OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS

Justin, Philosopher
The series provides reliable working texts of important early Christian
writers in both Greek and Latin. Each volume contains an introduction,
text, and select critical apparatus, with English translations en Jαce, and
and Martyr
brief explanatory references.
Apologies
Other Titles in the Series
Cyril of Alexandria: Selected Letters
Edited by Lionel R. Wickham
EDITED WITH Α COMMENTARY ΟΝ ΤΗΕ ΤΕΧΤ ΕΥ

Augustine: De Doctrina Christiana

DENIS MINNS
Edited by R. Ρ. Η. Green
AND
Augustine: De ΒοηοConiugali and De Sancta Virginitate
Edited by Ρ. G. Walsh PAUL PARVIS
Maximus the Confessor and his Companions:
Documents from Exile
Edited by Pauline Allen and Bronwen Νeil
Leontius of Jerusalem
Against the Monophysites:
Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae
Edited by Patrick Τ. R. Gray
Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy:
The Synodical Letter and Other Documents
Edited by Pauline Allen
The Epistles ofSt Symeon the New Theologian
Edited by Η. J. Μ. Turner

General Editor: Henry Chadwick

OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
 OXFORD For Bernice and [σΓ Sara
UNIVERSITY PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ΟΧ2 6DP

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide ίη
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark ofOxford University Press
in the υκ and ίη certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© Denis Minns and Paul Parvis 2009
The moral ήghts of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2009
ΑΠ rights reserved. Ν ο part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, ίη any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition οη any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging ίη Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Su:ffolk
Printed ίη Great Britain
οη acid-free paper by
the MPG Books Group, Bodmin and Κing's Lynn

ISBN 978-0-19-954250-5

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
 PREFACE

More th'an a thousand years separate Justin's writing of the Apologies and
the transcription of the οηlΥ manuscript of independent value containing
them. Little is known of the history of the text in the intervening centuries,
~ apart from its influence οη other early Christian apologists and its citation
in the fourth century by E-I,lsebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiαsticαl History
and in the eighth century by John of Damascus in his Sαcrα Parallelα. Ιη
the ninth century Photius read a number of works attributed to Justin,
including an Apology ]or the Christians and a book against the Jews, presum-
ably the Diαlogue with Trypho. Sadly, Photius' judgement was that, though
Justin's books are powerful and learned, they do not have the charm and
allure that might attract a mass readership (Bibliothecα 125, Henry, Π,
ρ. 97f.)·
Ιη more recent times scholars have been divided over how well Justin
has been served by the manuscript tradition of his works. We believe that
the text as delivered to us by Pαrisinus graecus 450 is the result of the atten-
tive, if optimistic, editing and correction, at some stage in the manuscript
tradition, of a text that was severely lacunose and corrupt. Accordingly, we
have been more suspicious than some other editors of the merely super-
ficial coherence often rendered by the manuscript text, and less inclined to
attribute its deficiencies to Justin's οννη inadequacies as a writer, ΟΓ even as
a thinker. The aim of the present work is to recover as far as possible the
Greek that Justin wrote. The English translation is primarily intended
to show what we think the Greek means. This is reflected in the style of
translation, and accounts for the sometimes lengthy footnotes, in which
we set out our reasons for thinking the text of Justin is problematical, and
argue for the emendations we propose. Similarly, the Introduction is
intended primarily as an introduction to the text and its problems, rather
than as an introduction to Justin as philosopher ΟΓ theologian. We do not,
of course, claim to have solved all the riddles of the text, but we hope that
our edition will encourage others to try to peer behind what the manu-
script has transmitted to see what Justin might actually have written.
We had always hoped to say in the Preface that for any errors that
remain each author blames the other, but the nature of the collaboration
has been such that it would be inappropriate to do so. Friends may be able
to diagnose from idiosyncrasies of style who is responsible for the initial
drafting of sections of the Introduction, but the work is in every way a
VΙΙ1 PREFACE

joint production. The project has been carried out over a number ofyears
ίη working sessions ranging from a week to several months, ίη Melbourne,
Oxford, and. Edinburgh. During these years we have been fortunate CONTENTS
enough to incur a number of obligations, both individual and collective, to
those who have helped us. Sir Henry Chadwick invited Denis Minns
to edit the Apologies for Oxford Early Christian Texts, approved of the
c070pting of PaulParvis to the project, and continued to cast an avuncular
eye over its progress. We deeply regret that he did not live to see its
publication. We must express our thanks to Fr Timothy Radcliffe ΟΡ, Abbreviations χ

who supported and encouraged our work in many ways, and to all at ουρ
who have helped us over the years. The institutions to which we are Introduction
obliged include, ίη particular, Mannix College, Monash University, Mel-
Ι. Justin's Text(s): The Tradition ίη Manuscript and Print 3
bourne; New College, the UniversityofEdinburgh; and the Blackfriars of
2. The Man and his Work 32
Oxford and Edinburgh. We must also thank for generous and repeated
3. Justin's World 57
hospitality Owen and Bonnie Dudley Edwards, themselves something of
4. The Apparatus Criticus 71
an institution ίη Scottish culturallife. Among libraries we are particularly
Sources of Conjectural Readings 73
indebted to the Bodleian and Sackler Libraries at Oxford; the libraries of
the University of Edinburgh, and especially that of New College; the Sigla 76
National Library of Scotland; and the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris,
first for supplying us with a microfilm of Pαrisinus grαecus 450, and then Texts and Translations
allowing us to examine the precious manuscript itself. Finally, it has been Justin's Apology οη Behalf of Christians 81
customary since antiquity to include ίη prefaces a plaint about the arduous 'The Second Apology' 271
labour involved in the work. Ιη our case we must confess that it has also
been a lot of fun, and we must thank all those who have helped make it so. Bibliography 324
We are both indebted to Dr Sara Parvis, to whom Paul dedicates his half Index of Biblical Passages 339
of the book ίη appreciation of all she has contributed to the edition and to Index ofNames and Topics 341
him-for her always pertinent and stimulating questions and comments,
for unfailing love and encouragement, for the occasional gentle nudge to
finish_ the job, and for so much more. Denis dedicates his half to his
mother, who has wondered for some time if it would ever be finished.
 . ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION

ιΑ Justin, First Apology

2Α Justin, Second Apology
D Justin, Diαlogue with Trypho
ΑΗ Irenaeus, Adversus Hαereses
BDAG Α Greek-English Lexicon qf the New Testαment αnd Other
Eαr1y Christiαn Literαture (Bauer, Danker, Arndt,
Gingrich)
BDF Α Greek Grαmmαr qf the New Testαment αnd other Eαr1y
Christiαn Literαture (Blass, Debrunner, Funk)
C1L Corpus 1nscriptionum Lαtinαrum
GCS Griechische Christliche Schrijtsteller
ΗΕ Eusebius, Historiα Ecclesiαsticα
1GRR 1nscriptiones Grαecαe αd Res Romαnαs Pertinentes
1LS 1nscriptiones Lαtinαe Selectαe
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LSJ Α Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell, Scott, Jones)
PG Pαtrologiα Grαecα
PGL Α Pαtristic Greek Lexicon (Lampe)
P1R Prosopogrαphiα 1mperii Romαni Sαeculi 1, 11, 111
Ραρ. Ber. Aegyptische Urkunden αus den ΚOniglichen Museen zu
Berlin, Griechische Urkunden
SVF Stoicorum veterum Frαgmentα
TLG Thesαurus Linguαe Grαecαe. Α Digitαl Librαry qf Greek
Literαture
 1
jUSTIN'S TEXT(S): ΤΗΕ TRADITION
. ΙΝ MANUSCRIPT AND PRINT

The title of this book promises an edition of the Apologies of Justin Martyr.
But it is far from self-evident how many of them there are. That is ίη fact
one of the more hoary of the problems with which any editor of Justin
must deal-it has been an item οη the agenda since at least Grabe's great
edition of 1700. But it turns out to be quite an important question as well.
Much more is involved than a simple literary puzzle: it crucially affects our
whole picture of what Justin the apologist was trying to do, and migh t even
have some light to shed οη the way Justin the philosopher and teacher
operated ίη mid-second-century Rome.
The question has usually been approached solely ίη literary terms, but
we must consider as well what is knowable of the history of the text. We
therefore turn first to the manuscripts.

ΤΗΕ MANUSCRIPT TRADITION

Three manuscripts come into the reckoning: Parisinus graecus 450,

Phillίpicus
3081, and Ottobonianus graecus 274, which we, following the usage
established by Otto, will call Α, Β, and C. 1

Parisinus graecus 450=Α

The οηlΥ one of these of independent value-and therefore the
manuscript οη which rests the whole tradition of Justin's authentic
works-is Parisinus grαecus 450.2 1t comprises 467 paper folios measuring
28.5Χ21.5 cm, and was completed, according to the colophon, οη
i i September 1364 (fo1. 461 a). Unfortunately, the scribe does not give his
name, and attempts to identifY him are inconclusive. 3 The hand is regular

1 Ott0 , νοΙ ι, part ι, ρρ. xxi-xxviii. Οη some other, late collections of extracts, see η. 40 below.
3

2 For descriptions see Otto 3, ρρ. ΧΧί-ΧΧίίί; Archambault, Diαlogue, νοΙ ι, ρρ. xii-xxxviii; Marcovich,
Apologiαe, 5-6; Marcovich, Diαlogus, 1-4; and Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 158-g.
3 See Marcovich, Apologiαe, 5, η. 9 (rejecting a suggested identification with Manuel Tzykandyles);
Marcovich, Diαlogus, 3 (reporting a proposal ofE. Lamberz and Claus Vetten that he was an unnamed
stablemate of Tzykandyles who worked with him οη Mαrciαllus gr. 146; Marcovich returns a Scotch
verdict οη the proposal); and Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 159, η. 7 (tentatively putting forward the unnamed
scribe ofFlorence, Lαur. Plut. 9, 9).
 INTRODUCTION
4
and neat. Throughout the manuscript there are twenty-three (occasionally
twenty-two) 1ines per page. Margins are generous: the written area is
approximate1y Ι9.0-20.0Χ 12.5 cm. There are ηο signs or ru1ing: the scribe
followed the wire-marks of the paper ίη order to keep a1ignment.
There are a number of variants and an occasiona1 comment offered ίη
the margin (these are all noted ίη our apparatus). We think that all but two
of these are ίη the hand of the origina1 scribe or ίη that of a 1ater corrector
whom we have called c 1 •
It is a sort of omnibus edition of Justin and contains:
extracts re1ating to Justin from Photius and Eusebius (fo1s. Γ
ι -5");
Epistula ad Zenam et Serenum (fo1s. 6"-16");
Cohortatio ad Graecos (fo1s. ηΓ-50 Γ);
Dialogus cum Tryphone (fo1s. 50Γ-Ι93Γ);
Apologia Prima (the shorter Apo1ogy=fo1s. Ι93Γ-20ιΓ);
Apologia Secunda (the 10nger Apo1ogy= fo1s. 20IΓ-24ιΓ);
De Monarchia (fo1s. 24ιΓ-247Γ);
Expositio Rectae Fidei (fo1s. 247Γ-26ιΓ);
CorifUtatio Dogmatum QJtorundam Aristotelis (fo1s. 26ιΓ-300");
Ad Graecos (fo1s. 300"-302");
QJtaestiones Christianorum ad Gentiles (fo1s. 302"-334");
QJtaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos (fo1s. 334"-4ι6Γ);
Ad Graecos (agaln=4I6r-4I8");
QJtaestiones Gentilium ad Christianos (fo1s. 418"-433Γ);
Athenagoras, De Resurrectione Mortuorum (fo1s. 433"-46ιΓ).
The manuscript was procured-presumab1y ίη Venice-by Guillaume
Pellicier, bishop of Montpellier and French ambassador to Venice from
1539 to 1542.4 It must have been still ίη Venice ίη 1541, when its apograph
Phillippicus 3081 was copied, but was then sent to Fontaineb1eu to take its
p1ace ίη the roya1 collection.
It wou1d be interesting to know where Α was produced and where it
was between 1364 and, say, 1540, when it turned up ίη the West. We do
not knσw, but we can make some guesses. According to Marcovich, 'it
may well be that Α was produced ίη Mistra for the Despot Manue1
Kantakouzenos,,5 Manue1 was the second son of the former emperor
John VI Cantacuzene, by now 1iving ίη seeming1y contented retirement as
the monk Joasaph. Under Manue1's ru1e the Morea prospered, and
Mistra enjoyed something of a cu1tura1 renaissance. 6 But the monk
See Archambault, Diαlogue, νοΙ ι, ρρ. χχ-χχχν, and Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 159.
<[
5Marcovich, Diαlogus, 3.
6 Οη the context, see Nicol, The Reluctαnt Elnperor, and, for Manuel himself, Nicol, The
Byzαntine Fαmily qf Kαntαkouzenos, ηο. 25 =ρρ. 122-g. Οη the flourishing culturallife of the Morea, see
Zakynthinos, Le Despotαt grec de Moree, 310-76, esp. 320-49.
JUSTIN'S TEXT(S) 5
Joasaph was a1so a 1earned man, and in~ense1y interested ίη matters
theo1ogica1. 7
The copying of the manuscript must have been an expensive project.
The paper οη which it is written is-as one wou1d expect by the mid-
fourteenth century-Ita1ian, and of a very fine qua1ity. At 1east three
different papers were used by the scribe ίη the course of his work. That
οη which the Apologieswere written bears a watermark representing two
paralle1 keys (Briquet 3813), a type common ίη the 1340S and I350s.8
The paper determined the precise size of the manuscript. Each sheet of
Briquet 3813 measured 29.2Χ44 cm, and so, fo1ded, produced a bifo1ium.
9
Though it is οη1Υ a guess, the idea that such a manuscript might have
been produced ίη Mistra or Constantinop1e ίη circ1es with appreciab1e
intellectua1 and financia1 ,resources-1ike those around the former
emperor or his son, the despot, is an attractive one.
One other, small indication perhaps points to a major centre 1ike Mistra
or Constantinop1e. The first five fo1ios, as noted above, introduce the
omnibus Justin with extracts from Photius and Eusebius. But the very first
[ο1ίο is ίη a different hand. It contains Photius, codex 125 (twenty-six 1ines
of text οη the recto and seven οη the verso), followed by about twe1ve
b1ank 1ines and then, at the foot of the page, the first seven lines of
Eusebian materia1 (though it begins abruptly and without any heading, as
if it had been copied from or adapted from a damaged exemp1ar). Ιη other
words, fo1. ι is clear1y a rep1acement for something that was 10st or missing.
There are more 1etters to the 1ine οη fo1. ι than the scribe of Α writes
e1sewhere, and what is there would rough1y fill two normal pages of Α. 10
Clearly the scribe of fo1. ι copied codex 125, rea1ized he had too much
space 1eft, and so skipped down the page so he could finish where Α
resumes at the top of fo1. 2 . But that means that Α then was ίη a centre or
Γ
ίη communication with a centre where the rep1acement text could be
found. That means either somewhere where the exemp1ar or another copy
was or somewhere with access to the re1evant passage of Photius. And ίη
the fourteenth century that was something of a rarity. 11
7 See Nicol, Reluctαnt Εnψerοr, ch. 7, 'Monk, historian and theologian (1354-1383)' = ρρ. 134-60.
8 Briquet 3813 is itself dated 1354. lη Α the cross surmQunting the pendant keys is sometimes
missing and sometimes appears with two cross-bars. The other papers seem closest to Briquet 11,669
(dated 1364, 30Χ45 cm; though with an elongated upright surmounting the middle mountain, and
ηο cross-bar) and Briquet 2621 (dated 1363, 30Χ44 cm).
9 The MS has at some point after it was written been very slightly trimmed, as is apparent from the
partialloss ofletters at e.g. 234r (top margin), 239", 239 r (bottom margin).
\Ο The text runs to a little over 1,800 letters-rather less than A's average of something like 1,938,
but a line or two for a title would easily make υρ the difference and, ίη any event, the text as found in
Α is broken at the beginning.
11 See Diller, 'Photius' "Bibliotheca" in Byzantine Literature', esp. 392-3. Photius' codex 125
appears at the head of Alexαndrinus 60 (formerly CαirelιsΊS 86), said to be 13th century. It represents the
work of a number of different hands and otherwise contains the Church Histories of Sozomen,
Theodoret, Socrates, and Evagrius. See Diller, 393; Moschonas, Cαtαlogue qf MSS qf the Pαtliαrcllαl
LίbΠl1Υ qfAlexαndriα, no. 60 (Ρρ. 50-Ι); Bidez and Hansen, Sozomenos Kirchengesclzichte, ρρ. χίν-xvi.
6 INTRODUCTION
Claromantanus 82 / Phillippicus 308ι=Β
There is οηlΥ one other complete manuscript of the Apologies, which we
sha11 cal1 B. 12 As had'been long assumed, and as has now been clearly and
abundantly demonstrated by Bobichon,13 Β is simply an apograph of Α.
Its provenance is, fortunately, secure. It is dated 2 April 1541, and signed
by a 'George' who is certainly Georgios Kokolos, a scribe known to
have worked ίη Venice and knownto have worked for Pe11icier. 14 Clearly
Pe11icier had a copy of Α made for himself in Venice before the exemplar
was sent οη to the royal co11ection.
Β, unlike Α, has had a chequered career. It belonged successively to
Pe11icier, to Claude Νaulot du Val, to the Jesuit Co11ege of Clermont ίη
Paris, and, after the expulsion of the Jesuits from France, to the Meermann
co11ection. It then passed into the huge collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps
at Middle Hill, near Cheltenham. 1s For some years it was οη deposit in the
British Library as Loan 36/13, but has, unfortunately, been withdrawn 16
and was sold 'by private treaty' ίη March 2006.17
Since Β is a straight copy of Α and, as the painstaking work ofBobichon
has demonstrated, there is not the slightest reason to think it had access at
any stage to another witness to the text, we cite it occasiona11y, as we will
the work of various editors, οηlΥ ίη order to acknowledge the attribution
of a few obvious corrections.
Ottobonianus 274 = C
Editors since Otto have given space in the apparatus to Ottoboniαnus gr. 274,
which contains the text of οηlΥ three chapters, ιΑ 65-7.18 It is a truth
universa11y acknowledged that its text is 'by far inferior to Α' .19
The question, though, that must decide its importance-and what
place it should be accorded ίη our apparatus-is not its merit ΟΓ lack of it,
but its pedigree. Is it a witness-however inadequate-para11el to and
12 See the descriptions ίη Ott0 3 , ρρ. xxiii-xxvii (who did not recognize it as an apograph);
Archambault, Diαlogue, νοΙ ι, ρρ. xxiv-xxviii; Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 159-61.
13 Bobichon, 'Oeuvres'. Note his crisp conc1usion: 'L'ensemb1e de ces observations convergentes
permet d'affirmer que, pour 1e Dialogue avec Tryphon, le manuscrit de la British Library [our Β] est
bien une copie directe de ce1ui de 1a Bibliotheque Nationa1e. Remarque qui peut sans doute etre
etendue a l' ensemb1e du document, puisque ce1ui-ci paralt bien etre tout entier de la meme main.'
14 Gamillscheg and Harlfinger, RepcI"toriuιn del' gI1eclzisclzen Kopisten; no. 65 (=part Α, ρ. 59; part Β,
ρρ. 33-34). The plate illustrating Kok010s's hand ίn part C is Berol. Phill. 1406, foΙ 146r, dated 1542.
15 The history to this point is traced by Archambau1t, Diαlogue, νοΙ ι, ρρ. xxiv-xxviii, and
summarized by Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 160.
16 We are grateful to Mr J. Maldonado of the British Library for kindly informing us by email of the
withdrawal and sale.
17 Newsletter qf tlze Associαtion jότ Mαnuscripts αnd Arclzives ίπ Reseαrclz Collections, 46 (May 2006), 13.
18 See the description of the MS ίη Feron and Battaglini, CO.4ices jjιJαnuscI1pti GTαeci Ottob01liαnαe, 153.
19 Marcovich, Apologiαe, 7. See Otto , ρ. ΧΧνίίί; Harnack, UberliijeI'ung, 89, Ώ. 215; B1unt, Apologies,
3 26 See Raino, GiOVα1l1li ΟΙΙ0110 dα Nlαglie, 55-6, 68, and Canart, 'Les Manuscnts copres par Emmanue1
ρ. 1ii; Munier\ 86.
JUSTIN'S TEXT(S) 7
independent of Α, ΟΓ is it, like Β, simply a copy, direct ΟΓ indirect?
Harnack thought it was independent of Α,20 though, as we sha11 ~ee, he
had an axe to grind. Blunt thought that it 'seems to rep~esent a dΠ:ereηt
tradition to that of Α', without appearing to be much 1llteres.ted Ι? the
matter while Marcovich and. Munier content themselves W1th slffiply
denou~cing its demerits. It is our belief that C is ίη fact a copy of Α, at at
least two removes, and so gives us ηο access to a separate branch of the
tradition. We have accordingly reported its readings, as we have those of
Β, only where they seem to be of some interest. .
There are two lines of argument that lead us to that cOllC1USlOll, one
external and one internaΙ The extract from ιΑ occupies fols. 1-2 of Ottob.
gr. 274 (foΙ 3 is blank). Those folios-.-and those folios only-were copie~ by
the well-known scribe Giovanni ΟηΟΓίο, who was actlve at the VatIcan
and elsewhere ίη Rome [Γo~ his appointment by Paul ΠΙ as 'scrittore
greco' in 1535 until his death ίη August 1563·21 .
Ιη addition to (ι) ιΑ 65-7, Ottob. gr. 274 conta1ns:
(2) Justin, Ad Zenαm et Serenum;
(3) Justin, Expostitio Rectαe Fidei;
(4) Athenagoras, Legαtio; and
(5) Petrus Nannius' edition of Athenagoras, De Resurrectione Mortuorum
(Paris: apud C. Wechelium, 1541).22
The Nannius' Athenagoras has extensive annotations in the hand of
ΟηΟΓίο. 23 That is, as we shall see, important. . ,
The date and provenance of the rest of the manuscnpt-that. lS,
numbers (2)-(4) in the list above-is quite secu~e. Those texts ,;ere cOp1ed
by Emmanuel Provataris, also active at the Vat1can, whose earl1est datable
manuscript seems to be 1546.24 Οη the ba~is o~ palaeographical con-
siderations, Canart's careful study ofProvatans ass1gns Ottob. gr. 274 to the
. , ,.. 11' t 8 2S
earlier part of the COPY1St s career- prov1sl~na Υ 0.154.· .
As is hardly surprising for Greek COPY1StS wor~ng m Rome at th1S
period, both ΟηΟΓίο and Provataris were οη occaSlOll employed by the
learned and urbane Marcello Cervini, Cardinal Santa Croce, papallegate
to the Council of Trent, and, for the last three weeks of his life, Pope
Marce11us π. 26 The inventories of Cervinj's manuscripts, compiled when
20 Harnack, 'Brod und Wasser', 130. He Γeasserted its independent character again the next year in
Gesclzichte der αltchI-ίstlichen LiteI'αtur, ί, 99·
21 See RainQ, Giovαnni ΟΙΙ0110 dα Mαglie. For Onorio's dates, see ρρ. 27 and 44, and for Ottob. gr. 274,
see ρρ. 68 and 16a-:.-1. .. ' .
22 See Feron and Battag1ini, Codices jjιJαllUSC11ptl GTαecz OttoboIlla1lαe, 153·
23 RainQ GiOVa1llli ΟΙΙ0110 dα jjιJαglie, 214.
Η Cana:t, 'Les Manuscrits copies par Emmanue1 PΓOvataris', 194·
25 Ibid. 264. . .,
PΓOvataris', 229.
8 INTRODUCTION JUSTIN'S TEXT(S) 9
the collection was purchased from the Cervini family by Gregory ΧΙΙΙ in chapters ίη 1549-before the appearance of the editio princeps.32 So these
1574, alllist the three pieces copied by Provataris, but say nothing of the chapters were obviously ίη circulation, οη their οννη, shortly before the
short text of Justin. 27 : appearance of Stephanus' edition.
Were the first two folios of Ottob. gr. 274 produced at the same time? It cannot, then, at present be conclusively demonstrated that fols. 1-20f
Their absence from the inventories of the Cerviniαni may simply be a Ottob. gr. 274 are contemporaneous with the rest ofthe manuscript,33 but it
reflection of the summary nature of those lists. 28 And three facts together is entirely plausible and would, indeed, seem highly likely. And it is readily
tend to suggest that the manuscriptas we have it is a coherent whole: (ι) apparent why a different copyist might have been entrusted with those
Onorio's involvement ίη both the first and the last pieces-copying the folios οηl,Υ. The exemplar must, as we shall see, have offered a dreadful
first two folios and heavily annotating the printed De Resurrectione; (2) the text, and Onorio had by then established his position as the premier
presence of a manuscript Legαtio together with that De Resurrectione; and copyist of Greek texts at the Vatican.
(3) the inclusion of two pseudo:Justin works together with the ιΑ extract. 29 If we can regard some time very close to 1548 as the date of fols. 1-2,
If it is a coherent whole, the inclusion of the Ν annius edition obviously important consequences follow, for by then Α was already ίη the West. Its
demands a date ηο earlier than 1541, and the presence of a handwritten apograph Β is, as we have seen, dated 2 April 1541.
Legαtio probably implies a date before 1557, when the editio princeps was We can ηονν turn to the internal evidence of the text itself. Harnack was
printed by Η. Stephanus. That fits well with the dates of the activity of struck by the density ofvariants ίη C, counting nineteen departures from
both Onorio and Provataris and with the date Canart inferred from the the text of A-and his list is not complete. 34 Ιη a significant number of
development ofProvataris' hand. cases C is blatantly wrong. Examples are: 35
We might add that Justin's views οη the eucharist would have been of
intense theological interest ίη the period leading up to and surrounding 65.5 ήμιν Α] ήμων C
the eucharistic decree of the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent οη 66.1 δεδιδαγμένα Α] δεδαγμένα C (primα mαnu)
67.1 Επικουρουμεν Α] Επικορουμεν C
11 October 1551.
These chapters of the First Apology were to make their debut ίη the 67.3 ~dypoυs μενόντων Α] Els IlPTOVS C
conciliar debates with two references to his testimony οη the mixing of 67.3 Εγχωρει Α] ευχωρειν C
water and wine, one οη 29 December 1551 by Bartholomaeus Carranza 67-4 νουθεσ{αν Α] νουθεσμ-ην C
ΟΡ and the other οη 13 January 1552 by Christophorus Patavinus. ΒΥ
30 67.5 προσΦέρεται Α] προΦερέται C
then, Stephanus' editio princeps of the Apologies would havebeen accessible; 67.5 διάδοσιs Α] διάδωσιs C
the bishop of Niverne had sent a copy of 'il christiano philosopho Justino 67.7 χ~ραιs Α] X~pas C (primα mαnu)
Greco nuovamente stampato' to Cervini at Trent οη ι April 1551.31 67.8 Εσταύρωσαν Α] Εσταύρωσεν C
Others were keenly interested ίη Justin's testimony as well, and ίη far- 67.8 Els Επ{σκεψιν Α] Επιστρέψειν C (primα mαnu)
distant England both Thomas Cranmer and Stephen Gardiner cited these 67.8 ύμιν Α] ήμιν C (primα mαnu)
There are οηlΥ two readings of C that merit consideration as perhaps
independent or even original. The second of them beguiled Harnack,
while the first occurs ίη ιΑ 65.1:
27Devreesse, 'Les Manuscrits grecs de Cervini', ρ. 253 (nos. 75-7) and ρ. 267 (ηο. 131 (18)).
28Other entries ίη the inventories omit part of the contents of a MS. Normally this occurs with αγαθοι πολιτευται Α] αγαθων πολ{τευσθαι C,
texts-sometimes very substantial ones-at the end of a MS, though οη one occasion (ίη a badly
damaged MS) it has occuned with texts found at the beginning, before the text actually listed ίη the giving the sense '... that we be made worthy, having learned the
inventory. Following the identifications made by Devreesse and comparing the inventories (using truth, to live through good deeds and to be found guardians of the
the running numbers assigned to his list d (Ρρ. 259-68)) with the actual contents of the MSS as
catalogued by Feron and Battaglini, the former (omission at the end) is the case with 8= Ottob. gr. 249;
commandments' .
30= Ottob.gr. ΙΙ3; 33= Ottob.gr. 109; 37= Ottob. g1". 366; 41= Ottob.gl" 35; 53= Ottob. g1". 18; 61= Ottob.gr. 281; 32 We owe this reference to the kindness of the Rt Revd Οοlίη Buchanan; see now his Justin Aιfar!)!r οπ
65= Ottob. gr. 300; 70= Ottob. gl.. 379; 104= Ottob. gr. 210; 146= Ottob. gr. 217, and the latter (omission at Baptίsm and EuchaTist, ρ. 6 with n. 9.
the beginning) is the case with 14= Ottob. g1". 59. 33 Unfortunately, the present binding dates only from Pius ΙΧ (Raino, Giovallni Onorio da Maglie,
29 That it is a coherent whole is apparently assumed by Canart, 'Les Manuscripts copies par 161).
Emmanuel Provataris', 234. 34- Harnack, ϋbeτlίqeτung, ρ. 89, n. 215.
30 Concilium Tridentil1um 7,513, line 24-514, line Ι and 667, lines 1-2. 35 Writing during the three-year closure of the Vatican Library, we here follow Marcovich's
31 Concilium Tίidentinuιn ΙΙ, 620, n. 2. citations.
10 1NTRODUCT10N
Νονν; it is true that πολιτευτήι; occurs nowhere else in Justin, while
πολιτεύομαι appears four times, all ίη the Diαlogue (45.3; 67.2,4; 109.1), and
that at ιΑ 67.2 it occurs ίη proximity with KαTΎjςιωσθαι. But the C text is,
nonetheless, derivative. The word family is common ίη Justin; πολιτεία
appears seven times. And ιΑ 67.2 ίη fact tells the other way, as we shall see.
Ιη the first place, 'to live through good works' seems odd. Justin else-
where uses an adverb with πολιτεύομαι ('to live lawfully (εννόμωι;)' (D 67-4);
'to live lawfully and perfectly (εννόμωι; και τελέωι;) , (D 67.2)) or the
prepositions εν ('ίη which (wickedness), (D 109.1)) or κατά ('according to
the Law of Moses' (D 45.3)), but the use of διά to express the modality
of Christian life seems misplaced. That means that ίη the C reading δι'
εργων άγαθων must be construed with KαTΎjςιωσθαι rather than with
πολίτεvσθαι-that is, πολιτεύεσθαι-whίch allows the preposition to retain
its normal instrumental sense.
The meaning is, then, close to that of D 67.2. There Trypho claims
Justin's position should have been that 'because of living lawfully and
perfectly he was made worthy to be chosen as Christ' (δια το εννόμωι; και
τελέωι; πολιτεύεσθαι αύτον KαTΎjςιωσθαι τού εκλεγήναι ειι; Χριστόν). It is,
of course, a claim that Justin rejects, but the point is that ίη both passages
manner of life provides the grounds for being made worthy.
ΙΕ, then, δι' εργων άγαθων must be construed with KαTΎjςιωσθαι, the text
of C cannot stand, for πολιτεύεσθαι will not do without some qualifica-
tion-some expression of the mode of life, as ίη all the occurrences of the
verb ίη the Diαlogue.
Νονν, it is easy to see how the variant could have arisen-by the assimila-
tion of άγαθ- to the preceding genitive pluraΙ But that suggests two
stages-and two scribes-involved ίη the process: first the assimilation and
then the 'correction' of πολιτευται to πολίτευσθαι to give superficial sense.
One other variant ίη C seems to presuppose two stages of corruption.
At ιΑ 67.8 we find
\ \ "λ Α] ειι; , TΎjν
\ αυγΎjν
,\ C
και TΎjν V Ύjν
and
κόσμΟν--τn aVTn AJ om C
Those two variants are clearly linked. The latter, as Marcovich notes ίη his
apparatus, must have come about 'uno versu ίη exemplari omisso" The
former would then be an attempt to give some sense to an unintelligible
text-a guess as to the context in which 'turning darkness' might have
been embedded. 36
36 The curious εΙς αρτους for ij αγρους μενόντων at ιΑ 67.3, noted above, might also point to two
stages of corruption, if, first, μενόντων was accidentally omitted and then a guess made at some
possible sense.
JUs T1N'S TEXT(S) ΙΙ
It would seem to follow that if C does indeed derive from Α, it lies at
least two remQves away. That coheres with what we might have guessed
from the quality, or lack of it, of the text of C. Giovanni Onorio was a
highly skilled and professional copyist,37 and it seems impossible that he
could have committed so many blunders ίη so short a passage. 38
It might be worth noting that the words omitted by C at ιΑ 67.8 occupy
almost exactly one line ίη Α, οη [οΙ 238r, lines 22-3 (the penultimate and
last lines Qf the page). Α comma after τρέψαι; οη line 22, where the omis-
SiOll begins, iS aligned directly over the rather similar-looking iota subscript
in Tn at its end, and the kappa of κόσμον iS not dissimilar in shape from the
eta of rιμέΡq" where the text of C resumes.
The second place where a reading of C might appear tempting iS its
omission of και κράματοι; ίη ,ιΑ 65.3. Indeed, it tempted Harnack, who
found ίη it one of the planks out of which to construct his thesis that Justin
practised a bread-and-water eucharist, without the use of wine. 39 We have
suggested (αd loc.) two alternatives-first, that the reading of Α ('cup of
water and krαmα') might make perfect sense, depending οη' the details-
unfortunately lost to us-of eucharistic observance ίη his church; and
secondly, that the text can be emended so as to remove the apparent
awkwardness of 'water and water-mixed-with-wine'. Either alternative
seems far simpler than Harnack's thesis, which involves not οηlΥ rallying
to the defence of C here, but also excising, without manuscript support,
references to wine ίη ιΑ 54.6 and D 69.2 as well as ιΑ 65·5 and 67.5.
The evidence for the date of C and the quality of its readings together
make it, we think, virtually certain that we are here dealing with a des-
cendant of Α rather than with an independent branch of the manuscript
tradition, as Harnack so fondly hoped. Unfortunately, it is not at present
possible to identif)r precisely the links ίn the chain. Indeed, it may never
be. The lines of transmission are complex. That is shown clearly enough
by the garbled state of the text of C, by the existence of other, still later
manuscripts, ίn both Greek and Latin, containing these chapters as a
detached fragment,40 and by their use ίn the polemic between Cranmer
37 Indeed, ίη the fulsome words ofBenedetto Egio (writing to Fulvio Orsino), ΟηΟΓίο was 'graeco-
rum voluminum multo omnium qui fuere quique nunc sunt et qui post aliis erunt in annis, eminentis-
simus' (quoted by RainQ, Giovanlli On01io da Maglie, 28).
38 Harnack, who does not identif)r the scribe, noted, 'Es beweisen aber die 19 Abweichungen,
welche sich im Ottobon. auf so kleinem Raume finden, dass er nicht aus Par. abgeschrieben ist'
(ϋbeτΙiefiτung, ρ. 89, η. 215). He went οη to draw from that observation the conclusion, which by ηο
means follows necessarily, that C was independent of Α.
39 Harnack, 'Brod und Wasser': the reading ofthe OttoboιziαIlus is discussed οη ρρ. 130-1. Harnack's
thesis provoked an enormous amount of discussion, but little support, though it has been cautiously
endorsed by McGowan, Ascetic Eucllalists, 151-5 and 159.
r
40 Ιη Greek, Athos, Vatopedi, Skete Demetriu 33, fols. 34 -35" ~atter 16th century), and, in Latin,
AIllbTOSianus Η. 142 infer. (1564) and MOllacensis Lαt. 132 (1565). There are, ίη addition, excerpts from
both Apologies ίη the IJth-century PαIisillus suppl. gT. 190, fols. 299r-301Ό For these, see Marcovich,
Apologiae, 7, η. 15·
Ι2 INTRODUCTION JUSTIN'S TEXT(S)

and Gardiner. It would be a story well worth pursuing, and one to which Sacra Parallela
we hope some day to return, but a story which, we suggest, will have much
Eight passagesfrom the Apologies appear ίη the Sacra Parallela:
more to contribute 'to sixteenth-century eucharistic theology than to the
restoration of the text of Justin. ιΑ 2.Ι ΗοΠ 94
3·2-3 95
4·3c-4 96
ΤΗΕ 1ND1RECT TRAD1T10N Ι2.6 97
Ι2.Ι9 98
The direct manuscript tradition is, then, reducible to Α. But there is, ίη 43·8 99
addition, an indirect tradition, for there are citations ίη Eusebius, ίη the 44.8 ιοο
Sacra Parallela, and ίη the Chronicon Paschale, of which the Eusebian material 2Α ΙΙ.7-8 ιοι
is by far the most important.
We cite the readings of the Sacra Pa'rallela ίη our apparatus, but they are ίη
fact of very litde value ίη the reconstruction of the text.
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica
Eusebius quotes from our Apologies twelve times ίη his Historia Ecclesiαsticα. Chronicon Paschale
The passages are:
Finally, two passages are quoted ίη the Chronicon Paschale, 2Α 8(3).Ι-2 and
ιΑ Ι ΗΕ ΙΥ.Ι2 2Α 8(3).3-4. They both fall within one of Eusebius' extracts (ΙΥ.ι6.3-6),
26.Ι-3 Π.Ι3·3-4 and everything that the Chronicon Pαschale says about Justin makes it appar-
26·4 ΠΙ.26·3 ent that it is here dependent οη the Eusebian tradition. We cite this evi-
26·5-6 IVII·9 dence ίn the apparatus, but its only-very limited-value is as another
26.8 ΙΥ.ΙΙ.ΙΟ witness to Eusebius.
29-4 ΙΥ.8·3
3ι.6 IV8·4
68·3-5 IV8·7 S1X EARLY ED1TORS, 1551-1742
68·5- ΙΟ ΙΥ.9· Ι -3
2Α 2.2-20 ΙΥ.η.2- Ι 3 There have been well over thirty separate editions of the Apologies. We will
8(3)·ι-6 ΙΥ.ι6·3- 6 say a few words about those we think have done the most to shape the way
Ι2.Ι-2 ΙΥ.8·5 Justin has been read.
Of these the most significant by far is the 10ng extract from 2Α 2 cited ίη
Book ΙΥ, for it fills a lacuna ίη Α (2Α 2.2-ι6) that must have been caused R. Stephanus {I55I/1
by the 10ss of either one ΟΓ two leaves ίη the exemplar. That happy chance
As with so many texts, the transltlOll from manuscript to print was
is, as we will see, of ηο litde significance for our efforts to reconstruct
almost seamless. The editio princeps-an imposing, if less than sumptuous,
something of the history of the text.
[οlίο published by the great scholar-printer Robert Estienne ίn I55I-iS
Ιη all, the Eusebian citations represent just under 8 per cent of the text
virtually equivalent to a good copy of Α. There is ηο doubt that that is
of the two Apologies. If the filling of the Great Lacuna is taken out of
the manuscript from which the text was drawn, even though there is ηο
account, what Eusebius gives us is just under 6 per cent of the text pre-
prefatory matter (apart from a version of the prefatory matter found in the
sented by Α. Given the dependence of Β and C, that precious 6 per cent
represents virtually our οηlΥ check οη the textual tradition offered by Α.
41 ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΥ ΦΙΛΟ/ ΣΟΦΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΣ. / ΖΗΝΑ και Σψήνφ. /
ΛΟΓΟΣ παραινετικο') προ,> Ηλλήναs. / ΠΡΟ Σ ΤΡΥΦΩΝΑ Ιουδαιον διάλογοs./ ΑΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ ύπερ
Χριστιανων προ,> την Ρωμαίων ΣύγκλΤ)τον. / ΑΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ β' ύπερ Χριστιανων προ,> Αντωνινον τον
εύσεβη. / ... / ΕΧ BIBLIOTHECA REGIA. / LVTETIAE. / Εχ officina Roberti Stephani typo-
graphi Regii, Regiis typis. / M.D.LI. / Cum priuilegio Regis.
 1NTRODUCT10N
manuscript itself-the extracts from Photius and Eusebius). The title-page
proudly claims that it is drawn 'from the royal library', printed by 'the
royal printer~ using 'the royal types', and appears 'with the royal privilege'.
The king was getting good value for his money.
As ίη Α, the shorter Apology comes first (Ρρ. 129-34), followed by the
longer (Ρρ. 135-63). 'Adnotationes' offer a few obvious corrections and
reproduce some of the marginal variants found ίη Α (ρρ. 313-14). There
are ηο chapter divisions or any other breaks ίη the text. The text of our 2Α
2 is printed as ίη A-that is, the Great Lacuna is not filledin-though the
annotation to ρ. 129, line 21 notes that there is missing material which can
be restored from Eusebius, Book IV
Perion (Ι554/ 2
Three years later appeared the first translation of the Apologies, by Joachim
Perion. The Apologies have their own pagination (ρρ. 1-12 and 13-44), with
a separate title-page for what is still called the First-that is, the shorter-
Apology, and are followed by extensive 'observationes' by Perion (Ρρ. 45-54
and 55-7). As far as the history of the text goes-as distinct from the
history ofJustin's influence-it is there, ίη the 'observationes', that the real
value of Perion's work lies. And it is considerable. While some of the
observations amount to learned little excursus, a great many ofthem offer
sane and thoughtful emendations of the text-the first attempt to wrestle
with its problems.
Sylburg (ι593/3
Frederick Sylburg will often appear ίη our apparatus, and his handsome
folio edition, published at Heidelberg in 1593, deserves mention here-
though perhaps more for industry than for ingenuity. He follows the text
of Stephanus with minor alterations. The shorter Apology of course still
comes first, followed by the longer (Ρρ. 32-41 and 41-80). There are two
sets of 'annotationes', the first (Ρρ. 403-9) offering mainly his own sugges-
tions, the second (Ρρ. 435-8) those of Perion and Jacques Billy. The Great
Lacuna is filled, with the Eusebian material printed within square brackets
(ρρ. 32-3). There are still ηο chapters or other breaks in the text.
42 ΒΕΑΤΙ IVSTINI PHI-/losophi & martyris opera omnia, QVAE ADHUC INVENIRI POTVE-
/RUNT, ID EST, QVAE ΕΧ REGIS / Galliae Bibliotheca pro-/dierunt. / Ioachimo Perionio Ben-
edictino Cormoeriaceno interprete. / Eizιsde17l Pel10nii ίπ nzultos eiusdem 1ustini libros obscI·uationes. / . . . /
PARISIIS, / Apud Iacobum Dupuys, e regione collegij Cameracensis, / sub insigni Sameritanae. /
1554. / Cum Priuilegio Regis.
43 ΤΟΥ ΑΓ1ΟΥ / 10 ΥΣΤΙΝΟ Υ / ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΥ ΚΑΙ / ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΣ / ΤΑ ΕΥΡΙΣΚΟΜΕΝΑ.
/ S. IVSTINI, / PHILOSOPHI ΕΤ MARTYRIS, / OPERA QVAE VNDEQVAQVE / INVENIRI
POTVERVNT. / ... Opera Friderici Sylburgii Veter. / Εχ Typographeio Hieronymi Commelini, /
ΆΝΝο CHRIST1 MDXCIII.
JUST1N'S TEXT(S)
Grαbe (Ι700 αnd Ι703)
The text of Justin essentially slept its way through the seventeenth century.
Important editions of course appeared-such as the work which virtu~lly
created the category of 'Apologist'-the collected edition of the Apolog1sts
published at Paris ίη 1615 by Federic Morel. But in large measure they
represented a tidying-up of the materials inherited from the previous
century rather than a new leap forward. It was not so with the eighteenth,
which saw the publication of three editions which are in many ways
respectively the most magisterial, ingenious, and durable of all.
The century opened with the publication of a stubby little octavo
presenting the magisterial work of Johann Ernst Grabe at Oxford. 44 ~d
the Apologiα Primα published under Grabe's own name was followed .1η
η 0 3 by a companion edition bf Secundα, bearin~5the name ~fH. J:Iut.Ch1ll,
but containing a preface and notes by Grabe. The text lS aga1ll m aΠ
essentials Stephanus, but the notes that distinguish these editions display
the lucidity andjudgement that marked Grabe's great edition oflrenaeus,
published ίη η02. .
There are two innovations. The First Apology of ηοο lS actually the
First-that is, the longer-Apology, pioneering the order that has been
universaΠy followed since. And there are chapter divisions, though not
those which were to become standard-ninety of them ίη the First and
fourteen ίη the Second.
Thirlby Ι722
Perhaps the cleverest of all editions of Justin is that of Styan Thirlby,46 a
tempestuous and troubled character, but one who n:anaged to co.mbine
real learning with lively imagination. Α copy of Th1rlby from Wh1Ch we
worked47 had once belonged to Robert Lee, Professor of Biblical Criticism
ίη the University of Edinburgh. Οη 4 April 1859 he disdainfully recorded
οη the title-page his conclusion that Thirlby must have been drunk when
44 SANCTI / jUSTINI / PHILOSOPHI ΕΤ MARTYRIS / APOLOGIA PRIMA / PRO
CHRISTIANIS / AD ANTONlNUM PIUM, / ... / Edita a / jOANNE ERNESTO GRABE. / ΟΧΟΝΙΑΕ,
/ ETHEATRO SHELDONIANO / Αηηο Domini MDCC.
45 SANCTI / JUSTINI / Philosophi & Mar!JJJ"is / APOLOGIA SECUNDA / PRO CHRISTIANIS,
/ ORATIO COHORTATORIA, / ORATIO AD GRAECOS, ΕΤ / DE MONARCHIA / LIBER:
/ ... / Edita ab / Η. Hutchin Α.Μ. ex Aede Christi. / ΟΧΟΝΙΑΕ, / Ε THEATRO SHELDONIANO,
MDCCIII.
46 10 ΥΣΤΙΝΟ Υ / ΦιλοσόΦου Kal Μάρτυρο, / ΑΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ ύπερ Χριστιανων προ, Αντωνινον τον
Ευ σεβiι , / ΑΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ β' ύπερ Χριστιανων προ, την Ρωμαίων συγκλήτον, / ΠΡΟΣ ΤρύΦωνα Ιου­
δαιον διάλογο,. / JUSTINI / PHILOSOPHI & MARTYRIS / APOLOGIAE DUAE / ΕΤ / DIA-
LOGUS / CUM / TRYPHONE jUDAEo. / Cum notis et emendationibus / STYAN1 TH1RLBIl /
LONDI.NL· / Impensis R1CHARDI SARE, juxta portam australem Hospitii Greiani, in / vico dicto
Holbourll. Μ DCC ΧΧΙΙ.
47 Now ίη the library ofNew College, Edinburgh. See Ρ. Seary, 'Thirlby, Styan', O;ifόrd DίctiοnωΥ qf
Natiollal Biograplιy (online edition).
 16 INTRODUCTION JUSTIN'S TEXT(S)

he wrote the Dedicatory Epistle-which, given what is known of his per- Blunt
sonal habits, is not at all unlikely. The text is still Stephanus, and there are
Our next 'ed.'· is Alfred Blunt, whose very useful edition of the Apologies
ηο chapter divisions. The edition marks the first time that the three works
was published ίη Ι9ΙΙ. Blunt was born ίη 1879 and, though ίη his twenties
we recognize as the authentic Justin, and οηlΥ those three, were edited
he had been ·a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, his career was to be ίη the
together, but it is the emendations that make Thirlby such a good com-
panion to the text. Church ofEngland. He was bishop of~radfor? from 1931 to I95~. ..
Blunt's edition has been deservedly ιnfluentlal because of the JUdlClOUS
balance and level-headed judgement of his notes, which show a rare
Mαrαn 1742 ability to disentangle the complexities of a difficult passage. 49 But he
presents οηlΥ a very select apparatus, and his text is based οη Κruger's
The third of the eighteenth-century editions we wish to single out still
once widely used hand edition,50 which was itself based οη OttO. 51 ΒΙι:ιηt
casts a scholarly shadow. 1t is the Maurist edition, published ίη a
also took over from Κruger the division of chapters into sections, WhlCh
sumptuous [οlίο ίη 1742 and edited by Prudentius Maran. 48 Maran had
has since become standard.
access to both of our manuscripts Α and Β. The text is Stephanus.
What has given the edition such a long shelf-life is, first, the fact that it
introduced the chapter divisions which were to become standard, and Goodspeed
secondly, Migne's decision to reprint Maran ίη the Pαtrologiα (PG 6 (1857)).
Three years later Edgar Goodspeed published his handy collected ed~tion
of the A~ologists, which ,;as destine~2 to be perh.aps th: most wldely
cited JUStlll for the next eιghty years. The text lS heavily, not to say
FIVE MODERN EDITORS (OUR EDD) 1876-2006
slavisWy, based οη Α, from which it seldom departs ίη anything more than
orthography. The apparatus carefully records the readings of Α, C, and
Finally, we come to the five modern-or modernish-editions whose
the indirect tradition (Eusebius and the Sαcrα Pαrαllelα) , but there are
readings we have tried systematically to report and whose agreement we
otherwise ηο critical notes.
have represented by the siglum edd.
Goodspeed was, then, ίη one sense a throwback to the cen~uries
when Stephanus' textus receptus-itself, originally, little mor~ than a l~g?tly
Otto corrected transcript of A-was the dominant text. But unlike the edltlOns
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Goodspeed's version lacks
J. C. Τ νοη Otto published his first edition ίη 1842 and the definitive,
the support of the notes accumulated from multiple hands that in most
third, ίη 1876. The text finally cuts loose from what had been for nearly
editions offered the reader a plethora of choices.
three centuries the textus receptus of Stephanus, though Otto stilllooks back
ίη other ways to older editorial habits. His abundant annotations, for
example, include an accumulation of 'variorum' notes, and he often pro- Mαrcovich
poses alternatives to or even expresses dissent from his own text. Otto can
The situation was dramatically changed ίη 1994, when Miroslav
all too easily be criticized for inaccuracy or misjudgement, but his edition
Marcovich published his critical edition of the Apologies,53 to be follow~d by
remains invaluable for the sheer quantity and range of material collected,
a companion edition ofthe Diαlogue in 1997. Marcovich emends heavily, as
and, as we shall see, its posterity emphatically lives οη. 1η both its strengths
will be readily apparent from our citation of his readings ίη our apparatus.
and its weaknesses, Otto belongs with other monumental editions from the
What we find problematic, though, is not necessarily the number of
dawn ofthe modern critical era, like Oehler's Tertullian (1851-3), editions
which laid the foundation for all future critical work.
49 Indeed, many of them continue to have wide currency as reincarnated ίη the notes of Barnard

(The Fint αιιd Second Apologies) and Wartelle (Apologies). .

50 Krίiger, Die Apologieen. We have used the 2nd and 3 editions; Blunt used the 3rd • He llsts 28
rd

48 ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ ΗΜΩΝ / ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΥ / ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΣ / readings where he diverges from Krίiger (Blunt, Apologies, ρ. lviii). . .
ΤΑ / ΕΥΡΙΣΚΟΜΕΝΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ. / S. Ρ. Ν. JUSTINI PHILOSOPHI ΕΤ MARTYRIS / OPERA / 51 'Unserer Ausgabe liegt der Text der Ottoschen Zu Grunde' (Κrίiger Apolog;ιeen (1896)), ρ. XV1.
QUAE EXSTANT ΟΜΝΙΑ / ... / Opera & studio unius ex Monachis Congregationis S. Mauri. / 52 Die iiltesten Apologeten. . .
53 We reviewed Marcovich's edition, together with Munier , ίη ]OUΙ'παl qf Theolog;ιcαl Studzes, NS 52
l
PARISIIS, / Sumptibus CAROU OSMONT, via San-Jacobaea. / Μ DCC XLII. / CUM
APPROBATIONE ΕΤ PRIVILEGIO REGIS. (2001), 349~53.
18 1NTRODUCT10N
emendations, but their character. Many are stylistic improvements where it
is hard to fathom any cause, accidental or deliberate, for the corruption
postulated by MarcQvich. His text is undoubtedly better Greek than A's,
but it may also be better Greek than Justin's. Other emendations of
Marcovich, though, have the great merit of drawing attention to real
problems ίη the structure of a sentence or the flow of an argument.
Perhaps the most valuable feature of the edition is the comprehensive
register of sources and parallels at the foot of each page, which often
amounts to a virtual commentary οη the text. It remains an important and
distinguished edition.
Munier
At the very end of 1996, as the climax of years of work οη Justin, Charles
Munier published a critical edition ίη the Sources Chretiennes series
(Munier 2), together with a companion volume offering further comment
οη the French text (Munier ). He had already produced, ίη 1995, a sort
3
of editio minor of the Greek text with facing French translation and light
annotation (Munier 1).
The strong point of Munier's text and commentary is probably his
extensive discussion of the theological and philosophical context. But
the text of the Sources Chretiennes edition rarely departs from that of the
editio minor, which was itself based οη Blunt. The convictions about the
state of the text that lead Munier to this position will be considered ίn a
moment. Here we may simply note that this means that our edition is, we
hope, ίn a sense complementary to his, for our commentary is focused οη
textual problems, which Munier rarely engages with.
Looking over the history of the printed text as a whole, we can see
that the textus receptus-and so the text of A-enjoyed some three centuries
of virtual monopoly ίn the editions themselves, whatever choices were
proliferating in the annotations of various editors. And that has been
followed by over a century-and-a-half ηονν when the tradition flowing
from Otto has, οη the whole, been dominant, and the line running from
Otto to Κrίiger to Blunt to Munier continues to be highly influential. But
other voices are also heard. For most of the twentieth century an almost
unadulterated Α text was widely cited ίn scholarly discussion as a result
of the prestige of Goodspeed's edition, and at the end of the century
Marcovich's fresh look at the text produced an invaluable alternative οη
the opposite wing of the editorial spectrum. It is, we think, a healthy
diversity.
JUST1N'S TEXT(S) 19
ΤΗΕ STATE OF ΤΗΕ ΤΕΧΤ
We have surveyed the witnesses to the text and traced something of the
way that evidence has been handled in major editions. What are we left
with? What sort of a textual tradition are we dealing with?
Ορίηίοη is very divided, and the two most rec~llt edit?rs hold str?ng~y
polarized views. Οη the· textual right, as it were, 1S Mun1er, who nails h1S
colours firmly to the mast of Α, arguing that its text ~s .essen~ially sound.
He believes that the work of van Winden (An Early Chrιstzan Phzlosopher) and
Bobichon οη the Dialogue:
ont permis de etablir que le manuscrit de Paris ne merite pas les jugements, plus
que severes, emis a son sujet par certains philologues de lafln du XIX~ siecle ~t des
premieres decennies du xxe • Une etude attentive du texte.de ΙΆΡοl~gιe convalncra
le lecteur que les prejuges entretenus contre le manuscnt de Pans ne sont que
tres rarement justifies. .
. Les choses etant ce qu'elles sont, notre edition se fonde essentlellement sur le
texte de Α. 54
One of the 'philologues' of whom Munier complains is c~ea~ly Wolf~~ng
Schmid, who ίη 1941 launched a powerful attack οη the re11abil1ty of Α as
a part of his work toward a projected edition which, unfortunately, never
came to fruition. Marcovich belongs to that school of thought, οη the
opposite flank from Munier. .
For Marcovich, Α 'is plagued with marked and h1dden textual gaps,
scribal errors and intrusive glosses,,56 'The neat and pleasant hand ...
is deceptive while concealing huge textual gaps, heavy corruptions, dis-
location of text, and intrusive marginal glosses. ,57
How can reputable scholars be led to such disparate conclusions? The
view for which we shall argue is that the scribe of Α itself, or of an
exemplar, has made the best of a very bad job-that he was working from
a very badly damaged manuscript, from which he managed. to produce
throughout surface sense. He has, ίη other words, covered h1S tracks, so
that his text reads smoothly, but often hides serious corruption. We hope
that that case will be supported by the commentary we attach to our text.
At this point, though, we would like briefly to draw atte~ti?~ to three
preliminary considerations that might at least open the poss1bil1ty of such
corruption being present. . .
The first is Harnack's well-known claim that the Apologtes and Dzalogue
may be supposed to contain some two or three hundred more er~ors than
a text of the tenth century would have. He reached that cOllClUSlOll from
an examination of three of the pseudo-Justiniana ίη. Α which are also
transmitted by the Arethas codex (Parisinus graecus 451) of 913-914.58
54 l\tIunier2, 93-4. 55 Schmid, 'Textίiberlieferung'.
56 Marcoνich, Apologiαe, 6. 57 Marcoνich, DiαlogllS, 4. 58 Harnack, ϋbeτΙί'!frrll1ιg, 79, n. 190.
 20 INTRODUCTION
Our second preliminary consideration derives from a comparison of
the Eusebian extracts with the corresponding passages ίη Α. We have
chosen to follow Eusebius twenty-one times against Α. If we exclude three
orthographical variants and the seams at the beginning and end of the
Great Lacuna, we are still left with sixteen readings. And the overlap
between Eusebius and Α is, as we have seen, just under 6 per cent of the
whole.
Here too, of course, difference of ορίηίοη is possible. Munier, for
example, is quite dismissive of the Eusebian text: 'si l' οη excepte quelques
additions de son cru, aisement reperables, force est de reconnaitre que,
dans le ensemble, son texte η' est pas meilleur que celui de Α et qu'il η'Υ a
pas lieu de le privilegier systematiquement. ,59 We must again leave it to the
reader to decide οη a case-by-case basis.
Our third preliminary consideration is perhaps the most significant, and
will be important for our subsequent discussion-the manicuring of the
ends of the Great Lacuna. 1f the loss of text ίη 2.2-16 is indeed caused by
the loss of one or two folios, the scribe was confronted by two jagged
edges. At the beginning of the lacuna he has added αϋTΎj to supply a
subject,60 and at the end he has changed όνόμ,ατοs to παθήμ,ατοs to give
some sort of superficial sense.
1f that was all we had-if Eusebius had not happened to quote the
passage ίη full-we would know something was wrong, but not know what.
We would be confronted by a text that read:
Α certain woman was living with a licentious man, being herself formerly
licentious as well. But when she came to know the teachings of Christ and of the
passion of Christ ... 'You punished this man confessing a name. Your judge-
ments, Ο Urbicus, do not befit a pious ruler ηΟΓ the son of a philosopher Caesar
ηΟΓ the holy Senate.' And he, making ηο other answer, said also to Lucius, 'You
too seem to me to be such.' And when he said, 'Certainly', he again bid him too to
be led away.
We would probably suspect a (short?) lacuna in the wrong place, assume
that the direct address to U rbicus was spoken by the unnamed woman,
and guess that 'this man' who was punished was her converted husband.
The scribe's tidying-up has not managed to put things right, but would
have managed to put us fairly firmly off course.
1t is our hypothesis that the scribe has often done the same elsewhere,
guessing at the restoration of damaged or illegible text with the help of
words and phrases he could make out, borrowing words from the context
2
59 Munier , 88. He adds: 'C'est la conclusion logique de la precedente constatation: elle devrait
encourager les editeurs a lirniter le plus possible les conjectures qui pretendraient "ameliorer" le texte
de Α' (Ρ. 88, η. 3).
60 Ιη the margin someone we believe to be the corrector labelled c has hazarded the guess that we
1
should turn both subject and verb into plurals.
JUSTIN'S TEXT(S) 21
to fill ίη holes, ironing out discontinuities or b~eaks in syntax. 1η general it
must be true that editorsshould be encouraged, ίη Munier's phrase, 'to
restrict as much as possible conjectures that pretend to "improve" the text'.
But we are not here dealing with texts ίη general, but with a particular
text, transmitted ίη one particular manuscript, the exemplar of which was
patently faulty.
ΤΗΕ NUMBER OFAPOLOGIES
The Great Lacuna, which we have just been considering, might help us
tackle the thorny and hoary problem ofhow many apologies there are, for
it gives us precious access to ,one stage ίη the history of the text-a key
stage, if the leaf-shedding manuscript was indeed badly damaged and ίη
need of serious scribal attention. We will look first at the three by now
traditional and well-entrenched positions οη the number of apologies;
then, secondly, turn to the leaf-shedding manuscript; and finally propose
a possible solution-the theory that seems to us the most probable among
a number ofpossible optionS. 61
How Many Apologies?
There are three venerable theories. There are those who think there are
indeed two apologies-two separate works; there are those who think
there is only one, continuous text, unfortunately and inappropriately
divided ίη the manuscript tradition; and there are those who split the
difference and argue for one-and-a-half
Two?
The advantages of the theory that we are indeed dealing with two
separate apologies are that that is, after all, the way they are presented ίη
the manuscript, and that the discourse of the Second Apology is in so many
ways different from the discourse of the First.
1t is, ίη the first place, clear at least that Parίsinus graecus 450 believes there
to be two. What it calls the Second Apology is what has been known since
Grabe as .the First, while what it calls simply Apology on Beha!f qf Chrίstians to
the Roman Senate is the text we always call the Second.
Secondly, the tone of those two works is quite distinct. While the First
is full of quotations from scripture-especially the prophets and the
61 We have approached these problems elsewhere. See in particular Ρ. Parvis, 'The Textual Trad-
ition of Justin's Apologies' and Justin, Philosopher and Martyr', to which we refer for more detailed
discussion of some of the points to be considered briefly here.
22 INTRODUCTION JUSTIN'S TEXT(S) 23
'memoirs of the apostles', the Second has not a sing1e scriptura1 citation. One~and-a-Ha1j?
And it is, in the words of Robert Grant, 'more favourab1e to philosophy
So a th~rd option is to compromise 66 and argue for one apo1ogy with an
than the ear1ier one-,-there is hard1y any Christian theo1ogy, in fact'. 62
app. endIX. That theory was put forward by Grabe in 1703 67 and received
That iriιp1ies a definition of Christian theo1ogy from which we wou1d wish
to demur, but the point he was making is va1id. The logos spermatikos ~he ,:eig~ty ~l~ssing of Harnack. 68 Goodspeed he1ped to' popu1arize the
ldea rn hlS edltlOll of 1914 by actually entitling the two texts 'Apo10gia' and
appears οη1Υ in the Second; it is οη1Υ there that we encounter Justin engaged
'~ppendix'. And Marcovich insisted enthusiastically that 'all difficulties
in debate with his pagan rivals ίη the form of the Cynic Crescens.
dlsappear.as soon as we recognize that 2Α is οηlΥ an Appendix, Supp1ement
But the disadvantage of the two-apo1ogy theory is that we are then 1eft
ΟΓ Postscnpt (Nachschrijt, Anhang, Begleitschreiben) to ιΑ'. 69
with a very insubstantia1 text for the Second. It is very short, the beginning
Some difficu1ties disappear~ but not all. The compromise theory
is abrupt, and what we have consists main1y of an exp1anation of the
does have the advantage that lt takes away part of the objection to the
occasion for writing (the story of γυνή Tι~ and her marita1 troub1es in
character of the Second Apology, which is not then meant to be a text
Chapter 2) and the answers to three iriιagined objections (posed at 3(4).1,
capa~le of standin~ οη its οννη tWo feet. The disadvantage, though, is
4(5).1, and 9·1).
that lt becomes dlfficu1t to see what we are real1y talking about. Ν ο
matter h?w many ~abels .are piled up (supp1ement, postscript, Nachschrijt,
One? and t~e .like), ~hat lS the 11terary reality? If it is an appendix ΟΓ a postscript,
why lS lt not rntroduced as such? If the story of the woman's marita1
So a second theory is to say that there is really only one Apo1ogy,63 and
troub1es ~nd t~eir consequences is meant to be an update, why does he not
that ιΑ and 2Α shou1d siriιp1y be read together. The case was put by Boll
sa~ ~he sltuatlOll has a~tually deteriorated? If it was the trigger for the
we11 over a century-an d -a-ha1f ago. 64 His strongest arguments are that we'
wntrng of the Apo1ogy ιη the first p1ace, why does Justin οη1Υ think to tell
then have a nice inclusio between the references to piety and philosophy at
us ηονν?
the beginning ofthe First (in ι; 2.1, 2; 3.1) and those at the end ofthe Second,
Α . feat~re of the Second Apology that bears upon the question of the
and that there are a number ofback references ίη 2Α, introduced by 'as we
re1atlOnshιp of the Apologies is that in his 1ittle speech to the urban prefect
said before', that can οη1Υ be taken as referring to things that are actually
(2Α 2.26) the Christian martyr Lucius addresses Urbicus in terms that are
said in ιΑ.
very reminiscent of the centra1 argument, petition, and even address of
Οη the other hand, a disadvantage of the one-continuous-text theory is
the FirstApology, and that seem to take up the content ofthe rescript of
that the structure of that text is then quite odd. It builds up to an apparent
Hadrian. He asks why Pto1emy shou1d be condemned when he has not
c1imax with the citation of what Justin takes to be 1ega1 precedent ίη the
d?ne any evil deed, and says that Urbicus' judgement does not befit a
form of Hadrian's rescript to Minicius Fundanus (IΑ 68.5-10), but then
plO~S emperor, ΟΓ a philosophica1 Caesar, his son, ΟΓ the ho1y Senate. If .
adds, a1most as an afterthought, an account of the occasion for writing in
Justrn reports the substance of what Lucius actually said to Urbicus and
the first p1ace,65 and stragg1es οη with the appended answers to iriιagined
has not siriιp1y. invented it, the question arises of the re1ationship ofthis
objections. And a second argument against is that we then have to say that
speech to the FzrstApology. It is un1ike1y that these punning references to the
the scribe who chopped the text in two did his work uncannily well, for, as
names of the ru1ers were commonplaces among the Christians of Rome.
we have just seen, the tone of the Second Apology is so different from that of
Therefore, either Lucius must be dependent οη the First Apology ΟΓ it must
the First.
be dependent οη Lucius. Ιη the former case, enough tiriιe must be allowed
for Lucius to have read the FirstApology before addressing Urbicus, and the
62 Grant, 'Forms and Occasions ofthe GreekApologists', 216. Second Apology cannot originally have been of one piece with the first. 70
63 Divided, perhaps, by an over-enthusiastic scribe who had read in Eusebius that Justin wrote two
apologies (so.. Schwartz, in Eusebius, Die Κi/"cheιzgeschichte, νοΙ 3, ρρ. clvi-clvii).
6+ Boll, 'Uber das Verhaltnis der beiden Apologien Justins'. The one-apology theory is that
maintained by Munier. Munier 1 actually printed one continuous text and numbered the chapters 66 'Kompromiss' is Schwartz's word: Κίπheιιgeschίchte νοΙ 3, ρ. cliv, η. 2.
consecutively. Munier2 abandons the renumbering, but not the theory (see his outline of the structure, 67 Grabe's Preface to Hutchin, ApoZogία Secunda, ρ. a [21.
ΡΡ·34-8). 68 Harnack, Ch/"011ologίe, 274.
65 Boll thought this was an argument for his theory, The train of thought would be that while 69 NIarcovich, Apologίae, ro. Grabe's term was 'quαsi Postscriptum (ut vulgo dici solet)'.

H~drian had, as Justin understands him, forbidden prosecution simply for the name, that safeguard is • 7~ Unl~ss Justin was simply inept, this would also follow ifJustin had simply invented the speech. For
belllg flagrantly violated by Urbicus in Rome. But if Justin is trying to make the point that Urbicus' hlS mventlOll would be exposed if he included in the Fi/"st Apology a speech of someone else which was
procedure runs counter to Hadrian's norms, he fails to say so explicitly. clearly dependent οη it.
 INTRODUCTION
Dependence of Lucius οη Justin must mean that the Second Apology is, at
the very least, an appendix to the First. But if Justin wrote the First Apology
after learning of Lucius' speech, and incorporated elements of it into his
own much longer address, ηο consequence can be drawn for the relation-
ship of the two Apologies. The material of the Second might originally have
been included in the First, or Justin might have reprised οη a later occasion
the words of Lucius that had helped to shape the First.
So aΠ the theories have their advantages, and all have disadvantages. Is
there a way forward?
ΤΗΕ ΡΕΤΙΤΙΟΝ OR LIBELLUS
One consideration that can help us is the increasingly clear recognition
over the last few decades of the fact that the First Apology packages itself as
a petition, a libellus, addressed to the emperor. 71 That is, it makes use of a
normal Roman administrative procedure which aΠowed ordinary folk to
submit a request to a governor or other official. These libelli survive ίη
their hundreds ίη the papyri, while the best example of one addressed to
the emperor himself is the inscription recording a request made by the
villagers of Scaptopara ίη Thrace to Gordian ΠΙ ίη 238 as well as the
impatiently abrupt answer of 'the divine autocrat'. 72 They follow a well-set
pattern. They begin with an address of the petitioner ίη the nominative
to the recipient ίη the dative, set out a problem, go οη to make a specific
request-for administrative intervention, redress of grievance, a legal
ruling-and often end with the citation of legal precedent. That is just
what we find in the First Apology. Justin begins with his address to
Antoninus Pius and his adopted sons (ιΑ Ι), complains of the anomaly of
the way Christians are treated, and goes οη in ιΑ 7-4 to make his request
(using the normal verb in a Greek petition, αξιούν), asking that 'the deeds
of all who have been denounced to you be examined, so that anyone who
is found worthy of reproach might be punished as a wrongdoer, but not as
a Christian, while if anyone is seen to be irreproachable, he might be
released, as a Christian who has done ηο wrong'. And the First Apology
reaches its climax with the citation of Hadrian's rescript to Minicius
Fundanus.
The official would answer a petition by sub-scribing it, literally-he
would write his answer at the bottom. Α clutch of such answers would be
71 See e.g. Grant, 'Forms and Occasions of the Greek Apologists', 215-16; Schoedel, 'Apologetic
Literature and Ambassadorial Activities', 76; Κinzig, 'Der "Sitz im Leben" der Apologie ίη der alten
Κirche', 291-317.
72 Edited in lIιscriptίones Graecae ίπ Bu1garia Repertae, νοΙ rv, no. 2236=ρρ. 198-229, supplemented by
Ί Hauken, Petίtion and Respoιιse, 74-139. See also Millar, The EmperOl· ίιι the Roman World, 247 and 543-4-
JUs TIN'S TEXT(S)
pasted together and posted Up ίη a public place, where the petitioner-
and others interested ίη collecting legal precedent-could examine it and
copy ίι 73 .
The normal Greel( equivalent for libellus iS βιβλίδιον. Το 'subscribe' is
subscribere=ύπογΡάΦειν. And to post up (the answer) is ΡrοΡοnerelΠΡοθεΙναι.
And that is precisely the terminology we find Justin using ίη 2Α 14. Ι:
'And so we ask you to subscribe what seems good to you and to post up this
petition. ' .
So ίη the First Apology we are clearly dealing with a petltlOll-an
abnormally long one, to be sure, but still recognizably a petition.
What Justin has done is to adopt the conventions of a normal libellus,
but greatly to expand it by the. insertion of catechetical and other
explanatory material. And ίη ,so doing he has managed to h~ack a normal
piece of Roman administrative procedure and turn it into a device for
getting his message, literally and symbolically, to the heart of the Roman
world.
We need to remember the extent to which Justin and his fellow believers
were outsiders, and how difficult it was for them to get a wider hearing ίη
that smug, self-satisfied world. Nearly half-a-century later Tertullian still
laments that 'ηο one comes to our books unless he is already a Christian'
(De Testimonio Animαe ι).
But this still does not solve all our problems. If the First Apology is a
libellus, what is the Second? The request to 'subscribe ... and post up this
petition' t~at we have just looked at occurs at the end of the Second Apology,
not the Fzrst. And yet the Second is not ίη itself a petition. Not only does it
not begin with the normal address, but, even more importantly, it asks for
absolutely nothing. The only request ίη the whole document is that it be
answered.
Ιη fact, as we can see from the earlier discussion of the three rival
theories, the problem of how many Apologies there are is really reducible
to the problem of what kind of text the so-called Second Apology is. Just what
are we dealing with?
TWO PROPOSALS
We would like to offer two suggestions. It is the second of these which we
ourselves favour, but either is, we think, possible. We can call them the
'covering speech' theory and the 'clippings from the cutting-room floor'
theory.
7.3. Οη the vexed question of whether αΖΙ imperial responses were publicly posted up see Hauken,
Petztιon and Response, 305-17.
 1NTRODUCT10N
The Covering Speech
1s it possible that the First Apology is designed as an actual petition, while
the Second is either mtending or pretending to be a little speech
accompanying its presentation? 1η that case, the reference to 'this petition'
ίη 2Α 14. Ι would be deictic and would mean something like 'this petition ίη
my hand' or 'to which Ι am pointing'.
That might go some way to explaining both the brevity and the odd
contents of the Second Apology. We could then see it as telling the story of
the troubles that occasioned the petition and answering three presupposed
objections as a way of dispelling the hostility and gaining the favour of the
imperial auditor. 74
Menander Rhetor gives rules for the composition of crown speeches
and ambassador's speeches which are meant to accompany the presenta-
.tion of a decree from a city council to the emperor and which conclude
with a request (αξιώσεις) that the decree be read ΟΓ that the emperor
receive it. 75 But those .speeches are part of a world to which Justin did not
belong and to which he had ηο access. The upper echelons of society
could approach the emperor ίη person, by letter ΟΓ delegation. But for a
man like Justin there was only the humble petition. Α quarter-of-a-century
later Athenagoras recasts much of the content of Justin's Apology as an
Embαssy (Presbeiα), as if the Church had the public standing to approach the
emperor as a public body would-a shift that speaks volumes for the
changing position of Christians and Christianity ίη the years between 150
and 180.76
Ν ow it is clear that individuals, even individuals of humble standing,
could and did present petitions to the emperor in person. Mter all, 'when it
was so firmly and so long established that one important function of the
emperor was to give ear to his subjects, it was natural that he should be
judged partly οη how approachable he was'. 77 But would there be any
reason for an ordinary petitioner to hope ΟΓ expect that he would be given
the floor long enough to deliver a speech the length of the Second Apology?
The answer is basically no, despite some (rather meagre) anecdotal
evidence of personal exchanges between emperor and petitioner. 78
That means that ifwe endorse the 'covering speech' theory, we have to
say that Justin has here descended into the realms of grandiose fantasy. His
74 Grabe, somewhat similarly, saw his supposed postscript as a text 'in which he set forth the
occasion of writing it [that is, the Apology as a whole] and tried to make the Emperor, Senate, and
Roman people minded to read it' (in Hutchin, Apologία Secunda, ρ. a [2'].
75 Menander Rhetor, 'Treatise 11', xii-xiii (Ρρ. 178-81).
76 See S. Parvis, Justin Martyr and the Apologetic Tradition', 123-5.
77 Millar, The EInpeI'or ίπ the Roman World, 467, and see esp. 475. Birley, however, assumes that 'the
Apology of Justin ... would have been handed in to one of the imperial secretariats' (Aιfarcus AUI'elius,
ΙΙ2).
78 See Ρ. Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr', 27, with the references at ρ. 174, n.21.
JUST1N'S TEXT(S)
inn0.vation~h~s rev:olutionary idea, if you wiμ-had been to appropriate a
~out1ne adm1n1strat1ve pro~edure and use it as a way of making his case-
~nd:ed, ,as a w~y of present1ng the Gospel-to those who otherwise had ηο
1I~Cl1natlO~'to 11sten. But the Second Apology would then be something quite
different, 11ttle more than an exercise ίη make-believe.
The 'Cutting-Room Floor' .Theory
Accordingly, while we believe the '~overing speech' theory tobe possible,
we ourselves favour another poss1ble solution. Wehave ίη the edition
taken the fairly radical decision to move the last two chapters of the Second
Apology (14. and 15~ t~ the end of .the First, where we thinkthey fit quite
well. We will expla1n 1η a mοφent the codicological considerations that led
us to make that move in the first place and which we hope make it less
temerarious than might at first appear. ' ,
Ί'ha~ leav~s the Second Apology as a series of disconnected fragments,
w~ηch.~s pr~~lsely what we belie~e it .to be. Justin, we think, kept tinkering
W1th h1S ong1nal apology, adapt1ng 1t and perhaps expanding ίι And he
would have kept notes-perhaps a notebook-of materials excised and
resources that could be deployed ίη street-corner or bathhouse debate-
precisely the. sort ?f deb.ate described ίη the Second Apology itself inthe
account of h1S dealrn~s W1th the Cynic Crescens (2Α 8(3) ).
That co~ld expla1n ,;hy the Second Apology seems so disjointed. 1t
c~uld explarn why t~ere lS so much overlap with and repetition from the
Fzr~t. 1t c~uld exp~a1n w~y so much of the Second has an eye οη hostile,
philosoph1cally m1nded 1nterlocutors. And it could perhaps explain the
presence of the tale of the unnamed woman and her m~Tital troubles.
That story-so precious to us and, fortunately, to Eusebius-may have
come to seem dated once the dust had settled. That would mean that
~stead of. being a postscript, 2Α actually contains some eαrlier material
d1splaced 1η later reworking(s) of the original Apology, as well as notes
accumulated for use ίη debate. Justin, after all, must have continued to
tea~~ and debate for another ten ΟΓ twelve years between the first com-
pos1tlOn of the Apology and his martyrdom.
At. s~me point t~e material was gathered up and published, perhaps
by d1scιples after h1S death, as a monument to Justin 'philosopher and
martyr'.
We ~ave so ~ar not dealt with the vexed question of how many
Apologιes Euseb1us thought there were. 1t is a question we have dealt with
elsew~ere, and here we will simply say that we think he regarded both
?ur .Fzrst and our Second as belonging to one work, the work he called
the former. apology for our doctrine, to Antoninus' (ΗΕ Π.13. 2 ). But at
the same tnne he may acknowledge some sort of internal division ΟΓ
articulation within that one work when he speaks of its logoi ίη the plural
 INTRODUCTION
(ΗΕ ry.II.II).79 Similarly, the Sαcrα Pαrαllelα speaks of one Apology, but
presents a passage from our 2Α ΙΙ as coming from 'the second part (μέ.ρος)
ofthat Apology' {Holl 101). All that would fit quite well with the idea of a
rounded-off work being published with various fragments rescued from
Justin's notebook. , . , . over forty-two lines) blank from fols. 5v to 6'', And a marginal note οη 5v ,
Such is the theory that we propose. But the covenng speech theory lS
just possible, and is the best we can suggest for those who think our pro-
posal to relocate 2Α 14-15 overbold. 1η explanation of that move, we can,
however, advance some codicological considerations.
ΤΗΕ LEAF-SHEDDING MANUSCRIPT AGAIN
We have spoken of the leaf-shedding manuscript which gave rise to the
Great Lacuna ίη 2Α 2.2-16 by dropping either one or two folios. 1t is
important to bear ίη mind that we are not here deali~g wi~h a hypothetical
construct, but with an object that must once have eXlsted ιη th.e real wo~ld.
ΒΥ the simple, if tedious, expedient of C?Ulltin~ the letters ιη ~he ~~g
Eusebius supplies, we can calculate the slze of lts pages. What lS mtsstng
amounts to either 2,186 or 2,137 letters, depending οη whether two
phrases ίη the Eusebian text, widely recognized as glosses,80 are included
or not. (Clearly we cannot know at what point between ~he autograph and
Eusebius they were added, nor can we know when the lm~ of desce.llt that
leads to Α parted company with that of whatever manuscnpt Euseblus was
using.)
Does that represent one leaf or two? Either is palaeogra~hically possi1;>le
for almost any conceivable period when the leaf-sheddmg manuscrιpt
could have been produced. (With the glosses, the missing text wo~ld fill
51.9 ofA's lines, without them 50.7, whereas Α has twenty-three llnes to
the page or forty-six per [οlίο.) ., . excluded.
One observation, while far from conclustve, mtght tend sltghdy to
favour the larger format-that is, 50.7 or 51.9 of A's lines to t?e [οlίο rather
than to the bifolium. The prefatory matter from Eusebtus breaks off
abruptly with the words: 'Lo, it has clearly been made plain from the
79 Οη the whole problem see Ρ. Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr', 29-31. The one remark
that can be taken to mean he thought our Second Apology was a separ!;lte work is a perhaps deliberately
ambiguous phrase ίη ΗΕ ΙΥ.16.2. We there foll~w Harnack's vie.w (Uberliife1:ung, 1?4-45, es~. 144), that
the ambiguity arises from the dilemma Eu~eblus cre~ted for ~llmself by hts des~e to claιm that .the
encounter with Crescens (2Α 8(3)) had a dιrect beanng οη hts martyrdom, while at the same tιme
realizing that a number of years must have elapsed between the writing of the apology to which he
thought that passage belonged andJustin's d e a t h . . . .
80 Ιη 2Α 2.9 and 2.10, both excised by Bίicheler, Schwartz (ιη .ap~.), Blunt, MarcoV1~~, and Μuη.ι e ;.
For the system οη which these counts were made, see Ρ. Parvιs, The Textual TradttlOll of Justιn s
Apologίes', esp. 55.
JUSTIN'S TEXT(S)
afόremeηtίοηed ecclesiastical ... ' Clearly at least the word ίστορίας is
missing and probably a subject as welΙ And the title and opening of the
first text ίη Α, Ίό Zenαs· αnd Serenus, are missIng. 81 Ν ονν the scribe-the
normal scribe of A-has left the equivalent of just under two pages Gust
we think ίη a corrector's hand, notes that 'here a [οlίο is wanting'. Obvi-
ouslya gap like that cannot be used to calculate [οlίο length, but because
the scribt( presumably left it in the hope of someday being able to supply
what was missing, it should bear some relation to the size of his exemplar.
Twenty-one lines of Α is much, much closer to the larger format than it is
to the smaller, though the corrector's note may be ηο more than an
inference.
Folio ι and ν must also have been left blank, since, as we have seen, a
Γ
second hand has filled in the missing text from Photius and the beginning
Γ
of Eusebius. From the top of [οΙ 2 , where the normal hand of Α resumes,
to [οΙ 5v , line 16, where the text abruptly breaks off, there are 177 lines
of text. That would be equivalent to 6.82 of our smaller folios, including
the glosses, or 6.98, excluding them. 1t may well be that ίη the same
leaf-shedding manuscript two folios were lost at the beginning, seven
preserved, and another one lost. Plainly we cannot know, since we cannot
be certain that the leaf-shedding manuscript of the Second Apology also
contained the prefatory matter from Photius and Eusebius or Zenαs αnd
Serenus, but we will suggest at the end of this chapter that there is perhaps
some reason for thinking that likely. 82
Now let us return to 2Α 14 and 15. Our text contains 1,069 letters; the
text as transmitted (if the obviously intrusive 15.1 is excluded (it weighs
ίη at sixty-five letters)) comes to 1,093. As it happens, 1,093 is precisely
the figure we have been working with for [οlίο size if the two glosses are
counted ίη; 1,068.5 is the figure we have been working with if they are
Our hypothesis, then, is that what are now numbered as 2Α 14 and 15
filled exactly one [οlίο at the end of the First Apology. That they should fill
exactly two pages is a coincidence. That they should have begun at the top
of a new [οlίο is not, for they would, οη this theory, have been immediately
preceded by Hadrian's rescript to Minicius Fundanus, and at that point
there has obviously been dislocation of the text. Eusebius claims that his
text of Justin transmitted the Lαtin of the rescript and that he translated it
into Greek himself (ΗΕ 1Υ.8.8).83 But what is transmitted ίη Α is Eusebius'
Greek version and ηο Latin. So if Eusebius is telling the truth-and there
81 It picks up with the words Εκ παρασκευτι> (= Otto 3 , νοΙ 3, Operα Subditiciα, part ι, ρ. 68, lines 9-10).
82 There are of course other, significant lacunae in Justin, the size of which we have ηο way of
guessing. It has, for example, been recognized since Lange ίη 1565 that there is a lacuna in D 76, which
must be quite extensive. See Marcovich, Diαlogus, 5-6.
83 Οη this whole question, see Minns, 'The Rescript ofHadrian', 38-49, esp. 42.
 INTRODUCTION JUSTIN'S TEXT(S)

seems ηο reason to doubt him here-the Latin of Justin's original text was
at some point removed and replaced by the Greek version from the Historia
Ecclesiasticα; 1t would hardly be surprising if a scribe, eager to find and
insert the Greek text, had skipped over to the top of a fresh leaf. 84
That leaf was detached, either accidentally or deliberately, and shifted
to the end ,of the Second Apology. Α deliberate move is perhaps the more
likely, since at some point a vocative 'ORomans' was inserted into the first
sentence of 2Α to give it some sort of beginning. Thus what we have
85
taken to be clippings from the cutting-room floor or outtakes from the final
version of the Apology together with an assemblage of miscellaneous
notes was topped and tailed and became a Second Apology.
the scribe of'1364 whom we have to thank or.whom we may blamefor the
state of thetext. It iS a question we cannot answer with any certainty. And
ίη a real sense it does not matter. What iS important for the history of the
text iS that such a stage occurred, and the number of intermediate links ίη
the chain .iS largely beside the ροίηι
It would, though,seem likely that Α was not the first omnibus edition of
Justin. The presence of Photius codex 125 at the beginning of the
thirteentl?-century Alexandrinus 60 (CairensΊS 86) seems odd, unless ίι had
already been fished out of Photius to adorn some sort of edition-pre-
sumably a collected edition-of Justin. And if it is true that lacunae at the
beginning of Α (evidenced by the replacement fo1. ι and the gap at 5v -6 V
)

It will be apparent that if this theory is correct, the text of the bulk of may be explicable by the same leaf-shedding manuscript, then it would
.2Α, from the end of the Great Lacuna to the end of Chapter 13, must be appear that the losses were ll.ot anterior to the compilation of the original
roughly commensurate with the [οlίο size of our leaf-shedding manuscript. omnibus.
86
Onour reckoning that block oftext runs to 12,932 letters. Our figure of More than that we cannot say, save that we owe an enormous debt to a
1,093 letters for a [οlίο of the leaf-shedding manuscript, with the glosses scribe who must always remain unknown but whose labours οη what was
counted, yields a total for the block of text of ιι.83 folios; the figure of clearly a very badly damaged exemplar managed to preserve, by the thin-
1,068.5, without the glosses, makes that equivalent to 12.10 folios-results nest of threads, a document invaluable for the study of the second century
that are far from disappointing oversuch an. extended span. And there is, and, indeed, for the whole history of Christian thought .
.ofcourse, always the possibility that if the text ended very near the foot. of
a page, a couple of lines would have been left blank rather than plunglng
ίη to the title of a new work.
We do not wish to invoke the leaf-shedding manuscript as a' panacea
for all the ills of Justin's text. There were not improbably a number of
seriously corrupt links ίη the chain. Nor are we oblivious to the fact that
identicalletter totals would of course ηοΙ have been found οη every page
of that manuscript. But the figures with which we have been working do
give us some purchase οη a stage ίη the transmission of the text when
serious damage clearly occurred, and they do give us a handle οη an actual
manuscript which we know must once have existed.
The final, small question which we will raise here is whether Α was
copied directly from the leaf-shedding manuscript and it is therefore

84- And at some stage there was further dis10cation in the text, when the 1etters purporting to be from

Antoninus to the koiιzoιz of Asia and from Marcus Aure1ius οη the rain mirac1e worked through the
prayers of Christian soldiers (edited in appendices by Marcovich, Apologίαe, 161-8) were added. That
stage was c1ear1y post-Eusebian, for he knows a different text ofthe 1etter of Antoninus (ΗΕ ΊV. 1 3· 1 -7)
and he does not have a text ofthe supposed letter ofMarcus, as is apparent from ΗΕΥ.5. 6 . But in Α,
where our Secoιzd Apology comes before the FiTst and the FiTst ends with the rescript to Minicius
T
Fundanus, the two supposititious 1etters follow immediate1y after it (fo1s. 23g - 2 4 2T ).
85 The two words have been recognized as intrusive since Boll in 1842. The rest of 2Α is c1ear1y
addressed to the imperial presence; already in 2Α 2.8 'you the autocrat' is addressed in the singular.
T
86 That total is reached by a combination of (numbing1y tedious) actua1 counts and, for fo1s. Ig6 -

200v , working οη the basis of an average derived from actua1 counts of 10 fo1ios (20 pages) throughout
the Apologίes. The scribe disp1ays an a1most metronomic consistency wherever the count has been
made.

2 he stirred up; while the Chronicon Pαschale says that the martyrdom occurred
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK
LIFE
Justin, we learn from the beginning of his First Apology, came from Flavia
Νeapolis, modern Ν ablus, ίη what was then Syria Palaestina. Flavia
Νeapolis had been founded by Vespasian οη the site of the village of
Mamortha near the ancient sanctuary of Shechem. The original popula-
tion of the city is assumed to have been Samaritan, as 'the early coin types
avoid pagan associations'. 1 Α new coin-type was issued there under
Aπtoninus Pius, 'showing mount Gerizim crowned with a pagan temple'.2
Justin described himself as being of the Samaritan race,3 but he did not
belong to the ethnic/ religious group which worshipped the God of Israel
at Shechem. At the beginning of his Dialogue with Trypho the ]ew he is
recognized and addressed as a philosopher by Trypho οη account of his
gown. 4 It is widely assumed that this Justin is identical with the teacher
executed at Rome for the profession of Christianity, together with several
other Christians, after being tried by Quintus Iunius Rusticus, who was
urban prefect between 163 and 168. Απ account of this trial survives ίη
three Greek recensions that are presumed to be based upon an official
verbatim record of the trial ίη Latin. 5 The date of the execution of Justin
and his companions cannot be determined more precisely. Eusebius'
Chronicon, in the version of Jerome, records Justin's martyrdom at the
year 154 (Aπtoninus Pius 17).6 The Chronicon Paschale records it at the year
165 (Marcus and Verus 6).7 But neither pretends that this is a hard date.
ι Jones, Cities, 278. Bagatti, 'S. Giustino e la sua patria', 319, claims that it was founded for vetera::ιs
of the Roman conquest of Judaea, that Justin's grandfather was such a veteran, and that the family
had Roman citizenship. According to Isaac (Limits qfEmpire, 430-1), the Legion ΧΙΙ Fulminata, or part
of it, was 'almost certainly' based at Neapolis ίη IIS-17 or 132-S. The city did not become a colony
until the middle of the 3rd century (LiInits qfEtnpire, 363, n. 189)·
2 Jones, Cities, 279.
3 D 120.6, cf 2Α 1S.1.
4 'The philosopher was a familiar figure, distinguished from his fel10wmen by his beard and the
rough cloak (tribon) which had first been adopted by the Cynics but came to be the characteristic garb
of al1 philosophers, the uniform, one might cal1 it, of their profession', Clarke, Higlzer Educαtion, 77-8.
5 See Bisbee, Pre-Deciαn Acts qfMαrf:Jrs αlld Conzmeιιtarii, 9S-II8: 'it is probable that the Acts qf Justill
are ultimately derived from the commelltαrius of Justin's trial ... ', ρ. 1I8. But 'both recensions [Α & Β]
have been edited to a greater or lesser extent throughout', ρ. 117·
6 Eusebius, C1lTOlliCOll, ρ. 203, lines 13-18 (Helm).
7 Ch1"01liCOll Pαschαle, 1.482 (Βοηη).
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK 33
Eusebius attaches his notice to a reference to Crescens and the persecution
'not long after' Justin submitted a book to Marcus and Verus.
Even more uncertain is the date and the place of Justin's conversion to
Christianity. Ιη the Dialogue with Trypho, Trypho introduces himself as 'a
Hebrew of the circumcision, a refugee from the recent war' (D 1.3). It is
generally supposed that this refers to the Jewish revolt against Rome led by
Simon bar Kokhba between 132 and 135, to which Justin refers more
expressly as a recent event at ιΑ 31.6. The Dialogue itself cannot have been
composed until some decades later than the Jewish War, for it refers to the
First Apolog)! (D 120.6), for which we suggest 153 as a possible, approximate
date. Justin was already established as a philosopher of Platonist bent
when he was attracted by the fearlessness with which Christians faced
suffering and death (2Α 12.1). It is likely that he had been a Christian for
more than thirty years at the time of his οννη death, and that he was then
ίη at least his sixth ΟΓ seventh decade.
WRITINGS
Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that Justin wrote a book ίη defence of the
faith addressed to Aπtoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate,
another defence to the successor of Aπtoninus, Marcus Aurelius, a book
against the Greeks, another book against the Greeks entitled Elenchos
(Rifutation), another treatise οη the sole rule of God, a treatise entitled
Psaltes (Harpist), another οη the soul, and a Dialogue Against the ]ews. 8
Eusebius also mentions a work (sungramma) against Marcion, but then
quotes from the First Apology as though he were quoting from this work. 9
Immediately following the section quoted, Justin tells us that he has written
a work (suntagma) against 'all the heresies that have arisen'.lO At D 120.6
Justin says he had presented a written address to the emperor, ίη which he
referred to Simon Magus (cf ιΑ 26.2-3 and 2Α 15.1).
Τννο of the pseudonymous works contained in the Paris manuscript
(those entitled Exhortation to the Pagans and Οπ the Sole Rule qf God), and a
third ίη another manuscript (Against the Pagans, ίη Argentoratensis graecus
g-now lost), might correspond to works listed by Eusebius, in which case
they must have been added to the corpus of Justin's writing at a relatively
early date, before the publication of the Ecclesiαstical History at about the
beginning of the fourth century. However, it is perhaps more likely that it
8 ΗΕΝ.18.1-6.
9 HEN.II.8-g, quoting ιΑ 26.s-6.
10 Eusebius quotes Irenaeus referring to a S)'lltαgmα against Marcion at ΗΕ Ν.18.8, cf. ΑΗΝ.6.2.
34 INTRODUCTION
was Eusebius' list that prompted the ascription of these pseudepigraphal
works to Justin. 11
The Publicαtion of]ustin)s Writings
There can be ηο doubt that Justin thought of the three writings that have
come down to us as literary cοmροsίtiοήs. He speaks ίη the First Apology of
an 'address and petition' (ιΑ ι) ΟΓ 'address and exposition' (ιΑ 68.3), and ίη
the Second of a 'discourse' (2Α 1.1). Although he seems to think that if the
emperor subscribes and promulgates his petition this will enable it to be
'brought to the attention of all' (ιΑ 70.1 [15.2]), we have ηο means of
knowing if the text as we have it derives from publication in such a man-
ner. As the inscription from Scaptopara shows,12 a positive subscription by
the emperor was not an essential prerequisite for the publication of a
petition. If Justin ever did succeed ίη handing ίη his petition, it is most
unlikely that our text derives from that exemplar. Justin is likely to have
kept a copy of his work. But it is unlikely that multiple copies would
have been made of the text ίη his own lifetime. Initially, at least, further
publication is likely to have taken the form of public reading. 13 His work is
very unlikely to have been professionally copied for the purpose of dis-
semination. The text we have may well descend, then, from a manuscript
ίη Justin's possession at the time of his arrest. That manuscript may have
been ίη an untidy state, with marginal jottings and later expansions of the
material for cl;!techetical ΟΓ controversial purposes, ΟΓ for apologetic pur-
poses different ίη kind from those that originally inspired the composition
of the work. Ιη other words, some of the difficulties ίη the text may go
back to the unfinished, untidy state of Justin's works when they were
hastily snatched from his desk οη the day he and some of his colleagues
ΟΓ students were arrested. But far worse was to befall Justin's text ίη the
1,200 years that elapsed between that day and 11 September 1364,14 when
the scribe finished transcribing Pαrisinus grαecus 450.
ADDRESSEES OF ΤΗΕ APOLOGIES
The First Apology is addressed to Antoninus Pius, Verissimus, and Lucius.
There are a number of variations between the Paris manuscript and
Eusebius respecting their names, titles, and relationships. Thus:
11 Cf. Riedweg, 'Iustinus Martyr Π', col. 850, and Harnack, ϋberlίΦrung, 155-8.
12 See aboνe, ρ. 24.
13 Cf. Harris, Ancient Literacy, 224f.
14 Marcoνich giνes 1363 as the date (Apologia pro Christianis, 5-6; Dialogus, 1). Bobichon, 'Oeuνres de
Justin Martyr', 158, correcdy calculates the year as 1364.
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK 35
Pαris. gr. 450 Eusebius, HEIV.12
to ... Antoninus Pius Augustus to ... Antoninus Pius Caesar
Caesar Augustus
and to Verissimus his son, and to Verissimus his son,
philosopher philosopher
and to Lucius, and to Lucius
philosopher, of (the) philosopher
of Caesar ,son by nature Caesar son by nature
and of Pius by adoption and of Pius by adoption.
The manuscript includes 'the holy Senate and the whole People of the
Romans' amongst those to whom the Apology was addressed, but we con-
sider this to be an early editorial addition, for the following reasons. 'The
holy Senate' was commonly found οη bronze coins minted ίη Asia ΜίηΟΓ,15
and in inscriptions is often coupled with the imperial household οη the one
hand, and the Roman People οη the other. Α few examples:
(Vespasian) 'and his whole house and the holy Senate and the People of the
Romans (την ίεραν σύνκλητον και T(JV δημον τον Ρωμα{ων) (Rhodes; IGRR rv,
1I2g);
(Trajan) 'and his whole house and the holy Senate and People of the Romans
(ίερας συνκλήτου και δήμου Ρωμα{ων) (Cyrenae; IGRR Ι-Π, 1037);
(Μ. Aurelius and L. Verus) 'and (their) whole house and most holy Senate and
People of the Romans (ίερωτάτης βουλης τε και δήμου του Ρωμα{ων)' (Serdica:
IGRR Ι-Π, 1452);
(Septimius Seνerus, Caracalla, Geta, Julia Domna) 'and their whole house and the
holy Senate and People of the Romans and the holy armies (ίερας συνκλήτου και
δήμου του 'Ρωμα{ων και ίερων στρατευμάτων)' (Pizum ίn Thrace; IGRR Ι-Π, 766);
(Septimius Seνerus and family) 'and the whole house of the Augusti and holy
Senate and People of the Romans (ίερας συνκλήτου και δήμου του Ρωμα{ων)'
(Tacina in Asia; IGRR rv, 881). 16
The fact remains, however, that neither Senate ηΟΓ People is at home ίη
the address of a petition, for, as we have seen, these were a way of
approaching emperors ΟΓ governors. Schwartz deleted Ό Romans' from
the beginning of the Second Apology οη the ground that one would have to
be mad to address the whole Roman People ίη a petition to the Caesars.
He nevertheless allowed that it was fitting for the Senate and People of the
Romans to bejoined with the Caesars at ιΑ 56.3.17 But ifJustin referred to
15 Talbert, Senate qfImperial R01ne, 96.
16 So also IGRR ι-π, 613,705,718,1478; πι, 40, 287, 1353; Ν, 1352.
17 Schwartz, 'Obserνationes', 12. It is not clear whether Schwartz thought Justin had included the
Senate and People at the beginning of the First Apology. Speaking of ιΑ 56.2 he says, 'uno loco et
singulari quadam occasione oblata ηοη Romanos alloquitur, sed, quod unice aptum erat, Caesaribus
adnectit senatum populumque Romanum'.

36 INTRODUCTION
the Senate and People at the beginning of his petition he betrays a dire
ignorance of the legal procedure οη which he pins so much. At ιΑ 56.3
Justin petitions the emperor and his adopted sons to receive 'the holy
Senate and the Roman People' as joint adjudicators with them of his
petition. This would be odd if they had been included amongst those
addressed at the beginning of the petition as a whole. The word we trans-
late by 'joint-adjudicators' (συνΕπιγνώμονας) occurs nowhere else ίη all
the literature noticed by TLG. This might be an argument ίη favour of
Justin's authorship of this passage, pointing to his own awareness of the
unparalleled, even bizarre, nature of his request. Munier 18 argues, οη the
basis of Cicero, De Legibus, that the setting-up or annulling of a public cult
ίη Rome required the consent of the Senate and People. But while De
Legibus 11.8 (19) prohibits new or alien gods which are not recognized by
the state (publice αdscitos), Senate and People are mentioned here (20) οηlΥ ίη
connection with the authorization of soothsayers and prophets. Justin may
well have believed that Simon was honoured as a god by an official act of
the Senate and People, and may, for this reason, have petitioned for them
to be received as joint-adjudicators} but his stated purpose ίη petitioning
for this is that any who have been persuaded to follow the teachings of
Simon may learn the truth, and be released from this burden. The petition
for the inclusion of Senate and People may therefore have been a
rhetorical flourish, not expected to be acted upon, but designed to alert the
wider Roman populace to the danger Simon posed.
We consider that the reference to the holy Senate and the whole People
of the Romans ίη the address of the Apology is an early editorial addition,
imported from ιΑ 56.3-an addition facilitated, ηο doubt, by the frequent
practice of associating the holy Senate and the Roman People ίη dedica-
tions to the imperial family. It is possible that the primary reference to the
Senate as 'holy' occurs ίη the speech of Lucius to Urbicus at 2Α 2.16.
Lucius' use of the adjective, and perhaps even the reference to the Senate
itself, was elicited by the mismatch between the unjust treatment of
Ptolemy by Urbicus οη the one hand, and the piety of Antoninus, the
philosophy of Marcus, and the holiness of the Senate οη the other. It is an
open question whether Lucius drew upon, and added to, the descriptions
of the rulers ίη the address of the First Apology, or whether Justin drew
upon the words of Lucius when addressing his Apology to them.
Antoninus Pius
Antoninus Pius became emperor οη the death ofHadrian ίη 138 and died
ίη 161. His original name was Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius
Antoninus. His official name was Imperator Caesar, son of deified
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK
37
Hadrian, nephew of deified Trajan Parthicl,ls, great-nephew of deified
Nerva, Titus Aelius Hadrian Antoninus Augustus PiUS. 19 It will be seen
that Justin has the names more or less in the correct order, except that he
has 'Caesar' after 'Augustus' (ίη the manuscript text) and 'Pius' after
'Antoninus'. Given that he tells us whose sons Verissimus and Lucius
were, it may seem odd that he does not include the familial relations of
Antoninus, but not toomuch should be made of this. Justin would not
have wan~ed to refer to the deification of Antoninus' relatives, and to
mention the relationships but omit this detail would not have been a very
tactful way to begin a petition. Justin had particular reasons for referring
to the relatives of Verissimus and Lucius. lt is possible that the two trans-
positions ίη Antoninus' name were made ίη the course of transmission
by scribes more familiar witP_ 'Augustus Caesar' and 'Antoninus Pius'.
Marcovich adopts Sylburg's proposal to take 'Caesar' to be a title of
Verissimus rather than of Antoninus. This is palaeographically plausible,
and would be historically accurate if the Apology had been written at any
time between 139 when Marcus took this title, and the death of Antoninus
ίη 161. ButJustin does not give a formal, official nomenclature for Marcus,
and the name and title he does give him may have been determined by
rhetorical intent.
Verissimus
'Verissimus' was a nickname given to Marcus Aurelius, according to Dio
Cassius (69.21.2) and the Historiα Augustα (Mαrcus Antoninus 1.10; IV.I), by
Hadrian. His original name had been Marcus Annius Verus, which was
changed οη his adoption by Antoninus Pius οη 25 February 138 to Marcus
Ae1ius Aurelius Verus. Marcus was born οη 26 April 121. He was made
quaestor in 139, and given the name 'Caesar'. lη 140 he was consul for the
first time, ίη 145 consul for a second time, and in December 147 he received
the tribuniciα potestαs. Οη the death of Antoninus, 7 March 161, he became
Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. Although a nick-
name, 'Verissimus' occurs οη coins and an inscription. 20 Some have dated
the First Apology to 138/9 οη the grounds that Marcus ceased to be known
as Verissimus after his adoption, and is not here addressed as Caesar. But
the name would have appealed to Justin for the same reason as the title
'philosopher' (cf 'lover of truth' in ιΑ 2. ι), and, as Blunt points out, a
nickname might have clung to him throughout his life, as 'Pius' did to
AntoninuS. 21
19 Cf. Hammond, AntoniIle Monαrchy, 62.
20 Cf. Birley, Mαι-cus Aut-elius, 38 and 270, n. 24. 21 Blunt, ρρ. x1νiii-xlix.
 INTRODUCTION ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK 39
Lucius All that could really be said about Lucius ~s that he was ,the '(adopted)
son of AntoiΊinus Pius'-as ίη IGRR Ι-Π, 120, cited above, ΟΓ ILS 358, a
The inclusion of Lucius among those to whom the petition is addressed is
dedication toLucius from Rome ίn the year of his (first) consulship-
odd though not so odd as the inclusion of the Senate and the Roman
possibly the very year ίη which Justin present:d his petition: L. Ae~io Aure~io,
Peo~le. Some scholars have removed all ~ention of hi~ fr?m the text. 22 Aug. j,Commodo, cos., d.d. And that is essent1ally what we find 1η JUSt1ll,
Lucius Ceionius Commodus was born 1η 130 and d1ed 1η January 169.
though instead of the full titulature of Antoninus, as ίη IGRR Ι-Π, 120, ΟΓ
His natural father was also originally named Lucius Ceionius Commodus,
simplyAug., as ίn ILS 358, we have the 'Pius' (Ευσεβ . .. ) which serves both
but took the cognomen 'Caesar' when he was adopted by Hadrian ίη 136,
asa name and as a descriptor.
the first 'son' of an Augustus to be so known. His sonLucius wa.s adop~ed
Anothe~ factor bearing upon the original form of the description ο{
by Antoninus at the same time as Marcus, and became LUC1US Aelιus
Lucius is the close parallel between the address of the Apology and the
Aurelius Commodus. Until co-opted to power by Marcus οη the death of
speech ascribed to the martyr Lucius ίη 2Α 2.16. I~ that spee~h there~re
Antoninus ίη 161, when he became Imperator Caesar Lucius Aurelius
οηlΥ two figures involved, the pious. emperor and h1S s~n. A?a1~, there 1~ a
Verus Augustus, he had ηο reallegal standing. In~eed, '~t the ~?e of.three
variant: in Α the latter is 'son, of a philosopher Caesar , while III Euseb1us
and twenty', as the Historia Augusta says, 'he was still ~ pr:vate c1t1zen 1η the
he is 'philosopher son of Caesar'. We have argued (ad loc.) for Sch,:artz's
imperial household'. 23- But at the age of 23-that 1S, 1η I53-he at last
emendation-'philosopher Caesar, his son'. The reference must, 1η any
became quaestor, and consul the following year.
case, be to Marcus. And if Schwartz's reading (or Eusebius') is adopted,
Nevertheless, after his adoption by Antoninus he was a member of the
we have both ίη the address of ιΑ and ίη 2Α 2. ι 6 a balanced contrast
imperial household. He is, οη coins and inscriptions, occasionally-and
between the piety ofthe Autokrator and the philosophy ofhis son (Marcus).
wrongly-called 'Caesar'. And an inscr~ption ~rom Rome.' for example,
The same two categories appear immediately after the address, at. the
refers to the Imperator Caesar Anton1llUS P1US; the deified Faust1na;
beginning ofJustin's argument ίη ιΑ 2.1. There he says that logosprescnbes
Faustina, the wife of Μ. Aurelius; Μ. Aurelius himself (Μ. Aurelius
that those who are truly pious (ευσεβείs) and philosophers (φιλοσόφους)
Caesar); and lastly our Lucius-'L. Aelius Aurelius Commodus, son of the
should honour and hold ίη affection the truth alone. The next sentence,
Imperator Caesar Τ Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius'.24
offered as some sort of explanation (with a γάρ), asserts that, ίη fact, what
Particularly at the time of his 'coming out' ίη 153 ΟΓ 154, it might not
reason prescribes is not only not following those who do ΟΓ thi~~ anything
have seemed' unreasonable-it might even have seemed prudent-to
unjust (Tois αδίκως τι πράςασιν ij δογματίσασιν), but-pos1t1vely-the
include him among the addressees of a petition such as Justin's.
lover oftruth (φιλαλήθYJ) must speak and do what isjust (τα δ~Kαια λέγει~ τε
But how would he be described? Should we read 'philosopher son
και πράττειν), even at peril of death. Ιη that las~ cl~use there:s a~other 11llk
of Caesar' (with Α) ΟΓ 'son of philosopher Caesar', with Eusebius? T.he
with the drama recounted in 2Α 2, where LUC1US outburst lS tnggered by
evidence for philosophical attainment οη the part of the younger LUC1US
the treatment ofPtolemy, who, being a lover oftruth (φιλαλήθYJ), confesses
is tenuous;25 οη the part of his father, non-existent. Οη the othe: han~,
that he is a Christian (2Α 2. ιι). Acting justly, then, is a consequence ΟΓ
there is quite reasonable evidence of interest and even some p~'Ofic1ency III
concomitant of piety and philosophy, and truth is a sort of middle term
rhetoric and public speaking οη the part of the son-certa1nly enough
linking the two: reason demands that the. pi~u~ and philosop~ers love
to justify the epithet 'lover of paideia', especially if taken ίη ~h~ slig~tly
truth,}Or those who love truth act justly (Wh1Ch 1t lS assumed the plOUS and
apologetic sense that phrase bears ίη Plutarch, Marcellus 1.2. Pazdeza, Wh1~h
philosophers do).
we have translated 'learning', has been aptly described as 'the Platon1c
The next section (ιΑ 2.2) draws a conclusion: 'so (ογν), y~u hear .οη .all
word for mental culture and accomplishments, fairly equivalent to the
sides people calling you pious and philosophers and guar?lanS of Just1ce
Latin humanitas'.26 We agree with Grabe's suggestion that Justin used the
(φύλακες δικαιοσύνYJS) and lovers of paideia-but whether 1η fact you are
word as a lower title of dignity than 'philosopher' to describe Lucius as a
remains to be seen.' The truth of these claims will be put to the test by the
lover of lesser literature, namely rhetoric and poetry.
justice of your conduct towards us.
22 Volkrnar, 'Die Zeit Justins des Martyrers', 234ff.; Schwartz, Eusebius JίVιιl*e, Il.3, ρ. Cuv, nO.3, The claims supposedly bruited about everywhere clearly echo the
Marcovich, Apologiα. address of the Apology. 'You' collectively-in the plural-are said to ~e
23 Hist011α Augustα, Vel·US, 2. ΙΙ.
pious, as the emperor is. You are said to be philos~phers-as M~rcus lS.
24 IGRR Ι-Π, 120; the inscription is dated between December 149 and December 150.

25 Hist011α Augustα, Verus, 2.5. And you are said to be guardians of justi~e, as entailed ~y your p1ety and
26 Blunt, ad loc.; cf. Wartelle and Barnard, ad loc. philosophy. And then, finally, another claιm-you are sa1d to be lovers of
 INTRODUCTION ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK

paideia, as Lucius is. This general claim to humanity and culture is almost
an afterthought-a sort of add-on to piety, philosophy, and the justice that
ensues from them-just as Lucius, the member of the imperial family
without portfolio, as it were, is a sort of add-on in the address.
If, then, justice flows from the first two, we have three primary descrip-
tors, here applied collectivelyto the imperial family but applied to them
individually ίη the address. This suggests that philosophy actually has ηο
place ίη the description of Lucius, and we have excised it as a gloss. But if
this is correct, why was it added, and ίη what form-as a gloss οη 'Lucius'
(as ίη Α), ΟΓ as a gloss οη 'Caesar' (as ίη Eusebius)?
We have already suggested that the original form of the address has
been altered by the importation of 'the holy Senate and whole people of
the Romans' from ιΑ 56.3. This was presumably done by someone who
wished to make the address rather more grandiloquent-and someone
quite familiar with Justin's text. We suggest that the same process and
probably the same hand led to the importation into the address of the
First Apology of the dative ΦιλοσόΦψ from 2Α 2.r6-the two phrases are
quite similar ίη structure and content, even though the former refers to
Lucius and the latter to Marcus. Corruption of an original ΦιλοσόΦψ
to ΦιλοσόΦου would be quite easy, perhaps motivated by nothing more
than half-conscious assimilation.
If, then, we read simply 'Lucius, natural son of Caesar and adopted son
of Pius, lover of paideia', we are spared the embarrassment of having to
inflate the rather tenuous claims to philosophical expertise by the young
Lucius that can be extracted from the Historίa Augusta, and spared as
well the even more difficult task of claiming the elder Lucius Verus as a
philosopher. Mter all, according to his biography,27 the elder Lucius' main
contribution to human good was the invention of a bed of rose petals ίη
which he could dally with his mistresses-not something which, ίη the
unlikely event it were true,28 would have struckJustin as the mark of a true
philosopher.
The disadvantage of this argument is that it does away with a seemingly
neat contrast between the piety of the adoptive father and the supposed
philosophy of the natural father. But there is οηlΥ a neat contrast if
Eusebius' reading (ΦιλοσόΦου Κα{σαρος) is adopted-not, as our
explanation would entail, if the earlier reading is that of A-that is, if it is
Lucius and not his natural father Caesar who was claimed to be the
philosopher.
Moreover, the designation of Lucius' natural father simply as Caesar
and his adoptive father as Pius is not as harsh as it might at first seem.
'Caesar' is still more a name than a title, and 'Pius' is as much a name-as
part of the imperial titulature-as it is an adjective, though of course
Justin systematically plays οη the latter sense.For example, the Historίa
Augusta can refer simply to 'his father Caesar' (ίη the phrase mortuoque patre
Caesare, ~rus Π.ι).
For Justin to designate Lucius' adoptive father as 'Pius' of course suits
his rhetorical strategy very well. For him to refer to Lucius' natural father
at all would not seem to add much to his argument, but ηΟΓ does it detract
from it at all, and it might serve slightly to inflate Lucius' status and
perhaps help to justify his slightly awkward inclusion in the imperial
threesome.
When referring to the addressees of the Apologies we have called them
'the emperors'. Το speak strictly, οηlΥ Antoninus Pius was Imperator at this
time; the first joint-emperors were Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus,
after the death of Antoninus. Grant describes Marcus as 'virtually co-
emperor' with Antoninus from 146/7 until the death of AntonillUS. 29 This
seems to reflect contemporary usage. Ιη an oration dated January 153,
Aelius Aristides says '1etters came to me from the emperors, the Imperator
himself and his son (παρα των βασιλέων του τε αυτοκράτορος αυτου και
~
του παι
δ ος
ι )' •30
OTHER PERSONS NAMED ΙΝ ΤΗΕ APOLOGIES
Hadrίan (1Α 68.3-5)
Publius Aelius Hadrianus was born ίη 76, succeeded Trajan as emperor ίη
117, and died ίη 138.
Antinous (1Α 294)
Antinous was a favourite ofHadrian, who drowned ίη the Nile ίη October
130. He was greatly mourned by the emperor, who founded Antin06polis
in his honour.
Minicius Fundanus (ιΑ 68.5)
Minicius Fundanus was a friend of ΡΙίηΥ (Ερ. 1.9, VI6; ν1.6), Tacitus
(ΡΙίηΥ, Ερ. IVI5), and Plutarch (De Tranquilitate Animi 464e). He was suffect
consul ίη 107, and οη the basis of the rescript of Hadrian addressed to
him is thought to have succeeded Silvanus Granianus as governor of
Asia. 31 The MSS ofJustin and Eusebius call him Minucius.

27 Histona Augusta, Aelius V. 7. 29 Grant, The Ant01zines, 24. 30 Sacred Tαles, Ιν.75 (Ρ. 339 Jebb).
28 The life is thought to be 'mainly fictional' (Birley, Hadlian, 4). 31 PIR 11 Μ 612; Waddington, Fαstes des provinces αsiatiques, 197-9.
42 1NTRODUCT10N
Silvanus Granianus (1Α 68.6)
Quintus Licinius Silvanus Granianus Qua~ronius Pro~ulu~ was suffect
consul ίη 106, and οη the basis of the rescnpt of Hadnan, lS thought to
have preceded Minicius Fundanus as governor of Asia. 32
Felix) Governor qf Egypt (1Α 29.2)
Lucius Munatius Felix was prefect ofEgyρt between 150 and 154.33
Qyintus Lollius Urbicus (2Α 1.1) 3; 2.12-18)
Quintus Lollius Urbicus had been a legate of Hadrian in the ]ud~e~ll
expedition, 133-5, governor oflower Germa~y 136-8, governor ofBnta1ll
139-42, and urban prefect from 146 to 160.. His su~cessor ί~ th~5 office,
perhaps his immediate successor, was QU1lltu~ IUll1US RUS~lC~S, . who,
according to the Acta of]ustin's martyrdom, pres1ded over ]USt1ll s tnal and
sentenced him to death. 36
Musonius Rufus (2Α 7(8).1)
Gaius Musonius Rufus was an aristocratic, fashionable, and influential
Stoic philosopher, who suffered for his philosophical ~ctivity; but there
is ηο serious reason to think he was put to death, as ]USt1ll alleges. He was
banished from Rome by both Nero and Vespasian, and Tacitus speaks
of his being ridiculed and ill-used by soldiers he sought to advise with
'untimely wisdom' (Histories ΙΙΙ.8.1). The Suida (s.v. Ko?ν~ύTO~, Ε 20.98)
incorrectly reports that he was killed by Νero. MUSOll1US philosoph1Cal
interests were largely ethical. 37
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND H1S WORK 43
up a plot against him'. But what Tatian actιιaΙΙΥ says is that Crescens,
'though he recommended contempt of death, was himself so fearful .of
death as to busy himself with encompassing both ]ustin and myself Wlth
death as an evil, because while preaching the truth he convicted the philo-
sophers of being lewd and fallacious'. Tatian must mean that Crescens'
hypocrisyhas brought all philosophers into disrepute. Though he preached
the truth, 'he excelled everyone ίη pederasty and was greatly attached
to the love. of money'. This rhetorical exaggeration hardly amounts to
plotting the death of ]ustin, much less to a claim that, as Eusebius sup-
posed, the plot succeeded. If it did? Tatian might be expe.ct~~ to have
explained how he escaped the plot h1mself. Moreover, EuseblUs 1llference
would require that the Second Apology 'was written οηlΥ a little before ]ustin's
death, and thus after the Dialogue, and long after the First Apology.
Marcion (1Α 26.5; 58.1)
Marcion was a Christian heretic, originally from Pontus. Οη the basis of
comments by Tertullian, Harnack dated his definitive break with the
church ίη Rome to the second half of ]uly 144.38 He taught that the God
whom ]esus called 'Father' had previously been unknown, and was ~o.t to
be identified with the God of the Old Testament. Most of the ongιnal
followers of ]esus had muddled his Gospel by confusing the Father with
the God of the Old Testament, and this confusion is evident in the gospels
they wrote. ΟηΙΥ Paul clearly saw the radical newness of the Good Νews
proclaimed by ]esus, but even his letters had been adulterated by
references to the God of the Old Testament, his works, and his servants.
Marcion's scripture consisted οηlΥ of radical revisions of the letters of
Paul and of the Gospel of Luke.

Ptolemy (2Α 2.9J!.)

Crescens (2Α 86).1)' ιι.2)
This Ptolemy has sometimes been identified with the second-century
Crescens is known οηlΥ from the Second Apology; from Tatian, Oratio 19,
Gnostic theologian οη the grounds that both taught ίη Rome; that both
which is dependent οη it; and from Eusebius, ΗΕ Ιν.16.1, which is
reflect the higher levels of Roman education; that both dealt with upper-
dependent οη both. Eusebius infers from what. Tatian says that ]ust~ll was
class Roman women, and advised about divorce; and that the name is
'adorned with divine martyrdom when the philosopher Crescens st1tched
unusual at Rome, and among early Christians. 39 This seems to us possible,
but far from compelling. Ιη D 35.6 'Valentinians' appear in a list of
32 PIR 11 L 170. 33 PIR V Μ 723. 34 PIR V L 327. . sectarians. If the martyr Ptolemy was indeed the Valentinian theologian,
35 Birley, Mαrcus Aurelius, Ι14, says Rusticus became prefect ίη 160, though PIR IV Q814, places hlS then ]ustin must have formed his negative impression of the school ίη the
appointment between 162 ('fortasse') and c.168. . ..
36 Rusticus is not mentioned in the Apologίes. He was a StOlC senator, descnbed by BIrley as probably

the greatest influence οη Marcus Aurelius' philosophical formation. 'His νery name was almost a
political philosophy or programme in itself, for he was a desc~ndant, probably the grandson, of o?e ~f
the martyrs to the tyranny ofDomitian', Birley, MαrC1ΙS Aurelzus, 94. Marcus speaks warmly ofhlillln Harnack, Mαrcion, Beilage, Ι, ρ. 18*; CΙιronologίe, 306-7.
38

the Meditαtions (1.7). .. .. .. Cf. Lίidemann, 'Zur Geschichte des altesten Christentums ίn Rom', 101; Grant, Ά Woman of
39

37 The fragments ofMusonius are edited by Ο. Hense, Musonll Rufi Relzquzαe (Leιpzlg, 1905). Rome', 469; Lampe, From Pαul to Vαlentinus, 239f.
44 INTRODUCTION
very few years that supervened between the composition of the Second
Apology and the composition of the Dialogue.
ΤΗΕ DATE OF ΤΗΕ APOLOGIES
Α remark ofJustin at ιΑ 46. ι suggests that he thought that Christ was born
150 years previously. Harnack considered that this should not be regarded
as a 'round number', but that ηο more than three or four years above or
below this figure should be allowed, which would place the date of the
Apologies between 147 and 154.40 We take the prominence given to Lucius ίη
the address of the First Apology to point to a date shortly after Lucius'
quaestorship ίη 153. This would be compatible with all the other possible
dates yielded by the other persons named ίη the Apologies. 41
ΤΗΕ RESCRIPT OF HADRIAN ΤΟ MINICIUS FUNDANUS
The authenticity of the rescript attached to the First Apology and quoted
by Eusebius has often been questioned. 42 We believe that the rescript is
genuine, and that ίη it Hadrian is doing ηο more than ruling against
the admission of clamorous and vexatious denunciations of Christians.
Minicius Fundanus is directed to identifY an accuser and hold him
accountable for calumnious accusation should he find ηο cause to answer.
The rescript does not advance the legal position of cηrίstίans beyond
Trajan's rescript to Pliny. Its utility for Justin lay ίη the looseness of the
phrase 'something against the laws'. For Hadrian or his governors this
might include being a Christian, when and if Christians were the occasion
of social unrest. For Justin it meant, not necessarily something ίη breach
of statute-law, but something really wrong, and thus not, as he has gone to
such lengths to explain, the profession of the name of Christ.
We consider that the text of the rescript as found ίη the manuscript is a
copy of Eusebius' translation for his Ecclesiastical History, and that the Latin
text provided by Rufinus in his translation of the Ecclesiasticαl History is a
translation of Eusebius' Greek, and not the original Latin.
ΤΗΕ PROXIMATE OCCASIONS OF ΤΗΕ APOLOGIES
Justin's primary purpose ίn making his petition is to obtain relief from
what he believes to be the unjust practice of the Roman government ίn
executing those who will not renounce their aΠegiance to Christ. This
40 Chronologίe, 277. 41 Cf. Harnack, Chronologίe,
42 See e.g. Nesselhauf, 'Hadrians Reskript', 348.
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK 45
suggests that the situation of Christians ίn. the Roman empire had
not changed since the time of Pliny's correspondence with Trajan ίn
the year ι ι ι ΟΓ thereabouts. There was ηο formal legislation against
Christianity. But if a governor or the urban prefect considered the practice
of Christianity to be prejudicial to good order, or to the good of the
empire, he could act against it, by exercise of coercitio. 43 He did not need
tohave, or to show that he had, good reason for his poor ορίηίοη of
Christians: ,that, after aΠ' was something that he shared with most of his
fellow citizens.
ΡΙίnΥ said that real Christians could not be forced to join ίη an act of
pagan worship or to curse Christ. 44 He may also have been aware that any
Christian who did do so was likely to be permanently ostracized by other
Christians. Accordingly, he released anyone he was able to persuade to
deny Christ and prove this by cursing him and by worshipping the gods or
the emperor's image. Of course, if he had found any evidence of criminal
acts he would have prosecuted those proved guilty of them. Despite
the hesitation which led him to seek Trajan's advice, his own practice
suggests that he considered that, if there was ηο evidence of other crimes,
it was the name of 'Christian' that he should prosecute. If the accused
abandoned that name, the prosecution lapsed. Trajan agreed with him: a
lapsed Christian iS to be pardoned because of his 'repentance', even
though he had been suspect. 45
This iS the situation that Justin considers to be so unfair. Α murderer is
not set free for simply denying that he is such, or for admitting that he was
but promising not to do it again, yet that is how the 'crime' ofChristianity
is treated by the Roman judicial system. Justin believed that the rescript of
Hadrian to Minicius Fundanus supported his position, supposing that it
provided that Christians should not be prosecuted unless it could be shown
that they had done something 'contrary to the laws'. But there was a wide
chasm between the way that phrase was understood by Justin and the way
it was understood by its author, and by those to whose attention Justin
drew ίι
FURTHER PURPOSES OF ΤΗΕ APOLOGIES
Justin's primary purpose was, then, to petition for the relief of what he
thought was unjust prosecution of Christians by the state authorities. If it
could not be shown that accused Christians had done anything wrong,
43 For the legal basis of the persecution of Christians ίη the 2nd century see Barnes, 'Legislation
Against the Christians'; de Ste Croix, 'Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?'; Sherwin-White,
'The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again'; Robinson, 'The Repression of Christians in the
227. Pre-Decian Period'; Engberg, Impulsore C!ιresto.
44 ΡΙίηΥ, Ερ. Χ. 96.5. 45 Ibid.97.
 INTRODUCTION
they should not be punished. As he says himself, he might have left
the matter there (ιΑ 12.11). Though ίη the remainder of the First Apology
Justin addresses and cόunters some of the accusations brought against
Christians-that they are atheists (ιΑ 13.1-4), that they do not honour the
emperor (ιΑ 17.1-3), that they are sexually promiscuous ίη their religious
rites (ιΑ 26-7-27.5; 29.1-3)-a chiefpurpose in this, by far the bulkier part
of the work, is to persuade his readers of the rationality, virtue, and
attractiveness of the Christian way of life. For this reason, the Apology
might have continued to prove a useful tool ίη gaining and catechizing
converts to Christianity.
ΤΗΕ PLAN OF ΤΗΕ APOLOGIES
The First Apology
Justin's organization of his material has often received adverse comment.
Blunt, for example, says 'his reasoning is sometimes rambling and fanciful,
abounding ίη digressions, repetitions, and parentheses, which confuse the
argument'.46 Such judgements are not groundless, and they may be at least
pardy due to Justin's use and adaptation of materials originally composed,
by himself or by others, for other purposes. But account also needs to be
taken of the possibility that, after its initial composition, Justin's work was
used by him and by others as an apologetic and catechetical tool, and that
it may have been expanded and rearranged to these ends. It iS certain,
also , that the text that has come down to uS iS lacunose, even if the extent
of the damage the text has undergone ίη this way cannot be fully or
definitely known. It iS also highly probable that the text as we have it
contains later glosses, and accidental transpositions of material. Eν~η
taking into account the likelihood that such exist in the text as we have lt,
the First Apology exhibits a discernible plan, and a logical progression of the
line of thought.
Ιη classical antiquity a speech, or oration, which iS what the First Apology
iS, was typically composed of five parts: the exordium or introduction; the
nαrrαtio, or statement of fact; the confirmαtio or proof; the rifutαtio, or dis-
crediting of opposing views; and the perorαtio, or conclusion. 47
ΑΠ of these features are to be found ίη the Apology, most of them ίη the
right place, framed by two features that are formulaic for petitions-a~ ~he
beginning the identification of the recipients and author of the petltlOn
(Α), and at the end a request for the petition to be subscribed, posted up,
and promulgated (Κ). The function ofthe exordium (Β) was usually to try to
46 Apologίes, ρ. Χί; cf. also Pautigny, Apologίes, ρ. xvif.; Skarsaune, Proqf.from Prophef)l, 135.
47 Corbett and Connors, Clαssicαl Rlιetoric, 256. Ιη what follows, the bracketed letters and numbers
refer to the sections set out in the 'Plan of the Fil:st Apology' below.
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK 47
win the favour of those who were being addressed, but Justin says expressly
that it is not his purpose to flatter the emperors,but rather to discover if
they deserve their favourable descriptions as 'pious' and 'philosopher'.
There follows the nαrrαtio or statement of fact, ίη this case, the burden of
the petition (C). The vast bulk of the Apology is taken up by the confirmαtio
and rifutαtio, which are not clearly distinguished from one another (D-H).
Justin then concludes with a straightforward perorαtio (1).
We have, called the first part of the confirmαtio the 'Elaboration of the
Petition'. Here Justin deals first with the unreasonableness of prosecuting
Christians simply for being called Christians (D.I), and then with possible
grounds for supposing that Christians are up to ηο gO?~: th~y are not
atheists (D.2), even if their worship of the one true God dlstlngulshes them
from the worship of pagan gods (D.4), and they are good members of the
civil community (D.5). This sequence of thought is interrupted by
the statement and refutation of two possible objections, which are not
objections to the argument Justin is developing, but to the making of the
petition itself (D.3). .
Justin himself signals a change of direction after the ElaboratlOn. Mter
concluding this with a claim that the truth of Christ's teachings is proved
from the fulfilment of his prophecies (Ε), he says he might have stopped
here, but what he will go οη to say will have the purpose of persuαding his
audien~e to accept the truth (ιΑ 12. Ι ι). This protreptic part of the Apology has
three main parts: the teachings of Jesus (F), the prooffrom prophecy (G),
and the 'rational' worship of Christians (Η).
We have postulated a lacuna at the beginning of this new direction
(Ε. ι). The discussion about prophecy ίη ιΑ 12.9-10 is part o~ the Γ?-ίssίng
argument, and is not direcdy related to the subseque~t dlscusslOn of
prophecy which begins at ιΑ 23.3. The development ofthlS first part ofthe
protreptic is interrupted by digressions.
The second part ofthe protreptic is the lengthy and complicated 'Demon-
stration from Prophecy'. Bousset proposed that Justin had carelessly
incorporated into his text in ιΑ 3 Ι-53 material from another source which
originally served purposes that are sometimes different from those which
Justin says he is pursuing here. 48 The fact that the same or similar
sequences of proof-texts are found ίη Irenaeus's Demonstrαtion, where they
do seem to be related to the argument Irenaeus is advancing, strongly
suggests that Bousset is right ίη his view that Justin is using, and carelessly
adapting, an earlier collection of proof-texts. Bousset does ~ot rule out the
possibility that Justin himself was the author of that collectlOn, though he
inclines to the view that the material Justin made use of was not an actual
literary work, but a proof from scripture which was put together ίη e~rly
Christian schools, such as Justin's OWll, and which underwent expanslOn
48 Bousset, Jίidisclz-christlicher Schulbetlieb, 301-8.

INTRODUCTION
and alteration as it passed from hand to hand among the presybters of the
church as they moved from one community to another. That Justin did
make use of such a collection of material seems inescapable. However,
we think it can be shown that Justin was not ίη every case as careless as
Bousset has claimed.
Mter explaining who the prophets were (G.I), Justin offers three proofs
that the false accusations made agairist Christians are the work of the
demons who have invented the worship of false gods by corrupt imitation
of the prophecies. Ιη elaborating the third of these proofs Justin deals
with accusations of sexual immorality made against Christians (G.I.2;
G.I.3.I-3). The main part of the Demonstration from Prophecy is intro-
duced to meet the objection that Christ's miracles are to be explained as
due to magic, rather than to his divine power (G.3). As the Christian
heretics Simon and Menander asserted that they were gods and sought to
establish this by the use of magic tricks to work miracles, a stronger proof
than Christ's working of miracles is caΠed for. The proof from prophecy is
introduced as 'the greatest and truest proof (ιΑ 30.1).
At ιΑ 3 1.7 Justin enumerates the things foretold by the prophets, namely,
the advent of Jesus; his birth of the virgin; his growing to maturity; his
healing of disease; his raising of the dead; his rejection, crucifixion, death,
resurrection, and ascension; his being called Son of God; the preaching of
Christ to the gentiles; the acceptance of Christ by the gentiles rather than
by the Jews (G.5). This has been widely regarded as a programme for the
subsequent proof from prophecy. But if it is such a programme, Bousset
was right to castigate Justin for following it through carelessly. However, it
might as easily be seen simply as a chronologically ordered summary
of the events prophesied-a summary aΠ the more necessary given
Justin's dependence οη source material ίη which the chronological
order will not always be followed. Α string of prophecies about Christ
(G.5.I-5; G.7; G.I~I3) is interrupted by a treatise οη the different kinds of
prophecy (G.6) and by further digressions (G.8-9), before the argument is
recapitulated (G.I4), and examples are offered of prophecies whose
fulfilment is obvious to contemporary observers (G.I5). There follows a
discussion ofthe malicious imitation ofthe prophecies by demons (G.I6).
The treatise οη different kinds of prophecy (G.6) has been described as
a 'great insertion', because it breaks up the sequence of prophecies. Skar-
saune proposes that this discussion is included at this point because ίη the
scriptural texts which Justin has quoted ίη ιΑ 35.1 the speakers are not
identified, and they speak ίη the past tense. 49 This has the potential to
49 Skarsaune, Proqf.froιn PΙ-oplleC)I, I47f Skarsaune considers that the 'great insertion' runs from ιΑ 36
to 49, though admitting that ιΑ 48.Ι-3 is itself an insertion into this block of material (ProqfjιΌ1Π
Propllecy, Ι57-62, with Ι48). For the purpose of the plan given below, we have regarded the treatise οη
different kinds ofprophecy as finishing at ιΑ 44.Ι3, but we do not exclude the possibility that some of
the material in ιΑ 45-9 originally belonged with the material Justin has been cannibalizing.
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK
49
confuse ΟΓ bewilder Justin's pagan audience, wl?-o have been told to expect
prop11ets speaking offutureevents (ιΑ 31.7). So what might appear to us to
be a confusedand arbitary arrangement of material was originally
intended, at least ίη this instance, to promote an easier understanding.
Moreover, some of the examples of prophecy given ίη this discussion are
themselves examples of the kinds of prophecy Justin is more directly con-
cerned with ίη the Demonstration from Prophecy as a whole.
While Justin's dependence οη source material for his discusssion of
prophecy has undoubtedly contributed to the confused and interrupted
state of the argument ίη this section, it is also likely that this is partly due to
the vicissitudes which Justin's text suffered after its initial composition.
The transition to the third part of the protreptic, which deals with bap-
tism and eucharist, has been lo~t, as has the conclusion of this section.
Plαn oJ the First Apology
Α. Address to emperors who are famed for piety and philosophy (ιΑ 1.1).
Β. Exordium
Β.Ι. The bearing ofthe emperors's piety and philosophy οη what is to follow
(ιΑ 2.1-2).
Β.2. The purpose ofwriting the Apology (ιΑ 2.2-4).
C. The Petition
C. ι. That the charges against Christians be examined, and they then be
dealt withjustly (ιΑ 3.1).
C.I.I. Obligation ofrulers: their liability to divine punishment (ιΑ 3.2-5).
D. Corifutαtio et Rifiιtαtio ι: The Elαborαtion qf the Petition
D.I. The name 'Christian' cannot by itselfbe blameworthy (ιΑ 4.1-4).
D.I.I. Resume of treatment of Christians by the state: Christians
punished for the name alone; those who deny their Christianity
when questioned are, against reason, released without further
examination (ιΑ 4.4-8).
D.I.2. Philosophers and poets are not punished for their opinions alone
(ιΑ 4.8-9),
D.I.3. Evil demons are responsible for the irrational punishment of
blameless Christians, just as they were responsible for the death
ofSocrates, and for the same reason (ιΑ 5.1-3).
D. Ι .4. The Logos who enlightened Socrates is Jesus Christ, who taught
us to recognize the gods whom Socrates rejected as the wicked
demons who persecuted him and ηονν persecute Christians (ιΑ
5·4)·
D.2. The charge of rejecting the gods explained: Christians worship the true
God (ιΑ 6.1-2).
D.3. Ob.iectionsJόreseen αnd solved
D.3.I. First objection foreseen and countered: some accused Christians
were guilty ofwrongdoing (ιΑ 7.1-3).
50 1NTRODUCT10N
D.3.1.1. Petition restated: examine the deeds of those accused,
andjudge accordingly (ιΑ 7.4).
D.3.1.2. The punishment of false accusers is not sought by the
petition (ιΑ 7.5).
D.3.2. Second objection foreseen and countered: if they are punished
only for their naine, Christians could avoid punishment simply by
denying the name. But this would deprive them of the eternallife
they desire, and were tauglit by Christ to hope for (ιΑ 8.1-3).
D.3.2.1. The teaching of Christ about eternal reward and
punishment is similar to Plato's teaching, therefore
Christians should not be punished even if it is a false
teaching (ιΑ 8.4-5).
D-4. Di:fference between Christian worship of God and pagan worship of
gods (ιΑ 9.1-5).
D-4. 1. Reason for this di:fference: God does not need material things,
desires that human beings use the rational powers he has given
them to worship him rationally-i.e. by a life of virtue (ιΑ 10.1-5).
D.4.2. Evil demons try to frustrate rational worship by telling lies about
Christians (ιΑ 10.6).
D.5. It is because they are awaiting a divine kingdom, not a human one, that
Christians do not deny Christ. If they were expecting a human kingdom
they wouldhave denied Christ under question (ιΑ ιι.I-2).
D.5.l. But Christians are, nevertheless, law-abiding members of society;
belief ίn divine reward and punishment favours their being so (ιΑ
12.1-4)·
D.5.2. It is the evil demons who try to subvert the rationality of this (ιΑ
12·4-8).
Ε. Conclusion qf the Elαborαtion
[Ε. 1. LACUNA: things that Christ foretold would come to pass.]
Ε.2. Fulfilment of Christ's prophecies is proof of his teaching. Christ is the
teacher ofChristians, who derive their name from him (ιΑ 12.9-10).
F. CorifUtαtio et Rifutαtio 2: Protreptic ί: The Teαchings qfJesus
F.I. Transition from petition to persuasion (ιΑ 12.ιι).
F.2. Christians are not atheists, but rational worshippers ofGod (ιΑ 13.1-3).
F.2.1. The worship of a crucified man might seem mad, but it is a
mystery requiring careful attention if it is to be understood, which
evil demons will try to impede. But they can be resisted, as is
proved by the conversion οΕ Christians from their previous
immorallives (ιΑ 13.4-14.3).
F.3. The teachings of Christ which have accomplished this conversion intro-
duced (ιΑ 14.4-5).
F.3.1. Christ's teaching about temperance (ιΑ 15.1-8).
F.3.2. Christ's teaching about love of neighbour and generosity (ιΑ
15·9-17)·
F.3.3. Christ's teaching about meekness (ιΑ 16.1-4).
F.3+ Christ's teaching about oaths, truthfulness, worship of the one
God (ιΑ 16.5-7).
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND H1S WORK 51
F.3.4.1. Christ foresaw that some of his followers would not
be true; petition that these be punished (ιΑ 16. 8-14; cf
ιΑ 7,4).
F.3.5.· Christ's teaching about paying taxes and honouring the emperor
(ιΑ 17.1-3).
F.3.5.1. Emperors will be punished by God for unjust govern-
ment, as Christ taught (ιΑ 17-4).
F.3.5.2. Proofthat there is punishment after death (ιΑ 18.1-4).
F.3.5.3. Philosophers who believe ίn punishment after death are
not punished for this, neither should Christians be
punished who believe the same; indeed Christians'
belief is the greater, because they also believe ίn the
resurrection of the dead (ιΑ 18'5-6).
F.3.5-4. The resurrection of the dead is not impossible
(ιΑ 19.1--':6).
F.3.5.5. And it is foretold by Christ (ιΑ 19-7-8).
F.4. Christian belief ίn the creation of the world by God, its destruction by
fire, ίn reward and punishment after death, and that created things
should not be worshipped is paralleled ίn pagan prophets, philosophers,
and poets. As they are not punished, neither should Christians be
(ιΑ 20.1-5).
F.5. Christian beliefs about the Logos, his incarnation, death, resurrection,
and ascension, are paralleled ίn pagan poets, and ίn pagan beliefs about
the apotheosis of dead emperors (ιΑ 21.1-3).
F.5.1. Pagan tales of unworthy behaviour of gods ίn fact tell of the
doings of evil demons (ιΑ 21.4-6).
F.5.2. Recapitulation about reward and punishment (ιΑ 21.6).
F.6. Christian beliefs about Christ paralleled ίn pagan writers (ιΑ 22.1-6).
F.6.1. Christian writers are older than pagan ones, but are to be
believed not because of similarity to pagan writers, but because
what they say is true. Resume of credal statement about Jesus,
who taught these things (cf ιΑ 12.9-10) (ιΑ 23.1-2).
[LACUNA]
G. Protreptic ίί: Demonstrαtion ftom Prophecy
G.I. Prophets introduced. Evil demons have corrupted the prophecies, and
similarly make false accusations against Christians: three proofs (ιΑ 23.3).
G. ι. ι. First proof: Christians punished for saying similar things to the
Greeks who are not punished (ιΑ 24.1-3).
G.I.2. Second proof: Christians, unlike pagans, do not make sex a fea-
ture ofworship (ιΑ 25.1-3).
G.I.3. Third proof: even after the ascension of Christ demons were
setting up false gods, even amongst Christians (ιΑ 26.1-8).
G.I.3.1. Perhaps it is these false Christians who do the infamous
deeds the Christians are accused of, but they are not
prosecuted by the state (ιΑ 26.6-8).
G.I.3.2. Defence of Christian sexual morality (a): exposure of
infants; sexual promiscuity; pagans not punished for the
 INTRODUCTION
kind of sexual immorality Christians are accused of
(ιΑ 27.1-5).
[M1SPLACED FRAGMENT (ιΑ 28.1-4)]
G.I.3.3. Defence of Christian sexual morality (b): views οη sex
and marriage (ιΑ 29.1-3).
[MISPLACED FRAGMENT (ιΑ 29-4)]
G.2. Objection envisaged: Christ's miracles are due to magic, not to his divine
origin (ιΑ 30.1).
G.3. Objection answered by proof from prophecy.
G.3.I. Statement ofthe proof(IA 30.1).
G.4. The prophets and their writings: the origin of the Septuagint
(ιΑ 31.1-6).
G.5. Summary of events prophesied, ίη their chronological order; prophets
belonged to different eras (ιΑ 31.7-8).
G.5.I. Prophecies about the divine origin ofChrist (ιΑ 32.1-14).
G.5.2. Prophecies about his birth from a virgin (ιΑ 33.I-g).
G.5.3. Prophecies about his birth ίη Bethlehem (ιΑ 34.1-35.1).
G.5.4. Prophecies about the hidden years ofChrist (ιΑ 35.1).
[LACUNA]
G.5.5. Prophecies about the entry to Jerusalem and the crucifixion
(ιΑ 35.2-ΙΟ).
G.6. Treatise οη different kinds ofprophecy (ιΑ 36.1-44.13).
G.6.I. The divine Logos is the author ofthe prophecies (ιΑ 36.1).
G.6.2. SOIIie prophecies proclaim ίη advance what will happen. (ιΑ 36.2)
G.6.3. Some prophecies are from the character of the Father, some
from the character of Christ, some from the character of those
answering these: a phenomenon paralleled ίη pagan narrative
(ιΑ 36.2).
G.6-4. ΒΥ failing to understand the different kinds ofprophecy the Jews
failed to understand the prophecies themselves (ιΑ 36.3)
G.6.5. Examples of prophecy from the character of the Father
(ιΑ 37.I-g).
G.6.6. Examples ofprophecy from the character ofChrist (ιΑ 38.1-5).
[G.6.7. LACUNA introducing prophecies from the character of those
addressing the Father ΟΓ Christ.]
G.6.8. Examples of prophecy from the character of those addressing
Christ (ιΑ 38.6-8).
G.6.9. Examples of prophecy of things as going to happen (ιΑ 39.1-
41·4)·
G.6.IO. Examples of prophecy of things as having already happened
[LACUNA] (ιΑ 42.1-4).
G.6.II. Α difficulty about prophecy addressed-the foretelling ofwhat
will happen does not entail that it will happen by necessity of
fate; free will is implied by what the prophets say (ιΑ 43.1-44.7).
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK 53
G.6.II.I. Plato took from Moses, the saying that the one who
chooses evil is blameworthy, but God is not (ιΑ 44.8).
G.6.II.2. Other pagan writers also took their materials from the
prophets (ιΑ 44.9-10).
G.6.II.3. Prophecy does not entail fate: God's foreknowledge
of what human beings will do, and his guidance of
them by prophecy demonstrate his providential care
(ιΑ 44.ΙΙ).
G.6.I2. Demons try to discourage the reading of prophecies; but
Christians read them without fear (ιΑ 44.12-13).
G.7. Prophecies ofthe ascension and the rule ofChrist (ιΑ 45.1-5).
G.8. Pagan rejection of prophecies will not harm Christians, but will expose
those who reject them to punishment (ιΑ 45.6).
G.9. Objection: how can those who lived before Christ be held accountable
for not following the tea~hing ofChrist (ιΑ 46.ι)?
G.9. ι. Objection answered: the pre-incarnate Logos and Christians
before Christ (ιΑ 46.2-6).
G.IO. Prophecies ofthe destruction ofJudaea (ιΑ 47.1-6).
G.II. Prophecies ofthe miracles ofChrist (ιΑ 48.1-3).
G.I2. Prophecies of the rejection of Christ by the Jews and Samaritans, of
the conversion of the gentiles, and of the various sufferings of Jews
and Christians (ιΑ 49.1-7).
G.I3. Prophecies of the passion, resurrection, ascension, and return of
Christ (ιΑ 50.1-51.9).
G.I4. Recapitulation of the argument from prophecy and prophecies of
the general resurrection, reward and punishment of the dead
(ιΑ 52.1-53.2).
G.I5. Proof of prophecy from observation: desolation of Judaea and
Samaria, call of the gentiles, superior numbers and fidelity of gentile
believers (ιΑ 53.3-ΙΙ).
[LACUNA]
G.I6. Pagan storytellers cannot prove the truth oftheir stories as Christians
can the truth oftheir prophecies (ιΑ 54.1).
G. Ι 6. ι. Pagan myths are the work of demons, imitating the prophecies,
ίη order to mislead humanity: examples of such imitation
(ιΑ 54.2-10).
G.I6.2. The crucifixion of Jesus not imitated by demons; intimations of
the power of the cross (ιΑ 55.1-8).
G.I6.3. Further instances of malign imitation and misdirection by the
demons (ιΑ 56.1-57.1).
G.I6+ Christians do not hate those the demons stir up against them,
who are incapable of harming Christians ίη the way they hope
to (ιΑ 57.2-3).
G.I6.5. Further instances of malignity of demons seeking to destroy
Christianity from within (ιΑ 58.1-3).
G.!7. Plato borrowed from the prophet Moses (ιΑ 59. ι-60.ιι).

