aa5874

But, once you are drunk you may believe that you went home with your Megan Fox even though you went home alone.

Please don't drink when you write so that you may RAISE your standard.

But, you must know that the preservation of a manuscript has no bearing at all on the actual manipulation of the manuscript.

It is just total absurdity to put forward the notion that because you believe the writings of Irenaeus were manipulated that all writings assumed to be of the same time period must have been manipulated.

And, you promote propaganda by suggesting I am claiming Justin's writings are "pure". Again that is not my position.

I have ALREADY told you that I cannot tell you of the accuracy of Justin Martyr's writings but ONLY that it shows no signs of manipulation by the Church.

If it is assumed "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus was manipulated by the Church to present a FRAUDULENT history of Jesus believers then it MUST be BLATANTLY obvious that:

1. The manipulated information in Irenaeus about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as Gospel writers is NOT found at all in the writings of Justin Martyr.

2. The manipulated information in Irenaeus about Acts of the Apostles is NOT found at all in the writings of Justin Martyr.

3. The manipulated information in Irenaeus about the Pauline writings is NOT found at all in the writings of Justin Martyr.

4. The manipulated information in Irenaeus that Peter was the 1st bishop of Rome is NOT found at all in the writings of Justin Martyr

5. The manipulated information in Irenaeus that Marcion used gLuke is NOT found at all in the writings of Justin Martyr.

6. The manipulated information in Irenaeus that Marcion used the Pauline writings is NOT found at all in the writings of Justin Martyr.

7. The manipulated information in Irenaeus that a character called Saul/Paul wrote all the Pauline epistles is NOT found at all in the writings of Justin Martyr.

8. The manipulated information in Irenaeus that the disciples were TALKING in Tongues on the day of Pentecost is NOT found at all in the writings of Justin Martyr.

9. The manipulated information in Irenaeus that Saul/Paul met Jesus on the way to Damascus is NOT found at all in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr writings show no sign of manipulation if Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" is assumed to be manipulated.

But, on the other hand, the writings of Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Epiphanius do contain the VERY assumed manipulations found in Irenaeus' "Against Heresies".

stephan huller

Hi AA.

This conversation is actually getting more interesting. I think is going to bear great fruit. So I don't mind taking an hour out of my life to write you this post.

You wrote:

And you also say:

You also give me a long list of things that you feel represent manipulations that are found in Irenaeus which are not in the writings of Justin.

Fine. I can now see where you are coming from. Irenaeus's writings contain ideas, scriptural references and other signs of what I would presume you would identify as 'false beliefs' that are not found in Justin's writings.

There are differences to be sure. I have never actually considered the idea that the writings of Justin might represent some 'oasis' in the corrupt landscape of the early Church. Yet, maybe there is a reason for that.

Let's just go through what we know about the physical manuscripts of the writings of Justin Martyr.

As noted before there is only one surviving MS. I cited the information from Schaff a few days ago:

Justin would be known to us only by a few spasmodic quotations had not a Byzantine scribe copied an invaluable, if defective, MS., in the year 1364. This is now Codex Regius 150 (now 450) at Paris, and is the almost exclusive source for editions of Justin, supplemented only by the quotations of Eusebius and John of Damascus and three chapters (65 to 67) in a manuscript at Rome (Codex Ottobonianus Graecus 274).

I will leave aside the issue of the manner in which the Second Apology has been edited now to appear as an introduction to the 'First' Apology (which necessarily implies editorial 'manipulation' on some level. This wasn't accomplished by Justin's hand.

Let's just deal with the fact that bundled together with the Apology (1 and 2 bundled together) and the Dialogue are a number of works which most scholars think are spurious including:

Letter to Zenas and Serenas
Exhortation to the Pagans
On the Sole Rule of God
Exposition of the Right Faith
Refutation of Certain Teachings of Aristotle
Questions of the Christians to Pagans
Questions to the Orthodox
Questions of the Pagans to the Christians
On the Resurrection

Argent gr 9 also contains two other works attributed to Justin:

Against the Pagans
Letter to Diognetus

Though all of these works were often included in early editions of Justin, most are now rejected by scholars on theological and stylistic grounds.

There is another work attributed to Justin which survives in fragmentary form called On the Resurrection preserved by John of Damascus.

