This is just one of many examples of early Christians incorporating or assimilating pagan philosophical ideas and concepts, probably on a largely ad hoc basis, as Christianity sought legitimacy in the Roman Empire. The Gospel of John is the last of the Gospels in time, and by that time the effort, such as it was, was well underway. It can be seen as early as the writings of Paul of Tarsus also, for example. Tarsus was a center of Stoic philosophy at the time, and Paul "borrowed" from Stoicism with some frequency. I think Christians, especially those who were among the more elite members of Roman society or were their children and had been well educated according to the standards of the time, thought Christianity lacked the sophistication they found in pagan philosophy, and, as it were, inserted the concepts they found amicable into Christian doctrine where it seemed suitable.

... how does one substantiate the translation of the word λόγος as 'the Word', and as referring to Christ? — Tzeentch

I am not qualified to comment on the translation, but taking λόγος as referring to Christ comes from verse 14: "And the λόγος was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Not sure it is of any significance to the inquiry but when you stick λόγος into google translate, you get the following synonyms (uses):

reason
λόγος, αιτία, λογικό, φρένα

speech
ομιλία, λόγος, φωνή, λαλιά

ratio
αναλογία, λόγος, σχέση

word
λέξη, λόγος, είδηση

cause
αιτία, αίτιο, λόγος, υπόθεση, αφορμή, σκοπός

consideration
θεώρηση, μελέτη, αμοιβή, παράγοντας, λόγος, σεβασμός

oration
λόγος, αγόρευση, ρητό, δημηγορία

spiel
λόγος

This seems largely right but it's clearly more than a mere incorporation or assimilation. It's also a challenge. Logos can no longer be understood apart or independently from God's oneness.

Well Verses 1-2: “In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with God, and the Logos was God; this one was present with God in the origin.” [...] Verse 14: “And the Logos became flesh and pitched a tent among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the Father’s only one, full of grace and truth."

So certainly the relationship between God as origin, God as flesh, and Logos is an open question.

If one were to accept these profound similarities as the early Christians copying from the ancient Greeks, that has some very far-reaching consequences for the way one would interpret Christian writings. Considering these similarities penetrate into the core of the Christian belief (for example the Christian trinity and the Platonic trinity), that would imply that centuries of interpretation are simply wrong. Now, I don't mean to draw this conclusion, but you seemed to gloss over this matter rather casually and I thought I'd address it.

It is interesting to note that the word σὰρξ can refer to a body of flesh, but it can also refer to something which is physical rather than corporeal. One could therefore come to a translation such as "And the λόγος was made physical," now depending on one's interpretation of the word λόγος this could mean that the universe is reason made physical, and that reason resides in mankind. Reason (the Son) comes forth from the One (the Father).

In your view, could any of those translations change the meaning of the passages that are being discussed?

This seems largely right but it's clearly more than a mere incorporation or assimilation. It's also a challenge. Logos can no longer be understood apart or independently from God's oneness. — John Doe

Could you elaborate on this challenge?

... this could mean that the universe is reason made physical, and that reason resides in mankind. — Tzeentch

Not really, since verses 15 and 30 unambiguously indicate that verse 14 is referring to one particular man whom John the Baptist specifically identified; namely, Jesus.

On the other hand, I agree with Charles Sanders Peirce that our existing universe as a whole is a sign uttered by God, whose object is God Himself and whose interpretant is our knowledge of Him. As the λόγος made σὰρξ, Christ is the supreme self-revelation of God (cf. Hebrews 1:1-3).

how does one substantiate the translation of the word λόγος as 'the Word', and as referring to Christ? — Tzeentch

The Christ was a title for "the word" as a 'living' manifestation of God's wisdom. Jesus was a human whom God used to convey divine wisdom, and in that sense, the word was made flesh. Remember, also, as is expressed in the Bible, the word was in the beginning with the father long before Jesus was born.

I think the points of similarity between the word in Greek (logos) and in Christianity (christ) represent a converging concept which may show that reality in the many perspectives it was viewed from remained unified in its fundamental expression. In some esoteric teachings, wisdom is explained as the application or practice of unity (love) and, God being the representation of absolute unity (the one) or love in the greatest form, divine wisdom (the word, logos) becomes interpreted as the endeavours of that absolute unity/love.

Considering these similarities penetrate into the core of the Christian belief (for example the Christian trinity and the Platonic trinity), that would imply that centuries of interpretation are simply wrong. — Tzeentch

I don't know what interpretation you refer to, here, but it would seem to me quite likely that the early Christian Fathers borrowed freely from the Greek philosophers, and this I think is very clear in some cases. Take Justin Martyr, who is said to have been the foremost developer of the "Christian" concept of Logos. I think it's apparent that he used the conception of the Logos as a means by which Christians could claim that what was right, or good, in pagan philosophy was in fact "Christian." He seems to very nearly parrot the Stoic philosophers in some respects, and refers as they did to the Divine Reason, and claimed that there is in all men a part of the divine, i.e. reason, just as the Stoics did. That reason was the best guide to life before the coming of Christ. According to Justin, men should live life according to reason (this is Stoicism; he could as well have said "according to Nature"). In that manner, men would participate in the Divine Reason (again, this is the Stoic view).

Now as one might guess, the Divine Reason was Jesus according to Justin, the Logos. Since there were wise and virtuous pagans, philosophers, who though living long before Jesus said much the same thing that Justin and other Christian apologists said, those pagans were really Christians after all, though they didn't know it.

Obviously, I simplify the argument. But this is the sort of thing the early Christian apologists would do. Augustine also claimed that Plato and others did all men could do, without knowing Jesus, to recognize and define the fundamental tenets of what they did not know was Christianity but was Christianity in fact. It was Jesus at work even then in his capacity as the Logos. The association of Christ with the Logos was very useful to the early Christian thinkers.

Fathers borrowed freely from the Greek philosophers, — Ciceronianus the White

Some scholar whose name I cant remember said Platonic philosophy should be thought of as being like the science of the era. So it was similar to the way the Catholic Church has agreed with whatever scientists come up with. So it wasn't: Oh let's borrow something Greek, it was: let's see how our Nietzschean project lines up with reality.

Some scholar whose name I cant remember said Platonic philosophy should be thought of as being like the science of the era. So it was similar to the way the Catholic Church has agreed with whatever scientists come up with. So it wasn't: Oh let's borrow something Greek, it was: let's see how our Nietzschean project lines up with reality. — frank

I think it was more a case of: Since Jesus is God, the insights of pagan philosophers we find admirable must be consistent with the fact that Jesus is God. But how account for the fact that those philosophers lived long before Jesus? Well, clearly it must be the case that he's that Logos they talked about; they just didn't know it was him. This is assimilation after the fact, through the dubious magic of special pleading.

Philo (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being or demiurge.[7] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[33] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God".[33] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated".[34]

Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.[33] In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the Universe.[33] — Wikipedia: Philo of Alexandria

Seems like Philo of Alexandria could partially responsible for how Christ became associated with the Word of God. It was a meme that took flight after the event. Some Christians were borrowing from Philo in preparing their propagandic literature.

Stranger still is that Philo (c25 BC-47 AD) was a contemporary of Jesus but does not bear witness to the historical man or events surrounding the man Jesus. (?)

jesusneverexisted.com: Philo of Alexandria

____________

"Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made."

– Philo, "The Special Laws", I (81)

I agree, I took a bit too much freedom in that interpretation. However I cannot help but find profundity in the word λόγος and its translation as 'reason' (or even 'cause', but we may get into that later). Doesn't it potentially give great insight into John's view of the nature of God? And if God is reason, and reason is God, then Jesus is the 'voice of reason'. What happens when we interpret Christian writings viewing God not as an anthropomorphous Zeus-like being, but as pure, perfect reason, the likes of which the Platonists sought? What about the fact that Plato called the ultimate object of thought 'the One', however closely related and equally important to the One was the Good. The Good, that which unifies and in its unification perfects. Love, among other things.

In some esoteric teachings, wisdom is explained as the application or practice of unity (love) and, God being the representation of absolute unity (the one) or love in the greatest form, divine wisdom (the word, logos) becomes interpreted as the endeavours of that absolute unity/love. — BrianW

That is in fact quite close (if not downright identical) to the (neo)Platonic view of 'the Good' and 'the One'. I'm not sure if I would term ancient Greek philosophy esoteric, though. At least not in the popular sense of the word.

Aren't all these extremely curious similarities and insights? To answer your question: If we were to assume that John meant λόγος in the Platonic sense, then the Christian image of God as a sentient being is wrong. If God is reason in the Platonic sense, John is saying God is pure conscious thought which binds the soul, intellect (νοῦς) and the One, together.

I hadn't even thought about Philo of Alexandria yet, but now that you present these ideas it seems more plausible that λόγος was indeed meant in the Platonic sense.

Some here seem to gloss over these similarities rather casually, but this potentially means that Christianity is based on Platonic thought, and, dare I say, a (mis)interpretation of it.

While I don't want to rain on your parade it could also be that Christians simply lacked a word to convey that sense of ultimate perfection they were after. So they borrowed a Greek word that already had that meaning.

My belief is that strange as it may seem, Jesus has always been a problem for Christianity, or at least for those Christians who are philosophically inclined, or theologians. The problem arises because Jesus is simultaneously God and man. He's God while being crucified. He's God while dead. This must be accounted for; it requires explanation. Many are unable to accept the thoughtless position that this is an inexplicable divine mystery to be accepted through faith. This caused problems from the beginning, such as the Arian position that Jesus wasn't of the same substance as God, though divine. The history of Christianity is a history of heresies.

Jesus was human, so thinking of him as the very "un-human" Logos of the ancient philosophers, or otherwise as the perfect being which created the vast universe or is its essence requires real effort. It's not a concept which comes to mind naturally from knowledge of Jesus' life to the extent it's known, which is something which I think supports the conclusion that it was borrowed. And it seems to me that as a result, Christian apologists, then and now, are inclined to ignore Jesus the man as much as they can or "explain" him away.

And it seems to me that as a result, Christian apologists, then and now, are inclined to ignore Jesus the man as much as they can or "explain" him away. — Ciceronianus the White

The Jesus narrative took hold in a world that became Neoplatonic. Christianity as we know it emerged from that stew. You're wanting to give early Christianity a distinct identity it simply didnt have, I gather so you have a target for your condescension.

For me, "Word" makes sense as a translation because John goes on to say "in the beginning" in verse 2 and then "All things were made by him" in verse 3. How did God create the universe according to Genesis 1? By speaking.

Much of Christian thinking evolved. Early Christians were not daunted by such similarities because they were so well known.

See Augustine's City of God, Book 11. Therein, he treats of the Trinity and expounds on earlier versions of philosophy which mirrored such threefold attributes (Greek: Physical/Logical/Ethical and Latin: Material/Rational/Moral). This is a striking example of how early Christians felt about previous thought fitting into Christian logic.

The early Christians felt these ideas culminated in the existence of Christ. The idea of secret agendas came when people forgot the original ideas and misunderstood how well known they were to everyone.

I do think the translation is correct (of λόγος) because earlier ideas of λόγος are similar. Of course, we can never know because the meaning of words change so much over time. Certainly modern Christians can never know the very loaded meaning of that word because it's hard to find philosophers anywhere these days, in church or out of it!

But λόγος was a core, as other posters have mentioned, of so many philosophies that the Christians almost had to address it if they wanted to maintain any validity. Christians would perhaps say this means λόγος really is important and God wanted us to understand that concept so intensely that he sent us Christ. But atheists, perhaps would say it was just a spin to make Christianity more acceptable.

