Justin Martyr's First Apology is deemed to have been written BEFORE "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus so it does not make much real difference at what chapter Stephan Huller thinks "Against Heresies" ends.
Well, I don't generally like to join these discussion groups. I find them very confrontational and generally populated by grumpy, old men with too much time on their hands. Nevertheless I thought the point about Justin Martyr's Apology was actually quite a valid point.
Does Justin really witness the existence of Marcion?
Justin the son of Priscus of Neapolis is a very interesting figure. Justin was a Samaritan who was educated after the Hellenic fashion and was converted to Christianity from Platonism. Surviving material associated with the Dialogue with Trypho would date that conversion to shortly after the bar Khochba rising (see Dial.1, 108; Ap. i. 31).
There can be no doubt that Irenaeus, Tertullian and other Church Fathers pointed to Justin as a shining example of a wholly right believing individual. There is little doubt that Tatian - another enigmatic figure - was a disciple of Justin. But why on earth should anyone accept the claim that Tatian 'fell' from Justin's orthodoxy simply because those claiming 'another Justin' say so? I can't think of a more convincing witness for the beliefs of Justin than such a devoted student. I am even suspicious that Hippolytus's heretic 'Justinus' might well be Justin Martyr.
The texts associated with Justin from Catholic sources are so obviously corrupt it is embarrassing to even hear people PRETEND otherwise. The Dialogue with Typho IS A MESS. Ideas start and then stop and then resurface again chapters later and then chapters later again each time with different interpretations of the same scripture.
However I don't mean to take up too much time with these things so let's move on to the original question.
There is a reference to 'Marcion' in the First Apology of Justin. But what is the Apology? To whom was it written? As Robert M. Grant writes that Justin:
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." Justin's essay begins with the demand to investigate accusations and explains what Christians believe and do. The so-called "second apology" looks like a continuation of the first, perhaps with more emphasis on the philosophy espoused by the future emperor Marcus Aurelius.[The Anchor Bible Dictionary v. 3, p. 1133]
As a scholar of Irenaeus and the Catholic circle in Rome the reference to Polycarp's martyrdom is a red flag. I have already uncovered that the Martyrdom of Polycarp tradition was developed by this circle with the background of Lucian of Samosata's ridiculing of their master's death. With the reference to Polycarp on the one hand and Marcion on the other, there has to be a suspicion that the tradition which 'preserved' the Apology was active in arrange its message.
Now I strongly suspect that there is an original authentic core to the Apology. I also happen to believe that the reference to 'Marcion' is dropped right in the middle of that section which begins with - what is now - a very muddled statement about the very purpose of Justin's letter to the Emperor. We cite the section in more or less full (most translators have had to make adaptations to the first paragraph because of yet another orthodox addition which I decided to remove to avoid their necessary re-workings of the material):
And that this may now become evident to you that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ ... and that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither witness nor proof--we shall bring forward the following proof.
In the first place, because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners; other men in other places worshipping trees and rivers, and mice and cats and crocodiles, and many irrational animals. Nor are the same animals esteemed by all; but in one place one is worshipped, and another in another, so that all are profane in the judgment of one another, on account of their not worshipping the same objects. And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savour of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices. For you very well know that the same animals are with some esteemed gods, with others wild beasts, and with others sacrificial victims.
And, secondly, because we--who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or AEsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods--have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils.
And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:--
"Simoni Deo Sancto,"
"To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. 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 Christians; 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. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.
But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And as the ancients are said to have reared herds of oxen, or goats, or sheep, or grazing horses, so now we see you rear children only for this shameful use; and for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods, and along with each of those whom you esteem gods there is painted a serpent, a great symbol and mystery. Indeed, the things which you do openly and with applause, as if the divine light were overturned and extinguished, these you lay to our charge; which, in truth, does no harm to us who shrink from doing any such things, but only to those who do them and bear false witness against us.
And again, lest some of them be not picked up, but die, and we become murderers. But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently. And that you may understand that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our mysteries, one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch. For the surgeons there said that they were forbidden to do this without the permission of the governor. And when Felix absolutely refused to sign such a permission, the youth remained single, and was satisfied with his own approving conscience, and the approval of those who thought as he did.
In short, there is absolutely no way to make Chapter 26 - the material which introduces Simon Magus and Marcion into the narrative - fit the rest of the argument. Indeed what often gets lost in all of this 'excitement' over finding a reference to heretics is the fact that Justin was addressing the ruler of the world. His purpose was to argue on behalf of Christianity and to differentiate it from contemporary pagan practices.
So let us ask how is it possible that the educated author of this letter puts forward a ridiculous accusation that the Romans worship Simon Magus based on the evidence of a statue which - as we know know - referenced an Etruscan god Semo Sancus (the inscription is shown above left)? Indeed how could a Samaritan have mistaken Semo for the Hebrew name Shimon? And moreover why would anyone introduce a questionable accusation about Romans worshiping a Samaritan heretic into such a serious epistle?
The answer of course is that there was an authentic letter buried within all the later additions. Like all surviving material preserved through the Catholic tradition, one cup of wine is mixed with ten cups of water. Yet I think if the reader looks at the beginning of this separation of the wheat from the chaff in the surviving material what lays buried within the existing text is an apology of the bizarre practices of the Alexandrian Christian tradition in the age - viz. ritualized castration.
We must remember the context of the age - Antoninus banned castration. The Emperor was clearly suspicious of contemporary Christian practices that likely went back into the late first century. I think that with Simon Magus and Marcion DISTRACTS us from this reality. That's why they were introduced IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION by a later editor.
Let's by honest. How many of you have noticed the Alexandrian Christian castration reference and the over-arching 'apology' that Christianity isn't a degenerate mystery religion? I bet most of you just flipped (or scrolled) down to the bits about 'Simon' and 'Marcion.' That's after all how the later editors DESIGNED the material.