Reading the Church Fathers discussion
This topic is about
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1
Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1
>
Justin Martyr: First and Second Apologies
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Nemo
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 10, 2017 09:13AM
In the Apologies, Justin, a philosopher, defends Christians before the Romans.
reply
|
flag
I haven't finished this yet, but I am kind of struck by the opening language addressed to the emperor. It reminds me of Paul before Felix. but Justin's language strikes me as a little more provocative. I have only recently begun reading more about Ancient Roman history so am a little unsure about the details surrounding the event of Justin's writing.
What I posted under "Historical Background" is the extent of my knowledge of how the early Christians were viewed and treated by the pagan world.https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Hi, yes, I have seen the historical background folder. I am aware generally of the persecution Christians endured during those years. I was being more responsive, just wondering what specific occasion caused Justin to write. I know there is no real answer since we are not even sure what year he wrote it.
What I learned from the ancient historians is that hatred and prejudice need no reason. None of the ancient historians could articulate the reasons why the Christians were so hated, and yet they all agreed that Christianity was an abomination to the pagans.
Nemo wrote: "What I learned from the ancient historians is that hatred and prejudice need no reason. ."So true.
Reminds me of Kierkegaard's discussion of offense. But that's probably because I just finished reading him and everything reminds me of him.
I just finished LXV and am joyful at such a precise description of the Catholic Mass. I often try to visualize during Mass, the many who are similarly slowly walking up to Communion, around the whole world, under what conditions (how safe it may or may not be), incredulous somewhat, how so very many, in so many diverse places, are so solemnly (or not so solemnly I'm afraid for some), are so unified at that very point. It is humbling. LXVI continues, as has earlier sections of the Church Fathers, with "...is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh..."
I am interested if any non-Catholics were willing to express how they receive these passages. Again, I can only go by what I have been exposed to, so it is very interesting to me to hear others' views.
Susan wrote: "I just finished LXV and am joyful at such a precise description of the Catholic Mass. I often try to visualize during Mass, the many who are similarly slowly walking up to Communion, around the who..."The Eucharist is a very important subject. I think it would be better if we discuss it in a separate thread, an entire thread focused on the Eucharist.
Could you create one in the "Doctrine Matters" folder? I'm also interested in the Catholic view, if you don't mind explaining it. I have to admit I've been having difficulties with it.
Hahahahaha, me? create a folder? I think explaining the Eucharist is easier! How about your view regarding the essentially exact description of the Catholic Mass?
Susan wrote: "Hahahahaha, me? create a folder?"The folder is there already. We just need a new thread. I thought you might like a challenge. But maybe not. :) I'll share my view in the new thread you create. How's that ?
Some thoughts/questions:I can't remember who said it, but someone said the early fathers would always be relevant because while circumstances change, people rarely do. The following passage made me think of today's culture: "And those who now adopt such instruction are not restrained by you; but, on the contrary, you bestow prizes and honours upon those who euphoniously insult the gods."
It stood out to me that Justin reproves the authorities based on a judgement that they didn't believe in. It seems to me that, believing in the sacrifices and ceremonies as they did, they would simply resort to those even if they did change their minds about how they were treating Christians. So I wondered about this approach.
Ack. Posted before finishing.Question: In Chapter 5 he says, " For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods,1774 but assert that they are wicked and impious demons,1775 whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue." I'm confused about how he using the word "logos" and it could be a translation thing. In the first part of the sentence, logos is presented in a negative light, as the influence that sent Socrates to his death. But later he associates logos with Jesus Christ. So there must be some nuance in Greek that we are missing? Or I am completely misreading it.
From Ch. 12: "For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness." Echoes of Plato?
From Ch. 14: I noticed that this section had a Marcion tag. From reading about the NT canon, I know that Marcion rejected the God of the OT, but I'm confused about why Justin is addressing this here, or even if he is. Maybe because he emphasizes that he follows the "only unbegotten God through His Son"??
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Hahahahaha, me? create a folder?"The folder is there already. We just need a new thread. I thought you might like a challenge. But maybe not. :) I'll share my view in the new thread..."
Ok...I don't really know what a "thread" is, but it seems like a topic of conversation. I did find the Doctrine folder, actually like earlier today or yesterday, for the first time....and I see a highlighted 'new topic', so I will try clicking there and asking a question. Thanks.
Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Hahahahaha, me? create a folder?" ..."YES! You did it. Now you might agree with me that creating threads on GR is far easier than explaining the Eucharist. :)
thread:
a series of posts and responses on a message board or electronic mailing list that deal with the same subject and are grouped together.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/thre...
Haha. I'm learning....ever so slowly, thanks. Now, if only I could remember from one time to the next.....
Genni wrote: "For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates,..." I'm confused about how he using the word "logos" .... In the first part of the sentence, logos is presented in a negative light, as the influence that sent Socrates to his death. "Socrates famously said, "Unexamined life is not worth living". I think Justin is arguing that Socrates examined his own life and the lives of others in the light of Logos/Reason, and was put to death by those who hated the Logos, because their manner of life was condemned.
Justin makes a philosophic defence of the idea of free will, in opposition to the idea of fate, and argues that the latter renders ethics irrelevant.This reminded me of a groundless claim I heard recently that the notion of free will was invented by Augustine to support his notion of original sin.
The idea of free choice of will was already familiar to the Romans of Justin's time, and can be traced back to as early as the writings of Cicero, for it was the foundation of law, as Justin argues. I'm not sure who was the first philosopher to formulate it, however.
In the Scripture, choice is a prominent theme from the very beginning.
I find Justin's approach to apologetics very relevant to the pluralistic culture today.He was perhaps the first among the early Church Fathers to do a "comparative religious" study, to show the similarities between the Judeo-Christian God and the Greco-Roman gods, which establishes a sort of common ground between him and his audience, and then he goes on to make the argument that God is more excellent than all the other so called gods, appealing to the innate Reason of man, as well as the revelation in and authority of Scripture.
Augustine follows a similar approach in his City of God.
Ch. 21- he says that the Word is the "first-birth" of God. Later in Ch. 32 he says The first power after god the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son. Does this contradict what John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God."? If seems that Justin is separating the Word from God the creator. But he associates it with Jesus. Perhaps I am so used to a fairly articulated view of the Trinity that I am cannot really comprehend what he is getting at?Ch. 29-Wow. I did not understand at all the man wanting to make himself a eunuch. I remember Jesus said that some are born eunuch, some are made eunuchs involuntarily, and some live as eunuchs to advance the Kingdom. But I had no idea that some took it farther and made themselves actual eunuchs.
Ch.68-It was interesting to read that the previous emperor was sympathetic to Christians.
The Second ApologyCh. 5-I have heard a similar view before that the old mythological stories came from this event in Genesis 6. I am curious what others make of this. Is there some truth in mythology?
Oh! And was he attempting to argue that Plato was a Christian??
Oops! Sorry. Not a Christian since he lived before Jesus. I meant that he believed in the Hebrew God.
There is much talk in the way of Greek Philosophy influencing the Church Fathers and Christian thought over the centuries. Yet the first time I read an essay on Isaiah I have ever since wondered how much Hebrew prophecy influenced the Greek world.
Genni wrote: "Ch. 21- he says that the Word is the "first-birth" of God. Later in Ch. 32 he says The first power after god the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son. Does this contradict what J..."Hey Genni, I don't know if you are to Justin and Trypho yet, but it speaks about a couple of your posts. I will post there though so it doesn't get confusing.
Hey Susan, I can't read the dialogue right now. I'm a little snowed under the several books/discussions I'm trying to keep up with. Lol But I will pop over there and read your comments.
Genni wrote: "Oh! And was he attempting to argue that Plato was a Christian??"Justin is more generous than Dante, who assigned Plato to Limbo in the Inferno. I think Justin believes that everybody that ever lived can be a Christian, if s/he doesn't reject the eternal Logos. IOW, Plato and Socrates would be saved, and dine with Abraham and Isaac in the Kingdom.
Nemo wrote: "Genni wrote: "Oh! And was he attempting to argue that Plato was a Christian??"Justin is more generous than Dante, who assigned Plato to Limbo in the Inferno. I think Justin believes that everybod..."
Hmmm. Lots of interesting stuff....
In the second apology XLV, it did mention that those who were righteous before and under the law shall be saved by Christ. "Since those who did that which is universally, naturally, and eternally good are pleasing to God...".
In Trypho CV, it mentioned, "Pray that none should take possession of your soul when we arrive at the end of life. God is able to turn away every shameless evil angel from taking our souls."
From churchmilitantcom: St. Michael, the archangel, chief to the Heavenly Host, has 4 offices or principal duties, one of which is rescuing souls from the power of the enemy, particularly at the hour of death. They note that death is a time of great suffering, as it is when the soul is most vulnerable. Not only is the person undergoing the agony of having his soul separated from his body-a truly unnatural state, as humans are created as both body and soul, and indeed that is how we shall be after the resurrection (maybe again getting back to post resurrection Jesus being "body, blood, soul and divinity; unified)-but the soul is most vulnerable to demonic attacks.
All of which seems to tie in with the comment you made.
(Another of his offices they say is to escort souls to their particular judgement, but that is a separate subject....)
Taylor Marshall says that Aquinas speaks of 4 abodes or sections of Sheol:
1) Limbo of the fathers (and mothers); "Abraham's bosom"
(everyone from the OT who had grace in their heart, who was saved. Good Friday, Christ descended into Hell ("to the dead", Christ did not go to Gehenna) and brought all these to the beatific vision. This is now empty.
2) Limbo of the children (those children that died without sacramental baptism, therefore no sanctifying grace)
3) purgatory, a fiery place. They have grace in their heart, remission of their sins, they are going to Heaven.
4) Hell proper or Gehenna. Lucifer/demons. No love, no forgiveness, no worship of God.
He mentions C.S. Lewis in the Great Divorce mentioning that those in Hell have habituated themselves to being selfish etc., if they had a chance to go to Heaven, they would not like it, would be uncomfortable.
Taylor also describes limbo (related to limbus = fringe/border) as a peaceful and beautiful place. A "natural" paradise, not "supernatural" beatitude. Perfect happiness. Angels teach/catechize them and pour light into their souls. Grace gives us the supernatural capacity for the infinite.
I would like to think Plato and Socrates, so deep and searching, having maybe a murky idea of the Logos pre-incarnation, would not reject God at the point of death and end up either in a natural or supernatural beatitude.
Susan wrote: "I just finished LXV and am joyful at such a precise description of the Catholic Mass. I often try to visualize during Mass, the many who are similarly slowly walking up to Communion, around the who..."I find the matter-of-fact tone telling. How the early Christians worshiped was long established before Justin wrote this down. That we still worship in the same pattern gives us an example how carefully Sacred Tradition has been preserved.
In context with Greek philosophy and the Logos, Pope Benedict XVI focuses very much on these in his reflection on Justin Martyr from his Wednesday audiences:the Old Testament and Greek philosophy, are like two paths that lead to Christ, to the Logos. This is why Greek philosophy cannot be opposed to Gospel truth, and Christians can draw from it confidently as from a good of their own.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict...
Benedict throughout his life has focused much on the Logos, so that he would do so here again is not surprising.
Genni wrote: " I noticed that this section had a Marcion tag. From reading about the NT canon, I know that Marcion rejected the God of the OT, but I'm confused about why Justin is addressing this here, or even if he is. Maybe because he emphasizes that he follows the "only unbegotten God through His Son"?? Marcionism was a contemporary heresy at the time of Justin.
Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list of Christian heresies. It is listed under "Other Early Church Heresies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "I just finished LXV and am joyful at such a precise description of the Catholic Mass. I often try to visualize during Mass, the many who are similarly slowly walking up to Communion, ..."It is a description of the Communion in other Christian Churches as well.
Nemo wrote: "It is a description of the Communion in other Christian Churches as well."Very true. Though you find regional differences. When I grew up in Germany the Lutheran services I attended were always conducted after Luther's service, and my mother knew no different. When I came to the States I was astonished that my local congregation celebrated a version of the Mass. At the time the pastor explained to me that there were Lutherans who had always retained the Mass.
Kerstin wrote: "..the pastor explained to me that there were Lutherans who had always retained the Mass..."The Lutherans retained the form of Communion, but not the Transubstantiation interpretation, I would think.
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "..the pastor explained to me that there were Lutherans who had always retained the Mass..."The Lutherans retained the form of Communion, but not the Transubstantiation interpretat..."
Yes
Genni wrote: "The Second ApologyCh. 5-I have heard a similar view before that the old mythological stories came from this event in Genesis 6. I am curious what others make of this. Is there some truth in mytho..."
The epic Tale of Gilgamesh tells a story of the Great Flood which is similar to the story in Genesis 6. Gilgamesh is a tale that came out of Ur (Ancient Mesopotamia) and predates the Bible.
I have a very limited knowledge of mythology and philosophy and I think my reading of Justin Martyr’s apologies would be enhanced if I knew more. Justin Martyr makes several references to mythological gods and philosophers when defending Christianity.
Aaron wrote: "There is much talk in the way of Greek Philosophy influencing the Church Fathers and Christian thought over the centuries. Yet the first time I read an essay on Isaiah I have ever since wondered how much Hebrew prophecy influenced the Greek world. "The early church fathers often justified their use of Plato by claiming that he was inspired by the books of Moses. I don't see any clear evidence of influence in Plato's dialogues; although, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. He certainly was more monotheistic than many that came before him and that is a significant parallel. Also, Numenius, the Pythagorean Platonist, did assert Plato's dependence on Hebrew writings, so the assertion of dependence did not just come from Judeo-Christian thinkers.
Erick wrote: "...The early church fathers often justified their use of Plato by claiming that he was inspired by the books of Moses. I don't see any clear evidence of influence in Plato's dialogues; although, it is not beyond the realm of possibility..."Justin tried to prove influence of Moses on Plato in his address to the Greeks, discussing Plato's ideas point by point. I never thought of that before.
Just out of curiosity, what would you consider as evidence of influence?
Nemo wrote: "Just out of curiosity, what would you consider as evidence of influence?"Well, the most obvious indication would be a reference to Jews and/or their writings. Direct quotations, or, at least, close wording to what we find in the Old Testament would be even more decisive as to influence. Barring that, it would be just a matter of speculation as to whether Plato was influenced by Jewish writings. The parallels with the bible are there, but more with the New Testament than with the Old; and that is pretty interesting in and of itself; but, of course, that would be more indicative of Platonic influence than the reverse; although, I don't personally think that the places of close wording or ideological parallel are due to that kind of influence; except in the case of the Epistle To The Hebrews, where it is almost certain that the author was a Hellenistic Jew who was very acquainted with Plato's Timaeus and it's ideas. There are far too many parallels and close wording in that book for it to be mere coincidence.
I am certainly open to someone providing instances of parallels with the OT. I think there are some mythic parallels, e.g. the story of the tower of Babel and the myth of Atlantis, but similar mythic stories are found in Zoroastrian writings as well, which, interestingly enough, Plato (if he is the actual author) does mention the Zoroastrians in Alcibiades. His progressive theology and apocalyptic imagery may also be due to Zoroastrian or Zurvanite influence. It's not easy to tell.
I wish I could find that Isaiah essay, it was a good decade ago... I'd be interested in knowing what Zoroastrian stories you are referring to. I own a copy of "Early Zoroastrianism" (which I haven't read yet), and I hear it's somewhat dated now.I'm not very versed in Greek philosophy, probably more so in mythology, but in regards to the discussion at hand would you say these were the Stoics? If so then I wonder it isn't an undercurrent of Greco-Buddhism?
Aaron wrote: "I'd be interested in knowing what Zoroastrian stories you are referring to... I'm not very versed in Greek philosophy, probably more so in mythology, but in regards to the discussion at hand would you say these were the Stoics? If so then I wonder it isn't an undercurrent of Greco-Buddhism?"I'm not sure about the Stoics. Very little of the early Stoics survive. All the early Stoics (e.g. Zeno, Cleanthes, Chryssipus, etc) only survive in quotations and fragments. Aratus was a Stoic and his work Phenomena (which was quoted by St. Paul, interestingly enough) contains some mythical elements. But I was actually referring to Plato's tendency to resort to myth when discussing certain topics in his dialogues for illustrative purposes. In some cases there are interesting parallels with the Bible. In the case of Atlantis, you have a civilization that was globalist and was destroyed by the gods due to it's hubris. Some obvious parallels with the tower of Babel and it's destruction here. There are even further interesting parallels when one compares the book of Revelation's discussion of the eschatological Babylon with the discussion of Atlantis in Plato's Timaeus and Critias (e.g. ten kings/ten horns giving homage to Poseidon/beast and Babylon/Atlantis sinking into the ocean, etc).
In Zoroastrian myth an early king named Yima (aka Jamshid) controlled a global empire and was considered a righteous king until he told a lie and was divinely judged. Later on this myth became conflated with Islamic myths about Solomon.
I'm not sure of how acquainted Greeks were with Buddhism at this time. They knew of the Hindus though. They referred to them as Gymnosophists.
Thanks for the details Erick, I'm finding the citations I've found early on make the Fathers an interesting read in that regard alone.
Aaron wrote: "Thanks for the details Erick, I'm finding the citations I've found early on make the Fathers an interesting read in that regard alone."You are most welcome.
Erick wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Just out of curiosity, what would you consider as evidence of influence?"Well, the most obvious indication would be a reference to Jews and/or their writings. Direct quotations, or, ..."
Well, the ancient Greek philosophers were not in the habit of citing their influences, except as targets of criticism. Besides, it doesn't booost their reputation to acknowledge a religion that was an abomination to the general populace.
Having said that, I agree with you that it is hard to prove influence. Similarity of thoughts could indicate either a direct influence, or a common third source. Justin also acknowledges that Plato was inspired by the Logos.
Nemo wrote: "Well, the ancient Greek philosophers were not in the habit of citing their influences, except as targets of criticism. Besides, it doesn't booost their reputation to acknowledge a religion that was an abomination to the general populace."True, but it still winds up being a matter of speculation. As it stands with Plato now, it's a matter of silence; with no near quotations, with no mention of Jews, etc, it's hard to make a case of influence. One is left to find ideological parallels and this would be far from conclusive, even if possible.
