Re Logos: For Biblical scholars and Classicists

[SeattleUte]

John 1:1 (KJV) states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"The Word" is translated from "the Logos" in the original Greek. There could be no better example than "Logos" that words in ancient texts have meanings not readily translatable into English (as Archea has noted). Logos had various shades of related meanings to philosophers and theologians in different epochs in antiquity. Logos is the root for our Engish word "logic," and, indeed, Aristotle saw Logos as meaning something like logic--essentially, as I understand, application of reason to data or evidence, reasoned argument. Plato called the mind the pilot of the soul, and said that philsophical inquiry and contemplation was the means to accessing the Good (God, more or less). This was his Logos, at least that's how later epochs came to see it.

The Septuagint in various places calls the words of God "Logos." As the ancients saw the universe as comparable to a living thing, the ancients came to see Logos as the Universe's mind. Often "the Word," or simply "Wisdom," became shorthand for Logos.

Later, around the time of Christ and the advent of the New Testament, Jews such as Philo of Alexandria (he lived from about 20 B.C. to about 50 A.D.), steeped in Greek philosophy, came to see the Logos as a mediator between earth and God. An abassador who enabled imperfect earthly beings to come into contact with God. Almost a separate personage from God, but not quite; more like a distinct manifestation of God.

Philo was a Hellenized Jew, never a Christian, but early on Christianity adopted him as one of the "Church fathers." According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philospophy, "Philo's philosophy represented contemporary Platonism which was its revised version incorporating Stoic doctrine and terminology. . . Philo made a synthesis of the two systems and attempted to explain Hebrew thought in terms of Greek philosophy by introducing the Stoic concept of the Logos into Judaism. In the process the Logos became transformed from a metaphysical entity into an extension of a divine and transcendental anthropomorphic being and mediator between God and men. . . Philo accepts the Stoic theory of the immanent Logos as the power or Law binding the opposites in the universe and mediating between them, and directing the world. . . .Following the views of Plato and the Stoics, Philo believed that in all existing things there must be an active cause, and a passive subject; and that the active cause Philo designates as the Logos. He gives the impression that he believed that the Logos functions like the Platonic 'Soul of the World.'"

The anonymous author of the Gospel of John (certainly a Hellenized Jew or a Roman) finally made the Logos incarnate, saying Christ was the Logos. Tracing the evolution of the Logos seems to me one way to see how Judaism and Greek philosophy fused to create Christianity, and gives insight into development of the various permutations of the godhead.

Philo was a contemprary of Paul, though there is no evidence they ever knew one anther.

Any thoughts, insights or information on how the Logos concept influenced the development of the New Testament's characterization of Christ?

[Archaea]

You simply ask one of the most discussed topics in all of theology. Geeze, talk about taking on the big ones.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You simply ask one of the most discussed topics in all of theology. Geeze, talk about taking on the big ones.

I thought it was about time we tackled it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I thought it was about time we tackled it.

Other than Chapel Hill, AA, and Solon, I doubt any of us are qualified to discuss its meaning and permutations.

It is fun to read in original Greek, but I have no idea about all its permutations. Read the original Fathers and they discuss it at length, but I admit I have not sat down and triangulated the differences in their doctrines and views of it. We could have an entire site on the Logos doctrine.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I thought it was about time we tackled it.

I design logos and teach design students how to design them -is that what you are looking for?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I design logos and teach design students how to design them -is that what you are looking for?

Speaks volumes. Archaea, let's add tooblue and Chino to the list of those qualified to discuss this.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Speaks volumes. Archaea, let's add tooblue and Chino to the list of those qualified to discuss this.

So long as I get to design the really cool logo for the group!

[Archaea]

Here are some very sketchy intros to the doctrine.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/th...ogos-body.html

http://home.att.net/~kmpope/Logos.html

http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/logos.html

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/logos.htm

http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=2310&C=2312

The Gospelist John brilliantly merged several doctrines in simple language.

Now, since you started the thread, we expect you to contribute meaningful, not just regurgitate what you read some where else.

How do you feel about the competing beliefs that John incorporated Platonic ideals including the concepts of Heraclitus, or simply used existing Hebrews hero concepts which Jung recognizes as a universal Hero archetype?

Does the specific grammar of the first chapter tell you anything?

How does a typically logical and metaphysical doctrine manifesting itself in the flesh hit you? Is he speaking to Greeks, who saw embodied Gods, or to Hebrews?

[creekster]

How do you know the author fo John's gospel used logos in the same sense as Philo or the stoics or any other school of thought? Logos also meant word apart from its philospohical context, right? How do you know that the author wasn't an adherent of some other group who had some other interpretation of the idea of a seminal reason or cause?

I realize I am not on the list of qualified posters, but that can't make me not ask questions, dumb or otherwise.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

How do you know the author fo John's gospel used logos in the same sense as Philo or the stoics or any other school of thought? Logos also meant word apart from its philospohical context, right? How do you know that the author wasn't an adherent of some other group who had some other interpretation of the idea of a seminal reason or cause?

I realize I am not on the list of qualified posters, but that can't make me not ask questions, dumb or otherwise.

Of course, we don't know, but the fact that he used a word in a literary sense which by that time had developed an intellectual weight suggests he was aware of the teachings and discussions of his time. It ties in with Philo and yet it is also consistent with the then current Hebrew expressions. The dual applicability is what makes it so fun for nerds like myself or for real scholars like those approved. I imagine you're the typical stupid like a fox, because you probably have some dissertation on the subject just playing with an idiot like myself.