(
1. Surnamed the MARTYR (PHILOSOPHER (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 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 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, 100.12.) The date of his conversion is doubtful. The
Bollandists place it in
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.; Bibl.
cod. 125.) 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, Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. ii. p. 107), assigning the
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.
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 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 (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 (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 (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 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
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 (Spicileg. Saec. ii. p. 175; but it is doubtful with what correctness.
It is to be observed, that although Otto ranks the
Oratio ad
Graecos. If this is indeed a work of Justin, which we think very doubtful, it is
probably that described by Eusebius (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
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 Confutation, or
perhaps Platonis Confutatio (Phot. Bibl. cod. 232), though the title
has been dropped. Others are disposed to identify the work last described with the
The title is thus given in the MSS. and by Maran. A treatise under nearly the same title,
De Monarchia
Dei, is mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius (ll. cc.).
The word
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.
The fragment of Justin on the Resurrection is noticed below under No. 14, among the lost 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 Brief Resolutions of Doubts
unfavourable to Piety, mentioned by Photius (Bibl. cod.
125).
mentioned by Justin himself in his
A work, the nature of which is not known.
Both mentioned by Eusebius (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, 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
From the time of Maran, no complete edition of
Several valuable editions of the separate pieces appeared, chiefly in England.
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
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 and Notae, by Papebroche, in the