54 INTRODUCTION
[LACUNA]
Η. Protreptic ίίί: Christiαn Worship
Η.Ι. Baptism (ιΑ 61.1-12). . the estranged husband, the centurion, and Urbicus, he noted that it was,
Η.2. Demonic imitations ofbaptism, and ofMoses' encounter W1th the Logos
(ιΑ 62.1-4).
Η.2.1. Jews mistaken to think that it was God himself who spoke to
Moses, proven from prophecy (ιΑ 63.1-17).
Η.3. Demonic imitationofprophecies (ιΑ 64·1-6).
Η-4. Baptismal eucharist (ιΑ 65·1-5)·
Η-4. I . Explanation of eucharist-eucharist imitated by demons
(ιΑ 66.1-67.2).
Η.5. Sunday eucharist (ιΑ 67'3-8).
[LACUNA]
1. Perorαtio
These are the teachings of Christ: Christians do ηο harm t6 the emperorsby
believing these things. The emperors will harm themselves ifthey continue to
punish Christians unjustly (ιΑ 67.8-68.2).
J. Appendix
The rescript ofHadrian introduced and quoted (ιΑ 68·3-10).
Κ. Finαl Petition
Request for subscription, posting up, and promulgation of the petition
(ιΑ 69.1-70.4). (For the transposition of these two chapters from the end of
the Second AP?logy see our discussion above, at Chapter ι, ρρ. 28-31)'
The Second Apology
Although we believe the Second Apology was not written as a self-standing
discourse, the material it contains falls into two main blocks. The first may
concern the occasion of the writing of the First Apology, and may have been
removed from it in a later edition. The second seems to be at least partly
dependent οη Justin's encounter with the Cynic Crescens. . to see how the Chronicon Paschale, which self-evidently depends upon Euse-
At ΗΕ 1V.16.3-6 Eusebius quotes nearly the whole of 2Α 8, follows thlS
with a claim that Tatian recorded that Justin was put to death by the
contrivance of Crescens (ΗΕ 1V.16-7-8), then quotes 2Α 1-20 (ΗΕ 1V.IΊ·2-
13) after which he adds: 'to this Justin naturally and suitably adds those
wo~ds of his which we have already recalled, saying: "Ι, too, therefore,
expect to be plotted against by one of those named", and so forth' (trans.
Lawlor and Oulton).
Thirlby thought that, at first glance, this showe1o that ίη. Euse1;>ius'
exemplar 2Α 8(3) followed immediately upon 2Α 2.20. But while Thrrlby
50 Thirlby, Apologiae Duαe, 120.
ΤΗΕ ΜΑΝ AND HIS WORK
55
thoιight that the sequence of 2Α 9 immediate1y after 2Α 7 prescnted ηο
difficulties, and that this would allow 'one of those mentioned' to refer to
in fact, far ea·sier to remove 2Α 8 from its position ίη the manuscript than it
was to insert it between 2Α 2 and the text that follows it ίη the manuscript.
Nevertheless, Maran printed 2Α 8 after 2Α 2.20, and he has been followed.
ίn this by most editors and translators. Pautigny, Blunt, and Munier laud-
ably retain, the manuscript order.
The phrase thatLawlor and Oulton translate as 'naturally and suitably'
is εικότως και ακολούθως. Maran took this to mean that 2Α 8 followed
immediately upon 2Α 2.20. He thought this was confirmed by the similar-
ity of subject-matter (persecution by a disaffected non-Christian) of these
two chapters, and also by the. logical sequence of 2Α 9.1 (answering an
objection about punishment ίη eternal fire) upon 2Α7.4 (punishment ίη
eternal fire foretold by the prophets and taught by Christ).
Schwartz described Maran's transposition as made ineptissime,51 and
Harnack pointed out that ακολούθως does not have to mean 'immedi-
ately', and argued that the relocation actually disrupts the coherence of
the text. He considered that 'one of those mentioned' at 2Α 8.1 refers to
the demons mentioned at 2Α 7.3; that 'those considered to be philosophers'
at 2Α 9.1 picks up the references to Crescens being a bogus philosopher ίη
2Α 8; and that, while there is nothing to complain of ίη the sequence of 2Α
3.1 (consideration ofthe objection: 'you should thenall kill yourselves') οη
2Α 2.15-20 (surrender of Lucius and the third martyr) , the sequences
created by Maran's relocation (of 2Α 8.1 after 2.20; 3.1 after 8.7; and 9.1
after 7.5) are altogether abrupt and will bear onlythe most cursory scru-
tiny.52 Schmid regretted that Harnack's energetic opposition to the trans-
position of the chapters left Goodspeed unmoved, and was himself
attracted by the variant reading of the Chronicon Pαschale. This would allow
Justin to be saying at 2Α 8.1, 'as one ofthose mentioned, Ι expect that Ι too
will be plotted against': 'those mentioned' being 'all those who ... have
taken pains to live according to reason', at 2Α 7.2.53 However, it is difficult
bius for its quotations from Justin, could have preserved a correct reading
against all the surviving manuscripts of Eusebius and against the reading
of the manuscript of Justin. Whatever the referent of των ωνομασμένων at
2Α 8(3).1 might be, we consider that this chapter belongs with, and serves
as an introduction to, the remaining chapters of the Second Apology, which
explain Justin's stance with regard to philosophy, and may well draw upon
materials from the encounter with Crescens to which he refers at 2Α
8.4-6. We have retained Maran's numbering of the Second Apology within
51 'ObservationeS',9.
52 Harnack, ϋberlίrjerung, 139, n. 92. 53 Schmid, 'Texruberlieferung', IOOf.
 INTRODUCTION

brackets, both in the translation and ίη our references to it, ίη order to 3

avoid confusion.
]USTIN'S WORLD
Plαn qf the 'Second Apology'
a. Occasion ofwriting (2Α 1-2).
a.I. What happened ίη Rome under Ur"?icus (2~ Ι.3- 2 . 2 ?).. .
a.2. Answer to objection arising from thlS narratlve: ChnstIans do. not co~mlt
suicide because they believe they must obey God who lS provιdent JUSTIN'S 'ROMAN COMMUNITY
(2Α 3.1-4). .., . .
a.3. Answer to another such obJectlOn: ChnstIans are ~llJustly persecut~d, Ιη the account of his trial Justin told the urban prefect that at the time of
even though God is their helper, because o~ the lllfluence of mallgn his arrest he had been living abov~ the bathhouse ofMyrtinus (recension
demons, whose evil deeds the pagan poets attnbute to the gods to whom Α) or Martinus son of Timiotinus (recension Β). Franchi de' Cavalieri
they assign names (2Α 4.1-6). . . proposed that both names might 11ave derived from an original 'bath-
a.3. I . Catechesis connected with the former: God lS nameless. Jesus lS
house of Tiburtinus', 1 perhaps suggesting a location οη or near the Via
the name of his incarnate Son. The power of the name of Jesus
Tiburtina, to the north-east of the centre of Rome. More recently, Snyder
(2Α 5.1-6).
has raised the possibility that the names given ίη the Acts qfJustin might be
a+ Answer to another such objection: why God delays the destruction of the a corruption of an original Latin 'Balneum Mamertinj'. 2 The existence
world (2Α 6.1). . . . of such an establishment, in the Augustan Regio Ι, to the south-east of
a.4. ι. Similarities and dissimilarities between ChnstIan and pagan bellefs the centre of the city, is known from the fourth-century descriptions of the
about the end ofthe world (2Α 6.2). Regions of Rome, the Curiosum and the Notitiα, which list it between the
a.4. 2 . Di:fferences between Christians and Stoics οη the end ofthe world,
Porta Capena and the River Almo. Snyder suggests that it may have been
οη fate and free will (2Α 6·3-9)·
a.4.3. Stoics and ethics; Stoics persecuted because of their allegiance to 'in the neighbourhood of the "bi-via", the point where the Via Latina
seed ofLogos (2Α 7·1-5)· branches off the Via Appia', 3 a densely populated vicinity where Jews and
Christians are known to have lived.4- Of course, without further evidence
b.I. Justin's encounter with Crescens (2Α 8.1-7)· neither the identification of the Balneum Mamertini as the place above
b.2. Justin's defence against Crescens.. . . . which Justin had his lodgings nor its location οη or near the Via Appia can
b.2.I. Answer to philosophical obJectlOll that Justlll promotes vιrtue by
be considered to be more than a reasonable hypothesis. Snyder suggests
means offear (2Α 9.1-5)· .
b.2.2. Superiority of Christian doctrines over other human teachIng: that it was because of his living here that Justin knew of the cult of Jupiter
whole Logos, and partial knowledge ofLogos-Socrates (2~ 10.1-8). Latiaris (2Α 12.5), which was located ίη the Alban Hills, reached by the Via
b.2.2.I. Fragment of argument explaining how the unJust and Appia, and that his reference to images of Proserpina at springs (ιΑ 64.1)
demons have power over Christians (2Α ιι.ι). might point to 'the groves and springs of Egeria and of the Camenae',
b.3 The story ofHeracles (2Α ιι.2-7)· which lay just outside the Porta Capena, οη the Via Appia. 5 Το this
b.3. I . The story of Heracles exemplified ίη Justin's encounter with might be added that, if we are correct in seeing a reference to processions
Christians (2Α ιι.8-Ι2.2). . . , . associated with the cult of Cybele and Attis at ιΑ 24.2, that too might go
b.4. The part of eνil demons ίη the false accusatlOns agalnst ChnstIans back to local knowledge οη Justin's part: for those tumultuous processions
(2Α 12.3-7). passed along this section of the Via Appia, to and from the River Almo. 6
b.5. Justin's own conversion: the superiority of Christianity to Platonism
Whatever the name of the bathhouse, or wherever it was located, Justin
(2Α 13.1-6).
told the prefect that he had lived above it for the whole of this, his second

ι Franchi de' Cavalieri, 'Di una nuova recensione del Martirio dei ss. Carpo, Papilo e Agathonice',
rof.
2 Snyder, "Άbοve the Bath ofMyrtinus"', 350-3. 3 Ibid. 355.
4 Lampe, From Pαul to VΑlentinus,56f. 5 Snyder, "Άbοve the Bath ofMyrtinus"', 358f.
6 TUIcan, Cults, 44f., 47; Graillot, Le Culte de Cybele, Ι39.
 INTRODUCTION
stay ίη Rome; that he taught anyone who wanted. to com<; to h~ ther:;
and that he did not know any other place ofmeetmg (συνελευσις). Justln
uses the same word to describe the gathering of Christians to celebrate the
Sunday eucharist,8 but as he there says that 'all who dwell ίη cities ΟΓ the
countryside' are involved ίη this, he cannot mean that aΠ these are gath-
ered ίη one place. 1ndeed, at his trial, Justin answers Rusticus' questi~n,
'Where do you come together?' by saying that this is a matter of chOlce
and availability for each individual, and then asks if the prefect really
9
supposes that they could all come together ίη one place. 1t is possible,
then that ίη admitting to ηο other meeting-place Justin chooses to suppose
Rusticus' enquiry to be about his place of teaching, so as to avoid identify-
ing places where Christians gather for worship. . Trypho, he presents himself as continuing to wear the trade-mark cloak of .
1t is possible that a similar craftiness .informs the d:alings of the. othe:s
who were tried at the same time as Justm. When RuStlcuS asked Hlerax if
Justin had made 'them' Christians, he replied that he had been a Christian
for a long time. 1O Asked who had taught him (τίς σε εδίδαςεν), Paeon
replied: 'We have learnt from our parents \παpειλήΦαμε~)', ~sing a ~ord
Paul and Justin had used for the recepuon of teachlng. Evelplstus,
perhaps ίη answer to Rusticus' earlier question, said that while he used
to listen gladly to Justin's discourse, he had learnt (παpείλrιΦα) to be a
Christian from his parents. 12 The possibility remains that some of thos.e
tried with Justin were his οννη converts, and that some, at least, were hlS
students. Evelpistus said that his parents were in Cappadocia, while
Hierax said that his were dead. Hierax had been 'dragged away' from
Phrygia a long time previously, 13 which suggests t~a~ he was, o~ had been, a
slave. While Rusticus is likely to have found thlS lnterrogatlOn less than
satisfactory, it nicely contextualizes the details Justin gives at ιΑ 14.2-3 and
16.4 about his Christian community.
Justin knows of the activities ίη Rome of ~eople claiming. to be
Christians, included Simon, Menander, and MarclOn, though he dlsputes
that claim. 14 He would have been aware of the existence of other groups
of Christians, and other places of meeting, in the city, but he might not
have had a close knowledge of all of them. He may not have known the
name ofthe woman accused by her estranged husband (2Α 2.1), just as he
did not know the name of the third person who came forward and
declared his Christianity (2Α 2.20).
Justin's community included people whom he describes as 'well-off',
and these, if they wished, contributed to the material support of orphans,
7 Acts qf]ustin, ΑΒ 3.3.
Β ιΑ 67.3. When describing the post-baptismal eucharist he says the newly baptized is led to 'where
the brothers are gathered' (ιΑ 65.1).
9 Acts qf]ustiιz, ΑΒ 3.1-3. ιο Ibid., ΑΒ 4.5·
ii Ι Cor. 15: 3; Phil. 4: 9, cf. ιΑ 4.7; 10.1,2; 13.1. 12 Acts qfJustin, ΑΒ 4·7·
13 Ibid., ΑΒ 4.8. 14 ιΑ 7.3-4; 16.8; 26.2-6.
JUSTIN'S WORLD 59
widows, the sick, the imprisoned, visitors, ~nd others ίη need (ιΑ 67.7).
The eucharist was conducted by a president, who also had charge of the
community's ·funds, and their distribution. He was assisted by deacons,
who took· the consecrated elements to those who were not present
(ιΑ 65·3-5; 67·4-7)·
PHILOSOPHY
Justin has been called 'Philosopher' at least since the time of Tertullian, 1S
ίη the early third century, and, in the opening sections of the Diαlogue with
the philosopher even after ~is conversion to Christianity, which he ηονν
sees as the only true philosophy. 16 1η the Second Apology (ι 2. ι) he says that he
once took delight ίη the teaching of Plato, and ίη the account of his trial
he tells the urban prefect that while he had tried to learn all doctrines, he
had given his assent to the true doctrines of the Christians. 17 1η 1907,
however, Geffcken thought it obvious that one could not regard Justin
as a genuine philosopher. 18 Since then, Justin's title to be considered a
philosopher has been been both attacked 19 and supported. 20 This debate
has sometimes had more to do with preoccupations about what
philosophy is, and with preconceptions about what its relationship to
Christianity should be, than with an evaluation of thehistorical record. 21
The judgements that Justin's writings are not evidence of a 'superficial
half-philosophy' ,22 and that his philosophical knowledge 'was above that
of generally educated ΟΓ self-educated persons', 23 can be regarded as fair.
His Platonism had affinities with that of those of his contemporaries
ΟΓ near-contemporaries, like Alcinous, Numenius, and Plutarch, who are
known as 'Middle-Platonists'.
Justin admired some aspects of the ethical teachings of the Stoics (2Α
7(8).1), but was also sharply critical ofwhat he supposed were their views
about fate and free will (ιΑ 43.1-8; 2Α 5(6).3-9). He was obliged to address
this question because of the prominence he gave to the 'proof from
prophecy'. The Stoics supposed that the fact of prophecy was a proof that
all events were fated: as God knows the future and is able to predict it,
15 Adversus Vαleιιtiιziαnos 5.1. 16 D 1.2; 8.1. 17 Acts qfJustin, ΑΒ 2.3.
ΙΒ Geffcken, Ζωεί griechische Apologeteιl, 102.
19 See esp. Hyldahl, Philosophie uιzd Chlistelltum, andJoly, CIl!Jstiαιzisme et philosophie.
20 See esp. van Winden, An Εατ1Υ Chlistiaιz Philosopher.
21 For a summary see Nahm, 'The Debate οη the "Platonism" ofJustin Martyr'.
22 Heid, 'Iustinus Martyr Γ, col. 807.
23 Lampe, From Pαul to Vαleιιtiιzus, 262; cf. also Edwards, 'Οη the Platonic Schooling of Justin
Martyr'.
60 INTRODUCTION
future events must be determined by necessity.24 Ιη his rebuttal ofthe Stoic
position, Justin clearly drew upon an existing p~ilosophical critique ίη
order to advance a defence of human freedom Wh1Ch was of fundamental
importance for his own religious stance, but it is from the p~"Ophe~s them-
selves that he begins his argument, for they teach that ~h~re lS pun1sh~ent
for bad behaviour and recompense for good, and th1S lS not compat1ble
with determinism. 25
Ιη the First Apology Justin sees himself as a philosbpher engaging οη
an equal footing with others who claim to be philosophers but are also, as
a matter of fact the leaders of the Roman empire. He adapts a famous tag
from Plato to the effect that a state wi11 only truly prosper if both its rulers
and those they rule are phi10S0phers. 26 Justin sees his task to be,. a~ a
phi1osopher-subject, to set before the emper?rs an acc~unt of Chnst1an
life and teachings that will enable them, as phi1osopher-kings.' t? c.ome to a
rational andjust decision. Ιη the Second Apology he recalls a V1t~101:c debate
between himself and a Cynic phi1osopher called Crescens. It lS likely that
he engaged ίη discussion and debate with other phi10S0phers,27 and that he
saw the teaching in which he engaged ίη his lodging ίη Rome as parallel to
that of other phi1osophical schools. 28 Throughout th e ΑΡο logzes . Justm .,s
vocabulary attests an awareness of some of the phi1osophical problems
that interested his contemporaries.
THEOLOGY
The Fαther
Justin describes God· as unbegotten, 29 1nexpress1
. 'ble, 30 unnameable, 31
incorruptible, unchangeab e, lffipass1 e, as someth'1ng surp~sslng
32 Ι 33 . 'bl 34 .
changeable things,35 and as that which 'always has the same nature 1η the
same manner, and is the cause of existence to all else'. 36 This last statement
echoes a phrase which is used several times ίη Plato to describe the real,
or true being. 37 Though frequently described as the creator ('ΠoιηT~ς or
24Pohlenz, Die Stoa, ί. ΙΟ2.
25ιΑ 43.2; cf. Merlo, Liberi per vivere secoιzdo ίl Logos, 50 ff.
26 ιΑ 3.3; cf. Plato Republic Y.473c-d.
27 At D 50.1 Justin has Trypho say to hirn: 'You seem to m.e to have great expenenc~ of engagιng
with many people concerning all topics of enquiry, and for thlS reason you are ready
for whatever you might be asked'; and at D 64.2 Justin says to Trypho: Ί shall cont1nue to gιve an
answer to whatever you shall propose or dispute; and Ι do the same for absolutely all people, whatever
their background, who want to enquire or to learn from me concerning these things.'
28 Acts qfJustin, ΑΒ 3.3.
29 ιΑ ιμ; 25.2; 49.5; 53.2; 2Α 5(6).1; 12-4; 13-4; D 5·4; ΙΙ4·3; 126.2; 127·1.
30 ιΑ 9.3; 6ι.ιι; 2Α ιο.8; 12-4; 13.4; D 126.2; 127.2. 3\ ιΑ 6ι.π; 63·1; 2Α 5(6).1.
32 D 5+ 33 ιΑ 13+ 34 ιΑ 25.2. 35 ιΑ 20.2.
36 D 3.5, tr. Falls. 37 Pllaedo 78c; Sophist 248a; Republic VI·4 8 4b ..
JUSTIN'S WORLD 61
δημιουργός),38 because ofhis transcendence, God cannot be directly seen
by his creatures, or address them. But Justin iS not troubled by any sense
that God iS therefore distanced from human beings. God iS described as
the 'compassionate Father of all, who abounds ίη mercy' (D 108.3);
he cares for human beings (ιΑ 28-4; D 1-4), and rejoices in those who
imitate 'the good things that are present to him: temperance, justice,
and phi1anthropy' (2Α3(4).2; ιΑ 10.1). It is to him, through Christ, that
Christiaqs dedicate themselves (ιΑ 14.2; 25.2; 49.5; 61.1).
The Logos
Justin believed that Jesus of Ν azareth was the incarnation of a 'rational
power (δύναμιν ... λoγΙK~ν) begotten by God from himself in the
beginning, before all creatures, and that this power is called by various
names ίη the scriptures: 'Glory ofthe Lord', 'Son', 'Wisdom', 'Messenger',
'God', 'Lord', 'Logo~', and 'commander' (D 61.1). He is called 'Logos' or
'Word' primari1y because he is the instrument of God's revelation of
himself to human beings,39 but 'logos' also refers to that which makes
intelligible speech possible, namely, rationality or the faculty of thinking.
This 'Logos' can be said to be begotten of God, and thus be called God's
Son, by analogy with the way human beings utter ίη speech the concept
they have formed ίη their minds. When we utter a word we can be said
to beget the word. Though this means that the word we utter is ηονν
something distinct from and external to us, it does not [οΠονν that the
concept that the external word represents has been removed from our
minds, or ίη any sense reduced (D 61.2). Justin believed that thevery
possibi1ity of divine revelation required the existence of such a distinct,
subordinated, or second-order divinity, for the possibi1ity of God directly
and immediately communicating himself to anyone else was ruled out by
God's οννη transcendence. Ηονν, in view of this, God is able to communi-
cate himself to the Son is a question which Justin does not address. He is
aware, however, that to speak of this 'rational power' as 'another God'
distinct from the Father who begets him, is problematical for the belief
that God is one. Justin solves the difficulty to his οννη satisfaction by
insisting that the 'other God' (θεΌς έτερος) and Lord who is beside the
maker of the universe, came into being by the will of the Father,40 and,
. '
though numerically distinct from him, 'has never done anything except
:mth an a.nswel" that which the God who is the maker of all, above whom there is ηο other
38 ΠοιψΤι, ιΑ 20.2; 26.5; 38.2; 58.1; 67.2; D 7.3; 16.4; 34·8; 35·5; 48.2; 5D.I; 55.1; 56.1-23; 57.3; 58.1;
60.2-3; 67·6; 74·3; 84.2; ιι6·3; ΙΙ7·5; δrιι-ιιoυpγ6, ιΑ 8.2; 13.1; 20.5; 26.5; 58.1; 63.Π; 2Α 10.6; cf ιΑ ΙΟ.2;
59·1.
39 Cf. D 128.2 and ΕdwaΓds, Justin's Logos and the Word of God', 262; Price, '''Hellenisation'' and
Logos Doctrine in Justin Martryr', 20.
40 D 6Ι.Ι; 128+
 INTRODUCTION
God (&λλος . .. θεός), has willed him to do and to say' (D 56.4, ιι). The idea
that God deals with the created order by means of a 'second God' had
contemporary parallels' ίη Jewish exegesis and ίη Greek philosophy. The
existence of 'two powers ίη heaven' was thought by some Jewish exegetes
to be shown by some passages ofscripture. 41 Among these was Gen. 19: 24,
which Justin also used as a proof thatthe scriptures speak of another
'Lord and God' beside the Father of the universe (D 56.12-23).42 The
Middle Platonist philosopher Numenius of Apamea spoke of three gods,
distinguishing the First God, who remains ίη himself, is simple and indivis-
ible, and is the Father of the God who creates, and this creator God who is
Second and Third, who, though one, 'splits' into two because of his con-
cern for hi~ creation. 43 Alcinous distinguished between a First God, Mind,
and SOU1. 44 God iS said to be 'Father' inasrήuch as he iS the cause of aΠ
things and sets ίη order the Heavenly Mind and the Soul of theCosmos.
Mind,set ίη order by the Father, ίη its turn sets ίη order the whole of
nature ίη the universe. 45 Alcinous also described the stars and planets as
'gods'-'intelligent, living beings,46-and speaks of 'other daemons, cre-
ated gods', who administer the sublunar and terrestrial worlds, and says
'God iS ίη fact himselfthe creator of the universe, and of the gods and
daemons, and by his will this universe admits of ηο dissolution. The rest iS
ruled over by his children, who do everything that they do ίη accordance
with his command and ίη imitation of him. ,47 The two traditions, Jewish
and philosophical, were combined ίη Philo, who held that when scripture
speaks of God making man ίη the image of God, 'as if [speaking] of
another God (ώς 7Τερι έτέρου θεου)', it refers not to 'the most high One and
Father of the universe', but to 'the second God, who iS his Logos (τον
ι
δ ευτερον θ εον,
ι '"
ος
,ι
εστιν εκεινου
λ ογος
ι )' .48
One significant way ίη which Justin differs from this background, and
from the subsequent Christian tradition, iS that he does not explicitly
assign a mediatorial role to the Logos ίη the creation of the world.
Andresen, who thought that Justin did assign such a role to the Logos,
cited three passages ίη support of this view, but they do not seem to us to
. 49
· meanlng.
compe1 t h IS
At ιΑ 59.5 Justin says that Plato learnt from Gen. Ι: 3 ('God said: "let
there be light" ') that 'the whole world came into being by a word of
God (λόγψ θεου) out of the previously existing things mentioned by
Moses'-that is, from the formless matter indicated by the invisible and
unorganized earth referred to ίη Gen. Ι: 2. This passage could be taken as
+1 Cf. Segal, Τωο Powers, 122. +2 Cf. ibid. II8f. +3 Frag. ΙΙ (Des Places).
« Handbook 10.2 +5 Ibid. 10.3. +6 Ibid. 14.7. +7 Ibid. 15.2.
48 QJιestίons and Aιιswers on Genesis Π.62 (tr. Marcus, LCL); the Greek text iS preserved by Eusebius,
Praeparatio Evangelica VII.13.1 (LCL, Philo, Supplemellt 1Ι, 203); cf. Segal, Τωο Powers, 164.
+9 ιΑ 59.5; 64-5; 2Α 5(6).3; Andresen, Logos ulldN01IlOS, 312ff.
JUSTIN'S WORLD
supporting Andresen's view, but, ίη its cont<;xt, 'by a word of God' refers
primarily tothe creative utterance of God in Genesis, just as it does at
Ps. 32(33): 6. The ambiguity of λόγψ might 'have permitted Justin to think
that Plato thought of creation as coming about from the mind of God, but
this is a long way from the agency of the Logos in creation implicit in the
use of the prepositions διά at John Ι: 3, or, for that matter, at Col. Ι: 16.
And although it is impossible to draw a firm line between λόγος as thing
and λόγ<?ς as person οτ acting subject, the, dative here suggests instrument
rather than agent (as is also the case ίη D 84.2, where, again, the primary
reference is to what God sqys ίη the Genesis creation story).
Another text to which Andresen refers is 2Α 5(6),3. As it stands ίη the
manuscript, this runs as follows: .Ήίs Son, the only one who is properly
caΠed his Son, is the Word vyho, before there were creatures, was with him
and was begotten, when ίη the beginning he adorned and created aΠ
things through him. He is called "Christ" because God anointed and
adorned the universe through him.' This looks like firm evidence for
Andresen's view, but we believe that the clause 'when ίη the beginning
he adorned and created aΠ things through him' is a gloss, and have excised
it from the edited text. As it stands ίη the manuscript, the passage has been
crucial to the argument that the distinction between logos endiαthetos and
logos prophorίkosis to be found inJustin. Goodenough noted ίη 1923 that 'the
controversy which is still unsettled concerning the passage springs from
the problem of the reference of the Οτε'.50 If the text of the manuscript
were to be allowed to stand, the present tense of γεννώμενος could only
mean that the begetting of the Logos takes place at the beginning of
creation. From this Semisch deduced that there was a distinction between
the Logos as begotten (prophorίkos), and the Logos as being with God before
there were creatures (endiαthetos).51 It was possibly to avoid the implication
that the Logos was begotten at the beginning of creation that Β, the
apograph of Α, changed both the verb and its aspect, reading the aorist
γενόμενος in place of γεννώ μ ενος.52 ButJustin cannot mean to say that the
Logos was begotten at the beginning of creation, for he stresses that
the Son was begotten bifόre creatures were made, not when (οτε), cf D 61.1;
62·4; 129·4, 5· The odd word-order of 'adorned and created' clearly
troubled the scribe of Α, for he marked the words to show that they should
be reversed, to give the order one would expect. 53 We propose that the
words we have excised were a gloss οη 'anointed54 and adorned' in the
following clanse. Moreover, if EKTιaE-'he created'-is not an explanatory
gloss it is otiose, and it is not, in any event, Justin's normal word for God's
50 Goodenough, Theology qfJustin ΛιfαψΤ, 154.
51 Semisch, Justill Ματ{Υτ, ii. 181-7.
52 Scaliger and Lange also supported this reading.
53 Aboνe εκοσμε και εκτισε is written γ, β, α, respectiνely.
5+ Here we haνe adopted an emendation proposed by Scaliger. See note ad loc.
 INTRODUCTION
creatiνe actlVlty: it occurs οηlΥ four other times in his works, three of
which are Septuagint quotations. The glossator has picked up the phrase
δι' αυτου, like the words κοσμέω and πάντα, from the text he is explaining,
but, as it happens, Justin nowhere else speaks of God creating things through
him, or through the Son, or through the Logos. Whereas he does say that the
Father teaches us through the Word (2Α 9.2), or through his Son (D 105.5), and
that he will raise us up through his Christ (D 46.7) and make judgement
throughJesus Christ (D 58.1).
Α third text cited by Andresen is ιΑ 64.5, where Justin claims that the
demons 'knew that God made the world, of which he formed a notion
through the Logos (εννΟYjθέντα τον θεον δια λόγου τον κόσμον ποιήσαι
εγνωσαν)'. Many translators haνe assumed that Justin does here assert that
God created the world through the Logos,55 but we belieνe they haνe done
so too readily. While the idea of God creating the world through the
Logos might be thought to be so commonplace as to be unaνoidable for
Justin, he does not, as we haνe seen, refer to it at all ίη any other place,
and, ίη the present passage, the meaning of the Greek is much better
caught by Hardy and by Wartelle: 'God designed the creation of the
world by the Word'; 'Dieu aνait cοης:u dans son intelligence la creation
du monde.' The words εννΟYjθέντα ... δια λόγου τον κόσμον should be
taken together, with the emphasis falling not οη λόγου but οη εννΟYjθέντα,
topicalized by its position at the beginning of the clause. This suggests that
the strongest sense that can be giνen to the statement that the world is
created λόγψ θεου at ιΑ 59.5 is that God creates the world purposively.
At D 114.3 editors since Maran haνe replaced the manuscript's TCVV
λόγων with the singular, to giνe either 'when he says, "Ι shall see the
heaνens, the work of your fingers" (Ps. 8: 4), unless Ι comprehend the
operation of his Word, Ι shall not understand the passage' (trans. Falls,
cf. Otto, Goodspeed, Marcovich); or ' ... unless Ι understand the Word to
be his operation ... ' (Maran). But Bobichon correcdy restores the
manuscript's plural. The meaning is that 'fingers' is to be taken as figura-
tiνe of the words by which God creates according to the narratiνe of
Genesis ι. This does not exclude a reference to the Logos, as Bobichon
himself notes. But,here again, Justin does not assign to the Logos the
personal, direcdy mediatorial role ίη the creation of the world that editors
and commentators would like to find ίη his writings.
There can, of course, be ηο question but that Justin belieνed that the
Logos or Son existed from before the creation. His remarkable coyness
55 Thus Otto: 'mundum a deo, postquam cogitavit, per logon conditum esse'; Davie: 'God, by his
Word, conceived and made the world'; Dods: 'God conceived and made the world by the Word'; Veil:
'Gott, nachdem er nachgedacht, die Welt durch (den) Vernunftgeist erschaffen hatte'; Pautigny: 'Dieu
avait d'abord cοnς:u dans sa pensee le monde qu'il fit par son Verbe'; Barnard: 'God conceived and
made the world through the logos'; Munier: 'Dieu a cree par son Logos le monde, qu'il avait d'abord
cοnς:u dans sa pensee"
JUSTIN'S WORLD
about ascribing a direcdy mediatorial role tq the Logos or Son ίη the work
of creation, especially whenset beside the fact that it is from God as creator
that Justin habitually distinguishes the Logos or Son,56 suggests that he was
chary of the idea-perhaps suspecting that it would proνide comfort for
gnostic heretics who sought to disparage creation and to deny that it was
the work of God.
The Logos Spermatikos
If the scriptural 'Word of God' is the primary and fundamental context of
Justin's Logos-doctrine, it cannot be denied thatJustin was attracted by the
resonances of Logos ίη the usage of contemporary pagan philosophy.
When he told the emperOl;s what 'reason' or 'sound reason' prescribes
or counsels (ιΑ 2.1; 3.1), he could be confident of being understood by
them, eνen if the word had a deeper meaning for him, which he would
eνentually reνeal to them (ιΑ 12.6).
As well as being identical with the Word through whom God reνealed
himself ίη the theophanies described ίη the Old Testament, and in those
scriptures themselνes, the Logos whom Justin belieνes has become
incarnate ίη Jesus of Nazareth57 also has an affinity with the principle by
means ofwhich human beings are able to think rationally (2Α 7(8).1). Οη
account of this, pagans who liνed according to reason, like Socrates and
Heraclitus, are entided to be called Christians, just as are those 'among
the barbarians' to whom the Word of God was reνealed (ιΑ 46.2-3). At
2Α 7(8).3 and 13.3 Justin refers to the (diνine) spermatic logos. The
meaning of this term and its antecedents ίη Greek philosophy haνe
been the subject of long-standing and νoluminous discussion. 58 1η Stoic
philosophy the term is employed, usually ίη the plural, to refer to 'the
actiνe principles of deνelopment of all things'.59 But Philo, while he
describes the diνine Logos as 'jnνisible and spermatic and skilful' in
deνeloping the mind, the power of speech, the senses, and the body,60 also
speaks of circumstances in which the spermatic logos and the right reason
that is generatiνe of all good things become useless to the soul,61 and
the term has undergone a similar transference in Justin from its orginal
physical context to an intellectual or moral one. 62 But, for Justin, the
spermatic logos is not itself to be found ίη the human mind. As Holte
noted, the adjectiνe is actiνe in meaning, and describes the diνine Logos
56 e.g. D 55.1; 56.1; 60.2; ιΑ 58.1. 57 2Α 10.1.
58 See esp. Andresen, Justin und der mittlere Platonismus', Ι]0-8; Waszink, 'Bemerkungen zu
Justins Lehre vom Logos Spermatikos'; Holte, 'Logos Spermatikos"
59 Bardy, 'SaintJustin et la philosophie stοϊcίenne', 39f.
60 Qyis Rerum Divinarum Hcι"es ΙΙ9; cf. Holte, 'Logos Spermatikos', 123.
61 Legum Allegorίa Πι'5Ι. 150, cf. Bardy, 'Saint Justin et la philosophie stοϊcίenne', 39.
62 Pohlenz, Die Stoa, ί. 412; Andresen, Justin und der mittlere Platonismus', 170.
66 INTRODUCTION
sowing seeds of reason in the minds of human beings, perhaps under
the influence of the gospel-parable of the sower (Mt 13.4-9).63 Though
'the seed of reason planted ίη the whole human race' (2Α 7(8), or 'the
implanted seed of logos' (2Α 13.5) may be described as a 'part of the
spermatic logos' (2Α 7(8).3; 13.3), it is not to be understood as being ίη
any sense identical with the Logos itself, nor is it to be understood as
possessing a seed-like ability to develop.64 The reference is simply to
human rationality, which can, with effort, attain to some knowledge of
divine and ethical truth, but not to that fullness which is revealed ίη the
incarnation of the whole Logos ίη Christ (2Α 7(8).3). Justin distinguishes
between 'the seed of something and an imitation of something' οη the one
hand, and 'the thing of which the imitation and participation are made'
οη the other (2Α 13.6). Thus, whenJustin says ofpagan writers that 'what
each of them proclaimed was good, when he saw from a part of the divine
spermatic logos what is connatural to it' (2Α 13.3), he means that human
rationality enabled them to perceive, though οηlΥ dimly, truths or realities
(τα σντα, 2Α 13.5) that are connatural with the LogoS.
65
The spirίt
Justin ranks the Spirit, which he frequently refers to as the prophetic Spirit,
ίη third place after the Father and the Word (ιΑ 13.3; cf. 60.7). At ιΑ 6.2
Justin seems to rank the Spirit after 'the other good angels' who follow the
Son, and are like him, and at ιΑ 33.6 he seems to identify the Logos with
the Spirit who overshadowed the virgin at the annunciation. It is possible,
however, that he thinks the Logos can be appropirately described as
'Spirit', just as at Lam. 4: 20 'the Spirit before our face' is 'Christ the Lord'
(ιΑ 55.5), and he certainly distinguishes regularly between the Spirit who
prophesies about Christ, and Christ himself.
Christians are baptized 'at the name of the Father of all and Lord God
and of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of holy Spirit' (ιΑ 61.3), and at the
eucharist the president offers praise and glory 'to the Father of all through
the name ofhis Son and ofthe holy Spirit' (ιΑ 65.3; cf. 67.2).
SCRIPTURE
The terms 'scripture' and 'scriptures' are common ίη the Diαlogue with
Trypho, where they always refer to the writings of the Old Testament. Ιη
the Apologies Justin refers οηlΥ once to the 'writings of Moses' (ιΑ 60.2),66
63 Holte, 'Logos Spermatikos', 137, 127. 64- Ibid. 142.
65 Cf. Waszink, 'Bemerkungen Ζυ Justins Lehre vom Logos Spermatikos', 385 f.
66 The MS refers to 'writings' at ιΑ 24.2 and 2Α 4(5)+ Ιη both places we have emended the text, as
have others. But the reference would not be to 'scriptures' even ifthe MS readings were correct.
JUSTIN'S WORLD
his preferred word for the books of the Old Testament being 'composi-
tίοηs'-συγγράμματα (ιΑ 62.4; 63.6; 67.3).67 This is presumably because he
thinks that the Jewish and Christian usage of 'scripture' will be unfamiliar
to his ίηteήded audience. Συγγράμματα is used for the works of Epicurus
and the poets at 2Α 12.5, andJustin uses the cognate words συγγραφεύς and
συγγράφω ('writer', Ί write') when referring to pagan writers and their
activity (ιΑ 18.5; 21.2; 22.1; 23.1; 31.2; 36.2; 44·8; 54·5; 59·1; 2Α 4(5)·5; 12·5;
13.2, 5). ~t is significant that the οηlΥ time the writings of the prophets are
referred to as συγγράμματα ίη the Diαlogue is at D 7.2, where the old man
tells the still-pagan Justin about them.
When introducing the sayings of Jesus in the First Apology Justin refers
to 'logoi' (ιΑ 14.5). He gives ηο indication where these sayings are to be
found written down, though when quoting the words of institution
(ιΑ 66.3) and when describing the Sunday eucharist (ιΑ 67.3) he refers to
'the memoirs' (απομνημονεύματα) of the apostles. He uses the cognate
verb when referring to 'those who recorded (οί απομνημονεύσαντες) every-
thing concerning our saviour Jesus Christ' (ιΑ 33.5).
When introducing his readers to the Old Testament prophets Justin
gives an account of how the prophetic Spirit proclaimed ahead of time,
through the prophets, what was going to happen; of how the prophets
themselves put these prophecies together ίη rolls, which were looked after
by the rulers of the Jews; and of how these Hebrew texts were translated
into Greek for Κing Ptolemy (ιΑ 31.1-4). Thereafter, particular prophecies
are introduced by such phrases as 'Moses spoke thus, ίη these very
words' (ιΑ 32.1), 'as it was said before through Moses, by the divine, holy,
prophetic Spirit' (ιΑ 32.2), 'hear how another prophet, Micah, foretold.
And he spoke thus' (ιΑ 34.1), and so οη.
Old Testαment
Justin's knowledge of the Old Testament was acquired from two kinds
of written source. He used Christian compilations of 'proof-texts', which
contained both quotations from the Old Testament and some exegetical
comment οη them, and also whole books of the Old Testament, probably
ίη the form of rolls, and probably written by Jewish, rather than Christian,
scribes. 68 Skarsaune proposes that Justin 'seems to have had permanent
or occasional access to complete scrolls of . . . the historical books from
Genesis through Joshua; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve
Prophets; and Psalms, Proverbs, and Daniel,,69 It should be borne ίη mind,
67 It is possible that at ιΑ 28.1 the word includes a reference to New Testament writings; cf. Hill,
'Was John's Gospel Among Justin's Apostolic Memoirs?', 89.
68 Skarsaune, Justin and his Bible', 56; Proqf.from Prophecy, 43f.
69 Skarsaune, Justin and his Bible', 58.
68 1NTRODUCT10N
however, that this conclusion is drawn from a study of the Diαlogue as well
as the FirstApology, and it is possible that it was only after he had completed
the Apologies that Justin had access to some of these scrolls. 70 Οη the
other hand, Justin felt himself obliged ίη the Diαlogue to use a scriptural
text which his Jewish interlocutors would accept (D 71.2), whereas, as
Skarsaune shows, the testimony-sources had great authority for him, as it
was from them that he learnt his exegesis. 71
That so many things about Christ were foretold so long ago, and have
turned out to happen just as it was foretold they would, is, for Justin, proof
of the truth of Christian claims, and of the reasonableness of Christianity.
Prophecy is thus central to his understanding of Christianity, and it is
unsurprising that it should bulk so large ίη the First Apology. Ιη themselves,
the prophetic utterances are opaque, ΟΓ enigmatic-they cannot be under-
stood apart from their fulfilment ίη Christ (ιΑ 32.2).
Justin believed that Plato and other pagan writers had access to the
Hebrew scriptures, and derived from them a confused understanding of
Christian truths (ιΑ 5g.1-6g.II). Because they took their 'starting points'
from the prophets, 'there seem to be seeds of truth amongst all', but their
contradictions show that they did not accurately understand what they
read there (ιΑ 44.9-1Ο).
New Testαment: Gospels
As we have seen, Justin refers ίη the First Apology to the 'memoirs of the
aposdes'. The same term is found some thirteen times ίη the Diαlogue. At
ιΑ 66.3 Justin says that these memoirs are called 'Gospels'. 72 Bellinzoni
shows that the collection of sayings of Jesus at ιΑ 15.1-17.4 is drawn from
an already-existing compilation, possibly made for catechetical purposes,
and not from the text of the Gospels themselves,73 and it is likely that other
Gospel materials ίη the First Apology are also derived from intermediate
sources, such as texts which presented Old Testament prophecies and then
showed these to have been fulfilled ίη the life of Jesus. 74 Although these
testimonies drew chiefly upon the Synoptics, most frequendy Matthew
but 'often harmonized with Luke', they also made use of the Gospel of
John. 75 Skarsaune proposes that ίη the section of the Diαlogue where most
of the references to the 'memoirs' occur, Justin is making direct use of the
canonical Gospels. 76 Hill argues that Justin's claim at D 105.1 that he has
70 Cf. Skarsaune, Proqf.from Prophecy, '28, 38f., 50,8'2. 71 Ibid. 90f.
72 At D 100.1 Justin speaks of something being 'written ίη the Gospel'; cf. D 10.'2, where Trypho
refers to 'the commands ίη the so-called Gospel'.
73 Bellinzoni, The Sf9!ings qfJesus, 49-100.
7+ Skarsaune, Justin and his Bible', 65 f. 75 Ibid. 67 f. 76 lbid. 66.
JUST1N'S WORLD 6g
proved that Jesus is the monogenes of the Father, 'begotten of him ίη a
peculiar manner as Word and Power, and later having become man
through the virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs',77 shows that the
Gospel of John must be included among the memoirs known to him.
Other New Testαment Writings
Of the o,ther boo~s now included ίη the New Testament Justin certainly
knew the RevelatlOn of John (D 81.4). He nowhere refers to the Pauline
letters by name, but Skarsaune argues convincingly that he was familiar
with them, especially Romans and Galatians, and that they supplied him
with 'important scriptural quotations, and guidance as to the meaning of
these texts'. 78
DEMONS
Especially in view of Justin's claim to be a philosopher, the modern reader
cannot fail to be struck by the frequency with which he makes reference to
'wicked demons' (δαίμοvεs Φαύλοι). Paradoxically, it is precisely because he
is a philosopher that he does this. The demons are brought ίη to explain
how it is that things go wrong in a world designed by a good and rational
creator. They cause human beings to prefer what is irrational to what
. .
lS ratlOna,
1 79 good people to be persecuted, 80 and lifeless gods to be
worshipped. 81 They spread lies about Christian behaviour,82 provoke
Christians to heresy, 83 and seek to deflect people from understanding the
truth of the prophecies by inventing myths about the pagan gods that have
superficial similarities to Christian doctrines and practices. 84 They are the
result of sexual union between women and angels to whom God assigned
the providential care of human beings and 'things beneath the firma-
ment'.85 The origin of this seems to be Jewish speculation based upon
G en. 6 : 1-4. 86 Just1n
. ,s Vlews
. a b out d emons m1ght
. not have been universally
scorned by his pagan contemporaries. According to Plutarch (De Stoicorum
Repugnαntiis 1051C=SVFII.1178), Chrysippus had also considered the possi-
bility that it was because of wicked demons (δαιμονία Φαύλα) that evil
befell good human beings.
77 Tr. Hill, 'Was John's Gospel Among Justin's Apostolic Jl.ιfemoirs?', 89.
78 Skarsaune, Justin and his Bible', 74. 79 ιΑ 5.'2; 10.6; lμ; 54-1; 5].Ι; 58.3; 2Α 4(5)04-
80 ιΑ 5.3; 1'2.5; 63.10; 2Α 1.'2; 6(7).3; 7(8).'2. 81 ιΑ 9.1; 1'2.5; '2Ι.5; '25.3; 41.1.
82 2Α 1'2.3. 83 ιΑ '26.'2, 5; 56.1; 58.1. 84- ιΑ '23.3; '26.1; 44.1'2; 54.3; 6'2.1-'2; 64.1; 66+
85 2Α 4(5).'2-3.
86 Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 1.73 and ι Enoch 19: ι (Charlesworth, Old Testαιnent Pseudepigrapha 1), with
Skarsaune, PlvqfJιvm Prophecy, 368f.
 INTRODUCTION
JUSTIN'S ACHIEVEMENT ΙΝ ΤΗΕ APOLOGIES
Whetheror ηοΙ Justin's defence of the Christians ever found its way into
the hands of those to whom it was addressed is unknown. If it did, it
clearly failed in its purpose. Nevertheless, Eusebius' claim that Justin's
works had been thought wotthy of regard to the intervening generations
of Christians is borne out, not οηlΥ by the citation ίη Irenaeus to which
Eusebius refers,87 but also by the obvious influence of Justin οη Tatian,
Athenagoras, and Tertullian. 88 If Andresen is correct ίη identifYing Justin
as the object of Celsus' attack ίη Alethes Logos,89 then Justin succeeded ίη
engaging the sustained attention, though not the admiration, of a pagan
critic. Moreover, ίη this way Justin is indirectly responsible for Origen's far
more detailed and sophisticated defence of Christianity ίη Contrα Celsum.
Christianity ίη Rome would never again know such intellectual vitality
and diversity as it enjoyed ίη the second and third centuries. That some
elements of this ferment were unwelcome to some Roman Christians we
know from Justin himself. It is likely that it is to Justin that we owe the very
category of 'heresiology'. 90 If this is so, it might be said that ηο other
Christian writer after the Ν ew Testament had so large and enduring an
impact οη the shaping of Christian discourse. But Justin's achievement
deserves to be seen ίη more positive terms than this. For, however one
judges his allegiance to or knowledge of Greek philosophy, Justin
remained a philosopher ίη the proper sense of one who tries, at least, to
argue rationally and with discrimination for what he or she considers to be
true. Ιη this way Justin avoided the excesses of gnostic contemporaries
and of radical Christians like Marcion οη the one hand, and of pious
enthusiasts like Hermas οη the other, so as to set a pattern for mainstream
Christians of offering a defence (α.πολογίαν) to anyone who asked for an
account (λόγον) ofthe hope that they held (cf. ι Pet. 3: 15), The pathJustin
cut through the thickets of contemporary speculation, Jewish, pagan, and
Christian, was to become, from shortly after his death until the present, the
broad highway of Christian theology.
87 HEΊV.I8.9, citing Irenaeus, AHV.6.2.
88 C[ S. Parvis, Justin Martyr and the Apologetic Tradition"
89 Logos und Nomos, 308 ff. 90 Le Boulluec, La Notion d'!zenfsie, ί. 35 [
4
ΤΗΕ APPARATUS CRITICUS
The apparatus aims to set out the direct evidence of Α, and very
occasionally of its apograph Β, and of its descendant C, with the indirect
evidence of the citations ίη Eusebius, the Sαcrα Pαrαllelα, and the Chronicon
Pαschαle. We have argued above that οηlΥ Α and Eusebius are of value for
the constitution of the text, aρd their evidence is, accordingly, set out fully.
We mark every variant ίη our text from Α, where the variant has to do
with the letter-string. We add iota subscripts, which the manuscript does
not consistently have. We do not mark variation of accent, breathing, or
punctuation, except where this might serve a particular purpose. For the
presence or absence of ν movables we have followed the reading of Α, or,
for the lacuna where Α does not exist, Schwartz's edition of Eusebius.
Nominα sαcrα have been silently expanded, except where appropriate ίη the
apparatus. For the spelling of the proper name Moses we have employed
the form Μουσ- throughout, but have noted all variants ίη Α. 'Μ.' is
employed when the name occurs ίη variants cited from other editors,
whatever spelling they employ.
With the exceptions just noted, we aim to report fully minor ortho-
graphical variants ίη Α, as well as its marginal readings, despite our view
that the latter have οηlΥ the value of conjectures. The orthographical
evidence is, however, of some interest in helping us estimate the nature of
the text we are dealing with: it was one of the pieces of evidence which led
us earlier to suggest that we are dealing with the handiwork of a scholarly
Byzantine compiler.
Ιη addition to a full report of the citations from Eusebius, we present the
readings of Sαcrα Pαrαllelα, and Chronicon Pαschαle, despite their limited
value.
We feel that it is important to give a comprehensive presentation of the
Eusebian evidence ίη particular. Accordingly, intra-Eusebian variants are
recorded, even when they would appear to be fairly clearly secondary, ίη
order to avoid the possible circularity of reconstructing the text of Justin
with the help of a text of Eusebius that was itself reconstructed with one
eye οη Justin.
We have cited the Greek of the Historiα Ec'clesiαsticα from the magisterial
edition by Eduard Schwartz; Rufinus' Latin from Mommsen's text that
accompanied the Schwartz edition; and the Syriac directly from the
edition of Wright and McLean. The system we have adopted for citing
 1NTRODUCT10N
ΤΗΕ APPARATUS CR1T1CUS
73
the text of Eusebius is as follows. The siglum 'Eus' when used οη its own sigla, and for the Chronicon Pαschαle we have .used the edition of the Βοηη
refers to the totality of the available Eusebian evidence. When it is Corpus.
necessary to distinguish the three versions, this is done by the symbols
'Eus (Gr) ,, 'Eus (Lat) ,, and 'Eus (Syr)" When it is necessary to indicate
SOURCES OF CONJECTURAL READINGS
intra-Eusebian variants within the Greek tradition, this is done by using
'Eus (Gr*)' to represent the text adopted by Schwartz and by specifying the
MSS that offer an alternative reading,in the form 'Eus (Α)', 'Eus (Τ)', and The following names appear ίη our apparatus. Ιη the initial selection of
readir,ιgs that mig~t b~ worthy of attention, we were assisted by the rich
so οη, where the letters are Schwartz's sigla for individual MSS. 1 For each
fragment we give a list of available Greek witnesses, following Schwartz's selectlOll.of matenals ιη Otto and Marcovich but we have examined the
apparatus. It may, then, be inferred that all of those MSS not specifically first editions of all the. major edit?rs and s; have been able silendy to
named at any point ίη the apparatus offer the reading indicated by correct a nu~ber of slιps. Ιη the lIst below we put an asterisk by works
'Eus (Gr*)'-that is, that they agree with Schwartz's text. Οη one occasion we have examIned ourselves. Νames without an asterisk may be presumed
the same system has been adopted for 'Eus (Lat*)', using Mommsen's MS to have been taken from Marcovich, unless otherwise specified ίη the
sigla. apparatus ad loc. Early editions for which bibliographical information
h~s . already bee~ given ίη full and later works which appear ίη the
Where we deem the translations of Eusebius not to bear οη the point
blbllOgraphy are lIsted here οηlΥ ίη summary form.
at issue-either because of periphrasis or because of the structure of the
language involved-we cite Eus (Gr) but omit Eus (Lat) or Eus (Syr) as Ashton, Charles* ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ / ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΥ /
the case may be. This is particularly common with Eus (Lat), because of ΚΑΙ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΣ / ΑΠΟΛΟΓΙΑΙ / ΥΠΕΡ
the nature ofRufinus' translation technique. ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΩΝ. / SANCTI JUSTINI PHILO-
Ιη citing editors, we have tried to give a picture of what could be called SOPHI / ΕΤ MARTYRIS / APOLOGIAE / PRO
CHRISTIANIS/ GRAECE ΕΤ LATINE. / Inter-
the modern consensus by citing Ott0 3 , Blunt, Goodspeed, Marcovich, and
pretationem Latinam ad Graeca aptius / accom-
Munier 2 whenever the text they print varies from that of Α. The symbol modavit, et Annotationes adjecit / CAROLUS
edd refers to all five of those editions; where they differ, those that do not ASHTON, S.T.P. / Collegii JESU apud Canta-
agree with Α are cited by name. For the lacuna ίη Α at 2Α 2-16 these brigienses nuper Custos. / CANTABRIGIAE, /
editors are cited οηlΥ if they do not agree with the first -given witnesses for TYPIS ACADEMICIS EXCUDIT J. ARCH-
the text of Eusebius. DEACON. / PROSTANT VENALES IBIDEM /
Where we have shown conjectures, 'coniec.' means a conjecture of our APUD Τ. & J. MERRILL, et J. WOODYER. /
OWll, Jortαsse means a conjecture of our own which we regard as plausible M.DCC.LXVIII
but have chosen not to adopt as our text. We have not attempted to present Bellios, G. Κριτικα{ TιVES παραΤ7jρήσειs Eis τον Άθ7jναγόρον
anything like a full repertory of earlier conjectures, but we have recorded (Athens, 1858)
Billy Gacobus Billius)* Sαcrαe Observαtiones, cited from Sylburg (1593),
those that struck us as being interesting or significant. Because early
editors often felt it incumbent οη them to print a textus receptus even if they ΡΡ·435- 6
Boll, F. C.* 'Uber das Verhaltnis'
disagreed with it, we have tried to attribute the conjecture to the first editor Braun,Johann WilhelmJ.* S. Iustini philosophi et mαr!)!ris αpologiαe, 3rd edn.,
we know to have suggested or considered it, even if he eventually rejected C. Gutherlet (Leipzig, 1883)
it or returned an open verdict. It may be noted that here 'Schwartz' refers Bucheler, F.* 'Aristides und Justinus die Apologeten'
to Eduard Schwartz's edition of Eusebius' Historiα Ecclesiαsticα, either in Casaubon, Isaac Antibαronius Mαgenelis) seu Animαdversiones in Annαles cαr­
the apparatus or in the introduction (ΥοΙ 3, ρρ. CLIV-CLVIII), while dinαlis Bαronii (Amsterdam, 1675)
'Schwartz (1888)' refers to his article 'Observationes profanae et sacrae" Davies, John* 'Notae', ίn Thirlby, ρρ. 441-3
For the Sαcrα Pαrαllelα we have used the edition of Holl, with its apparatus Fabricius,Johann Albert* Bibliothecα Grαecα (Hamburg, 1704-28)
Gildersleeve, Basil L. * The Apologies qf Justin Mαr!)!r. Το which is αdded the
Epistle to Diognetus (New York, 1877)
1 There should be ηο confusion between the use of Α to designate Pαrisinus grαecus 450 and
Grabe,J. Ε.* Oxford, 1700 and 1703
Schwartz's use of Α to designate the Eusebian MS Pαlisinus g1Ίlecus 1430, since the latter, wherever we Hagen, Η. 'Beitrage zur Erklarung der ersten Apologie des
cite it, is always enclosed ίη parentheses and immediately preceded by the siglum Eus, whereas the hl. Justinus', Zeitschri.fl.fiir Philosophie und kαtholische
former never appears within parentheses.
TheologI:e, 65 (1848), 35-67
74 INTRODUCTION ΤΗΕ APPARATUS CRITICUS 75
Κrίiger,
G. * Freiburg ί. Β., 1896 Valesius (Henri Valois)* Eusebii Pamphili Ecclesiasticαe historiae (Paris, 1659)
Lange Goannes Langus)* DIVI / IVSTINI, PHILO- / SOPHI ΕΤ MARTY- Veil, Η.* Strassburg, 1894
/ ris Christi, / OPERVM, QVAE ΕΧΤΑΝΤ, Wolf (Hieronymus Volfius)* 'annotationes, e libro eius sua manu excerptas', ίn
ΟΜΝΙΥΜ / per ΙΟΑΝΝΕΜ LANGVM Silesium, Sylburg
a Graeco ίn Latinum / sermonem uersorum, &
Sentent~s priscorum san- / ctorum Patrum
illustratorum, / Tomi ΠΙ / ... / Cum rerum & uerbo-
rum Indice copioso. / Cum Caes. Maiest. & priuilegio. /
BASIL1AE, PER AMBROSIVM ΕΤ / AVRELIVM,
Frobenos.fratres. (The colophon at the end ofTom. ΠΙ
gives the date MDLXV Mense Martio (foΙ [ΥΥ
5 ν].)
Le Clerc Goannes Clericus) Bibliotheque choisie, pour servir de suite α Ζα Bibliotheque
universelle (Amsterdam, 1703-18), Historia ecclesiαsticα
duorum primorum α Christo nato saeculorum (Amsterdam,
1716)
Leutsch, Ε.* Philologus, 20 (1863),465
Lightfoot,J. Β.* The Apostolic Fathers, Part Π, S. Ignatius. S. Ρο lycαrp ,
3 vols., 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1889)
Maran, Ρ.* Paris, 1742
Nolte, Ioannes Henricus* 'Notae', ίn PG 6, 1729-36
Pautigny, L. * Paris, 1904
Pearson, CΙ * 'Annotationes', ίn Thirlby, ρρ. 439-40
Perion Goachimus
Perionius)* Paris, 1554
Pfattisch,Joannes Maria* Der Einjluss Platos αιq die Theologie ]ustins des Mαrtyrers
(Paderborn, 1910)
Saumaise (Claudius
Salmasius) Historiae augustae scriptores VI (Paris, 1620)
Scaliger, J. 'Animadversiones in Eusebii Chronologiam', ίn
Eusebii . . . Chronicorum cαnonum omnimodae historiae libri
duo (Amsterdam, 1606)
Schmid, W* 'Textϋberlieferung'
Schwartz, Ε.* Eusebius Werke, Π, Die Kirchengeschichte
Schwartz, Ε. (1888)* 'Observationes profanae et sacrae'
Semisch, C. * ]ustin Martyr
Sibinga,Joost Smit* The Old Testament Text qf]ustin Martyr, ι, The Pentateuch
(Leiden, 1963)
Skarsaune, Ο. * Proqf.from Prophecy
Stephanus, Η. Iustini philosophi & martyris epist. ad Diognetum &
oratio ad Graecos ... Excudebat Henricus Stephanus,
M.D.XCII.
Stephanus, R. * Paris, 1551 (editio princeps)
Sylburg (Fridiricus
Sylburgius)* Heidelberg, 1593
Thalemann, Christian Iustini Martyris Apologiae e recensione Grabiana (Leipzig,
1755)
Thirlby, Styan* London, 1722
 SIGLA 77
Sac Par* text read by Holl where variants occur within the tradition of Sac
Par .
MSS cited individually where their text dijfers fι-om Sac Par*
SIGLA R RupifUcαldinus (Berolinensis) 1,450 (XIIth or XIIIth)
L a Lαurentianus Plut. 8,22 (XIVth)
Chronicon Pαschale (ed. Dindorf, 1832)

M,!nuscripts of the Apologies

Α Parisinus graecus 450
Αmrg = first hand unless otherwise specifιed
J

Α* = original reading qfΑ where thΊS Ίs α coTTection

ACt, Ac2, and Ac3 = correctors who cαn be dΊStinguΊShed
AC = the corrector cαnnot be identifιed
pr m = prima manu
Β (once Claromontanus 82; British Museum Loan 36) (2 Apr. 1541)
C Ottobonianus graecus 274 (XVIth century)

Citations
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiasticα (ed. Schwartz and Mommsen, 1903-9)
Eus agreement of Eus (Gr), Eus (Lat), and Eus (Syr)
Eus (Gr) agreement of all Greek MSS cited by Schwartz
Eus (Gr*) Greek text read by Schwartz where intra-Eusebian variants occur
MSS cited individually where their text dijfers.from Eus (Gr*)
Α Parsinus graecus 1430 (XIth)
a Vαticαnus graecus 399 (XIth)
(apograph of Α, cited only where the former has lost a leaf)
Τ Lαurentianus Plut. 70, 7 (Xth or XIth)
Ε Lαurentianus Plut. 70, 20 (Xth)
Η MosquensΊSJ synodal. 50 (ΧΙΙ ?)
Β Parisinus graecus 1431 (XIth or ΧΙ!)
D Parίsinus graecus 1433 (XIth or XIIth)
Μ Marcianus graecus 338 (XIIth ?)
ln citations.from SchwartZ superscript m= marginal note
J

superscript c= 'old' corrector

superscript r= recent corrector
Eus (Lat) agreement of all Latin MSS of Rufinus cited by Mommsen
Eus (Lat)* text ofRufinus read by Mommsen where intra-Latin variants occur
MSS cited individually where their text dijfers.from Eus (Lat*)
Ν Parsinus latinus 18,282 (VIIIth)
Ρ Vαticαnus Palatinus latinus 822 (IXth)
F Lαtinus Monoacensis 6,375 (IXth or Xth)
Eus (Syr) Syriac text ofWright and McLean (1898)

Sacra Parallela (ed. Holl, 1899)

Sac Par agreement of all manuscripts cited by Holl
TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS
 ΊΟ ΥΣΤΙΝΟ Υ ]US'IIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ
ΆΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ (ΥΠΕΡ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΩΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 1
προς ΆΝΤΩΝΙΝΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΕΥΣΕΒΉ
ι.ι. Tothe emperor Titus Aelius Hadrian Antoninus Pius Augustus
Caesar, and to Verissimus his son, philosopher, and to Lucius, the son
of Caesar, by nature and of Pius by adoption, lover of learning,2 Ι, Justin,
(201 a 6) ι. Ι Αυτοκράτορι Τίτψ Αιλίψ Άδpιανιj) Άντωνίνψ Ευσεβει son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchios who both come from Flavia
ΣεβασTιj) Καίσαρι και Oυηpισσίμψ,υίιj), ΦιλοσόΦψ, και Λουκίψ, Καίσαρος Ν eapolis ίη Syria Palaestina, have drawn up this address and petition οη 5
Φύσει υίιj) και Ευσεβούς εισΠOιηTιj), EpaaTn παιδείας, ύπερ των εκ παντος behalf of a group, to which Ι myself belong, drawn from every race of
γένους άνθρώπων άδίκως μισουμένων και επηρεαζομένων 'Ιουστινος human beings, who are being unjustly hated and abused.
5 Πρίσκου τού Βακχείου των άπο Φλαουίας Νέας πόλεως τΤις Συρίας Παλ-
ι 1') 1"\ \ Φ ,ι /
C ι
αιστινης, εις αυτων, την προσ ωνησιν και ενTευ~ ιν πεποιημαι.
\ 2.Ι. Reason prescribes that those who are truly pious and philosophers
should honour and hold ίη affection the truth alone, refusing to go along
with the opinions of the men of old, should these be of ηο value. For not !Ο
2.ι. 2 τους κατα άλήθειαν ευσεβεις και ΦιλοσόΦους μόνον τάληθες τιμαν οηlΥ does sound reason prescribe that those who do ΟΓ teach anything
και στέργειν ό λόγος υπαγορεύει, παραιτουμένους δόςαις παλαιων wrong should not be followed, but the lover of truth must ίη every way,
εςακολουθειν, αν Φαύλαι ώσιν' ου γαρ μόνον μη Επεσθαι τοις άδίκως τι even, if death is threatened, ίη preference to his own life, choose to say and
ι t. ,\ δ ογματισασιν
Ι ~ Ι Φ λ ι ~ ι 'λλ" \
10 πpα~ ασιν η ο σω ρων ογος υπαγορευει, α εκ παντος
to do what is right. 2.2. Turning to you then, you hear οη all sides people
τρόπου και προ τΤις έαυτού ψυχΤις τον Φιλαλήθη, καν θάνατος άπειλΤιται, τα calling you pious and philosophers and guardians of justice and lovers of 15
δίκαια λέγειν τε και πράττειν αίρεισθαι δει. 2.2. ύμεις μεν οδν, ότι λέγεσθε learning. 3 But whether ίη fact you are remains to be seen. 2.3. For it was
ευσεβεις και ΦιλόσοΦοι, και Φύλακες δικαιοσύνης (201 b) και ερασται παιδ­ not to flatter you with this document ηΟΓ to win your favour by our speech
είας άκούετε πανταχού' ει δε και υπάρχετε, δειχθήσεται. 2.3. ου γαρ that we appeared4 before you. It was rather to demand that you give
15 κολακεύσοντες ύμας δια τωνδε των γραμμάτων, ουδε προς χάριν όμιλήσον- judgement ίη accordance with careful and exacting reason, instead of
'λλ' ,ι
τες, α
\ \ , β ~ \, t.
απαιτησοντες κατα τον ακρι η και ε~εTασΤΙKoν
\ λ ογον
ι \ ι
την κρισιν

Ι αυτοκράτορι ... πεποίημαι αρ Eus HEΊV.12. Eus (Gk [=ATERBDMJ Lat Syr)
2.1 τους κατα ... αίρεισθαι δει SaC Ρατ Holl 94

ο 10υστίνου coniec] του αύτου άγίου 10υστίνου Α; του άγίου 10υστίνου ΦιλοσόΦου και μάρτυρος Otto
Blunt Aιfarcovich Aιfuniel" ο Άπολογία edd] Άπολογία δευτέρα Α; Άπολογία πρώτη Grabe
1 Ευσεβει Σεβαστψ Καίσαρι και ουηρισσίμψ Α] Ευσεβει Καίσαρ ι Σεβαστψ και ουηρισσίμψ Eus (Gr*
Lat Syr); Καίσαρι Σεβαστψ και ουηρισσίμψ Eus (Dl); Ευσεβει Σεβαστψ και Καίσαρι ουηρισσίμψ 1 The MS calls this the Secol1d Apology oJ Saillt ]ustin 01l Beha1f oJ Christialls to AntollillUs Pius. Οη the

Sylburg Marcovich; Σεβαστψ Ευσεβει και ουηρισσίμψ Καίσαρι Σεβαστου Schwartz; Ευσεβει Σεβαστψ numbering of the Apologies, see Introduction, ρρ.14-15, 21-31. Our restoration is of a title that might
Καίσαρι και ουηρισσίμψ Καίσαρι Σεβαστου MUllier 2 Λουκίψ coniec] Λουκίψ ΦιλοσόΦρψ Α Eus (Α); plausibly have been used when the work first circulated within Christian communities ίη the years after
Λουκίψ ΦιλοσόΦου Eus (Gr*) ΦιλοσόΦψ και Λουκίψ ΦιλοσόΦου καίσαρος Φύσει υίψ και ευσεβους Justin's death. Otto, Blunt, NIarcovich, and Munier add 'philosopher and martyr', from the MS's title
εισποιψψ EpaaTi! παιδείας Eus (Gr* Lat)] ΦιλοσόΦψ και Λουκίψ ΦιλοσόΦψ καίσαρος Φύσει υίψ και of the Secol1d Apology. The use of 'saint', as well as 'philosopher and martyr', would not have been
ευσεβους εισποιψψ EpaaTi! παιδείας Α Eus (Α); and Lucius, Caesar's son Eus (Syr); ΦιλοσόΦψ EpaaTi! impossible editorial additions when the work was circulated after Justin's death; cf. the phrase 'the holy
παιδείας Schwαι-tΖ; ΦιλοσόΦψ Nfarcovich 3 ύπερ coniec] ίεΡi!- τε συγκλήτψ και δήμψ παντι 'Ρωμαίων martyrs' ίη the Letter oJthe Churches oJVielllle alld Lyol1S (Eusebius, HEV.I.I6).
ύπερ Α; ίεΡi!- {the whole Eus (Syr)} τε συγκλήτψ και παντι δήμψ 'Ρωμαίων ύπερ Eus (Gr) 2 Οη the persons to whom the Apology is addressed see Introduction, ΡΡ.34-41.

4 ανθρώπων Α] ανθρώπων θεοσεβων Marcoviclz 5 Βακχείου Α Eus (Gr*)] Βακχέου Eus (DM); 3 Cf. Aelius Aristides, R01I1α1l OratiOll 106-7 and 38 (righteousness of the emperor) and Plato, Republic

Bacchiadis Eus (Lat) ΦλαουL"ας Α] Φλαυίας Eus (Gr); om Eus (Lat Syr) Νέας Πόλεως Α Eus ΥΙΙ. 540b, 'guardians should devote the gl'eatel' part of their time to philosophy'. The phrase 'lover(s)
(Gr*)] Νεαπόλεως Eus (DM Lat Syr) Tijς Συρίας Α Eus (Gr*)] Συρίας Tijς Eus (Β); om Eus (Lat Syr) of paideia' is ίη fact quite rare. It occurs in Plato, PΓotagorαs 343a, but according to TLG the only other
6 εΙς αύτων Α Eus (Gr*)] εις αυτων ων Eus (ΑΤ) Grabe Otto Blullt Mal"COvich; om Eus (Syr) πεποίημαι occurrences to the end ofthe 3rd cent. AD are Plutal'ch, Μαι-ceΙΙus 1.2 (cited in our Introduction, Ρ.38);
Α (post πεποίημαι vacat spatium circiter 12 litterarum, usque ad finem lineae) Eus (Gr*)] ποιήσομαι Cebetis Tαbula 13.1; and four times ίη Philo (De CorifUsi01le Lίιιguαι-um 166; QJtis ReΙ-U/ll DiVillα1"Unz Hael"es Sit
Eus (Α); ποιουμαι Eus (Β); defero Eus (Lat) 8 παλαιων Α] πολλων Sac Ρατ, των πολλων Sclzmid 180; De Fuga et 11lvelltione 45; De Solnlliis Ι.49).

9 εξακολουθειν αν Α] ακολουθειν εαν Sac Ραι- !Ο σώΦρων Sac Ρατ edd] σόΦρων Α 12 οδν στι 4- Editol's emend the plupeΓfect to the pel'fect. We have retained the MS reading, supposing Justin to

λέγεσθε Α] οδν Η. Stephanus Marcoviclz; οδν λέγεσθε Ashtoll 15 γραμμάτων A tex1 πραγμάτων Affirg be referring to the process of thought which led to his appeal'ance.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

ποιήσασθαι προσεληλύθειμεν, μη προλήψει μηδ' άvθρωπαΡεσκε{q, TiJ
δεισιδαιμόνων κατεχομένους, ~ άλόγιΡ όρμiJ και XpOV{q, προκατεσχηκv{q,
Φ'ήμτι KaKiJ την καθ'. έαυτων ψηΦον Φέροντας. 2.4. rιμεις μεν γαρ προς
ουδενος πε{σεσθα{ Τι κακον δύνασθαι λελογ{σμεθα, ~ν μη κακ{ας εργάται
5 ελεγχώμεθα ~ πονηροι διεγνώσμεθα· ύμεις δ' άποκτειναι μεν δύνασθε
βλάψαι δ' ου.
being held fast by preconception or the desire to please superstitiouS
men and, prompted by irrational impulse an'd long-entrenched ill-repute,
giving a verdict which would actually be against yourselves. 2.4. We,on
the other hand, consider that ηο evil can be done to us by anyone,
provided we are not shown to be evil-doers or found to be wicked} You 5
have the power to kill us, but not to harm us. 2

3.1. Άλλ' ίνα μη αλογον Φωνην και τολμηραν δόςτι Τις ταυτα εΊναι, 3.1. But, lest it be supposed that these are reckless and senseless words,3
άςιουμεν τα κατηγορούμενα rιμων αυτων εςετάζεσθαι και εαν ούτως εχοντα we ask that the charges made against our own people 4 be investigated and,
άποδεικνύωνται κολαζέσθωσαν ώς πρέπον εστ{ν· ει δε μηδεν εχοι Τις if shown to be true, let them be punished,S as they should be. If, οη the
10 ε
'λ εγχειν,
ι ,
ουχ
(
υπαγορευει
Ι ο
('λ θ'
α η ης
λ ογος
ι δ'
ια
Φ ημην
Ι πονηραν
"
αναιτιους
ι other hand, ηο one is able to prove anything against them,6 true reason 10

άνθρώπους άδικειν, μαλλον δε κολάζειν τους οί' ου κρ{σει άλλα πάθει τα does not counsel that anyone sh9u1d harm the innocent just because
wicked things are said of th~m. It counsels rather to punish 7 those 8 who

ι Munier2 points out that the verb διαγινώσκω occurs only here and at ιΑ 68.9, ίπ the rescript of
Hadrian (where we propose that it is a translation of the forensic term cognoscere), and says that this
shows the importance Justin accorded to the rescript in his properly forensic argument.
2 Α much-repeated commonplace from Plato, Apology 30c. Justin's language is closer to later
versions; cf. Epictetus Diαtribes ι'29.18; Π.2.15; Πι'23.21; Ellcheiridion 534; Cassius Dio, Historiα
62(61).154; Plutarch, De Trαllquillitαte Allimi 475e, etc.
3 Lit. 'a meaningless speech-act'.

+ The MS has simply αυτων, 'ofthem', which has πο antecedent. Marcovich refers it to θεοσεβων,
'god-fearing', which he had introduced ίπ ιΑ ι. But οπ this reading Justin will have described as
'god-fearing' those whom he now admits might have been shown οπ investigation to be deserving of
punishment. Veil had proposed έαυτων. Munier leaves the Greek unchanged, but translates 'les
accusations portees contre nous'. Our proposed emendation ήμων αυτων would not need to imply that
Justin himself was under investigation. Lucian says 'we told off thirty of our number (απεκρ{ναμεν
ήμων αυτων τριάκοντα) to stay and guard the ship, and twenty to go inland with me and look over
the island' (Tirαe Historiαe Ι.6, tr. Harmon, LCL). 1t is the request that charges against ChΓίstίans be
investigated that shows thatJustin's WΟΓds are not 'reckless and senseless'.
5 Editors follow the MS ίπ [eading the passive infinitive κολάζεσθαι. This is harsh both linguistically
and rhetorically. Linguistically, because the natural reading of the sentence would assume that the
neuter τα κατηγορούμενα is the subject of κολάζεσθαι. But the veΓb is normally used of punishing
offenders rathel" than offences (cf. Trollope); hence Otto and Blunt propose that αυτού, must be
understood. Rhetorically, a petition for the punishment of convicts is otiose. Justin refers again to the
[escγipt of Hadrian appended to the Apology, which prescribes that vexatious accuseΓS are to be
punished.
6 Cf. the rescript ofHadrian, ιΑ 68.10: 'ifthen SOllleOne should make an accusation and prove people
did something against the laws' (εϊ τι, οδν κατηγορει και δε{κνυσί τι).
7 We have inserted κολάζειν after μιiλλoν δΙ The phrase μιiλλoν δε κολάζειν occurs slightly earlier in
the MS, after ώς πρέπον έστί ('as they should be'). Most editors excise it as a gloss. We think that μιiλλoν
δε κολάζειν was indeed WΓίtten ίπ the margin at some stage ίπ the textual transmission, but with the
intention that μιiλλoν δέ should serve as a lemma, showing where ίη the text κολάζειν should be
inserted. Α later scribe has wrongly incorporated both the correction and the lemma into the text, and
at the wrong point. 1t is impossible to say whether this was the initial cause of the shίΡWΓeck of this
sentence. Our restoration allows the semi-technical term αξιόω ('ask, request, petition') to be used ίπ
the same sense ίπ both its occurrences in this sentence.
8 The MS has έαυτού" themselves. ΜunίeΓ adopts this reading, but to avoid the absurdity of true
2
2 προσεληλύθειμεν Α] προσεληλύθαμεν /iylburg Otto Blunt !vfαιωvίch ανθρωπαρεσκείq. edd] ανθρω-
ποπαρεσκείq. Α 2 δεισιδαιμόνων Α] των δεισιδαιμόνων Μαιωvίch 8 κατηγορούμενα ήμων [eason counselling people to do harm to themselves, which is what the text would have to mean, he
coniec] κατηγορούμενα Α 9 κολαζέσθωσαν coniec] κολάζεσθαι Α έστίν' ThiTlby MαTcovich translates, without textual foundation, as though the phrase refers to something else true reason
MunieI] έστί' μιiλλoν δε κολάζειν Α; έστίν' άλόντα, κολάζειν Bellios Otto ex Athenagoras Supplicαtio 2.3; counsels αgαinst: 'ou plutot de vous faίΓe tort a vous-memes.' We have emended to τούς, and have
έστίν' μιiλλoν δε κολάζεσθαι πικρότερον Lαnge /iylbuTg ex Athenagoras Supplicαtio 2.1 11 κολάζειν changed the verb from second- to third-person plural. We consider that the MS text is a botched
του, coniec] έαυτου, Α attempt to reconstruct a badly corrupt passage.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

, "
πραγματα επαγειν α~ιoυσι.
'c ~
3.2. 3 κα
λ '
ην
δΙ Ι
ε και μονην
, δ'
ικαιαν προκ
, λ
ησιν ask 1 permission to bring charges 2 οη the basis. of passion rather than sober
ταύτην παs ό σωΦρονων αποΦανειται, το TOVS αρχομένους την ευθύνην του judgement. 3 3.2. But everyone of sense will declare that this is the οηlΥ
ι ~
εαυτων
β ,
ιου κ().ι
ι λ '''λ ,ι ,
ογου α ηπτον παρεχειν, ομοιωs
δ'
αυ και τους
';' \ \ apXOVTaS
" just and good proposa14-that the ruled, upon submitting to investigation,
μη βίq. μηδε τυραννίδι αλλ' ευσεβείq. και ΦιλοσοΦίq. ακολουθουνταs (202 a) την are found unimpeachable ίη their life and thought, and similarly that
5 ,Ι. ~Φ
ψη ον τι
'θ
εσ
θ
αι.
"
OVTWS 1'\
γαρ αν και οι
Ι Ι"
apXOVTES Ι Ι"
και οι αρχομενοι απο
'λ'
αυοιεν the rulers, ίη their turn, follow not a path of violence and tyranny but of 5
του αγαθου. 3.3. εΦη γάρ που καί τιs των παλαιων' ''f1v μη οί llpxoVTEs piety and philosophy when giving their verdict. Thus would both rulers
, Ι" "\,,
Φ ι λ οσο Φ ησωσι και οι αρχομενοι, ουκ αν ειη TaS πο ειs ευ αιμονησαι.
Ι Ι 'λ 'δ ~ , and ruled have the benefit of the good. 3.3. Indeed, one of those of
3.4. -ήμέτερον ογν εργον και βίου και μαθημάτων την Επίσκεψιν πασι ancient times once said, 'unless the rulers as well as the ruled are philo-
παρέχειν, οπωs μη ύπερ των αγνοειν τα -ήμέτερα νομιζόντων την sophers their cities cannot truly prosper'.5 3.4. So, lest ίη place of those
ΙΟ
, 'i' "λ λ ~
τιμωριαν ων αν π ημμε ωσι τυ
Φλ '
WTTOVTES , Ι
αντι
,~
αυτων αυτοι ο
, ι 'Φλ'
ησωμεν, who are habitually ignorant of our affairs we should ourselves become ΙΟ
ύμέτερον δέ, ώs αίρει λόγοs, ακούοντας αγαθοvs εύρίσκεσθαι ΚΡιτάs. liable for the punishment for whatever sins they commit ίη their blindness,6
it is our task to let all inspect both our life and our teachings; 7 but it is your
task (as reason proves) to l~sten and to show yourselves good judges.

1 If the MS readiηg-αςιοvτε-ίs allowed to stand the νerb must be being used ίη a quite di:fferent
sense from its use at the beginning of the sentence (αξιουμεν), where it has the sense proper to a
petition 'we ask': (Otto: 'censetis'; Blunt: 'youjudge'; Daνie: 'who are disposed'; Hardy: 'you decide';
Wartelle: 'vous croyez deνoir'; Barnard: 'who think fit'; Munier: 'vous trouνez bon'). The MS reading
also irnplies that it is the emperors who initiate criminal proceedings of this kind, whereas it was υρ to
a magistrate to giνe leave to a petitioner to proceed with a prosecution. Robinson, The Crimillαl Lαw Q/
Aιzcieιzt R01ne, 4-5, says of Roman cτiminal procedure: 'a request for permission to prosecute could be
made to the president of the relevant CΟU1't by any adult male citizen; it was a duty open to any
membe1' of the public except ίη the case of iιziuriα.' At ιΑ 4-2-4 Justin waΓΠS the emΡero1'S that they will
be liable to just punishment ifthey judge unjustly (μη αδίκως κολάζοντες τους μη έλεγχομένου, Tn δίκτι
κόλασιν σΦλήσητε), and that they should rather punish the accuse1'S of Ch1'ίstίaηs, so far as the name is
cοηceΓΠed (τους κατηγορουντας μαλλον κολάζειν σΦείλετε).
2 Cf. Rhetoricα αd HerelZlZiuιn IV35-47: 'ΑccusatΟ1'ίs ofllcium est infene cτirnina'; Dίgest 48.Ι.Ι3:
'accusatΟ1'e defuncto res ab alio, iudicante Ρ1'aesίde proνinciae, peragi potest.'
3 Α further reference to the proνisions of Hadrian's rescript, which dealt with a petition that had

been made against Christians (ιΑ 68.8), and which ruled that provincials should make a case against
Christians before a tribunal, if they thought they could make it stick, and not busy themselves with
'petitions and mere outcries'.
4 For 'proposal' cf. Thucydides ΙΙΙ. 6 4.3.
5 Plato, Republic V473c-d. The text of the MS makes the obligation to philosophize fall οη both
rulers and ruled, whereas in Plato it falls οη the rulers alone. Schmid and Marcoνich emend the text of
Justin to harmonize it with that ofPlato. But ιΑ 3.2 and 3-4 show that the MS conectly conνeys Justin's
meaning. Everyone, including Christians, should be blameless ίη life and thought, which ίη Justin's
νiew is what philosophy is about. Marcus Aurelius was said to be very fond of this famous and much-
repeated tag (Historiα Augustα, Λι[αrcus Aιztoιzinus 27.7).
6 The text is conupt. We conjecture that αντι dropped out between τυΦλώττοντε, and αυτων, the
case of αυτοί was altered, and the negative μή omitted after σπως by a subsequent copyist οτ editor
trying to restore sense. Άντι αυτων αυτοί repeats but also gives precision to the idea introduced,
none too clearly, in the clause introduced by ύπέρ. We suppose that by αγνοειν ... νομιζόντων σίteraΙΙΥ
3.2-3 καλην δε ... εΤεν ευδαίμονες Sαc Ρατ Ho1l95 'being accustomed to be ignorant') Justin meant that non-Christians may be expected to be ίgnΟ1'aηt
of Ch1'ίstίaη affairs. So long as this 1'emaίηs the case they might have an excuse befΟ1'e God, but
ι αςιουσι coniec] αςιουτε Α πρόκλησιν Α] πρόσκλησιν Thirlby Otto Mαι"COvich 7 και οί Christians who fail ίη their duty of enlightening them 1'ίsk condemnation at the judgement themselves;
αρχόμενοι ουκ αν ειη τας πόλεις ευδαψονησαι Α] οί αρχόμενο ι ουκ αν εΤεν ευδαίμονες Sαc Ρατ Scll1nid; ουκ cf. D 58.1.
αν ειη τας πόλεις ευδαψονησαι ΜατcoυίcΙι 9 σπως μη ΒίΖ/Υ Otto Blunt Mαι"COvich MUllierJ σπως Α; 7 This is the Ρrog1'amme Justin sets hirnself [Ο1' the Apology. As a ΡhilΟSΟΡhe1'-subject he will make
μήπως Thirlby ΙΟ αντι αυτων αυτοι coniec] αυτων αυτοι, Α; αυτοι έαυτοις Otto BlUllt ΜατcoυίcΙι available for inspection the way of life and the teachings of the ChΓistians, so that the ΡhilΟSΟΡhe1'­
MUllier ΙΙ ακούοντας Α] post ακούοντας spatium circiter 91itterarum cum lineola ίη Α; ακούσαν­ ωΙe1'S may make a ΡΓΟΡe1'ΙΥ infΟ1'med and wise adjudication. At the end of the Apology he asks that his
τα, MαTcovich petition be 'posted up, so that the things cοηceΓΠίηg us may become known to the rest' (ιΑ 69[14].1).
 86 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS.

3.5. άνα7ΤολόΥητον γαρ λΟΙ7Τον μαθουσιν ~ν μ~ τα δ{καια 7Τοιήσητε ύ7Τάρξει 3.5. For there will be ηο excuse before God if, once you have learnt these
7Τρος θεόν. things, you do not do what is right.

4.1. 'Ονόματος μεν οδν 7Τροσωνυμ{Cf οϋτε άγαθον οϋτε κακον κρ{νεται ανευ 4.1. Now, something is notjudged to be either good ΟΓ bad by the name it
των ύ7ΤΟ7ΤΙ7Ττουσων τψονόματι 7Τράξεων' ε7Τει σσον γε εκ του κατηγορουμ- is called without consideration of the actions which are associated with
5 ένου ήμων ονόματος χρηστότατοι ύ7Τάρχομεν. 4.2. άλλ' ε7Τει ού τουτο that name. Ιη fact, in so far as you can draw anything from the name 5
ι
δ ικαιον • ι
ηγουμε θ α δ'
ια το,,'ονομα, εαν
" κακοι"λ ι
ε εγχωμε θ α, αιτειν
'Λ ',ι.. Ι
αψιεσ θ αι, alleged against us, we are most kind-hearted. 1 4.2. We do not think that it
7Τάλιν ει μηδεν διά τε T~ν 7Τροσηγορ{αν του ονόματος και δια T~ν 7Τολιτε{αν is right to ~sk to be released οη account of our name if we are proved to be
εύρισκόμεθα άδικουντες, ύμέτερον άγωνιάσα{ εστι μ~ άδ{κως κολάζοντες wicked. Given this, ίη the event that, with respect both to our name and to
,
τους μη ε
"λ ι
εγχομενους ΤΤΙ
Λ δι
ικτι κο
Ιλ ''ι''λ ι
ασιν Οψ ησητε. 4.3. 4 ,C '
ε~
ι
ονοματος μεν
, our behaviour, we are found to do ηο wrong, you should take great care
ΙΟ γαρ ~ ε7Ταινος ~ κόλασις ούκ αν εύλόγως γένοιτο, ~ν μή τι ενάρετον ~ φαυλον not to become liable to just punishment for unjustly punishing those who ΙΟ
δι' εργων ά7Τοδε{κνυσθαι δύνηται. 4.4. και γαρ τους κατη(202 b)γΟΡουμ- have not been proved to be guilty. 4.3. For neither commendation nΟΓ
ι
ενους εψ
,,1.." Λ Ι "λ θ Λ , Λ
υμων 7Ταντας 7Τριν ε εγχ ηναι ου τιμωρειτε' εψ
,,1.." ημων
Λ δ' ,,'
ε το ονομα punishment could reasonably,be based οη a name unless actions can show
ώς ελεγχον λαμβάνετε, κα{7Τερ σσον γε εκ του ονόματος τους κατηγορουντας something to be virtuous ΟΓ wicked. 4.4. And, in point offact, you do not
μάλλον κολάζειν οφε{λετε. 4.5. Χριστιανοι γαρ εΊναι κατηγορούμεθα το δε punish all of those who are accused ίη your court2 before they are proved
15 χρηστονμισεισθαι ού δ{καιον. 4.6. και 7Τάλιν εαν μέν τις των κατηγορου­ to be guilty. But with us you take the name as proof, though, so far as the 15
μένων εξαρνος γένηται, Tiι φωνiι μ~ εΊναι φήσας, άφ{ετε αύτον ώς μηδεν name goes, you should punish our accusers instead. 4.5. For we are
accused of being Christians, and it is not right to hate kindness of heart.
4.6. Οη the other hand, if any of those accused becomes a denier 3 and
simply says 4 that he is not a Christian, you release him, as though you were
ίn ηο way able to convict him of doing anything wrong. But anyone who 20

1 Α pun οη 'Christian'. XpLaT6s would not readily have been understood in the sense of 'anointed'

by pagans unfamiliar with Jewish οτ Christian usage. Ιη ordinary usage the word did not mean
'anointed' but 'suitable for anointing': that is, it was used to distinguish oil of such a kind from oil
suitable for consumption, which was described as πιστ6s. Ιη one of the earliest pagan references to
'Christ' he is described as Chrestus (CL Suetonius, Claudius 25-4), and XpEaT6s, 'Useful', was a common
name for slaves. The spelling χρηστ- occurs in the text of Acts ΙΙ: 26; 26: 28; IPet. 4: 16 ίη Codex
Sinaiticus. The pun was repeated by Theophilus, Ad Auto!Jιcum ι'ι, and confusion between the two
words was discussed by Tertullian atApologeticuln 3.5. Athenagoras, Legatio 2 is modelled οη this passage.
2 Many editors have taken εφ' ύμων to refer to accused who are pagans, ίη contrast to accused who
are Christians (εφ' ήμων), which requires, as Munier 2 shows, thatJustin asserts that the emperors never
punish αι!:Υ pagans before they have been convicted of a crime: 'vous n'en punissez jamais aucun.' But
the construction is harsh, and the contrast between TιfLELs and ύμειs usually refers to Christians οη
the one hand, and those to whom the Apology is addressed οη the other (cf. ιΑ 2-4; ΙΙ.Ι; 45·6; 59.5).
ΈΦ' ύμων goes naturally with κατηγορουμένουs, 'accused before you the rulers' (cf. Veil, 'die νοτ euern
Richterstuhl Geladenen'). Justin has made a general statement of the irrationality of punishment in
the absence of wrongdoing; he now particularizes-the emperors themselves do not punish all those
who are accused before they are convicted of wrongdoing, but οηlΥ Christians.
3 Το answer 'yes' οτ 'ηο' to a question was to 'confess' οτ 'deny', and the two words arejuxtaposed
several times ίη the New Testament (Matt. ΙΟ: 32-3; Luke 12: 8-9; ι John 2: 22-3). Το 'become a
denier' appears to have been a technical term among Christians for apostasy; cf. 2Α 2.14 and Letter qf
t!ze C!zurches qfVienne and Lyons (Eusebius, ΗΕΥ.Ι.33). ΡΙίηΥ may have echoed this language ίη his letter
to ΤΓajaη (Ερ. Χ.96.6): 'alii ab indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt; fuisse
quidem sed desisse.' This does not mean that they 'first admitted the charge and then denied it'
(tr. Radice, LCL), but that they said they had been Christians but soon after denied: they had been
Christians but had ceased to be such.
4.3-4 ες ov6fLUTOS ... ου τιμωρεΙΤε Sac Ρατ Holl 96 + That is, merely asserts that he is not a ChΓίstίaη, and does οτ shows nothing to prove it. The
apostate Christians before ΡΙίηΥ had proved their apostasy by worshipping the statue of the emperor
ι μαθουσιν Α] μαθουσιν ύμιν Marcomch 3 προσωνυμ{q. Α] προσωνυμ{α Grabe Otto Blunt and the images of the gods, and by cursing ChΓίst, as ΡΙίηΥ had required of those who denied that they
Marcovich 4 γε ~lburg Otto Blunt Aιfarcovic!z Munier] τε Α had ever been ChΓίstίaηs (Ερ. Χ.96.5-6).
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 89
88 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

έλέγχ ειν εχοντες άμαρτάνοντα. έαν δέ τις όμOλOγrιστι εΊναι δια την όμο- confesses to being a Christian you punish because of the confession,
\ \ \ \ though you ought to examine the life both of the one who confesses and of
λ ι λ ιΥ
ογιαν κο α,::>ετε,
δ ι ~ ι λ ~
εον και τον του ομο ογουντος
βι 'θ ι ~
ιον ευ υνειν και τον του
,
αρνουμενου,οπως
ι fl δ \..... '(; (,.../'
ια των πρα""εων οποιος εστιν εκαστος
fl Φ Ι
αινηται. 4.7. "
ον
the one who denies so that their actions might reveal which kind of person
γαρ
\
τροπον
ι
παρα
λ β Ι
α οντες
\
τινες παρα
\ του~ δ δ
ι
Ιλ
ασκα ου
Χ
ριστου
~
μη
\ each is. 4.". For just as certain people, although they have learnt l from
5 αρνεισθαι, έξεταζόμενοι παρακρούονται, τον αυτον τρόπον κακως ζωντες
Christ the Teacher that they should not deny, are lmocked οΗ' course 2 5

ϊσως αφορμας παρέχουσι τοις αλλως καταλέγειν των πάντων Χριστιανων when questioned, so too, perhaps, by their evil lives they play into the
,
ασε
ιβ \ 'δ ικιαν
ειαν και α
ι ι ι 8" θ ~ \ 'δ \ ~ Ι
αιΡουμενοις. 4. . ουκ ορ ως μεν ου ε τουτο πρατ-
hands of those who are already disposed to accuse a11 Christians of
τεται.
\ ι
και γαρ τοι
Φ λ Φ Ι" ~ ιφ \ ι "'δ
, \
ι οσο ιας ονομα και σχημα επιγρα ονται τινες οι ου εν
irrel~gion and injustice. 4.8. And it is unfair that this, too, should happen.
αξιον τijς ύποσχέσεως πράττουσι. γινώσκετε δ' ΟΤΙ και οί τα έναντ{α δοξ- For, lnd:e'd, some assume the name and appearance of philosophers who
10 άσαντες και δογματ{σαντες των παλαιων Τψ ένι ονόματι προσαγορεύονται behave rn ηο W3:Y wo~thily of their profession. And you lmow that among 10

ΦιλόσοΦοι. 4.9. και τούτων τινες αθεότητα έδ{δαξαν, και τον Δ {α ασελγij the men of anClent tlmes those who contradicted one another ίη their
αμα τοις αυτου παισιν οί γενόμενοι ποιηται καταγγέλλουσι, κακε{νων τα thought and teaching are neve~theless ca11ed by the one name of
(203 a) διδάγματα οί μετερχόμενοι ουκ εϊργονται προς ύμων' άθλα δε και philosopher. 4.9. Some of t~em ίη their teaching denied the gods and
\
τιμας τοις ευ
~ 'Φ ωνως
ι ιβ ΙΥ ι Ιθ
υ ρι,::>ουσι τουτους τι ετε.
those ~f them who were poets proclaimed the promiscuity of Zeus as we11
as of hlS sons,. and ~ou do not bar performers who take up their teaching. 15

15 5.1. ΤιΙ δ yj\ ουν

-;- τουτ
~ ,,' ,ι
αν ειη;
'Φ' ι
ε
~ Ι ι δ 'δ ~ δ
ημων, υπισχνουμενων μη εν α ικειν μη ε τα
\ \ \ Rather, you glve pnzes and rewards for those who are ίη good voice when
αθεα ταυτα δοξάζειν, ου κρ{σει έξετάζετε, αλλα αλόγψ πάθει και μάστιγι they offer insult to them. 3
δαιμόνων Φαύλων έξελαυνόμενοι ακρ{τως κολάζετε, μη Φροντ{ζοντες.·
5.2. , Ι \ ,λ θ ι λ
ειρησεται γαρ τα yj ες' επει το πα αιον
,
δ ι \
αιμονες
\
Φ ~λ \
'Φ ι
αυ οι, επι ανειας
5.1. But what sense does this make? When it comes to us, though we bind
ourselves to do ηο wrong and not to hold these godless opinions, you do
not conduct the inquiry with sober judgement4 but with senseless passion, 20
an~ driven under the whip of wicked demons you punish us unreflectingly,
taking ηο thought for what you are doing. 5.2. Το say this is to te11 the

1 Cf Matt. 10: 33; Luke 12: 9. The wordJustin uses was used by Paul for the reception ofteaching

(ICor. 15: 3; Phil. 4: 9) cf also ιΑ 10.1, 2; 13·1.

2 .E?itors who ~ccept the MS's παρακελεύσνται understandJustin to be speaking oftwo groups of
Chns~Ians: those ιn one. group .do not deny Christ but encourage one another during questioning;
those ω the other, by thelr bad llves, fuel pagan accusations against the Christians generally. However,
τινες suggests strongly that there is only one group of Christians, whose evil lives may expose the
whole Christian community to accusations of evil. Zahn's proposal (cited ίn Ott0 3), which we have
adopt~d, to read παP~KpσύσνTαι ίn place of παρακελεύσνται, would suggest that the Christians Justin is
referr~n? to hav~ deΠled by word, and may also have betrayed the community by their evillives. ΒΥ not
exar:nnlng t~e llV~S of those who deny Christ the emperors might miss the opportunity to convict and
punlsh genuIΠ~ mlscreants, whose evil behaviour is the cause of the bad repute of Christians generally.
At ιΑ 58.3 JustIΠ says that the evil demons 'beat back insidiously (ύπεκκρσύσντες) those who strain for
the ~ontem~lation of divine things, and unless these have a temperate understanding and a pure and
passlOnless life, they plunge them into impiety'.
3 i.e .. to Zeus a~d his ~ons. Theophilus, Ad Auto!Jcum Πι'30, paraphrases this. For a canon of 'poets

and philosophers definIΠg norms of pagan culture see MacMullen, 'Two Types of Conversion',
130-1.
4 ~e have adopted Grabe's conjecture of κρίσει for the MS's κρίσεις. Otto and Blunt accept the
3

readlng of the MS, as do Marcovich and Munier. Otto and Munier take the phrase to mean 'examine
accusations', ~lunt.to mean 'investigate disputes'. Both are, at best, rare senses of κρίσις. Justin seems
Ι τις Sylburg Otto Blunt Mαrcovich Munier] τι Α 5 παρακρούονται Zαhn] παρακελεύονται Α lvfαr-
~o have had ιn mIΠd two stages of the judicial process: first the inquiry, then the execution of
comch ίn textu; παρακροωνται Thirlby; άλλοις παρακελεύονται Mαrcoviclι ίn apparatu κακως Α]
Judgement. ΒΥ συ κρίσει he means that the inquiry is not conducted for the purpose of getting to the
οί κακως Mαrcovich ι ι dθεότψα edd] dθετότψα Α 14 ευΦώνως edd] ευΦόνως Α
truth ofthe matter; cf ιΑ 3.1.
τούτους Α] τους θεους Aslιton Mαrcoviclι 16 κρίσει Grαbe] κρίσεις Α
 90 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOI,OGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 91
Ι Ι Λ ,Ι ι Λδ
1Τοιησαμενοι, και γυναικας εμοιχευσαν και 1Ται ας
δ ΙΦθ
ιε ειΡαν και
ι Φ ιβ
ο ητρα truth. Since, ίn ancient times, wicked demoI,ls, ίn apparitions,l committed
'θ Ι "δ Ι λ(; Λ ι" λ Ι
αν ρω1ΤΟΙς' ε ει~αν, ως κατα1Τ αγηναι τους οι
ι Ι Ι(;
ογψ τας γινομενας 1Tpα~εις adultery with women and seduced boys and made people see horrifying
"Ι
ουκ εκρινον, αΛ
, \λ αι δ ι Ι
εει. συνηΡ1Τασμενοι και μη ε1Τισταμενοι
\, , . ι δ Ι
αιμονας ειναι
τ
things, so thόse wh0 2 did not rationally evaluate what the demons were
r
Φ<Ι αυ
Ιλ θ ι Ι ι , Ι <Ι Ι"
ους, εους 1Τροσωνομα':,ον και ονομαη εκαστον 1Τροσηγορευον 01Τερ doing were stunned with terror. Carried away with fear, they named them
5 'Λ Λ
εκαστος' αυτψ των
δ Ι 'Ιθ
αιμονων εη ετο.
r,
5.3. οτε δ Ι Σ
ε
Ι
ωκρατης
λ Ι 'λ θ Λ
ογψ α η ει gods, not knowing they were wicked demons. And they cal1ed each of 5
και Εςετασηκως ταυτα είς Φανερον Ε1ΤειΡατο Φέρειν και ά1Τάγειν των δαιμ- them by a name which each of the demons had given it. 3 5.3. When
Ι ι 'θ Ι Ι, ι Ιδ Ι δΙ Λ Ι
ονων τους αν ρω1Τους, και αυτον οι q,ιμονεs- ια των χαιΡοντων TTlΛ κακιq,
Ι
Socrates attempted with true reason and judicious inquiry to bring these
, θ Ι , Ι
αν ρω1Των ενηργησαν
Ι
ως
"θ
α εον και
ι , β Λ
ασε η
Λ
α1Τοκτανηναι,
, λ Ι
εγοντες
ι
καινα things into the open and to draw people away from the demons, the
,
εισ
Φ Ι
ερειν αυτον
,ι δ ι
αιμονια. και ομοιως ε
\ ( Ι 'Φ' C',..
ημων το αυτο ενεργουσιν.
\ , \ ,,..,
5.4. ου
,
demons, 'using people who delight ίη evil, worked it that he too was killed,4
10 γαρ μόνον Εν Έλλη σι δια Σωκράτους ύ1ΤΟ λόγου ~λέγxθη ταυτα, άλλα' και Εν οη the pretext that he rejected the gods and was irreligious-alleging 'that !Ο
β β αρ
ι Ι" Λ ΛΑΙ
αροις υ1Τ αυτου του
Φ θ Ι ι, θ Ι Ι
ογου, μορ ω εντος' και αν ρω1Του γενομενου και
ι
he introduced strange new divinities. 5 And likewise they are working to
'Ιησου Χριστου κληθέντος, Ψ 1Τεισθέντες ~ILE'is- TOVS- ταυτα (203 b) 1Τράςαντ α ς bring about the same thing for us.. 5.4. For these things were brought to
, θ ι light not οηlΥ among the Gr;eeks by reason,6 through the words of Socra-
δ αιμονας ου μονον ου εους ειναι αμεν, α α κακους και ανοσιους
Ι ,Ι τ Ι Φ 'λλ ι ι Ι, Ι

Ι " 'δΙ Λ' Ι θ Λ 'θ Ι ι Ι (; Ι Ι

δ αιμονας-οι ου ε ΤΟΙς' αρετην 1ΤΟ ουσιν αν ρω1ΤΟΙς' τας 1Tpα~ εις ομοιας tes, but also among the barbarians by the Logos himself, who acquired
15 εχουσιν. physical form and became a human being and was called Jesus Christ. We 15
who have come to believe ίη him say that the demons who did these things
6.1. 'Ένθεν δε και αθεοι κεκλήμεθα, και όμολογουμεν των τοιούτων are not οηlΥ not gods,7 but wicked and unholy demons, and that their
r
νομι':,ομενων
Ι θ εων
Λ α
"θ εοι τ
ειναι,
'λλ" ουχιι
α του
Λ 'λ θ εστατου
α η
Ι και
Ι 1Τατρος'
ι behaviour cannot be compared even to that of human beings who yearn
'
δ Ι ι Φ Ι Ι Λ "λλ
ικαιοσυνης και σω ροσυνης και των α
Λ' Ι Ι
ων αρετων ανε1Τιμικτου τε κακιας for virtue.
θεου. 6.2. άλλ' Εκεινόν τε και τον 1Ταρ' αυτου υίον Ελθόντα και διδάςαντα
6.1. Hence it is said that we reject the gods. And we admit that we do 20
reject such supposed gods as these, but not the God who is most true and
the Father of justice and temperance 8 and the other virtues and who is
unalloyed with evil. 9 6.2. This God we do venerate and worship, and also
the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the company

1 The word επιΦανεία, here translated 'apparitions', was a standard term for manifestations ofthe

gods in pagan religion.

,2"For the construction of definite article with relative pronoun see D 67.7, των σσα, and D 47.2,
τα οσα.

3 Cf. 2Α 4(5).5-6.
4Justin's usage of ενεργέω requires a passive infinitive (see e.g. 2Α 7(8).2, 3; 12.3; ιΑ 63.10). Ott0 3
emended to αποκτείνεσθαι (followed by Blunt and Munier), but an aorist is required. The
normal passive infinitive, αποκτανθηναι, would be a possible reading, but the second aorist infinitive
αποκτανηναι is found in (pseudo)-Galen (De Theriαcα 16, Κϋhn, νοΙ 14, ρ. 284), and would readily
explain the MS reading.
5 For the charge against Socrates of introducing new divinities see Plato, Apology 24b-c; Xenophon,
Meιnorαbiliα ι'ι.
6 For Justin, the 'reason' which illumined the Greeks is a 'seed', 'participation', or 'imitation' ofthe
diνine Logos who became incarnate as Jesus (cf. 2Α 13.3-6).
7 For 'not only not gods' the MS has 'not only not upright'. The contracted ουθOVς might easily have
been corrupted to ορθους and the negative μή inserted to give sense. Justin's language is odd, but not
impossible: lit. 'who do not even have acts like to human beings who yearn for virtue'. Marcovich
retains μη ορθους, and supposes that the text originally said that the demons were not 01l!y 1l0t upIight but J

2 τους Α] αυτους Peαrson 4 θεους Α] θεους αυτους Λιfαrcovίch 5 αυτψ Α] έαυτψ Otto αlso evil αnd ullho!J deιnoJιs who did not hold out to humαll beiιιgs who lOllgedJόr virtue the opportunity tojudge such αcts
Blunt Nlαrcovich; αύτψ Ashton 7 αυτον Thirlby Otto Μαι·covich .Munier] αυτοι Α by J·eα.r01l. It is not clear how this advances Justin's argument.
8 αποκτανηναι Mαrcovich] αποκτειναι Α; αποκτείνεσθαι Otto BluntNlunier 10 εν 'Έλλη σι PenOll Otto 8 Justice and temperance are two of the cardinal νirtues. But for Justin, and in Christian usage
Bluιzt Mα1"COViCh MUllieι] 'Έλλη σι Α 13 ου θεους Thirlby] μη ορθους Α αλλιΙ Α] αλλιΙ και generally, the latter tends to mean chastity especially.
Mα1"COViCh 14 όμοίας εχουσιν Α] post όμοίας lacunam designaνit Mαrcovich 16 'Ένθεν δε 9 This probably means that God is not mixed up in evil, rather than that evil is not mixed up in

eddJ Ένθένδε Α God; see 2Α 6(7).9.

 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 93
~μας ταύτα, και τον των αλλων Επομένων και έξομοιουμένων άγαθων ofthe other good angels who follow him 1 ap.d are like him, and also the
'Ιλ ι ~ ι , Φ βι θ' ~
αγγε ων στρατον, πνευμα τε το προ ΎJΤΙKOν σε ομε α και προσκυνουμεν,
, prophetic Spirit. 2 We honour them with reason and ίη truth, and hand οη
λ ογψ
ι και α ΎJ
, 'λ θ ειq,
ι ~ ,
τιμωντες και παντι
'β ου λ ομενψ
ι θ ~ ι 'δ δ ι θ
μα ειν, ως ε ι αχ ΎJμεν, ungrudgingly to everyone who wishes to learn exactly what we were
άΦθόνως παραδιδόντες. taught.

5 7.1. Άλλα Φ~σει τις· ~δΎJ τινες λΎJΦθένTες~λέγXθΎJσαν κακούργοι. 7.2. και 7. ι. But someone will say, 'some of those who have already been caught 5
γαρ
, πο
λλ'
οι πο
λλ ι
ακις, οταν
rι ι ι
εκαστου
~
των KαTΎJγOPOυμενων
ι'
τον
βι
ιον were shown to be criminals'. 7.2. Of course. This often happens, when
έξεTάζΎJTε· άλλ' ου δια τους προελεγχθέντας καταδικάζετε. 7.3. καθόλου you examine the lives of those who stand accused. But you do not usually
\ ~
μεν ούν κακεινο ομο
) ... ( λ ,. . t/
ογουμεν, οτι ον τροπον οι εν
c\ Ι ( , 'Έλλ ",..,
ΎJσι τα αυτοις αρεστα
\
a
bring ίη conviction οη account of others who have earlier been shown to
δ
ι ,~ Ι, ,ι Φλ φ ι ι
ογματισαντες
,
εκ παντος τψ ενι ονοματι ι οσο ιας προσαγορευονται, be guilty.3 7.3. Ιη general terms, then, we are prepared to admit this. For,
ι ~ δ ι , ι" rι ,~, β βι
10 καιπερ των ογματων εναντιων οντων, ουτως και των εν αρ αροις just as, among the Greeks, those who taught whatever pleased them are !Ο
ι 'δt.Ι Φ~" ι" ι,
γενομενων και o~ανTων σο ων το εΠΙKαTΎJγOPOυμενOν ονομα κοινον εστι· called ίη every case by the single title 'philosopher', even though they
Χριστιανοι γαρ πάντες προσαγορεύονται. 7.4. Όθεν (204 a) πάντων των contradicted one another ίη their opinions-so, among the barbarians,
an all-embracing common name is given to both those who were wise
and those who seemed wise: theyare all called Christians. 4 7.4. For this

ι Our translation supplies the pronoun, which is not ίη the Greek. Marcovich emends ίίλλων to
αυτω and takes this to refer to God.
2 'For Justin, 'angel' is one of the names of Christ (D 6Ι.Ι; 127.4). The Greek ίίλλων does not
necessarily imply that the Son is here ranked amongst the angels, although that is a natural reading (cf.
Plato, G01gίαs 473d: 'the citizens and the other foreigners'; Alcibiαdes I.II2b: 'the Achaeans and the other
Trojans'; Xenophon, Anαbαsis 1.5.5: 'neither grass ηΟΓ any other tree', cf. Kίihner and Gerth, AIιsfihr­
licJze GTαmInαtik der gI7ecJzischeιz Sprαche, Π.ι, ρ. 275). The notion of a bodyguard of angels brought forth
together with the 'saviour' and of the same nature was found amongst Gnostic teachings (lrenaeus, ΔΗ
1.2.6; 8-4). But Justin normally uses the word we have translated as 'fol1ow' ίη a moral sense. The
likeness referred to here is presumably a morallikeness, just as the bad angels are said to be moral1y
like the serpent whom they fol1ow (D 45-4; 100.6).
3 The text is corrupt, and there have been many attempts at emendation and interpretation. Editors
and translators may be divided into two main groups. Those ίη one group understand the 'many' to
refer to Christians, giving some such sense as: 'Certainly, this is oftentrue of many of them, each time
you examine the conduct of the accused, but you do not condemn them οη account of those who were
convicted before.' But if this were Justin's meaning he would be undermining his own case. lη the first
place he would be conceding that Christians are often found guilty, and that therefore there is a
presumption of guilt associated with the name Christian; and in the second place, he would be
indicating that the judicial procedure which he is asking to be fol1owed in the case of Christians is in
fact often fol1owed. Those in the second group understand the 'many' to refer to accused persons in
general. This is the interpretation which we have, with some hesitation, fol1owed. Και γάρ is intro-
ducing an answer to the objection (Denniston, The Greek Pα/'ticles, 109-10). Justin says he has ηο
difficulty with Christians being showll to be guilty, and, indeed, that it is not uncommon for an
examination of a suspect's life to show him to be guilty, but it is for this that he is convicted, not
because of his association with others convicted before him. Justin moves from the case of some
Christians, who have αl/'eαdy been shown to be guilty, to that of the πιαιι)' defendants who are οη ιιιαπΥ
occαsions shown to be guilty when their cases are investigated, and notes that, nevertheless, conviction is
normally made οη the basis of investigation of individual cases, and not οη the basis of the poor track-
record of defendants as a class. One difficulty with this interpretation, however, is that the move from
the few ChIistiαns to the many difέndαnts is harsh. It remains possible, however, that the text conceals
deeper corruption. Justin might, for example, be trying to say something like, 'even if many [Chris-
tians] οη many occasions, at least you would then be examining the lives ofthose accused, and would
not condemn them because of those who were convicted before them'.
Ι ίίλλων Α] αύτψ Ashton Mαrcovich 6 πολλοι Dαm'es] πολλους Α έκάστου Bellios αρ. OttO] 4 Cf. ιΑ 26.6. Justin means that as the proponents of different philosophical schools, such as Stoics,
έκάστοτε Α 7 δια τους Α] δι' ίίλλους Mαrcovich προελεγχθέντας Pirion Blunt Mαrcovich Munier] Aristotelians, Platonists, etc. are al1 cal1ed philosophers, so the name Christian covers a variety of
προλεχθέντας Α !Ο δογμάτων Α] δογμάτων αύτων Mαrcoviclz different groups.
 94 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 95
καταγγελλομένων ύμιν τας.πράςεις κρ{νεσθαι άςιουμεν, ϊνα ό ελεγχθεις ώς reason, when people are delated to you, we ask that you always lnake their
"δ ικος κο λ αι"Yjται,
α ΙΥ α \ \
'λλ α μΥ} ως
Ι Χριστιανος,
Ι, \ δ εΙ τις ανε
εαν 'Ιλ εγκτος Φ αινYjται,
Ι actions the subject of your judgement, so that a person who is found guilty
άπολύYjται ώς Χριστιανος ουδεν άδικων. 7.5. OV γαρ τους KaTYjYOPOVVTaS' might be punished as a· wrongdoer, rather than as a Christian; while if
κολάζειν ύμας άςιώσομεν,άρκουνται γαρ Tiι προσούστιπονYjΡ{q, και Tiι των anyone is seen 1 to be guiltless he might be acquitted as a Christian who
5 καλωνάγνο{q,. does ηο wrong. 2 7.5. We will not also ask you to punish the accusers. 3 For 5
the wickedness that surrounds them and their ignorance of the good is
8.1. Λογ{σασθε δ' ότι ύπερ ύμων ταυτα εΦYjμεν εκ του εφ' ήμιν εΊναι enough for them.
άρνεισθαι εςεταζομένους. 8.2. άλλ' ου βουλόμεθα ζην ψευδολογουντΕς, του
γαρ αιων{ου και καθαρου β{ου επιθυμουντες της μετα θεου του πάντων 8. ι. That we have said thesc things for your sake 4 you may deduce from
πατρος και δYjμιουργου διαγωγης άντιποιούμεθα, και σπεύδομεν επι το the fact that it is ίη our power to deny we are Christians when examined.
10 όμολογειν, οί πεπεισμένοι καιπιστεύοντες τυχειν τούτων δύνασθαι τους τον 8.2. But we do not wish to avoid death by telling lies, for we desire the 10

θεον δι' εργων πε{σαντας ότι αυτψ εϊποντο και της παρ' αυτψ διαγωγης eternal, pure life, and we seek aft~r communion with God the Father and
,ι
Yjpwv "θ
εν
Ι,)
α κακια ουκ αντιτυπει...3.
,... 8 ( \
ως μεν ουν
";' δ \
ια
β Ι , .....
ραχεων ειπειν α τε
ιl maker of all, and we are eager to confess we are Christians. For we who
προσδοκωμεν και μεμαθήκαμεν δια του Χριστου και διδάσκομεν ταυτά have been persuaded believe s that these things can be obtained by those
,
εστι. 8 .4. Πλ ατων
Ι δ' ομοιως
ι Ι ε"Φ Yj ιπ
Γα δ αμαν
Ι θ υν και\ ΜΙινω κο λ ασειν
Ι \
τους
who have persuaded God through their actions that they were his follow-
15 'δ Ι ,
α ικους παρ αυτους ε
,
'λθ Ι\ ι ~ δ
οντας· Yjμεις
~
ε το αυτο πραγμα
Ι Φ \ \
αμεν
,\ Ι
YEVYjaEa θ
αι, ers, and that they ardently desired to find communion with him where 15
άλλ' ύπο του Χριστου και τοις αυτων σώμα σι, αιων{αν κόλασιν there is ηο obstruction from evil. 8.3. So, ίη a few words, this is what we
await and have learnt from Christ, and what we teach. 8.4. Ιη similar
fashion, Plato said that Rhadamanthus and Minos 6 would punish the
unrighteous who came into their presence. We say that the same thing will
happen, but that it will be done by Christ and to their bodies,7 and they 20

ι Editors normalize the accentuation of the MS reading to produce an aorist middle subjunctive.
But it would seem more natural for a passive to be used here, and Justin nowhere else uses the middle
of Φαίνω.
2 This is the substance of the petition which Justin is addressing to the emperor, introduced by the
semi-technical term αςιουμεν.
3 1η Roman law, a person who delated another was subject to punishment for calunzιziα if the case
was not proven; cf. Robinson, The Cri,niιzαl Law qfAιzcieιzt ROlne, 99, 103, and ιΑ 68.10. Justin understood
the rescript ofHadrian to e~oin the punishment of calumnious accusers ofChristians.
4- Cf. Plato, Apology 30d; and 2Α 1.1; 3ω+ Justin presumably means that his purpose ίη making the

2 Φαίνψαι coniec] Φανηται Α; Φάνψαι edd
4 αρκουνται γαρ Α] αρκουν γαρ το Mαrcoviclz
Α] καν Dαvies Otto Bluιzt Mαrcovich Munier αύτων coniec] αύToLι; Α
των ψυχων γινομένων και Α
3 ώ" Χρισηανο" Α] ώ" Marcovich
5 αγνοίιΖ. Α] αγνοίιΖ. συζην Mαrcoviclz 16 και
σώμασι coniec] σώμασι μετα
petition is that the emperors will not be guilty of giving unjust judgements, cf. ιΑ 68.2; 70-4 [2Α 15.5].
5 Justin likes the doublet '. .. have been persuaded and do believe'. Cf. ιΑ 10.1; 17-4; 18.2; 61.2.
6 The myth about Minos and Rhadamanthus became a commonplace; they are mentioned by e.g.
Tatian, Orαtio 6.1; 25.2, and Athenagoras, Legαtio 12.2. Cicero remarked that ηο one believed such
stories about the underworld (De Nαturα Deorum 11.2).
7 We have excluded the words μετα των ψυχων γινομένων καΙ If the preceding καί is emended to
καν (as it is by several editors) the text of the MS can be made to mean 'when they come to be ίη the
same bodies with their souls ... '. But a pronoun, such as αύτων, needs to be supplied as the subject of
the genitive absolute. That is easy enough grammatically, but would leave Justin talking about a
'they' who are somehow distinct from both their souls and their bodies. Moreover, the tense of
γινομένων could only mean that the punishment would be inflicted as they come into their bodies,
rather than after they have come into them. Justin speaks of people or souls being ίιι bodies only in the
discussion οη the soul at D 4.6-7, where he is reporting his earlier, Platonizing, opinions. 1η the myth
about Rhadamanthus and Minos at Gorgias 523c-e it is expressly said that it is naked souls, stripped of
their bodies, that are judged. 1t is possible that Justin wished to correct Plato οη this point, just as he
corrected hirn with respect to the agency of the punishment, and its duration. An early reader, struck
by the apparent exclusion of souls from punishment, may have written 'with their souls' ίη the margin,
and an attempt may later have been made to incorporate this into the text. We have also changed
αύτοι" to αύτων. Without any reference ίη the context to resurrection, to speak of the saιιze bodies is.
abrupt, and unexplained.
 96 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 97
κολ ασ θ rισOμενων,
ι 'λλ'"
α
λ Λ Ι δ r, Λ "Φ Ι
ουχι χι ΙOνTαεTrι περιο ον, ως εκεινος ε rι, μονον. will be punished everlastingly, not just for a period of a thousand years, as
8.5. εί μεν οΟν απιστον ij άδύνατον τουτο φfισει τις, (204 b) προς ήμaς ηδε ή he said.! 8.5- Now, if anyone says that this is incredible or impossible, the
πλάνrι εστ{ν, άλλ'ού πpoς'€Tεpoν, μέχρις 00 εργψ μrιδεν άδικουντες ελεγχόμεθα. delusion hurts us, and ηο one else, so long as it is not found that any of our
actions are' wrong.
9.1. Άλλ' ούδε θυσ{αις πολλαις και πλοκαις άνθων τιμωμεν ους ανθρωποι

Φ ωσαντες
ι , , Λ rδ ι θ' ι " ",/, '
5 μορ και εν ναοις ι ρυσαντες εους προσωνομασαν, επει αψυχα και 9. ι. But neither do we use a multitude of sacrifices and garlands of 5
νεκρα ταυτα γινώσκομεν και θεου μορφην μη εχοντα-ού γαρ TOιαύTrιν flowers to honour those whom human beings formed and set up ίη temples
ήγούμεθα τον θεον εχειν την μορφην ην Φασ{ τινες είς τψην μεμψήσθαι- and call~d gods, since we know that such things are dead and lifeless and
, λλ" ι Λ Φ Ι Λ δ ι , ονοματα
, ι ,ι
α εκεινων των ανεντων κακων αιμονων και και σxrιμαTα do not possess the form of god-for we do not suppose that God has a
εχειν. 9.2. Τ{ γαρ δει είδόσιν ύμιν λέγειν α την ύλrιν οί τεχνιται διατιθέασι form such that it can, as some say, be imitated to do him honour; rather,
ΙΟ ςέοντες και τέμνοντες και χωνεύοντες και τύπτοντες και ες άτ{μων πολ- we suppose that these things have the names and shapes of those wicked ΙΟ
'λλ ι t.
ι
λ ακις Λ
σκευων
δ' ι 'Λ Ι
ια Tεxνrις το σxrιμα μονον α
'Φ
αι::,αντες και μορ
ι
oΠOιrισανTες demons who were seen ίη apparitions. 2 9.2. For what need is there to say
"
θ εους ι r
επονομα':,ουσιν; '"
9.3. οπερ ι
ου μονον "λ ογον rιγoυμε
α r ι θ α α'λλ α και"Φ'
ε ' to you who already know how craftsmen handle their material, shaving it,
ύβρει του θεου γ{νεσθαι, as-
αpprιTOν δόςαν και μορφην εχων επι Φθαρτοις and cutting it, and casting it, and hammering it, and how they often take
και δεομένοις θεραπε{ας πράγμασιν επονομάζεται. 9.4. και στι οί τούτων dishonourable vessels and through their craft change only the shape, and
15 τεχνιται άσελγεις είσι και πaσαν κακ{αν-ινα μη καταριθμωμεν-εχουσιν, give them a form and label them gods? 9.3. This we think is not only 15
, β Λ ,ι θ "r Λ δ ι r ι
ακρι ως επιστασ ε. και τας εαυτων παι ισκας συνεργα':,ομενας
Φθ ι
ειΡουσιν. irrational but is also an insult to God, whose name, though his glory and
Λ 'β pOνTrισιας
ι, αν θ ρωπους
ι 'λ αστους
Ι
9.5. ω
"
Trις εμ ακο θ'"
εους εις το προσκυν- form are beyond words, is given to things that are corruptible and need
εισθαι πλάσσειν λέγεσθαι και μεταποιειν και των ίερων ενθα άναTtθενTαι to be looked after. 9.4. And that the craftsmen who make them are
,
ΦV
Ιλ ι θ ι Λ 'θ ι "Λ
ακας τοιουτους κα ισταναι, μrι συνορωντας α εμιτον και το νοειν rι
"
licentious and have-not to enumerate them-every vice, you know full
20 λέγειν (205 a) άνθρώπους θεων είναι Φύλακας. well. And they have sex with their own slave-girl assistants. 9.5. How 20

foolish! Human beings who know ηο restraint are said to mould and
10.1. Άλλ' ού δέεσθαι τής παρα άνθρώπων ύλικής προσφορας refashion gods to be worshipped, and the temples where these are set up
προσει λrιιφ αμεν 'θ
τον
ι
εον,
"
αυτον
Ι
παρεχοντα
ι
παντα
r Λ
ορωντες'
,ι
εκεινους
δ
ε
' have such people as guards, who fail to see that it is wrong even to thinl<. or
προσ δ εχεσ
ι θ αι αυτον" ι
μονον δ ε δδ
Ι
ι αγμε θ α και ' ι
πεπεισμε θα και' ι
πιστευομεν, to say that human beings are guards for the gods.
" ι
τους τα προσοντα 'Λ'
αυτψ αγα θ' ι
α μιμουμενους, σω Φ poσυνrιν
ι και'δ ΙKαΙOσυνrιν
ι

25 και Φιλανθρωπ{αν και σσα οίκεια θεψ εστι, Τψ μrιδενι ονόματι θετψ 10.1. But further, we who see that God provides all things, have learnt3 25
that he has ηο need of material services from human beings. And we have
been taught and have been persuaded and do believe that he 4 only admits
into his presence those who imitate the good things that are his attributes, 5
temperance 6 and justice and loving-kindness and all the things that are

ι Justin oversimpli:fies. At Phαedrus 249a Plato says that at the end of a thousand-year period both
good and bad souls will draw lots for a second life.
2 Lit. 'those wicked demons who αppeαι"ed', echoing the related Greek word translated in ιΑ 5.2 as

'apparitions'.
3 Lit. 'received', cf. ιΑ 4.7; 13.1.
4 The Greek could be construed to mean either 'he receives those' or 'those receive him'. Munier
opts for the latter. But at D 33.2 Justin says that Christ 'will receive the circumcised who approach him,
seeking his blessings'. According to Bobichon, the verb προσδέξεται here is a reference to Amos 5: 22
(quoted by Justin at D 22.3) and Malachi ι: ΙΟ, which Justin quotes at D 28.5; 41.2; ΙΙ7.Ι. Justin's only
3 αλλ' ου Dαvies edd] ιϊλλου Α 4 τιμωμεν ους Β edd] τιμωμένους Α ΙΙ μορΦοποιήσαντες other uses ofthe verb are aΠ in scriptural quotations: D 14.7; 31.6; andD 135.2 (Isa. 42: ι, 'him shaΠ my
Otto Blzlnt Goodspeed Munier] μορΦωποιήσαντες Α; μορΦοποιήσαντες, ανδριάντες ποιήσαντες MαTCovich; soul receive').
ανθρώπων είκόνας μορΦοποιήσαντες Η. Stepllαnus 15 είσι Ashton Otto Blunt] τε Α; τέ είσι Mαrcovich 5 Cf. 2Α 3(4).2.
Munier 16 και Α] και γαρ Mαrcovich 18 πλάσσειν λέγεσθαι Η. Stephαllus Otto Blunt Goodspeed 6 Ιη Justin σωΦροσύνη normaΠy connotes chastity, or sexual restraint, and ηο doubt that is how he
Munier] πλάσσειν λέγεσθε Α; πλάσσειν Μαιωvίch 21 ου Α] ουδε Otto Mαrcoviclz thought the divine virtue was to be imitated. The attribution ofthe virtue of σωΦροσύνη to God is odd,
22 προσειλήΦαμεν Α] προειλήΦαμεν Η. Steplzαnus; παρειλήΦαμεν Thαleιnαnn Otto Blunt Mαrcovich whether it is understood in a Platonic or a Stoic sense. Alcinous (Hαndbook 29.1) describes σωΦροσύνη as
 98 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 99
καλουμένψ. 10.2. και πάντα την αρχην αγαθον οντα δημιoυpγiισαι αυτον proper to God, the God who has ηο giveno name. 1 10.2. And we have
'c αμορ
ε~ ' ι Φ ου "λ η~ δ"
υ ι αν θ pωπoυ~
ι δ ε δ ι δ αγμε
ι θ α, οι<Ι, Ι
εαν
l
'cΛ'
α~ ιoυ~ τψ ι
εκεινου been taught that, being good, he crafted all things ίη the beginning from
βουλεύματι έαυToυ~ δι' [ργων δείςωσι, τiι~ μετ' αυτου αναστpoΦiι~ καταςι­ unformed matter2 for the sake of human beings. We have learnt that if
ωθiιναι προσειλήΦαμεν συμβασιλεύoντα~, αΦθάpτoυ~ και απαθει~ these show themselves by their deeds worthy of his project, they are made
5 γενoμένoυ~. 10.3. ον τρ6πον γαρ την αρχην ουκ oντα~ εποίησε, τον αυτον worthy to dwell with him and to reign with him, having been made free 5
ήγούμεθα τρ6πον δια το έλέσθαι ΤOυ~ αίpoυμένoυ~ τα αυτψ αρεστα και from decay and suffering. 3 10.3. For just as ίη the beginning he made
α
'Φθ ι
αpσια~ και
ι ι
συνoυσια~
c θ Λ
Kατα~ ιω ηναι. 10.4. το
Ι
μεν
Ι Ι
γαρ
Ι
την
, ι
αρχην human beings when they were not, so ίη the same way, we think, those
γενέσθαι ουχ ήμέτερον ~ν, το δ' εςαKoλoυθiισαι o'[~ Φίλον αυτψ αίρούμεθα, who choQse the things that are pleasing to him, because of their choice,
oϋ~ δι' ών αυτo~ εδωρήσατο λογικων δυνάμεων πείθει τε και εί~ πίστιν αγει. are made worthyboth of freedom from decay, and of companionship with
ΙΟ 10.5. και ύπε.ρ πάντων ανθρώπων ήγούμεθα εΊναι το μη εϊργεσθαι him. 10.4. For to come into being ίη the beginning was not our own ΙΟ
ταυτα μανθάνειν, αλλα και προτρέπεσθαι επι ταυτα. 10.6. όπερ γαρ ουκ doing. But we, whom he both persuades and leads to faith though the
ηδυνήθησαν οί ανθρώπειοι ν6μοι πραςαι, ταυτα ό λ6γo~ θειo~ ων είργάσατο, rational powers which he himself bestowed, do choose the pursuit of the
things which are pleasing to him. 4 10.5. And we consider that it is ίη the
interest of all human beings not to be hindered from learning these things
but rather to be urged οη to them. 10.6. For what human laws were 15
unable to do the Logos who is divine has accomplished, even if5 the wicked

one of the virtues 'which al"e concerned with the irrational part of the soul', cf. Dillon, Alciιzous, 178-9.
Stobaeus describes it as 'knowledge of things to be chosen and of things to be avoided, and of things
which are neither' (Eclogαe Π.59-4= SVF ΠΙ.262). Pl"esumably, Justin wishes to contrast the Christian
God with the sexual immorality of the pagan gods.
1 Cf. 2Α 5(6).1.
2 The description of matter as 'formless' is Platonic (cf. 7ϊmαeus 50d, and Alcinous, Hαndbook 8.2).
But Justin uses the adjective not to describe an inherent property of matter, but to refer to the state of
the material from which God created the world, cf. Gen. Ι: 2 and ιΑ 59.1 and 67.8.
3 Freedom from decay (αΦθαρσία) is freedom fΓOm physical decay, and the condition of the body
Christians looked forward to ίη the resurrection from the dead. Freedom from su:ffering (απάθεια) is
fl"eedom fΓOm being acted upon adversely, either by external agents or by one's own emotions. It was a
characteristic of the Stoic sage: 'the wise man is αpαthes' (Diogenes Laertius VII.I17). Justin twice
attl"ibutes it to God (ιΑ 25.2, D 124-4), and couples it with incorruptibility (D 46.7), with immortality (D
46.7; 124·4), and with fl"eedom from want (ιΑ 57.2). Human beings were born impassible in the
beginning (D 124.4), and will enjoy impassibility when they reign with God (D 46.7), but it can be a
characteristic ofChristian life now (ιΑ 58.3).
<} Our uanslation supposes, with Otto\ that the Greek is elliptical, and is to be understood

as ο[ς εξακολουθΥίσαι Φίλον αυτψ εστι. The Greek text of the whole section is difficult, and has been
variously paraphrased by translators and commentators. As it stands, it might be translated: 'Eut to
pursue the things which it is his pleasure that we pUl"sue, making our choice through the rational
powers which he himselfbestowed, both persuades and leads us to faith.' But this does not really take
account of the stΓOng antithesis of the μέν ... δέ construction, nor the evidently intended parallelism
between this sentence and the preceding one. Two simple emendations of the Greek text give a much
better sense. We propose that αίρούμεθα ους has been misread as the participle αίρουμένους, which
occurs ίη the preceding sentence. Ήμας was then added at the end of the sentence to give a direct
object of the verbs πείθει and αγει, which now have not God for their subject, but the whole
preceding clause. Justin's meaning is: Ize mαde us when we were not (we αre by ιzαture corrUΡtίbleλ but we cαn,
tlzrough the αgenry qf choice, become worthy qf [ίft αnd incorruption. JίIιe hαd πο sqy ίπ our initiαl aeαtion, but, becαuse
he leαds us to .fαith by the rαtionαl powers he hαs giveιz us, we ιαπ αnd do choose to do whαt is pleαsiIzg to him aιzd tlzus
2 Τψ εκείνου βουλεύματι Α] του εκείνου βουλήματος Mαrcovich 4 προσειλήΦαμεν Α] προειλ- cαπ be 71lαde wortf?y qfiIzcorruption. For the misreading of αίρουμεθα ους as αίρουμένους, cf. ιΑ 9.1 where
ήΦαμεν Sylburg; παρειλήΦαμεν Otto Blunt Mαrcovich συμβασιλεύοντας Α] συμβασιλεύσοντας ~lburg the MS's τιμωμένους has been corrected to τιμωμεν ους by both the αpogrαph and by editors since
Mαrcovich Munier 8 αίρούμεθα οϋς coniec] αίPOVΜένoυς Α 9 τε Α] τε αυτον Ashton Perion.
Mαrcovich αγει coniec] αγει ήμας Α 10 το μη edιZJ Τψ μη Α; το μη μόνον Mαrcovich 5 The MS has ει μή, and most editors suppose that this is the protasis of an unreal conditional

12 ταυτα Α] ταυτ' αν Hαgen Mαrcovich ων Α] αν Pinon MunieI

o
sentence, some supplying αν ίη the apodosis: 'for what human laws were unable to do the Logos who is
 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 101
100

ει και οί Φαυλοι δαίμoνε~ κατεσκέδασαν πολλα ('205 b) ψευδiι και αθεα demons, taking as their ally the evil desire ίη each person, which by
,
κατηγορηματα,
,
συμμαχον
λ
α
β'
oνTε~
"<,
την εν εκαστψ
'"
κακην πpo~ παντα και
, its nature is universal and varίσιιs,l scattered many lies and godless
ποικίλην Φύσει Επιθυμίαν, ών ουδεν πρ6σεστιν ήμΙν. accusations, none of which touch us.

