Is the doctrine of Logos or Words unique to Christianity?

Answer 1

The suggestion is often made that many aspects of Christian doctrine are copies of other similar philosophies present at the time when the gospels were written. Many of these, while appearing plausible do not meet detailed scholarly scrutiny.

The idea of the Logos or Word of God applying to Jesus is most clearly demonstrated in John 1 and it is often alleged that this idea is specifically from Greek philosophy.

It must be remembered that until the completion of the New Testament canon, the Old Testament was an important document for the church and it is this document that provides the basis for this idea. In Proverbs wisdom is personified, and to put it in simple terms Jesus as the Logos or divine word was a carryover from this concept.

What is unique to Christianity is the applying of the idea to Jesus as one who has essential unity with the Father. Just as in the Old Testament the personification of wisdom was not a threat to the essential monotheistic unity of the Godhead, so in the New Testament, Jesus as the logos or Word of God does not create two Gods but an essential unity of being in which Jesus as the Word of God was an expression of the will of the Father.

Although there can probably be elements which sound similar, the important point is to study the concept in the context from which it came. The early church was decidedly Jewish, especially at the first , and from Jewish thought its key concepts came, including Jesus own self-awareness and teachings as the Messiah. The presentation of Jesus as an incarnation of the Logos belongs to the second century and is prominent in the Fourth Gospel. The ideas are chiefly those of Plato and Philo. Plato's trinity was Thought, Word and Deed. The Word occupies the second place in the Platonic trinity as it does in the Christian trinity. That the author of the gospel of John, written more than a century after the time of Philo, borrowed largely from that philosopher, is shown by the following parallels drawn from their writings: Philo. -- "The Logos is the Son of God" (De Profugis).

John. -- '"This [the Word] is the Son of God" (i, 34). Philo. -- "The Logos is considered the same as God" (De Somniis).

John. -- "The Word was God" (i, 1). Philo. -- "He [the Logos] was before all things" (De Leg. Allegor.).

John. -- "The same [the Word] was in the beginning with God" (i, 2). Philo. -- "The Logos is the agent by whom the world was made" (De Leg. Allegor.).

John. -- "All things were made by him [the Word]" (i, 3). Philo. -- "The Logos is the light of the world" (De Somniis).

John. -- "The Word was the true light" (i, 9). Philo. -- "The Logos only can see God" (De Confus. Ling.).

John. -- "No man hath seen God.... He [the Word] hath declared him" (i, 18). ("The Christ" Chapter 10 by John E. Remsberg) Philo of Alexandria Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term logos to mean the creative principle. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea. The logos was necessary, he taught, because God cannot come into contact with matter. He sometimes identified logos as divine wisdom. ("Logos ; Wikipedia) This is precisely the point made in the first answer, that while there are probably many similarities, the way in which certain doctrines are described and in this case applied to Jesus Christ are indeed unique to Christianity. Philo never said anything remotely like 'the word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father).' In other words Jesus Christ was God made flesh who, unlike Philo, could have contact with imperfect matter and touch and heal and get tired and eventually die a terrible death.

The fact that it is suggested that '.... the author of the gospel of John, written more than a century after the time of Philo, borrowed largely from that philosopher, is shown by the following parallels drawn from their writings:' , is indicative of either ignorance of current scholarship regarding the dating of this Gospel or another aim, which would be in the mind of the author, the noted anti-Christian Remsburg, to link John with second century Philosophies which clearly arose after the beloved disciple penned his work towards the end of the first century AD, as well as to demonstrate a borrowing rather than a uniqueness. So, if this doctrine of the logos belongs to the second century, as is claimed, (in order to make it appear to be non-unique) then the whole argument is flawed since John is not second century.

Even the most liberal of scholars today do not put John into the second century.

Even if it is assumed that the thesis is correct (for the sake of argument only), that John borrowed heavily from Philo this does not prove that what John said in the way he developed the concept was not unique. Nor does it prove, as is stated elsewhere (and here implied) that therefore Jesus himself was not unique.