And, first, as to the agreement. I have said that Philo’s philosophy, in
spite of its decorative exuberance and prolixity, is yet at bottom a
system. And in the main outline of that system the Evangelist coincides
with him.
By the side of the Eternal, Philo has what he himself called ‘a second
God’ (πρὸς τὸν δεύτερον θεόν, ὅς ἔστιν ἐκείνου λόγος Grill, _Entstehung
d. vierten Evang._ p. 109); and this second God he called ‘the Divine
Word.’ The Word was Himself God (καλεῖ δὲ θεὸν τὸν πρεσβύτατον αὐτοῦ
νυνὶ λόγον, ibid.). The Word was the agent or instrument (ὄργανον) in
creation (ibid., p. 110).
The action of the Word is not infrequently compared to that of Light;
and although it is nowhere said that the Word is Life[55], there are
contexts in which the ideas of light and life appear in connexion[56].
In like manner there is a certain amount of parallelism for the idea of
the Word coming to his own and being rejected; it is the Word that makes
the mind receptive of good; there are some who may be fitly called ‘sons
of God,’ and those for whom this title is too high may at least model
themselves after the pattern of the Word. The parallels for the later
part of the Prologue are slighter, until we come to the last verse (ver.
18). Philo fully shares the conception of the transcendence of God, and
speaks of the Logos as His ‘prophet’ and ‘interpreter[57].’
There are many coincidences of idea in the attributes ascribed to the
Logos, as existing in heaven, as revealing the name of God, as
possessing supernatural knowledge and power, as continually at work, as
eternal, as free from sin, as instructing and convincing, as dwelling in
the souls of men, as high priest towards God, as the source of unity, of
joy and peace, as imparting eternal life, as bridegroom, father, guide,
steersman, shepherd, physician, as imparting manna, the food of the
soul[58].
I am by no means clear that the case for the connexion of the Logos of
St. John with the Logos of Philo is really much strengthened by these
parallels. If we ask ourselves whether they necessarily imply literary
dependence, I think we should have to answer in the negative. We have to
remember that Philo and St. John alike have the Old Testament behind
them. Whatever is suggested by this may as well come from it directly,
and not through a further literary medium. And, when once we have the
idea of the Logos, there are a number of epithets and metaphors that
would go with it almost of themselves.