• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How the Greek Conceptions of Logos can Elucidate John 1:1 Jesus as Logos

How the Greek Conceptions of Logos can Elucidate John 1:1 Jesus as Logos


John’s enigmatic opening of Jesus being the Logos, of course, causes a lot to be written about it because it is so unusual. I will add to that, lets get started. Since this is for the internet, I can’t get overly elaborate or exhaustive in any one attempt. That’s why I post a lot of different small papers on various aspects of this.

Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, though he didn’t know him, has a lot to say of this Logos. It’s different than what Orthodox Christianity teaches these days so sometimes it shocks people to read what a Jew influenced by Platonism says. But it’s always good to get extended views outside of one’s own theological inherited tradition, even if it seems odd or sometimes to us, downright blasphemous. To the ancients our blasphemy was their doctrine and understanding, it’s something we have to realize that perhaps we are the ones missing the boat in trying to streamline (incorrectly) the many variegated views in antiquity, imagining our view is the only correct one.

“Philo speaks of the all-pervading Logos - another of Wisdom’s names [the personified female aspect of God in antiquity which we ignore today] - which reaches into men’s minds, effectively converting them into extensions of the Divine Mind.”[1] Philo also used the Logos “to describe the Image of God, seen in human form…”[2] “Clement of Alexandria was just one early writer who personified Christ in cosmic terms as the Spiritual Sun, noting that when the Logos ‘the Sun of the soul,’ rises in ‘the depth of the mind, the soul’s eye is illuminated.’”[3]

For the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, he was “not concerned with a philosophical system, but with getting hold of the unity of the One and the All (Fragment 50) through the existence of the universal law of proportion which underlies continuous change. Logos for him is thus the instrument of thought, expressing both the thought-process and its conclusion, and also its consequences for the thinker (Fragment 2).”[4] Hence, “the Logos is the World-reason which sustains and permeates the cosmos like a fine spiritual substance.”

However, Klappert recognizes that this is not the basis of the Logos in John, rather as Philo has described time and again, the Logos is “not only is the Jewish Wisdom identified with the Logos, the Logos understood as a mediating power between God and the Creation and ascribed divine predicates, but Philo also simultaneously combines Old Testament statements of creation by the word, Stoic statements of the Logos as the world-soul and Platonic elements (the Logos as the archetype of the created world) with one another… the divine Logos binds together the heavenly and earthly world and rules over and through both macrocosm and microcosm, the Good News of the Johannine Prologue consists in the fact that the Logos no longer works ‘spiritually’ but is found embodied in a mortal man… the incarnation of the Word thus does not mean Jesus as the eschatalogical [end times, the last days, etc.] ambassador, in whom God is present and acting: it signifies the Presence of God himself in the flesh.”[5]

The imagery of the Logos has very insightfully been associated with the Righteous Zaddik, the Pillar of the world (Proverbs 10:25), by Robert Eisenman, while there is great amounts in the Zohar of the Zaddik being the protector of the people. Yet a thousand years earlier than the Zohar (which is formally a medieval production as Eisenman acknowledges), James the Brother of Jesus is described as a Bulwark and Eisenman describes how this can be recognized as “something equivalent to what goes by the name of the Logos or ‘the Word’ in the Gospel of John.”[6]

In his erudite analysis of Colossians 1:15-20, James M. Robinson years ago noted how “the two titles εικων [form, image, or appearance, “of Christ Helios as εικων of deity[7]] and αρχη [beginning, origin, first cause, ruler, authority[8]] are correlative designations of the Logos, κατ εικονα ανθρωπος και ο οραν Ισραηλ and many names are his, for he is called the Beginning, and the name of God and [His] word, and the Man after [His] image and he that sees Israel… the epiphany of the Logos designates the beginning and basis of the new aeon.”[9] David Fideler, a Classicist scholar, elaborates that “The Logos represents the first level of real manifestation of Being, for it encompasses within itself all the laws and relations which are later articulated in the phenomenal universe. Since the Logos is the emanation of the Transcendent Absolute, it may be poetically described as ‘The Son of God,’ as we see in the works of Philo, the Hermetic writings, and Early Christianity… the Hermetic in one of its more attractive versions, ‘Eternity (Aeon) is said to be the image of God, Cosmos is the image of Eternity, the Sun is the image of the Cosmos, and Man is the image of the Sun.’”[10]

One of the important things Robinson pointed out was that inter-related concepts were all interwoven even in pre-Christian times from the ancient Jewish ideas, as well as the Greek philosophers, and so were available to Philo as he elaborated and coalesced them together in his understanding of the Logos, of which John presumably had access, though he only singularly applied the Logos as God at the very first of his Gospel as a philosophical, cosmological principle. The tie in with the Logos which was critical to Philo’s admiration and excitement was mankind. Lets take a look at how Robinson presented this very interesting addition.

