Misquoting Justin Martyr

First Apology, Chapter 6

Are angels worshiped by Christians?

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught. – First Apology, Chapter 6

One way of construing this rather confusing sentence is as a claim that Christians worship angels, along with the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. This is how Ehrman takes it. But this reading is suspect. Not only would it go against all prior (and subsequent) prohibitions against worshiping angels, such as Col 2:18 or Rev 19:10; 22:8-9, but Justin himself clearly says God created the “race of angels” in the beginning along with the face of men (1 Apology 7.5). Unlike the Logos, angels were not begotten but created. Moreover, in chapter 13 Justin offers a sharper and more concise statement that Christians “reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third.” Then in chapter 16 (61) he speaks of baptism “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.” In neither of these passages are angels mentioned. Thus, many have thought that the angels in chapter 6 are meant to go alongside “us” as those whom the Son has taught: “the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us and the angels… these things).” The particular Greek construction in 1 Apology 6 would supports [sic] such as a reading, as it shows Justin linking together the Father, the Son, and the Spirit by the use of a conjunction (te), which is not used for the company of angels. (Hill, “Paradox Pushers and Persecutors?”, How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature [Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 2014], pp. 187-188; bold emphasis mine) [8]

He also says that God alone is worshiped in chapters 16, 17; “God Alone.”

Scholars: Revisiting Shabir Ally’s Distortion of Justin Martyr Pt. 1

Justin in context: Revisiting Shabir Ally’s Distortion of Justin Martyr Pt. 2

First Apology, Chapter 22

Did Justin Martyr show Christianity copied paganism?

In First Apology 22, Justin Martyr is not claiming that Christianity borrowed its beliefs from pagan mythology. Rather, he is making a rhetorical appeal to Roman authorities, arguing that Christian claims about Jesus should not be considered strange or criminal when Romans already tolerate similar stories about their own gods and heroes (First Apology, chp. 22).

When Justin draws superficial comparisons to figures such as Perseus or Asclepius, he is not asserting theological equality or historical dependence, but highlighting Roman inconsistency if such beliefs are acceptable within pagan religion, Christians should not be persecuted for professing comparable claims (First Apology, chp. 22; chp. 26).

Justin elsewhere makes clear that pagan myths are not sources of the gospel, but distorted imitations produced by demons who misunderstood Old Testament prophecy (First Apology, chp. 54-55). His purpose throughout the First Apology is to expose unjust persecution, not to equate Christ with pagan deities.

First Apology, Chapter 26

Are heretics/pagans called Christians?

“And, thirdly, because after Christ’s ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: — Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you. – First Apology, Chapter 26

The point of contention in this passage is the claim that Justin refers to pagans and heretics as “Christians.” However, Justin himself does not affirm that these individuals are true Christians. Rather, he is describing how the Roman government and broader society indiscriminately labeled a variety of sects under the single name “Christian.”

Justin’s language does not insist that these men belong to the authentic Christian faith. In fact, the opposite is true. As the passage continues, Justin explicitly distances orthodox Christians from these groups by noting that he does not even know whether they commit the immoral acts often attributed to Christians yet he emphasizes that they are not persecuted or executed by Roman authorities on account of their beliefs, unlike orthodox Christians.

His concluding remark is decisive: Justin states that he has already composed a separate treatise against all existing heresies, offering to provide it if requested. This makes clear that he regards the teachings of figures such as Simon Magus, Menander, and Marcion not as expressions of Christianity, but as demonic distortions and heretical deviations that merely share the name “Christian” due to Roman misunderstanding.

Thus, Justin’s argument is not theological confusion but a legal and rhetorical strategy exposing Rome’s inconsistent treatment of groups falsely grouped together under the same designation, while reaffirming clear doctrinal boundaries between true Christians and heretics. If they were true Christians, they would likewise be persecuted, as Justin makes clear at the beginning of the First Apology. Yet since they are not persecuted, this demonstrates that neither Roman authorities nor Justin himself regarded these men as belonging to the authentic Christian faith. Rather, they merely bore the name “Christian” by public misclassification, while orthodox Christians alone suffered punishment precisely because of their confession and worship of the true God.

