Startseite Justin’s Debate with Crescens the Stoic
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Justin’s Debate with Crescens the Stoic

  • Runar M. Thorsteinsson EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 8. Mai 2014
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Justin Martyr probably wrote his Second Apology as a private petition (βιβλίδιον, libellus) to the Roman authorities, conveying his defence on behalf of oppressed Christians. But that does not explain the heavily theological/philosophical content of chapters 4-13, including Justin’s detailed arguments against Stoic cosmo-theology in these chapters. The 2 Apology also contains a reference to a previous public debate between Justin himself and a philosopher called Crescens, whom Justin calls a “Cynic,” and who has therefore been so identified ever since. The present essay argues that the content of Justin’s philosophical/theological discourse in 2 Apology 4-13 is precisely based on his previous encounter with Crescens. Moreover, it is argued that Crescens was not a Cynic. Rather, he was a Stoic philosopher, thus belonging to one of the two most prominent philosophical schools of the time-the other being (Middle) Platonism. This conclusion places Justin, a former Platonist, at the heart of the ongoing debates among the philosophical schools, the foremost of which, according to Justin, was Christianity.

Published Online: 2014-5-8
Published in Print: 2013-12-1

© 2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 31.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/zac-2013-0023/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen