Justin Martyr’s theory of ‘Seminal Logos’ (Logos Spermatikos) and its Relevance for

Christian Dialogue
Jose Kuruvachira
Introduction
Christianity as a new religion underwent rapid growth and expansion over the ancient world
by the middle of the second century A.D. This necessitated frequent encounters between
Christianity and the contemporary non-Christian cultures, religions and philosophies. It was also
the period of great persecution of Christians. A group of Christian thinkers known as ‘The
Apologists’ were the first to discuss the question of the relationship between the doctrinal
tradition of the Church and different types of ancient philosophy, and in this field their
contribution was historic, and marked the beginning of a new trend within the theology of the
early Church. Basically, towards non-Christian cultures, the Apologists followed either a policy
of radical rejection (for example, Tatian the Assyrian; Theophilus of Antioch) or appreciation
and partial acceptance (for example, Justin Martyr; Athenagoras of Athens) without sacrificing
their basic conviction that Christianity alone is the bearer of the complete truth.1
Life, career and works of Justin
In The First Apology, Justin Martyr (ca.100-ca.165A.D) describes himself as the son of
Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, and born in Flavia Neapolis in Syria-Palestine.2 He was not a
Jew either by race or religion, but a gentile of the Greco-Roman ancestry3, and seems to have
been a typical representative of the urban upper-class of the time, intellectually active and
cosmopolitan in outlook.4 He received a Greek education and had a passion for philosophy. In
his Dialogue with Trypho he tells that he first tried to study under a Stoic teacher, who showed
no interest in theology, followed by a Peripatetic, who displayed too lively a concern for his fees,
and then a Pythagorean, who demanded a too intensive course of preliminary study. Dissatisfied
with these tutors he put himself under a Platonist and found his doctrines more congenial.5 Justin
confesses that a discussion with an old Christian kindled in him a love of Christ, and led him to
embrace Christianity.6 He was also influenced by the fearless conduct of the Christians facing
execution during persecution. Justin’s conversion to Christianity may have taken place at
Ephesus. His conversion can be considered as the result of his passionate search for truth. He
wore his philosopher’s gown after his conversion, as a token that he had attained the only true
philosophy.7

1
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos. Christianity and Ancient Philosophy according to St. Justin’s
Apologies”, Tina Pierce (tr.), Studia Theologica, Vol 12, 1958, pp. 109-110. The essay of Holte is a highly scholarly
and an original analysis of the concept of the seminal Logos.
2
Cfr. The First Apology, 1, p.33, in The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Vol.6, Hermigild Dressler
(ed.), Writings of Saint Justin Martyr, Thomas B. Falls (tr.), Washington, The Catholic University Press of America,
[1948], 2008. (All references to Justin’s The First Apology are from this edition, and the number immediately after
the title refers to the chapter).
3
Cfr. The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Vol.6, p.10.
4
Cfr. Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Church, Combined Edition of The Fathers of the Greek
Church and The Fathers of the Latin Church, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1998, pp.6-7.
5
Cfr. Dialogue with Trypho, 2, pp.149-150, in The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Vol.6, Hermigild
Dressler (ed.), Writings of Saint Justin Martyr, Thomas B. Falls (tr.), Washington, The Catholic University Press of
America, [1948], 2008. (All references to Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho are from this edition, and the number
immediately after the title refers to the chapter).
6
Cfr. Dialogue with Trypho, 8, p.160.
7
Cfr. The Ancient Ante-Nicene Fathers. The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D 325, Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson (eds.), Vol.1, The Apostolic Fathers – Justin Martyr – Irenaeus, Michigan, WM. B. Erdmans
Publishing Company, Revised edition 1985, Introductory note to the First Apology of Justin Martyr, p.160.
1
 Justin engaged in debates and disputations with non-Christians of all kinds, gentiles, Jews,
and heretics. He opened a school of Christian philosophy and accepted students, first at Ephesus
and then later at Rome.8 He claimed that Christianity is the fulfilment of the philosophical quest.
Because of his Christian faith and defence of Christianity, he was tried together with six
companions by Junius Rusticus, the prefect of Rome, and was beheaded, probably in 165 A.D.
