Light

by peacefulpete 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    The titles and labels applied to Jesus in the NT were generally drawn from the religious environment of the day. The name titles, “Logos” and “Son of Man” have been discussed here before and demonstrated to have been in use by Greek and Jewish writers as personifications of concepts pieced together from Greek philosophy and OT exegesis.

    Elaine Pagels wrote an interesting article that reveals how G.John’s use of the name/title “light of the world” has a similar heritage. Hating tying as I do, Ill just summarize briefly the main points.

    Anyone reading Genesis 1 notices the fact that light is created before the sun and moon and stars. Just what was intended by the author has been discussed before as well but it is important to know that there was much theorizing about Gen 1 in the centuries BC though the first centuries AD. Influential thinkers like Philo had drawn elaborate conclusions about the “light” in verse 3. The light had taken on it’s own life you might say. Here’s a passage from Philo book VII :

    (31) And the invisible divine reason, perceptible only by intellect, he calls the image of God. And the image of this image is that light, perceptible only by the intellect, which is the image of the divine reason, which has explained its generation. And it is a star above the heavens, the source of those stars which are perceptible by the external senses, and if any one were to call it universal light he would not be very wrong; since it is from that the sun and the moon, and all the other planets and fixed stars derive their due light, in proportion as each has power given to it; that unmingled and pure light being obscured when it begins to change, according to the change from that which is perceptible only by the intellect, to that which is perceptible by the external senses; for none of those things which are perceptible to the external senses is pure.

    Philo was not alone in personifying the “light” into a quasi being with connections with God. Rabbis of the first century and beyond entertained the idea that light here meant more than physical light, it rather was an emanation from God that was responsible for the rest of creation. The Kabala goes on to great lengths in this regard combining this personified Light with the Adam character. There was in fact an understanding that Adam was the light and was perfected in communion with God until this light was lost (through various theoretical means) leaving only a physical being. The Primordial light was variously identified with the Divine Image and Adam in a way that few of us today would have guessed by using only our Bibles.

    Another current of thought also influenced this concept. A body of literature, drafted by Egyptian writers that distinctly show influece from Hellenized Judaism, called the Corpus Hermeticum expounded even clearer this personified Light as the Primeval man. Here is an example from Poimandres the Shepard of Man usually dated to the first century AD:

    That Light, He said, am I, thy God, Mind, prior to Moist Nature which appeared from Darkness; the Light-Word (Logos) [that appeared] from Mind is Son of God.

    What then? - say I.

    Know that what sees in thee and hears is the Lord's Word (Logos); but Mind is Father-God. Not separate are they the one from other; just in their union [rather] is it Life consists.

    Thanks be to Thee, I said.

    So, understand the Light [He answered], and make friends with it.

    Note that here the Light was called the Son of God. The idea of a personified light easily found a home in Christianity. It was certainly part of early Gnostic Christianity. A number of camps of Gnostics utilizd this personified ‘Light” and ‘Primal man’ imagery in association with the mystical Christ figure. Irenaeus derailed these ‘heretics’ at length and conveniently summarized their views in his works. His attacks were generally due to the polytheistic overtones of the resulting fusion of mythology and Jewish exegesis.

    Here is a sample of these reviews:

    1. Others, again, portentously declare that there exists, in the power of Bythus, a certain primary light, blessed, incorruptible, and infinite: this is the Father of all, and is styled the first man. They also maintain that his Ennoea, going forth from him, produced a son, and that this is the son of man-the second man. Below these, again, is the Holy Spirit, and under this superior spirit the elements were separated from each other, viz., water, darkness, the abyss, chaos, above which they declare the Spirit was borne, calling him the first woman. Afterwards, they maintain, the first man, with his son, delighting over the beauty of the Spirit-that is, of the woman-and shedding light upon her, begat by her an incorruptible light, the third male, whom they call Christ,-the son of the first and second man, and of the Holy Spirit, the first woman.

    2. The father and son thus both had intercourse with the woman (whom they also call the mother of the living). When, however, 314 she could not bear nor receive into herself the greatness of the lights, they declare that she was filled to repletion, and became ebullient on the left side; and that thus their only son Christ, as belonging to the right side, and ever tending to what was higher, was immediately caught up with his mother to form an incorruptible Aeon. This constitutes the true and holy Church, which has become the appellation, the meeting together, and the union of the father of all, of the first man, of the son, of the second man, of Christ their son, and of the woman who has been mentioned.

    The G. Thomas reveals a distinct influence in very early Christian times to interpret Genesis similarly yet without the colorful mythology and implied polytheism of the Egyptian writings, it is likely contemporary with our G.John. Here is a passage:

    77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

    Split a piece of wood; I am there.

    Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

    Note that Jesus calls himself the light that not only created all things but exist in all things.

    It was in such a context that our G.John was spawned. The author certainly had theological differences with all the above examples, just as they had with each other, yet the religious environment and the contemporary influences both Jewish and otherwise shaped his conception of Christ as the Genesis ("in the beginning")"Light" . So now when we read about how ‘the light came into the world’ to reveal the true nature of the Father, we can better appreciate that he was not using the expression as a simple metaphor. No he was drawing from a very deep religious tradition and in his own way trying to reshape it. An effort now generally wasted on modern readers.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Sorry about the typos as usual. If I edit it does cray things to the formatting. I hate typing not tying.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    That's a fascinating subject -- probably as old as mankind.

