1

NB: This is a final Essay

submitted by Fr Andrew Smith
as part of the course requirements for
Introduction to Patristics, in Semester 2, 2018,
taught by Abraam Mikhail,
a lecturer with St Athanasius College,
a college of the University of Divinity.

Since submission, only formatting has been changed

for the sake of readability.

The Apology – St Justin Martyr

The writings of St Justin Martyr are among the earliest Christian sources on a variety of
topics, and especially on Christian liturgics (Apology 61,65-67).1 Yet, his purpose in writing the
Apology was not to make a record of practices for researchers of Christianity; rather, it
was to convince the Roman authorities to cease their persecution of Christians. The
Apology was written between 147-154AD,2 likely in response to the martyrdom of
Polycarp,3 and it cemented his position as a “pioneer Apologist” for two reasons:4 firstly,
because it began the Christian use of a legal and administrative style, an ‘apology,’ to
preach the Gospel to the Romans; and secondly, because the Apology was “directed
outwards … towards pagans”, while previous patristic writings were for “Christian
communities.”5

1
Translation from: Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin
Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Philip Schaff et al (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2005).
2
Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2009), 44.
3
This would explain the references to eternal fire. Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988), 53-54.
4
L.W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), vii.
5
John Behr, The Way to Nicaea, (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 93.
 2

Attempting to utilise the freedom of a philosopher to advise or rebuke the emperor, 6 the
Apology7 follows the elements of a classical oration, framed within formulaic elements of
a petition: starting with addressing the intended recipients and identifying the author,
and ending by briefly requesting that the petition be posted and promulgated. Within
this, the Apology proper begins with the Introduction, appealing to the emperor’s piety
and philosophy, and gives the Petition, that Christians should be examined for crimes and
not for their association with Christianity. Justin provides the Proof and the Refutation in
four intermingled sections: elaborating the Petition (Apol. 4-12) before pivoting his tone from
petition to persuasion to explain the teachings of Jesus (Apol. 12-22), providing extensive
demonstrations from prophecy (Apol. 23-60), and lastly explaining Christian worship to dispel
abhorrent popular rumours (Apol. 61-67). Finally, he closes by concluding his petition and
formally requesting its promulgation (Apol. 67-68, and, end of Second Apology).8 In reviewing and
analysing the Apology, this essay will critically evaluate the contribution that Justin made
in explaining the Orthodox faith, while highlighting the devices used in defence of his
central argument: that Christians should not be persecuted within the Roman Empire.

While there was “no formal legislation against Christianity,” a governor was able to
execute Christians if he considered Christianity “prejudicial to good order.”9 Commonly,
this accusation came from one of five groups: the Roman state itself, contemporary
philosophers, heretics, Jews, and the public.10 Christians thus found themselves in a
precarious, “unfair” and “unjust” position, 11 from which Justin moves to defend them
with rhetoric, philosophy and culture.12

6
Robert Michael Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin Martyr,” MPhil
thesis, Australian Catholic University, 2008, 108.
7
The ‘Second Apology’ was likely a postscript to the ‘First Apology’ (Behr, The Way to Nicaea, 93; Minns &
Parvis, Justin, 54); however, scholars vary on this point (see discussion in Haddad, “The Appropriateness of
the Apologetical Arguments”, 49).
8
Minns & Parvis, Justin, 49-54. For why the end of the Second Apology is included here, see Minns &
Parvis, Justin, 28-31.
9
Minns & Parvis, Justin, 45.
10
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments,” 27,33. Most attacks were addressed in
the Apology, while the Dialogue with Trypho focused primarily on Jewish attacks.
11
Minns and Parvis, Justin, 45.
12
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 28.
 3

Justin begins his Apology conventionally, addressing the Emperor and those close to him,
requesting that the Empire stops persecuting Christians “of all nations” (Apology 1). He
quickly appeals to the intellectual snobbery of his “truly pious and philosophical”
recipients, and asks them to prioritise reason over prejudice, disproven tradition and
even life itself (Apol. 2), while linking to Plato, Socrates and the philosophers (Apol. 3-5). Later
in the Apology, Justin appeals to fairness, arguing that Christians should not be
persecuted for teaching what others were praised for teaching, including the immortality
of the soul (Apol. 18), God’s creation ex nihilo (Apol. 10,20), punishment for wrongdoings after
death (Apol. 20,21), that idolatry is wrong, and, about the destruction of this world (Apol. 20).
He also outlines commonalities between Jesus and members of the Greco-Roman
pantheon – including being firstborn of God, “Son of God” and “born of a virgin” “without
sexual union,” healed, or being “crucified and [dying,] rose again, and ascended into
heaven” – showing that each trait should be acceptable to Romans (Apol. 21-22).

