What do you think?
Rate this book
Dialogue with Trypho
Outside the New Testament, our earliest complete witness to Christian apologetic against the Jews remains the Dialogue with Trypho, written by Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165), a convert to Christianity from traditional Greek religion. The Dialogue purports to be a two-day dialogue that took place in Asia Minor between Justin and Trypho, a Hellenized Jew. Justin argues extensively on the basis of lengthy Old Testament quotations that Christ is the Messiah and God incarnate, and that the Christian community is the new Israel. In the beginning of the work Justin recounts how he converted to Christianity.
The Dialogue remains of great, and varying, interest. It has important information on the development of Jewish-Christian relations, on the development of the text of the Old Testament, and on the existence and character of the early Jewish Christian community. Justin's story of how he became a Christian is one of our earliest conversion accounts. The Dialogue is an ideal textbook for classes investigating the development of religion in Late Antiquity since it touches on many aspects of religion in the Roman Empire.
This edition of the Dialogue with Trypho is a revision of Thomas B. Falls's translation, which appeared in Fathers of the Church, vol. 6. Thomas P. Halton has emended the translation in light of the 1997 critical edition by Miroslav Marcovich, and he has provided extensive annotation to recent scholarship on the Dialogue. Michael Slusser has edited the volume to bring it into conformity with the new Selections from Fathers of the Church series.
ABOUT THE TRANSLATOR:
Thomas P. Halton is Professor Emeritus of Greek and Latin at the Catholic University of America. He has served as the general editor of the Fathers of the Church series since 1983.
The Dialogue remains of great, and varying, interest. It has important information on the development of Jewish-Christian relations, on the development of the text of the Old Testament, and on the existence and character of the early Jewish Christian community. Justin's story of how he became a Christian is one of our earliest conversion accounts. The Dialogue is an ideal textbook for classes investigating the development of religion in Late Antiquity since it touches on many aspects of religion in the Roman Empire.
This edition of the Dialogue with Trypho is a revision of Thomas B. Falls's translation, which appeared in Fathers of the Church, vol. 6. Thomas P. Halton has emended the translation in light of the 1997 critical edition by Miroslav Marcovich, and he has provided extensive annotation to recent scholarship on the Dialogue. Michael Slusser has edited the volume to bring it into conformity with the new Selections from Fathers of the Church series.
ABOUT THE TRANSLATOR:
Thomas P. Halton is Professor Emeritus of Greek and Latin at the Catholic University of America. He has served as the general editor of the Fathers of the Church series since 1983.
229 pages, Paperback
Published May 13, 2003
77 people are currently reading
415 people want to read
About the author
Justin Martyr
182 books61 followersJustin Martyr, also known as Saint Justin (c. 100–165 CE), was an early Christian apologist, and is regarded as the foremost interpreter of the theory of the Logos in the 2nd century. He was martyred, alongside some of his students, and is considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Most of his works are lost, but two apologies and a dialogue did survive. The First Apology, his most well known text, passionately defends the morality of the Christian life, and provides various ethical and philosophical arguments to convince the Roman emperor, Antoninus, to abandon the persecution of the fledgling sect. Further, he also makes the theologically-innovative suggestion that the "seeds of Christianity" (manifestations of the Logos acting in history) actually predated Christ's incarnation. This notion allows him to claim many historical Greek philosophers (including Socrates and Plato), in whose works he was well studied, as unknowing Christians. (Wikipedia)
Most of his works are lost, but two apologies and a dialogue did survive. The First Apology, his most well known text, passionately defends the morality of the Christian life, and provides various ethical and philosophical arguments to convince the Roman emperor, Antoninus, to abandon the persecution of the fledgling sect. Further, he also makes the theologically-innovative suggestion that the "seeds of Christianity" (manifestations of the Logos acting in history) actually predated Christ's incarnation. This notion allows him to claim many historical Greek philosophers (including Socrates and Plato), in whose works he was well studied, as unknowing Christians. (Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
December 13, 2015
This was a bit disappointing. I was impressed with Justin’s First Apology and Second Apology - the only other two extant writings from this second century Christian author. Both featured well constructed arguments, a good sense of logic, and a surprisingly strong literary sensibility. Dialogue with Trypho was much more of a slog.
The premise is that Justin, a Christian, is engaging a Jewish audience (led by Trypho) in an informal discussion about their respective faiths (although Justin does far and away the bulk of the talking). There’s an interesting introductory section that describes Justin’s real-life conversion, and there are occasionally revealing glimpses into what the relationship between Christians and Jews was like in the second century AD. But, the actual argument was pretty mediocre reading. Unlike the Apologies, this is a long work, and the pages didn't exactly fly by. Justin’s tactic is to use language and events from the Old Testament to convince his Jewish audience that Jesus Christ was indeed the messiah and the Jewish people’s refusal to recognize this is a mistake. But unfortunately this line of argument gets very repetitive sooner rather than later, and the logic behind many of Justin’s arguments felt rather flimsy.
Not awful, but a big step back from Justin’s other work. For readers interested in Justin’s life and beliefs, I would recommend the Apologies, which make for surprisingly engaging reading nearly 2,000 years later. This one is for completionists only. 2.0 stars.
The premise is that Justin, a Christian, is engaging a Jewish audience (led by Trypho) in an informal discussion about their respective faiths (although Justin does far and away the bulk of the talking). There’s an interesting introductory section that describes Justin’s real-life conversion, and there are occasionally revealing glimpses into what the relationship between Christians and Jews was like in the second century AD. But, the actual argument was pretty mediocre reading. Unlike the Apologies, this is a long work, and the pages didn't exactly fly by. Justin’s tactic is to use language and events from the Old Testament to convince his Jewish audience that Jesus Christ was indeed the messiah and the Jewish people’s refusal to recognize this is a mistake. But unfortunately this line of argument gets very repetitive sooner rather than later, and the logic behind many of Justin’s arguments felt rather flimsy.
Not awful, but a big step back from Justin’s other work. For readers interested in Justin’s life and beliefs, I would recommend the Apologies, which make for surprisingly engaging reading nearly 2,000 years later. This one is for completionists only. 2.0 stars.
January 27, 2020
Justin explains quite well all the Old Testament prophecies regarding Jesus Christ; I enjoyed the book, but he was repetitive at times. There were some interpretations that I had never heard before.
February 20, 2020
ENGLISH: I was mainly interested about the first chapters, where Justin tells about his conversion to Christianity as a consequence of his conversation with a mysterious "old man," obviously a Christian. Essentially, what Justin tells is this:
- Justin starts by expounding the Platonic and Pythagoric theories about the soul, namely: that the soul is unbegotten and immortal; that after death, the soul is separated from the body and can see God; that later the soul re-incarnates (metempsychosis) in another man, or, if it was evil in its previous existence, in an animal.
- The old man replies in the following way:
1. He says that the soul cannot be unbegotten, for it's a part of the world and the world is not unbegotten. Justin agrees.
2. He says that anything begotten cannot be immortal unless an unbegotten being (God) gives them immortality. Justin agrees.
3. He says that if the soul sees God between incarnations and then forgets about it, then it's as though the soul hadn't seen God. Justin agrees.
4. He says that souls in animals cannot be punished for evils in their previous lives, for to be punished one needs to know that one is being punished. Justin agrees.
5. Therefore re-incarnation is nonsense. Justin agrees.
Justin then says: "But if we cannot trust teachers such as Plato and Pythagoras, then whom can we trust?