Justin ‘the Philosopher’ – as he was called in his own time – is generally known today as ‘Justin
the Martyr’ (or simply ‘Justin Martyr’) because he set the seal on his life as a Christian
philosopher with a martyr’s death.9 Most historians agree that Justin was always a layman.10
Several works have been attributed to Justin, but only three are universally accepted as truly
his, namely, The First Apology, The Second Apology and Dialogue with Trypho.11 Some of his
authentic writings are probably lost, and some books attributed to him are considered as
spurious.12
Justin’s theory of ‘seminal Logos’ (Logos spermatikos)
Justin is regarded as the principal interpreter of the theory of the Logos13 among the Fathers
of the Church, and his concept of the ‘seminal Logos’ (Logos spermatikos) was of particular
importance to early Christian theology. In fact, it is generally believed that, the central point in
the relationship between pagan philosophy and Christian revelation is Justin’s theory of seminal
Logos. The material for the theory of ‘seminal Logos’ is only to be found in Justin’s two
Apologies written sometime between 148-161 A.D. These works were formally addressed to the
Emperor Antoninus Pius (131-161 A.D), his sons, the Roman senate and the educated Romans in
general.14 In the Apologies Justin reminds the emperor and others that, it is an injustice that
Christians are regarded as a criminal sect and constantly persecuted. In reality, the Christians are
the most just, most loyal, and pious subjects that the empire has, and they are the real and natural
allies of the government in its struggle for peace and order in the world.15 Justin thus seeks to
appeal to the emperor and others in authority as noble persons, true philosophers, and claim to be
guardians of justice and lovers of truth.16
The complex background of the ‘seminal Logos’ theory
The seminal Logos (Logos spermatikos) theory of Justin has a complex background. The
different logos theories with which Justin was confronted, originated basically from two distinct

8
Cfr. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/175.html Accessed on 16 October 2012.
9
Cfr. Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Church, p.5
10
Cfr. The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Vol.6, p.13.
11
Cfr. The Early Christian Fathers. A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St.
Athanasius, Henry Bettenson (tr. and ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1969, p.9.
12
. The ancient Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea refers to as many as eight works of Justin. Cfr. Eusebius,
The Church History, Paul L. Maier (tr.), Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2007, p.137. For a discussion on the works of Justin
see also Giuseppe Girgenti, Giustino Martire, Il Primo Cristiano Platonico, Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1995, pp.35-
36; The Ancient Ante-Nicene Fathers. The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D 325, Vol.1, pp.160-161; The Fathers
of the Church. A New Translation, Vol.6, pp.15-16.
13
‘Logos’ is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric and religion. Originally the term ‘logos’
meant ‘a ground’, ‘a plea’, ‘an opinion’, ‘an expectation’, ‘word’, ‘speech’, ‘account’, ‘reason’ and in the course of
time it became a technical term in philosophy beginning with Heraclitus. Logos is also a term widely used in
Hellenistic Judaism, and Christian theology identifies Jesus as the incarnate Logos. Cfr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos Accessed on 22 October 2012; D.M. Crossan, “Logos”, in The New Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, second edition, Berard L. Marthaler (ed.), Washington D.C, Gale, 2003, p. 758.
14
Cfr. The First Apology, 1, p.33; The Second Apology, 1, p. 119, in The Fathers of the Church. A New
Translation, Vol.6, Hermigild Dressler (ed.), Writings of Saint Justin Martyr, Thomas B. Falls (tr.), Washington,
The Catholic University Press of America, [1948], 2008 (All references to Justin’s The Second Apology are from
this edition and the number immediately after the titles refers to the chapter).
15
Cfr. The First Apology, 12, p.43; 17, p.52.
16
Cfr. The First Apology, 2, p.34.
2
lines of tradition, one non-Christian and the other Christian. The logos theories of Heraclitus17,
Stoicism, Pythagoreans, Plato, Aristotle, Middle Platonism and Philo of Alexandria belong to the
former, and the Old Testament18 and the New Testament, especially St. John’s Prologue and St.
Paul’s Epistles, are classified with the latter. However, Stoicism19, Middle Platonism20, Philo,21
and New Testament22 seem to have influenced Justin more than others in developing his Logos
theory.
The ‘seminal Logos’ is found in every member of the human race
Justin who was deeply rooted in both Greek philosophy and the Christian Scriptures,
introduced with particular originality the theory of the ‘seminal Logos’ (Logos spermatikos).
According to him, the seminal Logos is present in all human beings, in all places and at all
times.23 It is the principle of natural revelation which accounts for the innate religious and moral

17
It is in Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC) that the theory of Logos appears for the first time. For him Logos is the
Original Fire from which the whole of existence originates through organic development. Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos
Spermatikos”, pp.119-120; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm Accessed on 23 October 2012.
18
Quite frequently the Old Testament represents the creative act as the ‘word’ (logos) of God (Gen 1:3; Ps 33:9;
Sir 42:15); sometimes it seems to attribute to the word (logos) action of itself, although not independent of Yahweh
(Is 55:11; Zech 5:1-4; Ps 106: 20; 147:15). In all this one can see only bold figures of speech, such as, the word of
creation, the word of salvation, or in Zachariah, the word of malediction, as personified, but not conceived as a
distinct Divine hypostasis. In the Book of Wisdom this personification is more directly implied (Wis 18:15), and a
parallel is established between wisdom and the word (Wis 9:1-2). Cfr.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm Accessed on 23 October 2012.
19
According to Stoics (3rd century B.C), God is the materially understood Original Fire or Original Spirit that
pervades and animates the whole cosmos. This Original Fire is understood as cosmic Reason (Logos), and inasmuch
as it is the seed (sperma) or generative principle of the universe, it is called the ‘seminal Logos’ (Logos
spermatikos). The cosmic Reason (Logos) is the principle of both natural and moral law, and the condition for all
human knowledge because human reason (logos) is an emanation of the Original cosmic Reason (Logos). However,
the Logos theory of the Stoics is materialistic and monistic. Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.120; V.
