Chapter Three
CHAPTER THREE
A COMPARISON OF EVANGELIUM VERITATIS WITH
THE WRITINGS OF JUSTIN MARTYR IN RELATION TO
THE NATURE OF TRUTH
This chapter aims to demonstrate in detail what truth means in Ev. Ver. and in the writings of Justin Martyr. To perform the task the works of the two men are compared through a series of propositions pertaining to truth, the truth concerning God and his world (propos. I), concerning Jesus Christ as the Logos of the Father (propos. II), concerning the earthly life, death, and resurrection of Christ (propos. III), concerning man and his appropriation of truth (propos. IV), and concerning the community of truth
(as each writer understands it)—its origin, life, and destiny (propos.
V). As a conclusion to the discussion of each proposition, a summary and a comparison of the ideas of the two writers appear.
PROPOSITION I
The writings of Justin and Ev. Ver. understand truth to be inherent in an incomprehensible God. Both view truth as cosmic in scope. They differ sharply, however, in their understanding of the manifestation of truth; in Justin's writings, truth is manifested in the realm of Divinely-ordered events; in Ev. Ver., truth is largely manifested in a metaphysical realm known as "'the middle."
A. Truth 1s inherent in an incomprehensible God 1. According to Justin. Justin affirms that God is both the true
(AnOivéc) and the most true (éAnPéotatoc) God (I. 53:6; 6:1).
This means that amid the confusion and multiplicity of human existence, the Apologist's concern, no less than that of any philosopher of his day and earlier, was with a central principle of truth.
This, he found, in the transcendent God. Justin has no doubt about God's transcendence. He calls him Xpentoc, "unutterable'"'
(l..9:37 61311) ILe1028; 127145 13453. 226325 1275 24 el one sense, as Goodenough observes,! the term denies the Stoic idea
NOP Cit, Pp 133°
PROPOSITION I
of the immanent God; in another sense, it expresses Justin's idea of "the immense chasm between God and humanity'. 1 The word is common in sacred inscriptions and often is associated with the mysteries.? The one occurrence of the word in the New Testament
(2 Cor. 12:4) is in the neuter plural and refers to the unutterable words which Paul heard during his experience in the third heaven.
Justin's use of the word shows that man cannot know God by means of conceptual thinking. In I. 61:11, Justin's language is especially strong. '"'For no one can ascribe [eizetv] a name to the ineffable God [t@ dppntm OeG]; but if anyone should dare to say that there is [i.e. a name to him] he has raved the reckless raving." The fact, however, does not lead Justin into agnosticism since he discovers (e.g. D. 29:3; 127:4) that the inexpressible God manifests himself in the world which he has made.
The fact that Christ is named in close connection with the ''inexpressible God" (II. 13:4; D. 126:2; 127:4) points to the way out of the human dilemma. The Father is ineffable, yet Christ is his dunamis or logos to express the one who cannot be expressed.
That is, the ineffable (Keeyt0¢) Father, the origin (éeyn) of truth, can be known through the various manifestations (dvvépetc) of truth.
2. According to Ev. Ver. The writer of Ev. Ver. is certain that God is ''the Father of truth" (Answt NTe TAHE), ie. the source from whom all truth issues (16:33). The two alpha privative adjectives, TUATYANY MaTaeere apag,
"the Infinite, Incomprehensible One'
(17:7-8, cf. 17:22-23; 18:31-32; 30:33-34) are closely parallel in thought to Justin's term &epyto¢. God can be confined within no limits. He surpasses all human thought. The idea is amplified in the final words of the prologue of Ev. Ver.
(17:8-g), meer ETCATH AMET HIW. The verb cat is qualitative in form and hence, the clause is to be rendered, "'the one who remains chosen over against every thought [of men].'' The incomprehensible character of God is especially lucid in 22:31-33,
"Since they were unable to comprehend and know the one in whom they were." By way of comparison we find that Irenaeus describes
TNO Gh, [O, TS.
2 Cf. J. H. Moulton, George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1952), p. 79a.
8 Cf. O. A. Piper, "The Nature of the Gospel according to Justin Martyr,"
JR, XLI, 3 (July, 1961), p. 156.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
the Valentinian idea of God in Adv. H., I. 1:1, esse autem illum invisibilem, et quem nulla res capere possit. For the Latin, the Greek text of Epiphanius reads, inzeyovta 8' aitov &y@entov xat ddparoy.?
As in Justin's work, so the incomprehensibility of the Father in Ev. Ver. does not lead to despair. In the parable of 19:10-17, the writer insists that the Father's desire is to be known and loved.
The same idea is present in the prologue where the writer affirms that grace (9Mat) is given to enable men to know the Father of truth (16:32 f.). The climax of grace appears in the manifestation of the Father of truth. There is no indication here of the intricate system of emanations such as Irenaeus ascribed to the Valentinians,? but there is indication of the experience of truth in human existence.
B. Truth 1s cosmic in scope 1. According to Justin. Justin believes that since God, the origin of all that is, is true, then that which issues from him will reflect his truth. Thus Justin insists that the most true God is also the God of all that is. There are more than sixty-five references in the Apologies and the Dialogue to God as the Father or maker of all. The various texts show that Justin almost invariably couples the title mathe t&v mévtwyv (or 7m. THY 6dAwv), "Father of the all', with some other title of deity. Among his references, there are found no fewer than eleven different constructions to express the cosmic idea. By far the most common expressions are 6 tointy}¢
TOV TaVTWY (23 times) and 6 ravtwv maTHe (23 times). The expressions convey the idea that God, though he be ineffable, made the truth about himself known in what he has made. The apparent cosmic scope of truth, however, must be qualified. There is, according to Justin, an empirical existence which man has in himself (Ev.
Ver. categorically denies this, as will be seen). That is, there are two elements of truth, according to Justin—objective and subjective.
There are absolute criteria by which all things can be judged.
Thus, truly pious men as well as philosophers live xat& d&AnDerav (I. 2:1) even as they honor and love the thing that alone is true
1 Cf. W. W. Harvey, op. cit., I, 8. The description of God by negative terms was a widespread feature in pagan philosophical writings, in folk religion, in gnostic writings, and in Christian works. Compare S. Arai, Die
Christologie des Evangelium Veritatis.
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), p. 33.
» According to the description found in Adv. H., I. 1:1, in the original tradition of the Valentinian system, Truth is both the offspring of the Father
(= Bythos) as well as the feminine element in the syzygy Nous-Aletheia.
PROPOSITION I
GTR (tary Oéc, I. 2:1). Being what they are, the Apologies challenge the rulers to conduct their examination of Christians in accord with true principles (I. 3:1; 12:6, 11; 14:4, etc.). With reference to the prefect, Crescens, from whom Justin expects persecution and perhaps, death, the Apologist quotes the words of Socrates in the Tenth Book of Plato's Republic, 'Truth must be preferred before men' (II. 3:6). That is, Justin insists that truth must be upheld in the judgment of Christians—not prejudice or mere opinion or false charges. Justin sets up truth as a standard over against ignorance (I. 12:11), evil (I. 2:1), customs and opinion
(I. 12:6; 53:12; II. 2:11), and error (I. 56:3). In the Dialogue, the writer frequently uses the adjectival form ''true'"' to describe the new life in Christ as opposed to the old economy of Israel.
Thus it is that one reads of the true fast (D. 15:1), the true circumcision (D. 18:2; 41:4), true repentance (D. 107:2), the true teaching (D. 35:2), the true Sabbath (D. 12:3). Likewise, Justin affirms the subjective emphasis in truth. He says that Christians are true (1.)5373; 11) 2:11) that they are the trueiIsrael (D. 1125;
135:3), and the true high-priestly race (D. 116:3). In general, he believes that seeds of truth are in all men (I. 44:10).
2. According to Ev. Ver. The cosmic element of truth appears more forceful in Ev. Ver. than in Justin. The Father, according to Ev. Ver., is not only the Father of truth (16:33, cf. "the truly good one" in 42:30), but "Father of the all" (miw7 aAnTHpY,
20:19, cf. 43:4-5). The occurrences of THp as an anarthrous adjective are of no immediate concern. The form, however, of the adjective with the article and the third masculine singular suffix (20 occurrences) is important. The fact that mTHpy can be used with either a singular (18:35) or plural (17:5) verb is not unnatural.t It constitutes a kind of inverse phenomenon to Greek where the neuter plural noun may take either a singular or plural verb. Sometimes the word appears to be limited in extent or elective in force. Thus the parable of the deed of inheritance
(20:18.ff.), with its emphasis on the hidden All that becomes manifest by reason of the death of Jesus, points to a select group.
That is, the hidden All is the orcesa (20:16), those who have substance or existence.
In contrast to these, the writer finds that there are those who have no existence
(39:11 ff.). Thus 1 Cf. Till, Ovientalia, N.S., 27 (1958), 271.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
"the All" of 20:18 is similar—mutatis mutandis—to "'all Israel" of Rom. 11:26. Therefore the term in Ev. Ver. often refers to a particular group of beings who represent the whole though not being the sum total. A second use of mtHpgy, however, means "'the All" in the sense of all-inclusive. The form occurs a number of times in the Coptic versions of the Bible in the sense of "creation" or 'created things' (e.g. Job 8: 388, Rom. 11: 3684-b9, 1 Cor. 8: 68-f,
Job 25: 284, Gen. 49:258%, John 1: 384 (mss), Wisdom of Sol. 1: 784-9, cf. Crum, 424a). The second meaning is undoubtedly the prevailing one in Ev. Ver. Thus the expression "Father of the all' (20:19;
43:4-5) means that the Father is the generator of all that is, all creation. The writer also affirms that the Father made the all
(19:7-8) and is responsible for the foundation of the all (20:1-2).?
The text of 17:6-9 is even more precise. It describes the All as being in the inner part of the infinite, incomprehensible, Father. That is, all things that exist partake of Divine life. Perhaps even more significant is the text of 24:4 ff., whose context has to do with the work of Jesus among the All. He takes the form of the presence of the All and purifies them. The word wovnt (Crum, 1752) means
"a thing made, formation," or "something hand-made''
(cf. the Sahidic version of Rom. 9:20; Deut. 31:11; 29:15 and especially 2 Cor. 5:1 where the alpha privative form occurs for the Greek word meaning "'not hand-made''). Thus the All which the Father made is now in some sense purified by Jesus and thereby reflects the Father. Look at the All and you will see the Father. The writer senses that the truth of the Father is to be found in what he has made although that truth remained indistinct until the purifying work of Jesus. The idea suggests a counterpart to the truth of Rom. 1:20, "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made' (RSV). A similar idea to Ev. Ver. 24:4 ff. is to be found in the Gospel of Thomas,
Logia 67, 77.2
C. Truth has become manifest.
The terminology of Justin and of the writer of Ev. Ver. is quite 1 The Coptic text is damaged at the beginning of both 20:1 and 20:2.
However, the restoration suggested by the editors of the Ev. Ver. text is without doubt correct.
* Cf. the discussion of Log. 77 by B. Gartner, The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas (New York: Harper & Bros., 1961), pp. 144-147.
PROPOSITION I
HS similar. Justin seldom uses the verb é&xoxaAintew or the noun anoxarvyic. If one deletes the references in Justin to these words in quotation of Scripture, little trace of the words remains. On the other hand, the verbs gavepodv and gatveww and their congeners figure in an important way. The situation in Ev. Ver. is the same.
There is only one occurrence of the verb swAM ''to reveal" (24:9) and one only of the noun swAMn "revelation" (27:6). On the other hand, the verb orwng abad "to manifest" and its corresponding noun form occur with great frequency and place a strong accent on the Divine element. According to Ev. Ver., the gospel (17:2-3), the Son (27:7; 30:24-25; 30:32; 20:22-25 et al.), the Father (18:13; 27:5), the Gnostics (19:34-36; 22:38-23:2 et al.) are all part of the Divine manifestation. In 17:36-37, the verb orang aba'd is associated with Error. Perhaps in this text also, however, the Divine element is to be understood and the passage to be read,
"Error's Forgetting was not a [Divine] manifestation." 1 The important conclusion, apparently, is that the writings of Justin and Ev. Ver. show something of their relationship to the Hellenistic world of ideas.
In its prevailing religious sense, &moxaAvrtew emphasizes the supernatural action of God's character and purpose in the world of human affairs.2 It is much more related to an early
Jewish-Christian base. But the verb gavepotv and congeners is more closely tied to Hellenistic Christianity. The New Testament gospels show that while a&moxaAvntew is frequently found in the Synoptics, with the exception of Mark 4:22 (but not so the parallels) gavepodv is absent. On the other hand, the gospel of John (also 1 John) uses gavepodv and congeners profusely while anoxarvrrtew is never found (John 12:38 is in a quotation). There is a fairly even distribution between the words in the Pauline letters.
In both the Sahidic and Bohairic versions of the New Testament, droxaninrew- &roxdAvius is almost invariably rendered by swdr
(Bo. swpit) and gavepodv and congeners by ovwnp abad. This evidence from the vocabulary of the New Testament is indication of the common terminological bond between Justin and the writer of Ev. Ver. in depicting the Divine manifestation of truth. However,
1 Cf. K. Grobel, op. cit., p. 49, note 47.
2 Cf.
C. F. D. Moule, 'Revelation,' IDB, IV (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 56-57.
8 A. Oepke in TWNT, 3 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938), xaddrta, xddvua, kva-, xata-, &moxarietw, d&moxdduibic, 558-597, but cf. especially
594-595.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
their understanding of how truth is manifested differs sharply.
1. According to Justin. Justin finds that truth is manifested in the realm of Divinely-ordered historical events. At the beginning of his apodictic emphasis in his First Apology (23:1), Justin states that the truth of his argument depends on the historical Christ and the prophets who preceded him. The participle paOovrec
(I. 23:1) should be given a strong causal sense so that the sentence may read, ''Because we have learned from Christ and the prophets who preceded him, as many things as we say are true' (aAy0%).
By the adjective yéva Justin shows the exclusive element of truth.
That is, the human dilemma can never be solved without reference to the Hebrew prophets or to the historical appearance of Jesus
Christ. That other solutions to this dilemma have been tried is not denied. Justin senses, however, that these attempts are the abortive and deceptive work of demons (I. 14:1; 21:6), attempts which were made both after the prophets had spoken (I. 54; 62:1-4; 64) and after Christ had come (I. 26; 56-58). The Apologist claims thus that to seek a solution of problems apart from Christ and the prophets is impossible. Like the text of I. 23:1, I. 43:2 connects the participle pabdvteg to the adjective aAyPéc, "Since we have learned through the prophets we declare as true..." The use of "the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets"
(I. 67:3; cf. 66:3) in corporate Christian worship serves to illustrate justin's basic belief that truth is ultimately rooted in history.
It makes little difference, therefore, whether d&mouvynuovedyata TwOY arootéAwy and/or evayyéAta are viewed as synonymous with the New Testament gospels! or not.?
A similar approach to the understanding of truth is present in the Dialogue. In a sense, Justin's task in the Dialogue is easier.
He shares with Trypho a heritage of faith in the same God (D. 11:1) and in the same Old Testament Scriptures (D. 29:2), a kinship lacking entirely in the First Apology where the writer's argument is directed to the pagan Roman rulers and people. Moreover, the fact that Trypho has carefully read the precepts ''in the so-named gospel" and is amazed at their excellence, and that he is at a loss to explain the ethical behavior of Christians (D. 10:2), provides
* Thus H. Késter, '"'Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vatern," Texte und Untersuchungen, 65 (1957), I1-12.
* Thus J. Leipoldt, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs, 1907), I. 129 f., and O. A. Piper, JR, XLI, 3 (1961), 155, 166.
PROPOSITION I
Justin with a strong base for his Dialogue. So, following the account of his conversion (D. 1-9), Justin's Dialogue from beginning to end has a sustained orientation to the historic Christ as the true fulfillment in time of the Old Testament prophecies.
The Second Apology reveals a slightly different base for understanding the manifestation of truth. The historical coming of Christ is accepted no less than in the First Apology and the Dialogue
(cf. II. 6:5). But in place of the Old Testament prophets, truth is said to be rooted in the ancient sages, especially in Socrates (II.
3:6; 7:3; 10:5, 8). As will be observed later (i.e. propos. IV), the idea of "inner truth" is closely linked to Justin's belief in the sowing of seeds of truth in all men (I. 44:10) =
''the spermatic Mogos@n (Il 68743 cf 1925):
In brief, Justin finds the basis of truth in history, i.e. in the historical promise—explicit in the prophets (Apol. I and Dialogue), implicit in the sages (Apol. I1)—and in the historical coming of Jesus Christ. The prophets have prophesied, says Justin, before the events have transpired. In view of the fact that the predicted events have subsequently occurred (yevéueva) and are yet occurring
(ywvoueva), the rulers (I. 30:1) and Trypho (cf. D. 53:1-2; 133:1) thereby have at hand the greatest and truest (éAyPeotaTn) evidence for the Christian faith. The aorist participle, yevéueva refers to events that surround the birth, life and ministry, passion and resurrection of Jesus, while the present participle, ywdueva (cf. I.
30:1; D. 35:8) refers to events occurring in Justin's own time such as the spread of the Christian message to all lands (D. 42:1;
I. 40:7) and the exorcism of demons by Christians
(II. 6:6).
To the aorist and present participles of ytyveoOo, Justin adds the future participle (I. 52:4; D. 49:3 et al.) as indicating events yet to occur in accord with the prophetic word. Truth in history, therefore, according to Justin, means that there are seeds of truth in all men (I. 44:10), that the dynamic of truth can put ignorance to flight (I. 12:11), that it encounters men everywhere (II. 15:4), meeting them where they are and challenging them to recognize truth (D. 96:2; 110:6), since truth is clearly manifest.
2. According to Ev. Ver. Truth, according to Ev. Ver., becomes manifest on its own peculiar scene of "history" quite distinct from the type of history which Justin records. The sense of historical truth is as much absent from Ev. Ver. as it is present in the writings of the Apologist. Ev. Ver. does show a sense of movement in space
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
or time. There is, for example, in Ev. Ver. a movement out from the Father (cf. the movement of the Word, 16:34 f., of the universe,
17:5 f., of Truth, 26:27 f., and, in general, the frequent occurrence of the clause er aha', "to go forth'). Likewise there is movement toward the Father (cf., e.g. 22:7-9). Moreover, mention of the school (= synagogue?) where Jesus taught (19:18-20), of the Sabbath day (32:18, 23-24), and, of the cross
(20:27, cf. also, "He was nailed to wood" in 18:24; 20:25) are all indications of space and/or time, that is, intimations of historical events. Apart from these few indications, however, and apart from the Deity and a single reference to the Devil (33:20), Ev. Ver. contains no names of persons or places or of Christian institutions. The very search which the reader of Ev. Ver. must make to find any historical ties shows that the basic manifestation of truth, according to this document, does not occur in history. Sir Edwyn Hoskyns once said of the Fourth Gospel, that its theme is the non-historical that makes sense of history.1 In Ev. Ver., the theme is also nonhistorical, but the lack of historical anchors in the document makes its basic theme elusive. Nevertheless, Ev. Ver. does have a scene of "'history'"' where truth is manifested. Truth, according to Ev. Ver., appears "in the midst' or "in the middle" (ata"te).
The word wmHTe occurs seven times in the document. In 43:8, the reference is to the gnostic fellowship in which (pNTOTAHTE) there is no Lack of the Father. In 36:14-15, the reference points also to this fellowship, i.e. those who recognized the light that was in Christ when he was in their midst (on Torante). Each of the five remaining references, however, points to the "scene of action" in which the truth of the Father's redemption appears.
In four of these five references the construction is €(1) ATMHTE, "to come into the midst"' (i.e. "Jesus" in 19:19, '"'that book" in 20:8-9, "the Word" in 26:4-5, and "Truth" in 26:27-28). It seems quite certain from 17:33-36 that the term represents basically some kind of metaphysical arena where the redemption drama is portrayed. The particular construction in 17:34-35, NNATMHTE, means "'those belonging to the middle.' The text describes the endeavor of 'Error' (mA ansH) to "draw forth those of the middle and to take them captive." The idea of '"'the middle" appears also in Irenaeus' works. He says that the Valentinians distinguish
* The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey (London: Faber, 1940), p. 129.
PROPOSITION I
WY. three types of men, the pnewmatikoi "the spiritual ones," the psychikor "the soulish ones," and the hulikoi "the material ones."'
The psychikot belong to the middle, that is, midway between the spiritual and the material.t As for the destiny of these three classes, the hulic men go into corruption, the psychtkoi, if they make the true choice, find their rest in an intermediate place,? while the pneumatikor, by reason of the spiritual substance within them, ascend into the fleroma and are bestowed as brides on the angels who attend the Savior.® The three-fold division and threefold destination of men varies slightly from Ev. Ver. Ev. Ver. refers to an unfortunate destiny in Hades (42:17-18) and to the Father's paradise of rest (36:36-39), but it does not mention an intermediate position. The "middle" in Ev. Ver. is rather the metaphysical plane where the realities of Truth and Error meet. It is the realm of human experience. The experience, to be sure, occurs in the cosmos which is the natural "'mid-point"' between the Father's tortoc and Hades. Nevertheless, a cosmos of time and place is not the writer's primary concern. When he asserts that, "Truth came into the middle" (26:27-28), he affirms that Truth is active in that very place where Error seeks to draw men down into the prison of the material world (17:33-36). The verb cwr, "to draw, attract," is used in 17:34 of Error, but in 32:12, it is used indirectly of the Father.
Summary and Comparison Both Justin and the writer of Ev. Ver. believe that truth originates with an incomprehensible God, and that truth is manifested.
The very terminology of the writers is similar. Moreover, each writer affirms that truth embraces the cosmos. God is the Father ofiallsthatis, (cf sApolsi. 61:10; Av. Ver,1724 fi.). The claim suggests that in some way—in the cosmos—the truth of God becomes manifest. For Justin, the manifestation of truth is found in history, especially in the historical coming of Jesus Christ.
He believes that the objective event contains the key to the truth of human existence. The discerning man (6 vovveyjc), he says, will comprehend God's truth from the presentation and explanation of the events associated with the history of Jesus—from his birth
1 Adv. H., 1. 7, 5 (Harvey, op. cit., I, pp. 64-66). ae bid:
Sy bid,
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
through his ascension. Justin, however, qualifies this objective emphasis by indicating that seeds of truth are to be found in all men.
Ev. Ver., on the other hand, denies any universal element to truth.
Furthermore, Ev. Ver. lacks the historical anchors which are so vital to Justin's works. In Ev. Ver., the event is not important.
What is important is the existential situation of man who experiences "in the middle" the reality of Error and Truth—each with its own attraction, each attempting to elicit a favorable decision from man.
Proposition II In the writings of Justin (First Apology and Dialogue)! and in Ev. Ver., the idea of truth focuses on Jesus Christ. In both writers
Jesus is viewed as the Father's Logos. In the writings of Justin, truth is essentially a Divine process in which the Father's Logos functions in creation, in the history of God's people, and in the Old Testament prophets. In Ev. Ver., truth is a human experience in which, through the Father's Logos, man finds gnosis for his ignorance, completeness for his lack.
A. The idea of truth focuses on Jesus Christ x. According to Justin a. The First Apology. Justin opens the Apology with a defense of Christians by affirming that they deserve a fair trial just as much as any man (I. 1-14). Undoubtedly one of the central points in his argument pertains to the name Xopuotiavot (I. 4:5). Christians exist because of Jesus Christ, the one who, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is the object of Christian worship (I. 6), the one whose kingdom is not of this world and whom Christians cannot deny (I. 11), and the one who has brought Christians out of an old life in paganism into a new life with God (I. 14). Both by positive citation of Christ's teaching (I. 15-17) and analogies to it (I. 18-22),
Justin sustains his Christocentric emphasis. In I. 23-60, the Apologist observes that it is the nature of Christ (to a lesser degree, his work) which is important to Christian doctrine. His argument concentrates on the prophecies concerning the Son of God who became incarnate for the sake of mankind (I. 30-53), whose person
1 The Second Apology has for its main subject the persecution of Christians and how Christians react to it.
PROPOSITION II
and work have been counterfeited by demons (I. 54-58) and imitated by Plato and the mythmakers (I. 59-60). His argument states that some prophecies have come to pass, others are in process of fulfillment (cf. yevoéueva and ywdueva, I. 30:1). The writer considers prophecy to be "'the greatest and truest proof" (yeylory x. GAneotatyn andderEtc, I. 30:1). Everything centers on Christ, whether the prophets who proclaimed him beforehand or the apostles who proclaimed him after he had come. Likewise Justin's explanation of Christian worship (I. 61-67) focuses on Christ, whether it be the eucharist which he instituted
(I. 66) or the worship service on the Lord's day, the day he arose from the dead (I. 67). b: The Dialogue. The Dialogue opens with an account of Justin's conversion (D. I-g), the main point of which is to show how the prophets alone saw and proclaimed the truth (D. 7:1). As the old man tells how the prophets both glorified God the Creator and proclaimed his Son (D. 7:3), a fire is kindled in Justin's soul inspiring him with love for the prophets and for the friends of Christ
(D. 8:1). Beginning with D. 10, Justin's argument centers on Jesus Christ from the standpoint of both the Old Testament law and the prophets. From the perspective of the law, Justin affirms two main ideas:
(x) The Old Testament law is abrogated by the new law which is Christ (D. 11:4), and, (2) The Old Testament law through its types anticipates the coming of Christ (cf. especially D. 40-43).
In a much longer section on the prophets, Justin lays stress on the advents of Christ (D. 32-54), a point to which he later returns (D. 111-114, 138-139). Within the framework of the two advents, Justin's argument from the prophets turns first on who Christ is. He is prophesied as second God (D. 55-62, cf. also 125-129), as incarnate (D. 63-78), as suffering on the cross (D. 86, 89-105), and as raised from the dead (D. 106-108). Second, his argument cites evidence of what Christ has done. The origin of Christians is due to him, a fact which the Old Testament foretold (D. 109-110,
II4-124) just as it foretold also the faithfulness of Christians in sharp contrast to Jewish unbelief (D. 130-135). The Dialogue closes with a plea to accept the Christ of God (D. 136-137) in view of the free will which God has bestowed on all men (D. 140-141).
Thus, the Dialogue has a definite structure which focuses on
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
Jesus Christ by pointing up the essential Christ-centered nature of the Old Testament in its two main sections—law (D. 10-31) and prophets (D. 32-141). To be sure, there is interpenetration.
Thus, for example, in the section on the old covenant of the law (D. 11), Justin inevitably turns to a prophet, Jeremiah (31:31 f.), for his proof that a new law and covenant have abrogated the old.
Or again, in his section on the prophets and their stress on the two advents of Christ (D. 32-54), the writer has a lengthy argument
(D. 40-47) where he finds that the first advent means the end of the law for all who believe in Christ. Nevertheless, throughout the Dialogue, the Apologist concentrates his attention on Jesus, affirming that he who was prophesied has come in exact fulfillment of the prophecies made concerning him.
2. According to Ev. Ver.
In Ev. Ver., as in the writings of Justin, truth concerns the person and work of Jesus Christ. In the prologue, the Word (=
Jesus Christ) appears as the means by which the gospel of truth comes to men (16:33-35). Likewise in 18:15-21, Christ is the channel of the good news. Accepting Till's punctuation,! the text may be rendered:
"It is through Jesus the Christ that this hidden mystery dawned upon those who were in darkness by virtue of the work of Forgetting. It [i.e. the gospel] dawned upon them. It provided a way, and this way is (the) Truth of which it [ie. the gospel] informed them."
No attempt is made in the passage to define the precise way in which the person and work of Jesus appear. It is to be observed, however, that in the mind of the writer of Ev. Ver., the revelation of the mystery of the gospel of truth is inextricably linked with Jesus
Christ. In 18:21-19:17, the writer depicts the plot of Error, the enemy of Truth, to bring Jesus to the cross. It is through the cross, however, that Jesus becomes the Father's gnosis to all who discover him. In 19:17-24:21, attention centers on Jesus who appears
"in the midst," takes the living book of the living ones and suffers for it, thereby making possible the response of the fellowship of truth to the Divine call. The crowning part of this section
(23: 18-33), on the basis of both its content and context, appears 1 Onentalia, N.S., 27 (1958), 272.
PROPOSITION II
to be a hymn of praise concerning the Father's Word, Jesus.
In 24:21-25:25, Jesus is probably the true subject, the one who "served" in the schema of Lack (= the world), a world which ceases to be when the Father is known. In 25:25-27:9, the writer claims that the coming of Jesus effects a purifying judgment and that his incarnation brings division among men. His coming is synonymous with the coming of gnosis and Truth. Jesus' work forms a basis for the description of the Father's gift to his own
(27:9-33), and of true existence which is found in the Father (27 :34-28:32). The work of the Holy Spirit in behalf of the community (30:14-32) has for its express goal the manifestation of the Son. He allows men to lay hold of the Son, who himself accomplishes a work for the true believers by becoming a Way for the straying,
Gnosis for the ignorant, a Discovery for seeking ones, Strength for shaking ones, Undefilement for defiled ones (30:32-31:35).
The closest tie which Ev. Ver. has to the New Testament lies in the parable of Jesus the shepherd (31:35-32:30) which forms the basis for the "'ethical'' section that follows (32:31-33:32). The section on the Father's aroma (33:33-35:23) contains no explicit mention of Jesus. Nevertheless, in view of the evident allusions to anointings in the New Testament passages where Jesus is prominent (Mark 14:3-9; 2 Cor. 2:14-16), and in view of the application beginning with 34:34 ("This is the Logos of the good news of the discovery of the pleroma''), the writer implies that the Father's aroma is linked firmly to Jesus. In the light of previous references to the noun sine "discovery" (17:3; 18:29; 31:31), it is quite possible that both in the word Aowoe (34:35) and in the word ssne (34:36), some indication is present of Jesus' important role in this description of the fortune of the Father's aroma in the world. The section on the Father's fullness made available to the one who lacks (35:24-36:13) directs one's attention to the parable of the physician (= Jesus) who supplies what the patient lacks.t According to 36:15-35, the anointing of the chosen ones comes through Christ. The anointing preserves those vessels that are his, as plantings in his paradise (36:25-37:3). Moreover,
Christ is the Father's Word who, according to the Father's will, came forth first and revealed the Father's words and nous (37: 4-18).
