Name: Stephen T.

Adair
Student ID Number: 2060329784
Email Address: adair.steve@gmail.com
Course Name: The Gospel of John
Course Number: NT 634 ISR103
Assignment Number: Assignment 4
Audio Number: N/A
Project Number: N/A
Date of seminar (if applicable): N/A
Course instructor for seminar (if applicable):
Location of seminar (if applicable): N/A
**The Module Number, Audio Number (if applicable), and Project Number (if
applicable) must be accurate in order to process the lesson and record the grade. The
correct information is stated in the Course Study Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Study Guide Code/Date/Version
found on the first page of the Study Guide: 20090910
Degree Program: MA in Biblical Studies
Address: PO Box 2132
City: Mossel Bay
State: Western Cape
Zip: 6500
Country: South Africa
Telephone: +27 44 690 5133
--------------------End of Coversheet--------------------

PLEASE TYPE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS LESSON SUBMISSION AS
THEY APPEAR IN YOUR STUDY GUIDE HERE
Page 2 of 33

Write a research paper of ca. 4000 words, including introduction and conclusion (your
footnotes and bibliography are excluded from the word count), on one of the following
questions:
(1) Why does John use logos for Jesus in the prologue? (Phillips 2006)
(2) What does Lamb of God mean in John 1:29? (Skinner 2004)
(3) Is there a Cana-to-Cana cycle? (Moloney 1979, Talbert 1970)
(4) What is Marys significance in John 2:1-11? (Matand Bulembat 2007)
(5) What is Jesus position to the temple in John 2:13-25? (Coloe 2001, Um 2006)
(6) What is meant by born of water and the Spirit in John 3:5? (Wai-Yee, 2001)
(7) Does World in John 3:16 refer to Israel? (Botha/Rousseau 2005)
(8) Is John 4:1-42 patterned after a betrothal type scene? (McWhirter 2006)
(9) Does John 6:51-58 refer to the Eucharist or to Christology? (Menken 1997)
(10) Was 7:53-8:11 part of the original Gospel? (Watson 1999)
(11) Does John 14:6 exclude other religions from salvation? (Culpepper 2002)
(12) What are the greater works of John 14:12? (Kstenberger 1995)
(13) Does 14:31 make sense where it stands? (Bevan 2003)
(14) How does John 20:22 relate to Acts 2:1-4? (Hatina 1993)
(15) Does the term the Jews indicate that John is anti-Jewish? (Kierspel 2006)
(16) What is the purpose of the Gospel according to 20:30-31? (Carson 2005)
Follow this general outline:
a) Describe the most important interpretations concerning the chosen topic (ca. 750
words).
b) Analyze relevant texts and questions related to the topic (ca. 2000-2500 words).
c) Critically evaluate the interpretations outlined at the beginning in light of your
study (ca. 750 words).
Besides the textbooks, use the book/essay/article mentioned after the question (see
bibliography for full reference) and at least another eight (8) scholarly sources, at least four
of which must come from the bibliography in this study guide and at least two other works
located through the ATLAReligion database.

Page 3 of 33

INTRODUCTION
Johns Gospel opens with an eloquent and succinct confession of the person of Jesus Christ.
Whilst the Synoptic Gospels begin their accounts either at Jesus birth
1
, or at the
commencement of His public ministry
2
, John begins his account in eternity past, portraying
Jesus as the , the eternal word, through whom all things were created.
Thus, the Fourth Gospel is very different in style to the Synoptic Gospels. Barth commented
that this difference was that in the Synoptics Jesus Christ is depicted as the Son of God, but in
John, the Son of God is depicted as Jesus Christ
3
.
This paper seeks to explore Johns use of the term within the prologue to the Fourth
Gospel. Linguistic and cultural aspects are briefly reviewed prior to a brief review and
discussion of key interpretations. Finally, conclusions are drawn on Johns intention in
identifying Jesus as the .

LINGUISTIC DEFINITIONS
Linguistically five words are significant to Johns prologue. The first is the Greek word
. However, two Hebrew words ( [mer] and [dibra]) and their Aramaic
equivalents ( [mmra] and [dbr]) are also of importance.

carries several different meanings, including: word, speech, language, narrative,
statement, pronouncement, question, report, account, sermon, teaching, call, and sense
4
. The

1
As is the case in Matthew and Luke.
2
As is the case in Mark.
3
Tanner, K., Karl Barths Christology: in: Webster, J., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth,
Cambridge University Press, 2000, p131.
Page 4 of 33

root word () provides means to gather, collect, select, report, or speak
5
. should be
properly understood to refer to what is communicated, rather than the precise language used;
in other words, it refers more to the message itself than to the words employed to relay the
message.
Heraclitus influenced the meaning of the word through his philosophy of as didactic
discourse or teaching
6
. Hence may be understood to mean rational consideration,
understanding or persuasion
7
rather than simple or unintelligible utterance.
(mer)
The Hebrew word is translated word, saying, or speech
8
. This word first appears in
Genesis, where Gods word is shown to be active in creation
9
. has a wide range of
meaning, and can be used of normal speech, but may also be used to describe authoritative
discourse, such as found in the prophetic formula thus saith the Lord frequently employed
to oracles of judgement
10
.
In Aramaic, the Hebrew word (mer) becomes (mmra)
11
.
(dbr)
is normally translated speak
12
. It refers to what is said, to the actual word itself;
whereas mer is essentially oral the physical act of speaking
13
. Of particular interest is

4
Balz, H., Sxhneider, G., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1990 (Electronic version from PC Study Bible Version 5; Biblesoft, 1988-2007 -
note page numbers not available with this product).
5
Ibid.
6
Brown, C., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 3, Paternoster
Press, 1986, p1081.
7
Kittle, G., Friedrich, G., Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989 (Libronix Electronic Version; page numbers not available).
8
VanGemeren, W. A., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Words, Volume 1,
Paternoster Press, 1997, p443.
9
For instance: Gen. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.
10
For example Ex. 4:22 (KJV) or as it appears in the NIV This is what the LORD says.
11
Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament,
Koninklijke Brill NV, 1994-2000 (electronic version employed no page numbers available with this
product)
Page 5 of 33

the theological significance of the association of dbr with God. Here, dbr can mean a
message from or about God, including a command
14
, an ordinance or decree
15
, a statute
16
,
counsel, or even law
17
(Torah)
18
.
In Aramaic, the Hebrew (dbr) word becomes (dibra)
19
.

