CORNERSTONE UNIVERSITY

THE LOGOS CONCEPT IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

SUBMITTED TO DR. DOUGLAS C. MOHRMANN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REL 358 N.T. HISTORY & THEOLOGY

BY MICHAEL WILTSHIRE MARCH, 15 2012

1 Introduction The Gospel of John opens with a complex prologue which has influenced, guided, and puzzled readers as they process the entirety of this Johannie text.1 John chapter 1 reads in poetic fashion as vv.1-5 convey a narrative of the Logos who, according to the writer in vv.1-3, was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were made. The Logos is mentioned only once more throughout the Gospel, in 1:14. Numerous questions arise out of Johns use of Logos in 1:1-4, 14. Scholars wonder from which community the author borrows this language.2 Some have asked why the author uses this particular phrasing at all when simpler terminology and rhetorical devices were available. Ultimately, the central question which unites the rest may be: what meaning or meanings does John attach to the term Logos and how do the given meanings affect the concern of Jewish monotheism? While Rudolf Bultmann may be right to assert that Johns prologue is more a mystery than a key to the Gospel and is comprehensible only to one who knows the whole Gospel,3 a historical and systematic study of the Logos term may assist in discovery of the authors intention.

Historical Context

Accurate dating of the Gospel of John is difficult to assume. However, the consensus of most scholars places the books publication somewhere in the period of 50-100 CE (more recent scholarship tends to date the book in the latter years of that period).4 Scholars also debate the exact place where John wrote the Gospel. With assumptions stretching from Ephesus to
1

Ernst Haenchen, John 1. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.122. D. H. Johnson, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press. 481. 3 George R Beasley-Murray, John. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999. 5. 4 D. H. Johnson, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press. 371-372.
2

2 Palestine,5 an exact consensus is perhaps out of reach. However, most scholars agree that wherever the Gospel was composed, it was certainly under an umbrella of the cultural influence of Hellenism and Judaism alike.6 As such, the Gospel and its author7 were subject to the dominant political, philosophical, and religious movements of the East in the early first century. A study of the influence of a select few of these movements will help to more precisely uncover the authors intended purpose and meaning of Logos and its theological implications.

The Hellenistic influence on the term Logos in Johannine literature may best be viewed through the history of Stoicisma central philosophical movement within classical Greek influence. While classical Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus, Socrates, and the Platonists associated diverse meanings with Logos,8 the Stoics typically understood Logos as the common law of nature immanent in the universe and maintaining its unity, the divine fire, and the soul of the universe.9

The Stoics also believed that words may have several meanings. The stoic philosopher Chrysippus illustrated this when he said that every word is ambiguous by nature, since two or more meanings can be understood from it.10 This ambiguity may have been appealing to the author of John as it allows space for the writers use of Logos to remain relevant to stoicism while also taking on a level of additional meaning which would appeal to a wider audience.

5 6

D. H. Johnson, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press. 371-372. Ibid. 7 It should be noted that the author of the fourth Gospel is not certain. While most scholarship has assumed the writer to be John the disciple of Jesus, others hold this this cannot be the case. For this paper, I will assume the latter. A summarized study can be found in D. H. Johnson. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press. 8 Darryl Wood, "The Logos Concept in the Prologue to the Gospelaccording to John." The Theological Educator, no. 38 (1988): 85-93. 9 George R Beasley-Murray, John. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999. 6-7 10 Ronald E. Heine, "Stoic logic as a Handmaid to Exegesis and Theoogy in Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John." The Journal of Theological Studies. 44.1, 1993: 90-100.

3 Philo of Alexandra (20 BCE 50 CE) may have also borrowed from Platonic and Stoic logic as he attempted to harmonize the Greek concept of Logos with Jewish philosophy and Hebrew Wisdom tradition in the timeframe of the Gospel of John.11 According to Philo, the Logos should be seen as the agent of creation12 therefore distinguishing the Logos as a thought in the mind of God rather than God himself. For Philo, the Logos is the medium of divine government of the world,13 the the captain and pilot of the universe14. In Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin, the Logos is described as chief steward and the divine administrator of the world.15 Similarly to Philo, ancient philosopher Heraclitus later argued that the concept of Logos is best understood as the omnipresent wisdom by which all things are steered.16

In De Confusione Liguarum, Philo explores the notion that God surrounds himself with innumerable powers which are employed in his rule of the created order. Logos is one of those powers.17 On the basis of other references in Philo, the first-born Logos is said to hold the eldership among the angels.18 To this, Larry Hurtado concludes that Philo pictured the divine Logos as Gods vizier or chief steward over the heavenly assembly.19

The Gnostics also interacted with the Logos term. They understood the concept of Logos an intermediary figure between God and the world; through the Logos is able to make a material world, and through him man has the possibility of deliverance from this world.20 While the

11 12

Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord. New York : T & T Clark, 1998. 45. George R Beasley-Murray, John. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999. 6-7. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Philo, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by Charles Duke Yonge. Peabody: Hendrickson Publications, 1993. 804-805 16 George R Beasley-Murray, John. 6-7 17 Philo, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. 250. 18 Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord. New York : T & T Clark, 1998. 50. 19 Ibid. 20 George R. Beasley-Murray, John. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999. 6-7.

4 Gnostic understanding of the Logos may differ from the Gospel writers own thought, an interesting parallel exists between the Johns Prologue and the semi-Gnostic literature known as the Odes of Solomon. In Ode VII the author expresses: He became like me, in order that I might receive him, He appeared in likeness as myself, in order that I might put him on. And I trembled not when I saw him, For he is my grace He gave himself to be seen by those who are his, in order that they should know him who made them and that they should not think that they came of themselves.21 It is intriguing that both the fourth Gospel and the Odes of Solomon, commonly thought to come from a Diaspora setting,22 both emphasize the relationship of the word of God and creation with such literary similarity. While the influence this text had on the author John may be difficult to determine, such parallels could be found due to a united history of both authors that stretches beyond Greek cultural influence.23 This can be affirmed as we also see this relationship in Psalms 33:6 and in Genesis 1. The idea of a Jewish concept of Logos in Johns Gospel is not unfamiliar to biblical scholars. In his doctrinal thesis, Darryl Wood argues that Several concepts out of Hebrew literature reflect similar character and function to the Logos. For Wood, the primary example of this is the Word of the Lord.24 Evidence of this is shown in the Hebrew dabar. Dabar, which served as an extension of the personality of the speaker, also could be understood as a persons word taking on objective, living power.25 This concept appears throughout the Old Testament

21 22

James Hamiltion Charlesworth, ed. The Odes of Slomon. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord. New York : T & T Clark, 1998. 43-44. 23 Beasley-Murray, George R. John.7. 24 Darryl Wood, "The Logos Concept in the Prologue to the Gospelaccording to John." The Theological Educator, no. 38 (1988): 85-93. 25 Darryl Wood, "The Logos Concept in the Prologue to the Gospelaccording to John." The Theological Educator, no. 38 (1988): 85-93.

5 as Word of the Lord was expressed through the creation narrative in Gen. 1 and later through the prophets of Israel.

Furthermore, Wood argues that the Johannine (and first century Jewish) understanding of Logos can be seen in Hebrew literature in the three concepts of wisdom, torah, and memra.26 Wood explains that wisdom can be seen as pre-existing, a partner in creation, and a revealer of God to humans (Proverbs 8:22-31). He also assumes that teachings in the rabbinic period saw the Torah in its pre-existent form as the instrument by which God made all things.27 Finally, he suggests that the Aramaic memra represented a speech or series of sayings by God. and that The term served as a substitute for the divine name.28 Thus, Wood supposes that a Jewish understanding of the Greek Logos concept was easily achieved through influence of the Hebrew Scriptures.

This brief study of Stoic philosophy, Gnostic literature, and the work of Philo are only a representation of the major philosophical movements that would have significantly influenced a first century Greek understanding of the term Logos. Johns intent for a conceptual meaning of Logos may have certainly been guided by these and similar voices in the Hellenistic world. Yet, arguably more influential to the authors Prologue is the influence of Hebrew history and literature from which first century Judaism would understand the text. For many scholars, the moment of conclusion for historical study of Johns Prologue lies in the question: which source of influence is the author primarily motivated by and to which movement is he primarily concerned with in his communication?

26

Darryl Wood, "The Logos Concept in the Prologue to the Gospelaccording to John." The Theological Educator, no. 38 (1988): 85-93. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid.

6 Literary Context

The structure of John bears some similarity to the synoptic gospels while still remaining obviously unique in its introduction and throughout its 21 chapters. Unlike the Johannie Gospel, the Marken account immediately begins with an account of John the Baptist, while Matthew and Luke begin their gospels with a sort of preface that reveals the narrative of the birth of Jesus. The Johannine Prologue can be contrasted from the introductions of the other, earlier gospels in that its beginning traces back to pre-creation and into a realm of eternity (John 1:1-3). Following the prologue, the Gospel shifts its attention and form to relay the narrative of John the Baptist (vv.19-42) and eventually to Jesus himself (vv. 43-51).

