The Catholic Book Club discussion

What was the purpose of Justin Martyr's writings, at least those presented in Four Witnesses? Do you feel you got a good understanding of Justin Martyr from Bennett's excerpts?

I think it's a big stretch on Bennett's part to claim that Socrates on his own attained a concept of God very close to the one revealed in Scripture. There was nothing personal about his god.
I love Justin's description of the Christian life, p. 180 in my edition. In contrast to Bennett's colloquial slang, e.g. "straight from the horse's mouth."
I love Justin's excerpt from the Eucharistic prayer, better than what we currently use although amazingly close, e.g. "Hearts aloft!" - "We keep them with the Lord."
I'm curious about his including water as a third eucharistic element along with bread and wine.

Jill wrote: "I'm curious about his including water as a third eucharistic element along with bread and wine."

The priest puts in the cup a mixture of wine and water in memory of the mixture of water and blood that came out of Jesus' spear wound.

I know that, but we don't consider the water as a third eucharistic element or bring it to the homebound as he seems to indicate.

Jill wrote: "I know that, but we don't consider the water as a third eucharistic element or bring it to the homebound as he seems to indicate."

I see what you mean, Justin's quote from the First Apology chapter LXV that says in Bennet's book: Then there is brought to the Ruler of the Brethren bread and a cup of water and [a cup of] wine mixed with water... And... those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present a portion of the eucharistized bread and wine and water, and they carry it away to those who are absent.

In my copy of the First Apology the text is somewhat different. It says There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and ​a cup of wine mixed with water;... And... those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

So there is mention just of bread and of the cup where water and wine are mixed. I think Bennett made a mistake while making the quote, or else the book he got it from is muddled. The bracketed text seems to indicate there's something queer there.

Also in my version only "a portion" is mentioned, which could be just "eucharistized bread", just as it is done today. In any case, in my copy water is always mentioned as mixed with wine.

The purpose is pretty clear, obviously. To try to convince the future emperor that Christians were no threat and, perhaps, to convert him. The Second Apology is to persuade the Senate that the renewed persecution is unjust and should be stopped. Both fail.

Bennett is at his best when he provides interesting historical detail that illuminates the writing of the father. I appreciate him less when he engages in flights of fancy as in his musings on what Marcus Aurelius recalled of Justin's First Apology when he became emperor. As far as I am aware, there is not any evidence that the apology even got to Marcus.

John wrote: "I appreciate him less when he engages in flights of fancy as in his musings on what Marcus Aurelius recalled of Justin's First Apology when he became emperor. As far as I am aware, there is not any evidence that the apology even got to Marcus."

I said the same in a comment in the thread "Along the way"

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "I appreciate him less when he engages in flights of fancy as in his musings on what Marcus Aurelius recalled of Justin's First Apology when he became emperor. As far as I am aware, the..."

I said the same in a comment in the thread "Along the way""

Yes, I imagine you didn't find the start of Irenaeus, with its entirely fabricated scene of Irenaeus learning of the martyrdom of Polycarp, any better than I did.