CAM JUSTIN US. the work (c. 46), states that Christ was bom 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. (I.) ""ASpiavov virep Xpiariavuv iiriffToK-q, Adriani pro Christianis Epistola^ or Eoeemplum Epistolae Imperatoris Adriani ad Minu- cium Fundanum, Proconsulem Asiae. This Greek version of the emperor's letter was made and is given by Eusebius(^. E. iv. 9.) Justin had sub- joined to his work the Latin original (Euseb. H.E. iv. 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 sub- stituted. (2.) *AvT(t>vluov eiriarroXri irpos to koivou TTJs 'Aaias, Anionini 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 con- siderable variation, by Eusebius (^H. E. iv. 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). 'M.apKov fiaaiXews eTri(TToJ irpos t^v avyKT]Tov^ (f ^ fxapTupei Xpiariavovs airiovs yeyeufiadai rijs vlktjs avruv, Marci Imperatoris Epistola ad Senaium, qua iestatur Christianos vidoriae causam fuisse. This letter, the spuriousness of which is generally ad- mitted (though it is said by Tertullian, Apologet. cap. 5, that a letter of the same tenor was written by the emperor), relates to the famous miracle of the thundering legion. [M. Aurelius, p. 441]. 2. 'AiroXoyla' SevTipa vnep rav yipiariavaiu irpos Trju 'PoofxaiaiV avyKr)TOV, Apologia Secunda pro Christianis ad Senatum Romanum. 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 longer one just described) was addressed to Antoninus Pius : but Eusebius (i/. E. iv. 17, 18), and Photius {Bihl. cod. 125), among the ancients ; and Dupin, Pagi, Tillemont, Grabe, Ruinart, Ceillier, Maran, Mosheira, 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, A pi'ilis, 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 Frag- itienta, 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 sup- position is very doubtful 3. Up6s Tpvcpaua 'lov- 5a7ov SiaKoyos, Cum Tryphone Judaeo Dialogus. 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 {fl. E. iv. 18), at Ephesus. Trypho JUSTIN US. 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 1 39. 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 tlie 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 fnigments 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 ranka 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 (Justiui Mar- tyris Dialogus cum Tryphone... voQev(reoi}S..con- victus), but this attack was regarded as of little moment. That of Wetstein (Prolog, in Nov. Test. vol. i. p. 66)y founded on the difference of the citations from the text of the LXX. and their agreement with that of the llexaplar edition of Ori- gen, 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 Autheyitia Dialog. Just. Martyr, cum Tryph. &c. 8vo. 1778), Eichhorn {Einleitung in das A. T.), and Kredner {Beitrage zur Ein- leitung, &c.). 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. 4. Aoyos Trpus"E)uas, Oratio ad Graecos. If this is indeed a work of Justin, which we think very doubtful, it is probably that described by Eusebius {H. E. iv. 18) as treating irepX TTjy twv ^aijxovuv (pvatus (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. ii. c. I). But the genuineness of 1 the piece is asserted by Tillemont, Ceillier, Cave, I Maran, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, and by Otto, who has argued the ques- tion, 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 con-