Eusebius refers to a number of works of Justin:

Two Apologies (which aren't necessarily our surviving texts)
Against the Pagans (now identified as spurious)
Against the Pagans "which he also called Refutations" (now identified as spurious) Photius suggests this is also the Refutations
On the Sole Rule (now identified as spurious)
The Harpist (=Psaltes)
On the Soul

Irenaeus makes references to an Against Marcion (see below)
There is also the Handbook (Syntagma) Against All Heresies which is referenced in 1 Apology 26.8 which most scholars identify in some form with the text added to the First Book of Irenaeus Against the Heresies chapter 23 - 31 (or some section thereof).

What I am trying to demonstrate by this list is that throughout the history of the Church there are examples of Church Fathers identifying various works of being from Justin's hand which were clearly not by Justin. The fact that scholars have settled on the Apology and the Dialogue as authentic is hardly reassuring given that there is such a consistent effort by Irenaeus and Eusebius to cite Justin as a witness for orthodoxy.

If there were false attribution of material in early Christian antiquity is it really to be believed that these were all accidental. And if they were DELIBERATELY misidentified by Irenaeus or Eusebius what would stop them from making Justin seem more orthodox than he was with works that might actually have originally been penned by him.

So here in my preliminary statement on the question of the authenticity of the Apology, given that you don't accept Irenaeus's surviving writings how do you accept Justin's surviving writings when surviving material associated with Irenaeus continually reinforces that Justin was 'just like' Irenaeus:

For as we do direct our faith towards the Son, so also should we possess a firm and immoveable love towards the Father. In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us."[Irenaeus AH iv.6.2]

Truly has Justin remarked: That before the Lord's appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories; but that after the Lord's appearance, when he had clearly ascertained from the words of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition. Just as it is with those who break the laws, when punishment overtakes them: they throw the blame upon those who frame the laws, but not upon themselves. In like manner do those men, filled with a satanic spirit, bring innumerable accusations against our Creator, who has both given to us the spirit of life, and established a law adapted for all; and they will not admit that the judgment of God is just. Wherefore also they set about imagining some other Father who neither cares about nor exercises a providence over our affairs, nay, one who even approves of all sins. [Irenaeus v.26.2]

So given that Irenaeus's writings are - according to you - manipulated 'fictions' isn't the fact that those 'spurious writings' of Irenaeus reference the writings of Justin a clear sign that the 'same hand' that 'forged' or (I don't know how you explain Irenaeus's 'fictional status') manipulated Irenaeus HAD TO HAVE HAD A HAND IN RESHAPING JUSTIN. It is impossible to imagine that this 'black hand' that was so interested in using Justin as a spokesperson for all his 'fictions' and was so willing to including his name in the 'manipulations' of Irenaeus and moreover develop spurious works in his name would somehow stop short of 'touching' the Apology and the Dialogue.

Indeed when you speak of 'fictions' it is hard not to notice that Eusebius (whom I assume you also feel is a manipulator) links Justin's martyrdom with the attack against Crescens at the end of the 2 Apology. The blurring of distinction between 'surviving texts of Justin' and the orthodox tradition you despise so is even more clear when you remember that the Dialogue cites from the 1 Apology and more significantly:

- a third century editor (one could I guess make the case that it was Irenaeus who did it too) took Justin's Syntagma and just dropped part or all of it to form the last half Book One of Against All Heresies.

- that part of Justin's Syntagma was developed into the Philosophumena

- that a lost work of Justin MUST be behind the material developed by Tertullian (or a third century editor) into two separate works, Against the Jews and Against Marcion Book III

The point then is that everywhere you look there seems to be examples of original 'authentic' material associated with Justin being appropriated into new works. Indeed I have never actually read the pseudo-Justin material but one might also see signs (if one looked carefully) for an authentic core that similarly got systematically expanded into an ultimately spurious work.

I hope you will at least acknowledge that I have demonstrated that there are more than enough reasons to suspect that ALL material associated with Codex Regius 450 are the furthest thing from being reliable sources. There is a nexus of citations inside and outside the surviving body of Justin which does everything it can to argue for a very specific understanding of Christianity.

You point to the manner in which the canonical gospels are never cited, nor the authority of Peter and the like but I think there is a very good explanation for this. Tatian was viewed as a much greater authority on the teachings of Justin than Irenaeus was (Purvis's arguments in no way contradict any of this). Tatian used a Diatessaron therefore it would be impossible for Irenaeus to convince anyone that Justin did not.

Any any event if you would like me to follow this post up with a systematic exposition of corruptions and manipulations in the Apology and the Dialogue I will be more than happy to do so.

aa5874

I have already eaten ALL the fruits. It was great.

It took a long time.


Well, after reading Justin Martyr's writings and comparing them to those of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius it occurred to me that the CHURCH MANIPULATOR did not get his hands on the writings under the name of Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr has NO post-ascension history from the CHURCH MANIPULATOR.

Papias has post ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

Ignatius has post-ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

Clement has post-ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

Irenaeus has post-ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

Tertullian has post ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

Hippolytus has post ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

Origen has post-ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

Eusebius has post ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

Jerome has post-ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

Epiphanius has post ascension history of supposed Jesus believers..

Acts of the Apostles has post ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.

The Pauline writings have post ascension history of supposed Jesus believers.


Justin Martyr did NOT write about a single MARTYR like Stephen, James the brother of John, James the brother of the Lord, Peter the first bishop of Rome, Paul, and Ignatius.

The Church MARTYRS were in all other writings except Justin.

Justin did NOT write that Peter and Paul were in Jerusalem or in Rome or anywhere together.

[b] The Church writers wrote that Paul and Peter were together or met each other in Jerusalem or Rome.

Justin wrote NOTHING about any Church writer like Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement, or NT writers like Paul, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Linus, James, and Jude.

The writings called "First Apology and "Dialogue with Trypho" do not show any significant evidence of manipulation by the CHURCH MANIPULATORS.

And there are other writings that do not show any significant manipulation by the Church Manipulators even though their writings were mentioned.

The writings called "A Plea to the Christians", "To Autolycus" and "Octavius"
do not appear to have been manipulated by the the Church manipulators.

But, that is exactly what I had expected you to do so long ago. I want to eat some more fruits.

stephan huller

You didn't even respond to a single point I made in my last post. All you ended up doing is repeating what you believe to be true, your bizarre 'creed of faith' which isn't the way a legitimate debate functions. This is a supposed to be a reasoned discussion not simply a chance to riff on a single point - namely that there are things in the rest of the orthodox writings not found in Justin's writings. That isn't a rational argument. It is an observation. It is even a valid observation but it has nothing to do with the present discussion.

I spent a lot of time demonstrating what has been preserved as the 'writings of Justin' from Codex Regius 450.

- The very tradition you despise so much has clearly made an effort to present Justin as 'one of them.'

- Irenaeus who you claim to be a corrupt witness TWICE cites Justin to prove that his beliefs were shared by Justin.

- the copies of the Apology that you cite as an example of writings uncorrupted by any orthodox editorial manipulation has clearly suffered from editorial manipulation. Just because you don't want to see that doesn't mean that it isn't true (you are too busy it seems chanting that list of things which don't appear in Justin's writings in your own head to see the bigger picture).

The Second Apology and the First Apology are inseparable texts, one being the preface to the other. Schaff and other authorities demonstrate that Eusebius cites from the fused text as if it were one work (cf. Church History IV.8.5 and IV.17.1).

The question then arises 'what is the Second Apology.' The Catholic Encyclopedia argues that the second "Apology" is evidently not a complete work independent of the first, but rather an appendix, owing to a new fact that came to the writer's knowledge, and which he wished to utilize without recasting both works. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains this as "probably Eusebius also erred in making Justin write one apology under Antoninus (161) and another under Marcus Aurelius. The second "Apology", known to no other author, doubtless never existed (Bardenhewer, loc. cit.; Harnack, "Chronologie der christl. Litter.", I, Leipzig, 1897, 275)."

But if this is true then it is impossible to avoid the argument THAT IT WAS A CATHOLIC EDITOR WHO ASSEMBLED AND ADDED MATERIAL WHICH DIDN'T FORM A PART OF JUSTIN'S ORIGINAL TEXT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT SAY THINGS IT DIDN'T ORIGINAL SAY.

