You are not the only one to have made this connection:



Absolutely fascinating stuff. So fascinating in fact, that if I wanted to talk about it, I'd have no idea where to even begin.

Pierre Grimes is an insightful man. However due to my piety as a Christian, I must disagree with him when he says that the teaching of Jesus comes directly from the “Greek tradition.” There is a clear observable synthesis of Judaism and Hellenistic philosophy going on. What bugs me is fellow Christians, minus those of the eastern flavor (Orthodoxy, Eastern Catholics), do not take this kind of scholarship seriously.

In regard to the Judaic elements, you may be interested in Oliver5 comments in the "Jesus Freaks" OP.

Early Christianity cheerfully looted from pagan philosophy extensively, but I'm not aware of anything indicating that Jesus did himself.

Well seeing as how he grew up in a very Hellenistic society he must’ve been familiar with the kind of philosophy accessible to the every day man. The ascetic commands of Jesus to the apostles do resemble the practices of the Cynics. But I like to think that Stoicism had a huge influence on him; this was the philosophy of the working man, a man that lived in society.

Well seeing as how he grew up in a very Hellenistic society he must’ve been familiar with the kind of philosophy accessible to the every day man. The ascetic commands of Jesus to the apostles do resemble the practices of the Cynics. But I like to think that Stoicism had a huge influence on him; this was the philosophy of the working man, a man that lived in society. — Dermot Griffin

I don't know if Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the several Roman Senators who considered themselves Stoics can be considered working men, or even Musonius Rufus for that matter. Epictetus of course was a slave, however. it would seem Stoicism appealed to people of different social status and wealth.

I'm not sure how Hellenistic Judea was at the time Jesus is said to have lived. Alexandria and Antioch had Jewish communities influenced by Hellenism. I don't know about Jerusalem or Judea. We do know that when Hadrian tried to create a Hellenistic city on the site of Jerusalem and it resulted in a bloody three-year revolt. We have nothing indicating Jesus spoke Greek or could read it. We don't have much information about him, and asceticism wasn't limited to Cynics or Stoics, so I think we're best advised to be cautious in our assertions of influence.

Paul and others were clearly influenced by pagan philosophy and the pagan mystery cults, however.

Good question OP. At some point Christians will have to stop their preaching and ask this question :point: Where did Jesus get his ideas from?

I suppose this question doesn't make any sense in revelatory contexts (from God, through angels, duh!)

However, ignoring this point, it would be very interesting and highly informative if we could trace Christianity's origin to Hellenistic philosophy. Platonism, Aristotelianism, Soticism, etc. are known to have had some influence on Christian thought. Unfortunately, my memory fails me and I can't fill you in on the details. Someone could! Let's hope s/he'll read this thread while it's still alive & kicking!

A Platonist take on the teachings of Jesus would be found in the Johannine literature, specifically the Gospel of John. What does everyone else think of this? I think the connections are logical. — Dermot Griffin

He was probably one of a number of preachers who were associated with the Essenes and apocalyptically minded Jews.

The world his teachings spread in was heavily hellenized, so we don't need Jesus himself to have been influenced by Plato.

. I don't know about Jerusalem or Judea. — Ciceronianus

The Sadducees were hellenized.

I don't know if Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the several Roman Senators who considered themselves Stoics can be considered working men, or even Musonius Rufus for that matter. — Ciceronianus

Roman aristocrats tended to have a pretty dim view of anyone who worked for a living (rather than living off the profits from their estates) so I doubt it.

And you're probably right about Jesus and Greek influence; there's no indication Jesus could read or speak Greek, or had much of an education, and the rural backwaters of Galilee where he did most of his preaching were probably unlikely to be especially Romanized, or centers of culture or learning rather than just small fishing villages and so forth.

So there is probably very little direct influence in terms of Jesus himself (especially given Jesus's likely background coming from Nazareth), but there's no question that Greek philosophy (Plato in particular) tremendously influenced subsequent Christian church leaders and theologians in the decades and centuries that followed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_years_of_Jesus

this is sort of the key part of the article-

Modern mainstream Christian scholarship has generally rejected any travels by Jesus to India, Tibet or surrounding areas as without historical basis:

Jesus was a peasant from a tiny village in the backwaters of Roman Judea. He probably spent the "lost years" (the years of his life that are omitted from the Gospel narratives) doing the same sort of stuff peasants from rural Judea at the time tended to do. The most interesting thing he realistically could have gotten up to would have been studying with different Jewish sects, possibly the Essenes or Pharisees.

