stephan huller

Actually the text says "my people, that is the Samarians" but that's another story. He is expressing his affection for the Samaritan people which is strange because most Church Fathers start with the assumption that the Samaritans are bad (hence the addition of the word 'good' to the Samaritan of the Gospel of Luke even today)

stephan huller

It's like someone confessing to a crime without being coaxed by the police. Why would anyone want to identify himself as a Samaritan when doing so is so utterly atypical of the rest of his peers (= the Church Fathers).

stephan huller

And then we move on to the question of why all scholars can't acknowledge that Justin was a Samaritan - the answer is that it challenges our basic assumptions about early Christianity. If Justin was a Samaritan it would have been impossible to accept the sanctity of Jerusalem (given that the Samaritans have always argued that Jerusalem does not appear in the Pentateuch - i.e. how could it be sacred?). Moreover it adds a new level of complexity to Christian-Jewish relations. If Justin is our earliest 'real' authority (his dates must have been very close to the bar Khochba revolt) it is almost impossible reconcile him with Judaism. Moreover it shows a strong pattern of Samaritan interest in Greek philosophy and Plato especially (Marqe, Marinus etc).

If Justin was the head of the Encratites (as Tatian certainly claimed) then it makes a whole branch of Christianity rooted in a tradition that most New Testament scholars haven't any working knowledge. It opens up a whole new world of possibilities for Christian origins too

Duvduv

From here and related links it sounds like there is or was some confusion about what and who the Encratites were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encratites
And the fact that information as confused as it is comes from Eusebius, well, shall we say, isn't surprising.
They accepted the Jewish Scriptures and the gospels but rejected the epistles and Acts? Well, that sounds impressive if Eusebius is one of the biggest sellers of heresiology concerning anyone who doesn't accept his books (if they already existed).......

DCHindley

OK, then work it out:

	Samaria	Samaritan (Byz Greek)	Samarianish	Jewish
Singluar	1st Declension	3rd Declension	2nd Declension	2nd Declension
N.	Σαμάρεια	Σαμάρεύς	Σαμαρειτικος	Ἰουδαϊκος
G.	Σαμάρείας	Σαμάρέως	Σαμαρειτικου	Ἰουδαϊκου
D.	Σαμάρείᾳ	Σαμάρεῖ	Σαμαρειτικῳ	Ἰουδαϊκῳ
A.	Σαμάρειαν	Σαμάρέα	Σαμαρειτικoν	Ἰουδαϊκoν
V.	Σαμάρεια	Σαμάρεῦ	Σαμαρειτικε	Ἰουδαϊκε
Plural
N.	Σαμάρειαι	Σαμάρεῖς	Σαμαρειτικoι	Ἰουδαϊκoι
G.	Σαμάρειῶν	Σαμάρέων	Σαμαρειτικων	Ἰουδαϊκων
D.	Σαμάρείαις	Σαμάρεῦσι(ν)	Σαμαρειτικoις	Ἰουδαϊκoις
A.	Σαμάρείας	Σαμάρεῖς	Σαμαρειτικoυς	Ἰουδαϊκoυς
V.	Σαμάρειαι	Σαμάρεῖς	Σαμαρειτικoι	Ἰουδαϊκoι

1 Apol 26 There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto
1 Apol 26 ἀλλὰ καὶ τιμῶν κατηξιώθησαν Σίμωνα μέν τινα Σαμαρέα, τὸν ἀπὸ κώμης λεγομένης Γίτθων
"But also a highly esteemed Simon, a certain (man) of Samaria, who was from the village of Giton"

1 Apol 26 And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations
1 Apol 26 καὶ σχεδὸν πάντες μὲν Σαμαρεῖς, ὀλίγοι δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν
"While most all Samaritans, and a few others of the Nations"

1 Apol 26 And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea
1 Apol 26 Μένανδρον δέ τινα, καὶ αὐτὸν Σαμαρέα, τὸν ἀπὸ κώμης Καππαρεταίας


1 Apol 53 For all the other human races are called Gentiles by the Spirit of prophecy; but the Jewish and Samaritan races are called the tribe of Israel, and the house of Jacob.
1 Apol 53 τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα πάντα γένη ἀνθρώπεια ὑπὸ τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος καλεῖται ἔθνη, τὸ δὲ Ἰουδαϊκὸν καὶ Σαμαρειτικὸν φῦλον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ οἶκος Ἰακὼβ κέκληνται.

1 Apol 56 The evil spirits [in order to nullify the prophets' predictions about Christ] ... put forward other (men), the Samaritans Simon and Menander, who did many mighty works by magic, and deceived many, and still keep them deceived. ... [p. 182]
1 Apol 56 προεβάλλοντο ἄλλους, Σίμωνα μὲν καὶ Μένανδρον ἀπὸ Σαμαρείας

Dialogue 120 For I gave no thought to any of my people, that is, the Samaritans, when I had a communication in writing with Caesar, but stated that they were wrong in trusting to the magician Simon of their own nation, who, they say, is God above all power, and authority, and might. [p 260]
Dialogue 120 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους τοῦ ἐμοῦ, λέγω δὲ τῶν Σαμαρέων, τινὸς φροντίδα ποιούμενος, ἐγγράφως Καίσαρι προσομιλῶν, εἶπον πλανᾶσθαι αὐτοὺς πειθομένους τῷ ἐν τῷ γένει αὐτῶν μάγῳ Σίμωνι, ὃν θεὸν ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως εἶναι λέγουσι

DCH

stephan huller

I don't understand what we are working out. It is my point that no one would profess love for the Samaritans - no Christian Church Father would identify the Samaritans as 'my people' - if he was not a Samaritan. The Hebrew people are unique. Because they shut off outsiders no one would naturally identify with Jews or Samaritans unless they were Jews or Samaritans.

DCHindley

Correction to table ... second column is not the declensions for "Samaritan" (people of Samaria) but of the Byzantine Greek word for "Samaria."

Justin never uses the word "Samaritan." Even the word "Σαμαρειτικoν" (Samareitikon) is not a slam dunk. It is paired with "Ἰουδαϊκoν" (Judaikon) which, if you check your lexicons, means both the region of Judea as well as the customs of the people of the region. We can assume that "Samaritan-isch" has a similar range of meaning.

In short, Stephan, he refers to the geographical region of birth and not fellowship of ethnic origen. Samaria was the place of residence of quite a mix of peoples of Phoenecian, Semite, Egyptian, and Greek stock (by order of occupation)

DCH

aa5874

You have NOT put forward any evidence at all that show Justin Martyr did NOT consider himself a Samaritan or was NOT of the people of Samaria.

There was absolutely no reason for Justin to have written "MY PEOPLE" instead of "THE PEOPLE" unless he was of Samaritan people or considered himself a Samaritan.

This is what is expected if Justin did NOT consider himself a Samaritan or of the Samaritan people.


......For I gave no thought to any of THE people, that is, the Samaritans....

stephan huller

DCH

Yes but that shows a complete lack of appreciation for the distinctiveness of the Hebrew people. Again I go back to my point about a pagan resident of Jerusalem. After the bar Khochba revolt Jerusalem and Shechem were destroyed and pagan settlements were established on both sites. It is claimed that Justin lived in Neapolis and thus was a pagan. Yet at the very same time, most or many scholars identify the opponent in Dialogue as the great rabbi of the same name who lived BEFORE the bar Khochba revolt i.e. when Shechem was still Shechem and no 'new city' (= Neapolis) existed.

The identification that you claim doesn't work on several levels. Samaria wasn't just a name of 'geographical region' it was the name of a people. A pagan resident would not describe the Samaritans as 'my people' unless he was a Samaritan. There is also no evidence for a large pagan population in Samaria outside of Neapolis. It is just as implausible as a pagan resident of Aelia Capitolina to describe the 'Judeans' as 'my people' if he wasn't Jewish.

Your argument is implausible on many grounds not the least of which again that the Jews and Samaritan hated outsiders and were hated by their neighbors (a 'perfect hatred' as Celsus calls it). My friend Benny told me for instance that when his father would be visited by a Christian in his shop they would 'purify' the footsteps of the hated visitor 'by fire' (a practice using urine after a handshake is described as early as Epiphanius).

Your argument is typical of Americans who think that the rest of the world has the friendliness and hospitality of your people. Not true now, not true ever.

DCHindley

The translator keeps using "Samaritans" when the underlying Greek refers to people "from Samaria." The only time those who hold the Samaritan-ish and Judahite-ish practices are mentioned are when he says they two together represent the "tribe" of Israel.

Enough ...

DCH