Note 1 — Chapter XI · STILL ASCENDING THE STREAM.

Judge Waite controverts the generally received opinion of the date of Justin’s First Apology. Verissimus became Cæsar in 139, but he is not addressed as Cæsar, but as “philosopher.” In reply to this, Mr. Waite says, that the same is true of the Second Apology, “which is admitted by all to have been written after 139.” In the first place, there is considerable uncertainty which of the Apologies was first written, and some critics maintain that what is called the Second was a preface to the First, and others still that it was a continuation of the First. (See introductory notice to Vol. II. of the A. N. C. L.) In the second place, the address to Urbicus in the so-called Second Apology, was not by Justin. He only gives it as the language of one Lucius, in narrating an occurrence which, for aught that appears, may have taken place before the year 139. Mr. Waite also says that Justin would be but twenty-five years of age in 139. He might have written his Apology in 139, nevertheless. And there are many who put his birth earlier than the year 114, and some as early as the year 85. There are no certain data by which to determine the time of his birth. Again he says that Marcion did not come to Rome till about 140, and that Justin (c. 26) refers to him as being “even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some God greater than the Creator.” But Justin meant to express his abhorrence of his doctrines. He refers to him as “a man of Pontus,” and again (in c. 58) as “Marcion of Pontus,” and says the devils put him forward. He nowhere describes him as being of Rome or at Rome. In his extensive travels he doubtless knew of him while he was at Pontus. Judge Waite also says that, if in the year 139, Justin would have said that Christ was born 140 years ago, instead of 150. But correcting the error for the beginning of our Era, the time would have been A.D. 146, or 144, as we allow four or six years for the error, and Justin, using round numbers, would more naturally have taken the longer period. There is nothing therefore in Judge Waite’s arguments to change the opinion in what he concedes to be “the very valuable Encyclopedia of McClintock and Strong,” and of Page, Neander, Lemisch, Roberts and Donaldson, Sears, Fisher, Eusebius, (c. 8) and many others, assigning the year 139. See also Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris (1880) p. lv. It is, however, not essential to the argument from the First Apology, whether it was written in the year 139, or 144, or 146, or even 150 of our Era. By as much as it lengthens the period from the death of John to the date of the First Apology, it shortens the time between that date and the year 180.