Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 2
In Justin Martyr’s *First Apology* (addressed to Emperor Antoninus Pius), David leans heavily on the idea that the emperor “would have known” Roman crucifixion; how does that audience-context strengthen (or potentially weaken) Justin’s argument about what *stauros* meant in the Roman world?
Another way to ask: Since Justin wrote to a Roman emperor who knew crucifixion, how does that help (or hurt) Justin’s point about what “stauros” meant in Roman times?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests the audience-context strengthens Justin’s argument because he is writing to someone who understands Roman execution practices and would notice a wrong description. A potential weakness (not developed much in the transcript) is that Justin is using analogies, so someone could argue he’s being rhetorical—yet David treats the emperor’s presumed knowledge as a reality-check.
- David emphasizes, “the Roman Emperor would have known how Romans crucified people… he ordered a lot of people to be crucified.”
- He notes Antoninus Pius “spoke Greek,” and Justin “wrote to him in Greek,” tying *stauros* usage to a Roman-world Greek context.
- Justin uses a form of “the Greek word *staros*,… the same word used in the New Testament,” which the NWT renders “torture stake.”
- David’s reasoning: Justin is not merely stating a Christian belief; he is saying, in effect, “You know this shape,” because the emperor knows Roman crucifixion.
- Justin’s examples (sail/mast, plow, tools, banners) are presented as things “which fall under our observation,” implying the emperor can verify.