Re Logos: For Biblical scholars and Classicists

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Solon

I think SU's post is clearly and well reasoned. Greek philosophy and Jewish tradition produced the Jesus-as-Logos introduction to the gospel of John.

The assertion of the "logos" as the principal guiding force for all creation is older than Plato and Aristotle, however: it is among the oldest concepts in presocratic Greek philosophy. Fragments from a 6th-5th century (BCE) Greek philosopher named Heraclitus (aptly called "the obscure") characterized the universe as being in a state of constant change or flux. His most famous maxim asserted that one could not step into the same river twice (the water having flowed on). [See Plato, Cratylus 402a for the quote.].

Governing the universe through all this change was the LOGOS: Heraclitus' Fragment 1 declares that all things happen (literally "come to be") according to the logos (γινομένων γὰρ πάντων κατὰ τὸν λόγον), but laments that men are always clueless about this logos (δὲ λόγου τοῦδ’ ἐόντος ἀεὶ ἀξύνετοι γίνονται ἄνθρωποι).

The author of John's gospel, in my opinion, was directly alluding to Heraclitus in his famous beginning. (esp. John 1.3: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο)

The ensuing drivel in this thread over the "hellenization" of Christianity is both ill-informed and a red herring. I would be more mystified as to why this remains a debate if I wasn't already so well aware of a tendency to argue despite facts, not with them. It all reminds me of Rodney Stark's ridiculous claims in The Victory of Reason, where Stark asserts that Christianity is directly responsible for the west's notions of progress and enlightenment. Kind of like Hitler was responsible for the creation of the modern state of Israel.

WHile your rhteroic is sweeping your conlcusion is very limited. Is anyone in this thread disagreeing with the conlcusion you set forth (which appears to be limited to the Jesus as Logos introduciton to John)? My problem was trying to understand why this was signficiant to me apart from as a very interesting bit of hisotry. By this I do not mean to minimize it's hisotrical import, nor its interest, but I doubted that SU was starting the thread for such a limited prupose and I wanted to discern his larger claim, which I think he eventually set out. GOing back to your post, do you literally mean that all else other than the conlcusion you stated was drivel, or are you being more selective than that.

Btw, I am glad you showed up on this, I was wondering what had happened to you.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHile your rhteroic is sweeping your conlcusion is very limited. Is anyone in this thread disagreeing with the conlcusion you set forth (which appears to be limited to the Jesus as Logos introduciton to John)? My problem was trying to understand why this was signficiant to me apart from as a very interesting bit of hisotry. By this I do not mean to minimize it's hisotrical import, nor its interest, but I doubted that SU was starting the thread for such a limited prupose and I wanted to discern his larger claim, which I think he eventually set out. GOing back to your post, do you literally mean that all else other than the conlcusion you stated was drivel, or are you being more selective than that.

Btw, I am glad you showed up on this, I was wondering what had happened to you.

I was referring to the back-and-forth about when Greek philosophy entered Christianity and what the impact was (apostasy or impetus). For whatever reason, it was painful for me to read. Maybe because it's come up so many times before.

I think you're right to ask for the overall point and for an assessment of the overall significance, especially since I think it's fairly easily demonstrated that those who wrote the NT were well versed in Greek philosophical language (which, to me, is the overall point). The beginning of John is just one of many examples.

To what extent the writers of the NT were adopting Greek philosophical concepts or just using the terminology and language to advance their own (or Jesus') novel ideas is for the biblical scholars and theologians (not me) to decide. I suspect both forces are at work.

I've been relaxing at the in-laws' for a few weeks, a land where computers cannot function. . . They've never owned a computer, but they have a $4,000 television. Go figure.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

I think you're right to ask for the overall point and for an assessment of the overall significance, especially since I think it's fairly easily demonstrated that those who wrote the NT were well versed in Greek philosophical language (which, to me, is the overall point). The beginning of John is just one of many examples.

Perfectly stated.

[ute4ever]

I had a discussion this evening with a man who is a temple worker, a lawyer, and studies ancient Hebrew and Greek. His thoughts on John 1:1 are as follows.

Logos ("the word") = the law. There was a counsel of judges who understood the law, and Jehovah was the voice of that quorum. Think of it as similar to the way a Supreme Court justice reads the court's decision to the people. In the beginning, the law existed, and the law was with the voice of the quorum (Jehovah), and the law governed.

That law was love, truth, mercy, justice, and intelligence in their absolute and perfected forms.