Cauchy, “Stoicism”, in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, second edition, Berard L. Marthaler (ed.),
Washington D.C, Gale, 2003, p. 535.
20
Within the so-called Middle Platonic school, Plato’s doctrines are combined with ideas from the Stoic and
Aristotelian systems. Thus, the Stoic conception of Logos is re-interpreted, and the Logos is conceived as the
immaterial, transcendent, divine Reason (Logos) which is also immanent in the world. Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos
Spermatikos”, pp.120-121; J.O. Riedl, “Platonism” in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, second edition,
Berard L. Marthaler (ed.), Washington D.C, Gale, 2003, p. 413.
21
The Logos speculation of Philo (ca.30 BC-c.50 AD), an outstanding Jewish Philosopher of Alexandria, shows
a synthesis of the Old Testament, ideas of Heraclitus, Stoicism, Platonism and Middle Platonism. Since Philo
conceived God as utterly transcendent, the Logos becomes the aspect of the divine that operates in the world. In
him, as epithets for Logos, along with those of a mere impersonal nature such as ‘power’, one also finds a number of
personal ones, such as, ‘Second God’, ‘First born of God’, ‘Son of God’, ‘Angel’, ‘Apostle’, etc. This tendency to
personify ideas indicates a transformation of the Middle Platonic system. The term logos spermatikos appears a few
times in Philo, and two of these passages are noteworthy: in one case it is used to describe the transcendent Logos as
the creator of, and the principle for both physical and spiritual life, and in the other case it is used for human reason.
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, pp.123-124.
22
In the New Testament the term Logos is found only in the Johannine writings: in the Gospel of St. John (1:1-
14), in his First Epistle (1:1) and in the Apocalypse (19:13). But in the Epistles of Paul the theology of the Logos
makes its influence felt. In the Epistles to the Corinthians Christ is called ‘the power of God and the ‘wisdom of
God’ (1Cor 1:18-24; 1Cor 2:6-8), and ‘the image of God’ (2Cor 4:4)), and it is more evidently stated in the Epistle
to the Colossians (1:15-20). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the theology of the Logos seems to lack only the term
itself, and the term ‘Apostle’ is used as an epithet for Christ (Heb 3:1).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm Accessed on 23 October 2012. To the above, one needs to add the
parable of the sower in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 13:1-23). Highlighting this aspect Jan Hendrik Waszink says that the
logos spermatikos theory of Justin was influenced by three key factors, namely, Stoicism, the parable of the sower
and the writings of Philo. Cfr. Jan Hendrik Waszink, “Bemerkungen zu Justins Lehre vom Logos Spermatikos”, in
Mullus. Festschrift Theodor Klauser, Münster Westfalen, Ascendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964, p.390.
23
Cfr. The First Apology, 4, pp. 81-82; The Second Apology, 8, p. 127.
3
sense found in human beings. Because of its presence, human nature is equipped with the faculty
of understanding, choosing the truth, doing the right, possesses the power to reason and to reflect
and come to the knowledge of God. Hence before God none has an excuse, if one chooses to do
evil or refuses to believe in His existence.24 Here, Justin is using the philosophical idea in order
to emphasize the responsibility of all human beings to God and the justice of divine punishment.
Justin goes a step further and states that the Logos is Christ, and all human beings are
partakers of him. As a result of this participation, human beings are divided into two opposing
groups, those who live with Logos and those who live without Logos. Those without Logos live
immorally in wicked customs, and those who live with Logos are Christians.25
The ‘seminal Logos’ is received in different proportions
Justin maintains that the seminal Logos is received by each one in different proportions and
according to their capacity.26 It is true that both Greek philosophers and Christians hold various
doctrines in common. But this does not mean that they agree on all doctrines. While the
teachings of Plato, the Stoics, poets and historians are not totally different from those of
Christians, neither are they similar in all respects. 27 This difference is because the seminal Logos
is received by each one according their capacity and in different proportions. Thus Justin does
not grant a character of revelation to non-Christian religions or philosophical systems in their
entirety. He then goes on to affirm that there are also some who have received the Logos through
grace, and consequently they have the full and indisputable truth, and they are the Christians.28
Justin, in his writings, makes three levels of sharing the seminal Logos: a) the Christians who
possess it fully; b) the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament who possess it in a lesser
degree than Christians, and c) the gentile philosophers (eg. Greek philosophers) in a still lesser
degree than the Hebrews. This idea will become clear from the discussion that follows.
Christians possess the complete truth
Justin identifies the whole Logos as Christ, while others have only a part of the Logos.29 He
argues that on account of Christ, only Christianity possesses the complete truth, and all others
have only a dim glimpse of the same.30 Consequently, the Christian doctrine is greater than all
human teaching, more sublime than all human wisdom,31 and possesses the heavenly wisdom
and indisputable knowledge.32 Justin avers: “our [Christian] teachings are more noble than all
human teaching, because Christ, who appeared on earth for our sakes, became the whole Logos,
namely, Logos and body and soul”.33 In this way Justin affirms clearly and positively the
transcendent character of Christianityon the one hand, and a Word-flesh Christology on the
other.
Justin further states that Christianity is the only safe philosophy, and thereby refuses the
claims of all ancient schools to be a true philosophy, because they do not have a full knowledge
of the Logos, which is Christ, and they often contradict themselves.34 Even the great philosopher

24
Cfr. The First Apology, 28, p.65.
25
Cfr. The First Apology, 46, pp.83-84.
26
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, p.134.
27
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, p.133.
28
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, pp.133-134.
29
Cfr. The Second Apology, 9, p.128; 10, p.129.
30
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, p 134.
31
Cfr. The Second Apology, 15, p.135.
32
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, p.133.
33
The Second Apology, 10, p.129.
34
Cfr. The Second Apology, 10, p.129.
4
Socrates had only a vague knowledge of the Logos.35 Justin says: “the true Word, at His coming,
proved that not all opinions and teachings are good, but that some are bad, and others good.”36
Since Christian doctrine contains the complete truth, Justin abandons the different
philosophical systems. He claims that the occasional glimpses of truth perceived by the
philosophers through their participation in the seminal Logos are Christian property, because the
Christians are the only people who love and worship the incarnate Logos.37 He says: “The truths
which men in all lands have rightly spoken belong to us Christians”. 38 That is, through the
incarnation of the Logos-Christ, all truths have become the property of Christians.39
Universal appeal of the incarnate Logos
The incarnate Logos (Christ) has universal appeal. Christianity is accessible to all people,
both learned and ignorant. The complete and perfect truth granted by Christ, is thus not limited
to an intellectual aristocracy. He has won artisans and entirely uneducated people by his
teachings as well as philosophers and scholars. Thus, the spiritual reality of Christianity only
simply glimpsed by the great intellectuals of Greece, has now become the property of all people
independent of intellectual capacity.40 Rangar Holte observes: “Such a statement must have
appeared quite fantastic to the whole ancient world. It was a message with revolutionary
contents.”41 In this way, Justin presents Christendom as the new people of God, and its holiness,
spirituality and the marvellous universality of its fellowship embrace the whole world. Justin the
philosopher welcomes Christianity as the new world religion and the unique truth, which must be
proclaimed to his age.42
Natural revelation is imperfect
Because of the presence of the seminal Logos in human beings, natural revelation is possible.
But Justin makes a clear distinction between natural revelation and Christian revelation. The
natural knowledge of God is described by Justin as imperfect, obscure and difficult to obtain.
Those who lived before Christ tried to gain knowledge of reality, but this could only occur to the
extent of human capacities. He states further that those who had only a natural and fragmentary
knowledge had diverging opinions even in their principal doctrines. Justin’s opinion seems to be
that since no philosopher has reached irrefutable knowledge, none of the philosophic systems is
wholly true, the best of them being mixtures of falsity and the occasional glimpses of truth.43
Justin here claims that all possession of virtue and truth in the philosophers as a ‘seed’ only.
The strivings of the philosophers based on the natural power of reason have not extended in
principle above the child stage even in their most extreme case (eg. Socrates). Rangar Holte says:
“This is the fantastic statement with which Justin undermines the claims of Ancient Philosophy
to be able to lead man to a telos i.e. to salvation and perfection”.44
Christ as Logos brings salvation through grace
Justin contrasts between the natural power in human beings to know the Logos and the
knowledge of the Logos by participation through grace.45 According to Joseph Carola, this is

35
Cfr. The Second Apology, 10, p.130.
36
The Second Apology, 9, p.129.
37
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, p.134.
38
The Second Apology, 13, pp.133-134.
39
Cfr. Jan Hendrik Waszink, “Bemerkungen zu Justins Lehre vom Logos Spermatikos”, p. 385.
40
Cfr. The First Apology, 60, p.99.
41
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.168.
42
Cfr. Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Church, p.12.
43
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, p.134.
44
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.141.
45
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, p.134.
5
based on a distinction he makes between dynamis (capacity) and charis (grace). The former
arises from the presence of the ‘seed of the Logos’ (sperma tou logou) in human beings. It is the
natural power or rational ability that underlies philosophical research. The latter depends directly
on the Logos and involves a participation in him (Logos) that he alone accomplishes through his
grace. It defines the faith experience resulting from a spiritual encounter with the incarnate
Logos, Christ. In the end Justin rejects the notion that philosophy can lead to perfection. Greek
philosophy is not a path to salvation. A seminal reality, though once implanted, does not grow of
its own accord toward perfection.46 It forever sees obscurely and must labour greatly even in one
of incomparable stature like Socrates, who prefigured the Logos par excellence among the
Greeks, had only a partial knowledge of Christ.47 The Divine Logos fully incarnate in Christ
alone perfects human knowledge and brings about the salvation of humanity.
Problem of those who lived before the incarnation of the Logos
Justin in his Apology anticipates the problem of the moral responsibility before God of those
who lived before the incarnation of Christ. The problem is presented in the following manner: if
it is claimed that the Christian revelation is necessary to distinguish clearly between good and
evil, what about those persons who lived before the coming of Christ, and who, for no fault of
their own, did not have the opportunity to know him? Will they be exempt from moral
responsibility on this account?48
Justin responds to the problem by referring to the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ: “We
have been taught that Christ was First begotten of God [the Father]”.49 Consequently, none has
lived before Christ. Besides, he is the Logos of whom every member of the human race partakes.
Justin says: “He was and is the Logos who is in every person.”50 Thus, God rightly holds the
ancients, who lived before Christ, morally accountable, in virtue of the seminal Logos present in
all and at all times.
Justin has here tried to think creatively in order to meet a problem which the Church was
facing in his day. The new reflection of Justin does not lie in the fact that Christ is described as
Logos, but rather in the relation which is claimed to exist between the Logos and human beings.
But Justin also states that, despite this knowledge, not all chose to live according to right reason.
Such persons were useless men and enemies of Christ and murderers of those who lived by
reason, namely Christians.51
Justin’s loan and demon theories
Justin admits that some elements of the heavenly wisdom are to be found in Greek
philosophy. But he does not account for their presence by means of the seminal Logos sown in
human beings, but because the Greek philosophers borrowed doctrines from the Old
Testament.52 Given the fact that Moses preceded Plato, Justin argues that Plato had read the
Hebrew Scriptures and borrowed from them those doctrines that unaided human reason cannot
discover on its own, such as, the immortality of the soul, retribution after death, speculation on
celestial matters and other similar doctrines.53 Thus, referring to true and revealed doctrines

46
Cfr. Joseph Carola, “Non-Christians in Patristic Theology”, in Catholic Engagement with World Religions. A
Comprehensive Study, Karl Josef Becker and Ilaria Morali (eds.), New York, Orbis Books, 2010, p. 37.
47
Cfr. The Second Apology, 10, p.130.
48
Cfr. The First Apology, 46, p.83.
49
The First Apology, 46, p. 83.
50
The Second Apology, 10, p.130.
51
Cfr. The First Apology, 46, pp.83-84.
52
Cfr. The First Apology, 44, p.81; 59, p. 97; 60, p.97.
53
Cfr. The First Apology, 44, p.81.
6
found among the Greeks, Justin says: “Thus, it is not that we hold the same opinion as others, but
that they all imitate and re-echo ours.”54
Justin introduces his demon theory to account for the false charges against and persecution of
Christians55, distortion of the Christian teachings,56 misleading people to follow magic and
idolatry, teaching people to indulge in evil and to believe that there is no hell fire and
punishment for sinners,57 alienating people from God and Christ58, etc. Here Justin is partly
dependent on the views of Philo.
The activity of the ‘seminal Logos’ among Jews is superior to gentiles
Justin has not put the revelation among the Greeks on the same plane as the revelation among
Israel, because the activity of the Logos has not been of the same kind among Jews and gentiles.
In Justin’s opinion, the prophetic revelation in the Old Testament contains a much more
complete truth than that of the Greek philosophers. He says that, while the gentiles were
worshipping the works of their own making, the Jews and Samaritans were given the word of
God by the prophets.59 Hence the Old Testament is not a revelation limited to the extent of the
human capacities. Some men among the Jews were prophets of God who foretold through the
prophetic spirit the coming of Christ,60 and they did so by the Logos of God who prompted
them.61 One also finds in the Old Testament a personal appearance of Logos who revealed
himself in a visible shape to Moses and other prophets. Justin says: “our Christ talked with him
[Moses] in the shape of fire from a bush.”62 Hence these prophets did not speak by their own
power and inspiration, but because they were moved and directed by the divine Logos. But he
also adds that the Jews who possess the writings of the prophets did not have the complete truth
and they did not recognise Christ when he came.63 One notices that Justin’s approach to the
relationship between Judaism and Christianity is characterised by a principle of both continuity
and discontinuity with profound soteriological consequences.64
Superiority of Christianity over all philosophies
For Justin, Christianity is philosophical truth itself. In his Apologies he shows the rationality
of Christianity and its deeply reasonable contents. In the process he places it, in principle, on the
same plane as the contemporary philosophical systems. But he also claims the superiority of
Christianity over these by stating that it is more sublime than all human wisdom.65
In order to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity, Justin contrasts the obscure
comprehension of truth laboriously gained by individual Greeks to the complete and perfect truth
available in the incarnate Logos (Christ). Christ is the object of the philosophers’ possession of
the truth, and the contradictions and imperfections in knowledge are due to the limitations of
human intellectual faculties, and the fact that Christ is not given as the direct object of

54
The First Apology, 60, p.99.
55
Cfr. The Second Apology, 12, p.132.
56
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, p.133.
57
Cfr. The First Apology, 56, p.95; 57, pp.95-96.
58
Cfr. The First Apology, 58, p.96.
59
Cfr. The First Apology, 53, p.91.
60
Cfr. The First Apology, 31, p.67; 33 p.70.
61
Cfr. The First Apology, 36, p.73.
62
The First Apology, 62, p.101. In The First Apology, first Justin says that God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire
out of the burning bush; then he says that the Son of God spoke to Moses styled as both Angel and Apostle; and
finally he says that the Logos once appeared to Moses and the other prophets in the form of fire and in the guise of
an Angel. Cfr. Ibid., 63, pp. 102-103.
63
Cfr. The First Apology, 36, p.73.
64
Cfr. Joseph Carola, “Non-Christians in Patristic Theology”, p.25.
65
Cfr. The Second Apology, 15, p.135.
7
knowledge to philosophers.66 But among the Christians there is knowledge and contemplation of
the complete Logos because of the incarnation of the Logos in the historical person of Jesus
Christ. Thus, Christianity possesses the more complete, more sublime, more divine and more
ancient truth than any religion or philosophical system.67
All who live in accordance with Logos are Christians
Justin argues that since all have a human reason, and share in the seminal Logos (Christ), all
who live according to reason are Christians. Some of the Greek philosophers and the patriarchs
and prophets of the Old Testament are examples of those who have lived with Logos. Therefore,
it is possible to say that ‘all people who have lived in accordance with reason’ had been
Christians, including, for example, Socrates and Heraclitus among the Greeks, and Abraham,
Elijah and many others among the foreigners.68 Commenting on this, Hans von Campenhausen
says: “With one bold stroke the whole history of the human spirit is summed up in Christ and
brought to its consummation”.69
Distinction between ‘seminal Logos’ and ‘seed of the Logos’
Rangar Holte in his analysis of Justin’s theory of Logos spermatikos makes an important
distinction between his description of ‘seed of the Logos’ and ‘Logos himself’. According to
him, Justin distinguishes between Logos spermatikos (seminal Logos) and sperma tou logou
(seed of the Logos) present in all human beings. They are not identical, and this aspect,
according to Holte, has been neglected by many scholars.70 The term Logos spermatikos appears
only twice in Justin’s writings, and on each occasion is singular.71 It refers specifically to the
Divine Logos, which is Christ. Then there are references to ‘seed of the Logos’ implanted in
mankind.72 The Logos spermatikos is not disseminated, but rather actively disseminates or sows
his seed (sperma tou logou) which is other than himself. The ‘seed’ refers to the fragmentary
knowledge of the Logos implanted in human beings. Thus, through the seed he illuminates
human beings morally and religiously. Underlying Justin’s vision is the scriptural parable of the
sower who sows his seed in Matthew 13:1-23. The seed is other than the sower. The sperma tou
logou is not the logos himself, but an imitation of the logos. In this light one rightly understands
a key passage in The Second Apology: “Indeed, all writers [i.e. Greeks], by means of the
engrafted seed of the Word which was implanted in them, had a dim glimpse of the truth. For the
seed of something and its imitation, given in proportion to one's capacity, is one thing, but the
thing itself, which is shared and imitated according to His grace, is quite another.”73 From this, it
is clear that the ‘seeds’ are not strictly identical with the Divine Logos, but are instead products
of its activity. The former is the human possession of truth, and the latter is the personal Divine
Logos, Christ.74 The distinction made by Holte between ‘seminal Logos’ and ‘seed of the Logos’
on the one hand maintains the divine immanence in the created world, and on the other hand
upholds the divine transcendence.

66
Cfr. The Second Apology, 13, pp.133-134.
67
Cfr. The Second Apology, 10, p.129; 15, p.135.
68
Cfr. The First Apology, 46, pp.83-84.
69
Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Church, p.9.
70
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.136. The same distinction is discussed also by Jan Hendrik
Waszink. Cfr. Jan Hendrik Waszink, “Bemerkungen zu Justins Lehre vom Logos Spermatikos”, p. 381.
71
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.138. Justin’s texts read as follows: “a part of the seminal Word”.
The Second Apology, 8, p. 128; “participation of the seminal Divine Word”. Ibid., 13, p.133.
72
Justin’s texts read thus: “the seed of reason implanted in all mankind”. The Second Apology, 8, p. 127; “the
engrafted seed of the Word which was implanted in them”. Ibid., 13, p.134; “For the seed of something and its
imitation, given in proportion to one’s capacity”. Ibid.
73
The Second Apology, 13, p.134. (Italics mine)
74
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.142. For a discussion on the distinction between ‘the seed of the
Logos’ and ‘the Divine Logos’ see also Cfr. Joseph Carola, “Non-Christians in Patristic Theology”, p.36.
8
‘Seminal Logos’: An invention of Justin in Christian context
According to Rangar Holte, though the influence of Stoics, Philo and Middle Platonism on
Justin in the use of the term Logos spermatikos evident, it is only with Justin that it came to be
used to signify natural revelation in a Christian context.75 Obviously there are thoughts on
natural revelation in the New Testament, the main passages being Romans 1:18-32 and Acts 17:
16-33, In the Prologue of St. John, Logos is described as life and light (Jn 1:4, 9). It is further
stated that the world did not know the Logos although he was in the world (Jn 1:10). These
statements on Logos as a light for the people have also been interpreted as containing the thought
of a natural revelation in a Hellenistic context. But the novelty of Justin is that he uses a new
terminology to express the concept of natural revelation, which already existed in the earlier
Christian tradition, especially in St. Paul, adapted to the language of contemporary philosophy.76
According to Hans von Camapenhausen, Justin tried to interpret Christianity from the Greek
point of view. Attempts had occasionally been made before him to present the Gospel of Christ
to a philosophical culture. But such efforts did not acquire any theological importance until the
appearance of Justin, and to that extent he was a pioneer and an innovator, and practically all the
later champions of Christianity learned from him, and he stands head and shoulder above the
earlier ones.77
Relevance of Justin’s theory for Christian dialogue
Justin tried to trace a real bond between Christianity and Greek philosophy, and through it the
gentile world and cultures in general. His theory of seminal Logos accounts for natural revelation
in non-Christian cultures and religions. He strongly believes that positive values and truths can
be found also outside Christianity because of the presence of the seminal Logos in every member
of the human race, in all places and at all times. Here it is to be noted that, Justin, besides using
the expression ‘seed of the Logos’ also uses the concept ‘seeds of truth’ present among all
human beings.78
Justin in his theory of the seminal Logos discusses the question of those who lived before the
incarnation of Christ, and argues that, if the people of the ancient world had knowledge of God
and lived morally responsible lives, it was because of the presence of Christ as seminal Logos in
their lives. He even goes to the extent of calling them ‘Christians’. Consequently, what is
implied here is that, their salvation is through Christ, though they are not Christians through
baptism. Justin also discusses Judaism and its relationship with Christianity – and Islam was
non-existent in his time.
Justin’s theological position with regard to non-Christian philosophies, cultures and religions
is foundational for any serious Christian inquiry into the value of non-Christian religions,
cultures, philosophies, and discussion on the question of salvation outside Christianity. In this
sense, Justin’s seminal Logos theory has a perennial value. In fact, one can find his concept quite
frequently used today in some of the Church documents that discuss matters related to
evangelisation, intercultural and interreligious dialogues. For example, Justin’s concept of the
seminal Logos is found in the Second Vatican Council decree Ad Gentes (nos.11,18); in the 1975
apostolic exhortation of Pope Paul VI, Evanglii Nuntiandi (nos.53,80); in the 1990 Encyclical
Letter of Pope John Paul II Redemptoris Missio (nos. 28,56); in the 1991 document of the
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue with the title Dialogue and Proclamation
(nos.16,24,70,82); in the 1999 the Post-Synodal apostolic exhortation of Pope John Paul II,
Ecclesia in Asia (nos.16, 20), etc. A similar trend can be found in many other texts and

75
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.128.
76
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.164.
77
Cfr. Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Church, p. 6.
78
Cfr. The First Apology, 44, p.81.
9
documents of Christian theologians in their effort to dialogue with non-Christian religions and
cultures.
A critical evaluation of Justin’s theory
One of the criticisms against Justin’ theory of seminal Logos is that, he is a theological
traditionalist. Justin is convinced that the whole truth is only to be found in Christ. Seen from
this perspective, the theory of seminal Logos and the ‘loan theory’ are used to serve the same
purpose, namely, to assert the Christian right of ownership to the glimpses of truth found in
philosophies. As a consequence, it also implies a claim of the superiority of Christianity over
other religious, cultures and philosophical systems.
Another criticism against Justin is that he shows a deep pessimism concerning the capacity of
natural reason.79 Even when reason has reached as far as it can, in Socrates, for instance, it has
only with difficulty succeeded in obtaining a dim glimpse of the truth, and cases like Socrates are
only exceptions. The normal state of human beings is characterised by his being imprisoned by
demons.
There are claims that the ‘loan and demons-theories’ of Justin are incompatible with the
seminal Logos theory. Nathan Söderblom asserts that Justin’s loan theory ‘obscures’ the ‘great
thought’ of the Logos spermatikos so that he does ‘not consistently’ assign a character of divine
revelation to the truths found among the Greeks;80 Hans Mayer states that the loan theory cannot
without great difficulty be made to conform to Justin’s line of thought as a whole.81 As a
response to these criticisms, Adolf von Harnack argues that the loan and demons-theories
constitute an adaptation of Old Jewish tradition, and Justin’s ‘real’ opinion was more ‘liberal’
and finds its expression in his Logos spermatikos theory.82 According to Rongar Holte, the loan-
theory does not contradict the Logos spermatikos theory; the theory is not intended to grant a
character of revelation to religious or philosophical systems in their entirety and it is strictly
limited to a few conceptions, i.e. certain ideas on God, on the falsity of idolatry and on certain
basic moral conceptions. Besides, the loan theory serves Justin’s purpose of presenting
Christianity as the sole bearer of the whole and complete truth. 83 He uses the demon theory to
explain the falsity, obstruction of the natural capacity of human reason and moral depravity
found among human beings.84
Since a certain attitude of superiority of Christianity is evident in the seminal Logos theory of
Justin, it can be an obstacle to interreligious dialogue. One of the conditions for genuine
interreligious dialogue is that all partners in dialogue are treated as equals, and none entertains an
attitude of superiority over the others. Again, the ‘demon theory’ may not be appealing to the
modern mind. The view of Justin that those who lived before the incarnation of Christ were also
Christians, can imply an imposition a Christian interpretation on non-Christians, which may not
be easily acceptable to non-Christians.
