Logos obviously has meaning in the narrative as a Greek word but how it is used as a source of creation is evident in Judaic literature in many different roles as well. — Paine
Philo (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term logos to mean an intermediary divine being or demiurge.[8] 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.[31] The logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God".[31] 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".[32]
Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the logos, but the logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.[31] 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.[31] — Philo of Alexandria Wikipedia Article
he could have been one of them — Apollodorus
Yes. I suppose the Jews were familiar with the notion of the "word" (dabar) of God, referring to spoken creative power. But the implication of Greek "Logos" was probably intended to suggest that Jesus had existed eternally as a disembodied spirit. Which was the emerging explanation for the disappointing demise of their long awaited Jewish revolutionary leader & king, who died before completing his mission : to drive-out the Roman colonizers.Logos obviously has meaning in the narrative as a Greek word but how it is used as a source of creation is evident in Judaic literature in many different roles as well. — Paine
I mentioned that Jesus seemed to be influenced by the Essenes, who were mystics, Instead of physically fighting the Romans, they withdrew to the desert. And their main occupation was preserving the written word of God. Ironically, "unlike the Pharisees, the Essenes denied the resurrection of the body". https://www.britannica.com/topic/EsseneYour account discounts the role of the Essenes and Enoch groups in viewing the matter beyond the sweaty business of winning wars. The notion expressed in Isaiah that the 'rivers would reverse flow' to Zion is not simply a claim upon real estate but concerned the rest of the world. — Paine
The Babylonian Talmud mentions Metatron by name in three places: Hagigah 15a, Sanhedrin 38b and Avodah Zarah 3b.
Hagigah 15a describes Elisha ben Abuyah in Paradise seeing Metatron sitting down (an action that is not done in the presence of God). Elishah ben Abuyah therefore looks to Metatron as a deity and says heretically: "There are indeed two powers in Heaven!"[34] The rabbis explain that Metatron had permission to sit because of his function as the Heavenly Scribe, writing down the deeds of Israel.[35] The Talmud states, it was proved to Elisha that Metatron could not be a second deity by the fact that Metatron received 60 "strokes with fiery rods" to demonstrate that Metatron was not a god, but an angel, and could be punished.[36]
In Sanhedrin 38b one of the minim tells Rabbi Idith that Metatron should be worshiped because he has a name like his master. Rabbi Idith uses the same passage Exodus 23:21 to show that Metatron was an angel and not a deity and thus should not be worshiped. Furthermore, as an angel Metatron has no power to pardon transgressions nor was he to be received even as a messenger of forgiveness.[36][37][38]
In Avodah Zarah 3b, the Talmud hypothesizes as to how God spends His day. It is suggested that in the fourth quarter of the day God sits and instructs the school children, while in the preceding three quarters Metatron may take God's place or God may do this among other tasks.[39]
Yevamot 16b records an utterance, "I have been young; also I have been old" found in Psalm 37:25. The Talmud here attributes this utterance to the Chief Angel and Prince of the World, whom the rabbinic tradition identifies as Metatron.[40] — Wikipedia Metatron
Metatron also appears in the Pseudepigrapha including Shi'ur Qomah, and most prominently in the Hebrew Merkabah Book of Enoch, also called 3 Enoch or Sefer Hekhalot (Book of [the Heavenly] Palaces). The book describes the link between Enoch, son of Jared (great grandfather of Noah) and his transformation into the angel Metatron. His grand title "the lesser YHVH" resurfaces here. The word Metatron is numerically equivalent to Shaddai (God) in Hebrew gematria; therefore, he is said to have a "Name like his Master".
Metatron says, "He [the Holy One]... called me, 'The lesser YHVH' in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, 'my name is in him.'" (12:5, Alexander's translation.) The narrator of this book, supposedly Rabbi Ishmael, tells how Metatron guided him through Heaven and explained its wonders. 3 Enoch presents Metatron in two ways: as a primordial angel (9:2–13:2) and as the transformation of Enoch after he was assumed into Heaven.[44][45]
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. [Genesis 5:24 KJV.]
This Enoch, whose flesh was turned to flame, his veins to fire, his eye-lashes to flashes of lightning, his eye-balls to flaming torches, and whom God placed on a throne next to the throne of glory, received after this heavenly transformation the name Metatron.[46]
Metatron "the Youth", a title previously used in 3 Enoch, where it appears to mean "servant".[45] It identifies him as the angel that led the people of Israel through the wilderness after their exodus from Egypt (again referring to Exodus 23:21, see above), and describes him as a heavenly priest.
In the later Ecstatic Kabbalah, Metatron is a messianic figure.[47]
The Zohar describes Metatron as the "King of the angels."[48] and associates the concept of Metatron with that of the divine name Shadday.[49] Zohar commentaries such as the "Ohr Yakar" by Moses ben Jacob Cordovero explain the Zohar as meaning that Metatron as the head of Yetzira[50] This corresponds closely with Maimonides' description of the Talmudic "Prince of the World",[51] traditionally associated with Metatron,[52] as the core "Active Intellect."[53][54]
The Zohar describes several biblical figures as metaphors for Metatron. Examples are Enoch,[55][56] Joseph,[57][58] Eliezer,[59] Joshua,[60] and others. The Zohar finds the word "youth" used to describe Joseph and Joshua a hint that the figures are a metaphor to Metatron, and also the concept of "servant" by Eliezer as a reference to Metatron.[61] The Staff of Moses is also described by the Zohar[56] as a reference to Metatron. The Zohar also states that the two tets in "totaphot" of the phylacteries are a reference to Metatron.[62] The Zohar draws distinction between Metatron and Michael.[63] While Michael is described repeatedly in the Zohar as the figure represented by the High Priest, Metatron is represented by the structure of the tabernacle itself.[63]
Not if he had no business with the Kittim. You learn a language for a reason. Jews in the diaspora had very good reasons to learn Greek, but not those in Palestine. — Olivier5
Of course there were. — Olivier5
Plus, if there was Persian influence on Judaism, why not Greek? Why do scholars speak of Hellenistic Judaism? And what about Jewish texts like the Book of Wisdom and Maccabees 2, 3, 4 that were composed in Greek and show clear Greek influence? — Apollodorus
That the GNT (Greek NT) is saturated with Semitisms is not disputed. The Semitic elements of structure, style, and grammar in the GNT are noteworthy. Such Semitic impregnation is characteristic of Greek-speaking Jews whose biblical knowledge and spiritual formation most likely grew out of the LXX. Additionally, in a bilingual culture, languages often intertwine, particularly during a period of transition as one might move from predominantly speaking in one’s native language to communicating in a second language more often.
Greek-speaking Jews during the transition from Aramaic to Greek in the first century CE would naturally have a pronounced Semitic quality and, of course, such a Semitic quality would reveal itself in the GNT
Palestine alone can be said to be the country in which the dialect exhibited in the New Testament flourished. In their native land did the apostles learn the style of Greek in which their writings are composed …
What we learn stands completely at odds with what we know about the disciples of Jesus. The authors of the Gospels were highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians who probably lived outside Palestine.
That they were highly educated Greek speaker goes virtually without saying. Although there have been scholars from time to time who thought the Gospels may originally have been written in Aramaic, the overwhelming consensus today, for lots of technical linguistic reasons, is that Gospels were all written in Greek. As I've indicated, only about 10 percent of the people in teh Roman Empire, at best, could read, even fewer could write out sentences, far fewer still could actually compose narratives in a rudimentary level, and very few indeed could compose extended literary works like the Gospels. To be sure, the Gospels are not the most refined books to appear in the empire- far from it. Still, they are coherent narratives written by highly trained authors who knew how to construct a story and carry out their literary aims with finesse.
Whoever these authors were, they were unusually gifted Christians of a later generation. Scholars debate where they lived and worked, but their ignorance of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs suggests they composed their works somewhere else in the empire- presumably in a large urban area where they could have received a decent education and where there would have been a relatively large community of Christians.
These authors were not lower-class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee. But isn't it possible that, say John wrote the Gospel as an old man? That as a young man he was an illiterate, Aramaic-speaking day laborer- a fisherman from the time he was old enough to help haul a net- but that as an old man he wrote a Gospel?
I suppose it's possible. It would mean that after Jesus' resurrection, John decided to go to school and become literate. he learned the basics of reading, picked up the rudiments of writing, and learned Greek, well enough to become completely fluent. by the time he was an old man he had mastered composition and was able to write a Gospel. Is this likely? It hardly seems so. John and the other followers of Jesus had other things on their minds after experiencing Jesus' resurrection. For one thing, they though they had to convert the world and run the church.
Modern scholarship has enough knowledge of 1st-century Koine Greek dialects to tell the difference between, say the LXX which is Alexandrian Greek, and the NT which is Palestinian Greek.
And Greek linguistic and even cultural influence on Palestinian Jews was considerable. Many Jews even gave their children Greek names, e.g., Nicodemus of the Jewish Council at Jerusalem. The Council itself had a name derived from Greek: Sanhedrin from synedrion, etc. — Apollodorus
What I find particularly interesting is the Jewish synagogues with mosaics from Greek religion and mythology that were built in the region into the 600's, i.e., until the time of the Muslim conquests. Clearly, these mosaics are not mere decoration but seem to have a religious content that illustrates the cultural syncretism of the time.
The question is when exactly did this syncretism begin. I tend to believe that it must have begun prior to finding expression in art and architecture, e.g., in the 1st century if not earlier. — Apollodorus
Again, it was not common for religious-minded Jew to speak Greek unless certain mitigating circumstances or from the diaspora. — schopenhauer1
Well, I don't know what their "mitigating circumstances" might have been, but I think the guys that wrote the NT were (a) religious-minded Jews and (b) spoke Greek .... :wink: — Apollodorus
We actually don't know who the people who wrote the NT were! — schopenhauer1
Not if he had no business with the Kittim. You learn a language for a reason. Jews in the diaspora had very good reasons to learn Greek, but not those in Palestine.
— Olivier5
What? You did say that there were Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews, didn't you? — Apollodorus
People, including Jews, communicate and share ideas, beliefs, and customs. A Jewish artisan from Nazareth could perfectly well have discussed things with his Greek patrons in the nearby town of Sepphoris — Apollodorus
This assumes quite a lot, for instance that Greeks were likely to patronize Jewish carpenters at the time, in spite of all the hatred and prejudice on both sides. — Olivier5
And what is the advantage of this hypothesis? What does it explain better than the "zero hypothesis" that our favorite Galilean carpenter spoke only his mother tongue? What does a polyglot Jesus bring to the table? — Olivier5
This raises the possibility or probability that the participants in Jesus’ last supper, for example, took their meal in a “Greek-style”, reclining position rather than sitting on chairs. — Apollodorus
For example, it is well known the Herodians and Hasmoneans before them were highly intertwined with the broader Greek world. Architecture and gymnasiums and theaters were established. It is also well known of the ancient Jewish practice of reclining like the Greeks. It’s mentioned in modern day Passover seders. It’s in the Haggadahs. — schopenhauer1
Even the poorest of Jews should not eat the meal on Passover night until he reclines on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat.
Although reclining was regarded as a decadent practice in Israel in the time of Amos [c. 760–755 BCE] (cf. Amos 3.12; 6.4) the many references to it in the Gospels indicate that it had been accepted as a Jewish custom. Indeed, it became so much part of the Jewish traditions that it was later regarded as a compulsory part of the celebration of Passover …
The earliest evidence in m.Pes. [Mishnah Pesachim] 10.1, which is difficult to date but is probably late 1st Century ... In later rabbinic literature we only find references to reclining at Passover, but Philo records that the Therapeutae reclined at a non-Passover meal (Contemplative Life 9, 69)
Logos, the significance of a resurrecting god, substance, rhetorical styled epistles vs rabbinic styled midrash or strict halachic rules of Dead Sea Scroll sect, or essence and substance, virtues, matter and form, even the idea of communion, etc. can be considered added as part and parcel of later layers of Christianity that developed when it spread to the greater Near East, and Mediterranean world. — schopenhauer1
The Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible were not the only books people of ancient times were reading and hearing at their religious communal readings. They were also exposed to a wide variety of Jewish texts that people thought of as spiritually profitable and many times also sacred. (Remember during this time the Canon (both Jewish and Christian) was not yet firmly established, the rough idea of what would become the Canon was already emerging).
In the Jewish treatises of Philo and others, authored in Greek, a very similar, if not the same, concept is also present. It is referred to by the use of the Greek word Logos just as in the Gospels, while in the Aramaic/Syriaic/Hebrew Jewish materials the same (or a very similar) idea is very often, though not always, signified by the word Memra (Targum Neofiti in Gen.3.13). Once a student of history of religion begins surveying Jewish pre-Christian ideas about the Word of God in para-biblical literature, pre-dating or contemporary with John’s Gospel, that student is quickly beginning to realize that up to this point (John 1:3) the author of the Gospel has not yet introduced any new ideas (and surely nothing foreign) to the Jewish first century thought-world as it existed at the time.
BTW the question of (compulsory) reclining at Passover is an interesting one as (1) the custom of reclining at table seems to have been widespread, and (2) it may not be quite as old as it is thought in its compulsory Passover form. — Apollodorus
That’s the big question, isn’t it? Here is one way of looking at it: — Apollodorus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.