(2) It has been customary to regard the so-called Hebraisms of the Fourth Gospel, which it was sup- posed to share with the other NT wTitings, as an indication that the WTiter was a Palestinian. The study of the papyri has revolutionized this idea. It is now no longer permissible to speak of Hebra- istic Greek. The papyri are ^^Titten in the ver- nacular Greek, and range in date from the 3rd cent. B.C. to the 7th cent. A.D. The earlier speci- mens furnish a convincing parallel in language to the Greek of the NT. AVhere there are Hebraic modes of expression, these must be traced to direct translation from the Aramaic, or to those causes that operate in the introduction of foreign elements into the vernacular of any language (Moulton, Grammar of NT Greek, Prolegomena, vol. i. pp. 18, 19). At the same time, while we must attribute the simple structure of this Evangelist's sentences and the absence of connecting particles to his use of the vernacular, we are not left without evidence that he knew Hebrew. In his quotations from the OT he made use of the LXX (2" 12^ ig*" lO*") ; but he is also independent of it (19^ 7^ 1^ &^) ; and there is an interesting group of cases where the LXX seems to be corrected by reference to the Hebrew (6« 13'« 19^ ; cf. "Westcott, Gospel of John, xiii-xiv ; Drumniond, op. rit. p. 364).
(3) Can the Logos conception of the Gospel be shown to have greater affinity with Alexandrian than with Hebrew thought ? It is noteworthy that the term Xo7os is not used throughout the Gospel, either in the discourses or in the narrative parts, except in the ordinary sense of ' word ' ; but we must not neglect other passages where the Logos idea is in the background. The lofty and undefined sense of the plural subject in such passages as 3""", the well-known pre-existence passages, the asser- tion by Christ of what He had seen with the Father (6** 8'«, cf. l'»), His teaching which is not of Him- self (7'''""), His complete unity of existence with the Father (14'""), are all expressions of the Logos consciousness (cf. Grill, Unteriurhunyen iiber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums, i. pp. 32, 33). On the otlier hand, in order to prove that the Evan- gelist had either a literary acquaintance with the works of Philo, or was deeply influenced by his thought, it would be neces.sary to discover a much closer correspondence between them than is actually to be found. In the Stoic philosophy with which Philo closely identifies himself, the term ' Logos ' has the double significance of ' reason ' (\iyoi ivStiecTos) and ' word ' (\<i7os Trpo^opi/tiis), and
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPPX OF
879
in the Fourth Gospel there is not a trace of the former sense. Jesus is the manifestation of God, the uttered Word. Again, in the Gospel the Logos is identified witli the Messiah, and in Philo there is no such identification. It is doubtful whether Philo attributes (.eisoniility to the Logos; but there can be noildulii ..f ilir personal existence of the Logos in tlic (h.:^]hI. At the same time, the author of the Fciuilh (icisi.d, like every Hebrew thinker, is no metaphysician, and he simply projects the conception of personality, which he derived from the knowledge of the Incarnate One, into the Word in its pre-incarnate existence. The Angel of the Lord and the personified Wisdom in the t)T are not so much independent existences as immanent determinations of the Divine Being. Moreover, the Incarnation of the Logos is an idea quite foreign to the mind of Philo, not because with him matter is essentially corrupt, but because it is 'regarded as a principle purely neg:ative, arresting, limiting, restraining the penetration of the Divine action, in proportion to its thickness and opacity " (R6ville, Le QuatrUme Svangile, p. 87). For Alexandrian thought an Incarnation of the Logos could cmly !»■ l)(Hr(i, : ■m,! tbis may have given rise til till' liri.-. -i i .lii _' '
There are, howc-\ t- sion between Philo a second God' {hiuTipo; Son of God (i wot To5
i-.iks
(Si' oS 0 xoirfjui; Hxriffxii/xirtir) ; Light and Life are conceptions of Philo as applied to the Logos ; he uses the term ' Paraclete,' but applies it to the ' cosmos ' and not to the ' Logos.' The Logos exists in heaven ; reveals the name of God ; possesses supernatural knowledge and power ; is continually at work ; is eternal ; is free from sin ; instructs and convinces ; dwells in the souls of men ; is high priest towards God ; is the source of unity, joy, and peace ; imparts eternal life ; is bridegroom, father, guide, steersman, shepherd, physician ; imparts manna ; is the food of the soul (Grill, pp. 115-12S). For a discussion of the whole question see Sanday, Lc. pp. 185-20(>. These co- incidences cannot be overlooked in deciding the question of authorship. We must bear in mind that ' Logos ' is the word by which the Hebrew idea of the Word of God is translated in tlic LXX, and that there are passages in the OT, the Apocrypha, and in the Jewish Targums that afford equally important coin- cidences of thought (Ps 336 10720 14715, is 408 .ii6I0.11, Wis 9' 1612 1815. 16 For the Memra of the Targimis, see Edersheim, Life and Times, i. pp. 46-48). The Evangelist would meet with these ideas nowhere more readily than in Ephesus, which was also the home of the Logos philosophy of Heraclitus. He would be disposed to keep in view his Greek readers, among whom these expressions were current. Again, we find similar coincidences of thought with Philo in the writings of St. I'anl and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. If, indeed, we were toisolal. the Prologue to the Gospel, which may be regarded as cnn taining all that was in the author's mind essential to the Lui^i. idea, and to rid ourselves of all associations of the word ' Loyi i- derived from Greek philosophy, we should find that the thonu'lii remains within the limits of the OT, except in the case of vv. ' ' '