These arguments were rhetorically useful to ameliorate perceptions of Christianity’s

foreignness and inferiority while building connections with a concept of Christ as
Philosopher; however, they were unable to show the superiority of Christianity to
paganism.13 Late in the Apology, Justin makes the argument that poetry, philosophy and
paganism are poor copies of the originals found in Judaism and Christianity, and their
proponents were either inspired by “seeds of Truth” from the Word of God, “influenced
by wicked demons” or plagiarists “from the prophet Moses” (Apol. 44,54). He asserts that
demons persuaded the attacks on Christians, used heretics to take people from God,
communicated matters of temple worship, and suggested deities in a clear
misinterpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 (Apol. 56-58,62,64); while others, including Plato identifying
God as Creator and confusing the Staff of Moses with the Cross, Justin attributes to
plagiarism (Apol. 59-60). Referring to Moses demonstrated the antiquity of Christian beliefs,

13
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 112.
 4

but as no proof was supplied to support Plato plagiarising from Moses,14 the argument
was vulnerable through the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.15

Justin’s appeal to justice is prominent in the early part of the Apology, when he asks that
the rulers judge according to crimes while threatening God’s wrath if they judge unjustly
or solely based on the Christian affiliation of the defendant (Apol. 3,4,7) – an appeal to self-
preservation, using both pathos, fear, and ethos, asserting the Christian God as judge
over emperors.16 Justin then makes the case that “good princes” would celebrate
Christians as “helpers and allies in promoting peace,” since Christians believe in a divine
Judge thus avoiding immoral actions (Apol. 12), including being so committed to the truth
that they don’t deny being Christian under prosecution (Apol. 8). Justin attacks this Roman
hypocrisy with a “strong epideictic rhetoric” – even accepting a pun designed to
strengthen the “rhetorical ethos” of Christianity, arguing that if condemning based on a
name was wrong, it is worse when that name was ‘excellent’. 17

Christian talk of another ‘kingdom’ was misunderstood by the general population. Justin
assures that Christians were loyal, dutiful citizen of the Empire, promoting its virtue,
peace, prosperity, prayers, and taxes. 18 He affirms that Christians are speaking of God’s
kingdom, pointing out that if “a human kingdom” was the goal, then they would avoid
death by denying Christ (Apol. 11).

It is the charge of atheism that Justin decries as especially evil. Justin’s apologetic for the
superiority of the Christian faith leads with his pity for pagans who worship a variety of
fickle and feeble demon-inspired deities or false-Christians, before condemning pagan

14
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 123.
15
‘After this, therefore because of this’. Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”,
126, argues that the argument would have been stronger in the reverse, i.e. rather than claiming Socrates
as actually being Christian before Christ, to claim that Christians lived like Socrates and therefore deserved
the respect of philosophers.
16
It likely would have been unsuccessful, being seen as insolent and with the ethos attack’s foundation, i.e.
the Christian God, vulnerable to the petitio principii fallacy (begging the question). Haddad, “The
Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 107,110.
17
A pun based on Χριστός and Χρηστός. Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”,
100-101.
18
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 89-90.
 5

ethics, especially infanticide by exposure which creates murders of the parents or

prostitutes of any survivors. He contrasts this with Christians, who “worship and adore”
the “most true God, the Father … and the Son … and the prophetic Spirit” by “praise and
thanksgiving” (Apol.), and who lead a life of either marriage (with children) or celibacy (Apol.
5-6,9,13,23,25-27,29) 19
. While Christians would accept Justin’s attack of the pantheon as
demonic, his overwhelmingly pagan audience would have rejected this, eliminating public
sympathy and hope for a favourable presentation of Christianity – possibly leading to the
Apology being dismissed as treasonous. Perhaps “his enthusiasm and passion for truth”
simply got the better of him.20

To defend against popular accusations of the “sexual debauchery, ritual murder,

cannibalism, impiety, atheism, and disloyalty” of Christians, 21 Justin explains Christian
ethics by contrasting Greco-Roman paganism’s magic, sexual debauchery, money and
hate with what Christians convert to – godliness, chastity, charity, co-existence, prayer
and evangelism (Apol. 14), using the Sermon on the Mount to highlight Christian virtues of
(Apol. 15-
chastity, love for all, charity, calmness, speaking the truth and obeying authorities
17)
. Through this, he shows how the purity and morality of Christians contributes to the
benefit of the empire. 22

In a culture that prioritised beliefs that stood the test of time, Christianity was attacked as
being novel. To establish the ancient roots of Christianity, and thus be a legitimate part
of the mos maiorum,23 Justin comprehensively cites Isaiah, the Psalms, and other
passages to show that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied by Jewish Scriptures – from His
birth and healing miracles, to His revilement and crucifixion, to His resurrection and
ascension, followed by the abomination of desolation, evangelising, martyrdom, Gentile
believers outnumbering Jewish believers, and Christians being persecuted by Jews

19
As evidence, Justin cites a contemporary petition for a man to become a eunuch.
20
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 88-89,104.
21
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 75.
22
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 76,83.
23
Accumulation of wisdom to found a stable society on. Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical
Arguments”, 128.
 6

(Apol. 30-35,37-41,44-45,47-53) 24
. Justin explains the prophets, linking them to good teaching and
being the voice of Christ, and that the truth of past prophecies is both reason for faith in
Christ and allows Christians to trust prophecies for the future, including the Parousia, the
Judgement, and eternal heaven and hell (Apol. 31,36-38,44,52).

The Apology features many Christian beliefs, including belief in hell (compared to Plato’s
millennium of punishment) (Apol. 8,19), Christ’s Resurrection (Apol. 19), our bodily resurrection
at the Parousia (Apol. 18), the devil, that the delay in the parousia is due to God’s love and
patience for humans to choose Him (Apol. 28), and that God desires, not material goods, but
virtue, faith and likeness to Him (Apol. 10). Justin allows that the reader may not be
persuaded to convert – but even so, Christianity should not be punished legally as these
beliefs are harmless to non-believers (Apol. 8), while causing many believers to reform
“intemperate habits,” renounce “worldly treasures,” and instead adopt “love, kindness
and charity towards their enemies and the needy.”25

Justin’s most noted contribution came in his attempt to explain simply the beliefs and
structure of Christian services in order to normalise them to a pagan readership – thus
ignoring the custom to not speak about the sacraments.26 On baptism, he writes that a
person who believes in Christ and promises to live according to Christian teaching will,
along with the Church, pray and fast for the remission of their sins. They will be baptised
in the name of the Trinity, regenerated and completely forgiven. Then, they are brought
into the congregation for the Communion service, where they are prayed for, along with
the rest of the congregation and all humanity, that they might go to heaven (Apol. 61,65).

Justin also discusses the Communion service. He states that Christians gather on Sunday
for the Eucharist, which is comprised of bread and wine with water, believed to be the

24
Citations included: Isaiah (27), Psalms (10), Zechariah & Matthew (twice each), and once each from
Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah and Luke.
25
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 78.
26
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 79,91.
 7

flesh and blood of Christ,27 and partaken of only by baptised believers who live according
to Christ’s teachings. More broadly, Justin explained that services included readings from
the Prophets and the Gospels (explained as ‘memoirs of the apostles’), a sermon, prayers,
before a long thanksgiving prayer by the ruler of the service would consecrate bread and
wine and water,28 and then deacons would distribute this Eucharist to those present and
absent. A collection was taken up to enable the wealthy to help the needy, and with each
Christian inspiring the other (Apol. 65-67).

The modern reader should beware of reading into Justin’s work, as his focus was not to
discuss liturgics,29 nor to write a theological treatise,30 but rather to explain Christianity to
outsiders and justify why it should not suffer state persecution. For this reason, Justin’s
greatest significance was neither dogmatic nor liturgical, but missiological. “[A] man with
a mission,”31 Justin’s desire to speak to a world outside his own, in ways that would be
understood by outsiders, has made him a model for those who follow in his footsteps. As
a Samaritan (Dialogue, 120), he was very familiar with the idea of the Messiah being a Teacher
(rather than the King anticipated by the Jews), 32 and he applies this to Christianity being
the true philosophy. Justin’s admission that the philosophers and poets who taught
truthfully and without Mosaic plagiarism carried ‘seeds of the Word’ (λόγος
σπερματικός), which allowed him to claim philosophers (including Socrates) as Christians
before Christ (Second Apol. 10), and allowed Christians to claim truth wherever it is found.33
Contrary to Tertullian’s rhetorical question, “what has Athens to do with Jerusalem,”
Christians have a guide in Justin to span a bridge over the gulf between pagan philosophy

27
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 91, puts forward that this could have
(also) been an analogy with Galen’s work, which explained that food was converted to blood, and then
flesh was formed from blood.
28
His audience would have been more familiar with προεστώς, ‘ruler’, than ἐπίσκοπος, ‘bishop’. Haddad,
“The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 90.
29
Justin devoted only 4 of 68 chapters to this topic.
30
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth Revised edn (London: Continuum, 1977), 96. Another saint
remembered for unexpected reasons is the Venerable Bede, a formidable biblical scholar mainly
remembered as a Church historian and author of The Ecclesiastical History of the English People.
31
Barnard, Justin Martyr, 169.
32
Lawrence R. Farley, The Gospel of John: Beholding the Glory (Ben Lomond: Conciliar Press, 2006), 79.
33
Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments”, 119.
 8

and Christian theology 34 – in much the same way that the Apostle Paul’s approach at the
Areopagus was worlds apart from his approach at the synagogue (Acts 17:16-34).

In conclusion, Justin’s work is predominantly known for developing a new sub-genre to

preach the Gospel, and for being an early source on the early Church, leaving us a trove
of information about the earliest Church which is an ongoing matter of academic
research. However, his intent at the time was to defend Christians against persecution –
the urgency of the task explaining why a man of letters and learning would use such
impassioned speech and invective. It is not certainly known how successful Justin was in
his task – the Epistle of Adrian indicating that Justin’s Apology may have caused a decline
in persecutions,35 while other spurious epistles indicating that the Apology at least
coincided with such a decline.36 It is certain, however, that his defence of the Christian
faith “strengthened the morale of Christians” living at the time and gave a missiological
example for generations to come. 37

34
Veselin Kesich, "St Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies," St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 42,
no. 1 (1998), 87.
35
Significant discussion on this can be found in: Haddad, “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical
Arguments”, 32. This may also had provided an example of Christians acknowledging Roman authority at a
time when they were accused of disrespect (Haddad, 106).
36
Justin, “First Apology,” ‘Epistle of Adrian in behalf of the Christians’ (et al).
37
Constantine Cavarnos, Orthodoxy and Philosophy: Lectures delivered at St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological
Seminary. An illuminating discussion of Orthodox Christianity with reference to Ancient Greek and Modern
Western Philosophy (Belmont: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 2003), 22.
 9

Bibliography
Barnard, L.W. Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought. London: Cambridge University Press,
1967.

Behr, John. The Way to Nicaea. Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001.

Cavarnos, Constantine. Orthodoxy and Philosophy: Lectures delivered at St. Tikhon's

Orthodox Theological Seminary. An illuminating discussion of Orthodox
Christianity with reference to Ancient Greek and Modern Western Philosophy.
Belmont: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 2003.

Farley, Lawrence R. The Gospel of John: Beholding the Glory. Ben Lomond: Conciliar Press,
2006.

Grant, Robert M. Greek Apologists of the Second Century. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1988.

Haddad, Robert Michael. “The Appropriateness of the Apologetical Arguments of Justin

Martyr,” MPhil thesis, Australian Catholic University, 2008.

Justin Martyr. "The First Apology of Justin." In ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin
Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Philip Schaff, Alexander Roberts, James
Donaldson, & A. Cleveland Coxe, 423-501. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics
Ethereal Library, 2005.

Justin Martyr. "The Second Apology of Justin." In ANF01: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin
Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Philip Schaff, Alexander Roberts, James
Donaldson, & A. Cleveland Coxe, 502-518. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics
Ethereal Library, 2005.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. Fifth Revised edn. London: Continuum, 1977.

Kesich, Veselin. "St Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies." St Vladimir's
Theological Quarterly 42, no. 1 (1998): 85-97.

Minns, Denis, and Paul Parvis. Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2009.