1. Surnamed the MARTYR (ὁ Μάρτυς
), or the PHILOSOPHER (ὁ Φιλόσοφος
), one of the earliest of the Christian writers, was a native of Flavia Neapolis, or the New City of Flavia (Justin. Apolog. Prima,
c. 1), which arose out of the ruins, and in the immediate vicinity of the ancient town, called Shechem in the Old Testament and Sychar in the New.
The year of his birth is not known: Dodwell, Grabe (Spicileg. SS. Patrum,
saec. ii. p. 147), and the Bollandists (Acta Sanctorum, April.
vol. ii. p. 110, note c), conjecture from a passage of Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres.
46.1), which, as it now stands, is clearly erroneous, that he was born about A. D. 89; but this conjecture (which is adopted by Fabricius) is very uncertain, though sufficiently in accordance with the known facts of his history. Tillemnont and Ceillier place the birth of Justin in A. D. 103, Maran in A. D. 114, Halloix in A. D. 118.
He was the son of Priscus Bacchius, or rather of Priscus, the son of Bacchius, and was brought up as a heathen; for though he calls himself a Samaritan (Apoloq. Secunda,
100.15, Dialog. cuma Tryphone,
100.120), he appears to mean no more than that he was born in the country of Samaria, not that he held that Semi-Judaism which was so prevalent among his countrymen. (Comp. Apolog. Prima,
100.53, sub med.)
He devoted himself to philosophy, and for a considerable time studied the system of the Stoics, under a teacher of that sect; but not obtaining that knowledge of the Deity which he desired, and finding that his teacher undervalued such knowledge, he transferred himself to a Peripatetic, who plumed himself on his acuteness, whom, however, he soon left, being disgusted at his avarice, and therefore judging him not to be a philosopher at all. Still thirsting after philosophical acquirements, he next resorted to a Pythagorean teacher of considerable reputation, but was rejected by him, as not having the requisite preliminary acquaintance with the sciences of music, geometry, and astronomy. Though at first disheartened and mortified by his repulse, he determined to try the Platonists, and attended the instructions of an eminent teacher of his native town, under whom he became a proficient in the Platonic system. His mind was much puffed up by the study of incorporeal -existences, and especially by the Platonic doctrine of ideas, so that he soon conceived he had become wise; and so greatly were his expectations raised, that, says he," I foolishly hoped that I should soon behold the Deity." Under the influence of these notions he sought opportunities for solitary meditation; and one day, going to a lone place near the sea, he met with an old man, of meek and venerable aspect, by whom he was convinced that Plato, although the most illustrious of the heathen philosophers, was either unacquainted with many things, or had erroneous notions of them; and he was recommended to the study of the Hebrew prophets, as being men who, guided by the Spirit of God, had alone seen and revealed the truth, and had foretold the coming of the Christ.
The conversation of this old man with Justin, which is narrated with considerable fulness by the latter (Dial. cum Tryph.
100.3, &c.), led to Justin's conversion.
He had, while a Platonist, heard of the calumnies propagated against the Christians, but had hardly been able to credit them. (Apolog. Secunda,
The date of his conversion is doubtful. The Bollandists place it in A. D. 119; Cave, Tillemont, Ceillier, and others, in A. D. 133; and Halloix about A. D. 140.
Whether Justin had lived wholly at Flavia Neapolis before his conversion is not quite clear: that it had been his chief place of abode we have every reason to believe. Otto conjectured, from a passage in his works (Cohortat. ad Graec.
100.13), that he had studied at Alexandria; but, from the circumstance that while in that city he had seen with interest the remains of the cells built, according to the Jewish tradition, for the authors of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, we are disposed to place his visit to Alexandria after his conversion.
He appears to have had while yet a heathen an opportunity of seeing the firmness with which the Christians braved suffering and death (Apol. Secunda,
100.12), but we have no means of knowing where or on what occasion.
Justin retained as a Christian the garb of a philosopher, and devoted himself to the propagation, by writing and otherwise, of the faith which he had embraced. Tillemont argues from the language of Justin (Apolog. Prima,
100.61, 65) that he was a priest, but his inference is not borne out by the passage; and though approved by Maran, is rejected by Otto, Neander, and Semisch.
That he visited many places, in order to diffuse the knowledge of the Christian religion, is probable (comp. Cohortat. ad Graec.
cc. 13, 34), and he appears to have made the profession of a philosopher subservient to this purpose. (Dialog. cum Tryphon.
init.; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.11
; Phot. Bibl.
According to what is commonly deemed the ancient record of his martyrdom (though Papebroche considers it to narrate the death of another Justin), he visited Rome twice. On his second visit he was apprehended, and brought before the tribunal of Rusticus, who held the office of praefectus urbi; and as he refused to offer sacrifice to the gods, he was sentenced to be scourged and beheaded; which sentence appears to have been immediately carried into effect. Several other persons suffered with him. Papebroche rejects this account of his martyrdom, and thinks his execution was secret, so that the date and manner of it were never known: the Greek Menaea
(a. d. 1 Junii) state that he drank hemlock. His death is generally considered to have taken place in the persecution under the emperor Marcus Antoninus; and the Chronicon Paschale,
(vol.i. p. 258, ed. Paris, 207, ed. Venice, 482, ed Bonn), which is followed by Tillemont, Baronius, Pagi, Otto, and other moderns, places it in the consulship of Orphitus and Pudens, A. D. 165; Dupin and Semisch place it in A. D. 166, Fleury in A. D. 167, and Tillemont and Maran in A. D. 168. Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum, April.
vol. ii. p. 107), assigning the Apologia Secunda
of Justin to the year 171, contends that he must have lived to or beyond that time. Dodwell, on the contrary, following the erroneous statement of Eusebius in his Chronicon,
places his death in the reign of Antoninus Pius; and Epiphanius, according to the present reading of the passage already referred to, which is most likely corrupt, places it in the reign of the emperor Hadrian or Adrian, a manifest error, as the Apologia Prima
is addressed to Antoninus Pius, the successor of Hadrian, and the second probably to Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus, who succeeded Antoninus.
The death of Justin has been very commonly ascribed (comp. Tatian. contra Graecos,
100.19; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.16
, and Chron. Paschale
), to the machinations of the Cynic philosopher Crescens.
The enmity of Crescens, and Justin's apprehension of injury from him, are mentioned by Justin himself (Apolog. Secunda,
100.3); but that Crescens really had any concern in his death is very doubtful. [CRESCENS.] Justin has been canonized by the Eastern and Western churches: the Greeks celebrate his memory on the 1st June; the Latins on the 13th April. At Rome the church of S. Lorenzo without the walls, is believed to be the restingplace of his remains; but the church of the Jesuits at Eystadt, in Germany, claims to possess his body; there is, however, no reason to believe that either claim is well founded.
The more common epithet added to the name of Justin by the ancients is that of " the philosopher " (Epiphan. l.c.
; Euseb. Chironicon,
lib. ii.; Hieronym. de Vir. Illust.
c. xxiii.; Chron. Paschale, l.c.;
Georgius Syncellus, pp. 350, 351, ed. Paris, p. 279, ed. Venice; Glycas, Annal.
pars iii. p. 241, ed. Paris, 186, ed. Venice, 449, ed. Bonn); that of "the martyr," now in general use, is employed by Tertullian (Adv. Valent.
100.5), who calls him " philosophus et martyr; " by Photius (Biblioth.
cod. 48, 125, 232), and by Joannes Damascenus (Sacra Parall.
vol. ii. p. 754, ed. Lequien), who, like Tertullian, conjoins the two epithets.
In our notice of the works of Justin Martyr we adopt the classification of his recent editor, J. C. T. Otto, by whom they are divided into four classes.
I. Undisputed Works.
In the only two known MSS. of the Apologies, and in the older editions of Justin, e. g. that of Stephanus, fol. Paris, 1551, and that of Sylburg, fol. Heidelburg, 1593, this is described as his Second Apology.
It is the longer of the two Apologies, and is one of the most interesting remains of Christian antiquity.
It is addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius and to his adopted sons "Verissimus the Philosopher," afterwards the emperor M. Aurelius, and " Lucius the Philosopher" (we follow the common reading, not that of Eusebius), afterwards the emperor Verus, colleague of M. Aurelius. From the circumstance that " Verissimus" is not styled Caesar, which dignity he acquired in the course of A. D. 139, it is inferred by many critics, including Pagi, Neander, Otto, and Semisch, that the Apology was written previously, and probably early in that year. Eusebius places it in the fourth year of Antoninus, or the first year of the 230th Olympiad, A. D. 141, which is rather too late. Others contend for a later date still. Justin himself, in the course of the work (100.46), states that Christ was born a hundred and fifty years before he wrote, but he must be understood as speaking in round numbers. However,Tillemont, Grabe, Fleury, Ceillier, Maran, and others, fix the date of the work in A. D. 150. To this Apology of Justin are commonly subjoined three documents. (1.) Ἀδριανοῦ ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν ἐπιστολή
, Adriani pro Christianis Epistola,
or Exemplum Epistolae Imperatoris Adriani ad Minucium Fundanum, Proconsulem Asiae.
This Greek version of the emperor's letter was made and is given by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.9
.) Justin had subjoined to his work the Latin original (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.8
), which probably is still preserved by Rufinus in his version of Eusebius, for which in the work of Justin the version of Eusebius was afterwards substituted. (2.) Ἀντωνίνου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τῆς Ἀσίας
, Antonini Epistola ad Commune Asiae.
It is hardly likely that this document was inserted in its place by Justin himself; it has probably been added since his time, and its genuineness is subject to considerable doubt.
It is given, but with considerable variation, by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.13
), andwas written, according to the text of the letter itself as it appears in Eusebius, not by Antoninus, but by his successor M. Aurelius. (3). Μάρκου βασιλέως ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὴν σύγκλητον, ἐν ᾗ μαρτυρεῖ Χριστιανοὺς αἰτίους γεγενῆσθαι τῆς νίκης αὐτῶν
, Marci Imperatoris Epistola ad Senatum qua testatur Christianos victoriae causam fuisse.
This letter, the spuriousness of which is generally admitted (though it is said by Tertullian, Apologet.
by the emperor), relates to the famous miracle of cap. 5, that a letter of the same tenor was written the thundering legion. [M. AURELIUS, p. 441].
This second and shorter Plea for the Christians was addressed probably to the emperors M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus, or rather to Aurelius alone, as Verus was engaged in the East, in the Parthian war.
It was written on occasion of an act of gross injustice and cruelty, committed by Urbicus, praefectus urbi at Rome, where Justin then was. Neander adopts the opinion maintained formerly by Valesius, that this Apology (placed in the older editions before the longerone just described) was addressedto Antoninus Pius: but Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.17
), and Photius (Bibl.
cod. 125), among the ancients; and Dupin, Pagi, Tillemont, Grabe, Ruinart, Ceillier, Maran, Mosheim, Semisch, and Otto, among the moderns, maintain the opposite side. Otto thinks it was written about A. D. 164; others place it somewhat later. Scaliger (Animadv. in Chron. Euseb.
p. 219), and Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum, Aprilis,
vol. ii. p. 106), consider that this second Apology of Justin is simply an introduction or preface to the first, and that the Apology presented to Aurelius and Verus has been lost; but their opinion has been refuted by several writers, especially by Otto. Two Fragmenta,
given by Grabe in his Spicileg.
Saecul. ii. p. 173, are supposed by him to belong to the second Apology, in the present copies of which they are not found; but the correctness of this supposition is very doubtful.
This dialogue, in which Justin defends Christianity against the objections of Trypho, professes to be the record of an actual discussion, held, according to Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.18
), at Ephesus. Trypho describes himself as a Jew "flying from the war now raging," probably occasioned by the revolt under Barchochebas, in the reign of Hadrian, A. D. 132-134.
But though the discussion probably took place at this time, it was not committed to writing, at least not finished, till some years after, as Justin makes a reference to his first Apology, which is assigned as we have seen to A. D. 138 or 139.
It has been conjectured that Trypho is the Rabbi Tarphon of the Talmudists, teacher or colleague of the celebrated Rabbi Akiba, but he does not appear as a rabbi in the dialogue.
The dialogue is, perhaps, founded upon the con versation of Justin with Trypho, rather than an accurate record of it; but the notices of persons, and especially the interesting account of Justin's own studies and conversion, are likely to be generally correct.
It appears to be mutilated, but to what extent is a matter of dispute. Two fragments are assigned to it by Grabe, Spicileg.
Saec. ii. p. 175; but it is doubtful with what correctness.
It is to be observed, that although Otto ranks the Dialogus cum Tryphone
among the undisputed works of Justin, its genuineness has been repeatedly attacked.
The first assault was by C. G. Koch, of Apenrade, in the Duchy of Sleswick (Justini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone... νοθεύσεως..convictus
), but this attack was regarded as of little moment.
That of Wetstein (Prolog. in Nov. Test.
vol. i. p. 66), founded on the difference of the citations from the text of the LXX. and their agreement with that of the Hexaplar edition of Origen, and perhaps of the version of Symmachus, which are both later than the time of Justin, was more serious, and has called forth elaborate replies from Krom (Diatribe de Authentia Dialog. Just. Martyr. cum Tryph.
&100.8vo. 1778), Eichhorn (Einleitung in das A. T.
), and Kredner (Beitrage zur Einleitung,
The attack was renewed at a later period by Lange, but with little result.
An account of the controversy is given by Semisch (book ii. sect. i. ch. 2), who contends earnestly for the genuineness of the work.
It may be observed that the genuineness even of the two Apologies was attacked by the learned but eccentric Hardouin.
II. Disputed or Doubtful Works attributed to Justin Martyr.
Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας
, Oratio ad Graecos.
If this is indeed a work of Justin, which we think very doubtful, it is probably that described by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.18
) as treating περὶ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων φύσεως
(Comp. Phot. Bibl.
cod. 125); and by Jerome (De Vir. Illustr.
c. 23) as being "de Daemonum natura;" for it is a severe attack on the flagitious immoral ities ascribed by the heathens to their deities, and committed by themselves in their religious festivals. Its identity, however, with the work respecting demons is doubted by many critics. Cave sup poses it to be a portion of the work next mentioned. Its genuineness has been on various grounds dis puted by Oudin, Semler, Semisch, and others; and is doubted by Grabe, Dupin, and Neander.
The grounds of objection are well stated by Semisch (book ii. sect. 2.100.1).
But the genuineness of the piece is asserted by Tillemont, Ceillier, Cave, Maran, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, and by Otto, who has argued the question, we think, with very doubtful success. If the work be that described by Eusebius it must be mutilated, for the dissertation on the nature of the daemons or heathen deities is said by Eusebius to have been only a part of the work, but it now constitutes the whole.
This is, perhaps, another of the works mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome and Photius (ll. cc.
); namely, the one said by them to have been entitled by the author Ἔλεγχος
or perhaps Τοῦ Πλατῶνος ἔλεγχος
, Platonis Confutatio
cod. 232), though the title has been dropped. Others are disposed to identify the work last described with the Confutatio.
The genuineness of the extant work has been disputed, chiefly on the ground of internal evidence, by Oudin, and by some German scholars (Semler, Arendt, and Herbig); and is spoken of with doubt by Neander; but has been generally received as genuine, and is defended by Maran, Semisch (b. ii. sect. 1.100.3), and Otto.
It is a much longer piece than the Oratio ad Graecos.
The title is thus given in the MSS. and by Maran.
A treatise under nearly the same title, Περὶ Θεοῦ μοναρχίας
, De Monarchia Dei,
is mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius (ll. cc.
The word Θεοῦ
is contained in the title of the older editions of the extant treatise, which is an argument for Monotheism, supported by numerous quotations from the Greek poets and philosophers.
As, according to Eusebius, Justin had used citations from the sacred writings, which are not found in the extant work, it is probable that if this be the genuine work, it has come down to us mutilated. Petavius and Tillemont, in a former age, and Herbig and Semisch, in the present day, doubt or deny the genuineness of this treatise, and their arguments are not without considerable force; but the great majority of critics admit the treatise to be Justin's, though some of them, as Cave, Dupin, and Ceillier, contend that it is mutilated. Maran, understanding the passage in Eusebius differently from others, vindicates not only the genuineness but the integrity of the work. Some of the passages quoted from the ancient poets are not found in any other writing, and are on that account suspected to be the spurious additions of a later hand.
This valuable remain of antiquity, in which the writer describes the life and worship of the early Christians, is by some eminent critics, as Labbe, Cave, Fabricius, Ceillier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, ascribed to Justin: by others, as Tillemont, Le Nourry, Oudin, Neander, and Semisch, it is ascribed to some other, but unknown writer, whom some of these critics suppose to have lived at an earlier period than Justin. Grabe, Dupin, Maran, and Otto, are in doubt as to the authorship. Both Otto and Semisch give a lengthened statement of the arguments on the question: those of Semisch, derived chiefly from a comparison of the style and thoughts of the author with those of Justin in his undisputed works, seem decisive as to the author being a different person from him.
Fragment on the Resurrection
The fragment of Justin on the Resurrection is noticed below under No. 14, among the lost works.
III. Spurious Works.
Possibly this is the work described by Photius (Bibl.
cod. 125) as written against the first and second books of the Physics of Aristotle. Its spuriousness is generally admitted; scarcely any critics except Cave, and perhaps Grabe, contend that it belongs to Justin; but its date is very doubtful, and its real authorship unknown.
Possibly this is the work cited as Justin's by Leontius of Byzantium, in the sixth century; but it was little known in Western Europe till the time of the Reformation, when it was received by some of the reformers, as Calvin, as a genuine work of Justin, and by others, as Melancthon and the Magdeburg Centuriators, placed among the works of doubtful genuineness.
But it is now generally allowed that the precision of its orthodoxy and the use of various terms not in use in Justin's time, make it evident that it was written at any rate after the commencement of the Arian controversy, and probably after the Nestorian, or even the Eutychian controversy. Grabe, Ceillier, and some others ascribe it to Justinus Siculus [No. 3].
This is confessedly spurious.
Kestner alone of modern writers contends for the genuineness of these pieces.
It is thought by some, that either these Answers, &c., or those to the Orthodox just mentioned, are the Ἀποριῶν κατὰ τῆς εὐδεβείας κεφαλαιώδεις ἐπιλύσεις
, Brief Resolutions of Doubts unfavourable to Piety,
mentioned by Photius (Bibl.
Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum
, commencing Ἰουστῖνος Ζηνᾷ καὶ Σερήνω τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς Χαίρειν
, Justinus Zenae et Sereno fratribus salutem.
This piece is by the learned (except by Grabe, Cave, and a few others), rejected from the works of Justin Martyr. Halloix, Tillemont, and Ceillier, ascribe it to a Justin, abbot of a monastery near Jerusalem, in the reign of the emperor Heraclius. of whom mention is made in the life of St. Anastasius the Persian; but Maran considers this as doubtful.
IV. Lost Works.
mentioned by Justin himself in his Apologia Prima
(100.26, p. 70, ed. Maran. vol. i. p. 194, ed. Otto), and therefore antecedent in the time of its composition to that work.
s. Σύγγραμμα κατὰ Μαρκίωνος
, or Πρὸς Μαρκίωνα Contra Marcionem
. (Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres.
4.6, conf. 5.26; Hieron. de Viris Illustr.
c. 23 ; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.11
; Phot. Bibl.
cod. 125.) Baumgarten-Crusius and Otto conjecture that this work against Marcion was a part of the larger work, Contra omnes Haereses,
just mentioned; but Jerome and Photius clearly distinguish them.
The fragment De Resurrectione Carnis
preserved by Joannes Damascenus (Sacra Parall. Opera,
vol. ii. p. 756, &c., ed. Lequien), and usually printed with the works of Justin, is thought by Otto to be from the Liber contra omnes Haereses,
or from that against Marcion (supposing them to be distinct works), for no separate treatise of Justin on the Resurrection appears to have been known to Eusebius, or Jerome, or Photius: but such a work is cited by Procopius of Gaza, In Octateuch. ad Genes.
3.21. Semisch, however (Book ii. Sect. 1.100.4), who, with Grabe and Otto, contends for the genuineness of the fragment, which he vindicates against the objections of Tillemont, Le Nourry, Maran, Neander, and others, thinks it was an independent work.
A work, the nature of which is not known.
Both mentioned by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.18
) and Jerome (l.c.
Besides these works, Justin wrote several others, of which not even the names have come down to us (Euseb. 4.18); but the following are ascribed to him on insufficient grounds:
A work of which a fragment, cited from Anastasius Sinaita (In Hexaem. Lib. vii.
), is given by Grabe (Spicil. SS. Patr.
vol. s. saec. ii. p. 195) and Maran (Opp. Justin
). Maran, however, doubts if it is Justin's, and observes that the words of Anastasius do not imply that Justin wrote a separate work on the subject.
A citation of this is preserved by Maximus (Opusc. Polemica,
vol. ii. p. 154, ed. Combéfis).
This treatise is probably the work of a later Justin.
The supposition that Justin wrote such a work is probably founded on a misunderstanding of a passage in Jerome (De Viris Illustr.
c. 9.), who says that " Justin Martyr interpreted the Apocalypse:" but without saying that it was in a separate work.
The authorship of the work, Περὶ τοῦ παντός
, De Universo,
mentioned by Photius (Bibl.
cod. 48), was, as he tells us, disputed, some ascribing it to Justin, but apparently with little reason.
It is now assigned to Hippolytus. [HIPPOLYTUS, No. 1.]