Justin is regarded as the foremost interpreter of the Logos-Christology among the early
Fathers of the Church, because his greatest strength is his concept of Logos in person, and

79
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.161.
80
Cfr. Nathan Söderblom, Natürliche Theologie und allgemeine Religionsgeschichte, Stockholm, Leipzig, 1913,
p. 121, as cited in Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.112.
81
Cfr. Hans Meyer Geschichte der lehre den Keimkräften von der Stoia bis zum Ausgang der Patristik, Bonn,
1911, p. 92 as cited in Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.112.
82
Cfr. Adolf von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Tübingen, p.511, n.1, as cited in Rangar Holte,
“Logos Spermatikos”, p.112.
83
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, pp.163-164.
84
Cfr. Rangar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos”, p.161.
10
identifying it with Christ. But he is also criticised for upholding a certain subordination of the
Logos, in addition to lacking the concept of ‘eternal generation’ of the Logos.85
Through the seminal Logos theory, Justin makes it clear that he accepts religious and
philosophical pluralism as a fact, and manifests respect and appreciation for them. He is also a
convinced Christian and a true philosopher, who does not see any real conflict between reason
and religion.86
Justin does not discuss his theory of seminal Logos with philosophers for general intellectual
advancement but to encourage them to make a decision. The Logos is the truth and it has become
concrete in Jesus Christ, and it lives within the Christian community. He also claims that the
incarnation of the Logos in Christ has resulted in a new and a nobler way of life for those who
follow him.87 Here, indirectly, Justin seems to assume the role of a Christian philosopher
missionary, proclaiming Christ and inviting people to join the Christian community through a
personal decision, repentance and baptism.
Finally, in criticising Justin’s seminal Logos theory, one should keep in mind that, the
arguments in the Apologies are presented with purely apologetic interests in mind. If one does
not pay due attention to this fact, one can be over critical of his views. Besides, Justin lived
nearly two thousand year ago, when the development of Christian doctrine was in its infancy.
Nevertheless, much of what he said – at times in imperfect terminologies and categories – in
defence of Christian doctrine, is to be considered as a great contribution towards its
development.
Conclusion
Through the theory of the seminal Logos, Justin tries to find a way to reconcile Christianity
with ancient philosophy. In his view, the gentile and Christian thoughts are on convergent paths
rather than divergent. He was convinced that God has spoken through both Judaism and Greek
philosophy. But he also tries to establish that neither Judaism nor paganism can claim superiority
over the moral or doctrinal teachings of Christianity. In fact, his arguments converge on the idea
that Christianity can offer a deeper meaning and fuller content to the central themes of
philosophy.88 In spite of this, as Jaroslav Pelikan observes, Justin was willing to concede a great
deal of preparatory work of the seminal Logos among the Greeks, while other Christian thinkers
were less generous.89 In this way, Justin presents Christianity as the fulfilment of the philosophic
quest, and affirms that Christ did not come to destroy the Academy, the Lyceum and the Stoia. It
is this liberal attitude to pagan thought, which is his chief importance.90 Hence, it may be right to
maintain that, the most original contribution of Justin to Christian theology is his conception of
the seminal Logos. In fact, in modern times, in the efforts of Christianity to encounter non-
Christian cultures, philosophies and religions, Justin emerges as a pathfinder, and an often
quoted figure, and it speaks eloquently for the perennial value of his theory of the seminal
Logos.

85
Cfr. Giuseppe Girgenti, Giustino Martire, p.104.
86
Cfr. We Don’t Speak Great Things – We Live Them, A Modern English Rendition of Mark Felix’s Octavius
and The First Apology of Justin Martyr, Tylor, Scroll Publishing Company, 1989, p.71.
87
Cfr. The First Apology, 14, p.47.
88
Cfr. J. L. Marschall, “Some Observations on Justin Martyr’s use of Testimonies”, Studia Patristica, Vol. 16,
Elizabeth Livingstone (ed.), Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1985, p.198.
89
Cfr. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition. A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol.1. The
Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago, The University of Chicago, 1971, p.63.
90
Cfr. The Early Christian Fathers. A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St.
Athanasius, pp.9-10.
11