11.1. Τ7'<
nαι υμει~
~"
αKoυσανTε~
β
ασι
λ'
ειαν προσ
δ ~
OKωνTα~
<~"
ημα~ αKPΙTω~
Ι Ι. ι. But you, when you heard that we were awaiting a kingdom, rashly
5 ανθρώπινον λέγειν ήμα~ ύπειλfιΦαTε, ήμων την μετα θεου λεγ6ντων, ώ~ και supposed that we were talking about one that was human, though we 5

Εκ του ανεTαζoμένoυ~ ύΦ' ύμων όμολογειν εΊναι Xpιστιανoύ~, γινώσKoνTε~ were talking about theone that is with God. This is apparent also from
Τψ όμολογουντι θάνατον την ζημίαν κεισθαι, Φαίνεται. 11.2. ει γαρ our conf~ssing, 2 when we are examined by you, that we are Christians,
'θ'
αν ρωπινον β ασι λ'
ειαν προσε δ οκωμεν,
~ καν ηρνουμε θ α oπω~
" "" 'θ α
μη αναιΡωμε " though we know that the penalty appointed for a confessor is death.
και λανθάνειν ΕπειΡώμεθα oπω~ των προσδοκωμένων τύχωμεν. αλλ' Επει 11.2. For ifwe were awaiting a human kingd01n we would have denied,

10
, ,
ουκ ει~ το νυν Tα~ ε
\ .. \ 'λ 'δ"
πι
,
α~ εχομεν, αναιΡουντων ου πε
Ι 'Φ'
ροντικαμεν του και
~, ίη order to avoid being killed, and we would have tried to escape detection, 10

πάνTω~ αποθανειν όΦειλομένου. ίη order to obtain what we were waiting for. But since our hopes are not for
this present time, killers have ροt been of concern to us. Ιη any case, all are
12.1. Άρωγοι δ' ύμιν και σύμμαχοι πpo~ ειΡηνην Εσμεν πάντων μαλλον obliged to die. 3
'θ'
αν ρωπων, οι"~δ
ταυτα 'Υ
o~al;,ofLEV, <
ω~ c λ α θ ειν
~ θ εον ' "λ'
κακοεργον η ,
π εονεκτην η "
, 'β λ 'δ ι l' \ Ιl "
επι ου ον α υνατον ειναι και εκαστον επ
,ι Ιλ ι
αιωνιαν κο ασιν η σωτηριαν κατ
, " 12.1. Yet we more than all people are your allies and fellow soldiers for

15 , c'
α~ιαν
~
των
,c
πpα~εων
' θ
πορευεσ αι. 12.2. ει
' ,
γαρ
<, " θ
οι πανTε~ αν ρωποι
~
ταυτα
peace, since we think that it is impossible for one who does evil, or is 15
, ι ,)/
εγινωσκον, ουκ αν τι~ την κακιαν πpo~ ο
, Ι "λ ι (.....
ιγον Τ/ρειτο, γινωσκων πορευεσ
Ι ι θ
αι
grasping, or a schemer,4 to escape God's notice and that each goes to
"
επ
,
αιωνιαν
ι δ' ,
ια πυpo~ κατα
δ '
ικην, α
'λλ' , \ Ι
εκ πανTO~ τροπου εαυτον συνειχε και
ι'...... \ eternal punishment or salvation just as his actions deserve. 12.2. For if all
people knew this ηο one would choose evil even for a little, knowing that
he is going to be condemned to eternal fire,5 but he would restrain himself

divine would hαve done, had not the evil demons scattered many lies ... ' It is not obvious what όπερ
refeΓS to, but whatever it refers to, this is an exceedingly unlikely concession for ]ustin to have made. If
it is correct, one would have to suppose that ]ustin is distinguishing between the frustration of the
divine will by evil demons, and the unexplained incapacity of human laws. But it is hardly likely that
]ustin would have admitted the general frustration of the Logos's plans by evil demons. Indeed,
UΡΓίght Christians are proof that the Logos's plan is not frustrated. We have proposed that εΙ μή is a
corruption of εΙ καί.
Ι Diogenes Laertius (VII.H3) lists vaΓious conditions (want, hatred, contentiousness, anger, love,
wrath, [esentment) as being ranked undel" desire. Pseudo-Andronicus lists 25 kinds of desire (Περι
παθων 4=SVFIII'397).
2 Marcovich supplies a definite article: 'those confessing when they are examined.' But this implies
that all those examined confess, which ]ustin cannot mean to say. We have supposed that the
uneΧΡΓessed subject ofthe infinitive is 'us', as in the previous and following clauses.
3 Cf. Euripides, Alcestίs 782, 'to all mΟΓtaΙs death is owing' (κατθανειν οφείλεται), and Alcestis 419,
Andronzαche 1271-2. The tag is alluded to also at ιΑ 57.2 and 2Α Η.Ι.
3
<} The MS adds ΌΓ is virtuous" Hagan (cited in Otto ) proposed to read ΌΓ murdeΓer', but the word

is raΓe, and, apart from the LS] reference, seems to be used before ]ustin only by Vettius Valens, a 2nd-
century AD astronomer. Otto scolded Hagan for not attending to what follows ίη the text, but it seems
more likely that the words ΌΓ is virtuous' were added by a copyist/ editor who thought the following
reference to actions meriting salvation required something to balance the three kinds of evil-doers. But
the logic of ]ustin's argument does not require this, and it may be doubted if it would even occur to
him to consider the possibility of a virtuous person escaping the notice of God. At ιΑ 4.3 εvάρετοs is
contrasted with φαυλοs, and as]ustin has given examples ofwickedness heΓe, ifhe were going to make
reference to virtue it is more likely that he would offer examples of it.
5 Lit. 'going to eternal condemnation by fire" ]ustin had said just above 'each goes to eternal
ι εΙ και coniec] εΙ μη Α 5 ανθρώπινον Nexj ανθρώπειον Amrg 6 του Α] του TOVS
Mαrcovich γιvώσκοvτεs Α] γιvώσκοvταs Pέrion Mαrcovich 10 του και Α] του Mαrcovich
punishment" The substitution of 'condemnation' for 'punishment' is not merely stylistic. Punishment
12 Ά.ρωγοΙ edd] Ά.ρρωγοΙ Α 14 επίβουλον coniec] επίβουλον 7j ενάρετον Α; επίβουλον 7j αναιρέTΗV can be avoided by those who escape judgement, as ]ustin will go οη to say. But in the hypothesis under
Hαgen
consideration ηο one will escape judgement and thus the wicked will not escape condemnation. The
 102 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 103

έκόσμει dpETn ό1Τως των 1Ταρα του θεου τύχοι αγαθων και των κολαστηρίων inevery way and adorn himself with virtue ~o that he might obtain good
'λλ αγμενος
α1Τη ι ,ι
ειη. 12.3. οι(\ γαρ
, δ'
ια τους ' (20 6 a ) υ<Φ' υμων
(Λ Ι
κειμενους ι
νομους things from God and be saved from the regions ofpunishment. 12.3. For
και κολάσεις 1ΤειΡωνται λανθάνειν αδικουντες, ανθρώ1Τους σντας λανθάνειν those who seek to escape notice when they do evil, ι because of the
ύμας δυνατον έ1Τιστάμενοι αδικουσιν, ει δ' εμαθον και έ1Τείσθησαν αδύνατον laws and punishments imposed by you, do evil knowing that it is possible
5 '\'
ειναι λ α θ ειν
Λ τι, ου,Ι Ι,
μονον 1Τραττομενον ' και'β ου λ ευομενον,
α λλ α Ι "
καν δ'
ια τα , to escape your notice because you are human beings. But if they were 5
έ1Τικείμενα έκ 1Ταντος τρό1Του κόσμιοι ήσαν, ώς και ύμεις συμΦ~σεTε. to learn and were to be persuaded that it is not possible for anything
12.4. αλλ' ij έοίκατε δεδιέναι μ~ 1Τάντες δΙKαΙ01Tpαγ~σωσι και ύμείς ους to escape notice,· not only anything done, but even anything planned-
they would be decent 2 ίn every way at least because of the laws and
punishments imposed, as you yourselves will agree. 3 12.4. Unless, that

cdnjunction of ideas is put less elliptically at D 45.4: 'some will be sent to judgement and to condemna-
tion offire to be punished unceasingly'; cf. D Ι2Ό.5, Ό •• he would send others to the condemnation of
unquenchable fire'.
1 We concur with those editors who read οϊ for the MS's ου at the beginning of this sentence. If the

ι τύχοι OttoBluntMαrcovichMunier] τύκηΑ
coniec] ανθρώπους δ' Α
2 oi'DαυiesBlllIltMunier] ουΑ 3 ανθρώπους
4 ει δ' ~lburg Mαrcoviclz] ει Α επείσθησαν coniec] επείσθησαν θεσν Α
MS's reading stands, the second half ofthe sentence must be contrasted with the first, which Sylburg
and Marcovich achieve by introducing the particle δ' before εμαθον: 'for evil-doers do not try to escape
notice because of the laws and punishments imposed by you, but do evil knowing that it is possible to
escape the notice of you who are human beings; bllt if they learnt and were persuaded that it is not
possible to hide anything from God, not οηlΥ anything done, but even anything planned, they would
have been decent ίη every way because of the penalties imposed.' It is a curious ηοη sequitur to assert
that evil-doers do not try to escape notice and yet do evil because they know that it is possible to escape
notice. Munier construes the passage to mean that evil-doers, who because of the laws and penalties
established by the emperors seek to conceal themselves, do evil knowing that it is possible to escape the
notice of the emperors, since these are human, but if they knew that it is not possible to hide anything
from God they would behave altogether honestly, if οηlΥ because of the punishments that are threat-
ened. But this is to translate the verb λανθάνω in two different ways ('se cacher' and 'de vous echap-
per'). Despite what has sometimes been suggested (see our note at ιΑ 57.1), there is ηο reason to
suppose that Justin's use of λανθάνω is idiosyncratic. When he states the personal object whose notice
is escaped this is always ίη the accusative: (cf. 2Α 12.2, και λανθάνειν τους αρχοντας επειΡατο and ιΑ 12.1;
35.1; 57·1; D 2.1; 5.6; ΙΙ1.4; ΙΙ3.1; 12].2). At ιΑ ΙΙ.2 the personal object has been ellided by ήρνούμεθα:
'we would have denied <when questioned by you> ... and we would have tried to escape <your>
notice.' Moreover, Munier's interpretation involves Justin ίη a retraction of what he has just said. For if
everyone knew that it was not possible to escape God's notice they would not behave honestly only
because of the threatened punishments, but would adorn themselves with virtue so as to obtain good
things from God, as well. Justin's description of the Stoics as κ6σμιοι, at least in their ethical doctrine,
at 2Α 7(8).1 might be taken to imply that this adjective means something less than trulyvirtuous, but, ίη
the present context, Justin has just used the cognate verb, εκ6σμει, of the hypothetical person who
knows that he cannot escape God's attention: 'he would adorn himself with virtue.' If God is the one
whose attention cannot be escaped ίη the unreal hypothesis, then κ6σμιοι here must mean truly
virtuous. The suppositions (a) that λαθειν τι required a personal object, and (b) that the sentence was
concerned with a contrast between the human and the divine would have readily suggested the
insertion of θε6ν. But such a contrast sets up further difficulties for the logical flow of the passage. If
θε6ν stands, then τα. επικείμενα must refer to divine punishments, but, against this, it is the emperors'
laws and punishments that were earlier said to be κειμένους, and God's punishment for evil-doing is
matched, as the emperor's punishment is not, by reward for virtue, which Justin believes to be just as
compelling to virtue as threatened punishments are dissuasive of vice.
2 If the unreal hypothesis is about the impossibility of escaping notice at aΠ, the weaker sense of
κ6σμισι can stand (cf. note above), and the limiting force ofthe particle καν, which is problematical ίη
the text of the MS and editions, becomes plain. Ιη that unreal case people would be decent even οη
account of the very laws which, ίη reality, are the cause of their seeking to avoid being noticed by the
authorities when they do wrong.
3 Οη our restoration, this concluding phrase is rescued from banality. Justin does not ask the

7 αλλ η coniec] αλλ' Α emperors to concede a commonplace such as suggested by Munier2 ('la presence de Dieu est
 104 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 105

κολάζητε ετι ουχ εςετε. δYjμίων δ' αν εϊΥ} το τοιουτον εργον ιΙλλ' ουκ is,l it seems you are afraid that all people might act just1y and you your-
ιΙρχόντων ιΙγαθων. 12.5. -π-ε-π-εισμε '
, θ α δ" εκ δ αιμονων Φ αυ'λ ων, οι, και
' \ -π-αρα\ selves would ηο longer have anyone to punish. That, however, would be
,
των dλόγωs βιουντων αιτουσι θ'
υματα και'θ ερα-π-ειαs,
' και,~
ταυτα, (
ws -π-ροε'Φ - the business ofpublic executioners, not of good rulers. 12.5. And we are
ηΙl.εν , ~ θ αι. α'λλ" ουχ VfLaS,
ενεργεισ (~ 'β ειαs
οι" γε ευσε , και\ Φ ι λ οσο Φ ιαs
, ορεγεσ
" θ ε, persuaded that these things too,2 as we said before, are brought about by
·/ϊ , ( , 6 12 'δ ' ,( ~ (, ~
5 αλογόν τι -π-ραςαι v-π-ειλYjΦαμεν. 12.. ει ε και vμειs ομοιωs τοιs wicked demons, who also seek sacrifices 3 and ministrations from those 5
dνο~τοιs τα εθΥ} -π-ρο Tiιs dλYjθείαs τιματε, -π-ράττετε δ δύνασθε' τοσουτον δε who live irrationaliy; but we do not suppose that you, who of course yearn
ι , ~ 'λ θ' δ' t. ~ " ,λ ' ,
δύνανται και άρχοντεs -π-ρο TYjS α Yj ειαs o~ αν TLfLWVTES οσον και τι σται εν for piety and philosophy, do anything irrational.I2.6. But if, like the
ερYjμίq,. 12.7 ότι δ' ου Kαλλιεp~σεTε ό λόγοs ιΙ-π-οδείκνυσιν, ov βασιλικώτατον mindless" you honour custom before truth, do what you have the power to
do; though rulers too, when they honour ορίηίοη before truth, can do as
much as brigands in the wilderness. 12.7. But that you will not receive 10

effectivement source de moralite'), which ίη any case is ill-suited to the present context, since the
condition is unreal, but rather recognizes the chagrin with which the emperors would have to acknow-
ledge how much easier their job would be if the condition could be fulfilled. The whole sentence is a
proof αJoτtίοn of what is stated ίη the previous sentence. If, pel" ilnpossible, the knowledge that one could
not escape the notice of human beings had this consequence for morality, how much more would the
knowledge that one cannot escape the notice of God.
1 Oul' emendation supposes that the MS has lost the particle -η. Justin uses αλλ' -η twelve times,

always following a negative, apart from the citation ofIsa. 42: 19 in D 123.3: 'who is blind unless my sons
and deaf unless theiΓ rulers.' There, as ίη the present case, the positive statement is taken as equivalent
to a negative: 'you will agree' ='you will not disagree'. The omission of the particle turns a delibeΓateΙΥ
ridiculous possible exception to the emperors' agreeing into a sarcastic statement of fact, which implies
that the emperors aΓe incapable of following the simple logic of what Justin has been saying, and that,
consequently, his whole enterprise has been a waste of time.
2 It is by ηο means cleal' what 'these things' are. Και ταυτα . .. ώς πpoέΦrιμεν suggests that Justin is

12.6 τοσουτον δε δύνανται . .. εν εΡrιμίq. SaC Ρατ Ho1l97
Ι κολάζψε eddJ κολάζετε Α
7 και (10) Α] om Sac Ρατ αρχοντες Α] αρχοντες ρωμαίων N mrg (ut videtur)
referring to something ίη the immediate context, which reprises something said earlier. Commentators
refer to ιΑ 5. There it is said that demons drive the emperors to punish Christians unreflectingly (ιΑ
5. Ι); that they had sexual relations with women and boys and terri:fied people with apparitions, and led
them to worship them as gods (ιΑ 5.2); that they brought about the death of Socrates, and are now
doing the same for Christians (ιΑ 5.3). None of these is straightforwardly reprised in ιΑ 12.5. There
are a number of possibilities. FiΓst, the fear attributed to the emperors might take up the reference to
fear in ιΑ 5.2, and its object, that they will have ηο one to punish, might take up the reference to theiΓ
being driven to punish Christians unreflectingly ίη ιΑ 5.1. But ίη this case Justin's remark at the end of
ιΑ 12.5 must be extremely, rather than slightly, sarcastic, and imply that he does not really entertain any
hope of persuading the emperors of his cause. Secondly, if ώς πpoέΦrιμεν has become slightly dis-
placed, having belonged originally after θεραπείας, then it is possible that the back reference was to ιΑ
9.1, though Justin does not say explicitly there that the demons seek 'sacri:fices and ministrations'.
Thirdly, it is also possible that ώς πpoέΦrιμεν is a marginal gloss incorporated into the text (ίη which
case it might have any οτ all of the foregoing possibilities ίη mind). FourtWy, it is possible that
something has fallen out of the argument. The orginalline of argument might have been: you emΡeτοτs
lιαve α law-eIιjόrcement stταtegy which does 1l0t always work; the Chlistiall message ojJersyou α strategy that could woIk,
sillce it ojJers wlzat 110 huInan y"udicial system cαιl ojJeτ-the ceι"tainty that wroιιgdoillg will be pUllished-butyou still do
1l0t accept it. Suτe/Υ ΥΟΙΙ ατe not jiightened that you would have 110 Olle to pUllish? One could expect that qf α public
executiolleT, who would be out qf α y"ob,y"ust αs pagall pnests would be out qf α y"ob if they had 1l0thiιιg to sacnfice. But the
demo1lS Wallt us pUllished, y"ust αs they Wαllt sαcnfices ίll temples.ft01n people who live irrαtiollal/y. .[fyou give ίπ to them
youl" sacnfice will turn out inαuspicious.
3 Depending οη the view taken of the referent of ταυτα (see previous note), Justin could mean that
2 δ' Α] γαρ Ματcovίch 6 τοσουτον δε Α] τοσουτον Sac Ρατ the punishment of innocent Christians, brought about by demons, is one of the ways ίη which the
l
demons seek saai:fices.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 107
106

και δικαιότατον αρχοντα μετα τον γενν~σανTα θεον ουδένα οϊδαμεν favourable omens ίη the sacrifice 1 the Logos. demonstrates, than whom,
σντα. 12.8. ον γαρ τρόπον διαδέχεσθαι πενία'.; ij πάθη ij άδοςία'.; πατρικα'.; after the God who begot him, we lmow none who is a more kingly or more
ουχ αίρουνται πάντε'.; Όϋτω'.; και όσα αν ύπαγορεύστι ό λόγο'.; μ~ δείν just ruler. 2 12.8. For just as ηο one chooses 3 to succeed to inherited
Λ θ'
αιΡεισ
• "
αι ο νουνεχη'.; ουχ. ι
αιΡησεται ι
. 12.9. γενησεσ ***θ αι ταυτα
Λ Ι
παντα penury or illness or infamy, so the wise man will not choose whatever the
5 ΠΡΟ(206 b)είπε, Φημί, ό ΤΙμέτερο'.; διδάσκαλο'.; και του πατρΟ'.; πάντων και Logos commands should not be chosen. *** 12.9. That all these things 4 5

δ ι
εσποτου θ εουΛ"vιo'.; και"ιαποστο λ ο'.; ων
"Ί.ησου'.;
Λ Χριστο'.;,
Ι α'Φ' ου'!' και, το'Χρισ- would happen, our teacher, 1 say,5 foretold. He is Jesus Christ, who is the
, , ι Υ θ ' ι
τιανοι επονομα':,εσ αι εσχηκαμεν. 12.10. . 12 "θ
ο εν και' β ιβ
ε αιοι γινομε ι θ α προ'.;
' Son and apostle of the Father of all and Lord God, and from him it is that
τα , δ ε δ ι δ αγμενα
Ι."υπ αυτουΛ παντα,
Ι 'δ'"
επει η εργψ Φ αινεται
Ι Ι·/
γινομενα οσα we have t}ιe hame of Christians. 12.10. Whence too we are convinced
Φθάσα'.; γενέσθαι προείπεν' όπερ θεου εργον Εστί. 12.11. -ην μεν σΟν και Επι with respect to all the things taught by him, since whatever he foretold
ΙΟ τούτοι'.; παυσαμένου'.; μηδεν προστιθέναι, λογισαμένου'.; ότι δίκαιά τε και beforehand would happen is seen to have happened in fact, which is a ΙΟ
άληθ-η άςιουμεν' άλλ' Επει γνωρίζομεν ου pq.Ov άγνοίq, κατεχομένην ψυx~ν work ofGod. 6 12.11. lt would then be possible for us to stop at this point,
and add nothing more, reckoning that what we ask 7 is just and true; but
since we are aware that it is not easy to bring about a sudden change ίη a
soul taken hold of by ignorance, we have been keen to add a few things so

1 The verb appears always to have this meaning. Its choice may have been suggested by the

reference to sacrifice in ιΑ 12.5, but in this case the connection between the two sections has been lost.
The explanation may have been given ίη the now garbled and defective ιΑ 12.8, which is introduced by
γάρ.
2 We have translated Justin's superlatives as comparatives. Blunt regards this as an example of 'late
Greek' confusion between the two. But there are close classical parallels ίη poetic usage: e.g. Euripides,
Andromache 6-7, 'πο other woman has been or ever will be most unlucky than me (δυστυχεστάτη γυνη
εμου)'; Orfyssey Xl.483, 'πο man was most blessed than you Achilles (σειο δ', Άχιλλευ, ου τις άνηρ ...
μακάρτατος) before, nor shall be afterwards'. So far from committing a 'late Greek' solecism, Justin's
language here is deliberately elevated.
3 The MS has ύΦαιΡουνται, lit. 'to withdraw from under; to steal, to take away by stealth'. It is
difficult, if not impossible, to construe this with 'to succeed to inherited penury, etc.'. Most translators
and editors deal with the passage by assuming a meaning for and construction with ύΦαιΡουνται
unattested by LSJ. Penury, illness, and infamy occur ίη lists of things that may be 'de-selected' but not
'chosen' by the wise man (cf. Diogenes Laertius VI1.I02-4; Stobaeus, Eclogae II.7=SVF 1.190). If
ύΦαιΡουνται conceals ovx αίρουνται, where ovx is 'adherescent' (Smyth, Greek Grαιnnιαr, 2691 ff.), a
suitable sense may be given: 'all people choose not to succeed'= 'πο one chooses' (cf. Herodotus
VI1.46, ου συμβουλεύων Ξέρςτι στρατεύεσθαι επι την Έλλάδα= συμβουλεύων μη στρατεύεσθαι). How-
ever, ίη this case, for all its parade of philosophical jargon, the idea would be rather jejune: just as ηο
one would choose to ίηheήt penury (because it would obviously be irrational), so ηο wise man would
fail not to choose what he had learnt from the Logos should not be chosen.
4 It is again not clear what 'these things' are. Blunt supposed a reference to 'persecution and its

failure'. Maran supposed that Justin proceeds to offer proof of the truth of Christ's prediction at Matt.
12.10 θεου έργον . .. γινόμενον SaC Par Ho1l9 8 ΙΟ: 16ff. and 24: 9. But ifJustin is telling the emperors that Christ predicted that his disciples would be
brought before governors and kings for his sake and be put to death, the emperors would be entitled to
3 OvX αίρουνται coniec] ύΦαιΡουνται Α και Α] και τα έθη Marcoviclz 4 post αίρήσεται ask him what he is complaining about. It seems much more likely that Grabe was right to suspect a
lacunam suspicatus est Grabe 9 εστ{ Hagen αρ. Otto (πριν η γενέσθαι είπε ist eine Glosse νοη lacuna at the end of 12.8.
5 Ί say' is strange in this context, and may be a scribe's emendation of a damaged exemplar.
Φθάρσας γενέσθαι προειπειν, und das folgende (και) οϋτως δειχθ. γιν. ώς προε{ρψαι ist eine Glosse νοη
οπερ)] εστ{ πριν η γενέσθαι είπε και οϋτως δειχθ7jναι γινόμενον ώς προε{ρηται Α; εστ{ προ του γενέσθαι 6 This is Justin's 'proof from prophecy', which will be developed at length from ιΑ 30. The MS

είπειν και οϋτως δειxθ7jναι γινόμενον Sac Ρατ, εστ{ πριν η γενέσθαι είπειν και οϋτως δειχθ7jναι γινόμενον
ώς προε{ρψαι Otto Blunt Goodspeed; εστ{ πριν η γενέσθαι είπειν και οϋτως δειχθ7jναι γινόμενον Εκαστον
ώς προε{ρψαι Schlnid Munier, εστ{ πριν η τι γενέσθαι είπειν και οϋτως δειχθ7jναι γινόμενον ώς προε{ρψαι
Marcovich
adds, 'he said beforehand that something will happen, and it to be shown happening just as it was
predicted'. We follow Hagan (cited ίη Ott0 3) in regarding this as a running together ofmarginal glosses
οη 'he foretold beforehand' and οη 'which'.
7 With 'ask' Justin again uses the technical vocabulary of petitions.
 108 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 109

συντόμω~ μεταβάλλειν, ύπερ τού πεισαι ΤOυ~ Φιλαλήθει~ μικρα προσθειναι as to persuade those who love truth, knowing that it is not impossible to
προεθυμήθημεν, εΙδότε~ ότι ούκ αδύνατον αληθεία~ παpατεθείση~ αγνοιαν escape ignorance when truth has been presented. 1
ΦυγεΙν.
13.1. What sensible man will not grant that we are not atheists: 2-we
13.1. Άθεοι μεν οδν ώ~ ουκ έσμεν, τον δημιουργον τούδε τού παντo~ σεβ- who worship the Creator of this world; we who say, as we have been
5
Ι
ομενοι,
,~~ ( Ι
ανενυεη αιματων και σπονοων και
/ \
υμιαματων, ω~ εOΙUαχ ημεν,
~ ~ \ θ ('~ ~ Ι θ taught, that he does not need blood, and libations, and incense; we who 5

λ εγoντε~,
Ι λ Ι
ογ<'ρ
,~
ευχη~ και
\,
EvxaPLaTt'a~
Ι
ε
'Φ' '<' Φ Ι θ ~
oι~ προσ ερομε α πασιν,
</
οση
praisehim, to the bestof our ability,3 by a word of prayer and thanks-
~I ,~ Ι '(;1
υυναμι~, αινoυντε~, μονην α~ ιαν αυτου τιμην ταυτην παρα
,~ \ Ι λ
α
β'
oντε~-τo τα
\ \ giving for everything we eat; we who have learnt4 that this is the only
(
υπ
"Ι ,~
εκεινου ει~ υιατρο
Φ \ /
ην γενομενα ου πυρι υαπαναν,
, \ ~ ~'λλ'
α
( ~
εαυτoι~ και
\ τoι~
~ honour worthy of him-not to destroy by fire what has been brought
~
oεoμενoι~
/ προσ
Φ
'
ερειν 13.2. ,Ι
εκειν<'ρ
~\
οε
,Ι
ευχαpιστoυ~
"
oντα~
~
υια
\ λ'
ογου
about by him for sustenance but to use it for ourselves and for those ίn
10
\ \ t/ Ι (Ι
πoμπα~ και υμνoυ~ πεμπειν υπερ τε του γεγονεναι και των ει~ ευρωστιαν
1"'\ Ι \"" ι need 13.2. and, ίn accordance with reason, to send processions and 10

πόρων πάντων, ποιοτήτων ('207 a) μεν γενων και μεταβολων ώρων, και τού hymns S ίn gratitude to him for our creation, and for all the provisions
'λ "Φθ
πα ιν εν α
Ι Ι θ ~ Ι \" ~ ,Ι Ι \
αρσι'} γενεσ αι υια πιστιν την εν αυτ<'ρ αιτησει~ πεμπoντε~-
for well-being-of qualities <;>f produce 6 and of changes of seasons; we
who make requests to exist again ίn incorruptibility through faith ίn

ι The idea is found in 1renaeus ίη different words: ΑΗ Π1.2.3, 'etenim si ηοη facile est ab errore
apprehensam resipiscere animam, sed ηοη omnimodo impossibile est errorem effugere apposita veri-
tate' (OVK ευχερες ύπσ πλάνης κατεχομένην μεταπεισαι ψυχήν). Either 1renaeus echoes Justin, ΟΓ both
are citing a commonp1ace. Justin's use of γνωρί'ομεν ... ειδ6τες may favour the 1atter.
2 This, the principa1 c1ause of a 10ng and comp1icated sentence, is c1ear enough, but its first part

Ι μεταβάλλειν Α] μεταβαλειν
comes from the end of 13.2, and its second part from the beginning of 13.1. Justin appears to have
attempted to give structura1 unity to the sentence by a string of particip1es ίη apposition with εσμεν.
However, the structure was soon overtaken by comp1exity, and it is 1ike1y that a copyist has 10st his way.
3 This phrase is also found at ιΑ 67.5 ίη an express1y eucharistic context. There are severa1 other
echoes of ιΑ 67 ίη the present passage. 1f they are original, and do not represent the effort of an editor
to harmonize the ear1ier with the 1ater, Justin must, ίη both passages, be using a 1iturgical source. 1f, as
Otto suggests, the reference is to offeΓing eucharistic prayer not as one ought but as one is ab1e, Justin
betrays scant interest ίη making himself understood by those whom he is addΓessing (cf. Apostolic
C01ΙStituti01ΙS νΠ1.Ι2.35: ευχαριστουμέν σοι, θεε παντοκράτορ, ovx σσον σΦείλομεν, άλλ' σσον δυνάμεθα).
4 Lit. 'received', cf. ιΑ 4.7; 10.1,2.
5 The phrase 'to send processions and hymns' is prob1ematical. Justin nowhere e1se uses t11e word
πομπή; and υμνος is not part of his own vocabu1ary (as distinct from his quotations from the Old
Testament). Πομπας πέμπειν ΟCCUΓS ίη Greek 1ίteΓature with the meaning we have given ίη the
trans1ation, and πέμπειν cou1d have υμνους as its object ίη the sense of 'utter'. However, it is un1ike1y
that the same verb cou1d be used ίη quite different senses with each oftwo objects. 1f δια λ6γου is taken
to mean 'by word', as most commentators do take it, πομπας και υμνουι;; πέμπειν is made to work even
hardeΓ. 1t is not c1ear whether εκείνψ is dependent οη ευχαρίστουι;; οντας ΟΓ οη πέμπειν. 1t cannot be
dependent οη both, as Munier takes it to be. 1t is tempting to bracket the ΡhΓase δια λ6γου πομπας και
υμνουι;; πέμπειν as a g10ss, which has occasioned deeper corruption, and to take ύπέρ τε του γεγονέναι
κτλ as dependent οη ευχαρίστους Οντας. At ιΑ 67.5 Justin says that at the Sunday eucharist aΠ those
present stand and 'send prayers' after the president's address, and at the offering ofthe bread and wine
and water the president 'sends up, in similar fashion, to the best of his ability, prayers and thanksgiv-
ings'. 1t is possib1e that Justin is tΓying to find a 1anguage suggestive of cu1t which might be familiar to
his addressees. 1t may be doubted that he succeeded. Clement of Alexandria, Protl'epticus 2 (34.5),
quotes Herac1itus as saying of the dedication of phαlloi to Dionysus that if it had not been to him that
they had 'made procession and sung hymns' (πομπην εποιουντο και υμνεον ~σμα αιδοίοισιν) this wou1d
have been most shameful. The association of 'processions' with 'sacrifices' seems to have been com-
mon (cf. P1ato, Alcibiαdes II.I50a; Demosthenes, De Corollα 2ι6-η; Philo, De Speciαlibzιs Legibus 1.21; De
Decαlogo 78; Diodorus Sicu1us ΧΧ-46.2; Dionysius ofHalicarnassus, Alltiquitαtes Π.34.3; Π1.3ι.6; Υ.η.2;
ΥΙ1.7Ι.3; P1utarch, NUΙllα 8.3; Fαbius Mαxinzus 18.2; Alexαnder 29.1; C0110lαnus 25.3; Mulierum Virtutes 257f.).
6 Literally, 'kinds', but it seems c1ear that, 1ike the changes ofthe seasons, the difference ofkinds of
food is thought to demonstrate divine providence [ΟΓ the well-being of cγeatures. Γένη is used of crops
Otto Mαrcovich and produce ίη papyri (cf. LSJ). .
 ΙΙΟ JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS ΙΙΙ

/
τις σω
Φ Λ
ρονων ουχ ομο
, t λ /
ογησει; 13.3. \
τον
δδ/
ι ασκα
λ/ /
ον τε τουτων γενομενον
/ hirή?! 13.3. And we will den10nstrate that w~ rationally worship the one
ήμίν και είς τουτο γεννηθέντα, 'Ιησουν Χριστόν, τον σταυρωθέντα επι Πον- who became the teacher of these things to US, and who was born for this,
/
τιου
Πλ/
ι ατου,
Λ
του
/

γενομενου
,

εν
Ί
ου
δ / επι
atq- ,\ /
χρονοις
Τβ
ι εριου
/ Τ7 /
nαισαρος Jesus Christ, who was crucified under PontiusPilate, the procurator 2 of
επιτρόπου, υίον αυτον του οντως θεου μαθόντες και εν δευτέρq- χώρq- EX01J- Judaea at the time ofTiberius Caesar. For we have learnt that he is the son
5 τες, πνευμα
Λ /
τε προ
Φ
ητικον
\, εν
/
ΤΡΙΤΤΙ
/t
Tα~ει
t/
οτι
\
μετα
λ/
ογου τιμωμεν
Λ
of the true God, and we holdhim ίη second place, with the prophetic 5
άποδείξομεν. 13.4. ενταυθα γαρ μανίαν ήμων KαTαΦαν~ν άποΦαίνονται, Spirit ίη the third rank. 3 13.4. For it is there they declare our madness to
δευτέραν χώραν μετα τον ατρεπτον και άει οντα θεον και γεννήτορα των be manifest,4 saying we give the second place after the unchangeable and
άπάντων άνθρώπψ σταυρωθέντι διδόναι ήμας λέγοντες, άγνοουντες το εν eternal G<,:>d5 and begetter of all to a crucified man, as they do not know
τούτψ μυστήριον, Ψ προσέχειν ύμας, εξηγουμένων ήμων, προτρεπόμεθα. the mystery ίη this, to which we urge you to give your attention, as we
expound it. ΙΟ
ΙΟ 14.1. Προλέγομεν γαρ ύμίν Φυλάξασθαι μ~ οί προδιαβεβλημένοι ύΦ' ήμων
/
δ αιμονες ,t /
ε~απαTησωσιν
t Λ
υμας και αποτρεψωσι
Λ
του
"λ
ο ως
'
\ , Λ
εντυχειν και
/, " \
14.1. For we warn you to take guard lest the demons whom we have
συνείναι τα λεγόμενα· άγωνίζονται γαρ εχειν ύμας δούλους και ύπηρέτας και previously accused deceive Υο-μ and turn you aside from even encountering
ποτε μεν δι' ονείρων επιΦανείας ποτε δ' αδ δια μαγικων στροφων χειΡουνται what we say and understanding it; for they strain to make you their slaves
πάντας τους ουκ εσθ' σπως ύπερ τijς αυτων σωτηρίας άγωνιζομένους· and servants; and sometimes through appearances ίη dreams, sometimes
again through magical changes,6 they overpower those who do not strain 15

1 We haνe taken και του πάλιν Εν dΦθαΡσίq. γενέσθαι κτλ in parallel with του γεγονέναι.
2 Οη the title 'procurator' cf. note at ιΑ 34.2.
3 Α baptismal formula seems to lie behind this; cf. ιΑ 6I.IOff. and 2Α 5(6).6.
4 The Greek καταΦαίνονται is usually translated with the sense of 'they accuse us of madness'.
Howeνer, it is not clear that the νerb can bear this meaning. InJustin's οηlΥ other use, D 2.1, the word is
used in the passive with its normal meaning 'seem/ appear'. We suggest a corruption, perhaps of
καταΦανην dποΦαίνονται. Justin is fond of dποΦαίνομαι in the middle with this sense; see e.g. ιΑ 3.2;
43· 6 ;D48+
5 At D 5.4 Justin says that ΌηΙΥ God is unbegotten and incorruptible, and he is God for that
νery reason; eνerything else after him is begotten and corruptible'. This is one of the grounds of
Justin's subordinationism: an unbegotten, incorruptible, immortal God could not be crucified. But,
equally, such a God could not reνeal himself to his creatures. Hence the need for an 'other God'
(ετερος θεός) besides the maker ofthe uniνerse (cf. D 55.1; 56-4; 56.2; 128-4; 129.4), who 'has never done
οτ said anything except what he who is the creator of the uniνerse, aboνe whom there is ηο other God,
willed him both to do and to say' (D 56. τι). Justin's subordinationism succinctly encompasses both a
courageous acknowledgement of the folly of the cross (cf. ι Cor. Ι: 23), and a deliberately startling
assertion of the real, though secondary, diνinity of Jesus. There are similarities of language between
Justin and pagan philosophers. Thus, Numenius distinguishes between a 'first God' and a God who
is 'second and third' (Numenius, Frag. ιι), and Alcinous distinguishes between a 'first God' who is
eternal, ineffable, perfect in himself' (Hαndbook ΙΟ.3) and 'other (άλλοι) daemons, whom one might call
begotten gods', to whom the sublunary and terrestrial world is subject, and who goνern it in obedience
to and imitation ofthe first God (Hαlldbook 15.1). Both would haνe blenched at the notion of a crucified
man in second place beside the unchangeable and eternal God.
6 The Greek στpoΦfι can haνe the sense of'dodge' οτ 'trick', in the context ofwrestling, and is often
so taken here. However, Justin's concern is not the illusory character of demonic activity but its real
power. The adjective 'magical' usually accompanies the nouns 'art' (cf. ιΑ 14.2; 26-4; 30.1) οτ 'powers'
(ιΑ 26.2; 56.1). ΣTpoΦfι appears in Justin only here and, if Thirlby's emendation is accepted, at 2Α
4(5)+ The only use by Justin ofthe cognate νerb, στρέΦω, would be at ιΑ 59.1, ifthe MS reading is
allowed to stand. There God is said to 'ωτη' unformed matter to make a world, and we haνe adopted
4 αυτον Thirlby Otto Blunt Mαrcoviclz Munier] αυτου Α 6 καταΦανην dποΦαίνονται coniec] Sylburg's emendation to τρέΨαντα. We propose that, in the present passage, Justin refers to the demons
καταΦαίνονται Α 7 των Sylburg edαJ τον Α 8 το edαJ Τψ Α . assuming different shapes in their efforts to mislead.
 ΙΙ2 JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS IIg
ον τρόπον και -ήμείς μετα το τψ λόγψ πεισθηναι εκείνων μεν απέστημεν in every way after their salvation. Ιn the same wayl we ourselves, after
θεψ δε μόνψ τψ αγενν~TΨ δια του υίου έπόμεθα' 14.2. οί πάλαι μεν being persuaded by the Logos, recoiled from them and follow the
πορνείαις χαίροντες, νυν δε σωΦροσύνην (207 b) μόνην ασπαζόμενοι' οί δε only unbegotten God, through the Son. 14.2. Of old we rejoiced in
και μαγικαίς τέχναις χρώμενοι, νυν τψ αγαθψ και αγενν~TΨ θεψ έαυτους promiscuity, .but nονν we embrace only temperance; then we practised
5 ,
ανατε
θ /
εικοτες' χρηματων
/ δ ι
ε . και
Ι /
κτηματων οι
Ι /
πορους
ι
παντος
~λλ
μα ον magical arts, but nονν we have dedicated ourselves to the good and 5
ι
στεργοντες,
,. "
νυν και α
<\ ".
εχομεν
'
εις
\
κοινον
Φ /
εροντες και
Ι
παντι
ι δ /
εομενψ unbegotten GOd;2 then we loved above everything the means of acquiring
~
κοινωνουντες'
/
14.3. οιι μισα/λλ η λ οι δ ει καιι α'λλ η λ ο Φ ονοι Ι Ι
και προς
Ι ,
τους ουχ moneyand property, nονν we put to common use even what we have, and
ι
ομο
Φ /λ
υ ους
δ \ \ \"θ ι Ι
ια τα ε η και εστιας κοινας μη ποιουμενοι, νυν μετα την επι-
\ , Ι "'" \ \ )
share with everyone in need; 14.3. then we hated one another and
Φ
/ ανειαν του
~ Χ ~ Ι / δ/
ριστου ομο ιαιτοι γινομενοι και υπερ των εχ ρων ευχομενοι
,/ Ι Ι Ι ~ 'θ ~
murdered 'one another, and, because of custom,3 would not even live
!Ο και τους αδίκως μισουντας πείθειν πειρώμενοι όπως οί κατα τας του under the same roof as those who were not of the same race, now, after 10

Χριστου καλας ύποθημοσύνας βιώσαντες εύέλπιδες 6Jσι συν -ήμίν των αύτων the appearing of Christ, we eat at the same table, and we pray for our
παρα του πάντων δεσπόζοντος θεου τυχείν. 14.4. ίνα δε μη σοΦίζεσθαι enemies, and try to persuade those .who unjustly hate,4- so that those who
ύμας δόξωμεν, ολίγων τινων των παρ' αύτου του Χριστου διδαγμάτων επι­ have lived according to the good counsels of Christ might have a good
μνησθηναι καλως εχειν προ της αποδείξεως -ήγησάμεθα, και ύμέτερον εστω hope with us of obtaining the same things from the God who is Ruler of
15 ώς δυνατων βασιλέων εξετάσαι ει αληθως ταυτα δεδιδάγμεθα και all. 14.4. But in order that we might not appear to be tricking you we 15
δδ /
Ι ασκομεν. 14.5.
β ~
ραχεις
δΙ ι / , '~λ/
ε και συντομοι παρ αυτου
/ ,
ογοι γεγονασιν, ου thought it worthwhile, before the demonstration,5 to make mention of
γαρ σοΦιστης ύπηρχεν, αλλα δύναμις θεου ό λόγος αύτου -ην. some few of the teachings of Christ himself, and let it be for you, as
powerful kings, to examine whether we have been taught and do ourselves
15.1. Περι μεν οδν σωΦροσύνης τοσουτον ε'ίπεν' "Ος αν εμβλέΨΏ γυναικι teach these things truthfully. 14.5. And his words are brief and concise,
προς το επιθυμησαι αύτης iιδη εμοίχευσε Tn καΡδίCf παρα Τψ θεψ,' for he was not a sophist, but his speech was the Power of God. 6 20

20 15.2. και' 'Ει ό οΦθαλμός σου ό δεξιος σκανδαλίζει σε, εκκοψον αύτόν,
συμΦέρει γάρ σοι μονόΦθαλμον εισελθείν εις την βασιλείαν (208 a) των 15.1. Concerning temperance, then, he said this: 'Whoever looks at a
, ~'I Ι ~ δ / Φθ ~ ,Ι, / ~ ,
15.3. Ι "10 ς
ουρανων η μετα των υο πεμ ηναι εις το αιωνιον πυρ, και' woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his
heart before God.,7 15.2. And: 'Ifyour right eye causes you to stumble,
pluck it out, for it is better for you to enter the Κingdom of Heaven with
one eye, than with two eyes to be sent to eternal fire.'8 15.3. And: 'Who- 25

ι The phrase ον τρόπον is common in Justin, and often used loosely. Here it may refer back either to
'take guard' or to 'strain in every way'. Otto, Blunt, Marcovich, and NIunier refer it to the former,
bringing out the contrast between the words 'you' and 'we'. However, the behaviour attributed to 'us'
reflects 'strain in every way' much more than 'take guard'.
2 This phrase is echoed at ιΑ 25.2; 49.5; 6Ι.Ι.
3 This phrase could be taken in three ways: first, to expand 'not ofthe same race', taking this in a
weak sense, so that the meaning is 'different οπ account of their customs'; secondly, to suggest that it
was the customs of those of different race which made their presence under the same roof undesir-
able; or thirdly, in contrast to the following phrase 'after the appearing of Christ', to explain that it was
because of their. unreformed customs that those who πονν are Christians formerly would not give
house-space to people of different race. Otto, Barnard, and Munier favour the second interpIetation;
but cf. ιΑ 57.1 and 6Ι.Ιο for the influence of custom οπ behaviour.
4, Justin's reference may be to people who hate in general, as earlier in this sentence, IatheI than

specifically to people who hate Christians, as required by MaIcovich's emendation.

5 Justin had said at ιΑ 13.3 that he would pΓOvide a demonstration that Christians' worship of Son
and Spirit is rational. He takes this up from ιΑ 21.1. Ιπ the meantirne, he proposes to adduce sayings of
Jesus in support of the claims just made about the mOIallives of ChIistians.
6 'Speech' translates 'logos'. The phIase is highly charged, as [ΟΓ Justin the Logos is himself the
4 νϋν τψ αγαθ ψ] νϋν αγαθψ Otto Blunt Mαrcovich Muιzier, αγαθψ Α 8 εθrι Α] εθrι τραπέζας Η.
Power of God, cf. ιΑ 23.2; 32.10.
Stephαllus AιIαrcoviclz !Ο μισοϋντας Α] μισοϋντας ήμας jYIαrcovich σπως οί Α] σπως Mαrαn
7 Cf. Matt. 5: 28. 8 Cf. Matt. 5: 29; 18: 9; Mark 9: 47.
Mαrcovich ΙΙ ύπoθrιμoσύνας R. Stephαnus ed~ ύποθυμωσύνας Α 16 σύντομοι Α] σύντομοι
οί Mαrcovich
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S' APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

~, λ λ Ι
γαμει α'Πο ε υμενην
'Φ' < Ι
α ετερου
,
αν
δ
ρος
' ~,
μοιχαται, 15.4. και'
, 'Ε' Ι
ισι Τινες ever marries a woman sent away from another man commits adultery.'l
~I
ΟΙΤινες ευνουχισ
) / θ
ησαν υ'Πο των αν
t,....., θ Ι
ρω'Πων, εισι
, 'δ \ (\'
ε οι εγεννη
Ιθ
ησαν ευνουχοι,
,~
15.4. And: 'There are some who have been 'made eunuchs by men, and
εισι
,
'δ'
ε οι
.1 ,Ι < 'δ"
ευνουχισαν. εαυτους ια την
β
ασι
λ Ι
ειαν
~
των
, ~
ουρανων' 'Π
λ'
ην
,
ου there are some who were born eunuchs, and there are those who have
'Παντες
ι
τουτο
...
χωρουσιν.
.....,
15.5. t/
ωστε και
,('
οι νομψ
Ι ,
αν
θ
ρω'Πινψ
Ι δ '
ιγαμιας made themselves eunuchs οη account of the Κingdom of Heaven. But not
5 Ι
'Ποιουμενοι
<
αμαρτω
λ
οι
' ,~< Ι
'Παρα Τψ ημετερψ
δ δ lλ
ι ασκα Ψ
"
εισι και
, οι
< 'Προσ- all have the capacity for thiS.'2 15.5. So that3 those who, by human law, 5
βλέ'Ποντες γυναικι 'Προς το ε'Πιθυμήσαι αυτής-ου γαρ μόνον ό μοιχεύων εργψ make second marriages, according to our teacher, are sinners,4 and so too
,
εκ
β ε'βλ ηται 'Παρ ' ,
αυτψ α
~ 'λλ' ~
α και ο μοιχευσαι
,<
β ου λ ομενος, ως ου των
~ εργων
' <, " are those who look at a woman to desire her, for not οηlΥ the one who does
Φανερων μόνον Tci> eEci> αλλα και των ενθυμημάτωV-15.6. και 'Πολλοί commit adultery is repudiated by him, but also the one who wishes to
Τινες και
, 'ΠΟ
λλ'
αι
<C
ε!:, ηκοντουται
~ και
'<βδ
ε
~.I'
ομηκοντουται οι εκ 'Παι
'8 ων commit adultery, as not οηlΥ deeds, but desires as well, are known to God. 5
10 εμαθητεύθησαν Tci> XPLaTci> αΦθοροι διαμένουσι, και ευχομαι κατ α 'Παν 15.6. And there are many men and many women of sixty and seventy 10
Ι 'θ' 'δ ~C ,Ι, λ' "Ιθ who from childhood were disciples of Christ and remain pure, and my
γενος αν ρω'Πων τοιουτους εΙςαι. 15.'. Τι γαρ και εγομεν το αναρι -
μητον 'Πλήθος των εξ ακολασίας μεταβαλόντων και ταυτα μαθόντων; ου γαρ boast is to point them out ίη every :r:ace ofpeople. 15.'. For what shall we
'δ ικαιους
τους Ι ου'δ"
ε τους 'Φ ρονας εις μετανοιαν εκα
σω 'Ιλ εσεν ο<
, , Χριστος
"λλ
α ι
α say, too, of the innumerable multitude of those who have changed from
,
τους ασε β εις ,
~ και"λ'
ακο αστους και α'δΙ
ικους. , 15. 8 . 'i'
ει'Πε δ' rι
ε ουτως' 'Ο' 'i'λθ ον
υκ η licentiousness, and have learnt these things? For Christ did not call the just
Ι5 κα λ εσαι
Ι δ
ικαιους
' 'λλ ι
α α
<
αμαρτω
λ
ους
Ι,
εις μετανοιαν,
, θ 'λ
ε ει γαρ
ι
ο
< 'Πατηρ
, <ο or the chaste to repentance, but the irreligious, and licentious, and unjust. Ι5
,Ι \
ουρανιος την μετανοιαν του αμαρτω
Ι ..... (' λ 1"\

ου η την κο
"1\ \ 'λ
ασιν αυτου.
)..... , 15.9. 'Περι
, ε'
δ
15.8. And he spoke thus: Ί did not come to call the just but sinners to
του στέργειν α'Παντας ταυτα εδίδαξεν' 'Ει αγα'Πατε τους αγα'Πωντας ύμας, repentance;6 for the heavenly Father desires the repentance of the sinner
(208 b) τί καινον 'Ποιειτε; και γαρ οί 'Πόρνοι τουτο 'Ποιουσιν. εγω δε ύμιν rather than his punlshment.,7 15.9. And about loving everyone he taught
λέγω, ευχεσθε ύ'Περ των εχθρων ύμων και αγα'Πατε τους μισουντας ύμας και this: 'Ifyou love those who love you what new thing d<? you do? For even
'20
'λ.....
ευ ογειτε τους
\ Ι
καταρωμενους
Ι.....
υμιν και
\"
ευχεσ
θ
ε
t \
υ'Περ των
1"1' Υ ι
ε'Πηρεαf::,οντων prostitutes do this. 8 But Ι say to you, pray for your enemies, and love those '20
< ~ , 15.10.
υμας. ,
εις δ"
ε το ~
κοινωνειν ~
τοις δ'
εομενοις και'δ'
μη εν 'Προς'a /C ο!:, αν who hate you, and bless those who curse you, and pray for those who are
~ ταυτα
'Ποιειν ~ ε"φ η' 'Παντι ' Τψ~ αιτουνΤι
, ~ δ ι'δ οτε, και τον " '
β ου λ ομενον δ'
ανεισασ- spiteful to you.,g 15.10. As for sharing with those in need, and doing
θαι μη α'ΠοστραΦήτε. ει γαρ δανεί'ετε 'Παρ' ών ελ'Πί'ετε λαβειν, τί καινον nothing for the sake of appearance, he said this: 'Give to everyone who
asks, and do not turn away from the one who wishes to borrow from you.

1 Cf. Matt. 5.3'2; Luke ι6.ι8. 2 Cf. Matt. Ι9: Ι'2; Ι9: ιι.
3 We have followed Davies and Otto in emending the MS's ωσπερ to ωστε. ]ustin is fond ofusing
ωστε at the beginning of a sentence to mark a strong conclusion (cf. LS] s.v. Β. Π. '2, and ιΑ '2'2.4; 44.8,
ιι; 2Α 9.4; D η.ι; '20·4; '23·4; '27·4; 30·3; 44·4 [Otto, Marcovich]; 57.'2; 57.3; 60.'2; 78.10; 844; 88.ι; 89·2;
944; ιι8.ι; ι4ι.2), sometimes containing two elements each introduced by καί (cf. ιΑ 464; 59.5; D 35.7
[Otto, Marcovich]). ]ustin's meaning is not that those who look lustfully at a woman are sinners,just as
Christ declared those to be who make second marriages, but that Christ declared to be sinners both
those who make second marriages, and those who look lustfully at a woman.
4 Digamia means two Inaniages, not having two spouses, and therefore it need not be restricted to

bigamy in the normal sense of that word, and cannot be here, since what is envisaged is something
allowed by human law; cf. the use of -gαιnos compounds in Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos ΙΥ.5 (ι83), and Aristo of
Chios, SVF 1'400. ]ustin does not address the question of a second marriage after the death of a first
spouse, as, for example, Athenagoras does (Legatio 33.'2-34. ι).
5 Ιn ιΑ Ι5.5-7 ]ustin shows the consequences for the lives of Christians of the texts he has just
quoted.
6 Cf. Matt. 9: Ι3; Mark '2: η; Luke 5: 3'2.

7 Cf. Ezek. ι8: '23; 33: ιι.

3 ευνούχισαν Β edιZl ευνούχησαν Α
ι8 πόρνοι Α] πονηροί
θ Cf. Matt. 5: 46; Luke 6: 3'2. ]ustin's 'what new thing' ('what reward', Matt.; 'what credit', Luke)
suits the context ofhis own argument: Christ calls sinners to repentance, a new way oflife. His use of
'prostitutes' (male) may be a confused memory of the 'tax-collectors' of Matt. 5: 46 (cf. below, ιΑ
Ι5.1Ο), but, again, his word is apt to the context. The prostitutes' sin is a degradation of agape, but even
they know how to love those who love them. Ιn D ΙΙ Ι.4 ]ustin says that the scarlet cord bound to the
window by the prostitute Rahab Gosh. '2: ι8) is a symbol of the blood of Christ, 'through which the old
4 ωστε και Davies OttO] ωσπερ και Α; ωσπερ γαρ Aιfarcoviclz prostitutes [male] and unjust from all the nations will be saved'. ]ustin thought the emperors should
Thirlby have been as shocked as he was by male prostitution in the empire, cf. ιΑ '27.Ι-4.
9 Cf. Matt. 5: 44; Luke 6: '27-'28.
 ιι6 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

ποιείτε; τουτο και οί τελωναι ποιουσιν. 15.11. ύμείι; δε μ~ θYjσαυρίζητε Forif you lend to those from whom you hope ~o receive what new thing do
Ι
εαυτοιι; επι
~" ~
TYjr; ~
YYjr; t/
οπου aYjr;,
και
'β ~
ρωσιι; α
'Φ
ανιι"ει και
ΙΥ , λ
τισται
' δ ι
ιορυσσουσι, you do, for even the tax-collectors do this. 1 15.11. But you are not to store
θYjσαυρίζετε δε έαυτοίι; εν τοίι; ουρανοίι; σπου οϋτε σ~ι; οϋτε βρωσιι; up treasure for yourselves οη the earth, where moth and rust disfigure, and
'Φ ανΙι"ει.
α ΙΥ 15.12. τιι γαρ ω ,
'Φ ε λ ειται
~ ,ι θ ρωποι; αν τον κοσμον
αν ι ο"λ ον κερ δ ι '" Yjav thieves break in. But store up treasure for yourselves ίη heaven, where
, δ' ,1, , , ~, λ ι ,,ι δ ι ,~, Ιλλ θ ΙΥ
5 TYjV ε '{-'vXYjV αυτου απο εστι; Yj τι ωσει aVTYjr; αντα αγμα; Yjσαυριι"ετε neither moth nor rust disfigures~2 15.12. For what does it profit a man if 5
σΟν εν τοίι; ουρανοίι; σπου οϋτε σ~ι; οϋτε βρωσιι; αΦανίζει.' 15.13. και' he gain the whole world but lose his soul, or what shall he give ίη exchange
'ΓΙ θ δ' " ,ι Ι, Ι ,Ι ~ Ι, ,
ινεσ ε ε ΧΡYjστΟΙ και οικτιρμονει; ωι;και ο πατYjΡ υμων XPYjaTOr; εστι και for it?3Therefore store up treasure ίη heaven, where neither moth nor rust
,Ι 'Ι/λ ,1""\, 'λλ "ι \ λ' δ Ι
Yj " ,
οικτιρμων, και τον ιον αυτου ανατε ει επι αμαρτω ουι; και α ικουι; και disfigures.'4 15.13. And: 'Be kind and mercifuljust as your Father is kind
πονYjρούι;. 15.14. μ~ μεριμνατε δε τί ΦάγYjτε ij τί ενδύσYjσθε. ovx ύμείι; των and merciful,5 and causes his sun to rise οη the sinful and unjust and evil.'6
~ '~θ
πετεινων και των
Ι
Yjριων
δ φ ι 'Ιθ'
ια ερετε; και ο
ιφ ,ι
εοι; τρε ει αυτα. 15.15. ,
μΥ} ουν
l'
10 15.14. 'Do not be troubled about what to eat or what to wear. Are you not 10
μεριμνήσYjτε τί ΦάγYjτε ij τί ενδύσYjσθε, οίδε γαρ ό παT~Ρ ύμων ό ουράνιοι; worth more than birds and wild beasts, and God feeds them? 7
στι τούτων χρείαν εχετε. 15.16. 'YjTEtTE δε T~ν βασιλείαν ('209 a) των 15.15. Therefore do not be troubled about what to eat or what to wear,
ι θ ι (' ... ι/ \ (' θ ι,
YjaaVpOr; for your heavenly Father kηρws that you have need of these things. 8
, 1""\ \.....

ουρανων, και ταυτα παντα προστε Yjσεται υμιν, οπου γαρ ο εστιν

εκεί και ό νουι; του ανθρώπου.' 15.17. καί' 'M~ ποιήτε ταυτα προι; το 15.16. But seek the Κingdom of Heaven and all these things shall be
~ ι, ~ 'θ Ι 'δ' Ι θ"" ,~,
15 θ εα θ Yjναι υπο των αν ρωπων' ει ε μΥ} γε, μισ ον ουκ εχετε παρα του πατροι; added to you,9 for where the treasure is there also is the mind of man. ' 10 15
('..... i"'\' ,..., ,..,
υμων του εν τοιι; ουρανοιι;.
15.17. And: 'Do not do these things so as to be seen by men, otherwise
you have ηο reward from your Father ίη heaven.,11
'δ' ~, t. Ι ,ι ,~" Ι
6 .1. Περι
l' "
Ι ε του ανεμκακουι; ειναι και υΠYjρεΤΙΚΟυι; πασι και aOPYYjTOvr; α
"Φ
ε Yj Ι,
ταυτα εστι'
,. , , Τ ...
Ψ
/
τυπτοντι
Ι
σου TYjV \ Ι Ι
σιαγονα παρεχε και
\
TYjV α YjV, και'
"λλ
\

\ "ι \ ... Ι λ Ι 6 "δ'"

16.1. And about being long-suffering, and the servants of all, and not
τον αιροντα σου τον χιτωνα Yj." το
\ ('
ιματιον μΥ}
\
κω υστιι;. Ι .2. οι; αν
, θ""" ι, δ ι 'λ ,\
'λ Ιθ \ , / irascible, these were the things he said: 'Το him who strikes you οη the
20 οργισ
1""\
τι ενοχοι; εστιν ειι; το πυρ. παντι
\
ε αγγαρευοντι σε μι ιον ακο ου Yj-
,1, Ι cheek offer the other as well, and do not hinder him who takes your tunic 20
Ι
δ υο. λ δ' Ι ~ λ' ,ι " θ ~'θ Ι 'ι
or cloak. 12 16.2. And whoever becomes angry is liable to the fire,I3 and
,
σον αμψατω ε υμων τα κα α εργα εμπροσ εν των αν ρωπων ινα

βλ εποντει;
Ι θ Ι Υ ,
αυμαι"ωσι τον πατερα υμων τον εν τοιι; ουρανοιι;.
Ι Ι ~ " ~, ~,
Ι
6 .3. "
ου γαρ
everyone who presses you into service for a mile, follow for two,14 and let
your good works shine before people, so that seeing them they may honour
your Father ίη heaven.,15 16.3. For one must not resist, nor has he wished

ι Cf. Matt. 5: 42, 46; Luke 6: 34, 32. 2 Cf. Matt. 6: 19-20.

3 Cf. Matt. 16: 26; Luke 9: 25. 4- Cf. Matt. 6: 20. 5 Cf. Luke 6: 36.
6 Cf. Matt. 5: 45. The MS reacling, 'sinful andjust and evi1', has often been considered unsatisfac-
tory, and various emendations have been proposed. Ιη place of the balance between evi1 and good, just
and unjust, ofMatt. 5: 45, it introduces an awkwardly asymmetrical structure. Justin cites the text at D
96.3 ίη the form, 'making his sun rise οη ungrateful andjust and sending rain οη holy and evi1'. The
emendations of Otto and Thirlby are possible, but we propose a simpler change. We suggest that the
structure ofLuke 6: 35, 'for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked', has been retained, with some
elements of the language of Matt. 5: 45, 'he makes his sun rise .. .'. There is a similar threefold
description of evi1doers at ιΑ 15.7. The stress οη goodness to the undeserving, without reference to the
deserving, fits the present context, ίη which Justin is concerned with the response of Christians to those
who treat them unjust1y. Justin may also have been concerned that, without further qualification, the
balanced structure of Matt. 5: 45 might suggest the indifference of the Father to good and evi1. At
D 96.3 Justin concludes his citation with just such a qualification: 'all of whom he taught that he is
about to judge.'
7 Cf. Matt. 6: 25-26; Luke 12: 22-4. 8 Cf. Matt. 6: 31-32; Luke 12: 30.

9 Cf. Matt. 6: 33; Luke 12: 31.

8 Επι άμαρτωλου, και άδίκου, και πονηρού, coniec] Επι άμαρτωλου, και δικαίου, και πονηρού, Α; ΙΟ Cf. Matt. 6: 21; Luke 12: 34. This logion is quoted ίη a closely similar form by Clement of
Επι άνθρώπου, και δικαίου, και πονηρού, Dαvίes; Επι άμαρτωλου, και δικαίου, όσίου, και πονηρού, Alexandria, QjιΊS Dives SαlvetuJ" 17.1, cf. also StToιnαtα VI!.12 (77.6). If 'mind of man' c1id not stand ίη
Βωun; Επι άμαρτωλου, και δικαίου, Nolte; Επι άμαρτωλου, και άγαθου, και βρέχει Επι δικαίου, και Justin's source, its adoption might be explicable ίη the context of an apology, but cf. below, ιΑ 16.6.
πονηρού, Thirlby; Επι άμαρτωλου, και δικαίου, και βρέχει Επι όσίου, και πονηρού, Qtto ίη apparatu ii Cf. Matt. 6: ι. 12 Cf. Luke 6: 29; Matt. 5: 39-40. 13 Cf. Matt. 5: 22.
Mαrcoviclz 19 1j Α] και Thirlby 20 σε T/ziTlb)I eddJ σοι Α Ι+ Cf. Matt. 5: 41. 15 Cf. Matt. 5: 16.
 ιι8 JUSTIN'S APQLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS ΙΙ9

ανταίρειν δει, ουδε μιμYJτας εΊναι των Φαύλων βεβούλYJται ~μάς, αλλα δια us to be imitators of evil people, but he has. urged that all be led from
της ύπομονης και ΠΡαόΤYJτος εξ αισχύνYJς και επιθυμίας των κακων αγειν shame and desire of evil things through endurance and meekness.
ι
παντας
ι, /,
προετρεψατο. Ι
6 .4. ο
<,
γε
'"
και επι πο
λλ ~
ων των
~
παρ
,ι
YJμιν
~ 16.4. This weare able to demonstrate ίη the case even of many who have
ι
γεγενYJμενων 'δ ει~αι
απο ~c"εχομεν' 'β ιαιων
εκ Ι και,Ι
τυραννων μετε'β α λ ον, joined us: they changed from being violent and tyrannical,1 overcome
5 ι
YJTTYJ θ εντες,
ι YJ"Ι
γειτονων Ι
καρτεριαν β'ιου παρακο λ ου θ YJσαντες
Ι YJ
"
συν ο δ οιπορων
ι either by following closely the patient endurance of life of neighbours, or, 5
t. /
λ
ι Ι Ι 'Ι' Ι
Π εονεκτουμενων υπομονYJν ~
\
EVYJV κατανΟYJσαντες YJ συμπραγματευομενων οη a journey, observing carefully the unusual submission of travellers who
ι
θ
πειΡα εντες. Ι 6 .5. περι' δ'ε του~ μΥ]"Ιομνυναι ο"λ ως τα'λ YJ θ YJ~ δ'
ε λ εγειν
ι ,Ι
αει, are exploited, or having found out what their associates ίη business are
ούτως παρεκελεύσατο' 'Μη ομόσYJτε όλως, εστω δε ύμων το ναι ναι και το like. 2 16.5~ And about not swearing at all and always speaking the truth
ου" ου'" το'δ'ε (209 b ) περισσον ,Ι,
τουτων εκ του ~ nOVYJPOV.~, ι 6 . 6 . ως
Ι δ'ε και" τον he commanded thus: 'Do not swear at all, but let your "yes" be "yes" and
10 θεον μόνον δει προσκυνειν ούτως επεισεν, ειπών' 'ΜεγίσΤΥ] εντολή έστι' your 'Ώο", 'Ώο". More than this is from the evil one.,3 16.6. And that one 10

"Κύριον τον θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις και αυτψ μόνψ λατρεύσεις έξ όλYJς της must worship God alone he entreated ίη these words: 'The greatest com-
καρδίας σου και έξ όλYJς της ισχύος σου, κύριον τον θεον τον ποιήσαντά σε.'" mandment is: 4 "you shall worship the Lord your God, and him alone-the
16.7. και προσελθόντος αυτψ τινος και ειπόντος 'Διδάσκαλε αγαθέ,' Lord God who made you-sh~ll you serve 5 with all your heart and all your
απεκρίνατο λέγων' 'ουδεις αγαθος ει μη μόνος ό θεός, ό ποιήσας τα πάντα.' strength."'6 16.7. And when someone approached him and saίd,Ί 'Good
15 " μΥ], ευρισκωνται
Ι 6 • 8 • οιc' δ' αν Ι Ι β ιουντες
~ ι ε'δ ι'δ α~ε
ως Υ ι θ ωσαν μΥ]' οντες
c γνωρι,=>εσ " teacher' ,8 he replied: 'Νο one is good except God alone,9 who made all 15
Χριστιανοι καν λέγωσιν δια γλώΤΤYJς τα του Χριστου διδάγματα' ου γαρ thingS.'lO 16.8. And whoever are not found living as he taught are not to
,
τους ι
μονον λ εγοντας
ι α'λλ"" "Ι
α τους και τα εργα πραττοντας σω θ ι YJaEa θ αι ε"Φ YJ. be recognized as Christians, even if they speak the teachings of Christ
16.9. εΊπε γαρ ούτως' Όυχι πάς ό λέγων μοι Κύριε κύριε εισελεύσεται εις with their tongues. For he said that not those who οηlΥ speak but those
την βασιλείαν των ουρανων αλλ' ό ποιων το θέλYJμα του πατρός μου του έν who also do the works will be saved. 16.9. For he said this: 'Not everyone
20 τοις ουρανοΙς. 16.10. ος γαρ ακούει μου και ποιει α λέγω ακούει του απο­ who says to me "Lord, Lord", will enter into the Κingdom of Heaven, but 20
στείλαντός με. 16.11. πολλοι δε έρουσι μοι Κύριε κύριε ου Τψ σψ ονόματι the one who does the will ofmy Father who is ίη Heaven. 11 16.10. For he
'Φ ι , , Ι
ε αγομεν και επιομεν και
\ δ ι ,Ι \ Ι 'f'\ , ...
υναμεις εΠΟΙYJσαμεν; και τοτε ερω αυτοις who hears me and does what Ι say hears the one who sent me. 12
Ά.ποχωρεΙτε απ' έμου, εργάται της ανομίας. 16.12. τότε κλαυθμος εσται 16.11. And many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not eat and drink
and work miracles ίη your name?,,13 and then Ι will say to them, "depart
from me, workers of wickedness".14 16.12. Then there will be weeping 25

ι Cf. ιΑ 3.2, where it is said that rulers should not follow a path ofνiolence and tyranny. However, a
more generalized sense of 'tyrannical', as in the present passage, is not usual. It is possible that the
choice of these epithets has been influenced by the quotations in ιΑ 16.1 and 2. The νiolent are like
those who strike upon the cheek, the tyrannicallike those who demand one's clothes, ΟΓ press one into
serνice.
2 It is taken for granted that the neighbours, defrauded travellers, and associates in business are all

Christians. Justin may wish to suggest that the neighbours exemplify the meekness of those who
turn the other cheek, exploited travellers the endurance of those who are pressed into serνice, and
associates in business those who allow their good works to shine. The first two win converts by their
patience ofwhat is done to them, the latter by their positive good works. With its four aorist participles,
of which the first is unconnected to those following, and its obscurity of expression general1y, this
sentence is likely to have sorely taxed the patience and comprehension of Justin's intended audience.
3 Cf. Matt. 5: 34,37 withJas. 5: 12.
4- Cf. Matt. 22: 38. 5 Cf. Matt. 4: 10 and Bα1'1lαbαs 19.2; Didαche 1.2.
6 Cf. Mark 12: 29-30; Luke 10: 27. For the sources of this sentence, cf. Bellinzoni, The Sαyiιzgs qf

3 γε T/zirlby] ydp Α; γάρ ΤΟΙ Aιfαrcovich
Jesus, 37-43·
7 Cf. Matt. 19: 16. Β Cf. Mark 10: η; Luke 18: 18. 9 Cf. Mark 10: 18; Luke 18: 19; Matt. 19: η.
ΙΟ The remarks in this and the preνious quotation identifYing God with the Creator may have been
added by Justin with apologetic intent-to make it plain that Jesus' God is not just a God of the Jews.
ήμιν Α] ύμιν Μαωιι edd 4 γεγενημένων Α] γεγενημ- ii :Nlatt. 7: 21. 12 Cf. Luke 10: 16; Matt. 7: 24, and see note at ιΑ 63.5.

ένον Dαvies Thirlby εκ Α] 0[' εκ Thirlby Mαrcovich ΙΙ λατΡεύσεις ΑΊ λατρεύσης Ν ρτ m 13 Cf. Matt. 7: 22 and Luke 13: 26. l4 Cf. Matt. 7: 23 and Luke 13: 27.
 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 121
120 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS

\ Λ 'δ ι " Ι δι λ ι ./, Ι Ι "λ Ι δ \

και βρυγμοι:; των ο οντων οταν οι μεν ικαιοι αμψωσιν ωι:; ο Ύj ιοι:;, ΟΙ ε
\ \ and gnashing of teeth, 1 when, while the just spine like the SUn,2 the unjust
ι ι
άδικοι πεμπωνται ειι:; το αιωνιον πυρ. ο
,\
επι Tl{J
,Ι Λ 6
ι .13.
Π λλ \ \ "t
οι γαρ Ύj~ ουσιν
,\ Λ are sent3 to the eternal fire. 4 16.13. For many will come ίη my name s
,ι ι ,It θ \, δ δ ι
ονοματι μου εςω εν μεν εν ε υμενοι
δ ι β ι "θ
ερματα προ ατων, εσω εν
δ \ ,ι
ε οντει:;
outwardly clothed ίη the skins of sheep but .inwardly being ravenous
λύκοι αρπαγει:;' Εκ των εργων αυτων Επιγνώ(210 a)aEaeE αυτούι:;. παν δε wolves; from their works you will know them. 6 And every tree which does
\ \ ' not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown οη the fire.'7 16.14. And
δ ενι δ ρον Λ λ ,Ι \ , Λ β ι λλ 5
5 μΎj ποιουν καρπον κα ον εκκοπτεται και ειι:; πυρ α εται.
\

16.14. κολάζεσθαι δε τουι:; ουκ άκολούθωι:; τοιι:; διδάγμασιν α-Ιπού βιούνται:; we request that those who do not live according to his teachings, and are
δ \ \ \ ΙΦ' Ι Λ t Λ οηlΥ called Christians, be punished by you as well. 8
λ εγομενουι:; ε μονον ριστιανουι:; και υ υμων α~ ιουμεν.
ι Ι Χ ,

ι
17.1. Φ ()ρουι:; δ \
ε και εισ
\, Φ \ Λ ΙΦ' Ι
οραι:; τοιι:; υ
Λ Ι Λ
υμων τεταγμενοιι:; πανταχου προ
\
17. ι. Everywhere we attempt to be first 9 to bring taxes and levies to those
ι
παντων ι
πειΡωμε θ α Φ ερειν,
ι Ι
ωι:; ι θ Ύjμεν παρ ' αυτου.
ε'δ ι δ αχ , Λ 17.2. Λ
κατ εκεινο
"
appointed by you, as we were taught by him. 17.2. For at that time
Λ λθ ι Ι δ Λ Τ.Τ ι Φ ι
!Ο γαρ τού καιΡου προσε
\
οντει:; τινει:; ΎjpωTων αυτον ει ει nαισαρι ορουι:;
\' , \ ,
when some approached him they asked him 10 if taxes had to be paid to !Ο
Ι
τελειν, και απεκρινατο'
" 'Ε'" ι ,Ι ,Ι
ιπατε μοι τινοι:; εικονα το νομισμα εχει; οι
'" ι δ
ε
\ Caesar, 11 and he answered 'tell me whose image the coin has' and they said
" 'Τ7 ι , , Ιλ' ι , 1 " " \ , 'Λ 'δ
εΦασαν nαισαροι:;, και πα ιν ανταπεκρινατο αυτοιι:;' .ι-1.ΠΟ οτε ουν τα
'i' \
'Caesar's',12 and again he answered them, 'then give to Caesar what is
ι
Καισαροι:; Τψ nαισαρι και τα του
Τ.Τ ι \ \ Λθ
εου
Λ
Tl{JΛ θ El{J.
Λ'
17.3. 'Ιθ
ο εν
θ \
εον μεν μονον
\ Ι
Caesar's and to God what is GOd's'.13 17.3. Whence, while we worship
προσκυνούμεν, ύμιν δε προι:; τα αλλα χαίροντει:; ύΠΎjpεTOύμεν, βασιλεLι:; και οηlΥ God we serve you joyfully ίη other respects, acknowledging you as
,ι 'θ ι Ι λ Λ Ι Λ β λ Λ δ
15 αρχονται:; αν ρωπων ομο ογουντει:; και ευχομενοι μετα TΎjΙ:; ασι ΙKΎjΙ:; υν-
\ \ ,
kings and rulers within the human sphere and we pray that you are found 15
ι
αμεωι:;
\ ιφ \
εχονται:; υμαι:; ευρε Ύjναι. 17.4. ει ε και
και σω ρονα τον
λ \
ογισμον
,ι Ι Λ Ι θ Λ , δ \ \ to have prudent discernment along with the kingly power. 17.4. And if
Ι Λ
Ύjμων ,Ι
ευχομενων Ι
και\ παντα 'Φ ανερον τι θ εντων
ειι:; ι α'Φ pOντισTΎjσεTε,
ι \
ου'δ εν \ you will take ηο heed of our praying and putting everything in the
ΤΙμειι:; βλαβΎjσόμεθα, πιστεύοντει:; μαλλον δε και πεπεισμένοι κατ' άξίαν των open we will not be harmed at all; but rather we believe and have been
't"
πρας εων εκαστον τισειν
ι δ \
ια πυροι:; αιωνιου
\ , Ι δΙ \
ικαι:; και προι:; ανα ογιαν ων
\ , λ Ι ...
convinced that each of you 14 will pay penalties ίη eternal fire according to
20
,ι β ε δ υναμεων
ελα Ι Ι
παρα\ θ εουΛ τον λ ογον απαιTΎj
,
Ι
θ Ύjσεσ θ αι, ωι:;
Ι \
οΙ Χριστοι:; \
the worth of his actions; and in proportion to the capabilities which he 20
Ι ,ι
εμΎjνυσεν ειπων'
, 'Ώ λ Ι "δ
ι π εον ε ωκεν ο
Ι θ \ λ Ι θ Ι
εοι:; π εον και απαΙTΎj ΎjσεTαι παρ
\ , ,
received from God an account will be required, as Christ indicated,
αυτου.
, Λ' saying: 'Το whom God gave more, more also will be required ofhim.'1S
ι Cf. Matt. 13: 42, 50; Matt. 8: 12; Matt. 22: 13; Matt. 24: 51; Matt. 25: 30; Luke 13: 28.
2 Cf. Matt. 13: 43.
3 Modern editors substitute an aorist middle form for the middle-passive of the MS. The middle
voice cannot stand, see LSJ, πέμπω Β. Justin's language suggests that he is thinking of the weeping and
gnashing of teeth by the condemned as they are led away.
4 Cf. Matt. 13: 41-2, 50. 5 Cf. Matt. 24: 5; Mark 13: 6; Luke 21: 8.
6 Cf. Matt. 7: 15-16. 7 Matt. 7: 19; 3: !Ο; Luke 3: 9. 8 Cf. ιΑ 3·1; 7+
9 Justin is unlikely to have meant 'before aΠ else', although the phrase can have this sense, and does

so atD7.3.
10 Cf. Mark 12: 14; Luke 20: 21. II Cf. Luke 20: 22.

12 Cf. Luke 20: 24; Mark 12: 16; Matt. 22: 21. 13 Cf. Matt. 22: 21; Mark 12: 17; Luke 20: 25.

14 The words 'of you' are not in the Greek, but if the text is sound they must be implied. The

sentence is usuaΠy translated as though Justin were making a general claim about the punishment of
evil-doers, as he does elsewhere in similar language. But this claim ought to be balanced, as elsewhere
it is, by a claim about the reward of the virtuous, cf. ιΑ 12.1, 'each goes to eternal punishment ΟΓ
salvation just as his actions deserve', and ιΑ 43.2; «.π; D 16.3; 39.6; 88.5. Without this balance Justin
would, in effect, be saying here that every01le will be punished eternaΠy according to the worth of his
actions. Veil evidently saw tlle difficulty, for he (over)translates: 'ein jeglicher, sofern es seine Thaten
verdient haben.' Ju~tin's remarkably personal, one-sided application of the general law to the
emperors he is addressing is sustained ίη the next chapter: 'Consider ... eαch of the kings that have
been.' His boldness rests upon the contrast he draws between what is owed by subjects οη the one
hand, and what will be owed by their γulers οη the other: we pay taxes to you, butyou will pay penalties
ίη eternal fire, ίη accord with the account required of you by God. Justin's certainty is not about what
will ίη fact happen, but about what will happen if the emperors will pay ηο heed to the prayers and
openness ofthe Christians; the future τ{σειν balances the future dΦροντιστήσετε.
15 Cf. Luke 12: 48.
2 πέμπωνται Α] πέμψωνται Dαvies Otto Blunt lYfαrcovich Aιfunier
 122 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 123

18.1. Ά.ποβλέΨατε γαρ προς το

"r/
'
λ
βασι εων, οτι
fl
τον
\

"
κοινον
\
πασι
....

Λ' δ
θ'
ανατον απε
' ~
(210

εχωρει, ερμαιον αν ην τοις α ικοις πασιν. Ι .2. α

1"
b) τέλος έκάστου των γενομένων
"θ ανον· οπερ,
t/

'λλ" 8
εις αναισ θ'
ει' "
\ ,,' θ
ησιαν
επει και αισ ησις πασι
..
1 18.1. Consider what happened to each oftb.e kings that have been. They
die? just like everybody else. Which, if death led to unconsciousness,
would have been a godsend to all the unjust. 1 18.2. But, since conscious-
ι ι \ 'λ ,Ι, Ι \,
γενομενοις μενει και κο ασις αιωνια αποκειται, μη αμε ησητε πεισ ηναι τε
λ ι θ .. ι
ness endures for all those who have existed, and eternal punishment
5 , t/ 'λ θ.... ..
Ι ' 8 .3.
και πιστευσαι οη α η η ταυτα εση. ι
.. \ \ \
Ι δ'
νεκυομαντειαι μεν γαρ και αι ι lies in store, take care to be persuaded and to believe that these things are 5
α'Φθ'
ορων παι'δ' ' . και, <
ων εποπτευσεις ,1, ~
αι ψυχων 'θ ρωπινων
αν ' κ λ'
ησεις και,< οι true. 18.3. For conjurings of the dead 2-both visions obtained through
ι \.... Ι, Ι δ , \,\ Ι (' \
uncorrupted3 children,· and the summoning of human souls-and those
λεγομενοι παρα τοις μαγοις ονειΡοπομποι και παρε ροι και τα γινομενα υπο
των ταυτα ει'δΙ ι
οτων πεισατωσαν ('
υμας ι/
,.. οη και μετα'θ' " αισ θ'ησει εισιν
ανατον εν\ " whom ~agicians call 'dream-senders' ΟΓ 'attendants,4--and the things
' 8 , < ,1, ~, θ' λ β' ,
αί ψυχαι-Ι .4. και οι ψυχαις απο ανοντων αμ ανομενοι και ριπτουμενοι
< , done by those who know these things-let these persuade you that even
10 "θ ρωποι, ους
αν t' δ αιμονιο λ'
ηπτους και, μαινομενους
, κα λ ουσι
~, παντες, και" τα after death souls remain in consciousness. 18.4' And let these too per- 10

suade you ofthe same 5-human beings seized and convulsed by the souls

ι C[ D 5.3. Justin echoes the language ofPlato, Phαedo I07C.

6 δι' αΦθόρων coniec] διαΦθόρων Next; οίμαι, αί δια αδιαΦθόρων παίδων θέλει Affirg; αδιαΦθόρων Otto
Blunt Goodspeed Munier, δι' αδιαΦθόρων Mαrcoviclz
Mαrcoviclz
2 The cοmmentaήes luridly speculate about 'the sacrifice of innocent children and the inspection
of their entrails' (Blunt). The passage has been illustrated with reference to pagan and Christian texts
in which human sacrifice is associated with magic and divination at least since the time of Cotelier. But
this is not supported either by the text as it stands, or by the context ofJustin's argument. Apollonius of
Tyana is said to have been accused by Domitian of sacrificing a boy in order to divine the future by
inspecting his entrails (Philostratus, VίtαΑΡοlΙοnίίVI1.ιι, 20). But haruspicy, as such, does not show that
souls are sensate after death. The word translated by us as 'visions' (and by Munier as 'divinations
faites sur les entΓailles d'enfants innocents') occurs only once more in the Greek literature noticed by
nG, and that is in the Lαudαtio S. Bαrbαrαe Μαι-tyι1s (3) attributed to John Damascene, where it means
'observation': τοιαύτης ουν ΤΙμιν άθλων θεωρίαs προτιθεμένηs ουκ έπισπεύσομεν προs την τούτων
έπόπτευσιν και rds συμβολαs και πλοκαs και λαβαs αμΦοτέρων κατάρδωμεν και την νίKΗV τψ ΤΙμετέραs
ίερονίκου, και στεΦανίτιδοs έπαθρήσομεν ... (Kotter, νοΙ V). 1t is likely that Justin's text is corrupt.
Justin is looking for indications that souls are sensate after death. This is proved, first, by mantic
communication with the dead, which may be had ίη different ways: through visions by the agency of
uncorrupted youths; through the conjuring of the souls of the dead; thΓOugh the use of spirits cal1ed
'dream-senders' or 'attendants'. 1η the Clementine Recognitions (11.13) Simon Magus claims to be able to
gain access to the soul of an uncorrupt boy who has been violently killed for the purpose of necro-
mancy. 1t is possible that Justin also assumed that the uncorrupt youths would need to be murdered,
but it is odd that he does not say so. Οη the mantic power of children see Plutarch, De ISΊde et OSΊ,ide
356e; Dio Chrysostom 32.13, Augustine, Conftssions VIII.12 (29).
3 The Greek text has had a curious history. The MS has διαΦθόρων as one word ('corruptible'), but
its original scribe correctly saw that a negative was needed and suggested αδιαΦθόρων in the margin,
and this reading has been followed by Otto, Blunt, Goodspeed, and Munier. Marcovich emended the
emendation by adding the preposition δι' ('through'). We have followed the simpler course of separat-
ing the MS's reading into two words δι' αΦθόρων ('thΓOugh uncorrupted'), which has the further
advantage that 'uncorrupted children', living or dead, regularly appear ίη magical texts, see Socrates,
και αί coniec] και Α 9 και Α] αλλα και ΗΕΠ1.Ι3·ΙΙ-12, and ΡαΡΥτί Grαecαe Mαgicαe, ρ. Ι, line 87; ρ. Π, line 56; ρ. V, line 376; ρ. VI1, line 544.
4, 1nstead of reading the text as a list of five disparate items, we read two phrases, each consisting of
two elements and referring to varieties of necromany. The conjunction of 'dream-sending' and
'attendant' is found in 1renaeus (ΑΗ1.23-4; 25.3) and in magical papyri (e.g. PαpYIi GrαecαeMαgicαe, ρ. rv,
lines 1848-54: γενού μοι πάρεδροs και παραστάτηs και ΟνειΡοπομπόs).
5 We have supplied this clause for sense; it is not in the Greek.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1STIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1STIANS 125
124
,(
7Ταρ υμιν
λ ι Λ 'Λ Φ λ ι
εγομενα μαντεια Iiμ ι οχου και
\ Δ δ ι
ω ωνψ; και
\ Π θ Λ rι
υ ους και οσα
\
ofthe dead-whom all call demon-possessed! and frenzied-and the
αλλα τοιαυτά έστι 18.5. και τα των συγγραΦέων διδάγματα, Έμ7Τεδοκ- oracles, as you call them, of Amphilochus and. of Dodona and of Pytho, 2
ι \ Π θ ι Πλ ι ι \ ~ Ι ,..... \ ) \
and the otherthings of that sort, 18.5. and the teachings of the writers,
λεους και υ αγορου . ατωνος τε και ι!:!ιενοκρατους και των τα αυτα
τούτοις εΙ7Τόντων' 18.6. ο'[ς καν όμο{ως ήμας α7Τοδέξασθε, ούχ ήττον Empedocles and Pythagoras, Plato and Xenocrates,3 and those who say
5 έκε{νων θεω 7Τιστεύοντας αλλα μαλλον, οί' και τα νεκρούμενα και εις γην the same sort of things. 18.6. Receive us, at least like these, since we 5
βαλλόμενα ·7Τάλιν α7Τολψμε σθαι έαυτων σώματα 7Τροσδοκωμεν, αδύνατον believe ίn God not less, but rather more, than they do: we who expect even
μrιδεν εΊναι θεψ λέγοντες. to receive our own bodies again, after they have died and been put ίn the
earth, sin~e we say that nothing is impossible for God.
19.1. Λ
και κατανοουντι
\
τιΙ, Ι
α7Τιστοτερον "Λλλ
αν μα ιc
ον δ o~αι rι"( 2ΙΙ
a) "
ει εν
19. ι. And what would seem more incredible to someone thinking about it
σώματι μη ύ7T~pxoμεν κα{ τις ελεγεν έκ μικρας τινος ραν{δος της του ανθρ-
ι ι \, Ι
δ 'ι""\ \ Ι θ' , than if we were not embodied and someone said that from some small
10 ω7Τειου σ7Τερματος υνατον οστεα τε και νευρα και σαρκας, εΙKOν07TOΙrι εντα
~ ( ι θ , , \ Λ 'Φ' ( θ ι λ Ι drop of human seed bones and ne~es and flesh were able to come to be,
οία ορωμεν γενεσ αι; 19.2. εστω γαρ νυν ε υ7ΤΟ εσεως εγομενον. ει τις
,/

depicted4 as we see them? ~9.2. For, consider the hyρothesis now. If,

2 Post εστι transtulerunt Dαvies Mαrcoviclz verba και ό παρ'. .. επίσΚΕψιν post Σωκράτους ίη Α
3 ΞΕνοκράτους SchmidJ Σωκράτους και ό παρ' Όμ:ήρφ βόθρος και Τι κάθοδος 'Οδυσσέως Εις την τούτων
ι The word translated by 'demon-possessed' occurs only here and at 2Α 5(6).6 in all Greek literature
noticed by TLG.
2 Amphilochus is a person, Dodona and Pytho are places where oracles occurred. ΟηΙΥ the oracle
of Amphilochus would meet the case Justin seems to want to make here. At the shrine at Mallus he
was thought to provide oracles. There is ηο evidence that it was ever supposed that the souls of
the dead were involved ίη the oracles of Dodona ΟΓ of the Pythoness at Delphi. There was, however,
an oracle of the dead, a nekyomαllteioll, near Dodona ίη Epirus (cf. Oiford Clαssicαl Dictionαry, S.\T.
'Thesproti'). One might have expected here a list of prophetic heroes such as that given by Origen ίη
COlltτα Celsll1Il Π1.35. The οηlΥ point Justin seeks to make ίη this section is that it would be reasonable
for his pagan audience to accept that the souls of the dead experience sensation. If his argument is
logical, all the evidence he gives here must bear upon this. He seems to have divided the evidence into
three classes: evidence of the souls of the dead being contacted by the living; evidence of the souls of
the dead having an impact οη the living; and evidence of philosophers who taught that the souls of the
dead are sensate. Of the first class of evidence, four examples are given: visions obtained through
youths; summoning of the souls of the dead; contact with the souls of the dead through dreams; and
through familiar spirits. Of the second class of evidence, two examples are given: possession and
conνulsion in general, and possession (and conνulsion?) of oracular seers. The phrase 'and the things
done by those who know these things' at the end of the first class of evidence confuses the exposition,
but may be due to a desire οη Justin's part to show that he knew of a Stoic distinction between natural
and artificial divination. The former referred to the inspiration of prophets and dreamers, the latter
to the skill and knowledge of those who could interpret omens, oracles, and dreams cf. Cicero,
De Divillαtiolle 1.49 (109)=SJ7FII.I208.
3 We have adopted the conjecture of Schmid ('Textίiberlieferung', II9f.) in place of the MS's
'Socrates'. Justin is unlikely to have impressed his audience by listing Socrates among 'writers', though
Epictetus may have believed that Socrates did write, and copiously (cf. Diαtribes Π.Ι.32; Π1.23.20;
Ν.4.22, vvith Snyder, Teαclze/J αlld Texts ίιι tlze Allciellt fιlιΌrld, 22). Xenocrates was a disciple ofPlato, and
head of the Academy from 339 BC. All four writers ίη Justin's list are mentioned, together with
Anaxagoras and Diogenes, as teaching the incorruptibility of the soul, in Theodoret Grαecαrum
A.ffiCtiOllUlll Cuταtio Υ.23 (=ρ. 73, 18-20 Sylburg); cf. Diels, Doxogταplli Grαeci, ρ. 392. At this point the MS
continues, 'and the pit ίη Homer and the descent ofOdysseus to visit them'. This phrase interrupts the
genitival construction, and was transferred to a position after 'other things of that sort' by Davies,
followed by Ashton, Schmid, and Marcovich. We have excluded the phrase as a gloss intended to
provide an example of another writer saying 'things of that sort'.
4 The word translated by 'depicted' occurs οηlΥ here ίη all Greek literature noticed by TLG. 1t has

επίσΚΕψιν Α 4 όμοίως Α] όμοίους Mαrcoviclz 8 κατανοουντι τί GTαbe eddJ κατανοουντι Α often been taken as equivalent to 'formed' ΟΓ 'fashioned' (cf. Otto, 'ad eam, quam videmus, effigiem
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1STIANS 127

('
υμιν μη
,~ Ι
ούσι τοιουτοιS' μη
δ' ι "λ
ε τοιουτων ε εγε,
\
το
ι \, θ ι
σ'Περμα το αν ρω'Πειον while you neither were such as these, nor were derived from these things, ι
\
δεικνυS' και"Ι
εικονα Ι'''''''''δ
γρα'Πτην, εκ του τοιου ε / δε
τοιον 'ί' ι
οιον τε ι θ αι
γενεσ someone said .to you with conviction, while showing you human seed and a
/ Λ
ββ αιουμενοS', 'Πριν ι ειν γενομενον ουκ αν ε'Πιστευσατε. TιS' το μησειεν
\'δ λ/
δια ε
/ , , \ , / /

painted image, that from such such could come to be, before seeing it
'Ι",.. " \ l' ι
αν αντει'Πειν; 19.3. τον αυτον ουν τρο'Πον
δ' \ Ι Ι
ια το μη'Πω εωρακεναι υμαS'
ι,... ('
come to be·you would not believe ίι 2 Who would dare to contradict this?
,Ι "Ι , λλ' ι \, \ , 'Ι'
5
"
ανασταντα νεκρον α'Πιστια εχει. 19.4. α ον τρο'Πον την αρχην ουκ αν
C\
19.3. So ίη the same way, it is because you have never seen a dead man
ε'Πιστεύσατε εκ TYιS' μικραS' ρανίδοS' δυνατον τοιούτουS' γενέσθαι και άρατε raised that you remain incredulous. 3 19.4. But just as ίη the beginning
/ \' \
γινομενουS', τον αυτον τρο'Πον
λ /
/ θ rι δ ια λ υ θ/εντα και\ δ/ικην σ'Περ-
ογισασ ε οτι, you would not have believed that human beings could come from a small
/ , Λ , λ \ ,
θ/ θ / /
ματων ειS' γην ανα υ εντα, τα αν ρω'Πεια σωματα κατα καιΡον 'ΠpoσTα~ει
\ \ /(; drop and, yet you see it happening, so now take into account that it is not
Λ' Λ 'Φθ / \ , δ /
θ εου αναστηναι και α αρσιαν εν υσασ αι ουκ α υνατον. 19.5. 'Ποιαν γαρ
θ "δ / / \ impossible that human bodies, when they have dissolved and, like seeds,
,ας(;/ιαν θ εου δ υναμιν
/ λ / Ι Φ / , , Λ Λ
ΙΟ εγουσιν οι aaKOVTES' ειS' εκεινο χωρειν εκαστον ε~ </ '(;
have been resolved4 into earth, do rise in due time, at the command of
~ Λ
ού'Περ εγενετο και 'Παρα ταυ τα μη εν α
, / \ \ δ \ "λλ
ο
δ / θ δ \
υνασ αι μη ε τον
\ θ εον\ ουκ, God, and put οη incorruptibility. 19.5. For what sort ofpower worthy of
"
εχομεν
λ /
εγειν. α
, λλ" . . ,. ιl ""
εκεινο συνορωμεν, οτι ουκ αν ε'Πιστευσαν
ι δ' l'
υνατον ειναι God those people are talking about who claim that each thing passes into
that from which it came,5 and that not even God is able to do anything
further beyond this, we cannot say. But let us consider this-that they

formata'; Barnard 'formed into a shape such as we see'; Munier 'faςοηηes selon les formes que nous
leur voyons'. However, 19.Ι corresponds to 19.2 element by element:
19·1 19·2
τί α7Τιστότερον αν μαλλον δόξαι τι
ει εν σώματι μη υ7Τήρχομεν εϊ τι, ύμιν μη οδσι τοιουτοι, μ7]δε τοιούτων
καί τι, ελεγε ελεγε
εκ μικρα, τινο, ρανίδο, τη, του ανθρω7Τείου σ7Τέρματο, το σ7Τέρμα το ανθρώ7Τειον δεικνυ,
δυνατον σστέα τε και νευρα και σάρκα,
εικονΟ7ΤΟΙ7]θέντα οία όρωμεν εικόνα γρα7Ττήν, εκ του τοιουδε τοιόνδε οίόν τε
γενέσθαι γενέσθαι
ουκ αν ε7Τιστεύσατε
We have therefore taken εικονΟ7ΤΟΙ7]θέντα to mean 'depicted', which is what one would expect it to
mean etymologically.Justin is not simply repeating himself. Having set out an implausible proposition
in 19.1, ίη 19.2 he presents it again ίη the fΟΓm of an unreal conditional, and then asks a question
expecting the answer 'πο one'.
ι The phrase is awkward. We take Justin to refer to drops of semen. He might mean 'ποτ sprung
from such (as you are)' (Blunt), but a reference to 'parents' seems gratuitous in the context.
2 Otto, Blunt, Marcovich, and Munier retain the MS reading and punctuate the sentence ending
with ε7Τιστεύσατε as a question, followed by a statement such as 'πο one would dare to contradict'
(Blunt) οτ 'Personne, bien sίlr, n'oserait Υ contredire' (Munier 2). But first, the expected statement should
be 'one would not dare to say' (see discussion ίη Blunt); secondly, ου is the wrong negative (one would
expect μή with the optative); and thirdly, ουκ αν ε7Τιστεύσατε in Ι9-4 and ουκ αν ε7TίσTΕVσαν ίη 19.5
occur ίη sentences resuming the hypothesis of this section.
3 1ncredulous, rather than 'unbelieving', ίη the Christian sense.
4 We have adopted the marginal note in the MS, a conjecture οη the part ofthe scribe, but a happy

one. 1t is most unlikely that Justin would have repeated a word ίη the same phrase ίη this manner-
'dissolved and dissolved into earth'. 1nsofar as there is a distinction between the words αναλύω and
διαλύω, the latter means dissolving, decomposing absolutely, while the former means resolving into
something else. See Athenagoras, Legatio ΙΙ.3, 'dissolving ambiguities, resolving syllogisms'; Justin three
times uses αναλύω ίη a discussion of things being resolved into (ει,) other things (ιΑ 20.2; 2Α 6(7).9; D
Ι28-4). 1η the context ofthe same discussion, 1renaeus has both τα Τιμέτερα σώματα ... [κλιθέντα] ει,
την γην και διαλυθέντα εν αυTfι and ηνέσχετο ό θεο, την ει, την γην Τιμων ανάλυσιν (AHV.2.3). Some
editors and commentators have been worried by the notion of resolution, like seeds, into earth (see
ι μ7]δε Α (= μη δε)] μ,7]δε εκ PeI10n; μ7]δ' εκ Marcovich 2 και Α] και σώματο, Marcovich discussion in Otto 3), but the reference to seeds is slightly intrusive in the context, for Justin is ίη part
τοιόνδε οίόν τε sugg Otto] οίόν τε Α; τοιόνδε Davies 3 γενόμενον ουκ αν Asllton] γενόμενον Α τί, thinking of the earlier discussion of human seed, and attempting to reinforce the analogy. His main
Ashton] ουκ αν τι, Α 4 αν αντεΙ7Τειν coniec] αντεΙ7Τειν Α; αν εΙ7Τειν Davies ,!Izirlby point is that dead humans return to their constitutive element, earth. Justin need not be pressed too
8 αναλυθέντα Arrng Thirlby .Marcovich] διαλυθέντα Next; διαχυθέντα Davies Otto Blunt Goodspeed lvluIlzer exigently to hΟΓticuΙtural exactitude.
5 CοmmeηtatΟΓS take this to refer to the Stoic dοctΓίηe of the cosmic cycles (Otto, Blunt, Wartelle,
Barnard, Munier). But Justin is making a much more general point about the decay of originated
things into their constituent elements (cf. Aristotle, Physics III.204b 33-34 (Marcovich, ad loc.). Justin is
not in fact takin!!" issue with this view. but rather with the second DrODositiOll. that Gocl is lln::Jhl~ t() cI()
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 129

τοιούτους ποτε γενέσθαι όποίους και έαυτους και τον σύμπαντα κόσμον και would not have believed that it was possible that such things would ever
ες όποίων γεγενrιμένα όρωσι. 19.6. κρειττον δε πιστεύειν και ταύτα και τα come to be as they see have come to be, and from such origins,l ίn the case
τiι έαυτων (211 b) Φύσει και ανθρώποις αδύνατα ij όμοίως τοις αλλοις απισ- both of themselves and of the whole world. 2 19.6. But we have learnt3
Λ προσει λ rιιφ αμεν, επει
τειν 'δ rι και τον rιμετεpOν
' (Ι " δ ι δ ασκα
Ι λ ον ΊrισOυν
Λ Χριστον ' that it is better to believe both these things and also those that are even 4
5 εγνωμεν
" ,Ι
ειποντα' 'Τ'
α α'δ υνατα
Ι παρα , 'θ ρωποις
αν Ι δ υνατα' παρα'θ εψ,
Λ' impossible for human beings by their οννn nature,5 than to be incredulous
19.7. καί- 'Μη Φοβεισθε τους αναιΡούντας ύμας και μετα ταύτα μη δυναμ- like the others, since we also know our teacher Jesus Christ said: 'Things
Ι
ενους Λ
τι ΠOιrισαι, ε τον μετ α',"
Φ ο β rιlθ rιτε δ" το απο θ ανειν
Λ δ υναμενον
Ι και ψυxrι ν ',/,' that are impossible forhuman beings are possible for God,'6 19.7. and:
'Λ ,Ι β λ Λ'
και σωμα εις γεενναν εμ α ειν. 19. . rι
, 8 (δ'ε γεεννα
Ι Ι, Ι ,ι θ λ
εστι τοπος εν α κο α~-
1'( 'Do not (ear those who kill you and after this are not able to do anything. 7
εσ θ αι μεlλλ ουσιν οι( α'δ ικως
Ι β ιωσαντες
Ι Ι
και μrι πιστευοντες
" Λ
ταυτα Ι
γενrισεσ θ αι, Fear rather the one who is able after death to send both soul and body to
10 όσα ό θεος δια τού Χριστού εδίδαςε. Gehenna.,a 19.8. And Gehenna is a place where those are going to be
punished who live unjustly and do not believe that these things will happen
just as God taught through Christ:

1 The Greek, if correct as it stands, is highly elliptical. We have supposed that Justin has decided to

2 και ταυτα και τα coniec] και τα Α
μεν edd 7 δυναμένσυs edd] δvναμένσιs Α
4 πpσσειλfιΦαμεν coniec] πpσειλfιΦαμεν Α; παpειλfιΦα-
πσιησαι Ashton] πσιησαι είπε Α
draw attention, once again, to the surprising origin ofhuman bodies, and has not quite grammatically
incorporated this into the sentence; cf. the similarly awkward phrase ίη 19.2, which we translated as
'derived from these things'.
2 Α further awkward addition to an overburdened sentence. Justin expands the discussion from the
particular case of human bodies, discussed ίη the present chapter, to the general case, which will be
taken up in the following chapter.
3 Here, and at ιΑ 10.1, 2, Otto\ Blunt, Marcovich, and Munier presume that Justin is using
παραλαμβάνω as a Christian technical term for receiving dominical ΟΓ apostolic traditions (cf. our note
at ιΑ 4.7). However, we consider that in both places Justin has overlaid this basic idea with the nuance
that Christians have received somethingfiιrtller, cf. the following notes.
+ 'Even' translates the και before ανθρώπσιs adverbially. It is awkwardly placed, as it must be
modifYing αδύνατα, but it is not stylistically implausible from Justin's pen (cf. Denniston, The Greek
Pαrticles, 325-6, for the placing of adverbial και before the less emphatic of two words, which he
considers to be 'probably due to the writer's regarding the two words as an indivisible unity'). It is
possible, however, that this καί was added by a later copyist trying to make sense of an exemplar
damaged by the haplography discussed in the next note.
5 Two renderings ofthe phrase as it stands in the MS are offered by commentators: Ι. things which
are impossible for (our) owrι nature, and for (other) human beings (Maran, Veil, Blunt, Barnard,
Munier); 2. things which are impossible both by their own nature and for human beings (Otto). We
consider that a copyist has written by haplography και τα instead of και ταυτα και τα. Justin is saying
simply that while everyone, if experience had not taught otherwise, would have difficulty believing
something about human nature that is entirely natural, namely development from semen, Christians
have further received the teaching that even something that is impossible for human beings by their
owrι nature (i.e. rising from the dead) should be believed. Blunt's rationalism ('even ίη an uncritical age,
the belief ίη things, which are by their nαture impossible, is scarcely widespread; ηΟΓ did Christ urge such
credulity') is misplaced: Justin does not want to say that God can do what is logically impossible, but
simply that God can do something with a creature that the creature cannot do ίη and of itself.
6 Cf. Luke 18: 27 (Bellinzoni, T1ze Sqyings qfJesus, 107-8). The MS adds 'he said" which editors have
noted is awkward ίη this position. Otto suggested removing it to immediately after 'and' before the
quotation. But this is not a further quotation: Justin's point is that the two quotations together support
his position, and both should therefore depend οη the same quotation formula 'we know our teacher
... said'. Luke 14: 4 and 5 exemplifY God's ability to do something that human beings cannot. Α scribe
may have missed this connection, and supposed that here were two other things that Jesus also said,
and supplied 'he said' between the two quotations.
7 Luke 12: 4. 8 Luke 12: 5; cf. Matt. 10: 28.
 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS

20.1. Και Σίβυλλα δε και ΙΥ στάσ1Της γεν~σεσθαι των Φθαρτων ανάλωσιν 20.1. And both the Sibyl and Hystaspes 1 .said that corruptible things
δ ια' 1Τυρος
'''Φ
ε ασαν. 20.2. οιΙλ εγομενοι
ι δ'Σ"
ε τωικοι'Φλ
ι οσο Φ οι και" " τον
αυτον
Ι
would be consumed2 through fire. 20.2. And those called3 Stoic philo-
'
θ εον ,
εις Λ
1Τυρ ανα
, λ υεσ
ι θ αι δ ογματι':,ουσι
ΙΥ ' ' 1ΤαΙλ ιν κατα' μεταβ ο λ'
και' 'αυ ,
ην τον sophers are of the view that even God himself is resolved into fire, and
κόσμον γενέσθαι λέγουσιν. ήμείς δε κρείΤτόν τι των μεταβαλλομένων they say thCΊt the world will come to be again by alteration. But we think
5 νοουμεν τον 1Τάντων 1Τοιητην θεόν. 20.3. ει σΟν και όμοίως τινα τοίς 1Ταρ' that God the maker of all is superior to changeable things. 20.3. If 5
ύμίν τιμωμένοις 1Τοιηταίς και ΦιλοσόΦοις λέγομεν Ενια δε και μειζόνως και therefore we say some things similarly to the poets 4 and philosophers
θείως και μόνοι μετα α1Τοδείξεως, τί' 1Ταρα 1Τάντας αδίκως μισούμεθα; whom you respect, and some things that exceed them and are divine, and
20.4. τψ γαρ λέγειν ήμας ύ1ΤΟ θεου 1Τάντα κεκοσμησθαι και γεγενησθαι for which, we alone offer proof, why are we unjustly hated more than all?
Πλάτωνος δόξομεν λέγειν δόγμα' τψ δε έΚ1Τύρωσιν γενέσθαι Στωϊκων' Τψ 20.4. For ίn our saying that all things were fashioned and came into being
10 δ ε' κο
λ α':,εσ
ιΥ θ αι εν αισ '
'θ ησει
ι , , θ ανατον
και μετα
ι " 'Λ' δ ι ,/. ι
ουσας τας των α ικων ψυχ ας , through God we will seem to speak the ορίnίοn of Plato. And ίn saying 10

τας δε των σ1Τουδαίων α1Τηλλαγμένας των τιμωριων εΟ διάγειν, (212 a) that there will be a conflagration, we will seem to speak the ορίnίοn of the
1Τοιηταίς και ΦιλοσόΦοις τα αύτα λέγειν δόξομεν' 20.5. Τψ δε και μη δείν Stoics. And ίn our saying that the -souls of the wicked are punished after
χείρω ανθρώ1Τους 1Τροσκυνείν Μενάνδρψ Τψ κωμικψ και τοίς ταυτα Φ~σασι death, remaining ίn consciousness, and that the souls of the virtuous
ταυτα
, , Φ ι Υ
ρα':,ομεν,
ΙΥ
μει':,ονα
,
γαρ
'δ
τον ημιουργον
' Λ
του
Υ ι
σκευα':,ομενου remain free from punishment and live happily, we will seem to say the
15 , Φ ι
α1Τε ηναντο. same things as the poets and philosophers. 20.5. And ίn saying that 15
human beings should not worship inferior things,5 we announce the same
21.1. Τψ δε και τον λόγον Ο έστι 1Τρωτον γέννημα του θεου ανευ έ1Τιμιξίας as the comic poet Menander6 and those saying these things, for they
Φάσκειν ήμας γεγεννησθαι Ίησουν Χριστον τον διδάσκαλον ήμων και τουτον declared the artisan to be greater than the thing crafted.
σταυρωθέντα και α1Τοθανόντα και αναστάντα ανεληλυθέναι εις τον ούρανόν,
, , \ ,(υμιν
,. , λ ι Ι , Δ .\. Ι Φ Ι
2 Ι. Ι. And when we say that the Logos, which is the first offspring of
ου 1Ταρα τους 1Ταρ εγομενους υιους Τψ ιι καινον τι ερομεν.
God, was born without sexual intercourse as Jesus Christ our teacher, and 20

that after his crucifixion, death, and resurrection he went up to heaven,

we introduce nothing stranger than those you call the sons of Zeus. 7

ι Οη the Sibyl and Hystaspes see Schίirer, The Hist01Y qfthe Jewish People, ΠΙι, ρρ. 618-56.
2 Justin uses the noun 'consumption', which is rare ίη secular Greek. The νerb dναλίσκω is more
common but normally means 'use up', 'spend', or 'consume (food)'. Christian usage (see e.g. Clement,
Eclogues 26.3), probably deriνes from LXX references to God as a consuming fire.
3 Justin usually uses λεγόμενος either to introduce terminology which might be unfamiliar to his
audience (e.g. brethren) or from which he wishes to distance himself (eg. sons of Zeus). lη 2Α 6(7).8 he
refers simply to 'the Stoic philosophers'. lη the present context it may have been his intention to
disparage the Stoics' title to philosophy.
<} Poets are mentioned fifteen times ίη the Apologies. They receiνe faνourable notice in only fiνe of

ι Ύστάσ7Της Perίon e~dJ "ι:ι:στα~7Tις Α . 7 θείι: ς ~] θ;ιοτέρως ~!bUlg Jo:1αrc~vich μετα Α] με.τ'
Otto Blunt 13 χειΡω ανθρω7Τους cOlllec] χειΡων ανθρω7Τοις Α; χειΡονι ανθρω7Τους Ματαπ; χειΡων
these passages, in three of which they are coupled with 'philosophers' (ιΑ 20.3, 4; 44.9) and ίη the other
two of which they are coupled with 'Stoics' (2Α 7(8).1 and 13.2). The mythologizing of the poets
receiνes negatiνe notice (e.g. ιΑ 4.9; 23.3; 33.3; 54.1; 2Α 4(5).5-6; 10.6). 'Poets' are also mentioned ίη
ιΑ 59.6, which we haνe excluded as a gloss.
5 The reading of the MS is unintelligible ('of hands to human beings'). The conjecture we haνe
adopted, a modification of one made by Maran, is more economical, palaeographically, than others
that have been proposed. Emendations which assume a datiνe, such as εργοις, run counter to Justin's
normal usage ίη the Apologies, where onlyan accusatiνe is used for the object of 7Τροσκυνέω (ιΑ 16.6;
17.3; 49·1; 2Α 13-4); ίη the Diαlogue (Old Testament quotations excluded) there is a marked preference
for an accusative rather than a datiνe object. It may also be noted that Justin does not use a datiνe of
the person with δεί'+ίnfiηίtive.
6 Commentators cite the reference to Menander at Pseudo:Justin, De lvIonαrchiα 5.2; cf. Clement,

εργοις Ashton; χειΡων dνθρω7Τίνων εργοις ~lburg edd; χειΡων εργοις dνθρώ7Τους Η. Stephαnus Protrepticus 7 (75·4)·
19 Δ ιι' Α] Δ ιι'γενομένους Mαrcovich 7 For the sons of Zeus see 2Α 4(5).5.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 133

21.2. Ποσους
Ι \ .
γαρ υιους
\ Φ Ι
ασκουσι του
Λ Δ \ •
ΙOS' οι παρ
,.υμιν Λ ι
τιμωμενοι συγ- 21.2. For you know how many sons of Zeu~ are said by the writers you
\ hold ίn honour to have gone up to heaven l-Asclepius, who was also a
Φ
Λ , λ λ θ Ι
, , \ ,ι θ Ά λ δ ι \ θ
γρα εις ανε η υ εναι εις ουρανον επιστασ ε' σκ ηπιον η, και ερ-

απευτην γενόμενο ν, κεραυνωθέντα, Διόνυσον δε διασπαραχθέντα, Ήρακλέα healer, after being struck by lightning, Dionysus after being torn apart,
δ ε\ Φ υγτιΛ πονων
Ι • \
εαυτον πυρι
\ δ οντα,
ι \,
τους εκ
Λ Ιδ
η ας
δ \ Δ
ε
ι \ \
ιοσκουρους, και τον
Heracles after giving himself to the fire to escape from pain, the Dioscuri
5 έκ Δανάης Περσέα. 21.3. τ{ γαρ λέγομεν την Άριάδνην και τους όμοίως begotten of Leda, and Perseus begotten of Danae. 2 21.3. What do we 5
αύτn κατηστερίσθαι λεγομένους; και τί γαρ τους άποθνΏσκοντας παρ' ύμιν say about Ariadne and those said, like her, to have been set among the
αύτοκράτορας; έαν άπαθανατίζεσθαι άξιουτε, και όμνύντα τινα προάγετε stars?3 And what do wesay about your deceased emperors? If4 you deem

ι We omit the MS's 'Hermes the explanatory word and the teacher of all'. 1η the MS text the
infinitive construction 'to have gone up to heaven' has Asclepius as its subject, although, as many
editors have noted, it needs to be construed with all the 'sons of god', even though this is harsh.
Further, the infinitive itself is a long way from the verb οη which it depends ('are said'), and Justin's
regular construction with 'you know' is to place·it at the end of a sentence following a ση clause. 1t is
never inserted into the middle of the clause that gives the content of that which is known. While
HeImes is a son of Zeus, an ascent to heaven does not fOIm paIt ofhis mythology, ηοι is he desCIibed
ίη any ancient text as 'the teacher of all'. CiceIO knows of an identification of MeIcury with the heIO
TIOphonius and of an Asclepius who is his bIOtheI (De Natura Deontm ΠΙ.22 (56-7), with Pease's notes).
We pIOpose that the phIase 'have gone up to heaven' has become dislocated, peIhaps ίη the COUIse of
the same pIOcess of conuption that gave rise to the pIesent fOIm of the HeImes clause. The IefeIence
may have been supplied by a Iedactor who has supposed that when HeImes is mentioned in ιΑ 22.2
the back-IefeIence there 'as we said befoIe' means that theIe must be an eaIlieI IefeIence to HeImes,
when it need be ηο more than a IefeIence to the oIigin of Jesus as a Son of God. Asclepius is at best
only a gIandson ofZeus (οη his father's side-and a gIeat-gIeat gIandson οη his motheI's side), and an
'ascent to heaven' does not fOIm paIt ofhis mythology. HoweveI, this might have been infened fIOm
the fact that Asclepius was worshipped as a god. 1η D 69.2-3 Dionysus and HeIacles aIe recoIded as
having gone up to heaven afteI theiI deaths. OIigen desCIibes 'the Dioscuri, HeIacles, Asclepius, and
Dionysus' as 'men who weIe believed by the GIeeks to have become gods', and says that Celsus
objected that ChIistians 'do not tolerate the ορίηίοη that they aIe gods because they weIe human ίη
the fiISt place' (Contτa Celsuιn ΠΙ.22). The list of names is something of a commonplace, cf. ιΑ 22
(HeImes, sons of Zeus, PeIseus, Asclepius); ιΑ 54 (Dionysus, BelleIOphon, PeIseus, HeIacles, Ascle-
pius); D 69 (Dionysus, HeIacles, Asclepius). As human beings who have been exalted to heaven fOI
theiI benefits to humankind CiceIO lists 'Hercules, CastoI and Pollux (DiOSCUIi), Asclepius, and LibeI
(Dionysus)', De Natura Deoruιn Π.24 (62) and see Pease's note ad loc.
2 The MS continues, 'and BelleIOphon, fIOm human beings, οη the hOIse Pegasus'. We have
excluded this phIase because (a) BelleIOphon cannot be consideIed a son of Zeus equivalently to
(Asclepius), Dionysus, and HeIacles; and (b) the same pIeposition (έκ) must be taken ίη a di:fferent sense
ίη this phIase fIOm that which it has ίη the two immediately pIeceding phIases. BelleIOphon and his
hOIse Pegasus aIe IecoIded in ιΑ 54.7, in closely similaI language, as having gone up to heaven, just
afteI a IefeIence to the ascent to heaven ofDionysus (ιΑ 54.6). We suspect the back-IefeIence theIe, 'as
we said befoIe', which need Iefer to ηο mOIe thanJustin's claim thatJesus is the Son ofGod, has been
misunderstood to imply that Bellerophon has already been mentioned, and that such a IefeIence has
been supplied at a likely place.
3 MOIe accuIately, Ariadne's CIOwn was turned into a constellation (Ovid, Fasti Πι'5Ι3-ι6; Metamor-
pllOseon ΥΙΠ.η6-ι82). All the divinities mentioned by Justin have astIOlogical significance, as does
BelleIOphon's hOIse, Pegasus.
4 The MS Ieads 'always', which is Ietained by editoIs, who add befoIe it 'whom'. But in oIdeI to

construe the sentence we have prefened to emend 'always' to 'if' οη the gIOunds that (a) it is an easier
2 συγγραΦε'ις ανεληλυθέναι εΙς ουρανον έπίστασθε coniec] συγγραΦε'ις έπίστασθε Έρμην μεν λ6γον change palaeogIaphically, and (b) 'always' is awkwaId and not true, fOI not all empeIOIs weIe deified
τον έρμηνευηκον και πάντων διδάσκαλον Α δη coniec] δε Α και Α] καίπερ Marcovich οη theiI deaths. When Justin was WIiting, those that had been deified weIe Augustus, Claudius,
3 ~ερ~υνι:θ~νTα ?oniec] \K~ρ~~~ωθένTα αν~ληλυθέναι εΙς ~υρανoν Α , 5 ~ερ~έα,cο~ίec] ,Περσέ~ Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, TIajan, and Hadrian, thus omitting TibeIius, Caligula, NeIO, Galba, Otho,
και τον εξ ανθρωπων δε εΦ ιππου Πηγασου ΒελλεροΦοντην Α; Περσεα και τον εξ ανθρωπων δη Vitellius, and Domitian (Der Κleiιze Pauly, Π.ΙΙΙΙ (s.ν. HenscheIkult)). Tertullian (Ad Nationes Π.7.4-5)
γεν6μενον έΦ' ίππου Πηγάσου ΒελλεροΦ6ντην όμοίως Thirlby edd] όμοίους Α
Marcomch 6 makes a distinction between the 'appIOved' empeIoIs, who Ieceived consecration, and the 'impious',
κατηστερίσθαι edd] κατηστερίσθε Α 7 έΙΙν
coniec] αει Α; οϋς αει Thirlby Otto Blunt lιιfarcovich whose memory was condemned. Antoninus' obtaining of honouIs fOI the dead HadIian is one of the
Munier απαθανατίζεσθαι Α* edd] απαθανατίζεσθε AC\ αςιουτε coniec] αξιουντες Α; αςιουντες λέγο­ Ieasons consideIed ίη the HΊStoria Augusta fOI his being given the name 'Pius' (Hadrian 24.5; Antoninus 2.5).
ντα Marcomch Cassius Dio IefeIs to Antoninus' exeItions οη behalf of the dead Hadrian, but says that he was called
'Pius' because ofhis Iefusal to begin his reign by punishing many accused men (HΊSt01ia 70.ι.2-2.ι).
 134 JUST1N'S APQLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 135
έωρακέναι εκ τψ; πυρ ας ανερχόμενον είς τον ουρανον τον κατακαέντα thetn worthy to be made into gods you also 1Jring forward someone who
Καίσαρα. 21.4. και όποί'αι έκάστου των λεγομένων υίων (212 b) του Διος swears that he has seen the cremated Caesar going Up to heaven from the
ίστορουνται αί πράξεις, προς είδότας λέγειν ουκ ανάγκη, πλ~ν ότι είς T~ν είς pyre. 1 21.4. And what sort of stories are told about the doings of those
διαΦθοραν ΠPOTpoπ~ν των εκπαιδευομένων ταυτα γέγραπται. μιμητας γαρ who are called sons of Zeus it is not necessary to say to those who know,
5 θεων καλον είναι πάντες ~γoυνTαι. 21.5. απείη δε σωΦρονούσης ψυXrις except that these things are written to persuade to corruption 2 those who 5
εννοια τοιαύτη περι θεων, ώς και αυτον τον ~γεμόνα και γεννΥιτορα πάντων are being educated. For all think that it iS good to imitate the gods. 3
κατ
, αυτους
, \ ΔΙ
ια πατρο
Φ'
οντην τε
\ \ Ι
και πατρος τοιουτου γεγονεναι,
Ι ,ι ι
ερωτι τε 21.5.Far let it be from a sensible mind to be schooled4 ίη such an idea
concerning the gods-that even Zeus, according to them the leader and be-
getter of alI, was both a parricide and the son of a father who was also such,5

ι Cassius Dio (Hist01iα 56-46.2, cf. Livy ι'16.5-7) records the story that a 'senator and ex-praetor had
sworn that he had seen Augustus ascending to .heaven after the manner of Proculus and Romulus'.
Suetonius also mentions an ex-praetor 'who swore that he saw the image of the cremated one
[Augustus] going into heaven', AllgUStUS' 100.4. Α similar story was also told of the deified sister of
Caligula, lulίa Drusilla (Cassius Dio, Historiα 59. ι ι .4). Seneca mocks such testimony ίη Apocoloc)llltosis Ι;
see also Tatian, Οωtiο 10.2. Whether Justin's reference to 'the cremated Caesar' was a deliberate
attempt to mock the practice of deification, ΟΓ simply gauche, it is unlikely to have endeared him to an
emperor who had taken such pains over his pIedecessor's deification.
2 Blunt translates the text of the MS by 'advantage, profit ... instruction' (cf. Barnard, 'benefit
and instruction'; MunieI, 'l'avantage et l'instruction'). HoweveI, these are not close to the primaIY
meanings of the words, and if Justin is indeed being ironic one would expect the words to have a
quasi-technical use. Προτροπή is defined ίη RJzet01icα αd Alexalldruιll (142Ib. 20) as 'encouragement
(παράκλησις) Iegarding choices, ΟΓ wOIds, ΟΓ actions'; its opposite, άποτροπή, as 'the 11indering of
choices ΟΓ wOIds ΟΓ actions'. According to Aristotle (RJzet01icα 1358b. 22), προτροπή has as its object that
which is useful (συμΦέρον), while άποτροπή has as its object that which is haImful (βλαβερ6ν); cf.
MaItin, Alltike Rhet01ik, 10. We propose that Justin's saIcasm consists precisely ίη saying that it is the
goal of stories about the sons of Zeus to persuade those being educated to follow a harmful example,
and we have emended the text accordingly. Ifthe MS's διαΦοράν is to stand, it must be understood ίη a
specialized sense, whereas Justin elsewhere employs it, and the cognate adjective, ίη the ordinaIY sense
of 'di:fference', 'di:ffeIent' (D 3.5; 5.6; ιΑ 22.4; 2Α 9.3). OUI emendation to διαΦθοράν, which Colson
consideIed but Iejected ('Notes onJustin Martyr', 164), involves a small change, which may have arisen
if εΙς την εΙς was mistakenly written as ΟΓ mistakenly corrected to εΙς, and κα{ was added fOI sense. For
the construction, cf. Origen (Frαgmelltα ίll Exoduιll, PG 12, col. 276B=PlιίZocαZία 27.8): εΙς την εΙς Χριστον
π{στιν; Cyril (De IncαrllαtiOlle Ulligelliti 7IIe): κεχρισμένος εΙς την εΙς κ6σμον άποστολήν; Severianus
(Ιll Epist. l αd C01illtlz. Ραuluskοmιnelltαι', 230): εΙς την εΙς αυτον π{στιν άγαγ6ντος. Justin shows in the
in1mediately following sentence that the stories about the sons of Zeus must have been intended for
persuasion, and ίη the sentence following that he shows that what they persuaded towaIds is not the
proper object of persuasion. At ιΑ 5.2 Justin says that, 'in ancient times, wicked demons committed
adultery with women and corrupted (διέΦθειΡαν) boys'; and at ιΑ 54.1 that the 'myths invented by the
poets' which youths learn by heart were 'said by the working of the evil demons fOI the deception and
misdirection of the human Iace'. Tatian accused the GIeeks of having established poetry ΌηΙΥ ίη
order to describe battles and the amouIs ofthe gods and spiritual corruption (ψυχης διαΦθοράν)', Οωtiο
1.3 (tr. WhitakeI).
3 Epicureans thought that those who believed in the 'oIacles about the gods will first wish to imitate
their blessedness ίη so far as humans can', meaning thatjust as the gods aIe harmless to human beings,
so should human beings be to one another: Philodemus, Οη Pie!y 71.
.. We take Justin to be using the verb παραδέξασθαι in the particular sense of 'receive lessons from a
master' (LSJ).
5 NeitheI Zeus ηΟΓ Κronos weIe technically parricides. Κronos castrated his father Uranus and
Zeus deposed ΟΓ imprisoned Kronos, see Cicero, De Nαturα DeΟΙ-Ul1Ι 1Ι.24 (63), with Pease's note for
IefeIences and vaIiations οη the myth. Lactantius (Iιιstitutiolles Divinae ι'1ο.1Ο) says that Jupiter was
'almost a parricide'. The Roman crime of ραι-ricίdίum embIaced the slaying of more than just parents,
3 εΙς την εΙς coniec] εΙς Α 4 διαΦθοραν coniec] διαφοραν Α προτροπην coniec] και προ- and a better case might have been made that both Zeus and his father were murdereΓs of their
τροπην Α Ιη εκπαιδευομένων librarius σ pro ο scribere coepit, ut videtur 7 και Α] και εκ children, but Justin would not have lacl<:ed wOIds to make such a meaning plain.
Mαrcovich
 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEH~LF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 137
κακών και αισχρών ήδονών ~TTω γεν6μενον έπι ΓαvvμήδYjV και τας πολλας and, enslaved by love to evil and shameful pleasures, had sex with
μοιχευθείσας γυναικαςο έλθειν, και τσυς αύτου παιδας τα όμοια πράςαντας Ganymede and with the many women he debauched, and that his own
παραδέςασθαι. 21.6. άλλ' ώς προέΦYjμεv, οί Φαυλοι δαίμονες ταυτα children did similar things. 21.6. But, as we said before, the evil demons
"
επραςαν.
(; 'θ
απα
'Υ
aVaTιI:>Ea
θ
αι
δ'
ε
(
YjfLEιS'
Λ Ι
μονους
δ δ δ Ι
ε ι αγμε
θ
α
, (οσιως
τους
Ι
και
,
did these things. 1 But we have been taught that only those who live holy
5 , Ι "θ ειΡ
εναρετως εγγυς
Λ β ιουντας,
Λ λ ΙΥ θ
κο al:>Ea αι
δ' 'δ Ι " ,
ε τους α ικως και μΥ} μετα- and virtuous lives close to God are made divine,2 and we believe that those 5
β α'λλ οντας "Ι , . Ι
εν αιωνιιΡ πυρι πιστευομεν. who livewickedly and do not reform are punished in eternal fire.

22.1. Υίος δε θεου, ό 'IYjaODS' λεγ6μενος, ει και κοινος μ6νον ανθρωπος, δια 22.1. The Son of God who is called Jesus, even if he were only an
σοΦίαν αςιος υίος θεου λέγεσθαι' πατέρα γαρ άνδρών τε θεών τε πάντες ordinary 3 human being, would be worthy to be called a son of God
Φ Λ τον
συγγρα εις 'θ'εον κα λ ουσιν.
Λ 22.2. ει'δ'ε και, ι'δΙιως παρα" TYjV ΚΟΙVYjV
,Ι γενε- because of wisdom. For all the writers call God the father of men and
ΙΟ
Λ θ '"
σιν YEYEVVYja αι αυτον εκ
θ Λλ
εου '
εγομεν
λ '
ογον
θ Λ (ιφ
εου, ως προε YjfLEV, κοινον
, gods. 22.2. But if ίη fact we say that, ίη a special manner, and not ίη the 10
τουτο εστω ύμιν τοις τον ΈΡμYJV λ6γον τών παρα θεου άγγελΤικον λέγουσιν. manner of an ordinary birth, he was born from God, as we said before,4 as
'δ' ,ι Ι , ..... θ ,/ \.....
22.3. ει ε αΙΤιασαιτο Τις εσταυρωσ αι αυτον, και τουτο κοινον τοις
, ..
Logos of God, consider this, the same as your calling Hermes the logos
προ καΤYjριθμYjμέVΟις παθουσιν υίοις καθ' ύμας του Δ ιος ύπάρχει. who announces the things 5 that come from god. 22.3. But if someone
,ι
22.4. εκεινων \ ουχ
τε γαρ '" ομοια (213 a ) τα' πα'θ Yj τουΛ θ ανατου
Ι α'λλ'
α δ ια'Φ ορα should object that he was crucified, this too is the same as your sons of
15 Λ
ιστορειται'
(
ωστε
"
μΥ} δ ε το'''δ '
Λ παΙ θ ους
ι ιον του "
YjTTOVa δ οκειν
Λ ειναι
'i' Λ
TOVTOV. 'λλ'
α Zeus who suffered and whom we have already enumerated. 22.4. For the 15
ώς ύπεσχ6μεθα προϊ6ντος του λ6γου και κρείττονα άποδείςομεν' μαλλον δε sufferings ίη which they died were not all of a kind, but various sufferings
"δ/δ (, Ι 'Λ
και απο ε εικται, ο γαρ κρειττων εκ των πρας εων
1(; Φ Ι
αινεται. 22.5. ει
'δ'
ε are recounted, so that not even with regard to the special quality of his
και'δ'
ια παρ θ ενου
' YEYEVVYja '
Λ θ αι Φ ερομεν, "Λ"
κοινον και τουτο προς τον Περσεα Ι
suffering does he seem to be inferior. But, as we promised,6 as the discourse
εστω ύμΙν. 22.6. Ψ δε λέγομεν χωλους και παραλυΤικους και έκ YEVETYJS' proceeds, we will show that he is ίη fact superior. Or rather, it has already
been shown. 7 For being superior is made apparent through deeds. 20

22.5. And if we also allege birth through a virgin,8 consider this the same
as ίη the case of Perseus. 22.6. But when we say he made well the lame

ι Cf. ιΑ 5.2.
2 This is the same word as that translated 'to be made into gods' at ιΑ 21.3. Etymologically, it means
'to make deathless', and so the passiνe can range ίη meaning from 'to be immortal' to 'to be made one
of the immortals'. What Justin says does not amount to the later Christian doctrine of diνinization.
3 We haνe accepted the emendation of Daνies and Thirlby against Otto, Blunt, and Marcoνich,
who all point to the opposition between the adνerb κοινω, read by the MS and Ιδ{ω, in ιΑ 22.2.
Howeνer, while there is an opposition of ideas, the phrases are not syntactically equiνalent, and the use
of the adjectiνe is supported by D 99.3 'like an ordinary human being remain in Hades"
4 Cf. ιΑ 21.1.

5 The adjectiνe άγγελτιιcό, means 'premonitory' (LSJ), e.g. 'of misfortune' (Heraclitus the Stoic), οτ
'of the future' (Porphyry), and supports Thirlby's conjecture of των instead of τόν. Justin uses the
adjectiνe προαγγελτικό, of prophecies of the future (ιΑ 32.7; 36.2; 45.5). At D 128.2 he cites an
argument that the 'Power from God' is called 'angel' since it proclaims 'the things from God to human
beings', and 'word' since it brings 'messages from God to human beings"
6 ιΑ 13.3.
7 Otto raises the possibility that this sentence is a gloss, and, if the meaning is that a demonstration
has been giνen earlier, at ιΑ 15-17, as suggested by Otto, Marcoνich, and Munier, this may well be the
case. Howeνer, it is possible that, referring to the commonplace distinction between word and deed
(e.g. Thucydides), Justin means that he does not need to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus in
argument (discourse) as this has been proνed by Jesus' own deeds (cf. Munier). Hence the impersonal
ι Γανυμ:ήδην edd] Γαννυμήδην Α 7 κοινο, Dαvies Τ/ιίι-Ζ1!Υ] κοινω, Α ΙΟ λόγον Α] λόγον passiνe 'it has already been shown', rather than 'we haνe already shown'.
σντα AslIton ΙVfαι-covίch ΙΙ των Τ/ιίι"Ζ1!Υ] τον Α 14 διάΦορα cum α super lineam Α 8 Justin can describe the birth of Jesus as being either through, οτ from, the νirgin (έκ, δια, άπο;
18 γεγεννησθαι Α] γεγεννησθαι αυτον ΙVfαι-covίclι 19 ύμιν R.Stepllαnus Otto Blunt Mαrcovicll Munieι] D 66.1,4). Gnostic use of'through' (δια), implying thatJesus took nothingftom Mary, willlater rule out
ΤΙμινΑ the use of that preposition ίη orthodox circles.
 138 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 139
1
ΠΎjpOυι; ύγιείι; πεΠOΙΎjKέναι αύτον και νεκρουι; άνεγείραι, όμοια τοιι; ύπο andparalytics and those blind from birth and.that he raised the dead, our
ΆσKλΎjΠΙOυ γεγενiισθαι λεγομένοιι; και ταυτα Φάσκειν δόςομεν. saying these things ,vill seem to be like the things said to have been done by
Asclepius.
23.1. '1να δ' "δ Λ
ε Ύj Ύj και τουτο
'Φ ανερον υμιν \
Ι Λ γενΎjTαι,
Ι Ι ι
οποσα
λ εγομεν
ι θ ι
μα οντει;

παρα του Χριστου και τών προελθόντων αύτου πpOΦΎjTών μόνα άλΎjθiι εσΤι 23.1. And ίn order that this 2 too might now become plain to you, only the
5 και
\ πρεσ
βl
υτερα παντων
Ι
των
Λ Ι
γεγενΎjμενων συγγρα
φ ι
εων.
,
και
,\
ουχι
δ'
ια το
\ things which we say and which we learnt from Christ and the prophets who 5
ταύτα λέγειν αύτοίι; παpαδεxθiιναι άςιουμεν, άλλ' ΟΤι το άλΎjθει; λέγομεν. came before him are true,' and they are older than aΠ those who were writers.
23.2. και 'IΎjσOυι; Χριστοι; μόνοι; ίδίωι; υίοι; Τψ θεψ γεγέννΎjTαι, λόγοι; And it is ~ot because we say the same things as these that we ask3 to be
, Λ Ι Ι ,
αυτου υπαρχων και πρωτοτοκοι; και
Ι 'δΙ ,
υναμιι;, και ΤΊ/
Λβ
ου
λΛ 'Λ Ι
Ί/ αυτου γενομενοι; accepted by you, but because we say what is true. 23.2. And Jesus Christ
ανθρωποι; ταυτα ~μάι; εδίδαςεν επ' άλλαγυ και επαναγωγυ του άνθρωπείου alone has been born ίn a. special manner the Son of God, while being his
ΙΟ γένουι;. 23.3. πριν *** r;
εν άνθρώποιι; αύτον γενέσθαι, ανθρωποι Logos and first-born and power, and, having become a human being at his ΙΟ
will, he taught us these things with a view to the alteration and restoration
ofthe human race. 4 23.35 *** ,<But> certain human beings, <his prophets,

ι The MS has πονηρούς, butD 69.6 suggests that πηρούς, with the meaning 'blind', is correct. This
does not proνe that Justin was familiar with the Johannine account of the healing of the man blind
from birth Gohn 9): 'blind from birth' is a phrase found ίη classical authors (BDAG, s.v.).
2 Most editors take the whole of this chapter to be one sentence, with the purpose clause ('ίη order

Ι πηρους R. Stephαnus Mαrcovicll] πονηρους Α; αναπηρους Gildersleeve
Mαrcovicll] ταυτα Α
Mαrcovich Munier] πάντων Α
alterumνe νerbum, νel νersum integrum, excidisse suspicatus est Grαbe
και πριν η Fαbricius Otto Blunt; και ση πριν η Mαrcomch
2 ταυτα Sylburg Otto Blunt
3 όπόσα coniec] ση όπόσα Α 5 πάντων των Sylburg Otto Blunt
7 και Α] και ση Mαrcomch 10 γένους Α] post γένους unum
πριν η Α] πριν δε η Mαrαn;
ανθρωποι coniec] ανθρωπον Α
that ... ') at the beginning of the chapter depending οη the final phrase 'we shall bring forward this
proof', and understand the chapter to be an introduction to the argument of chs. 24-60 (Trollope,
Blunt, Otto, Barnard, Marcoνich, Munier 3). lη line with this, they take 'this' (TOVTO) at the beginning of
23.1 to be pointing forward to the clause introduced (ίη the MS text) by 'that the things which we
say. .. ' (ση όπόσα λέγομεν . .. ). Howeνer, when Justin repeats the phrase 'ίη order that this might
become clear to you' at ιΑ 37. ι, it is plain that the demonstratiνe 'this' looks not forward but back. Also,
the word translated 'proof' does not haνe this meaning elsewhere in Justin, and its basic meaning is
'disproof'. Construed as one sentence the chapter is impossibly complex. We propose that Justin's
intention was much less ambitious. His argument hitherto could haνe left his pagan readers with the
impression that he is saying that there is ηο di:fference between Christian doctrines and pagan myths. It
is οη this point that Justin feels that clarification is required. 'This' thus refers back to the assertion of
the superiority ofChrist in ιΑ 22.4.
3 Justin reνerts to the formallanguage of petition.
4 If this is what Justin wrote, that is, if the textual corruption of the next sentence has not affected
this one too, he may haνe intended a contrast with the educatiνe purpose of mythological writings (cf.
ιΑ 21·4; 5μ).
This has been described as 'one of the most complex sentences ίη the .ιl.pology, which has caΠed
5
forth much ingenuity οη the part ofthose who would emend the text' (Barnard). Trollope, οη the other
hand, thought there was 'perhaps ... ηο need of any change'. Α literal translation of the MS text
might be: '<That> ... before he became a man among men, certain [persons], by aid ofthe afore-
mentioned eνil demons, through the prophets announced beforehand as haνing happened the things
they said in their myth-making, just as they also bring about the infamous and impious deeds spoken
against us, of which there is ηο witness or demonstration, we wil1 make this proof.' Οη a superficial
leνel there is, to say the least, confusion about how many agents are inνolνed here, and about what it is
that they do. According to some commentators, we need to distinguish 'certain persons', demons,
poets, and mythologizers. It is open to question whether εΤπον and εΦησαν haνe the same subject, and
whether μυθοποιήσαντες qualifies 'certain persons', demons, or poets, or whether it is being used
substantiνely to refer to yet another class of agents. It is not at aΠ clear who the subjects of ενήργησαν
are, though Justin's usage elsewhere would suggest they must be the demons. At a deeper level,
howeνer, it might be sa:id that this sentence goes an extraordinarily circuitous way to say νery litde, νiz.
that before the incarnation (with the inνolνement of demons, poets, and possibly mythologizers)
unspecified agents represented mythological stories as true, just as now they bring it about that we are
accused of doing things without eνidence or demonstration. Even if Justin is right ίη assuming that
mythological stories were belieνed to be true (surely a large assumption, at least with respect to his
primary intended audience), that this was done before or after the incarnation is neither here nor
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

ι Ι δ \ δ \ Ι Ι δ ι δ \ Λ
proclaimed these things> ίn advance,l before he came to be among human
Φθ ασανTE~
\ < \
ηνE~. τα Ε ια τουτων ΠΡΟΕιΡημΕνα οι κακοι αιμoνE~ ια των

ποιητών ώ~ γΕνόμΕνα Είπον μυθoπoι~σανTE~' ον τρόπον και Τι1 καθ' ήμών
λΕγόμΕνα (213 b) δύσΦημα και ασΕβ1j εργα εν~pγησαν, dJv oύδEΙ~ μάPTυ~
ούδε απόδEιξί~ εση, και τούτου ελΕγχον ποιησόμΕθα.
beings. 2 But what was foretold by these the evil demons,3 myth-making
through the poets, spoke of as having happened. Ιn the same way they
brought about the allegation of infamous and impious deeds against us,4
of which there is neither witness nΟΓ demonstration, and of this we shal1 5
make proo(5

there. ΙΕ, οη the other hand, Justin is here refeπing, as many suppose, to his explanation of how, and
why, superficial similarities between Christian beliefs and pagan mythology come about, then more of
t11is might be expected to be found here (cf. ιΑ 53.1; 54-1-10; D 69-70). We think that Grabe cοπectlΥ
recognised a lacuna at the beginning of this section, and that the MS text immediately following the
lacuna reΡ1'eseηts an imΡe1'fect effort by an earlier copyist to 1'estore the text of a badly damaged
exemplar. While seeking to introduce as few conjectures into the text as possible, we have attempted to
1'econstruct it ίη aCCΟ1'dance with the following outline: JιVlzαt we leal'nt jiΌIn CΙl17st αnd tlze pI'ophets wlιo
preceded lιίιιι is tI·ue. It is becαuse it is tI'ue thdt we ask to be accepted b)I )'ou, not becαzιse qf similαrif:JI witlz pagan
aztthors (23. ι). fιl1hen lιe becaιne α huιnan beil1g Jesus CΙl17st hiIllse!f tazιglzt us tlιat lιe is ullique6 tlze Son qf God, and
'
his Logos and Powe/" (23.2). But bif(J1"e the tίIne qfhis incαIΊlatiolllZis ΡτοΡlιets spoke qflziJ1l as hαving beconze α huιnall
beillg. Ιιι iIIZitation qftlzis tlze deJIZoιιs caused I11) Iths αbout the gods becol1lil1g lιuι1lαιι [ο be τeΡτesellted as t1"Ue. The.JI do the
sal1le [lιίιιg ίιι τesΡect qf lΙS, I'epI'esellting us as guilf:JI qf tlze wicked tlliIιgs the.JI JIZake otlzeIJ do. m will pIΌve tlzat tlzere is
110 evidence ΟΙ' deIIZoιιstΓatioll qf tlze tτutlι qf the αcczιsatioιιs agaiIιst l/s.

