JUSTINUS MARTYR, ST.
for he seems to fancy that Plato’s formula isconsistent with Moses’ statement that this form-less matter had itself been made by God (cf.Apol. i. 59, § 92, D; God made the earth, andthe earth was without form). It is perfectlyobvious that Justin’s relation to Platonism isuite external; he treats him altogether fromcutside ; he holds the Christian formulae, andwhenever he detects a likeness to them in Plato,he delights in bringing it out, without regardto context, or system; these likenesses are en-tirely arbitrary and on the surface, and canneve? be pressed. Justin’s canon of truth isabsolutely in Scripture •, from that stand-point,his kindly love for Plato pleases itself in ex-hibiting in him fragmentary resemblance to thetruth; but if these fragments of truth rantheir roots down into a mass of error, so muchthe worse for Plato; Justin has no idea offollowing them down. How true this is, is clearfrom Justin's second method of accounting forthe truth scattered about Gentile philosophy.His first and highest theory is that this is theproduct of the germinal Word ; his second isthat it is taken confusedly from Scripture, whichis earlier than all philosophies. This theory,which leads him to perfectly superficial andliteral derivations of points in Plato from thebooks of Moses, exhibits the absolute supremacyof Scripture, and also the thoroughly externalmanner in which Justin regarded Platonism.
There is something to be said for his con-nexion with Stoicism ; he approved their morals,he found in them a right account, to someextent, of the ultimate end of Nature, but heobjects strongly to their physical doctrines,their belief in fate, their physico-Pantheisticconception of God, by which they must eitheridentify God with evil and change, or else denythe reality of evil (Apol. ii. 7, 8); he considerstheir physics inconsistent with their ethics.Even their account of the ultimate conflagrationis sullied by their formula of fate. Still, nextto Plato, he sanctions them; he regards themas fore-runners of Christ, instinct with the ger-minal Word; he seems to follow their doctrinehome more accurately than he does others. Itis of them, probably, among others, that he iscomplaining at the beginning of the Dialog.§ 213, A, that they speak of a Divine Providenceover great things, but fear to bring it down toparticular subjects and events.
Musonius, and Heraclitus, he honourably dis-tinguishes ; of the Epicureans he speaks scorn-fully, as of those who, with the followers ofArsotades, and Philaenis, are utterly beneaththe level of Christian doctrine (Apol. ii. 15,§ 52, B).
One problem, lately of peculiar prominence,remains to be considered, i.e. the relation ofJustin to our Four Gospels. The amount andfrequency of his references to our Lord’s life andwords, in the generation immediately precedingthe day in which the present Gospels emerge,secure and alone, into the full daylight ofhistory, make him of salient importance indetermining their character; and the state ofthe present controversy, which has detected thesubtle transition, through which the Gospelstory passed, from the conditions of a living,oral tradition to those of formal written exem-plars, increases the importance of Justin, inas-
JUST1NUS MARTYR, ST. 585
much as he begins the definite references towritten records, of a lixed character, capable ofbeing used for devotional purposes. Are theserecords identical in substance and in form withour Gospels ?
(1) The substantial characteristics of ourLord’s life, down even to minute details, are,obviously, the same for Justin as for us. Wecan compose, from his quotations, a full sum-mary of the whole Gospel life, from the angel’smessage to the Virgin down to the Ascension,entering into many particulars, illustrating pro-phecies, supplying the very words of our Lord,in many cases relating all the circumstances ofthe acts referred to; and, as a whole, it is per-fectly clear that the peculiar and marked lineswhich run round and limit and determine indetail our Gospel, did so, too, to his. The samebody of facts is selected; the same character,the same limits preserved, the same charac-teristics brought forward; the same motives,the same interests are concerned; the sameprophetic aspects dwelt upon. This is noticeable,when we remember how very special and re-markable a choice must have been originallyexercised upon our Lord’s life, to select andretain the peculiar fragments, no more and noless, which are collected and sorted by ourSynoptists.
(2) Justin makes some additions or changesin detail to this main story, they are few enoughto be mentioned, that their character may beseen. He had a genealogy which, whether oursor not, he attributed to Mary, not to Joseph ;Cyrenius he calls the first procurator of Judaea;our Lord’s birthplace is a cave; the Magi comefrom Arabia; all the children in Bethlehem arekilled; our Lord is not “ comely of aspect; ” Hemade ploughs and yokes, emblems of righteous-ness; the Baptist sat by Jordan; a fire shone inJordan at our Lord’s baptism, and the wordsfrom heaven complete the text of the secondPsalm; the Jews ascribed our Lord’s miracles tomagic; John ceased his mission at our Lord’spublic appearance. The Lord said, “There shallbe schisms and heresies;” and “In whatsoever1 find you, in that will I judge you.” The drops,at the Agony are not said to be of blood; Hiscaptors surround Him, “ like horned bulls ” ofPsalm xxii.; the sneers of the crowd at thecross are expanded, “ He who raised the dead,let Him save Himself.”
Of these, several are, probably, confusions oramplifications of Justin’s own; some representadditions found in various texts of our presentGospels, and were, probably, floating, popular,traditional interpretations of various passages.The only remaining points definitely distinctfrom our Gospels are, the home of the Magi, thecave of the Nativity, the posture of the Baptist,the two sayings of our Lord. Does Justin, then,seem to take these from tradition, or from anyuncanonical Gospel ? The uncanonical worksknown to us, that are akin to him in theiraccount of the birth and the baptism, do not tallywith the rest of his account of these events; itis much more probable, therefore, that they andJustin embody a common tradition about thecave and the fire in Jordan, than that he usedthem ; or even if these details came from them,they *re still, certainly, not his main autho-iit ; <is, they arc not his Gospel. The two strung*