The appropriateness of the apologetical arguments of Justin Martyr

AIM The purpose of this study is to assess the appropriateness of Justin Martyr's apologetical arguments as contained in his genuine works, namely First and Second Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in response to the so-called 'five-fold attack' against Christianity in the second century AD. Methodologically, by 'appropriate' in this study is meant 'suitable' or 'proper,' taking into account the rhetorical and literary conventions of second-century Graeco-Roman culture, the contemporary social situation, Justin's rhetorical and/or intended audience and his purpose. Would Justin's arguments from the point of view of second-century standards have been reasonable, possessing at least a potential for effectiveness, or would they have been either ignored, dismissed without serious consideration, or even worsened the plight for Christians? I believe this work fills a significant gap in our knowledge of Justin, being the first time a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness, or otherwise, of Justin's arguments has been made in one single study.