John 1

As is well known, the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria makes a point of
insisting that the Logos of God "the eldest Son of God") can be referred
to as "theos" (without the article), but not as "ho theos" - De Somn
1.39, and similarly De Abr 119. It is hard not to see a link here, even
if not a direct influence. The similarity of expression can hardly be
fortuitous. The emphasis on the Logos alone in both "systems" would settle
that, identified, as it is, with the Bread of Heaven (the Manna), the
River or Fountain of life, the High Priest, the True Light, the
Cornerstone, and intermediary between God and man, etc. In other places
(more commonly, eg. at Migr 23) he refers to the Logos as "theios Logos"
(the "divine Logos"). It is well worth looking at a list of the titles
and themes Philo applies to the Logos. It is very instructive with
regard to the Gospel of John, though no-one would suggest they are

I do not really think there is evidence that the writer of the
Fourth Gospel knew the writings of Philo direct, but they very clearly
share a very similar background, and it is in that sort of context that
study of the Logos as "theos" needs to be examined.

John Richards                                       Stackpole Elidor (UK)