The interesting thing is that, according to later Christians, this Ptolemy was a heretic. The Ptolemy who wrote to Flora belonged to a group of Christians known as the Valentinians. If Justin is describing the death of the very same Ptolemy, then this would mean that one of the earliest Christian martyrs was a heretic. The fact that he is valorized by Justin would only add to the irony. After all, Justin was the first Christian to claim that there were no heretical martyrs! There’s a distinct possibility that, in preserving the story of Ptolemy’s martyrdom, he just contradicted himself.
This is not just a coincidence. That the same play on words used by Justin in the First Apology appears here in the Acts of Ptolemy and Lucius suggests that Justin is the source of both statements. Given that the remainder of Lucius’s statements are also thematically similar to other parts of Justin’s First Apology, it stands to reason that Justin invented them all. Justin has used Lucius as another opportunity to make his case. He has fraudulently but effectively harnessed the rhetorical power of the “famous last words” of a heroic martyr to further his argument. We’ll never know for certain what Lucius said or even if there was a Lucius at all. All we have is a literary mouthpiece for Justin’s own views. In sum, it seems that the fact of Ptolemy’s and Lucius’s executions is secure. The content of their beliefs, their words at their trials, and the course of the events, however, have been heavily shaped by Justin. We don’t know what Ptolemy and Lucius actually said or even what they stood for. What we know is what Justin wants us to think: that Christians were convicted merely for being Christians, but that Christianity was really just another kind of philosophy. We might sympathize with Justin’s message and even his intentions, but we cannot say that this is the whole truth.