JUSTIN, Saint, Martyr. — Apologist and philosopher, d. ca. 165.
SUMMARY:
I. Life
II. Works
III. Thought.I. Life
The primary source for his life is St. Justin himself. Indeed (I Apol., 1, 1), he declares that he was born in Palestinian Syria at Flavia Neapolis, today’s Nablus (Naplusa), which succeeded ancient Shechem, the chief city of Samaria, from Priscus son of Bacchius, thus from a family that had probably immigrated in 72, when the city was founded by Vespasian, and undoubtedly pagan (Dial., 28, 2). Turning to philosophy, but deeply disappointed by his first contacts with Stoic, Peripatetic, and Pythagorean teachers, he decided to follow the Platonists, taking advantage of an opportunity that arose in his homeland. He made rapid progress and believed he had already attained that contemplation of God which Platonic philosophy aims at, when one day, on the seashore, an old man approached him, opened the books of the prophets to him, and converted him instead to the philosophy of Christ, “the only sure and salutary wisdom” (Dial., 2, 3-8, 3). This had occurred before 135, since St. Justin suggests (ibid., 1, 3) that this dialogue with the Jew Trypho had taken place during the war (of Bar Kokhba). Born, therefore, most likely in the early years of the 2nd century, of upright and sincere disposition, with the noble zeal of a true teacher, he now felt called to do for the wisdom of Christ what many did for the various schools of pagan doctrine: he donned the pallium like them and, as he wandered through the cities of the Empire, he opened a school of his own authority and as a philosopher, without any intervention from the Church. The Acts of Martyrdom (P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Note agiografiche [Studi e testi, 8], Rome 1902, pp. 25-36 with the appendix [Studi e testi, 9], ibid. 1902, pp. 73-75), a document of rare and undisputed value, show among his companions in suffering a group of disciples, none of whom, however, had followed him from catechumenate. These Acts, while silent about St. Justin’s wanderings, at least reveal, besides a sojourn in Ephesus, two distinct periods of activity in Rome, and only a mutilation in the text has obscured where he taught the second time; but above all, they offer a description that is as sober as it is reliable and truly moving of the heroic end of a life entirely devoted to the one supreme wisdom. When he confessed the faith in Christ along with Chariton, Charito, Evelpistus, Hierax, Peon, and Liberianus, the prefect of the city Junius Rusticus (163-67) pronounced sentence: “Those who refuse to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor’s order will be scourged and led to suffer the capital penalty according to the laws.” Besides this precious testimony, part of his writings survives, much used and read for a long time (Athenagoras, Theophilus, Pseudo-Melito, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Methodius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Procopius of Gaza, John of Damascus, Photius, etc.). The philosopher-martyr soon received the honor of cult in the East, the legend attributing to him the martyrdom of Socrates, the hemlock. On the same day, June 19, but with clear distinction, the Menaea also celebrate St. Justin with his companions, a sign that the news of the Acts had reached them when that cult had already been introduced. In the West, St. Justin initially appears with his companions, as in the Acts, but only in the Martyrologies of Usuard and Ado on April 13; Pope Leo XIII extended his feast (April 14) to the whole Church.II. Works
The literary work of St. Justin is only partially known, and, apart from numerous quotations, only from the single Greek ms. 450 of the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, completed on September 11, 1364. The only sections of this volume that are certainly authentic are those that go under the names of the First Apology (major, ff. 201-38°), the Second Apology (minor, ff. 193-201), and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho (ff. 50-193). It is also certain that the arrangement of the two apologetic texts is not that of the manuscript but must be reversed, as editors have done; it is less certain, however, whether the Second Apology, with its mere 15 chapters, was ever a separate work or rather forms part of the First, to whose original 68 chapters this appendix would have been added to include the events concerning the prefect Urbicus, a new illustration of what had already been said about the injustice of persecution. It is not surprising that further discussion of some other contemporary issue was added. The fact remains that Eusebius, who distinguishes (Hist. ecc., 4, 18, 1) two different apologies—the first addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Senate, and the second composed for his successor Antoninus Verus—then attributes to the first even those passages that he cites from what we call the Second Apology. Moreover, a passage from the longer text is repeatedly recalled (II Apol., 4, 2; 5, 6; 8, 1) in the shorter text with the simple προσέγειται. Was there perhaps two editions of the same work, addressed to Antoninus Pius, one without and one with the appendix, addressed to Marcus Aurelius? Or did Eusebius simply make a mistake with his “second” apology? Or was the second text perhaps a separate work, certainly more complete than it now appears, an apology provoked perhaps by an attack from Fronto? It does seem that this second text adopts a new attitude toward Stoic thought, which was in vogue precisely under Marcus Aurelius. The composition of this part moreover appears much more hurried.The First Apology, addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius and his adopted sons Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, to the Senate, and to the Roman people, was written in Rome (cf. chaps. 26 and 28) in 153 (chaps. 41, 1; ca. 150 years after Christ; chaps. 26, 5; 58, 1; the heretic Marcion; chaps. 29, 2; L. Munatius Felix, prefect of Egypt, in office in September 151, probably prefect in the years 150-54; cf. Oxyrh. Papyri, London 1899, II, p. 163). Addressing first the emperors in the name of the Christians and invoking their serious and impartial judgment (1-3), he protests against an iniquitous method of persecution that condemns Christians solely for the name, without any proof of crimes committed. If they are truly atheists, enemies of the state, criminals, why do they not renounce that name? They aspire to a most pure life in the sight of God, to that of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ (4-12). To demonstrate this life, rather than historical proofs, which are too subjective for him, he adduces prophecies, arguments unassailable because they are revelation from God, the source of all earthly truth, which can never be overthrown by the deceits of demons (13-60). Participation in this life is realized in the mysteries of Baptism and the Eucharist and in the “love-feasts” (61-67). Finally, St. Justin adduces a rescript, addressed by Hadrian to Minicius Fundanus, to refute the calumnious accusations (68).
