English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Justin’s Debate with Crescens the Stoic