stephan huller

Well, as I am not solely interested in answering your objection to my theory through Justin - I am interested in having people tackle, discuss, reject etc. ALL the parts to the theory - it is important to find examples of names preserved in diminutive forms being mistaken for non-existent individuals.

Hilgenfeld is an important witness to support my case. That doesn't mean that anything is settled of course. But there is something about your general tone aa5784 (or whatever your real name is) that is wholly unscientific. There is no way to prove anything about early Christianity. We can only hope to eliminate unworkable hypotheses - one such unworkable presupposition in my mind is the idea that the surviving texts of the Church Fathers are pristine, come from the hand they claim to derive their origins without corruption from later editors (I see the same process working in the New Testament canon but that's another story).

Now to make clear again I AM arguing that the particular form in the Life of Mar Aba (MARQYONE) betrays the possibility that Marcion could have been developed as a back formation in Aramaic. Hilgenfeld was arguing that Marcion was a development of the diminutive of Marcus.

In reality my theory does not necessarily dispute the idea that both Marcion, Marcionite and Marcianite readings could be found in the writings of Justin. Here are my questions for you:

do you think that the existing manuscripts of Justin are wholly pristine? What I mean by that is that are you convinced that there were no corruptions made to the text subsequent to the historical figure of 'Justin' wrote his Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius? And then HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT?

The point is that we are essentially in the same difficulty. We have a text attributed to a man named Justin called Martyr who happened to be very valuable to the Catholici at Rome.

Look at that reference from Rhodo again. Rhodo stresses to Callistus that his teacher (whom we presume to be Tatian) was TAUGHT AT ROME. This apparently was very important to the Romans. It must have been intended to prove or intimate that his ideas were very compatible with their own or at least found favor with the authorities of the Petrine See in a previous age.

But what age was this? Irenaeus doesn't even reference Tatian's visit to Rome. What appears in Book 1 in relation to Tatian appears in a section AFTER the section where the Syntagma has already been copied into the 'first book' of Irenaeus. I don't think that anything after chapter 21 of Book One (save for the conclusion) was actually written by Irenaeus.

As I read it Book One is made up of two original 'lectures' by Irenaeus (i.e. Against the Valentinians and Against the Marcosians) plus the Syntagma (which continues from chapter 23 - the beginning of 31). It is worth noting that when Tertullian and the Philosophumena cite these two original lectures they reference 'objections' to the account given by Irenaeus from the groups in question. This is VERY, VERY significant and under reported.

No one has ever explained to my satisfaction how and why Tertullian manages to cite ONLY parts of what now appears in Irenaeus's account of the Valentinians and nothing of what follows regarding the Marcosians (who according to our existing copies of Book One are supposed to be Valentinians). I take that to mean what Tertullian was copying was a separate and more original Irenaean treatise 'Against the Valentinians' which was later incorporated by editors into a five volume collection of his lectures 'Against the Heresies' by Roman editors in the mid-third century.

It is worth noting that the Philosophumena and Pseudo-Tertullian's Adversus Omnes Haereses are UNIVERSALLY acknowledged to be related texts developing from some lost ancestor (Photius references yet another version of this collection attributed to Hippolytus called 'Against Heresies' which - as has been noted by men much smarter than both us - IS NOT OUR Philosophumena:

A booklet of Hippolytus has been read. Now Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus. But it (i.e. the booklet) was the compilation against 32 heresies making the Dositheans the beginning of them and comprising those up to Noetius and the Noetians. And he says that these heresies were subjected to refutation by Irenaeus in conversation (or in lectures). Of which refutations making also a synopsis, he says he compiled this book. The phrasing however is clear, reverent and unaffected, although he does not observe the Attic style. But he says some other things lacking in accuracy and that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not by the Apostle Paul. (Biblio cod. 121)

So even when we look at the texts which scholars commonly refer to as "Irenaeus's Five Books Against the Heresies" and "Hippolytus's Refutation of the Heresies" it utterly sloppy, self-serving and ultimately mendacious.

We have a book called 'the Philosophumena' which was originally attributed to Origen but which - for various reasons (principally the uncanny similarities to things said about a work written by Hippolytus called 'Refutation of All Heresies' or something like this THE ATTRIBUTION ultimately changed.

Now I don't care how much you jump and down and speak about the certainty of what 'Justin's Apology says' the examples of OUR 'writings' which we take for granted to be the original works by 'Irenaeus,' 'Hippolytus' and 'Tertullian' (which I will get to momentarily) are enough to make anyone with intellectual integrity pause and admit THESE TEXTS ARE NOT PRISTINE.

