What does Logos mean?

Somewhere I read an interesting definition of Logos that was given in the context of Yeshua (Jesus) being the Logos of God. The definition was either written by a 2nd or 3rd century Christian, or it was given as part of the intro to one of their writings.When a person thinks, there's generally a voice that he can hear in his head. That voice is your Logos.The early Christians believed that somehow, in a manner beyond our comprehension, God was able to birth or create his Logos into a being that was an extension of himself. That being eventually came to earth to be born, in Y'shua.There were a lot of verses that the early church considered obvious references to this happening, that we haven't used since the Trinity battles of the 4th century. Ps 45:1 is a good example, where the LXX has "My heart has emitted a good Logos." (The LXX is Greek, of course, so it has Logos, not whatever the Hebrew word is that David would have written.) They considered that a reference to the birth or issuing forth in eternity past of the Son. Pr 8:22 is another where it says "The Lord created me the beginning of his works."Pr 8:22 is a JW vs. Evangelical battleground. I am not trying to provoke a discussion on the Trinity. I am only telling you about this to address the issue of what Logos means in the context of the Scriptures, which is what you asked about. It seems important to me to know how others used that word, in reference to Christ, in the century or two after the verses you asked about, and this is how they used it.Tertullian, who could read Greek, but wrote in Latin, translated Logos with the the Latin word for Reason (Ratio?) most often. That was AD 200.

I've heard this before. I don't believe it is accurate. Do you have any sort of a good source for saying this?

Au contraire, my friend. Irenaeus says that John was specifically written to counter gnosticism. It uses a lot of gnostic words, but not because it's gnostic, but because it purposely refutes gnosticism.The gnostics divided up light, wisdom, word, christ, etc. into several beings called aeons. John ties all those words together into Yeshua, saying he is the Word, the Light, the Life, the Way, etc.Since those who were noted as John's disciples (Ignatius, Polycarp) also seem to be the ones who are most remembered as opposing gnosticism, I'd say this theory of Irenaeus is on good ground.

I have. I love that period in church history, because it explains so much of the problem that came afterward. Temporarily. The end result of that controversy is that the early church's doctrine of the Trinity was completely lost and replaced with an "Anti-Arian" version that doesn't even agree with the Nicene Creed. I can't say I memorized Arius' arguments or letters from those on his side. I can't think of any reason that Arius would have a problem saying the Son was begotten. I realize he said the Son was created from nothing, but that doesn't seem so different from begotten that it would cause Arius problems.What seems certain is that there is nothing in your link that backs up what you said. Alexander makes numerous references to John 1:18 in those letters, but they're all translated as "only-begotten," and it's clear from his statements that he's understanding it to mean exactly that. For example:

quote:

---

Not that the Word is unbegotten, for the Father alone is unbegotten, but because the inexplicable subsistence of the only-begotten Son transcends the acute comprehension of the evangelists, and perhaps also of angels.

---

That was from p. 4 of the first letter. From p. 7:

quote:

---

who, not in time, nor after an interval, nor from things which are not, hath begotten His only-begotten Son.

---

The link you gave was Philip Schaff: ANF06. Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius, and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius - Christian Classics Ethereal Library . Maybe you could point out what you found.

Well, this at least I hope we can all agree on. When Y'shua is referred to as the Logos of God, it was not referring to him as words.In fact, Hebrews 4:12, if you include v. 13, is clearly referring to Y'shua, not the Scriptures, though modern Christians are so used to referring to the Scriptures as the Word of God (something the Scriptures never do in the manner that we do), that they don't realize the reference there is to Y'shua, the Logos who was with God from the beginning.

RDG,Thanks. I didn't know most of the stuff you wrote about. There are some comments in your link from Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers that I really wanted to look up, but my ANF set is at work. I'll have to wait until tomorrow. The Scripture index is especially useful, because it lets you see who quoted what and when.One thing I caught though, in that argument from Helms, is the question, "How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic?" This is interesting, but it should be noted that the person who regarded it as composed for attacking Cerinthus preceded the one who attributed it to Cerinthus by 150 years.I read some other stuff on that site, including someone named Loisy who had decided which parts belong and which didn't. Before giving him any credence, I'd have to see whether he's basing that on text or conjecture. I'll look up Tertullian and Irenaeus quotes which he references.I have to admit that the lateness of the date I already agree to, and that the author is other than John the apostle fascinates me. I have never forgotten the statement, though I'm not certain whether it's Dionysius the Great or Gregory Thaumaturga who makes it, that John's Greek was impeccable, while Paul's was crude. Why would John's Greek be impeccable? A fisherman from Galilee that wrote in grammatically excellent Greek? Possible, if he lived till 90 or 100, as it is said, but not real likely.I'll look up Irenaeus' statement as well, because he says Valentinius wrote an intro to John. I didn't remember that, but I'll go look that passage up. Your link gives a reference.It seemed odd to me also that Papias was quoted by very late sources (5th and 9th centuries) as saying John was martyred, when Irenaeus and Eusebius quote Papias extensively in the 2nd and 4th centuries, but quote him as living long and appointing Ignatius and Polycarp in Antioch and Smyrna. How did these 5th and 9th century guys get manuscripts of Papias that Irenaeus and Eusebius didn't have?Anyway, I'm rambling more with questions than answers.One more: Wikipedia mentions the textual issues about the story of the adulteress. I'm wondering about this supposed Cerinthus text. It's completely lost, and only a revision remains? That revision did not result in many conflicting versions of the "orthodox" John? All that seems unlikely to me.I'm not sure all this is even on topic, and since so much of my post is questions, maybe if it's off topic here, it deserves its own thread. There is no doubt that the gnostics were once in the church. There is no doubt, IMHO, that they were in the church at the writing of 1 & 2 John. There is little doubt, to me, that Ignatius wrote (around AD 110) at the time that the gnostics were being expelled, which helps date those letters (and thus the Gospel, too, I imagine) at not too awful long before Ignatius writings, but definitely before.If the person who wrote the letters of John was the same as the one who wrote the whole Gospel of John (as opposed to having simply edited it--though if he edited it, he wrote a lot in, because there are such glaring similarities), then he's clearly anti-gnostic. I'm having real trouble picturing the reason for editing a gnostic work, because almost no other gnostic works gained any hearing at all in the churches.

