There is substantial evidence that the Apostle John did not borrow pagan ideas to formulate his idea of the LOGOS. Of course, we all know that the term LOGOS has a long history in Greek literature and was used in ancient writings to possibly describe an immutable and necessary rational ordering-principle (Heraclitus) or "the meaningful structure of reality as a whole and of the human mind in particular" (Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be, page 12).
Certain scholars have also wondered whether the word LOGOS denotes a primal cognate of the universe in Greek literature, while others point to Philo's LOGOS as somewhat of a locus classicus for John's LOGOS.
Despite the signifier's prolific use in Greek literature, however, it appears that John's
deployment of the term is firmly rooted in ideas from the Tanakh:
"While the term is Greek, the roots of the Johannine meaning seem to be more in Jewish-Hebrew soil" (Gerald Borchert, John 1-11, page 104). Cf. Ps. 33:6; Prov. 8:22-35.
"This word [LOGOS] was used by many ancient philosophies, but we must not import their meanings into this passage. John gives the LOGOS its own meaning; the standpoint is that of the Old Testament" (AT Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, page 185).
10 comments:
Edgar,
I agree with your final quote.
OT undertanding which I somewhat different to the OT filtered through Philo or other Hellenistic writings.
http://hebrew.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/JHL/Wisdom.html
On the other hand, I must admit that I find Michael Marlowe's view hard to dismiss:
"My own opinion is that the contemporary Hellenistic understanding of logos in theological contexts (esp. in Philo) should not be discounted by those who wish to understand John's meaning. The contrasts between Philo and John, which the scholars here want to emphasize, should not obscure the fact that John is using a word which was already full of meaning for Jewish readers in his day. When he asserts that the logos became flesh he is indeed saying something that was never dreamt of by Philo or the Greek philosophers; but in all other respects it is their logos — the cosmic Mediator between God and the world, who is the personification of God's Truth and Wisdom — that John is referring to when he asserts that Christ is its incarnation."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html
Noteworthy is Philo's view that the logos is called God only improperly, and I've long wondered whether Justin Martyr took is "second God" Christology from both Philo and John. What was an attribute for Philo became a real person for John, thereby reshaping the view of the great Hellenistic philosopher's view in light of Christ.
~Kaz
good thoughts, Kaz. I'm not so averse to linking Philo with John as I am placing the LOGOS of Heraclitus or the Stoics in the same category. Philo is a likely candidate although certainty seems to elude us in this matter.
Please see my blog post for today on this issue.
Best regards,
Edgar
Good points, Edgar, here and in the subsequent blog post. And I certainly agree that certainty alludes us. At least I think I certainly agree;-)
I've gone back and forth on this question over the years, leaning towards one interpretation then the other, and I ultimately came to favor the view that John may have used LOGOS as a sort of bridging term. He may have done so to help both Jew and Greek to reach a more richly textured understanding of the Son. Maybe John was taking Paul's lead in attempting to be all things to everyone.
~Kaz
I agree with Katz, the parallels are so striking between John and Philo that it's difficult to not see a connection, even an indirect connection.
Especially since the Logos here is a person, and Son (both concepts used in Philo), they are both considered gods (the God and a subsidiary god), and creation is done THROUGH the Logos, the precision on language for both is striking. I suppose it's possible that John derived it from creatively blending Psalm 33 and Proverbs 8, but then you'd have to say that the similarities to Philo are coincidental, I'm open to an argument that says that the prologue is better explained without a Philo connection but I haven't seen one.
I think there is a drive sometimes, to split "hellenism" and "judaism", and I think that is over simplistic, the Judaism of the first century was embedded in a Hellenistic culture, you can't escape it.
I don't think this threatens anything theologically either, because Jehovah always uses human language and human concepts (necessarily) to reveal his truth, and those things are culturally contingent.
That being said, I'm open to arguments otherwise.
I think I posted my last comment to quickly, I saw the link in your later post and followed it before reading the comment you posted below it ... sorry about that, you can disregard my previous comment here, I'm just needlessly repeating myself, sorry about that.
Romans, I don't favor a Philo/John connection. One was a philosopher-theologian, the other was a fisherman/ordinary disciple. I just find it a stretch to say that John had a sophsticated understanding of the Greek Logos, but I might be wrong. What I really wanted to say was, check out Craig Keener's commentary on John. He makes a thorough case for John not being directly influenced by Philo.
Thanks, I will :).
(Realise this is old)
I have a working theory since John was writing to possibly a non-Christian audience he was using language that was more widely understood, rather than "borrowing" more "adopting" as Christians sometimes do today to make things more understandable.
Similar to Martyr who says "eternal Logos" - I wonder if what Martyr means is that the resurrected Christ is "everlasting" but using the Logos concept to make it more familiar.
This theory may well be flawed but its one of the the only ways that make sense to me.
admittedly my "scholarship" is pseudo at best, due to my very limited access to resources
Post a Comment