GIUSTINO, saint, martyr. — Apologist and philosopher, d. ca. 165.
SUMMARY:
I. Life
II. Works
III. Thought.I. LIFE
His life is first and foremost related by St. G. himself. Indeed (I Apol., 1, 1), he declares that he was born in Flavia Neapolis, in Palestinian Syria, the present-day Năbulus (Naplusa), which had succeeded ancient Shechem, the capital of Samaria, to Priscus, son of Bacchius; he was therefore from a family that had probably immigrated in 72, when Vespasian founded that city there, and was undoubtedly pagan (Dial., 28, 2). Having devoted himself to philosophy, but being profoundly disappointed in his first encounters with its teachers—the Stoic, the Peripatetic, and the Pythagorean—he decided to follow the Platonists, taking advantage of an opportunity that happened to present itself in his homeland; he made rapid progress and believed that he had already attained that contemplation of God toward which Platonic philosophy aspires,when one day, on the seashore, an old man approached him and, opening before him the books of the prophets, converted him instead to the philosophy of Christ, “the only sure and salutary wisdom” (Dial., 2, 3-8, 3). This had happened before 135, since St. G. suggests (ibid., 1, 3) that the dialogue with the Jew Trypho had taken place precisely during the war (of Bar Kökhökhä). Born, therefore, in all probability in the early years of the second century, a person of upright and sincere character, with the noble ardor of a true teacher he now felt called to do for the wisdom of Christ what so many did for the various pagan schools of doctrine; he donned the pallium like them and, wherever he wished to stop along the roads of the Empire, opened a school on his own authority and as a philosopher, without any intervention by the Church. The acts of his 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 unquestionable value, show among his fellow sufferers a group of students, none of whom, however, had followed him as a catechumen. These acts, although silent concerning St. G.’s travels, at least reveal, in addition to his stay in Ephesus, two distinct periods of activity in Rome; only a mutilation of the text has caused the indication of where he taught school the second time to be lost. Above all, however, they offer a description that is all the more sober and therefore credible, and truly moving, of the heroic end of a life spent wholly in the service of the one supreme wisdom. When he confessed the faith in Christ together with Chariton, Charito, Evelpistus, Ierae, Paeon, and Liberianus, the prefect of the City, Junius Rusticus (163–67), pronounced sentence: “Those who do not wish to sacrifice to the gods and submit to the Emperor’s order shall be scourged and led away to undergo, in accordance with the laws, the death penalty.” Besides this precious testimony, part of his writings survived; they continued to be widely used and read for a long time (Athenagoras, Theophilus, Pseudomelito, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Methodius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Procopius of Gaza, John Damascene, Photius, etc.). The philosopher-martyr soon received the honor of a cult in the East, legend attributing to him Socrates’ punishment, hemlock. On the same day, 1 June, but with a clear distinction, the menaia also celebrate St. G. together with his companions, a sign that the information contained in the acts had arrived after that cult had already been introduced. In the West St. G. at first appears together with his companions, as in the acts; but only with the Martyrologies* of Usuard and Ado, and on 13 April, did Pope Leo XIII extend his feast (14 April) to the entire Church.
II. WORKS
The literary work of St. G. is known only partially and, apart from the numerous quotations, solely through ms. gr. 450 of the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, completed on 11 Sept. 1364. Certainly authentic are only the three sections of this volume that bear the titles I Apologia (maior, ff. 201–38), II Apologia (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 the editors have done; it is less certain, however, whether the II Apologia, consisting of only 15 chapters, was ever an independent work or rather formed part of the first, whose original 68 chapters would have been supplemented by this appendix in order to include the events concerning the prefect Urbicus, a new illustration of what had already been said about the injustice of the persecution. There is nothing strange in the possibility that a discussion of some other current problem was subsequently added as well. The fact remains that Eusebius, who expressly distinguishes (Hist. ecl., 4, 18, 1) two different apologies—the first dedicated to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Senate, and the second composed for Antoninus Verus, his successor—then attributes to the first even those passages that he quotes from our second work. Moreover, in the shorter text a passage from the longer one is repeatedly recalled (II Apol., 4, 2; 5, 6; 8, 1), with the simple προέρχων. Were there perhaps two editions of the same work, dedicated to Antoninus Pius, one without and the other with the appendix, the latter dedicated to Marcus Aurelius? Or did Eusebius simply err in speaking of his second work? Or again, did the second text in fact stand on its own, certainly somewhat more complete than it is now, as an apology perhaps prompted by an attack from Fronto? It really seems that this second text adopts a new attitude toward Stoic thought, which was especially influential under Marcus Aurelius. The composition of this section also appears to have been considerably more hurried.The I Apologia, dedicated 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 58) around 153 (chap. 41, 1: approximately 150 years A.D.; chaps. 26, 5; 58, 1: Marcion the heretic; chap. 29, 2: L. Munatius Felix, prefect of Egypt, in office in Sept. 151, probably prefect in the years 150–54; cf. Oxyrh. Papyri, London 1899, II, p. 163). Addressing the emperors first in the name of the Christians and appealing to their calm and impartial judgment (1–3), he protests against an iniquitous method of persecution that condemns Christians merely for the name, without the support of any evidence for crimes committed. If they are truly atheists, enemies of the State, and criminals, why do they not renounce that name? They aspire to a most pure life in the sight of God, specifically to that of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ (4–12). To demonstrate this life, instead of historical proofs, which for him are too subjective, he adduces the prophecies, incontrovertible arguments because they are God’s revelation, the source of every earthly truth, which the deceits of the demons can never overcome (13–60). The Christians’ participation in that life is realized in the mysteries of Baptism and the Eucharist and in Sunday gatherings (61–67). Finally, St. G. adduces a rescript addressed by Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, in order to ward off slanderous accusations (68).
The II Apologia, also written in Rome not much later (Q. Lollius Urbicus was prefect in 144–60), illustrates the injustices committed by the prefect Urbicus, who gave credence precisely to the mere slander attached to the Christian name and was no more concerned with the truth than the Cynic Crescens (1–4). For Christians, truth matters more than life. They do not cast life away, but they do not renounce the truth for its sake. 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 the demons; but because man is free, struggle is necessary. The truth has been proclaimed to the lowliest, and it triumphs in death; through their heroic spectacles, its superiority is revealed to the world (6–13).
The Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, which precedes the apologies in the manuscript but cites the first of them (chap. 120), was composed around 155–60 (perhaps at Ephesus?). Much more extensive (142 chapters), it was originally divided into two books, corresponding to the two days over which the conversation supposedly extended, approximately 20 years earlier; Eusebius places it at Ephesus. The dedication, now lost, to Marcus Pompeius, otherwise unknown but called “most dear” (8, 3) and mentioned again (120, 6), may have provided this information. A lacuna after chap. 74 has caused the end of the first day and the beginning of the second to disappear, and with them the division of the work. The name Trypho recalls the rabbi Tarphon, who taught at Lydda in St. G.’s time. But, being rather contentious in character and hostile to Christianity, he may have contributed to the dialogue only a resonant name. It would certainly be difficult always to discern the truth beneath the fiction.
Having raised the problem of God and philosophy, St. G. recounts (2–8) his own conversion to Christianity. Thereafter, without a strict order, with one prophecy following another and with many interruptions and resumptions, three groups of ideas are treated: the replacement of the Old Testament by the New (9–47); the messianic character of Jesus Christ and his role as the Word, intermediary of the Revelations, before the Incarnation (48–108); and the calling of the Gentiles as the chosen people (109–42).
A work against all the heresies that had arisen up to that time is mentioned in the I Apologia (26). Tertullian may perhaps also have had it in mind when (Adv. Val., 5) he regarded St. G. as the first opponent of heresies. It would be entirely understandable if it had been used by later heresiologists, but there is no evidence of this, unless it is to be identified, wholly or rather in part, with the Contra Marcioneum, which St. Irenaeus cites twice (Adv. haer., 4, 6, 2; 5, 26, 2) and which Eusebius also mentions (Hist. eccl., 4, 18, 9; cf. 4, 11, 8–9).
Methodius of Olympus refers to St. G. in his Dialogue on the Resurrection. Although the source is not specified, it is obvious to think of the De Resurrectione cited by Procopius of Gaza and by John Damascene in the Sacra Parallela, which Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., 1, 5) and Tertullian (De Resurrectione) had undoubtedly already used.
Eusebius also cites (Hist. Eccl., 4, 18, 3) a work Ad Graecos in which St. G. is said to have compared Christian doctrine with Greek philosophy, treating the nature of the demons; and (ibid., 4, 18, 4) another Ad Graecos, also called Confutatio; and again (ibid.), a treatise De monarchia Dei, containing proofs of the unity of God, drawn not only from Holy Scripture but also from Greek authors.
On the other hand, three works with titles resembling these, cited by Eusebius, are found in the collection of St. G.’s writings: 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 work, but, although it perhaps dates from the second century, its style precludes attributing it to St. G. The Hypomnemata composed from it in Greece in the third century by an Ambrosius 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 contains no treatment of the demons; Eusebius’s second must be excluded for a similar stylistic reason (R. V. Sellers now attributes it to Theodoret: Journ. theol. st., 46 [1945], pp. 145–60); the third does not correspond to Eusebius’s third, because it offers no proofs from Holy Scripture and the verses it quotes were fabricated at a later date.
Two other writings cited by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 4, 18, 5), Psalmista and De anima, are not known at all. What St. Jerome reports (De vir. ill., 9) concerning a commentary on the Apocalypse seems to be attributable to the Dialogue with Trypho. Two small fragments of an Ad Euphranium sophistam de providentia et fide seem spurious. Two others from a Contra Iudaeos, included by St. John Damascene in the S. Parallela, may easily have been attributed to St. G. through a simple mistake.
Certainly spurious among the writings of St. G. 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 Epistola ad Diagnetum.
III. THOUGHT
With regard to the thought of St. G., our present information necessarily remains very incomplete. Not only did St. G. leave no systematic work, but unfortunately not even one has come down to us in which he defines his ideas more precisely in relation to the heretical currents of Christianity, and we must content ourselves with the more or less occasional controversies with pagans and Jews. He wished to be a philosopher; not invested with any particular mission, he conscientiously wore the pallium; but his philosophy is Christ, the divine Word who took flesh from the Virgin Mary. To call oneself a Christian, to feel oneself one of those hated and unjustly persecuted people—this is his greatest, indeed his only, boast. “There are some who declare themselves Christians and 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 was taught to him.” As far as doctrine is concerned, there can truly be no discussion: it is received from the Church, and there is no need to speak of it at length.But more than one problem arises as soon as the question is how to make it understood: this is when the philosopher comes into play. In this regard, however, one must always bear in mind—not merely as an autobiographical detail—how suddenly a fire was kindled in the heart of the Platonist, who believed he had attained the contemplation of God, and how he was possessed by love for the prophets and for those who are the friends of Christ (Dial., 8, 1). Philosophy henceforth means love of prophecy. “Only the prophets have seen and expressed the truth to men”; “they speak through the Holy Spirit,” above every demonstration”; “what happened and is happening compels one to assent to what was spoken by them” (ibid., 7). There are also the miracles and the life of the prophet, which 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 of having happened.
The demonstration is not conducted by a strictly logical method; it might more properly be called analogical, a term that also explains his preference for symbolic-typological exegesis. With the full revelation of God in the incarnate Word, all other revelations—and even more so human knowledge—are incommensurable. Certain inconsistencies, therefore, should not cause excessive perplexity. Thus a certain subordinationism may appear when, in treating of creation, St. G. seems to compromise the eternity and necessity of the generation of the Son, and when, speaking of divine appearances, he makes the Son God’s supreme servant. Yet, on the other hand, it is clear that St. G. did not doubt the true and adorable divinity of Christ. He certainly considers himself orthodox when he professes millenarianism. As for the philosophical doctrines called upon for assistance, 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 the language of the Stoics by λόγος σπέρματιος.
A writer without great charm, in whom one searches in vain for rhetorical technique, and without rigorous logic, he nevertheless earned the admiration of a very difficult pupil such as Tazismo; he nourished the dialectic of Tertullian and the theology of Irenaeus, supplied material for criticism and exegesis and invaluable documents concerning doctrine, liturgy, and life, but above all he imparted love of the supreme truth, even unto the shedding of blood.