[ Published in Phronema 34:1 (2019) 25-54 ]

The Apologetic and Literary Value of the Acts of Justin

Chris Baghos,
University of Sydney

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to outline the consistent apologetic function and literary
value of the acta describing the trial and execution of St Justin Martyr and his disciples in
Rome (aspects which have largely been overlooked by scholarship hitherto). To this end, it will
examine whether the most authentic recensions echo the apologist’s understanding of the
rapports between Christianity and pagan philosophy. Moreover, it will discuss the editors’
articulation of Christian identity through their representation of Justin and his disciples,
including the influence of the New Testament in this regard. It will also highlight the editors’
censure of paganism via their negative depiction of Quintus Junius Rusticus (a descendant of
a Stoic martyr, an influential philosopher himself, and the urban prefect who served as Justin’s
judge).

In the introduction to his critical edition and translation of the Acts of Justin (AJ), Herbert
Musurillo affirmed that they constitute “a dull, prosaic document” except for the apology
featured in the third chapter of their middle recension.1 Musurillo’s assertion has had a negative
effect on scholarship’s perception of the texts, as evidenced by the limited analyses of them
produced since his publication almost five decades ago.2 However, Musurillo failed to
recognise the apologetic

…25…

quality of the acta throughout, which becomes apparent when one considers them in relation
to: (i) St Justin Martyr’s own works, (ii) certain passages of the New Testament, and (iii) the
positive reputation of the ancestor of Quintus Junius Rusticus, the apologist’s judge and the
antagonist of the texts. Such a comprehensive evaluation has not yet been attempted, and so
the subtle complexity and originality of AJ remain largely unappreciated.

In this article, I will outline the apologetic function of the most authentic versions of AJ
from their first to final chapters. To this end, I will justify my analysis of recensions A and B
of the acta. I will then discuss the common purpose and structure of these texts. I will also
provide a summary of the recensions before attempting to determine the extent to which they
reflect Justin’s perception of the rapports between Christianity and pagan philosophy. I will

I wish to thank the reviewers for their encouraging feedback and suggestions concerning style, as well as
Professor Carole Cusack and Associate Professor Adam G. Cooper (the examiners of the master’s thesis on which
this article is largely based).
1
Herbert Musurillo, ed., ‘Introduction’ to The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) xix.
2
Gary A. Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988); Gary A.
Bisbee, ‘The Acts of Justin Martyr: A Form-Critical Study,’ Second Century 3 (1983) 129-57; Harlow Gregory
Snyder, ‘“Above the Bath of Myrtinus”: Justin Martyr’s “School” in the City of Rome’ The Harvard Theological
Review 100.3 (Jul. 2007) 335-62. Earlier assessments include: Giuseppe Lazzati, ‘Gli Atti di S. Giustino Martire’
Aevum 27 (1953) 473-97; Rudolf Freudenberger, ‘Die Acta Justini als historisches Dokument,’ in Humanitas-
Christianitas: Walther v. Loewenich zum 65 Geburtstag, ed. Karlmann Beyschlag, Gottfried Maron, and Eberhard
Wölfel (Witten: Luther, 1968) 24-31.
therefore examine whether Justin’s logos spermatikos doctrine is echoed in any of the
theological confessions attributed to him within the martyr acts, noting also the doctrine’s
affinity with Stoicism (Rusticus’ chosen philosophy).

Furthermore, I will explore how the editors of the acta have defined Christian identity
through their representation of Justin and his disciples. Hence, I will evaluate how the
responses attributed to the latter parallel certain verses of the New Testament defining Christian
charisms and virtues. In addition, I will reveal how Marcus Aurelius’ persecution of the Church
influenced the editors’ negative depictions of the imperial authorities. More precisely, I will
highlight and examine the connection that they have drawn between the Roman prefect’s name
and the enforcement of what they consider impious decrees, thus criticising both paganism and
Greco-Roman philosophy.

…26…

The Relevant Recensions of AJ

Three recensions of AJ have been transmitted to us, which Musurillo labelled A, B, and C.3
Interestingly, the editor of C has contradicted their conclusion by emphasising the negative
character of the emperor, Marcus Aurelius, and the urban prefect of Rome, Rusticus.4 The
editor’s conclusion includes a petition for Christ to grant their current emperor victory over his
enemies and invincibility.5 The positive estimation of the emperor within the petition also
contradicts the other recensions whose depictions of the civil authorities are solely negative. It
thus constitutes an attempt to distance the Roman Empire from its pagan roots. However, A
and B – the ‘shorter’ and ‘middle’ recensions, respectively – attest to these roots whilst
depicting Justin’s trial as a clash between Christianity, on the one hand, and paganism,
represented by the typical cults and Stoicism, on the other. 6 I will discuss this point in due
course.

Gary A. Bisbee has offered the most thorough assessment of AJ. It is worth
summarising his findings to determine which recensions are relevant to this study. 7 Firstly,
Bisbee contested the opinion of most
3
Musurillo, ‘Introduction’ to The Acts of the Christian Martyrs xix.
4
Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Ἰουστίνου, Χαρίτωνος, Χαριτοῦς, Εὐελπίστου, Ἱέρακος, Παίονος, καὶ Βαλεριανοῦ 1.1 [i.e.
recension C], in The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, ed. Herbert Musurillo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 54.
Hereafter referred to as C.
5
C 6.3 (Musurillo 60).
6
According to Musurillo, Justin’s reference to the Theotokos (θεοτόκου Μαρίας) in C 2.3 suggests that it was
compiled just before or after the Council of Ephesus (431). C 2.3 (Musurillo 56, 57 n. 16).
7
Whilst I have referred to Bisbee for matters pertaining to the form and transmission of AJ, I disagree with his
contention that the early Christian martyrs often had a treasonous attitude towards the Roman Empire. According
to the scholar, many Christians perceived the empire as the devil’s instrument and therefore “actively sought to
tear it down, even if it meant throwing themselves headlong into [its] machinery” (Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of
Martyrs and Commentarii 99). Firstly, there is a degree of circularity with respect to Bisbee’s argument. It may
just as easily be claimed that many Christians perceived the state as a servant of evil during this time precisely
because of its hostile and violent attitude towards them. Secondly, though I acknowledge that many Christians
inadvertently challenged the state by refusing to offer sacrifices to the emperor and the pagan gods, I contend that
such denial constituted loyalty to Christ aimed at the redemption of the Roman Empire, not its destruction. This
is demonstrated by the Epistle to Diognetus (ED) 5 and 6, which Bisbee dismisses along with other apologies
from the same period. For instance, regarding the loyalty of the Church towards the state, its anonymous author
asserts that Christians “obey the established laws, and by their own lives surpass the laws” (πείθονται τοῖς
ὡρισμένοις νόμοις, καὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις βίοις νικῶσι τοὺς νόμους). Epistle to Diognetus 5.10 in The Apostolic Fathers,
Volume II, ed. Bart D. Ehrman, LCL 25 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003) 140 (hereafter referred
 …27…

scholars that AJ are direct copies of the commentarius (i.e. official record) of the trial of the
apologist and his companions, with a prologue and epilogue attached to them. Rather, adopting
form and redaction criticism, he systematically demonstrated that AJ have been edited
throughout.8 More precisely, he compared the form of the acta with that of a typical
commentarius to determine which passages are comprised of the original text.9 Bisbee opted
to treat C in passing as it dates after the empire’s legalisation of Christianity. 10 It thus falls
outside the scope of my article.

Bisbee examined the syntax and form of both A and B to determine their relationship,
for example, to ascertain which is the earliest and how they have drawn on their relevant
prototype/s. The scholar argued that the emphasis on dialogue featured in AJ attests to a date
of composition before Constantine’s Edict of Milan and subsequent promotion of the Christian
faith. This is because the martyr acts composed from the fourth century onwards tend to place
less emphasis on the protagonist’s words and more on their actions, in addition to the way they
died.11 Moreover, unlike similar material composed during this time, AJ do not mention the
day on which the subjects were martyred. Hence, they are not primarily

…28…

concerned with commemoration as the later acta are. Bisbee therefore contended that their
similar representation of Justin and his companions have more in common with the noble
depictions of the philosophers (e.g. Socrates) in exitus literature. He asserted that:

The earliest editors of the Acts of Justin […] seem to have shared common concerns
with Plato and the Stoics in their desire to record the ultima verba of their teachers and
philosophical exemplars and in their demonstration that death, even by suicide, was
preferable to compromising one’s philosophy or religion.12

Even though suicide and martyrdom constituted two entirely different things according to the
Christian apologists (especially Justin),13 Bisbee’s assertion otherwise has merit. Indeed, it
supports my hypothesis that these acta have as much of an apologetic, as they do a

to as ED; my translation). Moreover, they account for the hostility of the Roman Empire towards the Church on
moral and behavioural grounds, comparing these institutions to the body and soul of the human person,
respectively. They affirm that although the soul and the Church are both unjustly despised by their respective
environments for denying them illicit pleasures, they nonetheless mystically sustain them in their obedience to
God (ED 6, 140-43).
8
Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 95-96.
9
Ibid. 97-116.
10
Ibid. 97.
11
Ibid. 98-101.
12
Ibid. 101.
13
For the apologist’s perception of suicide, see: St Justin Martyr, [Pars Secunda] τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου Ἰουστίνου
φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν πρὸς τὴν Ῥωμαίων σύγκλητον Α [i.e. Second Apology] 3(4),
in Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, ed. Denis Minns and Paul Parvis (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009) 280-83. Hereafter referred to as 2A. In 2A 3.3 (Minns and Parvis 280), Justin asserts: “if, then, we are all to
go kill ourselves, we shall be responsible for someone not being born and made a pupil with respect to the divine
teachings, or even the human race not existing so much as it is dependent upon us, ourselves acting also contrary
to the will of God if we do this” (εἰ οὖν πάντες ἑαυτοὺς φονεύσομεν, τοῦ μὴ γεννηθῆναι τινὰ καὶ μαθητευθῆναι
εἰς τὰ θεία [sic.] διδάγματα, ἢ καὶ μὴ εἶναι τὸ ἀνθρώπειον γένος ὅσον ἐφ’ ἡμῖν, αἴτιοι ἐσόμεθα, ἐναντίον τῇ τοῦ
θεοῦ βουλῇ καὶ αὐτοὶ ποιοῦντες ἐὰν τοῦτο πράξωμεν). My translation.
commemorative, function in their entirety. However, we must not underestimate the influence
of the New Testament on the representation of the apologist and his companions within the
acta, which I will examine below.

Returning to Bisbee’s findings, the scholar suggested that the introduction of B is

slightly later than that of A on account of the syntax used in relation to the identification of
Rusticus.14 Furthermore, he demonstrated that the body of B is later than that of A judging
from

…29…

its structure, superior literary quality, and addition of certain phrases. 15 Bisbee subsequently
affirmed that these particular features “heighten the antipathy between the martyrs and the
magistrate, between the forces of God and those of Rome, Satan’s puppet.” 16 I suggest,
however, that the antipathy emphasised in the body of B is not between the Church and the
state per se, but between true piety and false impiety as embodied by these institutions
respectively during the second century. I will expand on this point in my analysis of the
representations of Rusticus.

It is worth noting Bisbee’s argument that the lack of descriptive references concerning
the martyrs at the beginning of the acta serves as evidence for the activity of later editors. In
short, the scholar affirmed that the introduction of the commentarius no doubt featured these
references, and that the Christian editors likely removed them, feeling that they were either
superfluous or offensive. However, such editing probably occurred at an early date since the
title ‘saint’ is not applied to any of the martyrs within the bodies of A and B as it is in that of
C. 17

What is more, Bisbee contended that certain additions to Justin’s apology in B 2.5-7
indicate that it is later than that of A.18 Similarly, he asserted that the κρίσις in B suggests that
it was composed after that of A owing to its false reference to one reigning emperor instead of
two – i.e. just Marcus Aurelius, instead of both him and Lucius Verus, who co-ruled from 161-
169 – and addition of a certain present active participle.19

…30…

However, there is one instance in which B bears witness to an earlier source than A, namely
Rusticus’ interrogation of Justin for the purpose of determining where he and his disciples
14
Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 100.
15
For example, the clever mirroring of certain terms in B 2.1-2 and the dramatic insult πανάθλιε in B 2.4. See
Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 100.
16
Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 105.
17
Unless the court scribe decided to forgo such descriptions, which seems less likely. See Bisbee, Pre-Decian
Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 105. At any rate, Justin and his companions are referred to as saints in the titles
and introductory chapters of A and B, presumably edited later.
18
Nevertheless, the apologies in both recensions appear to be based on one or more prototypes, with A serving as
a possible model for B in this instance. Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 111.
19
Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 115-16. The κρίσις apparently contradicts B 2.1, which
refers to multiple emperors. However, this may not be a mistake on the part of editor as contended by Bisbee. See
my discussion below of their estimation of imperial authority. For the length of Verus’ reign and his
accomplishments, see: ‘Chronological Table of Emperors, A.D. 96-222’ and The Augustan History 1.1 in Lives
of the Later Caesars: The First Part of the Augustan History, with the Newly Compiled Lives of Nerva and Trajan,
trans. Anthony Birley (London: Penguin Books, 1976) 25, 138-48.
congregate (3.1-4). Bisbee posited that the editor of A shortened this section of the
commentarius or another prototype, thus distorting the prefect’s questions and Justin’s
description of his meeting place. The editor of B, however, left the verses as they were, thereby
preserving their proper meaning.20

Bisbee concluded that four readings of B point to a separate textual tradition from A.
Otherwise, based on the extant evidence, “it must be said that B derives from A.” 21 Contrary
to Giuseppe Lazzati and Rudolf Freudenberger, the scholar dated both recensions to the third
century when the Church was still being persecuted sporadically. Hence, I will examine both
recensions within this article. I will build on Bisbee’s analysis by examining the content of the
two recensions and highlighting the identical, apologetic motivation of their respective editors.

Genre, Structure, and Summary of AJ

According to Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, the literary representations of Christian
martyrdom may be divided into the following categories: ‘acts’, ‘passions’, ‘martyrdoms’, and
‘legends’.22 Notwithstanding their similarity to exitus literature (a topic beyond the scope of
this article), AJ belong to the first of these since they are accounts of an interrogation before an
imperial authority partly based on an official record. The early Christians composed such texts
as tools for

…31…

conversion, in addition to commemoration and catechetical instruction. In other words, the

martyr acts are intended to be sources of spiritual formation (not merely historical information)
for both members of the flock and potential converts. In accordance with the conventions of
the time, the behaviour and speech of the martyrs and their accusers in A and B have been
stylised, provoking inspirational responses from the former.23 The dialogues they feature
ultimately emphasise the superiority of Christianity over paganism.

Recensions A and B both consist of six chapters. They feature the question-and-answer
structure typical the of martyr act, in addition to the same narrative pattern. This pattern has
been summarised by Jan Willem van Henten and Friedrich Avemarie as follows: (i) the
implication/assertion that the martyr has violated a decree by adhering to his or her faith, which
subsequently warrants the death penalty according to their civil ruler; (ii) a description of the
dilemma faced by the protagonist (i.e. submission to the authorities constituting betrayal of
his/her faith or continued loyalty despite the legal consequences); (iii) the decision of the
martyr to prioritise his/her faith whilst under interrogation and not comply with the ruler or
their representative (even when tortured and threatened with execution); (iv) a brief reference
to or a description of the protagonist’s execution.24

20
Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 111-13.
21
Ibid. 117.
22
Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, vol. 1:
From Paul to the Age of Constantine, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005)
213.
23
Ibid.
24
Jan Willem van Henten and Friedrich Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-
Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity (London: Routledge, 2002) 4. I have merged the third and fourth narrative
elements listed by the authors in their definition of this pattern since both refer to the decision of Christians and
Jews to accept death whilst being interrogated rather than abandon their faith. Indeed, the fourth element described
by them merely reiterates the third.
 The protagonists of A and B are listed with their respective titles as follows: Justin,
Chariton, Charito, Evelpistus, Hierax, Paeon and Liberian. Rusticus is depicted as the primary
antagonist from the outset of the texts, and both suggest within their respective first chapters
that pagans are responsible for impious edicts (A 1.1, τῶν ἀνόμων

…32…

προσταγμάτων; B 1.1, προστάγματα ἀσεβῆ) .25 The setting in both cases is identified as Rome
during Rusticus’ term as urban prefect.26 It

…33…

is implied that the above saints have defied the aforementioned edicts (which demanded all
Christians to offer libations to idols, as clarified in B 1.1).27

25
Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Ἰουστίνου, Χαρίτωνος, Χαριτοῦς, Εὐελπίστου, Ἱέρακος, Παίονος, Λιβεριανοῦ, καὶ τῆς
Συνοδίας αὐτῶν [i.e. recension A] 1.1, in The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, ed. Herbert Musurillo (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1972), 42 (hereafter referred to as A); Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Μαρτύρων Ἰουστίνου, Χαρίτωνος,
Χαριτοῦς, Εὐελπίστου, Ἱέρακος, Παίονος, καὶ Λιβεριανοῦ [i.e. recension B] 1.1, in The Acts of the Christian
Martyrs 46 (hereafter referred to as B). To be sure, pagans in general are referred to in B 1.1 as “the lawless
defenders of idolatry” (τῶν ἀνόμων ὑπερμάχων τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας). My translation.
26
A 1.1 (Musurillo 42); B 1.1 (Musurillo 46). Rusticus was urban prefect c. 163-168. See Frank McLynn, Marcus
Aurelius: A Life (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2009) 289; Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death
97; Musurillo, ‘Introduction’ to The Acts of the Christian Martyrs xviii. I have appealed to McLynn for this date
and the information concerning Marcus Aurelius’ religious policies. However, I contest the historian’s assertion
that Justin was a poor philosopher and writer (McLynn, Marcus Aurelius 281). Firstly, McLynn did not identify
Justin’s vision of a threefold relationship between: (i) the Logos, Christ, who guides and orders creation, (ii) the
rational principles stemming from him that underlie all things, remaining accessible to the human mind, and (iii)
the divine reason transmitted by the prophets to society via the Scriptures (See Mario Baghos, ‘Hellenistic
Globalisation and the Metanarrative of the Logos,’ in Thinking Diversely: Hellenism and the Challenge of
Globalisation, A Special Edition of Modern Greek Studies, Australia and New Zealand: A Journal for Greek
Letters, ed. Elizabeth Kefallinos (2012) 32). Consequently, he did not appreciate the apologist’s representation of
Christ as both the Logos described in the Greco-Roman philosophical traditions and the Son of God featured in
the New Testament. Moreover, the historian’s failure to recognise the similar understanding of the Logos reflected
in Jn 1:1-5 and ED 7 accounts for his affirmation that the apologist “invented large slabs of the Christian tradition
on his own” (McLynn, Marcus Aurelius 280; on the affinities between Justin’s understanding of the Logos and
that reflected in Jn 1 and ED, see Baghos, ‘Hellenistic Globalisation and the Metanarrative of the Logos’ 29-33).
It also explains his callous assertion that the Church Father was an “infuriatingly arrogant thinker” who “had the
audacity to suggest that Plato filched the notion of logos from Moses” (McLynn, Marcus Aurelius 300). The
apologist’s positive estimation of the Greek philosophers refutes the latter statement. For example, in his First
Apology (1A) 46.3, the Church Father describes Socrates and Heraclitus as ‘Christians before Christ’ because of
the virtuous conduct that stemmed from their understanding of the Logos (St Justin Martyr, Ἰουστίνου ἀπολογία
ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν πρὸς Ἀντωνίνον τὸν Εὐσεβῆ [i.e. First Apology] 46.3, in Justin, Philosopher and Martyr:
Apologies, ed. Denis Minns and Paul Parvis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 200, hereafter referred to as
1A). McLynn thus failed to recognise one of the major tasks of the Christian apologists, namely to defend their
faith against a hostile society. As indicated above, Justin was required to emphasise Christianity’s antiquity.
Whilst the apologist sometimes used forceful language to defend his faith, he also displayed restraint. For instance,
he permits his audience to maintain their negative estimation of Christianity so long as they cease unjustly
executing its adherents. See 1A 68.1 (Minns and Parvis 262). Subsequently, the historian’s assessment of Justin
betrays his unfamiliarity with the latter’s work. His negative bias towards the apologist likely stems from the
latter’s having questioned Macrus Aurelius’ reputation as a philosopher in 1A 2.2 (Minns and Parvis 80).
Moreover, McLynn misinterpreted the work of Paul Keresztes whilst falsely refuting the apologist for the
implication featured in the accounts of his martyrdom that the emperor’s edict of 161-168 was directed against
Christians per se (McLynn, Marcus Aurelius 303, 622 n. 111; Paul Keresztes, ‘Marcus Aurelius a Persecutor?’
Harvard Theological Review 61:3 (1968) 329).
27
B 1.1 (Musurillo 46). Bisbee proposed that Justin was put on trial for having refused to offer sacrifices to the
pagan gods as affirmed here, whilst Crescens was likely his delator as has traditionally been assumed based on
 The trial of Justin and his companions commences within the respective second
chapters of A and B. In A 2.1 Rusticus enquires into Justin’s manner of life, whilst in B 2.1 the
prefect immediately orders the apologist and his companions to offer sacrifices to the pagan
gods in obedience to the emperors.28 A dialogue ensues between the prefect and the apologist
in both texts. Rusticus compels Justin to confess his faith in God the Father and his Son, Jesus
Christ.29 It is intimated in B 2.2 that Christian doctrine forbids the pagan sacrifices demanded
by the state.30

The interrogation continues within the third chapters of both

…34…

recensions, wherein Rusticus asks Justin where he and his spiritual community meet. The
apologist casually responds in both A and B that they congregate wherever they can, whilst in
the latter he also affirms that God cannot be circumscribed.31 However, in each version Justin
only identifies the location of his own parish, which has presumably been discovered by the
authorities. The saint also describes his role as a teacher within the faith community.32
Furthermore, the Church Father is compelled to explicitly identify himself as a Christian using
a phrase commonly ascribed to the martyrs in the early acta (Χριστιανός εἰμι).33

The focus of the narrative subsequently shifts to Justin’s companions within the fourth
chapters of A and B. Rusticus asks them whether they are Christians; each responds in a unique
manner that they surely are.34 At the instigation of Rusticus, Evelpistus states that his parents
in Cappadocia first instructed him in the Christian faith. He

…35…

thus testifies to the growth of Christianity whilst also affirming that he listened to Justin’s
teaching in Rome.35

evidence from 2A, as well as Tatian and Eusebius. See Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 100
n. 20; Minns and Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to Justin, Philosopher and Martyr 42-43.
28
A 2.1 (Musurillo 42); B 2.1 (Musurillo 48).
29
A 2.5, 2.7 (Musurillo 42); B 2.5, 2.7 (Musurillo 48).
30
B 2.2 (Musurillo 48).
31
A 3.1 (Musurillo 44); B 3.1-2 (Musurillo 48). See also 2A 5.6 (Minns and Parvis 288). Here, Justin attests to
the existence of Christians throughout the whole world (κατὰ πάντα τὸν κόσμον).
32
A 3.3 (Musurillo 44); B 3.3 (Musurillo 48, 50).
33
A 3.4 (Musurillo 44); B 3.4 (Musurillo 50). Justin’s companions use variations of this expression in: A 4.1-7,
4.9 (Musurillo 44, 46); B 4.1-7, 4.9, 5.7 (Musurillo 50, 52); C 3.6, 4.6 (Musurillo 58). Its frequency is further
attested to in Musurillo’s collection, specifically: Μαρτύριον τοῦ Ἁγίου Πολυκάρπου 10.1 (Musurillo 10);
Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Κάρπου, Παπύλου, καὶ Ἀγαθονίκης 5, 34 (Musurillo 22, 26); Idus Aprilis sanctorum
martyrum Carpi episcopi et Pamfili diaconi et Agathonicae [i.e. Latin recension of the previous act] 4, 6.1
(Musurillo 30, 34); Μαρτύριον τῶν ἐν Λουγδούνῳ τελειωθέντων 20 (Musurillo 68); Passio Sanctorum
Scillitanorum 9, 10, 13 (Musurillo 88); Μαρτύριον τοῦ Ἁγίου καὶ Πανευφήμου Ἀποστόλου Ἀπολλώ, τοῦ καὶ Σακκέα
2 (Musurillo 90); Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis 3.2 (Musurillo 108); Μαρτύριον τοῦ Ἁγίου Πιονίου
τοῦ Πρεσβυτέρου καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ 7.5, 15.7, 16.2, 18.6 (Musurillo 146, 156, 158); Passio Sanctorum Martyrum
Fructuosi Episcopi, Auguri et Eulogi Diaconorum 2.3 (Musurillo 176); Acta Maximiliani 1.2-3, 2.6, 2.9
(Musurillo 244, 246); Passio Iuli Veterani 1.4 (Musurillo 260); Μαρτύριον τοῦ Ἁγίου Δασίου 7.2, 8.2, 10.2
(Musurillo 276, 278); Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀγάπης, Εἰρήνης, καὶ Χιόνης μαρτυρησάντων ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ 3.2
(Musurillo 282, 284); Acta Eupli (A. Recensio Graeca) 1.1 (Musurillo 310); Acta Eupli (B. Recensio Latina) 1.1,
2.1-2, 2.4-6 (Musurillo 314, 316).
34
A 4.1-9 (Musurillo 44, 46); B 4.1-9 (Musurillo 50).
35
A 4.7 (Musurillo 44); B 4.7 (Musurillo 50).
 In the fifth chapter of each text, Rusticus returns his attention to Justin. The prefect
threatens to execute the apologist, compelling him to assert that divine ascension awaits those
who remain faithful to Christ.36 Rusticus then condemns the saints, pronouncing torture and
the death penalty.37 The sixth and final chapters of A and B are comprised of brief doxological
formulae which relate how the protagonists were taken to the customary location to be
executed; B clarifies that they were beheaded and secretly buried by their fellow Christians.38

