that of Stepha-
hended, and brought before the tribunal of Rus- nus, fol.
hended, and brought before the tribunal of Rus- nus, fol.
William Smith - 1844 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - b
1), which arose out of the ruins, and in the im-
We must not omit to remark that the quotations mediate vicinity of the ancient town, called She
from Trogus found in Pliny appear to be all taken chem in the Old Testament and Sychar in the
from a treatise De Animalibus mentioned by New. The year of his birth is not known: Dod-
Charisius (p. 79. ed. Putsch. ), and not from his well, Grabe (Spicileg. SS. Patrum, saec. ii. p. 147),
histories.
and the Bollandists (Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. ii.
The Editio Princeps of Justin was printed at p. 110, note c), conjecture from a passage of Epi-
Venice by Jenson, 4to. 1470, and another very phanius (Adv. Haeres. xlvi. 1), which, as it now
early impression which appeared at Rome without stands, is clearly erroneous, that he was born about
date or name of printer is ascribed by bibliogra- A. D. 89 ; but this conjecture (which is adopted by
phers to the same or the following year. The first Fabricius) is very uncertain, though sufficiently in
critical edition was that of Marcus Antonius Sabel-accordance with the known facts of his history,
licus, published along with Florus at Venice, fol. Tillemont and Ceillier place the birth of Justin in
1490, and again in 1497 and 1507 : it was super- A. D. 103, Maran in a. D. 114, Halloix in A. d. 118.
seded by that of Aldus, 8vo. Venet. 1522 ; the He was the son of Priscus Bacchius, or rather of
volume containing also Cornelius Nepos ; and this Priscus, the son of Bacchius, and was brought
in turn gave way to that of Bongarsius, 8vo. Paris, up as a heathen ; for though he calls himself a
1581, in which the text was revised with great Samaritan (-Apolog. Secunda, c. 15, Dialog. cum
care, and illustrated by useful commentaries; but | Tryphone, c. 120), he appears to mean no more
conjectural emendations were too freely admitted. than that he was born in the country of Samaria,
Superior in accuracy to any of the preceding is the not that he held that Semi-Judaism which was so
larger edition of Graevius, 8vo. Lug. Bat. 1683; prevalent among bis countrymen. (Comp. Apolog.
that of Hearne, 8vo. Oxon. 1705 ; and above all, Prima, c. 53, sub med. ) He devoted himself to
those of Gronovius, Lug. Bat. 1719 and 1760, be philosophy, and for a considerable time studied the
longing to the series of Variorum Classics, in 8vo. system of the Stoics, under a teacher of that sect;
The last of these is in a great measure followed by but not obtaining that knowledge of the Deity
Frotscher, 3 vols. 8vo. Lips. 1827, whose labours which he desired, and finding that his teacher un-
exhibit this author under his best form.
dervalued such knowledge, he transferred himself
Numerous translations have from time to time to a Peripatetic, who plumed himself on his acute-
appeared in all the principal languages of Europe. ness, whom, however, he soon left, being disgusted
The earliest English version is that executed by at his avarice, and therefore judging him not to be
Arthur Goldinge, printed at London in 4to, by a philosopher at all. Still thirsting after phi-
Tho. Marshe, 1564, and again in 1570, with the losophical acquirements, he next resorted to a Py-
following title, “ Thabridge Mente of the Histo thagorean teacher of considerable reputation, but
ries of Trogus Pompeius, gathered and written in was rejected by him, as not having the requisite
the Laten tung, by the famous historiographer preliminary acquaintance with the sciences of mu-
Justine, and translated into English by Arthur sic, geometry, and astronomy. Though at first
Goldinge: a worke containing brefly great plentye disheartened and mortified by his repulse, he de
of moste delectable Historyes and notable exam- termined to try the Platonists, and attended the
ples, worthy not only to be read, but also to bee instructions of an eminent teacher of his native
embraced and followed of al men.
Newlie con-
town, under whom he became a proficient in the
ferred with the Latin copye, and corrected by the Platonic system. His mind was much puffed up
Translator. Anno Domini 1570. Imprinted at by the study of incorporeal existences, and espe-
London by Th. Marshe. ” We have also transla- cially by the Platonic doctrine of ideas, so that he
tions by Codrington, 12mo. Lond. 1654; by soon conceived he had become wise ; and so greatly
Thomas Brown, 12mo. Lond. 1712; by Nicolas were his expectations raised, that, says he, “ I fool-
Bayley, 8vo. Lond. 1732 ; by John Clarke, 8vo. ishly hoped that I should soon behold the Deity. "
Lond. 1732 ; and by Turnbull, 12mo. Lond. Under the influence of these notions he soughe op-
1746; most of which have passed through several portunities for solitary meditation ; and one day,
editions.
going to a lone place near the sea, he met with an
## p. 683 (#699) ############################################
JUSTINUS.
683
JUSTINUS.
al-
old man, of meek and venerable aspect, by whom ran in A. D. 168. Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum,
he was convinced that Plato, although the most April. vol. ii. p. 107), assigning the Apologia Se-
illustrious of the heathen philosophers, was either cunda of Justin to the year 171, contends that he
unacquainted with many things, or had erroneous must have lived to or beyond that time. Dodwell,
notions of them; and he was recommended to the on the contrary, following the erroneous statement
study of the Hebrew prophets, as being men who, of Eusebius in his Chronicon, places his death in
guided by the Spirit of God, had alone seen and the reign of Antoninus Pius ; and Epiphanius, ac-
revealed ihe truth, and had foretold the coming of cording to the present reading of the passage
the Christ. The conversation of this old man with ready referred to, which is most likely corrupt,
Justin, which is narrated with considerable fulness places it in the reign of the enperor lladrian or
by the latter (Dial, cum Tryph. c. 3, &c. ), led to Adrian, a manifest crror, as the Apologia Prima is
Justin's conversion. He had, while a Platonist, addressed to Antoninus Pius, the successor of Ila-
heard of the calumnies propagated against the drian, and the second probably to Marcus Aurelius
Christians, but had hardly been able to credit and L. Verus, who succeeded Antoninus. The
them. (Apolog. Secunda, c. 12. ) The date of his death of Justin has been very commonly ascribed
conversion is doubtful. The Bollandists place it (comp. Tatian. contra Gruecos, c. 19; Euseb.
in A. D. 119; Cave, Tillemont, Ceillier, and others, H. E. iv. 10, and Chron. Puschale), to the ma-
in A. D. 133; and Halloix about A. D. 140. chinations of the Cynic philosopher Cresccns. The
Whether Justin had lived wholly at Flavia ennuity of Crescens, and Justin's apprehension of
Neapolis before his conversion is not quite clear: injury from him, are mentioned by Justin himself
that it had been his chief place of abode we have (Apolog. Secunda, c. 3); but that Crescens really
every reason to believe. Otto conjectured, from a had any concern in his death is very doubtful.
passage in his works (Cohortat. ad Gracc. c. 13), (Crescens. ] Justin has been canonized by the
that he had studied at Alexandria ; but, from the Eastern and Western churches : the Greeks cele-
circumstance that while in that city he had seen brate his memory on the 1st June ; the Latins on
with interest the remains of the cells huilt, accord- the 13th April. At Rome the church of S. Lorenzo
ing to the Jewish tradition, for the authors of the without the walls, is believed to be the resting-
Septuagint version of the Old Testament, we are place of his remains ; but the church of the Jesuits
disposed to place his visit to Alexandria after his at Eystadt, in Germany, claims to possess bis
conversion. He appears to have had while yet a body ; there is, however, no reason to believe that
heathen an opportunity of seeing the firmness with either claim is well founded. The more common
which the Christians braved suffering and death epithet added to the name of Justin by the ancients
(Apol. Secunda, c. 12), but we have no means of is that of “ the philosopher " (Epiphan. l. c. ; Euseb.
knowing where or on what occasion.
Chronicon, lib. ii. ; Hieronym. de Vir. Ilust. c. xxiii. ;
Justin retained as a Christian the garb of a phi- Chron. Paschale, l. c. ; Georgius Syncellus, pp. 350,
losopher, and devoted himself to the propagation, 351, ed. Paris, p. 279, ed. Venice ; Glycas, Annal.
by writing and otherwise, of the faith which he pars iii. p. 241, ed. Paris, 186, ed. Venice, 449,
had embraced. Tillemont argues from the language ed. Bonn); that of the martyr," now in general
of Justin (Apolog. Prima, c. 61, 65) that he was a
use,
is employed by Tertullian (Adv. Valent. c. 5),
priest, but his inference is not borne out by the who calls him “philosophus et martyr; by Pho-
passage ; and though approved by Maran, is rejected tius (Biblioth. cod. 48, 125, 232), and by Joannes
by Otto, Neander, and Semisch. That he visited Damascenus (Sacra Parall. vol. ii. p. 754, ed. Le-
many places, in order to diffuse the knowledge of quien), who, like Tertullian, conjoins the two
the Christian religion, is probable (comp. Cohorlat. epithets.
ud Graec. cc. 13, 34), and he appears to have made In our notice of the works of Justin Martyr we
the profession of a philosopher subservient to this adopt the classification of his recent editor, J. C. T.
purpose. (Dialog. cum Tryphon. init. ; Euseb. Otto, by whom they are divided into four classes.
H. E. iv. 11 ; Phot. Bibl. cod. 125. ) According I. UNDISPUTED WORKS. 1. 'Afología nórn
to what is commonly deemed the ancient record of υπέρ Χριστιανών προς 'Αντωνίνον τον Ευσεβή.
his martyrdom (though Papebroche considers it to Apologia prima pro Christianis ad Antoninum Pium.
narrate the death of another Justin), he visited In the only two known MSS. of the Apologies, and
Rome twice. On his second visit he was appre. in the older editions of Justin, e. g.
that of Stepha-
hended, and brought before the tribunal of Rus- nus, fol. Paris, 1551, and that of Syīburg, fol. Heidel-
ticus, who held the office of praefectus urbi ; and burg, 1593, this is described as his Second Apology.
as he refused to offer sacrifice to the gods, he was It is the longer of the two Apologies, and is one of
sentenced to be scourged and beheaded; which sen- the most interesting remains of Christian antiquity.
tence appears to have been jinmediately carried It is addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius and
into effect. Several other persons suffered with to his adopted sons - Verissimus the Philosopher,"
him. Papebroche rejects this account of his mar- afterwards the emperor M. Aurelius, and “ Lucius
tyrdom, and thinks his execution was secret, the Philosopher" (we follow the common reading,
80 that the date and manner of it were never not that of Eusebius), afterwards the emperor Verus,
known: the Greek Menaea (a d. 1 Junii) state colleague of M. Aurelius. From the circunstance
that he drank hemlock. His death is generally that " Verissimus” is not styled Caesar, which dig-
considered to have taken place in the persecution nity he acquired in the course of A. D. 139, it is
nnder the emperor Marcus Antoninus ; and the inferred by many critics, including Pagi, Neander,
Chronicon Paschale, (vol. i. p. 258, ed. Paris, 207, Otto, and Semisch, that the Apology was written
ed. Venice, 482, ed Bonn), which is followed by previously, and probably early in that year. Eu-
Tillemont, Baronius, Pagi, Otto, and other moderns, sebius places it in the fourth year of Antoninus, or
places it in the consulship of Orphitus and Pudens, the first year of the 230th Olympiad, A. D. 1+1,
A. D. 165 ; Dupin and Semisch place it in A. D. which is rather too late. Others contend for a
166, Fleury in A. D. 167, and Tillemont and Ma | later date still. Justin himself, in the course of
99
## p. 684 (#700) ############################################
684
JUSTINUS.
JUSTINUS.
the work (c. 46), states that Christ was born a describes himself as a Jew “Aying from the war
hundred and fifty years before he wrote, but he now raging," probably occasioned by the revolt
must be understood as speaking in round numbers. under Barchochebas, in the reign of Hadrian, A. D.
However, Tillemont, Grabe, Fleury, Ceillier, Maran, 132–134. But though the discussion probably
and others, fix the date of the work in A. d. 150. took place at this time, it was not committed to
To this Apology of Justin are commonly subjoined writing, at least not finished, till some years after,
three documents. (1. ) 'Adpravoù un èp Xplotlaw as Justin makes a reference to his first Apology,
ÈTIOTON), Adriani pro Christianis Epistola, or which is assigned as we have seen to a. D. 138
Exemplum Epistolae Imperatoris Adriani ad Minu- or 139. It has been conjectured that Trypho is
cium Fundanum, Procunsulem Asiae. This Greek the Rabbi Tarphon of the Talmudists, teacher
version of the emperor's letter was made and is or colleague of the celebrated Rabbi Akiba, but
given by Eusebius (II. E. iv. 9. ) Justin had sub- he does not appear as a rabbi in the dialogue.
joined to his work the Latin original (Euseb. II. E. The dialogue is, perhaps, founded upon the con-
iv. 8), which probably is still preserved by Rufinus versation of Justin with Trypho, rather than an
in his version of Eusebius, for which in the work of accurate record of it; but the notices of persons,
Justin the version of Eusebius was afterwards sube and especially the interesting account of Justin's
stituted. (2. ) 'Artwvivou & IOTO) apds to Kouvor own studies and conversion, are likely to be generally
This 'Aolas, Antonini Epistola ad Commune Asiae. correct. It appears to be mutilated, but to what
It is hardly likely that this document was inserted extent is a matter of dispute. Two fragments are
in its place by Justin himself ; it has probably been assigned to it by Grabe, Spicileg. Saec. ii. p. 175;
added since his time, and its genuineness is subject but it is doubtful with what correctness.
to considerable doubt. It is given, but with con- It is to be observed, that although Otto ranks
siderable variation, by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 13), the Dialogus cum Tryphone among the undisputed
andwns written, according to the text of the letter works of Justin, its genuineness has been repeatedly
itself as it appears in Eusebius, not by Antoninus, attacked. The first assault was by C. G. Koch, of
but by his successor M. Aurelius. (3). Mápkou Apenrade, in the Duchy of Sleswick (Justini Mar-
βασιλέως επιστολή προς την σύγκλητον, έν turis Dialogus cum Tryphone. . . νοθεύσεως. . con-
μαρτυρεί Χριστιανούς αιτίους γεγενήσθαι της νίκης | victus), but this attack was regarded as of little
autwv, Marci Imperatoris Epistola ad Senatum qua moment. That of Wetstein (Prolog. in Nov. Test.
testatur Christianos victoriae causam fuisse. This vol. i. p. 66), founded on the difference of the
letter, the spuriousness of which is generally ad- citations from the text of the LXX. and their
mitted (though it is said by Tertullian, Apologet. agreement with that of the Hexaplar edition of Ori.
cap. 5, that a letter of the same tenor was written gen, and perhaps of the version of Symmacbus, which
by the emperor), relates to the famous miracle of are both later than the time of Justin, was more
the thundering legion. (M. AURELIUS, p. 441]. serious, and has called forth elaborate replies from
2. 'Apoloyía deutépa útèp Tậv Xplotiavwv após Krom (Diatribe de Authentia Dialog. Just. Martyr.
TTV 'Pwualcov oúykanTOV, A pologia Secunda pro cum Trypl. &c. 8vo. 1778), Eichhorn (Einleitung
Christianis ad Senatum Romanum. This second in das A. T. ), and Kredner (Beitrage zur Ein-
and shorter Plea for the Christians was addressed leitung, &c. ). The attack was renewed at a later
probably to the emperors M. Aurelius and Lucius period by Lange, but with little result. An account
Verus, or rather to Aurelius alone, as Verus was of the controversy is given by Semisch (book ii.
engaged in the East, in the Parthian war.
It was
sect. i. ch. 2), who contends earnestly for the
written on occasion of an act of gross injustice and genuineness of the work. It may be observed
cruelty, committed by Urbicus, praefectus urbi at that the genuineness even of the two Apologies
Rome, where Justin then was. Neander adopts the was attacked by the learned but eccentric Hardouin.
opinion maintained formerly by Valesius, that this II. DISPUTED OR DOUBTFUL WORKS. 4. nóyos
Apology (placed in the older editions before the apòs“ExAnvas, Oratio ad Graecos. If this is indeed
longer one just described) was addressed to Antoninus a work of Justin, which we think very doubtful,
Pius : but Eusebius (H. E. iv. 17, 18), and Photius it is probably that described by Eusebius (H. E.
(Bibl. cod. 125), among the ancients ; and Dupin, iv. 18) as treating Tepl tîs twv daluóvwv qúo ews
Pagi, Tillemont, Grabe, Ruinart, Ceillier, Maran, (Comp. Phot. Bibl. cod. 125); and by Jerome (De
Mosheim, Semisch, and Otto, among the moderns, Vir. Illustr. c. 23) as being “de Daemonum natura ;”
maintain the opposite side. Otto thinks it was for it is a severe attack on the flagitious immoral-
written about A. D. 164 ; others place it somewhat ities ascribed by the heathens to their deities, and
later. Scaliger (Animadv. in Chron. Euseb. p. 219), committed by themselves in their religious festivals.
and Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum, Aprilis, vol. ii. p. Its identity, however, with the work respecting
106), consider that this second A pology of Justin is demons is doubted by many critics. Cave sup
simply an introduction or preface to the first, and poses it to be a portion of the work next mentioned.
that the Apology presented to Aurelius and Verus Its genuineness has been on various grounds dis
has been lost; but their opinion has been refuted puted by Oudin, Semler, Semisch, and others; and
by several writers, especially by Otto. Two Frag- is doubted by Grabe, Dupin, and Neander. The
menta, given by Grabe in his Spicileg. Saecul. grounds of objection are well stated by Semisch
ii. p. 173, are supposed by him to belong to the book ii. sect. ii. c. 1). But the genuineness of
second Apology, in the present copies of which they the piece is asserted by Tillemont, Ceillier, Care,
are not found ; but the correctness of this sup- Maran, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
position is very doubtful. 3. Mpòs Tpuocava 'lov- others, and by Otto, who has argued the ques-
dalov diálovos, Cum Tryphone Judaeo Dialogus. tion, we think, with very doubtful success. II
This dialogue, in which Justin defends Christianity the work be that described by Eusebius it must
against the objections of Trypho, professes to be be mutilated, for the dissertation on the nature of the
the record of an actual discussion, held, according daemons or heathen deities is said by Eusebius to
to Eusebius (H. E. iv. 18), at Ephesus. Trypho have been only a part of the work, but it now con-
## p. 685 (#701) ############################################
JUSTINUS.
685
JUSTINUS.
stitutes the whole. 5. Λόγος Παραινετικός προς“Έλ- | 9. 'Έκθεσις της ορθής ομολογίας, Espositio redtas
Anvas, Cohortatio ad Graecos. This is, perhaps, Confessionis. Possibly this is the work cited as
another of the works mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome Justin's by Leontius of Byzantium, in the sixth cen.
and Photius (U. cc. ); namely, the one said by them tury; but it was little known in Western Europe till
to have been entitled by the author"Encyxos, Confu- the time of the Reformation, when it was received
tatio, or perhaps Toll naatwvos éneyxos, Plutonis by some of the reformers, as Calvin, as a genuine
Confulatio (Phot. Bibl. cod. 232), though the title work of Justin, and by others, as Melancthon and
has been dropped. Others are disposed to identify the Magdeburg Centuriators, placed among the
the work last described with the Confutatio. The works of doubtful genuineness. But it is now
genuineness of the extant work has been disputed, generally allowed that the precision of its orthodoxy
chiefly on the ground of internal evidence, by and the use of various terms not in use in Justin's
Oudin, and by some German scholars (Semler, time, make it evident that it was written at any
Arendt, and Herbig); and is spoken of with doubt rate after the commencement of the Arian contro-
by Neander; but has been generally received as versy, and probably after the Nestorian, or even the
genuine, and is defended by Maran, Semisch (b. ii. Eutychian controversy. Gmbe, Ceillier, and some
sect. i. c. 3), and Otto. It is a much longer piece others ascribe it to Justinus Siculus (No. 3). 10
than the Oratio ad Graecos. 6. Περί μοναρχίας, 'Αποκρίσεις προς τους ορθοδόξους περί τινών αναγ.
De Monarchia. The title is thus given in the Kalwr Sntnuátwv, Responsiones ad Orthodaros de
MSS.
We must not omit to remark that the quotations mediate vicinity of the ancient town, called She
from Trogus found in Pliny appear to be all taken chem in the Old Testament and Sychar in the
from a treatise De Animalibus mentioned by New. The year of his birth is not known: Dod-
Charisius (p. 79. ed. Putsch. ), and not from his well, Grabe (Spicileg. SS. Patrum, saec. ii. p. 147),
histories.
and the Bollandists (Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. ii.
The Editio Princeps of Justin was printed at p. 110, note c), conjecture from a passage of Epi-
Venice by Jenson, 4to. 1470, and another very phanius (Adv. Haeres. xlvi. 1), which, as it now
early impression which appeared at Rome without stands, is clearly erroneous, that he was born about
date or name of printer is ascribed by bibliogra- A. D. 89 ; but this conjecture (which is adopted by
phers to the same or the following year. The first Fabricius) is very uncertain, though sufficiently in
critical edition was that of Marcus Antonius Sabel-accordance with the known facts of his history,
licus, published along with Florus at Venice, fol. Tillemont and Ceillier place the birth of Justin in
1490, and again in 1497 and 1507 : it was super- A. D. 103, Maran in a. D. 114, Halloix in A. d. 118.
seded by that of Aldus, 8vo. Venet. 1522 ; the He was the son of Priscus Bacchius, or rather of
volume containing also Cornelius Nepos ; and this Priscus, the son of Bacchius, and was brought
in turn gave way to that of Bongarsius, 8vo. Paris, up as a heathen ; for though he calls himself a
1581, in which the text was revised with great Samaritan (-Apolog. Secunda, c. 15, Dialog. cum
care, and illustrated by useful commentaries; but | Tryphone, c. 120), he appears to mean no more
conjectural emendations were too freely admitted. than that he was born in the country of Samaria,
Superior in accuracy to any of the preceding is the not that he held that Semi-Judaism which was so
larger edition of Graevius, 8vo. Lug. Bat. 1683; prevalent among bis countrymen. (Comp. Apolog.
that of Hearne, 8vo. Oxon. 1705 ; and above all, Prima, c. 53, sub med. ) He devoted himself to
those of Gronovius, Lug. Bat. 1719 and 1760, be philosophy, and for a considerable time studied the
longing to the series of Variorum Classics, in 8vo. system of the Stoics, under a teacher of that sect;
The last of these is in a great measure followed by but not obtaining that knowledge of the Deity
Frotscher, 3 vols. 8vo. Lips. 1827, whose labours which he desired, and finding that his teacher un-
exhibit this author under his best form.
dervalued such knowledge, he transferred himself
Numerous translations have from time to time to a Peripatetic, who plumed himself on his acute-
appeared in all the principal languages of Europe. ness, whom, however, he soon left, being disgusted
The earliest English version is that executed by at his avarice, and therefore judging him not to be
Arthur Goldinge, printed at London in 4to, by a philosopher at all. Still thirsting after phi-
Tho. Marshe, 1564, and again in 1570, with the losophical acquirements, he next resorted to a Py-
following title, “ Thabridge Mente of the Histo thagorean teacher of considerable reputation, but
ries of Trogus Pompeius, gathered and written in was rejected by him, as not having the requisite
the Laten tung, by the famous historiographer preliminary acquaintance with the sciences of mu-
Justine, and translated into English by Arthur sic, geometry, and astronomy. Though at first
Goldinge: a worke containing brefly great plentye disheartened and mortified by his repulse, he de
of moste delectable Historyes and notable exam- termined to try the Platonists, and attended the
ples, worthy not only to be read, but also to bee instructions of an eminent teacher of his native
embraced and followed of al men.
Newlie con-
town, under whom he became a proficient in the
ferred with the Latin copye, and corrected by the Platonic system. His mind was much puffed up
Translator. Anno Domini 1570. Imprinted at by the study of incorporeal existences, and espe-
London by Th. Marshe. ” We have also transla- cially by the Platonic doctrine of ideas, so that he
tions by Codrington, 12mo. Lond. 1654; by soon conceived he had become wise ; and so greatly
Thomas Brown, 12mo. Lond. 1712; by Nicolas were his expectations raised, that, says he, “ I fool-
Bayley, 8vo. Lond. 1732 ; by John Clarke, 8vo. ishly hoped that I should soon behold the Deity. "
Lond. 1732 ; and by Turnbull, 12mo. Lond. Under the influence of these notions he soughe op-
1746; most of which have passed through several portunities for solitary meditation ; and one day,
editions.
going to a lone place near the sea, he met with an
## p. 683 (#699) ############################################
JUSTINUS.
683
JUSTINUS.
al-
old man, of meek and venerable aspect, by whom ran in A. D. 168. Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum,
he was convinced that Plato, although the most April. vol. ii. p. 107), assigning the Apologia Se-
illustrious of the heathen philosophers, was either cunda of Justin to the year 171, contends that he
unacquainted with many things, or had erroneous must have lived to or beyond that time. Dodwell,
notions of them; and he was recommended to the on the contrary, following the erroneous statement
study of the Hebrew prophets, as being men who, of Eusebius in his Chronicon, places his death in
guided by the Spirit of God, had alone seen and the reign of Antoninus Pius ; and Epiphanius, ac-
revealed ihe truth, and had foretold the coming of cording to the present reading of the passage
the Christ. The conversation of this old man with ready referred to, which is most likely corrupt,
Justin, which is narrated with considerable fulness places it in the reign of the enperor lladrian or
by the latter (Dial, cum Tryph. c. 3, &c. ), led to Adrian, a manifest crror, as the Apologia Prima is
Justin's conversion. He had, while a Platonist, addressed to Antoninus Pius, the successor of Ila-
heard of the calumnies propagated against the drian, and the second probably to Marcus Aurelius
Christians, but had hardly been able to credit and L. Verus, who succeeded Antoninus. The
them. (Apolog. Secunda, c. 12. ) The date of his death of Justin has been very commonly ascribed
conversion is doubtful. The Bollandists place it (comp. Tatian. contra Gruecos, c. 19; Euseb.
in A. D. 119; Cave, Tillemont, Ceillier, and others, H. E. iv. 10, and Chron. Puschale), to the ma-
in A. D. 133; and Halloix about A. D. 140. chinations of the Cynic philosopher Cresccns. The
Whether Justin had lived wholly at Flavia ennuity of Crescens, and Justin's apprehension of
Neapolis before his conversion is not quite clear: injury from him, are mentioned by Justin himself
that it had been his chief place of abode we have (Apolog. Secunda, c. 3); but that Crescens really
every reason to believe. Otto conjectured, from a had any concern in his death is very doubtful.
passage in his works (Cohortat. ad Gracc. c. 13), (Crescens. ] Justin has been canonized by the
that he had studied at Alexandria ; but, from the Eastern and Western churches : the Greeks cele-
circumstance that while in that city he had seen brate his memory on the 1st June ; the Latins on
with interest the remains of the cells huilt, accord- the 13th April. At Rome the church of S. Lorenzo
ing to the Jewish tradition, for the authors of the without the walls, is believed to be the resting-
Septuagint version of the Old Testament, we are place of his remains ; but the church of the Jesuits
disposed to place his visit to Alexandria after his at Eystadt, in Germany, claims to possess bis
conversion. He appears to have had while yet a body ; there is, however, no reason to believe that
heathen an opportunity of seeing the firmness with either claim is well founded. The more common
which the Christians braved suffering and death epithet added to the name of Justin by the ancients
(Apol. Secunda, c. 12), but we have no means of is that of “ the philosopher " (Epiphan. l. c. ; Euseb.
knowing where or on what occasion.
Chronicon, lib. ii. ; Hieronym. de Vir. Ilust. c. xxiii. ;
Justin retained as a Christian the garb of a phi- Chron. Paschale, l. c. ; Georgius Syncellus, pp. 350,
losopher, and devoted himself to the propagation, 351, ed. Paris, p. 279, ed. Venice ; Glycas, Annal.
by writing and otherwise, of the faith which he pars iii. p. 241, ed. Paris, 186, ed. Venice, 449,
had embraced. Tillemont argues from the language ed. Bonn); that of the martyr," now in general
of Justin (Apolog. Prima, c. 61, 65) that he was a
use,
is employed by Tertullian (Adv. Valent. c. 5),
priest, but his inference is not borne out by the who calls him “philosophus et martyr; by Pho-
passage ; and though approved by Maran, is rejected tius (Biblioth. cod. 48, 125, 232), and by Joannes
by Otto, Neander, and Semisch. That he visited Damascenus (Sacra Parall. vol. ii. p. 754, ed. Le-
many places, in order to diffuse the knowledge of quien), who, like Tertullian, conjoins the two
the Christian religion, is probable (comp. Cohorlat. epithets.
ud Graec. cc. 13, 34), and he appears to have made In our notice of the works of Justin Martyr we
the profession of a philosopher subservient to this adopt the classification of his recent editor, J. C. T.
purpose. (Dialog. cum Tryphon. init. ; Euseb. Otto, by whom they are divided into four classes.
H. E. iv. 11 ; Phot. Bibl. cod. 125. ) According I. UNDISPUTED WORKS. 1. 'Afología nórn
to what is commonly deemed the ancient record of υπέρ Χριστιανών προς 'Αντωνίνον τον Ευσεβή.
his martyrdom (though Papebroche considers it to Apologia prima pro Christianis ad Antoninum Pium.
narrate the death of another Justin), he visited In the only two known MSS. of the Apologies, and
Rome twice. On his second visit he was appre. in the older editions of Justin, e. g.
that of Stepha-
hended, and brought before the tribunal of Rus- nus, fol. Paris, 1551, and that of Syīburg, fol. Heidel-
ticus, who held the office of praefectus urbi ; and burg, 1593, this is described as his Second Apology.
as he refused to offer sacrifice to the gods, he was It is the longer of the two Apologies, and is one of
sentenced to be scourged and beheaded; which sen- the most interesting remains of Christian antiquity.
tence appears to have been jinmediately carried It is addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius and
into effect. Several other persons suffered with to his adopted sons - Verissimus the Philosopher,"
him. Papebroche rejects this account of his mar- afterwards the emperor M. Aurelius, and “ Lucius
tyrdom, and thinks his execution was secret, the Philosopher" (we follow the common reading,
80 that the date and manner of it were never not that of Eusebius), afterwards the emperor Verus,
known: the Greek Menaea (a d. 1 Junii) state colleague of M. Aurelius. From the circunstance
that he drank hemlock. His death is generally that " Verissimus” is not styled Caesar, which dig-
considered to have taken place in the persecution nity he acquired in the course of A. D. 139, it is
nnder the emperor Marcus Antoninus ; and the inferred by many critics, including Pagi, Neander,
Chronicon Paschale, (vol. i. p. 258, ed. Paris, 207, Otto, and Semisch, that the Apology was written
ed. Venice, 482, ed Bonn), which is followed by previously, and probably early in that year. Eu-
Tillemont, Baronius, Pagi, Otto, and other moderns, sebius places it in the fourth year of Antoninus, or
places it in the consulship of Orphitus and Pudens, the first year of the 230th Olympiad, A. D. 1+1,
A. D. 165 ; Dupin and Semisch place it in A. D. which is rather too late. Others contend for a
166, Fleury in A. D. 167, and Tillemont and Ma | later date still. Justin himself, in the course of
99
## p. 684 (#700) ############################################
684
JUSTINUS.
JUSTINUS.
the work (c. 46), states that Christ was born a describes himself as a Jew “Aying from the war
hundred and fifty years before he wrote, but he now raging," probably occasioned by the revolt
must be understood as speaking in round numbers. under Barchochebas, in the reign of Hadrian, A. D.
However, Tillemont, Grabe, Fleury, Ceillier, Maran, 132–134. But though the discussion probably
and others, fix the date of the work in A. d. 150. took place at this time, it was not committed to
To this Apology of Justin are commonly subjoined writing, at least not finished, till some years after,
three documents. (1. ) 'Adpravoù un èp Xplotlaw as Justin makes a reference to his first Apology,
ÈTIOTON), Adriani pro Christianis Epistola, or which is assigned as we have seen to a. D. 138
Exemplum Epistolae Imperatoris Adriani ad Minu- or 139. It has been conjectured that Trypho is
cium Fundanum, Procunsulem Asiae. This Greek the Rabbi Tarphon of the Talmudists, teacher
version of the emperor's letter was made and is or colleague of the celebrated Rabbi Akiba, but
given by Eusebius (II. E. iv. 9. ) Justin had sub- he does not appear as a rabbi in the dialogue.
joined to his work the Latin original (Euseb. II. E. The dialogue is, perhaps, founded upon the con-
iv. 8), which probably is still preserved by Rufinus versation of Justin with Trypho, rather than an
in his version of Eusebius, for which in the work of accurate record of it; but the notices of persons,
Justin the version of Eusebius was afterwards sube and especially the interesting account of Justin's
stituted. (2. ) 'Artwvivou & IOTO) apds to Kouvor own studies and conversion, are likely to be generally
This 'Aolas, Antonini Epistola ad Commune Asiae. correct. It appears to be mutilated, but to what
It is hardly likely that this document was inserted extent is a matter of dispute. Two fragments are
in its place by Justin himself ; it has probably been assigned to it by Grabe, Spicileg. Saec. ii. p. 175;
added since his time, and its genuineness is subject but it is doubtful with what correctness.
to considerable doubt. It is given, but with con- It is to be observed, that although Otto ranks
siderable variation, by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 13), the Dialogus cum Tryphone among the undisputed
andwns written, according to the text of the letter works of Justin, its genuineness has been repeatedly
itself as it appears in Eusebius, not by Antoninus, attacked. The first assault was by C. G. Koch, of
but by his successor M. Aurelius. (3). Mápkou Apenrade, in the Duchy of Sleswick (Justini Mar-
βασιλέως επιστολή προς την σύγκλητον, έν turis Dialogus cum Tryphone. . . νοθεύσεως. . con-
μαρτυρεί Χριστιανούς αιτίους γεγενήσθαι της νίκης | victus), but this attack was regarded as of little
autwv, Marci Imperatoris Epistola ad Senatum qua moment. That of Wetstein (Prolog. in Nov. Test.
testatur Christianos victoriae causam fuisse. This vol. i. p. 66), founded on the difference of the
letter, the spuriousness of which is generally ad- citations from the text of the LXX. and their
mitted (though it is said by Tertullian, Apologet. agreement with that of the Hexaplar edition of Ori.
cap. 5, that a letter of the same tenor was written gen, and perhaps of the version of Symmacbus, which
by the emperor), relates to the famous miracle of are both later than the time of Justin, was more
the thundering legion. (M. AURELIUS, p. 441]. serious, and has called forth elaborate replies from
2. 'Apoloyía deutépa útèp Tậv Xplotiavwv após Krom (Diatribe de Authentia Dialog. Just. Martyr.
