?|Uotation may be the idiosyncrasy of the author, or he shows also slight and marked divergences from the LXX, and from the text of the Dialogues of Plato (see Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century). The deviations from strict accuracy are, as we should expect, more numerous in quotations from the Gospels than from these other sources. Except when quoting a lengthened passage from LXX or other sources, he may have fallen back upon his memory, as other divines have done in all ages.
The contemporaneousness of Justin and Irenieus is a fact of importance when we call to mind the undoubted confidence which the latter places in the Fourth Gospel. Irenaius makes no fewer than 30 references to the Apology and Dialogue of Justin. Equally abundant are the references to Justin by Tertullian, Theophilus, and others, to say nothing at present of Tatian, the supposed author of the Dintcssaron.
II. External Evidence for the Early Exist- ence OF THE Fourth Gospel. — (A) We will com- mence with the quotations from, or references to, the Fourth Gospel by Justin himself (see Watkins, Bampton Lectures, pp. 73-81, for a summary of recent investigations by Ezra Abbot, Thoma, Hilgenfeld, Drumiuond, Sanday, Westcott, Edwin A. Abbott, and others). The resemblances i)etween Justin and the Fourth Gospel are undeniable, but it has been contended by some that 'John' borrowed from J ustin, rather than the reverse. Such a conten- tion, however, must be held to betraj- a deKciency of literary perception. Others, who accept the
priority of John, urge that Justin did not regard the authority of the evangelist as apostolic ; and that, i/ he hail drawn u|>on the Gospel, he ou'dit to have quoted it when endeavouring to establish the pre- existence of Christ, instead of citing words of OT prophets. This suggestion supposes that we can grasp the ethic and philosophy of citation in the '2nd century. There are seven or eight pas.sa^e« in the Apology, and several in the Dialogue, which turn on ( 1 ) the Joli.mnine doctrine of the Logos, it4 idea of the relation of the Logos to God, as His npCnovyivvrina (ch. 21), His wus (clis. 22 and G.*?), Hi» vptxtT&roKos Tt^i aytvfi^tfj det^i (ch. 63) ; (2) on the in- carnation of the Logos, His becoming <rdpi, or di'Opuwo!, in Jesus Christ, and the 'Teacher' or 'Saviour' of the world {Ap. 6; Dial. 48, 105). Manj- portions of the Gospel, besides the Prologue, are referred to by Justin, e.g. in Ap. 35 he re- gards Isaiah's oracle in 48' as fulfilled by a curious text of Jn 19", where iKieiat is altered into transi- tive (Kidiaav, and refers to Jesus being forced to sit on the /35m<i or judgment-seat, rather than to Pilate's taking his seat on it. This .supposition, that part of t he gross humiliation of Jesus consisted in placing Him upon the seat of judgment, is conlirmed by the liagment of the Gospel of Peter recently discovered. In Dial. 69, Justin refers to the incidents of Jesus healing those iK yeverfit vijpovs (cf. Jn 9), the lame also and Jumb, by His word. Again, Jn 4'° is referred to in Dial. 114.
The most important passage is Ap. 61, which pro- fesses to be tlie word of Christ Himself, iv /li) ivayevvijOTiTi oii fiT} eitr^Xdtjre ets ttjv ^affiXfiav rCiv oC'pavuiv. 'Oti 5e Ka.1 ddvyaroy e^s rds p-iyrpa-s rwv T€KOi'(Tu!i' Toi>s dTTa^ ycvi'oip^i'ov^ ip.^Tjvai tpavepbv Trdjlv tsTiv. We have only to place this by the side of Jn 3'"' to discern the original form of the idea, although there are manj' diilerences in the expression : 'EdK p-i) Tis yevvrjBrj dyuOtv, ov 5uiniTai Ideiv tij^ ^aaCKilay Tov Oiov. \^y€i Trpds airrbv 6 NtK657;/i05, llws bvvarai dvOpcjiros ycvpijOiifai y^pujv &v ; fxr} ^vvarai eli Ti}v KOiXiaif T^v pLTjrpbs aiTou bevrepov (tffeXOeif Kal yevvrj- fiiJKai. Scliwegler, IJaur, Zeller, Supern. lielig., E. A. Abbott, have called attention to every deviation, but none of the theories by which they account for tliesf is so free from difficulty as the suggestion that Justin, in an awkward wa}-, has appropriated with gravity, as his own confiniiation of Clirist's words, the semi-humorous query of Nicodemus which wan passed over by our Lord in silence and implied rebuke. There was probably also an echo of Mt 18* blended by Justin witli our Lord's words in Jn 3''°. The verbal diflerences are conspicuous, and yet accounted for by the very common inter- change of the equivalent expressions ' kingdom of God' and ' kingdom of heaven.' Justin expre.sses the idea of yevinid^ dpudiv by dvayaivrsOrJTe, which is not to be wondered at, seeing that iyudd' is often interpreted by 'again,' and that numerous later writers, who quote indisputably from the Fourth Gospel, make the same modification of the text (cf. al.-io Vulg. and AV). Another deviation, the oi/ ^i) eiaiXdrjre, in place of ov Svvarai ISeiv, may easily be the reflection of the elaeXOetv of v.' Ezra Abbot found 69 similar deviations from the text in 46 different English divines of modern times.
Hilgenfeld and Keim admit that while the Synoptists affirm that John the B.aptist was the ' voice of one cryin;;,' Justin might have referred the exclamation to Uie consciousness of the Baptist by acquaintance with Jn I-' ' and S-". When, in Apol. I. 63, Justin declares that the Jews knew neither the Father nor the Son, he must have had Jn 8'" and 16" in his memory.