Seeker,
I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I found the reference to pseudo-Justin. It is contained in a treatise described as "Replies to the Orthodox" and is ascribed by Harnack to Diodorus of Tarsus. At any rate, there is little doubt it was written after the Council of Nicaea. It seems that he did not altogether concur with the idea of a limited flood but quite obviously there were some who did. The bad news is that I could not find an English translation and my school-boy Latin is a bit patchy so I leave the translation to the classical scholars in our midst :
Quaest. XXXIV: Si, ut nonnulli dicunt, diluvium in omni terrae loco non fuit, sed in iis, quae tunc homines incolebant, quomodo verum est aquam evectam fuisse supra altissimos quosque montes quindecim cubitis ?Resp.: Verum esse non videtur non in omni loco diluvum exstitisse, nisi forte decliviora fuerunt loca, in quibus diluvium exstitit, caeteris terrae locis.
In addition to this reference there were some exemptions by other early writers to the universality of the Flood :
1. The earthly paradise was exempted by many, irrespective of its location on the top of a high mountain or elsewhere;
2. The same must be said of the place in which Methuselah must have lived during the Flood according to the Septuagint reading;
3. Augustine knows of writers who exempted the mountain Olympus from the Flood, though he himself does not agree with them.
I would suggest that the lack of discussion on this subject in the writings of the early christians is simply because they knew so little of the physical earth they did not need to address these issues to the extent we do today. Nevertheless, it is interesting that they could make exceptions without offending tradition. Does this mean that your baptism is still valid if you were not entirely submerged at the time ?
Earnest
"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson