Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation

8/12/2019 Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation

1/19

The Prologue of Johnand Hellenistic Jewish Speculation

THOMAS H. TOBIN, S.J.

Loyola University of ChicagoChicago, IL 60626

OVER THE CENTURIESthe Prologue of the Gospel of John has fascinated

not only exegetes and theologians but also writers and artists of all sorts.

Part of that fascination is the way in which the Prologue seems to offer the

interpreter connections with many of the religious currents of the ancient

world, whether Jewish or Greek. The specification of those connections,

however, has been elusive. As the late George W. MacRae, S.J., has pointed

out, the Gospel of John seems to reflect a number of the religious currents

of the time and yet remain uniquely itself.1

In this article, my interest will be focused on the hymn that is part of the

Prologue, not on the way in which that hymn has been integrated and rein

terpreted so as to form a Prologue to the Gospel as a whole.21 shall suggest

1 G. W. MacRae, "The Fourth Gospel and Religionsgeschichte," Studies in the New

Testament and Gnosticism (ed. D. J. Harrington and S. B. Marrow; Good News Studies 26;

Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987) 15-31. This article is dedicated to the memory of

George W. MacRae, S.J.2A few scholars think that the Prologue of the Gospel of John is a unified whole and

the work of the author of the Gospel (e.g., C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John[2d

ed.;Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978] 150-51; P. Borgen, "Observations on the Targumic Char

acter of the Prologue of John,"NTS 16 [1970] 288-95). Most scholars, however, think that

behind the present form of the Prologue lies a hymn which has been expanded and commented


2/19

THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN 253

a plausible world of thought, in this case the world of Hellenistic Jewish

interpretation and speculation, of which the hymn in the Prologue was a

part. This involves placing the text of the hymn within a larger world of

Hellenistic Jewish texts which share certain basic perspectives, conceptualframeworks, and vocabulary.3

In distinguishing the originallogoshymn from the rest of the Prologue,

I basically agree with the position of Raymond E. Brown.4 According to

Brown, the original hymn consisted of John l:l-5,10-12b,14,16. The verses

about John the Baptist (John 1:6-8,15) clearly disrupt the flow of the hymn

both in terms of content and of style. John 1:9, although less clearly so, is

best interpreted as part of John 1:6-8, that is, as part of John the Baptist's

testimony. John 1:12c-13 and 17-18 are explanatory additions to the hymn( w 12b-13 an explanation of who have been given the power to become

children of God; w 17-18 an explanation of the relationship of Jesus and the

Mosaic law). Unlike Brown, however, I think that the first reference in the

hymn to theincarnateWord is found in John 1:14 rather than in John 1:10.5

The repetition ofho logosin John 1:14 as well as the content of John1:14,16

suggest that a new stage has been reached, that is, the stage of the incarnation

itself when the Word now communicates withus indimore direct and per

sonal way.6Only when the hymn was integrated into the beginning of the

Gospel and John 1:6-9 about John the Baptist were introduced between John

1:5 and John 1:10 did the incarnation come to be seen as taking place at John

1:10.

The logoshymn is obviously rooted in the Jewish wisdom tradition or

perhaps more accurately in the tradition of Jewish wisdom speculation. That

connection has been demonstrated most recently and most thoroughly by

Gerard Rochais.7Rochais points out the many conceptual and verbal par-

3The position I shall argue is closest to that of C. H. Dodd {The Interpretation of the

Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953J 54-73, 263-85). Some of Dodd's par

allels, however, are too broad. Because of this I have tried to specify more clearly the elements

in the hymn that Dodd pointed to and to suggest other ones.4 R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John(2 vols.; AB 29, 29A; Garden City, NY:

Doubleday, 1966-70) 1. 3-37.5 R. Schnackenburg,The Gospel According to John(3 vols.; Herder's Theological Com

mentary on the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1968-82) 1. 221-81; W. Schmithals, "Der

Prolog des Johannesevangeliums,"ZNW10 (1978) 16-43; J. Becker, Das Evangelium des Jo

hannes, Kapitel I-IO(kumenischer Taschenbuch Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 4/1; G

tersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979) 73-75; Rochais, "La formation du prologue," 161-87.6 C. H. Giblin, "Two Complementary Literary Structures in John1:1-18,"JBL104 (1985)


