Supernatural Religion Volume II Part 21

{291}

enunciates the doctrine: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with G.o.d, and the Word was G.o.d," a statement which Justin, with Philo, only makes in a very modified sense.

To return, however, the next representation of the Logos by Justin is as "Angel." This perpetually recurs in his writings.(1) In one place, to which we have already referred, he says: "The Word of G.o.d is his Son, as we have already stated, and he is also called Messenger [------] and Apostle, for he brings the message of all we need to know, and is sent an Apostle to declare all the message contains."(2) In the same chapter reference is again made to pa.s.sages quoted for the sake of proving: "that Jesus Christ is the Son of G.o.d and Apostle, being aforetime the Word and having appeared now in the form of fire, and now in the likeness of incorporeal beings;"(3) and he gives many ill.u.s.trations.(4) The pa.s.sages, however, in which the Logos is called Angel, are too numerous to be more fully dealt with here. It is scarcely necessary to point out that this representation of the Logos as Angel, is not only foreign to, but opposed to the spirit of, the fourth Gospel, although it is thoroughly in harmony with the writings of Philo. Before ill.u.s.trating this, however, we may incidentally remark that the ascription to the Logos of the name "Apostle" which occurs in the two pa.s.sages just quoted above, as well as in other parts of the writings of Justin,(5)

{292}

is likewise opposed to the fourth Gospel, although it is found in earlier writings, exhibiting a less developed form of the Logos doctrine; for the Epistle to the Hebrews iii. 1, has: "Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus," &c. [------]. We are, in fact, constantly directed by the remarks of Justin to other sources of the Logos doctrine, and never to the fourth Gospel, with which his tone and terminology do not agree. Everywhere in the writings of Philo we meet with the Logos as Angel. He speaks "of the Angel Word of G.o.d"

in a sentence already quoted,(1) and elsewhere in a pa.s.sage, one of many others, upon which the lines of Justin which we are now considering (as well as several similar pa.s.sages)(2) are in all probability moulded.

Philo calls upon men to "strive earnestly to be fas.h.i.+oned according to G.o.d's first-begotten Word, the eldest Angel, who is the Archangel bearing many names, for he is called

{293}

the Beginning [------], and Name of G.o.d, and Logos, and the Man according to his image, and the Seer of Israel."(1) Elsewhere, in a remarkable pa.s.sage, he says: "To his Archangel and eldest Word, the Father, who created the universe, gave the supreme gift that having stood on the confine he may separate the creature from the Creator.

The same is an intercessor on behalf of the ever wasting mortal to the immortal; he is also the amba.s.sador of the Ruler to his subjects. And he rejoices in the gift, and the majesty of it he describes, saying: 'And I stood in the midst between the Lord and you' (Numbers xvi 48); being neither unbegotten like G.o.d, nor begotten like you, but between the two extremes," &c.(2) We have been tempted to give more of this pa.s.sage than is necessary for our immediate purpose, because it affords the reader another glimpse of Philo's doctrine of the Logos, and generally ill.u.s.trates its position in connection with the Christian doctrine.

The last of Justin's names which we shall here notice is the Logos as "Man" as well as G.o.d. In another place Justin explains that he is sometimes called a Man and human being, because he appears in these forms as the Father wills.(3) But here confining ourselves merely

{294}

to the concrete idea, we find a striking representation of it in 1 Tim.

ii. 5: "For there is one G.o.d and one mediator between G.o.d and man, the Man Christ Jesus; [------]; and again in Rom. v. 15: "... by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ" [------], as well as other pa.s.sages.(1) We have already seen in the pa.s.sage quoted above from "De Confus. Ling." -- 28, that Philo mentions, among the many names of the Logos, that of "the Man according to (G.o.d's) image" [------],(2) or "the typical man"). If, however, we pa.s.s to the application of the Logos doctrine to Jesus, we have the strongest reason for inferring Justin's total independence of the fourth Gospel. We have already pointed out that the t.i.tle of Logos is given to Jesus in New Testament writings earlier than the fourth Gospel. We have remarked that, although the pa.s.sages are innumerable in which Justin speaks of the Word having become man through the Virgin, he never once throughout his writings makes use of the peculiar expression of the fourth Gospel: "the Word became flesh" [------].

On the few occasions on which he speaks of the Word having been _made_ flesh, he uses the term [------].(3) In one instance he has [------],(4) and speaking of the Eucharist Justin once explains that it is in memory of Christ's having made himself _body_, [------]5 Justin's most common phrase,

{295}

however, and he repeats it in numberless instances, is that the Logos submitted to be born, and become man [------], by a Virgin, or he uses variously the expressions: [------].(1) In several places he speaks of him as the first production or offspring [------] of G.o.d before all created beings, as, for instance: "The Logos... who is the first offspring of G.o.d" [------];(2) and again, "and that this offspring was begotten of the Father absolutely before all creatures the Word was declaring" [------].(3) We need not say more of the expressions: "first-born" [------], "first-begotten" [------], so constantly applied to the Logos by Justin, in agreement with Philo; nor to "only begotten"

[------], directly derived from Ps. xxii*. 20 (Ps. xxi. 20, Sept.).

It must be apparent to everyone who seriously examines the subject, that Justin's terminology is markedly different from, and in spirit sometimes opposed to, that of the fourth Gospel, and in fact that the peculiarities of the Gospel are not found in Justin's writings at all.(4) On the

{296}

other hand, his doctrine of the Logos is precisely that of Philo,(1) and of writings long antecedent to the fourth Gospel, and there can be no doubt, we think, that it was derived from them.(2)

{ 297}

We may now proceed to consider other pa.s.sages adduced by Tischendorf to support his a.s.sertion that Justin made use of the fourth Gospel. He says: "Pa.s.sages of the Johannine Gospel, however, are also not wanting to which pa.s.sages in Justin refer back. In the Dialogue, ch. 88, he writes of John the Baptist: 'The people believed that he was the Christ, but he cried to them: I am not the Christ, but the voice of a preacher.'

This is connected with John i. 20 and 23; for no other Evangelist has reported the first words in the Baptist's reply."(1) Now the pa.s.sage in Justin, with its context, reads as follows: "For John sat by the Jordan [------] and preached the Baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle and raiment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locusts and wild honey; men supposed [------] him to be the Christ, wherefore he himself cried to them: 'I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying: For he shall come [------] who is stronger than I, whose shoes I am not meet [------] to bear.'"(2) Now the only ground upon which this pa.s.sage can be compared with the fourth Gospel is the reply: "I am not the Christ" [------], which in John i. 20 reads:[------]

{298}

[------]: and it is perfectly clear that, if the direct negation occurred in any other Gospel, the difference of the whole pa.s.sage in the Dialogue would prevent even an apologist from advancing any claim to its dependence on that Gospel. In order to appreciate the nature of the two pa.s.sages, it may be well to collect the nearest parallels in the Gospel, and compare them with Justin's narrative. [------]

{299}

The introductory description of John's dress and habits is quite contrary to the fourth Gospel, but corresponds to some extent with Matt.

iii. 4. It is difficult to conceive two accounts more fundamentally different, and the discrepancy becomes more apparent when we consider the scene and actors in the episode. In Justin, it is evident that the hearers of John had received the impression that he was the Christ, and the Baptist becoming aware of it voluntarily disabused their minds of this idea. In the fourth Gospel the words of John are extracted from him ("he confessed and denied not") by emissaries sent by the Pharisees of Jerusalem specially to question him on the subject. The account of Justin betrays no knowledge of any such interrogation. The utter difference is brought to a climax by the concluding statement of the fourth Gospel:-- [------]

In fact the scene in the two narratives is as little the same as their details. One can scarcely avoid the conclusion, in reading the fourth Gospel, that it quotes some other account and does not pretend to report the scene direct. For instance, i. 15, "John beareth witness of him, and cried, saying: 'This was he _of whom I said_: He that cometh after me is become before me, because he was before me,'" &c. V. 19: "And this is the testimony of John, _when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him: Who art thou?_ and he confessed and denied not, and confessed that I am not the Christ," &c. Now, as usual, the Gospel which Justin uses more nearly approximates to our first Synoptic

{300}

than the other Gospels, although it differs in very important points from that also--still, taken in connection with the third Synoptic, and Acts xiii. 25, this indicates the great probability of the existence of other writings combining the particulars as they occur in Justin. Luke iii. 15, reads: "And as the people were in expectation, and all mused in their hearts concerning John whether he were the Christ, 16. John answered, saying to them all: I indeed baptize you with water, but he that is stronger than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire," &c.

Whilst, however, with the sole exception of the simple statement of the Baptist that he was not the Christ, which in all the accounts is clearly involved in the rest of the reply, there is no a.n.a.logy whatever between the parallel in the fourth Gospel and the pa.s.sage in Justin, many important circ.u.mstances render it certain that Justin did not derive his narrative from that source. We have already(1) fully discussed the peculiarities of Justin's account of the Baptist, and in the context to the very pa.s.sage before us there are details quite foreign to our Gospels which show that Justin made use of another and different work.

When Jesus stepped into the water to be baptized a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and the voice from heaven makes use of words not found in our Gospels; but both the incident and the words are known to have been contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other works. Justin likewise states, in immediate continuation of the pa.s.sage before us, that Jesus was considered the son of

{301}

Joseph the carpenter, and himself was a carpenter and accustomed to make ploughs and yokes.(1) The Evangelical work of which Justin made use was obviously different from our Gospels, therefore, and the evident conclusion to which any impartial mind must arrive is, that there is not only not the slightest ground for affirming that Justin quoted the pa.s.sage before us from the fourth Gospel, from which he so fundamentally differs, but every reason on the contrary to believe that he derived it from a Gospel different from ours.(2)

The next point advanced by Tischendorf is, that on two occasions he speaks of the restoration of sight to persons born blind,3 the only instance of which in our Gospels is that recorded, John ix. 1. The references in Justin are very vague and general. In the first place he is speaking of the a.n.a.logies in the life of Jesus with events believed in connection with mythological deities, and he says that he would appear to relate acts very similar to those attributed to aesculapius when he says that Jesus "healed the lame and paralytic, and the maimed from birth [------], and raised the dead."(4) In the Dialogue, again referring to aesculapius, he says that Christ "healed those who were from birth and according to the flesh blind [------], and deaf, and lame."(5) In the fourth Gospel

{302}

the born-blind is described as [------]. There is a variation it will be observed in the term employed by Justin, and that such a remark should be seized upon as an argument for the use of the fourth Gospel serves to show the poverty of the evidence for the existence of that work. Without seeking any further, we might at once reply that such general references as those of Justin might well be referred to the common tradition of the Church, which certainly ascribed all kinds of marvellous cures and miracles to Jesus. It is moreover unreasonable to suppose that the only Gospel in which the cure of one born blind was narrated was that which is the fourth in our Canon. Such a miracle may have formed part of a dozen similar collections extant at the time of Justin, and in no case could such an allusion be recognized as evidence of the use of the fourth Gospel. But in the Dialogue, along with this remark, Justin couples the statement that although the people saw such cures: "They a.s.serted them to be magical illusion; for they also ventured to call him a magician and deceiver of the people."(1) This is not found in our Gospels, but traces of the same tradition are met with elsewhere, as we have already mentioned;(2) and it is probable that Justin either found all these particulars in the Gospel of which he made use, or that he refers to traditions familiar amongst the early Christians.

Tischendorfs next point is that Justin quotes the words of Zechariah xii. 10, with the same variation from the text of the Septuagint as John xix. 37--"They shall look on him whom they pierced" [------]

{303}

[------] instead of [------], arising out of an emendation of the translation of the Hebrew original. Tischendorf says: "Nothing can be more opposed to probability, than the supposition that John and Justin have here, independently of each other, followed a translation of the Hebrew text which elsewhere has remained unknown to us."(2) The fact is, however, that the translation which has been followed is not elsewhere unknown. We meet with the same variation, much earlier, in the only book of the New Testament which Justin mentions, and with which, therefore, he was beyond any doubt well acquainted, Rev. i. 7: "Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him [------], and they which pierced [------] him, and all the tribes of the earth shall bewail him.

Yea, Amen." This is a direct reference to the pa.s.sage in Zech. xii. 10.

It will be remembered that the quotation in the Gospel: "They shall look upon him whom they pierced," is made solely in reference to the thrust of the lance in the side of Jesus, while that of the Apocalypse is a connection of the prophecy with the second coming of Christ, which, except in a spiritual sense, is opposed to the fourth Gospel. Now, Justin upon each occasion quotes the whole pa.s.sage also in reference to the second coming of Christ as the Apocalypse does, and this alone settles the point so far as these two sources are concerned. If Justin derived his variation from either of the Canonical works,

{304}

therefore, we should be bound to conclude that it must have been from the Apocalypse. The correction of the Septuagint version, which has thus been traced back as far as a.d. 68 when the Apocalypse was composed, was noticed by Jerome in his Commentary on the text;(1) and Aquila, a contemporary of Irenaeus, and later Symmachus and Theodotion, as well as others, similarly adopted [------]. Ten important MSS., of the Septuagint, at least, have the reading of Justin and of the Apocalypse, and these MSS. likewise frequently agree with the other peculiarities of Justin's text. In all probability, as Credner, who long ago pointed out all these circ.u.mstances, conjectured, an emendation of the rendering of the LXX. had early been made, partly in Christian interest and partly for the critical improvement of the text,(2) and this amended version was used by Justin and earlier Christian writers. Ewald(3)3 and some others suggest that probably [------] originally stood in the Septuagint text. Every consideration is opposed to the dependence of Justin upon the fourth Gospel for the variation.(4)

The next and last point advanced by Tischendorf is a pa.s.sage in Apol. i.

61, which is compared with John iii.

{305}

3--5, and in order to show the exact character of the two pa.s.sages, we shall at once place them in parallel columns:--[------]

This is the most important pa.s.sage by which apologists endeavour to establish the use by Justin of the

{306}

fourth Gospel, and it is that upon which the whole claim may be said to rest. We shall be able to appreciate the nature of the case by the weakness of its strongest evidence. The first point which must have struck any attentive reader, must have been the singular difference of the language of Justin, and the absence of the characteristic peculiarities of the Johannine Gospel. The double "verily, verily,"

which occurs twice even in these three verses, and constantly throughout the Gospel(1), is absent in Justin; and apart from the total difference of the form in which the whole pa.s.sage is given (the episode of Nicodemus being entirely ignored), and omitting minor differences, the following linguistic variations occur: Justin has: [------]

Indeed it is almost impossible to imagine a more complete difference, both in form and language, and it seems to us that there does not exist a single linguistic trace by which the pa.s.sage in Justin can be connected with the fourth Gospel. The fact that Justin knows nothing of the expression [------] ("born from above"), upon which the whole statement in the fourth Gospel turns, but uses a totally different word, [------] (born again),

{307}