Loading...In yesterday’s post I began to discuss the Prologue of the Gospel of John, which contains a poem that celebrates Christ as the Word of God that became human. This Word of God was with God in the beginning of all things, and was himself God; through him the universe was created and in him is life. This word took on flesh to dwell with humans, and that human – the divine word made flesh – was Jesus.
Some readers over the years have wondered if this celebration of the Logos of God that becomes flesh owes more to Greek philosophy than to biblical Judaism. It’s a good question, and hard to answer. One thing that can be said is that this Logos idea does find very close parallels with other biblical texts – in particular with texts that speak of the Wisdom (Greek: Sophia) of God. Sophia and Logos are related ideas; both have to do in some respect with “reason.” Sophia is reason that is internal to a person; Logos is that reason that gets expressed verbally.
Wisdom plays an important role in some biblical passages, none more so than Proverbs chapter 8, where “wisdom” is celebrated and is portrayed almost as a hypostasis – that is, a characteristic or feature of God that takes on personal characteristics as a being separate from God. Much of the Christ poem in John 1 has parallels with the paean to Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Consider the following verses, spoken of Wisdom:
If you’re interested in seeing more, it’s as easy as it gets. Join the blog! There’s a small membership fee, the entire fee goes straight to charity, and so all is right with the world!
It reminds me of Zoroastrianism, where the various virtues of Ahura-Mazdah are treated as divine beings in and of themselves.
I think of Logos and Sofia as different aspects of the devine Onenesse, just like the principle / fulfilled pattern of a moving car (the fulfilled pattern / principle) with the engine (Sofia) as one of the main components of the “vehicle”.
The Apcryphon of John reflects on it from a more esoteric point of view. As I read and understand it, as a combination /the principles of the divine: As it is presented, , the Thinking (Father) who thinks a Thought (mother / Barbelo) and Thought thinking itself as the androgynous child (Son / Christ, whom the Father anoints and pours out upon it). From this comes the principle of thought, mind / feeling and action as the divine unity, and the fulfilled pattern / principle.
Sofia in this sense would be the eminations of Christ (among the 12 aons – the perfect state (perhaps reflected in Revelation chapter 12) – or different reflections / spiritual qualities of the One / the Father). The most important quality of those 12 is Sofia / wisdom.
This is a reflection given in Sethic and Valentine Gnosticism, which in my mind probably came from Judaism, along with Hellenism and also Zoroastrianism. In Zoroastrianism, this concept is also expressed as “Asha”, the perfect truth, the perfect pre-material state / principle that Ahura Mazda (the deity) created. I’m sure this is a state religion in the superpower of ancient Persia that ruled Babylon when the Jews were there, 500BCE. Even the very Zoroastrian Persian king, Cyrus (who was the anointing one of the Lords according to Isaiah 45), helped to rebuild the Jewish temple. That this regime would have had great influence would not be surprising to me.
So in my mind, Logos is the perfect divine principle, and Sofia / wisdom is the main quality of the divine Unity.
So we don’t know if the word “Logos” brings some meaningful information according to the context of the time or the whole phrase in which it stands is a semantically anomalous sentence.
If we don’t weigh both stands, it’s impossible to conclude that the Christ poem in John 1 is somehow “Jewish.” Or it is not.
The very attempt to measure information could be subjective but not arbitrary.
Does this effort bring or shed new light into the issue? I am afraid not, but the very proposition “it is impossible that A occurs” is already a measurament, whether we formalize it or not.
For example, Mormon’s campaign in defense of their Christian status suggest that it is important to them to be considered Christian. But are they, really?
Your statement: “In any event, one should not think that the Christ poem in John 1 is somehow “non-Jewish.” implies alredy some kind of bayesian evaluation. The point is: will historians be ready to take a step forward in the future?
They are always taking steps forward. And steps backward!
Wisdom was considered in the Wisdom literature as a holy spirit from the mouth of YHWH. Ireneus considered the holy spirit-wisdom as a co-worker of the logos (i.e. not the logos) and Catholic tradition has even suggested that in Proverbs 8 we may be dealing with a preexistent Mary (the queen of heaven).
I wonder what Bart thinks about the fundamentalist’s “capital sin” of taking literally personification language in the Bible(s)? Was he himself “guilty” of this in his previous life as a Christian?
Apart from our fundamentalists’ “Jesus” (and perhaps Dionysus), was there any other transgender/transformer divinity in antiquity, similar to the female spirit “Lady Sophia” being trapped for about 33 years in a Jewish “son of man” in Palestine, who also occasionally transforms himself in a slain lamb or a scary horseman with fiery eyes in the skies?
I”m not sure what you mean by capital sin (or even what you’re saying it is). I don’t know of anyone who thinks that teh female Sophia was trapped in a man’s body for 33 years. That’s not what I”m describing.
I was joking when using the term “capital sin” for the (conveniently selective) use of literalism by fundamentalists who interpret the figurative language about wisdom in Proverb 8 as a preexistent divinity which later becomes enfleshed in a Jewish circumcised male called Jesus.Fundamentalists by the way do not take the text literally when wisdom is portrayed as created.
They seem to be unaware that using a literal approach makes Jesus not only a hybrid with two wills,two natures but also with two genders,adding already to the confusion created by church councils in the past.
I never implied that you said anything regarding the gender(s) of Jesus,however you seemed to hint that gender incongruency between lady wisdom and lord jesus might have been a factor for John’s choice of logos.
I only pointed out an obvious logical (and uncomfortable) conclusion which is simply ignored in “orthodox” theology.
Some patristic writer, I cannot recall the exact name or reference right now, had no problem in describing God as a father and as a mother.Recently, there have been debates between feminists and the “patriarchal” church regarding the gender of the Deity.I wonder if you have ever discussed this issue in your lectures.
No, I never have. Some have maintained that the “Spirit” could be seen as a feminine entity. My view is that the ancient world was HOPELESSLY patriarchal and that attempts to make it less so are not driven by historical interests of understanding the ancients but with theological/ideological/political interests of embracing an appropriate view in modernity. I am emphatically on board with these latter concerns personally, but I don’t think they are concerns of our ancient authors.
I’ve long had trouble with the English translation of *logos* as “Word.” Is it fair to say that the confusion starts with the Septuagint (for example, its translation of *bidvar ywyh* in Psalm 33 as *ho logos ho kyrios*) and is exacerbated by Philo? Does John’s understanding of *logos* derive from Philo’s? Does he really mean “in the beginning was a divine intermediary”? That would make more sense than “Word.” Regardless, we get a terribly distorted and diminished understanding of John 1:1 when we read “in the beginning was the Word.” Maybe English translations of John 1:1 should read “in the beginning was the Logos.” If all we have in English are poor substitutes for the original, why not use the original?
The problem is you could say that about so many words. Including the word “beginning,” to stick with this example. And need I point out in this very sentence, when it says, “The word was with God and the word was God,’ the verb itself is problematic. Which is another way of saying, sometimes it really does matter what the meaning of the word “is” is….
Thanks for the lectures today, Dr. Ehrman – really informative. I hope you’ll do more soon.
Thanks Bart; really informative and thought-provoking.
Myself, I have tended to associate the proposition that ‘Son of God’ is to be identified with ‘the Wisdom of God’ with Paul, rather than John.
On the basis of 1 Corinthians 1:23-24.
“For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ”
But, reading the Prologue in John, I feel this represents an understanding of ‘Jesus as God’ that goes some way beyond what Paul would consider appropriate; or as conforming with the traditions that Paul himself had received.
Dr bart can you make more live lecture for your student like before ? Is its ok ? I really enjoying it because i want to upgrade my membership to platinum but i feel those once in three months meet is very short and seldom, i want to hear lecture or qna more often
I’m lecturing every Sunday afternoon (I always announce it on the blog). I hope you can join in some time.
So its routine right? Im join it, i join your last second zoom
I announce it every week with the time and a link.
Im glad if this become kinda routine now, But would you keep this zoom lecturing even after covid?
I doubt it, but I haven’t thought about it….
The gospel of John famously mentions Joseph by name twice, and creates – and then ignores – a perfect opportunity at 6:42 to push back against the idea that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father. So should we construe that the author (or authors) did not see any incompatibility between such an exalted Christology and a normal biological birth, i.e., a human mother AND father?
thanks
It is often pointed out that in these two references (the other is 1:45) it is not the author who identifies Jesus this way, but people who don’t know him very well at all. So it’s hard to say if this is the author’s view or not.
This brings up the question of what did Jesus bring forward and say that others had not said before?
Do you mean the historical Jesus himself? Not a lot, I’d say, though he definitely put his own slant on what he said. Do you meant Jesus in John? A lot!
Goethe’s Faust has difficulty translating “logos”. He begins with “das Wort” (the word); is dissatisfied and replaces that with “der Sinn” (the thought); reflects and replaces that with “die Kraft” ( the power); and finally settles on “die Tat” (the act).
Is there any good reason to translate these opening lines of John in the way the New Jewish Publication Society translates the opening of Genesis?
Eg “ When God began to create heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water — God said, “Let there be light” “ etc
With John being:
“When the Word began to be — and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and He was in the beginning with God — all things came into being through him” etc.