CULTURAL BACKGROUND
Several attempts have been made to explain Johns description of Jesus as the
by comparison with various cultural backgrounds prevalent at the time of writing. These
possible cultural influences may be summarised under six main categories, viz.:
Association of with Gnosticism;
Association of with Greek philosophy;
Association of with the philosophy of Philo;
Association of with Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature;
Association of with the Old Testament Word of God;
Association of with the Jewish Targums.


12
VanGemeren, W. A., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,
Volume 1, Paternoster Press, 1997, pp912-3.
13
Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., White, W. Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New
Testament words, Thomas Nelson, 1996, pp239-240.
14
For example, Num. 15:31
15
For example, Psalm 147:19.
16
For example, Zec. 1:1-6.
17
For example Is. 1:10.
18
VanGemeren, W. A., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,
Volume 1, Paternoster Press, 1997, pp912-3.
19
Ibid.
Page 6 of 33

Association of with Gnosticism
Bultmann contrasted Johns Gospel with the Synoptics, concluding that the New Testament
(outwith the Gospel of John, and a few Pauline references) is very restrained in claiming that
Jesus was the Son of God
20
. Bultmann noted that the Synoptics portray Jesus as the Son of
God by virtue of the divine power and authority evident in His ministry, and asserted that
ascribing Jesus the title Son of God was consistent with Jewish perceptions of David and
the prophets.
21

Bultmann postulated that the Fourth Gospel was heavily influenced by Gnostic or Hellenistic
thought which effectively mythologized the person of Christ. Moreover, Bultmann maintained
that the was a Gnostic term associated with the Hellenistic myth of pre-existence
22
.
This view was predicated upon Bultmanns presupposition that scripture is essentially
mythological in character
23
. Bultmann held that the New Testament authors in general
and the author of the Fourth Gospel in particular, used mythological language to
express their view of Christ, and the task of the modern interpreter is strip the
mythology from the true message
24
. Bultmanns dethmythologising of the New
Testament led him to reject the virgin birth of Christ
25
, deny the miracles that He
performed
26
and deny the reality of His resurrection
27
.
Bultmann, therefore, dismisses the idea of Jesus pre-existence simply because to his
modern understanding this concept is unbelievable, and thus must of necessity belong

20
Bultmann, R. K., Theology of the New Testament, Baylor University Press, 2007, p129.
21
Bultmann, R. K., pp130-131.
22
Bultmann, R. K., p132.
23
Bultmann, R., New Testament and Mythology, Fortress Press, 1984, p1.
24
Bultmann used the term Kerygma to refer to the central core of the message which he regarded as
trustworthy. In holding to this way of thinking, Bultmann places considerably more trust in his own
presuppositions of the text and in modern understanding than he does in the New Testament text
itself. For a fuller discussion of this limitation in Bultmanns approach, see Grant, R. M., Tracy, D. A
Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible, 2nd Ed., Fortress Press, 1984, p45.
25
Bultmann, R. Jesus Christ and Mythology, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957, p16.
26
Ibid, p61.
27
Bultmann denied that the resurrection was an historical event, but regarded it as an eschatological or
spiritual event. Ibid, p32.
Page 7 of 33

to the realm of myth. This leads Bultmann to the conclusion that in referring to Jesus
as the , John is simply borrowing the mythological terminology of his time, which was
heavily influenced by Gnosticism. Bultmanns theory was comprehensively repudiated by
Evans, who concluded that the antecedents of Johns

theology are most likely found in
Old Testament scriptures and the various interpretative speculations that accompanied
them
28
.
Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that the author of the Fourth Gospel could have held
Gnostic views, as he appears to challenge Gnostic thinking emphatically with his assertion
that the Word became flesh
29
. As this assertion is anathema to the Gnostic, it may be
concluded that Bultmanns argument is untenable.

Association of with Greek philosophy
The concept of the first appears in Greek thought through the philosophy of
Heraclitus
30
, who regarded the as the universal reason that animates and rules the
world
31
.
The concept was later developed by the Stoics
32
, who associated the with God.
For them the was the power that put sense into the world, maintaining order in
creation rather than chaos
33
. They also referred to the seminal logos, (

28
Evans, C. A., Word and glory: on the exegetical and theological background of John's prologue,
Volume 89 of Journal for the study of the New Testament, Continuum International Publishing Group,
1993, pp75-76 and pp194-199.
29
John 1:1.
30
Heraclitus lived in Ephesus ca. 535-475 BC.
31
The Catholic Encyclopaedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm
32
A Greek philosophical school found in Athens by Zeno of Citium ca. 300BC.
33
Barclay, W., The Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of John Volume 1, The Saint Andrews Press,
1975, p35.
Page 8 of 33

), which constituted the seed of , sown in each human being, giving
mankind an implicit notion of the divine
34
.
There has been a long held view that there is a strong association between Johns use of the
Greek term and Greek philosophy, particularly that of the Stoics
35
. This argument
holds that John wrote his gospel in order to engage a Greek, rather than a Jewish, audience
36
.
Whilst there are striking similarities between the Greek concept of the and the
portrayal of Christ in the Fourth Gospel, there are also some equally striking differences. For
instance, Greek thought never regarded the as personal, but rather as an impersonal
force or power
37
. But in the Fourth Gospel, the became flesh and dwelt among us
38
.
Noting both similarities and differences in the Greek and Johannine use of . F. F.
Bruce noted that it is not in Greek philosophical usage, however, that the background
of Johns thought and language should be sought.The true background to Johns
thought and language is found not in Greek philosophy but in Hebrew revelation.
39


Association of with the philosophy of Philo
Philo was a Hellenized Jew living in Alexandria ca 20 BC - 50 AD, who fused Jewish
theology and Greek philosophy. Philo followed Plato in distinguishing between Gods perfect
idea and imperfect matter, and used the term to refer to an intermediary divine being or
demiurge.

34
Krkkinen, V. M., An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical, and
Contemporary Perspectives, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p57.
35
Armand, J. G. Jr., The Testimony of the Fourth Evangelist to the Johannine Community, Trafford
Publishing, 2004, pp46-47.
36
Thompson, M. M., The Gospel According to John, in Barton, S. C., The Cambridge Companion
to the Gospels, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p186.
37
Morris, L., The New International Commentary on the New Testament The Gospel According to
John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995, p103.
38
John1:14.
39
Bruce, F. F., The Gospel of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994, p29.
Page 9 of 33

In Philos philosophy, God was the Father of the , and Wisdom was his mother
40
. Philo
also wrote that the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things
together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated
41
.
Philo asserted that the was the means through which God created the world
42
, and
identified the with Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament.
Dodd observed that there has been long held view of the affinity between the
philosophy of Philo and the prologue to the Fourth Gospel
43
. Dodd goes on the show
remarkable parallels between the prologue to the Fourth Gospel and Philos writing
44
, and
comes to the conclusion that anyone reading the Fourth Gospel, with even the slightest
familiarity with Philos writing, would identify parallels between the creational and revelatory
aspects of the in both works
45
.
However, Dodd notes that whilst Philo and the Fourth Gospel share many similar ideas, the
treatment of those ideas is strikingly different
46
. Most notably, whilst Philo sees the
as the seed of divine reason present in all men, John sees the as incarnate, being made
flesh and dwelling and ultimately dying on earth as a distinct individual. Thus, Philo never
envisaged the as personal, but in the Fourth Gospel, the is deeply and fully
personal
47
.


40
Friedlander, G., Hellenism and Christianity, P. Vallentine & Son's, 1912, p115.
41
Ibid, p114-115.
42
Philo, On the Cherubim: 127, in Yonge, C. D., The Works of Philo, H. G. Bohn, 1854, p134.
43
Dodd, C. H., Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, 1953, p54.
44
For a fuller explanation of this comparison, see Appendix 1 of this paper.
45
Dodd, C. H., p277.
46
Dodd, C. H., p73.
47
Ibid.
Page 10 of 33

Association of with Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature
A number of interpreters
48
have proposed that the ideas of Wisdom () contained in the
Wisdom Literature
49
, served as a background for the development of Johns
theology. Whilst the concept of the personification of Wisdom () is found in the Old
Testament
50
, the inter-testamental literature provides closer similarities between the
characteristics of Wisdom and the Johannine . For example, the apocryphal book of
Ecclesiasticus speaks of a pre-existent wisdom, who was active in creation
51
, the Wisdom of
Solomon speaks of Wisdom as possessing the attributes of intelligence
52
, holiness
53
,
goodness
54
, power
55
, and love
56
.
Dodd performed a detailed comparison of the depiction of Wisdom () in the Wisdom
literature and the of Johns prologue
57
and concludes that the author of the Fourth
Gospel shared some similarity of thought with the Wisdom Literature, particularly the
hypostatized thought of God projected in creation, and remaining as an immanent power
within the world and in man
58
.
However, notwithstanding these very strong similarities, there remains significant differences
between Wisdom () and the Word () of Johns prologue. Firstly, whilst the
Wisdom Literature portrays as the personification of Gods thought and performing a
number of actions normally associated with divinity, Dodd notes that this far from any
justification for the statement the Word was God, or The Word became Flesh
59
. Ronning

48
See, for instance: Culpepper, R. A., The Theology of the Gospel of John, Review and Expositor,
Volume 85, 1988, p421.
49
For example, Proverbs, Sirach, Baruch, Eccleisiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon.
50
For example: Proverbs 1:20-33, 8:22-36.
51
Ecclesiasticus 24:1-10.
52
Wisdom of Solomon 9:9.
53
Wisdom of Solomon 1:4.
54
Wisdom of Solomon 7:22.
55
Wisdom of Solomon 10:21.
56
Wisdom of Solomon 1:6.
57
For a full review of this comparison see Appendix 2.
58
Dodd. C. H., p275.
59
Ibid.
Page 11 of 33

notes a major disadvantage of the Wisdom Literature is the use of the feminine rather
than the masculine
60
.

Association of with the Old Testament Word of God
The Old Testament itself alludes to a theology of the word (dabar) of God,
associating dabar with divine power sent forth to accomplish Gods will
61
. Carson
noted that Word in the Old Testament is Gods self-expression in creation,
revelation and salvation, which makes it suitable for John to apply the term as a
title for Gods ultimate self-disclosure in the personification of this Word
62
.
Commenting on Psalm 33:6
63
, Hendricksen noted that the Word of God is already
depicted as a person in the Old Testament
64
.
The Word was the active agent in the creation and ordering of the universe
65
. In
comparing the prologue with the Genesis account of creation, End concludes that
Johns Christology is firmly rooted in Old Testament exposition
66
. Moreover, the
Word continues to be active throughout the Old Testament through the prophets who
proclaimed Gods revelation to Israel
67
.
Dodd observed that Hebrew thought tended to ascribe an existence to the Word of
God suggestive of a substantive existence and activity of its very own
68
, and Paterson

60
Ronning, J., The Jewish Targums and Johns Logos Theology, Hendrickson Pub., 2010, p5.
61
See for instance Isaiah 55:11, Psalm 33:9 and Psalm 107:20.
62
Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John, Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans 1991, p116.
63
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
64
Hendricksen, W. The Gospel of John, Banner of Truth Trust, 1954, p70.
65
Psalm 33:6, Genesis 1:3ff.
66
End, M., Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early
Jewish Creation Accounts, Volume 149 of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,
Mohr Siebeck, 2002, p252.
67
See for example: Jeremiah 1:1-19; Amos 3:7.
68
Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, 1958, p206.
Page 12 of 33

noted that The spoken word to the Hebrew was fearfully alive...It was a unit of
energy charged with power
69
.

Association of with the Jewish Targums
At the time of Jesus the Jews no longer spoke in the Hebrew language, but rather
spoke in Aramaic. In order that the proletariat could understand the scriptures, they
were translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic. These translations (called the
Targums) were not regarded as scripture themselves, but were used merely as
translations (the priests still read the scriptures in the Hebrew).
The Jews that wrote the Targums did not wish to portray God in mans image; they
did not wish to portray God as behaving, acting or thinking like a man. In the
Targums, therefore, the name of God was very often substituted by the Word of
God. For instance in Exodus 19:17, we read:
Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God...
But in the Targums, this became:
Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with the word of God.
Again in Exodus 31:13:
Say to the Israelites, You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign
between me and you for the generations to come, so that you may know
that I am the LORD, who makes you holy...

69
Paterson, J., The Book That is Alive, Charles Scribners Sons, 1954, p2-3.
Page 13 of 33

Becomes:
Say to the Israelites, You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign
between my word and you for the generations to come, so that you may
know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy...
In the Targums, the Word and My Word are frequently used as a translation of
the names and titles of God
70
and the Word was frequently associated with God in
action.
However, scholars have tended to dismiss the possibility that the Targums could have
played any influence over Johns prologue
71
for two reasons: firstly they have been
regarded as being too late to influence the Gospel
72
; and secondly, the Aramaic word
employed (memra) has been regarded as neither a real being nor an intermediary
between God and man
73
. Ronning has provided robust evidence to support that the
fact that the Targums where likely to be at least contemporary with the Gospel of
John, raising the possibility of Targumic influence on the author of the Gospel
74
.
Ronning also challenges the view that the Targums could not explain Johns use of
as memra is never used for a real being, noting that dibra was used for the
personification of the divine within the Targums
75
.


70
Ronning, J., The Jewish Targums and Johns Logos Theology, Hendrickson Pub., 2010, p20.
71
Dodd, for example, devotes just two sentences to the Targums; See Dodd, C. H., p12 and p68.
72
Ronning, J., The Jewish Targums and Johns Logos Theology, Hendrickson Pub., 2010, p267.
73
Ibid, p266-9.
74
Ibid.
75
Ronning notes a number of examples, including the example of Gods appearance to Moses in Ex
33:23 which is described as a revelation of the dibra in the Palestinian Targums , which are most
reasonably ascribed to Johanan ben Zakkai, who was contemporary with the Apostle John. See
Ronning, p-265-266.
Page 14 of 33

INTERPRETATION THROUGH THE AGES
Having reviewed the cultural setting in which the Fourth Gospel was composed,
attention is now turned to the manner in which the Gospel has been received and
interpreted over the ages.

Interpretation of the Apostolic Church Fathers
Although not a direct commentary on the Gospel of John, one of the earliest Christian
allusions to theology is found in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch (ca. AD 169 -
182), who is responsible for the earliest extant Christian writing concerning the Trinity, using
the word in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or as Theophilus
himself put it: God, his Word () and his Wisdom ()
76
.

Interpretation of the Greek Fathers
The first major interpretation of Johns Gospel was penned by Irenaeus, who based much of
his Christology upon the prologue, quoting from it around forty times
77
. Irenaeus noted that
the is identical with God, who has revealed Himself through the incarnation of His
Word in the man Jesus Christ.

76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch.
77
Bauckham, R., Mosser, C., The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2008, p266.
Page 15 of 33

Irenaeus affirmed that the Trinity consists not of God, Logos and Sophia, but of Father, Son
and Holy Spirit
78
. Irenaeus rejected the distinction between logos endiathetos and logos
prophorikos
79
, which was widely employed by Philo
80
.
Origen and Clement of Alexandria both equate the with reason
81
. As the ,
Jesus gives expression to Gods mind or intellect. Thus Origen interprets Psa. 33:6 (By the
word of the LORD were the heavens made) as meaning that the heavens were
created by the reason of God, much in the same way that a house is built according to
the plan of the architect
82
. Origen, therefore associates wisdom with Gods mind,
and argues that the proceeds from wisdom
83
.

Interpretation of the Latin Fathers
Augustine asserted that that the is an eternal emanation of the Fathers intellect
84
, and
hence he associated the with wisdom itself
85
.
Tertullian, generally regarded as the founder of the Latin Church, associates the with
Gods power and reason. Tertullian argued that Christianity differs from Greek and Roman
mythology as Christ was a real person who demonstrated His divinity through the miracles He
performed, the earthquake that accompanied His death and His resurrection
86
. Tertullian was

78
Grant, R. M., Jesus After the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century, Westminster John Knox
Press, 1990, p100.
79
Logos Endiathetos is the latent Word resident with God since eternity past, whilst Logos Prophorikos
is the uttered Word active in creation, See Grant, R. M, p100.
80
Kamesar, A., The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo
and the D-Scholia to the Iliad, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 2004, pp163-181.
81
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, para. 42.
82
Ibid.
83
Ibid.
84
Augustine, The Trinity: in Schaff, P., On the Holy Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises; Moral Treatises,
The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890, p352.
85
Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John,
86
Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 21, in Schaff, P., The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3: Latin
Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, William B. Eerdmans, 2001, p34-36.
Page 16 of 33

the first Latin author to promote Christianity as the vera religio, whilst systematically
relegating classical Roman religion to the position of mere superstitions
87
.

Reformed Interpretation
Refusing to over intellectualise Johns use of language, Calvin preferred a very simple and
straight forward explanation of Johns reference to Christ as the Word. Calvin reasoned that
John called Christ the Word firstly because He is the eternal wisdom and will of God, and
secondly because he is the express image of His purpose
88
. Calvin argues that just as speech
is the expression of mans thoughts, so the Word is the expression of God.

Neo-Orthodox Interpretation
Karl Barth commented:
Jesus Christ, the Word of God, meets us as no other than God, but in another
way, in a different way of being compared with God in so far as God speaks the
Word, in so far as the Word goes forth from Him. The same revelation thus
compels us to separate God and His Word and also to unite them.
89

Barths exegesis of Johns prologue: In the beginning with God was this One, Jesus
Christ. And precisely that is the predestination
90
; caused him to redefine the doctrine of
election. Barth asserted that the never existed in and for himself, in a mode of

87
Kahlos, M., Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures c. 360-430, Ashgate New
Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007, p98.
88
Calvin, J., The Gospel According to St. John: Part 1 (1-10), Translated by Parker, T. H. L., Wm.
B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988, p7.
89
Barth, K., Church Dogmatics, Volume 1, Part 1, T & T Clark, 1975, p435.
90
Barth, K., Church Dogmatics, Volume 1, Part 2, T & T Clark, 1975, p146.
Page 17 of 33

state of being above and prior to the eternal decision to be incarnate in time
91
. In
Reformed theology, the appeared in the eternal plan (predestination) of God as
incarnandus
92
only insofar as he was the object of election, whilst in Barths view, the
is determined to be incarnandus as a consequence of a prior decision made by the triune
God
93
. Barth concluded that Jesus Christ is both the object and the subject election; in other
words, He is both the electing God and the elect human in whom salvation is found
94
. Thus
Barth affirms a universal election.

Reader-Response Interpretation
Reader-response theory sees the reader as an active agent who contributes the meaning of the
text through it interpretation and argues that literature should be regarded as a performing art
in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, interpretation of the text.
A good example of the use of Reader-Response theory for the interpretation of the prologue
to the Fourth Gospel is found in the work of Phillips, who argues that the Fourth Gospel uses
a strategy which he calls sequential disclosure to firstly disorientate the reader, and then to
give gradual information in order to allow the reader to overcome his initial disorientation
95
.
Phillips likens the prologue to the entrance of a Roman temple: some temples had narrow,
uninviting entrances which were accessed only by the initiated, dedicated followers, whilst
other temples had wide, open entrances, accessible to the public at large
96
.

91
McCormack, B. L., Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth, Baker
Academic, 2009, p186.
92
To be incarnated.
93
Webster, J., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p94.
94
Webster, J., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p93.
95
Phillips, P. M., The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading, Volume 294 of Library
of New Testament studies, T & T Clark, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006, p18.
96
Phillips, P. M., p1.
Page 18 of 33

Phillips analysis concerns itself not so much with identifying the source of the term ,
but rather with the use of the term and other lexemes to create a sense of community identity,
to foster convergence with those outside the ingroup
97
. He investigates the linguistic
meaning of as well as the cultural setting in order to determine the manner in which the
original readers of the Fourth Gospel may have understood the term. Noting that the standard
lexical reference materials generally interpret through encyclopaedic knowledge which
is outwith the context and setting of the immediate text and which is constrained by Christian
orthodoxy, Phillips asserts that any interpretation of must allow the intended first
century readers to understand its use
98
.
Analysing the New Testament use of the term , Phillips notes that John uses the
nominative form of the word much more frequently than any other New Testament writer,
which associates the messenger very closely with the message
99
. Moreover, the normal
meaning of in New Testament usage is teaching or message, with Revelation
19:13 being the only other occurrence of in reference to Jesus
100
. Thus Phillips
concludes that the use of in the prologue is unprecedented in Christian literature,
strongly suggesting that the authors agenda was to address readers beyond the
Christian community
101
.
Phillips thus explores the usage of in extra Biblical literature, concluding that the term
was familiar in schools of Hellenistic religion and philosophy, including the Heracliteans,
Stoics, Hermetics and Gnostics
102
.
Phillips also considers similarities between the of the prologue and the of
Philos writings
103
, but notes that the differences in use are just as striking as the similarities,

97
Phillips, P. M., p73.
98
Phillips. P. M., p79.
99
Phillips comments that in John the message and messenger are synonymous, Phillips, P. M., p82.
100
Phillips, P. M., p88.
101
Phillips, P. M., p89.
102
Phillips, P. M., pp-90-106.
103
Ibid, pp106-111.
Page 19 of 33

and hence concludes that Johns use of cannot be regarded as depend upon Philo
104
.
Phillips also notes similarities between in the prologue and the Old Testament Word of
God and t depicted in the Targums, but notes that nowhere does the Word of God appear as a
separate entity to Yahweh
105
.
Thus, Phillips asserts that the author of the Fourth Gospel employs a strategy of using
contemporary religious jargon in order to reach out to readers outside of the Christian
community
106
. Central to this strategy is the resemanticization of the term , using the
term in a manner which resonates with various schools of religious thought (both Hebrew and
Greek), and yet redefines the term by using it to focus directly on the incarnation of the
in Jesus Christ
107
. Phillips concludes that the author was deeply Jewish, steeped in Jewish
scriptural traditions, but chose to use a Greek veneer to open up the text giving easy access to
those outside the Jewish and Christian communities.

DISCUSSION
In the foregoing linguistic definitions have been reviewed, various cultural backgrounds have
been discussed and the manner in which the Fourth Gospel has been received and interpreted
over the years has been reviewed.
It has been seen that Johns use of the term would resonate very closely with several
different cultural viewpoints of his day. One weakness of many of the interpretations
postulated is that there has been an emphasis on identifying key influences upon the author of
the Fourth Gospel. For example, Bultmann postulated that the prologue was originally a pre-

104
Ibid, p111.
105
Ibid, p135.
106
Ibid, p106.
107
Ibid, p224.
Page 20 of 33

Christian Gnostic hymn
108
. Others, however, have seen chronological difficulties with
Bultmanns thesis, and have concluded that the Gnostic literature and the Gospel of John
share a dependency on Jewish Wisdom Literature
109
, whilst others see a dependency on
Hellenism, Hellentistic Judaism
110
, the Targums
111
or the Old Testament itself
112
.
However, it should be noted that there is a major difference between similarity and
dependency. Whilst the Fourth Gospel shares many similarities with several different cultural
influences prevalent at the time of writing, it also exhibits several key differences which
distinguish the Johannine use of from all others. This is particularly seen in the idea of
the becoming flesh, which appears to be a uniquely Johannine concept.
Thus, it appears that the best explanation for Johns use of the term is not to be found
in identifying a specific literary, philosophical or religious source upon which the author drew
direct inspiration, but rather to see Johns use of the term as a resemantization of term that
was in common usage in several different but contemporary cultural settings. In other words,
we may conclude that the most significant influence upon John is not to be found in Greek or
Hebrew culture or thought, but is found in the person of Jesus Christ, with whom he was
personally acquainted throughout Christs earthly ministry.
Thus, we may agree with Phillips conclusion, that the author of the Fourth Gospel used a
writing strategy that deliberately used language common to those outwith the Christian
community in order to make the Gospel message accessible to them.
Whilst this conclusion opposes Bultmanns thesis of dependency on Gnostic beliefs, it does
confirm Bultmanns notion that the Gospel borrowed the language of the day. Whilst

108
End, M., Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early
Jewish Creation Accounts, Volume 149 of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,
Mohr Siebeck, 2002, p1.
109
Ibid, p4.
110
Ruebelt notes that Adam Clarke and the school of Tubingen both held a to a dependency between
Philo and the Gospel of John with respect to the use of the term logos. See: Ruebelt, J. A., The Logos
of Philo Judaeus and that of St. John, Methodist review, Volume 40, Methodist Book Concern, 1858,
pp110-111.
111
Ronning, J., The Jewish Targums and Johns Logos Theology, Hendrickson Pub., 2010, p252.
112
Bruce, F. F., The Gospel of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994, p29.
Page 21 of 33

Bultmann regarded the purely as mythological language, conservative scholarship
asserts that whilst John used language that was familiar to non-Christians (which could be
defined as mythological), he redefined the meaning of by fixing the title to the real
person of Jesus Christ, whilst affirming both His divinity and eternal existence. Indeed, this
was the point emphasised by Tertullian
113
.
At times, Evangelical thinking has objected to any connection between Greek philosophical
thought and the of the Fourth Gospel. Peters, for instance, sees a major danger of
compromise, accommodation and syncretism with other faiths if it is accepted that the
is the
114
. Peters accuses Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and
Tillich of propagating a theology which compromises the unique revelation found in Christ
115
.
However, Peters accusations appear to be severely overstated: Justin Martyr actually asserted
that the Greeks had copied the idea of from Judaeo-Christian literature
116
, and both
Clement
117
and Tillich pointed to major differences between the Greek concept of as
the universal principle, and the Christian teaching of the divine Word as a concrete reality in
the person of Jesus Christ
118
.
Peters reservations do have some validity. For instance, in considering the role of the Fourth
Gospel in a modern, pluralistic culture, Culpepper observed that the similarity between Johns
theology and other religious traditions undercuts the triumphalism that Christendom

113
Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 21, in Schaff, P., The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3: Latin
Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, William B. Eerdmans, 2001, p34-36.
114
Peters, G. W., Current Theological Issues in World Missions, Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 135,
1978, pp153-164.
115
Ibid.
116
Justin Martyr believed that Plato had barrowed much of his think regarding divinity from Moses.
See: Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter LX, in Schaff, P., The Ante-Nicene Fathers
Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Ireneus, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2001, p183.
117
Schaff, P., The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian,
Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001,
p168.
118
Tillich, P., The History of Christian Thought: Lecture 3 The Intertestamental Period,
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2310&C=2309.
Page 22 of 33

has a monopoly on the revelation of God
119
. Culpepper contrasts Johannine exclusivism
120

with the universal implications of Johns theology
121
and concludes that Johns
prologue allows Christians to affirm that adherents of other faiths may come to know God
through the cosmic . Whilst Culpepper notes that John neither omits nor denies Christs
redemptive death, he argues that the Fourth Gospel translates the sacrificial imagery into an
idiom that features Jesus as the revealer, and asserts that redemption is found
through response to that revelation
122
. Culpepper asserts that modern interpretation requires
a hermeneutics of ethical accountability
123
. The danger in Culpeppers view is that ethics
become the dominant factor in interpretation, at the expense of theology and orthodoxy.
Thus, one must be careful to distinguish between the choice of Johns language and
compromise in his message. Whilst the Fourth Gospel uses language which makes the Gospel
accessible to readers from non-Christian backgrounds, it nevertheless emphasises that
redemption is found only through belief in Jesus Christ
124
.
Phillips conclusion that the author simply chose to use common language in order to make
the message amenable to those outside the Christian community without compromising his
message, viz. that redemption is found through faith in Christ alone; appears to constitute the
best explanation for Johns use of the term as a title for Jesus.

119
Culpepper, R. A., The Gospel of John as a Document of Faith, in Segovia, F. F., What is John?
Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel, Scholars Press, 1996, p124.
120
Most notably that salvation is found only through confession of Jesus as Lord; see Culpepper, R. A.,
The Gospel of John as a Document of Faith, in Segovia, F. F., What is John? Readers and Readings
of the Fourth Gospel, Scholars Press, 1996, p121.
121
Bauckham, R., Mosser, C., The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2008, p4.
122
Culpepper, R. A., The Theology of the Gospel of John, Review and Expositor, Volume 85, 1988,
p423.
123
Culpepper, R. A., The Gospel of John as a Document of Faith, in Segovia, F. F., What is John?
Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel, Scholars Press, 1996, p127.
124
This is made abundantly clear through phrases such as: He came to that which was his own, but his
own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the
right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a
husband's will, but born of God (Jn 1:11-13); Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but
whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's
one and only Son (Jn 3:18); For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes
in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day (Jn 6:40).
Page 23 of 33


CONCLUSION
It clear that at the time of writing, John was surrounded by a rich culture in both
Jewish and Greek realms that ascribed at least some attributes of the divine to the
Word. Thus, the most likely reason for Johns use of the term as a title for
Jesus in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel is his desire to make the Gospel message
accessible to non-Christians by using language with which they were familiar.
In so doing, John does not compromise his message, but redefines by fixing the title to
the real person of Jesus Christ.
Page 24 of 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY
GENERAL REFERENCES
The Holy Bible, New International Version, Zondervan Bible Publishers,
International Bible Society, 1984.
The Holy Bible, Authorized Version, 1769 Blayney Edition of the 1611 King James
Version of the English Bible.

INTERNET RESOURCES
The Catholic Encyclopaedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch.

REFERENCES
Armand, J. G. Jr., The Testimony of the Fourth Evangelist to the Johannine
Community, Trafford Publishing, 2004.
Augustine, The Trinity: in Schaff, P., On the Holy Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises;
Moral Treatises, The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890.
Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John.
Balz, H., Sxhneider, G., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990 (Electronic version from PC Study Bible
Version 5; Biblesoft, 1988-2007 - note page numbers not available with this product).
Barclay, W., The Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of John Volume 1, The Saint
Andrews Press, 1975.
Barth, K., Church Dogmatics, Volume 1, Part 1, T & T Clark, 1975.
Barth, K., Church Dogmatics, Volume 1, Part 2, T & T Clark, 1975.
Bauckham, R., Mosser, C., The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.
Brown, C., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 3,
Paternoster Press, 1986.
Bruce, F. F., The Gospel of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994.
Page 25 of 33

Bultmann, R. Jesus Christ and Mythology, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957.
Bultmann, R. K., Theology of the New Testament, Baylor University Press, 2007.
Bultmann, R., New Testament and Mythology, Fortress Press, 1984.
Calvin, J., The Gospel According to St. John: Part 1 (1-10), Translated by Parker, T.
H. L., Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.
Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John, Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans
1991.
Culpepper, R. A., The Gospel of John as a Document of Faith, in Segovia, F. F.,
What is John? Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel, Scholars Press, 1996.
Culpepper, R. A., The Theology of the Gospel of John, Review and Expositor,
Volume 85, 1988.
Dodd, C. H., Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press,
1953.
End, M., Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light
of Early Jewish Creation Accounts, Volume 149 of Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
Evans, C. A., Word and glory: on the exegetical and theological background of
John's prologue, Volume 89 of Journal for the study of the New Testament,
Continuum International Publishing Group, 1993
Friedlander, G., Hellenism and Christianity, P. Vallentine & Son's, 1912.
Grant, R. M., Jesus After the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century,
Westminster John Knox Press, 1990.
Grant, R. M., Tracy, D. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible, 2nd Ed.,
Fortress Press, 1984.
Hendricksen, W. The Gospel of John, Banner of Truth Trust, 1954.
Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter LX, in Schaff, P., The Ante-Nicene
Fathers Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Ireneus, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
Kahlos, M., Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures c. 360-430,
Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies, Ashgate
Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
Kamesar, A., The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical
Interpretation: Philo and the D-Scholia to the Iliad, Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies, 2004.
Page 26 of 33

Krkkinen, V. M., An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical,
Historical, and Contemporary Perspectives, InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Kittle, G., Friedrich, G., Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989 (Libronix Electronic Version; page numbers
not available).
Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, Koninklijke Brill NV, 1994-2000 (electronic version employed no page
numbers available with this product)
McCormack, B. L., Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth,
Baker Academic, 2009.
Morris, L., The New International Commentary on the New Testament The Gospel
According to John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, para. 42.
Paterson, J., The Book That is Alive, Charles Scribners Sons, 1954.
Peters, G. W., Current Theological Issues in World Missions, Bibliotheca Sacra,
Volume 135, 1978, pp153-164.
Phillips, P. M., The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading, Volume
294 of Library of New Testament studies, T & T Clark, Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2006.
Philo, On the Cherubim: 127, in Yonge, C. D., The Works of Philo, H. G. Bohn,
1854, p134.
Ronning, J., The Jewish Targums and Johns Logos Theology, Hendrickson Pub.,
2010.
Ruebelt, J. A., The Logos of Philo Judaeus and that of St. John, Methodist review,
Volume 40, Methodist Book Concern, 1858, pp110-111.
Schaff, P., The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2: Fathers of the Second Century:
Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
Tanner, K., Karl Barths Christology: in: Webster, J., The Cambridge Companion
to Karl Barth, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 21, in Schaff, P., The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume
3: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, William B. Eerdmans, 2001.
Thompson, M. M., The Gospel According to John, in Barton, S. C., The
Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Tillich, P., The History of Christian Thought: Lecture 3 The Intertestamental
Period, http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2310&C=2309.
Page 27 of 33

VanGemeren, W. A., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis, Volume 1, Paternoster Press, 1997.
Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., White, W. Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old
and New Testament words, Thomas Nelson, 1996.
Webster, J., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, Cambridge University Press,
2000.






Page 28 of 33

APPENDIX 1: DODDS COMPARISON OF JOHNS PROLOGUE WITH THE WRITINGS OF PHILO

The following comparison of the prologue to the Fourth Gospel and Philo has been reproduced from
Dodds original work
1
, expanded to include translations from the Greek using Yonges translation of
Philo
2
and Ronnings notes of Dodds work
3
.


Gospel of John Philo
`E| a, | e e,e;
In the beginning was the Word (1:1)
Before creation, God conceived in His mind the ,
which is His (On Creation of the World, 24).
e e,e; | :e; e| .e|
the Word was with God (1:1)
God sent forth His younger son, the , but kept the
elder, the (), (That God is
Unchangeable, 31).
.e; | e e,e;
The Word was God (1:1)
The anarthrous may be used of the , while is
reserved for the Self-existent (On Dreams, 1. 228-30).
:a|a et` aueu .,.|.e
All things were made by him (1:3)
God is the , the is (On the
Cherubim, I27).
God is the cause of creation, while the is the instrument through
which it is framed
.| aua ,a |
In him was life (1:4)
Dodd found no direct correlation, but pointed to Philos
interpretation of the command to flee to the cities of refuge as a
command to flee to highest word of God, which is the fountain of
wisdom, in order that by drinking of that stream he may find
everlasting life instead of death (On Flight & Finding, 97).
Dodd also pointed to Philos statement that a man who lives in an
irrational manner [] is separated from the life of God (On
the Posterity of Cain. 68-9).
.| aua|a; a| a|a:a|
In Him...was the light of men (1:4)
,
- the real model was his own most perfect
word, the light, and he himself is like to no created thing. (On Dreams,
1.75).
Philo speaks of the adversity of the
[light which is perceptible to God alone] and darkness - (On the
Creation, 33).
The [incorporeal light] is the [elder] or
[firstborn son] (which is elsewhere called the
see above). (On the Confusion of Tongues, 60-3).

1
Dodd, C. H., Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, 1953, pp276-277.
2
Yonge, C. D., The works of Philo: complete and unabridged, Hendrickson Pub., 1993.
3
Ronning, J., The Jewish Targums and Johns Logos Theology, Hendrickson Pub., 2010, pp6-7.
Page 29 of 33

ecet e. .ae| aue|, .ea-.| auet ;
.eucta| .-|a .eu ,.|. cat
Yet to all who received him...he gave the
right to become children of God (1:12)
Philo notes that in Deut. 14:1, Moses call the Israelites Sons of the
Lord God - ,
-
,
, ,
...
And if there be not as yet anyone who is worthy to be called a son of
God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to
his first-born word... for he is called, the authority, and the name of
God, and the Word (On the Confusion of Tongues, 145-7)
O.e| eue.t; .a a-.| :a:e.
e|e,.|; .e; e a| .t; e| -e:e|
eu :ae; .-.t |e; .,cae.
No-one has ever seen God, but God the
One and Only, who is at the Father's
side, has made him known (1:18).
Commenting on Ex. 24:10, which in the LXX says they saw the place
where the God of Israel stood, Philo says that those that follow
Moses as their guide will see this place, for it is natural for them to
.... , ,
, (On the Confusion of Tongues,
97)
it is very suitable for those who have made an association for the
purpose of learning to desire to see him; and, if they are unable to do
that, at least to see his image, the most sacred word

Note: Dodds original comparisons were generally in Greek, and are reproduced in blue in the table
above. Translations of the Greek are shown in Times New Roman italics. Translations from the Gospel o
John are taken from the New International Version.
Page 30 of 33

APPENDIX 2: DODDS COMPARISON OF JOHNS PROLOGUE WITH WISDOM LITERATURE

The following comparison of the prologue to the Fourth Gospel and Philo has been reproduced from
Dodds original work
1
, expanded to include translations from the Greek.
Gospel of John Wisdom Literature
`E| a, | e e,e;
In the beginning was the Word (1:1)
The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his
deeds of old (Proverbs 8:22
2
)
e e,e; | :e; e| .e|
the Word was with God (1:1)
I was beside him (Proverbs 8:30
3
)
| a| ca | e|a| :a.ee| ce|ta| - give me the wisdom that sits
by your throne (Wisdom 9:4)
:a|a et` aueu .,.|.e
All things were made by him (1:3)
e :etca; a :a|a .| e,a ceu -at ce|ta ceu -aac-.uaca;
a|a:e| - who have made all things by your word, and by your
wisdom have formed humankind (Wisdom 9:1-2)
Then I was the craftsman at his side (Proverbs 8:30
4
)
By wisdom the LORD founded the earth (Proverbs 3:19)
for wisdom, the fashioner of all things (Proverbs 7:22)
.| aua ,a |
In him was life (1:4)
For whoever finds me finds life (Proverbs 8:35)
,a | e |a; a| a|a :a|
that life was the light of men. (1:4)
(ce|ta) The one who is the true light (Wisdom 7:26)

e |a; .| c-eta |at|.t, -at
c-eta aue eu -a.a.|
The light shines in the darkness, but
the darkness has not understood it.
(1:4)
(ce|ta) |at cu,-t|e.| .utc-.at :e.a eue .| ,a
etae.,.at |u ce|ta; e. eu -atc,u.t -a-ta
...compared with the light, she is found before it. For after this
cometh night: but vice shall not prevail against wisdom.
(Wisdom 7:29-30)
.| a -eca |
He was in the world (1:10)
eta.t|.t e. a:e :.ae; .:t :.a; .ua ca; -at etet-.t a :a|a
,ca;
She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and
she orders all things well. (Wisdom 8:1)
.| :ac , -at .| :a|t aa -at .|.t .-ca|
over all the earth, and over every people and nation I have held
sway (Sirach24:6)

1
Dodd, C. H., Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, 1953, pp274-275.
2
Wisdom is speaking.
3
Again, Wisdom is talking.
4
Again, Wisdom is talking.
Page 31 of 33

Gospel of John Wisdom Literature
e -ece; aue| eu- .,|a
the world did not recognise him
(1:10)
.tcca| ,a ce|ta|
for they hated wisdom (Proverbs 1:29)
.t; a teta .|, -at et tetet
aue| eu :a.ae|
He came to that which was his own,
but his own did not receive him (1:11)
Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of
men, and found no dwelling-place (Enoch 62:2)
ecet e. .ae| aue|, .ea-.| auet ;
.eucta| .-|a .eu ,.|. cat
Yet to all who received him, to those
who believed in his name, he gave the
right to become children of God
(1:12)
.t; (u,a; ecta; .aat|euca |teu; .eu -at :e|a;
-aac-.ua,.t
she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy
souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets (Wisdom
7:27)

.c-|ac.| .| t|
made his dwelling among us (1:14)
e -tca; . -a.:auc.| | c-|| eu -at .t:.| .| Ia-a
-aac-|ace|
my Creator chose the place for my tent. He said, 'Make your
dwelling in Jacob (Sirach24:8)
eea| a; e|e,.|eu; :aa :ae;
the glory of the One and Only, who
came from the Father (1:14)
.ct| ,a .| au :|.uae|e,.|.;at; ,a .ct| ; eu
.eu eu|a.a; -at a:e eta ; eu :a|e-aee; ee;
There is in her a spirit that isuniqueFor she is a breath of
the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the
Almighty (Wisdom 7:22,25)
Note: Dodds original comparisons were generally in Greek, and are reproduced in blue in the table
above. Translations of the Greek are shown in Times New Roman italics. Translations from the Old and
New Testaments are taken from the New International Version, and translations of the Apocrypha are
from the New Revised Standard Version.
Page 32 of 33

APPENDIX 3: PHILLIPSS ANALYSES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT USAGE OF

Table A.3.1: Various Uses of in Gospels and Johannine Literature (After Phillips)


Table A.3.2: Analyses of the Nominative Uses of in the Fourth Gospel (After Phillips)

Page 33 of 33

Table A.3.3: Analyses of the Usage of in the Johannine Literature (After Phillips)