The Logos
CHAPTER VII
THE LOGOS
Tue doctrine of the divine logos played an important part in the thought of the second-century Christian Apologists. By its use they were able to claim as 'Christian' anything that was good or noble in pagan literature and philosophy and to meet the pagan contention that what was good in Christianity was already to be found in paganism. Yet we should err if we said that the apologists had no aim but to use the logos as an apologetic convenience. It was also a theological necessity. It enabled them to solve, according to their own lights, the cosmological problem and to show that Christianity itself was as old as the creation. So Athenagoras can say: 'Our doctrine considers one God the creator of this universe, who himself has not come into being (for it is not that which is but that which is not that comes into being), but who has created all things through the logos who is beside him. Theophilus writes in similar vein: 'God created all things through his logos and wisdom, for by his Word were the heavens established, and all their power by his breath"? (Ps. xxxiii. 6).
Finally the logos doctrine provided a basis for the rather intellectual view of salvation that the Apologists put forward in their writings, viz. that Christ as the logos was primarily a teacher whose words brought salvation to men. Justin puts this succinctly: 'Jesus Christ is the only son begotten properly by God, since he is by nature his Logos and first-born and power; and by his counsel he became man and taught us these things for the relief and elevation of the human race.'
Before considering Justin's idea of the logos in detail we must give a brief description of its wide background in GraecoRoman thought and in Judaism. The doctrine of the logos, in 1 Supplicatio pro Christianis iv. 2.
2 ad Autolycumt. vii. I owe this and the previous reference to J. N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, p. 24.
3 I Apol. xxiii. On the other hand it is only fair to state that in the Dialogue Justin emphasises that salvation is effected through the death of Christ. E.g. Dial. xii, xiii.
JUSTIN MARTYR
various forms, was widely held in the Graeco-Roman world.
The word itself has many meanings most of which are subsumed under the two heads of inward thought and the outward expression of thought in speech. In any form of Theism logos could easily be used to account for a divine revelation, God's
Word being communicated by his speech. But in Stoicism logos had lent itself to pantheistic use and was equated with the rational principle in accordance with which the universe existed, i.e. with God.1 Human beings, for the Stoics, were endowed in varying degrees with seed forces
(otreppatikol Adyo1) which were part of this rational principle or logos of God. In the fusion of Stoicism and Platonism found among the Middle Platonists the rational principle of the Stoic Universe was the logos of God.
In the Greek Old Testament logos is frequently used of the Word of God in Creation? and of the message of the prophets by means of which God communicates his will to his people.? In all Septuagint passages the meaning is not abstract, but spoken, active communication. In later Judaism, as a result of an emphasis on Divine Transcendence, the doctrine of the Word took on a new emphasis. In the Targums of the Old Testament the Aramaic word Memra or Word is frequently used. It is doubtful if this was a hypostasis; rather it seems to be a way of speaking about God without using his name and thus avoiding the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament.* It is largely a phenomenon of translation. A more significant approach is found in the Wisdom literature where the concept of Wisdom
(hokhmah) was not simply 'being wise', but seems to be in some degree a personification which stood by the side of God and was concerned with the created world.® 1 "In the Stoic doctrine the Adyos is not an emanation or hypostasis of God. It is the supreme principle. The Stoic does not have a God, one of whose attributes is A6yos. He has one God who can be called indifferently vols, eiuappévn, Zevs, and many other names including Adyos. These are just names for one and the same being.' T. W. Manson, On Paul and John
(London, 1963), p. 139.
'Genny gO. Ocees pcx Oy 3 Jer. i. 4; Ezek. i. 3; Amos iii. 1.
4 Cf. Gen. iii. 8, 'They heard the voice of the Lord God', which is rendered by Targ. Ongelos, 'They heard the voice of the memra of the Lord God'.
® Prov. viii. 22; Wisd. vii. 22, 27. We cannot tell how far these passages imply a separate existence of Wisdom or whether they are poetic language. a
THE LOGOS
In speculative Judaism Wisdom had two successors. The first, Philo, introduced the Stoic-Platonic logos of Middle Platonism into Judaism. It is a profitless task to seek for a consistent doctrine of the logos in Philo's voluminous writings.
He identifies the logos with Old Testament personalia, such as the High Priest, by means of allegorical interpretation and particularly emphasises its cosmological functions much as Wisdom had cosmological associations in the Wisdom literature.
He also refers to the ideal world, of which the present world is a copy, as 6 Geo Adyos.! The logos is also the ideal, primal Man, the image of God from whom spring and decline all mortal men.
The essence of Philo's view of the logos appears to derive from Greek thought (especially Plato's Timaeus) as interpreted by the Middle Platonism of his day.2 The second successor to speculative Judaism was the rabbinic emphasis on the torah as the equivalent to the divine wisdom. The torah came to be described in personal terms and to have a cosmological and soteriological role.
This widespread background to the idea of the logos lies behind the use of the term in the early Church. C. K. Barrett has well said: 'It is however an error to think that early
Christian theologians (such as St John) made a neat amalgam of Hellenistic and Jewish speculation on the subject of mediation and applied it to Christ.'* Rather they begin with Jesus as the fulfilment of God's purposes, the logos which God has spoken and who lived a historical life on earth. The logos had become flesh—that was the line which divided Christian speculation from the speculations of Hellenistic and Rabbinic
Judaism and Philo. However, in using the idea of the logos early Christian writers no doubt were appealing obliquely to the contemporary world so that both Jewish and Greek readers would understand their meaning.
The second-century Apologists had behind them earlier Jewish and Greek speculation, the logos theory of St John as well as subsequent Christian speculation. Ignatius of Antioch, in incidental references, states that Jesus Christ is the logos who 1 De Opif. Mundi, xxiv f.
2 But note W. Scott, Hermetica, u, 14 f.: 'Philo's Logos may be regarded as the Stoic God dematerialized, with a supracosmic God set up above him.'
3 The Gospel According to St John, p. 129.
JUSTIN MARTYR
came forth from silence,! the only utterance of God, the unlying mouth by which the Father spake truly ;? he is God made manifest in human wise. The unknown author of the Epistle to Diognetus* declares the logos to be no servant or angel or prince, but the Artificer and Creator to whom all things are placed in subjection. He was sent as a king sends his son with a view to saving men—not by constraint but by persuasion. Yet neither of these writers really deals with the relationship of Christ to the Father in the Godhead or explains how this is related to his manifestation in space and time. They affirm by incidental allusion rather than explain.
The second-century Apologists were called to defend their faith to a wider pagan world. They were the first to give an intellectual explanation as to the relation of Christ to the Father and his coming from the Godhead into the world of time, for they could not assume that their readers accepted this as a fact of experience. This was no easy task as the Apologists, accepting the biblical faith, were as ardent monotheists as the Jews. Justin Martyr, as a pioneer Apologist, takes over and develops the earlier Christian use of the logos. He introduces the term as a familiar one to both Christian and non-Christian.
But, unlike St John, and as with his doctrine of God, Justin admits a larger element of philosophical speculation into his conception of the logos. Indeed Goodenough believes that Justin is wholly dependent on Philo in this connection;> other scholars have pointed to Stoicism as the fons et origo of his doctrine while, more recently, Andresen® has pointed to Middle
Platonism as a decisive influence on Justin. But before considering these views it is necessary to give an account of Justin's teaching on the logos.
Justin uses the term in the Apologies to explain the divine nature of Jesus Christ—why he is called Son of God and worshipped by Christians—as well as to explain the relation of Christianity to other truth. In the Dialogue with Trypho Justin uses it to show that Christ was the God who appeared to the 1 Ad Magn. viii. The concept of Z1y1\ seems to owe something to Valentinian speculation.
2 Ad Rom. viii.
3 Ad Eph. xix.
4 Ad Diogn. vii-x.
5 The Theology of Fustin Martyr, pp. 139-75.
§ £.N.T.W. XLIVv (1952-3), 157-95.
G00
THE LOGOS
Jewish patriarchs in the theophanies recorded in the Old Testament.
Justin's starting point is that the logos is the personal Reason of God in which all men partake. So he states: 'For not only among the Greeks did logos prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the barbarians were they condemned by the logos himself, who took form, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ.'! Hence there were Christians before Christ—men who possessed seeds of the logos and so arrived at facets of the truth: 'We have declared above that he
(i.e. Christ) is the logos of whom every race of men were partakers; and that those who lived reasonably (uet& Adyou) are
Christians though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians Abraham, Ananias, Azarias, Misael and Elias and many others whose nations and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious." Justin, however, emphasises that the whole logos only resided in Jesus
Christ and accordingly those who partook of a part of the logos often contradicted themselves.* In developing the biblical teaching of the Incarnation of the logos in Christ Justin conceived of him as the Father's intelligence or rational thought. Yet Justin realised that such a belief did not do justice to the fundamental Christian idea of Jesus as a separate being. So he argued that the logos was not only in name distinct from the Father, as the light is from the sun, but was also numerically distinct (étepos d&p18u0),4 which meant for Justin 'different in person'.® The sharp personality ascribed to the logos distinguishes Justin's use from the prologue of the Fourth Gospel and also from Philo's usage.
It was in conflict with Jewish monotheism that Justin particularly developed his view as to the duality in the heart of the Godhead. Thus the otherness of the logos is evident (a) by the divine theophanies recorded in the Old Testament (e.g. that to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, to Jacob, to Moses, etc.),® which point to another than God who appeared to these
1 J Apol. v.
2 I Apol. xlvi.
3 II Apol. x.
4 Dial. \xi, \xii, cxxviii, cxxix.
5 Noted by Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr, p. 146.
6 Dial. lvi-lx.
JUSTIN MARTYR
patriarchs. This proof, based on Justin's peculiar exegesis of the Old Testament, is given at great length. This 'other' is called
Angel, and God, and Lord, and Man."
(6) By the Old Testament passages which represent God as conversing to another who is a rational being like himself. The stock passage used by Justin was Gen. i. 26, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness.' Cf. Dial. Ixii.
(c) By the great texts found in the Wisdom literature which imply either a poetic or a real personification of Wisdom
(e.g. Prov. viii. 22 f.), which Justin quotes with the interpretation:
'You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this offspring was begotten by the Father before all things were created; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, anyone will admit."
Justin perceived that his biblical proofs for the numerical distinction of the logos from God could easily be turned against him and land him in ditheism. Hence he emphasises the unity of the Father and the logos anterior to the creation. The logos, according to Justin, was begotten by the Will and Power of God, as a preparatory step before the creation of the universe.
The logos is 'a beginning before all created things'? (&px1) pd TavTOV TOV Troinudtov). As the Incarnate logos marked the beginning of the Christian race so the logos, though himself not created, marked the beginning of created things. This certainly seems to imply that Justin held that the logos was begotten not long before the creation although he does not speculate on the eternal nature of the Godhead. Yet he is clear that the logos is essentially a unity with the Father—indeed he was begotten by the Father's Will out of the Father himself. He is the Offspring who was really brought forth from the Father, and who was with the Father, and with whom the Father communed.
He was not a creature, in the later Arian sense, neither was he an emanation from God like the rays from the sun; nor did he proceed from God by abscission such that the being of the Father was diminished. Justin illustrates the generation of the logos by the analogy of the spoken word and by the kindling of fire by fire which does not diminish the original fire.t The logos, for Justin, was not eternal in the later Nicene sense—yet he was the ID AL Mee 2 Dial. cxxix.
2 Dialaixaie 4 Justin does not use the terms Aayos evdia0eTos, Adyos TrPOPopIKds. ba
THE LOGOS
product of the Father's Will. He was no emanation, no mode of appearance, no temporary effulgence of divine glory—but in essence a unity with the Father although distinct in personality.
Hence the logos is called God and divine although depending on the exercise of the Father's Will.
Justin has one further point. The logos is for him essentially generated for the purpose of creation and revelation, as the agent and servant of the Father. On the one hand the Father communes with the logos and on the other the logos is the organ of creation which God conceived and made by him.! He is also the Father's messenger? (&yyeAos, d&trootoAos) and minister
(Utnpétns)® capable of immediate self-revelation to his creatures. As with the concept of Wisdom in the Jewish Wisdom literature the logos is the medium between the Transcendent
God and the finite universe. He is thus subordinate to the Father, both as to his person which was begotten at some point anterior to the creation, and as to his office. Justin says that he is worshipped by Christians in the second place after God the Father of all.4
Such is the nature and function of the logos according to Justin Martyr. Where did he obtain his conception of the logos ?
What influences determined and shaped his attempt to explain the relationship between Christ and the Father and between Christianity and other knowledge? It would be fair to say that there is a wide divergence of opinion among scholars on this question—wider than that concerning the origin and use of the logos by St John. This is because Justin is more influenced by prevailing philosophical speculation than the writer of the Fourth Gospel—and it is precisely this philosophic element which is difficult to assess accurately.
We have already noted that Justin Martyr takes over the earlier Christian use of the logos. It must be emphasised that he is a biblical thinker and, whatever the philosophical influences to which he was exposed, this remained a primary influence.
For Justin the logos was first and foremost Jesus Christ. He was the 'whole Word'.® Creation proceeded through him. Re1 J Apol. \xiv; II Apol. vi; Dial. Ixxxiv.
2 T Apol. Ixiii.
3 Dial. \vi, lvii, 1x, cxiii, cxxv, CxXxvi.
4 T Apol. vi, xiii, 1xi.
5 [I Apol. viii, x, érreiSt) 5 OU TavTa TX TOU Adyou Eyvwpioay, Ss toTI Xpiotés. gi
JUSTIN MARTYR
demption flowed from his Incarnation, death and resurrection.
'He is the power of the ineffable Father, and not the mere instrument of human reason. This equation of the logos with Jesus Christ at once differentiates Justin from Stoicism and Philo, for whom history in the last resort had no meaning.
Whether Justin took over the idea of the logos direct from the Fourth Gospel or from the tradition of the Church as he knew it cannot be answered with certainty. We know that the logos doctrine was known in different Christian centres in the second century—particularly in places influenced by the Johannine theology such as Rome, Ephesus, Antioch and Alexandria. The very fact that Justin attempted to explain this belief philosophically testifies, with the whole philosophic movement in the early
Church, to the previous existence of a non-philosophic belief.
The Johannine logos is ultimately non-philosophical, for it is based on the Old Testament Word of the Lord active in creation and revelation."
It was in his philosophical development of the logos idea that Justin admitted a larger element of non-biblical interpretation and we shall now consider this:
(a) Since the important work of Goodenough? it has often been assumed that Philo's doctrine of the logos and divine powers is the key which will unlock the secrets of Justin's thought. It is of course true, and full weight must be given to it, that there was a widespread Hellenistic-Jewish tradition which was regarded with favour by the Church—the more so after the period a.D. 70-135 when this tradition had fallen into disfavour with the Jews under the influence of the more rigid
Pharisaic Rabbinism of Jamnia. But to assert an affinity with Hellenistic Judaism is something different from asserting direct influence of one particular Hellenistic-Jewish thinker on one particular Christian philosopher. It is this that Goodenough tries to do with reference to Philo and Justin Martyr. He be- * II Apol. x, ered) Svayis EoT1 Tot deprytou Tratpds Kal ovK avOpartrefou
Adyou T& oKEUN.
2 The best statement of this view is to be found in Manson, On Paul and John, pp. 136-59. It is however possible that there existed, in the early
Church, a logos theology independent of the Fourth Gospel.
3 The Theology of Justin Martyr, pp. 139-75.
Ne a
THE LOGOS
lieves that the titles which Justin applies to the logos conclusively prove this dependence. Let us look at his argument in detail:
(i) Justin four times states of the logos that 'the dayspring (or East) is his name' (&vartoAt) Svoux att)? with reference to Zech. vi. 12. These references occur amidst other titles based directly on Old Testament passages such as Num. xxiv. 17;
Ps, Ixxii. 17. Philo, on the other hand, says that é&vatoA1 in Zech. vi. 12 could not refer to a man of body and soul but only to that incorporeal one who differs in no respect from the divine image of God.* It is difficult to trace any direct dependence here, for Philo is using his customary allegory while Justin is simply using the familiar Messianic interpretation of the Old Testament.
(ii) Goodenough believes that the title Stone or Rock which Justin derives from several Old Testament passages* is dependent on Philo. He particularly instances Philo's comment on the rock from which water flowed in the wilderness as 'the Wisdom of God which as the highest and first rock he cut off from his own powers, from which he gave drink to God-loving souls'. Such a passage as Justin Dzal. Ixxvi. 1 is directly dependent on Philo: 'And his saying a stone cut without hands proclaims the same thing in a mystery. For saying that it has been cut out without hands means that it is not a human work, but of the will of God, the Father of the universe, who brought it forward.' Such an argument is however precarious as both passages depend on Dan. ii. 34, 45 (LX X). Moreover, the title stone or rock applied to Jesus was one of the primary testimonia in use in the early Church and is found in the New Testament.® Justin is developing earlier Christian exegesis rather than taking over Hellenistic-Jewish exegesis. It is not without significance that the stone cut out of the mountain mentioned in Daniel had been equated by Christian writers with the stone of Ps. cxviii. 22 and Isa. viii. 14 before the time of Justin; cf. Luke xx. 18 and Barn. vi. 2-4. There is therefore no need
1 Jbid. pp. 168-73.
2 Dial. c, cvi, Cxxi, CXxvi.
3 De Conf. Ling. \xii.
4 Dial. xxxiv, xxxvi, Ixx, Ixxvi, xc, Xcill, C, CXIV, CXxvl.
5 Teg. Al. a. 86.
6 Mark xii. 10-11; Matt. xxi. 42; Luke xx. 7 based on Ps. cxviii. 22-3; cf. I Pet. ii. 6-8; Rom. ix. 33. See pp. 70-3.
JUSTIN MARTYR
to bring Philo into the discussion. Justin is primarily dependent on earlier Christian Messianic exegesis. It is, however, just possible that both Justin and Philo were acquainted with a rabbinic Haggadah on these Old Testament passages where various Stone texts are linked together.