3/19

254 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I52, 1990

allels between the hymn and texts from Jewish wisdom literature. The var

ious attributes and activities ascribed to wisdom in Jewish wisdom literature

are ascribed to the logos in the hymn in the Prologue.8

Yet significant elements in the hymn cannot be explained simply on thebasis oftextsfrom Jewish wisdom literature. The first of these elements is the

central concept of the hymn itself, that is, the logos. In Jewish wisdom

literature the figure of wisdom (hokm, sophia)was never displaced by the

logos as it was in the hymn of the Prologue. While the cosmic attributes and

activities of thelogosin the hymn are closely connected with those given to

wisdom in Jewish wisdom literature, the use oflogosin place of wisdom goes

beyond Jewish wisdom texts.9

In addition, the functions and attributes of thelogosgo beyond what isfound in Jewish wisdom literature. A significant example of this is the way

in which the role of the logos in the creation of the world is described. In

John 1:3,10, the world is said to have come into beingdVautou, that is dia

tou logou, through the logos. The repetition of the phrase in John 1:3,10

indicates that emphasis is being placed on the making of the world through

the logos.The use of the preposition dia, therefore, is not simply an insig

nificant variant of the instrumental dative(logo)which is found in descrip

tions of the creation of the world by God's word (logg) in Jewish wisdomliterature.10 In addition, the logos is described as "God"(theos, John 1:1),

"an only son"(monogenes, John 1:14), and those who receive the logos are

given the power to become "children of God"(tekna theou, John l:12).n

None of these attributes is ascribed to wisdom in Jewish wisdom literature.

A second element in the hymn that moves beyond the viewpoints found

in Jewish wisdom literature is the stark contrast between light and darkness

and the association of light and life found in John 1:4-5:

8 Ibid., 175-80. Rochais points to texts from Proverbs (8:22-31,35), Sirach(l:15; 24:3-12),

the Wisdom of Solomon (6:12; 7:22-8:1; 8:13,26; 9:9), and Baruch(3:12,31;3:37-4:1) which all

offer parallels to thelogosin the hymn, in the creation of the world, in wisdom's dwelling in the

world of human beings, and in wisdom's rejection by human beings.9 In Ps 33:6 and in Sirach (39:17,31; 43:10,26),dbrj logoswas associated with God's

act of creation and his maintenance of cosmic order. Yetdbrj logos in these passages refers

to God's command (see Gen 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26: "And God said...") and not directly to

some cosmic principle of order as such. For Wis 9:1-2, see n. 15 below.10The texts mentioned in the previous note all have instrumental datives(log) and not

dia tou logou. See also Sib. Or.3:20: "who created everything by a word(log).9*11 Teknonis quite common in Jewish wisdom literature, especially in Sirach. It refers most

f tl ith t th dd d b th i t th hild f ith th i


4/19


4What has come to be in him was life,and this life was the light of men.5And the light shines in the darkness,

and the darkness did not overcome it.Wisdom is certainly associated with light (Wis 6:12; 8:26), and in Wis 7:29-30

wisdom is part of a comparison which involves light and night:

For she (wisdom) is more beautiful than the sun,and excels every constellation of the stars.Compared with the light she is found to be superior,for it (light) is succeeded by the night,but against wisdom evil does not prevail.

In this passage, however, there is no identification of light with wisdom.

Rather one has a contrast between wisdom (over which evil does not prevail)

and light (in which night regularly prevails overday).This text in Wis 7:29-30

remains a simple simile. It is not even, strictly speaking, a metaphor; and it

is obviously not meant to suggest the kind of contrast between light and

darkness that is found in John1:4-5.One must seek for an explanation of this

contrast elsewhere.

A third and final element in thelogoshymn in the Prologue which goes

well beyond the world of Jewish wisdom literature is the most obvious one,the incarnation ofthelogosin Jesus of Nazareth. Certainly the identification

of the logos with Jesus of Nazareth is what is most characteristic, even

unique, about the hymn. Yet one is still entitled to ask whether there are prior

traditions of interpretation which may have prepared for, if not explained,

such an identification. Let us now look at each of these three elements in

detail.

I. The Reality and Functions of the Logos

As I mentioned above, the use of the term logosrather than the term

"wisdom"(sophia)sets the hymn in the Prologue apart from the other ex

amples of Jewish wisdom literature. A number of explanations has been

offered for this change.12The most likely thought-world, however, of which

12One explanation is that the change fromsophia tologoswas the result of the fact that

thelogosin the hymn was identified with Jesus of Nazareth. Because Jesus was male, it was moreappropriate to identify him with a concept(logos)which was grammatically masculine rather

than with one(sophia)which was grammatically feminine (see Brown, The Gospel According


5/19


the hymn of the Prologue was a part is that of Hellenistic Judaism and, more

specifically, of the speculative biblical interpretations of Hellenistic Judaism

represented by a figure such as Philo of Alexandria. It was in this world that

logosplayed a long and increasingly important role, a role which was similarin a number of ways to the role played by the logos in the hymn of the

Prologue.

Logos was an important concept in Hellenistic Judaism and had a long

and complex history. Although the beginnings of this process are lost to us,

fragments from the Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristobulus indicate that this

process had begun by the middle of the second century B.C.E.13The connec

tion between wisdom and logoswas also made explicitly in the Wisdom of

Solomon, a Hellenistic Jewish text from perhapsfirst-centuryB.C.E.Egypt or

Antioch.14 In Wis 9:1-2, although wisdom is clearly the dominant concept,

God's word and God's wisdom were used as two parallel ways of describing

God's creation of the world and his creation of human beings.15

It was, however, in the works of Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 B.C.E.-50

c.E.) and his immediate predecessors that logos found its full flowering in

Hellenistic Jewish literature. In his writings, which were primarily interpre

tations of the LXX version of the Pentateuch (since he probably knew no

Hebrew), he sought to interpret the Mosaic law in the light of Greek, primarily

Middle Platonic, philosophy. The concept of logosplayed a central role in

13 Aristobulus (fl. 150 B.C.E.), who is mentioned in 2 Mace 1:10, was an Alexandrian

Jewish exegete who sought to interpret the LXX. in a way consistent with Greek philosophy,

primarily Stoic philosophy but also including Platonic and Pythagorean elements (see N.

Walter,Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos. Untersuchungen zu seinen Fragmenten undzupseude-

pigrqphischen Resten der jdischen-hellenistischen Literatur[Berlin: Akademie, 1964] 124-49).

In one fragment (Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 13.12.3-4) in which he offered an interpretation of

Gen 1:3,6,9 ("And Godsaid..."), Aristobulus claimed that Moses called the whole genesis of

the world the words(logoi)of God. In another fragment (Eusebius,Praep. Evang.13.12.10-11),Aristobulus connected wisdom (sophia) with a metaphorical interpretation of the seventh day

of creation because, according to his interpretation, all things are contemplated in the light of

wisdom just as all things are contemplated in the light of the seventh day mentioned in Gen 2:2.

He then went on to connect the seventh day with the sevenfold logoswhich is the principle of

order in the world (Eusebius, Praep. Evang.13.12.13). For Aristobulus, then, both wisdom and

logosserved similar cosmological ordering functions (see A. Y. Collins, "Aristobulus," The Old

Testament Pseudepigrapha[ed. J. H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985]

2. 834-35).14 For different views on the place and date of the Wisdom of Solomon, see D. Winston,

The Wisdom of Solomon (AB43; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979) 20-25 (Egypt); D. Georgi,Jdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit 3.4: Weisheit Salomos (Gtersloh: Gerd

Mohn 1980) 395-97 (Syria)


6/19


these interpretations. Philo's use of logosmust be seen within the tradition

of Hellenistic Jewish wisdom speculation since Philo, in continuity with his

predecessors, identified wisdom (sophia) with logos (L.A. 1.65; Her.191;

Som.2.242-45) and gave both some of the same attributes (e.g., image of God[Conf.146]).

For Philo thelogoswas the intermediate reality between God, who was

essentially transcendent, and the universe. While Philo could use the Stoic

concept of thelogosas the principle of rationality that pervades the universe

(Her. 188;Fug. 110), his logos primarily fits into the pattern of the inter

mediate figures found in most Middle Platonic systems.16Philo depicted the

logos in a variety ofways;and the figure had a number of different functions.

For our purposes, the two most important functions are the cosmological andthe anagogie.

One function of the logos was cosmological. The logos was the image

of God, the highest of all beings who were intellectually perceived, the one

closest to God, the only truly existent (Fug.101). As in John 1:1, the logos

could even be referred to with the anarthroustheos (God)(Som. 1.228-30).17

The logos also served as the paradigm or model for the ordering of the

universe(Som. 2.45). The logoswas an image in a twofold way, a reflection

of the truly existent God above and a model on the basis of which the universe

below was ordered. Thelogoswas the archetypal ideainwhich all of the other

ideas were contained(Op.23-25). But thelogoswas not simply the image or

paradigm according to which the universe was ordered, it was also the

instrument(organon)through which(dVhou)the universe was ordered. This

viewpoint is most clearly elaborated in Cher. 125-27:

God is the cause(aition)not the instrument(organon), and that which comesinto being is brought into being not through an instrument(di'organou),but

by a cause(hypo de aitio).For to bring anything into being needs all theseconjointly, the "by which"(tohyph*hou),the "from which"(to exhou),the"through which"(to di'hou),the "for which"(to di'ho), and thefirstof theseis the cause(toaition),the second the material, the third the tool(toergaleion),and the fourth the end or object. Ifweask what combination is always neededthat the house or city should be built, the answer is a builder, stones or timber,

16For a description of those Middle Platonic systems and their intermediate figures, see

J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220(Ithaca, NY: Cornell, 1977). It is interesting to note that the use of the termlogosfor the intermediate figure appears especially in texts

which probably had some relationship to Alexandria (e.g., Philo, Eudorus of Alexandria [see


7/19


and the instruments(organa). What is the builder but the cause "by which"?What are the instruments but the means "through which"? and What is the endor object of the building but shelter and safety, and this constitutes the "forwhich." Let us leave these merely particular buildings, and contemplate thatgreatest of houses or cities, this universe. We shall see that its cause is God, bywhom(hyph'hou)it has come into being, its material the four elements, fromwhich it was compounded, its instrument(organon)the Word of God (logostheou),through which(di'hou)it wasframed,andthefinalcause of the buildingis the goodness of the architect.

