1. Intro to NT blog post: “Healthy” Philosophy in Paul
Johnson’s description of Hellenistic philosophy includes at least one characteristic that
can be found in the writings of Paul the Apostle. With what is probably an exaggeration that still
betrays the prominent mindset of the time, Johnson says, “All philosophers [in the Hellenistic
period] agreed that theoretical differences were less significant than practical results” (29).
Evidence of this impetus in Paul lies in 1 Timothy 1.
After reminding Timothy of the importance that he teach the Ephesians the doctrine and
message which Paul had first proclaimed to them, he runs a list of those who are “contrary to
sound teaching” (v.10). The terms of this list are entirely composed of descriptors focused upon
the behavior of the people they name, the “fruits” of their labor and teachings. The way that
Timothy can know whether one is following the true teaching is that they develop “the aim of
such instruction”—namely, “love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere
faith” (v.5). Mappes contends that this focus on the behavioral ends is directly related to Paul’s
battling “heresy” in the Ephesian church, making the letter as a whole less of a disparate
collection of random teachings but more an “appeal to an existing known truth” preserved by the
order of the church (The Heresey Paul Opposed in 1 Timothy,… p. 453).
Further, Paul sets these “heretics” opposite to “sound teaching,” with “sound” being the
typical translation for the Greek hugiainouse. In recent times, “sound” has primarily held the
connotation of “correct.” Heretics must be corrected. Yet, the primary use of this word refers to
the health of the body and mind. Paul refers to the true teaching as a “healthy teaching,”
recalling Johnson again: “Vice as illness, virtue as health: medicine was one of the governing
metaphors for philosophy in this age” (30).