The uniqueness of the Johannie prologue can be witnessed not only in its subject, but also in its rhetorical qualities. Under the influence of Bultmann and others, most scholars have come to see the prologue as a classic hymn inserted into the beginning of the text.29 Whether this hymn was written by the author of John or someone else, such as a gnostic hymnist, is a matter of further debate. However, many find direction in semanns hunch that the hymn is in fact of

the early Christian community and therefore more accessible by the author John.30

In his commentary The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, C. F. Burney insists that readers can observe the poetic quality of the prologue even in translation. Burney suggests that the hymn consists of eleven couplets, interspersed with various comments.31 This hymnist pattern is shown in the rhetorical structure of vv. 1-5, 10-11, 14, 16-17. While some have argued

29

Rudolf Bultmann and Walter Eisenbeis, A Translation of the Greek Expressions in the Text of "The Gospel of John", A Commentary by Rudolf Bultmann. Lanham: University Press of America, 1982. 13-18. 30 rnst semann, New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. London: S.C.M. Press, 1969. 14. 31 C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2009. 40-41.

7 that the hymn also contains triples as well as couplets32 and contributed other slight critiques of Burney, most agree that the Johannie prologue certainly fits the structural requirements to be considered an early first century hymn.33 If in fact the hymn stretches throughout the gospels opening chapter, the Logos concept mentioned in 1:1-5, 14, can be more easily seen as influencing the rest of the chapter and the entirety of the Gospel itself. The author seems to introduce the Logos (vv.1-5, 14) and, after establishing the concept, assumes it throughout the rest of the text. If this is the case, one might argue that the prologue and the Logos concept should be seen as a directive to the reader and influence how the entirety of the Gospel should be understood.

Exegesis John 1:1 opens with the familiar words of In the beginning. These words are not coincidental, but purposefully placed to remind the reader of the moment of creation described in Genesis 1:1.34 There is however a point of difference between Genesis and John, as the Johannine beginning relates not only to the act of creation but also to who was present with God during the creation process. The author of John describes this entity as the Logos (Word) and says that it was with God and was God.

In John 1:2 the author emphasizes through repetition that the Logos alone was with God in the beginning and was even with him before the moment of creation recorded in Gen. 1. The author also emphasizes the paradoxical idea that the Logos had fellowship with God while also being God himself. Some have interpreted this concept has been interpreted as a threat to Jewish
32 33

George R. Beasley-Murray, John. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999. 1-4. Ernst Haenchen, John 1. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. 101-102. 34 Ibid.

8 monotheism and therefore suppose that the author did not intend v. 2 to be included in the hymn.35 On account of v. 18, accusation.36 semann and many others find grounds to object to this

John 1:3 seems to further the connection between God and the Logos by establishing the task of the Logos. Scholars have described this task as both the intermediary in creation37and the Mediator of creation.38 It is important to distinguish the two in order to avoid seeing the Logos as something working on behalf of God to accomplish a task God himself is not willing or capable to see through. Many have come to describe the Logos as the activity of God through whom the task is accomplished.39

Moving past the act of creation and how things came to be, John 1:4 begins to describe what precisely had come to be. Raymond Brown points out that many scholars believe the Gospels author may be shifting his vocabulary to include the words life and light to shift his attention from creation to incarnation.40 His argument opposes those of both semann and Bultmann

who do not suppose a reference to Jesus until v. 5 in connection with either v.9 or v. 10.41 Brown himself also finds that v. 4 is indeed still speaking in the context of the creation narrative of Genesis.42 The connection of life and light in 1:4 is speaking of that which had especially come to be in Gods creative Wordthe gift of eternal life.43

35 36

Ernst Haenchen, John 1. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984111-112. Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 George R.Beasley-Murray, John. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.10-11 39 Ibid. 40 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John. New York : Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1966. 25-26. 41 Ibid. 42 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John. New York : Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1966. 25-26. 43 Ibid.

9 John 1:5 is no more easily understood or universally agreeed upon than vv. 1-4. It is, however, appropriate to assume that v. 5 opens a new subsection of the hymn which moves past the concept of the life being the light of men and into the new idea that the light shines in the darkness and that darkness is unable to overcome it. According to Ernst Haenchen, the church unavoidably interpreted v.5 to refer to the incarnation of the Logos.44 semann also sees v.5

as the portrayal of Jesus Christ as appearing in history.45 There has, however, been a great deal of work done to show vv. 6-8 as a latter addtion to the Gospel. If these verses were actually added later, according to Haenchen there would be little reason to read verse 5 as reference to the incarnation because if the original hymn meant the incarnation, then one ought at least to expect a clearer allusion to it, and not just the present tense of shines, which proves nothing. 46 Haenchen continues to argue that 1:5 deals with the fruitless activity of the Logos in the generations prior to the incarnation of the Logos.47 And while the prolouge does not tell us why the failure occurred, it does depict the situation prevailing between creation and incarnationif only in the breifest terms.

