“Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”
For many lifelong students of Biblical literature (and those raised in the Christian church), this famous quote from Acts 26:14 reminds us of a truly miraculous and inspirational event from the writings of the New Testament. In the famous story from Acts, Paul (who was truly named Saul from birth) is on the way to Damascus to imprison (and stone to death) the first century followers of Jesus Christ (who is by definition a demigod, born of a human mother despite his father being God). During his search, Paul is miraculously blinded by a great light and hears the voice of Jesus himself, who is quoted to have made a famous statement saying:
"“Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
For many Christians, this is a beautiful and original story which retells Christ’s conversion of Paul, a man who was relentless in his attacks against the disciples of Jesus (Paul was previously known to arrest and even kill Jesus' followers by stoning). For others; however, instead of being considered an example of divine interaction between a demigod and mankind, this passage is considered a blatant act of mimesis. In other words, it is an intentional copy of earlier established secular writings. Specifically, the theme of Acts 26 directly copies a then-famous story of Dionysus from hundreds of years prior.
In about 410 BCE (464 years prior to Paul’s ministry beginning) a well-known writer named Euripides composed a story-turned-play called “The Bacchae” which detailed the struggle between the demigod Dionysus and his primary adversary, King Pentheus. In fact, by 405 BCE The Bacchae was so well received that it was first performed at the Theater of Dionysus in Athens, Greece.
It was in this famous play that Pentheus, King of Thebes, sought after the half-man, half-god named Dionysus (also called Bacchus) to have him arrested and stoned to death for his teachings and influence over the city of Thebes. After Pentheus arrests Dionysus and has him cast into prison (Dionysus gives himself over willingly), a mighty earthquake sent by God causes Dionysus’ chains to fall off, setting him free. According to the story, Dionysus chooses not to run; however, and soon thereafter miraculously reveals himself to Pentheus once again. As Pentheus begins to try and threaten the demigod with more chains, Dionysus famously replies:
“Better to yield him prayer and sacrifice, than kick against the pricks, since Dionyse Is God, and thou but mortal.”
Simply stated, this type of literary mimesis, or the intentional copying of the motifs and themes of earlier secular writings is found to be quite destructive to Bible literalists. In this one example alone it becomes clear that Paul not only used The Bacchae’s overall theme as a foundation for his own storytelling, but even quoted directly from Euripides - claiming instead it was a statement of Jesus Christ. I’m certain that anyone with a fundamental understanding of these two separate literary occurrences will see that there are many uncanny parallels that are difficult to justify.
Since we’re on the subject, to understand just how similar Jesus Christ and Dionysus truly were, I invite you to check out my written study HERE or view my 28 minute video study titled: Jesus is CLEARLY (an Archetype) Dionysus.
During the course of my research on the history and validity of the New Testament biblical texts, I ran into spheres of knowledge that I believe should give any hardcore Bible literalists pause. In fact, much of the evidence shown in this study is so well-established by historians that many Bible commentaries have been forced to admit these issues exist for a long time. But what about Paul himself? Does he imply that his inspiration comes from Greek and Roman philosophers or from God alone?
In the following passages from the New Testament Paul writes:
“But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12)
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:8-9) *Dionysus also revealed “The Godhead” bodily.
“Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (1 Corinthians 1:20)
“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-2)
From these statements of Paul’s own writings, most students and scholars would accept that Paul is claiming to have been instructed in the wisdom and mysteries of Christ through direct revelation from God alone. Paul claims, “For I neither received it of man.” Additionally, Paul states that the reader should be concerned that some would “spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,” however, we’ll soon demonstrate that Paul himself was clearly mimicking the philosophies and traditions of scholars before him. In the text from 1 Corinthians chapter 1, Paul says that God has “made foolish the wisdom of this world,” yet again, Paul himself continues to quote this “worldly wisdom” as a standard methodology through his works. Last, a full reading of 1 Corinthians chapter 2 paints a clear image to the reader that Paul’s inspiration and spiritual wisdom comes from “the spirit of God” and not the wisdom of men. Reading a bit further, verses 4-5 say:
“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5)
In the context and study of the evidence below, I believe we can easily demonstrate Paul’s mimetic connections and direct word-for-word copying of well-known prior philosophers. In fact, after a thorough review of the Hellenization of Jerusalem and a deep evaluation of earlier philosophical ideas (such as stoicism and platonism), one might become convinced that Paul based many or most of his doctrines on the "wisdom of men” and not novel ideas given by the “Spirit of God.”
