In the manuscript the three works are found in the following order: second "Apology", first "Apology", the "Dialogue". Moreover, the second "Apology" is evidently not a complete work independent of the first, but rather an appendix, owing to a new fact that came to the writer's knowledge, and which he wished to utilize without recasting both works. Probably Eusebius also erred in making Justin write one apology under Antoninus (161) and another under Marcus Aurelius. The date of the "Apology" cannot be determined by its dedication, which is not certain, but can be established with the aid of the following facts: it is 150 years since the birth of Christ (I, xlvi, 1); Marcion has already spread abroad his error (I, xxvi, 5); now, according to Epiphanius (Hćres., xlii, 1), he did not begin to teach until after the death of Hyginus (A. The Prefect Urbinus mentioned in it was in charge from 144 to 160. The "Apology" and the "Dialogue" are difficult to analyse, for Justin's method of composition is free and capricious, and defies our habitual rules of logic.
The names of the father and grandfather of Justin suggest a pagan origin, and he speaks of himself as uncircumcised (Dialogue, xxviii).
The date of his birth is uncertain, but would seem to fall in the first years of the second century.
And all the martyrs said: Do as you wish; for we are Christians, and we do not sacrifice to idols.
The Prefect Rusticus read the sentence: Those who do not wish to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor will be scourged and beheaded according to the laws.
Both accounts exhibit the two aspects of Christianity that most strongly influenced St.
Justin; in the "Apologies" he is moved by its moral beauty (I Apol., xiv), in the "Dialogue" by its truth. Justin places during the war of Bar-Cocheba (132-135) the interview with the Jew Tryphon, related in his "Dialogue".He received a good education in philosophy, an account of which he gives us at the beginning of his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon"; he placed himself first under a Stoic, but after some time found that he had learned nothing about God and that in fact his master had nothing to teach him on the subject.A Peripatetic whom he then found welcomed him at first but afterwards demanded a fee from him; this proved that he was not a philosopher.There are extant but three works of Justin, of which the authenticity is assured: the two "Apologies" and the "Dialogue". 450, finished on 11 September, 1364; and Claromont. Apologeten" in "Texte and Untersuchungen", I, Leipzig, 1883, i, 73-89; Archambault, "Justin, Dialogue a vec Tryphon", Paris, 1909, p. There are many large gaps in this manuscript, thus II Apol., ii, is almost entirely wanting, but it has been found possible to restore the manuscript text from a quotation of Eusebius (Hist. The "Dialogue" was dedicated to a certain Marcus Pompeius (exli, viii); it must therefore have been preceded by a dedicatory epistle and probably by an introduction or preface; both are lacking. There are other less important gaps and many faulty transcriptions. From all of this we may conclude that the "Apology" was written somewhere between 153 and 155.82, written in 1571, actually at Cheltenham, in the possession of M. In the seventy-fourth chapter a large part must also be missing, comprising the end of the first book and the beginning of the second (Zahn, "Zeitschr. Kirchengesch.", VIII, 1885, 37 sq., Bardenhewer, "Gesch. There being no other manuscript, the correction of this one is very difficult; conjectures have been often quite unhappy, and Krüger, the latest editor of the "Apology", has scarsely done more than return to the text of the manuscript. The Prefect of Egypt, Felix (I, xxix, 2), occupied this charge in September, 151, probably from 150 to about 154 (Grenfell-Hunt, "Oxyrhinchus Papyri", II, London, 1899, 163, 175; cf. The second "Apology", as already said, is an appendix to the first and must have been written shortly afterwards.His conversion must have taken place at the latest towards A. This interview is evidently not described exactly as it took place, and yet the account cannot be wholly fictitious. eccl., IV, xviii, 6), was "the best known Jew of that time", which description the historian may have borrowed from the introduction to the "Dialogue", now lost. Volkes", 3rd ed., II, 377 seq., 555 seq., cf., however, Herford, "Christianity in Talmud and Midrash", London, 1903, 156).