Since it is almost an established dogma
of scholarship that John does not make an appearance in Justin, I would like to
point out that echoes of John are in fact to be seen in some of Justin’s fulfillment
reports. Let me substantiate this by two case studies:
1. In 1 Apology 35.5-8
Justin quotes from Psalm 22:16b/18b in a condensed version: “They have pierced
my hands and my feet, and have cast lots for my garment.” He then goes on to
explain that the first phrase “refers to the nails which transfixed his hands
and feet on the cross.” This detail about the nails in Jesus’ hands (but
not feet) is only mentioned in John 20:25. Next, Justin explains how the second
phrase came true: “After he was crucified, they cast lots for his garment (himastismon,
singular), and [in this way?] his crucifers divided it among themselves.” The
interesting thing here is that none of the Synoptic Gospels explicitly quotes
Psalm 22:18b as a prophecy. They merely weave its wording into their own
account: “When they had crucified him, they divided his clothes (ta himatia,
plural) among themselves by casting lots (about the clothes, what each should have)”
(Matt. 27:35/Mark 15:24, parenthesis only in Mark). John is the only Gospel to
quote the whole verse of Psalm 22:18 as a prophecy fulfilled, to the letter, by
what the soldiers actually did. The full text of the psalm has two phrases in
synonym parallelism: “They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my garment
they cast lots” (John 19:24b). Both phrases were realized according to John 19:23,
24a. (a) The soldiers divided ta himatia (plural) into four parts, thus fulfilling
the first phrase. (b) But the himatismon (singular) for which they cast
lots is taken to be the tunic of Jesus, which they would not tear apart.
Accordingly, the casting of lots became necessary for this one piece of
clothing. This focus on the second phrase of the psalm verse, the casting of
lots with regarding to the singular himatismon, is preserved in Justin’s
shortened Psalms quote as well as his fulfillment report. Justin’s source is at
this point closer to John than to any of the Synoptics.
2. In 1 Apology 52.10-12
Justin brings an expanded, non-LXX version of Zechariah 12:10-12. Within this
long quotation he pays especial attention to the phrase “they shall look upon
the one whom they pierced” (exekentēsan, a non-LXX reading), as
is shown by his repeated allusions to this particular phrase in Dialogue 14.8,
32.2, 64.7, 118.1. This prophecy does not appear in any of the Synoptics but is
given a prominent position in the passion story of John as one of three
explicit fulfillment quotations. The soldier pierced Jesus’ side so that the
prophecy should come true: “They will look on the one whom they have pierced (exekentēan)”
(John 19:34-37).
I find it fair to conclude that in
Justin’s sources for the proof-from-prophecy argument, material from John’s
passion story was used as a source for important prophecies as well as for
fulfllment reports—less frequently than Matthew, but comparably to the use of
Luke and Mark in the same sources. (Oskar Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” Justin
Martyr and His Worlds, ed. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster [Minneapolis, Minn.:
Fortress Press, 2007], 67-68)
Dialogue
105.1
There is, however, one exception
in the Dialogue, where Justin’s reference to the Word’s incarnation seems
to give his source for the teaching: “For I have proved he was monogenes
to the Father of all things, begotten of him in a peculiar manner as Word and
Power, and later having become man through the virgin, as we have learned from
the memoirs” (Dial. 105.1; cf. 100.2, 4).
Pryor has argued that what Justin
here attributes to the Memoirs should be restricted to the virgin birth
and should not include that Jesus is monogenes to the Father, because
Justin claims he has already “proved” his case, and Pryor finds no evidence of direct
dependence on John 1 in the immediately preceding chapters. But Justin did not
say here that he has “proved” anything “from the Memoirs”—as though he
were saying that he had laid out all his alleged evidence explicitly from them—only
that he and other Christians have learned these things from the Memoirs.
For the plural “we” in “as we have learned from the Memoirs” evidently
refers not to Justin and Trypho, but to Justin and other Christians. Moreover,
even if we should restrict the information derived from the Memoirs to
the virgin birth, we must recognize that Justin does not simply speak here of a
“virgin birth”—a miraculous birth of a human being—he speaks of a divine figure
(the monogenes of the Father, begotten of him in a peculiar manner as
Word and Power) “becoming man” through the virgin. Both the description of this
divine personage and the description of his “becoming man” are given in language
that here and elsewhere in his writings arguably shows the imprint of John’s
prologue.
For instance, Christ’s “becoming
man” (ανθρωπος γεγονεν) is elsewhere specified as his “having
been made flesh” (σαρκοποιηθεις),
reflecting the conception and wording of John 1:14 (σαρξ εγενετο) in 1 Apology 32.10. And his
“becoming man according to his [God’s will” (και τη βουλη αυτου γενομενος ανθρωπος, 1 Apol. 23.2; cf. Dial.
63.2) elsewhere reflects the christological application of John 1:13, “born not
of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”
(see also 1 Apol. 21.1; 22.2; 23.2; 32.9-10; 63.2). That Justin says he
learned from the Memoirs about the Logos, the only-begotten of
the Father, begotten by him after a peculiar manner, “having become man through
the virgin,” is as much as saying that John’s gospel was one of the Memoirs.
. . .
The
Judgment Seat
The first comes in his claim that
Isaiah 58:2, “They now ask of me judgment, and dare to draw near to God” (1
Apol. 35:4), was fulfilled at the time of the crucifixion of Christ. Justin
says, “As the prophet spoke, they tormented him, and set him on the
judgement-seat [αυτον εκαθισαν επι βηματος] and said, ‘Judge us.’” This goes
back to a reading of John 19:13, the only Gospel that could be read as indicating
that Jesus sat on a judgment sear (βημα)
at his trial: “When Pilate hared these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down
on the judgment seat [εκαθισαν επι βηματος]” (John 19:13). But instead of
Pilate sitting on the βημα,
Justin has understood εκαθισαν,
“he sat down,” as transitive, he, meaning Pilate, “sat him [Jesus] down.”
Some modern commentators have done the same. This is in fact what allows Isaiah
58:2, “They now ask of me judgment,” to be related to the events of the passion
of Jesus. The same exegetical tradition, related again to the εκαθισαν of John 19:13, is known to the author
of the Gospel of Peter, but as Koester says, “the Gospel of Peter cannot
have been Justin’s source, because he [Justin] uses the word βημα for ‘judgment sear’, like John
19:13” (Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 397), whereas the Gospel
of Peter has changed βημα
to καθεδραν κρισεως, seat of judgment. Instead both
use of the same exegetical tradition of interpreting what is evidently the
report of John 19:13 as the fulfillment of Isaiah 58:2. Thus when Justin
alleges that the emperor and Senate can learn of the fulfillment of Isaiah 58:2
from “the Acts which occurred under Pontius Pilate” (1 Apol. 35.9), he
is certainly not referring to Matthew, Mark, or Luke, but could well be
referring to John. (C. E. Hill, “Was John’s Gospel among Justin’s Apostolic
Memoirs?” in ibid., 88-89, 91)