1 Cf. the fact that the same word caer "physician" figures in Logion 31 of the Gospel of Thomas which gospel also re-interprets the work of Jesus as physician.
Suppl. to Novum, Test., XXV
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
The coming of the Son is dependent on the Father's will (37:1938:6) and the Father's true name is his Son. That is, the Son is the true revelation of the Father (38:6-40:29). Ev. Ver. closes with a description of the Father's place and of those who come to be there (40:30-43:24). Even here, however, the centrality of Jesus is retained since not only is he described as coming forth from the place (40: 30-31), but as bringing men to the place (41:5-12).
Summary and Comparison R. P. Casey has observed that the underlying concern of the Valentinians was with Christology and Soteriology.' An evidence of this concern appears in the system of Theodotus.? Superficially at least (as shown above), a similar interest emerges from a study of Ev. Ver.,3 where Jesus is apparently the foundation upon which Ev. Ver. rests. The words "superficially" and "apparently," 4 however, inject an important qualification.
The question is, how serious must one take a Christology or Soteriology that is not nailed down to history? It will be seen subsequently that Ev. Ver. de-preciates or de-mythologizes the historical appearance of Jesus. This means that what the writer says about Christ stands in a setting that is generally quite foreign to the context of the New Testament. The writer shows himself to be fully independent of the apostolic witness and of the church. He cannot then be
"Christ-centered" in the strict sense of the word. It is precisely at this point that the "Christ-centered" works of Justin differ.
Justin lives within the traditional frame of reference—the church.
He identifies himself with the church (cf. I. 1, et¢ adtév dv). His thought pattern moves within the framework of the church.
The Christ about whom Justin writes is the Christ of history and the Lord of the church.
1 The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria, Studies and Documents,
I (1934), 37.
Bots 3 K. Grobel, op. cit., p. 51, note 57, observes that in all five occurrences, the names "'Jesus''
(20:11, 24; 24:8), "the Christ" (36:14), and "Jesus the Christ'' (18:16), appear each time at the beginning of a line of the Coptic text. This suggests an artificial device on the part of the writer to enhance the place or importance of Jesus.
* Cf. the compound verb OTWNO ahad "to appear.'' His appearance, however was "'in the middle, "' a phrase which marks an important terminological difference from "'was manifest in flesh'' (1 Tim. 3:16)
PROPOSITION II
B. The idea of truth pertains to the work of the Father's Logos 1. According to Justin. In the writings of Justin, truth is essentially a Divine process in which the Father's Logos functions—in creation,inthehistory of God's people, and in the Old Testament prophets.
Introduction. The term Aéyo¢ is an important one for Justin's writings. Occasionally it has the general meaning of "'discourse"' or "discussion" or "account"
(e.g. D. 65:7; 9:2; 55:1; 66:1; 683; 116:1; I. 17:4; 59:1; II. 1:4; 12:6; 15:2). In the Dialogue, the singular form appears with great frequency to denote the Old Testament Scriptures. The formula which Justin uses varies between "the word"
(e.g. D. 49:2; 56:4, 5; 57:2; 68:5; 93:3; 102: 4, etc.), "the word of the prophet" or "the word of the prophecy"' or "the prophetic word" (e.g. D. 30:2; 56:6; 77:2; 85:43 10:3;
128: 4), and "'the word of God" (e.g. D. 58:4; 62:1; 141:2). In the Apologies, however, apart from its meaning "discussion"
(as noted above), the singular form Aéyo¢ almost always refers ezther to "the reason" (= the spermatic Logos) which God has placed
Sar iat SOUS MC.
Or 1. 220s BSP. 5 a 4298 LIS Sse over ae 10:2), ov to the pre-incarnate or incarnate Christ (I. 10:6; 21:1;
Denar aga Seto Ms"
4y IO, 15 PLO!
4 0st 4 Oy 1oea ye a ers are only two references in the Apologies where Adyog refers to the Old Testament Scriptures (I. 53:6; 61:9). In I. 53:6, the writer speaks of Jews and Samaritans who have (%yovtec¢) the word from God that has been handed down through the prophets. In I. 61:9, the writer applies a Adéyo¢ in Isa. 1:16-20 to Christian baptism.
Elsewhere in the Apologies, it is the plural form of Aéyo. which refers to the Old Testament (e.g. I. 37:1; 47:1; 49:1; 63:10; 40:5; 54:6), whereas the singular form carries the technical and personal connotation. Thus, it can be said that Justin's works
(Apologies and Dialogue) are formally "discourse"
(Aéyo¢), in which the Scriptures (especially 6 mpopytixd¢ Adyos) hold the prominent place. Intrinsically, however, his works are "doctrine."
The spermatic logos, he says, is in every man in part, while the full logos came in Jesus Christ. It is difficult to understand why
Goodenough, in agreement with A. L. Feder, believes that, "the Logos is not fundamental for the theology of Justin, but that it is merely an explanation of the really Christian doctrine of the Son of God.' 1 To be sure, the Apologist feels free to use the term
1 Op. cit., p. 140. Feder, Justin des Mdartyves Lehve von Jesus Christus
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
logos to indicate Stoic (II. 7:3, 8; 8:1), philosophical (D. 2:2), or Christian (I. 3:2) doctrines in general. The great majority of texts, however, shows that logos refers either to the spermatic Logos which God has placed in man's nous (cf. also the alpha privative forms éAoyog and dAdywc), or to the pre-incarnate or incarnate
Christ.1 Thus the term logos in Justin indicates mainly Christian doctrine. a. Justin's basic theological emphasis says that God's redemptive work through his Logos has been fully realized in history. Before the incarnation, the Logos accomplished God's work among the two main divisions of the human race—Gentiles and Jews.
Christ was known in part to Socrates (II. 10:8). Socrates, by means of a true logos (Aéym dAnPet, dative of impersonal agent), sought to expose the true nature of demons and, because of this, the sage was put to death (I. 5:3). Demons were not only reproved among Greeks through Socrates, by means of a logos (b70 Aéyou, i.e. genitive of personal agency) but among the Barbarians, by the Logos himself (ix' adtod tod Adyou) who became man, being called
Jesus Christ (I. 5:4). The significant part of this section is the "preparation-fulfillment'"" emphasis that moves from the preChristian Gentile world, as represented by Socrates and other sages, to the incarnate Christ. That is, Justin thinks that the ancient sages spoke, each one from a part of the spermatic Divine logos (Exactog yée Tig ad EPO TOU oTEpUaTIxOD ODetov Adyou... éebéyEato, II. 13:3) which was given to him. In addition, I. 46:2 names Christ the Logos of whom every race of men partakes
(uéteoyxe). b. To a far greater degree, however, the writer finds that before the Christian era, the pre-incarnate Logos, as the Divine agent, carried out God's work among the Jews preparing them for the actual consummation of the Divine redemptive process in the historical appearance and work of Jesus.? It is in the Old Testament especially that Justin discovers the record of "that self-disclosure
(Freiburg: Herdersche Verlagshandlung, 1906), p. 154, goes beyond Goodenough in denying the presence of the Logos in the Dialogue.
1 O. A. Piper, JR, XLI, 3 (1961), 167, note 52, shows how Justin has been misunderstood in this respect.
2 Thus, notwithstanding Goodenough, it is the Logos doctrine that constitutes Justin's main theological emphasis, the movement in the Apologies being from the Logos in part to the full Logos, in the Dialogue, from the pre-incarnate to the incarnate Logos.
PROPOSITION II
of the Logos by which his full manifestation is being prepared." !
This self-disclosure appears in three ways:
(1) In the work of the pre-incarnate Logos at creation, (2) In the work of the pre-incarnate Logos in the history of God's people, and (3) In the prophecies (predictions and types) of the life and work of the incarnate Logos.
Thus Justin sees an underlying unity in God's work in creation and history centering in the work of the Logos. He also senses that God is directing that history toward a definite goal through the Logos.
(1) The work of the pre-incarnate Logos in creation. Justin is as fully committed to a personal Logos as Philo, for example, is committed to an impersonal logos. The name Logos is sufficient for his purposes in the First Apology, but in his Dialogue which is more thorough, Justin feels obliged to prove the existence of a second God.? Justin believes that the Logos precedes creation
(II. 6:3).3 He affirms the Logos to be the first-begotten one of God (xp&tov yévvnua« tod Oeod, I. 21:1), ie. before all creatures
(D. 62:4; 129:4). He is likewise the first-begotten (xpwtétoxoc, [23 °25°33°6) of "the unbegotten God a(I. 53:2),-er "of 'God™ (I. 63:15).4 By means of three figures, Justin spells out his meaning.
The Logos is as light from the sun (D. 128:3-4), as fire from fire (D. 61:2; 128:4), and as a spoken word from thought (D. 61:2).
As for the work of the Logos in creation, Goodenough thinks that Justin speaks in two ways. First, according to Goodenough, as Justin considers creation and its process, he speaks of the seminal
Logos of God in an impersonal way. Second, Goodenough holds that Justin affirms the personal Logos to be the spermatic
Pe Pipete) fp Lesh (LOOn), p. LOT 2 Goodenough, op. cit., p. 141. Goodenough shows that the identification of Logos with second God is without question.
3 Goodenough, ibid., pp. 154-155, thinks that the Apologist means that the Logos originated shortly before creation.
4 The terminology of I. 63:15 is important. Christ mpwtdtox0g Sv tod Oc0d xat Gedo brépyet, "though he is first-begotten of the God he is also God."
The articular tod 603 followed by the anarthrous 6¢6¢, shows Justin's debt to Philo (cf. '(On Dreams," Philo V, 416, 418) whose anti-anthropomorphism appears in his distinction between 6 0e6¢ (= the one who is truly God) and Oed¢ (= secondary "'beings''). The fact that 0e6¢ (without article) meant for Justin a second Divine personality shows his basic difference from Philo.
Compare also D. 91:1; 138:2; 85:2; 116:
3: 125: 3; I. 46:2.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
principle but without creative activity, never acting as an inferior creating deity, a Syproveydc.t Goodenough finds his evidence in Justin's use of the dative of means in I. 59:5 (Ady Qeod), or in his use of the preposition Su with the genitive in I. 64:5 (dia
Ayov). Does Goodenough substantiate his view? In view of a similar dative of means in Psa. 33:6 (LXX, 32:6)? and from the use of the preposition 314 with the Logos or Christ in John 1:3;
Col. 1:16; Hebr.
1:2, it would appear quite possible—against Goodenough—to consider Justin's thought as moving in the Biblical sphere, i.e. the personal Christ is God's agent in creation.
(2) The work of the pre-incarnate Logos in the history of God's people.
(a) One of the longest sections in the Dialogue is chapter 56 where Justin constructs his argument to prove that there is a second God (= the Logos), distinct from the supreme God in number (é10u0) but not in will (&AAK od yvmuy, D. 56:11). Justin attempts to show that one of the three persons who appeared to Abraham under the oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1-2) was the Logos, that the double use of the title xberog in Gen. 19:24 refers respectively to the Logos and to the supreme God, and that it is the Logos or the second God who communes with Abram as Abram intercedes (Gen. 18:23-33). He is also the God who comes to Sarah at the promised time of Isaac's birth (Gen. 18:10), and who is elsewhere (Psa. I10:1; 45:6-7) called God. This second
God, however, not only appears but shows his mighty power.
He destroys Sodom, delivers Lot, and fulfills his promise by giving a son to Abraham and Sarah.
(b) The history of Jacob, says Justin, also shows the appearance and power of the same Divine person (D. 58). He appears to Jacob as Jacob is on his way to Haran (Gen. 28:10-17), as he is there (Gen. 31:10-13), and as returns to Canaan (Gen. 32:22-32).
(c) The appearance of this second God (= the Logos or Angel of the Lord) to Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1 ff.) and the exercise of his power in Moses' life, receive attention both in the Dialogue (D. 59-60) and the First Apology (I. 62-63).
The reference in the First Apology lies in the context of the rite of Christian baptism in which the authority of the Divine name is
1 Op. ctt., p. 166.
~ rd id a € > b Var 2 Ud TO OY TOD nvEtov of Odpavol EotepewmOyouy.
PROPOSITION II
Christ not only has power now in the Christian sacrament, but, in fact, its power was known to Moses. Our Christ, says Justin, communed with Moses out of the burning bush, yea, he equipped
Moses with mighty power for his coming task of leading Israel out of Egypt (I. 62:3-4). Justin observes that the Jews did not know this truth but were led to think that it was the unnameable
God and not the Logos who spoke to Moses (I. 63:1, II, 14).
The writer speaks in a similar way in the Dialogue. He adds, however, that even a person with limited intelligence will recognize that the supreme God never left his supra-celestial domain to appear on a tiny portion of earth (D. 60:2). That is, the one who did appear was his Son, the Angel or the Logos.
(d) Likewise the Apologist cites the appearance in power of the Captain of the Lord's host to Joshua (Josh. 5:13 ff.) as another piece of evidence for the presence of the Logos among God's people
(D262).
(3) The prophecies (predictions and types) of the life and work of the incarnate Logos. In a few references, the writer describes the Logos as the moving, inspiring power which spoke through the prophets. In I. 33:9, he writes, '""By means of no other except the Divine Logos are those who prophesy borne (along) by God."
Quite apart from the dative of means (Ady Oetw), the sentence is impressive in that it contains the unique compound verb Oeogopetv
(only here and in I. 35:3 in Justin's writings). The verb does not occur either in the LXX or the New Testament. Possibly, however, the verb was used in some Greek reading that underlies the Latin translation in I Cor. 6:20, glorificate et portate deum in corpore vesivo.1 During the lifetime of Justin, another great saint used quite freely the adjectival formation Qeopdép0¢
(i.e. IPNATIOX 6 xat Ocopdo0g in the salutation of each of the seven genuine Ignatian letters, cf. also @copépo1, used of the Ephesian Christians in IEph. 9:1). W. Bauer suggests that the term Qeogdgoc, not encountered before Ignatius, was created by Ignatius and for him.2 J. B. Lightfoot thinks that the term is undoubtedly invoked (I. 61:10). The writer affirms that the name of Jesus
1 Compare Wordsworth and White, Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesus Christi Latine; Pars secunda—FEpistulae Paulinae (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1941), 204.
2 Griechisch-deutsches Wérterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments .
. ., 5th ed. (Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1958), 709.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
active, and thus to be accented on the penult, Oeogdeoc, i.e. "bearing God." 1 Theodore Zahn had reached the same conclusion earlier.?
As far as the verb form in Justin's use is concerned (I. 33:9, to which the dative of means, Ady@ Oetw is joined), it lays stress on the moving force behind the work of the prophets. Likewise in I. 36:1, the writer finds that the words of the prophets were not spoken as from the inspired ones themselves (uy ax' aitéy tov éunenvevopévwyv, but from the Divine Logos moving them («A)' and Tod xtwodvtog adtods Oetov Adyou). Again, in IT. 10:8, it is the Logos who through the prophets spoke beforehand the things that were about to take place. But aside from these references, the main stress falls upon the prophecies themselves (predictions and types) which reveal the person and work of the incarnate
Logos. These prophecies will come under special review in Propositions ITI-IV.
2. According to Ev. Ver. In Ev. Ver., truth is viewed as a human experience in which, through the Father's Logos, man finds gnosis for his ignorance and completeness for his lack. Just as in the writings of the Apologist, so here in Ev. Ver., Divine truth is mediated through the Logos (cf. 16:34), truth which appears, however, not in the scene of history as much as in the realm of human experience. The basic message of Ev. Ver. can probably best /be understood through its "'parables."" These parables stand in relation to the message of Truth (according to Ev. Ver) as the parables of the New Testament gospels stand in relation to the message of the kingdom of God. Eleven of the parables of Ev. Ver. will be considered now.? Five of the eleven have to do with the message of truth as gnosis, six pertain to truth as completeness. The parables are introduced by the formula ampHte, "like, just as." In the case of two parables, however (the shepherd, 31:35-32:16, and the doctor, 35:30-36:5), the formula (mspHTe in both instances, cf. 32:15 and 35:35) appears in the application of the parable.
Nearly all of the parables have two things in common; first, they describe the existential position of the All—humankind and creation as a whole, and second, they indicate in some manner
1 The Apostolic Fathers, part II, vol. I, sect.
I (London: Macmillan & Co., 1885), 21-23.
* Ignatius von Antiochien (Gotha: Friedrich A. Perthes, 1873), pp. 69 ff.
* The other parables (cf., e.g. the opportune time, 28:3-5, the anointing seals, 36:21-29, the Father's aroma, 33:39 ff,) are considered subsequently.
PROPOSITION II
a way out of the human dilemma. Occasionally the parable is cast in a brief form so that one of the other of these two basic emphases is omitted. In such cases, however, the missing member may be inferred or supplied from the context. a. Parables that describe how a-gnostic man experiences gnosis.
(1) The parable of the fog, 17:9-14. "Ignorance of the Father produced fright with terror, and Fright imprisoned like a fog so that no one was able to see out.'' The parable with its context suggests the following line of thought:
(a) Due to Ignorance, the All who belong to the Father are separated from him (17:4-I0).
(b) Separation connotes a fearful, aimless existence without any visible purpose or goal.
(c) Separation means also that man lives an empty material life under the control of evil powers (= Error). The construction in I7:15-16 (acp gwh atovAn Nec) reveals that matter
(ovXH = bdAy) belongs to Error.
(d) Man lives in the "middle" (17: 34-35). While the power of Error seeks to cause man to forget (i.e. his origin) and to take man captive (17:33 ff.), the Father's gnosis is revealed to nullify
Forgetting and make the Father known (18:4 ff.). Such is the movement of thought in the parable and in its context. Origen in his commentary on John (XIII. 20) has preserved a passage from Heracleon containing a close relationship to the parable. After Origen himself states on John 4:23 that the true worshippers are those whom the Father seeks through the Son who came to seek and save what was lost, he cites Heracleon's exegesis. Heracleon, he says, affirmed that what belongs to the Father (tO olxetov
+6 Ilatet) has become lost in the deep matter of Error év ty Babeta bAy THs mAd&vys), and that it is this lost thing which the Father, according to John 4:23, is seeking. That is, in both Heracleon and Ev.
Ver., Error ''claims'' matter as its own possession.
The particular experience suggested by the parable of Ev. Ver. is one of frustration. There is no visible direction or goal to life.
Due to his inability to ''see through" (cf. nev aha in 17: 13-14) to a goal, man is brought into a hulic existence which is altogether empty and void of truth (17:16-18). The phrase ethe meer, "therefore"
(17:14), gives a strong cause-effect stress to the 1 Migne, Patrologia Graeca, XIV, 432.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
parable. Man gropes in vain for meaning to life and, as a result, he settles for a vain substitute—material existence—where Error
"causes him to forget'! his origin (i.e. in the Father). As a cure for the condition, the writer issues a challenge and proclaims the "gospel." The challenge which he issues is to "despise Error'
(17: 28-29) and, with it, the material existence which Error owns.
The very fact that the writer can issue such a challenge means the possibility of response. That possibility lies in the presence of the spiritual seed imbedded in nature, the tO otxetov t@ Hatot that is lost in the deep matter of Error (cf. Heracleon), which inspires the All to seek after the one from whom they came (cf.
Ev. Ver. 17:4-6). The attraction (cf. the verb cwk in 17:34) of a material existence, however, makes the challenge by itself ineffective.
Therefore the writer proclaims the 'gospel', the unveiling of the hidden gnosis of the Father in the coming of Jesus
Christ. The work of {Buwe is nullified and the truth of the Father is proclaimed (18:15-21). Thus the frustration and terror and emptiness within are solved, according to the writer, in the coming of Jesus.
(2) The parable of the father and his offspring, 19:10-14. "[The Father is] like one from whom many come forth who are ignorant of him; he desires to be known and thus to be loved." The translation seems quite probable though both the French and English renderings in the Ev. Ver. text supply the word "'messenger."' 2
Context, however, gives solid support for the rendering suggested above. In 19:8-10, the text states that the All was in him (i.e. the Father) though in need of him, while 19:15-17 affirms that the one thing which the All lacked was gnosis of the Father. Set between these two texts, therefore, the parable becomes clear.
Uniquely it assumes the Father's point of view. The context states that men lack the choicest of all realities (so the word indicates)— gnosis of the Father. But no less does the Father sense the lack.
He desires to be known and loved. Grobel® observes how knowing and loving are linked together in the New Testament (1 John
4:7-8; 5:2-3; Phil, 1:9). The first tractate of the Hermetic Corpus should also be mentioned, i.e. &ytog 6 Oedc, 3¢ yvwoOivar BobrArctat
1 The form tRwe is causative (cf. Crum, 519b). oe EP mOMOws 3 Op. cit., p. 57, note 82.
PROPOSITION II
oI xal yiwooxetat totic idtorc.t Thus the parable affirms that in spite of the fog in which man lives—unable to see out—he can know and love God. A dynamic element is present. From the human point of view, the parable means an experience of relatedness.
To know God and to love him means to stand in a meaningful relationship to him. In affirming this relationship. Ev. Ver. shows an important connection with the Bible.
(3) The parable of the drunkard, 22:13-20. "The one who in this way will have gnosis understands whence he arose and whither he goes. He understands just as one intoxicated has separated himself from his drinking which set him apart alone, (and) has set in order the things which are his.'"' The preface to the parable contains a portion of the well-known gnostic formula found in fuller form in Exc. Theod. 78:2, where it is set in a context having to do with baptism. "But the washing is not the only thing which gives freedom but also the gnosis, [i.e. gnosis of] who we were, what we have become, where we were, or into what we were thrown
[éveBAnOynuev]; whither we are hastening, from whence we are being redeemed; what birth is; what new birth is." 2 The reference in Theodotus to baptism as "'washing"' is similar to Justin (I. 61) who cites baptism as a Aovteév and a gwttcudc, that is, washing and illumination. Ev. Ver., however, reflects no certain word on baptism. With respect to the gnostic formula, Irenaeus reports a similar formula which the gnostic repeats upon reaching the principalities and powers (yiwwaHcxw 60ev ciut...).3 The introduction to the parable of Ev. Ver. indicates that there are three stages in the experience of the intoxicated man; an original sobriety (its meaning unrealized), intoxication, and finally, an enlightened sobriety. The original sobriety means the condition in which one was; intoxication implies alienation and the loss of oneself; the aftermath or the new sobriety represents the realization of oneself and one's true destiny. The idea of Ev. Ver. approximates that of felix culpa, i.e. only by means of contrast can one become aware of his origin and destiny. The knowledge pictured by the 1 Corpus Hermeticum, I, ed. A. D. Nock, A.-J. Festugiére (Paris: Les belles Lettres, 1945), 18.
2 R. P. Casey, op. cit., p. 88.
8 Adv. H., I. 21:5, W. W. Harvey, op. cit., I, 187. References to other parallels are cited in the notes critiques of the Ev. Ver. text, p. 54.
4 H. Jonas, Gnosis und spitantiker Geist, | (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck © Ruprecht, 1934), 115-118, cites numerous ancient texts comparing drunk-
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
one who becomes sober consists mainly of two things: knowledge of God and knowledge of himself. Both ideas are present in Exc.
Theod., 78:2, but it is the second idea mainly that emerges from the Ev. Ver. parable. Just as the drunken man during intoxication loses his true identity, "the qualities that make him himself," ? so without his knowing it, the a-gnostic one has become drunk and fails to recognize who he really is. One cannot miss the strong accent on human experience which the parable conveys. Here is the message of truth, according to Ev. Ver.
(4) The parable of children from an adult man, 27:10-15. "All spaces are offspring of him. They have known that they have come forth from him just like children being in an adult man
[have come forth from him]."' The preface to the parable contains at least two problems, one exegetical and one textual. The first has to do with the meaning of maest, "'spaces.''
Grobel, who simply inserts the Coptic word into his translation, is uncertain as to whether, in this text, the word means "living persons"' or personified beings.2 The context apparently indicates that the word has neither a literal sense nor the meaning "'way'' (cf. 18:
19-20). Does it indicate modes of existence, e.g. angels, archangels, gnostics, or hulic men? It is probably not to be equated with mtHpy, "the All" since in the context (27:10-13) the gnosis ascribed to the spaces can hardly be said to belong to the All, for only the Gnostics know. The textual problem pertains to the word f. The above translation accepts } as the equivalent of 1 which is found elsewhere in Ev. Ver., i.e. "'offspring.'' Thus, whoever
AAEIT NIW (27:10-II) may mean, they are God's offspring.
Notwithstanding these two problems in the introductory part of the parable, to a degree at least, the interpretation is clear.
In both form and meaning, the parable is similar to the second parable treated above (i.e. 19:10-14). God's offspring have their existence, their rank, because of the Father. The passage. reveals enness to an a-gnostic state. Thus, e.g., in Corpus Hermeticum, VII, 1, the writer cites, "'the wine of ignorance;'' in the Odes of Solomon, 11, the text reads, ''my drunkenness was not that of Ignorance but I turned away from nothingness."' Cf. also the ""Hymn of the Pearl'"' in the Acta Thomae, which Jonas in The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), p. 69, translates, "They mixed me drink with their cunning and gave me to taste of their nes .
. through the heaviness of their nourishment I sank into deep slumer.
1 Grobel, op. cit., p. 79, note 160.
2 Tbid., p. 111, note 272.
PROPOSITION II
a strict Jewish monotheism. On the one hand there is nothing outside of God, but on the other hand, what does exist, is God's offspring, though not God. At the same time the parable is extremely naive.
There is no mention of any destiny of those who have come forth from him. Into what have they come? For what reason did they issue from him? A comparison of the passage with John 16:28 reveals a similarity in terminology but a vast difference in total outlook. Jesus says, "I came forth from the Father," but he adds,
"T am come into the world," a world of time and space, a world of men alienated from God, and yet, a world destined to be the place where God will carry out his plan perfectly. If the words
MAGIT Mi (27:10-11) indicate that each cosmic power has its assigned realm of operation beyond which it cannot go, the contrast with the Biblical idea at once becomes especially sharp.
(5) The parable of the nightmare, 28:32-30:14. The parable proper (29:8-31) is preceded first, by the "Gnostic confession"' of his dreamy, phantom-like life before the dawning of the Father's gnosis (28:26-32), and second, by a description of the general instability of an a-gnostic existence (28:32-29:8). It is important to see how the parable describes one of the central emphases of Ev. Ver., the experience of the truth of the Father's gnosis. Modern existentialism would search far to find a more gripping portrayal of one of its favorite themes—the dilemma of modern man.
In the nightmare, man reflects fear and tension (''pursued by others'), continual failure and frustration (''without strength they come, when they have pursued after certain ones"' *) ; he lusts for power yet experiences defeat (''striking others... being struck'); he feels the constant threat of danger ("falling from high places...raised up without wings'), and reveals both a fear of murder and a murderous spirit ("being killed... killing others''). In brief, man's entire existence in éyvota is void of meaning and purpose. And yet, there is hope. The light dawns, the sleeper awakens and realizes the nothingness of his troubling nightmare
(29:28-32). Only after his awakening does he discover that his true existence lies in the day or in the light and that his nightmare was a delusion. The parable has a relationship first of all to the 1 This renders the sense of Till's translation which is based on a different division of the last two words of 29:13 (ever EAVIIWT instead of Ev. Ver. text, CETEIE ATIMWT). See Ovientalia, N.S., 27 (1958), 277.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
parable of the fog, for, there is a terror and blindness to the fog (17:9-14) like unto that of the nightmare. The parable is also related to that of the drunkard, but with a wider scope. Not all men know drunkenness first-hand, but all men do experience troubling dreams. The parable is particularly apropos. All have come from the Father and yet all do not know him (cf. e.g. 17: 4-8) and are ''in the Middle" where Error's Forgetting reigns (17:28-37).
Then the awakening comes and the gnostic tosses Ignorance from him as one shakes himself from sleep (29:32-36). Since the writer is serious, he must indicate that a decisive experiential change occurs. At least three things are involved in the change. First, there is an element of choice. The enlightened Gnostics cast Ignorance from them (29:33-35); they consciously test the gospel of truth and decide to live in it. Second, they experience joy (30:12-14).!
Third, they discover a new and cherished object of value—the gnosis of the Father (30:4-5). The Gnostics '"'measure"' or "'value"'
(NcewsTYy, 30:5) the Father's gnosis as men value the light. b. Parables that describe the message of truth as completeness.
(1) The parable of the complete book, 23:11-18. ''Because each consonant is a complete thought like a book that is complete, for they are consonants written through oneness, because the Father wrote them in order that through these consonants, of his the Aeons might know the Father." The translation "thought"
(23:11) is based on a textual emendation of W. Till.2 The parable itself is quite brief. In the preceding context, the writer apparently protests against a Jewish type of exegesis where men believe that true understanding consists in knowing the meaning of each letter of a given book or in ascribing a special meaning to each letter. In another sense, however, the writer himself is not free from this type of exegesis, for he affirms that each of the chosen ones of the Father constitutes a complete thought like to a complete book. The idea is astrange one. Generally, one understands that a consonant by itself is incomplete; it needs other consonants
(with vowel sounds) to form a meaningful word. It is different for the writer of Ev. Ver. By completeness, he means relatedness to the Father, but the parable carries with it no idea of relatedness on the horizontal plane. If each individual Gnostic is related to the Father in a complete way, the necessity for a Gnostic fellowship
? The end of the parable is in 30:14. Cf. Schenke, op. cit., p. 45.
® Cf. the discussion of the textual problem in chapter I above, p. 22, note 1.
PROPOSITION II
of believers may be seriously questioned. It is true that in 18: 38-40, the writer speaks of the Father and his members (necq.aeAoc) in terms reminiscent of the Pauline idea of the body and its members
(cf. e.g.
1 Cor. 12). And yet the language of 18:38-40 may imply nothing more than the existence of individual Gnostics who are members individually of the Father (sic! not of Christ, as in 1 Cor 12). Ev. Ver. thus lacks the element of community—so vital in the New Testament (cf. e.g. Eph. 4:25, éopév d&ddnAw Urn), and fosters the idea of an individualistic faith, thereby dispensing with the larger fellowship of believers.1 The affirmation that the book contains consonants of truth (23:8-9) suggests some kind of mystical recognition of the true nature of the living ones. The purpose of the book is that the Aeons might know the Father.
Whether ''Aeons" contains a spatial (modes of existence) or temporal (periods of existence) meaning is not clear. What is clear is the writer's firm conviction that Divine completeness means individual relatedness to the Father. The meaning that Christ the Logos has to the book of consonants of Truth is found in the hymn of the Logos which follows (23:18-33).
