THE PAGAN HUSBAND IN JUSTIN, 2 APOLOGY 2:120

I N the second chapter of his Second Apology, Justin Martyr recounts the following story. There was a certain Roman matron whose pagan husband, despite her pleas, refused to join her in abandoning their licentious past and adopting the Christian moral code. At the urging of her friends, she continued to live with him in the hope of his eventual transformation. But when news reached her of his worsening behaviour in Alexandria, she sent him a repudium or bill of divorce, for fear that, by sharing his table and his bed, she would be implicated in his impiety. Incensed that his wife had left him against his will, the husband denounced her to the authorities as a Christian. Upon appeal to the emperor, the matron was granted a delay in her trial to put her a^airs in order. The husband, thus prevented from pursuing his case against her, turned his rage upon her catechist, Ptolemaeus, having him charged with Christianity, tortured in prison, and ultimately executed. Two other Christians who questioned the court proceedings at Ptolemaeus trial were also martyred.1 When discussing this narrative in his article, A Woman of Rome: The Matron in Justin, 2 Apology 2.19,2 Robert M. Grant makes two basic assumptions: one, that the Roman woman is the heroine of the story,3 i.e., the penitent wife who bravely petitions the emperor when unjustly denounced by her malevolent ex-husband;4 and two, that the martyrdoms of Ptolemaeus and the two Christian onlookers have no direct connection with the story [of the Roman matron].5 Such assumptions, however, cannot be supported, for when this story is examined in both its entirety and its proper context, it becomes evident that Justins primary interest lies, not with the Roman matron, but with the pagan husband. In fact, Justins graphic description of the husband provides what is clearly our
1 This is a paraphrase of Justins story in 2 Apology 2:120. All quotations from this Apology will be taken from the following translation: Saint Justin Martyr, trans. Thomas B. Falls (The Fathers of the Church; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 19652). All references to Justins Second Apology will be made as follows: (Chapter:Line) or (1:1), (2:1), etc. 2 Church History 54 (1985), pp. 46172. 3 Ibid. p. 461. 4 Ibid. p. 463. 5 Ibid. p. 462.
# Oxford University Press 2002

[Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 53, Pt. 2, October 2002]

542 P. LORRAINE BUCK most complete psychological prole of a second-century pagan delator. If Justin conceived of the Roman matron as the protagonist of the story, as Grant suggests, one could reasonably expect him to provide a fulsome exposition of her change of heart and behaviour. Yet Justins description of the womans transformation is sketchy at best: After learning the doctrines of Christ, she became a self-controlled person and tried to e^ect a similar change in her husband (2:2); she considered it sinful to continue living with a husband who actively sought unnatural sex (2:4); and she gave him a bill of divorce in order not to participate in his sinful and impious acts by continuing to live with him by sharing his table and his bed (2:6). Such a brief description can hardly do justice to the character of a so-called Roman heroine. Moreover, what one gleans about the matron from Justins account is far from laudatory. Despite the many examples of martyrdom a^orded by Roman Christians like her catechist Ptolemaeus, the Roman matron, when charged with Christianity, shows little interest in abandoning the things of this world and following their lead. In fact, she demonstrates a surprising determination both to settle her a^airs by seeking a delay in her trial and to be vindicated of the charge by defending herself in court. Since Justin gives no information about the woman once she was granted her request, it is tempting to conclude, as Grant has done, that the charge of Christianity was rejected by the emperor.6 Moreover, despite Grants contention that the womans attitude toward her husbands behaviour is strongly inuenced by an ascetic rigor,7 and despite evidence from texts such as the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles that women were strongly attracted to ascetic forms of Christianity, it is clear that the Roman woman was not interested in embarking on the ascetic life either before or after her divorce. She does not, for example, ask her husband for a celibate marriage, but simply urges him to practise self-control (svwronei n)in other words, to be content with a normal sexual relationship which does not contravene her newly-acquired beliefs (2:2). It is unlikely, moreover, that she was practising asceticism after her divorce, for if this had been the case, Justin would surely have mentioned it. In fact, whether a baptized Christian or simply an adherent of Christs teachings as Grant surmises, the Roman woman is
6 7

Ibid. p. 468. Ibid. p. 464.

THE PAGAN HUSBAND IN JUSTIN 543 hardly a model of Christian submissiveness or obedience. By persistently and aggressively urging her husband to abandon his sexual exploits and to follow her example of self-restraint, she departs from the counsel of 1 Peter (3:1) that women should win over their pagan husbands without a word being said, i.e., by demonstrating chaste and sober behaviour.8 Moreover, by eagerly seeking a divorce from her husband, she contravenes Pauls teaching in 1 Corinthians (7:1216) that women should stay with their pagan spouses in the hope of converting them.9 While it is dangerous to assume that all early Christians followed New Testament precepts with equal rigidity, Justin makes it clear not only that the womans friends urged her to remain with her husband in the hope of his eventual conversion, but also that she sent him a bill of divorce on the mere rumour of his worsening behaviour in Alexandria (2:6). Thus, if this story is meant to depict a moral triumph for Christianity with the Roman matron as its focus, Justin has painted a most unattering picture of his heroine. A much more persuasive interpretation would be that the central gure in this story is the Roman husband, for Justin has created a graphic prole of this individual by presenting him from two very di^erent, but equally despicable sides, i.e., from the perspectives both of his wife and of her catechist, Ptolemaeus. In recounting the delation of the Roman matron, Justin is able to expose the gross immorality of the husband by contrasting his lascivious conduct with that of his newly-reformed spouse. Indeed, the husbands unbridled lust, his obstinate refusal to change his behaviour, and his desire that his wife continue participating in his debaucheries are clearly emphasized by the contrast with the wifes self-control, her patience with her husbands impiety, and her desire to distance herself from his sinful acts. Moreover, Justins reference to her repugnance at sharing his table and bed is a further, but more subtle, condemnation of the husbands immorality, for in early Christianity, the two notions of food and sex were strongly linked as communicators of vice. This is evident, for example, in Revelation 2:20, where the author rebukes the Christians in Thyatira for tolerating the prophetess Jezebel, who beguiles the servants into practising immorality and eating food sacriced to idols.
8 9

This quotation is taken from the Revised Standard Version. Margaret Y. MacDonald points to both these New Testament passages in her book, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 2056.

544 P. LORRAINE BUCK What Justin is saying, therefore, is that the husbands actions are so impious that the wife is repelled at the thought of physical intimacy with him, fearing that his evil might somehow enter and contaminate her.10 In his account of Ptolemaeus delation, moreover, Justin is able to demonstrate the husbands outrageous brutality. He accomplishes this by contrasting the behaviour of the husband, who bribes a centurion to enquire into Ptolemaeus beliefs and who has him ruthlessly abused in prison, with that of Ptolemaeus himself, who accepts his unfortunate circumstances with both honour and courage. The ultimate comparison, however, is manifested in the tranquillity and resignation with which the catechist faces martyrdom and the rage and arrogance with which the husband faces rejection. Yet not only Ptolemaeus, but also the two onlookers at his trial illuminate the wickedness of the husband, for while the latter acts unjustly towards Ptolemaeus and compels him to forfeit his life, his two fellow Christians stand up against injustice and pay with their own lives. That Justins interest in this narrative was directed at the pagan husband is further substantiated by the discussion which immediately follows. In the third chapter of his Apology, Justin continues his theme of self-seeking pagans by describing the unconscionable conduct of the Cynic Crescens and Justins own fear of denunciation at his hands. In public disputations, Justin writes, this so-called philosopher accuses us in matters of which he is ignorant, claiming that Christians are atheists and irreligious, and doing this just to please and to gain the support of the deceived mob _ I put certain questions to him on this matter and I learned most assuredly that he truly knows nothing (3:24). Indeed, Justin fully expects that Crescens, intent on captivating the crowds, will soon denounce him to the authorities in order to silence the competition. In other words, he believes that Crescens, like the pagan husband, will use the system of private delation as a means to personal gain. Nor was Justin exaggerating the prevalence of this problem. As evidenced by the governor Pliny in his letter to Trajan, the unpopularity of Christians gave ample opportunity for anonymous and suspicious accusations:
Before long, as is often the case, the mere fact that the charge [of Christianity] was taken notice of made it commoner, and several distinct

10

Ibid. pp. 20810.

THE PAGAN HUSBAND IN JUSTIN

545

cases arose. An unsigned paper was presented, which gave the names of many.11

That many of these delators were accusing Christians strictly for the purpose of securing benets or of settling personal scores is similarly demonstrated in Trajans reply to Pliny that Christians were not to be sought out and that any unsigned or anonymous papers, such as Pliny had already received, were not to be admitted. These, he opines, are a very bad example and unworthy of our time.12 This problem, moreover, was not short lived. In his rescript to the Proconsul of Asia, Trajans successor Hadrian expresses concern about both the frequency of such accusations and the confusion and hysteria surrounding them:
If _ the subjects of your province can back up their complaint against the Christians, so as to accuse them in court, I do not object to their doing so, but I cannot allow them to proceed solely by noisy demands and shouts. It is far more appropriate, if anyone wishes to make an accusation, that you decide [the question].13

Clearly the citizens of Asia Minor were accustomed to denouncing Christians, not by submitting signed papers, but by creating such disturbances that the proconsul was obliged to seek counsel from Rome. They were obviously aware of the many benets of such delations and were well primed to take advantage of them. Indeed, the central focus of Justins narrative can only be the ruthless pagan husband who denounces to the authorities two innocent Christians. Yet one must ask, given that the system of private delation was legal and well established under Roman law, why Justin felt compelled to bring this story to public notice. The answer has to be that Justin was endeavouring to disclose, as he himself conrms (1:1), the cause of the unjust events occurring in Rome, i.e., not the system of private delation per se, but the growing numbers of unscrupulous pagans who were using this system to further their own ends. Unfortunately for Justin, his e^orts proved too little too late. Shortly thereafter, as expected,

11 Pliny, Ep. 10.96, as translated in J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius (London: SPCK, 19872), pp. 2021. 12 Pliny, Ep. 10.97, as translated in J. Stevenson, ibid. 13 This rescript was attached to Justins First Apology and is translated by Falls, op. cit., p. 108.

546 P. LORRAINE BUCK he was denounced by the philosopher Crescens who saw private delation as a means of securing both popularity and revenge.14 Justins story, therefore, must not be interpreted as an encomium of an unnamed Roman matron: the victimized wife who, cleaving to the moral code of her new faith, renounces both her husband and his sinful exploits. When considered in both its entirety and its proper context, this story is an attempt to expose to public view the outrage being perpetrated against innocent Christians, i.e., not simply the legal and accepted, if deplorable, practice of denouncing Christians to the Roman authorities, but the perverse use of this system by increasing numbers of pagans for their own personal gain. Unbeknownst to Justin, however, he was doing much more than this, for his narrative has provided posterity with its most complete and informative prole of a second-century pagan delator: an individual whose character was lewd and depraved, whose methods were little less than savage, and whose motives were base and contemptible. Such a graphic depiction is invaluable to the study of second-century pagan delation, and its importance must not be overlooked in our scholarly enthusiasm for hagiography. P. LORRAINE BUCK

14 As indicated by Eusebius, HE 4.16, who quotes Tatian, Or. 19; see also, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, trans. Herbert Musurillo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 4261.