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?

[flitzerbiest]

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.

Yes, I've read that from Ehrman. My impression is that the ethical tension at that time was similar to what we saw in the 1990's with the Napster craze. "File sharing" (aka theft of intellectual property) went mainstream and was widely criticized by artists and publishers--those who had something to lose. Those whose works were plagiarized in the early Christian era were the ones who objected--roughly analogous to the modern artists and publishers. Nevertheless, the objections did not prevent the practice from become widespread.

Please not that I am not trying to justify the theft of intellectual property. I sat out the "Napster Revolution" and waited, impatiently at times, for a business model (iTunes) to compensate the owners. I am merely acknowledging the lack of ethical consensus, and how it might play out. On the other hand, I don't see any evidence of divine authorship for the Bible, so it would not surprise me if biblical authors cut corners.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is copying the work of others NOT an admission that one LACKS personal knowledge of that he reports?

Well... no... it's not an admission that one lacks personal knowledge of that which he reports, it's just using the work of others. I imagine you already knew that, however. So is the above a claim that copying the work of others implies an admission that one lacks personal knowledge?

If you KNOW from personal knowledge that something is true, do you copy the work of someone else and present it as though it was your own thinking?

If someone in debate copies the work of others (without acknowledgment) rather than presenting their own thinking and evidence, do you recognize the poster as being knowledgeable of the issue discussed?

[flitzerbiest]

.

Is copying the work of others NOT an admission that one LACKS personal knowledge of that he reports?

Well... no... it's not an admission that one lacks personal knowledge of that which he reports, it's just using the work of others. I imagine you already knew that, however. So is the above a claim that copying the work of others implies an admission that one lacks personal knowledge?

If you KNOW from personal knowledge that something is true, do you copy the work of someone else and present it as though it was your own thinking?

I assume you are now referring to the fact that both "Matthew" and "Luke" copied and edited large swaths of Mark in the construction of their gospels. It is a valid point.

[Zzyzx]

.

I assume you are now referring to the fact that both "Matthew" and "Luke" copied and edited large swaths of Mark in the construction of their gospels. It is a valid point.

I actually refer to ANY work that copies the work of earlier writers.

I have absolutely no objection to a person (in debate or scholarly -- or non-scholarly -- work) CITING the work of others; and do so frequently myself. However, when someone copies the work of others and presents it as their own -- without providing their own discussion of the matter in question -- I question the validity of their personal knowledge of the subject.

If (since) "Luke", "Mathew" and "John" (whoever they may have been) copied the words of others they are reporting HEARSAY (that heard from others) as though it was true. They discredit their own writings by so doing, and they do not verify the truth of what they heard from others.

That whole thing is a "can of worms" in my opinion. There is no way to determine what is truth vs. what is exaggeration, hyperbole, imagination, fiction or fraud. And still, such things are presented as TRUTH by many bible believers.

[Goat]

.

If (since) "Luke", "Mathew" and "John" (whoever they may have been) copied the words of others they are reporting HEARSAY (that heard from others) as though it was true. They discredit their own writings by so doing, and they do not verify the truth of what they heard from others.

That whole thing is a "can of worms" in my opinion. There is no way to determine what is truth vs. what is exaggeration, hyperbole, imagination, fiction or fraud. And still, such things are presented as TRUTH by many bible believers.

While authors of Luke and Matthew copied , practically sentence by sentence from apparently Mark, the does not mean that author of the GOJ 'copied' from Philo. He most certainly was using the philosophy and concepts, but he described it with his own words (except the word "WORD".. He also took the concept of the 'wisdom' of God being the intermediary between God and man that Philo appears to have meant metaphorically, and turned it into a literal idea, with the 'wisdom made flesh' being Jesus.

IMO, there is enough differences between the words of Philo from the actual sentences of the GOJ that it isn't plagiarism as we describe it today

[flitzerbiest]

.

I assume you are now referring to the fact that both "Matthew" and "Luke" copied and edited large swaths of Mark in the construction of their gospels. It is a valid point.

I actually refer to ANY work that copies the work of earlier writers.

I have absolutely no objection to a person (in debate or scholarly -- or non-scholarly -- work) CITING the work of others; and do so frequently myself. However, when someone copies the work of others and presents it as their own -- without providing their own discussion of the matter in question -- I question the validity of their personal knowledge of the subject.

If (since) "Luke", "Mathew" and "John" (whoever they may have been) copied the words of others they are reporting HEARSAY (that heard from others) as though it was true. They discredit their own writings by so doing, and they do not verify the truth of what they heard from others.

That whole thing is a "can of worms" in my opinion. There is no way to determine what is truth vs. what is exaggeration, hyperbole, imagination, fiction or fraud. And still, such things are presented as TRUTH by many bible believers.

The typical rationale for the existence of four gospels is that "God wanted" four separate perspectives expressed. The fact that two of the sources quoted one of the others, however, belies the concept of eyewitness accounts. I also fail to see why an omniscient god would need four books to convey the entire range of ideas which he felt was important.

[Wootah]

So from what I can gather is that there are sources that exist that support the Christian view of God. How is that a bad thing for Christianity again?

If we reduce the argument to ridiculousness, the argument is that because someone, somewhere, sometime said X someone else, somewhere else, and sometime else can't say it. That is ridiculous.

Further there is a moral issue of referring the reader to a false text. I can personally say that I have learnt good things that I use in my life that I would teach others but in no way wish the other to learn about the source of where I learnt it. Particularly when I have also discovered that these things were also being taught inside Christianity. The Bible isn't an essay where your words often matter less than the appropriate essay structure and referencing.

[Murad]

So from what I can gather is that there are sources that exist that support the Christian view of God. How is that a bad thing for Christianity again?

Unless you believe Philo was "God Al-Mighty"; the introduction of John was not "Inspired by God". Well... it could be inspired by God; i guess it comes down to whether you believe plagiarised material can be called 'Gods Word'

If we reduce the argument to ridiculousness, the argument is that because someone, somewhere, sometime said X someone else, somewhere else, and sometime else can't say it. That is ridiculous.

No. You missed the point.
If you take someone elses idea; and present it as yours WITHOUT crediting the source; thats what we call 'plagiarism'; thats what society frowns upon.
If i come up with an idea; and you copy it from me; then rephrase it; does that become the "Word of God"; or was that my idea that you stole from me?

[WinePusher]

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.

For purposes of discussion I'll agree that John copied Philo. Now, this only means hat a very small part of the Gospel was copied, only the first chapter. The rest of the Gospel is unaccounted for. Where did the information in the Gospel come from if it was not written by an eyewitness?

As a general side note, I'd like to point out that copying was very common in the ancient world. Also, I'd like to point out that those who apply American Legal standards regarding hearsay to the study of ancient history need to pick up a book on historical methodology.

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'?

The explanation that the eyewitness John wrote the Gospel of John is supported by the text itself. How If it was not an eye witness, then how was the information about Jesus Christ recieved by the writer? If an eye witness did not write the Gospel, then what were there sources of information? Unless a better rival explanation can be proposed, then the explanation of John writing the Book that bearrs his name stands.

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".

What baseless assumptions? The only assumptions I've made is that God inspired a book, an assumption Islam shares.

The typical rationale for the existence of four gospels is that "God wanted" four separate perspectives expressed. The fact that two of the sources quoted one of the others, however, belies the concept of eyewitness accounts.

Matthew and Luke only quoted partly from Mark, not wholly. Also, Mark doesn't seem to have copied from anyone so his Gospel would qualify as genuine eyewitness, and John doesn't use any of the Synoptics yet his Gospel is strikingly similar to the others.

[Wootah]

So from what I can gather is that there are sources that exist that support the Christian view of God. How is that a bad thing for Christianity again?

Unless you believe Philo was "God Al-Mighty"; the introduction of John was not "Inspired by God". Well... it could be inspired by God; i guess it comes down to whether you believe plagiarised material can be called 'Gods Word'

If we reduce the argument to ridiculousness, the argument is that because someone, somewhere, sometime said X someone else, somewhere else, and sometime else can't say it. That is ridiculous.

No. You missed the point.
If you take someone elses idea; and present it as yours WITHOUT crediting the source; thats what we call 'plagiarism'; thats what society frowns upon.
If i come up with an idea; and you copy it from me; then rephrase it; does that become the "Word of God"; or was that my idea that you stole from me?

This isn't university. If it's true it is true. What matters is understanding your salvation. no Christian would be surprised to see elements of truth in other texts and works. The devil deceives best that way.