A Behaviorist Looks at the Surviving Work of Justin Martyr
Author(s): Willard F. Day, Jr.
Source: Behaviorism, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Fall, 1984), pp. 111-116
Published by: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (CCBS)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27759048 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 16:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (CCBS) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Behaviorism.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:49:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Behaviorism,
Fall
1984, Vol.
12,Number
2
A BEHAVIORIST LOOKS AT THE SURVIVING
WORK OF JUSTINMARTYR
F. Day, Jr.
University of Nevada, Reno
Willard
In November, 1973 a symposium entitled "Who's Afraid of Justin Martyr" was held at a
convention of the American Academy of Religion in Chicago, under sponsorship of the
Patristics section of theAcademy. The symposium was organized and chaired by JerryStone of
the Department of Religion, Illinois Wesleyan University. Participants in the symposium,
besides myself, were Robert Bray, Department of English, IllinoisWesleyan University; Stanley
of Philosophy, Miami University; and Samuel Laeuchli, Department of
Religion, Temple University. The basic idea behind the symposium was tomove discussion of
Patristic texts (i.e., thework of theearly Fathers of theChurch, say, for thefirstseveral centuries)
beyond the analysis of professional scholars in the field of religion to theapplication of analytical
techniques currently in use inother disciplines. Itwas decided that the targetof analysis would be
all the extant written work (in English translation) of JustinMartyr?a
second centuryGentile
was
to
who
converted
who
became
and
martyred for his faith in 165
philosopher
Christianity
A. D. The importantmaterial that remains of Justin'swriting consists primarily of twoApologies
and one lengthyDialogue. All of this runs to approximately 150 pages in the source I used: The
Ante-Nicene Fathers?Translations
of theWritings of theFathers down toA.D. 325 (The Rev.
Kane, Department
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors; American reprintof the Edinburgh edition;
revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland
Coxe; Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1950).
Thus
in this cross-disciplinary symposium four different professional areas were
represented: literary criticism (Bray), philosophy (Kane), psychology (Day), and religion
(Laeuchli and Stone). What follows ismy own contribution to the symposium, which was
offered as a behaviorist approach to the task at hand.
issues. What has
In these remarks my aim will be to speak largely to methodological
fascinated me most about participating in this symposium has been the approach to the task
taken by those who organized it.Their idea, as I understand it, is this:As intellectual changes
continue to take place within the special disciplines of the humanities and social sciences, these
changes should be expected to have some bearing on new directions scholarship might profitably
take in the area of Church History. This isa fascinating idea, and I have been interested in seeing
whether or not my own work in the field of psychology can meet the challenge of this idea. Imust
say that I find the challenge all themore intriguing,because I associate the intellectual outlook
that I personally have as a psychologist with that of behaviorism, a perspective unfortunately all
too frequently regarded as fundamentally at odds with thevested interestsof humanistic studies.
However, it ismy view that behaviorism is not in the least opposed to the interests of the
humanities. Behaviorism differs from other orientations within professional psychology largely
on epistemological grounds; and since epistemological differences often have a practical bearing
most clearly visible indifferences inmethodology, much of what Iwill have to say about a new
way of looking at thework of JustinMartyr will have a distinctivelymethodological cast to it.
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:49:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DAY
The main suggestion I have tomake concerning the analysis of such historical material as
the work of Justin Martyr is related to the behaviorisms objections to what he regards as
"mentalism" in psychology. I shall come very directly to the point, no matter how shocking that
may be. It has been my experience to find that many people, when they finally come to
understand the ground of the behaviorisms objections to "mentalism," find the objection
considerably more far-reaching and shocking than they had been prepared to expect. Even so,
the heart of thematter is this:When thebehaviorist objects to "mentalism" inpsychology, he has
at the very bull's-eye of his target our expectations concerning man's rationality.
The behaviorist's objection to our conception ofman as inherentlyrational is far-reaching.
He believes, for example, that one cannot just simply expect people to possess, even in
rudimentary fashion, the range of skillswhich conspicuously rational people manifest so clearly.
In his view, it is indeed true that people are often enabled by the particulars of theirbackground
to acquire capacities which we regard as part of the picture of "rationality." However,
unfortunately, we generally take most of the whole package for granted in each other. In the
behaviorist's view, the realities of theway inwhich individual people think,or are able tomake
sense of things to themselves, or to express whatever understanding theymay feel theyhave, are
all shaped individually by the particulars of the circumstances under which they have lived.
Behaviorists most frequently talk about theirobjections tomentalism by criticizing certain uses
of such words as will, choice, decision, responsibility, and blame. However, what Iwill have to
say here about a method for examining historical documents stemsmuch more directly froman
objection to our habitual expectations concerning rationality. In particular, the objection is to
assuming thatwhen we examine records of what someone has said we have no other recourse
than to concentrate on the inherent rationality, or the internal consistency, of the ideas we take
his thought to express.
Basically the new suggestion that I have tomake is this. In addition to approaches already in
use, people interested in the assessment of original historical material should encourage others to
study thematerial simplyfor thepurpose of'finding out what they?the people who study the
to get out of it.My point here is that it is possible to approach the task of
material?happen
a
assessing particular historical document as itselfno more than one of getting people to react to
it, to respond to it in theirown way, and tomake public the reactions theyhave that have been
occasioned by the stimulation engaged in studying thematerial. It seems tome unlikely thatyou
should be able to appreciate at this point the full force ofwhat I have just said byway of tryingto
make a succinct statement of the heart of my proposal. However I think you will have little
trouble in coming to grips with my point as I proceed.
One might be inclined to look at the present symposium as an illustration of what I am
talking about, and indeed it is a step in the direction of getting people simply to respond to the
work of Justin Martyr. However my proposal ismore radical. That is, at this point in time it
seems only reasonable?it
is obviously an eminently rational thing to do?to ask not only a
patristics scholar but also a psychologist, a philosopher, a specialist in the area of literary
criticism, and an historian interested in the relation between textual material and the cultural
climate inwhich it iswritten to look at thework of JustinMartyr. Why? Well, there isobviously
psychological material in Justin'swork: Perhaps, for instance,we can find out more about why
certain people are willing to die for causes theybelieve in,or perhaps we can learnmore about the
dynamics of conversion experiences. The work obviously contains philosophical material. Justin
apparently regarded himself as a professional philosopher. At least in theDialogue Justin has
chosen to develop his thought within a self-conscious literaryform.
Yet my point is to try to draw attention away from the inherent reasonableness of these
reasons, and to argue that historical assessment may be blinded toa certain extent by forcing the
112
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:49:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SURVIVING WORK OF JUSTIN MARTYR
task of assessment itselfto conform to built-in, and in thiscase professional, preconceptions and
expectations concerning what one should look for. I do not doubt theutility inmany instances of
approaching historical documents with vested professional interests inmind. Yet even in these
cases I believe that something else can be done. In addition to the professional assessment, the
scholar could letus have some expression ofwhat thematerial means to him as a person, or as an
individual, even though such expressions of personal reaction would undoubtedly be heavily
influenced by the professional background in the particular case.
Iwill illustrate shortlywhat Imean by lettingyou have something ofmy own reaction to the
material we have read. Yet letme continue briefly to tryto put the radical nature ofmy proposal
more into relief. I have called for getting people to do nothing more than to react to historical
material of interest.By this Imost explicitly do not have inmind asking people togive theirown
interpretation of the ideas expressed in thematerial under examination, or theirown assessment
of the inherent rationality of these ideas. In scholarship in thefield ofChurch History, itmust be
almost impossible to avoid the temptation of trying to figure out the guy's theology, and then
wanting to judge that theology as interestingor uninteresting in one way or another. I am not
saying thatwe should not be interested in theology, or in the theology that can be constructed out
of the preserved verbalizations of a particular historical figure.My objection is to the possibility
that the rationalistic reconstruction of what someone has said, or a concentration on the rational
adequacy of someone's thought,may be taken as themajor criterion by which we assess the
significance and meaning of that person's experience for him. My concern here isclearly directed
at the point, or the purpose, or the aim of historical analysis itself,particularly in so far as it
pertains to the field of Religious Studies.
In other words, it isa mistake, I think,for one to think thata person has got to have a reason
for studying historical material, and thatone's reasons or lack of reasons bear on the justification
of his interest in it,or his right to be interestedor uninterested in it,or the relevance or irrelevance
of his interest.What we want to get iswhat anybody has to say in response to thematerial.
Ontologically this is themost realistic thingwe can do, since historical material is to begin with
nothing more than material which has functioned in itsown way in generating itseffect upon
others. We may or may not like the effect thatparticular historical material has had; we may or
may not approve of or agree with that effect;but it is precisely in itseffectupon others that the
material has its ultimate function. In looking at historical documents we should certainly not
neglect to open up thematerial so that we can look directly at the central and crucial thing,
namely, its effect upon us. This is behaviorism.
It occurs tome that you must believe that part of what I am saying is that itdoesn't make
much of any differencewho the people are that should be asked to read historical documents in
the kind of analysis I have inmind. In an ultimate sense this is true. People who read the reactions
of others to historical documents will in turn react to those reactions in theirown way: theway
they do. Some of these will be more valuable than others in terms of one or another vested
interest,professional or otherwise. However my view here is to argue that historical documents
have value other than those simply directed by the characteristic cultural and intellectual
fashions of any particular period. In a sense, they have a value and integrityof theirown, and
these documents achieve theirmost life,which is after all the only ultimate value, by being
brought alive by actually functioning in the lives of living people. The people that I personally
would want to try to get to read historical material are people who happen to have been
to have to
exceptionally broadly experienced in living.Whatever reaction theywould happen
make should be expected to be similarly broadly related to life.
Let me give you now something of my own reaction to reading what we have preserved of
the work of Justin Martyr. I will group these reactions into two classes, the classes being
113
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:49:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DAY
distinguished on thebasis of the factors towhich the reactions are responsive, or as behaviorists
would put thematter, on the basis of a major difference in thenature of theirbehavioral control.
To proceed with the first class, my reactions here are heavily controlled not only by the
textual material itself,but also by expectations laid upon me that I speak here to matters of
general or popular psychological concern. Let me say simply that I see in thework of Justin
Martyr very little that would be useful, or even interesting, to people who would characterize
their interests as predominantly "psychological," ifwe mean by that termwhat most people
would regard as "psychology"at thepresent time.For example, Iwas not struckby anything that
might pass as sources of data which would help us understand why some people are more willing
than others to die for causes theybelieve in.Nor do I see in thematerial any basis for increased
professional understanding of thedynamics of religious conversion. Nor do I see, not even in the
pompous petulance of theDialogue, grounds for some interestingassessment of personality that
might be correlated with such typologies as religious versus secular types of people, leaders
versus followers, people who seek out ways to bring trouble on themselves versus those who do
not, and so forth. I do not see in the material much of anything that would be genuinely
stimulating to the clinical psychologist, as for example signs of psychopathology in some way,
although I have no doubt that depth-psychological interpretationscould be forced upon parts of
itby someone so inclined. In short, I can summarize thewhole of thisfirst class of reactions that
occurred in response to my reading Justin's work by saying that if it is hoped that historical
scholarship can be enriched by bringing on to the scene increased numbers of psychologists with
their professional armamentarium of concepts, interpretative equipment, and other vested
interests, I would not want to encourage that hope inwhat we have preserved in thework of
Justin Martyr.
However, in the second class of reactions, where my responding was almost exclusively
under the control of the textualmaterial itself,so that itreflects littlemore than the interactionof
thematerial with the particulars of my own experience as an individual. I can be much more
positive. Let me first, however, express a global reaction. When I first read theApologies my
reaction was one of utter astonishment. An index of thiswas my inability to restrainmyself from
making marginal notes in the copy of the book I was using, which happened to be from the
University of Nevada libraries. Imake this confession with some embarrassment, since I am the
first to be outraged at such inconsiderate practices on the part of others. Along this same line I
have also to report the following. Among theno more than 30 pages of the two
Apologies Imade
no less than 52 marginal notations, each
identifyingsomething which I regarded as especially
worthy of particular note. On the other hand, in themore than 80 pages of theDialogue, the
number ofmarginal notations that Imade was precisely 8, and most of thesewere contained in
the introduction and thematerial concerning the conversion. These facts attest to the
verymajor
component of my reaction to the material. Whereas I got an enormous amount out of the
Apologies, and felt they bore on my personal and professional interests inmany, many ways, I
got only relatively little indeed out of reading theDialogue. Perhaps even more to the point, let
me put it thisway: Whereas I really liked?I loved?the Justin of the
Apologies, I had very little
interest in?I franklydisliked?the Justin of theDialogue. I found itvery hard to believe that the
two sets of material could possibly have been written
by the same man, by the same person.
Please do not be deceived by the lightness ofmy language here. I am after a
point which I
regard as having great methodological heaviness. With these facts that I have reported, I have in
my opinion brought us up short in the face of very serious, very interesting,and very important
professional psychological work. I am now considering Justin Martyr, not simply as an
historical figure, but as living reality, a living behavioral
reality, and with that professional
psychology can deal. The behavioral fact is that JustinMartyr in his survivingwork has set the
114
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:49:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SURVIVING WORK OF JUSTINMARTYR
occasion for recorded differential responding to different types of discriminative stimulation ina
real, living,human organism. This interaction between the stimulation provided by the artifacts
of Justin's verbal behavior and differential responding on the part of living human beings
constitutes psychological fact, psychological reality, ina very robust sense. Perhaps you can see
now the contribution I have inmind that vigorous professional psychological analysis can play
in the productive assessment of original historical documents. What psychology can do is to
submit the reactions that people actually make to the historical material to explicit behavioral
analysis.
But, you must surelywonder, ifpsychology can make such a behavioral analysis of reactions
to verbal material such as that of Justin,why have I not done so here in thispaper, at least formy
own case? Well, it is franklymisleading of me to suggest that such an analysis is easily done.
Careful professional work of this kind would lead understandably enough to a scientific report
of considerable specificityand technical refinement. Such a report, or even portions of such a
report,would not likely be broadly intelligible, and worse than that, an extensive amount of
was going on, or even why one should
exposition would be necessary tomake itclear just what
to
an
The
with.
major problem in intelligibilityarises
attempt tomake
analysis of that kind begin
from the enormous gap between epistemological expectations of both the lay and professional
on theother that
psychological community on the one hand, and themethodological procedures
are
the behaviorist
from
to
that
derived
behavioral analysis
are involved in the approaches
a
to
make
this
outlook. It is primarily for that reason that I chose
paper largely methodological
one, but one inwhich I try to point theway to a direction inwhich professional psychological
analysis might actually be serviceable to scholarship in Patristics.
However, inany event I can present here the upshot of thematter formy own case. Looking
differential
only at the 52 marginal notes on theApologies which indicated unusually strong
can
classes.
five
be
within
Briefly
grouped
responses on my part, I find that almost all of them
of thematerial
identifyingthose five classes should serve tomake relatively specific those aspects
which most engaged my own individuality. One class consisted of instances where I could not
avoid responding to what I sensed as an exceptional openness on Justin's part, to the personal
a stance in this life,and to the central
importance he seemed to place on the necessity of taking
as
it on utter honesty, both to
he
understood
position he seemed to place in Christian living
deals with a fundamental
A
second
class
himself and to others, without regard to consequences.
to
an
commitment
unshakable
reliance that Justin seemed to place upon
something thathe knew
to
to
be
know
taken
ina way thatwas differentfromwhat it isgenerally
something, towhat was
own
his
from
he
knew
experience transcended the
very apparently a kind of truth that
of
Justin's
evidences
of
struggleswith problems of
possibilities of doubt. A third class consisted
was
a
that
determinism and freewill, but in fashion
only secondarily intellectual and primarily
to theheart of thematter ofwhat it is to live
was
close
revealed the core of a problem for him that
therewas not the slightestquestion
for
Justin
that
evidence
with
life itself.A fourth class dealt
a
of
and
that genuine psychological
major kind are what one commonly can
personal changes
The fifth class concerned material
conversion.
true
and
as
a
of
observe
proper
consequence
a
bed-rock
for
Justin
must
have represented
which
psychological conviction, namely, that it"is
and
vice
of
to
be
is
made
that
of
all
virtue,"and that "it is in thenature ofman
the nature
capable
to know good and evil."
in the form of protocols the textual
Behavioral analysis would proceed by describing
of these reactions on my part. It would
material which acted in the discriminative control
which
to assess those factors inmy own personal and professional experience
proceed to attempt
to
omit
have
I
should
happened
as having strengthened the likelihood that
might be regarded
those
how
of
a
discussion
with
simply
those particular differential responses. Itwould terminate
115
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:49:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DAY
differential reactions play some part in the overall context of current intellectual and social
concern. It is only thegeneral verbal community which invests thebehavioral analysis itselfwith
meaning and significance for others.
Ciearly I cannot do thishere. However what I can do, by way of closing is to say something
about why I feel a detailed discussion of the behavioral control of the particular reactions I had
would be relevant to current interestboth in the nature ofman and inwhat it is to be a Christian.
I find in thismaterial strong empirical support for the currentwidespread interest inexistential
issues both in psychology and in the practice of Christianity. Perhaps the basic reason Iwas so
astonished to read the Apologies of Justin was that they constituted the best descriptive and
personal statement I have ever seen of the kind of concern with existential issues inChristian
living that I have only been able to read about at an intellectual, philosophical, or professional
level. I was astonished to find that these things so many scholars and thinkersare struggling to
talk about in terms of the particular concepts we make use of today are inmany ways manifest
quite simply in Justin's effort tomake a concise statement of the realities of what itmeant to be a
Christian in the second century.
Let me take a final parting shot at psychology. The kind of behavioral analysis I have
in this paper does not move in the direction of increased efforts to try to make
psychological sense out of Justin, to try to "pschoanalyse" him as itwere or to tryto figure out
psychologically the kinds of things thatmade Justin act theway he did and say the particular
things that he did. Indeed itmoves in a direction opposite to this. Itmoves towards the use of
Justin as a vehicle for our entry into life,for our coming to have a greater appreciation ofwhat it
is for us to be a human being. Iwould want to argue that thiskind of knowledge ispsychological
knowledge ina particularly relevant sense, in that itvery directly helps us as individuals to know
what it is for us to be human. The kind of behavioral analysis that I have advocated here leads to
advocated
increased knowledge, not about Justin as an exemplar
entity,but knowledge of Justin, of appreciating Justin as
thismaterial did forme. Reading his work enabled me
of one or another category of natural
a person. That isbasically what reading
to respond better to JustinMartyr asa
person.
116
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:49:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions