Re Logos: For Biblical scholars and Classicists

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

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.

A rough translation is: The Hellenization of Christianity in the history of theology from Luther to the Present by Walter Glaive, date 1912.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

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.

Too bad. I thought the LDS Church had come up with a little something original. I guess not. It's nothing if not derivative.

If the book says Luther originated the concept that doesn't surprise me (see my above post in response to Creekster).

But try googling "Hellenzation of Christianity," and dig a little into authors' backgrounds, there is mostly LDS nexi. And there isn't all that much there there, either.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

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):

Nice quote. Of course, I haven't been denying that Christianity was early "Hellenized"; on the contrary. But as the quote demonstrates, the NT itself is permeated by Greek ideas, as is Christianity as espoused by Mormons whether they know it or not. That they can't see it is one of the saddest things I could utter about Mormonism.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Nice quote. Of course, I haven't been denying that Christianity was early "Hellenized"; on the contrary. But as the quote demonstrates, the NT itself is permeated by Greek ideas, as is Christianity as espoused by Mormons whether they know it or not. That they can't see it is one of the saddest things I could utter about Mormonism.

Your pity is touching.


I am still trying to grasp the nexus of the problem. I think it may be this: We see the Greek influence (but thanks for your concern). We see the ideas of Chrisitnaity expressed in greek terms. We believe that the process of doing so led some early church leaders to apostasize from the truth (knowlingly or not) leaving the world without the complete truth. The lack of some truth caused other truth to be lost until there was a need for a restoration. Greek influence in and of itself didn't cause the apostasy, and in fact it may have served the religion well, in some ways and in some areas, but some part fo the apostasy did result from the Greek influence. DOes that make sense?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Nice quote. Of course, I haven't been denying that Christianity was early "Hellenized"; on the contrary. But as the quote demonstrates, the NT itself is permeated by Greek ideas, as is Christianity as espoused by Mormons whether they know it or not. That they can't see it is one of the saddest things I could utter about Mormonism.

You attributed the advent of Christianity to Greek philosophy, which this quote shows, is hogwash.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Your pity is touching.


I am still trying to grasp the nexus of the problem. I think it may be this: We see the Greek influence (but thanks for your concern). We see the ideas of Chrisitnaity expressed in greek terms. We believe that the process of doing so led some early church leaders to apostasize from the truth (knowlingly or not) leaving the world without the complete truth. The lack of some truth caused other truth to be lost until there was a need for a restoration. Greek influence in and of itself didn't cause the apostasy, and in fact it may have served the religion well, in some ways and in some areas, but some part fo the apostasy did result from the Greek influence. DOes that make sense?

This is like somebody saying the following:

We realize the English, the Romans and the Greeks wrote about and practiced representative government before the advent of the United States. We recognize the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution owe a large debt to those prior peoples, and that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shot through with influences of Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke. We appreciate that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamiolton, etc., spoke English, and were aware and in fact deeply influenced by these earlier traditions and thinkers. But there was this small group of people who thought representative government up themseves--or received it from God or whatever--and were not influenced in any way by their near or ancient forefathers. They lived in a vaccum created by God; they came from a lovely garden in Jackson County, Missouri, not from Europe. They were Lamanites, noble savages. And what's more, their type of representative government vanished from the earth shortly after they received it, and they left no writing describing it. There's not trace of their brilliant, inspired form of representative government.

No, we can't tell you the characteristics of the pristine representative government we're talking about. All we have are the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers and so on written by erstwhile Englishmen (in English) that are corrupted by Enlgish and Roman and Greek ideas, by European ideas. All we know is that the type of representative government America has practiced is imperfect, and distorted and corrupted by the prior experiences with representative government of European and Classical peoples, though those ancient and near influences have had some marginal benefit on mankind.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

You attributed the advent of Christianity to Greek philosophy, which this quote shows, is hogwash.

Son, have you had your eyes checked?

[pelagius]

Just a note on FARMS and blaming Hellenization for the apostacy. I don't think FARMS is monothilic about this. For example, in the recently published FARMs book, Early Christians in Disarray, Noel B. Reynolds (a big name in FARMS) writes the following:

Myth 2: The apostacy was caused by the hellenization of Christianity or the incorporation of Greek philsophy and culture into the teachings of the early church.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Just a note on FARMS and blaming Hellenization for the apostacy. I don't think FARMS is monothilic about this. For example, in the recently published FARMs book, Early Christians in Disarray, Noel B. Reynolds (a big name in FARMS) writes the following:

Thanks for finding that as it confirms what I had believed.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

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.