Minimalist

First off, he is not saying "similar", Don, he is saying "identical." I still fail to see why similarity to an older "pagan" religion would do him any good.

If they were so "similar" and I were the Emperor I would ask why they did not do what all the other cults in the Empire did and swear allegiance to Roman gods?

GakuseiDon

No, his argument needs it. Justin's argument was that Christians believed the same kinds of things as the pagans, and the reason that the pagans don't see that was because the demons misunderstood it. I suspect that what he was doing was saying "If you guys (Roman Emperor and Senate) can't see the similarities, then you are making the same mistake as the demons".

Remember that he wasn't trying to convert them, but rather appealing to them for leniency against persecution. He was appealing to their philosophical natures. It wasn't just Christians who were being unjustly done by because of those demons. The same thing happened to Socrates, according to Justin:

"And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that "he was introducing new divinities;" and in our case they display a similar activity."

GakuseiDon

That's a really good point. Unfortunately we don't have the response to Justin's letter. Though, as his gods were just described as demons, the Emperor probably wouldn't think it worthwhile to pursue that.

From Justin's perspective: if the Romans were truly philosophical, they would recognise that the Logos that the Romans talked about referred to Christ, so they (the Romans) should join the true religion of Christianity. As Justin wrote:

"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue. "

lycanthrope

Dear GakuseiDon,

You seem very well versed in the ancient history of the Church, may I ask what you do for a living?

GakuseiDon

I'm an IT programming hack/drone for a major IT company. I have no relevant training or language skills in Biblical studies, just an amateur's interest in how they thought back then.

andrewcriddle

I'll quote the passage in context There are two points.
First Justin appears to be referring to something relatively little known something that ..you either know or can learn. IE it seems unlikely that Justin's mention of this supposed similarity was because it was so well known that he could not ignore it.
Second the puzzling reference to bread and a cup of water instead of bread and wine as we would expect. I discussed this at Sacraments in Mithraism... and suggested that what Justin is doing is comparing special features of the Christian baptismal eucharist with features of initiation in Mithraism. IF I'm right, or even partly right, it increases ones perception that Justin is taking details somewhat out of context from Mithraism and Christianity as part of his search for parallels, rather than being confronted by parallels too obvious for anyone to ignore.

Andrew Criddle