(iii) Justin, in one passage,' states that the logos was the beginning (&pyn) before all created works and did not simply exist év &pyfj. Philo twice uses the term &px7 in lists of titles of the logos.? But both writers appear to be using Prov. viii. 22—
Justin explicitly says so—and it is unnecessary to postulate direct dependence. Indeed, as Goodenough admits, in the only passage in which Philo quotes Prov. viii. 22 he has tewtiotny for the LXX &pynv.
(iv) Justin uses the word *yépa as a title for the logos in one passage: 'He also is termed both Wisdom and Day and Dayspring and Sword and Stone etc."* He is the first Christian writer to do this although the word had later a varied use in Christian controversy. Goodenough believes that Philo used the word for the logos and thus provided the antecedent for Justin's use. He is, however, involved in a tortuous exegesis of De Opif. Mundi xxxv to prove this. All that can be shown is that Philo uses pds of the logos as in De Opif. Mundi xxxi, To 5é é&opatov Kal vontov pds éxeivo Peiou Adyou, which is quite a different thing from equating fuépa with the logos. In view of the context of Justin's use in a catena of titles drawn from the Old Testament it seems more probable that he has derived this from Ps. cxviil. 24, 'This is the day which the Lord hath made.'
It is not without significance that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas uses this text in a passage where Christ is equated with the Stone,® as in Justin, which may suggest that earlier
Christian exegesis lies behind Justin's use.
(v) Justin says that the logos is called d&vijp and &vOpeotr0s because he appears in the likeness of such form as the Father wills.' He appeared to Abraham év i8éx dvds and to Jacob év idx avOpwrrou.® Philo also says that the logos is 6 Kat' eikdéva
* See J. Daniélou, Sacramentum Futuri, p. 187; R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event, pp. 22-3.
2S Drala xi 3 De Conf. Ling. 146; Leg. Al. 1. 43.
= Dial ac:
° See Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 16, 145. See J. R. Harris, Expositor, 8th series,
XIV (1917), 145-51.
6 Barn, vi. 4.
? Dial. cxxviii.
8 Dial. lviii.
94 *
THE LOGOS
avOperros.t But in these passages Justin is interpreting Old Testament passages in the light of his belief that it was the logos who appeared to the patriarchs and it seems quite unnecessary to bring in Philo.
(vi) Justin calls the logos or Christ 'Israel' and 'Jacob' and is fond of using the two titles together.2 He expounds the names as signifying a parallelism between Jacob, who was surnamed
Israel, and who gave his name to the Israelites, and Christ, from whom the Christians have received their name. Philo, on the other hand, uses Israel as a title for the logos but explains it to mean 'Him who sees God'.' The 'house of Israel' signifies the human soul in which dwells the vots which can see God.
Philo does not use 'Jacob' as a logos title. It would appear that Justin and Philo are moving in different worlds of thought.
The former is simply giving a typical Christian explanation of the Old Testament while Philo is allegorising biblical texts along psychological lines.
(vii) One of Justin's favourite titles for the logos is 'first begotten' (tpatdtoKos). Goodenough makes the extraordinary assertion that this is a verbal variant of Philo's trpeoBUTaTos
8eoU vis TrpwToyovos KTA. which occurs in several passages in that writer.* It is, however, far more likely that Justin took this from the Christian tradition as he knew it or even directly from St Paul> where it already has a Christological connotation.
(viii) Two last titles which Justin uses of the logos are ' Priest' and 'King'.® Justin derives the former from Ps. cx. 4, 'Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek' which is also used in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Philo finds in Melchizedek a figure both of the Kingly and Priestly character of the logos,' but he does not use this verse from the Psalms.
On the basis of the above Goodenough concludes that Justin is dependent on Philo for his titles of the logos—even in drawing up lists of titles. But, as we have seen, some of the points of similarity are due to both Justin and Philo being dependent on 1 De Conf. Ling. 146.
2 Dial. cxxiii, cxxvi.
3 De Conf. Ling. 146; De Mut. Nom. 81.
4 De Agr. Noe 51; De Conf. Ling. 63, 146; De Somn. 1. 215; Leg. Al. m. 175.
5 Col. i. 15, 18; Rom. viii. 29; cf. Heb. i. 6; Rev. i. 5, ii. 8.
8 Dial. cxviil.
Ueega Al. tn, 7O\t.
JUSTIN MARTYR
the Old Testament. Philo is an eclectic thinker and his system, if such it can be called, is based on a mixture of material inherited or acquired from his predecessors and Greek teachers.
But he also has antecedents in non-philosophical Judaism such as when he calls angels Adyo1 Ge00, when he calls the Old Testament 6 {gods Adyos, and when he compares the High Priest to the divine Word. Philo is here using Adyos not in the Stoic sense of the immanent universal Reason but as the 'Word' or Speech of God. Both Philo and Justin have used the same source, the Old Testament, although Justin also draws on early Christian exegesis of the Old Testament. Philo's Adyos is ultimately
Stoicism or Middle Platonism blended with the Old Testament 'Word of God'. Justin's Adyos is Jesus Christ understood in the light of the same Old Testament 'Word of God' and Greek philosophy. But to postulate Philo as Justin's immediate source is to go beyond the evidence. At the most he was a peripheral influence on Justin. In fact it may well be the case that Philo's influence on early Christian thought has been exaggerated and was confined at the most to Christian literature emanating from Alexandria, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the writings of Clement of Alexandria. It is a fact often forgotten that Justin never mentions Philo, while he does mention his philosophic environment in Middle Platonism from which he passed into Christianity. This must now concern us in connection with Justin's logos doctrine.
(b) A characteristic of Justin is his use of the term Adyos oTtepuaTikos of the universal activity of the logos. For Justin each thinker, inasmuch as he conformed to the truth and spoke well, partook of a portion of this Seminal or Spermatic logos which in its entirety was Jesus Christ.2 The seeds of truth sown in the hearts of men were the formative principle of right knowledge and right living.? Thus there were Christians before Christ,4 and Christianity was brought into relationship with wider truth.
It has often been assumed that Justin is dependent on Stoicism 1 See the excellent discussion in T.W. Manson, On Paul and Fohn,
PPp140-1, 149.
* I Apol. viii, xii. J. H. Waszink, Festschrift Theodor Klauser (1964), p. 387, has however queried the usual English translation 'share or portion of the Spermatic Logos' and would prefer 'part of the sowing logos' which is identical with Christ.
3 I Apol. xliv.
~ 4 I Apol. xlvi.
96 *
THE LOGOS
for this idea of the Adyos otrepuatikds.! For the Stoics the primal principle of fire was designated otrepyatixds Adyos Tow
Koopou. In their cosmological pantheism the souls of men partook of the world substance of fire. The Adyos otreppatixds could be conceived in Stoic physiology as a fine gas which flowed into the bodily senses and functions and even into the sexual excretion. When this gaseous element from the male united with a similar gaseous element in the female conception took place. It is clear that in Stoicism we are dealing with a material conception which equated the Adyos otrepyartiKds with the pantheistic World Pneuma. It is in no way a spiritual or ethical principle which the Adyos otrepuatikds certainly is for Justin, as may be seen from J Afol. xliv. Here everything that philosophers and poets have said about the immortality of the soul, punishments after death, and the contemplation of heavenly things, and all such theories, indicates that in all of them 'seeds of truth' are present. When Justin attributes the contradictions among the poets and philosophers to the fact that they failed to think exactly enough, it is clear that we are dealing with a spiritual principle of reason whose scope is connected with the faculty of knowledge possessed by poets and philosophers. Justin's usage is far removed from the pantheistic
Stoic idea.
Where then did Justin obtain his idea of the Aoyos otreppartiKos ? What influences played on him as he used it to explain the diffusion of truth and righteousness among men? Philo had adopted the term to designate the copies of the archetypal ideas which exist in the world and which, for him, constitute reality.
This does not however help in the elucidation of Justin's background. More to the point is the Middle Platonist view of the Adyos oTrepuatikds. As was the case with Justin's doctrine of God the brilliant researches of Carl Andresen? have illuminated his philosophic environment in a new way and have provided an intelligible account of Justin's adoption of the term.
Andresen begins by tracing the antecedents of the Adyos otrepuatixds idea. He shows how Cicero, who depends on Antiochus of Askalon, speaks of the semina justitiae which have been present since the earliest generations of man. It was these which 1 P, Pfattisch, Der Einfluss Platos auf die Theologie Justins des Martyrers
(Paderborn, 1910), p. 104.
2 2.N.T.W. Xuiv (1952-3), 157-O5+
pyM
JUSTIN MARTYR
made possible the love of knowledge in the mind of man and an honourable and proper community life. Cicero links the seed forces of the Stoa with the seeds of justice, i.e. he gives them an ethico-moral, rather than a metaphysical, interpretation. The same development is found in Arius Didymus in his exposition of the Peripatetic ethics. He reads the idea of 'seed forces' into Aristotle in an exclusively ethical interpretation. Men, for Arius, possess by nature the 'beginnings' and 'seeds' of the virtues which are perfectible by 'morals and right habits of intercourse'. Arius attempted to bring together the Academy, the Stoa and the Peripatos by adopting a certain indifference to metaphysics. He is the first to give an exclusively ethical interpretation to the Adyor otrepuatixol. In Andresen's view
Arius Didymus is the link between the philosophy of Antiochus of Askalon and Cicero and Middle Platonism (as exemplified by Albinus) in which the idea of 'seed forces' is connected with that of the 'general ideas'.
Andresen instances the account of Apuleius of Madaura of man who is from birth neither good nor evil but bears within himself certain seeds of both qualities, which are connected with his birth. It is the task of education to make these seeds
'shine forth' for good.! In both Albinus and Apuleius the Adyo1 oTrepuatikoi have escaped from the Stoic view of the logos spermatikos as the World principle and have been restricted to a purely ethical meaning.'
It would seem that Justin's references to the seeds of truth present in the intellectual, spiritual and moral strivings of men
(which for him are but parts of the whole Word which is Christ) are best explained by reference to the School Platonist tradition.? For in both Justin and Middle Platonism the idea of the Ls Ba a bens Gy » Note also Plutarch's speculations about the World Soul of the Timaeus, where he endeavours to give to the logos of the Platonic World Soul the role of the Stoic logos spermatikos and in the process eliminates all the material aspects of the Stoic idea. Andresen, Z.N.T.W. xutv (1952-3), 176.
° J. H. Waszink, Festschrift Theodor Klauser, p. 390, believes that Justin's choice of the term logos spermatikos is due to the conjunction of these factors: (a) that it was a well-known Stoic term; (b) the influence of the parable of the Sower, Matt. xiii. 3; (c) the frequency of the picture of sowing and planting in the works of Philo. Professor Waszink however admits a considerable element of Middle Platonist influence elsewhere in Justin
~ 938° >
THE LOGOS
"seed forces' is given a moral and ethical interpretation and is not connected with the Stoic World Reason. It was after all from this School Platonism that Justin passed into Christianity.
It is also interesting that Justin alludes to the Stoic idea of 'general concepts' (communes notitiae; koinai or physikai ennoiat).
By these he understands the concepts given to man a priori which are predominantly of a religious and moral character.
Thus the term 'God' is an intuition implanted in the nature of man" so there is embedded in him the faculty of knowing good and evil." This is similar to the Middle Platonist use of the Stoic
'naturally formed concepts'. But in Justin the 'naturally formed concepts' and the 'seed forces' referred to above are closely connected. This is shown by his terminology. So he speaks of the 'seed of the logos implanted in the whole human race' in one context and in another of the 'intuition of God implanted in the nature of man'.® It would seem that in both
Justin is indebted to Middle Platonism, rather than to Stoicism direct, and this in spite of the wealth of Stoic ideas in his writings.
In describing the function of the logos Justin Martyr was a pioneer Christian thinker. He was dependent on the earlier
Christian use of the term and assumes that his readers will understand his ideas. This Christian element was fundamental to Justin, for he firmly equates the logos with Jesus Christ whom he describes as the whole or entire Word.* This logos was essentially a unity with God the Father although distinct in personality. This equation of the logos with Jesus differentiates
Justin's thought at once from the speculations of Philo, Stoicism and Middle Platonism. However, Justin admitted into his idea of the logos a larger philosophic element, mainly derived from Middle Platonism, than did earlier Christian thinkers and this element did not entirely harmonise with the Christian and biblical tradition.
(p.384) and it would seem best to find it here. R. Holte, Stud. Theol. xm (1958),
109-68, believes that the immediate source of Justin's theory was Philo.
See further H. Chadwick in B.J.R.L. xiv (1965), 294 n. 11, who follows Holte and Waszink in finding an echo of the parable of the Sower.
1 II Apol. vi.
2 IT Apol. xiv.
3 So Albinus. Andresen, @.N.T.W. xiiv (1952-3), 1774 JI Apol. viii.
5 II Apol. vi.
6 JI Apol. viii. pe, hee
JUSTIN MARTYR
We should not judge Justin in the light of the later Trinitarian orthodoxy. He was a pioneer in Christian philosophy and it is not to be expected that pioneers will perfectly map the terrain. His was a profoundly Christian mind which set itself to grapple with the question of the relationship of the Father to the logos—Christ. It was inevitable that his unsystematised language about the derivative nature of the logos should later be capable of an Arian interpretation. Yet it is equally clear that Justin believed in the full Divinity of the Son. The boldness, scope and vigour of his conception of the logos command admiration even if, from a later vantage point, we see that he allowed his philosophical presuppositions to modify the biblical basis of his Christianity to too great an extent.
CHAPTER VIII
LoeerOouy ori kil AND DHE LRUNETY *
THE ANGELIC POWERS
THE primary object of the second-century Greek Apologists was to demonstrate that the philosophic conception of a ds
Adoyos was realised in the Person of the historical Christ. They were conscious, as a fact of Christian experience, of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, but they paid comparatively little attention to the working out of any doctrine of the Third
Person of the Trinity. Some of the apologists ascribed to the Son operations and offices which the Church was later to refer to the Holy Spirit. Thus, in the Epistle ad Diognetum, it is the Word who 'holds converse with men, by whom He chooses, and when He wills'; it is by the Word that 'the Church is perpetually enriched'.? Theophilus of Antioch attributes the inspiration of the Old Testament prophets to the second person;
'the Word, being God's Spirit, came down upon the prophets and spake by them.' Even the miraculous conception is said by Justin to have been wrought by the Word himself*—a view which lingered on in the Church until the middle of the fourth century.® On the other hand it is Theophilus who first uses the word tpi&s with reference to the Godhead.® There was undoubtedly a tendency to subordinate the Spirit to the Word.
Tatian, Justin's pupil, even speaks of the Holy Spirit as the minister of the Son.' His view of the Spirit's operation is worthy of note:
The Spirit of God is not with all men, but with some, namely with those who live righteously ; descending to the soul's level, and linking itself with it, whilst to other souls it announces its secret by means of prophecies. Souls which give heed to wisdom attract to themselves this kindred Spirit.® Woah, De Waly, Be 3 Autol. i. 23.
4 I Apol. xxxiii.
5 Tren. v. 1; Tert. Prax. 26; Cypr. de Idol. Van.; Hil. Trin. ii. 24, 26.
6 Autol. ii. 15; cf. Justin, I Apol. xiii.
7 Adv. Graec. 13.
8 Tbid.
Io!
JUSTIN MARTYR
It is only Athenagoras, among the Apologists, who approaches more nearly the later Church doctrine of the Holy Trinity. He visualises the Holy Spirit as the Bond of the Divine Unity! and even describes the Spirit as an 'effluence (étrdoppoiav) from God, from whom it emanates and to whom it returns like a ray of the sun' or as 'light from fire'.?
There was considerable fluidity in doctrinal matters in the second-century Church and it should cause no surprise that the doctrines of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity receive so little theological formulation. This is, in fact, the case with Justin
Martyr.
THE SPIRIT IN JUSTIN
Justin's doctrine of the Holy Spirit is difficult to understand.
There is no facet of his teaching which has been more variously interpreted than this. It has even been asserted that ultimately, for Justin, logos and Spirit were but two names for the same conception.' Such theories must be tested against what he actually says about the Spirit.
Justin mentions the Holy Spirit mainly in connection with prophetic inspiration. When he wishes to explain the traditional baptismal formula used in his day he links the mention of the Spirit with prophetic inspiration:
'This washing is called illumination, since those who learn these things are illumined within. The illuminand is also washed in the name of Jesus
Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold everything about Jesus.' It is, however, significant that only in one passage® does Justin suggest that the prophet was in ecstasy when he had his prophetic vision, i.e. his natural powers were quiescent. As he nowhere else uses the word ecstasy it seems unlikely that he regarded this as the normal prophetic state.
More to the point is Justin's view that the words of the prophet are Divine utterances and not just an expression of the prophet's own opinion.® The Psalms were spoken or dictated to David by the Holy Spirit.'
1 Suppl. 10.
2 Suppl. 10, 24.
* See Goodenough, Theology of Justin Martyr, p. 176.
4 I Apol. xi.
5 Dial. cxv. 3.
6 J Apol. xxxvi. 1.
PID AL SSS Ni5 Sie 1O2)