jgreen44

But being "hated" and a "not-so-good" rhetorical writer does not explain how Justin, a native of Samaria, could have mistaken Semo Sancus Dius Fidus for someone named Shimon.

aa5874

But, you seem not to understand that Justin Martyr lived about 100 years after Simon Magus or about 100 years after the Emperor Claudius when the statue was erected.

You have not verified that Justin actually SAW the inscription on the statue.

You have NOT verified when the statue fell in the river.

You have not verified if Justin Martyr got the information about the statue from a written or oral source and if the source had the very same information as found in "First Apology".

There is just no basis to claim that Justin could not have made any errors with the inscription when there is no source that can explain how Justin got his information on the statue of Simon Magus.

andrewcriddle

I may be misunderstanding the argument about Justin Martyr and Simon Magus.

If, however, it assumes that Justin as a native of Samaria could read/speak Hebrew and/or Aramaic, then it may be mistaken.

Justin seems to have come from a Gentile family in the Samaria area and probably knew no Semitic languages.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

You appear to be mistaken.

The argument is about whether Justin actually saw the statue or the inscription on the statue before it fell into the water or whether he relied on some written or oral source.

So far, Justin, who wrote about 100 years after Simon, appears to be correct that there was a statue and that there was an inscription.

It is most likely that he depended on some source for the century-old event and that it was the source that made the mistakes about the content of the inscription.

stephan huller

I am not very familiar with working in these forums and I tend to forget who wrote what but the question of who or what Justin was has been bounced around for at least a century. The bottom line for me is that as someone who has tried to follow arguments in his Dialogue there can be no doubt that the surviving literature associated with Justin is corrupt. There are what I would call genuine 'nuggets' of what appear to me to be authentic interpretations of scripture that we know from rabbinic sources but they are buried and then resurface a chapter later and then several chapters later again. The same scripture can be interpreted in seemingly contradictory ways. The specific example I was thinking of was Psalm 72 where Justin's attack against Solomon is typically Samaritan.

stephan huller

I am sorry I should have given ONE of the references in Dialogue to Psalm 72 (there are many). I was thinking Dialogue 34

I should also mention that I came across Hilgenfeld's identification of the name Marcion as a diminutive of the name Mark. I am being told I haven't made enough posts to include the link (go to my blog stephanhuller + blogspot.com). My attempt at a translation (the only person I speak German with is my mother):

That Μαρκίων is a diminutive of Μαρκος, I conclude also from the relation of Εὔρυτος to Εὐρυτίων, (vgl. Phil. Griech. Gramm. 21. Aufl. S. 119, Anm. 12), κοδράτίων (from Philostratus vit. sophist. II, 6 p. 250) to κοδράτος (vgl. W. H. Waddington, Memoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rheteur Aristide, 1867, p. 32). So also I think κάλλιστος, the Roman Bishop (217 - 222) against whom the author of the Philosophumena shows such hostility, is behind Rhodon's reference to κάλλιστίωνι προσφωνων (Eusebius, Church History V, 13, 8). Stronger still is the case for the Μαρκιανοί - which Justin Dial c. Tr. c. 35 p. 253 mentions before the Valentinians, Basilideans, Satornillians, etc - being a reference to Marcionites. Similarly, one will have to read the Muratorianum Z 82-84: quia etiam librum novum psalmorum Marciani (= Marcionitae conscripserunt).

I mentioned that Hilgenfeld missed Hegesippus's reference in Eusebius to the Marcionites as Μαρκιανισταί. But no one's perfect I guess!

My theory on the origin of the name was developed for me by Professor Ruairidh Boid of Monash University. We noticed that the Syriac form of Marcionite in the Life of Mar Aba (sixth century Persian figure) was a Jewish Aramaic gentilic collective plural meaning 'those of Mark.' Marcion would be a backformation of Marqiyone, not exactly identical but similar to other heretical boogeymen like Ebion of the Evionim, Elxai of the Elchasites etc.

Hilgenfeld, Adolf, “Häreseologische Berichtigungen”, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie,(1888), XXIII, 478—483

aa5874

You have no credible historical source of antiquity that can show that there was no character called Marcion as found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

The interpretation or mis-interpretation of Hebrew Scripture is irrelevant to the actual existence of Marcion when Justin Martyr himself was alive.

Your theory must NOT allow Marcion to live. That is all.

You know that Marcus and Marcion had TOTALLY different doctrines and lived at different time period based on sources of antiquity.

stephan huller

Okay but this is where I have had problems participating in these sites. We are all intelligent people. We spend our time thinking about things that 99% of the world doesn't even know exists, doesn't care about. If you want to be specific and cite which parts of my argument are unworkable I would treasure this as time well spent. But if you are just going to sit there and tell me that the writings which the Church has handed to us as 'Josephus,' 'Justin Martyr,' 'Ignatius,' 'Paul' HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED AS the EXACT WORDS WHICH CAME ON TO THE PAGE as they first pressed pen into paper I will question the value of this exercise (although I am bored enough that I might still engage you anyway).

I don't know what to do with this statement:

The Church Fathers say there was a guy named Marcion who was the head of the 'Marcionites' but they also say that there was a guy named Ebion at the head of the Ebionites and Elxai the leader of the Elchasites. So I think would agree that these last two are fictitious so there is room to question other claims about heretical boogeymen.

Now again you point specifically to Justin Martyr's witness. Let us ask the works of Justin which have been passed down to us are pristine (i.e. have not suffered corruption, deletion, addition, editorial manipulation etc.)? I hold that the Dialogue with Trypho IS A MESS. It has been manipulated by a later editor. If you would like to get into an argument about whether the Dialogue with Trypho is pristine I have lots of time and we can go section by section.

So if the Dialogue with Trypho is corrupt then it is at least conceivable that another text attributed to Justin has also suffered from adulteration.

Next, I don't believe that Simon Magus is a historical figure. As such I have problems with Justin's apparent claim that he converted almost of Samaria and yet the Samaritans themselves have no knowledge of Simon beyond what the Byzantines told them about him. I have similar suspicions about 'John the Baptist' who supposedly baptized 'all of Judea' although rabbinic texts similarly have no knowledge of him. I also find peculiar that the Marcionite gospel begins long after his baptizing and the miraculous appearances of doves, god without sin needing otherwise unknown sin cleansing baptisms etc.

I don't believe the Catholic tradition was pristine. I think it was actively designing a senseless form of Christianity to obscure an older form of the religion based in Aexandrian in the age of Constantine.

I buy into David Trobisch's theories about an editorial concept at work in the organization of the New Testament and feel that it was designed to reinforce a particular understanding of the apostolic period with 'good guys' over here and 'bad guys' over there. I consider myself one of David's friends and have told him about my application of his work - namely that Irenaeus was the 'final editor' of the New Testament canon and he seems genuinely cool about it.

So I don't understand what you are arguing. Are you saying that it's impossible that the writings of Justin were edited by someone in the late second century to reinforce the same 'editorial concepts' at work in the New Testament? Is it inconceivable, improbable that Justin was being used by Irenaeus to prove that Simon and Marcion had a real existence and were 'bad guys'? You might not agree with it but how can you say its ridiculous?

And if I could go one step further -how can you ask me to find contemporary sources who say 'I know that Marcion doesn't exist' when it is impossible to reference something you aren't aware of.

It reminds me of when I was high for the first time in my teenage years and I came home and I desperately tried to 'act naturally' for my parents. The point is that if nothing was wrong I wouldn't be struggling to act as if everything was normal. I am sure murderers and rapists go through this when questioned by the police. Innocent people never have this problem.

The best argument I can come back with is why if (a) the Marcionites lasted until the sixth century and (b) the Imperial government has countless decrees against various fictitious and real sects down through to that period why isn't there ANY referencr anywhere in these legal codes to this stupid 'Marcionite' sect? I have Amnon Linder's The Jews in the legal sources of the early Middle Ages. There are references to the Samaritans, Jews, the Manichaeans as well as less historical sects like the Borborites, heaven worshippers, the closepeg in the nose sect all sorts of stupid sects but no Marcionites.

Theodoret says from memory that he converted over a thousand Marcionites in his region alone. Why aren't there references to the Marcionites IN THE LEGAL SOURCES if there is a real Marcionite sect?

My theory is that there is a commonality to the 'good' Μαρκιανισταί (i.e. the Alexandrian tradition), the 'bad' Μαρκιανισταί (i.e. of the imaginary gnostic referenced by Irenaeus), the 'bad' Μαρκιανοί -referenced by Justin Dial c. Tr. c. 35, the Marciani of the Muratorian canon, the Μαρκιωνισταί which gets referenced in the CATHOLIC collection of Justin's writings that gets added to Irenaeus's original writings (i.e. the Syntagma addition after AH i.23.1) as well as the writings of Tertullian (cmp. Against the Jews and Against Marcion III) and the Samaritan writings of Marqe.

You can say that you don't agree with my theory but there CERTAINLY IS A COMMONALITY. I would argue that the commonality is Alexandria and specifically a messianic cult rooted in Alexandria and developed from what we would call 'Alexandrian Judaism.'

stephan huller

And one more thing. If you want me to go belief by belief, line by line in order to demonstrate that the Μαρκιανισταί were identical with the Μαρκιωνισταί - bring it on.

aa5874

But, I have NOT said that you must ACCEPT anything I write or that you MUST accept the Church writings.

I SIMPLY said "You have no credible historical source of antiquity that can show that there was no character called Marcion as found in the writings of Justin Martyr.


Please STATE exactly who claimed there was a guy named Ebion. It may not have been Justin Martyr.

Please STATE exactly who claimed that Elxai was the leader of the Elchasites. It may not have been Justin Martyr.

So, If you hold that Trypho is a MESS can I not hold that Trypho is NOT a mess?

Now once you hold that Trypho is a Mess and not pristine then you must show YOUR supposed CREDIBLE pristine source or find a Credible pristine source which can demonstrate that Trypho was a MESS.

You have NOT EVEN began to demonstrate that "Dialogue with Trypho" is corrupt. You think whatever you imagine is history.

Now, if "Dialogue with Trypho" is corrupt then your unknown source may also be corrupt.

So, what happens if I tell you that I don't believe YOUR MARK was Marcion?

What happens If I say I am having problems with your BELIEFS?

But, I don't believe Irenaeus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the Pauline writers, James, Jude, Peter and Eusebius.

I try not to buy friendship. I only want to look at your sources of antiquity. What happens to your friendship if David changes his mind. You must remember that people write books to make a profit.

Well, why have you started to argue with me?

I am saying you have NO EVIDENCE from antiquity that shows Marcion did not exist as found in the writings of JUSTIN MARTYR.

And you EXPECT ME to find a source which states YOUR supposed Mark did NOT exist?

Very smart!!!

Now, why can't I find YOUR MARK in Justin Martyr's writings?. Does your MARK have the same problem as the Marcionites?