steve adair nt 634 isr103 a4

Name: Stephen T. Adair

Student ID Number: 2060329784

Email Address: [email protected]

Course Name: The Gospel of John

Course Number: NT 634 ISR103

Assignment Number: Assignment 4

Audio Number: N/A

Project Number: N/A

Date of seminar (if applicable): N/A

Course instructor for seminar (if applicable):

Location of seminar (if applicable): N/A

**The Module Number, Audio Number (if applicable), and Project Number (if

applicable) must be accurate in order to process the lesson and record the grade. The

correct information is stated in the Course Study Guide.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Study Guide Code/Date/Version

found on the first page of the Study Guide: 20090910

Degree Program: MA in Biblical Studies

Address: PO Box 2132

City: Mossel Bay

State: Western Cape

Zip: 6500

Country: South Africa

Telephone: +27 44 690 5133

--------------------End of Coversheet--------------------

PLEASE TYPE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS LESSON SUBMISSION AS

THEY APPEAR IN YOUR STUDY GUIDE HERE

of 33

Write a research paper of ca. 4000 words, including introduction and conclusion (your footnotes and bibliography are excluded from the word count), on one of the following questions:

(1) Why does John use “logos” for Jesus in the prologue? (Phillips 2006)

(2) What does “Lamb of God” mean in John 1:29? (Skinner 2004)

(3) Is there a “Cana-to-Cana” cycle? (Moloney 1979, Talbert 1970)

(4) What is Mary’s significance in John 2:1-11? (Matand Bulembat 2007)

(5) What is Jesus’ position to the temple in John 2:13-25? (Coloe 2001, Um 2006)

(6) What is meant by “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5? (Wai-Yee, 2001)

(7) Does “World” in John 3:16 refer to Israel? (Botha/Rousseau 2005)

(8) Is John 4:1-42 patterned after a betrothal type scene? (McWhirter 2006)

(9) Does John 6:51-58 refer to the Eucharist or to Christology? (Menken 1997)

(10) Was 7:53-8:11 part of the original Gospel? (Watson 1999)

(11) Does John 14:6 exclude other religions from salvation? (Culpepper 2002)

(12) What are the “greater works” of John 14:12? (Köstenberger 1995)

(13) Does 14:31 make sense where it stands? (Bevan 2003)

(14) How does John 20:22 relate to Acts 2:1-4? (Hatina 1993)

(15) Does the term “the Jews” indicate that John is anti-Jewish? (Kierspel 2006)

(16) What is the purpose of the Gospel according to 20:30-31? (Carson 2005)

Follow this general outline:

a) Describe the most important interpretations concerning the chosen topic (ca. 750 words).

b) Analyze relevant texts and questions related to the topic (ca. 2000-2500 words).

c) Critically evaluate the interpretations outlined at the beginning in light of your study (ca. 750 words).

Besides the textbooks, use the book/essay/article mentioned after the question (see bibliography for full reference) and at least another eight (8) scholarly sources, at least four of which must come from the bibliography in this study guide and at least two other works located through the ATLAReligion database.

of 33

INTRODUCTION

John’s Gospel opens with an eloquent and succinct confession of the person of Jesus Christ.

Whilst the Synoptic Gospels begin their accounts either at Jesus birth1, or at the

commencement of His public ministry2, John begins his account in eternity past, portraying

Jesus as the “Λόγος”, the eternal word, through whom all things were created.

Thus, the Fourth Gospel is very different in style to the Synoptic Gospels. Barth commented

that this difference was that in the Synoptics Jesus Christ is depicted as the Son of God, but in

John, the Son of God is depicted as Jesus Christ3.

This paper seeks to explore John’s use of the term “Λόγος” within the prologue to the Fourth

Gospel. Linguistic and cultural aspects are briefly reviewed prior to a brief review and

discussion of key interpretations. Finally, conclusions are drawn on John’s intention in

identifying Jesus as the “Λόγος”.

LINGUISTIC DEFINITIONS

Linguistically five words are significant to John’s prologue. The first is the Greek word

Λόγος. However, two Hebrew words (אמר [ēmer] and דבר [dibra]) and their Aramaic

equivalents (מאמר [mēmra] and דבר [dābār]) are also of importance.

Λόγος

Λόγος carries several different meanings, including: word, speech, language, narrative,

statement, pronouncement, question, report, account, sermon, teaching, call, and sense4. The

1 As is the case in Matthew and Luke.

2 As is the case in Mark.

3 Tanner, K., “Karl Barth’s Christology”: in: Webster, J., “The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth”,

Cambridge University Press, 2000, p131.

of 33

root word (λεγ) provides means to gather, collect, select, report, or speak5. Λόγος should be

properly understood to refer to what is communicated, rather than the precise language used;

in other words, it refers more to the message itself than to the words employed to relay the

message.

Heraclitus influenced the meaning of the word through his philosophy of Λόγος as didactic

discourse or teaching6. Hence Λόγος may be understood to mean “rational consideration,

understanding or persuasion”7 rather than simple or unintelligible utterance.

(ēmer) אמר

The Hebrew word אמר is translated “word, saying, or speech”8. This word first appears in

Genesis, where God’s word is shown to be active in creation9 has a wide range of אמר .

meaning, and can be used of normal speech, but may also be used to describe authoritative

discourse, such as found in the prophetic formula “thus saith the Lord” frequently employed

to oracles of judgement10

.

In Aramaic, the Hebrew word אמר (ēmer) becomes מאמר (mēmra)11

.

(dābār) דבר

”is normally translated “speak דבר12

. It refers to what is said, to the actual “word” itself;

whereas ēmer is essentially oral the physical act of speaking13. Of particular interest is

4 Balz, H., Sxhneider, G., “Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament”, William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1990 (Electronic version from PC Study Bible Version 5; Biblesoft, 1988-2007 -

note page numbers not available with this product). 5 Ibid.

6 Brown, C., “New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology”, Volume 3, Paternoster

Press, 1986, p1081. 7 Kittle, G., Friedrich, G., Bromiley, “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament”, Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989 (Libronix Electronic Version; page numbers not available). 8 VanGemeren, W. A., “New International Dictionary of Old Testament Words”, Volume 1,

Paternoster Press, 1997, p443. 9 For instance: Gen. 1:3 – “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

10 For example Ex. 4:22 (KJV) or as it appears in the NIV – “This is what the LORD says”.

11 Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., “The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament”,

Koninklijke Brill NV, 1994-2000 (electronic version employed – no page numbers available with this

product)

of 33

the theological significance of the association of dābār with God. Here, dābār can mean a

message from or about God, including a command14

, an ordinance or decree15

, a statute16

,

counsel, or even law17

(Torah)18

.

