Justin's Works
CHAPTER II
JUSTIN'S WORKS
THE second century was an age of literary activity within the Church. Christians had to be vindicated against calumnies and the Gospel shown as the coping stone of Greek philosophy. As might have been expected of one who taught in various
'schools' at different times in his career, Justin became an author and such was his fame in the eyes of the later Church that many writings were deliberately or by mistake attributed to him (see Appendix 1). During the Middle Ages he was known only by these spurious writings, and the earliest manuscript of his works, dating from the fourteenth century, contains twelve works alleged to have been written by him.
Of the large corpus of writings preserved in Justin's name there is general agreement that only the two Apologies (addressed to Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate) and the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew are genuine. The text of these three works is based on a single manuscript, Paris 450, dated
11 September a.D. 1363, which also contains most of the spurious writings of the Apologist. There is reason for thinking that the text of the Dzalogue is more reliable than the text of the Apologies although even this shows frequent signs of carelessness.1 The only checks on the readings of Paris 450 are the passages, few in number, where Justin is quoted by other
Fathers, and a fragment of the First Apology chapters lxv—Ixvii, which had an independent tradition in Codex Ottobonianus
Graecus CCLXx1Vv of the fifteenth century in the Vatican Library at Rome."
(1) THE APOLOGIES
The First Apology is addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius and to his son Verissimus the philosopher, and to Lucius the philosopher. Hellenistic Jewish writers before Justin had used
1 Harnack, T. @ U.1, 1-2 (1882), pp. 77-9. Harnack spoke of the text of Justin's works as being in a desperate condition.
* Goodenough, Theology of Fustin Martyr, p. 80.
JUSTIN'S WORKS
similar modes of address to ensure that their works received a sympathetic hearing by the public for whom they were designed
—although it is not to be supposed that these Apologies never reached the Emperors.!
The First Apology opens with a bold appeal to justice—evidently in imitation of Plato's Apology of Socrates. Justin then goes on (3-12) to refute anti-Christian slanders. He demands (3, 4) that men should not be punished merely for a name, but only after examination of their lives and conduct. The unreasonable hatred which Christians experience is due to the instigation of daemons against the Incarnate Word—the same daemons who slew Socrates (5). Justin now (6-12) gives three of the principal charges levelled against Christians—atheism, immorality and disloyalty. He insists that Christians are not atheists, for they worship the Father of righteousness and virtue, the Son who came forth from him with his angels, and the Spirit of prophecy.
They are not immoral and are willing to be punished for any crimes they commit. They are not disloyal, for the Kingdom they seek is a heavenly one.
Having made this appeal for justice and refutation of slanders Justin asserts that he has written enough to ensure a change of policy; nevertheless, he will go on to show the actual truth of Christianity and its positive worth. He begins (13) by demonstrating that Christians are monotheists who worship God, and then Jesus Christ according to his secondary rank, and then the Prophetic Spirit. Christian worship is essentially reasonable worship. Justin then gives examples (14-20) of the moral power and elevation of Christ's teaching and produces analogies between the Christian doctrines of immortality, resurrection and the end of the world and the teaching of nature and philosophy. He also gives (21-2) some of the pagan fables about the exploits of the sons of gods and shows how irrational it was for believers in these tales to persecute believers in the facts of Jesus' life. Justin's object in this part of the First Apology was to disarm unbelief and to show that Christianity was not contemptible nor novel but essentially rational.
He now proceeds (23) to the more theological part of his 1 Goodenough, ibid. p. 82, following Heinisch, Der Einfluss Philos auf die dlteste christliche Exegese Barnabas, Justin und Clemens von Alexandria (Munster,
1908), is I think too sceptical on this point.
JUSTIN MARTYR
work and seeks to show (a) that the teaching of Christ and the prophets is alone true and is older than all other writers; (6) that Jesus Christ is alone begotten as a Son of God, being his logos and first-born and power, and appeared on earth as teacher for the conversion and restoration of the human race; (c) that before Christ came some, influenced by the daemons, related through the poets mythological tales intended as a travesty of the future revelation. After showing (24-9) the irrationality of allowing impostors such as Simon Magus and Menander and heretics like Marcion to go unmolested, Justin passes to the main burden of his argument (30-53). This consists in elaborate proofs of the fulfilment of prophecy. The main facts of Christ's life and work and the mission of the Apostles to the world had been predicted in great detail centuries in advance.
Justin here shows his liking for ingenious interpretations of the Old Testament which must strike the modern reader as precarious in the extreme. He also explains the different kinds of prophecy and defends it against the charge of fatalism. In a remarkable passage (46) Justin replies to the objection that since Christ came so late in time those who lived before his coming were irresponsible. Quite the opposite—the divine logos had been in the world since the beginning and those who lived according to reason, whatever their race, were really
Christians though they have been thought atheists; so among the Greeks Socrates and Heraclitus and among the barbarians
Abraham, Ananias, Azarias, Misael and Elias and many others. On the other hand those who lived irrationally were the enemies of Christ and wicked. From all these 'fulfilled' predictions the Christian belief in Christ as the first-born of God and the universal judge of mankind is totally justified.
Justin next passes (54-8) to a demonstration that mythology was used by daemons to imitate Christ although they had failed to understand the predictions of the Cross which were also clearly evident in nature and human life. He then tries to show
(59-60) that Plato was directly dependent on Moses for his account of the origin of the world and of the second and third powers in the universe. In the concluding part of his work
(61-7) Justin gives an account of the Christian sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist which is of great value to students of the early liturgy. Those whg are to be baptised are 'brought
16 ~
JUSTIN'S WORKS
to the place where there is water' where they are regenerated and illuminated. Baptism is in the Name of the Trinity. In the Eucharist, after a reading from the Memoirs of the Apostles or the prophets, intercession is made for the Church and those in the world. The President or Ruler prays extemporarily over the elements, and the deacons distribute the eucharistic gifts to those present and then take them to the absent.
With a final appeal for liberty of opinion Justin concludes his First Apology by appending Hadrian's letter to Minucius
Fundanus,! the pro-Consul of Asia, in which the Emperor directed that Christians should only be punished after a legal trial.
Attempts have been made? to find in this Apology an elaborate literary plan. However, it seems unlikely that Justin based his work on the Classical oration or on any other ancient literary artifice. Justin, as a philosopher and teacher, knew how to appeal to a non-Christian public and he knew what he wanted to say. But his Apology is his own and cannot be fitted into any predetermined plan—hence the digressions and repetitions.
This is however not to deny that some of his proofs from prophecy may have been committed to writing before his time.?
The production of testimonies based on the LXX steadily grew in bulk after the apostolic age, and transcripts of some of them probably existed although many continued to circulate orally.
It was not until the monumental compilation of Cyprian or Pseudo-Cyprian that the bulk of the testimonies was committed to writing.
Justin's Second Apology is much shorter than the first and was apparently called into existence by his indignation at an outrage which had recently occurred—which was typical of the indignities to which Christians were subjected. A dissolute man, angry with his Christian wife for having rebuked his vices, had charged her teacher Ptolemaeus with being a Christian (2).
As a result the prefect Urbicus had sentenced Ptolemaeus and two others to death simply because they were Christians. Justin then divulges (3) that he himself expects to fall a victim to the malice of Crescens, 'that lover of bravado and boasting', whom
1 See Appendix 2.
2 E. R. Goodenough, Theology of Justin Martyr, p. 84.
3 See pp. 67-74.
Dy BJM
JUSTIN MARTYR
he had publicly shown to be an ignorant demagogue. He then goes on to discuss two popular objections to Christians: (4) Why did they not kill themselves if they were so willing to face martyrdom? Justin replies (4) that God's creation is good and to kill themselves would prevent the spread of the divine doctrines: (6) Why did their God not protect them? Justin replies (5) by declaring that God placed the world in charge of angels, but some of these fell and to them and their offspring are due the evils which good men suffer. In contrast to the daemons is the one ineffable God and his begotten logos who became man to deliver men from the daemons (6). God in fact spares the world for the sake of the Christians (7). In all ages those who followed Reason have been persecuted by the daemons (8), but the time of judgement will come (9g). Christianity is superior to all other teaching because it reveals the whole logos of God (10). Another reason why God allows men to suffer is because of the blessedness won through discipline and probation(11). They are as athletes who prove their virtue by risking death. The way in which Christians regard death (12) is a crowning proof of the truth of their religion and the falsity of the slanders reported about them. Christianity is not hostile to Plato (13) but the completion of what Plato and the other philosophers taught. Each man spoke well in proportion to his share of the Spermatic Logos or the Word disseminated among men. Justin concludes (14) with a prayer that his book may be authorised and remarks (15) that his writings were at least not as injurious to public morals as some others which were authorised.
It seems likely that the Second Apology was designed as a supplement to the first although it was called into existence by a specific injustice. This accounts for its more passionate character and its conviction that resistance to popular hatred without flinching is the hall-mark of the Christian. Goodenough regards the work as a fragment of a larger work! and believes that the references in it to the First Apology may well have their source in the lost part of the Second Apology. This Apology, however, does not read as a series of disconnected membra disjecta but deals with specific problems, and it is surely more plausible to take Justin at his word—that is, when he refers
1 Theology of Fustin Martyr, pp. 84-7. ig *
JUSTIN'S WORKS
in this work to something he has said before which is not found in it he is referring to the First Apology.
When were the two Apologies written? The first presents no problems. It is addressed to the 'Emperor Titus Aelius Adrianus
Antoninus Pius, Augustus, Caesar; and to his son Verissimus the philosopher, and to Lucius the philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius...' This is certainly a reference to Antoninus Pius as sole Emperor with his two adopted sons, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Antoninus reigned from A.D. 137 to 161 while Lucius was born in a.p. 130. Allowing time for the latter to earn the description of philosopher, lover of culture, we cannot place the First Apology earlier than c. A.D. 145. With this agrees the description in the Apology of Marcionism as the greatest type of heresy 'with a following spread over every race of men'. Marcion came to Rome and taught in the reign of Hyginus, that is a.p. 139-42, and we have to allow time for his rise to pre-eminence over the other heretics. In addition we have Justin's statement? that he is writing 150 years after Christ's birth and his reference to a petition recently presented to Felix, the governor of Alexandria.?
According to Sir Frederick Kenyon a Greek papyrus in the British Museum shows that this Felix was the successor of Honoratus who began his reign of office in a.p. 148 and Felix himself was succeeded by Sempronius Liberalis in a.D. 154.
Felix probably held office from c. A.D. 150 to 154.4 According to another papyrus, Felix's date of accession was definitely
A.D. 151.° If these dates are correct Justin probably wrote the First Apology a little after A.D. 151 and certainly before A.D. 155, which would agree with the other internal evidence of the work.
The Second Apology is more difficult to date but cannot be long after the first. It has references to Antoninus as sole Emperor and to the Emperor and Marcus Aurelius who is saluted as the philosopher, the son of Caesar (JI Apol. ii).
Continued reference is made to the piety of these two person1 J Apol. xxvi.
2 I Apol. xivi.
3 I Apol. xxix.
4 Kenyon, 'The Date of the Apology of Justin Martyr', The Academy, XLIx (1896), 98.
5 Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri II, pp. 162 f. Goodenough, Theology of Justin Martyr, p. 81.
2-2
JUSTIN MARTYR
ages. With this cohere the references in the Second Apology to the first as a writing freshly remembered.
Eusebius affirms that Justin wrote two Apologies or defences of the faith—the one under Antoninus and the other in the time of Antoninus Verus, i.e. Marcus Aurelius: 'There is a discourse of his, addressed to Antoninus, surnamed the Pius, and his sons and the Roman senate, in defence of our doctrines.
Another work, comprising a defence of our faith, which he addressed to the Emperor of the same name, Antoninus Verus, the successor of the preceding, the circumstances of whose times we are now recording." It is however doubtful whether this second defence is the same as our extant Second Apology.
