victories over the demons. See Justin Apol. II. 6, 8; Dial. II, 30,
35, 39, 76, 85, 111, 121; Tertull., Apol. 23, 27, 32, 37 etc. Tatian
also (16 fin.) confirms it, and c. 12, p. 56, line 7 ff. (ed. Otto) does
not contradict this.]

[Footnote 457: Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin's, p. 432 f., has
pronounced against its genuineness; see also my Texte und Untersuchungen
I. 1, 2, p. 158. In favour of its genuineness see Hilgenfeld,
Zeitschrift fuer wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883, p. 26 f. The fragment
is worded as follows: [Greek: Plasas ho Theos kat' archas ton anthropon
tes gnomes autou ta tes phuseos apeoresen entole mia poiesamenos ten
diapeiran. Phulaxanta men gar tauten tes athantou lexeos pepoieken
esesthai, parabanta de tes enantias. Outo gegonos ho anthropos kai pros
ten parabasin euthus elthon ten phthoran phusikos eisedexato. Phusei de
tes phthoras prosgenomenes anankaion en hoti sosai boulomenos en ten
phthoropoion ousian aphanisas. Touto de ouk en heteros genesthai, ei
meper he kata phusin zoe proseplake to ten phthoran dexameno,
aphanizousa men ten phthoran, athanaton de tou loipou to dexamenon
diaterousa. Dia touto ton logon edeesen en somati genesthai, hina (tou
thanatou) tes kata phusin hemas phthoras eleutherose. Ei gar, hos phate,
neumati monon ton thanaton hemon apekolusen, ou prosei men dia ten
boulesin ho thanatos, ouden de etton phthartoi palin emen phuiken en
heautois ten phthoran peripherontes].]

[Footnote 458: Weizsaecker, Jahrbuecher fur deutsche Theologie, 1867, p.
119, has with good reason strongly emphasised this element. See also
Staehlin, Justin der Martyrer, 1880, p. 63 f., whose criticism of Von
Engelhardt's book contains much that is worthy of note, though it
appears to me inappropriate in the main.]

[Footnote 459: Loofs continues: "The Apologists, viewing the
transference of the concept 'Son' to the preexistent Christ as a matter
of course, enabled the Christological problem of the 4th century to be
started. They removed the point of departure of the Christological
speculation from the historical Christ back into the preexistence and
depreciated the importance of Jesus' life as compared with the
incarnation. They connected the Christology with the cosmology, but were
not able to combine it with the scheme of salvation. Their Logos
doctrine is not a 'higher' Christology than the prevailing form; it
rather lags behind the genuine Christian estimate of Christ. It is not
God who