Conclusion Many believe the prologue to the fourth Gospel was written primarily to convey the substance of the book to the first Jewish Christians through the adoption and possible mutation of an early hymn adapted by the author of John. To others, the prologue is best viewed as a rephrasing of the Christian message into Hellenistic terms. While these theories may in fact be

44

Ernst semann, New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. London: S.C.M. Press, 1969. 14. 45 Ibid. 46 Ernst Haenchen, John 1. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. 115. 47 Ibid.

10 supported in the text, it is the impression of this study that each of them is incomplete in and of themselves.

The Logos term may best be described as a bridge-building concept, which would allow both Greek and Hebrew audiences to experience a deeper understanding of Christ using symbolic words which brought existing and new meaning to each group. For the Greeks, the author appeals to the term Logos in part to convey a Christian understanding of Jesus by hijacking pre-existing notions of Logos in a system of thought capable of attaching multiple meanings to such a word. For the Jews, the author introduces new ideas of Jesus into concepts seen in the Old Testament. This hijacking of meaning is brilliantly accomplished in a fashion that upholds Jewish monotheism while establishing the full veneration of Jesusa task that is central to the Johannine message.48

If in fact the Logos concept in John provides such a marriage of Greek and Hebrew meaning, the implications for further Johannie study cannot be overlooked. They serve not only as a means by which scholarship may compare and contrast the book of John to the synoptic gospels, but they also uncover a central theme necessary for developing a more accurate Johannie theology. As the prologue of John 1 is intended to guide the reader through the entirety of the gospel, future scholarship should increasingly explore how the author may continue to unite varying cultural ideas in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of Johannine thought and theology.

48

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings Of The New Testament . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. 471

11 Bibliography Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. New York : Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1966. Bultmann, Rudolf and Walter Eisenbeis. A Translation of the Greek Expressions in the Text of "The Gospel of John", a Commentary by Rudolf Bultmann. Lanham: University Press of America, 1982. Burney, C. F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2009. Charlesworth, James Hamiltion, ed. The Odes of Slomon. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Haenchen, Ernst. John 1. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Heine, Ronald E. "Stoic logic as a handmaid to exegesis and theoogy in Origen's commentary on the Gospel of John." The Journal of Theological Studies. 44.1, 1993: 90-100. Hurtado, Larry W. One God, One Lord. New York : T & T Clark, 1998. Johnson, D. H. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall Joel B. Green. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, n.d. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings Of The New Testament . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. semann, rnst. New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. London: S.C.M. Press,, 1969. M. Eugene Borning, Klaus Berger, Carsten Colpe. Hellenistic Commmentary to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. Philo. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by Charles Duke Yonge. Peabody: Hendrickson Publications, 1993. Wood, Darryl. "The Logos Concept in the Prologue to the Gospel according to John." The Theological Educator, no. 38 (1988): 85-93.

12 Self-Check list for RESEARCH PAPERS Dr. Douglas C. Mohrmann Name:_____Michael Wiltshire______ Box #: ____2849______ Basic Formatting: Title Page Proper order of pages (Title, [ToC], Body, Appendices, Bibliography) Page numbers (on every page except the Title Page) Footnotes formatted properly Numbered sequentially Authors name (First Name before Last Name) With page numbers (and a period at the end) Format specified in Turabian Quotations 4 and more lines indented and single spaced; no quotation marks on long quotes Footnote at the end of the quotation Bibliography Page Alphabetized by Authors/ ditors Last Names Page numbers only for articles Appendices or Tables (if applicable) Page layout 12 pt font (proportional space font; e.g. Times Roman, Arial) 1 margins Double space Scripture referenced in the body rather than in footnotes Proper format for scriptural citations: e.g. 1 Cor 3:15; 2 Sam 7:14, etc. Basic Style: Interesting opening paragraph Thesis statement and/or lead question clearly presented Conclusion Summary of major findings Application of findings; mention work yet to be done; speculation of wider implications Presentation of multiple opinions, some contrary to the conclusion being argued Process the paper through Spelling and Grammar Checker eep paragraphs to a single main point; dont ramble through several points Section Titles (12pt, Bold, Left Justify) Avoidance of 1st and 2nd person in the Body (except in the conclusion) Avoidance of slang or conversational tone (Well, .; Amazing!; etc.) Avoidance of contractions Introduce all quotations; do not string multiple quotations without intervening comments Acceptable abbreviations (ch./chs.; v./vv.)