The old man answers: we can trust the prophets, who foretold about Christ, and we can trust Christ, who fulfilled the prophets predictions.
The old man then goes away (forever). Justin mulls over what he has said, and ends up becoming a Christian.
The second (longest) part of the book describes Justin's dialog with Trypho (a Jew), where he makes a defense of Christianity using the Old Testament to support what he says. This part is quite repetitive, as the same arguments are enunciated once and again.
ESPAÑOL: Me interesaron especialmente los primeros capítulos, en los que Justino cuenta su conversión al cristianismo a consecuencia de su conversación con un misterioso "anciano", obviamente cristiano. Esencialmente, Justino dice esto:
- Justino comienza exponiendo las teorías platónicas y pitagóricas sobre el alma, a saber: que el alma no ha sido creada y es inmortal; que después de la muerte, el alma se separa del cuerpo y puede ver a Dios; que más tarde el alma se reencarna (metempsicosis) en otro hombre o, si fue mala en su existencia anterior, en un animal.
- El anciano responde así:
1. Dice que el alma no puede ser increada, porque es parte del mundo y el mundo sí ha sido creado. Justino lo acepta.
2. Dice que cualquier cosa creada no puede ser inmortal, a menos que un ser increado (Dios) les dé la inmortalidad. Justino está de acuerdo.
3. Dice que si el alma ve a Dios entre distintas encarnaciones y luego se olvida de ello, es como si el alma no hubiese visto a Dios. Justino lo acepta.
4. Dice que las almas de los animales no pueden estar sufriendo castigo por el mal que hicieron en vidas anteriores, porque para ser castigado hay que saber que uno está siendo castigado. Justino está de acuerdo.
5. Por lo tanto, la reencarnación no tiene sentido. Justino lo acepta.
Entonces Justino dice: "Pero si no podemos confiar en maestros como Platón y Pitágoras, ¿en quién podemos confiar?
El anciano responde: podemos confiar en los profetas, que predijeron la venida de Cristo, y podemos confiar en Cristo, en quien se cumplieron las predicciones de los profetas.
El anciano se va (ya no vuelve a salir). Justino reflexiona sobre lo que le ha dicho, y termina haciéndose cristiano.
La segunda parte (más larga) del libro describe el diálogo de Justino con Trifón (un judío). Justino defiende el cristianismo utilizando el Antiguo Testamento para apoyar lo que dice. Esta parte es muy repetitiva: los mismos argumentos son enunciados una y otra vez.
- Justin starts by expounding the Platonic and Pythagoric theories about the soul, namely: that the soul is unbegotten and immortal; that after death, the soul is separated from the body and can see God; that later the soul re-incarnates (metempsychosis) in another man, or, if it was evil in its previous existence, in an animal.
- The old man replies in the following way:
1. He says that the soul cannot be unbegotten, for it's a part of the world and the world is not unbegotten. Justin agrees.
2. He says that anything begotten cannot be immortal unless an unbegotten being (God) gives them immortality. Justin agrees.
3. He says that if the soul sees God between incarnations and then forgets about it, then it's as though the soul hadn't seen God. Justin agrees.
4. He says that souls in animals cannot be punished for evils in their previous lives, for to be punished one needs to know that one is being punished. Justin agrees.
5. Therefore re-incarnation is nonsense. Justin agrees.
Justin then says: "But if we cannot trust teachers such as Plato and Pythagoras, then whom can we trust?
The old man answers: we can trust the prophets, who foretold about Christ, and we can trust Christ, who fulfilled the prophets predictions.
The old man then goes away (forever). Justin mulls over what he has said, and ends up becoming a Christian.
The second (longest) part of the book describes Justin's dialog with Trypho (a Jew), where he makes a defense of Christianity using the Old Testament to support what he says. This part is quite repetitive, as the same arguments are enunciated once and again.
ESPAÑOL: Me interesaron especialmente los primeros capítulos, en los que Justino cuenta su conversión al cristianismo a consecuencia de su conversación con un misterioso "anciano", obviamente cristiano. Esencialmente, Justino dice esto:
- Justino comienza exponiendo las teorías platónicas y pitagóricas sobre el alma, a saber: que el alma no ha sido creada y es inmortal; que después de la muerte, el alma se separa del cuerpo y puede ver a Dios; que más tarde el alma se reencarna (metempsicosis) en otro hombre o, si fue mala en su existencia anterior, en un animal.
- El anciano responde así:
1. Dice que el alma no puede ser increada, porque es parte del mundo y el mundo sí ha sido creado. Justino lo acepta.
2. Dice que cualquier cosa creada no puede ser inmortal, a menos que un ser increado (Dios) les dé la inmortalidad. Justino está de acuerdo.
3. Dice que si el alma ve a Dios entre distintas encarnaciones y luego se olvida de ello, es como si el alma no hubiese visto a Dios. Justino lo acepta.
4. Dice que las almas de los animales no pueden estar sufriendo castigo por el mal que hicieron en vidas anteriores, porque para ser castigado hay que saber que uno está siendo castigado. Justino está de acuerdo.
5. Por lo tanto, la reencarnación no tiene sentido. Justino lo acepta.
Entonces Justino dice: "Pero si no podemos confiar en maestros como Platón y Pitágoras, ¿en quién podemos confiar?
El anciano responde: podemos confiar en los profetas, que predijeron la venida de Cristo, y podemos confiar en Cristo, en quien se cumplieron las predicciones de los profetas.
El anciano se va (ya no vuelve a salir). Justino reflexiona sobre lo que le ha dicho, y termina haciéndose cristiano.
La segunda parte (más larga) del libro describe el diálogo de Justino con Trifón (un judío). Justino defiende el cristianismo utilizando el Antiguo Testamento para apoyar lo que dice. Esta parte es muy repetitiva: los mismos argumentos son enunciados una y otra vez.
April 16, 2021
Fy katten vad tung denna var!
Men trots det, tankeväckande och intressant. Det rör sig om en dialog mellan två lärda helleniserade judar, där en konverterat till kristendomen, och vill övertyga den andra om att göra samma sak. Samtalet som återges från denne är fullt av analys av gammeltestamentliga detaljer, med skämt om Perseus och andra grekiska myter insprängda. Den är tidvis ganska rolig, och hade varit ännu roligare om författaren hade tillåtit sig styckesindelningar.
Stora delar förefaller mig obskyra och vilande på tolkningar som inte är självklara. Boken går igenom kontroverser som fortfarande är aktuella - jungfrufödseln till exempel, och exakt vad Kristus behov av dopet var. Den tolkar dessa i ljuset av profeterna, men förkastar samtidigt judendomen helt och hållet. Detta innebär att den i princip avslutar judendomens användning i och med Kristusoffret - något som verkar väldigt högmodigt, och reduktionistiskt och Gudsfrånvänt. Samtidigt är det svårt att inte medge att den strävan efter det enkla, sanna och rena som Justinus ger uttryck för (framförallt kring kapitel 100) löser den konflikten - om man accepterar hans idé om att kunskap och analys förhårdnar hjärtat och gör det inkapabelt att älska gud och se bortom sakliga påståenden.
Accepterar man den idén, så hamnar man i den ortodoxa kyrkans mysticism. Jag har svårt att se det - för mig är det omöjligt att inte se naturen som Guds spegel, och därmed som ett uttryck för Hans vilja. Det gör också att varje famlande försök att förstå och definiera, och experimentera, blir en slags bön. Accepterade man istället Justinus påstående om att tron är oförenlig med legalistiskt tänkande (vilket han menar förklarar självmotsägelserna i Bibeln), samtidigt som han argumentar legalistiskt, hamnar man farligt nära att mena att bara Upplevelsen av Gud kan vara sann tro. Då vänder man världen ryggen, och om världen är Guds spegel kan inte det vara rätt att göra.
Men trots det, tankeväckande och intressant. Det rör sig om en dialog mellan två lärda helleniserade judar, där en konverterat till kristendomen, och vill övertyga den andra om att göra samma sak. Samtalet som återges från denne är fullt av analys av gammeltestamentliga detaljer, med skämt om Perseus och andra grekiska myter insprängda. Den är tidvis ganska rolig, och hade varit ännu roligare om författaren hade tillåtit sig styckesindelningar.
Stora delar förefaller mig obskyra och vilande på tolkningar som inte är självklara. Boken går igenom kontroverser som fortfarande är aktuella - jungfrufödseln till exempel, och exakt vad Kristus behov av dopet var. Den tolkar dessa i ljuset av profeterna, men förkastar samtidigt judendomen helt och hållet. Detta innebär att den i princip avslutar judendomens användning i och med Kristusoffret - något som verkar väldigt högmodigt, och reduktionistiskt och Gudsfrånvänt. Samtidigt är det svårt att inte medge att den strävan efter det enkla, sanna och rena som Justinus ger uttryck för (framförallt kring kapitel 100) löser den konflikten - om man accepterar hans idé om att kunskap och analys förhårdnar hjärtat och gör det inkapabelt att älska gud och se bortom sakliga påståenden.
Accepterar man den idén, så hamnar man i den ortodoxa kyrkans mysticism. Jag har svårt att se det - för mig är det omöjligt att inte se naturen som Guds spegel, och därmed som ett uttryck för Hans vilja. Det gör också att varje famlande försök att förstå och definiera, och experimentera, blir en slags bön. Accepterade man istället Justinus påstående om att tron är oförenlig med legalistiskt tänkande (vilket han menar förklarar självmotsägelserna i Bibeln), samtidigt som han argumentar legalistiskt, hamnar man farligt nära att mena att bara Upplevelsen av Gud kan vara sann tro. Då vänder man världen ryggen, och om världen är Guds spegel kan inte det vara rätt att göra.
May 27, 2011
One of the early church classics, Dialogue with Trypho is written in the Platonic style (which is appropriate, given that Justin started out as a Platonist) as a letter to a friend of his relating a dialogue he had with a Jew named Trypho. In the course of the dialogue, we see
1) Justin's conversion narrative (which is one of the best from the ancient world).
2) Justin's thoughts on philosophy and the relationship between faith and reason.
3) The early church's apologetic attempt to reach out to the Jews.
4) The early church's doctrine of Scripture.
5) The early church's Christology.
6) And probably several other things that I'm missing, since I read it fairly quickly.
This book definitely makes me want to find copies of Justin's Apologies and read those (though of course a lot of the enjoyment of reading any ancient text comes from its being well translated, which this work is).
Most important, however, is the theme that runs through the dialogue: Christianity is truth. That is why philosophy provides the context for the dialogue, then, as well as now, philosophy has been the primary place of the search for truth. As Justin says (echoing Plato)
1) Justin's conversion narrative (which is one of the best from the ancient world).
2) Justin's thoughts on philosophy and the relationship between faith and reason.
3) The early church's apologetic attempt to reach out to the Jews.
4) The early church's doctrine of Scripture.
5) The early church's Christology.
6) And probably several other things that I'm missing, since I read it fairly quickly.
This book definitely makes me want to find copies of Justin's Apologies and read those (though of course a lot of the enjoyment of reading any ancient text comes from its being well translated, which this work is).
Most important, however, is the theme that runs through the dialogue: Christianity is truth. That is why philosophy provides the context for the dialogue, then, as well as now, philosophy has been the primary place of the search for truth. As Justin says (echoing Plato)
But what greater deed... could one perform than to prove that reason rules all, and that one who rules reason and is sustained by it can look down upon the errors and undertakings of others, and see that they do nothing reasonable or pleasing to God. Man cannot have prudence without philosophy and straight thinking. Thus, every man should be devoted to philosophy and should consider it the greatest adn most noble pursuit; all other pursuits are only of second- or third-rate value, unless they are connected with philosophy. Then they are of some value and should be a pproved; if they are devoid of philosophy and not connected with it in any way, they then become base and coarse pursuits to those who practice them."Dialogue with Trypho is Justin's attempt to prove to the Jews that Christ is the truth, just as his Apologies are his attempts to prove the same to the Greeks. Thus, Justin concludes the dialogue
I can wish you no greater blessing than this, gentlemen, that, realizing that wisdom is given to every man through this way [the Gospel], you also may one day come to believe entirely as we do that Jesus is the Christ of God.
February 17, 2014
There has been some debate on whether this account is fictionalized or if it came from the author's personal experience. I personally think this account is true.
Justin Martyr was a Philosopher and Plato follower, but his run in with a Jew changes his life and perspective on Christianity. This was absolutely fascinating to read since it was kinda like an intellectual debate from really long ago. :)
Oh, and because of His conversation with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr gives his life to Christ.
His writings are highly recommended for the reader who enjoys history and/or apologetics.
Justin Martyr was a Philosopher and Plato follower, but his run in with a Jew changes his life and perspective on Christianity. This was absolutely fascinating to read since it was kinda like an intellectual debate from really long ago. :)
Oh, and because of His conversation with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr gives his life to Christ.
His writings are highly recommended for the reader who enjoys history and/or apologetics.
August 12, 2009
Justin Martyr's exegesis might not fit the standards of grammatical-historical method, but his theological commitments to the unity of the canon under the Christ event are timeless and should be emulated in every generation of interpretation. This is a good introduction into ante-Nicene exegesis and apologetics.
March 12, 2009
An inspiring example of a man who has memorized chapter upon chapter of Scripture which he uses to explain and defend the Gospel.
The best approach to apologetics I have read.
The best approach to apologetics I have read.
October 23, 2019
One of the most significant works of the 2nd Century, the Dialogue with Trypho offers a helpful demonstration of early Christian readings of the Old Testament.
October 18, 2022
Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho" (c. 155 A.D.) is an early, Christian apologetic work which records a debate between "The Philosopher," Justin, and a certain Trypho, a learned Jew. Several of Trypho's friends were also present, and it is implied that Justin and Trypho's dialogue lasted for a couple of days. The work is some 142 chapters, and seems to have been expanded and edited by Justin. At one point he makes an editorial note that he's including an expanded Old Testament quotation in the written record which he only alluded to and briefly quoted in the actual debate. Many moderns doubt that this conversation as it is recorded took place, or at least that it sounded anything like the document that has passed down to us, but I don't see any evidence for this except for the ignorant biases and presuppositions of modern interpreters. That being said, it's wholly believable that Justin, a brilliant debater and philosopher, could have an extended debate with Trypho, clearly a very learned Jew, about several dozen Old Testament texts, with particular concentrations in Psalms, Isaiah, and Genesis. If these men had learned the Scriptures from other teachers, large swaths of the ancient texts, and in particular the liturgical texts of the Psalms, would have been memorized.
The dialogue essentially concerns the New Covenant prophesied by Isaiah and Jeremiah, the identity of the Christ, His suffering and death on the Cross, His Second Advent, eternal life and the resurrection, and the inclusion of the Gentiles. It is a treasure-trove of early Christian exegesis. Some of his most interesting interpretive moves include the immense weight he places on Genesis 49:8-12 (Israel's blessing of Judah) and his ability to see the Word (the Son of God) appear as Angel, Captain, Power, and King in numerous passages from Genesis to Joshua. These passages dealing with the so-called "pre-incarnate" Christ (whom Justin usually calls "Word," that is, Logos) are some of the most exciting in the dialogue. I specifically have in mind chapter 127, where Justin states, "[Y]ou must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribably might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made.... Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, begin God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will..." Therefore any Old Testament passage which grants to God some kind of motion or human activity implies the presence and action of the begotten Son of God.
Justin also approaches the narrative on Noah's sons in Genesis 9:20-27 in an interesting way. Canaan (Ham's son) will be a slave to Shem; Shem (the "Semites") invaded Canaan's land and took possession. However, Japheth (father of all "coastal" peoples, such as the Greeks) will one day take possession of Canaan-Shem. Justin sees this as a prophecy that the barbarians and Gentiles will inherit the Kingdom of God, the heavenly Jerusalem. It's also important to note that like Hippolytus and other early Christian writers, Justin is a millennialist, affirming that the saints shall dwell in peace in Jerusalem for 1,000 years before the resurrection of the just.
Philosophically, Justin does not discuss the fascinating idea of the "logos spermatikos" that he includes in his two apologies, and neither does he have any discussion of Greek philosophical ideas and how they originally spring from Moses. This is a heavily scriptural debate; direct quotations of Scripture take up a large portion of the work. In chapter 85 Justin argues that just as the heavenly bodies maintain their courses and a mathematician maintains his computational rules, so, too must a philosopher found his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures. His conclusion is that nothing better than Scripture can be brought forth; it is the norm for all of human knowledge and ethics.
I am in awe of Justin. He was a brilliant apologist and, as his martyrdom demonstrates, a holy, courageous and God-fearing man. The entire Bible is in his memory and he sees how all of it form the stories, types, and symbols that magnify Christ. Between the two apologies and this dialogue, it's not difficult to see how very, very much in Christian theology goes back to Justin and therefore to his primitive sources, which would conceivably be the teachings from the second generation of Christians after the deaths of the Apostles. He asks in chapter 102 why God didn't just destroy the serpent or destroy Herod; his conclusion is that, since God "knew that it would be good, He created both angels and men free to do that which is righteous, and He appointed periods of time during which He knew it would be good for them to have the exercise of free-will; and because He likewise knew it would be good, He made general and particular judgments; each one's freedom of will, however, being guarded..." Reality is the way it is because God appointed men to do righteous things in their freedom; anything different than this would be against God's design.
The dialogue essentially concerns the New Covenant prophesied by Isaiah and Jeremiah, the identity of the Christ, His suffering and death on the Cross, His Second Advent, eternal life and the resurrection, and the inclusion of the Gentiles. It is a treasure-trove of early Christian exegesis. Some of his most interesting interpretive moves include the immense weight he places on Genesis 49:8-12 (Israel's blessing of Judah) and his ability to see the Word (the Son of God) appear as Angel, Captain, Power, and King in numerous passages from Genesis to Joshua. These passages dealing with the so-called "pre-incarnate" Christ (whom Justin usually calls "Word," that is, Logos) are some of the most exciting in the dialogue. I specifically have in mind chapter 127, where Justin states, "[Y]ou must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribably might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made.... Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, begin God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will..." Therefore any Old Testament passage which grants to God some kind of motion or human activity implies the presence and action of the begotten Son of God.
Justin also approaches the narrative on Noah's sons in Genesis 9:20-27 in an interesting way. Canaan (Ham's son) will be a slave to Shem; Shem (the "Semites") invaded Canaan's land and took possession. However, Japheth (father of all "coastal" peoples, such as the Greeks) will one day take possession of Canaan-Shem. Justin sees this as a prophecy that the barbarians and Gentiles will inherit the Kingdom of God, the heavenly Jerusalem. It's also important to note that like Hippolytus and other early Christian writers, Justin is a millennialist, affirming that the saints shall dwell in peace in Jerusalem for 1,000 years before the resurrection of the just.
Philosophically, Justin does not discuss the fascinating idea of the "logos spermatikos" that he includes in his two apologies, and neither does he have any discussion of Greek philosophical ideas and how they originally spring from Moses. This is a heavily scriptural debate; direct quotations of Scripture take up a large portion of the work. In chapter 85 Justin argues that just as the heavenly bodies maintain their courses and a mathematician maintains his computational rules, so, too must a philosopher found his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures. His conclusion is that nothing better than Scripture can be brought forth; it is the norm for all of human knowledge and ethics.
I am in awe of Justin. He was a brilliant apologist and, as his martyrdom demonstrates, a holy, courageous and God-fearing man. The entire Bible is in his memory and he sees how all of it form the stories, types, and symbols that magnify Christ. Between the two apologies and this dialogue, it's not difficult to see how very, very much in Christian theology goes back to Justin and therefore to his primitive sources, which would conceivably be the teachings from the second generation of Christians after the deaths of the Apostles. He asks in chapter 102 why God didn't just destroy the serpent or destroy Herod; his conclusion is that, since God "knew that it would be good, He created both angels and men free to do that which is righteous, and He appointed periods of time during which He knew it would be good for them to have the exercise of free-will; and because He likewise knew it would be good, He made general and particular judgments; each one's freedom of will, however, being guarded..." Reality is the way it is because God appointed men to do righteous things in their freedom; anything different than this would be against God's design.
February 17, 2021
Really good. My favorite patristics writing I’ve had the joy of reading thus far. It’s written as a back and forth between a Jew and a Christian. Justyn, as the Christian voice, goes to great length to demonstrate to Trypho, the Jewish voice, the Covenantal relationship between the old and new testaments as well as the prophetic proof that Jesus is the Messiah. It is well worth reading as a means of growing ones faith and seeing how the early church fathers interpreted the OT as almost exclusively allegorical to Christ.
May 25, 2021
A fascinating and at points quite detailed Christological interpretation of the OT from one of the earliest Christian writers.
*Read in a different edition/translation (ANF)
*Read in a different edition/translation (ANF)
July 26, 2021
Not so much a dialogue as quite a bit more of a monologue. This is one work of the early fathers with which I'm not impressed.
January 28, 2025
As far as I'm concerned, this is the book on Christian typology that anyone interested in the subject should start with. It is one of the oldest works we have after the New Testament, written after Justin's "First Apology" (which he mentions in it) but before his death in 165 AD. It is probably from the late 150s or early 160s. Many of the typological explanations of Tertullian and Irenaeus can find their origin here. There is some overlap with Justin's first Apology though the explanations are carried out at greater length. He brings forward his citations that he sees fulfilled in Christian theology and the life of Christ in their full form, which on one hand allows for a clearer understanding of his claims than the often abbreviated (or merely alluded to) citations of his successors or the New Testament writers; on the other hand, the lengthy citations, which are brought forward repetitiously, make this book a bore. It is incredibly informative and historically significant but serves more as a textbook for interested learners on the subject than a recommended read. He is a clear deliberator, and so his writing is devoid of the style that makes the tedious parts of Tertullian or Cyprian so readable.
His exegesis of many old testament passages is fascinating and should be studied, I think, in seminaries today. Most will probably find his textual scholarship lacking. In particular, he struggles mightily against the fact that only the Septuagint (and not the Hebrew text) contains the proper word for "virgin" in the Isaiah prophecy "the virgin will conceive and give birth..." whereas the Hebrew contains " the young woman will conceive." It is an interesting (or uninteresting, depending on your view) observation that the Christian apologists of succeeding ages increasingly deal with this one point both more convincingly and more briefly in a direct, descending line. Thus, Justin (who, as far as I know, is the first to tackle this textual difficulty) expends a seemingly endless supply of chapters wrangling with this one word, claiming the Jewish scholars changed the text in all the Hebrew copies to confute the Christians, and never coming to a satisfactory answer because even those arguments of his that might be convincing are spread so thinly over so many words as to become translucent. Irenaeus, writing after Justin, struggles with this same objection of the Jewish scholars, laboring tediously but more convincingly. Tertullian adds little to the points of his predecessors in his "Answer to the Jews" but has the sense to cut the waste that encumbers their arguments. It is remarkable, then, to revisit Origen and see how he resolves the question both briefly and convincingly in just two paragraphs of "Against Celsus." He had the advantage over his predecessors of actually knowing how to read Hebrew (and thus was able to deal intelligently with the textual question, providing an example from Deuteronomy where the Hebrew word in question for "young woman" is used in a context that could only mean "virgin") and was also the greatest textual scholar among all Christians (shall we say all ancient writers?) until Jerome (if we indeed concede that Jerome surpassed him, which is not obvious).
Justin also provides the citation of the bizarre claim included by writers after him (for sure Irenaeus and I cannot remember for certain but think it is also in Tertullian) that the Jewish scholars edited the verse of Psalm 96: 10 from "Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns from the wood"" to our present "Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns.” Irenaeus and Tertullian both replace the word "wood" with "tree" when discussing this verse but they never cite where it is allegedly from. However, I do not remember their citations always accompanying a claim that it had been removed (which is unusual) but rather treating it as if it was still there. The whole situation is particularly bizarre because so many writers variously cite (over a wide enough geography and time) a verse that, as far as I know, is found nowhere in any manuscript version of Psalm 96, either in Hebrew or Greek or Syriac.
More interesting to the historian or scholar of the early church might be Justin's claim that the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, during the Apostolic age, published abroad a series of propagandist works that were written with the intention of stopping the spread of Christianity, and which apparently alleged that the disciples had stolen Jesus body (an accusation known to and addressed by Matthew) along with other allegations such as Jesus being born to a soldier (which Celsus, who Origen was opposing, gives in its fuller account). If it is not obvious, Jewish/Christian tensions were clearly high in the middle second century.
Of note is his emphasis on something I had seen in other writers but only now took time to look into: that Jesus' name is essentially just the Greek version of "Joshua." Thus, Justin see Joshua as a Type of Christ and Amalek as a type of Satan: that the battle Joshua wins over Amalek (while Moses' arms are held out over the battlefield like on a cross) symbolically predicts Christ's defeat of Satan on the cross, that Joshua leads the Israelites into the promised land like Jesus leads the Church (who Justin understands is the true Israel) into the promised land of the kingdom. He likewise mentions the return of the Ark in Samuel to the field of Oshua, which was Joshua's name before Moses changed it, as typifying Christ. The ban on the Amalekites, which he points out is spoken of in absolute terms but is historically not absolute because they keep showing up, he interprets spiritually as a ban against the Devil "and his angels."
He is aware of the tradition, first preserved in the so-called "Infancy Gospel of James" that the stable Jesus was born in was a cave. He likewise preserves a tradition that Jesus, as a carpenter, was well-known for his plows and yokes ("for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life" -ch. 89), which, without making any dogmatic statement on its truth, I think adds a cheerful color to Jesus' statement that His 'yoke is easy.' He also claims that when Jesus was baptized, a fire was lit underwater in the Jordan river, which perhaps is from some apocryphal gospel though I have never seen it. The Christian apologist might recognize Justin's analogy of Jesus' relation to the Father being like a that of a different torch lit from the same flame, taking nothing away from the previous while being of the same substance. It is only fitting, despite his more unorthodox trinitarian statements, that the first Christian Apologist (in the proper sense of the genre) invented one of the most enduring analogies for the Trinity. Additionally, he understands the vision Paul alludes to in 2 Corinthians as being a rapture that Paul himself experienced (a unanimous view I have found among the early writers on this topic) that transported him (whether in the body or out of the body) to the 3rd heaven as well as to a separate "paradise," seeing these as distinct from each other. This seems to conform with the 7 levels of heaven model that we find in Iraneaus and particularly Clement of Alexandria's "Miscellanies" that suggests that "Paradise" (which seems to be the Garden of Eden or its heavenly counterpart) was the 4th level of heaven, above a third one.
It would likewise be a mistake to pass over his comments on sacraments. I have heard before, from Protestant sources, that many in the church employed some "sacrificial language" regarding the Eucharist (the term for the Lord's Supper or Communion the Greek writers use, which just means "Thanksgiving"). It will perhaps be enervating to cite, briefly, Justin's use of this "sacrificial language" in the following context:
""And the offering of fine flour, sirs," I [Justin] said, "which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.' He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane ." -"Dialogue with Trypho" ch. 41.
He later continues on this topic:
"Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.... Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind" -ch. 117
Perhaps I am in error, but I confess that I did not understand that when it is alleged that some of the earliest writers in the church use "sacrificial language" surrounding the Eucharist, what is apparently meant is that they explicitly call the Eucharist (or "Thanksgiving") a sacrifice in fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi. If it is alleged that the bread and cup, as mentioned here, are lacking specificity as 'containing Christ', I will also include another statement of Justin's on this topic:
>i>"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." - The First Apology ch. 66.
It should also be noted that Justin distinguishes the blood of Jesus (in "The Dialogue") from the blood of a man, believing it instead to be "the blood of God." Protestants can disagree with Justin on this point (as we do on many of his points, no doubt) but should not bolster our own views bys imply ignoring his. It is clear that on the issue of the Eucharist and communion, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox Churches maintain a theology much closer to that of Justin Martyr's around 150 AD.
As can be seen from the quote from the Apology (and as is made abundantly clear several times throughout "The Dialogue with Trypho") Justin Martyr (like every Christian writer over many centuries of time) believes that Baptism is necessary for salvation and actually regenerates the heart or soul of the Christian from its sinful state. For instance when he writes of Baptism:
"By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God's people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life."
Or again he says:
But there is no other [way] than this,--to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives." -ch. 44
In other words, he affirms that it is not merely a symbolic act, but salvific and necessary for the believer to be a saved Christian. He is a strong proponent of free will, like Clement of Alexandria. He likewise appears to be a dogmatic pacifist. On the question of salvation, Justin sees following Jesus' commandments as essential:
"And we are just as if drawn out from the fire, when purified from our former sins, and [rescued] from the affliction and the fiery trial by which the devil and all his coadjutors try us; out of which Jesus the Son of God has promised again to deliver us, and invest us with prepared garments, if we do His commandments; and has undertaken to provide an eternal kingdom [for us]."ch. 116
This sentiment is found in many places in the text.
Perhaps if I had not encountered much of this typology in Tertullian and Irenaeus before this, "The Dialogue with Trypho" would have been more interesting. As it was, it was often tedious and boring, belaboring points that were hardly contested. Nevertheless, it contained some interesting and important interpretations and sources, and though I did not necessarily enjoy it, I must respect it and its influence.
His exegesis of many old testament passages is fascinating and should be studied, I think, in seminaries today. Most will probably find his textual scholarship lacking. In particular, he struggles mightily against the fact that only the Septuagint (and not the Hebrew text) contains the proper word for "virgin" in the Isaiah prophecy "the virgin will conceive and give birth..." whereas the Hebrew contains " the young woman will conceive." It is an interesting (or uninteresting, depending on your view) observation that the Christian apologists of succeeding ages increasingly deal with this one point both more convincingly and more briefly in a direct, descending line. Thus, Justin (who, as far as I know, is the first to tackle this textual difficulty) expends a seemingly endless supply of chapters wrangling with this one word, claiming the Jewish scholars changed the text in all the Hebrew copies to confute the Christians, and never coming to a satisfactory answer because even those arguments of his that might be convincing are spread so thinly over so many words as to become translucent. Irenaeus, writing after Justin, struggles with this same objection of the Jewish scholars, laboring tediously but more convincingly. Tertullian adds little to the points of his predecessors in his "Answer to the Jews" but has the sense to cut the waste that encumbers their arguments. It is remarkable, then, to revisit Origen and see how he resolves the question both briefly and convincingly in just two paragraphs of "Against Celsus." He had the advantage over his predecessors of actually knowing how to read Hebrew (and thus was able to deal intelligently with the textual question, providing an example from Deuteronomy where the Hebrew word in question for "young woman" is used in a context that could only mean "virgin") and was also the greatest textual scholar among all Christians (shall we say all ancient writers?) until Jerome (if we indeed concede that Jerome surpassed him, which is not obvious).
Justin also provides the citation of the bizarre claim included by writers after him (for sure Irenaeus and I cannot remember for certain but think it is also in Tertullian) that the Jewish scholars edited the verse of Psalm 96: 10 from "Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns from the wood"" to our present "Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns.” Irenaeus and Tertullian both replace the word "wood" with "tree" when discussing this verse but they never cite where it is allegedly from. However, I do not remember their citations always accompanying a claim that it had been removed (which is unusual) but rather treating it as if it was still there. The whole situation is particularly bizarre because so many writers variously cite (over a wide enough geography and time) a verse that, as far as I know, is found nowhere in any manuscript version of Psalm 96, either in Hebrew or Greek or Syriac.
More interesting to the historian or scholar of the early church might be Justin's claim that the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, during the Apostolic age, published abroad a series of propagandist works that were written with the intention of stopping the spread of Christianity, and which apparently alleged that the disciples had stolen Jesus body (an accusation known to and addressed by Matthew) along with other allegations such as Jesus being born to a soldier (which Celsus, who Origen was opposing, gives in its fuller account). If it is not obvious, Jewish/Christian tensions were clearly high in the middle second century.
Of note is his emphasis on something I had seen in other writers but only now took time to look into: that Jesus' name is essentially just the Greek version of "Joshua." Thus, Justin see Joshua as a Type of Christ and Amalek as a type of Satan: that the battle Joshua wins over Amalek (while Moses' arms are held out over the battlefield like on a cross) symbolically predicts Christ's defeat of Satan on the cross, that Joshua leads the Israelites into the promised land like Jesus leads the Church (who Justin understands is the true Israel) into the promised land of the kingdom. He likewise mentions the return of the Ark in Samuel to the field of Oshua, which was Joshua's name before Moses changed it, as typifying Christ. The ban on the Amalekites, which he points out is spoken of in absolute terms but is historically not absolute because they keep showing up, he interprets spiritually as a ban against the Devil "and his angels."
He is aware of the tradition, first preserved in the so-called "Infancy Gospel of James" that the stable Jesus was born in was a cave. He likewise preserves a tradition that Jesus, as a carpenter, was well-known for his plows and yokes ("for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life" -ch. 89), which, without making any dogmatic statement on its truth, I think adds a cheerful color to Jesus' statement that His 'yoke is easy.' He also claims that when Jesus was baptized, a fire was lit underwater in the Jordan river, which perhaps is from some apocryphal gospel though I have never seen it. The Christian apologist might recognize Justin's analogy of Jesus' relation to the Father being like a that of a different torch lit from the same flame, taking nothing away from the previous while being of the same substance. It is only fitting, despite his more unorthodox trinitarian statements, that the first Christian Apologist (in the proper sense of the genre) invented one of the most enduring analogies for the Trinity. Additionally, he understands the vision Paul alludes to in 2 Corinthians as being a rapture that Paul himself experienced (a unanimous view I have found among the early writers on this topic) that transported him (whether in the body or out of the body) to the 3rd heaven as well as to a separate "paradise," seeing these as distinct from each other. This seems to conform with the 7 levels of heaven model that we find in Iraneaus and particularly Clement of Alexandria's "Miscellanies" that suggests that "Paradise" (which seems to be the Garden of Eden or its heavenly counterpart) was the 4th level of heaven, above a third one.
It would likewise be a mistake to pass over his comments on sacraments. I have heard before, from Protestant sources, that many in the church employed some "sacrificial language" regarding the Eucharist (the term for the Lord's Supper or Communion the Greek writers use, which just means "Thanksgiving"). It will perhaps be enervating to cite, briefly, Justin's use of this "sacrificial language" in the following context:
""And the offering of fine flour, sirs," I [Justin] said, "which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.' He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane ." -"Dialogue with Trypho" ch. 41.
He later continues on this topic:
"Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.... Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind" -ch. 117
Perhaps I am in error, but I confess that I did not understand that when it is alleged that some of the earliest writers in the church use "sacrificial language" surrounding the Eucharist, what is apparently meant is that they explicitly call the Eucharist (or "Thanksgiving") a sacrifice in fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi. If it is alleged that the bread and cup, as mentioned here, are lacking specificity as 'containing Christ', I will also include another statement of Justin's on this topic:
>i>"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." - The First Apology ch. 66.
It should also be noted that Justin distinguishes the blood of Jesus (in "The Dialogue") from the blood of a man, believing it instead to be "the blood of God." Protestants can disagree with Justin on this point (as we do on many of his points, no doubt) but should not bolster our own views bys imply ignoring his. It is clear that on the issue of the Eucharist and communion, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox Churches maintain a theology much closer to that of Justin Martyr's around 150 AD.
As can be seen from the quote from the Apology (and as is made abundantly clear several times throughout "The Dialogue with Trypho") Justin Martyr (like every Christian writer over many centuries of time) believes that Baptism is necessary for salvation and actually regenerates the heart or soul of the Christian from its sinful state. For instance when he writes of Baptism:
"By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God's people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life."
Or again he says:
But there is no other [way] than this,--to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives." -ch. 44
In other words, he affirms that it is not merely a symbolic act, but salvific and necessary for the believer to be a saved Christian. He is a strong proponent of free will, like Clement of Alexandria. He likewise appears to be a dogmatic pacifist. On the question of salvation, Justin sees following Jesus' commandments as essential:
"And we are just as if drawn out from the fire, when purified from our former sins, and [rescued] from the affliction and the fiery trial by which the devil and all his coadjutors try us; out of which Jesus the Son of God has promised again to deliver us, and invest us with prepared garments, if we do His commandments; and has undertaken to provide an eternal kingdom [for us]."ch. 116
This sentiment is found in many places in the text.
Perhaps if I had not encountered much of this typology in Tertullian and Irenaeus before this, "The Dialogue with Trypho" would have been more interesting. As it was, it was often tedious and boring, belaboring points that were hardly contested. Nevertheless, it contained some interesting and important interpretations and sources, and though I did not necessarily enjoy it, I must respect it and its influence.
January 25, 2020
Justin was born around the year 100, immediately after the end of the apostolic age (John died last of the apostles, in the 90s). He wrote some of the first explanations and defenses of the Faith.
This work is a dialogue between Justin and Trypho and some of Trypho's friends. All of these men were Jewish, and Justin's aim is to prove from the Old Testament that Our Lord was in fact the Messiah prophesied by Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, and so many others.
The end of St. Luke's gospel features two disciples on the road to Emmaus right after Jesus' resurrection. Our Lord met them on the way, and opened the scriptures to them, explaining to the disciples all the prophets that spoke of His coming.
This book feels like that conversation. Justin covers in detail Jacob's prophecy regarding Judah; Isaiah's prophecies of the suffering servant, and the virgin who would bear a child; the psalmist's prophecies of the Messiah; the meaning of the three men who visited Abraham's tent in Mamre, and the words that described the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Justin could also lean on the obvious holiness of the Christians' lives. In the 2nd century Christians were violently persecuted and put to death in the most gruesome ways (as Justin himself would suffer). Adherence to the Faith in these conditions is itself a conspicuous sign of holiness. In many areas of the world today, this witness is still made. The last 100 years have witnessed more martyrs than any previous century.
This text shows the continuity of the Faith. All the passages listed by Justin are still regarded today as proofs that Our Lord was the Messiah.
I found it interesting that Justin didn't mention the 70 weeks of years featured so prominently in Daniel; Jesus' advent came just exactly 490 years after this prophecy. And Justin also does not mention Isaiah's signs (the deaf shall hear, the blind shall see, the lame shall walk, the dead shall rise, and the poor shall have the good news preached to them).
This work is a dialogue between Justin and Trypho and some of Trypho's friends. All of these men were Jewish, and Justin's aim is to prove from the Old Testament that Our Lord was in fact the Messiah prophesied by Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, and so many others.
The end of St. Luke's gospel features two disciples on the road to Emmaus right after Jesus' resurrection. Our Lord met them on the way, and opened the scriptures to them, explaining to the disciples all the prophets that spoke of His coming.
This book feels like that conversation. Justin covers in detail Jacob's prophecy regarding Judah; Isaiah's prophecies of the suffering servant, and the virgin who would bear a child; the psalmist's prophecies of the Messiah; the meaning of the three men who visited Abraham's tent in Mamre, and the words that described the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Justin could also lean on the obvious holiness of the Christians' lives. In the 2nd century Christians were violently persecuted and put to death in the most gruesome ways (as Justin himself would suffer). Adherence to the Faith in these conditions is itself a conspicuous sign of holiness. In many areas of the world today, this witness is still made. The last 100 years have witnessed more martyrs than any previous century.
This text shows the continuity of the Faith. All the passages listed by Justin are still regarded today as proofs that Our Lord was the Messiah.
I found it interesting that Justin didn't mention the 70 weeks of years featured so prominently in Daniel; Jesus' advent came just exactly 490 years after this prophecy. And Justin also does not mention Isaiah's signs (the deaf shall hear, the blind shall see, the lame shall walk, the dead shall rise, and the poor shall have the good news preached to them).
Want to read
January 12, 2009From the bits and pieces I read over Mariah's shoulders it sounds really good. This guy is a genius.
July 4, 2025
Justin is often an apt teacher, indicating many of the foreshadowings of Jesus in the Old Testament. He rightly declares that Jesus is the Messiah of Jew and Gentile alike, the fulfillment of Jewish law.
But this work would better be described as a monologue against Trypho and the Jews. Justin is frequently supercilious and condemnatory. Christianity is the efflorescence of Judaism,its essential foundation.
The temporary blindness which besets many Jews is tragic, due largely to a mistaken idea of the Messiah they are still awaiting. Paul speaks of the transitory nature of this blindness in Romans 11. He speaks of a dramatic turn to faith in Jesus in the last days. He is grief-stricken by their disbelief. Justin displays no such sorrow or compassion.
I and many others take this work to be one of the earliest examples of replacement theology, the perverse, hateful idea that the Christian church has forever replaced Israel in God's plans. This belief is becoming increasingly prevalent in our churches today.
Paul loved the Jews and would not forsake them because our God does not!
The Jews have suffered immensely for their disbelief, often at the hands of those calling themselves Christians. They've suffered unspeakable horrors in the Spanish Inquisition and as the Crusaders made their way towards the Holy Land.
In spite of such atrocities, there is increasing Jewish faith in Jesus which is to build towards a crescendo at the Lord's second coming, much to the shock of all the world, Jew and Gentile alike!
"And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Zech.12:9-10
But this work would better be described as a monologue against Trypho and the Jews. Justin is frequently supercilious and condemnatory. Christianity is the efflorescence of Judaism,its essential foundation.
The temporary blindness which besets many Jews is tragic, due largely to a mistaken idea of the Messiah they are still awaiting. Paul speaks of the transitory nature of this blindness in Romans 11. He speaks of a dramatic turn to faith in Jesus in the last days. He is grief-stricken by their disbelief. Justin displays no such sorrow or compassion.
I and many others take this work to be one of the earliest examples of replacement theology, the perverse, hateful idea that the Christian church has forever replaced Israel in God's plans. This belief is becoming increasingly prevalent in our churches today.
Paul loved the Jews and would not forsake them because our God does not!
The Jews have suffered immensely for their disbelief, often at the hands of those calling themselves Christians. They've suffered unspeakable horrors in the Spanish Inquisition and as the Crusaders made their way towards the Holy Land.
In spite of such atrocities, there is increasing Jewish faith in Jesus which is to build towards a crescendo at the Lord's second coming, much to the shock of all the world, Jew and Gentile alike!
"And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Zech.12:9-10
January 26, 2020
This second-century religious text does a good job of showing Martyr's background in the study of philosophy and some of the arguments for and against Jesus as Messiah in terms of Jewish versus Christian views. It's not likely to be the most engaging reading to someone not interested in the issues and how they played out at the time, and it's often quite repetitive. You also get a lot more of the Christian views than the Jewish, for obvious reasons. In fact, I'd say the work is to actually fairly antisemitic. Repeatedly, Justin claims that the Old Testament law was put upon the Jewish people because of their unique stubbornness and innate bad nature, as if somehow other peoples are superior to this particular set of peoples.
One of the most surprising things about the work to me was the number of arguments that Justin makes from scripture with regard to the Messiah's identity. The number of typologies and prophecies that he pulls out and argues by is incredible. They are the same arguments generally made today by Christians. But it's interesting to me to see that these arguments were already formed in the second century, as if very little has been added since then.
One of the most surprising things about the work to me was the number of arguments that Justin makes from scripture with regard to the Messiah's identity. The number of typologies and prophecies that he pulls out and argues by is incredible. They are the same arguments generally made today by Christians. But it's interesting to me to see that these arguments were already formed in the second century, as if very little has been added since then.
October 8, 2018
A great translation of a Christian classic. This alongside Irenaeus' "On the Apostolic Preaching" form two of the earliest whole Bible theologies, both of which show how early Christians read and understood the Old Testament.
In short, Christ is the key to Scripture and the end to which it points.
Justin in particular seems to draw on a common set of arguments already in dialogue with Trypho (~130AD). (The book is written after 130 though). Now, this suggests that a common body of proof texts about Christ from the OT already existed by 130. So it's reasonable to assume that this was a common set of teachings established in the asian churches that Justin came from. My guess is that these proof texts were established by about 100—perphaps reaching back to the preaching of John the apostle and John the Elder who lived until the 90s.
So what you are getting is partly the apostolic pattern of preaching from the Old Testament.
