I won't be going through every single one I've seen. Most of these supposed parallels resemble each other only superficially or they are such general moral ideas that parallels would be expected. In such cases, those predisposed to accept these as Paul taking ideas from the pagans will accept them in spite of the difficulties, while those not so predisposed would find them to be major stretches. There is little I can say about such cases because it is unlikely I could influence people's judgments. I should additionally note that because there were a ton of writings by pagan philosophers, by the simple law of averages we would find some similarities.
I also will only be going through ones that have a clear enough citation to check. Some give a vague citation, or no citation at all. Such cases I cannot give any credence to if they cannot tell me exactly where the parallel is.
First, though, I should address a few cases where Paul does appear to be quoting a pagan. As some Bible translations like the NIV will note in footnotes, Acts 17:28 has Paul quote from Epimenides (Cretan philosopher) and Aratus (Cilician Stoic philosopher). And indeed, some have noted that Paul's speech in Acts 17:22-31 has some considerable parallels to Stoicism, a Greek philosophy. But one should note the context; Paul was speaking to a bunch of people who would have been familiar with, and perhaps adherents of, Stoicism (indeed, Acts 17:18 has him debating with Stoics). Paul seems to assume they were Stoics, saying "As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’" In this he is quoting from Aratus, a Stoic philosopher. Aratus was from Cilicia (in modern-day Turkey), not Athens which is where Paul was. So why does Paul say "as some of your own poets have said"? Most probably he is referring to Aratus being a Stoic. Again, the point is to try to frame things in their own terms; he had probably done some research as to their beliefs ahead of time in order to do this.
The other two cases often cited are Titus 1:12, quoting Epimenides' Cretica in referring to the Cretans as being liars, and 1 Corinthians 15:33, possibly quoting Menander with "Bad company corrupts good character". Paul does not specify who he was referring to in Titus 1:12, merely saying "one of their own prophets." This apparently comes from a work called the Cretica, which we actually have no surviving copy of, and only know this is apparently the source because some later Christians mentioned it. The point here of this quote here, however, is not to make use of any kind of pagan philosophy, but merely to make the point that a Cretan makes such an accusation. Lastly, in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:33 and its statement of "bad company corrupts good character", it is not even clear if Paul is explicitly offering a quote from Menander. The quote seems to originate from Menander's play "Thaïs", though as Paul does not explicitly say he is quoting from anyone, it is entirely possible that the phrase had simply made its way into being a popular expression. Even if Paul is quoting it directly, it should also be noted that Menander was a playwright, not a philosopher.
So I do not think these quotes prove any kind of undue pagan philosophical influence on the theology of either Paul or Christianity. The ones in Acts are used in an attempt to appeal to Stoics so it makes sense to try to emphasize points of commonality, the Titus quote has nothing to do with theology as Paul uses it, and Corinthians is a quote from a playwright rather than a philosopher; further, it is not clear if Paul was even appealing to him specifically.
With those out of the way, let us look into some of the claims online I have seen, and if they match up with the facts.
Let's take them one at a time. Here are the cases that are claimed (this is a compilation from several sources):
"Kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14 (KJV) vs. "Kick against the pricks" Agamemnon by Aeschylus
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phillipians 2:12 (KJV) vs "Work out your own salvation with diligence" Mahaparinibbana sutta (Buddhist scripture)
"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." Romans 7:19 (ESV) vs "The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do" Euripides by Hippolytus
"But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home" 1 Timothy 5:4 (KJV) vs "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home." Act IV of Andria, by Terence
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1
Corinthians 13:12 (KJV) vs. "I am very far from admitting that he who
contemplates existences through the medium of thought, sees them only
“through a glass, darkly,” anymore than he who sees them in their
working effects." Phaedo by Plato
"For necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not
the gospel!" 1 Corinthians 9:16 (KJV) vs. "But necessity was laid upon me –
the word of God I thought ought to be considered first." Apology by Plato
Some of these gave more specific citations for their sources, which I'll get to in the more in-depth explanation of them. The short version of these: The first one is just a general Greek expression and is unlikely to be taken directly from the work in question, the second is an inaccurate quote, the third and fourth are just straight up false, while the fifth and sixth are translated in a way to make them sound more biblical than they originally were.
"Kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14 (KJV) vs. "Kick against the pricks" Agamemnon by Aeschylus
As this was a general Greek expression, it is unlikely that it was specifically appealing to this work. While the specific case I am referring to appealed to Agamemnon by Aeschylus, I saw another person try to find this as a parallel to Euripedes' work Bacchae, which also uses it. However, the response is the same to either, that it was just an expression. But as Agamemnon is the specific one here, I'll start with that. The citation was given to page 255 of The Agammenon of Aeschylus published in 1831, which can be found here. This does mention how the Greek in the New Testament for this phrase is almost (but not exactly) the same.
The first problem we see here is that this quote has nothing to do with theology. Not only is Agamemnon a work of fiction rather than one of philosophy, no real philosophy is being expressed by Paul here.
But more importantly, let's stop and look at the phrase: "Kick against the pricks." (modern translations render it "kick against the goads") This was a Greek expression that meant to struggle futilely. But this is an expression, not a quotation. It can be found in various Greek literature. As noted, even those who try to claim Paul was using this phrase refer to different works, usually Agamemnon or Bacchae. But this is found in more than just those. As stated by the NET Bible's footnote for Acts 26:14:
"Sayings which contain the imagery used here (kicking against the goads) were also found in Greek writings; see Pindar, Pythians 2.94-96; Euripides, Bacchae 795."
Another one is Prometheus Unbound (note some translations render it figuratively rather than literally). It was not even exclusive to Greek, as it can be found in Latin (for example, Terence uses it in Act 1 Scene 2 of Phormio, with the translation rendering it as "kick against the spur").
If I use the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back" it doesn't mean you can point to a specific usage of the phrase and then say I was quoting that. No, I was just making use of the expression. Even if an expression was created or popularized by a particular work, it can enter the general lexicon while losing any connection to it. So it is a considerable assumption to claim that this phrase was specifically going back to some pagan work that used it, as it was a popular expression.
One thing someone might ask is why a Greek phrase is being used here, if as stated in Acts 26:14, the voice who said it was speaking Hebrew (or Aramaic, depending on how you want to translate Acts 26:14). There are two possibilities. The first is that this expression had made its way into Hebrew/Aramaic from the Greek; while it is true we don't have recorded instances of it being used in the language, we're missing a lot of material and thus it could have been used and simply not mentioned in the works we have. The second is that Paul, when describing it in Greek, decided to translate it using an idiom. One would not translate the Spanish phrase "eso es el colmo" literally into English, because its literal meaning ("that is the height") does not properly carry the meaning. Instead they would use something like "this is the last straw" as that, while having a different literal meaning, maintains the meaning of the idiom.
So while this theoretically could have been a citation, it is a considerable assumption to think that using a particular expression is a reference to a specific work that used that expression. But at least this one does have the words. That is better than we can see in our next two examples, which rely on misquotes.
"Work
out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phillipians 2:12 (KJV)
vs "Work out your own salvation with diligence" Mahaparinibbana sutta
(Buddhist scripture)
This is a mangled and paraphrased version of something Buddha said. The specific source given for this is actually not a direct source to the Mahaparinibbana sutta, but rather page 89 of a work called "Buddhism, Taoism, and Other Far Eastern Religions" by J. Isamu Yamamoto. It offers the following quote:
"Be lamps unto yourselves. Be a refuge unto yourselves. Do not turn to any external refuge.... Work out your own salvation with diligence" (Mahaparinibbana-sutta 2:33; 6:10; from the Pali Canon)"
The context here is it is comparing and contrasting Buddhist beliefs with those of Christianity. Rather unfortunately, it is unclear what the "2:33" and "6:10" are supposed to mean (I assume the second is in view, as the ellipses indicates they were from separate sections). But if one searches through this Sutta, one sees "salvation" nowhere, at least in the translations I consulted. A search online for the phrase in question has some sources claim it was Buddha's last words, which are recorded in this Sutta. But the last words are rendered quite differently in the translations I have looked at. For example, this translation renders it as "persist with diligence." While the word "diligence" is found there, there is nothing about salvation.
But, fortunately, someone else figured it out:
https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/work-out-your-own-salvation-do-not-depend-on-others/
According to this, it's simply a fake quote, a mangled version of Buddha's last words. There's more information in the link, but the short version is:
"So here we have an interesting chain of events. Carus, bless him, mangles the Mahaparinibbana Sutta in order to make the Buddha’s words resemble the New Testament, and then Suzuki, quoting from memory during an interview, slightly simplifies Carus’ rendering. And then Suzuki’s version is plucked out of the interview and becomes a genuine Fake Buddha Quote."
So it's not a legitimate quote from any Buddhist text. Those who pass this around therefore have simply not bothered to actually look up the source to make sure it's there, which it is not. I can understand how, in decades past it may have been very difficult to check; but in our age of so much being online, there is little excuse for not doing proper checking.
"For the good that I would I do not: but the
evil which I would not, that I do." Romans 7:19 (ESV) vs "The good that
I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do"
Euripides by Hippolytus
The Euripedes quote is simply false. In the place where I saw this cited, it does not give a direct citation from our source as to where this was said in Euripides; instead we are told to look at the work "Luther's Aesop" by Carl Springer on pages 137-138 (the 2011 printing is cited). I was able to find a copy of this. Here is what is stated:
"Even after his conversion, Paul had to lament (Rom. 7:24): "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Despite his best efforts, he complains: "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing" (Rom. 7:19), echoing the words of the conflicted Phaedra in Euripedes' tragedy Hippolytus, who has fallen in love with her stepson despite knowing it was a very bad idea: "We know the good, we apprehend it clearly, But we can't bring it to achievement."
We can see immediately that the person who offered the above quotes is misquoting Luther's Aesop. It is claimed that Luther's Aesop, quoting Hippolytus, says "The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do." But the quote in Luther's Aesop is "We know the good, we apprehend it clearly. But we can't bring it to achievement." While there are some vaguely similar sentiments, the quotes are rather different.
But where was this quote given by Hippolytus? The citation that Luther's Aesop offers is "Hippolytus, lines 380-81."
We can read the applicable lines here. Regrettably it does not make it clear where individual line numbers end, only telling us when every 5 lines ends, so here's the entirety of 380 to 384:
"we know and understand what is noble but do not bring it to completion. Some fail from laziness, others because they give precedence to some other pleasure than being honorable. Life's pleasures are many, long leisurely talks—a pleasant evil—"
So that says basically the same thing as what was offered in Luther's Aesop. Again, it is hard to see Paul's statement as being a quote of any kind. But those are translations. Let us look at what the original Greek text said and see if they're that similar. We can find it here. Lines 380-381 are:
τὰ χρήστ᾽ ἐπιστάμεσθα καὶ γιγνώσκομεν,
οὐκ ἐκπονοῦμεν δ᾽, οἱ μὲν ἀργίας ὕπο,
For comparison, what is stated in Romans 7:19 in the current version of the Nestle-Alend text is this:
οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ’ ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν τοῦτο πράσσω.
These are clearly entirely different statements. Thus this whole claim of Paul quoting from Hippolytus's work is flatly wrong. At most, someone can claim they express similar sentiments, but there is little reason to believe Paul took this specifically from Hippolytus.
"But if any widow have children or
nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home" 1 Timothy 5:4 (KJV)
vs "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to
show piety at home." Act IV of Andria, by Terence
The Terence quote appears false. This is a little vague, as only the act
is cited rather than anything more specific. Still, at least it's better
than just citing the play without anything more. However, no one who
cites this seems able to point to exactly where in Act 4 this statement
is made. So, Act 4 in English can be found here. Do
a search for "widow" and nothing pops up. Neither does "children"
("child" does appear but in a different context). Searching for "home" or
"piety" turns up nothing relevant either.
Of course, it could be a
matter of a different translation, but one would still expect one of
those words to show up. I did skim Act 4 to see if I could find anything
similar, but found nothing. Still, let us look at the original. Act 4 in its entirety in the original Latin can be found here, though if one would prefer to see the full play at once, go here.
The
word "widow" in Latin is viuda. So do a search for "viuda". Nothing
pops up. Now, in Latin words can take different forms based on how it's
used in a sentence. I would think this would be in the nominative form (which
would be "viuda") but just in case, I did a search for "viud" on that
page, as all forms of the word begin with that (for example viudae,
viudam, viudarum). No matches. Trying to search for the Latin
equivalents of other words we see here turns up nothing either. So this
one seems simply made up.
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1
Corinthians 13:12 (KJV) vs. "I am very far from admitting that he who
contemplates existences through the medium of thought, sees them only
“through a glass, darkly,” anymore than he who sees them in their
working effects." Phaedo by Plato
The Plato quote is translated inaccurately. Supposedly the usage of "through a glass darkly" by Paul is being taken from Plato, but it's actually the other way around; namely, the translation of Plato is taking it from Paul.
One can see the quote from Phaedo here. The page does not state the translation, but from some research I see it is from a translation by Benjamin Jowett. Now, at first glance this seems very powerful. But even simply seeing the above, one wonders "wait, why is "through a glass, darkly" in quotation marks there?" The answer is that it's because that's not actually in the text, but rather a paraphrase. This is presumably the translator showing that they were paraphrasing it according to the New Testament. Why they chose to do that I am not sure, but perhaps they simply liked the phrase.
We can verify this by tracking it down in another translation. First, slightly more context for the quote offered above:
"I dare say that the simile is not perfect - for I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existence through the medium of ideas, sees them only "through a glass darkly," any more than he who sees them in their working and effects."
Now let us consult the translation at perseus.tufts.edu. It is split across two pages, however, but they are here and here. This translation reads:
"Now perhaps my metaphor is not quite accurate; for I do not grant in the least that he who studies realities by means of conceptions is looking at them in images any more than he who studies them in the facts of daily life."
Another translation (from here) reads:
"Perhaps though my analogy is not quite exact since I am not at all certain that he who examines realities in logic does not do so in mere images and thus is no better off than someone who examines them in their deeds."
Thus we can see this is the same quote, but obviously a different translation. But one notices that rather than "through a glass darkly" we instead see just "in images" or "in mere images."
But what of the underlying Greek? Thankfully, pulling it up is fairly easy. As we accessed it in the Perseus Tufts website we know that it is in sections 99e-100a, so we can pull that up in the Greek! It is here and here, again split into two pages:
This appears to be the Greek sentence that is being translated in the above quotes:
ἴσως μὲν οὖν ᾧ εἰκάζω τρόπον τινὰ οὐκ ἔοικεν: οὐ γὰρ πάνυ συγχωρῶ τὸν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σκοπούμενον τὰ ὄντα ἐν εἰκόσι μᾶλλον σκοπεῖν ἢ τὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις.
Now, what is the phrase we find in 1 Corinthians 13:12 where "glass darkly" is used in the original Greek? We see:
βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι’ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.I bolded the portion that reads out as "through a glass darkly". One need not know any Greek to note the fact that neither this phrase nor anything resembling it is found in the Greek of Plato. Thus, it is clear that the usage of "through a glass darkly" was simply a translator paraphrasing Plato's actual words to insert a famous biblical phrase into it. Therefore, Paul took nothing from this section of Plato, but the translator who translated this section of Plato took it from Paul!
This is also confirmed by someone else who knows Greek better than I do:
https://ministrythroughthelens.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/socrates-read-the-bible-conclusions-from-a-dubious-translation/
Thus this similarity comes completely due to a a problem with the translation. I should notice something else; in some of these lists I have observed, the quotations from Plato are from translations by Benjamin Jowett, the same person who did the above translation. If Jowett was willing to essentially rewrite a statement in order to make a biblical reference, it makes one wonder how many other times he may have rendered something to sound more biblical. So be cautious trusting any parallels that come from a Jowett translation unless you have checked the Greek or at least another English translation. Our last statement examined with be another example of Jowett doing this.
"For necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" 1 Corinthians 9:16 (KJV) vs. "But necessity was laid upon me – the word of God I thought ought to be considered first." Apology by Plato
Like the above, only looks similar because of the specific Plato translation. We can see Plato's Apology (Benjamin Jowett's translation) in full here and indeed the quote is there. In greater context, it says "Then I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me,—the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. " Now, the first part of the quotes about necessity being laid up is essentially the same except for the change in tense, and the second portion, while more different, is still similar sentiments. The problem is that this similarity exists only because Jowett, intentionally or not, has skewed the wording to sound more like something from the Bible.
Let's compare another translation. Henry Cary also translated this, which can be found here:
Cary's rendition says:
"After
this I went to others in turn, perceiving indeed, and grieving and
alarmed, that I was making myself odious; however, it appeared necessary
to regard the oracle of the god as of the greatest moment, and that, in
order to discover its meaning, I must go to all who had the reputation
of possessing any knowledge."
Another translation, by Harold
Fowler, is found here:
"After
this then I went on from one to another, perceiving that I was hated,
and grieving and fearing, but nevertheless I thought I must consider the
god's business of the highest importance. So I had to go, investigating
the meaning of the oracle, to all those who were reputed to know
anything."
These alternate translations are much more different from Paul's writing. The similarity of "necessity is/was laid upon me" vanishes, and "god's business" or "oracle of the god" is a much poorer match for "the gospel" than Jowett's "word of God" translation.
But what of the Greek? Well, the Greek can be found
here. It seems not to have the final portion, but includes the initial part, and it has:
"μετὰ
ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἤδη ἐφεξῆς ᾖα, αἰσθανόμενος μὲν καὶ λυπούμενος καὶ δεδιὼς ὅτι
ἀπηχθανόμην, ὅμως δὲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐδόκει εἶναι τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ πλείστου
ποιεῖσθαι—ἰτέον οὖν, σκοποῦντι τὸν χρησμὸν τί λέγει, ἐπὶ ἅπαντας τούς
τι."
And what we see in 1 Cor 9:16 is:
"ἐὰν γὰρ εὐαγγελίζωμαι, οὐκ ἔστιν μοι καύχημα· ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται· οὐαὶ γάρ μοί ἐστιν ἐὰν μὴ εὐαγγελίσωμαι."
Here the "necessity is/was laid upon me" vanishes especially when we compare the text. "For necessity is laid upon me" was, in the original Greek of Corinthians, ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται. You may notice that this construction is not found in Plato's work. And, of course, the rest is rather different from what Paul says also. Thus the similarity is really only there thanks to Jowett making it sound more like something from the Bible; not only does he use the same verbiage, he also uses "word of God" despite that not being what Plato says.
So again, if you see any proposed similarity between something Plato wrote and something Paul wrote (or anything in the Bible), be sure to check with another translation because Jowett has a tendency to make things sound more biblical than they did in the original text. There are other examples I have seen of this, but I think the examples shown far are sufficient.
Conclusion
The five quotes examined here are false; the ones that aren't simply made up come from inaccurate or highly paraphrased translations. Again, I have not looked through every such quote I have come across, only the ones where they actually looked similar and in which the citation was clear enough for me to look up (I also felt it unnecessary to do more with the ones coming from Benjamin Jowett's translation of Plato, for as shown he can skew the text to sound more Christian than it did).
So, hopefully this has been of use to people.