The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 44

(3) While some striking superficial, metaphorical resemblances cnn be traced between Philo and tho Fourth Gospel, it must not ho forgotten that similar pnrnllefa are drawu between Philo and other books of the New Testament; and Sicgf,ied (lib. cit.) has I,1 boured with pntient scholarship to trace the influenco of Philo and of the Alexan- drine gnosis, not only on St. Paul nnd St. James, but on the Targums. If be make~ this good, ho has abolished the inference that others have drawn from the presence of Philonio.n im,igery and ideas in tho Fourth Gospel, viz. that its author could not have been 11 Palestinian Jew. It may bo well to draw attention to a few or thcs0 corresronrlcnccs. Some are ns vague, at least, as thoso which arc fastened upon St. John, nnd some of them l\fO far more explicit. Thus when St. Paul speaks of tc>..11po11&µ.o, eeoii, he is supposed to be thinking of Philo (' Quis rerum div. hror.,' 14), who speaks of the just ns being 1<>..11po- •oµ.o, e,lc.w a:ya6w11. " 'l'he first and second Adam" of 1 Cor. xv. 45, etc., points to • Leg. Alleg.,' i. 12. Siegfried imagines a common source for both in the 'Midrasch.' 'fhe /3>..'1roµ.•11 61.' lu&1r-rpou of 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ls compared (' De Decalog.,' 21) with a,u 1ta-r&...,,.pou of l'hilo ; and many more expressions are cited by himself and by Loesner (' Observationes ad Novum 'l'estamentum e Pbilone:' 1777) to demonstrate Paul's indebtedness to Philo. He finds also a similar influence exerted on the Petrine Epistles. Sie,,.fried makes much use of Schneckenburger's (' Annotatio ad Epistolum Jacobi:' 1832) series of parallels between James and Philo. These are remarkable enough; e.g. the antithesis between ~u...apo. and >..aµ.1rpa. luO-f,s in J as. ii. 2 is found in 'De Joseph,' p. 54 I, D.; 11 The spark which kindles a great fire" (Jas. iii. 5) with' De Migr. Abrah.,' 40i, A.; the taming of wild beasts (Jas. iii. 7) with 'De Opif. Mundi,' 19, 20; "The hus- bandman who waits for the precious fruits" with 'Leg. Alleg.,' ii. p. 103; "God as Father of lights" (Jas. i.17) with Philo's 7r7J-y,} ,,.,;,, alu611-r,;;11 4.u-rlpr,,11 ('De Op. Mundi,' p. 6). And whereas James speaks of" every good giving and every perfect gift as coming from above,'' etc., it is supposed that Philo's language (' De Sacr. Abel et Caini.' p. 138), d>..&1t>..TJpo1 1to.l 1rall'T•>..•is al -roii cl-y,11vi/-rou 6r,,p,al 1riiua,, may have snggested it. Jas. i.14 is compared with Philo's "In ourselves are all the treasures of evil things." The idea that the virtues are all begotten in us by God finds its parallel in 'De Cherubim,' p. 13, "Who is he that soweth good things in our souls, but the Father of all, the unbegotten God, who gP.nerateth all things?" The praise of the wisdom that is from above is compared with uopla 1,,,,,,9,,, dµ./3pTJ6•in cl...' oilpavoii (' De Profug.,' 5i). The same kind of traces of relationship are found in the synoptic Gospels; e.g. Matt. v. 6 reminds of (' De Profug.,' 25) " Those who hunger and thirst after goodness (1ta>..01«rya6las)," The positive hints of"similar relation between the Fourth Gospel and Pbllo, when the nomenclature or the emphasis laid on the use of the words 11.o')'ot, ,.,.;,, ,Pws, is excluded, are not more numerous than those found between the J udreo-Christian com- position attributed to Jame.a and the writings of Philo. Some of them are, however, deeper than mere phraseology. With eh. v. 19, "The Son can do nothing of himself," etc., may be compared with (' De Conf. Ling.,' 14:) "The Logos, gazing on archetypal patterns, imitating the ways of the Father, fashioned the forms thereof." Ch. vi. 50, 61 corresponds in some measure with 'Quis rcrum div. bror.,' 15-n passage where "the Divine Logos is the heavenly food of the God-loving soul." Ch. xiv. 23," We will take up our abode with him," with (' De Poster. Cain.,' 35) "The Divine Logos dwells within those in whom the life of the soul is honoured." Passages of this kind are numerous, and they do reveal a very wide diffusion, oven in the P::uestinian schools, of a style of expression common to the Alexandrine and Christian writers. Such connection between the two phraseologies is admitted by Lucke, De Wette, Meyer, Lange, Delitzsch, and Alford. Delitzsch ('Bib.Psych.,' p. 178) says,•• It is an undeniable fact that the Johannine Logos doctrine stands in a certain relation to the Philonian. The apostolic representation does not utterly discarcl the ideal forms already elaborated by Alexandrianism, but charges them with the material significance embodied in the historical fulfilment." Nevertheless, it is important to observe that many other terms and phrases of Grrek life and thought are thus invested with a perfectly ,new significance, and transfigured until they convey entirely new ideas, such 11s iiyiL1r71, 1r/u'Tls, 31tc1110~01111, C11~ 1 6.L11a-ros. The Platonic word Ao-yos was peculiarly serviceable, because it was capable of very diverse mel\Ilin.gs, and was distinguished as 1,,/,,yor l113u:l6nor, the Logos inherent in God, corresponding with the reason in malt, and .JOHN, t  INTRODUCTION TO