On the other hand, when we examine the parallels adduced in detail, we
cannot help noticing that many catch-words of the Philonian doctrine are
entirely absent from the Fourth Gospel: πρεσβύτατος in many connexions
(Grill, p. 106); πρεσβύτατος υἱός (p. 107); πρωτόγονος (pp. 106, 107);
μέσος τῶν ἅκρων, ἀμφοτέροις ὁμηρεύων (p. 106); λόγος ἀίδιος, ὁ ἐγγυτάτω
(sc. θεοῦ), εἰκὼν ὑπάρχων θεοῦ (a term which occurs in St. Paul and in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, but not in St. John); λόγος ἀρχέτυπος, σκιὰ
θεοῦ (p. 108); μεθόριος στάς, μεθόριός τις θεοῦ (καὶ ἀνθρώπου) φυύις
(pp. 109 f.); τῆς μακαρίας φύσεως ἐκμαγεῖον ἢ ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ἀπαύγασμα (p.
115); λόγος ἀόρατος καὶ σπερματικὸς καὶ τεχνικὸς καὶ θεῖος (p. 112).
Among these expressions are several that at an early date entered into
Christian literature, but they are not found in the Fourth Gospel.
It is probably to such examples as these that Dr. Drummond refers when
he speaks of ‘the total absence of Philo’s special vocabulary not only
in relation to God, but in regard to the Logos’ (_Character_, &c., p.
24).