The Relation of AJ to the Apologist’s Own Writings

Bisbee outlined the differences between Justin’s confessional statements in the acta, on the one
hand, and those featured in his own writings, on the other. The scholar contended that whatever
apology Justin made whilst on trial probably differed in terms of syntax from those recorded
within the acta.39 I agree with his argument, which indirectly supports mine concerning the
editors’ omission of Justin’s logos spermatikos doctrine (see below). I maintain that the
apologist is nonetheless presented by the editors in a manner faithful to, if not entirely
consistent with, his own writings. More precisely, I contend that his responses have been
altered to further emphasise the superiority of Christianity over paganism, as have those of his
companions.

In A 2.5 and B 2.5, Justin is portrayed as an apologist and theologian in a manner

reminiscent of his First Apology (1A), Second Apology (2A), and Dialogue with the Trypho
(Dial.). For instance, the confession of faith attributed to him in these verses draws upon certain
passages from 1A and 2A in which he consistently refers to God the Father

…36…

as the creator of the universe and Jesus Christ, his Son, as the Saviour of mankind.40
Subsequently, in A 2.6-7 and B 2.6-7, the apologist appeals to the Jewish prophets for proof of
Christ’s divinity and Incarnation much like he does in 1A.41 Moreover, A 2.3 and B 2.3 each
feature an allusion to Dial. 2-8, where the apologist recounts how he had tried the major pagan
philosophies before being converted to Christianity by a mysterious sage. 42 In A 2.3, Justin
asserts:

36
A 5.1-3 (Musurillo 46); B 5.1-3 (Musurillo 50, 52).
37
A 5.6 (Musurillo 46); B 5.8 (Musurillo 52).
38
A 6 (Musurillo 46); B 6.1-2 (Musurillo 52).
39
Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 107-111.
40
A 2.5 (Musurillo 42); B 2.5 (Musurillo 48). Minns and Parvis recorded the many references to God the Father
as ποιητής and δημιουργός in 1A, 2A, and the Dialogue with Trypho. See Minns and Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to
Justin, Philosopher and Martyr 61 n. 38. In 1A 63.10 (Minns and Parvis 246), the Church Father asserts that Is
1:3 and Ex 3:2, 6 and 10 were intended to prove that “Jesus, the Christ, is Son of God and Apostle, being in the
first place the Logos, having also been made known sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in an incorporeal
image” (υἱὸς θεοῦ καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός ἐστι, πρότερον λόγος ὤν, καὶ ἐν ἰδέᾳ πυρὸς ποτὲ φανείς, ποτὲ
δὲ καὶ ἐν εἰκόνι ἀσωμάτῳ). My translation. In 1A 33 (Minns and Parvis 172-75), Justin examines Christ’s
miraculous conception as described in Is 11:1, Lk 1:31-32 and Mt 1:20-21, where he is also proclaimed the Saviour
of mankind. Furthermore, he refers to “our Saviour Jesus Christ” (τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) in 1A 33.5
(Minns and Parvis 172) whilst affirming that Isaiah validates the testimony of the Evangelists.
41
A 2.6-7 (Musurillo 42, 44); B 2.6-7 (Musurillo 48); 1A 32-36, 40-41, 45 (Minns and Parvis 168-79, 184-89,
198-99).
42
St Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 2-8, Selections from the Fathers of the Church 3, trans. Thomas B. Falls
and Thomas P. Halton, ed. Michael Slusser (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003) 5-
15. Hereafter referred to as Dial.
 Πάντας λόγους ἐπειράθην μαθεῖν· συνεθέμην δὲ τοῖς ἀληθέσι λόγοις τῶν Χριστιανῶν
κἄν μὴ ἀρέσκωσι τοῖς ψευδοδοξοῦσιν.

I endeavoured to learn every teaching: but I have agreed with the true teachings of the
Christians although they may not please those holding a false opinion.43

The above assertion is no doubt important since it places Christianity in direct opposition to
the pagan philosophical schools. It thus contradicts the apologist’s logos spermatikos doctrine.
In short, Justin described in

…37…

1A and 2A how Christ is the rational principle (λόγος) that gives order and meaning to the entire
creation. Justin therefore proclaimed that whichever pagans had lived virtuously and arrived at
accurate perceptions of reality were ultimately indebted to Christ, who implants the gift of
reason within every human being.44 According to the apologist, this gift has moral implications
as its proper use results in a lifestyle consistent with that of the Logos Incarnate. 45 Basil N.
Tatakis correctly asserted on the basis of 1A and 2A that Justin considered Christianity: “the
eternal, worldwide and complete philosophy that contains all others in whatever good they
said, but also establishes them in an unshakable manner.”46

Yet AJ do not include any references to the logos spermatikos doctrine, whose inclusion
would have been appropriate and of major apologetic value given the philosophical conviction
of the antagonist; Rusticus was a renowned Stoic statesman, as will be discussed later.
Subsequently, there are two possible explanations for the doctrine’s absence. On the one hand,
Justin might simply not have referred to it whilst on trial on account of any number of reasons,
including his disposition and perception of his persecutors.47 One would therefore have to
assume that the editors of A and B have kept Justin’s apology as they found it in their respective
prototypes. However, as indicated above, this is contradicted by Bisbee’s findings. On the other
hand, Justin might have cited the doctrine – especially if he had the opportunity to speak and
viewed his trial as means of converting at least some of his pagan accusers – and any references
to it in the commentarius and other models have been intentionally overlooked by the editors
of A and B.

…38…

I proceed on the assumption that the editors of A and B have deliberately omitted
references to the doctrine whilst at the same time modifying Justin’s remaining responses on
the basis of his own works. Bearing in mind that the only sources of Justin’s speech available
to us are elaborated and stylised versions of a lost transcript, we must restrict ourselves to the

43
A 2.3 (Musurillo 42), my translation; B 2.3 (Musurillo 48). The editor of B has copied this passage from A,
making only a few grammatical revisions.
44
1A 5.4, 46.2-4 (Minns and Parvis 90, 200); 2A 7(8).1, 7.3, 10.8, 13.3, 13.5 (Minns and Parvis 296, 298, 312,
320). See also: Minns and Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to Justin, Philosopher and Martyr 61, 65-66; Baghos, ‘Hellenistic
Globalisation and the Metanarrative of the Logos’ 31; L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought
(London: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 89.
45
1A 46.4 (Minns and Parvis 200); 2A 7(8).1-2 (Minns and Parvis 296-99).
46
Basil N. Tatakis, Christian Philosophy in the Patristic and Byzantine Tradition, ed. and trans. George Dion.
Dragas (Rollinsford, NH: Orthodox Research Institute, 2007) 29.
47
E.g. Justin might have lost hope that his pagan accusers would recognise the similar superior behaviour of
Christians and the Greco-Roman philosophers.
question of why the editors have not included such references to present their works in a manner
more consistent with their subject’s writings. Even if the respective prototypes of A and B did
not feature any references to the logos spermatikos doctrine – whatever the reasons for this
might have been – it is striking that the editors have not alluded to it at all given that they have
subtly hinted at more obscure (albeit related) aspects of Justin’s thought. These include the
apologist’s appropriation of the Stoics’ notion of the conflagration of the world, on the one
hand, and censure of their determinism, on the other.

Maryanne Cline Horowitz has outlined how Seneca, the famous Roman politician,
developed the Stoic understanding of the Logos. Whilst examining his Moral Letters to
Lucilius 65, 76, 85, 90 and 92, Horowitz underscored Seneca’s belief that mankind’s capacity
to acquire virtue stems from the ‘reason’ (ratio) or ‘seeds of knowledge’ (semina scientiae)
that it has directly inherited from the gods.48 The philosopher thus developed a Logos doctrine
with moral implications, much like Philo and Cicero.49 At this point, I must note that I agree
with L. W. Barnard that Justin was genuinely educated in Stoicism, as the apologist himself

…39…

testifies in Dial. 2.3.50 This is demonstrated by the various positive and negative references to
the philosophical school in 1A and 2A.51 I disagree, however, with Barnard’s complete denial
of the possibility that the apologist’s conception of the logos spermatikos may have been
directly influenced, at least in part, by the Stoics (not just the Middle Platonists, as has often
been argued).52 Barnard based his argument on the false notion that for the Stoics: “It is in no
way a spiritual or ethical principle which the λόγος σπερματικός certainly is for Justin, as may
be seen from 1 Apol. xliv.”53 As indicated above, this is contradicted by the writings of Seneca.

We must therefore acknowledge the possibility that Justin and his chroniclers may have
been familiar with Seneca’s understanding of reason even if it did not directly influence the
former’s logos spermatikos doctrine. Indeed, other Christian authors of Late Antiquity –
including Tertullian, St Jerome, Lactantius and St Augustine of Hippo – positively considered
the Stoic’s legacy.54 Rusticus may likewise have known Seneca’s writings given his similar

48
Maryanne Cline Horowitz, Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998) 30,
269-70 notes 58-62.
49
Whilst examining Cicero’s On the Republic 1.41, Maryanne Cline Horowitz pointed out his conviction that
human reason is naturally endowed with the limited virtues and notions of truth that constitute the foundation of
every society (Horowitz, Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge 29-30). Appealing to Carl Andresen, L. W. Barnard
similarly discussed Cicero’s ‘ethico-moral’ perception of the seminae justitiae which led to humanity’s love for
knowledge and ordered communities (Barnard, Justin Martyr 97-98). For a comprehensive discussion of the
transformation of the concept of the Logos by Philo, on the one hand, and Justin and the early Church, on the
other, see: Baghos ‘Hellenistic Globalisation and the Metanarrative of the Logos’ 26-33. Cf. Barnard, Justin
Martyr 85-100, esp. 97-99.
50
St Justin Martyr, Dial. 2.3 (Falls 5); Barnard, Justin Martyr 11.
51
For example, in 1A 43 (Minns and Parvis 190-93) and 2A 6.3-9 (Minns and Parvis 292-97), the apologist
criticises Stoic determinism and its negative implications for theology and morality. Moreover, in 2A 7(8).1
(Minns and Parvis 296), he praises the Stoics for their ethical doctrines.
52
Barnard, Justin Martyr 33, 97, 99.
53
Ibid. 97.
54
Robin Campbell, trans., ‘Introduction’ to Seneca, Letters from a Stoic (London: Penguin Books, 2004) 24. For
a comprehensive analysis of the Stoic influence on the Latin Fathers, see Marcia L. Colish, The Stoic Tradition
from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, vol. 2: Stoicism in Christian Latin Thought through the Sixth Century
(Leiden: Brill, 1985).
vocation and adherence to the same philosophy.55 In any case, it is noteworthy that that the
editors of the martyr acts did not hint at the similar understanding of the human rational faculty
displayed by Justin, on the one hand, and Seneca and other renowned Roman statesmen (e.g.
Cicero), on the other. Indeed,

…40…

there appears to be only one indirect reference to the Greco-Roman philosophies, namely
Stoicism, within the texts. More precisely, Justin refers to the concept of the conflagration of
the world in response to one of Rusticus’ last threats (A 5.2, τῆς ἐκπυρώσεως; B 5.2, τῆς
ἐκπυρώσεως τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου).56 The concept has been removed from its original pagan
context and associated with Christ’s final judgment as described in the New Testament, just
like in 2A 6.3.57 Yet there may be another, subtle allusion to Stoicism in the fifth chapter of
each recension. Justin mentions the divine reward awaiting those who live justly (A 5.2, οἶδα
δὲ ὅτι καὶ τοῖς ὀρθῶς βιώσασιν παραμένει <τὸ θεῖον χάρισμα>).58 This may be related to his
implicit censure of Stoic determinism in 1A.

As indicated by Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, the Stoics maintained that prophecy
validates their belief in predestination: i.e. God’s foreknowledge and prediction of future events
suggest that they occur by necessity. Since he desired to demonstrate that the Jewish prophets
had foretold Christ’s Incarnation through the Holy Spirit, the apologist was obliged to address
this problem.59 Subsequently, in 1A 43-44, the saint distances the Christian understanding of
prophecy from that of Stoicism. He implies that the belief in predestination deprives humanity
of any moral responsibility by denying it free will. It thus contradicts the repeated assertion of
the Scriptures that God will ultimately judge

…41…

human beings based on their free choices.60 The apologist’s conviction that the Church had a
superior understanding of human destiny is echoed in the justification of martyrdom attributed
to him in B 5.6, considered in relation to the Second Coming:

Δι’ εὐχῆς ἔχομεν διὰ Χριστὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν τιμωρηθέντες σωθῆναι, ὅτι τοῦτο ἡμῖν
σωτηρία καὶ παρρησία γενήσεται ἐπὶ τοῦ φοβεροῦ καὶ παγκοσμίου βήματος τοῦ
δεσπότου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος.

55
Although his famous disciple, Marcus Aurelius dismissed Seneca in favour of Epictetus, Heraclitus, Diogenes,
and Socrates. See McLynn, Marcus Aurelius 66, 205.
56
A 5.2 (Musurillo 46); B 5.2 (Musurillo 52).
57
In 2A 6.3, Justin clearly distinguishes between the Stoic and Christian conceptions of the conflagration of the
world. More precisely, he dismisses the former conception as shameful (ὃ αἴσχιστον ἐφάνη), having just outlined
how God has delayed “the fire of judgement” (τὸ πῦρ […] τῆς κρίσεως) for the sake of future generations of
Christians. 2A 6(7).1-3 (Minns and Parvis 290-93; see 291 n. 2 for the peculiar arrangement and probable meaning
of 6(7).1). Similar censure is featured in 1A 20.2 (Minns and Parvis 130). See also 1A 60.8 (Minns and Parvis
234), where the Church Father affirms that Moses predicted the conflagration (ἐκπύρωσιν) through the Holy
Spirit.
58
A 5.2 (Musurillo 46); B 5.2 (Musurillo 52). Once again, the verses from A and B are almost identical, the editor
of the latter having made only minor grammatical changes.
59
Minns and Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to Justin, Philosopher and Martyr 59-60.
60
In addition, Justin argues that Stoic determinism foolishly implies that God is responsible for evil, rather than
fallen humans or angels. Whilst drawing upon Carneades, the apologist asserts that the Stoics can only avoid this
logical pitfall if they deny the existence of good and evil, which would be the ultimate impiety. See 1A 43 (Minns
and Parvis 190-93, esp. 193 notes 1 and 3).
 Through prayer we consider [ourselves] to be saved when we have been punished on
account of Christ our Lord, because this will become for us salvation and confidence at
the frightening and universal judgement seat of our master and saviour.61

Subsequently, the dialogue between the prefect and the apologist and his companions in both
recensions represents direct conflict between the paganism of the Roman state as represented
by the typical cults and Stoicism, on the one hand, and the Christian faith considered in relation
to its Jewish origins, on the other. The editors have deliberately cited the more obscure aspects
of Justin’s thought concerning Stoicism precisely because they are more polemical. Their
omissions of Justin’s logos spermatikos doctrine likely reflect their shared frustration with the
state for its continued persecution of the Church so many years after the apologist’s execution.

The Portrayal of Justin as a Philosopher

The respective editors of the martyr acts portray Justin as a philosopher despite their tacit
censure of Stoicism, examined below. For instance, in A 3.3 and B 3.3, the apologist affirms
that he would freely communicate

…42…

“the words of truth” (τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγων) to anyone who came to his home in Rome.62 In
A 4.5 and B 4.5, the prefect asks Justin’s companions whether he converted them.63 Hierax is
the first to respond within the same verses, stating that he has always been a Christian. He thus
does not indicate his association with the Church Father. In fact, only Evelpistus confesses to
being a disciple of Justin in A and B, although he attributes his adoption of Christianity to his
parents.64 Nonetheless, Evelpistus’ confession is enough to validate J. W. Barnard’s assertion
that the apologist is depicted as “a philosophic evangelist informally training disciples.”65
Interestingly, Rusticus attests to Justin’s reputation as a teacher in B 5.1: “Listen, you who are
said to be learned and believes to have recognised the true teachings” (Ἄκουε, ὁ λεγόμενος
λόγιος καὶ νομίζων ἀληθινοὺς εἰδέναι λόγους).66 It is likely the disciples attributed their faith
to either their families or God and the charisms that he bestowed on them in order to protect
their mentor; at least the editors of the acta give this impression.

The Representation of Justin’s Disciples as Personifications of Christian Virtues

Willem van Henten and Avemarie revealed in their assessment of A that the disciples Chariton,
Charito and Evelpistus appeal to the etymology of their respective names whilst confessing to
be Christians.67 These figures do the same in B. It is my conviction that these names refer to
genuine

61
B 5.6 (Musurillo 52). My translation.
62
A 3.3 (Musurillo 44); B 3.3 (Musurillo 50).
63
A 4.5 (Musurillo 44); B 4.5 (Musurillo 50).
64
A 4.7 (Musurillo 44); B 4.7 (Musurillo 50).
65
Particularly when coupled with the Church Father’s admission that he taught in the capital. See Barnard, Justin
Martyr 12.
66
B 5.1 (Musurillo 50). My translation.
67
Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death 97 n. 43. The authors also mention Hierax (Ἱέραξ),
however, there does not appear to be any etymological connection between his name and the words featured in
his response. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones have offered the following definitions
of the term: a hawk, a type of fish, and a grade of initiates in the cult of Mithras. See A Greek-English Lexicon,
ed. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) s.v. ἱέραξ 820.
 …43…

people. The respective audiences of A and B would no doubt have rejected the texts had they
not existed, and a legitimate cult subsequently developed surrounding them. However, this
does not contradict the fact that they also represent within the acta certain values of the Church
as defined in the Gospels and the Pauline corpus. More to the point, the editors have identified
and exploited the symbolic meanings of the names of Justin’s disciples. They have
subsequently added/altered the disciples’ responses on the basis of the New Testament to
present them as personifications of Christian virtues that sharply contrast the pagan vices which
they attribute to Rusticus (discussed below).

In his assessment of Justin’s familiarity with the New Testament, Barnard revealed that
he directly quoted the Synoptic Gospels and alluded to most of St Paul’s letters in 1A, 2A, and
Dial.68 Moreover, Barnard proposed that the apologist’s school in Rome compiled the material
that Tatian – the latter’s strayed disciple – used to create the Gospel harmony known as the
Diatessaron.69 As argued by Musurillo, the original account of the apologist’s martyrdom
probably stems from this school.70 In A and B, Paeon and Evelpistus employ the same term
that both Paul and Justin used with regard to the reception of Christian instruction
(παρελαμβάνω).71 Consequently, Willem van Henten and Avemarie were justified in proposing
that Chariton (Χαρίτων) and Charito (Χαριτώ) represent the gift of divine grace (χάρις) within
A,72 whilst Evelpistus (Εὐέλπιστος) symbolises the theological virtue, hope (ἐλπίς).73

…44…

At any rate, the behaviour and individual responses of the martyrs throughout the fourth
chapter of each recension echo certain virtues defined in the New Testament. For instance,
Chariton represents obedience whilst stressing that he is a Christian “by God’s command”
(θεοῦ κελεύσει), evoking Mt 14:19, 28 and Lk 18:40.74 By affirming the she is a Christian “by
the gift of God” (τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δωρεᾷ), Charito acknowledges his altruism in a manner
reminiscent of Paul (Eph 2:8-9).75 Hierax attests to his worship of the same God (τὸν αὐτὸν
θεὸν προσκυνῶν), thus echoing Jn 4:22-23 and Heb 1:6.76 Moreover, the martyr’s expanded

68
Barnard, Justin Martyr 58-60, 62-63.
69
Ibid. 12-13.
70
Musurillo, ‘Introduction’ to The Acts of the Christian Martyrs xix.
71
I.e. παρειλήφαμεν and παρείληφα, the perfect, first-person plural and singular forms of the verb, respectively.
A 4.6-7 (Musurillo 44); B 4.6-7 (Musurillo 50). For an example of Justin’s use of παρελαμβάνω, see 1A 4.7
(Minns and Parvis 88-89, esp. 89 n. 1).
72
See 1 Cor 15:10, where Paul repeatedly uses the term χάρις whilst describing his toil as an apostle. All Biblical
references in this article have been taken from Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edn, ed. the Institute for New
Testament Textual Research Münster/Westphalia under the direction of Holger Strutwolf (Stuttgart: Deutsch
Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
73
Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death 97; 1 Cor 13:13.
74
A 4.1 (Musurillo 44); B 4.1 (Musurillo 50). The verb κελεύω (from which the noun in A and B stems) is featured
in both Mt 14:19, 28 and Lk 18:40. Mt 14:19 records that Christ ordered the multitudes (καὶ κελεύσας τοὺς ὄχλους)
that followed him into the desert to sit down and partake of the bread and fish that he had miraculously multiplied.
Mt 14:28 describes how St Peter asked Christ to prove his identity whilst walking on water by commanding that
he joins him (κέλευσόν με ἐλθεῖν πρός σε ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα). Lk 18:40 reveals that Christ ordered his disciples to lead
a blind man to him (ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ἀχθῆναι πρὸς αὐτόν) for his sight to be restored.
75
A 4.2 (Musurillo 44); B 4.2 (Musurillo 50). In Eph 2:8-9 the apostle attributes the conversion of his audience
to faith inspired by God’s grace. He denies the idea that salvation can be attained solely through works, stressing
that it is above all a divine gift (καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον).
76
A 4.4 (Musurillo 44); B 4.4 (Musurillo 50). The editor of B has expanded on this verse; Hierax states that he
also venerates/honours (σέβω) God. In Jn 4:22-23, Christ describes the proper way to worship God the Father to
assertion in B 4.8 that Christ is the true father of the faithful echoes the latter’s exhortation to
place him before family (Mt 10:37; Lk 14:26).77 Judging from his response in each recension,
Paeon represents respect for one’s parents as commanded by Christ in Mt 19:19.78 Lastly, in B
4.9, when asked by the prefect if he also refuses to be pious (οὐδὲ σὺ εὐσεβεῖς;), Liberian states
that he believes in the

…45…

one true God (εὐσεβῶ γὰρ καὶ προσκυνῶ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν). His assertion echoes both
Mt 4:10 and Lk 4:8, wherein Christ cites Deut 6:13 after Satan seeks his worship (κύριον τὸν
θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις).79

The Editors’ Similar Estimation of Imperial Authority

The brief dialogue between Rusticus and Liberian in A and B is significant since it recapitulates
the purpose of the martyr acts as highlighted by Helen Rhee, namely to present Christianity as
true piety in contradistinction to the false piety of paganism.80 This is best demonstrated in B
5.4. When asked by the prefect to offer sacrifices to the pagan gods, Justin refuses to turn “from
piety to impiety” (ἀπὸ εὐσεβείας εἰς ἀσέβειαν).81 As indicated by Rhee, the Roman concept of
piety (pietas) was associated with that of ‘the peace of the gods’ (Pax deorum).82 The Romans
held that the traditional pagan deities ensured the empire’s welfare in exchange for constant
devotion expressed through ritual sacrifice.83 This consisted in the burning of incense and the
slaughter of animals.84 During Justin’s lifetime, the official cults of the state were those of the
traditional Greco-Roman pantheon and the emperor.85 Marcus Aurelius heavily promoted these
two types of cults together, in this way resembling his predecessor, Antoninus Pius.86

Subsequently, the blame for the persecutions is tacitly placed upon the civil authorities
in A and B. For example, in B 2.1, Justin and

…46…

his companions are immediately given this order: “First obey the gods and heed the emperors”
(Πρῶτον πείσθητι τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ ὑπάκουσον τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν).87 Moreover, in B 5.8, the prefect

the Samaritan woman (οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταὶ προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ πατρὶ ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ). Whilst
appealing to Deut 32:43 and Ps 96:7 LXX, the author of Hebrews underscores Christ’s superiority over the angels,
exhorting the latter to worship him (καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ, Heb 1:6). Bisbee discussed
certain problems posed by the syntax of Hierax’s response in B (Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and
Commentarii 113-15).
77
B 4.8 (Musurillo 50).
78
B 4.6-7 (Musurillo 50).
79
B 4.9 (Musurillo 50). The terms εὐσεβῶ and λατρεύω are often synonyms in the patristic vocabulary. See A
Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) s.v. εὐσεβέω 575, s.v. λατρεύω
794.
80
Helen Rhee, Early Christian Literature: Christ and Culture in the Second and Third Centuries (London and
New York: Routledge, 2005) 88-89.
81
B 5.4 (Musurillo 52).
82
Rhee, Early Christian Literature 88.
83
William E. Dunstan, Ancient Rome (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2011) 35.
84
Rhee, Early Christian Literature 88.
85
Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Penguin Books, 1993) 24.
86
McLynn, Marcus Aurelius 228, 298.
87
B 2.1 (Musurillo 48). My translation.
condemns the martyrs for having refused to sacrifice to the pagan gods in accordance with an
edict issued by the emperor (τῷ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος προστάγματι).88 As indicated by Frank
McLynn, Marcus Aurelius did in fact issue a decree between 161-168 that made worship of the
Greco-Roman pantheon inescapable.89 Subsequently, the reference to a single ruler in the
κρίσις is probably not a mistake as contended by Bisbee.90

McLynn argued that the above decree was intended to appease the pagan gods, which
Marcus Aurelius believed had displayed their anger with the empire by the flooding of the
Tiber and the outbreak of plague. This was in addition to the emergence of German invaders
and the continued war with the Parthian empire. The historian maintained that it did not
constitute a campaign against Christians per se, although the emperor was certainly aware of
the dilemma that it put them in.91 McLynn subsequently asserted that Marcus Aurelius’
negative attitude towards

…47…

Christianity could be inferred from a law that he issued during this time which demanded the
banishment to remote islands of those who incited fear of the Greco-Roman gods.92 With some
reservation, the historian also noted the legislation that certain scholars maintain the emperor
passed in order to round up and eliminate Christians.93 More precisely, this allowed the
provincial elite to purchase them as cheap gladiators and may have contributed to the infamous
mass execution at Lyons in 177. Whatever the case may be, whoever composed the
introduction to B believed that the emperor’s laws were specifically directed against Christians:

Ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῶν ἀνόμων ὑπερμάχων τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας προστάγματα ἀσεβῆ κατὰ

τῶν εὐσεβούντων Χριστιανῶν κατὰ πόλιν καὶ χώραν ἐξετίθετο, ὥστε αὐτοὺς
ἀναγκάζεσθαι σπένδειν τοῖς ματαίοις εἰδώλοις.

In the time of the lawless defenders of idolatry impious edicts against the pious
Christians were being exhibited publicly in city and country town, so that they were
forced to offer a libation to vain idols.94

Subsequently, the martyr acts challenge the Roman imperial ideology in two ways. Firstly, they
suggest that the welfare of the empire is not contingent upon sacrifices to what are false gods.

88
B 5.8 (Musurillo 52). The prefect does not order the Christians to swear by the genius of the emperor. The Acts
of the Scillitan Martyrs indicate that this was at other times necessary during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. See
Passio Sanctorum Scillitanorum 1.3-5 (Musurillo 86). During the rule of Augustus, the term genius referred to
the attendant spirit of every man that protected his family. The first Roman emperor exploited the way in which
his people worshipped the genii of the oldest living males within their respective households. He adopted the title
‘Father of the Fatherland’ (pater patriae) to portray himself as the guardian of the state. The senate in turn decreed
that a libation should be offered to his genius at every formal dinner. Meanwhile, the emperor placed shrines
dedicated to the guardian spirits known as the Lares at the intersection of each ward in Rome, renaming these
Lares Augusti and associating them with his genius in worship. Decades later, Domitian made it obligatory for
Roman citizens to swear by his genius in public documents to prove their loyalty to him, causing a crisis for both
Christians and Jews who were otherwise accused of atheism. See Dunstan, Ancient Rome 246, 307; Chadwick,
The Early Church 26-27.
89
McLynn, Marcus Aurelius 303.
90
Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 116.
91
McLynn, Marcus Aurelius 303.
92
Ibid.
93
Ibid. 303-4.
94
B 1.1 (Musurillo 46). My translation.
Rather, commitment to Christ’s teachings ensures divine favour that extends beyond this life.
Hence the apologist’s conviction – expressed in A 5.6 and B 5.6 – that he and his companions
will be saved if they die for Christ.95 Interestingly, in the latter verse he also implies that
Christ’s final judgment will eclipse that of any civil authority.

The Portrayal of Rusticus

Bisbee asserted that Rusticus’ hostile attitude within the acta towards Justin and his
companions should be expected on account of the state’s

…48…

“repeated attempts to dissuade Christians from their fanatic drive to ‘commit suicide’…” 96 In
what follows, I will demonstrate that even though a government official with such a false
perception of Christian martyrdom may have readily been so antagonistic, a Stoic philosopher
– especially one faithful to the teachings of Epictetus – would not. Moreover, I will illustrate
how the editors of A and B took advantage of the prefect’s contradictory behaviour.

The editors of AJ criticised Greco-Roman philosophy in addition to the Roman imperial

ideology through their negative portrayal of Rusticus. According to Dio Cassius and the
Augustan History, Rusticus was a well-known instructor of Stoicism who took Marcus Aurelius
under his wing.97 To be sure, Marcus Aurelius thanks Rusticus in his Meditations 1.7 for having
taught him about dispassion and forgiveness, as well as having introduced him to the writings
of the Stoic master, Epictetus.98 Interestingly, the modern historian R. B. Rutherford has
discussed how the prefect inherited his philosophical convictions from his famed ancestor,
Quintus Arulenus Iunius Rusticus.99

…49…

Arulenus was a person of some importance. According to the ancient chronicler

Tacitus, he was executed by Domitian for having composed a panegyric in honour of Thrasea
Paetus, a Stoic opponent of Nero.100 According to Dio, Arulenus was also put to death for
portraying Paetus as holy via his writings and for belonging to the latter’s philosophical

95
A 5.6 (Musurillo 46); B 5.6 (Musurillo 52).
96
Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii 104.
97
Dio Cassius, Roman History, Volume IX: Book 72 35, trans. Earnest Cary and Herbert Baldwin Foster, LCL
177 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927) 64; Lives of the Later Caesars 110-11.
98
Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 1.7, in The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus, trans. A. S. L. Farquharson, and A Selection from the Letters of Marcus and Fronto, trans. R. B.
Rutherford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) 3-4. Interestingly, Rusticus’ loyalty towards Marcus Aurelius
has been attested to by Marcus Cornelius Fronto. Whilst relating how he had discussed the topic of the emperor’s
rhetorical skill with his former teacher, Fronto informs Marcus that Rusticus is someone “who would gladly
surrender and solemnly promise his own life for your fingernail” (qui vitam suam pro unguiculo tuo libenter
dediderit atque devoverit). Fronto, Correspondence, Volume II, ed. C. R. Haines, LCL 113 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1920) 36 (my translation). See also Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and
Commentarii 100. C. R. Haines maintained that Rusticus executed Justin and his disciples soon after Fronto gave
this testimony (Haines, Correspondence, Volume II 36-37 n. 2).
99
R. B. Rutherford, ‘Explanatory Notes’ on The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 146 n. 7.
100
Tacitus, The Life of Cnæus Julius Agricola 2, 45, in Annals; Histories; Agricola; Germania, trans. Alfred John
Church and William Jackson Brodribb (New York: Alfred A. Knopf and Everyman’s Library, 2009) 629-30, 659.
school.101 Steven H. Rutledge sheds light on these accounts, attributing Domitian’s persecution
of Arulenus to his association with the senatorial opposition consisting of Paetus’ family and
their sympathisers. The author affirmed that this circle subsequently inherited an appreciation
for Stoicism and a negative estimation of the imperial house. Nonetheless, whilst appealing to
Brian W. Jones, Rutledge suggested that the emperor overreacted to the criticisms that were
implicit in Arulenus’ works.102 Hence, the latter was not necessarily condemned because of his
adherence to Stoicism. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, his friend Tacitus presented him as
a victim of tyranny.

I propose that Justin and his companions were familiar with the sympathetic portrayals
of Rusticus’ ancestor since the former displayed an interest in Stoics who had been maligned
and mistreated by their civil rulers and compatriots. In 2A 7.1-2, for instance, the apologist
extols certain pagan philosophers who were martyred by their civil authorities for having
attempted to live according to reason.103 These include Heraclitus, who was considered a
forerunner of Stoicism, and Gaius Musonius Rufus, one of its recent proponents. Minns and
Parvis asserted that there is no evidence to suggest that these philosophers

…50…

were executed, however, it is possible that Justin is our only surviving record of their respective
deaths. At any rate, we know that Heraclitus was banished from Ephesus, whilst Rufus was
expelled from Rome twice.104 Moreover, Tacitus reported that certain soldiers mocked and
beat Rufus when he attempted to instruct them in Stoicism at an importune time.105

As affirmed by Anthony Birley, Rusticus’ “very name was almost a political philosophy
or programme in itself” because of its relation to a Stoic martyr. 106 It seems likely that those
who edited and stylised the record of Justin’s execution used this to their advantage. The
repeated citation of the prefect’s noble name throughout A and B (nineteen times in the former,
twenty-one in the latter) underscore his hypocritical conduct as perceived by the editors.107

101
Dio Cassius, Roman History, Volume VIII: Book 67 13, trans. Earnest Cary and Herbert Baldwin Foster, LCL
176 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925) 346.
102
Steven H. Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian (London
and New York: Routledge, 2001) 133.
103
2A 7.1-2 (Minns and Parvis 296-99). Interestingly, the concept of a life led ‘according to reason’ has its roots
in Stoicism, where it is related to the doctrine of natural law. See Horowitz, Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge 21-
23.
104
On Heraclitus’ exile, see Minns and Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr 297 n. 6. On those of Rufus, see
Minns and Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to Justin, Philosopher and Martyr 42; Geert Roskam, On the Path to Virtue: the
Stoic Doctrine of Moral Progress and its Reception in (Middle-)Platonism (Leuven: Leuven University Press,
2005) 98-99.
105
Whilst recounting Rufus’ exile under Nero, Tacitus also praised the philosopher for having educated the Roman
youth. See Tacitus, The Annals of Tacitus 15.71, in Annals; Histories; Agricola; Germania, trans. Alfred John
Church and William Jackson Brodribb (New York: Alfred A. Knopf and Everyman’s Library, 2009) 368-69;
idem, The History of Tacitus 3.81, in Annals; Histories; Agricola; Germania 548.
106
Anthony Birley, Marcus Aurelius: A Biography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987) 94; Minns and
Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to Justin, Philosopher and Martyr 42 n. 36.
107
A 1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 (Musurillo 42, 44, 46); B
1.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.8 (Musurillo 46, 48, 50,
52). Interestingly, Bisbee argued that the repeated references to both the name and title of Rusticus throughout
recensions A and B indicate that they were edited after 232. He suggested that the editors harmonised the
descriptive elements featured in the commentarius – which would have originally been confined to its introductory
formulae – to the practice of the court scribes from the early third century onwards (Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of
Martyrs and Commentarii 105-6).
Indeed, Justin and Arulenus were likewise put to death for having publicly extolled teachers
considered divine at the vexation of the Roman authorities (i.e. Christ and Paetus).

…51…

Consequently, the editors of the martyr acts subtly suggested that the appellation ‘Rusticus’
had become associated with tyranny, thereby reflecting the inconsistency characteristic of
pagan thought.

What is more, Rusticus’ behaviour in the acta contradicts that advocated by the Stoics,
particularly his major influence, Epictetus. For instance, the prefect calls Justin an ‘all-
wretched man’ (πανάθλιε) in B 2.4.108 This is at odds with Epictetus’ Discourses 1.28.6-10,
where he exhorts his pupils not to get angry with anyone since erroneous behaviour ultimately
stems from incorrect impressions of right and wrong as in the case of the mythical figure,
Medea.109 Epictetus states that it is the philosopher’s task to clearly explain to such people how
they have erred so that they do not act upon their dangerous ideas, stressing that they must be
pitied, not hated. Moreover, the philosopher contends that those who fail to develop moral
discernment only end up harming themselves. Consequently, according to Epictetus:

Ὅστις οὖν τούτου μέμνηται καθαρῶς ὅτι ἀνθρώπῳ μέτρον πάσης πράξεως τὸ
φαινόμενον […], οὐδενὶ ὀργισθήσεται, οὐδενὶ χαλεπανεῖ, οὐδένα λοιδορήσει, οὐδένα
μέμψεται, οὐ μισήσει, οὐ προσκόψει.

Whoever, then, has remembered this clearly, that for the human being a measure of
every moral action is that which is made known […], will grow angry with no one, will
be violent with no one, will revile no one, will censure no one, will not hate, will not
take offence at anyone.110

…52…

Epictetus’ exhortations are also at odds with Rusticus’ threats and final proclamation of the
death penalty in AJ. In contrast to the prefect, the apologist and his companions are depicted
as entirely dispassionate within the texts. This may account for the editors’ omissions of the
logos spermatikos doctrine; the behaviour of the protagonists is intended to reflect
Christianity’s superiority over Stoicism, which in this instance represents all pagan beliefs.

The marked distinction between Christianity and Stoicism in A and B was intended to
ensure that the empire’s mock trials did not compromise their audiences’ devotion to Christ,
whose commitment to God the Father they were called to imitate. The negative effect of such
trials is evidenced by the Martyrdom of St Polycarp 4, which relates how a certain Quintus had
been persuaded to offer sacrifice to the pagan gods despite having eagerly turned himself in to
bear witness to Christianity.111 Such defections probably influenced the editors of AJ to
108
B 2.4 (Musurillo 48). I have appealed to the translation of this term featured in A Greek-English Lexicon s. v.
πανάθλιος 1295.
109
According to Epictetus, Medea was not aware that her intention to murder her children was wrong despite her
assertion to the contrary. The philosopher affirmed that she displayed an utter lack of discernment by prioritising
the passion of anger over the safety of her children. Subsequently, he maintained that such moral blindness
warrants compassionate corrective instruction, not condemnation. Epictetus, Discourses, Book 1 28.7-11, trans.
W. A. Oldfather, LCL 131 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925) 174-77.
110
Epictetus, Discourses, Book 1 28.10-11 (LCL 131, 176). My translation.
111
Μαρτύριον τοῦ Ἁγίου Πολυκάρπου 4 (Musurillo 4).
overlook the similarities between Christianity and the pagan philosophies even though this
tacitly contradicted the writings of their subject. It is likely that they feared for those in their
respective audiences with less fortitude who might have used any affinities between
Christianity and other faiths as justification for submitting to the authorities.

Concluding Remarks

In summary, AJ are somewhat consistent with 1A, 2A, and Dial. However, the editors of the
martyr acts have contradicted Justin’s greatest contribution to theology, namely his logos
spermatikos doctrine. Citing this doctrine and the affinities between Christianity and pagan
philosophy that it promotes would have defeated the common purpose of their texts. This was
to demonstrate the superiority of the former whilst subverting the popular notion of Pax deorum
which had motivated the persecutions of Marcus Aurelius. The editors’ complementary
representations of Justin and his companions as embodiments of Christian charisms and virtues
defined in the New Testament were thus intended to reassure

…53…

their audiences during times of great trial. The escalating violence against Christians
subsequently led to the editors’ negative portrayal of Rusticus, whose name they deliberately
cited repeatedly. Conscious of the fact that this name was synonymous with noble Stoic
defiance of the emperor, they intentionally related it to the enforcement of impious decrees.
The editors were aware that such conduct contradicted the teachings of the Stoics, including
those of Rusticus’ greatest influence, Epictetus. Rusticus therefore symbolises the
inconsistency which the editors considered characteristic of pagan thought. In contrast, the
dispassionate behaviour that they attributed to the martyrs is meant to reflect Christianity’s
superiority over Stoicism, which in this instance represents pagan beliefs in general.

Subsequently, my findings concerning the editors’ negative estimation of imperial

authority lend support to Bisbee’s hypothesis that the bodies of A and B date to the third
century, when the Church was still sporadically subjected to persecution under the Romans.
On a final note, it is my hope that this assessment has refuted Musurillo’s negative appraisal of
the acta. For the properly informed reader, they ought to serve in their entireties as subtle yet
clever apologies via their similar depictions of one of the greatest defenders of Christianity, his
companions, and his worldly judge, Rusticus.

…54…