Peter and Paul the apostles in their preachings borrow heavily from?

Answer 1

By 'borrowing' I presume this inquiry to be referring to introducing ideas, sayings and quotes from outside the Judaic tradition into New Testament scripture and theology. I think in your question, by using the word "heavily," you also imply to question whether such borrowing is appropriate for people who claim their inspiration comes from God?

I have not noticed heavy borrowing done by Peter, but other people might have. I have however noticed Paul frequently quoting, referring to and sometimes abusing sayings by 'pagan' philosophers and writers.

Sometimes this borrowing is acknowledged by Christian writers, as in the last paragraph from a Christian apologetics website: "Along with his rabbinic education, the Hillel school was noted for giving their students a balanced education, giving Paul broad exposure to classical literature, philosophy, and ethics. Paul, in his letters, borrowed heavily from his knowledge of Stoic philosophy, using Stoic terms and metaphors to assist his new Gentile converts in their understanding of the revealed word of God." (Italics mine) - http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/WallaceQ01.html

Whether Paul's use of heavy borrowing was always done in an ethical and honest manner is a different matter. One example of Paul abusing a saying by a 'pagan' writer to make it fit his own agenda can be found in his letter to Titus. Apparently Paul was having trouble with some converts in Crete who wanted to adhere to the Judaic tradition of circumcision and these had to be silenced. In Titus 1 he says the following:

10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach-and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13 This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. - Titus 1:10-14 (New International Version 1984)

To convince Titus of the need to "rebuke them sharply" Paul resorts to abusing the testimony of one of their fellow Cretans, namely the Cretan poet Epimenides as quoted in verse 12. Paul doesn't seem to realise the logical inconsistency of quoting a Cretan to confirm that "Cretans are always liars." For if, as Paul says, "this testimony is true," than Epimenides, being a Cretan, was necessarily lying when he said, "Cretans are always liars," thereby invalidating his own testimony. This is know as the Epimenides paradox. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox ). It is sometimes pointed out that Epimenides' statement itself is not a real "Liar paradox," but simply a false statement. However, Paul's statement, "This testimony is true," turns it into a real "Liar paradox." (For an explanation, see note 5 on this web page of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/insolubles/notes.html ).

Some apologetic writers excuse Paul's inconsistent logic by claiming that Epimenides was using the literary device of exaggeration known as a hyperbole and that Paul's quote was merely a commentary on the corruption of Cretan society as a whole, as is claimed on this website: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=809 (It may be of interest to you that this website page also mentions other writers that Paul quotes from, without Paul attributing the quotes, by the way.) Whatever you think of this excuse, I doubt that anyone nowadays could speak in terms that denounce a whole ethnic group as being all liars, thieves, lazy bums, adulterers, crooks, drunks or any other insulting label and get away with it by claiming that this is merely a hyperbole that is not meant to be taken literally as including every last member of that group. No doubt members of such ethnic group would still feel insulted and consider such a statement a blatantly racist generalisation.

Furthermore, that Paul was not justified in upholding this quote, becomes evident when we look at the context of the saying by Epimenides. Wikipedia provides the following historical context: "Epimenides was a 6th Century BC philosopher and religious prophet who, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one

The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!

But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,

For in thee we live and move and have our being.

- Epimenides, Cretica

Denying the immortality of Zeus, then, was the lie of the Cretans." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

Here we see that, worse than Paul using an hyperbole that generalises that "Cretans are always liars," he was giving false testimony by saying, "This testimony is true!" Paul holds up Epimenides as "their own prophet," but fails to mention that he was in fact a false prophet. For, the only reason Epimenides denounced his fellow Cretans as always being liars that is evident from the context is their denial of the immortality of Zeus. The Cretans, then, were more than five centuries ahead of Paul in denying this! Since Paul's mission was to expose the gods of the 'pagans' as false, he should have been fully in agreement with the Cretans in denying the immortality of Zeus and should have praised their foresight. He should have viewed the statement by Epimenides as false in the context in which it was given and Epimenides as a false prophet who was biased and wholly unsuitable for relying on to give a truthful commentary on the state of Cretan society as a whole. Moreover, Epimenides' statement was over five centuries out of date. So the whole basis for Paul using Epimenides as an authority to justify such a sweeping generalisation on contemporary Cretan society was missing.

Paul, as acknowledged in the New Testament and by Christian apologists, was educated in the classical literature. It is therefore doubtful that he would not have known the context of the statement he was quoting. Moreover, he claimed to be writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit. So, he was possibly deliberately deceitful in pursuing his religious agenda or at the least ignorant while presuming to be authoritative and under inspiration.

In Conclusion

Every reasoning person should ask themselves whether a person who is claimed to have written under God's inspiration would at the same time need to be heavily borrowing without attribution from 'pagan' philosophers and writers, and whether God would approve of him supporting false testimony to make it fit with his own religious agenda?

Paul himself said, "test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good." Did Paul pass his own test on this occasion? - 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (New Living Translation (©2007)

---

This article is also published on my blog: http://johannesverboom.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/apostle-paul-bearing-false-testimony-concerning-cretans-always-being-liars/