For instance our MS of the Philosophumena DOES NOT say it is by Hippolytus. We - out of convenience and intellectual laziness - just write 'Hippolytus says' without remembering that this text differs widely from Photius's description of the material (cited above). Now maybe you will argue that Photius has the corrupt text and we the pristine original but that's laughable BECAUSE OUR PHILOSOPHUMENA DOES NOT SAY IT IS BY HIPPOLYTUS.

Now when you start looking at the use of Irenaeus in this text (the Philosophumena) and Tertullian's Against the Valentinians IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to argue that THE FORM of the Five Books Against All Heresies WAS KNOWN to these original authors. For Tertullian's copying of this earlier manuscript of an Irenaean work called 'Against All Heresies' DOES NOT FOLLOW the existing MS's of libros quinque adversus haereses. I mean chapter orders are inverted and most importantly chapters 8, 9 and 10 are unknown to Tertullian.

When you go back and look at this material (especially chapter 10) you can make a very good argument that it was added later by the third century Roman editor.

Then when you go to the Philosophumena it is impossible not to notice that the author did not know or did not use the account of Marcion which appears in Book One. This is not the only example. The only thing that is clearly Irenaean is those two 'lectures' (as Photius references Irenaeus's original works) one against the Valentinians and another Against the Marcosians.

I happen to think that these were the only real heresies known to the historical Irenaeus.

Now it is especially problematic when Irenaeus says that the Marcionites have a corrupt gospel of Luke and the Philosophumena denies a tradition that Marcion wrote or used the Gospel of Mark, not just for the 'reliability' of our sources but for how the Philosophumena indirectly shines light on the version of Irenaeus's writings that were in his possession.

We haven't even tackled the question of what the Philosophumena is. I mean if it references Irenaeus's works against the Valentinians and the Marcosians and then shares material from Justin's Syntagma and then adds new material from other sources what was the author attempting? Did the Five Books of Irenaeus already exist at this time or was the Philosophumena a first attempt at 'bundling' the various writings against the heresies into a single volume BEFORE a Roman editor created the Five Books of Irenaeus? We don't know but the idea that the texts of Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertullian against the heresies are pristine preservations of origins written in the late second and third centuries is impossible to believe. It is only promoted by scholars to make their works seem to have an air of purpose and reliability.

I mean let's move on to our principle source on Marcion - Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion. Notice the parallel 'bundling' into Five Books. There was a factory in Rome in the third century intent on establishing 'authorized' works of Irenaeus and Tertullian 'against the heresies.' Why? Well the editor tells us quite explicitly at the beginning of Book One of Against Marcion:

Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it. [Tertullian AM i.1]

Is there anyone out there who can claim with a straight face that the 'I' throughout this section is Tertullian and not a later editor? The point is that this editorial process is the rule rather than the exception and it is why - despite the historical 'Justin' having lived in the mid-second century, the actual text of this Church Father was finally established in the third.

I don’t know how you get can claim in spite of the emerging picture of what was REALLY going on in the third century, that any work claiming to be from the second century was really fromt hat period rather than being 'finally edited' (or as Trobisch would say - had a 'final edition') reworked in the third century. My guess is that you just WANT to believe Justin. You WANT to believe Irenaeus. There is nothing wrong with that yet it is impossible to claim that your methodology is scientific or perhaps better put - that questions are guiding your research rather than convenience.

So let me ask - was the book called ‘the Five Books Against Marcion’ REALLY published by Tertullian in his lifetime? I say of course not! The opening words make that absolutely clear (unless you believe that Tertullian himself ‘rescued’ his own work from a heretic). There are absolutely NO references to Montanism in the Five Books Against Marcion. It would have been especially interesting to see how the REAL Tertullian tackled the Marcionite claim that the Paraclete was Paul (cf. Origen the Homilies on Luke; Acts of Archelaus). Instead what we possess is a reworked version of Tertullian’s reworking of material originally written by Justin, Theophilus and other second century writers (notice that Book Three is an adaptation of Against the Jews itself written by Justin).

The same situation must have been originally true with regards to Irenaeus and Hippolytus’s original attempts to ‘rescue’ Irenaeus from the contemporary See of Rome which he vehemently opposed. There is this ridiculous nexus of corrupt text and editorial emendations floating around for the first half of the third century until someone decided to establish the officially ‘sanctioned’ version of the writings of Irenaeus and the writings of Tertullian BOTH IN FIVE BOOKS.

This, as Trobisch notes, was the methodology behind the establishment of the New Testament canon. It is important to note that especially with Irenaeus’s writings we have the same pattern of references. In other words, the Letters of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin are all marshaled to establish a common ‘editorial concept.’ With regards to the use of Justin in specific it wasn’t just to prove the existence of Marcion but moreover to also reinforce a positive image of controversial figures like Polycarp of Smyrna.

Not only have I argued elsewhere that Lucian’s Passing of Peregrinus was a parallel (but hostile) report of the circumstances of Polycarp’s death (http://www.radikalkritik.de/Huller_Peregrin.htm), even as Irenaeus sat in the Imperial court there were Christians who presented a rival version of his portrait of Polycarp’s orthodoxy. Florinus put himself and clearly his ‘Valentinian’ tradition – as the authentic teachings of Polycarp. Irenaeus vehemently denounced Florinus (but notice his timidity in often referencing Polycarp as simply‘the elder’ cf. Hill the Lost Teachings of Polycarp as his status – and his reputation - was clearly ‘in dispute’).

It is important then to point to Robert McQueen observation about the surviving Apology of Justin (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, p. 1133)

Justin's first work seems to have been his treatise Against all Heresies [now lost] . . . Later he composed his Apology now divided into two parts. The work is addressed to Antoninus Pius and his two adopted sons. Its date may be given by Justin's insistence on eternal fire for the wicked, for in the year 156 Polycarp of Smyrna, favorably received at Rome the year before, was burned alive after threatening his judge with "eternal fire." [From Peter Kirby's site]

The point then – after all of this – is that Justin may have written an Apology in the Antonine period but that's like saying that Andre Agassi was once married to Brooke Shields. The exact shape of that text is lost to us likely forever. What we are left with instead is a third century manipulation of that original text just like ALL of our early material was reworked by the same editorial process in Rome.

As such I contend that the Apology unfortunately belongs to the cesspool of corrupt texts which emerge from the Roman Church in the third century all promoting a specific editorial concept and agenda. This is not a pristine text but the Apology - like those which were preserved in the period – was designed to reinforce a few ‘key messages’ which were being developed to foster greater ecumenism in the contemporary Church.

judge

Hi Stephan, at the risk of getting off topic, what do you think those "key messages" might have been?
I'm presuming you mean messages designed to foster allegiance to the Roman church, but prior to any of the church councils centred within the Roman empire.

aa5874

But, even if it is found that non-existent characters were mistaken for historical figures you simply cannot transpose such finding to include ALL or any characters mentioned by the Church writers.

It is just absurd to claim that since "X" was mistaken for "Y" by Church writers then EVERY or ANY Tom, Dick and Harry were also mistaken by the Church.

"Tone" is not used to determine what is "unscientific" or "scientific.

You have been using "tone"!


I am NOT arguing that the texts of the Church Fathers are pristine. My argument is SIMPLE. You cannot show that Marcion did NOT exist as described by Justin Martyr.

I am not arguing that the writings of Justin Martyr are all pristine. I cannot tell you who ACTUALLY wrote EVERY or ANY word in his writings but I can show what is in the writings atrributed to Justin.

Please do not include me with YOUR problems. You have a lot of problems.

I have sources of antiquity to support my theories that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Eusebius were fiction writers

But, your sources are ALL PRISTINE.

How lucky you are!!!!

You can ONLY guess. But you guessed wrong.

.. You are NEW here. You guessed wrong again.

I consider "Against Heresies" to be a work of FICTION with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.


So you want to USE "lost texts" that no-one can prove existed, "lost text" that no person has found to date, or "lost texts" that may prove Justin was RIGHT about Marcion.

Once you don't know the ACTUAL contents of YOUR supposed "lost texts" then you should temporarily ABANDON your proposals.

But, your supposed contention has no basis for Justin Martyr's writings.

The Church writers did NOT use Justin Martyr's writings when the Church writers wrote their cesspool of corrupt texts.

1. Justin Martyr's writings do NOT contain any corruption from a Gospel called according to Matthew.

2. Justin Martyr's writings do NOT contain any corruption from a Gospel called according to Mark.

3. Justin Martyr's writings do NOT contain any corruption from a Gospel called according to Luke

4.Justin Martyr's writings do NOT contain any corruption from a Gospel called according to John.

5. Justin Martyr's writings do NOT contain any corruption from Acts of the Apostles.

6. Justin Martyr's writings do NOT contain any corruption from the Pauline writings and General Epistles.

Justin Martyr's writings were SPARED from the CORRUPTiION of the Church writers.

Justin Martyr has NO history of JESUS believers after it was believed Jesus ascended through the clouds.

Justin Martyr was a JESUS believer who presented a BLACK HOLE of about 120 years where NO HISTORY of JESUS believers was accounted for as found in the CORRUPTION called Church History.

Justin Martyr's post ascension history is from Simon Magus to Marcion.

