Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 8
Bercot describes Philo as a “thoroughly Hellenized Jew” who allegorized Scripture to fit Greek thought and concludes Philo is “essentially worthless” for shedding light on the New Testament; what dangers might he be warning against in using sophisticated but foreign interpretive frameworks to explain Scripture?
Another way to ask: Bercot warns that Philo read the Bible through Greek ideas and turned a lot of it into symbols. What danger is there in using smart-sounding but outside frameworks to explain Scripture?

Direct Answer Bercot seems to warn that impressive, intellectual frameworks can distort Scripture when they force the Bible to “fit” outside philosophies rather than letting Scripture speak plainly. In his view, Philo’s Greek-influenced allegory makes him a poor guide for understanding the New Testament.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says Philo was “an Alexandrian Jew” who lived “at the same time as Jesus,” but “their two paths never crossed.”
  • He calls Philo “thoroughly Hellenized,” emphasizing Greek cultural influence.
  • He critiques Philo’s method: “he interprets much of the Old Testament allegorically to make it better fit with Greek thought.”
  • He gives his verdict: “As far as shedding any light on the New Testament, his writings are essentially worthless.”
  • This fits Bercot’s larger theme: commentators often imply sources “shed tremendous light,” but the supposed light is often not truly relevant or is misused.
Discussion Follow-ups What modern “Greek thought” equivalents tempt us to reshape Scripture (popular philosophy, psychology, politics)? How do we tell when a tool clarifies Scripture versus when it controls Scripture?