Search This Blog

Sunday, October 23, 2022

Serfdom in Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A Peasant Leaving His Landlord on Yuriev Day, painting by Sergei V. Ivanov

The term serf, in the sense of an unfree peasant of tsarist Russia, is the usual English-language translation of krepostnoy krest'yanin (крепостной крестьянин) which meant an unfree person who, unlike a slave, historically could be sold only with the land to which they were "attached". Peter I ended slavery in Russia in 1723. Contemporary legal documents, such as Russkaya Pravda (12th century onwards), distinguished several degrees of feudal dependency of peasants.

Serfdom became the dominant form of relation between Russian peasants and nobility in the 17th century. Serfdom most commonly existed in the central and southern areas of the Tsardom of Russia and, from 1721, of the subsequent Russian Empire. Serfdom in Little Russia (parts of today central Ukraine), and other Cossack lands, in the Urals and in Siberia generally occurred rarely until, during the reign of Catherine the Great (r. 1762–1796), it spread to Ukraine; noblemen began to send their serfs into Cossack lands in an attempt to harvest their extensive untapped natural resources.

Only the Russian state and Russian noblemen had the legal right to own serfs, but in practice commercial firms sold Russian serfs as slaves – not only within Russia but even abroad (especially into Persia and the Ottoman Empire) as "students or servants". Those "students and servants" were in fact owned by rich people, sometimes even by rich serfs, who were not noblemen. Emperor Nicholas I banned the trade in African slaves in 1842, though there were almost no Russians who participated in it, but Russian serfs were still sold and bought.

Emperor Alexander I (r. 1801–1825) wanted to reform the system but moved cautiously, liberating serfs in Estonia, Livonia (both 1816) and Courland (1817) only. New laws allowed all classes (except the serfs) to own land, a privilege previously confined to the nobility. Emperor Alexander II abolished serfdom in the emancipation reform of 1861, a few years later than Austria and other German states. Scholars have proposed multiple overlapping reasons to account for the abolition, including fear of a large-scale revolt by the serfs, the government's financial needs, changing cultural sensibilities, and the military's need for soldiers.

Terminology

The term muzhik, or moujik (Russian: мужи́к, IPA: [mʊˈʐɨk]) means "Russian peasant" when it is used in English. This word was borrowed from Russian into Western languages through translations of 19th-century Russian literature, describing Russian rural life of those times, and where the word muzhik was used to mean the most common rural dweller – a peasant – but this was only a narrow contextual meaning.

History

Origins

The origins of serfdom in Russia (крепостничество, krepostnichestvo) may be traced to the 12th century, when the exploitation of the so-called zakups on arable lands (ролейные (пашенные) закупы, roleyniye (pashenniye) zakupy) and corvée smerds (Russian term for corvée is барщина, barschina) was the closest to what is now known as serfdom. According to the Russkaya Pravda, a princely smerd had limited property and personal rights and his escheat was given to the prince.

Thirteenth to fifteenth centuries

In the 13th to 15th centuries, feudal dependency applied to a significant number of peasants, but serfdom as we know it was still not a widespread phenomenon. In the mid-15th century the right of certain categories of peasants in some votchinas to leave their master was limited to a period of one week before and after Yuri's Day (November 26). The Sudebnik of 1497 officially confirmed this time limit as universal for everybody and also established the amount of the "break-away" fee called pozhiloye (пожилое). The legal code of Ivan III of Russia, Sudebnik (1497), strengthened the dependency of peasants, statewide, and restricted their mobility. The Russians persistently battled against the successor states of the Golden Horde, chiefly the Khanate of Crimea. Annually the Russian population of the borderland suffered from Tatar invasions and slave raids and tens of thousands of noblemen protected the southern borderland (a heavy burden for the state), which slowed its social and economic development and expanded the taxation of peasantry.

Transition to full serfdom

The Sudebnik of 1550 increased the amount of pozhiloye and introduced an additional tax called za povoz (за повоз, or transportation fee), in case a peasant refused to bring the harvest from the fields to his master. A temporary (Заповедные лета, or forbidden years) and later an open-ended prohibition for peasants to leave their masters was introduced by the ukase of 1597 under the reign of Boris Godunov, which took away the peasants' right to free movement around Yuri's Day, binding the vast majority of the Russian peasantry in full serfdom. These also defined the so-called fixed years (Урочные лета, urochniye leta), or the 5-year time frame for search of the runaway peasants. In 1607, a new ukase defined sanctions for hiding and keeping the runaways: the fine had to be paid to the state and pozhiloye – to the previous owner of the peasant.

The Sobornoye Ulozhenie (Соборное уложение, "Code of Law") of 1649 gave serfs to estates, and in 1658, flight was made a criminal offense. Russian landowners eventually gained almost unlimited ownership over Russian serfs. The landowner could transfer the serf without land to another landowner while keeping the serf's personal property and family; however, the landowner had no right to kill the serf. About four-fifths of Russian peasants were serfs according to the censuses of 1678 and 1719; free peasants remained only in the north and north-east of the country.

Most of the dvoryane (nobles) were content with the long time frame for search of the runaway peasants. The major landowners of the country, however, together with the dvoryane of the south, were interested in a short-term persecution due to the fact that many runaways would usually flee to the southern parts of Russia. During the first half of the 17th century the dvoryane sent their collective petitions (челобитные, chelobitniye) to the authorities, asking for the extension of the "fixed years". In 1642, the Russian government established a 10-year limit for search of the runaways and 15-year limit for search for peasants taken away by their new owners.

The Sobornoye Ulozhenie introduced an open-ended search for those on the run, meaning that all of the peasants who had fled from their masters after the census of 1626 or 1646–1647 had to be returned. The government would still introduce new time frames and grounds for search of the runaways after 1649, which applied to the peasants who had fled to the outlying districts of the country, such as regions along the border abatises called zasechniye linii (засечные линии) (ukases of 1653 and 1656), Siberia (ukases of 1671, 1683 and 1700), Don (1698) etc. The dvoryane constantly demanded that the search for the runaways be sponsored by the government. The legislation of the second half of the 17th century paid much attention to the means of punishment of the runaways.

