LOGOS. The ancient Greek word “logos”, usually translated as “word”, has a wide variety of meanings and is common to all periods of Greek literature, both prose and verse, with the exception of epic literature, where it is rare. time is used.
Logos is a verbal noun from the Greek verb legō. The two basic meanings of the verb are: (1) tell or tell and (2) say or speak. The various meanings of the logos are grouped around the two meanings of that verb. Connected with the first meaning of legō, logos means “calculation” or “reckoning”. Depending on the context, the word can mean “accounts”, “measure” or “estimate”, that is, the value that is placed on a person or thing. In mathematics, it means “ratio” or “proportion”. Depending on the second meaning of legō, logos also has a wide variety of meanings: explanation, argument, theory, law or rule of conduct, hypothesis, formula or definition, narrative, sentence, conversation, dialogue, oracle, proverb, or saying. The specific meaning can only be derived from the context in which the word appears. Connected with both meanings of the verb, logos can mean the process by which both calculations and explanations occur. In this context, logos refers to the process of human reasoning, human rationality, and more broadly, rationality or the rational principle of the universe. These latter meanings are especially important in Greek philosophical literature. The word is rarely used in Greek to refer to a single word and never in grammar to refer to a word. When referring to a single word or vocable, ancient Greek uses terms like lexis, epos, onoma, or rhēma (LSJM, 1057-59; BAGD, 477-79).
—
A. Logos in Greek Philosophy
B. Logos in the Septuagint
C. Logos in Hellenistic Jewish speculation
D. Logos in the New Testament in general
E. Logos in Johannine literature
1. Logos in the prologue of the Gospel of John
2. Logos in the first epistle of John
F. Logos in 2nd century Christian literature
—
A. Logos in Greek Philosophy
Logos had a long, distinguished, and highly complex career in Greek philosophy. That career began with the Presocratic philosopher Heraclitus (ca. 500 BC). Most of the time Heraclitus used the term logo in its most common meanings (proportion, account, explanation). Some scholars think that he always used the term in this way (Robinson 1987: 74-76, 114-15). But he may also have used it to mean an underlying cosmic principle of order, a principle that eluded most people but was grasped by a wise few (Diels and Kranz 1952: Fragments 1, 2, 50). ). . This principle of order was related to the general meaning of measurement, reckoning, or proportion (Kirk and Raven 1957: 188). It was the proportional arrangement of things that provided the ultimate order for all phenomena that, on the surface, appeared to be disparate in nature. This logos appears to have been material for Heraclitus and coextensive with the primary cosmic element of fire (Diels and Kranz 1952: Fragment 30).
Plato’s (429-347 BC) use of logos in his dialogues was highly complex. In its most philosophical sense, logos became associated with rational discourse or explanation rather than with the Heraclitean concept of an ordering principle of the material world. In contrast to myth (mythos), the logos was a rational and true account (Phd. 61b; Ti. 26e). For Plato there was no greater misfortune than to become a hater of rational discourse (logoi) (Phd. 89d, 90d-e). Plato generally identified thought (dianoia) and rational speech (logos); he logos was the internal dialogue of the mind as it flowed from the mind through the lips (Zeph. 263e). However, Plato also asserted that rational speech (logos), even when supporting true belief, could not lead to actual knowledge in the area of perceptible sense (Tht. 201c-210d). Rational discourse or explanation, however, played an important role in what Plato considered to be the higher levels of being, that is, at the level of the essence (ousia) or idea of things, and could lead to real knowledge (Resp 534b-C).
Aristotle (384-322 BC) also used logos in a number of different ways. He often used the term logos in the sense of “definition”. He also used it to mean “proportion” or “ratio” (Metaph. 991b). Aristotle, like Plato, often used the term logos to refer to rational discourse and rationality. According to him, what distinguished human beings from lower animals was speech (logos) (Pol. 1253a). Later in Pol. 1332b, Aristotle used the same words but obviously meant that what distinguished human beings from the lower animals was reason (logos). He also often introduced the concept of reason in ethical contexts. To live ethically, one must live according to reason or right reason (orthos logos) (Eth. Nic. 1144b); in this context, correct reason was identified with practical wisdom (phronēsis). In fact, the specifically human function of human beings was an activity of the soul that was in accordance with reason (kata logon) (Eth. Nic. 1098a). This living according to reason also implied overcoming the irrational elements of the soul and the body (Eth. Nic. 1102a – 1103b).
The concept of logos was central to Stoicism. In Stoicism, the logos again played a cosmological role. In this sense, Stoicism drew on Heraclitus (perhaps erroneously) in a way that neither Plato nor Aristotle had (Long 1986: 145-47). For the Stoics, the logos, God, and nature were in reality one (Diog. Laert. 7.135; Plutarch, De Stoic. Repugn. 34, 1050A). Logos was the rational element that pervades the controls of the entire universe (SVF 1.87). Logos was the active element (poioun) of reality, while matter without quality was the passive element (to paschon) (Diog. Laert. 7.134). For the Stoics, however, both elements were ultimately material. The Logos was identified by Zeno of Citium (335-263 BC), the founder of Stoicism, with fire and by the Stoics of Chrysippus (ca. 280-207 BC) with a mixture of fire and air. , which they referred to as breath or spirit. (pneuma) (Long 1986: 155). The passive element was identified with earth and water. The logos that permeated the universe was present in nature through seminal reasons (logoi spermatikoi) that served as powers of order and growth in individual entities (SVF 2.1027).
Although the logos pervaded and ordered all of nature, it was present in different parts of nature in different ways (Diog. Laert. 7.139). Only in human beings was the logos present as part of their very nature. In other words, only human beings were rational (Cicero, Nat. D. 2.6.16). For the Stoics, human rationality (logos) was closely related to and reflected the rationality of the universe as a whole. While this view of human rationality at first closely resembles the views of Plato and Aristotle, human rationality for the Stoics, like the rationality of the universe as a whole, was material in character, whereas for both Plato and for Aristotle human rationality was beyond. the material realm. For the Stoics, the logos in human beings was part of the ruling principle (to hēgemonikon) of the soul and for most of them it was located in the heart (Long 1986: 171).
The concept of logos also played a crucial role in Stoic ethics. Human rationality was in tension with the passions (ta pathē) (Diog. Laert. 7.110). The goal of human life was to live a life in accordance with the logos or nature, that is, a life that was lived rationally and in which all the other faculties of the soul were dominated by right reason (orthos logos) (Diog Laert 7.85-87). Such rationality united human beings with the rationality of the universe as a whole.
Since the logos of the universe always controlled the universe, the Stoics found it difficult to reconcile that control with an ethical theory, to the effect that without some human ability to choose one path or another, living according to the logos of the universe it was inevitable and therefore not a matter of virtue or vice. However, the Stoics maintained that there were good and bad human actions and that, through a long process of education and practice, human beings could attain the level of life in accordance with the universal logos or nature (Diog. Laert. 7.86-87; Inwood 1985: 101-217). In the final analysis, however, the logos of the universe reconciled even the evil deeds of human beings in an ultimately perfect universe (Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus, 11-21 in SVF 1537).
As in the Greek philosophical tradition in general, logos are used in Middle Platonism (the Platonic tradition from ca. 80 BC to around 220 CE) in the sense of rational discourse and human rationality. At the level of cosmology, however, the logos did not play the central role that it did in Stoicism. However, it did play an important role in relation to other concepts in the Middle Platonic tradition.
Middle Platonism, in contrast to Stoicism and in keeping with its Platonic roots, emphasized the primary reality of the immaterial and intelligible realm. In accordance with this emphasis, one of the characteristics of Middle Platonism was its distinction between two aspects of the divinity. The first aspect of divinity was essentially transcendent and basically directed inward. The second aspect was an active demiurgic power that was responsible for ordering everything else in the universe. The distinction was not simply metaphorical, but was intended as a metaphysical explanation that preserved God’s transcendence and explained the relatively ordered character of the universe. Middle Platonists sometimes adopted the Stoic logos in their systems as the term for this active force of God in the world (Dillon 1977: 46). More often, however, they gave this demiurgic aspect of divinity a name other than logos (eg idea, mind). In contrast to Stoicism, these two divine realities in Middle Platonism transcended the material level of reality and were part of the intelligible world. For example, one of the early Middle Platonists, Eudorus of Alexandria (fl. 25 BC), may have referred to the demiurgic combination of the…