What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?
Examines contemporary claims for Christian dependence on Hellenistic philosophy, Greco-Roman mystery religions, and Gnosticism. He finds the case for dependence in the strong sense tenuous.
304 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1992
8 people are currently reading
230 people want to read
About the author
Ronald H. Nash
50 books40 followersRonald H. Nash (PhD, Syracuse University) was a longtime professor at Western Kentucky University, Reformed Theological Seminary, and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
He was an heir of the theological tradition of Carl F.H. Henry, and was an lifelong admirer and student of Augustine of Hippo, his favorite philosopher.
He was the author of numerous books, including The Concept of God, Life's Ultimate Questions, and Faith and Reason.
He was an heir of the theological tradition of Carl F.H. Henry, and was an lifelong admirer and student of Augustine of Hippo, his favorite philosopher.
He was the author of numerous books, including The Concept of God, Life's Ultimate Questions, and Faith and Reason.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
October 12, 2013
In THE GOSPEL AND THE GREEKS, Ronald Nash reviews the contention that Christianity and the theology of the New Testament is dependent upon Greek philosophy, Greek mystery cults, and/or Gnosticism. The book follows this three-fold structure, explaining the case made by the proponents of these views, and then examining their arguments. In each instance, Nash provides refutation from respected experts in the field, and from the historical evidence itself.
This is an excellent book. The writing is not always the best, but I was willing to overlook that for the quality of the information and argumentation. Many of the counter-arguments rely on common sense, and Nash shows how you don't need to have specialist knowledge of these areas to understand the fundamental arguments and to see where they go awry. Nash points out instances where scholars describe an ancient mystery cult practice in Christian terms--terms the original cultists would never have used--inferring a parallel they have yet to prove exists. He also shows how many documents used to substantiate a pre-Christian Gnosticism upon which Christianity supposedly drew ideas are actually post-Christian, making it more likely that Gnosticism was influenced by Christianity, not vice versa. Also, many assume a connection between Greek philosophical ideas and mystery cult practices due to shared vocabulary, or similar beliefs (dying and rising gods, for example). But such parallels can only be maintained if one doesn't examine the underlying religious system. Shared vocabulary may be a result of living in the same cultural milieu, and what one group means by a certain term is not necessarily what another means. With regard to the mystery cults, Nash argues that none truly parallel the Christian gospel. The idea of God coming to earth, taking flesh, and dying to pay the penalty for sin is nowhere to be found outside of Christian theology. Anything that looks similar only appears to be similar. A close examination of the underlying belief systems expose the chasm that exists between them.
By and large, theologians and students of the ancient world no longer hold to the views critiqued in this book. Unfortunately, there are still many who hold to, and propagate, the notion that Christianity's origins lie in Greek philosophy and the mystery religions. For that reason, this book should be read and studied. I highly recommend it.
This is an excellent book. The writing is not always the best, but I was willing to overlook that for the quality of the information and argumentation. Many of the counter-arguments rely on common sense, and Nash shows how you don't need to have specialist knowledge of these areas to understand the fundamental arguments and to see where they go awry. Nash points out instances where scholars describe an ancient mystery cult practice in Christian terms--terms the original cultists would never have used--inferring a parallel they have yet to prove exists. He also shows how many documents used to substantiate a pre-Christian Gnosticism upon which Christianity supposedly drew ideas are actually post-Christian, making it more likely that Gnosticism was influenced by Christianity, not vice versa. Also, many assume a connection between Greek philosophical ideas and mystery cult practices due to shared vocabulary, or similar beliefs (dying and rising gods, for example). But such parallels can only be maintained if one doesn't examine the underlying religious system. Shared vocabulary may be a result of living in the same cultural milieu, and what one group means by a certain term is not necessarily what another means. With regard to the mystery cults, Nash argues that none truly parallel the Christian gospel. The idea of God coming to earth, taking flesh, and dying to pay the penalty for sin is nowhere to be found outside of Christian theology. Anything that looks similar only appears to be similar. A close examination of the underlying belief systems expose the chasm that exists between them.
By and large, theologians and students of the ancient world no longer hold to the views critiqued in this book. Unfortunately, there are still many who hold to, and propagate, the notion that Christianity's origins lie in Greek philosophy and the mystery religions. For that reason, this book should be read and studied. I highly recommend it.
June 2, 2023
Nash has done quite well in this book, and the rating would be higher if this sort of material was my exact cup of tea. I find few flaws in his writing: he is systematic in his argument, with a readable style for really any level, he is firm in his beliefs, and he does some very good poking at arguments from the last century and a bit that would disagree with his conclusions. While reading into Gnosticism and Eleusinian mysteries have never been my favourite subjects of study, I appreciate what Nash has done in providing a resource that refutes whatever those camps might have to say. I liked his case study of certain words such as ‘Logos’ and its origins as well as his delving into the letter to the Hebrews. Recommend.
