1 E.g., Karl Hubík, Die Apologien des Hl. Justinus des Philosophen und Märtyrers. Literarhistor-ische Untersuchungen (Theologische Studien der Leo-Gesellschaft 19; Vienna: Mayer, 1912) 138–40 and passim; Arnold Ehrhardt, “Justin Martyr's Two Apologies,” JEH 4 (1953) 1–12 at 1–8; Paul Keresztes, “The ‘So-Called’ Second Apology of Justin,” Latomus 24 (1965) 858–69. See also Erwin R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr: An Investigation into the Conceptions of Early Christian Literature and Its Hellenistic and Judaistic Influences (Jena, Germany: Frommann, 1923; repr., Amsterdam: Philo, 1968) 84–87, who seems to support this view.

2 E.g., Wolfgang Schmid, “Ein Inversionsphänomen und seine Bedeutung im Text der Apologie des Justin,” in Forma Futuri. Studi in onore del Cardinale M. Pellegrino (Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1975) 253–81; Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) 55; H. Hermann Holfelder, “. Literarische Einheit und politischer Kontext von Justins Apologie,” ZNW 68 (1977) 48–66, 231–51; Charles Munier, Justin, Apologie pour les chrétiens. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (SC 507; Paris: Cerf, 2006) 21–24, 34–38.

3 E.g., Adolf Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius. II. Die Chronologie (2 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1897) 1:274–75; Edgar J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten. Texte mit kurzen Einleitung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914) 24–25; Henry Chadwick, “Justin Martyr's Defence of Christianity,” BJRL 47 (1964–1965) 275–97 at 277; Niels Hyldahl, Philosophie und Christentum. Eine Interpretation der Einleitung zum Dialog Justins (ATDan 9; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966) 14–16; Abraham J. Malherbe, “Justin and Crescens,” in Christian Teaching: Studies in Honor of LeMoine G. Lewis (ed. E. Ferguson; Abilene, Tex.: Abilene Christian University, 1981) 312–27; Miroslav Marcovich, Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis (PTS 38; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994) 10.

4 The new OECT edition of the Apologies only confirms the complexity of the problem by offering a fourth solution to it, namely, cutting chapters 14–15 from 2 Apol. and pasting them at the end of 1 Apol., leaving the rest of 2 Apol. as a series of disconnected fragments; see Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (OECT; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 27–31, 54–56, 267–69. It remains to be seen whether this rather radical solution receives enough scholarly support to be called a “fourth position,” but it should be noted that there is no textual support whatsoever for the reading. To be sure, the textual evidence is quite corrupt in the case of 2 Apol. (see above), but the reading of Minns and Parvis raises the question of proper criteria for such “cutting and pasting.” In my view, their interpretation is problematic because it evokes this very question, namely: where exactly are the limits, or where should they be, for exercises of this sort when the textual support is lacking?

5 The first edition of Justin's Apologies, that of Robert Estienne (Stephanus) in 1551, was based on Parisinus graecus 450. The chapter divisions of the writings were added in 1762 by Prudence Maran. See further Marcovich, Apologiae, 5–8. A useful survey of the history of editions is found in Minns and Parvis, Apologies, 13–18.

6 Miroslav Marcovich, Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone (PTS 47; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997) viii. See also Wolfgang Schmid, “Die Textüberlieferung der Apologie des Justin,” ZNW 40 (1941) 87–138, at 87–128.

7 It should be noted that the (still earlier) references to Justin's Apologies in the works of Tatian, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, and Tertullian are of limited value for the restoration of Justin's original text; see Marcovich, Apologiae, 1.

8 Hist. eccl. 4.17.2–13.

9 For example, in Hist. eccl. 4.18.2 Eusebius claims that 2 Apol. was addressed to Marcus Aurelius (=Antoninus Verus), but that is entirely his own interpretation of Justin's text.

10 See Hist. eccl. 2.13.2; 4.16.1–2; 4.17.1; 4.18.2.

11 Hist. eccl. 4.17.1; see also 4.8.5.

12 See, e.g., Leslie W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 20; idem, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies (trans. idem; ACW 56; New York: Paulist Press, 1997) 12; P. Lorraine Buck, “Justin Martyr's Apologies: Their Number, Destination, and Form,” JTS 54 (2003) 45–59.

13 E.g., Marcovich, Apologiae, 3, 10.

14 See Hist. eccl. 4.11.8–10, where Eusebius quotes directly from 1 Apol. 26.5–8, claiming that the quotation derives from Justin's (now lost) treatise against Marcion ().

15 Hist. eccl. 4.16.1.

16 Marcovich, Apologiae, vii. See also Johannes Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907) 98. I cannot agree with Eric F. Osborn that “[t]he first apology is a carefully constructed work which reveals considerable rhetorical dexterity” (Justin Martyr [BHT 47; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1973] 11–12, further referring to the work of Ulrich Hüntemann, “Zur Kompositionstechnik Justins. Analyse seiner ersten Apologie,” TGl 25 [1933] 410–28).

17 The argument for the misplacement is primarily drawn from Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.17.13, where, having quoted the whole of chapter 2 in 2 Apol., he remarks: “To this Justin naturally () and suitably () adds () the words which we quoted above, ‘So I expect myself to suffer a plot from one of those named,’ etc.” (i.e., the beginning of ch. 8 in codex A) (trans. K. Lake; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926). For the argument that Eusebius’ words imply that chapter 8 is misplaced in codex A, see Marcovich, Apologiae, 4. I follow the most usual modern division of the text in the present essay (i.e., reading ch. 8 in codex A as ch. 3). For arguments against this order, see Minns and Parvis, Apologies, 54–56.

18 See (1 Apol. 12.5; 21.6; 22.2; 32.11; 45.6; 54.5, 7; 56.2; 58.1; 63.4; 67.5; compare , 26.6); (61.6; 63.2; 64.2); (60.6; 63.16); (56.1; compare 33.5, 6; 55.1; 59.1, 5); (33.5; compare 46.2; 54.5; 63.2). See also the following potential cases: (31.3; 37.1; 40.1; 42.3; 43.6; 64.1); (43.1); (22.4).

19 To be sure, Justin does not state explicitly in 1 Apol. 46.3 that Heraclitus was “hated and put to death” (2 Apol. 8.1). However, the context of the former deals in part with oppressed people, which makes it probable that Justin had this passage in mind in 2 Apol. 8.1. It should be noted that, contrary to Justin's claim in 2 Apol. 8.1, neither Heraclitus nor Musonius was actually “put to death.”

20 Exactly which statements is not entirely clear, but one possibility is 2 Apol. 7.5–7 (so Marcovich, Apologiae, ad loc.).

21 See, e.g., 1 Apol. 2.2–3; 3.5; 5.1; 9.4–5; 11.1; 12.3, 6, 11; 14.1; 40.16–19 (Ps 2.10–13); 68.2, 3.

22 Contra Buck, “Justin Martyr's Apologies,” who argues that the setting of both Apologies must be a literary fiction, partly because of “their inappropriate language and form” (59). It seems to me that Buck has overlooked the marked differences between 1 Apol. and 2 Apol. in this respect. Buck is right, I think, that Justin may have been familiar with the rhetorical concept of (“frankness of speech”) (see 1 Apol. 17.4), but she does not seem to have noticed that his somewhat more bold statements in 2 Apol. fall well within the frames of proper , even before the emperor (not so in the case of 1 Apol.).

23 The argument that the words and in 2 Apol. 15.5 form an inclusio with 1 Apol. 1–3 (1.1; 2.1, 2; 3.2), and thus imply that the two writings were originally one (see, e.g., Schmid, “Inversionsphänomen,” 263; Holfelder, “,” 51–60), does not carry much weight. It seems much more likely that, if anything, Justin's wish in 2 Apol. 15.5, “And would that you also, in a manner becoming piety and philosophy (), would … judge justly (),” alludes to 2.16 in the same writing, in which the Christian Lucius, seeing the “unreasonable judgment” () given by the urban prefect, criticized the latter for his judgment () which “does not become the Emperor Pius (), nor the philosopher-son of Caesar ().”

24 According to Marcovich, the words (and to Lucius the philosopher, Caesar's natural son and Pius's adopted son, a lover of culture) are a later addition; see Apologiae, 2 and ad loc.

25 Barnard, Apologies (see n. 12 above).

26 Marcovich is of the opinion that this address is a gloss (Apologiae, ad loc.). So also Minns and Parvis, Apologies, ad loc.

27 Barnard translates: “she gave him what is called a bill of divorce,” skipping the phrase

28 Barnard omits the pronoun in his translation. Note that I have translated the word as “petition,” which Barnard has rendered as “paper”; see the discussion below.

29 Barnard's translation slightly modified.

30 Note that translators often translate the subsequent clause in 12.6 as if the second-person (plural) is used in the Greek text: “such examples as now we have tried to persuade you in this discourse” (Barnard). But there is, strictly speaking, no “you” in the Greek text ().

31 See n. 26 above.

32 Barnard translates as “be converted.” On my translation, see further below.

33 Contrast the different mode of address in 1 Apol., as discussed above.

34 Admittedly, in 2 Apol. 2.16 Justin may simply be describing what this Lucius had actually said to the urban prefect. In that case, Justin's use of Lucius’ admonition as a rhetorical device is less apparent.

35 Is this also implied in 15.5? (“And would that you [] also, in a manner becoming piety and philosophy [], would for your own sakes judge justly.”)

36 Codex A lacks the opening address, but includes the following inscriptio: .

37 In Greek (based on Justin's terminology in 1 Apol. 1.1): [] . On the writing as a , see below. Note that my reconstruction of the opening address is purely hypothetical. The point is that, if 2 Apol. included an opening address (which I find likely), it may have been along these lines, especially in light of Justin's use of formulaic language of this sort in the opening of 1 Apol.

38 See esp. 1 Apol. 26.2; 44.8–10; 45.6; 56.2–4; 59.1; 60.10; 68.2, all statements of which would have sounded utterly ridiculous in the ears of the Romans. As for 2 Apol., only 1.1; 13.4a; 15.3a seem to come close to the character of 1 Apol. in this respect (note, however, how in the latter part of 15.3 Justin immediately makes an effort to soften his bold claim made at the beginning of the sentence).

39 Marcovich reads () instead of (Apologiae, ad loc.).

40 Compare the similar case of 2 Clement, which (in its present form) has no opening address and has been preserved as a “second” writing of Clement of Rome, in addition to 1 Clement (which, like Justin's 1 Apol., includes a rather lengthy opening address).

41 Trans. Barnard, slightly modified: instead of Barnard's “be converted” in 15.2, I translate the verb as “change their minds.”

42 See esp. Wolfram Kinzig, “Der ‘Sitz im Leben’ der Apologie in der Alten Kirche,” ZKG 100 (1989) 291–317; William R. Schoedel, “Apologetic Literature and Ambassadorial Activities,” HTR 82 (1989) 55–78 at 60, 74–78. See also Ehrhardt, “Apologies,” 4–5; Holfelder, “,” 248–51; Robert M. Grant, “Forms and Occasions of the Greek Apologists,” SMSR 52 (1986) 213–26 at 215–16; Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (trans. M. Steinhauser; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 268; Paul Parvis, “Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: The Posthumous Creation of the Second Apology,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds (ed. S. Parvis and P. Foster; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 22–37 at 25–26.

43 The terms libellus and are diminutives of liber and , respectively.

44 Hist. eccl. 4.16.1. Here Eusebius refers to 2 Apol. as a .

45 The whole procedure is thoroughly explained in Ulrich Wilcken, “Zu den Kaiserreskripten,” Hermes 55 (1920) 1–42; Anton von Premerstein, “a libellis, Libellus,” in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: Druckenmüller, 1926) 15–61; Wynne Williams, “The Libellus Procedure and the Severan Papyri,” JRS 64 (1974) 86–103; idem, “The Publication of Imperial Subscripts,” ZPE 40 (1980) 283–94; Fergus Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 bc – ad 337) (London: Duckworth, 1977) esp. 240–52, 537–49, 556–66; Max Kaser, Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (2nd ed.; HAW 10.3.4; München: Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1996) 570–76; Tor Hauken, Petition and Response: An Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors 181–249 (Monographs from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 2; Bergen: The Norwegian Institute at Athens, 1998) esp. 301–305.

46 Sometimes the petitions were presented in person by the petitioners themselves, i.e. if they had a sufficient social standing; see Fergus Millar, “Emperors at Work,” JRS 57 (1967) 9–19 at 9, 18–19; idem, Emperor, 208, 538.

47 See Millar, Emperor, 247–48. See also Ehrhardt, “Apologies,” 4–5.

48 See von Premerstein, “Libellus,” 30–31.

49 The libelli were published in the form of a single book, the so-called liber libellorum rescriptorum et propositorum. The publication took place in the emperor's current city of residence. The important Skaptopara inscription from the early third century c.e. shows that, in Rome, libelli were published “in the portico of the Baths of Trajan”; see the detailed study of this inscription in Hauken, Petition, 74–139.

50 For comparison, it may be noted that Justin calls 1 Apol. “address and request” (, 1.1) and “address and explanation” (, 68.3). For discussion of these terms, see Schoedel, “Apologetic Literature,” 75; Kinzig, “Apologie,” 304 with further references. It is worth observing that in 29.2–3 Justin speaks of a without implying that 1 Apol. was such a writing—yet another difference between 1 Apol. and 2 Apol.

51 Barnard's translation slightly modified. On the case of this woman and her husband, see further below.

52 On Buck's recent claim that 2 Apol. (and 1 Apol.) could not have been intended as a real petition, see n. 22 above. See also the criticism of Buck's article in Sebastian Moll, “Justin and the Pontic Wolf,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds (ed. S. Parvis and P. Foster; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 145–51 at 146–47.

53 Compare Schoedel, “Apologetic Literature,” 60: “Justin's work, even if he had in mind only the second apology, is ‘substantially longer than any libelli known to us from inscriptions or papyri,’” referring to Millar, Emperor, 563. It must be noted, however, that Millar is here referring to both Apologies as a single work. He writes: “There cannot be any certainty that we either possess or can reconstruct the original form of Justin's Apology or Apologies. As a literary work it was substantially longer than any libelli known to us from inscriptions or papyri, but since he himself calls it a libellus (biblidion in Greek) it must owe something to the libelli which ordinarily were presented to the emperors.” Millar believes in fact that there is much to support “the genuineness of Justin's work [i.e. both Apologies as a single work] as one actually presented to the emperor” (ibid.), despite its length.

54 On the use of the water-clock () to limit the time allotted to each appealer, see Schoedel, “Apologetic Literature,” 58, who notes that “the time provided must be measured in hours rather than minutes” (see, e.g., Pliny, Ep. 2.11.14).

55 Millar, Emperor, 242.

56 See Millar, Emperor, 548–49. He informs us: “It is indeed precisely the triviality of the issues concerned which is the most important fact about many of the libelli which his subjects presented to the emperor, and the subscriptiones which were issued in response to them” (549).

57 E.g., Keresztes, “Second Apology”; Holfelder, “”; Charles Munier, “La structure littéraire de l’Apologie de Justin,” RevScRel 60 (1986) 34–54; idem, Apologie, 29–43. See also Hubík, Apologien, 190–94. On the rhetorical structure of libelli in the late second and early third centuries c.e., see Hauken, Petition, 261–81.

58 Millar, Emperor, 242. See also Wilcken, “Kaiserreskripten,” 9–14; von Premerstein, “Libellus,” 31–34; Williams, “Libellus,” 87–88.

59 Millar, Emperor, 242.

60 For examples from the Egyptian papyri, see John L. White, Light From Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); from official (Republican) Roman letters, see Robert K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969); from Hellenistic royal and diplomatic letters (fourth to first century b.c.e.); see C. Bradford Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934).

61 For discussion (mainly in relation to the letters of Paul the apostle), see Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Paul's Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography (ConBNT 40; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003) 47–54, with a number of further examples from Greco-Roman letters.

62 Schoedel argues that “the length of the two apologies, whether taken separately or together, suggests the influence of forensic models” (“Apologetic Literature,” 76).

63 One excellent example is Demosthenes, Ep. 3, which is widely considered authentic. It was addressed to the Athenian Council and Assembly () at the end of the fourth century b.c.e. Near the close of the letter, which itself is an exceedingly long letter (15 pp. of Greek text in the LCL ed.), Demosthenes writes: “This complaint …, though now in outline only (), I would gladly enlarge upon a little later in a long letter (]” (37) (trans. N. W. DeWitt and N. J. DeWitt; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1949).

64 See n. 26 above.

65 Note, again, that Barnard translates the verb not as “change their minds” (my translation), but as “be converted.”

66 That, of course, is Justin's own interpretation, which does not have to be an accurate description of the actual situation. O. F. Robinson has argued that while there certainly was repression of Christians, “in the pre-Decian period, there was no ‘persecution’, in the sense of any statutory prohibition of, or sustained punishment for, the practice of the Christian religion” (“The Repression of Christians in the Pre-Decian Period: A Legal Problem Still,” The Irish Jurist 25–27 [1990–1992] 269–92 at 269). Justin's description may therefore be somewhat hyperbolic.

67 For discussion of the woman and her case, see Robert M. Grant, “A Woman of Rome: The Matron in Justin, 2 Apology 2.1–9,” CH 54 (1985) 461–72. See also P. Lorraine Buck, “The Pagan Husband in Justin, 2 Apology 2:1–20,” JTS 53 (2002) 541–46.

68 The fact that she managed to do so indicates her high social status; see further Lampe, From Paul, 237–40. We can only speculate as to what actually happened to the case of this woman, for Justin does not tell us. She disappears completely from the picture after the submission of her petition () to the emperor in 2.8.

69 Gerd Lüdemann has argued that this Ptolemaeus was the Valentinian Christian of that name; see Lüdemann's “Zur Geschichte des ältesten Christentums in Rom. I. Valentin und Marcion. II. Ptolemäus und Justin,” ZNW 70 (1979) 86–114, at 97–114. Lüdemann has been followed by Grant, “Woman,” and Lampe, From Paul, 239–40, the former of whom argues that the “certain woman” in Justin's text was none other than Flora to whom Ptolemaeus (the Valentinian) wrote a letter (Lampe finds this likely as well).

