wheninfactnothingcouldhavebeendone thatwouldhavealteredthecourseofnature.Ourdutyinlife,then,issimplytoacceptwhathappens;itistoresign ourselvestoourunavoidabledestiny.Thiswillbereflectedinourapathytoallthatisaroundus,includingfamily andproperty.Thetrulyvirtuouspersonwilleliminateallpassionandemotionfromhis(orher)lifeuntilhereaches thepointthatnothingtroublesorbothershim.Oncehumanslearnthattheyareslavestotheirfate,thesecretofthe onlygoodlifeopentothemrequiresthemtoeliminateallemotionfromtheirlivesandacceptwhateverfatesends theirway. ThefactthattheStoicsoftendescribedthisattitudeofresignationasacceptingthewillofGodisnodoubt 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). CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299 4

 PaulsquotingfromaStoicwriterprovesnothing,ofcourse.AsaneducatedmanspeakingtoStoics,itwasbothgood rhetoricandawaytogaintheattentionofhisaudience.ThoughPaulandSenecawereinRomeatthesametime, thereisnoevidenceofanypersonalcontactandplentyofevidencethattheirrespectivesystemsofthoughtwere alientoeachother.Whenproperlyunderstood,SenecasStoicethicisrepulsivetoaChristianlikePaul.Itistotally devoidofgenuinehumanemotionandcompassion;thereisnoplaceforlove,pity,orcontrition.Itlacksanyintrinsic tietorepentance,conversion,andfaithinGod.EvenifPauldiduseStoicimagesandlanguage,hegavethewordsa newandhighermeaningandsignificance.InanycomparisonbetweenthethinkingofPaulandStoicism,itisthe differencesandconflictsthatstandout. TwootherinstancesofallegedStoicinfluenceremaintobeconsidered.ThefirstconcernstheStoicsuseoftheGreek word logosasatechnicalterm.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? AtthebeginningoftheChristianera,Alexandria,EgyptanimportantcenteroftheJewishDispersionhad becomethechiefcenterofHellenisticthought.ThelargecolonyofJewswhoclaimedAlexandriaastheirhome becameHellenizedinbothlanguageandculture.WhilestillobservingtheirJewishfaith,theytranslatedtheir ScripturesintotheGreeklanguage(theSeptuagint).ThistendedtoincreasetheirculturalisolationfromtheirHebrew rootsbecausetheynowhadevenlessincentivetoremainfluentintheHebrewlanguage.Giventheintellectual interestsoftheAlexandrianJews,itwasonlynaturalthatthearrivalofsuchphilosophicalsystemsasPlatonismand StoicisminAlexandriawouldeventuallyaffectthem. CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299 5

 ThegreatestoftheAlexandrianJewishintellectualswasPhiloJudeaus,wholivedfromabout25B.C.toaboutA.D. 50.PhilosworkillustratesmanyofthemostimportantelementsofthesynthesisofPlatonismandStoicismthatcame todominateHellenisticphilosophyduringandafterhislifetime.HeisthebestexampleofhowintellectualJewsof theDispersion,isolatedfromPalestineandtheirnativeculture,allowedHellenisticinfluencestoshapetheirtheology andphilosophy.18 Philohasbecomefamousforhisuseofthetermlogos.19Itisimpossible,however,tofindanyclearorconsistentuseof thewordinhismanywritings.Forexample,heusedthewordtorefertoPlatosidealworldoftheforms,20tothe 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.,wrotein1970thatinhisPrologueabouttheWord,the Logos,[John]isadoptingPhiloJudaeusearlierPlatonizationoftheHebraictradition.22Andinhishistoryof philosophytextbookthatisstillwidelyused,eveninsomeevangelicalcolleges,W.T.Jonesclaimsthatthe mysticismoftheFourthGospelwasgroundedinthePlatonismofHellenisticAlexandria.23 MostcontemporaryNewTestamentscholarsseenoneedtopostulateaconsciousrelationshipbetweenPhilo(or AlexandrianJudaism)andtheNewTestamentuseoflogos.Theypointoutthatalongsidethephilosophicaland Philonicviewsoflogos,thereweretwosimilarbutindependentnotionsintheJudaismofthetime.Oneofthesewasa preChristianJewishspeculationaboutapersonifiedWisdomthatappearsinProverbs8:2226.24Otherscholars advanceadifferenttheorythatseesaconnectionbetweentheNewTestamentuseoflogosandsuchOldTestament expressionsasTheWordofGodandTheWordoftheLord.InmanyOldTestamentpassages,suchexpressions suggestanindependentexistenceandpersonificationoftheWordofGod.25 Thesetwolinesofthoughtmayhavemeritandthereaderisencouragedtoexaminethemmorefully.However,fora numberofyearsIhavebeenrecommendingadifferentapproachtotheproblem,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 CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299 6

introductionofpaganthinkingintoChristianity.Onthecontrary,theirChristianuseofLogoswasdevelopedin consciousoppositiontoeveryrelevantaspectofPhilosphilosophy.Oncethispossibilityisrecognized,theproper sourceofJohnsuseoflogosinJohn1:114mayreflecthisowncontactwiththethoughtofthiscommunityof convertedHellenisticJews. Whollyapartfrommyownspeculationonthismatter,PhilosLogoscouldnotpossiblyfunctionasadirectinfluence onthebiblicalconceptofLogos.28(1)PhilosLogosMediatorwasametaphysicalabstractionwhiletheLogosofthe NewTestamentisaspecific,individual,historicalperson.PhilosLogosisnotapersonormessiahorsaviorbuta cosmicprinciple,postulatedtosolvevariousphilosophicalproblems.(2)GivenPhiloscommitmenttoPlatonismand itsdisparagementofthebodyasatombofthesoul,PhilocouldneverhavebelievedinanythingliketheIncarnation. PhilosGodcouldnevermakedirectcontactwithmatter.ButtheJesusdescribedinHebrewsnotonlybecomesman butparticipatesinafullrangeofallthatishuman,includingtemptationtosin.Philowouldneverhavetolerated suchthinking.(3)PhilosLogoscouldneverbedescribedastheBookofHebrewspicturesJesus:suffering,being temptedtosin,anddying.(4)TherepeatedstressinHebrewsofJesuscompassionateconcernforHisbrethren(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 AnessentialChristianbeliefisonewhich,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,theadjectiveHellenisticisappliedtotheperiodofhistorybetweenthedeathof AlexandertheGreatin323B.C.andtheRomanconquestofthelastmajorvestigeofAlexandersempire,theEgyptof Cleopatrain30B.C.Butinabroadersense,thetermreferstothewholecultureoftheRomanEmpire.WhileRome achievedmilitaryandpoliticalsupremacythroughouttheMediterraneanworld,itadoptedthecultureofthe HellenisticworldthatprecededRomesrisetopower. 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.
1

CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299 7

J.GreshamMachen,TheOriginofPaulsReligion(NewYork:Macmillan,1925),27576. SeeGilbert,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 polemicservesasanexampleoftheimportanceonceattributedtosuchviews. 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.
11 12

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).

CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299 8