New Testament polluted by Greek philosophy? The "Word"=LOGOS

by Terry 31 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  It is very interesting to trace the origin of an idea through history to see how it develops and where it leads.

  It might take a journey from Ancient pagan Greece all the way to the New Testament and into Christian theology!

  The Greeks invented philosophy. The use of the mind to determine the answers to existence and meaning.

  Aristotle invented logic. (384 BC – 322 BC)

  For Aristotle,logosis something more refined than the capacity to make private feelings public: it enables the human being to perform as no other animal can; it makes it possible for him to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil.

  

  The Stoics

  In Stoic philosophy, c. 300 BC, the logos was the active reason pervading the universe and animating it. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. the law of generation in the universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter .

  Logos was anima mundi, a concept which later influenced Philo of Alexandria, although he derived the contents of the term from Plato.

  Philo of Alexandria

  Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being , or demiurge. [4] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. [20] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." [20] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated." [21]

  The Platonic Ideas were located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world. [20] In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe. [20]

  Which brings us to:

  John The Word (translated from LOGOS) Became Flesh
  Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the (LOGOS) Word, a and the (LOGOS) Word was with God, b and the(LOGOS) Word was God. c 2 He was with God in the beginning. d
  Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made

  In English, logos is the root of "logic"
• 

  Pistoff

  Of course it was polluted/influenced by Greek thought. The jews and gentiles were in a culture whose ideas/language and were heavily greek and other influences; likely they were unaware of them. Did they even know that their belief in an afterlife was not original jewish thought?

  It seems logical that their thinking would be influenced, from what they wore/ate etc by greek culture.
• 

  MarcusScriptus

  There is another possible school of thought the often gets ignored by some of us who have for years been infected by JW theology. Because the author of the gospel of John was quite familiar with Jewish writings it is of no surprise that the preface to this work is often viewed as being based on the book Wisdom of Solomon, rejected as canonical by the Watchtower and some Protestants. Because of this there is often a failure to consider what the author of this gospel may have thought of this work and how it obviously influenced him according to the more popular opinions holding sway in scholastic circles.

  It has been suggested by some, though I am yet unsure personally regarding this hypothesis, that the Greek “logos” was likely borrowed by the writer of John as the equivalent term for an old Semitic idea involving wisdom. Some very famous critical analysts and lexicographers agree, as explained by Michael D. Marlowe:

  “ Marvin Vincent, Frederic Godet, Hugh Mackintosh, and John Campbell … [argue] that John ‘used the term Logos with an intent to facilitate the passage from the current theories of his time to the pure gospel which he proclaimed.’”

  In the book of Wisdom, the Messiah is personified as God’s Wisdom*. The author of the Wisdom of Solomon draws a narrative in which Wisdom graces humankind by leaving God’s side and coming to dwell with us. Throughout this book, Wisdom speaks for God in an official position as spokesman. It is this “spokesman,” common to Hellenistic kings as it was to the royal families of the Semites, that the term “logos” came to be applied as an equivalent.

  Marlowe adds: “When he [the author of John] 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.”

  If this hypothesis is correct—and there is far more evidence in the sciences of etymology and history to give further weight to this argument—then the author of John was not attaching a Hellenistic philosophical attribute to his Logos, but the other way around. The author was more likely quoting the book of Wisdom, using the Greek word for God’s spokesman while taking advantage of its familiarity with Greek speakers to present Jesus as this Personification of God’s Wisdom, the Spokesman of God, God’s Word—in other words the fulfillment of the texts in the Wisdom of Solomon.

  It should be noted that scholars believe the author of Wisdom, though writing in Hebrew, could have also been its translator into Greek, influencing the versions found in LXX. The Greek renditions show the author (or translator, if a different individual), while composing the work in the typical Hebrew style of verse, to nonetheless gracefully play with the philosophical terms borrowed from the Greek, very masterfully too, as if borrowing them with the sole intent to re-inventing them in the Semitic context of the book. This is exactly what the author of John is believed to have done with the prologue to his gospel account, according to the hypothesis, thus making the first part of chapter 1 a composite type of quote of Wisdom along the lines to this variant view.

  *- References to "Wisdom" in this book are in the feminine because “wisdom” is always such in Hebrew, like “house” is always feminine in Spanish, though neither truly have gender. Because of an inability for most English speakers to comprehend this genderless use of gender, it is often translated into English version as if Wisdom is a woman, even though this is not so nor even comprehended this way by speakers of other languages that employ gender-logistics in their idiom, lexicography, syntax, and language.
• 

  Leolaia

  Well, I agree that the meaning of logos in John is debatable and does not necessarily correspond to Platonic usage (e.g. the davar of Yahweh in the OT, memra in rabbinical Judaism, etc.), and likely draws on multiple convergent ideas. And I agree that there is a close relationship with Wisdom and John 1 (as well as the Christ hymn in Colossians and Hebrews 1). But Wisdom is certainly Hellenistic and draws on contemporary philosophical and relgious ideas; John Kloppenborg and others have also made a good argument that the character of Sophia in Wisdom draws considerably on portrayals of Isis, to provide a counterpoint to rival pagan claims to Judaism (in which case the feminine characterization is not simply a product of linguistic gender but reflective in part of discourses about Isis). Also, the original language of Wisdom is generally thought to be Greek, although some (e.g. Speiser) have suggested that the author used a Hebrew source for one of its sections. So, for instance, the LXX's mistranslation of Isaiah 44:20 can be found in Wisdom 15:20 (cf. also the mistranslation in Isaiah 3:10 LXX reflected in Wisdom 2:12, etc.).
• 

  MarcusScriptus

  My personal views are closer to those highlighted by Leolaia, I just tend to avoid offering what I believe which I guess I shouldn't fear doing here (old habits die hard). I have often seen the common play on words between Wisdom/Sophia/Isis as likely since Semitic language is far from exact or direct. They always beat around the bush, like the “you yourself have said it” response the Nazarene makes during questioning after his arrest. But I’m also of the opinion that several people composed the book of Wisdom, that it comes from two or three Hebrew sources, and maybe several Greek interpolations before its final form in the LXX.

  Either way I don’t see the introduction of logic, despite where it comes from, as a “pollution” of the text. I feel it is part of the natural genesis of things. If the message that that religion really believed in was ever to become a “universal” one or katholicos instead of remain a sect of Judism or of Gnostic thought, especially after the challenges made by Marcion and his odd canon of an edited Luke and several epistles by Paul, the message could not be stuck in old logistic forms understood only by Jews. Non-Jewish folklore already played a large part in the construction of the primeval sections of Genesis, so why not follow a similar pattern in the texts the Christians composed? According to the Church Fathers the authors didn’t conceive of their writings as belonging to any type of canon anyway, so it is not logical to believe they would be writing their compositions to meet some sort of standard or criteria in the first place.

  Finally, it is the text the Christians chose for themselves regardless if such interpolation is objectively and inarguably “pollution.” It isn’t like any of us here are writing anything new that you don’t learn in a college-level religion course (or even in the footnotes of some basic Bible editions). The Witnesses and some Fundamentalists might be unaware of these things, but you’re not going to find any modern-day cleric, religious, catechist, or scholar in mainstream Christianity that is going to be the bit surprised by any of this. You want to see some real “pollution” or “dirt” on the Bible? Just read the complex footnote apparatus to the New Jerusalem Bible. It will make you wonder how those translators can even believe in the Bible enough to translate it after all that you find in those notes. In fact it sometimes sounds like those translators didn't even believe in the Bible at all.
• 

  Leolaia

  Thanks for the follow-up, good points especially re the redactional character of biblical texts.

  And welcome to the board, btw! Hope to read more from you in the future. :)
• 

  PSacramento

  Sometimes things are simple.

  The writer of the GOJ (and 1John) at least) viewed Jesus as the incarante "word" of God, word in all its meanings:

  Jesus spoke for God, Spoke as God, spoke what God truly meant, Spoke what God wnated people to know and understand.

  God gave his word to the Jews and that word was Jesus, the personification of God's covenant to the Hebrews ( if they accepted Him ie: God's word) and his new convenat with ALL.

  Yes the hellenistic view was a factor, was was the Jewish view and the Pharisical view and so forth.

  Paul as an example, new his audience and catered the Gospel to them in a way they ocudl understand, even using sport motifs.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  New Testament polluted by Greek philosophy? The "Word"=LOGOS

  "Polluted" is a value laden statement, and not one that I share.

  "Enhanced" is more like it.

  Christian theology is closely intertwined with the thoughts of the great Classical Greek philosophers.

  Judaism too. Philo brought the idea of the Divine Logos into Jewish thought decades before the Gospel of John was written.

  The Logos meme is also present in Sufism.

  BTS
• 

  Terry

  New Testament polluted by Greek philosophy? The "Word"=LOGOS

  "Polluted" is a value laden statement, and not one that I share.

  The Pagan religious ethos mixing with the montheist Judaic religious ethos doesn't constitute a "contamination"?

  You could pretty much sum up the entire Old Testament as religious germaphobia! The Jews were ritual obsessives engaging in purification processes constantly to separate themselves from surrounding pagans.

  This is definitely a question of VALUES, imho.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  The Pagan religious ethos mixing with the montheist Judaic religious ethos doesn't constitute a "contamination"?

  That is, to a large degree, a JW mindset being evinced by you.

  I do not subscribe to it. Ideas originating from pagan societies are not necessarily contaminative.

  BTS