hoiiiics lo w liirli .lustin refers in wiiiiii,:js. he 'ji\cs an important
iis oi ( liiisi. composed by the
ewho p.llowc.l ihcni.^ The battle age- aioiniil flic . | nestion whether
III ihcsc ,Mc IIS only the four
I now. ,(i Ic.i-i. he regarded as all ckis-c- ot critics that Justin ic (.os].cl ici, S( hmiedel, Eneyc. ,Soii oi Zchcilcc,- ii. 2546). It is ailiiiiilcil Ihal he includes it Is oi ihc \].o-iles. Those, how- i.ai ,lii-iiii tcg.ir.l.al the Gospel as \po,ili' aic laid under the neces- .; lio» 111- roniiaiiporary Irenajus ed that the Cospel is a genuine
—The locus classicus in Justin is ptism (Apol. I. Ixi. ). He describes e about to make a Christian pro-
anity, addn heathen fri. (Wat kins), cent., who
controversy as to that he introduces incidental fashion. Comme are also attributed to him, upheld by Zahn, is assailed 1 ot his evidence must at prese 2. Justin Martyr.— The are relevant in this coiinexioi and the hinJiKiiir inlli Tnjiil
Go.spcls. 11 ,,,; settled aniongsl makes use of i Bihl., art. -John not so generall; among his Mem.' ever, who deny I the work of tic- sity of explainii could be so assi Apostolic work. (1) Quotations the passage on B how those who a
where there is water, and are born again ill which we our-sel\fs are born again. For
I liiia ci'l -r Mm N..t\ Spirit, they then ' !i '!■ ' I . I ' ; I ! ;iNo said, *' Except
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHX, GOSPEL OF
This passage immediately recalls Jn 3'-'. The language, however, reveals some striking variations from the text of the Gospel. No one would now endorse the verdict of tlie author of Supernatural Religion, that ' there does not exist a single linguistic trace by wliicli the passage in Justin can be con- nected with the Fourth Gospel.' It may be con- ceded that some of his expres.sions have more than an accidental relationship with Mt 18'. Justin certainly uses avayevinieriTe ('bom again') instead of yenvijerj ivuScv (' bom from above ') of the Fourth Gospel, but this variation is at least a possible rendering of the Johannine expression. There are, however, other linguistic difl'erences. The difficulty is increased by the discovery that in the Clementine Homilies (xi. 26) there is a passage containing similar linguistic deviations from the Gospel. Has their author copied Justin, or does the similarity point to the use by both of a common source other than the Gospel ? The fact that the context in each is quite different excludes the first hypothesis, and the second may well be ^^ewed as improl>able, imtil the alleged common source — that ' ghost-like ' Gospel of which Volkmar speaks — has emerged from the place of shades, and embodied itself in a MS (cf. Drum- mond, Character and Authorship, pp. 88-96).
It ought to be sufficient to establish the hi^h probability, amounting to certainty, that Justin quotes Jn 3^"', that, giving due weight to linguistic differences, the Fourth Gospel is the only source known to us from which he could have derived such ideas. Tlie idea of birth as applied to spiritual change is found in none of the Gospels but St. John ; and it is significant that both Justin and St. John exjjressly connected this thought with the rite of Baptism. As regards the impossibility of a second physical birth, it is to be noted that this somewhat -wistful, and, at the same time, wilfully absurd, objection of Nicodemus — which in theGospel is the symptom of a heart profoundly moved, and has a living place in the context — is prosaically reproduced by Justin. This is evidently the result of a familiar association of ideas derived from the passage in Jn 3. The words, ' for Christ also said,' introduce the quotation, and the document from which it is taken is clearly looked upon as an authoritative source for the words of Christ.
Justin has other correspondences witli the pecu- liar thpught of the Fourth Gospel. He uses the title /lovoyey-fis of Christ, and in the next sentence speaks of the Virgin-Birth {Dialogice 105), adding the words, ' as we Iiave learned from the Memoirs.' This seems to point to a combination of St. John and the Synoptics. Justin has also made much use of the thought of the Logos Gospel in his doctrine of tlie Logos, and his teaching on that .subject is influenced by the theology of the Gospel. It is .sometimes urged as an objection that Justin does not make more use of the authority of the Gospel in his teaching about the Logos, but this is to pre- suppose that the thought was first suggested to him by that .source. Justin's philosophy is filled with Alexandrine ideas, but the thought of the Incarna- tion of the Logos of which Justin makes use is found only in St T.lni '. (/><,/. i. 32). The Johannine ex- press!.n 11 V also found in Ju.stin.
On t
' • '■ rrlationship between Justin and the ■ /'M-. discovered in 1802, see Hivstings'
TlK- .1
Justin' Pel.r -.
'' ■
r^u
lid Uariiack (
1" 1 1 ..iin.nt Willi.--.. Th.'. !:...■., (the
c- 1 III.13U by iMsy {,Le^^^^atrinnc KraiuiHe, Chruu. i. 633).
(2) .fff.s «?c o/</ic Go.?»(?.— Another consideration is adduced to prove that Justin did not regard