Before I lay out 20 pieces of clear evidence for this hypothesis, it should be stated that there are at least a few primary issues associated with this conflict to include:
Many of Paul's doctrines were not new or fundamentally groundbreaking, being copied from earlier Greek stoics, Hellenistic influencers and platonic philosophers.
Most Christians and New Testament readers assume that Paul's writings were inspired by God (churches form doctrine and even “split” denominations on the basis of the details and inspiration of Paul’s writings).
Paul himself gives the impression that he was taught his doctrines by direct revelation from Jesus Christ himself and not the “vain wisdom of men.”
Paul never physically met Jesus or studied under him for any period of time.
13 of the 27 New Testament books are attributed to Paul, making almost half of the New Testament open to mimetic and figurative interpretation, instead of literal.
Certainly there are far more implications than only those listed above. These alone; however, demonstrate that whether or not Paul was truly inspired by God himself should be a very big deal to New Testament churches worldwide. It can’t be overstated enough that churches everywhere throughout history are adamantly attempting to apply these “Paulisms” to their primary doctrines - truly believing they were originally written by the hand of one of God’s most important teachers “by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Now that some of the contextual and historical groundwork for this study has been laid, let’s examine some of the evidence. We’ll start with Paul’s favorite inspiration, Plato, then move to Socrates, then Seneca the Younger and finally, I’ll end with a famous doctrine Paul borrowed from Aristotle himself.
Remember, there is quite a bit of scholarly debate surrounding the timing of the New Testament writings; however, the earliest dating for Paul's writings (suggested by some scholars) is mid-first century CE. This in many cases, is hundreds of years after the philosophers he mimics below.
Paul copying Plato (428-348 BCE)
#1 In 1 Corinthians 9:24:
Paul says, “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize?
Plato says, “But such as are true racers, arriving at the end, both receive the prizes and are crowned”
#2 In Romans 7:22-23:
Paul says, “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”
Plato says “There is a victory and defeat – the first and best of victories, the lowest and worst of defeats – which each man gains or sustains at the hands not of another, but of himself; this shows that there is a war against ourselves – going on in every individual of us.”
#3 In Philippians 3:19:
Paul says, “Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things“.
Plato gives a vivid description of those gluttonous and intemperate souls whose belly was their God, in Plato’s work called “the Republic."
#4 in Romans 8:5 and Galatians 6:8:
Paul says, “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;”
And Galatians 6:8:
Paul says, “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption”
Plato says “to be carnally-minded is death” in Phaedo ("On the Soul").
#5 In Philippians 1:21:
Paul says, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
Plato says, “Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain.”
#6 In 2 Timothy 4:6:
Paul says, “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. To be with Christ, which is far better.”
Plato quotes Socrates and says, “The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways, I to die and you to live. Which is better God only knows.
#7 In 1 Corinthians 13:12:
Paul says, “For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face.”
Plato says, I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existences through the medium of thought, sees them only “through a glass, darkly,” anymore than he who sees them in their working effects.
#8 In 1 Thessalonians 5:15:
Paul says, “See that none render evil for evil unto any man.”
Plato says, Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.
#9 In Ephesians 1:22-23:
Paul says, “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.”
Plato says “First, then, the gods, imitating the spherical shape of the universe, enclosed the two divine courses in a spherical body, that, namely, which we now term the head, being the most divine part of us and the lord of all that is in us; to this the gods, when they put together the body, gave all the other members to be servants.”
#10 In 1 Corinthians 9:16:
Paul says, “For necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!”
Plato says, “But necessity was laid upon me – the word of God I thought ought to be considered first.”
Paul Copying Socrates (470-399 BCE)
#11 In 1 Corinthians 8:2:
Paul says, “And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates says, “For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: “I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know.”
#12 In Romans 12:4:
Paul says, “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office“.
Socrates says “To begin with, our several natures are not all alike but different. One man is naturally fitted for one task, and another for another.”
#13 In 1 Corinthians 12:14-17:
Paul explains that “a body is not one single organ, but many. … Suppose the ear were to say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body’, it does still belong to the body. If the body were all eye, how could it hear? If the body were all ear, how could it smell? But, in fact, God appointed each limb and organ to its own place in the body, as he chose.”
Socrates asks Protagoras, “Is virtue a single whole, and are justice and self-control and holiness parts of it? … as the parts of a face are parts-mouth, nose, eyes and ears.” Socrates then probes into the metaphor further by asking Protagoras if they agree that each part serves a different purpose, just as the features of a face do, and the parts make the whole, but each serves a different purpose–“the eye is not like the ear nor has it the same function.”
#14 In 1 Corinthians 12:25:
Paul says “That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.”
Socrates says, that the best-governed city is one “whose state is most like that of an individual man. For example, if the finger of one of us is wounded, the entire community of bodily connections stretching to the soul for ‘integration’ with the dominant part is made aware, and all of it feels the pain as a whole”
Paul Copying Seneca the Younger (4 BCE-65 CE)
First, you should take notice that Acts 17:24-29 here below is broken into 5 parts, since the words of Paul in this section can be attributed to Seneca the Younger in at least 5 distinct ways.
In Acts 17:18 Paul is encountered by Epicureans and Stoics. Paul’s first sentence struck directly at the “Epicurean” theory. His speech is made up of words quoted from a Roman Stoic Philosopher called Lucius Annaeus Seneca as mentioned below.
#15 In Acts 17:24:
Paul went on to say, “God dwelleth not in temples made with hands.”
Seneca, the most prominent contemporary representative of Stoicism, had put his doctrine into these words, “The whole world is the temple of the immortal gods,” and “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high. He must be consecrated in the heart of every man.”
#16 In Acts 17:25:
Paul said, “Neither is God served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.”
Seneca put the same truth in this form: “God wants not ministers. How so? He himself ministereth to the human race.”
#17 In Acts 17:26-28:
Paul said, “God made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth.”
Seneca agrees, “We are members of a vast body. Nature made us kin, when she produced us from the same things and to the same ends.”
#18 In Acts 17:27-28:
Paul said, “God is not far from each one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being.”
Seneca wrote, “God is at hand everywhere and to all men.” and again, “God is near thee ; he is with thee ; he is within.”
#19 In Acts 17:29:
Then Paul proceeded, “Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think the godhead is like unto gold or silver or stone, graven by art or device of men.”
In Seneca’s The Epistles of Moral Life, he parallels the thought again: “Thou shalt not form him of silver and gold: a true likeness of God cannot be molded of this material.”
Paul Copying Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
#20 In Galatians 5:23 and Romans 2:14:
Paul says, "Against such there is no law."
and
In Romans 2:14 Paul says, “they are a law unto themselves.”
In Aristotle’s Politics Book 3 - Paul’s words are eerily familiar to Aristotle‘s saying of men eminent for wisdom and virtue, “Against such there is no law, for they themselves are a law,”
Conclusion
It is at this point that I must remind the reader of the "issues" mentioned earlier, namely that:
Many of Paul's doctrines were not new or fundamentally groundbreaking, being copied from earlier Greek stoics, Hellenistic influencers and platonic philosophers.
Most Christians and New Testament readers assume that Paul's writings were inspired by God (churches form doctrine and even “split” denominations on the basis of the details and inspiration of Paul’s writings).
Paul himself gives the impression that he was taught his doctrines by direct revelation from Jesus Christ himself and not the “vain wisdom of men.”
Paul never physically met Jesus or studied under him for any period of time.
13 of the 27 New Testament books are attributed to Paul, making almost half of the New Testament open to mimetic and figurative interpretation, instead of literal.
In his writings, Paul claimed he gleaned his powerful doctrines from a vision of Jesus Christ personally; however, it seems more likely he was influence by the writers of his own period and the periods hundreds of years prior. Based on the fact that Paul himself admitted to being a Roman-born citizen and Pharisee who spent much of his time in Greece (Hellenized Jew), is it possible that he was simply formulating his own doctrine (and stories of Jesus, since he directly copied Euripides) to grow his own cult following? Could he have based his writings on previously well-known and pre-existing Greco-Roman beliefs to make "his gospel" more palatable to the "gentiles" he claimed to pursue?
In my hypothesis, the information contained in this study is additional proof that Paul's character and writings were designed to help the "Greek-minded Jews" develop Christianity in it's early forms with familiar tales of a stoic Jesus with philosophical ideas that would have made the Greek philosophers into partial prophets led by the Spirit of God. To better understand this hypothesis, a deep understanding of Christianity and it's Hellenistic philosophy must be held in view.
In conclusion, it is my belief that Paul was simply doing what many "philosopher wanna-be's" did during that time. Developing his own Greco-Roman doctrines, Paul traveled around preaching his ideas and writing letters to establish his own following. Paul was seeking to become an "influencer" of his own time, a common endeavor of the period. These practices were widespread during this period, and so was copying other people's work.
If God had a "new message to give to Paul and his gentile (Greek) followers," Why didn't God give Paul new ideas instead of God/Paul copying Plato? Personally, Paul's mimesis combined with the contextual evidence of fiery 1st century philosophical competition makes the meaning behind Paul calling his work "my gospel" even more clear. Just some food for thought.
Justin
Watch and listen to this study on YouTube: