Introduction
The mystery
which lies in the foundations of Western civilization is that of logos. Logos
is the only word which defines all epochs in the history of humankind. Greeks
invented and preserved logos in its many original forms, and then
transmitted it to the Christian cultures, which adopted Logos in all its
various meanings. The word Logos originated from the four schools of Pre
Socratic period; the Ionic, the Pythagorean, the Eleatic, and the Sophistic. The
distinctive peculiarity of the pre-Socratic period is marked in the isolation
of the three branches which were afterwards united in Greek Philosophy: by the
Ionians, Physics; by the
Pythagoreans, Ethics; by the Eleatics, Dialectic: By Sophistic. The word Logos
undertook different meanings in each period of these schools and it was adopted
by Christian Apologists and writers. This paper tries to understand the meaning
of the word, how it was used by the Greek philosophers in their writings, then
the usage by Apologists with reference to the writings of Justin Martyr.
1.
The Concept of Logos in Greek Philosophy
1.1. The Primitive
Meaning of the Greek Word Logos: Homer
The noun form of
Logos is generated from the Greek verb λογείων, which has many meanings. The
oldest meaning of this verb is to collect, to bring together. Later, in many
classical and modern Greek texts it means to count or to be reckoned and in the
Modern Greek language, is to speak, to talk or to say. From the latter meaning
of the verb λογείων, logos acquired its late meaning of ‘speech’ in the
written and spoken language. However, there is a lot of hesitation among
experts in this particular area concerning the early meaning of this verb when
the noun logos was generated. Homer’s epic poems employ the verb λογείων
in its late meaning and this generated the noun λόγος.The noun logos λόγος appeared only
twice in Homer’s epic poems; once in The Iliad and once in The Odyssey.
For Homer λόγος means thoughtful
and persuasive word.[1]
In his writing the word logos does not refer to god. According to him the
religious consciousness the word ‘god’ (θεός) always means an object of
worship, and this is just what distinguishes the gods from other immortal and
powerful beings (ισχυρά όντα). In the Iliad of Homer clearly used by this
sense.[2]
Homer’s Hymn’s began a new age of worship on polytheistic gods. When men felt a
real need for worship, the worship of two agricultural gods come into
importance, Demeter and Dionysos.[3]
λόγος
1.2. Logos as Universal World of
Awakening; Heraclitus the Obscure
Heraclitus introduced
the term logos in his philosophy. The logos in his teaching had a
complex meaning, which was difficult also for his contemporaries to understand.
For Heraclitus, the logos is ‘the one and the common world’ for all
people. The logos, in this place probably expresses the law (νόμος) of existence, which is
immanent in all things. This law of existence holds sway to the extent that it
wishes, and suffices for all, and still left over. The same logos directs
people to think reasonably, because: ‘thinking is common to all’. Although logos
is the reason in virtue of which people have cognition of universal law,
escape ascertainment because of people’s lack of belief. The people lack
confidence that they are capable of cognition of that law, or they are stupid
and 'become worked up over every statement.[4]
Heidegger tries to use the logos of Heraclitus as a means for
establishing his own teaching about the truth. According to Heidegger the truth
belongs to the logos, i.e. truth only appears through the logos.[5]
Apart from this logos,
which is the law (νόμος), understood
by mind (μυαλό) and it can be called
the logos of understanding, there are other meanings of logos also. The logos at the
same time unites opposites. The logos is one which connects the
opposites of all beinghood. About this harmony and unity Heraclitus speaks in
the following words: ‘All things are one (όλα είναι ένα)’. In other words the logos
of gathering because it arranges all things.[6]
Heraclitus
mentions logos of the soul: ‘One would never discover the limits of
soul, should one traverse every road - so deep a measure does it possess, and soul
possesses a logos which increases itself. This logos of soul can
be the human mind according to which man acts, and in that way participates in
the logos as cosmic constitution. The logos of soul is increasing
in the measure in which man reveals and understands the great logos. The
multiplicity of knowledge does not reveal the real knowledge about things,
about the whole world and about how to act according to logos. Rather, logos
of the soul, through which we arrive at the universal principle, reveals
real knowledge.[7] He
identifies logos with fire: ‘This logos, in material aspect, must
be a kind of fire.
Heraclitus’
concept of the Logos from which the stoic Logos concept is derived meant in a
similar way the law that reigns supreme over what happens in the world and
which consolidates the world into a unity. The Platonic understanding of the
Logos as the guide to true being was quite different. In the Platonic school
the Logos was not conceived pantheistically as the law holding the cosmos
together, but as a middle being between the transcendent god and the world. The
same is true in Philo and in the apologists. However, in the Logos concept is
combined with certain Stoic elements. On the one hand, the Logos occupies a
middle position between the Most High God and the world- this is the Platonic
element.[8]
1.3.
Why is there Something and not Nothing; Parmenides
Logos is
not so frequently mentioned in Parmenides’, but it plays a very important role
in his poem. Parmenides introduces the logos as a means by which the
decision can be made, the decision made by the logos would be only one,
because it is not determined by just one opportunity but the logos suspended
the choice and directed us to only one solution. The solution is only one as
very truth is only one also.[9]
The Greek verb
‘to talk’ (λογείων), from which is generated the noun logos, indicates
something existing. In this case, speech about nothing or nonbeing is not
possible. On the other hand, talking was distinguished from the mere
pronunciation of voices, because it is meaningful, whereas ‘talking nothing’ is
meaningless. The well-known fragment of Parmenides, where says: ‘...because the
same thing is for thinking and for being (το ίδιο πράγμα είναι για σκέψεις και
για ύπαρξη)’ indicates
that the logos directs not only to true thinking and speaking, but also
according to the logos men decide true being. Parmenides tries to assert
that only being (μόνο ύπαρξη) is
and only being can be the object of thinking and speaking.[10]
1.4.
The Logos of Dialectics; Plato
Heraclitus and
Parmenides are not the only thinkers, in whose teachings the notion of logos
found a respectable place. The notion logos was in usage in the
writings of other philosophers in this epoch. The decrease of interest in
cosmology and an increase in searching for the authentic truth of being, which
came with the Sophists, was projected onto the conception of logos. The
subjectivism and relativism of the Sophists brought flexibility in conceiving
of logos. In the teaching of sophistic thinkers, the logos has
the meaning of proper reason (σωστό
λόγο). This reason is located in the realm of speech (ομιλία) and it
served to be divided into elements and used for conclusions.[11]
Logos acquired
a very significant place in the philosophy of Plato. The logos appears
in many places and very often with different meanings. Plato’s usage of logos
projects exactly the ‘hybrid character’ of his philosophy. Namely, the logos
very often is taken in the meanings in which it appeared in the teachings
of Plato’s great forebears. His teachings combined the universal logos of
Heraclitus with Parmenides’ logos of being, and the sophist’s proper
reason with Socrates’ dialectics as the skill of arguing. Plato emphasized the
distinction between myth and logos. He also re-established the
relationship between logos and nomos. Nevertheless, his thought
brought something new.[12]
Plato brought
the idea of God into philosophy for the first time, and the form the doctrine
took in his mind was that God was a living soul and that God was good. As much
as that, but no more, he believed himself to have established by strictly
scientific reasoning. Plato’s God is certainly a ‘personal’ god, as we should
put it; for he is Mind existing in a living soul, but it does not follow that
he is the ‘supreme being’.[13]
1.5. The Birth of
Logos; Aristotle
Aristotle uses logos
in the sphere of language and linguistical determination. For him, logos
is one of the elements of linguistical[14]
expression. Thus, every verbal expression has eight parts, and they are:
letter, syllable, conjunction, joint, noun, verb, case and phrase. Aristotle
explains what a phrase is by these words: ‘A phrase is a composite sound with
meaning, some parts of which mean something by themselves’ or ‘A ‘phrase’ may
be a unit in two ways; either it signifies one thing or it is combination of
several ‘phrases”. This explanation is Aristotle’s definition of logos as
meaningful speech which only man possesses. In Aristotle’s logic logos has
the following meanings: notion, definition, statement, formula, argument,
discourse, reason, judgment, sense and concept.[15]
Aristotle
defines the logos as definition or formula if it determines something.
He very frequently uses logos with the meaning of argument. For
Aristotle logos or ‘a definition is a phrase signifying a thing’s essence
‘and’ in definition words ought to be rendered by account, if possible in every
case, or if not, in majority’. In Aristotle’s Analytics logos has the meaning of conclusion, which
is acquired from notions placed in the syllogistic relationship. The logos of
Aristotle’s logic is the basis of being, which unites all things. His logos
consists of the essential origin of the whole language and it determines
the way of discourse as a logical discourse. According to his usage of logos
in the ontological sense, we can understand Aristotle’s definition of the
soul as human logos. The possibility of perceiving the world is
equivalent to the possibility of logically relating to the world. The soul is
divided into two parts according to logos.[16]
Logos acquired its usage in Aristotle’s ethical and political writings
too.
1.6. The Omnipresent
Logos: The Stoics
In the system of
Stoic thought, the term logos was widely used. Its usage was in logic,
which was an autonomous discipline for the Stoics, as well as in their cosmology
and ethics. They were very proud of the consistency and coherence of their
system.[17]
Logos is the immanent principle of law in the world and the Stoics
identify it with God. It is the rational principle of the world and the source
of all activity in the world. The Stoics also identify logos, which is
cosmic and pneumatic power in some cases, with creative fire, and in other
cases with Fate (μοίρα) or Providence (πρόνοια).
God identified with logos is the active principle and governing force of
the universe. The second principle in the cosmos is matter, which is incapable of
any action of its own. The first creative act, the separation of matter into
four elements, is not taken by logos, on the level of the universe logos
is identified with the creative fire, which is the true nature of the
universe.
Logos is
material, as are the things which are the objects of its activity. The nature
of man is different from the nature of the universe. Human nature is also characterized
by logos. The duty of the logos in man is the development of his
rational part on the level of knowledge of the logos of the universe.
The logos of man is the same logos which is the governing force of
the universe. Thus, the logos in man cannot complete his knowledge and fulfill
his duty until it comprises the universe and man’s place in it. The logos in
man develops as a distinctive principle as the child grows older. The knowledge
of the orthos logos of universe is the common law, which is achieved in
God[18]
Logos in
its cosmic sense is interchangeable with ‘Fate’. The theory of ‘seminal reason’
probably caused this identification. Logos as the active principle
contains in itself active forms. Those active forms are more aspects of Logos
than individual entities. The material and divine forms are seeds, through
the activity of which individual things come into being during the development
of the world. Harmony among people is the product of the activity of these
seeds, which mediate between the people and the universal Logos. These
seeds influence the reasonable action in base matter and so fulfil the plan of
God. Chalcidus claims that human decisions are completely pre-determined.
The Stoics
abandon the duality of transcendent and immanent realms. Their philosophical
system characterizes cosmological immanentism. But at the base of this
immanentism lies a duality of the active principle, logos and the
passive principle, matter. Everything in the cosmos is constrained by Logos,
including man, whose acts are pre-determined.[19]
1.7. The Forebear
of the Christian Logos: Philo
The Greek,
philosophical conception of logos and the Christian conception of this
term, appear one to another for the first time in the thought of Philo from
Alexandria. In his writings, Philo used the term logos in 1306 places
and in different senses. The whole thought of Philo is syncretistic and was
influenced by the Bible, as well as the philosophical teachings, which were
popular at that time in Alexandria. The translation of Old Testament into Greek
(Septuagint) enabled Philo to read Moses and Plato in the same language. Philo
made the effort to translate the biblical language into the language of Greek
philosophy. According to Philo, the thing common to the two traditions, one
Greek and the other Jewish, is their source from the divine Reason, i.e. from Logos.