Serfdom was hardly efficient; serfs and nobles had little incentive to improve the land. However, it was politically effective. Nobles rarely challenged the tsar for fear of provoking a peasant uprising. Serfs were often given lifelong tenancy on their plots, so they tended to be conservative as well. The serfs took little part in uprisings against the empire as a whole; it was the Cossacks and nomads who rebelled initially and recruited serfs into rebel armies. But many landowners died during serf uprisings against them. The revolutions of 1905 and 1917 happened after serfdom's abolition.

Rebellions

Vengeance of Serfs. Engraving by Charles Michel Geoffroy, 1845

There were numerous rebellions against this bondage, most often in conjunction with Cossack uprisings, such as the uprisings of Ivan Bolotnikov (1606–07), Stenka Razin (1667–71), Kondraty Bulavin (1707–09) and Yemelyan Pugachev (1773–75). While the Cossack uprisings benefited from disturbances among the peasants, and they in turn received an impetus from Cossack rebellion, none of the Cossack movements were directed against the institution of serfdom itself. Instead, peasants in Cossack-dominated areas became Cossacks during uprisings, thus escaping from the peasantry rather than directly organizing peasants against the institution. Rich Cossacks owned serfs themselves. Between the end of the Pugachev rebellion and the beginning of the 19th century, there were hundreds of outbreaks across Russia, and there was never a time when the peasantry was completely quiescent.

Slaves and serfs

Punishment with a knout

As a whole, serfdom both came and remained in Russia much later than in other European countries. Slavery remained a legally recognized institution in Russia until 1723, when Peter the Great abolished slavery and converted the slaves into serfs. This was relevant more to household slaves because Russian agricultural slaves were formally converted into serfs earlier in 1679.

Formal conversion to serf status and the later ban on the sale of serfs without land did not stop the trade in household slaves; this trade merely changed its name. The private owners of the serfs regarded the law as a mere formality. Instead of "sale of a peasant" the papers would advertise "servant for hire" or similar.

By the eighteenth century, the practice of selling serfs without land had become commonplace. Owners had absolute control over their serfs' lives, and could buy, sell and trade them at will, giving them as much power over serfs as Americans had over chattel slaves, though owners did not always choose to exercise their powers over serfs to the fullest extent.

The official estimate is that 23 million Russians were privately owned, 18.3 million were in state ownership and another 900,000 serfs were under the Tsar's patronage (udelnye krestiane) before the Great Emancipation of 1861.

One particular source of indignation in Europe was Kolokol published in London, England (1857–65) and Geneva (1865–67). It collected many cases of horrendous physical, emotional and sexual abuse of the serfs by the landowners.

Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

Peter III created two measures in 1762 that influenced the abolition of serfdom. He ended mandatory military service for nobles with the abolition of compulsory noble state service. This provided a rationale to end serfdom. Second, was the secularization of the church estates, which transferred its peasants and land to state jurisdiction. In 1775 measures were taken by Catherine II to prosecute estate owners for the cruel treatment of serfs. These measures were strengthened in 1817 and the late 1820s. There were even laws that required estate owners to help serfs in time of famine, which included grain to be kept in reserve. These policies failed to aid famines in the early nineteenth century due to estate owner negligence.

The Bargain by Nikolai Nevrev (Sale of a serf girl)

Tsar Alexander I and his advisors quietly discussed the options at length. Obstacles included the failure of abolition in Austria and the political reaction against the French Revolution. Cautiously, he freed peasants from Estonia and Latvia and extended the right to own land to most classes of subjects, including state-owned peasants, in 1801 and created a new social category of "free agriculturalist", for peasants voluntarily emancipated by their masters, in 1803. The great majority of serfs were not affected.

The Russian state also continued to support serfdom due to military conscription. The conscripted serfs dramatically increased the size of the Russian military during the war with Napoleon. With a larger military Russia achieved victory in the Napoleonic Wars and Russo-Persian Wars; this did not change the disparity between Russia and Western Europe, who were experiencing agricultural and industrial revolutions. Compared to Western Europe it was clear that Russia was at an economic disadvantage. European philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment criticized serfdom and compared it to medieval labor practices which were almost non-existent in the rest of the continent. Most Russian nobles were not interested in change toward western labor practices that Catherine the Great proposed. Instead they preferred to mortgage serfs for profit. Napoleon did not touch serfdom in Russia. What the reaction of the Russian peasantry would have been if he had lived up to the traditions of the French Revolution, bringing liberty to the serfs, is an intriguing question. In 1820, 20% of all serfs were mortgaged to state credit institutions by their owners. This was increased to 66% in 1859.

Bourgeois were allowed to own serfs 1721–62 and 1798–1816; this was to encourage industrialisation. In 1804, 48% of Russian factory workers were serfs, 52% in 1825. Landless serfs rose from 4.14% in 1835 to 6.79% in 1858. They received no land in the emancipation. Landlords deliberately increased the number of domestic serfs when they anticipated serfdom's demise. In 1798, Ukrainian landlords were banned from selling serfs apart from land. In 1841, landless nobles were banned also.

Increasingly in the 18th century Russian peasants were escaping from Russia to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (where once harsh serfdom conditions were improving) in significant enough numbers to become a major concern for the Russian Government and sufficient to play a role in its decision to partition the Commonwealth (one of the reasons Catherine II gave for the partition of Poland was the fact that thousands of peasants escaped from Russia to Poland to seek a better fate".) Until the partitions solved this problem, Russian armies raided territories of the Commonwealth, officially to recover the escapees, but in fact kidnapping many locals.

Abolition

A 1907 painting by Boris Kustodiev depicting Russian serfs listening to the proclamation of the Emancipation Manifesto in 1861

In 1816, 1817, and 1819 serfdom was abolished in Estland, Courland, and Livonia respectively. However all the land stayed in noble hands and labor rent lasted till 1868. It was replaced with landless laborers and sharecropping (halbkörner). Landless workers had to ask permission to leave an estate.

The nobility was too weak to oppose the emancipation of the serfs. In 1820 a fifth of the serfs were mortgaged, half by 1842. By 1859, a third of noble's estates and two thirds of their serfs were mortgaged to noble banks or the state. The nobility was also weakened by the scattering of their estates, lack of primogeniture, and the high turnover and mobility from estate to estate.

The Tsar's aunt Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna played a powerful role backstage in the years 1855 to 1861. Using her close relationship with her nephew Alexander II, she supported and guided his desire for emancipation, and helped mobilize the support of key advisors.

In 1861 Alexander II freed all serfs in a major agrarian reform, stimulated in part by his view that "it is better to liberate the peasants from above" than to wait until they won their freedom by risings "from below".

Serfdom was abolished in 1861, but its abolition was achieved on terms not always favorable to the peasants and served to increase revolutionary pressures. Between 1864 and 1871 serfdom was abolished in Georgia. In Kalmykia serfdom was abolished only in 1892.

The serfs had to work for the landlord as usual for two years. The nobles kept nearly all the meadows and forests, had their debts paid by the state while the ex serfs paid 34% over the market price for the shrunken plots they kept. This figure was 90% in the northern regions, 20% in the black earth region but zero in the Polish provinces. In 1857, 6.79% of serfs were domestic, landless servants who stayed landless after 1861. Only Polish and Romanian domestic serfs got land. 90% of the serfs who got larger plots were in Congress Poland where the Tsar wanted to weaken the szlachta. The rest were in the barren north and in Astrakhan. In the whole Empire, peasant land declined 4.1%, 13.3% outside the ex Polish zone and 23.3% in the 16 black earth provinces. These redemption payments were not abolished till January 1, 1907.

Impact

A 2018 study in the American Economic Review found "substantial increases in agricultural productivity, industrial output, and peasants' nutrition in Imperial Russia as a result of the abolition of serfdom in 1861".

Serf society

Labour and obligations

In Russia, the terms barshchina (барщина) or boyarshchina (боярщина), refer to the obligatory work that the serfs performed for the landowner on his portion of the land (the other part of the land, usually of a poorer quality, the peasants could use for themselves). Sometimes the terms are loosely translated by the term corvée. While no official government regulation to the extent of barshchina existed, a 1797 ukase by Paul I of Russia described a barshchina of three days a week as normal and sufficient for the landowner's needs.

In the black earth region, 70% to 77% of the serfs performed barshchina; the rest paid levies (obrok).

Marriage and family life

Group of Russian peasant women

The Russian Orthodox Church had many rules regarding marriage that were strictly observed by the population. For example, marriage was not allowed to take place during times of fasting, the eve or day of a holiday, during the entire week of Easter, or for two weeks after Christmas. Before the abolition of serfdom in 1861, marriage was strictly prohibited on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Because of these firm rules most marriages occurred in the months of January, February, October, and November. After the emancipation the most popular marrying months were July, October, and November.

Imperial laws were very particular with the age in which serfs could marry. The minimum age to marry was 13 years old for women, and 15 for men. After 1830 the female and male ages were raised to 16 and 18 respectively. To marry over the age of 60, the serf had to receive permission, but marriage over the age of 80 was forbidden. The Church also did not approve marriages with large age differences.

Landowners were interested in keeping all of their serfs and not losing workers to marriages on other estates. Prior to 1812 serfs were not allowed to marry serfs from other estates. After 1812 the rules relaxed slightly, but in order for a family to give their daughter to a husband in another estate they had to apply and present information to their landowner ahead of time. If a serf wanted to marry a widow, then emancipation and death certificates were to be handed over and investigated for authenticity by their owner before a marriage could take place.

Before and after the abolition of serfdom, Russian peasant families were patriarchal. Marriage was important for families economically and socially. Parents were in charge of finding suitable spouses for their children in order to help the family. The bride's parents were concerned with the social and material benefits they would gain in the alliance between the two families. Some also took into consideration their daughter's future quality of life and how much work would be required of her. The groom's parents would be concerned about economical factors such as the size of the dowry as well as the bride's decency, modesty, obedience, ability to do work, and family background. Upon marriage, the bride came to live with her new husband and his family, so she needed to be ready to assimilate and work hard.

Serfs looked highly upon early marriage because of increased parental control. At a younger age there is less chance of the individual falling in love with someone other than whom his or her parents chose. There is also increased assurance of chastity, which was more important for women than men. The average age of marriage for women was around 19 years old.

During serfdom, when the head of the house was being disobeyed by their children they could have the master or landowner step in. After the emancipation of serfs in 1861, the household patriarch lost some of his power, and could no longer receive the landowner's help. The younger generations now had the freedom to work off their estates; some even went to work in factories. These younger peasants had access to newspapers and books, which introduced them to more radical ways of thinking. The ability to work outside of the household gave the younger peasants independence as well as a wage to do with what they wanted. Agricultural and domestic jobs were a group effort, so the wage went to the family. The children who worked industrial jobs gave their earnings to their family as well, but some used it as a way to gain a say in their own marriages. In this case some families allowed their sons to marry whom they chose as long as the family was in similar economic standing as their own. No matter what, parental approval was required in order to make a marriage legal.

Distribution of property and duties between the spouses

According to a study completed in the late 1890s by the ethnographer Olga Petrovna Semyonova-Tian-Shanskaia, husband and wife had different duties in the household. In regards to ownership, the husband assumed the property plus any funds required to make additions to the property. Additions included fence, barns, and wagons. While primary purchasing power belonged to the husband, the wife was expected to buy certain items. She was also expected to buy household items such as bowls, plates, pots, barrels and various utensils. Wives were also required to purchase cloth and make clothes for the family by spinning and using a dontse. Footwear was the husband's responsibility - he made bast shoes and felt boots for the family. As for crops, it was expected for men to sow and women to harvest. A common crop harvested by serfs in the Black Earth Region was flax. Husbands owned most of the livestock, such as pigs and horses. Cows were the property of the husband, but were usually in the wife's possession. Chickens were considered to be the wife's property, while sheep was common property for the family. The exception was when the wife owned sheep through a dowry (sobinki).

Material culture

Typical Russian serf clothing included the zipun [ru] (Russian: зипун, a collarless kaftan) and the smock.

A 19th-century report noted: "Every Russian peasant, male and female, wears cotton clothes. The men wear printed shirts and trousers, and the women are dressed from head to foot in printed cotton also."

The extent of serfdom in Russia

Kateryna, painting of a Ukrainian serf girl by Taras Shevchenko, who was himself born a serf

By the mid-19th century, peasants composed a majority of the population, and according to the census of 1857, the number of private serfs was 23.1 million out of 62.5 million citizens of the Russian empire, 37.7% of the population.

The exact numbers, according to official data, were: entire population 60909309; peasantry of all classes 49486665; state peasants 23138191; peasants on the lands of proprietors 23022390; peasants of the appanages and other departments 3326084. State peasants were considered personally free, but their freedom of movement was restricted.

% serfs on estates
Estate of 1700 1861
>500 serfs 26 42
100–500 33 38
1–100 41 20
 
% serf owners with <100 serfs
1777 1834 1858
83 84 78

Russian serfdom depended entirely on the traditional and extensive technology of the peasantry. Yields remained low and stationary throughout most of the 19th century. Any increase in income drawn from agriculture was largely through increasing land area and extensive grain raising by means of exploitation of the peasant labor, that is, by burdening the peasant household still further.

Serfs owned by European Russian landlords
No. of serfs in 1777 (%) in 1859 (%)
>1000
1.1
501–1000
2
101–500 16 (>100) 18
21–100 25 35.1
0–20 59 43.8

% peasants enserfed in each province, 1860

>55%: Kaluga Kyiv Kostroma Kutais Minsk Mogilev Nizhny Novgorod Podolia Ryazan Smolensk Tula Vitebsk Vladimir Volhynia Yaroslavl

36–55%: Chernigov Grodno Kovno Kursk Moscow Novgorod Oryol Penza Poltava Pskov Saratov Simbirsk Tambov Tver Vilna

16–35%: Don Ekaterinoslav Kharkov Kherson Kuban Perm Tiflis Vologda Voronezh

In the Central Black Earth Region 70–77% of the serfs performed labour services (barshchina), the rest paid rent (obrok). Owing to the high fertility, 70% of Russian cereal production in the 1850s was here. In the seven central provinces, 1860, 67.7% of the serfs were on obrok.

Alleged western support of dictators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_western_support_of_dictators

Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet shaking hands with Henry Kissinger in 1976.

Alleged western Support of dictators refers to the alleged support of the Western powers for dictators oriented with Western interests. Right-wing authoritarian regimes and dictatorships supported by the Western powers are said to have committed atrocities and mass killings comparable to those committed in the communist world. Examples are the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966 and the murders connected to Operation Condor in South America. As another instance, the United States and its allies supported state terrorism and mass murder throughout the Cold War. This was ostensibly done to keep communism in check, though in effect it advanced U.S. business interests and spread capitalism and neoliberalism throughout the Global South. A justification for the Western support of dictators is that the resulting stability would facilitate economic progress, and that democratic institutions could be gradually encouraged and built.

In cases like the 1953 Iranian and the 1973 Chilean coup d'états, Western powers participated in overthrowing democratically-elected governments in favor of dictators aligned with the West. U.S. officials have been accused of collaborating with oppressive regimes and anti-democratic governments to secure their military bases from Central America to Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The Economist Democracy Index classifies many of the forty-five current non-democratic U.S. base hosts as fully "authoritarian governments."

Background

During the Cold War, the leaders of developing countries received political and economic benefits in exchange for their alliance with one of the two superpowers, namely, the United States and the Soviet Union. The advantages for these rulers included financial support and military assistance. As a result, some dictators amassed fortunes at the expense of their nations and were able to maintain their rule by building formidable armies. In turn, the Soviet Union and the United States gained access to markets for their manufactured goods and locations for their military bases and missile stations. In particular, the two superpowers supplied weapons to dictators which strengthened their armies and helped in quelling uprisings. Military bases in non-democratic states were often rationalized during the Cold War by the U.S. as a necessary but undesirable side effect of defending against the communist threat posed by the Soviet Union. Few of these bases have been abandoned since the end of the Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

America's role

According to the journalist Glenn Greenwald, the American diplomat Henry Kissinger initiated the U.S.'s arms-for-petrodollars program for the autocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran, supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America, and supported the Indonesian dictator and close U.S. ally Suharto. Greenwald notes that Jeane Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under President Reagan, was praised for her open support of pro-Western and right-wing oppressors including the Shah of Iran and Nicaragua's military dictator Anastasio Somoza, both of whom "were positively friendly to the U.S., sending their sons and others to be educated in our universities, voting with us in the United Nations, and regularly supporting American interests and positions even when these entailed personal and political cost." Regarding the Shah of Iran, President Carter remarked, "Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world." When Egypt’s defense minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, overthrew that country's first elected government, United States Secretary of State John Kerry hailed him for "restoring democracy."

The presence of U.S. bases in nations with oppressive or militaristic administrations often receives little attention from the media, writes David Vine. The United States' desire to maintain the status quo on these bases is something authoritarian leaders are often well aware of. As a result, he asserts, they often use military bases for their political gain. American officials often minimize their criticism of repressive governments so as not to endanger their bases there. Despite repeated attacks on pro-democracy protesters in the Kingdom of Bahrain, which has hosted the U.S. military since 1949, the Obama administration expressed only the mildest condemnation of the monarchy for its oppression.

Media coverage

On the occasion of the death of the U.S.-backed military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who had ruled Chile after overthrowing the democratically elected leftist president, a Washington Post editorial page praised Kirkpatrick and Pinochet. The Post praised "the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle" while acknowledging that the Chilean dictator was "brutal: more than 3,000 people were killed by his government and tens of thousands tortured," concluding that "Kirkpatrick, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now, it should be obvious: She was right." After Venezuela's elected left-wing President Hugo Chávez was temporarily ousted in a right-wing coup in 2002, the New York Times editorial page hailed the event as a victory for democracy: "With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader."

Rationale

A longstanding justification for maintaining military installations worldwide for the United States is that a military presence abroad by the U.S. promotes and strengthens democracy. According to Hermann and Kegley, military interventions have boosted democracy in other nations. The majority of academics, however, concur with professor of international politics Abraham Lowenthal that American efforts to spread democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive"  JoAnn Chirico believes that the U.S. military presence and installations are often considered responsible for suppressing democracy in countries such as Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kuwait, Niger, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

According to Los Angeles Times, American authorities also believe that assisting authoritarian regimes or what they refer to as "friendly governments" benefits the United States and other nations. Journalist Glenn Greenwald states that the strategic justification for American support of dictatorships around the world has remained constant since World War II:

In a world where anti-American sentiment is prevalent, democracy often produces leaders who impede rather than serve U.S. interests ... None of this is remotely controversial or even debatable. U.S. support for tyrants has largely been conducted out in the open, and has been expressly defended and affirmed for decades by the most mainstream and influential U.S. policy experts and media outlets.

In his essay, Dictatorships and Double Standards, Kirkpatrick argues that although the United States should encourage democracy, it should be understood that premature reforms may cause a backlash that could give the Communists an opportunity to take over. For this reason, she considered it legitimate to support non-communist dictatorships, adding that a successful and sustainable democratic process is likely to be a long-term process in many cases in the Third World. The essence of the so-called Kirkpatrick Doctrine is the use of selective methods to advance democracy in order to contain the wave of communism.

Blowbacks

Some believe that having bases under repressive regimes is critical to deterring "bad actors" and advancing "US interests." According to Andrew Yeo, foreign bases contribute to the general good by ensuring security or financial stability. Additionally, bases support the local economy by creating jobs. Alternatively, Bradley Bowman, a former professor at the United States Military Academy, argues that these facilities and the forces stationed there serve as a "major catalyst for anti-Americanism and radicalization." Other studies have found a link between the presence of the US bases and al-Qaeda recruitment. These bases are often cited by opponents of repressive governments to provoke anger, protest, and nationalistic fervor against the ruling class and the United States. This in turn, according to JoAnn Chirico, raises concerns in Washington that a democratic transition could lead to the closure of bases, which often encourages the United States to extend its support for authoritarian leaders. This study suggests that the outcome could be an intensifying cycle of protest and repression supported by the United States. According to the United States National Security Council, the U.S. supports corrupt and brutal governments that hinder democracy and development out of concern "to protect its interest in Near East oil". Eisenhower also discussed what he called the "campaign of hatred against us" in the Arab world, "not by the governments but by the people." The Wall Street Journal reached a similar conclusion after surveying the views of wealthy and Western Muslims after September 11 attacks. In this vein, the head of the Council of Foreign Relations terrorism program believes that the American support for repressive regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly a major factor in anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.

Targeted areas

Fascism

The rise of fascism raised concerns during the interwar period, but, Chomsky writes, it was largely viewed positively by the U.S. and British governments, the corporate community, and a significant portion of the elite. This was because the fascist interpretation of extreme nationalism allowed for significant economic influence in the West while also destroying the left and the hated labor groups. Hitler, like Saddam Hussein, enjoyed strong British and U.S. support until his direct action, which severely damaged British and U.S. interests. William Philips, the American ambassador to Italy, was "greatly impressed by the efforts of Benito Mussolini to improve the conditions of the masses" and found "much evidence" In support of the fascist stance that "they represent a true democracy in as much as the welfare of the people is their principal objective." He found Mussolini's achievements "astounding [and] a source of constant amazement," and greatly admired his "great human qualities." United States Department of State enthusiastically agreed, praising fascism for having "brought order out of chaos, discipline out of license, and solvency out of bankruptcy" as well as Mussolini's "magnificent" achievements in Ethiopia. According to Scott Newton, by the time the war broke out in 1939, Britain was more sympathetic to Adolf Hitler for reasons centered on trade and financial relations as well as a policy of self-preservation for the British establishment in the face of growing democratic challenges.

Radical Islam

As the British historian Mark Curtis writes in his book Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam, Britain has been accused of consistently supporting radical Islam to combat secular nationalism. Because the secular nationalists threatened to seize the resources of their countries and use it for internal development, which was not accepted by England. The United States, like Britain before it, has been accused of historically supporting radical Islam in the face of secular nationalism, seen as a major threat to Western colonial dominance. Chomsky and coauthors accuse Israel of destroying Egypt and Syria in 1967, two bastions of secular Arab nationalism opposed to Saudi Arabia, which they view as the leader of radical Islam.

Indonesia

The Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, which was considered a genocide, was allegedly supported by the United States, Australia, Britain, and other Western powers. After that, Clinton finally ordered the Indonesian generals to stop and the conflict ended within a day, which according to Chomsky could have been stopped 25 years before it; but there was not enough pressure.

