Justin, Philosopher and Martyr. Apologies (review)

Justin, Philosopher and Martyr. Apologies is an edition of Justin Martyr's two apologies comprising text, translation, commentary, and introduction. The editors hypothesize that the text of Parisinus graecus 450 has undergone considerable editing and correcting over the years by overzealous scribes seeking to smooth out damaged or illegible text. They thus aim to "recover as far as possible the Greek that Justin wrote," and hence they make what is perhaps their boldest restoration, viz. moving what, in the manuscript, is the last two chapters of the Second Apology to the end of the First Apology, producing a document that begins with an imperial address and concludes with a request for subscription.

Their attempt to recover the actual text of Justin is also evident in the English translation, which tries to pinpoint the structure of Justin's arguments. The result is a modern, accessible, and accurate, although not slavish, reflection of the Greek. Readers who are unfamiliar with Justin's apologies, however, need to be wary of the relocation of text from the Second to the First Apology, which is signaled in the translation only by a footnote.

The commentary, in very thorough and often lengthy footnotes, explains the many difficulties in the text and the editors' reasons for their proposed emendations. The focus of the footnotes is very definitely centered on textual problems, straying only occasionally into explanation or clarification of content. This, according to the editors, is what makes their edition of Justin's apologies complementary to and different from that of Charles Munier.

The introduction is intended as an introduction to the text and its problems rather than to Justin the philosopher or theologian. Accordingly, it begins by presenting one of the difficult problems with which any editor of Justin must contend: the number of apologies. This problem, the editors maintain, can be reduced to one question: what kind of text is the so-called Second Apology? They offer two possible answers. The first is the "covering speech theory," viz. that the Second Apology was "intending or pretending" (26) to be a covering speech accompanying the First Apology. The second is the "clippings from the cutting room floor theory," viz. that the Second Apology comprises Justin's notes that were later gathered and published, possibly by his disciples. The editors favor the latter.

The fact that the editors suggest and endorse two such diametrically opposed views, however, leaves this reader wondering if they have an overall vision for these works. Is the Second Apology a cover letter to an imperial petition, i.e. is it coherent and presentable enough for imperial eyes, or is it little more than a "series of disconnected fragments" (27) from Justin's alleged notebook? Is it more likely that the Second Apology accompanied the First as a cover letter or that it was published years later, possibly even after Justin's death? Questions also arise from the discussion of the First Apology. On the one hand, the First Apology is described as a petition, since this was the only means open to a man like Justin for approaching the emperor (25f.). On the other, it is described as a speech or oration in the standard five parts, despite the fact that there was no reason why any ordinary petitioner would think he could present a speech of that length to the emperor (26). This, of course, raises the question of the apologies' purpose. The editors seem to accept that the First Apology was intended as an imperial petition. If this is the case, and we move the request for subscription from the Second to the First Apology, we are still left, using either theory of the Second Apology, with a First Apology that is abnormally, if not ridiculously, long (25), and with a second-century Christian philosopher who thinks he will get the emperor's ear if he "hijack[s] a normal piece of Roman administrative procedure and turn[s] it into a device for getting...