Quite apart from the difficulty of reconciling Eusebius' statement that it was addressed to Marcus Aurelius with the internal references in our Second Apology to Antoninus, Eusebius quite clearly gives quotations from bothour Apologies, yet describes them as taken from Justin's First Apology.2 The most likely deduction to be drawn from these facts is that Eusebius knew our first and second Apologies as the First Apology. The second
Apology to which he refers is lost unless, with Harnack, we identify it with the Supplicatio of Athenagoras.* In the early
Christian centuries the fusing together of different treatises into a single work is a well-known phenomenon. Thus, within the New Testament, there are indications that I Corinthians is composite, an earlier and shorter letter (chs. 10-13) having been joined to a later and lengthier one (chs. 1-9). The Epistle to Diognetus is widely regarded as two distinct documents (chs. 1-10 and 11~12) which have been joined together, just as in most extant manuscripts the latter part of the Epistle of Barnabas is attached to the former part of the Epistle of Polycarp, so as to form in appearance one work. If Dr Harrison is right,* as I think he is, Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians is
TE VELII In TE
® HE. iv. 16, 173 cf. HE. iv. 8. Note especially iv. 17. 1, 6 8' attds dvip TPO TOU KAT' AUTOV ay dvos, ETéEpoov Trpd awToU HapTUPNodvTeYV ev TH TrPOTEPA ouToU Uvnpovevel "ATroAoyig, Xpnotvas Ti UTrobéce kal tatita iotopdv. ypaget
St &de * followed by a lengthy quotation from IJ Apol. ii.
TEES hy sh, Ths Ojos WIPE * Polycarp's Two Epistles to the Philippians (Cambridge, 1936). I doubt however whether Harrison is right in dating the second letter as late as A.D. 135.
See the writer's article in C.Q.R. cyxmi (1962), 421-30. ww
JUSTIN'S WORKS
likewise composite, chs. 13-14 being an earlier covering letter to a collection of the Ignatian Epistles and chs. 1-12 being a later letter called into existence by a definite historical situation.
Tertullian's De Praescriptione Haereticorum is widely recognised as consisting of an original document (chs. 1-44 and the first two sentences of ch. 45) to which has been added another work. It should therefore cause no surprise that in Eusebius' time the First and Second Apologies of Justin were fused together in the manuscript which he quoted so as to form a single work.! This would have been all the easier as our extant Second Apology contains no obvious internal dedication.
(2) THE DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO
The Dialogue with Trypho, the longest of Justin's works, comes from a different background from the Apologies. This book, which is addressed to a certain Marcus Pompeius,? of whom nothing is known, is the record of a debate which Justin had with a Jew named Trypho and certain of his friends. In philosopher's cloak Justin is walking one day by the Xystus, or the cloisters of the Colonnade, in a city which Eusebius identifies as Ephesus.? Trypho salutes him and asks for his opinions.
Justin then relates the story of his conversion which we have already discussed.* Christianity is for him the true philosophy and Jesus the Messiah whom the prophets have foretold.
Trypho however stands his ground and urges observance of the torah as the true way to serve God. This leads to a long and elaborate discussion, apparently lasting two days, which is conducted for the main part in a friendly and docile spirit. In spite of the progress of the argument being interrupted with tedious repetitions and explanations of Old Testament texts three parts can be discerned in it:
The first part (chs. 11-31) deals with the Mosaic law which Trypho represents as universally binding. Justin ought to have remained a disciple of Plato and obeyed the ritual law. Justin replies that the Old Testament requires men to keep the eternal, moral decrees rather than the ceremonial laws which were only
1 Tt should be noted that in the MS Paris 450 the Second Apology comes before the first.
2 Dial. viii. 3, cxli. 5.
$77. iv. 18:
A Bp.) O11.
JUSTIN MARTYR
given to the Jews because of their persistent disposition to sin.
Righteousness depends on moral integrity, repentance and obedience. Christians have learnt the true righteousness from Christ who has power to deliver them from evil.
The second part (chs. 32-110) deals with the nature and significance of Jesus Christ who, Justin declares, is the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophetic witness. Justin considers the Incarnation, the existence of a second God, the Virgin Birth, the Divine and Human element in Christ's Nature, the necessity of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. This section is wholly based on an exegesis of Old Testament texts carried out at great length and with many digressions and wanderings.
The third part (chs.
111-42) deals with the conversion of the Gentiles—God will receive, as the prophets declared, all of any race who seek him. The Dialogue closes with an eloquent appeal to Trypho and his friends to accept the truth: 'I urge you to enter on this greatest of all contests for your own salvation, and to endeavour to prefer to your own teachers the Christ of Almighty God.'!
The authorship of the Dzalogue is not now held in question. It bears the marks of Justin's style, as known from the Apologies, quotes from the First Apology? and is attributed to Justin by Eusebius. The arguments of E. Preuschen' that the author of the Dzalogue is an unknown writer who used the writings of Tertullian and Irenaeus depends on the a priori assumption that, in quoting the LXX, Patristic writers were dependent on each other. Recent studies have shown® that a method of collecting
Old Testament texts in blocks of testimony material had begun in New Testament times, and in the early Patristic period these testimonies grew in bulk and partial transcripts also came into existence. It is not to be supposed that because two writers use the same testimonies or subject-matter they are necessarily dependent on one another. Both may have used testimony material independently. cxli. 2 (A. L. Williams' translation).
CXxa5:
O debi deakis 1Se "Die Echtheit von Justins Dial. gegen Trypho', Z.N.T.W. (1919-20), pp. 102-26.
Pop 5 See especially C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London, 1952).
JUSTIN'S WORKS
There is evidence that the Dialogue, which is very long, was originally divided into two treatises which marked the end of the first day's discussion and the beginning of the second. John the Damascene! quotes ch. 82 in his Sacra Parallela as having been taken from the second book. It is probable, as there is no mention of the first day coming to an end, or of the meeting on the next, that some material has dropped out of the Dialogue.
A. L. Williams has exhaustively investigated this and quotes passages to show that several pages of the Dialogue are missing."
The date of the Dialogue cannot be determined with accuracy.
It is certainly later than the First Apology, which we have dated ¢. A.D. 151—5,° which it quotes. Many scholars* are of the opinion that a date c. A.D. 160 best fits the background of the Dialogue.