Nearly all the works of Justin, genuine and spurious (viz. all enumerated above in the first three divisions except the Oratio ad Graecos
and the Epistola ad Diognetum
), were published by Robert Stephanus, fol. Paris, 1551
This is the editio princeps of the collected works; but the Cohortatio ad Graecos had been previously published, with a Latin version, 4to. Paris, 1539
There is no discrimination or attempt at discrimination in this edition of Stephanus between the genuine and spurious works. The Oratio ad Graecos and the Epistola ad Diognetum, with a Latin version and notes, were published by Hen. Stephanus, 4to. Paris, 1592, and again in 1595
. All these works, real or supposed, of Justin were published, with the Latin version of Langus, and notes by Frid. Sylburgius, fol. Heidelburg, 1593
: and this edition was reprinted, fol. Paris, 1615 and 1636, with the addition of some remains of other early fathers
; and fol., Cologne (or rather Wittemburg), 1686, with some further additions
A far superior edition, with the remains of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Hermias the Philosopher, with a learned preface and notes, was published, " opera et studio unius ex Monachis congreg. S. Mauri," i.e. by Prudentius Maranus, or Maran, fol. Paris, 1742
In this the genuine pieces, according to the judgment of the editor (Nos. 1-6 in our enumeration), are given in the body of the work, together with the Epistola ad Diognetum,
of the authorship of which Maran was in doubt.
The two Apologies were placed in their right order, for the first time, in this edition.
The remaining works, together with fragments which had been collected by Grabe (who had first published, in his Spicilegium SS. Patrum,
the fragment on the Resurrection, from Joannes Damascenus) and others, and the Martyrum S. Justini, of which the Greek text was first published in the Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. ii.
, were given in the Appendix.
From the time of Maran, no complete edition of Justin was published until that of Otto, 2 vols. 8vo. Jena, 1842-1844
The first volume contains the Oratio et Cohortatio ad Graecos,
and the Apologia Prima
and Apologia Secunda.
The second contains the Dialogus cum Tryphone,
the Epistola ad Diognetum,
the fragments, and the Acta Martyrii Justini et Sociorum.
Several valuable editions of the separate pieces appeared, chiefly in England. The Apologia Prima was edited by Grabe, 8vo. Oxford, 1700
; the Apologia Secunda, Oratio ad Graecos, Cohortatio ad Graecos, and De Monarchia, by Hutchin, 8vo. Oxford, 1703
; and the Dialogus cum Tryphone, by Jebb, 8vo. London, 1719.
These three editions had the Latin version of Langus, and variorum notes. The Apologia Prima, Apologia Secunda, and Dialogus cum Tryphone, from the text of Rob. Stephanus, with some corrections, with the version of Langus, amended, and notes, were edited by Thirlby, and published, fol. London, 1722.
It has been conjectured that this valuable edition, though published under the name of Thirlby, was really by Markland. The Apologia Prima, Apologia Secunda, Dialogus cum Tryphone, and the fragments, are given in the first volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Gallandi.
We do not profess to have enumerated all the editions of the Greek text, and we have not noticed the Latin versions. Full information will be found in the prefaces of Maran and Otto.
There are English translations of the Apologies
by Reeves, of the Dialogue with Trypho
by Brown, and of the Exhortation to the Gentiles
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.8
; Hieronym. De Vir. Illustr.
c. 23; Phot. Bibl.
codd. 48, 125, 232, 234; Martyrium
s. Acta Martyrii Justini.
apud Acta Sanctorum, April.
vol. ii.; s. apud Opera Justini,
edit. Maran and Otto; Halloix, Illustrium Eccl. Orient. Scriptorum Vitae,
Saecul. ii. p. 151, &c.; reprinted with a Comment. Praevius
by Papebroche, in the Acta Sanctorum, April.
vol. ii.; Grabe, Spicilegium SS. Patrum,
Saecul. (s. vol.) ii. p. 133; Baronius, Annales,
ad annos 130, 142, 143, 150, 164, 165; Pagi, Critice in Baronium;
Cave, Hist. Litt.
vol. i. p. 60, ed. Oxford, 1740-1743; the ecclesiastical histories of Tillemont, vol. ii. p. 344, &c.; Fleury, vol. i. pp. 413, &c., 476, &c.; Neander and Milman; Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliothèque, &c.;
Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés,
vol. ii. p. 1, &c.; Lardner, Credibility,
&c.; Otto, De Justini Martyris Scriptis;
Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
vol. vii. p. 52, &c.; Semisch, Justin. Martyr.
(transl. by Ryland in the Biblical Cabinet); and the Prolegomena and notes to the editions of Justin, by Maran and Otto.)