₁ All quotations in English from Justin are from Dialogue with Trypho in Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985).Google Scholar Quotations from the Greek text are from Bueno, D. R., Padres Apologistas Griegos: Biblioteca de Autoris Cristianos (Madrid: La editorial Catolica, 1954).Google Scholar All quotations from from the Greek text of the New Testament are from Nestle-Aland, , Novum Testamentum Graece 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993).Google Scholar All English quotations of the Bible are from The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version (ed. Meeks, Wayne; New York: Harper Collins, 1993)Google Scholar.

₂ Thoma, Albrecht, Justins literarishes Verhältnis zu Paulus und zum Johannes-Evangelium, ZWTh 18 (1875) 385–12;Google ScholarStylianopoulos, Theodore, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975) 70, 104–8;Google ScholarSkarsaune, Oskar, The Prooffrom Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (NovTSup 56 [Leiden: Brill, 1987] 186).Google ScholarCompare also Goodenough, Erwin R., The Theology of Justin Martyr: An Investigation into the Conceptions of Early Christian Literature and its Hellenistic and Judaistic Influences (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968) 96Google Scholar; Barnard, Leslie W., Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 62–63.Google Scholar Paul, of course, wrote an epistle to the Roman churches. Further, I Clement, a document with apparent Roman origins that predates Justin, quotes from the Pauline corpus. As is well known, Marcion was reworking Paul in Rome during the time of Justin. Justin writes a work against second-century heresies, the Syntagma, in which he criticizes Marcion (see Stylianopoulos, , Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 1).Google Scholar Justin mentions this work in 1 Apol. 26.8. Consequently, he must have used Paul's writings in order to argue against Marcion (compare Barnard, , Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought, 63).Google Scholar Furthermore, he even attacks Marcion in the Dialogue. Stylianopoulos, (Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 71 n. 61,70 n. 58)Google Scholar recalls Harnack's proposal that some “orthodox” second-century CE Christian authors show a “hostile neglect” of Paul because he was popular among “heretical” groups. Sibinga, J. B.(The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr, vol. 1: The Pentatuch [Leiden: Brill, 1963] 98)Google Scholar suggests the same possibility. However, Harnack and Sibinga's idea is surely incorrect in regard to Justin bcause he does not neglect Paul even if he does not cite him. However, as Stylianopoulos, (Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law 26–32)Google Scholar notes, the Law is a problem in the second century CE because of the way in which “heresies” treat it. Justin seems conscious of this as he writes. See, for example,Ptolemy's, Letter to FloraGoogle Scholar.

₃ Skarsaune, , The Prooffrom Prophecy, 99Google Scholar.

₄ Ibid., 92-98.

₅ Justin Dial. 11.5. See Stylianopoulos, (Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 9),Google Scholar who notes that chapters 31-118 are a long discourse on this subject, which Justin elsewhere calls the “Christological proof” (Dial. 120.5b).

₆ For the problem of Justin's intended audience, see Stylianopoulos, , Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 12-44, 169–195.Google Scholar He maintains that the context for the writing is the Jewish-Christian debate on obeying Torah. See also Stanton, Graham N., “Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic” NTS 31 (1985) 377–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Goodenough, (Theology of Justin Martyr, 90)Google Scholar rightly maintains that the Dialogue does not record an actual discussion. Justin has crafted the whole “debate” so that he presents all his arguments without any serious rejoinder from Trypho. See also Hirshman, Marc (“Polemic Literary Units in the Classical Midrashim and Justin Martyr,” JQR 83 [1993] 371–73),CrossRefGoogle Scholar who concludes that Trypho is a “congenial lightweight” in the debate. Nevertheless, as Trakatellis, Demetrios (“Justin Martyr's Trypho,” in Nickelsburg, George W. E. and MacRae, George W., eds., Christians among Jews and Gentiles [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 287–97)Google Scholar shows, Justin continually presents Trypho as a respected debater and thinker. Further, Stanton (“Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic,” 389) argues that Justin's polemical language does not mean that he cannot be engaged in “genuine dialogue” with Judaism as a whole. Even though the Dialogue does not represent a historical incident, it is likely rooted in Justin's teaching (see Remus, Harold, “Justin Martyr's Argument with Judaism,” in Wilson, Stephen G., ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2: Separation and Polemic [Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University, 1986] 72)Google Scholar.

₇ Justin Dail. 25.1; 32.3; and 120. Compare Stylianopoulos, , Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 16-17, 39, 71.Google Scholar Compare Dial. 56.16. Simon, Marcel (Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986] 139)Google Scholar claims that Justin's Apology contains fewer quotes from the Jewish scriptures because its intended audience is pagan. Pagans probably would not accept the Jewish scriptures as an authority. According to Simon, the number of quotations from Jewish scriptures increases in the Dialogue because its audience is Jewish. Simon argues that Tertullian's works exhibit a similar pattern in scriptural references. See also Stylianopoulos, , Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 42, 168Google Scholar.

₈ Simon, (Verus Israel, 158)Google Scholar notes the same feature. He holds that only the end of Jesus' career—his passion and death—figures into second—century writings addressed to Jews.

₉ Justin, Dialogue 7Google Scholar.

₁₀ See Richardson, Peter(Israel in the Apostolic Church [SNTSMS 10; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969] 33–38),CrossRefGoogle Scholar who appropriately emphasizes the effects that the two Jewish revolts had on Jewish-Christian relations and identity.

₁₁ Justin, Dial. 1. 3Google Scholar.

₁₂ Compare Stanton, (“Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic,” 387–88),Google Scholar who also notes that the Dialogue provides an example of Christian self-definition over against Jews and pagans. As Stanton notes, Justin understands Christians to be a “third race” (see Dial. 11.5).

₁₃ Justin, Dial. 7. 3Google Scholar.

₁₄ Justin borrows from more Pauline texts than simply Romans 2-4, 9-11 and Galatians 3. For an examination of other Pauline texts in Justin, see Skarsaune, , Prooffrom Prophecy, 98–100Google Scholar.

₁₅ Justin consistently and anachronistically thinks of Biblical Israel as “Jews.”

₁₆ Prigent, Pierre, Justin et I'Ancien Testament (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1964) 235Google Scholar. See Stylianopoulos, (Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 78–84)Google Scholar for a lengthy treatment of this passage; compare Dial. 39.1.

₁₇ Richardson, , Israel in the Apostolic Church, 9–32.Google ScholarCompare also Simon, , Verus Israel, 169-170, 172.Google Scholar See Dialogue 135.

₁₈ Compare Dial. 16.2; 92.3-4.

₁₉ Compare Simon, , Verus Israel, 171. For more, see the discussion below on circumcision as a signGoogle Scholar.

₂₀ Compare also Justin Dialogue 93.

₂₁ Compare Barnabas 13.7.

₂₂ Justin, Dial. 119. 5Google Scholar.

₂₃ Ibid.

₂₄ Ibid.

₂₅ Ibid. 122.5.

₂₆ Ibid. 122-23.

₂₇ Ibid. 123.9.

₂₈ Gal 3:28-29.

₂₉ Justin, Dial. 120. 6.Google Scholar Compare Matt 8:11-12; and Luke 13:28-29. Compare also Dialogue 75, which quotes this material along with Matt 7:22 and 25:41.

₃₀ Skarsaune, , Proof from Prophecy, 100–3Google Scholar.

₃₁ Justin, Dial. 92.4Google Scholar.

₃₂ For a more lengthy discussion, see Simon, , Verus Israel, 166.Google ScholarGoodenough, (The Theology ofJustin Martyr, 95–96)Google Scholar believed that this idea of Torah as a “reproach” and a “sign of God's displeasure” because of misdeeds may be a novel argument.

₃₃ Compare also Dialogue 28 for reference to the “good and useful circumcision.”

₃₄ Ibid. 18.2; compare 43.1: διφ τό οκληροκσρδίον (“on account of hardness of heart”). Compare also Dialogue 43-44, 46. As Stylianopoulos, (Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 143)Google Scholar notices, “Justin never loses the opportunity of pointing out the sinfulness and the evil inclination of the Jews.” See Dial. 18.2; 23.2; 30.1; 46.4-5; 67.7-8, 10. Stylianopoulos (ibid., 65-68) also argues that circumcision and other practices fall under the historical use of the Law. This is true in Dialogue 10-30 where all the rituals and institutions discussed apply only to the historical dispensation of the Jews: “For him the major weight of the Law is found in its role as historical dispensation” (ibid., 67). In the cases of Dialogue 16 and 92.2, the rituals and ordinances of the Law have a predictive function (ibid., 60–65). Stylianopoulos believes that Justin's insistence on the historical function may be anti-rabbinic (ibid., 155-59). However, Hirshman, (“Polemic Literary Units in the Classical Midrashim and Justin Martyr,” 369–84)Google Scholar remains sceptical about Justin's knowledge of the rabbinic tradition.

₃₅ Compare Skarsaune, , Prooffrom Prophecy, 314.Google Scholar Justin refers to Jesus' ruling on divorce in Apol. 15.3. In contrast, Arthur Bellinzoni, J. (The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr [Leiden: Brill, 1967] 70)CrossRefGoogle Scholar concludes that Justin is using a carefully composed gospel harmony of elements from Matthew, Mark, and Luke in Apology 15.

₃₆ For the similarities between Justin and the Epistle of Barnabas on this topic,see Stylianopoulos, , Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 146Google Scholar.

₃₇ Justin Dialogue 16.

₃₈ For circumcision as a sign of “infamy” for Justin, see also Simon, , Verus Israel, 165.Google Scholar He also recalls that TertuUian gives this same meaning to circumcision in Adversus Judaeus 3.

₃₉ Compare Justin 1 Apology 47. See Richardson, (Israel in the Apostolic Church, 33–47),Google Scholar who discusses the importance of the Jewish Wars of 66-70 CE and 132-135 CE in defining Jewish-Christian relationships and identity.

₄₀ For the designation of Jesus as “the Just One,” see Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14, which also include the theme of killing the prophets.

₄₁ Justin Dialogue 16.

₄₂ Stanton, , “Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic,” 379Google Scholar; Remus, , “Justin Martyr's Argument with Judaism,” 73Google Scholar; Horbury, Harold, “Jewish-Christian Relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr,” in Dunn, James D. G., ed., Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135 (WUNT 66, Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 342–43Google Scholar.

₄₃ Compare also Justin Dial. 32.1.

₄₄ Compare ibid. 89.2; 90.1; 95.1-2; 96.1.

₄₅ Stylianopoulos, , Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 70.Google Scholar For a thorough textual analysis, see ibid., 105-8. Contrast Sibinga (The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr, vol. 1: The Pentatuch, 96-99), who concludes that Justin's texts lies “half way between Paul's and the LXX,” and, therefore, Justin probably did not take it from Galatians. Sibinga also mentions that Justin is the only early Christian writer who combines Deut 27:26 and 21:23 to form an argument with Judaism (ibid., 97).

₄₆ Stylianopoulos, , Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 105Google Scholar; Sibinga, , The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr, 1. 95Google Scholar.

₄₇ Justin Dial. 96.2. Some texts in the Dialogue, for example, 17.1, 3; 96.1, seem to indicate that the Jews have treacherously exposed the identity of Christians to the Roman authorities. Dialogue 16, though, explicitly states that the Jews “do not have the power to lay hands on” Christians because of Roman rule. Simon, (Verus Israel, 116)Google Scholar also persuasively argues that the Jews were not in a political position to act with Rome like this because of the Bar Kochba revolt and Hadrian's edict. Compare also Dialogue 47.

₄₈ Romans 9–11; Dialogue 39. Compare Stylianopoulos, , Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 43 n. 80Google Scholar.

₄₉ See 1 Kgs 19:10, 18.

₅₀ Justin, Dial. 39.2Google Scholar.

₅₁ Rom 11:26; compare 11:12, 15, and 32.

₅₂ Compare Richardson, , Israel in the Apostolic Church, 83-84, 146–47.Google Scholar Further, Richardson shows that Paul does not reapply the word Xads, generally reserved for Israel, to Christians or Gentile Christians (ibid., 211-16).

₅₃ Compare Simon, , Verus Israel, 68Google Scholar.