|
laid snares for him. Irenaeus (Haer. I., xxviii. 1) |
|
laid snares for him. Irenaeus (Haer. I., xxviii. 1) |
|
and shows his influence in other places. Tertullian |
|
and shows his influence in other places. Tertullian |
|
or quote him. Eusebius deals with him at some length (Hist. eccl., iv. 18), and names the following works: |
|
or quote him. Eusebius deals with him at some length (Church History, iv. 18), and names the following works: |
|
(1) The "Apology" addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the senate; (2) a second "Apology" addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Verus; (3) the "Discourse to the Greeks," a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods; (4) a "Hortatory Address to the Greeks "; (5) a treatise "On the Sovereignty of God," in which he makes use of pagan authorities as well as Christian; (6) a work entitled "The Psalmist"; (7) a treatise in scholastic form " On the Soul "; (8) the " Dialogue with Trypho." |
|
:(1) The "Apology" addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the senate; :(2) a second "Apology" addressed to Marcus Aurelius and [Lucius Verus]?; :(3) the "Discourse to the Greeks," a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods; :(4) a "Hortatory Address to the Greeks"; :(5) a treatise "On the Sovereignty of God," in which he makes use of pagan authorities as well as Christian; :(6) a work entitled "The Psalmist"; :(7) a treatise in scholastic form "On the Soul"; :(8) the "Dialogue with Trypho." |
|
(i. 26) of a "Refutation of all Heresies " (Hist. eccl., IV., xi. 10). Epiphanius (Haer., xlvi. 1) and Jerome (De vir. ill., ix.) mention Justin. Rufinus borrows from him the Latin original of Hadrian's letter. After Rufinus Justin was not known in the |
|
(i. 26) of a "Refutation of all Heresies " (Church History, IV., xi. 10). Epiphanius (Haer., xlvi. 1) and Jerome (De vir. ill., ix.) mention Justin. Rufinus? borrows from him the Latin original of Hadrian's letter. After Rufinus Justin was not known in the |
|
it between 180 and 240. For another work wrongly attributed to Justin, see DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO. |
|
it between 180 and 240. |
|
Justin is confident that his teaching is that of the Church at large. He knows of a division among the orthodox only on the question of the millennium and on the attitude toward the milder Jewish Christianity, which he personally is willing to tolerate as long as its professors in their turn do not interfere with the liberty of the Gentile converts; his millenarianism seems to have no connection with Judaism, but he believes firmly in a millennium, and generally in the primitive Christian eschatology. |
|
Justin is confident that his teaching is that of the Church at large. He knows of a division among the orthodox only on the question of the millennium and on the attitude toward the milder Jewish Christianity, which he personally is willing to tolerate as long as its professors in their turn do not interfere with the liberty of the Gentile converts; his millenarianism seems to have no connection with Judaism, but he believes firmly in a millennium, and generally in the primitive Christian eschatology. |
|
His use of the idea of the Logos has always attracted attention. It is probably too much to assume a direct connection with Philo in this particular. The idea of the Logos was widely familiar to educated men, and the designation of the Son of God as the Logos was not new to Christian theology. The significance is clear, however, of the manner in which Justin identifies the historical Christ with the rational force operative in the universe, which leads up to the claim of all truth and virtue for the Christians and to the demonstration of the adoration of Christ, which aroused so much opposition, as the only reasonable attitude. It is mainly for this justification of the worship of Christ that Justin employs the Logos-idea, though where he explicitly deals with the divinity of the Redeemer and his relation to the Father, he makes use of the Old Testament, not of the Logos-idea, which thus can not be said to form an essential part of his Christology. The importance which he attaches to the evidence of prophecy shows his estimate of the Old Testament Scriptures, which are to Christians absolutely the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, and confirmed by the fulfilment of the prophecies. Not less divine, however, is the teaching of the apostles, which is read in the assembly every Lord's Day-- though he can not use this in his "Dialogue" as he uses the Old Testament. The word of the apostles is the teaching of the Divine Logos, and reproduces the sayings of Christ authentically. As a rule he uses the synoptic Gospels, but has a few unmistakable references to John. He quotes the Apocalypse as inspired because prophetic, naming its author. The opposition of Marcion prepares us for an attitude toward the Pauline epistles corresponding to that of the later Church. Distinct references are found to Romans, I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and II Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and I Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and I John. The apologetic |
|
His use of the idea of the Logos has always attracted attention. It is probably too much to assume a direct connection with Philo in this particular. The idea of the Logos was widely familiar to educated men, and the designation of the Son of God as the Logos was not new to Christian theology. The significance is clear, however, of the manner in which Justin identifies the historical Christ with the rational force operative in the universe, which leads up to the claim of all truth and virtue for the Christians and to the demonstration of the adoration of Christ, which aroused so much opposition, as the only reasonable attitude. It is mainly for this justification of the worship of Christ that Justin employs the Logos-idea, though where he explicitly deals with the divinity of the Redeemer and his relation to the Father, he makes use of the Old Testament, not of the Logos-idea, which thus can not be said to form an essential part of his Christology. The importance which he attaches to the evidence of prophecy shows his estimate of the Old Testament Scriptures, which are to Christians absolutely the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, and confirmed by the fulfilment of the prophecies. Not less divine, however, is the teaching of the apostles, which is read in the assembly every Lord's Day-- though he can not use this in his "Dialogue" as he uses the Old Testament. The word of the apostles is the teaching of the Divine Logos, and reproduces the sayings of Christ authentically. As a rule he uses the synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - but has a few unmistakable references to John. He quotes the Apocalypse as inspired because prophetic, naming its author. The opposition of Marcion? prepares us for an attitude toward the Pauline epistles corresponding to that of the later Church. Distinct references are found to Romans, I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and II Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and I Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and I John. The apologetic |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)