Why Did Paul Quote Pagan Philosophers?

            There is a common argument that the Old Testament is reliable because the New Testament affirms the Old Testament. If this is the case, would Paul’s quote of pagan (non-christian/unbelievers) philosophers affirm the reliability of the pagan works? Alternatively, would the inclusion of pagan work in the Bible undermine the reliability of the Bible?

            Did Paul quote pagan philosophers? Yes, here’s an excerpt from CARM:¹

Paul quoted Menander in the book of Acts and in 1 Corinthians.  He quoted Epimenides in the book of Titus.  Let's take a look.

·  Acts 17:28, "for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'"

o "The first part of verse 28 comes from Cretica by Epimenides, and the second part of the verse from Hymn to Zeus, written by the Cilician poet Aratus. To be sure, both of these lines were directed at Zeus in Greek literature, but Paul applied them to the Creator of whom he spoke."1

o Paul quoted "the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor by about three centuries. But, as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless in a pantheistic sense; but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose—to teach a pure, personal, spiritual Theism."2

·  1 Cor. 15:33, "Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.'”

o"a current saying, forming a verse in MENANDER, the comic poet, who probably took it from Euripides [SOCRATES, Ecclesiastical History, 3.16]."3

o "The words “Bad company ruins good morals” are found in a play by Menander (4th-3rd century B. C.) but may well have become a common saying by Paul’s time."4

o "Evil communications corrupt good manners. An iambic line from the ‘Thais’ of Menander, and perhaps taken by Menander from a play of Euripides. More accurately it means “evil associations corrupt excellent morals."5

· Titus 1:12, "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."

o "Epimenides of Phaestus, or Gnossus, in Crete, about 600. He was sent for to purify Athens from its pollution occasioned by Cylon. He was regarded as a diviner and prophet. The words here are taken probably from his treatise “concerning oracles.” Paul also quotes from two other heathen writers, ARATUS (Ac 17:28) and MENANDER (1 Co 15:33), but he does not honor them so far as even to mention their names.6

o "A prophet of their own; viz. Epimenides, a native either of Phæstus or of Cnossus in Crete, the original author of this line, which is also quoted by Callimachus. Epimenides is here called a prophet, not simply as a poet, but from his peculiar character as priest, bard, and seer; called by Plato θεῖος ἀνήρ and coupled by Cicero with Bacis the Boeotian prophet, and the sibyl (Bishop Ellicott); described by other ancient writers as a prophet (Alford)."7

            Would these quotations affirm the reliability of the works of pagan philosophers?

            Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, in their work The Big Book of Bible Difficulties respond to this question (p.507-508):²

TITUS 1:12—DOESN’T PAUL PRONOUNCE THIS PAGAN POET INSPIRED BY MAKING HIM PART OF SCRIPTURE?

PROBLEM: Christians believe that only the Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). Yet the Apostle Paul quotes pagan poets on at least three occasions. But in so doing he seems to give assent to the sources he quotes as inspired, just as when he quotes OT Scripture as the Word of God (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

SOLUTION: Paul is not quoting this non-Christian source as inspired, but simply as true. All truth is God’s truth, no matter who said it. Caiaphas the Jewish high priest uttered a truth about Christ (John 11:49). The Bible often uses non-inspired sources (cf. Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:13; 1 Kings 15:31). Three times Paul cites non-Christian thinkers (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12). Jude alludes to truths found in two non-canonical books (Jude 9, 14). But never does the Bible cite them as divinely authoritative, but simply as containing the truth quoted. The usual phrases, such as, “thus saith the Lord” (cf. Isa. 7:7; Jer. 2:5, kjv) or “it is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) are never found when these non-inspired sources are cited. Nonetheless, truth is truth wherever it is found. And there is no reason, therefore, that a biblical author, by direction of the Holy Spirit, cannot utilize truth from whatever source he may find it.

            Here’s another response from Phillip J. Long, the Chair / Professor of Biblical Studies at the Grace Christian University:³

Paul quotes two Greek writers as support for his case that the creator God does not need temples or temple services from humans. The use of this material has always prompted discussion among readers of Acts, especially with respect to application. Is Paul modelling how Christians ought to present the gospel in a non-Christian, non-Jewish environment?

