Bell 1

Thesis Scholars have assumed The Gospel of John to have been heavily influenced by the Hellenistic worldview popular at the time in which it was written. However, over the last several years this assumption has come under review. There are commentators who say that this document is now viewed as heavily dependent on the Palestinian Judaism of Jesus day.1 This paper will demonstrate that the The Gospel of John is a Jewish document that uses Greek words and concepts, to establish a conceptual bridge. The writer wishes to present Christ in a compelling way, hoping to evangelize those familiar with both Hellenistic and Jewish thought. In other words, this Gospel contextualizes the writers message in order to connect the message to his contemporary readers. Overview Craig Blomberg points out that the Greco-Roman world in the age of Jesus Christ was in a substantial religious flux.2 Much of what was taking place was a mixture and combination of beliefs and behaviors that created a pluralism often intolerant only of a narrow, exclusive religion such as Judaism or Christianity.3 While the age of Jesus Christ and thus the era in which John records his Gospel was certainly a era of change, it had not changed overnight at least in Palestine. During the five centuries prior to the writing of The Gospel of John, what Bible scholars refer to as the intertestamental period, a series of foreign rulers dominated the Jewish life and culture. In 331 B.C., Alexander the Great4 introduced Greek language and Greek understanding throughout the
1 Gary M. Burge, John: The NIV Application Commentary. 1st ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000), 25 2 2 Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 28. 3 3 Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 28. 4 4 Ibid., 11.
1

Bell 2

near east, creating the platform for what would be come to known as the Hellenistic period. Other Greek-speaking leaders followed Alexander until 63 years before the birth of Christ when Rome5 took control of Palestine and the surrounding area. Although Blomberg makes the point that belief in Greek mythology was declining in the era of Jesus Christ, he goes on to say that the majority of Greeks and Romans probably still gave it their lip service.6 Certainly, by the time of the writing Johns Gospel, the inhabitants of Palestine not only spoke Greek, but had been heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture. James Sheil wrote, The Jewish scene in which the preaching Jesus made his appearance had undergone Greek influence.7 Sheil claims that this influence impacted Jewish culture not only where the synagogues was concerned (where the Scriptures were read and taught in Greek, afterall) but goes onto explain that part of the Septuagint Bible was translated by Hellenized Jews and show that that Hellenic influence.8 At the core of Jewish life in the first century A.D. one sees at the very least a Hellenistic thumb print on the Jewish mind. Modern discoveries of ancient Graeco-Roman ruins in Palestine and throughout the empire, reveals Hellenistic influence in architecture and sculpture. This is evidence how Hellenised that part of the word was, especially in the second century before Christ.9 This evidence suggests the reasoning of the early Church writers opinions of Greek influence upon The New Testament. Not only have many scholars long believed that the Gospel of John was influenced by Hellenistic thought (although being essentially a Jewish document)
5 Ibid., 19. 6 6 Ibid, 29. 7 7 Shiel, James, Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity. (London and Harlow: Longmans Green and Co. Ltd., 1968), 63. 8 8 Shiel, Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity, 63. 9 9 Frederick Grant, Roman Hellenism and The New Testament. (Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., 1962), 114.
5

Bell 3

the Church fathers became accustomed to viewing this as part of divine preparation for the Gospel, for the coming of Christ and the spread of Christianity.10 The evidence seems to support that those who lived in Palestine during the life of Christ and those who would have read the Fourth Gospel would have been familiar and influenced by Hellenistic thought. However, there are those who disagree. Mark Hamilton served as the General Editor of a commentary11 that states, Traditionally, scholars have sought the background of Johns thought in Hellenistic (or Greek) philosophy and religions, so much so that John was even deemed the gospel of the Hellenists. But that view has shifted, and with good reason. In many ways it can be said that John is indeed the most Jewish of all the gospels. It seems that there are two sides, one being the Hellenists and the other being Jewish, drawing a line in the sand and suggesting that it must be either Jewish or Hellenistic. However, it is unwise to draw that line tightly. The Gospel of John is essentially a Jewish text. Nonetheless, it that was influenced by Hellenistic thought for the purpose of communicating the Gospel to Greek-speaking people, including Hellenistic Jews.

Critical Review William Barclay wrote: To some men religion is the highest satisfaction of their minds. Their minds seek and seek until they find that they can rest in God. It was Plato who said that the unexamined life is the life not worth living. There are some men who must understand or perish. On the whole that is what religion was to John. The first chapter of
10 Grant, Roman Hellenism and The New Testament, 114. 11 1 Mark Hamilton, et al., eds.. The Transforming Word: A One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. (Abilene, Tex.: Abilene Christian University Press, 2009), 826.
1

Bell 4

his gospel is one of the greatest attempts in the world to state religion in a way that really satisfies the mind.12 The first Chapter of John contains as part of its prologue a masterful set of words that have been endlessly debated.13 The debate on the subject of the Prologue is too large fully discuss in a complete way in this short essay. However, most notably discussed is the word Word or logos as to whether this is a Jewish or Hellenistic term. One can see

the position of Barclay when he writes about two Greek conceptions which he lists as 1) Logos as being reason as opposed to Jewish logos meaning of the all powerful word of God. And the other Greek concept being the conception of two worlds where the Greek always conceived of two worlds, the one was the world in which we live. It was a wonderful world in its way but a world of shadows and copies and unrealities. The other was the real world, in which the great realities, of which our earthly things are only poor, pale copies, stand for ever. To the Greek the unseen world was the real one; the seen world was only shadowy unreality.14 Barclay explains that to an educated Greek of the first century, logos was a familiar concept something akin to mind of God, or at least a divine blueprint responsible for the majestic order of the world. He also adds that asking a Greek the question, Who gives man the ability to reason?, he would answer, The Logos. Therefore, Barclay asserted John was expressing in this messianic Jewish document something important about the Life of Christ telling us how he thought of Jesus. Therefore, he said to those with influenced by Hellenic thought, All your lives you have been fascinated by this great guiding, controlling mind of God. The mind of God has
12 William Barclay, The Letter To The Hebrews, Revised Edition The Daily Study Bible Series, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 1. 13 1 Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 162. 14 1 William Barclay, The Gospel of John: Volume 1 The Daily Study Bible Series, (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1975), 7-9.
1

Bell 5

come to earth in the man Jesus. Look at him and you see what the mind and thought of God are like. And, Barclay continues John had discovered a new category in which the Greek might think of Jesus, a category in which Jesus was presented as nothing less than God acting in the form of a man. On one hand, Barclays position that Johns gospel was influenced by Hellenic thought. On the other hand, he believes that John affirms the Jewish thought of the messianic redeemer being truly man. The question must be asked about how far one takes the argument that the Gospel writer was influenced by Hellenistic thought? As Gary Borchet writes in his commentary, a similar use of words and motifs is found in both Philo and John, and the use of logos is striking, but to posit dependence of John on Philo seems to be carrying the argument much too far.15 Maximos Aghiorgoussis answers the question by writing, This rich logos doctrine has certainly played a role in the life of the Church, since many of the Greek Fathers used much of this doctrine after making the proper adjustments.16 One such adjustment to the Hellenic thought of logos is the idea that the logos is impersonal. Sarah Hinlicky Wilson suggests that Plato had it wrong by contrasting Hellenistic thought and words of John 1:14. Wilson describes the Hellenic position The Logos would never, ever saddle itself with a distracting, misleading body.17 John writes, And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. John MacArthur writes, Jesus was not an impersonal source, force, principle, or emanation. In Him, the true logos who was God became a man.18

15 Gerald L. Borchert, The New American Commentary Volume 25A John III ([Nashville]: Holman Reference, 1996), 7475. 16 1 Maximos Aghiorgoussis, "The Word of God in Orthodox Christianity." Greek Orthodox Theological Review 31, no. 1-2 (March 1, 1986): 79-103. 17 1 Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, "Plato was wrong." Christian Century 121, no. 26 (December 28, 2004): 16-318. 18 1 John MacArthur, John 111: New Testament Commentary - MacArthur New Testament Commentary Series. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006), 1:1-1.
1

Bell 6

The best resolve to the debate of this subject is to state the high probability that John contextualized the familiar concept of logos against the backdrop of a Hellenized Jewish culture. In doing so, he presents the Life of Christ in a manner that presents the long awaited hope of Jewish belief in Gods redemption of man but in a manner that gripped the Hellenic mind of the reader in his own day. Blomberg offers, John may well be exploiting this diverse background to stress that Jesus is the way in which the true, living God reveals himself and communicates with his people.19 Thomas Tombin wrote, Both [Philo and St. John] were making use of similar structures of thought and were expressing those structures through the use of similar vocabulary, even though the results were very different.20 The result, again, is presenting The Logos as incarnate and present and not as just an impersonal force in the cosmos. In doing so, John presents a document that yet ultimately can be understood only on its own terms, on the terms of the Christian gospel that it proclaimed.21

Conclusion The The Gospel of John is a Jewish document that presents Christ to a Jewish culture influenced by the Hellenistic culture of its day. In so doing, John offers a document that is in a league of its own. It was the Word of God that spoke in a relevant manner of its day. Today, it is still the Word of God and presents Christ in a manner that can produce faith in the heart and mind of one who has ears to hear. Bibliograpy
19 Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 162. 20 2 Thomas Tobin, "The prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish speculation." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 2 (April 1, 1990): 252-269. 21 2 Aghiorgoussis, "The Word of God in Orthodox Christianity." 79-103.
1

Bell 7

Aghiorgoussis, Maximos. "The Word of God in Orthodox Christianity." Greek Orthodox Theological Review 31, no. 1-2 (March 1, 1986): 79-103. Barclay, William. The Letter To The Hebrews, Revised Edition - The Daily Study Bible Series. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976. Barclay, William. The Gospel of John: Volume 1 - The Daily Study Bible Series. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1975. Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997. Borchert, Gerald L. The New American Commentary Volume 25A - John I-II. [Nashville]: Holman Reference, 1996. Burge, Gary M. John: The NIV Application Commentary. 1ST ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000. Grant, Frederick C. Roman Hellenism and The New Testament. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., 1962 Hamilton, Mark, et al., eds.. The Transforming Word: A One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Abilene, Tex.: Abilene Christian University Press, 2009. MacArthur, John. John 1-11: New Testament Commentary (MacArthur New Testament Commentary Series). Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006. Shiel, James. Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity. London and Harlow: Longmans Green and Co. Ltd., 1968 Tobin, Thomas H. "The prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish speculation." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 2 (April 1, 1990): 252-269. Wilson, Sarah Hinlicky. "Plato was wrong." Christian Century 121, no. 26 (December 28, 2004): 16-318.