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?

[Wootah]

In general and not looking at your specific argument, if you say something and it's true then why can't I say it? So I don't see how this claim gains any traction do you?

Perhaps this shows that you need to look at the message and not the messenger.

[Murad]

In general and not looking at your specific argument, if you say something and it's true then why can't I say it? So I don't see how this claim gains any traction do you?

Because my dear friend, that is what we call plagiarism; that is what society tells us is bad; that is what our legal system considers illegal.

If you copy my idea and present it as yours; and claim you were 'Inspired by God'; does that make me God?

Perhaps this shows that you need to look at the message and not the messenger.

I agree with you; let me quote to you what Jesus said:

And Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.
(John 12:44)

[WinePusher]

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?

Good posts and questions. As someone who approaches the Bible with a historical lens, I am open to the idea that John copied from Philo. However, the implications that you seem to be hinting at are not as severe as you think.

Copying, plagarism, was very common in the ancient world. Catullus Poem 51 is practically a word by word copy of the poem by the Greek Poet, Sappho. The Aeneid is based almost, if not entirely, off of Homer's Odyseey and Iliad, the Roman Pantheon of Gods is also based off of the Greek Pantheon.

So if John did copy from Philo, I see absolutely no problem with it. As your source said, John adapted the word "logos" he made it unique and different so it's meanings are not the same when placed in context. Again, I would call this another hypocritical standard applied only to the Bible and not to other ancient texts.

[Murad]

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?

Good posts and questions. As someone who approaches the Bible with a historical lens, I am open to the idea that John copied from Philo. However, the implications that you seem to be hinting at are not as severe as you think.

Copying, plagarism, was very common in the ancient world. Catullus Poem 51 is practically a word by word copy of the poem by the Greek Poet, Sappho. The Aeneid is based almost, if not entirely, off of Homer's Odyseey and Iliad, the Roman Pantheon of Gods is also based off of the Greek Pantheon.

So if John did copy from Philo, I see absolutely no problem with it. As your source said, John adapted the word "logos" he made it unique and different so it's meanings are not the same when placed in context. Again, I would call this another hypocritical standard applied only to the Bible and not to other ancient texts.

It would be hypocritical if the other ancient texts were considered the 'Word of God'.

The Gospel of John has been verified to be plagiarised; the ideology in the introduction was originally created by Jewish Philosopher Philo; who came up with the Doctrine of Logos a few decades before the Gospel of John was recorded down.

So how can you consider it 'Word of God' or 'Inspired by God' ?
Was Jewish Philosopher Philo a God?

[WinePusher]

Good posts and questions. As someone who approaches the Bible with a historical lens, I am open to the idea that John copied from Philo. However, the implications that you seem to be hinting at are not as severe as you think.

Copying, plagarism, was very common in the ancient world. Catullus Poem 51 is practically a word by word copy of the poem by the Greek Poet, Sappho. The Aeneid is based almost, if not entirely, off of Homer's Odyseey and Iliad, the Roman Pantheon of Gods is also based off of the Greek Pantheon.

So if John did copy from Philo, I see absolutely no problem with it. As your source said, John adapted the word "logos" he made it unique and different so it's meanings are not the same when placed in context. Again, I would call this another hypocritical standard applied only to the Bible and not to other ancient texts.

It would be hypocritical if the other ancient texts were considered the 'Word of God'.

Another appeal to the Bible's status as the "word of god" in order to justify applying hypercritical and hypocritical historical standards to it.

The Gospel of John has been verified to be plagiarised; the ideology in the introduction was originally created by Jewish Philosopher Philo; who came up with the Doctrine of Logos a few decades before the Gospel of John was recorded down.

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.

So how can you consider it 'Word of God' or 'Inspired by God' ?
Was Jewish Philosopher Philo a God?

Ok, let's assume for a moment that your example is right. Let's say John did copy from Philo, well, he used the "logos" in a different context then Philo. He used the term to apply to Jesus, that may have been the divine inspiration. If John did plagarize (which I am asking to you prove) it does not automatically rule out divine inspiration.

[flitzerbiest]

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 don't think this line of argument has much merit. First of all, it superimposes a modern ethic on an ancient society operating under different ethical assumptions. Second, doctrine always tends to grow in this manner--an idea is advanced, fleshed out, and more often than not, literalized.

I disagree that the Bible is the Word or words of God, but I think there are better arguments to be made. By the way, most of the arguments against divine authorship of the Bible work just as well against the Qu'ran.

[flitzerbiest]

As someone who approaches the Bible with a historical lens, I am open to the idea that John copied from Philo. However, the implications that you seem to be hinting at are not as severe as you think.

Copying, plagarism, was very common in the ancient world.

Hot dog! I agree with WP!

Another example: Paul's declaration that "In him we live and move and have our being" is lifted from the pagan poet Epictetus.

It is also likely that the author of II Peter lifted a large chunk of his epistle from the book of Jude (or vice versa).

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

[Murad]

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:

to copy and pass off (the expression of ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's work) without crediting the source

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).

His influence on Christianity is evident; his Greek philosophical idea of logos is present in the Greek manuscripts of John; where does the scales seem to be leaning?

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.

[McCulloch]

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.