Re Logos: For Biblical scholars and Classicists

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

No, I am more like stupid like Alfred E. Neumann. No dissertation here.

[SeattleUte]

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.

I think it's somewhat like interpreting a contract or a statute. The context must inevitably inform interpretation of the text.

Logos only meant "word" outside the philosophical context because the learned Greek speakers who translated the Septuagint used "Logos" to describe the word of God. These learned Greek speaking Jews were fully imbued with Greek philosopy. It was the core subject matter at university, so to speak. There is no getting around it, Logos is a Greek creation; it's a Greek word. The Gospel of John was written in Greek.

I see all the elements of the atonement doctrine in Philo's writings. This seems to me a mainstream view at least among philosphers and probably learned theologians outside FARMS. (Like Josephus (and unlike, say, Epicurus), Philo was revered by Christians through the ages. Thus, like Josephus' writings, his have come to us mostly intact. There's not much mystery to what at least Philo meant when he wrote Logos.) John and other early Christians only had to turn an abstract concept into a human being. "John's" use of the Word to describe Jesus is the ultimate step in a clear progression.

This can't help but remind me of the Grand Inquisitor saying the people rejected their freedom for mystery and the authority of scripture or the Word. It could be a description of the evolution of the Logos and Greek philophy's ultimate absorption into Christianity until its restoration in the latter days. I don't know if Dostoevsky had this in mind; probably he did, at least subconsciously.

[Archaea]

But Seattle your view ignores the conflicting archetype argument that the logos doctrine also existed within Hebrew culture independent of Greek thought.

[creekster]

So whats yer point? I don't mean the big point, but the point of raising this here and now.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

But Seattle your view ignores the conflicting archetype argument that the logos doctrine also existed within Hebrew culture independent of Greek thought.

But I'm saying your point about independence isn't factual. The Hebrews learned about the Logos from the Greeks. The Hebrew Bible talks about God and the word of God. The Hebrews who translated the Bible into Greek, the lingua franca of the educated classes, and expounded it decided that the term Logos fit as far as interaction between God and man, including God's words. As Philo's writings demonstrate, Jews of his background and generation (including probably John and Paul) looked around them and saw the indubitable value of Greek philosophy and Classical culture, and they labored to harmonize the Bible with Greek philosophy. This explicitly was Philo's undertaking. Harmonizing those two traditions was Philo's life work, it could be said. Philo was like the Romneys; he came from a rich, worldy Jewish family who were prominent in the Roman world. HIs nephew became an apostate and governor of Egypt. Again, Philo was not a Christian, but he's been adopted as such by later generations.

[Archaea]

Seattle appears to have come to the belief that the good things in Christianity all came more or less from Greek philosophy. That Christianity is merely an artifact of the fusion between Greek philosophy and the tribal traditions of the Hebrews.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Seattle appears to have come to the belief that the good things in Christianity all came more or less from Greek philosophy. That Christianity is merely an artifact of the fusion between Greek philosophy and the tribal traditions of the Hebrews.

Right; that's his big point. But what's his point here? He raises it here why? Becasue he got tired of somebody at FARMS kicking his butt on the topic? Becasue he wanted to needle us more? What is the point here and now?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But I'm saying your point about independence isn't factual. The Hebrews learned about the Logos from the Greeks. The Hebrew Bible talks about God and the word of God. The Hebrews who translated the Bible into Greek, the lingua franca of the educated classes, and expounded it decided that the term Logos fit as far as interaction between God and man, including God's words. As Philo's writings demonstrate, Jews of his background and generation (including probably John and Paul) looked around them and saw the indubitable value of Greek philosophy and Classical culture, and they labored to harmonize the Bible with Greek philosophy. This explicitly was Philo's undertaking. Harmonizing those two traditions was Philo's life work, it could be said. Philo was like the Romneys; he came from a rich, worldy Jewish family who were prominent in the Roman world. HIs nephew became an apostate and governor of Egypt. Again, Philo was not a Christian, but he's been adopted as such by later generations.

But to use Jung archetypes, one would argue that the hero archetype of Christ is universal and not confined to Greeks and Hebrews learning Greeks.

And it is far from proven even among the scholars that the Hebrews learned the logos doctrine in the tanakh from the Greeks. I know it's a nice, little tidy explanation, but it's too Farmsish for my tastes and explains too homogeneous of a fusion.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But I'm saying your point about independence isn't factual. The Hebrews learned about the Logos from the Greeks. The Hebrew Bible talks about God and the word of God. The Hebrews who translated the Bible into Greek, the lingua franca of the educated classes, and expounded it decided that the term Logos fit as far as interaction between God and man, including God's words. As Philo's writings demonstrate, Jews of his background and generation (including probably John and Paul) looked around them and saw the indubitable value of Greek philosophy and Classical culture, and they labored to harmonize the Bible with Greek philosophy. This explicitly was Philo's undertaking. Harmonizing those two traditions was Philo's life work, it could be said. Philo was like the Romneys; he came from a rich, worldy Jewish family who were prominent in the Roman world. HIs nephew became an apostate and governor of Egypt. Again, Philo was not a Christian, but he's been adopted as such by later generations.

You may be correct, to some extent. I am not qualified to say. But you certainly have not presented enough evidence to show that you are correct in your larger conclusion. Maybe the Hebrew christians loved Philo becasue he got it so right.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

So whats yer point? I don't mean the big point, but the point of raising this here and now.

This is a Bible studies forum.