Fascinating (although very technical) article by Michael R. Jost, comparing the Spirit (πνεῦμα) as Paraclete in the Gospel of John to Socrates’ idea of the daimonion (δαιμόνιον). The daimonion is a divine voice within us but also transcending us, as a personal spirit that accompanies humans. These issues relate to the issue of synthesis between biblical and Greek texts. To some extent, the synthesis is already in the New Testament.
Jost says, “The notion of personal spirits was not only widespread in the context of ancient Judaism but also among the Hellenists. The difference between the Daimonion of Socrates and the Pneuma-Paraclete of Jesus is not so much based on the function of the spirit. Nor is the difference based on the spirit’s intermediate position and mediation between heaven and earth. Nor is the difference based on a personal identity of the spirit, as it was often assumed in the history of research. On the contrary, these parallels make the notion of a spirit understood as a personal agent all the more plausible, above all because the Synoptic Gospels combine the terms πνεῦμα and δαιμόνιον.”
But there is also a difference. Jost says that in John, Jesus is not just a divinely inspired teacher, but God himself.
Jost says,
“The goal of the Gospel of John is not spiritualization, that is, becoming a δαίμων by detaching oneself from the incarnation, as is the case in Platonism. Rather, the goal is the presence of God in the world, the dwelling of the incarnate Logos on earth. That is why the Spirit-Paraclete in John reminds the readers of Jesus of Nazareth, who lived and taught in space and time.”
J. Glenn Friesen 