Re Logos: For Biblical scholars and Classicists

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is not a simple question. At a superficial level, at least since Talmage bookish Mormons have used the (so-called) Great Apostasy as an explanatoin for the need for a restored Gospel. FARMS likes to pretend at scholarship (sorry for the hyperbole but I don't know how else to make this point), and the Greek ingredient in Christianity is the concrete thing it has identified as constituting apostasy from Christ's original church. But if such a church existed, it is only in theory. The seminal writings and concepts of Christianity, including the entire New Testament, the persona of Christ (the NT is our only record of him except for brief references in Josephus and Tacitus), the elegant theology of the atonement, all are permeated with Greek philosophy, indeed, were reduced to writing originally in Greek language. And we see their antecedents in the writings of Philo, the Stoics, Plato, Socrates, et al.

Whatever "Christianity" may have existed before the Greek element was introduced is not the Christianity of Paul, of the Gospels (of Mary and Joseph, the Wise Men, Herod, etc.), of the Atonement, or indeed really of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. The Christianity we all have known and loved is a product of men thoroughly imbued in Greek philosopy. Take the Greek out and essentially all you have is a radical offshoot of Judiasm existing only in theroy, of which there is no written record. Some here have even thought that Christ actually quoted from the Septuagint, as if he was speaking in Aramic then suddenly started quoting OT passages in Greek! Of course these passages appear in Greek because the Septuagint is the Bible the writers of the NT used. So, if you want to get rid of the Greek element in Chrsianity the first thing you must do is grab your Bible and toss the whole thing (with a vengence) in the dumpster.

Two thousand years later the Classical ingredient of Christianity has come to be associated with Catholicism, Russion or Greek Orthodox, the older side of the Christian tree. Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant side, in fact rebeled primarily against the Renaissaince, which was fundamentally a reawakening to Christianity's Classical heritage. Go to the Louvre or the Met and in the Renaissance section you'll see scores of statues imitating Roman and Greek work, and paintings filled with Classical motifs. The glorious edifices of the Vatican were constructed in large part by digging up and re-using Classical ruins, and partially imitating them. So the Protestant side of the tree has never been comfortable with its Greek heritage. But this is a form of self-loathing. Because Martin Luther, Calvin, Joseph Smith and the rest of them all celebrated Christmas and Easter and revered the nativity scene, the symbolism of the crucfiction and Christ's suffering, etc., and all this is permeated with the Greek. It was all originally created in Greek words.

I am still having a little trouble here. Perhaps to understand it I need to read the Great Apostasy, which I never have read. OTOH, I suspect that it may go a little deeper than that. IOW, my guess is it is not just a dispute about the cause of the apostasy but about whether there ever was a church at all in the terms we LDS think about it (which you suggest in your post). This seems to me to be a much larger issue than the source of heretical and corrupting influences. It's one thing to say that the concept of logos was borrowed from the Greek; it is another to say that without the Greek there was no concept of logos nor any comprehension of that role.

A couple of thoughts. First, you did have an agenda, even if you weren't trying to push it, and I think you have shown it here. Second, The unwritten version of Christianity, as you describe it, could still be described in Hellenic terms, could it not? The apostasy was from practice and doctrine (IMO), but not from expression of same, per se. I rather enjoyed the readings from the links you and Arch posted and I see little in there that disturbs me in my faith. In fact, I quite like some of the concepts I encounter there and see nothing wrong with them, be they from Greece or elsewhere. To be honest, I have never really paid attention to FARMS, and so I may be missing the boat, but I just don't see what the problem here is supposed to be.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am still having a little trouble here. Perhaps to understand it I need to read the Great Apostasy, which I never have read. OTOH, I suspect that it may go a little deeper than that. IOW, my guess is it is not just a dispute about the cause of the apostasy but about whether there ever was a church at all in the terms we LDS think about it (which you suggest in your post). This seems to me to be a much larger issue than the source of heretical and corrupting influences. It's one thing to say that the concept of logos was borrowed from the Greek; it is another to say that without the Greek there was no concept of logos nor any comprehension of that role.

A couple of thoughts. First, you did have an agenda, even if you weren't trying to push it, and I think you have shown it here. Second, The unwritten version of Christianity, as you describe it, could still be described in Hellenic terms, could it not? The apostasy was from practice and doctrine (IMO), but not from expression of same, per se. I rather enjoyed the readings from the links you and Arch posted and I see little in there that disturbs me in my faith. In fact, I quite like some of the concepts I encounter there and see nothing wrong with them, be they from Greece or elsewhere. To be honest, I have never really paid attention to FARMS, and so I may be missing the boat, but I just don't see what the problem here is supposed to be.

Seattle likes to pick and choose his pieces. There are a few poorly written apologetics where some of the guys summarize extremely superficially what occurred to suit their arguments, but Seattle is being equally disingenuous to cover all over there with that label. Frankly, I don't look nor have I have looked to FARMS for my understanding but go to the original sources. I agree that the original doctrines or expressions don't threaten my beliefs nor should they. Seattle is attacking strawmen.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Seattle likes to pick and choose his pieces. There are a few poorly written apologetics where some of the guys summarize extremely superficially what occurred to suit their arguments, but Seattle is being equally disingenuous to cover all over there with that label. Frankly, I don't look nor have I have looked to FARMS for my understanding but go to the original sources. I agree that the original doctrines or expressions don't threaten my beliefs nor should they. Seattle is attacking strawmen.

When I read your post I went over there and did a very quick search and this was the first thing I found. Isn't Daniel Peterson FARMS' Jefe? (By the way, so far as I can tell "Hellenization of Christianity" is an LDS-created term.)

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferen...g_Picture.html

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

here are links that support what you say to some extent but also emphasize independent Hebrew development.

http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/L/logos.html

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/jud_logos.htm

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

Archaea, thanks for the enclyclopedia article. I like it. Handy and informative. As for the other two, this is Lewis Loflin:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/main.htm

Before I read his fairly turgid article how can I verify he is an expert? Is he LDS?

As for the third, doesn't it come from a Protestant apologeitics site?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Archaea, thanks for the enclyclopedia article. I like it. Handy and informative. As for the other two, this is Lewis Loflin:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/main.htm

Before I read his fairly turgid article how can I verify he is an expert? Is he LDS?

As for the third, doesn't it come from a Protestant apologeitics site?

I was providing across the board stuff. I don't believe I provided any LDS stuff as I usually avoid LDS opinions on the matter, because there are no LDS experts on the doctrine. Again some of the better articles are on JSTOR, but I don't have an account.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I was providing across the board stuff. I don't believe I provided any LDS stuff as I usually avoid LDS opinions on the matter, because there are no LDS experts on the doctrine. Again some of the better articles are on JSTOR, but I don't have an account.

I kind of like the cartoon on Loflin's home page.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I kind of like the cartoon on Loflin's home page.

His photo made me wonder what that joker could know. I've seen some fun articles linked on JSTOR but don't wish to pay for them.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

When I read your post I went over there and did a very quick search and this was the first thing I found. Isn't Daniel Peterson FARMS' Jefe? (By the way, so far as I can tell "Hellenization of Christianity" is an LDS-created term.)

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferen...g_Picture.html

If Dan holds that position, then I disagree with him. I don't read the languages like he does and will defer to his knowledge of the ancient languages, but I can read what a bunch of non-denominational scholars have written in English and completely disagree with his characterization based on those readings. I still don't believe all of those guys there believe that and maybe Dan if he thought about it or if one spoke with him, might give a more nuanced opinion. I don't know as I won't defend that opinion.

I hadn't read that article as I usually don't do FARMS. I'm not certain what to make of his conclusions, as it is not as sloppy as Robinson's conclusions were.

I don't know what to think of this quote:

So, while it may be understandable that some of us wish for a sophisticated theology with which to impress outsiders, that wish may nonetheless be misguided and, perhaps, even morally questionable. It was the early Christian "Apologists" Minucius Felix, Justin Martyr, and others with their desire to make Christianity intellectually respectable, who may have done more than any other group to deform early Christian doctrine. With the best will in the world, they adopted and adapted the philosophical concepts of their day to express Christian beliefs and, in that very process, subtly but unmistakably altered those beliefs. Moreover, Boman is right to lament "the customary European judgment that only the systematists are real thinkers. Whoever is of this opinion will find no thinkers in the Old Testament, for the Israelites were truly no systematizers, even less logicians."77 At least, they didn't do logic the way Aristotle did logic. "I have repeatedly pointed out," wrote the great W. F. Albright,
that the Hebrew Bible is the greatest existing monument of empirical logic and that this logic is more exact than formal logic in some important respects. After all, it is based on the cumulative experience of men, and not on postulates or presuppositions which may or may not be correct, as is inevitably true of most postulational reasoning outside of mathematics and the exact sciences.78

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

(By the way, so far as I can tell "Hellenization of Christianity" is an LDS-created term.)

I don't think so:

Die Hellenisuerung des Christentums in der Geschichte der Theologie von Luther bis auf die Gegenwart by Walter Glaive, 1912

My German is a little weak but I am sure Arch can straighten me out if I am wrong.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

(By the way, so far as I can tell "Hellenization of Christianity" is an LDS-created term.)

Also, let me add some perspective of the tension caused by Hellenization and the early Chrisitian response to it from an entirely non-Mormon source (this particular passage is about viewing 2 Peter as fairly critical theological response to extreme Hellenization):

The peculiar theological character of 2 Peter lies in its remarkable combination of Hellenistic religious language and Jewish apocalyptic ideas and imagery. For example, the author summarizes Peter's teaching in a passage that, in its ethical and religious terminology, is perhaps the most Hellenistic in the New Testament (1.3–11). On the other hand, he accurately and effectively reproduces Jewish apocalyptic ideas, especially in 3.3–13. This combination of theological styles is to be explained by the author's intention of interpreting and defending the apostolic message in a postapostolic and Hellenistic cultural situation. But this is a delicate task; in the author's view, in his opponents' attempt to adapt Christianity to Hellenistic culture they were compromising essential features of the apostolic message. In order to defend the gospel against this excessive Hellenization, therefore, the author resorts to sources and ideas close to the apocalyptic outlook of early Christianity, including the letter of Jude. The author thus keeps a careful balance between a degree of Hellenization of the gospel message, and a protest, in the name of apocalyptic eschatology, against extreme Hellenization that would dissolve the substance of the message. The letter is a valuable witness to Christianity's difficult transition from a Jewish to a Hellenistic environment, and provides an instructive example of how the message of the gospel was preserved through the process of cultural translation.

--Ernest Best, Richard J. Bauckham "Peter, The Letters of" The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds. Oxford University Press Inc. 1993. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.