On the similarities and dissimilarities between the Hellenistic Judaism found in Philo and the opening prologue of the Gospel of John (1:1-18), Urban C. Von Wahlde wrote the following:
John 1.1-2
First, the context of the
discussion of ‘the Word’ is similar in both Philo and John. Both employ the
term Word while commenting on the Genesis account of creation: John in the
opening words of the Hymn and Philo in De Op. 7-25. While Wisdom is said
to exist before creation it is not said to be involved in the act of creation
itself.
Second, in both John (1.1) and
Philo (Som. 1.228-230) the Logos is said to be θεος, ‘divine’—(without
an article). This designation is regularly understood to attribute divinity to
the Logos but in such a way as not to be a challenge to the unicity of God.
John 1.3
In John and in Philo, creation is said to take place δι’ αυτου (i.e., ‘through the Word’) rather
than by the dative (λογω),
which would be simply an ‘instrumental dative’ as in the Wisdom literature. For
the author of the Hymn, for Philo, and for authors elsewhere in the NT, the
choice of such expressions was not haphazard but was intended to reflect the
existence of and activity of a mediating figure in creation. This mediating
figure was understood to be the Word. This is not present in the Wisdom
literature.
John 1.4-5
. . . In Philo, there is an association
of life with the Logos. However, within the works of Philo this association is
less direct. . . . in Philo’s view the first day of creation is when the
intelligible world is created and on the remainder of the days, the various
parts of the world perceptible by the senses are created. The breath of God is
the cause of life and becomes breath (πνευμα) is part of the intelligible,
non-corporeal creation, it is part of the creative activity of the Logos. Therefore
it can be said that the Logos is connected with the giving of life.
John 1.12
In Philo and in John, the believer is said to be a ‘child
of God’. But again there are differences. In Jn 1.12, we are told that Jesus,
the Word, gave all who believed in him ‘the power to become children of God’.
In Philo, the process is more complex. The Individual first becomes a son of
the Word, and then a son of God (Conf. 147).
John 1.14
In the Gospel and in Philo, the Logos is said to have
a special filial relation to God. Again, this is not to say that the filial
relation is precisely the same in both. There can be no doubt that Jesus is
understood as ‘son’ in the Gospel; but in the Hymn, the issue is somewhat more
complex. Tobin points to the similarity of μονογενης in Jn
1.14 to Philo’s use of προτογονος
(Conf. 63 and Conf. 146) in reference to the Logos. While there
can be no doubt that the Hymn understands the Word to be a ‘son’ of God, I do
not believe this is expressed by the term μονογενης. Following D. Moody and others, I
would hold that μονογενης does not mean ‘only begotten’ bur rather ‘unique’. Moreover,
the description of Jesus as μονογενης
has a polemical purpose, namely to distinguish the sonship of Jesus from that
of the believer who is given the power to become a child of God (v. 12). Yet
there is some similarity cannot be denied. (Urban C. Von Wahlde, Gnosticism,
Docetism, and the Judaisms of the First Century: The Search for the Wider
Context of the Johannine Literature and Why It Matters [Library of New
Testament Studies 517; London: T&T Clark, 2015, 2016], 173-75)