John 1:1

[Ivan-Michael]

Hey you can Agree or Disagree I'm not here to convert anyone , I'm just shareing I careless what one accept , Agree / Disagree with really !!

I don't think it's about agree/disagree with what someone wrote,
It's more about how we read the script, how much are we aware of the words used in the script and the meanings of the words, not from the story side of it, but how do we interprete the script according to the 'Law'.

 

[jtartar]

In the Bible's Gospel of John, it opens thus:

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

I would like Christians to give me their views regarding this verse, and why they believe what they believe about it. I will give you my thoughts on it.

There's a few problems here in the Greek. The first is on the word "word". The Greek word is "logos", which actually has various shades of meaning, but in pre-NT times, it meant reason, or something similar. Christians say that Jesus is the word, the logos, but do they really understand what that means? If we take the word logos to mean it's common meaning of reason, then how can an abstract idea like reason be in human form? Now, logos can mean word, or more generally, language. The Greek word lexis also means word, and they both come from the same root. But, lexis is generally the word used to denote a word itself, while logos is used to denote the reason, or idea, behind the word. My question is this: with this definition of logos, how can Christians logically equate it with living person? How does this make any sense, or how can this be reconciled philosophically?

Another problem is with the phrase, "and the logos was God". While it's ambiguous, the general syntax of the Greek suggests that the logos wasn't God, but "a god", or "divine".

To me, it seems like a better interpretation of this verse would be to assume that the "logos" was not Jesus, but the divine will or reason of God. Any thoughts?

dyanaprajna,
Since the principle stated at Gen 40:8 is a very good one to follow, which says; Do not interpretatations belong to God. I see no problem of even a question in John 1:1. Here is why.
As can be seen by the verse, there are two entities mentioned, God and the Word, because the verse says that the Word was WITH God. Also the following verses state that all things were made through him and for him. This same thought is recorded several times, in other places, showing that it was Jesus, Heb 1:2, 1Cor 8:6, Col 1:16.
Other proof is recorded at Verse, John 1:14, which says; The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and had a glory of the Only Begotten Son, from the Father. There is no question that this is Jesus, as verses 15-18 bear out.
The proof text is found at Rev 19:13, where Jesus is riding on a white horse, and is beginning to bring on Armageddon, as can be seen by the scriptures Rev 19:11-21. At Rev 6:2 we see Jesus accepting the Crown as the Messianic King and begins his ride to conquer. Where is the question about THE WORD???

 

[gnostic]

I think John 1:1 is nothing more than a simile, in which too many Christians - in the past and present - had taken far too literally.

I find it strange that what I see to be a metaphor, they (Christians) would take as literal, and what I see to be literal, they would see as a metaphor. And clearly John 1:1 should be read as metaphor.

 

[Shermana]

I think John 1:1 is nothing more than a simile, in which too many Christians - in the past and present - had taken far too literally.

I find it strange that what I see to be a metaphor, they (Christians) would take as literal, and what I see to be literal, they would see as a metaphor. And clearly John 1:1 should be read as metaphor.

How so?

It's clearly referring to the same Logos that Philo spoke of, the "Memra" of the Targums, the Firstborn Created being, who is "a god" who was with THE god during the Creation process after he was Created. Where's the metaphor?

 

[gnostic]

How so?

It's clearly referring to the same Logos that Philo spoke of, the "Memra" of the Targums, the Firstborn Created being, who is "a god" who was with THE god during the Creation process after he was Created. Where's the metaphor?

Just as the gospels were influenced by Hellenistic thinking, so were Jews, such as Philo, influenced by Hellenistic thinking.

Clearly, Philo lived in Alexandria, Egypt, and was influenced by Greek philosophy.

Logos or the Word comes from Greek religion and philosophy.

But do you seriously think that equating god or Jesus to the logos is not a metaphor? If you don't think logos is a symbol, then I'm afraid that you're staggering naive.

 

[Shermana]

Just as the gospels were influenced by Hellenistic thinking, so were Jews, such as Philo, influenced by Hellenistic thinking.

Clearly, Philo lived in Alexandria, Egypt, and was influenced by Greek philosophy.

Logos or the Word comes from Greek religion and philosophy.

But do you seriously think that equating god or Jesus to the logos is not a metaphor? If you don't think logos is a symbol, then I'm afraid that you're staggering naive.

You can call me naive all you want, I think anyone who believes that the concept of the Memra/Logos is purely the product of "Hellenistic" thinking, or that Philo himself was really that "Hellenized" is completely naive as to what "Hellenistic" actually means, and is unaware of the concept of "Wisdom" being an actual personified entity dating back to Solomon's time. The concept of Jesus and the Messiah was that he was the incarnation of the Memra.

As if Philo just invented this concept or was repeating something that was recently invented and wasn't a long lasting element of Jewish Theology.

The word "Logos" is the closest thing to identify with the ancient Hebrew concept of the Memra. The Jews would not have accepted such a Hellenistic concept to become mainstream doctrine especially during such a reactionary time, and this made it into the Targums as well.

I'll be happy to get into a further debate on the development of the Logos Theology and just how NOT Hellenistic Philo actually was, and if you want to say he was Hellenized, you'll have to explain what you think his "Hellenization" meant, and where exactly the parallels between them were and where they differed. I'm sure you'll be happy to prove that the concept itself was totally invented by the Greeks and that the idea of the Memra as a Divine mediator didn't exist in Jewish thought before then. Maybe you'll be able to dethrone Heiser.

Believe it or not, you're basically aligning with a standard Trinitarian defense against Ancient Hebrew theology of the "Second Power in Heaven", as Heiser calls it.

About

MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

http://cfbac.org/memra.htm

As useful and necessary as the Targums at one time were for the Jews of Y'shua's day, their teachings today often contradict the religious beliefs of many modern Jews. In point of fact the religious beliefs of modern Judaism, and that of the Judaism of two thousand years ago, contradict each other in a very important area. That area is none other than the identity, and the nature, of God's word— the Memra' of the Aramaic Targums.

The most common Hebrew expression for "word" is davar, which can mean: word, thing, matter, or affair. Davar implies content and reality in one's words. Since God is somehow "untouchable" it is necessary to provide a viable link between Yhvh and His earthly creation. One of the important links regarded in ancient rabbinical thought was "The Word", called memra' in Aramaic (from the Hebrew and Aramaic root, 'mr which means: to say— the root used throughout Genesis 1 when God "said" and the material world came into reality and existence). The memra' concept— that of a Divine Mediator between the unapproachable God and the creature Man— occurs hundreds of times in the Aramaic Targums.

So yeah, those who believe that the Logos concept was suddenly adapted with a Jewish version recently invented by Hellenists and that "Wisdom" in Solomon (and Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon and other books) were just fanciful Hellenistic concepts that somehow made their way even into the Targums, they are the naive ones. Extremely naive.

There is little doubt that the concept of the "Word of the Lord" represented an actual being who was the Firstborn created being who was basically the Second in command of Heaven, and that "Word of the LORD" is used in a context to underlie an actually existent being who represented God's word. Modern Judaism may eschew it because it smacks of its earlier Henotheistic roots, but the historical concept is pretty much plain. The only ones who would reject it are traditionalist Church defenders, and if you want to help defend the Traditional Church theology by naysaying this and calling the independent scholars who acknowledge this "naive", then feel free.

 

[gnostic]

You can call me naive all you want, I think anyone who believes that the concept of the Memra/Logos is purely the product of "Hellenistic" thinking, or that Philo himself was really that "Hellenized" is completely naive as to what "Hellenistic" actually means, and is unaware of the concept of "Wisdom" being an actual personified entity dating back to Solomon's time. The concept of Jesus and the Messiah was that he was the incarnation of the Memra.

As if Philo just invented this concept or was repeating something that was recently invented and wasn't a long lasting element of Jewish Theology.

Ancient Greek philosophy is not really my forte, but since I loved mythology I did do a little research on all classical myths regarding to deities when I started Timeless Myths. And it is this research that got me to investigate Gnosticism several years later.

Although the word logos have been used in Greece as far back as 6th century BCE, the word used in a philosophical-religious context as far back as the 3rd century BCE, in Stoicism, where the logos was supposedly the divine creative principle of the world, if not the universe. Logos in Stoicism was not necessarily a god or deity, but rather that of nature.

And as I understand it, Philo was the one who introduced Stoic philosophy into Hellenistic Judaism. Am I wrong about this?

The logos wasn't the only borrowing of Greek ideas that found its way into Hellenistic Judaism or early Christianity. Plato introduced the demiurge, or the "artisan", in his philosophical discourse, Timaeus. The artisan or demiurge became another name for the "creator", and it was eventually adopted by Gnosticism.

Other Greek names came into usage among the Christian and Jewish Gnositicism. Also adopted were the archons (rulers), Sophia (wisdom).

The reason why I brought up Gnosticism, is how some of ideas, of all the canonical gospels, the Gospel of John seemed to be the most "gnostic" of those 4 gospels. Greek philosophies do play some roles in both Hellenistic Judaism and Christianity.

 

[Shermana]

Ancient Greek philosophy is not really my forte, but since I loved mythology I did do a little research on all classical myths regarding to deities when I started Timeless Myths. And it is this research that got me to investigate Gnosticism several years later.

Although the word logos have been used in Greece as far back as 6th century BCE, the word used in a philosophical-religious context as far back as the 3rd century BCE, in Stoicism, where the logos was supposedly the divine creative principle of the world, if not the universe. Logos in Stoicism was not necessarily a god or deity, but rather that of nature.

And as I understand it, Philo was the one who introduced Stoic philosophy into Hellenistic Judaism. Am I wrong about this?

The logos wasn't the only borrowing of Greek ideas that found its way into Hellenistic Judaism or early Christianity. Plato introduced the demiurge, or the "artisan", in his philosophical discourse, Timaeus. The artisan or demiurge became another name for the "creator", and it was eventually adopted by Gnosticism.

Other Greek names came into usage among the Christian and Jewish Gnositicism. Also adopted were the archons (rulers), Sophia (wisdom).

The reason why I brought up Gnosticism, is how some of ideas, of all the canonical gospels, the Gospel of John seemed to be the most "gnostic" of those 4 gospels. Greek philosophies do play some roles in both Hellenistic Judaism and Christianity.

Yes, the "Logos" in Stoic belief was FAR different than what the "Logos" was in early Jewish belief. Nothing close to it. To say that Philo and others borrowed this idea and Judaized it is, IMO, nonsensical. It's just a concept that has a similar word with SOME similarities. The idea behind it I believe goes back to even before Solomon's days.

Indeed, there is residue of the concept of the Secondary Creator of whom all things "were made through" which we see in the Gnostic Creation mythos, though the idea of the "Evil Demiurge" I believe was more of a Sethian offshoot of the original idea. Even Gnosticism was not really Hellenized but extremely Jewish in its origins. As well, the concept of the "Archons" is not so much a Hellenized idea as it is a Universal idea that practically every culture has, of lesser godlike beings. I particularly consider the concepts outlined regarding them in many of the Gnostic works to be completely in line with early Jewish thought, and believe them to be descriptions of real Cosmic powers. The concept of the "Demiurge" in early Gnosticism differed much from the later Post-Sethian form, and I don't think it was the product of Hellenized or Platonic beliefs at all. There was assuredly a NEOplatonic influence on the LATER Gnostic traditions, but these concepts were simply different versions of ideas that were already in circulation, anti-Jewish ideas that is. In other words, the same concept but spun on its head.

Philo's beliefs may have had some stoicism but it was more or less the same kinds of Stoic philosophy that was already permeated in Jewish culture, temperance and fortitude werent' exactly new ideas by 50 A.D. These concepts go back even further than 4 Maccabees which is arguably very "Stoic".

I think a mistake is made when overlap in people's ideas is assumed to be "borrowing". Especially when such "overlap" involves radically different ideas that only connect on the same kinds of "common sense" that any culture would have. To compare the Jewish Memra/"Logos" to the Stoic idea I believe is a HUGE stretch, since they are practically nothing alike. The Jewish Memra is basically the second deity in command after the Chief god, who is called "God's shadow". The targums are explicitly clear about this.

I do believe that Greek metaphysical and Pagan Egyptian religious ideas did play into the development of the Trinity. But in its original state, the concept was simply that Yeshu was the incarnation of the Highest Angel/Heavenly Power, the Memra.

Also, on the word "Hellenized", I believe it's a common mistake to call Philo "Hellenized", he was simply explaining Jewish concepts to a Hellenized audience, and one could technically say any smack of any of the numerous schools of Greek philosophy could be called "Hellenized", which could be simply attributed to the similarity of ideas in both cultures.

So in the end, I don't think there's any real reason to believe the Jewish Memra concept which is so clearly outlined in the Targums was a Greek borrowed concept.

 

[John Martin]

In the Bible's Gospel of John, it opens thus:

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

The word Logos is from Greek Philosophy. In the platonic system there are four levels of consciousness: The first one is called : The One, the second one is nous or logos, the third one is psyche, and the fourth one is sarx or soma, the physcial body. The logos or nous is the emanation from the One it is the refletions of the one. The psyche is the emanation from the Logos or nous, and the soma the body is the emanation from the psyche. We call this this process as involution where the higher is becoming less than itself.
I would like to describe them as: Unitary consicousness(One),the Universal consciousness(Logos or Nous) Collective Consciusness(psyche) and the indiviudal consciousness( soma or body). if we use the symbol of a tree, the roots are the Unitary cocnsicousness, the trunk is the universal consciousness, the branches are the collective consciousness and the leaves are the individual consciousness. The Logos or nous as the universal consciousness is the seed of all manifestation. Hinduism calls it Hiranya garbha, the golden egg, from which all creation comes.