TTV 'Pwualcov oúykanTOV, A pologia Secunda pro cum Trypl. &c. 8vo. 1778), Eichhorn (Einleitung
Christianis ad Senatum Romanum. This second in das A. T. ), and Kredner (Beitrage zur Ein-
and shorter Plea for the Christians was addressed leitung, &c. ). The attack was renewed at a later
probably to the emperors M. Aurelius and Lucius period by Lange, but with little result. An account
Verus, or rather to Aurelius alone, as Verus was of the controversy is given by Semisch (book ii.
engaged in the East, in the Parthian war.
It was
sect. i. ch. 2), who contends earnestly for the
written on occasion of an act of gross injustice and genuineness of the work. It may be observed
cruelty, committed by Urbicus, praefectus urbi at that the genuineness even of the two Apologies
Rome, where Justin then was. Neander adopts the was attacked by the learned but eccentric Hardouin.
opinion maintained formerly by Valesius, that this II. DISPUTED OR DOUBTFUL WORKS. 4. nóyos
Apology (placed in the older editions before the apòs“ExAnvas, Oratio ad Graecos. If this is indeed
longer one just described) was addressed to Antoninus a work of Justin, which we think very doubtful,
Pius : but Eusebius (H. E. iv. 17, 18), and Photius it is probably that described by Eusebius (H. E.
(Bibl. cod. 125), among the ancients ; and Dupin, iv. 18) as treating Tepl tîs twv daluóvwv qúo ews
Pagi, Tillemont, Grabe, Ruinart, Ceillier, Maran, (Comp. Phot. Bibl. cod. 125); and by Jerome (De
Mosheim, Semisch, and Otto, among the moderns, Vir. Illustr. c. 23) as being “de Daemonum natura ;”
maintain the opposite side. Otto thinks it was for it is a severe attack on the flagitious immoral-
written about A. D. 164 ; others place it somewhat ities ascribed by the heathens to their deities, and
later. Scaliger (Animadv. in Chron. Euseb. p. 219), committed by themselves in their religious festivals.
and Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum, Aprilis, vol. ii. p. Its identity, however, with the work respecting
106), consider that this second A pology of Justin is demons is doubted by many critics. Cave sup
simply an introduction or preface to the first, and poses it to be a portion of the work next mentioned.
that the Apology presented to Aurelius and Verus Its genuineness has been on various grounds dis
has been lost; but their opinion has been refuted puted by Oudin, Semler, Semisch, and others; and
by several writers, especially by Otto. Two Frag- is doubted by Grabe, Dupin, and Neander. The
menta, given by Grabe in his Spicileg. Saecul. grounds of objection are well stated by Semisch
ii. p. 173, are supposed by him to belong to the book ii. sect. ii. c. 1). But the genuineness of
second Apology, in the present copies of which they the piece is asserted by Tillemont, Ceillier, Care,
are not found ; but the correctness of this sup- Maran, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
position is very doubtful. 3. Mpòs Tpuocava 'lov- others, and by Otto, who has argued the ques-
dalov diálovos, Cum Tryphone Judaeo Dialogus. tion, we think, with very doubtful success. II
This dialogue, in which Justin defends Christianity the work be that described by Eusebius it must
against the objections of Trypho, professes to be be mutilated, for the dissertation on the nature of the
the record of an actual discussion, held, according daemons or heathen deities is said by Eusebius to
to Eusebius (H. E. iv. 18), at Ephesus. Trypho have been only a part of the work, but it now con-
## p. 685 (#701) ############################################
JUSTINUS.
685
JUSTINUS.
stitutes the whole. 5. Λόγος Παραινετικός προς“Έλ- | 9. 'Έκθεσις της ορθής ομολογίας, Espositio redtas
Anvas, Cohortatio ad Graecos. This is, perhaps, Confessionis. Possibly this is the work cited as
another of the works mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome Justin's by Leontius of Byzantium, in the sixth cen.
and Photius (U. cc. ); namely, the one said by them tury; but it was little known in Western Europe till
to have been entitled by the author"Encyxos, Confu- the time of the Reformation, when it was received
tatio, or perhaps Toll naatwvos éneyxos, Plutonis by some of the reformers, as Calvin, as a genuine
Confulatio (Phot. Bibl. cod. 232), though the title work of Justin, and by others, as Melancthon and
has been dropped. Others are disposed to identify the Magdeburg Centuriators, placed among the
the work last described with the Confutatio. The works of doubtful genuineness. But it is now
genuineness of the extant work has been disputed, generally allowed that the precision of its orthodoxy
chiefly on the ground of internal evidence, by and the use of various terms not in use in Justin's
Oudin, and by some German scholars (Semler, time, make it evident that it was written at any
Arendt, and Herbig); and is spoken of with doubt rate after the commencement of the Arian contro-
by Neander; but has been generally received as versy, and probably after the Nestorian, or even the
genuine, and is defended by Maran, Semisch (b. ii. Eutychian controversy. Gmbe, Ceillier, and some
sect. i. c. 3), and Otto. It is a much longer piece others ascribe it to Justinus Siculus (No. 3). 10
than the Oratio ad Graecos. 6. Περί μοναρχίας, 'Αποκρίσεις προς τους ορθοδόξους περί τινών αναγ.
De Monarchia. The title is thus given in the Kalwr Sntnuátwv, Responsiones ad Orthodaros de
MSS.
