Paul and his use of Greek Philosophy

[Nikud]

https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/paul-and-his-use-of-greek-philosophy/

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3795

Paul is my favorite Apostle because he frustrates me to no end. You can't just read what Paul wrote and look for the simple explaination. Even in his Heyday there were disclaimers to this effect.

2 Peter 3:16

15 Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom G-d gave him.
16 He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such understanding, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scripture, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard not to be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, the first to use Apologetics (I know this word means in defense of but I dislike it because of the modern day definition) It makes sense that he would use the philosophies that were preminate at the time. I am also a believer in the idea that G-d used philosophers like Aristotle, amongst others, to slowly change the mind set of the Greeks to be receptive of scripture.

 

[IshChayil]

https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/paul-and-his-use-of-greek-philosophy/

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3795

Paul is my favorite Apostle because he frustrates me to no end. You can't just read what Paul wrote and look for the simple explaination. Even in his Heyday there were disclaimers to this effect.

2 Peter 3:16

15 Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom G-d gave him.
16 He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such understanding, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scripture, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard not to be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, the first to use Apologetics (I know this word means in defense of but I dislike it because of the modern day definition) It makes sense that he would use the philosophies that were preminate at the time. I am also a believer in the idea that G-d used philosophers like Aristotle, amongst others, to slowly change the mind set of the Greeks to be receptive of scripture.

ב"ה​

He also referenced Greek poetry, used on occasion language from Greek medical texts some of which have only recently been discovered, was keenly aware and spoke to many diaspora cultural issues, and he employed special boiler plate Greek styles in his letters (like Ironic rebuke) which has caused him to be understood often in the exact opposite manner than he intended. A Pharisee to the end and a friend of Gentiles... quite the enigma.
I share your frustration and admiration. This should become quite an interesting thread in time...

 

[andrew]

Paul used to frustrate me, but not so much anymore. The rub seems to come more if you're looking for a OSFA set of rules, as if it's about the rules....

 

[Nikud]

The rub seems to come more if you're looking for a OSFA set of rules

I'm just looking to understand the man better.

The more I study Paul, the more I believe when he said "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." he meant he would do anything the Holy Spirit lead him to do whether he wanted to or not. I was talking to someone a few weeks ago who said that was obvious. He missed what I meant. I told him, I see Paul as an example of what it means to truly deny our own will and submit. He said it was easy for him he knew and walked with Jesus. I didn't know whether to correct him or pray for him.

Edit: I think I should explain the last sentence. He emphasized the word knew with a pause in a way that made it seem like he didn't feel he knew Jesus.

 

[Shibboleth]

If you're looking for a good (and accessible) example of Greek apologia, I strongly recommend reading or listening to Plato's Apology of Socrates.

The basic gist is that Socrates has been accused of corrupting the youths of Athens, and of being an atheist (both charges that he denies). He claims he is on a divine mission from a god to seek wisdom, even at the cost of his own life. By his manner of constantly questioning others to point out their hypocrisies (now the Socratic Method), he considers himself to be an annoying "gadfly" to Athens -- today some might call him a "troll". There's some very New Testament language used in a few spots, esp. near the end: phrases reminiscent of "must obey god rather than men," "to die is gain," and "whether it is better to live or to die." I would not be at all surprised if Paul were familiar with this work.

The whole thing can be listened to in under an hour and a half for free at Librivox. It's well worth it, even just for listening to a man speak with the conviction of his ideas in the face of death.

http://librivox.bookdesign.biz/book/6055

 

[Nikud]

If you're looking for a good (and accessible) example of Greek apologia, I strongly recommend reading or listening to Plato's Apology of Socrates.

I have not read Plato's Apologia of Socrates yet. I read The Apology of Socrates to the Jury by Xenophon. It painted a picture of a Arrogant Socrates. All Socrates had to do to set himself free was to bring up the fact that he was veteran of Athens. I'll give Plato a listen.

There's some very New Testament language used in a few spots, esp. near the end: phrases reminiscent of "must obey god rather than men," "to die is gain," and "whether it is better to live or to die." I would not be at all surprised if Paul were familiar with this work.

I wouldn't be either. He was an educated man. It also shows to the idea I stated earlier, that G-d was working thru the old philosophers to prepare the way for the acceptance of scripture and the Church in Greece.

 

[Shibboleth]

I'll have to check out the Xenophon version. Thanks. I can see how Socrates would come off as arrogant. He's got that "I know that I'm right, and y'all're too dense to realize that I'm only trying to help you." vibe.

 

[andrew]

I'm just looking to understand the man better.

Oh, I realize that. My comment wasn't directed at you (so I probably should have said "if one is looking for" instead of "if you're looking for"), but more of a general statistical observation.

 

[IshChayil]

Paul used to frustrate me, but not so much anymore. The rub seems to come more if you're looking for a OSFA set of rules, as if it's about the rules....

I think you are right that for a lot of people that's the issue.

For me, the "frustration" has more to do with Greek language than any kind of mold I'm expecting him to fit in.
As a student of Greek there are some guys who are an "easy" read (John for example), then there is Paul.
Mastering Paul's language is similar to mastering Psalm's language. You may think you know the definition of those words he's using, but
there are so many turns, and nuances, words used only 1 time in the corpus of scripture, etc.

The frustration for me comes from setting goals to fit by certain timetables to "master" certain material in Greek then sit back and laugh at myself only to find that certain words he uses in certain areas were highly specific and didn't show up with the right definitions in the lexicons I have (mainstream lexicons).
The more I have learned over the years I am now at the place where I can confidently say ... a new believer should not approach the Epistles of Paul on his own. Gospels yes, Paul no. Most of the "guides" I have met also have no clue about what Paul is really saying.

Anyone reading this thread who wants to get a better handle on Paul may enjoy these books:
The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letters -Mark Nanos
The Irony of Galatians: Paul's Letter in First-Century Context- Mark Nanos
(Amazon links) though be ready these are heavy books where sometimes the pages' footnotes exceed the page content.
I'm looking forward to his work releasesed this August:
Reading Corinthians and Philippians within Judaism: Collected Essays
Overview starts "The commentary tradition regarding 1 Corinthians unanimously identifies the "weak" as Christ-followers whose faith was not yet sufficient to indulge in the eating of idol food with indifference, as if ideally Paul wanted them to become "strong" enough to do so."
Should be a good read.

I'm sure I'll be studying and researching this apostle for years to come.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It may just be confirmation bias but I really do find validation for Torah observance in Paul.

 

[IshChayil]

It may just be confirmation bias but I really do find validation for Torah observance in Paul.

Hey Zec I get what you're saying;
Maybe you wanna start a thread over in the Messianic/Hebrew roots section about "Paul's Torah observance"? I'll be happy to chime in over there on that topic.
I can see this thread spiraling quickly into torah vs no torah haha.

 

[Nikud]

I started looking at Acts after reading the Article and taking a closer look at Epicurean and Stoic Philosophy. In Acts chapter 17, the apostle Paul is in Athens. He winds up at the place where Epicurean and Stoic philosophers are discussing and debating, and ends up giving a long sermon to them.

During this sermon, Paul starts with what the Greeks would understand, and finishes up with the gospel, speaking of the resurrection of Jesus. Looking at the content of Paul’s message in Acts 17, and comparing it with what the ancient Epicurean and Stoics believed, remembering that they did not teach the same things that the modern definitions of the words “epicurean” and ‘stoic” have come to mean, Paul understood very well what the philosophers taught, for in his speech, he systematically goes through the core beleifs of both and uses scripture and the Gospel to refute what they teach, point-by-point. Paul, who tells us to beware of philosophy in Colossians 2:8, understood philosophy well enough to refute the ideology I can espouse with the truth. Paul’s message was based on a knowledge of the truth and knowledge of the philosophy. Paul’s sermon shows us that he understood what these philosophers believed. He even quotes a couple of their teachers in his sermon.

 

[Nikud]

I myself am a fan of Marcus Areulius. He was, Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD, wrote Meditations which were his private notes to himself and ideas on Stoic philosophy. When I read it I have the habit of replacing when he says gods with G-d and when he talks of man's will with G-d's will. A strong theme of his writings is that a man should maintain focus and to be without distraction while upholding strong ethical principles such as "Being a good man".

 

[Mojo]

I will find evidence later (unless someone else wants to for me) but my recollections are that Christianity, as expressed by Paul, was a natural landing place for Platonists. It's been years since I studied Greek philosophy, so I won't go further until I go back and refamiliarize myself with it. Just wanted to see if others can confirm my recollections.

 

[Nikud]

Christianity, as expressed by Paul, was a natural landing place for Platonists.

Some of students of Plato developed Philosophies that made it easier to make the jump to Christianity and some of his teachings line up but most fall way short. Most Platonist were hard lined even against the philosphies of Platos students. There are writings that claim Paul was took Platonism and tried to make Christianity fit its mold.
They try to make the arguement that Paul’s writings are supposed to reflect a dualistic view of the world. A view that is said to be supported by his distinction between the soul and body. This argument states that Paul manifests the typical Platonic aversion to the physical body as being evil, a prison for the soul, from which Christians should long to be delivered from. Until this deliverance actually comes by means of death, the proponents of that arguement believe Christians are suppose to denigrate their bodies through various ascetic practices. The first passage they go to in the New Testament in which to show Pauls supposed support of Platonism is Romans 7:24. They use this verse 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?” Paul does speak of the body is a prison of the soul in this verse. Nowhere in Scripture does Paul refer to the body in terms of a prison. Another verse used sometimes to connect to Platonism 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.” To me this verse disproves the claim that Paul held Platonic veiws.
Though I guess some Platonist could have seen the light.....I will admit I have have a Bias against Plato because I feel he attributed some of his philosophy to belonging to Socrates to make them more acceptable.

EDIT: The point I was trying to make is it appears to me he argued against Plato Philosophies instead of using them to prove his point, and that would have made it hard for Platonist to find Christianity as a natural landing place.

 

[Nikud]

I can see how Socrates would come off as arrogant. He's got that "I know that I'm right, and y'all're too dense to realize that I'm only trying to help you." vibe

In Plato's he seems less arrogant.

 

[Mojo]

Some of students of Plato developed Philosophies that made it easier to make the jump to Christianity and some of his teachings line up but most fall way short. Most Platonist were hard lined even against the philosphies of Platos students. There are writings that claim Paul was took Platonism and tried to make Christianity fit its mold.
They try to make the arguement that Paul’s writings are supposed to reflect a dualistic view of the world. A view that is said to be supported by his distinction between the soul and body. This argument states that Paul manifests the typical Platonic aversion to the physical body as being evil, a prison for the soul, from which Christians should long to be delivered from. Until this deliverance actually comes by means of death, the proponents of that arguement believe Christians are suppose to denigrate their bodies through various ascetic practices. The first passage they go to in the New Testament in which to show Pauls supposed support of Platonism is Romans 7:24. They use this verse 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?” Paul does speak of the body is a prison of the soul in this verse. Nowhere in Scripture does Paul refer to the body in terms of a prison. Another verse used sometimes to connect to Platonism 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.” To me this verse disproves the claim that Paul held Platonic veiws.
Though I guess some Platonist could have seen the light.....I will admit I have have a Bias against Plato because I feel he attributed some of his philosophy to belonging to Socrates to make them more acceptable.

EDIT: The point I was trying to make is it appears to me he argued against Plato Philosophies instead of using them to prove his point, and that would have made it hard for Platonist to find Christianity as a natural landing place.

I wasn't arguing that Paul was a Platonist. Dig enough (not very deep in most epistles) and you will see Hebrew philosophy, not Greek. I was just trying to say that Paul's presentation of the Gospel in terms of light/dark, good/evil, body/soul made it easier to grasp for a Platonist. I believe he knew Greek philosophy, and as such was able to speak their language (Mars hill?). I'm not saying he held to their beliefs.

Whether he argued for or against, many Western church theologians considered themselves indebted to Plato. I will search for more sources later.

Again, it's been years, and I remember settling it in my brain, so I will have to go back.

 

[Nikud]

I wasn't arguing that Paul was a Platonist. Dig enough (not very deep in most epistles) and you will see Hebrew philosophy, not Greek. I was just trying to say that Paul's presentation of the Gospel in terms of light/dark, good/evil, body/soul made it easier to grasp for a Platonist. I believe he knew Greek philosophy, and as such was able to speak their language (Mars hill?). I'm not saying he held to their beliefs.

I had a fresh intense "discussion" with someone over the subject and I'm still a bit itchy. I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

Your are absolutely correct.

 

[Nikud]

Mars Hill is the Roman name for a hill in Athens, called the Hill of Ares or the Areopagus (Acts 17:19, 22)

This is the location of one of Paul’s most important Sermons. Actually I beleive when it comes to the Greeks the most important and it is during his second missionary journey to Athens (Acts 17:16-34). Here he addressed the idolatry of the Greeks who even had an altar to the “Unknown god.” Which I beleive was a repersentation of the "unmoved mover" that Aristole tried to explain. It was the altar and the Greeks idolatry that Paul used to give them an understanding of the one true G-d and how they could come to know to Him