Translating Λόγος

There’s an idiom by which evangelicals refer to the Bible, namely the “Word of Gxd”, and they will read bits of the Bible referring to the Logos as being self-referential towards the Bible (never mind that the form in which we receive it is different from what the authors, who probably had not realized they were contributing to canon, would have had in mind). Then it occurred to me: wait a second, the Logos? Are there any references to the Logos in the New Testament which are not either referring to the Logos qua ontological function or to logos qua reason (if not logos in its most basic, literal sense)? Keep in mind that the New Testament is addressed to the Hellenistic world which was well acquainted not only with the language in which the various authors were writing, but also probably (whether by being literate or via cultural osmosis) with the concepts of Greek philosophy which Christians were both competing with and borrowing from linguistically as Hellenized Messianic Jews (or Gxd-fearers). I pulled some passages in which logos is popularly understood to refer to the Bible, replacing instances of “word” with logos so you know where to look.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of Gxd for the sake of your tradition? For Gxd said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ But you say that whoever tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is given to Gxd,’ then that person need not honor the father. So, for the sake of your tradition, you nullify the logos of Gxd.

Matthew 5:1–6 (NRSVue)

Matthew (let’s just refer to the author as per tradition) is a Jewish writer concerned with what it means to fulfill the Torah, and he (I assume that’s not controversial) takes what I’d consider a relatively conservative approach (relative to other New Testament authors) in emphasizing the continued observance of Mosaic law—or, at least, that’s the typical read and I don’t see a reason to disagree unless you warp either his words or those of others to make them agree with each other. Anyway, fun fact: did you know that logos never refers to “word” as a semantic unit? It’s etymologically “that which is ordered” or “reckoned”, and it refers literally to an utterance of speech or a train of thought, and then by extension to one’s capacity to reckon or order. I think the reason why translators usually go for “word” is because Jerome when translating to Latin opted for “verbum”, which might be fine in a case like the passage above but less so in John 1’s hymn to the Logos. Nevertheless, I still think that “word” is not an ideal translation here because it overemphasizes the linguistic aspect of logos over its aspect as dictum or command. After all, it’s specifically Jesus’ point that the Pharisees nullify Gxd’s commandments by taking them at the letter.

Once while Jesus was standing beside the Lake of Gennesaret and the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the logos of Gxd […]

Luke 5:1 (NRSVue)

I usually like citing passages at length, but this just frames the start of the episode where Jesus calls his first disciples. I’d be hard-pressed to read logos here as “the Word”, at least in reference to the Bible or even the Torah specifically. Jesus here is serving as a prophet, and what does a prophet do? They speak on behalf of Gxd. The word logos could be read both literally as “utterance” or even as “word” in a strictly literal (but not grammatical) sense, or in the extended sense of being an account or command of Gxd—it could also be a pun on Luke’s part since the audience is both listening to a logos and Jesus as the Logos—but I see no way in which one can read it as referring to the Bible in part or whole.

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the logos of Gxd and do it.”

Luke 8:19–21 (NRSVue)

Nope. If I could time-travel, I would pull Jerome aside and say: “Look here, Jerry: dictum, not verbum. Don’t fuck it up for us hundreds of years down the line.” Again, in English, “word” is not necessarily a bad translation, except that our language is a little imprecise and the sense in which “word” (and verbum) means “word” has a different emphasis than how logos (and dictum) means “word”. Anyway, again, hard-pressed to see that as referring to the Bible in part or in whole except in as much as the Bible records utterances that we understand as being logoi of Gxd. And I feel like metonymy is a step too far.

While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the logos of Gxd and obey it!”

Luke 11:27–8 (NRSVue)

Nope. Not convinced.

Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should neglect the logos of Gxd in order to wait on tables. Therefore, brothers and sisters, select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task, while we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the logos.” What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. They had these men stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

The logos of Gxd continued to spread; the number of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

Acts 6:1–7 (NRSVue)

Luke–Acts is supposed to be really one big work by the same author, so I thought I’d first show two instances from there first. Nope! I see logos as referring generally to a message from Gxd and specifically as what we would call the gospel. Again, Luke as an educated gentile probably also has some familiarity with both Greek philosophy and probably the Logos-centric theology of his contemporaries (late first century, early second century), so there might be some multiplicity of meaning in referring to what we call the gospel as the Logos as if it were not only a message from Gxd but an ordering principle of the universe (see also Luke 1:1–4; it’s ambiguous about whether logos refers to Jesus or his message). However, Luke postures as a historian, not as a philosopher, so that would be besides the point and either way could not be construed as referring to the Bible.

What’s interesting to me is that the clearest instances of logos seeming to refer to holy scriptures is also in the books of the New Testament with the highest Christology.

The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human, are making yourself Gxd.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the logos of Gxd came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am Gxd’s Son’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.

John 10:31–9 (NRSVue)

John? The one with the hymn to the Logos—which, unfortunately, some evangelicals read as referring to the Bible and not to the literal fucking subject matter of his work? Anyway, this is a fascinating bit which I won’t talk about in itself; Dan McClellan has a good tiktok. I’m just worried about the use of logos which here relates directly to “the law” (nomos), as not just the Torah but more broadly the Hebrew Bible (in this case, Psalm 82). But notice the distance between nomos and logos: it’s written in the nomos which (Jesus implies) had come from the logos of Gxd. I don’t think that necessarily precludes a functional identity between nomos and logos, but it’s complicated in light of John’s Logos-centric Christology. It reads more like Jesus saying: “Don’t tell me the Law. I gave the Law. Hell, I am the Law.” That identity, in other words, seems like it’s meant to illustrate Jesus’ claim to divinity on the basis of him being the Logos who gave or created the Law.

Remember your leaders, those who spoke the logos of Gxd to you; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by regulations about food, which have not benefited those who observe them.

Hebrews 13:7 (NRSVue)

I just don’t see it in this case at all. That’s the gospel, literally put in Pauline opposition to the dicta of the Mosaic Law, seemingly identified with Jesus himself as is pretty standard across the New Testament. So many evangelicals treat their canon as a divinity identified with Jesus or even unto itself, as if it were the Torah or the Quran, but that’s against what the New Testament authors teach across the board with regards to the gospel (specifically referring to Jesus’ thesis of neighborly love) as the ultimate message from Gxd, everything else being a mere image which by elaborating upon that principle alienates itself from it—can you imagine explaining to someone how they can express love for you, and yet even by doing everything perfectly they miss the feeling behind the action, or even act entitled to the benefits of expressions of love made without love? Simultaneously, what is a love that does not express itself? Gxd doesn’t want a down-low lover. Doesn’t it all click now? Jesus is Gxd's Logos, the Logos is the gospel, and the gospel is love.