The debate is over, my friend, AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU EVEN SEE IT. You just open up a translation of Justin's First Apology into English and work from there. But what you don't see is that a modern editor has ALREADY ADJUSTED THE SURVIVING MANUSCRIPT FOR YOU so you don't see how corruptly it was preserved. Justin's single original Apology is now separated into 'First' and 'Second' treatises in order to make the text take a sensible form. However what this ends up doing is making the actual corrupt state of the manuscript. It hides the fact that we are all, on some level, 'adjusting' the state of the existing MS of the Apology - our single source of information about Justin's lost original pristine work. .

Given that the very orthodox tradition that you hate so CITES AND PROMOTES a corrupt manuscript which as Schaff again notes has "our Second Apology as a mere supplement to the First, and that Justin's Second, if there [ever] was one, is now lost" I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND TIME ARGUING THAT OUR EXISTING COPIES OF JUSTIN'S APOLOGY HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED BY ORTHODOX EDITORS. THE VERY WAY THE APOLOGY IS PRESERVED IN CODEX REGIUS 450 (a form which seems to be known and promoted by Eusebius PROVES that such manipulation exists).

Now this doesn't mean that someone else can come along and argue the opposite point - namely that the reference to Simon and Marcion in chapter 26 is an authentic part of the text. But the point is that there is internal evidence which suggests that the original argument made to the Emperor DID NOT include chapter 26.

It doesn't make any sense to tack on a misguided accusation that the Romans were responsible for encouraging the worship of Simon Magus as a god when (a) IT SIMPLY WASN'T TRUE (Rome never worshipped Simon Magus) (b) the statue belonged to the worship of a native Etruscan god and Justin as an educated philosopher would not have mistaken the name for 'Simon' (c) THE ARGUMENT DESTROYS THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE REST OF THE ARGUMENT.

The point of this thread is to examine, scrutinize and question my theory that the name Marcion might be derived from Marcus and in turn that there may be no historical Marcion of Pontus whatsoever. The fact that a single CORRUPT manuscript of Justin's original Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius makes reference the name Marcion does not prove that a figure of this name ever existed.

After all the way the manuscript is preserved demonstrates that it comes from an orthodox pedigree cited by Eusebius in its present form and thus was employed to reinforce the existence of heretical boogeymen such as 'Simon Magus' and 'Marcion.' Very few scholars accept the historical existence of Simon Magus. I think that the same criticism should be focused on the figure of Marcion.

If such scrutiny is applied to Marcion it will be evident that all the original sources cite only the existence of 'Mark' and 'those of Mark.' It was in the third century, when I believe a rapprochement between the Roman and Alexandrian tradition was initiated and - moreover - not all traditions associated with 'Mark' were deemed heretical that the name 'Marcion' became used to denote those who maintained traditional Alexandrian dogma formerly ascribed to Marcus and the Marcosians.

I think a careful reading of Irenaeus's attack against the Marcionites (especially in Book 2, 3, and 4 as well as Tertullian's Against Marcion Book 2) demonstrates quite clearly the Alexandrian provenance of the sect. The Muratorian Canon's reference to a Letter to the Alexandrians in the Marcionite NT canon only makes that case stronger.

As I noted it was in the third century that Irenaeus's original identification of an evil heretical sect associated with Mark fell into disuse and we see instead the preferred term 'Marcionite' come to the fore. Again I cannot claim that MRQYONE was not used in the second century as it is the Aramaic gentilic plural meaning 'those of Mark.' As such members of Justin's tradition (i.e. the circle of Encratites associated with Tatian) were undoubtedly in Syria identifying the Alexandrian tradition likely as MRQYONE according to my estimation. Nevertheless I am absolutely certain that the reference to 'Marcion of Pontus' in chapter 26 is a third century addition.

It should be clear that THE EXISTING WRITINGS OF JUSTIN (cf. Lipsius who I cited in a previous post) bear witness to the fact that Justin references 'those of Mark' at the head of heretical groups in the Empire. The reading is Μαρκιανοί. I think this was the original understanding of Justin and if Justin wrote originally in Aramaic he would have called the Μαρκιανοί MRQYONE

I think that there is clear evidence from Irenaeus that there was a systematic attempt to bring forward Justin as 'proof' that the Marcionite heresy actually existed in the late second century. This is why the Syntagma was added to the end of the Book One of Against All Heresies it is also why Irenaeus is made to point to Justin's writings in later parts of the Five Books to demonstrate that Marcion was nothing short of a Satanically inspired boogeyman.

It seems utterly absurd to me to have a debate with someone who thinks that Irenaeus's writings are corrupt fictions and who must argue that though Irenaeus was manipulating the doctrine of the church and texts used to bolster the orthodox point of view he wouldn't dare touch or manipulate the writings of Justin who was already dead.

If the writings of Justin came down to us it was clearly through the hands of Irenaeus or the third century editors who preserved the works of both men for us. I don't believe that the historical Irenaeus took that much interest in Justin or his tradition because I believe that Irenaeus's master Polycarp shared the use of a Diatessaron-like gospel with Justin and Tatian. There were problems getting too close to this tradition owing to the fact that Irenaeus was promoting a gospel in four and all the older witnesses were well known adherents of a single, long gospel.

As such I think it more likely that it was the third century editor who used Justin's original KNOWN references to the MRQYONE to develop the heretical boogeyman 'Marcion' and the 'Marcionites.'

I have now laid out a comprehensive understanding of how I think the name Marcion developed. I don't think that the historical Justin ever witnessed his existence. I think by contrast that the writings of Justin were manipulated by third century editors for a specific theological agenda.

Now instead of wasting time on MY THREAD with your interest in differences that exist between Justin's belief system and what became Roman orthodoxy THIS SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT AT YOUR THREAD (where I have already responded with a post earlier yesterday).

Your point is to argue that Justin's writings do not witness certain beliefs which became orthodox in the late second and early third centuries. As I already noted I think this can be easily explained - the tradition associated with Justin (viz. Tatian's Encratites) had very well known beliefs including the use of a single, long gospel. They were also typically located in Syria which would make an argument for Roman primacy seem forced.

Nevertheless we can carry on YOUR DISCUSSION at YOUR THREAD. They have no bearing on the present discussion of whether or Justin's reference to Μαρκιανοί in the Apology is more original than the appearance of 'Marcion' in the Apology. It is impossible to believe that Justin is forgetting to reference the Marcionites in the list of heresies in chapter 35.

This is what it all comes down to my friend (as I know you'll want to go back to your mantra about what is and isn't in the writings of Justin which have nothing to do with my thread):

Either Μαρκιανοί is a corruption for Μαρκιωνοί (as von Harnack maintains) or Marcion is an insertion into the Apology by later Catholic editors.

I hold the latter position but your position that there is no corruption in the Codex Regius is unrealistic and I may add, utterly irrational given that even scholars who utterly sympathetic to Justin, recognize the unfortunate state of the preservation of his original work.

aa5874

I am NOT repeating what I BELIEVE.

I am repeating the FACTS.

And this is a FACT. The writings called "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" do NOT contain any post-ascension history of Jesus believers, do NOT contain any prominent MARTYRED so-called apostle, and do NOT contain any reference to a single post-ascension writer. NONE. ZERO.

You MUST know that preservation has absolutely nothing to do with actual manipulation, yet you REPEAT the fallacy all the time.

You MUST know that Justin did NOT claim he was "one of them". Justin did NOT make any reference to them. He did NOT know them.

Justin did NOT Know the Gospel writers:

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John

Justin did NOT appear to KNOW

1. ACTS of the Apostles
2. The Epistle to the Romans.
3. The Epistle to the Corinthians
4. The Epistle to the Galatians
5. The Epistle to the Ephesians
6. The Epistle to the Thessalonians
7. The Epistle to the Philippians
8. The Epistle to the Colossians
9. The Epistle to Timothy
10. The Epistle to Jude
11. The Epistle to Philemon
12. The Epistle from Peter
13. The Epistle from James
14. The Epistle from Jude
15. The Epistle from John.

Justin did NOTappear to know:

1. Ignatius
2. Polycarp
3. Papias
4. Clement
5. Africanus


Justin was NOT one of "them".

Irenaeus also claimed Jesus was OVER 50 years old when he suffered while at the same time claimed Jesus was about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius and was crucified under Pilate.

Jesus could have ONLY been around 38 years old if he was 30 years old at the 15th year of Tiberius and crucified under Pilate.

Irenaeus also propagated one of the BIGGEST LIE in the HISTORY of MANKIND that PETER, a WHOLLY FICTITIOUS character, was the ACTUAL first bishop of ROME.

Irenaeus was ONE of THEM fiction writers.

You have identified "ONE of them fiction writers.[/b]

Eusebius also propagated one of the BIGGEST LIE in the History of Mankind that the FICTITIOUS character called PETER was the ACTUAL 1st bishop of ROME.

Justin wrote nothing about any bishop of Rome or any bishop anywhere.

So, did the Catholic editor simply FORGET to ADD the post-ascension FICTION stories about Jesus believers in "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" as he did in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Clement, Eusebius, Clement, Ignatius, Acts and the Pauline writings?

Are you proposing that the Catholic editor was an idiot?

But, you seem to be arguing that it is not really known who wrote "First and Second Apology" since you cannot identify what is actually corrupted in the writings themselves.

Please STATE What is corrupted about Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement, Peter the supposed bishop of Rome, Paul, Linus, Matthew, Mark and Luke in Justin's writings?


But, again you cannot show that Justin did not get the information of the 100 year old story about Simon Magus from another written or oral source.

A statue was found with an inscription under water so it should be obvious that Justin did not just make up the story about the statue. Some earlier source MUST have had information about the statue.

Why would a Catholic editor write about a statue that did ACTUALLY EXIST with an ACTUAL INSCRIPTION and falsely claim it was a statue of Simon Magus when such a LIE does not even help to prove Jesus or any disciples existed?

It would appear to me that the information on the statue and the inscription was not from a Catholic editor.

But, the very same argument can be made against your theory.

Because you believe a document is corrupt does NOT prove Marcion did not exist.

Corrupt documents mention Pilate, Herod, Tiberius,Claudius and Nero.

It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE for the Catholic editor to claim that an unknown character was in possession of the Pauline writings and gLuke.

Would you claim that Harry Potter was in possession of or was aware of your posts?

No.

It would be far more credible to claim OBAMA read your post.

There is no benefit for Catholic editors to FLASELY claim their own fabricated apostles and Church writers met unknown fictitious characters.

Catholic editors MUST HISTORICISE their own fabricated characters with WELL-KNOWN figures of HISTORY.

Jesus was placed in the presence of PILATE and HEROD.

Paul was placed in the presence of Agrippa, Festus, and executed under Nero. Even Seneca was said to have corresponded to Paul.

But, again nothing is gained by the Catholic editors BY introducing fictitious characters to HISTORICISE their own fiction characters.

But, that is EXACTLY what happened. The manipulators read Justin's writings and then SIMPLY proceeded to FABRICATE their own invetions about Simon Magus and Marcion.

The writings called "Against Heresies" and "Against Marcion" appear to be the ACTUAL CORRUPTIONS of Justin Martyr's writings AFTER Marcion was dead.

In "Against Marcion" the writer called Tertullian claimed he was writing a new work against Marcion.


Your admission that Irenaeus was promoting four separate gospel is a blatant admission that Irenaeus did not manipulate Justin since he (Justin) did NOT write at all about FOUR separate Gospels.

Irenaeus claimed there were Gospels called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

But, Justin wrote ONLY of the Memoirs of the Apostles and identified the Memoirs of the Apostles as being read in the churches.

Irenaeus did not promote any document called ONLY the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Again, what is the advantage of fabricating fictitious characters to HISTORICISE other fiction characters of the Church?

Catholic editors would want their FICTION characters to meet and write LETTERS to Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Philo and Josephus, NOT some unknown boogeyman that NOBODY ever heard about.

It is incomprehensible that Catholic editors would have invented boogeymen to historicise their own boogeymen.

It would have been expected that they would have introduced their boogeymen to WELL-KNOWN figures of history like Seneca.

Your explanation makes very little sense since you are arguing that Justin Marty's writings were corrupted.

The EVIDENCE clearly show that it was NOT CORRUPTED as you have inadvertently admitted.

Irenaeus promoted four NAMED separate Gospels.

Justin did NOT name any Gospel and did NOT claim that there was ONLY four.

You have destroyed your own arguments for the manipulation of Justin Martyr's writings as soon as you claimed that Justin did NOT promote 4 gospels like Irenaeus.

Virtually ALL the Church writers PROMOTED FOUR GOSPELS except JUSTIN MARTYR.

stephan huller

Again I have determined that you are incapable on nuance in your argumentation. I understand that you have come to the conclusion that Justin stands (relatively) alone in the fact that he does not use the fourfaced gospel nor the Acts of the Apostles and the other texts you cite. But none of this has any bearing on this discussion or this thread.

The Marcionites didn't use the fourfaced gospel nor the Acts of the Apostle. So what?

I think you should stick to YOUR THREAD challenging people to prove that Justin used other canonical texts but this is waste of time at my thread. You can't prove that Justin is 'authentic' merely because he used or didn't use certain texts.

I don't even think you understand what the English word 'authentic' means, quite honestly. Perhaps if I knew what your native tongue was I could develop my arguments in that language. That might help our communicating with one another.

You have an interesting observation regarding which Fathers used or didn't use certain texts but this has no bearing on our current topic. I am not going to spend hours of my time engaging a one trick pony.

Stick to your thread until you have something relative to say about this question I posed to you in my last post:

Either Μαρκιανοί in Dialogue 35 is a corruption for Μαρκιωνοί (as von Harnack maintains) or Marcion is an insertion into the Apology by later Catholic editors.

I doubt you can understand why I put this before you as - and I don't mean to be rude - but I think my arguments are too nuanced for you. You can only riff off a single idea - namely that there are ideas you 'like' and these are 'authentic' and then there are ideas 'you don't like' and these are 'fictions.'

This approach has no place in a discussion of different readings of Mark and Marcion in Justin and as such I see no point engaging you any further at this thread.

I might come over to your thread to debate you on WHY the material from Justin which came to us THROUGH THE CHURCH FATHERS (unless you think they were recovered from a time capsule) never reference the fourfaced gospels and the like. But this pointless. I have far more important things to do this weekend - like have my dog's anal glands cleansed at the groomers ...

Toto

Stephan Huller - those of us who know aa5874 stand in admiration of your valiant attempt to get through to him. And your own posts have been a valuable addition to our forum.

stephan huller

Well thank you, Toto.

I have to admit that it was only owing to AA's persistence that I thought about the ultimate dichotomy between the readings in two texts of Justin which are considered authentic. So I have him to thank for the formulation, ultimately. I am just growing tired of debating one person with really only one thing to contribute to the discussion.

As you know, I have demonstrated that there is a consistent twofold reading of the same tradition as associated with Mark or Marcion which ultimately dates back to (a) Irenaeus's attack against the Marcosians (AH i.13 - 21) and (b) Justin's reference to the Μαρκιανοί. I think that a third century editor attempted to reconcile Justin's reports (especially the Syntagma) with Irenaeus 'lectures' (as Photius calls them in their original form) of Against the Valentinians and Against the Marcosians. This is why we see in later sections of the Five Books a repeated citation of Justin's witness of 'Marcion.'

In any event I think Hippolytus's reference to Marcionite claims that 'the Apostle' wrote the Gospel of Mark is in this seeming never ending confusion over these two names. Here is a weaker but nevertheless I think fascinating possible split over the names that I mentioned at my site last night.

Please take this with a grain of salt. I am merely making an observation, not claiming that this is 'another proof.'

The post was entitled Why Doesn't Eusebius Know that Marcus (Irenaeus AH i.13.1) is a Valentinian?

Almost every scholar repeats the same story over and over again - the heretic Marcus mentioned in the First Book of Irenaeus's Against All Heresies was a Valentinian. 'Just look at the way the account of the Marcosians follows the account of the Valentinians,' they will tell you. 'The connecting phrase between the two accounts is 'But there is another among these heretics, Marcus is his name' (AH i.13.1) - in another words 'Marcus' is 'another' of the Valentinians.'

Well, it seems so obvious to these 'experts' that they don't even notice that there is an amazing amount of variation between the different preservations of the same material. But most significant difficulty is that Tertullian preserves a treatise Against the Valentinians that does NOT include the Marcosians. In any event I don't want to recycle my original argument in favor of Irenaeus having written two separate treatises Against the Valentinians and Against the Marcosians which was fused with Justin's Syntagma to make the First Book of Against All Heresies.

What I found very intriguing was taking a second look at Eusebius's recycling of Irenaeus's material against the heresies and noticing that he goes out of his way NOT to identify Marcus as a Valentinian. Take a look yourselves:

For Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus.Cerdon also, Marcion's predecessor, entered the Church in the time of Hyginus, the ninth bishop, and made confession, and continued in this way, now teaching in secret, now making confession again, and now denounced for corrupt doctrine and withdrawing from the assembly of the brethren.

These words are found in the third book of the work Against Heresies. And again in the first book he speaks as follows concerning Cerdon: A certain Cerdon, who had taken his system from the followers of Simon, and had come to Rome under Hyginus, the ninth in the episcopal succession from theapostles, taught that the God proclaimed by the law and prophets was not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; and the former was just, but the latter good. Marcion of Pontus succeeded Cerdon and developed his doctrine, uttering shameless blasphemies.

The same Irenæus unfolds with the greatest vigor the unfathomable abyss of Valentinus' errors in regard to matter, and reveals his wickedness, secret and hidden like a serpent lurking in its nest.

And in addition to these men he says that there was also another that lived in that age, Marcus by name, who was remarkably skilled in magic arts. And he describes also their unholy initiations and their abominable mysteries in the following words:

For some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a mystic rite with certain forms of expression addressed to those who are being initiated, and they say that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the marriages above. But others lead them to water, and while they baptize them they repeat the following words: Into the name of the unknown father of the universe, into truth, the mother of all things, into the one that descended upon Jesus.Others repeat Hebrew names in order the better to confound those who are being initiated.[Eusebius Church History iv.11]

I don't know what to make of this reference. It is clear from the first paragraph that Eusebius knows of a version of Against All Heresies divided up into at least three books (let's assume that it was already five at the beginning of the fourth century just to be nice). Let's also assume that the First Book of this series still presented a list of heresies which began with the Valentinians and worked down to the Marcosians and then followed by the rest of the stuff most scholars think was taken from Justin's Syntagma.

Then if this is the case - why doesn't Eusebius 'know' that there is that connective phrase between the account of the Valentinians and the account of Marcus which says either ']but there is another among these heretics, Marcus is his name' (AH i.13.1) or 'a certain other teacher among them, Marcus, an adept in sorcery.' (Philosophumena 34)

Could it be that it has something do with an attempt of various Origenists to obscure the background of his main benefactor Ambrose? For though Eusebius writes:

About this time Ambrose, who held the heresy of Valentinus, was convinced by Origen's presentation of the truth, and, as if his mind were illumined by light, he accepted the orthodox doctrine of the Church. [Eusebius Church History vi.18]

Jerome says equally emphatically that:

Ambrosius, at first a Marcionite but afterwards set right by Origen, was deacon in the church, and gloriously distinguished as confessor of the Lord. [Illustrious Lives 56]

Could this be yet another example of the pattern of mistaking Marcus for Marcion ONLY THAT Eusebius DELIBERATELY DISTINGUISHES Ambrose from his original devotion to Marcus? How else can the 'misunderstanding' that Marcus is something other than a Valentinian be explained?

Now I wrote this rather hurriedly and DID NOT CHECK the original Greek of Eusebius to see if it can be understood to mean that Marcus was considered 'another (of these Valentinians).' But even if that were true the overall point that Ambrose was described as a Marcosian in one source and a Marcionite in another would be effectively PROVED.

Anyway thanks again.

aa5874

But, I did get through to stephan. He cannot now try to use the very corrupt material to support his theory an expect no objections.

aa5874

I am not tired challenging your theory that Marcion and Simon Magus did not exist.

I don't get tired when people challege my theories. I get ENERGISED.

You have ignored the possibility that the supposed erroneous information about Marcion by Church writers was not because Marcion did not exist but was because the very Church writers corrupted the writings of Marcion.

Based on your own theory that the Church MUST have corrupted the writings of of Justin, Irenaeus, Tertulluian, and others because of "preservation" of the same period, so it must be that it was likely that they CORRUPTED the teachings of Marcion because they were preserved around the same time by the same people.

Did not the Church corrupt its own writings? And did they not exist?

It was not necessary for Marcion to have been a boogeyman for the Church to have CORRUPTED his teachings.

But the mention of the Gospel of Mark in "Refutation of All Heresies" 7.1 by Hippolytus has nothing whatsoever to do with any confusion of names.

And you appear to have CORRUPTED the information about Mark in Hippolytus.

It was NOT Mark who was the "Apostle' but PAUL the Apostle.

You seem to have demonsratrated how passages are corrupted in order to mis-represent the original.

The passage CLEARLY refers to Paul as the Apostle but to propagate your flawed theory you make it seems as though "Apostle" referred to Mark.

You mean a ton of salt?