(2) The parable of the ignorant one and of darkness, 24:32-25:3.
"Just as one who is ignorant and then comes to know, his ignorance of itself normally disappears, just as darkness normally disappears when the light is manifested, so also the Lack disappears by means of the Completeness."
The parable uses characteristic gnostic symbols.? The context affirms that the Father abolishes the Lack and gives Completeness because Jesus brings the All to the Father (24:21-32). The Lack means lack of gnosis of the Father just as completeness implies that the Father is known and relationship with him is established. There is a single-mindedness about Ev. Ver. that refuses to be diverted in any way. The ignorant one lacks gnosis just as the dark place lacks light. Through Jesus, the gospel of truth announces the coming of gnosis and light.
The parable indicates no concern for the various media which God uses to manifest himself and his will, no concern for the problems of life in the world. Furthermore, no concern is shown for a moral change within man. On the contrary, the prepositional
1S, Laeuchli, The Language of Faith (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), p. 86 f., senses that the metaphor of the body, in Ev. Ver., is understood only in a vertical way.
2 Cf. Grobel, op. cit., p. 99, note 226.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
phrase gi\toote, "of itself"
(24:35-36), suggests an instinctive feature in the experience of salvation which dulls the challenge of the gospel. The sense of "'lack'' or "deficiency" simply disappears through completeness. Completeness in Ev. Ver. indicates relationship to the Father. Completeness in the Bible, however, means reproduction (Gen. 1:26) and overflowing abundance (John 4:14;
7°37-39; 10:11).
(3) The parable of fire, light, and life, 25 : 12-19. ""He will be purified by gnosis out of diversity into oneness since (gnosis) consumes the matter within him just as fire (consumes), and as darkness
(is consumed) by light, death by life.' The parable shows the concern of Ev. Ver. for the problem of philosophers—the far-reaching diversity in life. The writer indicates that diversity by itself is evil.
Goodness, therefore, means 76 év. The apparent diversity of the world points to a vacuum which gnosis fills. Precisely here Ev.
Ver. shows a contrast with the writings of Justin as well as with the Bible. In the Bible, the fullness and diversity of the universe are evidences that God is the creator. All diversity is in the service of the one God.
(4) The parable of the bad and the good vessels in the house, 25:25-26:15. The exegesis of the parable is given in chapter I above.
The main concern now is to sense the message of completeness which the parable contains. By the word "house"
(25:31) the writer probably means the world. It is also probable that the same word means "'world'' in 25:23 where the textual notes of Ev. Ver. suggest either the meaning "'world"' or '"'the Gnostics.'' 1
The "'master of the house' is the Father. The writer apparently sees the world as belonging to the Father (i.e. God is the Father of the All). Since the parable proper is divided into two parts
(25:25-35; 26:7-15) with two different emphases, it is quite possible that reference is made respectively to two aspects of Divine judgment—the removal of the hulic vessels (25:25 ff.) and the purifying judgment on the "'gnostic vessels' (26:4 ff.). The parable may have been suggested to the writer of Ev. Ver. by Rom. 9:21-23 and/or 2 Tim. 2:20-21. The Ev. Ver. passage contains no fewer than three connections with the Timothy passage. First, in both texts there is mention of the ""householder'' and the '"'house'' where the vessels are put«(ci.. Een Ver. 25:31, 23, and*27 Tims 2:20, ev weyary ...
TEATS oe
PROPOSITION II
oixtg, and 2:21, 6 deondtyc). Second, in both texts the vessels are said to be of two contrasting varieties, good and bad. Third, in both texts, a cleansing process occurs so that vessels are made useful to the master of the household. In the passage in Timothy, the usefulness of a vessel depends on the moral responsibility of the individual: in Ev. Ver. vessels are made fit through the coming of Divine judgment (Kpsese, 25:36) and through the "incarnation" of the Logos (26:8). There is, however, some hint of a painful, purifying experience which the Gnostics undergo in becoming useful to the Father (26:4 ff.). The writer uses two important terms to describe the true vessels; (a) They are sound
(qual. form xaKor aba in 25:35), the same term used frequently by the writer to mean "completeness" or "perfection," and (b)
They are full (qual. ato in 25:34; infin. mag in 26:1I-12).
He indicates that the experience of completeness or fullness is Divine (cf. the Divine judgment and the incarnation of the Logos).
Moreover, he declares that man passes through a purifying process preparatory to the experience of completeness. But what are the clear-cut media through which the process occurs? When, where, how does it happen?
(5) The parable of the lost sheep, 31:35-32:16. The parable emphasizes two primary things. First, the work of Jesus in making the Father known is indispensable. Second, Completeness can be realized through the Father. Notwithstanding the evidence that points to a close literary affinity between the parable? and the parable of Matthew and Luke, the basic idea of the New Testament story is completely transformed in Ev. Ver. The Biblical parable reveals the love of God for the lost individual no matter how wayward and lost he may be (cf., e.g. the context in Luke 15: 1-2).
In contrast, the Ev. Ver. parable is concerned with the one who lacks completeness which comes through the Father. The importance of the one sheep lies in the fact that by its recovery, the number of sheep reaches a total of 100, which is the sign of the Father's
1 It is suggested above that ''house"' in Ev. Ver. 25:23, 31 means "'world."
Many patristic commentaries assign the meaning "'world"' also, to oixt« in 2 Tim. 2:20, though modern commentaries prefer the meaning "'church."'
Cf. W. Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924), p. IOI.
2 Cf. the exegesis of the parable in Chapter I above.
Suppl. to Novum Test., XXV
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
right hand, or of completeness.1 A translation of 32:9-17 is important in this connection. It reads, "Thus [it is with] him [= the Father] who lacks the one [i.e. thus it is with] him who is the whole right hand which draws [to it] that which lacks and takes it forth from the left part and [as a result] it changes over to the right.
Thus the sum becomes 100, the sign of him who is in their voice.
It is the Father.' 2 The Valentinian interpretation of the parable of the lost sheep which Irenaeus offers,3 seems to show that the bishop of Lyons was acquainted with Ev. Ver. Harvey's text of this passage in Irenaeus reads as follows:
Adhuc autem materialia sinistram vocantes, et ex necessitate quae sunt sinistrae in corruptionem cedere dicentes, et Salvatorem venisse ad ovem perditam, ut eam transferat ad dextram, 1d est ad tllas quae sunt salutis nonaginta et novem oves, quae non perterunt, sed in ovili permanserunt, simstrae manus exsistentes, levamen non esse salutis consentire eos necesse est. Et hoc quod non similiter eundem numerum habet, cogentur sinistrae, 1d est corruptionis confitert: * The close parallels with the text of Ev. Ver. are apparent without further attention. The meaning of the parable, however, calls for consideration.
The Valentinians, says Irenaeus, interpret the parable to mean that the ninety-nine sheep who enjoy rest
(levamen = &v&éravoic) in the fold, do not necessarily enjoy salvation.
As long as they are in the "'left hand" a deficiency inevitably exists, because the left hand is material (cf. Adv. H., I. 5:1; 6:1) and thus partakes of corruption. Harvey notices that, to the Valentinians, dvercaverg was in parte materialium.® In an attempt to show the ridiculous nature of the Valentinian numerology, Irenaeus points out that the number-value of the cherished Greek words eyany
(= 93) and aanOern (= 64) as well as the number-value of many other words, is less than 100. Thus, he says, the Valentinians are compelled to reckon these sacred words as material and corruptible.®
The idea of completeness which the parable contains is one of a full 1 The contrast between the "right'' and "'left'' hands is alluded to no fewer than three times in Adv. H. (I. 5:1; 6:1; II. 24:6) in Irenaeus' discussion of the Valentinian system.
2 W. C. van Unnik, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings, pp. 60-61, thinks that "'the one'"' means the Father.
SSD Nal, MU, BANS 4 Harvey, op. cit., I, 341-342.
OFS iin NN, SV), TORS) 1 SPA CU aa lee Alo:
PROPOSITION II
quota of gnostzkoi. The experience of salvation can occur only as the full number of their elect are gathered in. There is a similar idea in the response given to the complaint of martyrs of the gospel, according to Rev. 6:11, '"They were... told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been" (RSV). The martyrs are at rest but the fullness of their salvation must await the completion of their full number.
What that number is, is not stated. Likewise, Rev. 7: 1-8 pictures a providential withholding of cosmic destructive powers until the full number of God's servants has been sealed, i.e. 144,000. There is, however, a basic difference between the book of the Revelation and Ev. Ver. Completeness, according to Ev. Ver., is narrow and exclusive. There is a limited number which has been fixed in advance. In the Revelation, however, while the number 12 symbolizes election, the number 144,000 shows how boundless election is in its extent.
(6) The parable of the doctor, 35:30-36:5. "For the doctor hurries to the place where a sick man is, for that is his desire within him. Moreover, he [1.e. the sick one] who lacks does not hide it, for he [i.e. the doctor] has that which he [i.e. the sick one] lacks"'
(35:30-35). There is very little literary connection between the passage and the picture in the New Testament gospels of Jesus as physician. Nevertheless, the influence of the New Testament portrayal on Ev. Ver. is apparent. Furthermore, each part of the description of the action, the attitude, and ability, of the physician in relation to the sick man, is ascribed elsewhere in Ev. Ver. to the Son or to the Father. Thus, the clause, 'he hastens to where the sick man is' (35:30-3I), may be compared to 41:7, "'his desire is to be with him" (35:31-33), to the Father's desire (cf.,
€.g. 22:9, 10, 35; 37:5-7), and "He has what he [i.e. the sick one] lacks"
(35:34-35), to 38:12-15. A noteworthy feature of the parable is that it preserves an agraphon found also in the Diatessaron as given in Ephraem's commentary.! The Latin translation of the Armenian text of that commentary, a translation made by L. Leloir, renders the agraphon as follows: Sed ubt dolores sunt, ait, ibi festinat medicus.2 The agraphon is cited by Ephraem in 1 Cf. Ev. Ver. Supplementum, notes critiques, p. 17.
2 Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 145
(1954), P175,
lines 20-21.
I0O
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
reply to the question of the disciples addressed to Jesus, " Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there [i.e. into Judea] again?" (RSV of John 11:8b). The saying then follows immediately. '"But where the sick are, he said, there the doctor hastens." In 1899, A. Resch cited the agraphon but observed that its source was unknown.! Now, from the text of Ev. Ver., a second witness to the saying comes to light. For an understanding of the parable in Ev. Ver., the agraphon indicates clearly that by "doctor,'' the writer means Jesus. But beyond this fact, the parable shows that the "'sick'' man lacks the medicine of gnosis or grace (cf. 9&aT in 36:7). He realizes what his sickness is and does not hide it. The writer is apparently saying that it lies within the ability of man to conceal or reveal his "'sickness," i.e. his a-gnostic condition. To confess his need means at the same time that Jesus supplies what is needed.? Taken by itself, the parable might suggest some personal experience of the historical
Jesus, but the application of the parable beginning with 35:35 makes the suggestion doubtful. The picture of the physician fades away into abstraction, i.e. "The pleroma which contains no lack fills the lack..." (35:35-37). The sick one then does not confront
Jesus personally but receives fullness and completion for his own lack of gnosis of the Father.
Summary and Comparison Justin uses the term Logos mainly to denote the person of the pre-incarnate and incarnate Christ. Besides the role of the Logos in creation and prior to his incarnate work in Jesus of Nazareth,
Justin discovers that the Logos performed his work among Greeks (cf. I. 5:3-4) as well as among Jews (cf. I. 63:10; D. 56). Whether it be to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, or to Joshua, God's truth, says
Justin, is gradually unfolded in history through the agency of the Logos. To the prophets, the Logos appears as the one who inspires the predictions concerning himself. Thus, in a consistent manner, Justin presents truth as a Divine process in which the Logos of God is always the active agent.
The writer of Ev. Ver. also believes that Divine truth is mediated through the Logos. The Logos reveals God's truth, however, not in objective historical event as is true in Justin's writings,
1 Texte und Untersuchungen, V, 4 (1889), 443.
2 Cf. the gnostic "confession" in Ev. Ver. 28:26-28.
PROPOSITION III
TOE but in subjective human experience. The parables reveal a breadth to the writer's knowledge of human experience. Man, he says, not only knows the frustration and terror (fog and nightmare parables) and enigma of diversity (fire, light, life parable) in the world in which he lives, but he also needs to know that he has lost his true identity (drunkard parable). Nevertheless, the "gospel" reveals his identity and places him in a meaningful relationship to the Father who desires to be known and loved (father and offspring parable). The various media through which a relationship is established are not clearly expressed. The human response, however, is mentioned. Man chooses to reveal his sick condition
(doctor parable) accepts some kind of purifying experience (vessel parable) and learns to value the gnosis of the Father (nightmare parable). And yet, the experience of the Divine salvation has little apparent concern with a moral change within (cf. the parable of the ignorant one) or a destiny without (cf. the parable of children from an adult). To be sure, the true Gnostic becomes part of an elect community, but the sense of a fraternal relationship is not vital. The stress of the parables falls on the relationship of the individual Gnostic to the Father (parable of the complete book)— not to his brothers. What mention there is of the brothers suggests a concern for the full complement of their elect number so that the fullness of salvation might be obtained. The person of Jesus appears in two of the parables in a distinct way. He is the shepherd who seeks the lost sheep and the physician who hastens to the one who is sick. These very parables, however, "de-mythologize"' the gospel picture of Jesus and stress a subjective element — the human experience of Divine completeness.
Proposition III The writings of Justin and Ev. Ver. understand truth to be vitally related to Jesus' coming—his incarnation, his ministry on earth, and his death and resurrection. The emphasis in Justin's writings is largely objective. He is concerned with the historical Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. To a lesser degree he speaks of the meaning of Jesus' coming. The emphasis of Ev. Ver. is largely subjective. The writer is concerned with the human experience both of Jesus' person and of the work which he performed.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
A. The idea of truth in the incarnation of Jesus 1. According to Justin Introduction: Distinct from the Second Apology with its general theme of the persecution of Christians and their reaction to it, the main argument in the First Apology and the Dialogue turns on Jesus. The central part of the First Apology (I. 30-53) unfolds a series of predictions—of Christ's coming (I. 32) and the manner and place of his birth (I. 33-34), his suffering on the cross (I. 48-50), and his majesty at his ascension and coming in glory (I. 51-52).?
Likewise in the Dialogue, after Justin describes his conversion (D. 1-9), and after a-relatively minor part on the Jewish law
(D. 10-31), he develops his argument. Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies (D. 32-141)—from his birth (D. 43) through his suffering on the cross (D. 86, 89-105), to his resurrection (D. 106-108) and to the rise of the Christian church
(D. 109 ff.). The movement of the events is dynamic, crystalized in I. 31:7, briefly and succinctly. That is, after an account of the translation of the works of the Hebrew prophets
(I. 31:1-5),
by means of one sentence (I. 31:7), Justin describes the heart of the message which he finds in the books of the prophets. The sentence contains fourteen participles referring to the person and work of Christ and two participles referring to the commission given to his followers to proclaim the good news concerning Christ.
To a large degree, I. 32-53 is to be understood as an expansion of this one sentence. The participles which refer to Christ and the sections of the First Apology on which they bear, are as follows:
TeoKNELGooUEVOY "being heralded beforehand,"' I.32.
THK YLVOLEVOV
"as coming, 6 15 32% yvewauevoy die mapAévov "born through a virgin," I. 33, place of birth, I. 34. d&vSpobuevov '
"growing up as a man," I. 35:1.
Ocpamevovta ...
"healing (every disease and every sickness,) nal vexpods aveyetoovta and raising up the dead,"' I. 48:1-3. ebovodpevoy "being hated xal &yvoovuevoy and unknown," I. 38, 49.
* Otto, op. cit., vol. I, part I, 72, and G. Kriiger, Die Apologieen Justins des Mdartyvers (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1904), p. 19, observe the importance of I. 23 for the three-fold division of Justin's argument in I. 27-60.
The intervening chapters (I. 24-26) present three reasons why Justin wants to demonstrate the Christian faith (mp@rtov uv btu 24:1, Sedtepov 8 Ste 25:1, and tetrov 8' éc 26:1). A. W. F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr
(Cambridge: Univ. Press, r911), pp. 39-41 represents the traditional attempt to integrate I. 24-26 to Justin's first argument, i.e. to what precedes.
PROPOSITION III
OTAVPOVULEVOY
"being crucified xal aroOvaoxovta and dying,'' I. 35, 40, 41:1; 48:4-5; 50. d&veyetpduevov xal cic "being raised and going up oveavols &vepydéuevov into the heavens,' I. 41, 42:4; 45, 51. xat vidv Beod dvr "both being and having been called wal KexAnuévoyv Son of God."'
The passage contains no participle referring to Christ's second coming but napayevnodpevoc does occur in I. 32:4 (cf. also I. 51-52).
A similar concise sentence is found in I. 46:5 where Justin reviews anew the main events in Jesus' life—birth, naming, crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension. He believes fully that the "discerning man' will be able to comprehend the reason why these events occurred as they did.
The prepositional phrase 5.' 7 aittay probably indicates nothing more than Justin's prophecy-fulfillment emphasis. That is, "'the reason why' he was born of a virgin and died on a cross was because he had power from God to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning himself
(cf. likewise the breadth of the second sentence in D. 34:2).
Justin insists that the Logos became incarnate at a specific time (I. 46:1) and place (I. 34). The event is linked to the passive function of the virgin Mary and the active agency of the power or will of God. Thus, I. 32:14 says, 'For through a virgin... through (the) power of God he was conceived," to which D. 87:2 adds, "According to the will of God, he was made flesh [oapxomounOetc]...to be born a man through the virgin." Both the Dialogue and the First Apology are replete with references to Christ's birth through: a:virein. (ef., e.g. 1.22: 531330) 41975 322145
46554282163 OF Die28 ard ses 8 2 457450480 25t5 ONE 103815 75:4; 87:2; 100:2). Justin senses that the birth is linked to the old Jewish economy in several ways. First, Mary is regarded asa virgin of the family of Abraham (D. 23:3). Second, Jesus, the preincarnate Logos or second God is said to have appeared to Abraham before becoming man through a virgin (D. 57:3). Third, through the virgin Mary who conceived the Divine Logos, God is said to have terminated ((x«toAver) the work of the serpent whose word of disobedience Eve conceived (D. 100:5-6). This is apparently the first extra-Biblical occurrence of the comparison between Mary and Eve which became a favorite topic of later Christian writings. The comparison between the two women may be indicated in r Tim. 2:13-15, the crux of the passage being the phrase dia
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
cig texvoyoviacg in 2:15. The text may refer to the child-bearing of Mary that undid the work of Eve.1 Archambault cites references in Irenaeus and Tertullian which compare Mary and Eve.? A comparison between the two women is likewise made in the ProtoEvangelium or Book of James (13:1) where Joseph, bitter at the discovery of Mary's pregnancy, senses that the story of Adam is repeated in him. That is, just as the serpent found Eve alone and deceived her, so, he thinks, it has happened to Mary, his betrothed.?
Perhaps more significant than any one of these three links between the birth of Jesus and the old Jewish economy is Justin's conviction that Mary's begetting was preceded by that of the Father. The Father bore his offspring (yévwyua«), the Logos, before (he begat) all created things (D. 129:4). According to II, 6:3, the Son was both with him and begotten (xai ovvayv xat yevvauevoc) before the works (xpd t&yv mommuctov), "when at the beginning he created and arranged all things through him" (cf. also I. 23:2; D. 61:3;
62:4; 102:2; 128:4). In D. 76:7, the two ideas are apparently combined. A portion of the text reads, '""And David moreover proclaimed that before sun and moon, he was to be born from the womb according to the will of the Father."' In all probability the text links together the two aspects of generation (i.e. that of the Father and that of Mary) by blending brief phrases from two different psalms. His birth was before time, i.e. "before sun and moon," (= Psa. 72:5, LXX, 71:5): his birth was in time, i.e.
"of a womb" (= Psa. 11033,
LX XK, 109: 3).*
Three features in Justin's view of the incarnation stand out for special mention. a. Justin believes that the impregnation of Mary is due not to the Holy Spirit (as it is in Matthew and Luke), but to the Sivas
@cod. The Logos of his own power which he received from God entered Mary's womb (D. 87:2).5
1 Cf. W. Lock, op. cit., pp. 32-33.
2 Op. cit., 2, 123-125. Cf. also Otto, op. cit., I, part II, 358 f.
' A connection with Justin (D. 100:5-6) is questionable. Emile de Strycker La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacque (Bruxelles: Société des
Ballanlisles, 1961), pp. 414-417 dates the Proto-Evangelium in the second half of the second century, thus later than Justin.
4 The suggestion comes from G, Archambault, op. cit., 2, 12-13, against a different idea in Otto, op. cit., I, part II, 274.
5 Goodenough, op. cit., p. 237, note 5, points out the full dependence of Christ on the Father (according to Justin) in birth and in resurrection (cf. D.
100: 1 with John 10:18).
PROPOSITION III
b. Justin insists that the incarnation means that Christ became fully man. The text of II. 10:1, reads, ''Therefore more than every human teaching ours appears greater by means of the fact that Christ has become for our sakes the entire rational (being), both body and word [Aéyoc] and soul."'! The passage means that Christ did not assume merely a human body but that he became man in all three respects. c. Justin affirms that the incarnation means that Christ was not man like others. In one sense, the blood which coursed through his veins was not human blood. No fewer than three times (I. 32:11;
D. 54:1-2; 76:2) does Justin refer to the passage in Gen. 49:11, "washing his stole in the blood of (the) grape," as a Divine indication that Christ's blood was not human but of God. ''For just as man has not made the blood of the vine but God (has), so also this was indicating that (his) blood was not to spring out of human seed but from (the) power of God" (I. 32:11). He means that Mary's womb was like a tube through which the Divine seed passed. As Goodenough remarks, Justin finds that, "He was a man but not with human connections."' 2
2. According to the writer of Ev. Ver. Ev. Ver. makes no reference to the virgin birth but does refer to Jesus' incarnation. Two texts
(23: 30-31; 26:8) refer to the body (cwma) of Jesus, one (31:5), to his flesh (capq), all three of the texts being related to the incarnation. In 23:30-31, the two Greek words eyany and cba occur in a sentence which reads, "His love put a body about him," or ''made him incarnate."
? The text forms the ninth strophe in the hymn on the Father's Logos (23:18-33) in which the Father is the subject, the Word, the object. This interpretation is not unchallenged.
Grobel claims that the suffix of Ntooty (ten occurrences of this prepositional phrase in the hymn) refers to the 'Book,' and that "the Word" does not refer to Jesus the Logos. It is much more probable, however, that the suffix 1 Thus Goodspeed, Die dltesten Apologeten, p. 85 (8d tod} tO...) though ms A has todro. Gildersleeve, op. cit., p. 76, following Otto, op. cit., I, part I,
224 prints d.& Td.
ATO eCliwp ade:
8 Till's rendering, seine Liebe hat sich in thm verkérpert in Oriental, N.S., 27 (1958), 275, is preferable to the German translation in the text of Ev. Ver., p. 69, i.e. seine Liebe ist Leib auf thm geworden.
4 Cf. Till, ibid., 276.
5 Op. cit., p. 87, note 185.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
refers to the Father and that "'the Word"
(cf. 23: 19-24, 33-35) means the Son. Two things favor this latter interpretation. First, the immediate context of HTOoTY in 23:19 is ruwT, "the Father"
(23:18). Second, the noun muswexe in 23:20 presumably has the same meaning as mswexe in 23:33-34. The latter reference must refer to Jesus. The hymn as a whole, then, can be taken as a suggestion of John 5:17-30, the Father-Son relationship. The hymn progresses from the idea of the Father's meditation on the Logos (23:18-20) to his love expressed in the incarnation of the Logos (23:30-31) and his complete trust in him ('His trust embraced him," 23:31-33). Therefore, the Logos can walk forth
(cf. John 1:36; 6:66 et al.) among mankind ("the All') and show in himself the fruit of the Father's heart and the manifestation of his will (23 :33-24:3). What 23:30-31 reveals then, is the incarnation of the Word (cf. John 1:1, 14) which manifests the Father's love (John 3:16). The second reference to soma in Ev. Ver. is found in 26:8. Beginning with 26:4, the text is to be rendered, ''The Word [wexe] which is in the heart of those who pronounce it, came into the Middle. It was not a sound only but it became a body.
A great stir occurred among the vessels...'
(26:4-10). The passage reveals no fewer than three modes of the Logos: im experience, i.e. "in the hearts of those who pronounce it' (26:5-6, cf. 32: 16-17) ; m written revelation, i.e. ,,a sound" (26:7); in appearance or incarnation, i.e. "'a body'' (26:8). The text shows that it is the incarnation in which the decisive significance of the Logos appears.
His incarnation means that judgment (Kpserc) has come forth from above to divide all the vessels (= men) in the master's (i.e. the Father's) house and to accomplish a purifying work among them (25:25-26:15). His incarnation means further that gnosis (26:23-27) and truth (26:27-32) have come and thus,
Error and her offspring (26:16-23) are overcome. The connection in Ev. Ver. between Divine judgment and the incarnation is found also in John 12:31, "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out" (RSV). Thus, when the text and context of 26:8 of Ev. Ver. are placed side by side with 23:30-31, the incarnation is viewed as the manifestation of Divine love and Divine judgment, a love which has the Word or Logos for its object, a judgment which performs a purifying work through the Logos in the world.
The meaning of these two references to cw.wa in Ev. Ver. (23:30-
PROPOSITION III
31; 26:8), however, is qualified to some extent by another reference, referring to the sarx of Jesus (31:5). The sentence in which the word sarx occurs (31:4-9) reads as follows: "Because he came forth through a flesh, a form whose progress no one hindered because it [the form of the flesh] is Incorruptibility, Incomprehensibility." The context of the passage describes two classes of men in their relationship to Jesus Christ.
First, the context refers to the Gnostics who have awakened from their nightmare existence in ignorance (30:6-14). The Holy Spirit has opened their eyes and raised them up out of their ignorance (30:14-22) and given to them the means of understanding the gnosis bestowed by the Father, even (oAvga) the manifestation of his Son (30:22-25).
The Holy Spirit is said to enable them to experience the Son through all five human senses, sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch
(30:26-32). To these five, a sixth sense is added—the light that the Gnostics receive which enables them to turn to God (30:36-31:1).
The light comes because Jesus breathes upon them (30:34-36).
The stress of the passage falls on the incarnate Christ. Allusions to the New Testament are numerous.1 The remarkable thing is that the writer believes that there is a contemporaneity that he and other Gnostics have with the Incarnate one. No distance in time or space separates them from Jesus who came forth in the flesh. The writer senses that they can partake of the beloved
Son in every way and through every sense. Second, the context describes another class of men—the hulikot (owAH, 31:4). They are described as strangers (31:1), as those who were not noticing his form (31:2-3), and as those who did not know him (31:3-4).
Only one of the five senses is mentioned—sight. But the fact that they failed to see him indicates that through all the other senses they likewise failed to know him. Thus, they are strangers to him. But why are they unable to recognize him? The answer given is that the flesh of Jesus (31:5) is of a heavenly variety.
It was flesh of a form whose passage no one could block. With considerable hesitation, Grobel compares the post-resurrection account of Jesus' coming to his assembled disciples through closed doors.2 But, in view of other background from the Fourth Gospel that is present elsewhere in this context (cf. especially 30:26 ff. and 30:34-35), the text of 31:4-7 seems definitely to allude to 1 Cf. the Ev. Ver. text, "notes critiques," p. 57.
2 Op. cit., p: 123, note 332.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
John 20:19, 26. Till suggests that oreapy Hewat possibly connotes apparent flesh, not actual, material flesh.1 His suggestion is borne out by reason of the description which follows—..e. the incorruptibility and incomprehensibility of the flesh (31:7-9).?
Summary and Comparison Justin connects truth with the coming of Jesus. He affirms that the exact correspondence between prophecies of his coming and their fulfillment in time and space gives undeniable evidence of truth which the discerning man (6 vovvey7c¢) will be able to understand. The special stress which he gives to the incarnation appears in his use of the hybrid noun-verb formation, capxonornbete, 3 not found in the Greek Bible nor in any other early Christian writings. His idea of the truth of the incarnation is mainly objective, i.e. it happened, though occasionally he refers to some theological truth implied in the event. Thus, for example, in D. 100:5-6, he suggests that the birth of the Logos through the virgin Mary meant the destruction of the "logos" of disobedience which the "virgin" Eve conceived from the serpent. Nevertheless, for the most part, the incarnation means for Justin that a supernatural event occurred exactly as prophesied. In contrast, the emphasis in Ev. Ver. is almost wholly subjective. The writer makes no connection between the incarnation and the Old Testament, gives no attention to the time or place of Jesus birth. The three references to the "event" in Ev. Ver. concern the subjective truth or the meaning for life which the "'event"' is said to contain. On the one hand, it signifies the Father's love (23:30-31). On the other hand, for the Gnostics, the incarnation connotes the truths of a purifying judgment (25:35 ff.), of Jesus' irresistible '""walk'' in the world
(cf. 23:33-24:7; 31:4-9)* where he defeats Error (26:23-27), and of the new things in the Father's heart which Jesus teaches
1 Ovientalia, N.S., 27 (1958), 277.
2 S. Arai, Die Christologie des Evangelium Veritatis (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), questions Till's rendering and suggests the translation einen fleischlichen Gestalt (p. 85). The difference, however, may be of minor importance.
What is important is the explanatory description, i.e. the heavenly genre of Jesus' flesh—according to Ev. Ver.
* Cf. I. 32:10; 66:2 (twice)sD. 45:4; 84:2; 100:2.
* It is probably not fortuitous that '"'the walk" of Jesus (23:34-35) follows closely on his incarnation (23:30-31).
Cf. also 31:4-7. The verb EY MAADE (23:34) and the noun Tonwmaage (31: 6-7) are both formations
PROPOSITION III
I0Q (31:9-11). The incarnation may mean more than this in Ev. Ver.
In the light of 20:24-25 where Jesus is said to ''put on" the book (= the gnostic fellowship), it is quite possible that, by the soma or sarx of Jesus, the writer perceives the true incarnation or Jesus' true flesh to be the gnostic fellowship. This means that, in contrast to Justin who stresses the truth of the objective event, the writer of Ev. Ver., discontent with truth unrelated to life, ""demythologizes"' the event to allow the inner truth which he finds in it to stand out.
B. The idea of truth in the life and ministry of Jesus 1. According to Justin a. Jesus manifests truth by his life and through hismiracles.
The earthly life and ministry of Jesus receive only minor attention in Justin's writings. The writer observes that even at birth Jesus was in possession of power, although he grew up like all other men (D. 88:2). He was thought to be the son of Joseph the carpenter (cf. Luke 3:23; Matth. 13:55) and himself used to make
(imperf. cieyéfeto) plows and yokes, teaching thereby the symbols of righteousness and an active life (D. 88:8). He was baptized in the Jordan for the sake of the human race (D. 88:4) and received at that time the approval of the Father through the voice from heaven (D. 88:8). In his temptation, Christ proved that he was the true Israel, ""'a man vanquishing power,''! by overthrowing the Devil who is the power called Serpent and Satan (D. 125:4).
With respect to Christ's healing ministry, Justin reports that Christ had power to perform miracles, as the prophets had predicted
(I. 48:1; D. 69:4-7). On several occasions, Justin compares the healing power of Aesculapius of Greek mythology to that of Christ (I. 21:2; 22:6; 25:1), or, more specifically, he says that the demons in imitation of the Old Testament prophecies concerning
Christ's healing ministry, claimed like healing powers for the Homeric Aesculapius who was later deified (I. 54:10; D. 69:3).
When all passages are examined, however, it must be conceded that, similar to the little space he gives to Jesus' life, Justin shows little concern with Christ's miracles. Goodenough suggests that the reason for this lies in the common phenomena of miracles of the A, form of moouye "to walk.' The meaning apparently is Jesus' walk forth from the Father among the All with a possible reference to his walk back to the Father (cf. John 16:28).
1 This is Justin's etymological explanation of the name Israel (D. 125:3).
TKO
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
in Justin's own day, and thus, miracles "were not adequate evidence for his divine Sonship." ! b. Jesus manifests truth in what he taught. Justin has much more to say about Christ's teaching ministry. He says that what the Christian community speaks is true because it has learned from Christ and the prophets who preceded him (1. 23:1). Christ's teaching is true and clean (D. 35:2) and thus, those who keep his precepts are true children of God (D. 123:9). The Jew Trypho is amazed at the teachings which are found in the gospel and at Christian fidelity to them (D. 10:2). The terms which the Apologist uses most frequently to describe Jesus' teachings are the plural noun Sideypatx, 'teachings' and the various forms of the verb
Siddéoxew from which dsey~uata comes. There are also a few scattered references to the dudayy (I. 40:1; II. 2:13) and to the didacnarta
(D. 35:2; 105:1) of Christ. No fewer than seventeen references to the noun didcéyyat« occur, quite evenly scattered through the Dialogue and the Apologies. Christ is termed diddoxado¢g no fewer than eight times (I. 4:7; 12:9; 15:5; 16:7 [quotation]; 19:6; 32:2; Il. &:5; D. 108:2).2 Far more frequent is the verb didaoxew. Referring to Christ, the verb occurs mainly in the aorist tense though a few occurrences are in the perfect. The voice of the verb is nearly always active (e.g. édtda€e or didchEar). Where the form is passive, Christ usually appears as the active personal agent (cf. eg. I. 12:10 td SedWaypéva bx' adtod mavta). With reference to Christians, the verb occurs usually in the aorist, less frequently in the perfect and present tenses. What is significant is that in the aorist and perfect tenses, the voice of the verb in these instances is almost always passive, while in the present tense, it is active. Thus, "we were taught,'' and because of this, ''we teach." The apparent exceptions to this observation
(I. 33:5;
39:3; 50:12; -D,$3:5; 118:3), 1e. references where the aorist tense and active voice are used, all refer to what the gospel writers or apostles taught. Even in these cases, however, the personal agency of Christ is not omitted (cf., e.g. I. 39:3 where the active teaching of the twelve apostles is the outgrowth of Christ's commission (aneotdAyoav tnd. ..xp. dwdaEar). 3
TNO PNciipaease * The plural form 8:8éoxaAor occurs thirty-one times in the Dialogue as Justin's designation of Jewish rabbinical teachers.
® The second aorist active or perfect active forms of the verb pavOdvew
PROPOSITION III
ETE Justin refers to two other terms that bear particularly on Christ's teachings. They are rapadisdvar and raparnuBdvew. On the one hand, the verb napadiS6va. describes how the Word of God has been handed down through the prophets (I. 53:6), how the apostles handed down (xapéSwxav) in their memoirs the institution of the Eucharist of Jesus (I. 66:3), how Jesus handed down the way in which men should live (I. 66:1) and what should take place (D.
49:3) and what sacrifices men should offer through him (D. 117:1).
In brief, Justin says that the Christian should be a keeper of the teachings which have been handed down by Christ (D. 69:7).
On the other hand, the verb maoakapBdvery denotes the fact that the tradition thus handed down has been received. Thus, Justin affirms, ""We have received by tradition [rape:Anpapev] that God has no need of material offering" (I. 10:1), and, ""We have received by tradition that it is better to believe things impossible... than to disbelieve" (I. 19:6). A similar meaning is present in I. 4:7 and 10:2. Thus, the terms referring to the teaching of Christ, dideypote and its congeners, and the twin verbs rapasdidévar and maparauBavery designate the Christian tradition, i.e. that which Christ handed on, which Christians have received.
It is apparent that Justin is indebted to the New Testament for these terms (cf., e.g. 1 Cor. II:
2970593 Galv179; 1 Thess; 2213; 4:1; 2) Thess) 3:6, forsaparonBove, and Likesr: 2A ctst67143 29> Cor) 1172,9235805/33,210r Tapad.dovar). H. Riesenfeld thinks that these two terms have a formal tie to both Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism. That is, he contends that the term raparauBdverw reproduces the Hebrew gibbél, the imprinting of a tradition with which one has been entrusted, while rapadidévat reflects the Hebrew masdar, the commitment of the tradition to a particular pupil. Be this as it may, the fact remains that, by his use of the terms raparauBaver and maoadidovar, Justin preserves the Biblical language and meaning of tradition. This relationship of Justin to the New Testament
"to learn" express basically the same meaning as the passive forms of SOnonew wy Cie ey ly Cesena 39517 522) bet 4aae 5 On) OORT Le 1 The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co.
Limited, 1957), pp. 17f. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, trans. E. J. Sharpe (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells, 1961), has developed
Riesenfeld's view. His position has been severely criticized. Morton Smith, "A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition," /BL,
LXXXII, part II (June, 1963), 169-176, thinks that the New Testament shows no evidence of rabbinic mnemonic techniques and that Gerhardsson's argument constitutes ''a gross anachronism" (p. 169).
II2
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
enhances the basic element of truth which the Apologist finds in Jesus' teaching. So, for example, Justin contends that both baptism and the eucharist are shared by no other person than the one who believes that the things taught by the Christian community are true (I. 61:2; 66:1). He means that he and the Christian leaders contemporary with him, had received the Christian tradition handed down—intact—from the apostles and that he and his fellow Christian had inculcated this tradition—intact—upon the lives of the new converts of their time. The truth which they taught was ultimately and essentially the truth which Jesus taught.
2. According to Ev. Ver. a. Like the writings of Justin, Ev. Ver. gives only minor attention to the earthly life of Jesus. Unlike Justin, the limited space which the writer of Ev. Ver. assigns to Jesus' earthly life lacks definite historical connections. Jesus comes "into the middle" (es ATAHTE,
19:19; 26:4-5).1 What event transpired after he came is mentioned or suggested only briefly. According to 18:21-23, he aroused anger and was persecuted. In 24:23-24, it seems likely that Jesus is the subject of the verb ENTACL UAE. The text thus means that Jesus served in the world. The most informative passage is 19:19 ff.
The '"'school" to which he comes, according to this text, is probably the synagogue. The mention of the "school" sets the scene for the two groups who come to him. First, the self-esteemed wise men come. At the beginning, they tempt him (evrupajze manag, 19:23), but at the end, they hate him (19:25-26). Second, the little ones come to whom the Father's gnosis belongs (19:28-30). The very paucity of the texts pertaining to an earthly ministry and the vagueness of their reference to gospel history indicate that the truth manifested in Jesus' ministry has no Palestinian roots.
He came forth trom the pleroma though being in the Father's nous (16:34-36). His coming into the middle, a coming synonymous with the coming of Truth (26:27-28), was to purify the Father's chosen ones and return them to him (24:6-7). b. Like the writings of Justin, Ev. Ver. has more to say about Christ's teaching ministry. According to 19:19-20, teaching the 1 It is curious that in all four occurrences of €s A- (once er €=) in Ev.
Ver., the object of the preposition is TMHTE "the middle" (cf. 19:19; 20:8; 20:4, 27-28).
PROPOSITION III
IT3 word was the first function which Jesus performed as he came to the "school." His teaching was new because he uttered those things which were in the Father's heart (31:9-11). His word was
"flawless'"" or "'without lack"
(31:12-13), so powerful that it engendered life (31:15-16). He alone pronounced the Father's name (40:18-19) for he alone had the power to speak it (40:19-22).
Jesus is further described as the one who came forth from the depth and uttered the Father's hidden things (40:26-28) and spoke of the place from which he came forth (40:31-34; 41:4-5).
Summary and Comparison Justin pays little attention to the life and miracles of Jesus.
As a child of his age, he is pre-eminently concerned with ethics, i.e. the teachings of Jesus.! In view of the fact that Jesus handed down the true way by which men should live, and in view of the faithful transmission of the tradition to the Christian fellowship, enjoyment of the privileges of this fellowship, says Justin, is dependent on a recognition of the truth found in the teachings of the Christian leaders.
Three references summarize the main importance which the writer of Ev. Ver. finds in the teaching of Jesus. In 30:32-34,
Jesus is said to instruct men concerning the incomprehensible Father, in 18:19-21, he informs them of the way of truth, and in I9:14-20, he speaks the word of gnosis (cf. the context). These three references do not present three emphases since, according to the writer, there is a oneness to the truth found in Jesus' teaching.
That truth is the gnosis of the Father's incomprehensible nature.
The writer is not at all concerned as Justin is with various 5i3éyuate of Christ.
Justin stands on the shoulders of the apostles from whom he and other Christian leaders have received the teachings of Christ essentially unchanged. The writer of Ev. Ver., though writing a document that is replete with allusions to the gospels and to other parts of the New Testament, acknowledges no debt to any predecessor. He refers to no apostolic witness.
There are two possible ways of explaining the fact. First, Ev. Ver. may be considered a hymn in which the writer identifies himself with that which he describes. That is, he becomes the mouthpiece
1 Cf. E. de Faye, "L'Influence du Timée de Platon sur la Théologie de Justin Martyr," Bibliotheque de L' Ecole des hautes Etudes, Sciences Religieuses, VII (1896), 176.
Suppl. to Novum Test., XXV
II4
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
of the hymn. The difficulty with this view is that the document contains a basic element of reflection. Second, the writer of Ev.
Ver. regards his own authority as adequate. The document is thus doctrine in hymnlike form. This explanation is much more satisfactory and at the same time it points to the fundamental difference between the teachings of Jesus as viewed by Justin and by the writer of Ev. Ver. Justin acknowledges his debt to the apostles by setting forth the teachings of Jesus in direct and indirect quotation. At times his references seem to point toa compendium or didache containing various logia of Christ (cf., e.g. I. 14:5 ff., D. 35:8 ot tH¢ SidaxH¢ Adyor). At other times, he cites definitely the a7ouvnuoveduata, "memoirs" of the apostles "called gospels" (I. 66:3;
67:3; D. 100:4; I0I:3; 102:5; 104:1; 105:1, 5, 6; 106:1, 4, cf. also the verb form, i.e. of &ropvnuovedoavtes in I. 33:5). Over against the objective emphasis, Ev. Ver. shows a contemplative element.
The writer is satisfied to refer only briefly to Jesus as teacher and to the fact that he taught the Word and the Truth. The reason is obvious. The writer is concerned not primarily with what Jesus said, but with the meaning that the writer finds that teaching to contain for the Father's chosen ones. The writer thinks he is capable to express that meaning or to give that interpretation.
C. The idea of truth in the passion and resurrection of Jesus 1. According to Justin. The passion and resurrection of Jesus, for the Apologist, are events of the greatest importance for the nature of truth. Truth is found, however, in the actuality of the events more than in their meaning. In I. 23:1, the truth which Justin affirms is based, he says, on the teaching received from Christ and the prophets who preceded him. These teachings, he says, are alone true. Obviously, by the clause, "having learned from Christ and the prophets who preceded him," the writer must mean that he and his contemporaries have learned from the "memoirs" which have come down to them along with the prophetic writings which preceded them. What they learned in particular from those writings was that truth was present in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Justin viewed this truth in two ways: a. The demonic imitation of the prophecies of Jesus' death and resurrection (cf., e.g. I. 54) points to the truth of the prophecies.
1 Cf. I. 67:3, td d&rouvnuovebuata tav drootéAwy 4 td ovyypduuata Tov
TPOMHTAY.
PROPOSITION III
II5 The imitation means that the genuine truth exists. Although Justin finds such parrotism of Christ's suffering in the demonicinspired ancient myths, he carefully observes that the particular type of suffering—the cross—forms an exception to the demonic mimicry. Justin thinks that the demons failed to understand the cross since all things about it were expressed by the prophets in symbolic form (I. 55:1). b. The minute fulfillment of the prophetic word in the events of the passion and resurrection of Jesus constitutes the greatest and truest evidence (&xéderEt¢) of the events themselves (cf. I. 30:1).
It is this apodictic element which one must bear in mind in making an overall assessment of Justin's particular stress on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Purely from the frequency of their occurrence, amddetEtc, "demonstration, proof,' and its congeners command attention. Other related terms that appear often are eEnynotc (eEnyctobat) onuctov (onuatvev), (mp0) xnpvbooew, edayyeatCewv, SyAovy, and yynvew. Whatever the term may be, Justin utilizes it to prove the truth concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus. According to I. 13:3, the writer's forthcoming proof will show why Christians give second place in the Godhead to Jesus
Christ, Son of God, crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate in the time of Tiberius Caesar. It is this proof which he develops especially in I. 30-53. The same apodictic element on the passion and resurrection occupies a great deal of space in the Dialogue. Trypho vigorously objects to the crucifixion (D. 32:1), finding Justin's teaching on the subject blasphemous (D. 38:1). He states that, according to the law (Deut. 21:23), crucifixion is an accursed death (D. 89:2). To all of these objections, Justin sets forth the proof—Christ's death and resurrection occurred in exact accord with the Old Testament prophecies, i.e. predictions and types.
An admirable illustration is D. 86 where, from the Jewish law, the prophets, and the writings, Justin cites various ''trees'" and "rods" which prefigure the cross of Jesus (cf. also D. go). In his sustained exegesis of Psalm 22 (LXX, 21), Justin finds the theme of the cross and resurrection combined together
(D. 98-106).
What Justin says in all of his exegetical argument is that the death and resurrection of Jesus are true because they occurred precisely
1 E. J. Goodspeed, Index A pologeticus (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich'sche Buchhandlung, 1912), pp. 30-31, lists well over 150 occurrences of noun and verb forms, the vast majority of these references being found in the Dialogue.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
in the way the prophetic Spirit indicated. The question now arises, does Justin sense that there is an inner truth in Jesus' passion and resurrection? That is, does he express the meaning as well as the factuality of these events? To answer the question, attention needs to be given to Justin's idea of the cross—its relation to men and their redemption.
(1) The cross and the cosmos. Both I. 55 and 60 attempt to show the cosmic significance of the cross. Goodenough cites these chapters as indicating ''the cosmic significance of the Logos.''* It must be remembered, however; that the cross—not the Logos—is the central subject of these chapters. Reference has been made above to I. 55 and the "power" that Justin finds in the cross. He senses that all things in the. world are ordered by this oyyo« or form
(I. 55:2), including man himself (I. 55:4). The fact that the cross is symbolized everywhere shows its true cosmic power. In I. 60, the writer's argument is even more inclusive. From Plato's Timaeus
(36 B, C), Justin claims that the yi or cross which the demiurge constructs after splitting all things into two parts, is a borrowing from Moses.2 The text which Plato is said to have borrowed, comes from Num. 21:8-9 where Moses obeys God and places a bronze serpent upon a standard (cyustov) so that those who were bitten by the deadly serpents might live.
LXX (Num. 21:9a) Apol. I. 60:3 xa érotnoev Mwvoiis dew yarxody nal ... AaBetv tov Matioéa yarxndv xa Zotynoev adtoy él onuctov.
Torjout tTOTOV otaveod xal toDToV otjoat émi tH ayia oxnvy. .
Justin's text contains three significant changes from the LXX.
First, he omits any mention of the object, i.e. the brass serpent (pug yaAxecog in the LXX), which Moses made. Second, Justin has a significant addition. What Moses made, he says, was a type of the cross (tbx0g otavpod). The word timog occurs in the next sentence of Justin also where the Apologist cites Moses' command to the people, "If you look upon this type and believe, you shall be saved by it."' The third change is the most important. According to Justin, Moses ''made a type of the cross and placed this" ént
7H ayia oxnv7y. The change from the LXX reading éxt onuctov, 1 OP. cit., p. 159, but cf. also pp. 159-161.
* Cf. The Loeb Classical Library, "Plato," VII, 68-72.
PROPOSITION III
7, "upon a standard," to éni tH &yia oxyyv7 is purposeful.! Justin senses that Plato's yt in the cosmos occupies the same central position as the cross on the tabernacle, the tabernacle being here a type of the cosmos. Far beyond the mere factuality of the cross, Justin is affirming in both I. 55 and 60 that the cross performs a life-giving function for the cosmos.
(2) The cross and redemption. From the standpoint of Justin's vocabulary of redemption, the noun &yérn, so prominent in the Johannine and Pauline writings, occurs twice only (one of the two times in quotation) ; the verb e«yany is generally found in quotation only (cf., e.g. D. 38:4; 56:14; 63:4; I. 15:9).2 The twin term of ayary, 1.€. ydeug¢, occurs much more frequently. The emphasis, however, is not on God's grace in redemption per se but on the enlightenment or wisdom or knowledge that Christians receive from God. Except for II. 13:6, all of the references to yéo1¢ occur ae the eDialoguer(els"6,2i9 Ding0 17922555821 698 1021 aoant
100:2). The words d&raddrcooew-anarrnyyn, "to set free-ransom,"' have a redemptive meaning in only three passages (I. 12:2; II. 14:1;
D. 100:6). Terms such as mé&oyew - 2k00¢ - mabyté¢ are frequently ised with reference, to Christi cie.c (1 sega y 51675253 103716;
Tp 33:45° Dh 3422); 40525 677630372) 2 hey should be considered in close connection with the terms otaveoty - otaveds and with the many references to ovuBorov (cf., e.g. D. 14:2; 40:3; 53:4; 78:6;
GO25 yili ph) pandytor pines) (Che 6.0.40 l TA Ol sep I14:1; 131:4). The terms as their context shows, refer more to the factuality of Christ's suffering than to the soteriological meaning which those sufferings contain. The same holds true for the verb omfew and its congeners. Quite apart from numerous references in quotation, the terms oa@Cew and cwrtyeta occur with great frequency, especially in the Dialogue. Salvation is viewed as a struggle
1 The preposition éxt with the dative has a local sense in this text, meaning "upon." Otto's Latin translation, sancto tabernaculo, 'in the holy tabernacle,"' does not do justice to Justin's text (cf. Otto, op. cit., vol. I, part I, 161).
In the light of the comparison made to the text of the Timaeus, i.e. "Exiacev adtoy év 7 mavet (I. 60:1), one might expect Justin to write év tH &yig oxnvy.
However, the command given through Moses was for dying men to look upon a visible brass serpent (cf.
Num. 21:9). If visible, therefore, it could not be "in" the tabernacle. Justin's text is apparently a conflation of the LXX (the prep. ént) and the Timaeus ("upon the holy tent'? = the +o 7rév of the T7maeus—not the "'standard"' of the LXX).
2 Pp. E. Huth, Justin Martyr: esquisse historique (Geneva: J. G. Fick, 1893), p. 81, criticizes the Apologist for this lack.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
(D. 142:2), a calling of the Father (D. 131:2), a look of faith as in the case of the Israelites who looked upon the brass serpent
(D. 112:1; cf. 91:4; 94:1; I. 60:3), a deliverance from evil deeds = the fangs of the serpent (D. 94:2), and a reward for those who do acceptable deeds (D. 94:5; cf. D. 46:4; 105:6; 45:3). The fullness of this salvation is to be realized at Christ's second coming (I. 65:1;
D. 45:4; 47:1, 4; 35:8). In all of these references the main appeal is to the fact that Christ suffered and to the moral enlightenment man receives through the cross and/or to man's future share in God's salvation.
It is the strong moralistic note which Justin sounds that has led various scholars to suspect the Apologist of rationalizing the teaching of redemption.1 "According to their view,' says Goodenough, "Justin teaches that Christ gave light and information. He destroyed the demonic influence, increased the true knowledge of man, and so made it possible for men to purify themselves by choosing the higher life... There is no change in the relationship of God to man in a forgiveness of sin.
Only is there change on the part of those men who choose to claim their kinship with God and to use the latent power that is in them.'"?
In one sense, Goodenough dissociates himself from this view.
He thinks that von Engelhardt, in particular, fails to sense the active power in redemption which Justin discerns and finds that Justin represents salvation as knowledge. For his own part, however, Goodenough thinks that there is little indication in Justin's writings of any present redemption.* He says, '""The kingdom in Justin is of course always eschatological.' And again, he affirms,
"The operation of grace [according to Justin] which cleanses the soul from sin is a preparation for that salvation which is not received until the judgment day." ®G. T. Purves earlier had expressed the same idea. He formulates Justin's view of salvation as follows:
"The Christian is not so much a saved man as one who hopes to be saved through belief in Christ's teaching, baptism for the 1 A. Harnack, History of Dogma, trans. from the 3rd German ed., II (New York: Russell & Russell, 1958), 169-177, says that while no Apologist omitted entirely the idea of redemption, yet Christianity was to the Apologists generally a doctrine of reason, freedom, and morality.
SS Opeciin ppa25cart 3 Ibid., p. 254.
4 Ibid., especially pp. 250 ff.
5 Ibid., p. 251, note 2.
* Ibid., p. 250.
PROPOSITION III
IIg remission of past sins, and subsequent obedience. Faith is belief in the truth of Christ's word rather than the acceptance of a finished redemption; and with it not merely repentance but obedience is joined as the condition of obtaining the future reward." 1
There is a decided element of truth in these statements, but, it may be asked, do they give the proper balance that is found in Justin's writings? 2 Goodenough, in supporting his view that salvation in Justin's writings is eschatological (i.e. future), asserts that D. 111:4 gives evidence. Goodenough thinks that the context of c@Tovta. in the text means that those who were once fornicators and unrighteous "are to be saved.' The context to which he probably refers is D. 111:3 where the future tense of ébec0a occurs.
The text reads, '""Thus also the blood of Christ will deliver from death those who have believed." Both the wider and nearer contexts, however, need to be considered. Is it not possible that Justin applies exactly his type to the antitype? The blood of the passover lamb in Egypt delivered the Israelites at the hour when physical death threatened; so the blood of Christ will deliver believers at the hour of physical death. If the wider context be observed, there is no necessity to allow the future form étceta. to control the meaning of c@fovta. It should be observed also that cafovtar is linked closely to the following aorist participle, A«Bévte¢ (D. r11:4). As for the nearer context, Justin places the salvation of Gentile Christians in the framework of the incident of Rahab and the spies. In the New Testament, both Rahab's faith (Hebr.
I1:31) and her works (Jas. 2:25) are cited. Justin's use of the incident is different. Like the life of Rahab (cf. Josh. 2:1 ff.;
6:17, 23, 25), the immoral one (} méevn), the Gentile Christians once lived in immorality (of mda. méevor). Their salvation, however, is like to that of the Jewish spies sent by Joshua to spy out Jericho.
The spies were delivered by means of the symbol of the scarlet cord (td obpBorov tod xoxxtvov omaetiov): the Gentile Christians are being saved (caCovta) by the symbol of the blood of Christ.
In this connection, the text of I. 14:2 may be cited. It reads, "We who formerly were rejoicing in fornication ... now embrace self-control only ..."' The text compares favorably with D. 111: 4
1 The Testimony of Justin Martyr to Early Christianity (New York:
Anson D. F. Randolph and Company, 1889), pp. 163 f.
2 The place of faith in Justin's writings will be considered in proposition IV.
STOPACiU Paes DOLE LT.
I20
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
in three ways. First, both texts use the adverb médat to describe a former life in paganism. Second, both use a noun form from the verb zopvevew to describe the immorality which that former life involved. Third, both texts indicate that a change has occurred—the old life has given way to the new. D. 64:3 is another important text. The writer affirms that the ones who are being saved (of cwCéyevor) of the Jewish nation, "are being saved through This One" and "are in the portion of This One."
There is nothing future about the text. Like D. 111:4, the verb oWCew occurs in the present tense. In both texts, the verb is probably present in meaning.
The outstanding passage in Justin's works dealing with redemption through the cross is D. 94-95. The writer compares the serpent on the "'sign''} onetov (Num. 21:8-9) with Christ on the cross
(cf. John 3:14-15; Gal. 3:13).2 J. Riviere thinks that the newness in Justin's doctrine of Christ's death is to be found in a penal expiation theory, and that D. 95 is the most formal passage in Justin on this issue. Archambault assumes that D. 95 contains in a new and precise form the ideas which the letter to the Hebrews expresses in germ form.* In its context, the passage answers the Jewish accusation that Christ was crucified as an enemy of God, "'cursed by him'"' (D. 93:4), while it sets the scene for the prolonged exegesis of Psalm 22 (D. 97-106). The following points show the main ideas in Justin's exegesis in D. 94-96.
(a) A definite connection exists between the death of Christ and both the work of the Devil which occasioned Adam's transgression and the various evil practices of men (D. 94:2).
| (b) Every nation is under a curse for failure to keep the law, both Jews, and—to a greater degree—Gentiles (D. 95:1).
(c) The work of Christ through the cross, on the one hand, destroys the work of the Devil, and, on the other hand, bestows salvation on those who believe, a salvation from their evil deeds of many kinds (D. 94:2).
1 Evidently Justin views the pole on which the serpent was placed as cruciform. On the other hand, oynuciov is the word used in the LXX.
» The text is another indication of Justin's use of the Fourth Gospel (cf. I. 61:3-5). He also seems to have known Galatians.
His argument includes the same two texts from Deut. (27:26; 21:23) which Paul employs in Gal. 3: 10, 13.
° Le dogme de la Rédemption (Paris: Librairie Victor'Lecoffre, 1905), p. 115.
4 Op. cit., 2, 103 f., note 2.
PROPOSITION III
I21I (d) The righteous character of God appears in both type and antitype. That is, the God who commanded his people through Moses not to make any graven image at any time and yet who commanded this same Moses to make a brass serpent and put it on a standard at a given time, is the same righteous God who pronounced every one cursed who hangs on a tree, and yet who caused his Christ at a given time to suffer on a tree and take upon himself there the curses of all men (D. 95:2-3; 96:1).
(e) The work of Christ on the cross was followed by his resurrection (D. 95:2).
It can hardly be doubted that some idea of substitution is present in the passage.t On the whole, Justin's argument is quite intelligible though Goodenough feels it could have been more complete.? With this text, Riviere compares other texts in Justin's works where he presents Christ as Redeemer because he defends us against demons (D. 30:3; 41:1; 45:4), saves men through his passion (D. 74:3), regenerates men through his cross (D. 138:2) at the price of his blood (D. 134:5).8 And, to these references, one may add the repeated use which the Apologist makes of typology in Old Testament passages referring to animal sacrifices
(e.g. the passover lamb, D. 40:1-3; 111:3, the two goats, D. 40: 4-5; I11:1) and his frequent appeal to the Messianic texts that stress sacrifice (e.g. Isav 52113-53712 in) 1.50:2-113 5121-55 D113 22-7;
Ageaono7?
2 i r4 oer71
-ntetral., "andy Psalm (22 ing. 697-106), As for the resurrection of Christ, Justin says that it is prophesied in the Old Testament just as his death was prophesied. The references show that while, on the one hand, his resurrection is connected with his death, on the other hand, it is intimately linked with his ascension (cf., e.g. I. 42:4; 46:5; D. 85:1, 2; 32:3). As with Jesus' death, so with his resurrection, the evidential stress is strong.
In one sense, however, the resurrection of Jesus holds for Justin an important redemptive value. That value lies in the day in which it occurred. In concluding his description of the weekly worship service of Christians (I. 67), Justin observes that the worship occurs on Sunday for (éme13y) two reasons; it is the day in which 1 Cf. J. Riviére, op. cit., p. 115. Cf. also A. Lukyn Williams, Justin Martyr, the Dialogue with Trypho (London: S. P. C. K., 1930), p. 201, note one,
"J. believed in a kind of vicarious atonement."'
2 Op. cit, p. 260.
Saya Riviere op) cit, p. 114-
I22
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
God made the world, and the day in which 'Jesus Christ our Savior" arose from the dead (I. 67:8). The writer's labored description of the name Sunday (7 tod AAtov Acyouévyn Huéoa in I.
67:3 and ¥ 8& rod HAlov qugew in I. 67:8) has apparently a dual purpose. First, in avoiding the technical description ) xveraxn fuéoa (cf. Rev. 1:10), Justin avoids a term which the pagan world would have found obscure or misleading.1 Second, by the use of the participle Acyouévy (I. 67:3), he avoids the possible misconception that Christians worship the sun.? But beyond the mere description of the day, a redemptive note is sounded by associating the rising of Jesus Christ from the dead with the activity of God on the first day of creation (Gen. 1:1-5). The significance of the day lies in these two events; it is the day in which God made the world and the day in which Christ arose from the dead. By connecting the resurrection of Jesus to the work of creation, Justin singles out the importance of the Easter event.
Essentially he says that as creation reflects the work of God (through his Logos), so the resurrection is the work of Jesus Christ.
The contrast which Justin's idea forms to New Testament theology on this point becomes clear by an examination of the terms éyeipeww and dvactyva. and their congeners.
First, éyetecww in reference to Christ's resurrection is common in the New Testament (over thirty references), rare in Justin's works (only in D. 108:2 though aveyetpety occurs in I. 31:7; D. 106:1). In the New Testament, aside from two references in John (2:19, 20), all of the texts show or imply that God is the subject of the action, whether the verb is active or passive in voice. In this way, the New Testament presents the resurrection of Jesus as God's special work through which he becomes known.? Second, the classical term d&vaotivar
1 Cf. T. G. Jalland, 'Justin Martyr and the President of the Eucharist,"
Texte und Untersuchungen (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962), Band 8o, 83-85. Jalland thinks that the technical term is avoided here just as the technical term érxioxorog is avoided in this same chapter (I. 67:6) by the use of the innocuous meoeotm¢. Purves, op. cit., pp. 261 ff., much earlier, expressed serious doubts as to this explanation for meosotd¢ since Justin makes free use of technical terms such as ''deacons"' and ''regeneration."'
2 Thus Otto, op. cit., vol. I, part I, 184b says, Itaque Iustinus vocem Aeyouévny [sic!] addit, omnem ut superstitionis suspicionem evitet.
* Thus A. Oepke in TWNT, II, article on éyeteu, tyepotc, seeyetow, yenyopém (ayeurvéw), 334 (cf. also I, 371). Oepke observes the exceptions to this general sense in John 2:19, 21 [sic! for 20], 10:17, 18, as the first expression of the idea of Jesus' spontaneous resurrection. Apart from the fact that in John 10:17, 18, a different verb is used (i.e. AaBeiv), Oepke fails to note
PROPOSITION III
is frequent in Justin's writings, infrequent in the New Testament except for Luke, the "'classical" writer of literary Koine.) Third, the New Testament emphasis, whether in éyetoew or évactyvat falls on the activity or power of God. In Justin's writings, the almost exclusive use of d&vaotyvor instead of éyetoew, and the fact that Jesus is almost always the subject of the action of the verb (i.e.
"He arose''), points to what Oepke describes as der Gedanke der selbsttdtigen Auferstehung Jesu.2 The question still remains as to the real meaning of the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Justin views the day not only as the first but also as the eighth day (D. 41:4). The Jewish rite of circumcision took place on the eighth day (cf. Gen. 17:12). This, says Justin, is the type of the true Christian circumcision, a circumcision by which Jesus Christ who arose on the first day after the sabbath (= the eighth day), removes deceit and evil from Christians. Therefore, he affirms, the eighth day possessed a wvotyerov which the seventh day did not have (D. 24:1). The meaning of the eighth day is further observed in the salvation of the eight persons through the flood (D. 138: 1-2).
2. According to the writer of Ev. Ver. In Ev. Ver., the death and "resurrection"? of Jesus point to the truth of the Father's nature. In sharp contrast to Justin's writings, Ev. Ver. is concerned neither with the New Testament historical account of the cross and the resurrection nor with the background of these events in the Old Testament, but with the underlying meaning which the "'events" contain. Ev. Ver. reveals a docetic element in relation to both of these ''events."" The cross means the patience of Jesus which unfolds the gnosis of the Father: the "'resurrection'"' of Jesus connotes the incorruptibility which he assumes and in which the Gnostics share. From the very opening page of Ev. Ver., one perceives that this is a "gospel," or a "'salvation'' document, that, even granted the presence of "Johannine theology' in John 2:19-20,
John shows in the same context (John 2:22 éte obv nyépby éx vexodv) that he is in agreement with the general Synoptic and New Testament use of éystpew with reference to Jesus' resurrection.
1 In Acts generally, the subject of the verb is God (cf. Acts 2:24, 32; 13:33-34; 17:31). Elsewhere the verb is either neutral
(cf. Mark 9:10, xd éx vexo@yv avactivat) or has Jesus for its subject (cf. Mark 9:9, 31; 10:34;
Luke 18:33; 24:7; John 20:9; Acts 10:41; 17:3; 1 Thess. 4:14).
2S VANE Li seur 8 The reason for the quotation marks will be apparent later. Ev. Ver. teaches no bodily resurrection of Jesus. It contains only a passing reference to what may be termed his ''metaphysical resurrection."
I24
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
presenting the work of Jesus as its central feature. The opening sentence of the document apparently does not end until 17:4
(with the prepositional phrase newgy).t In a significant way, Ev. Ver. begins where the gospels of Matthew (cf. 1:21) and Luke
(cf. 1:31; 2:11) begin—with the announcement of the "'saving"' work of Jesus. He is called Savior (mewTHp, 16:38) for he was to carry out the work of redeeming (amtcwte, 16:39) those who were ignorant of the Father. Like the canonical gospels, Ev. Ver. unfolds the ''act'' of redemption through the death of Jesus. The writer evidences no polemical trait, no desire to correct the gospel tradition. He does intend, however, to give a more profound interpretation of the gospel.2 Whatever the act of redemption will mean for the Savior, the writer senses that the work of the Savior will be oriented towards the particular problem of man's ignorance of the Father (16:39-17:1). a. The first mention of the sufferings and death of Jesus in Ev. Ver. is found on Plate 18. The movement of the passage shows that through the compassions of the Father the gospel is manifested to the complete ones, i.e. the elect (18:11-15), that Jesus Christ, the agent of the gospel, teaches men the way of truth (18:15-21), and, that he is crucified for doing so (18:21-24). The central clause is avagTy avrye,® "He was nailed to [a piece of] wood"
(18:24). Error is said to have caused his death, the same Error that imprisoned men in a material existence (17:34-36). The reason why Error has Jesus crucified is because he taught men the way of Truth (18:19-21). The text suggests the basic situation in Jesus' life, according to the canonical gospels. That is, the Jewish authorities did not like what Jesus taught and, accordingly, determined to destroy him (Mark 12:12; Matt. 21:45 f., Luke 20:19; John ro:
30 f.). Doubtless the writer views the cross as historical, historical, however, to others. Its historicity is not important to him. Thus, he gives no names of persons or places relating to Jesus' crucifixion, affirming only that Christ achieves something by his crucifixion.
According to 18:24-26, when nailed to wood, he became a fruit 1 Only Schenke, op. cit., p. 33, among the main translators of Ev. Ver. punctuates the sentence differently.
2 Cf. A. Guillaumont in his review of the published text of Ev. Ver. in
RAR, 153 (1958), 251.
° The clause (cf. also 20:25) contains the idiomatic passive in Coptic where the subject is unexpressed. Cf. W.C. Till, Koptische Grammatik (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1955), pp. 165 f., § 326.*
PROPOSITION III
of the Father's gnosis. The text contrasts with Irenaeus' description of the Valentinian pleroma. In that pleroma, Jesus is said to be the perfect fruit! a being skilfully blended of great beauty extracted from all the Aeons. The picture in Ev. Ver. is quite different.
The writer says that Jesus is a fruit of the tree, i.e. the cross.
Since fruit is intended to be eaten, men eat the fruit of the cross.
The meaning apparently is as follows:
(1) They share in the gnosis of the Father (= the Gnostics eat the fruit of the tree). The background is probably the imagery of John 12:24 and Rev. 22:2. Taken together, these two Biblical references point to the source of fruit, ie. the tree of crucifixion
(John) and to its unfailing supply (Rev., "every month'). The writer of Ev. Ver. is saying a similar thing, for the fruit ''did not perish because they ate it"
(18:26-27). Therefore, men share in the Father's gnosis through the cross.
(2) They experience joy in the discovery of the Father's gnosis.
It is significant that, according to the very first sentence of Ev.
Ver. (16:31-17:4), joy appears as the hallmark of the discovery of the gospel. Just what "the discovery" (mosne) is, the writer reveals in a third part of the fruit of the cross.
(3) They share in God himself. '""They were found in him and he was found in them" (18:29-31). One can hardly miss the suggestion of John 14:23. Basically the "discovery" contains nothing new. That the elect are in the Father and the Father in them has always been true, according to Ev. Ver. The fact, however, becomes a "'discovery" through the crucifixion of Jesus. Now men discover their true status. The death of Jesus brings to light the place that men already occupy—in the Father. The text gives a certain depth to the meaning of the cross, but at the same time, it subtracts from the newness of the Divine act. Justin's writings seriously reduce the meaning of the cross by stressing the minutiae of detail to be found in predictions and types. Ev. Ver. reduces the meaning of the cross by making it the manifestation of what is already true, much like the unveiling of a work of art (the work has already been completed before it is unveiled). With the death of Jesus, men discover that they really are in the Father and the Father in them. The veil of ignorance is removed and the gnosis of the Father becomes manifest.
1 Adv. H., 1. 2:6, téderov xapndv or perfectum fructum, Harvey, op. cit., I, 23.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
b. A second indication of the passion of Jesus is found in 20:
3-14. Jesus is described as "the one who would be sacrificed,"
HCEPQQWAY (20:5-6). The text reflects the imagery of Rev. 5:6
(also 5:12; 13:8).1 Once again, the writer suggests that there is historical significance to the work of Jesus. He observes that neither the Father nor his chosen ones were known—until the cross
(20:6-9).
Schenke thinks that 19:34-20:3 and 20:3-9 contain two different ideas which the writer fails to resolve, i.e. the book becomes manifest during the preaching of Jesus, and the book does not become manifest wntzl the death of Jesus," It is doubtful, however, if the problem exists. The difference between the two sections is that of the inner (19:34-20:3) v.s. the outer (20:3-9) manifestation of the living book. The imagery of Rev. 5 again appears.® During the ministry of Jesus there were faint intimations of the purpose of God: Thus "'the living book of the ones who live did become manifest'' in the hearts of the little ones (19:34-36).
The full manifestation of the book, however, is indicated only in 20:8-9 by the contrary to fact or unreal condition, "if that book had not come into the midst."4 So, with the death of Jesus, God's purpose becomes clear to the world at large. In this sense, the writer's idea of the book approximates the meaning of the "'book"' in Revelation 5, concerning which R. H. Charles writes, "'The roll contains the divine decrees and the destinies of the world. It deals with the things & ywéAAer yevéobar."? > The difference lies in the fact that the book, in Ev. Ver., concerns the elect; in Revelation 5, it concerns the world. In the case of either book, however, the work of Jesus is indispensable. No one can take the book except Jesus alone (20:3-6, cf. Rev. 5:3-5). This is why (ethe mees), the writer says, that Jesus, the merciful and faithful one, showed himself patient by accepting the sufferings, so that he might take (panes) that book, since he knows that his death is life for many (20:10-14).
1 According to the Bohairic text of G. Horner's, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, 1V (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905),
474, Rev. 5:6 contains the same descriptive word as Ev. Vey. The Bohairic reads eovgsHh eqoos epaty eySeASwd.
2 Op. cit., p. 36, note Ia, 3 Cf. Rev. 5:1 BiBAtov yeypauugvov Zombev xal SmtoOev.
4 Till, Koptische Grammatik, p. 222, cites a similar construction in John 15:22, i.e. in the Coptic version.
° A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St.
John (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920), I, 138.
PROPOSITION III
The writer's knowledge of the New Testament is seen in his description of Jesus as 'merciful and faithful" (cf. Hebr. 2:17), and, as patient in suffering (cf. Hebr. 12:2-3). He endures in order to fulfill a double goal 1—to take the book (= to die, cf. 20:5-6%, 12-13), and to give life to many (20:13-14). c. A third indication of the meaning of the death of Jesus is present in the parable of the deed of the deceased householder
(20:14-20). The parable describes truth as the manifestation of the Divine hiddenness and is to be rendered as follows:
"Just as in the case of an unopened deed, the substance of the deceased householder remains hidden, so also the All continued to remain hidden while the Father of the All was [0] invisible?
This one [i.e. the Father] is completely unique in himself from whom every path [waesT i.e. to gnosis] comes."
The parable concerns a deed (ArA@HKH, 20:15) and is closely connected with the preceding (19:34-20:14) and following (20:201 It seems likely that OANT- (= WANT=) has the idea of purpose, representing possibly a fva or émw¢ in the lost Greek original. Admittedly, most translations understand QANT= in a temporal sense, i.e. ,,until'' (thus
Grobel, op. cit., p. 62; Isenberg, op. cit., p. 148). Likewise Till, ZNTW, 50 (1959), 171, Schenke, op. cit., p. 36, and the German translation in the Ev.
Ver. text, p. 66, render by bis, while the French translation of the same text, p. 11, has jusqu'a. The idea of purpose, however, may occasionally be present in OANTthough it is less frequent. G. Steindorff, Lehvbuch dey Koptischen
Grammatik (Chicago: University Press, 1951), p. 175, § 373, renders WANTE by bis or bis dass, while J. M. Plumley, An Introductory Coptic Grammar
(London: Home & van Thal, 1948), p. 103, § 223, mentions no other sense than '"'until.'' But for the sense of purpose, cf. W. Till, Koptische Grammatik, pp. 158 f., § 312, the examples cited by Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, p. 573a, and the clear example found in the Bohairic version of Gal. 1: 4 (wy ATEYNAOMEN
CDOA= Sra 866rntat Aus). An idea of purpose for Ev. Ver. 20:12 is supported by the context of the passage which speaks of the determinative knowledge of Jesus (cf. the form tC ATNE in 20:13).
2 The causal conjunction €MsAH (20:13) introduces the clause containing the words T1IMKOT NTOOTY, "his death.' The conjunction suggests that the words ''to take the book'' mean "'to die.'' The same connection is evident in 20:5-6in the use of the conjunctive tense NHCEOA OWA which follows immediately the future AMETNACITY (20:5). Cf. Plumley, op. cit., pp. 104 f,
§ 226, and W. Till, Koptische Grammatik, p. 163 § 322* on the use of the conjunctive after the future.
~ 3 The first sentence closes with the borrowed Greek word NAQOPATOC in 20:20. Cf. Till, ZNT W, 50 (1959), p. 171.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
21:2) context. The deed is the living book, a book previously known to the Father which Jesus alone by his suffering and death takes and makes manifest. The clause which describes the living book (20:8-9, "'if that book had not come into the midst"') finds its parallel in 20:15-16, 'a deed not yet opened." Despite Grobel's claim that the parable is obscure,! the meaning seems fairly clear.
The four parts to the parable and the application of each part may be set forth as follows:
Parable Application 1. A deed remains unopened 1. The Father is invisible (20: 19-
(20:15-16, CAMATOV
HN for 20, O is the qual. of espe).
EATIATOTOVHIM).
2. Thus, the inheritance (Owrcsa) 2. Thus, the All remained hidden remains hidden (20: 16-17).
(20: 18-19).
3. The householder dies (20:17).
3. Jesus dies (implied, but cf.
20:13-14).
4. The deed is opened and the 4. The Father and his inheritance inheritance becomes manifest become manifest (implied, but (implied). cf. 20:6-9, 25-27).
In brief, the passage affirms that, by his death, Jesus manifests the hiddenness both of the Father and of the All (cf. a&épato¢g in Col. 1:15 and the parallel idea found in John 1:18). The mediatorial work of Jesus is evident. If by "'path" the writer means "'path to gnosis" as Till has suggested," then the redemptive work of Jesus is seen to be the work of bringing gnosis (cf. 16:37-17:1). d. A fourth section dealing with Jesus' redemptive death contains the suggestive emphasis on the book, the Father's testamentary will, and the cross (20:22-28). The section is unique in that it contains the sole text in Ev. Ver. that uses the word "'cross" ¢efoc,
20:27). The prepositional phrase, ethe neers (20:22-23), "therefore,' shows how closely the passage is joined to the preceding context (cf. 20:10 for the same phrase). The four, first perfect verbs all have rH¢ "Jesus" (20:24) for their subject, and all have the same "event" in view—the death of Jesus. That is, his death was the occasion when he became manifest (ayovang ahad,
20:23), when he donned (aysaXeg, 20:24) the book, when he was nailed to a tree (Avag7Tgy avwe, 20:25), and when he publicly
1 Op. cit., p. 63, note T10.
2 ZNTW, 50 (1959), 171.
PROPOSITION III
I29 placarded the Father's testamentary will (aqrwoe AMAIATAT AA ahbad Hre mswt, 20:25-27). The importance of this passage is evident both by reason of its own detail and the writer's doxology that follows it (20:27-28).
Exegesis of the passage (1) ayorang abad, "He became manifest." The original Greek of the term was probably épavepasOy. Thus the clause reflects
Johannine (e.g.
1 John 1:2; 3:5, 8;4:9) and Pauline (e.g. 2 Cor.
AvIO, II; Col. 3:43:r Tim: 9226 Titsi1:3)rideassIn'*alleofithese references, the Bohairic and Sahidic versions translate the Greek verb gavepotv by omwng ehod.t The same Coptic verb is used in Hebr. 9:26 and 1 Pet. 1:20 where gavepotyv occurs in connection with the cross.
(2) ayoadey ArIxWAE ETAAED, "He clothed himself with that book," or '""He donned that book."' This is what the text reads. The writer evidently combines here his unique ideas of the "incarnation" and death of Jesus. Jesus, he says, does not identify himself with all humanity but only with his "book." 3
These chosen ones are his body and thus, they go to the cross with him. The significance of the crucifixion lies in the fact that when it occurs the fellowship becomes a definite entity, for ""He clothed himself with that book."
(3) avagTy ave, "He was nailed to wood" (cf. 18:24 and the discussion on p. 124).
(4) aytTwse MrasaTataa abad NHte msiwt, "He publicly proclaimed the Father's testamentary will (on the cross"') (20:25-27), i.e. by nailing it to the cross. As Grobel observes, Col. 2:14 has
1 Cf. G. Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905), and The Coptic Version of the New
Testament in the Southern Dialect (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911).
2 Among the translators, Schenke alone (op. cit., p. 37) renders the text as it is, i.e. Ey bekleidete sich mit jenem Buche. Grobel, op. cit., p. 66, note
114, emends the text to read aysoaAmtegy, "He opened (that book).'"' The notes critiques of the Ev. Ver. text, p. 53, suggest that the Coptic translator misunderstood the sense of the Greek verb déva\auBdver, which can mean
"to clothe" but also, "'to take up, take to one's self.'' Till, Ovientaha, N.S.,
27 (1958), 274, appears to defend the Coptic text but in his translation, ZNTW, 50 (1959), 171, renders simply nahm das Buch an sich.
3 Justin, to the contrary, holds that the incarnation of Jesus was in behalf of the entire human race (I. 63:10), and that every race of men partakes (ueréoye) of Christ (I. 46:2).
Suppl. to Novum Test., XXV
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
undoubtedly inspired the Ev. Ver. text.1 In both passages something is nailed to the cross; in the Colossian text, "the bond... with its legal demands" (RSV), in Ev. Ver., "the testamentary will of the Father.''? The contrast of the two texts, however, is very marked. In Colossians, the "handwriting" is against man. It is a bond of obligation incurred through violation of the Divine will, which, by nailing it to his cross, Christ has removed from man once and for all.? In Ev. Ver., the aratatwa belongs to the Father and it is in behalf of man. Far from being a bond of obligation, it is a bond of affiliation, binding the believers to Jesus.
The progression of thought through the passage and its context (19:
34-20:27) (1) The appearance of the living book in the hearts of believers, during the ministry of Jesus, was an indication of God's purpose
(19:34-20:1). This purpose was eternal since the book "stands written" (qual. eTcH9 in 19:36) in the mind and thought of the Father (19:36-20:1).
(2) Jesus takes the book and thereby the Divine purpose becomes manifest in a decisive way, especially its elective aspect. Jesus takes "'the living book"' not the world.
(3) The living book is the deed (asaoHK#) of inheritance (20: 1420). The contents of the deed are unknown until the householder dies. Just so, the contents of the living book are known only upon the death of Jesus. The ''contents" are basically the Father's hiddenness, the identity of the elect, and their relationship to the Father through gnosis. The way of gnosis comes from, the Father alone.
(4) Jesus wore the book as he was nailed to the cross.* The description reinforces the remark made previously. The writer of Ev. Ver. is not concerned with the historicity of the cross but with its meaning. The body nailed to the cross, he says, was the body of believers, the living book of the living ones. Divine revelation is anthropocentric. It does not connote the acts of God in the world in behalf of men, but the manifestation of the living fellow1 Op. cit., p. 67, note 116.
2 While the text of Ev. Ver. does not say that the arATATAA was nailed to the cross, it is indicated from the context.
® Such is the force of the perfect tense joxev in Col. 2:14.
4 A suggestion of 1 Pet. 2:24.
PROPOSITION III
I31 ship of Gnostics and the intimate relationship they enjoy with Jesus.
In an essential, metaphysical, sense, the fellowship is fully identified with Jesus in his death.
(5) The living book is the aratTatwa of the Father. The borrowed Greek word Sidtwyyx has two main ideas, "edict" and '"'testamentary will." The sense of "'edict'"' occurs once in the New
Testament (Hebr. 11:23), once in the Ignatian letters,! twice in the fragments of the Apology of Melito,2 and a number of times in the papyri.* The second meaning of Sictaypa, ie. "testamentary will" is not found in the New Testament nor in any extant early
Christian writings, but it does occur in the papyri. Two examples may be cited to show this meaning. The first, dated in A.D. 1109, refers to the status of the 'testamentary will" in the case of army draftees during the period of their military service. The second,® dated A.D. 83, refers to the '"'testamentary will' which a widow has received from her deceased husband. In the Ev. Ver. text
(20:26), the meaning of asatatwa is probably "testamentary will" though Schenke® and Isenberg' decide for ''edict."" The writer evidently means that on thecross, Jesus publicly placards (aytTwse... abad) the testamentary will of the Father.' The contents of the will are the Gnostics themselves. That is, the Father wills over to the Son the chosen ones who, through the manifestation of the Son in his death, acquire gnosis of the Father, of themselves, and of the meaning of their relationship to the Father through Jesus.®
1UTr. 7:1 td dvatkypata +. &nmootdAwv. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part II, vol. II, sect. 1, p. 169, renders the word as "'ordinances,"' and comments, "The reference is doubtless to the institution of episcopacy" ibid.).
= heats Hist. Eccl., 1V. 26:5-6 (= an "edict" against Christians).
3 Cf. Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., p.
155a. Cf. also the close linguistic parallel to Ev. Ver. listed by E. Kiessling, Sammelbuch griechischen Urkunden aus Agypten (Wiesbaden: Selbstverlag in Kommission bei O. Harrassowitz,
1955), V, 66, no. 7622, lines 9-10, t& dvtlypapa tovtov Lov tod Siataey~atoc Snuocte meodtaE« "I posted publicly the copies of this edict of mine."
4 Cf. the text in Aegyptische Urkunden aus den koenighchen Museen zu Berlin, griechische Urkunden (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1895),
I, 156, lines 20-28.
5 Cf. the text in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, X (Oxford: University Press, I9Q14), 226, no. 1282, line 27.
SEO Pe Gti Pasi 7 Op. cit., p. 149.
8 The translations in the published text of Ev. Ver. Verfiigung, disposition, and '"'testamentary disposition,"' all show this basic meaning.
9 Cf. the expression in John 17:6, od¢ %wxd¢ wou éx tod xdcpyov (cf. also vss. 7, 8,9. 11, 12, and John 18:9).
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
e. A fifth section on the death and "resurrection" of Jesus and of the participation of the gnostic fellowship therein, occurs in 20:28-21:2. A spontaneous doxology (20:27-28) breaks into the middle of the writer's treatment of the cross and "'resurrection,"' immediately following which the writer resumes his theme of the death of Jesus (20:28-29).
Exegesis of the passage (1) The death is voluntary on Jesus' part (cf. John 10:17 f.), for, 'He draws himself downward to death'
(20:28-29). The curious thing is that, according to the writer, as Jesus dies he is clothed with eternal life (20:29-30).! The writer is acquainted with Phil. 2:5 ff. Jesus is év pope} Ocotd, and thus is clothed with eternal life. But he assumed popgy dotAov and thus "experienced"' death. Yet he never ceases to possess Divine life.
(2) The one reference in Ev. Ver. to Jesus' "resurrection'' occurs in 20:30-34. Jesus strips himself of the rags of corruption and puts on incorruptibility. By "rags of corruption," the writer undoubtedly means the earthly, material flesh of Jesus." It is this earthly life in the flesh which conceals his true identity.
With his death, however, his true nature comes to light. The significance of his life in the flesh lies in the fact that it temporarily concealed his true morphe, i.e. his Divine nature. As in Plato, the cidoc or idéa is the true, heavenly, eternal reality,® so in Ev. Ver. the true reality is the heavenly flesh and blood of Jesus. In saying that Jesus divests himself of corruption and dons incorruption, the writer may show the influence of Col. 3:9-10.4 If so, he has completely transformed the passage. The incorruptibility which Jesus assumes is his "'resurrection'' flesh, '"which no one has the power to take from him" (20:33-34),° and "whose progress no one hindered® because it is incorruptibility " (31:5-8).
1 The A, qual. form To "clothed" gives the sense of state or condition much like the Greek perfect tense.
2 Cf. K. Grobel, op. cit., p. 69, note 123.
8 Cf. Norman Gulley, op. cit., pp. 30-31, 64-67, 120 ff.; David Ross, Plaio's Theory of Ideas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), pp. 11-21; the Phaedo, Phaedrus, and the Republic (especially the "cave parable" in 514
A ff.) among Plato's works.
* dmexdvoduevor tov madrardy d&vOpwmov...xal gvdvocuevor tov véov Tov A&vaKaLvOvLEVOY.
5 Cf. John 10:17-18.
§ Cf. John 20:19, 26.
PROPOSITION III
(3) The lot of the believers lies in his death and ''resurrection"
(20:34-21:2). Jesus comes to the Gnostics in the midst of their existence in Forgetting, ie. in the world with all of its change and lack of meaning.' These chosen ones are described as being naked (20:37)? due to Forgetting. The metaphor of nakedness means the desperate plight of men apart from the gnosis of the Father. The gospel of Thomas presents a different idea. It makes nakedness to mean physical death at which time the body of flesh is discarded for a heavenly body.' B. Gartner comments, "According to a common Gnostic idea the soul of man is naked after death, and must tread the difficult path up to the heavenly world in constant exposure to the attacks of the evil powers. Only those who possess knowledge of the watchword are able to reach the goal.''* Contrariwise, Ev. Ver. presents the potential chosen ones as "naked" in this life due to Forgetting. The text implies that as Jesus comes to them through his death and resurrection, they are clothed—presumably with the clothing of incorruptibility such as Jesus wears. At any rate, Jesus is said to become to them their gnosis (20:38), their completeness (20:39), and their teacher, instructing them in the basic meaning of his death and resurrection
(20:39-21:2).
Summary and Comparison Justin views the cross and resurrection of Jesus as the focal point of God's redemptive plan seen in the history of his chosen people Israel. The apodictic feature is especially strong. Justin is intent on proving—in detail—the truth of the ancient prophecies.
Nevertheless, he does not lose sight of the redemptive significance of the cross. Christ did effect redemption when he died and arose.
To be sure, there is a strong moralistic emphasis in Justin's writings.
Moreover, salvation is frequently linked by him to the future.
Yet, at the same time, Justin can say and does say that men experience here and now the redemption which Christ purchased.
To deny this fact would mean to deny the writer's avowed belief 1 Till, ZNTW, 50 (1959), 172, thinks that the empty spaces of terror mean the material world.
2 The verb eT hry is qual. (cf. the infin. form in 20:30).
8 Cf. Logion 21. The little children strip themselves and give the field back to its owners (i.e. by death they return the world to rulers).
4 The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), p. 185.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
in the effectiveness of renewal (I. 61:1) or regeneration (I. 61: 3-4) through Christ, or his faith in the reality of the Christian fellowship including the sacraments.
The death of Jesus is likewise important for the writer of Ev. Ver. ; the '"'resurrection"' is only briefly intimated. The writer's primary concern is with the meaning—not the event. He insists that the fruit of the cross is joy in the gnosis of the Father (= the share of the Gnostics in God himself). It is at the cross that the testamentary will (= the Gnostics) of God becomes manifest in Jesus. The Gnostics are the body of Jesus which Jesus dons and carries to the cross with him. The "'resurrection'' of Jesus means that he puts on incorruptibility with which he also clothes the Gnostics. The pivotal clause in Ev. Ver., "He clothed himself with that book"
(20:24-25) may be compared to Justin's Apology I. 32:8. In discussing the Messianic passage in Gen. 49:11 (mAvv@v Thy otoAhy adtod Ev atuate otapvAys),! Justin observes that the men who believe in Christ, i.e. those in whom the seed from God (= the Logos) dwells, are the ones who constitute the garment of Christ. In D. 54:1, referring to the same text, Justin says, ""The Holy Spirit calls his garment those who have received forgiveness of sins through him, among whom he is always present in power." Justin, as well as the writer of Ev. Ver., is referring to the passion of Jesus. But a sharp difference from Ev. Ver. needs to be noticed. Justin's approach to Christ's passion is typological; the approach of the writer of Ev. Ver. is metaphysical. For Justin, the incarnation and passion of Jesus are unique events, each of which stands by itself. According to the writer of Ev. Ver.
(cf. 20:24-25), however, the incarnation /and passion of Jesus tend to blend and coalesce making it difficult to distinguish between them in any clear way.
PROPOSITION IV
The writings of Justin and Ev. Ver. stress the circumstance that man must appropriate truth in order for truth to have meaning.
In this respect, the comparisons and contrasts between the two writers may be seen in four areas—man's innate capacity, the problem of evil, Divine power, and the means of appropriation.
A. Man's innate capacity 1. According to Justin. Justin affirms that man's body is made
* In I. 32:8, Justin quotes the LXX loosely, in D. 52-2 and 54:1 exactly.
PROPOSITION IV
r35 by God from the ground. He says that the plural verb rouhowpev "Let us make..." (Gen. 1:26), does not mean that God addressed angels or earthly elements but that he addressed a being distinct from him in number and possessed of the Logos (D. 62:2-4).
Justin does not present a full trinitarian interpretation of the passage but he has taken a definite step in that direction. Along with his body, man is said to have a Wuyy. Justin does not explain the origin of the soul precisely though he does say that it is created wholly apart from its respective body (D. 5:4).2 Goodenough thinks that Justin's belief constitutes a rejection of the Aristotelian view which makes the soul capard¢ tt, i.e. an attribute of the body.'
In I. 18, the Apologist appeals to Greek mythology, to popular belief, as well as to philosophers, in order to strengthen his argument in favor of the idea of consciousness after death. The souls of men, he says, are év aioOjoe, i.e. they have the power of sensation.
Contrariwise, D. 6:2 suggests that life may be withdrawn from the soul and that the soul may return to its place of origin. Justin's meaning lacks clarity. Is the "withdrawal" only a hypothetical possibility ? From whence did the soul come? Justin does affirm that the soul is the seat of personality, and desire (D. 2:4), and of hope (D. 44:4). It may be perceptive and sound (I. 21:5), or full of ignorance (I. 12:11) and deceit (D. 14:2), yet it can be kindled with love for the prophets and friends of Christ (D. 8:1), and, through the suffering of Christ (D. 41:1), it can be made pure
(Darar2):
In addition to man's body and soul, God, says Justin, has put within each man a Divine particle, the seed of the Logos (= a higher voids) which imparts to man both life and power. Neither as a principle of Divine life nor as a higher mind is the Logos native to the Wvyy. The Logos is not the seat of man's personality.* Man, however, shares in the Logos. His soul lives because it partakes
(uetarauBaverv) or shares (uetéyew) in life. Everything depends on God's will to give life to the ~uyh. Thus man's soul may rise to comprehend Divine things because it shares actively in the power
1 Cf. R. McL. Wilson, 'The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen. 1:26,"
Texte und Untersuchungen, 63 (1957), 437:
2 This assumes that the viewpoint of the old man becomes the viewpoint of Justin himself.
Cf. A. Puech, Les Apologistes Gvecs (Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, 1912), pp. 126-127.
SOP Ncite Pa2t4.
4 Cf. Goodenough, 2bid., p. 218.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
of the Logos. According to Goodenough, Justin implies that the presence of the Logos-seed in man is equivalent to the presence of the Logos himself. Goodenough remarks, "The higher mind of man is thus itself the Spermatic Logos of God. The inferiority of the human mind to the Logos is the inferiority of a part to the whole, not of derivative to its source.'' 1The "spermatic Logos" of Justin's writings has been the subject of numerous treatments.? Goodenough contends that the idea is to be linked to the Stoics via the dbvaunc dang Cw¢ of Philo. More correctly, however, A. L. Feder insists that the Apologist found the framework for the pre-existent
Logos-teaching, not in Greek or Alexandrian-Jewish background, but in the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures provided the springboard for the development of the doctrine in Justin's writings. Moreover,
A. Puech® and J. Lebreton* emphasize the basic difference in meaning that terms such as the spermatic Logos have in Justin's writings as over against Philo and/or the Stoic school. Lebreton asserts that in Justin, the terms constitute more the external polish beneath which one finds Justin's faith." Several other exceptions may be taken to Goodenough's general treatment of the subject. First, by tracing various parts of Justin's anthropology
1 Tbid.
2 Representative treatments of the last 100 years are; J. Donaldson, op. cit., II (1866), 218-226; M. von Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justins des
Miartyrers (Erlangen: A. Deichert, 1878), pp. 107-126; G. T. Purves, op. cit.
(1890), pp. 148-156; J. Riviére, S. Justin et les Apologistes du deuxiéme stécle (1907), pp. 196-207; A. Puech, Apologistes grecs du 2me siécle de notre éve
(Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, 1912), pp. 67, 126-131; E. R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr (1923), pp. 139-175; J. Lebreton, Histoive du
Dogme de La Trinité (Paris: G. Beauchesne, editeur, 1927-28), II, 430-439; H. A. Wolffson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers,
1 (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1956), 257-287.
3 Op. cit., pp. 221-224. More recently, B. Altaner, Patyology (Freiburg:
Herder, 1960), p. 125, has adopted the same view. Goodenough's emphasis is very curious. On the one hand (op. cit., p. 141), he equates the second God of the Dialogue with the pre-existent and incarnate Logos of the Apologies.
On the other hand, he connects the spermatic Logos—active among the ancient sages—with a Philonic and/or Stoic base. But in view of passages such as I. 63:10 and D. 56, the primary significance of the spermatic Logos who was in every man, is that he functions in every man who is open to his power. Cf. O. A. Piper, JR, 41 (1961), 167, note 52. Justin surely did not offer one source for the pre-incarnate Logos in I. 63:10; D. 56, and a different source for the term, "spermatic Logos."
STOPa Cit PPT 53ie:
5 Op. cit., pp. 315-318, with an appendix on the Adyog omepyatixdc.
8 Op. cit., II, 436-439.
7 Ibid., 439, note I.
PROPOSITION IV
ne 7, to Philo, serious differences from Philo must be duly recognized.
Justin held that God created man's body while Philo attributed its composition to lower powers.! Justin held to a personal Logos,
Philo to an impersonal Logos. Moreover, one finds that the teaching of bodily resurrection in Justin's writings contrasts with Philo's idea. Second, Goodenough gives undue emphasis to the idea of the Bactarxdg vovc.2 The term occurs only once in all of Justin's writings
(D. 4:2). It appears in a question of the old man, i.e. 'Is the soul a part of that royal mind itself?" In view of the context where, by means of the Socratic method, the stranger brings about a marked change in Justin's philosophical views, one can legitimately question whether the term BaotdAixdg votc eventually influenced the new outlook of the reborn Justin. Furthermore, in describing this
"regal mind" Goodenough's words do not agree precisely with the text. He claims Justin as asserting that a part of the Baorinds vovc¢ is in us'. The text of D. 4:2, however, presents not an assertion but a question, i.e. "Is the soul... apart ofthat regal mind itself?"
Third, Goodenough thinks that Justin names the higher, divine principle in man either Logos or pneuma.* As support for the term pneuma, he appeals to the phrase 7d Cwtixdv mvedua in D. 6:2.
But, in view of the fact that Justin uses the term pueuma nowhere else in this way, and, since in this context, pueuma is equated simply with Cw, the Divine attribute, it is best to avoid equating pneuma with logos.® The point is not unimportant. Since the Stoics used Adyos omepuatixds and mvedu« indiscriminately to describe the active element in universal matter,® Justin's consistent avoidance of prewma as a synonym for Logos is one indication of the difference between his theology and that of the Stoics. Thus, according to Justin, man is composed of body and soul, to which God has added the Adyog or higher vodc. "Men were made Aoytxot
[sic!] xa Oewentixot, and there is in the soul of every man the 1 The Loeb Classical Library, Philo, I, 166, 168, on Gen. 2:7. Goodenough
(op. cit., p. 221) recognizes the phenomenon but thinks that the agreement of the two writers outweighs their differences.
[iO DaCit ep aO2MO> Typ O2 hs. 208:
Selibvds, Pazuee 4 1bid., ps 204:
5 Cf. Archambault, op. cit., 1, 34 f., note 2, though the writer confuses the issue by stating that the meaning of pneuma in D. 6:2 is the breath of God, an idea ''very close to.
. the Stoics"' (ibid.).
8 Cf. Goodenough, op. cit., p. 161.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
ability to ally himself with this part.'"! The indication is that man is capable of appropriating God's truth. Man has freewill within, says Justin, and yet he faces metaphysical evil, both within and without.
2. According to Ev. Ver. The word pwxre "man" occurs in Ev. Ver. in 27:14 and 30:13 only. In addition, however, the word is found in the compound forms panont, "wise men" (19:26) and ANTpAN=
OHT, "wisdom" (31:17; 33:8-9). The writer's frequent reference to man, however, is expressed by the various pronouns of the third person, singular and plural, as well as by the verbal auxiliaries of the third person singular masculine and of the third person common plural. Occasionally the first person plural (cf. 25:19-22) and second person plural (cf. 32:38-39 and the general emphasis of plate 33, e.g. 33:8, 13, 17) appear. The latter fact supports the view that Ev. Ver. is a homily. The preacher (= the writer) addresses directly the congregation of believers. Thus, for an understanding of man in Ev. Ver., one must consider the variety of ways man is alluded to in pronouns and verbal auxiliaries.
In contrast to Justin's writings where one can examine the various constituent parts of the nature of an individual man, one understands in Ev. Ver. that men are divided into different representative types. a. First, there are the fulic men (31:4). They are strangers to Christ, unable to see him or to know him, due to the incomprehensible character of the flesh in which he came
(31:4-9).?
Quite clearly the writer attributes to the hulikot a mNacMA or "molded form." They also possess psychical qualities (cf. weraciKont in 34:19). Thus they are called cocboe (19:21) though the wisdom which they possess is purely their own, not God's (19:2I-23).
1 Goodenough, op. cit., p. 219.
* The borrowed Greek word td is feminine, and thus, the Coptic text prefixes the feminine article, ic. ov AH (= TOVAH). The notes critiques of the Ev. Ver. text (p. 57) suggest the emended reading NAOTAH, 'those belonging to hule'' (= of SAvxot) which is parallel to the phrase NATMHTE,
"those belonging to the middle'' (17:34-35). But the change of text in 31:4 is unnecessary. Each of the three verbs of 31: 1-4a has the third plural auxiliary which makes the meaning clear without emendation. The forms of the three verbs reveal the hopeless nature of these men. The two imperfects (NEvTOE!S,
31:1, NETNET ... EN, 31:2) show the continual dilemma which they face, while the negative perfect (HEATLOTCOTUNY, 31:3-4) accents decisively the underlying reason for their dilemma.
PROPOSITION IV
Moreover, they are said to tempt Christ and to hate him (19:23, 25-27). They are to be described, however, more by what they are not and what they lack than by what they are and have.
They are "empty" (19:25-26), deficient (21:15) in gnosis of Christ (31:3-4) and the Father (16:39-17:1). As they remain in this condition to the end, they maintain only the shell of a molded form possessed by Forgetting (21:35-36). The writer describes them as "contemptible ones" (sew, 21:38) though he does not make clear whether or not they sense their wretched state.
They are utterly void of existence (28:22-23) and, accordingly, they have no name (39:I1-14). Their ultimate destiny is in Hades
(42:17-18). b. Second, there are the Gnostics (of yywotixot), or, those who have come to know (cf. arcarne in 19:32). The object of their gnosis is the Father (18:7), the Son (30:24-25; 37:38), and themselves (21:6-7, 22:13-15; 23:10; 25:11-12). They are "'forth-ones"'
(SriAbad) from the one who exists (28:12-13; cf. 22:3-4; 33:32; 34:1-2). This description of the writer tells of the origin and nature of the Gnostics.! A basic Valentinian tenet is that the human spirit belongs to the spiritual world.? Ev. Ver. reveals the same principle. That the Gnostics live in a material body is implicitly recognized in 25:15-17, but the text emphasizes that their share in a hulic world is a passing phase of their existence. The subject of the verb eqorwa "it consumes" (25:15) is probably carne,
"gnosis" (25:13). Thus, the passage shows that the material shell of the gnostikoi is to be consumed or banished, lit. "devoured,"' by gnosis itself. Quispel points out that, according to Valentinus, there are three parts to the soul, 16 SAixdv, or what Plato calls
<> émOuuntixdy, "the passionate (part), to ~uyxdv = "the moral principle and consciousness," and 7d mvevuatixdv = "the spiritual seed' deposited in man, a fact unknown to the demiurge.* Conceivably, this division of the soul may be present in Ev. Ver. by implication, but it does not appear in any definite form. There is, however, a definite stress on a spiritual quality which characterizes
1 A comparison of the Sahidic version of 1 Cor. 2:12 ANNA HENNA rrehod ArmMtorTeE and of John 8:32 NTETH ONEROA OMTIEIROC MOC shows the direction of emphasis in the idiom of Ev. Ver.
2 Cf. G. Quispel, ''La Conception de l'homme dans la Gnose valentinienne,"'
Evanos-Jahrbuch, XV (1947), 262.
3 Tbid., p. 267.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
the Gnostics. They are those who know (19:32) and in their gnosis, they receive joy (18:28-29) while they anticipate rest (22:1I1-12;
4231-32) and fullness or completeness in the Father (18: 36-19: 4). c. Third, there are the potential Gnostics. All Gnostics were in this category before the manifestation of Jesus Christ (20:6-9).
The writer insists that gnosis is the fruit of the cross (18:24-26), and that Jesus becomes gnosis (20:38-39) because of his death
(cf. the preceding context, especially 20:23-27). The writer lays stress on this potential element by using a tense of unfulfilled action. Several examples of the construction follow:
(1) In 27:15-21, the tense of unfulfilled action occurs twice with the same verb, neanatorxs! (27:16-17) and ANATOTA!
(27:17-18). After Schenke? who seems to have sensed the flow of the language, the passage is to be rendered, ""They were knowing this that they had not yet received form, nor yet had they received name which (things) the Father normally begets in each one at the time when they receive form from that gnosis of his."" The auxiliary
ATtAT (Ov) describes action which has not yet been accomplished but which will in due course come to fruition.®
(2) In 27:29-36, the same auxiliary occurs twice with the verb wwrte "to become"
(27:31-32 and 35-36) indicating again the preand post-gnostic states. The determining factor in the change is the Father's will (28:1-3).
(3) In 28:3-6, the auxiliary occurs in connection with the brief parable on the Kaspoe or "opportune moment." The potential gnostic condition is like an impending kaspoc.
(4) In 30:19-23, the text pictures the potential gnostic as "'prostrate on the ground," either in sleep or drunkenness—i.e. in forgetfulness of his true nature. The decisive awakening moment comes as the Spirit stretches forth his hand to him. To this, the writer adds, "He [the Gnostic] had not yet [i.e. before this time] risen up"
(30:22-23).
Summary and Comparison Justin views man as a begotten being—both body and soul.
His belief that man's body is God's creation and that his flesh is 1 The prefix N€ gives the sense of the past perfect.
42O Pict, Ds As:
* Cf. Plumley, op. cit., pp. 103 f., § 224, and Steindorff, op. cit., pp. 169 f.,
§§ 362-363.
PROPOSITION IV
I41 to share in resurrection shows his Biblical orientation. His belief that man, in addition to his begotten soul, partakes of a higher nous or logos, shows his Platonic background, but with an important difference. To share in the Logos means for Justin to be receptive to the presence and power of the Logos, i.e. Christ. Man's ability to appropriate truth springs from his choice to allow the power of the Logos to motivate him within.
According to Ev. Ver., there is no common basic nature to mankind as a whole. Men are rather classified as hulic, gnostic, or potentially gnostic, all of which means that there is no innate ability to appropriate truth. For hulic men, truth is unattainable.
Their position is hopeless. The gnostic men—actual and potential— appear in sharp contrast. They have (the potential Gnostics "will have'') what the fuwlic men do not have for they are ''forth-ones from on high," i.e. they have a high origin and nature. Thus their share in the hulic or material existence is only a passing phase of their true existence which lies in the Father. The essential contrast to the anthropology of Justin is apparent. First, Justin senses that man was created at a definite time, that his soul was begotten and thus is not eternal. The writer of Ev. Ver. lays stress on the lofty origin and nature of the Gnostics. They are in the Father and come forth from him (17:5-6). Second, Justin speaks of a common nature which all men share. Hence all men can appropriate truth. The writer of Ev. Ver. denies this. Only the Gnostics can come to appreciate and appropriate the gospel of Truth.
B. The problem of evil 1. According to Justin. Justin believes in the capacity of the human will. The tragedy of evil takes on a new dimension in that man possesses the decisive faculty of choice. Created by God, man can know the truth and decide for it or against it. This is why, says Justin, that the human race is "'without excuse'' (avatoAoyyT0¢,
I. 28:3, cf. Rom. 1:20; 2:1) before God. The Apologist finds that ciuaouévyn, "fate," is diametrically opposed to the faculty of choice (I.43:1-3, 6, 7; 44:11; II. 7:3, 4, 9). Apol. I. 28, IL. 7, and I. 43, all contain strong expressions in this respect. The two perfect verbs in I. 28:3 (mexotynxev and yeyéwytat) highlight God's providential foresight in making the human race responsible to choose and perform the things that are true. Man's choice and
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
action constitute the very nature of existence and thus remain firm in successive generations. The false Stoic teaching of ctuappyévy, says the writer, receives its deathblow through the mpoatpeaus érevbEpa, "free choice"
(I. 43:3; II. 7:8-9).1 Eliminate freedom of choice, says Justin, and you relieve man of responsibility for his actions—whatever their essential nature (I. 43:6). Eliminate freedom of choice and man ceases to differ from trees and quadrupeds (I. 43:8).
Eliminate freedom of choice and vice and virtue lose their meaning for life and fall prey to fate which thus is made the cause of evil and to act against itself (I. 43:6). To cap his argument at this point, the writer insists that to say that vice and virtue exist only as opinions without having-basic reality in life, is to commit the greatest act of impiety and injustice (I. 43:6). Thus, one not only chooses to be born anew (I. 61: 10) but also to live as a Christian in this world. The organ or means of effecting a right choice is the Logos. It is the Logos which directs the pious ones to honor that which alone is true (I. 2:1). It teaches man (I. 2:1) enabling him, by means of the faculties God has given him, to make the right choice (I. 10:4). Thus, Justin can appeal to Xenophon's report of Hercules' standing at a "Y"' intersection facing two women—
Virtue and Vice (II.11). Since Hercules will not continue on his own course, he must choose between the two arms of the "'Y"'.
Such, according to Justin, is the situation of all men—Christian, Jew, and pagan, alike.
If, however, in the first place, Justin insists on the basic element of the human choice in Christian living, he emphasizes no less, as a second element, the metaphysical character of evil. "We deserted" (aréotnuev), but "we deserted those (demons)," is his statement in I. 14:1. That is, the man who makes the right choice sets himself in a state of continuous opposition to demons just as the one who chooses wrongly places himself under demonic control. So man faces freedom of choice but there is also the adversary. It is the demons, says the writer, who have caused the persecution of Christians and who have sown the seeds of destruction and ignorance. Obviously, these demons find a ready ally (obup«yxoc)
1 There is a definite probability of influence on Justin in this respect by Carneades (ca. 214 B.C— 129 B.C.), founder of the New Academy. Cf. the careful examination of evidence in "'Fatalisme et Liberté' dans L'Antiquité grecque (Louvain: Bibliothéque de L'université, 1945), pp. 195-207, by Dom
David Amand.
PROPOSITION IV
in each person, namely, in each man's natural bent to evil (I. 10:6).
But it is the demons themselves who constitute the chief agency of evil. It should be observed that the Apologist uses modoceuv and its congeners (also Zpyov) almost as frequently of the demons as of the Christians (cf., e.g. I. 21:5, 6; 5:4; II. 5:5; 12:3). According to I. 56, Justin finds that demons carried on a work before Christ came and that they have continued to work by setting forth men such as Simon Magus and Menander, in a concerted endeavor to nullify the work of Christ.
2. According to Ev. Ver. Like the writings of Justin Ev. Ver. indicates that man is able to appropriate Divine truth. In contrast to Justin, however, it was observed above that the writer of Ev. Ver. attributes this capacity to the elect of God, alone. Only
God's chosen ones can respond to his call and appropriate the truth which God has to give. Evidence for the fact lies before the reader on almost every page of Ev. Ver. According to 16:32-34, those who appropriate the gospel of Truth
(or, the Word, or, the Father?) have received grace to do so. The gospel is manifested to the complete ones (18:13-14) who constitute the living book of the living ones, written beforehand (21:23) on the Father's nous (19:34-20:1; 21:3-5). The Divine call inevitably calls forth a positive response (22:4-5). As the truth of the gospel comes into the middle (26:27-28), it is embraced—not by all but by those only who are the offspring (?}#°, 26:29) of Truth. The destiny of men hinges entirely on God's will to give form and name to the ones whom he desires to make manifest (27:26-29). These references are sufficient to show the stress in Ev. Ver. on the ability of the elect alone to appropriate Divine truth. This is in accord with the general Valentinian view of Divine determinism. While
Valentinus admitted that the soul or spirit comes to repentance, he would not admit that the change springs from a free decision.
He rejected freewill and taught that the spirits of believers are 1 Goodenough, op. cit., pp. 228 f., thinks that this text shows that the Apologist viewed the émuOvutx as part of the created soul. Goodenough fails, however, to consider seriously the adjective xaxn. The ''desire" is an evil desire.
2 The third masc. sing. suffix in the form ATPOTCOTWNY (16:33) can conceivably and reasonably refer to any one of these three antecedents.
3S. Arai, op. cit., p. 46f., inclines toward the translation ''Gestalt''
(''form'') or ''Abbild"' (''copy'').
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
saved because there is an essential disposition within them to be saved (éx pbaews ooCeobat).+ Over against the Divine determinism, however, men—whether gnostikot or hulikoi—face opposition. In Justin's writings, opposition is mainly personal, in the form of Satan and the evil demons.
In Ev. Ver., opposition or evil is impersonal, usually called mAankt (Gr. zAd&vy), "Error.''? In 17:9 ff., Error is referred to no fewer than three times. The passage shows evil in the cosmos to be a natural process. Ignorance of the Father produces fright which in turn produces a mist or fog in which Error works in "a molded form' to produce beauty, the counterfeit (sab, 17:20) of Truth, and to lead away captive those who belong to the middle.
The passage is puzzling. The very process as presented makes it difficult for one to sense what is the origin of evil, according to Ev. Ver. Apparently the writer means that the cosmos is the molded form" in which Error functions, and thus, the exhortation to "disdain Error'
(17:28) is vital since Error poses a very real threat to the Gnostics. Such a conclusion is supported by 22:20-21 where Jesus is said to have turned many away from Error. The cosmos as "'the middle" is the world of Error. Ev. Ver. agrees, in one sense, with Plato for Plato also believed that the world was full of error. On the other hand, Plato thought that truth was never realized in the cosmos. The world contains pointers to the truth but the truth itself belongs to the eternal ideas. To him, the cosmos functions primarily as the place where philosophers can see the truth. The writer of Ev. Ver., however, believed that though truth is not native to the world, it is present in the world as a heavenly stranger: Since Error is also present, the battle-lines are drawn. Both Truth and Error attempt to attract or draw
(cf. cwR in 32:12 and 17:34) men to their respective sides. The fact that men seek the gospel of Truth (17:3-4) and that they grow weary in their search (24:16-18), that they wait expectantly for the good news (34:36-35:6), that they—as chosen ones—are bidden to disdain Error (17:28-29), that they stand naked before God in Forgetfulness of him and of their true nature (20: 37-38),
1 Cf. G. Quispel, ''La Conception de l'-homme dans la Gnose valentinienne,"'
Evanos-Jahrbuch, XV (1947), 274.
* The word "'sin'"' occurs twice (32:37; 35:26), the word ''Devil'' once (araboXoc in 33:20). Error (m'XNANH), however, occurs no fewer than eleven times (17:15, 29, 36; 18:22; 22:21, 24; 26:10, 26; 31525; 320373 85219):
PROPOSITION IV
that they are purified through the judgment manifested in the coming of Jesus (25:35-26:18), that they frankly confess how dark and unreal and meaningless their life is apart from the gnosis of the Father (28:26-33)—all of these things indicate that, in the world, the Father's chosen ones undergo a painful experience even though their origin and destiny in the Father are assured through a kind of cosmic fatalism.
Summary and Comparison Justin affirms that the God-given freedom of choice which man enjoys enables him to choose the truth despite the presence of personal evil, i.e. the Devil and the demons. The right choice brings man into a conflict with the demons. Conversely, the wrong choice places him under their control.
Like Justin, the writer of Ev. Ver. affirms that man can appropriate Divine truth. This ability, however, according to Ev. Ver. is limited to the elect. They face impersonal opposition in the work of mann. The fact that the gnostic readers are warned to "disdain Error'' (17:28-29) shows some idea of a basic threat to the Gnostics of involvement in Error.
Goodenough observes how Justin describes the soul as a battlefield, the soul itself being also the "prize of victory between the two warring factions, the demons and the Logos in man." The writer of Ev. Ver. also presents a battlefield but with different characteristics. It has been noticed already (see proposition I) that "the Middle" in Ev. Ver. is a metaphysical plane where the realities of Truth and Error meet, and that the meeting place occurs in the cosmos. The warring factions on this battlefield are Error and Truth (or the Father).
Both attempt to draw men out of the middle to their respective sides.
C. Divine power 1. According to Justin. Does Justin believe that men are dependent upon Divine power to apprehend truth?
In answer, the Apologist points to the innate God-given ability which enables man to choose what is true (I. 28:3). Justin views the gift as a Divine power (Sivapic) and not merely personal freedom of choice.
The language of the Apologist is definite. Frequently, he uses the 1 Op. Cit., Pp. 219.
Suppl. to Novum Test., XXV Io
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
terms, Stvacbe uabeitv, 'You are able to learn," voety dbvacbe, "You are able to discern," and zetoOjvar dSivac8e, "You are able to be persuaded" (I. 28:1; 31:5; 34:2; 35:9; 37:9; 38:7; 39:2;
48:32 53:1: 50233:6329; 64:13 0604 > D. args 4077324078; 00:4)Thus, whether Justin reflects upon pagan rulers or the unbelieving Jew, Trypho, he posits to each a Divinely-bestowed ability to comprehend Christian truth. As seen above, the impartation of the Logos means not only Cw (D. 6:1-2), but Sbvopne (I.
46:5). Through dbveyi¢ man can respond positively in his encounter with truth (I. 46:5). A positive response, however, is dependent on several things. First, does one embrace truth, second, is he free from bigotry, and third, is he ruled by the Logos rather than by the xaxy énbvut« (I. 10:6). Justin discovers that the power to respond differs between non-Christian and Christian.
The non-Christian receives a seed (oxépua), bestowed (Sofév) according to his capacity to receive it. The Christian, in addition to the seed, experiences the participation (uetovot«) and imitation
(yuluyots) according to God's grace (II. 13:6). That is, the Christian understands the latent power of what God has given and enters into a realization of that power through Christ, the full Logos, whom he follows as his example. The Christian then is dependent on Divine power in two ways: subjectively, he knows God's truth because of the power of the Logos within; objectively, outside of himself, he comprehends and contemplates the complete Logos who has come in Jesus Christ (II. 8:3). It is the latter element that is distinctively Christian, according to Justin; the subjective element is that which the Christian holds in common with all men.
Perhaps more than any text in Justin's writings, II. 10:8 accents the note of Divine power. After observing how Socrates used to urge men on (rpobtpézeto, customary imperfect) to the knowledge of God (II. 10:6), the Apologist states that no one was won over to Socrates to the extent that he would die for his teaching. But, the Apologist adds, not only learned men but also craftsmen and those entirely void of learning have been won over to Christ so completely that they despise both glory and fear and death.
The reason is that Christ is the power of the ineffable Father.
1 Cf. also II. 8:3-4 where the name of Jesus Christ is said to prevail over the demons, D. 7:3 where Justin is exhorted to pray that the gates of light may be opened to him, and D. 8:1 where a fire was kindled in his soul effecting his conversion.
PROPOSITION IV
I47 With due acknowledgment to the dynamic feature in Justin's writings, there still remains the question concerning the place
Justin gives to the power of the Holy Spirit, especially his power in the life of the Christian. The Apologies and the Dialogue offer scores of references to the Holy Spirit. He is God's agent in creation (I. 59:3; 64:3). He is, Justin affirms persistently, the xoopytixoyv mvetua, that is, the Spirit who speaks prophetically through the prophets. Elsewhere the Holy Spirit is said to be the one who came upon the virgin Mary (D. 100:5), the one who rested upon Christ at his baptism (D. 87:5; 88:3-4), and the one whom Christians adore along with their adoration of Father and Son (I. 6:2; cf. 13:3; 60:7). In addition, one can say that Justin links the power and authority of the Holy Spirit to that of the Father and Son in the rite of Christian baptism (I. 61:3, 13) and in prayer (I. 65:3; 67:2). But the relationship of the Holy
Spirit to the actual life of the Christian receives little attention in Justin's writings. According to D. 29:1, in a fervent fashion, the writer insists that he has no need of Jewish baptism since he is baptized by the Holy Spirit. The reference is brief and merely states that the Holy Spirit has accomplished some kind of permanent work in Justin. That the Holy Spirit bestows various yxaetouwat« upon those who believe in Christ is alluded to in D.
87:6-88:1. The writer appeals to both Psalm 68:18 (67:19, LXX) and Joel 2:28 f. as prophecies which find their fulfillment among contemporaries of Justin who possess gifts of the Spirit of God.
Nevertheless, the stress falls on specialized gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Thus, neither from D. 29:1 nor D. 87:6-88:1 can one conclude that the Holy Spirit has a significant role to play in the daily life of Christians.
2. According to the writer of Ev. Ver. Considering the limited scope of Ev. Ver., one finds that the Holy Spirit occupies a prominent place therein. The function of the Spirit in the Godhead as well as among men receives emphasis. a. In the Godhead, the Spirit is said to be the Father's breast
(24:10-11), his tongue (26:35-36), and his aroma
(34:10-II).
These expressions point to the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father. Beneath the breast is the heart while the tongue makes articulate the words that issue from the mouth. Likewise the Holy
Spirit makes articulate and intelligible the Father's word of revelation. Moreover, what issues from the Father is as a sweet aroma.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
b. Among men, the Spirit interprets to the Father's chosen ones, the self-manifestation of the Father in the Son. Whereas Justin is concerned with a statement of the formal position which the Holy Spirit occupies in the Godhead (I. 13:3; 60:6-7), Ev. Ver. is concerned with the essential function of the Spirit not only in the Godhead but also among the community of truth. The power of the Holy Spirit is received by every one who loves the truth
(compare 26:33-34, 27:3-4 and 31:18-19).! The interpretative function of the Spirit appears in two passages. In 27:8-9, the Holy Spirit is probably the subject of the verb aqhady abad,
"He interpreted him," i.e. he interpreted the hidden one of the Father (= the Son). In 24:9-14, the interpretative function of the Holy Spirit is more definite. The expression, "hidden one of the Father," is also present in this text. There is probably some reflection of John 1:18 as the critical notes of the Ev. Ver. text suggest,? though John refers to the interpretative work of the Son
(éxetvoc eEyynouto, John 1:18).
The most important text in Ev. Ver. on the Holy Spirit is found in 30:14-32. The background of the nightmare parable should be observed. The blind and prostrate man is he who has experienced the terrifying nightmare (28:32-30:14). The Holy Spirit, however, opens his eyes and raises him up.? Essentially the writer presents the function of the Spirit within the community of truth. There are unquestionable New Testament features in the passage.
The New Testament affirms that the Holy Spirit is the giver of life and the one who makes the work of the Son possible (cf. e.g.
John 6:63; 16:13-15). Likewise in Ev. Ver., it is the work of the Spirit to raise men up (i.e. give them life) and to give them understanding which comes from the Father, itself a clear manifestation of his Son (30:23-25). Finally in 30: 34-35, there is an unmistakable reference to the insufflation by Jesus of the Holy Spirit as stated in John 20:22.
Summary and Comparison Justin thinks that man has an innate God-given ability enabling him to grasp what is true. Before Christ came, Justin says that there
' Beginning with X€ in 26:34 and extending through NTOOTY IDM 7 3%. the writer has introduced a parenthesis of about six lines of text.
EY ES.
* Cf. chapter I for a fuller discussion of the passage, especially of the view that the Holy Spirit is the subject of both perfect verbs in 30:15, 17.
PROPOSITION IV
existed two evidences of this God-given ability or power—the Holy Spirit speaking through the Jewish prophets and the Logos found in every race of men. These two elements converge in the incarnate
Christ who is at once the full Logos (II. 10:1; 8:3) and the one in whom the Holy Spirit found complete rest, i.e. the one in whom
God's purpose was completely fulfilled (D. 87:3-5). By virtue of the logos or power that is innate in man and by a recognition of the truth of God found in Christ (D. 96:2; 110:6) and by contemplation of Christ as the full Logos (II. 8:3), Justin claims that men can be won over to Christ. Justin, however, pays little attention to man's dependence on the Holy Spirit to bring him to the truth. The Divine power which man possesses is what all men receive at birth. Thus, though Justin speaks of Christ as the power of the ineffable Father (II. 10:8), he fails to stress the power of the Holy Spirit and the encounter with truth which the Spirit creates.
The writer of Ev. Ver. reflects no Old Testament pneumatology.
Nevertheless, like Justin, he posits a spiritual seed or power to men. Unlike Justin, however, he thinks that this seed is in the Father's chosen ones alone. In contrast to the Apologist, the writer of Ev. Ver. finds that the spiritual seed needs to be fructified by an outside power, the Holy Spirit. The Spirit alone can make it possible for men to appropriate the truth of the Father as it is revealed in Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit alone can interpret to men the meaning of God's hidden one, his Son. In this respect,
Ev. Ver. lies closer to the dynamic element of the New Testament than do the writings of Justin.
D. The means of appropriation 1. According to Justin. Justin believes that the means of appropriating truth is to be found in both faith and works. The principle of faith appears in the extensive use the Apologist makes of the two verbs metOew and motevew. There are almost 100 occurrences of the verb zetOe.v in Justin's works, the passive voice appearing almost twice as often as the active. The verb generally refers to the unfolding of a Divine word or a rational argument that persuades men and leads the will to act in accord with that word or argument. So God persuades men and brings them into faith (I. 10:4), the Word persuades them to follow God through his Son (I. 14:1), Christians are persuaded by the prophecies
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
concerning Christ (I. 30:1), even of a crucified Christ (I. 53:2), and are won over to him so completely that they scorn human glory and defy death itself (II. 10:8). The goal of Justin's writings is avowedly to win over (meiOew) the Roman rulers (e.g. I. 14:3;
32°47 30:25 53:1, 127°57:1; IL. 12:6) and Trypho (eg? Di297 2; 56:4, II; 96:2; 44:1; 67:3; 57:4) to the truth of Christianity.
In brief, Justin and the Christians whom he represents have been won over to the truth and thus they seek also to win others over to it. Persuasion is possible because man has perception (véyotc) into truth through the presence within of the higher nous. The twin verb to xefOew in Justin's works is motevewv. It occurs about 120 times and in all but.six passages is found in the active voice.
This is significant. Also significant is its close association with metOew. B. L. Gildersleeve writes, "Justin often combines the passive of met0m and miotebw. Generally he uses them in their genetic order, muotevey being the result of mevO7jva.''! Examples of the use of the two verbs together are found in I. 8:2; 17:4; 61:2; D. 47:1.
In I. 53:12, the corresponding nouns—ze0a and mtotic—occur.
The faith or trust of which Justin writes is in God, through the name of Jesus (D. 116:3), in Christ the High Priest (D. 116:1), in things impossible to one's own nature (I. 19:6), in the records concerning the Savior (I. 33:5), in the saving blood of Christ
(D. 24:1), in God's voice spoken by the apostles of Christ (D. 119:
6), in the truth of the Christian tradition (I. 61:2), and in the mercy of God (D. 107:2). The majority of references, however, refer to faith in Christ. The law, says Justin, pointed beforehand to faith, as may be seen in the types—the faith of Abraham (D.
92:4; 23:4), and that of the Israelites (D. 91:4; I. 60:2-4). The prophets likewise prophesied of faith by saying that the Gentile nations were to believe in Christ (D. 52:4; I. 40:7) and become more true and faithful than the Jews (I. 53:10). Such then is the principle of faith by which men in all generations appropriate truth. The particular cause which the writer represents does not lead him to refer to "justification by faith,'' but his cause does lead him not only to stress believing as the logical sequel to persuasion (me100), but also believing as the outward look of faith to Jesus Christ who carries out the Father's will among men.
No less, however, does Justin discern the importance of good works as a means of grasping Divine truth. In I. 2:1, the Apologist
1 Op. cit., p. 120, note 6.
PROPOSITION IV
I51 affirms that the one who loves truth (6 gtA«A7Oy¢) is under obligation both to speak and practice the things that are just, even at the threat of death. In I. 3:5, he states that to learn the truth without doing it places one before God without excuse. The frequent reference which Justin makes to the verbs Buotv, moteiv, medccew, and their congeners, points to the basic importance of man's works for the appropriation of truth. He challenges the rulers to put the deeds (ai moec&erg) of a Christian and those of a pagan side by side so that the rulers may readily see where the truth lies
(I. 4:6). It is the deed rather than the name that is important, for a name decides nothing apart from the deed which supports the name (I. 4:1). In I. 8:2, Justin goes so far as to say that Christians influence God through their deeds (of tov Ocdv 3.' Zoywv metouvtes).
The Apologist does not mean that the work of Christ is expendable.
His statement must be seen in the larger context which presents the importance, nature, and effect, of Christian practice. Each man is said to go to everlasting salvation or punishment according to the worth of his works (cf. Rom. 2:6-11). Perhaps no reference spells out more the importance of Christian practice for the grasp of Divine truth than I. 14:1-3. The texts of Otto,! Gildersleeve,?
Blunt,? Goodspeed,* and Kriiger,® all edit this section as containing one continuous sentence. The sentence itself embraces a parenthetical sentence (14:1) which begins with &yewviGovta, and ends with e«ywviGouévouc. It is the parenthesis that provides the key to understanding the primary purpose of the entire passage.
Demons, says the writer, make a strenuous effort (&ywviFecdar) to hold men as slaves, and they succeed in doing so whenever men make no strenuous effort to obtain their own salvation.
To Justin, salvation is an essential part of truth. Accordingly, he affirms that truth does not come easily. Man must bend every effort to obtain it. In our case, says the writer, we forsook (anéotyy<Ev) the demons and continue to follow (éxéuc0«) God alone, the unbegotten one, through his Son. Precisely here, the writer introduces four series of contrasts between the old and new economy of Christians. In each case, the contrast shows what it means for 1 Op cit., vol. I, part I, 42, 44.
2 Op. cit., p. 13.
3 Op. cit., pp. 20-21.
4 Die dltesten A pologeten, p. 34.
5 Die Apologieen Justins des Mdartyrers (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1904), pp. Io-11.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
converts from paganism to "agonize'' that they might obtain the real truth, i.e. God's salvation. It is true that God places the desire to "agonize"' within man (Hust peta 7o TH Adyw TreroOFvan,
"we, after being won over by the Logos," I. 14:1), yet the efforts of Christians thus persuaded are very important. The passage may be analyzed as follows:
(I) of mé&Aat wév Topvetarg yatpovtec, viv S& cweppoobvyy pony comaCouevon, "We who of old were rejoicing in fornication but now are embracing self-control only,"
(2) of 32 xal wayixatc téyvag yodpevor, [viv] &yaO@ xat d&yewhto QeG Exvtods avateDerxdtec, "We who also were using magical arts, now the ones who have devoted ourselves to the good and unbegotten God,"
(3) xenuatov dé xal xtHuaTwv of mdpoug TAVTOS LAXAAOV OTEPYOVTEG, viv xat & gyouev cig xowvdv pépovtes xat mavtt Seouévw xot-
V@VODVTEG,
"And also we who above all else were fond of personal property and real estate, now the ones who bring even what we have to a common fund and the ones who share with every one in need,"
= of wtocdAAyAor Se xal dAAnAOPdvor... vv weTa THY emipaveray TOV YELGTOD Swodtartor yivdpevon, xal OEO THY eyDody edydpuevor. .
"We who once were hating each other and killing each other ...now after the appearance of Christ the ones who live together, and the ones who pray for their enemies... ."
Several observations should be made on the section. First, all of the participles involved in the four contrasting situations are attributive or smbstantival in nature. That is, they describe in considerable detail the subject ''we'' which is present in the ending of the two main verbs in 14:1, &néoryuev and éExduca. Second, the contrast in three of the four series is made clear by the presence of the adverb viv.t Third, the passage shows both the decisive nature of the appropriation of truth through faith—by means of the aorist form d&néotnev?—as well as the continuous effort
1 Editors generally add viv to the second series in 14:2, placing the adverb just before the word &ya06.
* Cf. also the aorist infinitive in the clause, quets ueta 1d 14 Ady TELoOFvan.
PROPOSITION IV
toward truth in Christian life—by means of the present indicative verb, éxdueba.
2. According to the writer of Ev. Ver. To appropriate truth, says the writer, means to realize one's true nature. Man has forgotten that from all eternity he is God's child. Jesus came into the world to remind man of the fact. Thus man's normal life is lived in forgetfulness of his true nature and origin. The question now is, what means does man use to comprehend the truth of his lofty nature? Ev. Ver. contains a definite stress on Divine sovereignty. It is true that the work of the Father embraces all that is, and that ''the All" manifests the Divine life (18:33-34) and out of inner necessity tends toward the Father (21:9-10). The spiritual seed, however, is not in all men but in a select group, the gnostikot, whether actual or potential.1 Precisely here, according to Ev. Ver., one can speak of the means whereby man can appropriate truth.
Appropriation of truth basically hinges on the presence of the spiritual seed within man. Hence, on the one hand, the appropriation of truth by the Father's chosen ones is inevitable.
If one has gnosis, he naturally shows that he is a "forth-one"' from above, and if he is called, he responds, turns to the one who calls him, and rises to him (22:2-7). The Divine call implies the human response. The call and response are two sides of the same coin.
On the other hand, the appropriation of truth by the Father's chosen ones means an active acceptance of God's offer. The verb x1 "'to take' appears a number of times to show that the Gnostics take to themselves, (1) what belongs to them (21:12-13, 22-23),
(2) nourishment (41:12), and—above all—(3) gnosis of the one who is hidden (37:37-38), a gnosis which is called the very goal of their life. But, in addition, the appropriation of truth involves a painstaking search and carries with it the definite responsibility of witness. The gnostic "search" for truth appears especially in three different verbs; wine (Mea-), "to seek (after)," e.g.
31:32; 24:17; RWTEe New (or Nea-), "to go around after," e.g. 17:4; 18:12-13; and cawT ahad gaxw'
(or HT), "to stretch out, wait expectantly," e.g. 34:37; 35:2-4; 42:14-15.
The intense nature of the verb wine is seen in its use describing 1 There is no contradiction between this sentence and the previous one—at least.to the writer of Ev. Ver. He evidently senses that the part can stand for the whole, the same principle that is basic to the proper understanding of Rom. 9-11.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
the search Jesus makes for the lost sheep (32:2). It is Jesus who finds the sheep yet he himself is the object (ssne+) of the human search (31:31-32). The language suggests the background of the parables of the pearl and treasure, according to Matt. 13:44-46.
The verb nwte is a variant of wine. The most intensive verb of the three mentioned above, is cawxT. The word was used to describe the taut position of a martyr either stretched out vertically on a cross or horizontally between pillars." It is the word used in the Sahidic version of Acts 22:25 to describe the near-flogging of Paul. The Coptic text may be rendered, '"They stretched him out with thongs," i.e. they pulled him in opposite directions by means of thongs attached to hands and feet, in readiness for flogging. In Ev. Ver., the word depicts the ardor, the intense expectation for the salvation which comes from above. To men of eager desire, says the writer, belongs the discovery (tore?) of the pleroma (34:36).
If the appropriation of Divine truth involves a careful, painstaking search, it also implies a responsibility on the part of the Gnostic, the one who has found the Truth, to proclaim it. Such is the apparent context of the well-known "ethical" section of Ev. Ver. (32:31-33:32). Grobel thinks that the section is surprising in a Gnostic work, since Gnostics in general show only a minimal concern in ethics.4 Without doubt, however, the ethical imperatives of the section (32:31-33:32) are to be interpreted in the light of the main purpose of Ev. Ver. The first two imperatives wexe
(32:31, 35) set the tone for the others. Since the Gnostics are the perfect day and since the light that is set within them does not go out (32: 31-34), they are responsible to speak the truth concerning the Father's gnosis to those who seek it. The indication is that there are those who do not seek it and are thus without hope.
Apparently then, those who stumble (33:1-2) are those who 1 Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, p. 820b, supplies only two references for this word in its noun form; Sir. 13: 308% where the LXX (13:26) has ebpeotc, and Jer. 45:2>° where the LX X has ebpeun. To these two references, the five occurrences of the noun in Ev. Ver. (17:3; 18:29; 31:31; 35:20; 36:11) may now be added. Each use of the word in Ev. Ver. implies that salvation or truth is the object of the human search.
2 Cf. Crum, ibid., p. 340b.
® Till, Orientalia, N.S., 28 (1959), 174, and the notes in Ev. Ver. Supplementum, p. 16, suggest the emendation T61n€ys, "the coming." The text as it stands, however, makes excellent sense.
4 Op. cit., pp. 139, 141, note 377.
PROPOSITION V
tend toward a material life. Again, those who are sick (33:3) are like the sick man of the parable (35:30-35); they lack the fullness of the Father. Those who are prostrate and desire to rise, and, those who are asleep (33:6-8) are the ones who are in the "sleep" of Forgetfulness of their true nature and the Father's gnosis. Thus the entire "ethical'' section is apparently allegorical, and simply shows the singleness of purpose that characterizes
Ev. Ver. from beginning to end. The writer insists that his theme is one of redemption, a redemption revealed by Jesus who draws back the veil of ignorance and reveals the Father's nature and the true destiny of the Gnostic believers in him.
Summary and Comparison The media for the appropriation of truth, according to Justin, are faith that looks to Christ and the life which one lives as he continues to strive after the truth. The writer of Ev. Ver. emphasizes that the appropriation of truth means, (1) Man's careful search for it, (2) The inevitable discovery of it by Gnostics because of the presence of the spiritual seed within, and (3) The responsibility of witnessing to the Divine truth. Justin likewise believes man can comprehend Divine truth by virtue of a seed within—the Logos.
He differs, however, in two respects. First, he ascribes the Logosseed to all men, and second, he affirms that man having the seed, may or may not respond to Divine truth. It is thus that Justin can refer to the positive response, the appropriation of truth, by means of faith and works.
PROPOSITION V
In the writings of Justin and in Ev. Ver. there exists a community of truth of Divine origin. It has a life to live now and an ultimate destiny.
A. The community of truth has a Divine origin 1. According to Justin. The community, says Justin, is composed of persons who are persuaded to believe the Christian tradition.
They are known variously as the true sons of God (D. 123:9-124:1), the true Israel (D. 123:6-7; 135:2-3), the garments of Christ
(I. 32:8), the church, a body, and Christians. The word "church"
(xxAyota) is seldom found in Justin's writings (not at allin Ev. Ver.).
The six references which do occur are all in the Dialogue. Two ref-
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
erences are in quotation (D. 98:5, 106:2), while two (both in D. 63:5) occur in the Apologist's explanation of Psalm 45:6-11
(44:6-11, LXX), where the church is said to have sprung from Christ's name. In D. 42:3, éxxAnota is used of an ordinary assembly
(cf. Acts 19:39-40). A reference to the church as a body consisting of many members is found in D. 42:3 where, on the basis of the LXX rendering of Isa. 53:2, dvynyyetAnwev évavttov? adtod we matstev, Justin discovers that there are many witnesses
('"we proclaimed"'), yet one body (''a child'), i.e. the éxxAyota. A final reference (D. 134:3) sets the church in contrast to the synagogue, i.e. "Leah (is) your nation and your synagogue, but Rachel (is) our church." The term 'Christians' is much more frequent in Justin's writings than the word church.
Justin is well aware of the fact that the name is used falsely by followers of Simon Magus,
Menander, and Marcion (I. 26:6). Nevertheless it is a good name (cf. the word play of yenotd¢ and yprotécg in I. 4:1).? Moreover, it is a name that links Christians to Jesus Christ, the one to whom they owe their origin. Thus in D. 63:5, the writer asserts that Christians are 2& évéuatosg adtod, i.e. Christ is the name they share.
Justin has no doubt but that the community of truth is of Divine origin. He does not quote the famous Matthaean passage on the birth of the church (Matth. 16:16-18) though he does refer to the revelation of the Father made to Simon Peter on that occasion
(D. 100:4). He states a number of ways, however, by which the Divine origin of the community is made manifest.
(x) Justin affirms that Christians are those who have been made new through Christ (I. 61:1), born anew (I. 61:3, 4, 10), and illumined (I. 61:12, 13; 65:1; D. 122:3, 5) on the basis of the name (éx' évouatoc) of the triune God (I. 61:3, 13, cf. I. 65:3;
67:2). The Divine agency is made definite by the use of three passive verb forms (xaworounbévtec, dvayewavtar, pwtiCduevoc).
The first word is apparently a general term to describe persons from all levels of Christian experience. They are persons "made new' by the agency of Christ. The next two terms (dvayewévrae, pmtCouevoc) appear in the context of Christian baptism. Goodenough expresses well the tension found in Justin with respect to baptism when he observes that Justin regarded baptism as a 1 Justin has évomov instead of évavttoy.
* Gildersleeve, op. cit., p. 111, note 4, and Otto, op. cit., vol. I, partly rat. mention references to this paranomasia in other ancient writers.
PROPOSITION V
regenerative rite but that he did not regard it as essential to salvation.' At times, Justin refers to regeneration or illumination as preceding Christian baptism. His description of his own conversion (D. 8:1) resulting from the words of the old man by the sea definitely implies regeneration and enlightenment. He says,
"Immediately a fire was kindled in my soul and love of the prophets and of those men who are friends of Christ was holding [reading eiye instead of gye1] me." In the clause, ''those who have been enlightened through Jesus' (D. 122:1), the writer suggests the principle of faith rather than the rite of baptism. Furthermore, in D. 29:1, by the term "'baptism"' itself, Justin may be referring to faith in Christ. The text is to be rendered, ""What then yet to me, having been witnessed to by God, is the message of circumcision ?
What need [do I have] of that baptism [i.e. Jewish proselyte baptism] having been baptized by the Holy Spirit?'' Both the contrast which he draws between his own experience and that of proselyte baptism, and the emphasis he places on the Holy Spirit, suggest that Justin is not thinking in terms of water baptism. Yet, the fact remains that Justin definitely links the new birth to water baptism. The new birth occurs as the candidates for baptism are brought to the place where there is water and baptized on the authority of the name of the Father and of the Savior and of the Holy Spirit
(I. 61:3). Four items stand out for mention in his treatment of the avayévyyjo.s. First, Justin shows that the new birth is an important part of the heritage of the Christian faith. "According to the manner of the new birth whereby we ourselves were born anew, they are born anew.' Second, in words strongly reminiscent of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:6, 4), Justin speaks of the sinful condition inherent in the first birth and the impossibility of human effort to effect any change. Third, he quotes somewhat loosely the word of Jesus on the necessity of the new birth (John 3:3, 5). Fourth, he accents the choice which the new convert makes in favor of the new birth (I. 61:10). Together with the experience of the new birth, those being baptized receive enlightenment in their minds (I. 61:12, cf. D. 122:1, 3). Goodenough? and earlier Otto® thought that the term gwtiouéd¢ was taken from the mystery religions. In Justin's view, the term definitely means a new insight
1 Op. cit., pp. 266 f.
2 OD. Cit., Pp. 257.
3 Op. cit:, vol. I, part I, 168.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
that the baptized ones receive into the content of the Christian faith.1 The present participle pwrfouevoc refers to illumination received during the baptismal service itself (I. 61:13), the aorist participle gwric8etc, to the decisive nature of that baptismal experience (I. 65:1), while the perfect participle mepwtiopévoc
(D. 122:1) links the punctiliar and durative actions together, i.e. those who were once baptized are ever afterward known as "the enlightened ones through Jesus.'' Therefore, Goodenough goes beyond the evidence in affirming that the pwttopdc in baptism means for Justin only that the convert has a new start in life.?
This is only part of Goodenough's idea that salvation, according to Justin, "is actually received only when at the judgment the Christian is taken from the ranks of doomed humanity to be included in the number of the blessed.... Purity of life is a prerequisite for salvation, not a result of it.' To be sure, Justin sounds a strong moralistic note, but the community of truth
(i.e. the Christians) is no less a fact. The tension which is present in Justin's writings should be maintained.
(2) Justin says that Jesus Christ is himself the new and eternal covenant of God with men (D. 11: 2-5; 122:5), which God announced beforehand and which he alone ratified. In D. 122:5, Justin differentiates between the old and new covenants and their proselytes.
As one might expect, the occurrences of meocnavutos (also meocnAvots D. 28:2) are all in the Dialogue. Generally, the word "proselyte"' denoted the Gentile who came to the Jewish faith accepting all the entrance requirements, Justin uses the word in such a way (D. 80:1) in the mouth of Trypho. In D. 122:2, however, the word is used in Justin's own description of proselytes who join hands with the Jews in their unbelief in Christ and hatred of Christians. The Apologist also, uniquely, applies the word ina new way.
In D. 23:3 and 28:2, he refers to Trypho as a potential proselyte of the Christian faith, while in D. 122:5, the word connotes Gentile
Christians. In the context (122:3), Justin cites the words of Isa. 42:
6, "I will appoint you for a covenant of a nation, for a light of Gentiles,' and affirms that the words refer to Christ and to the enlightened Gentiles. Some of Trypho's friends protest strenuously,
1 Cf. C. Story, "'Justin's Apology I. 62-64: Its Importance for the Author's Treatment of Christian Baptism," VC, XVI, no. 3/4.(1962), 175 f.
2 OP. Cit., pp. 267 f:
° Op. cit., pp. 250 f., but cf. pp. 250-253 in their entirety.
PROPOSITION V
saying that the reference in the prophet is to proselytes illumined by the Jewish law (D. 122:4). In answer, Justin affirms that if the Jewish law had the power to illuminate the nations, as well as the Jews who possess the law, no new covenant would have been needed. God, however, has announced a new covenant and an eternal law, denoting not the old law and its proselytes, but "Christ and his proselytes, that is, Gentiles whom he enlightened." There are several important points in the passage that bear on the subject of the Divine origin of the community of truth. First, Christ illumines
(Egm@t1oev, 122:5): the nations are illumined (122:3). Second all Christians are "'proselytes'' with respect to the Christian faith.
Thus, in 122:5, Gentile Christians are viewed as proselytes, but in 23:3 and 28:2, the word has in view potential Jewish converts.
G. Archambault alludes to the meaning in the last two references but he does not speak of the special nuance of meaning which Justin gives in 122:5.! Since "'proselyte'"' implies that a covenant has been established and is already in operation, D. 122:5 lays stress on the Divine nature of the covenant, i.e. that it is fully ratified apart from any human endeavor. To be a proselyte, a "comer-to,'' means metaphorically that one comes to the place where God through Christ has established his covenant and is carrying it out. Third, the new law or covenant is Christ (122:5).
Such is the meaningful way in which Justin contrasts the old with the new—''the old jaw and its proselytes, Christ and his proselytes."
Fourth, the nations are Christ's inheritance (D. 122:6). In addition to the rhetorical way in which Justin expresses the idea, he cites
Psa. 2:7-8. "These statements," he says, "pertain to Christ and thes Gentiles' (Ds 12374).
2. According to the writer of Ev. Ver. The writer of Ev. Ver.
—like Justin—is convinced that there is a community of truth of Divine origin. Numerous terms in Ev. Ver. reflect the idea.
The community of truth is the fruit (28:7) of the Father's heart no less than is the Son himself (18:25; 23:35). They are the words of his meditation (37:3), the Father's root (42:35), his plantings
(36:36), and the Truth itself (42:25-26) because they are of the Father of Truth (16:33). Three descriptions, however, appear in Ev. Ver. with special detail. a. The community is made up of "'little children" (19:28-29),
"sons of the Father'
(33:39, cf. 43:20, 22-24; 32:38-39), or WO pacit alle TOs.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
"sons of the Name"
(38:28). To these references, one should add the two parables considered above—the parable of the father and his offspring (19:10-14), and the parable of the children from the adult man (27:10-15).
This descriptive relationship has a peculiar attraction to the writer for he finds ample illustration of it in human society as well as in the Father-Son relationship.
The noun NkKeKOow: (19:28) is found nowhere else in Ev. Ver.
It occurs within the context of a section beginning abruptly with the second word of 19:17, aqwwrte. It has been suggested to the writer that the abrupt appearance of Jesus described in 19:17,
"He became a guide," is comparable to the beginning of Marcion's gospel.! The appearance of Jesus strikes an answering chord in the hearts of the little children. As "little children," they have a special relationship to God (cf. Matt. 11:25; 18:2-6); they have the Father's gnosis and the Father has a special claim upon them.
The passage, '""They learned the forms of the Father's face'' (19:
31-32) poses a problem. The critical notes of the Ev. Ver. text," suggest a connection with Matth. 18:10, with several references in Excerpta ex Theodoto, and with features in the Marcosian sect as reported by Irenaeus. In all of the references, angels are said to contemplate the Father's face. Ev. Ver., however, mentions no angels nor does the writer use the verb "'contemplate."' If, as is likely, the Greek word underlying the Coptic word of the text of 19:31-32 is mpdownov, the meaning of nedcwrov (Coptic, 9o) in this text may be "appearance" or "person."' Thus the sense may be, ""They learned the fashioned works of the Father's person," that is, the characteristic ways in which the Father appears.
The description, "sons of the Name'
(38:28-29) is found in a section of Ev. Ver. (38:6-40:29) containing a long and sustained emphasis. The descriptive title is one of the most effective ways which the writer uses to show what he believes to be the truly
Divine origin of the community of truth. To understand what the description means, one observes that the idea of the writer revolves around two basic principles. First, the Name is the mystery of the Divine nature (cf. mareTHpron, 38:18-19). Second, the Name is become manifest in a Son (yorang ae abad ON OTIYHpE,
38: 23-24). The first principle is supported by three alpha privative adjectives, all having reference to the Name (ovatner apa,
1 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc., IV. 7:1. re. Gish.
PROPOSITION V
I61 "invisible," 38:17, ovat} pen apag, "unnameable," 40:16-17, and ovatTeovag, "unutterable," 40:17). Primarily the adjectives refer to the Old Testament Jewish faith, especially to texts such as Exod. 6:3; Judg. 13:17-18; Isa. 9:6 where the name conceals the mystery of the Divine person. The second principle is Christian in its content. The Name that is a mystery, invisible, unnameable, unutterable, is become manifest (qual. qovang aba) in a Son
(38:11-12, 23-24; 39:23; 40:9-10). The textual notes of the Ev. Ver. text' compare the representation of Valentinus' teaching by Clement of Alexandria in a passage to be rendered, '"'One is good whose manifestation [pavéeworc] through the Son (is) boldness.'"2
The word "son" with the indefinite article (Ev. Ver. 38:23-24) may be compared to the anarthrous construction év vié of Hebr. 1:2 where the attention of the writer centers on the nature of the Son.
The Divine nature, according to Ev. Ver., is concealed in the mystery of the Name but it is revealed in one who has the character of a Son.
Apparently, the communication of the Name connotes the communication of nature. That is, "sons of the Name" must surely point to the Divine origin and nature of the community of truth, according to the writer. ""The name of a thing is the real essence behind, and denoted by, its name.''? The community is owned by the Father since his Name continues to abide (neqymatn,
38:29) upon their head (38:36-37). The idea approximates that which is found in Rev. 3:12; 14:1; 22:4. On the other hand, the community rests and depends on the Father's name (38: 31-32, cf. John 1:12). The importance of the name to the writer is seen in 39:11-19. Men are divided into two classes—those who have no name and thus have no being, and those who have both name and being. Basically then, the phrase "'sons of the Name'' means that the community is of Divine origin, that the members bear the stamp of the Divine character simply because the Name is manifest in a Son.* Ub TE Gio 2 Stvom. II, 114:3.
3 K. Grobel, op. cit., p. 185, note 574.
4 It seems clear that, in the function of the Name, Ev. Ver. reflects an emphasis of the gospel of John. S. Arai, op. cit., pp. 66-70, examines rabbinic texts, the book of Enoch, the apocalypse of Abraham, Pistis Sophia, and the Hermetic Corpus, and discovers that in none of these documents does
"the Name" function as a mediator of revelation. The connection with the gospel of John, however, is clear. Arai cites John 17:5; 12:23, 28 and quotes
Odeberg's commentary on the Fourth Gospel to the effect that Jesus not only carries the Divine name but he zs the name.
Suppl. to Novum Test., XXV II
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
b. The community of truth constitutes "the living book of those who live" (19:35-36). The book is Divine in origin (19:36-20:1).
While it became manifest in the heart of the little ones (19:34-35), it stands written (qual. ercHtg from cgees) in the thought and in the mind of the Father (cf. also 23:3-18). The community travels the path which Jesus blazed (cf. 16:35-36; 20:23-24; 22:35-36), its members comprising little children who come to Jesus (19 : 28-30).
As a living book, they manifest their true nature to the world.
At first glance, the idea seems to reflect a text such as 2 Cor. 3:2-3 where the Corinthian believers are described as a letter of Christ in that they are continually displayed to the world (cf. gavepobuevor in 2 Cor. 3:3). A similar outward manifestation is apparent in Ev. Ver. 20:6-9. That is, in the idea of the living book,
Ev. Ver. reveals a Biblical concept, but with striking differences.
First, while the writer assigns decisive significance to the historical manifestation of Jesus, he almost eliminates any previous manifestation of the purpose of God in the world (20:6-9). To be sure,
19:36-20:3 indicates that before the foundation of the All (cf.
Eph. 1:4) the book was written within the inner part of the Incomprehensible One. Yet there is nothing manifest prior to the coming of the book into the midst. The assertion probably contains an anti-Jewish element. A similar element is present in 23:3 ff. where the writer directs his argument against a Jewish type of exegesis in which men think that true understanding means to know the significance of each letter. Second, while the writer states that the book is a Divine manifestation, he means a manifestation not of God's work but of the nature of his chosen ones. God brings gnosis to men, the gnosis that they are his children, a gnosis which becomes their very life. The idea is quite far removed from the New Testament view of being "fellow workers of God"'
(I Cor. 3:9, cf. also the superior reading of D* 33 de Ambst Pelag, according to the Nestle apparatus of 1 Thess. 3:2). Third, Ev. Ver. shows that the community of truth can act as the manifestation of the ineffable God in the world, not so much by virtue of any transforming redemption which God works in their behalf, but by virtue of their own inherent Divine nature which comes to light with the appearance of Jesus. c. The community of truth is the Father's aroma (33:33-35:23)The passage contains a dynamic, moving emphasis that is lacking
* Justin similarly protests against this kind of exegesis (cf. D. 113:2-3).
PROPOSITION V
in the other two main descriptions given above. The aroma belongs to the Father. It leaves his presence, becomes mixed with matter
(34:5-6), but through the agency of the Holy Spirit (34: 10-11) it is drawn back to the Father (34:12-13) to become one with him (34:13-14). By the singular form of the noun ectaeys, the writer portrays the aroma (= the community) in its unity or oneness with the Father (34:1, 4, 6, etc); by the plural form
(34:26), he denotes the community of truth in the various persons who comprise it. A peculiar feature of the parable appears in 34: 10-12, i.e. the aroma is identified with the Holy Spirit. Schenke! followed by Grobel? (cf. the French and English translations of Ev. Ver. Supplementum*) omits the noun metaer at the end of 34:10 thinking that it is a case of dittography (the noun occurs twice in 34:10). Till, however, maintains that there is no dittography in 34:10, but haplography in 34:11. He thinks that in 34:11 the copula me is to be supplied before nenna.' If Till is correct, the puzzling question may be asked; If the sons of the Father constitute his aroma, how can the Holy Spirit be the aroma?
Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit is the aroma, how can he at the same time be the means by which the aroma is drawn back to the Father? Probably the writer did not raise these questions.
At any rate, he has made no clear distinction between the community of truth and the Holy Spirit, suggesting thereby, a Stoic point of view. At the same time, the description as a whole indicates, for the writer, how the community of truth originates in God.
Summary and Comparison According to Justin, there exists a fellowship of truth of Divine origin. It is composed of Christians, those who have been illumined or made new or regenerated by Christ who is himself God's new and eternal covenant with men.
To the writer of Ev. Ver. also, there is a community of truth of Divine origin, a community which he describes as "children'"' or "'sons of the Name," as "'the living book," and as "'the Father's aroma."' Whereas the descriptive terms in Justin's writings stress
1 Op. cit., p. 49.
25O pci Dml5 Ee MOve 427, 1218) By Sy:
4 Ovientalia, N.S., 28 (1959), 174. Cf. also Till's German translation in Ev. Ver. Supplementum, p. 25.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
the change wrought by God in men thereby bringing a fellowship of truth into being, Ev. Ver. is concerned with the existential nature of the community. Its true nature becomes manifest as the veil of ignorance is withdrawn and it discovers that it is already in the Father.
B. The community of truth has a life to live in the world 1. According to Justin. Justin believes that the community of truth, the Christian church, finds its life and unity not only in what it 7s but what it does. Through the coming of Christ, the Divine Logos, it is made conscious of God's redemptive work for it. Unitedly it gives expression to God's work by performing the sacraments and by observing the Lord's day. a. Baptism. Justin claims not only a close link between baptism and a believer's new birth but also a vital unity between the sacrament and the believing community. Throughout I. 61-67,
Justin speaks in the first person (e.g. dveOqxaucv, I. 61:1; aveyewnOyuev, I. 61:3; yeyewwnucOa, I. 61:10; &youev, 65:1; domalducOa, 65:2; AnuBavouev, 66:2; dvautuvjoxoueyv, 67:1; aviotéucba,
67:5). In one sense the use of the first person plural of the verb is expected and natural, for the document is an apologia in behalf of persecuted Christians with whom Justin senses his identity
(cf. I. 1:1, "one of them''). Nevertheless, the consistent use of the first person plural throughout I. 61-67 implies also a unity that is inherent in the community. Into this community new converts come. They are surrounded by a living fellowship; "they are led by us to where there is water," I. 61:3. The change from the plural door &v ret0Gou in 61:2 to the singular memeroyévoc in 65:1, enhances the personal nature of this fellowship. From a comparison of I. 61 and I. 65, it is clear that the baptismal service (I. 61) and the church gathering (I. 65) transpire in two different places.1
The truth underscoring the unity of the church appears also in the fact that the "church" gathering has been in progress while the baptismal service in another locale? has taken place. The prayers of the church ascend to God for the enlightened one (6 gwticGetc, 65:1) and for the Christian church in general, to the end that its members may be good administrators and guardians of those things which have been
1 The periphrastic perfect construction év0« ovvyyyévor ciot (I. 65:1) makes the point certain.
» Perhaps at an open stream, as Goodenough suggests (op. cit., p. 271).
PROPOSITION V
commanded, and that they may be saved with an eternal salvation.
C. C. Richardson thinks that moditevtat (65:1) should not be taken as the equivalent of modtrat, ''citizens," but, because the word is herein joined with the word @vduxec, it has the meaning of "magistrates."! That is, the Christian community assumes the responsibility for seeing that the laws of Christ are put into practice within the fellowship. Following the prayers, the sacrament is concluded with the kiss of charity or peace (I. 65:2) such as is mentioned in Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26. b. The Lord's supper. The sacrament of the eucharist (ebyaouoti«,
I. 66:1) figures in a significant way in I. 65-67. It is described in I. 65:3-5 as the concluding part of the baptismal service, its meaning is expounded in I. 66, while in I. 67:4-5, it is presented as the concluding part of the Sunday worship service. The references to the Eucharist in the Dialogue (41: 1-3; 70:3-4; I17:1-3) are also important. All of the passages have received considerable attention from scholars." It is necessary, however, to observe that—like the sacrament of baptism—the eucharist reflects the living unity of the Christian community. Briefly, the unity appears in the common "'Amen'"' of the people after the thanksgiving prayer
(I. 65:3), in the concern that absent members, as well as those present, share in the eucharistic elements (I. 65:5), inthe instruction given to the new converts before partaking of the Eucharist (I. 66:1), in the vital link which the Eucharist provides with the apostles of Jesus, the report of its institution being found in their '""memoirs called gospels'? (I. 66:3), and, above all, in the common nourishment for blood and flesh which the community receives through partaking of the eucharistic food (I. 66:2). In D. 41:1-3, an important item is added. Justin finds that the Eucharist combines the two great doctrines of Scripture—creation and redemption.
That is, the thanksgiving prayer is directed to God because he created the world and all that is therein for the sake of man, and because he sets men free from evil into which they have fallen, and completely overthrows principalities and powers through the one who came to be subject to suffering. The importance
1 "Ap. I. 651—The Meaning of modttevtat, '' HTR, 29 (1936), 89 ff.
2 J. Donaldson, op. cit., II, 311-316; Goodenough, op. cit., 271-276; the bibliography in J. Quasten, Patrology, I (Maryland: The Newman Press,
1950), 218-219.
3 Cf. the article by R. Heard, "d&mouvnuovebuata in Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus,' NTS, I (1954-55), 123-125.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
of the passage is abundantly clear. The Christian community learns that the world belongs to God and that it is good. The fact that men are involved in evil does not cancel out God's good creation.
It simply means that, in view of Christ's sufferings, God who created the world for man can now redeem man from evil and make it possible for him to live a meaningful life in the world.
Justin is explicit in affirming that the life of the Christian community, bound together by the sacraments, is a witness to the world in what it does. The very fact that, in a writing addressed to Roman rulers and people, he sets forth candidly and in detail the unity of sacramental life in the community of Christ, bears a testimony to the world. He evidently desires that the world be fully informed of the truth and that none be able to malign it. It is a fact that Christians were maligned with respect to their ritualistic practices.
Trypho knew of such charges against the Christians and yet he felt that they were unworthy of credence
(D. 10:1-2). In the First Apology, Justin says that it would be a sin for him to omit the explanation (2€yyyous) of Christian ritualistic life (I. 61:1).
The implication is quite clear. By its common life in the sacraments the community claims to be God's true people, his true Israel.
That is, not only in what it is, but in what it does, it bears witness to the world. c. The Lord's day. The Sunday worship service reveals the corporate nature of the Christian community. Justin indicates the fact by the expression éxt 76 adré (I. 67:3), a phrase used several times in the first two chapters of Acts (1:15; 2:1, 44, 47) to describe the essential unity of the primitive church. The service itself consists of five main parts; a reading of the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets, instruction by the president intended to encourage the people to imitate the good things which they have heard from the Word, prayers and thanksgiving by the people while standing, the celebration of the Eucharist, and a free will collection of gifts to be used for the poor and needy.
The significance of the day in which the worship service is held (I. 67:8) has been referred to earlier (pp. 121-123).
2. According to the writer of Ev. Ver. For the writer of Ev. Ver. the coming of Jesus Christ, the Divine Logos, makes the community of truth conscious of its existence and true unity in the gnosis of the Father. In the experience of gnosis, it finds its raison d'etre.
At the same time there is a Divine purpose which the community
PROPOSITION V
serves in the world. In contrast to Justin's writings, Ev. Ver. contains no definite indication of either of the two Christian sacraments. The one occurrence of the word aayv, "water" (34:20), has no bearing on baptism. Strangely enough, E. Segelberg titles
Ev. Ver. "A confirmation homily." 1 He thinks that Ev. Ver. gives evidence of three kinds of rites, preparative, baptismal, and chrismatory, the stress being on the third type. A few samples of Segelberg's approach to Ev. Ver. should be observed. In 33: 19-21, he finds an indication of exorcism, an act preparatory to baptism.?
In the stretching out of the hand (30: 19 ff.), he discovers that the priest acts to raise the prostate initiate and lead him into the mystery of baptism or chrism,? while some "vague evidence for the existence of an investiture in the baptismal act' exists, says Segelberg, in 20:30-37.* Moreover, he thinks that the exsufflation and insufflation (30:34; 34:25 f.; 26:28) may refer either to the chrism or to the preparatory rites.2 He concludes thus:
(1) Baptism, though not explicitly mentioned in Ev. Ver., is there, and (2) Ev. Ver. "'seems to be a homily, for use at confirmation, an act probably in time and space separated from the baptism in water.' ® A serious question needs to be raised over Segelberg's approach. It is probably true that Ev. Ver. is a homily and that 36:13-35 contains some reference to the rite of chrismation.
The danger, however, facing any interpreter of Ev. Ver. is that of reading into the document what is not there. With regard to the various passages of Ev. Ver. to which Segelberg appeals, the context of each qualifies fundamentally the interpretation suggested.
Thus, 33:19-21 must be seen as a part of a section of Ev. Ver. containing no fewer than sixteen imperatives. In 30:19, the context determines the subject of the verb to be the Holy Spirit, not a priest. In 20:30-37, context shows that the investiture—whatever it may mean essentially—refers not primarily to the Gnostic but to Jesus. And finally, the exsufflation and insufflation of 30:34 has for its background John 20:22' while 34:25-26 and 1 "Evangelium Veritatis—a confirmation homily and its Relation to the Odes of Solomon,"' Ovientalia Suecana, VIII (1959), 3-42.
Motley Ds Fie ING Ghee, (So AB Did ape A.
MavGh, Ds Bale Lbid., p. 42.
Cf. the notes critiques of the Ev. Ver. text, p. 57.
NJ Qa ff WwW bw
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
36:28 are only illustrations and need to be recognized as such.
Thus, according to Ev. Ver. the community of truth finds its living unity not in sacraments but in the experience of the Father's nature.
The central principle of the life of the community, according to Ev. Ver., is knowledge of the nature of God. That is, it experiences the Father's gnosis, a gnosis which comes through the cross
(18:24-26) making Jesus meaningful to the fellowship (31: 30-31), and finding its basic expression in the oneness of the life of the community. This oneness of the community is described as a complete book (23:12-13) written through Oneness
(23:14-I5)
or through the Father (23:15-16). The entire passage (23:3-18) merits close attention. It is preceded by a section (22:20-23:3) in which Jesus is said to rescue the chosen ones from Error's grip and to manifest the Father's will. It is followed by a hymn concerning the Father's Logos (23:18-33) and a description of the work of the Logos among the All (23: 33-24:9). These indications from the context show the close way in which Jesus Christ (= the Logos) and the community of Truth (= the living book) are joined together. The book is not material but spiritual. It denotes the community, itself a mirror in which the oneness of the Father is said to be reflected (cf. 23:13-16). The will of God which Jesus manifested (22:35-36) is said to find its fulfillment in this book.
Ev. Ver. reveals a striking emphasis on oneness. The source of all being lies in the fact that God is one. Thus there exists a connection of some kind between the various letters of the book while they produce the impression of being one complete book written through Oneness (23:14-I5).
According to Ev. Ver., there is a Divine purpose which the community of truth serves in the world. The purpose is seen in several ways:
(x) First, the fact that God actively carries out his will in the cosmos is evident in 22:33-36. The sense of the negative of the perfect followed by the "positive" perfect is significant in this text.
The passage reads, eneoe tap eneaney: abadX Nonty nor reqorwye ayorangg tap aad, "For thus [at that time] his will had not gone forth outside of him: for [now] he has manifested it.' Quite definitely the author contrasts a pre-cosmic time when God's will was inoperative or static with a cosmic time when he manifested his will. He manifested his will among all
PROPOSITION V
things (''the All") by means of his Logos (22:33-23:3) and by means of his chosen ones, i.e. his perfect or complete book (23:2-16).
(2) Second, the writer recognizes a Divine purpose at work in the cosmos in the form of a conflict between Oneness, i.e. God, and Schema, i.e. the conditions under which this world operates
(25:3-11). Such is the evident meaning of a curious passage.
"For now their works [i.e. of Oneness and Schema] are set against one another [lit. "'to them''], being equal" (25:7-8). The text does no more than hint at some basic tension or conflict in the cosmos, though both the preceding and following context shows that the victory lies with God.
(3) Third, the writer recognizes a Divine purpose at work in the cosmos by means of purpose clauses introduced by tva (A, = wna). Three of these clauses (18:5-7; 23:16-18; 24:14-17) contain the same emphasis, i.e. "'that the Father might be known."
In each case, the Father is seen to accomplish his purpose in the world through the Logos and the community of Truth that comes to know him. There is, however, an important qualification; it is not what the community does but what it 7s that bears witness to the Father.
Summary and Comparison The writings of Justin reveal that the life of the Christian community is bound together by the observance of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper and by the worship service on the Lord's day. Through the sacrament of baptism, the new convert enters the fellowship, while in the Eucharist, the believing community discovers that its life is linked to the two important truths— creation and redemption. By its common life expressed in these sacraments the Christian fellowship bears witness to the world.
Ev. Ver. reveals a fellowship of truth which finds its oneness in the gnosis of the Father. The document shows, however, no clear indication of either of the two Christian sacraments. The central purpose of the fellowship, according to the writer, is to possess the gnosis of the Father's nature. The community of truth apparently bears witness to the world.
It witnesses, however, not so much by what it does but by what it 7s. The difference from the fellowship described by Justin is very sharp. The believers, says Justin, demonstrate the truth of the gospel in the act of baptism and by participation in the Eucharist.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
C. The community of truth has an ultimate destiny 1. According to Justin. Justin believes that the Christian community is eschatological in nature. It awaits the second coming of Christ and subsequent events. Goodenough has pointed out at length the uncritical character of various detailsin Justin's eschatology.1 At the same time it is important to discern a consistency in the Apologist as he describes general aspects of the future life. a. First, the Christian community, according to Justin, awaits the second coming of Christ. One of Justin's favorite words to express the idea is mpocdoxav, "to expect, look for' (cf. I. 8:3;
IT:1-2; 18:65 32:4; 42:4; 5672).2 Furthermore, by prediction and type, the Old Testament is said to set forth the two comings of Christ, the first in humiliation, the second in glory.? Several sections of Justin's Dialogue and the First Apology deal with the issue (cf., e.g. D. 32-54; III-114; 138-139; I. 50-52).* b. Second, according to Justin, the Christian community awaits the resurrection of the flesh (I. 18-19; D. 80: 1-4), the final judgment
(I. 28:1; 52:3-12; D. 36:1; 58:1), and Christ's reign. He reigns now, says Justin, by virtue of his resurrection and ascension (compare his interpretation of Psalm 24 in D. 36), but he will reign in the future in a rebuilt Jerusalem (D. 81).° Justin adds that many
Christians of a pure and godly mind do not accept a rule of Christ on earth (D. 80:2).® 1 Op. cit., pp. 278-291, especially p. 201.
* For the idea of expectancy, compare the teaching of Jesus (e.g. Matt.
16:27; Mark 13:26), of Paul (e.g. 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 4:13-18; Phil. 3:20-21), and of John (Rev. 1:7 et ai.).
5 In his use of the term mapovotx, Justin differs from the New Testament idiom. In the New Testament, when the term rapovot« is used religiously, it is confined to the return of Jesus. Justin uses the term for Jesus' incarnation as well as for his return (cf. D. 14:8).
4 Compare likewise Luke 24:26-27; Mark 12:1-12; Acts 3:18-21; 1 Pet.
I:10-11 and the way in which ''day of Christ'' (1 Cor. 1:8) or '"'day of the Lord" (1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2) apparently means "day of Yahweh'' (e.g.
Joel 2:1 ff., Amos 5:18-20; Jer. 46:10).
5 Justin "'exegetes'""? Rev. 20 where a millennium is treated but he omits other New Testament passages where Christ's reign is not linked to a millennium (e.g. Matt. 19:28; 1 Cor. 15:20-28).
6 The text of D. 80:2 is curious. The apologist claims to have informed Trypho on this issue at an earlier time. Yet, in the Dialogue as we have it, there is no earlier information given. Possibly a part of the Dialogue has been lost (compare A. L. Williams, Justin Martyr, The Dialogue with Trypho, pp. Xvili and 169).
PROPOSITION V
I71I 2. According to Ev. Ver. The writer of Ev. Ver. believes that the community of truth has an ultimate destiny—in the Father.
The obvious question, however, is: Does Ev. Ver. give evidence of eschatology?
If eschatology be taken to mean a series of end-events or the culmination of a Divine process on earth which expresses God's concern for mankind in the age that is and the coming age, then
Ev. Ver. contains no eschatology. It claims that Truth originates in the Father of Truth (16:33) and finds its final expression in the community of Truth (42:25-26) which is said to be in the Father
(42:26-30). The destiny of the community appears, however, in a number of ways. a. First, the aroma (= the sons of the Father) which has become mixed with matter is drawn back to the Father and sinks down in his aroma (33:39-34:14). b. Second, the Father has a place (tTormtoc) and sends his Son forth to speak of that place and to effect the return of his chosen ones by removing them from this place (= the world) and granting them nourishment from that place (40:30-41:12). The text quite clearly distinguishes between "that place in which he [i.e. the Gnostic] stood'"' (41:9-10), and "'that place fie. the Father's] of which he tastes" (41:10-II). c. Third, there is a "'withheld completeness' which the Father eventually gives to those who return to him (18:29-19:7). The passage is difficult but its general sense is clear. The fact that it contains two perfect forms of the verb +, one '"'positive'' and one
"negative," facilitates its exegesis. The Father has given (act, 18:28) joy to those who have discovered his gnosis: he has not given (warecreesy, 18:37) completeness to the All. The writer seems to sense the obvious tension. He denies that it is due to any jealousy on the Father's part (18:38-39) and uses a rhetorical question to enforce his point. "Indeed," he says, "what jealousy
[could there be] between him and his members?"
(18:39-40).
Therefore, what the Father withholds is for a purpose, i.e. that the All may return to him for completeness. The return is necessary for two reasons. First, since completeness exists only in the Father
(21:8-9), to give completeness or perfection to the world as it is would mean to posit completeness apart from the Father—an impossible idea. Completeness belongs only to God. Second, to give completeness to the world now would mean a static universe
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
with no goal whatever. The writer thus insists that there is movement of the universe toward the Father, certainly a strong Biblical emphasis. God must give the completeness; the creatures cannot and do not bring it about by their own efforts. There is also, however, a non-Biblical emphasis. While the completeness in the Bible as in Ev. Ver. is a gift, it is altogether something new which man has never had; in Ev. Ver., it is a completeness that man recovers, i.e. it is already potential in man. d. Fourth, the balance or tension that now prevails between the structure of the world (schema) and Oneness, will be resolved by God (25:7-8). That is, God will banish completely all opposition.
No fewer than four times does the writer use the compound verb Pwd abad® and indicate thereby that ignorance (24:35-36), darkness (24:37-38), lack (25:2), and schema (25:4-5) will disappear.
The "'event"' will occur, he says:
(1) When Oneness will perfect the spaces (25:9-11). If maest (25:10) be taken in a spatial sense, the meaning is that the Divine
Oneness will perfect (= bring into Divine Oneness) all modes of existence—whether celestial or terrestrial.
(2) When each one receives himself (25:1I-12), i.e. recovers that which was lost but which belongs to his original nature.
(3) When each one by means of gnosis is purified out of diversity into Oneness. Gnosis ("it'" or '"'he'' is to be understood as the pronoun of the auxiliary of eqyorwa in 25:15) purifies him, consumes his hulic nature in the same way fire consumes. The tense of NAxWwR "will complete"
(25:9) is future. Two other future forms follow, i.e. Naxs Waag, "he will receive himself" (25:12), and eynacwTgy, "he will be purified [ie. out of diversity into Oneness]," 25:13. The summary statement in 25:19-20, however, uses the perfect tense, '""These things have happened to us.' The problem of tense is probably due to the fact that the author sees the Divine purpose pointed in two directions. It points to the community of Truth, i.e. "us" (25:21), and to the cosmic universe, ie. "the All" (25:22) or "the house' (25:23). What the Father
"will do" he has in fact already done—not for the universe but for his chosen ones. The "house" is yet to become holy and quiet for Oneness (25:23-25).
The destiny for the community of Truth is, in a definite sense, realized; for the cosmos, it is unrealized. The text of 25:19-25 is significant in that it yields three of the few occurrences in
PROPOSITION V
Ev. Ver. of the pronoun of the first person plural—as suffix in wWaAAM (25:20) and apan (25:21), and as auxiliary prefix in NTHAETE (25:22). The writer identifies himself with a distinct group. The "missionary witness' which his group bears to the world is a witness of meditation. According to Irenaeus' description of the Valentinian hierarchy, Nous and Monogenes alone know the invisible and incomprehensible Father and ''meditate' on the way in which they may communicate his nature to the rest of the Aeons.' In Ev. Ver. 25: 19-25, mutatis-mutandis, it is possible that the community of Truth, having experienced the Father's gnosis and Oneness, ''meditates on the All," i.e. considers how it will be able to communicate the Father's gnosis to the world so that the world (= the house) may become holy and quiet for Oneness (25: 23-25). The word antHpgy, in this context, has usually been taken adverbially.? But the construction mere acommonly means "to meditate upon" (cf., e.g. Matt. 24:4484; Hebr. 4:19;
Hos. 7:15%; r Cor. 4:1%°; Job 1:588; Prov. 17:1284).8
Summary and Comparison Two comings of Christ are stressed in Justin's writings. His prophecy-fulfillment emphasis relative to the first and second comings constitutes a major emphasis of his works. He shows thereby, on the one hand, his keen awareness of what God has done down through the ages, and, on the other hand, of what he will yet perform (= Divine teleology).
Justin's emphasis, however, tends to slight the work of God in behalf of the Christian community in between the two advents. According to I. 32:4, in interpreting Gen. 49:10, "He shall be the expectation of the nations," Justin thinks that the text means that men out of all nations will be awaiting expectantly him who is to come again
(xédw). The adverb, méAw, is unusual. What it signifies is that to Justin, events of decisive import belong either to the past or to the future. In the past, or at the first parousza, the important events are the various stages in the life and ministry of Jesus and the formation of the church, the new Israel. In the future, or at the second parousia, the important events as noted above, concern the resurrection of believers, the final judgment and DUANGKD,, Jélag Me Bake 2 Cf. the translations in the Ev. Ver. text, pp. 21, 71, 97.
3 References from Crum, op. cit., p. 199b.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
Christ's reign. As Goodenough has emphasized, the importance of the second parousia, for Justin, lies in the fact that Christians are finally saved at that time.1 To be sure, in both of the comings,
Justin finds that the power of God accomplishes his will and purpose. As witness thereto, both the Apologies and the Dialogue reveal the significant prominence of the word dvvaysg and its congeners. With respect to the first coming, each event, according to Justin, pulsates with the power of God. Christ's coming was in accord with the power given to him by the almighty Father (D.
139:4). Christ is the first power after God the Father (I. 32:10); his pre-incarnate appearances were with the power of God (D.
128:1); his blood was not of human seed but of the power of God (I. 32:11; D. 54:2);.the power of God coming upon the virgin caused her to conceive without intercourse
(I. 33:4; 46:5; D.
100:5), so that at his birth, he was not only in possession of power (D. 88:2) but took "the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria"
(Isa. 8:4) at the time the Magi came to worship (D.
77:3-4; 78:9). The seven-fold power of the Spirit prophesied in Isa. 11:1-3, found rest or the accomplishment of the Divine purpose in him (D. 87:2-3). His works were evidence of God's power (I. 30:1); so also was the Word which he spoke (I. 14:4).
Thus, when Jesus returned no answer and was silent before Pilate, the writer says that it was as though the waters of a plentiful and powerful spring had been dammed up (D. 102:5). Among the events of power connected with Christ's first coming, Justin particularly singles out the cross, the resurrection, and the ascension.
The hidden power of God was in the crucified Christ (D. 49:8; cf. I. 35:2). In I. 55:2, Justin claims that the cross represents the greatest symbol of God's power and rule, and then he proceeds to find the symbol in the ship's sail, the farmer's plow, the miner's tools, the human face, the Roman insignia, and in the images of the deceased emperors (I. 55). The resurrection
(D. 138:1)
and the ascension were likewise events of power. Justin frequently employs Psalm 24 to show the power of Christ at his ascension.
He is the xvprog xpatard¢ xal xberog Svvatdg (I. 51:7) and XVELOG tHv duvauewv (D. 36:4), whose ascension cannot be hindered
(cf.
D. 36:3-6; 85:1-5; 127:5).
With regard to the apostolic witness and the formation of the church, Justin likewise is convinced of the operation of God's power.
1 Of. cit., pp. 250-252.
PROPOSITION V
10g) One of his favorite Old Testament references is Psalm 110:1-3 (LXX, 109:1-3). "The rod of his power" (Psa. 110:2) is nothing less than the mighty word of Jesus which the apostles carried forth from Jerusalem to the nations (I. 45:5; D. 83:2-4). That is, the word is the law that went forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:3) through the mission of the twelve, who "by the power of God," proclaimed his message to every race of men (I. 39:1-3).
The second farousia is also the work of God's power, according to Justin. In a first class conditional sentence (D. 31:1), he cites the two advents from the standpoint of the comparative power demonstrated in them. "Now, if in the plan of his suffering so great power is demonstrated ...how much more in his glorious coming that is to occur.'' In addition, one should compare the Apologist's argument in I. 19 on the ability of God alone to raise dead bodies at the resurrection.
It has been stated above that Justin tends to slight the work of the Holy Spirit or the power of God that occurs in the period between the two advents of Christ. The Apologist, however, does cite two things of importance which, for him, bridge the period between the two comings, (1) The corporate life of the community of Christians united in the sacraments and in the weekly worship service, and (2) The virtuous daily life of individual Christians which is cast in the midst of a pagan society. In a sense, Justin links both emphases to one thing—the didcyuatx or évtodat of Christ. The important place which Christ's commandments occupy in Christian life—between the two advents—appears in a significant passage in D. 116:2-3. The background of the passage is found in the vision of the cleansing of Joshua, the high priest (Zech. 3).
Just as Joshua is said to be a brand "having been plucked out of fire'
(Zech. 3:2, quoted in D. 116:2), so we Christians, says Justin, through the power of God that appeared in Jesus Christ at his first coming, have been "plucked out from fire''—the fire of former sins and fiery trials by which the Devil and all his cohorts try us (D. 116:2). Through the name of Jesus, Justin continues, we have been stripped of the sullied clothing of our sins (116:3).
Thus, through his first coming. Christ rescues those who believe in his name and removes from them the defilement of iniquities.
From the standpoint of the vision in Zech. 3:5, and from the point of view of New Testament Christianity, one would expect Justin to affirm that new garments are given as the old are removed.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH IN BOTH WRITINGS
But Justin interprets the text uniquely. New garments, he says, are reserved for the second coming.''Jesus the Son of God will again pluck us" out of sin, for ""He has promised" that he will provide us with an eternal kingdom, and he has undertaken "'to clothe us with prepared garments' —'"'if we keep his commandments."
Justin's meaning is definite. Jesus Has rescued Christians from sins, stripped them of their old garments. He will one day clothe them with prepared garments on condition that (ékv) Christians keep his commandments until he come. The passage shows a strong moralistic element but fails to emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit. The thoughtful Gnostic of Justin's day would have sensed a lack in Justin's writings at this point. The work of God in the past and future are not solidly joined together through the Divine power of the Holy Spirit in the present. It is this lack that Ev. Ver. apparently tries to fill. In making the attempt, the gnostic document comes closer than Justin to the New Testament emphasis. At the same time it must be remembered that, in Ev. Ver., the life of the community in the past is indistinct and that any future eschaton for the community is practically non-existent. Or, one can say that in Ev. Ver., the past and the future coalesce into the present. The thing that matters is the present experience of the Father's gnosis through the Logos, a gnosis interpreted by the Holy Spirit. And it must be remembered that, while Justin's experiential emphasis is weak, the life of the community always appears in his writings in a simple and clear form, always anchored to the work which God has done for men in history.