Historical paradigms and Christianity before Constantine

[ABuddhist]

Yes I'd read through that well done. Although as you know I am more skeptical of the integrity of the evidence when it only exists as extracts extant in Christian refutations of anti-Christian writers. Origen refuting Celsus thus is similar to Eusebius refuting Hierocles, or Athanasius refuting Arius, or Cyril refuting Emperor Julian. There are probably other examples. What we have is one step removed from the non-Christian source.

But Arius was Christian, albeit his non-Trinitarian views were condemned as heretical and now qualify him as non-Christian to most Christians. But earlier Christians had broader understandings of Christianity. Marcion was considered by Justin to be a Christian, even though he denied that YHWH was the supreme god.

I think in the 1st Apology he stated that Menander, Simon the Samaritan and Marcion, are 'all called Christians' (ch 7 & 58). That doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks they are "real" Christians, just close enough in practices to "straight thinking" Christians that non-believers lump everyone together.

He objects that all who go by that name, including "straight thinking" Christians, are punished for deeds that one or another of those perverted heretics performed (or at least been imagined to have been performed).

I cannot agree that Justin considered Marcion a genuine Christian.

DCH

But if he had thought that Marcion was not a Christian, he could have explicitly said that even though Marcion was called a Christian, he was not a Christian. Or did he in a passage which you are not quoting?

Furthermore, the distinction between straight-thinking Christians and other Christians is different from the distinction between Christians and people who are mistakenly thought to be Christian.

First Apology chapter XXVI

viewtopic.php?p=151134#p151134

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Chr?stians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them

A completely bonkers argument of course, but Sweet Jus indeed does allege here that the opponents of "the philosopher Chr?st" are called Chr?stians because that's just how it works with everything else

So to consider ABuddhist's answer and question: no, Justin certainly didn't consider Marcion to be among his own - but apparently he had to stick to the label that had already been assigned to Marcion

Many thannks for providing the quotation for me. I concede that Justin did not consider Marcion to be Christian.

[mlinssen]

Many thannks for providing the quotation for me. I concede that Justin did not consider Marcion to be Christian.

You're welcome. The rhetoric of the FF sometimes requires reading an entire chapter multiple times before the possible message sinks in, even in English.
Funny though hey, that he does establish that "Marcion" was called Chrestian (the Middle Age MS says Christian), just as Justin calls himself one. The first can only be a fact, the second a dubious claim à la Paul

[billd89]

Thomas Rütten's "Ludwig Edelstein at the crossroads of 1933" in Early Science and Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2006), pp. 50-99; see pp.68-9

"Arnaldo Momigliano's (1908-1987) dedication of a 1935 paper of his to Edelstein suggests that Edelstein also attended one of the barely 25-year-old Italian professor's seminars on Greek History in November/December 1933.78

78."To Ludwig Edelstein with congratulations and best wishes." See Arnaldo Momigliano, "Die Geschichte der Entstehung und die heutige Funktion des Begriffs des Hellenismus," in Arnaldo Momigliano. Ausgewdihlte Schriften, vol. 3: Die moderne Geschichtsschreibung der Alten Welt, ed. Glen Most, tr. Kai Brodersen and Andreas Wittenburg (Stuttgart, 2000), 114-142. This essay was originally published as "Genesi storica e funzione attuale del concetto di ellenismo" in the Giornale critico della filosofia italiana, 16 (1935), 10-37, and was reprinted in Momigliano, Contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico (Rome, 1955), 165-193. In Momigliano, "Geschichte der Entstehung (ed. Most, 409), we read in n. 1 "The following is a summary of a number of discussions I have had with my students at the University of Rome in November and December 1933." Momigliano's congratulations most probably refer to Edelstein's Baltimore appointment [under Sigerist, by the Rockefellers, 1935]. Professor Riccardo di Donato kindly informed me that no papers related to Edelstein are contained in Momigliano's papers. On Momigliano, see Karl Christ, Neue Profile der Alten Geschichte (Darmstadt, 1990), 248-294.

[ABuddhist]

Although I now concede that Justin did not regard Marcion as Christian, my general belief is that Justin, by saying, albeit obliquely, that Marcion was called a Christian even though he was not a Christian, was in fact taking a position about Marcion's Christianity which was not as common as Justin wanted it to be, and may have been part of a minority in saying such a thing.

[mlinssen]

Although I now concede that Justin did not regard Marcion as Christian, my general belief is that Justin, by saying, albeit obliquely, that Marcion was called a Christian even though he was not a Christian, was in fact taking a position about Marcion's Christianity which was not as common as Justin wanted it to be, and may have been part of a minority in saying such a thing.

Yup. Of course they were all Chrestians like Philip proudly states, and they most certainly were present.
Justin now tries to turn that against them by asserting that they were called that because "naturally all people who rage against a philosopher carry his name", which is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Certainly unheard of I would imagine!

Justin is trying to separate the Chrestians from XS so he can claim him for himself, such is evident. He's trying to define good Chrestians and bad Chrestians, and all this evidently happened before they thought of coining the term Christians

[DCHindley]

But if he had thought that Marcion was not a Christian, he could have explicitly said that even though Marcion was called a Christian, he was not a Christian. Or did he in a passage which you are not quoting?

Furthermore, the distinction between straight-thinking Christians and other Christians is different from the distinction between Christians and people who are mistakenly thought to be Christian.

The head spins!

Sect	Self designation	Designation of Outsiders	Opinion of by Proto orthodox
Proto-orthodox Christians	Christians	Christians	Straight thinking practices
Marcionite Christians	Christians	Christians	They teach blashphemies
Sethian Gnosticism	Gnostics	Minim (by traditional Jews), Christians (if they adapt their cosmology to include christianized redeemer myth)	They teach blashphemies
Redeemer Myths	Gnostics	Gnostics (if they have not christianized the myth), Christians (if they have christianized the myth)	They teach blashphemies
Judeans	Judeans	Judeans	They did not accept Jesus as Messiah, so their God removed them as heirs to the future kingdom and gave this inheritance to the predominantly gentile proto-orthodox.
Diaspora Jews	Judeans	Judeans	They did not accept Jesus as Messiah, so their God removed them as heirs to the future kingdom and gave this inheritance to the predominantly gentile proto-orthodox.
Samaritans	Israel	Judeans	They teach blashphemies
Judean Jesus followers	Judeans	Judeans	Close, but no cigar. Don't like Circumcision & Law

DCH