What does everyone else think of this? I think the connections are logical. — Dermot Griffin

Of course they are logical. Hellenistic culture was dominant in the eastern parts of the Roman empire, especially in Alexandria (Egypt), which had a large, Greek-speaking Jewish community, but also in Syria-Palestine where there were ten large Greek cities (Decapolis) and elsewhere. Jesus' home town of Nazareth was very close to Greek towns like Sepphoris.

Moreover, especially if Jesus was the son of God and planned to establish a new religion, Hellenistic culture would have been ideal for its dissemination, in the same way the Greek language was chosen for the composition of the Gospels and later writings .... :smile:

IMO what happened was that in later times a new narrative emerged that was based on the "Athens-vs.-Jerusalem" polemic and sought to paint any Greek influence as "alien" or "Pagan".

The reality is that many Jews like Philo of Alexandria were sufficiently assimilated (and educated) to not have any problem with Greek thought.

I wonder how many observers of Jewish orthodoxy condemned the works of people like Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, and the Stoics. Perhaps very few due to the majority of the Middle East being Hellenized?

Moreover, especially if Jesus was the son of God and planned to establish a new religion — Apollodorus

There's no indication Jesus planned to establish a new religion (or saw himself as "the son of God"- this was probably a later theological development); Jesus was an observant Jew, who encouraged others to follow the (Jewish) Law. So far as we can tell what Jesus himself thought, Jesus saw his own role in terms of the fulfilment of the thoroughly Jewish expectation that God would overthrow the hated Romans and establish a good kingdom under the Davidic kingship of Israel in accordance with the Biblical covenant.

An answer to your question requires some scholarship and one of the first steps would be separating whoever Jesus the man was (around whom a complex myth was constructed in the decades/centuries after his life) from the religion of Christianity, which borrowed freely from traditions as the Romans spread the nascent faith around their territories. The Gospels date from 30 to 80 years after the life of Jesus, are by anonymous sources and not by eyewitnesses - they can almost be considered to be fan fiction.

The exact percentage is probably difficult to establish. But let's not forget that Greek influence was sufficiently strong to give rise to the cultural phenomenon of "Hellenistic Judaism".

St Paul himself was well-versed in Greek philosophy and in the school of his teacher Gamaliel students were instructed both in Jewish and Greek wisdom:

Rabbi said: Why use the Syrian language in the land of Israel? Either use the holy tongue or Greek! But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, There were a thousand pupils in my father's house; five hundred studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 49b)

What is unquestionable is that the concept of divine knowledge as an enlightening force is central to Christianity as it is in Platonism where the Good, the Source of Knowledge and Truth, is compared to the Sun who illumines the world (cf. "I am the Light of the world", etc.)

There is no doubt that more traditionalist trends existed, but those with an open mind had many parallels to choose from for a more syncretic stance.

There's no indication Jesus planned to establish a new religion (or saw himself as "the son of God"- — Seppo

Well, I did say "IF he was the son of God", etc.

Plus, even for the early Christians, Jews included, Christianity was not a "new" religion but the restoration of the eternal Law of God.

Christianity did not even call itself Christianity in the beginning, but "the Way of God", "the Way of Righteousness", "the Way of Truth", etc. which is consistent with the reestablishment of an existing tradition:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill ... (Matthew 5:17)

So, I think there was a combination of cultural continuation and newer elements, which is not entirely surprising given the syncretic tendencies of the period. After all, we can't ignore the fact that even within Judaism there were different trends.

@Dermot Griffin
Great analysis. I was going to say something similar here but you said it first. Judea proper was most likely not a bastion of Hellenistic philosophy- at least not in the Jewish living areas (perhaps coastal cities and parts of Nabatea were exceptions). If you want to look at Hellenistic-influenced Judaism, you should look no further than Philo of Alexandria who married the Torah with Platonic thought, and ideas of the "logos". Paul I guess would be another early synthesizer, possibly influenced by Philo, but as you stated, he added in elements of the dying-resurrecting pagan ritual. If he was from Tarsus, he had one of the biggest mystery-cult centers to draw from- Mithras, with its sacrificial bull.

one of the first steps would be separating whoever Jesus the man was (around whom a complex myth was constructed in the decades/centuries after his life) and the religion of Christianity, which borrowed freely from traditions as the Romans spread the nascent faith around their territories. — Tom Storm

Correct. But we mustn't forget (1) that Greek thought and language were common in the region and (2) there was an established Jewish tradition that used Greek thought not to undermine but to support Judaism, in the same way Christians used Plato and Aristotle to support Christianity.

In Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy, Martin Kavka contests the perceived opposition between "Athens" and "Jerusalem" and argues that Jewish thinkers use "Athens" "for Jewish ends, justifying Jewish anticipation of a future messianic era, as well as portraying the subject's intellectual and ethical acts as central in accomplishing redemption," and that "this formal structure of messianic subjectivity is not simply an acculturating move of Judaism to modern or medieval philosophical values, but it can also be found in an earlier stratum of the Jewish tradition, particularly in an ancient midrashic text discussing a group that refers to itself as the Mourners of Zion".

Indeed, there was nothing to prevent Jews from observing their own religious tradition while at the same time taking an interest in philosophy, just like other educated citizens of the Roman Empire. Philosophy did not entail the renunciation of one's religious beliefs and customs.

Well, I did say "IF he was the son of God", etc. — Apollodorus

Right, and I'm pointing out that he probably didn't (these were later theological inventions, which not present in the earlier Gospel accounts)- I wasn't faulting you for the statement, just answering that "if".

Plus, even for the early Christians, Jews included, Christianity was not a "new" religion but the restoration of the eternal Law of God. — Apollodorus

From the perspective of those early Christians, absolutely. Jews appear to have taken a different view, even from the beginning; as Paul notes, the idea of a crucified messiah was always a tough pill for the Jewish audience to swallow, since a dead (let alone crucified) messiah was basically a contradiction in terms (the messiah, in Jewish thinking at the time, was to be a glorious political/military figure, the person who would defeat the Romans... not get squashed by them) and the early evangelists had more success converting pagans than Jews for precisely this reason.

As some here would say: :100: :fire:

Judea proper was most likely not a bastion of Hellenistic philosophy- at least not in the Jewish living areas (perhaps coastal cities and parts of Nabatea were exceptions). — schopenhauer1

Is there a need for Judea to have been a bastion of Hellenistic philosophy? I think it is quite sufficient for the Ten Greek Cities (Decapolis) in the region to have had a common Hellenistic culture that they shared with those among the Jews living there that took an interest or otherwise were influenced through social contact with their Greek neighbors.

Jews appear to have taken a different view, even from the beginning; as Paul notes, the idea of a crucified messiah was always a tough pill for the Jewish audience to swallow — Seppo

Sure. But this didn't apply to all Jews. Otherwise, the existence of figures like Paul would have been impossible. So, we have to assume that a number of Jews, especially Greek-educated ones like Paul, or even uneducated ones who were unfamiliar with official objections to Christian teachings, would have found it easier to accept the new religion.

If the majority of converts were non-Jews, it doesn't follow that all of them were non-Jews.

But this didn't apply to all Jews. Otherwise, the existence of figures like Paul would have been impossible. — Apollodorus

No, but there's a reason for that... He was from the Diaspora and not Judea proper. It makes total sense regarding his syncretism- especially with mystery cults. I also mentioned Philo in Alexandria, another place for Hellenistic Judaism.

especially Greek-educated ones like Paul, or even uneducated ones who were unfamiliar with official objections to Christian teachings, would have found it easier to accept the new religion. — Apollodorus

Correct, and Paul was probably targeting (at first) Hellenistic Jews in the Diaspora.. Jesus brother, James, who was more familiar with Jesus the man, and his actual teachings seemed to have deeper disagreements than what Acts portrayed (more similar to Paul's continual griping in Galatians)... Anyways, the original Jesus movement seems a different character than Paul's overlay interpretation (his "vision" on his way to Damascus, if you will).

If the majority of converts were non-Jews, it doesn't follow that all of them were non-Jews. — Apollodorus

No, again, there were Hellenistic-leaning Jews around the diaspora and there were "good-fearers" (non-Jews who were interested in Judaism and who were onlookers at synagogues around the empire, but didn't fully convert or marry into the religion). These were probably Paul's first targets.

If the majority of converts were non-Jews, it doesn't follow that all of them were non-Jews. — Apollodorus

Well sure, I never meant to imply otherwise- there's exceptions to just about everything, after all. So obviously there were Jewish converts (Paul himself being one). But overall or on average, Christians found Jews to be a tough audience, as Paul explicitly admits, and the Jews who weren't inclined towards the new Christian religion certainly wouldn't have seen it as a continuation or restoration of the Jewish faith.