1 Maran and Otto dismiss too glibly Grabe's view that there could be hardly any doubt that a word
01' more, even a whole line of text, had fallen out at this point. Grabe suggested επει επ' απάττι και
απαγωυ του ανθρωπείου γένους ('since for the deception and misdirection of the human race'), cf. ιΑ
54- ι. While it is ve1'Υ unlikely that two such Ρh1'ases, so alike ίη sound and so different in meaning, stood
together, the possibility should be cοηsίdeΓed that the ΡΓevίοus peΓiod ended at 'taught us these things',
and that vvhat stands ίη the l\ιIS as a continuation of that sentence is a coπuρtίοη of a text which was
Ο1'ίgiηallΥ the beginning of a new ΡeΓίοd. The WΟΓds αλλαγή and Επαναγωγή occUl' οηlΥ heΓe ίη Justin.
The English text we have given within ca1'ets supposes some such GΓeek text as <ταυτα δε γενήσεθαι
μέλλοντα εκήρυξαν οί προΦ'ηται αδτου> ... ανθρωποι Φθάσαντες τινες, cf. ιΑ 31.1: προΦΤιται, δι' ών το
προΦητικον πνευμα προεκήρυξε τα γενήσεσθαι μέλλοντα πριν η γενέσθαι, and 2Α 7(8).5: οϋτως γαρ και
οί προΦΤιται πάντες προεκήρυξαν γενήσεσθαι, και 'Ιησους ό ήμέτερος διδάσκαλος εδίδαξε.
2 The MS has 'became a human being among human beings', a ΡhΓase which ΟCCU1'S also at D 64· 7.
We suspect that he1'e Justin wrote simply 'came to be among human beings', and that ανθρωπον is a
cοπuρtiοη of ανθρωποι, which desαίbes the prophets in distinction from the demons; cf. ιΑ 31.1:
ανθρωποι οδν τινες εν 'Ιουδαίοις γεγένηνται θεου προΦΤιται.
3 We cοηjectUΓe that the evil demons weΓe Ο1'ίgiηaΙΙΥ ίη the nominative, and that the otiose
προειΡημένους of the MS ΟΓigiηallΥ 1'efeπed to the things jόretold by the prophets. Fol' προειΡημένον ίη
the sense of 'fΟΓetοld', cf. D ιι8.1: ώς απο γραΦΤις απέδειξα προειΡημένον . .. και τί το προειΡημένον
εστίν, εξηγησάμην, and ιΑ 33.2; 35.1. lη this Γeconstωctίοη it is the demons who are speaking thΓOug11
the poets, just as God speaks through the prophets.
4- Lit. 'they bΓOught about the infamous and impious deeds alleged against us'. As the text stands,

Ι τινες τα δε coniec] τινες Α
κακοι δαίμονες coniec] κακους δαίμονας Α
Nolte; om Mαrcomch 2 μυθοποιήσαντες coniec] α μυθοποιήσαντες εΦησαν Α; α δια των ποιητων
μυθοποιήσαντες εΦησαν Mαrcovich
δια τούτων προειΡημένα coniec] δια τους προειΡημένους Α
δια των ποιητων Α] τα των ποιητων Otto; των ποιητων
4 και τούτου coniec] τουτον Α
this must mean that the evil demons did ίιι jάct bI7llg about the blasphemous and impious WΟΓks
attΓίbuted to Christians. ΑCCΟΓdίngΙΥ, SΥΙbUΓg believed that something like διαθρυλεισθαι should be
uηdeΓstοοd with it: 'they WΟΓked that the deeds said against us be spΓead abroad.' G1'abe dissents from
this, and although it seems plausible that Justin meant to say that the demons brought it about that evil
accusations we1'e made against Clπίstiaηs, this is not quite cοveΓed by SΥΙbU1'g's proposed addition. lη
the Latin tΓaηsΙatίοη of J. Lange, ΡΓίηted in GΓabe's edition, one finds adveτsus nos desigιlal'Ullt ('they
assigned against us'), which itself is not a tΓaηsΙatίοη of the text as it stands. However, it is possible that
GΓabe is right, and that Justin means that the demons do instigate people to perform the blasphemous
and impious works ascribed to Christians. At ιΑ 26.7 he says he does not know whether Christian
heretics (though they are certainly affected by demons-IA 26.5) do the infamous deeds invented about
οί
genuine Christians, and at ιΑ 27.5 that the wicked things ascribed to the Christians are actually done
by pagans. It is possible, therefore, that here he is saying that blasphemous and impious things are
indeed done at the instigation of demons, and these deeds are then ascribed to genuine Christians
without evidence ΟΓ proof. At ιΑ 21.6 Justin had said that the evil demons did (επραξαν) the things the
poets alleged the gods did.
5 We propose that the proofpΓOmised is ofthe falsehood ofthe charges made against Christians (cf.
ιΑ 3.1), and not, as editors would have it, ofthe truth ofChristian doctrine. ιΑ 24 rebuts the charge of
- - - - - ~ - . ._,....
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN;SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 143
24.1. Πρ(;πον μεν στι τα σμοια τοιι:; Έλλησι λέγοντει:; μόνοι μισούμεθα δι' 24.1. First, then, because, although we say ~imilar things to the Greeks,
ονομα του Χριστου και μηδεν αδικουντει:; ώι:; άμαρτωλοι αναιΡούμεθα, we alone are hated οη account of the name of Christ, and, although we do
"λλ ων α'λλ αχουκαι
α ~ , '
δ εν·δ ρα σε β' ,"~,
ομενων και ποταμουι:; και μυι:; και αι'λ ουρουι:; ' nothing wrong, we are killed as sinners 1 while others elsewhere worship
και κροκοδείλουι:; και τών αλόγων ζφων τα πολλά, και ου τών αυτών ύπο both trees and rivers, andmice, and cats, and crocodiles, and most other
5 παντων, "λλ'
τιμωμενων, α α "λλ ων
α. 'λλ'
α αχοσε, <"
ωστ ειναι
l' 'β ειι:;
ασε ~ 'λλ η'λ οιι:;
α irrational animals,2 and it is not the same animals that are worshipped 5
,
πανται:;
δ \ \ \
ια το μη τα αυτα σε
, ,\ 'β
ειν. 24.2. (! Ι
οπερ μονον εγκα
, λ .. ( .. "
ειν ημιν εχετε, by all, but different animals ίη different places, so that everyone is impious
tl
οτι μη
\ \
τουι:;
,
αυτουι:;
\ t"
υμιν σε
β'
ομενοι
θ'
εουι:; μη
δ'
ε
~
τοιι:;
,
απΌ
θ ~
ανουσι
,
χοαι:;
,
και in the· eyes of everyone else οη account of not worshipping the same
things. 3 2':1:.2. This is the very thing, and the οηlΥ thing, that you have
to charge against us,4 that, as we do not worship the same gods as

1 'Sinners' is an unusual word for Justin to have used ίη this context, and one would have expected

him to use a word for 'wrongdoer' more likely to be intelligible to his pagan audience. 'Sinner' is a
LXX and New Testament word, and allJustin's other uses ίη the Apologίes are ίη scriptural quotes, with
the exception of ιΑ 15.5, where the word is virtually marked as a technical term ίη Jewish and
Christian usage, and is explicitly contrasted with what is permitted by human law: 'those who, by
human law, make second marriages, according to our teacher, are sinners.' This could suggest that this
passage has been reworked by an editor ΟΓ copyist.
2 Cats, crocodiles, and other irrational animals are often mentioned in connection with criticism of

οτ comment οη Egyρtian theriolatry. See e.g. Cicero, De Natuι-a DeoTll1n Ι.16 (43); Ι.29 (81); ΙΙΙ.19 (47)
with Pease's notes;Juvenal XV.1-8; Plutarch, De Iside et OSΊn'de 380f-381d. Indeed, criticism oftheriola-
try is such a commonplace that Clement can say, 'You [Greeks] do not stop laughing at them [Egyρ­
tians] every day' (ProtrepticlΙS 2.39.6). The other items inJustin's list occur much more rarely in accounts
of strange objects of worship, but all can be paralleled. Sacred trees are, of course, common. See e.g.
Artemidorus' remark (Oιziroclitίcoιz 4.57) οη the correspondence between trees that appear ίη dreams
and 'the gods to which each is sacred (ίερόν)Ό But that is not the same thing as actually venerating the
trees themselves. Dio Chrysostom does, however, claim that 'many ofthe barbarians', lacking the skill
to make images of the gods, 'name mountains and unwrought trees (δένδρα αργά) and shapeless stones
gods' (ΟταtιΌ 12 (Olympic) 61). Sextus Empiricus quotes Prodicus' assertion that 'the ancients accounted
as gods the sun and moon and rivers (ποταμούς) and springs (κρήνας) ... even as the Egyρtians deif)r
the Nile' (Adveτsus Dogmatίcos Ι.18; tr. Bury, LCL). Mice are mentioned ίη a fragment ofthe Keιygma Petrί
cited by Clement of Alexandria (StΙΌmαtα VI.5.39.4-4o.2=Ker. Pet. frag. 3a ίη Michael Cambe, Kε1)ιgιπα
Petli, ρρ. 153f.).
3 Plutarch (De ISΊde et OSΊlide 380a-b) tells of an Egyρtian king ordering 'different people to honour
and venerate different animals (άλλοις άλλα τιμαν και σέβεσθαι) which were bitterly and violently
opposed to one another', so that the worshippers of the different animals were 'jnduced into the
enmities of the animals and fought with each other in the same way' (tr. J. Gwyn Griffiths). Juvenal
(XV.37-8) tells of a feud between neighbouring Egyρtian villages because each hated the other's gods
and thought οηlΥ those it worshipped should be considered gods (cllnz solos credat lιαbeιιdos esse deos quos
ίpse colit), cf. Lucian,Juppiter Tragoedus 42: 'there is nothing certain ίη accounting for the gods, for there is
much confusion, and different people have different opinions (άλλοι άλλα νομίζουσι).'
+ Ιη 2Α 10.5 Justin says that Socrates was charged (ένεκλήθη) with the same things as Christians,
5 αλλd Α] αλλ' Otto Blunt Muιzier 7 σεβόμενοι coniec] σέβομεν Α μηδε τοις αποθανουσι Α] namely, 'that he brought ίη new divinities, and that those whom the city recognized as gods he
μ:ηδε Muιzier did not'.
 144 JUST1N'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 145
,
κνισας και'δ'δ
εν ρα και'Φ'
στε ανους και'θ'
υσιας Φ'
ερομεν. 24.3. '"
οη γαρ ουν
l' τα
, you,] we do not bring to those who have died libations and burnt offerings
αυτα παρ' οΙς μΕν θεοί, παρ' οίς δΕ θηρία, παρ' οίς δΕ ίερεια νενομισμένα and trees and garlands 2 and sacrifices. 24.3. 'For that, indeed,3 the same
,
εσην, ακρι
, , βΛ " θ
ωςεπιστασ ε. things are regarded by some as gods, by others as wild beasts, by others as
sacrificial animals,4 you know very well.
25. Ι. '
Δ ευτερον δ''''
οη εκ "
παντος γενους 'θ'
αν ρωπων οι(λ'
πα αι ,
σε β ομενοι

5 Δ ιόνυσον τον Σεμέλης και Ά.πόλλωνα τον Λητοί"δην, οί' δι' ερωτας άρσένων 25. Ι. SeGondly, because we who from every race of humankind from of 5
"
οσα " C
επραςαν l'
αισχος και , '
λ εγειν, και , οι' ,
(περσε Φ ονην και"ΛΦ '
L1 ρο δ ιτην, 'δ ια
τας ' old worshipped Dionysus the son of Semele and Apollo the child of Leto,
ΟΓ who because of love of males did things which it is shameful even to

ι δένδρα και στεΦάνους και θυσ{ας
1 Ιη the MS this is the first of two coordinated clauses: 'that we do not worship... ηΟΓ do we
bring.. .' While, as Blunt observed, 'the use of μή instead of ου ίη indirect quotation after verbs of
saying and thinking is common ίη late Greek', we think it more likely that Justin wrote not the finite
indicative σέβομεν but the middle participle σεΜμενοι, which he uses again at the beginning of the
next chapter: οί πάλαι σεβ6μενοι (cf also ιΑ 6.2; Ι3.Ι). Οη this reconstruction, Justin will not have
written two coordinated clauses, but have given in the first the reason for the refusal of Christians to
participate ίη the cultic acts described ίη the second, for which they are charged. It is a fact that pagans
do not all worship the same things (24.Ι), and this fact is well known to the emperors (24.3). Ιη the case
of others, this theological difference does not disturb the authorities, but it does ίη the case of
Christians, because these make this theological difference the basis of their refusal to participate in
official cultic acts.
2 The MS has 'garlands ίη writings'. This can scarcely be correct. Munier (Ά propos de Justin, Αροl.
Ι.24.2') seeks to retain this, with the meaning 'ίη public criminal prosecutions'. But it is hard to see what
point Justin might have been trying to make by referring to the trials of Christians as iudiciα publica, if,
indeed, such a reference was plausible at all (cf IntΓOduction, ρρ. 44-5), and un1ikely that he would
have made such a reference by means of a forensic usage from 4th-century Athens, cf Minns 'The
Text of Justin's Apologies'. Some editors (Otto, Blunt, Marcovich) have followed the emendation of
Fabricius (cited ίη Ott0 3) to 'ση tombs', so that the main reference ofthe section seems to be to funeral
rites. We consider that the :NIS text is the result of a reasonably cautious scribe's attempts to [estore the
reading of a damaged exemplar. Justin had referred to tΓees as the object of cult at the beginning of
this chaρteΓ, and Strabo (Χ.3.ΙΟ) says that 'tree-bearίηgs'-δενδΡΟΦΟΡ{αι-aΓe commonplace elements
ίη the worship of t11e gods associated with orgiastic, Bacchic, and mystelY cults. The term δενδροΦ-
6Ροι-tΓee-bearers-was the name of a guild ίη the cult of Cybele frequently referred to ίη Latin
inscriptions (LSJ). That the carrying and worshipping of a sacred pine was a central feature of the
annual cult ofCybele and Attis is well attested (c[ AΓnobius, Advasus Nαtiones V.5-7; ι6--17, and Turcan,
Cults, 44-6). The cult was faVΟUΓed by the imperial house ίη the middle of the second ceηtUΓΥ and was
closely bound up with the imperial cult. Medallions and coins featuring Cybele weΓe struck in honoul'
ofthe empresses Sabina, the wife ofHadrian; Faustina the elder, the wife of Antoninus Pius; Faustina
the younger, the daughtel' of Faustina and Antoninus and wife of ΜaΓCUS Aurelius; and Lucilla, the
wife ofLucius Verus (c[ Beaujeu, Lα Religioιz rOlllαine α l'αpogee de IJellιpi,·e, 3I2ff.; Turcan, CIllts, 48). Justin
makes further allusion to the cult of Cybele and Attis ίη ιΑ 27+ We pΓOpose that ΕΝΓΡΑΦΑΙΣ
was the best a scribe was able to make ofwhat was left ίη his exemplar of ΔΕΝΔΡΑΚΑΙ, with the
final Σ supplied from the initialletter of στεΦάνους. The repetitions of κα{, which recall the similal'
[epetitions ίη ιΑ 24.Ι, are meant to add point to the futility ofworshipping the dead. It is not cleal' who
these dead aΓe. At ιΑ 9.Ι Justin had described cult statues, to which garlands offlowers weΓe offered, as
'dead and lifeless'. The annual festival of Attis was a commemoration ofhis death and [evival, but οη
the day οη which the pine was carried to the sanctuary (22 March), known as 'Dies violae' because of
the violets with which the pine was dressed, it was also customary to visit the gΓaves of t11e dead and
gaΓΙaηd them with violets (GΓaiιιοt, Le Culte de G.Jιbele, Ι45; Tuγcan, Cults, 45). However, if Justin had in
mind the close association of the WΟΓshίρ of Cybele and Attis with the imperial cult, he may have
intended a reference to the cremated Caesars whose deification he had mocked at ιΑ 2Ι.3.
coniec] εν γραΦαις στεΦάνους και θυσ{ας Α; εν ραΦαις στεΦάνους 3 We have adopted the emendation first PΓOposed by ΜaΓaη. This final sentence of the chapter

και θυσ{ας Sαuιnαise αρ. Otto; εν ταΦαις στεΦάνους και θυσ{ας FαbricillS
Otto Blunt; σΤΕΦάνους και θυσ{ας εν confums the point established ίη ιΑ 24. ι.
ταΦαις Mαrcovic/l; στεΦάνους και θυσ{ας εν γραΦαις Munieι· οδν edd] ου Α 4 πάλαι !iYlburg Otto + The ρaΓticίρΙe νενομισμένα is taken by Otto with ίερεια alone: 'victimas legitimas.' While νομ{ζω is
Blll1lt lvIα1"COViCh .Λlunίeι] παλαιοι Α 6 ΠερσεΦ6νην ... οιστρηθε{σας NC.'J κ6ρην ... ερησθε{σας commonly used ίη this sense, it seems more likely here that it should be taken with τα αυτα: c[ 2Α 9.3,
Amrg παρ' ο[ς μεν ανθρώποις τάδε καλά, τα δε αισχρα νεν6μισται.
 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 147
τον Άδωνιν οισΤΡYJθείσαs, 6Jv και τα μυστήρια αγετε, καίπερ θανάτου meήtίοη, and who worshipped Persephone ~nd Aphrodite1-v/ho were
απειλουμένου δια 'IYJaOD Χριστου τούτων μεν κατεΦρονήσαμεν' 25.2. θεφ driven to sexual frenzy οη account of Adonis, whose mysteries you even
δε τφ αγεννήτψ και απαθει JaVTOVS ανεθήκαμεν, ον οϋτε Επ' ΆντιόΠYJν και celebrate-have both disdained these through Jesus Christ,2 even though
TdS αλλαs όμοίωs ούδε επι ΓανυμήδYJν ('214 a) δι' οΊστρον ελYJλυθέναι death be threatened, 25.2. and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegot-
5 πειθόμεθα, ούδε λυθijναι βΟYJθείαs τυχόντα δια Θέτιδοs ύπο του έκατοντά­ ten and passionless God, whom we do not believe had frenzied sex either 5
XEιpOS εκείνου, ούδε μεριμνώντα δια τουτο τον TijS Θέτιδοs Άχιλλέα δια with Antiope ΟΓ the other women like her, ΟΓ with Ganymede, ηΟΓ do we
T~ν παλλακίδα ΒΡισYJι:δα σλέσαι πολλοvs T(VV Έλλήνων. 25.3. και TOVS believe that through Thetis he obtained the help of that hundred-handed
πειθομένουs ελεουμεν' TOVS δε τούτων αιτίουs δαίμοναs γνωρίζομεν. one,3 and so was loosed from his bonds, ηΟΓ do we believe that he was οη
that account concerned about Thetis' Achilles and so destroyed many of
2 6 .1. 26 Τ ι
ριτον
δ' t/
οτι και
,
μετα
' "
TYJV Ιλ
ανε ευσιν του
~ Χ ~,
ριστου ELS ουρανον
, , the Greeks, because of the concubine Briseis. 4 25.3. And we pity those 10

10 προε β αΙλλ οντο οι

• δ αιμονεs
ι
αν
'θ ι
ρωπουs
, λ ι.,
nvaS l'
EYOVTaS EaVTOVS ειναι θ Ι
EOVS, οι
<, who do believe this, but we know that the demons are the cause of it.
ου
,Ι
μονον ουκ
"δ ι θ
ε ιωχ YJaav 'Φ"
υ
~
υμων α
'λλ'
α και
, τιμων
~ c ιθ
κατΥ}ι::> ιω YJaav'

26.2.Σίμωνα μέν τινα Σαμαρέα, τον απο κώμYJS λεγομένYJS Γιτθων, oS επι
26.1. Thirdly, because even after the ascension5 of Christ to heaven
Κλαυδίου ΚαίσαΡΟS δια TijS των ενεργούντων δαιμόνων τέχνYJS δυνάμειs
the demons were putting up 'certain people who asserted that they were
ποιήσαs μαγικαs εν Tiι πόλει ύμων βασιλίδι Ρώμτι eEOS ενομίσθΥ} και
gods, who were not οηlΥ not persecuted by you, but were even deemed
15 ανδριάντι παρ' ύμων ώs eEOS τετίμYJται, oS ανδριαs ανεγήγερται εν τφ
worthy of honours: 26.2. Simon, a certain Samaritan from a village 15

μεταςυ των δύο γεΦυρων εχων επιγpαΦ~ν PωμαϊK~ν ταύΤYJν' Σίμωνι Δέψ
called Gitthon, who, ίη the time of Claudius Caesar, through the art of the
demons who moved him, performed magical deeds ίn your royal City6 of
Rome, was thought to be a god and was honoured as a god by you with a
statue. This statue was raised up οη Between-the-Two-Bridges 7 with

Ι We have excluded as a scribal gloss the phrase 'or Asclepius or one of the other gods mentioned'.
Ιη this paragraph Justin refutes the justice of the charge of .fiαgitiα brought against the Christians by
pointing out that they have moved from beliefs ίη immoral gods and goddesses to belief ίη the God
who is without passion. Α reference to Asclepius the healer (ιΑ 21.2; 22.6) would be extraneous to this
purpose and destroys the balance of a complicated but unusually carefully balanced sentence:
οί παλαιοι σεβ6μενοι
Δι6νυσον τον Σεμέλης και Άπ6λλωνα τον Λψοιοην
οί' δι' ερωτας αρσένων οσα επραξαν
αΙσχος και λέγειν
και οί
ΠερσεΦ6νην και ΆΦροδ{την
τας δια τον Άδωνιν οισΤρ7]θε{σας
ών και τα μυστήρια αγετε
(ij Άσκλ7]πιον η ηνα των αλλων σνομαζομένων θεων)
2 For δια Ί7]σου Χριστου see ιΑ 49.5; 61.1. 3 i.e. Briareus, cf. IliαdI.396-404.
4 Cf. IliαdII.3-4.
26.1-3 και μετα την . .. γενομένην λέγουσιν αρ Eus ΗΕ Π.Ι3.3-4. Eus (Gk [=ATERBDM] Lat Syr) 5 The Greek word may be Justin's own coinage. Ιη Eusebius' quotation, what became the normal
word is substituted. If it was a neologism it is unlikely to have bothered Justin's intended audience, as
ι αγετε coniec] αγετε, ij Άσκλ7]πιον η ηνα των αλλων σνομαζομένων θεων Α 4 Γανυμήδην he had earlier used the verb ανέρχομαι ίη this sense (ιΑ 21.3).
edd] Γαννυμήδην Α 6 Άχιλλέα Α] Άχιλλέα τιμησαι και ΙVΙα1"COvίch
9 ανέλευσιν Α] 6 Cf. 'royal Rome' at ιΑ 56.2, and note.

ανάλ7]ψιν Eus (Gr) Χριστου Α] KVp{OV Eus ουρανον] post ουρανον et ίη verso (2I4b) post θεου 7 The MS has 'in the River Tiber, between the two bridges', but 'Between-the-Two-Bridges' is, ίη

(26.5) lacuna ίη charta Α 10 προεβάλλοντο Α Eus (Gr*)] προεβάλοντο Eus (BD) fact, the name ofthe island (cf. Plutarch, Publicolα 8.3, 'τουτο νυν νησ6ς εσην ίερα κατα την π6λιν, εχει
ΙΙ καΤ7]ξιώθ7]σαν Α] ηξιώθησαν Eus (Gr) 12 τον Α Eus (Gr*)] των Eus (ΑΙΤΙΒ) Γιτθων Eus δε ναους θεων και περιπάτους, καλειται δε ΦωνΤι ΤΤΙ Λατ{νων Μέσ7] δυoLν γεΦυρων (=Inter duos pontes)',
(Gr*) Βίl/Υ Goodspeed] τρ{τον Α; gittho Eus (Lat); γιθθων Eus (Μ); γιττων Eus (ΑΤΙΒ) Otto Blunt Mαrcovich and Platner and Ashby, ΤοΡοgωΡlιίcal DiCtiOllαlY qf R01lle, s.v. 'Insula Tiberina'). We suggest that a
lvIullieι~ γ{ττωνος Eus (D) 14 ποιήσας μαγικας Α] μαγικας ποιήσας Eus (Gr) εν Α Eus (Gr*)] redactor has inserted the words 'River Tiber', supposing that a statue set υρ 'in the River Tiber' would
επι Eus (BD) ύμων Α] ύμων ΤΤΙ Eus (Gr*); τη δε Eus (Α); τη / / / Eus (ΤΙ) 15 ύμων Α Eus (Gr* be less baffiing to a reader unfamiliar with the topography of Rome than a statue set υρ Όη the
Syr)] ύμιν Eus (ΑΤΙΒΜ Lat) τετ{μψαι ας ανδριας ανεγήγερται Α] τετ{μψαι Eus (Gr*); τετ{μψο Eus between the two bridges'. The whole of the Insula Tiberina was a sacred precinct. Dionysius of
(BD); (simulacri) collocati Eus (Lat); (statue) which you made Eus (Syr) εν Τψ coniec] εν Τψ Τ{βερι Halicarnassus describes it as 'sacred to Asclepius' (Antiquitαtes V. 13.4, and cf. Plutarch, cited above). The
ποταμψ Α Eus (Gr* (Τιβέρει TCERM) Lat Syr) 16 επιγραφην ρωμαϊκην Α Eus (Gr*)] ρωμαικην island was built υρ ίη the shape of a ship to commemorate the ship that brought the serpent of
επιγραφην Eus (ATER) Asclepius to the island ίη 292 BC; cf. Platner and Ashby.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN;S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 149
Σάγκτψ. 26.3. και σχεδον πάντεs μεν ΣαμαpεLς όλ{γοι δε και Εν αλλοιs this inscription ίn Latin: ΤΟ SIMON ΤΗΕ HOLY .GOD. 1 26.3. And nearly all
εθνεσιν ώs τον πρωτον θεον Εκείνον όμολογουντεs ετι και νυν προσκυνουσι' the Samaritans and a few from other nations even now still2 confess him
και Έλένην τινά, T~ν περινοστΥισασαν συν αυτιμ κατ' Εκείνο του καιΡου, to be the first god, and worship him. And a certain Helen, who went about
πρότερον Επι τέγουs σταθείσαν Εν Τύρψ Ti]S Φοιν{κηs, T~ν ύπ' αυτου εννοιαν with3 him at that time, and who had formerly been placed in a brothel ίn
5 Ι
πρωτην γενομενην
Ι λ Ι
εγουσι. 2 6 .4. 26 ωεναν
711f Ι δ
ρον
δ Ι
ε τινα,
"
και αυτον
, Σ
αμ- Tyre of Phoenicia,4 they call the first thought that came to be from him. 5 5
ι '" ι Τ.Τ ι ι θ' Λ ΣΙ
αρεα, τον απο κωμηs n.αππαρεταιαs, γενομενον μα ητην του ιμωνοs
(214 26.4. And we know that someone called Menander,6 another Samaritan,
,
b) ενεργη θ ι " , , , Λ δ Ι "'Λ Ι Ι
εντα και αυτον υπο των αιμονιων και εν ..t:Lντιοχειq. γενομενον from the village of Kapparetaia, when he became a disciple of Simon was
πολλουs Εςαπατησαι δια μαγικi]s τέχνηs οϊδαμεν, OS και TOVS αυτιμ Επομ­ also worked on 7 by demons, and, when he was ίn Antioch, beguiled
ένουs ώs μηδέποτε θνύσκοιεν επεισε. και νυν εισ{ τινεs απ' Εκε{νου τουτο many through magic art. And he persuaded his followers that they would
10
r λ Λ
ομο OYOVVTES. 2
6 .5. 26Μαρκιωνα
ι δ ει τινα Ποντικον,
Ι"os και'Λ""
νυν ετι εστι never die. 8 And some of his followers who believe this are still around. 10

26.5. And there is someone called Marcion,9 from Pontus, who even now
ι An inscription to the ancient Ita1ian god Se~o Sancus Dius Fidius was discovered οη the Insula
Tiberina in 1574 (Richardson, New ΤοΡοgωΡlιίcα! DictionαIY qf Ancient Roιne, S.v. 'Semo Sancus, Statua'.
The identification with the Christian heretic is a1so to be found ίη Irenaeus, ΑΗΙ23.Ι, and Tertullian,
Apo!ogeticunl 13.9.
2 The reading of the MS has puzz1ed editors, some of whom have omitted ΟΓ bracketed it. We
propose that it concea1s a phrase Justin uses e1sewhere and which suits the context here (cf. the similar
context at ιΑ 56.1), and exp1ains the reading of the MS (D 7.2; cf. a1so, where the word-order of the
phrase varies, ιΑ 26.5; 69(14).2; 2 Α 5(6).6; D 129.1).
3 Irenaeus, very probab1y ίη dependence οη this passage ΟΓ its source inJustin's Syntagnza, has 'secum

circumducebat', '1ed her about with him' (ΑΗΙ23.2). The verb οη its own does not govern the dative,
and Eusebius' text was emended according1y; σύν could easily have disappeared following -aav at the
end of the verb.
4- 'Tyre ofPhoenicia' is not ίη the MS but is ίη Eusebius' quotation. We propose that Irenaeus took

the phrase 'He1enam quandam ... a Tyro civitate Phoenicae quaestuariam', 'a certain He1en a
prostitute from Tyre a city of Phoenicia', either from here ΟΓ from the Syntagnza. The detail is ίη
agreement with Justin's intention in this passage to deflate the c1aims of the heretics he mentions by
precise reference to their geographical origins.
5 The concept of 'purposive thought' as the first emanation of god is foundationa1 ίη the doctrine
of certain ofthe gnostic scho01s, cf. Irenaeus, ΔΗΙι.ι; 12.1.
6 For Menander see ιΑ 56.1 and Irenaeus ΔΗΙ23.5.
7 This is Justin's standard term for the operation of demons. Eusebius, who gives the variant 'stung
to madness' (which Justin used of Persephone and Aphrodite at ιΑ 25.1), may have fe1t that Justin's
word, which had become a technica1 teΓm for demonic possession, wou1d be misunderstood.
Β The MS, if it is correct, presumab1y means 'they would not die eitlzer', and we wou1d have to
suppose that a statement to the effect that Menander taught his own immorta1ity has fallen out of the
text. Eusebius would then have inherited this corrupt text, and emended it to 'they wou1d not die'. We
26.4 ΜέvαvδΡον δέ ... τουτο όμολογουvτες αρ Eus ΗΕ ΠΙ 26.3 Eus (Gk [=ATERBDNIJ Lat Syr)
suggest, however, that an original μηδέποτε θνfισ/(oιεν has been corrupted to μηδε άποθνfjσκοιεν. Justin
26.5-6 Μαρκίοvα δέ ... κοινον εχουσιν αρ Eus HEIVII.9 Eus (Gk [=ATERBDMJ Lat Syr)
e1sewhere uses the compound verb άΠOθνfισKω, except at 2Α ΙΙ.Ι, where the MS's θανειν is part of a
proverbia1 saying. We assume that here too he is, ίη effect, quoting the saying of Menander (cf. the
ι Δέψ Σάγκτψ R. Stepllanus] δεωσάγντψ Α;+οπερ εστιν Σίμωνι Θεψ άγίψ (Eus Gr) και Α Eus c10se paraphrase ofIrenaeus, ΑΗΙ 23.5 ίη Eusebius, ΗΕΠΙ26.2).
(Gr*)] ώ και Eus (TER); δ και Eus (Μ); quem et Eus (Lat) πάντες μεν Α] μεν πάντες Eus (Gr) 9 For Marcion and his followers see ιΑ 58.1 and D 35.6. The wh01e section referring to Marcion
2 όμολογοvvτες ετι και vvv coniec] όμολογουvτες εKεΙVOν και Α; όμολογοvvτες Eus B!unt },ιfarcovich seems out ofp1ace here, sinceJustin has undertaken to give examp1es ofhuman beings who c1aim that
},ιfunia 3 Έλέvηv Α Eus (Gr)] ΣελήνΗV Eus (Lat Syr) περινοστήσασαν avv coniec] περινοστ­ they are gods (ιΑ 26.1). Simon certain fits the argument, and Menander as his discip1e may be
ή σα σαν Α; σvμπεριvοστήσασαν Eus (Gr) Sy!buιp, },ιfαI'COvich },ιfunia εκεινο του Α Eus (Gr*)] εκεινο Eus presumed to do so as well-and, ίη any case, he offers immortality to his followers. Nlarcion, however,
(ATER) 4 σταθεισαν Ev Τύρψ της Φοινίκης Eus] σταθεισαν Α ύπ' Α Eus (ΤΙ)] άπ' Eus (Gr*) does not fit the argument at all, and the reference to him may have been triggered by the reference to
4 EvvoLav πpώTηv γενομέvηv Α] πpώTηv EvvoLav Eus (Gr) 5 δέ Α Eus (Gr*)] τέ Eus (TER) the two other heretics. The passage may be drawn from Justin's own Syntagma, ΟΓ the addition of
6 τον Α Eus (Gr*)] των Eus (TERM) Καππαρεταίας Α] Καπαρατταίας Eus (Gr*); Καπαραττέας Eus Marcion may have been made ίη a subsequent edition of the Apo!ogy intended ΡrimaΓilΥ for a ChΓίstίaη
(ΤΕ); Καππαραττέας Eus (Α); Καπαρατέας Eus (R); Capparatthea Eus (Lat) 7 εvεργηθέντα Α] readership. Ιη any case, Justin has s1ightly 10st his way. Ιη 26. ι he had said that the demons put forward
οιστηρηθέvτα Eus (Gr); went mad by the operation Eus (Syr) και αυτον Eus (Gr) B!ullt Μαποvίch] και 'some' (τινες), which is picked up by the τινα in the phrases 'a certaill Simon', 'a certain Menander', 'a
Α δαιμονίων Α] δαιμόνων Eus (Gr) 9 μηδέποτε eVfιaKOLEV coniec] μη δε άποθνfισκοιεv Α; ceTtain Marcion' at the beginning of 26.2, 4, and 5. But Menander is made the object of the verb 'we
μηδε άΠOθνfισKOιεν Otto B!unt Goodspeed NIunier; μη άΠOθνfισKOιεν Eus (Gr) Mal'COViclz εισί τινες Α] τινές know', and severa1 main c1auses intervene before the reference to Menander and Nlarcion. The resu1t
εισιν Eus (Gr) 10 Μαρκιώνα edd] Μαρκίονα Α is that 'a certain Marcion' is simp1y 1eft floating.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S'APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 151

διδάσκων τους πειθομένους, αλλον ηνα νομ{ζειν με{ζονα του δημιουργου is still teaching those he can persuade to consider some other, greater than
θεου ος κατα παν γένος ανθρώπων δια της των δαιμόνων συλλήψεως the creator God. 1 And with the help2 of the 'demons, he has persuaded 3
πολλους πέπεικε βλασΦrιμ{ας λέγειν και αρνεισθαι τον ποιητ-ην τουδε του many from every race of humankind to utterblasphemies, and he has
παντος
, θ ι
εον,
"λλ
α ον
δ ι
ε ηνα, ως
("
οντα
ΙΥ
μει«;,ονα,
'Λ
παρα τουτον
(λ Λ
ομο ογειν
made 4 them·denyS God the Maker ofthis universe 6 and confess some other
5 ι
πεποιηκεν. 2 6 •6• ,ι (" ι (ι ("Φ
και παντεςοι απο τουτων ορμωμενοι, ως ε ημεν,
Χ
ρισ-
who is greater, beyond him. 26.6. And all those springing from them are, 5
ηανοι καλουνται, ον τρόπον και οί ου κοινωνουντες των αυτων δογμάτων έν as we said,7 called Christians, just as among the philosophers those who do
τοις ΦιλοσόΦοις το έπικατηγορούμενον ονομα της ΦιλοσοΦ{ας κοινον εχουσιν. not ~hare the same doctrines do have the common name of philosophy
2 6 .7. ει'δ'"
ε και τα δΙ
υσ Φ ημα εκεινα
'Λ μυ θ ο λ ογουμενα
Ι εργα
" Ι
πραττουσι, λ υχ νιας
Ι predlcated ofthem. 26.7. But whether they also do those infamous deeds
μεν
"
ανατροπην
" "
και τας
Ιδ
ανε ην
Ι(:
μΙςεις
,
και
,
αν
θ Ι
ρωπειων
Λ
σαρκων
β Ι
ορας,
,
ου
that are in\rented8 about us-the lamp overturned for unbridled sex,9 and
10
Ι 'λλ' οη
γινωσκομεν. α
<, μη
, δ ιωκονται
Ι δ' Φ ονευονται
μη ε
Ι (Φ' υμων-καν
υ
(Λ "δ"
ια τα
eating human fl.esh-we do not knOw. But that they are not persecuted 10

Ι The MS and Eusebius read 'to consider some other god, greater than the creator'. But 1ater in this
section, and at ιΑ 58.1, Justin uses the cοήtemΡtuοus phrase 'some other', and we suspect that he used
it here as well. It is not necessary for Justin to specif)r that Marcion teaches that there is 'another god'.
2 The word is usualIy taken ίη this sense, but the 1exica1 evidence for this is slender (cf. LSJ).

Συλλαμβάνω can mean 'assist', but Justin nowhere uses it ίη this sense. Α meaning stronger than
'assis~' is required ίη this context-Justin e1sewhere speaks of things being achieved through the
energeιa ofthe demons (ιΑ 44.12; 54-1; 2Α 6(7).3). Ifthe text is correct, it is possib1e thatJustin means to
suggest the idea of being caught up ίη the scheme of the demons. The simp1e word ληψσις regular1y
means 'seizing' ΟΓ 'catching', ΟΓ 'attack (offever ΟΓ sickness)'.
3 We have adopted Eusebius' reading, supposing that the MS's reading has been contaminated by
the word πεπoίrιKα 1ater ίη the sentence. Justin uses the perfect because Marcion is still alive, and so
contrasts him with Menander, ofwhom he used the a,orist ofthis verb.
4 For 'made' ίη this sense cf. 2Α 2.11. The MS text gives the sense, 'and to confess that some other, as
being greater, made greater things than this one'. But Marcion did not be1ieve that his greater god
created anything (cf. Hippo1ytus, Rifi.ιtαtio x.lg.2; Tertullian, Adversus Mαrcionem 1'11.3-7). Eusebius
(HEΊV.II.g) omits 'greater things' to give the impossib1e sense: 'to confess that some other, greater than
He, has made it' (Law1or and Oulton). We propose that a misreading of an original finite verb followed
by 'and' 1ed to the infinitive followed by 'and', and that 'greater things' was added to make sense ofthe
infinitive. While Eusebius' text preserves the infinitive followed by 'and', the MS has 10st 'and' through
homote1euton with the ending of the infinitive. The passage thus restored yields a chiastic structure:
Verb-predicate-predicate-verb
(πo\λ~oυς! πέπει~ε βλασΦ,rιμίαι;-λέγειν
και αρνεισθαι τον . .. θεον,
αλλον δε τινα ... όμολογειν πεπo{rιKεν.
5 Eusebius' text has them deny 'God the maker of this universe to be the Father of Christ'. But it
seems 1ike1y that Justin's reΡήse of the theme just stated, that the Marcionites acknow1edge another
god, is intended to app1y the highly charged vocabu1ary of 'denying and confessing' (cf. ιΑ 4.6 and
note) to the central Marcionite doctrine. At HEV.16.21 Eusebius quotes an anonymous writer asserting
that the Marcionites c1aim to have many martyrs for Christ, 'but they do not confess Christ himse1f in
truth'.
6 Cf. Tzmαeus 28c.

7 Cf. ιΑ 4.7-8; 7.3.

8 The wordJustin uses here, μυθολογέω, occurs at 2Α 12-4, again with reference to charges invented
Ι νομίζειν ΑEus (Gr*)] elvat νομίζειν Eus (AER); νομίζειν elvat Eus (Τ') ονομάζειν Eus (BD)
2 θεου coniec] ΘΝ Α; θεσν
Eus ος Α] ος και Eus (Gr) 3 πέπεικε Eus Dαvies Blunt] πεπoίrιKε Α against Christians. The word μυθοποιέω is used at ιΑ 23.3, 53.1, and 54.1 ofta1es invented by the poets
βλασΦrιμίας Α] βλάσΦrιμα Eus (Gr) Marcoviclz 4 θεόν Α] πατέρα elvat του Χριστου Eus (Gr Syr); and myth-makers. However, the noun μυθολόγοι is used at 2Α 4(5).5 of the inventions of poets. ιΑ 23.3
deum ipsum esse patrem Christi Eus (Lat) μείζονα Eus Schwαrtz λιΙαποvίclι] μείζονα τα μείζονα Α
suggests that Justin associates the inventions of the poets in the past with the inventions of detractors ίη
4 όμολογειν πεπoίrιKεν coniec] όμολογειν πεπoιrιKέναι Α Eus (Gr); όμολογειν Eus (Lat Syr) Schwartz the present (note that sexual immorality is a feature ofboth sets of inventions).
9 Lit. 'overturning oflamp and coup1ings without restraint'. At D 10.1 Justin refers to the accusation
.Mαrcoviclz 5 καιπάντες EusMαrcovich] πάντες Α όρμώμενοιΑ] ώΡμrιμένοιΕus (Gr) εΦrιμενA]
εΦαμεν Eus (Gr) 6 οί ου κοινωνουντες των αυτων Α] ου κοινων οντων Eus (Gr* Syr); ου κοινωνσν that Chήstίans extinguish the 1amps and invo1ve themse1ves in unrestrained coup1ings. The over-
των Eus (DIM I); ου κοινωνσν των Eus (ΤΙ) Εν ToLς Otto Blunt Mαrcomclz lvIunier] τοις Α Eus (Gr)
turning of the 1amp, by a dog tied to it, is mentioned by Tertullian, Apologeticum 8.7, Ad Nαtiones
7 EΠΙKαTrιγopoύμενoν Α] Επικαλούμενον Eus (Gr) Otto εχουσιν Α] Εστιν Eus
1'7.24; 16.1; Minucius Fe1ix, Octαmus g.6, etc.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 153
' "θ α.
δ oγματα-εΠLσταμε 2 6 •8• 26"
εστι
δ ε\ t
ημιν
Λ και
\
σύνταγμα κατα πασων nor killed by you-at least because of their doctrines-we are sure. 1
των γεγενημένων αίρέσεων συντεταγμένον, Ψ ,
ει β ου'λ εσ θ'
ε Λ
εντυχειν, 26.8. There is another composition 2 by us, written against all the heresies
δώσομεν.
that have arisen. If you want to read it we will give you a copy.

Λ
27.1. Ήμεις δ'
ε,
t,
ινα μη
δ εν
\ 'δ ικωμεν
α
Λ μη
δ ε\ ασε
, β ωμεν,
Λ 'θ' \
εκτι εναι τα 27.1. But, so that we might avoid any injustice or impiety,3 we have
5 γεννώμενα πονηρον εΊναι δεδιδάγμεθα' πρωτον μεν (215 a) στι τους πάντας been taught that to expose the newborn 4 is wicked. First, because we 5
σχ εδον όρωμεν έπι πορνείq- προαγομένομς, ου μόνον τας κόρας άλλα και τους see nearly all reared for sexual immorality,5 not only the girls but also
" ,c\
αρσενας, και ον τροπον
Ι λ' t λ \),..
εγονται οι πα αιοι αγειΡαι αγε ας
"λ β . . " , ,.
οων η αιγων η
"1\ the males, and just as the ancients are said to have gathered6 herds of

ι This is a strange argument if part of an apology intended for the emperors. Justin seems to be
prepared to admit that the heretics are killed, but not for their doctrines. The implication would have
to be that the authorities discriminated amongst persons accused of being Christians, and prosecuted
some for reasons other than their beliefs, perhaps because of the suspicion of.fiagίtia. But it is a large
part ofhis own case that orthodox Christians are unjusdy suspected of.fiagίtia, and therefore, presum-
ably, it could be claimed that they are not persecuted for their beliefs either. The passage is more
readily understood if it is a later addition to the Apology whose primary audience was orthodox
Christians being provided with reasons for disdaining the heretics-even if it could be shown that they
had been 'martyred'.
2 This lost work of Justin is known as the Syntagma, but this is probably a description rather than a

tide.
3 1mpiety is dealt with ίη 27.1-3; injustice in 29.1. 1mpiety has do with God, injustice with human
beings. 1t is because sexual immorality is akin to impiety (cf. ιΑ 27.3), and hence more serious than
injustice, thatJustin discusses the sexual abuse ofthe exposed before he discusses their death.
4- Cf. Diognetus 5.6: τεκνογονουσιν, dλλ' ου ρίπτουσι τα γεννώμενα. The exposure of children is

26.8 εστι δε ήμΙν . .. εντυχειν δώσομεν αρ Eus. HEΊV.II.10. Eus (Gk [=ATERBDMJ Lat Syr)
introduced in rebuttal ofthe accusation of cannibalism. Justin does not address an explicit charge
of Thyestian banquets and Oedipean intercourse, but he must have understood the accusation of
cannibalism to have referred to the eating of children. The charge of Thyestian banquets and
Oedipean intercourse is found in the Letter qfthe Churches qfVΊenne and Lyons (Eusebius, HEV.1.14) and in
Athenagoras (Legatίo 3.1). 1η the Octavius ofMinucius Felix (9.5-7), Caecilius describes the ritual eating
of an infant, and incestuous sex attributed to Christians, and says ίι was testified Ιο in a speech of
Fronto. Justin refutes both charges by turning one of them back οη the pagan accusers. So far from
eating children, Christians will not even expose them, whereas the pagans do expose children, thus
putting themselves at risk of incestuous sex.
5 The MS reading cannot mean 'growing υρ to prostitution' (Barnard, following Blunt). We have
changed the participle to the passive. Elsewhere in Justin πορνεία means fornication in general rather
than prostitution ίη particular (cf. D 78.3, 'supposing that she became pregnant through intercourse
with a man, that is, through πορνεία'). There has been considerable discussion οη the frequency of
child-exposure in the Roman world. For a careful statement of the case, both that it was common, and
that it was a major source of supply for the large number of new slaves (approximately 500,000)
required each year by the empire, see Harris, 'Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire', and
'Demography, Geography and the Sources ofRoman Slaves'.
6 The MS's reading, 'the ancients are said to have reared herds of catde οτ goats οτ sheep ΟΓ of
grazing horses', is banal. There is ηο reason why the ancients should be singled ουΙ as having kept
herds any more than people of any other time. We propose that the contrast is between a primitive age
when men gathered wild animals to graze them, and the present when children are gathered for
immoral purposes (according to LSJ, the word used here for 'grazing' was also used of 'women who
support themselves by prostitution'). We propose that after dYELpaL dropped out ίη front of dγέλαs a
scribe supplied τρέΦειν after προβάτων, supposing that Φορβάδων qualified οηlΥ ιππων, with which it
does form a stock phrase. 1η a passage which may draw upon this one (Oratio 28), Tatian uses the verb
συναγείρειν when reporting that the Romans 'try Ιο gather together herds ofboys like herds of grazing

2 αίρέσεων συντεταγμένον Α Eus (Lat)] αίρέσεων Eus (Gr Syr) 4 μηδεν dδικωμεν Η. Stephαnus horses'. 1ι may be significant that swine are ηοΙ included ίη Justin's list of animals, ηοΙ being
Otto Blunt Marcovich Munier] μηδένα διώκωμεν Α εκτιθέναι coniec] εκτιθέναι και Α 5 πονηρον husbanded by nomadic peoples. Herodotus, who notes that the Scythians kept flocks of oxen, goats,
Grabe] πονηρων Α 6 προαγομένουs coniec] προάγονταs Α 7 οί παλαιοι dYELpaL coniec] οί sheep, and horses, says that they are not willing, for the most part, to rear swine (ΊV.61-3). The force of
λέγονται, 'are said', is unclear, unless it can be supposed that Justin is appealing to a literary tag οτ
παλαιοιΑ
 154 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N~S APOLOG Υ ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 155
προβάτων ij ίππων Φορβάδων ούτω οί νυν παιδας εις το αισχρως χρησθαι grazing 1 cattle or goats or sheep or horses, so now people 2 gather children
μόνον. και όμο{ως θηλειων και άνδρογύνων άρρητοποιων πληθος καΤι1παν a
only to use them shamefully. And similarly multitude in every nation of
"θ ,\ Ι ..... ,ι tI
ε νος επι τουτου του αγους εστηκε. 27.2. \ Ι θ"
και τουτων μια ους εις
φ ι
ορους women 3 and passive males who commit unspeakable acts have been
, Ιλ λ β ι δ ι , Ι,/, " ~ Ι Ι ,ι
και τε YJ αμ ανετε, εον εκκοψαι απο της υμετερας οικουμενης. 27.3. και, brought to·this defilement. 4 27.2. And you receive the wages ofthese as
5
~ ι ι
των τουτοις χρωμενων Τις προς
,~
T'[J
'θ ι "β
α εψ και ασε
~
ει
" ~ Ι(;
και ακρατει fLLf:, ει, ει
,
taxes and levies,5 when you ought to extirpate these practices6 from your 5
τύχ οι , τέκνψ ij συγγενει ij άδελΦψ μ{γνυται. 27.4. οί δε και Τι1 έαυτων world. 27.3. And it might happen that anyone ofthose who use these ίn
ι "ι ΥΙ ι, Φ ~, δΙ
τεκνα και τας ομο';,υγους προαγωγευονται, και ανερως εις κιναι ιαν godless and impious and unrestrained sex,7 might have sex with his child,
or relative, or sibling. 27.4. And others prostitute even their own children
and wive's, and some openly8 emasculate themselves to become catamites,

commonplace, but we have found ηο earlier trace of such a tag. Ιη the Euboeαn Orαtion (νπ) Dio
Chrysostom contrasts the simple and primitive lifestyle ofthe Euboeans with the sexual immorality of
his own age, and condemns the practice ofprostitution; see esp. VII.134 οη hippophorboi and onophorboi.
Russell (Dio Chrysostom, Orationes, 150) notes that here Dio's 'general view resembles that of his
teacher Musonius'.
1 The aqjective 'grazing' is most commonly coupled with horses (as it is ίη the MS), but it can

appear ίη connection with other animals. If our emendation is correct, it supplies the purpose of the
ancients' gathering of animaIs, in contrast with the purpose of the gathering of exposed children ίη
Justin's own time.
2 As it stands, the MS supplies ηο subject; our emendation proνides a contrast with οί
παλαιοί.
3 Ashton's emendation to θηλυδριών, 'effeminate persons', based οη Tatian, Orαtio 29.1, is tempting,
but it is unclear what the distinction would then be between these and the άνδρογύνων, unless the latter
word be taken ίη the strong sense of 'hermaphrodite'. Ιη her translation of Tatian, Whittaker takes
θηλυδριων και άνδρογύνων as a hendiadys-'effeminate hοmοseχualsΌWe assume that the similarity
Justin draws is between boys and girls raised for prostitution and adult prostitutes who include both
women and passive males.
4- The word for ritual defilement is apt, as Justin's point is that sexual immorality is, ίη fact, άσέβεια.

Ι προβάτων coniec] προβάτων τρέΦειν Α
coniec] νυν Α; νυν και R. Stephαnus Otto Blunt Mαrcovich
2 άρρητοποιων coniec] και άρρψοποιων Α
Thirlby εΙς Φόρους coniec] και εΙσφορσ.ς Α
5 άσεβει Α1 άσεβή Ν pr m
ουτω Α] ουτως Otto Blunt Mαrcovich Munier οί νυν
παιδας Α] παίδων GTαbe Mαrcovich
3 έπι τούτου του αγους Α] έπι του αυτου τέγους
4 έκκόψσαι Α] έκκόψαι αυτσ. Mαrcovich
There is a close parallel with the argument ίη Athenagoras, ugαtio 35.4-5, which is concerned not with
sexual immorality but murder, the other fundamental charge against Christians. Athenagoras there
argues that so far are Christians from committing murder that they do not even go to the games lest
they be involved in the defilement (άγός) ofkilling.
5 The MS has 'you receive the wages and taxes and leνies ofthese', which is both implausible and
overworks the genitive τούτων, cf. Barnard, 'you receive the hire from these and leνies and taxes from
them'. According to Suetonius, the tax was leνied οη the earnings of prostitutes, Cαligulα 40; cf. aIso
Hift01iα Augustα, Severus Alexαnder 24.3.
6 What is to be extirpated is not stated ίη the Greek, as one might expect it to have been. Some
suppose that the prostitutes are meant (Otto, Hardy, Barnard), while Marcoνich supposes it is the
taxes. ButJustin can hardly be calling for the extirpation ofpeople recruited from foundlings whom he
boasts Christians do not expose; and to call for the extirpation only of the taxes οη immoral earnings
would be banal.
7 Justin seeks to turn back οη the denigrators of Christians the charge of indiscriminate and
incestuous sex.
8 Justin's other usages of Φανερως (ιΑ 27.5; 2Α 12-4, 7; D 63.5) make it plain that it shoud be
taken with άποκόπτονται. Justin refers to self-emasculation in the context of an act of worship.
Such eunuchs may have been called 'wagtails', κίναιδοι (cf. MacMullen, Pαgαnism in tlze Romαn
Empire, 21), but this word more commonly means 'catamite', and Justin means to suggest that
homosexual sex is the real purpose of their emasculation. He would have wanted to distinguish the
pagan practice from the words of Christ he quoted at ιΑ 15+ At ιΑ 29.2-3 he will mention a
young Christian of Alexandria who unsuccessfully petitioned the governor for permission to be
surgically emasculated.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 157
" , " 'θ Εων
α7ΤΟΚΟ7Ττονται TιVES' και Εις μΎjTEpα Λ' ,
τα μυσTΎjpια 'Φ'
ανα Ερουσι· και 7Ταρα " and they present the mysteries to the mother, of the gods,l and the viewing2
7Τασι ~ των νομι'ομένων 7Ταρ' ύμιν θειων οψις σύμβολον μέγα και μυσT~pιoν of the things you suppose to be divine is proclaimed3 before everyone as a
"
αναγΟΡΕυΕται. 27.5. και"Φ
τα
Λ (Λ
ανΕρως υμιν 7ΤραττομΕνα και ΤιμωμΕνα, ως
, " (
great symbol and mystery. 27.5. And the things which are openly done
,αναΤΕτραμμΕνου
"και " ου 7Ταροντος Φ'ωτος θ EΙOV,
ι (Λ 7Τροσγρα'Φ"
Ύjμιν ΕΤΕ· 07ΤΕΡ and honoured by you, as if the divine light were overturned and absent,
5 α7TΎjλλαγμένOις ~μιν του 7Τράττειν 'Τι τούτων ου βλάβΎjν Φέρει, αλλα τοις you ascribe to us. This brings harm not to us, who are delivered from 5
7Τράττουσι και ψΕυδομαρτυρουσι μαλλον. doing any of these things, but rather to those who do them and who falsely
testify against us.

ι The 'mother of the gods' is Cybele, the 'Magna Mater' whose cult had been officially sanctioned
in Rome since 204 BC. The emperor Claudius (AD 41-54) had introduced to Rome an elaborate annual
festival celebrating the death and revival of Cybele's consort Attis, with whose worship eunuchs known
as 'galli' (cocks) were associated. The cult ofboth Cybele and Attis was favoured by Antoninus, and it
seems that it was during his reign that the taurobolium was associated with it (Duthoy, The Tαurobolium,
ι 16 f.). Απ inscription at Lyons dated to AD 160 records that a 'tree-bearer'-dendrophorus (cf. note οη ιΑ
24.2)-performed a taurobolium for the health of Antoninus Pius, his children, and the colony of
Lugdunum, and that he 'received the strengths'-vires excepit. It is thought that the VΊres were the
severed testicles of the slaughtered bull, cf. Vermaseren, Corpus Cultus Cybelαe AttidΊSque, ηο. 386 (= CIL
χιπ. 1751); Fishwick, The Imperiαl Cultin the Lαtin J#st, 260f.; Duthoy, Tαuroboliuln, 73. Though the word
'mysteries' would more normally be used to refer to the ήtes and lessons of initiation themselves, it is
possible that Justin refers to the severed testicles of the newly consecrated gαlli. According to Graillot
(Le Culte de CybNe, 297), these were preserved, became objects of cult, and had a role in the mysteries.
Απ inscription of AD 239 (Corpus Cultus Cybelαe AttidΊSque, ηο. 228= CIL χιπ. 510) speaks of a woman
receiving, οη 24 March-the 'day of blood' οη which devotees lacerated themselves and new gαlli
castrated themselves-the vires of one Eutyches, variously taken to be the name of the sacificed bull ΟΓ
of a gαllus. IfJustin had known Aπtoninus to be 'a devoted worshipper of Cybele' who had extended
her worship to include the rites of Attis (Vermaseren, Cybele αnd AttΊS, 53, 179 f.), his ridiculing of the cult
was either very brave ΟΓ very foolhardy.
2 As it stands ίη the editions, this sentence should be translated 'a snake is described ίη connection
with each of those whom you suppose to be gods as a great syrnbol and mystery'. This gives rise to a
number of problems. First, what is the meaning of παρά? Secondly, would Justin use παντί ίη the
singular with a partitive genitive (the MS also has the singular θεφ, emended since Sylburg to θεων)?
Thirdly, ίη other places where the phrase 'the supposed gods' is used (ιΑ 6.1; 2Α π.8; and D 55.2 (bίs)),
who it is who does the supposing is not indicated. Fourthly, the sentence does not seem to fit its context,
and what it claims is false. Barnard asserts that 'the widespread connection of the snake with phαllos is a
reason why it is so commonly associated with fertility and sexual deviations, as in this passage'. We
have found ηο evidence in antiquity of an association of the snake with the phαllos ΟΓ with fertility and
sexual deviations. As the Christian association ofthe serpent with Satan and the devil is mentioned ίη
the following chapter, it is possible that the text originally held a claim that the Christian usage was
mimicked by the demons/mythographers, but we consider that ch. 28 ofthe Apology is itself dislocated.
Our emendation of όφις to όψις gives good sense to the sentence ίη its context. It carries οη the idea of
sacred spectacle (wagtails), and develops the theme of disgraceful practices alleged against the Chris-
tians being ίη fact the subject of religious spectacle in pagan worship, cf. MacMullen, Pαgαnίsm in the
Romαn Elnpire, 18 ff.
3 The MS has άναγράφεται, the primary meaning of which is 'inscribed, registered, recorded'.
There is an implied contrast with προσγράφετε ('you ascribe') at the end ofthe next sentence, but it is
not clear what the point of the contrast is, ΟΓ what the verb means here at all. We propose that it is a
scribe's attempt to recover the meaning from a damaged exemplar, and has been suggested by προσ­
ι παρa πασι Τι coniec] παρa παντι Α 2 θείων coniec] θεφ Α; θεων Sylburg Otto Blunt Mαrcovich γράφετε. The latter word does suit the context, and refers to the bill of indictment against the
Munier Όψις coniec] Όφις Α 3 άναγορεύεται coniec] άναγράφεται Α Christians.
 JUST1N'S APQLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF ,OF CHR1ST1ANS
JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 159
(28.1. Παρ' rιμιν μεν γαρ ό αρχηγέτηι; των κακων δαιμόνων σφιι; καλειται (28.1.1 For the leader 2 of the evil demons is called by us Serpent, and
Λ δ lβ λ < " Λ < Ι Ι
και σαταναι; και ια ο οι; ωι; και εκ των ημετερων συγγραμματων
, ,

Satan, and the Devil, as you are able to learn by examining our writings,
Ερευνήσαντει; .μαθεΙν δύνασθε ον είι; το πύρ πεμΦθήσεσθαι (215 b) μετα whom Christ indicated beforehand will be sent into the fire with his
'Λ στραηαι;
τηι; αυτου Λ' Λ
και των < Ι
επομενων 'θ ρωπων
αν Ι κο λ ασ θ ησομενουι;
Ι τ ο'ν
, Ι < Χ Ι 8 .2. \ \ (, \,.. army an'd with the human beings who follow him to be punished for an
5 απέραντον αιωνα προεμηνυσεν ο Ριστοr;. 2 και γαρ η επιμονη του unending age. 3 28.2. For furthermore, God's delay ίη not yet doing 5
Ι
μηδεπω Λ
τουτο Λ(;
πpα~αι 'θ'
τον εον δ'
ια το"θ Ι
αν ρωπινον Ι
γενοι; Ι
γεγενηται, προ-
this 4 is οη account of the human race, for he foreknows some that are
Ι
γινωσκει γαρ
/
ηναι;
,
εκ
Ι θ θ
μετανοιαr;, σω ησεσ αι
/ με
lλλ
ονται; και
Ι
ηναι;
going to be be saved through repentance, perhaps even some that have
Ι"
μηδεπω ισωι; γεννη EVTar;. 2 8 .3.
θ/
και\την
' "αρχην \
νοερον και\ δ ι
υναμενον not ye.t been born. 28.3. And ίη the beginning he made the human
< θ 'λ θ Λ '1' Ι ,Ι "θ Ι Ι
αιΡεισ αι τα η η και ευ πραττειν το γενοι; το αν ρωπινον πεποιηκεν,
race with intelligence and able to choose what is true and to behave
10 ώστ' αναπολόγητον εΊναι τοιι; πασιν ανθρώποιι; παρα Τψ θεψ, λογικοι γαρ well, so that all human beings are without excuse with regard to God, !Ο
και θεωρηηκοι γεγενηνται. 2
,Ι 8 .4. 'δΙ
ει
, Λ /λ
ε ηι; απιστει με ειν τουτων Τψ
/ Λ
for they have come into existence as rational and with power of
θεω, ~ μη εΊναι αυτον δια τέχνηι; όμολογήσει ~ σντα χαίρειν κακίq- Φήσει perception. 5 28.4. But if anyone does not credit that God cares for
~ λίθω Εοικότα μένειν και μηδεν εΊναι αρετην μηδε κακίαν δόςΏ δε μόνον these,6 he will virtually7 confess that he does not exist, or will say that
TOVr; dνθΡώπουr; ~ αγαθα ~ κα κα ταύτα rιγεισθαι, i}περ μεγίστη ασέβεια while he does exist he rejoices ίη evil, or remains like a stone, and that
και"δ " εστι. )
15 α ικια
neither virtue nor vice exists, but that it is only by ορίηίοη that human 15
beings consider these things 8 good or evil, which is the greatest impiety
and wickedness.)

15 εστί] post εστι spatium circiter
1We consider this chapter to be out of place ίη its present position. 1t interrupts the reasons given ίη
ιΑ 27 and ίη ιΑ 29 why Christians do not expose infants, and it begins by suggesting that it is about to
discuss a contrast between a view held by Justin (παρ' ήμιν μεν γαρ . .. ) and one held by others. Ifthe
other view was a pagan one, the contrast may have been between Satan as serpent and the Serpent of
Asclepius associated with the 1nsula Tiburtina (cf. note at ιΑ 26.2). If the other view was a heretical
one, the contrast may have been between God as creator and the malevolent demiurge. The argument
ofthe chapter is taken up again at several points: at ιΑ 43.1-45.1; 52.3; 57.1, and 2Α 6(7). Justin may
have included at ιΑ 26.5 material from the ~1Ztαgl1Zα not germane to his argument (although Marcion
does make up the third member ofthe heretical trio again at ιΑ 58.1), and it is possible that ιΑ 28 has
floated in from the same source. The connective particles μεν γαρ, και γαρ, and possibly also δε suggest
that we are dealing with three fragments divorced from their original context. They might originally
have belonged in the vicinity of ιΑ 26.6-8, giving further information about the theological depravity
of Christian heretics, while leaving open the question of their guilt or innocence in respect of.fiαgίtiα.
Μεν γαρ appears eleven tirnes in the Apologies. 1η seven ofthe other ten occurrences μεν is balanced by
a following δε, but ίη the remaining three μεν γαρ always marks a close explanation of what irnmedi-
ately precedes (ιΑ 4.3; 18.3; 44.13). Και γαρ appears ίη the Apologίes fourteen tirnes in all. 1t normally
introduces further proof or substantiation of a preceding statement, and can mean something like 'for,
as a matter of fact' (cf. ιΑ 31.6; 63.Ι7). ιΑ 27.1 would flow well from the end of 28.{, ήμεις being
cοntΓasted initially, but not exclusively, with the Christian heretics. 1η the MS a small cross is marked at
the end of the chaΡteΓ, suggesting that a scribe has been aware of a textual problem. We think the
section is a genuine fragment of Justin, perhaps located here when the Apologίes were first ΡreΡaΓed for
circulation after Justin's death, rather than an eχtΓaneοus addition. Accordingly, we have set it offwith
parentheses, [ather than bracketing ίι The MS's reference to a serpent (which we have emended to
'viewing') at ιΑ 27.{ may have occasioned the insertion of the fragment at this point.
2 Justin uses this word of the founders of Christian heresies at D 35.6, and of bar Kokhba, the
leader oftheJewish rebellion, at ιΑ 31.6.
3 Cf. Matt. 25.41.
+ Justin means the 'dissolution and destruction ofthe whole universe', cf. 2Α 6(7).1-3.
5 Cf. 2Α 6(7).3-6.
6 i.e. human beings, cf. 2Α 9.1.
7 LiteΓallΥ 'through craft'. Justin might not mean a reference to low cunning, but sirnply that
a denial of God's pΓOvidence is as good as a denial of his existence, cf. Colson 'Notes οη Justin
Martyr', 165.
2 vd 3 litterarum cum cruce modico elevata Α 8 i.e. virtue and vice, cf. ιΑ 43.6.
 160 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS

29.1. Τ7 \ 'λ \Λ θ Ι \, λ Φθ
nαι πα ιν, μη των εκτε εντων τις μη ανα η
, θ
εις ανατω
θ Λ
YJ l'
και ωμεν
\ \
29.1. And again, lest anyone of the exposed should die through not
ανδροΦόνοι. αλλ' ij την αρχην ουκ εγαμουμεν, ει μη επι πα{δων αναTpoΦiι, ij, being picked up, which would make us murderers. ι But either we would
Ι
παραιτουμενοι Ι
το γημασ
\ θ αι, τε'λ' Ι
εον εγκρατευομε θ α. 29.2. και\ η
"δ η τις των
Λ not marry' ίη the first place, except for the raising of children, or if we
ήμετέρων-ύπΕρ του πείσαι ύμας ότι ουκ εστιν ήμίν μυστήριον ή ανέδην decline to marry, we practise complete self-restraint. 2 29.2. And, ίη
5 μ{ξιι;-βιβλ{διον ανέδωκεν εν ΆλεξαvδΡε{q Φήλικι ήγεμονεύοντι αξιων order to persuade you that we do not consider licentious sex to be a 5
επιτρέψαι ιατρψ τους διδύμους αυτου αΦελείν' ανευ γαρ της του ήγεμόνος 'mystery',3 recently one of ours gave ίη a petition ίη Alexandria to Felix
επιτροπης τουτο πράττειν απειΡησθαι οί εκεί ιατροι ελεγον. 29.3. και the governor, praying him4 to permit a physician to remove his testicles,
μηδόλως (216 a) βουληθέντος Φήλικος ύπογράψαι, εφ' έαυτου με{νας ό for the physicians there said that they were forbidden to do this without
Ι ,ι
νεανισκος ηρκεσ η
θ
TYJΛ ( Λ \ Λ (

εαυτου και των ομογνωμονων συνει ησει.

Ι δΙ
the permissionof the governor. 5 29.3. But as Felix was in ηο way
willing to subscribe <this petition> the young man remained οη his own, ΙΟ
ΙΟ (29.4.29 ουκ ατοπον δΕ επιμνησθηναι εν τούτοις ήγησάμεθα και
'Λ Ι Λ Λ Ι Ι (θ \
c\ δ \ Φ 'β \ 'β
being content with his own conSClence and that of those who thought
.ι-tντινooυ του νυν γεγενημενου, ον και παντες ως εον ια ο ου σε ειν
tl ,Ι Ι l' \ 'θ (Λ )
like him.
ωρμηντο, επισταμενοι τις τε ην και πο εν υπηρχ εν .

(29.4.6 And we conside~ed7 it not out of place to mention amongst

these also Antinous, that recent phenomenon, whom all rushed to
worship with fear 8 as a god, although knowing who he was and where he 15

came from.)

ι This is the second majol" [eason for not exposing children. 'And again' picks up the 'first' of ιΑ
27.1. Ifit is original, the text as it stands must point to a stage in the transmission when this chapter
followed very closely upon ch. 27.
2 Editors emend the MS to provide two unreal conditionals: 'we would not marry except for
the raising of children, ΟΓ if we declined to maΠΥ we would practise complete self-restraint.' But only
the first of these is truly unreal. Ιη the immediate context Justin has ίη mind Christians who do have
children; and he says it is only to [ear childΓen that they have marital ίnteΓCΟUΓse. Ιη the second part
of the sentence he cannot f!1ean to say that we would practice self-restraint if we declined to marry
(but we do not decline). As is plain from what he goes οη to say, Justin wishes to consideΓ also the case
of those Christians who do decline to maπΥ. We propose that the MS text derives from a misreading
of τέλεον ενκρατευόμεθα, whereby the last syllable of the first word was taken as the first syllable of the
second, with a cοπectίοn of ενκ to εγκ. VaΓίatίοn between ενκ- and εγκ- is common ίη insaiptions and
eaΓΙΥ manuscripts.
3 Justin uses the technical term [ΟΓ a religious rite [eserved [ΟΓ the initiated. It is not clear whether he
is telling the story in order to persuade the emperors οη the point, ΟΓ whether he is [eporting the
motivation of the young man, ίη which case ύμας must refer to pagans generally; comΡaΓe Origen's
motive as desaibed ίη Eusebius, ΗΕ VI.8.2 ('that he might shut out every suspicion of false slander
among the unbelievers'). However, it was known in antiquity that the removal of the testicles from an
adult excluded neither sexual desire ηΟΓ ΡenetΓatίοn-Βasil of Ancyra held that castration increased
sexual desire and encouraged promiscuous sexuality, οη the grounds that it was without [isk (Rousselle,
Porneiα, 122-4). As Justin had himself attΓίbuted a sexual motivation to the seΙf-castΓatiοn of the
worshippers of Cybele at ιΑ 274, his audience is unlikely to have been impressed by his line of
argument.
i Justin uses the quasi-technical teΓms [ΟΓ the process of petitioning cf. 2Α 2.8; ιΑ 3.1; 74; 12.ΙΙ;

16.14; 69(14)·1.
5 For the prohibition of castΓatiοn see e.g. Digest 48.84 (Ulpian); cf. Rousselle, Porneiα, 122-7.
6 Despite what the text says, this passage cΙeaΓΙΥ is out of place ίη the present context, even if the
point weΓe an unspecified refeΓence to Antinous' being the catamite of Hadrian. Those amongst
29.4 ουκ ατοπον ... πόθεν ύπηρχεν αρ Eus ΗΕ ΙΥ.8.3 Eus (Gk [=ATERBDM] Lat Syr) whom it was thought not out of place to mention him are more likely to be the humans who became
gods at ιΑ 21.3, ΟΓ, even more probably, Simon and Menander, the names ofwhose villages ίη Samaria
3 εγκρατευόμεθα coniec] ενεγκρατευόμεθα Α; ενεκρατευόμεθα edd 5 Φήλικι Sylburg ed~ are given at ιΑ 26.2 and 4. We have treated it as a dislocated fΓagment like ιΑ 28.
Φ{ληκι Α 8 μηδόλως Α] μηδ' όλως Goodspeed Φήλικος Sylburg ed~ Φ{ληκος Α 7 We retain the aorist of the MS ίη ΡrefeΓence to Eusebius' ΡΓesent tense. Twice elsewhere Justin

ΙΟ 7ιγησάμεθα Α] 7ιγούμεθα Eus (Gr); mihi videtur Eus (Lat) ΙΙ γεγενημένου Α] γενομένου Eus uses the verb ίη authorial interventions ofthis kind: once ίη the ΡΓesent (2Α ιι.2) and once ίη the aorist
(Gr) πάντες Α Eus (BD)] απαντες Eus (GΓ*) Φόβου Α] Φόβον Eus (Gr) Thil'lby Otto Mαrcoviclz (ιΑ 14.4).
8 We have followed the [eading ofthe MS, against Eusebius' δια Φόβον--'because offear" At Contrα
Gentes 9 Athanasius says that people worshipped Antinous 'because of fear of the emperor (δια Φόβον
του προστάξαντος)" Eusebius's phrase presumably has the same force as Athanasius', butJustin may
nnt- YnΡ-::ιn t-r. ~τnnΙυ t-h-::ιt- t-hι=o HTl1.rt.'J,~T'\ n t Δnt-~nΓ\lΗ' "ι.ιΙ-:1Ρ nthpr t-h-::ιη rρ''(1ρ.rΡ.nt-~-:ιιΙ Tt- "λfnnlr1 hp pvtr-::tιnpAlH.· t-n
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

30.1. Όπως δΕ μη ύ ης ανηηθεις ~μΙν τί κωλύει και τον παρ' ~μΙν λεγόμε­ 30.1. ι What iS to stop it being the case also 2 of the one we call Christ,
νον Χριστόν, ανθρωπον Εξ ανθρώπων οντα, μαγικn τέχντι ας λέγομεν δυν­ that, as a human being from among human beings, he worked the
άμεις πεποιηκέναι και δ6ξαι δια τουτο υίον θεου εΊναι-την απόδειξιν ήδη miracles 3 which we speak of through magic art4 and for that reason seems
Ι θ '
Λ λ Ι Ι, λλ Λ Φ Ι ,ι\ 5
ποιησομε α, ου τοις εγουσι πιστευοντες, α
\
α τοις προ ητευουσι πριν η to be son of God? Lest someone make this retort against us we shall now
5 Ι θ
γενεσ αι κατ
' αναγκην
, Ι θ Ι
πει ομενοι,
δ \ \
'1./, ( \ Φ 'θ (Λ
ια το και ΟψΕι ως προε ητευ η οραν make proof, not giving credence to people who make assertions,6 but being 5
γενόμενα και γινόμενα' ~πεp μεγίστη και αληθεστάτη απόδειξις και ύμιν, presuaded of necessity by those who foretell things before they happen,
ώς νομίζομεν, Φαν~σεTαι. because we see even with our own eyes that things have happened and
are happening as they were foretold, which will appear also to you, as we
31.1. Άνθρωποι σΟν ηνες Εν Ίουδαίοις γεγένηνται θεου προψηται, δι' ών το think, to be the greatest and truest proof. 7
προΦητικον πνευμα πpoεK~pυξε τα γεν~σεσθαι μέλλοντα πριν ~ γενέσθαι.
!Ο
\ Ι
και τουτων οι εν
('Ίδ'
ου
\ \
αιοις κατα καιΡους γενομενοι
Ι β
ασι
λΛ \
εις τας προ
Φ Ι
ητειας 31.1. There were, then, amongst the Jews some people who were !Ο
prophets of God, through whom ·the prophetic Spirit proclaimed ahead
of time the things that were going to happen before they did happen.
And those who were kings 8 successively among the Jews acquired their

ι Most commentators suppose that this chapter begins the second major topic announced ίη ch. 23.
We rejected the view that ch. 23 was ίη fact announcing three major topics to be demonstrated.
Though this chapter does provide a bridge to the major discussion οη prophecy, which begins ίη 3Ι.Ι,
like 29.4, it follows οη well from the discussion of Simon and Menander in 26.2-4.
2 i.e. as it is the case with Simon and Menander.

3 Justin's language reflects his discussion of Simon ίη 26.2-'performed magical deeds'.

1 μη ύ τις dντιτιθεις coniec] μή τις dντιτιθεις Α; μή τις dντιτιθείη Dαvies; μή τις εϊ'ΠΏ dντιτιθεις edd
4 Justin's language reflects his discussion ofMenander in 26.4-'through magic art'.
5 The MS has the participle dντιτιθείς with ηο finite verb. Editors have accordingly either inserted a
verb of speaking or have changed the participle to a subjunctive or optative. Blunt, Marcovich, and
Munier follow Otto ίη supplying εϊ'Πε, for which Otto appeals to 2Α 3(4).1 and 9.Ι. But that is to assume
that the σ'Πως clause here, as ίη those two later passages, introduces a new section. Our insertion of ύ is
palaeographically simpler-'lest there be someone retorting.. .'.
6 The contrast is, once again, with Simon and Menander, 'certain people who αsserted that they were
gods', ιΑ 26.1.
7 As an argument from miracles has been rendered largely ineffective because of the existence of
other miracle-workers such as Simon and Menander, who rely οη magical tricks, Justin shifts the
burden of proof to prophecy, which will preoccupy him for much of the rest of the work. The proof
from prophecy will also serve him against Marcion, also mentioned ίη ιΑ 26, and may have been
adopted from an anti-Marcionite argument ίη the Syntαgmα. At D 35.6 Justin mentions Valentinians,
Basilidians, and Saturnilians ίη addition to the Marcionites.
8 That before the ISt century BC the Jews were ruled not by kings as such, but by high priests, was
known to educated gentiles, cf. Diodorus Siculus 40.3.5. Justin need not be supposed mistakenly to
have thought that there were Jewish kings contemporary with Ptolemy. He might be simplif)ring the
historical reality for fear that its complexities might bewilder or distract his audience; or his reference
might include the kings of Israel and Judah who were contemporary with the prophets. Justin's point
may have been to emphasize that successive Jewish rulers had a policy of safeguarding their sacred
books long before Κing Ptolemy developed his encyclopaedic bibliomania.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS
ώς ελέχθYjσαν, οτε προεΦYjτεύοντο, τπ lδίq. αυτων εβραίοι Φωνπ, εν βίβλοις
ύπ' αυτων των ΠΡΟΦYjτων συντεταγμέναις κτώμενο ι περιεΙπον. 31.2. οτε δε
Πτολεμαιος, ό· Αιγυπτίων βασιλεύς, βιβλιοθήΚYjν κατεσκεύαζε και τα
πάντων ανθρώπων συγγράμματα συνάγειν επειΡάθYj, πυθόμενος και περι
5 των ΠΡΟΦYjτειων τούτων, προσέπεμψε (216 b) τψ των 'Ιουδαίων τότε
βασιλεύοντι αξιων διαπεμΦθηναι αυτψ τας βίβλους των ΠΡΟΦYjτειων,
31.3. τπ προεΙΡYjμέντι εβραί'δι αυτων Φωνπ γεγραμμένας. 31.4. επειδη δε
ι β{βλοις Ashton Mαrcovich Munier] βιβλίοις Α 2 συντεταγμέναις Mαrcovich] συντεταγμένας Α
6 βασιλεύοντι Peαrson Mαrαn Thαlemαnn] βασιλεύοντι Ήρώδη Α προΦητειων rfj προειΡημέντι
έβραίδι αυτων Φωνfj γεγραμμένας coniec] προΦητειων και ό μεν βασιλευς Ήρώδης rfj προειΡημέντι
έβραίδι αυτων ΦωνΤι γεγραμμένας διεπέμψατο Α edd (Otto in apparatu coniecit προΦητων ...)
JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS
ΡrόΡhecίes and looked after them, 1 spoken as they were ίn their own
Hebrew language when the prophecies were being made, ίn rol1s put
together 2 by the prophets themselves. 31.2. But when Ptolemy,3 the king
of the Egyρtians, who was preparing a library and attempting to gather
together the writings of al1 peoples, learnt also of these prophecies, he sent 5
to the one who at that time was ruling the Jews,4: asking that the rol1s of the
prophecies be dispatched to him, 31.3. writtenintheir aforementioned
Hebrew Ιanguage. 5 31.4. But since what was written ίn them was not
ι This might reflect the notice of Aristeas (Epistulα 30; cf. Josephus, Antiquities ΧΙι'37) that the scrolls
held in Alexandria before the embassy to Jerusalem were faulty, cf. note οη ιΑ 3Ι.3 below.
2 The MS reads the alternative, and later more common, form βιβλίοις instead of βίβλοις, and
makes the participle 'put together' agreewith 'prophecies'. We have adopted Marcovich's emendation,
ίη both instances. The MS reading glves litde point to the phrase 'by the prophets themselves',
Marcovich's emendation envisages two stages, the enunciation of the prophecies and their being
written down in books. Taking the participle 'put together' as agreeing with 'books' strongly favours
the emendation to the feminine βίβλοις, which is attractive οη other grounds. First, the feminine form
appears three other times in this chapter (3Ι.2, 3Ι.5, 3Ι.7), and could easily have been altered οη its first
occurrence to a form more familiar to the scribe; secondly, the form βίβλοις stresses that the Hebrew
scriptures are in rolls rather than codices: cf. Justin's usage at ιΑ 36.3 and 44.Ι2.
3 Ptolemaios Philadelpos, 308-246 BC.
4- The MS names this person as Herod. Α compelling demonstration that this anachronism is
not attributable to Justin himself has eluded editors and commentators. Schmid (Έin ratselhafter
Anachronismus') proposed that Justin may have been following a Samaritan tradition that identified
the ambassador sent by Ptolemy as Orodes, and that this has become corrupted in the transmission.
But it would be odd for Justin to name Ptolemy's legate without explaining his function, especially ifhe
was unable to name the ruler of the Jews to whom he was sent. We suspect that 'Herod' was added
here after it had been inserted within a gloss a few words later. Justin's usage elsewhere would suggest,
ίη any case, that the meaning here would not be 'Herod, who was then ruling the Jews', but 'the Herod
who was then ruling the Jews', as though 'Herod' were a tide of principality similar to 'Caesar' ΟΓ
'Augustus' (cf. ιΑ 40.6; D 68·7; 7Ι.Ι; 77.4; 84·3)·
5 The MS reads: 'And the king, Herod, dispatched things written ίη their aforementioned Hebrew
language.' We consider this to be a gloss, added to explain the second embassy to Jerusalem, by a
redactor puzzled that Ptolemy should ask for rolls ίη a language his scholars could not understand, and
drawing all its elements from the immediately surrounding text, with the exception of the name
'Herod', which we think was added in 3Ι.2, as well, after the gloss replaced the original text ίη 3Ι.3.
(The name Herod may have wandered from a marginal gloss to 32.2, where it would have provided an
answer to the question there asked: 'until whom did the Jews have their own king and priest?'; cf. D 52.3,
where Justin has to counter a Jewish argument that Herod the Great could not be counted a king of
Judah for this purpose.) Ιη 3Ι.3, as it stands ίη the MS, another subject is introduced between 'Ptolemy'
at the beginning of3I.2 and 'he again sent and asked' ίη 3Ι.4, where Ptolemy is obviously the subject,
though not named. Moreover, while the king is said to have sent γεγραμμένας, which must mean 'the
things written', ίη 3Ι-4 there is a distinction between the things sent and what was written in them. The
excision of the gloss would also absolve Justin of the anachronism of sayingthat there were kings of
the Jews in the 3rd century BC, let alone that one of them was called Herod, ΟΓ even that all of them
were. The participle βασιλεύοντι in 3Ι.2 is compatible with the rule of a high priest (cf. Philo, De Vitα
Mosis, 1Ι.3Ι: 'the high priest and king of Judaea, for they were one and the same'). Justin is the only
author who tells of a double embassy from Ptolemy to Jerusalem. It is possible that he derives this from
the obscure passage in the Letter qfAristeαs (30ff.), paraphrased by Josephus (Antiquities XII.36--g). There
the occasion of sending to Jerusalem to ask for scholars who will be able to establish the text and
ensure the accuracy of the translation was said to be the fact that the 'Scrolls of the Law of the Jews'
were 'transcribed somewhat carelessly and not as they should be ... because they have not received
royal patronage'. It is not clear whether the faulty rolls are ίη Hebrew ΟΓ ίη Greek. Tertullian's claim
(Apologeticum ι8.8) that the original Hebrew texts were preserved ίη the Serapeum at Alexandria,
 166 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

ουκ ..ην γνώριμα τα εν αυταις γεγραμμένα τοις Αιγυπτ{οις, πάλιν αυτον familiar l to the Egyρtians, he again sent and asked that people be sent who
~ξ{ωσε πέμψας τους μεταβαλουντας αυτας εις την έλλάδα Φωνην άνθρώπους migllt transla,te them into the Greek language. 31.5. And after this the
'Λλ
αποστει αι. 31.5. ,ι Ι.,
και τουτου γενομενου εμειναν αι
β 'βλ
ι
(
οι και παρ
Α'
ιγυπ-
' , rolls remained among the Egyρtians until now, 2 and are also present
τ{οις μέχρι του δευρο, και πανταχου παρα πασ{ν εισιν 'Ιουδα{οις, οί' και everywhere to all tlle Jews, who, even though they read them, do not
5 άναγινώσκοντες ου συνιασι τα εΙΡYJμένα, άλλ' εχθρους ήμας και πολεμ{ους understand what has been said, but consider us to be enemies and 5
ήγουνται, όμο{ως ύμιν άναιΡουντες και κολά'οντες ήμας όπόταν δύνωνται, adversaries, and, like you, they destroy and punish us whenever they are
( ,
ως και πεισ
θ Λ
YJvaL δ Ι θ
υνασ ε.
6 31
31.. '" Λ Λ ι, δ Λ
και' γαρ εν Τψ νυν YEYEVYJIλEVΙP ιου αικψ
.. able, as you are able to learn. 31.6. For even ίn the recentJewish war, bar
'
πο λ εμψ,
Β 'β
TYJS"
αρχωχε ας, ο
(Λ 'Ι δ Ι
ου αιων
, Ι
αποστασεως
, Ι
αΡΧYJγεΤYJς,
Χ
ρισ- Kokhba" the leader of the rebellion of the Jews, ordered only3 Christians
ηανους μόνους εις ημωρ{ας δεινας ει μη άρνοιντο 'IYJaODv τον Χριστον και to be led away to fearsome torments, if they would not deny Jesus as the
10 βλασΦYJμοιεν εκέλευεν άπάγεσθαι. 31.7. εν δη ταις των ΠΡΟΦYJτων β{βλοις Christ and blaspheme him. 31.7. Well then,4 ίn the rolls ofthe prophets 10

ευρομεν ΠΡΟΚYJΡυσσόμενον παραγινόμενον, γεννώμενον δια παρθένου και we found our Lord Jesus Christ, proclaimed ahead of time as drawing
άνδρούμενον και θεραπεύοντα πασαν νόσον και πα σαν μαλακ{αν και νεκρους near, being born of a virgin,5 and growing to manhood,6 and healing
,ι , Φθ ι \ ,Ι \ Ι Ί Λ
ανεγειΡοντα και ονουμενον και αγνοουμενον και σταυρουμενον YJaOVV τον
,

every disease and every illness, and raising the dead,7 and being resented,
ήμέτερον Χριστον και άποθνΤισκοντα και άνεγειΡόμενον και εις ουρανους and not acknowledged,8 and being crucified, and dying9 and rising again,1O
,ι , (, θ Λ" 'λ Ι Ι
15 ανερχομενον και υιον εου οντα και κεκ YJIλEVOV
(
'217 a )
και ηνας πεμπομ- and going to the heavens,11 and being, and being called, the Son of God, 15
ένους ύπ' αυτου εις παν γένος άνθρώπων ΚYJΡύξοντας ταυτα, και τους εξ and we found certain people sent by him to every race of people to
ε'θ νων
Λ 'θ ρωπους
αν Ι Λλλ'
μα Λ πιστευειν.
ον αυτψ Ι 31. 8 . προε Φ YJTEV'θ YJ '
δ ε πριν ",YJ proclaim these things,12 and that it was people from the gentiles rather who
Φ aVYJvaL
Λ ,Ι" ετεσι ποτε" μεν πεντακισχι λ ιοις, ποτε' δ' , believed ίn him. 13 31.8. And this was prophesied before he appeared,
l
αυτον, '
ε τρισχι λ ιοις, ποτε δ'
ε

δισχιλ{οις, και πάλιν χιλ{οις, και ίίλλοτε όκτακοσ{οις' κατα γαρ τας δια- sometimes five thousand years before, sometimes three thousand, some-
20 δοχας των γενεων ετεροι και ετεροι εγένοντο προψηται. times two thousand, and again a thousand and elsewhere eight hundred: 20
for the various prophets came to be according to the successions of the
generations. 14

together with the Greek translations, might also derive from this section of ΑΓίsteas. Justin, ΟΓ an
intermediate source, may have supposed that Ptolemy originally asked for ro11s written in Hebrew
which his scholars found 'unfamiliar' either because their knowledge of Hebrew did not match the
difficulties of the texts, ΟΓ because the language they were familiar with was ίη fact Aramaic, WΓίtteη ίη
the same chaΓacters as Hebrew. 1t is also possible that the whole of 31.3 is a gloss, added, unnecessarily,
to spe11 out the need for a second embassy, and that the text orgina11y read: 'asking that the ro11s of the
plΌphecies be sent to him. But since the things written ίn them were unfamiliar ... '

1 Justin seems to assume that Ptolemy was surprised to find the language of the plΌphesies

uninte11igible. 1η Aristeas (Epistlllα ιι), Demetrius corrects the misapprehension that the Hebrew
scriptures are written ίη ΑΓamaίc ('Syriac'), even though they use the same script; cf. Josephus,
AιztiqIlities ΧΙι'15, who has Demetrius say that Hebrew is like Aramaic in script and sound, though in
fact a di:fferent language.
2 Justin seems to imply the survival amongst gentile Egyptians of the very ro11s sent from Jerusalem.
If this is his meaning there may be here a reflection of an argument used ίη Jewish~Christian
controversy oνer the possession of the authentic text of the scriptures. 1η the next clause the referent
has become more general, meaning simply the scriptures, not necessarily ίη Greek.
3 The meaning, presumably, is that bar Kokhba required religious conformity only of Christians,
and thus, ίη Justin's eyes, was similar to the Roman authorities. 1n Eusebius' Chroιzicoll for AD 133 bar
Kokhba is said to have killed, with a11 manner of tortures, those Christians who were not willing to
assist him against the Roman army.
4 Justin resumes the argument fΓOm 30.1, explaining why he was 'persuaded of necessity' by the
31.6 και γαρ εν Τψ νυν . .. εκέλευεν ιl.7Tάγεσθαι αρ Eus ΗΕΙν.8.4 Eus (Gk [=ATERBDl\tI] Lat Syr)
PlΌphets, namely, 'ίη the lΌ11s of the prophets we found ouI" LΟΓd Jesus Christ ... '. Οη the use of δή
heΓe, and its position, see Denniston, T1ze GTeek Pαrticles, 225~6, 229. Fol1owing Bousset and others,
5 συνιιiσι eddJ συνίασι Α 7 γεγενημ,ένψ Α] γενομ,ένψ Eus (Gr) 8 Βαρχωχέβα, Eus (Gr*
SkaΓsauηe, PΓoqffi"01ll Prophecy, 139, notes that each of the fo11owing phrases points to the development
sine accentu) ThiIlby edd] Βαρχοχέβας Α; Bαpxεxωβιi, Eus (R); Barchochabas Eus (Lat)
of the argument ίη ιΑ 32~53.
9 'Ιησουν τον Χριστον Α Eus (Gr*)] τον Χριστον 'Ιησουν Eus (BD) 10 εκέλευεν Α Eus (Gr*)]
5 Cf. ιΑ 33.1~34.2. 6 Cf. ιΑ 35.1. 7 Cf. ιΑ 48.1~2. 8 Cf. ιΑ 49.1~7.
εκέλευσεν Eus (A1BD) ιl.7Tάγεσθαι Α] αγεσθαι Eus (Gr) 20 γενεων ThiI'lby] γενων Α
9 Cf. ιΑ 35.2~IO; (38.1~7); 50.1~II. 10 Cf. ιΑ 38.5. 11 Cf. ιΑ 45.1~5; 51.6-7.

12 Cf. ιΑ 39.1~3; 40.1~4; 45.5. 13 Cf. ιΑ 53.4~II.

14 We have adopted the emendation plΌposed by Thirlby and Ashton. Justin means an unbΓOken
succession, not that theΓe was a 'PΓOphetic succession' ΟΓ successions of prophets fΓOm fatheI" to son;
,.. Τ"\. ι' ,. r " 1'· _~_~l..Ll __ ..L~ ___ .Ll_~_T _____ n l ___ ~_.L ____ .L_L
 ι68 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS ι69

32.1. Μωυσψ; μεν οον, πpωτo~ των ΠΡΟΦYjτων γενόμενo~, είπεν αυτολεξει 32.1. Moses,l then, who was the first οfthe.ρrοΡhets, spoke thus ίn these
" 'Ο" λ 1,/. ,ι 't'Iουlδ α \
'δ (Ι ,~ ~,~
oυτω~' υκ εκ ειψει αρχων ε~ ου ε Yjγουμενο~ εκ των μYjρων αυτου very words: Ά ruler shall not fail from Judah nor a governor from his loins
έω~ αν ελθτι Ψ άπόκειται και αύτo~ εσται προσδοκία εθνων, δεσμεύων πpo~ until the one for whom2 it lies ίn store should come. And he shall be the
αμπελον τον πωλον αύτου, πλύνων εν αιματι σταΦυλη~ τ~ν στoλ~ν αύτου.' one awaited by the nations, tethering his colt at the vine, washing his robe
5 32.2. ύμέτερον οδν εστιν άKpιβω~ εξετάσαι και μαθειν μέχρι τίνo~ -ην ίn the blood of the grape.,g 32.2. 1t is your task, then, accurately to 5
αρχων και βασιλευ~ εν 'Ioυδαίoι~ ϊδιo~ αύτων' μέχρι τη~ Φανεpώσεω~ 'IYjaOD investigate and to learn how 10ng4 the Jews had their own ruler and king. 1t
Χριστου, του ήμετέρου διδασκάλου και των άγνοουμένων ΠΡΟΦYjτειων was until the appearing of Jesus Christ, our teacher and interpreter of the
εξYjγYjτου, ώ~ προερρέθΥ] ύπο του θείου άγίου ΠΡΟΦYjτικου πνεύματo~ δια του unintelligible 5 prophecies, as it was said before through Moses 6 by the
Μωυσεω~ Ι ,\, λ 1,/. ,ι , \ 'Ι δ Ι ,ι "'Ι\θ "" Ι \
μΥ] εκ ειψειν αρχοντα απο ου αιων εω~ αν εΛ τι ιμ αποκειται το divine, holy, prophetic Spirit, 'a ruler shall not fail from the Jews, until he
!Ο β ασιlλ'ειον. 32.3. 'Ιουlδ α~ γαρ\ προπατωρ
Ι 'Ιου δ αιων,
Ι 'Φ' ου
α '" και\ το\ Ίου δ αιοι
~
comes for whom lies ίn store' royal power. 7 32.3. For Judah was the fore- 10
\ (~ \ \
κα λ εισ αι εσΧYjκασι. και υμει~ μετα TYjV γενομενYjν αυτου
~θ ,ι Ι '~Φ Ι
father of the Jews, from whom, also, they have come to be called Jews. 8
\
ανερωσιν και
Ι 'β λ Ι \ ~ ,Ι Ι ~'I
'Ιου δ αιων ε ασι ευσατε και TYj~ εκεινων πασYj~ YYj~ EKpaTYjaaTE. 32.4. το \
And you, after his appearing occurred, came to rule over the Jews and
\ εσται
δ ε\ 'Α'υτo~ ,ι δ Ι 'θ ~ , (b)
217 μYjνυτικον \ YjV ,ι ,Ι ~
achieved mastery of all their land. 9 32.4. And the phrase, 'He shall be
l'
προσ οκια ε νων οτι εκ παντων των
'θ ~ δ Ι ,\ lλ Ι 'ι 'Ι,/. (Λ
ε νων προσ ΟΚYjσουσιν αυτον πα ιν παραγενYjσομενον, οπερ Οψει υμιν the one awaited by the nations', signified that people from all nations will
15 πάρεστιν ιδείν και εργιμ πεισθηναι' εκ πάντων γαρ γενων άνθρώπων await him who is to come again. This it is possible for you to see with your 15
προσδοκωσι τον εν 'Iουδαίq. σταυρωθέντα, μεθ' ον ευθυ~ δopιάλωτo~ ύμίν ή own eyes and to be persuaded by the reality. 10 For people from all races of
γη 'Ιουδαίων παρεδόθYj. 32.5. το δε 'Δεσμεύων πpo~ αμπελον τον πωλον humankind do await the one who was crucified ίn Judaea, immediately
after whom the land of the Jews was given in captivity to you. 32.5. And

1 This is the first of thirty occurrences of the name 'Moses' in the First Apology. Both in the Apology

and in the Diαloglle the MS normally, but not invariably, prefers the shorter spellings, without υ. We
presume thatJustin would have used the longer spelling clearly attested by the etymological arguments
of Philo and Josephus, cf. Thackeray, Α Grαmmαr qf the Old Testαment ίιι Greek According (ο tlze Septuαgint,
i. 163f.
2 Οη the correction Ψ for the MS's δ see Skarsaune, Proqf.from Propheqy, '27.

3 Gen. 49: !Ο-ΙΙ, cf. Skarsaune, P1'Oqf.from Propheqy, 25-9, 140-3.

4 The Greek pronoun τίνος, read as masculine, might have prompted a glossator to write 'Herod' in

the margin.
5 Justin's point is that the prophecies were not able to be understood until their meaning had
been interpreted by Christ, cf. Skarsaune, Proqf.fr01n Propheqy, ΙΙ-13. Justin's audience would have been
familiar with the idea that a prophetic utterance might be unintelligible without an interpreter.
6 Cf. Irenaeus, Demonstrαtion 57: 'Thus Moses in Genesis speaks as follows: "There shall not lack a
ruler fromJudah.'" ryνe have used Smith's translation ofthe Dem01ιstrαtion, modifYing it slightly.)
7 Cf. ibid.: 'For he had to come to his destination "for whom lies in store" a kingship in heaven.'
8 Cf. ibid.: 'But Judah, a son of Jacob, was ancestor of the Jews, who also take their name from
· ,
hlIll.
9 Cf. ibid.: 'But from the time of his coming ... the land of the Jews was given over into the

dominion of the Romans, and they had ηο more their ruler or leader οη their own.'
ΙΟ Justin does not use έΡΎΨ always with the sense 'in fact'. Here he seems to mean not 'persuaded in
fact' but persuaded by the fact that has been observed by sight; cf. D 51.'2: 'How can there still be
Ι Μωυσής] Μωσψ; Α 3 Ψ edd] δ Α 9 Μωυσέως] Μωϋσέος Α ΨΝ pr m] δ Α* ambiguity, when you are able to be persuaded by the fact (έΡΎΨ 'ΠΕισθηναι)?'
 170 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

, ~, Ι, λ ι ι λ ι ~,<Ι "J.. λ ~, ι β λ δ λ
αυτου και π υνων την στο
,
ην αυτου εν αιματι σταψυ YJS συμ ο ον η ω- the phrase, 'Tethering his colt at the vine and washing his robe ίη the
τικον ήν των γενησομένων T<jJ Χριστ<jJ και των ύπ' αυτου πραχθησομένων. blood of the grape', was a symbol making plain the things that would
32.6. πωλοs γάρ TιS σνου είστήκει εν τινι εισόδψ κώμηs προs αμπελον happen to Christ and would be done by him. 32.6. For an ass's colt,
δεδεμένοs, ον εκέλευσεν αγαγειν UVT<jJ τότε TOVS γνωρίμουs αυτου, και tethered to a vine, stood at an entrance to a village. This he then com-
5 ,
αχ
θ ι
EVTOS 'β Ι
επι uS 'Ιθ ισε καιΙ,
εκα
λ Ιλ θ
εισε η υ εν ειs τα
'
ι ΊεροσοΙλ υμα, εν θ α τοι μεγισ-
ι " manded his associates to bring to him, and when it had been brought he 5
τον
(
ιερον
ι 'j'
ην
Ί
ου
δ Ι
αιων,
<\
ο
(
υψ
"J..' (
υμων
~ .,
υστερον κατεστραψη.
I"J..
και
ι
μετ α
ι
ταυτα
~
mounted it, and sitting οη it 1 he has made his entry to Jerusalem,2 where
εσταυρώθη σπωs το λεΙΠον TijS προφητείαs συντελεσθΏ. 32.'. το γαρ was the great temple oΓthe Jews, which was later destroyed by you. And
'Πλύνων την στολην αυτου εν αίματι σταφυλijs' προαγγελτικον ήν του afterwards he was cruci:fied, ίη order that the rest of the prophecy might
πάθουs 0-0 πάσχειν εμελλε, δι' αίματοs καθαίρων TOVS πιστεύονταs uVT<jJ. happen. 32.'. For 'washing his robe ίη the blood of the grape' heralded
(Ι λ ι (Ι ~ θ ι ι δ ι ~ "J.. ι , λ ι,
10 32 .8. η γαρ κεκ ημενη υπΌ του ειου πνευματοs ια του προψητου στο η beforehand the suffering he was going to endure, cleansing through his 10

οί πιστεύοντεs UVT<jJ εισιν ανθρωποι, εν OlS οικει το παρα του θεου σπέρμα, ό blood those who believed ίη him. 32.8. For what is called 'robe' by the
λόγοs. 32.9. το δε ειρημένον 'αίμα TijS σταφυλijs' σημαντικον του εχειν divine Spirit through the prophet "are the human beings who believe ίη
ι 'Ι'
μεν αιμα τον ψανησομενον, α
I"J.. ι 'λλ'" C ' θ ι ι 'λλ" εκ θ ειαs
ουκ ε~ αν ρωπειου σπερματοs α
ι him, ίη whom dwells the seed~ from God, which is the Logos. 4 32.9. And
ι
δ υναμεωs. 32.10. η(δΙε πρωτη
Ι δΙ ι Ι Ι Ι
υναμιs μετα τον πατερα παντων 21
( 8 a) καιι the 'blood of the grape' mentioned indicates that the one who was going
15 δεσπότην θεον και υίοs ό λόγοs εστίν, oS τίνα τρόπον σαρκοποιηθειs ανθρω­ to appear would indeed have blood, but not from human seed, but from 15
ποs γέγονεν εν TOLS έξijs ερουμεν. 32.11. ον τρόπον γαρ το TijS αμπέλου divine power. 32.10.5 And, after the Father ofall and Lord God, the first
αίμα OVK ανθρωποs πεποίηκεν αλλ' ό θεόs, οvτωs και τουτο εμηνύετο OVK εξ Power and Son is the Logos, who was made flesh and became a human
ανθρωπείου σπέρματοs γενήσεσθαι το αίμα αλλ' εκ δυνάμεωs θεου, ώs being ίη the manner we shall speak of in what follows. 32. Ι Ι. For just as a
human being has not made the blood of the vine, but God has, just so this
blood6 was revealed as not going to come from human seed, but from the 20

ι The pleonastic expression 'having mounted he sat' may represent a conflation of the di:fferent
verbs used in Matt. 21: 7, Mark ιι: 7, and Luke 19: 35·
2 The use of the perfect, rather than the aorist that might have been expected, emphasizes
the definitive character of the entry, through which Christ received the royal power held ίη store for
him.
3 Seed seems to function as a middle term between blood and Logos, enabling Justin to understand

being washed ίη the blood of Christ as symbolic of being indwelt by the Word. It was a commonplace
of ancient physiology that semen was the bearer ofpneumα and logos, and that semen was concentrated
blood: 'ancient anatomists ... believed that the purest air was carried ίη ever richer blood towards the
testicles which passed it οη as sperm', Rousselle, Porneiα, 13. Tertullian says that those who practise
fellatio 'lick future blood' (Apologeticum 9.12). The Logos can be called the seed ofGod, because he is his
offspring, cf. ιΑ 32.10 and Tertullian, De Cαrne Cllristi 18.1: 'Dei filius ex Patris Dei semine, id est
Spiritu.'
4- Cf. D 54.1: 'For "washing his robe ίη wine and his garment ίη the blood of the grape" was
indicative that those who believe ίη him would be washed ίη his blood: for the holy Spirit called his
robe those who receive forgiveness of sins from him, ίη whom he is always present by power, and ίη
whom he will be present visibly ίη his second coming'; Irenaeus, Demonstrαtion 57: "Ήίs robe", as also
"his garment", are those who believe ίη him, whom he has cleansed, redeeming us with his blood.'
5 Marcovich places this sentence after ιΑ 32.8. Thirlby had bracketed 32.10, οη the ground that
32.ΙΙ followed οη from 32.9. But 32.10 follows οη from 32.9, because it identifies the Logos as first
power and Son, and 32.ΙΙ follows οη from 32.10 because it deals with the manner in which the Logos
was made flesh. The closeness ofthe parallel between 32.9 and 32.ΙΙ οη the one hand, and D 54.2 οη
the other, suggests thatJustin is ίη each case reusing material, perhaps his own; cf. Skarsaune, Proqf.from
Propllecy, 142-3.
3 τι, Α] τη, Sibingα MαrcoVΊch 14 ή δε Α] η γαρ Mαrcovich; hanc sententiam (ή δε πρώτη 6 Marcovich's reading (τούτου) requires taking έμψύετο as an impersonal passive: 'it was signified
δύναμιs ... έν τοι, έξη, έρουμεν (32.10)) post το παρα του θεου σπέρμα ό λογο, (32.8) locavit Mαrcovich that.' However, this is not supported by Justin's usage at D 64.7 and 72.3, the οηlΥ occurrences ofthe
15 θεον και Α] θεον MαrcoVΊch 17 τουτο Α] τούτου Thirlby Mαrcovich passive verb.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

προεLΦ ΎJμεν. 32.12. \

και Ή σαιας
.Ι. δ'
ε, α "λλ ος προ Φ ΎJΤΎJς, τα αυτα δ'
ι α'Ιλλ ων , \, \ power of God, as we said before. 1 32.12., And also Isaiah, another
ι ,
PΎJσεων προ
Φ Ι " 'i'
ΎJτευων ουτως ειπεν'
, 'Λ λ Λ ,Ι
L1vaTE ει αστρον ε~
'ζ; Ί Ιβ
ακω,
,ι θ
και αν ος
" \ prophet, prophesying the same things ίη di:fferent words spoke as follows:
ανα
, β Ι
ΎJσεται
',\
απο ΤΎJς
Λ, Ι ΙΥ
ΡΙ,=> ΎJς
'Ι
εσσαι,
Ι"
και
\,
επι
\ \
τον
β'
ραχιονα αυτου
'Λ "θ
ε νΎJ 'Α star will rise from Jacob,'2 'and a flower will spring up from the root of
ε'λ πιουσιν.
Λ' "
32.13. αστρον δ\
ε Φ ωτεινον ανετει
Ι \,
λ ε, και αν
"θ ος ανε
,Ιβ ΎJ απο ΤΎJς
Λ \ , \ Jesse,'3 'and'the nations will hope ίη his arm.,4 32.13. And a bright star
5 ι ΙΥ
PΙ,=>ΎJς
'Ι
εσσαι'
''ί'
ουτος ο
ι Χ'
ριστος, 32.14. δ \ \
ια γαρ παρ ενου ΤΎJς
θ Ι Λ'
απο
\ του did rise and a flower did spring up from the root of Jesse. This was Christ. 5
σπέρματος 'Ιακώβ, του γενομένου πατρος 'Ιούδα, του δεδΎJλωμένoυ Ίουδα{ων 32.14. For by the power ofGod he was born from a virgin who was from
Ι
πατρος,
δ
ια
δ'
υναμεως
θ Λ' \ lθ
εου απεKυΎJ 'η. και
\ Ίεσσαι\ Ι \ \
προπατωρ μεν κατα το
\
the seed ofJacob, who was the father ofJudah, who was, as explained, the
λ Ι
ογισν γεγενΎJται, του
, Λ δ
ε
\ 'Ιακω\ β και του
\ Λ 'Ι
ου
'δ
α κατα γενους
\, δ
ια
δ \
0XΎJν υιος
Ι \
father of the Jews. And Jesse, who was the son of Jacob and of Judah by
ύπηρχεν . family descent, has become his forefather ίη accordance with the text.

10 33.1. και\ πα'λ ιν ως

ι αυτο c \ δ ια παρ θ ενου
'λ ε~ει Ι μεν
\
τεχ θ'
ΎJσOμενOς δ ια τουΛ \ \ 33. ι. And again, hear how it was prophesied by Isaiah that he would be 10
Ήσαιου
.Ι. Φ 'θ ,ι 'λ Ι θ
προε ΎJτευ ΎJ ακουσατε. ε εχ ΎJ
δ ε ουτως' 'Ίδ ου ΎJι παρ θ ΕνΌς
Ι εν
, \" \ born of a virgin-the text is explicit-. It was spoken thus: 'Behold the virgin
\ f'C ,ι t:.
γαστρι ε~ ει και τε~ εται υιον, και ερουσιν επι τιμ ονοματι αυτου ΙΗε
t / \) Λ ,\,..., / , ..... 71Η θ' ('
ΎJμων ο
,. , (' shall conceive ίη the womb and shall bear a son and they shall call his
θ εος. ι ,
33.2. c\ \ l' " \
α γαρ ΎJν απιστα και α υνατα νομι,=>ομενα παρα τοις αν ρωποις
'δ ι Υ ι \ Λ' θ Ι
name "God with us".'s 33.2. For God disclosed beforehand through the
γενrισεσθαι, ταυτα ό θεος πpOεμrινυσε δια του ΠPOΦΎJΤΙKOυ πνεύματος prophetic Spirit that things which people supposed would be incredible
15 μέλλειν γ{νεσθαι, ϊν' όταν γένΎJται μ~ απισΤΎJθiι αλλ' εκ του προειΡησθαι and impossible were going to happen, so that when they did happen 15
πιστευθiι· 33.3. όπως δε μrι (218 b) τινες, μ~ νorισαντες τ~ν δεδΎJλωμένΎJν they should not be disbelieved but should rather be believed because they
πpoΦΎJτε{αν, εγκαλέσωσιν ήμιν απερ ενεκαλέσαμεν τοις ΠOΙΎJταις, ειπουσιν had been foretold. 33.3. But lest some ΡeΌΡΙe, not understanding the
α'Φ ρο δ ισιων
Ι Ι
χαριν ε'λ ΎJ λ υ θ εναι
Ι ,\
επι Λ
γυναικας τον
\ Δ ια,
Ι δ ιασα Φ ΎJσαι
Λ τους λ'
ογους \
prophecy we have pointed to, should charge against us the things we
πειΡασωμε α.
Ι θ
33.4. το\ ουν
'i' 'Ίδ
ου
\ ι θ Ι,
ΎJ παρ ΕνΌς εν γαστρι ε~ει
\ <Ιζ; '
σΎJμαινει ου
Ι ,
charge against the poets, who said that Zeus came to women for the
συνουσιασ θ εισαν
Λ θ Ι λλ β Λ 'θ ι \ Ι Λ
20 ΤΎJν παρ
\
ΕνΌν συ α ειν. ει γαρ εσυνουσιασ ΎJ υπο οτουουν,
, \ ,
sake of sexual gratification, let us try to elucidate the words. 33.4. So 20

ουκ ετι -ην παρθένος, αλλα δύναμις θεου επελθουσα τiι παρθένιμ επεσκ{ασεν the phrase 'Behold the virgin will conceive' signifies that the virgin
,\
αυΤΎJν και κυο
\ Φ Λ
0PΎJσαι παρ
θ' 'i"
ΕνΌν ουσαν πεΠOΙΎJKε. 33.5. \
και ο αποστα
Ι , λ
εις
\ conceived without intercourse, for if she had had intercourse with anyone,
δε προς αυτ~ν τ~ν παρθένον κατ' εκεινο του καιΡου αγγελος θεου ευΎJγ- she would ηο longer be a virgin. But the power of God came upon
'Ίδ \ λλ " Ι,'
γε λ ισατο αυΤΎJν ειπων'
Ι \ , Ι Ι Ι
,\"
ου συ ΎJιp'[J εν γαστρι εκ πνευματος αγιου και
\
the virgin and overshadowed her, and caused her, though a virgin, to be
25 τε~
IC
'[J ι Ι
υιον, και
\ Ι\
υιος
Ι,Ι, Ι
υψιστου κ
λ
ΎJ
θ Ι
ΎJσεται. και
\
κα
λ'
εσεις το
\ ονομα
" 'Λ
αυτου pregnant. 33.5. And further, the angel of God sent at that time to this 25
'Ι ...
ΎJσOυν,
),
αυτος
\
γαρ
Ι
σωσει τον
'λ"
αον
,...),
αυτου απο
1'\

των αμαρτιων αυτων,

(' Λ , ..... ,Ι
ως οι
('
virgin announced good news to her, saying: 'Behold, you will conceive ίη
απoμνΎJμOνεύσαντες πάντα τα περι του σωτηρος ήμων ΊΎJσOυ Χριστου the womb from holy Spirit6 and you will bear a son and he shall be called
εδ{δαςαν, ο'[ς επιστεύσαμεν, επειδ~ και δια Ή σαίΌυ του ΠPOδεδΎJλωμένOυ το Son of the Most High, and you will call his name Jesus, for he will save his
people from their sins,,7 as those who recorded everything concerning our
saviour Jesus Christ taught. We have come to believe these people because, 30

7 πατρος Α] προπάτορος Thirlby Mαrcovich
μεν Α] μεν αυτου Mαrcovich
ι C[ D 54.2 'But that the text said "blood of the grape" artfully made clear that Christ indeed has
blood, but not from human seed but from the power of God. For just as not a human being, but God,
begot the blood of the grape, so also it revealed in advance that the blood of Christ shall not be from
human stock but from power of God'; and Irenaeus, Dell101ιstrαti01l 57: 'And his blood was called "the
blood of the grape" because just as ηο man makes the blood of the grape, but God makes it and
gladdens those who drink of it, so too, his flesh and blood were not the work of men, but made by
God; "the Lord himself gave the sign" of the virgin, that is, of Emmanuel, who came of the virgin,
and who makes glad those who drink him, that is, who receive his Spirit, an everlasting gladness.'
2 Num. 24: 17. 3 Isa. 11: Ι.
4- Isa. 51: 5. Οη this 'combined quotation' see Skarsaune, Proqf.froIn P1'Ophecy, 50-2.
5 Isa. 7: 14.
10 ώς αυτολεξει Α] 6 Justin, like Luke, does not use the definite article. As is clear from what follows, in saying that the

ώς Mαrcovich 11 Ήσαίσυ Α] Ήσαίσυ αυτολεξει Mαrcovich 15 ιν Α] ϊνα Otto Blunt Logos who causes the virgin to be pregnant is holy Spirit he is not identifYing the Logos with the holy
16 δε μη Tlzirlby Otto Blunt Mαrcovich MUllier] δε Α 19 πειΡασώμεθα Α] πειΡασόμεθα ~lburg edd Spirit.
25 το eddJ το το Α 7 C[ Luke Ι: 31-2, Matt. Ι: 20-1, and note the plural participle 'those who recorded .. .'.
 JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1STIANS
JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1STIANS

προΦ'ητικον πνευμα τουτο γεντισόμενον, ώς προεμτινύομεν, εφτι. 33.6. το

as we have been disclosing, the prophetic Spirit also said through the
πνευμα oi5v και την δύναμιν την παρα του θεου ουδεν αλλο νοησαι θέμις ij τον
aforementioned Isaiah that this would haΡΡeή. Ι 33.6. Moses,2 the afore-
λόγον, ος και; πρωτότοκος τψ θεψ εστι, Μωυσης ό προδεδτιλωμένος mentioned prophet, signified that it is not proper to consider the Spirit and
ι ,Ι
προ Φ τιττις εμτινυσε. και τουτο ε
\,.., 'λθ \ , \ \ θ ι
ον επι ττιν παρ εν ον και επισκιασαν ου δια
\ ) Ι " the Power which is from God as anything other than the Logos who is also
Ι
5 συνουσιας α'λλ'
α δ ια'δ υναμεως
Ι ,Ι
εγκυμονα Ι
κατεσττισε. 33.'. το, δ'ε Ίτισους first-born of God, and this came upon and overshadowed the virgin and 5

Όνομα Tn έβραί·δι φωνn σωτηρ Tn έλλτινίδι (219 a) διαλέκηρ δτιλοΙ.

caused her to be pregnant not through intercourse but through power.
3. 8 · ο"θ εν και' ο<,'αγγε λ ος προς
" ττιν παρ θ ενον
Ι l' 'Τ.Τ' λ Ι , "
ειπε· nαι κα εσεις το ονομα
33.7. The name Ίesus' ίη the Hebrew language means, ίη Greek,
3
,
αυτου
"''1τισουν,
,. αυτος
" γαρ \ σωσει τον αον \ αυτου
, . . . απο
, , των αμαρτιων αυτων.'
Ι \ λ ι""\ ( Λ' 'savlour'.3 ~3.8. That, too, is why the angel said to the virgin: 'And you
" δ'ε ου'δ ενι"'λλ Ψ θ εο Φ ορουνται
~ οι< προ φ τιτευοντες
Ι ει μτι λ ογω
ι θ ειω
Ι shall call hlS name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. ,4
33 •9 • οτι α "

10
,<
και υμεις, ως υπο
~ < < λ
αμ
β'
ανω,
ΦL
τισετε.
' , 33.9. And that those who prophesy are inspired by nothing other than 10

divine utterance 5 you also will, Ι suppose, say.

34.1.'Όπου δε και της γης γεννασθαι εμελλεν, ώς προεΙΠεν Ετερος
προ Φ τιττις
Ι Μιχαιας,
ο< ι ,Ι
ακουσατε. ε"Φ τι δ'"
ε ουτως· 'Τ.Τ"
nαι συ Β τι θλ εεμ,
Ι γη ,'Ιούδα,
34. ι. And ίη what place o~ the earth he was going to be born, hear
ουδαμως ελαχίσττι εΊ εν τοις ήγεμόσιν 'Ιούδα, εκ σου γαρ εςελεύσεται
how another prophet, Micah, foretold. And he spoke thus: 'And you
(Ι
τιγουμενος οστις ποιμανει τον
t/ ,.., \ λ
αον μου.
ι,
34.2. κωμτι
Ι δ ι Ι,
ε τις εστιν εν
,
Tn Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by ηο means least among the rulers of
15
Ι
xwpq. ου αιων, 'Ι δ ι ,ι
απεχουσα στα ιους τριακοντα πεντε
δΙ Ι Ι Ί λ
εροσο υμων, εν
l ,~
1J Judah, for from you will come forth a leader who will shepherd my 15
, lθ
εγενντι τι Ίτι σους
~ Χ Ι ,
ριστος, ως και μα ειν υνασ ε εκ των απογραφων
< ,
των θ ~ δ Ι θ' people.'6 34.2. And this is a village in the country of the Jews which is
Ι
~ενoμ;νων
"Κ
επι
Ι
υρτινιου, του
..... ι Ι
υμετερου
''!δl
εν ου αιq.
Ι
πρωτου
Ι
γενομενου
thirty-five stadia 7 from Jerusalem ίη which Jesus Christ was born, as
επιτροπου.
you are also able to learn from the census-lists which were made under
Quirinius who was your first 8 procurator in Judaea.

1 The MS reading might be translated 'this one about to be born', but there are two problems with

this reading. First, the participle is middle, not passiνe ίη form, and, despite LSJ's citation ofDiodorus
Siculus (1g.2-where Fischer, howeνer, emends to γεννη<θη>σομένου), using the middle ίη a passiνe
sense would be highly unusual, and Justin elsewhere (D 76.7) uses the future passiνe of this νerb.
Secondly, a neuter object is more natural than a personal object with the νerb φήμι. We haνe accord-
ingly adopted Thirlby's emendation; see the parallel phrase ίη D 103-4-
2 We haνe followed Blunt ίη letting the reading ofthe MS stand and understanding the νerb 'to be'.
Θέμι, is here, as often, indeclinable. The reference is to the quotation from Genesis ίη'β2.1, and more
specifically to the exegesis of 'blood of the grape' ίη 32.9-1Ο, where Justin infers from this phrase that
the Logos is 'first Power and Son'.
3 Marcoνich and Munier emend the text to haνe the sense: Jesus is a name which means ίη Hebrew.
'man'; in Greek, 'saνiour'. They suppose that 2Α 5(6).4, to which they refer, has the sen;e Jesus is ~
name which signifies both "man" and "saνiour" '. See our note there.
4 Matt. ι: 21.

Ι τουτο γενησόμενον
3 Μωυσψ] Μωσψ Α; ώ, Μ. Otto Aιfαrcovich
5 δυνάμεω, Α] δυνάμεω, θεου Mαrcovich
5 i.e. logos. But ifJustin had meant to say that prophets are inspired by the diνine Logos he would not
haνe used a datiνe of instrument. Although Justin does elsewhere speak of the Logos inspiring the
prophets (2Α 10.8), here he is expecting agreement from his pagan audience to a general principle: that
genuine prophecy has a diνine origin.
6 Mic. 5: 1-2; Matt. 2: 6.
7 Α stadion was approximately 185 metres.
8 Syria was made a proconsular proνince ίη 64 BC, and included the ethnarchy of Judaea. Ιη AD 6
the emperor Augustus banished the ethnarch Archelaus (the son of Herod the Great) and Judaea was
made a Ρrοcuratοήal proνince, whose governor was to some degree subordinate to the proconsul of
Syria. Quirinius was proconsul (άνθύπατο,) of Syria from AD 6 to 7, and was styled 'goνernor'
(ήγεμονεύ,) by Luke (Luke 2: 2). The first governor ofJudaea was Coponius (from AD 6). From the time
of. Claudius on~ards the goνernors of Judaea were called procurαtores (Επίτροποι) (cf. Schίirer, The
HιstO'lY qfthe Jewιsh People in the Age qfJesus Chrίst, ί. 357-60). Justin has already used this term ofPilate
T/zirlby Otto] τουτον γεννησόμενον Α; τουτον oίJTω, γεννησόμενον Mαrcovic/z
(ιΑ 13.3; cf. also ιΑ 40.6; D 30.3), though his actual title was prαifectus (επαρχο,). ΒΥ describing Quirinius
4 Επισκιάσαν Α] Επισκίασαν αυτην Mαrcovich
as the first procurator Justin may simply intend to distinguish him from Pilate, cf. ιΑ 40.6.
6 Όνομα Α] Όνομα ανθρωπο, MαTcovich MZlllier
 η6 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S :APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

35.1. Ώς δε και λήσειν εμελλε τους αλλους ανθρώ7Τους γεννηθεις ό Χριστος 35.1. And how Christ, after his birth, was going to escape the attention of
αχρις ανδpωθfι-07Tεp και γέγονεν-ακούσατε των 7ΤροειΡημένων είς τουτο. other human beings until he grew to manhood, which ίη fact happened-
3 5. 2 . ,ι
εστι δ€' ~
ταυτα: *** 'Παι δ ιον
Ι εγεννη
, 'θ η ~•
ημιν, και, Ι
νεανισκος ~
ημιν
• hear the things that were said ίη advance with reference to this.
α7Τεδόθη, 015 ~ αpX~ ε7ΤΙ των ωμων,' *** μηνυτικον της δυνάμεως του 35.2. They are these: 1 ***Ά child was born for us, and a young man was
5 σταυρου, Ψ 7Τροσέθηκε τους ωμους σταυρωθείς, ώς 7Τροϊόντος του λόγου given for us, whose rule is οη the shoulders, ,2 *** signi:fYing3 the power of the 5
σα Φ εστερον
Ι δ ειχ θ ησεται.
Ι 35.3. • "
και, 7Τα'λ ιν ο αυτος 7Τρο Φ ητης
Ι Ή σαιας,
.1. θ εο- cross, οη which he placed his shoulders when he was crucified, as will be
Φορούμενος τψ 7Τνεύματι τψ 7ΤροΦητικψ, εΦη' 'Έγω εςε7Τέτασα τας χειΡάς shown more clearly as the discourse proceeds. 35.3. And again the same
μου ε7ΤΙ
, 'λ ' ,
αον α7Τει
θ ~
ουντα και αντι
"λ ι ,\,
εγοντα, ε7ΤΙ τους 7Τορευομενους εν ο
Ι) Ιδ ~
Ψ ου
, prophet Isaiah inspired by the prophetic Spirit said: Ί stretched out my hands
Kαλfι.' 35.4. 'αίτουσί με νυν κρίσιν, και εγγίζειν θεψ τολ(2ιg b)μωσιν.' to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those wa1king in a way that is not
ΙΟ 35.5. ,'λ "Ιλλ
και 7Τα ιν εν α οις
λ Ι
ογοις
δ Ι Φ Ι
ι ετερου 7Τρο ητου
λ Ι
εγει,
'Α "ι ,.
t. Ι
υτοι ωρυι" αν
' good.'4 35 . 4 . 'They ask me now for judgement and dare to draw near to ΙΟ
μου
'δ
7ΤΟ ας και
,~'"
χειΡας, και
,Ιβ λ
ε α ον
λ ~
κ ηρον
" τον
ε7ΤΙ
, .ιματισμον
Ι
μου.
, God.'5 35 . 5 . And again in other words through another prophet he says:
35. 6 . και,ο.μεν
, Δ αυι"'δ'
ο β ασι λ'
ευς και 7Τρο Φ ητης,
Ι , ο ~
εΙ7Των ταυτα,
. , '
ου'δ'
εν 'They pierced my hands and fee~,'6 'and cast lots for my clothing.'7
τούτων επαθεν, 1ησους δε Χριστος εςετάθη τας χε-Ιρας, σταυρωθεις ύ7ΤΟ των 35.6. And David, the king and prophet who said this, suffered none ofthese
1ου δ αιων
Ι αντι
, λ εγοντων
Ι '~'Φ ασκοντων
αυτψ και
Ι '''' "Χριστον.
μη ειναι αυτον
Ι και
, things, but Jesus Christ had his hands stretched out when he was crucified by
15 ,
γαρ
•
ως
'i'
εΙ7Τεν ο
•
7Τρο
Φ ητης,
Ι 'Δ ιασυροντες
Ι , , "θ
αυτον εκα ισαν ε7ΤΙ
β ηματος
Ι και
, " the Jews gainsaying him and asserting that he was not the Christ. For again, as 15
εΊ7Τον, Κρ-Ινον ~μ-Ιν.' 35.'. το δε "Ώρυςάν μου χε-Ιρας και 7Τόδας' εςήγησις the prophet said: 'They seated him οη the judgement seat in ridicule and said
των εν Τψ σταυρψ 7Ταγέντων εν ταις χερσι και τοις 7Τοσιν αυτου ήλων -ην. "give judgement for US".'8 35.'. And the phrase, 'They pierced my hands
35. 8 . και
' μετα
" το σταυρωσαι
~ ,Ι
αυτον,
"β
ε α
λ
ον
λ~
κ ηρον
",
ε7ΤΙ
. ,
τον ιματισμον and feet', was a description of the nails fixed to the cross in his hands and
, '"' "Ι Ι
αυτου, και εμερισαντο εαυτοις οι σταυρωσαντες αυτον.
..... Ι Ι , Ι
35.9. και ταυτα οτι , "" tl
his feet. 35.8. And after crucifying him those who crucified him cast lots
20
Ι
γεγονε
δΙ
υνασ
θ
ε μα
θ ~,
ειν εκ των
~ "Π
ε7ΤΙ οντιου
Ι Πλ
ι '
ατου γενομενων
Ι ,ι
ακτων. for his clothing and divided it among themselves. 35.9. And that these 20
things happened you can learn from the Acts9 Recorded Under Pontius Pilαte.
1 Skarsaune, followmg Bousset, says that the proof of Christ's escaping attention after his birth is
given 'ίη the irnmediate transition from [child] to [young man] , m the following quotation from Isa. 9:
5 (Proqfjrom Prophery, 146, cf. Bousset, Judisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb, 300, η. 2). Lange, however, proposed
that something had fallen out ofthe text here, and suggested Isa. 42: 1-4 (cf. Matt. 12: 18-21). Grabe
agreed ίη identif)ιing Isa. 42: 2 (Matt. 12: 19), 'He shall not strive ηΟΓ cry, neither shall any man hear his
voice m the streets', as the prophecy of Jesus' not being acknowledged, adumbrated at 31.7, and taken
up here. Grabe considered that as much as a whole [οlίο had been lost at this pomt from an exemplar
which contained prophecies m respect of the miracles of Christ, and the anirnosity he encountered-
elements outlmed ίη the programmatic statement ίη 31.7 but not dealt with here. We agree with Lange
and Grabe ίη supposing a lacuna ίη the text. The verb λανθάνω is never used elsewhere of the
hiddenness ofChrist, though at ιΑ 57.1 Justm says that the demons were not able to bring it about that
Christ would escape notice when he came, and at D 78.9, when discussing the Magi, he says that the
power of the Evil One was overcome by Christ when he was born. At D 88.2 Justin says of Jesus that,
'as soon as he was born, he possessed his powers, and, growmg up like any other man, he exercised
appropriate powers at each stage of his growth, being nourished by every sort of food, and waitmg
about thirty years until John went οη before hirn as the herald of his arrival'.
2 Isa. 9: 5.
3 The MS cannot be correct as it stands. It is possible that a repetition of the phrase 'whose rule is
οη his shoulders' has fallen out.
4, Isa. 65: 2. 5 Isa. 58: 2. 6 Ps. 21(22): η. 7 Ps. 21(22): 19.

8 Commentators refer to Gospel qfPeter3.7. ButJustin must be supposing that he is quoting a prophet
of the Old Testament.
9 Cf. ιΑ 48.3. The Greek text might also mean 'the deeds done under Pontius Pilate', but we haνe

supposed that Justin's use, οη both occasions, of the Latm word for 'Acts' indicates that he has m mind
a document. Scheidweiler says that the reference to the census-lists made under Quirinius (ιΑ 34.2)
Ι Χριστος αχρις dνδΡωθfι Α] Χριστος Marcovich 3 post ταυτα lacunam magnam ('mtegrum 'which certainly did not exist ... prompts the suspicion thatJustin's reference to the αcΙα ofPilate rests
forte folium') suspicatus est Grabe 4 post ωμων lacunam suspicamur; ωμων αυτου οπερ .ην solely οη the fact that he assumed such documents must have existed' (New Testameιzt Apocrypha Ι, 501).
Marcovich ΙΟ προφήτου ΑteΧΊ δαδ και τουτο Amrg sup ίπ manu c1; προφήτου το προφητικον πνευμα Hill considers that Justm is here referring to the memoirs of the apostles, mcluding Johannine material
Marcomch ('Was John's Gospel Among Justin's Apostolic Memoirs?', mJustiιz Marf:Yr aιzd his WιJrlds, 91).
 178 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 179
35.ΙΟ. και ση pηTω~ καθεσθησόμενος επι πωλον σνου και είσελευσόμενος 35,ΙΟ. And that it was prophesied expressly that he would be seated οη
,
εις τα
, Ί
εροσο
/λ
υμα προεπε
Φ / Ι
ητευτο, ετερου προ
/ Φ /
ητου του
~ Σ Φ
ο
/
ονιου τας της
, ~
the colt of an ass and would enter into Jerusalem, we shall speak the words
προΦητε{ας λέξεις ερουμεν. 35.ΙΙ. είσι δε αδται· 'Χαιρε σΦόδρα, θύγατερ of the prophecy of another prophet, Sophonias, 35.ΙΙ. and they are
Σιών· κήρυσσε, θύγατερ Ίερουσαλήμ. ίδου ό Βασιλεύς σου ερχετα{ σοι these: 'Rejoice, exceedingly, daughter of Ζίοη, shout, daughter of Jerusa-
5 ~ 'β β ~λ" ,ι, t "Υ /
πραος, επι ε ηκως επι πω ον ονου υιον υποl;,υγιου.
, lem: Behold your king comes to you gentle, mounted οη the colt of an ass,l 5
a son of a beast of burden.'2
3 6 .Ι. 'Ό ταν δ" /c
ε τας λ ε~εις ~
των Φ ητων
προ. ~ λ εγομενας ως
Ι"απο / προσωπου /
άκούητε, μη άπ' αύτων των εμπεπνευσμένων λέγεσθαι νομ{σητε, άλλ' άπο 36.ι. But when you hear the phrases of the prophets spoken as though
του κινουντος αύτους θε{ου λόγου.
36.2. ποτε μεν γαρ ώς προαγγεληκος from a character, do not suppose that they were spoken as from the
'/λλ
τα με οντα γενησεσ θ αι / /
λ εγει, (220 a ) ποτε'δ' ως
t απο
" προσωπου
/ ~ δ εσ-
του inspired ones themselves, but rather from the divine Logos moving
ΙΟ
/ /
ποτου παντων και πατρος
, 'θ
εου
~ Φθ /
εγγεται, ποτε
, δ'ε ως απο προσωπου του~
t " /
them. 36.2. For at one time as heralding beforehand it says the things ΙΟ
Χριστου, ποτε δε ώς άπο προσώπου λαων άποκρινομένων Τψ κυρ{ψ η Τψ that are going to happen, at an~ther. time it speaks out as from the
πατρι αύτοiJ-όποιον και επι των παρ' ύμιν συγγραΦέων ίδειν εστιν· ένα μεν characteF of the Lord of all and Father God, and at another time as
, , /
τον τα παντα συγγρα
/Φ"
οντα οντα, προσωπα
δ"
ε τα
/
δ ια λ εγομενα παρα Φ εροντα. / / from the character of Christ,' and at another time as from the character
36.3.σπερ μη νοήσαντες, οί εχοντες τας β{βλους των προΦητων Ίουδαιοι of the peoples answering the Lord οτ his Father. This kind of thing is
15 ούκ εγνώρισαν ούδε παραγενόμενον τον Χριστόν. άλλα και ήμας τους λέγο­ also to be seen amongst your own writers, the writer of the whole is one 15

ντας παραγεγενησθαι αύτον και ώς προεκεκήρυκτο άποδεικνύντας individual, but he sets out the speaking characters. 36.3. Since they did
εσταυρωσθαι ύπ' αύτων μισουσιν. not understand this, the Jews who have the rolls of the prophets did not
recognize Christ even when he came. But they also hate us who say
37.Ι.
'1να δ' ,
ε και τουτο υμιν
~ t ~ Φ ,/ "
ανερον γενηται, απο προσωπου του πατρος
/ ~ , that he has come, and who show that he was crucified by them, as was
ελέχθησαν δια Ήσαίου, του προειρημένου προΦήτου οίδε οί λόγοι· ''Έγνω proclaimed beforehand. 3 20
/ ," 'Φ / / '~Ίσραη'λ δ ε/ με
20 β ους
~,
τον κτησαμενον, και ονος την
~
ατνην του κυριου αυτου.

ούκ εγνω, και ό λαός μου ού συνηκεν. 37.2. ούαι εθνος άμαρτωλόν, λαοs 37.Ι. And ίη order that this might become plain to you, these words were
πλήρης άμαρηων, σπέρμα πονηρόν, υίοι ανομοι, εγκατελ{πατε τον Κύριον.' spoken from the character of the Father through Isaiah the aforementioned
t, λ εγTl
37.3. και, πα/λ ιν α'λλ αχου~ οταν / οΙ αυτος
" Φ / Ι / t" ~
προ ητης ομοιως ως απο του prophet: 4 'The οχ knew its owner, and the ass the manger of its master, but
πατρος·
/ 'Π ~ /
οιον μοι οικον οικο
'i' 'δ /
ομησετε;
λ /
εγει
Κ /
υριος. 37.4. Ι,
ο ουρανος μοι
/ Israel did not know me and my people did not understand. 37.2. Woe
to a sinful nation, a people [υΠ of sins, an evil seed, lawless sons: you have 25

left the Lord.'s 37.3. And again elsewhere, when the same prophet says
similarly as from the Father: '''What sort of house will you build for me?"
says the Lord. 37.4. The heaven is my throne and the earth the footstool

1 Ιη D 53-4 Justin makes much of the fact that there are two animals, as ίη Matthew. But ίη the

prophecy, 'son of a beast ofburden' appears to be a doublet for 'colt of an ass'. The MS has 'colt of an
ass' at ιΑ 32.6 and 35.ΙΟ. Skarsaune's emendation, already found in Β, is much simpler than that of
Stephanus, accepted by Otto and Blunt, which harmonizes to the text ofMatthew.
2 Zech. 9: 9. The first part of the quotation is also found at Zeph. 3: 14.
3 Wartelle construes this sentence with the sense, 'they hate us who say that he has come and who
show that he was crucified as was proclaimed beforehand by them' (i.e. the scrolls). The Greek, as its
stands, cannot support this.
2 προεπεΦ'ήτευτο Thαlemαnn Otto Blunt Mαrcomch Munier] προεΦ'ητεύετο Α 5 ε.πιβεβηκως edαΊ .. Munier2 observes that these prophecies might appear out of place ίη a work intended principally
ε.πιβηκσς Α πωλον σνου Β Skαrsαune Mαrcomch
Munier] πωλον σνον Α; σνον και πωλον Otto Blunt for pagan readers, and that Justin is simply reproducing testimoniα composed in a Jewish-Christian
8 προαγγελτικσς Α] προαγγελτικως R. Stephαnus Otto Blunt Mαrcovich Munier 9 δ' Α] δε milieu, possibly much earlier. But wherever Justin has drawn this material from, it is very much to his
Otto Blunt Mαrcovich Munier 11 r; Α] και Mαrcovich 13 διαλεγόμενα Α] διαλεγόμενα πλείω purpose here as a proof of how some prophecies are to be understood as spoken ίπ personα Pαtris. Justin
Mαrcovich 15 ουδε Thirlby edd] οϋτε Α 21 μου Α] με Grαbe Mαrcovich Munier sees himself as engaged ίη a task proper to the Ρhilοs(ψher: establishing the rules of interpretation of
22 έγκατελίπατε Α] έγκατελίπετε R. Stephαnus Otto Blunt 23 όμοίως ώς coniec] όμοίως Α απσ the texts of his school.
Α] απσ προσώπου Otto Mαrcoviclz 24 οικοδομήσετε R. Stephαnus edαΊ οικοδομήσεται Α 5 Isa. Ι: 3-4.
 180 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 181

θρόνος και ή γή ύ7ΤΟ7Τόδιον των 7Τοδων μου.' 37.5. και 7Τάλιν αλλαχου· 'τας of my feet.'l 37.5. And again e1sewhere: 'Your new moons and the
Ι
νουμYjνιας υμων και τα σα
(Λ \ \ 'ββ
ατα
, ,μισει Yj Λ (,/,
ψυΧΥ} μου.
Ι " \
και μεγα
'λ
YjV (Ι
Yjμεραν sabbaths my sou1 hates, and Ι do not endure .the great day of fasting and
ι Ι Ι 'δ"'" EpXYja θ ε 'Φθ'" ι ι
\,
νYjστειας και αργιαν ουκ ανεχομαι.
)) "
ου αν ο Yjναι μοι,
'" εισακου-
the day of rest,. nor, shou1d you come to appear before me, shall Ι give you
σομαι ύμων.' 37.6.'7Tλ~pεις αίματος αί χειρες ύμων.' 37.7. 'καν ΦέΡYjτε a hearing. 37.6. Yonr hands are full of b1ood. 37.7. Even if you offer
5 σεμι'δ α λ ιν, θ υμιαμα,
Ι βδ ε'λ υγμαΙ μοιΙ,
εστι. " στεαρΙ (
220 b)' Λ
αρνων 1-
και αιμα \
fine flour,2 incense, it is an abomination to me. Ι do not want the fat 5
ταυρων
Ι
ου
, β 'λ '
ου ομαι. 37. .
8 ' Ι \ 't Υ Ι Λ' Λ
τις γαρ E':,Ef:,YjTYjaE ταυτα εκ των χειΡων
Λ
of 1ambs and the b100d of bulls. 37.8. For who required this of your
Λ
υμων;
( "
α \
'λλ α δ ια'λ υε 7Ταντα
Ι Ι δ εσμον α'δ ικιας·
συν Ι δ ιασ7Τα
Ι στραγγα λ ιας β ιαιων
Ι \ hands? But undo every bond of wickedness, and break the knots of vio1ent
συναλλαγμάτων'· 'άστεγον και γυμνον σκέ7Τε'· 'διάθρυ7Ττε 7Τεινωντι τον dea1ings, cover the home1ess and the naked, share your bread with the
άρτον σου.' 37.9. ό7Τοια μεν οδν έστι και τα διδασκόμενα δια των 7Τρο- hungry.,3 37 . 9 . So you are ab1e to know ofwhat kind are the things that
10 ΦYjτων ώς α7ΤΟ του θεου, νοειν δύνασθε. are being taught through the prophets as though from God. 10

3 8 · Ι. <Ό
ταν
δ\' \
ε α7ΤΟ 7Τροσω7Του του
Ι ΛΧ
ριστου
Λλ
'
εγτι το 7Τρο
\ Φ
YjTιKOV 7Τνευμα,
\ Λ
38.1. And when the prophetic Sp~it speaks from the character of Christ
"
ουτως
Φθ Ι
εγγεται·
'Έ Ι \ Λ Ι \ ,
γω ε':, ε7Τετασα τας χειΡας μου ε7ΤΙ
't
\ λ θ Λ
αον α7Τει ουντα και
\ \ , thus does it sound forth: Ί stretched out my hands to a disobedient and
αντιλέγοντα, έ7ΤΙ τους 7Τορευομένους έν όδφ ου καλΏ.' 38.2. και 7Τάλιν· 'Τον gainsaying peop1e, to those walking ίη a way that is not good.,4
νωτόν μου τέθεικα εις μάστιγας και τας σιαγόνας μου εις ρα7Τίσματα, το δε 38.2. And again: Ί p1aced my back for scourgings and my cheeks for
15
ι
7Τροσω7Τον μου
ι "Ι
ουκ α7Τεστρεψα α7ΤΟ
,11'" Ι,
αισχυνYjς εμ7Ττυσματων.
ι
3 8 .3. και
\ ο( cudge1ing, and Ι turned not my face from the shame of spitting. 15
Ι
Κυριος β OYj θ ος
Ι μου
,ι
εγενετο.
δ ια \ Λ
τουτο ουκ
"
EVETpa7TYjV,Ι 'λλ'
α
"θ
ε YjKa το
\ 38.3. And the Lord became my he1p. Therefore Ι was not put to shame,
7Τρόσω7Τόν μου ώς στερεαν 7Τέτραν, και εγνων ότι ου μη αισχυνθω, ότι but Ι set my face 1ike solid rock and Ι knew that Ι wil1 not be shamed. For
, ΙΥ
εγγΙf:,ει ο
(δ Ι
ικαιωσας με.
, \ ,Ιβ α λ ον κ λYjpOV
3 8 .4. Λ
και 7Τα
\ 'λ 'ι
ιν οταν
λ Ι
εγτι,
'Α '
υτοι ε the one who has vindicated me draws near.'5 38.4. And again when it
έ7ΤΙ τον ίματισμόν μου,' 'και ωρυξάν μου 7Τόδας και χειΡας.' 38.5' 'Έγω δε says: 'They cast 10ts for my c1othing.'6 'And they pierced my feet and
, 'θ YjV και\ υ7Τνωσα
" και\, Ι "ΚυριοςΙ 'λ α'β ετοΙ μου. 3 8 . 6 . ***
20 εκοιμΥ} aVEaTYjV, οτι αντε ,
hands.,7 38'5' 'But Ι slept and slumbered, and Ι arose, because the Lord 20
\ 'λ "
και 7Τα ιν οταν λ Ι
εγτι, 'Έλ 'λ ' 'λ ' Ι
α Yjaav εν χει εσιν· εκινYjσαν κε Φ α λ YjV,
Ι λ εγοντες,
Ι ,
he1ped me.,8 38.6. 9*** And again when it says: 'They spoke with their
'Ρυσάσθω εαυτόν'-38.7. ατινα ότι 7Τάντα γέγονεν ύ7ΤΟ των 'Ιουδαίων τφ 1ips, they moved their heads, saying, "Let him rescue himse1f'.' 10
Χριστφ μαθειν δύνασθε.
38.8. Σταυρωθέντος γαρ αυτου, έξέστρεΦον τα 38.7. That all these things were done by the Jews to Christ you are ab1e to
χει
'λ
Yj και
\ "εκινουν
Ι \
τας κε
Φ
α
λ Ι
ας,
, λ Ι
εγοντες,
'(ο \,
νεκρους ανεγειΡας ρυσασ
Ι ( Ι θ
ω 1earn. 38.8. For when he had been crucified they shot out their 1ips and
( ι,

25 εαυτον. 'they moved their heads, saying, "Let the one who raised the dead rescue 25
himse1f'.,11

1 Isa. 66: Ι.
2 Marcovich adds from the LXX 'it is wortWess', but it is difficult to see why this might have
dropped out of the text.
3 Cf. Isa. Ι: 11-15,58: 6-7, and Skarsaune, Proqf.from Prophecy, 56. 4 Isa. 65: 2.
5 Isa. 50: 6-8. 6 Ps. 21(22): 19b. 7 Ps. 21(22): IΊC. 8 Ps. 3: 6.

