When Bisbee compared the Acts of Justin and Companions with this formula, he noticed that the Acts of Justin does not follow this pattern precisely. It preserves the most important structural elements of a trial, for instance, the verdict and sentence, but it meanders from the expected legal script. There are specific elements missing. This led Bisbee to argue that, although perhaps the Acts of Justin is derived from a court report, it has “been edited to a greater or lesser extent throughout.” He goes on to say that he suspects “that entire sections of the acts have been interpolated or substantially edited.”
The earliest recension appears to be an edited version of a court document. The problem is very few people read the earliest version. They read what is known as the “middle recension,” or recension B. This version is an expanded and edited version of the earlier text. It makes Justin appear more philosophical and Rusticus more unreasonable. This version is read because it is the version that Christian historian Eusebius preserves in his Church History and because the earliest version wasn’t even published until the twentieth century. The irony here is that Christians continue to use the demonstrably less authentic text merely because it’s traditional.
Leave a Reply