All of the next paragraph of analysis is Robinson’s, interspersed with my notes/comments I will clearly identify in brackets [ ]’s, though I don’t put in all of his reference points of Philo, which are many and abbreviated and in italics, etc., since he wrote it for a scholarly journal, I am just including the Greek analysis to clean it up and make it easier to read.

The conceptual unity of tying three main areas of Hellenistic Judaism together were λογος, σοφια, ανθρωπος [The Logos - the Word, Sophia - the divine female element, and the human] the speculation of Hellenistic Judaism. Philo shows the interrelatedness of these concepts: ανθρωπον θεου, ος του αιδιου λογος ων… εστιν αϕθαρτος - “The man of God, who being the Word of the Eternal… is imperishable.” [my note: αϕθαρ-σια with the ideas of incorruptible, undecaying, immortal[11]] η δε [σοϕια] εστιν ο θεου λογος - “It [Wisdom] is the Word of God.” The concept of εικον του θεου (compare the μορϕη θεου [form of God] at the opening of the hymn in Philippians 2:6-11), rooted in the Anthropos concept (in the Old Testament: Genesis 1:27 and especially 5:1 in the Septuagint - the Greek Old Testament), is applied to the Logos by Philo - λογος δ εστιν εικων θεου δι ου συμπας ο κοςμος εδημιουργειτο - “and the image of God is the Word through whom the whole universe is framed.” The concept of the creation and recreation of the pleroma [my note: The Gnostic term pleroma means “the fulness” being the totality of God’s energy and attributes as they might be bestowed on others, deifying them in the process.[12]] in him fits into this context of Anthropos speculation, Cf. Hippolytus, Μονοιμος… λεγει ανθρωπον ειναι το παν, “Moinomus … says that Man is the All.” The closely related Jewish Sophia is mediator of creation, αρχη (Proverbs 8:22) the LXX [Septuagint Greek]: κυριος εκτισεν με αρχην οδων αυτου, “The Lord made me the beginning of his ways”; and Sirach 24:9 - προ του αιωνος απ αρχης εκτισεν με, “Before the world, from the beginning He created me.” And εικον with the constant use of these contexts of τα παντα formulae, so we have to do with a series of concepts which had already found a crystallization point in Judaism, and could consequently be applied totally to Jesus.[13]


Endnotes

  1. Eugene Seaich, “A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem Temple, The Embracing Cherubim and At-One-Ment With the Divine,” Gorgias Press, 2008: 61. Hereafter cited as “Great Mystery.”

  2. Margaret Barker, “King of the Jews, Temple Theology in John’s Gospel,” SPCK, 2014: 73.

  3. As quoted in David Fideler, “Restoring the Soul of the World, Our Living Bond with Nature’s Intelligence,” Inner Traditions, 2014: 58.

  4. B. Klappert, in Colin Brown, editor, “The International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,” (4 volumes), ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1986, Vol. 3:1081.

  5. B. Klappert, in Brown, “Ibid.,” p. 1116, 1117.

  6. Robert Eisenman, “James the Brother of Jesus,” Viking, 1996: 136.

  7. Gingrich, Denker, Bauer, “A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,” University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition, 1979: 222.

  8. Gingrich, Denker, Bauer, “Ibid,” p. 112.

  9. James M. Robinson, “A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1 15-20,” in JBL (Journal Of Biblical Literature,), 76:4 (1957): 275-276. Hereafter cited as “Colossians.”

  10. David Fideler, “Jesus Christ, Sun of God, Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism,” Quest Books, 1993: 42.

  11. Liddell-Scott “Greek-English Lexicon,” Oxford University Press, with Supplement, 1968, reprint, 1983: 289.

  12. Seaich, “Great Mystery,” p. 80.

  13. Robinson, “Colossians,” p. 278.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I myself just finished meditiations by marcus aurelius the other day, translated by gregory hays.. His modern translation, unlike the others, left in where the pagan marcus used the word logos, though I won't quote from there, since that version isn't yet in the public domain. I bet the majority of modern Christians aren't all that savvy on how much of a pagan concept this is
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
@ToGodorNottoGod That is useful. Give me your spin on the following, please:

The opening shows Jesus to be the light within the logos or light proceeding from it per John 1:4-7. This could be alternate from saying Jesus is the Logos, which I will point out may be of interest. The Logos in this dialogue of Philo (thanks for that because I have not read Philo) shows that Logos is the Son, the image of God to Philo and therefore perhaps in John. Then Logos could be referring to Israel (called the Son long before Jesus is) and then the light could refer to Jesus as the exact representation of Israel. Then proceeding from Israel would be Jesus, the light, the exact representation. At the time light was considered to be not photons but an actual copy of the original thing, so to say that Jesus is the light implies something like this.

Hebrews 1 seems to say something similar: [Heb 1:1-4 NIV] "1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."

The author, says the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation. It could be John refers to Israel as Logos and Jesus as the light within that.
 
I bet the majority of modern Christians aren't all that savvy on how much of a pagan concept this is
Of that there can be no question. What confronts us in our day here is which is more prominant and who is borrowing from who, since the Logos is truly an ancient Jewish concept as well. They just had different words which describe every single Greek aspect of this fascinating thing. There is some discussion of just where Philo got his Logos theme(s) from, some say the Greek philosophers, who no doubt know of the same ideas. Others say these concepts were definitely had in the ancient Jewish First Temple. It is so interesting to look at it all as I have time to.
 
@ToGodorNottoGod That is useful. Give me your spin on the following, please:

The opening shows Jesus to be the light within the logos or light proceeding from it per John 1:4-7. This could be alternate from saying Jesus is the Logos, which I will point out may be of interest. The Logos in this dialogue of Philo (thanks for that because I have not read Philo) shows that Logos is the Son, the image of God to Philo and therefore perhaps in John. Then Logos could be referring to Israel (called the Son long before Jesus is) and then the light could refer to Jesus as the exact representation of Israel. Then proceeding from Israel would be Jesus, the light, the exact representation. At the time light was considered to be not photons but an actual copy of the original thing, so to say that Jesus is the light implies something like this.

Hebrews 1 seems to say something similar: [Heb 1:1-4 NIV] "1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."

The author, says the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation. It could be John refers to Israel as Logos and Jesus as the light within that.
Yes, this imagery, especially of the theme of light goes waaaaaay back in Judaism! Actually in the very first part of Genesis as Leet has so aptly demonstrated.
Me thinks there were many in antiquity who brought together their theosophy, philosophy, and esoteric religious views whatever they were, with light. I think Hebrews is presenting a theme which the Christians (are they at this time or still Jewish-Christians?) could have grappled over with the Jews and their views, bringing Jesus into their own orbit. We have to remember that Jesus was a Jew. He worked entirely within that framework. The question then arises, was the author of Hebrews?

I just recently read somewhere (Barker perhaps?) that the author of Hebrews was not Paul but Barnabas, which is interesting! The whole tenor of Hebrews in some ways simply doesn't fit Paul, so there is some mystery here for us to wrangle with, always a fun thing eh?

Light as a religious symbol can be combined with everything because it does after all give our entire planet life through the sun, another reason for that fascinating symbolism being tied to many of the ancient gods of the various nations. It hardly can't be otherwise.

Your idea of the Logos being equated with the Son and going back to Israel because Israel is called in Exodus, My Firstborn Son is spot on and Leonora Leet gives this a two thumbs up in her detailed analysis in both her magnificent expositions on the Kabbalah, "The Secret Doctrine of the Kabbalah," and her "Universal Kabbalah" the single most enlightening analysis I have ever read, bar none. Tough reading, but then Kabbalah isn't for the normal Joe but those who seriously desire to learn what it is all about for the eternities. Hebrews gives me the same vibes, ya know what I mean?

I shall look a little bit more into this as Hebrews is one of those books I really need to pay more attention to as it is one of the most developed theological parts of the New Testament.

Thanks for this! Fun stuff!
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I myself just finished meditiations by marcus aurelius the other day, translated by gregory hays.. His modern translation, unlike the others, left in where the pagan marcus used the word logos, though I won't quote from there, since that version isn't yet in the public domain. I bet the majority of modern Christians aren't all that savvy on how much of a pagan concept this is
That Christianity uses a lot of Neoplatonist and Aristotelian philosophical ideas isn't new or surprising to anyone who knows anything about the religion. I mean, the NT was written in Greek.

The ancient Christians didn't have a problem with recognizing what is true and good in other religions and philosophies. That was one of its strengths, actually.
 
The ancient Christians didn't have a problem with recognizing what is true and good in other religions and philosophies. That was one of its strengths, actually.

And this is quite an important point. All other views really do have strong points and truth. Sometimes I suspect part of the problem is recognizing a similar doctrine that you accept, yet it is presented in a different cultural inflection, and so it looks contradictory or problematic. So it ends up being judged, which ends up offending the other, which ends up in a knock down drag out fight of words that can go on for centuries in some cases.

And my prime example is (and it might make some mad, sorry in advance I am not trying to offend here) the Christians and the Jews. I mean if we bring in Muslims, we have our situation today! Weird as it is, everyone is simply trying to be good and get back to heaven - to keep it on a simple par. Is there any reason to beat each other black and blue because someone says the word "pleroma" and someone else uses "Attributes of God"? They are the same thing, but since Gnostic (heathens all!) used a word we don't like, then their vagaries need to be fought tooth and nail!

Something like that anyway. And I don't think anyone has to give up their own cultural ideas and outlooks and beliefs either. But the dialogue could probably get better were we to quit looking at it all in black and white (I am right, you? You are wrong and have no clue) and instead realize we are all striving for the same thing, and differences does not mean one is righteous the other wicked and need to be forced to conversion either via sword or word.

So, anyway. I am finding myself seeing that there is strength in truly seeing the other point of view for real and recognizing that hey, it is somewhat different than mine, but who am I to say mine is the right one? I keep on studyin, learnin, and enjoying new found friends, and for the life of me, I can't find anything else that gets better than that.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
That Christianity uses a lot of Neoplatonist and Aristotelian philosophical ideas isn't new or surprising to anyone who knows anything about the religion. I mean, the NT was written in Greek.

The ancient Christians didn't have a problem with recognizing what is true and good in other religions and philosophies. That was one of its strengths, actually.

I have noticed that arguments are made that Christianity originates ideas as well. But if you are correct , I am curious on how much a thing retains what it was, or how it was adapted to the new religion
 
Last edited:
I have noticed that arguments are made that Christianity originates ideas as well. But if you are correct , I am curious on how much of a thing retains what it was, or where it was adapted to the new religion
I know this wasn't directed at me, but could you flesh this out a little? I'm not sure what you mean... and it sounds like it could get really interesting! Thanks man.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I know this wasn't directed at me, but could you flesh this out a little? I'm not sure what you mean... and it sounds like it could get really interesting! Thanks man.

Well, for example, every year people want to argue that there's not a lot about Christmas that is very pagan . That's just one example I guess, but I could see the logos as potentially being another.. If people don't read about how extensive, and arguably complete, the concept was before being adapted
 
Last edited:
Well, for example, every year people want to argue that there's not a lot about Christmas that is very pagan . That's just one example I guess, but I could see the logos as potentially being another.. If people don't read about how extensive, and arguably complete, the concept was before being adapted
Well, once one begins studying ancient religious history, we realize that nothing happens in a vacuum. Very precious little is actually original with Christianity, a lot of it was adapted from already existing ideas and rituals. We have now learned that originality has nothing to do with authenticity. Something doesn't have to be ancient in order to be true either. Its fascinating to work through everything as we continue learning. Just because Jesus is not unique doesn't mean he is not real or realistic nor authentic. We humans are funny that way.
We know that Pope Gregory when his followers came back and told him about the Christians continuing to celebrate the pagan festivals and they asked him if he wanted them to get rid of them, he said no. Instead of getting rid of them and pose a threat and have an uprising, just adopt the festivals which exist and reuse them to celebrate Christ instead, and that's what they did.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Of that there can be no question. What confronts us in our day here is which is more prominant and who is borrowing from who, since the Logos is truly an ancient Jewish concept as well. They just had different words which describe every single Greek aspect of this fascinating thing. There is some discussion of just where Philo got his Logos theme(s) from, some say the Greek philosophers, who no doubt know of the same ideas. Others say these concepts were definitely had in the ancient Jewish First Temple. It is so interesting to look at it all as I have time to.

