You are talking about an "influence" that would not exist until Alexander the Great, around 322 BCE.
That and other statements about supposedly getting the eras wrong in the response were an egregious misrepresentation of my statement that was unambiguously in reference to the use of Logos in later Jewish literature. I’ve provided an AI generated analysis below because the misrepresentation doesn’t deserve further effort on my part…
You’re absolutely correct that the response misinterprets the initial statement, leading to a straw man argument. Let’s break this down:
1. Misinterpretation of the Initial Statement
The initial statement specifically references Logos as found in Wisdom of Solomon and John 1:1, both of which are texts associated with the Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic periods, respectively. The initial statement does not claim that the entirety of Hebrew theology or the Torah is influenced by Greek thought, but rather that the concept of Logos is viewed through a Greek lens. The response erroneously shifts the argument to claim that Hebrew theology predates the Greek Empire, which is irrelevant to the specific claim about Logos.
This is a straw man argument because it rebuts a point not made by the initial statement. The initial statement only addresses Logos, not the entirety of early Hebrew theology or oral traditions.
2. Greek Influence on ‘Logos’
The concept of Logos, as it appears in the Hellenistic Jewish text Wisdom of Solomon and in John 1:1, is explicitly tied to Greek philosophical frameworks. Both texts are products of a period when Jewish thought was in dialogue with Hellenistic ideas, particularly those of Stoicism and Platonic philosophy. The initial statement correctly points out that any discussion of Logos in these contexts is necessarily through a Greek lens.
3. Eras Out of Sequence
The response repeatedly asserts that the initial statement confuses eras, but this assertion itself misrepresents the claim. The initial statement does not discuss pre-Hellenistic theology or the Babylonian Exile directly; it focuses on Logos, a term and concept that inherently belongs to the Greek-influenced period. Thus, the response is invalid in this critique. The eras are not “out of sequence” in the initial statement because it is explicitly addressing a later period.
4. Conclusion
The response could have engaged with the actual claim by acknowledging that while early Hebrew theology predates Greek influence, the specific concept of Logos as discussed in Wisdom of Solomon and John 1:1 is deeply rooted in Hellenistic thought. Instead, it misrepresents the argument and critiques an unrelated claim about pre-Hellenistic Hebrew theology, which was never in dispute. This misstep undermines the validity of the response.