Did this debate with Trypho really occur? The details of the meeting of Justin and Trypho in which Trypho says he is a refugee who has lately escaped from the Jewish War of a.p. 132135,° and the emotions which move both sides, are vividly described. We gain a clear impression of the character and outlook of Trypho and his friends—which is essentially liberal and tolerant—in contrast to the fierce hatred of the Palestinian
Jews against Christians which the war had inflamed. These personal references seem to rule out the view that the historical setting of the Dialogue is fictitious and that Trypho is a 'straw man' who is merely a tool in Justin's hands.® On the other hand it is unlikely that Justin remembered, nearly thirty years later, all that was said in the debate. But probably some repetitions did occur in view of the addition of further friends of Trypho on the second day. Discussions such as these must have been frequently held, as Christians sought to commend their faith openly, although not all may have been so amiable as this one.
The best solution to the literary problem of the Dialogue is to postulate an original, historical debate with Trypho which 1 K. Holl, T. @ U. xx, ii (1899), p. 34.
2 The Dialogue with Trypho (London, 1930), pp. xvii—xix. Note especially the references in Dial. lvi. 16, Ixxviii. 6, Ixxxv. 4, xcii. 5, CxVill. 4, CXxii.
4, CXXXVil. 4.
Ph Oh 4 F. L. Cross, The Early Christian Fathers (London, 1960), p. 51.
5 Dial. i. 3. In xvi. 2 the great misery which has afflicted Palestine is mentioned; in cviii. 3 Jerusalem is already taken.
6 This is the view of Goodenough, Theology of Justin Martyr, pp. 90-3. le)
JUSTIN MARTYR
occurred soon after A.D. 132, which Justin subsequently elaborated c. A.D.
160, drawing on oral and written testimony material which was known and used in the Church of his day. Nevertheless to describe the Dialogue as 'a collection of all possible arguments rather than a report of a discussion in which each argument was actually brought up as recorded'! seems unduly sceptical.
Who was Trypho? Attempts have been made to identify him with Rabbi Tarphon who belonged to the second generation of Mishna teachers (c. A.D. go-130). This identification has nothing to commend it apart from the fact that Trypho may be a Greek form of Tarphon. R. Tarphon was a violent antiChristian rabbi whose disposition, as revealed by his sayings, is entirely out of keeping with that of Trypho who is a courteous and friendly opponent. Moreover the Trypho of the Dialogue is not a rabbi strictly trained in rabbinical methods of interpretation but a 'layman' in Jewish lore. He is a hellenistic Jew with a philosophic training possessed of an open and tolerant mind which cannot be confined to mere torah learning—indeed he understands no Hebrew. He is eager to learn, has read the Christian Gospels—a thing forbidden to Palestinian Jews after c. A.D.
100—and, if convinced, is prepared to become a Christian. Trypho even sees no insuperable objections to belief in an intermediary Deity. On the other hand, although no rabbi, Trypho reproduces accurately, in his casual comments, some of the traditional sayings of the Jewish rabbis. He allows hope of salvation to morally upright heathen—which was a belief of the Tannaim.? He repudiates the divine character of the expected Messiah.* He says that there must have been both
God and an angel in the flaming bush.> In accordance with 1 Goodenough, op. cit. p. go. The Dialogue was probably intended for Gentile Christian readers.
2 A. L. Williams, The Dialogue with Trypho, p. xxv. Note that Trypho includes himself among those whom the rabbis have warned against entering into discussions with Christians;
Dial. xxxviii.
1. B. Altaner, Patrology (Edinburgh—London, 1960), p. 122, accepts the identification with Tarphon.
3 R. Joshua ben Chanonja on Ps. ix. 18.
* See J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (London, 1956), p. 459:
'A noble King, a man of the highest moral quality, a political and spiritual leader of the Jewish people in particular and of the human race in general
—this, and only this, was the Messialrof the Tannaim.'
5 Ex. Rabba 32. oA) es
JUSTIN'S WORKS
rabbinic tradition he ascribes Isa. vii. 14 to Hezekiah. Goodenough says Justin 'has created in Trypho a Jew who embodies the best of both schools of Judaism, one who knows Scripture and the Rabbinic interpretations...and yet who has all the open-mindedness and cosmic sense of the Hellenistic Jews. .
. It is useless in such a case to scatter energy in an attempt to class Trypho as either Palestinian or Hellenistic.' 2
Recent discoveries have thrown new light on the relationship between Hellenistic and Rabbinic Judaism and this has a bearing on our immediate concern. The rigid dichotomy between the two branches of Judaism which used to be postulated is now doubted by many scholars.
It was common textbook theory that Judaism, following on its reconstruction at Jamnia after the catastrophe of A.D. 70, became almost wholly
Rabbinic and that Hellenistic Judaism, as known before A.D. 70 in the writings of Philo, virtually ceased to exist. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has caused a revision of this neat theory. They have shown that Hellenistic terminology and ideas were invading Palestinian soil before the beginning of the Christian era and that there was a far greater variety within Judaism than was previously thought.? In fact we should be wary of talking of a 'normative', i.e. Pharisaic, Judaism which was finally codified in the Mishna.* These new discoveries, to which we should add the Gnostic documents found at Nag
Hammadi, throw new light on the background from which cosmopolitan Jews such as Trypho emerged. Trypho is no longer a 'curious' or an 'ideal' type of Jew but one who was not unrepresentative of one facet of Judaism. Combining the culture and inquiring spirit of the Hellenistic world with a knowledge of Scripture and Haggadic interpretation he represents, not the strict Judaism of the Pharisees, nor the Judaism of the extreme hellenisers, but a mediating Judaism, perhaps native to Palestine, which has as much right to be considered 'normative' as the rest.
1 Dial. lxvii. 1; cf. Ex. Rabba 18.
2 Theology of Justin Martyr, p. 95.
3 See W.D. Davies, Christian Origins and Judaism (London, 1962), pp. 108, 144.
4 The Classic position of G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Three Centuries of the Christian Era (1927-30).
5 D.C.B. mm, 570.
JUSTIN MARTYR
The two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho are the only extant works of Justin which have come down to us. They are not systematic theological' treatises, for Justin is a pioneer venturing along unexamined roads rather than a wielder of the tools of disciplined precision. Justin had studied widely in pagan literature and philosophy. But he is no literary artist such as was the unknown author of the Epistle to Diognetus. Indeed he expressly denies any claim in this direction: 'I am not anxious to present a merely artistic arrangement of arguments. For I have no ability to do this.' Nevertheless, Justin's writings, especially the First Apology, are full of vigorous thoughts expressed in the diction of common life. His tone and character are attractive by their genuineness, simplicity, high-mindedness and frank and confident energy."
In his three works Justin covers a large part of the theological field. Christianity is for him the highest truth, the crown of both Greek philosophy and the Jewish scriptures. Like Bishop
Butler in the Analogy of Religion Justin's concern is to find likenesses and agreements with, rather than differences from, his opponents although he faces questions, not asked before his day, with courage and sincerity. His writings repay careful study, for in them we are in touch with a profoundly Christian mind before the classical theological definitions had been formulated. The Apostolic Fathers had dealt with the practical day-to-day problems of the Church; speculative thought and Christian philosophy begin with Justin.
LID aie INpstis Te 2 This is well brought out in D.C.B. m, 566.
26 *
CHAPTER III
BACKGROUND: GREEK PHILOSOPHY
Justin MARTYR made no clear distinction between theology and philosophy in the strict sense. There was, for him, but one wisdom, one philosophy, which had been revealed fully in and through Jesus Christ. This involved however no clear break with Greek philosophy, the best elements in which were a preparation for the Gospel. In so far as philosophers had divined the truth they had done so in the power of the logos and Jesus
Christ was himself the logos incarnate. This sympathetic view of the function of philosophy is in marked contrast with that of the New Testament, which only once uses the word giAogogiat and then as a probable cause of peril to Christians. It is true that St Paul shows affinities with Stoic thought in his speech at Athens, yet even then he speaks of previous ages as 'times of ignorance" and shows no real understanding of, or sympathy with, the prevailing popular philosophies. In the earliest age of the Church the Old Testament, rather than pagan thought, was the sole praeparatio evangelica.
It was however not long before Christians felt the need of a philosophy of their own as the new religion spread throughout the Graeco-Roman world. We have already noted* the influence of apologetic on the growth of a Christian philosophy as the Church sought to refute attacks and false accusations. It was natural to base such an apologia on the magnificent defence of Socrates at his trial. Yet the Apologists also felt a desire to form a comprehensive view of the world and human life in the light of their faith and it was natural that they should turn to the prevailing philosophy. In order then to understand the thought of Justin Martyr we must first give some account of his philosophic background.
Plato and Aristotle had both been men of the Greek city-state and their philosophies were thought out against that background.
1 Coliiind:
2 Acts xvii. 30.
2 Pp. 2-3.
JUSTIN MARTYR
From the time however of the Macedonian Alexander the Great new forces were at work which merged the city-state into a larger whole; men now thought in terms of cosmopolitanism
—of the world state. Yet once the individual was cast adrift from his position in the city-state, with its duties and responsibilities, he needed guidance and help if he was successfully to meet the demands of a wider cosmopolitan world. Philosophy therefore came, in the Graeco-Roman period, to display an ethical and practical trend as in Stoicism and Epicureanism.
Metaphysical speculation waned and philosophers were content to borrow from the past rather than attempt independent speculations of their own. Thus the Stoics had recourse to the physics of Heraclitus and the ethics of the Cynics while the Epicureans returned to the Atomism of Democritus and the ethics of the Cyrenaics.
This ethical and practical trend was particularly marked in the Roman period when the phenomenon of the philosopherdirector, who provided the individual with a code of conduct, came to the fore. This concentration on the practical led to a wide diffusion of philosophy among the cultured classes of the Graeco-Roman world and so to a kind of popular philosophy which was part of the regular course of education.
Father Copleston, in his celebrated History of Philosophy, distinguishes these phases in the development of Graeco-Roman philosophy :1
(a) The first period, from the end of the fourth century B.c. to the mid-first century B.c., which saw the founding of the Stoic and Epicurean philosophies. These systems emphasised conduct and the attainment of personal happiness while using pre-Socratic thought for their cosmologies. A certain eclecticism is also visible in this period which is shown in a tendency of the Middle Stoa, the Peripatetic school and the Academy to eclectic assimilation of each other's doctrines.
(6) A second period from the first century B.c. to the midthird century a.D. when eclecticism and scepticism continue to be a force. A return to philosophic 'orthodoxy' is however a characteristic of this phase and a great interest is taken in the founders of the schools, their lives, works and doctrines. This eclecticism and orthodoxy are to some extent in conflict—as in 1 ¥382-3.
28 ~
BACKGROUND: GREEK PHILOSOPHY
Middle Platonism—which accordingly gives the impression of being an amalgam and a philosophic transition stage.
(c) The third period, from the mid-third century a.p. to the mid-sixth century aA.D., is that of Neoplatonism. This final speculative effort of ancient philosophy sought to combine all the valuable elements in the philosophic and religious doctrines of east and west in one comprehensive whole and, in fact, dominated philosophic development for several centuries. Plotinus is the most outstanding figure of this period. He has been described as the greatest thinker between Aristotle and Descartes.!
The second period is our immediate concern in this book and, in view of the influence of Plato on Justin Martyr, to be mentioned shortly, it is necessary to indicate the particular aspects of Middle Platonism with which he was acquainted.
Eclecticism was one of the leading characteristics of Middle Platonism.
Platonists, in Justin's day, did not possess the lectures of Plato but only the more popular dialogues, which do not suggest that Plato had left any systematised doctrine as a norm which had to be handed on. Indeed the Middle Platonists took over the Peripatetic logic on the grounds that this was more carefully elaborated than anything they found in the Dvalogues.
An insistence on the Divine Transcendence was taken over from Neopythagoreanism together with its theory of intermediate beings. Yet in spite of this eclecticism, and to some extent in Opposition to it, the Middle Platonists emphasised the person and dicta of Plato as a result of their profound commentaries on the Platonic Dialogues. Thus there arose a tendency to stress the differences between Platonism and other philosophic systems, and works directed against the Peripatetics and Stoicism were written. Middle Platonism is accordingly not a unified system but an amalgam of different tendencies with the 'orthodox'
Platonic element uppermost.'
This eclecticism is to be found in the three most distinguished exponents of Middle Platonism—Eudorus of Alexandria (c. 25
1 Whittaker, Neoplatonism, p. 33. Neoplatonism did not simply replace Middle Platonism. Plotinus frequently discussed Middle Platonist interpretations of Plato.
2 Cf. the judgement of Porphyry on the Enneads: éppépiktan kal Ta ZTOIKK AavOdvovta Sdypata Kal tT TepiTraTntiKa (Vit. Plot. 14).
JUSTIN MARTYR
B.c.), Plutarch (b. A.D. 45) and Albinus, who taught in the second century A.D. We shall confine ourselves to the philosophy of Albinus which is more relevant to that of Justin Martyr and is a good representation of the Platonism of his time.
All that is known of the life of Albinus is soon told. Galen, having attended the lectures of 'a pupil of Gaius' at Pergamum,! went on to Smyrna in order to hear 'the Platonist
Albinus'. This took place in the year a.D. 151/2 and is our sole historical reference to the philosopher's activity. Albinus was clearly a Platonist of some importance with a school at Smyrna; two treatises of his have been preserved: AABINOY eioaywyn eis TOUS TlAd&taovos SiaAdyous and AAKINOOY? 818acKaA1Kos Tov
TlActwvos Soyudtov. His importance lies in the fact that his works—particularly the Didaskalikos—give a complete picture of the Platonic philosophy as it appeared to a writer separated from Plato by a period of some five hundred years.
Albinus held that God (whom he calls 6 tpdétos Nots) is unmoved and he equates this first NoUs with the Demiurge;? he operates through a lower vos or world-soul which, although not produced by God,' is yet moved by him. This idea of God as the unmoved mover is Aristotelian although elements of Albinus' system are derived from Plato.
It is difficult to discover how the Middle Platonists came to adopt the Aristotelian idea of God. By the beginning of the second century it was prominent in their teaching although it found no favour with the anti-Aristotelian group in the Academy itself. Most probably it was introduced into Platonism just before or soon after the turn of the Christian era. It seems likely that the first Platonist to use the Aristotelian theology was
Eudorus of Alexandria who wrote a Commentary on the Meta1 vy. 41 K. This was in A.D. 144.
2 R. E. Witt, Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism (Cambridge, 1937), Pp. 104-13, has shown conclusively that 'Adxivoos is a corruption for *AdBivos. Some older MSS give the title Emitoph taév TAdctroovos Soyuatoyv.
See C.
J.de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 11 (Leiden, 1959), 400.
*® Albinus xm. 1.
* ovxi Trotel 6 Beds GAAK KataKooysi. Albinus is not the only philosopher of his time to distinguish between a higher unmoved vots and a lower which moves in response to it. Cf. Plotinus m, rx. 1; Numenius P.E. 539 8. Albinus' hierarchy of being is as follows: (1) 6 (patos) NoUs éxivntos. (2) & Notts
TOU oULTTaVTOS CUpavot (del évepydv). (3) 6 év Suvduer votis. Next follow the stars (visible gods) and finally the earth with its elements, each governed by its daemons.
30 ~
BACKGROUND: GREEK PHILOSOPHY
physics and emphasised the Transcendence of the Supreme God or To év.1 From then on Aristotle's theology was generally favoured by Platonists and became part of the tradition of the school. It is this tradition which Albinus, and as we shall see
Justin Martyr, reflect.
Albinus' system, if such we may call it, in addition to its Aristotelian elements, also makes use of Plato's idea of a gradual elevation to God through various degrees of beauty.? In his psychology and ethics Albinus reads Stoic elements into Plato: thus he identifies the Stoic fyeyovikév with the Platonic Aoyiotikov® and transfers the guoikt) évvoia of the Porch to Plato's theory of innate ideas.* Albinus is a more mystical thinker than Plato although his mysticism does not approach that of Plotinus. He believes that the human body is still of value and to be trained by exercise— although not so systematically as Plato had advocated.
Philosophy is for him 'the aspiration for wisdom, or the loosing and wrenching of the soul away from the body, when we turn ourselves to the Intelligible and the true Existences'.® This is a pure type of mysticism and other-worldly teaching and in this
Albinus is at one with second-century Platonism.
Albinus is thus a typical eclectic Middle Platonist who could fuse together teaching from different sources. His philosophical theology represents a transition stage between Platonism proper and the Neoplatonism of Plotinus, that last great philosophic effort of the ancient world. As Professor E. R. Dodds has written:
'In his attempt to connect divergent views he foreshadows Plotinus: his complete failure to make anything coherent of them is one measure of Plotinus's greatness.'* Albinus was a product of his age and should not be blamed for his failure to distinguish the original teaching of Plato from later corruptions.
Yet he is important as a precursor of Plotinus whose monumental edifice presupposed the constructive philosophical and theological thinking of the previous two centuries.
1 Witt, Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism, p. 126.
2 Such is suggested in the Symposium.
3 Copleston, History of Philosophy, 1, 455.
4 Witt, op. cit., p. 11.
5 1, 152 1. 2, quoted by Goodenough, Theology of Justin Martyr, p. 31.
NG Oe SAL ISOs 3I
JUSTIN MARTYR
We now turn to the writings of Justin Martyr to see in what way he reflects the characteristics of the popular philosophy of his period—and, if so, how'far this affected his presentation of the truth as he had found it in Jesus Christ.
In a previous chapter! we have described Justin's early search for truth. He is typical of the eclectic spirit of the age in going from school to school in search of the truth. He undergoes Stoic instruction, then turns to a Peripatetic, later to a Pythagorean and finally to the Platonists 'whose fame was great'. Again
Justin's reverence for the person and dicta of the founders of the philosophic schools is characteristic of his age. Thus he describes his view of philosophy:
I will tell you [said I] what seems to me; for philosophy is, in fact, the greatest possession, and most honourable before God, to whom it leads us and alone commends us; and these are truly holy men who have bestowed attention on philosophy. What philosophy is, however, and the reason why it has been sent down to men, have escaped the observation of most; for there would be neither Platonists, nor Stoics, nor Peripatetics, nor Sceptics,* nor Pythagoreans, this knowledge being one. I wish to tell you why it has become many-headed. It has happened that those who first handled it, and who were therefore esteemed illustrious men, were succeeded by those who made no investigations concerning truth, but only admired the perseverance and self-discipline of the former as well as the novelty of the doctrines; and each thought that to be true which he learned from his teacher: then, moreover, those latter persons handed down to their successors such things, and others similar to them; and this system was called by the name of him who was styled the father of the doctrine (6 tatt\p Tot Adyou).®
Justin's eclecticism led him to pass judgements on the various philosophic schools with which he had contact. He speaks with contempt of the Cynics: 'it is impossible for a Cynic, who makes indifference his end, to know any good but indifference'.4 The Epicureans? fare no better—indeed Justin implies that philosophers of these schools are not worth seeking. His Peripatetic teacher, he tells us,® was more concerned with his fee than with the communication of knowledge. Justin speaks with respect
1 Pp. 7-11.
2 Secopntikol.
3 Dial. ii.
4 II Apol. iii.
5 II Apol. vii, xii, xv.
8 Dial. ii.
* 32 *
BACKGROUND: GREEK PHILOSOPHY
of the Pythagoreans, but objects to the long course of intellectual discipline which they require before their scholars could behold the beautiful and the good.
Justin's view of Stoicism was more favourable in spite of his unhappy experience with a Stoic teacher. He admired the Stoic ethics and appeals to Heraclitus and to Musonius Rufus, who was banished by Nero, as examples of those who were hated and put to death because the logos dwelt in them.? Justin points out the correspondence between the Stoic and Christian view of the future destruction of the world by fire, although he carefully distinguishes the Stoic doctrine as a natural and necessary process (including God himself) from the Christian belief in a divine act of judgement.? Although he admires aspects of Stoicism Justin nevertheless objects strongly to Stoic materialism and especially to their doctrine of fate, which he believes is destructive of spiritual ideas, blurring the distinction between virtue and vice.' It also seems unlikely that Justin took his idea of the Logos Spermatikos from the Stoa.
Justin's esteem for Plato and Platonism is evident from his works, although in becoming a Christian he had passed beyond
Platonism.
Plato, Justin says, like the Christians taught a future judgement and derived his doctrines of creation, of human responsibility and of the Second and Third Powers in the universe from Moses. Justin sees no inconsistency in holding the Platonic doctrine that God made the world from formless matter® as he believes this to be the teaching of Moses in Gen. i.
2.6 He also quotes from the Timaeus the statement that the World-soul was placed like a y (Chi) in the universe, and declares that Plato referred to the Second Power and took the idea from the biblical account of the brazen serpent.' Plato's worldsoul was, for Justin, an attempt to teach the doctrine of a personal logos. It is clear that he is here reading Christian ideas into Plato. Justin certainly prized the Platonic doctrine of the 1 [bid.
2 II Apol. viii. There is, however, no evidence that these philosophers were martyred. This appears to be an error on Justin's part.
3 I Apol. xx; II Apol. vii.
4 II Apol. vii.
5 We have discussed this fully in chapter rx.
6 I Apol. lix; Justin seems to feel no necessity for the doctrine of creation ex nthilo.
7 I Apol. Ix.
BJM
JUSTIN MARTYR
immaterial world and of the being beyond essence, yet he is no uncritical advocate. Plato, he says, teaches the punishment of the wicked for only a limited period of time and in bodies other than their own, while Christians teach the eternal punishment of the wicked in the same bodies as they now possess. The introduction to the Dialogue shows that Justin now conceives that something more than intellectual discipline is needed if the individual is to apprehend God. He no longer believes in the pre-existence of souls nor in their natural immortality.2 The latter he denies on the principle that whatever is created is perishable. Hence Justin refers immortality solely to the will of God?—a view which Plato approaches in the Timaeus but which was not his main argument for immortality.
Justin's admiration for Socrates is everywhere evident in his works and he sees a close correspondence between the treatment of the philosopher and that accorded to Jesus Christ and his followers. When Socrates, in the power of reason (logos), or as its instrument, sought to bring men to the truth evil men put him to death as an atheist; so Christians who follow the incarnate logos are falsely termed atheists. In other words, just as the work of Socrates was a preparation for the Work of Christ so his condemnation was a condemnation of Christ and his followers.* Where did Justin get his knowledge of Plato and Platonism ?
His works certainly show an acquaintance with the Master's works and especially with the Tzmaeus. Yet it seems likely that Justin would understand Platonic words and ideas in the light of his own philosophic training with the school Platonists. We shall seek to show that Justin reflects the eclecticism of Middle
Platonism,° and especially that of Albinus,® while retaining that school's reverence for the person and dicta of Plato:
(a) Justin's transcendental conception of God, found in his extant works, is similar to that of Plato. Yet Justin also fre1 Dial. iii.
2 Dial. iv, v, cxli.
8 Dial. vi.
4 I Apol. v.
° Tam much indebted to the important discussion of Andresen, Z.NV.T.W.
XLIV (1952-3), 167-8, although adding points of my own.
° Tertullian makes explicit reference to Albinus, An. 28-9. According to Geffcken the pale Platonism of the Christian Apologists 'gehért in vielen
Fallen unmittelbar an die seite eines Albinus, Maximus, v.a.' (quoted in Witt, Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism, p. 144).
BACKGROUND: GREEK PHILOSOPHY
quently states that God is ineffable and unnameable.! To substantiate this idea Justin, in a remarkable passage (JJ Apol. x. 6), refers to a famous passage in Timaeus 28c: 'That it is neither easy to find the Father and Demiurge of all, nor, having found him, is it safe to declare him to all.' Yet Plato only speaks of the Demiurge and not of the ineffability of God. How then could Justin use this passage ? Andresen shows that the Middle
Platonists interpreted the Timaeus passage in the same way as Justin; thus Apuleius,? no doubt because of the significance of the passage, first paraphrases it in Latin and then, possibly from memory, quotes it in Greek and even transmits the change in the meaning of the Timaeus text.
Furthermore it can be shown that the actual wording of this passage was taken, not from the original text of Plato, but from a version of the text current among the Middle Platonists which Albinus knew.
Justin IT Apol. x. 6
Albinus Didask. xxv Tov S& TraTépa Kal SnuIoupyov TO Yev ST TiwlwTaTOV d&yafov TravTwv ovd' eUpeiv AdSi0v oO' oUte eUpsiv A&Siov oUTE EUPoVTa eupovta eis mWdvtas eitreiv Koparts eis TavTas EKpEpelv.
AOMAAES.
A further indication that Justin's philosophic background lies in an eclectic Middle Platonism is provided by his reproduction of the Aristotelian idea of God? as the Unmoved Mover which, as we have seen,* probably entered Platonism just before or soon after the beginning of the Christian era.
For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved (oUte kivoWyevos) or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made.®
1 7 Apol. ix. 3, x. 1, xi. 11; I Apol. vi. 1 f., xi. 4, xiii. 4; Dial. cxxvi. 2,
CXXVIl.. 2-4.
2a DerPlat. 15 5.
3 The Greek-Christian Apologists were not much interested in Aristotle although Athenagoras (Resurr. xxi-xxii) quotes the Aristotelian doctrine of the mean. In this they reflect the Platonic background of early Christian philosophy.
4 Pp. 30-1.
5 Dial. cxxvii. go aa
JUSTIN MARTYR
This is very similar to Albinus' teaching on God (6 Trpatos Notis) which we have already noted.1 Both Justin and Albinus combine Platonic and Aristotelian elements in their systems, which strongly suggests the eclecticism of Middle Platonism.
(b) This background of Justin is further illustrated by the conversation he had with an old Christian recorded in Dial. iii-vii. In Dial. v, when the question of the immortality of the soul is being considered, the problem as to whether the world is begotten or unbegotten is also discussed. Justin states that Plato in the Timaeus has hinted that the world is subject to decay inasmuch as it has been created. The fact that nevertheless the cosmos does not fall prey to dissolution is due to the divine will to preserve it. What Justin says in Dial. v corresponds exactly with Timaeus 41. B. What is interesting is that Justin interprets the passage in a special way. The words which the Demiurge in the Timaeus addresses to the gods are taken out of their context and applied to the cosmological problem.
Andresen points out that this interpretation is found among the Middle Platonists. So Atticus argues when he quotes the words of the Demiurge and justifies his view that one must understand the Yzmaeus passage literally in the sense that the world is begotten.? The thesis: 'Begotten, yes, but intransient', is known from Celsus,? Plutarch and Atticus.' It is also significant that although Justin belongs to that branch of school Platonism which held firmly to a belief in the created world and divine providence he also knows of contrary opinions held by some
Platonists°—much as Atticus did.® Justin thus witnesses to the eclectic character of the Platonism of his day.
(c) A further confirmation of Justin's background is provided by his understanding of the purpose of philosophy. His conversion to Christianity, at the hands of the old Christian (Dial. viii), was the conclusion of his philosophical development,
Christianity being recognised as the true philosophy. But Justin describes the act of knowing the Christian God in the same
* P. 30. Justin's use of the term Demiurge (Anuioupyés) for God is similar to Albinus' identification of the First Nots with the Demiurge. Didask. xu. 1.
2 Eus. Praep. Ev. xv. 6. 4 f.
3 Fr, VI. 52a.
* De animae procreatione (10124-1030) ; cf. Diog. Laert. mm. 71 f.; Andresen, K.N.T.W. xiv (1952-3), p. 163 n. 23.
SP DigleNeat.
Eus. Praep. Ev. xV. 6. 3, 10.
~ 36 *
BACKGROUND: GREEK PHILOSOPHY
words as he has used shortly before to describe the act of knowing philosophical truth.1 Both passages are based on a famous passage in Plato? which is also quoted by Celsus? in order to describe the Platonic knowledge of God. In Andresen's opinion both Justin and Celsus are using a common text of this passage which was a favourite one of the Middle Platonists.4 This predilection for Plato's seventh Epistle is connected with the religious aims of the school philosophy—for it the experience of the highest good in the intelligible world of ideas was central. Justin's interpretation of Plato is in line with Middle
Platonism when he designates the experience of the Ideas as the telos of the Platonic philosophy.® In the conversation with the old Christian the question is also discussed® how one can know God according to Plato. The conclusion is reached that God is not to be seen with the eyes but is discernible to the mind alone. Albinus speaks in the same way about the possibility of knowing God.' The foundation of this, for both Justin and Albinus, is in Phaedrus 247c, and both apply the passage which deals with the knowledge of the intelligible world of the True and the Good to the knowledge of God. Celsus uses Phaedrus 247¢ in a similar way. It is therefore no independent idea of Justin when he understands Plato's ontological sentences as being theological. This is rather an interpretation well known in Middle Platonism.
Our conclusion from the above discussion is that Justin's philosophical background is predominantly that of eclectic
Middle Platonism, although it is well to remember that this was not a philosophical system, as such, but rather a philosophical transition stage. In many respects Justin is a better mirror to the intellectual forces to which he was exposed than any other Christian writer of the second century. He was not an original genius who wished to construct a logical, unifying, philosophic system of his own. But he was a genuine seeker after the truth who brought into the Church the intellectual strivings
1 Dial. iv. 1.
.2 Ep, vil. 341 CD.
S FRONT. 9:
4 Albinus, Didask. x; Maximus Tyre Or. 29. 5; Plut. De Iside, 77.
5 See Atticus—Eus. Praep. Ev. xv. 13 f.
SE Dial itinO) fe ? Didask. x; cf. Athenagoras Suppl. x. 1.
8 Fr, vi. 64.
Si,
JUSTIN MARTYR
of his age. And in his search Platonism, as understood by the contemporary Middle Platonist schools, was a predominating influence.
; Yet to isolate Justin's philosophical background could do him a disservice and merely perpetuate his memory as a secondcentury eclectic. It was above all his acceptance of the Christian
Faith which proved to be the goal of his philosophical journey.
Now he knew that he had found the one 'true' philosophy.
Justin's reverence for philosophy, as finding its consummation in Christ, was of great importance for the Church, for it meant that educated pagan converts were no longer obliged to deny the insights of their philosophical backgrounds. Platonism was now seen to be as valid a preparation for the Gospel as Judaism had been. The Church, at least in its more sensitive minds, came to see that all apprehensions of truth in Greek philosophy and in the intellectual searchings of men were due to the power of the same logos who had become incarnate in Jesus Christ. Justin faithfully reflects the eclectic Platonism of his age. What is remarkable is his clear grasp of Christianity as the one, true philosophy. go) *