ii. 5: "For there is one God and one mediator between God 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 passages.(1) We have already seen in the passage quoted above from "De Confus. Ling." Sec. 28, that Philo mentions, among the many names of the Logos, that of "the Man according to (God's) image" [------],(2) or "the typical man"). If, however, we pass 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 title of Logos is given to Jesus in New Testament writings earlier than the fourth Gospel. We have remarked that, although the passages 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 God before all created beings, as, for instance: "The Logos... who is the first offspring of God" [------];(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 passages adduced by Tischendorf to support his assertion that Justin made use of the fourth Gospel. He says: "Passages of the Johannine Gospel, however, are also not wanting to which passages 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 passage 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 passage 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 passage 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 passages, 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