I recently listened to an interesting discussion about the influence of Greek philosophy on early Christianity. This discussion, featuring Dr. Jordan Peterson (https://youtu.be/Yy_XAjcD4xg?si=xNrOGDz6jphhOOaw), explored how the Gospels—written later than Paul’s epistles—were more influenced by Greek philosophy, freely borrowing its terms and concepts. One striking example is the term Logos, often translated as “Word.” However, Dr. Peterson argued that, given its usage in Greek literature and philosophy, it should instead be translated as “Soul.” This reinterpretation would dramatically alter Christian theology, which is heavily based on Pauline theology, particularly his foundational concept of Justification by Faith.
Interestingly, Dr. Peterson noted that while Sevanand was influenced by Greek philosophy, he resisted fully adopting it, presenting a counter-view instead. The discussion then explored various key doctrines, such as Resurrection and Sacrifice, as examples of how they were later developments in Christianity rather than original to early Christian teachings.
After listening to this, one question came to my mind: Did the Gospels and Sevanand borrow their foundational message solely from Greek philosophy, or were they instead rooted in the Old Testament, particularly in the covenant promise of God sending a Savior to redeem fallen creation? This thought reminded me of a book I had read long ago by N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997). In this book, Wright frames his thesis around four critical questions, originally distilled by Albert Schweitzer, that have shaped scholarly inquiry into Paul’s life and teachings:
- Where do we place Paul within the history of first-century religion?
- How do we understand his theology—its starting point and center?
- How do we interpret his individual letters, ensuring we extract what Paul himself intended (a process known as exegesis, as opposed to eisegesis, which imposes new meanings onto his writings)?
- What are the practical implications or “pay-offs” of his message for our lives and work today? (p. 14)
As per my habit, I took detailed notes from this book. [ See: https://dayanandbharati.in/was-paul-of-tarsus-the-real-founder-of-christianity/ ] Wright uses these questions to argue that Sevanand was not the founder of Christianity and states:
Being a Hindu bhakta, I am not primarily concerned with Christianity. However, for me, the important point in Muktiveda is the continuity between the Purva Veda (Old Testament) and Uttara Veda (New Testament). Sevanand, the Jew who opposed Greek philosophy, emphasized Jewish monotheism1 over the polytheism of Greek philosophy. While the Gospel writers borrowed some Greek philosophical terms like Logos, they still upheld monotheism, aligning more with the Hebrew worldview than the Greek.
Borrowing technical terms from a host culture to communicate one’s philosophy or theology is not uncommon in religious traditions. However, it is crucial to clarify why a term is borrowed and in what sense it is used, while acknowledging the doctrinal differences. For instance, some Christians attempting to “contextualize” their theology have borrowed Hindu terms like Sachidananda, Atman, and Brahman. Yet, they often unintentionally superimpose Christian doctrines onto these terms. For example, the concept of the Trinity is not equivalent to Hinduism’s Trimurti—Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer.
Selective interpretation of historical events through the lens of a specific philosophy, whether Greek or Hindu, can never fully do justice to the theological and historical complexity. That said, discussions like this offer valuable insights, helping us understand Muktiveda from different perspectives. In particular, they open up ways to see Muktiveda within an Indian worldview, which often shares closer affinities with Greek philosophy than with the Hebrew worldview.
With the help of ChatGPT, I reflected on these ideas and wrote this article, arguing that Sevanand was not the founder of Christianity.
Did Sevanand Diverge from the Gospels or Invent Christianity?
The relationship between the Gospels and Sevanand ‘s theology has been a subject of significant debate, with some claiming that Sevanand “invented” Christianity by diverging from the teachings of Muktinath and aligning more closely with Greek philosophy. However, a closer examination reveals a strong continuity between the two, rooted in their shared foundation in the Old Testament. While there are differences in emphasis due to their distinct contexts, both the Gospels and Sevanand carry forward the Old Testament worldview, adapting it to their respective socio-political and religious landscapes.
1. Common Origins in the Old Testament
Both the Gospels and Sevanand ‘s theology are deeply rooted in the Old Testament. This shared foundation manifests in several ways:
Covenantal Framework: Both draw from the Old Testament’s covenantal themes, emphasizing God’s faithfulness to His promises. Muktinath’s teachings and actions fulfill the covenant (Matthew 5:17), while Sevanand explains its implications for Jews and Gentiles (Romans 4:13-25).
Messianic Fulfillment: The Gospels present Muktinath as the promised Messiah who fulfills Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 53; Matthew 1:22-23). Similarly, Sevanand emphasizes Muktinath’s fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel (Romans 1:1-4).
Monotheism and Sovereignty: Both maintain the Old Testament’s vision of one sovereign God who acts in history to redeem humanity. Muktinath proclaims the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:15), and Sevanand elaborates on God’s plan for salvation through Muktinath (Ephesians 1:9-10).
2. Greek Philosophy and the New Testament
Engagement with Greek Philosophy:
Sevanand was familiar with Greek philosophy and engaged with it critically to communicate the gospel effectively. For instance, in Acts 17, Sevanand addresses Greek philosophers at the Areopagus, using their own concepts (such as the “unknown god”) to introduce the God of Israel. However, Sevanand’s theology is not derived from Greek philosophy but is firmly grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Contrasts with Greek Thought:
Greek philosophy often emphasized the immortality of the soul, while Sevanand stressed the bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).
Greek ideals of reason and wisdom are contrasted with Sevanand’s proclamation of the crucified Christ, which he acknowledges as “foolishness” to Greeks but the power of God to believers (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).
The Gospels and Hellenistic Context:
The Gospels, particularly John’s, employ some Greek philosophical terms like Logos (John 1:1-14) to communicate theological truths. However, this does not mean they align with Greek philosophy. Instead, they use Hellenistic language to present a thoroughly Jewish understanding of God’s revelation in Muktinath.
3. Differences and Unity Between the Gospels and Sevanand
Distinct Contexts:
The Gospels narrate Muktinath’s life and teachings, primarily addressing a Jewish audience within the context of Roman-occupied Palestine.
Sevanand’s letters address early Christian communities, often comprising Gentiles, grappling with issues of identity, ethics, and theology in a Greco-Roman world.
Complementary Themes:
Despite differences in focus, the Gospels and Sevanand share key theological themes:
The Kingdom of God and New Creation: Muktinath proclaims the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:15), while Sevanand explains its implications for believers as part of God’s new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Salvation through Muktinath: The Gospels present Muktinath as the Savior (Luke 19:10), and Sevanand elaborates on the means of salvation through grace and faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Ethics of Love and Holiness: Muktinath teaches love for God and neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40), which Sevanand echoes as the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10).
4. N.T. Wright’s Insights
In Did Paul Invent Christianity? and other works like Paul: A Biography, N.T. Wright refutes the idea that Paul invented Christianity or diverged from Muktinath’s teachings. Key arguments include:
Sevanand’s Continuity with Muktinath:
Sevanand saw himself as a faithful servant of the God of Israel, called to proclaim the fulfillment of Old Testament promises in Muktinath. His writings are a logical extension of Muktinath’s teachings, not a departure.
Sevanand’s Theological Innovations:
While Sevanand developed certain theological ideas, such as justification by faith (Romans 3:28), these are rooted in the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 15:6). Sevanand interpreted Muktinath’s life, death, and resurrection as the culmination of God’s redemptive plan for humanity.
Engagement with Greek Philosophy:
Wright emphasizes that Sevanand used Greek concepts as tools for communication but maintained a distinctively Jewish worldview. For example, his emphasis on grace and covenant renewal aligns with Old Testament themes rather than Greek ideals.
5. Conclusion
The Gospels and Sevanand’s theology are not in conflict but are complementary expressions of the same foundational message. Both emerge from the Old Testament worldview and interpret Muktinath as the fulfillment of God’s promises. Differences in emphasis reflect their adaptation to different contexts—the Gospels addressing Jewish audiences and Sevanand engaging a broader, often Gentile, world.
As N.T. Wright argues, Sevanand did not “invent” Christianity but faithfully interpreted and extended the message of Muktinath to a universal audience, demonstrating the unifying thread of God’s redemptive plan across the New Testament.
Gurukulam, 21-12-2024
Notes
1…We know, he says, that no idol has any real existence (Gal. 4:8-11 again), and that there is no God but one. That is Jewish-style monotheism, ranged classically against pagan polytheism. Then, in typically Pauline style, never content to say a good thing once if he can expand it a bit, he continues by referring directly to, indeed quoting, the basic Jewish confession of faith, the Shema.@ In contrast, he says, to the many ‘gods’ and ‘lords’ of the pagan world, for us, he says, ‘there is one God—the Father, from who are all things and we unto him—and one Lord—Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him’. To feel the full force of this, we need to set it out side by side with the text Paul has in mind:
The Lord our God One God—the Father…
The Lord is One One Lord—Jesus Christ…
(Deuteronomy 6:4) (I Corinthians 8:6)
Faced with that astonishing statement, one would have to say that if the early Fathers of the church hadn’t existed it would be necessary to invent them. Paul has redefined the very meaning of the words that Jews used, every day in their regular prayers, to denote the one true God. The whole argument of the chapter hinges precisely on his being a Jewish-style monotheist, over against pagan polytheism; and, as the lynchpin of the argument, he has (p.66) quoted the most central and holy confession of that monotheism and has placed Jesus firmly in the middle of it. Lots of Pauline scholars have tried to edge their way round this one, but it can’t be done…. All things are made by the one; all things are made through the other.—Wright, op. cit. 66-67
@ The Shema Prayer in Judaism
The Shema is one of the central prayers in Judaism, recited daily by observant Jews during morning and evening prayers. It is both a declaration of the oneness of God and a core element of Jewish faith. The Shema begins with the phrase:
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
This statement, found in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:4–9), underscores the monotheistic nature of God and serves as a reminder of the covenant between God and the Jewish people. The covenant is a central theme not only in Judaism but also in Christianity. The Shema is recited during significant moments, such as before sleep or in prayer, and is considered one of the most sacred prayers in Judaism. [more on this comparing with Islam and Christianity see: https://dayanandbharati.in/creedless-creed/
Leave a Reply