Johannine Soteriology and Aristotelian Philosophy 417 Philo then explicates this classification more precisely: the cause is God, the material are the four elements (ta; tevssara stoicei'a), the instrument is the lovgo" of God (o[rganon de; lovgon qeou') (9), and the final cause is the goodness of the creator (ajgaqovth" tou' dhmiourgou') (10). As Philo’s exegesis indicates, rather than postulating one single cause — for example the general term ‘God’ — he made intelligible a more precise explanation of the origin of creation by recourse to Greek philosophy. Philo is important, therefore, in that his manner of interpreting the biblical narrative of creation in terms of the four causes corresponds conceptually, as we shall see, to our reading of Johannine soteriology. In short, Philo is a prominent witness to the fact that in the Hellenistic period biblical texts were interpreted in a sophisticated philosophical manner that attempted to do justice to both the biblical message and philosophical insights. 3. John 3,16 As we noted, Philo’s interpretation of creation deliberately seeks to correlate the biblical narrative with the insights of Greek philosophy. The same hermeneutical awareness cannot be claimed for the author of the Johannine corpus. To be sure, our author did not work with the prepositional scheme in the way Philo did, nor did he give any hint that he is working explicitly with the distinction of causes as a deliberate exegetical or theological device. There is, however, sufficient evidence in our two texts to make transparent our argument that the distinction of causes is implicit in the evangelist’s understanding of soteriology (11). The four elements in this verse that correspond to the four Aristotelian causes are (1) God (oJ qeov"), (2) his act of loving (hjgavphsen), (3) the giving (edwken), and (4) the Son (to;n uiJo;n to;n monogenh'). In John 3,16, then, we [ find in a nutshell an implied reference to the Aristotelian distinction of the various causes. Concretely, God corresponds to the formal cause in that the prime impetus for salvation, hence the essence of the cause is God. The act —————— of creation, but introduces a new element when he characterizes the final cause here in the sense of the model (paravdeigma). The list of the four causes is identical to the one narrated by Basil of Caesarea and is most likely of Platonic origin. A combination of the three Philonic texts thus yields a total of five causes. These are: to; uJf∆ ou| = ai[tion = qeov"; to; ejx ou| = hJ u{lh; to; di∆ ou| = to; ejrgalei'on = oJ qeou' lovgo"; to; pro;" o{ = to; paravdeigma; to; di∆ o{ = to; ou| e[neka = hJ aijtiva. (9) See the discussion on the lovgo" as instrument of creation in H.-F. WEISS, Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und palästinischen Judentums (Berlin 1966) 269-272. Note also T.H. TOBIN, The Creation of Man. Philo and the History of Interpretation (The CBQ Monograph Series 14; Washington 1983) 66-71 and G.D. FARANDOS, Kosmos und Logos nach Philon von Alexandrien (Amsterdam 1976) 267-271. (10) Cf. Cher. 127. For a discussion of the scheme, see D. RUNIA, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden 1986) 173. The origin of this prepositional scheme is uncertain, although it probably originated with the Peripatetics (formal, material, efficient, final cause), and was later modified by the Platonist and Stoic traditions; cf. the discussions in TOBIN, The Creation of Man, 66-68 and H. DÖRRIE, “Präpositionen und Metaphysik: Wechselwirkung zweier Prinzipienreihen”, IDEM, Platonica Minora (Munich 1976) 124-136. (11) For philological annotations of the verse, see R.E. BROWN, The Gospel according to John I-XII. Introduction and Commentary (AB 29A; New York 1966) 133-134.