In this very elaborate scheme, the logos of God was the instrument

(organon) through which (di' hou) the world was formed. The use of the

phrase, when set in the context of the other causes, is quite specific and

cannot be replaced by some other formulation (e.g., an instrumental

dative).18That thedi'hou part of the formula was the most important part

for Philo can be seen from his use of that formula in other sections of his

works apart from the other prepositions (L.A. 3.96; Sac. 8;Mig. 6; Spec.

1.81).19In addition, the use of the metaphor of God as the master builder or

architect of the universe(Cher.127) clearly connects this passage with Philo's

interpretations of the story of the creation of the world in Genesis 1, where

he makes extensive use of the same metaphor (Op. 7-25).

It is at this point that both the thought and the specific way in which the

thought was expressed in Philo shed light on the hymn in the Prologue. Like

Philo the author of the hymn in the Prologue is clearly commenting on the

story of the creation of the world in Genesis 1. In fact, the hymn begins with

the same words as Gen 1:1 (en arche).Again, like Philo, the author of the

hymn in the Prologue uses the phrasedi'hou to describe the role ofthe logos

in the creation of the world (John 1:3,10). Both Philo and the hymn think of

the logosas the intermediary reality through which(di'hou) the world was

made.

The use of the phrase di' hou in the hymn is not simply an alternate

formulation for an instrumental dative (ho, log), a formulation found ear

lier in the Jewish wisdom tradition. This is so for several reasons. First, the

phrase is used twice (John 1:3,10), and so the author wants to emphasize the

specific role of the logos in creation. This is indicated in John 1:3b: "and

18Philo also comes to apply this language to wisdom inDet.54:"Ifyou accord afather'honour to Him whocreatedtheworld,and a mother's honour toWisdom,throughwhom(di

hs)the universe was brought to completion, you will yourselftobegainer."Thehighly alle


8/19


without it (the logos)nothing came to be."20In other words, the role of the

logoswas quite carefully and consciously formulated. Second, the same for

mula(di'hou) is found elsewhere in the NT (ICor 8:6; Heb 1:2) and in bothcases the context is that ofthe creation ofthe world through an intermediate

figure (1 Cor 8:6, Jesus Christ; Heb 1:2, a son).21The use of the phrase di'

hou in the context of the creation of the world through an intermediate

figure, then, was fairly widely known and used by early Christian writers.

In reality, the use ofthe phrasedi'houto describe an intermediate figure

through whom the world was formed was part of a larger "metaphysics of

prepositions"that was part of the emerging Middle Platonism of the late first

century B.C.E.and the first century CE.22 This metaphysics of prepositions

took several different forms, but common to all of them was the use ofdifferent prepositions to express various types of causality.23 Philo's use of

this metaphysics of prepositions, which is clearly reflected in Cher.125-27,

was Platonic rather than Stoic.24 The use, then, of the phrase di' hou to

describe the role of an intermediate figure in the creation of the world was

not simply an alternate formulation for an instrumental dative but was part

20For the proper punctuation of John 1:3b, see Brown,The Gospel According to John,

1. 6 and I. de la Potterie, "De interpunctione et interpretatione versuum Joh. i, 3,4,"VD33(1955) 193-208.

21 On 1 Cor 8:6, see R. A. Horsley, "The Background of the Confessional Formula in 1

Kor 8:6,"ZNW 69 (1978) 130-35. Horsley quite rightly points out that Rom 11:36 ("For from

him and through him and to him are all things9*) is a doxological omnipotence formula and

should be distinguished from the pre-Pauline formula in 1Cor 8:6. For Heb 1:2, see J. R Meier,

"Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1-14,"Bib66 (1985) 168-89.22 Examples of the metaphysics of prepositions are found in Seneca(Ep.65.8-10), Atius

(apud Stobaeus, Diels 287b-288b), and in Varr(apud Augustine, De Civ. D. 7.28). For dis

cussions of the complexity of the origin and history of the metaphysics of prepositions see W.

