Author of John copied Philo ?

[Murad]

Quote from wiki:

Hymn to the Word

This prologue is intended to identify Jesus as the eternal Word (Logos) of God.[20] Thus John asserts Jesus' innate superiority over all divine messengers, whether angels or prophets.[7] Here John adapts the doctrine of the Logos, God's creative principle, from Philo, a 1st-century Hellenized Jew.[7]

Philo had adopted the term Logos from Greek philosophy, using it in place of the Hebrew concept of Wisdom (sophia) as the intermediary (angel) between the transcendent Creator and the material world.[7] Some scholars argue that the prologue was taken over from an existing hymn and added at a later stage in the gospel's composition.[20]


Logos

The Jewish philosopher Philo merged these two themes when he described the Logos as God's creator of and mediator with the material world. The evangelist adapted Philo's description of the Logos, applying it to Jesus, the incarnation of the Logos.[10]

We can see from here; the frequently quoted John 1:1-3, which says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
(John 1:1-3)

So we have a very, very serious question here; the author of John, copied the doctrine of logos from Philo; and presented it as "Inspired from God/Word of God"; which many Christians believe. But in fact; the idea of John 1:1-3 existed decades before the Gospel of John existed. And by the way; the doctrine of logos was originally created by a Jew(Philo), not a Christian, so it kinda debunks trinitarian claims.

Question for debate:
1) When one copies material and presents it as his own; thats what we call plagiarism; how is plagiarised material considered 'Word Of God' by Christians?

[Goat]

Quote from wiki:

Hymn to the Word

This prologue is intended to identify Jesus as the eternal Word (Logos) of God.[20] Thus John asserts Jesus' innate superiority over all divine messengers, whether angels or prophets.[7] Here John adapts the doctrine of the Logos, God's creative principle, from Philo, a 1st-century Hellenized Jew.[7]

Philo had adopted the term Logos from Greek philosophy, using it in place of the Hebrew concept of Wisdom (sophia) as the intermediary (angel) between the transcendent Creator and the material world.[7] Some scholars argue that the prologue was taken over from an existing hymn and added at a later stage in the gospel's composition.[20]


Logos

The Jewish philosopher Philo merged these two themes when he described the Logos as God's creator of and mediator with the material world. The evangelist adapted Philo's description of the Logos, applying it to Jesus, the incarnation of the Logos.[10]

We can see from here; the frequently quoted John 1:1-3, which says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
(John 1:1-3)

So we have a very, very serious question here; the author of John, copied the doctrine of logos from Philo; and presented it as "Inspired from God/Word of God"; which many Christians believe. But in fact; the idea of John 1:1-3 existed decades before the Gospel of John existed. And by the way; the doctrine of logos was originally created by a Jew(Philo), not a Christian, so it kinda debunks trinitarian claims.

Question for debate:
1) When one copies material and presents it as his own; thats what we call plagiarism; how is plagiarised material considered 'Word Of God' by Christians?

I would say that the author of the Gospel of John knew about the Philo concept of logos, and drew many concepts from it. It is not exactly alike.. but it is similar. Adapted is not copied. It was for a different purpose.

On the other hand, if you read the GOJ with Philo's concepts in mind, it reads a lot differently than mainstream Christianity uses it.

[fredonly]

Plagiarism was an ancient modus operandi long before it was a modern crime.

Bart Ehrman has done some interesting research on this. He has shown that yes, plagiarism was practiced in the ancient world, but that it was also decried by many ancient writers as a dishonest and despicable practice.

You're over-generalizing. No one has suggested that the entire Gospel of John (or even a large portion) was a plagiarism - just that a concept was borrowed, and (as Winepusher accurately said) applied in a different context. In theory, God could have inspired the authors of John to utilize this (presumably) useful concept.

[Zzyzx]

.

No one has suggested that the entire Gospel of John (or even a large portion) was a plagiarism - just that a concept was borrowed, and (as Winepusher accurately said) applied in a different context.

I have no objection to a concept being adopted ("borrowed") from another source, PROVIDED that that the original source is credited and acknowledged.

Much of Christian lore appears to have been borrowed from earlier sources WITHOUT acknowledgment or credit to the source

In theory, God could have inspired the authors of John to utilize this (presumably) useful concept.

In THEORY, "god" could have done anything -- including providing gospel / bible writers with accurate and original information.

In REALITY "god" doesn't seem to have done anything, including providing truthful and accurate information to bible writers.

[Moderate Guy]

.

No one has suggested that the entire Gospel of John (or even a large portion) was a plagiarism - just that a concept was borrowed, and (as Winepusher accurately said) applied in a different context.

I have no objection to a concept being adopted ("borrowed") from another source, PROVIDED that that the original source is credited and acknowledged.

Much of Christian lore appears to have been borrowed from earlier sources WITHOUT acknowledgment or credit to the source

This has been covered in earlier posts. You're applying modern standards to something that was done 1900 years ago.

In theory, God could have inspired the authors of John to utilize this (presumably) useful concept.

In THEORY, "god" could have done anything -- including providing gospel / bible writers with accurate and original information.

In REALITY "god" doesn't seem to have done anything, including providing truthful and accurate information to bible writers.

[/quote]I agree that it doesn't seem that way, but appearances can be deceiving.

[WinePusher]

Ok, it would be your burden to show that this is not just some Post Hoc Fallacy. Show the causal link between Philo and John, show that Philo inspired John, otherwise this is simply coincidental correlation.

There is no 'direct' evidence; and i said earlier; the author of John plagiarised from Philo; the word 'Plagiarise' means:

Again, I am asking you how you know that John was influenced by Philo rather then just originally developing the concept that coincedentially parallels Philo.

We know for a fact; that Philo fused and harmonized Greek philosophy with Judaism; and that he was the first person in history to describe the 'Doctrine of Logos'; and we also know for a fact that he influenced early Christians(Do a quick wiki on Philo).

Again, if I grant you that John copied Philo it does not rule out divine inspiration because John used the term in a unique way that was different from Philo. The Stoic meaning behind Logos (which Philo drew from) is radically different from the Christian meaning behind Logos.

You claim im applying hypocritical standards; but we have more evidence(reason) to believe John copied Philo; than to believe the Disciple John wrote the Gospel of John.

So John used a word that another philosopher used, but he used it in a different context and manner, and it makes up a marginal portion of his Gospel, and you conclude that John did not write his Gospel? That his very presumputious and a faulty conclusion.

In theory, God could have inspired the authors of John to utilize this (presumably) useful concept.

Yes, you said it way better then I did.

[Murad]

Again, I am asking you how you know that John was influenced by Philo rather then just originally developing the concept that coincedentially parallels Philo.

Coincidently? In the same century; same language; very close geographic location...
Every historical scholar i know(e.g Craig Keener); recognised Philo's influence on early Christianity; so its no surprise the last Gospel(John) got "influenced" aswell.
The ideology of the introduction for John; existed decades before John was written; it just happened that it was adopted in the Christian scripture.

We know for a fact; that Philo fused and harmonized Greek philosophy with Judaism; and that he was the first person in history to describe the 'Doctrine of Logos'; and we also know for a fact that he influenced early Christians(Do a quick wiki on Philo).

Again, if I grant you that John copied Philo it does not rule out divine inspiration because John used the term in a unique way that was different from Philo. The Stoic meaning behind Logos (which Philo drew from) is radically different from the Christian meaning behind Logos.

I have no problem with it being 'divine inspiration'; i can accept that with no problem.
But what i do have a problem with is; you believing that John the Disciple wrote the Gospel of John himself; with very little evidence; and yet rejecting the direct influence of Philo which all evidence & reason points to.

You claim im applying hypocritical standards; but we have more evidence(reason) to believe John copied Philo; than to believe the Disciple John wrote the Gospel of John.

So John used a word that another philosopher used, but he used it in a different context and manner, and it makes up a marginal portion of his Gospel, and you conclude that John did not write his Gospel? That his very presumputious and a faulty conclusion.

No.
I did not use this as my arguement to prove John did not write 'his' Gospel; infact it would be quite idiotic of me to make such a claim because the authorship of the Johannine works are totally irrelevant here.

Infact if you want to dwell into the authorship of John; id be more than happy to discuss a few things with you.
What evidence besides 'church tradition' can you provide to prove the Disciple John wrote the 'Gospel of John'?

In theory, God could have inspired the authors of John to utilize this (presumably) useful concept.

Yes, you said it way better then I did.

In theory; God wanted to test humanity by not mentioning the trinity a single time in the whole bible; instead he gave vague verses that have to be purposely twisted to form the "Truine God"....

My point is; you should not make baseless assumptions regarding the divine; that is what many theists do; that is what athiests call the "God Gap".

[Mithrae]

We can see from here; the frequently quoted John 1:1-3, which says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
(John 1:1-3)

So we have a very, very serious question here; the author of John, copied the doctrine of logos from Philo; and presented it as "Inspired from God/Word of God"; which many Christians believe. But in fact; the idea of John 1:1-3 existed decades before the Gospel of John existed. And by the way; the doctrine of logos was originally created by a Jew(Philo), not a Christian, so it kinda debunks trinitarian claims.

It existed a lot longer before John than that. The Hindu Brahmanas were written roughly 9th to 7th centuries BCE. From the Pancavimsa Brahmana 20.14.2, also known as the Tandya Maha Brahmana - Brahmana in blue, John in green:

Prajapati (at the beginning) was alone this (universe) ;
In the beginning was the Word,

the Word was his only (possession) :
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

the Word was the second (that existed).
He was in the beginning with God.

He thought : Let me emit this Word, it will pervade this whole (universe) '. He emitted the Word and it pervaded this whole (universe).
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

You'll find different translations if you google it, some of them a lot closer to John's wording; but this is from the text here (about 4/5 down the page). The theological focus is different of course, on the Word rather than Prajapati (Brahman, in other translations), but personally I think the comparison is strong enough to be all but conclusive.

This suggests that Jesus' beloved disciple had apparently acquainted himself with a wide variety of other traditions in the six decades after his teacher's death

[mich]

Again, I am asking you how you know that John was influenced by Philo rather then just originally developing the concept that coincedentially parallels Philo.

Coincidently? In the same century; same language; very close geographic location...
Every historical scholar i know(e.g Craig Keener); recognised Philo's influence on early Christianity; so its no surprise the last Gospel(John) got "influenced" aswell.
The ideology of the introduction for John; existed decades before John was written; it just happened that it was adopted in the Christian scripture.

Genesis 15:1-21
[1] After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision:
"Do not be afraid, Abram.
I am your shield,
your very great reward."

Who influenced who?

We know for a fact; that Philo fused and harmonized Greek philosophy with Judaism; and that he was the first person in history to describe the 'Doctrine of Logos'; and we also know for a fact that he influenced early Christians(Do a quick wiki on Philo).

Again, if I grant you that John copied Philo it does not rule out divine inspiration because John used the term in a unique way that was different from Philo. The Stoic meaning behind Logos (which Philo drew from) is radically different from the Christian meaning behind Logos.

I have no problem with it being 'divine inspiration'; i can accept that with no problem.
But what i do have a problem with is; you believing that John the Disciple wrote the Gospel of John himself; with very little evidence; and yet rejecting the direct influence of Philo which all evidence & reason points to.

It seems that the gosple of John was copied from another source.

John 21
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

It is possible that the gospel of John might have been much longer. I personally would believe it to be the possible Q source.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

You claim im applying hypocritical standards; but we have more evidence(reason) to believe John copied Philo; than to believe the Disciple John wrote the Gospel of John.

So John used a word that another philosopher used, but he used it in a different context and manner, and it makes up a marginal portion of his Gospel, and you conclude that John did not write his Gospel? That his very presumputious and a faulty conclusion.

No.
I did not use this as my arguement to prove John did not write 'his' Gospel; infact it would be quite idiotic of me to make such a claim because the authorship of the Johannine works are totally irrelevant here.

Infact if you want to dwell into the authorship of John; id be more than happy to discuss a few things with you.
What evidence besides 'church tradition' can you provide to prove the Disciple John wrote the 'Gospel of John'?

In theory, God could have inspired the authors of John to utilize this (presumably) useful concept.

Yes, you said it way better then I did.

In theory; God wanted to test humanity by not mentioning the trinity a single time in the whole bible; instead he gave vague verses that have to be purposely twisted to form the "Truine God"....

The basic idea of a triune God is pre- christian.

Josephus's Discourse To The Greeks Concerning Hades

6. For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word: for to him hath the Father committed all judgment : and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as Judge, whom we call Christ.

My point is; you should not make baseless assumptions regarding the divine; that is what many theists do; that is what athiests call the "God Gap".

We "all" make assumptions,Murad... the atheistic wotldview is an assumption. It is based on the assumption that God does not exist.

Andre

[mich]

We can see from here; the frequently quoted John 1:1-3, which says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
(John 1:1-3)

So we have a very, very serious question here; the author of John, copied the doctrine of logos from Philo; and presented it as "Inspired from God/Word of God"; which many Christians believe. But in fact; the idea of John 1:1-3 existed decades before the Gospel of John existed. And by the way; the doctrine of logos was originally created by a Jew(Philo), not a Christian, so it kinda debunks trinitarian claims.

It existed a lot longer before John than that. The Hindu Brahmanas were written roughly 9th to 7th centuries BCE. From the Pancavimsa Brahmana 20.14.2, also known as the Tandya Maha Brahmana - Brahmana in blue, John in green:

Prajapati (at the beginning) was alone this (universe) ;
In the beginning was the Word,

the Word was his only (possession) :
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

the Word was the second (that existed).
He was in the beginning with God.

He thought : Let me emit this Word, it will pervade this whole (universe) '. He emitted the Word and it pervaded this whole (universe).
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

You'll find different translations if you google it, some of them a lot closer to John's wording; but this is from the text here (about 4/5 down the page). The theological focus is different of course, on the Word rather than Prajapati (Brahman, in other translations), but personally I think the comparison is strong enough to be all but conclusive

Very interesting Mithrae; thanks.

Andre

[Goat]

Josephus's Discourse To The Greeks Concerning Hades

6. For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word: for to him hath the Father committed all judgment : and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as Judge, whom we call Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus%2 ... ning_Hades

Josephus's Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades is a short work published in the translation of Josephus by William Whiston. Erroneously attributed to the Jewish historian since at least the 9th century, it is now believed to be (at least in its original form) the work of Hippolytus of Rome.

Hippolytus of Rome was 3rd century