Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ John

[Shipwrecked]

"In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with God, and the LOGOS was God."

The dispute amongst theologians is basically summarized dealing with the authority of Jesus and his relationship to God.

One definition of LOGOS is word which legitimizes Jesus as the word of God. But when you look up the word logos in a lexicon you will find many different definitions. A lot of them or dealing with word or discourse however there are some that say the divine/universal principle of reason. There is a Note at the end of the definition citing a reference of the first known use of the word LOGOS G3056 by Heraclitus in the 6th century BCE and I will note that other philosophers used the term in the context 500+ years before John.

Saint John is said to have preached this Gospel in Ephesus (an Ionian Greek colony in Asia Minor) which has Greek roots. One great monument here was The Library of Celsus built by the Romans in the 1st century BCE. Aristotle’s work 2 centuries before this would have been prominent at this library.

Aristotle has a work called Rhetoric in which he outlines the 3 appeals when trying to persuade someone in a argument. Those 3 appeals make up the rhetorical triangle. Aristotle systematically changed the use of the word LOGOS to make it mean Reasoned Word to go with an argument. The 3 appeals are Ethos, Pathos, Logos.

[jimwalton]

I think it's impossible to know John's source for his use of logos. He grew up in the cultural context of Galilee, he lived for a while in Ephesus, but he likely had no formal education as a scholar of the day (Pharisees, for instance, or children of the wealthy) might have had.

Was John's source Homer? Heraclitus? Aristotle? The Stoics? Marcus Aurelius? Early Gnosticism? Or something completely unknown to us? I find it odd to think that John would find such an important theological concept in secular philosophy, most of which was fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. And yet there are evidences of Paul taking terms and repurposing them for his theological teachings. Who's to know.

There are many theories about why John used the term logos for Jesus, but it’s at least clear that John wants us to think of the eternity of Jesus rather than the limitation of human existence. If he just used the name Jesus, people would think of historicity rather than the pre-existent and all-encompassing God. John wanted us to think the latter.

John seems to be using the term to speak of both identity and causality. "The Word" is being presented as an eternal being and as the divine First Cause. To me, this doesn't seem to square with the way Aristotle used and meant the term.

[Pariah]

> He grew up in the cultural context of Galilee, he lived for a while in Ephesus, but he likely had no formal education as a scholar of the day (Pharisees, for instance, or children of the wealthy) might have had.

What makes you think this?

[jimwalton]

The writer of the Gospel knew Palestine and its culture well. He is quite familiar with Jewish customs, along with the geography and topography of Israel. Such stylistic and linguistic elements are consistent with a writer who grew up in the cultural context of Galilee. In addition, the writing style is that of a Jew of Palestinian culture.

There's nothing in the Gospel or epistles (and there is reason to believe it's the same author) showing us that the writer was a formally-educated man. He was obviously not ignorant or illiterate; the Greek, however, is not top-drawer.

If one is to accept the apostle John as the author (and there are many reasons to do so, despite the many reasons to think otherwise), then it is recorded that the apostle John spent time in Ephesus (Irenaeus; Polycarp).

[Pariah]

Okay. I guess that you are among the minority of Biblical scholars.

[jimwalton]

I am, but honestly, whether or not the apostle wrote it has little to do with whether the author was inspired by Aristotle. In my considered opinion, his use of the term logos doesn't show an Aristotelian source.

[Pariah]

What would be John's source of the term "logos?" I'm sure he didn't just think it up on his own.

[jimwalton]

I agree that he didn't just think it up on his own, but tracking down his source is probably impossible. Here was my first post on this thread, in case that's still pertinent to the discussion and your question:

"I think it's impossible to know John's source for his use of logos. He grew up in the cultural context of Galilee, he lived for a while in Ephesus, but he likely had no formal education as a scholar of the day (Pharisees, for instance, or children of the wealthy) might have had.

"Was John's source Homer? Heraclitus? Aristotle? The Stoics? Marcus Aurelius? Early Gnosticism? Or something completely unknown to us? I find it odd to think that John would find such an important theological concept in secular philosophy, most of which was fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. And yet there are evidences of Paul taking terms and repurposing them for his theological teachings. Who's to know.

"There are many theories about why John used the term logos for Jesus, but it’s at least clear that John wants us to think of the eternity of Jesus rather than the limitation of human existence. If he just used the name Jesus, people would think of historicity rather than the pre-existent and all-encompassing God. John wanted us to think the latter.

"John seems to be using the term to speak of both identity and causality. 'The Word' is being presented as an eternal being and as the divine First Cause. To me, this doesn't seem to square with the way Aristotle used and meant the term."

Nor does it seem to me that John uses logos the way Homer, Heraclitus (often the favored explanation), the Stoics, Marcus Aurelius, and certainly not the Gnostics. It's impossible to know what John was thinking, and why he chose to use logos as he did. To me, possibly the most reasonable is that he was shaping his prologue to mirror Genesis 1, and logos was his way of mirroring "And God said." Just a thought.

[Pariah]

So, basically John didn't know what he was on about?

[jimwalton]

No, that's quite a misguided conclusion. Just because we don't know what was in John's mind when he chose that term doesn't mean that "John didn't know what he was on about." Since the Gospel is laid out so logically and purposefully, John certain knew what he was "on about." But without the footnote on logos, WE are the ones scratching our heads, not John.