First Apology

The First Apology was an early work of Christian apologetics addressed by Justin Martyr to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius. In addition to arguing against the persecution of individuals solely for being Christian, Justin also provides the Emperor with a defense of the philosophy of Christianity and a detailed explanation of contemporary Christian practices and rituals. This work, along with the Second Apology, has been cited as one of the earliest examples of Christian apology, and many scholars attribute this work to creating a new genre of apology out of what was a typical Roman administrative procedure.

Justin Martyr was born in Flavia Neapolis (modern Nablus), a Greek-speaking town in Syria Palaestina within the Roman Empire. In the Dialogue with Trypho, Justin explains how he came to Christianity after previously passing through the schools of Stoicism, Peripateticism, and Pythagoreanism. After becoming interested in Platonism, Justin eventually converted to Christianity after an encounter with an old man, which Justin describes in the Dialogue as “a love of the prophets, and of those people who are friends of Christ [that] possessed me.” The equating of Christianity with philosophy is important for Justin, as it explains the importance of the Apologies in defending Christianity in philosophical terms.

The First Apology is dated to between 155-157 CE, based on the reference to Felix as a recent prefect of Egypt. Robert Grant has claimed that this Apology was made in response to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, which occurred around the same time as the Apology was written. This correlation would explain why the Apology heavily focused on punishment by fire; a reference to Polycarp’s burning at the stake. It is also generally believed that the Second Apology was originally part of the larger First Apology, although there is uncertainty among scholars about this point.

In the early chapters of the First Apology, Justin discusses the principal criticisms of contemporary Christians; namely, atheism, immorality, and disloyalty to the Empire. He first argues that “the name” of Christianity by itself is not reason enough to punish or persecute, and he urges the Empire instead to only punish evil actions, writing, “For from a name neither approval nor punishment could fairly come, unless something excellent or evil in action can be shown about it.” He then goes on to address the charges more directly, in which he argues that they are “atheists” toward Roman gods, but not to the “most true God.” He acknowledges that some Christians have performed immoral acts, but urges officials to punish these individuals as evildoers rather than Christians. With this claim, Justin demonstrates his desire to separate the Christian name from the evil acts performed by certain individuals, lamenting how criminals tarnish the name of Christianity and are not true “Christians.” Finally, he addresses the alleged disloyalty to the Empire, discussing how Christians do seek to be members of another kingdom, but this kingdom is “of that with God” rather than a “human one.”

...
Wikipedia