Lioy, Dan T.2022-10-042022-10-04https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14194/2714A leading theory about the inspiration or origin of John’s use of Λόγος as a metaphor for Jesus Christ in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel issued-Hellenistic philosophical thought, principally the works of Philo of Alexandria and his use of a mystical logos as a pseudo-divine intermediary between transcendent God and humanity. Other scholars have postulated that John’s Christological Λόγος is merely an evolutionary step from Philo’s mystical logos or perhaps was derived from incipient-Gnostic thought. These view Sar troubling for an evangelical Christian with a conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture and a suitable response is required. The work begins with a discussion of the use of a prologue in Greek literature and an evaluation of the evidence for John selecting this particular literary motif to introduce his gospel. The prologue literary motif was developed by prominent Greek writers as a means to establish the “back story” or to provide an overview, summary, or reveal the theme of a written work. John used the Prologue in the Fourth Gospel as a literary device to draw Greek-speaking diaspora Jews, converts to Judaism (proselytes), and Gentile ‘God-fearers” steeped in Hellenistic culture closer in order to hear the gospel message. Further, John’s Λόγος Christology is evaluated in light of the Greek philosophical beliefs of the first century and an evaluation of the Prologue in a cosmological, metaphysical, epistemological, and soteriological sensei’s presented. This portion of the work concludes with a review of the many Christological themes found in the Prologue to demonstrate John’s use of a prologue was consistent with the literary standards of this time. Also, the strong evidence for John’s authorship, the date of writing (late first century, likely between 85–95C.E.), and the provenance of the gospel (Ephesus) are established, which establishes that Philo’s were surely available to John. The most straightforward means to prove that John’s Christological Λόγος was not merely the next step or “bridge” in the logical development of Philo’s mythological logos but was rather was a rejection of the Philonic logos was to perform a detailed comparison of the two writings. Philo’s writings pertaining to his description of the nature, purpose, and work of his philosophical logos are closely examined. In general, Philo’s logos is a philosophical construct built upon historical Greek logos that was believed to be the rational intelligence that unifies all creation and the sole face of God to humanity. Philo’s ambition was to develop a unified system of thought regarding the Hebraic Old Testament concept of God with the Hellenistic metaphysical logos. Success in syncretizing the two belief systems would demonstrate that the logos found in the Jewish Old Testament preceded the Greek logos and thus the origin of the Greek logos. A detailed exegetical analysis of the Prologue produced ten essential statements about the origins, person, and work of John’s Christological Λόγος that is next compared to Philo’s description of his mythological logos using a set of ten criterion. The work concludes that there are no intersections of thought between John’s description of the Christological Λόγος and Philo’s logos philosophy. Therefore, John’s Prologue is an explicit “rejection” of Philo’s logos philosophy, whether or not the apostle John was aware of the writings of Philo of Alexandria. John’s Prologue is also an implicit apologetic, or better, a polemic against Philo’s logos philosophy in so far as John’s knowledge of Philo’s writings can only be determined through circumstantial evidence, although motives are impossible to determine without direct knowledge of John’s state of mind at the time of writing the Prologue. These conclusions have many implications. For example, the scholarly view that Philo’s mystical philosophy was an evolutionary step into what was to become John’s Christological view of the Λόγος or that John’s Λόγος is Philo’s logos in abbreviated form may be suspect because neither conclusion is supported by the evidence presented. If there are no similarities of thought then there can be no evolution of thought. John’s Prologue to the Fourth Gospel was written for multiple purposes. John wrote a very persuasive evangelical writing with the purpose of attracting Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles with the purpose of persuading readers to accept John’s apologetic description of the incarnate Λόγος as God in flesh. In doing so, John explicitly rejects the Philonic logos as the detailed comparison of John’s Christological Λόγος and Philo’s philosophical logos demonstrate. John chose the word “logos” because it is a term recognizable to Gentiles and Jews, living within a Hellenistic culture, as a literary device to attract the largest possible audience as a means to present his polemic against the Philonic logos. It was John’s stated desire that all his readers “...may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31).A leading theory about the inspiration or origin of John’s use of Λόγος as a metaphor for Jesus Christ in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel issued-Hellenistic philosophical thought, principally the works of Philo of Alexandria and his use of a mystical logos as a pseudo-divine intermediary between transcendent God and humanity. Other scholars have postulated that John’s Christological Λόγος is merely an evolutionary step from Philo’s mystical logos or perhaps was derived from incipient-Gnostic thought. These view Sar troubling for an evangelical Christian with a conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture and a suitable response is required. The work begins with a discussion of the use of a prologue in Greek literature and an evaluation of the evidence for John selecting this particular literary motif to introduce his gospel. The prologue literary motif was developed by prominent Greek writers as a means to establish the “back story” or to provide an overview, summary, or reveal the theme of a written work. John used the Prologue in the Fourth Gospel as a literary device to draw Greek-speaking diaspora Jews, converts to Judaism (proselytes), and Gentile ‘God-fearers” steeped in Hellenistic culture closer in order to hear the gospel message. Further, John’s Λόγος Christology is evaluated in light of the Greek philosophical beliefs of the first century and an evaluation of the Prologue in a cosmological, metaphysical, epistemological, and soteriological sensei’s presented. This portion of the work concludes with a review of the many Christological themes found in the Prologue to demonstrate John’s use of a prologue was consistent with the literary standards of this time. Also, the strong evidence for John’s authorship, the date of writing (late first century, likely between 85–95C.E.), and the provenance of the gospel (Ephesus) are established, which establishes that Philo’s were surely available to John. The most straightforward means to prove that John’s Christological Λόγος was not merely the next step or “bridge” in the logical development of Philo’s mythological logos but was rather was a rejection of the Philonic logos was to perform a detailed comparison of the two writings. Philo’s writings pertaining to his description of the nature, purpose, and work of his philosophical logos are closely examined. In general, Philo’s logos is a philosophical construct built upon historical Greek logos that was believed to be the rational intelligence that unifies all creation and the sole face of God to humanity. Philo’s ambition was to develop a unified system of thought regarding the Hebraic Old Testament concept of God with the Hellenistic metaphysical logos. Success in syncretizing the two belief systems would demonstrate that the logos found in the Jewish Old Testament preceded the Greek logos and thus the origin of the Greek logos. A detailed exegetical analysis of the Prologue produced ten essential statements about the origins, person, and work of John’s Christological Λόγος that is next compared to Philo’s description of his mythological logos using a set of ten criterion. The work concludes that there are no intersections of thought between John’s description of the Christological Λόγος and Philo’s logos philosophy. Therefore, John’s Prologue is an explicit “rejection” of Philo’s logos philosophy, whether or not the apostle John was aware of the writings of Philo of Alexandria. John’s Prologue is also an implicit apologetic, or better, a polemic against Philo’s logos philosophy in so far as John’s knowledge of Philo’s writings can only be determined through circumstantial evidence, although motives are impossible to determine without direct knowledge of John’s state of mind at the time of writing the Prologue. These conclusions have many implications. For example, the scholarly view that Philo’s mystical philosophy was an evolutionary step into what was to become John’s Christological view of the Λόγος or that John’s Λόγος is Philo’s logos in abbreviated form may be suspect because neither conclusion is supported by the evidence presented. If there are no similarities of thought then there can be no evolution of thought. John’s Prologue to the Fourth Gospel was written for multiple purposes. John wrote a very persuasive evangelical writing with the purpose of attracting Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles with the purpose of persuading readers to accept John’s apologetic description of the incarnate Λόγος as God in flesh. In doing so, John explicitly rejects the Philonic logos as the detailed comparison of John’s Christological Λόγος and Philo’s philosophical logos demonstrate. John chose the word “logos” because it is a term recognizable to Gentiles and Jews, living within a Hellenistic culture, as a literary device to attract the largest possible audience as a means to present his polemic against the Philonic logos. It was John’s stated desire that all his readers “...may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31).169 pages169 pagesThesis