4 πλήρει" Α] πλήρει" γαρ Mαrcovich
edd] βδέλλυγμά Α 9 προΦητων ώ" coniec] προΦητων Α
Mαrcovich 20 post
πάντα γέγονεν Α; α στι πάντα γέγονεν
!iY1burg; ατινα πάντα γεγονέναι Grαbe
9 Either this section is not in its proper place, ΟΓ if it is in its proper place, some words have fallen
out. If the section offers another example of the prophetic Spirit speaking out of the character of
Christ it is possible that Ps. 21: 8a, 'All those seeing me mocked me', has fallen out. Ifthe section offers
an example of the Spirit speaking out of the character of peoples answering the Lord ΟΓ his Father, an
introductory explanation has dropped out. When the Spirit is represented as speaking out of the
5 σψtδαλιν Α] σψtδαλιν, μάταιον Mα1"Covich βδέλυγμά character ofthe peoples ίη ιΑ 47.1 the words are not addressed to the Lord ΟΓ to his Father.
10 απο Α] απο προσώπου Otto 10 Ps. 21(22): g, the LXX has 'let him rescue him'.
μου lacunam suspicamur 22 ατινα στι πάντα γέγονεν coniec] ατινα 11 Cf. Matt. 27: 3g: 'they blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying,' and 27: 43: 'He trusted in
Thirlf?y; ατινα πάντα στι γέγονεν edd; ατινα πάντα ώ" γέγονεν God, let him rescue him now if he delights in him.' If the MS is correct, Justin has adapted both the
Psalm and its quotation in Matthew so that Christ is taunted about saving himself.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

39.1. Όταν δε ώς ΠΡΟΦYjτευον τα μέλλοντα (221 a) γίνεσθαι λαλfι το προΦYj- 39.11 And when the prophetic Spirit speak~ as prophesying the things
Λ
τικον πνευμα,
\ '
ουτως λ εγει' \ Σ"
'Έκ γαρ
" '
t λ ευσεται
ιων ε~ε ,
νομος, και\ λ'
ογος that are aboutto happen it speal(s in this way: 'For a law will go forth from
'
Κυριου 'Ι: Ίερουσα λ'
ε~
\ Λ' 'θ Λ 'λ' t
Yjμ' και κρινει ανα μεσον ε νων και ε εγ~ει
\ \ πο λ'υν,
λ αον
, \
Sion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and it will judge between
\ /,1, ' ι ,,..,,, \ \ β ι ,1"\, r
και συγκοψουσι τας μαχαιΡας αυτων εις αροτρα και τας Ι;,Ι υνας αυτων εις nations and· will correct a great people, and they will beat their swords
5 '
δ ρεπανα. \ ,
και ου μΥ}
\ λ "Ι. "θ "θ' ,\ 'θ
Yjψονται. ε νος επι ε νος μαχαιΡαν και ου μΥ} μα ωσιν
\ , \ into ploughs and theirspears into pruning-hooks and nation shall not 5
" λ 1"\, \ Ι
ετι πο εμειν. 39.2. και οτι ουτως γεγονε πεισ Yjναι
t/ θ r/ δ' θ ' \
υνασ ε. 39.3. απο
Λ

take up sword against nation and they will ηο longer learn to make war. ,2
\ Ίερουσα λ'"
γαρ Yjμ αν δ ρες δ εκα δ' \ αρι
υο τον , θ μον
\ ε~ ' τον
't YjΛλθ ον εις \κοσμον,
' και\ 39.2.And that this has happened you are able to ascertain. 39.3. For
οδτοι ίδιωται λαλειν μη δυνάμενοι. δια δε θεου δυνάμεως εμήνυσαν παντι men twel~e ίη number went out from Jerusalem into the world, and they
, 'θ'
γενει αν ρωπων ως απεστα
(, 'λ (\
Yjaav υπο του
Λ Χ
ριστου
Λ δ δ
ι
't '
α~ αι παντας τον του
\ Λ
were unskilled ίη rhetoric, but through the power of God they signified
10 θεου λόγον. και οί πάλαι άλλYjλοΦόνται ου μόνον ου πολεμουμεν τους to the whole human race how they were sent by Christ to teach the 10

εχθρούς, άλλ' ύπερ του μYjδε ψεύδεσθαι μYjδ' εξαπατησαι τους εξετάζοντας, word of God to all; and we who formerly were slaying one another not
~δέως όμολογουντες τον Χριστον άποθνΤισκομεν. 39.4. άδύνατον γαρ -ην only do not fight against enemies, but die gladly in the confession of
Christ, ίη order not to lie (ο ηΟΓ to deceive those who examine us. 3
39.4. For ίη this regard it would be impossible 4 for us to act according to

1 Ιη ιΑ 36.1 Justin speaks ofthe prophetic Spirit sometirnes te11ing beforehand what will happen,

sometimes speaking out of the character of the Father, sometimes out of the character of Christ,
sometimes out of the character of peoples answering either the Lord or his Father. Ιn 37 we haνe
words spoken from the character of the Father, in 38 words spoken from the character of Christ. If
Justin had been fo11owing his οννn order, 39 should haνe come before 37. Ιn 47 the prophetic Spirit
speaks 'as from the character of peoples'.
2 Isa. 2: 3-4.
3 It is difficult to see how the second part of this sentence ίn the MS text exemplifies the prophetic
Spirit speaking as prophesying the things that are to happen ίη the future. It might make more sense if
Justin's reference is not, as it is usually taken to be, to Christians under accusation ofbeing Christian
before the magistrates, but to Christians under scrutiny as part of the process of military reνiew. The
sense would then be: ιzot οιιιΥ do we not fight αgαiιιst our enemies, but we do not"even αllow oUl"Selves to serve αs
soldieτs,jόr we declαre our Christiαιl Jάith, rdiιse to tαke the militαry oαth, αnd glαdly αccept execution ίιι coιιsequeιzce­
not οιιιΥ do we ιιο longer fight αgαiιιst our enemies, we rdiιse even to leαrιz to mαke wαr. AlthoughJustin uses εξετάζω
of judicial inνestigation (ιΑ 3.1; 4.7; 5.1; 7.2; 8.1; 2Α 2.12; 3(4).1, 4), he also uses it ίη a more general
sense. Ιη other authors the νerb is used of the inspection of troops and, ίη the passiνe, for being placed
οη a ro11 or 'found ίη the number of' (cf. LSJ, s.ν.). Ιn the latter senses it might be a translation of 'ίη
numeros referri', a technical term for enlistment (cf. Ulpian, Digest 29.1.42, 'ex quo [tempore] ίη
numeros relatus est'; ΡΙίηΥ, Ερ. ΙΙΙ.8.4, 'neque enim adhuc nomen ίη numeros relatum est'; Ρ. Qxy.
1022, 'tirones sexs probatos a me ίη coh(orte) cui praees ίη numeros referri iube ex ΧΙ kalendas
Martias' (O:ifόrd Latin Dictioιzαry, S.ν. 'numerus 9', and cf. Le Bohec, The Imperiαl Romαn Army, 74, and
Daνies, Service ίιι the Romαn ΑΤΙΙΙΥ, 240, n. 77). This interpretation need not presuppose that conscription
and the execution of suitable conscripts who refused serνice were commonplace ίη the mid-2lld
century. Justin may haνe ίη mind the dilemma of Christian soldiers during the regular renewal
of an oath of loyalty. Ιη the late 3rd-century Mαrf:yrdom qf Mαximiliαιz the proconsul tries to haνe the
reluctant recruit enlisted before his οννη tribunal and orders his execution when he refuses; cf.
Musurillo, The Acts qf the Chlistiαn Mαrf:yrs, 244-8, and Daνies, Service ίιι the Romαιl Army, 13 f. Howeνer, it
would scarcely haνe been prudent for Justin thus to endorse what the emperors could not fail to see as
military insubordination. If this was the original cast of Justin's argument, it is likely that it has been
misunderstood in transmission, and that the text, both here and ίη 39-4, has been corrupted ίη
consequence.
4 We propose that, rather than the MS's 'possible', Justin wrote 'irnpossible', not ίη an absolute

sense, but ίη a sense to be made clear by the rest of the sentence: it would be ridiculous jότ us to jόrgo αιι
imperishαble good byJάlsely sweαι7Ilg αιι oαth qfloyαlf:y by pαgαn gods when soldiers remαinJάith.fiιl to their colnpαct even
though ιιο such good is οτ cαιι be qffered to them, αnd therqrπe it is impossiblejότ us to prαctise prevαricαtion. This yields
10 άλλrιλoΦ6νται Α] άλλrιλoΦ6νται νυν Mαrcovich ΙΙ άλλ' Α] άλλιΙ Kal Mαrcovich reasonable sense, but we suspect deeper corruption, for there are four difficulties with the Greek text of
12 άδύνατον coniec] δυναταν Α ιΑ 39.4 and the beginning of 39.5: first, Justin nowhere else uses λεγ6μ.ενον and related forms to
 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS
JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS

Το λεγόμενον 'Ή γλωσσα σμώμοκεν ~ δε φρην ανώμοτος' 7Τοιειν ~μας είς
τουτο, 39.5. γελοιον ήν δη 7Τραγμα· υμιν μεν τους συντιθεμένους και
καταλεγομένους στρατι,ώτας και 7Τρο τής έαυτων ζωής και γονέων και
7Τατρίδος και 7Τάντων των οίκείων την υμετέραν ασ7Τάζεσθαι όμολογίαν,
5 μηδεν αΦθαρτον δυναμένων υμων αύτοίς 7Ταρασχείν, ~μας δε αΦθαρσίας
ερωντας μη 7Τάνθ' ύ7Τομειναι δ7Τερ του τα 7Τοθούμενα 7Ταρα του δυναμένου
δουναι λαβεΙν.
40.1. Άκούσατε δε 7Τως και 7Τερι των κηρυξάντων την διδαχην αύτου και
μηνυσάντων την ε7ΤιΦάνειαν 7Τροερρέθη, (221 b) του 7ΤροειΡημένου 7TPOΦ~Toυ
10 και
\ β ασι λ εως tf ,/
/ ουτως εΙ7Τοντος δ ια\ τουΛ 7Τρο Φ ητικουΛ 7Τνευματος· 'Ήμερα /
the sayiηg,ι 'the tongue swears, but the m~nd is unsworn'. 39.5. The
thing would be ridiculous: while soldiers who give their assent to you,2 and
are enrolled, embrace their compact3 with youin preference to their own
lives and their parents and their native lands 4 and all that home means to
them, even though you were able to offer them nothing incorruptible, we, 5
οη the other hand, who long for incorruptibility, would not have endured
all things for the sake of receiving what we desired from the one who was
able to give ίι
40~I. And hear how it was said ahead of time concerning those who pro-
/ TTJΛ
claπned what he taught and pointed out his coming. The aforementioned 10

~μέρCf ερεύγεται ρήμα, και νυξ Tn νυκτι αναγγέλλει γνωσιν. 40.2. ούκ είσι prophet and king spoke thus through the prophetic Spirit: 'Day unto day
shouts out a word and night u~to night proclaims knowledge. 40.2. There
λ α λ ιαι\ ου'δ ε\ λ ογοι,
/ l' ,\, /
ων ουχι ακουονται αι
• Φ \, Λ 'Λ
ωναι αυτων. 40.3. εις 7Τασαν την
\

γήν εξήλθεν ό Φθόγγος αύτων, και είς τα 7Τέρατα τής οίκουμένης τα p~μαTα are ηο dialects or languages in which their voices are not heard. 40.3. Their
, ,. .
αυτων.
).....
40.4. εν Τψ
Ιλ / "θ \ ι ,,..
η ιψ ε ετο το σκηνωμα αυτου, και αυτος ως νυμ
\, \ ( Φ /
ιος
sound has gone out to all the earth and their words to the ends of the world.
15 εΚ7Τορευόμενος εκ 7Ταστου αύτου αγαλλιάσεται ώς γίγας δραμειν όδόν.' 40.4. In the sun he has placed his tent, and he, like a bήdegrοοm coming 15
forth from his bήdal chamber, will rejoice like a giant to run the course. ,5

introduce a 'saying'; seconclly, it is harsh to take the quotation as the object of ποιειν; thirclly, ]ustin
nowhere else uses the phrase Els τουτο ίη a general sense; fourthly, the ~δ1) of the MS has to be
emended, and the ήν δή proposed by editors lacks a conjunction linking it to the previous sentence.
1 Literally 'to do the saying'.
.2 According to LS], the midclle συντίθεμαι can mean 'to covenant with someone (τινι) to dό some-
thlng (future infinitive)'. Lange translated it ίη this sense: conscriptos, et pacto vobis obstrictos milites, and this
h~s. been followed ~y Ott0 : obst17Cti sacramento α vobis et conscripti milites (Ott0 3: auctorati α vobis et conscripti
2

lntlttes), and Blunt covenanted and enrolled'. Barnard incorporates B1unt's phrase and says, '[or the
formu1a "covenanted and enrolled" see Aul. Gell. 16.4'. B1unt's reference to Au1us Gellius was not for
this formula, however, but for the formula of the military oath recorded there. 1t seems un1ike1y that
]ustin is here using συντίθεμαι ίη the sense of 'to covenant with'. First, because ίη this sense the verb
shou1d be followed by aftture infinitive; seconclly, because the present infinitive ασπάζεσθαι must be
construed as accusative and infinitive with στρατιώταs, to give the sense 'while soldiers embrace their
compact with you', not 'while soldiers covenanted that they wou1d embrace their compact'. We have
supposed, therefore, that ]ustin uses συντίθεμαι in his ordinary sense of 'to agree with' (cf. D 4.7; 7.2;
44.1; 48.4; 67·7; 68·4, 9; 123.8; 130.1). The contrast is between, οη the one hand, recruits who assent to
emperors who cannot give them incorruptibility, and are enrolled, and, οη the other hand, Christians
who, ίη the hypothetica1 case, do what is required of them through unwillingness to endure suffering
and death, and thereby forfeit the incorruptibility they 10ng for.
3 The Greek word is the one ]ustin, and the Christian tradition, used for confession of the faith
(όμολογία). But ]ustin here uses it ίη its non-Christian sense of agreement, assent, compact.
•4 Και πατρίδοs is bracketed by Marcovich, following Ashton, B1unt, etc. There is ηο reason why it

mlght not refer to the 'home region' of a soldier. Ae1ius Aristides, ίη Roman Oration 75 (de1ivered ίη
Rome in 143 οτ 144), says: 'you 100ked about carefully for those who wou1d perform this 1iturgy, and
when you found them, you re1eased them from the father1and (τηs τε πατρίδοs αΠ1)λλάξατε) and gave
them your οννη city, so that they became re1uctant henceforth to call themse1ves by their original
ethnics (ώστε και αισχυνθηναι το λοιπον αύτοvs εκείνουs γ' ανειπεί'ν, όθεν ήσαν το αρχαί'ον). Having
ma~e them fellow-citizens, you made them a1so soldiers, so that the men from this city would not be
s~bJect t? the 1evy, and those performing military service wou1d none the 1ess be citizens, who together
wlth theιr enrollment ίη the army had 10st their οννη cities but from that very day had become your
fellow-~itizens and defenders' (trans1ation and text ίη Oliver, The Ruling Poωeι). ]ustin is describing the
ι γλωσσα Α] γλωσσ' Maran edd όμώμοκεν Α] όμώμοχ' Marcomch 2 ην δη Otto Blunt Mar-
effect, lf not the content, of the Roman military oath.
covichMunier] ~δ1) Α; Τι δη Grabe; Τι δε Thirlby; δ' ην vel δ' εϊ1) Sylburg; δε Βίl/Υ 3 γονέων και πατρίδοs
5 Ps. 18(19): 3-6.
Α] γονέων Marcomch 15 αγαλλιάσεται Α] αγαλλιάσεται ισχυροs Otto Marcovich
 186 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

40.5. ,
προς τουτοις δ'
ε και'λ' ,
ι,
ογων ετερων Λ προ φ rιTευ θ'
των εντων δ"
ι αυτουΛ τουΛ 40.5. And ίη addition to this we consider it good and appropriate to
Δαυισ καλως εχον και οίκείως επιμνrισθηναι λελογίσμεθα, ες ών μαθειν ύμιν mention also other words which were prophesied through the same David,
παρεσΤι
, Λ
πως προτρεπεται ,
«;:ιΥΛ
rιν τους
"
αν θ ρωπους ' το'φ' Λ
προ rιTιKOν πνευμα from which it is possible for you to learn how the prophetic Spirit encour-
40.6. και, πως "
μrινυει 'Ήρω'δ ου τουΛβ ασι λ'
Trιν γεγενrιμενrιν εως Ίου δ'
αιων ages human beings to live; 40.6. and how he signifies that there was a
5 και αυτων Ίουδαίων και Πιλάτου του ύμετέρου παρ' αυτοις γενομένου banding together against Christ of Herod, the king of the Jews, and the 5
επιτρόπου, συν τοις αυτου Ο'τραΤιώταις, κατα του Χριστου συνέλευσιν, Jews themselves, and Pilate,l who was your procurator2 among them,
ιl Ι θ ,ι λλ ι ,Ι 'θ ι
40.7. \
και οτι πιστευεσ αι εμε
\ .....,
εν υπο των εκ παντος γενους αν ρωπων together with his soldiers; 40.7. and that he would be believed ίη by
και ότι αυτον υίον καλει ό θεος και ύποτάσσειν αυτψ πάντας τους εχθρους human l;>eings from every race; and that God calls him Son and has
"λ ται, και'Λ
επrιγγε πως οιΙδ αιμονες,
Ι r/"
οσον επ αυτοις, Ι τε του..... πατρος
' . . . Trιν "
παντων promised to make subject to him all his enemies; and how the demons, as
10 και δεσπότου θεου και T~ν αυτου του Χριστου εςουσίαν φυγειν πειρωνται, far as they are able, attempt to escape from the authority of the Lord 10
\ t' ι λ Λ'
και ως εις μετανοιαν κα ει παντας ο
Ι θ' "λθ""
εος πριν ε
, (' Ι
Ην Trι ν rιμεpαν Trι ς
.....
God and Father of all and that of his Christ; and that God calls everyone
,ι δ' ιl 'Μ Ι lθ'
κρίσεως. 40.8. ειprινTαι ε ουτως·
"c\',
ακαριος ανrιp ος ουκ επορευ rι εν to repentance before the coming ·of the day of judgement. 40.8. These
'β ων, και"Ιδ
βουλύ ασε Λ αμαρτω
εν ο Ψ Ι λ ων
Λ ουκ
"Ι εσTrι, και, επι
"
κα θ ε'δ ραν (222 a) are the words: 'Blessed is the man who did not walk ίη the counsel of
, εκα
λοιμων ουκ , 'θ ισεν, α'λλ' rι'" εν ΤψΛ νομψ Κ' ,
υριου το θ ε'λ rιμα αυτου
'Λ" Λ
και εν Τψ ,
the impious and did not take his place ίη the path of sinners, and did not
15
,
νομψ
, λ' ι, " , ,Ι 'λ
αυτου με εTrισει rιμεpας και νυκτος. 40.9. και εσται ως το ς υ ον το
' ( , (;
sit οη the seat of the pernicious, but his will is ίη the law of the Lord 15
, " δ (; 'δ Λ Ιδ' ," "Λ δ '
πεφυτευμενον παρ α τας ιεςΟ ους των υ ατων, ο τον καρπον αυτου ωσει εν
, and οη his law he will meditate day and night, 40.9. and he will be as
καιΡω αυτου και το
, " φ 'λλ
υ
,.....,'
ον αυτου ουκ αΠOppυrισεTαι και παντα οσα αν ΠΟΙTJ
Ι \ Ι r/'\ .....
the tree planted beside springs of waters, which will give its fruit ίη its
ι.
KαTευOδωθrισεTαι.
ι
40.10. ,r/
ουχ ουτως οι ασε εις, ουχ ουτως, α
(', β..... , Ιl 'λλ' " (' \
rι ωσει time and its leaf shall not fall o:ff, and all that he does shall prosper.
χ νους ον εκρίπτει ό ανεμος απο προσώπου της γης. δια τουτο ουκ 40.10. Not so are the impious, not so, but they are like dust which the
20
"
ανασTrισOνTαι 'β εις
ασε Λ'εν κρισει, ου'δ' Ι
ε αμαρτω λ οι' εν
, β ου λTJΛ δ ικαιων,
' οτι , tI
wind blows from the face of the earth. Therefore the impious will not 20
,
γινωσκει Κ'υριος οΙδ'
ον δ'
ικαιων και, οΙδ' , β ων
ος ασε Λ απο λ ειται.
Λ 40.11. Ί'να τι ,
rise up ίη judgement nor sinners ίη the counsel of the just, because the
εqψύαςαν εθνrι και λαοι εμελέTrισαν καινά; ΠαpέσTrισαν οί βασιλεις της γης, Lord knows the path of the just and the path of the impious will perish.
\ C'"
και οι αρχοντες συνrιx rισαν επι το αυτο κατα του
ι θ ' \ \ " \ .. Κ Ι
υριου και κατα του
\ \ .....
40.11. Why did the nations bluster, and the peoples think of novelties?3 ,
'λ'
Χριστου αυτου, εγοντες, Δ ιαpPrιςωμεν
'(; 'δ"
τους Λ
εσμους αυτων, και απορ- "
The kings of the earth were at hand and the rulers gathered together
,
25 ριψωμεν α'φ' rιμων
Ι Λ Υ' 'Λ
τον «;:ιυγον αυτων. εν ουρανοις
,
40.12. Ι
ο κατοικων
Λ" Λ
against the Lord and against his Christ, saying: "Let us burst their 25
" " , Ι Κ"
εκγελασεται ,αυτους, και ο
Λ
υριος εKμυKTrιpιει αυτους. τοτε
λ λ' ,
α rισει προς
, , ,
bonds and throw off their yoke from us." 40.12. He who dwells ίη the
αυτους εν
, , ,
OpYTJΛ
,
αυτου, και εν Τψ
, Λ " Λ θ Λ 'Λ
υμψ αυτου ταραςει αυτους.
, (; , , 40 •13 • εγω
' , heavens will laugh at them and the Lord will mock them. Then he will
δε
, κατεστα rιν
'θ β
ασι
λ \ (',
ευς υπ
, ... , \
αυτου επι
Σ'"
ιων ορος το αγιον αυτου,
,t/ , ..... δ
ιαγ- speak to them ίη his anger and ίη his wrath he will confound them.
γέλλων το πρόσταγμα Κυρίου. 40.14. Κύριος εΊπε πρός με, Υίός μου εΊ σύ· 40.13. But οη Sion his holy mountain Ι have been established by him as
,\
30 εγω σrιμεpoν γεγεννrιKα σε.
Ι Ι Ι
40.15. ,Ι
αΙTrισαι παρ εμου, και
"..... \ δ /
ωσω σοι ε νrι
"θ
king, proclaiming the commandment ofthe Lord. 40.14. The Lord said 30
T~ν KλrιpOνOμίαν σου και T~ν κατάσχεσίν σου τα πέρατα της γης. ποιμανεις to me, ''You are my Son. Today Ι have begotten you. 40.15. Ask of me
Ι 'βδ δ Λ Ι
αυτους
, ,
εν
,
ρα Ψ σι rιpq" ως σKευrι
,
κεραμεως
,
συντριψεις
',/, ,
αυτους.
,
and Ι will give you nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as
40.16. και νυν, βασιλεις, (222 b) σύνετε· παιδεύθrιTε, πάντες οί κρίνοντες your possession. You will shepherd them with a rod of iron, you will crush
T~ν γην. 40.17. δουλεύσατε Τψ Κυρίψ εν φόβψ, και αγαλλιασθε αυτψ εν them like a potter's vessel." 40.16. And now, Ο kings, understand, be
35 τρόμψ. 40.18. δράςασθε παιδείας, μή ποτε οργισθύ Κύριος και απολεισθε instructed all judges of the earth. 40.17. Serve the Lord with fear and 35
exalt ίη him with trembling. 40.18. Seize instruction, lest the Lord

ι Commentators have noticed a similarity between this passage and the application of Psalm 2 to
Herod and Pilate at Acts 4: 27. Justin's word-order is very odd, and may be due to a desire to
emphasize that it was a 'banding together' that the prophetic Spirit foretold, and not its specific
members.
2 Cf. ιΑ 34.2.

8 πάντας τους Α] πάντας Otto Blunt 16 καρπον edtZJ καρον Α 22 εΦρύαςαν R. Stephαnus 3 Α few MSS of the LXX read καίνα, as do .κ, Α, and D ίη Acts, ίη place of the more common κενά.

edd] εΦρίαςαν Α καινά Α] κενά Lαnge Mαrcovich Munier There is ηο reason to alter the reading of the MS ofJustin.
 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 189
188
εξ όδου δικα{ας όταν εKKαυθiι εν τάχει ό θυμος αυτου. 40.19· μακάριοι become angry, and you perish from the right path, when his wrath sud-
πάντες οί πεποιθότες επ' αυτόν.' denly blazes . .40. 19. Blessed are all those who trust ίη him.' 1

41.1. Και, παΙλ ιν δ'

ι α"λλ ΥΊς προ Φ ΥΊτειας
ι Ι
μΥΊνυον το\ προ Φ ΥΊηκον Λ
\ πνευμα, δ ι' 41.1. And again, tlle prophetic Spirit signifying through another proph-
θ Λ β λ ι ( Χ ι rι ecy, through the same David, that Christ would reign after he was cruci-
αυτου του ΔαυίΟ, όη μετα το σταυρω ΥΊναι ασι ευσει ο ριστος, ουτως
l 1 \ \

_"
5 είπεν· 'Άισατε Τψ
,. Κ ι ,..
υριψ, πασα Yj γΥΊ, και αναγγει ατε ΥΊμεραν ε~ ΥΊμερας το
ι,... " 'λ (' ι 'c (' ι , fied, said this: 'Sing to the Lord all the earth, and day after day proclaim 5
ι
σωΤΥΊριον 'Λ' ,rι
αυτου, ι
οη μεγας Κυριος
Ι" \ σ Φ οΙδ ρα, Φ ο β ερος
και αινετος \ υπερ
( \ his salvation, because the Lord is great and mightily to be praised, fearful
ι \ θ / ι! Ι (' θ \ Λ 'θ Λ "δ λ δ ι ,Ι beyond t;tll the gods, because all the gods of the nations are idols of
παντας τους εους, οτι παντες οι εοι των ε νων ει ω α αιμονιων εισιν, ο
('

\ \ \
δε θεος τους ουρανους εΠΟΙΥΊσε.
, \' ι
41.2. δ '{;
o~α και αινος
\ "i' \
κατα προσωπον
ι demons, but God made the heavens. 41.2. Glory and praise before his
, \, \ \ Ι ,ι (ι 'Λ δΙ Λ Κ ι
face, and strength and loud acclamation ίη the place of his sanctification.
αυτου, και ισχυς και καυΧΥΊμα εν τοπψ αγιασματος αυτου. οτε Τψ υριψ,
, ι δ o~αν.
ιc' 'λ αιβ ετε χαριν,
ι"
10 τω πατρι\ των αιωνων 41.3. και εισε'λθ
. ετε κατ α\ Give glory to the Lord, the Father of the ages. 41.3. Accept favour and ΙΟ
' ιαποΙ "Λ (ι 'Λ Φ β θ ,\ enter before his face and worship ίη his holy courts. Let all the earth be
πρόσωπον αυτου, και προσκυνΥΊσατε εν αυλαις αγιαις αυτου. ο Yj ΥΊτω
• , \ '

ι , Λ Λ θ θ '
προσωπου αυτου πασα Yj γΥΊ, και κατορ ω ΥΊτω
\ \ λ θ
και μΥ) σα ευ ΥΊτω.
( \
fearful at his face and let it be made firm and let it not be shaken.
41.4. ευΦpανθ~Tωσαν εν τοις εθνεσιν· ό κύριος εβασ{λευσεν' 'απο του 41.4. Let them rejoice among the nations: the Lord has reigned from the
ξύλου.'
tree.' 2

15 42.1. <Ό ταν δ"

ε το προ Φ ΥΊηκον πνευμα
Λ τα με'λλ οντα γινεσ
ι θ αι ως \
( Yj,ι δ Yj γεν- \
42.1. But whenever the prophetic Spirit speaks ofthe things that are going 15
όμενα λΕγ~,
ι (
ως και
\,
εν τοις
Λ
προειΡΥΊμενοις
Ι δ cι
o~ ασαι εσην
,Ι *** ,οπως
rι to happen as having already happened, as in the words just cited, it is possible
, λ to suppose. *** We shall explain this as well, in order that it may not offer an
ι \ Ι Λ' Ι Λ δ Φ ι εν 3
απΌ ογιαν μΥ) παρασχπ τοις εντυγχανουσιν, και τουτο ιασα ΥΊσομ
\
.
42.2. \ Ι , Ι
τα παντως εγνωσμενα γενΥΊσομενα προ εγει ως Yj Yj γενομενα· οη
ι λ ι C' "δ Ι ι! δ
ε
\ excuse to those who read them. 5 42.2. He foretells as already having hap-
4

οϋτως δει εκδέχεσθαι, ενατεν{σατε (223 a) Τψ νοι: τοις λεγομένοις. pened things which are assuredly known as going to happen. And to rea-
lize that it must so be taken, concentrate your mind οη the words he uses. 20

ι Ιη some Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Psalter, and in substantial patristic and rabbinic
evidence, Psalms ι and 2 are viewed as a single psalm, as here; cf. Briggs, The PsαlIns, International
Critical Commentary, i. 3.
2 Skarsaune (Proqf.from Prophecy, 35) says that this text, which is also quoted by Justin at D 73.3-4, 'is

really much closer to ι Chron 16.23-31 than to Ps. 96 .... [lt] looks like a carefully composed harmony
between the two LXX texts, with ι Chron 16 as the basic text'. Skarsaune proposes (Ρρ. 38,231) that
Justin may have taken the conflation from an earlier, Christian source, possibly the Keιygmα Petrί, which
Clement of Alexandria may also have used at Protrepticus 4 (62.4). At D 73.1 Justin claims that the final
phrase had been excised from Jewish copies of the text. Before this phrase Marcovich adds 'and let
them say' from ι Chron. 16: 31. But 'the Lord has reigned from the tree' is the only prophetic utterance
ίη this chapter relevant to the purpose Justin stated at its beginning, and as he goes οη in the next
chapter to explain why the prophetic Spirit used the past tense when describing future events, it may
be that he wanted this statement to be seen as direct1y uttered by the Spirit, and not as what the Spirit
commands to be said among the nations. If 'and let them say' stood in his source, Justin may well have
deliberately omitted it here.
3 Editors and commentators take ώς δοξάσαι έστιν to mean 'as can be ascertained'. But the verb
must have some colour of supposition or conjecture, and for Justin it is a fact, not a matter of
conjecture, that the prophetic Spirit speaks of future events as past events. We suspect that the text is
corrupt, and that originally it had been along such lines as, since it ir possiblε to suppose thαt the things spoken
qfhαd inJαct αlreαdy hαppened we shαll explαin thir αs well. .. Ifthis is correct, the corruption might well be
due to haplography. Ιη the Greek text as it stands either the prophetic Spirit or the whole clause
beginning 'Whenever.. .' must be the subject of παράσχτι. We propose that it was the possibility of
reading prophecies as telling of real past events that might have excused those who thus misunder-
4 αυτου του Α] αυτου Blunt Munier ΤΙ προσκυνήσα:ε Α] πpoσKυνήσα~ε ~ψ κυρίφ Mαrc~vich stood them, and that needed therefore to be explained. At the beginning of the following chapter
13 ευΦρανθήτωσαν Α] ευΦρανθήτωσαν και είπάτωσαν Maι"COvlch 16 post εστιν lacunam susplca- Justin will similarly forestall an objection arising from a supposition that might be made (μή τινες ...
mur Ι7 άπολογίαν Α] άντιλογίαν Wo!fGrαbe; άλογίαν Thirlby, άπορίαν Lαnge 18 τα Α] τα δοξάσωσι) οη the basis ofwhat he has been saying.
4- Editors have proposed that the MS reading is corrupt. But Justin twice uses άναπολογήτος (cf. ιΑ
γαρ Mαrcovich
3.5; 28·3 and Rom. ι: 20).
5 Οι D ΤΙ4.Ι.
 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 191
190

42.3. Δαυι'δ ετεσι χιλίοις και πεντακοσίοις πριν 1] Χριστον ανθρωπον 42.3. David spol<:e the foregoing texts fiftee:q hundred years! before Christ
Ι θ Λ" "Φ "δ \ ,. . \, ι became a human being and was crucified, and none of those who lived
γενομενον σταυρω ηναι τα προειΡημενα ε η, και ου εις των προ εκεινου
Ι θ' "Φ Ι Ι ~ "θ
γενομενων σταυρω εις ευ ροσυνην παρεσχε τοις ε νεσιν, α 'λλ' 'δ'
ου ε των~ μετ, before David caused rejoicing among the nations οη being crucified, and
εκείνον. 42.4. ό καθ' ~μας δΕ Ίησους Χριστός, σταυρωθεις και αποθανών, neither did- any of those who lived after him. 42.4. But ίη our time, Jesus
5 Ι
ανεστη
,
και"β
ε ασι'λ ευσεν, ανε
'λθ. ων
' εις Ι
, ουρανον.
, "~
και επι τοις παρ "~ αυτου δ ια'
, Christ, after being crucified and dying, rose and reigned, ascending into 5
των αποστόλων εν τοίς πασιν εθνεσι κηρυχθείσιν εύΦροσύνη εστι heaven.' And ίη those 2 who await the incorruption announced by him
δ Ι
προσ οκωντων την κατηγγε
, λ Ι (, "
μενην υπ αυτου α
~ 'Φθ Ι
αρσιαν.
there is joy over the things that were proclaimed by him through the
apostles ~mong all the nations.
43.1. 'Όπως δΕ μή τινες εκ των προλελεγμένων ύΦ' ~μων δοξάσω σι καθ'
είμαρμένης ανάγκην Φάσκειν ~μας τα γινόμενα γίνεσθαι, εκ του προειπείν 43.1. But lest from what we have already said some should suppose,
10 προεγνωσμένα, και τουτο διαλύσομεν. 43.2. τας τιμωρίας και τας κολ- be~ause of the foretelling of things foreknown, that we say that the things 10

Ι
ασεις και' τας
"
αγα θ' 'β'
ας αμοι ας κατ"<:'1 ~ πpα~
α~ ιαν των 1<:. (Ι
εων εκαστου 'δΙι δ οσ θ αι
απο
whIch happen happen by necessity of fate, this difficulty too we shall solve.
δ ' ~ Φ ~ θ Ι , 'λ θ' , Φ Ι θ ' , , ,
ια των προ ητων μα οντες, και α η ες απο αινομε α, επει ει μη τουτο
~ Ι 43.2. We have learnt from the prophets that punishments and correction
,
εστιν, α'λλ α
' κα θ' ειμαρμενην
Ι (' Ι
παντα Ι
γινεται, ουτε
,"
το ε'Φ' ημιν εστιν οΙ/λ ως' ει (' ,,' ' and good recompense are given out according to the worth of each one's
γαρ είμαρται τόνδε τινα αγαθον εΊναι και τόνδε Φαυλον, οϋθ' ογτος deeds, and we assert that this is true, since if it is not so, but all things
15 αποδεκτος ούδΕ εκείνος μεμπτέος. 43.3. και αγ ει μη προαιΡέσει ελευθέρq. happen ίη accordance with fate, nothing at all is in our power. For if it was 15
,
προς ΤΟ'Φ ευγειν
Ι τα
και
" αισχρα
" ~ θ αι
αιΡεισ
( " το"θ
εχει τα'
αν ρ- κα λ'
α δΙ
υναμιν
fated that one person be good and another one be wicked, neither would
ώπειον γένος, αναίτιόν εστι των όπωσδήποτε πραττομένων. 43.4. αλλ' ότι' the first be approved nor the latter be blamed. 43.3. And again, if all
ε'λ ευ θ Epq.
Ι Ι,
προαιΡεσει και κατορ θ οι~ και, σ Φ α'λλ εται "
ουτως 'δ εικνυμεν.
απο Ι human beings do not by free choice have power to avoid what is base and
43.5. ""/θ
τον ~'I
αυτον αν ρωπον των ~ μετε'λ ευσιν (223
εναντιων την b) Ι
ποιουμενον
to choose what is good they are innocent3 with respect to whatever they do
20 όρωμεν. 43.6. ει δΕ είμαρτο 1] Φαυλον 1] σπουδαίον εΊναι, ούκ αν ποτε των at all. 43.4. But that it is by free choice that they both act rightly and 20
εναντίων δεκτικος ήν και πλειστάκις μετετίθετο, αλλ' ούδ' οί μΕν ήσαν σπου- stumble we demonstrate ίη this way. 43.5. We see the same human being
δ αιοι,
Λ ( ' , ,(
οι δ ε'Φ αυ~λ οι, επει την ειμαρμενην
Ι ,Ι
αιτιαν Φ αυ'λ ων και εναντια
Ι εαυτΤ/
( ~ " doing opposite things ίn succession. 43.6. But if it were fated that a
human being be either wicked or virtuous,4- such a one would never be
capable of opposite things 5 and would not have changed many times. But

ι Grabe wanted to emend this date to 1,100 years, Ashton to 1,050; but both emendations presup-
pose that the numerals were indicated by alphabeticalletters at an earlier stage ίη the transmission of
the text. The use of such abbreviations is unusual ίη literary texts.
2 Marcovich adds a definite article, which has to be supplied ίη English translation, but we have not
emend~~ the Greek text. It is possible that the last clause of the chapter is a precaution against the
SUpposltlOn that everyone among all the nations would rejoice.
3 The word most frequently means 'not liable to blame', but Justin might mean here 'not liable to

either blame ΟΓ praise'.

4 The pairing of φαυλος and σπουδαιος was a commonplace of ethical discussion from the 4th
century BC. It recurs ίη Justin at 2Α 6(7).2.
5 Blunt observes that 'this deduction is not logical; inconsistency might be predestined, as much as
consistency'. But Justin is drawing upon an anti-Stoic argument ίη which it is assumed that Stoic
determinism entails an inability to change between opposites; cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias, 'things
which do also admit the opposite of the states in which they are will not be ίη those states of necessity'
(Οπ Fαte 9 [175.25], tr. Sharples). Justin seems to have turned this round, so as to say that things which

6 εστι Α] εστι των Mαrcovich 10 διαλύσομεν SylbU1g Otto Blunt Mαrcovich Munier] διαλύομεν Α
are of necessity ίη a certain state cannot be in the opposite of that state. Justin might also be drawing
11 έκάστου Α] έκάστψ Thirlby Mαrcovich 12 μαθόντε" Α] μαθόντες δίκαιον Mαrcovich upon an a~gument attackin~ the supposed Stoic view that virtue and vice do not admit of degrees, and
13 ουτε Α] ουδε Otto Mαrcovich Munier 15 άποδεκτο" Α] άπόδεκτο" edd; άποδεκτέος Η. Stephαnus that the Wlse cannot act foolishly (cf. Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosoplleι'S, i. 385f.). Although we
μεμπτέος edd] μεμπταιος Α 22 επει Α] επει η Ashton αιτίαν Α] αιτίαν άγαθων και Ashton Otto h~ve agreed with the consensus ίη taking ουκ αν both with δεκτικος ην and with μετετίθετο, it would
gιve sense to restrict the negative phrase just to the first. If it is predetermined that a particular
Blunt Mαrcovich Munier
 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 193
Ι ',./.. Ι θ Λ Ι
πραττουσαν αποψαινοιμε α. η εκεινο το προειΡημενον
\ .,'
δ Ιt 'λ θ'
o~αι α η ες ειναι,
';' neither would some be virtuous and some wicked, since we would then be
ότι ουδέν εστιν αρετ-η ουδε κακία, αλλα δόξn μόνον ij αγαθα ij κα κα asserting that fate is the cause of the wicked and does things contrary to
1'/
νομι':,εται-ηπερ; ως
<, (δ Ι
εικνυσιν ο α
( 'λ
η
θ'
ης
λ Ι Ι,
ογος, μεγιστη ασε
'β
εια και α
\ 'δ
ικια
Ι itself, 1 ΟΓ else the opinion mentioned earlier would seem to be true,2 that
, Ι
εστιν. 43.'. 'λλ'
α
( Ι
ειμαρμενην
,./..
ψαμεν
\, 'β
απαρα ατον
Ι
ταυτην
';' Λ'
ειναι-τοις τα neither virtue nΟΓ vice exists, but that good and evil are matters of ορίnίοn
5 καλα εκλεγομένοις τα αξια επιτίμια και τοις όμοίως τα εναντία τα αξια only. This, as the true Logos makes plain, is the greatest impiety and vice. 3 5
, Ι
επιχειΡα.
8 43
43.. , ,<, "λλ
ου γαρ ωσπερ τα α
\
'ί'
α οιον
δ Ι δ Ι δ δ
εν ρα και τετραπο α, μη εν
' ' 43.'. But we say that this is unalterable fate 4-worthy rewards for those
δυνάμενα προαιΡέσει πράττειν, εποίησεν ό θεος τον ανθρωπον, ουδε γαρ ~ν whochoose the good and similarly worthy punishments for those who
αξιος αμοιβης ij επαίνου, ουκ αφ' εαυτού ελόμενος το αγαθόν, αλλα τούτο choose tp.e contrary.5 43.8. For God did not make human beings like the
Ι 'δ'" (Λ δ Ι λ Ι , Ι " ,./..'
other things, such as trees and quadrupeds, capable of doing nothing by
γενομενος. ου ει κακος υπηρχε, ικαιως κο ασεως ετυγχανεν, ουκ αψ

ΙΟ εαυτού τοιούτος ων, αλλ' ουδεν δυνάμενος εΊναι έτερον παρ' Ο εγεγόνει. choice: for in that event they would not be worthy of recompense ΟΓ ΙΟ
praise, since they had not chosen the good of their own accord but were
t
44.1. Έδ ι'δ α~ε δ \ (Λ Λ ,<,
ε ημας ταυτα το αγιον προψητικον πνευμα,
,./..' Λ δ \ 711f Ι
ια lV.LWvaEWS' made such. 6 Nor, if they were evil, would they justly receive punishment,
φησαν τψ πρώτψ πλασθέντι ανθρώπψ είρησθαι ύπο τού θεού οϋτως' "Ιδού, since they would not be such of their own accord, but would be able to be
nothing other than what they had been made. 7

44. ι. And the holy prophetic Spirit taught us these things, saying through 15
Moses that the first-fashioned human being was addressed by God as
follows: 'Behold, good and evil before your face. Choose the good.,8

individual be either vicious ΟΓ virtuous at any given point ίη time, there is never a point ίη time at
which that individual is capable of either sort of action, and to explain the perceived variability of
conduct it would be necessary to say that, through fate, he has experienced repeated character
changes. Ιη this case, Justin would be arguing precisely that, ίη the view he is attacking, predestined
inconsistency would be the cause of moral change.
ι Editors emend the text to give that jάte is the cause qf good and evil. But an unstated part of the
argument is that fate is God, who cannot be the cause of evil (cf. SVF Π.φ8-33, and 2Α 6(7).9). If
people were fated to be evil God would be the cause of this, and thus self-contradictory. There would
not be such a contradiction if fate caused only the good. As the text stands ίη the MS, only the denial
of the existence of evil is required to escape the contradiction. The coupling of good with evil ίη the
next part of the argument is prompted by the back-reference to ιΑ 28.4.
2 Cf. ιΑ 28+ The point is also mentioned at 2Α 6(7).9.
3 Justin here deploys an anti-fatalist argument of Carneades, probably derived from a school trad-
ition, cf. Amand, Fatalisme et liberte, 206 f.
4 Justin is using a Stoic term against itself. Alexander of Aphrodisias (writing between AD 198 and
209) says that those who hold that everything happens according to fate describe fate as 'unalterable',
De Fato 2 (r66.1f.). Arius Didymus attributed to the Stoics the view that Zeus is called fate because he
controls everything unalterably (απαραβάτως) by connected reason (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica
XV.15, 818a=SVFII.528). According to Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticae VII.2=SVFII.IOOO), Chrysippus
described fate as a natural coordination of all things succeeding one another and changing into one
another, this interconnectedness being unalterable (απαραβάτου). According to Aetius, the Stoics held
that fate was a chain of causes, that is, an unalterable order and interconnectedness (Placita
I.28.4=SVFII.gr7); cf. also SVFII.918.
5 Α view shared by other Platonizing philosophers, cf. Dillon, Alcinous, 161 f.
43.8 ου γαρ ωσπερ ... παρ' Ο εγεγ6νει Sac Par Ho1l99 6 Cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias, 01l Fate, 34.
7 Cf. Dillon, Alcillous, 160f.

Ι αποΦαινοίμεθα Sylburg edd] αποΦαιν6μεθα Α; αν απεΦαιν6μεθα Ashton 5 τοις όμοίως Α] 8 Justin refers to Deut. 30: 15, 19, where God is addressing Israel. How couldJustin take this text to
όμοίως τοις Sylburg MarcoVΊch 6 ου γαρ Α] ουχ Sac Par τα άλλα Α] τάλλα Sac Par δένδρα και be addressed to Adam? Α possible explanation is provided by Skarsaune's suggestion (Proqf.from
Α] δένδρα Sac Par 8 αφ' εαυτου Α] εφ' έαυτψ Sac Par 9 ουδ' ει κακος ύπηρχε Α] ει δη Prophef)l, 180 and 369) that it came to Justin as part of a pre-existing exhortation to baptism. Philo (Qyod
κακως ύπάρχει Sac Par αφ' Α] εφ' Sac Par ΙΟ ουδεν Α] ουδε Sac Par εγεγ6νει Α] γεγ6νει Sac Deus Sit ImmutabilΊS 50) quotes the same text from Deuteronomy, immediately following a discussion of
Par 11 Μωυσέως] Μωσέως Α God's having endowed humankind with free will at creation.
 194 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRIST1ANS 195
1
προ προσώπου σου το αγαθον και το κακόν' εκλεξαι το αγαθόν.' 44.2. και 44.2. And again through Isaiah, another prophet, as from the Lord God
πάλιν δια Ή σα'l-ου, έτέρου προΦήτου, ώs απο του πατροs των όλων και and Father Qf all it was said thus in this regard: 44.3. 'Wash! Make
δεσπότου θεου .ElS τουτο λεχθήναι OVTWS' 44.3. 'Λούσασθε' (224 a) yourselves clean! Take away iniquities from your souls. Learn to do good.
λ '
κα θ αροι γενεσ ε' α
,ι θ 'Φ Ιλ Ι, Λ ,Ι, Λ Ι Λ Ιθ
ε ετε TaS πονηριαs απο των ψυχων υμων' μα ετε κα ον Judge for the orphan, and give judgement for the widow and come and let
' ,

5 ποιειν' κρίνατε ορΦανψ και δικαιώσατε χήραν' και δευτε και διαλεχθωμεν, us take counsel, says the Lord, and if your sins are like crimson, Ι shall 5
, "1'"
λ εγει vpΙOS. και εαν ωσιν αι αμαρηαι υμων wS οινικουν, ωσει εριον ευ-
ι ΚΙ ( (' Ι t Φ Λ λ
(' ..... (' \,'

make them white as ννοοl, and if they are like scarlet, Ι shall make them
κανω, και έαν ώσιν ώs κόκκινον, ώs χιόνα λευκανω. 44.4. και έαν θέλητε whiteas snow. 44.4. And ifyou will it and ifyou heed me, you shall eat
και
" Ι
εισακουσητε μου,
Ι τα
"θ' Λ Λ
αγα α τηs γηs
φ αγεσ θ Ε" εαν δ'
ι
Ι
ε μη εισακουσητε
ι " " the good. things of the earth, but if you do not heed me, a sword will
μου, μάχαιρα ύμαs κατέδεται' το γαρ στόμα Κυρίου έλάλησε ταυτα.' devour you: for the mouth ofthe Lord spoke these things.'2 44.5. But the
10 44.5. το δε προειΡημένον 'Μάχαιρα ύμαs κατέδεται' ου λέγει δια μαχαιΡων aforesaid phrase, 'a sword will devour you', does not say that those who do 10

Φονευθήσεσθαι τσus παρακούσανταs, αλλ' Τι μάχαιρα του θεου έση το πυρ 015 not listen will be slain by the sword, but the sword of God is the fire, of
β ορα,ι
γινονται οι
Ι,
τα
Φ
αυ
Λλ
α
ι
πραττειν
ι ι
αιΡουμενοι.
6
44.. δ'
ια τουτο
Λ λ ι
εγει which those who choose to do evil things become food. 3 44.6. For this
'Μάχαιρα ύμαs κατέδεται, το γαρ στόμα Κυρίου έλάλησεν.' 44.7. ει δε και reason it says 'a sword will devour you, for the mouth of the Lord spoke'.
περι τεμνούσηs και αυτίκα απαλλασσούσηs μαχαίραs ελεγεν, ουκ αν εΊπε 44.7. And if indeed it was speaking about a sword that cuts and dis-
15 'Κατέδεται.' 44.8.44 ώστε και Πλάτων ειπών, 'Αιτία έλομένου, θεοs δ' patches instantly, it would not have said 'will devour'. 44.8. So when 15
,ι , '7Ι1f ι Λ Φ ι λ β' l' β ι ,
avaLTLOS, παρ α lr.ιwvaEWS του προ ητου α ων ειπε' πρεσ VTEpOS γαρ Plato said 'blame belongs to the one who chooses; God is without blame' /
71 If Λ ,Ι Λ' Έλλ Φ ι ,ι rι
ωωυσηs και παντων των εν ησι συγγρα εων. 44.9. και παντα οσα he spoke taking this from Moses the prophet. For Moses is older than
περι αθανασίαs ΙPVXrιS η ημωριων των μετα θάνατον η θεωρίαs ουρανίων η even all the writers in Greek. 44.9. And everything whatever both the
Λ
των ομοιων
Ι ι δ ι
ογματων και
'Φ λ
ι
Ι
οσο
Φ ,
οι και ποιηται ε
, "φ ,
ασαν, παρα των προ-
Λ
philosophers and poets said concerning the immortality of the soul ΟΓ
20 Φητων TdS αΦορμαs λαβόντεs και νOrισαι δεδύνηνται και έξηγήσαντο. punishments after death ΟΓ contemplation of heavenly things ΟΓ similar 20
44.10. όθεν παρα πασι σπέρματα αληθείαs δοκει εΊναι. έλέγχονται δε teachings they were enabled to understand and they explained because
μη, 'βΛ
ακρι ws Ι
νοησαντεs <"
οταν Ι
ενανηα " (
αυτοι 224 b) EaVTOLS
ι Λ Ι
λ εγωσιν.
they took their starting-points from the prophets. 44.10. And so there
seem to be seeds of truth amongst all. 5 But they are revealed as not
accurately understanding whenever they contradicted themselves. 6

44.8 αίτία έλομένου θεος αναίτιος
2 έτέρου coniec] του έτέρου Α
ήσονταιThirlby 15 θεος δ' Α] θεος Sac Par
Μωσης Α; Μ. και Πλάτωνος
ι At ιΑ 32.12, where he introduces Isaiah as sayingthe same thing as Moses ίη different words, Justin
calls him 'another prophet (άλλος 7ΤροΦήτης)'. At ιΑ 34.1 Micah is introduced as 'another prophet
(ετερος 7ΤροΦήτης)'. The iota with its diaeresis ίη Ήσαί"ου might easily have been read as a tau, giving
rise to the MS's Ήσαί"ου του έτέρου. At ιΑ 54.8 we take του άλλου 7ΤροΦήτου Ήσαίσυ to mean 'through
the prophet Isaiah as well'.
2 Isa. Ι: 16-20.
3 At Protrepticus 10 (95.2) Clement of Alexandria cites Isa. Ι: 20 ίη the form 'a sword and fire will
devour you'. Skarsaune (Prorif.from Prophecy, 229-30) thinks that Clement may here be relying οη the
Kerygιna Petl'i, and that Justin may also have been influenced by it.
4 Republic X.6IΊe.
5 It is tempting to regard these 'seeds' as synonymous with the seeds (of reason) sown by the
spermatic logos which at 2Α 13.3-6 (cf. 2Α 10.2-4) enabled philosophers, poets, and prose-writers to see
what was co-natural to that Logos (cf. Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic PhilosopfDι, 187), especially as ίη both
passages there follows a reference to pagan writers contradicting themselves. However, ίη the present
instance the 'seeds' are ίη fact the materials, or 'starting-points' taken from the prophets. There is a link
between the two kinds of seeds, for the Logos who sowed seeds of rationality amongst human beings
was also the author of the prophetic utterances.
6 Justin uses a different construction to describe scriptures not contradicting one another (D 65.2).
If he meant to say here that philosophers and poets contradicted one another, it would not follow
SaC Par Holl 100 that all of them would be shown to be not accurately understanding, but only the party, contradicting
or contradicted, which happened to be wrong. Athenagoras and Theophilus speak of poets and
α7ΤΟ Α] α7ΤΟ 7Τροσώ7Του Otto Marcoυich 12 γίνονται Α] γεν- philosophers differing from one another (Legatio 7.2), and contradicting one another, and themselves
16 Μωυσέως] Μωσέως Α η Μωυσης] (Ad Auto1ycum 11.8), but also of them sometimes saying the same things as the prophets: ίη the case of
Marcovich Athenagoras (Legatio 7.2-3), through some affinity of their souls to the breath of God (της 7Ταρα του
 ι

JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 197

196
44.11. " "Φ αμεν πεπρο Φ ητευσ
ωστε οτε \
~ θ αι τα με'λλ οντα γινεσ
'θ αι, ου \ ' δ ια \ το \ 44.11. So when we say that things that are. going to happen have been
είμαρμένης ανάγΚΏ πράττεσθαι λέγομεν, αλλα προγνώστου τού θεού σντος prophesied, we do not say this οη account of their happening by necessity
των μελλόντων υπο πάντων ανθρώπων πpαxθ~σεσθαι και δεδιδαγμένων τα of fate, but as God is foreknowing of the things that are about to be done
παρ
, αυτου
,~
κατ
" α~t ιαν
' ~ ,t" ",/, θ
των πpα~ εων εκαστον αμειψεσ αι με
'λλ ~
οντα των
by all human beings, and as human beings have been taught that each one
5 'θ'
αν ρωπων,
δ \
ια του
~
προ
Φ
ηηκου
~,
πνευματος προ
λ"
εγει, εις
, ,
επιστασιν και
\ is going to get ίη exchange what God has ίη store ίη accordance with the 5
ανάμνησιν αει αγων το των ανθρώπων γένος, δεικνυς οη και μέλον εστιν worth of his deeds/ he speaks beforehand by the prophetic Spirit, always
,~\
αυτψ και προνοειται αυτων.
~ ,~
44.12. , ενεργειαν
, , kaT
\
ε των αυ ων
δ
αιμ-
~ Φ 'λ δ leading the human race to attention and remembrance, showing that it is
,
ονων
θ '
ανατος ωρισ
( 'θ \
η κατα των
~ \ (Υ'
τας στασπου η
,\ Σ ι β υ'λλ ης η,,~ Φ
των προ ητων
~ of concer? to him, and that he has providential care ofthem. 44.12. But
βίβλους αναγινωσκόντων, οπως δια τού Φόβου αποστρέψωσιν εντυγχάνον- by the activity of the evil dernons death was decreed2 against those who
10 τας τους ανθρώπους μη των καλων γνωσιν λαβείν, αυτοίς δε δουλεύοντας read the books of Hystaspes οτ of Sibyl οτ of the prophets, so that, 10

, '"
κατεχωσιν-οπερ ,,'ισχυσαν πpα~
εις τε'λ ος ουκ \ γαρ
~ t αι. 44.13. α'Φ ο'β ως μεν \ through fear, the demons might turn human beings away from reading
ου
, ι
μονον
,
εντυγχανομεν
/ ,,..,
αυταις, α
'λλ '
α
\
καιυμιν,
Ι,.., Ι
ως
Ι"
ορατε,
"Ι
εις επισκεψιν
,1, them, lest3 they receive knowledge of good things, and that the demons
Φ
, ερομεν,
"
επισταμενοι πασιν
Λ
ευαρεστα
, , Φ'
ανησεσ
θ
αι.
,\
καν
'λ"
ο ιγους
δ \
ε
might hold them as slaves ~o themselves, which they were not strong
enough to do for ever. 44.13. For we not οηlΥ read them without fear,
but, as you see, we also bring them to you for your inspection, knowing 15
that they will appear well pleasing to all. And though we convince οηlΥ a

θεου πνοης), whereas the prophets have spoken by a divinely inspired Spirit (πνεύματι ενθέψ); ίn the
case ofTheophilus, when some poets recover ίn soul from demonic possession.
ι The text has been variously emended, and has been variously construed. Blunt takes it to mean
something like: since it Ίs oιze qf our teιzets that each maιz shall receίve .from hiIn according to hΊS deeds ... aιzd (that
each maιz shall) nzeet the things which proceed .from himse!f But it is difficult to see how the text can be
construed as meaning this. Problematical features are: first, the referents of the personal pronouns;
secondly, the meaning of δ6γματος; thirdly, the meaning of the middle verb αμείψεσθαι; fourthly, the
force of the phrase ίη the MS beginning και τα παρ' αυτου κατ' dξίαν.We have supposed that this
phrase is a doublet of the preceding one, perhaps originally part of an attempt to repair a badly
damaged text, which has been incorporated into the text itself(cf. Wartelle). The phrase beginning και
δ6γματος σντος is unlikely, origina1ly, to have referred to human teaching (stillless to ορinίοn). 1η the
context of the argument, such a move could be rebutted simply by the assertion that the teaching is
erroneous. Moreover, Justin never uses dogma of Christian beliefs. 1t would be possible to take the word
to refer to divine decree, as ίη Sibylliιze Oracles 3.656, but that usage is also unparal1eled ίη Justin, and
one might have expected that sense to have been made explicit by some such adjective as 'divine' or
'eternal', especia1ly as the word has been used ofthe teachings ofthe philosophers and poets (ιΑ 44.9).
We have conjectured that this clause was a genitive absolute construction with των ανθρώπων as
its subject, balancing the preceding genitive absolute construction with του θεου as its subject. The
movement of thought will then be: w!zeιz we sqy that thillgs that have beeιz prophesied will happen we do not meaιz
that they will happen by necesSΊty qffate, but that (α) God.foreknows what each human being will do, and (b) humall
beίngs have beell taught t!zat they will receίve .from hiIll I'eward or punΊShIllent ίll accordallce with the worth qf t!zeίr
aCti01lS. Thus does he speak bif(πehαnd by the prophetic Spirit so that he might alwqys lead men to re.fiection and show
hiI1lSeif to be both provίdent and.foreknowing qf men's acti01lS. Δεδιδαγμένων is used at ιΑ 46.1 of 'things that
have been taught by us', but Justin also uses the perfect passive verb with a personal subject (e.g. ιΑ
10.1, etc.).
2 Commentators refer to Roman laws against the use of divination regarding the well-being of the

ι ώστε οτε Marcovich] ώστε Ο Α; ώς οτε Davies το Α] τουτο Dames Marcovich emperor or the state (Tacitus, Allllales 11.32; Χ11.52; HΊStoriae 1.22; 11.62; Cassius Dio, HΊStoIia 57.15.7-8;
3 δεδιδαγμένων τα coniec] δ6γματος σντος Α; δ6γματος ήμιν σντος Marcomch 4 αυτου Pbion Paulus, Sent. Υ.21.3). If Justin makes reference to a decree he supposes to be sti1l current, he is being
Marcomch A1unier] αυτων Α; αυτ6ν Otto Bluιzt Goodspeed; αυτψ Dames; αυτοις Ashtoιz μέλλοντα των
deliberately provocative: saying that he is committing a crirne he knows to carry the death penalty, but
ανθρώπων coniec] μέλλοντα των ανθρώπων και τα παρ' αυτου κατ' αξίαν των πραττομένων απαντ­
that he does so without fear. This coheres with what he says ίη the following chapter. Οη the other
-ήσεσθαι Α; των ανθρώπων τα παρ' αυτου κατ' αξίαν των πραττομένων μέλλοντα απαντ-ήσεσθαι Schwartz hand, he must have known that Jews were not molested for reading their prophets.
3 We have emended the text, cf. D 105.3: τον δυνάμενον αποστρέψαι πάντα αναιδη πονηρον αγγελον
(1888); και αυτος παρ' αυτου τα κατ' αξίαν των πραττομένων απαντ-ήσεσθαι Marcovich
5 επίστασιν ed~ επίτασιν Α 10 ανθρώπους μη coniec] ανθρώπους Α; ανθρώπους του Otto ίn μη λαβέσθαι ήμων της ψυχης ('who is able to turn away every shameless, evil angellest it take hold of

apparatu Marcovich our soul').

 ι

198 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 199
7Τείσωμεν, τα μέγιστα Kεpδ~σανTες εσόμεθα' ώς γεωργο/' γαρ άγαθοί, 7Ταρα few, we shall have made the greatest gain. F<!r 1ike good farmers we shall
του
Ι r
Λ δ εσ7Το,=,οντος "β'
TYjV αμοι YjV
t/C
εςομεν. have recompense from the master.

45.1. 'Ότι δε άγαγειν τον Χριστον εις τον ουρανον ό 7TαT~P των 7Τάντων θεος 45. ι. But that God the Father of all was going to 1ead Christ to heaven
\ \, Λ' ....., , ,ι λλ ,..... / tl "1\ Ι C after he raised him from the dead, and keep him there until he had struck
μετα το avaaTYjaaL
εκ νεκρων αυτον εμε ε κα κει .κατεχειν εως αν 7Τατας τι

5 τους εχθραίνοντας αυτψ (225 a) δαίμονας και συνTελεσθfι ό άριθμος των the demons who were his enemies and had filled up the number of those 5
7Τροεγνωσμένων αυτψ άγαθων γινομένων και εναρέτων, δι' ους και μYjδέ7Τω foreknown by him who wou1d be good and virtuous, οη whose account
T~ν εΚ7Τύρωσιν 7Τε7ΤοίYjται, ε7Τακούσατε των εΙΡYjμένων δια Δαυι'δ τού a1so he has not yet brought about the conflagration,l pay heed to what has
7Τρο
Ι
Φ YjTOV. 45.2. "δ'
εστι
Λ
ε ταυτα'
'Ε'>'
Ι7Τεν ο
< ΚΙ Λ Κ
υριος τφ
Ι lθ'
υριφ μου, κα ου εκ been said though the prophet David. 45.2. These are the words: 'The
δεξιων μου έ.ως αν θω τους εχθρούς σου ύ7ΤΟ7Τόδιον των 7Τοδων σου. Lord said to my Lord: "Sit οη my right, until Ι make your enemies a
10 45.3. ράβδον δυνάμεως εξα7Τοστελει σοι Κύριος εξ Ίεpoυσαλ~μ, και footstoo1 for your feet. 45.3. The Lord will send forth from Jerusa1em 10

κατακυρίευε εν μέσφ των εχθρων σου. 45.4. μετα σού ή άpx~ εν ήμέρq, τής a sceptre of power for you; an~ ru1e ίη the midst of your enemies.
Ι Ι 'Λλ
δ υναμεως σου εν ταις
Ι
αμ7ΤΡΟΤYjσι
Λ
των
<Ι
αγιων σου.
,
εκ γαστρος
, \
7Τρο 45.4. With you is dominion in the day of your power ίη the sp1endours of
<
εωσ
Φ Ι
ορου
,Ι Ι,
EYEVVYjaa σε. 45.5.
' 'ουν
το
> 'ειΡYjμενον
' Ι , <Ρ lβδ
α ον
δ Ι
υναμεως your saints. From the womb'before the daystar Ι begot you.",2 45.5. So
εξα7Τοστελει σοι εξ Ίεpoυσαλ~μ' 7Τροαγγελτικον τού λόγου τού ισχυρού ον then, the saying, 'he shall send for you a sceptre ofpower fromJerusa1em,'
15 ά7ΤΟ Ίεpoυσαλ~μ οί ά7Τόστολοι αυτού εξελθόντες 7Τανταχού εK~pυξαν καί, announces in advance the powerfu1 word which his apostles, going out 15
καί7Τερ θανάτου όρισθέντος κατα των διδασκόντων ~ όλως όμολογούντων το from Jerusa1em, proc1aimed everywhere, though death had been decreed
Όνομα τού Χριστού, ήμεί'ς 7Τανταχού και άσ7Ταζόμεθα και διδάσκομεν. against those who taught or simp1y confessed the name of Christ, which
45.6. ει δε και ύμεις ώς εχθροι εντεύξεσθε τοισδε τοις λόγοις, ου 7Τλέον τι we everywhere both embrace and teach. 45.6. But even if you read these
δύνασθε, ώς 7ΤροέΦYjμεν, τού Φονεύειν, ό7Τερ ήμιν μεν ουδεμίαν βλάβYjν Φέρει, words with hostile intent, you can do nothing further, as we said before,3
20 ύμιν δε και 7Τασι τοις άδίκως εχθραίνουσι και μ~ μετατιθεμένοις κόλασιν δια than kill, which bears ηο harm to us, but which works punishment through 20
7Τυρος αιωνίαν εργάζεται. eternal fire to you and to all who are unjustly hostile and are not
converted.
46.1. Ίνα δε μ~ τινες, άλογισταίνοντες εις ά7TOTP07T~ν των δεδιδαγμένων \

<Φ' Ι,..",
υ Yjμων, εΙ7Τωσι 7Τρο
\ ,
ετων
.... ( \
εκατον
Ι
7TEVTYjKOVTa YEYEVVYja ..... θ
αι
'Χ
τον ριστον
' 46.1. But 1est, in order to dissuade from our teaching by foo1ish argu-
Ι < Λ 'ΚVpYjvιov
Ι δ ε δ ι δ αχεναι
Ι δ' Φ αμεν δ ι δ αςαι ment/ some shou1d say that we say that Christ was born 150 years ago, ίη
λ εγειν Yjμας ε7ΤΙ
,
ε t/
α IC ""
αυτον υστερον

25 Ι
χρονοις ( 225 b)"ε7ΤΙ Ποντιου
Ι Πλ
ι ατου, και"λ
l
<,
εγκα ωσιν ως ανευ θ υνων οντων
"
Λ l the time of Quirinius, and that he taught the things we say he taught still 25
1ater under Pontius Pilate, and shou1d object5 that all the human beings

ι The reading of the MS, επικύρωσις (confirmation [of a decreeJ), is defended by Otto, Blunt,
Marcoνich, Barnard, and others, but the word is found only three times before the 6th century-in
Aristotle, Atlzenαion Politeiα41.3; in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Alltiquitαtesg.51.3; and ίn Eusebius,
ΛαeΡαταtίο Evαngelicα lO.g.28.
2 Ps. IOg(IIO): 1~3. 3 Cf. ιΑ 2.4; ΙΙ.2; 12.6.
4 The MS's dλογιστα{νοντεs is hapax, and may be corrupt.
5 Editors and translators who let the reading ofthe MS (επικαλωσιν) stand take it to mean 'bring a
charge against'. But this requires that something like 'us' ΟΓ 'me' is to be supplied as the object of the
charge, and that the substance of the charge is to be supplied by a genitive absolute cοnstωctίοn: 'they
bring αgαilΙSt lΙS the charge, that all human beings who lived before that time were without blame. ' But
]ustin elsewhere uses this verb only with the meaning 'to name' ΟΓ 'to surname'. The clifficulty had
been noticed by the scribe of the MS, who supplied επικλωσιν ίη the margin. Stephanus wanted to
read this, with the meaning of 'mitigate, assuage'. However, LS] does not give this meaning, and the
use ofthe genitive is unexplained. Presumably, the foreseen objection is this: 'Christians say that Christ
taught these things less than 150 years ago. It must folIow, then, that all those who lived before the time
of Christ and, not knowing his teaching, did not do as 11e taught, are not accountable.' We 11ave
3 dγαγειν Α] dνάγειν Thirlby 4 κdκει Τhίτlby] και Α 7 εκπύρωσιν ΒίΖΖΥ Munielj adopted Lange's proposal that the verb was originally εγκαλωσιν used not ίη a strictly forensic sense,
επικύρωσιν Α 14 σοι Α] σοι κύριος Mαrcoviclz εκ!ιρυξαν κα{ Thirlby edd] εκ!ιρυξαν Α
15 but ίη a mΟΓe general sense of 'object'. It is possible that it has this force at ιΑ 33.3, where it is used of
18 εντεύξεσθε R. Steplιαnus edd] εντεύξεσθαι Α 20 da{KWS Α] da{KWS ήμιν Lαnge Maι·coviclz MunicJ" those who might object to Christian teaching, and of Christian objection to the teaching of the poets.
25 εγκαλωσιν coniec] επικαλωσιν ΑΙΟΧΙ; επικλωσιν Amrg The genitive absolute introduced by ώς states the substance of the objection.
 200 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 201
J
Λ Ι Ι 'θ Ι Φθ Ι "ι λ Ι θ
των προγεγενημενων παντων αν ρωπων, ασαντες την αποριαν υσομε α. who lived before that time were not accountable, we will anticipate and
46.2. τον Χριστον πρωτότοκον του θεου είναι έδιδάχθημεν και προεμην­ solve the difficulty. 46.2. We were taught, and we mentioned before,
ύσαμεν, λόγον σντα 015 ,παν γένος ανθρώπων μετέσχε. 46.3. και οί μετα that Christ is the first-born of God, being the Logos in which the whole
λ ογου
Ι β ιωσαντες
Ι Χριστιανοιι,"
εισι, καν "θ εοι
α ' Ι θ ησαν,
ενομισ ...'εν
οιον Έλλ ησι
race ofhuman beings shared. 46.3. And those who lived with Logos are 1
5 'Σωκρατης
Ι , Ήρακ
Ι λ ειτος ,ι <, 'Λ' β αρ β' δ'
μεν και και οι ομοιοι αυτοις, εν αροις ε Christians, even if they were called atheists, such as among the Greeks, 5
'Λβ'
L1. "Λ Ι , 'Λ Υ . Ι
ρααμ και L1.νανιας και L1.Ι;,αριας και
, Μ 'λ και Ήλ ιας
ισαη
Ι ,
και α
'
"λλ οι πο λλ οι,
Ι
Socrates and Heraclitus and those similar to them, and among the bar-
ών τας πράξεις ij
τα ονόματα καταλέγειν μακρον είναι έπιστάμενοι, τα νυν barians, Abraham and Ananias and Azarias and Misael and Elijah and
παραιτουμε
Ι <,
θ
α. 4 6 .4.
,Ι Ι "λ
ωστε και οι προγενομενοι αν ευ '
ογου
β Ι
ιωσαντες many ot4ers whose deeds and names, for the present, we forbear to list,
αχρηστοι και έχθροι τψ Χριστψ ~σαν και Φονεις των μετα λόγου βιούντων, thinking it to be tedious. 46.4. So that even those who were before him,
!Ο οι
' Ι ,
Ι δ ε μετα λ ογου β ιωσαντες
Ι και
'β ιουντες
Λ Χριστιανοι και α
"Φ ο β οι και"ι
αταρα-
,\ and who lived without Logos, were without value 2 and enemies to Christ !Ο
χοι ύπάρχουσι. 46.5. δι' ην δ' αιτίαν δια δυνάμεως του λόγου κατα την του and murderers of those who lived with Logos. But those who lived or do
,ι
πατρος παντων και'δ εσποτου
Ι θ εουΛ β ου λ'
ην δ'
,ια '
παρ θ ενου "θ ρωπος
αν
live with Logos are Christians and- fearless and unconfounded. 46.5. But
απεκυήθη, και Ίησους έπωνομάσθη, και σταυρωθεις και αποθανων ανέστη why it was that, through the, power of the Logos according to the will of
και ανελήλυθεν εις ούρανόν, έκ των δια τοσούτων ειρημένων ό νουνεχης the Father of all and Lord God, he was born a human being of a virgin
15 καταλαβειν δυνήσεται. 46.6. ήμεις δέ, ούκ αναγκαίου σντος τα νυν του and was named Jesus and was crucified and died and rose and has gone 15
περι της αποδείξεως τούτου λόγου, έπι τας έπειγούσας αποδείξεις προς το υρ to heaven, a wise person will be able to fathom from the things said at
παρον χωρήσομεν. such length. 3 46.6. But, since there is at present ηο need for a discussion
concerning the demonstration of this, we shall4 at this point move οη to
47.1. Ότι οδν και έκπορθηθήσεσθαι ή γη Ίουδαίων έμελλεν, ακούσατε των demonstrations that are urgent.
, Ι Ι \ Λ Φ Λ Ι
ειΡημενων υπο του προ ητικου πνευματος.
(226 a) "
ειΡηνται
δ'
ε οι
Ιλ ' Ι
ογοι ως

20 απο προσώπου λαων θαυμαζόντων τα γεγενημένα. 47.2. εισι δε οϊδε·
'Έγενήθη έρημος Σιών· ώς έρημος έγενήθη Ίερουσαλήμ· εις κατάραν ό
οίκος, το αγιον ήμων· και ή δόξα ην εύλόγησαν οί πατέρες ήμων έγενήθη
47.1. So then, even5 that the land ofthe Jews was going to be plundered, 20
hear what has been said by the prophetic Spirit. The words are spoken as
from the character of peoples marvelling at things that had happened. 6
47.2. The words are these: 'Sion became a wilderness,Jerusalem became
as a wilderness, the house, our holy place, has become a curse, and the
glory which our fathers blessed was burnt up, and all her glorious things 25

ι Marcovich adopts Ashton's conjecture, 'were Christians', pointing to the usage in ιΑ 46-4, 'were
without value and enemies to Christ'. But there is ηο obvious palaeographical reason for a change
from ήσαν to εισι, and the text as it stands in the MS clearly contrasts those who lived according to
reason, and those who did not; the former αre Christians, the latter were the enemies of Christ. Justin is
as likely to be the author of this contrast as anyone later in the tradition.
2 The Greek is αχρηστοι. Justin had similarly punned οη χρηστό, at ιΑ 4.1,5.
3 We take δια τοσούτων to be the opposite of δια βραχέων, whichJustin uses at ιΑ 8.3; D 128.4; 141.1.
It could mean 'through so many [prophets]', but the previous reference to a prophet was at ιΑ 45.1.
~ The MS has an aorist subjunctive, 'let us move οη'. But in such a case the reading ofthe MS is of
virtually ηο weight. Ιη pointing to the future course of his discussion Justin has a strong preference for
the future indicative, see ιΑ 23.3; 30.1; 42.1; 43.1; 52.4; 54-4; 61.1. Α hortatory subjunctive may appear
in ιΑ 33.3 and 46.1, though editors (including ourselves in the latter case) have even there emended to
the future indicative. The present passage, however, is not precisely parallel to any of these examples,
and a hortatory subjunctive might here be more natural than it would be in passages where Justin
promises that he will, for example, resolve an objection. But the emphatic ήμει, at the beginning ofthe
sentence contrasts with the νουνεχ-η, of the preceding phrase, and the future verb which accompanies
it may tell slightly in favour of the future indicative. '
Ι λυσόμεθα
edd] λυσώμεθα Α 2 πρωτότοκον edd] προτότοκον Α 4 εισι Α] ήσαν Ashton 5 Justin resumes the discussion which had been broken offin ιΑ 46.1 to answer an objection. ιΑ 45.1
Mαrcovich 6 Άβρααμ edd] Άβρααμ Α 7 τα νυν Α] τανυν edd 11 ην δ' Α] ην Blllnt had begun with the prediction ofthe ascension of]esus. Here it is not a religious fact that is the subject
13 Επωνομάσθη R. Stephαnus edd] Επονομάσθη Α σταυρωθει, και Otto Blunt Mαrcovich .Muιιίετ] σταυρ- of prophecy, but a mundane military one, the outcome of which was obviously known to the
ωθει, Α 15 τα νυν Α] τανυν edd 16 τούτου Α] τούτων Otto in apparatu Mαrcovich emperors.
Ι7 χωρήσομεν Thi/·lby Otto Blunt Mαrcovich Munier] χωρήσωμεν Α 6 An example ofthe kind ofprophecy mentioned in ιΑ 42.1.
 202 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY O~,BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

πυρίκαυστος, και πάντα τα ενδοςα αυτής συνέπεσε. 47.3. και επι τούτοις coll~ιpsed. 47.3. And with all these things, Ο Lord,I you were content,
,ι
ανεσχου,
Κ"Ι \, Ι
υριε, και εσιωπησας και εταπεινωσας ημας σ
\ , Ι ι ... Φ 'δ'
ο ρα. 47.4. και
\ and you_were siJent, and you humbled us exceedingly.'2 47.4. And that
ότι Υιρήμωτο Ιερουσαλήμ, ώς προείρητο γεγενήσθαι, πεπεισμένοι εστέ. Jerusalem was made desolate 3 as it was said ίη prophecy to have been,4 you
47.5. εϊρηται δε και περι τής ερημώσεως αυτής και περι του μη επιτραπ- need ηο cοήviηcing. 47.5. And it is said concerning its desolation, and
5 ήσεσθαι μηδένα αυτων εν aVTn οικειν δια Ήσαί·ου του προΦήτου ούτως· 'Ή concerning the future prohibition οη any of them dwelling ίη it,S through 5
.. , ...
γη αυτων ερημος·
)/ "
εμπροσ
θ 'Λ
εν αυτων οι εχ
(', θ ' ,...... , \ αγονται, "και
ροι αυτων αυτην
\ φ ι
Isaiah the prophet thus: 'Their land a desert, their enemies will devour it
,,' Λ'
ουκ εσται ε~ αυτων 'c'
Λ"
ο κατοικων Λ'
εν αυττι. 47. 6 . οτι δ ε\ Φ υ λ ασσεται
tf Ι υ'Φ" υμων
Λ ίη front of them,'6 'and there shall not be one of them dwelling ίη it.'7
tf
οπως μη
δ
εις
\ εν
, 'Λ
αυττι
Ι
γενηται και
\ θ
'
ανατος κατα
\ Λ
του κατα
λ
αμ
β Ι
ανομενου 47.6. Υο\\. know perfectly well that it is guarded by you in order that none
Ίου δ αιου Ι ,Ι "
εισιοντος ωρισται, ακρι
'βΛ'
ως επιστασ
Ι θ
ε. ofthem8 might be init, and that death has been decreed against any Jew
caught entering it. 10

10 48.1. 'Ότι δε και θεραπεύσειν πάσας νόσους και νεκρους ανεγερεΙν. ό

,ι
ημετερος ,ι \
Χριστο) προε Φ ητευ'θ η, ακουσατε Λ
των λ ε λ εγμενων.
Ι 4 8 .2. εστι
" δε \ 48.1. And also that it was foretold that our Christ was going to cure all
ταυτα·
Λ 'ΤΛ
τι παρουσιq.
Ι,
αυτου
Λ" 'λ
α
Λ
ειται χω
λ \ ,
ος ως ε
"λ
α
Φ
ος, και
\ τρανη
\"εσται illnesses and raise the dead, listen to the things that are said. 48.2. They
γλωσσα μογιλάλων.' 'τυΦλοι αναβλέψουσι,' 'και λεπροι καθαρισθήσονται,' are these: 'At his coming the lame shallleap like the deer, and the speech
'και νεκροι αναστήσονται' 'και περιπατήσουσιν.' 48.3. ότι τε ταυτα of stutterers shall be clear, the blind shall see again, and lepers shall be
Ι5 εποίησεν, εκ των επι Ποντίου Πιλάτου γενομένων ακτων μαθειν δύνασθε. made clean, and the dead shall be raised, and the/ shall walk about.'lO Ι5
48.4. πως τε προμεμήνυται ύπο του προΦητικου πνεύματος αναιΡεθησ- 48'3' But that he did these things you can learn from the .Acts Recorded
Ι
ομενος
(6
22 b) tf
αμα
Λ'"
τοι) επ αυτον
\ ε
'λ ΙΥ
πιl;,οvσιν
'θ
αν ρωποις,
Ι ,Ι
ακουσατε
Λ
των Under Pontius Pilαte. 11 48.4. And how it was foretold by the prophetic Spirit
λεχθέντων δια Ή σαίΟυ. 48.5' εστι δε ταυ τα . ''1δε ώς ό δίκαιος απώλετο, that he was going to be taken away, along with those human beings who
και ουδεις εκδέχεται Tn καρδίq. και ανδρες δίκαιοι αϊρονται, και ουδεις hope ίη him, hear the things said through Isaiah. 48.5. Theyare these:
20 κατανοεΙ. 48.6. απο προσώπου αδικίας ηρται ό δίκαιος, και εσται εν 'Behold how the just one perished, and ηο one takes it to heart, and just 20
εΙρήντι· Τι ταφη αυτου ηρται εκ του μέσου.' men are carried off, and ηο one perceives it. 48.6. The just one is carried
of from the face of injustice and he will be ίη peace; his tomb is removed
from the midst.' 12

1 We haνe followed Marcoνich ίη adding 'Ο Lord', as read by the LXX. The second-person νerbs
would be awkward without this referent. The nomen sacrum κε could easily haνe dropped
out before the following καί.
2 Isa. 64: 9-Ι Ι.
3 Justin uses a pluperfect, 'had been made desolate'. Sylburg emended to the perfect, but Justin
refers to the destruction of Jerusalem ίη AD 70. From then until the building of Aelia Capitolina by
Hadrian ίη Ι35 the site was but sparsely inhabited. After Ι35, howeνer, as both Justin and his audience
would haνe known full well, it was a wilderness ηο longer.
4- As Maran and Blunt noted, Justin uses the perfect infinitiνe because the prophecy was cast ίη the

2 άνέσχου κύριε Marcovich] άνέσχου Α
γενέσθαι νel γενήσεσθαι Sylburg; γενήσεσθαι Ashton.
8 μτιδειι; Α] μτιδειι; αυτων Marcovich
χωλοι Mαrcovich τε Α] δε Blunt Μαιωvίch Munier
Α] δε Mαrcovich
3 Τιρήμωτο Α] Τιρήμωται Sylburg
5 αυτων εν αυτυ Marcovich] αυτων Α
Ι3 μογιλάλωvedιZl μογγιλάλων Α
Ι5 ακτων Cαsaubon edιZl αυτψ Α
past tense. Hence the emendations to the tense of the infinitiνe proposed by Sylburg and others are
unnecessary. The perfect takes υρ the tense of the corresponding participle in ιΑ 47. ι .
5 We haνe accepted the emendation made by Marcoνich, following a suggestion of Otto. Justin
typically accompanies the νerb 'to dwell' with an indication of place, regu1arly expressed by the
preposition 'ίη" See D 78.9 (bis); ΙΙ7+ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΗ could easily haνe dropped out after the preceeding
ΕΝΑΑΥΤΩΝ.
6 Isa_ ι: 7.
7 Jer. 50 (LXX 27): 3.
8 'Of them' does not appear in the text of the MS, but is added by Marcoνich, following Ashton.
This is clearly what Justin means, but he is capable of not expressing the qualification. Compare the
νery similar phrase ίη D 92.2.
γεγενησθαι Α]
9 Marcoνich supplies '1ame' under the influence ofMatt. ιι: 5. But the pattern which this creates is
awkward (curing the sick, raising the dead, curing the sick). We suggest that 'walking about'
Ι4 και (20) Α] και
strengthens the idea of resurrection, cf. Ezek. 37: 10, 'and they stood upon their feet'; Mark 5: 42, 'and
ι6 τε
immediately the little girl rose and walked about'; Matt. 27: 53, 'and haνing come forth from the
tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city'.
10 For this assemblage oftexts (lsa. 35: 6; 35: 5; 26: Ι9) see Skarsaune, Proqfftom Prophecy, 59.
11 Cf. ιΑ 35.9.
12 Blunt, Marcoνich, and Munier follow the MS's punctuation so as to read, 'his tomb will be ίη
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

49.1. Και πάλιν πώς δι' αυτού τού ΉσαίΌυ λέλεκται ση οί ου προσδοκ­ 49.1. And again, how it is said through the sp'me Isaiah 1 that the peoples
ήσαντες αυτον λαοι τών εθνών προσκυνήσουσιν αυτόν, οί δε αει προσδοκών­ of the nations who did not expect him will worship him, but that the Jews
τες 'Ιουδαιοι αγνοήσουσι παραγενόμενον αυτόν. ελέχθYjσαν δε οί λόγοι ώς who always expect him will not recognise him once he comes. The words
" ,
απο προσωπου αυτου του
, ~ ~ χ
ριστου.
~
49.2. , ,
εισι
δ' 'i'
ε ουτοι'
'Έ
μ
Φ , ,
ανYjς εγεν- were SΡοkeή as from the character of Christ himself 49.2. They are
5 ήθYjν τοις εμε μη επερωτώσιν' εύρέθYjν τοις εμε μη ζYjτούσι. εΊπον, 'Ιδού ειμι these: Ί was made manifest to those who were not asking after me, Ι was 5
εθνει οί' ουκ εκάλεσαν το ονομά μου 49-3' εξεπέτασα τας χειράς μου επι found by those who were not seeking me. Ι said, "Behold! it is 1", to a
λαον απειθούντα, και ανηλέγοντα επι τους πορευομένους εν όδψ ου καλΏ, nationthat did call my name. 49.3. Ι stretched out my hands to a dis-
αλλ' οπίσω τών άμαρηών αυτών. 49.4. ό λαος ό παροξύνων εναντίον μου.' obedient ι;ιnd gainsaying people, to those walking ίn a way that is not
49.5. 'Iδ ~
ου αιοι " ,εχοντες τας
γαρ, προ Yjτειας και"
'Φ' , προσ δ'
αει ,
ΟΚYjσαντες τον good, but after their own sins. 49.4. The people that provokes 2 is before
ΙΟ Χριστον παραγενYjσόμενον, παραγενόμενον ~γνόYjσαν' ου μόνον δέ, αλλα και me.' 49.5. For the Jews, who have the prophecies and who were always 10

παρεχρήσαντο. οί δε απο τών εθνών, μYjδέποτε μYjδεν ακούσαντες περι τού
Χριστού μέχρις OV οί απο Ίερουσαλημ εξελθόντες απόστολοι αυτού εμήνυ-
,
σαν τα περι αυτου "
~ και τας προ Φ' "
Yjτειας παρε'δ ωκαν, π λ
πίστεως τοις ειδώλοις απετάξαντο και τψ αγεννήτψ θεψ δια τού Χριστού
15 εαυτους ανέθYjκαν. 49.6. ση δε (227 a) προεγινώσκετο τα δύσΦYjμα ταύτα
λεχθYjσόμενα κατα τών τον Χριστον όμολογούντων, και ώς εΊεν τάλανες οί
δυσΦYjμούντες αυτον και τα παλαια εθΥ) καλον εΊναι TYjpELV λέγοντες,
ακούσατε τών βραχυεπώς εΙΡYjμένων δια ΉσαίΌυ. 49.7. εση δε ταύτα'
'Ουαι τοις λέγουσι το γλυκυ πικρον και το πικρον γλυκύ.'
20 50.1. ση δε και, ύπερ Τιμών γενόμενος ανθρωπος, παθειν και αTψασθiιναι
ύπέμεινε, και πάλιν μετα δόξYjς παραγενήσεται, ακούσατε τών εΙΡYjμένων
expecting the Christ to come,3 did not recognize him when he came, and
not only that, but they also treated him with contempt. But those who were
Yjpw θ'εντες ~,
χαρας και from the nations never heard anything about the Christ until the time
when his apostles went out from Jerusalem and indicated the things con-
cerning him andhanded over the prophecies. 4 Then, being filled withjoy 15
and faith, they renounced the idols and dedicated themselves through
Christ to the unbegotten God. 5 49.6. And that it was foreknown 6 that
these calumnies would be spoken against those who confess the Christ, as
was how those would be wretched who spoke ill of him while saying it
was good to preserve the ancient customs, hear the things said briefly 20
through Isaiah. 49.7. They are these: 'Woe to those who say the sweet is
bitter and the bitter sweet. ,7

50.1. But that also, having become a human being for our sakes, he
endured to suffer and to be dishonoured, and will come again with

ι Justin uses both του αυτου and αυτου του to mean 'the same'; cf. D 43.4 for the former; ιΑ 40.5 and
41.1 for the latter.
2 Marcovich supplies 'me' from the LXX, cf. D 24+ But Isa. 65: 1-3 as cited here differs
significantly from the LXX text as cited ίn D 24, cf. Skarsaune, Proqf.fr01ll Prophecy, 65-7.
3 The MS has a future participle which Otto and Marcovich emend to an aorist. We have adopted

the conjectuTe of Sylburg, accepted by Blunt and Munier, who retain the future participle and supply
an aorist as well. It would have been the work of a selectively attentive scribe to have corrected an
aorist participle to a future, and then left ήγν6ησαν without an object. Αη easier error would have been
the simple omission of the aorist participle.
4 Justin's language suggests a formal bequeathing of the prophecies to the nations.
5 Dedication to the unbegotten God is a formulaic reference to baptism, cf. ιΑ 6Ι.Ι, together with ιΑ
14.2 and 25.2.
6 The Greek construction of this sentence is awkward. 'These calumnies' is the subject of 'fore-

ι δι' αυτου του coniec] δι' αυτου Α; δια του αυτου Sylburg 5 εύρέθην edCΗ εύρέθη Α 'ητουσι known', which is then understood again as an impersonal passive introducing the ώς clause with its
Α] 'ητουσιν Otto Blullt Mαrcoviclz MUllier 6 εθνει Grαbe edaΊ εθνη Α 7 απειθουντα Grαbe edCΗ optative verb.
απιθουντα Α 8 παροξύνων Α] παροξύνων με Mαrcovich 10 παραγενησ6μενον παραγεν- 7 Skarsaune (Proqfj·om P1"Ophecy, 232) proposes that this variation of Isa. 5: 20 may have been taken

6μενον Sylburg Blullt MUllier] παραγενησ6μενον Α; παραγεν6μενον Otto Mαrcovich from the Keιygmα Petri, possibly utilized also by Clement of Alexandria at Pαedagogus III.g2.I.
 206 JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 207

'Λ
εις τουτο προ Φ ητειων.
Λ 50.2. "δ ε ταυτα'
εση Λ \
"Λ '
L"1.v θ' l'
ων παρε'δ ωκαν εις θ'
ανα- glory, 1 listen to the prophecies said concerning this. 50.2. Theyare these:
\
τον την ψυχην
1/' \ 'Λ
αυτου
και μετα των
\ \......, ,ι\
ανομων
(
αυτος αμαρηας
'λ' θ
ι
ε ογισ η, 'Because they. gave his soul to death, and he was counted among the
Λ "λ Φ \ Λ" 'c λ ' ,
~πo λλ ων ει η ε και τοις ανομοις ε~ι ασεται. 50.3.
, "δ \ , <
ι ε γαρ συνησει ο παις
Λ
lawless, he has himself borne the sins of many and will make atonement
\ <,Ι. θ'
μου, και υψω ησεται και \ δ C θ ' Φ 'δ
o~ασ ησεται σ ο ρα. 50.4. ον τροπον εκ-
<\"
for the lawless.'2 50.3. 'For behold my servant shall understand, and he
5 στήσονται πολλοι επι σέ-οϋτως αδοξήσει απο ανθρώπων το είδός σου και ~ shall be lifted up and glorified exceedingly. 50.4. Just as many shall be 5
δόξα σου απο τών ανθρώπωv--οvτως θαυμάσονται εθνη πολλά, και συνέξ­ astonished concerning you-so among human beings will your form be
ουσι βασιλεις το στόμα αυτών, οη ο[ς. ουκ ανηγγέλη περι αυτου και οί\ ουκ held in contempt and among human beings your glory,3-so shall many
ακηκόασι συνήσουσι. 50.5. Κύριε, τίς επίστευσε Tn dKOn ~μών; και ό nations m?trvel4- and kings shall stop their mouths, because those to whom
, Κ'
β ραχιων " απεκα λ υ'Φθ'
υριου ηνι "
η; ανηγγει'λ αμεν ενωπιον 'Λ ως
αυτου < '
παι δ ιον, it was not announced concerning him,5 and those who have not heard,
ΙΟ
< < 'Υ , Λ δ ,Ι. '
ως ρι':,α εν ΥΤ] ιψωσn. 50 .6 ' "εσην
. ουκ T'i:' 'Λ 'δ
ειοος αυτψ ου ε
δ \ "δ 'c
o~α. και ει ομεν
\ shall understand. 50.5. Lord, who believed in our tidings? And to whom ΙΟ
αυτόν, και ουκ είχεν είδος ουδε κάλλος, αλλα το είδος αυτου αημον και was the arm of the Lord revealed? We have proclaimed before him as a
εκλειπον παρα τους ανθρώπους. 50.'. ανθρωπος εν πληΥn ων και ειδως child, as a root in thirsty ground.- 50.6. There is ηο form in him, nor
Φ '
ερειν μα λ'"'' 'Λ( 227
ακιαν, οη απεστραπται το προσωπον αυτου \, b)'ηημασ
'θ η και \ glory. And we saw him, and he did not have form or beauty, but his form
,'λ 'θ
ουκ ε ογισ η. 50. 8 . l' \ < ,< Λ
ουτος τας αμαρηας ημων
Φ' < Λ 'δ
ερει και περι ημων ο υν-
\ \ was shameful and forsaken amonghuman beings. 50.,. Α man in
15 αται, και ~μεις ελογισάμεθα αυτον είναι εν πόνψ και εν πληγn και εν calamity and knowing how to bear debility, because his face is turned 15
κακώσει. 50.9. αυτος δε ετραυματίσθη δια τας ανομίας ~μών, και away, it was dishonoured and it was not counted. 50.8. This one bears
μεμαλάκισται δια τας άμαρτίας ~μών. παιδεία ειρήνης επ' αυτόν' Τψ our sins and suffers for us, and we reckoned him to be in suffering and in
'λ ωπι 'Λ Λ 'θ ημεν. 50.10. ως προ'β ατα 'λ ανη'θ ημεν'
μω αυτου <
ημεις ια
, ,<
παντες επ calamity and in distress. 50.9. But he was wounded οη account of our
ανθρωπος Tn όδψ αυτου επλανήθη. και παρέδωκεν αυτον ταις άμαρτίαις crimes and he w~s made weak οη account of our sins. The discipline 6 of
peace 7 is upon him, by his bruises we were healed. 50.10. We were allled 20
astray like sheep, a human being was led astray in his way, and he 8 gave

6 πολλά Α] πολλd Επ' αυτψ Mαrcovich
Ι7 ειρήνψ; Α] ειρήνψ; ήμων Mαrcoviclz
7 αυτοίΙ Α] αυτοίΙ οψονται
19 και Α] και κύριος Mαrcovich
Otto Bluιzt lvlαrcovich MuιzieT
1 The coming with glory is not proved by the texts Justin cites immediately. But he returns to it ίη
ιΑ51.8.
2 Skarsaune (Proqf.from Prophecy, 62) points out that ίη ιΑ 50.2 Justin cites a non-LXX νersion of
Isa. 53: 12, followed ίη ιΑ 50.3-11 by a basically LXX text ofIsa 52: 13-53: 8, with the former 'treated
as if it were an integral part of the following text'.
3 'Glory' is hardly how Justin's pagan audience would haνe undertood δόξα. The best sense they
could have made of it would have been 'reputation'.
4 Marcoνich adds 'at him', adapting the text to the LXX and to the quotation of this passage in
D 13.3, as he does οη three other occasions ίη this chapter. But, in the present case, Justin may have
omitted these words ίη order to aνoid adding to the confusion likely to be caused ίη his pagan audience
by the transition ίη the LXX from a second- to a third-person pronoun.
5 Editors add 'will see' from the LXX, as quoted at D 13.3 and 118+ Justin may have deliberately
omitted the νerb ίη the present instance, ίη order to avoid seeming to make a false claim that Jesus was
seen by many nations, and because he wished to emphasize that the nations haνe understood the
prophecies.
6 'Chastisement' as a meaning of παιδε{α is confined to the LXX and dependent literature. It would
haνe been unknown to Justin's pagan audience, and possibly to Justin himself. Elsewhere he uses the
word in its normal Greek sense, cf. ιΑ 1.1; 2.2. 'Discipline' catches something ofthis ordinary meaning,
while being open to the LXX meaning.
7 Marcoνich has 'our peace', following the LXX and D 13.5. But giνen the obscurity of'discipline'
ίη this context Justin may haνe wanted to avoid the possibility that the possessive pronoun might be
read as meaning not 'the discipline of our peace' but 'our discipline of peace'.
8 Marcoνich supplies 'Lord' from the LXX and D 13.5. But Justin's pagan readers would suppose
this to mean the master ofJesus, especially as the Isaiah quotation refers to a 'servant' at ιΑ 50.3. Justin
is unlikely to haνe wanted to suggest in this context that God gave Jesus for our sins, since ίη ιΑ 50.2 he
quotes a Christian reworking of Isa. 53: 12 to say 'they gave his soul to death'. ΒΥ omitting the word
Justin has avoided this unwanted inference, and allowed the text to suggest that it was 'a human being
led astray ίη his way' who gaνe him for our sins.
 208 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

(' " "

ΎJμων. και αυτος
\" δ"
ια το κεκακωσ
Λ θ "Ι , Ι ''''''' r /β
αι ουκ ανΟΙΥει το στομα αυτου· ως 7Τρο α- him for our sins. And he does not open his m.outh at his ill-treatment; he
τον ε7ΤΙ σ
,, Φ
αYΎJν ΎJX
, "θ
ΎJ,
\ r
και ως
, \, Ι
αμνος εναντιον του κειΡοντος αυτον α
,.., Ι , \ "Φ
ωνος, was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb without voice before its
"Ι Ι 'Λ Ι 'Λ ι
t/
ουτως ουκ ανΟΙΥει το στομα αυτου.
\ ,.....
50.11. εν ττι τα7Τεινωσει αυτου ΎJ κρισις
C'
shearer, so does he not open his mouth. 50.11. His judgement was
αυτου
, Λ ,Ι
ΎJΡ
θ '
ΎJ· 50.12.
,
μετα
'j'
ουν το
\
σταυρω ΎJναι
θ..... ,Ι
αυτον, και
\
οι
C'
Υνωριμοι
ι
removed ίη his humiliation:.'l 50.12. Mter his crucifixίοή, therefore, even
5 αυτου
, ..... Ι
7Ταντες
,Ι
α7TεσTΎJσαν,. αρνΎJσαμενoι
,Ι ,Ι
αυτον.
t/
υστερον
δ ι
ε,
,
εκ νεκρων his acquaintances having denied him, all stood aloof. But later, when he 2 5
, ι , 'Φθ ι
ανασταντος και ο
'Λ' Λ Φ Ι Λ' '!' ι
εντος αυτοις και ταις 7Τρο ΎJTειαις εντυχειν εν αις 7Ταντα
, had risenfrom the dead and had appeared to them and had taught them
ταυτα
Λ
7TΡOεΙPΎJTO
ι
yενΎJσOμενα
Ι δδΙC
ι α~ανToς, και
' ,
εις ουρανον
, " ανερχομενον
ι
to read the prophecies ίη which all these things were foretold as going to
'δ ι ,ι , δ υναμιν
ι 'Λθ 'Λ Φθ Λ "Λ happen, and when they had seen him going Up to heaven and had believed
Ι οντες και 7Τιστευσαντες και εκει εν αυτοις 7Τεμ εισαν 7Ταρ αυτου
ι
λ α β οντες και
"Λ
εις 7Ταν Υενος
Ι 'θ ρω7Των
αν
ι ε
'λθ οντες,
ι ταυτα
Λ ε
'δ ιΙδ α~αν,
C και
' and had received power sent from there from him to them and had gone to
10 α7Τόστολοι 7TΡOσΎJYOρεύθΎJσαν. every race of human beings, they taught these things and were called 10
apostles.
51.1. '1να δ \
ε μΎJνυστι
Ι C',..
ΎJμιν το
,
7Τρο
Φ \
ΎJΤΙKOν 7Τνευμα
.. t/
οτι
('
ο ταυτα 7Τασχων
..... Ι

,
ανεκ
δ ΙΎJYΎJTOν
ι " ,ι
εχει το Υενος και
'β ασι λ ευει
ι Λ' θ Λ "Φ
των εχ ρων, ε ΎJ ουτως·
" ''1''
1 ΎJν 51. ι. And in order that the p~ophetic Spirit might make known to us that
Υενεαν αύτου τίς δΙΎJyήσεTαι; ότι αϊρεται α7ΤΟ της (228 a) Υης, ~ ζω~ αύτου the one who suffers these things has an ancestry that cannot be described
'θ ι , δ ι , ,
, \ ......,
α7ΤΟ των ανομιων αυτων ΎJKει εις
..... ''"' t/
ανατον. 51.2. και ωσω τους 7TOνΎJΡOυς and reigns3 over his enemies, it spoke thus: 'Who shall describe his descent?
15 αντι της ταφης αυτου και τους 7Τλουσίους αντι TOV θανάτου αύτου, ότι Because his life is removed from the earth, he has come to death from their 15
, ι "Ι 'δ' Ιθ
ανομιαν ουκ ε7TOΙΎJσεν, ου ε ευρε ΎJ
δ Ιλ Λ Ι ,.....
ο ος εν Τψ στοματι αυτου· και
\ Κ ι
υριος
( ' crimes. 51.2. And Ι shall give the evil ones in return for his tomb and the
βούλεται καθαρίσαι αυτον της 7TλΎJyης. 51.3. εαν δωτε 7Τερι άμαρτίας, ~ wealthy in place of his death, because he committed ηο crime nor was there
ψυx~ ύμων Όψεται σ7Τέρμα μακρόβιον. 51.4. και βούλεται Κύριος αΦελεΙV found deceit in his mouth. And the Lord wills to cleanse him of calamity.
α7ΤΟ 7Τόνου T~ν ψυx~ν αύτου, δειςαι αύτψ φως και 7Τλάσαι TiJ συνέσει, 51.3. Should you give in respect of sin your soul shall see long-lived seed.
20 δικαιωσαι δίκαιον εΟ δουλεύοντα 7Τολλοις, και τας άμαρτίας ~μων αύτος 51.4. And the Lord wills to take his soul from distress, to show to him light 20
ι δ' Λ "λ ι λλ' 'Λ' Λ and to fashion him with understanding, to vindicate the just one who serves
,
ανοισει. 51.5. ια τουτο αυτος κ ΎJΡOνOμΎJσει 7ΤΟ ους και των ισχυρων

μεριει
Λ
σκυ
Ιλ
α,
'θ'
αν
'!'
ων 7Ταρε
δ Ιθ
ο ΎJ εις
'θ ι
ανατον
(,/,"
ΎJ ψυXΎJ αυτου,
Λ
και
" εν τοις
Λ many well, and who will take upon himself our sins. 51.5. For this reason
,ι
ανομοις
'λ
ε ΟΥισ
ι θ
ΎJ,
'"
και αυτος
( ι
αμαρτιας 7ΤΟ
λλ Λ
ων
,Ι
ανΎJνεYKε, και
, δ'
ια
,
τας he shall inherit a multitude and he shall distribute spoils of the strong,
, ι
ανομιας αυτων αυτος 7Ταρε
'Λ " δ οΙθ'
ΎJ. 51. 6 . ως
( δ'ε και" εις τον, ουρανον
, , ,εμε
' λλ εν because his soul was given to death, and he was numbered among the
25 ,ι
ανιεναι κα θ ως ' 7Τροε Φ ΎJTευΙθ ΎJ, ' ι
ακουσατε. ι θ ΎJ δ ε' "
51.7. ε'λ εχ ουτως· "(ι1
.ι-J.ραTε lawless, and he has taken upon himself the sins of many and for their crimes 25
7Τυ
Ιλ
ας
'
ουρανων·
Λ
ανοιχ
, ι θ
ΎJTε,
" ινα
" εισε
'Ιλθ
τι ο
(β
ασι
λ'
ευς TΎJς
Λ δ ιC
o~ ΎJς. τις
ι,
εστιν he was handed over.'4 51.6. And hear how he was also going to go up to
'!'
ουτος ο(β ασι λ'
ευς Λ
TΎJς 'cΎJς;
δ Ος ΚΙ
υριος "Κ'
κραταιος και υριος δ υνατος. " heaven, just as it was foretold. 51.7. 1t was said thus: 'Lift up the gates of
the heavens. Be opened, ίη order that the king of glory might go ίη. Who is
this, the king of glory? The Lord the mighty and the Lord the powerful.'

ι Isa. 52: 13-53: 8.

2 Marcovich supplies a subject for the genitive absolute. It is not exceptional for the subject of a
genitive absolute to be omitted when it can be readily supplied from the context. Apart from ιΑ 8.4,
which we have emended οη other grounds, this is the case in the text as transmitted at 2Α 2.7; D 3.3;
49·4; 114-5; 123·8; and 132·3·
3 Marcovich supports his preference for the future by reference to ιΑ 41.1. But a future is natural
there because Justin is reporting a prophecy of what was going to happen. If the MS's present tense is
correct, Justin's meaning will be that the reign of Jesus has begun, even though his enemies have not
yet been made subject to him. When he cites Ps. 109(110): 1-3 at ιΑ 45 Justin understands it to mean
that Jesus reigns even before his enemies are subdued. The sending of the sceptre of power from
Jerusalem is the preaching of the apostles. At D 83.3-4, where the psalm is also cited, it seems clear
that 'enemies' is understood to refer particularly to the demons, from whose dominion many of the
gentiles are nονν escaping. Moreover, at ιΑ 51.6--7 the entry of the king of glory (Ps. 23(24): 7-8) is
interpreted as the ascension of Jesus to heaven after his resurrection.
6 αναστάντος Α] αναστάντος αυτού Mαrcovίch 12 βασιλεύει Α] βασιλεύσει Thirlby Aιfαrcovich 4- Isa. 53: 8-12, cited this time ίη the LXX form, whereas the last verse (53: 12) had been cited ίn ιΑ

Aιfunier 19 απο Α] απο τού Mαrcovίch 24 αυτων αυτος Α] αυτων AιIαrcovich 50.2 in a non-LXX form.
 210 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 211

5Ι • 8• ωs
r δ ι Ι. t.. Λ
ε και ες ουρανων παραγινεσ αι μετα
Ι θ ι δ ι t.
Ος YJS με
Ιλλ •
ει, ακουσατε και
ι ι
5ι.8. And how he was also going to come from heavenwith glory, hear
Λ
των Ι
ειΡημενων EιS
•
• Λ
τουτο δ ιαι Ίερεμιου
ι ι
τουΛ προ φ ητου. 5Ι.9. "δΙ
εστι ε ταυτα· also the things said ίη this regard through Jeremiah the prophet.
'Ίδ \ ( Ι\ ) θ ι " " ..... Φ λ.....
ου, ωs vΙOS ,αν ρωπου ερχεται επανω των νε ε ων του ουρανου,
....., ,. , " ,
και οι
( 5Ι.9. They are these: 'Behold one like a Son of Man comes upon the
αγγελοι αυτου συν αυτψ.' clouds of heaven, and his angels with him.' 1

5 52 • Ι • Έπει δ ηι ι
τοινυν ται γενομενα
. ι
η"δ η παντα
ι •
απΌ δ εικνυμεν
ι (8
22 b) Ι η,ι
πριν 52. ι . Since, then, we demonstrate 2 that all the things that have already 5
γενέσθαι προκεκηρύχθαι δια των προ.Φητων, ανάγκη και περι των όμο{ωs happened were proclaimed beforehand by the prophets before they
Φ ητευ θ εντων με οντων ε γινεσ αι, πιστιν εχειν ωs παντωs
ι λλ ι δ ι ι θ ι " r Ι happened, it is necessary to have faith also concerning the things similarly
προ

γενησομένων. 52.2. ον γαρ τρόπον τα ηδη γενόμενα προκεκηρυγμένα, καν foretold, out as going to happen, that they really are going to happen.
, ι ,ιβ" \ Ι
αγνοουμενα, απε η, τον αυτον τροπον και τα
'λ Ι
ειποντα, καν αγνοηται και
\ '1\,..... ,
52.2. For just as the things proclaimed beforehand that have already
!Ο
•
απιστηται, απΌ
Λ • βι
ησονται. 52.3. δΙ •ιΛ Ι Ι C.
υο γαρ αυτου παρουσιαs προεκηρυςαν οι
r
happened3 turned out to be true, even though they were not understood, !Ο
προφ"ηται-μ{αν μέν, την ηδη γενομένη ν, ώs ατ{μου και παθητου ανθρώπου, ίη the same way the remaining thi.ngs also will turn out to be true even
την δε δευτέραν όταν μετα δόξηs Εξ ουρανων μετα TiJS αγγελικηs αυτου though they are not unders~ood and are not believed. 52.3. For the
Λ Ι θ Ι Ι
aTpanaS παραγενησεσ
fl
αι κεκηρυκται, οτε και τα σωματα ανεγερει παντων
,\ , ..... 1
prophets proclaimed beforehand his two comings: one, indeed, which has
Λ ι. θ Ι
των γενομενων αν ρωπων,
Ι Λ ι, t. Ι δ Ι
και των μεν αςιων εν υσει α
Φθ Ι
αρσιαν,
, • Λ
των
δ' already happened, as of a dishonoured and suffering human being, but
15 •δ Ι " θ Ι ,ι
α ικων εν αισ ησει αιωνιq. μετα των
Ι Λ Φ Ιλ
αυ ων
δ Ι ,Ι, Ι Λ
αιμονων ειs το αιωνιον πυρ the second when it is proclaimed that he will come with glory from the 15
Ι ,1, δ ι Ι Λ Ι Ι δ λ Ι
πεμψει. 52.4. ωs
r
ε και ταυτα προειΡηται γενησομενα, η ωσομεν. heavens with his angelic army, when also he shall raise the bodies of all
• Ιθ η δ ει δ ιαι Ίε':,εκιη
52.5. ερρε Υ ιλ
τουΛ προ Φ ητου
Ι t,
ουτωs· 'Σ
υναχ θ ησεται
Ι r Ι
αρμονια human beings who have existed, and he shall bestow incorruptibility4 οη
ι r Ι Ι, Ι Ι, Ι" Ι Ι • φ ι ,
those of the worthy but those of the unjust he will send to the everlasting
προs αρμονιαν και οστεον προs οστεον, και aapKES ανα υησονται.

52.6. 'και παν γόνυ κάμψει Τψ Κυρ{ψ, και πασα γλωσσα Εξομολογήσεται fire, everlastingly subject to pain,5 with the evil demons. 52.4. And how
20
, Λ' ,t, δ Ι 'θ Ι ι λ Ι Ι θ
αυτψ. 52.7. εν οιq. ε αισ ησει και κο ασει γενεσ αι με
Ιλλ r "δ
ουσιν οι α ικοι, these things too have been foretold as going to happen, we shall make 20
ακούσατε των όμο{ωs ElS τουτο εΙρημένων. 52.8. εστι δε ταυτα· 'ΙΟ clear. 52.5. It was said through Ezekiel the prophet thus: 'joint shall be
Ιλ ηςt.
σκω 'Λ
αυτων ου• παυ θ ησεται,
Ι
καιι τοΙ Λ
πυρ Λ
αυτων
•
ου'β
σ εσ θΙ
ησεται. , joined to joint and bone to bone, and flesh shall grow again.' 52.6. 'And
every knee shall bend to the Lord, and every tongue shall confess him. ,6
52.7. And ίη what kind of consciousness and punishment the unjust are
going to be, hear the things said similarly ίη this regard. 52.8. ΤheΥare 25
these: 'Their worm shall not cease, and their fire shall not be quenched.

1 This is a quotation from Dan. 7: 13, influenced by Matt. 25: 31. The first part is correctly attributed

to Daniel four tirnes ίη the Diαlogue (14.8; 31.1; 76.1; 79.2). While the Diαlogue passages quote a straight
text, here Justin uses a testirnony source, cf. Skarsaune, Pτoqf .from Propllecy, 88--g0. For sirnilar
misattributions, cf. Prigent, Justin et L Άncίen Testαnlent, 278.
2 We retain, with Blunt, the present tense of the MS, against Otto and Marcovich, who emend to an
imperfect. The irnperfect is paleographically attractive, but does not irnprove the sense. If the present
tense cannot stand, then an aorist or perfect would be required. But there is ηο reason why the present
cannot stand.
3 Marcovich emends the text to mean 'just as the things that have already happened eventuated as
they were proclairned beforehand'. But with the adoption of καν ίη place of και the MS text makes
good sense. Justin distinguishes two kinds of things that were foretold, those that have already
happened, and the rest. The former turned out to be true, even though before the corning of Christ,
the interpreter ofthe prophecies (cf. ιΑ 32.2), ηο one was able to,-understand them; the latter will turn
out to be true, irrrespective of whether they are understood or believed by those who now do have the
possibility of understanding them and believing them.
4- Cf. ιΑ 19-4, where it is said the 'bodies will put οη incorruptibility"

5 αποδε{κνυμεν Α] απεδε{κνυμεν Otto Mαrcouich 8 γεν6μενα Α] γεν6μενα ώς Mαrcomch καν 5 Justin uses the same word, αϊσθησις, at ιΑ 18.2-3, 20-4, and at 52.7, where we have translated

Seιnisch Otto Mαrcouich] και Α !Ο απιστηται Β edtZJ απιστειται Α 13 παραγενήσεσθαι Α] 'consciousness'. Although the notion of susceptibility to pain underlies all these usages, ίη the other
παραγένψαι ώς Veil Mαrcouich 14 και Α] και τα Mαrcouich ένδύσει edtZJ ένδύση Α δ' Α] δε cases it is human beings, or souls, that are said to retain this quality after death.
Blunt Ι7 Ίεζεκιηλ edtZJ Ίεζεκιηλ Α 6 Α composite quotation ofEzek. 37: 7-8 and Isa 45: 23b.
 212 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF ΟΡ CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF ΟΡ CHR1ST1ANS 213

52.9. και\ τοτε

,
μετανοησουσιν,
,
οτε
t/ \ ω'Φ ε λ'ησουσι. (
ου'δ εν 229) Λ
a 52.10. ποια 52.9. And then they shall repent when .they shall gain nothing.'l
δε μέλλουσιν οί λαοι των 'Ιουδαίων λέγειν και ποιειν όταν ϊδωσιν atJT(JV εν 52.10. And what sorts ofthings the peoples ofthe Jews are going to say
δόςπ παραγενόμενον, δια Ζαχαρίου του ΠPOΦ~Toυ προΦητευθέντα, ελέχθη and to do when they see him having come in glory is said thus, foretold
OiJTWS' 'Έντελουμαι τοι'} τέσσαρσιν άνέμοιι; συνάςαι τα εσκορπισμένα through Zechariah tlle prophet: 2 Ί shall command the four winds to
, , " λ Λ
5 τεκνα' εντε ουμαι Τψ
Λ β
0PPC!Λ Φ'ερειν και\ ΤψΛ'
νοτψ μη προσκοπτειν.
\ , ,

gather the scattered children. Ι shall command the Νorth Wind to carry 5
52.11. 'και τότε εν Ίερουσαλημ κοπεται; μέγαs,' 'ου κοπεται; στομάτων ij them and the South Wind not to blow against them.'3 52.11. 'And then
χειλέων άλλα κοπεται; καρδίαs" 'και ου μη σχίσωσιν αυτων τα ίμάηα άλλα ίη Jerusalem great lamentation', 4 'not lamentation of mouths or lips, but
\ "
ται; δ ιανοιαs. 52.12. ",/,
κοψονται \ \
Φ υ λ η προι; Φ υ λ'
ην' " \ ''',/, ι,
και τοτε οψονται ειι; ον ,
lamentation of the heart, and they will tear not their garments but their
εςεκέντησαν' 'και ερουσι, Τί Κύριε, επλάνησαι; ήμαι; άπα τηι; όδου σου;' 'ή understanding'.5 52 .12. 'Tribe shall mourn unto tribe.'6 'And then they
ΙΟ δόςα ην ευλόγησαν οί πατέρει; ήμων εγεν~θη ήμιν είι; OVEιaos.' shall gaze οη him whom they have pierced.'7 'And they shall say, "Why, Ο ΙΟ
Lord, have you led us astray from your way?,,,8 'The glory which our
53.1. \
Πο λλ αι; \ 'i'
μεν ουν < ,
και\ ετεραι; προ Φ'" 'Λ'
ητειαι; εχοντει; ειπειν, 'θ α,
επαυσαμε fathers praised became for us a reproach.,9
, ι \ Ι, \ " , , \ \ '1"-
αυταρκειι; και ταυται; ειι; πεισμονην τοι'} τα ακουσηκα και νοερα ωτα

53.110 Although we have ma:nΎ other prophecies to tell, we have ceased/ 1

reckoning these to be sufficient for the persuasion of those who have ears

ι This is hardly an interpretation ofthe text in ιΑ 52.8, and it is difficult to understand it other than
as intended to be part of the quotation. Ιη the composite quotation at ιΑ 52.5-6 the first half of the
prophecy deals with physiological dimensions of the resurrected state of the wicked, and the second
halfwith psychological dimensions. Ιη 52.8-9 there is again a reference first to physiological and then
to psychological distress. We suggest that Justin is putting both forward as a quotation from prophecy.
Irenaeus says ofthe son in Matt. 21: 29 who refused to obey the command ofhis father to go into the
vineyard that 'afterwards he repented, when repentance gained him nothing ('et postea paenituit,
quando nihil profuit ei paenitentia', AHIV.36.8).
2 The complex assemblage of quotation and allusion in ιΑ 52.10--12 was described by Prigent (Justin
et l>Ancien Testαment, 316) as 'un magnifique centon', and by Skarsaune as 'a nicely constructed poem'
(Proqf.ftom Prophecy, 76). Both considered it to be a source utilized by Justin againsXits own meaning, for,
in Skarsaune's words, the compiler 'is very concerned about Israel, and seems to take a much more
positive view ofIsrael's eschatological metαnoiα than Justin himself' (78).
3 Cf. Zech. 2: ΙΟ, Isa. ΙΙ: 12 and 43: 5f. Ιη the citation ofIsa. 43: 6 Justin or his source has interpreted
the meaning of μη κώλυε ('do not hinder'). The LXX text is Ί wil1 say ... to the south wind: "Do not
hinder." ,
4, Cf. Zech. 12: ΙΙ. 5 Cf. Joe12: 12 f and Isa. 29: 13. 6 Cf. Zech. 12: 12.
7 Cf. Zech. 12: 10. 8 Cf. Isa. 63: 17. 9 Cf. Isa. 64: ΙΟ.

ΙΙ €παυσάμεθα Α'ΟΧΊ παυομεθα
10 The text of this chapter appears to have suffered serious damage. However, οη our reconstruction,
elements of an elaborate orginal structure may still be discerned. Ιη 53.1-2 the importance of the
correspondence between prior prophecy and observable fulfilment is stated. Ιη 53.3 the desolation of
Judaea, the conversion of gentiles, and that gentile Christians are more numerous and more genuine
than Jewish/Samaritan Christians are asserted as observable facts. Ιη 53.5-7 prophecies about gentile
Christians being more numerous than Jewish/Samaritan Christians are alleged. Ιη 53.IΟ--ΙΙ proph-
ecies about gentile Christians being more genuine are alleged. Ιη 53.12 the persuasive power of
observable fulfilment of prophecy is restated. 53.8--g is a digression, explaining the prophetic reference
to Sodom and Gomorrah. The fact that the territory of these cities is still visibly a wasteland is not
related to the argument about prophecy, but simply explains for the benefit of a pagan audience what
it would mean to 'become as Sodom and Gomorrah'. The insertion of this digression may, however,
have puzzled an audience that had been told first that the desolation of the land of the Jews was
visible, and had then been offered a prophecy supporting the smaller number of Jewish/Samaritan
Christians in which they are said not to have become as a burnt, sterile wasteland.
11 Justin does not mean to mark a major break here. He means that he will not pile up any more
AC mrg prophecies, but will show how the ones he has so far amassed demonstrate his case.
 JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS '215

εχουσιν εΊναι λογισάμενοι και νοειν δύνασθαι αυτους -ήγούμενοι ότι ovx that can hear and understand, and we consi~er that such people are able
όμο{ως τοις μυθοποιηθεισι περι των νομισθέντων υίων του Δ ιος και -ήμε-ις to understand that it is not true of us also, as it is of the myths made up
μόνον λέγομεν αλλ' ουκ,αποδειςαι εχομεν. 53.2. τ{νι γαρ αν λόγψ ανθρώπψ about the supposed sons of Zeus, that we only make assertions, without
σταυρωθέντι έΠΕιθόμεθα ότι πρωτότοκος τψ αγεννήτψ θεψ έστι, και αυτος being able to show proofs. l 53.2. For by what reason would we believe ίn
5 την κρ{σιν του παντος ανθρωπε{ου γένους ποιήσεται, ει μη μαρτύρια πριν ~ a crucified man that he is the first-begotten of the unbegotten God and 5
έλθειν αυτον ανθρωπον γενόμενον κεκηρυγμένα περι αυτου εύρομεν και that he will himself undertake the judgement of the whole human race
ούτως γενόμενα; *** όρωμεν 53.3. γής μεν 10υδα{ων έρήμωσιν και τους if we had not found testimonies concerning him proclaimed before he
,\ \ "θ 'θ Ι
απο παντος ε νους αν ρωπων '2'29
( b) δ ια\ της
Λ \ Λ' 'λ 'Λ
παρα των αποστο ων αυτου came as a human being and having happened thuS?2*** We see 53.3. the
διδαχής ΠΕισθέντας και παραιτησαμένους τα παλαιά, έν οΤς πλανώμενοι desolation' of the land of the Jews, and those from every race of human
ΙΟ ανεστράΦησαν, εθη, tέαvτους -ήμας όρωντεςt πλε{ονάς τε και αληθεστέρους beings persuaded through the teaching from his apostles, and scorn- ΙΟ
τους ές έθνων των απο Ίουδα{ων και Σαμαρέων Χριστιανους εΙδότες. ing their old ways ίn which they had conducted themselves erroneously, 3
53.4. Τα\ μεν
\ γαρ\ α"λλ α παντα
Ι ι, θ Ι Ι \ Λ Φ Λ
γενη αν ρωΠΕια υπο του προ ητικου πνευ-
Ι t ... t knowing those from the nations to be more numerous and more
ματος καλειται εθνη, το δε Ίουδαί'κον και ΣαμαΡΕιτικον φυλον Ίσραηλ και genuine Christians than th<;:>se from the ]ews and the Samaritans.
τ
οικος
Ί
ακω
\ β κεκ
Ι λ ι
ηνται. 53.5. ως
δ \ Φ 'θ <, λ Ι Ι, \
ε προε ητευ YJ οτι π Ειονες οι αποτων
Λ 53.4. For all other races of humans are called nations by the prophetic
Spirit, but the ]ewish and the Samaritan are called the tribe of Israel and 15
the house of ]acob.4: 53.5. But as to the fact that it was foretold that

7 post γεν6μενα lacunam suspicamur
1 The construction is broken. The comparison should not be with myths but with their makers.
2 We believe that there is a significant lacuna in the text at this point, and that an attempt has been
made to stitch together the torn ends. Most editors and translators take the content of ιΑ 53.3 to be an
exemplification of testimonies that have been found and ατe seen to be fulfilled (ούτως γεν6μενα
έωρωμεν). But the testimonies were said to be concerning Christ, whereas the events referred to in 53.3
are the destruction of the land of the Jews and the conversion of the gentiles. The devastation of the
land ofthe Jews had been introduced at 47.1 and the conversion ofthe gentiles at 49.1ff. These themes
may have been reprised in the lacuna, and the evidence oftheir occurrence presented in 53.3. But the
lacuna must also have contained an exegesis ofthe prophecies quoted in 52.10-12, perhaps to the effect
that the scattered children represent the 'nations'; that 'tribe shall mourn unto tribe' represents the
Jewish and Samaritan races, glossed in 53-4 as 'tribe of Israel and house of Jacob'; and that gentile
converts will be more numerous and truthful than those from Israel and Samaria (cf. ιΑ 51.5, 'he shall
inherit a multitude'). The dubious truthfulness ofSamaritan converts will be taken υρ in the discussion
of Simon and Menander in 56.1 f. Editors emend the present tense 'we see' at the end of 53.2 to an
imperfect, so that it can form part of the protasis of the unreal conditional sentence. But if the force of
this sentence was, as it is taken to be by Barnard, 'unless we had found testimonies ... and unless we
had seen that things had thus happened' (cf. Wartelle and Munier), this verb should be in the aorist
rather than the imperfect. We construe this verb with the beginning of ιΑ 53.3.
3 We suspect that έαυτους ~μας όρωντες, 'seeing ourselves too' (Barnard), which we have obelized,
may conceal a phrase describing how the gentile converts have dedicated themselves to the unbegotten
God, cf. ιΑ 14.2, 'Τψ αγαθψ και αγενήτψ θεψ έαυτους ανατεθεικ6τες, and ιΑ 25.2; 49.5; 6Ι.Ι.
4 The purpose of this sentence is to explain to an unfamiliar audience the specialized use of
'nations' to describe those who are not the chosen people, i.e. 'gentiles" Most commentators take the
adjectives jewish' and 'Samaritan' as qualifYing 'tribe" Otto translates 'iudaicae autem et samaritanae
tribus' (cf. Wartelle, Hardy); Barnard supplies 'races' and takes 'tribe' with 'Israel': '. .. but the Jewish
and Samaritan [races] are called tribe of Israel and House of Jacob' (see also Hall, 'From John
Hyrcanus to Baba Rabbah', 41). Justin's use of a plural verb for 'are called' suggests that he is thinking
of Jews and Samaritans as separate races rather than collectively as a single tribe. Both 'tribe ofIsrael'
and 'House ofJacob' occur in the LXX, but not especially frequently. There is nothing to suggest that
the former might be used to describe Jews and the latter to describe Samaritans, unless, perhaps, Justin
has been influenced by the story of the Samaritan woman who in John 4: 12 refers to jacob our
father'. Blunt (followed by Wartelle and Barnard) observed that 'it is very remarkable that [Justin]
όρωμεν Α] έωρωμεν edd should join the Samaritans so closely with the Jews'. But what is more remarkable is that he should feel
 ( '-'

JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRIST.IANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

'θ ~ ι ~,
ε νων πιστευοντες των απο
\ '1ου δ αιων
ι
και
\ Σ ι \ Φ θ ι
αμαρεων, τα προ ΊΊτευ εντα believers from the nations would be more numerous than those from the
, λ ~ 'λ ι θ δ
απαγγε ουμεν. ε εχ YJ ε ουτως'
'Ε'Φ ι θ\" ~ ι , Ι Ι ~C
υ ραν ΊΊΤΙ, στειΡα YJ ου τικτουσα' PYJf:,Ov. Jews and the Samaritans, we shall announce the things prophesied. It was
και
\
β Ι ι" δι "
ΟΊΊσον, YJ ουκ ω ινουσα, οτι πο
λλ \ \ Ι ~'I
α τα τεκνα ΤΊΊς εΡΊΊμου μα
~λλ ,ι ~
ον YJ ΤΊΊς said thus: 'Rejoice, barren one who has not been pregn~nt, cry and shout,
έχούσΊΊς τον ανδρα.' 53.6. εΡΊΊμα γαρ ~ν πάντα τα εθνΥ] άλΊΊθινου θεου, you who were not ίη labour, for many more are the children of the des-
5 χειρών εργοις λατρεύοντα, '1ουδαιοι δε και Σαμαρεις, εχοντες τον παρα του erted one than ofher who has a husband.'l 53.6. For all the nations were 5
θεου λόγον δια τών ΠΡΟΦΊΊτών παραδοθέντα αυτοις και άει προσδοκ-ήσαντες bereft οΓ the true God, worshipping the works of their hands. Jews and
τον Χριστόν, παραγενόμενον ήγνόΊΊσαν., πλην ολίγων τινών ους προειπε το Samaritans, οη the other hand, possessing the word from God handed
αγιον ΠΡΟΦΊΊτικον πνευμα δια Ήσαιου σωθ-ήσεσθαι. 53.'. εΊπε δε ώς άπο over to them through the prophets and always expecting the Christ,2 did
προσώπου αυτών' 'Ει μη Κύριος έγκατέλιπεν ήμιν σπέρμα, ώς Σόδομα και not recogriize himwhen he came, except for a few, who, the holy prophetic
!Ο Γόμορρα αν έγεν-ήθΊΊμεν.' 53.8. Σόδομα γαρ και Γόμορρα πόλεις τινες Spirit foretold through Isaiah, were going to be saved. 53.'. It spoke as !Ο
, β~
ασε ων
'δ
αν ρων
~ ι
ιστορουνται
~
υπο
Ι \ Μ
ωυσεως
ι
γενομεναι
Ι ,\
ας πυρι και
\
EL<tJ
\ θ ι from their own character: 'If the Lord had not left a seed behind for us, we
ι
καυσας ο
ι θ \
εος
ι ,Ι.
κατεστρεψε, μΥ]
δ \
ενος
~
των
,
εν
,~
αυταις
θ ι λ
σω εντος π ΊΊν
\ would have become as Sodom and Gomorrah. ,3 53.8. For Sodom and
άλλοεθνους τινος, Χαλδαίου το γένος, Ψ (230 a) Όνομα Λώτ, συν Ψ και Gomorrah are recorded by Moses to have been certain cities of wicked
θυγατέρες διεσώθΊΊσαν. 53.9. και την πασαν αυτών χώραν, εΡΊΊμον και men which God overthrew aήd burnt with fire and brimstone, with none
ι
15 κεκαυμενΊΊν ουσαν
'i" \
και
"
αγονον
Ι
μενουσαν,
(β
οι
λ ι
ου ομενοι
(,..."
οραν εχουσιν. of their inhabitants being saved except for a certain foreigner, Chaldean 15
53.10. ώς δε και άλΊΊθέστεροι οί άπο τών έθνών και πιστότεροι προεγιν­ by race, whose name was Lot. With whom his daughters were also saved.
ώσκοντο, άπαγγελουμεν τα εΙΡΊΊμένα δια Ή σαιου του προΦ-ήτου. 53.9. And those who wish are able to see the whole of their territory a
53.11. \"
ε"Φ YJ δ ε ουτως' ''1 σραΥ]\ λ'απεριτμΊΊτος
Ι ΤΊΊν
\
καρ δ ιαν,
ι \
τα\ δ ε ε"θ νΥ] ΤΊΊν \ wasteland and burnt and still sterile. 53.10. But as to the fact that those
from the nations were foreknown as more genuine 4 and more faithful, we
shall announce the things said through Isaiah the prophet. 53.11. He 20
spoke thus: 'Israel is uncircumcised ίη heart, but the nations ίη their

constrained to mention the Samaritans at all. 1π ιΑ 56.3 Justin includes a reference to Simon of
Samaria in a formal statement of his petition, and it may be that he wishes, ίπ advance of that, to
underline that Samaritans are included with Jews in Old Testament prophecies which contrast them
unfavourably with gentiles. But Hall has observed that 'Samaritan' cannot always mean for Justin a
member of the 'Samaritan ethnic group', since Justin describes himself as being of the Samaritan
genos atD 120.6 ('FromJohn Hyrcanus to Baba Rabbah', 45f.). At ιΑ 26.3 Samaritans are described, by
implication, as an ethnos (cf. also 2Α 15.1, which we have treated as a dislocated fragment). 1π AD 123/124
an embassy from Justin's birthplace to Ephesus referred to 'the council and people (boule and demos)
of the Flavian Neapolitan Samaritans' (Millar, The Romall Near Eαst, 368). If Simon and Menander
are, like Justin himself, people who describe themselves as Samaritans because they were born there,
there would be πο point ίπ drawing attention to Samaritans as a group who, like the Jews, receive
unfavourable notice ίπ some scriptural passages ίπ comparison with gentiles. 1t is possible, however,
that this sentence was originally also tied ίπ to an explanation of 'tribe shall mourn unto tribe' at ιΑ
52.12, and that the passage suffered deep textual corruption here, as well.
ι 1sa. 54: ι.
2 This phrase incorporates identical expressions found ίπ ιΑ 49.5: 'For the]ewsJ who have the p1"Ophecies
alld who were alwαys expectillg the Chrίst [ο come did 1l0t recogιιize hi,n when he cαιne .. .' Justin is not necessarily
J

4 εχούσης edd] εχουσούσης Α
in error when he says that the Samaritans have the word of God through the prophets (pace Hall,
'From John Hyrcanus to Baba Rabbah', 47), since, although most of his proof-texts are from the
prophets, he also regarded Moses as a prophet (ιΑ 32.1; 44.8; 54.5; 59.1; 62.2; 63.16), and Moses is
quoted a little later. 1t is possible that the idea of the Samaritans awaiting the Messiah has been
influenced by John 4: 29·
3 1sa. ι: 9.
4- Justin does not elsewhere use the word ofhuman beings. There may be an influence fromJohn 4:
21-3: 'Believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither οπ this mountain nor in
Jerusalem ... the hour is coming and is now here when tτue worshippers will worship the Father in
!Ο αν edd] αν Α ΙΙ Μωυσέως] Μωσέως Α spirit and ίπ truth.'
 218 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

άκροβυστ{αν.' 53.12. *** τα TOaaVTa yOVV όρώμενα 1Τειθω και 1Τ{στιν τοις foreskins.' 1 53. ι 2. *** When such things a.r:e seen they can reasonably2
μη ι ο o~Cουσι
Λ
, ι
" ασ1Ταl;,ομεvοιS'
ταληθες r και"Φλδ Λ μη δ'Ι'
ε υ1ΤΟ 1Τα θ ων αρχομενοις
' Ι μετ α, provide those who embrace the truth, and are not lovers of ορίηίοη, or
λόγου 1ΤροσεμΦορήσαι δύναται. ruled by passions, with persuasion and assurance as well. 3

54.1. Ο ιΙ δ'
ε 1Ταρα δ ι δ οντες
ι 'θ
τα μυ 01Τοιη θ εντα
ι Ι, των
υ1ΤΟ Λ Λ
1Τοιητων ου'δ εμιαν
ι
54.1. But those who hand down the myths invented by the poets supply
, Ιδ C
5 α1ΤΟ ει~ιν
Φ Ι Λ'
ερουσι τοις εκμαν
-θ ι / C\' \) Ι , , ,.. Λ
ανουσι νεοις, α ε1ΤΙ α1Ταττι και α1ΤαγωγTl του
ηο demonstration at all for the youths who learn them by heart. These 5
, ι
ανθρω1Τειου γενους
ι , Λ
ειΡησ αι
θ ' δ ι
α1ΤΟ εΙΚJlυμεv κατ
, , Ι
ενεργειαν
Λ
των
Φ Ιλ
αυ ων
things we demonstrate to have been said by the working of the evil demons
δαιμόνων. 54.2. άκούσαντες γαρ δια των 1ΤροΦητων κηρυσσόμενον 1Ταρα- for the deception and misdirection of the human race. 54.2. For when
ι
γενησομενον 'Χ"
τον ριστον και κο λ ασ θ ησομενους
ι δ' "βΛ
ια 1Τυρος τους Λ
ασε εις των ,
they heard through the prophets that the future coming of Christ was
άνθρώ1Των, 1Τροεβάλλοντο 1Τολλους λεχθήναι λεγομένους υίους Τψ Διί', νομ­ proclaimed and that the impious among human beings were going to
ι δ ι θ 'Λ
ιζοντες υνησεσ αι ενεργησαι τερατο λ ογιαν
ι Ι ι
ηγησασ θ "θ
αι τους ι
αν ρω1Τους τα,
10
be punished by fire, they threw many so-called4 sons of Zeus into the 10
1Τερι τον Χριστον και όμοια TOΙS- ύ1ΤΟ των 1Τοιητων λεχθεΙσι. 54.3. και discussion,5 considering they would be able to bring it about that human
TaVTa δ ' ε'λ εχ
ι θ η και' εν
, 'Έλλ ησιν και""θ Λ
εν ε νεσι 1Τασιν, Λλλ'
01Του μα ι
ον ε1Τηκουον
"

beings would consider the things said about Christ to be a marvellous

fable, and similar to the things said by the poets. 54.3. And these things
were said both among the Greeks and among all the nations, where-as

ι post aκροβυστίαν lacunam suspicamur
4 ουδεμίαν edιi] ουδε μίαν Ν pr m; ου μίαν Α*
Α] λεχθηναι γενομένους ]IIfαran Qtto Blllnt Μαι"COvίch Munier, τεχθηναι λεγομέ;ους Le Cleπ Thalemann
ι ι ομοια Thirlby edιi] όμοίως Α Ι2 Έλλησιν Α] Έλλησι Qtto Blunt Μαι"COvιc!ι
ι The text is fromJeremiah (9: 25), not Isaiah. It is hard to see how Justin could imagine that anyone,
let alone a gentile, could see this text as proving what it is supposed to proνe. The difficulty is
compounded by the citation of the text ίη a form eνen less likely to be understood by a gentile
audience. Justin's word for foreskin (akrobustia) is not found outside ofbiblical and ecclesiastical writers.
It is likely that the MS text is corrupt, and that an elucidation of this testimony, and perhaps also an
account of visible proof of its fulfilment, has been lost. The LXX text ofJer. 9: 25 is, 'for all the nations
are uncircumcised ίη their jlesh, and the whole house of Israel are uncircumcised with respect to their
hearts'. Circumcision was also practised by Samaritans. Origen says that Samaritans 'are put to death
οη account of circumcision as Sicarii, οη the ground that they are mutilating themselνes contrary to
the established laws and are doing what is allowed to Jews alone' (Contra Celsunz Π.Ι3, tr. Chadwick),
and Justin may haνe made reference to this here.
2 This echoes Justin's assumption ίη ιΑ 53.2 that Christians need a reason to belieνe ίη a crucified
man.
3 Sylburg's conjecture of εμποιησαι (produce, cause) for the MS's εμφορησαι has not won faνour
with editors. But the MS reading is unlikely to be correct. Έμφορησαι means to fill, and nearly always
has a pejorative sense, e.g. 'filled with unmixed wine" Ιη this sense it is usually constructed with an
accusatiνe of the person and a genitive of the thing, except when the accusative of the thing is used as
an inner object after a middle form ('fill oneself with .. .'). When, as here, it takes an accusatiνe of the
thing and a dative of the person, it means 'inflict', as ίη 'inflict blows on" We have conjectured
προσεμφορησαι, 'to put into ίη addition' (LSJ). Ιη the passages ίη Plutarch referred to by LSJ-De
SuΡeπtίtίοne 7 (I68a), De se ipsuιn citra invidiam lαudando 20 (547c), and Non posse suαviter υίυί secundunz
EpicuruIn 25 (ι I04b)-it is plain that the νerb means to supply further things to the mind of someone.
Thus, ίη our passage, those who already embrace the truth can be provided with persuasion and
assurance as well. We suggest that 'the things seen' referred to confirmation of prophecies about
gentile Christians being more numerous, more genuine, and more believing than Jewish ΟΓ Samaritan
Christians, and tb.at this has fallen out of the text. Such confirmation offers an additional motive to
that of the confirmation of testimonies about Jesus referred to ίη ιΑ 53.2. Προσεμφορησαι may haνe
lost its first prefix after corruption ίη 53.ΙΙ had οbSCU1'ed the force ofthe νerb.
4 The reading of γενόμενους [Ο1' λεγόμενους ('many sons begotten to Zeus to be spoken of'), first
proposed by Μa1'an and adopted by many editors, is possible, but not necessary. Justin may simply "XΪsh
3 προσεμφορησαι coniec] εμφορησαι Α to emphasize that those spoken ofby the poets as sons ofZeus are not really such, cf. ιΑ 53.Ι and 2Ι-4;
5 α Marcovich] και Α 9 λεχθηναι λεγομένους 55·Ι; 64·6.
5 The discussion, as Grabe noted, is amongst the poets; it is Justin who labels the sons of Zeus
'so-called' .
 220 JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1ST1ANS 221

'
των 7ΤροΦ'ητων 7Τιστευ θ ησεσ θ αι τον
'Χ' ,
ριστον 7Τροκηρυσσοντων. "
54.4. οη the demons overheard the prophets proc~aiming ίη advance-Christ
δ' '"
ε και, ακουοντες τα , δ'
ια Λ προ Φ ητων
των Λ λ'
εγομενα, ουκ ενοουν ακρι β ως,
"" Λ α'λλ' would be more believed ίη. 54.4. And that they also did not accurately
ι
ως 7Τ λ'
ανωμενοι "
εμιμησαντο ' (230 b) 7Τερι"Ι,
τα τον ημετερον Χ'ριστον, understand the things they heard said through the prophets, but imitated
διασαΦfισoμεν. 54.5. Mωυσ~ς οδν ό 7TpoΦfιTης, ώς 7ΤροέΦημεν, 7Τρεσ- ίη erring fashion the things concerning our Christ, we shall make clear.
' ~, 7Ταντων συγγρα Φ'
εων, και'δ" Λ ως
Ι 7Τροεμηνυσαμεν, 7Τροε Φ
5 β υτερος 'ήν ι αυτου, ,
- 54.5. Thus Moses the prophet, as we said before, was older than all 5
ητεύθη ούτως' 'Ουκ εκλείψει αρχων ες 'Ιούδα και rιγOύμενOς εκ των μηρων writers,l and it was prophesied through him, as we mentioned before,2
αυτου
, ,.. Ι/
εως ""λθ
αν ε "ί" α7Τοκειται'
τι Ψ Ι και\ αυτος
" ,ι
εσται 7Τροσ δ οκια ε'θ νων,
Λ δ εσ-' thus: Ά ruler shall not fail from Judah and a leader from his thighs until he
ι \ ,ι λ 'Λλ 'Λ λ' λ'
μευων 7Τρος αμ7Τε ον τον 7Τω ον αυτου, 7Τ υνων την στο ην αυτου εν αιμαη
, ι/ , ,.., should c0!lle for whom it is laid up. And he shall be the expectation of the
σTαΦυλiις.' 54.6. τούτων οδν των 7ΤροΦηΤικων λόγων άκούσαντες, οί nations, binding his foal to the vine, washing his garment ίη the blood of
10 δ αιμονες
' Δ ιονυσον
' , ε"Φ ασαν γεγονεναι
μεν ,Ι, υιον τουΛ Δ' Ι
ιος, ευρετην'δ' 'θ αι
ε γενεσ the grape.'3 54.6. Therefore, hearing these 4 prophetic words, the demons 10
"λ 'δ
αμ7Τε ου 7Ταρε ωκαν, και 'δ θ" , , λ λ θ' , ,
ιασπαραχ εντα αυτον ανε η υ εναι εις ουρανον , said that Dionysus is the son of Zeus, and they handed down that he was
εδίδαςαν. 54.7. και ε7Τειδη δια T~ς Μωυσέως 7ΤροΦητείας ου ρητως the discoverer of the vine,5 and they taught that he was torn ίη pieces and
, ι 'C' \ ,..
εσημαινετο ει υιος του
θ ,. C' Ι Ι, \"
εου ο παραγενησομενος εση, και ει οχουμενος ε7ΤΙ
Ι , ,
that he has gone up to heayen. 6 54.7. And since it was not expressly
signified through the prophecy of Moses whether7 the one who is to come
is the son of God, and whether riding οη a foal he will remain οη the earth 15

4 Μωυσης] Mωσfις Α; Μ. μεν Marcovich
5 πάντων Α] πάντων των Mαγcomch
] Cf. ιΑ 44.8. Marcovich inserts the definite article (των), which might easily have fallen out afteI
πάντων as many editors have suggested happened at ιΑ 23.1. ButJustin does use συγγραΦεύς without
the aIticle, e.g. at ιΑ 22.1. He seems to use the aIticle when thinking of a more closely defined set of
writers: e.g. ιΑ 21.2, 'the wIiters you hold ίn honour'; ιΑ 36.2, 'your own writers'; ιΑ 44.8; 59.1, 'all the
wIiters in Greek'. lη 2Α 13.5, 'all the writers' Iefers back to 2Α 13.2, 'the others, Stoics, and poets, and
pΓOse-writers' .
2 Cf. ιΑ 32.1.
3 Cf. Gen. 49: 1Ο-ΙΙ and Skarsaune, Proqffi'om Prophecy, 25-9.
4 Justin's emphasis is significant. lη the prophecy ascribed to Sophonias at ιΑ 35.10 it is said that it is
express/y prophesied thatJesus will be seated οη the foal of an ass. At the beginning of ιΑ 54.7 Justin says
that it is not expressly signified through the prophecy ofMoses whether the foal was that of an ass ΟΓ a
hOIse.
5 The MS adds, 'and they record wine ίη his mysteries'. Some editoIs suggest 'ass' (ονον) ίη place
of 'wine' (οίνον). We regard this as a marginal gloss. There is a closely similar discussion in D 69.2
which may have influenced the editing of this text. Justin uses αναγράΦω ίη the sense of 'record' (cf.
D 69.2). The text, then, cannot mean that the demons pI'escribe either an ass ΟΓ wine ίη his mysteries.
Moreover, the verb is ίη the present tense, preceded by two aorists and followed by anotheI. If the
subject of all four verbs is identical, it is difficult to see the point of this change. But if the verb
means describe, its subject must be 'the writers', and the clause will then be parenthetical, with the
change of subject unmarked. lη D 69.2 the present tense is used for 'the Greeks sC9' that Dionysus
became son of Zeus from intercourse, which he had with Semele, and they recount that when he had
become discoveIer of the vine and had been torn apart and died he ΓOse and went υρ into heaven,
and they serve wine ίη his mysteries'. It seems to us that the glossator has kept the tense from this
passage but has taken the verb from the participle αναγραΦεϊσαν which occUIS six words later.
Several editoIs have beenattracted by the suggestion that ίη both ιΑ 54.6 and D 69.2 Justin spoke of
the involvement of asses ίη the Iites of Dionysus. While it seems that asses were so involved (Otto,
Di0'!Ysus, 170), it is not necessaIY to introduce this notion ίη ordeI to make good sense of what Justin
has to say here.
7 Ψ R. 6 Cf. ιΑ 21.2, where there is also mention ofPeIseus, Heracles, and Asclepius, as here.

Steplιαnus edtZJ δ Next; ώ Amrg ΙΙ παρέδωκαν coniec] παρέδωκαν και οίνον (ονον LaIιge fiylburg 7 ιΑ 54.7 is cOrΓupt, and has been variously emended by editors. We propose that the text as it stands

ThiI'Zby Otto) εν τοΙ> μυστηρ{οι> αυτοΩ αναγράΦουσι (ανάΥουσι Laιιge; αναΦέρουσι Thirlby) Α αυτον Α] represents an attempt to impose a more elaboIate structure than was originally present. We have
αυτον αναστηναι και Mαι'COvich 12 Μωυσέως] Μωϋσέος Α 13 ει coniec] ειτε Α εστι Α] restored a simple ει, ίη place ofthe MS's ειτε, which would have to be followed by a second element
εστι η ανθρώπου Otto Mαrcovich ('whether... or... '). Otto and MaIcovich retain ειτε and supply η ανθρώπου as the second element.
 222 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1STIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1STIANS 223

πω
'λ
ου
",...,
επι γης
Λ'\""
μενει η εις ουρανον ανε
λ ι ".....
ευσεται, και το του πω
'λ"
ου ονομα και
, or will go Up to heaven, and since 1 the word foal was able to signify the foal
σνου πώλον και ϊππου σημαίνειν έδύνατο, μη έπιστάμενοι εϊτε σνου πώλοS' both of an aSS and of a horse, not understanding whether the unbroken 2
, \" Ι β λ.... ι, ... ,Ι tl \ , t
ασαγης εσται συμ ο ον της παρουσιαS' αυτου ειτε ιππου, και ει ο foal of an ass or of a horse will be the symbol of his appearing, and
προκηρυσσομενος υιος
, "θ εου~, 'φ , 'θ 'Β ε-
εσην, ως προε ημεν, η αν ρωπων, τον
λ ., ' whether the one proclaimed beforehand iS the SOll of God, as we said
5 λ ερο Φ οντην,, " ,
και αυτον ε'φ'"
ιππου Π'
ηγασου, " θ ρωπον ε~
αν 'c αν ρωπων ,γενομε-
' θ' , before, or of human beings,3 they said that Bellerophon, a human being 5
,
νον εις ουρανον ,
"'Φ 'λ η λ υ θ'
ε ασαν ανε εναι. 54. 8. "οτε δ'"
ε ηκουσαν δ' ~ α"λλ ου
ια του born ofhuman beings, has gone up to heaven, and speci:fically οη the
προ
Φ ητου,
' Ή σαίΌυ,
l λ εχ θ' " δ'
εν οη ια παρ θ'
ενου τεχ θ'
ησεται και'δ"
ι εαυτου~ horsePegasus. 54.8. But when they heard it said through the prophet
ανελεύσεται εις τον ουρανόν, τον Περσέα (231 a) λεxθiιναι προεβάλλοντο. Isaiah as, we1l4 that he would be born of a virgin and would go up to
54.9. και οτε εγνωσαν ειρημένον, ώS' προλέλεκται έν ταις προγεγραμμέναις heaven by himself,5 they would throw Perseus into the discussion.
10 προ ,
Φ ητειαις, ''/ σχυρος" ,
ως γιγας δ ραμειν
~ ο'δ"
ον, 'Ήρακ λ εα
τον " ισχυρον , και , 54.9. And when they knew it was said, as it was said before ίη the 10

previously written prophecies, 'Strong as a giant to run his course', they

spoke of Heracles, the strong one who traversed the whole earth.

ι Marcoνich supplies Επει here, which is required in English; but we have taken this clause as also
depending οη 'since' at the beginning of the sentence.
2 We have supplied the word ασαγής from a closely similar passage ίη D 53.4, 'for as the unbroken

Ι και (10) Α] και Επει Marcovich
Π'Ροκτιρυσσόμενος coniec] ό προκτιρυσσόμενος και Α; ό προκτιρυσσόμενος και εΙ Thirlby Marcovich
4 ανθρώπων coniec] ανόϊι Α
8 προεβάλλοντο Α] προεβάλοντο Marcovich
2 πωλος ασαγης coniec] πωλον αγων Α
5 ανθρώπων !iYlburg Dtto Bluιzt Marcovich] ανόϊι Α
colt was a symbol ofthose from the gentiles, so the ass bearing the yoke was a symbol ofyour people'.
The word does not appear before Justin, and after him is found οηlΥ as a (plausible) conjectural
emendation of ασιγής ίη Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses IllulIliιzaιzdorum 12.10. It appears to be a descrip-
tion of the 'colt upon which ηο one has ever sat', and οη which the disciples threw their cloaks
(Luke 19: 30, 35 and Mark ΙΙ: 2,7). The related term used by Justin inD 53-4 to describe the ass bearing
the Υοke-ύποσαγης σίterallΥ 'saddled')-occurs nowhere else ίη the Greek literature noticed by TLG.
The literal meaning of ασαγής is 'unsaddled', but Williams's 'unbroken' is closer to Justin's meaning
(]ustiιz Martyr, The Dialogue with Tίypho, 105 f.). Justin thinks that the young colt is distinguished from a
beast ofburden at Zech. 9: 9 (cf. Matt. 21: 5), a text he discusses at ιΑ 35.IΟ-ΙΙ and D 53.3-4. It will be
observed thatJustin's language is likely to have puzzled his intended audience as much as it puzzled his
copyist, but that is not an argument against its authenticity, for the notion that the foal is a symbol of
his appearing is also new to the context. The references to the unbroken colt and to its symbolism are
properly at home in their context in the Dialogue, as they are not here. Either Justin is making careless
use of exegetical materials he has to hand, or, possibly, an early editor has added both references from
the Dialogue (cf. the gloss we have excluded above at ιΑ 54.6). Copyists, troubled by the neologism, have
changed it to αγων, and have changed the cases and made the subject of the next clause, 'the one
proclaimed beforehand', the subject of this clause, in an attempt to make sense. But the sense is
superficial: Jesus is nowhere described as 'leading' a colt.
3 Both here and a few words lateI the MS has 'of a human being'. Editors have supplied a pluIal οη
the second occasion, but not οη the first. The plural is found nine otheI times ίη Justin (ιΑ 21.2 (in
MS); 30.1; D 48.3; 48.4; 49.1 (bis); 54.2; 67.2; 76.2), and may have theological and polemical ροίηι Ifthe
singular is allowed, the phrase 'the son of God' has to be undeIstood to mean 'has God as his father'.
Jesus himself, like Dionysus, is describable as 'son of a human being'. ΟηΙΥ 'boIll of human beings'
excludes the possibility of a diνine parent.
+ The obvious translation would be 'the otheI prophet, Isaiah'. But αλλος can also be used ίη the
sense we have adopted; see our notes οη ιΑ 6.2 and 44.2.
5 That is, not by horse. EditoIs point to Isa. 7: 14, but the connection between this text and the
legend of Perseus is the virgin birth (cf. D 67.2 and ιΑ 22.5). Isa. 7: 14 furnishes ηο testimony text ίη
respect of ascending unaided to heaven, and this is not paIt of the Perseus legend. At D 63. ι Justin is
asked by Trypho to demonstrate that Jesus was born of a νiIgin, crucified, died, and after rising from
the dead went up to heaven. Justin meets the request by introducing a catena of testimony texts,
beginning with Isa. 53: 8 ('Who shall declare his descent'), which Justin explicitly interprets as pointing
3 και εΙ ό to Jesus' not being descended from human beings, and including Ps. 44(45): 7-13. The latter is
described by Skarsaune (P1"Oqff1"011l Prophecy, 201) as irrelevant to Justin's purpose, but it may have been
intended as proof of the ascension. When he speaks of 'the prophet Isaiah as well', Justin presumably
has this cluster of testimony texts ίη mind.
 224 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHR1STIANS JUST1N'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 225
,
εκπερινοστησαντα
, \
την
~
πασαν γην
~ "φ
ε ασαν. 54.10. "
οτε
~
οε
\ πα 'λ
ιν
,ι
εμα
θ
ον 54.10. And when again they learnt that he was prophesied as going to
' ,\ , \ \, \
Φ ητευ θ εντα
' θ ~ ~
προ εραπευσειν αυτον πασαν νοσον και νεκρουι; ανεγερειν, τον cure every illness and to raise the dead, they introduced Asclepius.
Άσκληπιον παρ~νεγKαν.
55. ι. But nowhere and about none of the so-called sons of Zeus did
Άλλ' ουδαμου ουδ' επί Τινοι; των λεγομένων υίων του Διοι; το σταυρ-
55.1. they imitate the crucifixion. For it was not understood by them, as the
5 ωθηναι εμιμ~σανTO· ου γαρ ενοειτο αυτοις, συμβολικωι;, ώι; πρoδεδ~λωTαι, things said concerning it were said symbolically, as was made clear earlier. 1 5
των εις τουτο ειρημένων πάντων λελεγμένων. 55.2. όπερ, ώι; προειπεν ό 55.2. This, as the prophet said beforehand, is the greatest symbol of his
ΠΡOΦ~Tηι;, το μέγιστον σύμβολον τηι; ισχύοι; και άρχηι; αυτου ύπάρχει, ώι; strength q.nd rule, as is shown also from the things which fall under the eye.
\, ;"\ t:, "'/t ι ς:- Ι Ι \ Ι " ......
For consider all the things that are ίη the world, if, without this pattern,
και εκ των υπ οψιν πιπτοντων υεικνυται. κατανοησατε γαρ παντα τα εν Τψ

κόσμψ, ει ανευ του σx~μαTOΙ; τούτου διοικειται ~ κοινωνίαν εχειν δύναται. they are administered ΟΓ are able to have cohesion. 55.3. For the sea is
10 55.3. θ α'λ ασσα \ \ "
μεν γαρ ου τεμνεται ην μη
,\ \ t ~ \,
τουτο το τροπαιον ο κα
C\ λ ~
ειται not cleaved unless, tthe mast, fixed ίη this way ίη the keel, t 2 remains secure 10

ίστίονt εν TV νηι: σωον μείντι, γη δε ουκ άρουται ανευ αυτου. σκαπανειι; δε in the ship, and the earth is not ploughed without ίι Diggers do not do
την
" Ι
εργασιαν ου
,
ποιουνται
..... )s::-'
ουυε
β
αναυσουργοι
\ (Ι
ομοιωι;,
, \
ει μη
~
υια
\
των
Λ
το
\
their work, ηΟΓ craftsmen likewise, unless by means of tools having this
σχημα τουτο εχόντων εργαλείων. 55.4. το δε άνθρώπειον σχημα ουδενι pattern. 55.4. And the human form differs from the irrational animals
αλλ ψ των άλόγων ζψων διαΦέρει ~ Τψ ορθόν τε εΊναι και εκτασιν χειρων ίη nothing other than ίη being upright and having the outstretching of the
15 εχειν και εν Τψ προσώπψ, άπο του μετωπίου τεταμένουι;, το λεγόμενον, hands and bearing οη the face nostrils,3 suspended, as it were,4 from the 15
~ c
μυ~ωTηραι;
Φ ~'... ,
tl' , , ~ ~ "λλ
ερειν, οι ων η γε αναπνοη εστι Τψ ,=>ψψ. και ουοεν α
~,
ο υεικ-
r' \, \ brow, through which, indeed, the living thing breathes. 5 And it shows ηο
νυσιν ~ το σχημα του σταυρου. 55.5. και δια του ΠΡOΦ~Toυ δε (231 b) other pattern than that of the cross. 55.5. And through the prophet it
ελέχθη οϋτωι;· 'Πνευμα προ προσώπου ~μων, Χριστοι; Κύριοι;.' 55.6. και was said thus: 'The Spirit before our face-Christ the Lord.'6 55.6. And
τα παρ' ύμιν δε σύμβολα T~ν του σx~μαTOΙ; τούτου δύναμιν δηλοι λλω μεν t your own symbols make clear the power of this pattern, tof vexilla and of

! Commentators indicate ιΑ 35. But Justin does not there say that what the prophets said of the

crucifixion was said symbolically. This may, however, have been said ίη the lacuna which we indicate at
ιΑ 35.2.
2 The MS has 'this trophy which is called a sail'. But we suspect that this is corrupt, and beyond
exact repair. 1t is not clear (a) why a sail should be thought to be ίη the form of the cross; (b) how a
sail might remain secure ίn the ship; (c) that a sail, of itself, causes the sea to be cleaved. We propose
that τρόπαιον (trophy) conceals a reference to a keel (τρόπι" τροπιδειον) and ίστ{ον (sail) conceals a
reference to a mast (ίστό,): our translation offers an approximate sense. 1t is the keel that cleaves the
sea. The fact that this cross-form is upside-down is irrelevant, as the same could be said of a plough.
Cf. Dionysius, Peri Phuseos ΙΙ (from Eusebius, Prαepαrαtio Evαngelica XlY.24, Feltoe, ρ. 136): 'and when a
ship was being constructed some keel did not put itself underneath nor did the mast raise itself upright
ίη the midst'; and Methodius (Contrα Porphyrium 1.8): 'Whence the sea, yielding to this form, renders
itself navigable for human beings.' The reference to a trophy later ίη this chapter, and perhaps later
Christian description of the cross as a trophy, may have triggered the corruption.
3 The MS has 'nostril', ίη the singular, which most translators and commentators take to mean the
nose, understanding brow and nose to form a cross. But the word does not mean this, and, according
to TLG, is not used ίη the singular unless the reference is specifically to one nostril only-but the
singular is found in some MMS ofIsa. 2: 22 (see below), and atJob 40: 26, 'ifyou shall bind a ring ίη
his nostril'.
4 The phrase το λεγόμενον is used to signal an unusual or fanciful turn of phrase. 1ts misreading as
masculine may have triggered the change ίη the number of nostrils. Justin's language ίη this section is
unusually poetic, but he· is concerned here with symbols. 1t is the nostrils through which humans
4 υίων edd] υίον Α 13 άνθρώπειον Nex'] άνθρώπινον AC! mrg 15 τεταμένου, coniec] breathe, and it is by the form of a cross (inverted, as ίη most of the other examples offered here) that
τεταμένον Α το coniec] τον Α 16 μυςωτΤιρα, coniec] μυςωτΤιρα Α J.ιν coniec] 015 Α γε the nostrils are connected with the brow.
Mαrcovich] τε Α και Α] α Tlzirlby },ιfαrcomch 19 λλω μεν Α* post spatium circiter quinque 5 Lit. 'through which there is breath (άναπνοή) to the living thing'; cf. Isa. 2: 22, 'Cease ye from the
litterarum] υις{(m~λλω μεν Ν 2 ; λέγω δε τα των ούης{λλων Otto Blunt; λέγω δε τα των καλουμένων παρ' man, whose breath is ίη his nostrils'. This verse is not found ίη the LXX, except for a few MSS, and
ύμιν ούις{λλων (vel βις{λλων) Thil"lby; ινα άμελωμεν Goodspeed; οίον τα των ούης{λλων Mαrcovich; ώ, τα some of those, and some other witnesses, have the singular, 'nostril'.
των ούης{λλων Munier 6 Lam. 4: 20. "
 JUSTIN'S A~OLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

και των τροπαίων δι' 6)ν αϊ τε πρόοδοι ύμων πανταχου γίνονταιt τΥις αρχΥις trophies, by means of which your progresses are everywhere madet, 1
και
'δ' ~, ,
υναμεως τα σημεια εν τουτοις
δ εικνυντες, , ' t'" ~
ει και μη νοουντες τουτο
~ demonstrating2 ίη these things the signs of authority and power, teven if
' t. 55.7.
πραττετε και
'''''''
των παρ
Ι
υμιν
i"'\ 'θ
απο
ι
νTlσκοντων
,
αυτοκρατορων
Ι
τας
\
without understanding it, you do thist.3~ 55.7. And you set up the images
εικόνας Επι τούτφ T(jJ σχήμαη ανατίθετε, και θεους δια γραμμάτων of your dead emperors onthis pattern/ and you name them gods through
5 , 'Υ
επονομα';,ετε. 55. 8 '
. και δ '
ια
λ' -;- "
~ φ
ογου ουν και σχηματος του αινομενου, οση
, ., inscriptions. 5 55.8. And having urged you οη,6 to the extent that we can, 5
'
δ υναμις, ,ι, '
προτρεψαμενοι υμας, "θ υνοι οι"3 αμεν λ'"
• ~ ανευ οιπον οντες, καν " .υμεις
~ by word and by the pattern of what is seen, we know that we are from now
απιστΥιτε' το γαρ ήμέτερον γέγονε και πεπέρανται. οη without blame, even· if you should not believe. For our duty has been
done and ,is accomplished.
56.1. ουκ ήρκέσθησαν δε οί φαυλοι δαίμονες προ τΥις Φανερώσεως του
Χριστου ειπειν τους λεχθέντας υίους Τψ Δ ιι: γεγονέναι, αλλ' Επειδή, Φανερ- 56.1. But to say, before the appearing of Christ, that Zeus had the sons
10 ω '
θ εντος 'Λ'
αυτου ' "εν αν θ ρωποις,
και γενομενου ' και,tι
οπως δ' ~
ια των προ Φ ητων
~ they said he had,7 was not enough for the evil demons. But-after he 10

προεκεκήρυκτο εμαθον, και Εν παντι γένει πιστευόμενον και προσδοκώμε­ had been made manifest and lived8 among human beings-since they
νον εγνωσαν, πάλιν, ώς προεδηλώσαμεν, προεβάλλοντο &λλους, Σίμωνα μεν both learnt how he had been proclaimed beforehand by the prophets
and recognized that he was believed ίη' and expected9 in every race,lO they
would again put forward others, as we made clear earlier,11 Simon, that is,

1 We suspect this passage to be corrupt beyond exact repair. Severallines of text may be missing.
The word πρ60δοι is usually understood to mean (military) processions, but it does not. It may well
conceal a reference to a standard-bearing party preceding the emperors. The standards were always
carried ίη the van ίη any military movement. There is ηο evidence of trophies being carried in a
normal procession οτ ίη the ordinary movement of a military unit. Α frieze of about 20 ΒΌ, formerly in
the Temple of ΑροlΙο at Rome, showed a trophy being carried ίη a triumphal procession (le Bohec, T1ze
Imperiαl Romαn Arιιιy, pl. XXXVlII.{o). Trophies may also have been carried, accompanied by stand-
ards, in processions to the temples where they were dedicated. But these are both specialized kinds of
procession, and do not sit well with the adverb 'everywhere'. The restoration of 'vexilla' is reasonable.
The Latin word is found nowhere else ίη Greek, but βήξιλλα occurs ίη Methodius, Contrα Porphyrium 1.8,
which has other affinities with this passage.
2 As the text stands, δεικνύν7ε!> is usually regarded as 'used by anacoluthon' in place of the genitive,

agreeing with ύμων: tlze progresses qfyou which show... (Otto, Blunt). It may originally have been ίη
agreement with πρ60δοι.
3 Justin cannot mean, as he is usually taken to mean, that the emperors do not know that they use
their insignia as the signs of their rule and power. We presume this to be a corruption of a statement to
the effect that the emperors were not aware that these were symbols also of a higher authority and
power.
4 Α scene οη Trajan's Column ίη Rome shows a military procession ίη which legionary standards
and vexilla are carried, together with praetorian standards 'decorated with images of the Imperial
family' (Maxfield, T1ze Nfilitαry DecorαtioιlS qftlze RomαnA1'n1:J, pl. 4b). These images surmount a crossbar
οη the standards.
5 Presumably this refers to an inscription naming the dei:fied emperor depicted.
6 Justin alludes to the philosophical genre of protreptic.
7 Lit. 'the spoken of sons'. For parallels to this phrase see ιΑ 21.1, 4; 55.1; 64.6; 2Α 4(5).5; together
with ιΑ 54.2.
8 Lit. 'came to be'. The phrase is equivalent to 'existed as a human being'; cf. D 64.7 and Irenaeus,

AHIv.20+
9 InJustin's usage the verb can refer to either the first οτ the second coming. For the former see ιΑ
49. ι; 49·5; 53·6, and for the latter ιΑ 32+ Ιη the present context Justin refers to the second coming.
Mter the incarnation, the demons adopt a new strategy. Νο longer content with obscuring the truth by
ascribing sons to Zeus, and recognizing that prophecies have been and will be fulfilled, they now seek
to mislead humans about the identity of the one who is still to come.
10 Marcovich adds 'of human beings'. This conforms with Justin's normal usage, but as he

Ι αϊ τε Α] αί' γε Mαrcoviclz 77)<; Α] 77)<; γαρ Mαrcovich 7 απισ7η7ε Otto Blunt Mαrcoviclz },ι[unίer] has already mentioned human beings a little earlier ίη the same sentence, the omission is readily
απιστειτε Α ΙΙ γένει Α] γένει ανθρώπων },ι[αrcovίch explicable.
11 Cf. ιΑ 26.1-4.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 229

και
\ 7111 Ι δ
ΙΥ1εναν ρον
'απο
,\ Σ Ι
αμαρειας, οι
,\ Ι
και, μαγικας
\ δ ι
υναμεις
ι
ποιησαντες, and Menander from Samaria, who deceived many by the performance
πολλους εξηπάτησαν και ετι άπατωμένους εχουσι. 56.2. και γαρ παρ' ύμιν, of rnagical feats and still hold them ίη a state of deception. 56.2. Why,
( ιφ 'Α β
ως προε ημεν, εν
λΙδ (D ι
TTJ
ασι ι ι Γωμτι επι
Κλ δΙ Τ7 Ι Ι ,\
αυ ιου nαισαρος γενομενος ο
• this was so even amongst yourselves. As we said before,l Simon was ίn
Σίμων και T~ν ίεραν σύγκλητον και τον δημον Ρωμαίων είς τοσουτο Royal Rome 2 under Claudius Caesar, and he so amazed the holy Senate 3
5 κατεπλήξατο ώς θεος νομισθηναι και άνδΡΙ(232 a)άντι, ώς τους αλλους παρ' and the Roman People that he was considered a god, and was honoured 5
ύμιν τιμωμένους θεούς, τιμηθηναι. 56.3.0θεν τήν τε ίεραν σύγκλητον και with a statue as are the other gods honoured among you. 56.3. Whence
τον δημον τον ύμέτερον συνεπιγνώμονας ταύτης ~μων της άξιώσεως παρα- we petition you to receive the holy Senate and your People 4 as joint
) adjudicatqrs with you of this our petition, ίη order that, should anyone be
λ α β ειν αιτουμεν, ιν ει τις ειη τοις απ εκεινου ι αγμασι κατεχομενος,
,... Λ ΙΙ) ,! ), ..... :),) ι δ δΙ Ι

τάληθες μαθών, T~ν πλάνην ΦυγεΙV δυνηθiι. 56.4. και τον άνδριάντα, εί held down by the teachings of this fellow he might be able, οη learning
ΙΟ βούλεσθε, καθαιΡήσατε. the truth, to flee the error. 56.4. And if it is your pleasure, pull down the ΙΟ
statue.
57.1. ου γαρ μ~ γενέσθαι T~ν εκπύρωσιν επι κολάσει των άσεβων οί
Φ αυ οι αιμονες παντας πεισαι υνανται, ονπερ
Αλ δ Ι Ι Α δ Ι tI Ι
τροπον
'δ
ου
\
ε
λ
α
θ
ειν
Α
τον
\
57.1. For the wicked demons, are not able to persuade everyone 5 that the
Χριστον παραγενόμενον ί'σχυσαν πραξαι, άλλ' Εκεινο μόνον τους άλόγως conflagration for the punishment of the impious does not happen Gust as
βιουντας και εμπαθως εν εθεσι Φαύλοις τεθραμμένους και Φιλοδοξουντας they were not strong enough to bring it about that Christ should escape
everyone's notice 6 when he appeared), but they are able to bring about 15
only this, that those who live without reason and have been brought up
affiicted by wicked customs and are lovers of ορίηίοη kill and hate us. 7

1 ιΑ 26.2-4.
2 The expression 'Royal Rome' is found ίη inscriptions ofthe 2nd century AD; e.g. IG 14.830 (dated
AD 174); IGSK 33.61. Cf. 'royal city' ίη the parallel passage at ιΑ 26.2, and also the Inscription of
Abercius, line 7 (Wischmeyer, 'Die Aberkiosinschrift', 22-24), and New Docuιnents Illustrαtillg Eαr/y Christi-
αllity, vi. 177-8.
3 aη 'holy Senate' see Introduction, ρρ. 35-6.
4 See Introduction, ρρ. 35-6. The main petition had been made at ιΑ 7+ Here Justin uses the
formallanguage of the petitionary process to ask that the Senate and People be included as assessors
of the petition.
5 We have supplied πάντας here, and understood it again within the parenthesis. The MS requires
Justin to be saying that the demons are unable to persuade anyone that there is ηο punishment ίη fire,
and that they are unable to prevent the coming of Christ from being noticed. But Justin surely believed
that the demons αre able to persuade, and have ίη fact persuaded, many people with respect to these
things. It is for just this reason that the demons brought ίη the sons of Zeus, cf. ιΑ 54.1. The present
paragraph is linked to the previous one (ου γαρ ... ). Justin is explaining that the demons are not able to
prevent everyone burdened by error to be freed. It is possible that πάντας was changed to πάντες,
qualifying δα{μονες, and then deleted as unnecessary. However, our emendation is tentative: the MS
may have been more deeply corrupted at the beginning of 57-1, as it is at the beginning of 57.2.
G Most editors and translators understand the MS to mean that the demons were not able to bring it

about that Christ be hidden or unknown. But that is not a normal use ofthe verb. At ιΑ 53.6-9 it was
said that only a few of the Jews and Samaritans recognized Christ when he came, and of them it was
said ίη prophecy that had they not recognized hirn they would have been bUΓllt with fire and
brimstone.
7 This was the main point of Justin's grievance: that Christians are punished when they have done
ηο wrong (ιΑ 7.4). Those who continue to persecute them will show themselves to be irrational, lovers
5 κατεπλήξατο Ncx J κατέπληξεν Acl mrg θεος Α] θεον Otto Mαrcovich 12 δα{μονες πάντας of ορίηίοη rather than of wisdom, and under the influence of irrational irnpulse, passion, and evi1
coniec] δα{μονες Α demons (ιΑ 2.1-5.4).
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

άναιΡειν ήμαι; και μισειν δύνανται 7Τοιησαι, ovr; ου μόνον ου μισουμεν, άλλ', These we not only do not hate, but, as is app.arent, out of pity we wish to
ώι; δείκνυται, έλεουντει; μεταθέσθαι 7Τεισαι βουλόμεθα. 57.2. ου γαρ persuade them to change. 57.2. For we are not afraid of death, since it is
δδ ι
ε οικαμεν
θ ~ Ι
ι 'θ ~ r λ ι
ανατον, του 7Ταντωι; α7ΤΟ ανειν ομο ογουμενου
δ \
και μΎj ενοι;
t \ admitted that all die,l t ... t
if they are to live for ever without suffering
αλλου καινου άλλ' η των αυτων έν Tfιδε Tfι διοικήσει σντων 6Jv εί μη κόροι; and without need, they must attend to the things we teach. 57.3. But if
t
5 Tovr; μετασχόνται; καν ένιαυτου εχτι ίνα άει 6Jσι και ά7Ταθειι; και άνενδεειr;, they do not believe that there is anything2 after death,. but affirm that those 5
τοιι; ήμετέροιι; διδάγμασι 7Τροσέχειν δει. 57.3. εί δ' ά7Τιστουσι μΎjδεν εΊναι who die pass into unconsciousness, they do us a good turn by releasing us
μετα
\ θ ανατον,
ι α
"
'λλ' ειι; αναισ θ Ύjσιαν
ι ~ \, θ ι 'Φ αινον-
χωρειν τουι; α7ΤΟ ντισκονται; α7ΤΟ
ι from sufferings and needs felt here, but they show themselves to be wicked
ται, 7Ταθων των ένταυθα και χρειων ήμαι; ρυόμενοι ευεργετουσιν, έαυτουι; δε and hater~ of humanity and lovers of opinion. For it is not to deliver us
Φαύλουι; και μισανθρώ7Τουι; και Φιλοδόςουι; δεικνύουσιν' ου γαρ (232 b) ώι; that they kill us, but they murder us to deprive us of life and of pleasure.
ΙΟ ά7Ταλλάςοντει; ήμαι; άναιΡουσιν, άλλ' ώι; ά7Τοστερουντει; ζωηι; και ήδονηι;
Φονεύουσι. 58. ι. And, as we said before,3 the evil demons were also putting forward ΙΟ
Marcion from Pontus, who even now teaches that the creator God of all
5 8 .1. Τ7 \ Μ
Δαι
ι
αρκιωνα
δ
ε τον α7ΤΟ
Π ι \ \ r , \ιφ β Ιλλ
οντου, ωι; 7Τροε Ύjμεν, 7Τροε α qVTO οι
r
heavenly and earthly things, q,nd the one proclaimed beforehand through
Φαυλοι δαίμονεr;, οι; άρνεισθαι μεν τον 7TOΙΎjTην των ουρανίων και γΎjί'νων the prophets-Christ his Son-are to be renounced, but proclaims
r ι
α7Ταντων
θ \
εον
\
και τον
\ 7TpOKΎjpυX
θ Ι
εντα
δ
ια
\ ~
των 7Τρο
Φ ~
ΎjTων
Χ
ριστον
\ r\
υιον another, beside God the fashioner of all things, and similarly another son.
15 αυτου και νυν διδάσκει, αλλον δέ τινα καταγγέλλει 7Ταρα τον δΎjμΙOυpγOν 58.2. Many, believing him as if he alone knew the truth, laugh at us, 15
των 7Τάντων θεον και όμοίωι; έτερον υίόν' 58.2. Ψ 7Τολλοι 7Τεισθέντει; ώι; though they have ηο demonstration for the things they say, but, being
μόνψ TάλΎjθη έ7Τισταμένψ ήμων καταγελωσιν, ά7Τόδειςιν μΎjδεμίαν 7Τερι 6Jv irrational, they are snatched away, like lambs by a wolf, and become fod-
'λλ \ 'λ ι \
λ εγουσιν
ι "
ExoVTEr;, α
r r
α α ογωι; ωι; υ7ΤΟ
\ λ ι" ι
υκου αρνει; συνΎjp7TασμενOΙ,
β
ορα der for godless doctrines and demons. 58.3. For the demons we are
των άθέων δογμάτων και δαιμόνων γίνονται. 58.3. ου γαρ αλλο τι άγων- talking about strive for nothing else than to lead human beings away
20 ίζονται οί λεγόμενοι δαίμονει; η ά7Τάγειντουι; άνθρώ7Τουι; ά7ΤΟ του αυτουι; from the God who made them and from his first-begotten Christ. And 20

7Τοιήσαντοι; θεου και του 7Τρωτογόνου αυτου Χριστου, και TOVr; μεν Tijr; γηι; those who are not able to lift themselves up from the earth they nailed and
μη έ7Ταίρεσθαι δυναμένουι; τοίι; γΎjί'νOΙΙ; και χεΙΡΟ7Τοιήτοιι; 7Τροσήλωσαν και do nail to earthly and manufactured things,4 and those who strain for
7TpOσΎjλOυσι, TOVr; δε έ7ΤΙ θεωρίαν θείων όρμωνται; ύ7Τεκκρούοντεr;, ην μη the contemplation of divine things they beat back insidiously,5 and, unless

1 The text of the MS, though widely regarded as unproblematical, does not seem to us to make

sense. Literally translated it Ieads: 'even if theIe is nothing else new, but IatheI with the same things
being in this dispensation, of which if satiety should not have those participating even for a year.'
EditoIs and translators go well beyond the text in their explanations of it (there is nothing new in this
wOIld: a year is all it takes to become fed up with it), and suppose thatJustin is making a point sirnilar to
Eccl. ι: 9-ΙΟ. But there is scant verbal sirnilarity, and, as Marcovich Iecognizes, Justin's αλλου is
superiluous in this case. Far more seriously, theIe is ηο sirnilarity of idea between the two texts, and it is
difficult to irnagine Justin endorsing the view, in this ΟΓ in any other context, that there is nothing new
undeI the sun. Interpreters commonly take διοίκησι<; as equivalent to οΙκονομία. However, it is far from
cleaI that the wOId can beaI this meaning. Οη the otheI two occasions in which it is used in Justin
(2Α 2.8 and D 29.3) it clearly means administering, and is followed by a genitive ofthe thing adminis-
tered. Tatian (Oωtίo 26.2) speaks of pagans and ChIistians participating in the same administration of
the world (τη<; αυτη, του κόσμου διοικήσεω<; μετειληφότε<;). It is possible that ενιαυτου is a cOrΓuption
of some form of εναντίο<; (which appears nine tirnes in the Apologίes, always in the neuter plural), and
that there was a contIast heIe between the inconstancy of the possession of things in this life, which
always ends in death, and the eteΓllity of Ieward ΟΓ punishment in the next.
2 Lit. 'nothing'. For a redundant negative afteI απιστέω see D 75-4-
3 Cf. ιΑ 26.5.
ι ου Acl superscriptum] om Α* ΙΙλλ' Α] ΙΙλλα και NIαrcσvich
3 μ:ηδενο<; αλλου Α] μηδενο<; Ashton + For 'manufactured things', cf. D 35.6. Ιη D 35 there is a distinction between the practice of
Mα1"Covich 4 μη Α] μεν Dαvies
Otto Blunt Goodspeed NIunier, μην lι1αrcσvich 6 απιστουσι Α] idolatrous pagans and the blasphemous beliefs of those, including MaIcionites, who call themselves
απιστουντε<; Mαrcσvich 8 παθων Α] παθων μεν Ashton lι1αrcσvic!z ΙΟ Υιμα<; Α] Υιμα<; τούτων ChIistians. SirnilaIly, heIe Justin differentiates between those uninterested in divine things, whom the
lι1αrcσvich 12 προεβάλλοντο Α] προεβάλοντο lι1αιωvίch 16 των Sylburg Otto Μαιωvίc!ι demons pin to earthly and hand-made things, and those who strive after something higher, but can, if
MUllier] τον Α 20 του αυτου<; ποιήσαντο<; coniec] του ποιήσαντο<; Α; του ποιήσαντο<; πάντα not caIeful, be beaten back into irnpiety.
Ashton; του τα πάντα ποιήσαντο<; Mαrcσvich 22 επαίρεσθαι Α] απαίρεσθαι Sylburg Otto 5 Cf. note at ιΑ 4.7.
 232 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 233
\ σω'Φ ρονα
λ ογισμον και\ \
κα θ αρον και\ ,απα θ ΎJ
Λ
β'"
ιον εχωσιν, ειs " ασε'β ειαν these have a temperate understanding and a pure and passionless life, they
εμβάλλουσιν. plunge them into impiety.

59.1. Ίνα δε και παρ α των ήμετέρων διδασκαλιωv--λέγομεν δε των λόγων 59.1. And 80 that you might learn that when he said, 'God made the
των δια των ΠΡΟΦΎJτωv--λαβόντα τον Πλάτωνα μάθΎJTε ειπειν ϋλΎJν αμορ- world by changing! formless matter', Plato took this from our teachings-
5 Φον oi5aav τρέψαντα τον θεον κόσμον ποιΤισαι, ακούσατε των αυτολεςει we mean the words from the prophets-listen to what was said ίη so many 5
εΙPΎJμένων δια Μωυσέωs, του ΠΡΟ(233 a)δεδΎJλωμένου πρώτου προψήτου και words .by Moses, whom we have already shown was the first of the
πρεσβυτέρου των εν ΈλλΎJσι συγγραΦέων, δι' 0.0 μΎJνύOν το ΠPOΦΎJΤΙKOν prophets qnd earlier than the Greek writers,2 through whom the prophetic
πνευμα πωs την αρχην και εκ τίνων εδΎJμΙOύpγΎJσεν ό eEOS τον κόσμον εΦΎJ Spirit indicated how God fashioned the world ίη the beginning and out of
οϋτωs' 59.2. 'Εν dpxn επoίΎJσεν ό eEOS τον ουρανον και την γΤιν. 59.3. ή what. He spoke thus: 59.2. Ίη the beginning God made the heaven and
'β , \
δ ε γΎJ ΎJν aOpaTOS και aKaTaaKEvaaTOS, και aKOTOS επανω TΎJS α υσσου, και
' Λ l' ,Ι \ , Ι ,Ι) Ι '"'
!Ο the earth. 59.3. But the earth was invisible and unorganized, and there !Ο
Λ
πνευμα
θ Λ' Φ , Λ "
'δ
εου επε ερετο επανω των υ ατων.
' 59.4. \ l'
και ειπεν ο
r θ'
EOS, Γ
εν- was darkness upon the deep, and Spirit of God was borne upon the
ΎJθ~Tω φωs, και εγένετο οϋτωs.' 59.5. ώστε λόγιΡ θεου, εκ των προϋποκει­ waters. 59.4. And God said: "Let there be light." And it was so.'
μένων δΎJλωθένTων δια Μωυσέωs, γεγενΤισθαι τον πάντα κόσμον και 59.5. Ιη this way both Plato and those who say the same things and we
Πλάτων και οί ταυτα λέγοντεs και ήμειs εμάθομεν και ύμειs πεισθΤιναι ourselves learnt that the whole world came into being by a word of God3
15 δύνασθε. [59.6J out of the previously existing things mentioned by Moses. 4 And you also 15
can be persuaded of this. 59.6.5

1 The MS here reads a form ofthe νerb στρέφω, while ίη ιΑ 67.8, ίη a νery similar context, it reads
a form of τρέπω. Pαce Otto, it seems natural to assume thatJustin used the same νerb ίη both passages.
The citation of Plato is not, ίη fact, a direct quotation from the Timαeus, but rather a Stoicizing
paraphrase. The general idea-though not the precise wording-could be inferred from passages like
Timαeus 51a and 69b-c. HyZe is not a term Plato himself used, though Platonic tradition later did
(Alcinous, Ηαιιdbοοk 8.2, with Dillon's note οη ρ. 90). Matter is 'changeable' (τρεπτός) ίη, for example,
Aetius, Plαcitα 1.9 (Diels, Doxogrαp!li Grαeci, 307-8). Sextus Empiricus says that 'those from the Stoa,
saying that there are two first principles-god and matter without qualities-suppose that God acts
(ποιειν) but that matter is passive and is turned (τρέπεσθαι)' (Adversus Mαthenlαticos ΙΧ.12), and Diogenes
Laertius reports the Stoic view that God 'turns' (τρέπειν) the whole essence through air into wateI
(VII.136; see also VII.142, both in SVF 1.102). AttIibution of this Stoic turn of phIase to Plato could
have been suggested-ol' at least justified-by the νocabulary of Tϊ,nαeus 41C, wheIe the DemiuIge
admonishes the gods to 'tUΓll (τρέπεσθε) yourselνes to the fashioning ofthe liνing aeatuIes'.
2 Cf. ιΑ 44.8.

3 Cf. Introduction, ρρ.62-3.

4 The MS has, 'out ofthe undeIlying [elements] and pIeνiously mentioned by Moses'. Four objec-
tions may be made to the authenticity ofthis reading. First, the syntax is awkward, with two paIticiples
not logically cooIdinate connected by 'and'-the conjunction is omitted without comment by most
tIanslatoIs. Secondly, the phIase can only haνe been intended to mean that these elements weIe
mentioned by Moses ahead ofPlato, but, as it stands, it suggests that their mentioning by Moses was
anteIioI to the aeation. ThiIdly, the word ύποκεψένων, meaning 'underlying elements', though found
in Aristotle, is not particularly common and not found elsewhere ίη Justin. It is not found ίη this sense
3 των ήμετέρων διδασKαλtων coniec] των ήμετέρων διδασκάλων Α; του ήμετέρου διδασκάλου Thirlby in the other Apologists, with the possible exception of Athenagoras, Legαtio 10.3, where the text is
των λόγων των coniec] του λόγου του Α 4 προφητων Α] προφητων λαλήσαντοι; MαrcovichMunieι~ corrupt. Fourthly, everywhere else inJustin the word προδηλόω is used to refer to something indicated
προφ-ητων κηρυχθέντοι; Nlαrαn μάθητε Ashton Λιfαι"COmc!ι] μάθητε το Α 5 τρέψαντα SyZburg at an earlier point ίη the text, and not to something occuring anterior to something else. We haνe
Mαγcovich (cf. ιΑ 67.8)] στρέψαντα Α 6 Μωυσέως] Μωσέωι; Α 7 πρεσβυτέρου Α] πρεσ- supposed that the adνerbial prefix προ- has been saibally transposed from the first word to the second,
βυτέρου πάντων Mαrcovich 12 προϋποκεψένων δηλωθέντων coniec] ύποκεψένων και προδηλ­ perhaps under the influence of προδεδηλωμένου earlier ίη this chapter.
ωθέντων Α Μωυσέως] Μωσέωι; Α 14 ταυτα Lange edd] ταυτα Α 15 δύνασθε coniec] 5 The MS continues: 'and we know that what is cal1ed Erebus by the poets was preνiously spoken of
δύνασθε και το καλούμενον Έρεβος παρα τοις ποιηταις εΖρησθαι πρότερον ύπο Μωσέωι; οϊδαμεν Α by Moses'. We haνe excluded this as a gloss. CompaIe the similar use of οϊδαμεν ίη 2Α 7(8).1 and the
(=59·6) glossator's addition at ιΑ 18.5.
 , r

234 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 235

6 0.1. Τ7'"
nαι 7Ό εν τψ παρα
~
, /
Λατωνι
π\ / υσιο ογουμενον
ιμαιψ
/ Τ
περι του υιου
Φ λ ,~ Ι ~
60. Ι • And the scientific discussion 1 of the Son of God ίη his Timαeus­
~
του
θ ~
εου,
"
οτε
λ/εγει, 'Έχιασεν
/ , , ,~ /
αυτον εν Τψ παντι,
, παρα
, Μωvσεωs /
/ λ α β ων, when he says: 'He arranged him as an Χ in thewhole'-Plato took from
ι/
ομοιωs ειπεν.
l' 6 0.2. εν" γαρ ταιs~M / Φ~' / Ι,
ωvσεωs γρα αιs αναγεγραπται ωs κατ Moses, and spoke ίη similar terms. 2 60.2. For in the writings ofMoses it
εκεινο του καιΡου οτε εςηλθον άπο Αιγύπτου οί ΊσΡαYJλ'iται και γεγόνασιν εν is recorded how at that time, when the Israelites went out from Egyρt and
5 TTJ~,/ ,/ , ~ 'β /λ θ YJΡια
EpYJIλΙP, αΠYJνΤYJσαν αvτοιs ιο ο α
" δ ναι/ τε και"/δ
/ εχι ' "Φ
ασπι ES και ο εων were in the wilderness, venomous wild creatures-vipers and asps and 5
πάν YfVOS, Ο εθανάτου τον λαόν. 60.3. και κατ' επ{πνοιαν και ενέργειαν την snakes οΕ every kind-encountered them, and were killing the people.
παρα του θεου YEvoIλfVYJV λαβειν τον Μωυσέα χαλκον και ποιησαι τύπον 60.3. And that, ίη accordance with the design and the operation of God,
σταυρου και τουτον στησαι επι Tfι άγ{q. aKYJVfι και ειπειν τφ λαφ, 'Έαν Moses too~ bronze and made an image of a cross and set this up ίη the
/ ~ /
προσ βλ εΠYJτε Τψ τυπψ τουτψ και πιστεVYJτε εν αυτψ,
/ , / , '~(
233 b) σω
/ θ'
θ
YJaEa ε, holy tent3 and said to the people: 'If you look upon this image, and have
10 6 0.4. /
και, γενομενου / /
TOVTOV, ""Φ'
TOVS μεν ο ειs απο θ ανειν,
~ τον ' εκ
'δ ε'λ αον 'Φ V- faith ίη it, you shall be saved.' 60.4. And after this the snakes died, and !Ο
γειν τον θάνατον. τα δε οvτωs παραδοθέντα 60.5. άναγνοvs Πλάτων και the people escaped this death. And reading the things so recorded,4o
μη άκριβωs επιστάμενοs μYJδε voYιaas τύπον είναι σταυρου, άλλα χιασμον 60.5. Plato did not accurately understand them and did not know that it
voIλ{aas, την μετα τον πρωτον θεον δύναμιν κεχιάσθαι εν τφ παντι είπε. was an image of a cross,5 but thinking it was an X-formation,6 he said the
60.6. και το ειπειν αύτον τρ{τον επειδή, ώs προε{πομεν, 'Επάνω των *** power after the first God was 'arranged as an Χ ίη the whole'. 60.6. And
Ι5
/
VΙδ ατων " ανεγνω
/ ι, Μ
υπο
/
"Φ
ωvσεωs EΙPYJIλEVov επι
θ , Λ θ
ερεσ αι το του
/ Λ ~
εου πνευμα.
/ ' ,
his saying 'a third,7 *** since, as we said before, he read what Moses said: Ι5
60.7. δευτέραν μεν γαρ χώραν τφ παρ α θεου λόγψ, ον κεχιάσθαι εν τφ 'The Spirit of God was borne upon the waters.' 60.7. For while he gives
παντι'''Φ
ε YJ, δ/δ
ι ωσι, 'δ'
TYJV ε /
~
ΤΡΙΤYJν Τψ λ εχ θ/ 'Φ ερεσ θ αι
εντι επι / Λ
Τψ V"δ ατι ι
πνευ- the second place to the Logos from God, who, he said, 'was arranged as an
ματι, ειπών, 'τα δε τρ{τα περι τον τρ{τον.' 60.8. και ώs εκπύρωσιν γεν- Χ ίη the whole', he gives the third to the Spirit which was said to be borne
ι
YJaEa θ
αι
δ'Μ
ια ωvσεωs
/ ΠΡοεμYJνvσε
/ ,
το προ
Φ
YJTιKOV
, ~
πνευμα,
,/
ακουσατε. οη the water, saying: 'Eut the third parts around the third.'s 60.8. And
20 6 0.9. "Φ
ε YJ δ'"
ε οvτωs'
'Τ7 β/ /Υ Λ , Φ
nατα YJσεται αει~ωoν πυρ, και κατα αγεται μεχρι
, / / hear how9 the prophetic Spirit indicated beforehand through Moses that 20
the conflagration will come about. 60.9. It spoke thus: 'Everlasting fire

1 Lit., 'discussion ofnatural phenomena'.

2 Andresen (Justin und der mittlere Platonismus', 188-90) proposed that the reference is to
Ti,nαeus 36b read together with 34a-bo
3 This detail is not to be found ίη Numberso Maran supposed that]ustin thought that Plato thought
that the tent was an image of the universeo Philo thought that the tent of Exodo 26: ι was representa-
tive of the sublunary elements: QyαestiOlles et Solutiolles ίll Exodulll Π (83); De Vitα A10sΊS Π(ΠΙ)06 (88);
De Congl°essu Eι-uditiollΊS Gταtiα 21 (ιι6-η)ο ο
4 The MS has, 'and he recorded that after this the snakes died and the people escaped this death,

thus reading Plato handed down ο ο ο' ο Four things point to corruption of this passageo First, it makes
Plato the subject of παρέδωκενο Secondly, if 'Moses' is understood to be the subject of this verb, the
two short phrases, each with a finite verb 'he recordedo ο ο he handed downo ο ο', is unusual in ]ustino
Thirdly, the force of οϋτως is not clearo If it is to be taken with παρέδωκεν, as the word-order strongly
suggests, the people's deliverance from death is being emphasized as what is being handed down, but
the parallel with Plato is based not οη the deliverance emphasized ίη this way, but simply οη the form
of the crosso Fourthly, as Thirlby saw, the MS reading at the beginning of 6005 cannot stando
5 ]ustin distinguishes between cross as a stake with a crossbar, as ίη the cross of Christ, and a cross-
formation as ίn the letter Χο
6 The MS has χίασμαο According to LS], χιασμόν should be expectedo If Marcovich's plausible
emendation of νομίσας for νοήσας is correct, the corruption of χιασμόν might have been linked with
that of νομίσας: a corruption of ΧΙΑΣΜΟΝΝΟΜΙΣΑΣ being subsequently repaired by the repetition
of νοήσας from a few words previously.
7 Otto says a repetition of the formula 'Plato took from Moses' must be understood hereo We agree
with Grabe that something has fallen out of the texto
2 Μωυσέως] Μωσέως Α 3 Μωυσέως] Μωσέως Α 7 γενομένην !iYlburg Otto Blunt 8 This comes not from the TilllαeUS, but from the Secolld EpΊStle 312e; cf. Droge, H01ller οτ A10ses?, 61-30
MαrcoviclzA1unier] λεγομένην Α Μωυσέα] Μωσέα Α !Ο α.ποθανεΙν coniec] α.ποθανεΙν α.νέγραΨε 9 Ήονν' could refer either to how the Spirit indicated or how the conflagration will come abouto For

Α ΙΙ τα δε οϋτως παραδοθέντα coniec] οϋτως παρέδωκεν Α; οϋτως παρέδωκεν α Thirlby edd corresponding constructions of ώς with α.κούσατε, cf. ιΑ 3401 ('hear how Micah ο ο ο foretold') and ιΑ
12 χιασμσν coniec] χίασμα Α 13 νομίσας Mαι"COviclz] νοήσας Α 14 Post τρίτον lacunam 3501 ('how Christ ο ο ο was going to escape the attention ο ο ο hear the things said ίη advance')o The
suspicatus est GTαbe 15 Μωυσέως] Μωσέως Α 19 Μωυσέως] Μωσέως Α former of these is the more common ίη ]ustino
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 237
Λ 'β Ι ι,
της α υσσου κατω.
6 0.10. '" -r- < ,
Λ "λλ
ου τα αυτα ουν ημεις α οις
δ t. / 'λλ'
O~αl::ι0μεν, α οι
< r will come down and will consume unto the depth beneath.'l 60.10. It is
πάντες τα ~μέTεpα μιμούμενοι λέγουσι. 60.11. παρ' ~μιν σΟν εστι ταυτα not we, then, who have the same opinions as others, but everyone speaks ίη
ακουσαι και μαθειν παρα των ουδε τους χαρακτijρας των στοιχε{ων έπιστα­ imitation of what we say. 60.11. Among US, therefore, it is possible to
μένων, ίδιωτων μεν και βαρβάρων το Φθέγμα, σοφων δε και πιστων τον νουν hear and to "learn these things from those who do not even know the
5 ,/ < Λ
οντων, ως συνειναι ου σο
'Φ Ι
ιq, αν
'θ ι Λ
ρωπειq, ταυτα γεγονεναι, α
ι 'λλ' δ
α
ι
υναμει
θ Λ
εου formation of letters, being simple and uncouth in speech, but wise 2 and 5
λέγεσθαι. " trustworthy ίη mind,3 so that one may understand that these teachings
have come about not by human wisdom, but were spoken by the Power of
61.1. ''Ον τρόπον δε και ανεθ~Kαμεν έαυτους Τψ θεψ, καινοποιηθέντες δια God.
του Χριστου tέξηγησόμεθα σπως μ~ τουτο παραλιπόντες δόξωμεν (234 a)
ι
πονηρευειν
'Λ 'Ι ι
τι εν ΤΤ} ε~ ηγησει
6 1.2. οσοι
" " t
θ Λ ι
αν πεισ ωσι και πιστευωσιν
,
6 ι. ι. And just as we dedicated ourselves to God when we were made
10 dληθij ταυτα τα ύΦ' ~μων διδασκόμενα και λεγόμενα είναι, και βιουν ούτως new through Christ,4 t. . .t 6 1.2. so all those who are persuaded and ΙΟ
believe that these things which we teach and say are true, and who give an
undertaking that they are able, so to live, are taught to pray and ask with

] Deut. 32: 22.

2 Justin uses σοφ6ς only eleven times ίη all, usually with a slightly pejorative connotation. The
unusual expression 'trustworthy with respect to mind' may have been added to soften its use here.
3 We have excluded as a gloss the words 'and some disabled and bereft of sight'. Perion and Ashton
thought they should come after 'speech'. This proposal was rejected as unnecessary by Grabe and
Otto, but the phrase contains 29 letters, and the phrase after φθέγμα contains 28, so a transposition of
lines is not implausible. But we exclude the phrase as not being pertinent to the argument. It would be
ηο more remarkable ίη Justin's world than ίη ours that a disabled or blind person should be able to
impart wisdom. The language of the gloss is, ίη any case, unusual. Χηροι:; would normally take a
genitive, rather than an accusative ofrespect. Ashton and Marcovich delete και χήρων.
4- We have excluded as an editorial seam, introducing what was taken to be a new and final section

of the Apology, the phrase 'we will explain lest ίη passing over this we seem to behave somewhat badly
ίη the explanation'. First, it is pleonastic and otiose: we will explαin lest ίιι O1nittiIιg to do so we jάίZ to do.
Secondly, the verb ποντιρεύω, according to LSJ, Lampe, and BDAG, occurs in the active only here.
Justin uses the verb twelve other times, always ίη the middle, and this has been written in the margin at
the very top of the page ίη the MS here. Editors are constrained to take it to mean 'to falsify
something' (Blunt); but Justin always uses the verb ίη the meaning 'to act wickedly'. Thirdly, the
excluded phrase requires ον τρ6πον to be given the meaning 'the way ίη which', i.e. 'how', introducing
an object clause after the verb. The phrase is common ίη Justin, who uses it 37 other times. Ιη his most
common usage it introduces the first element of a comparison, the second element of which is
introduced by ουτως, τον αύτον τρ6πον, or, once, by όμο{ως. Also common is the use of the phrase to
intΓOduce the second element of a comparison with the meaning )ust as'. The only parallel to the
present usage is D 43-4, 'and also that the people believing ίη him might be able to know the wq)' ίπ wlziclz
he came to be in the world ... '. Note also the phrase τινα τρ6πον ίη ιΑ 61.6, 'how those who have
sinned and who repent will be separated from their sins is said .. .'. We suggest the sentence originally
introduced a comparison between the way ίη which 'we' dedicated ourselves, and the way ίη which
anyone, including those simple and uncouth ίη speech mentioned in the previous section, are taught to
pray and ask for forgiveness, which is reflected in the following section by the comparison between the
way ίη which 'we' were reborn, and the way ίη which they are reborn. The same process of initiation
must be undergone by both the simple and the learned. Ιη three othel' places (ιΑ 14-2; 25·1-2; 49.5)
Justin speaks of Christians dedicating themselves to God, and ίη each case there is a reference to
renunciation of immorality and/or demonic worship. Justin understands two stages of Christian
initiation: first a pre-baptismal renunciation and commitment, and secondly the washing itself. We
suspect that the 'seam' was constructed by an editor ίη the 1I1S tradition, partly to make sense of a
corrupt text, and ΡaΓtlΥ to mark the beginning of what he deemed to be a major new section. The
corrupted text may οΓίginallΥ have contained a reference to the setting-aside (καταλιπ6ντες) and/or
2 ήμιν Α] ήμιν μεν Ashton .Mαrcoviclz εστι edd] εστϊ Α 5 οντων coniec] οντων και πτιρων και confession (εξαγ6ρευσιι:;) of evil ways (ποντιρε{α) as part ofthe process ofbeing made new (cf. ιΑ 14.2).
χήρων τινων τας οψεις Α; οντων και πτιρων τινων τας οψειι:; Asht01l Mαrcovich άνθΡωπε{q. Nex J άνθρ- ΤeΓtullίan, De Bαptismo 20.1, says 'ingressuros baptismum ... orare oportet et cum confessione omnium
ωπ{νrι Amrg 9 ποντιρεύειν ΑΙΟΧ Ί ποντιρευεσθαι AC] mrg sup retro deΙίctοΓumΌ
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

6 1.7. ε'λ εχ \
Ι θ Ίj δ ε ουτως'
rι 'Λ ουσασ
Ι θ ε' κα θ αροι γενεσ
Ι \
θ ε' α'Φ εlλ ετε τας ΠOνΊjpιας
Ι \ wrote before. 1 61.7. This is what was said: 2 'Wash, become clean, put off
,
απο
\ Λ ,Ι, Λ ( Λ'
των ψυχων υμων'
'Ιθ
μα ετε κα
λ \ Λ"
ον ποιειν'
Ι 'Φ
κρινατε ορ
Λ
ανψ και
\ δ
ικαι- your wicked deeds from your souls, learn to do good, give judgement for
ώσατε χΤΙραν' και δευτε και διαλεχθωμεν, λέγει Κύριος. και Εαν ιbσιν αί the orphan and vindicate the widow, and come and let us talk together,
άμαρτίαι ύμων ώς Φοινικουν, ώσει εριον λευκανω, και Εαν ιbσιν ώς κόκκινον, says the Lord; and even if your sins are like purple, Ι shall make
5 ώς χιόνα λευκανω.' 61.8. Έαν δε μ~ εισαKOύσΊjTέ μου, μάχαιρα ύμας them white like wool, and even if they are like scarlet, Ι shall make them 5
κατέ(234 b)δεται' το γαρ στόμα Κυρίου EλάλΊjσε ταυτα.' 61.9. και λόγον white like .snow. 61.8. But if you do not listen to me, a sword shall con-
δε εις τουτο παρα των αποστόλων Εμάθομεν τουτον' 61.10. Eπειδ~ T~ν sume you, for the mouth of the Lord said these things.' 61.9. And we
πpώTΊjν γένεσιν ήμων αγνοουντες και κατ' ανάγKΊjν γεγεννΤΙμεθα Εζ ύγρας have learnt from the apostles the following account of this matter.
Λ \
σπορας κατα
1(;
fLLf::,
\ Λ Ι \ 'λλ lλ
ιν TΊjν των γονεων προς α
"θ
Ίj ους και εν ε εσι
Φ lλ \,
αυ οις και
\ 61.10. Since with respect to our first birth we have been born ίn
10 ΠOνΊjpαις ανατροΦαις γεγόναμεν, οπως μ~ ανάγKΊjς τέκνα μΊjδε αγνοίας ignorance and 3 by necessity out of moist seed when our parents had inter- 10
Ι
μενωμεν, α
'λλ \ ι , ,
α προαιΡεσεως και επισTΊjμΊjς, α
Ι 'Φ Ι / (' """ (' \ 'i'
εσεως τε αμαρτιων υπερ ων course with one another, and we have come to be ίn wicked customs and
πpOΊjμάpTOμεν τύχωμεν, Εν T<jJ ύδατι Επονομάζεται T<jJ έλομένψ αναγεν­ evil patterns of nurture/ ίn order t4at we should not remain children of
νΊjθiιναι και μετανοΤΙσαντι Επι τοις ήμαpTΊjμένOις το του πατρος των ολων either necessity ΟΓ ignorance but should become children5 of choice 6 and
και δεσπότου θεου σνομα, αυτο τουτο μόνον Επιλέγοντος του τον λουσόμενον of knowledge, and should att~in the forgiveness of sins, that is,7 those
15 αγοντος Επι το λουτρόν. committed previously, there is pronounced,8 ίn water, over the one 15
choosing to be reborn and who repents of sins committed, the name of
the Father of all and the Lord God. He who leads to the washing the one
who will wash himself pronounces ίn the course of this these words only. 9

1 Cf. ιΑ 44.3-4. 2 Cf. 1sa. ι: 16-20.

3 We have adopted Marcovich's emendation. Editors before Otto construed την πρώτην γένεσιν
ήμων as the object of dyvooίIvTEs. Otto took it as an internal object of γεγεννήμεθα. But Justin has ίη
mind not just ignorance of the manner of ουτ first birth, but a general moral ignorance which must be
removed by baptism, and this is separate from the other condition of ουτ first birth, namely necessity.
4 We have retained the MS reading, against the emendation of editors to 'ways oflife'. The latter is
plausible, and makes the plural more [eadily understandable (cf. 2 Pet. 2: 18). At ιΑ 53.3 Justin
associates εθη with the veΓb αναστρέΦω, but at D 93.1 upbringing and wicked customs are ΡaίΓed. 1η
the present context Justin is conceΓlled with the moral mess ίη which the unbaptized aΓe born and
raised.
5 The ΡhΓase 'should become children' is not ίη the GΓeek.
6 At ιΑ 43.3-4 and D 88.5 Justin speaks of 'fΓee choice' (έλευθέρq. προαιΡέσει). 1η Greek philo-
sophical discussions of moral freedom ΡΙΌhαίΙ'esίs is usually found without the adjective; the οηlΥ
exception before Justin is Philo, Qyod Deus Sit l11l1nutabilΊS 114.
7 We retain and thus tΓaηsΙate the MS's ύπερ. Although omission of the preposition gives good
sense, it is difficult to see how it might have intγuded. The phrase αΦησι> άμαρτίων is a recurring one ίη
Justin, which we suspect he has used here, and then qualifed.
8 Justin ηΟΓmallΥ uses this WΟΓd in the ordinary sense of 'to give a name to', but it can be used to
mean 'to ΡΓοηοuηce a name'.
9 The text of the last section of this chapter is seveΓeΙΥ conupted. We have adopted heΓe the

emendation proposed by Thirlby, and accepted by most subsequent editors. The word έπιλέγω can
mean 'to say ίn connection with an action', 'to say while doing' something, and also 'to utter, pro-
nounce a spell' (LSJ). The exact meaning of αγοντο> is not clear. Since the name is PΓOnounced 'ίη
water', it presumably refers to the actual 1'ίte ofbaptism, [athel" than a pΓOcession to the font. 1t is not
clea1' whether the whole phrase, 'the name of the Father of all and the Lord God', is pronounced over
the candidate, 01' just 'the name of the Father'. The occunence of the fΟ1'mer ίη ιΑ 61.3 suggests that it
is formulaic. Οη the other hand, the descriptions ίn ιΑ 61.13 of Jesus Ch1'ίst as 'who was crucified
undel" Pontius Pilate', and ofholy Spirit as 'who proclaimed befΟ1'ehaηd through the prophets every-
8 αγνοουντε> και Marcovich] αγνοουντε> Α 10 ανατροΦαι> Α] αναστροΦαι> PaZItigιιy Blunt Mar- thing conceΓlling Jesus', though ηο doubt drawn from a baptismal confession 01' intenogation, seem to
covich Alunier ΙΙ άμαρτιων ύπερ Α] άμαρτιων Otto Blunt Marcovich MunieI" 14 έπιλέγοντο> have the function of explaining to ηοη-ChΓίstίaηs who these a1'e ίη whose names Christians aΓe
του τον λουσόμενον αγοντο> Thirlby Otto Blunt Goodspeed Alarcovich] έπιλέγοντε> τουτον λουσόμενον baptized. Whatevel" the Ρ1'ecίse fΟ1'muΙa was, Justin's point is that the actual 'name' of the Father is not
αγοντε> Α; έπιλέγοντε> τον λουσόμενον αγομεν ~lburg; έπιλέγοντε> τούτψ, λουσόμενον αγοντε> Grabe and cannot be pronounced.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 243

61.11. ονομα γαρ Τψ αρρΥιτψ θεψ ουδειs- εχει ειπειν, ει δέ TιS- τολμΥισειεν 61.11. For ηο one can speak a name for the ineffable God, and if anyone
είναι λέγειν, μέμηνε την ασωτον μανίαν. 61.12. καλεΙΤαι δε τουτο το were to dare to say that there is a name he raves with incurable madness. 1
λουτρον Φωτισμόs-, ώs- Φωτιζομένων την διάνοιαν τών ταυτα μανθανόντων. 61.12. But this washing is calIed 'enlightenment' because those who
61.13' και Επ' όνόματοs- δε Ίησου Χριστου, του σταυρωθέντοs- Επι Ποντίου learn these things are being enlightened with respect to their mind. 2
' , " , , , Ι,
5 Πι λ ατου, και επ ονοματοs- πνευματοs- αγιου, ο
<, δ'
ια
Λ
των
Φ Λ
προ ητων 61.13. And the one being enlightened 3 washes himself at4 the name 5
'c
"1'
προεκηρυι" ε, τα κατα τον '
ησουν παντα,
,
οιφ ωτιι"ομενοs-
l'
Λ
λ'
ουεται. of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and at the name of
holy Spirit who proclaimed through the prophets beforehand everything
6 2.1. Τ.Τ" το
Η.αι λ ουτρον
'δ' Λ
η τουτο aKOvaaVTES-
" '
οιΙδ αιμονεs- δ' Λ προ Φ'
ια του ητου concerning Jesus.
κεκηρυγμένον ΕνΥιργησαν και ραντίζειν έαυτοvs- TOVS- ElS- τα ίερα αυτών
,
επι
β , ,'Λ
αινονταs- και προσιεναι αυτοιs- με
'λλ, OVTaS- λ
οι
β'
aS- , ,
και κνισαs- αποτε
, (235 62.1. And the demons, in fact, heard about this washing that was pro-
10 a )λ OVVTaS-,Λ '
τε'λ εον δ ε και'λ'
ουεσ θ αι απιονταs- πριν
"λθ
ε "Λ επι τα,ιιερα, εν
ειν ,ι θ α "
claimed by the prophet and made those sprinkle themselves 5 who set foot 10
tl<;;:
ΙUpυνTαι , Λ
ενεργουσι. 6 2.2. και '"
γαρ το Ι
υπο λ'
υεσ θ αι 'β'
επι αινονταs- Λ
τοιs- in the sanctuariesof these demons .and were going to approach them in
ίεροτάτοιs- αυτών TOVS- θρησκεύονταs- κελεύεσθαι ύπο τών ίερατευόντων, Εκ supplication and offer libations and fat -offerings. And they even make
Λ
των συμ β'
αντων Μωυσει,
Λ Λ"
Τψ ειΡημενψ προ Φ'
ηττι, μα θ'OVTES-, οιι '
δ αιμονεs- them go away6 and wash thoroughly before going to the sanctuaries where
ΕμιμΥισαντο. 62.3. κατ' Εκεινο γαρ του καιΡου οτε Μωυσήs- Εκελεύσθη, their statutes are set up. 62.2. And the demons, having learnt from what
happened to Moses, the prophet we mentioned, brought it about by Ι5
imitation that their worshippers, when they set foot in their most sacred
ΡΙaces,Ί are commanded by the priests to take offtheir shoes. 62.3. For at

ι The vehemence of the second part of this sentence suggests that Justin has a particular adversary
ίη mind. Ιη the Gospel qfTruth (38.6-3Ι; Layton, T1ze Gnostic ScIiptu1"es, 262-3) it is stated that 'the name
ofthe father is the son' and that the name can be uttered only by 'him alone who possesses the name-
and the children of the name'. Ιη ιΑ 63. Ι5 Justin attacks 'those who say the Father is the Son'. He also
discusses the unnameability of God at 2Α 5(6).ι. For discussion of texts which may reflect 'Name' as a
designation of the Son see Danielou, The T1zeology qf ]ewislz Clπistίαιιίty, Ι47-63. Justin's apologetic
account ofbaptism may here be weakened, οτ at least interrupted, by a too heavy dependence οη the
source which will wreak even more havoc ίη the next chapter. This source appears to have contained a
polemic about the identity of the one who spoke to Moses from the burning bush, and from the fire.
For Justin this is 'our Christ', but his adversary may have claimed that he identified himselfby name ίη
answer to Moses's request at Exod. 3: Ι3: 'They will ask me "what is his name?" What shall Ι say to
them?'
2 Ashton suggested that this sentence had been transposed from after ιΑ 6Ι.Ι3. It does interrupt the
account of baptism ίη the name of Father, Son, and holy Spirit, but so does the previous sentence.
Justin contrasts the incurable madness ofhis theological opponent with the intellectual enlightenment
of those who have learnt orthodox teachings, including that of the unnameability of God.
3 At ιΑ 65.Ι Justin again refers to a newly baptized person ίη this way.

4 The implication is that the candidate dipped himself οτ herself ίη the water as each of the names
was pronounced by 'the one who leads to the washing'. It is not clear that this need be a minister ofthe
rite.
5 Αη inscription in the Temple of Athene at Pergamum requires worshippers ίη certain circum-
stances to perform ablutions, and sprinklings at water-basins set up outside a door of the temple,
SIG 3/982.9, quoted ίη Κlauck, The Religious COlltext qfΕαι-!Υ Chlistiαllity, 25.
6 We retain the MS reading. It is reasonable to suppose that, having sprinkled themselves, worship-
8 τους Apr m superscriptum 9 αυτο!ς Α] βωμο!ς Ashton 10 λούεσθαι Α] λούεσθαι τους pers would, after making fat-offerings, go elsewhere to wash completely. Ιη the Sαcred Tαles, Aelius
jYfαrcovich ιlπιόντας Α] επιόντας Hαgen Otto BluntAιfullieι~ τους επιόντας Μαι-covίclι εν θα Α] ενθα Θεοι Aristides is frequendy told by the god to offer sacrifice, and, more frequendy, to bathe, but the two are
seu αυτοι AshtOll] ενθα αυτοι Mαrcovich ΙΙ γαρ Α] δη Mα1"covich ύπολύεσθαι Α] ύπολύεσθαι τους never conjoined. Hagen's emendation of ιlπιόντας to επιόντας, adopted by subsequent editors, which,
Pαιltigl1)i Aιfα1"coVΊch 12 ίεροτάτοις αυτων coniec] ίερο!ς και το!ς αυτοις Α; ίερο!ς και τοις ναο!ς ίη any case, requires Marcovich's addition of τους, seems redundant after the earlier τους
SylbU1"g; ίερο!ς και το!ς τοιούτοις Β1"αωι; ίεροί'ς και εν το!ς αυτο!ς Blullt in nota; ίεροί'ς και αυτο!ς Pαutigrιy επιβαtvοντας.
Mα1"covich τους θρησκεύοντας Α] θρησκεύοντας Pαutigrιy Aιfα1"coviclz Ι3 Μωυσεί] Μωσε! Α 7 The MS reading is corrupt. Our emendation supposes that Justin thought the command to

Ι4 Μωυσης] Μωσης Α remove footwear was associated with the most sacred places of pagan worship.
 244 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 245
κατελθων ElS' Αϊγυ7Ττον, εςαγαγείν τον εκεί λαον των 'Ισραηλιτων, the time! when Moses was commanded to go down to Egyρt and lead out
7ΤοιμαίνοντοS' αυτου εν Tiι Ά.ppαβΙKiι γiι πρόβατα του 7TPOS' μητροS' θείου, εν the people of the Israelites that was there, while he was shepherding the
'δΙ
Ι ECf "βl
7TVpOS' εκ ατου 7Τροσωμι
lλ'
ησεν αυτφ
~
ο
< < Ι
ημετεροS'
Χ
ριστοS'
' '1'
και ειπεν, sheep of his maternal uncle in the Arabian land, our Christ spoke to him
'Ύπόλυσαι τα ύπoδ~μαTά σου,' 'και προσελθων ακουσον.' 62.4. ό δε ίn the form ·of fire from a thornbush and said: 'Take off your sandals,
5 <
υ7ΤΟ
λ Ι ,
υσαμενοS' και προσε
λθ" Ι
ων ακηκοε, και
, δ Ι
υναμιν ισχυραν ε
, "/λ
α
β "
ε παρα του approach and hear.' 62.4. But taking them off and approaching he 5
λαλ~σαντοS' αυτψ εν ιδέq- 7TVpOS' Χριστου, και κατελθων ες~γαγε τον λαόν, heard,2 and he received a strong power 3 from the Christ who spoke to him
Ι
ποιησαS' μεγα
lλ'
α και
θ Ι
αυμασια,
'"
α, ει
β
ου
lλ
εσ
θ
ε μα
θ ~
ειν,
,
εκ των
~
συγγραμ- ίn the form of fire and he went down and led out the people, doing great
Ι ,Ι β~ θ
and wonderful things 4 which, should you wish to learn about, you shall
l
θ
,
ματων εκεινου ακρι WS' μα ησεσ ε.

learn aboιit accurately from his writings.

63.1. 'Ιουδαίοι δε πάντεS' και νυν διδάσκουσι τον ανωνόμαστον θεον λελαλ­
ΙΟ ηκέναι τψ Μωυσεί. 63.2. όθεν το 7ΤροΦητικον 7Τνευμα δια Ήσαίου, του 63. 1.5 But all Jews even now teach that the unnameable God spoke to 10
Ι Φ Ι 'λ Ι ,Ι < Ι ,1,
προμεμηνυμενου 7Τρο ητου, ε εγχον aVTOVS', WS' προεγραψαμεν,
l'
ειπεν, Moses. 63.2. Whence the proph~tic Spirit refuted them through the
"Έ
γνω
β ~,
OVS' τον
Ι
κτησαμενον, και
, OvOS
" 'Φ Ι
την
~
ατνην του κυριου αυτου.
Ι '~'I
σραη
'λ
previously mentioned prophet Isaiah. As we wrote before,6 it said: 'The
δ ει εγνω, και'<λ 235 b)6 3.3. '']YJaOVS' οχ knew its owner, and the ass the manger of its master, but Israel did not
l
'"
με ουκ ο aOS' ~
με ου, συνηκε. '(
και ~δ'<
ε ο

ΧριστόS', ότι ουκ εγνωσαν 'Ιουδαίοι τί πατηρ και τί υίόS', όμοίωS' ελέγχων know me and the people did not understand me.' 63.3. Jesus also, the
Christ, because the Jews did not know what the Father is and what 15
the Son, similarly refuted them and said himself: 'Νο one knew the Father

ι Cf. έν Τψ καιΡΨ έκείνψ at Deuto 3: 18 and elsewhere ίη this part ofDeuteronomy.

2 We have omitted as a gloss οη 'heard' the phrase, repeated from 6203, 'that he was to go down to
Egypt and lead out the people of the Israelites that was there'. It is possible that the glossator thought
that the content of what Moses has heard should be recordedo But, of course, this is not at all what
Moses heard according to Exodo 3: 50 Rather than: 'Put offyour sandals and approach and listen', he
heard: 'Do not approach here: remove the sandal from your feet ο ο ο' The words 'approach and hear'
come from Deuto 5: 27 where Moses says that the people said to him at Horeb: 'Approach and hear all
that the Lord our God will say'. Justin's use of the perfect άκήκοε may derive from Deuto 4: 32-3 'Ask
ο ο ο whether such a great thing as this has ever happened ΟΓ was ever heard of (ηκουσται)ο Did any
people ever hear (άκήκοεν) the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard
(άκήκοα,), and stilllive?' The theophany referred to here is not that of the burning bush, but of the
giving of the Lawo But the next verse in Deuto refers to God's going down and rescuing the people from
Egypto
3 Cf. Deuto 3: 24: 'Lord God, you began to show to your servant your strength (ισχύν) and your
power (δύναμιν) and your mighty hando'
4 Cf. Deuto 4: 34: 'If God attempted to go and take (εισελθων λαβειν) for himself a people from the

rnidst of a people, by trial and with signs and with wonders and with war and with a strong hand and a
mighty arm, and with great spectacles (όράμασιν μεγάλοι,), according to all the Lord our God did
(έποιήσεν) ίη Egypt while you looked on?'
5 This chapter, together with the following one, interrupts Justin's account of the liturgicallife ofhis
community, and it evidently incorporates material from another source, which has been poorly
adapted to his present purpose and which has been repeated ίη the same chaptero It is tempting to
suppose that what we are dealing with is either Justin's own unfinished drafting, ΟΓ a very early editor's
conftation of materials from Justin's pen which have been put together here, ίη the context of an
account of baptism in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit, to serve as a defence of a particular
understanding ofTrinitarian theology. It is difficult to say what the original purpose of the source was,
though that source is likely to have been Justin's own wOIk rather than another'so It is ostensibly
directed against Jews, but may also have been concerned with Christian heretics, perhaps Marcion,
perhaps modalistso Chapter 128 of the Diαlogue, which has many resonances with this chapter of the
First Apology, suggests that it was Christian modalists that Justin was attackingo It is possible that Justin
used his Apology as a catechetical tool and interleaved it with notes expanding its utility, and that these
5 άκήκοε coniec] άκήκοε κατελθειν ει, Αί'γυπτον και έξαγαγειν τον έκει λαον των 1σραηλιτων Α were incorporated into the prototype of the published Apologyo
ΙΟ Mωυσε~ Μωσει Α 6 Cf. ιΑ 37010
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'SAPOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 247
αυτους και αυτος είπεν, 'ουδεις εγνω τον πατέρα εί μη ό υίός, ουδε τον υίον except the Son or the Son except the Father p.nd those to whom the Son
, ι ( Ι
ει μη ο πατηρ και οις αν αποκα υψΥΙ ο υιος.
Ι '!' '" λ "Ι, ( (, '6 3.4. ο( λ'
ογος
δ ι
ε του
Α θ
εου
Α
should reveal him.,l 63.4. But the Logos of God is his Son, as we said
,
εστιν
((Ι , Α
ο υιος
'Φ
αυτου, ως
(
προε ημεν.
6 3.5. ι" λ
και αγγε ος
δ ι
ε κα ειται
λ Α
και
Ι before. 2 63.5 . .And he is also called 'angel' and 'apostle', for he announces
"λ ος, αυτος
αποστο ,ι ι,
γαρ απαγγε'λλ"
ει οσα δ ειΑ γνωσ θ ηναι
Α καιι,
αποστε'λλ εται whatever needs to be known, and he is sent ίη order to reveal whatever is
5 μηνυσων
ι tl
οσα αγγε
"λλ
εται,
ι
ως και
\,
αυτος
\
ο
Ι Ι
κυριος ημων
(..... 'i'
ειπεν,
'~o'
εμου
.. announced, just as our Lord himself said: 'The one who hears me hears 5
ακούων ακούει του αποστείλαντός με.' 63.6. και εκ των του Μωυσέως δε the one who sent me.,3 63.6. And this will become clear also from the
συγγραμματων
, Φ Ι
ανερον
Α
τουτο γενησεται.
, 6 3.7. λ'λ
ε εκται
δΙ"
ε εν
Α
αυτοις· writings of Moses. 63.7ό It is said thus ίη them: 'And an angel of God
"
ουτως' 'Καιι ε'λ α'λ ησε ΜωυσειΑ αγγε λ ος θ εουΑ'
εν Φλ ογιι πυρος
" Ι,εκ της ατου , , καιι
Α β' spoke to Moses in a flame of fire out of a thornbush,4 and he said ''1 am
~
είπεν,
Έ"
γω ειμι ο ων,
( " , 'θ εος ι (Λβ
f i ρααμ,
, θ εος
ι Ί ' θ εος
σαακ,
ι Ί 'β (θ ι
ακω ,ο
Α
εος των who is. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, the God of your
10 ,
πατερων σου. '6 8 ' , λθ 'Α" ι
3.. κατε ε εις ιγυπτον, και ε~αγαγε τον αον μου. ,
't.' \ λ' fathers. 5 63.8. Go down to Egyρt and lead out my people."'6 63.9. You 10
'δ' (
6 3.9. τα επομενα ε~ , '
't."εκεινων β ου λ ομενοι μα θ ειν
Α δ' υνασ θ ε, ου' γαρ ι δ υνατον
ι can learn what follows, if you want to, from those writings. For it is not
,εν τουτοις
, , "Ι,
αναγραψαι παντα. ' 6 'λλ'" 'δ
3.10. α εις απο ει~ ιν γεγονασιν οι ε οι(
t. ' "δ possible to transcribe everything ίη these. 63.10. But those utterances
λ '
ογοι "
οτι (Ι
υιος θ εουΑ καιι" αποστο λ ος Ίησους
Α ο(χριστος " εστι, προτερον, λ'
ογος were made as a demonstratioη that Jesus Christ is Son of God and apostle,
"
ων, και εν ι
"'δ'
Eq. πυρος ποτε
ι ι Φ'
ανεις, ποτε
Ι δ' \, ,/,
ε και εν εικονι ασωματψ, νυν
Ι ,.. δ'
ε, and was formerly Logos and was sometimes revealed ίη the form of fire
15 δ ιαΙθλ'
ε ηματος θ εουΑ(Ι
υπερ Α'θ
του αν ρωπειου ' "'θ
γενους αν ρωπος '
γενομενος, and sometimes ίη an incorporeal image. 7 But now, having become a 15
( ,
υπεμεινε και πα
ι θ .. Ιl
ειν οσα αυτον ενηργησαν οι
'" Ι (δ
αιμονες
' δ θ
ιατε ηναι υπο των
... ( ( \ Λ
human being by the will of God for the sake of the human race, he
"
ανοητων
Ίδ'
ου αιων'
6 3.11. ιl
οιτινες,
,Ι
εχοντες
(
ρητως
..... ,
ειΡημενον
Ι ,
εν
.....
τοις endured also 8 to suffer whatever treatment the demons made him endure
Μωυσέως συντάγμασι, 'Και ελάλησεν αγγελος του θεου Τψ (236 a) Μωυσει at the hands of the unthinking Jews. 63.11. These, who have it said
,
εν πυρι
ι Φλ ι , β'
ογος εν
Ι Ί'
ατψ και ειπεν,
Έ"
γω ειμι ο ων,
(", ,ο(θ εοςι (Λβ ι ι (θ ι
f i ρααμ και ο εος expressly ίη the books ofMoses: 'And an angel ofGod spoke to Moses ίη a
20 ι
Ί σαακ καιι ο(θ εος
ι Ίακω'β' Ι των
, τον Α ο"λ ων '
πατερα καιι δ ι Ι Α
ημιουργον τον ταυτα fire of flame in a thornbush and said: ''1 am who is, the God of Abraham 20
and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" ',9 say that the one who said

ι Α form ofthis 10gίo1l ofJesus survives at Matt. ΙΙ: 27 and Luke 10: 22.
2 Cf. ιΑ 21.1; 22.1-2; 23.2; 32.14.
3 Cf. ιΑ 16.10. Codex Bezae (D, 5th cent.) has almost exactly the same wording as this logion at Luke
10: 16, ίη place of'the one who despises me desρises the one who sent me', which is also found ίη the
Old Latin. The logion is added at the end of Luke 10: 16 ίη several Greek witnesses, and ίη Syriac
versions. Cf. Bellinzoni, The Sayings qf]esus, 20-4.
4- Exod. 3: 2. 5 Exod. 3: 6. 6 Exod. 3: 10.
7 Otto, Blunt, Wartelle, Barnard, and Marcovich see here a reference to the appearance of the
Logos in the form of an angel. But it is far from clear that Justin would have considered angels to be
incorporeal. They are commonly so described from the late 4th century (cf. Lampe, s.v. ασώματο, D).
Ignatius (Sl1p I rn. 3.2) has Jesus say Ί am not a bodiless daemonion', a saying which is attributed by
Origen (De Prillcipiis, praef. 8) to the Doctrinα Petri. But, as Origen goes οη to explain, the word is not
being used there ίη its proper philosophical sense, since daemons are not strictly speaking incorρoreal,
a point made also by Clement of Alexandria (Excerptα ex. Theodoto 14). Elsewhere when Justin uses the
word ασώματο, he uses it ίη a proper philosophical sense, cf. D 1.5 (bis); 2.6. Ιη Deut. 4: 12 Moses tells
the people that when the Lord spoke to them out of the midst of the fire they 'heard the sound of
words, but saw ηο form (όμοΕωμα ουκ εί'δετε); there was only a voice'.
8 Marcovich postulates a lacuna-he endured to be despised ΟΓ to be disholloured-pointing to the parallels
ίη 50.1: 'having become a human being ... he endured to suffer and to be dishonoured', and ίη 63.16,
'he has become a human being ... and he endured to be despised and to suffer', and supposes the και
here to be left hanging. ButJustin frequently speaks ofChrist enduring to be born (D 45-4; 48.1; 48.3;
50.1; 63.1); ΟΓ to be born and become human (D 68.1); ΟΓ to become human without form and
2 αποκαλύι/ηι ό υίό, Α] ό υίο, αποκαλύψ'Π Mαrcovich 4 απαγγέλλει Ne.~J παραγγέλλει Amrg dishonoured and passible (D 100.2); ΟΓ to be born and to be crucified (D 88-4). Since ίη the present
6 Μωυσέω,] Μωσέω, Α 8 Μωυσει] Μωσει Α ΙΙ τάδ' Α] ΤιΙ δ' edd 14 ασωμάτψ sentence he has already spoken of Christ having become human, Justin can easily have continued, 'he
Α" Mαrαn Goodspeed Aιlαrcoviclz AιIllllier] ασωμάτων Α* Otto Blllnt 16 ύπέμεινε Α] lacunam designavit endured αlso to suffer'. The construction would be very similar to the second parallel introduced by
Mαl'COViclz expectans sive εςουθενηθηναι (63.16) sive ατιμασθηναι (50.1) 18 Μωυσέω,] Μωσέω, Α Marcovich ίη support ofhis supposed lacuna.
Μωυσει] Μωσει Α 9 Exod. 3: 2, 6.
 ]USTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS ]USTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS
249
"
ειποντα '
λ εγουσιν ειναι.
l' 6 3.12. ο"θ εν "
και το προ Φ ηηκον πνευμα,
~ , '
ε'λ εγχον these things was the Father of all and the Creator, 63.12. whence even
αυτούς, εΊπεν, ''Iσpα~λ δέ με ουκ εγνω, και ό λαός με ου συνΎικε.' the prophetic Spirit refuted them, when it s~id: 'Israel did not know me
63.13. και πάλιν ό 'Ιησους, ώς εδηλώσαμεν, παρ' αυτοις ων, εΊπεν, Όυδεις and the people did not understand me.' 63.13. And again, Jesus, as we
εγνω τον πατέρα ει μ~ ό υίός, ουδε τον υίον ει μ~ ό παT~P και ο[ς αν ό υίος made clear,. when he was with them said: 'Ν ο one knew the Father except
5 ,
αποκα
λ',','
υψΥΙ.
6 3.14. Ί δ ~
ου αιοι ουν,
l' ( , '" , ~ "λ
ηγησαμενοι αει τον πατερα των ο ων the Son, ΟΓ the Son except the Father and those to whom the Son should 5
λελαληκέναι τψ Μωυσει, του λαλ~σανToςαυTΨ οντος υίου του θεου, ος και reveal hirn.' ι
αγγε λ ος
,/ και αποστο λ ος
'" '
κεκ λ ηται, δ'
ικαιως ε'λ'
εγχονται και'δ' ~ προ Φ η-
ια του

ηκου πνεύματος και δι' αυτου του Χριστου ώς οϋτε τον πατέρα οϋτε τον 63·14· The Jews therefore, having always supposed that the Father of all
(\ ,ι
υιον εγνωσαν.
6 3.15. C', \ Ι\
οι γαρ τον υιον πατερα
Ι Φ ι
ασκοντες ειναι ε
l' 'λ'
εγχονται, spoke to Moses when really it was the Son of God, who is called angel and
ΙΟ μ~Tε τον πατέρα επιστάμενοι, μηθ' όη εστιν υίος τψ πατρι των όλων γιν­ ap?~tle, who spoke to h~, ~re rightly refuted, both through the prophetic
ώσκοντες, ός, και λόγος πρωτότοκος ων του θεου, και θεος ύπάρχει. Splnt and through Chnst hlmself, as knowing neither the Father ηΟΓ the ΙΟ
63.16. και πρότερον δια τΎις του πυρος μορΦΎις και εικόνος ασωμάτου τψ Son. 63.15. For those who say tbe Son is the Father are refuted as not
Μωυσει και τοις έτέροις ΠPOΦ~Tαις εΦάνη, νυν δ' εν χρόνοις τΎις ύμετέρας having known the Father ηΟΓ knowing that the Father of all has a Son
αΡΧΎις, ώς προείπομεν, δια παρθένου ανθρωπος γενόμενος κατα T~ν του who. also, being the first-born Logos 2 of God, is also God. 63.16. And
15 πατρος
, β
ου
λ' ( ,
ην υπερ
,~
σωτηριας των πιστευοντων αυnρ,
, ,~, 'l:
και ε~ ου
θ
ενη
θ ~
ηναι prevlOusly he appeared through the form of fire and an incorporeal
και παθειν ύπέμεινεν, ίνα αποθανων και αναστας νΙK~σYI τον θάνατον. lffia~e to Moses and to the other prophets, but now, ίη the time of your 15
6 3.17. το' δ"ε ,
ειΡημενον εκ
'β ,
ατου Τψ
~ Μ
ωυσει,
~ 'Έ ' ,
γω ειμι ο ων,
(,/, (23 6 b) , ο( emplre? he has bec?me a human being through a virgin, as we said before,3
' Γ.1
θ εος (Λβ'
ρααμ
, ο(
και
θ 'Ί'
εος σαακ και ο
, ( θ "τ
εος 1ακω
β
και
, ,(ο θ' ~
εος των πατερων
, accordlng to the will of the Father for the salvation of those who believe ίη
σου,' σημανηκον του και αποθανόντας εκείνους μένειν και εΊναι αυτου του him. ~d he en?ured to be despised and to suffer ίη order that by dying
20 Χριστου ανθρώπους· και γαρ πρωτοι των πάντων ανθρώπων εκεινοι περι and nSlng he mlght conquer death. 63.17. But what was said to Moses
θεου '~Tησιν ησxoλ~θησαν, Άβρααμ μεν παT~P ων του 'Ισαάκ, Ίσαακ δε του from the thornbush: 'Ι am the one who is, the God of Abraham and the 20
(
Ίακω'β ,ως και'Μωυσης
~"ανεγραψε. ", ?ο? o~ Isaac and the God of Jacob and the God of your fathers,'4: is
lndlcat~ve t~at, even though they died, those human beings remain and are
o~ Chnst ~lffisel[ For .those were the first of all human beings to be busy
wlth enquIrY concernlng God-Abraham being the father of Isaac, and
Isaac ofJacob, as Moses also wrote.

ι Cf. note at ιΑ 63.3.

2 Edito~s haνe emended the text to aνoid haνing Justin describe the Logos as first-born. Justin
elsewhere Juxtaposes Logos and first-born (ιΑ 23.2; 33.6, 'the Logos who is also first-born to God"
46.2" 'the Christ ~s the first-bor~ of God, being the Logos'). Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Auto{ycum 11.22)
has, he begot thlS Logos prophorιkos, the first-born of all creation'. Justin has just said that the Logos is
~e Son of God, a~d that Jesus is the Son of God, haνing preνiously been the Logos. It may be that he
W1shes to emphaslze here that the Logos is born of God from the beginning and that this establishes
6 Μωυσει] Μωσει Α λαλήσαντος Α] λαλήσαντος δ' Mαrcovich ΙΙ και λόγος Α] και λόγος his claim to be God. '
και Tlzirlby; λόγος και Otto Blunt lvIαrcovich Munier 12 πρότερον Α] πρότερον δη Maι'covich 3 Cf. ιΑ 32.ΙΟ-14; 46.5.

13 Μωυσει] Μωσει Α 17 Μωυσει] Μωσει Α 22 Μωυσψ] Μωσης Α 4 Exod. 3: 6.

 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 251

64.1. και το ανεγερθηναι δε το εί'δωλον της λεγoμένrις Kόprι ς ε7ΤΙ ταις των 64.1. And you are able to understand [Γοιη what was said before that, ίη
Λ δ Ι λ l θ Ι
ύδάτων 7Trιγαις ενεpγrισαι τους
) \

αιμονας, εγοντας υγατερα αυTrιν ειναι

) \ l'
imitation of what was said by Moses,l the demons caused the stirring of
του Δ ιός, μιμrισαμένOυς το δια Μωυσέως ειprιμένOν, εκ των 7TpOειprιμένων the reflection2 of the one called Kore at springs of waters, saying that she
νοησαι δύνασθε. 64.2. εφrι γαρ ό Μωυσης, ώς 7Τροε γρ άψαμεν, 'Εν apxiJ was the daughter of Zeus. 64.2. For Moses said, as we wrote before: Ίη
5 ε7TO{rισεν ό θεος τον ουρανον και T~ν γην. 64·3· Τι δε γη ~ν αόρατος και the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. 64.3. But the earth 5
) ι
ακατασκευαστος,
"\
και 7Τνευμα
Λ θ Λ
εου ε7Τε
) ΦL
ερετο
)
ε7Τανω
Ι
των
Λ (δΙ
υ ατων.
,
was invisible and unorganized, and Spirit of God was borne υροη the
64.4. εις μ{μrισιν οΌν του λεχθέντος Έ7ΤιΦερομένου τψ ϋδατι 7Τνεύματος waters.' 64.4. Therefore, ίη imitation of the Spirit of God spoken of as
, \ ΤΙ ι
θεου, Trιν n.oprιν
t ... t 6 4.5. και\ Trιν
\ Άθ rι ναν
Λ δ ι ( Ι ι
ε, ομοιως 7TOνrιpευOμενOΙ, being borne υροη the water, Kore 3 t... t
64.5. And ίη a similarly
ι Δ \ ) ) \ ΙC ) λλ)) δ \) θ ι \ θ \ δ \
θυγατερα του ιος ουκ α7ΤΟ μι~ εως α ,ε7Τει rι εννOrι εντα τον εον ια malicious way, since they knew that God made the world, of which he
ι \ Ι .....,' ( \
10 λογου τον κοσμον 7TOιrισαι εγνωσαν, ως Trιν 7TpωTrιν εννοιαν ε ασαν τεχ-
Ι " "φ formed a notion through the Logos,4 they said that Athena, the daughter !Ο
θηναι *** " λ ι (Ι θ
07Τερ γε οιοτατον rιγOυμε α
l' Λ) Ι
ειναΙ-Trις εννοιας εικονα 7Ταρα
) Ι ΦL
ερειν ofZeus, was born,5 *** not out ofsexual intercourse but as the first thought.
Which we consider to be most laughable-to introduce a female-shaped

Ι ανεγερθηναι coniec] ανεγείρειν Α
ι Cf. Tertullian, De Bαptismo 5.4: 'Do not unclean spirits rest οη waters ίη imitation of that carrying
of the divine Spirit ίη the beginning?' Porphyry says that the ΡΥthagΟ1'eaηs believed that souls 1'ested
οη wate1' that was divinely breathed οη; that, aCCΟ1'ding to Numenius, it was [Ο1' this 1'easοη that the
prophet said 'the Sρί1'ίt of God was borne upon the waters'; and that the Egyρtians placed all thei1'
gods (daemons) not οη firm gΓOund but οη boats (Numenius, Frag. 30).
2 It has usually been supposed that Justin refe1'S to the e1'ectίοη of a statue at SΡ1'ίηgs. Elsewhere, ίη
constι-uctions with ενεργέω Justin almost invariably uses an accusative and infinitive, and never an
a1'tίcuΙa1' infinitive, to indicate what is being effected. We pΓOpose that the το before the MS's ανεγείρειν
is to be constι-ued as forming an articular infinitive with ενεργησαι τους δαίμονας, stating the object of
νοησαι δύνασθε: 'you are able to uηde1'staηd that the demons caused ... ', and that a copyist who
supposed that το formed an articular infinitive with the WΟ1'd following it changed that WΟ1'd fΓOm the
passive to the active voice. Είδωλον ΟCCU1'S ten other times ίη Justin's WΟ1'ks, five of them being
quotations from the Old Testament. The only othe1' use of the WΟ1'd ίη the singular is 2Δ 12.5. We
propose that it is used he1'e ίη the sense of'reflection in water'. Άνεγείρειν can mean to 1'aίse a building,
but seems inappropriate for setting up an image. We propose thatJustin uses it to refer to the disturbing
ofthe reflected image. The Ρh1'ase επι ταις των ύδάτων πηγαις could mean 'at the springs ofwaters',
but might also mean Όη the surface of the springs of waters', which the Ρa1'aΙΙeΙ with Genesis would
suggest, and so we haνe taken it. Ovid tells how the nymph Cyane showed Ceres the gi1'dle of
Persephone floating οη the waves ofher lake: 'Persephones zonam summis ostendit ίη undis' (Metαmor­
p/ιoseoll V.470), For the association of statues of ΚΟ1'e and SΡ1'ίηgs, etc., cf. Pausanias, Ιν.33+ ϋδωρ δε
ανεισιν εκ πηγΤις παρ' αυτο το αγαλμα, and cf. ι'Ι4.Ι; 38.1; α.8.ι; Diodorus Siculus V.4.I.
3 The MS adds 'the daughte1' ofZeus, they said', and must be taken to mean that they (the demons)
said that ΚΟ1'e was the daughte1' of Zeus. But this simply 1'eΡeats what has aΙ1'eadΥ been said at the
beginning of the chapter without explaining how this follows οη the imitation of Genesis. We suspect
that the text has become corrupt afte1' Κ6ρην, and that a scγibe, either correcdy diagnosing a lacuna, or
faced with an illegible eχemΡΙa1', made up the deficiency, taking his cue from the word 'similarly' ίη
the next sentence. We suspect that Justin's original text sought to establish a connection between
Gen. Ι: 1-2 and Kore's being called the daughte1' of Zeus. Apollodoι-us, Bibliothecα ι'3.Ι, 1'eΡοrts that
Zeus begot Ρe1'seΡhοηe from the Styx, whereas, more commonly ίη Greek mythology, Ρe1'seΡhοηe is
the daughter of Demeter. If Justin had here a 1'efereηce to the Styx, it is easy to see how this might
have puzzled a copyist, and led to alteration of the text.
+ The passage is often mίst1'aηsΙated. See discussion ίη IntΓOduction, ρ.64.
5 As it stands, the text does not show how, ίη the myths about Athena, the demons imitated what
they knew about God's making of the WΟ1'Ιd. The MS 1'eΡeats the WΟ1'ds την Άθηναν from the
beginning of the sentence, which requires it to be constι-ued 'they said Athena [to be] as the first
thought'. We think την Άθηναν is a corruption of τεχθηναι, originally accompanied by a shΟ1't phrase
3 Μωυσέως] Μωσέως Α 4 Mωυσijς] Mωσijς Α descγibing the purpose of he1' being bΟ1'η-fο1' the making of the world. Themistius says that Athena,

7 επιΦερομένου Α] επιΦέρεσθαι Otto
9 Διος coniec] Διος εΦασαν Α
lacunam suspicamur
8 Κ6ρην coniec] Κ6ρην θυγατέρα TOV Διος εΦασαν Α 'leaping fΟ1'th fΓOm the head of her fathe1', filled heaven with the primal beauty, and filled sun and
ι ι τεχθηναι coniec] την Άθηναν Α hic aut alicubi prope moon and the othe1' stars, and set ίη Ο1'der ea1'th and wate1' and ai1' and fi1'e and made also these bodies,
which a1'e, because of their order, beautiful and lovely' (ή Άθηνα εκθορουσα Tijς του πατρος KεΦαλijς
κατέπλησε μεν ουρανον του πρώτου κάλλους, κατέπλησε δε ηλιον και σελήνην και τα λοιπα
αστρα, εταξε δε γην και ϋδωρ και αέρα και πυρ, και εποίησε και ταυτα σώματα οντα δια την τάξιν καλα
και εραστά) (Orαtioll ΧΙΙΙ, ρρ. I66d-I67a Ηa1'duίη=Ρ. 239 Downey). Ι1'eηaeus (ΔΗ Ι.23.2), like Justin
(ιΑ 26.3), 1'eΡοrts that Helen, the companion ofSimon Ma/ζUs, was identified as 'the first thou.ιrht', and
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 253
θηλύμορΦον. 64. 6 . \ r Ι "'λλ
και ομοιως τους α
λ ι Ι, '" Δ'
ους εγομενους υιους του ιος αι
( l
representation of thought. 64.6. And similarly, deeds convict the other
πράξεις ελέγχουσιν. alleged sons of Zeus. 2

65 Ή ~ δ Ι <Ι λ ~ Ι \ θ 65.1. But 'we, after the washing done ίn this way,3 lead the one who has
6 5. ι.
\ \ \
μεις ε, μετα το ουτως ουσαι, τον πεπεισμενον και συγκατατε ει-
Ι
μενον επι
,\
τους
\ λ εγομενους
Ι (
237 a ) α'δ ελΦ ους
\ "αγομεν, " θ α συνηγμενοι
εν Ι' Ι
εισι. been persuaded and has thrown ίn his lot with us to those who are cal1ed
5
Ι \ ' \ Ι <
και, κοινας ευχας ποιησαμενοι υπερ τε εαυτων και του
Ι < ~ \ ~ Φ θ'
ωτισ εντος και
\ the brothers ίn the place where they are gathered. And,4 after earnestly 5
αλλων πανταχού πάντων ευτόνως σπως καταξιωθωμεν, τα άληθiι μαθόντες, saying prayers for ourselves and the one who was enlightened and al1
και\ δ ι ' εργων
" 'θ οι\ πο λ ιτευται\ και\ Φ υ'λ ακες των
αγα ~, εντετα λ μενων
Ι <
ευρε θ ηναι,
~ others eγerywhere 5 that, having learnt the truth, we might be judged
σπως T~ν αιώνιον σωτηρίαν σωθωμεν, 65.2. άλλήλους Φιλήματι άσπαζ­ worthy also to be found through our deeds people who live good lives 6 and
όμεθα, παυσάμενοι των ευχων. 65.3. Επειτα προσΦέρεται τφ προεστωτι guardians of what has been commanded, so that we might be saved ίn the
10 των άδελφων αρτος και ποτήριον ύδατι κεκραμένον' και ο15τος λαβών, αίνον eternal salvation, 65.2. we cease from prayer and greet one another with 10
a kiss. 65.3. Then there is brought to the president of the brothers bread
and a cup of wine mixed wjth water,7 and the president takes them and

ι The MS has 'to introduce a shape of women [as] image of thought'. We have emended the text to
read what is most often translated. Ιη Philo, De Speciαlibus Legibus Ι (325), θrιλύμopΦoν ιδέαν balances
αρρενα τύπον. We have taken εικών ίη the sense of'representation', rather than as referring specifically
to a cult statue, cf. the use of εικών ίη Porphyry, Peτi AgαllIlαtOIl (frag. 358 Smίψ, ρ. 418, line 1O=frag. 7
Bidez (Ρ. 9*, line 10)), where the adjective θrιλύμopΦoς also occurs. Commentators have thought that
'the absurdity consists ίη imagining an incorporeal thing ίη bodily form' (Blunt), in support of which
Otto, Blunt, Wartelle, and Marcovich cite Prudentius, Coιztτα Syl1l11lαchum 11.57-8, who thinks it pagan
folly 'to represent incorporeal realities by limbs of their οwn invention'. Wartelle is exercised about
Justin's possible anti-feminism here. But 'female-shaped' enables Justin to differentiate not simply
between the corporeal and the ίηcόrΡοreal, but also between the incorruptible and the world of
coming to be and passing away, and between unity and contrariety (male-female). Ιη its ten occur-
rences ίη Justin θήλυς, not surprisingly, has strong connotations of sexual function and differentiation
(cf. D23.5).
2 We consider this to be a rough note, possibly by Justin himself, introducing a favourite theme of
his, but not properly developing it ΟΓ integrating it into the text.
3 We take the active aorist infinitive λουσαι absolutely, rather than as having as its object 'the one
who has been persuaded, etc.'. Justin everywhere else describes the candidate washing himself(middle
voice).
4 Ashton and Marcovich correctly saw that a connective is needed to link the main verb of65.2 with

the main clause of65.1, and supplied δε after dλλήλους at the beginning of65.2. But we have chosen to
place the connective here, both οη palaeographical grounds, and because it preserves an organic link
between the prayer and the kiss, which is attested ίη Hippolytus, Apostolic Trαditioιz (Dix), 22.6, and
especially ίη Tertullian, De Orαtioιze 18.1-2: 'When praying with the brothers those fasting withhold the
kiss of peace, which is the seal of prayer. What prayer is whole when divorced from the holy kiss?'
5 Justin's use of the first-person plural ίη this section suggests that prayers are offered for all other
Christians, and not for all people generally, though he does say elsewhere that Christians do pray for
non-Christians and for all people ίη general (ιΑ 14.3; 17.3; D 35.8; 133.6). Καταξιωθωμεν and σωθωμεν
might easily have been changed from third person to first, under the influence of the surrounding
verbs αγομεν and dσπα'όμεθα, but there are not sufficient grounds to suppose that this has ίn fact
happened.
6 The word Justin uses is rare, and ίn classical Greek means 'statesman'. Justin has used the noun
with the developed sense which the corresponding verb has acquired ίη Christian usage, see Phil. ι: 27
65.1 ήμεις δε .. . 67.8 και ύμιν ανεδώκμεν Οttοbοιιίαιιus Gr 274 and other examples in Marcovich.
7 The MS has 'a cup of water and mixture'. The phrase has worried editors and translators, since
ι θελύμορΦον coniec] θrιλειων μορψήν Α 4 εισί και coniec] εισί Α 5 πoιrισάμενoι the word κράμα itself means 'wine mixed with water'. Various solutions have been proposed; e.g. that
coniec] πoιrισόμενoι Α 7 αγαθοι πολιτευται Α] αγαθων πολιτευέσθαι C 8 dλλήλους Α] the text originally spoke οηlΥ of a cup of mixed wine (Ashton) ΟΓ only of a cup of water (Harnack-in
dλλήλους δε Ashtoιz lvIαTcovich 8 ασπα'όμεθα Α] ασπασώμεθα C 10 ποτήριον Α] ποτήρια support ofwhom cf. D 70.4), ΟΓ of a cup ofwater and a cup ofmixed wine (Marcovich, Barnard, etc.).
MαTcovich ϋδατι κεκραμένον coniec] ϋδατος και κράματος Α; ϋδατος C οδτος Α] οϋτως C αΤνον The Apostolic Trαditi01l (Dix, 23) records the offering of a cup of water as well as cups of wine mixed
Α] υμνον C with water, and of milk mingled with honey, ίn the post-baptismal mass. However, Justin makes ηο
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 255
254
και δόξαν Τψ πατρι τών όλων δια του όνόματος του υίου και του πνεύματος sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of his Son
(Ι' Ι " Ι Ι\ ,.. C ... θ
του αγιου αναπεμπει, και ευχαριστιαν υπερ του KαTΎj<:o ιωσ αι τουτων παρ
/ , and of the holy Spirit, .and he makes thanksgiving at length for being
αυτου Επι πολυ ποιειται; καί, 0-0 συντελέσαντος τας ευχας και την ευχαρισ- considered worthy of these things by him. And when he has finished the
/
τιαν, πας ο( , λ'
παρων , Φ Ύjμει,Λ λ/εγων' Ά μΎjν.
αος επευ / 6 5-4- το' δ'ε αμΎjν
" ττιΛ prayers and the thanksgiving all the people present give their assent saying
5 ε(β ραϊ'δ ι Φ ωντιΛ το γενοιτο. σΎjμαινει. 6 5-5- ευXαpισTΎjσανTOς
, / / ' / δ'ε τουΛ 'Amen'. 65-4- Now, ίn the Hebrew language 'Amen' means 'let it be so'. 5
προεστώτος και EπευΦΎjμrισανTOς παντος του λαου, οί καλούμενοι παρ' ήμιν 65-5- And when the president has given thanks and all the people have
/
διακονοι
δδ/
ι οασιν
(/
εκαστψ
Λ
των παροντων
/ λβΛ
μετα α ειν
"
απο
Λ'
του ευχαρ- given their assent those called deacons amongst us give to each of those
θ '"
ισTΎj εντος αρτου
\ ,ι
και οινου
,f'a
και υ ατος,
, .. , . . 'Φ/
και τοις ου παρουσιν απο ερουσι. present t,o partake of the eucharistized 1 bread and wine and water, and
they carry it away to those who are not present.

reference to the milk and honey, and if he were here speaking οηlΥ of a cup of water and a cup of
wine Marcovich's emendation of 'cup' to 'cups' would be required. The fact that κράμα means
mixture does not preclude an explicit specification of the content of the mixture: cf. Euripides, 'a cup
mixed halfwith half' (LSJ, s.ν. κεράννυμι), and Irenaeus, ΑΗι'13.2: 'a cup mixed with wine.' There is,
however, an alternative. Justin goes out ofhis way to draw attention to water and wine both here and
in 65.5 and 67.5. Why? One reason is the context: he is here discussing what happens after baptism,
and ίη the next chapter he will turn to the way ίη which the demons parody the eucharist ίη Mithraic
rites with a cup of water (66.4). Another reason could be a desire to emphasize Christian sobriety (so
Buchanan, 'Questions Liturgists Would Like Το AskJustin Martyr', 157). But there may be still more to
it than that. Both here and ίη 67.5 Justin uses the passive προσΦέρεται to refer to the presentation of
bread, water, and wine. That ,-,vord could describe a variety of things, from, at one end of the scale,
someone casuaΠy handing the elements to the 'president', all the way up to a fairly solemn liturgical
act: ίη the LXX, as well as the New Testament, προσΦέρω is regularly applied to the offering ΟΓ
presentation of sacrifice (see BDAG, S.ν. προσΦέρω 2 (a)). Ιη ιΑ 65.3 what is 'presented' to the president
is clearly two things-bread and a cup, presumably already prepared. And the word-order ίη ιΑ 67.5
(αρτος προσΦέρεται και orvo!; και ίJδωp) again implies two gifts, though without any implication here as
to whether the cup has already been prepared. Who, then, prepared the cup and presented it? We
simply do not have enough information οη the liturgy known to Justin to answer that question with
certainty (οη the limitations of our knowledge, see the salutary observations ofBuchanan, 'Questions
Liturgists Would Like Το AskJustin', 153). ButJustin does say that it is 'those called deacons by us' who
distribute the elements after they have been 'eucharistized' (ιΑ 65.5), and, of course, half-a-century ΟΓ
so later, by the time of the Apostolic Tι-adition (4.2), it is the deacons who bring the gifts (oblationes/
προσΦορά) to the bishop. It would seem not unreasonable to assume that they already had that role ίη
Justin's Rome as well. Α further reason behind Justin's stress οη the use of water could lie ίη the fact
that that usage had theological significance for him, as it clearly would for Irenaeus a generation later.
Irenaeus does not develop that significance, but it is implicit ίη his denunciation of the water-only
eucharist of the Ebionites (ΑΗ VI.3). There wine represents the presence of the Spirit, and water
corresponds to the 'ancient formation ofhumankind' (antiquamfiI"mationem !ιoιιιίιιΊS). Now, it would be a
big jump to retroject that symbolism into Justin, but it is far from impossible that it is there. If aΠ that
were so, we would have some importance attached to the preparation of the eucharistic cup by the
deacon(s). Ιη that little ceremony ofmixing water and wine, what sort ofwine would be used-pure
meruIIl ΟΓ krαιιια? Clearly we cannot know, but what aΠ this suggests, tentative though it is, is that the
reading 'cup ofwater and kταιιια' is not necessarily as nonsensical as Harnack thought it to be ('Das ist
eine wunderliche Redeweise. κραμα ist doch schon mit Wasser gemischter Wein!', 'Brod und Wasser',
130). These suggestions are, however, admittedly specclative, and the darkness enveloping mid-znd-
century practice is too thick for us to feel confidence ίη them. Accordingly, while we regard this
reconstruction as not implausible, we have made the palaeographicaΠy simple emendation to 'a cup
mixed with water', and have expanded this ίη the translation to indicate that the water was mixed with
wine.
ι Here, and ίη similar passages, we have left the word ίη its Greek dress, as Justin clearly thinks that
3 ποιείται κα[ coniec] ποιειται Α something more has been done to the bread than the simple offering of prayers for it ΟΓ over it.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 257
66.1. Και ή τροφ-η αϋτη καλΕιται παρ' ήμιν Ευχαριστία, -ης ουδΕνι &λλψ 66.1. And this food is called among us 'eucharist', ofwhich it is lawful for
μΕτασΧΕιν εξόν εστιν ij Τψ πισΤΕύοντι αληθiι Είναι τα δΕδιδαγμέv(J, ύΦ' ήμων ηο one to partake except one believing the things that have been taught by
και\ λ ουσαμΕνψ
' το\ υΠΕΡ (
( \ α'Φ'ΕσΕως αμαρτιωνΛ και ΕΙS αναγΕννησιν (7 23 b) \ ' "
us are true, and who has washed ίη the washing which is for the forgiveness
\ \ <, β Λ Χ \
λ ουτρον και ουτως ιουντι ως ο ριστος παΡΕ ωΚΕν. 'δ 66
( ( , \ (
.2. ου γαρ ως of sins and for rebirth, and who lives in just the way that Christ handed
\" 'δ \ \ , Λ λ β , 'λλ' <Ι
5 κοινον αρτον ου Ε κοινον πομα ταυτα αμ ανομΕν· α ,ov τροπον ια ογου δ \ λ' ,
down. 66.2. For we do not receive these things as common bread or 5
θΕού σαρκοποιηθΕις 'Ιησούς Χριστος ό σωΤ'ηρ ήμων και σάρκα και αΊμα ύπερ common drink. But, just as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by
/ ( ~ ,ι
σωτηριας ημων ΕσΧΕν, ουτως και την
r/ \ \ δ' ,
ι' Ευχης
Λ λ/ 1*\",..)
ογου του παρ αυτου Ευχαρ- means of a word 1 of God, and had flesh and blood for our salvation, just
ιστηθΕισαν τροΦήν, εξ -ης αΊμα και σάΡΚΕς καταμΕταβολην τρέΦονται ήμων, so we h,ave been taught that the food which has been eucharistized
εΚΕίνου τού σαρκοποιηθέντος 'Ιησού και σάρκα και αΊμα εδιδάχθημΕν Είναι. through a word of prayer 2 which comes from him is the flesh and blood of
10 6 6 .3. οι( \' ι λ'''' ι r" Λ' Ι
γαρ αποστο οι Εν τοις γΕνομΕνοις υπ αυτων απομνημονΕυμασιν, α
<\
that Jesus who was made flesh-from which food our blood and flesh are 10
"λ <, 'δ <Ι' 'λ 'Λ ('Τ Λ λ β
κα λ Ειται ΕυαγγΕ ια, ουτως παΡΕ ωκαν α ΕνΤΕτα ται αυτοις ο .L ησους α- nourished by metabolic process. 3 66.3. For the apostles, ίη the memoirs
ι" , Ι ,,... 'Τ 1*\ Λ' \ ,Ι ι
which they caused to be made 4- and which are called gospels, handed down
οντα αρτον, Ευχαριστησαντα ΕΙΠΕιν, ουτο ποιειΤΕ εις την αναμνησιν μου·
Λ'
τουτ
,
Εστι το
\ Λ'
σωμα μου,
, και
\ το
\ , (,
ποτηριον ομοιως
λ
α
β'
οντα
\,
και Ευχαριστ- ίη this way what Jesus has commanded them. Taking bread and giving
5

ήσαντα ΕίΠΕιν, 'τούτό εστι το αΊμά μου,' και αυτοις μΕταδούναι· thanks, he said: 'Do this ίη memory of me, this is my body,' and taking the
15 66 .4. <,
ΟΠΕΡ και\ ,
Εν Λ
τοις τουΛ Μ'θ
ι ρα μυστηριοις ' παΡΕ'δ ωκαν 'θ αι,
γινΕσ cup similarly and eucharistizing it he said: 'This is my blood,' and he 15
, ( \ δ ι ιl \,' \ Ι Ι/δ
shared it with them. 6 66.4. The evil demons, imitating this ίη the myster-
μιμησαμΕνοι, οι πονηροι αιμονΕς· ΟΤΙ γαρ αρτος και ποτηριον υ ατος
ies of Mithras, handed down that the same should be done, for you either

ι We take λόγου θεου to refer to God's creative word (the anarthrous phrase with this sense is also
found at ιΑ 59.5), with perhaps a reminiscence ofthe annunciation (cf. D 100.5 and Tertullian, De Carne
Chrίsti 17.5-6; Irenaeus, ΑΗΙΠ.22.3), rather than to the Logos of God.
2 Commentators consider the possibility of taking the phrase to mean 'prayer to the Logos'. Α

8 σάρκες Α] σαρξ C
12 aρτον Α] aρτον και Marcovich
τουτέστι Α*; τοΙιτό έστι Otto Blunt MΠI-covich Munier
11 α έντετάλται αυτοις ό '/rισoυς coniec] έντετάλθαι αυτοις τον '/rι σoυν Α
7Τοιειτε A c1 C] 7Τοιειται Α*
14 αυτοις coniec] μόνοις αυτοις Α
passage which might seem to give some support to this is the phrase 'the invocation of God' ίη a closely
parallel eucharistic discussion in Irenaeus, ΑΗΙν.18.5, but see ιΑ 13.1, λόγψ ευχΤις και εVχαριστtας. We
take the phrase here to refer to the eucharistic prayer, and ίη particular to the words of institution cited
by Justin ίη the next section.
3 As Colson observed ('Notes οη Justin Martyr', 166-8), κατ α μεταβολήν refers to a change ίη the
body ofthe recipient ofthe eucharist, not to a change ίη the consecrated elements.
4 This is Justin's first reference to 'memoirs'; he had spoken of 'memorializers' at ιΑ 33.5. Justin
usually refers to 'the memoirs ofthe apostles', but in D 103.8 he speaks of'the memoirs which Ι say
were composed by his apostles and those who accompanied them'. Ιη the present passage it would be
natural to translate the phrase by 'the memoirs which were made by them', but the possibility that they
were written by companions of the apostles is not excluded. The word 'memoirs' is as likely to be a
description as a title of these works.
5 The text of the MS as normally construed has two problems. First, it requires the verb έντετάλθαι
to be given a passive meaning ('handed down that it was commanded to them'). But, though the verb
appears twenty tirnes in all ίη Justin, it always has active meaning, except for the neuter plural
participles used nominally at ιΑ 65.1 and D 95.1. More problematically, this construction requires that
the content of the commandment be the fact that Jesus said '. .. and said ... and gave'. Our emend-
ation is palaeographically simple. Corruption would be the more likely, given that Jesus would have
been written as a nomeιz sacrUln: Α ΥΤΟΙΣΟΪΣ. The perfect έντετάλται is the tense required here: cf.
Justin's use ofthe perfect at D 21.1; 23.2 (infinitive); and 40.1, and his use of the pluperfect at D 27.4;
6μο; and 92.5.
6 The MS has 'with them alone'. We take 'alone' to be a gloss, supplied at a stage when it was
assumed that the infinitive μεταδουναι was dependent οη έντετάλθαι, with the meaning 'it was com-
manded to them ... to give to them alone', a reference being seen to the insistence in ιΑ 66.1 that the
eucharist was reserved to the baptized alone. Ιη addition to the difficulty of the Greek construction,
13 TOVT' έστι Ac3 C GoodspeedJ there results the paradoxical irnplication thatJesus commanded the apostles not to give the eucharist to
anyone else.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS
τ{θεται εν TatS του μυουμένου τελεταιs μετ' επιλόγων Τινων,
μαθειν δύνασθε.
67.1. Ήμειs δε 67.2. επι πασι ols προσΦερόμεθα ευλογουμεν T{JV ποιητην
TJ>v πάντων δια του υίου αυτσΟ 'Ιησου Χριστου και δια πνεύματοs του άγίου.
5 67.3. και Tn (238 a) του ήλίου λεγομένυ TjfLipq., πάντων καΤ{l πόλειs ij
αγρους μενόντων επι το αυτο συνέλευσις γίνεται, και τα απομνημονεύματα
των αποστόλων ij τα συγγράμματα των προΦητων αναγινώσκεται, μέχρις
εγχωρεΙ. 67.4. εΊτα, παυσαμένου του αναγινώσκοντος, ό προεστως δια
t
λόγου την νουθεσίαν και πρόκλησιν της των καλων τούτων μιμήσεως
3 δε coniec] δε μετα ταυτα λοιπον αει τούτων αλλήλους αναμιμν!ισκομεν και οί έχοντες τοις λειπομ-
ένοις πασιν επικουρουμεν και σύνεσμεν αλλήλοις αεί Α πασι coniec] πασί τε Α
πάντων των MαTcovich 9 πρόκλησιν Α] παράκλησιν Grαbe
JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS 259
ij επίστασθε ij know or are able to learn that bread and a cup of water are presented in
the rites of initiation along with some accompanying words. 1
,67.1. But,2 67.2. over everything of which we partake, we bless the
Creator of aΠ through his Son Jesus Christ and through the holy Spirit.
67.3. And οη the day called Sunday there is an assembl/ of those 5
who dwell in cities or the countryside, and the memoirs of the apostles
or the w,ritings of the prophets are read, for as long as there is time.
67.4. Then, when the reader has stopped, tthe president, in an address,
t makes admonition and invitation of the imitation of their good things. t 4
ι 'The [ΜίthΓaίc] divine meal is mΟΓe fΓequeηtlΥ ΡΟΓtΓaΥed than any otheΓ scene except the
bull-slaying and sometimes the latteΓ aΡΡeaΓS οη the fΓOnt of a Γelief which ΡΟΓtΓaΥS the meal οη its
ΓeveΓse' (VeΓmaseΓeη, Mithllli: The Secτet'God, 99). The meal was not ΓestΓίcted to bΓead and wateΓ (ibid.
10'2), but bΓead and wine may have been significant elements: 'The significance attΓibuted ίη the
mΥsteΓίes to gΓaίη and wine ... can easily be seen ίη the cult legend .... ΜίthΓas kills the bull that he
has οveΓcome, and at that point an eχtΓaΟΓdίηary tΓaηsfΟΓmatiοη ΟCCUΓS: eaΓS of wheat gΓOw out of its
tail, and gΓaΡes bUΓgeοη fΓOm the blood at the knife-wound' (Clauss, The R01nαn Cult qfMitlιrαs, πο).
2 Ιη the MS 67.1 continues: 'afteΓ these things, [ΟΓ the Γest, we Γemind one anotheΓ ofthese things
always, and those who have things give assistance to all those who are ίη need, and we are together
with one another always.' This text presents a number of difficulties. First, it is not clear what the
referent of 'these things' is ίη either case. Secondly, the first 'always' is vacuous and the second is
contradicted ίη ιΑ 67.3. Otto claims that the meaning of σύνεσμεν αλλήλοις αεί is 'we always support
one another'-'wir halten immer unteΓ einander zusammen', following Schrockh, but this is not borne
out by LSJ. Thirdly, 'for the rest' is otiose after 'after these things'. The first words of the section, ήμεις
δΙ .. , must introduce a contrast between what the Christians do, and what we have just been told the
demons/pagans do,just as at ιΑ 65.1. We suggest that extraneous material has been incorporated into
the text at this point. Two possibilities suggest themselves. First, that marginal glosses indicating the
content of this section (being reminded of biblical teaching; coming together for Sunday eucharist;
sharing goods with those ίη need) have been incorporated ίη the text. Second, that there was, at or
near this point, a discussion of the Christians' αgαpe, in which Christian behaviour was contrasted with
that of pagans (cf. Tertullian, Apologeticunl 39), that the text of this discussion has become badly
corrupted, and that the superficial coherence of the existing text of the MS represents a copyist's
attempt at repair. Ιη this case, it is possible that μετα ταυτα might have been a marginal note indicating
the position at which the fragment was to be inserted, or reinserted, ίη the text .
. 3 The phrase επι το αυτο συνέλευσις γίνεται is often translated to suggest that Christians came
together ίη one place for the Sunday eucharist ('all who live in the cities or ίη the country gather
together ίη one place' (Barnard); 'omnium qui ίη urbibus aut agris degunt ίη eundem locum conventus
fit' (Otto); 'tous ... se reunissent en un meme lieu' (Wartelle). This interpretation is presumably also
implied by Marcovich's insertion of των. But it is highly impΓObable that large numbers of Christians
gathered, even ίη the one city, for the Sunday eucharist, and even more unlikely that they travelled
from rural areas to attend a eucharist with city-dwelling Christians. The phrase επι το αυτο συνέλευσις
is pleonastic, and means simply 'a gathering together'. cf. ι Cor. ΙΙ: '20 (where the reference is to
gathering for the eucharist); ι Cor. 14: '23, and BαTnαbαs 4- !ο. Ιη all three cases the prepositional phrase
is used with συνέρχομαι. Ιη the Acts qfJustin (3.3), when the urban prefect asks him where he meets and
where he gathers with his disciples, Justin replies that for the whole time ofhis second stay ίη Rome he
has known ηο other assembly (συνέλευσιν) than his dwelling-place, above a bathhouse.
4 The superficial coherence of the obelized passage has generally gone unremarked by editors and
translators. But we suspect that a corrupt text has been repaired by a redactor or copyist. The referent
of τούτων is once again unclear. It is usually supposed to refer to the content of the readings from the
apostles and prophets: 'haec praeclara' (Otto); 'these good things' (Barnard); 'ces beaux enseigne-
ments' (Wartelle); but this content has not been expressed. It could be that τούτων is not ίη agreement
5 πάντων Α] with καλων but ίη dependence οη it: i.e. that the phrase means 'the good things of these' (namely the
apostles and prophets, or the memoirs and the writings). Πρόκλησιν has troubled editors. Grabe
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS
JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

ποιεΙται. 67.5. επειτα ανιστάμεθα KOLVV πάντες και EVXdS πέμπομεν. καί, 67.5. Then we all stand up together and S~ndl prayers. And, as we said
ώς προέΦημεν, παυσαμένων ήμών τΥις ευΧΎις, αρτος προσΦέρεται και οίνος before,2 when we have stopped praying, bread and wine and water are
και ϋδωρ, και ό προεστως ευχας όμοίως και ευχαριστίας, σση δύναμις αυτ4>, brought, and the president sends up prayers and thanksgivings ίη similar
,ι
αναπεμπει, και ο
, (λ'
αος επευ
, Φ
ημει,
~ λ ι
εγων το
, 'Λ ι
.nfLYJV. και η
,( δ Ιδ
ια οσις
' (
και η
fashion,3 to the best of his ability, 4 and the people give their assent, saying
5 μετα
Ιλ ,Ι. ' ,
ηψις απο των ευχαριστη
~, θ ι (ι
εντων εκαστψ γινεται, και τοις ου παρουσι
Ι ,~, ~ 'Amen'. And there is a distribution and a partaking of the eucharistized 5

δ ' ~
ια των
δ ιακονων
ι ι
πεμπεται.
6 7. 6 . (, ~
ΟΙ ευπορουντες
δ'
ε και
'β ου λ ομενοι,
Ι
,
κατα
elements to each one, and it is sent to those who are not present by means
ι
προαιρεσιν
r,
EKaaTOS ,(
την εαυτου,
~., β
ο ου
Ιλ
εται
δ Ιδ
ι ωσι,
"λλ
και το συ
ι
εγομενον
of the deacons. 67.6. But those who are well-off and are willing give-
παρα τ4> προεστώτι αποτίθεται. 67.7. και αυτος έπικουρει ορΦανοις τε και each wh~t he wishes according to his οννη choice-and what is gathered
χήραις και τοις δια νόσον ij δι' αλλην αιτίαν λειπομένοις και τοις έν δεσμοις together is deposited with the president. 5 67.7. And he assists orphans
ΙΟ οδσι και τοις παpεπιδ~μoις οδσι ξένοιs, και άπλώς πασι τοις έν ΧΡείCf οδσι and widows and those who are ίη need because of illness or some other ΙΟ

κηδεμων γίνεται. 67.8. T~ν δε του ήλίου ήμέραν ΚΟινVπάντες T~ν συν­ c~use, and those ,:ho are in chains, and the foreigners who are staying
έλευσιν ποιούμεθα, έπειδ~ πρώτη έστιν ήμέρα, έν Τι ό θεός, το σκότος και wlth us. And he IS the protector, of all ίη general who are ίη need.
T~ν ϋλην τρέψας, κόσμον έποίησε, και Ίησους Χριστος ό ήμέτερος σωT~P TV 67.8. And it is οη Sunday t4at we all make assembly ίη common,6 since it
aVTV ήμέΡCf έκ νεκρών (238 b) ανέστη' TV γαρ προ τΥις ΚρονικΎις έσταύρ- is the first day, οη which God changed7 darkness and matter and made the
15
,Ι
ωσαν αυτον, και
\,...
TYJ
\
μετ α την
\ Κ Ι
ρονικην, ητις εστιν η
r/ ) , Ιλ ι (ι
ιου ημερα,
Φ ,
ανεις τοις
~ world, and Jesus Christ our saviour rose from the dead οη the same day. 15
For they crucified him οη the day before Saturday, 8 and οη the day after

thought it beyond doubt that it should be παράκλησιν, and he was followed by Thir1by and others.
Πρόκλησιν a1so occurs at ιΑ 3.2, where severa1 editors have emended it to πρόσκλησιν, though none
have done so here. All three words have a strong1y forensic flavour, though πρόκλησιν might more
easily admit a more general sense of'invitation', which the present context seems to require. None of
the three, however, sits easily with the genitive-'invitation, challenge ofthe irnitation'. Furthermore,
though τήν νουθεσίαν και πρόκλησιν, with the single definite artic1e, looks 1ike a couplet, and has been
so taken by some translators: 'admonet et incitat' (Otto); 'instructs and exhorts' (Barnard); the two
nouns indicate quite different things. Νουθεσία, used οηlΥ here by Justin, has the sense of admonition
or w~rning and is better taken as separate from πρόκλησιν (cf. Wartelle, 'pour nous adresser des
~ve.r~lssements et nous exhorter :'ι irniter'). 1t is possible that the text orginally spoke of the president
mvrtrng someone to preach (cf. Tertullian, Apologeticunl 39.18, where the context is the αgαpe rather than
the eucharist: 'ut quisque de scripturis divinis vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur ίη medium deo
canere'), and that this gave scandal to a 1ater copyist or redactor.
ι At ιΑ 13.2 Justin says Christians 'send processions and hymns'. Άναπέμπω, which Justin uses just
below and at 6~'3, ~ight s:em a mo.re suitable word. Although Sophocles uses πέμπω with supplica-
tory prayers as rts direct obJect at Phlloktetes 495, the recipient of those prayers is his absent father.
2 Cf. ιΑ 65.2-5.

3 The similarity might be either with the president's function at the baptismal eucharist (ιΑ 65.3), or
between his prayers, and the prayers of the people.
4- Cf. ιΑ 13.1.

5 Cf. Tertullian, Apologeticum 39.5, where there is a sirnilar emphasis οη the freedom of these
donations.
6 The meaning must be that all members of Justin's own congregation gather together. 1t is highly

6 δε Α] τε C
ΤΤΙ α?πΤι Α] εΙς την α~γην τρέψας
improbable that all the Christians ίη Rome would have gathered ίη one p1ace each week, cf. note οη ιΑ
67·3·
7 See note at ιΑ 59.1.
8 1t is often suggested that a sense of de1icacy has kept Justin from giving Friday its Roman name-
the Day ofVenus. But the crucifixion is ηο more likely to be dishonoured by its association with Venus
~an the resurrection is to be honoured by its association with the sun-god. 1t is possib1e that Justin
did not want to assume amongst a pagan readership a full acquaintance with the seven-day week.
He does not say that Sunday is the first day of the week, but the first day absolutely. Although the
12 και την ϋλην τρέψω;, κόσμον εποίησε' και Ίησους ΧριστΌς ό Τιμέτερος σωτηρ designation 'the sabbath' was recognized by pagan authors (see e.g. Suetonius, Tiberius 32; Juvenal
ΧΙν.96, Pompeius Trogus ίη 1ustinus, Historίαe Philippicαe 36.2.14), the Jewish sabbath was also referred
C
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

,
αποστο'λ οις αυτου
'Λ *** '
και μα θ ηταις
Λ ε'δ ι'δ α~Cε ταυτα
Λ απερ
"
εις
' "
επισκεψιν
./,
και' Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeare~ to his apostles 1 *** and he
ύμιν ανεδώκαμεν. taught his disciples 2 these things which we have submitted3 to you for
inspection.
68.1. Και ει μεν δοκει ύμιν λόγου και αληθε{ας εχεσθαι, τιμήσατε αυτα'
ει δε ληρος ύμιν δοκει, ώς ληρωδων πραγμάτων καταΦρονήσατε, και μή, 68.1. And if they seem to you to be not far from reason and truth,4
5 ώς κατ' εχθρων, κατα των μηδεν αδικούντων θάνατον όρ{ζετε. honour them. But ifthey seem to you to be portentious nonsense,5 despise 5
'
68 .2. προ λ εγομεν , ( Λ" 'Φ' C θ '"
γαρ υμιν οτι ουκ ΕΚ ευ~εσ ε την εσομενην του
Λ θ εουΛ
,
themas nonsensical matters and do not decree death against those who do
κρισιν,
, ,
εαν
, "
επιμενητε ττι
Λ
α
'δ'
ΙΚΙC!-,
,(
και ημεις
Λ ,
επι
β ,
οησομεν,
<,
ο
Φ 'λ
ι
Λ
ον Τψ
θ Λ
εψ nothing wrong, as though they were enemies. 6 68.2. For we warn you
τούτο γενέσθω. that you 'will nοΙ escape the coming judgement of God if you remain ίn
wrongdoing. And we ourselves shall cry out: 'Let what is pleasing to God
be done.,7 10

to by pagan authors as the day of Saturn, or Κronos (Frontinus, St1"αtαgeιllS 2.1.17; Tacitus, HistoTiae
v.4.4; Cassius Dio, Hist01iα 37.16.2; 49.22-4). Josephus, CΟlll1"α ApiolleIll Π.39 (282) says that 'multitudes
have long since shown great zeal for our religion and there is not a single Greek city nor a barbarian
one nor is there a single nation where the custom of the seventh day οη which we do not work has
not spread'; cf. also Philo, De Vita Mosis Π.4 (21-2). Justin might have thought that the day of Κronos
was sufficiently recognizable to serve as the refeΓence-Ροint for the events of Christ's execution and
resurrection, and might have either himself been unsure of the other planetary names for the days of
the week, or 'thought that the Emperor might not be familiar with them all' (Colson, The Jίjfek, 29).
ι We suggest that an editor / copyist has repaired a lacuna at this point. As it stands, the text suggests
that αΖ! the teachings of Jesus which have been included ίη the Apology weΓe given aftel" the resuaec-
tion. Editors refer to the Lucan notice of Jesus' post-resuaectional teaching (Luke 24: 44-9), and,
according to ΙΓenaeus, ΑΗ ι'3.2, Ptolemy held that Jesus cοnveΓsed with his disciples for eighteen
months after his [esuaection from the dead (cf. also ΑΗι'30.14). AlthoughJustin observed at D 106.1
that after his resuaectionJesus told the apostles that his sufferings had been predicted by the pΓOphets,
he is unlikely to have wanted to clairn that αΖ! the teachings of Jesus which he has recorded were given
during this tirne, and unlikely not to have made mΟΓe of the point if he had wanted to make it. The
text may originally have spoken of the apostles teaching the things Justin has included ίη his Apology, or
of Jesus teaching his apostles after his [esuaection that his death and resuaection had been predicted,
that the apostles themselves tllen taught these things, and that what they taught has been included ίη
the Apolog)I.
2 'Apostles and disciples' appeal" nowhere else as a doublet ίη Justin's writings, and 'disciples',
though common enough ίη the Diαlogue as a description of the fοlΙοweΓS ofJesus, occurs ίη the Apologies
only here. At ιΑ 32.6 and 50.12 the WΟΓd γνώριμοι; is used for the disciples ofJesus. At ιΑ 26.4, the only
other occuaence of the word ίη the Apologies, Menandel" is descγibed as a μαθητής of Sirnon. Justin
knows that there are twelve apostles (D 42.1), but he can use apostles and disciples interchangeably:
thus, at D 100.4 Sirnon is 'one ofhis disciples' and at D 106.3 Peter is 'one ofthe apostles' (cf. D 81-4,
John, 'one of the apostles of Christ').
3 Justin twice uses the verb αναδtδωμι of the handing ίη of a libellus (ιΑ 29.2; 2Α 2.8). At ιΑ 69 [2Α
14].1 he refers to 'this libellus', which we have argued is the First Apology itself. 'These things' pΓObably
refers to all the teachings ofJesus and his disciples, and the prophecies of the pΓOpllets contained in the
Apology. Accordingly, we have taken the verb as an epistolary aorist.
4 'Έχεσθαι, ίη the middle, can have various nuances. We have supposed Justin to mean that he does
not necessarily expect the emperors to be entirely convinced ofthe truth ofhis clairns, but to recognize
that they are worth taking seΓίοuslΥ.
5 Cf. Luke 24: ΙΙ, wheΓe the word describes how the apostles viewed the women's [eport of the
resuaection.
ι post αύτου lacunam suspicamur 7 Ο φtλον Τψ θεψ τουτο γενέσθω ΝΟΧΊ ώι; Τψ θεψ φtλον 6 Α reΡΓίse of the substance of Justin's petition, cf. ιΑ 3·1; 7.4
Amrg pr m+TaDTT! γενέσθω Acl mrg 7 Justin's anticipated SclzadeIιjι"ellde is somewhat more restrained than Tertullian's (De Spectaculis 30).
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

68.3.68 και ες επιστολής δε του μεγ{στου και επιΦανεστάτου Κα{σαρος 68.3. And although, οη the basis of a letter of the very great and very
Άδριανου, του πατρος ύμων, εχοντες απαιτειν ύμας καθα -ηςιώσαμεν κελ­ renowned 1 Caesar Hadrian, your father, we are able to insist that you
ευσαι τας κρ{σε,ις γενέqθαι, ουκ εκ του κεκρ{σθαι τουτο ύπο Άδριανου command that judgements be given in accordance with our petition,
μαλλον -ηςιώσαμεν, αλλ' εκ του επ{στασθαι δ{καια αςιουν την προσΦώνησιν instead we have petitioned not οη the basis that this decision was made by
\ 'c 68 .4. \ \
Hadrian-but we have made this address and exposition 2 οη the basis of
Ι ι θ ι ιC δ Λ' λ Λ Άδ
5 και ες ηγησιν πεποιημε α. υπετας αμεν ε και της επιστο ης ρι-
5
ανου το αντ{γραΦον, ίνα και κατα τουτο αληθεύειν ήμας γνωρ{ζητε. our knowing that our petition is just. 68.4. And we have attached a copy
,ι Ι Φ Λ
of the letter of Hadriari, in order that you might know that we are telling
68 .5. 68 \ \,
και εστι το αντιγρα ον τουτο.
the truth,in this matter also .

Άδριανος Μινουκ{ψ ΦουνδανΨ. 68.6. Έπιστολην εδεςάμην γραΦεισάν μοι 68.5. And this is the copy.
, \ Σερηνιου
απο
ι Γρανιανου,Λ λ αμπροτατου
ι, δ Ι"
αν ρος, οντινα συ
ιc
δ ιε δ εςω. *** \

ΙΟ 68.,. ου δοκει οΟν μοι το πραγμα αζήτητον ('239 a) καταλιπειν, ίνα μήτε οί
ανθρωποι ταράττωνται και τοις συκοΦάνταις χώρα κακηγορ{ας παpασxεθfι.
Hadrian 3 to Minucius Fundanus. 4 . ΙΟ
68.6. Ι received a letter written to me from the most eminent5 Serenius 6
Granianus, whom you succeeded. 7 *** 68.,. For8 it does not seem
good to me to leave the matter unexamined,9 lest the people lO be
subject to vexation 11 and accusers be provided with an opportunity12 for

ι Schmid (Έίη Inνersionsphanomen', 275-6 [358--g]) considers επιΦανέστατος to be a translation

of nobilissimus, an imperial title first attested of Commodus, and takes this as PΓOof that this paragraph,
and the rescript of Hadrian which it introduces, belongs to a later edition of the Apology, after the
death of Justin. But Schmid himself acknowledges that επιΦανέστατος θεός was used of deified
emperors, including Hadrian, and he cites an inscription ίη which Trajan is described by a closely
similar superlatiνe conjoined with the other superlative employed by Justin here: μεγίστου και θεων
ενΦανεστάτου Αυτοκράτορος (CIG Π 2454, and Pap. Berol. 19 Ι 21 (S 30)). Justin need not be supposed
to haνe been a stickler for correct imperial nomenclature. He obviously will not describe Hadrian as a
god, but, by using a recognizable formula to draw attention to that emperor's great renown, he makes
it the more difficult for his heirs and successors to ignore ΟΓ set aside the impressiνe precedent Justin
says he will not be relying οη.
2 At the beginning of the Apology Justin describes it as an 'address and petition'. We assume that
εξήγησις here refers to the exposition ofwhat ChIistians believe and do. Διήγησις is used ίη rhetoric of
the exposition ofthe facts ofthe case, cf. SVFI.83, and Hermogenes, Progumnαsι71αtα Π.
3 The MS has a heading separated from the text-Letteι- qf Hαdl1αn οπ Belιa!f qf CJzristiαns to Jlιfinucius
Fundαnus-written ίη smaller script and a di:fferent ink. 'Minucius' begins οη the next line with an
enlarged initial. We think this rubΓic has been constructed, presumably when the original Latin was
replaced by Eusebius' Greek, out of a standard epistolaIY address; cf. Trajan's letters to ΡΙίηΥ which
68.3-5· και εξ επιστολης ... αντίγραΦον ταυτΌ αρ Eus HEJV.8.7. Eus (Gk [=ATERBDJ\1] Lat Syr) begin 'Traianus ΡΙίηίο'.
68.5-10 Μινουκίφ Φουνδανψ ... οπως αν εκδικήσειας αρ Eus ΗΕ JV.9.I-3 Eus (Gk [=ATERBDJ\1]
.. Οη the rescript generally cf. Introduction, Ρ.44 and Minns, 'The Rescript ofHadrian'.
Lat [=NPOFJ Syr) 5 'Vir clarissimus' at this period was normally restricted to members of the senatorial class.
6 Serenius must be a corruption of either Licinius ΟΓ Silvanus.
ι επιστολης Eus] απoστoλijς Α 2 Άδριανου Α] :4δριανου Eus 3 γενέσθαι Α Eus (DM)] 7 Cf. ΡΙίηΥ, Ερ. Χ.ι 'succederes patri'.
γίνεσθαι Eus (Gr*) Jlιfαrcovich ουκ εκ του κεκρίσθαι ταυτΌ ύπο Άδριανου Α] ταυτΌ ουχ ώς ύπο :4δρι-
8 Οη the pΓOposed lacuna before 68.7, cf. Minns, 'The Rescript ofHadrian', 42-3.
ανου κελευσθεν Eus (Gr) 4 δίκαια Α Eus (ΤΙ)] δικαίαν Eus (Gr*) 5 και εξήγησιν 9 If Granianus' letter had said that he had remanded people accused of Christianity pending an
πεποιήμεθα Α] om Eus Άδριανου Α] :4δριανου Eus 6 και Kατιl ταυτΌ Α] και ταυτΌ Eus (Gr*); imperial reply, the original here might have been 'incognita'. IfHadrian meant simply that he did not
και τούτω Eus (ARC); καν τούτω Eus (ΤCΤΈ) 7 και έστι το αντίγραΦον ταυτΌ Α] και έστιν τόδε want the point of administratiνe procedure to remain unresolved, it might have been 'inquisita'. Ιη
Eus (Gr Lat); om Eus (Syr) 8 Άδριανος Μινουκίφ Φουνδανψ coniec] Μινουκίφ Φουνδανψ Α Pliny, Ερ. χ.ι8.3 Trajan tells ΡιiηΥ that his first task ίη Bithynia is to examine the public accounts,
(post titulum Άδριανου ύπερ Χριστιανων επιστολή); Μινουκίφ Φουνδανψ Eus Otto Blunt Mαrcovich Munier 'rationes autem ίη primis tibi rerum publicarum excutiendae sunt'.
9 Σερηνίου Α] Σερεννίου Eus (Gr*); Σεριννίου Eus (ΑΤ Ι ); Serennio Eus (Lat*); Serenio Eus (NPF) ΙΟ Cf. Minns, 'The Rescript ofHadrian', 44-5.
post διεδέξω lacunam suspicamur ΙΟ οόν μοι Α] μοι οόν Eus (Gr*); οόν Eus (ΒΙ) ii Trajan was concerned about confused (vexαtαs) public accounts (ΡΙίηΥ, Ερ. χ.ι8.3) and about cities
ΙΙ άνθρωποι Α Eus (Gr Syr)] innoxii Eus (Lat); άθφοι Lighifoot (Apostolic Fαthers Π.ι, ρ. 480) Munier disturbed (vexαtαs) by factions (ibid. χ.34).
χώρα coniec] occasio Eus (Lat Syr); χορηγία Α Eus (Gr) κακηγορίας coniec] κακουργίας Α Eus (Gr); 12 We have supposed that an original χώρα ('locus') was corrupted to χορηγία; the Syriac supports
latΓOcinandi Eus (Lat); wickedness Eus (Syr)
Rufinus' 'occasio'.
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

68.8. αν σΟν σαΦώς εις ταύΤYjν T~ν αξίωσιν οί έπαρχιώται δύνωνται διί'σ- slander. 1 68.8. Clearly,then, with regard to this petition, should2 your
'Υ θ 'Λ Χ Λ 'β , , 'θ "
χυρι'::,εσ αι κατα των
t ,
ριστιανων, ως και προ Yjματος αποκρινεσ αι, επι provincials be. able to make a case against the Christians, so as even to
τουτψ
,
μονψτραπωσιν,
, Λ α
'λλ'"
ουκ
C '
α~ ιωσεσιν ου
'
'δ ε ,
μοναις
β οαις'
Λ answer before a tribunal, let them occupy themselves only with this,3 and
68'9' πολλψ γαρ μαλλον προσΥικεν, ει τις KaTYjYOPELV βούλοιτο, τούτό σε not with petitions and with mere outcries. 68'9' For it would be much
5 διαγινώσκειν. 68.10. ει τις οΟν KaTYjYOpEL και δείκνυσί τι παρα τους more fitting, if someone wanted to make an accusation, that you should 5
νόμους πράττοντας, ούτως διόριζε κατα T~ν δύναμιν τού άμαρτήματος, ώς hear thecase ίη court. 4 68.10. Ifthen someone should make accusation
μα , 'Ήρακ λ'"
τον εα, ει τις συκο Φ"
αντιας χαριν Λ
τουτο 'δ ια λ'
προτεινοι, αμ β ανε and prove 5 people did something against the laws,6 make a determination
t,
υπερ
Λ
TYjf) δ'
EιVOTYjTOf) και
'Φ' Υ
ροντι'::,ε
tI ",
οπως αν εκ
'
δ ΙΚYjσειας. according, to the strength of the offence. But if, by ΗercuΙes,Ί anyone
should attempt this for the sake of slander, decide 8 according to its gravity
69'1' [2Α 14.1] (200a linea 20) και ύμας οδν αξιούμεν ύπογράψαντας το and consider how it is to be punished. ΙΟ
ΙΟ ύμιν δοκούν προθειναι τουτι το βιβλίδιον όπως και τοις αλλοις τα ήμέτερα
γνωσθfι, και δύνωνται τΥις ψευδοδοξίας και αγνοίας τών καλών απαλ- 69.1. [Ι4.ιγ And therefore we ask you to add the subscription lO which
λ aYYjvaL
Λ
οι παρα 200 b)'
., t
' ( Λ
TYjV εαυτων t 'θ Λ
αιτιαν υπευ υνοι ταις τιμωριαις
" ,
seems good to you to this petition 11 and to post it up, both so that the things
concerning us may become known to the rest and so that those who
because of their own fault 12 become liable to punishments may be able to

ι Οη the text and translation, cf. Minns, 'The Rescript ofHadrian', 45-6.
2 Eusebius' construction of the sentence has gone awry. The introductory 'Clearly, then, with
regard to this petition' has been brought within the protasis, confusing the sense. We have presumed
that the Latin had 'provinciales si .. .' Ιη order to correspond to Greek idiom Eusebius had to alter the
position of the conditional particle, and, instead of simply putting it before 'provincials', mistakenly
. put it at the beginning of the whole sentence. The Syriac version of Eusebius, ίη fact, has the
conditional particle where we think it ought, logically, to be ('Therefore plainly concerning this petition
which the people of the provinces made concerning Christians that they be killed, if.. .'), though this is
presumably a secondary correction of Eusebius' Greek, since Rufinus has the conditional where
Eusebius has it, and, as oi5v must be postpositive, the αν with which the sentence begins cannot be
simply deleted ΟΓ moved.
3 The phrases επι TOVTO μόνον and ουκ dξιώσεσιν ουδε μόναις βοαι<; are normally taken as parallel
(Lawler and Oulton at ΗΕ Iν.g.2: 'let them have recourse to this method alone, and not to petitions
and mere outcries'; Millar, The Emperor ίιι the Romαn World, 558: 'let them resort to that means, and not
to mere petitions ΟΓ shouts'). But it is difficult both to see why the construction would shift from επί
with the accusative to a simple dative, and to see how the dative can be construed at all. We suspect
that underlying Eusebius' Greek text is an original Latin using the passive of verso or verto in the sense
of'to busy oneselfwith or to be occupied with'.
4 'Cognoscere' is the technical term for 'to determine judicially'. The Greek has obscured the
emphasis of the Latin original. It is not for provincials to bother the emperor with petitions about
malefactors, but for them to make accusations and for the governor to deal with them in his tribunal;
cf. Pliny, Ερ. Χ.30.ι where Trqjan sends Pliny 'eos de quibus cognosci oportebit'.
5 Cf. Pliny, Ερ. Χ.97. 2 , 'deferantur et arguantur'.
6 Hadrian need not be referring to any specific legislation. It remains open to Minicius Fundanus
to prosecute Christians for the name alone, should he judge it appropriate.
7 This oath may be less vehement than the Christians, and subsequent scholars, may have
supposed. Pliny's use of 'hercule' at Ερ. Χ.56.3 does not appear to have very much force.
8 For Eusebius' use of διαλαμβάνω in this sense see HEVII.30.I9.
ι αν Α] εΙ Eus επαρχιωται
Eus (Gr) edd] επαρχεωται Α δύνωνται Α] δύνανται Eus (Gr) 9 We have moved to this position the last two chapters of the Second Apology, cf. Introduction,
2 dποκρίνεσθαι Α Eus (Β)] dποκρίνασθαι
Eus (Gr*) 3 τούτψ μόνψ coniec (scilicet in hoc ipso PP·27-g·
vertantur)] TOVTO μόνον Α Eus (Gr) 5 δείκνυσί Α] δείκνυσίν Eus (Gr) 6 διόριζε Α] όριζε 10 For the technical vocabulary respecting libellus procedure, see Introduction, ρρ.24-5.

Eus (Gr) ~ πρo~είνoι Α E~s (G~*)] Π~OTείνει E~s (TΓ~) , 8 ό~ω<; ~ E~s (Gr*)~ oϋ~ω<; ,ι/π,: ς ii The biblidion, or in Latin, libellus, was the document in which a request was set out, ίη this case, the
Eus (EMTj εκδικησεια<; cOlllec] εκδικησεια<; + Άντωνινου επιστολη προς τον κοινον τη<; Άσιας whole of the First Apology.
... + Μάρκου βασιλέως επιστολη προ<; την σύγκλψον ... Α Ι2 οί' Nex1 η Amrg 12 Παρα here must mean 'because of', cf. D 88.4 and Ι24+
 JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS JUSTIN'S APOLOGY ΟΝ BEHALF OF CHRISTIANS

γίνονται, 69.2. [14.2J δια το εν TV Φύσει TV των ανθρώπων εΊναι το escape from false ορίηίοη and ignorance of what is goodl-69.2. [14.2J
γνωριστικον καλου και αισχρου και δια το ήμων ους ουκ επίστανται τοιαυτα those who, because the ability to recognize good and evil belongs to the
όποια λέγουσιν αισχρα καταψηΦίζεσθαι και δια το χαίρειν τοιαυτα πράςασι nature oflluman beings, and because they condemn us whom they do not
θεοις και ετι νυν απαιτουσι παρα ανθρώπων τα όμοια, εκ του και ήμιν ώς know for the shameful things they speak of, and because they exult ίη gods
5 τοιαυτα πράττουσι θάνατον η δεσμα η αλλό τι τοιουτον προστιμάν έαυτους who have done these things and even ηονν require the same from men, 5
κατακρίνοντες, ώς μ~ δέεσθαι αλλων δικαστων. condemn themselves so as to need ηο other judges, when they sentence us
to death or chains or some other such penalty for having done such
70.1. [15.2J εαν δε υμεις τουτο προγράψητε, ήμεις τοις πάσι Φανερον things. 2
πoι~σαιμεν, ίνα ει δύναιντο μεταθωνται' τούτου γε μόνου χάριν τούσδε τους
λόγους συνετάξαμεν. 70.2. [15.3J ουκ εστι δε ήμων τα διδάγματα κατα 70.1. [15.2γ And ifyou would promulgate this petition we would be glad
ΙΟ
ι
κρισιν σω
ιΦ ,ι
ρονα αισχρα, α
'λλ \ ι
α πασης μεν
\ Φ λ
ι οσο
Φι 'θ
ιας αν
ι r ι
ρωπειου υπερτερα, ει
, to have it brought to the attention of all,4 ίη order that, if they can, they ΙΟ
δε μ~, καν Σωταδείοις και Φιλαινιδείοις και Ά.ρχεστρατείοις και Έπι­ may change their minds. It is for this reason alone that we have composed
κουρείοις και τοις αλλοις τοις τοιούτοις ποιητικοις διδάγμασιν ουχ όμοια, ο[ς these addresses. 70.2. [15.3J ,According to sound judgement our teach-
εντυγχάνειν πάσι και λεγομένοις και γεγραμμένοις συγκεχώρηται. ings are not shameful, but superior to all human philosophy, and even if
70.3. [15-4J και παυσόμεθα λοιπόν, όσον εφ' ήμιν -ην πράξαντες και προσ- they were not, they are at least not like the poems which teach the
15 ι c
επευ~αμενoι
~
της
'λ θ ι
α η ει ας KαTα~ιω
c θ ~
ηναι
\
τους
Ι
πανττι
Ι
παντας
'θ ι
αν ρωπους. doctrines of Sotades and Philaenis and Archestratus 5 and Epicurus and 15
70.4. [15·5J εϊη οδν (201 a) και υμάς αξίως ευσεβείας και ΦιλοσοΦίας τα others of the kind, which everyone has free access to ίη both spoken
δίκαια υπερ έαυτων κρΙναι. and written form. 70.3. [15-4J And ηονν we conclude, having done as
much as we could and also praying that all people everywhere will be
made worthy of the truth. 70.4. [15.5J May it be then that your judge-
Appendix
ments will be worthy of piety and philosophy and-for your οwn sake-be 20
(Rufinus) just.
Accepi litteras ad me scriptas a decessore tuo Serennio Graniano claris-
1 The MS adds, 'so that. these things may become known to human beings', which must be a
simo uiro et ηΟΩ placet mihi relationem silentio praeterire, ne et ίηηοχίί doublet of the phrase 'so that the things concerning us may also become known to others"
perturbentur et calumniatoribus latrocinandi tribuatur occasio. Itaque Si 2 It is unsurprising that this long and inνolνed sentence suffered shipwreck ίη the transmission of

euidenter prouinciales huic petitioni suae adesse ualent aduersum Chris- the text. We haνe emended the infinitiνe κατακρ{νειν to the participle κατακρ{νοντες, and distinguish
two groups in the Όπως clause, 'the rest, ... and those who make themselνes liable to punishments" Αη
5 tianos, ut pro tribunali eos ίη aliquo arguant, hoc eis exequi ηΟΩ prohibeo. advantage of this interpretation is that it aνoids the implication that αΖΖ those that Justin hopes wi11
Precibus autem in hoc solis et adclamationibus uti eis ηΟΩ permitto. change their minds (ιΑ 70.1[2Α 15.2]) were inνolνed ίη the prosecution ofChristians.
Etenim multo aequius est, Si quis uolet accusare, te cognoscere de obiectis. 3 At this point the MS has 2Α 15.1, which is obviously out ofplace, and which we have left as a
dislocated fIagment at the end of the Secoιzd Apology. The fragment continues the theme of 2Α 12 and
Si quis igitur accusat et probat aduersum leges quicquam agere memora- 13, which both begin with a biographical reference. Ιη the MS the sentence falls at the mid-point ofthe
tos homines, pro merito peccatorum etiam supplicia statues. Illud meher- two chapters which we haνe transferred here from the end of the Secoιzd Apology. Ιί; as we haνe argued
ΙΟ cule magnopere curabis, ut Si quis calumniae gratia quemquam horum (cf. Introduction, ρρ.29-30), this represents the dislocation of one folio, this sentence would be a
fragment inserted either at the bottom ofthe recto (end of 14) or the top ofthe verso (beginning of 15).
postulauerit reum, in hunc pro SUi nequitia suppliciis seuerioribus
4 Justin distinguishes his request that the emperor subscribe the petition (ύπογράΦω) (ιΑ 6g[2A 14].1)
uindices. and his request that he promulgate it (προγράΦω).
5 Editors since Leutsch have emended the MS's όρχηστικοις to άρχεστρατε{οις. Barnard retains the
MS reading, which he understands to refer to 'Dancers" While the adjectiνe could mean 'panto-
ι γ{νονται Ashton edιZJ γ{νονται εΙς το γνωσθηναι τοις άνθρώποις ταυ τα Α δια το peιion Otto Bluιzt mimic', what is required here is refeIence to a text which could be heard or read. Α pantomimic
Goodspeed A1uιzier] διο Α; διά τε το Mαrcovich 2 γνωριστικον edιZJ γνωριστον Α 3 αΙσχρα Α] libretto would hardly meet this end. Moreoνer, another adjectiνe deriνed from a proper name would
αΙσχρα πράττειν Ashton edd καταψηΦ{'εσθαι Pirioιz edιZJ καταψηΦι'ομένους Α και δια το Α] om suit the context. Archestratus, the author of a gαstrology, is associated by Chrysippus with both the
Schwαrtz (1888) χα{ρειν Α] χα{ρειν αυτους Mαrcovich 4 Όμοια Α] Όμοια ώς Thirlby Otto Bluιzt erotic poetess Philaenis (Athenaeus, Deipιzosop!zistαe VII1.335b, d-e) and with Epicurus (ibid. I11.10If,
Goodspeed Mαrcovich; Όμοια ωστε Muιzier έκ του και Α] και έκ του Thirlby; έκ του Mαrcovich Muιzier I04b; VII.278e-f). Justin would haνe hoped that his contempt for this trio would be shared by the
5 προστιμαν Thirlby Otto Blunt Goodspeed Muιzier] πρ6στιμον Α; πρ6στιμον κρ{νειν Mαrcovich Stoicizing emperors. For the obscene νerses of Sotades, cf. Ath. Deipιzosophistαe XIν.620e-62Ib, and
6 κατακρ{νοντες coniec] κατακρ{νειν Α; κατακρ{νοντας Schwαrtz (1888); fortasse κατεκρ{ναν ώς Α] Athanasius, ContrαAliαιzos 1'2,4.
ωστε Muιzier 7 15. ι restat ad finem Partis Secundae Α 8 ποιήσαιμεν Α] αν ποιήσαιμειι
Bluιzt Mαrcovich Muιzier, ποιήσομειι Pirion γε Α] γαρ Thirlby 11 άρχεστρατε{οις Leutsch edιZJ
όρχηστικο,ς Α 13 λεγομένοις Thirlby edιZJ γενομένοις Α 16 ύμας !iJιlburg edιZJ ήμας Α
 (193 a 7) PARS SECUNDA
'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGy,l

(193 a 10) 1.1. Και 711 χθες δε και πρώην Εν TfJ πόλει ύμων γενόμενα Επι Ι. Ι. Ι h~ve been compelled to put this discourse 2 together3 by
,/ β
Ο υρ ικου, ,\ . . ('
και τα πανταχου ομοιως υπο των ηγουμενων α
Ι ι'...... t ι 'λ ι
ογως πραττ- what happened so recentl/: ίn your city under Urbicus,5 and by what
ι
ομενα
't.
ε~ ηναγκασε
ι ι με •
υπερ
\ •
υμων,
Λ' θ Λ"
ομοιοπα ων οντων και
\ α
'δ ε λΦ ων,
Λ καν
,ι governors are doing everywhere with similar unreasonableness. And Ι
5 αγνοητε και μη θέλητε δια την δόξαν των νομιζομένων αξιωμάτων την have done it for your sake, inasmuch as you have the same feelings that we
τωνδε των λόγων σύνταξιν ποιήσασθαι. 1.2. πανταχου γαρ ος αν have, and are our brothers, even if you are not aware of it, and even if you 5
σωΦρον{ζ ηται ύπο πατρος ij γε{τονος ij τέκνου ij Φ{λου ij αδελφου ij ανδρος ij do not wish it to be so because of the glory of what you regard as honours.
Λ θ ι \ 'δ ι \, λ ι "ι
γυναικος
\ (
χωρις
\
των πεισ εντων τους α ικους και ακο αστους εν αιωνιψ 1.2. For,6 apart from those who have accepted that the unjust and licen-
πυρι
\ κο
λ
ασ
θ/
ησεσ
θ
αι, τους
\ δ')
εναρετους
Ι
και
\.
ομοιως
Ι Χ
ριστψ
Λ β Ι
ιωσαντας εν
)
tious will be punished in eternal fire and that the virtuous and those who
10 απαθε{Cf συγγενέσθαι τψ θεψ-λέγομεν δε των γενομένων Χριστιανων) δια lived like Christ come to dwell with God ίn absence of suffering,7 apart,
that is, from those who have become Christians, everyone everywhere who 10

is corrected8 by a father ΟΓ neighbour ΟΓ child ΟΓ friend ΟΓ brother ΟΓ

1 The tit1e ίη the MS-Apology jότ the CΙzristians to the Romαn Senate by the same saint Justin J philosopheτ
and marfYr-is secondary.
2 1f, as discussed in the 1ntroduction (ΡΡ_21-31), the Second Apology represents material excised from
an earlier version ofthe FirstApolog)', the reference here will be to that earlier text as a whole_ 1f, οη the
other hand, the Second Apology is a covering address, the reference will be to the First Apology_ Ιη any
event, Justin's Ianguage here echoes what he wrote at the end of the transmitted text of the Second
Apology, which we have placed at the end ofthe First (70.1 [15.2]).
3 The MS adds Ό Romans'. We propose that these words were inserted after the Second Apology
was identified as an independent document in the MS tradition, ίη order to explain the referants of the
second-person pronouns ίη this section. The First Apology was addressed to the emperor and his
adopted sons, and the pronouns in ιΑ 89 [2Α 14].1 and ίη ιΑ 70 [2Α 15.2].1 clearly refer to these also.
4 Lit. 'yesterday and the day before', a stock phrase, occurring ίη e.g. Athenagoras, Legαtio 17.1 and

29-4-
5 For Quintus Lollius Urbicus, see 1ntroduction, Ρ.42.
6 At the end ofthis sentence, after the verb όρμησαι, which we have not translated, the MS shows
a blank line. Editors and translators frequently construe the whole of 2Α 1.2 as a single sentence, taking
'everyone' together with 'the wicked demons' as the subject of 'are preparing to kill us'. Grabe
(Spicilegium Patrum ΙΙ, ρ. 173) postuIated a lacuna aftel' όρμησαι, and thought he had found the missing
text ίη John Damascene's Sαcra Parallelα. That a lacuna exists has found more favour with subsequent
scholars than the suggested remedy. We agree that it is highly Iikely that something has fallen out ofthe
text, perhaps a statement to the effect that the persons rebuked hasten to Iay information before the
magistrates against those who rebuked them.
7 1η Justin's view, αpat!leia ('absence of suffering' or impassibiIity) was characteristic of the blessed
after their resurrection (D 46.7). Before the resurrection they wouId still be subject to the influence of
hostiIe powers, and therefore not strictly speaking impassible (D 105.4-5). 1η a weaker sense of apat!leiα,
ι Pars Secunda] του αυτου άγίου Ιουστίνου Φιλοσ6Φου και μάρτυρος α7Τολογία ύ7Τερ χρισΤιανων 7Τ ρ Ός however, Justin can say that even the living enjoy a pure life free from passion (ιΑ 58.3).
την ρωμαίων σύγκλψον Α 2 δε Α] τε B1Y1un MaTcovic!z 3 ουρβίκου Boll Sc!zwαι-tz (1888, Β We have deleted the phrase κατ' έλλειΨιν. 1t has generally been taken to mean 'for a shortcoming',
1909) MaTcovich Munieτ] ουρβίκου ιΙι 'Ρωμαίοι Α 5 και Α] και είναι Mαι-covich 6 σύνταξιν but a moral falling short is not a normal meaning of έλλειψις, or of κατ' έλλειψιν οη its own. When
edιZl σύναξιν Α ος αν Α] σσΤις αν μη Marcovich 8 γυναικΌς coniec] γυναικΌς κατέλλειψιν Α; coupled with καθ' ύ7Τερβολήν the two represent the extremes between which virtue stands (cf. Aristotle,
γυναικΌς κατ' έλλειψιν R. Stephanus edd χωρις Α] om Schwαι-tz (1888) τους Α] τους μεν MaTcovic!z Nicomachean Et!lics ΙΙ ι 107a3, etc.), but there is ηο reason why Justin should employ οηlΥ one of the poles
10 συγγενέσθαι Α] συγγενήσεσθαι Penoll Otto Alarcovich MllIlier here. 1ndeed, the husband of the woman whose story he is about to tell would appear to have
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 273
το δυσμετάθετον και (193 b) Φιλήδονον και δυσKίνΎJTOν 7Τρος το καλον όρμησαι husband ΟΓ wife, because it is difficult to change and because of the love of
*** και οι ,. Φ ~λ οι
αυ /
δ αιμονες, )
εχ θ' •
~ και τους τοιουτους
ραινοντες ΎJμιν " , δ ικαστας ' pleasure and because it is· difficult to turn toward the good 1 *** And ουΓ
"
εχοντες •
υ7ΤοχειΡιους / και, λ ατρευοντας, ' Φ"
ονευειν ~
ΎJμας 'Υ
7Ταρασκευα'::,ουσιν. enemies the wlcked demons suborn such judges as these 2-their subjects
1.3.
07Τως ε
<, δ' \ (
και ΎJ αιτια
του 7Ταντος γενομενου ε7ΤΙ
\ ,Ι Λ \ Ι, ο)
υρ
β'
ικου
Φ ,.
ανερα υμιν and devotees-to kill us. 3 1.3. But so that the cause of the whole affair
5 γένΎJTαι, τα 7Τε7Τραγμένα ά7Ταγγελω. under U rbicus may become clear to you Ι shall recount what happened. 5

2.1. Α certain woman was living with a husband who was licentious, and
2.1. 2 rυνΎJ
' β') δ λ ' ) λ'
,) ,) ,
τις συν ε ιου αν ρι ακο ασταινοντι, ακο ασταινουσα και αυTΎJ she had once been licentious herself. 4 2.2. But when she learnt the teach-
,
7Τροτερον. , 'δ"ε τα του~xριστου~δδ'
2.2. ε7Τει "
ι αγματα εγνω, ) Φ ρονισ
εσω 'θ ΎJ και' ings of Christ she came to her senses,5 and tried to persuade her husband
, "δ . , Φ ~ 'θ ) ~ ,
τον αν ρα ομοιως σω ρονειν 7Τει ειν ε7ΤειΡατο, τα
δ δ' )
ι αγματα ανα
Φ'
ερουσα to come to his, reporting what she had been taugllt, and telling him of the
,
TΎJν τε με'λλ ουσαν τοις
~)ου σω Φ' ,
ρονως και μετα'λ' )
ογου ορ θ ου
~ β ιουσιν
~ "
εσεσ θ αι punishment ίη eternal fire that will come to those who live senselessly and 10

10
) ) , '/λ )
εν αιωνιιΡ 7Τυρι κο ασιν α7Ταγγε
'λλ •
ουσα. 2.3. ο
δ' ~ ) ~ , λ '
ε, ταις αυταις ασε γειαις not according to right reason. 6 2.3 .. He, however, continued ίη his lascivi-
, , ) λλ οτριαν
ε7Τιμενων, α
/ δ' ~ , c. ) ~, , ) β,
ια των 7Tpα~εων ε7Τοιειτο TΎJν γαμεTΎJν. 2.4. ασε ες ous ways and did things whiqh alienated his wife. 2.4. For the woman
γαρ ΎJγOυμενΎJ το
\ (' Ι \ λ ,., λ'
ΟΙ7Τον ΎJ γυνΎJ συγκατακ ινεσ αι αν ρι 7Ταρα τον της
θ ) δ ' " considered it irreligious to sleep any longer with a man who tried, wrongly
......)εκ \ and against the law of nature, to make use of every opening7 for pleasure;
Φ
Ι Ι \ ,\ δ ι Ι. Ιδ Ι
υσεως νομον και 7Ταρα το ικαιον 7Τορους ΎJ OνΎJς 7Ταντος 7ΤειΡωμενιΡ

7Τοιείσθαι, της συζυγίας χωρισθηναι εβoυλήθΎJ. 2.5. και ε7Tειδ~ εςεδυσω- and she wanted to withdraw from the marriage. 2.5. But her advisers 15
15
~
7Τειτο
.,
υ7ΤΟ
~
των
)~"
αυTΎJς ετι 7Τροσμενειν,
, συμ
βλ'
ου ευοντων
.)
ως
εις
)λ'δ
ε 7ΤΙ α prevailed υροη her to continue living with him, οη the grounds that there
μετα β ο λ ΎJς
Λ t/c.'
ΎJ~OνTOς 7Τοτε
~
του
)
αν
δ /
ρος,
β Υ'
ια'::,OμενΎJ
•
εαυTΎJν
, ) /
ε7Τεμενεν. was hope that her husband might at some time change, and so she forced
2 .6. )δ δ" ' , )Λλ δ ) / )
θ' λ,
ε7Τει ΎJ ε ο TαυTΎJς ανΎJP, εις TΎJV..ti ε~αν ρειαν 7Τορευ εις, χα ε7Τωτερα
c.' ' herself to stay. 2.6. But then the woman's husband went to Alexandria,
7Τράττειν ά7TΎJγγέλθΎJ, ό7Τως μ~ κοινωνος των άδΙKΎJμάTων και άσεβΎJμάTων and it was reported that he was behaving in even worse fashion. So, to
avoid becoming a partner ίη his evil and impious behaviour by remaining 20
in the marriage and sharing his table and his bed, she gave him what ίη

erred decidedly οη the side of excess rather than deficiency. We propose that the phrase here is a
marginal comment οη the lacunose state of the text which has been incorporated within it. C[
Clement, StIΌlnαtα VII.14.88.7.1: 'Ifthen, since the saying is incomplete (ην οδν, κατ' ελλειψιν λεγομένου
του ρψου) we supply what is wanting for the completion of the passage ... ' (tr. Mayor).

ι Α line has been left blank ίη the MS. Presumably, the scribe had hopes ofbeing able to retrieve the
sense of a corrupt text.
2 The word we have translated 'such as these'--τοιούτους-ηοrmallΥ points back ίη Justin. We

presume that ίη the lacuna there was a description of the magistrates before whom charges are laid.
3 We have omitted as a marginal gloss four words from the MS text which may be translated
'magistrates, that is, who are ruled by demons'.
4 As she has already been denounced, and has herself petitioned the emperor, it is unlikely that it
was in order to protect her from the attention of Roman officials that Justin does not name her. It is
possible that, given the history of her seedy past, he did not want to identifY her by name to the
Christian community, but it may also be that he simply did not know her name, as he did not know the
name ofthe third martyr, mentioned at 2Α 2.20, whereas it is likely that he knew Ptolemy as a fellow
Christian catechist, and Lucius' familiarity with some of the themes of Justin's Apology suggests that
they weΓe acquainted. aη the case ofthe 'certain woman', see GΓaηt, Ά Woman ofRome', Lampe,
From Pαul to VΆlellti1l1ΙS, 237-40, and Buck, 'The Pagan Husband ίη Justin'. Grant and Lampe identifY
2.1-20 γυνή τις ... προσετιμήθη αρ Eus HEIV.17.2-13 (Gk [=A(ab των πράξεων ad Φεύγει J)v a stet hel' with the 'FΙΟΓa' to whom the gnostic Ptolemy wrote a letter preserved by Epiphanius (Ραπατίοπ
ρτο A)TERBDMJ Lat Syr) 33·3-7)·
5 This sentence contains thΓee words deΓίved from the adjective σώΦρων, which originally meant

Ι όρμ:ησαι] post όρμησαι linea vacua Α 3 λατρεύοντας coniec] λατρεύοντας ώς οδν αρχοντας 'of sound mind' but latel' came to be used ίη a more mΟΓaΙ sense to mean 'moderate' οτ 'self-
δαιμονιωντας Α; λατρεύοντας ώς οδν και αρχοντας δαιμονιωντας Mαrcovich; λαΤρΕύοντας ενεργουντες controlled', often ίη a sexual context. It is used in this sense by Justin.
δαιμονιωντας Sclzwαrtz (1888) 6 αυτη Α Eus (Gr*)] αυτη Eus (BD) 7 επει Α] εΠΕιδη Eus 6 aη reason, ΟΓ logos, see IntΓOduction, ρρ.61-6. Right reason (ορθος λόγος) occurs thΓee times ίη

(Gr) Mαrcoviclz εγνω Eus (Gr Syr)] εγνω αυτη Next; εγνωσαν οδτοι ΝΙ mrg; εγνω αυτη Otto Blunt the SecolldApology, but nevel' in the Fi1Jt. It is a common Stoic phrase. Diogenes Laertius νΠ.87 (=ST1F
Goodspeed Λιfunίeι~ εγνω αύτή τε NIαrcovich εσωΦρονίσθη ... ελεγχόμενον (2.16) Eus] om Α 8 τα Πι'4) says that the 'oΓthοs logos' passes through all things and is the same as Zeus.
Eus (Gr*)] om Eus (BD) 14 επειδη Eus (Gr)] επει R. Stephαnus VΆlesius Otto 7 The double entendre is Justin's: πόρος can mean 'orifice', as well as 'means of obtaining'.
 274 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 275
γένΎjTαι μένουσα Εν Tfι συζυγίq, και όμοδίαιτος και όμόκοιτος γινOμένΎj, το your language is called a 'diνorce', 1 and was separated from him.
λεγόμενον παρ' ύμιν ρεπούδισν δουσα, EXωpίσθΎj. ό δε καλος κάγαθος 2.'. 2.'. That perfect gentleman, her husband, ·should haνe been glad that
TαύTΎjς άν~p, δέον αυτον χαίρειν ότι α πάλαι μετα των ύΠΎjpεTων και των she had stopped doing the things she had so readily done ίn the past with
μισ θ ο
ι , ... ,' 'θ ι \
Φ ορων ευχερως επραττε, με αις χαιΡουσα και κακιq, παστι, τουτων μεν
Ι Ι Ι \
serνants and hired workers, delighting ίn getting drunk and ίn all kinds of
Λ t . ' \ , \ \ , \ , θ ' 'β
5 των πρα",εων πεπαυτο, και αυτον τα αυτα παυσασ αι πραττοντα ε ου ετο,
, 'λ
evil, and glad that she wanted him to stop doing what he had been doing. 5
\
μΎj β ου λ ομενου
' 'λλ αγεισΎjς,
απα ' "λ
KαTΎjγOpιαν πεΠOΙΎjTαι, '
εγων αυTΎjν ,\ Χρισ- Instead, when she had left him because he did not want to stop, he brought
\
τιανΎjν ';'
ειναι. 2. 8 . και\ .
Ύj \
μεν '
β ι βλ ι'δ.ιον σοι Λ"
τιμ αυτοκρατορι , 'δ ωκε,
ανε a. charge against her, saying that she was a Christian. 2 2.8. She then
πρότερον συγXωpΎjθηναι αυTfι δισΙK~σασθαι τα έαυτης άξισυσα, Επειτα τ' submitted a petition to you,3 the emperor, praying that she be giνen leaνe
άπoλoγ~σασθαι περι του KαTΎjγOp~μαTOς μετα την των πραγμάτων αυτης to set her 'financial affairs ίn order first4 and to answer the charge later,
ΙΟ δισίKΎjσιν' και συνεXώpΎjσας τουτο. 2.9. ό δε TαύTΎjς ποτε άν~p, προς after she had arranged her affairs;5 and this you granted. 2.9. Her former ΙΟ
EKείνΎjν μεν μη δυνάμενος τανυν Ετι λέγειν, προς Πτολεμαιόν τινα διδ­ husband, unable for the time being to proceed against her, then turned
άσκαλον EKείνΎjς των Χριστιανων μαθΎjμάTων γενόμενον Ετράπετο δια τουδε against a man called Ptolemy,6 whQ had been her instructor in the teach-
Λ'
του τροπου. 2.10. .,
εκατονταρχον Φ'λ' Λ"
ι ον αυτιμ "
υπαρχοντα επεισε λ α β'
εσ θ αι ings of the Christians, ίn the, following manner. 2.10. He persuaded a
centurion who was a friend of his to arrest Ptolemy and to ask7 him if he

1 Justin uses a technical Latin term, 'repudium'. Some jurists distinguished between repudium and
divortiuιn by applying the former to potential unions and the later to real ones, ΟΓ by allowing that a
marriage might survive the sending of a repudium (cf. Evans Grubbs, VVΌInen αnd the Law in the Romαn
Empire, 187f.)- However, there is the further distinction that, although ίη Roman law either partner
could initiate a divorce, l-epudiuln! reΡudίαι-e tended to be used of the husband's action and divortere of the
wife's_ But the distinction is not absolute: there are references ίη the Digestα to 'a wife ΟΓ her pαteιfάmiliαs
ΟΓ even her new husband sending α l-epudium to her husband', Treggiari, Romαll Aιfαrιiαge, 436 f., cf. 439 f.
2 Οη persecution, and bringing charges against Christians, see Introduction, ΡΡ.44-5.
3 For petitions to the emperor, see Introduction, ρρ.24-5. Ιη this sentence Justin uses the technical
terms βιβλίδιον (petition), αναδίδωμι (submit), and αςιόω (ask, pray). This is the οηlΥ place ίη the two
Apologίes where Justin addresses himself to the emperor ίη the singular.
4- Ιη Roman law, dowry passed to the control of the husband for the duration of a marriage but

reverted to the woman ΟΓ her father at its dissolution through death ΟΓ divorce (Treggiari, R01nαll
Μαπίαge, 326f.; Arjava, VVΌmell αlld Law ίll Late Αlltίquί!)ι, 134). Ιη divorce, in cases ofmoral fault οη the
woman's part, the husband was allowed to keep a portion of it (Treggiari, Romαll Μαπίαge, 352 f.). Ιη
the case reported by Justin, the ex-husband may have hoped, by denouncing his ex-wife as a Christian,
to have ensured his title to part of her dowry. ΒΥ winning her petition for a stay ίη the prosecution for
Christianity, the woman has effectively placed her ex-husband in the position of having to choose
between returning all her money to her administration, so that the prosecution for Christianity can
proceed, ΟΓ of retaining it, and thus indefinitely delaying the prosecution for Christianity. Frustration
at this stalemate may have provoked the ex-husband to proceed against the woman's Christian teacher.
5 Ίη ηο circumstances ... did the dowry revert automatically at the end of her marriage; an
action had to be brought for its recovery. If there had been a dotal agreement, the action would be
Ι γένηται Eus (Gr*)] γ ίνητα ι Eus (aTERD) 2 υμιν Eus (Gr*)] ημιν Eus (TER) based οη that (αctio ex stίpulαtu). Otherwise, there was an αctio l-ei uxoriαe' (Gardner, 'The Recovery of
4 επραττε Eus (Gr* Syr)] επραττε κυλιομένη Τι γυνη Eus (TcffiTrmER) πάστι Eus (Gr* Syr)] om Eus Dowry in Roman Law', 449). The aorist tense of the infinitive διοικήσασθαι may imply that such an
(BD) 5 αυτον Eus (Gr)] αυτον δε Eus (Syr) Schwαrtz Mαrcovic!l 6 μη βουλομένου Eus (Gr* action was ίη train, and mean 'to secure administration (αdlnilliftrαre)' ΟΓ 'to gain control' (ofher affairs).
Lat)] om Eus (BD Syr); μη βουλόμενον Η Stephαnus; μη βουλόμενο, Peαrson; μη βουλομένου αυτου 6 Οη Ptolemy see Introduction, ΡΡ-43-4. The text as preserved by Eusebius at this point inserts the

Mαrcovic!l 7 ανέδωκε Eus (Gr*)] αναδέδωκεν Eus (BD); αναδέδωκε Otto 8 επειτα τ' phrase, 'whom U rbicus punished'. Ιη 2Α 2. Ι ο, after the word 'centurion', it inserts the phrase 'who cast
coniec] επειτα Eus (Gr); and afterwards Eus (Syr); επειτα δ' Aιfαrcovich ΙΟ διοίκησιν Eus (Gr* Ptolemy into chains'. Both phrases anticipate the subsequent narrative, and were rejected as marginal
Syr)] διοίκησιν ύπέσχετο Eus (a); διοίκησιν ύποσχομένη Eus (TcER) ΙΙ εκείνην μεν Eus (Gr)] notes by Bίicheler ('Aristides und Justinus', 286), Schwartz (Eusebius, ΗΕ), and Schmid ('Textίiber­
εκείνην Sc!ιwαι-tΖ Mαrcovic!l τινα Eus (Lat) BίicheleI- Blunt Aιfαrcovic!l Munielj τινα ον ουρβίκιο, εκολάσατο lieferung', I05f.).
Eus (Gr Syr) Otto Goodspeed 13 έκατόνταρχον Eus (Lat) Bίicheleι- Blunt Mαrcovich Munielj έκατόν- 7 Compare the formal question put by ΡΙίηΥ: Ί asked them (ίllteποgαvι) whether they were Chris-

ταρχον εΙ, δεσμα εμβαλόντα τον Πτολψαιον Eus (Gr Syr) Otto Goodspeed tians' (Ερ. Χ.96.3).
 ~η6 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 277
του Πτολεμαίου και ανερωτησαι ει Χριστιανόs εστι. 2.11. και τον Πτολε­ was a Christian. 1 2. Ι Ι. And when Ptolemy, CJ, lover of truth who would
μαίον, ΦιλαλήθΥ] αλλ' ουκ απαΤΥ]λον ουδε ψευδολόγον την γνώμΥ]ν σντα, not even think of deceiving ΟΓ lying, confessed that he was a Christian, the
όμολογήσαντα έαυτον εΊναι Χριστιανόν, εν dEafLOLS γενέσθαι ό έκατόνταρχοs centurion had him put ίη chains aΏd subjected him to punishment for a
πεποίΥ]κε, και επι πολυν χρόνον εν Τψ δεσμωΤΥ]ρίψ εκολάσατο. 2.12. τελ- long time ίη· prison. 2 2. 12. Finally, when the man was brought before
~'tl , \ Ο" β "θ <" θ ι " Λ Ι
Urbicus, the same question was put to him again, and this οηlΥ:3 whether
..... C'
5 ευταιον οε οτε επι υρ ικον Υ]Χ Υ] ο αν ρωποs ομοιωs αυτο τουτο μονον
5
εζΥ]τάσθΥ], ει εϊΥ] Χριστιανόs.2.13. και πάλιν τα καλα έαυτψ συνεπιστ­ he was a Christian. 2.13. And again, because through the teaching of
άμενοs δια την απο του Χριστου διδαχήν, το διδασκαλείον TijS θείαs dPETijS Christ he had come to a personal knowledge of the good,4 he confessed
ώμολόγΥ]σεν. 2.14. ό γαρ αρνούμενοs ότιουν ~ KaTEYVWKWS του πράγμα­ the school of divine virtue. 5 2.14. For whenever a person denies some-
TOS EtapvOS γίνεται, ~ έαυτον ανάζιον επιστάμενοs και αλλότριον του πράγ- thing, he does so either because he altogether repudiates what he denies,
10 fLaTOS την όμολογίαν Φεύγει' ιLν ουδεν πρόσεστι Τψ αλΥ]θινψ ΧριστιανΨ. and so becomes a denier, ΟΓ he shuns confessing it because he knows that 10
'
2.15. και\ του~ Ο'υρ β'ικου κε λ EvaaVTOS ,\, θ ~
αυτον απαχ Υ]ναι,
Λ"
OVKΙOS ΤΙS, και
\ he does not deserve it, and that the matter has nothing to do with him. 6
aVTOS ων Χριστιανόs, όρων την αλόγωs OVTWS γενομένΥ]ν κρίσιν, προs τον Neither of these is the case with a true Christian. 2.15. And Urbicus
ordered him to be led away. 7 Another Christian, a man called Lucius, οη
seeing the judgement given in this irrational way, said to Urbicus: 8

ι The MS has 'if-this thing only-he was a Christian'. Bίicheler ('Aristides undJustin', 285f. and
Schmid ('Textίiberlieferung', 105) suggested that 'this thing οηlΥ' is an interpolation. The identical
phrase occurs in the account of Ptolemy's examination before the urban prefect (2Α 2.12). The word
'again' ίη the latter passage may have encouraged a reader to think that the phrase belonged in 2.ΙΙ as
well.
2 At ιΑ 4-4 Justin implies that οηlΥ Christians are punished before being convicted, but his mean-
ing there is that Christians are punished without having been convicted of wrongdoing. Whatever
form the 'punishment' ofPtolemy took, it does not appear that its purpose was to force recantation, as
was the case ίη the investigations described ίη the .Mαrtyrdom qfP06Icarp (2-4) and the Letter qftlze Chul·ches
qfT7ienne αIld Lyoιιs (Eusebius, HEV.1.20, 39, 53-4).
3 Cf. the Letter qftlze Churches qfT7iellne αnd Lyoιιs (Eusebius, HEV.1.1O).
4 Justin uses the rare word συνεπίσταμαι instead of the much commoner σύνοιδα. Cf. 2Α 3(4)-4
where, ίη a closely parallel phrase, accused Christians are said to be coιιscious ίιι theIιιselves qfιιο evil. Ιη the
present case we have taken the dative έαυτψ more ίη the sense 'jόl" himself, as in the LXX ofJob 19: 27.
Ptolemy is said to have come to know τα καλά, which means 'the good' in a much more general sense
than his οννη good deeds.
5 The word διδασκαλειον means school, ΟΓ school of thought. Justin has Ptolemy confess that he is
a Christian ίη a manner appropriate to a teacher.
6 2Α 2.14 (introduced by γάρ) is meant to explain 2.13. But the sequence ofthought needs unpack-

ι ει Bucheler] ει αυτσ τουτο μ6νον Eus (Gr); αυτσ τουτο μ6νον
Munier; Si (Christianus esset) hoc tantum Eus (Lat)
7 διδασκαλειον Eus (Gr)] διδασκάλιον R. Stephαnus Jlάlesius Otto
Eus (a); στι ου. η Eus (ΤΙ); η Eus (Syr); quod est Eus (Lat)
12 οϋτω<; Eus (Gr)] οϋτω Otto Bluιzt
ει Eus (Syr) Η. Stephαnus Otto Μαπουίclι
5 ουρβικον edd] ουρβίκιον Eus
8 ότιουν η Eus (Gr*)] στι ουκ εϊη
ΙΙ ουρβίκου edd] ουρβίκιου Eus
ing. The argument turns οη the sharp antithesis of confessing and denying (see note at ιΑ 4.6).
Justin seeks to show that Ptolemy confessed because neither of the possible reasons for denying was
applicable to him. Justin distinguishes two cases. Ιη the first what is denied is something perceived as
evi1 ΟΓ prejudicial, and the charge is denied with vehemence. Those who do this are said to 'become
deniers'. Ιη the second case, what is denied is something estimable. Those who consider themselves not
to deserve what is imputed to them, do not deny the imputation with vehemence, but simply shun
acknowledging it, because it is not true of them. Ptolemy cannot deny his Christianity ίη the first sense
because, through Christianity, he has come to know the good. He cannot deny ίη the second sense since
his knowledge of the good is personαl. .
7 Justin means '1ed away to execution'. The phrase, 'ordered him to be led away' is equivalent
to the Latin phrase 'duci iussj' found ίη Pliny's account of the execution of Christians (c.AD 110),
Ερ. x.g6.3, and ίη the Acts qf the Scillitαn Mαrtyrs 16 (AD 180).
8 Ιη the Letter qf the Churches qf T7ienne αnd Lyoιzs (Eusebius, ΗΕ V.1.g-1O), when the governor had
passed sentence οη some Christians, Vettius Epagathus, 'unable to bear the judgement so unreason-
ably given', came forward from the crowd and sought to speak, and was numbered among the martyrs.
Both the situation and the phrase are strongly reminiscent of the present passage.
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

Ο υρ
" β
ικον
"Φ
ε η.
6 ' ΤΙιs
2.1. η
ι ,Ι
αιτια του
Λ Ι
μητε μοιχον
,Ι
μητε
Ι
πορνον μητε
Ι 2.16~ 'Why did you order this man to be pun~shedl when he is not con-
'δ
αν ρο
Φ Ι
ονον μητε
Ι λ
ωπο
δ Ι Ι
υτην μητε αρπαγα μητε απ
<Ι Ι ι λ Λ
wS α
'δ Ι
ικημα
Ι
τι πραι;-
Ι t. victed ofbeing either an adulterer or a fornicator 2 or a murderer or a thief
αντα ελεγχόμενον, σνόματοs δε Χριστιανου προσωνυμ{αν όμολογουντα- or a robber or one who has done any evil deed at all,3 but confesses that he
,
τον
,ι
αν
θ
ρωπον
Λ'
τουτον εκο
λ Ι
ασω;
Ο ,Ι
υ πρεποντα
,
ευσε
β
ει
Λ'
αυτοκρατορι
Ι
ου
'δ '
ε is called by the name of Christian? Your judgement does not befit a pious
5 ΦιλοσόΦι:ι Κα{σαρι παιδι ουδε Tfι ίερq. συγκλήτι:ι ΚΡ{νειs, & ουρβικε.' emperor, or a philosophical Caesar-his son-4 or the holy Senate, Ο 5
2.17. και ,.,os ου'δ' "λλ'
εν α Ι
ο αποκριναμενοs και'προs
"
τον Λ ουκιον
Ι ε"Φ η. 'Δ οκειs
Λ Urbicus.,5 2.17. His only reply was similarly6 to say to Lucius: 'Ι think you
, ,
μοι και συ ειναι τοιουτος.
'r' Λ' 2.1 8 . και
' Λ ουκιου
Ι Φ YJaaVTOS·
Ι , 711f 'λ ιστα,
ιγ1.α
' 'λ ιν
πα also are one ofthem.' 2.18. And when Lucius said, 'Certainly', Urbicus
και αυΤ()ν απαχθηναι εκέλευσεν. 2.19. ό δε και χάριν ειδέναι ώμολόγει του ordered that he too be led away. 2. 19. Lucius further confessed that he
πονηρων δεσποτων των τοιούτων απηλλάχθαι και προς τον πατέρα και was thankfιi1 7 to have been set free 8 from evil masters such as these and

ι One would expect του after τ{ς Τι αιτ{α to introduce an articular infinitive (cf. D 92.2). But the
construction is broken (cf. Schmid, 'Textίiberlieferung', ιη, η. 126). lηstead ofthe infinitive, Justin has
used the finite verb Εκολάσω. We have inserted a dash after όμολογουντα to mark the break.
2 'Fornicator' translates πόρνον, which ίη pagan use meant catamite οτ sodomite. However, it was
extended in Christian usage to cover various types of sexual promiscuity. There may be reference here
to the behaviour of the husband of the Christian convert.
3 That it is unreasonable to convict those who have done ηο wrong is the argument of the Fil"St
Apology at ιΑ 2.3; 3.1-5. The rescript of Hadrian provided that the governor should punish those
proved to have done something 'against the laws' (ιΑ 68.10).
4- Lucius plays οη Antoninus' name (Pius) and alludes to Marcus Aurelius' reputation as a

1 Οϋρβικον ed~ ουρβ{κιον Eus
philosopher. These features are to be found at the beginning of the Fil"St Apolog)I. It is difficult to
suppose that we are dealing here with either coincidence οτ commonplaces. For the relationship
between Lucius and Justin in their use, cf. lηtroductίoη, ΡΡ.23-4, 36. Where the MS reads 'son of a
philosopher Caesar', Eusebius has 'philosopher son ofCaesar'o It is not impossible for Antoninus Pius
to be referred to simply as 'Caesar', but it is more natural to refer the title to Marcus Aurelius, his
adopted son, who had been designated Caesar in 138. We have emended the text to read 'philosopher
Caesar [his] son'o We presume that a desire to supply a genitive with the word 'son' led first to 'Caesar'
being put into the genitive, and then, as a second stage, 'philosopher' being put into the genitive as
well. But ηο genitive is needed; see the reference to Marcus ίη ιΑ 1.1. It has seemed to some 'strange'
(Blunt, 108) that there is ηο reference here to Lucius Verus. Valesius' emendation, which Schwartz in
1888 (Όbservatίοηes') thought attractive, is designed to introduce a reference to Lucius Verus and so
harmonize the names here with the names in the address of the Fil"St Apology. But the omission of
Lucius Verus here is less surprising than his inclusion ίη ιΑ 1.1 (see lηtroductίoη, ΡΡ.38-4Ι).
5 Οη 'the holy Senate' cf. lηtroductίoη, ΡΡ.35-6.
6 The word κα{ has been thought unnecessary and was omitted by Schwartz. But Justin means to
stress that, as with Ptolemy, the magistrate was interested οηlΥ ίη whether Lucius was a Christian.
7 It became something of a commonplace ίη martyr acta for the condemned to give thanks
immediately after the passing of sentence; cf. Acta of the Scilitan Martyrs (η), and of Cyprian (4.3),
Maximilian (3.2), Euplius (3), and Felix (30).
τ{ς Τι αιτ{α του Eus (Gr*)] τ{ς αιτ{α του Eus (T1BD); τ{ς Τι αιτ{α; 8 The phrases 'to have been set free, etc.' explain the reasons for Lucius' gratitude. lη

του edd 3 ον6ματος δε Χριστιανου Eus (Gr Lat) ed~ παθήματος δε Χριστου Α 4 Εκολάσω Eusebius they are introduced by 'for he said', and ίη the MS by the participle 'knowing'. Schmid
Α Eus (Gr)] σε κολάσαι Η. Stephanus; κολασθηναι Penon 5 ΦιλοσόΦψ Κα{σαρι Schwartz] Φιλοσ6Φου ('Textίiberlieferung', 105) observed that these were alternative attempts to make sense of the text. He
κα{σαρος Α; ΦιλοσόΦψ κα{σαρος Eus; ΦιλοσόΦψ Κα{σαρι ουδε Φιλοσ6Φου Κα{σαρος VαlesiusNIunier ουδε proposed that both verbs be rejected, but that Eusebius' γάρ be retained, and argued that the infinitive
τη Α] ουδε Eus (Gr) Οϋρβικε Α ed~ ουρβ{κιε Eus 6 και προς τον Λούκιον Α Eus (Gr)] πρός phrases were also dependent οη the verb ώμολόγει. We agree with his observation, but the resulting
τον Λούκιον Eus (Lat Syr) Marcovich; om Schwartz in apparatu 7 και (20) Α] και του Eus (Gr) construction is harsh, and requires the assumption that the tradition behind the manuscript, in
Otto Blunt Marcovich Munier 8 ό δε και Α] ό δε Eus ώμολ6γει του coniec] ώμολ6γει Α Eus attempting to emend the text, was obliged to omit γάρ ίη order to insert a participle, when the insertion
9 πονηρων Α] πονηρων γαρ Eus (Gr) των τοιούτων Α Eus (Gr*)] τοιούτων Eus (BDM); om Eus of a finite verb, as in Eusebius, was a solution near to hand. We suggest that Justin's construction was
(Lat Syr) απηλλάχθαι Eus (Syr)] απηλλάχθαι γινώσκων Α; απηλλάχθαι Επειπεν Eus (Gr) προς τον an articular infinitive ίη the genitive. For a ηουη in the genitive after χάριν ειδέναι see Lysias 2.23; cf.
πατέρα και βασιλέα των δλων coniec] προς τον πατέρα και βασιλέα των ουρανων Α; παρα αγαθον also Xenophon, Αιfeιnοταbίlία 11 2.5, and Lucian, Τίnιοπ 36. The omission of a του so far removed from
πατέρα και βασιλέα τον θεον Eus (Gr); to the good king and father, God Eus (Syr); ad bonum et its infinitives is readily explicable. It may even be the case that ΩΜΟΛΟΓΕΙΤΟΥ was read as the
optimum patrem et regem omnium Deum Eus (Lat) genitive ofthe ηουη 'confessor' (ΟΜΟΛΟΓΗΤΟΥ) and correctly altered to the verb 'confessed'o
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

βασιλέα των όλων πορεύεσθαι. 2.20. και αλλοs δε τρίτοs επελθων κολασ­ that he "vas going to the father and king of all.. 1 2.20. And still another, a
θiιναι προσεημήθη. third, came forward and was sentenced to be punished. 2

4 .1.
3 () 'Ό TTWS δ ε,ι "
μη TιS ειΠΤΙ' 'ΠaVTES
ι ουν
l' ι 'Φ OVEvaaVTES
EaVTOVS Ι ι
πορευεσ θε 3.1.(4.1)3 But since someone might say: 'You should then all kill your-
+Jδη παρα τον θεον και ~μίν πράγματα μ~ παρέχετε,' ερω δι' ~ν αίτίαν τουτο selves and go at once to God and not bother US,,4 Ι shall say why we do
5 ου πράττομεν, και δι' ~ν (194 a) εξεταζόμενοι άΦόβωs όμολογουμεν. not, and why, when we are interrogated, we confess without fear. 3.2. We 5
3.2. , ,~ , Ι
ουκ ειΚΤΙ τον κοσμον πεποιηκεναι .τον
ι, θ '
εον
δ δ δ ι
ε ι αγμε α, α
θ 'λλ'" δ'
η ια το
, have been taughtthat God has not made the world aimlessly, but rather
'θ ι Ι Ι Ι Ι
αν ρωπειον YEVOS, χαιΡειν τε
.....
τοιs
\
τα προσοντα αυτψ
,,...
μιμουμενοιs,
(
ws for the sake of the human race, and, as we said before,5 that he rejoices
προειφ ημεν, απαρεσκεσ
, ι θ αι δ ε τοιs
~ τα'Φ αυ~λ' '
r ι
α ασπαl;,ομενοιs " λ ογψ
η Ι η
""
εργψ. ίη those who imitate his attributes, and is displeased with those who cling
3.3. ει' 1 Ι ι
ουν TTaVTES EaVTOVS
' 'Φ Ι ~, θ~ "θ
ονευσομεν, του μη γεννη ηναι ηνα και μα η- to evil ίη word ΟΓ deed. 3.3. Therefore, if we were all to kill ourselves
10 ~
τευ θ ηναι EιS τα
" θ ι
εια δ ι αγματα, η και μη ειναι το αν ρωπειον YEVOS οσον ε'Φ'
δ ι " " l' "θ ι ι" we would be responsible for ηο one being born and instructed ίη the 10
~μίν, αϊηοι εσόμεθα, εναντίον Tiι του θεου βOυλiι και αυτοι TTOΙODVTES εαν divine teachings, ΟΓ even, so far as it depends οη us, for there being ηο
~
τουτο
ιc
TTpaf:,WfLEV. 'c rι
3.4. εf:,εταl;,ομενοι δ'"
ε ουκ
ι
αρνουμε
θ α, δ"
ια το συνεπι-
ι human race. 6 Were we to aC,t ίη this way we would ourselves be doing
στασ αιθ ι ~
εαυτοιs μη
δ '
εν
Φ ~λ 'β
αυ ον-ασε
,
ES δ'
ε
Ι Ι
ηγουμενοι μη
, ,ι
κατα παντα what is contrary to the will of God. 3.4. But when we are interrogated
we do not deny because we know that there is nothing wicked ίη us (and
we consider it irreligious not to tell the whole truth 7-this too, we know, 15

1 Where the MS has 'to the Father and King ofthe heavens', Eusebius reads 'to the good Father
and Κing, God'. The phrase 'Κing of the heavens' ΟΓ 'of heaven' never occurs ίη Justin. The words
των Όλων are used 52 times ίη phrases which designate God; e.g. 'the Father of all, and Lord, God'
(ιΑ 44.2; 61.3; 61.10); 'the maker of all, and almighty, God' (D 38.2); 'the Father and Lord of all'
(D 127.5). Although God is never described elsewhere ίη Justin as 'Κing (βασιλεύς) of all', he is
described as 'Lord (κύριος and δεσπότης) of all' (D 127.5; 140.4), and the use of βασιλεύς here could
have been suggested by the context. Lucius is addressing the emperor's prefect, and has referred to the
emperor immediately before. Antoninus Ρ.ιu~ ~ j:J~ing implicitly compared to God, the Κing of all.
ΤΩΝΟΛΩΝ could have given rise to ΤΩΝΟΥΝΩΝ. When the word Gοd-θεόs--aΡΡears at the end
of all other phrases of this pattern in Justin, it always lacks the article, as in the first two examples cited
above. Eusebius'_r~ading is therefore unlikely to be correct, and may also descend from των Όλων, by
reading ΟΛ for ΘΝ.
2 That Justin does not give the name suggests that he did not know it, perhaps indicating the loose-
knit nature of the Christian communities in Rome. Justin expresses ηο reservation about the third
martyr courting martyrdom by coming forward voluntarily. The practice was disapproved in the
Λιfαι·tyrdοm qf Po!ycατp (see esp. §4), but approved of in e.g. the Greek recension of the Mαrtyrdom qf
Cαrpus, Pαpylus, αlld Agαthollice (44).
3 For the order and numbering of chapters, see Introduction, ΡΡ.54-6.
4 Tertullian (Ad Scαpulαm 5.1) records that when Arrius Antoninus was holding assizes, all the

Christians of the city assembled before the tribunal. He condemned a few to death, and then said to
the rest: 'Ifyou disgusting people want to die, you have cliffs and nooses.'
5 Cf. ιΑ 10.1. We have adopted the emendation of Schwartz and Marcovich. The verb πρόΦημι
('to say before') occurs οη 33 other occasions in Justin. Ιη all of them it is introduced by ώς, except
once, and even there the verb is used parenthetically. The infinitive χαίρειν (to rejoice) cannot therefore
depend οη προέΦημεν but must instead depend οη δεδιδάγμεθα ('we have learnt'), as the corresponding
phrase in ιΑ 10.1 also does.
6 We take both γεννηθηναι and μαθητευθηναι with εΙς τα θεία διδάγματα. The primary reference

of 'being born' is to birth into the Christian faith, rather than to physical birth (cf. D Ι23.9, 'from the
Christ who begot us to God (γεννήσαντος ήμας εΙς θεόν) we are called true children of God'; cf. also
D 135.3, 6). Being born into the Christian faith could include children born to Christian parents
(cf. ιΑ 15.6, where Justin speaks of those who have been made disciples of Christ from childhood). If
ι επελθων Eus (Gr) ~lbulg edd"] απελθων Α; came near Eus (Syr) 3 Huc transtulerunt 2Α 8 all Christians were to kill themselves (a) there would be ηο race ofChristians and (b) Christians would
(καγω oi5v προσδοκω ... πλην αδιαΦορ{ας) Ματαπ Otto Goodspeed Mαrcoviclz 7 αυτψ Α] αυτψ αγαθα be contributing, to the extent that they could, to the extinction ofthe whole human race (cf. 2Α 6(7).1).
Ashton Mαrcoviclz ώς προέφ.ημεν Schwαrtz Mαrcoviclz] προέφ.ημεν Α; προσειλήΦαμεν Thirlby 9 μη 7 Cf. Tertullian's report (Ad ScαpulαIIl 4.3) of the proconsul Cingius Severus (known to the MS

Penon edd"] και Α 13 ασεβες δε Α] ασεβές τε },ιfαrcovich tradition as Cincius Severus) feeding lines to Christians.
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

άλ1]θεύειν' δ και Φίλον τφ θεφ γινώσκομεν-ύμας δε και της άδίκου προ­ pleases God), and now we are also eager to set you free fl'Om your
λψj;εως άπαλλάξαι νυν σπεύδοντες. unjustified prejndice.

5 .1. Ε ι' δ'ε τινα υπε

4 () ('λθ \ ( " tI."
οι και 1] εννοια αυΤ1], οτι ει
θ \ ( λ ~
εον ωμο ογουμεν 4(5).1. But snppose theidea were to strike someone that if the God we
β θ
01] '
ον,
,
ουκ
, \
αν
(
ως
λ'
εγομεν
(
υπο
\ 'δ'
α ικων
, 'θ
εκρατουμε α και
\ , 'θ
ετιμωρουμε α, και
\ confessed were really a Helper! the unjnst wonld not, as we say they do;I
5 τουτο δ ια λ υσω. 4.2. ο
' ( θ εος,
\ τον \ παντα
Ι Ι Ι ι
κοσμον ΠΟΙ1]σας και τα επιγεια
\ \ ,
have power over us and punish us. This difficulty too Ι shall solve. 5
'θ' ( 'c \ \ " ~'''C
αν ρωποις υποταr:,ας και τα ουρανια. στοιχεια εις avr:, 1]σιν καρπων και
~ \ 4.2. When he made the whole universe God made earthly things subject
(~
ωρων μετα
β
ο
λ \ ,
ας κοσμ1]σας και
\ θ ειον
~ , , ,C
τουτοις νομον ταr:,ας, α και αυτα
<\ \ , \ δ'
ι to humaI?- beings. He also set ίn order the heavenly bodies for the growth
'θ'
αν ρωπους
Φ' ~ 'θ' ,\ ~ \
αινεται πεΠΟΙ1]κως, Τ1]ν μεν των αν ρωπων και των υπο τον
\ (\ \ of crops and for the change of the seasons, and he established for them a
, , Ι "λ t\' \ Ι ,ι C ' 'δ
ουρανον προνοιαν αγγε οις ους επι τουτοις ETar:,E παρε ωκεν. οι
δ'
4.3. ( divine law. It is clear that these things too he did for the sake οΓ hnman
10 αγγελοι, παραβάντες (194 b) τήνδε T~ν τάξιν, γυναικων μίξεσιν Υιττήθ1]σαν beings. But providential care over human beings and of things beneath the 10

και παιδας ετέκνωσαν, οϊ εισιν οί λεγόμενοι δαίμονες. 4.4. και προσέτι firmament he handed over to angels whom he had established over
λοιπον το άνθρώπειον γένος έαυτοις εδούλωσαν, 7(1 μεν δια μαγικων them. 2 4.3. Bnt the ange1s transgressed this appointed order,3 suc-
στροφων, τα δε δια Φόβων και τιμωριων ών επέΦερον, τα δε δια διδαχης cumbed to interconrse with women, and begot children-who are called
θ υματων
' και
\ '
θ υμιαματων και
\ σπον
δ~""
ων, ων εν
δ εεις
~, γεγονασι μετα
\ το
\ demons. 4 4.4. Theys then went οη to enslave the human race to them-
15 πάθεσιν· επιθυμιων δουλωθηναι. και εις άνθρώπους Φόνους πολέμους selves, partly through magical changes,6 partly throngh fear and throngh 15
,
μοιχ ειας ακο
, λ ι \" Ι ,ι
ασιας και πασαν κακιαν εσπειραν. 4.5. t'e εν και\ ΠΟΙ1]ται\ και\
ο the pnnishments which they inflicted, partly throngh instruction abont
μυ
'
θ ο λ ογοι,
,~
αγνοουντες
\ ,αγγε'λ ους
τους και
\ τους
\ 'C
Er:,
,~
αυτων γενν1]
θ'
εντας sacrifices and incense and libations-things they have needed ever since
'
δ αιμονας ~
ταυτα ~ Cαι εις
πραr:, '" '
αρρενας και\ θ 1] λ ειας και πο'λ εις και ε"θ ν1] απερ \ \ ., they were enslaved by passions and desires. 7 And they sowed8 amongst
human beings mnrders, wars, adulteries, licentionsness, and every kind of
evil. 4.5. Hence it is that poets and storytellers,9 not knowing that the 20

things which they have recorded were done to men and women and cities
and nations by the angels and the demons they begot, attributed these

ι 'Helper' (βοηθό,) was a divine title in bothJewish and pagan usage, cf. BDAG, s.v.
2 Although the view was common, amongst both pagans and Christians, that the heavenly bodies
were governed by divine ΟΓ angelic powers (cf. Scott, Origen and the Life qf tlze Stars, 112-49), Justin
appears to confine angelic influence to the world beneath the firmament. Athenagoras, in a closely
parallel discussion, says that the angels were set over the heavenly bodies in the beginning (Legatio 10.5;
24.5), but those who fell 'busy themselves about the air and the earth' (25.1). Justin distinguished the
divine law governing the heavenly bodies, which remains inviolate, from the violated order of that part
of the universe which is beneath the firmament. 'The standard position attributed to Aristotle in the
first two centuries AD was that divine providence has the heavenly bodies as its objects, but is not
concerned with the sublunary region' (Sharples, Alexander qf Aphrodisias οπ Fate, 25). Ιη saying that
providence over 'things under heaven' had been entrusted to angels who subsequently rebelled, it is
possible that Justin had this position specifically in mind, cf. Tatian, Oratio 2.
3 Verbs related to τάξιv--'aΡΡοinted order'-occurred three times in 4.2: 'made subject', 'set in
order', and 'established'. God intended the ,;vhole universe to be well ordered. Disorder in a part ofit
came about exclusively because of angelic rebellion against this appointed order.
<} For the rabbinical background to this, cf. Skarsaune, Proqfjrom Proplleqy, 368.

5 From 2Α 4(5).5 it would appear that both the angels and the demons are the subjects of this
section. However, the activities listed are very like those ascribed in ιΑ 5.2 simply to the demons.
6 The MS has 'magical writings" We have adopted Thirlby's emendation of γραφων to στροφων,

ι ύμα, δε Α] ύμα, τε .Marcovich 3 εννοια ed~ ενοια Α 7 μεταβολα, Peαι:son ed~ μεταβο- cf. ιΑ 14.1, where we took this word to refer to demons assuming different shapes.
λαι, Α τούτοι, Thirlby ed~ τουτον Α 12 dνθΡώπειον ed~ dνθΡώπιον Α 13 στροφων 7 Cf. ιΑ 12.5, where it is said the wicked demons demand sacrifices and acts ofworship.

T1zirlby] γραφων Α τιμωριων Jιν Thil·lby ed~ τιμωριων Α 15 dνθΡώποv, Α] dνθΡώποv, δε 8 Justin will also describe the Logos as seed-sowing-spermatίkos-see 2Α 7(8).3.

.Marcovich 9 'Poets and story-tellers' is a commonly recurring pair, cf. Plato, Republic ΠΙ 392d .
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

Ι ,/ι'
συνεγραψαν, εις αυτον τον
\ θ \ ,
εον και τους ως απ
\ ( " 'Λ ,.
αυτου σποΡCf γενομενους
Ι thίήgs to the god himself,l and to the sons Who were begotten as if from
(,
υιους
'Λ
και των
λ θ ι
εχ εντων
,ι
εκεινου
'δ λΦ Λ
α ε ων
,Ι
και τεκνων
(Ι
ομοιως
Λ"
των απ him by the sowing of seed and from those who were called2 his brothers
,ι ,Ι
εκεινων αν7]νεγκαν. 4 .6. ,ι
ονομαη γαρ
'~I
εκαστον οπερ
ι! ιι
εκαστος
(..........
εαυηρ των and their children as well. 3 4.6. For they-that is, the poets and story-
αγγέλων και τοις τέκνοις εθετο προσ7]γόρευσαν. tellers-called them by the names which each of the angels gave to
himself and to his children. 4
5 5 (6) .1. "Ο νομα δ ε τψ Ι '
Λ παντων . ' θ
πατρι
Ι, Ι " '" (\,
ετον, αγενν7]Τψ ονη, ουκ εσην. ος γαρ

αν
" ονομαΙ η προσαγορευ7]ται
κατ ' " Ι πρεσ β'"
υτερον εχει τον \ θ'
εμενον \ "
το ονομα. 5(6).1. However, the Father of all has ηο given name,5 since he is
5.2. το
'δ'
ε παΤ7]Ρ
, ,
και
θ'
εος
,Ι
και κησΤ7]ς
,Ι
και κυριος και
'δ ι
εσΠΟΤ7]ς
,
ουκ unbegotte.n.6 For whoever is addressed by some name has as older than
όνόματά έσην, αλλ' έκ των εύποιϊων και των εργων προσρΥισεις. 5.3. ό δε him the one who gave him the name. 7 5.2. But 'father' and 'god' and
'creator' and 'lord' and 'master' are not names,B but appellations derived
from his beneficence and works. 9 5.3. His Son, the only one who is 10

1 Οη 'the god himself' see ιΑ 20.2 and 2Α 6(7).9, both ofwhich refer to the god ofthe Stoics. Justin

must mean, Zeus. It is odd that he can use such a designation for a pagan god. However, Athenagoras
thinks that Plato distinguished between the supreme God who must be calIed Zeus for want of a better
term, and the lower Zeus begotten ofΚronos (Legαtio 23.9-10). For the same doctrine among the Stoics
see Seneca, NαturαZes Q,uαestiones Π.45.Ι.
2 We have taken λεχθέντων, like the preceding των, with both the folIowing nouns, 'brothers' and
'children' (cf. ιΑ 56.1). The pointJustin is making is that the family relationships among the gods are
fictive, and part of the deceptive personae assumed by the demons.
3 The structure of the sentence is awkward, and, as it stands ίη the MS, virtually impossible.

Accordingly, it has been much emended. The MS includes after 'children' the words 'Poseidon and
Pluto', which we have omitted as a marginal gloss οη 'brothers', which was prompted by the reference
to 'names' ίη 4.6, and which has been incorporated ίη the text, and at the wrong place. Both 'brothers'
and 'child[en' must be taken as objects of the preposition 'from' ('sons from him ... and from his
brothers and from thei[ children'). It is possible that part of the awkwardness is due to an attempt to
echo Plato's wording ίη Timαeus 40d-4Ia, where he discusses the origin ofthe dαiIιzons, concluding with
the words 'and all those we know to be called their brothers, and also other descendents of these' (a
passage quoted by Athenagoras, Legαtio 23.5-6). Justin may also intend a slightly comic effect as he
moves from the description of Zeus as 'god himself' to his straggling extended family.
4 Cf. ιΑ 5.2.
5 For the unnameability of God see ιΑ 6ι.ιι. There was much discussion in contemporary philo-
sophical schools about 'whether names arise from nature (plιysΊs) or from convention (thesΊS)' (cf. Alci-
nous, Hαndbook 6.10 and Origen, Contrα Celsum Ι.24). The verbal root underlying tlzesΊS occurs three
times in this section, including the word we have translated 'given'.
6 For the unnameability of the uncreated see Philo, De Mlltαtioιze Nominunz 2 (14): 'as for names,
those symbols which indicate created beings, look not for them ίη the case of imperishable natures' (tr.
Colson and Whitaker, LCL); and Gospel qfTruth, 39.ΙΙ: 'For, indeed, the Unengendered has ηο Name.
For what Name could one give to Him, who did not come into existence?' (tr. in Danielou) TIze TheoZogy
qfJewΊSh ChIistiαni!J, 159; Layton, The Gnostic ScIiptures, 263, has 'for what does not exist has ηο name-
indeed, what would a nonexistent be named?').
7 Cf. Gospel qfTί'uth 39.28-40.2: 'Yet perhaps someone will say to another, "Who could name one
that pre-existed before him? Do not children get names from their parents?'" (Layton, The Gnostic
ScIiptuIΊJs, 263). The reference in 2Α 4(5).6 to angels naming themselves does not contradict the point, as
these names are in effect 'stage names' designating the divine personαe adopted by the fallen angels ίη
the writings of the poets and storytelIers.
8 'Όνομα was used ίη Stoic terminology for 'proper' or 'given name', see Diogenes Laertius νΠ.58

ι αυτον Α] αυτόν τε Mα1"COViCh 2 και (10) Α] και τους lIιfαιι:οvίch των λεχθέντων έκείνου (= SVFIII.22), where σνομα ('a part of speech indicating individual quality, as Diogenes, or Socrates') is
άδελφων Α] τους λεχθέντας έκείνου άδελΦούς Thirlby και τέκνων όμοίως των ά7Τ' έκείνων Dαvies] και distinguished from 7Τροσηγορία ('a part of speech signifYing common quality, as human being, or
τέκνων όμοίως των ά7Τ' έκείνων Ποσειδωνος και Πλούτωνος Α; και τέκνα ομοίως τα ά7Τ' έκείνων horse').
Πωσειδωνος και Πλούτωνος Thirlby; Ποσειδωνος και Πλούτωνος lIιfαrcoviclz 5 ος BίicheleI] ιJι Α; ο 9 The idea that God is referred to by titles drawn from his activities was known to contemporary

S)Ilburg 6 κατ' coniec] και Α σνομά τι edd] ονόματι Α 7Τροσαγορεύψαι Α] 7Τροσαγορεύεται philosophers. Seneca (De BeneficiΊS ΙΥ.7.2) said that God's 'appelIations can be as many as are his
KrugeI' Blunt 8 εργων Α] εργων αυτου lIιfαrcoviclz works'. See also Diogenes Laertius VII.I47, and Dio Chrysostom ΧΙΙ. 75ff. Clement of Alexandria
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

Ι\ ,/
υιος EKEιVOV-O μονος
(' ι λ
εγομενος κυριως υιος, ο
ι \ (
ογος προ των ποι Ι95
/ (Ι C' λ/ ~
properly cal1ed his son,l is the Logos who, before there were creatures,2
a)rιμαTων και συνων και γεννωμενος- ριστος μεν κατα το χρισαι και\
' \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ Χ ~
was with hirn and was begotten. 3 He is called 'Christ' because God
\ ι
κοσμησαι τα παντα
δ"
ι αυτου τον
θ \
εον
λ' " \) \ Ι
εγεται, ονομα και αυτο περιεχ ον
1""\ \

anointed and adorned the universe through him. 4 This name also has an
" ι
αγνωστον σrιμασιαν, ον τροπον και το
'ι\ Ι ,,' \
εος προσαγορευμα ουκ ονομα εστιν,
\ θ ι ι,
unknown meaning,S just as the designation'god' is not a name but a
5 αλλιΙ πράγματος δυσεξrιγήToυ εμΦυτος Tfι Φύσει των ανθρώπων δόξα. notion irnplanted ίη the nature of human beings about something difficult 5
5.4. t'Irι aovS' δε και ανθρώπου και σωτηρος Όνομα και σrιμασίαν εχει·t to set forth. 6 5.4. tAnd Ίesus' is a human being's name, but also has the

(Stroιnαtα Υ.12.82.1) said that the Divine is not properly (κυρίως) named, but 'when we call it either One
or the Good, or Mind, or Being itself, or Father, or God, or Demiurge, or Lord we speak not as if we
were expressing its name but, because we have ηο alternative, we make use of good names οη which
the intellect can settle rather than wander offin ~earch of other names'. Later, Gregory ofNazianzus
(Fourtlz T1zeologicαl Ol'αtion 17-1g) will say that all the names applied to God are derived from his activities
and none expresses his essence.
ι Lit. 'properly (κυρίως) called son'. Justin does not mean to make the point later made by Athana-
sius that the primary referent of the word 'son' is the second person of the Trinity and that all other
uses of the word are dependent οη this. The 'Father of all' clearly has more than one son, but οηlΥ the
Word is his son in the strict sense. The observation may have been triggered by the reference 'to
the god himself and to the sons who were begotten as if from him' ίη 2Α 4(5).5.
2 See D 62+ 'this offspring, who was truly put forth from the Father, was with the Father before all
the creatures, and the Father conversed with him as the word spoken by Solomon indicated when he
said (Prov. 8: 22-5) that he ... had been begotten by God as a beginning before all the creatures and as
an offspring.'
3 We have excised the clause 'when ίη the beginning he adorned and created all things through

him' as a gloss οη 'anointed and adorned the universe through him', which has crept into the text. For
discussion of this, see Introduction, ρρ.63-4 .
.. The word we have translated 'anointed' is Scaliger's conjecture. If the MS's passive infinite is
retained the clause has to be translated, 'js called Christ because he is anointed, and God adorned the
universe through him'. But to an audience unfamiliar with the Old Testament background the idea of
'the anointed one' would not be readily intelligible. Indeed, outside of Jewish and Christian contexts,
the usual meaning of the adjective chrίstos was not 'anointed' but 'suitable for anointing with'. For
example, Aeschylus contrasts oil for anointing and oil for consumption (Prontetheus 480). Justin's point is
that God anointed the world through Christ ίη the sense that he gave it order and beauty. He makes a
similar move at ιΑ 4.5, where he suggests an explanation of the name 'Christian' which does not
require an understanding of the Jewish-Christian meaning of clzrίstos, but which would be accessible to
a pagan audience. This would give added point to the next clause, in which Justin says that the name
'Christ' αlso has an unknown meaning. He will here be referring to the normal Jewish-Christian
meaning, 'the anointed one', which would, ίη effect, be an esoteric meaning. Conversely, a scribe
familiar with the Jewish-Christian meaning of chrίstos would easily have supposed a correction to a
passive form of the verb to be necessary. Both Scaliger and Grabe saw the need for an active sense of
the verb. Grabe, tentatively followed by Blunt, took κεχρίσθαι as a middle, which would, however,
more naturally have been taken to mean that God anointed himself. Scaliger's emendation is palaeo-
graphically neat, but introduces a καί which would require equal force to be given to both χρισαι and
κοσμησαι, whereas κοσμησαι is meant to explain χρΙσαι. Theophilus (Ad Allto6Icunz 1.12) connects that
which is κόσμιον with anointing, and speaks of the air and everything under heaven being anointed by
Iight and spirit.
5 Justin's point is that the meaning is ίη fact unknown, not that there is an unknowable or mystical
meaning. This is made clear by the comparison with the implanted notion ofGod. Ιη 2Α ιο.6 Socrates
is said to have urged human beings to 'knowledge through rational enquiry of the God who is
Ι ποιημάτων και Α] ποιημάτων Mαrcoviclz 2 γεννώμενο!; coniec] γεννώμενος οτε την αρχην δι' unknown (αγνώστου) to them'.
αVτοίΙ πάντα Εκόσμησε και έκτισε Α*; γεννώμενος οτε την αρχην δι' αVτοίΙ πάντα έκτισε και Εκόσμησε 6 Justin here conflates Stoic and Platonic ideas. Stoics spoke of'common notions' (κοιναι έννοιαι) to
AC pr m supra lίneam Mαrcoviclz Muιzier χρισαι coniec] κεχρίσθαι Α; και χρισαι Scαliger και κοσμησαι τα which all human beings weΓe predisposed, and these preconceptions could be described as 'implanted'
πάντα δι' αVτοίΙ τον θεον Α] om Aslzton ('a Glossatore plane aliquot e superioribus conficta, et inepte hic (cf. Plutarch, De Stoicol'unz Repllgnαntiis I041e=SVFIII.6g). 'God' was included amongst these notions.
intrusa sunt') Seneca (Ερ. 117.6) could say 'an idea about the gods is implanted in all' ('omnibus insita
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

5.5. "
και γαρ και αν
\ " θ ( ',ι
pωπo~, ω~ προεψημεν, γεγονε, κατα την του
Ι \, ...... θ Λ
εου και
\
meaning 'saviour't. ι 5.5. For, ίn fact, he be.came a human being, as we
\
παTPO~
β λ"
ου ην, αποκυη
θ \ ( \
ει~ υπερ
Λ 'θ ι
των πιστευοντων αν ρωπων'
,
και
\
κατα- said before,2 born according to the will of the God ?-nd Father 3 for the
ι
λ υσει \
TOυ~
δ ι (\ Λ'
αιμovα~, ω~ και νυν εκ των υπ
Λ ( , ",',
οψιν γινομενων μα
ι θ Λ
ειν
δ ι
υνασ
θ
ε. sake of humans who are believers, and he will destroy the demons,4 as
5.6. δαιμoνιoλήΠToυ~ γαρ πoλλoυ~ κατα πάντα τον κόσμον και εν TV you can learn from what you now see happening before your eyes. 5
5 ύμεTέpcι- πόλει πολλοι των ~μεTέpων ανθρώπων, των Χριστιανων, επορκ­ 5.6. For throughout the whole world and ίn your own city many of us, 5
ίζoνTε~ κατα του oνόμαTO~ Ίησου Χριστου, του σTαυpωθένTO~ επι Ποντίου human beings who are Christians,6 exorcised many who were possessed
Π Ι λ ατου, υπο των α ων παντων επορκιστων και επcι-σTων και ψαρ-
ι (\ Λ "λλ ι , Λ" Λ',/..
by demons 7 ίn the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius
μακευτων μη ΙαθένTα~, ιάσαντο' και ετι νυν ιωνται, KαTαpγoυνTε~ και Pilate. 8 Ap.d they healed them, though they had not been healed by all
εKδιώKoνTε~ Toυ~ KαTέxoνTα~ TOυ~ ανθpώπoυ~ δαίμoνα~. the others-exorcists and enchanters and sorcerers. And still they heal,
breaking the power of the demons and chasing them away from human ΙΟ
beings who were possessed by them. 9

de dis ορίηίο est'). Justin's use of δόξα (rather than the more characteristically Stoic πρόληψις) may be
co1oured by P1atonic usage, and the phrase 'something which it is difficult to set forth' is an allusion to
P1ato, TimaeIιs 28c, whichJustin misquotes at 2Α ΙΟ.6.
ι Lit. jesus has a name and signification of both man and saνiοur'. The text is usually construed
exp1icitly ΟΓ imp1icitly ad seIzsUl7Z, taking 'man' with 'name' and 'saνiour' with 'meaning', but, gram-
matically, the two geηitiνes shou1d go with both accusatiνes. We be1ieνe the text to be corrupt. 1f
Ίησους δέ was originally in strict paralle1 with Χριστος μέν, corruption may haνe crept in when a
scribe who had 10st his way in the sentence introduced a new finite "erb (εχει). But the genera1
meaning must be along the 1ines indicated ίη our trans1ation. 1η ιΑ 33.7 Justin says that the Hebrew
name jesus' 'means 'saνiοur' in Greek. Cyril ofJerusalem (Catecheses Illunzinaιzdorum ιο.ιι) says, jesus
Christ is called by a twofold name: Jesus because of his saνing actiνity, Christ because of his priestly
actiνity'. What is distinctiνe of Justin's approach is that he exp1ains 'Christ' in terms of a cosmic
function and jesus' in terms of the work of the 1ncarnate.
2 Cf. ιΑ 23.2; 63.ΙΟ, 16.
3 Justin often speaks of 'the God and Father of all' (D 63.3, 74.3, 133.6; see a1so ιΑ 8.2, 36.2, 40.7,
44·2, 45·1; 61.ιο, D 7.3, ιο8.3, ΙΙ4.3), but nowhere e1se does he speak simp1y of 'the God and Father'
without a geηitiνe. 1η the present context the thought will be more specifically of God as the Father of
the Son, but to trans1ate by 'God the Father', as though all that was in νiew was the re1ationship of
Father and Son, would be anachronistically to import the distinctions of later Trinitarian thought.
Thus in D 115.4 Justin speaks of 'our priest and God and Christ, Son of the Father of all'. Timaeus 28c
speaks of 'the maker and Father of this uηiνerse'.
4 The MS has 'the demons' in the geηitiνe, depending οη καταλύσει read as a noun, the con-

struction of which is awkward without emendation, such as the insertion of the preposition επ{ read
by editors. We haνe taken καταλύσει as a future "erb which giνes force to the 'now' in the next c1ause
(cf. D 30.1-31.1). For the destruction ofhostile powers as a future eνeηt, cf. D ΙΙ1.2; 121.3.
5 Marcus Aurelius would not haνe been impressed. 1η Aιleditations 1.6 he says he learnt not to accept
'things said by wonder-workers and magicians about spells and casting out demons and such things'.
G The MS has 'many of our human beings, the Christians', a phrase as awkward in Greek as it is
in English. Schmid ('Textϋberlieferung', IIOf.) rejected των χρισnανων as a gloss. While this is possible
(cf. ιΑ 29.2; 2Α 12-4), and has been adopted by Marcoνich and Munier, it is also possib1e that the phrase
is deliberately ονercharged. 1t is precisely human beiιzgs bearing the name of Christ who defeat the
demons for the benefit of others, ίη that name for which they are persecuted as haters ofhumanity.
7 The word we haνe translated 'possessed by demons' is found also at ιΑ 18.4, and nowhere else ίη
the Greek literature surνeyed by TLG.
8 This phrase echoes a stock formula of exorcism, cf. D 30.3; 76.6; 85.2; 1renaeus, DeI7Zonstτati01l 97,

ΑΗΙΙ·3 2 +
9 Justin has said that the name jesus' means 'saνiour'. 1η fact, the οηlΥ instance giνeη of saνing
actiνityis the healing of demoniacs through the name of the 17Ζaπ (crucified under Pontius Pilate). 1η this
2 ύπερ Α] ύπερ σωτηρ{ας Μaιωvίch και Α] και επι Pέrίoπ edd 3 τους δα{μονας coniec] των sentence some form of the "erb [άομαι occurs three times. Otto suggested that this may imply an
δαιμόνων Α ώς και Otto Marcovich] και Α 5 ανθρώπων των ΧρισΤιανων Α] ανθρώπων Schnzid etymology which deriνes the name jesus' from healing: cf. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 3.12.98;
Marcovich ΑιΙωΖία 7 επq.στων edιZl επαστων Α Cyril of Jerusa1em, Catecheses Illumillaιzdorul7Z ΙΟ.4, 13; and Epiphanius, Paιzarion 29+ This wou1d be yet
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 29 Ι

7 .1.
6 () <Όθ \,
εν και ε7Τιμενει ο
Ι ( θ" Ι
εος την συγχυσιν και κατα
\ Ιλ ~
υσιν του 7Ταντος
\
6(7).1. And hence God refrains from bringing about the dissolution and
ι
κοσμου μη
\ ~
7Τοιησαι
<,
ινα και
\ οι
(Φ ~λ
αυ οι
"λ
αγγε οι και
\ δ ι," θ
αιμονες και αν ρω7ΤΟΙ destruction of the whole universe, which would entail an end to wicked
μηκέη JJaL tδια το σ7Τέρμα των Χρισηανων Ο γινώσκει έν TV Φύσει οη angels and demons and human beings,l tthis he does because of the seed
,ι ι
αιηον εσην
, ι t 6 .2. "" ,.
ε7Τει ει μη τουτο ην, ουκ αν ου
l' ) ..\ 'δ \ ι......
ε υμιν ταυτα εη 7Τοιειν
.....,' ...
ofthe Christians which he knows ίη nature that it is a causet. 2 6.2. For if

anotherexample of Justin explaining terminology which has a special meaning in Christian circles in
a way accessible to a pagan audience. 1η the background of his thought might be the common
testimony text 1sa. 53: 5: 'by his wounds we have been healed.' For the use of this text in Justin see
Skarsaune, Proqf.from Ptophec)', Ι24 f. Οη the other hand, given the heavy use in 5.(6)6 of repetition,
alliteration, and assonance, the repetition of ίάομαι may be partly for rhetorical effect.
] Although he does not believe the soul to be inherently immortal (D 5.3; 6.Ι-2), Justin does not
mean that wicked angels, demons, and human beings will cease to exist, but that they will be punished
everlastingly (2Α 7.3; ιΑ 28.ι; 52.3; D ΙΙ7.3).
2 The passage, which we have rendered literally, bristles with problems (despite the fact that Otto

managed to persuade himself that 'locus profecto ηοη est difficilis'). 1t is hard to imagine that Justin
could have produced the text as it stands in the hope that it would be intelligible to anyone.
Among the problems to be resolved in trying to make sense of it are the following. First, what kind
of genitive is των Χριστιανωv---dοes the seed consist of Christians, ΟΓ is it seed from which Christians
spring? Secondly, what is the subject of γινώσκει-Gοd ΟΓ the seed? Thirdly, what is the meaning of
Φύσει-is it the nature of the seed, ΟΓ the natural order, ΟΓ the (human) species? Fourthly, does Ότι
mean 'that' (introducing a clause eΧΡΓessiηg what he/it knows) 01' 'because'? 1η trying to understand
the function of the passage in its context two further questions arise. First, does Όθεν (whence) point
backwards ΟΓ ahead-i.e. does Justin think that 6(7).Ι follows 10gically fΓOm 5(6).6, ΟΓ does it simply
anticipate the reason introduced by διά? Secondly, what is the referent of τουτο ('this') at the beginning
of6(7).2-does the phrase mean 'ifthis (seed) were not', 'ifthis (cause) were not', ΟΓ 'ifthis were not
the case'? Some help is provided by parallels at ιΑ 45.Ι, D 39.2, and especially ιΑ 28.2, which has a
number ofother affinities with this chapter ofthe SecondApology. Some form ofthe verb γινώσκω ΟΓ a
compound occurs in each of these parallels, with God as the logical subject in each case. This strongly
suggests that 'God' [ather than the 'seed' is the subject of γινώσκει.
What point is Justin trying to make in this passage? Each of the three parallels cited above suggests
that the end is delayed because God knows (or foreknows) that others will yet repent and be saved. Α
second possibility is that the 'seed' in some way holds the WΟ1'Ιd together. Clement of Alexandria
speaks of superior Christians as 'seed because of which both the visible and invisible things of the
world were fashioned ... and all things are held together as long as the seed remains heΓe, and when it
has been gathered together all things will at once be dissolved' (QJtis Dives SαlvetuI"? 36.3; see also Excerptα
ex TIzeodoto 26.3). TIze Epistle to Diognetus (6.7), while not using the WΟΓd 'seed', can say that Christians
'hold the world together'.
That the main stress is οη God's foreknowing that others will repent and be saved is strongly
suggested not only by the parallel passages in Justin but also by the parallel Justin draws in 6(7).2 with
the Noah/Deucalion myth of a few being saved from whom the human race descended. Justin calls
Noah 'the fathel" ofthe whole human race' (D ΙΙ9.4) and the 'beginning (αρχή) ofthe [ace' (D Ι9.4). 1η
TiInαeus 23b-c, in a context where the Deucalion myth is discussed and ΡeΓiοdic destruction by:flood
and con:flagration is mentioned, it is said that the Athenian people came from a small seed that was left
after the most 1'eceηt :flood. Stoics spoke of a seed of the rebuilding of the universe being left after
destωctiοη by fire, cf. SVF Π.590, 596, 6ι8. Origen (CΟlltω Celsum ΙΥ.4Ι) spoke of the 'seeds of all
animals' being preserved in the ark with Noah. Justin was also familiar with 1sa. ι: 9 (cf. Rom. 9:29),
'unless the Lord had left us a seed we should have become as Sodom and Gomorrah', cities, as Justin
notes, 'burnt and destΓOyed by God with fire and brimstone (ιΑ 53.7; D Ι40.3).
The Noah story is al1'eadΥ in Justin's mind in 6(7).Ι. The Book ofWisdom (Ι4: 6), speaking ofthe
Noah story, says '[01' in the beginning, when the proud giants weΓe ΡeΓishiηg, the hope ofthe world :fled
in a small boat and left for eternity a seed (σπέρμα) of generation, piloted by your hand'. (Fo1' the
in:fluence ofthe Book ofWisdom οη Justin's theology cf. Skarsaune, Proqffi"om Propllecy, 423 and 43Ι.)
Another connecting thread may be hinted at by Excerptα ex TIzeodoto 26.ι, which connects 'the
3 στι Α] στι του ζην AιJαrcovich Name, which is the οηlΥ begotten Son' ,vith 'the chUΓch of the excellent seeds (των σπερμάτων των
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 293
και ενεργείσθαι ύπο των Φαύλων δαιμόνων δυνατον -ην, άλλα (195 b) το πυρ it were not, you yourselves would ηο longer be able to do these things and
το Trις κρίσεως κατελθον άνέδην πάντα διέκρινεν, ώς και πρότερον ό to be worked. upon by wicked demons, but the fire of judgement would
κατακλυσμος μηδένα λιπων άλλ' ij τον μόνον συν τοίς ιδίοις παρ' ήμίν come down and causeabsolutely everything to disintegrate,l like the
καλούμενον Νωε, παρ' ύμίν δε Δευκαλίωνα, ες 015 πάλιν οί τοσουτοι γεγόνα- flood of old which left ηο one except the one we call Ν oah, but2 you call
5 σιν, ών οί μεν Φαυλοι οί δε σπουδαίοι. 6.3. οϋτω γαρ ήμείς την εκπύρωσίν Deucalion, together with his family, from whom there sprang once more 5
ι θ 'λλ" Σ ( ( ..Λ \
"λλ λ \ι \ so large a number, of whom some are wicked and some virtuous. 3
Φ αμεν γενησεσ αι, α ουχ ως οι τωικοι κατα τον της εις α
,
η α παντων

μεταβ ο λ ης ογον,
Λ λ Ι <,
ο
,/
αισχιστον
ε ανη, α ου
'Φ Ι
κα
θ' ( Ι'λλ" ι
ειμαρμενην πραττειν
δ
ε
\ 6.3. This is how we say that the conflagration will occur, but not as the
τους άνθρώπους ij πάσχειν τα γινόμενα, άλλα κατα μεν την προαίρεσιν Stoics satd, who had a doctrine of the change of all things into one
rι
εκαστον κατορ
θ Λ
ουν
"
η
( Ι
αμαρτανειν, και
\ κατα
\ την
\ Λ
των
Φ Ιλ
αυ ων
δ ι
αιμονων another, which was evidently most shameful. Nor do we say that it is
10 ενέργειαν τους σπουδαίους οΊον Σωκράτην και τους όμοίους διώκεσθαι και according to fate that human beings do or suffer what they do or suffer, but !Ο
εν δεσμοίς είναι, Σαρδανάπαλον δε και Έπίκουρον και τους όμοίους εν that each one acts rightly ΟΓ errs4 according to choice, and that it is
because of the working of evil demons 5 that the virtuous, such as Socrates 6
and the like, are persecuted a,nd are ίη chains, and that Sardanapalus 7 and

διαΦερόντων)" It is possible that the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13: 24-30) has also
exercised an influence. However, none of these resonances allows a secure reconstruction of what must
be a severely corrupt text.
ι The verb διακρ{νειν means 'to separate' (including, ίη philosophical use, the sense 'decompose into
elemental parts', LSj), but also to decide ΟΓ to distinguish. Justin expresses himselfvaguely. He wants
to say that the fire of judgement would cause all things to disintegrate were it not for the seed, but he
would also say that the fire ofjudgement will distinguish between good and evil, as the flood did. As so
often ίη Justin, a seemingly philosophical term may contain a scriptural echo. The same verb is used
ίη Ps. 49(50): 4 of God's judgement of his people, where the previous verse speaks of a devouring fire
going before him.
2 Marcovich's insertion of μεν after ήμιν is palaeographically attractive; though it would suggest
that Christians and pagans both know of the same person, but simply have different names for him.
This itself would be plausible, if Justin thought that the story of the flood, being a record of history,
might also be available to pagans. Ιη support of this view is Philo, De PrαeIniis et Poenis 4 (23) (trans.
Colson): 'This person, ίη whose day the great deluge took place, is called by the Greeks Deucalion
and by the Hebrews Noah (τουτον 'Έλληνες μεν Δευκαλ{ωνα, Χαλδαιοι δε Νωε επoνoμά~oυσιν)';
Theophilus, Ad Auto!Jcum Π.30 (tr. Grant): 'And the story of Noah, by some called Deucalion (τα δε
περι Νωε, ας κέκληται ύπο εν{ων Δευκαλ{ων)'; and III.Ig: 'Noah ... prophesied to them saying, "Come
(deute), God calls (kαleι) you to repentance". For this reason he is fittingly called Deucalion.' But if Justin
thought the story of Deucalion was a mythical aping of Old Testament history, he is more likely to
have said that the pagans have a different, mythical name for the historical character known to Jews
and Christians. So Theophilus (Ad Auto!Jcuιn III.Ig) also says the ark was constructed at God's com-
mand, 'not by Deucalion but by Noah, whose Hebrew name is translated in Greek as "rest" " Ιη
Celsus' view (Contrα Celsum ΙΥ.4Ι), the Genesis story was a children's version of the Deucalion myth. We
do not consider there is a sufficiently strong case for adopting Marcovich's emendation.
3 For the pair Φαυλοι and σπουδαιοι see note at ιΑ 43.6.
4- The pair κατορθόω and άμαρτάνω is found ίη Stoic sources, cf. SVFII.I002; Πι'50Ι, 520.

5 The Stoic Chrysippus considered the possibility that suffering might be due to the activity of 'evil
demons" The fragment is preserved by Plutarch (De Stoicorum Repugnαntiis 105IC=SVF Π.ΙΙ78), who
goes οη to cite 'the condemnation of Socrates' as one example of such activity.
6 Socrates and Sardanapalus were stock figures ίη ethical discussion; they occur together, for

3 κατακλυσμος Α] κατακλυσμος ό Mαrcoviclz
τους μεν Mαrcovich
example, ίη Plutarch's criticism of Chrysippus' theory of the origin of evil (De Comlnunibus Notitiis
I065b-c=SVFII.II8I, with De Stoicorum Repugnαntiis 105IC=SVFII.II78). Justin was drawing upon an
anti-Stoic tradition.
7 Sardanapalus was a legendary Assyrian king often invoked as the embodiment of luxury and
ήμιν Α] ήμιν μεν Mαrcoviclz hedonism, see Epictetus Πι'22.30, where he is bracketed with Nero, and the passages listed by Cherniss
at Plutarch ΜοταΖία, νοΙ ΧΙΠ part 2, ρρ. 706 f. (LCL).
 294 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 295
αΦθονίq- και δόξυ δοκειν ευδαιμονεΙν. 6.4. δ μη vorlaaVTEs οί Στωί'κοι καθ' Epicurus 1 and the like seem to enjoy well-being, abundance, and fame.
• ι ,ι Ι
EιfLapfLEVYJS αναγκην παντα γινεσ
ι '
θ αι απε Φ ηναντο.
ι 6 .5. α
'λλ' οτι
tt 't ι
αυτε~ ουσιον 6.4. Because they did not know this, the Stoics declared that everything
τό τε των αγγέλων γένοs και των ανθρώπων την αρχην εποίησεν ό θεόs, comes to be by necessity of fate. 6.5. But because God in the beginning
δικαίωs ύπερ ών αν πλημμελήσωσι την τιμωρίαν εν αιωνίιΡ πυρι made the rate of angels and the human race with free will, they will reap
5 ι
κομισονται.
6 •6 • γεννητου
'
~ δ ε παντοs
'Γ/δ'
η ε η
Φ υσιs-κακιαs
Ι ι" και
~
apETYJS δ εκ- the just retribution ίη eternal fire for whatever wrong they do. 6.6. For 5
'1"
τικον ειναι·
'\"
ου γαρ αν
1'"
ην
\
επαινετον
'δ
ου
\
εν
,.....
αυτων ει
, \'"
μη επ αμ
Φ ι
οτερα this is the nature of all things that are begotten, to be capable of vice and
τρέπεσθαι και δύναμιν εΊχε. 6.,. δεικνύουσι δε τουτο και οί πανταχου κατα virtue. 2 For nothing begotten could become worthy of praise unless 3 it had
λόγον τον ορθον νομοθετή(Ι96 a)aaVTES και ΦιλοσοΦήσαντεs ανθρωποι, εκ του at least the potential to turn both ways. 6.,. This is demonstrated wher-
ύπαγορεύειν τάδε μεν πράττειν τωνδε δε απέχεσθαι. 6.8. και οί Στωί'κοι ever humin beings made laws 4 according to right reason and practised
10 ΦιλόσοΦοι εν τψ περι iιθων λόγιΡ τα αυτα τιμωσι KapTEpWS, ώs δηλουσθαι εν philosophy, ίη that they prescribed that some things were to be done and 10

τψ περι αρχων και σωμάτων λόγιΡ ουκ ευοδουν αυτούs. 6.9. εϊγε γαρ καθ' others to be abstained from. 5 6.8. The Stoic philosophers themselves
• ι
ειμαρμενην
ι
φ ησουσι ,ι
τα "θ
γινομενα προs Ι
αν ρωπων γινεσ /
θ αι, και'δ' l'
μη εν ειναι place a high value οη these things ίη their discussion of ethics, so that it is
θεον παρ α τρεπόμενα και άλλοιούμενα και άναλυόμενα είς τα αύτα άεί, shown that in their discussioIι of first principles and bodies 6 they are not
good guides. 7 6.9. For if they will really affirm that whatever happens
with respect to human-beings 8 happens according to fate, and that God is 15
nothing apart from things that change and are altered and are always
resolved into the things from which they came,9 then they will be shown to

ι Because of his teaching that 'pleasure is the beginning and end of the blessed life' (Diogenes
Laertius X.128-g), Epicurus was often maligned οπ the supposition that he had taught a simple
hedonism.
2 Justin refers to the Platonic doctrine that what is generated is changeable. The words γεν7]τ6,
('originated') and γεννητ6, ('begotten') are hopelessly confused in manuscripts, and not systematically
distinguished ίπ Christian usage before the Arian controversy. If Justin's γεννητου is not a scribe's
enor, it may have been triggered by his reference to the race (γένο,) of angels and of men.
3 We have emended the text. Α negative is required, as Otto saw, but the clause calls for μή rather
than ου. Confusion of μή and .ην in a minuscule hand is palaeographically plausible.
4 The connection between praise, blame, free will, and lawmaking is a commonplace; see e.g.
Aristotle, Nicol11αcheαll Ethics IIogb 30-5; Plato, PΤotαgorαs 323c-e; Chrysippus in STlFII.gg8; and Aulus
Gellius, Noctes Atticαe VI1'2: 'penalties for those who do wrong are unjustly established by the laws if
human beings do not come to wicked actions by free will, but are drawn by fate.'
5 With this formulation compare Chrysippus' often-cited definition of law as 'enjoining those
things that are to be done and forbidding those things which are not to be done' (SVF ΙΙ1'3 1 4, 315,
323,332).
6 Justin here refers to two of the three main divisions, often called logoi, of Stoic philosophy: ethics,

5 γεννητου Α] γενητοvΑshtοn Otto BlulltAιfαrcovic!zMullier
Otto Blullt Λιfα1"COvίch Aιfullier
6 μη coniec] ουκ.ην Α; ουκ αν Thirlby
7 τρέπεσθαι και Α] τρέπεσθαι T1zil-llJ)I Λιfαrcovίch
physics, and logic (Diogenes Laertius VII.39). 'Bodies' and 'first principles' are refened to as the first
two subdivisions ofphysics (ibid. νΙl. 132). The MS has 'incorporeals' for 'bodies'. But the Stoics held
that everything that exists, including God, is corpΟΓeal. There is an analogous textual problem in
Diog. LaeΓΙ VI1'134, the only text which appears to assert that Stoics spoke of incorporeal first
principles. ΤheΓe, ho'"vever, 'ίncοrΡΟΓeal' is a conjecture of Lipsius, following the Suidα, whereas the
MS ofDiogenes LaeΓtius read σώματα (ed. Long).
7 Justin's argument is that one cannot agree that viTtue is invaΓiabΙΥ to be followed and vice
shunned if one believes that everything that happens happens aCCOΓding to fate, and that the provi-
dence which guides what happens is itself material, mixed up ίπ tlle material world, and destined to
dissolution along with it. The unvarying goodness of virtue, and therefore its unvarying choice-
worthiness, derives from its relation to the Good-in-itself, which is incorporeal and unchanging. For
the criticism of the Stoic view of fate and of corporeal first principles see Origen, CΟlltτα Celsum VI. 71;
for the connection between virtue and the incorporeal good see Alcinous, Hαndbook 27.
8 Note that τα γιν6μενα refers to both what human beings do and what they suffer.
9 τάδε 9 Marcus Aurelius (Aιfeditαtioιιs 10.7.2), when arguing that changes in the parts of the whole do not

Thirlb.JIeddJ τ6δεΑ 10 Φιλ6σοΦοιΑ] Φιλ6σοΦοι δεΛιfαrcovίc!ι ΙΙ σωμάτωνcοniec] ασωμάτων imply evil, speaks of things dissolving 'into the very constituents (ει, ταυτα) out of which they are
Α ειγε coniec] ειτε Α 12 και coniec] 1) Α 13 παρα τρεπ6μενα Β eddJ παρατρεπ6μενα Α composed' (tr. Haines, LCL).
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 297
Φθαρτων μόνων Φανήσονται κατάληψιν Εσκηκέναι και αυτου του θεου διά τε have 'recognition'l of corruptible things only, even ίη the case of God
των μερων και δια του ολου Εν 1Τάσυ κακίq, γινομένου, ~ μYjδεν εΊναι κακίαν himself, who is involved ίη every evil ίη the whole world and ίη its parts;2 ΟΓ
' ,
μΥ] δ apETYjV, 01Τερ και 1Ταρα 1Τασαν σω
Ι tl \ \ Λ Φ" /
ρονα εννοιαν και
λ / 'Λ'
ογον και νουν εστι.
\ they must grant3 that neither vice ηΟΓ virtue actually exists, which is
opposed to all sound understanding and reason and intelligence. 4
7(8).1. Και TOVS α1ΤΟ των Στωϊκων δε δογμάτων Ε1ΤειδΎι καν τον ήθικον
5 λ ογον
' ι
κοσμιοι γεγονασιν
ι ('.
wS \"
και εν τισιν
('
οι 1ΤΟΙYjται
\ δ \
ια το
\"εμ Φ \
υτον 1Ταντι
7(8).1. We know that the followers of Stoic opinions were decent at any 5
γένει ανθρώ1Των σ1Τέρμα του λόγου μεμισησθαι και 1ΤεΦονευσθαι οϊδαμεν, rate with regard to their ethical doctrine,5 as were the poets too ίη some
respects. And therefore they were also hated and put to death-Heracli-
tus,6 as We said before, and Musonius 7 within our οννn times,8 and

1 Κατάληψσις ίη Stoic epistemology means 'a firm grasp'-analogous to holding something tight1y

ίη the fist (c[ SVFI.60; 66 and Rist, Stoic Pllilosoplιy, ch. 8). With a Platonist's horror oftransience, Justin
pokes fun at the idea of having such a grasp of things that are prone to disintegration.
2 Chrysippus said that everything that comes about ίη any way whatever ίη the whole and ίη any
of its parts happens in accordance with 'divine reason. Plutarch (De Stoicorum RepugnantiΊS 1050C =STIF
Π.937) concluded that this would oblige him to say that all vices happen ίη accordance with divine
reason. It was a common anti-Stoic argument that a god present ίη the world ίη tlle Stoic sense must
be present ίη the most dishonourable parts ofit (SVF Π. 1037; 1039; 1056, and note esp. Alexander of
Aphrodisias ίη STIFII.1038: εν τοις Φαυλοτότοις).
3 We have supplied 'they must grant'. Μηδεν είναι could be dependent οη κατάληψιν εσχηκέναι,
but this would involve a harsh change of construction, and would be impossible if katalepSΊS has
something like its technical sense here. Ιη a passage involving so much reported speech Justin may not
have thought it necessary to introduce the clause with another verb of saying. Alternatively, a verb may
have dropped out of the text. Αη interesting parallel to the textual problems here may be found ίη the
convoluted conditional sentence ίη 2Α 8(3).3, where the text preserved by Eusebius shows how the
argument has been garbled in the MS. Note ίη particular ίη 8(3).3 the variation between κα{ (Eusebius)
andTί (MS).
+ Justin has committed himself to showing that the Stoic doctrines about first principles and bodies
are incompatible with their ethical theory. This complicated sentence, introduced by γάρ, is offered as
an explanation of that claim. Any attempt to unravel this difficult passage must take this into account.
The attempts of Otto, Blunt, and Wartelle to interpret the passage do not yield any such demonstra-
tion. Our emendations give the following sense: ij(I) all things happen by fate (which is identical with
God) and (2) God has ηο separate existence, tlzell (3) God is involved ίη all evi1, which is unfitting, or ω
there is ηο evi1 for God to be involved ίη, which contradicts the Stoics' own teaching ίη their discussion
of ethics. (1) and (2) are the doctrines rejected ίη 6.3; (1) has been attacked ίη 6(7).3-7; (2) draws οη the
Stoic discussion of first principles and bodies ίη 6(7).8. For the argument that the Stoic doctrine of fate
implies that virtue and vice are nothing see ιΑ 28.4; 43.6; 2Α 9.1.
5 The word Justin uses here, κόσμιοι, not infrequent ίη Stoic use, properly describes well-ordered
behaviour (c[ ιΑ 12.3). Given that there were genuine martyrs among the Stoic heroes of 'the disloyal
opposition' (see MacMullen, Enemies qfthe R01llan O,da, chs. 1-2) the choice ofHeraclitus and Muson-
ius as examples is curious. Ιη the MS the sentence ends with a gratuitous repetition of the word
οίδαμεν ('we know'). Following Schwartz and Marcovich, we have omitted this, but it is also possible
that the whole ΟΓ part of the phrase 'Heraclitus ... and others too' was originally a gloss.
G C[ ιΑ 46.3. There is ηο evidence that Heraclitus was put to death. Indeed, Marcus Aurelius

himself records that he died after applying cow-dung to cure his dropsy (lιιJeditatioιιs Πι'3; c[ Diogenes
Laertius ΙΧ.3-5). Athenagoras (Legatio 31.2) correct1y says that Heraclitus was banished from Ephesus,
but not that he was killed. Because of what he said about logos, about the periodic destruction of the
world by fire, and about the role offate, he was looked upon as a forerunner ofthe Stoics (c[ Diogenes
Laertius ΙΧ.7-8).
7 Οη Gaius Musonius Rufus see Introduction, Ρ-4 2 .
8 Grabe proposed to understand this phrase to mean 'from amongst our own', i.e. Christians. At
ιΑ 46.3 Justin had included Heraclitus amongst those who lived before Christ but who were entit1ed to
be called Christians because they had lived by reason. Grabe's argument would require the phrase to
1 ΦθαΡΤ(lJν Α] Φθαρτων γε Λιfαιωvίch afJTOiJ τού θεού coniec] afJTOV το θεον Α; afJTOV τον θεον edd refer to both Heraclitus and Musonius, whereas it seems to be being used of Musonius ίη distinction
2 γινομένου coniec] γινόμενον Α 6 μψισησθαι και πεΦονεύσθαι Α] μψισησθαι lιιJarcovich from Heraclitus.
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 299
/λ
Ήρακ ειτον
,.
μενως προε
/Φ
ημεν και
, Μ /
ουσωνιον
δ"
ε εν
Λ
τοις κα
θ"
ημας
Λ ,
και others too. For the seed of reason 1 has been implanted in the whole
αλλους. 7.2. ώς γαρ εσημάναμεν, πάντας τους καν όπωσδήποτε κατα human race. 7.2. For, as we have indicated, the demons have always been
λ ογον
/ β ιουν
Λ δ/Υ , / Φ ευγειν μισεισ
σπου α~oνTας και κακιαν
'" ενηργησαν
Λ θ αι αει / /οι
• at work to stir υρ hatred against all those who, ίη any way at all, have taken
δαίμονες. 7.3. ουδεν δε θαυμαστον ει τους ου κατα σπερματικου λόγου pains to live according to reason and to flee from evil. 2 7.3. It is hardly
5 μέρος άλλα κατα την του παντος λόγου, Ο εστι Χριστου, γνωσιν και θεωρίαν surprising, then, that the demons we expose are at work to stir υρ 5
πολυ μαλλον μισεισθαι οί δαίμονες ελεγχόμενοι ενεργουσιν, οί' Tijv άξίαν much more hatred against those who live not according to a part of the
(Ι9 6 b) /λ
κο ασιν και
' τιμωριαν
/ /
κομισονται
"
εν
/
αιωνιιΡ
"λ θ
πυρι εγκ εισ εντες.
/ spermatic reason but according to the knowledge and contemplation of
7.4. ει γαρ ύπο των ανθρώπων ~δη δια του όνόματος 'Ιησου Χριστου the whole qf reason, that is, of Christ. Imprisoned in eternal fire, they shall
ήττωνται, δίδαγμά εστι τijς και μελλούσης αυτοις και τοις λατρεύουσιν reap a fitting punishment and retribution. 7.4. For if they are even now
10
, .ι"'\" θ'
αυτοις εσεσ αι εν πυρι αιωνιιΡ κο
ι, Ι λΙ
ασεως. 7.5. r!,
ουτως γαρ και οι προ
\ ( ΦΛ
ηται overpowered by human beings who call υροη the name of Jesus Christ,3 10

πάντες προεκήρυξαν γενήσεσθαι, και 'Ιησους ό ήμέτερος διδάσκαλος this is an indication of the further punishment ίn eternal fire which will
εδίδαξε. come 4 to them and to those who serve them. 7.5. For that this would be
so all the prophets foretold, and Jesus ουΓ teacher taught.
8(3).1.88 Κάγω οδν προσδοκω ύπό τινος των ώνομασμένων επιβουλευ­
θijναι και ξύλιΡ εμπαγijναι, η καν ύπο Κρίσκεντος του ΦιλοψόΦου και 8(3).1. And so, Ι expect that Ι will be plotted against and impaled οη a
15 /
Φ Ι λ οκομπου. 8 .2. ου"Φ
γαρ ι λ/
οσο Φ ον ειπειν
'Λ ας "C ιον τον ' δ"
, ,αν ρα, ος γε περι'1"
ων μη stake 5 by one of those mentioned,6 ΟΓ at least by Crescens,7 that lover 15
επίσταται δημοσίq, καταμαρτυρει, ώς άθέων και άσεβων Χριστιανων οντων, of noise and of empty praise. 8.2. For it would not be right to Call the
προς χάριν και ήδονην των πολλων των πεπλανημένων ταυτα πράττων. man a lover of wisdom since, to gratify and please the erring multitude,8
8.3. εϊτε γαρ μη εντυχων τοις του Χριστου διδάγμασι κατατρέχει ήμων, he publicly testifies about things of which he knows nothing, namely that
/
παμπονηρος εστι
/, και ι
"δ Λ
ιωτων πο
λ ,/
υ χειΡων,
"Φ
οι υ
λ /
αττονται πο
λλ /
ακις περι
, Christians are godless and irreligious. 8.3. Either he has encountered the
teachings of Christ ΟΓ he has not encountered them. If he has not 20
encountered them and attacks us he is altogether wicked, and much worse
than common unskilled people, who are often οη their guard against

ι With this phrase Justin introduces one of the key concepts of the SecOlld Apology, an idea which
does not appear ίη the FirstApology apart from the phrase 'the seed from God, the Logos' (ιΑ 32.8).
2 Cf. ιΑ 5.1-4; 1+1; 54.1-10; 56.1-58.3; 2Α 1.2.

3 Cf. 2Α 5(6).6; D 85.2-3.

4- We have followed Sylburg's emendation of εσομένη, to εσεσθαι. This accords with Justin's

normal use of an infinitive with μέλλω (50 times as opposed to twice without an infinitive; see esp. 2Α
2.2). Α consequence of this is the implication that the ΡΓeseηt defeat of the demons is already a
punishment.
5 The phrase we have tΓaηsΙated 'impaled οη a stake' ~it. 'fixed οη wood') has often been taken to
mean 'put in the stocks'. But this is too tame ίη the context. The choice of empaling as a means of
execution is a reminiscence ofPlato, Republic II.36Ie: 'the just man will be SCOUΓged, tΟΓtured, bound,
8.1-6 καγω oVv . .. ον τιμι} αρ Eus HEΊV. 16.3-6 (Gk [=ATERBDNIJ Lat Syr)
his eyes will be burnt out, and finally, after suffering all mannel" of evils, he will be empaled (ανασχινδυ­
8.1-2 καγω oVv ... ταυτα 'Πράττων αρ ασΟIl Ραπlι (Codex Vaticanus sec. ed. Dindorfii)
λευθήσεται)', quoted in the Λ1αrt;ιrdOlIl qf Apollollius (§38) and paraphrased by Eusebius, Praeparatio
Evaιιgelica ΧΠ.ω.
2 άλλου, Schwartz (1888) lvfarcoviclz] άλλου, οϊδαμεν Α 4 του, ού edd] του, Α; ού !iJιΙbισg 6 The opaqueness of this ΡhΓase is one of the factors that has led editors to relocate this chapter
5 ο εστι ΧριστοΙι Α] ο, εστι Χριστό, PeI701l 10 εσεσθαι !iJιlburg] εσομένη, Α 13 καγω oVv (see lηtroductioη, ΡΡ.54-6). It may refel" to the demons and those who seΓve them who were mentioned
Α Eus] καγω αΠΟIl Pαscll ύ'Πό τινος Α Eus] ώς ε[, Chron Ραπlι ωνομασμένων Eus (Gr) edd] ονομασ­
at 7(8). ΗοweveΓ, if this section is the beginning of a second block of mateΓίa1 removed at some point
μένων Α; 'Προωνομασμένων Chroιz Pαsch 14 και (10) Α Eus (Gr*) Chron Pαsch] καν Eus (ATERM) from the FirstApology (see lηtroductίoη, 2.9.3), the referent is irretrievably 10st.
εμ'Παγηναι Α Eus (Syr)] εντιναγηναι Eus (Gr); εντιναχθηναι αποιι Pαscll; feriendum Eus (Lat) καν Α
7 For Crescens cf. lηtroductioη, ΡΡ-4 2 -3.
Eus (Gr*) αΠΟIl Pαscll] και Eus (BD) ύ'Πο Α Eus] α'Πο Chron Pαscll Κρίσκεντο> Α] Κρήσκεντο> Eus
8 Justin plays οη philosophos ~over of wisdom), philopsoplιos ~over of noise), and philokOlIlpos ~ovel" of
(Gr) C/zroIlPαscllMullier, Crescente Eus (Lat) ΦιλοψόΦουΑ] ΦιλοσόΦου Eus (ΤΕ) ChrollPαscll; αΦιλοσόΦου
empty praise): such compounds are readily generated ίη Greek. The bogus philosopher was a stock
Eus (Gr* Lat); false philosopher Eus (Syr) και (20) Α Eus (Gr* Syr) C/zron Pαscll] 7j και Eus (ATER);
figure of ISt- and 2ηd-ceηtuΓΥ literature, often loosely described as a 'Cynic'. The complaint that
sed Eus (Lat) 15 ΦιλόσοΦον Α Eus] Φιλόνεικον Chron Pαscll ος Α Eus] ώς ChI"01l Pasch ιLν Eus]
Cynics set themselves up as philosophers, though unworthy of the name, and that they addressed their
ήμων α Α μη ε'Πίσταται δημοσίq- Α Eus] δημοσίq- Clzron Pαsch 16 αθέων Α Eus] αθέων ήμων appeal to the vulgar multitude, were commonplaces of philosophical polemic ίη the 2lld century; cf.
C/zroll Pαsch Ι7 των 'Πολλων Α Eus] 'Πολλων C/zroll Pαsch ταυτα Α] TOVTO Eus (Gr Syr) ClzrOll
Lucian, Fugitivi 4,7, 13-16. MacMullen says of such mendicant ΡhilΟSΟΡheΓS, 'they weΓe to the ancient
Pαscll 18 ήμων Α Eus (Gr* Syr)] ήμων 'Πάντων Eus (TER) WΟΓld what palmers and friars weΓe to the medieval, a familial" sight everywheΓe, both suspect and
sacγed, but more rightly suspect, since the whole movement, like any vogue, dΓew ίη recruits who had
the least suitable talents and motives' (ElleInies qfthe RoInall O/'der, 60).
 300 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 301

l' , , , δ λ' θ δ Λ ',1. Λ

ων ουκ επιστανται
" " , ,
ια εγεσ αι και ψευ ομαρτυρειν, Ύj ει εντυχων μΎj συνΎjK- speaking of and misrepresenting things they. know nothing about. If he
εν το εν αυτοίς μεγαλείον, ~ συνεις προς το μ~ ύποπτευθijναι τοιουτος ταυτα has encountered them either he has not understood the majesty they
ποιει,
Λ
πο
λ'
υ μα
Λλλ
ον
'
αγεννΎjς
, ,
και
,
παμπoνΎjpoς,
'δ
ι
Λ
ιωηKΎjς και
"λ ι
α ογου
δ ι c
o~ Ύjς contain ΟΓ he has understood it and still does these things in order not to
και 'Φ'β
ο ου ε'λ'
αττων "
ων. be suspected of being a Christian himself. This would show him to be
vanquished by vulgar and irrational ορίηίοη and fear, and so much the 5
5 8.4.8 Και γαρ προταθέντα με και ερωτήσαντα αυτον ερωτήσεις ηνας more ignoble and thoroughly wicked. 8.4. For Ι would have you know
τοιαύτας και μαθείν και ελέγςαι ση άλΎjθως μΎjδεν επίσταται, είδέναι ύμας that when Ι had been asked to solve problems put to me Ι ίη turn asked
βούλομαι. (197 a) 8.5. και ση άλΎjθij λέγω, εί μ~ άνΎjνέXθΎjσαν ύμίν αί him certaip. questions,l and so discovered and demonstrated that ίη truth
κοινωνίαι των λόγων, ετοιμος και εφ' ύμων κοινωνείν των ερωτήσεων πάλιν' he knows nothing. 8.5. And to show that Ι speak the truth, ίη the event
' δ'"αν και, τουτο
β ασι λ ικον " 8 ••
Λ"εργον EιΎj. 6 ει'δ ε' και" εγνωσ
'θ Ύjσαν υμιν
• Λ αι •
that these exchanges have not been reported back to you, Ι am prepared to ΙΟ
ΙΟ
,Ι
εpωTΎjσεις μου και
\
αι
Ι,
εκεινου
Ι ,
αποκρισεις,
Ι Φ
ανερον
\ Ι.ι"\'
υμιν εσην
ιl
οη ου
'δ '
εν exchange questions with him again, even ίη your presence. This too would
επίσταται. ~ εί και επίσταται, δια τους άκούοντας δε ου τολμij. λέγειν, ώς be a kingly task. 2 8.6. But if my questions and his answers were made
πpOέΦΎjν, ου ΦιλόσοΦος άλλα Φιλόδοςος άν~p δείκνυται, σς γε μΎjδε το Σωκρα­ known to you, then it will be clear to you that he knows nothing. Or, if he
ηκον άςιέραστον ον nIλij.· Άλλ' ουη γε προ τijς άλΎjθείας ημΎjTέOς άνήρ. does know, but dares not speak3 for fear of those who would hear, the man
is, as Ι have already said,4 proved to be a lover not of wisdom but of 15
vainglor/ who does not honour even the saying of Socrates-which
should be held dear: 'But a man is ίη ηο way to be honoured ίη preference
to the truth.'6 8.7. However, it is impossible for a Cynic,Ί who has given it

ι The reading ofEusebius, 'Ι proposed and asked', has been preferred by editors since Stephanus,
but προθέντα adds little to the sense of ερωτήσαντα, and does not readily explain the origin ofthe MS
reading (both the Latin and the Syriac translations of Eusebius have only one verb, corresponding to
'asked', and presumably read the other verb of the Greek text as a pleonastic doublet). The MS οπ the
other hand reads προτάθεντα, the aorist passive participle of προτείνω, which can mean 'pose a
question' for discussion οτ debate (cf. Plutarch, QJιαestioιzes Coιzviviαles ΙΧ 737d-e; Epictetus 111.8.1-2;
Diogenes LaeΓtius 11.70). IfbothJustin and Crescens had been in a situation where they had been able
to pose problems to one another it would make more sense of the reference to 'sharing questions' in
8.5, and also make it less implausible that Justin should imagine that a report of this exchange might
have been conveyed to the emperor.
2 Cf. ιΑ 14+ 1π the background of the ΡhΓase 'kingly task' is the idea that virtue is the craft which
makes men capable of ruling and 'belongs to kings and is called kingly' (Xenophon, .Λιfemοι·αbίlία
1Υ.2.ιι, and cf. Plato, Republic Υ. 473c-d, paraphrased by Justin in ιΑ 3.2-the common Platonic tag

8'4-6 και γαρ προταθέντα . .. το Σωκρατικον άξιέραστον ον TLfLq. αρ C!ποn Ραιch (Codex Vaticanus sec. about the need for rulers to philosophize). The philosophic task is called an εργον in Epictetus
ed. Dindorfii) 111.21.22.
3 The MS adds '1ike Socrates'. The words can only make sense if the meaning is expanded, thus

Blunt: 'as Socrates did dare.' Schmid ('ΤeχtίiberΙierfeωng', 99, n. 60) describes the phrase as an
Ι η Α] και Eus (Gr); vero Eus (Lat); but yet Eus (Syr) εντυχων μη συνηκεν Eus ed~ εντυχών
obvious embellishment which has its origins in the following reference to the Socratic saying.
Α 2 μεγαλειον Eus (Gr) ed~ μεγαλείψ Α η Α Eus (Gr)] or if Eus (Syr); η ει Thirlby; η και
4 This is the only occasion in the Apologies when this formula occurs in the singular. 1π the Diαlogue,
ΤhαΙenιαιιιι Mαrcovich; και Ashton 3 ιδιωτικηι; Α Eus (Gr* Lat)] ιδιώτηι; Eus (TER); ιδιωτεία Eus
(Syr) 4 ελάττων ων Α Eus (Gr*)] ων ελάττω Eus (Β); ων ελάττων Eus (D); ων ελαττον Eus (Μ); with one exception (D 83.4), it is always in the singular.
5 Another play οπ 'philosopher', cf. 2Α8.1-2.
ελαττόνων Eus (ΤΙ) 5 προταθέντα Α] προθέντα Eus (Gr) C!ποιι Ραιch R. Stephαnus edd τιναι;
6 Republic X.595c: άλλ' ου γαρ πρό γε τηι; άληθείαι; τψψέοι; άνήρ.
τοιαύται; Α Eus] τινοι; Chron Ραιι!ι 6 και (10) Α] om Eus (Gr Syr) Chroιz Ραιι!ι μηδεν Α Eus]
7 Justin's jibe against Crescens rests ultimately οπ the Stoic doctrine that only virtue and vice are,
ουδεν Chroιz Ραιch 7 και ότι Α Eus] ότι Chron Ραιι!ι 8 Ετοψο'} Α Eus (Gr)] έτοψο'} ειμι
properly speaking, good or bad, and that all other things are 'indifferent'. AΓisto of Chios adopted
Chroιz Ραιch εφ' ύμων Α Eus (Gr)] επι ύμων Chroιz Ραιch 9 βασιλικον Eus (Gr Syr) Chr01l Ραιch
ed~ βασικον Α δ' αν Α Eus] γαρ Chron Ραιch τουτο Α Eus] τουτο το Chroιz Ραιch
the radical position that the goal (of life) was to live in indifference with respect to everything that
ΙΟ άποκρίσειι; Α Eus] άποκρίσειι; ειι; Ch"OIl Ραιι!ι ουδεν Α] ουδεν των ήμετέρων Eus (Gr Syr) Chron
fell between virtue and vice (Diogenes Laertius VI1.160=SΤΙF 1.351). Pyrrho the Sceptic was often
Ραιch Sylburg edd ΙΙ η ει και Α] η ει Eus (Gr* Syr); η Eus (Β); om C!zroιz Ραιι!ι επίσταται Α Eus]
associated with AΓisto's position (see e.g. Cicero, De Finibzιs 11.12 (35); 13 (43); 1114 (12); Υ.8 (23). Tllis
om Chroιz Ραιch λέγειν Eus (Gr Syr) C!ποιι Ραιι!ι] λέγειν όμοίωι; Σωκράτει Α; λέγειν άνoμoί~ι;
position could be expressed in the lapidary but misleading formula that the 'goal' was 'indifference'; cf.
Clement of Alexandria (Stl'omαtα 11.21.3 (129.6) =SVFI.360): τέλοι; OVTOS είναι την άδιαΦορίαν εΦη, and
Σωκράτει AιIαrcovich 12 πpoέΦrιv Α] πρότερον εφrιv Eus (Gr) C!ποιι Ραιι!ι άνηρ Α Eus
(ATERBD)] άνηρ Eus (Gr* contra omnes mss); ό άνηρ Eus (Μ) 13 άξιέραστον ον τιμq. Α Eus]
επίσταται Chroιz Ραιch
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

8 .7. α'δ υνατον

ι δ'
ε Κυνικψ
~'δ
α ια Φ οριαν
ι το'Ιλ ι,,
τε ος προεμενψ το αγα θ'
ον ει'δ εναι
ι out tllat the 'goal' 1S 'indifference', ι to kn9w any 'good' apart from
πλ~ν αδιαΦορίας. 'indifference' .

9.1. '1να δ ε,ι "

μη τις ειπτι το
'λ εγομενον
ι ~ t,Υ ι
υπο των νομι':,ομενων
Φ ι λ οσοιφ ων οτι " 9.1. But suppose someone should repeat what is said by' those who are
ι
κομποι και
, Φ ιβ
ο
Ι,
ητρα εστι τα,
'λ ι
εγομενα υ
tφ' t ~"
ημων, οτι κο
λ ι Υ "ι
α':,ονται εν αιωνιψ
considered to be philosophers, namely that what we say about the unjust
5 , t
πυρι οι α
'
'Ιδ ικοι και'δ ια Φ οιβ ον α
·'λλ' ου δ' , ,
λ' 'ί' , , " ι
ια το κα ον ειναι και αρεστον εναρετως
being punished ίη eternal fire is bombast and scaremongering,2 and that 5
βιουν τους ανθρώπους αξιουμεν, βραχυεπως προς τουτο αποκρινουμαι στι ει it is because of fear 3 that we require human beings to live virtuously, and
not because it is noble and pleasing. 4 Ι shall briefly answer that if what we
say is not true, then God does not exist,5 or, if he exists, he has ηο care

Cicero (Acadenzica Π.42 (130)=STlFI.362): 'Aristo's chiefgood is in these things to be moved in neither
direction-he himself calls it adiaphorίa' (tr. Rackham, LCL). Ιη the 2nd century Cynicism was not a
school with a sharply defined set of beliefs (cf. Diogenes Laertius VI.I03), but rather a mode of
behaviour which involved an attitude of indi:fferentism to conventionally accepted social values; hence,
the views of Aristo, or a caricature of them, could readily be foisted οη to anyone described as a Cynic.
ι The MS reads 'indi:fferent'. Το say that a Cynic claimed that the 'goal' was 'indi:fferent' would be
a possible jibe, but one expects this phrase, introduced by the aorist participle προεμένφ, to be the
premise of a knock-down argument, rather than the conclusion of that argument. ΒΥ emending to
'indi:fference' we have assimilated what Crescens is alleged to have claimed to Aristo's position, as
caricatured by Clement of Alexandria (cf. previous note). Το suppose that this premise leads directb I to
the conclusion that a Cynic has ηο notion of the 'good' apart from 'indi:fference' itself is little more
than a play οη words, but something more than a cheap jibe underlies Justin's remark. Α more
developed form of a similar argument was used by Chrysippus against Aristo. Chrysippus argued that
the notion of 'indi:fference' towards that which is neither good nor evil is only intelligible οη the basis
of a previous understanding of good and evil, but this wocld mean that one would have to have an
idea of indi:fference before one had an idea of indi:fference, since the idea of indi:fference is dependent
οη an understanding ofthe good, 'but the "good" is nothing other than "indi:fference" itseΙf'-αλλο δ'
ουδεν dλλ' αυτη μ6νον Tdyae6v εστιν (Plutarch, De C01nInunibus Notionibus I072a=SVF ΠΙ.26). Justin's
remarks in 2Α 8.7, therefore, show that he was in touch with serious philosophical argument, even ifhe
uses that argument here in a rhetorical rather than a seriously philosophical way.
2 Chrysippus said that Plato 'was wrong in trying to make fear of the gods a deterrent from
injustice, and that the argument about divine chastisements is ... in fact ηο di:fferent from the Bogy
and Hobgoblin with which women try to keep little children from mischief' (Plutarch, De Stoicoruιn
Repugιlalltiis I040b (tr. Cherniss, LCL)=SVFIII.313).
3 Diogenes Laertius (VII.8g, tr. Hicks, LCL=SVFIII.39) says that Chrysippus held that virtue was
'choiceworthy for its own sake and not from hope or fear or any external motive'.
4- For the combination 'noble and pleasing' see Chrysippus: 'the good is to be chosen and the

chosen is pleasing and the pleasing is to be praised and the praised is noble' (Plutarch, De Stoicol"um
Repugnantiis 103gc=SVFIII.2g).
5 This passage, together with ιΑ 284; 43.6; 2Α 6(7).9, reflects a school tradition which drew οη
Stoic arguments in order to expose contradictions in their positions. Within this set of related passages,
only here does Justin argue from the fact of punishment. That a determinist position leads to 'the
undermining of the rationale for punishment' is a component of what Dillon has described as the
'standard Middle-Platonic doctrine οη fate and free will' (Alcinous, 160). The argument that to deny the
appropriateness of rewards and punishments entails the non-existence of God was actually part of a
Stoic refutation of this claim, which embedded the connection between reward and punishment and
virtue and vice in a reductio ad absurdU1Il leading to denial of the existence of the gods. Compare the
determinist argument cited by Alexander of Aphrodisias: 'for if there are ηο rewards or punishments,
[theyargue,] neithel' [is there] praise or blame; ifnot these, nor [aΓe there] right and wrong actions; if
not these, nor [are there] virtue and vice; and if not these, they say, nor are there even gods. But the
first, [namely] that there are ηο rewards or punishments, follows οη [the assertion] that all things come
ι dδιαΦΟΡίαν coniec] dδιάΦΟΡον Α προεμένφ Α] προθεμένφ Nolte edd to be in accordance with fate, as has been shown. So the last [proposition follows] too; but this is
Aιfαιτoviclz 6 βραχυεπως edd] βραχυεπο-Ις Nex,; βραχ έσι λ6γοις Acl mrg absurd and impossible' (De Fato 36, ρ. 2ΙΟ, tr. Sharples).
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

μη τουτο εστιν, οϋτε ε.στι θεός, ij ει ε.στιν ου μέλει αυτψ των άνθρώπων και for human beings, and 1 virtue is nothing and yice is nothing, and, as we
'δ ι,
ου εν εστιν
,
αρετη
\ \ κακια
'δ
ου ε
ι Ι
και,
( 'Φ
ως προε ημεν,
'δ /
α ικως
Λ
τιμωρουσιν οι
<
said before,2 legislators unjustly punish those who violate noble laws.
νομο θ εται / \
τουςπαρα /
β αινοντας τα\ /
δ ιατεταγμενα / 9.2.
κα λ α. 'λλ" ε:τει
α \ t '
ουκ 9.2. But since tthese legislators are not unjust, and nΟΓ is their Father
αδικοι εκεινοι και ό αυτων πατηρ τα αυτα αυτψ πράττειν δια του λόγου who teaches, 'by the Logos,3 to practise the virtues which are his,4- those
5 διδάσκων οί τούτοις συντιθέμενοι ουκ (197 b) αδικοιt. 9.3. εαν δέ τις τους who assent to these virtues are not unjustt. 5 9.3. But suppose someone 5

ι Justin argues that if God does not punish the unjust, it follows that either (ι) he does not exist, οτ
(2) he does exist but has ηο conceIll for human beings, and (3) virtue and vice are non-existent, and
(4) the punishment of lawbIeakers by human magistrates is unjust. What is the force of the 'and'
connecting (2) and (3)? AΓe they independent and parallel conclusions, οτ does one follow from the
other? The fact that (4) clearly follows from (3) suggests that it should be the latter, but it is not
immediately obvious why this should be so. However, at ιΑ 28.4 one of the conclusions that may be
drawn from the fact that God does not caIe for hurp.an beings is that 'viItue and vice aIe nothing', and
this appeaIs to Ieflect the Stoic view that 'the theory of good and bad things οτ the virtues ΟΓ
happiness' is most appropriately approached 'from univeIsal nature and from the administIation of
the world' (Chrysippus, quoted by Plutarch, De StοίcoΓum Repugnantiis I035c-d=STlF ΙΙΙ.68, and see
Long and Sedley, Tlze Hellenistic P!zilosop!zeτs, ί. 374: 'When Chrysippus maintains ... that "univeIsal
nature" and "the administration of the world" aIe the foundation [ΟΓ Stoic theory οη good and bad
things, he is appealing to the rational and providential activities of god, conformity with which
constitutes the good for man and lack of conformity what is bad [ΟΓ man').
2 Cf. 2Α 6(7).6-7.
3 Justin believed that philosopheIs and poets derived knowledge of punishments after death from

the prophets (ιΑ 44.9), and that ChIistians weIe taught the same thing by ChIist (2Α 7(8).5, whichJustin
may have specifically in mind here). He would also have assumed that the existence of divine sanctions
was made known through paIticipation ίη Ieason. The word 'Logos' coveIs all three cases.
4 Ιη ιΑ 6.1 Justin speaks of the 'Father of justice and temperance and the otheI virtues'. Philo says

that God is himself a legislatol" and the source oflaws (De SaCl"ifιciis Abelis et Caini 39 (131).
5 OUl" tIanslation IepIesents the best sense we think can be made of the text preserved ίη the MS,
but this text raises a number of questions. What is it (τα αύτά) that the FatheI teaches; to whom does he
teach it; who are those who agree (συντιθέμενοι), and with whom οτ with what (τούτοις) do they agIee?
Α number of othel" difficulties suggest to us that this text has been severely damaged ίη its tIansmission,
and that a copyist has IewoIked it to give superficial sense. Among these difficulties are the following:
first, if the meaning of the fiIst clause is 'since these aIe not unjust, and neither is theil" FatheI' one
would expect ούδέ instead of καί; secondly, if καί is allowed to stand then the sense must be 'and their
Father-teaching ... ' which is a harsh reading of the pIesent participle; thiIdly, there is ηο parallel ίη
Justin [ΟΓ God being descγibed as the fatheI of people who are obviously pagans (ό αύτων πατήρ),
although Justin might readily have written the FatheI of all (ό των σλων πατήρ, οτ ό πάντων παTή~
see note at 2Α 5(6).5); fouIthly, if Christians are the subject of the final clause of the argument it is
difficult to see the fOIce of the claim that they are not unjust-the logic of the aIgument would have
required the conclusion that they are not telling fairy-stories when they say that the wicked will be
punished by God; fifthly, 9.3 introduces a furtheI objection, evidently to paIt of the argument of 9.2,
but to which part is unclear.
We think it likely that the conclusion of the argument was oIiginally that lawgiveIs were not unjust
ίη prescγibing punishment for those who contIavened good laws, and that this argument was reached
by SllOwing that the FatheI of all does care for humankind, fOl" he teaches all through his Logos to
practise the virtues that are his own (ιΑ 10.1; 2Α 3(4).2), and that, since virtue and vice thus do exist,
lawgivers who sanction the difference between them by punishing evil-doers aIe not unjust. If what the
ChIistians had said about divine punishment was not true, it would have followed that human lawgiv-
ers were unjust ίη punishing the wicked. Eut since it has now been shown that the latteI is not true,
neithel" is the premise which gave Iise to it. Cicero (De Fato 17 (40)) makes precisely this move (if Ρ then
q, but not q therefore not ρ) when he cites an argument moving ίη several stages from the premise 'if all
things happen by fate' to the conclusion that 'neither praise ηΟΓ blame is just ηοτ are Iewards and
punishments', and then himself concludes that since the latter is 'flawed' so is the premise. For an
ι μέλει edd] μέλλει Α 4 αύτφ Α] αυτον Grabe; αύτοι, !iYlburg Blunt; αύτφ Ashtoιz; έαυτφ example of an extended argument which postulates successive unwanted consequences of an
.iιιΙα1"COvίc!ι 5 συντιθέμενοι ούκ Α] ού συντιθέμενοι Marαιl unwanted premise, refutes the ultimate conclusion, and then denies the unwanted consequences and
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

διαΦόρους νόμους T(VV ανθρώ7Των 7Τροβάληται, λέγων ότι 7Ταρ ο'[ς μεν brings up the differences ίn human laws,l. saying that among some
ανθρώ7Τοις τάδε καλά, τά δε αίσχρα νενόμισται, 7Ταρ' αλλοις δε τα 7Ταρ human beings some things have been judged to be noble, some to be
Εκείνοις αίσχρα καλα και τα καλα αίσχρα νομίζεται, ακουέτω και των είς shameful, but among others the things judged shameful by the former are
TOVTO λεγομένων. 9.4. και νόμους διατάξασθαι Tn έαυτων κακίq, όμοίους judged noble, and the noble shameful. Let him hear what we have to say ίn
5 τους 7TOνΎjpOυς αγγέλους Ε7Τιστάμεθα, ο'[ς χαίρουσιν οί όμοιοι γενόμενοι this matter too. 9.4. We know that evil angels have also established laws, 5
ανθρω7ΤΟΙ. και ορθος λόγος 7Ταρελθων ου 7Τάσας δόξας ουδε 7Τάντα δόγματα like them ίn wickedness, ίn which human beings who have become like
\,
κα λ α α7ΤΟ
δ /
εικνυσιν, α
'λλ \
α τα μεν
Φ \
Λλ
αυ α τα
δ \ θ \ \,
</ \ / \ \
ε αγα α. ωστε μοι και 7Τρος τους them rejoice. And right reason's contribution is to demonstrate 2 that not
τοιούτους τα αυτα και τα όμοια εϊpΎjTαι και λεχθήσεται δια 7Τλειόνων, Εαν all opinions nor all beliefs are noble, but that some are wicked and some
χρεία V.
9.5. τανυν δε Ε7ΤΙ το 7Τροκείμενον ανέρχομαι. good. As for me, Ι have said these and similar things, and will say them at
length, if need be, to any such objectors. 9.5. But for the present Ι return 10
ΙΟ
711f
10.1. lv.ιεγα λ / \ 'r' / , θ /
ειοτερα μεν ουν 7TασΎjς αν ρω7Τειου
δ δ
ι ασκα
λ/
ιας
Φ /
αινεται τα
\ to the matter at hand. 3
ι /
ΎjμεTεpα
δ Λ \
ια του το
\ λ "λ
ογικον το ο ον τον
\Φ \
αν εν τα
δ ,Ι\ Λ Χ
ι Ύjμας
/
ριστον γεγονεναι,
\ /
10.1.Our doctrines, then, a~e shown to be more majestic4 than every
human teaching through the fact that the whole rational principle became

ultimately the premise, see Alexander of Aphrodisias, De Fato 35 (Ρ. 207), where he shows determinists
trying to escape from the conclusion that if fate is as they say it is, 'there are not reward and
punishment'. It is noteworthy that amongst the unwanted consequences in this argument is that 'right
reason enjoining what should be done and forbidding what should not be done does not [exist]'.
1 This is the fourth of a series of objections. The previous three, introduced at 3(4). ι, 4(5). ι, and 9. ι,

are direct attacks οη Christian positions. Ιn the present case the objector appeals to the contrariety of
human law, which is not a direct attack οη a Christian position, and must be supposed to have been
triggered by something asserted ίη the argument of 9.2, presumably by a claim for some kind of
relationship between thejustice ofhuman laws and divine virtue. For this objectionJustin draws οη a
common philosophical tradition. It is one of the objections raised by Carneades to any notion of
naturallaw, see Cicero, De Republicα ΙΙ1.8.13-1ι.ι8. The argument from contrariety ofhuman law was
developed within the later sceptical tradition, see Sextus Empiricus, Outlilles qf I)ιIThollisIIl 1.145-63;
Diogenes Laertius ΙΧ.83-4; Philo, De EbI1'etate 193-202. This cluster of related texts is translated and
discussed ίη Annas and Barnes, The lvfodes qf Scepticisnl, 146--71.
2 Lit. 'having come forward right reason demonstrates'. 'Having come forward' (παρελθών) has

frequently been understood to refer to the coming of the Logos in the incarnation. But 2Α ΙΟ.Ι-2
suggests that Justin is referring to the Logos as accessible to philosophers and lawgivers rather than to
the whole Logos who became Christ. Chrysippus spoke of 'the common law, which is right reason,
going through (ερχόμενος) all things' (Diogenes Laertius VII.88=Sf1FIII4). This may have inf!uenced
Justin's choice oflanguage, but παρέρχομαι can be used absolutely, frequently ίn a forensic οτ delibera-
tive context, to mean 'come fOlVvard to speak' (cf. LSJ, S.v. VI). Alcinous (Handbook 4.8) says 'right
reason does not judge ίη the same way the objects of contemplation as it does those of action, but ίn
the case of contemplation it enquires into truth and non-truth, while in the sphere of action it enquires
into vvhat is appropriate and what is alien [to the agent], and what is the nature of the action'. We
believe that it is this faculty of the mind that Justin has primarily ίη view: when it comes into play
(παρελθών) it demonstrates (αποδείκνυσιν) that some opinions are wicked and some good. The verb
'demonstrates' is appropriate to the forensic or deliberative nuance of παρελθών, but is also an
appropriate description of the operation of human reason: according to Diogenes Laertius ΥΙ1.52
(tr. Long and Sedley), the Stoics held that 'it is by reason that we get cognition of conclusions reached
through demonstration (αποδείξις)'. Justin's language draws primarily οη the sort ofPlatonic tradition
represented by Alcinous, but resonates with both Stoic and Christian notions about Logos. If asked
how right reason 'comes into play', he could say that human beings share ίη the Reason which the
Stoics believed pervaded all things, and which Christians believe became incarnate ίη Christ.
3 This does not indicate a resumption after a major digression. The οηlΥ interruption is the
ι προβάλψαι edd] ποβάλψαι Α 2 τάδε Α] τα μεν lvfαι"COvich Mll1liel" 6 και Α] και ό promise of a lengthier recital of answers to objections should the need arise. Ιη fact, ΙΟ. ι flows
Ashton λ1ατcovίch 8 ε'ίρψαι coniec] ειρήσεται Α; ε'ίρψαι τε .$ΥΙbuτg ΙΙ του το Gτabe Blunt smoothly from 9-4-
Goodspeed] τουτο Α; το το Veil λ1ατcovίch; το Piι10ΙΙ Otto <} Cf. 2Α 8(3).3.
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

\ ~
και σωμα και
\ λ ογον
ι \ ,ι, Ι
και ιpVX'rjv. 10.2.
,,\
οσα γαρ κα
λ ~ ,\
ως αει ε
'Φθ ι c.
εγ~ανTO και
\ the Christ,l who was made visible for our sake, body and logos and
'"
ευρον οιιφ ι λ οσο Φ 'rjσαντες'rj
ι " νομο θ εΤ'rjσαντες,
ι κατα\ λ ογου
ι "
ευρεσιν και\ θ εωριαν
ι sou1. 2 10.2. For3 whatever philosophers and iawgivers have at any time
εστι πον'rjθέντα q,υτοΙς. ,0.3. επειδ~ δε ου πάντα τα του λόγου εγνώρισαν, uttered well or found was achieved by them with hardship according to a
finding and observing of reason. 4 10.3. But since they did not know all

2 κατα λόγου coniec] κατα λόγου μέρο, Α
θεωρίανconiec] θεωρία, Α
1 Cf. ιΑ 63.10.
2 'Body and logos and soul' are constitutive elements of a human being. But Justin does not mean
to imply the sort of tripartite anthi"Opology found at IThess. 5: 23. He normally speaks of a human
being as composed of body and soul (see D 6.2), but he also believes that the seed of Logos is
implanted in aΠ human beings (2Α 7(8). ι). JllStin does not mean that the divine Logos has driven Ollt a
hllman logos ίη Jesus, butthat the logos which is present in other hllman beings οηlΥ partially, or by
participation, is flllly present ίη Jeslls (cf. 2Α 7(8).3). It is οη account of this that we have not translated
logos as either 'reason' or 'Word'.
3 Cf. 2Α 7(8).3; 10.2; 13.3-5; and ιΑ 44.9-10. It is difficult to make sense ofthe text as it stands in the
MS. Otto introduced δι' ίη order to constrlle the g~nitives εύρέσεω, και θεωρία" an emendation which
is retained by later editors, including even, Goodspeed, bllt which makes the text pleonastic-'follnd
... throllgh finding'. Palaeographically, there is ηο more reason to suppose that δι' has fallen Ollt of the
text than that the text has llndergone some other, perhaps more extensive or deeper corruption.
Interpreters have proceeded οη the assumption, COllSCiOllS or llllCOllSCious, that the passage is to be
assimilated to the parallels referred to above, without taking accollnt of the possibility that this is
precisely what might have happened to the text ίη the course of its transmission. Ιη addition to the
difficulty of llnderstanding the syntactical relation of εύρέσεω, και θεωρία, to the rest of the sentence,
the MS text poses a number of other problems. First, the order of the verbs εΦθέγξαντο and εδρον
seems odd: cf. ιΑ 44.9, which speaks of what philosophers and poets 'were able to llllderstand and
explained'. Two suggestions might be advanced to explain the unusual word order: (a) Ιη 2Α 10.6 Justin
will introdllce the tag from Timαeus 28c which speaks of the difficlllty of finding God. This strong sense
of the verb εύρίσκω reCllrs ίη the Platonic tradition. Alcinous (Hαndbook 5.5), for example, ίη an allllSiOll
to SymposiuIIl 2IOd, introdllces it to speak of finding beauty itself. However, this argument is seriollsly
weakened by the fact that in D 90.2, thOllgh JllStin echoes Phαedo 85c, he reverses the order of the verbs
employed by Plato (μαθειν ... ij εύρειν), sllggesting that he was at best indi:fferent to this nuance of
Platonic usage; (b) It is conceivable thatJustin intended the verbs εΦθέγξαντο and εδρον to correspond
in order to the twofold subject 'philosophers and lawgivers'. Ιη jIIIinos 3I7c-d Socrates says that 'law is
the finding (ευρεσιν) ofthat which is'. Bllt this is lllldermined by the fact that εύρίσκω itselfhas a strong
sense ίη philosophicalllsage (cf. above), and that at 2Α 13.3 JllStin uses Φθέγγομαι ofphilosophers, poets,
and writers. Secondly, ίη the parallels, JllStin refers either to seeds of truth, or to the spermatic logos
(οη the meaning of this term see Introdllction, ρρ.65-6). If he did write κατα λόγου μέρο, here he
mllst have sllpposed that his hearers wOllld sllpply this backgrollnd fIσm 2Α 7(8).3, for, even thOllgh he
has just referred to το λογικον το Όλον, they cOllld not otherwise have been expected, withOllt fllrther
explication, to llllderstand how philosophers and lawgivers could lltter or find something 'according to
a part of reason'. Ιη D 4.2 the idea is rejected that the sOlll is a part (μέρο,) of 'that royal mind'. Thirdly,
the periphrastic verb form εση 7Τονηθέντα is llllllsual, thOllgh not llnparalleled (see Kίihner and Gerth,
Aus.fiihrliche GrαmIIZαtik, ί. 38 and Blass, Debrunner, and Fllnk, Greek GrαιIlInαr, 355). These three points
are not decisive ίη themselves, bllt, taken together with the difficlllty of construing εύρέσεω, και
θεωρία" they create doubt as to the sOlllldness of the text. Α cllle is perhaps provided by Clement
(Str01Ilαtα VII.9I.3), where the point is the benefit derived from 'the toil of finding (τφ 7Τόνψ τη,
εύρέσεω,). Ιη Justin, perhaps, the stress is the other way round-on the toil from which the benefit of
finding arises. Ιη 2Α 10.6 Jllstin says that Socrates urged men to a knowledge ofthe God llnknOWll to
them throllgh rational enqlliry ~iterally 'a seeking of Ieason'). If tl1iS echoes what was written ίη 10.2,
JllStin may theIe have said that what the philosophers and lawmakers said well or fOlllld was achieved
by them with difficlllty throllgh a finding and contemplating of reason. Α redactor οι copyist will have
supplied μέρο, after λόγου, thereby assimilating the passage more closely to its parallels and anticipat-
ing the idea, originally intIσdllced by 10.3, that they did not know everything abollt the Logos. It is
possible that the text is more corrllpt than the restoration we have adopted might imply. At the very
least, caution should be exercised in using this passage ίη drawing COllClllSiOllS abollt Jllstin's theology
ευρεσιν coniec] εύρέσεω, Α; δι' εύρέσεω, edd of the Logos.
4 JllStin llses θεωρία for the insights ofnon-Christians at ιΑ 44.9; 58.3; D 2.6.
 310 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

OS' έση ΧριστόS', και έναντία JaVTOLS' 7ΤολλάκιS' εί7Τον. 10.4. και οί thathas to do with the Logos who iS Christ, they also frequently contra-
7Τρογεγενημένοι του Χριστου κατα το ανθρώ7Τινον λόγον 7ΤειΡαθέντεS' τα dicted themselves. 10.4. And those born before Christ who attempted
7Τράγματα θεωρησαι κα,Ι έλέγξαι, ώS' ασεβειS' και 7Τερίεργοι ElS' δικαστήρια by human reason! to see into things and to expose them were dragged
" θ
ηχ ησαν. 10.5. ι Ι
Ο 7Ταντων
δ" ~
ε αυτων
,Ι
EVTOVWTEpoS' ,~
7TpOS' Ι (8
τουτο YEvofLEVoS' 19 into court for being irreligious and meddlesome. 2 10.5. But Socrates, who
5 Ι
a ) ΣWKpaTYJS' τα
'" ι
αυτα ημιν ενεκ η
~, λ lθ ""φ
η, και γαρ ε
, , ,
ασαν αυτον καινα
δ Ι
αιμονια was in this regard the most vigorous 3 of them all, was accused of the 5
, Φ Ι ι
εισ ερειν και OVS' η 7ΤΟ ΙS' νoμι~ει
'" r θ'
lλ 'ι
EOVS' μη,ιηγεισ ~ θ ,ι 6 ι δ'ε
αι αυτον. 10. . Ο same things as we are, for they said of him also that he brought ίη new
Ι
δ αιμοναS' μεν"ΦTOVS' αυlλ OVS' και" TOVS', 7Tpaf::,
Ι CaVTaS' α " ε"φ ασαν οιΙ 7Τοιηται,
Ι
divinities, and that those whom the city recognized as gods he did not. 4
, β λ' ~ λ Ι
εκ α ων TYJS' 7ΤΟ ιτειαS' και
'Ό μηρον και" TOVS' α "λλ OVS' 7ΤοιηταS',
Ι ~ θ
,
7Ταραιτεισ αι 10.6. But he, throwing Homer and the other poets out of the City,5
TOVS' ανθρώ7ΤΟVS' έδίδαξε, 7TPOS' θεου δε του αγνώστου aVTOLS' δια λόγου taught meri to shun wicked demons and those who did what the poets said,
10 ζητήσεωS' έ7Τίγνωσιν 7Τρουτρέ7Τετο, εΙ7Τών, Τον δε 7Τατέρα και δημιουργον and urged them to knowledge, through rational enquiry,6 of the God who 10

was unknown to them,7 saying, 'the father and creator of all is not easy to

ι Although το άνθρώπινον can be used substantively to mean 'humanity', this usage is not found
elsewhere in Justin .. Editors and commentators have proposed a variety of ways of understanding it
here. Ιη his second edition Otto took it with οί προγεγενήμενοι, 'those who were begotten after a
human fashion before Christ'. Ιη his third edition, however, he took it with πειραθέντε" 'striving ίη a
human manner'. Davie took it with του Χριστου, 'as to His Humanity'. We have emended to κατα τον
άνθρώπινον λ6γον. Ιη 2Α 13.3 Justin will speak of the 'divine spermatic logos': του σπερμαΤικου θείου
λ6γου, and in 13.6 he says that this is really distinct from the seed, imitation, ΟΓ participation in it which
is human reason (cf. D 4.2). At 2Α 10.8 he says that the Logos is the Power ofthe invisible Father and
not a construct of human reasοη-άνθρωπείου λ6γου. Α scribe ΟΓ redactor familiar with the later
Christian use of το άνθρώπινον to refer to the humanity of Christ may easily have supposed this to
have been intended here and, having changed τον to το, then changed λ6γον to the dative ίη order to
construe the sentence.
2 Justin has ίη mind the occasions for the prosecution of Socrates, ίη which he may have found
affinities with the prosecution ofPtolemy. Plato (Apology 19b) has Socrates say that the charge against
him was that 'Socrates is a wrongdoer and meddlesome, prying into (άδικει και περιεργάζεται, ζητων)
the things both beneath the earth and ίη the heavens'. Xenophon, Menιorabilia ι'3.1, says that Socrates
demonstrated his piety by himself acting and by encouraging others to act ίη accordance with the
answer of the priestess at Delphi, and considered that those who did otherwise were 'meddlesome and
foolish' (περιέργου, και ματαίου,); cf. also Epictetus 1Ιι'1.21.
3 'Tension' (τ6νο,) was a central concept ίη Stoic physics. ΒΥ analogy with physical vigour (SVF
1ΙΙ.471), a soul ίη good condition was said to have eutoιzia (SVFIII.473) .
.. For the charges against Socrates see ιΑ 5.3.
5 Cf. Plato, Republic 1II.387b-392c and X.595a-607d.
6 We have understood λ6γου ζ ητήσεω, to mean a seeking of reason, ίη keeping with our reading

of ιΑ 10.2. The opposite dependence, giving a sense such as 'a methodology of seeking', would be
grammatically possible. However, we have not been able to find a parallel to such a phrase ίη a
philosophical context, whereas λ6γον is found as the object of ζψέω, including at Plato, Republic 11.
380a, a passage which has other verbal and thematic links with this section of Justin.
7 God's being unknown to men might be taken ίη a strong ΟΓ a weak sense. Taken ίη a strong
sense, the meaning would be that God ίη his οννη nature is inaccessible to human knowledge, and
therefore, if human beings are to have any knowledge of him at all, it must be by the mediation of an
'other' God. Taken ίη a weaker sense, as e.g. ίη Acts 17: 23, the meaning would be that, ίη fact, God is
not fully known to human beings, either because he has not revealed himself to them, ΟΓ because
human beings have not accepted that revelation. The tag from the Timaeus which Justin introduces
immediately afterwards is itself open to a similarly ambiguous interpretation, cf. Dillon, Alcillous, 10Ι.
2 προγεγενημένοι T1zirlby ed~ προγεγραμμένοι Α κατα τον άνθρώπινον λ6γον coniec] κατα το Justin's two other usages of the adjective 'unknown' support the view that it is to be taken ίη the weaker
άνθρώπινον λ6γψ Α 6 ήγεισθαι αύτ6ν Α] ήγεισθαι Aιfαrcoviclz 7 και του, Α] και Μαι'αιι sense (2Α 5(6).3; D 8-4). However, so to take it here does not rule out that Justin considered that even
Ma1'COViCIZ Christ was not able to make God absolutely known.
 312 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

, "θ' (
"'" P<f
Ι ιδ "θ' (/ ,Ι Φ λ' (\
ευροντα EιS πανταs ΕιΠΕιν ασ α ES' 10.7. α find nΟΓ is it safe for one who has found him to declare him to all'. 1
,,..,
παντων ου ευρειν ιον, ου

ό rιμέτεΡΟS Χριστοs δια TijS έαυτου δυνάμεωs επραςε. 10.8. ΣωκράτΕι μεν 10.7. These things our Christ did through his οννη power. 10.8. Now2
γαρ ούδειs επείσθYj ύπερ τούτου του δόγματοs αποθνΤισΚΕιν, Χριστψ δε Τψ while Socrates persuaded ηο one to die for this teaching, Christ, since
και ύπο Σωκράτουs απο μέρουs γνωσθένη-λόγοs γαρ -ην και εσην, ό εν he is the power of the inexpressible 3 Father and not a construct4 of
5 πανη
\"ων και
\ δ ια των
Λ \προ
Φ Λ
YjTWV ΠΡΟΕιπων
\ ,
τα με
'λλ οντα γινεσ
'θ αι και δ ι \ ' human reason, did persuade not only philosophers and dialecticians,5 5
έαυτου, όμοιοπαθουs γενομένου και διδάςαντοs ταυτα-ού ΦιλόσοΦοι ούδε but also craftsmen6 and those altogether unskilled/ who came to despise
' "εΠΕισ θYjaav, α'λλ α,και
Φ ι λ Ο'λ ογοι μονον \ χειροτεχναι
, \ λ Λ 'δ Λ
και παντε ws ι ιωται, και
\

honour and fear and death. This is the Christ who was also known ίη
'(; \ 'β \
δ o~ YjS και ο ου και ανατου κατα POVYjaaVTES, επει Yj υναμιs
Φ θ' Φ' 'δ \ δ' " εση τουΛ part by Socrates, for he was and is the Logos which is ίη everything
αρρήτου πατρόs και ούχι ανθρωπείου λόγου κατασκευή. and he toretold through tlle prophets things that were going to
happen, and when he became a sharer ίη our experiences 8 he taught all 10
this 9 himself.

ι Cf. Plato, Timαeus 28c, and Andresen, Justin und der mittlere Platonismus', 167-8. This tag has
been described as 'perhaps the most hackneyed quotation from Plato ίη Hellenistic writers' (Chadwick,
ίη Cοntι-α CelsuIn, 429, η. ι). The quotation occurs ίη a variety of forms, reflecting the strong or weak
senses discussed ίη the previous note. The Timαeus itself says that finding the maker and father is 'a
task' (εργον), and declaring him to aΠ is 'impossible' (αδύνατον). Alcinous (Hαndbook 27-1), ίη the context
of a discussion of Plato's ethics, states that finding 'the most valuable and greatest good' is not 'easy',
nor is it 'to be safely revealed to all'. Justin's phraseology clearly reflects a similar school tradition, cf.
Dillon's commentary, ρ. 166.
2 The whole of this section is one ungainly sentence ίη the Greek. There is meant to be a contrast
between Socrates and Christ: by Socrates ηο one was persuaded to die for his teaching, by Christ not
οηlΥ philosophers and dialecticians were persuaded, but also labourers. etc. But the clause about
Christ is interrupted by ηο fewer than four parentheses about the Logos, and by the fourth of these
Justin has lost his way, supplying an unnecessary Kat, attracting the case of διδάξαντοι; to έαυτου, and
leaving επεtσθησαν without an infinitive to balance that after επεtσθη ίη the Socrates clause. Ιη
addition to the numerous echoes of Justin's Logos theology, there are also packed into the sentence
reminiscences of his criticism of Crescens (2Α 8(3).3). We have resisted the temptation to suppose that
the sentence has been worked over by a later hand than Justin's.
3 For the expression 'inexpressible Father' see D 127. 2. The same adjective is used with 'God' or
'Lord' at D 126.2; 127-4; ιΑ 9.3; 6ι.ιι; 2Α 12.4; 13+ Justin considered the 'inexpressibility' ofGod to be
a necessary consequence of his transcendence. It is precisely because the supreme God cannot be
comprehended ίη language that there is need for an 'other god'-the Logos-to make him known (see
esp. D 127.2-4). The adjective 'inexpressible' was first used of God by Philo (see Dillon, Alcinous; 101),
but it draws οη a Platonic notion of divine transcendence (cf. Alcinous, Hαndbook 10.1,3-4), and was to
become a standard epithet of the Christian God.
4- Pearson's emendation to κατασκευή is surely right. Α similar phrase-'construct of words'-

appears at D 58.1. Although there is a di:fference ίη meaning between 'words' there and 'reason' here,
the two passages should be seen together. Taken with ιΑ 14.5 ('he was not a sophist but his speech (logos)
was the Power ofGod'), and ιΑ 60.1ι, where human wisdom is contrasted with the power ofGod, they
are concerned to mark a contrast between the words ofhuman wisdom and the powerful Word/words
ofGod.
5 Φιλόλογοι; can have the broader meaning 'scholar' or 'man of letters', but at Plato, Republic
IX.582e, 'philosophos and philologos' appear together as people who ίη judging what is best rely οη
'experience, understanding, and argument (logos)'.
6 Ιη Plato's Apology Socrates recounts how, seeking to disprove the answer of the Delphic Oracle
that there was ηο one wiser than him, he had gone first to those with a reputation for wisdom (2Ib-e),
then to the poets (22a-b), and finaΠy to the craftsmen (χειροτέχναι) (22c-d). Justin alludes to this
passage, while making 'the significant addition of 'those altogether unskilled' to the list of those whom
Christ did persuade.
7 At 2Α 8(3).3 Crescens is compared unfavourably to the 'unskilled'; at ιΑ 60.ΙΙ (one of the

3 επεtσθη fiylburg edtZJ επιστεύθη Α 6 γενομένου και Α] γενομένου Mαrcovich διδάξαντοι; Α] passages adduced above ίη the note οη 'construct' for the contrast between human wisdom and the
διδάξαι; Mαrcovich 9 κατασκευή Peαrson Qtto Blunt Goodspeed Mαrcoviclz] τα σκεύη Α power of God) 'unskilled' Christians are said to know the truths of philosophy.
8 Lit. 'having become of like passions'; i.e. when he became human, cf. D 48.3 and 57.3. At
2Α 1.1 the same word (όμοιοπαθήι;) was used to refer to the common humanity of persecutors and
persecuted.
9 ,~he thin~s ~au~ht by C~rist,are ;ιοt r~stri~ted to, th~ ~?~gs ~aught ?Υ t?? p"ro~hets, ~~t i~clude
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

11.1. Ο υκ, αν / θ α ου'δ'ε δ υνατωτεροι

" δ ε' ου'δ'ε ε'Φ ονευομε / Ι Λ
YJμων YJaav οι<Ι τε ';'
1
11.1. But neither would we be murdered, .ηΟΓ would unjust men and
αδικοι ανθρωποι και δαίμονες εί μ~ πάντως παντι γεννωμένφ ανθρώπφ demons have power over'Us if death were not a debt owed by absolutely
κατ θ ανειν
Λ 'Φ ει/λ ετο· οΙ'θ εν και""Φλ
ω το ο YJμα απο /
'δ ι δ οντες , Λ
ευχαριστουμεν. every human being born. 2 And so when we pay the debt we give
11.2. καίτοι γε (198 b) και το ΞενοΦώντειον εκεινο νυν πρός τε Κρίσκεντα thanks. 3 Ι Ι .2. Νevertheless, 4 we consider it iS llOW good and opportune
5 και
,
τους
\ (Ι
ομοιως αυτφ
,,... 'Φ /
α ραινοντας κα
λ"
ον και
"
ευκαιΡον
'Λ
ειπειν
Ι ι θ
YJγουμε α. to retail against Crescens, and against those as foolish as him,5 that story 5
11.3. τον / " /
'Ήρακ λ εα επι τριο δ ον τινα, ε"Φ / YJ οι,....,
ι!::!ιενο Φ ων,
Λ /'(
β α δ ι~oνTα ευρειν
Ι Λ TYJV /
from Xenophon as well. 6 11.3. Heracles/ Xenophon said, when he
τε apETYJV
, ,
και
" Λ
TYJV κακιαν εν γυναικωνμορ
/ , ΦΛΦ
αις
/
αινομενας. 11.4. και" TYJV came to a fork ίη the road, found virtue and vice apparent in the form of
,
μεν
/
κακιαν,
ιβ Λ θ Λ / , , λ
α pq, εσ YJTι και χρωματι πεποικι μενφ και αν ουντι εκ των
, , / θ Λ , Λ
women. 11.4. Vice was luxuriously dressed, her face painted with colours
τοιουτων
/ /
προσωπφ
θ λ / τε ευ'θ'υς προς
ε KTιKYJV
, τας"',/,
οψεις
';'
ουσαν,
'Λ
ειπειν to make ii bloom,8 her eyes immediately bewitching. She said to Heracles
ΙΟ προς τον Ήρακλέα ΟΤΙ ην αυTfι ΕΠYJται, ήδόμενόν τε και κεκοσμYJμένον Τψ that if he followed her she would make his whole life pleasurable and 10
λαμπροτάτφ και όμοίφ Τψ περι αυT~ν κόσμφ διαιτήσειν αει ποιήσει. would adorn him with an attractiveness as dazzling as her OWll.
11.5. και T~ν αρεT~ν αvχμYJραν εν Τψ προσώπφ και Tfι περιβOλfι οδσαν 11.5. Virtue, οη the other hand, was sordid9 ίη countenance and dress.
She said: 'But if you place Y9ur trust ίη me it is not with transient and

ι Justin returns abruptly to the objection raised in 2Α 4(5).1.

3 κατθανειν Otto ίη apparatu] και θανειν Α
ξενοΦώτειον Α 8 χρώματι πεποικιλμένψ Schwαrtz (1888)] χρωματοπεποιημένψ Thαleιnαnn αρ.
Otto; ερωτοπεποιημένψ Α
ωΦε{λετο edαj οΦε{λετο Α
9 τοιούτων Α] τοιούτων χρωμάτων Μαιωmch
2 The emendation to κατθανειν, suggested but not adopted by Otto, is palaeographically easy, and
conforms Justin's wording to the well-known tag ofEuripides cited in our note to ιΑ rr.I.
3 Cf. 2Α 2.19.
4 Κα{τοι is normally strongly adversative (Denniston, ΤΙιe G1'eek Pαrticles, 555-9), as it is in the only
other passage in Justin where it occurs (D 7.3), but it is not clear ίη the present context what is being
countered. 1t is difficult to see what the function ofthe Xenophon story is ίη this context, unless it is to
assert that, though everyone must die, moral choice is still of consequence and determines whether or
not one attains true happiness (rr.6).
5 1η Stoic vocabulary the verb dΦΡa{νειν, 'to be foolish', was used to describe everyone other than
the wise man (cf. Plutarch, De StoicoruIn Repugnαιltiis I048e=SVF1II.662; and see also ibid. I037d and
Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mαtlzelnαticos XI.94)~
6 Justin points back to the saying of Socrates introduced at 2Α 8(3).6 with a similar formula.
Prodicus' fable of the choice of Heracles was first recorded by Xenophon, (Memorαbiliα Π.ι.2Ι-34).
Although Justin adapts the story to his own ends, the fact that he can use it at all ίη the present context
demonstrates the distance between his own literary and philosophical culture and that of those he
is appealing to. The emperors are unlikely to have been impressed by reference to a schoolboys'
commonplace, the hackneyed character of which is illustrated by Lucian's parody of it (Somniuιn sive
Vitα 6--17).
7 Heracles was invoked by Stoics as an exemplar of moral struggle----see the passages collected
by Churniss at Plutarch, De Conzmunibus Notitiis I065c, ίη lιιfoταlία (LCL) νοΙ ΧΙΠ, part 2, ρ. 706, η. b),
and Lucian, Peregl1nus 33, where the anti-hero Peregrinus Proteus is said to have modelled his life οη
him. Throughout this discussion Justin is drawing οη stock figures: e.g. Socrates, Sardanapalus, and
Heracles appear together ίη Plutarch, De Conznzunibus Notitiis I065c=SVFII.rr8I cited above.
Β The MS reading ερωτοπεποιημένψ-whίch Ott0 3 rather optimistically suggests means 'fit
for arousing love'-occurs now11ere else ίη the literature noticed by TLG. Schwartz's reading,
4 ξενοΦώντειον edαj which we have adopted, fits the context ίη Xenophon, Melnorαbiliα Π.ι.22, and gives point to εκ των
τοιούτων.
ευθυς προς Α] ευθυς 9 1η the MS reading the preposition εν is impossible, and the particle μέν is otiose. We have retained

Mαrαn Mαrcovich 12 αυχμηραν εν coniec] εν αυχμηρψ μεν Α the adjective αυχμηρός which seems well embedded ίη the various ve[sions of the fable of the
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

,
ειπειν'
~ "Αλλ'"
n ,
ΎJν εμοι πει
, Ιθ
TJ, ,ι
ου κοσμψ ου
'δ'
ε κα
Ιλλ ~ ι Ι
ει τψ ρεοντι και
, Φθ ειΡομενψ
ι perishable attractiveness and beauty that you νγill adorn yourself but with
έαυτον KOσμήσει~, αλλα TOΙ~ αϊδίoι~ και Kαλoι~ Kόσμoι~.' 11.6. και πάνθ' an attractiveness that is beautiful and eternal.' 11.6. And we are per-
ι ~ πεπεισμε
οντινουν ι θα Φ ευγοντα
Ι 'δ οκουντα
τα ~ κα λ"
α τα δ'
ε 1
Ι
νΟμΙI::,Ομενα σκ λ'
ΎJpα suaded that true happiness awaits everyone who flees what seems to be
και
, "λ ι
α ογα μετερχομενον
'δ ι, δ ι θ
ευ αιμονιαν εκ εχεσ αι. 11.'. 11 ι,
ΎJ γαρ
ι
κακια, beautiful but pursues what is thought to be hard and irrational. 1
5 πεpίβλΎJμα έαυTη~ των πράξεων τα προσόντα TiJ αρετΏ και σνTω~ σντα καλα 11.'. For vice, by imitating corruptible things-for she neither has nor 5
δια μιμήσεω~ Φθαρτων πεpιβαλλoμένΎJ-I1ΦθαpToν γαρ ουδεν Εχει ουδε can she do what is imperishable-throws about herself the properties
ποιησαι δύναται-δουλαγωγει TOυ~ xαμαιπεTει~ των ανθρώπων, τα of virtue which are trulygood as a screen for her actions and she takes
προσόντα αύτΏ Φαυλα TiJ αρετΏ περιτιθεισα, 11.8. ών καταπτύουσιν οί t earth-bound men as slaves, while she wraps her own wickedness around
ι
KαTανενOΎJKOTε~
\
τα
,ι"
οντα oνTω~ κα
λ'
α και
\ "Φθ
α αρτοι 'TTJ1"1.'αρετπ 1"1. (\
ο
\
και περι
\
virtue. 11.8. tBut2 those who 11ave known what is really good,3 and are
10 Χριστιανων και των απο του l1θλου και των (199 a) ανθρώπων των τοιαυτα t imperishable in virtue, despise these things. 4 With regard to Christians 10

πραξάντων όποια ΕΦασαν οί ΠOΙΎJTαι περι των νομι'ομένων θεων ύπολαβειν and to athletes and to those human beingst who did such things as the
δει πάντα νουνεχη, εκ του και του Φευκτου καταΦρονειν Yιμα~ θανάτου poets said of their supposed gods, ,every wise man must suppose this,
λογισμον έλκοντα. deriving the idea from the fact that we care nothing even for a death from
which we could flee.
12.1. 12 Κ'
αι ,
γαρ αυTO~ '" ι
εγω, ~
TOΙ~ Πλ αTωνo~
ι ι
χαιΡων δ ι δ αγμασι,
ι δ ια β α λ -
ι
15 λ oμενoυ~ ,ι
ακουων
Χ ι ~
pιστιανoυ~ ορων
δ" Φ ιβ ,
ε α ο Oυ~ πpo~
'
θ ι ,ι,
ανατον και παντα τα 12.1. For when Ι myselftook delight ίη the teachings ofPlato, Ι heard the 15
l1λλα νομι'όμενα Φοβερά, ενενόουν αδύνατον εΊναι εν κακίq. και ΦιλΎJδονίq. Christians slandered and saw that they were fearless ίη the face of death
ι
υπαρχειν
ι ,ι
αυToυ~. 12.2. τι~
ι,
γαρ
Φ λ Ιδ
ι ΎJ oνo~
" ,αKpαTΎJ~
ΎJ
, και
"θ
αν
ι
ρωπινων and everything thought fearful, and Ι knew it was impossible that they
~
σαρκων
β θ' ι Ι ,
οραν αγα ον ΎJγOυμενO~
,
δΙ
υναιτο αν
θ Ι 'Ι1 θ'/ ~
ανατον ασπαl::,εσ αι oπω~ των
" were involved ίη evil and the love of pleasure. 12.2. Would anyone who
,
αυτου αγα
~, θ ων
~ θ ~ 'λλ' ουκ εκ πανTO~
σTεpΎJ TJ, α
'1 ~ "
"" 'θ Ι δ β ΙOTΎJν
I::,ΎJν μεν αει TΎJν εν α ε
, loves pleasure and is intemperate and considers it good to devour human
20 και λανθάνειν TOυ~ I1pxoνTα~ επειΡατο-ούχ ότι γε έαυτον κατήγγειλε flesh be able to embrace death and thus be stripped of his goods? Would 20

ΦOνευθΎJσόμενOν; 12.3. ~δΎJ και τουτο ενήpγΎJσαν οί Φαυλοι δαίμoνε~ διά he not always and ίη every way attempt rather to live his life here and to
escape the notice of the magistrates-and certainly not denounce himself
οη a capital charge?5 12.3. Even this 6 the wicked demons have already

ΙΙ.7-8 ~ γαρ . .. τυ αρετυ αρ Sac Ρω' (Holl 1ΟΙ) R 238', R 39', L" 25
r
12.1-2 και γαρ αυτΟς . .. Φονευθησόμενον αρ Eus HEΊV.8.5; Eus (Gk
choice of Heracles. It is used of the bad woman ίη Lucian Somniunz sive Vita 6 and the PIΌlegomeιla ad
Rhetoricam (23 ΠΙ 606, Rabe, ρ. 342). Ιη Philostratus, Vitae Sophista1"Uln Ι, ρ. 482, the good woman
promises αυχμός to Heracles. Dio Chrysostom commends the philosopher who is αυχμερόs (33.14). See
also Philostratus, Vita Apollonii ΊV.1O. We have assumed that -ν Εν was misread as μεν.
ι Cf. Athenagoras, Legatio 12.3: τον Εκδεχόμενον βίον, 'the life that awaits'. The sentence couldjust as
easily be translated '. .. everyone ... receives true happiness', cf. Xenophon, AιJeιnorabilia Π.1.33: '1t is
possible for the one who has toiled to possess the most blessed true happiness.' Sylburg conjectured
'painful' and Pearson 'ugly' ίη place of 'irrational', presumably ίη the belief that Justin would not have
admitted that the good life might be mistakenly so described. But at ιΑ 3.1 Justin had countenanced
[=ATERBDM] Lat Syr) the possibility that what he had said might be thought irrational (άλογον Φωνήν).
2 We have obelized the first half of ΙΙ.8. Our translation is an attempt to make sense of the text

3 πεπείσμεθα Nex'] πεπύσμεθα Acl mrg 4 γαρ Α] οm Sac Ρατ 5 περ{βλημα Μωτοvίch] found ίη the MS and the SαCΓα Parallela. But Schwartz (1888) suggested that there is a lacuna after
πρόβλημα Α Sac Ρω' 6 Φθαρτων Α Sac Ρατ] αΦθάρτων ΗΙ101Ι edd περιβαλλομένη Α Sac Ρω*] 'virtue', and that the subject of discussion ίη the following clause has shifted to charges levelled against
προβαλλομένη Sac Ρατ (R39' L') 8 αυτυ Α] έαυτfι Marcovich ΠεΡιτιθεισα Sac Ρω] περιθεισα Α Christians. We regard this as likely.
ών καταπτύουσιν Sac Ρατ ΑΙατcovίch] οm Α 9 κατανενοηκότες Sac Ρατ Μωωvίc!ι] δε νενοηκότες Α 3 Previous editors have suggested that the phrase may mean 'the things ίη reality beautiful and

Όντα Όντως coniec] προσόντα τψ Όντι Α Sac Ρατ άΦθαρτοι Α] άΦθαρτα Sac Ρα)" Pirion Marcovich incorruptible belonging to virtue'. But this requires the MS's άΦθαρτοι to be emended to άΦθαρτα, and
10 και των ανθρώπων Thirlby edd'] των ανθρώπων και Α ΙΙ εΦασαν Ν edd'] εΦθασαν Α* is made virtually impossible by the position of τυ αρετυ. We conjecture that an original τα Όντα OVTWs
12 νουνεχη Thirlby edd'] οδν εχει Α του και του Α] του του μη ]ΙΙ!ατcovίch 15 δε Α Eus (Lat Syr)] has been corrupted.
δε και Eus (Gr) 16 αλλα Α] οm Eus (Gr Syr) Ι7 ανθρωπίνων Α] ανθρωπείων Eus (Gr) 4- We here adopt the reading of the Sacra Parallela defended by Schmid ('Textίiberlieferung', 90 f.).

18 αγαθον ~γoύμενoς Α] ~γoύμEνoς αγαθον Eus (Gr) δύναιτο Α] δύναιτ' Eus (Gr) 19 αυτου Α] 5 Justin might have ίη mind Christians like Lucius (2Α 2.15-19) who voluntarily came forward, but

έαυτου Eus (Gr) Ματcovίch; αύτου Ashton αγαθων στεpηθfι Α] στερηθείη Επιθυμίων Eus (Gr Syr); the reference could also be to anyone who admits befol'e a tribunal to being a Christian.
careat ... voluptate Eus (Lat) μεν Α] οm Eus (Gr); μην Ματcovίch 20 γε Α] οm Eus (Gr) 6 It is not clear whether 'this' points forwards ΟΓ backwards. Wartelle takes it to point forward: 'Voici

κατήγγειλε Α] κατήγγελλε Eus (Gr) Η. Stephanus Otto Blunt Μαποvic!ι Munier 21 ηδη Α] ηδη δε encore ce que le mauvais demons se sont employes a faire executer.. .' But if this sentence begins
Marcovich a new section, as indicated also by Marcovich's paragraphing, the γάρ at the beginning of the
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

τινων πονΥ)ρων ανθρώπων πραχθijναι. 12.4. Φονεύοντει; γαρ αύτοί τιναι; accomplished through certain evil men. 12.4~ For while these were killing
,\ Φ' ",,)t,.. "β ι ('1\ )1 ..... ( Ι "
επι συκο aVTιq- TYl ειι; Υ)μαι; και ειι; ασανουι; εΙΛκυσαν οικεται; των Υ)μετερων, Υ) some οη the basis of a false charge against us they also dragged to tortures
παιδαι; ~ γύναια,. και δι' αικισμων Φοβερων εςαναγκάζουσι κατειπειν ταυτα τα some of our people's slaves-boys ΟΓ frail women1-and through fear-
μυ
/
θ ο λ ογουμενα,
<\,
α αυτοι
\ Φ ~ / l'
ανερωι; πραττουσιν, ων επει Υ) ου εν προσεστιν
, δ \ 'δ \ / some torments they force them to make accusations of these fabled
5 ήμιν ού Φροντίζομεν, θεον τον αγέννΥ)τον και αΡΡΥ)τον μάρτυρα εχοντει; των crimes,2 which ίη fact they openly commit themselves. Since none of 5
~ \ ~ /t / \ / ,\ \ ~
τε λ ογισμων και των πρα':,εων. 12.5. τινοι; γαρ χαριν ουχι και ταυτα these is true of us we are not concerned, as we have the unbegotten and
δΥ)μοσίq- ώμολογουμεν αγαθα (199 b) και ΦιλοσοΦίαν θείαν αύτα απεδείκνυ­ inexpressible God as witness of our thoughts and deeds. 12.5. Why did
μεν, Φάσκοντει; Κρόνου μεν μυστήρια τελειν εν Τψ ανδροΦονειν και εν Τψ we not also publicly confess these activities good, and present them as
αίματοι; εμπίπλασθαι, ώι; λέγεται, τα ίσα Τψ παρ' ύμιν τιμωμένψ ειδώλψ, Ψ divine philosophy, saying that we were celebrating the mysteries of Κronos
,/ 'λ / Υ / <Ι λλ \ \, θ / δ \ ~
/ '
ίη the slaughter of men? Why did we not say that when we were, as it is
10 ου μονον α ογων ,=>ψων αιματα προσραινετε α α και αν ρωπεια, ια του 10

παρ
)(Λ) Ι 'δ'
" ι Ι ... Λ
υμιν επισΥ)μοτατου και ευγενεστατου αν ροι; ΤΥ)ν προσχυσιν του των
\ alleged, filled with blood, we were celebrating things appropriate to the
/" / \ \ \ \ idol which you honour by sprinkling3 with the blood not only of irrational
Φ ονευ θ εντων αιματοι; ποιουμενοι- Δ δ ~ "λλ θ ~
ιοι; ε και των α ων εων μιμΥ)ται
/ ,~ 'δ
γενομενοι εν Τψ αν ρο
β ~ \ ατειν και
t\
γυναι':, ιν
'δ
α εωι;
~ / θ
μιγνυσ αι,
Έ / \
πικουρον μεν beasts but even of humans--;using the man most distinguished and well
\ ~ \ ~ 'λ
και τα των ΠΟΙΥ)των συγγραμματα απο ογιαν
/Φ/
εροντει;;
/ 6 ' δ\ δ\
12. . επει Υ) ε born among you to pour out the blood of the slain4-having become
15 ταυτα
~ \
τα
θ/
μα Υ)ματα
\ \
και τουι;
~ /t
ταυτα πρα':, ανται; και μιμουμενουι;
\ / Φ /
ευγειν imitators of Zeus and the other gods ίη homosexual intercourse with 15
πείθομεν, ώι; και νυν δια τωνδε των λόγων ~γωνίσμεθα, ποικίλωι; πολεμ- males and shameless sexual intercourse with women, and then bringing
/
ουμε θ α, α'λλ' ου'Φ ροντι,=>ομεν
Υ /
, \ θ εον των
επει \
~ παντων εΠΟΠΤΥ)ν δ ικαιον οιοαμεν.
"~ / ,/ / forward as your defence the writings of Epicurus and of the poets?
12.6. But since we persuade people to flee such teachings and those
who do and imitate these things, just as even now we have been striving
to do through these words, we are embatded ίη various ways, but we are 20

not concerned, since we know that God watches over all things jusdy.5

next sentence is problematicaΙ We suggest that what the demons have brought about, by the torture of
the slaves of Christians, is that slanders are believed about people who are known to be so far removed
from an evillife and the love of pleasure that they are fearless in the face of a death they could avoid by
simply denying the capital charge ofChristianity. It is possible that the referent of'this' has been lost ίη
the corruption of the text at the end of ch. 11.
ι The Letter qf tlze Churches qf Vienne aιzd Lyons (Eusebius, ΗΕ V.1.14) proνides a specific instance of
slaves, under torture, accusing their Christian owners ofThyestian banquets and Oedipal intercourse,
while Athenagoras, Legatio 35.3, expressly denies that the slaves ofChristians even told such lies about
them.
2 The present tense may indicate that the slaves are still being examined at the time of the Apology.

3 If the passive προσραίνεται of the MS is read its subject is αϊματα, and the nominative participle

ποιούμενοι is left hanging. If Thirlby's emendation to the second-person plural active προσραίνετε is
accepted, αίματα will be its object and ποιούμενοι will agree with its subject. The two following
nominative participles, γεν6μενοι and Φέροντες, may then be taken in apposition with ποιούμενοι,
instead ofbeing required to refer back to α.πεδείKνVΜεν at the beginning ofthis long and complicated
sentence, as Otto and Wartelle assume.
4, The reference is apparently to the Feriae Latinae, celebrated annually ίη honour of Juppiter

Latiaris, see Tatian, Oratio 29.1, TheophilusAdAuto[ycuιn ΠΙ.8, and esp. Tertullian,Apologeticum 9.5, with
Rives, 'Human Sacrifice Among Pagans and Christians', 75-6. For a less highly coloured description
ofthis festival than that offered by the Christian apologists see Dionysius ofHalicarnassus, Aιztiquitates
Ι Φονεύοντες Α] Φονεύσαντες Marcovich 2 Τιμας Α] Τιμας συνέλαβον Marcoviclz εϊλκυσαν Α] ΙΥ.49· 2 -3·
ελκουσιν Tlzirlby 3 κατειπειν Α] κατειπειν ήμων Marcovich 9 έμπίπλασθαι Α] έμπίμ- 5 Έπ6πτης is found as a diνine title in pagan, Jewish, and Christian usage (cf. BAGD). Note esp.

πλασθαι Ashton AιJαι"COvich είδώλψ Α] είδώλψ ποιειν ΝΙαιωυίcΙι 10 προσραίνετε Thirlb)I Otto the use of πάντων έπ6ΠTΗV ίη a context of solemn invocation ίη Esther 5: ι [15: 5 Swete], ΡαΡΥτί Graecae
Marcoviclz] προσραίνεται Α 13 Έπίκουρον coniec] 'Επικούρου Α μεν Α] μην NIarcoviclz AιJagicαe, 12.238 (Preisendanz, νοΙ Π. ρ. 74), and παντεπ6πτης in ι Clemeιιt 55.6, 64.1 and in Sibylline
14 τα των ποιητων Α] των ποιητων τα MarcoVΊch 17 των Α] τον ΈJ(ittisclz NIarcovich Oracles αρ. Theophilus Ad Auto[ycum Π.36 (=frag. ι, line 4 Geffcken).
 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 3'21
3'20

12.7. ει δΕ και μάνης ήν, τραγικυ Φωνυ αν εβό'Υ}σεν επί η β-ημα ύΨ'Υ}λον 12.7. And if a seer 1 were present, he would. shout out ίη a tragic voice
, β ας'
ανα , 'Α ι'δ'
εσ θ 'Υ}τε, αι'δ'
εσ θ 'Υ}τε, " Φ ανερως
α ~ ,
πραττετε ' "αναιηους
εις while ascending some high tribunal: 'Shame! Shame! for ascribing to the
,
ανα
φι \ \ Ι \ Ι
εροντες καί. τα προσοντα και εαυτοις και τοις υμετεροις
,... \ Λ ( ι θ ~
εοις περι- innocent what you do openly and wrapping them ίη what belongs to you
β α'λλ οντες '
τουτοις, ων
l' ου'δ εν
' ου'δ" επι \ ποσον \ μετουσια" ,
εστι. and your gods, things ίη which they do not participate ίη the slightest
5 12.8. μετάθεσθε, σωΦρονίσθ'Υ}τε.' degree. 12.8. Change! Come to your senses!' 5

13.1. Τ.Τ \ γαρ

nαι \ "
εγω, μα θ ων
"βλ
περι \"
'Υ}μα 'Πον'Υ}ρον εις αποστρο Φ 'Υ}ν ~ α'Ιλλ ων
\ των 13.1. For Ι too, learning of the evil cloak placed around the divine
'θ ρωπων
αν ' περιτε θ'"
ειμενον υπο των\ Φ αυ'λ ων δ' αιμονων τοις~ χρισηανων ~ teachings of the Christians by the wicked demons to divert other human
θείοις διδάγμασι, και ψευδολογουμένων ταυτα και του πεΡΙ('200 a)βλ~ματος beings, laughed at those falsely making these accusations and at their cloak
κατεγέλασα και τ-ης παρ α τοις πολλοις δόξ'Υ}ς. 13.2. Χρισηανος εύρεθ-ηναι and at popular ορίηίοη. 13.2. Praying and fighting with all my might to
ω και εύχόμενος και παμμάχως άγωνιζόμενος, όμολογω ούχ όη άλλότριά εση be found a Christian, Ι confess not that the teachings of Plato are alien ω
τα Πλάτωνος διδάγματα του Χριστου, άλλ' όη ούκ εση πάντ'[) όμοια, to those of Christ, but that they are.not ίη all ways the same as them, just
ωσπερ ούδΕ τα T(VV αλλων, Στωί'κων τε και ΠΟΙ'Υ}των και συγγραΦέων. as neither are those of the οψ.ers, Stoics, and poets, and prose-writers. 2
13.3. έκαστος γάρ ης άπο μέρους του σπερμαηκου θείου λόγου το συγ- 13.3. For what each ofthem proclaimed was good, when he saw from a
\ •
~ κα λ ως
γενες ορων ~ ε'Φθ' C
εγ~αTO, \,
οι• δ ε τανανηα εαυτοις
~, ,.
εν κυριωτεροις ειρ'Υ}Κ- " part of the divine spermatic logos what is connatural to it. 3 But when
15
ι ), Ι \" \ )'λ
οτες ουκ επισΤ'Υ}μ'Υ}ν Τ'Υ}ν απτωτον και γνωσιν Τ'Υ}ν ανε εγκτον
Φ'
αινονται
1"\ \
they contradict themselves ίη their principal teachings they are shown not 15
εσχ'Υ}κέναι. 13.4. όσα οδν παρα πασι καλως εϊΡ'Υ}ται ήμων των Χρισηανων to have secure understanding and infallible knowledge. 13.4. Therefore,
εση, τον γαρ άπο άγενν~Toυ και άPP~Toυ θεου λόγον μετ α τον θεον προσκυ­ anything good that has been said by anyone belongs to us Christians, for,
νουμεν και άγαπωμεν, επειδη και δι' ήμας ανθρωπος γέγονεν όπως και των after God, we worship and love the Logos who is from the unbegotten and
παθων των ήμετέρων συμμέτοχος γενόμενος και ϊασιν πoι~σ'Y}Tαι. 13.5. οί inexpressible God, since he also became a human being for our sakes, ίη
20 γαρ συγγραΦεις πάντες δια τ-ης ενούσ'Υ}ς εμΦύτου του λόγου σπορας order that, as a sharer in our sufferings,4 he might also bring healing. 20
άμυδρως εδύναντο όραν τα Οντα. 13.6. έτερον γάρ εση σπέρμα ηνος και 13.5. For, through the presence of the implanted seed of the Logos, aΠ
μίμ'Υ}μα κατα δύναμιν δοθέν, και έτερον αύτο oV κατα χάριν την άπ' εκείνου ή these writers were able dimly to see what actually is. 13.6. For the seed of
μετουσία και μίμ'Υ}σις γίνεται. something, and an imitation of something-to the extent that an imitation
is possible-is not the same as the thing of which the participation and
imitation are made, ίη accordance with its own bounty.5 25

ι 1η the following words Otto correctly saw an allusion to pseudo-Plato, Cleitopholl 407a, where
Socrates, 'rebuking men like a god ίη the stage machinery of a tragic play', says 'where are you
headed, Ο men, ίη your ignorance doing none of the things that are needful?' We have emended the
MS's νυν τις to μάνης. The corruption is an easy change, especially in a minuscule hand, and might
have been assisted by the pejorative flavour of μάνης common ίη Christian usage (e.g. Shepherd qf
Hermαs, Mandate ΙΙ.2). Socrates describes himselfas a seer (μάνης) ίη Phαedrus 242C, cf. Apology 39d and
40a. 1t is possible, as Ashton saw, that ίη the phrase 'ίη which they do not participate ίη the slightest
degree' there is an allusion to Apology 19C. .
2 At ιΑ 44.9 similarity between Christian teaching and what is said by philosophers and poets is
attributed to borrowing by the latter from the writings of the prophets, but Justin goes οη to say, 'and so
there seem to be seeds of truth amongst all'.
3 Cf. 1ntroduction, ρ.66.
ι εΙ δε Α] εϊθε AsJzton edd μάνης coniec] νυν ης Α; νυν Σωκράτης ης ScJzwαrtz (1888) .ην Α] αν
4 Πάθη can mean whatever is passively experienced, cf. 2Α ω.8, but here we take it to refer
ΝΙαταπ Otto Blunt Goodspeed Muniel· αν έβόησεν BiicJzeler] άνεβόησεν Α; άναβοήσων Asht01l MαrcovicJz
2 α Α] α αύτοι Mαrcovich 4 ιbν ούδεν Α] οΤς ούδεν αύτων Mαrcovich 6 μαθων edιZJ μαθον Α explicitly to suffering, cf. D 98. ι.
8 ψευδολογουμένων edιZJ ψευδολογούμενον Α 9 Χρισηανος Α] Χρισηανος δε MαrcovicJz 5 'Bounty' translates χάρις (grace). 1η the three places ίη the Diαlogue where the phrase κατα χάριν

ΙΙ διδάγματα Α] διδάγματα των Le Clerc Mαrcovich Munier 14 έαυτοις Otto Blullt Goodspeed occurs (32.2; 55.3; 64.2) it has a meaning closer to the sense of freely bestowed favour, but ίη each case
lvIαl"COvich] αύτοις Α Munier 15 α.πτωτον Lαnge Mαrcovich MUllier] α.πωπτον Α; α.ποπτον Sylbulg the reference is to God's purposive action. 1η the present case, however, Justin's thought is more
Otto Blullt Goodspeed; fortasse άμετάπτωτον 18 οπως και Α] οπως Mαrcovich 22 αύτο edιZJ general, and his language is meant to operate οη both a theological and a philosophicallevel. 1t is only
αύτον Α 23 post γίνεται lacunam statuimus ίη qua fragmentum quod 15.1 designatur insertum analogously that participation might be said to involve the good favour of the thing participated in, but
if the thing participated ίη is the divine Logos, the voluntarist, theological sense is also present.
est
322 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY' 'ΤΗΕ SECOND APOLOGY'

(15.1. Και To-V εν Τψ εμψ εθνει ασεβους και πλάνου σψωνιανου (15.1. And Ι have scorned the impious and ~rroneous teaching' ofSimon,
διδάγματος KαTεΦpόνrισα.) found among my own nation.)l

1 This sentence has been rejected as a gloss since Perion. Cf. our note at ιΑ 70.1 [15.2]. For Justin
2 Και του εν τψ εμψ εθνει άσεβους και πλάνου σιμωνιανου διδάγματος κατεΦρόνησα Α (post 14.2) οη the Samaritans as followers of Simon, see ιΑ 26.3 and D 120.6--'my nation (γένος), and Ι mean the
Alunier] om 0110 Blunl Goodspeed Mαrcoviclz Samaritans'.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF JUSTIN
Editions (with or without translation)
ARCHAMBAULT, G.,Justin) Dialogue avec 1iyphon, 2 vols. (Paris, 1909)·
ASHTON, C., Iustini Apologiae pro ChrίstianΊS (Cambridge, 1752).
BLUNT, Α. W F., The Apologies qfJustin Martyr (Cambridge, Ι9ΙΙ).
BOBICHON, Ρ., Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Tryphon, edition critique, traduction, com-
mentaire, 2 vols. (Fribourg, 2003)'
GOODSPEED, Ε. J., Die iiltesten Apologeten, Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen (Gottingen,
1914)·
GRABE, J. Ε., Sancti Iustini Philosophi et Martyl7s Apologia prima pro Chrίstia1lΊS ad Antoninum
Pium (Oxford, 1700).
- - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haeretic01'um Saeculi post Chl7stum natum Ι. 11. et 111, 2 vols.
(Oxford, 1698-1699).
HUTCHIN, Η., Sancti Iustini Philosophi et Martyrίs Apologia Secunda pro Chl7stianΊS (Oxford,
1703)'
ΚRϋGΕR, D. G., Die Apologieen Justins des Miirtyrers, Sammlung ausgewahlter kirchen-
und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften, erstes Heft (Freiburg ί.Β. und Leipzig,
1891; 2nd edn., 1896; 3rd edn., 1904).
MARAN, Ρ., Iustini opera quae exstant omnia (Paris, 1742).
MARCOVICH, Μ., Iustini Martyrίs Apologiae pro Chrίstianis (Berlin, 1994)·
- - Iustini Mαψrίs Dialogus cum Tryphone (Berlin, 1997)·
MUNIER, C., Justin) Apologie pour les chretiens, introduction, texte critique, traduction
2
et notes, Sources Chretiennes 507 (Paris, 2006: = Munier ).
MUNIER, C., Saint Justin Apologie pour les chretiens, edition et traduction (Fribourg,
1
1995: = Munier ).
ΟΤΤΟ, J. C. Τ., Iustini Philosophi et Martyrίs Opera quae.feruntur Omnia (=Corpus Αροlο­
getarum Christianorum Saeculi Secundi ί), νοΙι, part ι, Opera Iustini Indubitata Gena,
I842:=Ott01; I847:=Ott02; I876:=Otto3).
PAUTIGNY, L., Justin) Apologies, texte grec, traduction franςaίse, introduction, et index
(Paris, 1904).
PERION, J., Beati Iustini Opera Onznia (Paris, 1554)·
SYLBURG, W, Iustini Opera (Heidelberg, 1593)·
THIRLBY, S. Iustini Apologiae Duae et Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo (London, 1722).
TROLLOPE, W S., Iustini Philosophi et Mαψrίs Apologia prima, edited, with a corrected text
and English introduction and notes (Cambridge, 1851).
WARTELLE, Α. Saint Justin Apologies, introduction, texte critique, traduction, com-
mentaire, et index (Paris, 1987).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Trάnslαtίοns
BARNARD, L. W., St Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies, tr. with introduction and
notes (New York, 1997).
CHEVALLIER,"L, Α translation qf the Epistles qf Clement qf Rome) Po1ycarp) and Ignatius) and qf
the Apologies qf Justin Martyr a1ld Tertullian, with an introduction, and brief notes
illustrative ofthe ecclesiastical history ofthe first two centuries (London, 1851).
DAVIE, G. J., The VlfJrks now Extant qf S. Justin the Martyr, Α Library of the Fathers,
ed. Ε. Β. Pusey (Oxford, 1861).
DODS, Μ., 'The VV1itings qfJustin Martyr and Athenag01'αs, tr. Μ. Dods, G. Reith, and Β. Ρ.
Pratten (Edinburgh, 1867).
FALLS, Τ. Β., St Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, revised and with a new introduction
by Τ. Ρ. Halton, ed. Μ. Slusser (Washington, DC, 2003).
HARDY, Ε. R., The First Apology qf Justin) the Martyr, ίη The Library qf Chrίstian Clαssics)
L Ear1y Chrίstian Fathers, newly,translated and edited by C. C. Richardson, ίη col-
laboration with Ε. R. Fairweather, Ε. R. Hardy, Μ. Η. Shepherd (London, 1963).
ΚΑΥ, J., The First Apology qf Justin Martyr addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius
(Edinburgh, 1912).
MUNIER, C. Justin Martyr, Apologie pour les chretiens, introduction, traduction et com-
mentaire, Patrimoines ChrίstianΊSme (Paris, 2006: = Munier3).
VEIL, Η., Justinus des Philosophen und Miirtyrers Rechifertigung des Chrίstentums, eingeleitet,
verdeutscht und erlautert (Strassburg, 1894).
WILLIAMS, Α. L., Justin Martyl; The Dialogue with Trypho, translation, introduction, and
notes (London, 1930).
OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES
Works of ancient authors included ίη the Loeb Classical Library (LCL) are
not given here, unless we have made reference to another edition.
Inscriptions and Papyri
AegyptΊSche Urkunden aus den ΚOniglichen Museen zu Berlin, GrίechΊSche Urkunden, erster Band
(Berlin, 1895:=Pap. Ber.).
Corpus Inscriptionum Graecαrum Π, edidit Α. Boeckhius (Berlin, 1843).
Die Inschrijten von Ephesos. Teil ΠΙ (InschriJten griechischer Stiidte aus Κleinαsien, Band 13),
herausgegeben νοη Η. Η. Engelmann, D. Κnibbe, and R. Merkelbach (Βοηη,
1980).
Die InschriJten von Hadrianoi und Hadrianeia (InschriJten griechischer Stiidte aus Κleinαsien, Band
33), herausgegeben νοη Ε. Schwertheim (Βοηη, 1987).
Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanαs Pertinentes, 4 vols. in 3, ed. R. Cagnet and R. Lafaye
(Paris, 1906-27).
Insoiptiones Graecαe in Bulgaria Repertae, ed. G. Mihailov, 4 vols. (Sofia, 1958-70).
Inscliptiones Graecαe xrv, Siciliae et Italiae, additis graecis Galliae Hispaniae Brittaniae
Germaniae inscriptionibus, edidit G. Kaibel (Berlin, 1890).
Inscriptiones Lαtinae Selectae, edidit Η. Dessau, 3 vols. (Dublin, 1974).
PapYli Graecαe Magicαe. Die griechΊSchen ZauberpapYli, herausgegeben und ίibersetzt νοη Κ.
Preisendanz (Leipzig, 1928-41).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jewish Writers and Christian Writers
Aristeas, The Letter of Arίsteαs, ίη The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, νοΙ 2, ed. J. Η.
Charlesworth (London, 1985).
Arnobius, Adversus Nationes libri νπ, recensuit Α. Reifferscheid (Vienna, 1875).
Athanasius, Contra Gentes and De ΙncarnαtιΌne, ed. and tr. R. W Thomson (Oxford, 1971).
Athenagoras, Legatio and De Resurrectione, ed. and tr. W R. Schoedel (Oxford, 1972).
Chronicon Pαschale, ad exemplar Vaticanum recensuit L. Dindorf (Βοηη, 1832).
Clemens Alexandrίnus, herausgegeben νοη Ο. Stahlin, GCS 12, 17, 39,52 (Berlin, 1970-
85)·
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies Book VII, the Greek text with introduction, transla-
tion, notes, dissertations, and indices by F. J. Α. Hort and J. Β. Mayor (London,
1902).
Cyril of Jerusalem, Opera Qyae Supersunt Omnia, recensuerunt G. C. Reischl et J. Rupp,
2 vols. (Munich, 1848, 1860).
Cyrille d' Alexandrie, Deux dialogues chrίstologiques, introduction, texte critique, traduc-
tion, et notes par G. Μ. de Durand, Sources Chretiennes 97 (Paris, 1964).
Die Oracula Sibyllina, bearbeitet νοη J. Geffcken, GCS 8 (Leipzig, 1902).
Die Pseudoklementinen. ΙΙ Recognitionen in Rufins ϋbersetΖung, herausgegeben νοη Β. Rehm,
2., verbesserte Auflage herausgegeben νοη G. Strecker, GCS 51 (Berlin, 1994).
Epiphanius, Panarίon, νοΙ Ι, herausgegeben νοη Κ. Holl, GCS 25 (Leipzig, 1915);
Π and ΠΙ, 2., bearbeitete Auflage herausgegeben νοη J. Dummer, GCS 31, 37
(Berlin, 1980, 1985),
Eusebius, Die Κirchengeschichte, herausgegeben νοη Ε. Schwartz und Τ. Mommsen,
zweite, unveranderte Auflage νοη F. Winkelmann, GCS, n.F. 6 (Berlin, 1999).
- - Die Chronik des Hieronymus, herausgegeben und ίη 2. Auflage bearbeitet νοη R.
Helm, 3., unveranderte Auflage mit einer Vorbemerkung νοη U. Treu, GCS 47
(Berlin, 1984).
- - Praeparatio Evangelica, herausgegeben νοη Κ. Mras, 2., bearbeitete Auflage her-
ausgegeben νοη Ε. des Places, GCS 43 (Berlin, 1982-83).
- - Eusebius of Caesarea: The Ecclesiαstical Hist01]1 and the Marfjyrs of Palestine, translated
with introduction and notes by J. J. Lawlor, and J. Ε. L. Oulton, 2 vols. (London,
1927, 1928: = Lawlor and Oulton).
- - The Ecclesiαstical History of Eusebius in Syrίac, edited from the manuscripts, by
W Wright and Ν. McLean (Cambridge, 1898).
Fragmente vornicαnischer Κirchenvαter aus den Sacra parallela, herausgegeben νοη Κ. Holl,
Texte und Untersuchungen 20.2 (Leipzig, 1899).
Gregory ofNazianzus, The Five Theological Orations, ed. Α. J. Mason (Cambridge, 1899).
Hippolytus, RifUtatio Omnium Haeresium, ed. Μ. Marcovich (Berlin, 1986).
Hippolytus, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition, ed. G. Dix (London, 1937).
Irenaeus, On the Apostolic Preaching, translation and introduction by J. Behr (New York,
1997)·
- - ITenee de Lyon: ContTe les Heresies, edition critique par Α. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau,
Β. Hemmerdinger, C. Mercier, Sources Chretiennes 100*, 100**, 152-3, 210-11,
263-4, 293-4 (Paris, 1965-82).
- - Irenee de Lyon: Dbnonstration de Ζα predication apostolique, introduction, traduction,
et notes par Α. Rousseau, Sources Chretiennes 406 (Paris, 1995).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-"- ITenaeus: PToof of the Apostolic Preaching, translated and annotated by Joseph Ρ.
Smith, Ancient Christian Writers 16 (New York: Newman Press, 1952).
John Damascene, Die Schliften des ]ohannes von Damαskos, herausgegeben vom
Byzantinischen Institut der Abtei Scheyern, V, besorgt νοη Β. Kotter (Berlin, 1969-
88).
Kerygma Petrί, textus et commentarius cura Michael Cambe Corpus Christianorum
Series Apocryphorum 15 (Turnhout, 2 0 0 3 ) . ' ,
Lactantius, Opera Omnia, recensuerunt S. Brandt et G. Laubmann (Vienna, 1890-97).
Methodius:, herausgegeben νοη G. Ν. Bonwetsch (Leipzig, 1917).
Minucius Felix, Octavius, recensuit C. Halm (Vienna, 1867).
New Documents IllustTating Εατ(Υ Chlistianity, 6, ed. S. R. Llewelyn and R. Α. Kearsley
(Sydney, 1992).
Oracula Sibyllina, recensuit Α. Rzach (Ρπίgue, 1891).
Origen, Contra Celsum, translated with an introduction and notes by Η. Chadwick
(Cambridge, [1953] 1980).
Origen, In illud: Induravit Dominus Cor Pharaonis, PG ΧΙΙ, coll. 263-81.
PauluskommentaT aus deT grίechischen Kirche, aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und
herausgegeben νοη Κ. Staab (Mίinster, 1933).
Photius, Bibliotheque, texte etabli et traduit par R. Henry, 9 vols. (Paris, 1960-91).
Pseudo-Iustinus, Cohortatio ad Graecos, De Monarchia, OTatio ad Graecos, ed. Μ. Marcovich
(Berlin, 1990).
Sozomenos Kirchengeschichte, eingeleitet G. C. Hansen, 2., Auflage, GCS, n.F. 4 (Berlin,
1995)·
Tatian, OTatio ad Graecos and Fragments, ed. and tr. by Μ. Whittaker (Oxford, 1982).
Tertullian, Opera, ediderunt Ε. Dekkers et alii, Corpus Christianorum, vols. Ι and Π
(Turnhout, 1954).
The Acts of the Chrίstian MaTtyTS, introduction, texts, and translations by Η. Musurillo
(Oxford, 1972).
The Apocryphal New Testament: Α Collection of Apocryphal Chrίstian Literature in an English
translation bαsed on Μ R. ]ames, ed. J. Κ. Elliott (Oxford, 1999).
The Apostolic FatheTs, Greek texts and English translations, edited and revised by Μ. W
Holmes (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1999).
The Apostolic Tradition: Α Commentary, by Ρ. W Bradshaw, Μ. Ε. Johnson, and L. Ε.
Phillips, ed. Η. W Attridge (Minneapolis, 2002).
The Gnostic Scrίptures, a new translation with annotations and introductions by
Β. Layton (London, 1987).
Theodoret, Graecarum A.ffectionum Curatio, recensuit Τ. Gaisford (Oxford, 1839).
Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Auto(ycum, text and translation by R. Μ. Grant (Oxford,
1970).
Other Ancient Writers
Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei, Qyae Supersunt Omnia, edidit Β. Keil (Berlin, 1898).
Alcinoos, Enseignement des Doctrίnes de Platon, introduction, texte etabli et commente par
J. Whittaker (Paris, 1990).
- - Alcinous: The Handbook ofPlatonism, translated with an introduction and commen-
tary by J. Dillon (Oxford, 1993).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander qf Aphrodisias οπ Fate, text, translation, and commentary by R. W Sharples
(London, 1983).
- - Alexandre d~phrodi,fe: Traite du Destin, texte etabli et traduit par Ρ. Thillet (Paris,
1984)·
Artemidori Daldani, Onirocrίtίcon Librί V, recognovit R. Α. Pack (Leipzig, 1963).
Cebetis Tαbula, recensuit C. Praechter (Leipzig, 1893).
Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ed. Α. S. Pease, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1955, 1958).
Corpus Iuris Civilis, Ι, editio 21; Institutiones, r~cognovit Ρ. Κrueger; Digesta, recognovit
Τ. Mommsen; retractavit Ρ. Κrueger (Zurich, 1970).
Dio Chrysostom, Oταtiones VI!, ΧΙ!, and XXXVI, ed. D. Α. Russel1 (Cambridge,
1992).
Diodorus Siculus, Bibliothecα Historίcα, edidit C. Τ. Fischer (Leipzig, 1906).
Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, recognovit Η. S. Long (Oxford, 1964).
Doxographi Graeci, collegit, recensuit, prolegomenis indicibusque instruxit Η. Diels
(Berlin, 1929).
Galen, ΟΡeτα Omnia, editionem curavit C. G. Kuhn, 19 vols. (Leipzig, 1821-30).
Greek Philosophy: Α Collection qfTexts with Notes and Explanatίons, by C. J. de Vogel, νοΙ ΠΙ,
The Hellenistic-Roman Perίod (Leiden, 1959).
Hermogenis Opera, edidit Η. Rabe (Leipzig, 1913).
Iuli Frontini Strategemata, recensuit R. 1. Ireland (Leipzig, 1990).
Μ. Iuniani Iustini, Epitoma Historίarum ΡhίlipΡίcατum Pompei Trogi, edidit ο. Seel
(Stuttgart, 1972).
Menander Rhet01·, edited with translation and commentary by D. Α. Russell and Ν. G.
Wilson (Oxford, 1981).
Numenius, Fταgments, texte etabli et traduit par Ε. Des Places (Paris, 1973).
Philodemus, Οπ Piety, Part Ι, critical text with commentary, ed. D. Obbink (Oxford,
1996).
Plutarch, De Iside et Osirίde, edited with an introduction, translation, and commentary
by J. Gwyn Griffiths (Cardiff, 1970).
Porphyrius, Fragmenta, edidit Α. Smith (Leipzig, 1993).
Pseudo-Andronicus de Rhodes, Perί Pathon, edition critique du texte grec et de la
tradition Latin medievale par Α. Glibert-Thirry (Leiden, 1977).
Rhetores Graeci, νοΙ ΧΙΥ, Prolegomenon sylloge, edidit Η. Rabe (Leipzig, 1931).
Seneca, Apocolocyntosis, edidit R. Roncali (Leipzig, 1990).
Sextus Empiricus, Opera, recensuit Η. Mutschmann (Leipzig, 1914).
Stobaeus, Anthologium, recensuerunt C. Wachsmuth et ο. Hense (Berlin, 1884-1912).
Stoic01·um Veterum Fragmenta, collegitJ. νοη Arnim, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1903-24; repr. Irving-
ton, 1986).
Thenzistii Orationes quae SUΡeτsunt, edidit G. Downey, νοΙ Ι (Leipzig, 1965).
Vie de Porpf?yre le philosophe neo-Platonicien avec les .fragments des Traites 'Perί Agalnzaton'
Regressu Animae', ed. J. Bidez (Leipzig, 1913).
DICTIONARIES, GRAMMARS, ETC.
Α Greek Grammar qf the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, by F. Blass and
Α. Debrunner: a translation and revision of the 9th-10th German edition incorpor-
ating supplementary notes by Α. Debrunner by R. W Funk (Chicago, 1961).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Α Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by Η. G. LiddeU and R. Scott, revis~d and aug-
mented throughout by H.S. Jones, with a supplement (Oxford, 19 68 :=LSJ).
Α Greek-English LeXΊcon qf the New Testament and other Early Christian Lίteταtuτe, 3rd edn.,
revised and edited by F. W Danker (Chicago, 2000: =BDAG).
Α Ραtτistίc Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W Η. Lampe (Oxford, 19 61 :=Lampe).
BRIQ,UET, C. ΝΙ, The New BTiquet, Jubilee Edition, general editor J. S. G. Simmons. Les
Filigranes. Dictionnaire histQrίque des marques du papier des leur apparίtion vers 1282 jusqu'en
1600.Α facsimile of the 1907 edition with supplementary material contributed by a
numberofscholars, ed. Α. Stevenson, 4 vols. (Amsterdam, 1968: = Briquet).
Der Κleine Pauly. Lexicon der Antike in.fiirifBαnden (Munich, 1979).
Dictionα1Y qfNational Biograpf?y, online edition.
GOODSPEED, Ε. J., Index Apologeticus sive Clavis Iustini Ματtyris Operum aliorumque Apolog-
etarum pristinorum (Leipzig, 1912).
KiliINER, R. and GERTH, Β., Auifi1hrliche GTammatik der grίechischen Sprache, zweiter Teil:
Satzlehre, erster Band (Hanover, 1966).
O:iford Lαtin Dictionα1Y, ed. Ρ. G. W Glare (Oxford, 1982).
Prosopographia Imperίi Romani Saeculi 1 11 111, consilio et auctoritate Academiae
Litterarum Borussicae iteratis curis ediderunt Ε. Groag et Α. Stein (Berlin, 1933- ).
SMYTH, Η. W, Greek GTammar, rev. G. Μ. Messing (Cambridge, Mass., 1956).
Suidae LeXΊcon, edidit Α. Adler (Leipzig, 1928-38).
ThACΚERAY, Η. ST J., Α GTammar qf the Old Testament ίπ Greek according to the Septuagint,
νοΙ ι (Cambridge, 1909).
The O:iford Clαssicαl Dictionα1Y, ed. S. Hornblower and Α. Spawforth, 3rd edn. (Oxford,
1996).
Thesaurus Linguae Graecαe. Α Digital Library qf Greek Literature (University of California,
Irvine: = TLG;.
SECONDARY LITERATURE
AMAND, D., Fatalisme et liberte dans l'antiquite grecque. Recherches sur Ζα survivance de l'argumen-
tation morale antifάtaliste de Carneade chez les philosophes gτecs et les thiologiens chretiens des
quatre Ρremίeτs siecles (Louvain, 1945).
ANDRESEN, C., justin und der mittlere Platonismus', Zeitschrί.ft.fiir die neutestamentliche
Wissenschajt, 44 (1952-53), 157-95·
- - Logos und Nomos. Die Polemik des Kelsos widel" dαs Christentum (Berlin, 1955).
ANNAS, J. and BARNES, J., The Modes qf Scepticism: Ancient Texts and Modern Interpretations
(Cambridge, 1985).
ARJAVA, Α., Women and Lαw ίπ Lαte Antiquity (Oxford, [1996] 1998).
BAGATTI, Β., 'S. Giustino e la sua patria', Augustinianum, 19 (1979), 319-31.
BARDY, G. 'Saint Justin et la philosophie stοϊcienne', Recherches de Science Religieuse,
et ΊJe
13 (1923), 491-510; 14 (1924), 33-45·
BARNARD, L. W, Justin Martyr: His Lifi and Thought (Cambridge, 1966).
BARNES, Τ. D., 'Legislation Against the Christians', Journal qf Roman Studies, 58 (1968),
32-50.
BAUMAN, R. Α., crίme and Punishment ίπ Ancient Rome (London, 1996).
BEAUJEU, J. Lα Religion romaine α l'apogee de l'empire 1: Lα Politique religieuse des Antonins
(g6-19 2) (Paris, 1955).
 ~
.,
330 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BEHR, C. Α., Aelius Aristides αnd the Sαcred Tαles (Amsterdam, 1968).
BELLINZONI, Α. J., The Sαyings ofJesus ίη the Writings ofJustin ΜαψΤ (Leiden, 1967)·
BIRLEY, Α. R. Hαdriαn: The Restless Emperor (London, 1997)·
- - Mαrcus Aurelius: Α Biogrαphy, rev. edn. (London, 1987)·
BISBEE, G., Pre-Deciαn Acts ofMαrtJrs αnd Commentαrii (Philadelphia, 1988).
BOBICHON, Ρ., 'Oeuvres de Justin Martyr: le manuscrit Loan 36/13 de la British
Library, un apographe du manuscrit de Paris (Parisinus graecus 450)', Scriptorium,
57 (2003), 157-8.
BOLL, F. C., 'ϋber das Verhaltnis der beiden Apologien Justins des Martyrers zu
einander', ZeitschriJt.fiir die historische Theologie, 3 (1842), 3-47·
BOMER, F., Ovid. Metαmorphosen. Kommentαr (Heidelberg, 1976).
BOUSSET, W, Die Evαngeliencitαte Justins des Miirtyrers ίη ihrem Wert.fiir die Evαngelienkritίk
(Gottingen, 1891),
__ Judisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb ίη Alexαndriα und Rom. Literαrische Untersuchungen zu
Philo und Clemens υοη Alexαndriα Justin und lreniius (Gottingen, 1915),
BOYS-STONES, G. R., Post-Hellenistic Philosoplιy: Α Study ofits Developmentftom the Stoics to
Origen (Oxford, 2001).
BRIGGS, C. Α. and BRIGGS, Ε. G., Α Criticαl αnd Exegeticαl Commentαry οη the Book of
Psαlms, ICC, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1907-9)·
BUCHANAN, C., Justin Μω,tyr οη Bαptism αnd Euchαrist (Norwich, 2007)·
_ _ 'Questions Liturgists Would Like Το AskJustin Martyr', ίη S. Parνis and Ρ. Foster
(eds.), Justin MαrtyT αnd his Worlds (Minneapolis, 2007), 152-9·
ΒϋCΗΕLΕR, F., 'Aristides und Justinus die Apologeten', Rheinisches Museum, 35 (1880),
279-86.
BUCK, L., Justin Martyr's Apologies: Their Number, Destination, and Form', JouTnαl of
Theologίcαl Studies, NS 54 (2003), 45-59·
- - 'The Pagan Husband ίη Justin', Journαl ofTheologίcαl Studies NS 53 (2002), 541-546.
CALLEWAERT, C., 'Le Rescrit d'Hadrien a Minicius Fundanus', Revue dJHistoire et de
Littirαtu1'e Religίeuses, 8 (1903), 152-89·
CANART, Ρ., 'Les Manuscrits copies par Emmanuel Provataris (1546-1570 enνiron),
essai d'Hude codicologique', ίη Melαnges Eugene Tisserαnt, νοΙ 6, Bibliotheque Vati-
cane, Premiere partie, Studi e Testi, 236 (Vatican City, 1964), 173-287·
CAPELLE, D. Β., 'Le Rescrit d'Hadrien et S. Justin', Revue Birιedictίne, 39 (1927),
365-8.
CHADWICK, Η., ΕατΖΥ Christiαn Thought αnd the Clαssicαl lntellectuαl Trαdition: Studies ίη
Justin J Clement αnd Origen (Oxford, 1966).
- - Justin Martyr's Defence of Christianity', Bulletin of the John Rylαnds Librαry,
47 (1965), 275-95·
CLARΚE, Μ. L., Higher Educαtion ίη the Ancient World (London, 1971).
CLAUSS, Μ., The Romαn Cult ofMithrαs: The God αnd his Mjsteries (Edinburgh, 2000).
COLSON, F. Η., 'Notes οη Justin Martyr, Apology Γ, Journαl of Theologicαl Studies,
23 (1922), 161-71.
- - The Week: Αη Essαy οη the Oτίgίη αnd Development of the Seven Dαy Cycle (Cambridge,
1926).
Concilium TridentinumJ DiαrioTumJ ActorumJ Epistulαrum Ίi'αctαtuum Νουα Collectio, νοΙ νπ,
Actorum Pars Quarta, volumen Π, edidit Societas Goerresiana (Freiburg, 1976);
νοΙ ΧΙ, Epistularum Pars Secunda, edidit Societas Goerresiana (Freiburg, 1966).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 331
CORBETT, Ε. Ρ. J. and CONNORS, R. J., Clαssicαl RhetQ1icjό1' the Modern Student, 4th edn.
(Oxford, 1999).
D'ORS Α. and :ιv1ARTIN, F., 'Propositio Libellorum', Americαn Journαl of Philology, 100
(1979), 1ΙΙ- 2 4·
DANIELOU, J., The Development of Christiαn Doctnne bifόre the Council of Nicαeα, Ι. The
Theology .ofJewish Christiαnity (London, 1964).
DAVIES,R. W, Servicein the Romαn ATmy (Edinburgh, 1989).
DE STE CROIX, G. Ε. Μ., Christiαn PersecutionJ MαTtyrdomJ αnd OTthodoxy, ed. Μ. Whitby
and J. Streeter (Oxford, 2006).
- - 'Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?', Pαst αnd Present, 26 (1963),6-38.
- - 'Why were the Early Christians Persecuted?-A Rejoinder', Pαst αnd Present,
27 (1964), 28-33·
DENNISTON, J. D., The Greek Pαrticles, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1954).
DES PLACES Ε., 'Platonisme moyen et apologetique chretienne au IIe siecle ap. J. C.:
Numenius, Atticus, Justin', Studiα Pαtristicα, 15 (1984), part Ι, ρρ. 432-41.
DEVREESSE, R. 'Les Manuscrits grecs de Cerνini', SC1iptonum, 22 (1968), 250-70.
DILLER, Α., 'Photius' "Bibliotheca" ίη Byzantine Literature', Dumbαrton Oαks Pαpers,
16 (1962), 389-96.
DILLON, J., The Middle Plαtonists: Α Study ofPlαtonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (London, 1977).
DROGE, Α. J., Homer οτ Moses? ΕατΖΥ Christiαn lnterpTetαtions of the History of Culture
(Tίibingen, 1989).
DUTHOY, R., The Tαurobolium: lts Evolution αnd Terminology (Leiden, 1969),
EDWARDS, Μ. J., Justin's Logos and the Word ofGod', Journαl ofEαrly Christiαn Studies,
3 (1995), 261-80.
- - Όη the Platonic Schooling of Justin Martyr', Journαl of Theologίcαl Studies, NS 42
(1991), 17-34·
ENGBERG, J., lmpulsore Chresto. Opposition to Christiαnity ίη the Romαn Empire c.50-250 AD
(Frankfurt a. Μ., 2007).
FERON, Ε. and BATTAGLINI, F., Codices mαnuscnpti Grαeci Ottoboniαnαe Bibliothecαe Vαticαnαe
descnpti (Rome, 1893).
FrsHWlcK, D., The lmpe1iαl Cult ίη the Lαtin West: Studies ίη the RuleT Cult of the Western
Provinces of the Romαn EmpiTe, ΠΙ: PTovinciαl CultJ Pαrt 3: The Provinciαl CentreJ' Provinciαl
Cult (Leiden, 2004).
FLEMMING, R., 'Qyαe corpoTe quαestumfαcit: The Sexual Economy ofFemale Prostitution
in the Roman Empire', JouTnαl ofRomαn Studies, 89 (1999), 38-61.
FRANCHI DE' CAVALIERI, Ρ., 'Di una nuova recensione del Martirio dei SS. Carpo,
Papilo et Agatonice', Studi e Testi (note agiografiche, fasc. 6), 33 (1920).
GAMILLSCHEG, Ε. and HARLFINGER, D., Repertonum deτ gnechischen Kopisten 800-ι600,
ι. Teil, HαndschriJten αus Bibliotheken Grossbntαnniens, Veroffentlichungen der Kommis-
sion [ίiΓ Byzantinistik, Band ΠΙ/ι, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1981).
GARDNER, J. F., 'The Recovery of Dowry ίη Roman Law', Clαssicαl QyαrteTly, NS 35
(1985), 449-53·
- - Women ίη Romαn Lαw αnd Society (London, 1986).
GEFFCΚEN, J., Zwei gnechische Apologeten (Leipzig, 1907).
GOODENOUGH, Ε. R., The Theology of Justin ΜαψΤ: Αη lnvestigαtion into the Conceptions of
Εατ!Υ Christiαn Literαture αnd its Hellenistic αnd Judαistic lrifluences Gena, 1923).
GRAILLOT, Η., Le Culte de Cybele mere des dieux α Rome et dαns lJempire romαin (Paris, 1912).
332 BIBLIOGRAPHY
GRANT, Μ., The Antonines: The Roman Empire ίπ Ti'ansition (London, 1994).
GRANT, R. Μ., Ά Woman of Rome: The Matron in Justin, 2 Apology 2. 1-9', Church
History, 54 (1985), 461-72.
- - 'Forms and Occasions of the Greek Apologists', Studi e materiali di storia delle
relίgιΌnί, 52 (1986), 213-26.
- - GreekApologists ofthe Second Century (London, 1988).
- - 'Sacrifices and Oaths as Required of Early Christians', in Ρ. Granfield and J. Α.
Jungmann (eds.), Κjriakon. Festschrifl ]ohan~es QJιαsten, νοΙ ι (Mίinster, 1970), 12-17.
GREEN, Η. Β., 'Matthew 28:19, Eusebius, and the lex Ο1-αndί', in R. Williams (ed.), The
Making of OrthodoJ9i: Essays ίπ Honour ofHenry Chadwick (Cambridge, 1989), 124-41.
GRUBBS, J. Ε., Women and the Lαω ίπ the Roman Empire: Α Sourcebook οπ Marriage, Divorce and
Widowhood (London, 2002).
HALL, Β., 'FromJohn Hyrcanus to Baba Rabbah', in Α. D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans
(Tίibingen, 1989). ' Kiτchengeschichte, 100 (1989), 291-317.
ΗΑΜΜΑΝ, Α., 'Essai de chronologie de la vie et des oeuvres du Justin', Augustinianum,
35 (1995), 231-9·
HAMMOND, Μ., The Antonine Monarclιy, Papers and Monographs of the American
Academy in Rome, 14 (Rome, 1959).
HARNACK, Α. νΟΝ, 'Brod und Wasser: Die eucharistischen Elemente bei Justin', Texte
und Untersuchungen, 7.2 (Leipzig, 1892).
- - 'Die ϋberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des 2. Jahrhunderts ίη der alten
Κirche und in Mittelalter', Texte und Unteτsuchungen, ι. ι (Leipzig, 1882: =
'ϋberΙίeferuηg') .
- - Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, ι Theil, Die ϋberlίψrung und der
Bestand der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius (Leipzig, 1893: = ϋberlίψrung und Bestand);
2 Theil, ι Band, Die ChTσnologie der Litteratur bis 1renaus, nebst einleitenden Unter-
suchungen (Leipzig, 1897: = Chronologie).
- - Marcion. Dαs Evangelium vom Fremden Gott. Eine Monographie ;::.ur Geschichte der Grundle-
gung der katholischen Κίrche (Leipzig, 1921).
lIARRIs, W v., Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass., 1989).
- - 'Child-exposure in the Roman Empire',]ournal ofRoman Studies, 84 (1994),1-22.
- - 'Demography, Geography, and the Sources of Roman Slaves', ]ournal of Roman
Studies, 89 (1999), 62-75·
HAUΚEN, Τ., Petition and Response: Αη Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors
181-249, Monographs from the Norwegian Institute at Athens, νοΙ 2 (Bergen,
1998).
HEID, S., 'Iustinus Martyr 1', Reallexicon.fUr Antike und Christentum, 19 (2001), coll. 801-47.
HENRICHS, Α., 'Pagan Ritual and the Alleged Crimes of the Early Christians: Α
Reconsideration', ίη Ρ. Granfield and J. Α. Jungmann (eds.), Κjriakon. FeStsch7ift
]ohannes Q,uαsten, νοΙ ι (Mίinster, 1970), 18-35.
HILL, C. Ε., 'Was John's Gospel Among Justin's Apostolic Memoirs?', in S. Parvis and
Ρ. Foster (eds.), ]ustin Mar!Jιr and his Worlds (Minneapolis, 2007), 88-94.
HOLFELDER, Η., Έύσέβεια και Φιλοσοφtα. Literarische Einheit und politischer Kontext
νοη Justins Apologie', Zeitschrifl.fUr die neutestamentliche Wissenschojt, 68 (1977),48-66,
231-51.
HOLTE, R., 'Logos Spermatikos: Christianity and Ancient Philosophy According to
StJustin's Apologies', Studia Theologicα, 12 (1958), 109-68.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 333
HORT, F. J., Όη the Date of Justin Martyr', ]οurnρl of Clαssical and Sacred Philology,
3 (1856), 155-93·
HUBiK, Κ., Die Apologien des Η!. ]ustinus des Philosophen und Miir!Jι7'eTs, Literarhistorische
Unteτsuchungen (Vienna, 1912).
HYLDAHL, Ν., Philosophie und Christentum. Eine 1nteTpretation deT Einleitung ;::.um Dialog ]ustins
(Copenhagen, 1966).
ISAAc, Β., The Limits ofEmpiTe: The Roman Army ίπ the Eαst, rev. edn. (Oxford, 1992).
J OLY, R., Christianisme et philosophie. Etudes sur ]ustin et les apologistes grecs du deuxieme siecle
(Brussels, 1973).
JONES, Α. Η. Μ., The Cities ofthe EαsteTn Roman Provinces (Oxford, [1937J 1998).
ΚERESZTES, Ρ. 'The "So-Called" Second Apology of Justin', Lαtomus, 24 (1965),
858-69·
KINZIG, W 'Der "Sitz im Leben" der Apologie in der alten Kirche', Zeitschrifl.fUT
ΚLAUCK, H.:J., The Religious Context ofΕατΙΥ Christiani!Jι: Α Guide to GTaeco-Roman Religions
(Edinburgh, 2000).
LAMPE, Ρ., From Paul to Vαlentinus: Christians at Rome ίπ the FiTst Τωο Centuries (London,
2003)·
LΆzZATI, G., 'Gli atti di S. Giustino Martire', Aevum, 27 (1953), 473-g7.
LE BOHEc, Υ, The Imperial Roman ATmy (London, 1994).
LE BOULLUEC, Α., Lα Notion d'hbtfsie dan Ζα litterature grecque l/-l1.f siecles, 2 vols. (Paris,
1985)·
LONG, Α. Α., and SEDLEY, D. Ν., The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1987).
LϋDEMANN, G., 'Zur Geschichte des altesten Christentums in Rom. Ι Valentin und
Marcion. Π Ptolemaus und Justin', Zeitschrifl.fUT die neutestamentliche Wissenschojt,
70 (1979), 86-114·
MCGOWAN, Α., Ascetic Eucharists: Food and Drink ίη Εω'ΙΥ Christian Ritual Meals (Oxford,
1999)·
MAcMULLEN, R., Enemies of the Roman Order: Treαson, Unrest and Alienation ίη the Roman
Εnψίre (Cambridge Mass., 1966).
- - Paganism ίπ the Roman EmpiTe (New Haven, 1981).
- - 'Two Types of Conversion to Early Christianity', in Changes ίπ the Roman Empire.
Essays ίπ the ordinary (Princeton, 1990).
MARTIN, J., Antike Rhetorik. Technik und AιJethode (Munich, 1974).
MAxFIELD, V. Α., The Military Decorations ofthe RomanArmy (London, 1981).
MERLo, Ρ., Liberi per vivere secondo ί! Logos. Principi e criteri dell'agire morale ίπ San Giustino
filosqfό e martire (Rome, 1994).
MILLAR, F., The EmpeTor ίπ the Roman WoTld (J1 BC-AD 337), 2nd edn. (London,
1992)·
- - The Roman Near Eαst 31 BC - AD 337 (Cambridge, Mass., 1993).
MINNs, D. Ρ., 'The Rescript ofHadrian', in S. Parvis and Ρ. Foster (eds.),]ustinMar!Jιr
and his Worlds (Minneapolis, 2007), 38-49.
- - 'The Text of Justin's Apologies' Studia Patristica (forthcoming).
MOMMSEN, Τ., 'Der Religionsfrevel nach romischem Recht', Historische Zeitschrifl
64 (1890), 389-429, repr. in Gesammelte Schriflen, dritter Band, ]uristische Schriflen,
dritter Band (Berlin, 1907), 389-422.
- - Rό'misches Strrifrecht (Leipzig, 1899).
334 BIBLIOGRAPHY
MOSCHONAS, Τ D., Catalogue qf MSS qf the Patriarchal Library qf Alexandria, 2nd· edn.,
Studies and Documents, 26 (Salt Lake City, 1965).
MUNIER, C., 'Α proposde Justin, ΑροΙ 1.24,2', Journal qf Theologicαl Studies, NS 55
(2004), 132-7.
- - Ά propos des Apologies de Justin', Revue des Sciences Religίeuses, 61 (1987), 177-86,
repr. ίη C. Munier, Authorite episcopale et sollicitude pαstorale IIe-Vle siecles (Aldershot,
1991)·
- - LΆΡοlοgίe de saint Justin philosophe et Mαrtyr (Fribourg, 1994).
ΝΑΗΜ, C., 'The Debate οη the "Platonism" ofJustin Martyr', Second Century, 9 (1992),
129-51.
NESSELHAUF, Η., 'Hadrians Reskript an Minicius Fundanus', Hermes, 104 (1976),
348-61.
NICOL, D. Μ., The Byzantine Family qf Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. ΙΙΟΟ-Ι460:
Α Geneologίcαl and Prosopographicαl Study, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 11 (Washington,
DC,19 68).
- - The Reluctant Emperor: Α Biography qfJohn Cantacuzene, B.J!zantine EmperoT and Monk,
C.I295-I383 (Cambridge, 1996).
OLIVER, J. Η., The Ruling Power: Α Study qf the Roman Empire in the Second CentU1Y qfteT
ChTist thTough the (Roman Oration' qfAelius Aristides (Philadelphia, 1953).
OSBORN, Ε. Justin Martyr (Tubingen, 1973).
Οττο, W. F., Diorιysus. Myth and Cult (Bloomington, [1933] 1965).
PARVIS, Ρ. Μ., Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: The Posthumous Creation of the
Second Apology', ίη S. Parvis and Ρ. Foster (eds.), Justin MaTtyT and his Worlds
(Minneapolis, 2007), 22-37.
- - 'The Textual Tradition of Justin's Apologίes: Α Modest Proposal', Studia Patristicα,
36 (2001), 54-60.
PARVIS, S., Justin Martyr and the Apologetic Tradition', in S. Parvis and Ρ. Foster
(eds.), Justin Martyr and his Worlds (Minneapolis, 2007), 115-27.
- - and FOSTER, Ρ. (eds.), Justin MartyT and his WoTlds (Minneapolis, 2007).
PFATTISCH, J. Μ., Der EinflιιjJ Platos auf die Theologίe Justins des MiiTtyrers. Eine dogmenges-
chichtliche Untersuchung nebst einem Anhang iibeT die Komposition der Apologien Justins
(Paderborn, 1910).
PLATNER, S. Β., Α Topographicαl Dictionary qf Rome, completed and revised by Τ Ashby
(Oxford, 1926).
POHLENZ, Μ., Die Stoa. Geschichte eineT geistigen Bewegung, 2. Auflage (GDttingen, 1959).
POUDERON, Β. and DORE, J. (eds.), Les Apologίstes chTetiens et Ζα cultuTe grecque (Paris, 1998).
PRICE, R. Μ., "'Hellenisation" and Logos Doctrine ίη Justin Martyr', Vigiliae
Chlistianae, 42 (1988), 18-23.
PRIGENT, P.,Justin et LΆncίen Testament. L'aTgumentation sC1iptuταiTe du tTαite de Justin ContTe
toutes les heresies comme SOUTCe principale du Diαlogue αvec Tryphon et Ζα premieTe Apologie (Paris,
1964)·
PRYOR, J. w., Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel', Second CentU1Y, 9 (1992), 153-69.
QUASTEN, J., PatTology, νοΙ Ι: The Beginnings qfPatristic LiteταtuTe (Utrecht, 1950).
RAINO, Β., Giovanni Onorio da Maglie, tTαsclittoTe di codici gTeci (Bari, 1972).
RICHARDSON, L., Α New Topogταphical Dictionary qfAncient Rome (Baltimore, 1992).
RIEDWEG, C., 'Iustinus Martyr ΙΙ (Pseudo-justinische Schriften)', Reallexicon.fiiT Antike
und Christentum, 19 (2001), coll. 848-73.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 335
RIST, J. Μ., Stoic PhilosopfQι (Cambridge, 1977).
RIVES, J., 'Human Sacrifice Among Pagans and Christians', Journal qf RΟl1ιαn Studies,
85 (1995), 65-85·
ROBINSON, Ο, F., The Oiminal Lαω qfAncient Rome (Baltimore, 1995).
- - 'The Repression of Christians ίη the Pre-Decian Period: Α Legal Problem Still',
The lrish Jurist, 25-8 (1990-1992), 269-92.
RORDORF, w., 'Christus als Logos und Nomos. Das Kerygma Petrou ίη seinem
Verhaltnis zu Justin', ίη Kerygma und Logos. BeίtTiige ZU den geistgeschichtlichen Beziehungen
ZlRJischen Antike und Chlistentum. Festschrift fur Carl Andresen zum 70. Geburtstag
(GDttingen, 1979), 424-34·
ROUSSELLE, Α, POTneia: On DesiTe and the Body in Antiquity (Oxford, 1988).
SCHEillWEILER, F., 'The Gospel ofNicodemus: Acts ofPilate and Christ's Descent into
Hell', ίη W. Schneemelcher (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, Ι: Gospels and Related
W1itings, rev. edn., English transJation edited by R. McL. Wilson (Cambridge, 1991),
501-536.
SCHMID, W. 'Die Textϋberlieferung der Apologie des Justin', Zeitschrijt.fiiT die neute-
stαl1ιentlίche Wissenschqft, 40 (1941), 87-138.
- - Έίη Inversionsphanomen und seine Bedeutung im Text der Apologie des Jus-
tin', ίη FOTma FUtU1i. Studi in onoTe del CaTdinale Μ. Pellegrino (Turin, 1975), 253-81; repr.
ίη Ausgewiihlte philologische Schrijten, herausgegeben νοη Η. Erbse und J. Kuppers
(Berlin 1984), 338-64.
- - 'Ein ratselhafter Anachronismus bei Justinus Martyr', Hist01isches JahTbuch, 77
(1958),358-61, repr. inAusgewiihlte philologische Schrijten, herausgegeben νοη Η. Erbse
undJ. Kuppers (Berlin, 1984),333-7.
- - 'Fruhe Apologetik und Platonismus. Είη Beitrag zur Interpretation des Prooms
vonJustinus Dialogus', in ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ. Festschrijt Otto Regenbogen (Heidelberg, 1952),
163-82.
- - 'The Christian Re-interpretation of the Rescript of Hadrian', Μαία, 7 (1955),
5-13, repr. ίη Ausgewiihlte philologische Schrijten, herausgegeben νοη Η. Erbse und
J. Kuppers (Berlin, 1984), 325-32.
SCHOEDEL, w. R., 'Apologetic Literature and Ambassadorial Activities', HarvαTd
Theologicαl Review, 82 (1989),55-78.
SCHϋRER, Ε., The Histol)! qf the Jewish People in the Age qf Jesus Christ, a new English
version (Edinburgh, 1986).
SCHWARTZ, Ε., 'Observationes profanae et sacrae', Index Lectionum in Acαdemia Rosto-
chiensi semestri aestivo Α. MCCCCLXXXVIII.
SCOTT, Α, 01igen and the Lift qfthe StaTS: Α Hist01Y qfan Idea (Oxford, 1991).
SEGAL, Α F., Τωο Powers in Heaven: ΕατΙΥ Rabbinic RepoTts About Chlistianity and Gnosticism
(Leiden, [1977] 2002). .
SEMISCH, C., Justin Martyr: His Lift, Writings, and Opinions, 2 vols., tr. froffi! the German by
J. Ε. Ryland (Edinburgh, 1843).
SHERWIN-WHITE, Α Ν., 'The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again', JouTnal qf
Theological Studies, NS 3 (1953), 199-213·
- - 'Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?-An Amendment', Pαst and PTesent,
27 (1964), 22-7·
SΚARSAUNE, Ο., Judaism and Hellenism ίη Justin Martyr, Elucidated from his Portrait
of Socrates', ίη Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger and Peter Schafer (eds.),
 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 337
Geschichte- Trαdition-Rriflexion. Festschl'ift fi11' Mαl'tin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstαg, Band ΠΙ, ννπωΕΝ, J. C. Μ. VAN, An Εατ{Υ Christiαn PhilosopheT: Justin Mαl'tyT's (Diαlogue with 7iypho'
Fl'uhes Chriftentum (Tίibingen 1996), 585-6ιι. chαpteTs one to nine. lntτoduction, text, αnd commentalY (Leiden, 1971).
- - Justin and his ΒίbΙeΆ, ίn S. Parvis and Ρ. Foster (eds.), ]ustin MατfyΤ αnd his Worlds - - 'Le Christianisme et la phi1osophie. Le commencement du dialogue entre la [οί
(Minneapolis, 2007), 53-76. et la raison', ίn Ρ. Granfield and J. Α. Jungmann, (eds.), Κjriαkon. Festschri.ft Johαnnes
- - The Proqf.from Pl'ophecy: Α Study ίπ ]ustin Mατfy1"S Pl'oqf Text Trαdition: Text- Ίjιpe, Qyαsten, νοΙ ι (Mίinster, 1970), 205-13.
Provenαnce, Theologicαl Profile (Leiden, 1987). WISCHMEYER, W, 'Die Aberkiosinschrift als Grabepigramm', ]αhTbuchfi1l' Antike und
SNYDER, Η. G., "Άbοve the Bath ofMyrtinus": Justin Martyr's "School" ίn the City Ch11stentU1n, 23 (1980), 22-4.
ofRome', Hαrvαl'd Theologicαl Review, 100 (2007), 335-62. ZAΚYNTHINOS, D. Α., Le Despotαt gTec de MoTee, Π: Vie et institutions (Athens, 1953).
- - Teαchel's αnd Texts ίπ the Ancient Wo1-ld: Philosopheτs, ]ews αnd Christiαns (London,
2000).
SORABJI, R., Necess#y, Cαuse, αnd Blalne: Perspectives on Aristotle's ΤheωΥ (London,
1980).
STRACHAN-DAVIDSON, J. L., Problems qf the Romαn Criminαl Lαw (Oxford, 1892).
TALBERT, R. J. Α., The Senαte qfImperiαl Rome (Princeton, 1984).
TREGGIARI, S., Romαn Alαrriαge: Iusti Coniuges.from the Time qf Cicel'o to the TinIe qf υιΡίαπ
(Oxford, [1991] 1993)·
TURCAN, R., The Cults qfthe Romαn Enlpil'e (Oxford, 2001).
TURYN, Α., Dαted Greek Mαnuscripts qf the Thil'teenth αnd Fourteenth Centuries in the Librαries qf
Itα{y, 2 vols. (Urbana, ΠΙ, 1972).
UNGERN-STERNBERG, Α. VON, Der tl'αditionelle αlttestαmentliche Sch1iftbeweis (de Christo' und
(de Evαngelio' in der Alten Kil'che bis zUl' Zeίt Eusebs von Cαesαl'eα (Halle, 1913).
VERMASEREN, Μ. J., Coτpus Cultus Cybelαe Attidisque. V: Aegyptus, Ajricα, Hispαniα, Gαlliα et
Britαnniα (Leiden, 1986).
- - YΙbele αnd Attis: The JvIyth αnd the Cult (London, 1977).
- - Mithrαs. The Secret God (London, 1963).
VOGEL, C. J., DE, 'Problems Concerning Justin Martyr: Did Justin Find a Certain
Conformity Between Greek Phi1osophy and Christian Faith?', Mnemosyne, 31 (1978),
360-88.
VOLΚMAR, G., 'Die ZeitJustins des Martyrers', Theologische ]αhrbuch, 14 (1855), 227-83
and 412-68.
W ADDINGTON, W Η., Fαstes des Ρ1Όvίnces αsiαtiques de l'empil'e 1'0mαin depuis leul's origine
jusqu'αu l'egne de Diocletien (Paris, 1872).
WASZINΚ, J. Η., 'Bemerkungen zu Justins Lehre vom Logos Spermatikos', ίn Mullus.
Festschri.ft Theodol' ΚlαuseT (Mίinster, 1964), 380-90.
- - 'Bemerkungen zum Einfluss des Platonismus im frίihen Christentum', Vigiliαe
Chl'istiαnαe, 19 (1965), 129-62.
WElJENBOURG, R., 'Meliton de Sardes lecteur de la premiere Apologie et du Dialogue
de saintJustin', Antoniniαnum, 49 (1974), 362-6.
WEIS, Ρ. R., 'Some Samaritanisms of Justin Martyr', ]ouTnαl qf Theologicαl Studies,
45 (1944), 199-205·
WHITTAΚER, J., 'Plutarch, Platonism and Christianity', ίn Η. J. Blumenthal and R. Α.
Markus (eds.) Neoplαtonism αnd Εατ{Υ Christiαn Thought: Essαys in HonouT qf Α. Η.
ATmstTong (London, 1981),50-63'
WILCΚEN, u., 'Zu den Kaiserreskripten', HeTmes, 55 (1920), 1-42.
- - 'Zur Propositio Libellorum', Al'chivfi1r Pαpyruifόrschung, 9 (1930), 15-28.
WILLIAMS, W, 'The Publication of Imperial Subscripts', Zeitschri.ftfi1T Pαpyrologie und
EpigTαphik, 40 (1980), 67-83.
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES

All references are to the First Apology

Gen. Ι: 1-3 59· 2-4 2: 22 55-4

Ι: 1-2 64.2 5: 20 49·7
Ι: 3 60.6 7: 14 33·1
49: 1Ο-ΙΙ 32.1, 5,7; 54·5 9: 5 35·2
ΙΙ: Ι 32.12

Εχ. 3: 2 63-7 ΙΙ: 12 52.10

3: 2, 6 63· ΙΙ 26: 19 48.2

3: 5 62.1 29: 13 5 2 . ΙΙ
3: 6 63·7, η 35: 5-6 48.2
3: 10 63·7 43: 5-6 52.10
45: 23 52·6
Num. 2J: 4-9 60.2-4 50: 6-8 38.2-3
24: η 32.12 51: 5 32.12
52: 13-53: 8 5 0 ·3- ΙΙ
Deut. 3: 18 62.3 53: 8 54·8
3: 24 62-4 53: 8-12 51.1-5
4: 12 63·10 53: 12 50.2
4: 32-3 62·3 54: ι 53·5
4: 34 62·4 57: 1-2 48·5-6
5: 27 62·3 58: 2 35-4
30: 15, 19 44·1 58: 6-7 37·8
32: 22 60·9 63: η 52.12
64: 9- ΙΙ 47·3
64: 10 52.12
65: 1-3 49·2-4
Pss 1-2 40.8-19 65: 2 35.3; 38. ι
3: 6 38·5 66: ι 37.3-4
18(19): 3-6 40.1-4 66: 24 52.8
18(19): 6 54.9
21(22): 9 38.6 Jer. 9: 25 53· ΙΙ
21(22): η 35·5; 38-4 50 (LXX 27): 3 47·5
21(22): 19 35·5; 38·4
23(24): 7-8 51·6-7 Lam. 4: 20 55·5
44(45): 7-13 54·8
95(96): 1-10 41.1-4 Ezek. 18: 23 15.8
1Ο9(ΙΙΟ): 1-3 45·2-4 33: ΙΙ 15·8
3Τ 7-8 52·5
Isa. ι: 3 63.1, 12 37: 10 48.2
ι: 3-4 37·1-2

ι: 7 47·5 Dan. 7: 13 51·9

Ι: 9 53·7
ι: ΙΙ-Ι5 37.5-8 Joe12:I2- I 3 5 2 . ΙΙ
ι: 16-20 44.3-4; 61·7-8
2: 3-4 39·1 Mic. 5: 1-2 34.1
340 INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES

Zeph. 3: 14 35·11 25: 30 16.12

25: 31 51·9
Zech. 2: 10 52.10 25: 41 28.1
9: 9 35·11 27: 39, 43 38.8
INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS
12: 10 52.12 27: 53 48.2
12: 11 52.11
12: 12 52.12 Mk 2: η 15.8
5: 42 48.2
Matt. Ι: 20-1 33.5 9: 47 15·2 Abraham and other Old Testament figures escaping notice ιΑ 35.1; 57.1
Ι: 21 33.8 10: η-18 16.7 interpreter ofprophecy ιΑ 32.2; 50.12
were Christians ιΑ 46·3; 63.17
2: 6 34.1 Ι1: 7 32.6
Achilles ιΑ 25.2 saνiour 33.5,7-8; 61·3; 66.2; 67·8; 2Α 5-4;
3: 10 16.13 12: 14, 16-η η.2
Adonis ιΑ 25.1 13-4
4: 10 16.6 12: 29-30 16.6
Amen ιΑ 65.3-4; 67.5 cures all illnesses 31); 48.1; 54·10
5: 16 16.2 13: 6 16.13 Amphilochus ιΑ 18-4 judge 52·3; 53·2
5: 22 16.2 angels: follow the Son, and are like him ιΑ 6.2 first and second comings ιΑ 32-4; 50.1; 51.8;
5: 28 15·1 Lk. Ι: 31-2 33.5 created with freedom of will 2Α 6.5 ' 52·3
5: 29 15·2 3: 9 16'13 entrusted with proνidential care 2Α 4.2 his speech the Power of God ιΑ 14.5
5: 32 15·3 5: 32 15·8 established wicked laws 2Α 9.4 his suffering and crucifixion ιΑ 13·3-4; 31.7;
5: 34, 37 16·5 6: 27-8 15.9 begetters of demons 2Α 4.3,5 32-4, 6-7; 35·6-9; 42·3-4; 46·5; 50.1,
5: 39-40 16.1 6: 29 16.1
Antinous ιΑ 29-4 12; 52.3; 63·10; 67·8; 2Α 5·6; 13-4
5: 41 16.2 6: 32 15.9-10 Antiope ιΑ 25.2 his resurrection ιΑ 31.7; 42.4; 45·1; 46·5;
5: 42 15·10 6: 34 15·10 Aphrodite ιΑ 25.1 50.12; 67·8
5: 44 15·9 6: 35-6 15·13 Apollo ιΑ 25. ι his ascension ιΑ 26.1; 31.7; 42-4; 45.1; 51.6
5: 45 15·13 9: 25 15·12 apostles ιΑ 42-4; 45·5; 49·5; 50.12; 53·3; 61·9; his sufferings, resurrection, and ascension
5: 46 15·9-10 10: 16 16.10 comparable to those of the children of
66.3; 67.3, 8
6: ι 15.η 10: 22 63.3 apparitions and demons ιΑ 5.2; 9.1; 14.1; 18.3 Zeus ιΑ 21.1; 22·3- 4
6: 19-20 15.11-12 10: 27 16.6 Archestratus ιΑ 70.2 his crucifixion not imitated by demons
6: 21 15.16 12: 4-5 19·7 Ariadne ιΑ 21.3 ιΑ 55.1
6: 25-6 15.14 12: 9 4·7 Asclepius ιΑ 21.2; 22.6; 54.10 see αlso Jesus; Logos; Son; virgin birth
6: 31-32 15.15 12: 22-4 15.14 Athena ιΑ 64.5 Christian teaching similar to that of the
6: 33 15·16 12: 30-31 15.15 Greeks ιΑ 20.1- 22.6; 24.1; 60.10;
7: 15-16 16.13 12: 34 15·16 baptism ιΑ 6Ι.Ι-13; 65.1 2Α 13·2- 3
7: 19 16.13 12: 48 η·4 bar Kokhba ιΑ 31.6 alone true ιΑ 23.1, and superior to all
7: 21 16·9 13: 26-7 16.11 human philosophy ιΑ 70.2; 2Α 10.1
Bellerophon ιΑ 54.7
Τ 22-3 16.11 13: 28 16.12 Christian worship rational ιΑ 6.2; 13·2- 3
Briareus ιΑ 25.2
Τ 24 16.10 16: 18 15.3 Christians: named after Christ ιΑ 12.9
Briseis ιΑ 25.2
8: 12 16.12 18: 18-19 16.7 bronze serpent ιΑ 60·3- 4 include those who lived with Logos before
9: 13 15·8 18: 27 19·6 Christ ιΑ 46·3- 4
10: 28 19.7 19: 35 32.6 Christ: meaning ofthe name 2Α 5.3 most kind- hearted (chrestotαtoz) ιΑ 4.1,5
10: 33 4·7 20: 21-2, 24-5 η.2 called apostle ιΑ 12.9, and angel ιΑ 63.5 are of every race ιΑ Ι.Ι; 25·1; 31·7; 32.4;
11: 27 63.3, 13 21: 8 16'13 teacher ιΑ 4.7; 6.2; 8.3; 12·9-10; 13·3; 14-4; 39·2-3; 40); 42-4; 49·5; 50.12; 53·3;
13: 41-3 16.12 22: 19 66'3 15·5, 9; 19·6, 8; 21.1; 23·1-2; 32.2; 40.1; 56.1
13: 50 16.12 24: ΙΙ 68.1 called brothers ιΑ 65.1- 2
46.1; 50.12; 66.3; 67·8; 2Α 2.2; 7·5; 8·3;
16: 26 15.12 10.8 have power over demons 2Α 5·6; 7-4
18: 3 61-4 Jn 4: 12 53-4 first-born of God ιΑ 46.2; 58.3 are not atheists ιΑ 6.1; 13.1; 18.6
18: 9 15·2 4: 21-3 53·10 Son of God ιΑ 12·9; 13·3; 58.1 look to a kingdom not of this world but are
19: 11-12 15-4 4: 29 53·6 power ofinexpressible Father 2Α 10.8 allies ofthe emperors ιΑ 11.1- 12.3
19: 16-η 16.7 ranks second after the Father ιΑ 13.2 pay taxes ιΑ η. ι
21: 7 32.6 ι Cor. Ι: 23 13-4
Logos ίn whom all share ιΑ 46.2 practise sexual restraint ιΑ 14.2; 15.6-7;
22: 13 16.12 15: 3 4·7 spoke to Moses ιΑ 62·3- 4 25·1-2; 29·1- 3; 2Α 2.2, 4, 6-7
22: 21 17.2 known ίn part by Socrates 2Α 10.8 are hated ιΑ Ι.Ι; 4.5; 14.3; 20·3; 24·1; 36·3;
22: 38 16.6 Phil. 4: 9 4· 7 incarnation ofwhole ofreason 2Α 7.3; 10.1 57·1,3; 2Α 7·3
24: 5 16.13 became human by power of the Logos were persecuted by bar Kokhba ιΑ 31.6
24: 51 16.12 James 5: 12 16·5
ιΑ 46.5 their behaviour before and after
342 INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS
Christians - Contd.
conversion ιΑ 14.2-3; 15.7; 16·4; 25·1;
39·3; 53·3; 2Α 2.1-7
accusations against them ιΑ 3.1; 10.6; 23.3;
26.7; 27.5; 68.ιο; 69.2; 2Α ΙΟ·5;
12.1- 13.1
prosecuted for the name of Christ
ιΑ 4.1-8; 7·3-4; ΙΙ.Ι; 24·1; 39·3; 45·5;
2Α 2.7, ΙΟ- 13, 16-18; 12.2
cannot be harmed by their persecutors
ιΑ 2-4; ΙΙ.2; 17-4; 27·5; 45·6; 57·2;
2Α ιι.8; 12.4,6
are not liable for evil done by their
persecutors ιΑ 3·4; 55·8
own anything good said by anyone 2Α 13.4
some are unworthy of their caΠing ιΑ 4.7;
7.1-4; 16.8- 14, and deny Christ
ιΑ 4.6-7; 2Α 2.14
Claudius Caesar ιΑ 26.2; 56.2
conquest of]udaea ιΑ 32·4; 47·1; 53.3
consciousness after death ιΑ 18.1-4; 20-4;
52·7; 57·3
Crescens 2Α 8.1; ΙΙ.2
cross: power ιΑ 35.2
symbol ιΑ 55·2- 7
and bronze serpent ιΑ 60.1- 5
Cybele ιΑ 27.4
Cynics and indifference 2Α 8.7
Danae ιΑ 21.2
David, king and prophet ιΑ 35.6; 40.1
deacons ιΑ 65.5; 67.5
demonic possession ιΑ 18-4; 2Α 5.6
demons: Satan their leader ιΑ 28.1;
enemies ofChrist ιΑ 45.1, ofSocrates
ιΑ 5.3; 2Α 6.3, of aΠ who live by
reason 2Α 7.3, ofChristians ιΑ 5.3;
2Α 1.2; 7.3
move the wicked 2Α 6.3, including
Menander ιΑ 26.4; 56.1, Marcion
ιΑ 26.5; 58.1, and Simon ιΑ 26.2; 56.1
moved theJews to mistreatJesus ιΑ 63.ΙΟ
move those who accuse and persecute
Christians ιΑ 5.1; ιο.6; 12.5; 23.3;
2Α 1.2; 12·3- 4
encompass death of those who read
prophetic writings ιΑ 44.12
misunderstand and distort prophecies
ιΑ 23.3; 54.1-ΙΟ; 55.1; 56.1; 64.1- 6;
2Α 13.1
imitate baptism ιΑ 62.1- 3, and eucharist
ιΑ 66-4
deflect from the truth ιΑ 14·1; 54.1; 57.1;
58.1- 3; 2Α 13·2
cause appantlOns ιΑ 5.2; 9.1; 14.1; 18.3, and
sexual corruption ιΑ 5.2,4; 21.6; 25·3;
2Α4-4
are responsible for the myths of the poets
ιΑ 23.3; 54·1- 56.1; 2Α 4.5- 6
use magic ιΑ 14. ι; 2Α 4-4
are the gods ofthe pagans ιΑ 5.2-4; 9.1;
21.6; 25.3; 54·2
are exorcized by Christians 2Α 5.6
are to be struck by God ιΑ 45.1
destroyed by Jesus 2Α 5.5
condemned to everlasting fire ιΑ 28.1; 52.3;
2Α7·3
denial ofChristianity ιΑ 4.6; 8.1; ΙΙ.2;
39-4- 5; 2Α 2.14; 3-4
desire (evil) ιΑ ιο.6
Deucalion and Noah 2Α 6.3
Dionysus ιΑ 21.2; 25·1; 54.6
Dioscuri ιΑ 21.2
Dodona ιΑ 18-4
dreams ιΑ 14.1; 18.3
emasculation ιΑ 27-4; 29·2- 3
Empedocles ιΑ 18.5
emperors: called pious and philosophers
ιΑ 2.2
brothers of Christians 2Α ι. Ι
will be without excuse for persecuting
Christians ιΑ 3.5; 45.6; 68.2
andjustice ιΑ 2.2-3; 3·2, 4; 5·1; 7·2, 4;
12·3-4; 70·4
their symbols ofpower ιΑ 55.6
deification ιΑ 21·3; 55.7
ascension ιΑ 21.3
enlightenment ιΑ 61.12-13; 65.1
Epicurus ιΑ 70.1; 2Α 6.3; 12.5
eucharist: after baptism ιΑ 65.1- 66-4
οη Sundays ιΑ 67.3- 8
exorcism in name of]esus 2Α 5.6
exposure ofinfants ιΑ 27.1-3; 29.1
faith ιΑ ΙΟ.2; 13·2; 49·5; 52.1; 60.3
fasting ιΑ 61.2
fate, prophecy, and freedom of choice
ιΑ 43·1-8; 44· ΙΙ ; 2Α 6·3- 9
Felix ιΑ 29·2- 3
forgiveness ofsins ιΑ 61.2,6-7,10;
66.1
freedom of choice: ιΑ 8.1; ΙΟ.3; 12.2, 8
bestowed at creation οη angels 2Α 6.5, and
οη humankind ιΑ 28.3; 43.8- 44.1;
2Α6·5
and baptism ιΑ 61.ΙΟ
and fate ιΑ 43·1- 8; 2Α 6·3- 9
INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS
Ganymede ιΑ 21.5; 25.2
Gehenna ιΑ 19.8
Gentile Christians more numerous than
Jewish ΟΓ Samaritan Christians ιΑ 53.3,
5, ΙΟ
God: unbegotten ιΑ 14.1; 25·2; 49·5; 53·2;
2Α 5.1; 12-4; 13-4
unchangeable ιΑ 13-4; 20.2
inexpressible ιΑ 9.3; 2Α ιο.8;12-4; 13-4;
61.ΙΙ
passionless' ιΑ 25.2
his form inexpressible ιΑ 9.1,3
eternal ιΑ 13.4
unmixed with evil ιΑ 6.1; 2Α 6.9
has ηο name ιΑ ιο.ι; 61.ΙΙ; 63.1; 2Α 5.1
maker ofuniverse ιΑ 8.2; 13.1; 20.2;
26·5; 45·1; 58.1; 63· ΙΙ ; 64·5; 67.8;
2Α ιο.6
creates from unformed matter ιΑ ΙΟ.2;
59.1-5; 67·8
father ofaΠ ιΑ 32.ΙΟ; 40·7; 45.1; 46.5; 63. ΙΙ ,
16; 2Α 2.19; 5.1; ιο.6
father ofmen and ofgods ιΑ 22.1
father ofvirtues ιΑ 6.1; ΙΟ.Ι; 2Α 9.2
teaches by the Logos 2Α 9.2
those who live close to him are made divine
ιΑ 21.6
did not speak to Moses ιΑ 63.1, 14
delaysjudgement ιΑ 28.2; 45.1; 2Α 6.1
and fate 2Α 6·9; 9.1
his foreknowledge ιΑ 28.2; 44. ΙΙ ; 45.1;
49·6
his providential care ιΑ ΙΟ.I-2; 13.1-2;
28·4; 44· ΙΙ ; 2Α 3.2; 4·2; 9.1; 12.6
gods ofpagans: demons ιΑ 5.2-3; 9·1; 12.5;
14.1; 18·3
dead and lifeless ιΑ 9.1
worshipped irrationally ιΑ 9.3; 24·1- 3
gospels ιΑ 66.3
Hadrian ιΑ 68·3- 5
Helen, companion ofSimon ιΑ 26.3
Heracles ιΑ 21.2; 54.9; 2Α ΙΙ.2- 5
Heraclitus ιΑ 46.3; 2Α μ
heresy,Justin' s writing against ιΑ 26.8
Hermes ιΑ 22.2
Herod ιΑ 40.6
Homer 2Α ιο.6
homosexuality ιΑ 25.1; 27.1,4; 2Α 12·5
human sacrifice 2Α 12.5
Hystaspes and Sibyl ιΑ 20.1; 44.12
immortality of the soul discussed by
philosophers and poets ιΑ 44.9
343
incorruptibility (immortality) the goal of
Christian hope ιΑ 8.2; ΙΟ.2-3; 13.2; 19-4;
39·5; 42-4; 52·3; 57·2
Isaac ιΑ 63-7, ιι, η
Jacob ιΑ 32.12, 14; 53·4; 63-7, ιι, 17
Jerusalem destroyed by the Romans ιΑ 47.4
Jesse ιΑ 32.12- 14
Jesus: meaning of the name ιΑ 33· 7; 2Α 5-4
son ofGod ιΑ 12.9; 22.1; 23.1-2; 31-7;
63.ΙΟ; 67.2
first born and power of God ιΑ 23.2
first- begotten ofunbegotten God ιΑ 53.2
Logos ofGod ιΑ 5.4; 21.1; 23.2
apostle ιΑ Ι2.9; 63.ΙΟ
his speech the Power of God ιΑ 14.5
see also Christ; Logos; Son; virgin birth
Jewish war ιΑ 31.6
Jews: named after Judah ιΑ 32.3, 14
believe the unnameable God spoke to
Moses ιΑ 63·1- 15
ignorant ofFather and Son ιΑ 63.3, 14
do not understand their prophecies ιΑ 3 Ι .5;
36·3
did not recognizeJesus as Messiah ιΑ 36.3;
49·5; 53·6
banded together with Herod and Pilate
ιΑ40.6
crucifiedJesus ιΑ 35·6; 36.3; 38.7; 63· ΙΟ
persecute Christians ιΑ 31.5
forbidden to enterJerusalem ιΑ 47.5- 6
willlament at the coming of]esus ίη glory
ιΑ 52.10- 12
and Samaritans ιΑ 53.3- 6
Judaea: captured by the Romans ιΑ 32.34;
47.1, and laid waste ιΑ 53.3
Judah 2Α 32.2- 3,14; 34·1; 54·5
justice ιΑ 6.1; 10.1; 12.ΙΙ; 27.1; 67.8; 2Α 2.16;
9.1-2; 12.6
Kore ιΑ 64·1- 4
Κronos ιΑ 21.5; 67.8; 2Α 12.5
law making and moral freedom ιΑ 12.3;
2Α 6-7; 9.1- 2
Leda ιΑ 21.2
Leto ιΑ 25.1
Logos: true ιΑ 3·1; 5·3; 43.6
divine ιΑ ιο.6; 36.1
God ιΑ 63.15
begotten of God ιΑ 12-7; 63-4; ιο; 22.2;
2Α5·3
first- born ofGod ιΑ 21.1; 33.6; 46.2; 63.15;
2Α5·3
344 INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS
Logos - Contd.
first Power and Son ιΑ 23.2; 32.10;
63·4
Spirit and the Power from God ιΑ 33.6
Power ofGod ιΑ 60.ΙΙ
power after the first God (Plato) ιΑ 60.5
existed before creatures 2Α 5.3
God formed a notion of the world through
ιΑ 64.5
is seed from God ιΑ 32.8
implanted seed 2Α μ; 13.5
spermatic 2Α 7·3; 13·3
shared in by all ιΑ 46.2
is in eνerything 2Α ΙΟ}; 13.5
called angel and apostle ιΑ 63.5, 14
appeared to Moses ιΑ 63.16
inspired prophets ιΑ 5.4; 36.1; 2Α ΙΟ.8
instructed Greeks ιΑ 54;
known ίη part by Socrates 2Α ιο.8, and
by philosophers and legislators
2Α ΙΟ.2- 3 makes Christians those
who live in accord with him
ιΑ46·3
prescribes ιΑ 2.1
counsels ιΑ 3.1
proves ιΑ 34
demonstrates ιΑ 12.7; 2Α 94
commands ιΑ 12.8
persuades ιΑ 14. ι
became incarnate asJesus Christ ιΑ.54;
21.1; 23.2; 32.ΙΟ, 14; 33·1, 6; 46.2, 4-5;
63· ΙΟ ; 2Α 5.3,5; ΙΟ.Ι, 3, 8; 13.4, by the
will of the Father ιΑ 23.2; 46.5; 63; ιο,
16; 2Α 5.5
worshipped in second place 2Α 134
see αlso Christ; Jesus; Son; νirgin birth
Lucius (Christian martyr) 2Α 2.15- 19
magic ιΑ 14.1-2; 18·3; 26·4; 30.1; 56.1; 2Α 44
Marcion ιΑ 26.5; 58.1- 2
marriage, second, forbidden by Christ ιΑ 15.5
memoirs of apostles ιΑ 63.3; 67.3; cf ιΑ 33.5
Menander (comic poet) ιΑ 20.5
Menander (Samaritan) ιΑ 26.4; 56.1
military enrolment ιΑ 39.5
Minos ιΑ 8.4
Minucius (Minicius) Fundanus ιΑ 68.5
Mithras ιΑ 664
Moses: the first prophet ιΑ 32.1
older than all other writers ιΑ 44·8; 54.5;
59·1
received a strong powe1' fΓOm Ch1'ίst
ιΑ 624
and bronze seΓpent ιΑ 60.2- 5
INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS 345
imitated by demons ιΑ 62.2-3; prophecy: οη rolls ιΑ 31.1- 2, 5, 7; 36.3 a characteΓistic
oflife before conversion to
64.1- 6 kinds of ιΑ 36.1- 424 Cliristianity ιΑ 14.2; 15.7; 25.1
influenced Plato ιΑ 44.8-9; 59.1- 60} spoken by Power·ofGod ιΑ 60.ΙΙ charged against Christians ιΑ 26};
Musonius 2Α 7. ι interpreted by Jesus ιΑ 32.2 33·3
prooffΓOm ιΑ Ι2.ΙΟ; 30.1; 32·4; 33·3, 5; the purpose of eΧΡΟSU1'e of infants ιΑ 27. ι
Noah and Deucalion 2Α 6.2 35·9; 42.2-3; 52.1-2; 53·1- 3, 12 taxed by the EmpeΓOrs ιΑ 27.2
does not entail fate ιΑ 43.1-8; 44.ΙΙ associated with pagan worship ιΑ 27.4
oracles ιΑ 18.4 prophets: older than all writers ιΑ 23.1 Sibyl and Hystaspes ιΑ 20.1; 44.12
known to philosophers and poets ιΑ 44.9 Simon ofSamaria ιΑ 26.2-3; 56.1-4;
Pegasus ιΑ 54-7 prostitution ιΑ 27·1- 4 2Α 15.1
Ρe1'seΡhοne ιΑ 25.1 Ptolemy (Christian martyr) 2Α 2.9 Socrates: and reason ιΑ 54; 2Α ΙΟ4- 5
Ρe1'seus ιΑ 21.2; 22.6; 54.8 Ptolemy (king ofEgyρt) ιΑ 31.2 and truth 2Α 8.7
Philaenis ιΑ 70.2 punishment after death: ιΑ 84; 12.1-2; 17.4; a Christian ιΑ 46.3
ΡhilΟSΟΡhe1'S: haνe many opinions but one 18.2; 19.8; 20·4; 21.6; 28.1; 44·9; 45.6; hadpartial knowledge ofChrist 2Α ΙΟ.8
name, some unWΟ1'thΥ ofit ιΑ 4·8-9; 7.3; 52·3,7; 54·2; 57·1- 3; 2Α 1.2; 2.2; 7·3; taught people to shun demons ιΑ 5.3;
26.6; 2Α 8.2 9·1 2Α ΙΟ.6
contradict themselves ιΑ 4.8; 2Α 13.2 in1plies freedom of choice ιΑ 43}- 8' accused of same things as Christians
and legislators influenced by Logos but Pythagoras ιΑ 18.5 2Α ΙΟ.5
cοnt1'adίcted themselves 2Α ΙΟ.2-3; Pytho ιΑ 18.4 his Ρe1'secutίοn pΓOillpted by demons
13·3 ιΑ 5.3; 2Α 6'3
and poets ιΑ 4.9; 20.4 Quirinius ιΑ 34.2; 46.1 persuaded ηο one to die for his teaching
borrowed fΓOm the prophets and cοnt1'adίct 2Α 10.7
themselνes ιΑ 44.9- ΙΟ rational Ροwe1'S given by God ιΑ ΙΟ4; 28.3 Son ofGod: calledJesus ιΑ 22.1; 67.2
disdain stories about punishment after rebirth ιΑ 61.3- 4, ιο; 66.1 Logos ιΑ 22.2; 23.2; 32.10; 63.4, 10; 2Α 5.3
death 2Α 9.1 resurrection of the body not incredible first- born Logos ιΑ 63.15
philosophy and piety ιΑ 1.1; 2.1-2; 3.2; 12.5; ιΑ 18.6- 19.5 God ιΑ 63.15
704; 2Α 2.16 Rhadamanthus ιΑ 84 alone properly called Son of God 2Α 5.3
Plato: borrowed fΓOm Moses ιΑ 44.8; right reason 2Α 2.2; 6}; 94 called Son by God ιΑ 40.7
59.1- 60·7 Rome (royal) ιΑ 26.2; 56.2 born of God ίη a special manner ιΑ 22.2;
misunderstood prophecies ιΑ 60.5 23·2
his teachings not in all ways the same as sacrifice and worship (pagan) ιΑ 9.1-5; 12.5; not identical with the Father ιΑ 63· 15
Christ' s 2Α 13.2 13·1; 24.1-3; 25.1; 27.4; 62.1-2; 66·4; in second place after God ιΑ 13·3- 4
οη aeation by God ιΑ 20·4; 59·1- 5 2Α 44; 12·5 appeared and spoke to Moses and other
οη punishment afte1' death ιΑ 8.4; 18.5 Samaritans ιΑ 26.2-4; 53.3- 6 prophets ιΑ 63.14, 16
Timαeus ιΑ 60.1 Sardanapalus 2Α 6.3 object of worship with Father and Spirit
Justin' s delight ίη his teachings 2Α 12.1 Satan (SeΓpent, Deνil), the leader of the ιΑ 6.2; 65.3; 67.2
poets: inνentors ofmyths ιΑ 23.3; 54.1- 2; demons ιΑ 28.1 called apostle ιΑ 12.9
2Α4·5 seed: ofLogos implanted 2Α 7·1; 13.5 called angel and apostle ιΑ 63.5, ιο, 14
give ηο demonstΓation [Ο1' myths of truth among all ιΑ 44. ΙΟ see αlso Christ;Jesus; Logos; νirgin birth
ιΑ 54.1 from God ιΑ 32.8 Sotades ιΑ 70.2
thei1' stoΓies of immorality of the gods ofChristians 2Α 6.1 Spirit: prophetic ιΑ 6.2; 13.3; 31.1; 32.2; 33.2,
ιΑ 4.9; 2Α 12.5 ofJacob ιΑ 32.14 5; 35·3; 38.1; 39·1; 40.1, 5; 41.1; 42.1; 44·1,
their ethical doctrines decent in some evil ιΑ 37.2 ιι; 47.1; 484; 51.1; 53·4,6; 59.1; 60.8;
respects 2Α 7.1 and human conception ιΑ 19.1-5; 32.9-ΙΙ; 63.2, 12
their teachings not ίη all ways the same as 61.ΙΟ divine ιΑ 32.2, 8
Christ' s 2Α 13.2 and divine conception ιΑ 32.9- ιι; 2Α 4.5 worshipped with Father and Son ιΑ 6.2;
Pontius Pilate: ιΑ 13.3; 40.6; 46.1; 61.13; Semele ιΑ 25.1 65.3; 67·2
2Α5·6 Senate: holy 2Α 2.16; 56.2 1'anked third after Son ιΑ 13.3, also by
Acts of ιΑ 35·9; 48.3 and People ofRome ιΑ 56.2 Plato ιΑ 60.6- 7
prayer ιΑ 13·1; 14.3; 17.3-4; 6J.I-2; 65.1-3; Serenius Granianus ιΑ 68.6 Stoics: and Christian doctrines 2Α 13.2
66.2; 67.5; 70·3; 2Α 13.2 sexual immorality: of manufacturers of idols οη ethics and fate 2Α 6.3- 4, 8-9; 7.1
president ofChristian assembly ιΑ 65·3, 5; ιΑ 9·4- 5,7 οη conflagration ιΑ 20.2, 4; 2Α 6.3
67·4-7 ofZeus and his children ιΑ 4·9; 21.4-5; οη renewal ofworld ιΑ 20.2
Prodicus' tale ofvirtue and νice 2Α ΙΙ.2- 5 33.3; 69·2; 2Α 12·5 οη God ιΑ 20.2; 2Α 6'9
 INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS

suffering: absence of ιΑ 10.2; 20.4; 57.2; 2Α 1.2 Xenocrates ιΑ 18.5

Sunday ιΑ 67.8 Xenophon 2Α ΙΙ.2- 3

temperance ιΑ 6.1; 10.1; 14~2; 15.1; 58.3 Zeus: promiscuous ιΑ 4·9; 21·5; 25·2; 33.3;
temple of the Jews destroyed by Romans 2Α 12.5
ιΑ 32.6 a parricide ιΑ 21.5
thanksgiving ιΑ 13.1; 65·3, 5; 66·3;67·5; Zeus, children of: promiscuous ιΑ 4.9; 21.5;
2Α 2.19; Π.Ι 25·1
Thetis ιΑ 25.2 compared to Son ofGod ιΑ 21.1
Tiberius Caesar ιΑ 13.3 suffered cruel deaths ιΑ 21.2; 22.3
ascended to heaven ιΑ 21.2
Urbicus 2Α 1.1, 3; 2.12, 15- 16 myths about them not proven ιΑ 53.1;
54·1
virgin birth ιΑ 21.1; 22.2,5; 25·2; 31.]; 32.14; and demons ιΑ 54.1-3; 56.1
33·1,3-6; 46·5; 54·8; 63·16 and crucifixion ιΑ 55.1
virtue and vice ιΑ 28-4; 43.6; 2Α 6.3-9; 9·1; names of ιΑ 5.2; 2Α 4.5- 6
ΙΙ.2- 5 Kore and Athena ιΑ 64. 1- 5