Justin Martyr: First Apology

Literally, “the opinions of the ancients.”

Thirlby regarded the clause in brackets as an interpolation. There is considerable variety of opinion as to the exact meaning of the words amongst those who regard them as genuine.

Plat. Rep. , v. 18.

That is to say, if the Christians refused or neglected to make their real opinions and practices known, they would share the guilt of those whom they thus kept in darkness.

Justin avails himself here of the similarity in sound of the words Χριστὸς (Christ) and χρηστὸς (good, worthy, excellent). The play upon these words is kept up throughout this paragraph, and cannot be always represented to the English reader. [But Justin was merely quoting and using, ad hominem , the popular blunder of which Suetonius ( Life of Claudius , cap. 25) gives us an example, “impulsore Chresto .” It will be observed again in others of these Fathers.]

[ 1 Cor. x. 20 . Milton’s admirable economy in working this truth into his great poem (i. 378) affords a sublime exposition of the mind of the Fathers on the origin of mythologies.]

The word δαίμων means in Greek a god, but the Christians used the word to signify an evil spirit. Justin uses the same word here for god and demon. The connection which Justin and other Christian writers supposed to exist between evil spirits and the gods of the heathens will be apparent from Justin’s own statements. The word διάβολος , devil, is not applied to these demons. There is but one devil, but many demons.

The word δαίμων means in Greek a god, but the Christians used the word to signify an evil spirit. Justin uses the same word here for god and demon. The connection which Justin and other Christian writers supposed to exist between evil spirits and the gods of the heathens will be apparent from Justin’s own statements. The word διάβολος , devil, is not applied to these demons. There is but one devil, but many demons.

This is the literal and obvious translation of Justin’s words. But from c . 13, 16, and 61, it is evident that he did not desire to inculcate the worship of angels. We are therefore driven to adopt another translation of this passage, even though it be somewhat harsh. Two such translations have been proposed: the first connecting “us” and “the host of the other good angels” as the common object of the verb “taught;” the second connecting “these things” with “the host of,” etc., and making these two together the subject taught. In the first case the translation would stand, “taught these things to us and to the host,” etc.; in the second case the translation would be, “taught us about these things, and about the host of the others who follow Him, viz. the good angels.” [I have ventured to insert parenthetic marks in the text, an obvious and simple resource to suggest the manifest intent of the author. Grabe’s note in loc . gives another and very ingenious exegesis, but the simplest is best.]

i.e., according to Otto, “not on account of the sincere Christians of whom we have been speaking.” According to Trollope, “not on account of (or at the instigation of) the demons before mentioned.”

Or, “as a Christian who has done no wrong.”

Compare the Rescript of Adrian appended to this Apology.

Literally, “persuaded God.”

[ Isa. xliv. 9–20 ; Jer. x. 3 .]

πομπὰς καὶ ὕμνους . “Grabe, and it should seem correctly, understands πομπὰς to be solemn prayers . … He also remarks, that the ὕμνοι were either psalms of David, or some of those psalms and songs made by the primitive Christians, which are mentioned in Eusebius, H. E. , v. 28.” — Trollope .

Literally, “would not use the same hearth or fire.”

See the end of chap. xii.

The reader will notice that Justin quotes from memory, so that there are some slight discrepancies between the words of Jesus as here cited, and the same sayings as recorded in our Gospels.

Matt. v. 28, 29, 32 .

Matt. xix. 12 .

διγαμίας ποιούμενοι , lit. contracting a double marriage. Of double marriages there are three kinds: the first, marriage with a second wife while the first is still alive and recognised as a lawful wife, or bigamy; the second, marriage with a second wife after divorce from the first, and third, marriage with a second wife after the death of the first. It is thought that Justin here refers to the second case.

Matt. ix. 13 .

Matt. v. 46, 44 ; Luke vi. 28 .

Luke vi. 30, 34 ; Matt. vi. 19 , Matt. xvi. 26 , Matt. vi. 20 .

Luke vi. 36 ; Matt. v. 45 , Matt. vi. 25, 26, 33, 21 .

Matt. vi. 1 .

Luke vi. 29 ; Matt. vi. 22, 41, 16 .

i.e., Christian neighbours.

Matt. v. 34, 27 .

Mark xii. 30 .

Matt. xix. 6, 17 .

Matt. vii. 21 , etc.; Luke xiii. 26 ; Matt. xiii. 42 , Matt. vii. 15, 16, 19 .

φόρους καὶ εἰσφοράς . The former is the annual tribute; the latter, any occasional assessment. See Otto’s Note, and Thucyd. iii. 19.

Matt. xxii. 17, 19, 20, 21 .

Luke xii. 48 .

ἓρμαιον , a piece of unlooked-for luck, Hermes being the reputed giver of such gifts: vid. Liddell and Scott’s Lex. ; see also the Scholiast, quoted by Stallbaum in Plato’s Phæd. , p. 107, on a passage singularly analogous to this.

Boys and girls, or even children prematurely taken from the womb, were slaughtered, and their entrails inspected, in the belief that the souls of the victims (being still conscious, as Justin is arguing) would reveal things hidden and future. Instances are abundantly cited by Otto and Trollope.

This form of spirit-rapping was familiar to the ancients, and Justin again ( Dial. c. Tryph. , c. 105) uses the invocation of Samuel by the witch of Endor as a proof of the immortality of the soul.

Valesius (on Euseb. H. E. , iv. 7) states that the magi had two kinds of familiars: the first, who were sent to inspire men with dreams which might give them intimations of things future; and the second, who were sent to watch over men, and protect them from diseases and misfortunes. The first, he says, they called (as here) ὀνειροπομπούς , and the second παρέδρους .

Justin is not the only author in ancient or recent times who has classed dæmoniacs and maniacs together; neither does he stand alone among the ancients in the opinion that dæmoniacs were possessed by the spirits of departed men. References will be found in Trollope’s note. [See this matter more fully illustrated in Kaye’s Justin Martyr , pp. 105–111.]

See the Odyssey , book xi. line 25, where Ulysses is described as digging a pit or trench with his sword, and pouring libations, in order to collect around him the souls of the dead.

Matt. xix. 26 .

Matt. x. 28 .

The Sibylline Oracles are now generally regarded as heathen fragments largely interpolated by unscrupulous men during the early ages of the Church. For an interesting account of these somewhat perplexing documents, see Burton’s Lectures on the Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries , Lect. xvii. The prophecies of Hystaspes were also commonly appealed to as genuine by the early Christians. [See (on the Sibyls and Justin M.) Casaubon, Exercitationes , pp. 65 and 80. This work is a most learned and diversified thesaurus , in the form of strictures on Card. Baronius. Geneva, 1663.]

i.e., first-born.

διαφορὰν καὶ προτροπήν . The irony here is so obvious as to make the proposed reading ( διαφθορὰν καὶ παρατροπήν , corruption and depravation) unnecessary. Otto prefers the reading adopted above. Trollope, on the other hand, inclines to the latter reading, mainly on the score of the former expressions being unusual. See his very sensible note in loc .

The Benedictine editor, Maranus, Otto, and Trollope, here note that Justin in this chapter promises to make good three distinct positions: 1st, That Christian doctrines alone are true, and are to be received, not on account of their resemblance to the sentiments of poets and philosophers, but on their own account; 2d, that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God, and our teacher; 3d, that before His incarnation, the demons, having some knowledge of what He would accomplish, enabled the heathen poets and priestis in some points to anticipate, though in a distorted form, the facts of the incarnation. The first he establishes in chap. xxiv-xxix.; the second in chap. xxx.-liii.; and the third in chap. liv. et sq.

We have here followed the reading and rendering of Trollope. [But see reading of Langus, and Grabe’s note, in the edition already cited, 1. 46.]

ἐν γραφαῖς στεφάνους . The only conjecture which seems at all probable is that of the Benedictine editor followed here. [Grabe after Salmasius reads ἐν ῥαφαῖς and quotes Martial, Sutilis aptetur rosa crinibus . Translate, “patch-work garlands.”]

i.e., on account of the assistance gained for him by Thetis, and in return for it.

It is very generally supposed that Justin was mistaken in understanding this to have been a statue erected to Simon Magus. This supposition rests on the fact that in the year 1574, there was dug up in the island of the Tiber a fragment of marble, with the inscription “Semoni Sanco Deo,” etc., being probably the base of a statue erected to the Sabine deity Semo Sancus. This inscription Justin is supposed to have mistaken for the one he gives above. This has always seemed to us very slight evidence on which to reject so precise a statement as Justin here makes; a statement which he would scarcely have hazarded in an apology addressed to Rome, where every person had the means of ascertaining its accuracy. If, as is supposed, he made a mistake, it must have been at once exposed, and other writers would not have so frequently repeated the story as they have done. See Burton’s Bampton Lectures , p. 374. [See Note in Grabe (1. 51), and also mine, at the end.]

See chap. vii.

Which were commonly charged against the Christians.

Thirlby remarks that the serpent was the symbol specially of eternity, of power, and of wisdom, and that there was scarcely any divine attribute to which the heathen did not find some likeness in this animal. See also Hardwick’s Christ and other Masters , vol. ii. 146 (2d ed.).

[Note how he retaliates upon the calumny (cap. xxvi.) of the “upsetting of the lamp.”]

Literally, “For He foreknows some about to be saved by repentance, and some not yet perhaps born.”

Those things which concern the salvation of man; so Trollope and the other interpreters, except Otto, who reads τούτων masculine, and understands it of the men first spoken of. [See Plato ( De Legibus , opp. ix. p. 98, Bipont., 1786), and the valuable edition of Book X. by Professor Tayler Lewis (p. 52. etc.). New York, 1845.]

For a sufficient account of the infamous history here alluded to and the extravagant grief of Hadrian, and the servility of the people, see Smith’s Dictionary of Biography: “Antinous.” [Note, “all were prompt, through fear ,” etc. Thus we may measure the defiant intrepidity of this stinging sarcasm addressed to the “philosophers,” with whose sounding titles this Apology begins.]

Some attribute this blunder in chronology to Justin, others to his transcribers: it was Eleazar the high priest to whom Ptolemy applied.

Gen. xlix. 10 .

Grabe would here read, not σπέρμα , but πνεῦμα , the spirit; but the Benedictine, Otto, and Trollope all think that no change should be made.

Isa. xi. 1 .

Isa. vii. 14 .

Luke i. 32 ; Matt. i. 21 .

θεοφοροῦνται , lit. are borne by a god—a word used of those who were supposed to be wholly under the influence of a deity.

Mic. v. 2 .

These predictions have so little reference to the point Justin intends to make out, that some editors have supposed that a passage has here been lost. Others think the irrelevancy an insufficient ground for such a supposition. [See below, cap. xl.]