Short answer. The Logos ("Word") is the divine agent through whom God creates and reveals, opening John's Gospel (1:1-18). But the category was already Jewish: Philo called God's Logos a "second God," and the Aramaic Targums made God's Memra ("Word") the actor in creation. Boyarin argues such Logos theology was at home in Judaism before John, a resonance you can lean on, not influence you can bank.
What John 1 actually claims, and the older grammar it speaks
John opens not with a birth but with a cosmogony: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). The prologue then makes the Word the agent of creation ("all things were made through him," John 1:3) and the medium of revelation ("the Word became flesh," John 1:14). This is not casual vocabulary. The phrase "in the beginning" deliberately rhymes with Genesis 1:1, and the structure (a divine intermediary through whom God acts on the cosmos) was already a familiar Jewish way of speaking about how a transcendent God touches a material world. Larry Hurtado notes that John's high claims about Jesus emerge inside, not against, Jewish devotional patterns (Lord Jesus Christ, 2003). The question this page settles is narrower than "is Jesus God": it is where the category itself came from. And the category (a personified divine Word standing between God and creation) has a documented Jewish pedigree older than the Gospel that made it famous.
Philo's Logos: a Greek word doing Jewish work
The bridge figure is Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE - 50 CE), a Greek-speaking Jew writing a generation before John. Philo fused the Stoic logos (the rational principle ordering the cosmos) with the Hebrew Bible's creating speech ("And God said," Genesis 1:3). For Philo the Logos is God's instrument in making the world (On the Creation 24-25), the "image of God" after which humanity is patterned, and (in his most startling phrase) a "second God" (deuteros theos, Questions on Genesis 2.62). He even calls the Logos God's "firstborn son" and the "high priest" mediating between Creator and creation (Who Is the Heir of Divine Things 205-206). Crucially, Philo was no heretic on the margins; he was a respected Alexandrian Jew working entirely from Scripture. His Logos shows that a personified, near-divine Word was thinkable within first-century Judaism: using Greek philosophical vocabulary to express a Hebrew intuition about God's speech. That is evidence you can document directly: John and Philo drink from an overlapping well, even if neither demonstrably copied the other.
The Targumic Memra: God's Word as the actor in the story
Closer to the Semitic ground runs the Memra (Aramaic for "Word"). When synagogue congregations who no longer spoke Hebrew heard the Torah, it was rendered into Aramaic paraphrases, the Targums. There, again and again, where the Hebrew text says "God" did something, the Targum says God's Memra did it. The Word becomes the named agent: in Targum Neofiti, "the Memra of the Lord" creates (at Genesis 1), and at Exodus 12:42 the Memra is present at the foundational nights of the world and of redemption. This is not abstract philosophy but liturgical reflex, a way of speaking about God's nearness while guarding God's transcendence. Whether the Memra is a true hypostasis (a distinct divine "person") or a reverent buffer-word is debated among scholars, and honesty requires flagging that the surviving Targum manuscripts are later than John, so direct dependence cannot be proven in either direction. What can be said: the instinct to put God's Word on stage as the one who creates and redeems was a living Jewish habit. The resonance is real; the timeline of who-influenced-whom is not bankable.
Boyarin's argument: Logos theology was already Jewish
Daniel Boyarin pressed this furthest. In Border Lines (2004) and The Jewish Gospels (2012) he argues that "Logos theology" (a binitarian picture of God plus God's Word/Wisdom) was a widespread Jewish option in the late Second Temple period, not a Christian innovation that broke Judaism. On this reading John's prologue is a Jewish text using a Jewish category; what later hardened the border was the rabbinic move to brand "two powers in heaven" as heresy (the polemic Alan F. Segal documented in Two Powers in Heaven, 1977). Boyarin connects this to the Wisdom tradition, where personified Wisdom is "beside" God at creation (Proverbs 8:22-31; Sirach 24) and to the "one like a son of man" who shares God's throne in Daniel 7, see the Son of Man and two powers in heaven. Tier-honest caveat: Boyarin's thesis is influential but contested; some scholars read the Targumic Memra as mere circumlocution. Treat it as a strong, sourced case, not a closed verdict.
Participation, not collapse: why the distinction matters
The deepest payoff is theological grammar. A Logos/Memra theology lets God remain transcendent while genuinely acting in the world through the Word, the same participatory structure this project tracks elsewhere. The Word shares in God's work without flattening the Creator into the creation. That is the difference between participation (the world is filled by God's Word yet not identical to God) and identity (everything simply is God): explored at participation vs identity mysticism. John 1 keeps the tension live: the Word "was with God" and "was God" (John 1:1), two clauses Christian orthodoxy would later spend centuries refusing to resolve into either polytheism or collapse. Whatever one concludes about Jesus, the form of the claim (a mediating divine Word) was a Jewish form first.
Common questions
What is the Memra?
The Memra (Aramaic for "Word") is God's Word as the named actor in the Targums, the Aramaic paraphrases read when synagogue congregations no longer spoke Hebrew. Again and again, where the Hebrew text says "God" did something, the Targum says God's Memra did it: in Targum Neofiti "the Memra of the Lord" creates, and at Exodus 12:42 the Memra is present at the foundational nights of the world and of redemption. This is liturgical reflex, a way of speaking about God's nearness while guarding God's transcendence.
Did Philo call the Logos a "second God"?
Yes. Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE to 50 CE), a Greek-speaking Jew writing a generation before John, fused the Stoic logos with the Hebrew Bible's creating speech and called the Logos a "second God" (deuteros theos, Questions on Genesis 2.62). He also names it God's instrument in making the world, the "image of God," God's "firstborn son," and the "high priest" mediating between Creator and creation. Philo was no heretic on the margins but a respected Alexandrian Jew working entirely from Scripture, which shows a personified, near-divine Word was thinkable within first-century Judaism.
Did John invent the idea of the Word?
No; the category had a documented Jewish pedigree older than the Gospel that made it famous. John's "in the beginning" deliberately rhymes with Genesis 1:1, and the structure of a divine intermediary through whom God acts was already a familiar Jewish way of speaking about how a transcendent God touches a material world. The narrower question this settles is where the category came from, not the metaphysics of who Jesus is.
Is the Memra really a distinct divine person?
This is genuinely debated, and honesty requires flagging it. Whether the Memra is a true hypostasis (a distinct divine "person") or a reverent buffer-word is contested among scholars, and the surviving Targum manuscripts are later than John, so direct dependence cannot be proven in either direction. What can be said is that the instinct to put God's Word on stage as the one who creates and redeems was a living Jewish habit: the resonance is real, but the timeline of who-influenced-whom is not bankable.
This page argues that John's Logos draws on a documented Jewish vocabulary (Philo's Logos and the Targumic Memra) and that Boyarin's case for a Jewish Logos theology is strong but contested. It settles where the category came from; it does not settle the metaphysics of who Jesus is, which is a question of faith, not of sources.
Sources
Gospel of John 1:1-18; Genesis 1:1-3; Targum Neofiti (Genesis 1; Exodus 12:42); Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things, Questions on Genesis; Proverbs 8:22-31; Sirach 24; Daniel 7. Scholarship: Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines (2004) and The Jewish Gospels (2012); Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (1977); Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (2003).