The reason why the biblical tradition and the Greek philosophy are not
opposite is their birth from logos. The former is born from logos, which
is projected in the human mind and the world, and the latter is born from the
divine Logos, which reveals itself directly to the prophets.
According to
Philo’s writings, we can make a conditional classification of the three groups,
in which logos appears with the same or the similar meanings. Firstly,
it came into Philo’s writings from Greek philosophy. Secondly, it was inspired
by the Bible and the usage of the term logos in the Pentateuch of Moses.
Thirdly, it originated from Philo himself. Philo used logos with the
meaning of universal law, which is immanent in the world, maintaining order,
harmony and beauty in the world. This usage of logos is identical to the
usage of logos in the philosophy of the Stoics. Logos is
universal Reason, which rules in the cosmos. According to the relationship
between man and the world as the relationship of macrocosm and microcosm, one
part of universal logos belongs to human mind. Philo was strongly
influenced by Platonism.[20]
For Philo, logos
is: ‘the original principle behind all principles, after which God shaped
or formed the universe, incorporeal, and discerned by intellect alone’. Logos
is the image of material creation, which remains incorporeal. In many
places, Philo’s usage of logos was inspired by the bible. In Genesis,
chapter one, the word of God initiates the acts of creation: ‘Then God said...’.
The essential role of the word, which probably guides Philo, we can find in the
following verses of Psalms: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were made
According to
Philo, the word or logos is the instrument by which God creates the world
from non-being. Logos is similar to God because it shares with God the
basic divine attribute - the faculty of creating. God through the meditation of
logos creates the world. The cause of the world’ is God, by whom it has
come into being, its material the four elements, from which it was compounded,
its instrument the word of God, through which is framed, and the final cause of
the building is the goodness of the architect. The logos of God ‘is
above all world, and is eldest and most all-embracing of created things. Logos
is the image of God without visible shape and it is the immaterial world of
ideas.
Philo identifies
Logos with the first-born Son of God. According to this, logos is
‘the eldest son, whom the Father of all raised up, and calls him His
first-born, and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father,
and shaped the different kinds, looking to the archetypal patterns which that
Father supplied logos is the instrument of God with the highest rank
among other beings and it is a mediator between the transcendent God and the
world.[21]
The
Logos is the prototype of the world, or more precisely the essence of the
prototypes of all things in the world, just as it itself is the image of the
Father. Just as with Philo, the Logos especially appears inmen as rational
beings, to be sure in varied degrees. The seeds of the Logos are effective in
the whole of humanity. But only in Jesus Christ has the whole Logos to logikon to holon, appeared.[22]
2. Logos Christology
The
merit of Logos Christology which had its origin with the Apologists of the
second century asserted the differentiation of father and son within the
Godhead.[23] The
apologists understood the Logos concept primarily cosmologically but in the
sense of Hellenistic philosophy rather than in reliance upon Gnostic
conceptions. The Logos as the world reason, as the natural law holding the
cosmos together, was a well-known concept in the educated Hellenistic world,
above all in the form of the Stoic Logos concept. For the stoics, the Logos
orders the world into the unity of a system by setting matter in motion and
giving it form, just as the Logos in man establishes the unity of the soul.[24]
Thus
for the apologists the relation of the Logos to God had to be closely connected
with the creation of the world, as was already the case for Greek philosophy.
Thus the relation between God and the Logos was thought through primarily in
the context of the philosophical problem of the world’s origin, rather than in
view of God’s historical revelation. This was merely applied to the revelation
in Christ. Such a procedure has to involve the danger that theology would be
enveloped by substantially alien philosophical presuppositions.[25]
Justin
emphatically maintains, what is best in Plato and the other philosophers was
imparted by the divine Logos, who did not withhold light even from those guides
of the heathen. Christ, says Justin, “is the Logos (word) of whom the whole
human race are partakers, and those who lived according to reason are
Christians.”[26]
Yet Justin’s particular idea of the Logos is not consonant with that of John,
but corresponds to that of Plato and Philo. The Logos of Justin is not, as in
the Palestinian sources, including John, the Word of God, but the divine
Reason. The Logos, impersonal in God from the beginning, becomes personal,
before all creatures, a certain reasonable Power, which is called by the Holy
Ghost, Glory of the Lord, at other times Son, Wisdom, Angel, God, Lord and
Logos. In the production of the Son God was not himself changed, more than a
man’s mind is changed by the utterance of a word, or a fire lessened by having
another fire kindled from it. He is the only begotten by the Father of all
things. He is not an emanation as the light emanates from the sun.
The
language of Justin implies that the inner nature of the Son is identical with
that of the Father. The Son ship of Christ is thus traced back to the
antemundane generation of the Hypostatic Logos. Moreover, the Logos, next to
the Father, is the recipient of divine honors. He is associated with the father
when it is said, “Let us make man in our own image” (Gen 1:26). It was the
Logos who appeared in the theophanies
of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, Justin does not fully succeed in taking
Christ out of the category of creatures. He is begotten, or assumes a personal
form of being, by an act of God’s will. He was generated from the Father “by
his power and will”.[27]
The Logos is another “in number,” but not in mind (or will). There is a
personal distinction, but this is not eternal and it springs from an act of
God’s will, anterior to the creation of the world. To the son is assigned the
second place in relation to the eternal God. More over while the “unbegotten
God” does not move, nor is he contained in any place, the logos enters into the
limits of place and time.
Conclusion
The
word logos originated in Greek language has many meanings, the Greek
philosophers understood it in a diverse way and has used accordingly in their
writings. Later at a point the word perceived divine meaning and at this stand
point Apologists used this word in their apology to defend Christian faith from
other religions. They do not fail to refer to the purity and elevation of
Christian doctrines, in comparison with ethnic teaching. Justin’s
interpretations of Christianity which sprang from his own reflection, under the
influence of his philosophical bent. He attributed to God all the varied personal
attributes and agencies which it is usual for Christian believers to ascribe to
Him.[28]
Bibliography
Burnet,
John. Greek Philosophy. London:
Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1964.
Alleyne, S. F. A History of Greek Philosophy Vol. 1. London: Longmans Green and Co, 1881.
Fisher,
George Park. History of Christian
Doctrine. Edinburgh; T&T Clark, 1896.
Pannenberg,
Wolfhart. Jesus- God and Man. London:
SCM Press, 1968.
Jaeger,
Werner. The Theology of the Early Greek
Philosophers. London: Oxford University Press,
1947.
Webliography
Vladimir Cvetkovic, “Ontologies of freedom and
necessity: an investigation of the concepts
of logos in Greek philosophy and Christian thought.” M.A. Thesis, Durham University, 2001. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4269/ Accessed on 8/2/2018.
[1] Vladimir Cvetkovic, “Ontologies of freedom and necessity: an
investigation of the concepts of logos in Greek philosophy and Christian
thought,” (M.A Thesis, Durham University, 2001) http://etheses. dur.ac. uk
/4269/.
Accessed on 8/2/2018.
[2] John Burnet, Greek Philosophy (London: Macmillan
& Co Ltd, 1964), 22.
[3] Burnet, Greek Philosophy… 24.
[4] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[5] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[6] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[7] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[8] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus- God and Man (London: SCM Press,
1968), 161.
[9] Cvetkovic, “Ontologies
of freedom and...
[10] Burnet, Greek Philosophy.. 273.
[11] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[12] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[13] Burnet, Greek Philosophy… 273.
[14] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[15] Werner
Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek
Philosophers (London: Oxford University Press, 1947), 112.
[16] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[17] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[18] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[19] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[20] Cvetkovic, “Ontologies
of freedom and...
[21] Cvetkovic,
“Ontologies of freedom and...
[22] Pannenberg, Jesus- God and Man… 163.
[23] Pannenberg, Jesus- God and Man… 162.
[24] Pannenberg, Jesus- God and Man… 162.
[25] Pannenberg, Jesus- God and Man… 161.
[26] George Park
Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine
(Edinburgh; T&T Clark, 1896), 62.
[27] Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine… 63.
[28] Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine…62.