June 2, 2023
If you are bothered by claims that Christianity really emerged out of a mixture of paganism, mystery religions, and Gnosticism, this book will not only put your mind at ease, but you will laugh at what a preposterous notion that really is.
An added benefit is that you learn a lot about terms that are thrown around carelessly like Gnosticism and mystery religion. It was great to read it through, and now will not sit on my shelf as a ready reference book whenever these matters may arise.
An added benefit is that you learn a lot about terms that are thrown around carelessly like Gnosticism and mystery religion. It was great to read it through, and now will not sit on my shelf as a ready reference book whenever these matters may arise.
July 27, 2015
(His answer was "no," in case you were wondering.)
September 17, 2021
The best part about this book was the general principles to consider when encountering alleged parallels. A couple examples are making sure the parallel is actually relevant to the time of the New Testament and verifying that the person drawing the parallel is not unfairly using Christian language to describe something in the original sources.
The only downside for me is that I felt like the author could have been more succinct in his refutations of the false parallels. There were times when he cited certain facts at a surface level which were not crucial for the reader. This can dilute his overall point and leave less space for expanding on more significant details.
The only downside for me is that I felt like the author could have been more succinct in his refutations of the false parallels. There were times when he cited certain facts at a surface level which were not crucial for the reader. This can dilute his overall point and leave less space for expanding on more significant details.
December 9, 2019
The Gospel and the Greeks answers the question, "Did the New Testament borrow from pagan thought?" The answer is "NO". What I thought was a boring academic adventure has turned out to be a thrilling teaching on how to respond to modern skeptics and an introduction to some great theologians I had neglected like Schweitzer and Machen. Though so many of the past criticisms of the Scriptures are proven untrue, the same arguments return in new guises. Nash is a masterful, thorough, and dryly humorous writer.
March 27, 2025
Surprisingly readable for a book examining philosophies, this book examines claims that NT Christianity found its intellectual underpinnings in pagan thought, from Hellenistic philosophies, mystery religions, and Gnosticism. Thoroughly demolishes those claims and demonstrates that Christian thought was something new with roots in the OT.
If you have any interest in this topic at all, this book is very well done.
If you have any interest in this topic at all, this book is very well done.
February 17, 2020
Really helpful survey of the interactions between Christianity and Hellenism, mystery religions, and Gnosticism. His forward is correct in that there has been a revival in the accusation that Christianity was dependent on ancient pagan religions/philosophy. This is a well-written, well-researched response.
January 15, 2023
A highly enjoyable read. Nash does a great job of getting straight to the point (some of his answers portrayed his sense of humor). He also did a great job listing books for future reading. This book was exactly what I was looking for, a Christian perspective on philosophy.
August 17, 2019
2.5 stars
April 5, 2024
Really good.
November 18, 2022
Personally it was interesting for me to read this book. I should notice that probably I wouldn't have read this book if a client-student did not asked me to write a review on the basis of The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?
So here I want to share with you my thoughts concerning it after reading it twice. (Of course as a writer I have a lot of reviews in stock, 'cause I've read a lot of books and write hunderds of reviews on them. Probably if you would like th review I posted here and decide to read more you can easily follow my working page - https://essaysprofessors.com/buy-a-bo...
Ronald Nash explores the argument that Christianity may have borrowed some of its essential principles from pagans. Nash examines the Hellenistic philosophy, pagan mystery religions, and Gnosticism for possible matches with Christian values and beliefs. He concludes that Christianity is too unique to have borrowed from any other group. Nash scrutinizes the arguments by the proponents of the discussion and then refutes all their claims with historical evidence and expert commentaries.
The author succeeds in countering all the allegations presented to establish a relationship between Christianity and other religions because he supports his arguments with verifiable evidence, expert claims, and own informed comments. He uses the arguments of philosopher Gordon Clark and theologian Gresham Machen to dispute the purported parallelism between Paul’s writings and Platonism. The two scientists demonstrate that Paul’s usage of the identified words had totally different meaning. He also extensively quotes the Bible, New International Version. The only drawback is that he should have provided more evidence from the available materials, such as the Bible, but he did not.
Ronald Nash’s book is an authoritative material that provides concrete arguments and expert analysis against various claims of influence exerted on Christianity by philosophical and religious groups. He shows that Greek beliefs are different from Christian principles even though the same words and concepts are used. On the other hand, Christianity pre-dates other Mediterranean cults and post-dates gnostic trends, and thus, it could not have been influenced by their practices and beliefs. The book is suitable for anyone looking for a deeper understanding of religion.
So here I want to share with you my thoughts concerning it after reading it twice. (Of course as a writer I have a lot of reviews in stock, 'cause I've read a lot of books and write hunderds of reviews on them. Probably if you would like th review I posted here and decide to read more you can easily follow my working page - https://essaysprofessors.com/buy-a-bo...