First Apology, Chapter 35

“Zephaniah, to the effect that He was foretold expressly as to sit upon the foal of an ass and to enter Jerusalem. The words are these: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your King comes unto you; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” – First Apology, Chapter 35

Objection: If Justin Martyr misidentified Zechariah as Zephaniah, then he was either careless, confused, or unreliable in his use of Scripture.

Response: Without overcomplicating the text of the First Apology, it is best understood that Justin simply made a minor error of attribution. He quotes the prophecy correctly but mistakenly names the wrong prophet. This slip has no bearing on the reliability of the Christian faith or the credibility of the Church, since Justin was one individual apologist writing from memory within the early Church, not an infallible authority.

The Church does not claim that every Christian writer is personally inerrant; rather, it maintains that the Church as a whole, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, faithfully preserves and proclaims the apostolic message. As such, this minor and inconsequential error does not undermine Justin’s argument or the truth of the prophecy being cited. The intent and meaning of his argument remain clear, and the issue itself is too small to bear the polemical weight often placed upon it.

First Apology, Chapter 36

“But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired themselves, but by the Divine Word who moves them. For sometimes He declares things that are to come to pass, in the manner of one who foretells the future; sometimes He speaks as from the person of God the Lord and Father of all; sometimes as from the person of Christ; sometimes as from the person of the people answering the Lord or His Father, just as you can see even in your own writers, one man being the writer of the whole, but introducing the persons who converse. And this the Jews who possessed the books of the prophets did not understand, and therefore did not recognise Christ even when He came, but even hate us who say that He has come, and who prove that, as was predicted, He was crucified by them.” –First Apology, Chapter 36

Justin’s repeated use of phrases such as “from the person of” or “from the” does not signal confusion of persons, but reflects a flexible, representational way of describing how prophetic speech is delivered. The context makes clear that “from the” can indicate agency or mediation, not personal identity. This is evident when Justin explains that prophetic words are spoken “from the person of the Father through Isaiah” (First Apology, chp. 37), while elsewhere he says that “the Spirit of prophecy speaks from the person of Christ” (First Apology, chp. 38), citing Isaiah 65:2.

In these passages, Justin consistently maintains a threefold structure:

• The source of revelation is God the Father
• The speaker or mediator is either the Divine Word or the Spirit of prophecy
• The voice represented in the utterance varies according to the content of the message, sometimes the Father, sometimes Christ.

Thus, “from the” does not mean that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person, but that prophetic speech is communicated by divine agents who speak on behalf of God or Christ, depending on the context. This reading is confirmed by Justin’s broader usage, where he clearly distinguishes the Father, the Divine Word (whom he elsewhere identifies as Christ), and the Spirit of prophecy, while attributing revelatory action exclusively to God.

The logical reason Justin cannot be understood as engaging in metaphysical speculation in these passages is that the primary aim of the First Apology is not theological precision, but a legal and moral appeal on behalf of persecuted Christians. Justin is addressing Roman officials in their own intellectual and cultural framework, seeking to demonstrate that Christian beliefs are neither irrational nor deserving of execution. As such, his language is intentionally colloquial, representational, and familiar to Roman ears, rather than technically defined. He is explaining how prophetic speech functions in broad terms that would be intelligible within Greco-Roman categories, not constructing a detailed account of divine ontology.

This explains why Justin’s phrasing such as “from the person of” or “from the” is functional rather than metaphysical. He is not attempting to define the inner relations of God, but to show that Christians worship the true God who genuinely speaks and acts in history. By contrast, in his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin engages directly with Jewish interpretive concerns and operates within a different polemical setting, where he argues more carefully from Scripture and develops his reasoning at greater depth. The difference in language and precision reflects the difference of audience and purpose, not theological inconsistency.

Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 88

Did Justin Martyr expose a textual varient?

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him like a dove, [as] the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote. – Dialogue with Trypho, chp. 88

Objection:“Where in the New Testament did the Jordan River catch on fire? The apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote the Gospels, yet none mention such an event. It seems Justin Martyr was quoting from a different Gospel than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.”