The corruption called Church History is from Peter the 1ST BISHOP of Rome and Paul. Not one of them in Justin's writings.

Justin Martyr wrote nothing about a SINGLE bishop of Rome. Justin Martyr did not name his own bishop. Justin did not acknowledge that there were any bishops anywhere in the Roman Empire.

Justin Martyr's writings CONTRADICT the corruption called Church History.

avi

Thank you for your several, detailed and well documented, posts on this thread.

I enjoyed reading them all.

I am curious why you seem focused on "... a third century manipulation..."

In particular, I would have imagined that it was the fourth century, that created most of the havoc with the original documents, i.e. Constantine/Eusebius....

Which source do you employ to arrive at a conclusion that it is, instead, the third century politicians who were responsible for the rewriting/insertions/deletions/interpolations in the texts of the antenicene "fathers", including Justin, Marcion, Tertullian, as you described above?

Welcome to the forum.

avi

andrewcriddle

The paucity of references to Marcionites in the legal sources is a real issue but there is at least one reference in the theodosian code book 16 (We would expect marcionistae but there seems no real doubt as to which group is meant.)

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

I love dealing with Andrew Criddle as I love dealing with anyone who has superior knowledge and better access to sources than I do. I think that I over looked this reference in Linder because at the time I was looking for specific Marcionite references. Of course I would like to argue that the marcianistae should be taken to mean EXACTLY WHAT is expressed. It does not say 'Marcionites.' There still are no references to the Marcionites in the legal codes even though the sect attributed by Church Fathers to 'Marcion' continues to exist into the sixth century. But thank you so much for finding this. The marcianistae are not listed in Linder's index.

I would point the readers to this source http://books.google.com/books?id=7eI...nistae&f=false which says that JOANNES (471), presbyter of Chalcedon was accused of sharing in the heresy of the Marcianistae.

I also learn here ( http://books.google.com/books?id=cqT...nistae&f=false ) that Timotheus of Constantinople wrote a treatise against the Marcianistae who Smith and Wace say should be identified with the Messaliani BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY seem ALSO TO BE connected with an anti-Chalcedonian position which we knew was shared by the Alexandrian faith. I will have to investigate this further but I think this is an important lead to follow ...

stephan huller

Avi, it has to be the third century because the fourth century was dominated by Constantinople. The pattern of manufacturing five books 'collections' in Latin indicates to me it comes from the middle of the third century. It's admittedly hard to make definitive statements from the period owing to the general political instability but there is also a clear pattern of reworking in Judaism, Christianity and Samaritanism in the period starting with Commodus and stretching to just after the rule of Alexander Severus. Let's not forget that Hippolytus is always identified as being OUTSIDE of the dominant Roman Orthodoxy. This is a very complicated period with very little good information (although still an improvement on the second century).

stephan huller

To Judge

I am still thinking in terms of David Trobisch's First Edition of the New Testament (Trobisch is the furthest thing from a conspiracy theorist). His point is that the editor of the New Testament canon designed the text to reinforce a certain understanding of Christian history, that we learn who John, Paul, Peter etc. are by following the inter-textual relationship of the literary components of the canon. He has subsequently attempted to argue that Polycarp was the editor. I disagree. Nevertheless I think the First Edition stands up as a great introduction to the concept of 'key messages' being constantly reinforced in a collection of writings. I would argue that as the Church developed the writings of second century authors were similarly constructed into 'canons' (see the Dutch radicals and Detering's work on Ignatius for example) with a similar purpose.

My point is that we don't have 'Justin Martyrs' writings in the way that the Nag Hammadi writings or certain texts of Origen were found in Egypt at the end of WWII. These aren't 'natural' preservations of material from the second century. They are instead 'polished' reworkings of old material to reinforce new objectives in the third century Church.

To use a banal analogy I remember someone I know buying what they thought was a greatest hits of Whitney Houston (I know embarrassing) and instead of getting the original recordings from the 80's with the original instrumentation they were all re-edited with robotic drumbeats and synthesizers.

If someone from five hundred years in the future just came upon these recordings (without liner notes etc) and then found a SEPARATE listing of Whitney Houston records and their songs somewhere else, it would be incorrect for those musicologists to assign the version of 'I Want to Dance With Somebody' to the 1980s even though the date for that particular song in the discovered 'book' would make it appear that Whitney recorded that song in 1984 or something.

The song was re-edited in 2004 and retains part of the original recording but with new elements added.

Sorry for the Whitney Houston analogy. It's what came into my head.

bacht

seconded

Are you the same Stephan who wrote Jesus the Good Samaritan? Sounds good from R. Price's review

Toto

Robert M Price review of Jesus the Good Samaritan (unpublished manuscript)