mountainman

Does this inscription still exist?
Are there any articles available?

Why would the foremost christian apologist
of his era deliberately set out to deceive
and invent a fraudulent misrepresentation
of an ancient inscription if it were not for
the purposes of propaganda?

And if propaganda, who was the sponsor
and when was Justin really written, and
by whom? Indeed, by what remote tract
of information do we learn what we know
of the good father Justin?

Father Justin also retails to the Emperor the old fable
of Simon Magus and his magical miracles at Rome,
and attributes it all to the work of the devils.
For "the evil spirits, not being satisfied with saying,
before Christ's appearance, that those who were said
to be sons of Jupiter were born of him, but after he
appeared, ... and when they learned how He had been
foretold by the prophets, put forward again other men,
the Samaritans Simon and Menander,
who did many mighty works by magic; ...
and so greatly astonished the sacred Senate
and people of the Romans that he was considered a god,
and honored with a statue; ...
which statue was erected in the river Tiber,
between the two bridges, and bore this
inscription in the language of Rome:

'Simoni Deo Sancto -- To Simon the holy God"
(I Apol. chs. xxvi, lvi; ANF. i, 171, 182; cf. Iren.
Adv. Haer. ch. xxiii; ANF. i, 347-8; Euseb. HE. II, 13.)

We have seen this much embroidered "tradition" myth exploded,
and the statue discovered and deciphered,
it being a simple private pious monument to a Pagan god!

--- Extracted from Whelas.

Toto

Simon_Magus But from here

It sounds like a mistake that could have been based on bad second hand information.

Roger Pearse

We also need to remember that it is only a hypothesis that this is the statue and deity that Justin has in mind . Others may be jumping to conclusions than Justin. But I would agree with Toto that this sounds like the sort of mistake one sees daily on usenet, where one person misunderstands and others repeat without checking; just normal human SOP.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Solo

I don't see either Juston's fraudulent intent with respect of Simon in his Dialogue w T. He simply gives the standard church view of Simon Magus, as the source of all heresies.
However, the preoccupation of the fathers with Simon Magus is a very interesting phenomenon to a student of human mind. The legend of Simon seems to have been shaped in the early church by the need to have a lightning rod for the charges of demonic possession levelled against Jesus and his disciples, and sorcery for which Jesus likely was condemned. In this connection, of course the animosity to, and mythical supression of, Simon Magus by Peter seems doubly suspect, since by the traditions it was Peter who in the earliest congregation "controlled" the appearances of the Spirit. It is clear that "the ordinary" baptism by Philip had a minor effect compared to the technique of Peter and John of "laying on hands" (Acts 8:17-18), "the gift of God" that was very much of interest to Simon, so much so, he was willing to share his wealth for it. One wonders if the fairytale makers are not giving out too much here.
Why would a scoundrel like Simon Magus want to mess with such paragon of sainthood as Peter in the first place ?

Jiri

Riverwind

Seems like I recall something in Origen's works that talk about Justin Martyr's mention of this statue, saying that Justin had mistaken a pagan monument for Simon Magus. I can't remember the reason, but I think it had to do with the similarity of the name to what was on the statue.

At least I think it was in Origen. Are there any searchable works online? Was it in his work against Celsus? Or is my memory just faulty...very likely.

mountainman

Yes, that is one possibility, but in that case the same mistake
was propagated by a number of purported authors of antiquity,
all of whom happened to subscribe to "the tribe of christians".

Have any other modern authors after Tillemont
agreed with his conclusion.

"On the other hand Tillemont (Memories, t. ii. p. 482) maintains that Justin in an Apology addressed to the emperor and written in Rome itself cannot reasonably be supposed to have fallen into so manifest an error."

If the purported author Justin lived and wrote in Rome, do you
think he would have made such a blatant false statement? Or
better yet, in order to bring in the characterics of Eusebius via
Carrier ... we are essentially condoning our expectations of the
integrity of Justin to "He is either a liar, or hopelessly credulous".

Carrier says this of Eusebius. It appears to me that
Tillemont says the same of Justin. Birds of a feather?
Or the same literary modus operandi of "fabrication"?

Mr. Logic

Thanks for the info on J.Martyr. Many Catholics, and Traditionalists, look up to him so. Seems odd to me since my own researched showed that he Paganized Christianity, no doubt to gain Converts.
All Cultures mix and match the message. Later I was a bit shocked to find that Simon and Shuster, flat out stated that Martyr Paganized the Christian religion.
In the same vein, it can be proven that the 3 name chant and water ritural even practiced today by most, is from a Paganization of the Great Commission, which in rality hasn't a drop of water in it.
Why would Luk'e account not even hint at such a thing, and why would Peter talk of a type of baptism that dealt with an immersion into ONE NAME?

(There simply is no command from Christ for the chruch to baptize anyone in water). Baptism into Christ comes by faith, not a ritutal, and since there is no water in the great commission there is no water baptism command anywhere else. there is a huge diff. btw what early Jewish Converts practiced and what God gave them to do. (See 1 Cor. 1 and how Paul, ended up saying that he THANKED GOD that he only baptized a FEW.

Man had 2,000 years to mess with the text and mess with it he certainly did.
A very interesting debate is btw Dr. Walter Martin and Father Pacwa.
This debate shocked me to a degree because it really made me understand that the RCC bases their faith on the book of James, and they honestly could care less about what Paul says! Pacwa ignored Paul for James time and time again. His answer to Paul's quotes on grace by faith were always the same.
"But what does James the Just say". He stated this over and over again.
Refusing to deal with Paul's teachings as if they didn't matter.
Unkown to the lay Christian is that Luther rejected the book of James!
Interesting for someone raised Catholic all his life.
Thanks for your time!