DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 283
in the OT.’* And so good an authority as A. B. Davidson says, ‘If in the Alexandrian Wisdom of Solomon a progress directly in advance of what is found in Proverbs viii. on the doctrine of Wisdom may be justly contested, there is certainly what may be called a progress round abowt,—the ideas about Wisdom are expanded and placed in new lights, and made to enter into new relations in such a way that a general approximation to the NT doctrine of the Logos is the result.’+ See, further, the articles WisDoM and WISDOM OF SOLOMON in vol. iv.
3. The Logos of Philo. — Already in the OT (Pr 8) there had been drawn the distinction be- tween God Himself and the Wisdom of God, and in connexion with the Platonic doctrine of the yoos a further development is traceable in the Apocrypha, particularly in the Book of Wisdom. The designation of the Wisdom as \éyos furnishes the transition to another notable development— that which we find in the teaching of Philo. According to this philosopher, the relation of the Wisdom to the Logos is that of the source to the stream ; the Logos is just Wisdom come to expres- sion. Sometimes, however, he identifies the two (de Profug. i. 56). The whole world of ideas is embraced in the single conception and supreme Idea of the Logos or Reason of God. All empirical knowledge of God is referred to the Logos, who ranks indeed as a second, but also secondary, God. It is he who created and who reveals himself in the world, while the true God is inconceivable, and ‘hides Himself behind the impenetrable veil of heaven.’ The Logos is not in himself God; he is, however, an emanation from God, His firstborn son, and formed in His image. He is the mani-- fested reflexion of the Eternal—the shadow, as it were, cast by the light of God. He is at once the medium and the mediator between God and the world; as ‘the many-named archangel’ he is the bearer of all revelation ; and in him as high priest God and the world are eternally reconciled. With striking vigour and originality of thought Philo built up a religious philosophy, in which the Logos is endowed with personality and represented as a hypostasis standing between God and the world. In thus raising the Logos from an impersonal power to the level of a mediatorial hypostasis he passes beyond the OT and the Apocrypha, and makes his Logos correspond exactly neither to the Jewish Wisdom nor to the Platonic vois. His teaching under this head is, however, character- ized by the same ambiguity that attaches to his doctrine of God. By no possible ingenuity can the Logos be consistently represented as at once the immanent Reason of God, and yet also as a dis- tinct hypostasis mediating between the spiritual and the material, the Divine and the finite. And in general it may be said that, ‘ owing to the mani- fold relations in which Philo places the Logos,— to Divine powers, ideas, and angels, to the super- sensual and to the visible world, to the thought, speech, and creation of God, and again to the human spirit, whose heavenly prototype he is,—a perfectly clear and consistent conception of this mythical figure is rendered a virtual impossi- bility.’ Moreover, the service done by Philo in eviving clear expression to the personality of the Logos is seriously curtailed by his theory of sub- ordination, which, although no doubt in his view necessitated by the pronounced monotheism of the OT, detracted from the position previously assigned to the Logos, and even anticipated in some measure the fashion of Gnostic polytheism.
% Hist. of Doctrines, i. p. 106, Eng. tr.
+ Art. Apocrypha’ in Hneye. Brit. : , ;
$Lipsius, art. ‘Alexandrinische Religionsphilosophie’ in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon.
284 DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
4. The Memra of the Turgums.—Before we come to consider the teaching of the NT regarding the Logos, reference may be made to a kindred expres- sion which occurs very frequently in the Targums. The name given to the Logos in these writings (but never in the Talmud) is Memra=<‘ Word.’
Memra is not, however, always the equivalent, nor is it, strictly speaking, ever the precise equivalent, of Logos, which has the additional meaning of reason; and one result of the adoption of this narrower term was to give fresh significance to the statement that the world was created by the word of God (Gn 18, Ps 336), Still, the mediation of the Memra or Word is not, as in the OT and in Philo’s theosophy, represented as specially connected with the creative activity of God; rather is it applied to the whole scope of His activity in the world. With the Targumists it stands in much the same relationship to God as the Hokhma or cogie of the earlier Jews, only it is allowed a wider range. By His Word God enters into covenant with men and exercises guardianship over them ; to His Word they pray, and by His Word they swear. There is, however, considerable vagueness in the use of the term. Sometimes anthropomorphisms are avoided by the introduction of word or glory. Thus in Gn 28 the glory of J’’ appears to Jacob, who declares that the Word of J” shall then be his God. But in some passages, when there can be no such motive, Memra or Word is used for the Spirit of J”, apparently to avoid refer- ring directly to the Divine Being the processes of the inner life of Godhead, <A distinction is made between the Word as spoken (Pithgama) and the Word as speaking or revealing Himself (Memra). E.g. in Gn 151 ‘ After these things came the Pith- gama of J’ to Abram in a vision (? in prophecy), saying, Fear not, Abram, my Memvra shall be thy strength and thy exceeding great reward.’ ‘A critical analysis shows that in 82 instances in Onkelos, in 71 instances in the Jerus. Targum, and in 213 instances in the Targum pseudo-Jonathan, the designation Memra is not only distinguished from God, but evidently refers to God as revealing Himself.’ *