In Aramaic, the Hebrew דבר (dābār) word becomes דבר (dibra)19

.

CULTURAL BACKGROUND

Several attempts have been made to explain John’s description of Jesus as the Λόγος

by comparison with various cultural backgrounds prevalent at the time of writing. These

possible cultural influences may be summarised under six main categories, viz.:

Association of Λόγος with Gnosticism;

Association of Λόγος with Greek philosophy;

Association of Λόγος with the philosophy of Philo;

Association of Λόγος with Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature;

Association of Λόγος with the Old Testament “Word of God”;

Association of Λόγος with the Jewish Targums.

12

VanGemeren, W. A., “New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis”,

Volume 1, Paternoster Press, 1997, pp912-3. 13

Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., White, W. “Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New

Testament words”, Thomas Nelson, 1996, pp239-240. 14

For example, Num. 15:31 15

For example, Psalm 147:19. 16

For example, Zec. 1:1-6. 17

For example Is. 1:10. 18

VanGemeren, W. A., “New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis”,

Volume 1, Paternoster Press, 1997, pp912-3. 19

Ibid.

of 33

Association of Λόγος with Gnosticism

Bultmann contrasted John’s Gospel with the Synoptics, concluding that the New Testament

(outwith the Gospel of John, and a few Pauline references) is very restrained in claiming that

Jesus was the Son of God20

. Bultmann noted that the Synoptics portray Jesus as the Son of

God by virtue of the “divine power and authority” evident in His ministry, and asserted that

ascribing Jesus the title “Son of God” was consistent with Jewish perceptions of David and

the prophets.21

Bultmann postulated that the Fourth Gospel was heavily influenced by Gnostic or Hellenistic

thought which effectively mythologized the person of Christ. Moreover, Bultmann maintained

that “the Λόγος” was a Gnostic term associated with the Hellenistic myth of pre-existence22

.

This view was predicated upon Bultmann’s presupposition that scripture is essentially

mythological in character23

. Bultmann held that the New Testament authors in general

and the author of the Fourth Gospel in particular, used mythological language to

express their view of Christ, and the task of the modern interpreter is strip the

mythology from the true message24

. Bultmann’s “dethmythologising” of the New

Testament led him to reject the virgin birth of Christ25

, deny the miracles that He

performed26

and deny the reality of His resurrection27

.

Bultmann, therefore, dismisses the idea of Jesus’ pre-existence simply because to his

modern understanding this concept is unbelievable, and thus must of necessity belong

20

Bultmann, R. K., “Theology of the New Testament”, Baylor University Press, 2007, p129. 21

Bultmann, R. K., pp130-131. 22

Bultmann, R. K., p132. 23

Bultmann, R., “New Testament and Mythology”, Fortress Press, 1984, p1. 24

Bultmann used the term “Kerygma” to refer to the central core of the message which he regarded as

trustworthy. In holding to this way of thinking, Bultmann places considerably more trust in his own

presuppositions of the text and in “modern understanding” than he does in the New Testament text

itself. For a fuller discussion of this limitation in Bultmann’s approach, see Grant, R. M., Tracy, D. “A

Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible”, 2nd Ed., Fortress Press, 1984, p45. 25

Bultmann, R. “Jesus Christ and Mythology”, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957, p16. 26

Ibid, p61. 27

Bultmann denied that the resurrection was an historical event, but regarded it as an eschatological or

spiritual event. Ibid, p32.

of 33

to the realm of myth. This leads Bultmann to the conclusion that in referring to Jesus

as the Λόγος, John is simply borrowing the mythological terminology of his time, which was

heavily influenced by Gnosticism. Bultmann’s theory was comprehensively repudiated by

Evans, who concluded that the antecedents of John’s Λόγος theology are most likely found in

Old Testament scriptures and the various “interpretative speculations that accompanied

them”28

.

Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that the author of the Fourth Gospel could have held

Gnostic views, as he appears to challenge Gnostic thinking emphatically with his assertion

that “the Word became flesh”29

. As this assertion is anathema to the Gnostic, it may be

concluded that Bultmann’s argument is untenable.

Association of Λόγος with Greek philosophy

The concept of the Λόγος first appears in Greek thought through the philosophy of

Heraclitus30

, who regarded the Λόγος as the universal reason that animates and rules the

world31

.

The Λόγος concept was later developed by the Stoics32

, who associated the Λόγος with God.

For them the Λόγος was the power that put sense into the world, maintaining order in

creation rather than chaos33

. They also referred to the seminal logos, (“λόγος

28

Evans, C. A., “Word and glory: on the exegetical and theological background of John's prologue”,

Volume 89 of Journal for the study of the New Testament, Continuum International Publishing Group,

1993, pp75-76 and pp194-199. 29

John 1:1. 30

Heraclitus lived in Ephesus ca. 535-475 BC. 31

“The Catholic Encyclopaedia”, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm 32

A Greek philosophical school found in Athens by Zeno of Citium ca. 300BC. 33

Barclay, W., “The Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of John – Volume 1”, The Saint Andrews Press,

1975, p35.

of 33

σπέρματικος”), which constituted the seed of λόγος, sown in each human being, giving

mankind an implicit notion of the divine34.

There has been a long held view that there is a strong association between John’s use of the

Greek term Λόγος and Greek philosophy, particularly that of the Stoics35

. This argument

holds that John wrote his gospel in order to engage a Greek, rather than a Jewish, audience36

.

Whilst there are striking similarities between the Greek concept of the Λόγος and the

portrayal of Christ in the Fourth Gospel, there are also some equally striking differences. For

instance, Greek thought never regarded the Λόγος as personal, but rather as an impersonal

force or power37

. But in the Fourth Gospel, the Λόγος became flesh and dwelt among us38

.

Noting both similarities and differences in the Greek and Johannine use of Λόγος. F. F.

Bruce noted that “it is not in Greek philosophical usage, however, that the background

of John’s thought and language should be sought….The true background to John’s

thought and language is found not in Greek philosophy but in Hebrew revelation.”39

Association of Λόγος with the philosophy of Philo

Philo was a Hellenized Jew living in Alexandria ca 20 BC - 50 AD, who fused Jewish

theology and Greek philosophy. Philo followed Plato in distinguishing between God’s perfect

idea and imperfect matter, and used the term Λόγος to refer to an intermediary divine being or

demiurge.

