Plato Stole his ideas from Moses: True or False
Describe and critically evaluate the theses that the main teachings of the philosophies of the Greeks were taken from Moses and the prophets as presented by Justin Martyr
Outline
Introduction
Justin martyr and text, language and context
Justin martyr and the Apology I
Justin Martyr and the Plato quote
"Aitia elomenou. Theos anaitios"
The quote in the Apology
The importance of the quote
The quote in Plato
Its grammatical sense
Its literary context
Its historical context
Its possible connection with Hebrew
The quote in Moses
The belief that the philosophers of Greece, including Plato and Aristotle, plagiarized certain of their teaching from Moses and the Hebrew prophets is an argument used by Christian Apologists of Gentile background who lived in the first four centuries of Christians. Three key figures who presented this theses are Justin Martyr “The most important second-century apologist” (50, Grant 1973), Titus Flavius Clemens known as Clement of Alexandria “the illustrious head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of the second century, was originally a pagan philosopher” (11, Robert 1857) and is renowned as being possibly the teacher of Origen. He was born either in Alexandria or Athens (Epiphs Haer, xxii.6). Our final giant who supports this thesis is Eusebius of Caeserea known as the father of Church history. Each of these in their defense of the Christian faith presented some form of the thesis that the philosophers of Greece learned from the prophets of Israel. Our interest in this paper is on the arguments of the earliest of these writers, Justin Martyr. He represents the position of Christian apology in the middle of the second century, as opposed to the later Clement of Alexandria and the even later Eusebius of Ceaserea.
In light of the stature and the credibility of these three Church Fathers even if the idea that Plato learned from Moses seems far fetched we would do well to take a closer look at the argument and the evidence present by such men of stature. Justin was a philosopher who came from a pagan background. He issued from Shechem in Palestine. He was a marvelous scholar in his own right well read and well qualified to make informed judgments in the arena of philosophy.
Our purpose is to briefly look at the theses presented by Justin Martyr and to try to discern the plausibility of the thesis.
Justin Martyr and the line Plato took from Moses.
Justin Martyr was a prolific second century Apologist. He was born in Flavia Napolis (Shechem) in Samaria. Well known for the local Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim and a temple built by Hadrian to Zeus Hypsistos. He later passed through Stoicism and the way of Aristotles' disciples the Peripatetics and was rejected as unqualified to study Pythagoreanism and finally he met a Platonist with whom he advanced in his studies. To him the goal of Platonism was “the vision of God”. One day he met a Christian on the beach and was converted to the faith. He did not become a priest or bishop but took to teaching and defending the faith.
Text
He wrote many works and many more bear his name. However modern scholarship has judged that of the many works that bear his name only three are considered genuine. These are 2 Apologies and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. They are preserved in one manuscript of the year 1364 (Cod Par. gr. 450).
Language
Justin wrote in Greek, and right in the middle of the period of philosophy called Middle Platonism. The book in which he outlines his thesis that Moses and the prophets were a source for the Greek Philosophers is his first Apology. It is dated to 155-157 BC and was addressed to “The Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antonius Pius Caeser Augustus, and the sons Verissimus, philosopher, philosopher, and Lucius” Grant (52, 1973).
Context
Grant (1973) believes the reason which triggered the Apology was the martyrdom of Polycarp in 156 AD and the injustice of it during the bishopric of Anicetus. Even as this martyrdom and its report may have spurred Justin on to write so it had been that it was on seeing the fortitude of the Christian martyrs which had disposed him favorably towards the faith(Ap 2.12.1). So Justin writes to protest the unjust persecution and to defend the faith. He wrote in order that by warning the leaders of his day their blood would be on their own heads on judgment day. Grant (1974) hypothesizes that Justin’s emphasis on judgment by fire in the Apology is a reflection of the fact that he is writing in reaction to the burning of Polycarp by fire in his martyrdom. It is noted that 20 times in the Apology it is emphasized that the judgment will be by fire.
In the Apology 1 Justin gives the reason for his writing
I , Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, my self being one of them” (Apology 1 chap). The Apology 1 is divided into 60 chapters. The translation we are using is that of the Ante Nicene Fathers and can be seen at www.ccel.org. The topics covered are many. He starts in chapter 2 by demanding justice, he requires that before the Christians are condemned they should be given a fair trial to see if they have committed any crimes or not. They should not be condemned merely for being Christian. He covers many subjects including: the accusation Christian were Atheists, faith in God; the Kingdom of Christ; God’s service; demonic teachings; Christ's teachings and heathen analogies to it; non Christian worship; magic; exposing children, the Hebrew prophets and their prophecies about Christ, types of prophetic words from the Father, the Son of the Holy Spirit. This brings us to about chapter 38. At this point Justin begins to cover the issue of determinism and free will. He argues that although the future was prophesied it does not mean every thing is determined according to fate and man has no responsibility for he has no choice. Rather he points to Moses revealing God’s choice to Adam “Behold before thy face are good and evil: choose the good.”(Apol 1 44) And he quotes Isaiah’s appeal to Israel to wash and be clean and the consequences of doing so or not doing so. The consequences of disobedience are that the sword would devour Israel. Justin picks up on the statement regarding the sword and argues that it is not a literal sword which is referred to but “the sword of God is a fire, of which those who choose to do wickedly will become the fuel” (Apol 1 44). Justin having appealed to Moses and Isaiah as a warning to the Roman rulers now appeals to one with whom they are more familiar, Plato the philosopher, to support his case that man is free to choose good or evil. It is here that Justin makes a most interesting and intriguing statement, rallying Plato to the side of Moses and Isaiah, in the eyes of the son of the Emperor whom he calls philosophers.
And so, too, Plato, when he says, "The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it.
For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when they assert contradictories
Ooste, kai Platoon eipoon' Aitia helomeenou, Theos d'anaitios, para Moseoos tou propheetou laboon eipe. Presbuteros gar Moosees kai pantoon ton en Hlleesi suggrapheoon. Kai panta hosa pari athanasias psuchees hee timoorioon toon meta thanaton hee theoorias ouranioon hee toon homoioontas aphorma labontes kai noeesai dedunentai kai exegeesanto. "othen para spermata aleetheias dochei einai elegchontaide mee achriboos noeesantes, hotan enantiaautoi heautois legoosin
He appears to be making the claim that Plato who has “exerted a greater influence over human thought than any other individual with the possible exception of Aristotle’ (Demos, 1927.vi) was dependent for his understanding of freewill and responsibility on Moses. The saying “the blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless ( Aitia helomenou Theos d' anaios (Joann. Mdcccxlii,224)” was taken from Moses by Plato and uttered it (eipe)”
The form of the verb eipe is the third person singular indicative from eipon and is connected to Legoo. This verb can mean many things including, to lay, to arrange, to gather or to say (Anal, 247). The key usage we are interested in is "to say in written language (Anal., 247)", which is clearly what Justin must be indicating by "Plato took this from Moses and uttered it". It is necessary then for us to investigate this saying in Plato.
The Myth of Er
Justin is quoting from Plato's The Republic book 10. It is the very last section of the Republic where Socrates is relating to Glaucon a story about the fate of souls after death. The story is known as the myth of Er. A description is given of a man called Er son of Armenius from Pamphylia and his journey into the realm of the dead. In his journey he was shown how souls were judged, how they had to pay back 10 fold for all that they did on earth. Halliwell introduces the myth.
The myth of Er belongs to a great 'family' of Platonic eschatological visions, whose other members are the myths found in the Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus…Few will dispute that the interpretation of all these passages must take as primary frame of reference Plato's own attitudes to myth …Yet the myth of Er contains as especial number of elements- starting with Er's name itself- which stimulated inquiries into Plato's sources" (Halliwell 1988,169)
"the rewards and punishments experienced during human life cannot compare with those which await us after death. Socates explains the nature of these by relating the story of Er, a pamphylian soldier who returned to life and told of what his soul had witnessed in the other world" (Halliwell 1988, 169)
Having seen many Er comes to the place where the souls were permitted to choose their next life on earth. This process was overseen by ones who were called the three daughters of Necessity (Thugateras tees Anagkees), being Lachesis, Clotho and Atropos who can be seen in the writings of Hesiod and Pindar. They were first named by Hesiod (Ferguson,118). They were singing in tune with a Siren which was making a single sound. Lachesis sung of the past, Clotho of the present and Atropos of the future. Our main interest is in Lachesis as it is her words which Justin quotes. She is called the Disposer of Lots or She who allots. Her name can also be a appellative for lot or destiny as in Herodotus (LS 1978, 466). Lachesis sang of the past and when it was time for souls to choose their next life on earth, they would be lined up by a prophet to appear before Lachesis. They could choose their life in order of the lots they received. They would each choose a daimon to go through their life with them. A daimon is sometimes synonymous with a god as in Homer, but sometimes considered inferior as in Hesiod where it is between God and man. In the myth of Er they are attendant (Ferguson, 120) or guardian spirits. We will let Socrates relate the rest of this event:
From the lap of Lachesis he (the prophet) took numbers for drawing lots and patterns of lives. Ascending a high platform (beema), he began to speak
The word of the maiden Lachesis, daughter of Necessity. Souls, creature of the day, here begins another cycles of mortal life and death it brings. Your guardian spirit will not be given to you by lot. You will choose a guardian spirit for yourselves. Let the one who draws the first lot be the first to choose a life. He will then be joined to it by Necessisity. Virtue knows no master. Your respect or contempt for it will give each of you greater or smaller share.
The choice makes you responsible. God is not responsible" -Aitia elomenou. Theos anaitios (italics mine).
It is the last four words spoken by the propheeteen as the word of Lachesis, which Justin Martyr quotes to indicate Plato took them from Moses and uttered (eipe) them.
These then are the four words under investigation. Although we are interested in the general idea of the Greeks borrowing ideas from Hebrew Monotheists who were taught by Moses, this is more than our present aim. Our present aim is to see how plausible it is to consider that these four words were some how taken from Moses, by Plato and written in the Republic.
Text
It should not escape our attention that what we have in Justin Martyr is slightly different from what is in our text from Plato. Our Greek text of Plato is from James Adam The Republic of Plato, Cambridge University Press. And the reading is:
"Aitia elomenou. Theos anaitios." Where as our recension in Justin is from S. Justini Philosophi et Martyris OPERA Recensuit Prolegomenis adnotatione ac versione instruxit of Joann. Carol. Theod. Otto mdcccxlii. Here the reading is :
"Aitia elomenou. Theos d' anaitios"
This should not surprise for this saying was cited repeatedly after it was written by Plato and is considered a very important part of his thought. When Justin quoted it, he knew that he was not citing an obscure saying of Plato but a very popular one. The saying was handed down in a number of recensions which could indicate that at its root it was translated from another language. It was considered very important and so many Greek writers used it.
The next stage of our investigation needs to assess Justin's claim that these four words came from Moses to Plato. For me the most important thought to establish is the link between Theos and Anaitios. For Plato to have taken these two words together from Moses that would have to occur some where in the Greek translations of Moses writings. Our problem is more difficult than this, however. Most of the literary evidence we have point to the first Greek translation of the Torah into Greek taking place in the 3rd century BCE, with the LXX in Alexandria. This is first mentions in Philocrates, Letter to Aristeas. How then would Plato have obtained a Greek edition of Moses before one existed. This argument militates very strongly against Justin charge being literally true. A weaker case, but nevertheless relevant is the idea that if Justin made this assertion the first century AD, he must have had available to him copies of the Greek Torah which he could point to that would express the words Aitia elomenou. Theos d' anaitios. If we look though Hatch and Redpath's Concordance to the Septuagint we find that anaitios is used about four times. It generally refers to innocent blood. The places are Deu 19:10, 13 and 21:8 and 9. The Hebrew words it is a translation for is naqi. In other Greek translation from that period the word is used about 12 times and in no case is it used with Theos. The word comes up twice in the New Testament (Matt 12:5,7) and is referred to the priests and the disciples of Jesus, not to Theos. All this evidence seems to stand against Justins theses although all the evidence we are looking at actually post dates Plato and so could be argued to be too late to have a definitive say in our evaluation of his case.
For Justin's statement to be literally true we would need a pre LXX translation of the Torah into Greek. And to have these four words as part of that text and finally to show how Plato was dependent on that text. Without this evidence being forth coming it would be extremely difficult to establish any dependence and Justin's statement would need to remain open until more evidence came forth.
Do we have evidence of a pre LXX Greek translation of the Torah? We do have literary evidence for this idea. Aristbolus of Paneas a Jewish forerunner of Justin, in this idea that Plato "borrowed" from Moses asserts that parts of the Pentateuch were translated into Greek before the Septuagint. He further asserts that these portions reached Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato and formed the basis of their philosophical teaching (Encyc Jud Vol 3,444). Aristobulos is cited by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. He is believed to be an Aristotleian but from the quotes it is clear he was influenced by Platonism also (Ency Jud Vol 3,443. He was an Alexandrian philosopher and a predecessor to Philo. He lived some time in the 3rd or 2nd century BC. He is not the only literary evidence for a pre LXX Greek translation of the LXX. The "Letter of Aristeas" asserts the same thing (J.E. p98).
This brings us closer to the plausibility of Plato getting these words from Moses but not to any clear evidence of dependence. Justin and his Jewish predecessors are not the only groups who considered Moses and Plato connected. Numenius a pagan philosophers has stated "For what is Plato but Moses speaking in Attic?" (Stern 1985, 209)
Clearly then we have some literary evidence which indicates dependence. But it is all later than Plato and so we can not come to certainty on the issue.
To ascertain further if it is possible that the words of the prophet of Lachesis are actually words of the prophet Moses we would need to look at the myth of Er and see if there are perhaps any clues of Hebrew sources and influences on the myth.
Justin makes a number of assertions then in this appeal. He appears to be making the claim that Plato who has “exerted a greater influence over human thought than any other individual with the possible exception of Aristotle’ (vi Demos 1927) was dependent for his understanding of freewill and responsibility on Moses. The saying “the blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless” was taken from Moses by Plato and uttered it” This statement raises a number of critical questions: For example; what does Justin mean by “took”? What exactly did Plato take' was it the saying or the idea? The fact that Justin uses the term ‘uttered it” would seem to suggest it is the words themselves that were taken and uttered. However number of points militate against this position. In all the writings of Moses we do not have such a saying. Secondly Moses wrote in Hebrew and we have no record that Plato understood Hebrew. In the development of his case Justin refers more to ideas than to words. This would suggest that Justin had idea in mind when he was speaking.
His lead in quotes from Moses lay down general principles of free will and judgment for wrong doing. He wants to say that man his responsible for his action and judged by God who although he prophesied the action is blameless. So Justin believes Plato took the idea of the blamelessness of God and the responsibility of man from Moses.
Another critical problem is the question when did Plato get the chance to access Moses? It almost goes without saying that Justin knows Plato did not read Hebrew, but is it possible that he made a mistake and thought that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek in time for Plato to have access to the ideas of Moses. This is plausible because Justin thought Herod the Great was king at the time Ptolemy (58, Grant 1974). To show that Plato had a dependency on Moses Justin goes on to explain that Moses was before all the Greek writers, which is a fact. And on the subject of immortality, punishments, after death and thinking on heavenly things, because they were later they “have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things” .
Justin Martyrs Case
1 The first thing Justin asserts is that Plato took the saying
"The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless" from Moses.
Our task would be to firstly understand what he means by took and uttered and then to look into Moses writings to see if the words are their. We would need to understand how Plato got access to Moses writings or ideas and to see if then it is a plausible position.
The reason given for Plato taking the idea that man is responsible for his actions and God is blameless, from Moses is that Moses is older than all the Greek writers. Justin assumes here that because in his understanding Moses and Plato both taught the responsibility of man and the blamelessness of God, the older authority was a source for the younger.
Clearly this is possible if we notice that Greece and Israel have contacts with each other going back even as early as the middle bronze age. Many scholars believe the Philistines, who are described as Sea Peoples by the Egyptians and had much interaction with Israel, were Greek. Another possibility supporting this position is the fact that Moses came from Egypt and Plato visited Egypt, before he wrote his Republic, which Justin is quoting. It is possible that both Plato and Moses gained their ideas from a common source, the traditions in Egypt. Although they were in Egypt at very different time, the continuity of these ideas is a possibility. A third context which could lead to the plausibility of Justin's assertion is that Greece and Israel or the Levant had strong trading relations in the time of Josiah that is around 627 BC. This is 300 years before Plato and trade was one of the key ways religious ideas spread from one community to another. It is clear that both the Prophet Ezekiel, the Prophet Daniel and the prophet Zechariah had some connection with Greece and the Greek islands. This interaction would clearly be two ways, with information about Israel and its life including religious faith flowing to Greece and vise versa. In this way Moses ideas could have been in the academic and culturally arena of Plato's education, even ignoring his trip to Egypt during the Persian period. Any nation having extensive trading connection with Israel or the Kingdom of Judah would all things being equal, hear of the basic Jewish beliefs and the sources of them even Moses.
Some scholars believe that much of the Pentateuch was written by Moses. Jewish tradition of the years before Plato also held to this position. Two of the Biblical texts we have regarding Javan, the Hebrew term for Greece and her islands is written in the Pentateuch.
Javan
The Hebrew designation for the Greek is Yavan. This consists of yod-vav-nun. These three letters are connected to I-O-N as in Ionians, one of the Greek peoples of Asia Minor. Yod-vav-nun can be transliterated as Ion as easily as to Yavan. The first mention of the family of the Greeks in this way is in Genesis 10 in the table of the nations.
The sons of Japheth: Gomer and Magog, and Madai, and Javan and Tubal, and Meshech and Tiras. (Gen 10:2-4)
This shows us that the worlds of Greece and Israel were not so distant. The characteristics of Greeks inhabiting coastlands and islands is also know by the author of Genesis, showing that their was some clear connections in the days before Plato:
And the sons of Javan (Greece); Elishah and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations
We see then the Hebrew writer and a very clear understanding of the places where the Greeks lived and so there was very likely to be clear relations with these people at some time during the middle bronze age to the Iron age, all preceding the birth of Plato and corresponding with the early Greek philosophers.
Although these connections are many and could be multiplied I refer you to two sources which go into greater detail of the connection between the two societies before Plato and after Moses. Cyrus Gordon's The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations (1965), argues that the many parallels between the two societies are explained by the common Ancient Near East background of the two societies, a number of articles in Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible (1970) overview the non literary evidence for connections between the two societies, in that period.
Even with all this evidence we have a problem. Justin's accusation is that Plato specifically cited Moses. All we can show from our evidence is that the worlds are not so far apart so as to make Justin's idea implausible. However we have not shown and because of the nature of the evidence we have, can not show that Plato cited Moses directly. The main barrier is language. Moses wrote in Hebrew and Plato wrote in Greek. Plato did not read Hebrew and it is not even certain he came across the writings of Moses in all his travels. However as for inheriting the ideas from an older Moses, this I believe is not implausible. However even if we accept it is plausible, we have to admit that Justin's argument that Moses is older than the Philosphers and the Poets. They taught similar things, therefore the philosophers got their knowledge from Moses, is not a watertight argument. It is possible they got them from Moses. But it is just as possible they did not.
Justin in his next thought makes a more general argument regarding the relationship between the Hebrews prophets and the Greeks. He argues that one certain specific subjects the philosophers and poets of Greece are indebted to "suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things". Again I would say it is very unlikely we could show direct literary dependence of the philosophers upon the prophets. But here Justin's arguments are very general. Specific philosophers and specific prophets are not mentioned. The question then which would really interest us is how plausible is it that Greeks had access to prophetic ideas, from the Hebrew prophets. Interestingly Justin does not mention here which prophets he is referring to. There were prophets among the Greeks and one of them is mentioned by the Apostle Paul. His name is Epimanides and he is quoted in the New Testament as a Cretan Prophet. He is also numbered by some among the 7 wise men who founded Greek thinking. We should notice here with Justin that his language is much less specific. Whereas in his first statement Plato took from Moses and uttered a specific saying. Here Greek philosophers receive "suggestions" from prophets on "immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of like kind". Here we will look at the literary evidence from Biblical text to see if there is any evidence that the prophets knew much of Greece. Again the argument is if the prophets knew of Greece it is likely there was contact between Greece and the teachings of the prophets. This in turn could influence some Greek ideas which influenced the Greek philosophers and poets.
The Prophets and the Greeks
Our Biblical, albeit literary evidence indicates 5 prophets spoke Greece, and interestingly enough at least one indicates the intention and plan of spreading the knowledge of God to the Greek Islands. The prophets are Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel among the Major Prophets, and Joel and Zechariah among the Minor Prophets. Dating for Isaiah 66 and Joel is a matter of dispute but suffice to say they are at the latest exilic prophets that is before 530 BC approximately. Daniel is disputed even more, some setting him in the Hasmonean period, mainly those scholars who deny prophecy and some accepting the setting indicating by the narrative of Daniel around 600 BC. Joel is uncertain and Zechariah is generally around 500 BC. Now we should not be surprised that Israel and Greece connect in the Persian period for both community and clear connections with the Persians in that period. Greece were fighting wars with Persia from 480 BC. Israel was controlled by Persian from Cyrus the Great 538 BC right through to Alexander the Great 332 BC. So the whole Mediterranean world knew of Persia and Greece in that Period.
We said earlier that not only did the prophets have connection with Greece in the years leading to Plato but they had the intention to spread the knowledge of the God of Israel Yahuwah, to the Greeks. This would appear to indicate that specific Israelite teachers were sent to the Islands of the Greeks to teach them what Moses taught.
The evidence of this is seen in Isaiah 66. In this chapter Yahuwah speak of the fact that Zions children would be blessed and that Yahuwah would "extend the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream". Yahuwah would come with fire and sowrd and judge the nations. But then Yahuwah would send survivors to Greek to spread his fame and glory
And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan (Greece), to isles afar off, and have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles
We see the a clear intention at the end of Isaiah for messengers to go and speak about Yahuwah to the Greeks and this was written 200 or 300 years before Plato but more poignantly around the time the Philosphers of Greece were beginning to think.
Unlike Isaiah, Ezekiel speaks of the trading practices of the Greeks especially in regard to Tyre in Phoenicia. We remember that Tyre and Jerusalem had very good relation in the time of Solomon. And these relations did continue even after Solomon built his temple and had use of Tyres craftsmen and sailors. The Greeks traded in men and brass, bright iron, cassia and calamus according to Ezekiel 27. In Ezekiel 27:19 Ezekiel couples Javan with Dan as those going to and fro in the fairs of Tyre. Judah were also in Tyres markets and the land of Israel and so again in these trading situation Greeks would have met Israelites and no doubt traded and discussed cultures and religions. The Literary evidence of Joel indicates that not only did the Greeks trade in men but they used to buy Jewish slaves
Joel in chapter three is rebuking Tyre and Zidon. The prophecy seems to be set in the time of the Exile for Yahuwah says "I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem". In this prophecy Yahuwah says he will bring the nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat for judgment. His accusation against Tyre was that they were selling people of Judah to Greece. This literary evidence clearly give a context for how the ideas of the prophets got to Greece and hence to the philosophers:
Yea and what have ye to do with me O Tyre, and Zidon, and all coasts of Palestine? …The children of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border."
Although this evidence is literary it is clear evidence that the Jews were being sold in large numbers to the Greeks before the time of Plato but during the time of the earlier philosophers. It is clear from the urgency of the verse and the intention given to the Phoenicians that they were selling many people of Judah to the Greeks. Daniels prophecies deal with the battles between the Persians and the Greeks and the later history of the Greeks.
It appears that simply because the prophets and Moses were prior to the Greek writers, Justin assumes the Greeks when overlapping on the subject matter which the prophets dealt with were dependent on the mouth pieces of God. But to be convinced we would need more concrete evidence. We would need to be shown that the prophets and the Hebrews had clear contacts with Greek speaking people sometime between Moses time and the philosophers times. Justin does not do this. It is possible that through their search for wisdom some of the philosophers reached conclusion their being one God. It is also possible that spirits taught them as in the case of Socrates who claimed he was lead on by a daimon or spirit. There is also the question of whether Moses and the philosophers actually came to the same conclusions. Many things Moses wrote would be a great challenge to many beliefs of the philosophers.
If we were left with Justin’s assertion and his evidence we would be intrigued by his position but not convinced we would need more to be convinced.
Outline
Introduction
Justin martyr and text, language and context
Justin martyr and the Apology I
Justin Martyr and the Plato quote
"Aitia elomenou. Theos anaitios"
The quote in the Apology
The importance of the quote
The quote in Plato
Its grammatical sense
Its literary context
Its historical context
Its possible connection with Hebrew
The quote in Moses
The belief that the philosophers of Greece, including Plato and Aristotle, plagiarized certain of their teaching from Moses and the Hebrew prophets is an argument used by Christian Apologists of Gentile background who lived in the first four centuries of Christians. Three key figures who presented this theses are Justin Martyr “The most important second-century apologist” (50, Grant 1973), Titus Flavius Clemens known as Clement of Alexandria “the illustrious head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of the second century, was originally a pagan philosopher” (11, Robert 1857) and is renowned as being possibly the teacher of Origen. He was born either in Alexandria or Athens (Epiphs Haer, xxii.6). Our final giant who supports this thesis is Eusebius of Caeserea known as the father of Church history. Each of these in their defense of the Christian faith presented some form of the thesis that the philosophers of Greece learned from the prophets of Israel. Our interest in this paper is on the arguments of the earliest of these writers, Justin Martyr. He represents the position of Christian apology in the middle of the second century, as opposed to the later Clement of Alexandria and the even later Eusebius of Ceaserea.
In light of the stature and the credibility of these three Church Fathers even if the idea that Plato learned from Moses seems far fetched we would do well to take a closer look at the argument and the evidence present by such men of stature. Justin was a philosopher who came from a pagan background. He issued from Shechem in Palestine. He was a marvelous scholar in his own right well read and well qualified to make informed judgments in the arena of philosophy.
Our purpose is to briefly look at the theses presented by Justin Martyr and to try to discern the plausibility of the thesis.
Justin Martyr and the line Plato took from Moses.
Justin Martyr was a prolific second century Apologist. He was born in Flavia Napolis (Shechem) in Samaria. Well known for the local Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim and a temple built by Hadrian to Zeus Hypsistos. He later passed through Stoicism and the way of Aristotles' disciples the Peripatetics and was rejected as unqualified to study Pythagoreanism and finally he met a Platonist with whom he advanced in his studies. To him the goal of Platonism was “the vision of God”. One day he met a Christian on the beach and was converted to the faith. He did not become a priest or bishop but took to teaching and defending the faith.
Text
He wrote many works and many more bear his name. However modern scholarship has judged that of the many works that bear his name only three are considered genuine. These are 2 Apologies and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. They are preserved in one manuscript of the year 1364 (Cod Par. gr. 450).
Language
Justin wrote in Greek, and right in the middle of the period of philosophy called Middle Platonism. The book in which he outlines his thesis that Moses and the prophets were a source for the Greek Philosophers is his first Apology. It is dated to 155-157 BC and was addressed to “The Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antonius Pius Caeser Augustus, and the sons Verissimus, philosopher, philosopher, and Lucius” Grant (52, 1973).
Context
Grant (1973) believes the reason which triggered the Apology was the martyrdom of Polycarp in 156 AD and the injustice of it during the bishopric of Anicetus. Even as this martyrdom and its report may have spurred Justin on to write so it had been that it was on seeing the fortitude of the Christian martyrs which had disposed him favorably towards the faith(Ap 2.12.1). So Justin writes to protest the unjust persecution and to defend the faith. He wrote in order that by warning the leaders of his day their blood would be on their own heads on judgment day. Grant (1974) hypothesizes that Justin’s emphasis on judgment by fire in the Apology is a reflection of the fact that he is writing in reaction to the burning of Polycarp by fire in his martyrdom. It is noted that 20 times in the Apology it is emphasized that the judgment will be by fire.
In the Apology 1 Justin gives the reason for his writing
I , Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, my self being one of them” (Apology 1 chap). The Apology 1 is divided into 60 chapters. The translation we are using is that of the Ante Nicene Fathers and can be seen at www.ccel.org. The topics covered are many. He starts in chapter 2 by demanding justice, he requires that before the Christians are condemned they should be given a fair trial to see if they have committed any crimes or not. They should not be condemned merely for being Christian. He covers many subjects including: the accusation Christian were Atheists, faith in God; the Kingdom of Christ; God’s service; demonic teachings; Christ's teachings and heathen analogies to it; non Christian worship; magic; exposing children, the Hebrew prophets and their prophecies about Christ, types of prophetic words from the Father, the Son of the Holy Spirit. This brings us to about chapter 38. At this point Justin begins to cover the issue of determinism and free will. He argues that although the future was prophesied it does not mean every thing is determined according to fate and man has no responsibility for he has no choice. Rather he points to Moses revealing God’s choice to Adam “Behold before thy face are good and evil: choose the good.”(Apol 1 44) And he quotes Isaiah’s appeal to Israel to wash and be clean and the consequences of doing so or not doing so. The consequences of disobedience are that the sword would devour Israel. Justin picks up on the statement regarding the sword and argues that it is not a literal sword which is referred to but “the sword of God is a fire, of which those who choose to do wickedly will become the fuel” (Apol 1 44). Justin having appealed to Moses and Isaiah as a warning to the Roman rulers now appeals to one with whom they are more familiar, Plato the philosopher, to support his case that man is free to choose good or evil. It is here that Justin makes a most interesting and intriguing statement, rallying Plato to the side of Moses and Isaiah, in the eyes of the son of the Emperor whom he calls philosophers.
And so, too, Plato, when he says, "The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it.
For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when they assert contradictories
Ooste, kai Platoon eipoon' Aitia helomeenou, Theos d'anaitios, para Moseoos tou propheetou laboon eipe. Presbuteros gar Moosees kai pantoon ton en Hlleesi suggrapheoon. Kai panta hosa pari athanasias psuchees hee timoorioon toon meta thanaton hee theoorias ouranioon hee toon homoioontas aphorma labontes kai noeesai dedunentai kai exegeesanto. "othen para spermata aleetheias dochei einai elegchontaide mee achriboos noeesantes, hotan enantiaautoi heautois legoosin
He appears to be making the claim that Plato who has “exerted a greater influence over human thought than any other individual with the possible exception of Aristotle’ (Demos, 1927.vi) was dependent for his understanding of freewill and responsibility on Moses. The saying “the blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless ( Aitia helomenou Theos d' anaios (Joann. Mdcccxlii,224)” was taken from Moses by Plato and uttered it (eipe)”
The form of the verb eipe is the third person singular indicative from eipon and is connected to Legoo. This verb can mean many things including, to lay, to arrange, to gather or to say (Anal, 247). The key usage we are interested in is "to say in written language (Anal., 247)", which is clearly what Justin must be indicating by "Plato took this from Moses and uttered it". It is necessary then for us to investigate this saying in Plato.
The Myth of Er
Justin is quoting from Plato's The Republic book 10. It is the very last section of the Republic where Socrates is relating to Glaucon a story about the fate of souls after death. The story is known as the myth of Er. A description is given of a man called Er son of Armenius from Pamphylia and his journey into the realm of the dead. In his journey he was shown how souls were judged, how they had to pay back 10 fold for all that they did on earth. Halliwell introduces the myth.
The myth of Er belongs to a great 'family' of Platonic eschatological visions, whose other members are the myths found in the Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus…Few will dispute that the interpretation of all these passages must take as primary frame of reference Plato's own attitudes to myth …Yet the myth of Er contains as especial number of elements- starting with Er's name itself- which stimulated inquiries into Plato's sources" (Halliwell 1988,169)
"the rewards and punishments experienced during human life cannot compare with those which await us after death. Socates explains the nature of these by relating the story of Er, a pamphylian soldier who returned to life and told of what his soul had witnessed in the other world" (Halliwell 1988, 169)
Having seen many Er comes to the place where the souls were permitted to choose their next life on earth. This process was overseen by ones who were called the three daughters of Necessity (Thugateras tees Anagkees), being Lachesis, Clotho and Atropos who can be seen in the writings of Hesiod and Pindar. They were first named by Hesiod (Ferguson,118). They were singing in tune with a Siren which was making a single sound. Lachesis sung of the past, Clotho of the present and Atropos of the future. Our main interest is in Lachesis as it is her words which Justin quotes. She is called the Disposer of Lots or She who allots. Her name can also be a appellative for lot or destiny as in Herodotus (LS 1978, 466). Lachesis sang of the past and when it was time for souls to choose their next life on earth, they would be lined up by a prophet to appear before Lachesis. They could choose their life in order of the lots they received. They would each choose a daimon to go through their life with them. A daimon is sometimes synonymous with a god as in Homer, but sometimes considered inferior as in Hesiod where it is between God and man. In the myth of Er they are attendant (Ferguson, 120) or guardian spirits. We will let Socrates relate the rest of this event:
From the lap of Lachesis he (the prophet) took numbers for drawing lots and patterns of lives. Ascending a high platform (beema), he began to speak
The word of the maiden Lachesis, daughter of Necessity. Souls, creature of the day, here begins another cycles of mortal life and death it brings. Your guardian spirit will not be given to you by lot. You will choose a guardian spirit for yourselves. Let the one who draws the first lot be the first to choose a life. He will then be joined to it by Necessisity. Virtue knows no master. Your respect or contempt for it will give each of you greater or smaller share.
The choice makes you responsible. God is not responsible" -Aitia elomenou. Theos anaitios (italics mine).
It is the last four words spoken by the propheeteen as the word of Lachesis, which Justin Martyr quotes to indicate Plato took them from Moses and uttered (eipe) them.
These then are the four words under investigation. Although we are interested in the general idea of the Greeks borrowing ideas from Hebrew Monotheists who were taught by Moses, this is more than our present aim. Our present aim is to see how plausible it is to consider that these four words were some how taken from Moses, by Plato and written in the Republic.
Text
It should not escape our attention that what we have in Justin Martyr is slightly different from what is in our text from Plato. Our Greek text of Plato is from James Adam The Republic of Plato, Cambridge University Press. And the reading is:
"Aitia elomenou. Theos anaitios." Where as our recension in Justin is from S. Justini Philosophi et Martyris OPERA Recensuit Prolegomenis adnotatione ac versione instruxit of Joann. Carol. Theod. Otto mdcccxlii. Here the reading is :
"Aitia elomenou. Theos d' anaitios"
This should not surprise for this saying was cited repeatedly after it was written by Plato and is considered a very important part of his thought. When Justin quoted it, he knew that he was not citing an obscure saying of Plato but a very popular one. The saying was handed down in a number of recensions which could indicate that at its root it was translated from another language. It was considered very important and so many Greek writers used it.
The next stage of our investigation needs to assess Justin's claim that these four words came from Moses to Plato. For me the most important thought to establish is the link between Theos and Anaitios. For Plato to have taken these two words together from Moses that would have to occur some where in the Greek translations of Moses writings. Our problem is more difficult than this, however. Most of the literary evidence we have point to the first Greek translation of the Torah into Greek taking place in the 3rd century BCE, with the LXX in Alexandria. This is first mentions in Philocrates, Letter to Aristeas. How then would Plato have obtained a Greek edition of Moses before one existed. This argument militates very strongly against Justin charge being literally true. A weaker case, but nevertheless relevant is the idea that if Justin made this assertion the first century AD, he must have had available to him copies of the Greek Torah which he could point to that would express the words Aitia elomenou. Theos d' anaitios. If we look though Hatch and Redpath's Concordance to the Septuagint we find that anaitios is used about four times. It generally refers to innocent blood. The places are Deu 19:10, 13 and 21:8 and 9. The Hebrew words it is a translation for is naqi. In other Greek translation from that period the word is used about 12 times and in no case is it used with Theos. The word comes up twice in the New Testament (Matt 12:5,7) and is referred to the priests and the disciples of Jesus, not to Theos. All this evidence seems to stand against Justins theses although all the evidence we are looking at actually post dates Plato and so could be argued to be too late to have a definitive say in our evaluation of his case.
For Justin's statement to be literally true we would need a pre LXX translation of the Torah into Greek. And to have these four words as part of that text and finally to show how Plato was dependent on that text. Without this evidence being forth coming it would be extremely difficult to establish any dependence and Justin's statement would need to remain open until more evidence came forth.
Do we have evidence of a pre LXX Greek translation of the Torah? We do have literary evidence for this idea. Aristbolus of Paneas a Jewish forerunner of Justin, in this idea that Plato "borrowed" from Moses asserts that parts of the Pentateuch were translated into Greek before the Septuagint. He further asserts that these portions reached Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato and formed the basis of their philosophical teaching (Encyc Jud Vol 3,444). Aristobulos is cited by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. He is believed to be an Aristotleian but from the quotes it is clear he was influenced by Platonism also (Ency Jud Vol 3,443. He was an Alexandrian philosopher and a predecessor to Philo. He lived some time in the 3rd or 2nd century BC. He is not the only literary evidence for a pre LXX Greek translation of the LXX. The "Letter of Aristeas" asserts the same thing (J.E. p98).
This brings us closer to the plausibility of Plato getting these words from Moses but not to any clear evidence of dependence. Justin and his Jewish predecessors are not the only groups who considered Moses and Plato connected. Numenius a pagan philosophers has stated "For what is Plato but Moses speaking in Attic?" (Stern 1985, 209)
Clearly then we have some literary evidence which indicates dependence. But it is all later than Plato and so we can not come to certainty on the issue.
To ascertain further if it is possible that the words of the prophet of Lachesis are actually words of the prophet Moses we would need to look at the myth of Er and see if there are perhaps any clues of Hebrew sources and influences on the myth.
Justin makes a number of assertions then in this appeal. He appears to be making the claim that Plato who has “exerted a greater influence over human thought than any other individual with the possible exception of Aristotle’ (vi Demos 1927) was dependent for his understanding of freewill and responsibility on Moses. The saying “the blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless” was taken from Moses by Plato and uttered it” This statement raises a number of critical questions: For example; what does Justin mean by “took”? What exactly did Plato take' was it the saying or the idea? The fact that Justin uses the term ‘uttered it” would seem to suggest it is the words themselves that were taken and uttered. However number of points militate against this position. In all the writings of Moses we do not have such a saying. Secondly Moses wrote in Hebrew and we have no record that Plato understood Hebrew. In the development of his case Justin refers more to ideas than to words. This would suggest that Justin had idea in mind when he was speaking.
His lead in quotes from Moses lay down general principles of free will and judgment for wrong doing. He wants to say that man his responsible for his action and judged by God who although he prophesied the action is blameless. So Justin believes Plato took the idea of the blamelessness of God and the responsibility of man from Moses.
Another critical problem is the question when did Plato get the chance to access Moses? It almost goes without saying that Justin knows Plato did not read Hebrew, but is it possible that he made a mistake and thought that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek in time for Plato to have access to the ideas of Moses. This is plausible because Justin thought Herod the Great was king at the time Ptolemy (58, Grant 1974). To show that Plato had a dependency on Moses Justin goes on to explain that Moses was before all the Greek writers, which is a fact. And on the subject of immortality, punishments, after death and thinking on heavenly things, because they were later they “have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things” .
Justin Martyrs Case
1 The first thing Justin asserts is that Plato took the saying
"The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless" from Moses.
Our task would be to firstly understand what he means by took and uttered and then to look into Moses writings to see if the words are their. We would need to understand how Plato got access to Moses writings or ideas and to see if then it is a plausible position.
The reason given for Plato taking the idea that man is responsible for his actions and God is blameless, from Moses is that Moses is older than all the Greek writers. Justin assumes here that because in his understanding Moses and Plato both taught the responsibility of man and the blamelessness of God, the older authority was a source for the younger.
Clearly this is possible if we notice that Greece and Israel have contacts with each other going back even as early as the middle bronze age. Many scholars believe the Philistines, who are described as Sea Peoples by the Egyptians and had much interaction with Israel, were Greek. Another possibility supporting this position is the fact that Moses came from Egypt and Plato visited Egypt, before he wrote his Republic, which Justin is quoting. It is possible that both Plato and Moses gained their ideas from a common source, the traditions in Egypt. Although they were in Egypt at very different time, the continuity of these ideas is a possibility. A third context which could lead to the plausibility of Justin's assertion is that Greece and Israel or the Levant had strong trading relations in the time of Josiah that is around 627 BC. This is 300 years before Plato and trade was one of the key ways religious ideas spread from one community to another. It is clear that both the Prophet Ezekiel, the Prophet Daniel and the prophet Zechariah had some connection with Greece and the Greek islands. This interaction would clearly be two ways, with information about Israel and its life including religious faith flowing to Greece and vise versa. In this way Moses ideas could have been in the academic and culturally arena of Plato's education, even ignoring his trip to Egypt during the Persian period. Any nation having extensive trading connection with Israel or the Kingdom of Judah would all things being equal, hear of the basic Jewish beliefs and the sources of them even Moses.
Some scholars believe that much of the Pentateuch was written by Moses. Jewish tradition of the years before Plato also held to this position. Two of the Biblical texts we have regarding Javan, the Hebrew term for Greece and her islands is written in the Pentateuch.
Javan
The Hebrew designation for the Greek is Yavan. This consists of yod-vav-nun. These three letters are connected to I-O-N as in Ionians, one of the Greek peoples of Asia Minor. Yod-vav-nun can be transliterated as Ion as easily as to Yavan. The first mention of the family of the Greeks in this way is in Genesis 10 in the table of the nations.
The sons of Japheth: Gomer and Magog, and Madai, and Javan and Tubal, and Meshech and Tiras. (Gen 10:2-4)
This shows us that the worlds of Greece and Israel were not so distant. The characteristics of Greeks inhabiting coastlands and islands is also know by the author of Genesis, showing that their was some clear connections in the days before Plato:
And the sons of Javan (Greece); Elishah and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations
We see then the Hebrew writer and a very clear understanding of the places where the Greeks lived and so there was very likely to be clear relations with these people at some time during the middle bronze age to the Iron age, all preceding the birth of Plato and corresponding with the early Greek philosophers.
Although these connections are many and could be multiplied I refer you to two sources which go into greater detail of the connection between the two societies before Plato and after Moses. Cyrus Gordon's The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations (1965), argues that the many parallels between the two societies are explained by the common Ancient Near East background of the two societies, a number of articles in Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible (1970) overview the non literary evidence for connections between the two societies, in that period.
Even with all this evidence we have a problem. Justin's accusation is that Plato specifically cited Moses. All we can show from our evidence is that the worlds are not so far apart so as to make Justin's idea implausible. However we have not shown and because of the nature of the evidence we have, can not show that Plato cited Moses directly. The main barrier is language. Moses wrote in Hebrew and Plato wrote in Greek. Plato did not read Hebrew and it is not even certain he came across the writings of Moses in all his travels. However as for inheriting the ideas from an older Moses, this I believe is not implausible. However even if we accept it is plausible, we have to admit that Justin's argument that Moses is older than the Philosphers and the Poets. They taught similar things, therefore the philosophers got their knowledge from Moses, is not a watertight argument. It is possible they got them from Moses. But it is just as possible they did not.
Justin in his next thought makes a more general argument regarding the relationship between the Hebrews prophets and the Greeks. He argues that one certain specific subjects the philosophers and poets of Greece are indebted to "suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things". Again I would say it is very unlikely we could show direct literary dependence of the philosophers upon the prophets. But here Justin's arguments are very general. Specific philosophers and specific prophets are not mentioned. The question then which would really interest us is how plausible is it that Greeks had access to prophetic ideas, from the Hebrew prophets. Interestingly Justin does not mention here which prophets he is referring to. There were prophets among the Greeks and one of them is mentioned by the Apostle Paul. His name is Epimanides and he is quoted in the New Testament as a Cretan Prophet. He is also numbered by some among the 7 wise men who founded Greek thinking. We should notice here with Justin that his language is much less specific. Whereas in his first statement Plato took from Moses and uttered a specific saying. Here Greek philosophers receive "suggestions" from prophets on "immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of like kind". Here we will look at the literary evidence from Biblical text to see if there is any evidence that the prophets knew much of Greece. Again the argument is if the prophets knew of Greece it is likely there was contact between Greece and the teachings of the prophets. This in turn could influence some Greek ideas which influenced the Greek philosophers and poets.
The Prophets and the Greeks
Our Biblical, albeit literary evidence indicates 5 prophets spoke Greece, and interestingly enough at least one indicates the intention and plan of spreading the knowledge of God to the Greek Islands. The prophets are Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel among the Major Prophets, and Joel and Zechariah among the Minor Prophets. Dating for Isaiah 66 and Joel is a matter of dispute but suffice to say they are at the latest exilic prophets that is before 530 BC approximately. Daniel is disputed even more, some setting him in the Hasmonean period, mainly those scholars who deny prophecy and some accepting the setting indicating by the narrative of Daniel around 600 BC. Joel is uncertain and Zechariah is generally around 500 BC. Now we should not be surprised that Israel and Greece connect in the Persian period for both community and clear connections with the Persians in that period. Greece were fighting wars with Persia from 480 BC. Israel was controlled by Persian from Cyrus the Great 538 BC right through to Alexander the Great 332 BC. So the whole Mediterranean world knew of Persia and Greece in that Period.
We said earlier that not only did the prophets have connection with Greece in the years leading to Plato but they had the intention to spread the knowledge of the God of Israel Yahuwah, to the Greeks. This would appear to indicate that specific Israelite teachers were sent to the Islands of the Greeks to teach them what Moses taught.
The evidence of this is seen in Isaiah 66. In this chapter Yahuwah speak of the fact that Zions children would be blessed and that Yahuwah would "extend the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream". Yahuwah would come with fire and sowrd and judge the nations. But then Yahuwah would send survivors to Greek to spread his fame and glory
And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan (Greece), to isles afar off, and have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles
We see the a clear intention at the end of Isaiah for messengers to go and speak about Yahuwah to the Greeks and this was written 200 or 300 years before Plato but more poignantly around the time the Philosphers of Greece were beginning to think.
Unlike Isaiah, Ezekiel speaks of the trading practices of the Greeks especially in regard to Tyre in Phoenicia. We remember that Tyre and Jerusalem had very good relation in the time of Solomon. And these relations did continue even after Solomon built his temple and had use of Tyres craftsmen and sailors. The Greeks traded in men and brass, bright iron, cassia and calamus according to Ezekiel 27. In Ezekiel 27:19 Ezekiel couples Javan with Dan as those going to and fro in the fairs of Tyre. Judah were also in Tyres markets and the land of Israel and so again in these trading situation Greeks would have met Israelites and no doubt traded and discussed cultures and religions. The Literary evidence of Joel indicates that not only did the Greeks trade in men but they used to buy Jewish slaves
Joel in chapter three is rebuking Tyre and Zidon. The prophecy seems to be set in the time of the Exile for Yahuwah says "I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem". In this prophecy Yahuwah says he will bring the nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat for judgment. His accusation against Tyre was that they were selling people of Judah to Greece. This literary evidence clearly give a context for how the ideas of the prophets got to Greece and hence to the philosophers:
Yea and what have ye to do with me O Tyre, and Zidon, and all coasts of Palestine? …The children of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border."
Although this evidence is literary it is clear evidence that the Jews were being sold in large numbers to the Greeks before the time of Plato but during the time of the earlier philosophers. It is clear from the urgency of the verse and the intention given to the Phoenicians that they were selling many people of Judah to the Greeks. Daniels prophecies deal with the battles between the Persians and the Greeks and the later history of the Greeks.
It appears that simply because the prophets and Moses were prior to the Greek writers, Justin assumes the Greeks when overlapping on the subject matter which the prophets dealt with were dependent on the mouth pieces of God. But to be convinced we would need more concrete evidence. We would need to be shown that the prophets and the Hebrews had clear contacts with Greek speaking people sometime between Moses time and the philosophers times. Justin does not do this. It is possible that through their search for wisdom some of the philosophers reached conclusion their being one God. It is also possible that spirits taught them as in the case of Socrates who claimed he was lead on by a daimon or spirit. There is also the question of whether Moses and the philosophers actually came to the same conclusions. Many things Moses wrote would be a great challenge to many beliefs of the philosophers.
If we were left with Justin’s assertion and his evidence we would be intrigued by his position but not convinced we would need more to be convinced.
posted by Evangelist Edi Nachman Bsc. PGCE @ 10:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home