God or Satan?

by peacefulpete 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  KalebOutWest

  Jeffro:

  ...this view of the ‘logos’ is necessarily and inexorably through the lens of Greek influence.

  I am referencing a theology that was developed before there was Greek empire. It did not exist when people wrote the verse found in Exodus 12:23 which speaks of the "Destroyer" (Hebrew HAMMASHIT) or developed the theology or the Oral Traditions prior to this.

  The Torah, this particular narrative, and this theology which I am speaking of (which names God as one-and-the-same with the evil or destruction that God allowed) was created in Hebrew before the birth and rise of Alexander the Great. Thus what you are stating is not possible.

  During the time this theology was being shaped there was no Greek Empire, there were only separate independent city-states like Athens and Sparta. The unified empire that spread the influence of Hellenism that you are speaking of did not exist yet. The terms "logo" and the Wisdom of Solomon were not even composed yet, nor was the Torah completed as we know it today. I was speaking of their connection to the theology, which is far more ancient than the Greek words in which they were translated.

  I was speaking of 597 BCE and for the generation onward. You are talking about an "influence" that would not exist until Alexander the Great, around 322 BCE. The Hebrew Bible was finalized during the Persian Era. Alexander the Great would much later conquer the Persians. But he was not born yet. You have your eras backward. Saying that that the theology must be Greek because it was rendered in Greek is like saying the Hebrew Scriptures must be American because they are translated in English.

  In fact, the Greek word does not mean the same thing the Hebrew word means. The Hebrew word MALAKH means "representation" or "representative" or "spokesman." LOGOS in Greek means "truth" or "rational" or "divine intelligence." The English word "logo" was shaped by the Hebrew usage, not the Greek. For instance, the "logo" for McDonald's is a representation of the product and company, i.e., the "Golden Arches." It is not "truth," or "divine." But the giant "M" is a "representation" and a "spokesman," like it is in Hebrew. Thus the Hebrew influenced and overshadowed the Greek usage in the etymological development for English and international usage (I worked for Madison Avenue in my early 20s, so I had to learn this in my Graphic Design studies).

  There was not a Greek empire to shape the word "Destroyer" or influence the theology of the Jews while in Babylonian Exile let alone a Hebrew text. The theology came first as did the Oral Traditions. The dating of history, etymology, and the rise and fall of empires do not fit your claims
• 

  peacefulpete

  That question of timing and influence will be debated forever. In many researchers' minds the Greeks (broadly speaking) are the beginning of the whole genre of the 'saga' and it must be said their reach and influence predates, by hundreds of years, the empire of Alexander through trade, mercenaries and migration...Philistines???

  The general argument is that the increasing sophistication of Yahwist scribal theology motivated introjections into both rival their national saga (Primary History). The insertion of an angel or Word or Glory is rather clearly a secondary layer. The most likely period for this was the 4th-3rd century BCE IMO. Whether this is the direct result of Greek exposure (post Alexander) is speculative. Until recently I favored this idea, and many still do, but the underlying premise is that the Judeans (or Diaspora) were somehow primitive, less culturally advanced than the empires that repeatedly laid waste to them. That is just not supported by evidence. Wherever the Jews found themselves (Babylon, Peria, Egypt) they asserted an influence and found respect in intellectual circles.

  Regarding the Logos terminology, that was the work of great Greek minds specifically. The record is pretty clear on that point. That does not mean other thinkers had not arrived at something somewhat similar. That is likely the case here. While the Alexandrian Jews especially, adopted the language of Neoplatonism, their message would have been familiar to a broader audience. Just how indebted the scribes that introduced the 'Angel of the Lord' (and Glory, or Word, or Name) were to the Greeks is impossible to quantify.
• 

  Jeffro

  In fact, the Greek word does not mean the same thing the Hebrew word means.

  There was some shifting of the goal posts in that response (not quoted in entirety here for brevity). I referred to the concept of ‘logos’ as used in Wisdom and John 1:1 (and I don’t need a tedious lecture about the word ‘logo’), so your abstraction abbot earlier periods was a misrepresentation of my comment. The fact remains that the earlier concepts were later conflated with the Greek Logos concept.
• 

  Jeffro

  The English word "logo" was shaped by the Hebrew usage, not the Greek.

  This is simply wrong. The English word ‘logo’ (originally as ‘logotype’) is derived from the Greek word ‘logos’, from the plain sense of its meaning of ‘word’, wherein a logo is representative of a name or word. The etymology of the term as it relates to typography is well documented, and there was never an intent that logos serve as ‘messengers’ when the term was coined.
• 

  Jeffro

  But the giant "M" is a "representation" and a "spokesman," like it is in Hebrew.

  This is a folk etymology. It ignores the actual origin of the term, where a single block of type (a logotype) was used for some whole words in early printing presses instead of using separate letter blocks which led to words represented by symbols in typography, and instead draws a superficial similarity between the Hebrew term for ‘representative’ and contorts it into a sense of ‘representation’ in reference to the modern use of logos.
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  Some might find these wiki links interesting. God's emanations are an ancient idea that persists to the present.

  Godhead in Judaism - Wikipedia

  Ein Sof - Wikipedia
• 

  Jeffro

  You are talking about an "influence" that would not exist until Alexander the Great, around 322 BCE.

  That and other statements about supposedly getting the eras wrong in the response were an egregious misrepresentation of my statement that was unambiguously in reference to the use of Logos in later Jewish literature. I’ve provided an AI generated analysis below because the misrepresentation doesn’t deserve further effort on my part…

  You’re absolutely correct that the response misinterprets the initial statement, leading to a straw man argument. Let’s break this down:

  1. Misinterpretation of the Initial Statement

  The initial statement specifically references Logos as found in Wisdom of Solomon and John 1:1, both of which are texts associated with the Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic periods, respectively. The initial statement does not claim that the entirety of Hebrew theology or the Torah is influenced by Greek thought, but rather that the concept of Logos is viewed through a Greek lens. The response erroneously shifts the argument to claim that Hebrew theology predates the Greek Empire, which is irrelevant to the specific claim about Logos.

  This is a straw man argument because it rebuts a point not made by the initial statement. The initial statement only addresses Logos, not the entirety of early Hebrew theology or oral traditions.

  2. Greek Influence on ‘Logos’

  The concept of Logos, as it appears in the Hellenistic Jewish text Wisdom of Solomon and in John 1:1, is explicitly tied to Greek philosophical frameworks. Both texts are products of a period when Jewish thought was in dialogue with Hellenistic ideas, particularly those of Stoicism and Platonic philosophy. The initial statement correctly points out that any discussion of Logos in these contexts is necessarily through a Greek lens.

  3. Eras Out of Sequence

  The response repeatedly asserts that the initial statement confuses eras, but this assertion itself misrepresents the claim. The initial statement does not discuss pre-Hellenistic theology or the Babylonian Exile directly; it focuses on Logos, a term and concept that inherently belongs to the Greek-influenced period. Thus, the response is invalid in this critique. The eras are not “out of sequence” in the initial statement because it is explicitly addressing a later period.

  4. Conclusion

  The response could have engaged with the actual claim by acknowledging that while early Hebrew theology predates Greek influence, the specific concept of Logos as discussed in Wisdom of Solomon and John 1:1 is deeply rooted in Hellenistic thought. Instead, it misrepresents the argument and critiques an unrelated claim about pre-Hellenistic Hebrew theology, which was never in dispute. This misstep undermines the validity of the response.