Response: This objection makes several unfounded assumptions. It overlooks the fact that multiple ad hoc conclusions can be drawn from Justin’s statement conclusions that lack any supporting evidence from Scripture or established scholarship. Such reasoning is ad hoc precisely because it constructs speculative explanations without textual or historical grounding, projecting more onto Justin’s words than the evidence allows. 

The Church Fathers themselves were not infallible and could make mistakes. This also means that the Church, apart from the authority of an ecumenical council guided by the Holy Spirit, is not inherently infallible in every individual opinion or interpretation. It is certainly possible that Justin Martyr drew upon an external or now-lost source; however, this cannot be stated as an absolute fact.

A more reasonable explanation without resorting to ad hoc speculation is that Justin was employing Haggadic interpretive methods, which were common in his time. Such methods were used to draw theological insights or symbolic applications from Scripture rather than to assert literal historical claims. In this context, Justin’s reference to “fire in the Jordan” could have been a figurative illustration meant to communicate a deeper theological truth to his readers.

Many scholars have observed this interpretive approach, including John McClintock, James Strong, and David H. Stern, among others, noting that this form of exegesis sought to illuminate Scripture without altering its textual integrity.

Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 129

Justin: And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God. Again, when the Scripture records that God said in the beginning, ‘Behold, Adam has become like one of Us,’ Genesis 3:22 this phrase, ‘like one of Us,’ is also indicative of number; and the words do not admit of a figurative meaning, as the sophists endeavour to affix on them, who are able neither to tell nor to understand the truth. And it is written in the book of Wisdom: ‘If I should tell you daily events, I would be mindful to enumerate them from the beginning. The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled; He begets me before all the hills.

Objection: Justin is quoting Proverbs 8:22 and Jesus is the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24, 30). This shows that Christ is created as proverbs 8:22 implies according to the LXX.

Response: First, The Septuagint uses ktizō (κτίζω) not only for material (substance) creation, but also for bringing about events (Isa. 45:7-8), establishing spiritual or moral conditions (Ps. 51:10), constituting a people or covenant identity (Deut. 32:6; Ps. 102:18; Mal. 2:10), and renewing or ordering reality (Ps. 104:30). These uses demonstrate that ktizō does not inherently signify creation ex nihilo, but the initiation or establishment of realities already grounded in prior existence. On this basis, Proverbs 8:22 cannot be read as asserting the ontological creation of Wisdom.

Second, Scripture presents Wisdom as existing prior to creation. Psalm 104:24 affirms that God made all things in Wisdom, which necessarily places Wisdom before the created order. It is therefore incoherent to claim that Wisdom itself was created, since that would imply God created the world using something that did not yet exist. Moreover, Scripture teaches that God gives Wisdom, and He has always possessed the ability to do so. Proverbs 2:6 states that wisdom, knowledge, and understanding come “from His mouth,” an anthropomorphic expression indicating that Wisdom proceeds from God’s own essence rather than being something external to Him. Consequently, Wisdom cannot be a created entity, but is intrinsic to who God eternally is.

Third, Paul identifies Christ not only as “the Wisdom of God,” but also as “the Power of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). If Proverbs 8:22 were taken to mean that Wisdom was created, consistency would require the conclusion that God also created His own power. Yet this is conceptually impossible: God could not create power without already possessing power, nor could He create Wisdom without already possessing the Wisdom necessary to do so. The claim collapses under basic logical and theological analysis. At the most fundamental level, it misunderstands the nature of divine attributes.

Fourth, appeals to early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr only reinforce this point when read in context. Justin explicitly calls Jesus God (First Apology 63), affirms belief in only one God (First Apology 16-17), describes the Trinitarian baptismal formula (First Apology 61), and states that Christians worship Christ (First Apology 13). These affirmations are incompatible with the notion that Justin regarded Christ as a created being. When Justin is read holistically rather than selectively, it is evident that he understood Christ as divine, not as a creature.

For more on Proverbs 8:22 please read this article.