RevDG,I don't know if you'll see this response, but I've only now gotten around to looking up some of the references in your link at:Gospel of JohnIrenaeus actually quotes Ptolemaeus as making use of the Gospel of John, not Cerinthus, as I mistakenly said earlier. Irenaeus quotes quite a bit of the 1st chapter, and he gives the Valentinian (Ptolemaeus was a Valentinian, it appears) interpretation of that chapter. It doesn't sound like the Valentinians had any different version of John than Irenaeus did. They just interpreted it differently (very differently).Helms is quoted at the site as mentioning "...the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh.'"I, personally, don't see how that's so odd. Surely we can look around and see how people interpret any text any way they want. They don't have to change the text to change the interpretation. Irenaeus says that Ptolemaeus expounds Jn 1:14 this way:

quote:

---

[Ptolemaeus] styles him Son, and Aletheia [truth], and Zoe [life], and the "Word made flesh, whose glory," he says, "we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten given to him by the Father, full of grace and truth."

---

Irenaeus objects to the terminology "given to him by the Father," saying that John really said "of the Father." But otherwise, both he and Ptolemaeus seem to be quoting the same thing. There's a hundred ways, in my opinion, to quote that passage while still believing that neither the Word nor any other aeon was actually "made flesh," especially when you claim that all your teachings had to be passed on secretly, which was standard among gnostics.Anyway, looking at all this, I can't agree with Helms. We have no record of a different Gospel of John, so it seems speculation to suggest there used to be a different edition. No "orthodox/catholic" father suggests that the gnostics messed with the Gospel or had a different edition. Instead, Irenaeus gives gnostic interpretations of the edition we have.According to Epiphanius (in the 4th or 5th century), there were people claiming John was a gnostic work by Cerinthus, but they had to be referring to the edition we have, or he would have said they had an "edited" copy. It appears to me that the gnostics were doing just fine using the edition we have.Let me add, they used Paul as well. Irenaeus talks about the Valentinian interpretation of Paul's letters, but no one is saying there were other editions of Paul, except one--Marcion's. Marcion edited Paul, and we all know about that, and his edition is quoted, and the "catholics" accuse him of editing it.So, my thought is, modern gnostics will surely argue that the Gospel of John might have been produced by a gnostic section of the church, or even that the "John" who wrote it was a gnostic, but the argument that there was a different edition seems real unlikely to me.On the whole subject, in order to be honest, I have to point out that the most significant thing I see is that the Gospel of John is not quoted by Ignatius or Polycarp, who were appointed as elders by "the apostles," according to Papias, and by the apostle John specifically, according to tradition. There are clear quotes in Justin, c. AD 150, and we have a fragment of John from AD 120, but no quotes from Ignatius or Polycarp is significant. (Polycarp may quote 1 Jn at one point; it's a word for word quote, but it might not be a quote, just a statement that's the same.)If tradition is correct, and Polycarp and Ignatius were appointed by John, then it seems very unlikely that they both (especially Ignatius) would ignore an anti-gnostic Gospel written by their mentor. So either the tradition would have to be wrong, or the Gospel wasn't written by the apostle John.The whole things is so doggone complicated, because there's other issues. I don't see any indication that anyone before AD 150 would have considered apostolic writings Scripture. For example, the Letter of Barnabas, written probably right at AD 130, only quotes the OT as Scripture, though it does quote the NT, too. So quoting John's Gospel would not have necessarily been considered Scriptural proof of anything when they wrote their letters. Most Gospel quotes in that time period were given as "the Master said," not as though the Gospel being quoted was Scripture.No wonder scholars speculate so much. Sigh...

I forgot about this. I don't think too many scholars think Peter wrote 2 Peter, but whether he wrote it or not, it's certainly early enough to apply to what I said. It's definitely referring to Paul's letters as Scripture.

I found this last night. It seemed interesting on the topic of what Logos means. This is very typical of early Christian writing.

quote:

---

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God...by whom the universe has been created through His Logos...I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son....the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence [this is not sarcastic, it's written to the emperor, whom Athenagoras praises as a thinker and philosopher] it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind (nous) had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos (logikos); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things...The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works."

---

That's from A Plea for the Christians by Athenagoras, written in AD 177.Here's a very similar passage a couple decades later from Tertullian in Against Praxeas (ch. 5). This is kind of long, because he has so much to say on logos, reason, and word, it seemed worth posting it all. I bolded the part that directly discusses the interpretation of the word "Logos."

quote:

---

For before all things God was alone...He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason [Latin - rationalis]. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word [latin, sermonen] was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason...Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made "in the image and likeness of God," for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.

---

Whew, rough reading, but if a person really wants to look at the word Logos, and how it was applied in the church, and whether it should be reason or word or something else, it would be worth grasping Tertullian's explanation of the difference between reason and word. Notice that he says it is Reason that the Greeks call Logos and that Word is what is "now usual" owing to the "mere interpretation of the term."