S. Justini

Philosophi et Martyris

cum

Tryphone Judæo

Dialogus

pars, prior

colloquium primi diei continens

edited, with a corrected text and english introduction and notes

By the Rev. W. Trollope, M.A

pembroke college, cambridge

Ἀνὴρ οὔτε τῷ χρόνῳ πόῤῥω ὢν τῶν Ἀποστόλων, οὔτε τῦ ἀρετῦ

Methodius ap. Phot.

CAMBRIDGE:

j. hall, opposite the pitt press;

and g. bell, 186, fleet street, london

m.dccc.xlvi, m.dccc.xlvii

viris reverendis doctissimisque

GULIELMO FRENCH

et

GILBERTO AINSLIE

sanctæ theologiæ professoribus,

collegiorum de jesu et de pembroke

apud cantabrigienses

magistris

&c. &c. &c

qui, siquid est in illo ingenii

quod sentit quam sit exiguum

fructum ejus repetere

prope suo jure debent,

hoc

qualecumque sit

memoris et grati animi testimonium

d. d. d.

GULIELMUS TROLLOPE

Introductory Observations

Some remarks on the reality and the date of the Dialogue with Trypho, were offered in the account of the Life and writings of Justin Martyr, prefixed to the First Apology, as recently edited on the plan of the present volume. It is a consideration of trifling moment indeed, in connexion with Justin’s opinions, and the light which his writings throw upon the condition and prospects of the primitive Church, whether the Dialogue actually took place, or not; but if it did, the date of the occurrence is clearly fixed to the close of the year a. d. 140, though it may have been committed to writing some time afterwards. From a passage however in which Justin reproaches the Jews with a disposition at all times to oppress the brethren, which was now happily restrained by their present masters, the Benedictine editor simply infers, that the meeting with Trypho must have preceded the accession of M. Aurelius (a. d. 161.), who certainly was not likely to extend his protection to the Christians; but the context plainly refers this allusion to the revolt under Barchochebas, and the expression διὰ τοὺς νῦν ἐπικρατοῦντας1 designates the existing government, by whom the rebellion had been quelled, and the malice of the rebels against the Christians restrained. Nor does the mention of the Marcionite heresy afford any argument against the date in question, since the opinions of Marcion had been already somewhat widely diffused.2

This latter circumstance of course equally fails, as an objection against the genuineness of the Dialogue, which has also been disputed by Koch, Wagner, and other writers, though with far more confidence than success. “Father Hardouin also,” says Dr. Jortin,1 “did it the honour to reject it, along with the rest of Justin’s works; which is one argument, and not a bad one, in its favour.” Not only does the fact that Irenæus and Tertullian were acquainted with the Dialogue, as appears from the references which they make to it,2 clearly stamp it as a production of the second century; but the writer himself distinctly identifies himself by birth and education, as well as by direct reference, with Justin’s two Apologies in behalf of ...