A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

6814 JUSTIN IUS. JUSTINUS.
the work (c. 46), states that Christ was born a describes himself as a Jew " flying 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.)'AWptavo6 tMrep XpLo-ILavv, as Justin makes a reference to his first Apology,
e7riLroh7, Adriani pro Christianis Epistola, or which is assigned as we have seen to A. D. 138
EExemnplum Epistolae Imperatoris Adriani ad Minu- or 139. It has been conjectured that Trypho is
cium Fundanum, Proconsulemr 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 (H. E. iv. 9.) Justin had sub- he does not appear as a rabbi in the dialogue.
joined to his work the Latin original (Euseb. H. E. The dialogue is, perhaps, founded upon the coniv. 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 sub- and especially the interesting account of Justin's
stituted. (2.)'Av'orv[tov oirLTOAb7 o rpos T'r Kotvcv own studies and conversion, are likely to be generally
r7s'Aoias, Antonini Epistola ad Comnmune 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, Spicileq. 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 (1H. E. iv. 13), the Dialogus curn Trg/phone among the undisputed
andwas 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). MdptKov Apenrade, in the Duchy of Sleswick (Justini MarRarhAe'os LeriToAXh 7rpSr 7)9v ar-ytcAMrov, iv ~ tyris Dialogus cuns Tryphone... voeoecws..con-,LapTupLe Xpar'Lavols asiriovs yeyevOa erals Viss vKS ViCtus), but this attack was regarded as of little
au'-y, Marci Imperatoris Epistola ad Senatun, qua moment. That of Wetstein (Prolog. in Nov. Test.
testatur Christianos victoriaee 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 Oricap. 5, that a letter of the same tenor was written gen, and perhaps of the version of Symmachus, 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.'A7roxhoya evUT'pa Jrep (cv' Xp&TLaecv 7rps I Krom (Diatribe de AuthLentia Dialog. Just. Martyr.'r).'POwLuaat Yl'-yhCA?7TOV, Apologia Secunda pro c2nu Trgyp. &c. 8vo. 1778), Eichhorn (.Einleitung
Clristianis ad Senatunm Romanum. This second in das A. T.), and Kredner (Beitrage zur Einand 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 wvar. 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- trbi 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. AOyos
Apology (placed in the older editions before the 7rpis"EAA\A'as, Oratio ad Graecos. If this is indeed
longeronejustdescribed) 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 repI T7'srWV aljusovwv cpurecWS
Pagi, Tillemont, Grabe, Ruinart, Ceillier, Maran, (Comp. Phot. Bibl. cod. 125); and by Jerome (De
Mosheim, Semisch, and Otto, among the moderns, Vir. llustr. c. 23) as being "de Daemonum natura;"
inaintain the opposite side. Otto thinks it was for it is a severe attack on the flagitious immoralwritten about A. D. 164; others place it somewhat ities ascribed by the heathens to - their deities, and
later. Scaliger (Animadv. in Chron. EBuse. p. 219), committed by themselves in their religious festivals.
and Papebroche (Acta Sanctorznm, Aprilis, vol. ii. p. Its identity, however, with the work respecting
106), consider that this second Apology of Justin is demons is doubted by many critics. Cave supsimply 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 dishas 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
snenta, 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. I). But the genuineness of
second Apology, in the present copies of which they the piece is asserted by Tillemont, Ceillier, Cave,
are not found; but the correctness of this sup- Maran, De Wette, Baumngarten-Crusius, and
position is very doubtful. 3. iHpos TpvcEpva'Iov- others, and by Otto, who has argued the ques3a7ov UdaXo-yos, CumZ Trypl7one Judaeo Dialogus. tion, we think, with very doubtful success. If
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 as actual discussion, held, according daemons or heathen deities is said by Eusebius to
to Eusebius (Hi. E. iv. 18), at Ephesus. Trypho have been only a part of the work, but it now coll