Theiler, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus (2d ed.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1964) 1-60; H.Dorne, "Die Erneuerung des Piatonismus im ersten Jahrhundert vor Christus," Platonica Mi

nora(Studia et Testimonia Antiqua8;Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1976) 157-58; Dillon, The Middle

Platonists, 137-39.23The two examples of the use ofdi'hou as part of ftiis metaphysics of prepositions are

found in Alkinoos (Albinus?)(Didaskalikos, IV, p. 154,8-22; XII, pp. 166,35-168,5 [Hermann])

and in Potamon (apud Diogenes Laertius 1.21). The formulation of Alkinoos may be a re

working of a treatise of the first centuryB.C.E.Alexandrian philosopher Arius Didymus (see T.

H. Tobin,The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation [CBQMS 14; Wash

ington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983] 70-71). If we are to judge from a comparison of

Cher.125-27 and Porphyry(apud Simplicius,In Phys.3.16), Philo's use ofdi'hou is part of the

Platonic tradition (cf. Seneca, Ep.65, 4-10).24 Philo's own use of the metaphysics of prepositions may depend on the work of the first


9/19


of a widespread topos in Middle Platonism which was taken up by Helle

nistic Jewish interpreters. It was probably on this tradition of Hellenistic

Jewish interpretation that the author of the Prologue depended for his de

scription of thelogosas that through which(di'hou) the world was formed.A second function ofthelogosin Philo was anagogical, that is, thelogos

was meant to guide the human soul to the realm of the divine. For Philo the

goal of the human soul was the knowledge and vision of God(Deus 143), to

become like God or to be assimilated to God (homoisis t theo) (Fug.63).

The possibility ofthehuman soul attaining the knowledge and vision of God

was rooted in the soul's fundamental relationship to and participation in the

divinelogos. Once the human soul had turned to God(Praem. 163), it could

then detach itself from the body and the realm of sense perception (Fug.

91-92;Her.69-74) and mystically rise above the material world and be freeto contemplate the divine logos (Som. 1.71; 2.249) and in some very limited

sense even God himself (Mig. 170-75). In this process, the divine logos was

the means and the guide of this mystical ascent (Som. 1.68-69, 86; L.A.

3.169-78).25

Particularly pertinent for understanding the thought world of the hymn

in the Prologue are three passages fromDe Confusione Linguarum (40-41,

62-63, 146-47).

And therefore when I hear those who say "We are all sons of one man; we arepeaceful" (Gen 42:11), I am filled with admiration for the harmonious concert

which their words reveal. "Ah! my friends," I would say, "how should you not

hate war and love peaceyou who have enrolled yourselves under one and the

same father, who is not mortal but immortalGod's man (anthrpos theou),

who being thelogosof the Eternal must needs himself be imperishable"(Conf.

40-41).

I have heard also an oracle from the lips of one of the disciples of Moses, which

runs thus: "Behold a man(anthrpos) whose name is the rising(anatole)n (Zech

6:12), strangest oftitles,surely, ifyousuppose that a being composed of soul andbody is here described. But if you suppose that it is that Incorporeal One (ton

asmaton ekeinon),who differs not a whit from the divine image (theias eiko-

nos), you will agree that the name of "rising" assigned to him quite truly de

scribes him. For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of all raised up

(aneteile), and elsewhere calls his first-born(prtogonon), and indeed the son

thus begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the different kinds,

looking to the archetypal patterns which that Father supplied (Conf. 62-63).

But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a son of God (huios theou), let him

press to take his place under God's first-born, thelogos (ton prtogonon autou


10/19


logon),who holds the highest rank amongtheangels, their rulerasit were. Andmany namesarehis,forheis called "the Beginning,"andthe Name ofGodandhislogos,and the Man after the image, and "he thatsees,"that is Israel. And

therefore I was moved a few pages above to praise the virtues ofthosewho saythat "we are all sons of one man" (Gen 42:11). For ifyouhave not yet becomefit tobethought sons ofGodyetwe may besons of his invisible image, the mostholy logos.For thelogosis the highest born image of God(theougareiknlogos hopresbytatos). (Conf. 146-47).

Two of these three passages(Conf.40-41,146-47) are interpretations of

the words spoken by Jacob's sons to their brother Joseph in Gen42:11:"We

are all sons of one man (henos anthrpou);we are peaceful." In his inter

pretation, Philo allegorically identifies the "man" in Gen 42:11 with the

logos.26The logos is also described inConf.63 as the "eldest son"(presby-tatos huios)oftheFather, that is, God. In bothConf.63 andConf.146, Philo

describes thelogosas God's first-born(protogonos) and those who want to

be sons of that "man" become sons of the logos,although they may not be

fit yet to be called "sons of God."27

Both the conceptual framework and some of the vocabulary are re

markably similar to that found in John 1:12,14:

But all those who did accept him

he empowered to become children of God(teknatheou).. . .And we have seen his glory,the glory of an only Son(monogenes)coming from the Father.

In both Philo and in John1:12,14the context is anagogical in the sense that

both Philo and John 1:12,14are describing the way in which human beings

are guided toward God. In both Philo and John1:12,14thelogosis described

as having a special relationship of filiation (protogonos in Conf. 63, 146;

monogenes in John 1:14) with God who in both Philo(Conf 63) and John

1:14 is described as "Father." In addition, in both cases, those who comeunder the influence ofthelogosalso receive a special relationship of filiation.

In Philo that relationship is first becoming sons(huio)ofthelogosand then

eventually, in some sense, sons(huio)of God(Conf 147). In John 1:12 those

who receive the logos become children (tekna) of God.

Neither the conceptual frameworks nor the vocabularies are identical.

For example, the conception of filiation in Philo is more complex (i.e., one

becomes first a son ofthelogosand then a son of God). In addition the terms

used(protogonos in Philo,monogenesin John 1:14;huioiin Philo,teknain

26For theconnection of these passages with interpretations of Genesis1 2 see pp 266 67


11/19


John 1:12) are not the same.28But the similarits of both conceptual frame

work and vocabulary are nevertheless remarkable. While one cannot argue

that the author of the hymn in the Prologue had read Philo, it is difficult to

imagine that the two are not part of the same Hellenistic Jewish tradition ofinterpretation and speculation.

II. The Contrast of Light and Darkness

Let us now turn to the description of the relationship between light and

darkness found in John 1:4-5:

4

What has come to be in him was life,and this life was the light of men.5And the light shines in the darkness,and the darkness did not overcome it.

While the logos in the hymn is preeminently the "light of men," the back

groundfor the interpretation found in these verses should be connected with

the continuation of some sort of interpretation of Gen 1:2-5, the creation of

light and the separation of light from darkness. There are two reasons for

this. First, John 1:1-3 is clearly based on some sort of interpretation of Gen1:1. It would make most sense to interpret John 1:4-5 as a continuation of

that kind of interpretation. Second, the only place in the early chapters of

Genesis where "light" and "darkness" are set side by side is in Gen 1:2-5.

Yet there are two elements found in John 1:4-5 which move beyond Gen

1:2-5 of which they are interpretations. First, light and darkness in John 1:4-5

are antithetical. The phrase, "and the darkness did not overcome (katelaben)

it"(John 1:5), suggests an underlying conflict and hostility between light and

darkness.29

Second, in John 1:4 the logos is intimately connected with life;what came to be in thelogoswas life(ze).These two elements in John 1:4-5

move beyond what is found in Gen 1:2-5. This suggests that what is found

in John 1:4-5 is based on some sort of prior interpretation of Gen 1:2-5.

28The reason why one findsteknarather thanhuioiin John 1:12 is that, as Brown (The

Gospel According to John,1.11) points out, the Johannine tradition reserves the termhuiosfor

Jesus.29 The translation of katelaben as "overcome" is consistent with John 12:35 ("lest the

darkness overtake [katelabe\ you"). It is also consistent with the contrast between light and

darkness in Johannine thought in general (see Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1. 8;


12/19


A good example of this sort of interpretation is found in Philo's De

Opificio Mundi 29-35.This section of theDe Opifcio Mundiis explicitly an

interpretation of Gen 1:1-5. This interpretation represents a tradition of

speculative interpretation in which "day one" of creation (i.e., Gen 1:1-5)isunderstood as the creation of the incorporeal world(ho asmatos kosmos).

The sense-perceptible world (ho aisthtos kosmos) was created only on the

second through the sixth days(Op.36). In keeping with this clearly Platonic

interpretation, "the invisible and intelligible light (to aoraton kai noton

phs)" came into being on "day one." The interpretation then goes on to

associate this invisible and intelligible light with the divine logos.

Now that invisible and intelligible light has come into being as an image(eikn)

of the Divine Word(theios logos)Who brought it within our ken; it is a su-percelestial constellation, fount oftheconstellations obvious to sense. It wouldnot be amiss to term it "all-brightness"(panaugeia),to signify that from whichsun and moon, as well as fixed stars and planets draw, in proportion to theirseveral capacities, the light befitting each of them(Op.31).

The intelligible light, then, is closely associated with the divinelogos;indeed

it is the image of that logos.

That invisible and intelligible light is then separated from darkness(sko-

tos). The reason given in Philo for this separation is the potential hostilitybetween light and darkness.

After the kindling of the intelligible light, which preceded the sun's creation,darkness its adversary(toantipalon skotos)withdrew(hypechrei);for God, inHis perfect knowledge of their mutual contrariety and natural conflict(ten ek

physesautndiamachn), parted them one from another by a wall of separation. In order to keep them from the discord arising from perpetual clash, toprevent war in place of peace prevailing and setting up disorder in an ordereduniverse, He not only separated light and darkness, but also placed in theinterveningspacesboundary-marks,by which He held back eachoftheirextremities;for, had they been actual neighbors, they were sure to produce confusionby engaging with intense and never-ceasingrivalryin the struggle for mastery.As itwas,their assault on one anotherwasbroken and kept back by barriers setup between them. These barriers are evening and dawn(Op.33-34).

