PREFACE

The Dialogue touches so many points of interest that it is impossible to consider them all in a popular work like the present. I have therefore restricted myself almost entirely (though not quite) to the primary object of Justin’s treatise, the relation of Christianity to Judaism, in particular to the Judaism of post-Biblical times, endeavouring to illustrate this from Jewish sources.

In such illustrations I have not used the Apocrypha or the Pseudepigraphic writings, partly because these are now readily accessible to the English reader in the Oxford Corpus, and partly because Justin himself appears to have neglected all such books. The Jews with whom he-.disputed..were.evidently Palestinians, accustomed.to the Hebrew. Canon only, and to the arguments of those Jews who carried on the traditions of the Pharisees. It is therefore to the writings of these that we must look for illustrations. Their books indeed, with the exception of one or two portions, are not earlier than, or even contemporary with, Justin, especially in the form in which they have come down to us. But the Mishna, the Tosephta, some of the Midrashim, and the two Talmuds, besides the Targums, may fairly be considered as incorporating a great deal of matter coaeval with him, or even earlier. For it is becoming increasingly probable that we can trust the authorship attributed by tradition to the sayings of the Rabbis. The later authorities I have almost entirely disregarded.

viii PREFACE

It has also seemed desirable to adduce from early Antijudaica many illustrations important either for their own sake, or for the light they throw on Justin’s mode of thought.

The more the Dialogue is studied the deeper becomes the impression of the general accuracy of Justin’s presentation of Judaism, as well as the width of his knowledge of it. The Treatise in fact implies a very much closer intercourse between Christians and Jews in the middle of the second century than has been commonly accepted. No doubt the fear of the influence of Jews on the one hand, and the desire to win them to Christ on the other, supply the reasons for the continual output of tracts and books dealing with the subject.

I am also not without hope that a perusal of the Introduction and Notes may lead to a better understanding on the part of Christians of to-day of the kind of problems which still face every one who attempts to present Christ to the Jews, and to a serious endeavour on the part of some earnest Christian who is trained in Jewish lore and customs to place our holy faith attractively before them. For it is a grievous blot upon the Christianity of our owr day that hardly any effort has been made to set before Jews of western education such a defence of Christian truth as by its learning and philosophic mind may appeal to them. We have nothing in the twentieth century corresponding to the second century Dialogue with Trypho.

- INTRODUCTION

JUSTIN MARTYR, WHAT IS KNOWN OF HIM?

l. Before his conversion.—He was the son of Priscus the son of Baccheius, and was born in Neapolis (Shechem, I. Apol. i. 1), about a.D. 100. He indeed claims the Samaritans as his own race (cxx.5%) but this was. evidently onthe score of locality only, because he was brought up as a heathen and was uncircumcised (xxix. 1, 3).

He describes himself as an earnest searcher after truth among the various philosophies of the time, Stoic, Peripatetic, Pythagorean, Platonic (ii. 3-6), until the day that, as he was meditating by the sea-side (iii. 1), he met one who showed him the unsatisfying character of philosophy as such (iii-vi), and bid him turn to the Bible, with prayer for a comprehension of such matters (vii). This he did, and he found that in the prophets and the friends of Christ was true philosophy. He adds, ‘In this way and for these reasons am I a philosopher.’ He then began to desire’ that all should find the truth, and know the Christ (viii. 1, 2).

2. After his conversion.—We know nothing about his baptism, and possess only scanty information about his life afterwards. But he felt very strongly the duty of imparting his knowledge of Scripture (lviii. 1), and his responsibility towards all with whom he came in contact (Ixxxii. 3). In order that he might have more opportunities he continued to wear his philosopher’s cloak

(i. 2), and he travelled widely. The scene of the Dialogue is laid, as it seems, at Ephesus (i. 1; ix. 3), and in the last chapter he tells us he is expecting to set to sea at once (cxlii. 2 sq.), probably for Rome, where he may have actually composed the Dialogue between 155 and A.D. 161, in any case after his first Apology (cxx. 5). He was in Rome twice (Acts of Martyrdom, iii, and lectured there, with Tatian for one of his hearers (Iren. Adv. Haer) 1. xxvi (xxviii.); cf. Euseb., Ch. Hist. IV. xxix. 1), living over the Bath of one Martin the son of Timotinus (Acts iii). Crescens the Cynic appears to have plotted against him (Tatian, Oratio, xix; cf. Euseb. C. H. IV. xvi. 7; Justin, II Apol. iii), and many perhaps have been the direct cause of his martyrdom.

3. His Martyrdom.—A description of the trial of Justin and six others is given in the very simple and beautiful narrative of the Acts of his Martyrdom.* The seven Christians were brought before the Prefect Rusticus at Rome, and after some preliminary questions as to doctrine and personal hope, addressed to each, and in particular to Justin as evidently the leader and the most learned, they were directly bidden ‘offer sacrifice with one accord to the gods’ (§ v). On their refusal they were condemned to be scourged and decapitated, ‘according to the usual course of the law.’ The date seems to have been June 12, 163-167 a.p. Justin’s brief confession of his faith before Rusticus (§ ii) is worth quoting, for it illustrates the Dialogue: ‘Rusticus the prefect said, “‘What kind of tenets do you practise?’ Justin said, “‘T have tried to learn all tenets, but I have come to agree with the true tenets of the Christians, though they please

t The original is given by Otto, after the disputed writings and the fragments, and an English translation may be found in T. & T. Clark’s Antenicene Library in the same position.

INTRODUCTION xi

not them that hold false opinions.’’ Rusticus the prefect said, ‘‘Are those the tenets that please thee, thou wretched fellow?” Justin said, ‘‘Yes, for I pursue them with a right principle’. RusticuS the perfect said, ““What kind of principle is it?’’ Justin said, ‘‘That we pay reverence to the God of the Christians, whom we hold to be the One from the beginning, the Maker and Framer of all creation, both visible and invisible; and the Lord Jesus Christ the Son (or Servant) of God,? who also has been proclaimed beforehand by the prophets as about to come to the human race as the herald of salvation, and the teacher of good disciples. And I, being a man, think that I can say but little with reference to His boundless Deity, and acknowledge that a kind of prophetic power is necessary for that, since it has been proclaimed beforehand of Him whom I just now spoke of as being the Son of God. For I know that the prophets ‘spake of old concerning His appearance among men.” ’

1. Doubts.—Wetstein (N.T., 1751, Proleg., p. 66), had doubts, because the quotations in the Dialogue from the O. T. agree not so much with the ordinary text of the LXX as with Origen’s Hexapla, ‘omitting

18dyua is not ‘dogma’ nor even ‘doctrine’ but the ruling principle in a philosophical system. See especially Seneca, Ep. 95 § 10 ‘Nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est, quae Graeci vocant dogmata, nobis vel decreta licet appellare vel scita vel placita’; and § 12, ‘Hoc interest inter decreta philosophiae and praecepta, quod inter elementa et membra : haec ex illis dependent, illa et horum causae sunt et omnium.” See also Ep.

Diognet. v. 3. a 2 Justin does not mention the Holy Spirit: see lxv. 7, note.

what Origen marked with obeli [as not in the Hebrew} and adding words to which he appended asterisks [as being in the Hebrew though not in the ordinary text of the LXX but in other versions|’. . . . ‘If Justin died before the version (sic) of Symmachus and Theodotion was issued, and preceded Origen by a whole century, how could he use his work?’ If Wetstein’s statement is strictly accurate, and the similarity to Symmachus and Theodotion is not due to the common use of current versions of Hebrew passages, it is still possible that an early copyist who used Origen’s text modified Justin’s, as copyists will do.?

Preuschen,? in a suggestive article, unfinished, alas, owing to his death, (1) argues that a comparison of subjects common (A) to the Dialogue (a) Ixxvii. 2 sq.; (b) xxxiii. 1 sq.; (c) xci. 1; (d) xix, and Tertullian (c. a.p. 200.) (a) Adv. Jud. 9=Adv. Marc. III, xii. sqq> (b) Adv. Marc. V. ix; (c) Adv. Jud. 10=Adv. Marc. III. xviii; (d) Adv. Jud. 2, and (B) to the Dialogue (a) Ixxii. 4; (b) c. 4; (c) cxxxiv. 3 and Irenaeus (c. A.D- 180); (ay eT xslt. Al ifsc oe (6) ILD xexin el “ecm cs Tert Del Carne’ Christi 17; e IV. xxxvi0 Ss (sxne so), shows that the author of the Dialogue used the writings. of those Fathers. But he has greatly underrated the influence upon patristic writings exercised by the traditional system of interpreting of Old Testament texts, often embodied in little Books of Testimonies, and’ arguments deduced therefrom, which existed in the early Church*. (2) More serious is the fact that Damascus is said to have been apportioned to Syrophoenicia,* a:

* On Justin’s quotations vide infra, p. xxxiv.

* Zeitschrift fiir die N. Tliche Wissenschaft. 1920, pp. 102-127.

* See p. xxi.

* lxxviii, 10. Tert. Adv. Jud. 9 (? 197, a.D. 8) refers to the change.

INTRODUCTION xiii

change which does not seem to have been made before A.D. 194 in the reign of Septimius Severus.! This is certainly suspicious, but the clause stands in no close connexion with Justin’s argument, and may easily have come in through a copyist’s note. (3) The Dialogue says that pressure was put upon Christians to eat things sacrificed to idols,? and there is no evidence of this as an official act before a.D. 249. But it is hard to believe that actual participation in food consecrated to false gods was not required by popular feeling at quite an early date.

Bousset* regards the question of Justin’s authorship from another angle. He thinks that Justin, in common with other travelling teachers of his time, had at his. disposal earlier tracts, upon which he based his instruction of enquirers and others, and further, that he used some of these in the composition of the Dialogue with Trypho. Bousset thinks that nine such tracts of nondialogue form, perhaps originally written by Justin himself, are to be found after chapter xxx. His number is based on his ninefold division of the subjects which Justin discusses from time to time. But he is able to show that at least one ‘source’, though spread over chapters in the Dialogue now distant from each other, contains peculiarities of diction.

Yet although there is no reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the Dialogue as a whole, in spite of the serious imperfections of the text, the treatise was strangely neglected, as is evident from the paucity of

Pasiv 8.

3 In his illuminating work, Jüdisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom. 1915, pp. 282-308. He also refers to Ungern-Sternberg, Der Schriftbeweis in der alten Kirche, 1913, which the present writer has not been able to see.

quotations made from it, and of manuscripts containing it. One reason for this neglect may be that its theology left something to be desired from the point of view of theologians who lived after the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. We might have supposed that the subject was unattractive, if it were not that controversy with the Jews was unceasing, and that polemical writings against them were continually being issued.’

2. Quotations from the Dialogue.—Tatian (c. A.D. 120-

185) was Justin’s disciple, and one passage in the

Discourse to the Greeks, v. resembles Dial. 1xi. 2. But

he did not necessarily use the Dialogue itself.

Tertullian (c. a.p. 160-245) in Adv. Valent. v. includes Justin. among his authorities for his knowledge of the doctrines of Valentinus, but Justin does no more than mention the Valentinians in the Dialogue (xxxv. 6). Tertullian is doubtless referring to the much larger work Against all the Heresies of which Justin speaks in I Apol. xxvi. 8. The fact however that so many passages in Tertullian’s writings have much in common with the Dialogue makes his use of it probable, though these may also well be attributed to a common source (cf. pp. xii. Sqs jf: XXi):

Irenaeus (c. A.D. 135-202) in both Against Heresies and the Predicatio has many of the thoughts and arguments that are in the Dialogue. But the remarks about Tertullian are applicable to Irenaeus also.

Eusebius (a.D. 265-340) Ch. Hist. IV. xviii. 6-8, describes the Dialogue at some length, giving a brief summary of its introduction (ii-viii), making a quotation from xvii. 1, referring to the accusation that Jews

1 The writers of the documents referred to on p. xxiii show no ‘knowledge of the Dialogue.

INTRODUCTION xv

mutilated Scripture, and to prophetical gifts in Justin’s. time (Ixxxii. 1), and also to his statement that the Apocalypse was written by the Apostle (Ixxxi. 4).

Jerome (c. a.D. 342-420) mentions the Dialogue in his. account of Justin in his De Viris Illust. xxiii (Vallarsi,. ii. coll. 863, 865), but appears to have derived his knowledge of it from Eusebius.

John of Damascus (died c. a.D. 749) says in his Sacra Parallela ‘From the second Discourse against Trypho. Every one who can say what is true and saith it not shall be judged by God,’ an exact quotation from Ixxxii. 3 which does in fact belong to the Second Day of the discussion. He also quotes as from the holy Justin’s work against the Jews, ‘There is neither confined space with God nor what cannot be counted.’? But this is not to be found in our present text. For the matter compare Iren. IV, vi.. (iv. 2). And again, ‘The soul is hard to bring back to: those good things from which it slipped, and hard to bring out from those evil things to which it had become accustomed.’? Whether John quotes from the Dialogue directly, or only from selections from it made by am earlier writer, is doubtful, but the latter seems to be more: in accordance with his usual custom.

Photius (c. A.D. 827-897) in his Library § 125* appears: to have included it in Justin’s Apology for the Christians, which is presumably the Exposition of the True Faith known by his name and existing in many MSS., but really composed later than the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, and before the death of Leontius in A.D. 543, who quotes it. The Exposition as such has no reference

2 Holl, Fragmente vornicainischen Kirchenvater aus den Sacra Parallela (Texte und Untersuchungen, xx. 2. 1899, pp. 34 sq.).

* Ibid.

‘English translation, S.P.C.K. 1920, pp. 212 sq.

to Jews, and it is probable that the Apologies and the Dialogue were combined with it.

3. Manuscripts.—-Only two MSS. are known, one

in the National Library at Paris, written in 1364 (C),

and the other at Cheltenham, written in 1541 (Ch.).

They resemble each other so closely, faults and all, that

they can at most be copies of the same MS., but

there are good reasons for believing that one is copied

from the other. Probably Ch. itself came from the Jesuit

College at Clermont, and was actually copied from C.

at Venice, after Pélicier, the French Ambassador (1539-

1542) had obtained C. there in 1540. Such mistakes as

the copyist himself made have generally been corrected

by him, always in accordance with C. C. was perhaps

written at Constantinople, possibly under the direct order

of the ex-emperor John Cantacuzenus (who reigned

A.D. 1341-1355), and may have been brought to Italy by

John of Ragusa the papal nuncio about 1435.

Harnack compares those parts of the same MS. which consist of other treatises than the Dialogue with an earlier MS. of these (Arethas), and finds that the text of C. shows frequent signs of carelessness. The presumption therefore is that this is also the case in the Dialogue. Our means therefore of determining the original text of the Dialogue are very limited, and careful conjecture, based upon historical probabilities and on language, is much more admissible than it is in many other ancient treatises.

4. The present state of the text.—i. The Dedication usual in the writings of the time is absent, but is presupposed by viii. 3 (‘dear Friend’) and cxli. 5 (‘my dear friend, Marcus Pompeius’). It probably included the

1 Texte und Untersuchiingen I. 1. 1883, p. 77. He calls C. “ein sehr sorglos und liiderlich geschriebener Codex.’

INTRODUCTION xvii >

mention of Ephesus as the scene of the Dialogue, because of Eusebius’ statement (see i. 1, note).

ii, The text of Scriptural quotations has sometimes been corrected to the form current in the copyists’ times {cxx. 4, note). cf. infra, p. xxxiv.

iii. It is clear that there is also a lacuna about the end of lxxiv. 3, though there is no trace of this in the MSS. In lxxiii. 3, 4 Justin had quoted Ps. xcvi at length, and had argued in § 1 that the Jews had deliberately omitted part of v. 10, ‘the Lord reigned from the tree.’ In § 5 Trypho expresses his disbelief in such a statement, and in § 6 Justin defends it, adding in Ixxiv. 1-3 the beginning of an elaborate exposition of the Psalm, closing with the words, ‘even Him who died after He was crucified, and was deemed worthy by Him (God the Father) to reign over all the earth, as also by’. . . . Immediately upon these words follows in § 4 a reference to Deut. 31. 16-18, which has nothing to do with the subject. The exposition of Ps. xcvi is not continued either here or elsewhere. It is evident that something is missing.

The length however of the passage missing is quite uncertain, but probably it ran to some pages. It has indeed been argued that we have lost only a line or two, Justin not caring to continue his exposition of the Psalm, and adducing Deut. 31. 16-18, as another example of prophecy. Justin’s argument would then be as follows: The fact that God had said that Messiah should reign from the wood ‘oyer all the earth, as also throughout the land into which He said He would lead your fathers (is clear). Now He said thus, This people will go a whoring after the strange gods of the land into which it is entering,’ etc. The omission would thus only be due to the eye of the copyist passing from the first ‘land into

which’ to the second. Justin will then continue his. argument in lxxv, Ixxvi, showing that God had promised to send One whose name was Jesus, and who became incarnate.

Yet although it may be granted that Justin does not always keep to his immediate subject, the fact that there is no further allusion to the accusation that the Jewshad tampered with the Scriptures until cxx. 5 leaves. the impression that there is something seriously wrong with the text of the Dialogue at this point. This is confirmed by the fact that the latter part of the Dialogue (Ixxiv. 4-cxlii) refers to earlier remarks of which no trace remains. Such are Ixxix. 1 (the fall of the angels) ; Ixxix. 4 (Justin says he has cited Zech. 3. 1, 2 and Job 1. 6); Ixxx. 2 (Justin says he has already mentioned the fact that some Christians do not accept the doctrine of the Millennium); cv. 4 (Justin says he has already spoken about 1 Sam. 28. 7); cxlii. 1 (Trypho implies that he has already been told of Justin’s impending voyage).'

Again, it is implied that what we may call for convenience the Second Part of the Dialogue took place on a second day. But there is no mention of the first day coming to an end, or of the meeting on the next. The relevant passages are as follows: lvi. 16, ‘the day is advancing;’ lxxviii. 6, ‘I have already narrated to you, I said, that Isaiah proclaimed beforehand concerning this sign also with regard to the cave, yet, I added, because of those who have come with you to-day I will mention the chapter again’; Ixxxv. 4, ‘which I will mention also again because of those who were not present with us yesterday. ... I say very briefly much of

1 Similarly in lxvii. 5 there is a suggestion of an earlier lacuna. See note there.

INTRODUCTION xix

what was already said yesterday’; ibid. 6, ‘One of those who had come with them on the second day, called Mnaseas, said: We also are glad that you undertake to repeat your words again for us’; xcii. 5, ‘That.... God appointed His commands concerning sabbaths and offerings, has already been shown by me in what I have already said. But because of those who have come today I think it well to repeat it almost all again’; xciv. 4, ‘Then another of those who had come on the second day said,’ etc.; cxviii. 4, ‘And, Trypho, when I say this, I am endeavouring, as far as possible, to make the same statements over again for the sake of those who have come with you to-day’; cxxii. 4, ‘Then some of those who had come on the second day cried out,’ etc. ; cxxxvii. 4, ‘The day is already coming to an end, for the sun is already near setting.’

It is therefore fairly clear that when John of Damascus speaks of the ‘second discourse against Trypho’ (vide supra, p. xv) he, or the sources of his information, knew of a definite division in the treatise, which marked the end of the first day and the beginning of the second. Further, as so many subjects appear to have been contained in the original which are now absent from our book, probably many more than a few lines have been lost. The omission doubtless extends to some pages.

iv. On Ix. 3 see note there. Cf. Ixxix. 1 note; Ixxxiil, 1 note; Ixxxv. 1,

III EARLIER EFFORTS TO PRESENT CHRIST TO THE JEWS Very little appears to have been done by students of

the history of Christian Apologetics in classifying the various attempts of Christians to present Christ to the

Jews, One reason for this neglect is the strange superstition that the Christians were wholly taken up with their own internal controversies, and had little interest in their Jewish neighbours. The facts are very different. The Dialogue with Trypho was not indeed the first of all, but it did come very early in the long series of polemical writings composed or translated in every century of the Christian era, well nigh in every decade, and in every part of the Christian world, including, at the least, Rome, North Africa, Upper Egypt, Eastern and Western Syria, Asia Minor, Gaul, and in the early and later middle ages, Spain, France, England. This is obviously not the place to speak of the greater number of these. But a few words about the work that was attempted earlier than Justin’s seem to be necessary.

The nature of such work may be gathered from Harnack’s remark! that, before the Church had any theology, the agreement between the Old Testament and the historical facts on which the new Society was founded, was almost the only theme to be considered. Further, as Christianity arose among the Jews, the early Christians had to face for themselves difficulties suggested by their former Jewish co-religionists, and in some cases by their own experience.

We must also bear in mind that whether a Christian in early days was of Jewish or Gentile origin he would have the same opinion as his fellow Christians about the value of the actual words and letters of the Old Testament. If Scripture was holy at all it was holy through and through, to its very letters. Shammai of Palestine, Philo of Alexandria, Tertullian of North Africa, were all agreed in this, however they interpreted the words.

* Die Altercatio Simonis et Theophili, p. 57 ( vide infra, p. xxii).

INTRODUCTION Xxi

And, further, as the very words and letters were from ‘God they could be taken at their face value, and be used with the fullest freedom. (See also pp. xxxvii sq.).

1. The Books of Testimonies.—It has been suspected for many years’ that there existed almost from the first, perhaps before the Gospels themselves were written, collections of texts from the Old Testament chosen for use in confirming the faith of believers, and in discussing it with Jews. The similarity in the texts used, in the arguments adduced from them, and in the order of quotation, which may be traced in many of the anti- Judaic treatises, and perhaps in the New Testament, have even led Dr. Rendel Harris and Mr. Vacher Burch? to argue that there was, in particular, one such Book which existed until the twelfth century. But this is quite improbable and the evidence points to only books which soon perished, the similarities being due to the accepted methods of using the Old Testament.

2. The Epistle of Barnabas.—The aim of this fiery little tract is to build up from Old Testament: sources believers who were especially liable to be influenced by Judaism. It argues that God’s covenant with the Jews is now abolished, that their laws were not given by God, that the Old Testament is full of prophecies about Christ and His work. But the temper of the author and his attitude to Judaism are very different from those which seem to be attributed to St. Barnabas in the Acts? and

2 Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889, p. 203) says that the Jews (in which term we may fairly include Christian Jews) who were ‘carrying on an active propaganda, would have, among other books, manuals of morals, of devotion, and of controversy,’ and it may be supposed, when we remember ‘the contemporary habit of making collections of excerpta, and the special authority which the Jews attached to their sacred books, that some of these manuals would consist of extracts from the Old Testament.’

Galatians.’ He is in fact wholly unknown. Neither is. the date of the tract certain, but if xvi. 4 does refer to the attempted re-building of the Temple under Hadrian (as some critics imagine) it may be as late as A.D. 135.7 Many of its arguments are to be found in the Dialogue, but this is no evidence that Justin used the tract itself.

3. The Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus.—Although this little Dialogue between Jason, a Hebrew Christian of Palestine, and Papiscus, an Alexandrian Jew, has not come down to us in its original form, its contents have probably been preserved in the Latin Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani put forth by one Evagrius of Gaul in the beginning of the fifth century. The earlier Dialogue is attributed to Aristo of Pella by one Maximus in perhaps the seventh century. As this is in part confirmed by Eusebius his authorship is accepted by Harnack, and the date of the pamphlet is thought to be between a.D. 135 and 136.* Origen indeed, referring to Celsus’ contemptuous remarks, speaks of it as. fitted ‘to strengthen the faith of the multitude of simple believers, but not adapted to impress those of a more intelligent mind’. Yet he also calls it ‘a work in which a Christian is described as disputing with a Jew out of the Jewish Scriptures, and proving that the predictions regarding Christ fitly apply to Jesus.’* It is highly praised by one Celsus who appears to have lived in the fourth century.” It seems also to have been that common basis of the two later Dialogues, Athanasius and

2 Both the text of the passage and its meaning are quite uncertain.

3 See Harnack, Die Altercatio.Sim. Jud. et Theoph. Chr. 1883, pp. 116-119. Also Routh, Reliq. Sacr. i, 91-109.

5 In this letter to a certain Bishop Vigilantius About the Unbelief of the Jews, § 8 (in Hartel’s Cyprian, iii. p. 128).

INTRODUCTION ` xxiii

Zacchaeus (early fourth century), and Timothy and Aquila (? fourth century), which was in the hands of Tertullian when he wrote against Praxeas.1 Nothing is known of it directly since the seventh century. —

4. The following writings against the Jews are indeed later than Justin in their present form, but may be mentioned partly because they show the importance attached by Christians to the presentation of the Gospel to the Jews, and partly because they all illustrate statements contained in the Dialogue with Trypho, and some; if not all, used sources which were at least as early.as our book. Tertullian, Adv. Judaeos (a:D. 200-206), with which parts of his Adv. Marcionem are identical. Cyprian, Testimonia, Books I and II (a.D. 249, 250}, almost solely a collection of texts. Aphraates ‘The Persian Sage’ (c. A.D. 285-345), Homilies, especially xviii, xix, xxi. The Arian Bishop of Hippo (c. a.p. 427), Contra Judaeos, Migne, Patr. Lat. lvii. 793-806.” Chrysostom, Against the Jews (c. a.b. 387). Gregory of Nyssa, died a.p. 395, Adv. Judaeos, in Zacagni. Monumenta? Didascalia Jacobi, a.D. 640, published by Bonwetsch in the Abhandlungen der kön. Ges. d. Wiss. z. Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. N.F. xii., in Greek, but translated into Ethiopic, Arabic, Syriac, Slavonic. An edition of the Ethiopic with a French translation is called Sargis d’Aberga in Patrol. Orient. iii and xiii. Nau has published in viii, 1912 Part I of the Greek text underlying this, excerpting it from the MSS. used by Bonwetsch for his full form. The

1See F. C. .Conybeare, The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, 1898, p. lv. i

2 This was formerly attributed to St. Maximus of Turin (c. a.D. 451.) A critical text may be found in J. Th. Stud. xx, pp. 289-310. À

3 This is not by Gregory, but rather later.

Trophies of Damascus, c. a.D. 680, (Greek). Patrol. Orient. xv. Dionysius bar Salibi, Metropolitan of Amid (Diabekr), died Nov. a.D. 1171, Against the Jews, Syriac, ed. Zwaan, 1906. Not yet translated. It is little more than a collection of texts.

1. How far is the Dialogue a report of a real discussion ?—The details of the meeting of Justin and Trypho, and of the emotions with which from time to time both they and Trypho’s friends are moved, are related too naturally to be fictitious. But it is improbable that Justin would have remembered all that was said on either side, or would have refrained from introducing other points which occurred to him afterwards. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that, while making some one discussion with a Jew on the basis of his book, he made additions, out of the experience that he had had of innumerable other discussions on the same subject. He may also have used old notes of his own lectures, or even of his homiletical discourses to Christian friends. See p. xiii and xcvii. 3.

2. The history and character of Trypho.'

i. He was a Jew who had fled from the war in Palestine (i. 3, cf. ix. 3; xvi. 2 sq.; in CYNA 3 the city had been taken), and was ‘spending much time in Greece and Corinth’ (i. 3), though indeed at the moment he appears to have been in Ephesus. (i. 1 note.)

ii. His culture.—This was Gentile, for he says, ‘I was taught in Argos by Corinthus of the school of Socrates’ (i. 2). Yet he has some knowledge of Jewish

1 On the name Trypho see i. 3 note.

INTRODUCTION xxv

arguments against Christianity, though he shows no evidence of having been trained in Rabbinic methods of interpretation. He distinguishes himself from ‘our Teachers’, as does one of his friends (xciv. 4), and includes himself among those whom they have warned against entering into discussions with Christians (xxxviii. 1).* He was therefore a ‘layman’ in Jewish lore, not at all ‘a Jewish Rabbi’, as Dr. Rendel Harris strangely calls him.* In any case he was not R. Tarphon (a very common name in Syria and Egypt), who belonged to the second generation of Mishna teachers (c. a.p. 90- 130), and was an exceedingly learned man. R. Tarphon, it may be added, unlike our Trypho, was very bitter against the Hebrew-Christians.* Trypho also says that he does not argue in any captious spirit, but from a real desire to ascertain the truth (Ixxxvii. 1). He was not very ready in repartee (xxiii. 2 sq; cf. cxxxvii. 3).

iii. His manners.—His manners are genial (i. 1, 2, 6), and much better than those of his friends (viii. 3; ix. 2 vi 4; Iwiii. 2; Ixviii. 2; Ixxxvii. 1; cxviii 5; exxii. 4; cxxiii. 7 sq.; cxlii. 1, 3). Yet he thinks Justin out of his mind (xxxix. 3), and accuses him of quoting only passages which suit his purpose (xxvii. 1). He loses his temper in Ixxix. 1, and says that Justin’s explanations are artificial, and even blasphemous. Yet he becomes very friendly at the end (cxlii. 1).

1 Cf. also Justin’s words in ix. 1; xxxviii. 2; xliii. 8; xlviii. 2; Ixii. 2; Ixviii. 7; Ixxi. 1; Ixxxiii. 1; cii. 5; cx. 1; cxii. 2, 4; cxiv. 3; cxvii. 4; cxxxiv. 1 sq.; cxxxvii. 2; cxl. 2; cxlii. 2.

2 Test. i. p. 4. Eusebius, drawing upon his imagination, calls him ‘a most distinguished man among the Hebrews of that day’ (Ch. Hist. IV. xviii. 6).

3 Strack, Einl. in Talm. u. Midr. 1921, pp. 125 sq. Jew. Enc. xii. 56 sq. It is possible that because he was a strong opponent his name was used by Justin as that of a typical antagonist, to cover the real name of Justin’s friend.

. It must, however, in fairness to Trypho be remembered that. Justin himself was far from being always courteous. Though sometimes Justin is the more polite of the two (Ixxix. 1 sq.), and says that Trypho’s question is very sensible (Ixxxvii. 1, 3), or only turns and looks steadily at him (cxxii. 5), apparently by way of reproof, he complains that Trypho goes back on his earlier admissions (lxvii. 4, 7; cf. cxxiii. 7), and even abuses Trypho roundly (Ixiv. 2, cf. Ixv. 2; Ixvii. 3, 11). As a whole, however, the Dialogue is a very favourable example of the spirit in which religious controversies ought to be conducted. It is in this respect immeasurably superior to the majority of Christian polemical writings against the Jews, and indeed to very many writings of Christians who are discussing purely Christian doctrines. Yet ‘a good theologian may be a good controversialist, though a good controversialist. will never be a good theologian.’

3. Trypho’s arguments against Christianity.—He gives a fair summary of Justin’s argument about our Lord in xxxvii. 1.

i. He is, in general, strongly anti-Christian (viii. 3 sq.).

ii. He has studied the written Gospel, and finds the moral teaching of Jesus too high to be kept (x. 2).

ili. He objects to Justin’s arguments about the Law.

(a) He asks whether Justin thinks that the Law unfits men for salvation (xlv. 1 sq.).

(b) He is surprised that Christians practise no external separation from the heathen (viii. 4s ox. 3; xix. 1s XS. Qe elena thet Christians eat things offered to idols (Xxx wt}.

INTRODUCTION xxvii

(c) He asks whether Christians are allowed to keep the Law, e.g. of Sabbath and circumcision (xivi. l-4; xlvii. 1), though he grants that some ceremonies enjoined in it can- ñot be observed outside Palestine.

(d) He and his friends are disturbed at Justin’s saying ‘We are even children of God’ (cxxiv. 1), and that Gentile Christians claim to be Israel (cxxili. 7; cf. xi. 5). They cry out that Isa. 42. 6 sq. refers to proselytes, and not to Gentile Christians (cxxii. 4). He even thinks Justin means that no Jew shall inherit anything in the holy mountain of God, but Justin replies that this depends on whether he repents or not (xxv. 6).

iv. He objects to the Incarnation.

(a) He says that this is incredible (lxviii. 1), and asks how Jesus can have had any preexistence when He lacked the powers of the Holy Spirit at first (Ixxxvii. 1 sq.)? He denies the Divinity of Jesus (xlviii. 1).

(b) It is like heathen tales (Ixvii. 2).

(c) He asks for proofs (l. 1, cf. lv. 1 sq.; lvi. 9) that there is ‘another God’ (cf. Ixv. 1), and that He was to be born of a virgin (Ixiii. 1).

(d) He says that the meaning adduced by Justin from certain passages of Scripture is not to be found in them.

A. He is shocked at Justin saying that Jesus spoke to Moses (xxxviii. 1), e.g. at the

Bush, for He who was seen in the flame was. an angel, and He who conversed with Moses was God (lx. 1, 3). å: Ps. 96. Trypho says it refers to the Father (Ixxiv. 1). e Isa. 11. 1-3 (Ixxxvil. 1 sq.). ¢. Isa. 40. 1-17. ‘All the words of the prophecy which, Sir, you adduce, are ambiguous, and’ contain nothing decisive in proof of your argument’ (li. 1). v. And to the Christian doctrine of the Messiah in general. (a) Trypho says that Christians ‘shape a kind of Messiah for themselves’ (viii. 4), that Elijah must come first, and has not yet come (viii. 4; xlix. 1-6), for the spirit of Elijah was not in John the Baptist (xlix. 6). Messiah is to be born of the race of David (lxviii. 5), but to be only a man who is to become Messiah (xlix. 1; lxvii. 2). | (b) Even if Messiah is to suffer He cannot suffer JI by crucifixion (ixxxix, 2; xc. 1). Cf. ' xxix. 7; vide infra, p. 29. Besides, ever if Messiah was to suffer in a first Advent, and was called a Stone, yet Justin must first prove that Jesus was He (xxxvi. 1). (c) In any case we Jews have no need of Jesus. (Ixiv. 1), though Gentiles may acknowledge Him. . Trypho, however, accepts many of Justin’s statements. i. Such as bear on the subject generally.—‘All our race expects the Messiah, and we acknowledge that all the passages of Scripture which you have cited

INTRODUCTION XXix.

have been spoken of Him’ (Ixxxix. 1). He grants also that Justin keeps close to Scripture, but he asks whether he is in earnest about the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Ixxx. l; cf. lvi. 16). It is right to look for a reason in God’s commands (xxviii. 1), and the Law was, in fact, given because of the hardness of Israel’s heart. It was indeed. not necessary for salvation, as is seen by the case of the Patriarchs (lxvii. 7 sq.). Later prophets explained earlier sayings (lxviii. 7), and used parables and types. (xc. 2). He grants that Justin’s quotations urge him to accept his views, but desires more information about See. 7. 14 (ixxvii. 1; cf. Ixv. 1; lexxix. 1 sq.). He finally says, ‘I acknowledge that I have been extraordinarily charmed with our intercourse, and I think that these (my Friends) are of like opinion with myself. For we have found more than we have expected, or than it was even possible for us to expect’ (cxlii. 1).

ii. Doctrines in more detail.—Trypho expects One, who is great and glorious, and will take over the kingdom as the Son of man. ‘But this your so-called Christ is without honour and glory,’ and is cursed because crucified (xxxii. 1). Trypho allows that Justin does not mean that the other God says anything contrary to the mind of God of the universe (lvi. 12). He and’ his friends (‘they’) agree that ‘that which is begotten is other in number than that which begets’ (cxxix. 4; cxxx. 1). He accepts the statement that Christ must suffer, though he doubts whether Jesus is He (xxxix. 7; of. Ixxwix. 1.sq.; xc. 1).

iii. Some Old Testament passages adduced by Justin.—Trypho regards the ‘Son of man’ mentioned in Dan. 7. 13 as the Messiah (xxxii. 1). With regard to the ‘three men’ in Gen. 18. 2 he grants that God appeared to Abraham, though before the three ‘men’, who were

really angels, came (lvi. 4 sq.), but he afterwards acknowledges that they were not angels, though the passage does not show that there was another God (ivi. 9). Yet the third angel was God, and yet not the God in heaven, although His ‘eating’ causes doubts, if it be not metaphorical (lvii. 1, 3). As for lx. 3, see the note there.

He apparently accepts Justin’s explanation of Isa. 42. 8, ‘My glory will I not give to another’ (Ixv. 7). He grants that a new Covenant is foretold (lxvii. 9-11). Also that Isa. 11. 1-3 does refer to Messiah, but not to Jesus (Ixxxvii. 1 sq.). A friend who had come on the second day says he can give no reason against Justin’s interpretation of the Brazen Serpent, and neither could his teachers—‘So say what you will, for we are paying heed to you as you reveal the mystery of things that cause even the precepts of the prophets to be attacked’ (xciv: 4).

iv. Jesus may be recognized by Gentiles as Lord, ‘Christ, God (Ixiv.. 1).

JUSTIN’S KNOWLEDGE OF POST-BIBLICAL JUDAISM

Was Justin qualified to conduct a controversy with a Jew? Had he sufficient knowledge of post-Biblical Judaism? For a knowledge of the Old Testament is not sufficient, patently so in our own day, and also in the second century. There had been serious modifications of the teaching of the Old Testament in the four. or five centuries between Malachi and Justin. Was the

INTRODUCTION Xxxi

Christian controversialist sufficiently acquainted with them?*

l. It may be granted that in one very important particular Justin was not so qualified. He had no knowledge of Hebrew (lxviii. 7; ciii. 4 sq.; cxxv. 3; see Ixxi. 1, note), and therefore could not refer to the Scriptures in their original form.

2. Again, for the same reason, Justin was unable to understand or appreciate the disputes between the

representative Jewish Rabbis, as they discussed the i meaning of Scripture among themselves, and endeavoured to apply its teaching to the needs of their own time. But it must not be forgotten that Justin does not profess. to hold his controversy with a Hebrew-reading and Hebrew-speaking Jew. Trypho indeed had come from Palestine, as in fact had even Justin himself originally, but as Trypho seems to have known no Hebrew, and to have used the Old Testament in a Greek form, the two disputants were so far on equal footing.

3. But was Justin, the Gentile convert to Christianity, well acquainted with the Judaism that was known to Trypho and his companions? That a great deal of what he says may be illustrated from Jewish sources is undeniable, but what knowledge does he exhibit of Jewish post-Biblical practices, doctrines, and methods of exegesis, when he is directly referring to his opponents? His statements may be summarised under the following heads, but the reader is referred to the Notes on each passage for fuller information. As a rule only the earliest passage in each case is given here.

1E, Preuschen thinks his information very inaccurate. ‘Es ist nicht gut getan, seine Aussagen über jüdische Auslegungen unbesehen hinzunehmen. Woher er sie bezogen hat, ist nicht mehr auszunehmen. Aber es scheinen vielfach recht trübe Quellen zu sein, aus denen er schöpfte’ (Z.N.T.W. 1920, p. 111).

i. Jewish post-Biblical practices.—Cursing Christians in the synagogues (xvi. 4). The Jewish Rabbis bid their- followers not to hold discussions with Christians {xxxviiil. 1). Details about the scape-goat (xl. 4). The Septuagint is read at the service in the Synagogue (Ixxii. 3). It is allowable to have more than one wife (cxxxiv. 1).

ii. Jewish post-Biblical doctrines.—The Messiah is perhaps already on earth, but if so He is unknown (viii. 4). Details about the relation of Elijah to the Messiah (viii. 4). Observe that the statement that Trypho, though a Jew, had read the Gospel (x. 2) is corroborated by similar statements about other Jews of the second century. The Jews are sure of salvation, as being Abraham’s seed (xliv. 1). Gentiles need Christ, but not Jews (lxiv. 1). Scripture regards Messiah as only a human being (lxviii. 4 sq.). Messiah was to suffer (Ixviii. 9). Jesus was a magician and a deceiver (Ixix. 7). The very letters of Scripture are important (Ixx. 5; cf. Ixxv. 1 sq.). Why should the Jews be blamed for the death of Jesus when He came in order to be offered as a sacrifice (xev: 3; cf. cii. 3)? The proselyte is regarded as one ‘native-born’ (cxxiii. 1).

iii, Jewish post-Biblical methods of exegesis.— Observe the order in which Justin sometimes quotes passages of Scripture, vis. Hagiographa, Prophets, Law, i.e. in ascending order of importance (xxix. 2). Trypho is said to accept the ‘Son of man’ in Dan. 7. 13 as Messiah (xxxii. 1). Ps. 24 is understood of Solomon {xxxvi 2). The interpretation of Gen. 18. 2; 19. 1 (Ivi. 5). The question how one of the angels could be God when he ate (lvii. 2). Both an angel and God were at the Bush (lx. 1). The interpretation of Gen. 1. 26 (lxii. 2 sq.), of Isa, 42. 8 (Ixv. 1), of Isa. 7. 14 (Ixvii. 1;

cf. Ixxxiv. 1). The camels (exii. 4). The alterations in the names of Abram and Sarai (cxiii. 2). Isa. 49. 6 refers to strangers and proselytes (cxxii. 1).

iv. Justin’s apparent errors.—Yet in some particulars the strict accuracy of Justin’s statements may be questioned. He says that selected men were sent out to speak against Christianity (xvii. 1); that the Jews thought it ‘shocking that we drink hot water on the sabbaths’ (xxix. 3); that scarlet dye is used for Tsitsith (xlvi. 5, but see note there). His statements also about Jewish sects are strange, but the fact that it required very little acquaintance with Jews to know their inaccuracy suggests that there is some misunderstanding, or perhaps some corruption in the text (Ixxx. 4). He says that Ps. 22 was not interpreted of the Messiah {xcvii. 4), and he is doubtless right in saying so of his own day, but it is so interpreted in the Yalqut. He says that the Jews say God ‘has hands and feet and fingers and soul like a compound living creature, and even for this reason do they teach that the Father Himself was seen of Abraham and of Isaac’ (cxiv. 3).

Of these the first two are deductions, and may be literally correct as facts. On the third see the note. ‘The last is at first sight the most serious, but the note suggests that Justin may have had good reasons for his statement.

Yet, after making all possible allowance for the existence and importance of these ‘errors’, we must grant that Justin had at least a good working knowledge of post-Biblical Judaism, a knowledge superior to that of most polemical writers against the Jews, and infinitely greater than that of the majority of even learned clergy to-day. He therefore was quite justified in entering into

controversy with a Jew, especially one who himself possessed no Rabbinic or Hebrew knowledge at first ‘hand.

A. In xiv. 3 Justin seems to make a mistake about a Biblical ordinance as to leaven; in xxxiil. 2 about Abraham being already circumcised when he met Melchizedek;. in xxxiv. 8 about Solomon practising idolatry in Sidon;. and in lxxxvi. 5 about willows. But these are mere slips, comparable to his occasional inaccuracy in his references to Biblical authors (see xiv. 8, note). On a supposed confusion between Herod Antipas and Herod the Great in lii. 3, see note. See also cxiii. 3.

B. Justin’s text of the Septuagint.—This often varies. from the text adopted by Dr. Swete. See in particular Bille 9 XXX. 2-75) [xvii 7s XXXIV. 35 CXR OPCS es is exxiv. 2; cxxxi. 1; cxxxxvii. 3. The electric character of Justin’s text may be due in part to the various. localities in which he used his materials. He also seems. to have had before him texts afterwards adopted by Symmachus or Theodotion, vide supra p. xii. On his. use of some interpolations see lxxii. 1 sq. and lxxiii. 1. On the whole subject see Swete, Introduction to the O. T. in Greek, 1900, pp. 417-424 (verbally identical in the second edition, 1914). Even where Justin seems to know Aquila (Isa. 7. 14, Ixxxiv. 1 note) Rahlfs thinks. he was only using interpretations current among the Jews he met.(Z.N.T.W, 1921, p. 197). Cf. supra p. 16. See xvii... 3 lxxvi...6;,lxxxi. rés lxxxvill. Je ivan sao Cie 2. FCL 6.

The question of various readings in Justin’s quotations. from the New Testament cannot be entered upon here. See xyii..3; Ixxvi. 5; lxxxi. 4; Ixxxvili. ie xevi:.3> 6. Te Co Ae fee KER ce

As the Dialogue stands it contains, A. i-ix, Prologue. B. x-xlvii. The abrogation of the Law, and the inauguration of the promised New Covenant. C. xlviii-cviii. Jesus is the promised Messiah. D. cix-cxxxvi, Christians are the true Israel. E. cxxxvii-cxlii, Epilogue. But in B, C, D, no hard and fast line is observed. It is therefore convenient to indicate the contents more exactly, and to endeavour to arrange them by subject matter. It is however impossible to make a really systematic arrangement, without such a minute subdivision of chapters as would defeat its purpose, for often several items are considered together. Hence the arrangement here presented indicates only the chief subject of each chapter.

Prologue i-ix.

1. How the discussion arose.

2. Justin’s past history.

3. What Jews require of Justin, viii. 3.

4. A summary of many Jewish difficulties in accepting Christianity, x. I. The question of the permanence of the Law.

1. The O.T. itself looks forward to the Law being

superseded, xi-xv, 2. Various ordinances of the Law considered, `

Xvili.-xxix; xl-xlii; xliii. 1 sq.; xliv-xlvi; xcii-xciv. Il. The Messiah, according to the evidence of the

2. The pre-existence of the Messiah, and His Divine nature, xlviii; liv-lxii (see also at this point CXxvi-cxxix); lxiv, lxv; lxxv; Ixxxiii.

3. His life on earth.

[N.B.—A. Justin is repeatedly asked to prove that Jesus was the Messiah foretold (e.g. xxxix. 7; lvii. 3), but nowhere does he do so in so many words. He is content to indicate the similarity of O. T. predictions of the Messiah to events in Jesus’ life.

B. He speaks of mutilations of the original Scriptures by the Jews, lxxi-lxxiii; Ixxiv. 1-3. ]

i. The coming of Elijah, xlix-li.

ii. The Virgin Birth.

a. Not to be compared with heathen myths, Ixix’ dex:

b. Prophecies in the O.T. xliii. 3-8; Ixiii; Ixvilxvii. 2; lxviii; Ixxvi-Ixxviii; Ixxxiv.

ili. The Holy Spirit descends upon Him at His Baptism, Ixxxvii; Ixxxviii.

iv. His humiliation generally. Also there is no Jewish king after Him, lii; liii.

v. His crucifixion, Ixxxvi; Ixxxix-xci; xcv-cvi.

vi. His resurrection, cvii; cviii.

‘IMI. On certain beliefs held by Christians.—

1. The Millennium, lxxx; lxxxi.

2. False Christians, xxxv; lxxx. 3; lxxxi.

3. Christians who observe the Law, xlvii; lxvii.

4. Evil angels, Ixxix.

IV. Gentiles and Jews.—

1. The call of the Gentiles, cix-cxi; cxv-cxxv; CXXX.

2. Jews and their behaviour, xvi; xvii; cxii-cxiv; CXXXI-CXXXVi,

INTRODUCTION xxxvii

Times have changed. In contending for our Faith to-day the sword we chiefly use is the character and personality of our Lord Jesus Christ. In earlier ages it was rather His miracles, and earlier still the predictions concerning Him which were found in the Old Testament. But we no longér regard the Old Testament with the same eyes as Justin and his numberless successors. It is to us no mere arsenal of Divine utterances, from which we may seize this or that weapon as it happens to come, that with it we may smite the head, or pierce the heart, of our Jewish opponents. It has become to us no collection of instruments, nor even one elaborate mechanism, but rather a living growth, each of whose parts, branches, leaves, and cells, stands in a vital connexion with the rest. If we would use any for weapons or for medicines we must consider them in relation to the whole, not as separate and independent utterances of an arbitrary Creator (this may be good enough for a Qoran), but as the manifestations of His will and power wrought through means which He has appointed, modified, and developed. The Old Testament has grown with a growth which does not permit of any portion of it being used capriciously, even for the best of purposes.

In other words, no phrase of the Old Testament can be torn from its context, except with the express statement that it is so torn, and the acknowledgment that its

meaning cannot be severed from its place in history. To say this is not to deny the majesty of the Divine which is innate to it. It only limits the work of that Majesty to the direction which He gave it at the first.

Justin, however, like his contemporaries and his successors, and all the Jews until our own day, knew nothing of this, and had no scruple in using texts just as he found them, if they but verbally suited his purpose. Not that he, or others, made no attempt to show that the meaning adduced was indeed that of the context. This was common enough with him. He argues, for example, from the context, that the Person with whom Abraham spoke before the destruction of Sodom was not the Father and yet was God, and was indeed the very Logos Himself (Ivi). This is one case out of many.

Yet Justin had no historical sense. He did not understand that God was revealing Himself very slowly, and that He could not, humanly speaking, have made known to the Jews that full brightness of His presence which was afterwards manifested in His Incarnate Son.

Justin knew that he must base his teaching on the Old Testament, and there we agree with him. We say that the New Testament, if considered alone, hangs in the air like Mahomet’s coffin, and Christ Himself appears like a meteor, touching this earthly atmosphere and passing out beyond, unforeseen, and unprepared for. But though Justin rightly saw that the New Testament rested upon the Old, He was too fond of dragging the foundation stones out of their proper place, and of endeavouring to use them as integral parts of the higher structure.

We regard things differently from Justin. The Old Testament is for us the heir of all the ages that preceded it. Its writers were steeped in sacred lore dating from

INTRODUCTION XXXİX

prehistoric times. They incorporated the best of what they found. They purified religious customs. They improved social laws. This they did in accordance with the suggestions of the Holy Spirit. For He was ever with them, guiding, exhibiting, selecting. Yet He was also placing in their hearts, and still more in their words (though all unknown to them) adumbrations of the future, and principles of which the full force was to be apparent only in the light of the cross, the resurrection, and the triumph of Christ. In short, the writers of the Old Testament were so guided that although it never rises to be wholly Christian, but remains at an inferior level, it is still the basis, though only the basis, of New Testament truth.

We ourselves however are in grave danger of minimising the Divine side of inspiration, and of supposing that the choice of words in Old Testament writings had no higher object than to please the ear, and strengthen the imagery. Yet was it, for example, by accident that the prophet spoke of Messiah riding upon an ass (Zech. 9. 10), or that the sufferings of a Psalmist became a strangely accurate ‘forecast’ of the circumstances of Messiah’s death? In other words, do not Justin’s arguments lead us rightly to attribute more weight to what some would call ‘undesigned coincidences’ between the Old Testament and the New than our scientific education inclines us generally to give? We dare not exaggerate the work of God the Holy Ghost, and say He merely dictated Holy Scripture; we equally dare not put limits to His work of preparation for the Gospel. The modern reader of the Dialogue, and of other early arguments for our religion drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, will do well to bring to his task not only the scholarship, but also the piety

of his time, the reverent acknowledgment of the Divine foreknowledge, and the probability that part of God’s preparation of a people for the coming of the Messiah would consist of the formation of an expectation of that coming, grounded on truths already made known. We often cannot accept the methods of our predecessors. But we may well pray for their spiritual insight.*

*Mr. W. Maurice Pryke has given in the Church Quarterly Review for April 1923, pp. 103-131, a very valuable collection of references, showing how much the writers and speakers of the New Testament relied on the Old Testament for the proof of their claim that Jesus was the Messiah. He further shows, however, that ultimately the faith of the disciples did not rest on such quotations, but on their personal knowledge of the Saviour. Possessing this, they found innumerable incidents and principles in the Old Testament, which (as we should say) were exemplified at their highest in Christ.

F BIBLIOGRAPHY.

J. C. T. Otto, S. Justini Philosophi et Martyris Opera (Greek Text with Latin translation), 3rd Ed. 1877.

G. Archambault, Justin, Dialogue avec Tryphon (Greek Text with French translation), 1909.

E. J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten: Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen 1914 (Trypho, pp. 90-265).

G. J. Davie, The Works now extant of St. Justin the Martyr, Library of Fathers, 1861.

G. Reith, Translation in T. and T. Clark’s Antenicene Library, 1874.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Harvey, 1857. His notation is followed, with Massuet’s in brackets.

The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Robinson, 1920; Tixeront, 1917.

L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern und in der apokryphischen Literature, Berlin, 1900 (only on Genesis).

T. R. Glover, The Conflict of Christian and Jew, a brilliant little essay in his Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, 1909.

A. H. Goldfahn, Justinus Martyr und die Agada, Breslau, separate issue from Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1873.

E. J. Goodspeed, Index Apologeticus sive Clavis Justini Martyris Operum, aliorumque Apologetarum pristinorum, Leipzig, 1912.

A. Harnack, Judentum und Judenchristenthum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho. Texte und Unters. xxxix. 1. 1913.

H. Scott Holland, Justinus Martyr, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, 1882, iii. pp. 560-587,

A. Lukyn Williams (The Warburton Lectures for 1911-1915). The Hebrew-Christian Messiah, 1916. (H. Ch. M.).

A. Lukyn Williams, Christian Evidences for Jewish people, vol. i, 1911; vol. ii, 1919. (Chr. Ev. Jew. P.).

_ l. As I was walking one early morning in the cloisters of the Colonnade! a man met me, with others round him, and said, Good morning, Philosopher. And so saying he turned, and began to walk along with me, and his friends too turned with him. And I in reply addressed him and said: What may be your pleasure?

2. He answered; I was taught in Argos by Corinthus of the school of Socrates? that one must not despise nor ignore those that wear this dress* you have on, but

1 the colonnade.—Cf. ix. 3, Presumably at Ephesus (Euseb. Ch. Hist. IV. xviii. 6). If so, T.’s reference to Greece and Corinth (§ 3) cannot be pressed. Apollonius of Tyana held discussions there (Philostratus, Life, iv. 2; viii. 26).

2 of the school of Socrates.—Although the study of Greek philosophy was not popular with Pharisaic scholars the opinion that it was ultimately of Jewish origin (cf. vii. 1 note; Josephus, c. Apion. i. 22) must have encouraged many, especially Hellenistic, Jews to learn it.

3 this dress.—Philosophers affected for their outer garment a square or oblong woollen blanket (tribon, pallium), often so frayed that its wearers felt they were playing the Spartan, with whom was its original home. Tertullian’s De Pallio is an amusing skit, in which the pallium extols its own virtues over the toga (which had the shape of a segment of a circle) of the ordinary layman. When philosophers became Christians they retained their garb because it gave them opportunities for conversation. So Eusebius speaks of J. wearing this ‘guise of a philosopher’ (Ch. Hist. FV xi. 8), and also of Heraclas’ practice after his conversion VI. xix. 14). It appears to have been the origin of monastic dress.

should treat them with absolute courtesy, and converse with them, in the hope that some gain may accrue from such intercourse either to him or to oneself. For it is well for both if either be benefited. For this reason, whenever I see anyone in such a dress, I gladly draw nigh to him, and therefore had now the pleasure of addressing you. And these are followers and companions of mine, and themselves anticipate hearing some profitable discourse from you.

3. ‘And who art thou, thou boldest man of mortal birth?’ said I in jest. He told me frankly both his name and his nationality. I am called Trypho,? he said, and I am a circumcised Hebrew, who have fled from the war which broke out recently,* and am spending much time in Greece and in Corinth.

How then, said I, could you derive so much advantage from philosophy, as from your own lawgiver and your prophets?

What do you mean? Do not the philosophers discourse entirely about God, he went on to say, and hold their discussions invariably about supreme government and providence? And is not this the business of philosophy, to make enquiries into the nature of divinity?

2 Trypho.—Not an uncommon name; Ptolemy’s jester (Josephus, Antt. xii. iv. 9), a Syrian officer (1 Macc. 11. 39 al), Herod’s barber (Josephus, Anti. XVI. xi. 6), a Jewish envoy sent to Claudius a.D. 45 (Josephus, Antt. XX. i. 2). It is also the Greek form of the Semitic name Tarphon, and some scholars have carelessly identified the T. of the Dialogue with the learned, and even fanatical, Mishna teacher R. Tarphon who died about A.D. 120. See Introd. IV, pp. xxiv-xxx.

3? the war which broke out recently.—Cf. ix. 3; xvi. 2. If this phrase may be pressed the discussion with T. is placed by J. in A.D. 132 or a little after. The war was over in a.D. 135. In xvi. 2 sq. however it is implied that if the war was not over it had been waged long enough for great misery to come on Palestine. In cviii, 3 Jerusalem is already taken.

4. Yes, I said, we ourselves certainly have thought so. But here is a point which the great majority’ of philosophers have not taken into consideration, whether there be one or even several gods, and whether they exercise providence over each of us or not, as though this knowledge did not contribute anything unto happiness. On the contrary, they even endeavour to persuade us that while God cares for the universe and even for races and species, yet (He cares) no further for you and me and for the individual. For, if He did, should we not be praying to Him all day and night?

5. But how this theory finally works out for them, is not difficult to understand. For (if there be no providence) there is no sense of responsibility, and there is freedom to say this, and to follow those who think it, and, both to do and to say whatever they choose, neither fearing punishment nor expecting any good from God. How can it be otherwise? For they say that things will always remain as they are, and further, that you and I shall live again as we are living now, without having become either better or worse. But some others,? premising that the soul is immortal and incorporeal, think that even if they have committed any wrong they will suffer no punishment (for the incorporeal is incapable of suffering), and again, as the soul itself is (by its nature) immortal, they have no further need for God.

6. Then he said, smiling courteously, But pray tell us what are your own thoughts about these things, and what opinion you hold about God, and what is your own attitude as a philosopher.

1 the great majority, —Most philosophers were content to speak of the Divine in contrast to mere matter, without further enquiry whether it was properly one and personal, or not.

2 some others.—Among the Platonists, v. 1.

1. I will tell you, said I, what at least seems plain to me. For in reality philosophy is a very great advantage, and most precious in the sight of God, to whom, by its own intrinsic worth, it leads us and commends us. And they who have applied their minds to philosophy are in truth holy. What however philosophy is, and for what reason it was sent down to men, has escaped the notice of most people. For otherwise there would not be Platonists or Stoics, or Peripatetics, or Theoreticians,' or Pythagoreans, this system of knowledge being a unity.

2. But the reason why it has become a hydra of many heads I should like to explain.

It happened that they who first handled philosophy, and for this reason became famous, were followed by men who made no investigation about truth, but were only amazed at their patience and self-restraint and their unfamiliar diction, and supposed that whatever each learned from his own teacher was true. And then they, when they had handed on to their successors all such things, and others like them, were themselves called by the name borne by the originator of the teaching.

3. So at first, as I myself had the same desire? to come into contact with one of these, I put myself into the hands of a certain Stoic, and as, after I had spent a fair time with him, I got no further with respect to God (for he did not know himself and he was continually saying that this learning was not necessary) I withdrew from

1 Theoreticians.—Perhaps the Sceptics (fifth century B.c. onwards), who doubted the possibility of attaining absolute knowledge. Pythagoreans, see § 4, note.

2 I myself had the same desire.—See J.’s experience of various teachers as stated in his defence before Rusticus at his martyrdom (vide supra Introd., p. x).

him, and came to another, called a Peripatetic, a sharp fellow, as he supposed. And after bearing with me for a few days he thought that I ought to fix his fees, that our intercourse should not be without profit to us! So for this reason I left him, for I did not think that he was a philosopher at all.

4. But as my soul was still painfully full of desire to hear the special note and the supreme excellence of philosophy, I addressed myself to a Pythagorean' of great reputation, a man who devoted much thought to wisdom. Whereupon, as I began conversation with him, desiring to be one of his hearers and associates, “Well,’ he said, ‘have you paid attention to music and astronomy and geometry? For surely you do not suppose that you will get a clear vision of any of the things that contribute to happiness, if you were not first taught those which will draw the soul away from the visible, and make it fit for the intellectual, so that it may have a clear vision both of the noble and the good as they are in themselves?’

5. And when he had greatly praised these branches of learning, and had insisted on the necessity of them, he dismissed me, for I confessed to him that I knew them not. I felt vexed therefore, as might be supposed, at being thus disappointed of my hope, and the more so as I thought he did know something. Reckoning also once more the time I should have to spend on those subjects, I could not bear to put things off so

long.

1a Pythagorean.—The advice of the Pythagorean was like that of Origen, for ‘when he perceived that any persons had superior intelligence he instructed them also in philosophic branches—in geometry, arithmetic and other preparatory studies —and then advanced to the systems of the philosophers and explained their writings’ (Eusebius, Ch. Hist. VI. xviii. 3).

6. Now in my distress I thought it well to have recourse to the followers of Plato, for their reputation also was high. Accordingly I had as much intercourse as I could with an intelligent man, a leading man among the Platonists, recently come to live in our city,’ and t was making good progress, advancing more and more. every day. I was quite enraptured with the perception of immaterial things, and the contemplation of ideas added wings? to my intelligence, and within a short time I supposed I had become wise, and in my obtuseness was hoping to have forthwith a clear vision of God. For this is the aim of Plato’s philosophy.

l. When I was in this state of mind I thought it well to take my fill of solitude, and to ‘shun the busy haunts of men’? and so I went off to a spot not far from the sea. Now when I had come near the very place I intended to reach, and hoped to be quite alone, a venerable and elderly person, followed me somewhat closely. He was of an aspect which invited anything but contempt, giving, as it did, the impression of a kindly and grave disposition. I turned back towards him, and standing still looked at him rather keenly.

2. ‘Do you know me?’ said he. I said that I did not. ‘Why then,’ he said to me , ‘do you gaze at me in this

‘in our city—Hardly Nablous, Flavia Neapolis, where J. was born (I Apol. I), because that city is at some distance from the sea (iii. 1). No doubt Ephesus is intended, as being the scene of the present discussion, and common ground to both J. and T.

* added wings.—a Platonic phrase; e.g. Phaedrus 249. D. cf. Tatian, ad Graec. XX.

` shun the busy haunts of men.—Iliad. vi. 202.

fashion?’ ‘I am surprised,’ said I, ‘that you happened to be in the same place as myself. For I did not expect to see anyone here.’ ‘I am anxious,’ he said, ‘about some members of my household. They have gone away from me, and therefore I have come to see after them myself, on the chance of their putting in an appearance somewhere. But you—what are you doing here?’ He added.

‘I like’, said I, ‘spending time in this way, for my talks with myself are unhindered, and such spots as these are very advantageous for rational meditation.’

3. ‘Are you then a kind of student of reason,’ he said, ‘and not at all a student of action, nor a student of truth, and do not try to show wisdom in practice more than in theory?’

‘Yet what better act,’ I said, ‘could any one perform than this, to shew forth reason as the governor of all things, and grasping it, and carried along by it, to have a clear vision of the errors of others and their habits, and how they do nothing sound or pleasing to God. But without philosophy and right reason none can possibly have practical wisdom. Therefore every human being ought to study philosophy, and deem it the greatest and most valuable act of all, putting all other things in the second and third place. For, if they are made dependent on philosophy, they are of some value and worthy of acceptation, but if deprived of it, and lacking its accompaniment, they are, for those who pursue them, only burdensome and vulgar.’

4. ‘It is philosophy then that produces happiness?’ he replied. ‘Most certainly’, I said, ‘and it alone’.

‘Well, what is philosophy,’ he says, ‘and what is the happiness produced by it? Tell me, if there is nothing to prevent your doing so.’

‘Philosophy,’ said I, ‘is the science of reality and the knowledge of truth; and happiness is the reward of this science and wisdom.

5. ‘And what do you yourself call God?’ he said.

‘That which is ever the same in being and in manner of being, and is the cause of existence to all else—this of a certainty is God.’ Such was my answer, and he was pleased with my words, and so he asked me another question.

‘Is not science (skill) a name common to different things? For in all the arts he that has skill in any one of them is called skilful, for example, in military matters, navigation, and medicine. But in things that concern the divine and the human it is not so. Is there a science that affords cognizance of the human and the divine, and then cognition of the divinity and righteousness of the latter?’

‘Certainly,’ I said.

6. ‘Well then, is the knowledge of man and God similar to that of music, arithmetic, astronomy or anything of that sort?’

‘Not at all,’ I said.

‘Then you did not answer me rightly,’ said he. ‘For the former come to us as the result of learning, or of some expenditure of time, while the latter give skill by sight. If one were to tell you that there is in India an animal different in nature from all others, and of such and such appearance, of many forms and many colours, you would have no knowledge of it before seeing it, and could not even give any account of it unless you had heard from some one who had seen it.’

7. ‘Certainly not,’ I say.

“How can it be then,’ he said, ‘that philosophers can either think or say anything true about God, when they

have no sound knowledge (science) of Him, for they have neither ever seen Him or heard from any one who has.’

“Yet it is not with the actual eyes, my Father,’ said I, ‘that the divine is to be seen, as in the case of all other living beings,' but He is to be grasped by the mind alone, as Plato says, and with him I agree.’

1. ‘Has then our mind,’ he says, ‘power of such quality and such strength, or could one grasp Him more quickly by perception of the senses? Or can man’s mind ever see God if it be not beautified by the Holy Spirit 2°)

‘Yes, for Plato says,’* I replied, ‘that the eye of the mind is itself of such a kind, and has been given us for this purpose, that we are able by that pure eye unaided to see clearly that very thing, BEING, which is the cause of all things that are within the province of understanding, and has no colour, no shape, no size, no anything that eye can see. But this very BEING, he says,* a BEING beyond all essence, not to be expressed in words, nor to be described, but alone noble and good, is suddenly implanted within well-born souls because of their kinship with It and their longing to behold By

2. ‘What kinship then,’ said he, ‘have we with God?

Or is also the soul divine, and immortal, and part of

- that sovereign mind of which you speak? And as this

sees God, can we also thus attain to grasp the divine

2 all other living beings——For the inclusion of God among the Zoéa see Plato, Tim., p- 77 B. }

2 by the Holy Spirit.—Iren. adv. Haer. IV. xxxiv. 6 (xx. 6).

3 for Plato says.—Phaedo., p. 65 E. 66 A.

4he says.—Plato Rep., p. 509 B. ‘though the good, far from being identical with real existence, actually transcends it in dignity and power’ (Davies and Vaughan).

with our own mind, and thenceforward at once enjoy happiness?’

‘Assuredly,’ I said.

‘Then have all the souls throughout all living things capacity for it, or is there one soul of man, and another of horse and ass?’

‘No,’ I answered, ‘the same souls are in all.’

3. ‘So then,’ he says, ‘even horses and asses will see God, or did see Him at some time or other?’

‘No,’ I said, ‘nor even most human beings, but only one who were to spend his life aright, cleansing himself by righteousness and every other virtue.’

‘So,’ said he, ‘it is not for his kinship that he sees God, nor because he is mind, but because he is temperate and righteous.’

‘Yes,’ I said, ‘and because he has that wherewith he can intelligently perceive God.’

‘But, in that case, do goats or sheep act unjustly towards any one?’

‘Not at all, towards any one,’ said I.

4. ‘So according to your argument,’ he says, ‘even these animals will see?’

‘No, for their body, being what it is, hinders them.’

‘If these animals received the power of speech,’ said he in reply, ‘be assured that they would much more reasonably find fault with our body. But let us now leave it at that, and let what you say be granted. But tell me this: Does the soul see while it is in the body, or when it is released therefrom?’

5. ‘Even while it is in human form,’ I say, ‘it ts possible for this to happen to it through the mind, but chiefly when it is set free from the body, and is by itself alone, does it acquire that which it was passionately desiring all the time with all its heart.’

‘Would you say then that it remembers this vision of God when it is again in a man?’

‘I hardly think so,’ I said.

“Then what advantage have the souls that once saw, or what more has he who saw than he who saw not, if he does not remember this bare fact that he saw God?’

6. ‘I cannot tell,” I answered.

‘And the souls judged unworthy of this vision—what do they suffer?’ said he.

‘They are enfettered within certain bodies of wild beasts, and this is their punishment.’

‘Do they know then that this is the cause of their being in such bodies, and that they committed some sin?’

‘I do not suppose so.’

7. ‘Then they do not even gain any advantage from the punishment, as it seems, and I should not say that they are even punished, if they do not apprehend it as punishment.’

‘Certainly not.’

‘Then the souls neither see God, nor migrate into other bodies. For they would know that they are being punished in this way, and would be afraid to commit even the slightest sin afterwards. But that they can understand that there is a God, and that righteousness: and piety are good, I too agree,’ he said.

‘You are right,’ I replied.

1. ‘Those philosophers then know nothing about these things, for they cannot even. tell us what sort of thing the soul is.’

‘It does not seem so.’

‘And assuredly one may not speak of it as immortal. Because if it is immortal it plainly is also unbegotten.”

‘It is both unbegotten and immortal according to some Platonists, as they are called.’

‘Do you then speak of the world as unbegotten?’

‘There are some who say so, yet I myself do not agree with them.’

2. ‘Rightly so. For what reason has one to suppose that a body so hard,' and resisting, and compound, and altering, and perishing, and coming into being every day has not had its being from a beginning of some sort? But if the world is begotten, it follows necessarily that souls have come into being, and perhaps may cease to be; for they come into being for the sake of men and the other living creatures, if you will admit without reserve that they have come into being by themselves, and not with the bodies that they each possess.’

‘This appears to be right.’

‘They are not then immortal.’

‘No, since even the world, as we saw, was begotten.’

3. ‘But, certainly, I personally do not say that all the souls die. For that would in truth be a piece of luck for the bad. What do I say? That the souls of the pious dwell in some better place, but the unrighteous and wicked in a worse, awaiting then the time of judgement. Thus the one sort, as plainly worthy of God, die not any more; but the others are punished, as long as God wills them both to exist and to be punished.’?

4. ‘Is then your meaning much as Plato intimates about the world in his Timaeus,* when he says that it is corruptible inasmuch as it has come into being, but,

1a body so hard, etc.—Timaeus 28 B; cf Lactantius Inst. Div. II. 9 (Migne P.L. vi, 301).

2? as long as God wills them both to exist and to be punished.— Elsewhere J. implies that the punishment is everlasting xlv. 4; cxx. 5; cxxx. 2. On J’s. view of immortality see further ixxx. 4, note.

because of the will of God, will not be dissolved. nor meet with that fate, death? Does this precise doctrine seem to you to be taught also about the soul, and, in short, about all things? For he means that what things soever are aftér God, or ever will be, have a corruptible nature, and can disappear and be no more. For God alone is unbegotten and incorrupt, and is for this reason | God, but all else after Him is begotten and corruptible. | 5. For this reason the souls both die and are punished, since, if they were unbegotten, they would neither sin at all nor be filled full of folly, nor be cowardly and then again courageous, nor would they of their own accord ever go off into swine and serpents and dogs. Neither assuredly would it be even right to compel them to do so, if, that is to say, they are unbegotten. For the unbegotten is like the Unbegotten, and equal, and the same, and one may not be preferred to the other in power or dignity. 6. Hence the things that are unbegotten are not many. For if there were any difference in them, you could not by examination find any cause for this difference, but, if you send back your thought for ever to infinity you will sooner or later stay exhausted upon one thing that was unbegotten, and this you will say was the cause of all. Did all this, I say, escape the notice of such sages as Plato and Pythagoras, who became for us a very wall and bulwark of philosophy?’ VI

1. ‘I care nothing,’ he said, ‘about Plato or Pythagoras, nor, in fact, about any one at all who holds such opinions. For the truth is in this wise, and you may learn from it. The soul either is life or has life. If then it is life, it would make something else live,

{74> _* THE DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO

which is not itself, as motion also would make something else move rather than itself. And that the soul lives, none would gainsay. But, if it lives, it does not live as being life but as sharing in life, and anything which partakes is other than that of which it partakes. iBut a soul partakes of life when God wills it to live.’ 2. In the same way then it will also not partake (of life) at the moment, whenever that is, that He wishes it not to live. For living is not proper to it as it is to God. But a man does not exist for ever, and as the body is not always connected with the soul, but, when it is necessary for this concord to be broken, the soul forsakes the body and the man is no more, so also, in the same way, when it is necessary for the soul to | be no more, the spirit of life departs from it, and the ` soul is no more, but spontaneously goes back again ` thither whence it was taken.’

1. ‘Whom else then, I reply, could one take as teacher, or from what quarter might one derive advantage, if the truth is not even in these philosophers?’

‘There were a long time ago? men of greater anti-

1a soul partakes of life when God wills it to live.—cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. II. lvi. 2 (xxxiv. 4), ‘Sicut autem corpus animale ipsum quidem non est anima, participatur autem animam, quoadusque Deus vult: sic et anima ipsa quidem non est vita, participatur autem a Deo sibi praestitam vitam’.

* There were a long time ago.—In 1 Apol. xliv. 8; liv. 2; lix. sq. J. directly affirms that Plato and other Greek philosophers derived much of their learning from Moses and the Old Testament. It is, in fact, not impossible that Pythagoras may have met Jews in Ionia, and acquired some information from them. Hermippus quoted by Josephus (c. Apion i. 22 § 165) says ‘it is very truly affirmed of this Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the laws of the Jews into his own philosophy.* For references to modern discussions on the subject see I. Abrahams, Studies, second series, p. 179.

quity than all these reputed philosophers, men blessed and righteous and beloved of God who spake by the Divine Spirit, and foretold those things of the future, which indeed have come to pass. Prophets do men call them. They, and they only, saw the truth and declared it to mankind, without fear or shame of any, not dominated by ambition, but saying only what they had heard and seen, filled as they were with the Holy Spirit. 2. Now their writings still remain with us even to the present time, and it is open to anyone to consult these, and to gain most valuable knowledge both about the origin of things and their end, and all else that a philosopher ought to know, if he believes what they say. For they have not made their discourses, when they wrote, with logical proof, inasmuch as being trustworthy witnesses of the truth they are superior to all such proof, but the things that did.take place and are taking place now compel agreement with what they have spoken. 3. And yet even on account of the miracles which they wrought they were entitled to belief, for

they both glorified the Maker of all things as God and) Father, and proclaimed the Christ sent from Him, as)

His Son, a thing which the false prophets who are filled with the seducing and unclean spirit never did nor ever do, but dare to work miracles of a sort to amaze men, and give glory to the spirits of error and daemons. But pray that before all else the gates of light’ may be

1 the gates of light.—cf. Barn. xviii. 1. ‘There are two ways of doctrine and authority, that of light and that of darkness.’ Aristides, xvii. ‘Truly divine is that which is spoken by the mouth of the Christians, and their teaching is the gate of light.’ The question in Job 38. 19, ‘Where is the way to the dwelling of light,’ may have suggested the converse thought of light streaming out along the way that leads to it. cf. Ps. 97. 11, light on each portion of the righteous man’s path. cf. Heb. 6. 4 of the spiritual illumination of the believer. cf. xvii. 3 note.

=

opened to thee. For things are not seen nor comprehended of all, save of him to whom God, and His Christ, shall have given understanding.’

VIII

l. After saying this and many other things besides, which it is not now a fitting time to tell, he went away, bidding me follow his advice, and I saw him no more. But as for me, straightway a fire was kindled in my soul, and a passionate desire possessed me for the prophets, and for those great men who are the friends

fof Christ. And as I weighed his words within me I found that this alone was philosophy,‘ and philosophy safe

and serviceable. 2. In this way then and for these reasons am I a philosopher. And, further, I could wish that ail-should form a desire as strong as mine, not to stand aloof from the Saviour’s words. For these have in themselves a something of dreadful majesty, and are enough to put to shame those that turn out of the right way: while rest most delightful comes to those who carry them out in practice. If therefore you have any regard for yourself, and are in earnest after salvation, and are trusting on God, you may, forasmuch as you are no stranger to the subject, know the Christ of God and be initiated, and then live a prosperous and happy life.

‘this alone was philosophy.—With us philosophy is chiefly speculation upon ultimate realities, but in J’s. time it dealt more with practical ethics, and indeed ‘accommodated itself to the facts of experience and fitted itself to be in truth the guide of life’ (C. H. Moore, in Foakes Jackson and Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, i. 251). Justin asserts that the only true philosophy of this kind is to be found in Christianity.

3. When, dear Friend,’ I had said all this, Trypho’s companions laughed aloud, and even he smiled. Your other remarks, he says, I accept, and I admire your zeal for the Divine, but it were better? for you to continue to hold the philosophy of Plato or of some other learned man, practising the while endurance and selfcontrol and temperance, than to have been completely led away by false speeches, and to follow men of no account. For while you remained in that mode of philosophy and lived a blameless life, a hope was left you of a better fate, but when you have forsaken God, and placed your hope on a man? what kind of salvation yet remains for you? 4. If therefore you are willing to listen also to me (for I already reckon you as a friend), first be circumcised, then (as is commanded in the Law) keep the Sabbath and the Feasts and God’s New Moons, and, in short, do all the things that are written in the Law, and then perchance you will find

mercy from God. But Messiah, if indeed He has ever

1 dear Friend.—Marcus Pompeius, cxli. 5. Nothing is known

of him. 2it were better for you.—A Jew regards Christianity as wilful

opposition to Judaism, but heathenism as only ignorance, from which one may advance to Judaism.

3 when you have forsaken God, and placed your hope on a man.—A common Jewish argument, but it begs the question. For Christians do not ‘place their hope on a man,’ nor on one who is ‘half-God and half-man,’ as a modern Jewish writer has carelessly put it. Orthodox Christians believe Jesus to be man, more completely man than any other, and also God in the fullest sense. Cf. Lukyn Williams. Christian Evidences for Jewish People, § 200. ý

4 first.—T. urges the observance of the whole of Judaism as written in the Law, but makes no mention of its observance according to the traditional method, i.e. the Oral Law. Contrast R. Jose ben Judah (c. a.D. 200), who insisted that any candidate (as a proselyte) should be rejected ‘unless he bound himself to observe not only every tittle of the Torah, but all the precepts of the scribes, even to the least of them’ (Jew. Encycl., x. 223).

been’ and now exists anywhere, is unknown,” and does not even know Himself at all? nor has any power,‘ until Elijah shall have come*® and anointed Him,*® and shall

1 if indeed He has ever been.—T. does not think Messiah has come, because, as he says in xlix. 1, he has no evidence that even Elijah, who anoints Him, has come. For Elijah, see notes 5, 6.

2 is unknown.—If Messiah has come He is unknown, cf. cx. 1. R. Nachman (fourth century a.D.) said, ‘If He is among the living He is such as I, for it is said, ‘And their prince shall be of themselves, and their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them (Jer. 30. 21). Rab (died a.D. 347) said, If He is among the living, He is such as R. Judah the Saint; if among the dead, such as Daniel, a man greatly desired’ (T.B. Sanh. 98b). For some Jews thought Messiah would be on earth for a time before He made Himself known (cf. even 4 Esdras 13. 52). He might even be among the lepers at the gates of Rome T.B. Sanh. 98a). So in fact He lived on earth privately for thirty years before He began His public life at His baptism.

* and does not even know Himself at all.—It is possible that even this was true of our Lord before His Baptism.

tnor has any power.—If{ he is in the world he is powerless, because it is certain that Elijah has not come.

ë until Elijah shall have come.—See also xlix. Mal. 4. 6 had said that Elijah would restore social peace, or (as the meaning may be) lead the later Jews to spiritual union with their godly forefathers, and had thus connected him indirectly with the coming of Messiah. The same thought appears in Matt. 17. 10 and in the Mishna, the end of Edujoth viii. 7. But much in the Gospels, e.g. Matt. 11. 14, implies that he comes as the forerunner of Messiah, and T. here and in xlix speaks of his introducing Messiah to the people.

Though this expectation is not found (as it seems) in the Mishna it occurs with many details in later Jewish writings. The traditions are collected conveniently, but quite uncritically, in Edersheim, Life and Times, Appendix VIII.

° and anointed Him.—-Elijah is called ‘the chief priest’ in Targ. Jer. on Ex. 40. 10, and will restore the flask of oil which has existed from the days of the wilderness (cf. Tanchuma on Ex. 16. 33, ed. Warsaw, 1875, p. 91a). Prophets and priests anointed kings, and it is a logical deduction that Elijah who was both prophet and priest will anoint king Messiah, but it does not seem to be expressly stated in any of the earlier Jewish documents. Klausner however accepts our passage as conclusive evidence for the existence of this tradition in the second century (Die Mess. Vorstellungen u.s.w., 1904, p. 62). See further Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, 1888, pp. 8 sq.

have made Him manifest to all. But you people, by receiving a worthless rumour, shape a kind of Messiah for yourselves,’ and for His sake are now blindly

perishing. IX

1. May you be pardoned, Sir, and be forgiven, for you know not what you say, but obeying teachers who do not understand the Scriptures, and playing the oracle, you say whatever comes into your mind. But allow me to give you the information that we have not been led astray, and will not cease acknowledging Him, even though men’s reproaches be brought against us, and though the most terrible tyrant tries to compel us to disown Him. For if you will attend I will show you that we did not believe empty fables,” or words that cannot be proved, but such as are full of the Divine Spirit, gushing forth* with power, and teeming with grace.

2. They therefore that were with him laughed aloud again, and began to shout quite rudely. So I rose up and prepared to take my departure. But he took hold of my robe and said that I must not leave before I had fulfilled my promise. If so, I said, your companions must not make a disturbance, nor behave in so unseemly a fashion, but, if they like, let them listen quietly. But if they have any more important engagement that prevents their staying, let them depart. But as for us, let us withdraw to some spot where we may rest and finish our discussion.

1 shape a kind of Messiah for yourselves.—J. alludes in cxviii, 3 to T.’s charge in these two sections. 2 Cf. 2 Pet. 1. 16. 3 The same word Bpúw is used in cxiv. 4 of the Rock (Christ) gushing forth with the living water.