The use of the Jewish Scriptures by Early

Christian Greek Apologists 140-190 CE: Justin

Martyr, Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch

Jeremy Andrew Hudson

Wolfson College, Cambridge

This dissertation is submitted for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

November 2018
Contents

Preface……………………………………………………………i

Abbreviations……………………………………………………iii

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………...1

Chapter 2: The Proof from Prophecy in Justin Martyr’s

Apologia Maior………………………………………39

Chapter 3: Tatian’s Oratio and the Barbarian Writings………….120

Chapter 4: The Ad Autolycum of Theophilus of Antioch:

history and commentary…………………………….177

Chapter 5: Conclusion………………………………………….229

Bibliography……………………………………………………241
Preface

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the
outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and
specified in the text.

It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being
concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the
University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as
declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial
part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently
submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of
Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the
Preface and specified in the text.

It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee.

i
ii
Abbreviations

1A Justin Martyr’s Apologia Maior.

2A Justin Martyr’s Apologia Minor.
AA Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum.
AC In Theaetetum [Anonymous Commentary].
AH Heraclitus, Homeric Problems [Allegoriae Homericae].
Aristeas Letter of Aristeas.
BCE Before the Christian era.
BETS Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society.
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library.
BNJ Worthington, I ed: Brill’s New Jacoby (Brill, Leiden 2007-).
Accessed via Online ed 2007- .
BNP Cancik, H & Schneider, H eds: Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia
of the Ancient World English edition ed C F Salazar (Brill,
Leiden 2002-). Accessed via Online ed 2006-.
C Century.
CE Christian Era.
CAH9 Bowman, A K, Garnsey, P & Rathbone, D eds: The Cambridge
Ancient History Volume 9 The High Empire, A.D. 70-192
Second ed (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000).
CAH12 Bowman, A K, Garnsey P & Cameron, A eds: The Cambridge
Ancient History Volume 12 The Crisis of Empire A.D. 193-337
Second ed (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005).
CHC1 Mitchell, M M & Young, F M eds: The Cambridge History of
Christianity Volume 1: Origins to Constantine (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 2006).
DT Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho.
ed(s) editor /edited by.
EstEcl Estudios Eclesiásticos.
iii
HE Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine
(Historia Ecclesiastica).
HTR Harvard Theological Review.
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature.
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies.
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History.
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies.
JTS Journal of Theological Studies.
LCL Loeb Classical Library.
LSJ Liddell, Scott & Jones: Greek-English Lexicon.
NCHB1 Carleton Paget, J & Schaper, J: The New Cambridge History of
the Bible Volume 1 From the beginnings to 600 (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 2013).
NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint.
NT New Testament.
Oratio Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos.
OT Old Testament.
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum.
rev revised.
RevScRel Revue des Sciences Religieuses.
RHE Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique.
SBL Society of Biblical Literature.
SecCent Second Century.
SMSR Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni.
SP Studia Patristica.
ST Studia Theologica.
TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae.
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung.
trans translation /translated by.

iv
VC Vigiliae Christianae.
ZAC Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum.
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde
der älteren Kirche.

v
vi
Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

By the mid 2C the movement inaugurated by followers of the crucified Jesus of

Nazareth had existed for over a century. Emerging from its Palestinian Jewish
roots, it had spread widely across the Roman Empire and established itself in a
number of locations.1 From the outset Christianity sought to make converts and
was consequently brought into close contact with the wider non-Jewish
population of the Empire.2 Its adherents were few in number compared with the
total population and Christian communities were small-scale when set against
those of the Jews.3 Christians inherited from their Jewish origins authoritative
texts, referred to here as the Jewish Scriptures,4 and from an early date also
produced their own texts. Some of these were later gathered together to form the
collection now known as the NT, while other Christian texts were written,

1
M M Mitchell et al, ‘Part IV: Regional Varieties of Christianity in the First Three
Centuries’ in CHC1 295-412 & M J Edwards ‘Christianity A.D. 70-192’ in CAH12 573-
588.
2
CHC1 314-412 & R MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100-400)
(Yale University Press, New Haven 1984).
3
For the size of the Jewish population in antiquity: M Simon, Verus Israel, a Study of the
Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135-425) trans H
McKeating (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1986) 33-34; for numbers of Christians: R
Stark, The Rise of Christianity: a Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton University
Press, Princeton 1996) & F Trombley, ‘Overview: the Geographical Spread of
Christianity’ in CHC1 302-313.
4
This term describes the Jewish scriptures translated into Greek which were used by
early Christians (sometimes referred to as the Septuagint or the LXX).
1
copied and preserved.5 It has therefore fairly been said that ‘the earliest
Christians...created a literary culture.’6

A number of texts extant from the mid 2C onwards, commonly referred to as

apologetic, mark a new stage in Christian literature. They were, at least
ostensibly, addressed to Graeco-Roman7 audiences, although whether these were
their real audiences will be considered below. At least some of their authors were
converts to Christianity who had previously received a Graeco-Roman literary
education. A striking feature of some of these texts is the extent to which they
refer to the Jewish scriptures8 and it is not immediately obvious why this should
be so. In debates with Jews, Christian writers, understandably, discussed the
Jewish scriptures; both parties were familiar with the texts concerned, and how
they should be interpreted was part of their dialogue.9 The position was not the
same when the Christian gaze moved from the Jewish to the broader Graeco-
Roman world. For if knowledge of the Jewish scriptures did not extend beyond
Jewish communities before the advent of Christianity -- an assumption which
will be tested below -- it is reasonable to ask why a Christian apologist in debate
with non-Jewish non-Christians would refer to these texts so extensively.10

5
E.g. B D Ehrman ed, The Apostolic Fathers LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Mass 2003).
6
M M Mitchell, ‘The Emergence of the Written Record’ in CHC1 177-194, 191.
7
The term ‘Graeco-Roman’ is used throughout to describe the people and culture of the
Roman Empire in the 2C CE (excluding Jews and Christians) and denoting, somewhat
imprecisely, the mainstream culture of the time. It can be criticized on grounds of
accuracy -– Jews and Christians may also be described as Graeco-Romans -- but is
preferred to the term ‘pagans’ which has too many extraneous connotations.
8
Noted in J Carleton Paget, ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Second Century’ in
NCHB1 549-583, 562 but not pursued further.
9
J M Lieu, Image and Reality: the Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second
Century (T&T Clark, London 1996) 280-281.
10
E Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 6 Volumes (Dent, London
1910) 1 498 asserted long ago that such an argument would be ineffective: ‘But this mode
of persuasion loses much of its weight and influence when it is addressed to those who
neither understand nor respect the Mosaic dispensation.’
2
The Greek Apologists

Apologetic works either promote Christianity to non-Jewish non-Christians or

defend it against criticism from them. Such a text cannot stand alone since it
must form part of a dialogue between a Christian writer and a person or persons
located outside the Christian community, even if there were no other written
element(s) in the dialogue, or if whatever did exist does not survive. The
emphasis in this study is on the arguments put forward in apologetic texts, so it is
the contents of the works and the intentions behind them that are important,
rather than the form in which a text is framed and the identity of the addressee(s)
named in it.

Scholars have debated how the term apologetic should be used, which works
should be included within the scope of the term and which authors should be
referred to as apologists, and they have reached different conclusions. The earliest
works of which notice survives, by Quadratus and Aristides, were addressed to the
Emperor Hadrian on behalf of Christians.11 Later works were also addressed to
the Emperor, notably Justin Martyr’s Apologiae, and the term apologetic can be
restricted to petitions on behalf of Christians addressed to emperors or others in
authority. Thus Parvis defines apologetic texts as works ‘…that address those
with the power to decide policy concerning the execution of Christians, at either
an empire-wide or a local level…’12 She restricts the term to a series of texts
beginning with Justin Martyr and ending with Tertullian, excluding works by
Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch which are not addressed to authority figures.
In contrast with this focus on the form of a text, however, other scholars
emphasise the intentions of the authors. Norris, for instance, while recognizing
the genesis of 2C Christian apologetics in petitions to the Emperor, favours a

11
R M Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (SCM Press, London 1988) 35-
39.
12
S Parvis, ‘Justin Martyr and the Apologetic Tradition’ in S Parvis & P Foster eds, Justin
Martyr and his Worlds (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2007) 115-127, 117.
3
broader definition. He describes the apologists as ‘...a series of authors who in the
course of the second century composed and circulated addresses and pleas...to
emperors and others in public authority on behalf of their fellow Christians’13 but
goes on to point out that ‘apology in this narrow sense might of course pass over
into direct refutation of critics of Christianity or attempts to establish the
superiority of the Christian faith...’14

Similar sentiments are found in the works of Grant and Young, both echoing the
emphasis on argument and intention. Thus Grant describes the apologist as a
writer located within a minority group seeking to interpret the culture of that
group to wider society15 and includes within his Greek Apologists of the Second
Century all Greek Christian writings of the period addressed to non-Christian
non-Jewish audiences.16 Young’s survey covers a similarly wide range of texts,
her definition being that ‘...‘apology’ is…the end or purpose of a speech,
particularly a speech for the defence in court, and then more loosely a defence or
excuse offered in a less precise context or genre…’17 The approach adopted in
this study reflects the broad descriptions of apologetic offered by these two
scholars.

Apologetic writings and their audiences

The nature of the apologists’ audiences is a difficult issue which has been much
discussed and not clearly resolved. It is, however, arguably unnecessary to reach a
definitive conclusion for the purposes of this study since the main concerns here

R A Norris Jr, ‘The Apologists’ in F M Young, L Ayres & A Louth eds, The
13

Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge 2004) 36-44, 36.
14
Norris, ‘The Apologists’ 36.
15
Grant, Greek Apologists 9.
16
Grant, Greek Apologists 5-6.
17
F M Young, ‘Greek Apologists of the Second Century’ in M J Edwards, M R
Goodman, S R F Price & C Rowland eds, Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans,
Jews and Christians (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1999) 81-104, 91.
4
are with the contents of the apologetic texts and the arguments they contain.
Each text is therefore examined as a repository of arguments which have been
framed for the purposes of dialogue between Christians and non-Christians
whatever the precise context which produced it.

Scholars have debated whether these works were aimed at external audiences of
non-Christians -- and, if so, whether they ever reached them -- or whether they
were not rather written for, and read exclusively by, Christian audiences. The
form of the apologetic works is that they address named audiences outside Jewish
and Christian communities and that they refer to questions posed and objections
raised by the non-Christian addressees. Texts appear to assume some prior
knowledge of the matters under discussion and to be part of an on-going debate;
issues are introduced without background explanation and the audience is
presented as having at least a degree of prior knowledge of Christianity. Some
commentators have been inclined to treat apologetic works at face value:
Daniélou, for instance, describes them as ‘...the missionary literature of the second
century, the presentation of the Gospel to the pagan world…’, contrasting them
with works of ‘catechical literature’ aimed at ‘…expounding the faith to
converts...’18 A similar judgement is reached by Grant, who argues that
‘...apologists wrote for non-Christian groups or individuals to tell outsiders about
Christian truth.’19

The form of a text in the ancient world could, however, merely be the frame in
which an author presents his material20 and it is possible that, despite appearances,
the audiences for apologetic works were actually to be found among Christians.

18
J Daniélou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture trans J A Baker (Darton, Longman
& Todd, London 1973) 9.
19
Grant, Greek Apologists 11.
20
A good example is pseudonymous letter collections: P A Rosenmeyer, Ancient
Epistolary Fictions: the Letter in Greek Literature (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2001) 193-233.
5
The apologists make frequent use of techniques of literary artifice that were part
of the rhetorical discourse of the time and the putative addressees could quite
plausibly not be the real audiences.21 Thus some scholars have been inclined to
treat the texts not so much as part of actual dialogues between Christians and
Graeco-Romans, but rather as works that were in practice read wholly (or
overwhelmingly) by Christians.22 Sceptical positions of this kind reflect the terms
of a similar debate on Hellenistic-Jewish writings and particularly the
contribution of Tcherikover. In a widely-quoted article he argued that, although
such literature was externally-focussed apologetic in form, it was not in fact part
of a dialogue between Jews and non-Jews, but was written predominantly, if not
exclusively, for -- and read by -- internal Jewish audiences.23

Even if in spite of these arguments, apologetic works were aimed at non-

Christians, however, it does not necessarily follow that they ever reached, or a
fortiori significantly influenced, their intended audiences. As the editors of the
1999 collection, Apologetics in the Roman Empire put it, for instance: ‘... matter
and style ensured that the apologists would not have been much read outside the
Church.’24 No reference to specific Christian apologetic texts is found in
surviving non-Christian literature of the time, although this is an argument from
silence and the low rate of textual survival from the period, coupled with the
Christian bias to what does survive, prompts caution in drawing conclusions from
this. Some non-Christian authors display an awareness of arguments in favour of

21
M J Edwards, M R Goodman, S R F Price & C Rowland, ‘Introduction: Apologetics in
the Roman World’ in Edwards et al eds, Apologetics 1-13, 8-9. For apologists’ use of
rhetorical discourse: R M Grant, ‘Forms and Occasions of the Greek Apologists’ SMSR 52
(1986) 213-226.
22
E.g. M J Edwards, ‘Apologetics’ in S A Harvey & D G Hunter eds, The Oxford
Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008) 549-564,
550-551.
23
V Tcherikover, ‘Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered’ Eos 48 (1956) 169-193.
24
Edwards et al, ‘Introduction’ in Edwards et al eds, Apologetics 9.
6
Christianity, notably Galen25 and Celsus,26 although their writings do not reveal
the sources of their knowledge and do not refer to specific Christian works.
Some modern scholars, notably Andresen and following him Droge,27 have
argued that Celsus was writing in response to Justin’s Apologiae and must
therefore have known the latter’s work directly. The case is, however, based on
perceived similarities in the arguments described by Justin and Celsus, rather than
on any close textual connections or references, leaving many scholars
unconvinced.28 Indeed, the most direct links between Justin and Celsus proposed
by Andresen have been undermined very effectively by detailed critical scrutiny.29

To regard the apologists’ audiences as necessarily either internal or external may,

however, be to oversimplify. It is possible that these works were intended for both
Christian and non-Christian readerships -- rather tha n exclusively for one or the
other -- or that texts primarily aimed at external readerships were extensively
utilised internally. Moreover, the boundaries between Christian and non-
Christian were not necessarily clear,30 and target audiences could have been
located somewhere on the border between Christian and non-Christian, among

25
Galen’s writings date from the mid to late 2C CE. A few references to Christianity
found in the large quantity of his surviving oeuvre betray a curiosity about Christian
apologetic arguments: R Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (Oxford University Press,
London 1949). For Galen’s oeuvre: R J Hankinson, ‘The man and his work’ in R J
Hankinson ed, The Cambridge Companion to Galen (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2008) 1-33.
26
The work of Celsus, normally dated to the late 2C CE, survives in significant quantity
because Origen composed a comprehensive refutation of it in the mid 3C; but while he
certainly betrays considerable knowledge of Christian ideas, Celsus makes no references
to specific apologetic works: Origen, Contra Celsum trans H Chadwick (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1953).
27
C Andresen, Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (De
Gruyter, Berlin 1955) 345-372 & A J Droge, Homer or Moses? Early Christian
Interpretations of the History of Culture (J C B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1989)
76-77.
28
E.g. E F Osborn, Justin Martyr (J C B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1973) 168-170.
29
G T Burke, ‘Celsus and Justin: Carl Andresen revisited’ ZNW 76 (1985) 107-116.
30
J M Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford
University Press, Cambridge 2004) 98-146.
7
new or potential converts, or among existing Christians considering the
abandonment of their new faith. It is to readings of this kind that recent scholars,
such as Nyström and Pretila, have been drawn.31

Scholarly debates over the nature of the original audiences may, however, be less
important than they initially appear to be. The subject-matter of these works
clearly lies in debates then current between Christians and non-Christians, since
their authors would hardly have devoted their energies to discussing issues not
live at the time. It is, however, quite possible that the apologists fashioned for use
within their own communities texts which addressed concerns arising in
externally-facing debates, so that even if their texts were written entirely for
internal consumption, they were still concerned with issues of controversy
between Christians and non-Christians, with how best to promote a Christian
case to an external audience and respond to objections raised. Thus even where
uncertainty persists concerning the nature of its original audience, examination of
the contents of a text and of the arguments it contains can still be fruitfully
undertaken.

The term audience can be used in a number of different senses and the discussion
by Barclay, in his work on the 1C Jewish writer Josephus’ apologetic work
Contra Apionem,32 provides helpful clarification on the issue. He distinguishes
three senses of the term audience: the declared audience, that is those who are
addressed by the text, the implied audience, that is the ideal readers presupposed
or ‘constructed’ by the text, and the intended audience, that is those whom the

31
D E Nyström, The Apology of Justin Martyr: Literary Strategies and the Defence of
Christianity (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2018) 19-66 & N W Pretila, Re-appropriating
‘Marvellous Fables’: Justin Martyr’s Strategic Retrieval of Myth in 1 Apology (Pickwick
Publications, Eugene 2014) 25-32.
32
Text in Josephus, Contra Apionem ed H St J Thackeray LCL (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge Mass 1926), trans in Flavius Josephus, Against Apion trans J M G
Barclay (Brill, Leiden 2007).
8
author hopes will read it. Barclay points out that while the declared and implied
audiences are ‘products’ of the text itself, determining the intended audience may
involve drawing on evidence from outside the text -- where this is available --
and is the most difficult to identify.33 Applying Barclay’s categories to Christian
apologetic texts, the declared audiences are the named Graeco-Roman addressees,
while the implied audiences are also found among Graeco-Romans, although
perhaps scoped more broadly. The intended audiences are, however, not so
straightforwardly defined; they may be found either among non-Christian
Graeco-Romans or among members of Christian communities or, conceivably,
among both.

Barclay’s category of implied audience fits best with the approach to audiences for
apologetic texts adopted here. What constitutes such an audience can therefore be
determined from within the text itself. Audiences will, however, always be
referred to in this study as if they are external to Christianity; this is primarily a
matter of convenience, designed to avoid the convoluted phraseology that would
be necessary to recognize at every turn the different possibilities for actual
audiences which have been discussed above. It is also in line with the way the
texts present themselves.

The apologetic texts and the current study

This study does not deal with apologetic arguments as a whole, but specifically
with the use they make of the Jewish scriptures. It is limited to the period 140-
190 CE, which was a particularly fruitful one for apologetic writing; among the
extant texts from those years three stand out both because they are substantial in
themselves and because they make extensive use of the Jewish scriptures: Justin
Martyr’s Apologia Maior, Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos and the Ad Autolycum of

33
Barclay, Against Apion xlv-li.
9
Theophilus of Antioch.34 Other texts (or what survives of them) are either too
brief -- such as the works of Apollinaris and Melito35 -- or, if more substantial,
rule themselves out because they refer to the Jewish scriptures only very sparingly;
thus Aristides’ Apologia36 and Athenagoras’ Legatio,37 both of which present
arguments in favour of Christianity, but not on the basis of Jewish scriptural
references,38 exclude themselves from consideration.

Apologetic works are therefore read here as texts about texts, more specifically as
Christian texts about Jewish scriptures. The apologists present portraits of
Christianity which are constructs that may reflect reality, in whole or part, but
that are also a representation of reality created by their authors, and it may be hard
to see where reflection finishes and creation begins. The Jewish scriptures these
authors discuss, quote from and interpret to their audiences are a central feature of
the ‘reality’ of Christianity which they describe, and to some extent create,39 so an
appreciation of the way they portray the scriptures is important for a proper
understanding of these works.

The apologists and the Jewish scriptures

Given the centrality of the Jewish scriptures for this study, it is critical to
understand something of the nature of these texts and the form in which they

34
Bibliographical references to the texts are given in the relevant chapter.
35
Apollinaris is mentioned in Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to
Constantine trans G A Williamson rev & ed with a new introduction by A Louth
(Penguin, London 1989) (HE) 4.27 & 5.5. Extracts from Melito are quoted in Eusebius,
HE 4.26. Grant, Greek Apologists 83-99 discusses both authors.
36
The Apology of Aristides on Behalf of the Christians, ed J R Harris with an Appendix
by J A Robinson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1891).
37
Athenagoras, Legatio and De Resurrectione ed W R Schoedel (Clarendon Press,
Oxford 1972).
38
Apology of Aristides ed Harris 82-84, in the Appendix by Robinson: he identifies a
mere eight references to ‘Scripture’, only one of which is to the Jewish scriptures (2Macc
7:28), the remainder being to NT texts & Athenagoras, Legatio 154 (twelve references to
the Jewish scriptures listed).
39
For the role of texts in creating identities: Lieu, Christian Identity 27-61.
10
might have been available to Christian apologists. It is also important to
appreciate the significance of describing them as scriptures.

The Jewish scriptures were the products of ancient Jewish communities,

originally composed largely in Hebrew over an extended period of time.40 Texts
came to be grouped as Torah,41 Prophets, and the much looser category called
Writings and to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative scriptures. The processes
by which this happened -- and where the boundaries lay, around and between the
different groupings of texts -- are recognised by scholars as complex and
controversial issues.42 There were also texts, now commonly referred to as
‘apocryphal’, because they were ultimately excluded from some later biblical
canons43, which it is not incorrect also to include under the umbrella heading of
Jewish scriptures.

The Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek, probably by the Jews
themselves, some time during, or after, the 3C BCE, and probably over several
centuries.44 It is these Greek texts, circulating among Hellenistic Jewish

40
Recent summaries of the issues, with references to some of the extensive literature, are
E Ulrich, ‘The Old Testament Text and its Transmission’ & J Schaper, ‘The Literary
History of the Hebrew Bible’ in NCHB1 83-104 & 105-144.
41
Law is a common translation for Torah, although some scholars hold that Teaching is a
more accurate rendering: B M Metzger & M D Coogan eds, The Oxford Guide to Ideas
and Issues of the Bible (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001) 493.
42
A recent summary of the scholarly debates, with copious references to the literature, is J
Barton, ‘The Old Testament Canons’ in NCHB1 145-164.
43
J J Collins, ‘The ‘Apocryphal’ Old Testament’ in NCHB1 165-189.
44
There is a large literature on the origin and development of the Greek Jewish
scriptures. General works containing extensive references to the scholarship: G Dorival,
M Harl & O Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: du Judaïsme Hellénistique au
Christianisme ancien (Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1988); N Fernández Marcos, The
Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible trans W G E
Watson (Brill, Leiden 2000); K H Jobes & M Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Baker
Academic, Grand Rapids 2000) & J M Dines, The Septuagint (T&T Clark, Edinburgh
2004). For the broader cultural role of the Septuagint in ancient Judaism: T Rajak,
Translation and Survival: the Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford
University Press, Oxford 2009).
11
communities, which were familiar to early Christians45 and which are referred to
here as the Jewish scriptures. They are sometimes called the Septuagint, a term
originally applied only to the Greek translation of the Torah,46 although
commonly used in modern literature to refer to translations of the Hebrew
scriptures generally.47 The term Septuagint is helpful in distinguishing that set of
translations of the Hebrew scriptures from other renderings into Greek
undertaken from the 2C CE onwards, such as those of ‘the Three’, which were
used by Jews (generally) rather than Christians.48 The Jewish scriptures in Greek
were the core texts of Hellenistic Jewish culture; they were regarded as
authoritative by Jews, as is evident from Aristeas49 and the work of Philo50 and
Josephus.51 The term Jewish scriptures is imprecise, however, and should not be

45
Considered in literature on the development of the ‘Christian Bible’, e.g. M Hengel,
The Septuagint as Christian Scripture, its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon trans
M E Biddle (T&T Clark, Edinburgh 2002). A perspective from a scholar of Judaism is
Rajak, Translation 278-313.
46
The earliest surviving version of the so-called Legend of the Septuagint, Aristeas,
identifies seventy-two translators (later versions of the legend amended the number to
seventy—hence Septuagint), and refers only to the translation of the Torah: Aristeas to
Philocrates, Letter of Aristeas ed & trans M Hadas (Wipf & Stock, Eugene 1951) and A
Wasserstein & D J Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint from Classical Antiquity to
Today (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006).
47
As is shown by the titles of some of the works on the Greek Jewish scriptures noted
above: Rajak, Translation 14-16.
48
The relationship between the translations of ‘the Three’, Aquila, Symmachus and
Theodotion, and the Septuagint is discussed in Jobes & Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint
37-43; Fernández Marcos, Septuagint 109-154 & Rajak, Translation 290-313.
49
Aristeas is discussed below. The text contains lavish praise of the scriptures e.g. on the
part of the Egyptian King: Aristeas 312-320.
50
Seen generally in the respectful way in which Philo approaches the Greek scriptures in
his various commentaries (J R Royse, ‘The Works of Philo’ in A Kamesar ed, The
Cambridge Companion to Philo (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009) 32-64)
and specifically in his account of the Legend of the Septuagint: Philo, De Vita Mosis 2
Volumes ed F H Colson LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1935) 2 25-44.
51
Seen in the way Josephus retells the scriptural narrative in his Jewish Antiquities
(Josephus, Jewish Antiquities ed H St J Thackeray, R Marcus & L H Feldman 9 Volumes
LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1930-1965) and in his comments on
the scriptures in Contra Apionem: Barclay, Against Apion 1.37-42.
12
taken to describe a bounded set of texts whose make-up was clearly established in
the 2C CE.52

The earliest Christians were, of course, Jews and invoking the scriptures they
inherited from Judaism was a significant feature of early Christian texts. This is
seen in different ways in NT texts, in the canonical gospels, the letters of Paul and
in Revelation and, in acknowledgment of this, the study of ‘the OT in the NT’ is
a recognised part of scholarship.53 The significance of the Jewish scriptures is also
evident in other 1C and 2C Christian texts, in the Apostolic Fathers, for
instance.54

The importance of the scriptures for Christians was in large measure associated
with the promotion of Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah. Their distinctly
Christian interpretations of the scriptures differed from, and indeed placed them
in conflict with, those Jews who retained an allegiance to the traditions of
Judaism. In the 2C the Jewish scriptures have thus been described as being inter
alia ‘a tool in polemical encounters with Jews’55 in the hands of Christian writers.
A notable example is the Epistle of Barnabas which argues forcefully in favour of
Christian and against traditional Jewish interpretations of the scriptures.56 Use of
these texts was therefore not something new in the apologists’ writings; what was
novel was reference to them in texts addressed, ostensibly at least, to audiences
outside Christianity or Judaism.

52
L M McDonald, ‘Canon’ in J W Rogerson and J M Lieu eds, The Oxford Handbook of
Biblical Studies (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006) 777-809 & M W Holmes, ‘The
Biblical Canon’ in Harvey & Hunter eds, Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies
406-426.
53
Examples of the extensive literature: C H Dodd, According to the Scriptures: the Sub-
Structure of New Testament Theology (Nisbet & Co, London 1952) & S Moyise,
Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New (T&T Clark, London 2008).
54
Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers LCL.
55
Carleton Paget, ‘Interpretation of the Bible’ 549.
56
J Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (J C B Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), Tübingen 1994) 69-70.
13
Christian authors of the 2C did not necessarily have access to full texts of the
Jewish scriptures and material may have reached them through extracts,
summaries or perhaps orally, or possibly through quotations and references in the
writings of others. Written texts were scarce in the ancient world; ‘publication’
was only achieved by manual copying57 and the Jewish scriptures represented a
large corpus of texts. Indeed, scholars recognise that handbooks and extract
collections were forms in which material from literary and philosophical works
was transmitted58 and there is evidence that among Jews ideas and texts from the
Jewish scriptures were accessed in the form of extracts or summaries.59 Such
practices influenced emerging Christianity and the theory that testimonia, or
collections of prophetic proof-texts from scripture, were in circulation in early
Christian communities has gained considerable currency. This was prompted
particularly by the work of Dodd60 and then developed by other scholars; Albl has
provided a review of the field.61 The most notable application of the testimonia
thesis in the 2C context -- Skarsaune’s work on the sources used by Justin --
shows how his scriptural quotations were derived from more than one distinct
testimonial tradition.62

57
H Y Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: a History of Early Christian
Texts (Yale University Press, New Haven 1995).
58
H Chadwick, ‘Florilegium’ in RAC 7 1131-43 & M C Albl, ‘And Scripture cannot be
broken’ The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections (Brill,
Leiden 1999) 73-81.
59
Albl, ‘And Scripture cannot be broken’ 81-93. For Qumran evidence: G J Brooke,
‘Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures’ in M Henze, Biblical Interpretation at
Qumran (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2005) 134-157.
60
Dodd, According to the Scriptures, especially 28-110.
61
Albl, ‘And Scripture cannot be broken’ 7-69 for a literature review & 97-158 for
Christian testimonia collections. A note of caution has, however, recently been struck in
Carleton Paget, ‘Interpretation of the Bible’ 556: ‘In the absence of unambiguous
evidence for the existence of testimony books, certitude about their existence is
impossible.’
62
O Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: a Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text
Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (Brill, Leiden 1987) 139-242.
14
Scripture

The term ‘scripture’ has been used up to now in the phrase ‘Jewish scriptures’
without explanatory comment. It is a modern term, and a term of convenience,
useful in the current context, although its meaning requires clarification.63 In the
context of the debate on the development of the biblical canon Ulrich64 has
provided the following helpful definition:

‘A book of scripture is a sacred authoritative work believed to have

God as its ultimate author, which the community, as a group and
individually, recognizes and accepts as determinative for its belief
and practice for all time and in all geographical areas.’65

This is quite a precise definition, which views scripture as necessarily

determinative for belief and practice, not simply as inspired (and inspirational)
text. Use of the word ‘authoritative’, however, begs the question as to what that
term means; again Ulrich provides a definition:

‘An authoritative work is a writing which a group, secular or

religious, recognizes and accepts as determinative for its conduct,
and as of a higher order than can be overridden by the power or
will of the group or any member.’66

63
This is not always the case; the chapter entitled ‘The Uses of Scripture in Hellenistic
Judaism’ in Rajak, Translation 210-238 uses the term ‘scripture’ without discussing what
it means.
64
E Ulrich, ‘The Notion and Definition of Canon’ in L M McDonald & J A Sanders eds,
The Canon Debate (Hendrickson, Peabody 2002) 21-35.
65
Ulrich, ‘Notion and Definition’ 29.
66
Ulrich, ‘Notion and Definition’ 29.
15
Once more the idea of a text being determinative for conduct is present, and it is
striking that both definitions stress what a group or community ‘recognizes and
accepts’. Thus there is not something inherent in a text which qualifies it as
scripture; what is critical is the attitude taken towards it, the way in which it is
viewed and treated by those who possess or use it.

These definitions fit well the texts sacred to the Jews and the term Jewish
scriptures is therefore appropriately applied to them. It is worth noting, however,
given the focus of this study, that the Graeco-Roman literary tradition did not
have an analogous set of sacred texts fitting the definition of scripture employed
here.67 The Homeric epics have sometimes been seen as a parallel for the Jewish
scriptures, but the comparison is a misleading one. Finkelberg and Stroumsa
draw a helpful distinction between literary and religious canons, placing the
works of Homer in the first category and the Jewish scriptures in the second.68 In
a further work Finkelberg69 has developed the concept of the ‘foundational text’
which she defines as having three criteria: that it occupies the central place in
education: that it is the focus of exegetical activity aimed at defending it from any
form of criticism: and that it should be the vehicle by which the identity of the
community to which it belongs is articulated.70 She claims that both Homer and
the Bible meet these criteria and that both should therefore be seen as

67
Neither Egyptian priestly records referred to by Diodorus Siculus, Library of History
12 Volumes ed C H Oldfather LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1933-
1967) 1 69.7 nor the Roman Books of the Pontifices referred to in ancient sources (J A
North, ‘The Books of the Pontifices’ in C Moatti ed, La Mémoire perdue: recherches sur
l’administration Romaine Romaine (École Francaise de Rome, Rome 1998) 45-63) would
have been at all analogous.
68
M Finkelberg & G G Stroumsa, ‘Introduction: Before the Western Canon’ in M
Finkelberg & G G Stroumsa eds, Homer, the Bible and Beyond: Literary and Religious
Canons in the Ancient World (Brill, Leiden 2003) 1-8.
69
M Finkelberg, ‘Canonising and Decanonising Homer: Reception of the Homeric
Poems in Antiquity and Modernity’ in M R Niehoff ed, Homer and the Bible in the Eyes
of Ancient Interpreters (Brill, Leiden 2012) 15-28.
70
Finkelberg, ‘Canonising’ 16.
16
foundational texts. The standard for scripture set out above is, however, much
more exacting than the one Finkelberg sets for her ‘foundational text’; it includes
the notions that a text is ‘believed to have God as its ultimate author’ and that it is
recognised and accepted ‘as determinative for its belief and practice for all time’.
These features are characteristic of the Jewish scriptures but not the Homeric
epics, so while both texts may be described as foundational, the latter cannot be
described as scripture.

The Jewish scriptures and the Graeco-Roman world

It has been the implication hitherto that non-Christian non-Jews were not
familiar with the Jewish scriptures already and that the apologists brought these
texts to their attention for the first time. This assumption needs to be tested,
however, and there are a number of ways of doing this. First, it can be asked
whether Judaism was a proselytizing religion; if so, then the scriptures, which
were central to Judaism, would doubtless have featured in any dialogues with
non-Jews aiming to attract converts. Second, Hellenistic Jewish literature can be
explored to see whether it shows Jewish writers actively promoting their
scriptures to non-Jewish audiences. Third, Graeco-Roman writings can be
examined to establish the extent to which their authors reveal knowledge or
awareness of the Jewish scriptures. Analysis of these three strands of evidence will
show that the extent to which the apologists’ Graeco-Roman audiences were
familiar with the Jewish scriptures before the advent of Christianity was at best
likely to have been very limited.

Alexander’s conquests in the 4C BCE provided the impetus to accelerate

movement of Jews outside Palestine and encourage the growth of a diaspora of
Jewish communities in Greek cities of the Eastern Mediterranean.71 This brought

71
J M G Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: from Alexander to Trajan
(323BCE-117CE) (T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1996).
17
Jews into close proximity with non-Jews and, although the extent to which they
integrated or remained separate has been debated,72 opportunities clearly existed
for proselytising activity. Some scholars, from Harnack onwards, have argued
that such activity was significant, and indeed successful.73 Studies by McKnight74
and Goodman75 concluded independently, however, that Jewish missionary
activity was not of great significance in the ancient world. For both scholars the
argument is essentially the same: that the evidence is simply insufficient to support
the case. They acknowledge that Jews may have been receptive to proselytes and
that there are examples of non-Jews becoming sympathisers towards, or even
converts to, Judaism. Both regard such evidence as limited, however, and
insufficient to support the contention that missionary activity was widespread;
these conclusions have more recently been endorsed by a further study by
Riesner.76 The work of other scholars, notably Bird,77 and especially Carleton
Paget,78 has supplied something of a corrective in suggesting that missionary
activity was perhaps a more significant phenomenon than McKnight and
Goodman allowed for. This has not led these scholars to contend that any such
missionary activity provided the route by which the Jewish scriptures became

72
Analysed by Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean 92-102 in terms of Assimilation,
Acculturation and Accommodation.
73
See A Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries 2 Volumes
trans J Moffat (Williams and Norgate, London 1904-1905) 1 1-18; E Schürer, The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC—AD 135) new English
rev version eds G Vermes, F Millar & M Goodman III/I (T & T Clark, Edinburgh 1986)
150-176 and more recently L H Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World:
Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton University Press,
Princeton 1993) 288-382.
74
S McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second
Temple Period (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1991).
75
M Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytising in the Religious History of the
Roman Empire (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1994).
76
R Riesner, ‘A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission?’ in J Ådna & H Kvalbein, The Mission of
the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2000) 211-250.
77
M L Bird, Crossing Land and Sea: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple
Period (Hendrickson, Peabody 2010).
78
J Carleton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity (Mohr Siebeck,
Tübingen 2010) 149-183.
18
significantly well known outside Jewish circles, however, which is the critical
point for this study.79

Surviving Hellenistic-Jewish literature provides some evidence of Jewish history

and culture being promoted to external audiences. This did not entail bringing
the scriptures to their attention to any marked extent, however, and where the
externally apologetic impetus is clearest -- with Josephus -- there is no apparent
desire to promote the actual texts of the scriptures to non-Jews.

The most substantial item of Hellenistic-Jewish literature, the Septuagint

translation, made it possible for Greek-speaking non-Jews to read the Jewish
scriptures, at least if they were able to gain access to it. The text itself provides
scant clues as to why translation from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken. There
is one tantalising reference in the Prologue to Sirach, when translation is being
discussed, that ‘…those who love learning be capable of service to outsiders…’ 80
This could be taken to indicate that translation into Greek was, at least in part,
undertaken for the benefit of those outside Jewish communities, although the
reference is ambiguous and far from conclusive. Aristeas provides evidence of a
tradition -- clearly extant in the ancient world -- that the Septuagint was
regarded from its inception as performing an apologetic function. It describes
how the translation project was initiated by Ptolemy of Egypt in the 3C BCE so
that a copy of the Greek version could be deposited in his Library at Alexandria,
where it would be available for non-Jews to read.81 There are clearly fictional

79
That Judaism could embrace a ‘universalist’ outlook has been well argued by T L
Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE)
(Baylor University Press, Waco 2007), where universalism is identified with four factors:
a spectrum of sympathisers; converts; ethical monotheism; and participants in
eschatological redemption. Donaldson is, however, clear that universalism does not
necessarily entail proselytism.
80
NETS, Sirach Prologue 5.
81
Aristeas 38 & 317.
19
elements to Aristeas82 and some elements of its narrative do not appear very
credible.83 The whole account is not without historical value, however, for it
appears to preserve a tradition of early interest in the translation of the Jewish
scriptures into Greek on the part of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt. Some scholars
have treated the essence of the story as quite plausible, not least because they have
found it difficult to conceive that such a large-scale literary enterprise could have
been carried through by Alexandrian Jews without royal support.84 With or
without such assistance, however, the Septuagint has tended to be regarded by
modern scholarship as an initiative of the Jewish community of Alexandria itself,
carried out not to support proselytising activity, but for the benefit of Greek-
speaking Jews themselves.85

In addition to the Septuagint, fragments of Hellenistic-Jewish literature survive in

the works of later Christian authors. These fragments are thought to date from
between the 3C and the 1C BCE and to emanate from Alexandria.86 They do
not, however, constitute strong evidence that their authors were promoting the
scriptures to non-Jews. Since the survivals are fragmentary, the original works
cannot be judged as whole entities. Their contents do include material clearly

82
The author presents himself as a Greek royal emissary, although modern scholars are
unanimous in the view that he was an Alexandrian Jew. The arguments are summarized
in Aristeas Introduction 3-9.
83
E.g. the lengthy account of the philosophical question and answer sessions involving
Ptolemy and the Jewish scholars and the detailed description of the gifts Ptolemy sent to
Jerusalem: Arisetas 182-300 & 51-82.
84
S Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: a Study in the
Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (Routledge, London 2003) 136-139 & Rajak,
Translation 64-91.
85
Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean 424-426 & Rajak, Translation 210-238.
86
Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors 4 Volumes ed C R Holladay (Scholars
Press, Chico & Atlanta 1983-96): Volume 1 Historians (1983) & Volume 2 Poets (1989).
Individual texts are discussed in Schürer, History of the Jewish People III/ I 513-566; P M
Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria Volume 1 (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1972) 687-716; J J
Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora
Second ed (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2000) 29-63 & E S Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism:
the Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (University of California Press, Berkeley 1998) 110-
188.
20
derived from the Jewish scriptures, 87 although there are sometimes additions to,
and sometimes quite marked divergences from, the scriptural accounts. These
works are couched in Hellenistic Greek literary forms.88 Diaspora Jewish
communities were, however, extensively Hellenised, writing in Greek and with a
culture strongly influenced by Greek traditions,89 so an intended audience which
was non-Jewish as opposed to Hellenised Jewish cannot be assumed.90 The
surviving texts do not quote from the scriptures, or even refer to them as sources.
They are probably best seen as akin to the ‘Rewritten Bible’ texts, largely
composed in Hebrew, which were a prominent feature of the literature of Second
Temple Judaism and written for internal Jewish consumption.91

The work of the 1C CE Alexandrian Jew Philo92 survives in impressive quantity,

the bulk of which comprises commentaries on the Pentateuch in Greek.93 It is
not clear from the texts whether Philo wrote to bring the Jewish scriptures to the
attention of non-Jews -- he does not say for whom he is writing -- and in the

87
For example, Demetrius the Chronographer deals predominantly with events in
Genesis and Exodus, Eupolemus largely with Solomon and the building of the Temple
and Artapanus mainly with material from Exodus: Holladay, Fragments 1 51-243.
88
Chiefly historical forms e.g. Eupolemus and Pseudo-Aristeas: Holladay, Fragments 1
93-156 & 261-275, but also poetic drama e.g. ‘The Exodus’ of Ezekiel the Tragedian:
The Exagoge of Ezekiel ed H Jacobson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1983)
and Hellenistic-Oriental romance e.g. Artapanus: Holladay Fragments 1 189-243 & M
Braun, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Blackwell, Oxford 1938)
26-31.
89
Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean 88-124.
90
G E Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic
Historiography (Brill, Leiden 1992) argues that Jewish historical literature is aimed at self-
definition rather than external presentation.
91
G Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies Second rev ed (Brill,
Leiden 1973) 67-126; P S Alexander, ‘Retelling the Old Testament’ in D A Carson & H
G M Williamson eds, It is Written: Scripture citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of
Barnabas Lindars, SSF (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1988) 99-121 & D A
Machiela, ‘Once more, with feeling: Rewritten Scripture in Ancient Judaism—A Review
of Recent Developments’ in JJS 61 (2010) 308-320.
92
For family and personal background: D R Schwartz, ‘Philo, his family, and his times’ in
Kamesar ed, Cambridge Companion to Philo 9-31.
93
Royse, ‘Works of Philo’ 32-64.
21
absence of external evidence judgements must be made from evidence within the
texts themselves.94 The same argument applies, however, as with the fragmentary
text survivals: that there are no strong grounds for considering Philo’s audience as
other than Hellenised Greek-speaking Jews, who knew the scriptures, or wished
to learn about them, and who could benefit from commentaries.95 In one text, De
Vita Mosis, Philo does express the wish that the Jewish scriptures should become
better known among non-Jews,96 and accepted by them, even suggesting that the
rationale for the Septuagint translation was to bring the scriptures to the attention
of Greeks.97 Comments of this kind are, however, rare and occasional in Philo’s
extant works and they are best read as the wishes and hopes of a fervent Jew,
rather than as evidence of a serious apologetic intention. Philo does not quote at
all from the Jewish scriptures in De Vita Mosis and there are no clear indications

94
These issues are discussed in E R Goodenough, ‘Philo’s Exposition of the Law and his
De Vita Mosis’ HTR 26 (1933) 109-125; P Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, an Exegete for
his Time (Brill, Leiden 1997); E Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought:
Israel, Jews and Proselytes (Scholars Press, Atlanta 1996); D M Hay ed, Both Literal and
Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and
Exodus (Scholars Press, Atlanta 1991); D T Runia, Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on
Philo of Alexandria (Variorum, Aldershot 1990) & M Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity
and Culture (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2001).
95
Some of the Philo’s surviving texts, known as the Quaestiones (Philo, Questions on
Genesis & Exodus 2 Volumes trans R Marcus LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Mass 1953) and couched in a question and answer format, appear to assume little prior
knowledge of the Pentateuch and so could have been aimed at a non-Jewish audience.
They could, however, also have been written for a catechical context, in which readers’
knowledge would have been very limited, and thus still be internal to Judaism.
96
‘But, if a fresh start should be made to brighter prospects, how great a change for the
better might we expect to see! I believe that each nation would abandon its peculiar
ways, and, throwing overboard their ancestral customs, turn to honouring our laws
alone’: Philo, De Vita Mosis LCL 2 44.
97
‘Then it was that some people, thinking it a shame that the laws should be found in one
half only of the human race, the barbarians, and denied altogether to the Greeks, took
steps to have them translated’: Philo, De Vita Mosis LCL 2 27.
22
of a wish to encourage non-Jews to become directly acquainted with the sacred
texts.98

The final Hellenistic-Jewish writer to consider is Josephus, whose work is the

most relevant to the current study since, writing as a Jewish exile in Rome
towards the end of the 1C CE ,99 he does appear to be addressing a non-Jewish
audience. In his Jewish Antiquities100 Josephus re-presents scriptural material as a
historical narrative in the Graeco-Roman manner, in which the story of the
Jewish people is told as a series of lives of great men whose deeds exhibit cardinal
virtues.101 He appears to want to acquaint his audience with the contents of the
Jewish scriptures while not exposing them to the actual texts. He acknowledges
his debt to the scriptures as the prime source for his history of the Jewish
people,102 but the actual wording of his account is not close to that of the
scriptures. He paraphrases and elaborates rather than translating.103 In Contra
Apionem, his apologetic work on behalf of Judaism, Josephus writes to

98
A recent contribution to Philonic studies, M Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: an
intellectual biography (Yale University Press, New Haven 2018), argues that Philo’s later
works were aimed at a non-Jewish audience. She presents an ‘intellectual biography’ of
Philo suggesting that his visit to Rome in 38-41 CE led to a shift in the audience at
which his works were directed from internal Jewish to external Graeco-Roman; she sees
the sequence of texts known as the Exposition of the Law (which she argues were
composed later in Philo’s life) as externally-directed. The thesis is controversial and
speculative. Even if it is proved to have some validity, however, it remains the case that
the Exposition texts do not promote the scriptures to their audiences as texts they should
read; rather the contents of the scriptures are paraphrased and re-presented in a Graeco-
Roman guise; thus the interpretation of Philo advanced here would remain substantially
unaffected.
99
For Josephus generally: T Rajak, Josephus, the Historian and his Society (Duckworth,
London 1983).
100
Complete text in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities LCL, translations and commentaries in
Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities Books 1-4 trans L H Feldman (Brill, Leiden 2004),
Books 5-7 and Books 8-10 trans C T Begg & P Spilsbury (Brill, Leiden 2005). See also L
H Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (University of California Press,
Berkeley 1998) & L H Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Brill, Leiden 1998).
101
See Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation 74-131. This literary form has been termed
‘apologetic historiography’: Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition 226-310.
102
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities LCL 1.17.
103
Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation 14-73.
23
demonstrate the antiquity of the Jewish people to a Graeco-Roman audience,104
deliberately drawing on evidence from non-Jewish historical sources rather than
from the Jewish scriptures.105 Josephus wants to tell his audience about the
scriptures and praises them lavishly.106 He does not quote from them, however,
and refers to them only in general terms, so he is neither encouraging nor
expecting his audience to read them directly.107

As well as writings from Hellenistic Judaism, the surviving corpus of non-Jewish

Graeco-Roman literature can be examined for evidence as to whether the
Septuagint was known outside Jewish circles prior to the advent of Christianity.
Some of these works certainly reveal a positive interest in the history and culture
of the Jews. References to the Jewish scriptures are, however, isolated and
fragmentary, and insufficient to demonstrate strong familiarity on the part of the
Graeco-Roman authors. Indeed, it seems likely that exposure to the Jewish
scriptures outside Jewish communities was only ever very partial. The volume of
the scriptural texts is of course very large; the early chapters of Genesis feature
significantly in the examples quoted below, so this material may have been better
known than the rest. It is also possible that collections of extracts or summaries or
paraphrases circulated rather than full texts and that, while the Jewish scriptures
may have been the ultimate source for some Graeco-Roman writers, their
contents could have been mediated through shorter or more simplified texts
rather than being derived from the scriptures themselves.108

104
Barclay, Against Apion xlv-liii.
105
Barclay, Against Apion I 73-218 discusses Egyptian, Phoenician, Chaldean and Greek
evidence for the history of the Jews, rather than Jewish, arguing that these will be
credible to a Graeco-Roman readership in a way that Jewish sources would not be
(Barclay, Against Apion I 69-72).
106
Barclay, Against Apion I 37-42.
107
Josephus comments that the Greeks do not read the Jewish scriptures: Barclay, Against
Apion I 217.
108
Rajak, Translation 269 says as much of Pseudo-Longinus (discussed further below):
‘…Longinus will have read, if not the Greek Bible, at least a form of rewritten Bible
which, for my argument, is worth almost as much.’
24
Surviving references to the Jews in Graeco-Roman literature have been
conveniently collected by Stern.109 Notable examples are Strabo’s Geographica
which devotes extensive space to the history, religion and political arrangements
of the Jewish people,110 Alexander Polyhistor’s Peri Ioudaion, which is known to
have been a well-researched account of the Jewish people,111 Plutarch’s
Quaestiones Conviviales which discusses Jewish religion112 and Book V of
Tacitus’ Historiae which displays considerable curiosity about the history of the
Jews, recounting no fewer than six different versions of their origins as a
people.113 Graeco-Roman interest in the Jews coalesced around a number of
themes: their antiquity and their foundation story in the Exodus from Egypt, the
figure of Moses their founder and great leader,114 certain customs peculiar to the
Jews (abstention from pork, circumcision and Sabbath observance) and their
severely aniconic monotheism.

The material on which Graeco-Roman writers drew must in large part have come
ultimately from Jewish traditions, but whether to any extent from the Jewish
scriptures themselves is unclear. Reticence in Graeco-Roman texts about the
sources being drawn on makes judgement difficult; the Jewish scriptures are not
quoted or even cited as a source, but references to them have been detected in
some works. Cook, who has made a study of the subject, argues that Nicolaus of
Damascus ‘...undoubtedly had access to a LXX even if he did not know it

109
Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 3 Volumes ed M Stern (Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem 1974-84).
110
Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 261-315. Strabo is dated by Stern from the 60s of
the 1C BCE to the 20s of the 1C CE.
111
It only survives in fragments: Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 157-164. Alexander
Polyhistor dates from the 1C BCE.
112
Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 545-576. Plutarch dates from the 40s of the 1C CE
to the 20s of the 2C CE.
113
Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 2 1-93.
114
The subject of a study in its own right: J G Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism
(Abingdon Press, Nashville 1972).
25
well...’115 and somewhat more cautiously that Apollonius Mollon116 and Pompeius
Trogus117 had access to scriptural traditions, if not actually to the Septuagint.
Graeco-Roman writers sometimes mention the Jewish sacred books, showing at
least that they were aware of their existence: Diodorus Siculus writes of the Jewish
holy books ‘...containing the xenophobic laws...’ when relating the story of the
profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV,118 Alexander Polyhistor refers to
Jewish sacred books119 and the poet Juvenal to ‘Moses’ secret volume’.120 There
are also a few allusions to the text of the Jewish scriptures in surviving Graeco-
Roman works, in Ocellus Lucanus, Pseudo-Ecphantus and Pseudo-Longinus.
The work of Ocellus Lucanus dates from the 2C BCE and contains an apparent
reference to Gen 1:28;121 the quotation is not exact, but the verbal similarity
signals the connection to be a very plausible one (to Stern a ‘probable allusion’). 122
Two texts in Pseudo-Ecphantus, noted by Stern, also appear to exhibit semantic
similarities -- again not exact -- with Gen 2:7 and 1:26 respectively.123 An oft-
quoted reference in the De Sublimitate of Pseudo-Longinus124 to Gen 1: 3, 9 and

115
J G Cook, The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism
(Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2004) 20.
116
Cook, Interpretation 11-13, Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 148-156. Apollonius
Mollon dates from the 1C BCE.
117
Cook, Interpretation 23-25, Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 332-343. Pompeius
Trogus dates from the end of the 1C BCE to the beginning of the 1C CE.
118
Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 183; Cook, Interpretation 16-18.
119
Cook, Interpretation, 13-15; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 158.
120
‘tradidit arcano quodcumque volumine Moyses’: Juvenal, Satires ed S M Braund LCL
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 2004) 14 102.
121
Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 131-133.
122
Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 131. Cook, Interpretation 8-9 argues that it could
be an allusion to the Septuagint, but notes Dorival’s view that it might be verbal co-
incidence.
123
Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 3 33-37. Dating of Pseudo-Ecphantus is uncertain,
Stern suggesting ‘First to second centuries C.E.?’ Cook, Interpretation 34-35 again
acknowledges the possibility of verbal co-incidences.
124
Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1 361-365; ‘Longinus’, On the Sublime ed D A Russell
(Clarendon Press, Oxford 1964) 11-12 (text) & 92-94 (commentary) and Cook,
Interpretation 32-34. The work is dated by Stern to the 1C CE, albeit tentatively. The
quotation from Genesis is not exact -- it combines elements from three verses -- but the
reference is unmistakable.
26
10, which is described as being from a work by ‘the lawgiver of the Jews,’125 that
is, Moses, is much clearer. The introduction of this reference, with minimal
explanation, suggests that the Genesis passage was familiar, not just to the author,
but also to his readers; it is noteworthy not only that the reference is made, but
that Moses is described as ‘...no mean genius...’126 and that his ideas are reported in
positive terms.

In a somewhat different category is the work of the anti-Christian polemicist,

Celsus, to which reference has already been made. Judging from the contents of
Origen’s Contra Celsum, Celsus had some knowledge of the Jewish scriptures,
notably of parts of Genesis and Exodus.127 There is only one actual quotation,
however, and Cook’s judgement that Celsus’ knowledge of the Jewish scriptures
was ‘very spotty’128 is a reasonable one. Like the Graeco-Roman authors already
discussed, Celsus appears to have had some, albeit limited, knowledge of the
contents of the Jewish scriptures, but this could easily have been acquired from
intermediate sources and traditions, rather than directly from the texts themselves.

Scholars have varied in their overall assessments of the evidence from Graeco-
Roman literature for non-Christian non-Jewish familiarity with the Jewish
scriptures prior to the advent of Christianity. Reference has already been made to
the work of Tcherikover who argued for a minimalist position:

‘The fact, however, is that the translation of the Holy Scriptures

into Greek made no impression whatever in the Greek world, since

125
‘Longinus’, On the Sublime 93.
126
‘Longinus’, On the Sublime 93.
127
Cook, Interpretation 55-149.
128
Cook, Interpretation 57.
27
 in the whole of Greek literature there is no indication that the
Greeks read the Bible before the Christian period.’129

Cook takes a much less negative view, however, and while acknowledging that
the evidence is very limited, concludes with due caution that some pagan authors
‘...are aware of the LXX (or the Jewish books of laws) although extant quotations
are sparse...’ and that others ‘...seem to be aware of the existence of the LXX...’130
The most recent review of the evidence, by Rajak, is even more positive.131 Of
the Graeco-Roman texts discussed here she refers only to those by Ocellus
Lucanus and Pseudo-Longinus, but her conclusion is that cultural contact
between Jews and non-Jews was in fact considerably more extensive than has
been generally supposed:

‘It would be absurd to claim the books of the Bible, in whatever

language, were literature in which pagans without a special interest
would be able to immerse themselves...There were literate pagans,
above all philosophers, who, quite simply, did have an interest
sufficient to take them some distance into the Jewish
writings...They were able to do so because the books of the Bible
were part of their world and were not an unknown entity.’132

The difference between Cook and Rajak here is perhaps one of emphasis rather
than substance. Both acknowledge the limited and fragmentary nature of the
evidence; however, both of them also consider that there are indications that some

129
Tcherikover, ‘Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered’ 177.
130
Cook, Interpretation 52.
131
Rajak, Translation 267-270. Feldman, Jew and Gentile 311-314 takes an even more
optimistic view, arguing that the Septuagint positively was known to the Graeco-Roman
world, but his suggestion that all the Greek and Roman authors who wrote about the
Jews must have had direct access to the Septuagint strains credibility.
132
Rajak, Translation 270.
28
Graeco-Roman authors had some familiarity with the Jewish scriptures, Cook
being the more cautious in his overall assessment, Rajak the more expansionist.

Previous scholarship

While previous scholarship on each individual text is reviewed in the relevant

chapter, work relating to more general themes is considered here. 2C apologetic
writings have been the subject of much critical attention, although surprisingly
little of it has been devoted to the concerns of the present study. This may be
because analyses of apologetic arguments are here brought together with
discussion of approaches to biblical interpretation and, while previous scholarship
has addressed one or other of these issues, they have not been considered together.

Scholarship on arguments in apologetic texts has unsurprisingly been concerned

with the analysis of ideas, and frequently with placing them in a wider context.
Themes that recur in the literature therefore include efforts to identify material
which can help either to explain the development of Christian theology 133 or to
relate the contents of Christian writings to prevailing Greek philosophical ideas.134
Other scholarly work drawing heavily on apologetic texts has been thematically
focused, exploring for example Christian doctrines of creation135 or relations
between Christians and Jews.136 Such works examine ideas in apologetic texts,

133
E.g. J N D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines Fourth ed (Adam & Charles Black,
London 1968) & E F Osborn, The Emergence of Christian Theology (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1993).
134
E.g. H Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in
Justin, Clement and Origen (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1966).
135
G May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: the Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early
Christian Thought trans A S Worrall (T & T Clark, London 1994).
136
Lieu, Image and Reality 155-197.
29
but not to any significant extent the way the scriptures are employed in their
arguments.137

Scholarly literature has discussed 2C scriptural interpretation extensively, with

general surveys of the field by Grant and Tracy,138 Simonetti139 and Carleton
Paget.140 More specific studies have looked at individual authors or schools, and
what emerges strikingly is the variety in approaches, with different strands of 2C
Christianity approaching the Jewish scriptures in very different ways.141 There is
only space here to touch on the work of three 2C writers, Valentinus, Marcion
and Irenaeus, to illustrate this. In the Valentinian Gospel of Truth,142 the narrative
of Genesis is merged with Gnostic myth in a way that ‘…erases the line between
text and commentary, as interpretation becomes new composition…’,143
Marcion’s approach to the Jewish scriptures has been characterized as treating
them as ‘…a primary evidential authority, although not a moral or spiritual
one’,144 while in the work of Irenaeus emphasis is placed on interpreting the

137
As is evident from general works on ancient Christian apologetics: M Fiedrowicz,
Apologie im frühen Christentum: Die Kontroverse um den christlichen
Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten (Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn 2000);
B Pouderon & J Doré eds, Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque (Beauchesne,
Paris 1998) & M Pellegrino, Studi su l’antica Apologetica (Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura,
Rome 1947).
138
R M Grant & D Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible Second ed
rev and enlarged (SCM Press, London 1984) 39-51.
139
M Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: an Historical Introduction to
Patristic Exegesis trans J A Hughes (T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1994) 1-33.
140
Carleton Paget, ‘Interpretation of the Bible’.
141
Modern scholarship emphasizes the diversity to be found in the different Christian
‘schools’ in the 2C: W A Löhr, ‘Das antike Christentum in zweiten Jahrhundert – neue
Perspektiven seiner Erforshung’ TLZ 127 (2002) 247-262.
142
‘The Gospel of Truth’ ed E Thomassen & M Meyer in M Meyer ed, The Nag
Hammadi Scriptures (HarperOne, New York, 2007) 31-47: discussed in D Dawson,
Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (University of
California Press, Berkeley 1992) 145-170.
143
Dawson, Allegorical Readers 128.
144
J M Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2015) 357.
30
scriptures in the light of the gospel proclaimed by the apostles.145 These are
clearly very different and the burden of this study is not to present a distinctively
apologetic approach to scripture to set alongside them. The intention is rather to
identify features of the apologetic writers’ approaches and to relate them to their
apologetic contexts.

Where previous scholarship has discussed the apologists’ use of the scriptures, the
focus has tended to be on specific textual issues, such as identifying the form of
the scriptural texts to which the authors are referring, understanding how the
individual texts cited are being interpreted, the nature of the sources for particular
textual readings and the way in which testimonia traditions are drawn on.146
What has tended to be ignored is the use made of the scriptures in apologetic
arguments.147 There are two brief exceptions to this, the first being Horbury’s
general article on ‘Old Testament Interpretation in the Writings of the Church
Fathers’,148 which includes a section on the apologists’ use of scripture.149 The
discussion is necessarily very short, but Horbury does address the role of the
scriptures in the arguments of apologetic texts directed towards the Graeco-
Roman world and highlights some of the themes which will feature in this study:
the perceived antiquity of the scriptures, their function as prophecy and the
significance of the moral precepts they were seen to contain. The second work to
note is a short article by Boccabello on the use Justin and Theophilus make of the

145
J Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (Oxford University Press, Oxford
2013) 124-140.
146
These issues are discussed further in relation to individual authors.
147
E.g. Grant & Tracy, Short History, 39-51 discuss 2C biblical interpretation without
reference to the apologists’ use of scripture.
148
W Horbury, ‘Old Testament Interpretation in the Writings of the Church Fathers’ in
M J Mulder ed, Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew
Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Van Gorcum, Assen 1988) 727-787.
149
Horbury, ‘Old Testament Interpretation’ 740-744.
31
Book of Zechariah,150 in which he links references to texts from Zechariah with
the apologetic intentions of authors interacting with Graeco-Roman audiences
(or at least purporting to do so).151 Boccabello suggests that Christian writers
could find the Jewish scriptures useful in providing support for the arguments
they put forward in debates with non-Christians.

Looking more broadly at scholarship in the field there are two significant and
influential works, by Droge and Young, which in some measure bear on the
subject matter of this study, even if the apologetic use of scripture is not precisely
their concern. One merit of both these works is their emphasis on the Graeco-
Roman context in which Christian apologists wrote and the way their work
engages intensively with Graeco-Roman culture. Both present Christianity as
being at once in dialogue and in competition with the mainstream culture.

Droge’s theme152 is the development by 2C Christian apologists of a distinctive

interpretation of the history of culture emphasizing the antiquity of traditions
inherited from the Jews. This is an important theme in 2C apologetic writings,
but while Droge necessarily draws on the apologists’ use of the scriptures as an
important source for their arguments, he does not overtly discuss how they read
and understand the scriptures as texts, which is a central feature of the present
study. Droge’s contribution is, nevertheless, one of the essential building blocks
for the current work.

150
J S Boccabello, ‘Why would a Pagan read Zechariah? Apologetics and Exegesis in the
Second-Century Greek Apologists’ in C Tuckett ed, The Book of Zechariah and its
Influence (Ashgate, Aldershot 2003) 135-144.
151
On the apologists’ audiences, Boccabello is cautious and takes a position quite close to
the one advanced here: ‘…it is probably best to draw rather limited conclusions – the
apologists saw Zechariah as useful in addressing issues which were clearly raised by the
Christian interaction with paganism. This is true regardless of the extent to which these
texts themselves represent just such an interaction. We can see perceived usefulness
whether they are talking to pagans or merely talking to each other about pagans’:
Boccabello, ‘Why would a Pagan read Zechariah?’ 143.
152
Droge, Homer or Moses?
32
The overarching theme of Young’s work,153 which ranges across the whole
patristic field, is the way in which over a period of centuries Christian literary
culture came to supersede the Graeco-Roman, absorbing in the process many
features of the culture it replaced. At the core of the new Christian culture were
the scriptures, both OT and NT, the seminal texts around which Christian paideia
coalesced. Much of Young’s work is concerned with the later patristic centuries,
but one section discusses the 2C;154 her key theme there is the ‘battle of the
literatures’155 or the way Christian writers promoted their scriptures as an
alternative to challenge the dominance of the long-established Graeco-Roman
literary tradition. This is, again, an important theme in 2C apologetic writings
and highly relevant to the consideration here of the way the scriptures are used;
Young’s work therefore provides a second essential building block for the present
study.

The approach of the current study: Christian apologists and the Graeco-Roman
literary context

The current study explores the part played by the Jewish scriptures in the literary
strategies of three chosen texts. More specifically, it is concerned with two issues:
the place of the Jewish scriptures in apologetic arguments and the portrait of the
Jewish scriptures to emerge from the presentation of those arguments. Each text
presents itself as a dialogue between a Christian writer and a non-Christian
Graeco-Roman audience, and the relationship between texts and their audiences
is therefore a critical focus of attention. Ideally, the texts would be examined in
the context of the intellectual milieu from which they emerged, with each of
them viewed as one component in an exchange of ideas and arguments with
other parties, rather in the way that a text from a later century would be examined

153
F M Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1997).
154
Young, Biblical Exegesis 49-57.
155
Young, Biblical Exegesis 57.
33
in its ‘argumentative context’ when significantly more evidence is available.156
The specific contexts in which each of these apologetic texts was written and the
nature of the audiences to which they were first addressed remain unknown,
however, or at least matters of speculation, and it is not now possible to access any
of the other elements in the dialogues of which they may originally have formed a
part, since any that did exist do not survive. The contents of the texts may or may
not reflect discussions that actually took place and, while each text gives some
account of arguments and criticisms levelled against the author, this material is
only available in the form in which he himself presents it, and so cannot be
treated as a source that is independent of the writer of the text.157

In spite of these limitations, however, it is possible to examine these apologetic

works against the background of the 2C Graeco-Roman literary environment
more generally conceived, to establish how their textual strategies would have
engaged with the concerns and interests of an audience educated in Graeco-
Roman culture. Audiences are presented in the texts as having a measure of
education, with references to literary works and to mythological and
philosophical ideas from the Graeco-Roman tradition introduced without
comment or explanation. Justin, Tatian and Theophilus were themselves converts
to Christianity who had received a Graeco-Roman education prior to their
conversions and they all share Graeco-Roman cultural backgrounds with their
audiences.

156
Q Skinner, Visions of Politics I: Regarding method (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2002) 103-127, cited phrase on 116. The potential value of the work of the
‘Cambridge School’, and specifically that of Skinner, for early Christian studies is
highlighted in C Markschies, Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman
Empire, Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology trans W Coppins (Baylor
University Press, Waco 2015) xiii-xiv.
157
This contrasts sharply with Origen’s Contra Celsum in which the arguments of Celsus
are presented verbatim.
34
The nature of Graeco-Roman literary culture is therefore all-important for this
study since it provides the context in which the three chosen texts are examined
and evaluated. Education in the Graeco-Roman world was highly structured and
centred on the study of a corpus of classic texts,158 with works written in Greek
centuries before being very much read and studied in the 2C CE. From an early
stage of its existence the Greek tradition categorised texts;159 a basic distinction
was drawn between poetry and prose,160 with texts then being classified into a
number of distinct forms including, most prominently, epic, comedy, tragedy,
oratory, philosophy and history.161 There was also a well-established tradition of
literary criticism, involving the self-conscious examination of literature and the
application of critical techniques to the study of classic texts. This tradition
included both theoretical works concerned with the classifying texts and with
clarifying what made for good literature or good literary style -- notably in the
field of rhetoric162 -- and also works of practical criticism, including
commentaries and other works interpreting classic texts.163

158
H I Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity trans G Lamb (Sheed & Ward,
London 1956); M L Clarke, Higher Education in the Ancient World (Routledge &
Kegan Paul, London 1971); T J Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and
Roman Worlds (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1998) & H G Snyder, Teachers
and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews and Christians (Routledge, London
2000).
159
E.g. the comparison drawn between tragedy and epic in Aristotle’s Poetics: Ancient
Literary Criticism: The Principal Texts in New Translations ed D A Russell & M
Winterbottom (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1972) 123-125.
160
See Aristotle’s separate treatments of poetic and prose styles, the former in his Poetics
and the latter in his Rhetoric: Russell & Winterbottom eds, Ancient Literary Criticism
85-132 & 134-170.
161
D A Russell, Criticism in Antiquity Second ed (Duckworth, London 1995) 148-158.
162
See generally G A Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 300 BC—AD
300 (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1972) and more specifically R N Gaines,
‘Roman Rhetorical Handbooks’ in W Dominik & J Hall eds, A Companion to Roman
Rhetoric (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2007) 163-180.
163
Russell, Criticism in Antiquity and Russell & Winterbottom eds, Ancient Literary
Criticism.
35
A pronounced bias in favour of the traditional and a high regard for what was
ancient and long-established over what was novel and without precedent strongly
influenced attitudes towards both ideas and works of literature.164 A number of
developments occurred in the late Hellenistic period which are relevant to this
study, each of which was concerned in some way with looking back to the past.
The first was a revival, and an intensification, of interest in the ancient founding
texts of the Greek philosophical schools165 and in their authors, most notably Plato
and Aristotle,166 together with a focus on the very earliest thinkers, those
proponents of ancient wisdom who were believed to have predated the
emergence of the various philosophical schools.167 The second was a burgeoning
interest in primeval history, in the origins and early history of humankind, with
sometimes lengthy works written which charted the history of human affairs from
very earliest times.168 The third was the literary and cultural phenomenon known
as the Second Sophistic, which fostered a conscious referencing back to the

164
A H Armstrong, ‘Pagan and Christian Traditionalism in the First Three Centuries
A.D.’ in ed E A Livingstone SP 15/1 (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1984) 414-431 & G R
Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: a Study of its Development from the Stoics to
Origen (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001).
165
The argument in M A Frede, ‘Epilogue’ in K Algra, J Barnes, J Mansfeld & M
Schofield eds, The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 1999) 771-797, 784-785 has been influential. See more recently: G
Betegh, ‘The Transmission of Ancient Wisdom: Texts, Doxographies, Libraries’ in L P
Gerson ed, The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity 1 (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 2010) 25-38 & M Hatzimichali, ‘The texts of Plato and
Aristotle in the first century BC’ in M Schofield ed, Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism
in the First Century BC: New Directions for Philosophy (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2013) 1-27.
166
D Sedley, ‘Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman world’ in J Barnes & M
Griffin eds, Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society (Clarendon
Press, Oxford 1989) 97-119, refers to ‘…a virtually religious commitment to the
authority of a founder figure’ (97).
167
Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy.
168
R Mortley, The Idea of Universal History from Hellenistic Philosophy to Early
Christian Historiography (Edwin Mellen Press, Lampeter 1996).
36
literature of ancient Greece and spawned texts imitating the language and style of
highly-esteemed classical Athenian literature.169

Into this literary environment stepped the apologists introducing discussions of

texts which, although translated into Greek, had their origins in an alien,
barbarian culture outside the Graeco-Roman literary tradition. The strategies the
apologists adopted for presenting these texts in their engagement with audiences
from a Graeco-Roman cultural background are a key feature of this thesis. As
well as analysis of the arguments deployed, other issues to be addressed include
the nature and provenance of the scriptures, the source of their authority and
techniques used for their interpretation. The study therefore enters the territory
of literary criticism where it engages with questions such as the way in which
admired literary works are discussed and the critical approaches which are used to
comment on and explain them.

To achieve their objectives the apologists created their own literary works. This
study explores the forms and styles they used to frame their material and how
these relate to the Graeco-Roman context in which their works were created. It
also considers how the use of rhetorical and other strategies aided their
engagement with audiences educated in the Graeco-Roman literary tradition.
Other approaches to these texts are certainly possible. In particular they could be
examined with reference to the influences upon which the authors drew,
exploring prior texts and traditions that were significant for their ideas and

169
G Anderson, The Second Sophistic: a Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire
(Routledge, London 1993); S Goldhill ed, Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity,
the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2001) & T Whitmarsh, The Second Sophistic (Oxford University Press,
Oxford 2005). The relevance of the Second Sophistic for understanding early Christian
literature is increasingly recognised, e.g. A P Johnson, ‘Early Christianity and the
Classical Tradition’ in D S Richter & W A Johnson eds, The Oxford Handbook of the
Second Sophistic (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017) 625-638.

37
arguments. This would likely lead to a concentration on the Jewish traditions
from which Christianity emerged and on how the apologists’ works relate to
them. In the current study such concerns have a limited part to play, however,
for attention is focused on the way the scriptures were presented to a non-Jewish
Graeco-Roman audience and on the way that these apologetic works functioned
in this generalised argumentative context.

The apologists’ writings feature two obvious protagonists, the Christian and the
non-Christian, but also a third, namely, the Jews, since it is the Jewish scriptures
which are being promoted. The apologists present these texts as Christian, but
they know, and their audiences know, that the texts derive from the Jews who
originally produced them, to whom they are still sacred, and who are still very
much present in the Graeco-Roman world. The strategies the apologists adopt to
position Christianity relative to Judaism in their dialogues with Graeco-Roman
audiences are therefore also a feature of this study.

38
Chapter 2: The Proof from Prophecy in Justin Martyr’s Apologia
Maior

Justin Martyr’s Apologia Maior (1A)1 is a long and involved work. It presents
itself as a petition to the Emperor on behalf of persecuted Christians, but includes
a considerable amount of material aimed at persuading readers of the truth of
Christianity. To support his arguments, Justin makes extensive use of the Jewish
scriptures,2 particularly in Chapters 30 to 53,3 the section known as the Proof
from Prophecy (PfP), the chief focus of attention here.

Background

Little is known about Justin Martyr’s life, although there is general agreement
among scholars on the basic facts.4 He originally came from Flavia Neapolis in
Syria Palestina and was probably born around 100 CE; a gentile by birth and
education, he at some stage converted to Christianity, claiming in his Dialogus
cum Tryphone (DT) that it was exposure to the Jewish scriptures which triggered

1
Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, Apologies eds D Minns & P Parvis (Oxford University
Press, Oxford 2009). References to the text are to chapter and verse numbers in this
edition. Translations are also from this edition, adapted where appropriate. Other
modern editions consulted: Justin Martyr, Apologiae pro Christianis ed M Marcovich (De
Gruyter, Berlin 1994) & Justin, Apologie pour les Chrétiens ed C Munier (Éditions du
Cerf, Paris 2006).
2
For lists of the scriptural references: Minns & Parvis, Apologies 339-340; Marcovich,
Apologiae 171-172 & Munier, Apologie 371-373.
3
Although Chapters 30-53 contain the main body of the PfP, there are references to
prophecy in later chapters and these sometimes feature in the discussion here.
4
For biographical issues: Minns & Parvis, Apologies 32-33; L W Barnard, Justin Martyr,
his Life and Thought (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1967) 1-13; Munier,
Apologie 9-19 & P Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two
Centuries trans M Steinhauser (Continuum, London 2003) 257-260.
39
his conversion.5 He visited Rome, settled there in later life and was martyred in
the 160s. 1A is dated to the early 150s when Justin was established in Rome; 6 the
text survives in only one source of independent value, the 14C Byzantine
manuscript, Parisinus graecus 450.7 External evidence is not available to locate 1A
in a context of contemporary debates and, although the writing of such a huge
work is likely to have been prompted by some particular circumstance, what this
might have been cannot now be recovered.8

1A presents itself at the outset as an address and petition (προσφώνησις καὶ

ἔντευξις),9 directed at the Emperor Antoninus Pius and his two adopted sons
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, put forward on behalf of Christians and
pleading for relief from persecution.10 Some argue that it should be accepted as
such, those named being the actual addressees and the text a genuine petition.11
Imperial rule had a strong personal element, in spite of the Empire’s huge size;
petitions to the Emperor from individuals and small communities were not

5
Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone ed M Marcovich (De Gruyter, Berlin 1997)
7&8; for an English translation: Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho trans T B Falls rev
T H Halton & ed M Slusser (Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC
2003). References to DT are to the Marcovich edition.
6
Justin Martyr, The First and Second Apologies trans L W Barnard (Paulist Press,
Mahwah 1997) 11; Minns & Parvis, Apologies 44 and Marcovich, Apologiae 11.
7
Minns & Parvis, Apologies 3.
8
Grant, Greek Apologists 53-54 argues that 1A’s composition was occasioned by the
martyrdom of Polycarp in 155 or 156, but fails to adduce strong evidence for this.
9
1A 1.1. Justin also uses βιβλίδιον (petition) to refer to the text itself at 69.1 in the
section which Minns & Parvis transfer from the Apologia Minor (Their arguments for
doing this are set out in Minns & Parvis, Apologies 27-30). Scholars often use the Latin
term libellus.
10
The addressees (Minns & Parvis, Apologies 34-41) are named at 1A 1.1 and
subsequently referred to in the second person plural at a number of points e.g. 2.2-2.4;
23.1; 32.6 & 68.3.
11
E.g. P Keresztes, ‘The Literary Genre of Justin’s First Apology’ VC 19 (1965) 99-110; F
Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC – AD 337) (Duckworth, London
1977) 563; O Skarsaune, ‘Justin and the Apologists’ in D J Bingham ed, The Routledge
Companion to Early Christian Thought (Routledge, Abingdon 2010) 121-136, especially
122-124 & P Parvis, ‘Justin Martyr’ in P Foster ed, Early Christian Thinkers: the Lives
and Legacies of twelve key figures (SPCK, London 2010) 1-14.
40
uncommon12 and a number survive.13 Other scholars doubt that 1A was a
genuine petition and it arguably stretches credulity to regard this long and
involved work as falling into the same category as relatively short and
straightforward requests for the alleviation of abuses.14 It has also been well
argued that the tone of the work is insufficiently respectful for a genuine address
to an Emperor.15

The contents of 1A are also problematic in that much of the work is not
concerned with alleviation of abuses. Some critics, emphasizing the work’s
rambling and digressive character, claim that it has little in the way of coherent
structure.16 Such judgments are unduly harsh, however; it is possible to identify a
general flow to the argument and divide the work into sections in a reasonably
coherent way, as a number of commentators have done.17 It is possible to take a
relatively straightforward view of the structure of the work, identifying two
major themes: arguments for the relief of Christians from persecution and
arguments for the promotion of Christianity, the first of them strongest in the

12
W Eck, ‘Provincial administration and finance’ in CAH9 266-292, 268-272 & Millar,
Emperor in the Roman World 240-252.
13
T Hauken, Petition and Response: an Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman
Emperors 181-249 (Norwegian Institute at Athens, Bergen 1998) 1-256 prints relevant
texts.
14
See Hauken, Petition and Response 74-139 & 284-285 for a 3C CE petition from
Skaptopara in Asia Minor, regarded by its editor, at 477 words, as long, although
completely dwarfed by the length of 1A.
15
P L Buck, ‘Justin Martyr’s Apologies: their Number, Destination, and Form’, JTS NS
54 (2003) 45-59 draws attention to five instances at 2.3-4; 5.1; 12.6-7; 45.6 & 68
(although this argument has been challenged: S Moll, ‘Justin and the Pontic wolf’ in
Parvis & Foster eds, Justin Martyr 145-151).
16
E.g. the influential work of J Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten (Teubner,
Leipzig 1907) 101: ‘Überhaupt ist die ganze Apologie nur eine Sammlung von
zerstreuten apologetischen Gedanken und Motiven.’ Marcovich, Apologiae VII
comments that ‘Justin’s…train of thought is disorganized, repetitious and occasionally
rambling…’
17
Barnard, Apologies, 6-9; Marcovich, Apologiae, 11-25 and Minns & Parvis, Apologies
49-54.
41
early parts of the work (although recurring later on),18 while the second is
particularly evident in the PfP section, although also found elsewhere in the text.19

1A begins with arguments for the relief of Christians from harsh and unfair
treatment by Roman authorities and this theme continues up to the point where
Justin says that he has made his case and could now conclude: ‘We could stop here
and add no more, reckoning that what we ask is just and true...’20 The work
continues, but the argument shifts, in the words of Minns and Parvis, ‘from
petition to persuasion’,21 and from here the focus is primarily on the promotion of
Christianity.22 Some critics suggest that the PfP, which makes up the bulk of this
section of the work, comprises pre-existing material which was incorporated into
1A; this is quite plausible, although impossible to prove.23 The issue of relief from
persecution is not entirely lost, since Justin returns to this theme at points later
on,24 and it features strongly at the end when the text of a Rescript of the Emperor
Hadrian concerning the treatment of Christians is included.25

Various suggestions have been made regarding the intended audience and
purpose of 1A, although definitive conclusions on these issues remain elusive. If it
was not a genuine petition to the Emperor, such a form could have been
employed by Justin because, for whatever reason, he found it convenient to use,
with the work still being directed at an audience external to Christianity.26

18
1A 68.
19
E. g. 1A 61-67. Analyses of the text’s contents recognize that much of it concerns a
more general promotion of Christianity and not the subject-matter of the petition: Minns
& Parvis, Apologies 49-54; Marcovich, Apologiae 11-25 & Munier, Apologie 33-38.
20
1A 12.11.
21
Minns & Parvis, Apologies 50.
22
Parts II to V of the analysis in Marcovich, Apologiae 14-25.
23
Minns & Parvis, Apologies 47-48.
24
E.g. 1A 20.3 & 24.1.
25
1A 68.3-68.10. The rescript may or may not be authentic: Minns & Parvis, Apologies
44.
26
Barnard, Apologies, 8-9 & Marcovich, Dialogus VII.
42
Alternatively, 1A could have been aimed at an internal Christian audience, with
the PfP in particular being useful in a chatechizing context.27 1A was certainly
read and preserved by Christians, and there is no convincing evidence that it was
known outside Christian communities.28 What might be called a mid-way view
-- that it was aimed at those on the margins of Christianity -- is taken by two
recent scholars examining the work from different standpoints. Nyström argues
that the audience is to be found among Christians, with an emphasis on those
newly converted or on the verge of conversion,29 while for Pretila 1A was aimed
at those within the Christian community who were considering a return to
paganism.30

As was noted in Chapter 1 with regard to apologetic works generally, drawing a

sharp distinction between internal and external audiences may be unwarranted,
since those within the Christian community would be familiar with non-
Christian Graeco-Roman culture -- many of them converts like Justin –- while
outsiders might already have some knowledge of, and interest in, Christianity.31
1A is concerned in part with comparison and contrast between Christianity on
the one hand and Graeco-Roman philosophical and mythological traditions on
the other, so its contents could be of interest to both internal and external
audiences; indeed, it may be that both were in Justin’s sights.

27
Minns & Parvis, Apologies 46.
28
As noted in Chapter 1, Droge, Homer or Moses? follows Andresen, Logos und Nomos
in arguing that the late 2C anti-Christian writer Celsus, was responding to Justin and
must have known his work well. The case is based on similarities of argument rather
than any close textual connection and remains unconvincing; the judgment in Osborn,
Justin Martyr 169 that ‘…his [Celsus’] direct acquaintance with Justin is an attractive but
unnecessary hypothesis’ is a sound appraisal.
29
Nyström, Apology of Justin Martyr 19-66.
30
Pretila, ‘Marvellous Fables’ 32.
31
As noted in Chapter 1, Lieu, Christian Identity 98-146 cautions against too rigid a
view of confessional identities and boundaries in this period.
43
Previous scholarship

There has been considerable previous scholarship on Justin,32 although only a

limited amount relates to the theme of this study. Three concerns have
predominated: first, scholars have examined theological issues in Justin’s work,
seeking to locate them in the development of early Christian ideas,33 second,
Justin’s work has been fertile ground for the study of Christian-Jewish relations34
and third, scholars have long been interested in the relationship between Justin’s
ideas and Greek philosophy.35

Some studies have, however, been specifically concerned with Justin and the
scriptures. Smit Sibinga and Prigent have separately made detailed examinations
of the scriptural sources on which Justin drew.36 Shotwell has described Justin’s
methods of scriptural exegesis, stressing influences from Palestinian Judaism. 37
Aune has examined Justin’s use of the OT, noting how his readings sometimes

32
For a different analysis of recent Justin scholarship: M Slusser, ‘Justin Scholarship:
Trends and Trajectories’ in Parvis & Foster eds, Justin Martyr 13-21.
33
Examples are general works e.g. Osborn, Justin Martyr & Barnard, Justin Martyr and
studies of specific themes e.g. R Holte, ‘Logos Spermatikos: Christianity and Ancient
Philosophy according to St. Justin’s Apologies’ in ST 12 (1958) 109-168 & D C
Trakatellis, The Pre-existence of Christ in Justin Martyr (Scholars Press, Missoula 1976).
34
E.g. Lieu, Image and Reality & D Rokéah, Justin Martyr and the Jews (Brill, Leiden
2002).
35
E.g. C Andresen, ‘Justin und der mittlere Platonismus’ ZNW 44 (1952/53) 157-195;
N Hyldahl, Philosophie und Christentum: Eine Interpretation der Einleitung zum Dialog
Justins (Prostant apud Munksgaard, Kopenhagen 1966); Chadwick, Early Christian
Thought; J C M Van Winden, An Early Christian Philosopher: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue
with Trypho Chapters One to Nine (Brill, Leiden 1971); M J Edwards, ‘On the Platonic
Schooling of Justin Martyr’ JTS NS 42 (1991) 17-34 & C Nahm, ‘The Debate on the
‘‘Platonism’’ of Justin Martyr’ SecCent 9 (1992) 129-151.
36
J Smit Sibinga, The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr I The Pentateuch (Brill,
Leiden 1963) & P Prigent, Justin et l’Ancient Testament: l’argumentation scriptuaire du
traité de Justin contre toutes les hérésies comme source principale du Dialogue avec
Tryphon et de la première Apologie (Libraire Lecoffre, Paris 1964).
37
W A Shotwell, The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (SPCK, London 1965). He is
refuting an older view, championed in E R Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr
(Frommann, Jena 1923) 113-117, that Justin’s approach to scripture was influenced by
Philo.
44
follow those found in NT texts, sometimes non-canonical sources, and are
sometimes original to him.38 A dominating presence in the field has been the
magisterial work of Skarsaune, who undertook an extensive analysis of Justin’s use
of the Jewish scriptures, although his concern was with the testimonia sources on
which Justin drew rather than with the way he deployed scriptural material in his
arguments.39

One feature of the scholarship has been a tendency to analyse the contents of IA
together with those of DT, the latter being a work concerned with dialogue, real
or imagined, between Christians and Jews. Combining material from the two
texts produces a composite account of Justin’s approach to the Jewish scriptures.40
1A and DT are, however, separate texts and it must be allowed that an author
may take a different view of a subject at different times, depending on the context
in which he is addressing it, the audience for which he is writing and the
questions with which he is concerned. Thus the approach to the Jewish scriptures
in DT may well differ from that in 1A and when the two texts are examined
together as if they were one, the account which emerges may not represent
accurately the arguments in either.41 An example of how this can be avoided is a
recent paper by Skarsaune which analyses Justin’s ethnic discourse in both 1A and
DT in a way that is not misleading. He considers first the account in DT and
then the treatment of the same issue in 1A;42 comparing and contrasting the two,

38
D E Aune, ‘Justin Martyr’s Use of the Old Testament’ BETS 9 (1966) 179-197.
39
Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy.
40
E.g. Aune, ‘Justin Martyr’s Use’; Shotwell, Biblical Exegesis & Skarsaune, Proof from
Prophecy.
41
Indeed, references to DT have tended to dominate discussion in the literature, with 1A
receiving less attention, e.g. Shotwell, Biblical Exegesis & Aune, ‘Justin Martyr’s Use.’
42
O Skarsaune, ‘Ethnic Discourse in Early Christianity’ in J Carleton Paget & J Lieu eds,
Christianity in the Second Century (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017) 250-
264, 257-260.
45
and not seeking to merge them, means that neither text is misrepresented.43 In
the present study, mis-statement of Justin’s arguments is also avoided, since
attention is focused on Justin’s engagement with Graeco-Roman, not with Jewish
audiences, and only 1A is examined to the exclusion of DT.

The main argument in Justin’s discussion of the Jewish scriptures, the PfP, has
attracted surprisingly little attention in secondary literature. Skarsaune’s large-
scale work, in spite of a title which suggests an interest in Justin’s arguments, is, as
already noted, actually concerned with the source material which underpins
Justin’s Proof rather than the Proof itself. Chadwick’s article on Justin’s defence of
Christianity,44 which again might be expected to focus on the PfP, is in large
measure concerned with the way Justin handles criticisms of Christians and with
discussion of Justin’s theological ideas. It devotes little space to the PfP itself and
really only addresses one feature of the argument: how Justin provides evidence to
show that prophecies have been fulfilled.45 Chadwick rightly recognizes the
importance of this for the credibility of the PfP, but argues that Justin struggles to
make his case because ‘he has not yet got a book called ‘The New Testament’
which he can thrust into the hands of benevolent inquirers.’46 Whether or not
‘NT texts’ were available to Justin, this argument is misleading. As will be shown,
the authority of texts for the apologists is closely linked to their antiquity and
recent Christian texts could therefore not provide compelling evidence for a
Graeco-Roman audience. The approach which Justin actually adopts to
demonstrate the fulfilment of prophecies will be explained below.

43
A similarly careful approach to analyzing the thought of an author who wrote multiple
works covering the same issues is found in Jacobsen’s study of Origen’s soteriology and
Christology. Rather than looking at Origen’s total corpus as an entity and producing a
composite view of his position, he first examines each work individually and only after
having done this does he seek (and find) commonality of ideas: A-C Jacobsen, Christ, the
Teacher of Salvation: a Study on Origen’s Soteriology and Christology (Aschendorff &
Verlag, Münster 2015.
44
H Chadwick, ‘Justin Martyr’s Defence of Christianity’ BJRL 47 (1965) 275-297.
45
Chadwick, ‘Justin Martyr’s Defence’ 281-283.
46
Chadwick, ‘Justin Martyr’s Defence’ 283.
46
Nyström’s recent contribution47 is welcome for a number of reasons. He looks
exclusively at 1A (leaving aside DT), and his interest is in analyzing the strategies
deployed to defend and promote Christianity, notably the ‘logos doctrine’ the
‘theft theory’ and the ‘proof from prophecy’. Thus he focuses on Justin’s use of
arguments and recognizes the importance of the PfP for Justin’s case in ways that
previous scholars have not.48 It will emerge in due course, however, that the
present study takes a different view of the PfP from Nyström. His interest in
examining arguments in 1A is shared by other recent scholars; the theme of
Haddad’s study is Justin’s arguments for ‘religious liberty and judicial justice,’ 49
while Pretila is concerned with the role of pagan mythology in Justin’s case for
Christianity.50

The approach of the current study

The present study follows the work of these recent scholars in concerning itself
with Justin’s arguments, but charts a new direction in focusing on the role of the
Jewish scriptures. It was noted earlier that definitive conclusions cannot be
reached on the nature of 1A’s audience, so to clarify the approach adopted here it
will be helpful to return to Barclay’s analysis of the nature of the apologetic
audiences described in Chapter 1 and to map his categories on to 1A. Thus the
declared audience is the imperial addressees named at the outset, the implied
audience is Graeco-Romans scoped more broadly -- since much of the material in
the text is concerned with the promotion of Christianity and not simply with
securing for Christians relief from harsh and unfair treatment -- while the
intended audience could be either Graeco-Romans external to Christianity or
members of Christian communities or those on the borderland between the two

47
Nyström, Apology of Justin Martyr.
48
Nyström, Apology of Justin Martyr 105-131.
49
R M Haddad, The Case for Christianity: St. Justin Martyr’s Arguments for Religious
Liberty and Judicial Justice (Taylor Trade, Lanham 2010).
50
Pretila, ‘Marvellous Fables’.
47
(or a combination of these). The case made in Chapter 1 was that it was
unnecessary to determine the precise nature of an intended audience for the
purposes of this study, since an apologetic text can be treated as a repository of
arguments in favour of Christianity and analysed with reference to its implied
audience, irrespective of who the intended audience may have been. This is the
approach that will be taken here. It was also suggested in Chapter 1 that to avoid
unnecessarily convoluted phraseology, and in accordance with the way an
apologetic text presents itself, the audience for the work should be described as if
it is external to Christianity, and that approach is followed here.

Jesus Christ and the Proof from Prophecy

The starting point for the PfP is Justin’s wish to demonstrate the status of Jesus
Christ, from whom Christians take their name.51 The importance he attaches to
the person of Jesus is shown by the range and nature of the terms he uses to refer
to him. On a number of occasions he is described as Teacher,52 elsewhere as
Saviour;53 there are a series of references to Jesus as Son of God: he is the ‘Son and
apostle of the Father of all and Lord God,’54 ‘Son of God and apostle,’55 ‘Son of
God,’56 ‘Son of the true God,’57 ‘first born of God,’58 ‘first begotten of the
unbegotten God,’59 and ‘begotten in a special manner the Son of God, being his
Logos and first-born and power.’60 Jesus Christ is also referred to as the incarnate
Logos: ‘the Logos of God is his Son,’61 ‘the Logos himself who acquired physical

51
1A 12.9.
52
1A 4.7; 12.9; 19.6; 21.1 & 32.2.
53
1A 33.7; 61.3; 66.2 & 67.8.
54
1A 12.9.
55
1A 63.10.
56
1A 22.1.
57
1A 13.3.
58
1A 46.2.
59
1A 53.2.
60
1A 23.2.
61
1A 63.4.
48
form and became a human being and was called Jesus Christ,’62 ‘the Logos which
is the first begotten of God,’63 ‘the Logos in whom the whole human race
shared,’64 and ‘after the Father of all and Lord God, the first Power and Son is the
Logos, who was made flesh and became a human being.’65 Jesus is described as
the one who will return and at his second coming judge the human race: ‘he will
raise the bodies of all human beings who have lived, he will bestow
incorruptibility on those of the worthy and he will send those of the unjust in
everlasting pain to the eternal fire with the evil demons.’66 He is also venerated:
‘We worship both this God and the Son who came from him and taught us these
things’67 and ‘the one who became the teacher for us of these things, and who was
born for this, Jesus Christ … we rationally worship.’68

Listing points in this fashion shows the extraordinary extent of the claims Justin
makes on behalf of someone who lived and died a human being. The position is,
however, more surprising than this, for Jesus was born in lowly and obscure
circumstances and died a humiliating death by crucifixion at the hands of the
Roman authorities. A humble birth would not in itself have presented problems
for a Graeco-Roman audience; Plutarch records how both Romulus and Theseus
were born in circumstances of low social status and went on to become
instrumental figures in the establishment of the two greatest cities, Athens and
Rome.69 Indeed, the miraculous birth of Jesus as a result of divine intervention
marked him out as someone special. Justin draws attention to the Virgin Birth on

62
1A 5.4.
63
1A 21.1.
64
1A 46.2.
65
1A 32.10.
66
1A 52.3.
67
1A 6.2.
68
1A 13.3.
69
Plutarch, Lives I: Life of Theseus ed B Perrin LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1914) 2 1-2.
49
a number of occasions and accords it a particular prominence;70 it is stated as a fact
not a conjecture and there is no suggestion that it requires explanation.71
Miraculous circumstances surrounded the births of many famous figures in
Graeco-Roman tradition, and to have one divine and one human parent was a
mark of a significant individual.72

Similarly, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus were miraculous occurrences,

but are not presented by Justin as problematic. They are referred to in a relatively
low key way as events which had been prophesied, but no explanations of them
appear to be required.73 The difficult issue is the manner of the death of Jesus.
Justin acknowledges that he had died a humiliating death by crucifixion: ‘For it is
there they declare our madness to be manifest, saying that we give the second
place after the unchangeable and eternal God and begetter of all to a crucified
man…’74 and later makes the same point in the form of a question: ‘For by what
reason should we believe that a crucified man is the first-begotten of the

70
1A 21.1; 22.2; 22.5; 32.14; 46.5; 54.8; 63.16 and the whole of Chapter 33.
71
Justin is keen to clarify that the virgin conceived, not through intercourse, but because
the power of God overshadowed her (1A 33.4&6), unlike Greek mythology in which it
was said that Zeus ‘came to women for the sake of sexual pleasure’ (1A 33.3). Birth by
virginal conception has not conventionally been seen as featuring in the Graeco-Roman
tradition, and the Christian tradition is normally regarded as unique in this respect: T
Boslooper, The Virgin Birth (SCM Press, London 1962) 185-186; a recent study
suggests, however, that priestess cults of virginal conception did exist in the Greek
tradition, although normally unacknowledged: M Rigoglioso, The Cult of Divine Birth
in Ancient Greece (Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2009).
72
Boslooper, Virgin Birth 167-186: for example, Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars Volume
1: Augustus ed J C Rolfe LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1914) 94 4
reports the legend that Augustus had a divine father, Apollo.
73
1A 38.5 for the Resurrection (prophecy from Ps 3:6) and 1A 51.6-7 for the Ascension
(prophecy from Ps 24:7-8). The idea that a person of great significance went up to
heaven at the end of earthly life was a familiar one to Graeco-Roman audiences from
accounts of the lives of famous historical figures (Plutarch, Lives I: Life of Romulus ed B
Perrin LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1914) 28 1-3 & Cassius Dio,
Roman History 9 Volumes eds H Cary & H B Foster LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1914-1927) 7 56 42.3 (in relation to Augustus)) and also from the belief
that emperors became gods: I Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion
(Clarendon Press, Oxford 2002) 261-371.
74
1A 13.4.
50
unbegotten God and that he himself will pass judgment on the whole human
race…’75 Justin’s response to this conundrum is his PfP. Before developing this
argument, however, he refers to two other possible explanations for the status of
Jesus: first, the value of his teachings, and second, his achievements as a miracle-
worker, although neither proves able to provide an adequate account.

First, Justin recounts some of the teachings of Jesus: ‘…we thought it

worthwhile…to make mention of some few of the teachings of Christ
himself…’76 He describes Jesus’ teachings on temperance,77 loving all, sharing
with the needy and doing nothing for the sake of glory,78 being long-suffering,79
not swearing, always telling the truth and worshipping God alone80 and paying
taxes and serving the Emperor;81 he also describes how Jesus’ teachings have
transformed his adherents’ lives:

‘Formerly we delighted in fornication, now we embrace

temperance alone; then we practiced magical arts, now we have
dedicated ourselves to the good and unbegotten God; then we
loved above all the means of acquiring money and property, now
we put even what we have to common use, and share with all those
in need…’82

75
1A 53.2.
76
1A 14.4. The sayings of Jesus quoted in 1A closely parallel the Synoptic Gospels, but
are not presented as derived from scriptural texts: A J Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in
the Writings of Justin Martyr (Brill, Leiden 1967).
77
1A 15.1-15.8.
78
1A 15.9-15.17.
79
1A 16.1-16.4.
80
1A 16.5-16.7.
81
1A 17.1-17.3.
82
1A 14.2.
51
Although the teachings of Jesus may be admirable, however, and may have had a
strong and positive impact on his followers, Justin does not suggest that they are
sufficient to demonstrate his special status.

Justin refers, second, to Jesus’ miracle-working, how he heals the sick and raises
the dead to life.83 This is also insufficient to justify his status, however, for Jesus
could have performed miracles through magic and still only seem to be the Son of
God.84 Justin cites cases of other miracle workers: Simon, a Samaritan from
Gitthon ‘…performed magical deeds in your royal city of Rome…’85 and
Menander, a disciple of Simon from Kapparetaia in Samaria, ‘…when he was in
Antioch deceived many through magical arts.’86 Justin notes how Simon acquired
considerable status in Rome: ‘…he was considered a god, and was honoured with
a statue as are the other gods among you.’87 Thus Jesus’ actions as a miracle-
worker do not mark him out as unique. If teaching and miracle-working are
inadequate to demonstrate the special status of Jesus, however, what does establish
it for Justin is the PfP.

The texts providing the Proof from Prophecy

The crux of the PfP is that events surrounding the life and death of Jesus and the
early growth of Christianity are found to have been foretold in ancient prophetic
texts. The argument is spelt out at exceptional length in Chapters 30-53 of a text
which in all only runs to 68 chapters.88 It is clearly unfamiliar to his audience,
since the material needs to be described and explained in detail. Justin says he is
bringing the prophecies to his readers for their inspection, as if doing so for the

83
1A 30.1 & 48.1-2.
84
1A 30.1.
85
1A 26.2.
86
1A 26.4.
87
1A 56.2.
88
Marcovich, Apologiae. The text is 70 chapters long in Minns & Parvis, Apologies,
because the editors transfer material from the Apologia Minor to the Apologia Maior.
52
first time.89 This is in contrast to the way he refers to the myths of Greece and
Rome. They are first mentioned without any explanation90 and, when they
reappear, the information provided is scarcely more detailed. 91 As Justin says,
mythological stories do not need to be rehearsed because they are already familiar
to his readers: ‘And what sort of stories are told about the doings of those who are
called the sons of Zeus it is not necessary to say to those who know…’92 He
never speaks like this about the prophecies, always spelling them out in full and
explaining their meanings.

Justin’s references to the Jewish scriptures are conveniently listed by Minns and
Parvis,93 the most numerous being to Isaiah, the Pentateuch and the Psalms.94
Justin does not describe the texts as ‘scriptures’95 in 1A, although he does use this
term in DT, where various cognates of γράφω are employed to refer to the
Jewish scriptures:96 αἱ γραφαὶ,97 τὰς γραφάς,98 τῶν γραφῶν,99 ἡ γραφὴ100 and
γέγραπται.101 In DT, however, the context is debate between Christians and
Jews, with the two parties sharing a common understanding of what such terms
mean. In 1A, where the context is dialogue between Christians and non-Jews,
this is not the case, since the Jewish scriptures were not part of a common
discourse.

89
1A 44.13.
90
1A 21.
91
1A 53.
92
1A 21.4.
93
Minns & Parvis, Apologies 339-340.
94
39 from Isaiah, 25 from the Pentateuch and 13 from the Psalms.
95
The one exception is Justin’s use of the phrase ‘in the writings of Moses’ (1A 60.2)
which occurs outside the PfP section when he is discussing Plato’s borrowings from
Moses.
96
O Skarsaune, ‘Justin and his Bible’ in Parvis & Foster eds, Justin Martyr 53-76, 55.
97
DT 32.1; 39.6 & 86.1.
98
DT 82.4 & 127.5.
99
DT 32.2; 34.1; 39.7 & 61.1.
100
DT 56.17.
101
DT 58.3.
53
Thus instead of scriptures, Justin refers to prophecies or the Books of the
Prophecies (τὰς βίβλους τῶν προφητῶν);102 these terms reflect the use he makes
of the texts in his arguments, where they are employed to show that the life and
death of Jesus and the growth of Christianity have previously been foretold. No
definition or list of prophetic texts is provided; ‘prophets’ are referred to in the
plural, indicating that the prophecies have multiple authors, some of whom are
named, although virtually nothing is said about them as individuals. As well as
Isaiah, who is referred to on several occasions,103 other prophets named are104
Jeremiah,105 Ezekiel,106 Daniel,107 Joel,108 Micah,109 Zephaniah110 and Zechariah.111
There are texts from the Psalms and the Pentateuch, also described as prophetic
with their authors named; David, author of the Psalms, is ‘king and prophet’112
and Moses, author of the Pentateuch, is ‘the first of the prophets’.113

How Justin views the scope of the Books of the Prophecies remains uncertain.
He may have in mind the whole corpus of Jewish scriptures as it existed at the

102
1A 31.2.
103
1A 33.1; 35.3; 37.1; 44.2 etc. See Marcovich, Apologiae 175.
104
Minns & Parvis, Apologies 339-340. Sometimes Justin identifies a saying as prophetic
without naming the author: e.g. ‘…listen to the prophecies spoken concerning this.
They are these…’ 1A 50.1-50.2.
105
The two identifiable quotations from Jeremiah at 47.5 & 53.11 are actually attributed
to Isaiah; the one quotation from Lamentations at 55.5 is only ascribed to ‘the prophet’.
106
Ezekiel is named at 52.5.
107
The single quotation from Daniel at 51.8-51.9 is attributed to Jeremiah.
108
The one quotation from Joel at 52.11 is part of what Minns & Parvis, Apologies 213n2
describe as a ‘complex assemblage of quotation and allusion’ which is attributed by Justin
to Zechariah; it also includes words from Isaiah.
109
Micah is named at 34.1.
110
Zephaniah is named in the Septuagintal Greek form, Sophonias, at 35.10, although
only the first part of the text quoted is found in Zephaniah (at 3.14), with the full text
quoted appearing in Zechariah 9.9: Minns & Parvis, Apologies 179n2.
111
1A 35.10.
112
1A 35.6.
113
1A 32.1. Moses is referred to a number of times as the author of prophetic texts, e.g.
44.8 & 54.5. This places him in a new light as far as the non-Jewish Graeco-Roman
world was concerned; Moses was a well-known figure, identified either as a law-giver,
the leader of the Exodus or as a magician, but not hitherto as a prophet: Gager, Moses.
54
time and use the terms he does to emphasise its prophetic nature. It is, however,
also possible that he regarded the Books of the Prophecies as a more limited range
of texts, comprising, certainly, the books from which he quotes, and perhaps
others -- including, for instance, books from the Jewish scriptures which modern
scholars class as Prophets such as Hosea and Amos -- but not the whole Jewish
scriptures. Justin’s use of citations in 1A differs from DT; in the former there are
no quotations from Joshua, Samuel or Kings, for instance, whereas there are in the
latter.114 This may be because Justin takes different views in 1A and DT of the
scope of the authoritative texts, mirroring the difference noted above in the terms
he uses to refer to them; it may, however, simply be that the predominantly
historical narrative material of, say, Joshua, Samuel and Kings is not useful for the
prophetically-based arguments of 1A.

It cannot be assumed that when quoting from, say, Isaiah or Ezekiel, Justin
necessarily had access to complete versions of those texts. In Chapter 1 the
importance of quotation collections was noted and, although Justin cites actual
texts rather than paraphrases, it is possible that such collections were his sources.
Skarsaune’s painstaking analysis of Justin’s sources strongly suggests that in 1A he
was drawing on existing clusters of quotations from the Jewish scriptures and not
on full scriptural texts and, indeed, that such collections may have been all that he
had available.115

The authority of the sacred texts

The Books of the Prophecies are presented by Justin as having an authority

deriving from their antiquity and their authorship. He uses the Legend of the

Marcovich, Dialogus 321-322 lists the references.

114

Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy 133-242. Skarsaune, ‘Justin and his Bible’ 55-56
115

maintains that when he wrote DT Justin, by contrast, had access to manuscripts of

complete biblical books.
55
Septuagint,116 referred to in Chapter 1, to demonstrate this. There are a number
of versions of the Legend,117 Justin’s being the earliest known account by a
Christian author.118 He describes119 how the prophecies were delivered a long
time ago by people who were ‘prophets of God (θεοῦ προφῆται).’120 They wrote
the prophecies down themselves and books containing them were preserved by
the kings of the Jews. Later, Ptolemy King of Egypt, when setting up his library
in Alexandria, wished to collect writings of all peoples; he heard about the
prophetic books and sought to acquire them. They were sent to him by Herod121
King of the Jews, but finding the texts to be in Hebrew, Ptolemy requested that
translators be sent. This was done; the texts were rendered into Greek and
preserved in Egypt (as well as being preserved in Jewish communities) down to
Justin’s own time.122

There are significant differences between Justin’s treatment of the Legend and
those of his predecessors. He refers to the texts as the Books of the Prophecies, in
contrast with descriptions of them as the Laws of the Jews in Aristeas123 and as
laws made by Moses in Philo’s De Vita Mosis.124 He describes the prophets as

116
This is the phrase commonly used to describe the tradition although it does not appear
in 1A.
117
Wasserstein & Wasserstein, Legend of the Septuagint.
118
Wasserstein & Wasserstein, Legend of the Septuagint 98-100.
119
1A 31.
120
1A 31.1.
121
Minns & Parvis, Apologies 165-167nn4-5 follow W Schmid, ‘Ein rätselhafter
Anachronismus bei Justinus Martyr’ in W Schmid, Ausgewählte philologishe Schriften:
Herausgegeben von Hartmut Erbse und Jochem Küppers (De Gruyter, Berlin 1984),
333-337 in treating the inclusion of Herod as a scribal error in the manuscript, although
they do not endorse the detail of Schmid’s explanation. Other authorities do not follow
Schmid: Munier, Apologie 210n2; Barnard, Apologies 146-147 & Marcovich, Apologiae
76n. It is not implausible that Justin’s original text contained an anachronistic error, and
the majority view is followed here in preference to Minns & Parvis.
122
1A 31.3-31.5.
123
Aristeas 10: this refers to the Pentateuch alone.
124
Philo, De Vita Mosis LCL 2 31 & 34. Philo says that Moses’ Law or Laws consist of
two parts, the first historical and the second concerned with commands and prohibitions:
Philo, De Vita Mosis LCL 2 46.
56
having arisen among the Jews (ἐν ’Ιουδαίοις), but says nothing further about the
Jewish people or the Jewish religion, in contrast with Aristeas where the High
Priest125 and the Jerusalem Temple126 feature prominently. Justin makes only
passing reference to the translators, who were clearly Jews, although they are not
identified as such;127 in Aristeas, by contrast they are significant figures whose
wisdom is emphasized,128 while in De Vita Mosis their work is described in
miraculous terms.129 Justin plays down the Jewish connections in the Legend; the
prophecies are presented as the work of ancient wise men who just happened to
have emerged from among the Jews.130

The Legend establishes the antiquity of the prophetic books and this is a source of
their authority.131 The accuracy of the surviving texts is also emphasized; Justin
provides a complete manuscript history, describing how the texts were written
down by their authors, preserved over centuries and lodged in a Greek royal
library, so that what can be read now are the very words the prophets spoke long
ago.132 For Justin the Books of the Prophecies are a multi-authored collection;
each prophet orally delivered and then wrote down his prophecies which were
subsequently brought together in a collection. Individual authorship of
prophecies was not lost, however, for, with some exceptions,133 the quotations are

125
The deputation from Alexandria is described as being ‘to Eleazar, the High Priest of
the Jews’ (Aristeas 1) who later makes a long speech on the Jewish Law (Aristeas 130-
166).
126
Aristeas 84-99 describes the Temple and its ceremonies.
127
1A 31.4 only says ‘…he [Herod] again sent and asked that people be sent who might
translate them [the Books of the Prophecies] into the Greek language.’
128
Particularly for the contributions they make to the debate at the banquet of the
Egyptian king: Aristeas 187-261.
129
Philo, De Vita Mosis LCL 2 37-40 describes how translators working independently
produced identical translations.
130
1A 31.1. Justin’s portrayal of the Jews in 1A will be discussed further below.
131
For antiquity as a source of authority: Armstrong, ‘Pagan and Christian
Traditionalism.’
132
1A 31.5.
133
E.g. 1A 38 where a series of quotations from Isaiah and the Psalms are not attributed to
named prophets.
57
attributed to named authors. The tradition is therefore not an anonymous one.
Each quotation is the work of an individual author, but the message of the
prophecies is a single collective wisdom. Thus even when a prophecy is actually a
composite of a number of different elements traceable to different scriptural
books, the ‘quotation’ is attributed to one named prophet.134 Individual prophets
are referred to as authors of texts in order to identify them, but not to isolate
individual messages or to distinguish the ideas of one from another. The original
historical circumstances in which the prophecies were delivered are never referred
to.

Indeed, the prophecies spoken by the ‘prophets of God’135 were ultimately not
their own words, but utterances inspired by the Prophetic Spirit which speaks
with a single voice. The phrase Prophetic Spirit (προφητικὸν πνεῦμα)136 is used
many times in 1A, e.g. 31.1, 32.2, 33.2&5, 35.3, 38.1 and 39.1;137 it plays a key
role in Justin’s account of the Legend of the Septuagint and in his discussion of
the prophecies. The term is hardly known previously -- there are two
occurrences in Philo and one in the Shepherd of Hermas138 -- and Stanton’s
suggestion that ‘… Justin may well have coined the phrase himself…’ is quite
plausible.139 Justin does not define Prophetic Spirit or discuss what the term
means. Its role is to act as the mechanism through which what will occur in the
future is revealed to the prophets and it is seen or experienced through evidence
of its actions.140

134
E.g. 1A 52.10-12 attributed to Zechariah.
135
1A 31.1.
136
G N Stanton, ‘The Spirit in the Writings of Justin Martyr’ in G N Stanton, B W
Longnecker & S C Barton eds, The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor
of James D G Dunn (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2004) 321-334.
137
37 times in all, 25 in 1A and 12 in DT: Stanton, ‘Spirit in the Writings of Justin’ 326.
138
Stanton, ‘Spirit in the Writings of Justin’, 327.
139
Stanton, ‘Spirit in the Writings of Justin’, 327. The loss to posterity of so much 1C
and 2C literature should, however, engender a degree of caution about accepting such a
judgment too readily.
140
Although it conveys other forms of wisdom as well: see below.
58
The Prophetic Spirit is portrayed as close to God and twice described as being
venerated: on the first occasion: ‘We worship both this God and also the Son who
came from him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels
who follow him and are made like him, and also the prophetic Spirit…’141 and on
the second, introducing an element of hierarchy: ‘Jesus Christ… we rationally
worship… For we have learnt that he is the son of the true God, and we hold him
in second place and the prophetic Spirit in the third rank.’142 Divinely inspired
words are revealed to the prophets by the Prophetic Spirit which describe what
God ordains should happen, that He will send his Son at the first coming as
saviour and at the second as judge.

The account given here of the authority of the Books of the Prophecies differs
from that of Nyström.143 He argues that since Justin was writing for a non-Jewish
audience the Jewish scriptures could not be cited as authority and Justin’s
argument for Christianity is therefore based on reason and not scriptural
authority: ‘…Christian tradition/teaching, as identical to logos/reason, is the
fundamental authority and the function of the Hebrew prophets is to confirm this
fact.’144 For this to be the case, however, much greater emphasis would need to be
given to arguments from ‘logos / reason’ (which are referred to in 1A but not
greatly developed) and much less to the PfP. Nyström pays little regard to two
factors which are important for Justin’s argument: the trouble taken to establish
the authority of the ancient prophecies through the Legend of the Septuagint and
the role of the Prophetic Spirit in linking prophecies to a divine origin.

141
1A 6.2.
142
1A 13.3.
143
Nyström, Apology of Justin Martyr 105-131.
144
Nyström, Apology of Justin Martyr 112.
59
The contents of the prophecies

Having established the sources of the prophecies’ authority, Justin then relates
them to Jesus. He provides a summary of the contents of the prophecies:

‘In the books of the prophets, then, we found Jesus our Christ,
proclaimed ahead of time as drawing near, being born of a virgin,
and growing to manhood, and healing every disease and every
illness, and raising the dead, and being resented and
unacknowledged, and being crucified, and dying and rising again,
and ascending into the heavens, and both being, and being called,
the Son of God, and we found certain people sent by him to every
race of people to proclaim these things, and that it was rather
people from among the gentiles who believed in him.’145

The main focus of this passage is on the principal events in the story of Jesus (his
life, death, resurrection and ascension),146 although two later developments,
subsequent to the life of Jesus, are mentioned as foretold: proclamation of the
gospel by his followers and acceptance of the gospel by the gentiles. Justin’s
summary is, however, not exhaustive, since prophesied events are referred to later
on which are not included here: the second coming of Jesus to judge the
World,147 the rejection of Jesus by the Jews148 and the defeat of the Jews by the
Romans.149 More will be said about these later.

145
1A 31.7.
146
One of the statements in the passage refers to a prophecy which does not describe an
event in the life of Jesus, but touches on his unique status: ‘both being, and being called,
the Son of God.’
147
1A 52.3.
148
1A 49. There is, however, implicit criticism of the Jews in the statement in 31.7 that
‘…it was rather people from among the gentiles who believed in him.’
149
1A 47.
60
The nature of the events listed suggests that prophecies only foretell events of
great importance and not just random future occurrences. If an event is found to
have occurred as foretold, it must be highly significant since God through the
Prophetic Spirit has prophesied it. Moreover, the events prophesied are often
extraordinary in themselves, such as birth from a virgin, miraculous healing of the
sick or resurrection and ascension into heaven, or, if not actually extraordinary,
then momentous in some other way; the crucifixion and death of Jesus are in one
sense mundane events in the life of a condemned criminal, but because they
happen to the Son of God they have a special significance.

Justin does not describe a single occurrence only, but a series of events which
have been prophesied and are now being fulfilled. Showing that one event was
prophesied and has now occurred would be significant, but demonstrating this for
a whole sequence is much more telling, since the weight of evidence accumulates
with multiple cases of prophetic fulfillment. This is the more so when, as here,
the sequence of individual occurrences constitutes a coherent narrative of events.

Skarsaune has tracked how in subsequent chapters specific prophetic texts support
each statement in the summary account and there is no need to repeat that here.150
To demonstrate that the prophecies are fulfilled, however, events must be
identified matching each prophecy. Justin’s prophecies can be grouped into three
categories: first, those predicting events that predate the current generation (but

150
Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy 139-164.
61
are still comparatively recent),151 second, those whose fulfillment is apparent to the
current generation and third, those which have not yet been fulfilled.

The birth of Jesus is described as having taken place 150 years earlier,152 placing
the events of his life and death, those in the first category, well before the memory
of anyone now living. For such events appeal cannot, by Justin’s time, be made
to eye-witness testimony. Christian gospels are not cited as sources for
information about the life of Jesus; Justin relies instead on other sources, two of
which are identified. First, the description of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem as
fulfillment of a prophecy from Micah is accompanied by the comment that this is
something ‘…you can learn from the census-lists made under Quirinius who was
your first procurator in Judaea.’153 A documentary source is clearly being referred
to here. Second, Justin cites twice154 the ‘Acts Recorded under Pontius Pilate’ as a
source for the life of Jesus, commenting on the first occasion: ‘And that these
things happened you can learn from the ‘Acts Recorded under Pontius Pilate (ε͗κ
τῶν ε͗πὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου γενομένων ἄκτων).’ 155 The precise meaning of this
phrase remains elusive. Some commentators suppose that Justin is referring to a
documentary source156 (even if no such source survives), with Munier going so far

151
The fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the life of a great man in comparatively recent
times -- the imperial age of Augustus -- would have been familiar to a Graeco-Roman
audience from the very popular work of Virgil (Virgil, Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid 2
Volumes ed H R Fairclough rev G P Goold LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Mass 1999)), notably in the prophecies in Books 1, 6 & 8 of The Aeneid and in the
Fourth Eclogue (discussed in G Williams, Technique and Ideas in the Aeneid (Yale
University Press, New Haven and London 1983) 138-156 & J J O’Hara, Death and the
Optimistic Prophecy in Virgil’s Aeneid (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1990)
128-175)). For Virgil’s widespread popularity: R J Tarrant, ‘Aspects of Virgil’s reception
in antiquity’ in C Martindale, The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1997) 56-72.
152
1A 46.1.
153
1A 34.2.
154
1A 35.9 & 48.3.
155
1A 35.9.
156
Barnard, Apologies 151n242 and Minns & Parvis, Apologies 177n9.
62
as to suggest that it refers to official documents from the prefecture of Pontius
Pilate preserved in the imperial archives.157

It can be argued that Justin would be unlikely to refer to a source in the way he
does if his audience would know that it did not exist, since this would undermine
his credibility; he clearly wants his readers to accept his statement as good
evidence that events had occurred as he describes them. A letter from Pilate to the
Emperor describing his actions is therefore a possibility. Correspondence
certainly took place between Emperors and provincial governors in the early
imperial period as the needs of official business required; it was, however, ad hoc
in nature, so far as can be ascertained, with no evidence of regular reporting by
provincial governors to the centre of the Empire in Rome.158 No correspondence
involving Pontius Pilate survives. There are, however, two events recorded by
ancient historians which could have prompted Pilate to write to the Emperor.
The first, described by Philo,159 occurred when Pilate erected golden shields in
Herod’s palace in Jerusalem, causing consternation among the local Jewish
population and prompting them to complain to Emperor Tiberius. The latter
wrote to Pilate rebuking him for his actions, so it is possible that Pilate then wrote
back defending himself.160 The second occasion, recorded by Josephus,161 was
when Vitellius legatus of Syria sent Pilate to Rome to be investigated by the
Emperor Tiberius after complaints by the Samaritans of heavy-handed treatment
and, again, it is conceivable that Pilate would have written to the Emperor to
defend himself. These were specific instances and it would involve a further

157
Munier, Apologie 223n5.
158
Millar, Emperor in the Roman World 313-341.
159
Philo, De Legatione ad Gaium ed F H Colson LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1962) 38 299-305.
160
Particularly as Philo records that Pilate was fearful that a Jewish petition to the
Emperor ‘…would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the
briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions
without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty.’ Philo, De
Legatione LCL 38 302.
161
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities LCL 9 18.85-89.
63
stretch to claim that any self-justifying account by Pilate would have anything to
say about Jesus. Conceivably it could have done so as part of a general defence by
Pilate of his record as governor, but to speculate that this was actually the case
presses the evidence further than it will reasonably go.162

The second category of prophecies are those whose fulfillment has occured in the
lifetimes of those now living. Justin says: ‘…for we see even with our own eyes
that things have happened and are happening as they were foretold…’163 and later:

‘…the phrase ‘He shall be the expectation of the nations’ signified

that people from all nations will expect him to come again. It is
possible for you to see this with your own eyes and to be persuaded
by the reality.’164

At various points references are made to current or recent events, of which

contemporaries would be aware from their own experience or knowledge, two in
particular: defeat of the Jews by the Romans, and acceptance of Jesus by the
gentiles. On the first, Justin refers to the ‘recent [bar Kochba] Jewish war’ 165 and
how in the same conflict the Romans ‘…came to rule over the Jews and gained
mastery of all their land.’166 He also refers to the Romans’ plundering of the land
of the Jews167 and to the ‘desolation of the land of the Jews’ by the Romans.168 On
the second, the gentiles are described as awaiting (present tense: προσδοκῶσι)

162
These events are discussed in H K Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1998) 24-93.
163
1A 30.1.
164
1A 32.4.
165
1A 31.6.
166
1A 32.3.
167
1A 47.1-47.6.
168
1A 53.3.
64
the return of Jesus169 and Justin explains how the preaching of the Apostles
prompted their conversion:

‘For men twelve in number went out from Jerusalem into the
world and they were unskilled in speaking. Through the power of
God they declared to the whole human race how they were sent by
Christ to teach the word of God to all; and we who formerly were
slaying one another not only do not fight against enemies but
confessing Christ die gladly…’170

The fulfillment of this second category of prophecies is validated by eye-witness

testimony. Justin appeals to the existing knowledge of his readers, and it must be
presumed that he expects this to be sufficient grounds for them to accept his case,
since he says nothing more in justification. In mid 2C Rome the defeat of the
Jews by the Romans some fifteen to twenty years earlier would have been a well-
known fact of recent history, and the growth of Christianity as the result of
missionary activity would have been evident to his readers.171 Scholarship has
shown the importance and status of eye-witness testimony for historical writing

169
1A 32.4.
170
1A 39.3.
For the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-135 CE: W Horbury, Jewish War under Trajan and
171

Hadrian (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014).

65
in the ancient world,172 so it is not surprising to find such an appeal being made
by Justin.

The third category of prophecies comprises those that have not been fulfilled.
Justin wants to show that these are not false prophecies, so instead of rejecting
them he maintains that they will be fulfilled in the future at the second coming
when Christ returns in triumph:

‘For the prophets proclaimed beforehand his two comings: one,

which has indeed already happened, that of a dishonoured and
suffering human being, and the second when it is proclaimed that
he will come with glory from the heavens with his angelic
army…’173

The fact that some prophecies are as yet unfulfilled is, therefore, not a weakness in
the PfP. Here then is a delayed answer to the question posed earlier: how can
Christians believe in a crucified man? Descriptions of Jesus in the prophecies as a
humiliated figure refer only to his first coming; at his second coming he will
appear in glory as a triumphant figure, but it is only reading the prophecies that
reveals this.

172
R Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2006) 5-11. S Byrskog, Story as History-History as Story: the
Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
2000) 48-65 reviews material from ancient historians concerning the importance of eye-
witness testimony not just for historians who were eye-witnesses themselves, e.g.
Thucydides and Josephus, but also for others e.g. Polybius and Tacitus. Polybius
comments that the historian’s interrogation of eye-witnesses to events ‘…is exceedingly
valuable and is the most important part of history’: Polybius, Histories 6 Volumes ed W R
Paton rev F W Walbank & C Habicht LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
2010-2012) 4 12 27.6.
173
1A 52.3.
66
Justin’s account of the prophecies has built up a narrative of events, some of which
have taken place in recent history and some of which will occur in the future. It
is a selective account, but the selection is not random or accidental. The
Prophetic Spirit’s narrative consists of a sequence of divinely-ordained events,
comprising not just the life and death of Jesus and the growth of Christianity
among the gentiles, but also the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, the Jews’ defeat by
the Romans, their exclusion from the land of Judaea and their future
condemnation at the last judgment.174 One event which is not part of this
sequence of prophesied events, however, is the persecution of Christians by the
Romans. Thus while Justin recognizes that such ill-treatment has occurred, it was
not something that was previously prophesied and should therefore not be
regarded as part of God’s plan for the world. Thus persecution of Christians by
the Romans can be brought to an end -- as Justin wishes that it should be --
without contravening the divine plan.

Justin uses the insights provided by the prophecies to set up pairs of opposites.
First, there is the contrast between those who follow Jesus and those who follow
Graeco-Roman mythological gods. Second, the Jews who reject Jesus Christ and
persecute Christians are contrasted with the gentiles who accept the gospel
preached by the Apostles. Third, the Jews are contrasted with the Romans with
whom they have been in violent conflict and who have defeated them. Finally,
the Christians, who at the last judgment will be saved, are contrasted with the
Jews who will be condemned.

Justin’s argument has turned full circle. He began 1A by protesting against the
unfair treatment of Christians by the Roman authorities and then moved to a
more general defence of the Christianity. His PfP showed that some recent

174
Justin also refers to the Jews’ persecution of Christians during the Bar Kokhba war: 1A
31.6. For a summary of Justin’s overall portrayal of the Jews in 1A: S G Wilson, Related
Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 CE (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1995) 31.
67
occurrences have been divinely ordained, but the catalogue of these events does
not include the persecution of Christians by the Roman authorities. The plea for
good relations between Christians and the Roman authorities with which Justin
began is therefore shown to be consistent with, and, moreover, supported by, his
PfP.

Indeed, not only need there not be enmity between the Christians and the
Romans, but a shared opposition to the Jews would appear to unite them. The
Romans have defeated the Jews in war and their laying waste of the land of the
Jews can be described as a form of persecution. Justin never refers to these events
in terms that are critical of the Romans, but he does criticize the Jews for their
rejection of Jesus and their persecution of Christians, and his prophecies foretell
the condemnation of the Jews at the second coming. Thus through the insights
provided by the ancient prophecies, Christianity’s position in the world is
characterized by reference to its relationship with the other two parties, the Jews
and the Romans.

The Proof from Prophecy and the Graeco-Roman prophetic tradition

Justin’s account of the prophecies and their fulfillments is addressed to a Graeco-

Roman audience previously unfamiliar with them. The prophecies emanate from
among the Jews, however, even though their Jewish origin is played down. To
those who were culturally Greek, the Jews were one of the barbarian (or non-
Greek) peoples, so the prophecies are barbarian in origin. Justin does not
characterize the prophecies as such, however; the term barbarian appears rarely in
1A and never in connection with the PfP.175

175
There are four occurrences of βάρβαρος /οἱ βάρβαροι, at 5.4; 7.3; 46.3 & 60.11:
Marcovich, Apologiae 183.
68
Justin’s presentation tends rather to emphasize connections with the separate
Graeco-Roman prophetic tradition with which his audience would have been
familiar. This tradition was of long-standing176 and fostered widespread
acceptance of the notion that the future could be foretold. Certain special
individuals or groups were thought to have prophetic powers, which came to
them from a divine source; indeed, they were often thought to be speaking the
words of a god and sometimes to be uttering prophecies in a manic state of divine
possession. Particular places –- temples or sanctuaries –- were often the location
of oracles where prophecies were dispensed, Delphi being the most celebrated.
Prophecies could be delivered orally and later written down; some were thought
to have originated long ago, to have been preserved in writing and sometimes
grouped together into collections. They could be composed in poetry or in more
special poetic forms such as acrostic and they were frequently enigmatic or
paradoxical. Thus a prophecy commonly needed interpretation if present day
relevance was to be understood, which required skill and insight; interpretations
could be correct or incorrect, and the true meaning of a prophecy a matter of
dispute. Prophecies could foretell events which were positive or beneficial in
nature or they could be prophecies of doom; in the latter case they could be
interpreted as warnings, with actions required to propitiate the gods, such as
offering sacrifices or building a new temple. It was a common practice to take
the initiative to consult oracles for guidance, for instance by putting questions to,
and soliciting answers from, an oracle when important decisions needed to be
taken.

176
Works dealing with this issue: J A North, ‘Diviners and Divination at Rome’ in M
Beard & J A North, Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World
(Duckworth, London 1990) 51-71; H-J Klauck, The Religious Context of Early
Christianity: a Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions trans B McNeil (T&T Clark, London
2000) 177-209; D Potter, Prophets and Emperors, Human and Divine Authority from
Augustus to Theodosius (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1994); F
Santangelo, Divination, Prediction and the End of the Roman Republic (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 2013) & D E Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the
Ancient Mediterranean World (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1983) 23-79.
69
Looking at the prophecies presented by Justin against this background, a number
of similarities are evident. Justin’s prophecies were of ancient provenance; they
were uttered by prophets who were more than ordinary human beings and who
received their insights from a divine source, in his case the Prophetic Spirit. Like
Graeco-Roman prophecies, Justin’s could be enigmatic or paradoxical in form,
sometimes bordering on the incomprehensible, and they require skilled
interpretation to be deciphered and for their relevance to the present day to be
understood.177

Some features of the Graeco-Roman tradition were, however, not found in

Justin’s account. His prophets were not associated with specific shrines or temples
and are not described as coming from particular locations. There was no
suggestion that prophecies were uttered in states of mania, when a prophet was
the object of divine possession.178 The prophecies were not couched in verse or
acrostic forms,179 but expressed in plain language. Moreover they are not
presented as being delivered in response to enquiries;180 indeed, nothing is said
about what prompted the prophets to utter them except that they were inspired
by the Prophetic Spirit.

There are, however, particular parallels to be drawn between Justin’s ancient

prophecies and the tradition of Sibylline prophecy which was strong in Rome

177
Issues of interpretation are considered further below.
178
Justin twice (1A 33.9 & 35.3) refers to prophets as possessed by God (using
θεοφορέομαι) but a state of mania is not suggested in either instance.
179
As is the only extant Sibylline prophecy: A Giannini ed, Paradoxographorum
Graecorum Reliquiae (Institutio Editorale Italiano, Milan 1966) 200-207; trans in W
Hansen trans, Phlegon of Tralles’ Book of Marvels (University of Exeter Press, Exeter
1996) 40-43.
180
Again, most famously in the oracle at Delphi.
70
where Justin was writing.181 Prophecies were uttered by the Sibyl of Cumae in
very ancient times and were brought together in book collections. They were
acquired by the Romans in legendary circumstances,182 preserved by them and
frequently consulted.183 Just as royal figures – the kings of the Jews and the Greek
kings of Egypt – were instrumental in the preservation of the texts in Justin’s
version of the Septuagint Legend, so the Roman Emperors had an important role
in relation to the Sibylline Books. They were responsible for their preservation,
for arrangements for consulting and interpreting them and for weeding out false
from true prophecies.184 So it is not surprising to find that at one point Justin

181
H Diels, Sibyllinische Blätter (Georg Reimer, Berlin 1890); The Sibylline Oracles
Book III and its Social Setting, with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary ed R
Buitenwerf (Brill, Leiden 2003); The Sibylline Oracles with Introduction, Translation
and Commentary on the First and Second Books ed J L Lightfoot (Oxford University
Press, Oxford 2007); H W Parke, Greek Oracles (Hutchinson, London 1967); H W
Parke ed B C McGing, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (Routledge,
London 1988); J Scheid, ‘Les Livres Sibyllins at les archives des Quindécemvirs’ in C
Moatti ed La Mémoire perdue: recherches sur l’administration Romaine (École Francaise
de Rome, Rome 1998) 11-26; W Den Boer, Private Morality in Greece and Rome: some
Historical Aspects (Brill, Leiden 1979) 93-128 & Santangelo, Divination 128-148.
182
The story of the acquisition of the Sibylline Books by the early Roman King
Tarquinius is told in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 7 Volumes ed E
Cary LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1937-1950) 4 62, emphasising the
subsequent importance of the Books for the Roman people: ‘…there is no possession of
the Romans, sacred or profane, which they guard so carefully as they do the Sibylline
oracles’: Dionysius, Roman Antiquities LCL 4 62.5.
183
B MacBain, Prodigy and Expiation: a Study in Religion and Politics in Republican
Rome (Latomus, Brussels 1982). The 1C Roman poet Lucan describes how the Cumaean
Sibyl put her inspiration at the service of Rome in particular (Lucan, Pharsalia ed J D
Duff LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1928) 5 183-186.
184
In 28 BCE Augustus had the Sibylline Books transferred from the Temple of Jupiter to
the new Temple of Apollo he had had built on the Palatine close to his own residence.
Later, in 12 BCE, he acted to put an end to the private ownership of oracles, ordering
that all extant prophecies be surrendered and examined; the genuine (Sibylline) oracles (a
minority), were admitted to the official collection and the remainer destroyed: Parke,
Sibyls and Sybilline Prophecy 141-142 (See also Suetonius, Augustus LCL 31 & Tacitus,
Annals ed J Jackson LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1937) 6 12). In 19
CE the Emperor Tiberius had all prophetic books examined to sort genuine prophecies
from the bogus, retaining the former and rejecting the latter: Cassius Dio, Roman
History LCL 7 57 18.3-4.
71
mentions the Books of the Sibyl in the same breath as his Books of the
Prophecies.185

The analogies between Justin’s prophecies and the Sibylline tradition should not
be pressed too far, however, since differences are also apparent, notably in the
purpose of prophetic activity. Sibylline prophecies were consulted when events
suggested that the pax deorum had been broken, to identify remedial steps
necessary to propitiate the gods. For Justin the purpose of prophecies was to
demonstrate the status of Jesus and attract new converts to Christianity 186 and,
while he employed prophetic language and used concepts which would have had
some familiarity for his readers, he was nevertheless drawing on a separate
prophetic tradition and using his prophecies to achieve a radically different
purpose.

Moreover, Justin’s approach was novel in that it brought prophecy into the sphere
of the literary. In Graeco-Roman culture prophecy was a subject which was
discussed by literary writers who might treat the contents of prophetic utterances
with respect, but prophetic insights were seen as the product of a different form of
discourse, one external to literary culture. That culture placed a high premium on
rational arguments, whereas prophetic insights were regarded as being of a
different order, deriving from non-rational sources. The work of two Greek
authors, Plato and Plutarch, will illuminate this, Plato as the originator of one of
the major strands of Greek philosophy and still hugely influential in the 2C and

185
1A 44.12. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity 37 comments that most Sibylline
oracles were oracles of doom, mirroring those of Justin’s prophecies which relate to the
eschaton and the fate of the Jews; the bulk of the prophecies quoted by Justin are,
however, read with positive messages relating to the life of Jesus and the growth of
Christianity.
186
There are extant cases of multiple Sibylline prophecies relating to the same set of
circumstances, but not of a series of prophecies providing a narrative of events such as
Justin portrays: MacBain, Prodigy and Expiation 82-106.
72
Plutarch a writer of much more recent date with a strong interest in both
philosophy and prophecy.

Plato saw value in prophecy. He accepted that alongside reason, the source of
knowledge, other forms of insight might be provided by prophecy and divination
which were divinely inspired.187 Prophecy is not a subject to which he ever gives
extended treatment, but he makes a number of references to it. In the Phaedrus,
when discussing the prophetic inspiration of the Sibyl, he refers to ‘…the noblest
of arts, which foretells the future.’188 In Ion he likens poets to prophets and
emphasises the divine origin of their inspiration:

‘…God takes away the mind of these men [the poets] and uses
them as his ministers, just as he does soothsayers and godly seers, in
order that we who hear them may know that it is not they who
utter these words of great price, when they are out of their wits, but
that it is God himself who speaks and addresses us through them.’189

In Meno Plato compares prophets and statesmen and comments that when in the
throes of divine inspiration neither of them understands what they are saying:
‘...statesmen...have nothing more to do with wisdom than soothsayers and
diviners; for these people utter many a true thing when inspired, but have no
knowledge of anything they say.’190 Finally, in the Timaeus Plato describes the
liver as the organ of divination in the human body and a part of the divinely-

187
E R Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (University of California Press, Berkeley
1951) 207-235.
188
Plato, Phaedrus ed H N Fowler LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1914) 244B.
189
Plato, Ion trans H N Fowler & W R M Lamb LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1925) 534C-D.
190
Plato, Meno ed & trans W R M Lamb LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Mass 1924) 99C.
73
created order ‘…that it might in some degree lay hold on truth…’191 and says that,
while divination can yield insights, these are distinct from the conclusions reached
by reflections of the rational mind.192

Closer to Justin’s own time, Plutarch,193 who had a strong interest in

philosophy,194 also engaged extensively with religious issues.195 He was a priest in
the temple at Delphi and wrote several works relating to oracles,196 which he
discussed in rational terms,197 as well as a treatise on the Egyptian myth of Osiris
and Isis, in which he approached myth from a philosophical standpoint.198
Plutarch had a sympathy towards prophecy199 which sat alongside his enthusiasm
for philosophy and rational argument. His view, in Van Nuffelen’s words, was
that ‘…philosophy and religious tradition lead to knowledge of the same
truth…’200 In extant texts Plutarch never discusses the relationship between the
non-rational insights that could be gained from prophecy and the knowledge
which comes from the rational methods of philosophy, so his views on this issue

191
Plato, Timaeus ed & trans R G Bury LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1929) 71E.
192
Plato: Timaeus LCL 71E-72B.
193
On Plutarch generally: R Lamberton, Plutarch (Yale University Press, New Haven
2001). His dates are c45 BCE – 120 CE.
194
E.g. Plutarch, Platonicae Quaestiones & De Animae Procreatione in Timaeo in
Moralia13/1 and De Stoicorum Repugnantiis & De Communibus Notitiis adversus
Stoicos in Moralia13/2 ed H Cherniss LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1976).
195
For Plutarch’s religion: J Oakesmith, The Religion of Plutarch: a Pagan Creed of
Apostolic Times (Longmans, Green & Co, London 1902) & F E Brenk, In Mist
Appareled: Religious Themes in Plutarch’s Moralia and Lives (Brill, Leiden 1980).
196
Plutarch, De E Apud Delphos, De Pythiae Oraculis & De Defectu Oraculorum ed F C
Babbitt LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1936).
197
Lamberton, Plutarch 155-172.
198
Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride ed J G Griffiths (University of Wales Press, Cardiff 1970).
199
Brenk, In Mist Appareled 184-255.
200
P Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the gods: philosophical readings of religion in the post-
Hellenistic period (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011) 48-71 (quotation on
50); see also H D Betz, Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature
(Brill, Leiden 1975) 36-37.
74
are unknown.201 Insights from prophecy are not, however, brought into his
rational arguments; he treats the two as distinct, prophetic insight at Delphi,
rational inquiry in the Academy.

Plato and Plutarch, both writers sympathetic to prophecy, do not use prophetic
statements as part of their rational arguments, and their writings were emblematic
of Greek culture in this respect. Written prophecies were known and consulted,
but the literary and the prophetic were separate cultural stands. By contrast,
prophecy was part of the literary culture of Hellenistic Judaism and prophetic
material occupied a significant portion of the contents of its core text, the
Septuagint. Justin was drawing on this culture when he accessed the Books of the
Prophecies, but in bringing prophecies from that tradition into his apologetic
arguments he was doing something unfamiliar to Greek literary culture.

Justin’s novelty in this respect is reflected in the vocabulary he employs to describe

prophecy, which differs from that of the classical literary tradition. In the latter
there was no single term for prophecy and the prophetic, with three terms
employed: μάντῖς, προφήτης and χρησμός (with their cognates),202 of which
προφήτης was the least common.203 Προφήτης is, however, Justin’s term for his
prophets, to the exclusion of the others,204 and he also uses cognates of προφήτης,
which were either uncommon in classical Greek, such as the verb προφητεύω,205
or were unknown before the 2C CE, such as the noun προφητεία.206 Justin
therefore uses a distinctive vocabulary to describe prophecy that reflects his

201
Lamberton, Plutarch 52-59.
202
Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity 23-48 & LSJ entries for μάντῖς, προφήτης and
χρησμός.
203
TLG searches for μάντῖς, προφήτης and χρησμός.
204
μάντῖς and χρησμός do not appear in 1A: Marcovich, Apologiae 197 & 211.
205
LSJ entries for προφητεύω & προφητεία, TLG searches for cognates of προφήτης &
Marcovich, Apologiae 205.
206
G Kittel & G Friedrich eds, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 10
Volumes ed & trans G W Bromiley (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1964-1976) 6 781-861, 784
& Marcovich, Apologiae 205.
75
particular perspective. Indeed, he follows the semantic usage which entered
Greek from Hellenistic Judaism; the Hebrew term nabi was rendered into Greek
as προφήτης by the Septuagint translators.207 Προφήτης was the term which
Hellenistic-Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus regularly used for prophets
and is the term which appears in 1A.208

The Proof from Prophecy and Ancient Wisdom

Justin’s argument in the PfP connects with another strand of Graeco-Roman

culture, in addition to the prophetic, that of ancient wisdom. Boys-Stones has
traced the development during the later Hellenistic period of the idea of a golden
age of philosophical wisdom in very ancient times, first among Stoics and later
among Platonists.209 Such ideas are associated particularly with Posidonius in the
1C BCE and Cornutus in the 1C CE.210 According to this tradition, the earliest
era of humankind was dominated by sages whose thinking exhibited a unity of
ideas that disappeared later when different, and competing, philosophical schools
developed.

Justin’s account of his prophets is consonant with this ancient wisdom tradition.211
He emphasizes their great antiquity: ‘And this was prophesied before he [Jesus]
appeared, sometimes five thousand years before, sometimes three thousand,
sometimes two thousand, and again a thousand and elsewhere eight hundred...’212
and stresses how their writings, dating from a distant age, exhibit the kind of
unanimity of ideas found in the ancient wisdom tradition. The prophecies may
have been delivered by different individuals, but they convey a common message.

207
E Fascher, ΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ: Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
(Alfred Töpelmann, Giessen 1927) 102-108 & TLG search for προφήτης.
208
TLG searches for μάντῖς, προφήτης and χρησμός in Philo and Josephus.
209
Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy.
210
Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy 44-59.
211
Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy 184-188 briefly discusses Justin but makes
no reference to his use of ancient prophecies.
212
1A 31.8.
76
Justin contrasts this with the Greek philosophical schools, several times
highlighting that different philosophers do not agree and, indeed, that they
contradict one another. He says, for example, that ‘…those among the Greeks
who taught whatever pleased them are called in every case by the single title
‘philosopher’ even though they contradicted one another in their opinions…’213

Justin considers his prophets not only to be ancient, but to predate the
development of Greek philosophy: ‘Moses is older even than all the writers in
Greek.’214 This chronological priority is demonstrated by the fact that Greek
philosophers actually learnt some of their ideas from Justin’s ancient prophets:
‘And everything which both the philosophers and the poets said concerning the
immortality of the soul or punishments after death or contemplation of heavenly
things or similar doctrines they were enabled to understand and they explained
because they took their starting-points from the prophets.’215 Justin provides a
specific example of such borrowing when he cites the reference in the Timaeus to
God having made the world by changing formless matter, claiming that Plato
took this idea from Genesis. He quotes from Genesis 1 and says: ‘In this way both
Plato and those who say the same things and we ourselves learnt that the whole
world came into being by the Word of God out of previously existing things
spoken of by Moses. And you can also be persuaded of this.’216 That Moses
predated Greek culture and that later Greek philosophers borrowed from the
writings of Moses was not original to Justin; it was an idea -- sometimes called

213
1A 7.3: see also 4.8 & 26.6.
214
1A 44.8.
215
1A 44.9.
216
1A 59.5. The translation here follows Minns & Parvis’ emendation of the manuscript
text (Minns & Parvis, Apologies 233n4), pace Marcovich and Munier, and follows
Marcovich’s use of a capital Λ in Λόγω̩ pace Minns & Parvis and Munier.
77
the ‘theft theory’ -- that had become well-established in Hellenistic-Jewish
historiography before it took root among Christian writers.217

The Proof from Prophecy and Greek Philosophy

Justin’s comments on Greek philosophy referred to above appear critical and at

times even disparaging. The overall picture in IA is, however, a mixed one, for
Justin is sometimes more positive. At the outset, the addressees of 1A are
described, flatteringly, as philosophers218 and such references are repeated later.219
Justin sometimes couples philosophy with piety,220 and then speaks of it
sympathetically, saying, for example: ‘…you [the addressees] hear on all sides that
you are called pious and philosophers and guardians of justice and lovers of
learning.’221 When philosophy is referred to on its own, however, Justin’s tone
can be more critical, emphasizing the divisions among philosophers.222

Overall, however, philosophy features comparatively little in 1A.223 Two chapters

are devoted to discussion of Plato’s ideas, but they are mainly concerned with
showing that the tradition of thought derived from Moses is superior.224 There

217
Droge, Homer or Moses? 12-48; W Löhr, ‘The Theft of the Greeks: Christian Self-
Definition in the Age of the Schools’ RHE 95 (2000) 403-426 & Nyström, Apology of
Justin Martyr 82-86.
218
1A 2.2.
219
E.g. 1A 12.5.
220
E.g. 1A 3.2, 12.5 & 70.4. See A-M Malingrey, ‘Philosophia’ Études d’un groupe de
mots dans la littérature grecque, des Présocratiques au IVe siècle après J-C (C
Klincksieck, Paris 1961) 124-126 & H H Holfeder, ‘Ευ͗σέβεια καὶ φιλοσοφία:
Literarische Einheit und politischer Kontext von Justins Apologie (Teil I)’ ZNW 68
(1977) 48-66.
221
E.g. 1A 2.2.
222
E.g. 1A 4.8; 7.3 & 26.6.
223
R Joly, Christianisme et philosophie: études sur Justin et les apologistes grecs du
duxième siècle (University of Brussels, Brussels 1973) 9-83 argues for the importance in
Justin’s work of the confrontation between Christianity and philosophy, but he does this
mainly on the basis of DT 1-7: ‘Le texte de Justin qui illustre le plus directement la
confrontation entre la philosophie et la christianisme est sans conteste le prologue du
Dialogue avec Tryphon’ (9).
224
1A 59-60.
78
are explicit references to similarities between Christian doctrines and ideas from
the Greek philosophical schools of Platonism and Stoicism: ‘For when we say that
all things were fashioned and came into being through God we will seem to speak
the doctrine of Plato, and in saying that there will be a conflagration, we will
seem to speak that of the Stoics.’225 This point is not developed, however, and
Justin limits himself to noting the commonalities in ideas.226 The one occasion on
which he does address a philosophical issue is when he considers if his argument
based on prophecy implies ‘…that we say that the things which happen happen
through the necessity of fate.’227 This refers to a philosophical objection which
can reasonably be made to the argument in the PfP, as Justin is clearly aware, and
his response is to set out a case for free-will and against determinism:

‘But that by free choice they [human beings] both act rightly and
stumble we demonstrate as follows. We see the same human being
in pursuit of opposite things. But if he were fated to be either
wicked or virtuous, he would never be capable of opposite things
and would not have changed many times. But neither would some
human beings be virtuous and some wicked, since we would then
be maintaining that fate is the cause of the wicked and acts in
opposition to itself; or else the opinion mentioned earlier would
seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice exists, but that good
and evil are only matters of opinion.’228

225
1A 20.4.
226
M Bonazzi & C Helmig eds, Platonic Stoicism-Stoic Platonism: the dialogue between
Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity (Leuven University Press, Leuven 2007): in the
‘Introduction’ vii-xv they characterise Greek philosophical discourse of the time as a
debate between Platonism and Stoicism, with influences in both directions. Justin
appears to be deliberately avoiding a preference for either School to the detriment of the
other.
227
1A 43.1.
228
1A 43.4-43.6.
79
This argument is presented in a form which would be at home in a philosophical
treatise.229 Justin seeks to show that taking a position different from his own leads
either to illogicality (‘we would then be asserting that fate is the cause of the
wicked and does things contrary to itself’) or falsity (‘that neither virtue nor vice
exists, but that good and evil are matters of opinion only’). It is noteworthy that
Justin makes no references here to evidence or argument from the Jewish
scriptures; he engages with a philosophical question, using arguments appropriate
to a philosophical debate, and the passage stands out as the only place in 1A where
he does this.

Thus Greek philosophy plays only an incidental rather than a central role in 1A.
Justin has been seen by some commentators as very sympathetic to Greek
philosophy and as a writer who seeks positively to identify common ground
between Christianity and Greek philosophy.230 The evidence from IA does not
support this, however. Indeed, one striking feature of the work is that, especially
in the PfP section, references to philosophy are so few; Justin does not use his PfP
either to present Christianity as the alternative to Greek philosophy or to show
resemblances between them.

This contrasts with Chapters 1-9 of DT where Justin exposes deficiencies in

various schools of Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism,231 and then presents
the ideas of the ancient prophets, revealed to him by a mysterious old man, as the

229
Fate was an established issue of debate in Graeco-Roman philosophical discourse, not
least because of its importance for the Stoics: BNP article on Fate by D Frede & M A
Frede, A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought ed A A Long (University
of California Press, Berkeley 2011). For a treatise on the subject written a few decades
after Justin’s 1A: Alexander of Aphrodisias: On Fate: Text, Translation and Commentary
ed R W Sharples (Duckworth, London 1983) discussed further below.
230
E.g. Chadwick, Early Christian thought 9-22. This has, of course, been disputed: see
e.g. Hyldahl, Philosophie und Christentum, although that is a study of DT and not 1A.
231
The discussion between Justin and the old man in DT 3-7 is presented in the form of a
philosophical dialogue.
80
alternative to be embraced instead.232 The ideas of these prophets are the origin of
Christian thinking and Christianity is referred to as a philosophy. Thus Justin
describes the words of Christ as ‘…the only sure and useful philosophy’233 and says
that as a consequence he himself is now a philosopher.234 In 1A, however, Justin
does not describe the prophetic texts as philosophy or refer to the prophets as
philosophers; instead, he uses the terms prophecy and prophets throughout. Nor
does he call himself a philosopher anywhere in 1A; so while the Greek
philosophical schools are Justin’s main target in DT 1-9, this is not the case with
the PfP.

Rationality and Proof in 1A

It is noteworthy that Justin never refers to prophecy, which is at the core of his
argument, as magical, miraculous or irrational. Indeed, he is at pains to present
his case as rational.235 It may be that Justin is here responding to contemporary
criticisms of Christians for ignoring proofs and arguments, criticisms found, for
instance, in the work of Galen and Lucian.236 Before even reaching the PfP, he
gives prominence to the concept of rationality by referring to it a number of
times; thus when pleading for relief from persecution, Justin appeals to reason and
rejects irrationality:

‘For it was not to flatter you with this document nor to gain your
favour by our speech that we approached you, but rather to
demand that you give judgement in accordance with careful and

232
DT 7.
233
DT 8.1.
234
DT 8.2.
A point emphasized in relation to the apologists generally by Joly, Christianisme et
235

philosophie who devotes a whole chapter to Le Christianisme rationnel des apologistes

85-154.
236
J Barnes, ‘Galen, Christians, logic’ in J Barnes, Logical Matters: Essays in Ancient
Philosophy II ed M Bonelli (Clarendon Press, Oxford 2012) 1-21, 4-5.
81
 exacting reason (λόγον), not being gripped by prejudice or the
wish to please the superstitious nor driven by irrational impulse or
long prevalent rumours...’237

Later he refers to the ‘rational powers (λογικῶν δυνάμεων)’238 which God has
bestowed on humankind, and to human beings as ‘rational (λογικοὶ)’239 creations.

Similar sentiments are found in the PfP section. Justin asks: ‘For by what reason
(λόγω̩) would we believe in a crucified man that he is the first-begotten of the
unbegotten God…’240 a question which in effect he has already answered much
earlier when he said that ‘…we will prove (ἀποδείξομεν) that the one who
became the teacher for us of these things, and who was born for this, Jesus
Christ… we rationally worship (μετὰ λόγου τιμῶμεν).’241 The demonstration
Justin refers to here is the kernel of the PfP and he seeks to portray it as a rational
argument. He begins his PfP with the words ‘…we shall now make proof, not
trusting those who make assertions… (τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ἥδη ποιησόμεθα, οὐ τοῖς
λέγουσι πιστεύοντες...)’,242 and goes on to say that he will provide ‘…the greatest
and truest proof (μεγίστη καὶ ἀληθεστάτη ἀπόδειξις).’243 Thus Justin goes
beyond describing his argument as rational, using forms of λόγος and its
cognates, and refers to his argument prominently as a proof, ἀπόδειξις.244 He
does not, however, present his argument as a philosophical proof, with the aim of
combatting the claims of the Greek philosophical schools and replacing them
with a Christian alternative. Instead, Justin uses ἀπόδειξις in an everyday, not a

237
1A 2.3.
238
1A 10.4.
239
1A 28.3.
240
1A 53.2.
241
1A 13.3.
242
1A 30.1.
243
1A 30.1.
244
It appears ten times in 1A: 14.4; 20.3; 23.3; 30.1 (twice); 46.6 (twice); 54.1; 58.2 &
63.10, in all cases either with reference to Justin’s own argument or to the lack of proof in
those of his opponents.
82
philosophical, sense, with the objective of challenging the claims of the
mythologically-based religion of Greece and Rome rather than their philosophical
traditions.

’Απόδειξις is the term in Greek philosophy for a logical proof, used by Aristotle
in the Posterior Analytics245 and also in Stoic logic, which emerged to rival (or
complement) the Aristotelian tradition.246 In later Hellenistic centuries both these
philosophical traditions were still live, with Peripatetic writers debating issues of
Aristotelian logic,247 while the Stoic position on what constituted a proof was
actively discussed,248 and the work of Sextus Empiricus is testimony to sceptically-
generated attacks on the possibility that proofs could exist at all.249 Justin’s
younger contemporary, Galen, also based in Rome, displayed a particular interest
in logic,250 writing a fifteen Book treatise on the subject, of which only small

245
Aristotle, Posterior Analytics ed H Tredennick LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1960): examples of use of ἀπόδειξις at 1 71b.17 & 1 72a.8; see also
Aristotle, Posterior Analytics trans J Barnes Second ed (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1993).
246
For texts on Stoic logic: The Hellenistic Philosophers Volume 1 Translations of the
Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary eds A A Long & D Sedley
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987) 208-220 and The Hellenistic
Philosophers Volume 2 Greek and Latin Texts with Notes and Bibliography eds A A
Long & D Sedley (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989) 209-221.
247
J Barnes, ‘Peripatetic Logic: 100 BC- AD 200’ in R W Sharples & R Sorabji eds, Greek
& Roman Philosophy 100BC-200AD 2 Volumes (Institute of Classical Studies University
of London, London 2007) 2 531-546.
248
J Brunschwig, ‘Proof defined’ and J Barnes, ‘Proof destroyed’ in M Schofield, M
Burnyeat and J Barnes eds, Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology
(Clarendon Press, Oxford 1980) 125-160 & 161-181.
249
Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism ed R G Bury LCL (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge Mass 1933) & Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Scepticism trans J Annas &
J Barnes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1994) 2 134-203.
250
T Tieleman, ‘Methodology’ in R J Hankinson ed, The Cambridge Companion to
Galen (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008) 49-65 & B Morison, ‘Logic’ in
Hankinson, Cambridge Companion to Galen 66-115.
83
fragments survive,251 as well as a short introductory text which survives
complete.252

Justin’s argument does not satisfy the form of a Greek philosophical proof,
however, for although he uses a term which has a specific meaning in logic, he
does not employ it in that technical sense. Proofs in Aristotelian and Stoic logic
each have a particular structure, but the PfP does not conform to either. The
classic Aristotelian argument,253 the syllogism, two premises and a conclusion,
takes the form: i if a is the case; and ii b is the case; then iii it necessarily follows
that c is the case. A classic Stoic argument254 of propositional logic also has three
(different) stages, taking the form: i if a then b; ii a is the case; iii therefore b is the
case. Justin’s argument also has three stages: i the ancient prophets, inspired by
the Prophetic Spirit, foretold events that would happen; ii those events have now
occurred; iii therefore both the prophecy and the fulfillment should be accepted as
divinely ordained. This may look like an argument consisting of two premises
and a conclusion, possibly either Aristotelian or Stoic in form, but it cannot really

251
Tieleman, ‘Methodology’ 49.
252
Text in Galen, Institutio Logica ed C Kalbfleisch (Teubner, Leipzig 1896), translation
in Galen, Institutio Logica English Translation, Introduction and Commentary by J S
Kieffer (John Hopkins Press, Baltimore 1964). Galen presents the Peripatetic and Stoic
approaches to logic and then also a third which he terms relational syllogism. In Chapter
1 of Institutio Logica Galen establishes ἀπόδειξις as the key term for discussion.
253
J L Ackrill, Aristotle the Philosopher (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1981) 79-93;
W K C Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy Volume VI: Aristotle an Encounter
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1981) 156-178; J Barnes, Aristotle (Oxford
University Press, Oxford 1982) 27-36; P Crivelli, ‘Aristotle’s Logic’ in C Shields ed, The
Oxford Handbook of Aristotle (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012) 113-149; C
Shields, Aristotle (Routledge, Abingdon 2007) 106-125; R Smith, ’Aristotle’s Theory of
Demonstration’ in G Anagnostopoulos ed, A Companion to Aristotle (Wiley-Blackwell,
Chichester 2009) 51-65 & R Smith, ‘Logic’ in J Barnes ed, The Cambridge Companion
to Aristotle (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1995) 27-65.
254
See: I Mueller, ‘An Introduction to Stoic Logic’ in J M Rist, The Stoics (University of
California Press, Berkeley 1978) 1-26; F H Sandbach, The Stoics (Chatto & Windus,
London 1975) 95-100; J Sellars, Stoicism (Acuman, Chesham 2006) 55-79 & S Bobzien,
‘Logic’ in B Inwood ed, The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 2003) 85-123.
84
be regarded as such. For even if it is accepted (implicitly) that the future can be
foretold and i is therefore a valid premise (which is problematic in itself) point iii
is not a conclusion which follows necessarily from i and ii. Justin’s argument
depends both on the way he reads the original prophecy and on his contention
that a particular event fulfills that prophecy. If a prophecy were interpreted
differently, however, it would have a different meaning; it could be fulfilled by a
different event, or it could have not been fulfilled at all; these are matters of
judgement and a variety of different conclusions could be reached. Thus Justin’s
argument is not one of logical necessity.

Justin is not explicit about the meaning of ἀπόδειξις, but it is a term that need
not be philosophical and can be used in a non-technical sense. Its everyday
meaning is that an argument should be accepted because there are good reasons
for it.255 An example is found in Plutarch’s treatise on The Study of Poetry256
where he quotes lines from Euripides extolling the superiority of virtue over
wealth and comments: ‘Is not this a proof (ἀπόδειξις) of what philosophers say
regarding wealth and external advantages, that without virtue they are useless and
unprofitable for their owners?’257 There is no question that Euripides has provided
a logical proof, but rather that he has persuasively asserted a point which Plutarch
regards as a good one and wishes to endorse.

When Justin criticizes Marcionites in IA, he equates the absence of proof with
irrationality,258 suggesting that the term proof should mean making a convincing
rational argument. He clearly regards his demonstration that prophecies made
long ago have been fulfilled in Jesus as a rational argument for the truth of
Christianity and he contrasts this proof with the mere assertions of others. Thus

255
LSJ entry for ἀπόδειξις.
256
Plutarch, Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat ed F C Babbitt LCL (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge Mass 1927).
257
Plutarch, Quomodo adolescens LCL 36D 1-2.
258
1A 58.2.
85
in referring to ἀπόδειξις he employs a term which has philosophical overtones,
but uses it in an everyday sense and not as a term of philosophical logic.259

The Proof from Prophecy and Graeco-Roman mythological religion

Justin’s argument is best seen not as the expression of a philosophical school

putting itself forward to rival -- and, indeed, replace -- those of the Greek
tradition, but rather as a justification for Justin’s preferred alternative to the
mythological religion of Greece and Rome.260 For the comparisons drawn in 1A
are between Jesus Christ and figures from the Greek mythological tradition.
Pretila has shown how in Chapters 21 and 22 Justin highlights similarities
between stories about Jesus and the stories in Greek myths as a way of making the
story of Jesus comprehensible (he describes this as ‘Incorporation of Myth’) 261 and
then how, from Chapter 53 onwards, Justin draws attention to dissimilarities
between the Greek myths and the story of Jesus in order to place distance
between the two (he describes this as ‘Separation from Myth’).262

In the first group of references, in Chapters 21 and 22, Justin describes how Jesus
was crucified, died, rose again and was taken up into heaven, but comments that
‘…we introduce nothing stranger than those you call the sons of Zeus.’263
Individual gods are referred to -- Hermes, Asclepius, Dionysus, Heracles, the

259
These issues are touched on in H G Snyder, ‘The Classroom in the Text: Exegetical
Practices in Justin and Galen’ in S E Porter & A W Pitts eds, Christian Origins and
Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (Brill,
Leiden 2013) 663-685, 676-685.
260
For criticism of Graeco-Roman religion as a theme in early Christian apologetic
literature: G Dorival, ‘L’apologétique chrétienne et la culture greque’ in B Pouderon & J
Doré, Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque (Beauchesne, Paris 1998) 423-465,
424-425 & 441-447.
261
Pretila, ‘Marvellous Fables’ 52-78.
262
Pretila, ‘Marvellous Fables’ 79-123.
263
1A 21.1.
86
Dioscuri and Ariadne –- who also, like Jesus, ascended to heaven.264 Justin refers
to the crucifixion of Jesus, but points out that the sons of Zeus also suffered: ‘But
if someone should object that he was crucified, this is the same as your sons of
Zeus who suffered and whom we have enumerated.’265 Justin also cites parallels
between Jesus and Perseus (the virgin birth) and between Jesus and Asclepius
(healing the sick and raising the dead).266

Comparisons of this kind are inadequate for Justin, however, and he signals that,
in due course, he will demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over the gods of the
Greek myths: ‘But as we promised, as the discourse proceeds, we will prove that
he [Jesus] is in fact superior.’267 He returns to this theme in Chapter 53 after he
has laid out his PfP and compares stories about Jesus with stories about Graeco-
Roman mythological figures in ways that are critical of the latter. He says that
prophecies he has shown to be about Jesus have been interpreted as relating to
Greek mythological figures such as Dionysus, Bellepheron, Perseus, Heracles and
Asclepius.268 He rejects any such connections as false and criticizes the myths
themselves which, he says, ‘…have been told at the instigation of evil demons to
deceive and lead astray the human race.’269

264
1A 21.2-21.3. Minns & Parvis, Apologies 133n1 exclude Hermes as a later addition to
the text, although other editors leave him in: Marcovich, Apologiae, Munier, Apologie &
Barnard, Apologies.
265
1A 22.3.
266
1A 22.5-22.6.
267
1A 22.4. Justin goes on to say ‘Or rather it has been proved, for superiority is shown
by deeds.’ Commentators, no doubt rightly, have taken this to be a reference back to
Justin’s comments about the teachings of Jesus in 1A 15-17 (Munier, Apologie 191n9;
Marcovich, Apologiae 65n13 & Barnard, Apologies 130n162). But in spite of having
shown the superiority of Jesus ‘through deeds’, Justin looks forward to the further (at this
point unspecified) demonstration of superiority that he will in due course provide.
268
1A 54.6-54.10.
269
1A 54.1. Criticisms of Greek gods and their mythological stories were a feature of
Greek culture itself (J Pépin, Mythe et allégorie: les origines grecques et les contestations
judéo-chrétiennes (Aubier-Montaigne, Paris 1958) & D C Feeney, The Gods in Epic:
Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1991) 5-56) and not
the creation of Christian polemic.
87
There is thus a very clear contrast between Justin’s earlier and the later references
to Graeco-Roman mythology. What has led to the change is that the PfP has
intervened and provided proof of the true status of Jesus, giving Justin the basis
for critical comparisons with the divine figures of Greek mythology. Thus Justin
is able to say ‘…it is not true of us, as it is of those who make myths about the
supposed sons of Zeus, that we only make assertions and do not show proofs’270
and he contrasts his arguments for Christianity, the subject of proof deriving from
prophecy, with mere assertions put forward in support of mythological stories
about the Graeco-Roman gods. He has demonstrated that the ancient prophecies
are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and can now refute counter-arguments that they
should be interpreted as referring to Graeco-Roman myths.

Justin does not claim that there are opponents of Christianity who have argued
that the prophecies were fulfilled in mythological stories; his contention is that
evil demons created myths paralleling the life of Jesus that could be interpreted as
fulfilling Justin’s prophecies. It is possible that such a case was being made and
that this is why Justin seeks to refute it, although there are reasons for regarding
this as improbable. First, it was noted in Chapter 1 that the Jewish scriptures were
not well-known outside Jewish and Christian circles and if the prophecies were
unfamiliar, debate in Graeco-Roman circles over their interpretation was scarcely
likely. Second, no other texts of the time suggest that this case was being put
(although the low rate of textual survival means that such an argument should be
treated with caution). Third, Justin never specifically refers to anyone advocating
the fulfillment of prophecies through Greek myths, even though he does name
other intellectual opponents, such as Simon and Menander271 and Marcion.272

270
1A 53.1.
271
1A 26 & 56.
272
1A 26 & 58.
88
The more probable interpretation is that Justin posits an alternative reading to his
own in order to demonstrate its shortcomings and to show that his reading should
be preferred. Interpreting the prophecies as fulfilled in Greek mythological stories
lacks the kind of proof which Justin has been able to deploy to demonstrate their
fulfillment in the life of Jesus and the early history of Christianity. The contrast
between the two therefore highlights the value of the evidential proof which
Justin has brought to bear in support of his own interpretations of the prophecies.

Justin’s approach to the interpretation of prophecy

This discussion of whether prophecies should be read as referring to Jesus or to

figures from Greek mythology shows both the importance of interpreting
prophecies correctly and the dangers of mis-interpretation. Justin wants to do
more than bring prophecies to his audience’s attention; he wants to explain how
they should be understood. Text and interpretation are inseparable and correct
links need to be made between what was foretold long ago and what has now
occurred, or will occur, if the prophecies are to be interpreted rightly.
Interpretation is problematic, however, because prophecies can be ambiguous or
enigmatic; Justin refers to the way in which a prophecy may be ‘unintelligible’ 273
until its fulfillment has revealed its meaning.

For Justin there is only ever one correct reading for each prophecy -- the one he
provides -- and he does not recognise at any point that a text could have two
different readings, both of which could be valid. Prophecies can be -- and have
been -- interpreted incorrectly, however, and their fulfillments have not always
been recognized when they have occurred. One case of incorrect interpretation
of prophecies has already been discussed, that of relating them to mythological
deities rather than to Jesus. Justin gives a more literary example of
misinterpretation when he refers to Plato’s Timaeus, saying: ‘He arranged him as

273
1A 32.2.
89
an X in the whole’.274 Plato’s error was that, while he recognized that the passage
in Numbers275 should be read symbolically, he did so in terms of an incorrect
symbol, the X, rather than the correct symbol, the cross. This was due to
ignorance, because Plato lived well before the coming of Christ. It was only after
the crucifixion that the importance of the cross as a symbol was apparent and
references to it in earlier prophetic sayings could be correctly understood. Justin
provides other examples of the significance of the cross as a symbol, such as
‘Diggers do not do their work, nor craftsmen likewise, unless by means of tools
having this pattern’276 and comments more generally that ‘This [the cross], as the
prophet said beforehand, is the greatest symbol of his [God’s] power and rule.’277

If Plato’s flaw was, through ignorance, not to understand the symbolic

significance of the cross, the Jews’ failure, collectively, was not to recognize the
prophecies’ fulfillment in Jesus Christ. They knew the prophecies and saw the
coming of Jesus, so their failure could not be put down to ignorance; rather it was
due to a hermeneutical deficiency, an inability, or refusal, to read prophecies
correctly, even when the necessary information was to hand. Justin refers several
times to the Jews’ rejection of Jesus, saying for example: ‘…the Jews, who have
the prophecies and who were always expecting the Christ to come, did not
recognize him when he came…’278 In Justin’s view, this was because the Jews did
not appreciate that the prophets sometime spoke ‘as though from a character.’ 279
Addressing his Graeco-Roman audience in the second person he observes:

274
1A 60.1. The reference is to Timaeus 36B, although some commentators think that
this should be read in conjunction with 34A-B: Marcovich, Apologiae 116n; Barnard,
Apologies 169n357 & Minns & Parvis, Apologies 235n2.
275
Minns & Parvis, Apologies 235n3 point out that the passage from Num 21:6-9 referred
to here does not actually mention a cross or an X.
276
1A 55.3.
277
1A 55.2.
278
IA 49.5: see also 31.5; 36.3 & 53.6. Justin acknowledges that ‘a few’ Jews accepted
Jesus as the Christ (53.6).
279
The phrase is from 1A 36.1.
90
 ‘This kind of thing [speaking through characters] is also to be seen
amongst your own writers; there is one author of the whole and he
sets out the speaking characters. Since they did not understand this,
the Jews who have the books of the prophets did not recognize the
Christ even when he came.’280

Plato and the Jews are criticised because, in different ways, they have misread the
prophecies. Justin argues that his own interpretations should be accepted instead
because they have an authority stemming from their source. He lays down a clear
trail of authority for his interpretations going back to the Apostles who preached
the gospel to the gentiles, and who received their understanding from Christ
himself.281

In DT the old man who reveals the prophecies to Justin says that they should be
read with ‘proper faith’282 and goes on: ‘Above all, beseech God to open to you the
gates of light, for no one can perceive or understand these truths unless he has
been enlightened by God and his Christ.’283 Thus it is faith in Christ that enables
readers to interpret prophecies correctly.

There is no old man figure in 1A. Justin says it was the Apostles who took
Christ’s message to the gentiles,284 who preached Christianity and ‘handed over
the prophecies.’285 He is no doubt referring here not just to the physical transfer
of scrolls, but to transfer of the understanding of the prophecies, since for him text
and interpretation are inseparable. The Apostles were taught directly by Jesus

280
1A 36.2-36.3. Speaking through characters is discussed further below.
281
Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy 11-13.
282
DT 7.2.
283
DT 7.3.
284
1A 45.5 & 49.5.
285
1A 49.5.
91
and, as part of the teaching given to them after the resurrection, Christ revealed
how the prophecies should be read:

‘…when he had risen from the dead and had appeared to them and
had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things
were foretold as going to happen, and when they had seen him
ascending into heaven and had believed and had received the
power he had sent from there to them and had gone to every race
of human beings, they taught these things and were called
apostles.’286

Justin refers to Jesus Christ as ‘our teacher and interpreter of unintelligible

prophecies…’287 Jesus is therefore not only the figure through whom the
prophecies are fulfilled; he also provides the correct interpretations of them. The
understanding and interpretation of the prophecies is part of Christ’s teaching to
the Apostles, which the latter passed on to their gentile converts when they
‘handed over the prophecies.’ Indeed, the Apostles have an important role and a
high status, since the prophecies foretold not just the events in the life of Christ
but the missionary work of the Apostles too.288

There is a certain circularity to Justin’s argument. It began with claims for

Christianity that depended on the person of Jesus Christ but this begged the
question: why should the status and authority of Jesus be accepted? The answer
was found in the Books of the Prophecies, but these ancient, enigmatic texts
required interpretation to be properly understood. Justin’s understanding of the
texts’ meaning came from the Apostles who derived their understanding from

286
1A 50.12.
287
1A 32.2.
288
J Behr, The Formation of Christian Theology Volume 1: The Way to Nicaea (St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York 2001) 98.
92
Jesus. So the claims made for the status and authority of Jesus, and therefore of
Christianity, are shown not to be independent at all; they come from the teaching
of Christ himself.289

Placing Christ’s teaching on the interpretation of prophecies after the resurrection

is an interesting move, because by that stage some prophecies have been fulfilled
in the first coming of Jesus, while others still remain unfulfilled. This is not
because they are false prophecies; Justin presents the unfulfilled prophecies as
relating to the second coming of Christ which will occur in the future. An
example of a prophecy he reads in this way is: ‘And how he was going to come
from heaven with glory, hear also the things said in this regard through Jeremiah
the prophet. They are these: ‘Behold one like the Son of Man comes upon the
clouds of heaven, and his angels with him.’ ’290

Justin describes how after the resurrection Christ explained the meaning of the
prophecies collectively to the Apostles and he himself adopts a similar approach.
Prophecies are interpreted one at a time, but it is only when they are brought
together and read as a group that their full meaning emerges. A prophecy may,
for instance, foretell the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, but it is only when it is
linked to other prophecies foretelling other events in Jesus’ life that its significance
becomes clear. An individual prophecy is therefore not viewed in isolation; each
can only properly be understood as part of a sequence foretelling a coherent
narrative of events, and the meaning of each prophecy therefore depends on the
meaning of them all. Justin’s method is to extract individual prophecies from
different books written by different authors at different times, to interpret each of
them and then to amalgamate them together to create an account of events that
has a coherent overall meaning. This then reflects back and enhances the

289
Behr, Formation 1 96 also refers to the circularity of Justin’s Proof.
290
1A 51.8-51.9.
93
meaning of the individual prophecies, since each of them is seen to be a
component of the larger sequence.

Matching individual prophecies with their fulfillments

The interpretation of prophetic texts requires the matching of individual

prophecies with their fulfillments and the way Justin does this will now be
examined. His basic method is to quote a prophecy verbatim and, either before or
after, to specify how it should be interpreted, typically by identifying the event
which the prophecy foretold. This can be a simple process. Micah’s prophecy
that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and its fulfillment in the birth of
Jesus are described quite straightforwardly, with just enough information to link
prophecy and fulfillment:

‘And he [Micah] spoke thus: ‘And you Bethlehem, land of Judah,

are by no means least among the rulers of Judah, for from you will
come forth a leader who will shepherd my people.’ And this is a
village in the country of the Jews which is thirty-five stadia from
Jerusalem in which Jesus Christ was born…’291

Similarly, prophecies foretelling specific elements of the crucifixion narrative,

such as the nailing of the hands and feet of Jesus to the cross and the casting of lots
for his clothing, are matched with their fulfillments:

‘And the phrase, ‘They pierced my hands and feet,’ was a

description of the nails fixed to the cross in his hands and his feet.

291
1A 34.1-34.2.
94
 And after crucifying him those who crucified him cast lots for his
clothing and divided it among themselves.’292

A prophecy may require a fuller explanation, however, such as Isa 2: 3-4:

‘For a law will go forth from Sion and the word of the Lord from
Jerusalem, and it will judge between nations and will correct a
great people, and they will beat their swords into ploughs and their
spears into pruning-hooks and nation shall not take up sword
against nation and they will no longer learn to make war.’293

This prophecy is fulfilled in the Apostles’ preaching of the gospel to the gentiles in
words already quoted.294 Justin identifies three moves in the Isaiah text: i the
going out from Jerusalem, ii the ‘correcting a great people’ and iii the vision of a
state of peace, and he equates these steps with a sequence of events: i the Apostles’
going out from Jerusalem, ii their preaching of the gospel to the gentile world
and iii the absence of conflict among Christian converts, who are now prepared
to be martyred. Justin’s reading of the prophecy and its fulfilment may appear
unexpected and may not be obvious from the wording of the text, but this
example shows Justin understanding an ancient prophecy in terms of recent
historical events.

Interpreting a prophecy can be much more complex, however. The relatively

short passage, Gen 49:11: ‘Tethering his colt at the vine and washing his robe in
the blood of the grape...’295 is not at all explicit. Justin’s first move is to identify
the text as a prophecy foretelling the life and death of Jesus: ‘...a symbol making

292
1A 35.7-35.8.
293
1A 39.1.
294
1A 39.2-39.3.
295
1A 32.5.
95
plain the things that would happen to Christ and would be done by him.’296 He
then splits the text into two, with each part interpreted separately and linked to
different events in Christ’s life. Of ‘Tethering his colt at the vine...’ Justin says:
‘For an ass’s colt, tethered to a vine, stood at the entrance to a village. This he
[Jesus] then commanded his associates to bring to him, and when it had been
brought he mounted it, and sitting on it he made his entry into Jerusalem...’ 297
The prophecy is related to a precise event in Christ’s life, with the description
expanded to provide a fuller picture linking the small event of tethering the colt
to the larger and more significant one of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem.

The second part of the text is interpreted as follows: ‘For ‘washing his robe in the
blood of the grape’ heralded beforehand the suffering he was going to endure
cleansing through his blood those who believed in him.’298 This is enigmatic, and
indeed, paradoxical. Why does the ‘washing’ herald the ‘suffering’? Justin
explains that the ‘robe’ represents: ‘...the human beings who believe in him, in
whom dwells the seed from God, which is the Logos...’299 while the ‘blood of the
grape’:

‘...indicates that the one who was going to appear would indeed
have blood, but not from human seed, but from divine power...For
just as a human being has not made the blood of the vine, but God
has, just so this blood was revealed as not going to come from
human seed, but from the power of God...’300

296
1A 32.5.
297
1A 32.6.
298
1A 32.7.
299
1A 32.8.
300
1A 32.9 & 32.11.
96
Thus it is the suffering of Christ’s passion which cleanses believers. Using
symbolic readings of blood and grape, the text foretells, not a small detail in the
narrative of Christ’s life, as was the case with the first part of the prophecy, but the
whole of Christ’s passion and its significance.

As well as interpreting each part of the prophecy separately, the two are brought
together. Thus after explaining the first part and before dealing with the second
Justin, adds: ‘And afterwards he was crucified, in order that the rest of the
prophecy might be accomplished.’301 This narrative link explains how the entry
into Jerusalem connects with the subsequent passion of Christ, for after entering
Jerusalem Jesus was crucified and this event resulted in salvation for Christian
believers. The crucifixion -- not actually mentioned in the prophecy -– is,
therefore, the link uniting the two parts of the prophecy.302

Most of the quotations in the PfP are relatively short303 and explained quite
briefly. A longer instance is, however, the citation of the whole of Psalms 1 and
2.304 Before quoting the text Justin describes what the reader should expect to
find there:

‘…it is possible for you to learn how the prophetic Spirit

encourages human beings to live; and how he signifies that there
was a banding together against Christ of Herod, the king of the
Jews and the Jews themselves, and Pilate who was your procurator
among them, together with the soldiers; and that he would be

301
1A 32.6.
302
This text was extensively discussed by patristic authors: C G Bellido, ‘Simbolismo del
Vestidio. Interpretación Patrística de Gen 49,11’ EstEcl 59 230 (1984) 313-357.
303
A clear contrast with DT where many of the quotations are much longer.
304
1A 40.5-40.19. Minns & Parvis, Apologies 189n1 note that the two psalms are often
treated as one: see also S Gillingham, A Journey of Two Psalms: the Reception of Psalms
1 and 2 in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013).
97
 believed in by human beings from every race; and that God calls
him Son and has promised to make all his enemies subject to him;
and how the demons, as far as they are able, attempt to escape from
the authority of the Lord God and Father of all and that of his
Christ; and that God calls everyone to repentance before the
coming of the day of judgment.’305

No fewer than six different messages are identified here, and Justin’s method is to
link each of them with a portion of the psalmic text. First, the statement that the
Prophetic Spirit encourages human beings to live is matched with the descriptions
of the blessed and the ungodly:

‘Blessed is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the ungodly
and did not stand in the path of sinners…but his will is in the law
of the Lord and on his law he will meditate day and night…and all
that he does shall prosper. Not so are the ungodly, not so, but they
are like dust which the wind blows from the face of the earth…and
the way of the ungodly will perish…’306

Next, the prophecy foretelling the conspiracy against Jesus involving Herod, the
Jews, Pilate and the soldiers is matched with the description of kings and the
rulers banding together: ‘The kings of the earth were at hand and the rulers
gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ…’307 The following
statement foretells that Jesus would be believed in by people of all races, although
there is nothing in the text of Psalms 1 and 2 which obviously matches this. The
statement prophesying that God calls Jesus his Son and promises to make his
enemies subject to him is matched with the pronouncements attributed to God

305
1A 40.5-40.7.
306
1A 40.8-40.10.
307
1A 40.11.
98
the Father: ‘You are my Son. Today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will
give you nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your
possession…’308 Next, the statement which describes how the demons attempt to
escape from the authority of God and Christ is matched to the saying attributed to
kings and rulers: ‘Let us burst their bonds and throw off their yoke from us.’309
Finally, the statement that God calls all to repent before the last judgment is
matched to the exhortations addressed to the kings: ‘And now O kings,
understand, be instructed all judges of the earth. Serve the Lord in fear and exalt
in him with trembling. Seize instruction, lest the Lord become angry, and you
perish from the right way, when his anger suddenly blazes.’310

Justin’s general strategy is clear; he breaks down the text of Psalms 1 and 2 and
matches each component with one of a number of disparate messages. No
attempt is made to attribute an overall meaning to the text; it is split into small
sections whose separate meanings are then explained. This example shows Justin
presenting a prophetic text as particularly complex, one that contains a series of
none too obvious messages on distinct themes. Explanations may precede texts, as
here, or they may follow them but, either way, the quotation and the explanation
are inseparable and both are necessary to Justin’s argument. Texts do not simply
stand by themselves; they need to be interpreted, because their meanings are not
straightforward. Thus interpretation is critical to the reading of texts and Justin’s
audience can only understand the Books of the Prophecies when he explains
them.

Justin’s approach to textual interpretation fits best with short passages and it is
noteworthy that, faced with a longer text, his response is to break it down into
small sections and interpret each separately. He, therefore, does not provide a

308
1A 40.14-15.
309
1A 40.11.
310
1A 40.16-18.
99
reading of any of the individual Books of the Prophecies as a whole. The body of
texts from which Justin quotes is a quarry from which he extracts nuggets that he
then explains piece by piece. Whether this is because he is accessing testimonia in
which the texts are presented as discrete individual prophecies, or simply because
this is the interpretative approach which he prefers, is difficult to know for sure,
but his treatment of Psalms 1 and 2 suggests that the latter is very likely.

Justin’s interpretation of texts and the Graeco-Roman literary tradition

Interpreting the scriptures correctly is thus critical for Justin. His use of short
quotations from authoritative texts to support an argument has parallels in the
approach sometimes taken in works in the Greek tradition; in his treatise on The
Study of Poetry, for instance, Plutarch advances his argument by drawing on brief
extracts from literary classics.311 In a number of more specific respects, however,
Justin’s interpretation of prophecy reflects the Graeco-Roman literary
environment with which he and his audience were familiar. There are three
particular senses in which this is the case: first, in the way Justin’s applies
rationality to his reading of prophecies,312 second, in the way that prophecies are
sometimes concerned with issues other than foretelling the future and third, in the
application of symbolic readings to the interpretation of difficult texts.

An emphasis on rationality has already been noted in Justin’s discussion of proof.

It is also found in his analysis of the phenomenon of prophecy in the section of
the PfP that Minns and Parvis describe as a ‘Treatise on different kinds of
prophecy.’313 Justin says here that prophecies uttered as if by someone other than
the prophet can be spoken by one of three characters he identifies: God the
Father, Christ or the people answering God:

311
Plutarch, Quomodo adolescens LCL.
312
Plutarch argued that prophecies were basically rational, even though their mode of
presentation involved ambiguity, and interpretation was required to discern their
meanings: Plutarch, De E Apud Delphos LCL 386E.
313
1A 36-44: Minns & Parvis, Apologies 52.
100
 ‘For at one time as heralding beforehand it [the divine Logos] says
the things that are going to happen, at another time it speaks out as
from the character of the Lord of all and Father God, and at another
time as from the character of Christ, and at another time as from
the character of the peoples answering the Lord or his Father.314

Justin himself highlights connections between this and the Graeco-Roman

literary tradition when he says: ‘This kind of thing is also to be seen amongst your
own writers…’,315 a reference perhaps to the practices of Greek drama, as
suggested by Osborn,316 or to the form of the philosophical dialogue popularized
by Plato with its multiple characters. Moreover, the division of prophecy into
different types reflects the fondness for classification frequently found in the
Greek literary tradition, for example in analysis of literary styles317 or types or
oratory.318

Justin provides examples of the different characters. He describes sayings as from

the character of God the Father such as: ‘ ‘What sort of house will you build for
me?’ says the Lord. The heaven is my throne and the earth the footstool of my
feet,’319 sayings from the character of Christ, such as: ‘I stretched out my hands to
a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those walking in a way that is not
good’320 and prophecies from the character of the people answering God, one of

314
1A 36.2.
315
1A 36.2.
316
Osborn, Justin Martyr 89.
317
E.g. the four styles in Demetrius, On Style 36 trans D C Innes in Russell &
Winterbottom eds, Ancient Literary Criticism 181.
318
E.g. Quintilian, Institutio Oratorica 12.10 trans M Winterbottom in Russell &
Winterbottom eds, Ancient Literary Criticism 404-417.
319
1A 37.3-37.4.
320
1A 38.1. Such prophecies provide opportunities for Justin to show the pre-existent
Christ present and active in prophetic texts.
101
which, foretelling the plundering of the land of the Jews, concludes: ‘And with all
these things, O Lord, you were content, and you were silent, and you humbled us
exceedingly.’321

Emphasis on rationality in the interpretation of prophecy is also evident in the

discussion of fate already referred to in which Justin seeks to refute the idea that
‘…the things which happen happen through the necessity of fate.’322 A similar
interest is found when he explains paradoxical elements in prophetic texts and
shows how they can be read rationally. Thus while in straightforward cases
prophecies uttered centuries ago have been fulfilled in events which have now
occurred, such as the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem323 or the healing of the sick and
raising of the dead by Jesus,324 other ancient prophecies describe as past events
occurrences which will take place in the future, which at first sight appears
nonsensical. Justin seeks to explain the paradox, making his general point as
follows: ‘he [the prophet David] foretells as having already happened things
which are assuredly known as going to happen’325 and providing as an example a
prophecy attributed to David, which concludes by referring to the crucifixion in
the past tense: ‘let them rejoice among the nations: the Lord has reigned from the
tree.’326

Rationally explaining the paradoxical is also found when a prophecy appears to

change over time; what appears to be incredible or impossible when first uttered
appears coherent when the fulfilling event occurs and is then shown to be
explicable and true. Thus referring to the virgin birth, Justin says:

321
1A 47.3.
322
1A 43.1.
323
1A 34.1-34.2.
324
1A 48.1-48.2.
325
1A 42.2.
326
1A 41.4. Minns & Parvis, Apologies 189n2 note Skarsaune’s argument that the text is
actually a composite of Ps 96 and 1Chron 16.
102
 ‘For God disclosed beforehand through the Prophetic Spirit that
things were going to happen which were thought by people to be
incredible and impossible, so that when they did happen they
should not be disbelieved but should rather be believed because
they had been foretold.’327

Prophecy in the PfP is not, however, confined to foretelling the future. Barton’s
study of what constituted prophecy in Jewish and early Christian thought in the
period from the 3C BCE to the mid 2C CE is helpful for understanding this. He
identified four modes for reading prophecy: giving ethical instruction, providing
foreknowledge of the present day, prognostication of future events, and
revelation of mystical or theological truth.328 Thus prophecy covers a broad
spectrum and in practice is seen rather loosely to include anything uttered by
someone identified as a prophet; as Barton puts it: ‘Once a book is classified as a
‘Prophet’, then anything it contains can easily come to be thought characteristic
of ‘prophecy.’ ’329 The second and third of Barton’s modes of reading concern
foretelling the future and Justin’s use of these has already been discussed. The first
and fourth, ethical instruction and revelation of mystical or theological truth, are,
however, also in evidence in 1A.

Thus prophecies are used by Justin to provide ethical instruction. This is not
surprising, since issues of morality were of live concern in the debates of the
Greek philosophical schools in the early Empire,330 although Justin’s prophetic

327
1A 33.2.
328
J Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile
(Darton, Longman & Todd, London 1986) 154-265.
329
Barton, Oracles of God 7.
330
M Trapp, Philosophy in the Roman Empire: Ethics, Politics and Society (Ashgate,
Aldershot 2007) 1-62 & J Dillon, The Middle Platonists: a Study of Platonism 80 BC to
AD 220 (Duckworth, London 1977).
103
mode of expression is very different from that of the Greek philosophical
tradition. In the preamble to the text of Psalms 1 and 2, already discussed, Justin’s
comment explicitly shows that for him prophecies have a moral dimension; he
says that the text is one: ‘…from which it is possible for you to learn how the
Prophetic Spirit encourages human beings to live…’331 Later a saying of Moses is
described as dealing with the choice of good over evil,332 and a saying of Isaiah as
containing an exhortation to behave rightly: ‘Wash! Make yourselves clean!
Take away iniquities from your souls. Learn to do good. Judge for the orphan,
and give judgment for the widow…’333 Another text from Isaiah, which rejects
the cult of animal sacrifice and advocates right moral behaviour, reads: ‘Even if
you offer fine flour, incense, it is abomination to me. I do not want the fat of
lambs and the blood of bulls. For who demanded this of your hands? But undo
every bond of wickedness; break the knots of violent dealings, cover the homeless
and the naked and share your bread with the hungry.’334

Using prophecies to reveal, in Barton’s phrase, mystical or theological truth is also

evident in 1A. In the first instance, ancient prophecies can be significant because
they comment in a deep sense on the meaning of divinely-ordained events and
explain their significance to an audience from outside Judaism and Christianity.
While some prophecies concerning the death of Jesus forecast detailed points in
the passion narrative, such as Christ being nailed to the cross or the casting of lots
for his clothing,335 others explain its overall soteriological significance.336 The

331
1A 40.5.
332
1A 44.1. This is preceded by: ‘And the holy Prophetic Spirit taught us these things
through Moses…’
333
1A 44.3.
334
1A 37.7-37.8. This is followed by the comment: ‘So you are able to know of what
kinds are the things that are being taught through the prophets as though from God’
(37.9).
335
1A 35.5.
336
E.g. 1A 50.2; 50.8-50.10 & 51.5.
104
audience knows that Jesus was crucified, but Justin invokes a text from Isaiah to
explain the meaning of his death, part of which reads:

‘This one bears our sins and suffers for us, and we reckoned him to
be in suffering and in calamity and in distress. But he was
wounded on account of our crimes and he was made weak on
account of our sins. The discipline of peace is upon him, by his
bruises we were healed. We were all led away like sheep, a human
being was led astray in his way, and he gave him for our sins.’337

A second instance of the use of prophecy to reveal mystical or theological truth is

found in Justin’s discussion of primal creation, a subject much debated in the
Graeco-Roman philosophical tradition.338 Thus, Justin describes how the prophet
Moses gives an account of events in the distant past beginning with the creation
of the world and prefaces a quotation from Genesis 1 with the words: ‘…listen to
what was said in so many words by Moses …through whom the prophetic Spirit
revealed how God created the world in the beginning and out of what.’339 It is
only because Moses is a prophet who has a direct connection to the Prophetic
Spirit that he possesses such knowledge and is able to prophecy in this way.

Finally, in this review of links between Justin’s approach to the interpretation of

prophecies and the Graeco-Roman literary context, mention should be made of
symbolic readings.340 These had become established as one of the tools for
interpreting literary texts in the Graeco-Roman tradition, by the Stoics in
particular, and they were especially important for reading passages in Homer

337
1A 50.8-50.10.
338
For Graeco-Roman interest in creation: D Sedley, Creationism and its Critics in
Antiquity (University of California Press, Berkeley 2007).
339
1A 59.1.
340
The term symbolism is preferred to allegory here on the grounds that allegorical
interpretations requires a narrative dimension: Dawson, Allegorical Readers 3-4.
105
regarded as problematic.341 In the Greek tradition of literary criticism the
symbolic reading of a text, which was hidden, was always intended by the
author,342 and this is the approach Justin takes in the PfP; prophecies ultimately
came from God who had determined their meanings, whether these were
immediately apparent or were initially concealed and had to be subsequently
revealed. In 1A symbolic readings have already been encountered in the
discussion of blood and grape in Gen 49:11; a further example is Justin’s reading
of Isa 1:16-20: ‘And if you will it and if you heed me, you shall eat the good
things of the earth, but if you do not heed me, a sword will devour you: for the
mouth of the Lord spoke these things.’343 This text is paradoxical since a sword
cannot literally devour, so a non-literal interpretation is needed to explain it.
Justin rejects the obvious reading that ‘devour’ is a figurative way of saying ‘slain’
and contends that it is the ‘sword,’ not the ‘devour,’ which should be treated
symbolically; thus he describes how the sword represents the fire which consumes
evildoers: ‘But the aforesaid phrase, ‘a sword will devour you’, does not say that
those who do not listen will be slain by the sword, but the sword of God is fire, of
which those who choose to do evil things become food.’344

The Proof from Prophecy as dependent literature

Justin has shown how the Jewish scriptures support the PfP and explained how
the ancient texts should be read, often using methods of interpretation that will
resonate with a Graeco-Roman audience. In the process he has created within 1A
his own literary work, which is more than a collection of quotations from the

341
F Buffière, Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée greque (University of Paris, Paris 1956);
G W Most, ‘Hellenistic Allegory and Early Imperial Rhetoric’ in R Copeland & P T
Struck eds, The Cambridge Companion to Allegory (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2010) 26-38. See also Heraclitus, Homeric Problems ed & trans D A Russell
& D Konstan (SBL, Atlanta 2005) discussed further below.
342
Russell, Criticism in Antiquity 97.
343
1A 44.4.
344
1A 44.5. For Christian inheritance of the Graeco-Roman practice of reading difficult
texts symbolically (and allegorically): E Hatch, The Influence of Greek ideas on
Christianity (Harper & Row, New York 1957) 50-85.
106
writings of others; it is a text in its own right, with interpretations of quoted texts
underpinning his own arguments. Justin’s work will now be examined against
the background of contemporary literary practice. It will be shown that it does
not follow closely any single form of literature current at the time, but that it is
possible to identify similarities with a number of the types of writing then
prevalent in literary culture.

In Chapter 1 it was noted that there was increased interest in the late Hellenistic
period in the original founders of Greek philosophical schools and that renewed
attention was given to studying the actual works of these revered ancient authors.
One consequence was the production of dependent literature related to those
ancient works: that is, literature that depends for its existence on the text or texts
to which it relates. The PfP can be described as a dependent text since it depends
on the prophecies it cites and interprets, and its arguments could not stand on
their own without those prophetic texts. Dependent literature could take several
forms at the time -- handbooks, commentaries and treatises -- and Justin’s work
has characteristics in common with each of these.

A handbook summarises the ideas attaching to a philosophical position. It may

simplify, or attempt to systematize, ideas to make them more comprehensible, but
its intention is essentially to enable its audience, typically in an educational
context, to understand the doctrines concerned. A surviving example, broadly

107
contemporary with Justin, is the Handbook of Platonism by Alcinous,345 which
summarises Platonic philosophy, quite briefly but systematically, under a series of
standard headings: logic, physics and ethics. Like Justin’s PfP it seeks to explain to
its audience the ideas of an ancient and revered tradition, but the similarity largely
ends there. The Handbook does not quote extensively from Plato’s original
works -- although some short extracts are included346 -- but rather summarises
Platonic arguments. It is thus some distance from Plato’s actual words,347 by
contrast with Justin’s work which makes extensive use of verbatim quotations
from the Books of the Prophecies. The Handbook expounds ideas, but unlike
Justin the author does not use quotations from Plato as a basis for mounting his
own arguments.

A commentary supports the work to which it relates and will typically progress
through the original text, quoting from it and clarifying what it means.
Hellenistic philosophy spawned many commentaries, especially on the works of
Plato and Aristotle;348 indeed, the commentary form underwent a revival from the

345
Editions of the text with, respectively, German and French translations: O F
Summerell and T Zimmer eds, Alkinoos, Didaskalikos Lehrbuch der Grundsätze Platons:
Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen (De Gruyter, Berlin 2007) &
Alcinoos, Enseignement des doctrines de Platon, Introduction, texte établi et commenté
by J Whittaker, trans P Louis (Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1990). An English translation is
Alcinous, The Handbook of Platonism trans with Introduction & Commentary by J
Dillon (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1993). Authorship of the text is uncertain: attribution
to Albinus, a 2C CE Middle Platonist, which used to be current among scholars
(following Freudenthal), is now largely rejected. The work is still thought to date from
the 2C CE (Whittaker in his edition places it at around 150 CE), although this remains
uncertain.
346
E.g. Alcinous, Handbook of Platonism Chapter 28 includes brief quotations from the
Theaetetus, the Republic, the Phaedo, the Laws and the Phaedrus.
347
Dillon in his Introduction suggests that Alcinous is actually seeking ‘to avoid direct
quotation’ [original italics] Alcinous, Handbook of Platonism xxx.
348
M Tuominen, The Ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle (Acumen,
Stocksfield 2009). Platonic texts are discussed in Dillon, Middle Platonists. Stoic and
Epicurean texts did not attract commentaries in the same way: H G Snyder, Teachers and
texts 14-121.
108
late 1C BCE.349 Few examples survive from before Late Antiquity,350 however;
one which does is the Anonymous Commentary (AC) on Plato’s In
Theaetetum,351 thought to date from the late 1C CE.352 There are similarities
between the PfP and AC, although it would be misleading to press the parallels
too far; the PfP is not simply a commentary on the Books of the Prophecies. The
structure of AC consists typically of a lemma from Plato’s text -- sometimes quite
long -- followed by paraphrase and then exegesis, although the transition from
paraphrase to exegesis may not be clearly marked.353 Exegesis can cover a number
of issues: first, clarifying obscure points, particularly linguistic ones, second,
highlighting points which support the commentator’s interpretation of the text or
refute the interpretations of others, third, pointing up a difficulty in
understanding Plato’s text and offering a solution, fourth, introducing
qualifications and finally, doxographic material.354 Critical views of the quality of
AC vary considerably. Dillon’s verdict is that it ‘…in general maintains a level of
stupefying banality’;355 its modern editors, Bastianini and Sedley, while
recognising an uneven quality, nevertheless comment that ‘…al suo meglio può
essere straordinariamente sottile.’356

Like the author of AC, Justin pays close attention to the precise wording of the
ancient text, although without considering the sort of detailed linguistic points
which sometimes preoccupy AC. He shares AC’s view that ancient texts require

349
D Sedley, ‘Plato’s Auctoritas and the rebirth of the commentary tradition’ in J Barnes
& M Griffin eds, Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome (Clarendon Press,
Oxford 1997) 110-129.
350
Tuominen, Ancient commentators 18-27.
351
In Theaetetum eds G Bastianini & D Sedley in F Adorno et al eds, Corpus dei Papiri
Filosofici Greci e Latini (CPF): Testi e Lessico nei Papiri di Cultura Greci e Latina, Parte
III: Comentari (Olschki, Florence 1995) 227-562. For the provenance of the text: 235-
236.
352
AC 254-256.
353
AC 257.
354
AC 257-259.
355
Dillon, Middle Platonists 270.
356
AC 260.
109
interpretation to be properly understood, that text and interpretation go together,
and that although different readings may be canvassed, one is to be preferred.
The PfP differs significantly from AC, however, in that the latter is concerned
almost exclusively with clarifying the text and expounding its meaning. The
Theaetetus is not used in AC as a basis for mounting an argument separate from
Plato’s text, as Justin seeks to do in the PfP.

It was also possible for a commentary to have its own theme. Such a text could
exhibit similarities with the PfP, although these are likely to be outweighed by the
differences. An example is the Allegoriae Homericae (AH) of Heraclitus,357 dated
(speculatively) to the end of the 1C or the beginning of the 2C CE;358 this work
has the definite apologetic objective of showing how apparent difficulties in
Homer’s text can be satisfactorily explained, their meaning properly understood
and the reputation of the texts thereby preserved. Rather than progressing
through the text and commenting on points requiring interpretation, however,
AH adopts a different methodology better suited to its aims. First, passages are
selected for comment, on the grounds that they are problematic because Homer
appears to be speaking of the gods in an impious or blasphemous way and second,
a single method of interpretation, the allegorical, is used to show how they can be
satisfactorily explained.359 Making selective use of extracts from chosen texts and
interpreting them in ways which support its own argument gives AH affinities
with Justin, but in another sense its approach is the reverse of his. For while
Justin starts with the case he wants to make and then draws on ancient texts for
support, AH starts with ancient texts and makes an argument that is essentially
one of justification: that apparent problems in the texts can be resolved by finding
the right way of reading them. AH is therefore unlike the PfP in that it does not

357
Heraclitus, Homeric Problems.
358
AH xi-xiii.
359
Buffière distinguishes three types of allegorical exegesis in the text, physical, moral and
historical: Héraclite, Allégories d’Homère ed & trans F Buffière (Les Belles Lettres, Paris
1962) xxi-xxvi.
110
advance an argument of its own separate from the arguments in the texts being
discussed.

The final form to consider is the philosophical treatise, although again similarities
with the PfP tend to be outweighed by differences. Typically a treatise addresses
an issue or an area of philosophy, presenting an argument which is the author’s
own; when, however, it draws heavily on an earlier philosophical source --
commonly a work by the founder of a philosophical school -- then it can be
described as a dependent text. Survival of such texts from before Late Antiquity is
rare, but one example, De Fato by Alexander of Aphrodisias, dates from about half
a century after Justin.360 In simple terms, Alexander’s account of Fate argues for a
non-deterministic Aristotelian view and against the determinism characteristic of
Stoicism. Chapters 2 to 6 explain Aristotle’s position; Chapters 7 to 38 then refute
the Stoic position. Alexander draws heavily on Aristotle, although he uses his
own words rather than quotations, and since there is no Aristotelian text dealing
specifically with Fate, evidence is drawn from a number of Aristotle’s works.361
At the outset and again in the conclusion, Alexander describes his De Fato as an
account of the opinions of Aristotle on the subject, showing that he considers he
is expounding the ideas of one thinker.362

Justin’s work has some affinities with such a treatise, since he is making an
argument on a theme of his choice and drawing heavily on earlier authors.

It is dedicated to the Emperors Septimius Severus and Caracalla: Sharples, Alexander

360

on Fate Introduction 15. The Introduction (3-32) provides useful background and
discussion of the issues dealt with in the text. References to the text are to page and line
numbers in Sharples’ edition.
361
Sharples, Alexander on Fate Introduction 23 describes the text as ‘an attempt to
formulate, on the basis of Aristotle’s writings, an opinion on a question which he had not
himself considered.’ According to a recent modern commentator, Frede, Free Will 19-
30, Aristotle did not actually have a doctrine of free will.
362
Alexander says that his book ‘contains the opinion concerning fate and responsibility
held by Aristotle, of whose philosophical teaching I am the principal exponent’: Sharples,
Alexander on Fate, 41 15-17.
111
Moreover, he expounds and explains the thought of those ancient writers whose
works he believes reveal divine truths. He builds his argument out of quotations
from the prophetic texts, however, which Alexander does not, although he clearly
has access to Aristotle’s works. The interplay between text and interpretation and
the integration of quotations into argument that are hallmarks of Justin’s method,
and which lead him into close discussion of particular words and phrases, is
completely absent from Alexander’s treatise.363

A closer fit can be found between Justin’s work and the treatises of Galen.364 The
latter was Justin’s younger contemporary who originated from Asia Minor and
came to Rome towards the end of Justin’s life.365 He became a celebrated author
of treatises in both medicine and philosophy,366 which he regarded as closely-
related fields.367 There is no suggestion that Galen and Justin knew each other or
directly influenced each other’s work. Like Justin, Galen engaged in debates in
which he advanced his own views and attacked the positions of others;368 he also
drew heavily on the work of ancient thinkers, the title of one of his own works,
On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato,369 identifying his two strongest
influences. An examination of Galen’s On the Elements according to

363
Alexander also wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s works, such as the Prior Analytics
and the Metaphysics, which adhere closely to the text, so he was familiar with that
literary form: BNP article on Alexander of Aphrodisias by R Sharples.
364
The starting point for this section is the recent article by Snyder (already cited)
comparing the methods of Justin and Galen: Snyder, ‘Classroom in the Text.’
365
Galen was born in Pergamum in 129 CE and lived probably into the 3C. He first
came to Rome in the early 160s: Hankinson, ‘The man and his work.’
366
Hankinson, ‘The man and his work.’
367
One of his works was entitled The Best Doctor is also a Philosopher: G E R Lloyd,
‘Galen and his Contemporaries’ in Hankinson, Cambridge Companion to Galen 34-48,
42-43.
368
Notably in his discussion of the different medical sects known as Dogmatists,
Empiricists and Methodists: Lloyd, ‘Galen and his Contemporaries’ 41-42.
369
Galen, On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato ed & trans P de Lacy 3 parts
(Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1978-1984).
112
Hippocrates,370 will reveal parallels with the work of Justin in a number of
respects: in the use of quotations from authoritative texts and in concern for their
correct interpretation, in the location of authority in antiquity and in the
significance of proof. Significant differences between the two writers are,
however, also apparent.

On the Elements argues for the existence of four elements, earth, air, fire and
water (and also four qualities and four humours) and puts forward doctrines
which originated with Hippocrates.371 Galen makes his own arguments but draws
support from Hippocrates, with some thirty quotations from the latter’s De
Natura Hominis372 being identified by the modern editor of On the Elements in
what is a relatively short Greek text.373 The passages from Hippocrates are short
and are woven into Galen’s arguments.

As was the case with Justin’s prophecies, it is not sufficient for Galen simply to
quote from Hippocrates, since the texts cited do not speak for themselves. He
needs to interpret what Hippocrates says so that his words will be understood
correctly. On the Elements is polemical and much of it is devoted to refuting the
ideas of thinkers with whom Galen disagrees.374 One significant area of
disagreement concerns the way in which Hippocrates should be interpreted, with

370
Galen, On the Elements according to Hippocrates ed & trans P de Lacy (Akademie-
Verlag, Berlin 1996).
371
The author regards the addition of the phrase ‘according to Hippocrates’ to the title as
important: Galen, Elements 9.30.
372
Galen, Elements Introduction 50.
373
In de Lacy’s edition the Greek text covers just over fifty pages, with each page
typically between half and two-thirds occupied by text.
374
Galen, Elements Introduction 45 lists the thinkers with whom Galen takes issue; in
Chapters 6-9, for instance, which discusses the four qualities, Galen’s main protagonist
was Athenaeus, who held that the four qualities were in fact elements.
113
Galen criticizing his opponents for incorrectly understanding Hippocrates.375 In
Chapter 3, for instance, he contends, at a very detailed level, that the term
ΕΝΕΟΝ should not be read as one word with a smooth breathing (meaning
‘being in’) ‘as most followers of Hippocrates have done’, but as two words ΕΝ
ΕΟΝ with a rough breathing (meaning ‘being one’).376 In Chapter 7 he attacks
the position of ‘…those who do not understand Hippocrates correctly…’377 and in
Chapter 8, arguing that Hippocrates uses the terms hot, cold, wet and dry to refer
to elements and not to qualities, says that: ‘…the majority of those who call
themselves Hippocrateans overlook this, and in addition they think that by wet,
dry, hot, and cold he refers to something else, not to the common elements of all
things.’378

Questions must arise as to why Galen cites Hippocrates and the nature of the
authority he considers Hippocrates to have. There are no equivalents of the
Septuagint Legend or of Justin’s Prophetic Spirit to explain the special status of De
Natura Hominis or its author. Indeed, very little is said about Hippocrates at all;
Galen refers to him without explanation, no doubt because he expects his
audience to know who he was. In two respects, however, Galen’s references to
Hippocrates suggest something about his perception of his authority, both of
which betray affinities with Justin.

The first is that Galen refers to Hippocrates’ antiquity, and more specifically to the
fact that he was the first to advance the doctrine of the four elements. In Chapter

375
Some modern scholars criticize Galen for his misrepresentation of Hippocrates’ ideas,
e.g. G E R Lloyd, ‘Scholarship, Authority and Argument in Galen’s Quod Animi Mores’
in P Manuli and M Vegetti eds, Le opera psichologiche di Galeno (Bibliopolis, Naples
1988) 11-42, 30-31.
376
Galen, Elements 3.50.
377
Galen, Elements 7.12; again, at 5.14 he says: ‘It appears, then, that Aristotle and
Hippocrates have ordered their arguments in the same way but that the commentators do
not understand them.’
378
Galen, Elements 8.8.
114
5 of On the Elements Galen says that not only did Hippocrates ‘lead the way by
affirming in his book ‘On the Nature of Man’ that they [earth, fire, air and water]
are the elements of all things in the cosmos, but he was also the first to define the
qualities that they [the elements] have by virtue of which they can mutually act
and be acted upon.’379 In Chapter 9 he refers to ‘…Hippocrates as one who
employed the ancient brevity of expression…’ [italics added]380 and a little later
speaks of him as: ‘…the very first to have discovered the elements of the nature of
existing things and the first to have given an adequate proof.’381 Being ancient
and being the first are important attributes.

The second point which is striking in Galen’s references to Hippocrates is that he

uses the term proof, as has already been seen in the last quotation. In Chapter 2,
having quoted Hippocrates, Galen comments that: ‘He seems to me to give most
excellently and at the same time in the fewest possible words the essential point of
his proof that the element cannot be one in form and power’382 and in Chapter 3
he says that: ‘The speed with which the men of former times expressed their
thoughts is admirable. Hippocrates in the fewest possible words indicated all
these things and provided a valid proof [using ἀπόδειξις] that the element is not
one.’383 That Galen attached importance to logical proof generally has already
been noted, so it not surprising that for him it is one of the significant features of
the arguments in Hippocrates’ De Natura Hominis.384

As well as these similarities, however, comparison between Justin and Galen also
reveals some significant differences of approach. There is no sense in Galen that

379
Galen, Elements 5.32.
380
Galen, Elements 9.11.
381
Galen, Elements 9.25.
382
Galen, Elements 2.4.
383
Galen, Elements 3.30.
384
A comparison between Galen and Justin’s uses of the term ‘proof’ would be valuable,
but cannot be pursued here.
115
the authoritative texts are prophetic, or that they are enigmatic or ambiguous,
even though he contends that other commentators have misinterpreted them.
Galen draws on a text which is clearly part of the received literary heritage,385 but
for him its value is primarily that Hippocrates advances arguments which are
correct and that he can demonstrate their accuracy and logicality.386 For Justin
the prophecies were authoritative because they were the accurate words of
ancient prophets inspired by the Prophetic Spirit. Logical proof was not a quality
Justin found in the authoritative texts themselves; it was, however, a quality he
prized and that he considered he himself had brought to bear in the way that he
explained the prophecies, and particularly in the way he had shown the ancient
prophecies to have been fulfilled. Galen writes as a philosopher seeking out
correct arguments through the use of logical reasoning and finds that very often
the arguments of Hippocrates are persuasive.387 Justin’s writings, by contrast,
ultimately depend on divine revelation, firstly through the prophecies revealed by
the Prophetic Spirit and subsequently through demonstration that those
prophecies have now been fulfilled through God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

Justin’s text therefore does not fit very closely with any of the models of
dependent literature current in the early Imperial period, although it has some
features in common with each of those examined here. It has greater affinity with
Galen’s treatise, On the Elements, than with any of the others, since both Galen
and Justin keep closely to the words of their authoritative texts, quote them
frequently and exactly, and use them as a basis for their own arguments. Perhaps
the most critical difference between the PfP and the other types of dependent
literature is that all the others deal with texts which were already established
classics of revered authors. The audience would either have had prior

For the high regard in which Hippocrates was held: O Temkin, Hippocrates in a
385

World of Pagans and Christians (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1991) 49-75.
386
Snyder, ‘Classroom in the Text’ 678-680.
387
Snyder, ‘Classroom in the Text’ 680.

116
acquaintance with the texts, or at least would have known them by reputation
and recognized their authority. Justin by contrast quotes from and interprets texts
with which his audience will be unfamiliar, and with which he knows they will
be unfamiliar. So he has the significant additional tasks of acquainting his
audience with the texts and of demonstrating why they should regard them as
authoritative.

Conclusion

Justin shows that it is possible to use the Jewish scriptures as evidence in

apologetic arguments directed towards a non-Jewish Graeco-Roman audience.
He does so even though the texts are unfamiliar to the audience and he has to
explain their provenance, the basis of their authority and how they should be
interpreted. The requirements of his argument lead Justin to select particular texts
and to interpret them in particular ways, and his presentation of the Jewish
scriptures as essentially prophetic in nature links his argument to strains of
prophetic thought already familiar to a Graeco-Roman audience from their own
traditions.

Perhaps Justin could have based his argument for the status of Jesus on recent
works of Christian literature rather than ancient prophetic texts. In 1A 15-17 he
draws on teachings of Jesus which modern scholars recognize as from the
Synoptic tradition, but does not describe them as derived from textual sources.
The same applies when a reference is made -- recognizably from the Synoptic
tradition -- to the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14;
the textual source is not specified.388 In 1A authoritative texts are ancient and are
inspired by the Prophetic Spirit; recent Christian writings lack those
characteristics.

388
1A 33.5: references to Luke 1:31-32 & Matthew 1:20-21.
117
Justin positions himself partly within and partly outside the prevailing culture of
his time. He employs a number of literary strategies that the Graeco-Roman
tradition applied to ancient texts of high status and his own work betrays
similarities to some of the forms of writing prevalent at the time. There are,
however, limits to his use of these strategies since they are adapted to meet his
apologetic interest in advancing his case for Christianity. Although asked to
accept the texts he is promoting as authoritative, Justin’s audience is not invited to
treat them as part of the Graeco-Roman literary tradition; Justin always maintains
clear water between the Books of the Prophecies and the mainstream Graeco-
Roman literary corpus. Moreover, he does not compromise on his presentation of
these sacred texts of Christianity in order that they should be seen as compatible
with the traditions of Graeco-Roman culture; indeed, if his audience accepts what
he says, they must necessarily reject their own tradition of mythological religion.

One of the most significant features of the way Justin’s argument draws on
Graeco-Roman traditions, is the emphasis he places on rationality, for he asserts
that his argument from prophecy is rational and, indeed, that it is a proof. His
claims could, however, also be described as the result of revelation, first on the
part of the Prophetic Spirit in giving out the prophecies and second through the
divinely-ordained events of the life of Jesus and the growth of Christianity which
fulfill them. If Justin’s audience is to accept his arguments it will need to
recognize that matching ancient prophecies with their recent fulfillments
demonstrates both that the original prophecies are ultimately from God and that
the fulfilling events are part of divine purpose. Further, it must acknowledge that
this is a rational stance to take. The audience would also have to assent to
something that was not part of the tradition of Graeco-Roman literary culture:
that ancient prophecies can be drawn on as evidence in support of a rational
argument.

118
In the circumstances of a dialogue with a Graeco-Roman audience Justin takes a
distinctive stance towards the Jews. Although they are important because the
Books of the Prophecies originated with them, the Jews have now been defeated
and humiliated by the Romans, and Justin does not express either criticism or
regret at this. The key point for him is that the Jews (or most of them)
misinterpreted the ancient prophecies they preserved and consequently rejected
Jesus Christ; this will lead to their condemnation at the last judgment, as was also
foretold in those same prophecies.

Justin’s arguments lead him to adopt a particular approach to reading the

scriptures. They are treated as a collection of texts with a single overall message,
but it is not an obvious one and the texts must be broken down to locate the
individual messages concealed in particular passages. These messages are then
amalgamated together to create a coherent argument out of the pieces, and it is
this argument which is presented by Justin as the truth to be discerned from the
Books of the Prophecies.

119
Chapter 3: Tatian’s Oratio and the Barbarian Writings

The Oratio ad Graecos is Tatian’s only surviving work.1 It is a problematic text,

couched in the form of a classical oration, and in style and presentation very much
a product of the Graeco-Roman milieu; at the same time, it is an apologetic work
rooted in the Jewish traditions from which Christianity emerged and fiercely
critical of Graeco-Roman culture.

On first examination the Oratio appears to make very little use of the Jewish
scriptures. For Tatian, as for Justin, the scriptures are, however, critically
important, although in somewhat different ways; to Justin the scriptures are
essentially prophetic texts, while for Tatian they are a source of philosophical
ideas; Justin quotes extensively from the scriptures, Tatian hardly at all.

Background

Very limited information is available about the Tatian’s life -- much of it

deriving from the Oratio itself -- and his biography can only be sketched in

1
Referred to hereafter as Oratio. References to the text are to chapter and paragraph
numbers in Tatiani Oratio ad Graecos ed M Marcovich (De Gruyter, Berlin 1995).
Translations are from Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos and fragments ed M Whittaker
(Clarendon Press, Oxford 1982), adapted where appropriate. Other modern editions
consulted: Tatianos Oratio ad Graecos Rede an die Griechen ed J Trelenberg (Mohr
Siebeck, Tübingen 2012) & Gegen falsche Götter und falsche Bildung: Tatian, Rede an
die Griechen ed H-G Nesselrath (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016). There is no Sources
Chrétiennes edition.
120
outline.2 His birth is dated by scholars to around the 120s CE. He says in the
Oratio that he was ‘born in the land of the Assyrians’3 -- thought by scholars to be
a reference to Syria4 -- and that he received a Greek education. At some stage he
moved to Rome. He was converted to Christianity and became acquainted with
certain texts,5 encountering, and being influenced by, Justin.6 Tatian represents
his conversion to Christianity as the desertion of Greek culture in favour of
barbarian, saying (to Greeks) that ‘…we abandoned your wisdom even though I
myself was very distinguished in it’7 and also that ‘… having said farewell to
Roman arrogance, Athenian cold cleverness and the unintelligible dogmas of the
Greeks, I sought out the philosophy which according to you is barbarous.’8

He became a Christian teacher and subsequently moved from Rome back to the
eastern Mediterranean, where he disappears from view. He compiled a
harmonization of the gospels, the Diatessaron, which exerted considerable
influence over several centuries, although only fragments survive in its original
form.9 He acquired a reputation for heretical views from an early stage, as

2
For Tatian’s biography: Whittaker, Oratio ix-x; Trelenberg, Oratio 1-8; M Elze, Tatian
und seine Theologie (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1960) 16-19 & W L
Petersen, ‘Tatian the Assyrian’ in A Marjanen & P Luomanen eds, A Companion to
Second-century ‘‘Heretics’’ (Brill, Leiden 2005) 125-158, 129-134. As Nesselrath, Gegen
falsche Götter 5 aptly puts it: ‘Über Tatians Leben ist nur wenig bekannt und dieses
Wenige auch nicht sicher.’
3
Oratio 42.1.
4
F Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BC – AD 337 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Mass 1993) 227 & Grant, Greek Apologists 115.
5
Oratio 29.2.
6
He is twice named in the Oratio at 18.6 & 19.2.
7
Oratio 1.5.
8
Oratio 35.2. The translation here follows Marcovich’s emendation of the text to add
καὶ τοῖς Ἑλλήνων before δόγμασιν and Whittaker’s καθ ̓ὑμᾶς (which follows the most
reliable manuscripts and is supported by Trelenberg and Nesselrath) over the conjectural
emendation to καθ ̓ἡμα̃ς (favoured by Marcovich).
9
W L Petersen, Tatian’s ‘Diatessaron’: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and
History in Scholarship (Brill, Leiden 1994).
121
Irenaeus records,10 but his Oratio at least was copied and preserved by Christians
and in the early 4C Eusebius refers to it with approval.11 The oldest surviving
manuscripts (apographs of a lost 10C CE original) date from the early 11C CE so,
while somewhat older than the earliest manuscript of Justin’s Apologia Maior,
they were still only produced many centuries after its original composition.12

Issues concerning the Oratio’s structure and contents have prompted considerable
discussion among commentators. Of the recent editors, Whittaker comments
that ‘…it is difficult to trace an ordered scheme’13 and Marcovich that the
structure of the Oratio ‘…is rather loose and ill-organised.’14 The analyses of the
contents of the text which these two editors provide list the topics covered,
without identifying any very clear progression, although they each group the
chapters in very similar ways.15 Trelenberg by contrast presents the text as having
a clear and coherent structure; he identifies an Introduction (Chapters 1-4), and a
Conclusion (Chapter 42), framing the two main sections whose themes are ‘Die
Grundlehren des christlichen Glaubens’ (Chapters 5-20) and ‘Der Vergleich von
Christen- und Heidentum’ (Chapters 21-41), each of them neatly divided into
four sub-sections.16 Nesselrath adopts a position somewhere between Whittaker
and Marcovich on the one hand and Trelenberg on the other;17 his description of
the structure has the Introduction (Chapters 1-4) and Epilogue (Chapter 42), in
between which are two main sections (although in his case the split is between

10
Iréenée, Contre les hérésies Livre 1 2 Volumes ed A Rousseau & L Doutreleau (Éditions
du Cerf, Paris 1979) 1 28.1.
11
Eusebius, HE 4.29.
12
Marcovich, Oratio 3-4.
13
Whittaker, Oratio xx.
14
Marcovich, Oratio 5.
15
Whittaker, Oratio xviii-xx & Marcovich, Oratio 5-6.
16
Trelenberg, Oratio 28-29. The sub-divisions of the first section are: Schöpfung und
Eschatologie, Dämonologie, Psychologie and Anthropologie, those of the second are:
Die Minderwertigkeit der heidnischen Kultur, Die Fragwürdigkeit des heidnischen
Schulbetriebs, Die heidnische und die christliche Ethik and Der Altersbeweis.
17
Nesselrath, Gegen falsche Götter 11-14.
122
Chapters 5-30 and 31-41). In Nesselrath’s view Tatian presents the contents of
the Oratio more arbitrarily, the arrangement lacking the neatness of what he
describes as Trelenberg’s ‘schöne Struktur.’18

For the present study it is not critical which of these approaches has the most
validity since it is the contents of the text which are the primary focus rather than
its structure. The Oratio contains two types of material: sections criticizing
Greek culture -- such as Chapters 1-3, 8-11, 16-19 and 21-28 -- where a hostile
and vituperative tone is frequently adopted, and passages in which Christian ideas
are presented -- such as Chapters 4-7, 12-15, 20, 29-30 and 36-41-- that are more
measured in tone. It is these latter passages, addressing a range of issues Tatian
clearly regards as significant in debates between Christians and non-Christians,
which will necessarily be the main concern here.

Considerable uncertainties surround the date and location of composition of the

Oratio -- greater than in the case of 1A -- and they remain essentially unresolved.
It is not therefore possible to establish the particular circumstances which
prompted Tatian to write it. Various proposals regarding the original location
and date of the text have been put forward, but none has come to command
general assent.19 For location, Rome, Greece and Antioch have all been
suggested.20 Proposals for dating range from the early 150s by Harnack21 to the

18
Nesselrath, Gegen falsche Götter 11.
19
For a recent summary of the main contributions to this debate: Trelenberg, Oratio 8-
15.
20
‘Probably’ Rome by Whittaker and Greece by Harnack (Whittaker, Oratio x), prepared
for delivery in Athens by Grant, Greek Apologists 117-118, and Antioch by J Lössl, ‘Date
and Location of Tatian’s Ad Graecos: Some Old and New Thoughts’ in eds M Vinzent &
A Brent SP 74 (Peeters, Leuven 2016) 43-55.
21
Trelenberg, Oratio 9.
123
late 170s by Grant.22 Some scholars, such as Barnard and Hunt,23 date the Oratio
before Justin’s death in about 165 CE, while Marcovich argues that it was written
after that date, on the basis that Tatian’s references to Justin indicate that he was
already dead.24 Dating issues are complicated by suggestions that the text may not
all have been written at the same time; Karadimas argues that three pre-existing
speeches were incorporated into the Oratio,25 while Osborne divides the text into
two parts, one prepared for oral delivery and the other not.26 Such complications
render datings dependent on a single reference in the text, such as those of
Harnack and Hunt,27 problematic. Two of the most recent contributors to the
debate, Trelenberg and Lössl, favour a date after 172 for the finalization of the
work, with Trelenberg referring to what he calls the unmistakable ‘Portfolio-
Charakter’ of the text,28 and Lössl (who favours Antioch for location) suggesting
that certain sections, ‘pre-Antiochene’ in character, had been written earlier.29
The text presents itself as a dialogue between the author and his audience, with
first and second persons used extensively.30 The arguments in the text are clearly

22
R M Grant, ‘The Date of Tatian’s Oration’ HTR 46 (1953) 99-101. G W Clarke, ‘The
Date of the Oration of Tatian’ HTR 60 (1967) 123-126 successfully demolishes Grant’s
arguments.
23
L W Barnard, ‘The Heresy of Tatian—once again’ JEH 19 (1968) 1-10 & E J Hunt,
Christianity in the Second Century: the Case of Tatian (Routledge, London 2003) 3.
24
Marcovich, Oratio 1-3. Edwards’ suggestion that the composition of the Oratio was
actually prompted by the death of Justin lacks convincing support: Edwards, ‘Apologetics’
553.
25
D Karadimas, Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos: Rhetoric and Philosophy / Theology
(Almquist & Wiksell International, Stockholm 2003): the speeches occupy Chapters 8-11,
32-35 and 22-30.
26
A E Osborne, ‘Tatian’s Discourse to the Greeks: a Literary Analysis and Essay in
Interpretation’ (University of Cincinnati PhD 1969) 4-28; Chapters 1-30 & 42 comprise
the first part and Chapters 31-41 the second.
27
A Harnack, Die Überlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts
in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter 2 volumes (Hinrichs, Leipzig 1882) 1 196-198
relies on the reference to Peregrinus Proteus in 25.1 & Hunt, Christianity in the Second
Century 3 on the reference to Justin in 19.2.
28
Trelenberg, Oratio 15 & 230-240.
29
Lössl, ‘Date and Location’ 52.
30
E.g. Chapter 1 is written largely in the second person plural and Chapter 11 largely in
the first person singular.
124
relevant to interactions between Christians and non-Christians and appear to be
part of an on-going debate in which the audience, which has some prior
acquaintance with Christianity, is hostile to the author. There are allusions to
earlier exchanges between Tatian and his audience, real or imagined;31 the text
imputes views to them,32 attributes to them opinions about the author33 and
reports (or puts into their mouths) criticisms of Christian beliefs and practices.34
The debate is a binary one in which Christianity is presented favourably, while
Greek ideas and Greek culture are heavily criticized and, indeed, ridiculed.

Tatian, like Justin, was a Greek-educated convert to Christianity and the contents
of the Oratio are concerned with debates between Christians and Greek-educated
non-Christians, of which he himself had previously been one. The audience is
described as ‘men of Greece’35 and the number of allusions to Greek literature36
suggests that Tatian is targeting, and seeking to impress, an audience from the
educational elite, the πεπαιδευμένοι.37 Author and audience are presented as
sharing a common Greek educational background38 and Tatian includes

31
E.g. 21.1: ‘You who abuse us should compare your myths with our narratives.’
32
E.g. 26.1: ‘Stop leading foreign words in triumph…’; 26.2: ‘You ask who God is’ &
26.3: ‘…Tell me, why do you divide up time…?’
33
E.g. 35.3: ‘Tatian … is innovating with his barbarian doctrines…’
34
For views e.g. 6.3 & 33.1 (talking nonsense) and for practices e.g. 25.5 (cannibalism).
35
Oratio 1.1: the phrase is repeated later e.g. 12.6; 13.1 & 21.1.
36
Whittaker, Oratio 87 lists classical quotations from twenty-six authors (excluding
Justin), five of whom she says are not named by Tatian. Marcovich, Oratio 84 lists
twenty-five authors (excluding Justin); there are, however, only seventeen names
common to the two lists. Other references to classical authors do not involve quotations:
e.g. in Chapters 2 & 3 where Tatian attacks philosophers he mentions Diogenes,
Aristippus, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Zeno, Empedocles, Pherecydes, Pythagoras and
Crates, albeit only briefly in each case. See N Zeegers-Vander Vorst, Les Citations des
poètes grecs chez les apologistes Chrétiens du IIe siècle (Université de Louvain, Louvain
1972) 302-303 for Tatian’s Homeric quotations.
37
The word appears at 25.5: see J E Fojtik, ‘Tatian the Barbarian: Language, Education
and Identity in the Oratio ad Graecos’ in J Ulrich, A-C Jacobsen & M Kahlos eds,
Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics (Peter Lang, Frankfurt am
Main 2009) 23-34.
38
M Whittaker, ‘Tatian’s Educational Background’ in ed E A Livingstone SP 13/2
(Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1975) 57-59.
125
references to the Greek literary tradition without explanation, on the basis that his
audience will recognize them.

The style of presentation is that of a text composed for oral delivery. Some
commentators have taken this at face value, treating it as a real speech actually
delivered,39 while others are sceptical about this.40 Some of the same issues arise
with Tatian’s Oratio as with Justin’s Apologia Maior. The audience at which the
text was directed could be located in a number of places, one possibility being that
the external audience suggested by the text’s presentation was the actual
audience,41 and another that the audience was wholly internal to Christianity.42
As with Justin, however, it may be too simple to treat the Oratio as focused on
either an internal or an external audience, since audiences for the text could also
have been located on the margins of Christianity, comprising new or prospective
converts, or could have been both internal and external. The text could record
the terms of a debate or debates that actually took place, or it could be an
imaginative presentation by a Christian writer of issues and arguments he
considers likely to arise in debates with non-Christians, but still in reality aimed at
an internal audience.

One suggestion canvassed in the scholarly literature, which has much to

commend it, is that the Oratio should be regarded as a protrepticus, part of a

39
E.g. R C Kukula, Tatians sogenannte Apologie: Exegetisch-Chronologische Studie
(Teubner, Leipzig 1900) 15-16 & A Puech, Recherches sur le Discours aux Grecs de
Tatien (F Alcan, Paris 1903) 5.
40
E.g. Young, ‘Greek Apologists’ 85: ‘...the artificiality of such a generalised address is
evident—this can never have been literally an oration to a specific audience.’
41
The suggestion of Droge, Homer or Moses? 97-101 that Tatian may have written in
response to Celsus’ Alethes Logos is, like the argument referred to in Chapter 2 that
Celsus wrote in response to Justin, based on similarities of argument rather than close
textual connections and remains speculative at best.
42
E.g. Nesselrath, Gegen falsche Götter 19.
126
textual tradition going back to the early Greeks,43 and associated particularly with
Aristotle.44 Such a text aimed to encourage students to undertake philosophical
instruction with a particular teacher, but without spelling out his teachings in
detail. Reading the text as a logos protrepticus -- recently described as
amounting to a scholarly consensus45 -- was proposed by Puech,46 and supported
by Grant, who describes the sections expounding Christian ideas as ‘…properly a
‘‘protreptic’’ inviting the reader to follow Tatian and become a convert.’ 47 A
recent and powerful advocate of such an interpretation is McGehee.48 He points
out that a protreptic reading helps to explain some notable features of the text: its
vituperative style, its ridicule of other philosophies, random references to
unexplored ideas -- to be followed up in later instruction -- and the offer to
answer questions.49 Tatian’s aim is therefore to capture readers’ interest in his
ideas and to offer them the prospect of further instruction at a later stage: ‘…if
you wish to examine our teachings I will give you an easily understood and full

43
For the origins of protreptic: J H Collins II, Exhortations to Philosophy, the Protreptics
of Plato, Isocrates and Aristotle (Oxford University Press, New York 2015).
44
Aristotle’s Protrepticus survives only in fragments: Aristotle, Protrepticus: An Attempt
at Reconstruction by I Düring (Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg 1961). For
its influence in antiquity: W Jaeger, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his
Development Second ed trans R Robinson (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1948) 60-79
& for influence on Christian writers: G Lazzati, L’Aristotle perduto e gli scrittori cristiani
(Società Editrice, Milano 1938). For protreptic texts in epistolary form (Christian and
non-Christian): S K Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Westminster
Press, Philadelphia 1986) 112-125.
45
‘…ein gewisser Konsensus hat sich entwickelt, nach dem sie ein Logos Protreptikos
ist…’: J Lössl, ‘Zwischen Christologie und Rhetorik: zum Ausdruck ‘Kraft des
Wortes ͗(λόγου δύναμις) in Tatians ‘Rede an die Griechen’ ’ in F R Prostmeier & H E
Lona eds, Logos der Vernunft—Logos des Glaubens (De Gruyter, Berlin 2010) 129-147,
130.
46
A Puech, Les apologistes grecs du IIe siècle de notre ère (Libraire Hachette, Paris 1912)
153-154 & 169-170 (which links the protreptic quality of the text with the absence of
scriptural quotations) & Puech, Recherches 41-42 & 97-102: ‘Un ouvrage comme le
Discours aux Grecs n’est pas une Exposition de la Foi, c’est une Préparation à la Foi’ (99).
47
Grant, ‘Forms and Occasions’ 222. For the Oratio as a protreptic text: Pellegrino, Studi
su l’antica Apologetica 43-45.
48
M McGehee, ‘Why Tatian never ‘apologized’ to the Greeks’: JECS 1 (1993) 143-158.
49
McGehee, ‘Why Tatian never ‘apologized’ ’ 152.
127
account’50 and ‘…I offer myself to you, ready for an examination of my
teachings…’51 His intention is thus to whet his audience’s appetites for his
teachings, which he does by outlining certain ideas but holding back on detailed
exposition.52

Tatian’s use of the proteptic form tips the balance towards the audience being a
real external one; it seems much less likely that a Christian author would present
the text as he does if addressing a purely internal Christian audience, since he
would have no good reason not to expose the scriptural texts to them openly. An
internal audience must, however, remain a possibility and, indeed, as was the case
with Justin’s Apologia Maior, Tatian’s actual audience could have lain somewhere
on the borderland between Christians and non-Christians.

As with Justin’s Apologia Maior, Barclay’s analysis of the different categories of

apologetic audience provides helpful clarification. The declared audience for the
Oratio is the very generalized ‘men of Greece’ invoked in the text. The implied
audience can be defined similarly, as those from a Graeco-Roman cultural
background. The intended audience could either be external to Christianity or
internal or somewhere on the borderland between the two; however, the
protreptic reading of the text makes a genuine external audience a strong
possibility.

Previous scholarship

Previous scholarship has devoted limited attention to Tatian’s use of the Jewish
scriptures. Monographs by Elze and Hunt examined his theology in some
depth,53 advancing different views, but sharing a common concern to position

50
Oratio 30.4.
51
Oratio 42.2.
52
A point made by Puech, Les apologistes grecs 169-170.
53
Elze, Tatian und seine Theologie & Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century.
128
him in the philosophical debates of his contemporaries. Elze locates Tatian within
Middle Platonism, identifying connections with particular 2C thinkers, notably
Alcinous and Atticus. Hunt is concerned to rebut the contention of Grant that
Tatian had significant links with Valentinianism54 and presents him as a Christian
philosopher in a tradition derived from Justin; thus, in her view, influences from
Hellenistic philosophy, including Middle Platonism, were mediated through
Justin. Tatian’s approach to and use of the Jewish scriptures is, however, not a
prime focus of either scholar’s interest. This is also the case with the summary
account of Tatian’s theology in Trelenberg’s recent edition of the text55 and in the
essays accompanying Nesselrath’s even more recent edition.56

Two scholars who, in their different ways, have discussed Tatian and the Jewish
scriptures are Harnack and Grant, although neither comments at length. In a
discussion of the OT’s importance for early Christianity57 Harnack stresses the
significance of the Jewish scriptures for Tatian and provides some analysis of
Chapter 29 of the Oratio where Tatian discusses the texts he calls the Barbarian
Writings. Harnack highlights features of the contents of these texts as Tatian
characterizes them -- the creation narrative, prophecies, the moral code and rigid
monotheism -- and emphasises Tatian’s positive view of the style of the scriptures
as marked by ‘vigour coupled with simplicity’.58 The present study will return to
this passage of Tatian’s and to these issues; suffice it to say now that Harnack’s
comments, briefly sketched rather than fully-developed, provide one starting-
point for the current study.

54
R M Grant, ‘The Heresy of Tatian’ JTS 5 (1954) 62-68.
55
Trelenberg, Oratio 29-54. There are only three entries against Altes Testament in
Trelenberg’s Index, none of them referring to this section.
56
Nesselrath, Gegen falsche Götter 193-303.
57
Harnack, Expansion of Christianity 1 279-289: for Tatian 281-282.
58
Harnack, Expansion 1 282.
129
Grant’s short article59 is very specifically concerned with Tatian’s use of the Jewish
scriptures, although without considering how scriptural references impact on
Tatian’s arguments. Grant writes of a Bible which consists of an OT and a NT
and he concludes that ‘Tatian found the New Testament much more congenial
than the Old.’ 60 The terms OT and NT are arguably anachronistic in this context
-- they do not appear in the Oratio or in other apologetic texts of the time -- and
one consequence is that Grant ignores the role of extra-canonical Jewish texts; as
will be shown below, this leads him to misrepresent Tatian in some respects.

Grant’s article is valuable for his classification of scriptural references. Some of his
conclusions are questionable, such as the identification of three allusions to
Genesis 2-3, where the references are much more likely to be to the Enoch
tradition;61 he also suggests that there are references to Pauline texts, such as
Galatians and Philippians, which may not survive close scrutiny.62 Grant does,
however, make some pertinent comments in the course of the article, pointing,
for instance, to Tatian’s use of allusions rather than quotations,63 although some of
his other observations, such as the identification of strong gnostic influences, may

59
R M Grant, ‘Tatian and the Bible’ eds K Aland & F L Cross SP 1/1 (Akademie-Verlag,
Berlin 1957) 297-306.
60
Grant, ‘Tatian and the Bible’ 303.
61
Grant, ‘Tatian and the Bible’ 304-305. He takes the phrase ‘...one who was cleverer
than the rest...’ in 7.4 to allude to the description of the serpent in Gen 3:1, the words
‘...and men and angels followed him and proclaimed as god this rebel against God’s law...’
again in 7.4 to refer to Adam’s disobedience in Gen 2-3 and the sentence ‘...and those
created first were banished, the former were cast down from heaven, the later from not
this earth, but one better ordered than here...’ in 20.3 to refer to Adam’s expulsion from
the Garden in Gen 3:23-24. The influence of 1Enoch is discussed below.
62
They are not included in the list of ‘Biblical Quotations and Allusions’ in Whittaker,
Oratio xvii or in the corresponding list in Marcovich, Oratio 83. Even Grant himself,
‘Tatian and the Bible’ 303, comments that not all his Pauline references are equally
convincing.
63
Grant, ‘Tatian and the Bible’ 297.
130
be questioned.64 Most importantly for this study, however, Grant does not
consider the role that scriptural references play in Tatian’s arguments.

The approach of the current study

Previous Tatian scholarship therefore leaves room for a more extended study of
Tatian’s use of the Jewish scriptures in his arguments and the present work seeks
to provide this. Given the uncertainties already highlighted concerning the
circumstances in which the Oratio was produced, however, it is not possible to
examine the text against its own particular background; it can only be read and
interpreted as a work which originated somewhere in the Roman Empire in the
mid to late 2C.

Thus the approach adopted here will in essence be the same as that adopted with
Justin’s Apologia Maior: that the arguments put forward in favour of Christianity
are considered and analysed without reference to precisely when and where the
text was written, or what the nature of the intended audience might have been,
but rather with reference to Graeco-Roman culture in a more general sense. Like
Justin’s Apologia Maior, Tatian’s Oratio will be treated as a repository of
arguments which a Christian writer in a Graeco-Roman literary environment of
the mid to late 2C portrays as significant in potential or actual debates with non-
Christians. As was the case with Justin, however, in order to avoid unnecessarily
convoluted phraseology, and in accordance with the way the text presents itself,
the audience for the Oratio will be referred to in what follows as if it is external to
Christianity.

64
Grant, ‘Tatian and the Bible’ 297. Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century 20-51 has
effectively undermined Grant’s argument here.
131
The authority of the Barbarian Writings

Tatian engages with his audience on a number of issues and uses the Barbarian
Writings to support his arguments. The issues concerned will be reviewed in
turn, but before doing this the character of the Barbarian Writings as Tatian
presents them will be considered, beginning with a discussion of their authority.

For Tatian the Barbarian Writings’ authority centres around three foci: their
antiquity -- which is linked with their authorship -- their status as divine texts
and their content and style. The starting point for examining these issues further
is 29.2, which appears surprisingly late in the Oratio; this important passage
contains Tatian’s overall appraisal of the Barbarian Writings in terms of their
contents, their value and significance, and their authority:

‘While I was engaged in serious thought I happened to read some

Barbarian Writings, older by comparison with the doctrines of the
Greeks and more divine by comparison with their errors. The
outcome was that I was persuaded by them because of the lack of
arrogance in the wording, the artlessness of the speakers, the easily
intelligible account of the creation of the world, the foreknowledge
of the future, the remarkable quality of the precepts and the idea of
a single ruler of the universe.’

Tatian does not say here how he came to read the texts, except to say that he was
‘by myself’65 and ‘engaged in serious thought,’66 but he claims that his encounter
with them was crucial for his conversion to Christianity. Tatian’s comments are
presented as personal experience, although it is impossible to know how literally

65
Oratio 29.1.
66
Oratio 29.2.
132
to take them as autobiography;67 he may simply be using this form to present his
material. In Chapter 2 it was noted that in the Dialogus cum Tryphone Justin
claims to have learned about the Jewish scriptures from an old man whom he met
and that this led to his conversion to Christianity.68 Early Christian apologetic
texts commonly include an account of the author’s conversion, which may or
may not be historically accurate, such texts being written with apologetic intent.69

The antiquity of the Barbarian Writings is essential to Tatian’s concept of their

authority and he follows Justin’s account of the Books of the Prophecies in
describing the texts as ancient and, more particularly, as ‘…older by comparison
with the doctrines of the Greeks.’70 He later acknowledges that describing his
ideas as innovative could attract criticism, attributing to his adversaries the
comment that ‘Tatian is innovating with his barbarian doctrines, beyond the
Greeks and the countless hoards of philosophers.’71 The argument from antiquity
is presented by Tatian as his defence against such criticism and, although
mentioned only briefly in 29.2, it is developed later at considerable length. There
is no reference to the Septuagint Legend, but in Chapters 31 and 35-41 Tatian
puts forward his chronological argument to demonstrate that the Barbarian
Writings are older than Greek literature. The argument depends on identifying
authors of texts and establishing their relative antiquity. Tatian describes how
historical sources show that the most ancient author of the Barbarian Writings is
Moses, ‘the originator (ἀρχηγός) of all barbarian wisdom,’ and that he predates

67
Whittaker, Oratio xv reads Tatian’s words at face value: ‘His own conversion was an
intellectual one; he was won over by reading Scriptures…’
68
DT 7-8.
69
J Engberg, ‘ ‘From among You are We. Made, not born are Christians’: Apologists’
Accounts of Conversion before 310 AD’ in Ulrich, Jacobsen & Kahlos eds, Continuity
and Discontinuity 49-77: ‘…the apologists used their accounts of conversion to construct
their own identities as converts and Christians and they used them in a deliberate way to
make new Christians’ (77).
70
Oratio 29.2.
71
Oratio 35.3.
133
the most ancient author in the Greek tradition, Homer, ‘…the oldest of poets and
historians.’72

Moses is significant for Tatian’s argument because he can be dated from reliable
Egyptian sources: ‘Egyptian chronological registers are accurate and their records
were translated by Ptolemy – not the king but a priest of Mendes. In his account
of the acts of the kings he says that in the time of Amosis king of Egypt there
occurred the journey of the Jews from Egypt to the lands which they entered
under the leadership of Moses.’73 The Exodus therefore took place during the
reign of Amosis king of Egypt. Tatian quotes Ptolemy of Mendes as saying that
‘Amosis lived at the time of king Inachus.’74 He says that this Inachus was King of
Argos and provides an Argive king list to show that Inachus considerably
predated Agamemnon, in whose reign Troy was taken.75 He concludes from this
evidence that ‘…if Moses lived in the time of Inachus he is four hundred years
older than the Trojan War.’76 The earliest possible date for Homer is that he is
contemporary with the Trojan War (the subject of the Iliad),77 so Moses must
therefore have predated Homer by a sizeable margin.78

Support for Tatian’s chronological argument does not come from the Barbarian
Writings. He uses Greek, Chaldean, Phoenician and Egyptian sources,79
commenting that such evidence will be the more compelling for his audience: ‘As
witnesses I will not cite our own people, but will rather make use of Greek

72
Oratio 31.1.
73
Oratio 38.1.
74
Oratio 38.1.
75
Oratio 39.1.
76
Oratio 39.2.
77
Oratio 36.1.
78
Tatian draws on the well-established scholarly tradition of sychronising chronologies
of different peoples, notably the Jewish, Egyptian and Greek: B Z Wacholder, ‘Biblical
chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles’ HTR 61 (1968) 451-81.
79
Oratio 31 & 36-38.
134
supporters…I shall resist you with your own weapons and take from you proofs
that are above suspicion.’80

Tatian cites a large number of authors, not only as support for his case, but also to
press a more general argument for the superiority of the barbarian over the
Greek.81 No fewer than sixteen Greek writers are named in connection with the
dating of Homer,82 all but one of whom83 are familiar to modern scholarship from
other sources84 and, although for the most part their writings have not survived in
anything more than fragments,85 a number of them are known to have written
works relevant to the points at issue, concerned either with Homer86 or with
history.87 Scholars such as Grant and Droge may well be right in arguing that
Tatian did not consult these writers’ works directly, but rather took his
information from handbooks available to him.88 He says nothing about the
named writers individually, but reference to multiple authorities is no doubt
designed to strengthen support for his conclusion. He is, however, highly critical

80
Oratio 31.2.
81
Tatian follows the grammarians’ practice of quoting lists, in this case of of authors, and
in Chapter 1 of inventions (discussed below): R M Grant, ‘Studies in the Apologists’ HTR
51 (1958) 123-134, 124.
82
Oratio 31.3-4. A first group of five are Theagenes of Rhegium, Stesimbrotus of
Thasos, Antimachus of Colophon, Herodotus of Halicarnassus and Dionysius of
Olynthus; a second group of four are Ephorus of Cumae, Philochorus of Athens and the
Peripatetics, Megaclides and Chameleon; and a the final group of seven are Zenodotus,
Aristophanes [of Byzantium], Callistratus, Crates [of Mallus], Eratosthenes [of Cyrene],
Aristarchus [of Samothrace] and Apollodorus [of Athens].
83
The exception is Dionysius of Olynthus.
84
BNP articles on Theagenes by S Matthaios, Stesimbrotus by M Baumbach, Antimachus
by M Fantuzzi, Herodotus by K Meister, Ephorus by K Meister, Philochorus by K
Meister, Megaclides by G Damaschen, Chameleon by H Gottschalk, Zenodotus by M
Baumbach, Aristophanes by F Montanari, Callistratus by F Montanari, Crates by M
Broggiato & Eratosthenes by F Zaminer & R Tosi.
85
The historian Herodotus is the notable exception.
86
E.g. BNP for Theagenes & Megaclides.
87
E.g. BNP for Eratosthenes & Herodotus.
88
‘Naturally he took his authorities on the subject from schoolbooks…’ (Grant, Greek
Apologists 125) & ‘In all probability he put together his list of writers on the date of
Homer on the basis of some handbook which dealt with this question’ (Droge, Homer or
Moses? 92).
135
of the Greek writers collectively and the large number of the sources becomes a
problematic issue when Tatian asserts that their widely divergent views show that
they are both inconsistent and inaccurate.89 Such criticism of Greek literature
notwithstanding, he is still able to use the sources he cites to establish his
argument, for, even though they may disagree with one another, they all concur
in the view that Homer considerably postdates the Trojan War, and this is the
essential first stage of his argument for the chronological priority of Moses over
Homer.

Among barbarian sources Tatian cites Berossus (Chaldean), Theodotus,

Hypsicrates and Mochus (Phoenician) and Ptolemy of Mendes (Egyptian). He
says Berossus is drawn on as a source by Juba, that Menander of Pergamum wrote
on the same subject as the three Phoenicians (and so perhaps used them as sources)
and that the Ptolemy is used by Apion. It is therefore likely that Tatian only
knew the original writers named through the intermediate sources, Juba,
Menander and Apion.90 The barbarian authors are praised by Tatian in a way that
those from the Greek tradition are not; Berossus is described as ‘…a very able
man…’,91 the Egyptian chronological records translated by Ptolemy of Mendes
are ‘accurate’92 and Apion is ‘…a man of high repute..’93 Thus Tatian’s account of
historical sources enables him to reinforce one of his main themes -- the
superiority of the barbarian over the Greek -- and to do so with reference to
written sources.

Tatian’s argument for the chronological priority of Moses has inevitably entailed
the identification of Moses as an individual; otherwise, unlike Justin, he refers to
none of the authors of the Barbarian Writings by name. Moses is, however,

89
Oratio 31.6.
90
Grant, Greek Apologists 127.
91
Oratio 36.4.
92
Oratio 38.1.
93
Oratio 38.2.
136
clearly not the only barbarian author; he is described as the leader of a group of
‘…those who philosophized like him [Moses]…,’94 even though the other
members of the group are not named. In the way he describes the antiquity and
authorship of the Barbarian Writings, Tatian follows Justin in echoing the
tradition of ancient wisdom, according to which the very earliest thinkers, who
flourished before the advent of the Greek philosophical schools, possessed the
highest level of wisdom.

As well as arguing for the antiquity of the Barbarian Writings, Tatian maintains
that these texts are, in some sense, divine, although there is nothing in the Oratio
to parallel Justin’s Prophetic Spirit. Tatian does not give the same emphasis as
Justin to the divine nature of the texts, but there are echoes of the same sentiment
in his -- admittedly occasional -- use of forms of the term θεῖος. In the important
passage in 29.2 already referred to he describes the Barbarian Writings as ‘more
divine’ (θειοτέραις) than the errors of Greek thought. This theme is not
specifically developed in the Oratio and what is meant by labelling texts as divine
is not discussed, but allusions to it are found in two other places.

First, Tatian says at one point that ‘It is possible to understand the details if one
does not conceitedly reject the most divinely inspired (θειοτάτας) interpretations,
which from time to time have been expressed in writing and have made those
who study them real lovers of God.’95 The Barbarian Writings are not specifically
mentioned here, but the passage clearly refers to written texts as divinely inspired
and it is most probably the Barbarian Writings that Tatian has in mind. Second,
he refers a little later to ‘… using words of more divine (θειοτέρας)
significance…’96 just before he criticises those who decline to take instruction
from followers of a ‘Barbarian Code of Law’. This last phrase should be taken as a

94
Oratio 40.2.
95
Oratio 12.4.
96
Oratio 12.9.
137
reference to the Barbarian Writings (as will be discussed later), so the term ‘divine’
used in relation to ‘words’ in this context most probably refers again to the
Barbarian Writings.

The third source of the authority of the Barbarian Writings, in addition to their
antiquity and their divine nature, lies in in their general qualities: in the contents
of the texts and the style of their presentation. Tatian describes what he has
learned from his experience as a reader; it is not only the ideas and doctrines in the
texts which are significant, but also the way they are written: their simplicity,
readability and lack of pretension.

In 29.2 Tatian says that he was persuaded by ‘… the lack of arrogance in the
wording, the artlessness of the speakers, the easily intelligible account of the
creation of the world, the foreknowledge of the future, the remarkable quality of
the precepts and the idea of a single ruler of the universe.’ The qualities Tatian
here attributes to the Barbarian Writings are not purely descriptive, but also
normative: he says he is persuaded by them (μοι πεισθῆναι ταύταις συνέβη).
This passage performs several functions: it conveys something about the content
of the texts, it provides some evaluation of those contents through the terms of
approbation used, and it comments, approvingly, on the style of the texts. Tatian
describes how the Barbarian Writings deal with ‘the creation of the world,’ they
contain prophecies, ‘foreknowledge of the future’ and moral ‘precepts’, and they
promote the concept of monotheism, ‘the idea of a single ruler of the universe.’
He uses evaluative terms to express his approbation: the precepts are of
‘remarkable quality’ and the account of creation is ‘easily intelligible’. He also
draws attention to the style of the Barbarian Writings, and does so positively,
referring to ‘the lack of arrogance in the wording’ and ‘the artlessness of the
speakers.’ By contrast, Justin did not discuss the style of his authoritative texts,
although the fact that his Septuagint Legend has them lodged in a prestigious

138
Greek royal library suggests that he regarded them as possessing literary as well as
prophetic value.

In his discussion of the Barbarian Writings Tatian echoes some aspects of the way
texts are considered in the Greek tradition of literary criticism which was briefly
referred to in Chapter 1. Some classical literary theorists, notably Demetrius,
Cicero and Quintilian, analysed the types of style appropriate to different kinds of
literary work.97 Somewhat in contrast to the Second Sophistic emphasis on
sophistication and complexity in literary style, these writers all speak approvingly
of the Plain Style, when it is used in appropriate circumstances. Demetrius, for
instance, describes ordinary diction and clarity of expression as commendable
features of the Plain Style; he also highlights these qualities as characteristics of
persuasiveness,98 which suggests that the Plain Style might be particularly apt for
apologetic discourse. Tatian’s approbation of the simplicity of the Barbarian
Writings’ style therefore fits well with this strand of literary criticism.

Tatian’s comments on the style of the Barbarian Writings reflect in other respects
what is found in works of Greek literary criticism. The surviving oeuvre of
ancient Greek texts is richer in works of theory than in discussion of specific
texts,99 but there are some extant instances of the latter. One is the 52nd Oration
of the 1C CE Greek sophist Dio Chrysostom100 which compares the three

97
Demetrius, On Style trans D C Innes in Ancient Literary Criticism eds Russell &
Winterbottom 171-215, with the Plain Style discussed at 206-208; extracts from Cicero’s
works, notably Brutus and De Oratore trans M Winterbottom 216-64, with the Plain
Style considered at 240-243 & extracts from Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria trans M
Winterbottom 372-423, with the Plain Style featuring at 413-415.
98
Ancient Literary Criticism eds Russell & Winterbottom 210-211.
99
Translations of texts in Ancient Literary Criticism eds Russell & Winterbottom.
100
Text in Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 37-60 trans H L Crosby LCL (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge Mass 1946) 338-352: translation in Ancient Literary
Criticism eds Russell & Winterbottom 504-507. For Dio: G M A Grube, The Greek and
Roman Critics (Methuen, London 1965) 327-332. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 287-
288 & 429 argues for influences from Dio on the Oratio.
139
tragedians of ancient Athens, Aeschylus, Euripides and Sophocles. Dio provides a
succinct summary of each tragedian’s style, contrasting it with the other two; his
verdicts on Aeschylus and Euripides are as follows:

‘Aeschylus’ grandeur and archaic splendour, and the originality of

his thought and expression, seemed appropriate to tragedy and the
antique manner of heroes; it had nothing subtle, nothing facile,
nothing undignified.’

‘Euripides’ intelligence and care for every detail – nothing

unconvincing or negligent is allowed to pass, and instead of bare
facts he gives us the whole force of his eloquence – is the opposite
of Aeschylus’ simplicity. This is the style of the man of affairs and
the orator; the reader can learn many valuable lessons from it.’101

Another example of such criticism is the essay on Thucydides by Dionysius of

Halicarnassus102 which examines at length the style of a single writer.103 Although
largely devoted to detailed comments on particular passages, Dionysius also makes
more general appraisals of Thucydides, for instance in describing his diction:

‘Its qualities are solidity and compactness, pungency and harshness,

gravity, tendency to inspire awe and fear, and above all these the
power of stirring the emotions.104

101
Ancient Literary Criticism eds Russell & Winterbottom 505-506.
102
Dating from the 1C BCE: BNP article on Dionysius of Halicarnassus by S Fornaro.
103
Text in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Critical Essays I ed S Usher LCL (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge Mass 1974) 462-632: translation in Dionysius of
Halicarnsassus: On Thucydides trans W K Pritchett (University of California, Berkeley,
1975).
104
Pritchett, Dionysius 18 (Chapter 24) (transliterations of Greek words omitted).
140
Tatian’s description of the style of the Barbarian Writings echoes the kind of
succinct account of the qualities of a literary text found in such works. He is
discussing the Barbarian Writings as if they were classic texts in the Greek
tradition, even though, as will be shown later, he seeks to position them outside,
rather than within, that tradition.

The nature of the Barbarian Writings

Having considered where Tatian locates the authority of the Barbarian Writings,
his view of the nature of the texts themselves will now be examined. The focus
will be on three issues: which texts comprise the Barbarian Writings; the kind of
texts they are; and how the literary tradition of the Barbarian Writings contrasts
with that of the Greeks.

Tatian does not present the Barbarian Writings as a clearly defined set of texts.
The phrase ‘certain Barbarian Writings’ (γραφαῖς τισιν βαρβαρικαῖς) in 29.2 is
imprecise, particularly with the adjective ‘certain’ (τισιν) attached. No further
definition is given and Tatian does not discuss there or elsewhere which texts the
term includes. Scholars have tended to treat the term Barbarian Writings as
synonymous with the Jewish scriptures -- as that phrase is understood today105 --
but it is too simple to assume that the two are coterminous. The phrase is perhaps
best regarded, not so much as a precise description of a bounded set of texts, but
rather as a reference to a tradition of writing consisting of a number of texts, but
lacking clear boundaries.

Even when a reference to a specific scriptural text can be identified, the form in
which Tatian accessed it remains unclear. In previous chapters the prevalence of

105
Grant, ‘Tatian and the Bible’ 303-305 (using the phrase ‘Old Testament’); Droge,
Homer or Moses? 82 (using the phrase ‘Jewish scriptures’) & Hunt, Christianity in the
Second Century 181 (using the phrase ‘Hebrew scriptures’).
141
collections of extracts from texts was highlighted and if Tatian was drawing on
sources of this kind then they could have contained a mix of material culled from
different texts. He may not have been aware himself of the ultimate origin of the
material he was using and, indeed, issues of this kind may not have concerned
him. What was important may have been that texts emanated from a tradition
whose doctrines he had come to accept, and the fact that he does not identify the
specific sources of particular ideas may be because it was much more significantly
the tradition and not the individual text that mattered to him.

As noted above, the literary tradition of the Barbarian Writings, according to

Tatian, originated with Moses, although other, later writers also contributed to it.
The origins of the tradition were ancient, but its components were not necessarily
all ancient; other writers followed Moses and contributed texts over time. It
remained a single tradition, however, and essentially an anonymous one, in
which, apart from Moses, authors are not individually identified. Thus Tatian’s
presentation differs from Justin’s in which a number of the prophetic authors are
named. Indeed, Tatian’s identification of Moses may only have been necessary
because it was required by the argument from chronological comparison with
Homer to demonstrate the Barbarian Writings’ antiquity.

Tatian’s very general description in 29.2 of the themes he encountered in the

Barbarian Writings provides limited clues to the identity of the texts. He refers to
the creation of the world, the foretelling of the future, some precepts of high
quality and the doctrine of monotheism. Tatian’s description is much broader
than Justin’s, which focussed on the authoritative texts as a source of prophecies.
Creation indicates the early chapters of Genesis, and foretelling the future
suggests prophetic texts, although it is not apparent which ones. High quality
precepts and monotheism are both strong themes in the Jewish scriptures, but
characteristic of a wide range of texts. They could refer, for example, to texts

142
from the Pentateuch, such as the Decalogue, to the Psalms or to those texts which
modern scholars classify as Prophetic Books.

Tatian’s use of references to the Barbarian Writings will be considered below and
that discussion will provide pointers to the scope of the term. The particular texts
which feature in the Oratio are determined by the arguments that Tatian presents,
so it is apologetic intentions which shape his portrayal of the Barbarian Writings.
To anticipate, Tatian will be shown to makes clear references to the early chapters
of Genesis and to one of the Psalms, to refer to historical texts, prophets and
Jewish law codes, and also to make allusions to 1Enoch and to traditions which
include works such as Jubilees and 4Ezra. None of the texts Tatian quotes from
or alludes to is, however, considered in detail in the Oratio and he does not
identify any of the references he makes to specific books.

Tatian’s use of the term, barbarian, in the phrase Barbarian Writings is novel. It
was noted in Chapter 2 that ‘barbarian’ appears only a few times in Justin’s
Apologia Maior and never in relation to the Books of the Prophecies. While
Justin’s phrase emphasises the prophetic contents of the texts, Tatian’s phrase,
Barbarian Writings, draws attention to their provenance. The writings are not
identified as Jewish; indeed, the terms Jew or Jewish are nowhere used in
connection with them;106 they are attributed simply to barbarians, and then not to
any particular barbarian people.107

There are a number of indications in the Oratio which suggest the kind of texts
that Tatian considers the Barbarian Writings to be. It is the philosophical that
predominates, in contrast to Justin’s account of his authoritative texts as prophetic
in nature. There are, however, indications that other vocabularies can be applied

106
The only references to the Jews are when Tatian refers to historical events
(Nebuchadnezzar’s campaigns (36.3), Solomon’s marriage (37.2) and the Exodus (38.1)).
107
As happens with the inventions attributed to particular barbarian peoples in Chapter 1.
143
to the texts -- the prophetic, the historical and the legal -- and these will be
considered first.

Prophecy has a generally very low profile in the Oratio, even though in 29.2
Tatian referred to the Barbarian Writings as providing ‘foreknowledge of the
future.’ There are only two other references to texts as prophetic, or at least as
having been written by prophets, both very general and difficult to link with
particular texts. One is Tatian’s description of events as recounted by ‘our
prophets’;108 the other is when prophets are referred to as providing teaching on
the future prospects of humankind.109

Tatian also suggests on occasion that the Barbarian Writings are historical texts.
His chronological argument depends on Chaldean, Phoenician and Egyptian
rather than Jewish historical sources, but he does recognise that the latter exist,
even though he does not use them, when he says: ‘As witnesses I will not cite our
own people…’110 There is also a brief reference to Jewish historical writings
when Tatian mentions the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar: ‘Berossus, a
Babylonian … set out the details of their kings, starting with one of them called
Nebuchadnezzar, who campaigned against the Phoenicians and the Jews. We
know that these events have been recounted by our prophets and that they
occurred much later than the time of Moses, seventy years before the rule of the
Persians.’111 The reference is not specific -- Tatian says only that texts exist which
were written by ‘our prophets’ -- but it probably alludes to the Book of Jeremiah

108
Oratio 36.3. This probably alludes to Jeremiah (see below).
109
Oratio 20.6.
110
Oratio 31.2.
111
Oratio 36.3. The final phrase here no doubt refers to the exile of the Jews to Babylon
which according to the Jewish scriptures lasted seventy years: 2Chron 36:21 & Jer 25:11-
12.
144
which, while largely comprising prophetic material, also contains some narrative,
including an account of the campaign of Nebuchadnezzar against the Jews.112

There is a single -- extremely unspecific -- reference to the Barbarian Writings as

legal in character: ‘You who do not reject the Scythian Anacharsis even now must
not think it beneath you to take instruction from those who adhere to the
Barbarian Law (νομοθεσία).’113 Tatian does not specify the writings he is alluding
to here, but the reference is probably to texts from the Pentateuch which contain
the Jewish Law.114

The dominant impression to emerge from the Oratio is, however, that the
Barbarian Writings are philosophical works. In Tatian’s eyes they are a set of
texts which rival, and should supplant, the writings of the Greek philosophical
tradition. This is evidenced in two ways. Firstly, the terms Tatian uses to
describe both the authors and the contents of the Writings indicate that he
regards them as philosophical in nature. Thus the description of Moses as ‘the
originator of all barbarian wisdom’ (using σοφία),115 identifies him as a
philosopher, and other authors of the Barbarian Writings who followed Moses are
described as ‘those who philosophized like him.’116 Philosophical terms are also
used to describe ideas: Tatian refers to ‘the philosophy which you consider
barbarous,’117 to ‘barbarian doctrines’118 and at one point says that ‘All who wish to
philosophize with us are welcome...’119

112
Jeremiah 52.
113
Oratio 12.10.
114
The term νομοθεσία appears in the Septuagint at 2Macc 6:23 where it refers to Jewish
dietary laws.
115
Oratio 31.1.
116
Oratio 40.2.
117
Oratio 35.2.
118
Oratio 35.3.
119
Oratio 32.7. Translation follows the addition of φίλοι included by Marcovich and
accepted by Trelenberg (although not by Nesselrath).
145
Second, it will be shown below that the Barbarian Writings are used to support
Tatian’s philosophical arguments concerning, for instance, the creation of the
world and the nature of humankind. Tatian uses the Barbarian Writings to
advance his own preferred philosophy as an alternative to those of the Greek
schools. This contrasts with Justin’s Apologia Maior which, although it
sometimes criticised Greek philosophy, did not use the ancient prophecies as a
tool in philosophical debates, but rather to confront the Graeco-Roman myth-
based religion. Tatian does not bring evidence or arguments from the Barbarian
Writings to bear when he is criticising the Greeks; they are not referred to in the
passages where he is attacking Greek philosophy, such as Chapters 2 and 3 where
he denigrates philosophers as individuals and ridicules both their behaviour120 and
their ideas.121 Indeed, the only point at which the Barbarian Writings intersect
with Greek philosophy is when Tatian alludes to the theft theory discussed in the
previous chapter. Following Justin, he describes how the Greeks imitated, but
distorted, what they read in the Barbarian Writings, leading their philosophical
schools into erroneous doctrines:

‘For with great care their sophists tried to counterfeit all they
learned from the teaching of Moses and those who philosophized
like him, first in order to be thought to speak with originality, and
second in order that, in concealing through rhetorical artifice the
things they did not understand, they might distort the truth as
mythology.’122

120
E.g. Plato ‘…was sold by Dionysius because of his gluttony…’ (2.1) & Aristotle
‘…used to fawn in a very uncultured way on that wild young man Alexander…’ (2.2).
121
E.g. how by Zeno ‘… God is portrayed as the creator of evil, who lives in sewers and
worms and in those who do unmentionable things.’ (3.3) and ‘...I laugh at the old wives’
tales of Pherecydes, Pythagoras’ takeover of his doctrines…and Plato’s copying of them’
(3.5).
122
Oratio 40.2.
146
Quotations from the Barbarian Writings

It is quickly apparent from a reading of the Oratio that Tatian makes very limited
use of quotations from the Barbarian Writings, a clear contrast with Justin’s
citations of prophetic texts. The one clear quotation -- ‘...since they were made
for a little while lower than the angels…’123 -- from Ps 8:5124 is introduced in a
discussion of the nature of humankind. It is described as a ‘saying’ (κατὰ τὸν
εἰπόντα λόγον),125 so it is a conscious quotation, although the source is not
disclosed. This is the only instance in which Tatian refers to a text from the
Jewish scriptures in this way. (On one other occasion a text is described as a
‘saying’ (τό εἰρημένον) when a Christian text, John 1:5, is cited: ‘the darkness does
not comprehend the light,’ although again, the source of the quotation is not
specified).126

The paucity of quotations from the Barbarian Writings is at first sight surprising,
since Tatian might be expected, given his general comments about the nature and
qualities of the texts, to quote from them extensively.127 He is known to have
been the author of the Diatessaron, a harmonisation of the four canonical gospels,
and to have written a work of that kind he must have had a strong interest in the
close reading of texts. Moreover, according to Eusebius, Rhodon, a disciple of

123
Oratio 15.10.
124
The quotation from Psalm 8 appears in Hebrews 2 so this could be Tatian’s source.
Hunt’s contention (Christianity in the Second Century 43 & 193) that Tatian must have
been quoting from the latter since he uses the term ‘angels’ rather than the ‘God’ of the
original is, however, fallacious because the Septuagint translation of Ps 8:5 uses the term
‘angels’; the Hebrew original (elohim) is ambiguous and has been translated both by
‘God’/’gods’ and by ‘angels’, but Tatian quotes the Greek text (For the debate on this: A
A Anderson, The Book of Psalms I Introduction and Psalms 1-72 (Oliphants, London
1972) 103 & P C Craigie, Psalms 1-50 Second ed with 2004 supplement by M E Tate
(Thomas Nelson, Nashville 2004) 108).
125
Oratio 15.9.
126
Oratio 13.2.
127
Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century 54 comments ‘…despite the reverence
Tatian expresses for the Hebrew Scriptures in his conversion account, his allusions to the
Old Testament are very sparse.’ She does not explore why this is the case.
147
Tatian, recorded that his teacher produced a book on Problems in which ‘…he
had promised to set out what was obscure and puzzling in Holy Writ…’ 128 and
this also suggests an interest in expounding scriptural texts at a detailed level.

There are, however, two specific factors which explain the absence of quotations,
both of which concern issues touched on already; one is the protreptic character
of Tatian’s Oratio and the other is the Second Sophistic context in which he was
writing.

A protreptic work introduces a new philosophy without giving a full account of

it. While such a text may contain short references and brief allusions to the
foundational texts of the philosophy in question, there are unlikely to be extensive
quotations, since detailed consideration of authoritative texts is left for a later
occasion. This absence of quotations accords with what is found in Tatian’s
Oratio.

In Chapter 1 reference was made to the cultural phenomenon known as the

Second Sophistic. This did not feature as a significant issue in discussion of
Justin’s Proof from Prophecy, but it is relevant to Tatian’s Oratio, not least with
regard to the use of quotations. Second Sophistic authors are fond of including
quotations from and allusions to well-established classic texts, especially the works
of Homer, and of treating them in a distinctive way.129 References are employed
for display purposes, to show the author’s knowledge and erudition and to give
his audience the satisfaction of recognition. They are not included primarily to

Eusebius, HE 5.13.
128

For the pervasive influence of Homer: F Buffière, Les mythes d’Homère; for the
129

importance of Homer in elite Roman literary culture: J Farrell, ‘Roman Homer’ in R

Fowler ed, The Cambridge Companion to Homer (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2004) 263-269.
148
advance the author’s argument;130 rather the subject under discussion is used as a
prompt to refer to a classic text. Examples of this can be found in the work of
Philostratus and Lucian. In his Lives of the Sophists the 3C author Philostratus on
a number of occasions cites lines from the classical canon of Greek poetry; he
writes, for instance, about Isaeus, the Assyrian sophist, saying:

‘He had to represent the Lacedaemonians debating whether they

should fortify themselves by building a wall, and he condensed his
argument into a few words from Homer:

‘And thus shield pressed on shield, helm on helm, man on man.

Thus stand fast, Lacedaemonians, these are our fortifications!’ ’

a quotation from Iliad 16.215.131

Something similar is found in the work of Tatian’s Second Sophistic

contemporary, Lucian. Bompaire132 describes his use of ‘la citation ornans’ to
confer authority and provide enrichment: ‘Leur charactère commun est de n’avoir
aucune utilité dans la développement narratif – et à plus forte raison logique; ils
étoffent simplement le discours.’133 This general observation is supported by

130
This was not completely new with the Second Sophistic; Quintilian (end of the 1C
CE) describes how orators introduce quotations from established classics, both to
demonstrate their own erudition and to delight their audiences: Quintilian, Institutio
Oratoria ed D A Russell LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 2001) 1.8:11-
12.
131
Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists ed W C Wright LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1921) 1 514. Other examples are at 1 521 (Iliad 16.40), 1 539 (Iliad
10.535), 1 542 (Iliad 9.312), 1 544 (Hesiod, Works and Days 25), 2 558 (Odyssey 4.498)
& 2 580 (Odyssey 3.1).
132
J Bompaire, Lucien Écrivain: Imitation et Création (De Bocard, Paris 1958) 382-404.
133
Bompaire, Lucien 389.
149
Householder’s detailed work on Lucian’s use of quotations134 and by Bouquiaux-
Simon’s analysis of Lucian’s references to Homer135 which are often used merely
‘…pour parer et enricher la prose d’auteur.’136

The dearth of citations from the Barbarian Writings notwithstanding, Tatian

follows Second Sophistic practice in quoting from or alluding to Greek literature
on a number of occasions, with references to Homer being the commonest;
indeed, there are more quotations in the Oratio from Homer than from Jewish
and Christian writings.137 Tatian’s Homeric references are typically very brief,
often only allusions,138 and they operate as verbal embellishments or rhetorical
flourishes which, because of their source, would be recognisable to Tatian’s
classically-educated audience.

An example is Tatian’s quotation of a line from Homer which appears both in the
Iliad (1.599) and the Odyssey (8.326) and describes the laughter of the gods.139 In
both cases the laughter is prompted by the actions of Hephaestus the god of fire,
but these Homeric circumstances bear no relation to the subject-matter of the
Oratio at the point the reference is made, where Tatian is describing the delight
taken by demons in the destructive impact of fate on humankind. Homer’s
reference is not concerned with fate; it is not relevant to Tatian’s argument and is
only included for reasons of rhetorical display. The same can be said of one clear

134
F W Householder, Literary Quotation and Allusion in Lucian (Columbia University
Press, New York 1941) 41-55 for summary tables.
135
O Bouquiaux-Simon, Les lectures Homériques de Lucien (Palais des Académies,
Bruxelles 1968) especially 352-374.
136
Bouquiaux-Simon, Lectures Homériques 358.
137
Whittaker, Oratio 87 lists fourteen quotations from the Iliad and two from the
Odyssey, one line appearing identically in both.
138
S Freund, ‘ ‘Und wunderbar sind auch eure Dichter, die da lügen...’ (Tat., orat. 22,7).
Beobachtungen zu Gestalt, Auswahl und Funktion vn Dichterzitaten in der griechischen
Apologetik am Beispiel Tatians’ in C Schubert & A von Stockhausen eds, Ad veram
religionem reformare. Frühchristliche Apologetik zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit
(Erlangen Forschungen, Erlangen 2006) 97-121.
139
Oratio 8.1.
150
allusion to Plato in the Oratio: ‘The soul’s wings are the perfect spirit, but the soul
cast it away because of sin, fluttered like a nestling and fell to the ground...’ 140
which uses a metaphor from a passage in the Phaedrus,141 where Plato is discussing
the nature of the soul. This colourful image is introduced for the same rhetorical
reasons as the Homeric quotations; there is no connection between Tatian’s
argument and the argument in the Phaedrus at this point, and, indeed, there
cannot be, since Plato is arguing for the immortality of the soul, which is not a
doctrine Tatian shares.

Tatian’s quotations from classical authors depend, like those of Second Sophistic
writers, on the audience’s prior familiarity with the texts from which the
quotations are drawn. He does not, however, quote similarly from the Barbarian
Writings; indeed, there would be no point in doing so since these texts were
unfamiliar to his audience; they were not part of the common culture of educated
Greeks, so any references would fall on deaf ears.

Tatian’s use of the Barbarian Writings

The Barbarian Writings are, however, far from irrelevant to Tatian’s arguments
and in sections such as Chapters 4-7 and 12-15 where he is putting forward his
own philosophical ideas, they are an important source for him to draw on. He
uses the Barbarian Writings in a number of ways: by including brief phrases from
the texts, too short to be termed quotations, by alluding to ideas that can be traced
to specific sources and by using less precise references which can only be related
more generally to a textual tradition. Tatian’s use of these techniques will be
examined with reference to the main issues addressed in the Oratio: the nature of
creation, the nature of humankind, the fall of angels and humankind and the
eschaton (unlike Justin, he is not concerned with demonstrating the status of Jesus

140
Oratio 20.2. Identified in Marcovich, Oratio 41n & Hunt, Christianity in the Second
Century 214.
141
Plato, Phaedrus LCL 246C.
151
Christ). Tatian’s references may be brief and their sources may never be
identified or acknowledged, but they play an important part in the Oratio.

Two brief phrases from Genesis 1 are especially important for Tatian: ‘in the
beginning’ (ἐν ἀρχῇ) (Gen 1:1) and ‘the image and likeness of God’ (εἰκὼν καὶ
ὁμοίωσις τοῦ θεοῦ) (Gen 1:26-27).142

The nature of creation

‘In the beginning’, and Genesis 1 more generally, are central to Tatian’s account
of creation. The nature of primal creation was a much-discussed topic in the
Greek philosophical tradition with differing accounts put forward by the various
schools, such as the Platonists, the Peripatetics and the Stoics. The debates on this
issue cannot be considered in detail here,143 but one perspective which the Greek
schools all shared was that the process of creation entailed the ordering of pre-
existing matter.144 Tatian’s doctrine, which was at variance with this, can be
characterized as Creatio ex nihilo:145 in other words, before creation matter did
not exist at all. His use of the phrase ‘in the beginning’ therefore serves to stress

142
Tatian uses slightly different formulations at different points; the quotation here is
from 15.3. The standard Septuagint text has ‘kαὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς, ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον
κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν’ (J W Wevers ed, Septuaginta Testamentum
Graecum I Genesis (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1974).
143
Sedley, Creationism surveys the field. In Tatian’s own time the issue of creation was
actively debated by philosophers, with contributions from prominent figures such as
Calvernus Taurus and Atticus, who both wrote commentaries on Plato’s Timaeus:
Dillon, Middle Platonists 242-246 & 252-257.
144
Sedley, Creationism xvii: ‘That even a divine creator would, like any craftsman, have
to use pre-existing materials is an assumption that the ancient Greeks apparently never
questioned.’
145
Tatian is credited with being the first Christian writer explicitly to adopt the Creatio
ex nihilo position: May, Creatio Ex Nihilo 148-154. May acknowledges that Basilides
had previously advanced a Creatio ex nihilo argument, but regards him as a Gnostic and
so not (in his terms) a Christian theologian (May, Creatio Ex Nihilo, 62-84). It was not
inevitable that Christian writers would interpret Genesis 1 along Creatio ex nihilo lines;
others e.g. Justin took a different view: May, Creatio Ex Nihilo 120-133.
152
that divine creation of the cosmos was the beginning and that matter did not have
any existence prior to it.

Tatian describes in 4.3 how the monotheistic God is the sole existing being prior
to creation and that he creates the universe out of nothing, saying: ‘Our God has
no origin in time; he alone is without beginning and is himself the beginning of
all things.’146 The phrase ‘in the beginning’ is then quoted explicitly and
prominently at the commencement of 5.1 where Tatian states that ‘God was in
the beginning’ and this is soon followed by ‘The Lord of all things, himself the
foundation of the whole, was alone in relation to the creation which had not yet
come into being.’147 Shortly afterwards, at 5.6, the Word is described as begotten
‘in the beginning.’ Thus the phrase from Gen 1:1 is used to support Tatian’s
argument that the act of creation was the beginning of the existence of the
cosmos, that matter did not have any form of existence beforehand and is critical
for distinguishing his view from those of the Greek philosophical schools.148

Tatian’s creation account is not in the form of a narrative and is therefore unlike
Genesis 1 in which the process of creation takes place over six days. His ideas are
expressed through abstract argument, so it is less obvious that Genesis is a source
than if he had referred to actual events in the creation narrative. Two factors
pointing to the importance of Genesis for Tatian are first, references to the
concept of separation and second, a close semantic connection between Oratio 4
and Genesis 1. First, he describes how God originally created matter as raw and
formless, and then, by a process of separation, formed it into heavens, stars and
earth; he says that ‘…it [matter] should be thought of partly as raw and formless
before its separation (using διάκρῖσις) and partly as organised and orderly after its

146
Oratio 4.3.
147
Oratio 5.1.
148
The phrase ἐν ἀρχ̱ῇ appears only once in the Timaeus (28B 5) the key Platonic text on
the creation of the cosmos, and then not with reference to primal creation (TLG search).
153
division. So by this process of division (using διαίρεσις) the heavens are created
from matter, and also the stars in the heavens…’149 The concept of separation also
appears in Tatian’s description of the creation of the Word by God: ‘He [the
Word] came into being by separation (using μερισμός), not by section...’150
These references reflect the way Genesis 1 describes the creation of the cosmos as
a series of acts of separation, of light from darkness, of waters below from waters
above, and of earth from seas; Tatian does not, however, use the Septuagint verb
for ‘to separate,’ διαχωρίζειν,151 so the connection between his Oratio and
Genesis 1 is one of ideas and not semantics.

The second link which can be detected between the Oratio and Genesis 1 is a
semantic one, however and this is the similarity between Tatian’s adjacent use of
two terms, the comparatively rare ‘κατασκευαστής’ (constructor) and ἀόρατος’
(invisible),152 and the Septuagint wording of Gen 1:2: ‘ἀόρατος καὶ
ἀκατασκεύαστος’.153 In both cases these terms occur together at a point where
creation is being discussed; in Oratio 4.3 the sentence which follows begins ‘We
know him [God] through his creation…,’ while in Genesis the phrase occurs in
the description of the state of the earth at the outset of primal creation. This
similarity of theme of the two passages strengthens the suggestion that in 4.3
Tatian was echoing -- consciously or not -- the wording of Gen 1:2.

In view of the points made here, Hunt’s contention that ‘The cosmology that
Tatian presents in his Oration displays no direct dependence upon the Biblical
account…’154 cannot be upheld. She further maintains that allusions which have

149
Oratio 12.2.
150
Oratio 5.3.
151
Gen 1:4; 1:7; 1:14 & 1:18.
152
Oratio 4.3. There are only 24 other occurrences of κατασκευαστής in the whole
TLG Corpus (TLG search).
153
Translated as ‘invisible and unformed’ in NETS.
154
Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century 71.
154
been read here as references to Genesis 1 refer instead to John 1, which also
commences with the phrase ‘in the beginning.’ 155 It would probably be wrong to
treat this as a binary issue -- either Genesis or John -- since Tatian may be
referring simultaneously to both texts. He is discussing primal creation --
highlighted as a key theme of the barbarian writings in 29.2 -- and then moves
on to consider the creation and fall of humankind -- also themes in the early
chapters of Genesis -- but the incarnation of the Word which is a prime concern
of John 1 is not discussed or alluded to by Tatian. All of this strongly suggests
that it is much more Genesis than John that he has in mind.

The nature of humankind

The phrase ‘image and likeness of God’ from Gen 1:26-27 is central to Tatian’s
account of humankind. The nature of the human soul and psyche was a long-
established issue of debate in Greek philosophy, with different traditions — such as
the Platonic, the Stoic and the Epicurean – advancing diverse views.156 In the 2C
these issues were still the subject of lively discussion and disagreement, which
cannot be considered in detail here,157 and Tatian presents his view of the human
soul against this contemporary philosophical background.

Tatian argues that humankind was originally created with two kinds of spirit, a
soul and a higher spirit and that the higher spirit accorded human beings

155
Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century 126-7.
156
The classic Platonist account of the tri-partite soul is found in Plato’s Republic:
Plato, Republic 2 Volumes eds C Emlyn-Jones & W Preddy LCL (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge Mass 2013); a 2C CE textbook view of Platonism is Alcinous,
Handbook of Platonism, especially Chapters 23-25. For brief summaries of the Stoic
position: Sellars, Stoicism 81-106 and the Epicurean: C Gill, ‘Psychology’ in J Warren ed,
The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
2009) 125-141.
157
Trapp, Philosophy in the Roman Empire 98-133. At the risk of over-simplification,
the Platonist tradition held to a tri-partite soul and the Stoic tradition to a unitary soul, so
in advancing a doctrine of a bi-partite soul, Tatian was at variance with both. An
example of a 2C philosopher discussing the nature of the soul is Albinus: Dillon, Middle
Platonists 290-298.
155
immortality; after the primal creation this was lost, however, and they became
merely mortal. ‘Image and likeness of God’ is Tatian’s description of the original
higher spirit and is critical to his account;158 he refers to it no fewer than four
times. In the first instance, humankind is described as a spiritual being originally
endowed with ‘…two different kinds of spirits, one of which is called the soul,
and the other is greater than the soul; it is the image and likeness of God. The
first men were endowed with both.’159 In the second case, Tatian employs a
compressed form of the phrase, ‘image and likeness of God’ to make the point that
when the more powerful, or higher, spirit departed from humankind it became
mortal: ‘The creature who was made in the image of God, when the more
powerful spirit left him, became mortal…’160 In the third instance, when Tatian is
again describing the nature of humankind he says that ‘…humankind alone is ‘the
image and likeness of God’ ’, adding that the human being is ‘…not one who
behaves like the animals, but who has advanced far beyond his humanity towards
God himself.’161 In the fourth reference Tatian poses the question, what does the
phrase ‘divine image and likeness’ mean? This is his explanation:

‘What is not capable of comparison is Being itself, but what is

capable of comparison is nothing other than what is similar. The
perfect God is fleshless, but humankind is flesh. The bond of the
flesh is the soul, but it is the flesh which contains the soul. If such a
structure is like a temple, God is willing to dwell in it through his
representative, the spirit …’162

158
Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century 136 acknowledges that ‘Tatian’s
understanding of the creation of man is clearly influenced by Genesis, since he states that
the Word made man ‘in the likeness of the Father’ ’ but does not discuss the issue further.
159
Oratio 12.1.
160
Oratio 7.5.
161
Oratio 15.3.
162
Oratio 15.4-5.
156
The fall of humankind and the fall of the rebel angels

Other than when discussing creation and the nature of humankind, Tatian’s
references to the Barbarian Writings are less direct and better described as
allusions. In two instances, the allusions are sufficiently explicit to be traceable to
specific texts: the fall of humankind and the fall of the rebel angels; in two other
cases, however, the allusions are more generally to literary traditions rather than
specific texts: the creation of angels and the eschaton. Greek philosophical schools
did not address issues such as these and the sources for Tatian’s ideas must
therefore be sought within the Jewish literary tradition.

The two traceable allusions are found in Oratio 7 where the fall of humankind
and the fall of angels are discussed. Genesis 2-3 is a source for the fall of
humankind, although not an explicit one; Tatian does not refer to the Genesis
narrative and there is no mention of Adam and Eve. The fall of angels is not
mentioned in Genesis and Tatian’s source for this is most likely 1Enoch.163

In discussing the fall of humankind, Tatian includes two key ideas which can be
traced back to Genesis 2-3. The first is his assertion that, as originally created,
humankind possessed free will,164 and that this was an essential contributory factor
leading to the fall: ‘Now the Word before he made humankind created angels,
and each of the two forms of creation has free will…This was in order that the
one who was bad might be justly punished, since he had become wicked through
his own fault…’165 A connection can be detected here with the narrative in
Genesis 3, which describes how acts of disobedience, first by Eve and then by
Adam, in both cases freely undertaken, lead to expulsion by God from the Garden

163
As noted above, Grant’s contention that there are three explicit references to Genesis
2-3 is hard to credit, particularly as the allusions can be read more plausibly as referring to
1Enoch (see below).
164
Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century 137 identifies free will as an essential
component of Tatian’s account of ‘Man’, but does not point to any link with Genesis 2-3.
165
Oratio 7.2.
157
of Eden. Genesis does not use the language of free will, but Tatian’s comment
can be read as a 2C Christian interpretation of the underlying meaning of the
narrative in Genesis 3, echoing the notion found in Philo that the exercise of
human free will was responsible for the fall.166

The second key idea traceable to Genesis 2-3 is Tatian’s contention that the fall
led to the loss of the higher spirit which was originally present in humankind and
so to the loss of primal human immortality; he says that ‘The creature who was
made in the image of God, when the more powerful spirit left him, became
mortal...’167 This echoes Gen 3:3 where, although the concept of the loss of the
higher spirit is not present, the loss of immortality is described as the consequence
of disobedience in the Garden of Eden: ‘…but of the fruit of the tree that is in the
middle of the orchard, God said, ‘You shall not eat of it nor shall you even touch
it, lest you die.’’168

The fall of the rebel angels is briefly described by Tatian in the passage translated
by Whittaker as: ‘The demons had to move house, and those created first were
banished, the former were cast down from heaven, the latter from not this earth,
but one better ordered than here.’169 The meaning of this passage has generated
controversy; Hunt argued against Whittaker that οἱ μέν and οἱ δέ should be
rendered by ‘some’ and ‘others’ rather than ‘the former’ and ‘the latter’,170 a
reading supported by the two most recent translators of the text, Trelenberg and
Nesselrath.171 Hunt’s rendering is therefore: ‘The demons had to move house, for
those who were created first have been banished; some have been cast down from

166
Philo, Quaestiones 1 LCL 1.55, commentary on Gen 3:22 (Hunt, Christianity in the
Second Century 214 n177). This is not to suggest that Tatian knew Philo’s work.
167
Oratio 7.5.
168
NETS.
169
Oratio 20.3.
170
Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 134.
171
Trelenberg, Oratio, 139 & Nesselrath, Gegen falsche Götter 77 (both using the phrases
‘die einen’ and ‘die anderen’).
158
heaven, whilst others [have been cast down] not from this earth, but from [one]
better ordered than here.’172 Although the meaning of the text remains
ambiguous, Hunt’s translation is, on balance, to be preferred. VanderKam’s
comment that ‘…all is not pellucid’ here is therefore well-judged, but he is also
right when he goes on to maintain that the first part of the sentence is a clear
reference to the contents of 1Enoch: ‘…the parallelism -- the demons driven to
another abode which is then equated with being cast from heaven -- shows that
the beings whom Tatian called demons are the angels of 1Enoch 6-16.’173

The fall of the rebel angels is not part of the Genesis narrative, but an account of it
is found in 1Enoch 6-11,174 a text related to Genesis 6-9, and more specifically to
Gen 6:1-4,175 although containing much additional material. In brief, 1Enoch 6-
11 describes two myths: first, how fallen angels led by Shemihazah came down
from heaven to earth and married human women, and how their offspring then
brought sin and evil to the world: and second, how Asael brought knowledge
from heaven down to earth and again how this brought evil into the world. Both
Shemihazah and Asael are banished and imprisoned until, at God’s command,
archangels intervene. Tatian does not follow the 1Enoch narrative and his
reference is brief and allusive. The importance of Enoch for early Christianity
has, however, long been appreciated,176 although its significance for Tatian has

172
Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 134.
173
J C VanderKam, ‘1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature’ in
J C VanderKam & W Adler, The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (Van
Gorcum, Assen 1996) 33-101, 65.
174
1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1-36; 81-108 by G W
Nickelsburg ed K Baltzer (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2001) 165-228.
175
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 166.
176
H J Lawlor, ‘Early Citations from the Book of Enoch’ Journal of Philology 25 (1897)
164-225, J C VanderKam, Enoch: a man for all generations (University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia 1995) & A Y Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and
Christianity: the Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2005). The NT Letter of Jude 14-15 explicitly cites (and names) Enoch.
159
not generally been recognised,177 but VanderKam’s contention that the reference
in the Oratio is to 1Enoch makes for a powerful case.

Tatian alludes here to a source outside Genesis, but from elsewhere in the Jewish
literary tradition.178 Modern scholarship regards Chapters 1-36 of 1Enoch as a
Hellenistic work completed by the 3C BCE,179 but the text presents itself as the
work of an ancient figure, Enoch, the same who appears in Genesis 5.180 The
named author is prominent in the narrative of 1Enoch, with Chapters 12-36 a
first person account of his exploits. In the 2C CE it is most likely that the text
bearing Enoch’s name would have been regarded as of ancient provenance and so
it is unsurprising to find a Christian author such as Tatian treating it as both
ancient and authoritative.

The creation of angels and the eschaton

In addition to these two traceable allusions, the Oratio contains two allusions that
relate more generally to Jewish literary tradition, rather than to specific texts. The
first is the brief mention of the creation of angels: ‘Now the Word before he made
humankind created angels...’181 The creation of angels does not appear in Genesis
1, although it features in later Jewish works. Reference was made in Chapter 1 to
the Rewritten Bible tradition which was a feature of Hellenistic Jewish literature.
It is not possible to know which texts Tatian knew, but the Book of Jubilees,
which retells the Genesis 1 creation narrative, and is an example of this tradition,
adds the creation of angels on the first day to the Genesis account.182 Tatian

177
Lawlor, ‘Early Citations from the Book of Enoch’ & Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 82-108
(review of its influence on early Christian writings) do not mention Tatian.
178
Reed, Fallen Angels 175 suggests that Tatian’s knowledge of Enoch came via Justin
rather than directly.
179
Nickelsburg, 1Enoch 1 7.
180
Nickelsburg, 1Enoch 1 71.
181
Oratio 7.2.
182
The Book of Jubilees, Critical Text & Translation 2 Volumes ed J C VanderKam
(Peeters, Leuven 1989) 2 2.2.
160
therefore probably refers here either to Jubilees or to some other Jewish
development of the Genesis tradition.183 Jubilees is regarded by modern
scholarship as a Hellenistic Jewish work, dated to the 2C BCE,184 but it presents
itself as the work of Moses, to whom the account of creation is dictated by an
angel at the behest of God on Mount Sinai.185 The text emphasises Moses’
authorship and, as with 1Enoch, it seems most likely that in the 2C CE it would
have been regarded as of ancient provenance; so, again, it is unsurprising that a
Christian author such as Tatian would treat it as ancient and authoritative.

Discussion of the fate of humankind at the end of the world is the other instance
where Tatian appears to owe a debt to Jewish literary tradition, even if his sources
cannot be precisely identified. His ideas are not expressed in sufficient detail to
link them with specific Jewish texts, but Tatian’s use of 1Enoch as a source has
already been noted and since it is primarily an eschatological text,186 Tatian may
well be drawing on it or more generally on texts from Jewish eschatological
tradition.187

Tatian affirms his belief in a bodily resurrection and a last judgement: ‘...our
examiner is God, the creator himself’188 and he links the eschaton to original
creation in two respects. First, he contends that bodily death will take human
beings back to their state prior to birth, saying that ‘...it was through my birth that
I, previously non-existent, came to believe that I did exist. In the same way,
when I who was born cease to exist through death and am seen no more, I shall

183
The practice of retelling the Genesis 1 account, but with changes, is found e.g. in
4Ezra: Fourth Ezra: a Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra ed M E Stone (Fortress
Press, Minneapolis 1990) 178-189.
184
VanderKam, Jubilees 2 V-VI.
185
VanderKam, Jubilees 2 1.27 & 2.1.
186
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 37.
187
C Rowland, The Open Heaven: a Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early
Christianity (SPCK, London 1982) & J C VanderKam & W Adler, The Jewish
Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (Van Gorcum, Assen 1996).
188
Oratio 6.2.
161
again be as in my previous state of non-existence before birth.’189 Second, he
describes the immortal life which humankind can attain after death as a
restoration of the union of soul and spirit which existed in humankind at the
primordial stage prior to the fall, arguing that ‘…we have learned things we did
not know through prophets who convinced that the spirit together with the soul
would obtain the heavenly garment of mortality -– immortality -– used to foretell
the things that the other souls did not know.’190

Linking creation to the eschaton in this way is a feature of 1Enoch and of other
Jewish texts which influenced early Christianity.191 The main theme of 1Enoch is
the coming judgement of God and it connects the initiation of evil soon after
creation with its eradication at the end of the world.192 Tatian’s statements cannot
be specifically linked with that text, but another work, 4Ezra 6, which connects
creation with the last judgement, also links the concept of God as creator with
that of God as judge.193 Like 1Enoch, the influence of 4Ezra on early Christian
writings is well-attested, and it could have been among Tatian’s sources.194 As
with 1Enoch and Jubilees, 4Ezra is regarded by modern scholarship as a late
Hellenistic Jewish work, probably as late as the 1C CE,195 but its putative author,
Ezra, who features prominently in the text, presents himself as an ancient figure

189
Oratio 6.3.
190
Oratio 20.6.
191
Rowland, Open Heaven 146-155.
192
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 37: ‘The mythic materials conflated in chaps. 6-11 constitute a
narrative that begins with an explanation of the origins of certain types of evil in the
world and ends by anticipating its eradication on a purified earth among a righteous
humanity.’
193
J A Moo, Creation, Nature and Hope in 4 Ezra (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen
2011) 45.
194
Stone, Fourth Ezra 1-2 & 43.
195
Dated between the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and a reference in Clement of
Alexandria c190 CE, the most likely date being the reign of Domitian 81-96 CE: Stone,
Fourth Ezra 9-10.
162
located in Babylon during the Exile in the 6C BCE196 where he has a series of
visions.197 It thus seems likely that in the 2C CE 4Ezra would have been regarded
as an ancient text. Tatian’s direct dependence on particular works cannot be
demonstrated, but his discussion of the eschaton appears to owe a debt to
traditions that include texts such as 1Enoch and 4Ezra.

Christian texts

Tatian occasionally alludes to texts which have since become part of the Christian
NT. As a general rule, such allusions are outside the scope of this study.
However, they do have some relevance since Tatian uses NT citations and
allusions to support his Jewish scriptural references rather than to make separate
and independent arguments. Thus when describing God the creator he adds in
explanation the phrase ‘God is spirit’ from John 4:24 to support his contention
that God existed before there was matter, and that God was in fact the cause of
the existence of matter: ‘God is spirit, not pervading matter, but the maker of
material spirits and of the forms that are in matter.’198 Then a little later, when
making his argument that the invisible and impalpable God is known through his
creation he adds in support an allusion to Rom 1:20: ‘what is invisible in his
power we understand through what he has made.’199 Later still, in his account of
the nature of humankind in the divine image and likeness, Tatian claims that,
while God is fleshless and humankind is flesh: ‘...the bond of the flesh is the soul,
but it is the flesh which contains the soul.’200 Here he draws support from
allusions to 1 and 2 Corinthians and Ephesians which refer to the human being as

196
Chapter 3.1: ‘In the thirtieth year after the destruction of our city, I Salathiel, who am
also called Ezra, was in Babylon’ (Stone, Fourth Ezra 53).
197
Stone, Fourth Ezra 50-51.
198
Oratio 4.3.
199
Oratio 4.3.
200
Oratio 15.4.
163
the temple of God:201 ‘If such a structure is like a temple (ναὸς), God is willing to
dwell in it through his representative, the spirit.’202

Given the way that the Christian texts are used here in support of Jewish
scriptural references, it is not impossible that they could, in Tatian’s eyes, also fall
within the scope of the term Barbarian Writings. It was noted earlier that Tatian
sets up a dichotomy between two competing cultures, the Greek and the
barbarian, and if the Christian writings are not part of Greek culture -- which
they are not in the way Tatian uses the term -- then they would have to be part
of the barbarian alternative. Arguments have also been made earlier for the
prevalence of collections of extracts from authoritative texts in the 2C and, if
Tatian was accessing such sources, they could have contained not only material
from a variety of Jewish texts, but also extracts from Christian writings which
amplify or comment on the more ancient material. This contention is somewhat
speculative, but the fluid nature of Tatian’s presentation of the Barbarian Writings
as lacking strict boundaries and the way in which he cites allusions from Christian
texts to support points being made on the basis of the Jewish scriptures lends the
argument some credence.

Tatian’s method for using the scriptures

Tatian’s use of references to the Barbarian Writings leads him to adopt a

particular method for presenting his arguments which is very different from
Justin’s. Whereas in the Proof from Prophecy each text was set beside its
explanatory interpretation, in the Oratio quotations and allusions are incorporated
seamlessly into the text. An example of this is Chapter 15, where Tatian is giving
an account of aspects of the nature of the human soul. At three points in the
chapter he injects a reference to substantiate his argument (italicised in the

201
1Cor 3:16 & 6:19; 2Cor 6:16 and Eph 2: 21-22: see Whittaker, Oratio 30 &
Marcovich, Oratio 33.
202
Oratio 15.5.
164
extracts below). First, when discussing the nature of humankind in general he
claims: ‘Humankind is not, as the croakers teach, a rational being capable of
intelligence and understanding…but humankind alone is the image and likeness
of God.’203 Second, when explaining how the divine spirit can inhabit the human
soul, he says: ‘The perfect God is fleshless, but humankind is flesh. The bond of
the flesh is the soul, but it is the flesh which contains the soul. If such a structure
is like a temple, God is willing to dwell in it through his representative, the
spirit…’204 Third, when discussing the position of humankind following the fall,
Tatian says that: ‘…after their loss of immortality human beings have overcome
death by death in faith, and through repentance they have been given a calling,
according to the saying, since they were made for a little while lower than the
angels. It is possible for everyone defeated to win another time, if he rejects the
constitution making for death.’205

In each case, the reference is incorporated into the text, although differently in
each instance. In the first, a brief quotation from Genesis 1 is included to register
the point Tatian wishes to make; in the second, words are added which allude to 1
Corinthians 3; while in the third, a lengthier quotation, from Psalm 8, is melded
into the text. In all three cases, however, the reference is used to bolster the
argument and, indeed, is made part of it, and the text moves seamlessly from
Tatian’s words into the scriptural reference and back out again into Tatian’s
words. There is an obvious contrast to be made with the Second Sophistic use of
quotations described above.

Barbarian Writings and Barbarian Culture

The word barbarian, which appears as part of the phrase Barbarian Writings, is a
central idea for Tatian and deserves further discussion. In Greek culture there was

203
Oratio 15.3.
204
Oratio 15.4-5.
205
Oratio 15.9-10.
165
a dichotomy between Greek and barbarian, with the presumption that what was
Greek was superior to what was barbarian.206 The reality is, however, more
complex, for in Greek literature attitudes towards barbarians were not necessarily
characterised by simple opposition and antagonism.207 Strong criticism of aspects
of Greek culture is found in its own literary tradition, in the work of Lucian, for
instance, who satirised particular individuals and cultural practices208 --including
philosophy209 -- while there could also be considerable admiration for aspects of
barbarian culture, the so-called laudatio barbarorum.210 Careful analysis of some
key texts by Gruen has shown that Greek attitudes towards the ‘other’ -- which
includes barbarians -- were far more nuanced than simple stereo-typing of the
concepts Greek and barbarian would suggest.211

In the Oratio references to barbarian culture are wholly praise-worthy. As has

been shown, Tatian presents his authoritative writings as the texts of a barbarian
philosophy which challenges, and in his view should supplant, those of the Greek

206
A classic account of Graeco-Roman attitudes to barbarians is Y A Dauge, Le Barbare:
recherche sur la conception romaine de la barbarie at de la civilisation (Latomus, Brussels
1981).
207
An example of such complexity is found in Lucian’s ‘True History’ (Lucian, Selected
Dialogues trans D Costa (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005) 203-233) where the
narrator meets Homer who reveals himself to be from Babylon and therefore a barbarian,
which is ironical since he is the seminal figure in Greek literary culture; Lucian
comments that barbarians may more perfectly acquire Greek paedeia than Greeks: H-G
Nesselrath, ‘Two Syrians and Greek Paedeai: Lucian and Tatian’ in G A Xenis ed,
Literature, Scholarship, Philosophy and History, Classical Studies in Memory of Ioannis
Taifacos (Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2015) 129-142, 131-133.
208
C P Jones, Culture and Society in Lucian (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1986).
209
Such as ‘Hermotimus or On the Philosophical Schools’, Lucian’s longest text, in which
Lycinus persuades Hermotimus of the folly of following any philosophy (Lucian, Selected
Dialogues 88-128); see also C Robinson, Lucian and his Influence in Europe
(Duckworth, London 1979).
210
J H Waszink, ‘Some Observations on the Appreciation of ‘The Philosophy of the
Barbarians’ in Early Christian Literature’ in L J Engels et al eds, Mélanges offerts à
Mademoiselle Christine Mohrmann (Spectrum, Utrecht 1963) 41-56 & Droge, Homer or
Moses? 88-91.
211
E S Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton University Press, Princeton
2010).
166
Schools, but this is only one element in a broader case for the superiority of the
barbarian over the Greek. Tatian writes admiringly of barbarian culture and
disparagingly of Greek.212 In his Apologia Maior Justin expressed some criticisms
of Greek philosophy and his citations of prophecies were used as a basis for
attacking Graeco-Roman mythological religion; in the Oratio Tatian launches a
much broader assault on Graeco-Roman culture as a whole, including its myth-
based religion and its philosophical traditions, but extending far beyond them.

Tatian argues that many important inventions and discoveries are actually
barbarian rather than Greek innovations and these cover a wide range, including
geometry, history, the alphabet, sculpture, music, astronomy and magic,
divination and the cult of sacrifice.213 Later in the Oratio considerable space is
devoted to hostile accounts of other aspects of Greek culture, including sorcery
and medicine,214 acting and mime,215 drama and music216 and gladiatorial shows.217
In the early chapters, aspects of Greek culture original to them, such as their
language218 and their philosophy,219 are singled out for particular criticism. The
language of the Greeks is their own and not derived from barbarians, but it is a
cause of dissension because the different Greek peoples -- Dorians, Attics,
Aeolians and Ionians -- speak different forms of the language and the result is that

212
Fojtik, ‘Tatian the barbarian’ considers Tatian’s arguments for the superiority of
barbarian over Greek cultural identity, but does not give the central place to the Jewish
scriptures advocated here.
213
Oratio 1: the various inventions and discoveries are attributable to different barbarian
peoples: e.g. geometry and history to the Egyptians, the alphabet to the Phoenicians,
sculpture to the Etruscans, music to the Phrygians and Tyrrhenians, astronomy to the
Babylonians, magic to the Persians, divination to the Telmessians and the cult of sacrifice
to the Cyprians.
214
Oratio 16-18.
215
Oratio 22.
216
Oratio 24.
217
Oratio 23.
218
Oratio 1.4.
219
Oratio 2&3.
167
‘I do not know whom to call Greek.’220 The philosophies of the Greeks are
attacked through the wholesale denigration of philosophers and their characters,
with Diogenes, Aristippus, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Zeno, Pherecydes,
Pythagoras and Crates singled out for particular criticism.221 Moreover, the
quarrels among philosophers who advance different, and indeed contradictory,
doctrines are criticised by Tatian222 using the terms σύμφωνος and α͗σύμφονος,223
which are employed in a similar way (but more extensively) by Theophilus of
Antioch.224

Tatian argues -– in line with the theft theory referred to above -- that the Greeks
derived some of their philosophy from the Barbarian Writings, and that while
they took over many inventions from barbarian peoples as they were, their
inheritance from barbarian philosophy was subject to misunderstanding and
distortion. Tatian therefore claims that Greek philosophy, as it is, should be
rejected along with the rest of Greek culture. His wish is to return to the
uncorrupted original barbarian philosophy. Thus he presents his Barbarian
Writings as the core texts of barbarian culture, and Christianity as the philosophy
built upon those texts.225

This is a provocative stance to take. Wholesale attacks on the Greek philosophical

tradition were not unfamiliar in Graeco-Roman culture, as is evident from the
prevalence of sceptical traditions of thought.226 Tatian’s rejection of Greek
culture is, however, accompanied by positive promotion of the barbarian
alternative. Reference was made earlier to the way in which the basically

220
Oratio 1.4.
221
Oratio 2&3.
222
Oratio 25.
223
Oratio 25.4.
224
See Chapter 4.
225
For Tatian’s presentation of Christianity as a barbarian philosophy: Malingrey,
‘Philosophia’ 120-121.
226
R J Hankinson, The Sceptics (Routledge, London 1995).
168
negative connotations surrounding the idea of the barbarian in Graeco-Roman
culture could be ameliorated by some more positive aspects; Droge argues that
Tatian takes such a view and that he follows in the footsteps of laudatio
barbarorum.227 This, however, is to underplay Tatian’s originality, since he breaks
new ground in claiming that barbarian culture should actually be preferred to the
Greek,228 and in this respect he is exceptional: indeed, unique.

Tatian’s argument for the cultural positioning of the Barbarian Writings leads to
the emergence of characters in the text. In Justin’s Apologia Maior three
characters were identified, Romans, Jews and Christians, with Romans prominent
as the addressees of the petition. In the Oratio, however, the delineation of
character is more ambiguous; the Romans are absent and the two characters to
emerge clearly are the addressees, the Greeks, and the barbarians. Tatian sets up
an opposition between them, condemning the Greeks and lauding the barbarians.
Christians (and Jews) are not explicitly mentioned in the Oratio, although the first
person plural is used by Tatian to refer to Christians,229 so they have a presence in
the text, if an unacknowledged one. The first person plural adjective ‘our’ is also
used on a number of occasions to refer to barbarians230 and this indicates at the
minimum a very close affinity between the barbarians of ancient times and the
Christians of Tatian’s own day. It is possible that Tatian would actually include
Christians within the scope of the term barbarian, although, if not, they are at
least the current heirs and successors of the ancient barbarian culture. The ancient
texts of the barbarians are authoritative texts for Christians; indeed, they are the

227
Droge, Homer or Moses? 88-91.
228
Gruen, Rethinking the Other does not suggest that any writers of the time expressed
the wholesale preference for barbarian over Greek found in the Oratio.
229
There are numerous examples: e.g. ‘We are convinced that there will be a bodily
resurrection...’ (6.1), ‘we, for whom dying now turns out easily…’ (14.5) & ‘We are not
foolish…’ (21.1).
230
E.g. ‘our own people’ (31.2), ‘our prophets’ (36.3) & ‘our way of life and history
according to our laws’ (40.3).
169
critical link between Tatian’s new religion and the barbarian culture to which he
aspires to attach himself and Christians generally.

The Jews are absent as a character from the Oratio. It was found in Justin’s
Apologia Maior that the role of the Jews was played down and that they were
barely acknowledged as the source for the Books of the Prophecies. Tatian,
however, plays down the role of the Jews much further, to the point where, at
least in relation to the Barbarian Writings, they are not referred to at all. It may
be that in view of the Jews’ defeat by the Romans and their humiliating expulsion
from Jerusalem, referred to explicitly by Justin, Tatian does not wish to associate
himself and his ideas directly with the Jews. Indeed, it is possible that Tatian
describes his authoritative writings as barbarian precisely because he wishes to
avoid referring to them as Jewish; it is noteworthy that he does not attribute the
Barbarian Writings to any one barbarian people, as he does with all the inventions
he describes in Chapter 1; and since the Jews are not mentioned in the Oratio, it
is also the case that there are no references to antagonism or conflict between
Christians and Jews.

The Oratio and the Graeco-Roman literary context

The relationship between Tatian’s Oratio and the Graeco-Roman literary context
is an ambiguous one, since the text exhibits features which locate it firmly within
its surroundings even though in many respects it is at odds with Greek culture. In
Chapter 2 it was noted that Justin’s Proof from Prophecy had affinities with a
number of forms of writing from Greek literary traditions, but that it did not fit
precisely with any single model. In Tatian’s case, the position is different, in one

170
sense, in that the Oratio231 follows one of the commonest and longest-established
forms in Graeco-Roman literature, the oration, a form which flourished in the era
of the Second Sophistic.232 There is, however, no obviously close parallel with
Tatian’s work in the extant classical writings of the time, although there are
similarities to be noted with three different authors who were his contemporaries.
Thus Tatian’s text has affinities with the Orationes of the prominent orator,
Aelius Aristides;233 in Oratio 33, for instance, Aelius engages directly with his
audience, citing attacks they have made, responding to them and expressing
criticism of his own in ways reminiscent of Tatian.234 In terms of subject matter,
however, Tatian’s work is closer to that of Maximus of Tyre.235 Forty-one of his
Dissertationes, which focus on philosophical and religious issues, survive;
Dissertatio 11 entitled ‘Plato on God’, for instance, discusses themes which are also
important for Tatian: the nature of the human soul (11.7) and the nature of God
(11.8-11.12). The strongly vituperative tone adopted by Tatian is not a feature of
either Aelius’ or Maximus’ work; there was, however, a strand of writing in the
Graeco-Roman tradition which involved the use of diatribe and public

231
The manuscript title is simply ΤΑΤΙΑΝΟΥ ΠΡΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ (Marcovich, Oratio
7) with no term such as ΛΟΓΟΣ to indicate specifically the form of the work. It has all
the characteristics of an oration, however; ‘Oratio ad Graecos’ is the title commonly
applied to the work by modern scholars and is used by all four modern editors,
Whittaker, Marcovich, Trelenberg and Nesselrath.
232
For which see: Kennedy, Art of Rhetoric.
233
He came originally from Smyrna in Asia Minor, travelled extensively and spent time
in Rome: BNP article on Aelius by E Bowie. Forty-four of his orations survive: Aelii
Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt Omnia 2 Volumes ed B Keil (Weidmann, Berlin 1893-
1898) & Aelius Aristides The Complete Works 2 Volumes trans C A Behr (Brill, Leiden
1981-1986). He is cited as a parallel with Tatian by E Norelli, ‘La critique du pluralisme
Grec dans le Discours aux grecs de Tatian’ in Pouderon & Doré, Les Apologists
Chrétiens 81-120, 109-113.
234
Aelius Aristides ed Behr 2 166-172: discussed in C A Behr, Aelius Aristides and the
Sacred Tales (Adolf M Hakkert, Amsterdam 1968) 102-103.
235
Text: Maximus of Tyre, Dissertationes ed M B Trapp (Teubner, Stuttgart 1994).
Translation: Maximus of Tyre, The Philosophical Orations trans with an Introduction
and Notes by M B Trapp (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997). Trapp ed, Philosophical
Orations xlix-li notes points of comparison between Maximus and Christian apologists.
171
denigration as modes of literary expression236 and Tatian’s Oratio can be viewed
in that context;237 there are close parallels, in terms of tone, with works by his
contemporary, Lucian, such as The Death of Peregrinus.238

Stylistically, scholars have noted Tatian’s use of linguistic and rhetorical devices
characteristic of Greek literature of the time. One feature, the use of quotations
from and allusions to classic Greek literary works has already been discussed.
Puech has identified other features of style characteristic of Second Sophistic
writers in the Oratio, drawing attention in particular to Tatian’s use of
asianisms.239 The significant usage which Tatian makes of rhetorical devices has
also been highlighted by scholars of ancient literary style, notably Kennedy and
Karadimas.240

The influence on Tatian of Second Sophistic culture more broadly can be

detected in two particular themes present in the Oratio, those of Greekness and of
exile. Modern scholars have identified a preoccupation in Second Sophistic
literature with the theme of Greek identity within the Roman Empire, as
concerns about the preservation of ‘Greekness’ in the context of an Empire, which
had expanded to encompass the culturally Greek eastern Mediterranean, were
worked through. The theme of exile is also explicitly considered in a number of
Second Sophistic texts which explore not least how experience of exile relates to

236
V Arena, ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’ in Dominik & Hall eds, Companion to Roman
Rhetoric 149-160. The BNP article on Invective by W-L Liebermann refers to a literary
tradition going back to Plato of ψόγος (vituperation), a descriptive term cited in Grant,
Greek Apologists 116 with reference to the Oratio.
237
The description of a diatribe as ‘...an ethical lecture of a popular nature, often rather
loosely put together out of commonplace arguments or examples’ in Kennedy, Art of
Rhetoric 469 fits Tatian’s Oratio quite well.
238
Lucian, Selected Dialogues 74-87.
239
A Puech, Recherches 14-36 refers to ‘l’éloquence asiatique’ (21).
240
Karadimas, Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos & G A Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its
Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times Second ed rev &
enlarged (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill 1999) 153-155.
172
the articulation of identity; Whitmarsh241 has shown how Greek writers such as
Musonius Rufus,242 Dio Chrysostom243 and Favorinus244 used such accounts as a
mechanism for reflecting on what it meant to be Greek.

The articulation of these ideas in the Oratio has unexpected consequences,

however, since Second Sophistic writers discuss the nature of their Greek identity,
while Tatian turns matters on their head by rejecting altogether the Greek culture
to which he originally belonged and advocating instead a barbarian identity
which was wholly new to him. Similarly, while the Second Sophistic writers
considered the experience of exile and how it related to their Greek cultural
identity, Tatian advocates voluntary self-exile, not as part of a process of
articulating his Greekness, but as a route to the abandonment of his Greek
heritage in favour of a new barbarian identity. He thus echoes, but at the same
time contradicts, the concerns with exile and with Greek identity which were
common themes in the literature of the time.

At the heart of the barbarian culture which Tatian promotes in preference to the
Greek he places the Barbarian Writings. There is no suggestion in the Oratio
that these texts were written in anything other than the Greek language -– a
Hebrew original is never mentioned -– but, in spite of this, Tatian does not seek
to position them within Greek literary culture and they are never referred to as if
they belong to any of the conventional classifications of Greek literature; they are
described only as barbarian. Thus in some ways Tatian’s promotion of the
Barbarian Writings sets him at odds with the prevailing Greek culture, while in
other ways it serves to connect him to it. How Tatian came to occupy the
position he did must be a matter of speculation. He refers to criticisms made of

241
T Whitmarsh, ‘ ‘Greece is the World’: Exile and Identity in the Second Sophistic’ in
Goldhill ed, Being Greek under Rome 269-305.
242
Musonius Rufus, ‘That exile is not an evil’: Whitmarsh, ‘Greece is the World’ 276-285.
243
Dio Chrysostom, ‘13th Oration: On Exile:’ Whitmarsh, ‘Greece is the World’ 285-294.
244
Favorinus, ‘On Exile’: Whitmarsh, ‘Greece is the World’ 294-303.
173
him for embracing barbarian doctrines245 and if, following his conversion to
Christianity, he really was faced with reactions of this kind from non-Christians,
then one possible response would have been to turn criticisms into virtues and
argue that his newly-acquired barbarian heritage was actually a mark of
superiority rather than inferiority when contrasted with his previous Greek
cultural identity. He carries this point to an extreme, however, in arguing that
barbarian culture should actually supplant the Greek and this leads him to a
paradoxical position in which he is condemning Greek culture wholesale, while
in many respects writing from inside the Greek tradition.

Such a response on Tatian’s part may, however, contain an element of irony and
perhaps should not be taken entirely at face value. Nasrallah,246 in highlighting
similarities of tone between Tatian and Second Sophistic writers, describes how
Tatian ‘…draws upon satirical conventions of the second sophistic…’247 and
characterizes the Oratio as ‘…a piece of humor, a satire, a joke of sorts.’248 The
Oratio can be read as a text which promotes a philosophy called Christianity in
place of other philosophical Schools, a philosophy which is to be preferred to
them because its antiquity and its doctrines, as exemplified in its writings, render
it superior, but one which still operates within the confines of the Greek cultural
world. Faced with accusations that he has adopted barbarian ways, however,
Tatian chooses to present his argument as one which provokes a clash between
two cultures and two philosophies and to argue that Christianity is not Greek at
all but barbarian, and that what makes it distinctively and unavoidably barbarian is
that its authoritative texts derive, not from the Greek philosophical Schools, but

245
Oratio, 35.3. For the Oratio as a response to accusations that Christianity was
barbarian: S Antonova, ‘Barbarians and the Empire-wide spread of Christianity’ in W V
Harris ed, The Spread of Christianity in the First Four Centuries: Essays in Explanation
(Brill, Leiden 2005) 69-85, 72-74.
246
L Nasrallah, ‘Mapping the World: Justin, Tatian, Lucian, and the Second Sophistic’
HTR 98 (2005) 283-314.
247
Nasrallah, ‘Mapping the World’ 299.
248
Nasrallah, ‘Mapping the World’ 300.
174
from an alien tradition which originated in the writings of one of the barbarian
peoples.

Conclusion

Setting Tatian’s Oratio alongside Justin’s Apologia Maior shows two Christian
apologists making use of the Jewish scriptures, but doing so in very different
ways. The ancient texts can be viewed prophetically or philosophically, and the
apologist may cite exact quotations or invoke the scriptures in more general ways
through the use of allusions. The scriptures can provide evidence to support an
argument like the Proof from Prophecy and can also support a protreptic case
promising further enlightenment on a later occasion. It is noteworthy that
neither Justin nor Tatian uses the scriptures as a source of historical material,
however.

The Oratio form which Tatian used, together with modes of style and
presentation culled from Greek literary culture, would have given the text a
familiarity of appearance for a Graeco-Roman audience. Much of the work is,
however, devoted to assaults on the Graeco-Roman way of life, not least its
literary culture. Members of the audience might well have been accustomed to
satire, but the uncompromising character of Tatian’s attack on Greek culture
could have made his message a disconcerting one; for, although, like Justin, he
presents the choice between Graeco-Roman culture and the Christian (barbarian)
alternative, he does so much more starkly, and the contrast -– indeed the conflict
-– between the two cultures emerges particularly strongly when he is discussing
their literary texts and traditions.

The Jewish scriptures play no part in Tatian’s assaults on Graeco-Roman culture,

however; their role is to support arguments presented in the more measured
sections of the work promoting Christian ideas. Tatian in effect presents himself
as the model of someone who has become dissatisfied with Greek culture,
175
including its literary heritage, and for whom exposure to the Jewish scriptures
opens up a new way forward. It may, however, be the case that only someone
who is already sympathetic to Tatian’s wholesale criticism of Greek culture would
be prepared to consider the alternative which he offers. The Jewish scriptures do
not have a high visibility in the Oratio, although the concrete evidence of
antiquity they provide is important in bestowing on arguments for Christianity a
credibility which in a Graeco-Roman context would otherwise be lacking. It is
not clear, however, that in other respects reference to the scriptures makes the
argument for Christianity any more convincing to Tatian’s audience than would
otherwise be the case; for it asks a great deal of that audience not only to reject
their own cultural heritage completely, but to accept an alien literary culture as
their alternative focus of allegiance, especially one whose name, barbarian, had
such negative connotations.

Since Tatian makes very little use of scriptural quotations there are limits to what
can be said about his approach to scriptural interpretation, and especially to the
way that the reading of individual passages of text should be approached. It is,
however, clear that he not only values the scriptures for their antiquity, their
contents and their divine inspiration, but also regards them as works whose
literary style should be admired. The scriptures are not used by Tatian to
demonstrate the status of Jesus Christ as they are by Justin; they are, however,
presented not only as fundamental for his own conversion to Christianity, but
also, critically, as an important source of philosophical ideas, and he discusses them
with positive enthusiasm.

176
Chapter 4: The Ad Autolycum of Theophilus of Antioch: history and
commentary

Of the three texts considered in this study, the Ad Autolycum of Theophilus of

Antioch (AA)1 has received least attention from modern scholarship. It has been
suggested that this may partly be because Theophilus’ interests do not align well
with those of later scholars.2 It remains one of only a small number of substantial
Christian texts from the 2C CE to have survived in their entirety, however, and
for this reason alone merits serious consideration.

For this study AA is a core text, since the importance of the Jewish scriptures in it
is obvious. There are similarities with Justin’s Apologia Maior and Tatian’s
Oratio in its treatment of the scriptures, with prophecy and philosophy as
significant themes. Theophilus extends the uses to which the Jewish scriptures are
put into new areas however; they are viewed as coherent and connected
narratives, they are a source for accurate history and they become the subject of a

1
References to AA are to book, chapter and paragraph numbers in Theophili Antiocheni
Ad Autolycum ed M Marcovich (De Gruyter, Berlin 1995). Translations are from
Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum ed R M Grant (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1970),
adapted where appropriate. The other modern edition consulted: Théophile d’Antioche,
Trois Livres à Autolycus ed G Bardy & trans J Sender (Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1948).
2
J Engberg, ‘Conversion, Apologetic Argumentation and Polemic (amongst friends) in
Second-Century Syria: Theophilus’ Ad Autolycum’ in M Blömer, A Lichtenberger & R
Raja eds, Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity
and Change (Brepols, Turnhout 2015) 83-94, 84: ‘The otherwise comparative lack of
interest in Theophilus can perhaps partly be explained by the fact that he was silent on
matters that have tended to interest later scholars the most: Christ, the incarnation and
atonement.’
177
line-by-line commentary, the earliest example of such a form in extant Christian
literature.

Background

AA presents itself as a work in three books addressed by Theophilus to Autolycus.

Based primarily on references in later Christian writers, scholars are agreed that
the author of the work was in all probability Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch in the
170s and 180s CE.3 Its provenance is accepted as being Antioch,4 although the
city is not mentioned and the only geographical reference is to the rivers Tigris
and Euphrates being ‘on the edge of our regions.’5 This is remarkably inexact,
and it is only identification of the author as Bishop of Antioch in later Christian
literature that links the work to that city.6 Theophilus is recorded as having
written other works, none of which survives.7 The one extant manuscript of AA
regarded as having independent value, Venetus Marcianus graecus 496, is dated to
the 11C,8 roughly contemporary with the oldest surviving manuscripts of Tatian’s
Oratio.

AA’s three books have a degree of independence of theme and structure; they
were probably written separately and later brought together.9 Book 3 can be
dated after 180 CE because it refers to the death of Marcus Aurelius in that year. 10
Books 1 and 2 are likely to have been written earlier.11 References to earlier

3
Grant, AA ix-x & R Rogers, Theophilus of Antioch: the Life and Thought of a Second-
century Bishop (Lexington Books, Lanham 2000) 4-6.
4
Grant, AA ix & Rogers, Theophilus 4-6.
5
AA 2.24.4.
6
E.g. Eusebius, HE 4.24.
7
Rogers, Theophilus 4-6.
8
Marcovich, AA 1. The section of the manuscript containing the text of this work is
headed θεοφίλου πρὸς αυ͗τόλυκον (Marcovich, AA 15n).
9
Rogers, Theophilus 7.
10
1A 3.28.6: Grant, AA ix & Rogers, Theophilus 7.
11
Grant, Greek Apologists 143; Marcovich, AA 3 & Rogers, Theophilus 7.
178
books in later books suggest that the author saw them as a single work.12
Theophilus applies a different descriptive term to each book,13 with Book 1 a
ὁμιλία,14 Book 2 a σύγγραμμα15 and Book 3 a ὑπόμνημα,16 although it is
doubtful whether sharp distinctions should be drawn on the basis of these terms;
Grant translates them ‘discourse’, ‘treatise’ and ‘memorandum’, none of them a
precise term.

The main themes addressed in AA are the nature of God, the creation of the
cosmos, the origin and nature of humankind, the salvation of humankind and
human history from the earliest times down to the present day.17 The first of
these emerges in response to a question from Autolycus, who asks Theophilus
who his God is,18 and Book 1 is largely devoted to answering this question.
Theophilus’ response makes little reference to the Jewish scriptures; some allusions
can be identified, for instance to Job and the Psalms,19 although sources are not
specified, but the argument in Book I does not depend on the Jewish scriptures.
The remaining four themes listed above are addressed in Books 2 and 3, where
explicit references are made to the Jewish scriptures, so it is necessarily those two
books which are the focus here.

Some of the same issues arise with the interpretation of AA as were encountered
with Justin’s Apologia Maior and Tatian’s Oratio. AA presents itself as part of an

12
Marcovich, AA 3: ‘…that the author meant all three books to belong to the same work
is witnessed by his references; e.g., at 3.3.5 to 1.9.5; at 3.19.4 to 2.31.3…’
13
R Rogers, Theophilus 15-16.
14
AA 2.1.1.
15
AA 2.1.2.
16
AA 3.1.1.
17
For a detailed list of the contents of AA: Marcovich, AA 4-14.
18
AA 2.1.1.
19
E.g. AA 1.1.2 (Psalms) & 1.6.4 (Job). Lists of Jewish scriptural quotations and allusions
are at Grant, AA 148-149 & Marcovich, AA 141-144. For discussion of allusions to Job:
S E Parsons, Ancient Apologetic Exegesis: Introducing and Recovering Theophilus’s
World (James Clarke, Cambridge 2015) 58-64.
179
ongoing debate, dealing with particular questions about, and objections to,
Christianity, although none of the other components of the debate (real or
implied) that may once have existed now survive. The author presented himself
as a convert to Christianity20 and his addressee, Autolycus, as a non-Christian
with whom he has friendly relations.21 It is clear from literary references in AA
that Theophilus had a measure of Greek education, as did his (real or imaginary)
addressee.22 Nothing is known of Autolycus from sources external to the work;
whether he actually existed, and if so, whether he had the characteristics ascribed
to him, cannot be established.23 Engberg suggests that AA does represent a real
debate between two real historical figures, but that Theophilus also had a wider
audience in view, among both Christians and non-Christians.24 This could well
be the case, although, as with Justin and Tatian, it is not possible to be sure
whether there was a genuine external audience; the form of the work could
merely be a frame for material which was directed internally. AA was read and
preserved by Christians, but there is no surviving evidence to suggest that it was
known to non-Christians.25 Thus the audience could have been external, or it
could have been among Christians alone, or it could have straddled the
borderlines between Christians and non-Christians. These are familiar issues
from discussion of Justin and Tatian, and with Theophilus they are no easier to
resolve. AA is concerned with matters of controversy between Christians and
non-Christians, however, and in all probability does address debating topics that
were live issues in the circumstances in which Theophilus was writing.

20
AA 1.14.1.
21
This is shown by the polite manner in which Autolycus is addressed by Theophilus at
the beginning of each book, in spite of the disagreements between them on the issues
discussed (‘friend’ AA 1.1.2, ‘O excellent Autolycus’ AA 2.1.1 & ‘greetings’ AA 3.1.1).
22
Lists of non-scriptural references: Grant, AA 151-153 & Marcovich, AA 146-147.
23
The author of the most extensive work on Theophilus considers that Autolycus
probably was a real person, while still recognizing the possibility that he could be
fictional (Rogers, Theophilus 6-7).
24
J Engberg, ‘Conversion’ 86-87.
25
Caution should, however, be exercised in drawing conclusions from this given the low
rate of survival of texts.
180
As with Justin and Tatian, it is fruitful to consider Theophilus’ audience against
the categories identified by Barclay. The declared audience is the single
individual, Autolycus, named in the text. The implied audience, given the broad
range and generalized nature of the arguments, is an educated Graeco-Roman
audience, widely scoped. The intended audience is difficult to determine; it could
be internal or external to the Christian community (or both) or it could located
somewhere on the borderlands between the two.

Previous scholarship

The role of the Jewish scriptures in AA has not been the focus of much
scholarship, the one study specifically considering it being Grant’s article ‘The
Bible of Theophilus’,26 the counterpart to his article on ‘Tatian and the Bible’
discussed in Chapter 3. Grant rightly recognizes the importance of the Jewish
scriptures for Theophilus; he identifies the scriptural texts drawn on and the
nature of their Septuagintal sources27 and for this the work is exceptionally useful.
He does not, however, consider how Theophilus uses the scriptures in his
arguments and thus does not address issues of prime importance to this study. A
more recent article by Simonetti highlights themes relating to Theophilus’ use of
the scriptures, such as the concept of inspiration, but is too brief to develop them
extensively.28 Other works, such as those by Bolgiani29 and Zeegers-Vander

26
R M Grant, ‘The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch’ JBL 66 (1947) 173-196. Theophilus
was the subject of Grant’s Harvard doctoral dissertation which spawned a series of articles
over a number of years e.g. R M Grant, ‘The Problem of Theophilus’ HTR 43 (1950)
179-196.
27
Grant, ‘Bible of Theophilus’ 174-177 argues that the texts which Theophilus quotes
often agree with the ‘Lucianic’ version of the Septuagint, but he concludes that ‘the
attempt to establish a single type of text for Theophilus’ Septuagint is a failure’ (177).
28
M Simonetti, ‘La Sacra Scrittura in Teofilo D’Antiochia’ in J Fontaine & C
Kannengiesser eds, Epektasis: mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou
(Beauchesne, Paris 1972) 197-207.
29
F Bolgiani, ‘L’ascesi di Noé: a proposito di Theoph., ad Autol., III, 19’ in F Paulo & M
Barrera eds, Forma futuri, studi in onore del Cardinale Michele Pellegrino (Bottega
d’Erasmo, Torino 1975) 295-333.
181
Vorst,30 address very specific issues related to the interpretation of scriptural texts
in AA but do not engage with the broader themes considered here.

The title of Parsons’ recent work, Ancient Apologetic Exegesis (already cited),
suggests a focus on Theophilus’ use of scripture for apologetic purposes. Parsons
certainly is interested in the relationship between Theophilus and scripture and
also in his presentation of arguments, but his work is concerned with four specific
issues. The first, which has worried a number of scholars,31 is why Theophilus,
writing as a Christian apologist, says so little about Christ, and particularly his role
in salvation; Parson’s answer is that, since AA should be viewed as a protreptic
work designed only ‘to draw outsiders towards Christianity’,32 detailed treatment
of soteriological issues is out of place. His second issue concerns the prevalence of
orality in the ancient world; he argues that, as a consequence of this, scholarly
interest in a text like AA should extend beyond actual quotations to allusions and
echoes of scripture. His third point is that the structure of AA should be seen as
an example of ‘judicial rhetoric’ in which writers of scripture function as witnesses
presenting evidence; and his fourth issue is the way that scriptural anthologies and
testimonia are used in AA.

A complication arises from Parsons’ use of the term scripture to include NT texts,
which are outside the remit of the present study, but his work nevertheless
provides new insights across a range of topics. It is welcome, for instance,
following the trail-blazing work of Skarsaune in relation to Justin, to find a
scholar attempting to identify the use of testimonia by another writer, although

30
N Zeegers-Vander Vorst, ‘La création de l’Homme (Gn 1,26) chez Théophile
D’Antioche’ VC 30 (1976) 258-267 & ‘Satan, Ève et le serpent chez Théophile
D’Antioche’ VC 35 (1981) 152-169.
31
E.g. J Bentivegna, ‘A Christianity without Christ by Theophilus of Antioch’ in ed E A
Livingstone, SP 13/2 (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1975) 107-130 & Rogers, Theophilus
158-159.
32
Parsons, Ancient Apologetic Exegesis 156. Rogers, Theophilus 153-172 also
characterises Theophilus’ theology as ‘protreptic.’
182
Parson’s conclusion is that in AA such usage ‘…is relatively sparse compared with
their rich use in early and mid second century writers such as Pseudo-Barnabas
and Justin.’33 For the present study Parsons’ discussion of allusions and echoes is
less relevant than might be expected since so many of the instances he identifies
relate to NT texts.34 His contention that allusions to Job play a part in
Theophilus’ account of the nature of God in Book 1 is, however, well made.35
Overall, Parsons provides a useful addition to the literature on Theophilus, but he
focuses on a limited range of issues that overlap only to a small extent with the
concerns of the present study. Exploring the way Christian authors present the
Jewish scriptures to a non-Christian world -– central to this thesis -- is not within
Parsons’ remit, and he barely concerns himself with two areas that are particularly
important for the present study: the Jewish scriptures as a source of accurate
history and the inclusion of a commentary on Genesis.36

Other, more numerous, works dealing with theological issues in AA touch on

Theophilus’ use of the scriptures, although without making it a subject of major
interest.37 None of them considers how Theophilus regarded or used the
scriptures. In the one book-length study of Theophilus, Rogers examines his
subject on an issue by issue basis, but Theophilus’ approach to scripture is not one
of his themes or chapter topics.38 A recent doctoral thesis by Boccabello on
Theophilus’ treatment of Greek myth bears to some extent on his treatment of
scripture in AA, since the way Theophilus interprets myth is seen as a foil for his

33
Parsons, Ancient Apologetic Exegesis 155.
34
Parsons, Ancient Apologetic Exegesis 38-44.
35
Parsons, Ancient Apologetic Exegesis 58-64.
36
Parsons, Ancient Apologetic Exegesis 40-41 has only a brief discussion.
37
E.g. W R Schoedel, ‘Theophilus of Antioch: Jewish Christian?’ Illinois Classical Studies
18 (1993) 279-297; K E McVey, ‘The Use of Stoic Cosmogony in Theophilus of
Antioch’s Hexamaeron’ in M S Burrows & P Rorem eds, Biblical Hermeneutics in
Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on his Sixtieth Birthday
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1991) 32-58; Bentivegna, ‘Christianity without Christ’ & C
Curry, ‘The Theogony of Theophilus’ VC 42 (1988) 318-326.
38
Rogers, Theophilus.
183
interpretation of ideas from scripture. Thus there is some discussion of
comparisons and contrasts to be drawn between scripture and Greek myth,
although Boccabello’s interest is very much in Theophilus’ treatment of myth and
not scripture.39

The current study

This review of previous scholarship shows that, as with Justin’s Apologia Maior
and Tatian’s Oratio, the way is open for a study of Theophilus’ use of the Jewish
scriptures in AA. The approach will be similar to that adopted in Chapters 2 and
3, in that AA will be treated as a repository of arguments which may be studied
for what they reveal about the use of the Jewish scriptures by a 2C Christian
convert occupied in debates (real or implied) with non-Christians. As with the
Apologia Maior and the Oratio, however, the issue of audience cannot be
resolved definitively and a number of possibilities remain open; in order to avoid
the convoluted phraseology which would be necessary to recognize this,
however, AA’s audience, like those for the Apologia Maior and the Oratio, will be
referred to throughout as if it is external to Christianity, in line with the way the
text presents itself.

It will be shown in what follows that for Theophilus, as for Justin, the Jewish
scriptures are prophetic texts and their authors are prophets. The Jewish
scriptures also feature in Theophilus’ work in ways not found in Justin (or
Tatian). First, they are a source of factual material to support chronological
arguments. This theme occupies the second half of Book 3. Second, Theophilus
uses commentaries on two extended passages from the scriptures to demonstrate
the value of these ancient texts and employ them in support of his arguments,
especially concerning the nature of humankind. This takes up a significant

39
J S Boccabello, ‘Cosmological Allegoresis of Greek Myth in Theophilus of Antioch’s
Ad Autolycum’ (University of Oxford D Phil 2011).
184
portion of Book 2. Before exploring these issues further, however, Theophilus’
view of the nature of the scriptures and of their prophetic authorship will be
considered. In a number of respects his approach is similar to Justin’s (and to a
lesser extent Tatian’s), although there are also points of difference.

The nature of the Sacred Writings

Theophilus asserts the importance of the Jewish scriptures for him, claiming that
reading the scriptures was instrumental for his conversion:

‘I too did not believe that it [resurrection] would take place, but,
having now considered these matters, I believe. At that time I
encountered (ἐπιτυχών) the Sacred Writings of the holy prophets,
who through the Spirit of God foretold past events in the way that
they happened, present events in the way that they are happening,
and future events in the order in which they will be
accomplished.’40

It has already been noted that reference to an encounter with the Jewish scriptures
as a trigger for conversion is a recurring theme in early Christian apologetic
works,41 including those of Justin and Tatian, and that it is difficult to judge how
literally such comments should be taken. Whether or not Theophilus’ comments
are to any extent autobiographical, however, he is unquestionably claiming that
the scriptures were critical for his conversion. He describes the scriptural texts as
prophetic, dividing prophecies into those relating to past events, those relating to
the present and those relating to the future in a way that echoes Justin, and also
recommends the scriptures as a source of guidance for salvation: ‘If you wish, you
too should reverently read (ἔ̓ντυχε) the prophetic writings; they will guide you

40
AA 1.14.1.
41
Engberg, ‘From among You are We’ 49-77.
185
most clearly how to escape eternal punishments and obtain the eternal benefits of
God.’42 Such explanatory comments are introduced because the audience does
not have prior familiarity with the Sacred Writings. By contrast, Theophilus does
not at any stage describe or explain Graeco-Roman literature; this would be
unnecessary since his Greek-educated audience would already be familiar with it.

In referring to the scriptures Theophilus does not use a standard term; he employs
a number of different formulations, although for the most part he follows the
reference in the conversion account quoted above in emphasizing that the
scriptures are both written and sacred. Thus his terms tend to involve a
combination of either ἱερός, ἅγιος, or θεῖος with some form of γράφω or βίβλος
and the following phrases are found: ἡ ἁγία γραφὴ,43 ἡ θεία γραφὴ,44 διὰ τῶν
ἁγίων γραφῶν,45 ε͗ν ταῖς ἁγίαις γραφαῖς,46 τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους47 and τα ἱερὰ
γράμματα.48 In what follows the phrase ‘Sacred Writings’ will be used as the
collective term for Theophilus’ description of the texts.

Like the two authors already discussed, Theophilus presents the Jewish scriptures
as sacred texts of very ancient origin, the most recent prophetic author dating
from the reign of King Darius.49 He makes no use of the Septuagint Legend,
however, which featured so significantly in Justin’s account, to explain the
historical origin of the Sacred Writings. As in Justin’s Apologia Maior and
Tatian’s Oratio, scriptures are always quoted in Greek in AA; there are, however,

42
AA 1.14.3.
43
AA 2.13.7.
44
AA 2.18.1.
45
AA 2.30.7.
46
AA 3.11.7.
47
AA 3.20.6.
48
AA 3.26.1.
49
AA 3.23.2: ‘The last of the prophets, Zacharias by name, flourished in the reign of
Darius.’
186
three references suggesting that they were originally written in Hebrew -– and
that Theophilus knows it -– although this point is not emphasised.50

Like Justin and Tatian, Theophilus never accompanies the phrase Sacred Writings
with a definition or list of contents, so his view of their scope remains unclear.
He may have regarded them as a settled collection of books, but, as was suggested
in the case of Tatian, he could have looked on them more in the nature of a
tradition of writings, consisting of a number of texts, whose make-up was not
necessarily fixed. Which texts comprise the Sacred Writings will be considered
below when Theophilus’ use of the scriptures is discussed.

On occasion, Theophilus refers to a written source using a different description,

the Genesis of the World (Γένεσις κόσμου). He tells the story of Cain and Abel
partly through quotations from Genesis 4 and partly in his own words. His
account cannot be described as a paraphrase, since he introduces elements of his
own not in the Genesis narrative -– saying, for example, that it is Satan who
incites Cain to kill Abel51 -- and he leaves out some elements -- such as the
sacrifices to God by the two brothers -- that are in Genesis.52 Theophilus says
that further information is to be found in a book (βίβλος) called Γένεσις
κόσμου,53 but what is meant by this phrase is problematic. There are three later
references which may be to the same source, all of them relating back to an
(unspecified) earlier place in the text. The first occurs when Theophilus describes
the descendants of Cain and Seth and refers to the existence of a ‘partial account
elsewhere’ -– additional to the Sacred Writings -- with the parenthetic comment

50
The three references are at 2.12.5, when Theophilus is discussing the Hexaemeron and
says ‘what the Hebrews call Sabbath is rendered ‘hebdomad (ἑβδομάς) in Greek’, at
2.24.3 where he says ‘The Hebrew word Eden means delight’ and at 3.19.2 where he
refers to ‘…Noah, whose Hebrew name is translated in Greek as rest’.
51
AA 2.29.3.
52
Gen 4:3-5.
53
AA 2.29.2.
187
‘as we have said above.’54 The other two occur when the story of Noah is being
discussed; he describes how ‘an account of the story of Noah… is available for us
in the book (βίβλος again) which we mentioned before…’55 and later comments:
‘As for the three sons of Noah and their relationships and their genealogies, we
have a brief catalogue in the book (βίβλος again) we mentioned previously.’56

If these three references are all to the same text -- as seems most likely -- then the
book entitled Γένεσις κόσμου contains at a minimum the stories of Cain and
Abel, of Noah and of the sons of Noah and also genealogical material. Use of the
term βίβλος implies a discrete text rather than a collection of quotations and to
judge from the contents referred to this could well be Genesis, or at least a portion
of it. Commenting on Γένεσις κόσμου, Bardy says firmly that ‘Ce titre désigne
évidemment la Genèse…’57 Grant, less surely, comments that it is ‘possibly, but
not certainly,’ a reference to Genesis.58 Theophilus could, however, be referring
to some text other than Genesis and there are two reasons for thinking that this
may be so: first, as already noted, the Cain and Abel narrative in AA is not the
same as Genesis, and second, there is an apparent distinction between two texts,
one referred to as the ‘Sacred Writings’ and other simply as a ‘βίβλος’. If
Theophilus is accessing some other source called Γένεσις κόσμου separate from
Genesis, it is unlikely to be wholly independent, and is most likely a text that is
partly, and probably mainly, dependent on Genesis. It could be a source
belonging to the Hellenistic Jewish Rewritten Bible tradition referred to
previously, or alternatively another work by Theophilus himself; later on, indeed,

54
AA 2.30.7.
55
AA 2.30.10.
56
AA 2.31.3.
57
Bardy, AA, 171n5.
58
Grant, AA 73n.
188
when discussing the story of the deluge Theophilus says that he provides
explanations in another work, and this could be the same Γένεσις κόσμου.59

The prophets as authors of the Sacred Writings

Theophilus describes the authors of the Sacred Writings as prophets, referring to

them in the plural, since there were a number of them: ‘There were not just one
or two of them but more at various times and seasons...’60 Like Justin, Theophilus
says little about the prophets, but does say that they came from among the
Hebrews, using the phrases παρὰ Ἑβραίοις61 and ε͗ν Ἑβραίοις62 and comments
that the term Ἑβραίοις is synonymous with Ἰουδαίοις, the Jews.63

Individual prophets are sometimes named when they are quoted: Moses,64
David,65 Solomon,66 Isaiah,67 Jeremiah,68 Hosea,69 Habbukuk,70 Ezekiel,71
Joel,72 Zechariah73 and Malachi.74 Snippets of information about individual
prophets are provided only rarely and briefly; for instance, Theophilus says that
‘Moses…lived many years before Solomon’75 and that Solomon ‘was a king and

59
AA 3.19.3: ‘...ἐν ἑτέρω̩ λόγω̩ ἐδηλώσαμεν...’: this assumes that in using the first person
plural Theophilus is referring here to himself.
60
AA 2.9.2.
61
AA 2.9.2.
62
AA 2.35.15.
63
AA 3.9.6. Usage of ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Jew’ in ancient texts is often more complex than the
simple identity of the two terms described here by Theophilus: Lieu, Christian Identity
240-249.
64
AA 3.18.5.
65
AA 2.35.12.
66
AA 3.13.5.
67
AA 2.35.5.
68
AA 2.35.8.
69
AA 2.35.4.
70
AA 2.35.13.
71
AA 3.11.4.
72
AA 3.12.6.
73
AA 3.12.7.
74
AA 2.38.1.
75
AA 2.10.7.
189
prophet’.76 Essentially, however, the prophets are presented, as in Justin’s Apologia
Maior, as little more than names.

Collectively the prophets are described as ‘illiterate men (α͗γράμματοι) and

shepherds and uneducated (ἰδιῶται),’77 suggesting that their prophetic insights do
not derive from learning and education. Whether, like Justin, Theophilus
thought that the prophetic sayings were originally delivered orally and only later
written down, is unclear, but the works of the prophets clearly exist as texts which
can be read78 and therefore must have been committed to writing at some stage.
Moreover, he refers to ‘the antiquity of our writings’79 and describes the Sacred
Writings as ‘older than all other writers’,80 suggesting that he thought the
commitment of the prophecies to writing took place at a very early stage; he may
have thought, as Justin did, that the prophets did it themselves. Like Justin, he
says that the preservation of the ancient texts is attributable to the Jews, since it is
‘from them we possess the Sacred Writings (οἱ Ἑβραῖοι...ἀφ’ ὧν...τὰς ἱερὰς
βίβλους ἔχομεν)’;81 the Greek library at Alexandria is never mentioned.

For Theophilus the prophets’ status derives from the fact that they were inspired
by God -- a sentiment again familiar from Justin and Tatian -- and this is how
they acquired their knowledge and insights: hence the use of the terms ἱερός and
ἅγιος (holy and sacred). Theophilus does not use Justin’s phrase Prophetic Spirit,
but his terminology conveys a similar sense that it is a spirit, which ultimately
comes from God, that inspires the prophets. Thus he says that the prophets

76
AA 3.13.2.
77
AA 2.35.15. An echo of the description of the Apostles Peter and John in Acts 4.13 as
α͗γράμματοι and ἰδιῶται: Marcovich, AA 88n.
78
AA 1.14.1.
79
AA 3.1.1.
80
AA 3.20.6.
81
AA 3.20.6.
190
foretold ‘through the spirit of God (διὰ πνεύματος θεοῦ)’82 and that they ‘were
possessed by a holy spirit (πνεύματος ἁγίου) and became prophets and were
inspired and instructed by God himself, were taught by God and became holy
and righteous.’83 Theophilus does, however, use other terms to denote the
intermediary between God and the prophets, saying: ‘It was the Spirit of God and
Beginning and Sophia and Power of the Most High who came down into the
prophets and spoke through them about the creation of the world and all the
rest.’84 He also uses Logos with a similar sense: ‘Moses… -- or rather, the Logos
of God speaking through him as an instrument -- says: ‘In the Beginning God
made heaven and earth.’ ’85 Why Theophilus uses a number of different terms in
this way is unclear; perhaps he did not regard the particular words he uses --
which in any case he does not define -- as having precise meanings or indeed as
being especially significant. The important point he wishes to convey is that the
prophets’ words were divinely inspired, and spirit (πνεῦμα) is the term he most
commonly uses to denote this.86

If the Sacred Writings are the product of divine inspiration, then it follows that
they must be true. Theophilus says that: ‘…those who wish to can read what was
said through them and acquire accurate knowledge of the truth and not be misled
by speculation and pointless labour.’87 (The factual accuracy of the Sacred
Writings is an issue that will recur when their role as historical sources is
discussed.) One aspect of the truthfulness of the scriptures is that they are
σύμφωνος or consistent.88 This theme occurs in both Justin and Tatian, but

82
AA 1.14.1.
83
AA 2.9.1.
84
AA 2.10.5.
85
AA 2.10.7.
86
Marcovich, AA 183 lists the 25 occurrences of the word πνεῦμα in the text.
87
AA 2.35.14.
88
This is probably the least bad translation. Grant sometimes renders σύμφωνος as
‘consistent’ (e.g. AA 2.9.2) and sometimes as ‘harmonious’ (AA 2.35.9). Boccabello,
‘Cosmological allegoresis’ 232-236 uses ‘harmony’ throughout.
191
Theophilus gives it greater emphasis. The term ‘consistent’ sounds somewhat
bland in English translation, but to Theophilus it is a significant virtue and he
refers to the prophets’ consistency on a number of occasions.89 Since there are a
number of prophets, it is important, if the truthfulness of what they say is to be
credible, that they are consistent with one another and that their messages do not
conflict. He paints a positive picture of the concept of consistency by combining
the term σύμφωνα with φίλα (agreeably) several times,90 and contrasts σύμφωνος
with ἀσύμφωνος or inconsistent,91 the quality -- or rather the defect -- found in
Greek poets and philosophers.92

Although prophets are central to Theophilus’ understanding of the scriptures,

since collectively they are its authors, he does not define a prophet. It is, however,
possible to glean from AA what prophets do and the kind of texts they produce.
There are similarities with Justin in this respect, in that Theophilus sees prophets
as authors who produce texts with a wide range of types of content, including not
just prophecy, in the sense of foretelling the future, but also ethical and legal
material, accounts of the origin of the cosmos and of the very early history of
humankind.

Foretelling the future is a critical part of the prophets’ role, which Theophilus
refers to more than once. As noted above, he says in his conversion account that
they foretold past events as they happened, present events as they are happening,
and future events as they will happen93 and later repeats this sentiment saying that
prophets described ‘…events which had previously occurred, events in their own

89
AA 2.9.2; 2.10.1; 2.35.9 & 3.17.4.
90
AA 2.9.2; 2.35.9 & 3.17.4.
91
Again, ‘inconsistency’ is probably the least bad translation: Boccabello, ‘Cosmological
Allegoresis’ 232-236 uses ‘discordant’.
92
AA 2.5.1; 2.8.2; 2.8.5 & 3.3.1.
93
AA 1.14.1.
192
time and events which are now being fulfilled in our times.’94 Since former
events occurred as predicted by the prophets, so other events predicted, but not
yet fulfilled, will occur in the future, an argument familiar from Justin.
Theophilus limits himself to generalized statements about prophecy, however: he
does not cite individual prophecies and seek to match them with their fulfillments,
as Justin does.

The prophets do more than foretell the future, for they describe events in the
distant past which they had not themselves experienced, a point, again, familiar
from Justin. Thus the prophet Moses95 gives accounts of creation and of events in
the Garden of Eden which took place long before he was born and this can
happen because prophets receive knowledge from God: ‘… they were judged
worthy of receiving the reward of becoming instruments of God and of
containing Wisdom from him. Through this Wisdom they spoke about the
creation of the world...’96

The prophets also recount ethical precepts -- again, as in Justin -- and proclaim
God’s law, two categories which in practice overlap: ‘God…gave a law and sent
the holy prophets to proclaim and to teach the human race so that each one of us
might become sober…They also taught us to refrain from unlawful idolatry and
adultery and murder, fornication, theft, covetousness, perjury, anger, and all
licentiousness and uncleanness…’97 Theophilus gives a version of the Decalogue,
which he calls a ‘holy law’ (νόμον ἅγιον),98 although it diverges from the
Septuagint text of Exodus 20. It was not unusual in Jewish and early Christian
texts for both the order and the contents of the Decalogue to be presented in

94
AA 2.9.2.
95
For Moses as a prophet: AA 2.30.8 & 3.18.5.
96
AA 2.9.1.
97
AA 2.34.4-5.
98
AA 3.9.1.
193
different ways.99 In AA the commandments not to take the Lord’s name in vain
and to observe the Sabbath are omitted and three injunctions from Exodus 23 are
added: not to pervert the judgment of the poor human being in judging him, not
to kill the innocent and righteous human being and not to vindicate the ungodly
human being.100 Moses is described as the minister (διάκονος) ‘of this divine
law’101 and several chapters follow containing further ethical precepts enunciated
by prophets, grouped around the themes of repentance,102 justice103 and chastity.104

Theophilus also gives a high profile to Sibylline prophecy. A number of early

Christian texts treated the Sybilline Oracles as non-Christian witnesses to the
truth,105 although Theophilus is the first extant Christian writer to quote
extensively from them.106 The role these texts play in his argument is not wholly
clear, although the strongly monotheistic sentiments expressed by the Sibyl in the
passages Theophilus quotes are certainly consistent with his thought. The
Sibylline Oracles are first introduced after Theophilus has been discussing the
Hebrew prophets in positive terms, and reference to them demonstrates that
prophecy is not a feature of the Hebrew tradition alone but can also arise among
the Greeks. The Sibyl is introduced with minimal explanation, so it can be
assumed that she is already familiar to Theophilus’ audience. He includes a

99
R A Freund, ‘The Decalogue in Early Judaism and Christianity’ in C A Evans & J A
Sanders eds, The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (Sheffield
Academic Press, Sheffield 1998) 124-141 & J C de Vos, Rezeption und Wirkung des
Dekalogs in jüdischen und christlichen Schriften bis 200 n. Chr. (Brill, Leiden 2016) 270-
363, especially 290-296.
100
AA 3.9.2-5. See Grant, ‘Bible of Theophilus’ 175-176 & R M Grant, ‘The Decalogue
in Early Christianity’ HTR 40 (1947) 1-17.
101
AA 3.9.6.
102
AA 3.11.
103
AA 3.12.
104
AA 3.13.3. This section also contains two citations from the Gospel of Matthew,
described as being from ‘the gospel voice’ (ἡ ευ͗αγγέλιος φωνὴ).
105
G J M Bartelink, ‘Die Oracula Sibyllina in den frühchristlichen griechischen Schriften
von Justin bis Origenes (150-250 nach Chr.)’ in J den Boeft & A Hilhorst eds, Early
Christian Poetry, a Collection of Essays (Brill, Leiden 1993) 23-33.
106
Lightfoot, Sibylline Oracles 82.
194
lengthy extract of 84 lines from the Third Sibylline Oracle and afterwards
comments approvingly: ‘…that these statements are true and useful and just and
lovely is obvious to all people.’107 Modern scholars regard the Third Sibylline
Oracle as a Hellenistic Jewish text of uncertain date, whose origins are obscure; 108
to Theophilus, however, it has a Greek provenance and he describes its author as
‘the Sibyl who was a prophetess among the Greeks and the other nations.’109 In
general, he draws a sharp distinction between the Hebrew prophets, whom he
admires, on the one hand, and poets and philosophers from among the Greeks
whom he heavily criticizes, on the other;110 the Sibyl does not fit neatly into this
framework, however, for while she is described as being from ‘among the
Greeks,’111 she appears to have more in common with the Hebrew prophets: she
herself is a prophetess. When Theophilus refers to the consistency to be found
among the divinely-inspired prophets he includes the Sibyl along with the
Hebrew prophets112 and when he later distinguishes between prophets on the one
hand and ‘poets and philosophers’ (who are Greek) on the other, he brackets the
Sibyl with the prophets.113

Theophilus includes the lengthy extract from the Third Sibylline Oracle and then,
curiously, makes very little comment about it. Before the quotation begins he
says, briefly, that the Sibyl ‘…at the beginning of her prophecy rebukes the
human race …’114 and at the end of the quotation -- in addition to the statement

107
AA 2.36.16.
108
For Sibylline traditions see the works cited in Chapter 2. In spite of its title, Lightfoot,
Sibylline Oracles 3-253 contains useful material on the Third Oracle.
109
AA 2.36.1.
110
Immediately after the main Sibylline extract, in AA 2.37, Theophilus cites some Greek
writers who expressed sentiments of which he approves, but criticizes them by invoking
the theft theory referred to in previous chapters of this study, saying that ‘they stole these
things from the law and the prophets.’ (AA 2.37.16).
111
AA 2.9.2.
112
AA 2.9.2.
113
AA 2.38.3. Lightfoot, Sibylline Oracles 82.
114
AA 2.36.1.
195
of general approval already noted -- comments merely that ‘…those who behave
in an evil way must necessarily be punished according to the worth of their
actions.’115 There are two other, much briefer, references to Sibylline prophecies
in AA, and the prophetess is named in both instances: the first is a three-line
extract quoted to support the argument that gods are not generated116 and the
second a nine-line extract from the Eighth Sibylline Book cited in connection
with the story of the Tower of Babel.117 For Theophilus the Sibylline Oracles are
a much less important source of prophetic insight than the Hebrew prophets, but
their inclusion shows at least that, for him, divinely-inspired prophecy is not
purely the preserve of Jewish tradition.

The use of the Sacred Writings in Ad Autolycum

It was noted above that Theophilus uses the phrase Sacred Writings without
specifying which texts the term covers. It is, however, possible to build up a
picture of what they comprise from the references he makes and these suggest
that he has a wider range of texts in view than either Justin or Tatian.

The texts which are unambiguously referred to in AA are: first, the early chapters
of Genesis, quoted at length and described in the following terms: ‘these things
the Sacred Writings teach first’,118 a phraseology suggesting that reference is being
made to a collection of which the early chapters of Genesis are the beginning:
second, the later chapters of Genesis which feature in summary narrative (with
some quotations):119 third, texts containing the Jewish law (at least in extracts):120

115
AA 2.36.16.
116
AA 2.3.2.
117
AA 2.31.6.
118
AA 2.10.10.
119
E.g. AA 2.29 which summarises the story of Cain and Abel and contains three
quotations from Genesis 4.
120
As already noted, Theophilus’ version of the Decalogue is at AA 3.9.1-5.
196
fourth, prophetic texts, again at least in extracts:121 and fifth, the outline
chronology of human history from the Garden of Eden to the return from the
Babylonian Exile as recounted in the Jewish scriptures.122

The only complete texts to which Theophilus unequivocally has access are the
early chapters of Genesis which he quotes in full.123 His references to later
chapters of Genesis, to the Jewish law and to prophetic texts could come directly
from the Septuagint, but they could be from other texts, or from collections of
extracts; if the latter, then their ultimate source is, however, likely to be the full
text of the Jewish scriptures. Chronological material could similarly still be
derived from historical summaries of the contents of the scriptures or directly
from the Sacred Writings.

Whether or not Theophilus is engaging with the texts themselves or dependent

summaries, his use of material from the Jewish scriptures to construct a
continuous chronology shows an awareness of these texts as a series, providing a
connected narrative of historical events from Creation down to the Babylonian
Exile or, expressed textually, from Genesis to 2 Kings / 2 Chronicles. At least
some of the texts of the Jewish scriptures -– at least by implication -– appear
therefore to form a collection with a coherent organizing principle, that is a
chronological one; they are not a grouping of otherwise unconnected writings.
In this respect Theophilius presents the Jewish scriptures in a very different light
from Justin and Tatian.

Theophilus uses the scriptures, as Tatian does, to support his arguments for
Christianity and these focus, as noted above, on creation, on the origin, nature
and salvation of humankind and on human history from the earliest times to the

121
Quotations from prophetic books are found in AA 3.11-14.
122
AA 3.24-25.
123
AA 2.10-21.
197
present day. He does so more directly, however, because he uses quotations
extensively, which Tatian did not. When wishing to highlight moral points,
Theophilus follows Justin’s technique of providing brief selective quotations; an
example is Theophilus’ account of repentance,124 which is developed through a
series of quotations from Deuteronomy, Baruch, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah, in
some cases accompanying them with explanatory comments in the manner of
Justin. This is (methodologically) familiar ground. Theophilus charts a new
direction, however, when he introduces two extensive passages from the Jewish
scriptures and employs a commentary format as the mechanism for presenting his
own teaching; how he does this will be considered further below.

Justin, Tatian and Theophilus share a wish that readers should become more
familiar with the scriptures through direct exposure, although they adopt different
strategies to achieve this. Justin quotes relatively short extracts, Tatian barely
quotes at all (leaving engagement with texts to a later occasion), while Theophilus
adopts the novel approach of quoting lengthy extracts, no doubt recognizing that
his readers are previously unfamiliar with them. He explicitly urges them to
tackle the texts for themselves, saying: ‘For those who wish to can read what was
said through them [the prophets] and acquire accurate knowledge of the
truth…’125 Perhaps more important than what he says, however, is what he does,
in laying before them extensive extracts from Genesis quoted verbatim.

Thus, while Theophilus’ approach to the scriptures overlaps to a considerable

degree with those of Justin and Tatian, there are also novel features in AA in both
content and form. In terms of content, Theophilus uses the Jewish scriptures as
the source for an accurate history of the world from the beginning of time down
to the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Exile. In terms of form,

124
AA 3.11.3-6.
125
AA 2.35.14.
198
Theophilus not only sets out two extended extracts from the Jewish scriptures that
are complete and coherent narratives, but he accompanies each with a
commentary, a technique paralleling the treatment of high status texts in Graeco-
Roman culture.

The Sacred Writings as a source for accurate history

After asserting that the Sacred Writings are true, Theophilus claims that they can
be useful, and indeed important, in providing an accurate source of information
about past events in human history. The second half of Book 3 is devoted to
demonstrating this, after the first half has subjected Greek literature and Greek
ideas to a range of criticisms126 and after some Christian ethical teachings have
been discussed.127 Neither Justin nor Tatian treated the Jewish scriptures as
history in the way Theophilus does, so AA contains something novel in extant
Christian apologetic writing in this respect.128

Justin has been shown to use prophetic material to tell the story of the life of Jesus
Christ and the mission of the apostles and to explain their significance. He also
referred to prophecies about public events, such as the defeat of the Jews by the
Romans, thus demonstrating how prophecy functions in practice: showing that
some prophecies had been fulfilled while others remained to be fulfilled.
However, Justin was not seeking to construct a general history. Tatian is
interested in historical events, but his attention is focused very specifically on
demonstrating that Moses was more ancient than Homer, indeed, more ancient
than the whole of Greek culture. Moreover, to achieve his objective he cites
evidence from Greek, Chaldean, Phoenician and Egyptian sources and makes
barely any use of the Jewish scriptures.

126
AA 3.1-8.
127
AA 3.9-15.
128
For the broader historical perspective: M Wallraff, ‘The Beginning of Christian
Universal History from Tatian to Julius Africanus’ ZAC 14 (2011) 540-555.
199
Theophilus adopts a different strategy, preferring to use the Sacred Writings as
evidence in support of historical arguments: ‘Hence it is obvious how our Sacred
Writings are proved to be more ancient and more true than the writings of the
Greeks and the Egyptians or any other historiographers.’129 For Theophilus, the
value of the Sacred Writings as a source for history is due to two factors already
noted: ‘the antiquity of the prophetic writings and the divine nature of our
message.’130

By contrast with the Sacred Writings, Greek historians only go back in time a
certain distance and cannot deal with more ancient history: ‘For most writers,
such as Herodotus and Thucydides and Xenophon and the other historiographers,
begin their accounts at about the reign of Cyrus and Darius, since they are unable
to make accurate statements about the ancient times prior to them.’131 Moreover,
the divine nature of the message of the Sacred Writings gives them a factual
accuracy denied to other sources. Thus Theophilus highlights inaccuracies in the
work of the Egyptian historian Manetho, who claimed -- contrary to the
testimony in the Sacred Writings -- that the Hebrews were expelled from Egypt
because of leprosy, and who was unable to establish a correct chronology of the
events surrounding the Exodus.132 Consequently his history does not have the
factual reliability of the Sacred Writings.

Theophilus’ chronology begins with Adam, follows the narrative of the Jewish
scriptures through the period of the Flood and the Patriarchs, the migration to
and return from Egypt, the period of the Judges and the Monarchy up to the
Babylonian Exile and ends with the return from the Exile under Cyrus the

129
AA 3.26.1.
130
AA 3.29.1.
131
AA 3.26.1.
132
AA 3.21.1.
200
Persian.133 He does not say in so many words that this chronology derives from
the Sacred Writings, but various comments strongly imply this. Thus he begins
by ‘…going back to the first beginning of the creation of the world, which Moses
the minister of God described…’134, a comment which reads very like a
description of the early chapters of Genesis. He also refers to being able to
provide the information only ‘with God’s help’,135 and says: ‘I ask favour from the
one God that I may speak the whole truth accurately according to his will…’136
These remarks indicate that he considers his source to be divinely inspired, which
is a characteristic of the Sacred Writings. Moreover, at two points Theophilus
refers to the accuracy of the Sacred Writings as a historical source, the first before
he sets out his chronology and the second afterwards. On the first occasion he
says: ‘Hence it is obvious how our Sacred Writings are proved to be more ancient
and more true than the writings of the Greeks and the Egyptians or any other
historiographers’137 and on the second: ‘From the compilation of the periods of
time and from all that has been said, the antiquity of the prophetic writings and
the divine nature of our message are obvious. This message is not recent in
origin, nor are our writings, as some suppose, mythical and false, but actually
more ancient and more trustworthy.’138

Theophilus’ chronological narrative is bald, containing little more than names and
lengths of time: for instance: ‘Isaac…lived 60 years until he had issue and begot
Jacob: Jacob lived 130 years before the migration to Egypt…The sojourning of
the Hebrews in Egypt lasted 430 years, and after their exodus from the land of
Egypt they lived in what is called the desert for 40 years. The total, then, is 3,938

133
AA 3.24-3.25.
134
AA 3.23.5-6.
135
AA 3.23.5.
136
AA 3.23.7.
137
AA 3.26.1.
138
AA 3.29.1.
201
years to the time when Moses died...’139 The computation of lengths of time is
clearly important and a number of sub-totals are included in the course of the
narrative, so that from Adam to the Deluge is 2,242 years,140 to Abraham is 3,278
years,141 to the death of Moses is 3,938 years142 and to ‘the sojourning in the land
of Babylon is 4,954 years, 6 months and 10 days.’143

Theophilus does not make any further use of the numbers emerging from his
computations and no arguments are built upon them, so it must be asked why he
accords them the importance he evidently does. Two points can be made in this
connection. First, the large size of the numbers produced by computing totals
shows the great length of time which has elapsed from Adam to the present day
and attests to the antiquity of the events being recounted. Second, the precision
of the computations, to the year, and ultimately to the day, demonstrates the great
accuracy of the Sacred Writings as a historical record.

There are only two brief references to Theophilus’ historical account being
anything more than a chronology of events. The first is his comment that the
Babylonian captivity was a consequence of the sins of the Jewish people: ‘…since
the people remained in their sins and did not repent, in accordance with the
prophecy of Jeremiah, a king of Babylon named Nebouchodonosor went up to
Judaea. He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon and destroyed the
temple which Solomon had built.’144 The second is his observation that the
beginning and the end of the Babylonian captivity were prophesied by God
speaking through Jeremiah: ‘Just as God foretold through the prophet Jeremiah
that the people would be led captive to Babylon, so he indicated in advance that

139
AA 3.24.3.
140
AA 3.24.1.
141
AA 3.24.2.
142
AA 3.24.3.
143
AA 3.25.3.
144
AA 3.25.3.
202
they would come back again to their own land after 70 years.’ 145 For the most
part, however, Theophilus’ interest in the Sacred Writings as a historical record is
purely in the chronology which they contain; the historical events referred to are
not accorded any intrinsic interest beyond enabling numbers of years to be
counted and Theophilus says as much: ‘Our concern is not with material for
loquacity but with making clear the length of time from the beginning of the
world…’146 The historical narrative is told entirely through the story of the
Jewish people, at least up to the time of Cyrus, which is, of course, a consequence
of using a Jewish source; so the other peoples who inhabited the region at the
same time and were the Jews’ neighbours are only mentioned when they are part
of the Jews’ narrative history.147 Moreover, although the focus is on the Jews
there is virtually no sense that the narrative is an account of the relationship of
God with the Jewish people; thus, in spite of Theophilus’ interest in theological
issues elsewhere, he does not read his historical narrative as yielding theological or
ethical insights.

From the return from the Babylonian Exile onwards, Theophilus chooses to
utilize a historical source from outside the Sacred Writings. He does not refer to
later texts from the Jewish scriptures which contain historical material such as
Ezra /Nehemiah or 1 and 2 Maccabees. He does not state why; perhaps he did
not know these texts or perhaps the task of establishing a chronology from them
was too difficult (which in the case of Maccabees, for instance, would be readily
understandable). It may be that he simply regarded his Roman source as more
reliable. He does not question its accuracy, or that it was a credible tool for his
purpose; he was engaging with a Graeco-Roman audience, who may well have
been familiar with the source he quotes (or at least the material he describes). In

145
AA 3.25.4.
146
AA 3.26.3. B Pouderon, Les apologistes grecs du IIe siècle (Cerf, Paris 2005) 249
comments on Theophilus’ lack of interest in the significance of historical events.
147
E.g. the reference to the Midianites in AA 3.24.4.
203
any event he switches at the death of Cyrus to the source described as ‘Chryseros
the Nomenclator, a freedman of M. Aurelius Verus’148 -- and thus a contemporary
of Theophilus -- and the chronology then becomes that of the history of Rome
rather than the Jews. This enables Theophilus to bring his account down to the
death of Emperor Marcus Aurelius in 180 CE, an event computed to be 5,695
years from the creation of the world.149

One consequence of using Chryseros the Nomenclator as the authoritative source

for his later chronology is that Theophilus makes no mention of Jesus Christ as a
historical figure, a point noted by both Bardy and Pouderon.150 Thus the account
of the chronology of the Jewish scriptures includes a series of names of significant
historical figures ending with Cyrus and the earlier history of the Jews is not
presented as leading up to, or culminating in, the figure who might be expected
to be of prime importance to a Christian apologist. Theophilus’ interest is
historical and not soteriological. Bardy’s suggestion that reference to Christ is
omitted because the argument from antiquity would lose all its force if the
beginnings of Christianity were dated to the time of Jesus is a compelling one;151
moreover, since AA is an apologetic work, use of a Graeco-Roman source for
chronological information is an appropriate strategy since the external audience
would be more likely to accept its reliability.

The chronology of Theophilus is the first extant example of a form that would
become significant for Christian literature, as later authors from the 3C CE

AA 3.27.3. Chryseros is not otherwise known: ‘Our sole source on Chryseros is the
148

Christian apologist Theophilus of Antioch’ BNJ article on Chryseros by V Costa. M.

Aurelius Verus is normally styled Marcus Aurelius, Emperor from 161 to 180 CE.
149
AA 3.28.7.
150
‘On ne peut s’empêcher de remarquer que, dans tous ces calculs, le Saveur ne tient
aucune place. Théophile ne cherche à dater ni sa naissance ni sa mort.’ Bardy, AA 53:
also Pouderon, Les apologistes grecs 248.
151
Bardy, AA 53.
204
onwards developed chronologies.152 Caution should be exercised in crediting
Theophilus with too much originality, however, for his work has parallels, and
indeed roots, in existing traditions of non-Christian historical literature.

From the 3C BCE onwards, interest in writing works of general history with a
wide chronological sweep developed in Hellenistic culture153 and although many
of these have not survived they are known to have been written: histories by
Nicolaus of Damascus154 and Timagenes of Alexandria155 are cases in point. Some
historians wrote accounts, like Theophilus, stretching back to the earliest times,
indeed to creation. Examples of this are the works of Diodorus Siculus156 and
Philo of Biblos,157 each of whose histories commenced with an account of the
creation of the world. The Jews had a long tradition of historical writing of their
own, but they came to be influenced by Hellenistic practice.158 Theophilus’
history is told largely through an account of the Jews, and this has counterparts in
the works of Berossus,159 who wrote a history of the Babylonians, and Manetho,160
the historian of the Egyptians; in both these cases, as with Theophilus, part of the
purpose was to demonstrate, and indeed celebrate, the antiquity of the people

W Adler, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and its Sources in Christian

152

Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (Dumbarton Oaks,

Washington DC, 1989).
153
Mortley, Idea of Universal History.
154
BNP article on Nicolaus by K Meister.
155
BNP article on Timagenes by K Meister.
156
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History LCL 1 4.6 gives an outline of the chronological
scope of the work from before the Trojan War to the campaigns of Julius Caesar.
157
Philo of Biblos, The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation and
Notes eds H W Attridge & R A Oden Jr (Catholic Biblical Association of America,
Washington DC 1981).
158
G E Sterling, ‘The Jewish Appropriation of Hellenistic Historiography’ in J Marincola
ed, A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography Volume 1 (Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford 2007) 231-243.
159
BNP article on Berossus by B Pongratz-Leisten.
160
BNP article on Manetho by R Krauss.
205
whose history was being described.161 Theophilus had some familiarity with the
contents of the works of both Berossus and Manetho -- whether or not he
actually knew their texts directly -- as will be discussed below.

Thus Theophilus’ chronology fulfils a number of objectives. First, it demonstrates

the antiquity of the Jewish people and their traditions from which Christianity
was derived. Second, it shows the authority and status of the Sacred Writings that
provided the source for his accurate historical account. Third, in drawing
material from a Roman source as well as from the Jewish scriptures, Theophilus
made his chronology universal so it became, not an account of the Jewish people
only, but, in its later stages, a chronology of the whole world. Jewish chronology
thus acquires a central historical position as the precursor to the chronology of the
Roman Empire.

Grant162 and Hardwick163 have described how Theophilus drew a significant

amount of his material from the Contra Apionem of Josephus.164 The Jewish
apologist’s aims were similar to those of Theophilus in that he sought to
demonstrate to a non-Jewish audience the great antiquity of the Jewish people,
particularly compared with the relatively recent origins of Greek culture. Like
Tatian, however, he cites non-Jewish sources in support of his argument, rather
than the Jewish texts Theophilus uses. Theophilus only names Josephus once, and
then not with reference to Contra Apionem, but as the author of a history of the

161
For the apologetic historiography of these authors: Sterling, Historiography and Self-
Definition 103-136.
162
Grant, ‘Bible of Theophilus’ 191-196.
M E Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through
163

Eusebius (Scholars Press, Atlanta 1989) 11-14 & M Hardwick, ‘Contra Apionem and
Christian Apologetics’ in L H Feldman & J R Levison eds, Josephus’ Contra Apionem:
Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion missing in
Greek (Brill, Leiden 1996) 369-402, 371-378.
164
The references are listed in Marcovich, AA 147.
206
Jewish War against the Romans.165 Contra Apionem is an important source for
AA, but it is the material in the text of Josephus -- references to the writings of
Manetho166 and Menander of Ephesus,167 to evidence from Tyrian sources168 and
from Berossus169 -- rather than the views or arguments of Josephus himself, on
which Theophilus draws. Thus for Theophilus, Josephus’ text is merely a conduit
to reach the writings of Berossus, Manetho and Menander and in building his
own chronology he adopts a different strategy from Josephus, relying principally
on the Jewish sacred writings as the source of his evidence and not -- as Josephus
does -- on non-Jewish historians.

Ad Autolycum as a commentary on the Sacred Writings

As well as presenting the Sacred Writings as a source for accurate history,

Theophilus also provides his readers with textual commentary. A considerable
portion of Book 2 is devoted to this. Having criticized Greek literature and the
ideas they contain at length,170 he then presents his own alternative literary
tradition, the Sacred Writings. He quotes in full the creation narrative from Gen
1:1-2:3,171 and the narrative of the Garden of Eden from Gen 2:8-3:19.172 Unlike
Justin or Tatian he presents these extracts from the Sacred Writings as narratives.
He provides two complete and coherent sections of Genesis, giving each an
overall description or title, the creation narrative labelled the ‘Hexaemeros’173 and
the Garden of Eden narrative ‘the history of man and paradise.’174

165
AA 3.23.1.
166
AA 3.20.1 & 3.21.1-6.
167
AA 3.22.3-7.
168
AA 3.22.1.
169
AA 3.29.7.
170
AA 2.1-8.
171
AA 2.10-11.
172
AA 2.20-21.
173
AA 2.12.1.
174
AA 2.21.5.
207
Theophilus supplies a commentary to explain the texts to his audience. The term
commentary does not appear in AA, but describes well the process in which
Theophilus is engaged. In employing a form which would be familiar to his
Graeco-Roman audience, Theophilus follows Tatian in drawing on the resources
of literary criticism, although he does so very differently. Moreover, there is a
similarity with Justin in formal terms, for just as the Proof from Prophecy is
included within Justin’s Apologia Maior, a work with the overall form of a
petition, so Theophilus’ commentary is part of a larger communication addressed
to Autolycus.

The commentary accompanying each Genesis extract goes sequentially through

the text, providing a succession of comments designed to aid readers’
understanding and appreciation. Theophilus does only a little to explain what he
is doing. At the commencement of the creation narrative he says that ‘these
things the Sacred Writings teach first’175 and when the text ends goes straight into
his commentary. He begins the Garden of Eden narrative with: ‘The writings
thus contain the words of the sacred history (Tὰ δὲ ῥητὰ τῆς ἱστορίας τῆς
ἱερᾶς)’176 and when the quoted extract finishes he again moves into his
commentary. Theophilus says nothing about the process of commenting on
texts, but an understanding of his approach can be gained from examining what
he does.

A commentary on the Jewish scriptures is something new in surviving Christian

texts of the time.177 Scholars have been particularly interested in exploring its

175
AA 2.10.10.
176
AA 2.20.1.
177
Fragments survive from a commentary by Herakleon on a New Testament text, the
Gospel of John, from earlier in the 2C: A E Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1891) & W Löhr, ‘Gnostic and Manichaean
interpretation’ in NCHB1 584-604, 586-587.
208
possible Jewish roots178 but, given the apologetic focus of this study, Theophilus’
work will be examined in the context of the Graeco-Roman commentary
tradition. In Chapter 2 it was noted that the practice of writing commentaries on
highly-regarded texts was well-established by the late Hellenistic period;
reference was made there to the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s In
Theaetetum (cited as AC) and this can act as a useful comparator for AA. There is
no suggestion that Theophilus knew AC; commentaries like this would, however,
have been familiar to those, like Theophilus and his audience, who had received a
Graeco-Roman literary education. Chapter 2 included a summary (not repeated
here) of the useful analysis in the Introduction to Bastianini and Sedley’s edition
of AC179 which describes the approach taken by its anonymous author.

AC is predicated on a number of implicit assumptions which are relevant to the

comparison with AA. The Platonic text being commented on must be accepted
as having a high status if it is to merit such close and extended attention; the issues
which arise in commenting on it are both textual and interpretative; and the
Theaetetus is a text which can, and by the time AC was written had been,
interpreted in a number of different ways. It is not always a straightforward text,
so the reader needs guidance to understand it properly; indeed, the author of AC
observes that Plato never sets out his ideas plainly, leaving the reader (or perhaps
he means the commentator) to expand on what he says and explain what he
means.180

178
E.g. R M Grant, ‘Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus’ HTR 40 (1947) 227-256,
especially 237-241.
179
AC 257-259.
180
AC 258: ‘Questo modo di procedure è giustificato dall’osservazione dell’A [the
anonymous author] (LIX 12-21) che Platone non espone mai apertamente la propria
teoria, lasciando al lettore il compito di elaborla.’ In the Aristotelian tradition obscurity of
expression was almost expected and, indeed, taken as a sign of authenticity: hence the
need for commentaries to explain texts: Tuominen, Ancient commentators 3.
209
Rather than comparing point by point the two commentators’ methods, the
approach here will be to examine what Theophilus does and judge this, where
relevant, against the background provided by AC. There are points of similarity,
but also points of divergence, with the latter often arising from the difference in
the circumstances in which the commentaries were written. The author of AC
was writing about a text that was familiar to his audience and accepted as being of
high status, so his task was to explain it and on occasions to argue for his
interpretation over those of other commentators. Theophilus in AA was writing
a commentary on a text which was unfamiliar to his audience and his task was less
to distinguish between rival interpretations of the Sacred Writings (although he
occasionally does this) so much as to argue for the superiority of these texts over
the rival non-Christian non-Jewish alternatives which might be familiar to his
readers. Providing a commentary on the Sacred Writings was therefore part of
Theophilus’ apologetic strategy.

Clearly, by devoting so much space to the early chapters of Genesis, Theophilus

presents his Sacred Writings as a high status text that is a source for ideas about
creation and the nature of humankind. Like the author of AC, Theophilus goes
sequentially through the text. A clear example of this is 2.15-2.19, where he
discusses each day of the week in the creation narrative in turn from the fourth to
the seventh.181 Theophilus differs from the author of AC in quoting the whole
text of the section under consideration at the outset and then providing a
commentary.182 AC by contrast quotes lemmata one at a time and comments
immediately on each of them; the anonymous commentator only quotes
selectively, and although his lemmata comprise in all more than half of Plato’s

181
2.15 discusses the fourth day, 2.16 the fifth day, 2.17-2.18 the sixth day and 2.19 the
seventh day.
182
This comment is subject to the proviso that in 2.10 at the start of the creation account,
some comments are interspersed with the Genesis text, although this is not Theophilus’
practice thereafter. Gen 1:1-2:3 is set out in 2.10-2.11 and Gen 2:8-3:19 in 2.20-2.21.
210
text, this is still some way short of the complete text Theophilus provides.183
Theophilus is not explicit, but this difference of approach most likely results from
the fact that Theophilus’ audience was unfamiliar with the text, so he wanted to
bring their attention to the whole section of text to be discussed before
commenting. The audience of AC would have known Plato’s Theaetetus already
-- or at least had ready access to it -- so the whole text did not need to be given
by the commentator at the outset, and he is able to move straight into quoting
and commenting on specific passages.

Like AC Theophilus’ commentary focuses at times on detailed points in the text.

He picks on a number of individual words and phrases and either explains in
simple terms what they mean -- ‘What he [the prophet Moses] calls earth is
equivalent to a base and foundation. Abyss is the multitude of the waters’184 -- or
explains their significance -- ‘‘Darkness’ is mentioned because the heaven created
by God was like a lid covering the waters with the earth.’185 Later, he lights on
use of the first person plural in Gen 1:26 describing the creation of humankind:

‘When God said: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness’ he
first reveals the dignity of man. For after creating everything else
through the Logos,186 God considered all this as secondary; the
creation of man he regarded as the only work worthy of his own
hands. Furthermore, God is found saying ‘Let us make man after
the image and likeness’ as if he needed assistance; but he said ‘Let us
make’ to none other than his own Logos and his own Sophia.’187

183
AC 256-257.
184
AA 2.13.3.
185
AA 2.13.3.
186
Grant renders λόγω̩ as ‘by a word’. Marcovich gives it a capital lambda, indicating
that the text is referring to the Logos, rather than simply ‘a word’ and it is this latter
textual reading which underpins the interpretation here.
187
AA 2.18.1-2.
211
Gen 1:26 is a text which attracted varying interpretations from other ancient
commentators.188 Theophilus explains that it should be read not to mean that
God needed help from others when he created man,189 but that, while in the
previous stages of creation God had acted through the Logos, the creation of man
was uniquely worthy of action on the part of God himself because of the special
status humankind was to enjoy. The first person plural is therefore used by God
when addressing the Logos and the Sophia190 in order to show that God is
involving himself together with them in the act of creation.

A final example of detailed textual comment is found when Theophilus picks

apart the order in which words appear in the Sacred Writings to identify a point
of particular significance. Discussing Gen 1.1, ἐν ἀρχ̱ῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν
οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (In the beginning God made heaven and earth), Theophilus
draws attention to the fact that the terms ἀρχ̱ῇ and ἐποίησεν appear before θεός,
commenting as follows: ‘First he mentioned beginning and creation, and only
then introduced God, for it is not fitting to refer to God idly and in vain.’191 His
point is presumably that the subject ὁ θεὸς might be expected to appear at or
closer to the beginning of the sentence and before the verb ἐποίησεν. When
Theophilus refers elsewhere to God’s act of creation using his own words, he
places θεὸς before ἐποίησεν, so this would appear to be what he regards as the
normal word order.192

188
E.g. DT 62 1-5 & for Philo: D T Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to
Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (SBL, Atlanta 2001) 65-66.
189
This could refer to an alternative reading of Gen 1:26-27 Theophilus was aware was
then current.
190
Theophilus refers elsewhere to ‘the triad of God and his Logos and his Sophia’ (AA
2.15.4) and to the involvement of both the Logos and the Sophia in primal creation:
‘God made everything through his Logos and the Sophia’ (AA 1.7.3).
191
AA 2.10.7.
192
AA 1.7.3. The same is true of AA 1.4.5, although in that case Theophilus is quoting
2Macc: 7.28 (Marcovich, AA 19n).
212
These references show Theophilus focusing as a commentator well might, and as
AC does, on specific words in the text and providing explanatory comments.
AC also includes paraphrase and exegesis -- with the proviso previously noted
that the distinction between these two is not always clear-cut -- and considers
issues and problems raised by the text. Theophilus is likewise interested in going
beyond detailed textual questions in order to explain what the text says and how it
should be understood; indeed, he bears out the comment in AC referred to earlier
to the effect that Plato never sets out his ideas plainly and leaves the reader to
expand on what he says and explain what he means. Differences do arise,
however, between AA and AC and these can (broadly speaking) be attributed to
the fact that AA is an apologetic text unlike AC; commentary on the Sacred
Writings is an apologetic strategy and Theophilus uses approaches and techniques
which serve this purpose.

An example of paraphrase and exegesis is Theophilus’ commentary on the passage

in Genesis 2 describing how God created paradise and placed Adam in it.
Theophilus provides some paraphrasing of the Genesis text when he describes
God’s creation of the Garden, with its two trees of life and knowledge, and later
describes how God placed man in paradise ‘to work it and to guard it.’193 He also
adds two interpretative points. First, he clarifies where the location of paradise is:
not somewhere far distant but located under the same heaven as the earth: ‘By the
expressions ‘also from the earth’ and ‘to the east’ the Sacred Writings clearly teach
us that paradise is under this very heaven under which are the east and the
earth.’194 Second, he explains that, at least in terms of its beauty, paradise is an
intermediate state between earth and heaven, just as humankind is in an
intermediate state between the mortal and the immortal. This is a hook on which

193
AA 2.24.5.
194
AA 2.24.3.
213
he hangs an account of the essential nature of humankind having potential for
mortality or immortality:

‘God transferred humankind out of the earth from which it was

made into paradise, providing the opportunity for progress, so that
by growing and becoming perfect, and furthermore having been
declared a god, it might also ascend into heaven and possess
immortality. For humankind was created in an intermediate state,
neither wholly mortal nor entirely immortal, but capable of either
state; similarly the place paradise –- as regards beauty –- was
created intermediate between the world and heaven.’195

A slightly different example of paraphrase and exegesis is provided when

Theophilus discusses the tree of knowledge and the fall of humankind described
in Genesis 2-3. The balance here tilts away from paraphrase and more towards
exegesis. There is still an element of paraphrase, for instance in Theophilus’
description of the tree of knowledge, although it is brief, and most of his
commentary is concerned with two exegetical points. Theophilus writes as the
author of AC does when he expounds the meaning of Plato’s text. First, to
explain the relationship between God and Adam, Theophilus compares the latter
to a child who should obey his parent and adds more general comments about the
nature of children: ‘For it is a sacred matter, not only before God but in the face
of humankind, to obey one’s parents in simplicity and without malice; and if
children must obey their parents, how much more must they obey the God and
Father of the universe!’196 Second, he emphasises that it was not the
commandment not to eat the fruit which led to the fall, but rather Adam’s
disobedience of the commandment, and again imports a general homiletic

195
AA 2.24.6.
196
AA 2.25.4.
214
statement: ‘…when a law commands abstinence from something and someone
does not obey, it is clearly not the law which results in punishment but the
disobedience and the transgression.’197 Theophilus’ reading is that God sought to
test Adam, but by disobeying God’s command Adam failed the test. Thus
responsibility for the fall lay with Adam: ‘So also for the first-formed human
being, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise.’198

Exegesis can lead to issues being identified which call for more extended
discussion, especially when the text is found to contain problems or difficulties
requiring explanation. In AC one of the commentary’s functions was to consider
difficult issues which arose in Plato’s text and to propose solutions, and there are
parallels to this in AA when Theophilus identifies an issue or a question and seeks
to explain or answer it. One example is when Theophilus asks why God created
Eve as he did out of the body of Adam rather than simply de novo. His rather
surprising –- and ingenious –- explanation is that God had foreknowledge that
human beings would erroneously identify a multitude of gods and he wanted to
prevent it being thought that one of those gods had made man and another had
made woman; hence his statement that God ‘… did not make the two
separately.’199 He then gives an additional explanation of God’s action by saying
that he made the woman out of the man’s side ‘…so that the man’s love for her
might be the greater.’200 In a second example, Theophilus asks the question: how
could God be described as walking in paradise when it is the nature of God not to
be confined in one place? His response is that it is the Logos generated by God
who is present in the garden and not God himself. The Logos has a divine nature

197
AA 2.25.6.
198
AA 2.25.8.
199
AA 2.28.2: the translation here follows the substitution by Marcovich (AA 78n) of οὐκ
for the manuscript οὖν and of ἀμφίς for the manuscript ἄμφω. It is possible that there
was a theory extant that one god created Adam and another Eve which Theophilus is
consciously refuting.
200
AA 2.28.3.
215
but is nevertheless able to be in a particular place: ‘Since the Logos is God and
derived his nature from God, the Father of the universe, whenever he wishes,
sends him into some place where he is present and is heard and seen. He is sent
by God and is found in a place.’201

When tackling a problematic issue, AC sometimes considers more than one rival
interpretation of Plato’s text and discusses which should be preferred. There are
instances of this in AA, although they are neither numerous nor prominent.
When discussing the tree of knowledge and the fall of humankind, Theophilus
refers twice to rival interpretations of Genesis, first saying: ‘For the tree did not
contain death, as some suppose…’202 and later when discussing God’s relationship
with Adam: ‘Therefore God was not jealous, as some suppose, in commanding
him not to eat from the tree of knowledge.’203 Recognition that other
interpretations exist does not lead Theophilus to specify what these are and to
discuss their relative merits, and from the brevity of his comments it is clearly not
his intention to dwell on these issues. His commentary essentially promotes a
single reading of the Sacred Writings -- his own -- and gives little consideration
to others that might exist; in this respect his approach is consistent with Justin and
Tatian when they discussed texts or ideas from their authoritative writings.

This is not to say that Theophilus is not concerned with combatting competing
ideas: rather that his interest is in promoting the claims of the Sacred Writings
against rival claims which derive from the Greek literary tradition. After his
extended quotation from the Genesis creation narrative, and before his detailed
comments on that text, he refers first in general terms to the quality of the Genesis
text, contrasting it with the unsatisfactory accounts of creation found in Greek

201
AA 2.22.6.
202
AA 2.25.1.
203
AA 2.25.3: the translation here follows Marcovich’s addition of the words τοῦ ξύλου
not in the manuscript.
216
culture.204 Speaking of the Genesis account of creation he writes: ‘No-one…if he
were to live ten thousand years, continuing in this life, would be competent to
say anything adequately in regard to these matters, because of the surpassing
greatness and riches of the Wisdom of God to be found in this Hexaemeros
quoted above.’205 He notes that many have tried to provide creation accounts, but
subjects them to a blanket condemnation; even though he recognizes that they
have ‘imitated’ Genesis or ‘taken it as their starting point’206 the claims made by
philosophers, historians, and poets are characterised by ‘the abundance of their
nonsense and the absence of even the slightest measure of truth in their
writings.’207

This does not really explain why Theophilus considers the Greek accounts of
creation to be wrong, but his criticisms become more specific as he singles out the
poet Hesiod for attack and contrasts the latter’s creation account unfavourably
with Genesis. First, he attacks Hesiod for claiming that Erebus, Earth and Eros
were created out of Chaos to rule over gods and men and describes his account as
‘…false and frigid and entirely alien to the truth.’208 Second he argues that,
whereas Genesis begins with the creation of the heavens, Hesiod begins
erroneously with the creation of earthly things: ‘Furthermore, as for his [Hesiod’s]
notion of describing creation by starting from beneath, with what is earthly, it is
merely human and mean and, indeed, quite feeble in relation to God.’209
Condemning alternative Greek accounts of creation reflects a broader theme
already found in Justin and Tatian: the contrast between the contents of the
Sacred Writings on the one hand and the Greek literary tradition on the other.

204
The variety of approaches to creation among the Greek philosophical schools was
noted in Chapter 3: Sedley, Creationism.
205
AA 2.12.1.
206
AA 2.12.2: an echo of the theft theory referred to earlier.
207
AA 2.12.3.
208
AA 2.12.6: the translation here follows the substitution by Marcovich (AA 58n) of
ψυδρὸν for the manuscript ψυχρὸν.
209
AA 2.13.1.
217
The parallels between AA and AC are therefore considerable. There are,
however, also differences, notably in the way that Theophilus uses techniques that
go beyond expounding and explaining what is in the text, which advance his
apologetic purpose.210 The first is the identification of types to which attention is
drawn to uncover hidden significance in the text; the second is the addition of
descriptive details not in the Genesis text which are used to draw out points
Theophilus wishes to share with his readers; the third is the use of a word or
phrase as a trigger or starting-point for a discussion of issues only distantly related
to the surface content of the text.

The word type, τύπος, appears a number of times in AA,211 when Theophilus
identifies references in the Sacred Writings which he reads as types of entities
external to the text and he uses them to expose meanings not found on the surface
of the words. Thus Theophilus follows Justin in invoking symbols to explain the
meaning of texts. An example is Theophilus’ discussion of the fourth day of
creation which includes the creation of the sun and the moon. He identifies these
two heavenly bodies as types, the sun as a type of God and the moon as a type of
humankind and the contrast between the qualities of the two physical entities, sun
and moon, is used to point up differences between human and divine natures:

‘As the sun greatly surpasses the moon in power and brightness, so
God greatly surpasses humankind; and just as the sun always

210
Parsons, Ancient Apologetic Exegesis 41 comments that ‘…unlike many modern
commentators, he [Theophilus] did not provide an intentionally impassive, verse-by-
verse exposition. Rather he commented on the Genesis text specifically to support his
own apologetic polemic…’ but does not develop the idea.
211
Marcovich, AA 189 lists eight occurrences of τύπος or τύποι, all in Book 2. In one
instance, at 2.13.4, Grant, AA 48 follows the 18C editor Maran in substituting τόπον for
the mss reading τύπον (even though he acknowledges that Maran ‘did not make direct
use of the manuscripts.’ (Grant AA xxii)).
218
 remains full and does not wane, so God always remains perfect and
is full of all power, intelligence, wisdom, immortality and all good
things. But the moon wanes every month and virtually dies, for it
exists as a type of humankind; then it is reborn and waxes as a
pattern of future resurrection.’212

In other cases types have a prophetic edge when the text of Genesis is found to
foreshadow later occurrences. God’s blessing of sea creatures on the fifth day of
creation is a type of the redemption of humankind in the future: ‘…those created
from the waters were blessed by God so that this might serve as a pattern of
humankind’s future reception of repentance and remission of sins through water
and a bath of regeneration…’213 On the sixth day when land creatures are
created, but are not blessed by God, they become a type of human beings in the
future who ‘…are ignorant of God and sin against him and have regard to earthly
things and do not repent.’214 Introducing types in this way enables Theophilus to
make points not apparent from the surface of the text of Genesis but significant
for his apologetic purpose. A more complex example is when Theophilus is
discussing the fourth day of creation, the day ‘...the luminaries came into
existence.’ This prompts him to backtrack and identify the first three days prior
to the fourth, retrospectively, as ‘…types of the triad of God and his Logos and his
Sophia.’215 The fourth entity is humankind, which Theophilus adds to the triad,
and which needs the light supplied by the luminaries created on the fourth day.

A second technique used by Theophilus is to embellish the Genesis narrative with

additional details not in the original text and use them to identify significant
points. Thus Genesis describes the creation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth

212
AA 2.15.3.
213
AA 2.16.2.
214
AA 2.17.2.
215
AA 2.15.4.
219
day, but says nothing about there being different types of star. Theophilus,
however, describes three different ranks of star, the brightest, the less bright and
the least bright -- which are the planets -- and then goes on to describe how these
correspond to three sorts of human beings: the brightest stars correspond to those
who ‘…exist in imitation of the prophets…’ and ‘…remain steadfast…’, the less
bright stars who are ‘…types of the people of the righteous…’, while those called
planets are ‘…a type of the human beings who depart from God, abandoning his
laws and ordinances.’216 Theophilus fills out the Genesis narrative, which makes
no reference to different sorts of stars, providing additional details and using them
to identify different types of human beings.

Something similar occurs with the creation of sea creatures and birds on the fifth
day. The Genesis account simply describes the act of creation and concludes with
the words: ‘And God saw that they were good.’ Theophilus introduces the
adjective σαρκοβόρα (carnivorous) to describe the birds created by God, a term
not in Genesis. This enables him to identify two sorts of creature, which can
crudely be described as the good and the bad; one sort: ‘…remain in their natural
state, not injuring those weaker than themselves but observing the law of God
and eating from the seeds of the earth…’217, while the other sort: ‘…transgress the
law of God, eating flesh and injuring those weaker than themselves…’218 The
addition of the term carnivorous is necessary to make this distinction, since the
key difference between the two sorts of creature is that the good is herbivorous
and the bad carnivorous. Theophilus then equates the two sorts of creature with
two sorts of people: on the one hand the righteous: ‘…who keep the law of God,
do not bite or injure anyone but live in a holy and just manner…’219 while on the
other hand the: ‘…robbers and murderers and the godless are like great fish and

216
AA 2.15.5-6.
217
AA 2.16.3.
218
AA 2.16.3.
219
AA 2.16.3.
220
wild animals and carnivorous birds; they virtually consume those weaker than
themselves.’220 Hence by making a small addition to the Genesis text –-
introducing the adjective carnivorous -- Theophilus is able to develop a
distinction of his own between two sorts of creature and use this to differentiate
between righteous and unrighteous human beings.

The third technique employed by Theophilus is to use the text of Genesis as a

springboard for a discussion which wanders far from the content of the text that
generates it, so that the ensuing debate can scarcely be described as illuminating
the originating text. The most extended example of this is the discussion of ‘sea’,
which is triggered by Gen 1:10, where God is described as gathering together the
waters beneath the firmament to form seas. Theophilus lights on the word sea,
which he interprets symbolically, equating it to the world, and highlighting two
features of it not mentioned in Genesis. The first is that the sea does not dry up
because of the constant nourishment provided by the rivers and springs which
flow into it. Theophilus equates this with ‘the law of God and the prophets
flowing and gushing forth with sweetness and compassion and justice and the
teaching of the holy commandments of God.’221 Theophilus’ second observation
is that the sea contains islands, some of which are ‘…habitable and well-watered
and fertile…’222 while others are ‘…rocky and waterless and barren, full of wild
beasts and uninhabitable …’223 Islands are also interpreted symbolically, with the
first group equating to the ‘holy churches’ in which human beings can take
refuge and find truth; the second equate to sources of heresy, and if human beings
approach these for refuge, they are destroyed by erroneous heretical teachings.
Nothing of all this is found, or even hinted at, in the Genesis text and it is only by

220
AA 2.16.3.
221
AA 2.14.2.
222
AA 2.14.3.
223
AA 2.14.4.
221
seizing on the trigger provided by the term ‘sea’ that Theophilus is enabled to
develop his argument in two novel directions.

Use of such techniques enables Theophilus to consider a number of issues and it

will be noted that they all relate to a favourite theme of his, the nature of
humankind.224 That this is clearly a particular focus of concern is also seen when
the commentary discusses verses in which the nature of humankind is the subject
on the surface of the text. Thus when Theophilus discusses the creation of
humankind in Gen 1:26 he describes how this ‘first reveals the dignity of
mankind’ and, having explained the use of the first person plural (as discussed
above), he then makes further comments on the divine creation of humankind:
‘When he [God] had made human beings and blessed them so that they would
increase and multiply and fill the earth, he subordinated to them all other beings
as subjects and slaves. He also determined that human beings should from the
beginning have a diet derived from the fruits of the earth and seeds and herbs and
fruit trees…’225 Later, when describing God’s establishment of the Garden of
Eden he again focuses on aspects of the nature of humankind; he paraphrases
Genesis briefly and says: ‘God transferred him [man] out of the earth from which
he was made into paradise, giving him an opportunity for progress so that by
growing and becoming mature, and furthermore having been declared a god, he
might also ascend into heaven…’226

Given that Theophilus has such a clear focus on the nature of humankind when it
is the overt subject of the Genesis text, it is not surprising that it is also the
principal theme when he explores meanings below the surface of the words and a
number of examples will illustrate this. One reference already noted is the

224
Discussed in Rogers, Theophilus 33-72.
225
AA 2.18.3: translation follows the addition to the text in Marcovich AA 65n of the
word πληθύνεσθαι not in the manuscript, by analogy with Gen 1:28.
226
AA 2.24.6: Droge, Homer or Moses? 102-123 emphasises the importance of the ‘Idea
of Progress’ in AA.
222
distinction Theophilus draws between those who are saved and those who are not
when discussing islands in the sea;227 the salvation of humankind is also a theme
when the waxing of the moon is equated to humankind’s future resurrection228
and when the blessing of newly-created sea creatures is equated with the future
salvation of humankind.229 A favourite theme of Theophilus’ is the division of
human beings into the good and the bad and three examples of this appear in his
commentary on the creation narrative: first, there is a threefold division into
‘those who remain steadfast’, ‘the people of the righteous’, and ‘the people who
depart from God’,230 second, a distinction is drawn between those who keep and
those who transgress the law of God231 and on the third occasion, humankind is
divided into ‘those who repent of their iniquities and live righteously’ and ‘those
who are ignorant of God and sin against him.’232

Theophilus uses the identification of these issues below the surface of the text to
advance his own teaching on the nature of humankind and he does this inside,
and as part of, his commentary on the Sacred Writings. Thus while he presents
complete texts to his audience, the effect of using the methodology of the
commentary is to break those texts up into small sections, and then as they are
explained, to create something new, which is his picture of the nature of
humankind. There are affinities here with the way Justin combines his readings
of individual prophetic texts together into a narrative of the life of Jesus. The
commentary technique which Theophilus uses also means that his doctrines on
humankind appear to be in some way derived from the Sacred Writings, even
though close scrutiny shows that Theophilus’ comments relate scarcely at all to
the surface meaning of the Genesis text he is purporting to discuss. Thus by

227
AA 2.14.3-5.
228
AA 2.15.3.
229
AA 2.16.2.
230
AA 2.15.5-6.
231
AA 2.16.3.
232
AA 2.17.4.
223
including these comments as part of his commentary Theophilus in effect allows
some of the gloss of the Sacred Writings to rub off on the views he expresses on
the nature of humankind and his views acquire an enhanced status as a result.

The early chapters of Genesis are clearly important for Theophilus, and they were
found in the last chapter to be important for Tatian as well. There is, however, a
very clear contrast in the way the two writers present and make use of these texts.
Tatian drew important ideas from Genesis but limited actual quotations to two
key phrases, ‘in the beginning’ and ‘the image and likeness of God’; his account
betrayed no sense of Genesis 1-3 as a narrative text. Theophilus by contrast
quotes the whole creation narrative as a coherent entity and provides a point by
point commentary on it, using this as a vehicle to expound his own ideas. This is
the clearest example in this study of two writers using the same scriptural text in
their apologetic arguments, but doing so in completely different ways.

Ad Autolycum and Graeco-Roman literary culture

Locating AA in the context of Graeco-Roman literary culture raises similar issues

to those encountered with Justin. On the one hand, Theophilus uses an
overarching form -- that of a communication between two friends – as the frame
for his work. Such a form was very familiar in Graeco-Roman culture, as is
evidenced by the extensive use of letter-writing as a means of communication
between individuals, such texts often being collected together and circulated more
widely.233 There are parallels here with Justin’s use of the public, and popular,
petition form. On the other hand, Theophilus makes use within this overall
framework of more specific forms of writing, the historical chronology and the
commentary on a high-status text. Such forms would be familiar to Graeco-
Roman audiences from their own traditions, and they are used by Theophilus to
serve his apologetic intentions. Justin’s Proof from Prophecy exhibited parallels

233
Stowers, Letter Writing.
224
with a number of Graeco-Roman literary forms; with AA, however, the position
is more straightforward since, as has been shown, direct parallels can be drawn
between the historical chronologies and commentaries in the Graeco-Roman
literary tradition and the use of these forms by Theophilus.

Characters in the text

In discussing Justin’s Apologia Maior and Tatian’s Oratio, the place in the text
occupied by both the Graeco-Romans and the Jews was considered and this is also
relevant to AA. The attitude towards Graeco-Roman culture is essentially a
hostile one. There are numerous references to Greek literature,234 which is treated
as an entity, with terms employed such as ‘the writings of the poets and
philosophers’235 or ‘what has been said by philosophers, historians and poets.’236
This Greek literary tradition is subjected to volleys of criticism at intervals in
AA.237 Theophilus draws strong contrasts between the shortcomings of the Greek
literature -- including its mythological contents -- and the merits of the Sacred
Writings; thus the qualities of antiquity, truthfulness and consistency possessed by
the Sacred Writings are contrasted with the comparative novelty of the Greek
literary tradition,238 the falsity of its contents239 and the inconsistency of its
authors.240 The consequence is that like Justin and Tatian, Theophilus leaves no
room for accommodation between the Sacred Writings and the Greek literary

234
Grant, AA 151-153 & Marcovich, AA 146-147.
235
AA 2.3.8.
236
AA 2.12.13. There are a number of other formulations, e.g. ‘historians and poets and
so-called philosophers’ (2.8.1) and ‘so-called wise men or poets or historiographers’
(2.33.1).
237
Most notably at AA 2.1-8 & 3.2-8.
238
E.g. ‘ For most writers, such as Herodotus and Thucydides and Xenophon and the
other historiographers, begin their accounts at about the reigns of Cyrus and Darius,
since they are unable to make accurate statements about the ancient times prior to them.’
(3.26.1).
239
E.g. ‘So unwillingly they admit that they do not know the truth. Inspired by demons
and puffed up by them, they said what they said through them.’ (2.8.7).
240
E.g. ‘…their statements are inconsistent and most of them demolished their own
doctrines. They not only refuted one another but in some instances even nullified their
own doctrines…’ (3.3.1).
225
tradition, and the battle of the literatures produces the same result: that acceptance
of the one entails rejection of the other.

The Jews are given a more positive presentation in AA than in either Justin’s
Apologia Maior or Tatian’s Oratio. They are not criticised as they are by Justin
and are not referred to as barbarian241 as they are by Tatian. Indeed, Theophilus
refers to the Jews in uncritical terms as the predecessors of present day Christians,
saying: ‘These Hebrews were our forefathers, and from them we possess the
sacred books…’242, and later refers to ‘…our sacred books…243 (italics added) as if
Jews and Christians should not be differentiated from each other. These
references are relatively low-key; a higher profile is, however, given to the Jews
in Theophilus’ chronology of human history from the origins of the world. This
is presented from the perspective of the Jews, and their history is thus accorded a
prominence which it did not have in Justin or Tatian; from the Garden of Eden
to the return from the Babylonian exile it is the Jews whose chronology is
described.

Conclusion

The Jewish scriptures were instrumental in Theophilus’ conversion to

Christianity and he uses material from these ancient and inspired texts to support
his apologetic arguments. In his handling of the Jewish scriptures, Theophilus
betrays considerable similarities with the works of Justin and Tatian, not least in
the importance he attaches to the prophetic and the philosophical. Two novel
features are introduced, however, which are not found in the work of the other
two authors: use of the scriptures as a source for the accurate history of the world,
and employment of commentary techniques to explain how texts should be read.

241
The word’ barbarian’ appears only once in AA, at 3.26.2, where it refers to the Persian
kings Darius and Cyrus: Marcovich, AA 159.
242
AA 3.20.6.
243
AA 3.26.1.
226
These novelties lead Theophilus to extend the scope of the way the scriptures are
handled in different argumentative contexts, thus demonstrating the extent of the
flexibility available to Christian writers in the 2C in their use of the Jewish
scriptures. Employing the scriptures in Book 3 of AA to support a chronological
case leads to a presentation of the Sacred Writings as a collection made up of a
much broader spread of texts and one which has the coherence of an overall
narrative sweep. Using the commentary format in Book 2 to apply to texts which
are not known to his audience beforehand leads Theophilus to extract from the
Sacred Writings complete, self-contained narratives of the creation and the
Garden of Eden; they are taken verbatim from the Sacred Writings, and the
length of the extracts contrasts markedly with the isolated and comparatively brief
prophetic sayings quoted by Justin.

The sharpness of this contrast must be tempered in some degree, however, since
Theophilus comments only to a limited extent on the two Genesis extracts as
complete narratives; for the most part he breaks the texts up (as commentators
tend to do) and comments separately on each short passage. Like Justin, he seeks
to isolate hidden messages concealed in the texts. Theophilus does not re-
assemble the hidden messages to construct a narrative of the life of Jesus as Justin
does, however, but he does use what he finds to focus on the subject of most
interest to him –- the nature of humankind –- and to this extent his approach
might be regarded as reflecting (albeit somewhat dimly) that of Justin.

The form of Theophilus’ chronological argument would have been familiar to his
audience, because it draws on an existing literary tradition, although he
christianises it to support an apologetic argument. It could well have been
effective in debate in the 2C context because the argument is presented
coherently, the detailed evidence put forward is fully supported by the

227
documentary sources cited and the accumulation of the evidence validates well
the overall conclusion.

What impact the commentary on Genesis 1-3 might have had on an external
audience is problematic. The commentary was presented in a form familiar to
those who had experienced Graeco-Roman education where high status texts
were similarly examined. Theophilus therefore shows in a very concrete way
how the Sacred Writings should be regarded as analogous to the foundational
texts of the Graeco-Roman literary tradition. The contents of his commentary
were, however, fashioned to support apologetic objectives, and since Theophilus’
promotion of Christianity entailed the rejection of the Graeco-Roman literary
tradition and of the myths which were often its subject-matter, the arguments in
his commentary might well not have appealed to an external audience steeped in
the Graeco-Roman literary and religious cultural tradition.

While, like Justin and Tatian, Theophilus promotes Christianity and heaps
criticism on the Graeco-Roman traditions of philosophy and mythological
religion, he does not suggest an alternative focus for allegiance in barbarian
culture, with the Barbarian Writings at their core, as Tatian does. Thus some
ambiguity lingers as to the precise location of his Christianity in relation to Greek
culture, although there is no doubt that he places the Sacred Writings inherited
from Judaism at the heart of it.

228
Chapter 5: Conclusion

This study began by highlighting the extensive references which some 2C

Christian apologists make to the Jewish scriptures. To explore why this should be
the case, three texts with implied Graeco-Roman audiences have now been
considered in detail. Their literary strategies and the role the Jewish scriptures
play in them have been examined. This final chapter highlights some of the more
general themes to emerge from the study and suggests some avenues for further
research.

It was not inevitable that these authors should have used scriptural texts to support
their arguments; it was clearly a conscious choice on their part, since other
apologetic works of the time do not do so. Justin does not draw on the scriptures
to support the arguments in his Apologia Minor and the important concept of the
Logos Spermatikos is introduced and developed without reference to the
scriptures.1 Athenagoras in his Legatio, dated to 176-180 CE,2 hardly refers to the
scriptures at all,3 even though his arguments have been noted as being strikingly
similar to Justin’s.4 Moreover, looking beyond Christianity to the mystery cults
which were also attracting new adherents in this period, significant and successful
movements -- those of Isis and Mithras -- focused on mythologies and rituals and
not on the promotion of ancient scriptures.5

1
Referred to at 2A 7.1 & 13.3.
2
Athenagoras, Legatio xi.
3
Athenagoras, Legatio 154.
4
S Parvis, ‘Justin Martyr and the Apologetic Tradition’ 123-125.
5
H Bowden, Mystery Cults in the Ancient World (Thames & Hudson, London 2010).
229
In the three texts examined here, however, the Jewish scriptures are presented as a
critically defining feature of Christianity. The authors all stress the significance of
exposure to the Jewish scriptures for their own conversion narratives and the
importance they attach to them is reflected in the way these texts are used in their
apologetic arguments. The strategy of these apologists is to portray Christianity
to Graeco-Roman audiences as grounded in ancient authoritative texts, which
they promote as the route into Christianity both for themselves and for others.
Thus the scriptures are instrumental in shaping the way the new religion presents
itself, as it strives to engage with, and challenge, the culture and traditions of the
non-Jewish world.

All three authors encourage their audiences to read the scriptures for themselves.
They do not rely on summaries of scriptural material nor do they compose
Rewritten Bible works as the Jewish apologist Josephus did in his Jewish
Antiquities. It is an important feature of the works of Justin and Theophilus that
they quote verbatim from the texts of the Jewish scriptures, while Tatian’s
protreptic approach offers readers direct exposure to the texts on later occasions.
The Jewish scriptures are not, however, handed over to the audiences for them to
read as they wish; the apologists always accompany the texts with their own
interpretations and thus seek to retain control of their meaning.

The appeal to the Jewish scriptures in these apologetic works represents a new
and decisive step in the use of such texts by Christian writers. It was noted in
Chapter 1 that when other 2C Christian works, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, or
indeed Justin’s own Dialogus cum Tryphone, discussed the interpretation of these
ancient scriptures, they did so in the context of dialogue with Jews, and sought to
differentiate their Christian readings of the scriptures from those of the Jews.
What the apologists did was to take the scriptures out of the context of the
Christian-Jewish dialogue, bring them into a non-Jewish Graeco-Roman
230
debating arena, and use them as a source of valuable material to support Christian
apologetic arguments. This significant shift in the role of the scriptures was part
of the broader process which turned Christianity from an offshoot of Second
Temple Judaism in Palestine into a movement which sought to appeal much
more widely to non-Jewish populations across the Roman Empire. The scriptures
were clearly Jewish in origin, but they were not one of the aspects of the Jewish
heritage (like the dietary laws or circumcision) which Christianity abandoned.
Instead they became a central feature of the increasingly universalist Christian
culture.

For the great value of the Jewish scriptures for the Christian apologists turns out
to be that these ancient texts are a rich and flexible literary resource able to
provide a variety of material to support a wide range of arguments: prophetic,
philosophical, ethical and historical. Thus the three authors utilize the scriptures
extensively, but individually they do so in very different ways, reflecting the
different argumentative contexts in which each of their own works was written.
Indeed, the extent to which they differ shows that these writers were not
following a single model for the apologetic use of scripture; individual
circumstance shaped the way the ancient texts were deployed in argument. Thus
it is no accident that each author uses a different term to denote the scriptures,
one that reveals his own particular apologetic interest in the texts, so that with
Justin the emphasis is on their prophetic nature, with Tatian on their barbarian
origins and with Theophilus simply on their status as sacred texts.

The way that arguments were crafted in these apologetic works drew attention,
in numerous respects, to affinities between the Jewish scriptures and various types
of text which would have been familiar to their Graeco-Roman audiences. The
references to Graeco-Roman literary culture, the techniques used to present
arguments and the forms of writing in which the apologetic writings were
themselves framed all served to underline such similarities. Moreover, in a
231
number of respects, all three authors treat the scriptures in the same way as high
status texts from the Greek literary tradition would be treated, with the result that
written works that originated in an alien culture have a guise of familiarity for a
Graeco-Roman readership.

While introducing these texts into the world of Greek literary culture, however,
the apologists make no attempt to claim that the Jewish scriptures belong to one
of the established forms of Greek literature or to locate them within Greek literary
culture more generally. They do not disguise the fact that although the texts are
written in Greek, they emanate from an alien culture. Indeed, this separate and
distinctive Jewish scriptural tradition is presented as a rival to Greek culture; the
apologists are antagonistic and confrontational towards Greek literary tradition
and as a consequence the gulf between the two traditions is made to appear wide
and, indeed, unbridgeable. For acceptance of the claims the apologists make on
the basis of the Jewish scriptures entails rejection of the Greek literary heritage,
and there is no suggestion that there should, or could, be an accommodation
between the two.

Since the audience to which the apologists are introducing the Jewish scriptures
had no (or very limited) prior familiarity with them, it is necessary for the origins
and characteristics of these ancient texts to be explained and for the nature and
extent of their authority to be justified. Moreover, to present the Jewish
scriptures as a multi-authored collection of texts rather than a single work leads to
comparisons and contrasts with the multi-author Greek literary tradition as a
whole, rather than with particular works or writers within it. Homer and Moses
are compared and contrasted only as the originators of their respective traditions,
and then chiefly in terms of their relative antiquity. The apologists do not so
much compare the Jewish scriptures with the works of Homer, but rather contrast
them with the whole Greek literary tradition. Like the Greek tradition, the
Jewish scriptures are not a bounded set of texts and it is not actually clear which
232
writings are included under the umbrella headings used. Indeed, in the way the
scriptures are portrayed they have the character of a loosely-defined textual
tradition on which the apologists draw for material.

The apologists are not merely promoting one particular set of high-status
writings in place of another; they are arguing for the replacement of a literary
tradition, in which different views are expressed in different texts, by a scriptural
tradition containing a single coherent message. Moreover, the Jewish scriptures
include prophetic material which high-status texts in the Greek tradition did not.
To the extent that the Jewish scriptures were a set of sacred texts, inspired, and
ultimately authored, by God, they were radically different in nature from the texts
in the Greek traditions of, for example, drama, philosophy and history. Thus the
apologists introduced the very idea of scriptures to a Greek literary world not
then acquainted with it.

The significance of the apologists’ approach to the scriptures emerges more

clearly when comparison is made with the Contra Apionem of Josephus. The
description of the scriptures given there is of a bounded set of twenty-two books6
whose texts are fixed7 and whose primary significance is as the source of the
Jewish Law.8 Josephus writes for an external Roman audience,9 but his stance is
not that of a proselytizer, nor is he arguing that the scriptures should supplant the
Graeco-Roman literary tradition. Rather he is defending Judaism as a tradition
and culture to be respected and admired in the face of a climate of hostility and
criticism, writing in Barclay’s words ‘...to boost sympathy and support for the

6
The five of the Pentateuch by Moses, thirteen by other prophets and four containing
‘…hymns to God and instruction to people on life’ (Barclay, Against Apion 1.38-1.40).
7
Barclay, Against Apion 1.42.
8
Josephus’ summary of the contents of the Jewish Laws is given in Barclay, Against
Apion 2.190-2.218.
9
Barclay, Against Apion xlv-li.
233
Judean people…’10 The Christian apologists, whose aims include the
encouragement of outsiders to embrace the new religion, therefore go much
further when they promote the scriptures as texts their audience should read and
whose message they should accept in place of texts from the literary culture in
which they had been schooled.

In the opening chapter reference was made to important works by Droge and
Young. Nothing in this study has called into question the fundamental theses of
their two works, so Droge’s account of the development of an early Christian
history of culture and Young’s argument for a battle of the literatures stand
uncontested. Droge’s work, however, paid insufficient attention to the central
place of the Jewish scriptures in early Christian apologetic writings, while
Young’s did not address fully enough the way early Christian authors employed
the scriptures to support apologetic arguments. The present study has therefore
been able to build on the work of these two scholars, but to go on and develop a
fuller and richer understanding of the apologists, of their arguments and of their
use of scripture.

Bringing together investigation of apologetic literary strategies and scriptural

interpretation has shown how the reading of the scriptures in these works is
driven by apologetic objectives. At one level, the selection of the texts these
authors choose to cite is determined by the issues of debate with which they are
engaged. A consequence of this is that large parts of the Jewish scriptures,
notably the Jewish Law emphasised by Josephus, do not feature strongly in these
apologetic works, since they are not relevant to the arguments being made. Thus
when the apologists’ presentations are compared with the total scope of the Jewish
scriptures as they came to be codified, they appear to describe only a small part of
the whole.

10
Barclay, Against Apion liii.
234
The apologists’ handling of particular texts from scripture reflect, at another level,
the demands of their apologetic arguments. The technique they most commonly
use is to break an extended text down into small sections, to interpret each of
them, and then to combine together their readings of individual portions of text
to form something larger. Interpretation of a particular sentence or passage is
therefore only the first step; readings of the individual passages are amalgamated
together to produce an overall meaning which then, most importantly, is used to
support an apologetic argument. Thus Justin’s individual prophecies are summed
together to furnish an account of the life of Christ and of the early growth of
Christianity as foretold, Tatian’s individual scriptural references are combined to
build a Christian philosophy, while Theophilus’ commentary on Genesis is used
inter alia to present an account of the nature of humankind. Each writer seeks to
persuade his audience of his case on the basis of evidence culled from the
scriptures and they each treat a sacred text as having a single interpretation rather
than more than one possible reading. Since the scriptures are examined by these
authors from a number of different perspectives, however, and since they are
deployed in various argumentative contexts, they may appear to be multi-layered
texts which can be read from different standpoints.

In the opening chapter reference was briefly made to the variety of approaches to
scriptural interpretation found in 2C Christian texts. This study has added an
additional ingredient to the mix by showing how the scriptures could also have an
important role in supporting externally-facing apologetic arguments directed at
Graeco-Roman audiences and how those arguments could shape the way the
scriptures are interpreted. The question which then arises is the extent to which
the outcome is a distinctively apologetic mode of scriptural interpretation. This
would be a fruitful issue for further research, and one way of investigating it
would be to compare what has emerged from this study with evidence from other
texts whose audiences and argumentative contexts were markedly different. Thus
235
Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone, whose implied audience at least was Jewish,
forms an obvious source of possible comparison, particularly with the Apologia
Maior. Internally-focussed texts, whose avowed purpose was to challenge
alternative forms of Christianity, such as the work of Irenaeus,11 could also be
examined for purposes of comparison. In both these cases scriptural interpretation
forms an important feature of the argumentative battleground of the text and
there is ample scope for comparison with the apologetic works studied here.

The meaning of scriptural texts is potentially problematic for Graeco-Roman

audiences previously unfamiliar with them and the apologetic authors therefore
routinely provide interpretations. Explaining texts thus becomes an essential
feature of their works; text and interpretation are coupled together, and, indeed,
appear inseparable. In the case of Justin, interpretation of scriptural texts through
the lens of the Proof from Prophecy is especially prominent. A useful opportunity
for further research would be to examine the Proof as a theme in early Christian
writing more broadly. It has been unduly neglected hitherto, the sole study so
far, of which the present author is aware, is the relatively brief discussion in a
work by Fullerton dating from 1919 which necessarily takes no account of several
generations of modern scholarship.12 Yet the way prophetic texts should be
interpreted features strongly in major Christian works of the period following
Justin, in Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses Books 3 and 4,13 in Tertullian’s Adversus
Marcionem Books 3 and 414 (both texts refuting alternative forms of Christianity)

11
For a recent work discussing Irenaeus and scripture: J Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons:
Identifying Christianity (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013) 124-140.
12
K Fullerton, Prophecy and Authority: a Study in the History of the Doctrine and
Interpretation of Scripture (Macmillan, New York 1919) 3-50.
13
Irénée, Contre les Hérésies Livre 3 2 volumes eds A Rousseau & L Doutreleau (Éditions
du Cerf, Paris 1974) & Irénée, Contre les Hérésies Livre 4 2 volumes eds A Rousseau, B
Hemmerdinger, L Doutreleau & C Mercier (Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1965).
14
Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 2 volumes ed E Evans (Oxford University Press,
Oxford 1972) Books 3 and 4.
236
and in Origen’s work on the theory of scriptural interpretation, De Principiis
Book 4.15

The interpretation of passages from the Jewish scriptures is presented by

Theophilus in the format of a commentary, the earliest extant Christian example
of this form. A fruitful avenue for further research would be to examine the
development of Christian scriptural commentaries as a form of writing. For while
the contents of the extensive literature of patristic commentaries have been much
studied, the commentary as a form has been somewhat neglected, and for this
tradition of writings to be fully appreciated its nature and evolution merits closer
examination.16 This would establish whether later writers followed in Theophilus’
footsteps to any extent and the degree to which the emerging Christian
commentary tradition was influenced by Graeco-Roman precursors.

The need to focus for apologetic purposes on scriptures which are ancient has the
consequence that no appeal is made to Christian writings, including those of the
NT (which are inevitably of recent date). Christian texts therefore play little part
in these works, even though the apologists betray some familiarity with Jesus
traditions, and indeed allude (although without acknowledgment) to texts from
the NT. As a result the categories OT and NT are not used in reference to
scriptural texts, since these terms would have no meaning in a context in which
there is no NT. Further, the figure of Jesus Christ does not feature strongly in
these works, except insofar as he is the subject of ancient prophecies.

The low profile of Jesus also reflects the fact that Christianity is not presented as
the religion of a great man to be followed. This contrasts with the approach used
by Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities to retell the narrative of the Jewish scriptures

15
Origen, On First Principles trans G W Butterworth (SPCK, London 1936) Book 4.2.
16
For some interesting, though brief, comments on this: Horbury, ‘Old Testament
interpretation’ 733-736.
237
as a series of portraits of successive leaders of the Jewish people.17 The apologists
do not present the ancient prophets who wrote the scriptural texts in this way
even though they are important figures in their arguments. They appear to be
little more than names, and their qualities, other than their ability to utter
prophecies, are barely described.

The strategy of presenting ancient scriptures to Graeco-Roman audiences as

derived from Jewish roots is potentially problematic for the apologists’ stance
towards the Jews. For while the scriptural texts inherited from Jewish tradition
are valued not just for the material they contain but also for the antiquity to
which they give concrete expression, the apologists do not disguise the fact that
they are at odds with the Jews over how the scriptures should be interpreted.
They seek to differentiate themselves from the Jews and to present the ancient
texts as Christian in the battle of the literatures with Graeco-Roman culture.
Given the somewhat paradoxical nature of this position, however, it is
unsurprising that the strategies employed by the three authors display significant
differences. Justin acknowledges, but plays down, the Jewish origin of the texts,
Tatian makes no reference at all to Jews or Judaism and prefers to call the texts
barbarian, while Theophilus treats the Jews in a low-key but uncritical way as the
forerunners of present-day Christians.

At the outset of this study it was made clear that the texts would be discussed as if
they are directed at external Graeco-Roman audiences, even though it remains
uncertain whether this was actually the case. Following this approach through, it
has proved possible to analyse the texts and reach coherent conclusions. This does
not, of course, demonstrate that there actually were external audiences for these
texts; indeed, the debate on this issue has not really been advanced in any
direction. The most that can be said is that no difficulties have been encountered

17
Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation 74-131.
238
with treating the texts as externally directed. Such an approach has, however,
placed limits on the reach of this study, which has not considered, and has not
been able to consider, how interactions between Christians and Graeco-Roman
audiences actually took place; rather it has been restricted to examining how
Christian apologetic texts portray their side of the interactions.

The other side of such interactions as there were is invisible to modern eyes,
because any Graeco-Roman texts that may have existed have not survived. Even
though direct evidence is lacking, however, it is worthwhile to reflect on what
the responses from Graeco-Roman audiences might have been to the apologists’
arguments and their use of the Jewish scriptures. Strategies which emphasise the
ways in which the Jewish scriptures are made to appear familiar to those from a
Greek cultural background and which treat them as high-status literature could
have given persuasive power to the arguments the apologists built on them.
Moreover, positioning Christianity as rooted in very ancient traditions, for which
clear evidence survives in the form of authoritative texts available for
contemporaries to read, could have given it a high degree of credibility and
attractiveness, although such an approach might have been more effective in
removing the obstacles and difficulties which arose from Christianity’s apparent
novelty than in providing positive grounds for accepting the Christian case.

It was however, demanding a lot from the audience not only to accept
Christianity but to reject wholesale the Greek cultural tradition. Christianity
could have appeared to be an attractive alternative to the Graeco-Roman
mythological religion, but the apologists never really make use of the scriptures to
confront the rival claims of Greek philosophy. They limit themselves to
presenting their own case (with support from the scriptures) and then criticize
and disparage the Greek alternative. This could well have been less than
convincing for those who were educated in Greek philosophy and who retained a
respect for that tradition.
239
If, however, members of their audiences were already dissatisfied with the
traditions of Greek ideas and Greek culture -- as the apologists claim that they
themselves were when they first encountered the Jewish scriptures -- and were
thus open to arguments in favour of something different, then an apologetic case
supported by the scriptures could have been persuasive to them as a radical
alternative. This was particularly the case given the attraction at the time of
doctrines based on ancient wisdom or derived from the founding texts of the
philosophical schools. Those who saw continuing value in the ideas of the Stoic
or Platonic traditions, however, or who simply retained a respect for the
established authority of the Greek philosophical schools might have been more
difficult to impress. They could have been drawn to works which used ancient
authoritative texts not only to advance a case but also to support arguments which
were capable of dismantling the alternatives, and this is what they could find in
authors like Galen, building upon Hippocrates, or Alexander of Aphrodisias,
drawing upon Aristotle; but it is not what the Christian apologists offered them.

240
Bibliography

Texts

Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt Omnia 2 volumes ed B Keil (Weidmann,

Berlin 1893-1898).
Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works 2 Volumes trans C A Behr (Brill, Leiden
1981-1986).
Alcinoos: Enseignement des doctrines de Platon, Introduction, texte établi et
commenté by J Whittaker, trans P Louis (Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1990).
Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism trans with an Introduction and
Commentary by J Dillon (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1993).
Alkinoos: Didaskalikos Lehrbuch der Grundsätze Platons: Einleitung, Text,
Übersetzung und Anmerkungen eds O F Summerell & T Zimmer (De Gruyter,
Berlin 2007).
Alexander of Aphrodisias: On Fate, Text, Translation and Commentary ed R W
Sharples (Duckworth, London 1983).
Ancient Literary Criticism, The Principal Texts in New Translations eds D A
Russell & M Winterbottom (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1972).
The Apostolic Fathers ed B D Ehrman LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 2003).
Aristeas to Philocrates: Letter of Aristeas ed & trans M Hadas (Wipf & Stock,
Eugene 1951).
The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians ed J R Harris with an
Appendix by J A Robinson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1891).
Aristotle: Posterior Analytics ed H Tredennick LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1960).

241
Aristotle: Posterior Analytics trans J Barnes Second ed (Clarendon Press, Oxford
1993).
Aristotle: Protrepticus, an Attempt at Reconstruction by I Düring (Acta
Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg 1961).
Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione ed W R Schoedel (Clarendon Press,
Oxford 1972).
Cassius Dio: Roman History 9 Volumes ed H Cary & H B Foster LCL (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge Mass 1914-1927).
Demetrius: On Style trans D C Innes in: Ancient Literary Criticism eds Russell &
Winterbottom 171-215.
Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 37-60 ed H L Crosby LCL (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge Mass 1946).
Diodorus Siculus: Library of History 12 Volumes ed C H Oldfather LCL
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1933-1967).
Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Critical Essays I ed S Usher LCL (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge Mass 1974).
Dionysius of Halicarnsassus: On Thucydides trans W K Pritchett (University of
California Press, Berkeley 1975).
Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Roman Antiquities 7 Volumes ed E Cary LCL
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1937-1950).
1 Enoch: Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1-36; 81-108 by G W
Nickelsburg ed K Baltzer (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2001).
Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine trans G A
Williamson rev & ed with a new introduction by A Louth (Penguin, London
1989) (HE).
The Exagoge of Ezekiel ed H Jacobson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1983).
Fourth Ezra: a Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra by M E Stone (Fortress
Press, Minneapolis 1990).

242
Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors 4 volumes ed C R Holladay (Scholars
Press, Chico & Atlanta 1983-96).
Galen: Institutio Logica ed C Kalbfleisch (Teubner, Leipzig 1896).
Galen: Institutio Logica, English Translation, Introduction and Commentary by J
S Kieffer (John Hopkins Press, Baltimore 1964).
Galen: On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato ed & trans P de Lacy 3 parts
(Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1978-1984).
Galen: On the Elements according to Hippocrates ed & trans P de Lacy
(Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1996).
Gegen falsche Götter und falsche Bildung, Tatian, Rede an die Griechen ed H-G
Nesselrath (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016).
Giannini, A ed: Paradoxographorum Graecorum Reliquiae (Institutio Editorale
Italiano, Milan 1966).
‘The Gospel of Truth’ eds E Thomassen & M Meyer in: M Meyer ed: The Nag
Hammadi Scriptures (HarperOne, New York, 2007) 31-47.
Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 3 Volumes ed M Stern (Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem 1974-1984).
The Hellenistic Philosophers Volume 1 Translations of the Principal Sources with
Philosophical Commentary eds A A Long & D Sedley (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 1987).
The Hellenistic Philosophers Volume 2 Greek and Latin Texts with Notes and
Bibliography eds A A Long & D Sedley (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1989).
Fragments of Heracleon ed A E Brooke (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1891).
Héraclite: Allégories d’Homère ed & trans F Buffière (Les Belles Lettres, Paris
1962).
Heraclitus: Homeric Problems eds & trans D A Russell & D Konstan (SBL,
Atlanta 2005).

243
In Theaetetum eds G Bastianini & D Sedley in: F Adorno et al eds: Corpus dei
Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini (CPF), Testi e Lessico nei Papiri di Cultura Greci e
Latina Parte III: Comentari (Olschki, Florence 1995) 227-562.
Iréenée: Contre les Hérésies Livre 1 2 Volumes eds A Rousseau & L Doutreleau
(Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1979).
Irénée: Contre les Hérésies Livre 3 2 Volumes eds A Rousseau & L Doutreleau
(Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1974).
Irénée: Contre les Hérésies Livre 4 2 Volumes eds A Rousseau, B Hemmerdinger,
L Doutreleau & C Mercier (Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1965).
Josephus: Contra Apionem ed H St J Thackeray LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1926).
Josephus: Jewish Antiquities 9 Volumes eds H St J Thackeray, R Marcus & L H
Feldman LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1930-1965).
Josephus, Flavius: Against Apion trans J M G Barclay (Brill, Leiden 2007).
Josephus, Flavius: Judean Antiquities Books 1-4 trans L H Feldman (Brill, Leiden
2004).
Josephus, Flavius: Judean Antiquities Books 5-7 trans C Begg & P Spilsbury (Brill,
Leiden 2005).
Josephus, Flavius: Judean Antiquities Books 8-10 trans C Begg & P Spilsbury
(Brill, Leiden 2005).
The Book of Jubilees, Critical Text & Translation 2 Volumes ed J C VanderKam
(Peeters, Leuven 1989).
Justin Martyr: Apologiae pro Christianis ed M Marcovich (De Gruyter, Berlin
1994).
Justin: Apologie pour les Chrétiens ed C Munier (Éditions du Cerf, Paris 2006).
Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho trans T B Falls, rev T B Halton & ed M
Slusser (Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC 2003).
Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies trans L W Barnard (Paulist Press,
Mahwah 1997).

244
Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies eds D Minns & P Parvis (Oxford
University Press, Oxford 2009).
Juvenal: Satires ed S M Braund LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
2004).
‘Longinus’: On the Sublime ed D A Russell (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1964).
Lucan: Pharsalia ed J D Duff LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1928).
Lucian: Selected Dialogues trans D Costa (Oxford University Press, Oxford
2005).
Maximus of Tyre: Dissertationes ed M B Trapp (Teubner, Stuttgart 1994).
Maximus of Tyre: The Philosophical Orations trans with an Introduction and
Notes by M B Trapp (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997).
Origen: On First Principles trans G W Butterworth (SPCK, London 1936).
Origen: Contra Celsum trans H Chadwick (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 1953).
Pietersma, A & Wright, B G: A New English Translation of the Septuagint and
other Greek translations traditionally included under that title (NETS) (Oxford
University Press, New York 2007) (NETS).
Philo: De Legatione ad Gaium ed F H Colson LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1962).
Philo: De Vita Mosis 2 Volumes ed F H Colson LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1935).
Philo of Biblos: The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation
and Notes eds H W Attridge & R A Oden Jr (Catholic Biblical Association of
America, Washington DC 1981).
Philostratus: Lives of the Sophists ed W C Wright LCL (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge Mass 1921).
Phlegon of Tralles: Book of Marvels trans W Hansen (University of Exeter Press,
Exeter 1996).

245
Plato: Ion eds H N Fowler & W R M Lamb LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1925).
Plato: Meno ed W R M Lamb LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1924).
Plato: Phaedrus ed H N Fowler LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1914).
Plato: Republic 2 Volumes eds C Emlyn-Jones & W Preddy LCL (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge Mass 2013).
Plato: Timaeus ed R G Bury LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1929).
Plutarch: De E Apud Delphos, De Pythiae Oraculis & De Defectu Oraculorum ed
F C Babbitt LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1936).
Plutarch: De Iside et Osiride ed J G Griffiths (University of Wales Press, Cardiff
1970).
Plutarch: De Stoicorum Repugnantiis & De Communibus Notitiis adversus
Stoicos in: Moralia13/2 ed H Cherniss LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1976).
Plutarch: Lives I: Life of Theseus ed B Perrin LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1914).
Plutarch, Lives I: Life of Romulus ed B Perrin LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 1914).
Plutarch: Platonicae Quaestiones & De Animae Procratione in Timaeo in:
Moralia13/1 ed H Cherniss LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1976).
Plutarch: Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat ed F C Babbitt LCL
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1927).
Polybius: Histories 6 Volumes ed W R Paton rev F W Walbank & C Habicht
LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 2010-2012).
Quintilian: Institutio Oratoria ed D A Russell LCL (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass 2001).
246
Runia, D T: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction,
Translation and Commentary (SBL, Atlanta 2001).
Septuaginta Testamentum Graecum I Genesis ed J W Wevers (Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, Göttingen 1974).
Sextus Empiricus: Outlines of Pyrrhonism ed R G Bury LCL (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge Mass 1933).
Sextus Empiricus: Outlines of Scepticism trans J Annas & J Barnes (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1994).
The Sibylline Oracles, with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the
First and Second Books ed J L Lightfoot (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2007).
The Sibylline Oracles Book III and its Social Setting, with an Introduction,
Translation and Commentary ed R Buitenwerf (Brill, Leiden 2003).
Suetonius: Lives of the Caesars Volume 1: Augustus ed J C Rolfe LCL (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge Mass 1914).
Tacitus: Annals ed J Jackson LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass
1937).
Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos and fragments ed M Whittaker (Clarendon Press,
Oxford 1982).
Tatiani Oratio ad Graecos ed M Marcovich (De Gruyter, Berlin 1995).
Tatianos: Oratio ad Graecos Rede an die Griechen ed J Trelenberg (Mohr
Siebeck, Tübingen 2012).
Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem 2 volumes ed E Evans (Oxford University Press,
Oxford 1972).
Théophile d’Antioche: Trois livres a Autolycus ed G Bardy & trans J Sender
(Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1948).
Theophili Antiocheni Ad Autolycum: ed M Marcovich (De Gruyter, Berlin
1995).
Theophilus of Antioch: Ad Autolycum ed R M Grant (Clarendon Press, Oxford
1970.

247
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Digital Library ed M C Pantelia (University of
California, Irvine 2001-) (TLG). Accessed online.
Virgil: Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid 2 Volumes ed H R Fairclough rev G P
Goold LCL (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass 1999).

Secondary works

Ackrill, J L: Aristotle the Philosopher (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1981).

Adler, W: Time Immemorial: Archaic History and its Sources in Christian
Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington DC, 1989).
Albl, M C: ‘And Scripture cannot be broken’ The Form and Function of the Early
Christian Testimonia Collections (Brill, Leiden 1999).
Alexander, P S: ‘Retelling the Old Testament’ in: D A Carson & H G M
Williamson eds: It is Written: Scripture citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of
Barnabas Lindars, SSF (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1988) 99-121.
Anderson, A A: The Book of Psalms I Introduction and Psalms 1-72 (Oliphants,
London 1972).
Anderson, G: The Second Sophistic: a Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman
Empire (Routledge, London 1993).
Andresen, C: ‘Justin und der mittlere Platonismus’ ZNW 44 (1952/53) 157-195.
Andresen, C: Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum
(De Gruyter, Berlin 1955).
Antonova, S: ‘Barbarians and the Empire-wide spread of Christianity’ in: W V
Harris ed: The Spread of Christianity in the First Four Centuries: Essays in
Explanation (Brill, Leiden 2005) 69-85.
Arena, V: ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’ in: W Dominik & J Hall eds: A
Companion to Roman Rhetoric (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2007) 149-160.
Armstrong, A H: ‘Pagan and Christian Traditionalism in the First Three
Centuries A.D.’ in: ed E A Livingstone SP 15/1 (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1984)
414-431.
248
Aune, D E: ‘Justin Martyr’s Use of the Old Testament’ BETS 9 (1966) 179-197.
Aune, D E: Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1983).
Barclay, J M G: Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan
(323BCE-117CE) (T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1996).
Barnard, L W: Justin Martyr, his Life and Thought (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 1967).
Barnard, L W: ‘The Heresy of Tatian—once again’ JEH 19 (1968) 1-10.
Barnes, J: ‘Proof destroyed’ in: M Schofield, M Burnyeat & J Barnes eds: Doubt
and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology (Clarendon Press, Oxford
1980) 161-181.
Barnes, J: Aristotle (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1982).
Barnes, J: ‘Peripatetic Logic: 100 BC-AD 200’ in: R W Sharples & R Sorabji eds:
Greek & Roman Philosophy 100BC-200AD 2 Volumes (Institute of Classical
Studies University of London, London 2007) 2 531-546.
Barnes, J: ‘Galen, Christians, logic’ in: J Barnes: Logical Matters, Essays in Ancient
Philosophy II ed M Bonelli (Clarendon Press, Oxford 2012) 1-21.
Barnes, J, Bobzien, S & Mignucci, M: ‘Logic’ in: K Algra, J Barnes, J Mansfeld &
M Schofield eds: The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1999) 92-176.
Bartelink, G J M: ‘Die Oracula Sibyllina in den frühchristlichen griechischen
Schriften von Justin bis Origenes (150-250 nach Chr.)’ in: J den Boeft & A
Hilhorst eds: Early Christian Poetry, a Collection of Essays (Brill, Leiden 1993)
23-33.
Barton, J: Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the
Exile (Darton, Longman & Todd, London 1986).
Barton J: ‘The Old Testament Canons’ in: NCHB1 145-164.
Bauckham, R: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2006).

249
Behr, C A: Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Adolf M Hakkert, Amsterdam
1968).
Behr, J: The Formation of Christian Theology Volume 1: The Way to Nicaea (St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York 2001).
Behr, J: Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (Oxford University Press,
Oxford 2013).
Bellido, C G: ‘Simbolismo del Vestidio. Interpretación Patrística de Gen 49,11’
EstEcl 59 230 (1984) 313-357.
Bellinzoni, A J: The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr (Brill,
Leiden 1967).
Bentivegna, J: ‘A Christianity without Christ by Theophilus of Antioch’ in: ed E
A Livingstone SP 13/2 (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1975) 107-130.
Betegh, G: ‘The Transmission of Ancient Wisdom: Texts, Doxographies,
Libraries’ in: L P Gerson ed: The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late
Antiquity 1 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2010) 25-38.
Betz, H D: Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature (Brill,
Leiden 1975).
Bird, M L: Crossing Land and Sea: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second
Temple Period (Hendrickson, Peabody 2010).
Birnbaum, E: The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews and Proselytes
(Scholars Press, Atlanta 1996).
Bobzien, S: ‘Logic’ in: B Inwood ed: The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003) 85-123.
Boccabello, J S: ‘Why would a Pagan read Zechariah? Apologetics and Exegesis
in the Second-Century Greek Apologists’ in: C Tuckett ed: The Book of
Zechariah and its Influence (Ashgate, Aldershot 2003) 135-144.
Boccabello, J S: ‘Cosmological Allegoresis of Greek Myth in Theophilus of
Antioch’s Ad Autolycum’ (University of Oxford D Phil 2011).

250
Bolgiani, F: ‘L’ascesi di Noé: a proposito di Theoph., ad Autol., III, 19’ in: F Paulo
& M Barrera eds: Forma Futuri, Studi in onore del Cardinale Michele Pellegrino
(Bottega d’Erasmo, Torino 1975) 295-333.
Bompaire, J: Lucien Écrivain: Imitation et Création (De Bocard, Paris 1958).
Bonazzi, M & Helmig, C eds: Platonic Stoicism-Stoic Platonism: the dialogue
between Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity (Leuven University Press, Leuven
2007).
Bond, H K: Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 1998).
Borgen, P: Philo of Alexandria, an Exegete for his Time (Brill, Leiden 1997).
Boslooper, T: The Virgin Birth (SCM Press, London 1962).
Bouquiaux-Simon, O: Les Lectures Homériques de Lucien (Palais des Académies,
Bruxelles 1968).
Bowden, H: Mystery Cults in the Ancient World (Thames & Hudson, London
2010).
Bowman, A K, Garnsey, P & Rathbone, D eds: The Cambridge Ancient History
Volume 9 The High Empire, A.D. 70-192 Second ed (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2000) (CAH9).
Bowman, A K, Garnsey P & Cameron, A eds: The Cambridge Ancient History
Volume 12 The Crisis of Empire A.D. 193-337 Second ed (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2005) (CAH12).
Boys-Stones, G R: Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: a Study of its Development from
the Stoics to Origen (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001).
Braun, M: History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Blackwell,
Oxford 1938).
Brenk, F E: In Mist Appareled: Religious Themes in Plutarch’s Moralia and Lives
(Brill, Leiden 1980).
Brooke, G J: ‘Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures’ in: M Henze ed:
Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2005) 134-157.

251
Brunschwig, J: ‘Proof defined’ in: M Schofield, M Burnyeat and J Barnes eds:
Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology (Clarendon Press,
Oxford 1980) 125-160.
Buck, P L: ‘Justin Martyr’s Apologies: Their Number, Destination, and Form’ JTS
NS 54 (2003) 45-59.
Buffière, F: Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée Grecque (University of Paris, Paris
1956).
Burke, G T: ‘Celsus and Justin: Carl Andresen Revisited’ ZNW 76 (1985) 107-
116.
Byrskog, S: Story as History-History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the
Context of Ancient Oral History (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2000).
Cancik, H & Schneider, H eds: Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient
World English edition ed C F Salazar (Brill, Leiden 2002-). Accessed via Online
ed 2006- (BNP).
Carleton Paget, J: The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (J C B
Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1994).
Carleton Paget, J: Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity (Mohr
Siebeck, Tübingen 2010).
Carleton Paget, J & Schaper, J: The New Cambridge History of the Bible Volume
1 From the beginnings to 600 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013)
(NCHB1).
Carleton Paget, J: ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Second Century’ in:
NCHB1 549-583.
Chadwick, H: ‘Justin Martyr’s Defence of Christianity’ BJRL 47 (1965) 275-297.
Chadwick, H: Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in
Justin, Clement and Origen (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1966).
Chadwick, H: ‘Florilegium’ in: RAC 7 1131-43.
Clarke, G W: ‘The Date of the Oration of Tatian’ HTR 60 (1967) 123-126.
Clarke M L: Higher Education in the Ancient World (Routledge & Kegan Paul,
London 1971).
252
Collins, J H II: Exhortations to Philosophy, the Protreptics of Plato, Isocrates and
Aristotle (Oxford University Press, New York 2015).
Collins, J J: Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic
Diaspora Second ed (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2000).
Collins, J J: ‘The ‘Apocryphal’ Old Testament’ in: NCHB1 165-189.
Cook, J G: The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism
(Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2004).
Craigie, P C: Psalms 1-50 Second ed with 2004 supplement by M E Tate
(Thomas Nelson, Nashville 2004).
Crivelli, P: ‘Aristotle’s Logic’ in: C Shields ed: The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle
(Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012) 113-149.
Curry, C: ‘The Theogony of Theophilus’ VC 42 (1988) 318-326.
Daniélou, J: Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture trans J A Baker (Darton,
Longman & Todd, London 1973).
Dauge, Y A: Le Barbare: recherche sur la conception romaine de la barbarie at de
la civilisation (Latomus, Brussels 1981).
Dawson, D: Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria
(University of California Press, Berkeley 1992).
De Vos, J C: Rezeption und Wirkung des Dekalogs in jüdischen und christlichen
Schriften bis 200 n. Chr. (Brill, Leiden 2016).
Den Boer, W: Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some Historical Aspects
(Brill, Leiden 1979).
Diels, H: Sibyllinische Blätter (Georg Reimer, Berlin 1890).
Dillon, J: The Middle Platonists: a Study of Platonism 80 BC to AD 220
(Duckworth, London 1977).
Dines, J M: The Septuagint (T&T Clark, Edinburgh 2004).
Dodd, C H: According to the Scriptures: the Sub-Structure of New Testament
Theology (Nisbet & Co, London 1952).
Dodds, E R: The Greeks and the Irrational (University of California Press,
Berkeley 1951).
253
Donaldson, T L: Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to
135 CE) (Baylor University Press, Waco 2007).
Dorival, G: ‘L’apologétique chrétienne et la culture greque’ in: B Pouderon & J
Doré eds: Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque (Beauchesne, Paris 1998)
423-465.
Dorival, G, Harl, M & Munnich, O: La Bible grecque des Septante: du Judaïsme
Hellénistique au Christianisme ancien (Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1988).
Droge, A J: Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretation of the History of
Culture (J C B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1989).
Eck, W: ‘Provincial Administration and Finance’ in CAH9 266-292.
Edwards, M J: ‘On the Platonic Schooling of Justin Martyr’ JTS NS 42 (1991) 17-
34.
Edwards, M J: ‘Apologetics’ in: S A Harvey & D G Hunter eds: The Oxford
Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008)
549-564.
Edwards, M J: ‘Christianity A.D. 70-192’ in: CAH12 573-588.
Edwards, M J, Goodman, M R, Price, S R F & Rowland, C: ‘Introduction:
Apologetics in the Roman World’ in: M J Edwards, M R Goodman, S R F Price
& C Rowland eds: Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews and Christians
(Oxford University Press, Oxford 1999) 1-13.
Elze, M: Tatian und seine Theologie (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen
1960).
Engberg, J: ‘ ‘From among You are We. Made, not born are Christians’:
Apologists’ Accounts of Conversion before 310 AD’ in: J Ulrich, A-C Jacobsen &
M Kahlos eds, Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics (Peter
Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2009) 49-77.
Engberg, J: ‘Conversion, Apologetic Argumentation and Polemic (amongst
friends) in Second-Century Syria: Theophilus’ Ad Autolycum’ in: M Blömer, A
Lichtenberger & R Raja eds: Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to
Muhammed: Continuity and Change (Brepols, Turnhout 2015) 83-94.
254
Farrell, J: ‘Roman Homer’ in: R Fowler ed: The Cambridge Companion to
Homer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004) 263-269.
Fascher, E: ΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ: Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung (Alfred Töpelmann, Giessen 1927).
Feeney, D C: The Gods in Epic: Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition
(Clarendon Press, Oxford 1991).
Feldman, L H: Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions
from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1993).
Feldman, L H: Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (University of California
Press, Berkeley 1998).
Feldman, L H: Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Brill, Leiden 1998).
Fernández Marcos, N: The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek
Version of the Bible trans W G E Watson (Brill, Leiden 2000).
Fiedrowicz, M: Apologie im frühen Christentum: Die Kontroverse um den
christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten (Ferdinand
Schöningh, Paderborn 2000).
Finkelberg, M: ‘Canonising and Decanonising Homer: Reception of the Homeric
Poems in Antiquity and Modernity’ in: M R Niehoff ed: Homer and the Bible in
the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters (Brill, Leiden 2012) 15-28.
Finkelberg, M & Stroumsa, G G: ‘Introduction: Before the Western canon’ in: M
Finkelberg & G G Stroumsa eds: Homer, the Bible and Beyond: Literary and
Religious Canons in the Ancient World (Brill, Leiden 2003) 1-8.
Fojtik, J E: ‘Tatian the Barbarian: Language, Education and Identity in the Oratio
ad Graecos’ in: J Ulrich, A-C Jacobsen & M Kahlos eds: Continuity and
Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics (Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
2009) 23-34.
Fraser, P M: Ptolemaic Alexandria Volume 1 (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1972).
Frede, M A: ‘Epilogue’ in: K Algra, J Barnes, J Mansfeld, & M Schofield eds: The
Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 1999) 771-797.
255
Frede, M A: A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought ed A A
Long (University of California Press, Berkeley 2011).
Freund, R A: ‘The Decalogue in Early Judaism and Christianity’ in: C A Evans &
J A Sanders eds: The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian
Tradition (Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield 1998) 124-141.
Freund, S: ‘ ‘Und wunderbar sind auch eure Dichter, die da lügen...’ (Tat., orat.
22,7). Beobachtungen zu Gestalt, Auswahl und Funktion vn Dichterzitaten in
der griechischen Apologetik am Beispiel Tatians’ in: C Schubert & A von
Stockhausen eds: Ad veram religionem reformare. Frühchristliche Apologetik
zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit (Erlangen Forschungen, Erlangen 2006)
97-121.
Fullerton, K: Prophecy and Authority: a Study in the History of the Doctrine and
Interpretation of Scripture (Macmillan, New York 1919).
Gager, J G: Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (Abingdon Press, Nashville 1972).
Gaines, R N: ‘Roman Rhetorical Handbooks’ in: W Dominik & J Hall eds: A
Companion to Roman Rhetoric (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2007) 163-180.
Gamble, H Y: Books and Readers in the Early Church: a History of Early
Christian Texts (Yale University Press, New Haven 1995).
Geffcken, J: Zwei griechische Apologeten (Teubner, Leipzig 1907).
Gibbon, E: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 6 volumes (Dent, London
1910).
Gill, C: ‘Psychology’ in J Warren ed: The Cambridge Companion to
Epicureanism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009) 125-141.
Gillingham, S: A Journey of Two Psalms: the Reception of Psalms 1 and 2 in
Jewish and Christian Tradition (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013).
Goldhill S ed: Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic
and the Development of Empire (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001).
Goodenough, E R: The Theology of Justin Martyr (Frommann, Jena 1923).
Goodenough, E R: ‘Philo’s Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis’ HTR 26
(1933) 109-125.
256
Goodman, M: Mission and Conversion: Proselytising in the Religious History of
the Roman Empire (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1994).
Gradel, I: Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Clarendon Press, Oxford
2002).
Grant, R M: ‘The Decalogue in Early Christianity’ HTR 40 (1947) 1-17.
Grant, R M: ‘Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus’ HTR 40 (1947) 225-256.
Grant, R M: ‘The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch’ JBL 66 (1947) 173-196.
Grant, R M: ‘The Problem of Theophilus’ HTR 43 (1950) 179-196.
Grant, R M: ‘The Date of Tatian’s Oration’ HTR 46 (1953) 99-101.
Grant, R M: ‘The Heresy of Tatian’ JTS 5 (1954) 62-68.
Grant, R M: ‘Tatian and the Bible’ in: eds K Aland & F L Cross SP 1/1
(Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1957) 297-306.
Grant, R M: ‘Studies in the Apologists’ HTR 51 (1958) 123-134.
Grant, R M: ‘Forms and Occasions of the Greek Apologists’ SMSR 52 (1986) 213-
226.
Grant, R M: Greek Apologists of the Second Century (SCM Press, London 1988).
Grant, R M & Tracy, D: A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible
Second ed rev & enlarged (SCM Press, London 1984).
Grube, G M A: The Greek and Roman Critics (Methuen, London 1965).
Gruen, E S: Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition
(University of California Press, Berkeley 1998).
Gruen, E S: Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton University Press,
Princeton 2010).
Guthrie, W K C: A History of Greek Philosophy Volume VI: Aristotle an
Encounter (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1981).
Haddad, R M: The Case for Christianity: St. Justin Martyr’s Arguments for
Religious Liberty and Judicial Justice (Taylor Trade, Lanham 2010).
Hankinson, R J: The Sceptics (Routledge, London 1995).

257
Hankinson, R J ed: ‘The man and his work’ in: R J Hankinson ed: The
Cambridge Companion to Galen (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008)
1-33.
Hardwick, M E: Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through
Eusebius (Scholars Press, Atlanta 1989).
Hardwick, M: ‘Contra Apionem and Christian Apologetics’ in: L H Feldman & J
R Levison eds: Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context
with a Latin Concordance to the Portion missing in Greek (Brill, Leiden 1996)
369-402.
Harnack, A: Die Überlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten
Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter 2 Volumes (Hinrichs, Leipzig
1882).
Harnack, A: The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries 2
Volumes trans J Moffat (Williams & Norgate, London 1904-1905).
Hatch, E: The Influence of Greek ideas on Christianity (Harper & Row, New
York 1957).
Hatzimichali, M: ‘The texts of Plato and Aristotle in the first century BC’ in: M
Schofield ed: Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century BC: New
Directions for Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 1-27.
Hauken, T: Petition and Response: an Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman
Emperors 181-249 (The Norwegian Institute at Athens, Bergen 1998).
Hawthorne, G F: ‘Tatian and his Discourse to the Greeks’ HTR 57 (1964) 161-
188.
Hay, D M ed: Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s
Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (Scholars Press, Atlanta 1991).
Hengel, M: The Septuagint as Christian Scripture, Its Prehistory and the Problem
of Its Canon trans M E Biddle (T&T Clark, Edinburgh 2002).
Holfeder, H H: ‘Ευ͗σέβεια καὶ φιλοσοφία: Literarische Einheit und politischer
Kontext von Justins Apologie (Teil I)’ ZNW 68 (1977) 48-66.

258
Holmes, M W: ‘The Biblical Canon’ in: S A Harvey & D G Hunter eds: The
Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford University Press, Oxford
2008) 406-426.
Holte, R: ‘Logos Spermatikos: Christianity and Ancient Philosophy according to
St. Justin’s Apologies’ in ST 12 (1958) 109-168.
Honigman, S: The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: a Study in
the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (Routledge, London 2003).
Horbury, W: ‘Old Testament Interpretation in the Writings of the Church
Fathers’ in: M J Mulder ed: Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation
of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Van Gorcum,
Assen 1988) 727-787.
Horbury, W: Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2014).
Horsfall, N M ed: A Companion to the Study of Virgil (Brill, Leiden 1995).
Householder, F W: Literary Quotation and Allusion in Lucian (Columbia
University Press, New York 1941).
Hunt, E J: Christianity in the Second Century: the Case of Tatian (Routledge,
London 2003).
Hyldahl, N: Philosophie und Christentum: Eine Interpretation der Einleitung
zum Dialog Justins (Prostant apud Munksgaard, Kopenhagen 1966).
Jacobsen, A-C: Christ, the Teacher of Salvation: a Study on Origen’s Soteriology
and Christology (Aschendorff & Verlag, Münster 2015).
Jaeger, W: Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development Second ed
trans R Robinson (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1948).
Jobes, K H & Silva, M: Invitation to the Septuagint (Baker Academic, Grand
Rapids 2000).
Johnson, A P: ‘Early Christianity and the Classical Tradition’ in: D S Richter & W
A Johnson eds: The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic (Oxford
University Press, Oxford 2017) 625-638.

259
Joly, R: Christianisme et philosophie: études sur Justin et les apologistes grecs du
duxième siècle (University of Brussels, Brussels 1973).
Jones, C P: Culture and Society in Lucian (Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Mass 1986).
Karadimas, D: Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos: Rhetoric and Philosophy/Theology
(Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm 2003).
Kelly, J N D: Early Christian Doctrines Fourth ed (Adam & Charles Black,
London 1968).
Kennedy, G A: The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 300 BC—AD 300
(Princeton University Press, Princeton 1972).
Kennedy, G A: Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from
Ancient to Modern Times Second ed rev & enlarged (University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill 1999).
Keresztes, P: ‘The Literary Genre of Justin’s First Apology’ VC 19 (1965) 99-110.
Kittel G & Friedrich, G eds: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 10
Volumes ed & trans G W Bromiley (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1964-1976).
Klauck, H-J: The Religious Context of Early Christianity: a Guide to Graeco-
Roman Religions trans B McNeil (T&T Clark, London 2000).
Klauser, T, Dölger, F J, Schöllgen, G, Dassmann, E & Leitzmann, H: Reallexikon
für Antike und Christentum: Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des
Christentums mit der antiken Welt 27 Volumes (Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1950-)
(RAC).
Kukula, R C: Tatians sogenannte Apologie: Exegetisch-Chronologische Studie
(Teubner, Leipzig 1900).
Lamberton, R: Plutarch (Yale University Press, New Haven 2001).
Lampe, P: From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two
Centuries trans M Steinhauser (Continuum, London 2003).
Lawlor, H J: ‘Early Citations from the Book of Enoch’ Journal of Philology 25
(1897) 164-225.

260
Lazzati, G: L’Aristotle perduto e gli scrittori cristiani (Società Editrice, Milano
1938).
Liddell, H G, Scott, R & Jones, H S: A Greek-English Lexicon 9th Edition
(Clarendon Press, Oxford 1940) (LSJ).
Lieu, J M: Image and Reality: the Jews in the World of the Christians in the
Second Century (T&T Clark, London 1996).
Lieu, J M: Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford
University Press, Oxford 2004).
Lieu, J M: Marcion and the Making of a Heretic (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2015).
Lloyd, G E R: ‘Scholarship, Authority and argument in Galen’s Quod Animi
Mores’ in: P Manuli and M Vegetti eds: Le opera psichologiche di Galeno
(Bibliopolis, Naples 1988) 11-42.
Lloyd, G E R: ‘Galen and his Contemporaries’ in: R J Hankinson ed: The
Cambridge Companion to Galen (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008)
34-48.
Löhr, W: ‘The theft of the Greeks: Christian Self-Definition in the Age of the
Schools’ RHE 95 (2000) 403-426.
Löhr, W A: ‘Das antike Christentum in zweiten Jahrhundert – neue Perspektiven
seiner Erforshung’ TLZ 127 (2002) 247-262.
Löhr, W A: ‘Gnostic and Manichaean interpretation’ in: NCHB1 584-604.
Lössl, J: ‘Zwischen Christologie und Rhetorik: zum Ausdruck ‘Kraft des
Wortes ͗(λόγου δύναμις) in Tatians ‘Rede an die Griechen’ ’ in: F R Prostmeier &
H E Lona eds: Logos der Vernunft—Logos des Glaubens (De Gruyter, Berlin
2010) 129-147.
Lössl, J: ‘Date and location of Tatian’s Ad Graecos: Some Old and New Thoughts’
in: eds M Vinzent & A Brent SP 74 (Peeters, Leuven 2016) 43-55.
MacBain, B: Prodigy and Expiation: a Study in Religion and Politics in
Republican Rome (Latomus, Brussels 1982).

261
Machiela, D A: ‘Once more, with Feeling: Rewritten Scripture in Ancient
Judaism—A Review of Recent Developments’ JJS 61 (2010) 308-320.
MacMullen, R: Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100-400) (Yale
University Press, New Haven 1984).
Malingrey, A-M: ‘Philosophia’ Études d’un groupe de mots dans la littérature
grecque, des Présocratiques au IVe siècle après J-C (C Klincksieck, Paris 1961).
Markschies, C: Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman
Empire, Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology trans W Coppins
(Baylor University Press, Waco 2015).
Marrou, H I: A History of Education in Antiquity trans G Lamb (Sheed & Ward,
London 1956).
May, G: Creatio Ex Nihilo: the Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early
Christian Thought trans A S Worrall (T & T Clark, Edinburgh 1994).
McDonald, L M: ‘Canon’ in: J W Rogerson and J M Lieu eds: The Oxford
Handbook of Biblical Studies (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006) 777-809.
McGehee, M: ‘Why Tatian never ‘apologized’ to the Greeks’ JECS 1 (1993) 143-
158.
McKnight, S: A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the
Second Temple Period (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1991).
McVey, K E: ‘The Use of Stoic Cosmogony in Theophilus of Antioch’s
Hexamaeron’ in: M S Burrows & P Rorem eds: Biblical Hermeneutics in
Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on his Sixtieth
Birthday (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1991) 32-58.
Metzger, B M & Coogan, M D eds: The Oxford Guide to Ideas and Issues of the
Bible (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001).
Millar, F: The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC – AD 337) (Duckworth,
London 1977).
Millar, F: The Roman Near East 31 BC – AD 337 (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass. 1993).

262
Mitchell, M M & Young, F M eds: The Cambridge History of Christianity
Volume 1: Origins to Constantine (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
2006) (CHC1).
Mitchell, M M: ‘The Emergence of the Written Record’ in: CHC1 177-194.
Mitchell M M et al: ‘Part IV: Regional Varieties of Christianity in the First Three
Centuries’ in: CHC1 295-412.
Moll, S: ‘Justin and the Pontic wolf’ in: S Parvis and P Foster eds: Justin Martyr
and His Worlds (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2007) 145-151.
Moo, J A: Creation, Nature and Hope in 4 Ezra (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
Göttingen 2011).
Morgan, T J: Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1998).
Morison, B: ‘Logic’ in: R J Hankinson ed: The Cambridge Companion to Galen
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008) 66-115.
Mortley, R: The Idea of Universal History from Hellenistic philosophy to Early
Christian Historiography (Edwin Mellen Press, Lampeter 1996).
Most, G W: ‘Hellenistic Allegory and Early Imperial Rhetoric’ in: R Copeland &
P T Struck eds: The Cambridge Companion to Allegory (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2010) 26-38.
Moyise, S: Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New (T&T
Clark, London 2008).
Mueller, I: ‘An Introduction to Stoic Logic’ in: J M Rist ed: The Stoics (University
of California Press, Berkeley 1978) 1-26.
Nahm, C: ‘The debate on the ‘‘Platonism’’ of Justin Martyr’ SecCent 9 (1992)
129-151.
Nasrallah, L: ‘Mapping the world: Justin, Tatian, Lucian and the Second Sophistic’
HTR 98 (2005) 283-314.
Nesselrath, H-G: ‘Two Syrians and Greek Paedeai: Lucian and Tatian’ in: G A
Xenis ed: Literature, Scholarship, Philosophy and History, Classical Studies in
Memory of Ioannis Taifacos (Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2015) 129-142.
263
Niehoff, M: Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
2001).
Niehoff, M: Philo of Alexandria: an intellectual biography (Yale University Press,
New Haven 2018).
Norelli, E: ‘La critique du pluralisme Grec dans le Discours aux Grecs de Tatien’
in: B Pouderon & J Doré eds: Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque
(Beauchesne, Paris 1998) 81-120.
Norris, R A Jr: ‘The Apologists’ in: F M Young, L Ayres & A Louth eds: The
Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2004) 36-44.
North, J A: ‘Diviners and Divination at Rome’ in: M Beard & J A North: Pagan
Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (Duckworth, London 1990)
51-71.
North, J A: ‘The Books of the Pontifices’ in: C Moatti ed: La Mémoire perdue:
recherches sur l’administration Romaine (École Francaise de Rome, Rome 1998)
45-63.
Nyström, D E: The Apology of Justin Martyr: Literary Strategies and the Defence
of Christianity (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2018).
Oakesmith, J: The Religion of Plutarch: a Pagan Creed of Apostolic Times
(Longmans, Green & Co, London 1902).
O’Hara, J J: Death and the Optimistic Prophecy in Virgil’s Aeneid (Princeton
University Press, Princeton 1990).
Osborn, E F: Justin Martyr (J C B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1973).
Osborn, E F: The Emergence of Christian Theology (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 1993).
Osborne, A E: ‘Tatian’s Discourse to the Greeks: a Literary Analysis and Essay in
Interpretation’ (University of Cincinnati PhD 1969).
Parke, H W: Greek Oracles (Hutchinson, London 1967).
Parke, H W ed B C McGing: Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity
(Routledge, London 1988).
264
Parsons, S E: Ancient Apologetic Exegesis: Introducing and Recovering
Theophilus’s World (James Clarke, Cambridge 2015).
Parvis, P: ‘Justin Martyr’ in: P Foster ed: Early Christian Thinkers: the Lives and
Legacies of twelve key figures (SPCK, London 2010) 1-14.
Parvis, S: ‘Justin Martyr and the Apologetic Tradition’ in: S Parvis and P Foster
eds: Justin Martyr and his Worlds (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2007) 115-127.
Pellegrino, M: Studi su l’antica Apologetica (Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura,
Rome 1947).
Pépin, J: Mythe et allégorie: les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-
chrétiennes (Aubier-Montaigne, Paris 1958).
Petersen, W L: ‘Tatian's Diatessaron’: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance
and History in Scholarship (Brill, Leiden 1994).
Petersen, W L: ‘Tatian the Assyrian’ in: A Marjanen, P Luomanen eds: A
Companion to Second-Century ‘‘Heretics’’ (Brill, Leiden 2005).
Potter, D: Prophets and Emperors, Human and Divine Authority from Augustus
to Theodosius (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass 1994).
Pouderon, B: Les apologistes grecs du IIe siècle (Cerf, Paris 2005).
Pouderon, B & J Doré, J eds: Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque
(Beauchesne, Paris 1998).
Pretila, N W: Re-appropriating ‘Marvellous Fables’: Justin Martyr’s Strategic
Retrieval of Myth in 1 Apology (Pickwick Publications, Eugene 2014).
Prigent, P: Justin et l’Ancient Testament: l’argumentation scriptuaire du traité de
Justin contre toutes les hérésies comme source principale du Dialogue avec
Tryphon et de la première Apologie (Libraire Lecoffre, Paris 1964).
Puech, A: Recherches sur le Discours aux Grecs de Tatien (F Alcan, Paris 1903).
Puech, A: Les Apologistes grecs du IIe siècle de notre ère (Libraire Hachette, Paris
1912).
Rajak, T: Josephus, the Historian and his Society (Duckworth, London 1983).
Rajak, T: Translation and Survival: the Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish
Diaspora (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009).
265
Reed, A Y: Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: the
Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005).
Riesner, R: ‘A pre-Christian Jewish Mission?’ in: J Ådna & H Kvalbein: The
Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
2000) 211-250.
Rigoglioso, M: The Cult of Divine Birth in Ancient Greece (Palgrave Macmillan,
New York 2009).
Robinson, C: Lucian and his Influence in Europe (Duckworth, London 1979).
Rogers, R: Theophilus of Antioch: the Life and Thought of a Second-Century
Bishop (Lexington Books, Lanham 2000).
Rokéah, D: Justin Martyr and the Jews (Brill, Leiden 2002).
Rosenmeyer, P A: Ancient Epistolary Fictions: the Letter in Greek Literature
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001).
Rowland, C: The Open Heaven: a Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early
Christianity (SPCK, London 1982).
Royse, J R: ‘The Works of Philo’ in: A Kamesar ed: The Cambridge Companion
to Philo (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009) 32-64.
Runia, D T: Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria (Variorum,
Aldershot 1990).
Russell, D A: Criticism in Antiquity Second ed (Duckworth, London 1995).
Sandbach, F H: The Stoics (Chatto & Windus, London 1975).
Santangelo, F: Divination, Prediction and the End of the Roman Republic
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013).
Schaper, J: ‘The Literary History of the Hebrew Bible’ in: NCHB1 105-144.
Scheid, J: ‘Les Livres Sibyllins at les archives des Quindécemvirs’ in: C Moatti ed:
La Mémoire perdue: recherches sur l’administration Romaine (École Francaise de
Rome, Rome 1998) 11-26.
Schmid, W: ‘Ein rätselhafter Anachronismus bei Justinus Martyr’ in: W Schmid:
Ausgewählte philologishe Schriften: Herausgegeben von Hartmut Erbse und
Jochem Küppers (De Gruyter, Berlin 1984) 333-337.
266
Schoedel, W R: ‘Theophilus of Antioch: Jewish Christian?’ Illinois Classical
Studies 18 (1993) 279-297.
Schürer, E: The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175
BC—AD 135) new English rev version eds G Vermes, F Millar & M Goodman
Volume III/I (T & T Clark, Edinburgh 1986).
Schwartz, D R: ‘Philo, his family, and his times’ in: A Kamesar ed: The
Cambridge Companion to Philo (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009)
9-31.
Sedley, D: ‘Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman world’ in: J Barnes & M
Griffin eds: Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society
(Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989) 97-119.
Sedley, D: ‘Plato’s Auctoritas and the rebirth of the commentary tradition’ in: J
Barnes & M Griffin eds: Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome
(Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997) 110-129.
Sedley, D: Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity (University of California Press,
Berkeley 2007).
Sellars, J: Stoicism (Acuman, Chesham 2006).
Shields, C: Aristotle (Routledge, Abingdon 2007).
Shotwell, W A: The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (SPCK, London 1965).
Simon, M: Verus Israel, a Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in
the Roman Empire (135-425) trans H McKeating (Oxford University Press,
Oxford 1986).
Simonetti, M: ‘La Sacra Scrittura in Teofilo D’Antiochia’ in: J Fontaine & C
Kannengiesser eds: Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean
Daniélou (Beauchesne, Paris 1972) 197-207.
Simonetti, M: Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: an Historical
Introduction to Patristic Exegesis trans J A Hughes (T&T Clark, Edinburgh
1994).
Skarsaune, O: The Proof from Prophecy: a Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text
Tradition; Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (Brill, Leiden 1987).
267
Skarsaune, O: ‘Justin and his Bible’ in: S Parvis and P Foster eds: Justin Martyr and
His Worlds (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2007) 53-76.
Skarsaune, O: ‘Justin and the Apologists’ in: D J Bingham ed: The Routledge
Companion to Early Christian Thought (Routledge, London 2010) 121-136.
Skarsaune, O: ‘Ethnic Discourse in Early Christianity’ in: J Carleton Paget & J
Lieu eds: Christianity in the Second Century (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2017) 250-264.
Skinner, Q: Visions of Politics I: Regarding method (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2002).
Slusser, M: ‘Justin Scholarship: Trends and Trajectories’ in: S Parvis and P Foster
eds: Justin Martyr and His Worlds (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2007) 13-21.
Smit Sibinga, J: The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr I The Pentateuch
(Brill, Leiden 1963).
Smith, R: ‘Logic’ in: J Barnes ed: The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1995) 27-65.
Smith, R: ‘Aristotle’s Theory of Demonstration’ in: G Anagnostopoulos ed: A
Companion to Aristotle (Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester 2009) 51-65.
Snyder, H G: Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews and
Christians (Routledge, London 2000).
Snyder, H G: ‘The Classroom in the Text: Exegetical Practices in Justin and
Galen’ in: S E Porter & A W Pitts eds: Christian Origins and Greco-Roman
Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (Brill, Leiden 2013)
663-685.
Stanton, G N: ‘The Spirit in the Writings of Justin Martyr’ in: G N Stanton, B W
Longnecker & S C Barton eds: The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in
Honor of James D G Dunn (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2004) 321-334.
Stark, R: The Rise of Christianity: a Sociologist Re-considers History (Princeton
University Press, Princeton 1996).
Sterling, G E: Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and
Apologetic Historiography (Brill, Leiden 1992).
268
Sterling, G E: ‘The Jewish Appropriation of Hellenistic Historiography’ in: J
Marincola ed: A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography Volume 1
(Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2007) 231-243.
Stowers, S K: Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Westminster Press,
Philadelphia 1986).
Stylianopoulos, T: Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law (Scholars Press, Missoula
1975).
Tarrant, R J: ‘Aspects of Virgil’s reception in antiquity’ in: C Martindale: The
Cambridge Companion to Virgil (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997)
56-72.
Tcherikover, V: ‘Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered’ Eos 48 (1956) 169-
193.
Temkin, O: Hippocrates in a World of Pagans and Christians (Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore 1991).
Tieleman, T: ‘Methodology’ in: R J Hankinson ed: The Cambridge Companion
to Galen (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008) 49-65.
Trakatellis, D C: The pre-existence of Christ in Justin Martyr (Scholars Press,
Missoula 1976).
Trapp, M: Philosophy in the Roman Empire: Ethics, Politics and Society
(Ashgate, Aldershot 2007).
Trombley, F: ‘Overview: the Geographical Spread of Christianity’ in: CHC1 302-
313.
Tuominen, M: The Ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle (Acumen,
Stocksfield 2009).
Ulrich, E: ‘The Notion and Definition of Canon’ in: L M McDonald & J A
Sanders eds: The Canon Debate (Hendrickson, Peabody 2002) 21-35.
Ulrich, E: ‘The Old Testament Text and its Transmission’ in: NCHB1 83-104.
Van Nuffelen, P: Rethinking the gods: philosophical readings of religion in the
post-Hellenistic period (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011).

269
Van Winden, J C M: An Early Christian Philosopher: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue
with Trypho Chapters One to Nine (Brill, Leiden 1971).
VanderKam, J C: Enoch: a man for all generations (University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia 1995).
VanderKam, J C: ‘1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian
Literature’ in: J C VanderKam and W Adler: The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in
Early Christianity (Van Gorcum, Assen 1996) 33-101.
VanderKam, J C & Adler, W: The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early
Christianity (Van Gorcum, Assen 1996).
Vermes, G: Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies Second rev ed
(Brill, Leiden 1973).
Wacholder, B Z: ‘Biblical chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles’ HTR
61 (1968) 451-81.
Wallraff, M: ‘The Beginning of Christian Universal History from Tatian to Julius
Africanus’ ZAC 14 (2011) 540-555.
Walzer, R: Galen on Jews and Christians (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1949).
Wasserstein, A & Wasserstein, D J: The Legend of the Septuagint from Classical
Antiquity to Today (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006).
Waszink, J H: ‘Some Observations on the Appreciation of ‘The Philosophy of the
Barbarians’ in Early Christian Literature’ in: L J Engels et al eds: Mélanges offerts
à Mademoiselle Christine Mohrmann (Spectrum, Utrecht 1963) 41-56.
Whitmarsh, T: ‘ ‘Greece is the World’: Exile and Identity in the Second Sophistic’
in: S Goldhill ed: Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second
Sophistic and the Development of Empire (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2001) 269-305.
Whitmarsh, T: The Second Sophistic (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005).
Whittaker, M: ‘Tatian’s Educational Background’ in: ed E A Livingstone SP 13/2
(Akademie-Verlag Berlin 1975) 57-59.
Williams, G: Technique and Ideas in the Aeneid (Yale University Press, New
Haven and London 1983).
270
Wilson, S G: Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 CE (Fortress Press,
Minneapolis 1995).
Worthington, I ed: Brill’s New Jacoby (Brill, Leiden 2007-). Accessed via Online
ed 2007- (BNJ).
Young, F M: Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997).
Young, F M: ‘Greek Apologists of the Second Century’ in: M J Edwards, M R
Goodman, S R F Price & C Rowland eds: Apologetics in the Roman Empire:
Pagans, Jews and Christians (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1999) 81-104.
Zeegers-Vander Vorst, N: Les Citations des poètes grecs chez les apologistes
Chrétiens du IIe siècle (Université de Louvain, Louvain 1972).
Zeegers-Vander Vorst, N: ‘La création de l’Homme (Gn 1,26) chez Théophile
D’Antioche’ VC 30 (1976) 258-267.
Zeegers-Vander Vorst, N: ‘Satan, Ève et le Serpent chez Théophile D’Antioche’
VC 35 (1981) 152-169.

271
272