The Second Apology, also written in Rome not long afterward (Q. Lollius Urbicus was prefect in 144-60), illustrates the injustices committed by the prefect Urbicus, who listened only to the calumny of the Christian name, no longer concerned with the truth than the cynic Crescens (1-4). To Christians, truth is more important than life. They do not throw away their lives, but they will not renounce the truth for II. By sacrificing themselves, they hope even to free their persecutors from their injustices (5). The Son of God became man to save the good from the hatred of demons, but since man is free, struggle is necessary; to the humblest the truth has been spread, and it triumphs in death, in the heroic spectacles the superiority of Christianity is manifested to the world (6-13).
The Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, which in the manuscript precedes the Apologies but cites the first of them (ch. 120), was composed c. 1155–60 (perhaps at Ephesus?). Much more extensive (142 chapters), it was originally divided into two books according to the two days which the conversation, placed by Eusebius at Ephesus, was said to have lasted, about twenty years earlier. The dedication, now lost, to Marcus Pompeius—otherwise unknown but addressed as “most dear” (8, 3) and mentioned again (120, 6)—may have supplied this notice. A lacuna after ch. 74 has removed the end of the first and the beginning of the second day and with them the division of the work. The name Trypho recalls the rabbi Tarphon, who in the time of St Justin taught at Lydda. But of a rather disputatious character, he opposed Christianity and may have contributed to the dialogue only his resonant name. It would certainly be difficult to see the truth always through the fiction.
After setting forth the problem of God and philosophy, St Justin narrates (2–8) his own conversion to Christianity. Then, without strict order, following one prophecy with another, with many interruptions and resumptions, three groups of ideas are treated: the replacement of the Old by the New Testament (9–47), the messiahship of Jesus Christ and his function as the Word, the intermediary of revelations before the Incarnation (48–108), and the calling of the Gentiles to be the chosen people (109–42).
A writing against all the heresies then current is mentioned in the First Apology (26). Tertullian may have had it in mind when (Adv. Val., 5) he regards St Justin as the first assailant of heresies. It would be quite understandable if later heresiologists made use of it, but there is no proof of this unless one should identify it, wholly or in part, with the *Against Marcion*, which St Irenaeus cites twice (Adv. haer., 4, 6, 2; 5, 26, 2) and of which Eusebius also makes mention (Hist. eccl., 4, 18, 9; cf. 4, 11, 8–9).
Methodius of Olympus, in his *Dialogue on the Resurrection*, refers to St Justin. Though the source is not specified, it is natural to think of the *De Resurrectione* cited by Procopius of Gaza and John of Damascus in the *Sacra Parallela*, of which Irenaeus (Adv. haer., 1, 5) and Tertullian (*De Resurrectione*) had certainly already made use.
Eusebius also cites (Hist. Eccl., 4, 18, 3) a writing *To the Greeks* in which St Justin would have compared Christian doctrine with Greek philosophy, treating of the nature of demons, and (ibid., 4, 18, 4) another *To the Greeks* which was also called *Refutation*, and again (ibid.) a treatise *On the Monarchy of God*, with proofs for the unity of God drawn not only from Holy Scripture but also from Greek authors.