Well, I'm not convinced that Hellenistic Judaism was restricted to places like Alexandria. After all, people traveled throughout the area and maintained contact with centers of Greek culture. This is evidenced, among other things, by the widespread use of the Greek language. Even local languages like Hebrew and Aramaic contained thousands of Greek words in addition to other changes under Greek influence, such as phonology, syntax, phraseology, and semantics.

Another thing is that Jewish religion doesn't seem to have been quite as different from its Greek counterpart as often assumed. They both had temples, animal sacrifices followed by communal meals, belief in one supreme deity (Yahweh, Zeus), etc.

In particular, both religions associated God with light, especially with the sun. For example, Apollo in Greek tradition was the God of light, truth, prophecy, poetry and music. He was often identified with the Sun God (Helios) whom he eventually replaced in importance and was adopted by the Romans.

With Alexander’s conquest of the Mid East, the cult of Apollo/Helios together with its Greek iconography (in which he was depicted with a solar halo around his head and riding in a chariot drawn by four horses) spread throughout Syria, Palestine, and Egypt and archaeological evidence suggests that it was widely adopted by the Jews:

How and why and to what extent Greek culture was absorbed into the ancient Jewish world is not always clear, but that it was is undeniable. From the time of Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C.E., Jews lived in a world in which Greek culture carried a certain prestige and offered a route to political influence.
Hellenistic and Roman-era art from the biblical world shines a spotlight on Judean identity and cultural influences during a formative period in the region’s history. From Hercules as trendy Israeli bathhouse décor to mosaics celebrating Helios, the sun god, in ancient synagogues, Greek culture permeated Judea.
It is even thought by some scholars that Jews in ancient times considered Helios a minor deity to whom they could offer prayers! Scholars are now weaving together evidence from archaeological sites and early Christian texts. Notes Lucille A. Roussin, A connection between the Jewish worship of angels and astrology is attested by many early Christian writers. According to the Preachings of Peter, referred to by Clement of Alexandria, the Jews, “thinking that they only know God, do not know him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the months and the moon.” Origen writes in Contra Celsius that "what is astonishing about the Jews is that they adore the sky and the angels that inhabit it.”
As Professor Martin Goodman notes, “Outside of Jerusalem and Judea, Jews rarely treated Greek culture as a threat to their Judaism.” The lovely zodiac mosaic floors of Palestinian synagogues tell us that Jews had simply adopted those Hellenistic features that complemented their own worship, including Hebrew labels on the zodiac signs, and—according to some scholars—used images of the Greek sun god Helios to represent Yahweh, who has no form and cannot be represented in art, but is described in Jewish texts from biblical times as fiery like the sun.
Because the centuries immediately surrounding Jesus’ birth were such a formative period in Judean history, studying the Hellenization of Jewish and early Christian culture during this period is crucial in understanding biblical history.

- From ancient Greece to ancient Judea: The Hellenization of Jewish culture, Biblical Archeology Review.

See also:

Under the Influence: Hellenism in Ancient Jewish Life – Biblical Archaeology Review, 36:1 Jan/Feb 2010

First Person: The Sun God in the Synagogue - Biblical Archaeology Society

And, of course, there are references to God as the Sun in Jewish scripture:

For the LORD God is a Sun and shield ... (Psalm 84:11).

And if we really wanted to, we could find parallels to the Jewish messiah in the just and wise king of Plato and Aristotle, the divine king or pharaoh of Egypt, etc., without stretching it too far .... :smile:

the Jews who weren't inclined towards the new Christian religion certainly wouldn't have seen it as a continuation or restoration of the Jewish faith. — Seppo

Correct. But the issue is the Jews who were so inclined.

When Paul says:

I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but raised in this city. I was educated at the feet of Gamaliel in strict conformity to the Law of our fathers. I am just as zealous for God as any of you here today (Acts 22:3).

he is clearly addressing Jews, not Pagans. And the Talmud speaks of a tradition according to which at Gamaliel's school students were instructed in Jewish and Greek tradition.

It follows that in addition to uneducated Jews (farmers and fishermen), there were educated Jews that would have been open to "unorthodox" ideas. Those who rejected Christianity out of hand would have been members of the clergy who felt that the new religion undermined their position of authority in Jewish society (and their income).

And even among them, there were some who sided with Jesus, like Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Council (with a Greek name!):

Now there came a man of the Pharisees whose name was Nicodemus, a member of the council. He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could do the miraculous signs that you do unless God were with him”(John 3:1-2).

If leading Jews like Paul and Nicodemus accepted the new religion, this must have had some influence on other Jews.

So, there seems to have been a section of the Jewish community that, though relatively small, was nevertheless sufficiently large to provide a Jewish basis to the new religion, in addition to the increasingly more numerous Pagan converts.

I don't doubt the connections of Hellenism you describe. That is well-known. At least since Alexander the Great's takeover of the region, there were gymnasiums, art, literature, that was permeating that region. The whole Maccabean Revolt was because a faction of Hellenistic priests were going to completely turn the Jerusalem Temple into basically a Greek-styled temple. Even the Maccabean family that defeated the ultra-Hellenists still took on Greek names, were friends with Greek and Roman officials, went to Greek amphitheaters, gyms and the like. Sepphoris was a very cosmopolitan Greco-Roman town very close the ancient Nazareth. So though I agree that Greek trappings influenced the people and religion in numerous ways that they probably weren't even fully aware of, we have to distill what of Jesus had Greek-influenced beliefs versus what was later interpolated upon Jesus and his first followers from Greek-influenced writers. We'd have to look at what things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, apocalyptic literature, the Talmud, parts of the Gospels (both canonical and non-canonical), and what Josephus say for any hope for primary sources. It seems that mainstream Judaism was based around the festival days of the Temple, and depending on proximity, participating in synagogue membership on the Sabbath and certain meeting days in the week (synagogues themselves being probably Greek-influenced). Pharisees and Scribes had bigger influences most likely in synagogue centers. Most Jews in this region were probably illiterate at this time. If they were scholars, they would most likely have been from the priestly, scribal, or pharisaic communities. It would have been less-likely (but not necessarily impossible) for a Jew in the Galilean region to have been a scholar in Greek philosophy other than through diffusion of ideas that was taking place in all areas of culture (so not specifically a student of Greek but unintentionally). Likely other groups were being diffused with Greek sayings and parables, and this diffusion may have been seen in both Jesus and his predecessors (such as Hillel). It is more probable that Jesus was a sort of Hillelite Pharisee with influences from Essenic traditions through John the Baptist.

Also, you are possibly glossing over even stronger outside influences than the Greek culture, and that is the often overlooked influence of the Persians on Second Temple Judaism. Cyrus was even called a "messiah" which is how strong the admiration for parts of the Persian leadership of the time. Ezra and Nehemiah and the returning king (without the prior authority) of Zerubbabel, were all officials in the Persian court prior to their return to Yahad (Judah/Judean Persian province). Certainly the influence of Zoroastrian had a tremendous influence on ideas such as good/evil, light/darkness, angelic beings, and the idea of a cosmic ending to the world.

It follows that in addition to uneducated Jews (farmers and fishermen), there were educated Jews that would have been open to "unorthodox" ideas. — Apollodorus

But there is difference here between Jewish receptivity to the message of Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jewish receptivity to the Christian message. As already noted, Jesus was a Jew, who was preaching the Jewish faith, and an interpretation of the Jewish faith that wasn't unique or particularly radical at the time (we know of other Jewish apocalypticists at the time, including, notably, Jesus's mentor/associate John the Baptist). So no real problem there. The real problem, as far as theology goes, appears with Jesus's death and the distinctively Christian message of a crucified messiah: a concept that was antithetical to most Jewish understanding, for the reasons already mentioned.

Those who rejected Christianity out of hand would have been members of the clergy who felt that the new religion undermined their position of authority in Jewish society (and their income). — Apollodorus

No, not just the religious authorities, and not just because they were worried about protecting their positions or privileges: the concept of a crucified messiah was, to most Jews, a contradiction in terms. The messiah was, quite literally, the King of Israel. And under the geopolitical circumstances at that time, being the messiah meant throwing off the Roman occupation and re-establishing Israel as a sovereign nation under the Davidic kingship. Which Jesus not only failed to do, but worse, he was crucified- a particularly shameful way to die.

So there were plenty of ordinary Jews who dismissed Christianity out of hand simply because the Christian message was, to their mind, completely absurd: a crucified criminal could NOT be the messiah, simply as a matter of definition.