Aplicabilidad del Modelo Unificado, Limitaciones y Trabajo Futuro. El Modelo Unificado presentado integra un conjunto de criterios a los cuales responden El Modelo Unificado presentado integra un conjunto de criterios a los cuales responden

The familiarity of Justin (fl. 150) with the ancient intellectual traditions implies that he must have received an encyclical training.1He considered himself wise, and he expected to ‘see God’, which is the end or goal (tevlo") of philosophy according to Plato (Dial. 2.6).2 Justin was a philosopher who had ‘climbed to the top’, to speak in Hermotimus’ terms.3 He once met an Old Man who corrected his philosophy and introduced him to the Hebrew prophets, whom he came to describe as more ancient than all Greek philosophers. The Old Man claimed that the prophets alone saw and declared the truth to mankind. Their writings can only be understood by those to whom God and Christ have imparted wisdom (Dial. 7.1-2). This encounter marked Justin’s conversion, a conversion which brought him to abandon philosophy and to become a Christian, but at the same time brought philosophy with him, thus making Christianity another and a superior philosophy, True Philosophy.4 He calls Christianity ‘philosophy’ (Dial. 8.1); he considers himself a philoso- pher (Dial. 8.2), and Greek philosophers like Socrates were ‘Christians’ (1 Apol. 46.3). Justin’s writings are replete with references to ancient historians, philosophers and poets, including Homer.5

Justin’s interaction with Greek philosophy is well known. The extent to which he was influenced by philosophy is a common topic in research on his writings.6Justin claimed that Christianity basically concurred with the

1 See Lampe 1989: 223–30.

2 For Justin’s dependence on Platonic philosophy, and possibly also for his Platonic schooling, see Edwards 1991.

3 See Ch. 2.5 in this study.

4 Skarsaune 1976: 58–59; and also his 1996: 607–08. Justin Martyr’s report about his conversion in Dial. 1–7 assumes a Christian philosophy school. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl.4.11, cf. 4.8), Justin taught God’s word in a cloak typical of Greek philosophers. The students’ devotion to philosophy and the philosophy teacher might sometimes be aptly described in terms of embracing a new faith, like a conversion; see the classical study by Nock 1933: 164–68.

5 See Glockmann 1968: 99–195. 6 See Skarsaune 1996: 585–87.

best of the Greek philosophers. He made this claim on the basis of the conviction that the Greeks acquired their wisdom from the writings of Moses,7or through the Stoic-sounding concept of logos spermatikos, in which all men share,8 a concept which concurred with Jewish wisdom theology about creation making a ‘religious koineˆ’.9All these explanations are relevant to Justin’s evaluation of Greek philosophy, although the precise relationship between these influences is in dispute. The question is whether his attitude to Greek philosophy can also be transferred to Homer and the education in which his writings played such a significant role. The answer to this is by no means evident. How this Christian philosopher thought about encyclical studies remains unclear; he does not address this topic directly.

Justin emphasized the antiquity of Moses over the philosophers and poets, and claimed Socrates as a precursor of Christ since he fought the power of demons with ‘true reason’ (lovgo" ajlhqhv") (1 Apol. 5.3-4; 2 Apol. 10.5-8).10This true reason was manifest in Socrates’ ability to reveal that the many deities were, in fact, demons pretending to be gods. In his capacity as a true philosopher, Socrates thus denounced idolatry.11This logosremained with the Christians since the Divine lovgo" was found in Christ. Greek lawgivers and philosophers contemplated only some parts of lovgo", and therefore contradicted themselves (cf. 1 Apol. 13.2-4). Accordingly, they often turned against those among themselves who were given more of lovgo", such as Socrates:

And Socrates, who was more forcible in this direction than all of them, was accused of the very same crimes as ourselves. For they said that he was introducing new divinities, and did not consider those to be gods whom the state recognized. But he cast out from the state both Homer and the rest of the poets, and taught people to reject the wicked demons [daivmona" fauvlou"] and those who did the things the poets related; and he exhorted them to become acquainted with the God who was to them unknown, by means of investigation of reason . . . (2 Apol. 10.5-6)12

Into this text Justin fuses references both to the stock accusation levelled against Socrates (‘introducing new divinities’) and Paul in Athens, and he also mentions their belief in the unknown god (Acts 17).13 Their

7 Droge 1989: 59–65. 8 Droge 1989: 65–72. 9 Skarsaune 1996: 603–07.

10 See Glockmann 1968: 163–65; Skarsaune 1996: 591–94 on the relationship between poets and demons in Justin’s thinking and the background of his view.

11 Skarsaune 1976: 64–65.

12 Translation is taken from Barnard 1997.

13 Justin here merges Acts 17 and Socrates, which is not without basis in Acts 17 itself; see Sandnes 1993; Skarsaune 1996: 589–91.

unmasking of idolatry forms the starting-point for saying that Socrates and some other Greek philosophers were ‘Christians before Christ’ (1 Apol.46.2-4). The uniting feature of all these is that they claimed God to be One, and that they therefore became martyrs. Justin urges a contrast between human and divine reason, the latter being partly imparted to Socrates and philosophers who denounced idolatry. Socrates was one of the few who understood that the idols had to be expelled from the city. The reason for rejecting Homer and the poets is dual; the mythology of their poems and the immorality conducted by the deities and heroes of the stories told there. The poets sponsored wicked divinities and immorality. Justin alludes to Plato’s desire to ban the poets, as stated in The Republic.14

Justin’s rhetoric in 2 Apol. 10 works by a comparison between Christ and those having some part of ‘true reason’. To these belong Socrates and other philosophers, but also artisans and people entirely uneducated (pantelw'" ijdiw'tai), says Justin (2 Apol. 10.8).15 This brings to mind Paul’s logic in 1 Cor. 1–2, although Justin does not mention it. But, given the presence of lovgo" in the Greek culture, Justin acknowledges that both some philosophers and some poets were honourable due to their ethical teaching (2 Apol. 8.1; 13.2-5). This implies an attitude towards Homer which makes it necessary to distinguish between elements that were acceptable and those that were not. In 1 Apol. 20, Justin says that ‘we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers you honour’. He takes Menander, the comic poet, as an example, due to his saying that people ought not to worship the works of their own hands (1. Apol. 20.5); this echoes traditional biblical thinking on idols. In 1 Apol. 18.5, he mentions Od.11.25, according to which Odysseus digs a pit and pours his libation into it, thus collecting the souls of the dead around him. Justin takes this as evidence for a common belief in life after death.

Justin’s familiarity with the ancient intellectual legacy preserved in encyclical education formed a basis for his apologetic thinking. From this one might expect him to hold an ambivalent attitude to encyclical studies. He does leave a mixed impression on the issue. If his student Tatian16 followed in the footsteps of his teacher, and Justin is thus to be evaluated through his student, Justin was rather sceptical of the role played by Homer and also other poets in encyclical training. We observe an ambiguity which characterized the early Christian discourse on encyclical

14 See Books 3 and 10 in particular; e.g. 394D; 398A–B; 568B; 595A; 607A.

15 As we will see later (Ch. 11.3) this thought formed a starting-point for Celsus’ criticism of Christianity. Celsus criticized Christians for being uneducated, and even unwilling to receive education. Celsus’ Aletheˆs Logos was probably meant as a response to Justin; thus Droge 1989: 72–81.

16 For the tradition that Tatian studied with Justin in Rome, see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.16.7, 28, 29; see Droge 1989: 82 and Hunt 2003: 195 for further references.

studies for centuries. On the one hand he praised Socrates, who represented the best among Greek intellectual traditions, and on the other hand he rejected Homer and the poets. They are the instruments of the demons, as clearly stated in 1 Apol. 54.1-2:

But those who deliver the myths invented by the poets [uJpo; tw'n poihtw'n] offer no proof to the youths who learn them – and we proceed to prove that they have been told by the power of the wicked demons to deceive and lead astray the human race. For when they heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men and women would be punished by fire, they caused many to be called sons of Zeus, thinking that they would be able to cause people to believe that the statements about Christ were marvelous tales, like the assertions of the poets.

Justin clearly has encyclical studies in mind here.17The myths are made up by the poets; Homer in particular was the agency of the demons, and the myths are now handed down to the children by their teachers. Schooling is thus part of a chain of demonic idolatry. Since Homer is the most important poet, it seems that he in particular was the target of the criticism of the poets being the instruments of the demons.18Justin seems to evaluate encyclical studies more critically than Greek philosophy generally. This may be due to his not addressing the question directly, but mainly presenting the poets and the instruction in their works from the perspective of idolatry. His student Tatian confirms the somewhat negative picture which we have derived from Justin’s writings. Still, this is not to deny that pagan poems and Christian faith in some instances say more or less the same thing. Justin’s evaluation of the poets is therefore ambiguous.