On the other hand, in the collection of St Justin’s writings there are three works with titles similar to these, cited by Eusebius: *Oratio ad Graecos* (PG 6, 229–40); *Cohortatio ad Graecos* (ibid., 241–312); *De monarchia* (ibid., 312–25). The first might be identified with Eusebius’s second, but, though it may date from the second century, its style forbids its attribution to St Justin. The *Hypomnemata* which an Ambrosius made of it in the third century in Greece survive only in Syriac (W. Cureton, *Spicilegium Syriacum*, London 1855, II, 38–42, 61–69); the second cannot be identical with Eusebius’s first because it lacks the treatment of demons; Eusebius’s second must be excluded for a similar reason of style (R. V. Sellers now attributes it to Theodoret: *Forum theol. st.*, 46 [1945], pp. 145–60); the third does not agree with Eusebius’s third because it does not give proofs from Holy Scripture and the verses cited are later fabrications.
Two other writings cited by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 4, 18, 5): *Psalmista* and *De anima* are altogether unknown. What St Jerome reports (De vir. ill., 9) about a commentary on the Apocalypse seems rather to belong to the *Dialogue with Trypho*. Two little fragments of an *Ad Euphrasium sophistam de providentia et fide* seem spurious. Two others from a *Contra Judaeos* included by St John of Damascus in the *Sacra Parallela* are easily attributed to St Justin by simple mistake.
Certainly spurious among the writings of St Justin are: *Epistula ad Zenam et Serenum* (PG 6, 1183–1204); *Expositio rectae confessionis* (ibid., 1207–40); *Responsiones ad orthodoxos* (ibid., 1249–1400); *Quaestiones Christianae ad Graecos* (ibid., 1401–64); *Quaestiones Graecae ad Christianos* (ibid., 1464–90); *Confutatio quorundam Aristotelis dogmatum* (ibid., 1491–1564); and the *Epistle to Diognetus*.
III. Thought
Our present knowledge of St Justin’s thought necessarily remains very incomplete. Not only has he left no systematic work, but unfortunately not even one has come down to us in which he more precisely defines his ideas in contrast with the heretical currents of Christianity; we must be content with his more or less occasional controversies with pagans and Jews. He wished to be a philosopher; not invested with any mission, he conscientiously dons the philosopher’s mantle; yet his philosophy is Christ, the divine Word who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. To call oneself a Christian, to feel oneself one of those hated and unjustly persecuted, this is his greatest, indeed his only boast. There are those who declare themselves Christians yet do not teach his doctrine; instead of venerating Jesus they acknowledge him only in name. But he, as he has learned, wishes to speak; to teach what he has been taught. On doctrine there can truly be no discussion; it is received from the Church, and there is no need to speak of it at length.Yet more than one problem arises as soon as one tries to make it understood: when it is the philosopher’s turn. In this regard, however, one must always keep in mind—not as a mere autobiographical aside—how suddenly a fire was kindled in the heart of the Platonist, who thought he had attained the contemplation of God, and how he was seized by the love of the prophets and of those who are the friends of Christ (Dial., 8, 1). Philosophy now means love of prophecy. “Only the prophets have seen and expressed the truth to men”; “they speak by the Holy Spirit,” above any demonstration; “what happens compels one to assent to what they have said” (ibid., 7). There are also the miracles and the life of the prophet that justify faith, but the strongest argument lies precisely in what happens according to what was foretold, and the argument will be all the more convincing the less it is suspected to happen.
The demonstration is not made by a strictly logical method; one might more justly, in explaining his predilection for symbolic-typical exegesis, call it analogical. With the full revelation of God in the incarnate Word, all other revelations are incommensurable, and human science all the more so. Certain things in honor should therefore not be too disconcerting. Thus a certain subordinationism may appear when, treating of creation, St Justin seems to compromise the eternity and necessity of the generation of the Son, and in speaking of the divine apparitions makes the Son the supreme servant of God. Yet it is clear on the other hand that St Justin did not doubt the true and adorable divinity of Christ. He is certainly reckoned orthodox when he professes millenarianism. As for the philosophical doctrines called in to aid, they are valid only insofar as they contain a distant prophecy, whether the philosophers drew from the Old Testament or whether this is explained in Stoic terms by the λόγος σπερματικός.
A writer without great charm, in whom one searches in vain for rhetorical technique or stringent logic, he yet earned the admiration of so exacting a pupil as Tatian, nourished the dialectic of Tertullian and the theology of Irenaeus, gave impulses to criticism and exegesis and most precious documents of doctrine, liturgy, and life, but above all gave the love of supreme truth even to the shedding of blood.
In Folklore. - The city of Chieti in Abruzzo, which venerates St. JUSTIN as its patron saint, celebrates him in the first ten days of May with grand civil and religious festivities. An ancient substratum of rural propitiatory rites common to May festivals may be discerned in the most characteristic manifestations of the “feast of St. JUSTIN”: jousts and horse races, fireworks, singing and music competitions, processions in which the devotion and religiousness of the Abruzzese people are reaffirmed.