    I think the decisive influence on Bible texts was provided by Persian, zoroastrian thinking, and its dualism of "light" vs. "darkness". At first Jewish monotheism came up as a reaction to it (Isaiah 45:7, "I form light and create darkness"), but soon it practically surrendered to dualism. In Genesis 1 "light" is the first word/work of God, over against the uncreated darkness of the primeval abyss (tehom) of chaos (tohu wa-bohu). In the Qumran texts we find a strict dualism (the Spirit of Light vs. the Spirit of Darkness) which is very similar to the Persian mindframe. Its echoes are ubiquitous in the NT, especially in Johannism (1 John 1:5, "God is light and in him there is no darkness at all") but permeating many different texts (e.g. James 1:17, "the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change"). And of course this plays a big part in Christological metaphors (more than metaphors as you say; perhaps onto-metaphors would be a better word for it), e.g. in the Johannine Prologue:

    What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. (...) The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.

    Two related features are interesting, which are generally lost to modern readers. One is the ancient idea that the eye radiates or beams forth light which makes things visible, providing some background for the OT passages about God's eyes seeing in darkness (e.g. Psalm 139) and the Gospel sayings about the eye as a lamp (Q-Luke 11:34). Another is the conquering or redemptive power of light, as illustrated by Ephesians 5:13f (very close in thought to the GThomas saying imo):

    everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,
    "Sleeper, awake!
    Rise from the dead,
    and Christ will shine on you."

    As beautiful and appealing all those thoughts can be, their legacy to the Western mindframe is one of (literally) black & white thinking, lacking not only shades of grey but the wider nuances of colour. The ideal is full light (Revelation 22:5, "And there will be no more night"; cf. Zechariah 14:7). It is actually a totalitarism of light, shunning the "darkness which brightness could not comprehend" as James Joyce put it.

    However (as your Philo quote shows) this is not only a Bible ideal. Jacques Derrida once wrote that all philosophy since Plato is photology -- looking for one principle (intellectual "light") to account for the diversity of being, and thereby ignoring the antagonistic, obscure trend of difference which is equally important to the diversity of being.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Thanks for the response Narkissos and i hope you know I was joking before. And yes the dichotomy of light vs darkness is nearly universal, but the specifics of intepreting a creative force as being 'light' and especially here when making allusion to Genesis 1 are certainly a special use. John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood [a] it.

    The personification of 'light' (much like wisdom and logos) into an embodiment of the creative force and Adamic perfection was developing in John's world. It was only natural he use it. He differs from Paul and Thomas in the when's and how's (Pagels suggestes John was specifically refuting Thomas or at least the opinion behind it, that the "light" had always existed to be tapped by those informed) that light manifested itself but the concept of the 'light' representing some ideal of human perfection and personified emanation from God was fully developed.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Interesting post!

    Another aspect to the OT traditions which bear on this is the pre-exilic solarization of the Yahweh cult. Mark Smith has discussed texts which assign solar attributes to Yahweh and he treats this, if memory serves me right, as a development throughout the Iron Age Near East associated with royal ideology. These would have provided texts for later exegesis along these lines....

    Two related features are interesting, which are generally lost to modern readers. One is the ancient idea that the eye radiates or beams forth light which makes things visible, providing some background for the OT passages about God's eyes seeing in darkness (e.g. Psalm 139) and the Gospel sayings about the eye as a lamp (Q-Luke 11:34).

    I'm sure you might recall my post on this subject (extramissionism): http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/67190/1.ashx

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Hey Leolaia, Could you or Narkissos help with something. Pagels briefly mentions the wording of the LXX version of Gen 1:3 as being understood as a pun, and that this likley contributed to the personification of light. Is the pun 'light' and 'mind'? I have no Greek skills as you know. And my cheater books have failed me.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    I suspect Pagels is referring to the pro-drop ambiguity in the verb egeneto "occurred, became":

    kai eipen ho theos, genéthétó phós, kai egeneto phós

    "And God said, let light come to be, and light came to be."

    OR

    "And God said, let light come to be, and [he] became light."

    Some analogous examples in the NT: kai egeneto hósei nekros "and [he] became as if dead" (Mark 9:26), kai egeneto paroikos en gé Madiam "and [he] became a dweller in the land of Midian" (Acts 7:29), kai ... egeneto kleronomos "and ... [he] became the heir" (Hebrews 11:7), kai egeneto katoikétérion daimonión "and [she] became a dwelling place for demons" (Revelation 18:2), etc.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    There is another interesting peculiarity between the Greek versions of v. 4:

    LXX: kai eiden ho theos to phós hoti kalon "and God saw the light, that [it was] good"
    Aquila: kai eiden ho theos sun to phós hoti kalon "and God saw together with the light, that [it was] good"

    The preposition sun "with" (accompaniment) in Aquila's translation could be read as positing both God and "the light" as two distinct entities that together see, such that the light sees that its own creation was good. This may have been an attempt to smooth v. 4 into the formulae of the rest of the chapter: kai eiden ho theos hoti kalon "and God saw that [it was] good". Verse 4 differs from these by including the noun phrase to phos "the light". So Aquila lumped it with ho theos into a conjoined subject: kai eiden ((ho theos sun to phós)) hoti kalon "And ((God together with the light)) saw that [it was] good". Of course, this would give the otherwise inanimate Light the faculty of sight.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Fantastic, that would certainly lend to the idea. Thankyou so much.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit