I Suspect that at its close this article will be judged to have fallen between two stools, that of the theologian and that of the philosopher. Not being in a position to remedy the defects of either quarter makes me the keener to communicate to others something that has recently struck me and given me pause for thought, namely an apparent parallel between a certain aspect of contemporary philosophy and another of traditional theology. It is to these that the expressions ‘intersubjectivity’ and ‘indwelling’ in my title refer. It is my hope that an examination of the parallel between them will prove fruitful for the contemporary pursuit of the perennial occupation of fides quaerens intellectum.

In the ancient world, the concept of conversion was a motive for many great works. One might consider Plato's dialogue The Republic as an expression of hope and salvation for man, with the basic intention to guide man to a clearer vision of God. Later Philo, Clement of Alexandria and other early Christan writers were concerned with the question how man would be reunited with the divine. In his presentation of the text and translation of Plotinus' works, A. H. Armstrong states that the primary object of all of Plotinus' activity as a teacher and thinker was to bring his own soul and the souls of others by way of intellect to union with the One.

A. G. Hogg, although still not well known outside of India, has become in recent years the centre of increasing interest, particularly as studies of major missionary thinkers have demonstrated his importance to Protestant thought during the first half of this century.1 Hogg, who was Principal of the Madras Christian College from 1928 to 1938, first arrived in India from Scotland in 1903 as Professor of Philosophy at the College. During his first years in Madras, he contributed several articles to the Madras Christian College Magazine, the most significant being a series entitled ‘Karma and Redemption’ (1904–5), published in book form in 1909.2 In it, he outlined his fundamental missionary approach, which was based on his distinction between faith and faiths.

Professor Joachim Jeremias has raised the question of the logos problem. He calls attention to the change in the Septuagint (LXX) from the vocalisation of to and its translation with λόγος in Hab. 3:5, the personified logos in Wis. 18:14–16, and the unmistakable closeness of Rev. 19:11–16 to the latter passage. He notes that the logos title in the New Testament is limited to the Johannine writings (John 1:1, 14; 1 John1:1; Rev. 19:13). Jeremias says that in dealing with the logos problem in New Testament investigation it has become customary to begin with the prologue of John and that this is an error since the absolute use of ὁ λόγος, ‘the Word’, in John 1:1, 14 (in contrast to , ‘the word of life’, in 1 John 1:1 and , ‘The word of God’, in Rev. 19:13) warrants the assumption that the title was known to the readers and that it already had a Christian prehistory behind it when the Johannine prologue was formed. Jeremias concludes that the unmistakable closeness of Rev. 19:11–16 to Wis. 18:14–16 must be noted; that the logos title might have originated in Hellenistic Judaism and so applied to Jesus Christ as a title of the returning Lord; that, on the other hand, John 1:1, 14 and 1 John 1:1–31, where the title is extended to the pre-existent and earthly Jesus, already represent an advanced stage of the Christian usage of the logos title.