Customer Reviews

The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? (Christian Free University Curriculum)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I consider this book to be a 'must have' because of how critical I think the subject matter is, and how well I think Nash analyzes the subject.

On the surface, many folks might think that the topic is very obscure or not all that important. And while it's true that the subject matter is somewhat complicated and can initially appear pretty irrelevant to present day Christianity, it is nonetheless a topic with enormous present day relevance and deserves to be explored. In a nutshell, this book attempts to analyze whether early Christianity was influenced by pagan philosophical systems or by ideas that existed in the pagan mystery religions. There are a number of reasons why such an examination is so important. First, as this book mentions, a link of influence of paganism on early Christianity has been a common tactic among various folks in academia who are looking to discredit the Christian faith in front of an impressionable audience, and while not mentioning it, the Jesus Seminar has also been diligent in advancing such arguments in an effort to dedeify Jesus. And the reason is clear. One can make major inroads in discrediting the authenticity of Christianity if they can demonstrate, for example, that the resurrection of Jesus as described in the Gospels was really a mythical story copied from allegedly similar recountings in the pagan mystery religions. If this could be demonstrated, any number of additional negative ideas could be argued with greater force, such as that Jesus wasn't really God because the resurrection recountings of the Gospels are not historical but mythical and parallel other myths of the time, or that Jesus is no more special or unique than other supposed gods or deities in other religions. It is clear that the ramifications of these kind of theories, if proven, would be devastating to Christianity. Thus, the importance of this book.

Nash carefully divides the book into 3 sections; analyzing the possibility that early Christianity was influenced by pagan philosophy such as Platonism or Stoicism, analyzing the possibility that early Christianity borrowed some of its stories from the pagan mystery religions such as Isis/Osiris or Mithra, and analyzing whether Christianity was influenced by Gnosticism. In each case, Nash does a good job of beginning his analysis by clearly defining the terms of the debate, and fairly representing the claims made by those who positively assert pagan influence on Christianity. These introductions give the reader a very good starting point for seeing how these arguments, when left unscrutinized, can on the surface appear to be compelling. By presenting the arguments fairly and completely, Nash does a good job of peaking the interest of the reader to read on in order to find out whether these arguments really hold water once we get below the surface. And particularly in the analyses of pagan philosophy and the mystery religions, Nash's analyses are very detailed and meticulous. Nash's analyses are very effective in meticulously discrediting these arguments and in most cases, showing very clearly the lazy scholarship that often fuels such arguments. By doing this, Nash not only puts these arguments in their place, he affirms the historical reliability, uniqueness, and truth of the Christian faith as described in the New Testament and clearly demonstrates that there is absolutely no evidence of a pagan influence on Christianity, and in fact, there is sufficient evidence to suggest a Christian influence on paganism.

In summary, after one reads this book, it is likely that they may scratch their heads in wonder when one thinks about why this book had to be written, given the lazy and even contrived scholarship that is the basis for so many of the arguments affirming a pagan influence on early Christianity. One might reasonably wonder how such ideas ever had any credibility to start with when Nash so completely destroys the arguments with very simple facts and analysis. I applaud Nash for being so thorough in the topics covered and in the analysis. There are over 30 pages of footnotes at the end of the book for the reader who is interested in conducting additional research and examining other pertinent resources. I completely concur with what Nash says in this book when commenting on the alleged influence of the mystery religions on early Christianity, "These..arguments against Christian syncretism help us understand why biblical scholars today seldom claim any early Christian dependence on the mysteries. They constitute an impressive collection of reasons why scholars in such other fields as history and philosophy should rethink their methods and conclusions and finally put such views to rest." This is an excellent book, and one that can greatly help any Christian easily and effectively counter the claims of pagan influence on the early faith. A 'must have' for any apologetics collection.

Ron Nash's book is more than an introduction into the topic of Christainity and the Mystery Religions of the Greco-Roman world, but not so detialed as to loose the laymen. Although most scholars, including liberals, have now discounted a complete comparision between Christianity and Mystery Religions, a small, but vocal neo-pagan and feminists goddess practiciners have re-ignited the debate, partly I think due to the openness of comminication provided bt the internet.

This book introduces the major issues invol and places emphasis in three areas: (1) Hellenistic Philosophy, (2) The Mystery Religions, (3) Christianity and Gnosticism.

All sections involve clear, concise, yet thorough refutation of many Christian/mystery religions as proposed by some individuals, some of whom are academics largely behind the most current standings in the debate. Further, Nash, in order to provide a road map, uses the introducing paragraphs for each chapter brillantly. He gives a clear objective statement and explains where he'll be heading with the material. This I think helps in a text likes this and demonstrates that Nash is knowldgeable on how to present possible new material to people (for many, this is probable the first they have read about the subject).

He also provides a great selection of resource material on the subject. His endnotes provides nice explanations when neccessary and he also has additional non-cited footnotes to give a little additional, though non-esential information.

There is one small crticisms of the book and it is significant enough to deduct a star. Nash barely deals with the idea of defication among many mystery cults and the Christian tradition. He largely glosses over this section almost forgetting that much of Christainity does practice a deifciation commonly called "theosis." He settles to quickly with the Western idea of salvation in refuting salvific issues. While I think it is propoer of him to use this approach, he relies to heavily upon it. The Eastern Tradition is different than the mysetry cults teachings in this area, and a solid refutation here would have been helpful I think for Eastern Christians, regardless if Nash agrees with the Eastern tradition of theosis or not (since Nash is a Reformed Protetstant, I think he probably would not agree with the theosis doctrine, but nonetheless, it was a teaching of the early Church and is distinct from the mystery cults idea of union with God.

A must have book for any Christian who wants to learn more about this subject!

Dr. Nash is a highly smart, highly nice man, a Christian philosophy professor who knows the early 20th century dying and rising god scholarship backwards and forwards. This book gives the state of the art Christian "refutation" of early 20th century claims that Jesus was a knock-off Pagan dying-and-rising godman, and Christianity copied baptism, the Eucharist, and other rituals, sacraments, and theologies directly from other ancient religions.

But you should understand, this is an apologist's book, written by a believer for other believers. It is not written with the rigor needed to withstand unfriendly critical analysis. The analysis, in my opinion, is a bit soft. Specifically:

#1. The theories Dr. Nash refutes are, as he says himself, old and outdated. Beginning in the late 1800s a school of scholars argued that Jesus was a knock-off copy of Pagan dying and rising godmen. Jesus was copied myth by myth from similar ancient gods. By the 1950s it was generally accepted, for good reasons, that the ancient evidence can not sustain this theory.

Yet this is the only theory Dr. Nash refutes.

What he fails to refute is great swaths of recent scholarship tying Christianity not to myth copying, but to assimilation of the basic ideas, prejudices, and primitive science of ancient culture. Ideas like gods up in heaven coming down to earth. Miracles. Prophecies. Life after death. These things were all common in ancient culture. Pagans had them first. Christianity had them second. Dr. Nash ignores this scholarship altogether. A short list of academics' books explaining the current scholarship would include:

Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories (The Context of Early Christianity, 1) by Wendy Cotter
Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion by Alan Segal
Born Divine by Robert Miller
Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity (The Context of Early Christianity) by Jan van Henten and Friedrich Avamarie
River of God, The: A New History of Christian Origins by Greg Riley
The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis MacDonald

If Dr. Nash knows about any of this recent scholarship, he doesn't let on. He certainly fails to try to refute any of it.

#2 Chapter after chapter, similarity after similarity, Dr. Nash's recurring argument is that the Christian story is different, in some detail or other, from the Pagan stories. And so could not have been borrowed. Jesus' magical divine father, mortal mother, dream foretold, prophesy fulfilling birth didn't borrow from paganism because Jesus' mother was a virgin--and that makes the Jesus story different from the Pagan's magical divine father, mortal mother, dream foretold, prophesy fulfilling birth stories.

Dr. Nash's refutation is only persuasive if this difference argument is persuasive. Why he thinks it is, he doesn't say.


Dr. Nash seems like a nice guy. The book is clearly and honestly written. It is however a refutation of outdated scholarship that doesn't really need refuting. And it fails to mention, let alone refute, current Christian borrowing scholarship.

On the surface, many folks might think that the topic is very obscure or not all that important. And while it's true that the subject matter is somewhat complicated and can initially appear pretty irrelevant to present day Christianity, it is nonetheless a topic with enormous present day relevance and deserves to be explored. In a nutshell, this book attempts to analyze whether early Christianity was influenced by pagan philosophical systems or by ideas that existed in the pagan mystery religions. There are a number of reasons why such an examination is so important. First, as this book mentions, a link of influence of paganism on early Christianity has been a common tactic among various folks in academia who are looking to discredit the Christian faith in front of an impressionable audience, and while not mentioning it, the Jesus Seminar has also been diligent in advancing such arguments in an effort to dedeify Jesus. And the reason is clear. One can make major inroads in discrediting the authenticity of Christianity if they can demonstrate, for example, that the resurrection of Jesus as described in the Gospels was really a mythical story copied from allegedly similar recountings in the pagan mystery religions. If this could be demonstrated, any number of additional negative ideas could be argued with greater force, such as that Jesus wasn't really God because the resurrection recountings of the Gospels are not historical but mythical and parallel other myths of the time, or that Jesus is no more special or unique than other supposed gods or deities in other religions. It is clear that the ramifications of these kind of theories, if proven, would be devastating to Christianity. Thus, the importance of this book.

Nash carefully divides the book into 3 sections; analyzing the possibility that early Christianity was influenced by pagan philosophy such as Platonism or Stoicism, analyzing the possibility that early Christianity borrowed some of its stories from the pagan mystery religions such as Isis/Osiris or Mithra, and analyzing whether Christianity was influenced by Gnosticism. In each case, Nash does a good job of beginning his analysis by clearly defining the terms of the debate, and fairly representing the claims made by those who positively assert pagan influence on Christianity. These introductions give the reader a very good starting point for seeing how these arguments, when left unscrutinized, can on the surface appear to be compelling. By presenting the arguments fairly and completely, Nash does a good job of peaking the interest of the reader to read on in order to find out whether these arguments really hold water once we get below the surface. And particularly in the analyses of pagan philosophy and the mystery religions, Nash's analyses are very detailed and meticulous. Nash's analyses are very effective in meticulously discrediting these arguments and in most cases, showing very clearly the lazy scholarship that often fuels such arguments. By doing this, Nash not only puts these arguments in their place, he affirms the historical reliability, uniqueness, and truth of the Christian faith as described in the New Testament and clearly demonstrates that there is absolutely no evidence of a pagan influence on Christianity, and in fact, there is sufficient evidence to suggest a Christian influence on paganism.

In summary, after one reads this book, it is likely that they may scratch their heads in wonder when one thinks about why this book had to be written, given the lazy and even contrived scholarship that is the basis for so many of the arguments affirming a pagan influence on early Christianity. One might reasonably wonder how such ideas ever had any credibility to start with when Nash so completely destroys the arguments with very simple facts and analysis. I applaud Nash for being so thorough in the topics covered and in the analysis. There are over 30 pages of footnotes at the end of the book for the reader who is interested in conducting additional research and examining other pertinent resources. I completely concur with what Nash says in this book when commenting on the alleged influence of the mystery religions on early Christianity, "These..arguments against Christian syncretism help us understand why biblical scholars today seldom claim any early Christian dependence on the mysteries. They constitute an impressive collection of reasons why scholars in such other fields as history and philosophy should rethink their methods and conclusions and finally put such views to rest." This is an excellent book, and one that can greatly help any Christian easily and effectively counter the claims of pagan influence on the early faith. A 'must have' for any apologetics collection.

Did the New Testament borrow from Pagan thought? Nash approaches the topic of outside influence in three parts, approaching the question of dependence from a traditional Christian viewpoint.

Part I: Hellenistic Philosophy. How much Hellenistic influence do we see in the Gospels? From Paul's quoting of Stoic philosophers to John's interpretation of the Logos, there are unquestionable connections. The most fascinating passage in this section is Nash's "test case" in the book of Hebrews. There, Jesus is promoted as superior to the Alexandrian Logos and Sophia, superior to priestly mediators, superior to Moses and Melchizedek. Jesus is the true Logos, the fulfillment of it all. Where Hellenistic thinking often formed cyclical patterns, Hebrews portrays Jesus as breaking the pattern. The author of Hebrews perceives time not as cyclical, but as linear. "The once-for-all, fully completed, never-to-be-repeated, and final character of Jesus' sacrifice contrasts sharply with the continuing sacrifices of the Levitical priests."

Part II: The mystery religions. Each region of the Mediterranean world seems to have produced its own mystery religion. How much influence did these religions have on Christianity? Nash sees it as a dead issue, in part because we know so little about the mystery religions before the third century. It was in this century that Christianity began to blend with mystery religions such as Mithraism, and the next century before the terminology of the mystery cults first began to appear in the language of the church. On the other hand, other cult practices such as that of Dionysus are too early to have an influence. Those who compare communion with pagan ritual are not taking timing into consideration: the savage practice of eating one's god appears to have long since disappeared before the time of Jesus.

Part III: Gnosticism. The idea that any of the canonical books reflects Gnostic influence is losing favor. Renowned theologian Rudolf Bultmann believed the writer of the Gospel of John had been a member of a Gnostic sect who was converted to Christianity, but Nash examines various Gnostic writings and concludes that Gnostic thinking postdates the Biblical writings.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that any Mediterranean religion grew up in a vacuum, yet a rash of recent books tend to sensationalize the commonalities between Christian and Pagan practices. Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ provides one example. Nash's book provides some needed counter-balance.

(Note: Nash's research is not a response to recent writings, but a precursor; I'm reviewing the 2003 second edition of a 1992 original.)

Ronald Nash has put to rest the old idea that the Gospels and Paul borrowed ideas from the Greek mystery religions. This book is well documented and easy to read and understand. Nash does a superb job of explaining facts and documented scholars in this long debate. I would recommend this book to anyone.

Did the original Christian message as found in the new testament, get influenced by Greek/Hellenized thinking of its day? Since the new testament came from a time and place where Greek thought was "in the air" in all sorts of ways, this is a good question. And this book is an important study. Dr. Nash is to be thanked for taking the time to specifically write a book on this very subject. Books contents:

Intro
Part 1 Hellenistic PHilosophy (Part 1,2 and 3 each has 5 chapters)
Part 2 The Mystery Religions
Part 3 Christianity and Gnosticism

This book is a good intro to some of the Greek/Hellenized Philosophies and religions prior to and during the new testament times that were in that culture and area, and as such it is a good intro to that subject. Dr. Nash aims to show how elements of that should not be seen as equated with various aspects of the Christian new testament gospel. In other words, he aims to show how there are not similarities and that the Christians did not copy cat from those "categories".

The Christian new testament gospel no doubt was a new movement, it was thoroughly Christocentric, and that alone made it innovative on its own terms. However, Greek thought was very much infused into the thinking of the ancient Mediterranean in all sorts of ways at and during the time of Jesus and the new testament writings, and as such, the new testament and its ways of expression/explaining/instructing was quite naturally going to use conceptual modes of its time. The new testament (and its gospel message) is an intertwined amalgamation of Hebraic, 2nd temple Judaic, and some Greek/Hellenized thought forms, all taken up and recast in a thoroughly Christocentric manner. The new testament writers "presented" the gospel and its outworkings for living, in ways that would have resonated with the thought world of its day, and as such some of the things Nash tries to deny are questionable.
There is a reason why Biblical sholars stress the importance of learning the cultural mileu of biblical times, because it sheds light on what the biblical writers were saying and meaning, and it could only shed light on it if there were some similarities enough to make it intelligible. However, this does not mean the Christians simply copy catted things from Greek philosophy and religion, and as far as that goes Dr. Nash is most certainly on the right track, even if he questionably goes a bit too far in denying similarites.
Read through Craig Keener's New Testament Background commentary and some of the conceptual similarites will be seen at various levels and in various ways.

There is a lot of silly misinformation floating around these days, especially on the net, about ideas that suggest that Christianity was simply made up by slapping together a bunch of beliefs of religions that supposedly came before (Mithra, etc.). This will be a slow read all the way through if you really want to take it all in, but it is very much worth it in the end. The book clearly gets to the truth and proves how silly and unfounded these assersions are.

The author provides a good, basic introduction to some of the refutations regarding the crux of this book: whether Christianity copied or is an offshoot from Platonic/Neoplatonic philosophies, mystery religions, Gnostic systems, etc.

My problem was that this book did not offer the level of erudition one finds in the works of other Christian scholars such as John Meier, Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, etc. The author provides almost no reference to contemporary sources or original insight into such sources. Rather, the author incorporates very long quotes from other modern writers about these subjects. Those page-long quotes reminded me of my doing the same in high school to pad up my term papers (for which I got a lot of grief from my teachers) so in a sense that's the level at which this book reads. It even makes the author appear to me as if he can hardly read Greek, Hebrew or Latin.

Overall, not a bad book but I'm willing to bet there are much better books on this matter.

What can I say? It's a required textbook that arrived to my son's college mailbox in good order and in time for his classes. I'm satisfied, he's satisfied. I hope it'll help him in his pursuit of good grades.