Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks

 Chapter I.—Reasons for addressing the Greeks.

 Chapter II—The poets are unfit to be religious teachers.

 Chapter III.—Opinions of the school of Thales.

 Chapter IV.—Opinions of Pythagoras and Epicurus.

 Chapter V.—Opinions of Plato and Aristotle.

 Chapter VI.—Further disagreements between Plato and Aristotle.

 Chapter VII.—Inconsistencies of Plato’s doctrine.

 Chapter VIII.—Antiquity, inspiration, and harmony of Christian teachers.

 Chapter IX.—The antiquity of Moses proved by Greek writers.

 Chapter X—Training and inspiration of Moses.

 Chapter XI.—Heathen oracles testify of Moses.

 Chapter XII.—Antiquity of Moses proved.

 Chapter XIII.—History of the Septuagint.

 Chapter XIV.—A warning appeal to the Greeks.

 Chapter XV.—Testimony of Orpheus to monotheism.

 Chapter XVI.—Testimony of the Sibyl.

 Chapter XVII.—Testimony of Homer.

 Chapter XVIII.—Testimony of Sophocles.

 Chapter XIX.—Testimony of Pythagoras.

 Chapter XX.—Testimony of Plato.

 Chapter XXI.—The namelessness of God.

 Chapter XXII.—Studied ambiguity of Plato.

 Chapter XXIII.—Plato’s self-contradiction.

 Chapter XXIV.—Agreement of Plato and Homer.

 Chapter XXV.—Plato’s knowledge of God’s eternity.

 Chapter XXVI.—Plato indebted to the prophets.

 Chapter XXVII.—Plato’s knowledge of the judgment.

 Chapter XXVIII.—Homer’s obligations to the sacred writers.

 Chapter XXIX.—Origin of Plato’s doctrine of form.

 Chapter XXX.—Homer’s knowledge of man’s origin.

 Chapter XXXI.—Further proof of Plato’s acquaintance with Scripture.

 Chapter XXXII.—Plato’s doctrine of the heavenly gift.

 Chapter XXXIII.—Plato’s idea of the beginning of time drawn from Moses.

 Chapter XXXIV.—Whence men attributed to God human form.

 Chapter XXXV.—Appeal to the Greeks.

 Chapter XXXVI.—True knowledge not held by the philosophers.

 Chapter XXXVII.—Of the Sibyl.

 Chapter XXXVIII.—Concluding appeal.

Chapter VI.—Further disagreements between Plato and Aristotle.

And that these very wonderful sages of yours do not even agree in other respects, can be easily learned from this. For while Plato says that there are three first principles of all things, God, and matter, and form,—God, the maker of all; and matter, which is the subject of the first production of all that is produced, and affords to God opportunity for His workmanship; and form, which is the type of each of the things produced,— Aristotle makes no mention at all of form as a first principle, but says that there are two, God and matter. And again, while Plato says that the highest God and the ideas exist in the first place of the highest heavens, and in fixed sphere, Aristotle says that, next to the most high God, there are, not ideas, but certain gods, who can be perceived by the mind. Thus, then, do they differ concerning things heavenly. So that one can see that they not only are unable to understand our earthly matters, but also, being at variance among themselves regarding these things, they will appear unworthy of credit when they treat of things heavenly. And that even their doctrine regarding the human soul as it now is does not harmonize, is manifest from what has been said by each of them concerning it. For Plato says that it is of three parts, having the faculty of reason, of affection, and of appetite.21    τὸ λογικόν τὸ θυμικόν, τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν, —corresponding to what we roughly speak of as reason, the heart, and the appetites. But Aristotle says that the soul is not so comprehensive as to include also corruptible parts, but only reason. And Plato loudly maintains that “the whole soul is immortal.” But Aristotle, naming it “the actuality,”22    ἐντελέχεια, —the completion or actuality to which each thing, by virtue of its peculiar nature (or potentiality, δύναμις), can arrive. would have it to be mortal, not immortal. And the former says it is always in motion; but Aristotle says that it is immoveable, since it must itself precede all motion.

Ὅτι τοίνυν οἱ σφόδρα θαυμαστοὶ καθ' ὑμᾶς σοφοὶ οὐδ' ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις συμφωνοῦντες φαίνονται, καὶ ἀπὸ τούτων γνῶναι ῥᾴδιον. Τοῦ γὰρ Πλάτωνος τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τοῦ παντὸς εἶναι λέγοντος, θεὸν καὶ ὕλην καὶ εἶδος (θεὸν μὲν τὸν πάντων ποιητήν, ὕλην δὲ τὴν ὑποκειμένην τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν γενομένων γενέσει καὶ τὴν πρόφασιν αὐτῷ τῆς δημιουργίας παρέχουσαν, εἶδος δὲ τὸ ἑκάστου τῶν γινομένων παράδειγμα), Ἀριστοτέλης τοῦ μὲν εἴδους ὡς ἀρχῆς οὐδαμῶς μέμνηται, δύο δὲ ἀρχάς, θεὸν καὶ ὕλην, εἶναί φησι. Καὶ αὖθις τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τοῦ ἀνωτάτω οὐρανοῦ ἀπλανεῖ σφαίρᾳ τόν τε πρῶτον θεὸν καὶ τὰς εἰδέας εἶναι λέγοντος, Ἀριστοτέλης μετὰ τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν οὐ τὰς εἰδέας ἀλλά τινας νοητοὺς θεοὺς εἶναι λέγει. Οὕτω μὲν οὖν περὶ τῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαφέρονται πραγμάτων. Ὥστε εἰδέναι προσήκει ὅτι οἱ μηδὲ τὰ παρ' ἡμῖν ἐνταῦθα γνῶναι δυνηθέντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τούτων πρὸς ἀλλήλους διενεχθέντες, οὐκ ἀξιόπιστοι φανήσονται περὶ τῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς διηγούμενοι. Ὅτι τοίνυν οὐδὲ ὁ περὶ τῆς ἐνταῦθα ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς αὐτοῖς συμφωνήσει λόγος, δῆλον ἀπὸ τῶν ὑφ' ἑκατέρου αὐτῶν περὶ αὐτῆς λεχθέντων. Πλάτων μὲν γὰρ τριμερῆ αὐτὴν εἶναί φησι, καὶ τὸ μὲν λογικὸν αὐτῆς, τὸ δὲ θυμικόν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικὸν εἶναι λέγει: Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ οὐ κοινοτέραν τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναί φησιν, ἐν ᾧ περιείληπται καὶ τὰ φθαρτὰ μόρια, ἀλλὰ τὸ λογικὸν μόνον. Καὶ ὁ μὲν Πλάτων Ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος κέκραγε λέγων: Ἀριστοτέλης δέ, ἐντελέχειαν αὐτὴν ὀνομάζων, οὐκ ἀθάνατον ἀλλὰ θνητὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι βούλεται. Καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀεικίνητον αὐτὴν εἶναι λέγει: Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ ἀκίνητον αὐτὴν εἶναί φησιν, ἁπάσης κινήσεως προηγουμένην.