Ronald Nash explores the argument that Christianity may have borrowed some of its essential principles from pagans. Nash examines the Hellenistic philosophy, pagan mystery religions, and Gnosticism for possible matches with Christian values and beliefs. He concludes that Christianity is too unique to have borrowed from any other group. Nash scrutinizes the arguments by the proponents of the discussion and then refutes all their claims with historical evidence and expert commentaries.
The author succeeds in countering all the allegations presented to establish a relationship between Christianity and other religions because he supports his arguments with verifiable evidence, expert claims, and own informed comments. He uses the arguments of philosopher Gordon Clark and theologian Gresham Machen to dispute the purported parallelism between Paul’s writings and Platonism. The two scientists demonstrate that Paul’s usage of the identified words had totally different meaning. He also extensively quotes the Bible, New International Version. The only drawback is that he should have provided more evidence from the available materials, such as the Bible, but he did not.
Ronald Nash’s book is an authoritative material that provides concrete arguments and expert analysis against various claims of influence exerted on Christianity by philosophical and religious groups. He shows that Greek beliefs are different from Christian principles even though the same words and concepts are used. On the other hand, Christianity pre-dates other Mediterranean cults and post-dates gnostic trends, and thus, it could not have been influenced by their practices and beliefs. The book is suitable for anyone looking for a deeper understanding of religion.
May 13, 2011
Did the New Testament borrow from Pagan thought? Nash approaches the topic of outside influence in three parts, approaching the question of dependence from a traditional Christian viewpoint.
Part I: Hellenistic Philosophy. How much Hellenistic influence do we see in the Gospels? From Paul’s quoting of Stoic philosophers to John’s interpretation of the Logos, there are unquestionable connections. The most fascinating passage in this section is Nash’s “test case” in the book of Hebrews. There, Jesus is promoted as superior to the Alexandrian Logos and Sophia, superior to priestly mediators, superior to Moses and Melchizedek. Jesus is the true Logos, the fulfillment of it all. Where Hellenistic thinking often formed cyclical patterns, Hebrews portrays Jesus as breaking the pattern. The author of Hebrews perceives time not as cyclical, but as linear. “The once-for-all, fully completed, never-to-be-repeated, and final character of Jesus’ sacrifice contrasts sharply with the continuing sacrifices of the Levitical priests.”
Part II: The mystery religions. Each region of the Mediterranean world seems to have produced its own mystery religion. How much influence did these religions have on Christianity? Nash sees it as a dead issue, in part because we know so little about the mystery religions before the third century. It was in this century that Christianity began to blend with mystery religions such as Mithraism, and the next century before the terminology of the mystery cults first began to appear in the language of the church. On the other hand, other cult practices such as that of Dionysus are too early to have an influence. Those who compare communion with pagan ritual are not taking timing into consideration: the savage practice of eating one’s god appears to have long since disappeared before the time of Jesus.
Part III: Gnosticism. The idea that any of the canonical books reflects Gnostic influence is losing favor. Renowned theologian Rudolf Bultmann believed the writer of the Gospel of John had been a member of a Gnostic sect who was converted to Christianity, but Nash examines various Gnostic writings and concludes that Gnostic thinking postdates the Biblical writings.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that any Mediterranean religion grew up in a vacuum, yet a rash of recent books tend to sensationalize the commonalities between Christian and Pagan practices. Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ provides one example. Nash’s book provides some needed counter-balance.
(Note: Nash’s research is not a response to recent writings, but a precursor; I’m reviewing the 2003 second edition of a 1992 original.)
Part I: Hellenistic Philosophy. How much Hellenistic influence do we see in the Gospels? From Paul’s quoting of Stoic philosophers to John’s interpretation of the Logos, there are unquestionable connections. The most fascinating passage in this section is Nash’s “test case” in the book of Hebrews. There, Jesus is promoted as superior to the Alexandrian Logos and Sophia, superior to priestly mediators, superior to Moses and Melchizedek. Jesus is the true Logos, the fulfillment of it all. Where Hellenistic thinking often formed cyclical patterns, Hebrews portrays Jesus as breaking the pattern. The author of Hebrews perceives time not as cyclical, but as linear. “The once-for-all, fully completed, never-to-be-repeated, and final character of Jesus’ sacrifice contrasts sharply with the continuing sacrifices of the Levitical priests.”
Part II: The mystery religions. Each region of the Mediterranean world seems to have produced its own mystery religion. How much influence did these religions have on Christianity? Nash sees it as a dead issue, in part because we know so little about the mystery religions before the third century. It was in this century that Christianity began to blend with mystery religions such as Mithraism, and the next century before the terminology of the mystery cults first began to appear in the language of the church. On the other hand, other cult practices such as that of Dionysus are too early to have an influence. Those who compare communion with pagan ritual are not taking timing into consideration: the savage practice of eating one’s god appears to have long since disappeared before the time of Jesus.
Part III: Gnosticism. The idea that any of the canonical books reflects Gnostic influence is losing favor. Renowned theologian Rudolf Bultmann believed the writer of the Gospel of John had been a member of a Gnostic sect who was converted to Christianity, but Nash examines various Gnostic writings and concludes that Gnostic thinking postdates the Biblical writings.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that any Mediterranean religion grew up in a vacuum, yet a rash of recent books tend to sensationalize the commonalities between Christian and Pagan practices. Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ provides one example. Nash’s book provides some needed counter-balance.
(Note: Nash’s research is not a response to recent writings, but a precursor; I’m reviewing the 2003 second edition of a 1992 original.)
May 25, 2016
The book states that it is written for (somewhat well read) Bible students and not for Biblical studies experts (professors I suppose). As such the narrative flows well and is easy to follow. I think the book would be strengthened though by inclusion of notes quoting the texts in question and giving citations where the texts may be found (especially online). The lay reader would be unimpeded, but the semi-literate would have access to the quotations relied upon in the book itself.
The argument of the book is systematic and consistent, dealing with three classes of claims: NT relied upon Hellenistic philosophy, NT relied upon mystery religions, and NT relied upon Gnostic religions. In each situation, the supposed precursor documents and positions actually post-dated the NT, with scholars trying to back date the materials through hypothetical reconstructions of movements ante-dating the NT. Ronald H. Nash makes a good case that none of the reconstructions are viable, driving home his point by use of scholars who accept outside influence on the NT, but reject the particular reconstruction in question. The critical scholars end up basically cancelling each other out.
In the conclusion, Ronald H. Nash opines on the motivations of critical scholars, and correctly so in my view, that they have an ax to grind, arising primarily from a naturalistic world view (usually presupposed and sub rosa), which precludes them from accepting the NT documents at face value. Thus the book becomes a response not to unbiased academic inquiry, but to an intentional program of undermining the NT as written.
The books reads quickly and should be included in any Bible teacher's personal library, for quick reference, if for nothing else.
The argument of the book is systematic and consistent, dealing with three classes of claims: NT relied upon Hellenistic philosophy, NT relied upon mystery religions, and NT relied upon Gnostic religions. In each situation, the supposed precursor documents and positions actually post-dated the NT, with scholars trying to back date the materials through hypothetical reconstructions of movements ante-dating the NT. Ronald H. Nash makes a good case that none of the reconstructions are viable, driving home his point by use of scholars who accept outside influence on the NT, but reject the particular reconstruction in question. The critical scholars end up basically cancelling each other out.
In the conclusion, Ronald H. Nash opines on the motivations of critical scholars, and correctly so in my view, that they have an ax to grind, arising primarily from a naturalistic world view (usually presupposed and sub rosa), which precludes them from accepting the NT documents at face value. Thus the book becomes a response not to unbiased academic inquiry, but to an intentional program of undermining the NT as written.
The books reads quickly and should be included in any Bible teacher's personal library, for quick reference, if for nothing else.
February 21, 2016
Over the years, academics have made a series of claims that Christianity derived its teaching from Greek and Hellenistic philosophy, Greco-Roman mystery religions and from gnosticism. In general, a claim would be in vogue for a few years before being refuted by scholars. Then it would be replaced by another claim that would be refuted in turn. Because the claims made it to popular culture but the refutations took place in arcane Classics departments and their literature, people, including scholars, were aware of the claims that Christianity borrowed its teachings from elsewhere but were unaware of the refutations. With this book, Dr. Nash attempts to rectify this situation, discussing all three claims and summarizing their refutations.
February 8, 2013
Jesus "mythers" often claim that Christianity is warmed-over paganism. This book is a very good answer to that claim. Unfortunately, from a Catholic perspective, this book lacks a defense for the claim that the post-biblical Christians also adopted pagan beliefs (even though the same arguments that the author uses to defend the New Testament authors could also be applied to the Church Fathers).
March 25, 2015
Outstanding little book. Great overview of the dominant philosophies of the day in the 100 BC - 100 AD era. He presents reasonable and cogent defenses of the biblical writers and will more than likely aid the reader in weeding out some of their dormant platonism or stoicism.
April 26, 2015
The book is an excellent overview of the issues surrounding the New Testament writers and the influence of the surrounding culture. I wish there was more discussion of Jesus being accused of being a Cynic.
October 30, 2010
Very good introduction to the debate concerning the alleged influence of Hellenistic culture upon the NT. Nash writes in a very readable and accessible style for the layperson.
July 23, 2016
Good book arguing against the popular thesis of rising and dying gods and Jesus.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews