BIBST 702S:
Persecution and Martyrdom in Early Christianity



Comments on the Acts of Justin and his Friends


There are three Greek recensions of the text: a short version, a middle version, and a long, more literary version (Musurillo, xviii). The middle recension is the oldest (Cambridge, Cant. Add. 4489) from the eighth century. The short version (Paris graec. 1470) is from 890. The longer recension (S. Sepulchri 17) comes from the twelfth century. There is really no good reason to regard any version of this writing as authentic. Everything related is clearly artificial.

In fact, the "Acts" itself is somewhat confusing about why Justin (and the others) are condemned. On the surface, in the framework of the story, the reference to the "days of the wicked decrees of idolatry" at the beginning and the judgment at the end ("Those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods are to be scouraged and executed in accordance with the laws") seem to make the issue clear. In the body of the story, however, as is characteristic for other martyr legends, it seems like the issue is simply whether one is a Christian. Justin is asked, for example, "You do admit, then, that you are a Christian?" And all the others are asked the same question, except for Peon who voluntarily confesses: "I am a Christian too." But such questions and such confessions have nothing to do with the question of whether they sacrifice to the gods. In this regard, Keresztes rightly observes that "the general edict... taken by itself, was obviously not aimed at Christians at all" (301). One might expect the prefect to ask, "Do you refuse to sacrifice to our gods?" And perhaps even "Why not?" If this is an actual report of the proceedings, it is, at the very least, confusing and incomplete.

One wonders how guilt is supposedly determined here? No accusers seem to be present. Keresztes explains that "popular violence and, very probably, the arbitrary conduct of local government were the major and decisive force in these persecutions" (301). But we are supposedly talking here about an Imperial decree, and the prefect at their trial is not some country bumpkin, but none other than Q. Iunius Rusticus, the Stoic teacher of Marcus Aurelius' and urban prefect of Rome from 163-168. All this strains the imagination too far.

Eusebius knew Justin's two Apologies, his Dialogue with Trypho, and other writings (EH 4.18), but does not seem to have known the Acts. His own account of a plot instigated against Justin by the philosopher Crescens is a quite different story, although even here Eusebius does not say what charge Crescens brought against Justin or why Justin was executed.