The first allusion is to Epimenides the Cretan, the poet Paul cited in Titus 1:12. The original poem no longer exists, but fragments appear in other ancient writers. The second citation is from Aratus, a Cilcian poet (Phaenomena 5).  The original line, “in him we move and live and have our being,” was pantheistic, but Paul spins this line into a statement about God as the source of our life.

In other words, he ignores the writer’s original intention so that he can effective make his point. If Aratus had been in the audience in Acts 17, what would he have said in response to Paul? In modern scholarly writing, misrepresenting another scholar’s ideas is not just a mistake, but intellectual dishonesty. Someone who does this sort of thing today would be dismissed as a poor scholar or a crank (or possibly just a biblio-blogger). In some areas of scholarship, authorial intent is not important, so perhaps Paul is not out of line here. Can Paul legitimately pull this line out of context and reapply it to prove the God of the Bible is superior to the other gods?

A second problem is how Paul came to know these lines of poetry. There are not many modern readers who can quote freely from current poets or philosophers. One possibility is Paul had some secular education which could be applied to the preaching of the gospel. We might imagine Paul thinking through his task of being a light to the Gentiles and researching possible points of contact in order to preach to pagan audiences. This is in fact a typical way of doing apologetics today. Christians will study philosophy for the purpose of interacting with the philosophical world in their own terms.

While I do not think this kind of cultural education is a bad idea at all, that may not be Paul’s point in using these sources (or, Luke’s point in presenting Paul as using these sources). These lines may have been well known proverbial wisdom, common knowledge. If so, then the allusion to Greek poets is more like the preacher who uses a common phrase in order to make his point.

Or better, this is an example of a modern pastor quoting lyrics of popular songs to make a point. I occasionally use a line from a popular movie or song in order to make a point (although with my taste in music, it usually does not work very well).  This comes down to knowing your audience.  I have found that I can get a lot further with college age group with a Simpsons reference, while the same line is lost on an adult group.  Perhaps that is what Paul is doing here in Acts 17 – he is riffing on the culture.

In both of the allusions Paul simply intends to demonstrate his thinking is not too far from the culture the audience understood and appreciated.  To cite the Hebrew Bible would have been fruitless since the audience did not know it, nor were they inclined to listen to philosophy drawn Jewish texts.

Does this mean Acts 17 gives permission for Pastors to quote Bob Dylan lyrics or use Simpsons clips in their sermons and Bible studies? Perhaps, but we need to couple cultural reference with a serious point from the text of the Bible.  It is one thing to mimic culture to attract attention to you point, but it is a fairly worthless strategy is if there is no point behind the reference. I think that you can (and should) illustrate serious theological points via cultural artifacts (like poets, books, movies, etc.), but this can be very dangerous if it overwhelms the Scripture.

If the message of the Gospel is obscured by the using Fifty Shades of Grey as a sermon title, or by playing U2 songs during your worship, or hosting a Dancing with the Stars night at church, then you have missed Paul’s point in Acts 17.

            These responses are terse as well as comprehensive. Therefore, quoting unbelievers would neither affirm their reliability as divinely inspired nor undermine the reliability of the Bible. 

         

Endnotes:

¹https://carm.org/did-paul-quote-pagan-philosophers

²The same material is also found here: https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Titus_1.12_(2).php

³https://readingacts.com/2015/03/25/acts-1722-28-quoting-the-philosophers/

Websites last accessed on 29^th October 2019.

How To Answer Difficult Questions From The Bible?

          A few days ago, a prominent personality posted an apparent contradiction from the Bible on his social media page. He had thousands of ‘likes,’ hundreds of ‘comments’ and ‘shares.’

            This person did not discover a new contradiction from the Bible. He did not ask a question that had the potential to destroy Historic Christianity.

            He merely posted an asked and answered question/contradiction! He asked a question that many have asked before.

            Christian theologians and apologists have answered this apparent contradiction. Hence, there is no need for anyone to lose their faith in Historic Christianity because of this question or similar questions.

            The question he asked was answered decades ago:¹

GENESIS 1:14—HOW COULD THERE BE LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN WAS MADE?

PROBLEM: The sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there was light on the first day (1:3).

SOLUTION: The sun is not the only source of light in the universe. Further, the sun may have existed from the first day, but only appeared or became visible (as the mist cleared) on the fourth day. We see light on a cloudy day, even when we can’t see the sun.

This excerpt is from When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1992). © 2014 Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe.

            Now, this is what we need to understand.

            Had he genuinely sought an answer to this question as an honest seeker, a simple search on the internet would have yielded him the answer. But no! The actual reason that motivated him to ask this question was to plant seeds of doubts in the minds of naïve Christians.

            How do we respond to such tirades against Historic Christianity? When we encounter such rants against Historic Christianity, do remember that all these questions have been asked and answered reasonably well. So instead of being perplexed, all we need to do is to understand the dynamics of solving an apparent contradiction from the Bible.

            First, what is a Bible difficulty? “A Bible difficulty is an apparent problem posed by the biblical record. It might be called an error, a mistake, a difficulty, a challenge, a contradiction, or any number of other terms. Critics of the Bible are sometimes hostile in their claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions" or "difficulties," but these apparent problems are also brought up by committed Christians wanting to make sense of God's Word,”² says an article posted on the website of the ‘Focus on the Family’ ministry.  

            Second, how do we solve Bible difficulties? The same article says, “Essentially, handling Bible difficulties is a matter of hermeneutics or interpretation (specifically, biblical interpretation). But other factors also come into play when interpreting, such as looking for a reasonable explanation, carefully making comparisons to other passages when necessary, and in general puzzling through possible answers and satisfactory resolutions to apparent problems.

            Theologically liberal approaches to the Bible, on the other hand, often simply accept contradictions as part of a flawed record. But if the Bible is God's Word, and if God is all knowing and all powerful, it stands to reason we should be able to trust the Bible.”³

            This article offers useful tips to handle Bible difficulties:⁴

Here are some tips gleaned from the late Gleason Archer's fine book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties 1

"Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not found it yet." In other words, Archer is accepting the Bible as an accurate, authoritative collection of documents – God's inspired Word. Once a case has been made for this fact, then it stands to reason that the Bible should not contain any serious discrepancies in the manuscript copies. If you come across a Bible difficulty, there should be one or more reasonable explanations for it.

"Carefully study the context and framework of the verse in which the problem arises until you gain some idea of what the verse is intended to mean within its own setting." This is a key point of biblical hermeneutics – the science and art of interpreting the Bible. Context matters significantly. Keep in mind the context of a particular verse in a book, as well as the context given the broader teachings on the subject throughout the entire Bible.

"In the case of parallel passages, the only method that can be justified is harmonization." This helpful tip applies more to the four New Testament Gospels than anywhere else, though there certainly are parallel accounts of historical events in the Old Testament as well. There's no doubt that the Gospels contain various accounts from different perspectives, but these accounts should be able to be reconciled. Critics would not be happy if the four Gospels were identical in their reports of certain events, accusing the authors of collusion. Ironically, however, they aren't happy with the differences either. The best approach is to study the passages and find a way to harmonize them without compromising the essence of the text.

"Consult the best commentaries available, especially those written by Evangelical scholars who believe in the integrity of Scripture." A good commentary is a valuable resource. Many alleged Bible difficulties are addressed in such books. One helpful series is the Expositor's Bible Commentary(Zondervan). With the rise of Bible software, many commentaries are now included in these packages as well.

"Many Bible difficulties result from a minor error on the part of a copyist in the transmission of the text." This is an important point, especially when it comes to apparent numerical discrepancies. While Christians who adhere to inerrancy believe the original Bible manuscripts contained no errors whatsoever, they do grant that copies may contain a small number of errors. These errors or variants, however, do not change any key Christian doctrines.

"Whenever historical accounts of the Bible are called in question on the basis of alleged disagreement with the findings of archaeology or the testimony of ancient non-Hebrew documents, always remember that the Bible is itself an archaeological document of the highest caliber." Again and again throughout history, the archaeological evidence has supported the biblical record, not contradicted it. The evidence is clearly on the side of the Bible. Be wary of the latest news story claiming to debunk some key aspect of Christianity on the basis of recent findings that have yet to be studied in detail by qualified scholars. For more on the archeological evidence for the Bible see The Archaeological Study Bible (Zondervan).

In addition to Archer's helpful tips for handling Bible difficulties, When Critics Ask also offers its share of useful insights. Here's a selection of the advice: 2

"Mistake 1: Assuming that the Unexplained Is Not Explainable." This ties into Archer's advice "that an adequate explanation exists." Be confident that if you encounter a Bible difficulty, there is a reasonable explanation.

"Mistake 2: Presuming the Bible Guilty Until Proven Innocent." This is not treating the biblical text fairly. As with other historical documents, let's grant it the benefit of the doubt unless clear evidence says otherwise.

"Mistake 3: Confusing Our Fallible Interpretations with God's Infallible Revelation." Usually the problem with alleged Bible contradictions and difficulties is with our interpretation, theology, or approach to the text, not with the actual text itself. We make mistakes, but God doesn't.

"Mistake 4: Failing to Understand the Context of the Passage." Again, context is supremely important when handling Bible difficulties. In most cases, a careful reading of the passage(s) in question, in their proper contexts, will resolve apparent difficulties.

"Mistake 5: Neglecting to Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones." This is a key concept to keep in mind when approaching Bible difficulties that fall into the category of an obscure or particularly challenging passage. We may not be able to completely understand or explain the isolated passage in question, but given the broader context of the Bible and clear teachings on the subject elsewhere, we should be able to come to a good consensus on the matter at hand. A concept known as the perspicuity of Scripture is relevant in such cases. This means that the Bible is clear in essential matters.

            Finally, remember that every difficult question from the Bible has been reasonably answered, “Does the Bible contain some difficult passages? Yes. Are they unresolvable? No. Whenever a critic or sincere believer comes across an alleged Bible difficulty, it has always been answered. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness …" (1 Timothy 3:16, NIV)”⁵

Endnotes:

¹http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Genesis_1.14.php

²https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/how-do-i-handle-bible-difficulties

³Ibid.

⁴Ibid.

⁵Ibid.

Websites last accessed on August 21, 2018.

Exciting Archeological Discoveries Validating The Bible

            For the past 200 years the Bible has been tirelessly attacked on various fronts. One such attack has been on the historicity of the Bible – whether the Bible is historically accurate or not. 

            To begin with, the following is a listing of a few of the major archaeological discoveries (not in any particular order), validating biblical truths, over the past century.

Writings Before the Time of Moses

            Discoveries of a tablet containing Ugaritic alphabets, a pottery water pitcher inscribed with eleven archaic letters, and the code of Hammurabi at an ancient site at Susa (present day Iran) affirmed that the art of writing existed even before Moses’ time. Hence it is reasonable to assert the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, thereby negating ‘documentary hypothesis.’[1]

Discovery of Humanity of Genesis 1-11

            University of Birmingham archeologist Jeffrey Rose’s discovery of over sixty new archeological sites along the shoreline of the Persian Gulf are dated as older than 7,500 years. In 2006, archeologist Hans-Peter Uerpmann of the University of Tubingen in Germany uncovered the remains of three different settlements that date between 25,000 and 125,000 years old at the base of Jebel Faya in the United Arab Emirates. [2]

Discovery of Edom

            Edom, present day Southern Jordan, was the land inhabited by the descendants of Esau. Archeological discovery of a copper mine in Edom region dated to 10^th century BC enhances the credibility of the biblical account of Edom ruled by King David. [3]

Tel Dan Stela – The First Historical Evidence of King David Outside The Bible

            “The Tel Dan inscription, or “House of David” inscription, was discovered in 1993 at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel in an excavation directed by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran.” [4]

Burial Plaque of King Uzziah

            “His stone burial plaque has been discovered on the Mount of Olives, and it reads: “Here, the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah, were brought. Do not open.”” [5]

Existence of Hittites

            “A century ago the Hittites were unknown outside of the Old Testament, and critics claimed that they were a figment of biblical imagination. In 1906, however, archaeologists digging east of Ankara, Turkey, discovered the ruins of Hattusas, the ancient Hittite capital at what is today called Boghazkoy…” [6]

Discovery of Biblical Cities

            Jericho, Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, Jerusalem & Babylon have been discovered. Apart from these cities, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron (the five cities established by Phillistines; Israel’s enemy) have also been excavated. [7]

Walls of Jericho

            Of four prominent archaeologists who have excavated the Jericho site, Carl Watzinger, John Garstang, Kathleen Kenyon, and Bryant Wood, these are the words of Garstang who attests to the miraculous fall of this historical city, ““As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely, the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins of the city.” This is remarkable because when attacked city walls fall inward, not outward.”[8]

Siloam Pool of Jesus’ Time              

            “During construction work to repair a large water pipe south of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, at the southern end of the ridge known as the City of David, archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron identified two ancient stone steps. Further excavation revealed that they were part of a monumental pool from the Second Temple period, the period in which Jesus lived. The structure Reich and Shukron discovered was 225 feet long, with corners that are slightly greater than 90 degrees, indicating a trapezoidal shape, with the widening end oriented toward Tyropoeon valley. The Siloam Pool is adjacent to the area in the ancient City of David known as the King’s Garden and is just southeast of the remains of the fifth-century church and pool traditionally believed to be the sacred Christian site.”[9]

Lazarus’ Tomb

            Renowned Christian apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias said, “Some years ago, I was in Israel and visited the village of Bethany where Lazarus’ body once lay before Jesus raised him. A few months ago, I stood by the tomb of Lazarus in Larnaca, Cyprus, where he had become the bishop of the church. That tomb was excavated nearly one thousand years ago, and the simple inscription on the grave said, “Lazarus, Bishop of Larnaca—Four days dead, Friend of Jesus.”” (Emphasis Mine) [10]

Ossuary of High Priest Caiaphas

            “A dump truck accidentally smashed through the roof of a tomb in November, 1990, during some work in the Jerusalem Peace Forest, leading to the discovery of the ossuary which contained the bones of the High Priest in the time of Jesus… Two of a dozen ossuaries in the tomb contained a form of the name Qafa', or Caiaphas.” [11]

Inscriptional Evidence for Pontius Pilate   

            “…inscriptional evidence for Pilate was discovered in Italian excavations at Caesarea Maritima in 1961. Antonio Frova, director of the excavations, found a dedicatory stone that bore a three-line inscription: Tiberieum/[Pon]tius Pilatus/[Praef]ectus Iuda[eae], "Tiberius [the Roman emperor of the period]/Pontius Pilate/Prefect of Judea."”[12]

Crucified Man – Tomb of Yehohanan

            “…in 1968, archaeologist Vassilios Tzaferis excavated a Jerusalem tomb that contained the bones of a crucified man named Yehohanan…the discovery demonstrated the brutal reality of Roman crucifixion methods in a way that written accounts never had before.”[13]. This discovery negates those who disbelieve in Christ’s crucifixion.

            To think of the Bible as a pure religious document without any historic accuracy is to negate its divine inspiration and inerrancy. At the same time, we should be aware that the absence of evidence is not necessarily an evidence of absence. Hence, with the available archeological evidences, we could reasonably posit the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.   

Endnotes:

[1] https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=860

[2] http://www.reasons.org/articles/lost-civilization-beneath-the-persian-gulf-confirms-genesis-history-of-humanity

[3] http://www.reasons.org/articles/archeology-affirms-existence-of-edom

[4] http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/artifacts-and-the-bible/the-tel-dan-inscription-the-first-historical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/

[5] http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] https://www.probe.org/archaeology-and-the-old-testament/

[9] http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/the-siloam-pool-where-jesus-healed-the-blind-man/

[10] http://rzim.org/just-thinking/september-11-2001-was-god-present-or-absent

[11] http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm

[12] http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm

[13] http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/a-tomb-in-jerusalem-reveals-the-history-of-crucifixion-and-roman-crucifixion-methods/