34

Kärkkäinen, V. M., “An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical, and

Contemporary Perspectives”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p57. 35

Armand, J. G. Jr., “The Testimony of the Fourth Evangelist to the Johannine Community”, Trafford

Publishing, 2004, pp46-47. 36

Thompson, M. M., “The Gospel According to John”, in Barton, S. C., “The Cambridge Companion

to the Gospels”, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p186. 37

Morris, L., “The New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Gospel According to

John”, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995, p103. 38

John1:14. 39

Bruce, F. F., “The Gospel of John”, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994, p29.

of 33

In Philo’s philosophy, God was the Father of the Λόγος, and Wisdom was his mother40

. Philo

also wrote that “the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things

together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated”41

.

Philo asserted that the Λόγος was the means through which God created the world42

, and

identified the Λόγος with “Angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament.

Dodd observed that there has been long held view of the affinity between the Λόγος

philosophy of Philo and the prologue to the Fourth Gospel43

. Dodd goes on the show

remarkable parallels between the prologue to the Fourth Gospel and Philo’s writing44

, and

comes to the conclusion that anyone reading the Fourth Gospel, with even the slightest

familiarity with Philo’s writing, would identify parallels between the creational and revelatory

aspects of the Λόγος in both works45

.

However, Dodd notes that whilst Philo and the Fourth Gospel share many similar ideas, the

treatment of those ideas is “strikingly different”46

. Most notably, whilst Philo sees the Λόγος

as the seed of divine reason present in all men, John sees the Λόγος as incarnate, being made

flesh and dwelling and ultimately dying on earth as a distinct individual. Thus, Philo never

envisaged the Λόγος as personal, but in the Fourth Gospel, the Λόγος is deeply and fully

personal47

.

40

Friedlander, G., “Hellenism and Christianity”, P. Vallentine & Son's, 1912, p115. 41

Ibid, p114-115. 42

Philo, “On the Cherubim: 127”, in Yonge, C. D., “The Works of Philo”, H. G. Bohn, 1854, p134. 43

Dodd, C. H., “Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel”, Cambridge University Press, 1953, p54. 44

For a fuller explanation of this comparison, see Appendix 1 of this paper. 45

Dodd, C. H., p277. 46

Dodd, C. H., p73. 47

Ibid.

of 33

Association of Λόγος with Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature

A number of interpreters48

have proposed that the ideas of Wisdom (σοφία) contained in the

“Wisdom Literature”49

, served as a background for the development of John’s Λόγος

theology. Whilst the concept of the personification of Wisdom (σοφία) is found in the Old

Testament50

, the inter-testamental literature provides closer similarities between the

characteristics of “Wisdom” and the Johannine Λόγος. For example, the apocryphal book of

Ecclesiasticus speaks of a pre-existent wisdom, who was active in creation51

, the Wisdom of

Solomon speaks of Wisdom as possessing the attributes of intelligence52

, holiness53

,

goodness54

, power55

, and love56

.

Dodd performed a detailed comparison of the depiction of Wisdom (σοφία) in the Wisdom

literature and the Λόγος of John’s prologue57

and concludes that the author of the Fourth

Gospel shared some similarity of thought with the Wisdom Literature, particularly “the

hypostatized thought of God projected in creation, and remaining as an immanent power

within the world and in man”58

.

However, notwithstanding these very strong similarities, there remains significant differences

between Wisdom (σοφία) and the Word (Λόγος) of John’s prologue. Firstly, whilst the

Wisdom Literature portrays σοφία as the personification of God’s thought and performing a

number of actions normally associated with divinity, Dodd notes that this far from any

justification for the statement “the Word was God”, or “The Word became Flesh”59

. Ronning

48

See, for instance: Culpepper, R. A., “The Theology of the Gospel of John”, Review and Expositor,

Volume 85, 1988, p421. 49

For example, Proverbs, Sirach, Baruch, Eccleisiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon. 50

For example: Proverbs 1:20-33, 8:22-36. 51

Ecclesiasticus 24:1-10. 52

Wisdom of Solomon 9:9. 53





For a full review of this comparison see Appendix 2. 58

Dodd. C. H., p275. 59

Ibid.

of 33

notes a major disadvantage of the Wisdom Literature is the use of the feminine σοφία rather

than the masculine Λόγος60

.

Association of Λόγος with the Old Testament “Word of God”

The Old Testament itself alludes to a theology of the word (dabar) of God,

associating dabar with divine power sent forth to accomplish God’s will61

. Carson

noted that “Word” in the Old Testament is God’s self-expression in creation,

revelation and salvation, which makes it suitable for John to apply the term Λόγος as a

title for God’s ultimate self-disclosure in the personification of this ‘Word’62

.

Commenting on Psalm 33:663

, Hendricksen noted that the “Word of God” is already

depicted as a person in the Old Testament64

.

The Word was the active agent in the creation and ordering of the universe65

. In

comparing the prologue with the Genesis account of creation, Endō concludes that

John’s Christology is firmly rooted in Old Testament exposition66

. Moreover, the

Word continues to be active throughout the Old Testament through the prophets who

proclaimed God’s revelation to Israel67

.

Dodd observed that Hebrew thought tended to ascribe an existence to the Word of

God suggestive of a substantive existence and activity of its very own68

, and Paterson

60

Ronning, J., “The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology”, Hendrickson Pub., 2010, p5. 61

See for instance Isaiah 55:11, Psalm 33:9 and Psalm 107:20. 62

Carson, D. A., “The Gospel According to John”, Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans 1991, p116. 63

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” 64

Hendricksen, W. “The Gospel of John”, Banner of Truth Trust, 1954, p70. 65

Psalm 33:6, Genesis 1:3ff. 66

Endō, M., “Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early

Jewish Creation Accounts”, Volume 149 of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,

Mohr Siebeck, 2002, p252. 67

See for example: Jeremiah 1:1-19; Amos 3:7. 68

Dodd, C. H., “The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel”, Cambridge University Press, 1958, p206.

of 33

noted that “The spoken word to the Hebrew was fearfully alive...It was a unit of

energy charged with power”69

.

Association of Λόγος with the Jewish Targums

At the time of Jesus the Jews no longer spoke in the Hebrew language, but rather

spoke in Aramaic. In order that the proletariat could understand the scriptures, they

were translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic. These translations (called the

Targums) were not regarded as scripture themselves, but were used merely as

translations (the priests still read the scriptures in the Hebrew).

The Jews that wrote the Targums did not wish to portray God in man’s image; they

did not wish to portray God as behaving, acting or thinking like a man. In the

Targums, therefore, the name of God was very often substituted by the “Word of

God”. For instance in Exodus 19:17, we read:

“Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God...”

But in the Targums, this became:

“Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with the word of God.”

Again in Exodus 31:13:

“Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign

between me and you for the generations to come, so that you may know

that I am the LORD, who makes you holy...”

69

Paterson, J., “The Book That is Alive”, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1954, p2-3.

of 33

Becomes:

“Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign

between my word and you for the generations to come, so that you may

know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy...”

In the Targums, “the Word” and “My Word” are frequently used as a translation of

the names and titles of God70

and the Word was frequently associated with God in

action.

However, scholars have tended to dismiss the possibility that the Targums could have

played any influence over John’s prologue71

for two reasons: firstly they have been

regarded as being too late to influence the Gospel72

; and secondly, the Aramaic word

employed (memra) has been regarded as neither a real being nor an intermediary

between God and man73

. Ronning has provided robust evidence to support that the

fact that the Targums where likely to be at least contemporary with the Gospel of

John, raising the possibility of Targumic influence on the author of the Gospel74

.

Ronning also challenges the view that the Targums could not explain John’s use of

Λόγος as memra is never used for a real being, noting that dibra was used for the

personification of the divine within the Targums75

.

70


Dodd, for example, devotes just two sentences to the Targums; See Dodd, C. H., p12 and p68. 72


Ibid, p266-9. 74

Ibid. 75

Ronning notes a number of examples, including the example of God’s appearance to Moses in Ex

33:23 which is described as a revelation of the dibra in the Palestinian Targums , which are most

reasonably ascribed to Johanan ben Zakkai, who was contemporary with the Apostle John. See

Ronning, p-265-266.

of 33

INTERPRETATION THROUGH THE AGES

Having reviewed the cultural setting in which the Fourth Gospel was composed,

attention is now turned to the manner in which the Gospel has been received and

interpreted over the ages.

Interpretation of the Apostolic Church Fathers

Although not a direct commentary on the Gospel of John, one of the earliest Christian

allusions to Λόγος theology is found in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch (ca. AD 169 -

182), who is responsible for the earliest extant Christian writing concerning the Trinity, using

the word τριας in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or as Theophilus

himself put it: “God, his Word (Λόγος) and his Wisdom (Σοφία)76

.

Interpretation of the Greek Father’s

The first major interpretation of John’s Gospel was penned by Irenaeus, who based much of

his Christology upon the prologue, quoting from it around forty times77

. Irenaeus noted that

the Λόγος is identical with God, who has revealed Himself through the incarnation of His

Word in the man Jesus Christ.

76

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch. 77

Bauckham, R., Mosser, C., “The Gospel of John and Christian Theology”, Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing, 2008, p266.

of 33

Irenaeus affirmed that the Trinity consists not of God, Logos and Sophia, but of Father, Son

and Holy Spirit78

. Irenaeus rejected the distinction between logos endiathetos and logos

prophorikos79

, which was widely employed by Philo80

.

Origen and Clement of Alexandria both equate the Λόγος with “reason”81

. As the Λόγος,

Jesus gives expression to God’s mind or intellect. Thus Origen interprets Psa. 33:6 (“By the

word of the LORD were the heavens made”) as meaning that the heavens were

created by the reason of God, much in the same way that a house is built according to

the plan of the architect82

. Origen, therefore associates “wisdom” with God’s mind,

and argues that the Λόγος proceeds from “wisdom”83

.

Interpretation of the Latin Father’s

Augustine asserted that that the Λόγος is an eternal emanation of the Father’s intellect84

, and

hence he associated the Λόγος with wisdom itself85

.

Tertullian, generally regarded as the founder of the Latin Church, associates the Λόγος with

God’s power and reason. Tertullian argued that Christianity differs from Greek and Roman

mythology as Christ was a real person who demonstrated His divinity through the miracles He

performed, the earthquake that accompanied His death and His resurrection86

. Tertullian was

78

Grant, R. M., “Jesus After the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century”, Westminster John Knox

Press, 1990, p100. 79

Logos Endiathetos is the latent Word resident with God since eternity past, whilst Logos Prophorikos

is the uttered Word active in creation, See Grant, R. M, p100. 80

Kamesar, A., “The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

and the D-Scholia to the Iliad”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 2004, pp163-181. 81

Origen, “Commentary on the Gospel of John”, Book 1, para. 42. 82

Ibid. 83

Ibid. 84

Augustine, “The Trinity”: in Schaff, P., “On the Holy Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises; Moral Treatises”,

The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890, p352. 85

Augustine, “Tractates on the Gospel of John”, 86

Tertullian, “Apology”, Chapter 21, in Schaff, P., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 3: Latin

Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian”, William B. Eerdmans, 2001, p34-36.

of 33

the first Latin author to promote Christianity as the “vera religio”, whilst systematically

relegating classical Roman religion to the position of mere “superstitions”87

.

Reformed Interpretation

Refusing to over intellectualise John’s use of language, Calvin preferred a very simple and

straight forward explanation of John’s reference to Christ as “the Word”. Calvin reasoned that

John called Christ “the Word” firstly because “He is the eternal wisdom and will of God”, and

secondly because “he is the express image of His purpose”88

. Calvin argues that just as speech

is the expression of man’s thoughts, so the Word is the expression of God.

Neo-Orthodox Interpretation

Karl Barth commented:

“Jesus Christ, the Word of God, meets us as no other than God, but in another

way, in a different way of being compared with God in so far as God speaks the

Word, in so far as the Word goes forth from Him. The same revelation thus

compels us to separate God and His Word and also to unite them.”89

Barth’s exegesis of John’s prologue: “In the beginning with God was this One, Jesus

Christ. And precisely that is the predestination”90

; caused him to redefine the doctrine of

election. Barth asserted that the Λόγος never existed “in and for himself”, in “a mode of

87

Kahlos, M., “Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures c. 360-430”, Ashgate New

Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007, p98. 88

Calvin, J., “The Gospel According to St. John: Part 1 (1-10)”, Translated by Parker, T. H. L., Wm.

B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988, p7. 89

Barth, K., “Church Dogmatics”, Volume 1, Part 1, T & T Clark, 1975, p435. 90

Barth, K., “Church Dogmatics”, Volume 1, Part 2, T & T Clark, 1975, p146.

of 33

state of being above and prior to the eternal decision to be incarnate in time”91

. In

Reformed theology, the Λόγος appeared in the eternal plan (predestination) of God as

incarnandus92

only insofar as he was the object of election, whilst in Barth’s view, the Λόγος

is determined to be incarnandus as a consequence of a prior decision made by the triune

God93

. Barth concluded that Jesus Christ is both the object and the subject election; in other

words, He is both the electing God and the elect human in whom salvation is found94

. Thus

Barth affirms a universal election.