I remember seeing a Syriac translation of John and it began similarly like Genesis with “berashit”. Also, JPS went with a translation that reflects some Jewish commentary.
I don’t know Greek well enough, but could the above translation version of John work? And are there any Christian commentators you’re familiar with who would have had this particular reading of John?
Thanks
Good question, but the answer is strongly no. The Hebrew grammar does seem to point to “When God began to create…” The Greek grammar for John definitely does not mean that.
From what I recall from previous posts and Dr Ehrman’s reply to one of my questions, the Johannine community, which produced the gospel of John, were either bi-lingual (ie. Aramaic and Greek-speaking) Jews or, more likely, Jews whose mother tongue was Greek (like Philo). If that is the case, then it makes perfect sense that they would view their religious heritage through the lens of Hellenistic philosophy.
Do you think that logos and sophia were related concepts due to religious syncretism between Judaism and Greek religion even before Philo? Did the two religious systems have similar ideas on wisdom or more specifically personifications of wisdom into divine entities?
Yes, it’s almost certainly because out of different cultures emerged concepts that could be seen as comparable.
Dr Ehrman, kind of unrelated question, but about the temple incident, I’ve seen many readings on the event (Assuming its historicity). I think that, at least for Mark, the point is to have Jesus enacting the destruction of the temple. That however doesn’t mean that the historical Jesus himself did it for that reason. So what, in your opinion, is the reason for Jesus doing it? The most common ones I know are:
– In line with Mark’s view, Jesus is enacting the destruction of the temple.
– Jesus is protesting some sort of unfair practice (maybe economic in nature) on the part of the temple authorities
– Jesus is enacting the coming of the kingdom of God in which the institution of the temple would become redundant and unnecessary.
– In line with the previous one, Jesus IS inaugurating the kingdom of God with this act, assuming that this action would crown his ministry and then God or his representative(s) would appear (kind of backfired, though).
In my view all three of the first options are right. (Not the fourth)
In his book Rabbi Jesus, Bruce Chilton proposes (I can’t remember if he had evidence for this, besides conjecture) that Caiaphas replaced the Sanhedrin in the temple with merchants in order to streamline the admission of purchased sacrifices, and sent the Sanhedrin (his political rivals) to take the place of the merchants at Channuth on the Mount of Olives.
He also points this out:
-that bringing purses into the Temple was against Pharisaic teaching, hence having merchants there would have already been controversial
-The Aramaic Targum of Zechariah states that on a certain day of reckoning, there will no longer be merchants in the House of God.
If Jesus was trying to prepare everyone for the apocalypse, he would have wanted those merchants to skedaddle.
Chilton is a very learned scholar and a very interesting person. But my view is that that book has a lot of novelistic touches. A whole lot. I don’t know if that was intentional or not. (When I first started reading it I thought it *was* a novel!)
I agree that it is (well-sourced) historical fiction. But Bruce’s imagination, I find, is quite helpful in illustrating realistic possibilities.
So I guess his work plays the role of
-telling a satisfying story, which gives a seemingly organic ‘character arc’ to Jesus
-packaging together and handing over an awareness of ancient sources about early Christianity and Judaism, to the popular press
-posing a series of (informed, but unproven) hypotheses
Hi, Bart! I just joined the blog, and will ask my question here. (Albeit, this blog post is intriguing me actually, since I was arguing with my dad about this earlier this morning. He said it’s Jesus and Logos. I said, no way; it’s the Holy Spirit!)
Onto my most important question:
I’m starting a Master’s, soon, to adapt phylogenetic techniques and other forms of analysis (from Evolutionary Biology- as I am in a Biology department) to reconstruct ancestral forms of biblical chant by modeling, comparing, and relating surviving forms of chant and those recorded on paper. I am only working on Hebrew cantillation for now, but am interested in learning as much as I can about early forms of Jewish as well as Christian liturgical music.
Since you have worked much with manuscripts, and know many other scholars, I thought I should ask you if you know of any good sources or people to talk to or work to read, about early Jewish or Christian musical practices, or anything related to chant and recitation.
Enjoying your work on Audible,
Easton
McGill University
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DLemdvGpVbxeEfpcJfC8WNoh4RxFqi2x/view?usp=sharing
If you are curious, here is a sample of my Haftarah singing, from the end of Isaiah 40.
(I was not a singer in very much any respect before I started studying cantillation, so any improvement of voice is due to my obsessively dedicated personal studying.)
I parse the text by parallelism.
My pronunciation of Hebrew is based on a spattering of advice from my Hebrew Translation scholar-friend, and reading up many phonology articles on Wikipedia, but trying to get at Classical pronunciation is ever a work-in-progress.
It’s not an *extensively* examined area, but there is fine scholarship on the Christian materials (I don’t know about the Jewish side). There is a technical book and several intersting articles (you could get from a research library) by my friend Charles H. Cosgrove, or you could try to get in touch with him.
Nice. Thanks! By the way, I did some small tests of cantillating New Testament texts in the style of Hebrew chant, and while I was at it, realized some interesting things, like how the Temptation in the Wilderness rhymes in parallel stichs when translated to Hebrew.
miqqereb̲ hamnasseh yōmar
lû ʾim bēn ʾĕlōhîm
ʾiḥâ ʾāmûr šehāʾăb̲ānîm
ʾēlleh yiššûb̲ô leḥem :
wayyaʿan yēšû wayyōmar
lû kāt̲ûb̲ kî
lōʾ ʿal halleḥem ləb̲addô yiḥyeh
hāʾād̲ām kî
ʿal kāl môṣāʾ p̲î yahweh :
i.e. Satan’s ‘Almighty’ rhymes with ‘stone’ rhymes with ‘bread’
Whereas Jesus’s reply quotes Old Testament passages which rhyme already: ‘shall live’ rhymes with ‘YHWH’
Some other NT passages that seem to be poetic in nature also have this feature in Hebrew (of those few I have checked- including John’s Revelation!), but I wouldn’t be able to tell if it was due to the skill and intent of the translators for this to happen. The song/poem at the start of Colossians 3 (verse 1-4) seems to rhyme in Greek, though!
I could check Shem Tov’s Matthew for rhymes. I heard it has good Hebrew.
Interesting. Thanks.
Ah, I found the Hebrew translation from John’s Revelation, that I was working from! This is the last thing I’ll share on this note, just because I know you want to write a book about Revelation:
(Chapter 21:3-4)
וָאֶשְׁמַע
קוֹל גָּדוֹל מִן-הַכִּסֵּא לֵאמֹר
הִנֵּה
מִשְכַּן הָאֱלֹהִים עִם-הָאְנָשִים
וִיִשְכֹּן עִמָּהֶם
וְהֵמָּה יִהְיוּ־לוֹ לְעָם
וְהוּא הָאֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה אִתָּם
וּמָחָה אֱלֹהִים כָּל-דִּמְעָה מֵעֵינֵיהֶם
לֹא יִהְיֶה-עוֹד וְהַמָּוֶת
וְגַם-אֵבֶל וּזְעָקָה וּכְאֵב לֹא יִהְיֶה-עוֹד
כִּי עָבָרוּ הָרִאשֹׁוֹנוֹת׃
If transliterated:
wå̄·ʾɛš·maʿ
qōl gå̄·ḏōl min-hak·kis·sē lē·mōr
hin·nēh
miš·kan hå̄·ʾɛ̆·lō·hīm ʿim-hå̄·ʾə·nå̄·šīm
wə·yiš·kōn ʿim·må̄·hɛm
wə·hēm·må̄h yih·yū-lō lə·ʿå̄m
wə·hū hå̄·ʾɛ̆·lō·hīm yih·yɛh ʾit·tå̄m
ū·må̄·ḥå̄h ʾɛ̆·lō·hīm kå̄l-dim·ʿå̄h mē·ʿē·nē·hɛm
lō yih·yɛh-ʿōḏ wə·ham·må̄·wɛṯ
wə·ḡam-ʾē·ḇɛl ū·zə·ʿå̄·qå̄h ū·ḵə·ʾēḇ lō yih·yɛh-ʿōḏ
kī ʿå̄·ḇå̄·rū hå̄·ri·šō·nōṯ
The null hypothesis is that the Hebrew translators decided to translate dialogue as poetry, but narration as prose.
My alternative hypothesis (however absurd) is that this was originally dreamed up in Hebrew by the Jewish-Christian writer of the book, but written or translated to Greek. It’s too far-fetched an idea for me to actually believe, but if I find this trend systematically, maybe there’ll be somewhat of a case.
Jewish or Hellenistic so called Judaism. LXX is not a simple transaltion.
Gen 1.2: ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος – Plat. Tim. 50d-51a: ἂν
παρεσκευασμένον εὖ / ἀνόρατον εἶδός τι καὶ ἄμορφον;
Gen 1.4f: ὅτι καλόν – Plato, Tim. 28a, 29a: καλὸν ἐξ ἀνάγκης, καλός ἐστιν
ὅδε ὁ κόσμος;
Gen 1.26-27: κατ᾽ εἰκόνα … καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν [θεοῦ] Plat. Tim. 39b: εἰκόνα
τινὸς εἶναι, Plat. Theaet. 176b: ὁμοίωσις θεῷ;
and
Gen 1.1: ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς – por. Plat. Tim. 31a: ἐποίησεν ὁ ποιῶν;
Gen 2.24: δύο εἰς … μίαν – por. Plat. Symp. 191d: ἓν ἐκ δυοῖν;
In these places, the way of translating the Hebrew text is explicitan anomaly in the background of the Septuagint itself. Moreover, each of them has significant counterparts in phraseology characteristic of Plato’s style. (taken from S. Poloczek)
That was the beginning. A mature synthesis of Plato’s and biblical thought was achieved only in Philo from Alexandria. So hen or egg? That is the question.
Are you asking whether the LXX was written before Plato? Nope. Much later.
Much later. But Philo read LXX. The extent of Philo’s knowledge of Hebrew is debated.
IMHO, Philo was an proud inventor of Logos, his own concept. Of course Logos is not a Sophia. If he had only assumed that someone would combine these concepts, he would have written an appropriate explanation not to do so.
An observation on your “pure guess” on the gender of the words “sophia” and “logos” influencing John’s choice of using logos (as applied) to Jesus, you might have gotten the idea (perhaps distantly) from Max Müller, i.e., the nomina became numina, the names became gods. In other words, a grammatical gendered word for an object became understood as a gendered divine being.
Dear Bart, please could you help me unpack 1 Cor. 8:6?
1. This “formula” looks like an earlier creed to me, with the Greek reading like elevated prose.
2. I suspect this to be an earlier, high Christology (as in Jesus a pre-existent being used by God to create everything). Yes or no?
3. The Greek is reminiscent of aphorisms popular in Greek philosophical schools at the time. This looks like an appropriation / co-opting of words from pagans but used by Paul to express a Christian view.
4. The meaning of the verse itself squarely goes against the view that Jesus is God, especially in view of Rom. 11:36.
5. Rom. 11:36 seems to be a ‘reworking’ of 1 Cor. 8:6, or is it a different, earlier creed / doxology?
6. If point 4 is correct, then the Philippians ‘poem’ cannot mean that Jesus has been exalted to *be* God , otherwise Paul would not make the point of Phil 2:11c: “* to the glory of God the Father*.”
Also in 1 Cor. 15:27-28, Paul goes out of this way to make the point that Jesus is still subjected to God for all eternity, which shows to me that Paul is entirely consistent on the subject.
I can’t deal with all six questions adequately here, but yes, I think it probably is an earlier creed; I think it does show that Jesus was thought of as a divine being but he is obviously not God the father; I don’t think Paul or anyone else is perfectly consistent and since Rom 11:36 and this (and, say, Rom 1:3-4) are picked up from earlier traditions, I don’t think the Romans passage can be decisive of the meaning of the 1 Cor. one. Paul never says that Christ became “the” God (the Father); Philippians indicates he was given equal authority with God and will be equally worshipped.
Hi Bart – unrelated but I thought I’d ask… I can’t see how Marcion could reject the OT and still hold Paul as the true Apostle, given that Paul’s letters as we know them are full of quotes and allusions to the OT that are so woven in the text and part of Paul’s core argumentation? Or would that be an indication that the original letters of Paul in the Marcionite canon did not include OT quotes i.e. he either expunged them, or Paul’s original letters had already been heavily redacted by early Christians to include OT quotes by Marcion’s time to push their own agenda (which means Marcion would have had access to the early, close to the originals, Paul’s letters)?
Marcion apparently claimed that those parts of Paul’s letters were later interpolations by those who did not understand his radical anti-Jewish Gospel; his edition of Paul lacked them (or most of them)
Dr. Ehrman, I have an unrelated question. Is Jason Staples’ book out yet?
I don’t think so. Amazon always projects the publication dates of books, so you may want to check there.
The church fathers often mentions that some of the patriarchs were types of Christ. Joseph, the Patriarch, is one example. It’s like he was an incarnation of Christ for a while. We see this, among other things, at the crucifixion. Jesus was first dressed in a coat of many colors, then he was dressed back in his own clothes that the soldiers had taken off him. Finally, he became buried in linen clothing.
These are the three claddings we recognize from Joseph. First, the coat of many colors from his father, then The Cloak Potiphera’s wife stripped off him, and finally the coat of fine linen which was given by Pharaoh when Joseph became “exalted”.
To substantiate this theme, Jesus is buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the same well from which Joseph had risen. This symbolism leads the reader to understand that the Lord’s death is temporary, as in Joseph’s case. Joseph from Arimathea gives Jesus the coat of fine linen to Jesus as a sign of his upcoming elevation.
Just as Joseph told his brothers that his sufferings were always part of the Lord’s plan, we now understand that the same is true for Jesus.
Then there is Nicodemus and his role associated with the same theme. We read that Reuben was the only one of Joseph’s brothers who would save him. Reuben was at the same time a problematic figure. Reuben had performed fornication with Bilhah, his father’s wife. Genesis 49:4 Reuben: «you went up onto your father’s bed, onto my couch and defiled it.»
It was almost as if he had been in his mother’s womb. This deed stamped Reuben forever. So even though Reuben understood who Joseph was, he was at the same time a man defined by his earthly desires. Reuben was the firstborn to Jacob and should have been a leader of the Jews. Instead he had to show remorse and pray to the Lord for forgiveness. Some apocryphal texts say that Reuben actually did regret and suffered for this for several years. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs says that Reuben suffered for seven years. Some texts says he was forgiven in the end, and so in a way «reborn».
But it’s more to the story. Reuben had found the Mandrakes that helped Rachel to conceive Joseph. This is what Nicodemus embalmed the body of Jesus with in the end.
Reuben had seen what had happened to Joseph and he heard his voice, but he did not understand that this was part of God’s plan. Reuben did not understand that what had happened to Joseph was an earthly image of a spiritual mystery. What had happened to Joseph was an earthly thing, and Reuben did not even understand this earthly sign. How, then, should Reuben be able to understand heavenly things?
Genesis 45:5 «And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me(Joseph) here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you.»
John 3:17 «For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.»
Prof Ehrman,
Christian text (eg. Gospels) give off an anti-Jewish imagery in some instances. Who is writing these books (rhetorical question)? The evidence points to the Greeks. People far removed by time, location and culture.
[My amusement is, to which extent were Jews involved in establishing these texts taking into cognizance the fact that the basis of the Christian movement is Jewish, with a later seeming Greek wrapping].
Q1. Do we have evidence of Jews that identified with the form of Christianity that became the orthodox view?
Q2. In your opinion, is it fair to say that Christianity is a religion that blended Jewish and Greek cultural views and philosophies?
1. It depends which time period you mean. The later orthodox view claimed it was the view of Paul, e.g.; if Jews converted in, say 150 CE, they probably would have converted to whatever form of Christainity was in their locale — so presumably orthodoxy. Off had I can’t think of authors who defnitely fit that mold (later Jewish converts). 2. Yes, but I would also say that Jewish and Greek are not opposites, any more than, say, Jewish and American are….
Prof Ehrman,
How much of Greek culture influenced and shaped an otherwise Jewish movement to Christianity?
You can do short response here and would humbly submit that you consider a post on this. If you have already treated this on the blog, kindly help with a catch word to search the archives.
Hugely. But it’s not the sort of thing one can talk about in broad general terms; one need to look at specifics — eg., the effect of Greek philosophical traditions on the Prologue of John or on the views of Justin or on the development of the doctrine of the trinity.
Prof Ehrman,
Could it be that we are imposing our view of Christianity (as a separate religious movement apart from Judaism) on the extant N.T texts and the earliest followers of Jesus? Let me expand a little.
If Jesus was a Jew, who taught Judaism, then, it is clear that his interest was not to start a new religion (Christianity), but was only offering interpretation of the Tanakh. Given the fact that we neither have the words, teachings or writings (assuming they were literate) of the historical Jesus nor the earliest (first) Jewish disciples of Jesus and none of the Gospels can be demonstrated to be their actual narrative, what if the earliest Jewish disciples carried on with a Jewish movement and never propagated a new religion (Christianity)?
If all that comes to us were written by the Greeks, how sure are we that these writings aren’t later creations which sought to create a new movement that was at odds to the early Judaic movement (what the real historical Jesus taught)? What if our extant texts have been heavily influenced to the point beyond reconstructing what Jesus taught?
Please, is this a plausible scenario and what’s your take on it?
I would say that virtually all new religions break off from older ones, and usually by people who think they ahve the true “interpretation” of the older one. The earliest followers of Jesus understood themselves to be fully Jews and nothing else. But their claims about Jesus were rejected by other Jews, and so these Jesus-following-Jews started their own communities (just as other Jewish groups did). Eventually, though, they converted non-Jews to their movement and somewhat later claimed these non-Jews did not have to become Jews to be followrs of Jesus. Other Jews at that point began to question whether this movement was really Jewish or not. Many of them concluded not. And as very few Jews converted, soon it was a Gentile religion, with converts with very gentile ways of looking at the world and the divine realm.
I have two questions. 1) Can you comment how Logos and Sophia, as applied to Jesus or the Holy Spirit, might relate to the understand of the Greek speaking population that was aware of the Theory of Forms as presented by Plato’s dialogues?
2) I have often wondered if it was the gentile, Greek Christians who produced the major impetus to see Jesus as a god which then filtered back to the Jewish Christians whose competing vision of him as the Messiah was then modified. The varying and inconsistent evidence in the Gospels and Paul are the artifacts of this evolving conflict. Are there many academics who favor this idea?
1. Sophia as an entity is not in the platonic tradition, so far as I know. I’m not sure that Plato himself every links Logos with forms, but maybe someone can correct me — or say something about Middle Platonic connections. 2. What I’ve been arguing is that Jews too understood that a person elevated to heaven to be with God was understood to have become a divine being. Greek thinkers among the Christians may have run with the idea, but it was there from the beginning.
Dr. Ehrman,
Wouldn’t it be possible to have a connection with Egypt in Logos?
In “Le petit Champollion illustré”, 1994, egyptologist Christian Jacq states that all scribes, before writing, had to say a prayer to God Thoth in Ancient Egypt. This prayer was:
“O Thoth, preserve me from vain words. Guide me through the light. Come, you who are the divine word. You are a sweet source for the thirsty traveler in desert. You are inaccesible to the talker and kind to the silent one.”
So Thoth was the god who was the divine word.
Of course, they were not speaking Greek. And yes, many gods are connected with words. But that’s not quite the same as the Logos in John.
A legitimate alternative translation autos and Hoytos from him/his to it/ its in John 1:1-10 (based on the NIV)
Passage: https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/jhn/1/1/s_998001
Hoytos: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3778/niv/mgnt/0-1/
Autos: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g846/niv/mgnt/0-1/
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
It was with God in the beginning. Through it all things were made; without it nothing was made that has been made. In it was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.
It was in the world, and though the world was made through it, the world did not recognize it.
Heraclitus fragment/quote: “Of the Logos which holds forever, men prove uncomprehending, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For although all things come about in accordance with the Logos…. “
I suppose it’s possible. Logos is a masculine noun, so the pronoun autos referring back to it is necessarily masculine (“his”); but since it is referring to the Logos, one could argue that in English “word” is not a “he” but an “it” and translate the autos then as “it”; on the other hand, the Logos was anthropomorphized (as well as “deiorphized”!) in ancient philosophical discourse (making it a him) and that may be what the author is doing here, so that “he” is the better rendition. That’s certainly how translators are dealing with it since they do not think of God as an It and this entity “was God.”
Isn’t there a deliberate switch in meaning from it to he in John 1:11, where Eidos (belonging to him/her) cannot mean ‘its’
So, hasn’t he taken Heraclitus’s idea about the Logos being the source of cosmological order, life and enlightenment and being misunderstood by the majority of mankind and, using the Greek ambiguity of it and him, suddenly deliberately changed the meaning from it, to him, implying not that Jesus was pre-existent, but that Jesus was a manifestation of the pre-existent Logos [rational, life giving mind of God]
This would get around idea of the pre-existance of the human Jesus – a notion I have never been comfortable with. Of course we are all lesser versions of the incarnated Logos!! He came to his own – we should have understood him – because we all have some of the Logos in us!
Philo’s “the first born of God” also fitted well with the fact that Jesus often referred to God as his Father (he also referred to God as “Your Father in heaven” and “Our Father in Heaven”
Maybe John and the author of the Phillipians 2: 5-11 poem just took it all a bit too far?
I”m not sure which word you’re referrig to in 1:11. IDIOI? (“those things that belong to someone). It appears to be referring to “his own creation” (first appearance) and then “his own people” (second: different gender). I’m not sure I get the rest of your question. But whether John and Paul “took it too far” would be a theological quesiton, I should think, not an exegetical one…. Both, though do indeed hold to preexistence.
Thanks Bart, thats helpful. I get the feeling that the pre-existence of Christ, when explored, could have more than one meaning. For example it could mean any or none of the following: the bodily Jesus was somehow present in a heavenly realm as a fully grown un-crucified young man (lets say aged 30 🙂 ); that the consciousness or soul of Jesus was somehow having expereicnes in a heavenly realm before his destined incarnation (and all that followed); that the idea of Jesus as a future suffering servant and mesianic king was lurking in God’s mind (even we are pre-existent on those criteria!); that the idea of man – the highest earthly creature of separate, but dvinely ‘templated’ rational consciousness (Logos) was present in God’s mind and and Jesus was the most perfect example thereof; or that God’s mind IS the Logos and that Jesus was the most perfect example of the incarnation of that Logos. Isn’t it the latter that John and Paul were driving at and John more inspired and linguistically influenced by Heraclitus’s rational dividing Logos, The Stoics’ insemminating Logos Spermaticos and Philo’s middle platonic demi-urge-like Logos?
I”d say that the best way to get to what John or Paul had in mind would be to engage in a careful reading of the relevant passages (e.g. John 1 or Phil 2), without synthesizing them with others (e.g., the Synoptics, ,which have no conception of incarnation), and bearing in mind that John adn Paul have different versions between themselves.
Thank you, Bart I’ll take your professeorial reprimand and engage in deeper study 🙂
One more thing (I promise!). I suppose I was trying to ask one of your favourite questions: “*In what sense* did either John or Paul conceive or *in what sense* can any of us conceive of the pre-existence of the Christ? – bodily, concious spirit, an idea, or plan, or template in the Mind of God; or just the mind of God (the Logos) or God himself? (and wouldn’t that be the same thing? ).
Come to think of it, to an idealist, all of these options could be argued to be the same thing! 🙂 . On this argument, if you are also a theist (of the omniscient God variety), then the pre-existence of Christ and the pre-existence all of us are neccessary conclusions.
Ah! Paul appears to thought that Christ was a mighy angel (I argue this in How Jesus Became God; a lot of people don’t like the idea, but I thin kit’s Pauls). So whatever angels were like…. John doesn’t say, but he does appear to think that Jesus was not embodied (just as God isn’t)before coming int the world. BUt not God the Father himself, since, for john, He was God and he was WITH God, so he’s separate.
Yes, I agree with the Archangel idea (I have read how Jesus became God twice). So for Paul, separate from God period? No trinity for Paul?. However for John, not embodied and both separate to God (“with God”) and the same as God – a proto-trinitarian idea. The trouble is, if John really did mean the Logos was a conscious entity, then just like the full doctine of the Trinity itself, this disobeys the law of non-contradiction: The Logos is both God and not God (“with God”). God as one conscious being cannot have a separate consciousness.
So, here is my point: John may not have meant Logos *in the same sense* as a separate conscious person – albeit disembodied. I think in John1:1-10 he may just have been referring to Philo’s interpration of Logos and to Proverbs 8:23-30 – as the Logos being the mind of God (hence *it* and not *he*) and then in v.11 switching and applying *The Logos* to Jesus *him* as opposed to *it* as the ultimate incarnation of the mind of God…… Thus John may not have meant to imply a pre-existent conscious person in his prologue
Where I curently stand on this (an invitation to shoot me down 🙂 )
I see Jesus as a man just like the rest of us, only a particularly special example! I do not accept the trinity, or the virgin birth. I am not sure about whether the ressurection was phsyical or whether, just like end of life experiences in all ages, the disciples saw a spiritually ressurected Jesus (hence I hold to an exaltation Christology). I see John’s Logos prologue as picking up on Philo’s personification of the ordering principle present in the universe from the beginning (as in the Heraclitean & Stoic Logos) and what we now call the laws of physics (upon which the physical universe has its being). I think all conscious beings are incarnations of the Logos – the divine mind which I would conflate with the nous of Plotinus / the Sophia of Philo.
Many see God as humanity’s self-projection. I see Humanity (and the universe) as God’s self-projection.
The Probelm of Evil & Imperfection in the Universe
I still have a problem with the problem of natural and of moral evil and indeed with the overall problem of the existence of imperfection in the universe. However, with Pythagorus, Plotinus, Heraclitus, Augustine (privatio boni) and others, I am beginning to see evil as and imperfection as the necessary consequence of separation from the “one” and that Plato’s ideal of “the Good” is a tendency to gravitate back toward God – by perfecting imperfection, enlightening where there is darkness, healing where there is disease, joining where there is division.
There could be no good without evil: everything one be a perfect un-separated Plotinian “one” – how boring would that be?! 😊
That’s it for now! 🙂
Dr Ehrman,
Would you please recommend books/references on the systematic exploration of Logos/Sophia in the Abrahamic religions?
Did Philo of Alexandria view Moses as the manifestation of Logos? Was the prologue in the Gospel of John a response to Philo (by a sectarian Johannine community) ? Or, was John’s author in dialogue with his Hellenistic surroundings? Why were all the three Abrahamic religions (including Islam) felt compelled to reconcile Stoic philosophy with their theological expositions?
Would you consider writing a book on the subject matter (forgive my unawareness, if you already have)? Or, would you consider devoting one of your future on-line courses to this subject?
Thanks, Hamid
I don’t know of a book on just htat, though it certainly may exist. I discuss teh matter of the Logos, and Philo, and Moses, etc. in my book How Jesus Became God.