Nothing is solid & everything is energy: scientists explain the world of quantum physics – DEGHYS (wordpress.com)

The following is an extract from the above link.

If you observe the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like ‘A GREAT THOUGHT’ than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

This would appear to compliment Paul’s statement in Romans 1: 18-23; that the eternal, who has neither beginning or end, had made himself manifest as this visible universe, and all that can be known about the eternal has been made plain to us in the creation itself, which is the eternal invisible MIND, ‘The GREAT THOUGHT’ made visible as it has evolved today.

And that which we call God, through whom all things were created, by whom all things were created and for whom all things were created, the God, who is one, the great singularity in who all things exist, is the same today as it was yesterday and will be into all eternity. It is the eternal constant, in that it has been constantly evolving, and will continue to evolve from everlasting to everlasting. The only mind that can cease to evolve, is the mind that has ceased to exist.

The scriptures equate the ‘MIND’ with the ‘SPIRIT’, in one place it is said, “You must love God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your soul:” In another place it is said, “You must love God with all your body, with all your spirit and with all your soul.”

The root to the word “BRAHMAN” originally meant “SPEECH”, much the same as the “LOGOS” is said to mean ‘WORD. From the following Link; Shabda Brahman - Wikipedia; The Rig Veda states that Brahman extends as far as Vac and has hymns in praise of ‘Speech as the creator.

In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vac.' Vac means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma, vac has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as being in the mind as ‘A THOUGHT,’ and not as the spoken word or speech. The word is the expression of the THOUGHT made manifest through 'Speech.'

“Ptah is an Egyptian creator god who existed before all other things and, by his will, ‘THOUGHT’ the world into existence. It was first conceived by ‘Thought’, and realized by the Word:”. . . . . . . . . .
The Logos=Word: Brahman=Speech.

Personally, I see John 1: 1; as saying; "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was God. And the supreme personality or controlling mind to have developed within the invisible eternal body of ever evolving information, was “THE LIGHT OF MAN” All the information, knowledge, wisdom and insight, gained from the body of mankind, the MOST HIGH in the previous generation of the Universe, who was the Light and life of that ever-growing body of information, which is called God. All things came into existence through him, by him, and for him. Without him, nothing exists."

But that's only my personal opinion, although I do believe that Brahman and Logos should be seen as the gathered information of past aeons that is waiting to be expressed. The LOGOS is in fact, the invisible living COSMIC mind, (THE GREAT THOUGHT) in which is gathered all of the information of every life form that it has become, and should be seen as, ‘The essential divine reality of the universe, the eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return at the close of each period of universal activity.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
How the Greek Conceptions of Logos can Elucidate John 1:1 Jesus as Logos


John’s enigmatic opening of Jesus being the Logos, of course, causes a lot to be written about it because it is so unusual. I will add to that, lets get started. Since this is for the internet, I can’t get overly elaborate or exhaustive in any one attempt. That’s why I post a lot of different small papers on various aspects of this.

Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, though he didn’t know him, has a lot to say of this Logos. It’s different than what Orthodox Christianity teaches these days so sometimes it shocks people to read what a Jew influenced by Platonism says. But it’s always good to get extended views outside of one’s own theological inherited tradition, even if it seems odd or sometimes to us, downright blasphemous. To the ancients our blasphemy was their doctrine and understanding, it’s something we have to realize that perhaps we are the ones missing the boat in trying to streamline (incorrectly) the many variegated views in antiquity, imagining our view is the only correct one

Even though Philo was a Hellenized Jew, I don’t think he is the primary touchstone one wants to look to for understanding logos found in the New Testament (NT). Philo was not tied to the Jesus Movement and the intellectual history and use of logos predates First Century Alexandria. Logos is tied fundamentally with Stoic ontology. Given Stoicism was the predominant intellectual position during the early Roman Empire, it’s not surprising the pre-theological vocabulary found in the NT makes heavy use of Stoic concepts. Middle Stoicism is a better garden to explore, particularly the works of Antipater of Tarsus (d. 130-129 BCE), Panaetius (d. 110-09 BCE), and Posidonius (d. ~45 BCE) and perhaps the emergent late Stoa of Seneca (4BCE-65CE), and Rufus (20-101 CE)
 
Even though Philo was a Hellenized Jew, I don’t think he is the primary touchstone one wants to look to for understanding logos found in the New Testament (NT). Philo was not tied to the Jesus Movement and the intellectual history and use of logos predates First Century Alexandria. Logos is tied fundamentally with Stoic ontology. Given Stoicism was the predominant intellectual position during the early Roman Empire, it’s not surprising the pre-theological vocabulary found in the NT makes heavy use of Stoic concepts. Middle Stoicism is a better garden to explore, particularly the works of Antipater of Tarsus (d. 130-129 BCE), Panaetius (d. 110-09 BCE), and Posidonius (d. ~45 BCE) and perhaps the emergent late Stoa of Seneca (4BCE-65CE), and Rufus (20-101 CE)
Excellent, I shall look into these as well. I appreciate the guidance!
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Excellent, I shall look into these as well. I appreciate the guidance!

Happy to help.

There is heavy use of Stoic concepts and larger Hellenistic elements all through the NT. The Book of Romans is a perfect example. It is a quintessentially Hellenistic work. One of the issues with Biblical studies in general is most of those involved engage the text(s) from a decidedly denominational perspective and end up mining the material to support that agenda. Looking at texts from within the larger socio-linguistic-cultural milieu they sprang from is more substantive.
 
Given Stoicism was the predominant intellectual position during the early Roman Empire, it’s not surprising the pre-theological vocabulary found in the NT makes heavy use of Stoic concepts. Middle Stoicism is a better garden to explore, particularly the works of Antipater of Tarsus (d. 130-129 BCE), Panaetius (d. 110-09 BCE), and Posidonius (d. ~45 BCE) and perhaps the emergent late Stoa of Seneca (4BCE-65CE), and Rufus (20-101 CE)
Do you know of any books which have these writings all together in them I might be able to acquire to study? That would be very helpful! Thanks in advance... I honestly never thought about Stoicism as a background basis, so I can see I need to update myself.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Do you know of any books which have these writings all together in them I might be able to acquire to study? That would be very helpful! Thanks in advance... I honestly never thought about Stoicism as a background basis, so I can see I need to update myself.


This two volume collection is relatively new:


-“Stoic Classics Collection: Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, Epictetus's Enchiridion, Seneca's On The Happy Life”

-“ Stoic Classics Collection, Volume II: Epictetus’s Selected Discourses, Seneca's On Anger, Seneca's On Clemency, Diogenes Laertius’s The Lives & Opinions of the Stoics”


The issue is the names and works cited are Late Stage Stoa, so the texts don’t really present the reader with examples of Middle Stoicism, unfortunately. Middle Stoicism isn’t something most are familiar with, so it might not have a market among a general readership. You would likely need to buy individual texts.


Per Stoic influence on the NT: far too few Biblical Studies scholars/researchers have any substantive Classics training, so they are blind to what is all over in the texts. Further, when people consider the Hellenization of Christianity, they tend to think of the Ecumenical Councils and theologians like St. Augustine who was a Neoplatonist. The rise of Neoplatonism and the beginnings of the Ecumenical Councils is Third and Fourth Century. Stoicism was the dominant intellectual tradition when the NT books were written. Its influence is infused into the very composition of the texts, and as I mentioned previously, for a pre-theological Jesus Movement, it is natural they would use the intellectual vernacular of the time. There is no way a literate Greco-Roman would read Logos in John 1:1 without seeing the Stoic connection. Logos is a core concept in Stoic metaphysics. It’s akin to a text referencing bodhisattva and no one ever considering Mahayana Buddhism.


A couple books from my own library you may like are:

-“Paul and the Stoics” by Troels Engberg-Pedersen.

-“Stoicism in Early Christianity” by Tuomas Rasimus (this is a collection of academic papers on the role of Stoicism in Early Christian thought).
 
This two volume collection is relatively new:


-“Stoic Classics Collection: Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, Epictetus's Enchiridion, Seneca's On The Happy Life”

-“ Stoic Classics Collection, Volume II: Epictetus’s Selected Discourses, Seneca's On Anger, Seneca's On Clemency, Diogenes Laertius’s The Lives & Opinions of the Stoics”


The issue is the names and works cited are Late Stage Stoa, so the texts don’t really present the reader with examples of Middle Stoicism, unfortunately. Middle Stoicism isn’t something most are familiar with, so it might not have a market among a general readership. You would likely need to buy individual texts.


Per Stoic influence on the NT: far too few Biblical Studies scholars/researchers have any substantive Classics training, so they are blind to what is all over in the texts. Further, when people consider the Hellenization of Christianity, they tend to think of the Ecumenical Councils and theologians like St. Augustine who was a Neoplatonist. The rise of Neoplatonism and the beginnings of the Ecumenical Councils is Third and Fourth Century. Stoicism was the dominant intellectual tradition when the NT books were written. Its influence is infused into the very composition of the texts, and as I mentioned previously, for a pre-theological Jesus Movement, it is natural they would use the intellectual vernacular of the time. There is no way a literate Greco-Roman would read Logos in John 1:1 without seeing the Stoic connection. Logos is a core concept in Stoic metaphysics. It’s akin to a text referencing bodhisattva and no one ever considering Mahayana Buddhism.


A couple books from my own library you may like are:

-“Paul and the Stoics” by Troels Engberg-Pedersen.

-“Stoicism in Early Christianity” by Tuomas Rasimus (this is a collection of academic papers on the role of Stoicism in Early Christian thought).
Excellent, this is exactly what I was asking for. I appreciate it. Have you written any on the New Testament and Stoic ideas? Also may I ask what you think of Epicurean influences? I have a book about Epicureanism and Jesus that seems to make it very influential, so I am truly curious. I'm not in my library right now so I can't get it, but I will if need be. Thanks again man! This is very helpful
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Excellent, this is exactly what I was asking for. I appreciate it. Have you written any on the New Testament and Stoic ideas?

Yes.

Also may I ask what you think of Epicurean influences? I have a book about Epicureanism and Jesus that seems to make it very influential, so I am truly curious. I'm not in my library right now so I can't get it, but I will if need be. Thanks again man! This is very helpful

Per Epicureanism and Jesus: Epicureanism was never a large movement within the Roman world. Paul as a Hellenized Jew was certainly aware of Epicurean Thought, as noted in the Book of Acts, but Paul isn’t Christ, so that doesn’t further the claim. For one to argue Epicureanism influenced Christ is problematic. The first and most obvious issue is Christ didn’t write anything. There is no reference point. If the focus is the Gospels, then the most hopeful claim would be on Epicurean influence on depictions of Christ or His views. To make that argument one would have to square the following:


-Epicureanism ethics was utilitarian where the end goal of ataraxia is an inner calm/peace from the absence of pain.


-Epicureanism embraced a proto-Deism in that god(s) exist, but do(es) not intervene in human affairs.


-Epicurean physics: was materialistic and atomistic that rejected continuity


-Epicureanism rejected any after life.


Consider the above just on the point of the Atonement and Resurrection.
 
If the focus is the Gospels, then the most hopeful claim would be on Epicurean influence on depictions of Christ or His views. To make that argument one would have to square the following:


-Epicureanism ethics was utilitarian where the end goal of ataraxia is an inner calm/peace from the absence of pain.


-Epicureanism embraced a proto-Deism in that god(s) exist, but do(es) not intervene in human affairs.


-Epicurean physics: was materialistic and atomistic that rejected continuity


-Epicureanism rejected any after life.


Consider the above just on the point of the Atonement and Resurrection.
Ah, interesting! So Epicureans were the scientists of their day..... seem pretty skeptical. I know, I know, many are going to say they had their heads on straight. Hey, I watched a You Tube video last night with Michio Kaku on the program "Closer to the Truth." Kaku is definitely a scientist, discussing his book "The God Equation." I was very impressed with his succinct and excellent analysis of science. I was very impressed, as well, with his spirituality! I just had no idea! My goodness what a breath of fresh air, not to see the denigrating of religion in order to attempt to make science superior.

Anyway, so, Stoics here I come! Lol! You are ruining me man, I am about to blow all my hard earned money on those books - GRIN! I mean, I don't know about you, but I have been rather enjoying this talking with you, and if I can come up to speed I can continue to at least fake like I can discuss some things intelligently with you... Thank you for taking time, and I hope we can continue, this is really great for me, and I hope so for you as well.
 
Top