Reader-Response Interpretation

Reader-response theory sees the reader as an active agent who contributes the meaning of the

text through it interpretation and argues that literature should be regarded as a performing art

in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, interpretation of the text.

A good example of the use of Reader-Response theory for the interpretation of the prologue

to the Fourth Gospel is found in the work of Phillips, who argues that the Fourth Gospel uses

a strategy which he calls “sequential disclosure” to firstly disorientate the reader, and then to

give gradual information in order to allow the reader to overcome his initial disorientation95

.

Phillips likens the prologue to the entrance of a Roman temple: some temples had narrow,

uninviting entrances which were accessed only by the initiated, dedicated followers, whilst

other temples had wide, open entrances, accessible to the public at large96

.

91

McCormack, B. L., “Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth”, Baker

Academic, 2009, p186. 92

“To be incarnated”. 93

Webster, J., “The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth”, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p94. 94

Webster, J., “The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth”, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p93. 95

Phillips, P. M., “The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading”, Volume 294 of Library

of New Testament studies, T & T Clark, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006, p18. 96

Phillips, P. M., p1.

of 33

Phillips analysis concerns itself not so much with identifying the source of the term Λόγος,

but rather with the use of the term and other lexemes to create a sense of community identity,

to foster convergence with those outside the “ingroup”97

. He investigates the linguistic

meaning of Λόγος as well as the cultural setting in order to determine the manner in which the

original readers of the Fourth Gospel may have understood the term. Noting that the standard

lexical reference materials generally interpret Λόγος through encyclopaedic knowledge which

is outwith the context and setting of the immediate text and which is constrained by Christian

orthodoxy, Phillips asserts that any interpretation of Λόγος must allow the intended first

century readers to understand its use98

.

Analysing the New Testament use of the term Λόγος, Phillips notes that John uses the

nominative form of the word much more frequently than any other New Testament writer,

which associates the messenger very closely with the message99

. Moreover, the normal

meaning of Λόγος in New Testament usage is “teaching” or “message”, with Revelation

19:13 being the only other occurrence of Λόγος in reference to Jesus100

. Thus Phillips

concludes that the use of Λόγος in the prologue is unprecedented in Christian literature,

strongly suggesting that the author’s agenda was to address readers beyond the

Christian community101

.

Phillips thus explores the usage of Λόγος in extra Biblical literature, concluding that the term

was familiar in schools of Hellenistic religion and philosophy, including the Heracliteans,

Stoics, Hermetics and Gnostics102

.

Phillips also considers similarities between the Λόγος of the prologue and the Λόγος of

Philo’s writings103

, but notes that the differences in use are just as striking as the similarities,

97

Phillips, P. M., p73. 98

Phillips. P. M., p79. 99

Phillips comments that in John the “message and messenger are synonymous”, Phillips, P. M., p82. 100



Phillips, P. M., pp-90-106. 103

Ibid, pp106-111.

of 33

and hence concludes that John’s use of Λόγος cannot be regarded as depend upon Philo104

.

Phillips also notes similarities between Λόγος in the prologue and the Old Testament Word of

God and t depicted in the Targums, but notes that nowhere does the Word of God appear as a

separate entity to Yahweh105

.

Thus, Phillips asserts that the author of the Fourth Gospel employs a strategy of using

contemporary religious jargon in order to reach out to readers outside of the Christian

community106

. Central to this strategy is the resemanticization of the term Λόγος, using the

term in a manner which resonates with various schools of religious thought (both Hebrew and

Greek), and yet redefines the term by using it to focus directly on the incarnation of the Λόγος

in Jesus Christ107

. Phillips concludes that the author was deeply Jewish, steeped in Jewish

scriptural traditions, but chose to use a Greek veneer to open up the text giving easy access to

those outside the Jewish and Christian communities.

DISCUSSION

In the foregoing linguistic definitions have been reviewed, various cultural backgrounds have

been discussed and the manner in which the Fourth Gospel has been received and interpreted

over the years has been reviewed.

It has been seen that John’s use of the term Λόγος would resonate very closely with several

different cultural viewpoints of his day. One weakness of many of the interpretations

postulated is that there has been an emphasis on identifying key influences upon the author of

the Fourth Gospel. For example, Bultmann postulated that the prologue was originally a pre-

104

Ibid, p111. 105

Ibid, p135. 106

Ibid, p106. 107

Ibid, p224.

of 33

Christian Gnostic hymn108

. Others, however, have seen chronological difficulties with

Bultmann’s thesis, and have concluded that the Gnostic literature and the Gospel of John

share a dependency on Jewish Wisdom Literature109

, whilst others see a dependency on

Hellenism, Hellentistic Judaism110

, the Targums111

or the Old Testament itself112

.

However, it should be noted that there is a major difference between similarity and

dependency. Whilst the Fourth Gospel shares many similarities with several different cultural

influences prevalent at the time of writing, it also exhibits several key differences which

distinguish the Johannine use of Λόγος from all others. This is particularly seen in the idea of

the Λόγος becoming flesh, which appears to be a uniquely Johannine concept.

Thus, it appears that the best explanation for John’s use of the term Λόγος is not to be found

in identifying a specific literary, philosophical or religious source upon which the author drew

direct inspiration, but rather to see John’s use of the term as a resemantization of term that

was in common usage in several different but contemporary cultural settings. In other words,

we may conclude that the most significant influence upon John is not to be found in Greek or

Hebrew culture or thought, but is found in the person of Jesus Christ, with whom he was

personally acquainted throughout Christ’s earthly ministry.

Thus, we may agree with Phillips’ conclusion, that the author of the Fourth Gospel used a

writing strategy that deliberately used language common to those outwith the Christian

community in order to make the Gospel message accessible to them.

Whilst this conclusion opposes Bultmann’s thesis of dependency on Gnostic beliefs, it does

confirm Bultmann’s notion that the Gospel borrowed the language of the day. Whilst

108

Endō, M., “Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early

Jewish Creation Accounts”, Volume 149 of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,

Mohr Siebeck, 2002, p1. 109

Ibid, p4. 110

Ruebelt notes that Adam Clarke and the school of Tubingen both held a to a dependency between

Philo and the Gospel of John with respect to the use of the term logos. See: Ruebelt, J. A., “The Logos

of Philo Judaeus and that of St. John”, Methodist review, Volume 40, Methodist Book Concern, 1858,

pp110-111. 111


Bruce, F. F., “The Gospel of John”, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994, p29.

of 33

Bultmann regarded the Λόγος purely as mythological language, conservative scholarship

asserts that whilst John used language that was familiar to non-Christians (which could be

defined as mythological), he redefined the meaning of Λόγος by fixing the title to the real

person of Jesus Christ, whilst affirming both His divinity and eternal existence. Indeed, this

was the point emphasised by Tertullian113

.

At times, Evangelical thinking has objected to any connection between Greek philosophical

thought and the Λόγος of the Fourth Gospel. Peters, for instance, sees a major danger of

“compromise, accommodation and syncretism” with other faiths if it is accepted that the

Λόγος is the λόγος σπέρματικος114

. Peters accuses Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and

Tillich of propagating a theology which compromises the unique revelation found in Christ115

.

However, Peters’ accusations appear to be severely overstated: Justin Martyr actually asserted

that the Greeks had copied the idea of Λόγος from Judaeo-Christian literature116

, and both

Clement117

and Tillich pointed to major differences between the Greek concept of Λόγος as

the universal principle, and the Christian teaching of the divine Word as a concrete reality in

the person of Jesus Christ118

.

Peters’ reservations do have some validity. For instance, in considering the role of the Fourth

Gospel in a modern, pluralistic culture, Culpepper observed that the similarity between John’s

Λόγος theology and other religious traditions “undercuts the triumphalism that Christendom

113

Tertullian, “Apology”, Chapter 21, in Schaff, P., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 3: Latin

Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian”, William B. Eerdmans, 2001, p34-36. 114

Peters, G. W., “Current Theological Issues in World Missions”, Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 135,

1978, pp153-164. 115

Ibid. 116

Justin Martyr believed that Plato had barrowed much of his think regarding divinity from Moses.

See: Justin Martyr, “The First Apology, Chapter LX”, in Schaff, P., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers –

Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Ireneus”, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 2001, p183. 117

Schaff, P., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 2: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian,

Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria”, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001,

p168. 118

Tillich, P., “The History of Christian Thought: Lecture 3 – The Intertestamental Period”,

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2310&C=2309.

of 33

has a monopoly on the revelation of God”119

. Culpepper contrasts Johannine exclusivism120

with the universal implications of John’s Λόγος theology121

and concludes that John’s

prologue allows Christians to affirm that adherents of other faiths may come to know God

through the cosmic Λόγος. Whilst Culpepper notes that John neither omits nor denies Christ’s

redemptive death, he argues that the Fourth Gospel translates the sacrificial imagery into an

idiom that features Jesus as the Λόγος “revealer”, and asserts that redemption is found

through response to that revelation122

. Culpepper asserts that modern interpretation requires

“a hermeneutics of ethical accountability”123

. The danger in Culpepper’s view is that ethics

become the dominant factor in interpretation, at the expense of theology and orthodoxy.

Thus, one must be careful to distinguish between the choice of John’s language and

compromise in his message. Whilst the Fourth Gospel uses language which makes the Gospel

accessible to readers from non-Christian backgrounds, it nevertheless emphasises that

redemption is found only through belief in Jesus Christ124

.

Phillips’ conclusion that the author simply chose to use common language in order to make

the message amenable to those outside the Christian community without compromising his

message, viz. that redemption is found through faith in Christ alone; appears to constitute the

best explanation for John’s use of the term Λόγος as a title for Jesus.

119

Culpepper, R. A., “The Gospel of John as a Document of Faith”, in Segovia, F. F., “What is John?

Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel”, Scholars Press, 1996, p124. 120

Most notably that salvation is found only through confession of Jesus as Lord; see Culpepper, R. A.,

“The Gospel of John as a Document of Faith”, in Segovia, F. F., “What is John? Readers and Readings

of the Fourth Gospel”, Scholars Press, 1996, p121. 121

Bauckham, R., Mosser, C., “The Gospel of John and Christian Theology”, Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing, 2008, p4. 122

Culpepper, R. A., “The Theology of the Gospel of John”, Review and Expositor, Volume 85, 1988,

p423. 123

Culpepper, R. A., “The Gospel of John as a Document of Faith”, in Segovia, F. F., “What is John?

Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel”, Scholars Press, 1996, p127. 124

This is made abundantly clear through phrases such as: “He came to that which was his own, but his

own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the

right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a

husband's will, but born of God” (Jn 1:11-13); “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but

whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's

one and only Son” (Jn 3:18); “For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes

in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:40).

of 33

CONCLUSION

It clear that at the time of writing, John was surrounded by a rich culture in both

Jewish and Greek realms that ascribed at least some attributes of the divine to the

“Word”. Thus, the most likely reason for John’s use of the term Λόγος as a title for

Jesus in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel is his desire to make the Gospel message

accessible to non-Christians by using language with which they were familiar.

In so doing, John does not compromise his message, but redefines Λόγος by fixing the title to

the real person of Jesus Christ.

of 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GENERAL REFERENCES

The Holy Bible, New International Version, Zondervan Bible Publishers,

International Bible Society, 1984.

“The Holy Bible”, Authorized Version, 1769 Blayney Edition of the 1611 King James

Version of the English Bible.

INTERNET RESOURCES

“The Catholic Encyclopaedia”, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch.

REFERENCES

Armand, J. G. Jr., “The Testimony of the Fourth Evangelist to the Johannine

Community”, Trafford Publishing, 2004.

Augustine, “The Trinity”: in Schaff, P., “On the Holy Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises;

Moral Treatises”, The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890.

Augustine, “Tractates on the Gospel of John”.

Balz, H., Sxhneider, G., “Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament”, William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990 (Electronic version from PC Study Bible

Version 5; Biblesoft, 1988-2007 - note page numbers not available with this product).

Barclay, W., “The Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of John – Volume 1”, The Saint

Andrews Press, 1975.

Barth, K., “Church Dogmatics”, Volume 1, Part 1, T & T Clark, 1975.

Barth, K., “Church Dogmatics”, Volume 1, Part 2, T & T Clark, 1975.

Bauckham, R., Mosser, C., “The Gospel of John and Christian Theology”, Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.

Brown, C., “New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology”, Volume 3,

Paternoster Press, 1986.

Bruce, F. F., “The Gospel of John”, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994.

of 33

Bultmann, R. “Jesus Christ and Mythology”, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957.

Bultmann, R. K., “Theology of the New Testament”, Baylor University Press, 2007.

Bultmann, R., “New Testament and Mythology”, Fortress Press, 1984.

Calvin, J., “The Gospel According to St. John: Part 1 (1-10)”, Translated by Parker, T.

H. L., Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

Carson, D. A., “The Gospel According to John”, Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans

1991.

Culpepper, R. A., “The Gospel of John as a Document of Faith”, in Segovia, F. F.,

“What is John? Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel”, Scholars Press, 1996.

Culpepper, R. A., “The Theology of the Gospel of John”, Review and Expositor,

Volume 85, 1988.

Dodd, C. H., “Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel”, Cambridge University Press,

1953.

Endō, M., “Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light

of Early Jewish Creation Accounts”, Volume 149 of Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Mohr Siebeck, 2002.

Evans, C. A., “Word and glory: on the exegetical and theological background of

John's prologue”, Volume 89 of Journal for the study of the New Testament,

Continuum International Publishing Group, 1993

Friedlander, G., “Hellenism and Christianity”, P. Vallentine & Son's, 1912.

Grant, R. M., “Jesus After the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century”,

Westminster John Knox Press, 1990.

Grant, R. M., Tracy, D. “A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible”, 2nd Ed.,

Fortress Press, 1984.

Hendricksen, W. “The Gospel of John”, Banner of Truth Trust, 1954.

Justin Martyr, “The First Apology, Chapter LX”, in Schaff, P., “The Ante-Nicene

Fathers – Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Ireneus”, Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

Kahlos, M., “Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures c. 360-430”,

Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies, Ashgate

Publishing, Ltd., 2007.

Kamesar, A., “The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical

Interpretation: Philo and the D-Scholia to the Iliad”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine

Studies, 2004.

of 33

Kärkkäinen, V. M., “An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical,

Historical, and Contemporary Perspectives”, InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Kittle, G., Friedrich, G., Bromiley, “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament”,

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989 (Libronix Electronic Version; page numbers

not available).

Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., “The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old

Testament”, Koninklijke Brill NV, 1994-2000 (electronic version employed – no page

numbers available with this product)

McCormack, B. L., “Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth”,

Baker Academic, 2009.

Morris, L., “The New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Gospel

According to John”, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Origen, “Commentary on the Gospel of John”, Book 1, para. 42.

Paterson, J., “The Book That is Alive”, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1954.

Peters, G. W., “Current Theological Issues in World Missions”, Bibliotheca Sacra,

Volume 135, 1978, pp153-164.

Phillips, P. M., “The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading”, Volume

294 of Library of New Testament studies, T & T Clark, Continuum International

Publishing Group, 2006.

Philo, “On the Cherubim: 127”, in Yonge, C. D., “The Works of Philo”, H. G. Bohn,

1854, p134.

Ronning, J., “The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology”, Hendrickson Pub.,

2010.

Ruebelt, J. A., “The Logos of Philo Judaeus and that of St. John”, Methodist review,

Volume 40, Methodist Book Concern, 1858, pp110-111.

Schaff, P., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 2: Fathers of the Second Century:

Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria”, Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

Tanner, K., “Karl Barth’s Christology”: in: Webster, J., “The Cambridge Companion

to Karl Barth”, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Tertullian, “Apology”, Chapter 21, in Schaff, P., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume

3: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian”, William B. Eerdmans, 2001.

Thompson, M. M., “The Gospel According to John”, in Barton, S. C., “The

Cambridge Companion to the Gospels”, Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Tillich, P., “The History of Christian Thought: Lecture 3 – The Intertestamental

Period”, http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2310&C=2309.

of 33

VanGemeren, W. A., “New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis”, Volume 1, Paternoster Press, 1997.

Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., White, W. “Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old

and New Testament words”, Thomas Nelson, 1996.

Webster, J., “The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth”, Cambridge University Press,

2000.

of 33

APPENDIX 1: DODD’S COMPARISON OF JOHN’S PROLOGUE WITH THE WRITINGS OF PHILO

The following comparison of the prologue to the Fourth Gospel and Philo has been reproduced from

Dodd’s original work1, expanded to include translations from the Greek using Yonge’s translation of

Philo2 and Ronning’s notes of Dodd’s work

3.

Gospel of John Philo

VEn avrch/| h=n o` lo,goj

In the beginning was the Word (1:1)

Before creation, God conceived in His mind the κόσμος νοητός, which is His λόγος (On Creation of the World, 24).

o` lo,goj h=n pro.j to.n qeo,n

the Word was with God (1:1)

God sent forth His younger son, the κόσμος αίσθητος, but kept the elder, the κόσμος νοητός (λόγος), παρ’ έαυτῷ (That God is Unchangeable, 31).

qeo.j h=n o lo,goj

The Word was God (1:1)

The anarthrous θεός may be used of the λόγος, while ό θεός is reserved for the Self-existent (On Dreams, 1. 228-30).

pa,nta diV auvtou/ evge,neto

All things were made by him (1:3)

God is the αίτιος ὑφ γέγονεν, the λόγος is ὃργανον δί οΰ (On the Cherubim, I27).

God is the cause of creation, while the λόγος is the instrument through

which it is framed

evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n

In him was life (1:4)

Dodd found no direct correlation, but pointed to Philo’s interpretation of the command to flee to the cities of refuge as a command to flee to “highest word of God, which is the fountain of

wisdom, in order that by drinking of that stream he may find

everlasting life instead of death” (On Flight & Finding, 97).

Dodd also pointed to Philo’s statement “that a man who lives in an

irrational manner [ἀλόγως] is separated from the life of God” (On the Posterity of Cain. 68-9).

evn auvtw/|…fw/j tw/n avnqrw,pwn\

In Him...was the light of men (1:4)

τό μέν παράδειγμα ό πληρέστατος αύτοὒ λόγος, φῶς – ‘είπε’ άρφησιν

‘ό θεος γενέσθω φῶς’ - the real model was his own most perfect

word, the light, and he himself is like to no created thing. (On Dreams, 1.75).

Philo speaks of the adversity of the νοητόν φῶς θείου λόγου είκών

[light which is perceptible to God alone] and darkness - (On the Creation, 33).

The φῶς άσώματον [incorporeal light] is the πρεσβύτατος [elder] or πρωτόγονος υίός [firstborn son] (which is elsewhere called the λόγος

– see above). (On the Confusion of Tongues, 60-3).

1 Dodd, C. H., “Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel”, Cambridge University Press, 1953, pp276-277.

2 Yonge, C. D., “The works of Philo: complete and unabridged”, Hendrickson Pub., 1993.

3 Ronning, J., “The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology”, Hendrickson Pub., 2010, pp6-7.

of 33

o[soi de. e;labon auvto,n( e;dwken auvtoi/j evxousi,an te,kna qeou/ gene,sqai

Yet to all who received him...he gave the

right to become children of God (1:12)

Philo notes that in Deut. 14:1, Moses call the Israelites “Sons of the

Lord God” - Μωσῆς όμολογεί φάσκων, Υίοί έστε κυρίου τοὔ θεοὔ

κἂν μηδέπω μέντοι τυγχάνῃ τις άξιόχρεως ὤν υίος θεοὕ προσαγο-

ρεύεσθαι, σπουδαζέτω κοσμείσθαν κατα τόν πρωτόγονον αύτοΰ

λόγον, εί μήπω ίκανοί θεοΰ παίδες νομίζεσθαι γεγόναμεν, άλλά

τοι...λογου τοΰ ίερωτάτου’ θεοΰ γάρ είκών λόγος ό πρεσβύτατος

And if there be not as yet anyone who is worthy to be called a son of

God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to

his first-born word... for he is called, the authority, and the name of

God, and the Word (On the Confusion of Tongues, 145-7)

Qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ monogenh.j qeo.j o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j evkei/noj evxhgh,satoÅ

No-one has ever seen God, but God the

One and Only, who is at the Father's

side, has made him known (1:18).