God separates the light from the darkness, then, lest there be constant war

between the two, since light and darkness are by nature(ek physes) hostile

to one another.

The viewpoint found in this passage from Philo is not exactly the sameas that found in John1:4-5.In the passage from Philo, the separation seems


13/19


conflict from becoming actual conflict. In John 1:5 ("and the darkness did

not overcome it"), the conflict seems to have been not only potential but also,

in some unspecified way, actual. In addition, there is no indication that light

and darkness in John 1:4-5 are part of an intelligible world which is prior tothe sense-perceptible world.30Nevertheless, the close association of the logos

with light as well as the hostility of light and darkness, all of which are in the

context of an interpretation of Gen 1:1-5, offer a plausible tradition of inter

pretation out of which John 1:4-5 could have grown.

The second element in John 1:4-5 which can be clarified, at least par

tially, by this passage from Philo is the introduction of the concept of "life"

(John 1:4). In John 1:4, it is asserted that what came to be in the logos was

life (ze). Although the Johannine tradition connects "life" with eternal ordivine life rather than with"life"in general, the use of the term"life"in John

1:4 cannot be restricted only to divine or eternal life.31

The context of John

1:4, an interpretation of Gen 1:2-5, suggests a wider meaning than just divine

or eternal life.

A similar, although not identical, assertion is made in Op. 29-30. The

spirit of God which moved over the waters mentioned in Gen 1:2 is under

stood in this passage in Philo as the "incorporeal essence of breath"(as

malos ousia pneumatos) and is associated with life:The one (the incorporeal essence of breath) he (Moses) entitles the "breath"

(pneuma)of God, because breath is most life-giving(ztiktaton),and of life

(ze)God is the cause(Op.30).

One must also remember that in this interpretation this most life-giving

"incorporeal essence of breath," like all of the other things mentioned in

connection with "day one" in Gen 1:1-5, is part of the intelligible world (see

30 Op. 29-35 is a complicated passage from the point of view of the tradition-history of

these interpretations. The interpretation of the separation of light and darkness found in Op.

32-33 may have, at an earlier stage of interpretation, referred to the separation of light and

darkness in this world rather than in the intelligible world, that is, prior to the distinction

between the two worlds.Op.32 seems to point in this direction when it refers to the "immensity

and desolation of the void, of all that reachesfrom the zone of the moon to us."In the last part

of Op.34 and in Op.35, Philo seems to be at pains to point out that this interpretation must

refer to the incorporeal and intelligible world. This suggests that the interpretation originally did

not refer to the intelligible world but was prior to the distinction between the intelligible world

and the sense-perceptible world. If that is the case, then it may have been that earlier inter

pretation that was used and reinterpreted in John 1:5.31 See Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1. 7, 27 and Schnackenburg, The Gospel


14/19


Op.29). This also means that all of them, including the "incorporeal essence

of breath," are identified with thelogosof God. This was made clear several

paragraphs earlier in Op.24:

Should someone desire to use words in a more simple and direct way, he wouldsaythattheintelligibleworld(ho kosmos notos)isnothing otherthan the Wordof God(theoulogos)when He was already engaged in the action of creation.

Like John 1:4, this interpretation in Philo'sDe Opifcio Mundiassociates the

process of giving life at the creation of the world with thelogosof God. But,

although the connection of life with thelogosof God in John 1:4 and in Op.

24,29-30 is quite similar, they are not identical. In the interpretation found

in Philo, this association of the logos of God with life is less direct than it

is in John 1:4, that is, life is associated directly with the breath of God and

then,because the breath of God is an intelligible reality, it is a part of the

logosof God in the act of creation. Nevertheless, this interpretation in Op.

24,29-30 provides important evidence in Hellenistic Jewish speculative inter

pretations of Gen 1:2-5 for the connection of the notion of "life" with the

logos of God at the time of creation, a connection also made by the hymn

in John's Prologue.

This is especially important when one realizes that in both Op. 29-34

and in John 1:4-5 the contrast of light and darkness is linked to the concept

of life (a concept not clearly present in Gen1:2-5)and that this linkage takes

place in the context ofaninterpretation of Gen 1:2-5. Once again, Hellenistic

Jewish speculative interpretation of Genesis offers the most plausible world

of thought against which to understand the logoshymn in the Prologue.

III. The Logos and the Heavenly Man

The third and final element ofthelogosin the Prologue that I would like

to consider is the broader question of the traditions of interpretation in

Hellenistic Judaism which may have contributed iv the identification of the

logos with an individual human being, Jesus of Nazareth. While such an

identification cannot be explained simply by reference to traditions in Hel

lenistic Judaism, such traditions can help us to understand how such an

identification could have been facilitated by those traditions.One of the difficulties with seeing the hymn in the Prologue as linked to


15/19


of thelogoswith Jesus of Nazareth. In fact some have argued that the logos

in Philo is really simply a metaphor for God's action in the world.32

There is no doubt that the logos functions in a very complex way in

Philo's thought and that the complexity makes it difficult to understandprecisely what he means in his interpretations. In addition, Philo was rooted

in a larger tradition of Hellenistic Jewish interpretation, and some of his

interpretations were derived from that tradition and were not completely

integrated into his own thought.33

But a basic sense of what Philo meant can be gained by paying attention

to the kind of language he used and why he used it. Like other Middle

Platonists, Philo thought that God in his essence could not be implicated in

the material universe. At the same time, the relative order of the material

universe had to derive at least indirectly from God. For Philo thelogosservedas the intermediate metaphysical reality through which the universe was

originally ordered and by which it continues to be sustained in an orderly

state. It was not simply a metaphor; it was a real aspect of the divine reality

through which God was related, although indirectly, to the universe. Al

though a derivative reality, the logoswas not created as was the rest of the

universe.34In much the same way, thelogoscannot aptly be characterized as

either personal or impersonal. Rather it was the source of the intelligibility

of the universe and so was itself intelligent in a way that transcended the

universe and, in that sense, also went beyond the categories either of personal

or of impersonal.35 In this respect, Philo was very much like other Middle

Platonists who also maintained both the transcendence of God and God's

indirect relationship to the universe through the use of an intermediate

metaphysical reality.

While thelogosin Philo remains primarily an intermediate metaphysical

reality, there are several elements in Philo which are helpful in seeing how

such an otherwise metaphysical reality could eventually be identified with an

individual human being, Jesus of Nazareth. These hints are found in the threepassages in Philo's De Confusione Linguarum treated earlier(Conf.40-41,

62-63,146-47). In these three passages, Philo has brought together and con

flated several elements of Hellenistic Jewish speculative interpretation. For

example, the logos in these passages has taken on characteristics similar to

those of the figure of Wisdom, for in other passages from Philo Wisdom is

32J. D. G. Dunn (Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins

of the Doctrine of the Incarnation [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980] 220-28) sees the logos as

"nothing more for Philo than God himself in his approach to man" (228).33 See Tobin, The Creation of Man, 1-35.


16/19


17/19


IV. Conclusion

On the basis of the parallels between the hymn of the Prologue (John

l:l-5,10-12b,14,16) and some of the biblical interpretations of Philo of Alexandria, one is led to the conclusion that the hymn in the Prologue, like Philo

of Alexandria, was part of the larger world of Hellenistic Jewish speculative

interpretations of biblical texts. That tradition developed through successive

but similar interpretations of basically the same biblical texts, in this case the

texts of Genesis 1-2. Because ofthis,both made use of thelogosas a central

concept; both understood the cosmological function of the logosas the in

strument through which God created the universe; both saw thelogosas the

basis of "life" and "light" in contrast to darkness; both attributed to the logos

an anagogical function as the means by which human beings became sons or

children of God. The argument is not that the author of the hymn had read

Philo of Alexandria; the parallels are not close enough to maintain that kind

of position. But the parallels do show that both the author of the hymn and

Philo of Alexandria were part of the larger tradition of Hellenistic Jewish

biblical interpretation and speculation. Both were making use of similar

structures of thought and were expressing those structures through the use

of similar vocabulary, even though the results were very different.38

The author of the hymn developed an interpretation of the logos, that

is,that thelogoshad become incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, that would have

been unimaginable for someone like Philo. Yet that is not the same as saying

that the world of Hellenistic Jewish speculative interpretation was not the

world of which the author of the hymn was a part. Rather, the author of the

hymn, in keeping with the speculative character of that tradition, moved it

in a new and quite different direction. That same hymn was then integrated

into a Gospel which made significant use of traditions and interpretations

closer to the Palestinian midrashim than to the more philosophically oriented

traditions of Hellenistic Judaism.39This points once again to the complexity

of the religious and cultural world of which the Gospel of John was a part.

In this I return to the point at which I began, with the thought of George W.

MacRae, S.J., that the Gospel of John (and I would add the hymn of the

38 This kind of analysis may also have implications for the interpretation of the other NT

texts such as Phil 2:6-11 and Col 1:15-20, both of which seem to involve speculative interpretations of Genesis 1-2. In addition, this analysis may also serve to clarify the relationship of the

hymn of the Prologue to certain gnostic texts (e.g., the Dimorphie Protennoia from the Nag


18/19


19/19

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation

Documents

Transcript of Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation