"[color:blue]Did Philo’s “logos” influence John’s Gospel? Why or why not?" But didn't he invent that great pastry dough that is used in many Greek dishes!
[color:red]But didn't he invent that great pastry dough that is used in many Greek dishes! </font color=red><br><br>You make an excellent point. I'm not sure, but<br><br>Pattie cake, pattie cake baker's man where is Philo's [color:red]logos</font color=red> .... [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
Brother Pilgrim and Brother Joe as a man whose mother's family is greek in ancestry let me correct your spelling. That would be phyllo. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]<br><br>Now you've put me in the mood for some baklava and ouzo. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/cheers.gif" alt="cheers" title="cheers[/img]
Probably not. Both John and Philo were probably drawing on Jewish intertestamental usage of the term. John imbued it with a clear understanding of God become incarnate in time and space which is not Philo's way of using the term.<br><br>A good, brief discussion can be found in Stephen Smalley's John:Evangelisit and Interpreter published by Paternoster Press.<br><br>James.
I agree he probably did not. Philo's use of the term is much broader than John's use. With Philo it could mean God's mind, God's mediators throughout history (Old Testament personifications--Abraham, Moses, et. al.) and several other things. From the history of this subject it appears there are some similarities in John's use of terms like logos, light, and water in his Gospel when it is compared to Philo's writings, but not direct evidence that John used the terms the way Philo did. If anything he would be refuting Philo's use of the terms and not endorsing them.