Home |FAQ |Message Boards |Site Map |Subject Index |Other Resources |We Believe...
Perilous Times |Unitarian Christology |Logically Speaking |Sacred Names |Faith-Doctrine
|
Unoriginal ThoughtsThe De-Mystified Logos by Phil Maxwell July 2000; Revised August 2003
Though I’ve already alluded to this point several times, it bears mention as a point in itself. Because of the lack of corroborating evidence supporting the assumption of a literal person called the logos when John penned his gospel, we are left with the implication that John intended this to be a new revelation of some sort regarding the meaning of the logos. Aside from other problems this presents, there is really no reason to perceive this passage as though it was intended to represent a new revelation. As I’ve already shown, the idea of the logos transcended most religious and philosophical lines of John's day, and the personification of it was common as well. One scholar even theorizes that the hymn John wrote in the opening of his Gospel was not even original:
Whether or not and to what degree the hymn that John opened his gospel with is original can’t be determined, but the point at least raises yet more questions about the veracity of all that has been built upon the assumption that John intended to introduce a second person who is God as the logos. As a supposed primary source proof text for the distinct personhood of the logos, it is perceived as a groundbreaking revelation. One thing this does is that it effectively creates a vacuum around the passage, insulating it from consideration of what might otherwise be regarded as defining evidence for understanding terms like the logos and the implications it carried in the minds of people of that day. Again, the very notion that John intended to apply a new and unique definition to a commonly used word amongst his contemporaries is simply untenable. For the very same reasons that we can't impose our own definitions onto the words of others, neither can we accept the notion that John injected his own definitions into the words he used. Even if Dr. Harris’ theory that the hymn was borrowed from other sources isn’t true, both the definition of the logos as a thing and the poetic personification of it clearly represented a previously established pattern. Many would like to treat this as though it establishes a precedent itself, but the truth is that it follows a long, previously established literary format. Obviously, if we interpret John’s use of the word ‘logos’ in a vacuum as though there are no relevant Scriptural or historical references, there are virtually no limits as to how many different and opposing interpretations can be rendered. The record of controversy and debate over this passage testifies to this, as well, for if we first seek out the true definition and usage of the term logos, it is evident that the personification of the logos was neither a new concept, nor was it considered to infer that the logos was a literal person. Aside from that, the so-called “Johannine logos” doesn’t have to be interpreted as though a new representation of God, even from a purely Scriptural viewpoint. The idea of the word of God being the agent in creation from the beginning traces back to the first verse of Genesis and follows consistently through Scripture thereafter. Likewise for the personification of the logos as something that was always with God, inasmuch as His word was always the means by which He accomplished His will and purposes and revealed Himself to man. (More discussion on the word “with” follows.) Even the revelation that the “word became flesh” is in perfect harmony with the New Testament teachings about Yahshua’s position as the only Mediator between God and man, etc. isn’t unique. In other words, John’s prologue does not compel us to devise an entirely new concept of God or His Son beyond what is elsewhere revealed in Scripture, so why should we?
|
