{276}
used with reference to Lawgivers and philosophers. Justin, who frankly admits the delight he took in the writings of Plato(1) and other Greek philosophers, held the view that Socrates and Plato had in an elementary form enunciated the doctrine of the Logos,(2) although he contends that they borrowed it from the writings of Moses, and with a largeness of mind very uncommon in the early Church, and indeed, we might add, in any age, he believed Socrates and such philosophers to have been Christians, even although they had been considered Atheists.(3) As they did not of course know Christ to be the Logos, he makes the a.s.sertion just quoted. Now the only point in the pa.s.sage which requires notice is the identification of the Logos with Jesus, which has already been dealt with, and as this was a.s.serted in the Apocalypse xix. 13, before the fourth Gospel was written, no evidence in its favour is deducible from the statement. We shall have more to say regarding this presently.
Tischendorf continues: "But in what manner through the Word of G.o.d, Jesus Christ our Saviour having been made flesh,"(4) &c.
It must be apparent that the doctrine here is not that of the fourth Gospel which makes "the word become flesh" simply, whilst Justin, representing a less advanced form, and more uncertain stage, of its development, draws a distinction between the Logos and Jesus, and describes Jesus Christ as being made flesh by the power
{277}
of the Logos. This is no accidental use of words, for he repeatedly states the same fact, as for instance: "But why through the power of the Word, according to the will of G.o.d the Father and Lord of all, he was born a man of a Virgin,"(1) &c.
Tischendorf continues: "To these pa.s.sages out of the short second Apology we extract from the first (cap. 33).(2) By the Spirit, therefore, and power of G.o.d (in reference to Luke i. 35: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee") we have nothing else to understand but the Logos, which is the first-born of G.o.d."(3)
Here again we have the same difference from the doctrine of the fourth Gospel which we have just pointed out, which is, however, so completely in agreement with the views of Philo,(4) and characteristic of a less developed form of the idea. We shall further refer to the terminology hereafter, and meantime we proceed to the last ill.u.s.tration given by Tischendorf.
"Out of the Dialogue (c. 105): "For that he was the only-begotten of the Father of all, in peculiar wise begotten of him as Word and Power [------], and afterwards became man through the Virgin, as we have learnt from the Memoirs, I have already stated.""(5)
{278}
The allusion here is to the preceding chapters of the Dialogue, wherein, with special reference (c. 100) to the pa.s.sage which has a parallel in Luke i. 35, quoted by Tischendorf in the preceding ill.u.s.tration, Justin narrates the birth of Jesus.
This reference very appropriately leads us to a more general discussion of the real source of the terminology and Logos doctrine of Justin. We do not propose, in this work, to enter fully into the history of the Logos doctrine, and we must confine ourselves strictly to showing, in the most simple manner possible, that not only is there no evidence whatever that Justin derived his ideas regarding it from the fourth Gospel, but that, on the contrary, his terminology and doctrine may be traced to another source. Now, in the very chapter (100) from which this last ill.u.s.tration is taken, Justin shows clearly whence he derives the expression: "only-begotten."
In chap. 97 he refers to the Ps. xxii. (Sept. xxi.) as a prophecy applying to Jesus, quotes the whole Psalm, and comments upon it in the following chapters; refers to Ps. ii. 7: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," uttered by the voice at the baptism, in ch. 103, in ill.u.s.tration of it; and in ch. 105 he arrives, in his exposition of it, at Verse 20: "Deliver my soul from the sword, and my(1) only-begotten [------] from the hand of the dog." Then follows the pa.s.sage we are discussing, in which Justin affirms that
1 This should probably be "thy."
{279}
he has proved that he was the only-begotten [------] of the Father, and at the close he again quotes the verse as indicative of his sufferings.
The Memoirs are referred to in regard to the fulfilment of this prophecy, and his birth as man through the Virgin. The phrase in Justin is quite different from that in the fourth Gospel, i. 14: "And the Word became flesh [------] and tabernacled among us, find we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father" [------], &c.
In Justin he is "the only-begotten of the Father of all" [------], and he "became man [------] through the Virgin," and Justin never once employs the peculiar terminology of the fourth Gospel, [------], in any part of his writings.
There can be no doubt that, however the Christian doctrine of the Logos may at one period of its development have been influenced by Greek philosophy, it was in its central idea mainly of Jewish origin, and the mere application to an individual of a theory which had long occupied the Hebrew mind. After the original simplicity which represented G.o.d as holding personal intercourse with the Patriarchs, and communing face to face with the great leaders of Israel, had been outgrown, an increasing tendency set in to shroud the Divinity in impenetrable mystery, and to regard him as unapproachable and undiscernible by man. This led to the recognition of a Divine representative and subst.i.tute of the Highest G.o.d and Father, who communicated with his creatures, and through whom alone he revealed himself. A new system of interpretation of the ancient traditions of the nation was rendered necessary, and in the Septuagint translation of the Bible we are fortunately able to trace
{280}
the progress of the theory which culminated in the Christian doctrine of the Logos. Wherever in the sacred records G.o.d had been represented as holding intercourse with man, the translators either symbolized the appearance or interposed an angel, who was afterwards understood to be the Divine Word. The first name under which the Divine Mediator was known in the Old Testament was Wisdom [------], although in its Apocrypha the term Logos was not unknown. The personification of the idea was very rapidly effected, and in the Book of Proverbs, as well as in the later Apocrypha based upon it: the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, "Ecclesiasticus:" we find it in ever increasing clearness and concretion. In the School of Alexandria the active Jewish intellect eagerly occupied itself with the speculation, and in the writings of Philo especially we find the doctrine of the Logos--the term which by that time had almost entirely supplanted that of Wisdom--elaborated to almost its final point, and wanting little or nothing but its application in an incarnate form to an individual man to represent the doctrine of the earlier Canonical writings of the New Testament, and notably the Epistle to the Hebrews,--the work of a Christian Philo,(1)--the Pauline Epistles, and lastly the fourth Gospel(2)
{281}
In Proverbs viii. 22 ff., we have a representation of Wisdom corresponding closely with the prelude to the fourth Gospel, and still more so with the doctrine enunciated by Justin: 22. "The Lord created me the Beginning of his ways for his works. 23. Before the ages he established me, in the beginning before he made the earth. 24. And before he made the abysses, before the springs of the waters issued forth. 25. Before the mountains were settled, and before all the hills he begets me. 26. The Lord made the lands, both those which are uninhabited and the inhabited heights of the earth beneath the sky. 27.
When he prepared the heavens I was present with him, and when he set his throne upon the winds, 28, and made strong the high clouds, and the deeps under the heaven made secure, 29, and made strong the foundations of the earth, 30, I was with him adjusting, I was that in which he delighted; daily I rejoiced in his presence at all times."(1) In the "Wisdom of Solomon" we find the writer addressing G.o.d: ix. 1... "Who madest all things by thy Word" [------]; and further on in the same chapter, v. 9, "And Wisdom was with thee who knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the world, and knew what was acceptable
{282}
in thy sight, and right in thy commandments. "(1) In verse 4, the writer prays: "Give me Wisdom that sitteth by thy thrones" [-----].(2) In a similar way the son of Sirach makes Wisdom say (Ecclesiast. xxiv. 9): "He (the Most High) created me from the beginning before the world, and as long as the world I shall not fail."(3) We have already incidentally seen how these thoughts grew into an elaborate doctrine of the Logos in the works of Philo.
Now Justin, whilst he nowhere adopts the terminology of the fourth Gospel, and nowhere refers to its introductory condensed statement of the Logos doctrine, closely follows Philo and, like him, traces it back to the Old Testament in the most direct way, accounting for the interposition of the divine Mediator in precisely the same manner as Philo, and expressing the views which had led the Seventy to modify the statement of the Hebrew original in their Greek translation. He is, in fact, thoroughly acquainted with the history of the Logos doctrine and its earlier enunciation under the symbol of Wisdom, and his knowledge of it is clearly independent of, and antecedent to, the statements of the fourth Gospel.