Good discussion. I think I will like it here.

I simply see Christianity as a fascinating and very successful (in terms of longevity) mixture of religious and philosophical beliefs prevalent in the Roman Empire in which it took shape. It's true that if this view of it is accepted, there's very little of it that can be considered original, or special, except that its a mixture, and as a mixture of sometimes disparate beliefs there are aspects of it that are inconsistent and unsatisfactory. I don't think this is a matter of condescention.

Stranger still is that Philo (c25 BC-47 AD) was a contemporary of Jesus but does not bear witness to the historical man or events surrounding the man Jesus. (?) — Nils Loc

Philo was an advocate for Jews in Alexandria and went to Rome to argue for their interests; Maybe not a good time and place to talk about Roman and Jewish authorities agreeing to execute another zealot in Jerusalem.

Do you feel λόγος is somehow alien to man? Because I would argue the opposite. Reason seems to reside within us all, inside some more than in others. What perhaps makes the λόγος of the ancient Greeks less easily grasped is that instead of turning their reasoning outward, they turned it inward in order to make sense of that which goes on in our minds. Many religions and philosophies (such as Gnosticism's 'divine spark' and Stoicisms 'divine logos') in the past have asserted that there's a divine quality to the reasoning part of the human mind.

Respectfully, wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense if God created the universe by reason? By logic? Which is incidentally exactly how the universe functions? According to laws and relations? I understand that just because it makes sense to me, doesn't mean it was the intended meaning behind the work, but perhaps it helps you understand where I am coming from.

true that if this view of it is accepted, there's very little of it that can be considered original, or special — Ciceronianus the White

It's Rome's legacy. Speaking of which, you have to read The History of Money by Jack Weatherford. He explains Rome from beginning to end from the perspective of what was going on with the money.

Given the profound meaning of the word λόγος in ancient Greek philosophy, and given the influence this philosophy may have had on early Christianity, how does one substantiate the translation of the word λόγος as 'the Word', and as referring to Christ? — Tzeentch

As a matter of communication in the context of the Gospel of John, the λόγος brought forth though Jesus is continued after his death through the παράκλητος or advocate:

"15 “If you love me, you will keep[a] my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. 17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

18 “I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.

25 “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid." John 14:15-14:27 NRSV

As an alternative creation story to the one in Genesis, John emphasizes that it is all the "living in each other" that connects the birth of the disciples with the Creator. Note how the use of "with", "in", and "was"is)" reflects the beginning of the gospel. The Pauline tradition that pushed out other versions of this approach incorporated the Torah into one cohesive narrative of their making. That kind of put a damper on the whole "alternative" part of the program.

Respectfully, wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense if God created the universe by reason? By logic? Which is incidentally exactly how the universe functions? According to laws and relations? — Tzeentch

"Logic" is an English word derived from λόγος that names the science of symbols--signs (including words) that represent their objects only by virtue of a habit. Charles Sanders Peirce generalized it to semeiotic, the science of all kinds of signs--including indices that are directly connected with their objects, and icons that merely resemble their objects.

As I noted previously, he held that the universe itself is a sign uttered by God, whose object is God Himself and whose interpretant is our knowledge of Him. Laws and relations within the universe can also be conceptualized as signs--just like an argument, the propositions within that argument, and the terms within those propositions are all signs. So perhaps our views on this are not so different after all.

To state the matter I wish to debate clearly:
Given the profound meaning of the word λόγος in ancient Greek philosophy, and given the influence this philosophy may have had on early Christianity, how does one substantiate the translation of the word λόγος as 'the Word', and as referring to Christ? — Tzeentch

Let's draw an analogy of Logos as 'the Word' through a paintbrush.
In the beginning God must be the brush, then after creation - the brush may separate itself.
The Christ spirit becomes this separate mediator, this brush, which ministers to creation - which is partly creator.

The best explanation is presented by Bishop Spong.

The main discourse on why we call Jesus the word of god begins at the 17 min. mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUmKEH9jnu8

Regards
DL

However, given the profound meaning of the word λόγος in Greek philosophy, I don't find that translation and/or interpretation satisfactory without further explanation. — Tzeentch

I don't think there is one, beyond an outrageous and violent piracy. It's a bit like the word "truth" now. We all like to think we know what truth means, at least in a ready and functional sort of a way. But the big lie, the Soviet and now Russian "truths," and our own Trumpian "truth" are a lethal and vicious attack on our understanding of truth that each encompasses its destruction, its replacement being something altogether sinister, evil, and vicious. It's a form of war, and in that light I can appreciate, somewhat, why some then and even now, persecute Christians.

Actually the process of assimilation of Greek philosophy with Christian theology took quite a few centuries, and is a profound and deep subject. I say this as someone who has only just enough knowledge of it to know that, as it would take years of study and knowledge of the languages - what used to be called a classical education - to really claim any scholarly knowledge.

However, in a general sense - Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Moses Maimonides, among others, were profound philosophers, sages even. It was in the works of such Greek-speaking early theologians that the fusion of Hebrew scripture and Greek philosophy occured. Platonist (including neoplatonist) philosophy provided the kinds of metaphors and philosophical undercarriage within which the meaning of biblical revelation could be interpreted. So Christianity became a kind of hybrid, continued in later periods by the assimilation of the re-discovered works of Aristotle in medieval Europe (after their preservation by Muslim scholars.)

(This is not to say that this process of assimilation was always easy. There remained a tension between the Greek and Hebrew sources of Christianity, exemplified in sayings such as 'what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?' and 'the wisdom of God is foolishness to the Greeks'. This tension was never really resolved, but again, detailed analysis of it would be a multi-volume study.)

I think the problem was that the hermeneutic framework which had been developed and elaborated over centuries, based on the writings of the Greek-speaking Platonist Christians, became condensed into slogans suitable for mass consumption. The subtle and profound meanings of these texts became simplified, whereby Logos simply came to stand in for 'the Bible' - whereas originally Logos had many shades of meaning' and 'the Word', likewise, simply became equated with 'the word of God' and, so, belief. So in the transition to secular modernity, and outside some specialised enclaves of learning, the true Western heritage of philosophical theology has basically been extinguished.

(If I lived in the UK, I would seriously consider enrolling in The Temenos Academy foundation course. )

From the academy course you might benefit. Far more likely is that they benefit from you, even at the expense of a generous portion of your generous forbearance and patience (which I infer you have). Anyway, I yield to you on these matters.

My own view - opinion only, little or no evidence - is that Christian thinkers were in a fight for their lives on a battlefield of ideas. They won (pretty much). And the more I read the Bible the less I find it has to do with the person or the ideas of Jesus himself. Much Christianity today - in my neck of the woods - is more touchy-feely incompetent pop-psychology masquerading as therapy, Not a good picture, in my view.

Kind of you to say so.

https://youtu.be/vMn6q1z7Oxk?t=449

Given the profound meaning of the word λόγος in ancient Greek philosophy, and given the influence this philosophy may have had on early Christianity, how does one substantiate the translation of the word λόγος as 'the Word', and as referring to Christ? — Tzeentch

For the Greeks, the Logos was an impersonal principle equivalent to universal Spirit or Mind, or even a god in the sense of omniscience, but not part of the polytheistic pantheon. Apparently, John saw a way to apply a common Greek concept to the transpersonal deity known as the Christ. I'm guessing that the ambiguity of that cross-cultural terminology was an attempt to avoid the Jewish horror at the notion of their monotheistic Yaweh having a human/divine hybrid son.

Here's my adaptation of the ancient Logos to my own idealist worldview :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page35.html

My interpretation of Logos as something like a quantum field may be similar to this one :
https://turingchurch.net/code-name-jesus-from-impersonal-logos-to-your-personal-god-61d9fa1b69e8