Commenting on Ex. 24:10, which in the LXX says “they saw the place where the God of Israel stood”, Philo says that those that follow Moses as their guide will see this place, for it is natural for them to

εΰπρεπές....έφίεσθαι μέν τοΰ τό ὂν ίδειν, εί δέ μή δύναιντο, τἠν γοΰν

είκόνα αύτοΰ, τόν ίερώτατον λόγον (On the Confusion of Tongues, 97)

“it is very suitable for those who have made an association for the

purpose of learning to desire to see him; and, if they are unable to do

that, at least to see his image, the most sacred word”

Note: Dodd’s original comparisons were generally in Greek, and are reproduced in blue in the table

above. Translations of the Greek are shown in Times New Roman italics. Translations from the Gospel o

John are taken from the New International Version.

of 33

APPENDIX 2: DODD’S COMPARISON OF JOHN’S PROLOGUE WITH WISDOM LITERATURE

The following comparison of the prologue to the Fourth Gospel and Philo has been reproduced from

Dodd’s original work1, expanded to include translations from the Greek.

Gospel of John Wisdom Literature

VEn avrch/| h=n o` lo,goj

In the beginning was the Word (1:1)

“The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old” (Proverbs 8:222)

o` lo,goj h=n pro.j to.n qeo,n

the Word was with God (1:1)

I was beside him (Proverbs 8:303)

th.n tw/n sw/n qro,nwn pa,redron sofi,an - give me the wisdom that sits

by your throne (Wisdom 9:4)

pa,nta diV auvtou/ evge,neto

All things were made by him (1:3)

o poih,saj ta. pa,nta evn lo,gw| sou kai. th/| sofi,a| sou kataskeua,saj a;nqrwpon - who have made all things by your word, and by your

wisdom have formed humankind (Wisdom 9:1-2)

“Then I was the craftsman at his side” (Proverbs 8:304)

By wisdom the LORD founded the earth (Proverbs 3:19)

for wisdom, the fashioner of all things (Proverbs 7:22)

evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n

In him was life (1:4)

For whoever finds me finds life (Proverbs 8:35)

h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j tw/n avnqrw,pwn\

that life was the light of men. (1:4)

(sofi,a) The one who is the true light (Wisdom 7:26)

to. fw/j evn th/| skoti,a| fai,nei( kai. h` skoti,a auvto. ouv kate,laben

The light shines in the darkness, but

the darkness has not understood it.

(1:4)

(sofi,a) fwti. sugkrinome,nh euri,sketai prote,ra tou/to me.n ga.r diade,cetai nu,x sofi,aj de. ouv katiscu,ei kaki,a

...compared with the light, she is found before it. For after this

cometh night: but vice shall not prevail against wisdom. (Wisdom 7:29-30)

evn tw/| ko,smw| h=n

He was in the world (1:10)

diatei,nei de. avpo. pe,ratoj evpi. pe,raj euvrw,stwj kai. dioikei/ ta. pa,nta crhstw/j

She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and

she orders all things well. (Wisdom 8:1)

evn pa,sh| th/| gh/| kai. evn panti. law/| kai. e;qnei evkthsa,mhn

over all the earth, and over every people and nation I have held

sway (Sirach24:6)

1 Dodd, C. H., “Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel”, Cambridge University Press, 1953, pp274-275.

2 Wisdom is speaking.

3 Again, Wisdom is talking.

4 Again, Wisdom is talking.

of 33

Gospel of John Wisdom Literature

o` ko,smoj auvto.n ouvk e;gnw

the world did not recognise him (1:10)

evmi,shsan ga.r sofi,an

for they hated wisdom (Proverbs 1:29)

eivj ta. i;dia h=lqen( kai. oi` i;dioi auvto.n ouv pare,labon

He came to that which was his own,

but his own did not receive him (1:11)

Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of

men, and found no dwelling-place (Enoch 62:2)

o[soi de. e;labon auvto,n( e;dwken auvtoi/j evxousi,an te,kna qeou/ gene,sqai

Yet to all who received him, to those

who believed in his name, he gave the

right to become children of God (1:12)

eivj yuca.j o`si,aj metabai,nousa fi,louj qeou/ kai. profh,taj kataskeua,zei

she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy

souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets (Wisdom 7:27)

evskh,nwsen evn h`mi/n

made his dwelling among us (1:14)

o kti,saj me kate,pausen th.n skhnh,n mou kai. ei=pen evn Iakwb kataskh,nwson

my Creator chose the place for my tent. He said, 'Make your

dwelling in Jacob (Sirach24:8)

do,xan wj monogenou/j para. patro,j

the glory of the One and Only, who

came from the Father (1:14)

e;stin ga.r evn auvth/| pneu/ma…monogene,j…avtmi.j ga,r evstin th/j tou/ qeou/ duna,mewj kai. avpo,rroia th/j tou/ pantokra,toroj do,xhj..............

There is in her a spirit that is…unique…For she is a breath of

the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the

Almighty (Wisdom 7:22,25)

Note: Dodd’s original comparisons were generally in Greek, and are reproduced in blue in the table

above. Translations of the Greek are shown in Times New Roman italics. Translations from the Old and

New Testaments are taken from the New International Version, and translations of the Apocrypha are

from the New Revised Standard Version.

of 33

APPENDIX 3: PHILLIPS’S ANALYSES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT USAGE OF ΛΌΓΟΣ

Table A.3.1: Various Uses of Λόγος in Gospels and Johannine Literature (After Phillips)

Table A.3.2: Analyses of the Nominative Uses of Λόγος in the Fourth Gospel (After Phillips)

of 33

Table A.3.3: Analyses of the Usage of Λόγος in the Johannine Literature (After Phillips)

steve adair nt 634 isr103 a4

Documents

gospel of john course

greater works of john

john use logos

audio number

course study guide

na project number

module number

study guide herepage