Referring to various episodes of the Old Testament in which G.o.d is represented as appearing to Moses and the Patriarchs, and in which it is said that "G.o.d went up from Abraham,"(4) or "The Lord spake to Moses,"(5) or "The Lord came down to behold the town," &c.,(6) or "G.o.d
{283}
shut Noah into the ark,"(1) and so on, Justin warns his antagonist that he is not to suppose that "the unbegotten G.o.d" [------] did any of these things, for he has neither to come to any place, nor walks, but from his own place, wherever it may be, knows everything although he has neither eyes nor ears. Therefore he. could not talk with anyone, nor be seen by anyone, and none of the Patriarchs saw the Father at all, but they saw "him who was according to his will both his Son (being G.o.d) and the Angel, in that he ministered to his purpose, whom also he willed to be born man by the Virgin, who became fire when he spoke with Moses from the bush."(2) He refers throughout his writings to the various appearances of G.o.d to the Patriarchs, all of which he ascribes to the pre-existent Jesus, the Word,(3) and in the very next chapter, after alluding to some of these, he says: "he is called Angel because he came to men, since by him the decrees of the Father are announced to men...
At other times he is also called Man and human being, because he appears clothed in these forms as the Father wills, and they call him Logos because
{284}
he bears the communications of the Father to mankind."(1)
Justin, moreover, repeatedly refers to the fact that he was called Wisdom by Solomon, and quotes the pa.s.sage we have indicated in Proverbs.
In one place he says, in proof of his a.s.sertion that the G.o.d who appeared to Moses and the Patriarchs was distinguished from the Father, and was in fact the Word (ch. 66--70): "Another testimony I will give you, my friends, I said, from the Scriptures that G.o.d begat before all of the creatures [------] a Beginning [------],(2) a certain rational Power [------] out of himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, then the Son, again Wisdom, again Angel, again G.o.d, and again Lord and Logos;" &c., and a little further on: "The Word of Wisdom will testify to me, who is himself this G.o.d begotten of the Father of the universe, being Word, and Wisdom, and Power [------], and the Glory of the Begetter," &c.,(3) and he quotes, from the Septuagint version, Proverbs viii. 22--36, part of which we have given above, and indeed, elsewhere (ch. 129), he quotes the pa.s.sage a second time as evidence, with a similar context. Justin refers to it
{285}
again in the next chapter, and the peculiarity of his terminology in all these pa.s.sages, so markedly different from, and indeed opposed to, that of the fourth Gospel, will naturally strike the reader: "But this offspring [------] being truly brought forth by the Father was with the Father before all created beings [------], and the Father communes with him, as the Logos declared through Solomon, that this same, who is called Wisdom by Solomon, had been begotten of G.o.d before all created beings [------], both Beginning [------] and Offspring [------]," &C.(1) In another place after quoting the words: "No man knoweth the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal him," Justin continues: "Therefore he revealed to us all that we have by his grace understood out of the Scriptures, recognizing him to be indeed the first-begotten [------] of G.o.d, and before all creatures [------].... and calling him Son, we have understood that he proceeded from the Father by his power and will before all created beings [------], for in one form or another he is spoken of in the writings of the prophets as Wisdom," &c.;(2) and again, in two other places he refers to the same fact.(3) On further examination, we find on every side still
{286}
stronger confirmation of the conclusion that Justin derived his Logos doctrine from the Old Testament and Philo, together with early New Testament writings. We have quoted several pa.s.sages in which Justin details the various names of the Logos, and we may add one more.
Referring to Ps. lxxii., which the Jews apply to Solomon, but which Justin maintains to be applicable to Christ, he says: "For Christ is King, and Priest, and G.o.d, and Lord, and Angel, and Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born [------], &c. &c., as I prove by all of the Scriptures."(1) Now these representations, which are constantly repeated throughout Justin"s writings, are quite opposed to the Spirit of the fourth Gospel, but are on the other hand equally common in the works of Philo, and many of them also to be found in the Philonian Epistle to the Hebrews. Taking the chief amongst them we may briefly ill.u.s.trate them.
The Logos as King, Justin avowedly derives from Ps. lxxii., in which he finds that reference is made to the "Everlasting King, that is to say Christ."(2) We find this representation of the Logos throughout the writings of Philo. In one place already briefly referred to,(3) but which we shall now more fully quote, he says: "For G.o.d as Shepherd and King governs according to Law and justice like a flock of sheep, the earth, and water, and air, and fire, and all the plants and living things that are in them, whether they be mortal or divine, as well as the course of heaven, and the periods of sun and moon, and the variations and harmonious revolutions of the other stars; having appointed his true Word [------]
{287}
[------] his first-begotten Son [------] to have the care of this sacred flock as the Vicegerent of a great King;"(1) and a little further on, he says: "very reasonably, therefore, he will a.s.sume the name of a King, being addressed as a Shepherd."(2) In another place, Philo speaks of the "Logos of the Governor, and his creative and kingly power, for of these is the heaven and the whole world."(3)
Then if we take the second epithet, the Logos as Priest [------], which is quite foreign to the fourth Gospel, we find it repeated by Justin, as for instance: "Christ the eternal Priest" [------],(4) and it is not only a favourite representation of Philo, but is almost the leading idea of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connection with the episode of Melchisedec, in whom also both Philo,(5) and Justin,(6) recognize the Logos. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, vii. 3, speaking of Melchisedec: "but likened to the Son of G.o.d, abideth a Priest for ever:"(7) again in iv. 14: "Seeing then that we have a great High Priest that is pa.s.sed through the heavens, Jesus the Son
{288}
of G.o.d," &c.;(1) ix. 11: "Christ having appeared a High Priest of the good things to come;"(2) xii. 21: "Thou art a Priest for ever."(3) The pa.s.sages are indeed far too numerous to quote.(4) They are equally numerous in the writings of Philo. In one place already quoted,(5) he says: "For there are as it seems two temples of G.o.d, one of which is this world, in which the High Priest is the divine Word, his first-begotten Son" [------].(6) Elsewhere, speaking of the period for the return of fugitives, the death of the high priest, which taken literally would embarra.s.s him in his allegory, Philo says: "For we maintain the High Priest not to be a man, but the divine Word, who is without partic.i.p.ation not only in voluntary but also in involuntary sins;"(7) and he goes on to speak of this priest as "the most sacred Word" [------].(8) Indeed, in many long pa.s.sages he descants upon the "high priest Word" [------].(9) Proceeding to the next representations of the Logos
{289}
as "G.o.d and Lord," we meet with the idea everywhere. In Hebrews i. 8: "But regarding the Son he saith: Thy throne, O G.o.d, is for ever and ever" [------], and again in the Epistle to the Philippians, ii. 6, "Who (Jesus Christ) being in the form of G.o.d, deemed it not grasping to be equal with G.o.d" [------].(1) Philo, in the fragment preserved by Eusebius, to which we have already referred,(2) calls the Logos the "Second G.o.d" [------].(3) In another pa.s.sage he has: "But he calls the most ancient G.o.d his present Logos," &c. [------];(4) and a little further on, speaking of the inability of men to look on the Father himself: "thus they regard the image of G.o.d, his Angel Word, as himself"
[------].(5) Elsewhere discussing the possibility of G.o.d"s swearing by himself, which he applies to the Logos, he says: "For in regard to us imperfect beings he will be a G.o.d, but in regard to wise and perfect beings the first. And yet Moses, in awe of the superiority of the unbegotten [------] G.o.d, says: "And thou shalt swear by his name," not by himself; for it is sufficient for the creature to receive a.s.surance and testimony by the divine Word."(6)
It must be remarked, however, that both Justin and
{290}
Philo place the Logos in a position more clearly secondary to G.o.d the Father, than the prelude to the fourth Gospel i. 1. Both Justin and Philo apply the term [------] to the Logos without the article. Justin distinctly says that Christians worship Jesus Christ as the Son of the true G.o.d, holding him in the second place [------],(1) and this secondary position is systematically defined through Justin"s writings in a very decided way, as it is in the works of Philo by the contrast of the begotten Logos with the unbegotten G.o.d. Justin speaks of the Word as "the first-born of the unbegotten G.o.d" [------],(2) and the distinctive appellation of the "unbegotten G.o.d" applied to the Father is most common throughout his writings.(3) We may in continuation of this remark point out another phrase of Justin which is continually repeated, but is thoroughly opposed both to the spirit and to the terminology of the fourth Gospel, and which likewise indicates the secondary consideration in which he held the Logos. He calls the Word constantly "the first-born of all created beings" [------] "the first-born of all creation,"
echoing the expression of Col. i. 15. (The Son) "who is the image of the invisible G.o.d, the first-born of all creation" [------].
This is a totally different view from that of the fourth Gospel, which in so emphatic a manner