JUSTIN MARTYR AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL
© John S. Romanides
The “
Greek Orthodox Theological Review,” VOL 4 (1958): pages 115-134.
Author received note from C. H. Dodd that this
thesis is worth exploring.
An important part of the problem concerning
the authorship of the Fourth Gospel and its use in the primitive church involves
the much debated question of whether or not it is known, presupposed, or used
by Justin Martyr. The controversy over
this question has a long history,
[1]
the narration of which is beyond the scope of this paper. The discussion of the problem will be restricted
primarily to an examination of the relationship between 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 of
Justin and 3, 3-5 of John in the light of certain suggestions which will perhaps
offer some useful points to the general question of the use of the Johannine
Gospel in the ancient church.
There have been attempts at a comparison of Justin’s gospel allusions
with the gospel of John in order to discover those points which have parallels
only in the Fourth Gospel.[2]
Such attempts, if considered successful, would determine more definitely the
relationship between 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 and John 3,
3-5. One of the leading exponents of
this method of approach is A. Thoma who, after careful examination, comes to
the conclusion that Justin “knows and uses almost every chapter of the Logos-Gospel, and in part very fully.”[3] Besides a strong influence of the Fourth
Gospel, Thoma also detects in Justin a good acquaintance with Paul, who is
never quoted directly. Thoma is thus
convinced that although Justin is influenced by both John and Paul, he could
neither have regarded the Johannine gospel as apostolic and historically
authentic nor Paul as an Apostle.[4]
After carefully considering A. Thoma’s arguments for an extensive
Johaninne influence on the writings of Justin, W. Bousset concludes that, “on
the other hand, however, the meagerness of these reminiscences shows, that
memory-wise Justin is governed by the Johannine gospel only very weakly, and
that is therefore highly improbable, where he is conscious of drawing from the
memoires [of the Apostles], of following the synoptic gospel tradition -
especially since he does not use the Johannine gospel principally as an
historical source[5]
- that Johannine reminiscences intruded
themselves upon him in an unconscious manner.”[6] However, in a later article Bousset accepted
as undoubted the relationship between 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 and John 3, 3-5.[7]
Some years before Bousset certain objections were raised as to Justin’s
use of the Johannine gospel by G. Volkmar which have been valid ever since and
actually have not been thus far satisfactorily answered. He points out the fact that Justin’s theology
concerning the preexistent
Logos and Son of God is basically the same as that of the Fourth Gospel and it
is quite clear how he takes great pains to develop this line of thought. (Dial. 87, 88). The gospel of John is the one writing which
is so much in conformity with Justin’s own thinking, yet he never quotes it,
except possibly once in 1 Apol. 61, 4-5.
On the basis of such observations and also for literary reasons,[8] Volkmar rules out entirely even the
possibility that Justin was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel.[9] He further claims that 1 Apol. 61, 4 represents a variant developed from Matth. 18, 3 and found
in a “gospel of Peter” rejected by the Church and used as a basis for John 3,
3-5.[10]
Ezra Abbot attempts to meet the Volkmar type objections by trying to
prove that “The discourses of Christ as they are given in the Synoptic Gospels
were obviously much better fitted for his purpose of presenting to heathens a
general view of Christ’s teaching than those in the Gospel of John. Similar remarks apply to the Dialogue with Trypho
the Jew.”[11] To
the objection that Justin should have quoted the prologue of the Fourth Gospel,
and such a passage as “Before Abraham was, I am,” in proof of
Christ’s divinity and preexistence,[12]
Abbott answers that Trypho “would not have accepted an assertion of John
or a declaration of Christ as a proof of its truth. So in the case of Paul’s
writings.”[13] Such arguments, of course, are to be taken
seriously. However, one may object that
they do not explain why Justin did not include in his description of the high
quality of Christian morality at least a hint to the classic passages in Paul
and John concerning Christian love.
A consistent defense of the theory that Justin did not know the Fourth
Gospel would have to account, however, for the fact that Tatian not only knew
it, but also used it as an integral part of his Diatessaron.[14] How is it possible that Tatian attributed
such an authority to a gospel not known to his teacher? One could put forth the theory that the
Johannine gospel is of gnostic origin which Tatian became acquainted with and
accepted after Justin’s death in 165.
Irenaeus informs us that Tatian separated himself from the Church only
after the martyrdom of Justin.[15] However, it is noteworthy that in his extant
apology, ΠΡΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ (PROS ELLINAS),
Tatian refers to Justin as Ο ΘΑΥΜΑΣΙΩΤΑΤΟΣ ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΣ (o thaumasiotatos Ioustinos) (ch. 18) and there is the possibility that
Justin was still alive when this was written.
In this same work Tatian alludes to both the Fourth Gospel (4, 5, 13, 19) and Paul (4, 11, 15, 16). The acceptance of a gnostic book by Tatian
after the death of Justin is a possibility, nevertheless. On the other hand, it would be difficult to
explain how Irenaeus accepted the same so-called gnostic book thinking it to be
from the hand of John the Apostle and beloved deciple of the Lord. One would have to suppose either that he
found the Fourth Gospel being used in the Church of Lyon during the episcopate
of Pothinus and not having known of it in Asia Minor was convinced by his
bishop that it was a gospel of John the Apostle, or that he himself introduced
it into the Church of Lyon, having brought it with him from Asia, or that he
knew it in Asia and found it also in Lyon as well as in all Churches he visited,
including that of Rome. To put forth the
theory that Irenaeus attributed the fourth gospel to the Apostle John because
of a misunderstanding of Polycarp and Papias is to ignore the fact of Irenaeus’
relations with so many churches of both East and West, to which he so strongly
appeals for uniformity of apostolic traditions, as well as to so many eminent
elder men amongst whom there must have been some honest enough to challenge the
bishop of Lyon by reminding him of some recent date for the introduction of the
fourth gospel into the Churches.
Irenaeus appeals especially to the traditions of the Church of Rome
which he visited in the year 177, just twelve years after Justin’s death. One would have to prove either that Irenaeus
did not find the gospel in
Before passing on to the main part of this paper, it may be pertinent
to remark that neither Irenaeus nor Eusebius shows any awareness of the
possibility that Papias was not familiar with the words of the Lord as recorded
in the gospel of John. It is noteworthy
that Eusebius points out that Papias “uses proofs (ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙΣ-plural) from the first epistle of John” (Hist. Eccl., III, 39). It is quite clear that he thought this an
important notice for the verification of the authenticity of the epistle. This, plus the fact that the critical
Eusebius is quick to discern that Papias himself did not hear the Apostles and
to point out the possibility that a second John may have written the book of
Revelations, is a good indication that he most probably would have noticed any
non-familiarity of Papias with the words of the Lord as recorded in the gospel
of John. That Irenaeus also does not
notice any such discrepancy is also significant. Papias being at the latest a contemporary of
Justin, and his source being certainly of a tradition older than himself, would
point to a date for the ecclesiastical use of the Johannine tradition at least
before the time of both Justin and Papias and certainly contemporary to
Polycarp. (who quotes 1 John) and Marcion.
There is no need to deal further with the general historical question
concerning the arguments for and against the Johannine authorship of the fourth
gospel since in such a paper one could never expect to cover the field of
inquiry anywhere near as accurately and fully as others have already done. The most serious argument, of course, against
the Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel is unquestionably the failure of
all early writers before and, possibly, including Justin to quote it clearly. However, there is a strong possibility that
there were substantial reasons why ancient writers generally avoided using it
when dealing with the uninitiated catechumens and especially with the
extraecclesiastical pagans and Jews in general.[16] If such is the case, the work of Thoma would
be materially correct but wrong in the conclusion that the fourth gospel was
not considered by Justin as an authority.
On the other hand, lack of clear quotations from the fourth gospel in
the seven letters of Ignatius (the text of which is not completely trustworthy)
and the one of Polycarp, does not in itself mean an ignorance of it. Early Christians should not be expected in
every letter they write to give full quotations of all scripture and sayings of
the Lord, especially when they are writing to baptized Christians who already
know countless sayings and teachings of the Lord. Had it not been for certain peculiar
circumstances in
Before examining the question of relationship
between 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 and John 3, 3-5, it is necessary to make
some notations concerning background material underlying both these writings.
The purpose of Justin’s First and Second Apologies is to demonstrate
the injustice of the anti-Christian persecutions of the Roman authorities of
his time and to defend Christians against the charge of atheism as well as
against the popular misconceptions and calumnies concerning the esoteric
mystical life and gatherings of Christians.
These popular distortions of fact are pointedly summarized by Justin in
his question to Trypho: “Are our lives and customs also slandered among you?
And I ask this: Have you also believed concerning us, that we eat men; and that
after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous
concubinage?” (Dial. 10, 1; comp. 1 Apol. 26, 27, 28; 2 Apol. 12)
Justin meets such slander by describing in general what really takes
place at the Christian gatherings. He not
only gives a short description and explanation of the rite of baptism but goes
even so far as to state clearly that the bread and wine over which thanksgiving
is offered ΕΚΕΙΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΣΑΡΚΟΠΟΙΗΘΕΝΤΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΣΑΡΚΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΙΜΑ ΕΔΙΔΑΧΘΗΜΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ (1 Apol. 66, 2).
Justin makes this remark not for the purpose of convincing any pagans regarding
the truth of the matter, but in order to refute the charge that “we eat men”
and to demonstrate the harmless nature of the Christian gatherings.
Prior to this Justin had tried to demonstrate the superior quality of
Christian morality by quoting various precepts of the gospel tradition and
describing the ethical views of Christians generally. However, in order to substantiate these
claims, it was necessary for him to meet and repel the pagan attacks and
charges at their very source by describing the mystical gatherings of the
Church. The hesitancy with which Justin
commences his description of the mysteries is clearly reflected in the reason
he gives for mentioning them at all. ΟΝ ΤΡΟΠΟΝ ΔΕ
ΚΑΙ ΑΝΕΘΗΚΑΜΕΝ
ΕΑΥΤΟΥΣ ΤΩ ΘΕΩ
ΚΑΙΝΟΠΟΙΗΘΕΝΤΕΣ
ΔΙΑ ΤΟΥ
ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,
ΕΞΗΓΗΣΟΜΕΘΑ,
ΟΠΩΣ ΜΗ ΤΟΥΤΟ
ΠΑΡΑΛΙΠΟΝΤΕΣ
ΔΟΞΩΜΕΝ
ΠΟΝΗΡΕΥΕΙΝ ΤΙ
ΕΝ ΤΗ ΕΞΗΓΗΣΕΙ (1
Apol. 61, 1)
That popular
misunderstandings concerning the Christian
mysteries were due to the fact that they were not open to the general public
and never discussed with the uninitiated needs no demonstration. Whereas Justin seems to extend an invitation
to the authorities to look into Christian writings (1 Apol. 28, 1),[17] he nowhere invites the officials to attend the Christian gatherings to
see for themselves. Had it been possible
for the uninitiated or non-catechumens to witness the Christian mysteries, the
popular accusations against them would never have arisen.
Justin is the first Christian writer of our
extant sources who undertook to make a public statement regarding the esoteric
life of the Christian community, and it is perhaps not insignificant that it is
precisely within this statement that a Johannine or Johannine-type quotation
bearing on the nature of one of the mysteries is also quoted for the first
time.
Involved in the whole question of Justin’s use
of the gospel material is the problem of the catechetical methods of the
An examination of the Biblical sources reveals
the fact that underlying the New Testament is the catechetical principle that
one is able to discern the will and acts of God only according to the measure
and degree in which he has been liberated from demonic influences and by
spiritual exercise learns to distinguish between divine and satanic
energies. This liberation is
accomplished in Christ by the power of the Spirit but its effect on man is not
automatic. Where it does begin its
process is generally gradual as is evident in the tardy way in which the Apostles
came to a full understanding of the way the
Before a person was admitted to baptism, he had
to be instructed in the old Testament revelations of
the divine activities as well as in the ways of satan. Otherwise, he would continue being blinded by
the devil and would be in danger of confounding divine and satanic activities
as happened in the case of the Jews who went so far as to say that Jesus cast
out demons by the power of Belzebub (Mtth. 12, 22-37; Mk. 3, 22-30; Lk. 11,
14-23). This is the blasphemy against
the Spirit which cannot be forgiven. Those
who are not able to recognize the energies of God are those who by hearing hear
but do not understand and seeing see but do not discern (Is. 6, 9; Mtth. 13,
14; Mk. 4,12; Lk. 8, 10; John 12, 40; Acts 28, 26 ff.). The fourth gospel is a continuous play on the
divinity of Christ as witnessed to by the divine activities which He shares in
common with the Father and the Spirit and which are eventually understood by
those who are defeating the devil but continuously misunderstood by those blinded
by the prince of darkness. The fourth
gospel is understood only by those who have been previously exercised in the
discernment of the saving and sanctifying acts of God in both the Old Testament
and Synoptic tradition, apart from whose soteriological presuppositions it is
totally meaningless.
The central idea of the Synoptic tradition is
the proclamation that because Christ by the Spirit is casting out demons, the
The promise of Christ that some shall see the
There seems to have been no attempt by Western scholars to associate
the promise of Mk. 9, 1; Lk. 9, 27; Mtth. 16, 28 with the event of the
transfiguration (e. g. H. Riesenfeld, Jésus
Transfiguré, Kobenhaven, 1947).
This is probably due to the failure to properly apply the distinctions
of (1) ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ in the sense of divine ruling power and energy (this is the meaning of ΔΟΞΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ in e.g. John 2,
11; 11, 40; Rom. 3, 23; 6, 4: Col. 1,11), (2) ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ in the sense of creaturely communion of this ΔΟΞΑ and power or grace of God (the opposite of this would be to be under
the power of death and the devil), and (3) ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ in the sense of the final consummation and general resurrection, the
final overthrow of the kingdom of Satan.
If Christ was mistaken about His prophecy in Mk. 9, 1, which He was
supposed to have identified with the establishment of a visible earthly
kingdom, then why in all three synoptic gospels is this promise preserved fully
and in an immediate connection with the transfiguration? According to the
principles of form criticism the non-fulfillment of such a promise as Mk. 9, 1
would not have fitted into the preaching of the primitive Church and would have
caused it to be dropped from at least the generally accepted later gospels of
Matthew and Luke.
From these observations, it is clear that the Johannine gospel deals
with the ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ much more than the two times (3, 3, 5) as is
usually supposed, only under the words ΔΟΞΑ (1, 14; 11, 40; 12, 41; 17, 24) and ΦΩΣ (1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9; 3, 19 etc.).
When Christ says ΕΓΩ ΕΙΜΙ ΤΟ ΦΩΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ (8, 12), He
clearly means that together with the Father He is the life principle in the
world which has come to destroy death and bring the dead back into the kingdom
of God. However, there is nothing in the
fourth gospel or in the synoptic tradition or even in St. Paul which allows for
any gnostic type transcendental understanding of the kingdom since it is now
visible only to the elect, but in the Old Testament frame of reference, and
will become fully manifested to the world at large only at the general
resurrection. That the New Testament ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ or ΤΗΝ ΔΟΞΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ is essentially
the same as in the Old Testament is witnessed to by John (12, 41) who says ΤΑΥΤΑ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΗΣΑΙΑΣ ΟΤΙ ΕΙΔΕΝ ΤΗΝ ΔΟΞΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ (comp. 8, 56) as well as by the Synoptists. (Mtth. 13, 16 and Lk. 20, 24 say ΠΟΛΛΟΙ here and not ΠΑΝΤΕΣ). The difference, however, between those in the
Old Testament who saw the ruling power of God and those who in Christ see the ΔΟΞΑ of God is that before the
incarnation they were still subject to death (of soul and body) whereas in
Christ ΠΑΣ Ο ΖΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩΝ ΕΙΣ ΕΜΕ ΟΥ ΜΗ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΗ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΑΙΩΝΑ (John 11, 26) because ΕΙ ΚΑΙ Ο ΕΞΩ ΗΜΩΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ ΔΙΑΦΘΕΙΡΕΤΑΙ, ΑΛΛ’ Ο ΕΣΩ ΗΜΩΝ ΑΝΑΚΑΙΝΟΥΤΑΙ ΗΜΕΡΑ ΚΑΙ ΗΜΕΡΑ (II Cor. 4, 16). This is why the
glory of the face of Moses was only a temporary condition, whereas in Christ it
is becoming for the ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΟΙ who have the ΑΡΡΑΒΩΝΑ ΤΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ (I Cor. 1, 22; II
Cor. 5, 5; Eph. 1, 14), a permanent gift (II Cor. 3, 7 ff.; 6, 2). It is within such a context that one should
understand such statements of
In respect to the identification of ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ and ΔΟΞΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ, it is interesting to note that Hippolytus quotes John 2, 11 by
substituting the Matthean ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ for ΔΟΞΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ. ΑΡΧΗ
ΤΩΝ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΝ ΗΝ
ΕΠΟΙΗΣΕΝ Ο
ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΕΝ ΚΑΝΑ
ΤΗΣ ΓΑΛΙΛΑΙΑΣ
ΚΑΙ ΕΦΑΝΕΡΩΣΕ
ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ
ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ
(ΕΛΕΓΧΟΣ 5, 8).
In the Synoptic tradition, there is a clear distinction between ΓΝΩΝΑΙ ΤΑ
ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΑ ΤΗΣ
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ΤΟΥ
ΘΕΟΥ in which all Apostles shared (Lk. 8, 10; Mtth. 13, 11; Mk. 4,
11) and ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ
ΘΕΟΥ in which only Peter, James and John shared (Mtth. 16, 28 ff.; Mk. 9, 1 ff.; Lk. 9, 27 ff.). However in the
Fourth Gospel Christ prays that all may see His glory (17, 24). This is an indication that the simple ΓΝΩΝΑΙ ΤΑ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΑ must eventually lead to ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΔΟΞΑΝ. It is in the light of Christ’s prayer in John
17, 24 that John 3, 3, 5 must be understood.
Christ ΕΦΑΝΕΡΩΣΕΝ ΤΗΝ ΔΟΞΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ (2, 11) but not everyone is or was able to see
it. The reason for this is given by
Christ when he says ΑΜΗΝ ΑΜΗΝ ΛΕΓΩ ΣΟΙ, ΕΑΝ ΜΗ ΤΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗ ΑΝΩΘΕΝ, ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΑΙ ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ (3, 3). Those who do not have the Spirit cannot see
the things of the Spirit for ΗΜΕΙΣ ΔΕ ΟΥ ΤΟ ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ ΕΛΑΒΟΜΕΝ ΑΛΛΑ ΤΟ ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΤΟ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ, ΙΝΑ ΕΙΔΩΜΕΝ (or ΙΔΩΜΕΝ) ΤΑ ΥΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΧΑΡΙΣΘΕΝΤΑ ΗΜΙΝ … ΨΥΧΙΚΟΣ
ΔΕ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ ΟΥ
ΔΕΧΕΤΑΙ ΤΑ ΤΟΥ
ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ
ΘΕΟΥ (I Cor. 2, 12
ff.). Here is the basic
epistemological principle which serves not only as the basis of Pauline
theology but also presents us with the basic theme of the Johannine
gospel. The rule or glory of God is
fully revealed in Christ to those who have been born not only of water but also
of the Spirit. Not everyone baptized is
born of the Spirit and so not everyone simply baptized can see the ruling power
(ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ) or glory of God. In other words,
those who have not received the Spirit of God in their baptism cannot
understand this gospel because they are still ΣΑΡΚΙΚΟΙ for ΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΕΝΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΣΑΡΚΟΣ ΣΑΡΞ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΕΝΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ … ΤΟ ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΟΠΟΥ
ΘΕΛΕΙ ΠΝΕΙ (3, 6-8). “If you play the hypocrite, though men
baptize you now, the Holy Spirit will not baptize you.”[20]
Regarded from this point of view, the nature of the fourth gospel in
relation to the synoptic tradition becomes clear. The parables of the kingdom are gone because
the mysteries of the kingdom themselves are being revealed fully in person of
Christ. The proclamation of the coming
of the kingdom is fulfilled in seeing the glory of Christ. There is no longer any need for the Messianic
secret which reflects the teaching methods of both Christ and the ancient
Church, since the mysteries are the common knowledge of the baptized and since
the gospel as a whole is known only to the baptized. There is here no longer a gradual recognition
of the person of Christ since now everything is revealed by the Spirit to those
who have the Spirit. The preparatory or
pedagogical teachings of the Old Testament and synoptists concerning the moral
life and the ways of satan are not dealt with because satan has already been
defeated in the baptism of the Spirit and the ethics of slaves and hirelings
have been transformed and elevated into the supramoral non-legalistic life of
love in the kingdom and glory of the Father.
The fact that there is not one moral precept contained in the fourth
gospel prior to the exposition of the supramoral life of love during the Last
Supper is proof that this gospel was never intended to be used by the
uninitiated who had not yet received the Spirit. The fourth gospel was written in order to
meet the needs of those already on their way to perfection and reflects the
esoteric and secretive method of teaching used by Christ Himself and also by
the ancient church.
That a post-baptismal method of teaching, comparable to that of the
Johannine gospel, always existed in the Church is witnessed to by the epistles
of Paul which are full of indirect and direct allusions to theological concepts
and mystical practices nowhere to be found in any degree of clarity in the
Synoptic tradition. This difference is
strong enough to have led some to imagine a clash between a so-called
Hellenistic Paul and the Judaistic Markan and Matthean gospels. However, it is clear that Paul reflects a
post-baptismal method of instruction in essentials identical to that of the
Johannine gospel which was committed to writing many years after the Apostle’s
death.
Relative to our present inquiry is the fact that baptism by water and
Spirit is not a peculiarity of the fourth gospel, but clearly alluded to by
Paul (I Cor. 12, 13) and presupposed in his soteriology. In pointing out the non-magical character of
Baptism and the Eucharist, he states that ΟΙ ΠΑΤΕΡΕΣ ΗΜΩΝ ΠΑΝΤΕΣ ΥΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΝΕΦΕΛΗΝ ΗΣΑΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΝΤΕΣ ΔΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣ ΔΙΗΛΘΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΝΤΕΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΜΩΥΣΗΝ ΕΒΑΠΤΙΣΑΝΤΟ ΕΝ ΤΗ ΝΕΦΕΛΗ ΚΑΙ ΕΝ ΤΗ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗ … (I Cor. 10, 1 ff.). This ΝΕΦΕΛΗ is the Holy Spirit, the same into which Peter, John and James entered
at the transfiguration, and the ΘΑΛΑΣΣΑ is the ΥΔΩΡ of baptism. Here in Paul we have a parallel to the
anti-magical interpretation of John 3, 3-8, and definite proof that this
doctrine of baptism is much older than Justin and much earlier than the time
the Johannine post-baptismal method of instruction was committed to writing.
That Justin accepted the Pauline and Johannine doctrine of the Spirit
in his understanding of salvation can be seen in the question of the ΠΑΛΑΙΟΣ ΤΙΣ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΗΣ who asks ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΥ ΝΟΥΣ ΟΨΕΤΑΙ ΠΟΤΕ ΜΗ ΑΓΙΩ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙ ΚΕΚΟΣΜΗΜΕΝΟΣ; (Dial. 4, 1). John 3, 3 says exactly this when ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ is understood as ΔΟΞΑ. The same is indicated in his doctrine of the
Spirit’s relation to the soul. ΟΤΑΝ ΔΕΗ ΤΗΝ
ΨΥΧΗΝ ΜΗΚΕΤΙ
ΕΙΝΑΙ, ΑΠΕΣΤΗ
ΑΠ’ ΑΥΤΗΣ ΤΟ
ΖΩΤΙΚΟΝ ΠΝΕΥΜΑ[21]
ΚΑΙ ΟΥΚ ΕΣΤΙΝ Η
ΨΥΧΗ ΕΤΙ (Dial. 6,
2). There can be no doubt that
for Justin communion with the life giving Spirit of God is an absolute
necessity for salvation. In view of
this, it is difficult to accept the claim that Justin does not presuppose the
Pauline of Johannine or Lukan (Acts 1, 5) baptism by water and Spirit. He does use Lukan material and so he must
have been familiar with Acts also.
In view of the points thus far observed, what is amazing is not that
Justin seems never to quote the gospel of John, but that he attempts to
publicly give even a short account of what pertains to the closest guarded
secrets of the Church. Because of the very
nature of the Johannine gospel, one cannot expect to find it quoted by ancient
Christian writers in works directed to pagans and Jews. The same would generally be true of the
Pauline letters. Thus, Thoma’s demonstration
of a strong influence of both the Johannine and Pauline writings on Justin
cannot be objected to simply on the grounds that he does not quote the fourth
gospel. In his ΠΡΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ Tatian seems to quote John four times[22]
but in three instances[23]
one discovers only a vague phrase which only reminds one of the fourth gospel. Athenagoras
has no quotation from John. The first
writing directed to a pagan in which the gospel of John is quoted outright and
by name is the ΠΡΟΣ ΑΥΤΟΛΥΚΟΝ of Theophilos[24]
written after 180 when the gospel of John had already become more public,
probably as an outcome of its use by heretics and the ensuing debates.
Very interesting is the fact that from a recently discovered Paschal
sermon, “On The Passion,” by Melito of Sardis (170),
we see that the gospel reading preached on is from John’s “account of the death
and resurrection of our Lord, extending from the trial before Pilate to the end
of
Having this general picture in mind, one does not expect Justin to
quote in works directed to pagans and Jews any direct quotation from the
mystical gospel of the Church. Such
matters as ΑΝΩΘΕΝ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ, ΕΞ ΥΔΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ, and ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ not only could not be understood by the non-initiated of Justin’s time,
but one also wonders whether many contemporary readers understand very much
from these terms.
Whereas in the Dialogue one finds a discussion concerning the vision of
God for the purpose of refuting the philosophical theories of Plato, still one
comes across only hints at the Christian doctrine of seeing God by the Spirit. In the First Apology, XI, Justin discusses
the pagan misunderstandings of the Christian doctrine concerning the
One notices that the term ΑΝΑΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ is used by Justin repeatedly in his description of baptism. There is no reason to doubt that this was a
very common technical Christian term used to describe the whole process
involved in baptism. It would have been
quite strange to have used such phrases as ΑΝΩΘΕΝ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ, ΕΞ ΥΔΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ and ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ as general descriptions of Christian renewal. No doubt, such terms would have seemed even
more peculiar to the ears of pagans and would have entailed an adequate
explanation which the ancient Church would not give ΤΟΙΣ ΕΞΩ.
In this respect, Volkmar’s association of Justin’s quotation ΑΝ ΜΗ ΑΝΑΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΤΕ ΟΥ ΜΗ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΕΤΕ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ with Mtth. 18, 3
– ΕΑΝ ΜΗ ΣΤΡΑΦΗΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΓΕΝΗΣΘΕ ΩΣ ΤΑ ΠΑΙΔΙΑ ΤΑΥΤΑ, ΟΥ ΜΗ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΗΤΕ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ – is suggestive.
From all indications Justin was a catechist[26]
and as such based his whole method of teaching on the Old Testament and the Synoptic
Tradition. It was more than natural that
his dealings ΤΟΙΣ ΕΞΩ be dominated more by these
works than by the gospel of John and the epistles of Paul. Therefore, faced with the need to give some
sort of explanation concerning the kingdom and the Christian gatherings, it
came natural to Justin to mix the technical term ΑΝΑΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ with Mtth. 18, 3.
That Justin was not very much interested in exact quotations from the
Memoires of the Apostles is manifest in the way he refers to the sayings of the
Lord at the Last Supper. Claiming that
he is quoting the gospels, Justin writes: ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ ΛΑΒΟΝΤΑ ΑΡΤΟΝ ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΣΑΝΤΑ ΕΙΠΕΙΝ΄ ΤΟΥΤΟ ΠΟΙΕΙΤΕ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΜΝΗΣΙΝ ΜΟΥ, ΤΟΥΤ’ ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ ΣΩΜΑ ΜΟΥ΄ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝ ΟΜΟΙΩΣ ΛΑΒΟΝΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΣΑΝΤΑ ΕΙΠΕΙΝ΄ ΤΟΥΤΟ ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ ΑΙΜΑ ΜΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΜΟΝΟΙΣ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΜΕΤΑΔΟΥΝΑΙ (1 Apol. 66,
3). This last phrase is clearly intended
to justify the closed gatherings of the Church.
A comparison with the New Testament reports reveals immediately the fact
that Justin is saying no more than what is necessary for the purpose of his
Apology. On the basis of the generally
admitted principle that sayings of the Lord are usually expanded rather than
shortened, this is quite clear. Here the
process is reversed for definite reasons.
Significant is Justin’s qualification of the quotation from the Lord
concerning regeneration, ΟΤΕ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ ΑΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΑΣ ΜΗΤΡΑΣ ΤΩΝ ΤΕΚΟΥΣΩΝ ΤΟΥΣ ΑΠΑΞ ΓΕΝΟΜΕΝΟΥΣ (or ΓΕΝΝΩΜΕΝΟΥΣ) ΕΜΒΗΝΑΙ, ΦΑΝΕΡΟΝ ΠΑΣΙΝ ΕΣΤΙΝ (1 Apol. 61,
5). This idea is not necessarily implied
in Mtth. 18, 3, although it could certainly have been a part of a traditional
catechetical interpretation of this passage.
However, in view of the over-all picture drawn in this paper, it
probably is a reflection of John 3, 3-5, which no doubt was the completion of
Mtth. 18, 3.
One may also refer to the possible dates assigned to the papyrus
Egerton 2 with its quotations from John 5, 39, 45, as proof that the Johannine
gospel existed in the time of Justin.
However, this in itself cannot prove that Justin or any Orthodox writer
prior to him knew or used John.
Generally, the early dating of papyrological fragments in itself has thus far no decisive bearing on the question of
authorship, authority and usage of the Johannine gospel tradition. These elements can be discerned only from the
writings of early Orthodox and heretical writers, as well as from the
construction and theological direction of the gospel traditions
themselves. There is the question of the
possibility that the Johannine quotations of Egerton 2 are older than our
Fourth Gospel. However, the arguments
for this possibility are not conclusive.
Goro Mayeda’s[27]
elaborate arguments based on a comparison of the Egerton Johannine text with
that of John are very weak. The use in
Egerton 2 of ΕΝ ΑΙΣ for ΟΤΙ, a possible
imperative for a possible indicative, the skipping of John 5, 40-44, and the
consecutive quoting of 5, 39 and 5, 45 are really insignificant. Such arguments can be used only with great
care. This is clear from the fact that
some early quotations of Johannine material by Christian writers display much
greater differences than the Egerton 2 quotations. Perhaps a few quotations will suffice as
examples:
1) ΔΟΣ ΓΑΡ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ,
ΦΗΣΙ, ΠΑΤΕΡ
ΑΓΙΕ, ΙΝΑ ΩΣ ΕΓΩ
ΚΑΙ ΣΥ ΕΝ ΕΣΜΕΝ,
ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΙ ΕΝ
ΗΜΙΝ ΕΝ ΩΣΙ. John 17, 11-12 in Ign. 1. v.
Eph. 4.
2) ΕΓΩ ΕΙΜΙ Η ΖΩΗ΄
Ο ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩΝ ΕΙΣ
ΕΜΕ ΚΑΝ
ΑΠΟΘΑΝΗ, ΖΗΣΕΤΑΙ
ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΑΙΩΝΑ. John 11, 25-26 in Ign. 1. v. Tral. 10
3) …ΕΓΩ
ΕΞΕΛΕΞΑΜΗΝ
ΥΜΑΣ΄ ΜΕΙΝΑΤΕ
ΠΑΡ’ ΕΜΟΙ.
John
15, 19 in Ign. 1. v. rom. 3.
4) ΚΑΙ Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΣ
ΦΗΣΙΝ΄ ΑΥΤΗ
ΕΣΤΙΝ Η
ΑΙΩΝΙΟΣ ΖΩΗ, ΤΟ
ΓΙΝΩΣΚΕΙΝ ΤΟΝ
ΜΟΝΟΝ ΑΛΗΘΙΝΟΝ
ΘΕΟΝ, ΚΑΙ ΟΝ
ΑΠΕΣΤΕΙΛΕΝ
ΙΗΣΟΥΝ
ΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ.
John
17, 3 in Ign. 1. v. Smyr. 6.
5) ΛΥΣΑΤΕ ΤΟΝ
ΝΑΟΝ ΤΟΥΤΟΝ
ΚΑΙ ΔΙΑ ΤΡΙΩΝ
ΗΜΕΡΩΝ ΕΓΕΡΩ
ΑΥΤΟΝ. John 2, 19 in
Ign. 1. v. Smyr. 2.
6) ΦΕΡΕ ΤΟΝ
ΔΑΚΤΥΛΟΝ ΣΟΥ
ΩΔΕ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ
ΤΥΠΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΗΛΩΝ,
ΚΑΙ ΦΕΡΕ ΤΗΝ
ΧΕΙΡΑ ΣΟΥ ΚΑΙ
ΒΑΛΕ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ
ΠΛΕΥΡΑΝ ΜΟΥ. John 20, 27-28 in Ign. 1. v. Smyr. 3.
7) In a consecutive
quotation of John 17, 4-6 verse 5 is skipped (1. v. Ign. Eph. 9) and of John 8,
56-58 verse 57 is skipped (Ign. 1. v. Mag. 9)
8) In Hippolytus’ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΑΙΡΕΣΙΝ ΝΟΗΤΟΥ and ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣΙΝ ΛΑΖΑΡΟΥ there are a number of striking variations to our text of John.
These free style quotations from John are especially significant since
there can be no question of a possible harmonization as in the case of the
Synoptic Gospels, and at the same time they are a clear indication that one
must be very careful not to draw unnecessary inferences and conclusions from a
simple literary comparison of biblical and patristic quotations.
The attempt to make Ps. Clem. XI, 26, Recogn. VI, 9, Irenaeus, frg. 34,
and Clem. Alex. Cob. Ad Gr. IX, 82, 5; Paed. I, 5, 12 dependent on Justin or
on a common source with Justin is not by any means conclusive. The most important factor against such a
possibility is the lack of any gospel fragment to support such a
contention. On the other hand a literary
comparison of 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 with the existing early patristic texts reveals
some very interesting items which lend substantial weight to the general
position of this paper.
The Johannine expression ΑΝΩΘΕΝ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ is not mentioned by any writer quoting John 3, 3-5 or a variant
(Justin; Iren. frg. 34; Ps. Clem. Hom. XI, 26; Recogn. VI, 9; Hipp. ΕΛΕΓΧΟΣ 8, 10; Tert. De Bapt. XIII; De Anima XXXIX) prior to Origen (ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ, vol. 19, XXI; ΑΠΟΣΠΑΣΜΑΤΑ ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΣΕΙΡΩΝ XXXV,
XXXVI; Ad Rom. V, 8). Also noteworthy is the fact that neither
Origen nor anyone prior to him (including Hipp. and Tert.) quotes ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ when referring to John 3,
3-5. Equally interesting is the fact that
no ancient writer before Origen and including Tertullian quotes the phrase ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΑΙ of John 3, 3-5, except possibly Hipp. ΕΛΕΓΧΟΣ
5, 8.
On the basis of these observations one could, if he so desired, come to
the conclusion (since there is no second century fragment of John 3, 3-5) that ΑΝΩΘΕΝ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ, ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ and ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΑΙ of John 3, 3-5 were not in the second century gospel of John and that ΑΝΩΘΕΝ and ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΑΙ were added to the text of Alexandria.
One could also entertain the possibility that the writers who omit these
Johannine peculiarities were influenced by some apocryphal gospel. However, this would be very difficult to
substantiate, especially in the cases of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian and
Origen who clearly accepted the authority of the four canonical gospels
only. On the other hand, the failure to
quote these Johannine phrases may be better attributed to simple slips of
memory, to confusion of texts because of such slips, and to lack of care in
checking Biblical sources. On the basis
of these observations, Justin’s failure to quote ΑΝΩΘΕΝ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ, ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΑΙ and even ΕΞ ΥΔΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ (which would have meant nothing to the pagan readers and were not
necessary for the purpose of his apology) cannot be used as arguments for the
contention that he used or had in mind any source, at least in this case, other
than John 3, 3-5.
Very important for the present inquiry is the fact that all quotations
of John 3, 3-5 prior to Origen have, instead of ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ, the Matthean ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ. Of course there is the
possibility that ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ was not
originally a peculiarity of Matthew but was to be found in John also. Hippolytus, ΕΛΕΓΧΟΣ 5, 8 (see above) would also
point in this direction. However,
Origen who definitely had a good acquaintance with the Biblical texts of his
time (and he was acquainted with the Church of Rome even within the lifetime of
Hippolytus), writes clearly that the phrase ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ is common to John and Luke,
whereas ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ is a peculiarity
of Matthew (op. cit. XXXVI,
CXXII). I find no reason to doubt
Origen’s word and so would ascribe the patristic quotations of John 3, 3-5 with
the Matthean ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ to slips of
memory, as well as to a very strong influence of Matthew (stemming from the
impressions of one’s early period of catechetical instruction, as well as from
the constant use made of it in teaching by the Fathers in question), and in the
cases of the few manuscripts containing this matthean phrase in John 3, 5 to a
later modification of the original text.
Extremely interesting in the case of Origen is the fact that in spite of
his recognition of ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ as a Matthean
peculiarity this does not prevent him from using ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ in quoting John
3, 3-5 (in Lucam, Hom. XIV; Ad
From these considerations one may safely assume that it was always
highly possible for one to quote the fourth gospel and at the same time confuse
Johannine and Matthean vocabulary, even when the distinctions were well
known. This possibility also contains
the further possibility of confusing in such a mixed quotation terminology not
contained in the New Testament quotations themselves. We find a good example of such a confusion in a quotation of John 3, 5 in the later ΔΙΑΤΑΓΑΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ 6, XV, 5: ΛΕΓΕΙ ΓΑΡ Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΣ, ΕΑΝ ΜΗ ΤΙΣ ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΗ ΕΞ ΥΔΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ, ΟΥ ΜΗ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΗ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ. Here we a clear confusion of Johannine and
Matthean phrases and at the same time an omission of both ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ and ΑΝΑΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ, as well as of ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΑΙ. Had Justin contained this ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΗΝΑΙ instead of ΑΝΑΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ we no doubt would have been beset by countless theories concerning its
origin.
Also significant is the following quotation
from Hippolytus: ΕΑΝ ΜΗ ΤΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗ ΕΞ ΥΔΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ, ΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΕΛΕΥΣΕΤΑΙ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ, ΟΤΙ ΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΕΝΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΣΑΡΚΟΣ ΣΑΡΞ ΕΣΤΙΝ. (ΕΛΕΓΧΟΣ 8, 10). Here again John and Matthew
are confused and ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΑΙ is omitted. This
quotation is especially interesting because it is the first time that John 3,
3-5 is quoted with the words ΕΑΝ ΜΗ ΤΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗ and indeed by a member of the
That there is an interdependence between Ps.
Clem. XI, 26 and Recog. VI, 9 seems to be quite clear
from the parallel introductions to the saying of the prophet. However, that Justin,
Irenaeus and Clement Alex. are involved in this
interdependence cannot be proven simply by the use of the verb ΑΝΑΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ which is, as we have seen, a common term in our extant sources for
Christian renewal and baptism. (I Pet.
1, 23 is also an example of this.)
That ΑΝΩΘΕΝ may mean “again” or “from the beginning” (see Bousset, op. cit., p. 117f.; Lowenich, op. cit., p. 47, n. 1) is a possibility,
but in the specific case of John 3, 3 this is an impossibility. Here ΑΝΩΘΕΝ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ is equated with ΕΞ ΥΔΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ. The ΠΝΕΥΜΑ in all four gospels is sent from above (Mtth. 3, 16; Mk. 1, 10; Lk. 3,
22; John 1, 3; 15, 26). The idea of
being born again according to the flesh is contained in the Nicodemus
misunderstanding. That Justin understood
baptism in terms of receiving the Spirit from “above” is not at all clear in 1
Apol. 61. This can be inferred only from
what Justin says about the soteriological implications of communion with the
Spirit in his Dialogue with Trypho (4, 1; 6, 2; 87, 5-6; see above).
We may summarize our observations concerning the use of John 3, 3-5 in
our earliest sources up to and including Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Origen in
conjunction with the overall findings of this paper as follows: (1) No one
except Origen uses the phrase ΑΝΩΘΕΝ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΝΑΙ. (2) No one uses ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ. (3) No one except Origen
uses ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΑΙ. (4) All writers use the Matthean ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ, even though some
use ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ in the same connection
elsewhere. (5) All writers except possibly Origen (depending on what the
original of Renatus was in Ad
All these factors having been weighed there is no conclusive indication
that 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 has any source other than John 3, 3-5. Justin’s failure to use ΑΝΩΘΕΝ is no more surprising than the same failure of all writers in question
apart from Origen; and his failure to use ΙΔΕΙΝ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ and ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΑΙ falls into the
same category. His failure to quote ΕΞ ΥΔΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ is obviously due
to the purpose of his Apology. Here he
has a somewhat detailed description of the esoteric mystical life of the Church
in order to refute the pagan calumnies. In
the Dialogue no such description is necessary because Trypho did not believe
the popular charges against Christians (10, 1, ff.). To confuse the issue by speaking to pagans
about birth from above and by water and Spirit would have only bewildered his
readers and subjected Christians to further ridicule. It was enough to explain the belief that the eucharistic bread and wine are the body and blood of
Christ. This he had to do in order to
meet the charges of cannibalism. Yet he
omits any mention of ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ which pagans would not have understood.
Also he referred to John 3, 3-5 in order to indicate the manner in which
Christians hoped to enter into the kingdom of the “heavens” and thereby dispel
the idea that the Church is a subversive organization. But there was no reason to complicate things
by mentioning a birth “from above” and “by water and Spirit” which could mean
nothing to his pagan readers and would not have served the purpose of his
apology.
Rather than postulate a thus far non-existent gospel source, it seems
much more consistent with the general condition of our source materials to
attribute the patristic variations in question to slips of memory and confusion
of Johannine, Matthean and oral catechetical terminology and expressions, due
especially to the very strong influence of Matthew because of its central
position in catechism and the constant use made of it in teaching by the Church
Teachers and Fathers in question. Therefore until such time when a gospel fragment similar to 1 Apol.
61, 4-5 is discovered one may safely conclude (1) that underlying 1 Apol. 61,
4-5 is John 3, 3-5, (2) that 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 owes its form partly to the
conditions under which it was quoted as was indicated in this paper, and (3)
that Justin’s failure to quote the gospel of John outright in dealing with
pagans and Jews is due to its esoteric and mystical nature and therefore to its
place within the pattern of the primitive Church’s methods of instruction.