In the beginning was the word( logos or nous). Beginning implies less than God because God has no beginning and end. The first manifestation of God was the word or logos, the universal consciousness. The word was with God. To be with God means to be little different from God. It means, the logos, as manifestation, is different from God. The word was God. Since it is the manifestation of God, it can return to God and realize that it is one with God.
So we can say: The first manifestation of God was the word Logos. This word or logos was with God. This word or logos was God.
Everything that God created came from that word.

 

[John Martin]

it seems to me the first sentence of John's Gospel is similar to the message of Mandukya Upanishad.
The whole of this universe is this imperishable OM.
The past,the present and the the future is OM.
What is beyond the time is also OM.
All this is Brahman. Atman is Brahman. This Atman is Brahman.

This Atman has four levels of consciousness: waking(individual) dreaming( collective) deep sleep( universal) and the Fourth) unitary consciousness.


we can say



This whole of created manifestation is the word OM, Brahman or Atman( In the beginning was the word)

As manifestation it is with OM, Brahman or Atman.( the word is with God).

Ultimately it is one with OM, Brahman or Atman.( the word is God)


The whole of creation comes from OM( the word became flesh)



aum ity etad akṣaram idam sarvam, tasyopavyākhyānam
bhūtam bhavad bhaviṣyad iti sarvam auṁkāra eva
yac cānyat trikālātītaṁ tad apy auṁkāra eva.
1. OM! – This Imperishable Word is the whole of this visible universe. Its explanation is as follows: What has become, what is becoming, what will become, – verily, all of this is OM. And what is beyond these three states of the world of time, – that too, verily, is OM.
sarvaṁ hy etad brahma, ayam ātmā brahma

so’yam ātmā catuṣ-pāt.
2. All this, verily, is Brahman. The Self is Brahman. This Self has four quarters.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The word "Logos" is the closest thing to identify with the ancient Hebrew concept of the Memra.

And דָּבָר is out because...?

The Jews would not have accepted such a Hellenistic concept to become mainstream doctrine especially during such a reactionary time, and this made it into the Targums as well.

Perhaps. But Philo wasn't "the Jews". He was steeped in hellenistic philosophy.

I'll be happy to get into a further debate on the development of the Logos Theology and just how NOT Hellenistic Philo actually was, and if you want to say he was Hellenized, you'll have to explain what you think his "Hellenization" meant, and where exactly the parallels between them were and where they differed. I'm sure you'll be happy to prove that the concept itself was totally invented by the Greeks and that the idea of the Memra as a Divine mediator didn't exist in Jewish thought before then. Maybe you'll be able to dethrone Heiser.

And I'm sure you'll be delighted to explain they controversial and highly debated notion of memra as it is used in OT targums, why logos fits whatever Hebraic and Jewish concept you imagine it does rather than, say, rhema, and how the use of BOTH rhema and logos in John indicate that logos was connected to Jewish thought and a particular Hebrew word.

So yeah, those who believe that the Logos concept was suddenly adapted with a Jewish version recently invented by Hellenists and that "Wisdom" in Solomon (and Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon and other books) were just fanciful Hellenistic concepts that somehow made their way even into the Targums, they are the naive ones. Extremely naive.

Or they simply understand the actual complications even in the Targums of understanding how a Hebrew word was used their, let alone how a particular Greek one ended up in John.

There is little doubt

There's massive doubt. There are about a half dozen hypotheses I can recall offhand.

The only ones who would reject it are traditionalist Church defenders, and if you want to help defend the Traditional Church theology by naysaying this and calling the independent scholars who acknowledge this "naive", then feel free.

What an interesting claim: equating one explanation of the Johannine understanding of logos with "Traditional Church theology".

 

[Shermana]

And דָּבָר is out because...?

Dabar is not out, the connotation that it simply means "Word" and wasn't related to the Targumic concept of the Memra is what's out.

Perhaps. But Philo wasn't "the Jews". He was steeped in hellenistic philosophy.

I've been over this, this seems to be a statement by those who haven't actually read Philo and are defending against his Logos Theology. As I stated, in reality, Philo wasn't anymore hellenized than the author of 4 Macabees. What exactly was so Hellenized about him? That he seemed a bit stoic?

Usually when the argument is that Philo was hellenized, it stops right there as if just because he was "Steeped in Greek Philosophy" that this necessitates that he borrowed the Memra concept from the Greeks. Therefore, the concept of "Wisdom" in Solomon MUST have not meant an actual being somehow.

I appreciate you coming to the defense of the traditionalist Trinitarian viewpoint, but the facts don't necessarily relate to your position. If anything, Philo was explaining standard Jewish theology TO a Hellenized audience.

You are invited to contribute to this new thread so you can get specific in defending in what seems to be a common misrepresentation of his views.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...how-hellenized-philo-exactly.html#post3317048

And I'm sure you'll be delighted to explain they controversial and highly debated notion of memra as it is used in OT targums, why logos fits whatever Hebraic and Jewish concept you imagine it does rather than, say, rhema, and how the use of BOTH rhema and logos in John indicate that logos was connected to Jewish thought and a particular Hebrew word.

Perhaps I should let Jewishencyclopedia and a few other sites do it for me.

MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

MEMRA (= "Ma'amar" or "Dibbur," "Logos"):


"The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

—Biblical Data:
In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen. xv. 1; Num. xii. 6, xxiii. 5; I Sam. iii. 21; Amos v. 1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. xxxiii. 6; comp. "For He spake, and it was done"; "He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the ice]"; "Fire and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word"; Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlvii. 18, cxlviii. 8). In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89). "The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" (Isa. ix. 7 [A. V. 8], lv. 11); "He sent his word, and healed them" (Ps. cvii. 20); and comp. "his word runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15).

Personification of the Word.
—In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature:
While in the Book of Jubilees, xii. 22, the word of God is sent through the angel to Abraham, in other cases it becomes more and more a personified agency: "By the word of God exist His works" (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlii. 15); "The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world by the 'Ma'amar'" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, 10, with reference to Ps. xxxiii. 6). Quite frequent is the expression, especially in the liturgy, "Thou who hast made the universe with Thy word and ordained man through Thy wisdom to rule over the creatures made by Thee" (Wisdom ix. 1; comp. "Who by Thy words causest the evenings to bring darkness, who openest the gates of the sky by Thy wisdom"; . . . "who by His speech created the heavens, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts"; through whose "words all things were created"; see Singer's "Daily Prayer-Book," pp. 96, 290, 292). So also in IV Esdras vi. 38 ("Lord, Thou spakest on the first day of Creation: 'Let there be heaven and earth,' and Thy word hath accomplished the work"). "Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things" (Wisdom xvi. 12); "Thy word preserveth them that put their trust in Thee" (l.c. xvi. 26). Especially strong is the personification of the word in Wisdom xviii. 15: "Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven out of Thy royal throne as a fierce man of war." The Mishnah, with reference to the ten passages in Genesis (ch. i.) beginning with "And God said," speaks of the ten "ma'amarot" (= "speeches") by which the world was created (Abot v. 1; comp. Gen. R. iv. 2: "The upper heavens are held in suspense by the creative Ma'amar"). Out of every speech ["dibbur"] which emanated from God an angel was created (Ḥag. 14a). "The Word ["dibbur"] called none but Moses" (Lev. R. i. 4, 5). "The Word ["dibbur"] went forth from the right hand of God and made a circuit around the camp of Israel" (Cant. R. i. 13).

—In the Targum:
In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

 

[Shermana]

Mediatorship.
Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

The Logos.
It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the Memra, which is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom and again as a parallel to the Shekinah, had come under the influence of the Greek term "Logos," which denotes both word and reason, and, perhaps owing to Egyptian mythological notions, assumed in the philosophical system of Heraclitos, of Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of world-constructive and world-permeating intelligence (see Reizenstein, "Zwei Religionsgeschichtliche Fragen," 1901, pp. 83-111; comp. Aall, "Der Logos," and the Logos literature given by Schürer, "Gesch." i. 3, 542-544). The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity. The Word which "the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power" appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 14). In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term "Logos," in the sense of "the Word by which God made the world, or made His Law or Himself known to man," was changed into "Christ" (see "Apostolic Constitutions," vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.). Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term "Memra." See Logos.

Bibliography:[/QUOTE]

So yeah. Straight from Jewish Encyclopedia, pretty much the same thing I'm saying.

About that "It's difficult to say", basically saying those who say that the "Logos" necessarily was from Greek Philosophy are being a bit assertive without much substance behind the assertion

Now for CFBAC, "God's Word: A SENTIENT BEING"

http://cfbac.org/memra.htm

God's Word: A Sentient Being

Whenever the Targum orators came to passages where Yhvh is anthropomorphic (visible to humans) or where two or more Yhvhs are indicated by the text, the Turgemen often substituted "The Word of the Lord" for one of the Yhvhs.

For example in Gen. 19:23-24 the Tanakh has:

†.As the sun rose upon the earth and Lot entered Zoar, Yhvh rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfurous fire from Yhvh out of heaven. (WHV)

The Hebrew grammar here indicates that one Yhvh rained fire from another Yhvh who was up in heaven. The Targum substitutes "The Word of Yhvh" for the first of the two Yhvhs as follows:

¶.And the Word of Yhvh caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Yhvh in heaven. (Targum Jonathan)

Targumists paraphrased the text of Exodus 20:1 by substituting "the Word of Yhvh" in place of Yhvh.

¶.And the Word of the Lord spoke all the excellency of these words saying (Jerusalem Targum)

It was, according to another Targum, the Word of Yhvh whom Abraham trusted in:

¶.Genesis 15:6...And Abraham trusted in the Word of Yhvh, and He counted it to him for righteousness. (Targum Onkelos)

Moreover Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of Yhvh:

¶.Genesis 22:14...And Abraham worshipped and prayed in the name of the Word of Yhvh, and said, "You are Yhvh who does see, but You cannot be seen." (Jerusalem Targum)

Although Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of Yhvh, his prayer was meant for the other one, the the untouchable Yhvh who cannot be seen. So the first Yhvh, the Memra', acted as a mediator between Abraham and the True God.

The Memra' has a significant role in Abraham's covenant.

¶.Genesis 17:7...And I will establish my covenant between My Word and between you (Targum Onkelos)

¶.Exodus 12:42... Night second; when the Word of the Lord was revealed unto Abraham between the divided parts; when Abraham was a son of a hundred years, and Sarah was a daughter of ninety years, (Targum Jerusalem)

According to another Targum, The Word of Yhvh created Man not only in the image of God, but also in the likeness of God's word.

¶.Genesis 1:27...And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them. (Jerusalem Targum)

The Memra' conversed with Moses and commissioned him to lead Israel to freedom.

¶.Exodus 3:14...And the Word of Yhvh said to Moses: "I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be." And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you." (Jerusalem Targum)

A partial Targum also expresses that the Word of Yhvh was the Creator.

¶.Exodus 12:42...The first night, when the Word of Yhvh was revealed to the world in order to create it, the world was desolate and void, and darkness spread over the face of the abyss and the Word of the Lord was bright and illuminating and He called it the first night. (Fragmentary Targum)

The Memra' as Creator can also be seen in the Tanakh.

†.Psalm 33:6...By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, by the breath of His mouth, all their host. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Noah's covenant was between the Memra' and all mankind.

¶.Genesis 9:17...And Yhvh said to Noah, "This is the token of the covenant which I have established between My Word and between all flesh that is upon the earth. (Targum Onkelos)

The Memra' is Israel's savior.

¶.Isaiah 45:17, 25...But Israel shall be saved by the Word of Yhvh with an everlasting salvation. By the Word of Yhvh shall all the seed of Israel be justified. (Targum Jonathan)

¶.Hosea 1:7...But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Word of Yhvh, their God. (Targum Jonathan)

.

Or they simply understand the actual complications even in the Targums of understanding how a Hebrew word was used their, let alone how a particular Greek one ended up in John.

Or they don't and have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and are grasping at straws to defend weak logic that supports their orthodox Trinitarian interpretation. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that this concept of God's word being an independent Sentient Being who acted as His representative. The evidence relates that "Wisdom" in Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon was indicated as an actual Personified Spiritual being, the Firstborn of Creation.

The evidence indicates that those who deny this concept have a "Difficult thing to say".

Indeed, it seems that the concept was already "in the Synagogue" and Philo was not just inventing this concept wholecloth or borrowing it from a totally Hellenized Jewish sect.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tl...AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Memra Targums logos&f=false

There's massive doubt. There are about a half dozen hypotheses I can recall offhand.

The massive doubt comes from those who have an agenda of defending the traditional Trinity from accusations that the Logos was a standard Jewish concept which the Targums accurately convey, and apparently from those who aren't familiar with the basic scholarship on the issue. By all means, let's see those hypotheses and let's see if they accurately take these things into consideration.

What an interesting claim: equating one explanation of the Johannine understanding of logos with "Traditional Church theology". ]

What's so interesting about it? It seems the more objective sources accept the Targumic understanding of the Logos, and those who have a stake in defending the Traditional Church Theology want to write off Philo's ideas as necessarily coming from Greek influence.

 

[John 5:46]

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."
I would like Christians to give me their views regarding this verse, and why they believe what they believe about it. I will give you my thoughts on it.

At Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning") there is small 2-letter word that sits between “God” and “created” that is not translated from the Hebrew text. This word consists of the 1st and last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the “aleph” and the "tahv" and is pronounced "eht." When translated from Hebrew into Greek “aleph-tahv” becomes “alpha-omega.”

So John explains that, In the beginning was this word "eht," and eht was with God (literally sitting beside "God" in the text), and that "eht" was God....." While the Greek translation of "Alpha and Omega" sounds nice from a Western point of view, it really means something much, MUCH deeper than just being "the First and Last."

The aleph-tahv is found in many other key passages of Scripture, and each time its meaning is profound and prophetic.

 

[Xchristian]

I am quite sure jesus was illeterate in terms of Greek language, if he knew what's written in the fourth book, he would say, what logos?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Dabar is not out, the connotation that it simply means "Word" and wasn't related to the Targumic concept of the Memra is what's out.

So debar Yahweh, an OT way of referring to the word of God is out because of Walton's determination in 1657 that the Aramaic (targumic) memra was used in a way that made it seem personified (and the fact that it took a while for scholars have the material and methods to re-evaluate this)?

"After this review of the history of modern research we may now return to the question of the possible bearing of the Targumic evidence as a background to the use of Logos in the prologue of John's Gospel. There are three major objections against the use of the targumic evidence in a study of the question. One is that the expression "Memra of the Lord" is restricted to the targums; it does not occur in rabbinic or other literature. Then there is the difficulty of dating the targumic evidence or assuming that the targums represent a usage of New Testament times. There is the further perceived difficulty that the expression "Memra of the Lord" is not a hypostasis but a manner of speaking about the Lord (God) without using his name.
That the Memra of the Lord is merely a reverent circumlocution for "the Lord," another way of expressing the same thing and in no way a hypostasis, is now generally held by students of Judaism. As H. A. Wolfson says: 'No scholar nowadays will entertain the view that it is either a real being or an intermediary.'"

McNamara, M. (2010). Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


Maybe you should read more of what has been published in the last 3 decades.

Deuteronomy 4.2 in the LXX has rhema, but the 10 commandments are dekai logoi (Exodus 34.28). And as you don't know the connotation of any of these words, how are you ruling them out?

I've been over this, this seems to be a statement by those who haven't actually read Philo and are defending against his Logos Theology.

I didn't say a word about his "logos theology" and I have read Philo.

As I stated, in reality, Philo wasn't anymore hellenized than the author of 4 Macabees. What exactly was so Hellenized about him?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the use of Greek doxography throughout his works, that despite the fact that most of his references to Hellenistic philosophical texts or teachings are not explicit he actually does explicitly reference Plato's Timaeaus and in his De aeternitate mundi his reference to stoicism is merely another instance of this, or any of number of uses of phrases or words that are specific to particular Hellenistic traditions but you cannot know unless a footnote or commentary tells you as this would require being able to read Greek (among other things).

That he seemed a bit stoic?

No. Not at all.

Usually when the argument is that Philo was hellenized, it stops right there as if just because he was "Steeped in Greek Philosophy" that this necessitates that he borrowed the Memra concept from the Greeks.

As I haven't a clue what "it" (the arguments you refer to) is, I have no idea what you mean (as Philo didn't write in Hebrew or Aramaic, and couldn't borrow an Aramaic word from the Greeks).

Therefore, the concept of "Wisdom" in Solomon MUST have not meant an actual being somehow.

Clearly. Or the entire notion of Philo having no relevance at all could be a possibility. And the irrelevance of memra from any Targum too.

I appreciate you coming to the defense of the traditionalist Trinitarian viewpoint

Then you appreciate something that doesn't exist.

If anything, Philo was explaining standard Jewish theology TO a Hellenized audience.

He wasn't, and his use of physis and nomos are pretty clear indications of that. But I eagerly await your refutations of this by the citation of an "encyclopedia" a century old.

You are invited to contribute to this new thread so you can get specific in defending in what seems to be a common misrepresentation of his views.

I was under the impression we were concerned with John 1:1.

 

[Shermana]

For what it's worth, the 2010 postscript of the article you are quoting from concedes that John Ronning argues that John's use of the "Word" concept was in fact based on the Targumic Memra, if we want to get into authority appealing. I'll be getting this book shortly, sounds fascinating, then I'll be able to discuss what precisely Ronning is saying. Even highly recommended by Mcnamara!

Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology, The: John Ronning: 9780801047596: Amazon.com: Books

This comment sounds like it might be what I"m looking for.

. No longer is it intellectually valid to postulate a Greco-Roman philosophical foundation as the Weltanschauung for the post-Maccabean occupied Judea

http://books.google.com/books?id=JB...l and Memra of the Palestinian Targum&f=false

I really do like this description of Wolfson. No need for evidential support to make such bold claims about what any scholar would entertain I suppose.

Wolfson was additionally known as a "daring" scholar, one who was not afraid to put forward a bold hypothesis with limited evidential support. In his work Wolfson therefore often chooses bold conjecture over safe, but boring, analyses (Twersky 1975)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._A._Wolfson

With that said, you're invited to contribute to the Philo thread on just how exactly his Doxography makes him "Hellenistic". Or why his clear idea of the Logos being a separate being has no significance to the issue of how another Greek-speaking Jew might have held the idea.

I'm also gonna park this link here to look at later.

http://www.academia.edu/2252889/The...Logos_Theology_and_Christs_Agency_in_Creation

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For what it's worth, the 2010 postscript of the article you are quoting from

Interesting. I'm quoting from an article that is almost 400 pages long and rather heavy, and while most articles come in things like magazines or journals with other articles, this one doesn't. Hm.

concedes that John Ronning argues that John's use of the "Word" concept was in fact based on the Targumic Memra

Concedes? Ronning dedicated his monograph to McNamara thinking that McNamara agreed with him. What I quoted from came out the same year, but it was not the first time McNamara has published on this topic (in fact, it was the 2nd edition of this book I quoted from). Apparently Ronning was just too much of a moron to realize he was dedicating his book to someone who did not make the same claim: "If targumic background there be to chapter 1 of John, we would expect to find it in the Aramaic paraphrase of the opening chapter of Genesis. In the extant targums to this chapter, however, there is little help to be found."

McNamara thinks the targums important, but not for the reason Ronning does:
"As already noted, present-day scholars tend to reject the targumic Memra as a background to, or contributing factor towards, Johns doctrine of the Logos. This they prefer to see prepared in the prophetic word (dabar) and in the Wisdom literature. This neglect of targumic evidence is unfortunate. Granted that the Memra of God and the Lord is but another way of saying "God" or "the Lord," it by no means follows that John was not influenced by targumic usage in his choice of Logos as a designation for Christ."

Influence is one thing. For example, John 1:1 is influenced by the phonetician alphabet. That's why Greek doesn't use the Linear B script. However, that John 1:1 used the targumic evidence explains John 1:1 is something else entirely, as is made clear in the actual work I cited rather than what you found on google.

I'll be getting this book shortly, sounds fascinating, then I'll be able to discuss what precisely Ronning is saying. Even highly recommended by Mcnamara!

Do you know what the word "sarcastic" means? How about "irony"?

I really do like this description of Wolfson. No need for evidential support to make such bold claims about what any scholar would entertain I suppose.

That's because the collection of essays you linked to (which I didn't cite from, FYI) like the text I actually quoted are both written for scholars, so you are expected to know the background and have access to the sources. You need only go down to your department library or perhaps the university library as a whole and retrieve the book in question.

With that said, you're invited to contribute to the Philo thread on just how exactly his Doxography makes him "Hellenistic". Or why his clear idea of the Logos being a separate being has no significance to the issue of how another Greek-speaking Jew might have held the idea.

As I don't think that the author of John was one person, that would make such a contribution rather useless. And as I don't know of many scholars who think it was written by one individual (at least recently) I am not sure why how you are connecting "Greek-speaking" Jews the way you are.

 

[gnostic]

Nowhere in any gospel, did Jesus teach that he was logos, or this"Word".

Logos was used or written, by this John, whoever this John may be, writing at the very least, 2 generations after Jesus' death. Whether this John is James' brother and one of the original apostle, or not, matters not.

It was this author who used logos, and nothing that Jesus taught himself. What Jesus taught and what this evangelist wrote, are 2 different things. And this Jesus never called himself logos.

It remind me of another topic about Jesus, in one of the gospels. Matthew claimed that Jesus is this "Immanuel" in Matthew 1:23, a claim that he (Matthew) drew from verse - Isaiah 7:14.

My point is that, apart from THIS ONE AND ONLY TIME in the New Testament (in Matthew 1:23), Jesus never called himself "Immanuel" anywhere else in this gospel, or gospels, and in none of NT epistles.

Like John 1:1, what the evangelist wrote in Matthew 1:23 and what Jesus taught are 2 different things. Jesus never called himself Immanuel, nor that of the Logos.

The problem is that Christians often jump to the conclusion that the way it is, because most of them were indoctrinated by church dogma at young age.

Evangelists and epistle authors may bestow all sorts of titles to Jesus, like Christ or Messiah, or Lord, Teacher (or Rabbi), the Good Shepherd, Son of God or Son of Man, Logos, etc, etc, but in many cases, Jesus referred himself as such.

What others may write about Jesus, and what Jesus taught don't necessarily mean that they are the-one-and-the-same.

I will repeat what I said in my earlier reply about the use of logos in John 1:1. It is quite possible that the author was using SIMILE, to describe what Jesus is like. A simile is descriptive medium used (often used by poets), so it shouldn't be taken literally.

Jesus used parables all the time, to convey messages to the audience, but it not necessarily be taken literally.

None of Revelation should be taken literally, though x-number of Christians do so.

And the same person possibly wrote both books (though when he wrote Revelation, he was probably tripping, on some mushrooms), so why take Revelation metaphorically, but John 1:1 literally?