In short, Christ is the key to Scripture and the end to which it points.
Justin in particular seems to draw on a common set of arguments already in dialogue with Trypho (~130AD). (The book is written after 130 though). Now, this suggests that a common body of proof texts about Christ from the OT already existed by 130. So it's reasonable to assume that this was a common set of teachings established in the asian churches that Justin came from. My guess is that these proof texts were established by about 100—perphaps reaching back to the preaching of John the apostle and John the Elder who lived until the 90s.
So what you are getting is partly the apostolic pattern of preaching from the Old Testament.
May 8, 2021
I so enjoyed this book. It's kind of combative in nature, but the conversation between the Christian and the Jewish cohort of Trypho is pretty delightful. They say things that could be heard harshly, yet their relationship never seems to have broken down.
The exposition of Old Testament scripture and the way that early Christians understood these passages to apply to Christ Jesus is the real delight of this book. It's a treasure trove of early Christian hermeneutics, some of which is quite strange to modern ears.
The exposition of Old Testament scripture and the way that early Christians understood these passages to apply to Christ Jesus is the real delight of this book. It's a treasure trove of early Christian hermeneutics, some of which is quite strange to modern ears.
April 17, 2022
Beliefs of Early Church Fathers
Most of the Church today knows little of the history of the early church and their thinking process. This dialogue brings to view some of the underlying beliefs of the Christian faith. For example, Justin assumes the virgin birth of Jesus and the Flood of Noah. He brings out some parallels of Scripture that at least I don’t recall hearing. Important read to help reinforce some of the standards of our faith.
Most of the Church today knows little of the history of the early church and their thinking process. This dialogue brings to view some of the underlying beliefs of the Christian faith. For example, Justin assumes the virgin birth of Jesus and the Flood of Noah. He brings out some parallels of Scripture that at least I don’t recall hearing. Important read to help reinforce some of the standards of our faith.
December 6, 2024
I would summarize this by saying it's a man of good faith making very well reasoned arguments in a very unreasonable manner - often insulting his Jewish dialogue partner Trypho makes for a strangely repulsive witness devoid of the unusual quality of love I typically associate with Jesus. To be fair though - I feel the same when I read any of Plato's dialogues and certain parts of the apostle Paul's letters, so maybe what I'm disliking is the mode of discourse prevalent in this combination of period and genre...
January 4, 2022
I really enjoyed the dialogue. It was a great insight into the beliefs held by those of the early church. It is fairly repetitive, but it seems that it’s a dialogue held over the course of a few days, so he repeats himself for the benefit of new listeners. The only issue I had was with the editing. There were a large number of copy errors and misspellings in this edition.
June 12, 2022
This book is insane. For context, I'm reading all of the church fathers chronologically and this one blew my mind. Not just because it's really freaking long, but because of the stuff Justin says.
Many of the things he says edge on conspiracy, but are just plausible enough to be true. Like, for example, he says that God said his name was Jesus in Exodus, because there was a time where the Angel of the Lord said "A man will lead you into the promised land and *my name will be upon him*." Obviously, that's Joshua, right? But Jesus and Joshua are actually the same name, so God says "my name is Jesus." Insane, right?There were times I audibly said, "wow," and had to put the book down for a minute.
Now, that's not to say I believe Justin Martyr. So much of this stuff is just too crazy to believe. But it's plausible, you know? It'll really make you think.
I will never read the Old Testament the same again. Jesus Christ was the one in the garden. He was the one who came to Abraham and wrestled Jacob. He was the one who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. Those were Jesus! And Justin will claim many other verses are about Jesus. You can be the judge on whether he's correct or not.
Periodically, I took screenshots of the crazy conspiracy theory-like things Justin said and sent them to my friends. They couldn't believe it either. Like, when Moses lifted his hands in Exodus to defeat the Amalekites, it was in the shape of a cross. And they won because Joshua (aka Jesus) was standing before the cross-shape.
So much of the early church writings do not really apply to us anymore. Many of them are about refuting heresies or church hierarchies. But this one is actually really interesting for modern believers that are familiar with the Old Testament.
That said, there are parts that are just a little dull. Luckily, the chapters are super short so it's okay to snooze during a few. Also, it's a little anti-semitic. Like many of the early church fathers, Justin seems to reject the idea that we are a continuation of Israel.
But I thought I was going to get apologetics against Judaism, but instead got over 150 chapters of Bible conspiracy theories. Best day ever. Four stars.
Many of the things he says edge on conspiracy, but are just plausible enough to be true. Like, for example, he says that God said his name was Jesus in Exodus, because there was a time where the Angel of the Lord said "A man will lead you into the promised land and *my name will be upon him*." Obviously, that's Joshua, right? But Jesus and Joshua are actually the same name, so God says "my name is Jesus." Insane, right?There were times I audibly said, "wow," and had to put the book down for a minute.
Now, that's not to say I believe Justin Martyr. So much of this stuff is just too crazy to believe. But it's plausible, you know? It'll really make you think.
I will never read the Old Testament the same again. Jesus Christ was the one in the garden. He was the one who came to Abraham and wrestled Jacob. He was the one who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. Those were Jesus! And Justin will claim many other verses are about Jesus. You can be the judge on whether he's correct or not.
Periodically, I took screenshots of the crazy conspiracy theory-like things Justin said and sent them to my friends. They couldn't believe it either. Like, when Moses lifted his hands in Exodus to defeat the Amalekites, it was in the shape of a cross. And they won because Joshua (aka Jesus) was standing before the cross-shape.
So much of the early church writings do not really apply to us anymore. Many of them are about refuting heresies or church hierarchies. But this one is actually really interesting for modern believers that are familiar with the Old Testament.
That said, there are parts that are just a little dull. Luckily, the chapters are super short so it's okay to snooze during a few. Also, it's a little anti-semitic. Like many of the early church fathers, Justin seems to reject the idea that we are a continuation of Israel.
But I thought I was going to get apologetics against Judaism, but instead got over 150 chapters of Bible conspiracy theories. Best day ever. Four stars.
February 17, 2025
Read this for book club. This was pretty much 90% about how jews misinterpret scripture and instead the "correct" Christian interpretation. Just not something very interesting to me, although does quote scripture extensively. Felt like a cheap imitation of a Plato dialogue, Trypho was just a weak punching bag for Justin to monologue over. More niche appeal IMO.
May 26, 2020
Apologetics against rabbinical Judaism based on proof-texting. There were some analogies that are not used much these days. We need more men like St Justin who is concerned with the salvation of our elder brother.
February 2, 2021
Excellent Apologetic work.
Not the sort of thing a Jew would want to read, as it can be very polemical at times, but definitely a great source for anybody wanting to understand how Christ fulfils the Old Testament
Not the sort of thing a Jew would want to read, as it can be very polemical at times, but definitely a great source for anybody wanting to understand how Christ fulfils the Old Testament
September 17, 2022
A fascinating conversation between Justin Martyr and Trypho. I found this work a real slog to get through, probably due to the repetitiveness of Justin’s arguments. It is humbling to recognize how differently early Christians handled the Old Testament than I would today.
April 24, 2023
Deeply engaging discourse between a Christian and a Jewish apologist, wherein the former demonstrates that Jesus is the Christ through prophecy and typology. I was stirred to think more deeply about how God uses history to His purposes.
February 26, 2024
Really interesting book. Brought some new perspectives I hadn’t considered. Genuinely felt like I learned some things. My only complaint is it can be quite repetitive. But it is self aware of that fact.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews