----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Philosophy?" (an article
from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1993, page 16) by Ronald
Nash.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------
*Summary*
Many college students still encounter outdated charges that
first century Christianity and the New Testament were heavily
influenced by pagan philosophical systems. Prominent among such
claims are the following: (1) elements of Plato's philosophy appear
in the New Testament; (2) the New Testament reflects the influence
of Stoicism; and (3) the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo was a
source of John's use of the Greek word _logos_ as a description of
Jesus. Each of these claims may be easily answered, a fact which
challenges the badly outdated scholarship that continues to
circulate these allegations in books and lectures.
-------------
Did the Christianity of the first century A.D. borrow any of
its essential beliefs[1] from the pagan philosophical systems of
that time? Was first century Christianity -- the Christianity
reflected in the pages of the New Testament -- a syncretistic
religion (i.e., a religion which fuses elements of differing
belief systems)?
Christian college students occasionally encounter professors
who answer these questions in the affirmative and then attempt to
use the claim that there are pagan roots behind the words of the
New Testament to undermine the faith of Christian students in their
classes. Many Christians who hear allegations like these for the
first time are stunned and find themselves at a loss about the best
way to handle such claims. The purpose of this article is to
provide such Christians with the help they need to answer charges
that the New Testament was influenced by pagan philosophy. In a
separate article that will appear in the next issue of this
journal, I'll tackle the related issue of whether the New Testament
was influenced by pagan religious systems of the first century.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ISSUE
During the period running roughly from 1890 to 1940, scholars
often alleged that the early Christian church was heavily
influenced by such philosophical movements as Platonism and
Stoicism. Special attention was given to the Jewish philosopher
Philo (d. A.D. 50) whose thought, it was claimed, can be traced in
the use of the word _logos_ as a name for Jesus Christ in the early
verses of John's Gospel.
Largely as a result of a series of scholarly books and articles
written in rebuttal, allegations of early Christianity's dependence
on pagan philosophy began to fade in the years just before the
start of World War II. Today, in the early 1990s, most informed
scholars regard the question as a dead issue. These old arguments,
however, continue to circulate in the publications of a few
scholars and in the classroom antics of many college professors who
have never bothered to become acquainted with the large body of
writings on the subject.
For example, in a widely used philosophy text, the late E. A.
Burtt, a professor at Cornell University during the post-war
period, argued that Paul's theology was dependent on ideas borrowed
from the Hellenistic world.[2] Similar claims can be found in a
widely used history of philosophy textbook by W. T. Jones, a
professor of philosophy at California Institute of Technology.[3]
Thomas W. Africa's history text, _The Ancient World,_ makes
repeated assertions about Christianity's dependence on pagan
systems of thought.[4] While it is true that such examples exhibit
a surprising lack of acquaintance with the scholarly literature,
the false claims can still cause harm when believed by uninformed
people.
This article will provide the reader with the most important
claims made by proponents of an early Christian dependence on pagan
philosophy during the Hellenistic age.[5] I will focus on three
major claims: (1) the claim that elements of Plato's philosophy
appear in the New Testament; (2) the claim that the New Testament
shows signs of having been influenced by the system known as
Stoicism; and (3) the allegation that the ancient Jewish
philosopher Philo (whose thought was an odd mixture of Platonism
and Stoicism) was a source of John's use of the Greek word _logos_
as a description of Jesus (John 1:1-14), and also an influence on
the thinking of the writer of the Book of Hebrews. In the case of
each set of claims, I will direct the reader to information that
points out the weaknesses of the assertions.
It should be obvious that this subject is too vast to be
covered adequately in one short article. Hence, I will also direct
the reader to more detailed treatments of the material. For
example, everything discussed in this article is covered much more
extensively in my book, _The Gospel and the Greeks._[6]
My focus, it should be understood, is on the writers of the New
Testament whom Christians regard as divinely inspired recipients of
revealed truth. The well-known Christian commitment to the
inspiration and authority of the New Testament documents does not
oblige Christians to have the same commitment for Christian
thinkers who wrote after the close of the New Testament canon.
Students of church history recognize the presence of various
unbiblical ideas in many of the early church fathers, such as
Origen (A.D. 185-254).[7] My concern is with allegations of pagan
ideas in the documents of the New Testament.
INFLUENCED BY PLATONISM?
This section will examine the major arguments that were once
used in support of the view that the apostle Paul borrowed from
Platonism. By the time we finish we will not only better understand
why such claims are seldom made anymore; we will also have cause to
marvel at how any careful student of the New Testament could ever
have thought the charges had merit.
The publications that assert a Pauline dependence on Platonism
tend to focus on a similar collection of charges. For instance,
Paul's writings are supposed to reflect a dualistic view of the
world -- a view that is said to be especially clear in his
allegedly radical distinction between the human soul and body.
Moreover, it is claimed, Paul manifests the typical Platonic
aversion to the body as being evil, a prison house of the soul,
from which the Christian longs to be delivered. Until this
deliverance actually comes by means of death, the Pauline Christian
is supposed to denigrate his body through various ascetic
practices.
The obvious first step for the Christian to take in all this is
to ask the person making the claims to produce the New Testament
passages in which Paul's supposed Platonism appears. Romans 7:24 is
the verse usually cited in support of the claim that Paul taught
that the human body is a prison house of the soul: "What a wretched
man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?"
It is obvious that Paul in this verse uses neither the word
_prison_ (_phylake_) nor the idea that the body is a prison of the
soul. As a matter of fact, nowhere in Scripture does Paul write of
the body in terms of a prison. In all likelihood, Paul in Romans
7:24 used the word _body_ metaphorically.
Another verse critics sometimes appeal to in this connection[8]
is Romans 8:23: "Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the
firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for
our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." If anything,
this verse _disproves_ the claim that Paul was a Platonist, since
the redemption that Paul awaits is the glory that will follow his
_bodily_ resurrection. No self-respecting Platonist would ever
teach a doctrine of bodily resurrection. Basic to Platonism is the
belief that death brings humans to a complete and total deliverance
from everything physical and material.
Almost every author who used to claim that Paul was influenced
by Platonism referred to the apostle's repeated use of the word
_flesh_ in contexts associating it with evil. If Paul really taught
that the soul is good and the body is evil, then the case for his
alleged dependence on Platonism might begin to make some sense.[9]
The important question here, however, concerns what Paul meant by
the word _flesh._ Philosopher Gordon Clark warns against a careless
reading of Paul that would make "flesh" mean body. Instead, Clark
notes, "a little attention to Paul's remarks makes it clear that he
means, not body, but the sinful human nature inherited from
Adam."[10] Theologian J. Gresham Machen -- who wrote during the
period when this view was most accepted -- elaborated on the real
significance of Paul's use of the term _flesh:_
The Pauline use of the term "flesh" to denote that in
which evil resides can apparently find no real parallel
whatever in pagan usage....At first sight there might
seem to be a parallel between the Pauline doctrine of the
flesh and the Greek doctrine of the evil of matter, which
appears...in Plato and in his successors. But the
parallel breaks down upon closer examination. According
to Plato, the body is evil because it is material; it is
the prison-house of the soul. Nothing could really be
more remote from the thought of Paul. According to Paul,
the connection of soul and body is entirely normal, and
the soul apart from the body is in a condition of
nakedness....there is in Paul no doctrine of the inherent
evil of matter.[11]
Paul's condemnation of "flesh" as evil, then, has absolutely no
reference to the human body. He uses the term _sarx_ or flesh in
these contexts to refer to a psychological and spiritual defect
that leads every human to place self ahead of the Creator. The New
International Version (NIV) makes this clear by translating _sarx_
as "sinful nature." For instance, Romans 7:5, a verse often used as
support for the claim that Paul regarded matter as evil, reads:
"For when we were controlled by the sinful nature [_sarx_], the
sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so
that we bore fruit for death." None of the texts in which Paul uses
_sarx_ in its ethical sense can support the claim that he was a
Platonic dualist.
The claim that Paul believed matter is evil is also
contradicted by his belief that the ultimate destiny of redeemed
human beings is an endless life in a resurrected _body,_ not the
disembodied existence of an immortal soul, as Plato taught. Paul's
doctrine of the resurrection of the body (1 Cor. 15:12-58) is
clearly incompatible with a belief in the inherent wickedness of
matter.
Efforts to find an evil matter versus good spirit dualism in
Paul also stumble over the fact that he believed in evil spirits
(Eph. 6:12). The additional fact that God pronounced His creation
good (Gen. 1:31) also demonstrates how far removed dualism is from
the teaching of the Old and New Testaments.
As for the claim that Paul advocated a radical asceticism that
included the intentional harming of his body,[12] the fact is that
Paul wrote the New Testament's strongest attacks _against_
asceticism (e.g., Col. 2:16-23). Gordon Clark correctly observes
that Paul was "not motivated by a desire to free a divine soul from
a bodily tomb, much less by the idea that pain is good and pleasure
evil. Rather, Paul was engaged in a race, to win which required him
to lay aside every weight as well as the sin which so easily
besets. Willing to suffer stonings and stripes for the name of
Christ, he never practiced self-flagellation."[13]
We must conclude that the authors who claimed Paul was
influenced by Platonism and the college and seminary professors who
passed these theories along to their students were, at the least,
guilty of sloppy research and shoddy thinking. It is easy to
suspect that their primary motivation was a desire to find anything
that might appear to discredit the inspiration and authority of the
Scriptures.
INFLUENCED BY STOICISM?
Stoicism was the most important philosophical influence on
cultured people during the first century A.D. Stoic philosophers
were materialists, pantheists, and fatalists: they believed that
everything that exists is physical or corporeal in nature and that
every existing thing is ultimately traceable back to one ultimate
universal stuff that is divine. They thought that God and the world
were related in a way that allowed the world to be described as the
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, all-knowing, loving, spiritual _Person,_ the Stoic God
was impersonal and hence incapable of knowledge, love, or
providential acts. The Stoic fatalism is seen in their belief that
everything that happens occurs by necessity.
The major contribution of the Stoic philosophers was the
development of an ethical system that would help the Stoic live a
meaningful life in a fatalistic universe. To find good and evil,
Stoics taught, we must turn away from whatever happens of necessity
in our world and look within. Personal virtue or vice resides in
our attitudes, in the way we react to the things that happen to us.
The key word in the Stoic ethic is _apathy._ Everything that
happens to a human being is fixed by that person's fate. But most
humans resist their destiny, when in fact nothing could have been
done that would have altered the course of nature. Our duty in
life, then, is simply to accept what happens; it is to resign
ourselves to our unavoidable destiny. This will be reflected in our
apathy to all that is around us, including family and property. The
truly virtuous person will eliminate all passion and emotion from
his (or her) life until he reaches the point that nothing troubles
or bothers him. Once humans learn that they are slaves to their
fate, the secret of the only good life open to them requires them
to eliminate all emotion from their lives and accept whatever fate
sends their way.
The fact that the Stoics often described this attitude of
resignation as "accepting the will of God" is no doubt responsible
for the confusion between their teaching and the New Testament's
emphasis upon doing God's will. But the ideas behind the Stoic and
Christian phrases are completely different! When a Stoic talked
about the will of God, he meant nothing more than submission to the
unavoidable fatalism of an impersonal, uncaring, unknowing, and
unloving Nature. But when Christians talk about accepting the will
of God, they mean the chosen plan of a loving, knowing, personal
deity.
Decades ago, it was fashionable in some circles to claim that
the apostle Paul was influenced by Stoicism. As late as 1970,
Columbia University philosopher John Herman Randall, Jr.,
attributed the strong social emphasis of Paul's moral philosophy to
Stoicism.[14] Paul's stress upon inward motives as over against the
outward act has been said to evidence a Stoic influence.[15] There
was a time when some claimed that a relationship existed between
Paul and the Stoic thinker Seneca who was an official in Nero's
government during the apostle's time in Rome.[16] And there can be
no question that Paul quoted from a Stoic writer in his famous
sermon on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17:28).
Paul's quoting from a Stoic writer proves nothing, of course.
As an educated man speaking to Stoics, it was both good rhetoric
and a way to gain the attention of his audience. Though Paul and
Seneca were in Rome at the same time, there is no evidence of any
personal contact and plenty of evidence that their respective
systems of thought were alien to each other. When properly
understood, Seneca's Stoic ethic is repulsive to a Christian like
Paul. It is totally devoid of genuine human emotion and compassion;
there is no place for love, pity, or contrition. It lacks any
intrinsic tie to repentance, conversion, and faith in God. Even if
Paul did use Stoic images and language, he gave the words a new and
higher meaning and significance. In any comparison between the
thinking of Paul and Stoicism, it is the differences and conflicts
that stand out.
Two other instances of alleged Stoic influence remain to be
considered. The first concerns the Stoic's use of the Greek word
_logos_ as a technical term. It is this same term that John uses
throughout the first fourteen verses of his Gospel as a name for
Jesus Christ. Since the immediate source for the New Testament use
of _logos_ is usually said to be the Jewish philosopher Philo,
whose system was a synthesis of Platonism and Stoicism, I will
postpone comment on this point until the next section. The second
instance of alleged Stoic influence concerns the belief of early
Stoics (300-200 B.C.) that the world would eventually be destroyed
by fire. This led some critics to charge that Peter's teaching in
2 Peter 3 that God will end the world by destroying it by fire
echoes the Stoic doctrine of a universal conflagration.
Unfortunately for such critics, their theory falls apart once
one notices the significant differences between the Stoic belief
and Peter's teaching. For one thing, the Stoic conflagration was an
eternally repeated event that had nothing to do with the conscious
purposes of a personal God. As philosopher Gordon Clark explains,
"The conflagration in II Peter is a sudden catastrophe like the
flood. But the Stoic conflagration is a slow process that is going
on now; it takes a long time, during which the elements change into
fire bit by bit. The Stoic process is a natural process in the most
ordinary sense of the word [that is, it is simply the ordinary
outworking of the order of nature]; but Peter speaks of it as the
result of the word or fiat of the Lord."[17] Furthermore, the Stoic
conflagration is part of a pantheistic system while the
conflagration described by Peter is the divine judgment of a holy
and personal God upon sin.
As if these differences were not enough, the Stoic fire
endlessly repeats itself. After each conflagration, the world
begins anew and duplicates exactly the same course of events of the
previous cycle. The history of the world, in this Stoic view,
repeats itself an infinite number of times. Contrast this with
Peter's view that the world is destroyed by fire only once, like
the flood of Noah's time.
Perhaps the most decisive objection to the claim of a Stoic
influence in 2 Peter is the fact that major Stoic writers had
completely abandoned this doctrine by the middle of the first
century A.D. The critic would have us believe that the writer of 2
Peter was influenced by a Stoic doctrine that Stoic thinkers had
completely repudiated. It is little wonder that most scholars
abandoned theories about a Stoic influence upon the New Testament
decades ago. This leaves us with the third and last of our possible
philosophic influences on the New Testament, the first century
system of the Jewish thinker, Philo.
INFLUENCED BY PHILO?
At the beginning of the Christian era, Alexandria, Egypt -- an
important center of the Jewish Dispersion -- had become the chief
center of Hellenistic thought. The large colony of Jews who claimed
Alexandria as their home became Hellenized in both language and
culture. While still observing their Jewish faith, they translated
their Scriptures into the Greek language (the Septuagint). This
tended to increase their cultural isolation from their Hebrew roots
because they now had even less incentive to remain fluent in the
Hebrew language. Given the intellectual interests of the
Alexandrian Jews, it was only natural that the arrival of such
philosophical systems as Platonism and Stoicism in Alexandria would
eventually affect them.
The greatest of the Alexandrian Jewish intellectuals was Philo
Judeaus, who lived from about 25 B.C. to about A.D. 50. Philo's
work illustrates many of the most important elements of the
synthesis of Platonism and Stoicism that came to dominate
Hellenistic philosophy during and after his lifetime. He is the
best example of how intellectual Jews of the Dispersion, isolated
from Palestine and their native culture, allowed Hellenistic
influences to shape their theology and philosophy.[18]
Philo has become famous for his use of the term _logos._[19] It
is impossible, however, to find any clear or consistent use of the
word in his many writings. For example, he used the word to refer
to Plato's ideal world of the forms,[20] to the mind of God, and to
a principle that existed somewhere between the realms of God and
creation. At other times, he applied _logos_ to any of several
mediators between God and man, such as the angels, Moses, Abraham,
and even the Jewish high priest. But putting aside his lack of
clarity and consistency, his use of _logos_ has raised questions
about a possible influence of Alexandrian Judaism on such New
Testament writings as John's Gospel and the Book of Hebrews.
Sixty years ago, the view that the writer of the fourth Gospel
was influenced by Philo's use of _logos_ was something of an
official doctrine in certain circles.[21] With few exceptions,
however, the drift of scholarship has been away from Philo as a
source for John's Logos doctrine. But as happens so often, news of
this change in scholarly opinion was slow in reaching some. And so,
John Herman Randall, Jr., wrote in 1970 that "in his Prologue about
the Word, the _Logos,_ [John] is adopting Philo Judaeus' earlier
Platonization of the Hebraic tradition."[22] And in his history of
philosophy textbook that is still widely used, even in some
evangelical colleges, W. T. Jones claims that the "mysticism of the
Fourth Gospel was grounded in the Platonism of Hellenistic
Alexandria."[23]
Most contemporary New Testament scholars see no need to
postulate a conscious relationship between Philo (or Alexandrian
Judaism) and the New Testament use of _logos._ They point out that
alongside the philosophical and Philonic views of _logos,_ there
were two similar but independent notions in the Judaism of the
time. One of these was a pre-Christian Jewish speculation about a
personified Wisdom that appears in Proverbs 8:22-26.[24] Other
scholars advance a different theory that sees a connection between
the New Testament use of _logos_ and such Old Testament expressions
as "The Word of God" and "The Word of the Lord." In many Old
Testament passages, such expressions suggest an independent
existence and personification of the Word of God.[25]
These two lines of thought may have merit and the reader is
encouraged to examine them more fully. However, for a number of
years I have been recommending a different approach to the problem,
one that recognizes a possible link between the implicit
Logos-Christology[26] of the Book of Hebrews and the Prologue to
John's Gospel.
In Chapter 6 of my book, _The Gospel and the Greeks,_ I explore
a number of fascinating connections between the author of the Book
of Hebrews (whom I take to be Apollos) and Alexandrian Judaism. I
point to indications that the author of Hebrews may have been an
Alexandrian Jew trained in Philo's philosophy prior to his
Christian conversion. His purpose in writing Hebrews was to warn
other members of his community of converted Hellenistic Jews
against an apostasy that would result in their rejecting Christ and
returning to their former beliefs. In the course of his message,
the writer (Apollos?) argues that since Christ is a better Logos
(or mediator) than any of the mediators available to them in their
former beliefs,[27] a return to the inferior mediators of their
past would make no sense.
If the argument in my book is correct, then several interesting
possibilities open up. For one thing, the author of Hebrews
(whoever he may be) deserves the title of the first Christian
philosopher, since he was clearly trained in the details of
Alexandrian philosophy. But the writer of Hebrews does not use this
philosophical background to introduce Alexandrian philosophy into
Christian thinking; rather he uses Christian thinking to reject his
former views. Furthermore, this reading of Hebrews points to the
existence of a Christian community that had a highly developed
Logos Christology. But their application of the concept of _logos_
to Jesus Christ did not amount to an introduction of pagan thinking
into Christianity. On the contrary, their Christian use of Logos
was developed in conscious opposition to every relevant aspect of
Philo's philosophy. Once this possibility is recognized, the proper
source of John's use of _logos_ in John 1:1-14 may reflect his own
contact with the thought of this community of converted Hellenistic
Jews.
Wholly apart from my own speculation on this matter, Philo's
Logos could not possibly function as a direct influence on the
biblical concept of Logos.[28] (1) Philo's Logos-Mediator was a
metaphysical abstraction while the Logos of the New Testament is a
specific, individual, historical person. Philo's Logos is not a
person or messiah or savior but a cosmic principle, postulated to
solve various philosophical problems. (2) Given Philo's commitment
to Platonism and its disparagement of the body as a tomb of the
soul, Philo could never have believed in anything like the
Incarnation. Philo's God could never make direct contact with
matter. But the Jesus described in Hebrews not only becomes man but
participates in a full range of all that is human, including
temptation to sin. Philo would never have tolerated such thinking.
(3) Philo's Logos could never be described as the Book of Hebrews
pictures Jesus: suffering, being tempted to sin, and dying. (4) The
repeated stress in Hebrews of Jesus' compassionate concern for His
brethren (i.e., Christians) is incompatible with Philo's view of
the emotions. Philo was influenced by the Stoic disparagement of
emotion, and it is clear that he views the attainment of apathy
(freedom from passion, emotion, and affection) as a much more
important achievement than sympathy and compassion.
Readers may pursue these matters more fully in the works cited
in the sidebar ("Suggested Reading"), and in the hundreds of works
cited in the bibliographies in those books. The purpose of this
article has been merely to introduce the reader to the fact that
over the past century, various writers have attempted to undermine
the authority of the New Testament by affirming that some of its
teachings were borrowed from pagan philosophical systems of the
day. A careful study of this issue reveals this claim to be false.
Perhaps the most serious question still remaining is what we should
think of the scholarship of authors and professors who continue to
make these long-discredited claims.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUGGESTED READING
A. H. Armstrong, _An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy_
(Boston: Beacon, 1963).
Gordon H. Clark, _Thales to Dewey_ (Jefferson, MD: Trinity
Foundation, 1989).
Ronald Nash, _The Gospel and the Greeks_ (Richardson, TX: Probe
Books, 1992).
Ronald Williamson, _Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews_
(Leiden: Brill, 1970).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Dr. Ronald Nash* is Professor of Philosophy at Reformed
Theological Seminary-Orlando. The latest of his 25 books are
_Beyond Liberation Theology_ (Baker), _World-Views in Conflict_
(Zondervan), and _Great Divides_ (NavPress).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
1 An essential Christian belief is one which, if false, would
falsify the historic Christian faith. For example, if either the
incarnation or the atonement or the resurrection of Jesus should
turn out to be false, the Christian faith as it has been known
from its inception would be false.
2 _See_ Edwin A. Burtt, _Types of Religious Philosophy,_ rev. ed.
(New York: Harper, 1951), 35-36.
3 _See_ W. T. Jones, _The Medieval Mind_ (New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, 1969), Chapters One and Two.
4 _See_ Thomas W. Africa, _The Ancient World_ (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1969), 460. _See_ also Thomas W. Africa, _The Immense
Majesty: A History of Rome and the Roman Empire_ (New York:
Crowell, 1974), 340-42.
5 In its most narrow sense, the adjective "Hellenistic" is applied
to the period of history between the death of Alexander the
Great in 323 B.C. and the Roman conquest of the last major
vestige of Alexander's empire, the Egypt of Cleopatra in 30 B.C.
But in a broader sense, the term refers to the whole culture of
the Roman Empire. While Rome achieved military and political
supremacy throughout the Mediterranean world, it adopted the
culture of the Hellenistic world that preceded Rome's rise to
power.
6 _See_ Ronald H. Nash, _The Gospel and the Greeks_ (Richardson,
TX: Probe Books, 1992).
7 For more on this, _see_ Gordon H. Clark, _Thales to Dewey_
(Jefferson, MD: Trinity, 1989), 210-17.
8 _See_ George Holley Gilbert, _Greek Thought in the New
Testament_ (New York: Macmillan, 1928), 85-86.
9 _See_ William Fairweather, _Jesus and the Greeks_ (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1924), 290.
10 Clark, 192.
11 J. Gresham Machen, _The Origin of Paul's Religion_ (New York:
Macmillan, 1925), 275-76.
12 _See_ Gilbert, 86-87.
13 Clark, 193.
14 John Herman Randall, Jr., _Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and
the Making of the Christian Synthesis_ (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1970), 155.
15 Fairweather, 296.
16 _See_ J. B. Lightfoot, "St. Paul and Seneca," in J. B.
Lightfoot, _St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians_ (1913;
reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953), 270-333. Lightfoot
argues against the possibility of a Stoic influence in this old
essay. His polemic serves as an example of the importance once
attributed to such views.
17 Clark, 191.
18 For more details, _see_ Clark, 195-210 and Nash, Chapters 5-6.
19 The Greek word _logos_ was a technical term in several ancient
philosophical systems. Its philosophic usage goes back to
Heraclitus (about 500 B.C.). It was then used by the Stoics,
several hundred years later, some of whom influenced Philo.
20 For an explanation of Plato's theory of the forms, _see_ Nash,
Chapter 2.
21 Typical of these older works is G. H. C. MacGregor and A. C.
Purdy, _Jew and Greek_ (London: Nicholson & Watson, 1937),
337ff.
22 Randall, 157.
23 Jones, 52.
24 For more on this, _see_ Nash, 84-86.
25 _See_ Nash, 86-88 and James D. G. Dunn, _Christology in the
Making_ (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 218.
26 When I say that the Logos-Christology of Hebrews is implicit, I
am really making two points: (1) the Christology of Hebrews
relates Jesus Christ to a Logos-concept that does have
affinities to things the writer could have learned from Philo;
(2) but since the term Logos is not actually applied to Jesus in
Hebrews, it is implicit in the sense that it must be derived
from a careful examination of the author's language. That is, a
number of very special Greek words that Philo applied to his
Logos are used by the writer of Hebrews to describe Jesus. _See_
Chapter 6 of my _Gospel and the Greeks._
27 To restate a point made earlier, Philo applied the term _logos_
to all of the following: the angels, Moses, Abraham, and the
Levitical high priest. It should be noted that the author of
Hebrews argues that Jesus is better than each of these.
28 The points that follow are perfectly consistent with my theory
that Christian Hellenists advanced their view of the Logos in
conscious opposition to Philo's system.
-------------
End of document, CRJ0163A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Philosophy?"
release A, August 31, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the
Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late
Dr. Walter R. Martin. While CRI is concerned with and involved
in the general defense of the faith, our area of research
specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious
scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical
Christianity. These include cults (that is, groups which deny
essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the
Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the
contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and
aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).
Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch," witnessing
tips and book reviews.
CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES: (subject to change)
One Year Two Years
U.S. Residents [ ] 20.00 [ ] 37.00
Canadian (U.S. funds) [ ] 24.00 [ ] 44.00
Other Foreign (U.S. funds) [ ] 36.00 [ ] 66.00
Please make checks payable to CRI
To place a credit card order by phone, call us toll-free at:
(800) 2-JOURNAL
To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this
coupon, fill in the necessary information and mail it with your
payment to:
CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500
[ ] Yes! I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal.
Name: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________
Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________
------------------
YOURS FOR THE ASKING
Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking? In fact, a free
subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours if you
contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out about the
offer from this computer text file. We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge. Write us today for
information on these or other topics. Our first-rate research
staff will do everything possible to help you.
Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
(714) 855-9926
---------------
End of file.