the appropriateness of the apologetical arguments of justin martyr

206 Pages·2008·1.14 MB·English

_________________________________________________________________________

THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF THE APOLOGETICAL ARGUMENTS
OF JUSTIN MARTYR

Submitted by
Robert Michael Haddad
5 Verbena Ave, Bankstown, NSW, 2200
[email protected]
Student No. S00013898

A thesis submitted in total fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Masters of Philosophy

School of Arts & Science
Faculty of Theology

Australian Catholic University
Research Services
Locked Bag 4115
Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065

Australia
January 2008

_______________________________________________________
1
The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF SOURCES
This thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part
from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.
No other person‘s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main
text of the thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any
other tertiary institution.
All research procedures reported in the thesis received the approval of the relevant
ethics/Safety Committees (where required).
In the pursuit of the research and preparation of the thesis I received editorial writing
assistance, critical analysis and advice solely from my supervisors, namely, Rev. Dr
Geoffrey Dunn, Prof. Pauline Allen and Dr Bronwyn Neil. I received no other form of
assistance from any other person.

Signed:

Date:
Robert M. Haddad (SID: S00013898). [email protected] 2
The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT
AIM

The purpose of this study is to assess the appropriateness of Justin Martyr‘s
apologetical arguments as contained in his genuine works, namely First and Second
Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in response to the so-called ―five-fold attack‖
against Christianity in the second century AD.
Methodologically, by ‗appropriate‘ in this study is meant ‗suitable‘ or ‗proper,‘
taking into account the rhetorical and literary conventions of second-century Graeco-
Roman culture, the contemporary social situation, Justin‘s rhetorical and/or intended
audience and his purpose. Would Justin‘s arguments from the point of view of second-
century standards have been reasonable, possessing at least a potential for effectiveness, or
would they have been either ignored, dismissed without serious consideration, or even
worsened the plight for Christians?
I believe this work fills a significant gap in our knowledge of Justin, being the first
time a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness, or otherwise, of Justin‘s arguments has
been made in one single study.

SCOPE

This Thesis is divided into six major chapters, plus a Conclusion:
(i) In Chapter One I provide a brief introduction discussing how and why the
Apologists emerged during the second century AD to meet the challenges of the
day, as well as outlining the aim and scope of this study.
(ii) In Chapter Two I discuss the nature of Christian Apology, its relationship to
petitions to the Roman emperors, and how it compares to other (non-Christian)
Robert M. Haddad (SID: S00013898). [email protected] 3
The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(iii) apologetic, protreptic, educational and missionary discourses. I also examine the
rhetorical and literary conventions of the second century Graeco-Roman world
and outline how Justin employed rhetoric in his three known works.
(iv) In Chapter Three I outline in detail the particular attacks experienced by the
Christians in Justin‘s time.
(v) In Chapter Four I examine the questions of intended destination, structure and
purposes of Justin‘s apologetical works.
(vi) In Chapter Five I analyse the appropriateness of Justin‘s apologetical arguments
in 1 and 2 Apologies.
(vii) In Chapter Six I analyse the appropriateness of Justin‘s apologetical arguments
in Dialogue.

In all, eight distinct arguments from the Apologies (Behaviour, Beliefs, Due
Process, Threat, Similitude, Dependence/Source, Antiquity/Prophecy, Miracles) and four
distinct arguments from Dialogue (Superiority, Fulfilled Prophecy, Miracles, True Israel)
are outlined in detail and then analysed giving the reasons for and against their
appropriateness.
CONCLUSIONS

In my Conclusion, I argue that all of Justin‘s arguments were appropriate for one or
more reasons, with only the argument of Threat in the Apologies being largely
inappropriate. At the same time, all his arguments contained notable weaknesses, except for
the argument of Similitude.
The following table is provided, listing each of Justin‘s apologetical arguments and
the number of reasons I give for their respective appropriateness/inappropriateness,
together with a yes/no/mixed conclusion in the final column:

Robert M. Haddad (SID: S00013898). [email protected] 4
The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion:
Argument Number of reasons for Number of reasons for Appropriate –
appropriateness inappropriateness
Yes or No?
Apologies
Behaviour 5 4 Yes
Beliefs 4 2 Yes
Due Process 3 3 Mixed
Threat 1 3 No
Similitude 5 0 Yes
Dependence/Source 7 3 Yes
Antiquity/Prophecy 4 3 Yes
Miracles 5 3 Yes
Dialogue
Superiority 6 3 Yes
Fulfilled Prophecy 5 3 Yes
Miracles 5 4 Mixed
True Israel 5 5 Mixed

This table is simplistic, nevertheless it does illustrate that the question of
appropriateness is rarely a simple one, as more often than not there exist simultaneous
reasons for and against the appropriateness of any particular argument.
How has this study furthered our knowledge and understanding of Justin and his
apologetical works? What can we conclude about Justin and his works based on the
appropriateness or inappropriateness of his arguments? It is clear that for both the
Apologies and Dialogue the strengths of Justin‘s arguments outweigh their weaknesses.
The strengths generally pertain to philosophical, religious, or ethical aspects of the works
that are presented logically and cogently while the weaknesses, by and large, result from
Justin‘s tendency towards arrogance and abuse. Justin wrote very much the way he lived.
As a philosopher and skilled debater Justin was not above offending and demeaning those
with whom he did not agree if he thought this would increase the reception of his message.
His brilliance and arrogance proved to be a lethal combination and led to his ultimate
silencing. It perhaps also curtailed the effectiveness of his writings for no change of policy
was ever effected during his lifetime, or at least universally implemented.
Robert M. Haddad (SID: S00013898). [email protected] 5
The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One: Introduction 1

Chapter Two: Christian Apology and the rhetorical and literary conventions of
the second century Graeco-Roman world 7

Chapter Three: The factors that inspired the apologetical works of Justin 27

Chapter Four: The destination and purpose of Justin‘s apologetical works 48

Chapter Five: The appropriateness of Justin‘s apologetical arguments in First
and Second Apologies 74

Chapter Six: The appropriateness of Justin‘s apologetical arguments
in Dialogue 143

Chapter Seven: Conclusion 182

Bibliography 196
Robert M. Haddad (SID: S00013898). [email protected] 6
The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

―Christianos ad leonem!‖––Christians to the lion! These words were written in
reference to the arbitrary justice meted out to Christians in the late second century AD.1
From the reign of the Emperor Nero (AD 54-68), Christianity was regarded with suspicion
and hatred by both the Roman authorities and the general populace. At first, the charge
against Christians was ―incendiarism‖; very quickly it became ―…hatred of the human
race‖ (…odium generis humani), if we are to believe Tacitus.2 Throughout the second
century, Christians were also subject to a chorus of accusations and calumnies––believed
both by many indifferent and avowedly hostile non-Christians––that they were atheists who
practised sexual licentiousness, child murder and cannibalism.3 To vindicate Christianity
against its accusers and persecutors Christians had to develop various arguments and
techniques to explain and defend their beliefs and practices.
Furthermore, to attract converts from among the peoples in the wider expanse of the
Graeco-Roman world it was necessary to do more than simply quote passages and
prophecies from the Hebrew scriptures and proclaim their fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth.
To meet these challenges emerged the apologists. They introduced into post-apostolic
literature the spirit of apology found in apostolic writings such as Luke-Acts with a view to
providing reasoned replies to the questions being asked by the world.4

1 Tertullian, Apology 40.2 (AD 197). All quotes from Tertullian‘s works are taken from Ante Nicene Fathers,
vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1897.
2 Tacitus, Annals 15.44.
3 L. W. Barnard, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies, Paulist Press, New York/Mahwah N.J.,
1997, p. 1; cf. Minucius Felix, Octavius 9 (inter AD 218-235) ACW (Ancient Christian Writers) 56.
4 E. F. Osborn, Justin Martyr, J. C. B. Mohr, Tübingen, 1973, p. 14.
Robert M. Haddad (SID: S00013898). [email protected] 7
The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The earliest Christian apologists appeared during the reign of the emperor Hadrian
(AD 117-138) and in their ―classical‖ phase lasted until the reign of Commodus (AD 180-
192), hence coinciding with the ―brilliant period of Roman life.‖5 A Greek named
Quadratus composed the first known apology in defence of Christianity and presented it to
Hadrian during the latter‘s visit to Athens in AD 125.6 Aristides of Athens, who addressed
his ―apology for the faith‖ most probably to the emperor Antoninus between AD 140-145,
followed him. The suggested occasion for this apology was the charge of sexual immorality
made by the famous rhetorician Fronto.7 In subsequent decades appeared Apollinaris of
Laodicea,8 Melito of Sardis,9 Tatian the Syrian,10 Athenagoras of Athens11 and Miltiades,12
all responding to the severe persecution of AD 176-180.13 Another apologist of the time,
Theophilus of Antioch, wrote to a high-ranking official in the last phases of this

5 R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, SCM Press, London, 1988, p. 10.
6 Entitled On Behalf of our Religion, the only extant fragment of this apology is preserved in Eusebius,
History of the Church, 4.3.2 and asserts that the miracles of Jesus were authentic and witnessed by numerous
people.
7 R. M. Grant, ―The Chronology of the Greek Apologists,‖ Vigiliae Christianae 9 (1955), pp. 25-33 at p. 25.
8 Apollinaris addressed his apology, On behalf of the Faith, to the emperor Marcus Aurelius shortly after AD
174 (Eusebius, History of the Church, 5.5.4).
9 Though entitled To Antoninus, Melito wrote to Marcus Aurelius to complain about the ―new decrees‖ which
led to confiscation of Christian property and inflicted death (Grant, ―The Chronology of the Greek
Apologists,‖ p. 27).
10 Tatian addressed his apology ―to the Greeks‖ after AD 176. According to Grant, ―The Chronology of the
Greek Apologists,‖ p. 28, ―Tatian‘s treatise is positively disloyal and cannot have failed to impress Rome
unfavourably.‖
11 Athenagoras addressed his apology, Supplication for the Christians, to the emperors Marcus Aurelius
Antonius and Lucius Aurelius Commodus shortly after AD 176. It contains a strong reaffirmation of Christian
loyalty towards the empire.
12 Miltiades wrote three treatises during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antonius and Lucius Aurelius
Commodus entitled Against the Greeks, Against the Jews, and To the Cosmic Rulers (Eusebius, History of the
Church, 5.17.5).
13 Grant, ―The Chronology of the Greek Apologists,‖ p. 30.
Robert M. Haddad (SID: S00013898). [email protected] 8
The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

persecution.14 Justin appeared and wrote in the midst of these men between AD 140 and
165.
According to Eusebius, Justin identified himself as a philosopher15 and he was
prepared to risk failure and even death to defend and explain the Christian faith.16 As an
apologist, Justin was a successful innovator (and in the process he touched on most of
Christian theology17)—so much so that all his successors, including Irenaeus, Tertullian
and the Alexandrians,18 adopted and developed his ideas.19 Justin was Irenaeus‘ favourite
apologist.20 In the opinion of Cruttwell, Tertullian took from Justin his most effective
weapon—that of retorting the opponent‘s charges upon himself.21 According to von
Campenhausen, ―nearly all the Greek Fathers of the Church were, consciously or

14 Theophilus wrote three books To Autolycus. In them he ―insists on Christian loyalty to the emperor, as
emperor but not as God, and provides a chronological sketch of Roman history‖ (Grant, ―The Chronology of
the Greek Apologists,‖ p. 30).
15 Eusebius, History of the Church 4.11.8, speaks of Justin thus: ―… Justin was the most active; wearing the
garb of a philosopher he proclaimed the divine message, and contended by means of his writings on behalf of
the Faith‖ (Eusebius, History of the Church, translated by G. A. Robinson, revised by Andrew Louth, Penguin
Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1989).
16 This he achieved together with six of his students (their names as recorded in the Acta Martyrum S. Justini
et Sociorum 3 are: Chariton, Charito, Euelpistus, Hierax, Paeon, Liberianus) at the order of Junius Rusticus,
during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Eusebius, History of the Church 4.11), somewhere between AD 163 and
167 (P. Keresztes, ―The So-called Second Apology of Justin,‖ Latomus 24 (1965), pp. 858-869 at p. 869),
probably as a result of a conflict with the Cynic philosopher, Crescens (2 Apol. 3). Three versions of his
Martyrum S. Justini et Sociorum, embodying a reliable third-century tradition, are extant (Barnard, St. Justin
Martyr, pp. 6 and 97). The Acta are reproduced with translations in H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian
Martyrs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, pp. 42-61.
17 W. H. Wagner, Christianity in the Second Century: After the Apostles, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1994,
p. 159.
18 T. Stylianopoulos, ―Justin Martyr,‖ in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, E. Ferguson, ed., Garland
Publishing, New York & London, 1997, pp. 647-650 at p. 648.
19 Osborn, Justin Martyr, p. 201.
20 Grant, Greek Apologists, p. 61.
21 C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early Christianity, vol. 2, C. Griffin & Co., London, 1893, p. 335.
More modern scholars would perhaps disagree with Cruttwell, arguing that retort was a standard rhetorical
technique that every scholar would have learnt as part of their training.
Robert M. Haddad (SID: S00013898). [email protected] 9
The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

unconsciously, his imitators,‖22 anticipating more or less the arguments later used by other
Church Fathers and even the mediaeval polemicists.23 Barnard puts it well in these words:
―What Justin accomplished in the second century was the seedbed of the later Church.‖24
The purpose of this study is to assess the appropriateness of Justin‘s apologetical
arguments as contained in his genuine works,25 namely First and Second Apologies and
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in response to the so-called ―four-fold attack‖ as identified
by Eric Osborn26 launched against Christianity in the second century AD by the Roman
state, philosophers, heretics and the Jews. In the course of this study I propose to add
another ‗attack‘ against the Christians, namely, popular calumnies, making it the ‗five-fold
attack.‘ This will be explained further in Chapter Three.

22 H. von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Greek Church, A & C Black, London, 1963, p. 15.
23 S. Krauss & W. Horbury, The Jewish-Christian Controversy from the Earliest Times to 1789, vol. 1, J. C.
B. Mohr, Tübingen, 1996, p. 30.
24 Barnard, St. Justin Martyr, p. 21.
25 Of Justin‘s many writings only three have survived substantially intact: his two Apologies to the Emperor
Antoninus Pius, his sons and to the Roman Senate, and the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, addressed to a
certain Marcus Pompeius. These survive in a single manuscript of poor quality copied in the fourteenth
century (J. Quasten, Patrology, vol. 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Newman Press, Maryland,
1950, p. 197). H. Chadwick, ―Justin Martyr‘s Defence of Christianity,‖ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
47 (1965), pp. 275-297 at p. 275, laments this fact, stating, ―as a result of its corruptions we cannot be
completely sure of Justin‘s opinion on all points.‖ Four small fragments contained in the works of other
writers are also considered genuine (Barnard, St. Justin Martyr, p. 6). Justin‘s lost treatise on heresies
(Syntagma) became a model for other authors and Eusebius, History of the Church 4.18, credited him with
five other works: Discourse to the Greeks, Admonition to the Greeks, On the Divine Monarchy, Psalmist and
On the Soul. L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought, Cambridge University Press, London,
1967, p. 172, lists the following as belonging to the pseudo-Justinian corpus: (a) Address to the Greeks; (b)
Hortatory Address to the Greeks; (c) On the Unity of God; (d) A Fragment on the Resurrection; (e)
Exposition of the True Faith; (f) Letter to Zenas and Serenus; (g) Refutation of certain Aristotelian Doctrines;
(h) Questions and Answers to the Orthodox; (i) Christian Questions asked to the Greeks.
26 Osborn, Justin Martyr, pp. 1 and 5; E. F. Osborn, ―Justin‘s Response to Second Century Challenges,‖
Australian Biblical Review 14 (1966), pp. 37-54 at p. 54.
Robert M. Haddad (SID: S00013898). [email protected] 10