70 Some scholars claim that there is actually no proper request put forth in 2 Apol. (Schmid, “Inversionsphänomen,” 263; Parvis, “Justin,” 26; see also Minns and Parvis, Apologies, 25). But such a claim seems farfetched in light of 14.1, where Justin explicitly says what it is that he is requesting, namely, that his be published enclosing the emperor's statement of opinion (), not about just anything, but about the (in Justin's argument) unreasonable treatment of the Christians, which would then be manifest to all.

71 Justin's repeated insistence (1.1; 14.1–2; 15.5) that he is writing, not for his own sake, but for the sake of the (non-Christian) Romans, is a Socratic theme, probably influenced by Plato's Apology; see Apol. 30d: “And so, men of Athens, I am now making my defence not for my own sake, as one might imagine, but far more for yours (), that you may not by condemning me err in your treatment of the gift the God gave you” (trans. H. N. Fowler; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914). See also 1 Apol. 8.1.

72 E.g., Barnard, Apologies, ad loc.

73 If so, it was a terrible effort on Justin's part—that goes for both Apologies. For such a purpose, something like his account in Dial. 1–8, esp. chapter 2, would have served better; see Grant, Greek Apologists, 51.

74 See 1 Apol. 43.6; 45.6; 57.1.

75 On apologia as a generic term in relation to Justin's and other early Christian “Apologies,” see the recent discussion (and criticism) in Kinzig, “Apologie”; Frances Young, “Greek Apologists of the Second Century,” in Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (ed. M. Edwards, M. Goodman, and S. Price; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 81–104; Sara Parvis, “Justin Martyr and the Apologetic Tradition,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds (ed. S. Parvis and P. Foster; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 115–27.

76 That is, if chapter 8 in codex A is read as chapter 3, as is usually done today (see the discussion above). However, reading the text according to the chapter division of codex A does not have any major consequences for my interpretation here; for in that case, the chapter under discussion (ch. 3/8) quite properly follows directly after a discussion of oppression of virtuous individuals (if “pagan”), with implied allusions to chapter 2.

77 The phrase “what has recently happened” ( … , 1.1) must refer primarily to the interrogation and execution of the three Christians, rather than to the twist between the woman and her (former) husband (both of whom, in my view, are secondary in Justin's story; contra Grant, “Woman,” and Buck, “Husband”). The phrases “for a long period” (, 2.11) and “at last” (, 2.12) suggest that some time had passed since the charges were brought against the woman.

78 On the debate between Justin and Crescens, see also Tatian, Orat. 19; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.16.

79 See further my forthcoming article, “Justin's Debate with Crescens the Stoic,” in which I argue that Crescens was a Stoic philosopher rather than a “Cynic” (see 2 Apol. 3.7).

80 See also Kinzig, “Apologie,” 308–9, who similarly emphasizes the personal motive behind Justin's text, if not as strongly as I shall do below.

81 Note how Justin appeals to the authorities, the emperor in particular, to “judge justly” () in 15.5: “And would that you also, in a manner becoming piety and philosophy, would for your own sakes judge justly!”

82 See Thorsteinsson, Paul's Interlocutor, 41–43, with a number of examples from ancient letters and further references to the scholarly discussion.

83 Examples of disclosure formulas in the Pauline literature include Rom 1.13; 11.25; 1 Cor 10.1; 11.3; 12.1; 2 Cor 1.8; Phil 1.12; Col 2.1; 1 Thess 4.13. That Justin knew the letters of Paul is argued, e.g., by Oskar Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds (ed. S. Parvis and P. Foster; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 53–76 at 74–75.

84 See further the useful discussion in Ernst Benz, “Christus und Sokrates in der alten Kirche. Ein Beitrag zum altkirchlichen Verständnis des Märtyrers und des Martyriums,” ZNW 43 (1950–1951) 195–224, at 199–209.

85 Person references in quotations, whether literary or non-literary (e.g., 2 Apol. 2.16–17), are excluded. Hypothetical remarks made by imaginary interlocutors are also excluded (e.g., 2 Apol. 4.1; 12.7).

86 Grant, Greek Apologists, 10. Useful attempts to locate Justin in his social setting include Lampe, From Paul, 257–84; H. Gregory Snyder, “‘Above the Bath of Myrtinus’: Justin Martyr's ‘School’ in the City of Rome,” HTR 100 (2007) 335–62.