Also Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 was allegedly supported by the United States. The massacre occurred when Suharto accused the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) of planning a brutal coup. The party had openly participated in the Indonesian political system as a legal and unarmed party. Elections and community participation had given it influence, but it was still seen as a rebellion. Over one million Indonesians were systematically killed over the following months for being members of the party or suspected of having Marxist sentiments. Later leaked documents showed that Suharto's purge was supported by U.S. officials. U.S. embassy officials were informed of the executions and offered to help prevent media coverage. According to historian John Roosa, documents made public by the US embassy in Jakarta in 2017 confirm that "the U.S. was part and parcel of the operation, strategizing with the Indonesian army and encouraging them to go after the PKI." Geoffrey B. Robinson, a historian at UCLA, contends that the Indonesian Army's policy of mass murder would not have taken place without the assistance of the United States and other strong Western nations.

Israel

Although the international community deems Israeli settlements to be illegal under the international law, the draft resolution condemning the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967 has been vetoed by the United States. Mark Heller, the lead research associate at Tel Aviv's Institute for National Security Studies, however, believes that the American public opinion has shifted over time against Israel and predicts that the relations between the country with Western Europe and with the U.S will deteriorate in the future. To compensate for this loss, he suggests that Israel should strengthen its ties with key Asian countries instead, because, in his view, the major Asian countries "don't seem to indicate much interest about how Israel gets along with the Palestinians, Arabs, or anyone else." He believes that countries like China, India and Singapore would be less committed to the types of liberal and humane concerns that occasionally affect Western policy and are less inclined to protest Israel's unlawful settlement construction and its persecution of Arabs.

Saudi Arabia

Protest against the U.S. involvement in the military intervention in Yemen, New York City, 2017

To reinstate President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who was ousted by the Houthi rebels, the Saudis invaded Yemen in March 2015. The Saudi-led coalition has been waging this war to repress the rebel Houthi movement with the support of Washington and London. The United States has been accused of complicity in war crimes through its support for the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, leading to the 2016–18 Yemen cholera outbreak and humanitarian crisis with millions suffering from famine. Australian mercenaries also sent by the United Arab Emirates to Yemen have actively participated in the Saudi-led offensive. Additionally, the United States supports the Saudi Air Force with weaponry, targeting intelligence, and refueling. "The United States is part of this coalition" according to Chris Murphy, who says, "the bombing campaign that has caused the cholera outbreak could not happen without us." The United States accordingly runs the risk of being considered a party to the Yemeni conflict under international law if it continues to refuel and support Riyadh's air force.

Iraq

John F. Kennedy is said to have sponsored the military coup in 1963 that installed Saddam Hussein's Baathist party in power. Despite Hussein's atrocities against the Kurds, the Iraqi people, and Iran, the United States continued to support Saddam Hussein throughout his reign. After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein crushed a Shia rebellion without any reaction from Bush I, because, according to Chomsky, Washington sought a military junta that would rule the country with an "iron fist," and if no alternative is available, Saddam would have to do. The rebels failed because "very few people outside Iraq wanted them to win"—meaning Washington and its local allies, who held the "strikingly unanimous view" that "whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression." According to Chomsky, the U.S. sought to instigate coups by groups it controlled, since a popular rebellion (a rebellion of people not under U.S control) could not place the United States in power.

Iran

After World War II, the British influence in Iran dwindled and was gradually replaced by American influence. In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Mohammad Mosaddegh's democratically-elected government was overthrown by a joint British-American coup in favor of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi who was more favorable to the west. One of the results of the 1953 coup was that the U.S. took about 40% of Britain's share of Iranian oil as part of the wider transition from British to American dominance in the region, and indeed worldwide. In an editorial celebrating the coup, the New York Times stated, "Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."

While the non-aligned nations had actively supported Iran's right to enrich uranium for years, the U.S. and E.U. assert that Iran poses the greatest threat to international peace. The United States has reported Arab support for its stance on Iran here. However, in multiple polls, Arab people have indicated that they do not see it as a serious threat. They consider Israel and America a danger.

Cuba

The masterplan of Dwight D. Eisenhower for the Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961) was to remove the Cuban leader Fidel Castro in favor of a government "more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S." Internally, the U.S. intelligence also cited the Monroe Doctrine, according to which the U.S. should rule the hemisphere. They argued that the Castro regime's very existence "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." Therefore, the Cubans must pay the price for their effective defiance. While the American corporate system—agribusiness, energy, and pharmaceuticals—has long wanted to resume normal trade relations with Cuba, Washington has banned the relationship, claiming it must punish Cuba.

Logos (Christianity)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Word of God Window at St. Matthew's German Evangelical Lutheran Church in Charleston, South Carolina
 
In principio erat verbum, Latin for In the beginning was the Word, from the Clementine Vulgate, Gospel of John, 1:1–18.

In Christianity, the Logos (Greek: Λόγος, lit.'word, discourse, or reason') is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity. In the Douay–Rheims, King James, New International, and other versions of the Bible, the first verse of the Gospel of John reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In these translations, Word is used for Λόγος, although the term is often used transliterated but untranslated in theological discourse.

According to Irenaeus of Lyon (c 130–202), a student of John's disciple Polycarp (c pre-69-156), John the Apostle wrote these words specifically to refute the teachings of Cerinthus, who both resided and taught at Ephesus, the city John settled in following his return from exile on Patmos. While Cerinthus claimed that the world was made by "a certain Power far separated from" "Almighty God," John, according to Irenaeus, by means of John 1:1-5, presented Almighty God as the Creator - "by His Word." And while Cerinthus made a distinction between the man Jesus and “the Christ from above,” who descended on the man Jesus at his baptism, John, according to Irenaeus, presented the pre-existent “Word” and Jesus Christ as one and the same.

A figure in the Book of Revelation is called "The Word of God", being followed by "the armies which are in heaven" (Rev 19:13–14).

Bible

Johannine literature

Stephen L. Harris claims that John adapted Philo's concept of the Logos, identifying Jesus as an incarnation of the divine Logos that formed the universe.

While John 1:1 is generally considered the first mention of the Logos in the New Testament, arguably, the first reference occurs in the book of Revelation. In it the Logos is spoken of as "the Word of God", who at the Second Coming rides a white horse into the Battle of Armageddon wearing many crowns, and is identified as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords:

He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God . . . And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "king of kings, and lord of lords".

John 1's subject is developed in the First Epistle of John (1 John). Similar to John 1:1-5, 1 John 1:1 also refers to “the beginning” (archeés) and to “the Word” (ho lógou). 1 John 1 does not refer to the creation (cf. John 1:3) but expands on two other concepts found in John 1:4, namely that of “life” and of “light” (1 John 1:1-2, 5-7). It therefore seems as if only the first clause of 1 John 1:1 "What was from the beginning" refers to the pre-incarnate Word. The rest of 1 John 1 describe the incarnate Word:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

— 1 John 1:1 (NIV)

Luke 1:1-2

Like John 1:1-5, Luke 1:1-2 also refers to "the beginning" and to "the word:"

Luke 1:1-2 … compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning (Greek archē) were eyewitnesses and servants of the word (Greek logos).

— Luke 1:1-2 (NASB)

David Lyle Jeffrey and Leon Morris have seen in "the word" a reference to Jesus Christ. However, this reference did not depict the same significant theology of the Logos as depicted in gospel of John. In it's context, it's referring to the gospel message about Jesus and his teaching, rather than a title or identity for him.

Septuagint

Certain references to the term logos in the Septuagint in Christian theology are taken as prefiguring New Testament usage such as Psalm 33:6, which relates directly to the Genesis creation narrative. Theophilus of Antioch references the connection in To Autolycus 1:7.

Irenaeus of Lyon explained Psalm 33:6 as that the “One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things” “created the things that were made” “by (the) Word” and “adorned all things” “by (the) Spirit.” Irenaeus added, “fittingly is the Word called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God.”

Origen of Alexandria likewise sees in it the operation of the Trinity, a mystery intimated beforehand by the Psalmist David. Augustine of Hippo considered that in Ps.33:6 both logos and pneuma were "on the verge of being personified".

τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν

By the word logos of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the host of them by the spirit (pneuma) of his mouth

— Psalm 33:6

Early Christianity

Ignatius of Antioch

The first extant Christian reference to the Logos found in writings outside of the New Testament belongs to John's disciple Ignatius (c 35-108), Bishop of Antioch, who in his epistle to the Magnesians, writes, "there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence," (i.e., there was not a time when he did not exist). In similar fashion, he speaks to the Ephesians of the son as "possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible"

Justin Martyr

Following John 1, the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c 150) identifies Jesus as the Logos. Like Philo, Justin also identified the Logos with the Angel of the Lord, and he also identified the Logos with the many other theophanies of the Old Testament, and used this as a way of arguing for Christianity to Jews:

I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos.


In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin relates how Christians maintain that the Logos,

...is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself . . . And that this power which the prophetic word calls God . . . is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

In his First Apology, Justin used the Stoic concept of the Logos to his advantage as a way of arguing for Christianity to non-Jews. Since a Greek audience would accept this concept, his argument could concentrate on identifying this Logos with Jesus.

Theophilus of Antioch

Theophilus, the Patriarch of Antioch, (died c 180) likewise, in his Apology to Autolycus, identifies the Logos as the Son of God, who was at one time internal within the Father, but was begotten by the Father before creation:

And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begot Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things . . . Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason.

He sees in the text of Psalm 33:6 the operation of the Trinity, following the early practice as identifying the Holy Spirit as the Wisdom (Sophia) of God, when he writes that "God by His own Word and Wisdom made all things; for by His Word were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth" So he expresses in his second letter to Autolycus, "In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom."

Athenagoras of Athens

By the third quarter of the second century, persecution had been waged against Christianity in many forms. Because of their denial of the Roman gods, and their refusal to participate in sacrifices of the Imperial cult, Christians were suffering persecution as "atheists." Therefore the early Christian apologist Athenagoras (c 133 – c 190 AD), in his Embassy or Plea to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus on behalf of Christianity (c 176), makes defense by an expression of the Christian faith against this claim. As a part of this defense, he articulates the doctrine of the Logos, expressing the paradox of the Logos being both "the Son of God" as well as "God the Son," and of the Logos being both the Son of the Father as well as being one with the Father, saying,

Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men called atheists who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order? . . . the Son of God is the Word [Logos] of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding [Nous] and reason [Logos] of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [Nous], had the Word in Himself, being from eternity rational [Logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter...)

Athenagoras further appeals to the joint rule of the Roman Emperor with his son Commodus, as an illustration of the Father and the Word, his Son, to whom he maintains all things are subjected, saying,

For as all things are subservient to you, father and son, who have received the kingdom from above (for "the king's soul is in the hand of God," says the prophetic Spirit), so to the one God and the Word proceeding from Him, the Son, apprehended by us as inseparable from Him, all things are in like manner subjected.

In this defense he uses terminology common with the philosophies of his day (Nous, Logos, Logikos, Sophia) as a means of making the Christian doctrine relatable to the philosophies of his day.

Irenaeus of Lyon

Irenaeus (c 130–202), a student of the Apostle John's disciple, Polycarp, identifies the Logos as Jesus, by whom all things were made, and who before his incarnation appeared to men in the theophany, conversing with the ante-Mosaic Patriarchs, with Moses at the burning bush, with Abraham at Mamre, et al., manifesting to them the unseen things of the Father. After these things, the Logos became man and suffered the death of the cross. In his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus defines the second point of the faith, after the Father, as this:

The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father: through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man.

Irenaeus writes that Logos is and always has been the Son, is uncreated, eternally-coexistent and one with the Father, to whom the Father spoke at creation saying, "Let us make man." As such, he distinguishes between creature and Creator, so that,

He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator 

Again, in his fourth book against heresies, after identifying Christ as the Word, who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, he writes, "Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was manifested to the fathers."

According to Irenaeus, John wrote John 1:1-5 to refute errors proclaimed by Cerinthus. The latter taught “that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him.” “He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation.” Furthermore, Cerinthus made a distinction between “Jesus, the Son of the Creator” and “the Christ from above” and said that “after his (Jesus’) baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler.” But, after “Christ departed from Jesus … Jesus suffered and rose again.”

Irenaeus wrote that John wrote these verses to refute these errors and to state:

“That there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word,” and “That by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men.”

Therefore, while Cerinthus claimed that the world was made by "a certain Power far separated from" "Almighty God," John, according to Irenaeus, by means of John 1:1-5, presented Almighty God as the Creator - "by His Word." And while Cerinthus made a distinction between the man Jesus and “the Christ from above,” who descended on the man Jesus at his baptism, John, according to Irenaeus, presented the pre-existent “Word” and Jesus Christ as one and the same.

Gnosticism

In the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (also known as the Gospel of the Egyptians), a text from early Christian Gnosticism, the Logos appears as a divine emanation or aeon of the great spirit or Monad and mingles with the primordial Adam.

Post-Nicene Christianity

The Logos is God, begotten and therefore distinguishable from the Father, but, being God, of the same substance (essence). This was decreed at the First Council of Constantinople (381).

Photinus denied that the Logos as the Wisdom of God had an existence of its own before the birth of Christ.

Post-apostolic Christian writers struggled with the question of the identity of Jesus and the Logos, but the Church's doctrine never changed that Jesus was the Logos. Each of the first six councils defined Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human, from the First Council of Nicea (325) to the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681). Christianity did not accept the Platonic argument that the spirit is good and the flesh is evil, and that therefore the man Jesus could not be God. Neither did it accept any of the Platonic beliefs that would have made Jesus something less than fully God and fully human at the same time. The original teaching of John's gospel is, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.... And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us." The final Christology of Chalcedon (confirmed by Constantinople III) was that Jesus Christ is both God and man, and that these two natures are inseparable, indivisible, unconfused, and unchangeable.

Modern references

On April 1, 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI just over two weeks later) referred to the Christian religion as the religion of the Logos:

Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the "Logos." It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything that exists. Today, this should be precisely its philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not, therefore, other than a "sub-product," on occasion even harmful of its development or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal. The Christian faith inclines toward this second thesis, thus having, from the purely philosophical point of view, really good cards to play, despite the fact that many today consider only the first thesis as the only modern and rational one par excellence. However, a reason that springs from the irrational, and that is, in the final analysis, itself irrational, does not constitute a solution for our problems. Only creative reason, which in the crucified God is manifested as love, can really show us the way. In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the "Logos," from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational.

Catholics can use Logos to refer to the moral law written in human hearts. This comes from Jeremiah 31:33 (prophecy of new covenant): "I will write my law on their hearts." St. Justin wrote that those who have not accepted Christ but follow the moral law of their hearts (Logos) follow God, because it is God who has written the moral law in each person's heart. Although man may not explicitly recognize God, he has the spirit of Christ if he follows Jesus' moral laws, written in his heart.

Michael Heller has argued "that Christ is the logos implies that God’s immanence in the world is his rationality".

For Fausto Sozzini, Christ was the Logos, but he denied His pre-existence; He was the Word of God as being His Interpreter (Latin: interpres divinae voluntatis). Nathaniel Lardner and Joseph Priestley considered the Logos a personification of God's wisdom.

Translation

The Greek term logos is translated in the Vulgate with the Latin verbum. Both logos and verbum are used to translate דברdabar in the Hebrew Bible.

The translation of last four words of John 1:1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) has been a particular topic of debate in Western Christianity in the modern period. This debate mostly centers over the usage of the article within the clause, where some have argued that the absence of the article before θεός ("God") makes it indefinite and should therefore result in the translation, "and the Word was a god. This translation can be found in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation, and the Unitarian Thomas Belsham's 1808 revision of William Newcome's translation.

Others, ignoring the function of the article altogether, have proposed the translation, "and God was the Word," confusing subject and predicate. Colwell's rule dictates that in this construct, involving an equative verb as well as a predicate nominative in the emphatic position, the article serves to distinguish subject ("the Word") from the predicate ("God"). In such a construction, the predicate, being in the emphatic position, is not to be considered indefinite. Therefore the most common English translation is, "the Word was God", although even more emphatic translations such as "the Word was God Himself" (Amplified Bible) or "the Word ... was truly God" (Contemporary English Version) also exist.

Although "word" is the most common translation of the noun logos, other less accepted translations have been used, which have more or less fallen by the grammatical wayside as understanding of the Greek language has increased in the Western world. Gordon Clark (1902–1985), for instance, a Calvinist theologian and expert on pre-Socratic philosophy, famously translated Logos as "Logic": "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God." He meant to imply by this translation that the laws of logic were derived from God and formed part of creation, and were therefore not a secular principle imposed on the Christian world view.

Some other translations, such as An American Translation (1935) and Moffatt, New Translation, render it as "the Word was divine".

The question of how to translate Logos is also treated in Goethe's Faust, with lead character Heinrich Faust finally opting for die Tat, ("deed/action"). This interpretation owes itself to the Hebrew דָּבָר (dabhar), which not only means "word", but can also be understood as a deed or thing accomplished: that is, "the word is the highest and noblest function of man and is, for that reason, identical with his action. 'Word' and 'Deed' are thus not two different meanings of dabhar, but the 'deed' is the consequence of the basic meaning inherent in dabhar."

The concept of Logos also appears in the Targums (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible dating to the first centuries AD), where the term memra (Aramaic for "word") is often used instead of 'the Lord', especially when referring to a manifestation of God that could be construed as anthropomorphic.

Anglo-Saxon law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...