Despite past attempts on Marcion (Harnack to Moll), we still lack a thorough reading of the primary sources on Marcion. What is attempted here is a first go at what information we can gain from looking at Justin.
We know from Irenaeus that Justin wrote a πρὸς Μαρκίωνα σύνταγμα[1] and the question is, of course, whether πρός + Acc. here means ‘to’, ‘conversation with’ or ‘against’ (hostile or non-hostile?). Irenaeus’ contextualisation too quickly lead some ancient and many modern readers to the conclusion that Justin is already reprimanding Marcion as he will be in his 1Apol. and Dial. The short extract that is preserved of Justin’s πρὸς Μαρκίωνα by Irenaeus indicates a theological debate which rather points towards ‘conversation with’, or perhaps a reply ‘To Marcion’ than to a heresiological book against a definite enemy, hence the correct Latin translation that states: ‘In eo libro qui est Ad Marcionem’:
I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is stedfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us.[2]
The fragment starts with the assumption that Justin understood Marcion as having relied on the Lord Himself who had revealed to him his message – to which Justin adds that his belief into ‘our framer, maker, and nourisher’ could not have been shaken even by the Lord himself, let alone by Marcion. What follows is a theological reasoning which ends with an important remark that ‘my faith towards Him is stedfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us’, as if the addressee (Marcion!) was still regarded by Justin as belonging to the same community (nobis) and as Marcion had assumed that Justin would agree with his thinking. The sound of this fragment is far from being hostile and, indeed, seems a reflection of an ongoing – critical – discussion between colleagues (‘Ad Marcionem’). The atmosphere had changed in the wake of a persecution by the state, when Justin wrote his First and Second Apology in which he also mentions his lost treatise Against all the heresies and which he offers the emperor to read it.[3] Whatever his lost work entailed, we can only refer to the extant addresses to the emperor, the First and Second Apology.
In his First Apology, written shortly after 151 AD,[4] Justin’s address and petition are presented to Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-61) ‘on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated’.[5] Justin admits that even the political authorities were not in a position to differentiate between the various schools within Christianity. Like Tertullian after him, Justin admitted ‘in Rome in the middle of the second century with admirable openness’ that his opponents ‘call themselves Christians’.[6] Means of orthodox identity were not yet developed, neither within the emerging Christian movement, nor in its non-Christian environment; there was no policing of a complex network of individual communities, with close family ties and generations of teachers, bishops, elders and leaders, charismatic or organizational newcomers, sponsors, politicians and civil servants; there was an unregulated explosion of literary fixations of oral traditions. Revelations or interpretations of revelations were written down in anonymous, pseudonymous, apologetic or paraenetic tracts. Justin, like Marcion and other contemporaries, operated in a late antique environment which had not yet created dispute resolutions between teachers and schools in the form of banning opposite-minded professors. All they had were encounters, exchanges, discussions, counter-arguments, verbal and written criticisms, revisions, re-editions of existing works and the production of new ones. However, in this time of the so-called Second Sophistic, we notice not only amongst Christian teachers a growing sense of need for both structures and strictures, as on can see, for example, from the non-Christian physician Galen or from Claudius Ptolemy, who looked for some sort of clearing station between truth and myth.[7] Even more interested in delineating what orthodoxy means were Jewish writers who were campaigning for a more coherent and constrained form of Jewish identity after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the loss of the city of Jerusalem to the Romans after the Bar Kochba war of 132/5 AD. These endeavours, mirrored in the Christians, led to a cementing of mutual differences and eventually to losing sight of each other, with a gradual loss of Jewish interest in their Greco-Roman traditions so that, for example, even eminent Jewish philosophers like Philo of Alexandria were handed down and read only by Christians. Conversely, Christian ties to Judaism weakened, and the question of the Jewish traditions within Christianity became one of the rocks against which the spiritual and institutional unity of the Church was shattered. Marcion’s own thoughts, his endeavour to combine Paul’s writings with his Gospel text into a ‘New Testament’ as opposed to the superseded ‘Old’ one, and the battle against this program, are central to this broader process of identity-search, the building of demarcation lines between ‘closer to’ and ‘further away’ from truth, and an interpretation of truth that places truth in opposition to error and separates out authenticity from forgery, miracle from magic, recognition from fabrication, delineation from tolerance, honesty from guilty and sinful falsehood, faith from superstition and soon orthodoxy from heresy. With Justin, however, as with Irenaeus and even with Tertullian or Clement of Alexandria, we are not fully there; only with Origen in the third century will these gaps no longer be bridged. Both Marcion and Justin illustrate this earlier period, where ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ were still in the making. In his First Apology where he mentions is earlier work Against all the heresies, he comes to speak about Marcion:
And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him [Simon], 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 demons, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny God, 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.[8]
The real target, as it appears in this quote, is not Simon who has already passed away having left no more than ‘some living who hold’ his opinions, but ‘Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples’. ‘He, by the aid of the demons, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies’. Marcion is made part of an heresiological account, he is being ‘demonized’, misled by the demons which gives Justin the reason to suggest to the Emperor that not his own flock, but different from it only Marcion and his entourage should be the target of the imperial persecution. Why does Justin introduce the ‘demons’ here? The ‘demons’ occur first and foremost in both of Justin’s works, his First Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew; demons are objects of worship of the false prophets in the ancient times,[9] are equated with ‘wicked men’, Jews, who are said to persecute the Christians for not observing ‘fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths’.[10] Jews, the ones ‘of old time served’ the demons,[11] and are accused to even have sacrificed their children ‘to demons’.[12] In addition, the ‘gods of the nations’ are called ‘idols of demons’.[13] Thus, Justin’s demonology is not part of pagan mythology, but the Jewish basis and the source for it. Jewish belief has become the foundation of pagan mythology. Especially magicians are held captive by demons,[14] and Christians will be misled and persecuted by them. In our passage on Marcion, Justin does not hint at pagan mythology, but at Jewish demonology within which he places him. Contentwise, Justin is more detailed here about Marcion’s teaching than he was in his Ad Marcionem. Now, he claims, Marcion did not only teach that ‘the Lord Himself … had announced’ another God ‘than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher’,[15] but also that this ‘other God’ be ‘greater than the Creator’, which denies this God, ‘the maker of this universe’; that Marcion introduces ‘some other being, greater than He’ as somebody who ‘has done greater works’. And yet, despite both the demonization and the criticism of Marcion’s teaching, Justin admits that Marcion as well as the other teachers ‘are … 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’. Justin makes the comparison between Christians and philosophers and shows that as the title ‘philosopher’ is a general one that encompasses not only people of different opinions, but also is given to people who deviate from others, likewise even Marcion and others before him (Simon and Meander) rightly, as the comparison with the philosophers underlines, call themselves ‘Christians’. We are still at a stage where different opinions lead to grave suspicions of others being abducted by demons, but where teachers of any shape are part of a discourse under the one known label ‘Christians’, and, thus, are all threatened by the same imperial persecution. Of course, Justin’s First Apology tries to go a step further and, having granted to all his fellow teachers and their pupils the title ‘Christians’ in principle, he works towards his goal that Marcion (the only one who is apparently still alive and active amongst the named teachers, hence the sole real target in this apology) should be the only target of the Emperor’s persecution, not Justin and his followers. Because even though all are called Christians, some only ‘seem wise’ and are ‘clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly being ravening wolves’, they only give the appearance of being wise, but ought to ‘be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ’.[16] These alone, Justin recommends to ‘punish’.[17]
A little later in Justin’s First Apology, Marcion re-appears.[18] Yet, to understand Marcion in the overarching theological template of Justin, we need to know what role Marcion plays in Justin’s work and philosophy. What bridged these two surfacings of Marcion in the First Apology? Justin launched a long series of arguments in twenty-six chapters to defend his own Christian take against that of Marcion (ch. 27-53!), and to support the Jewish prophets who had foretold Christ’s birth, life, suffering, Resurrection and ascension, his sitting at the right hand of the Father and his glory,[19] but also the destruction of Jerusalem, prophecies that were all rejected by Marcion; Justin even recounts the story of the translation of the Hebrew scripture into Greek[20] to highlight the value of what Marcion denigrated as Old Testament in contrast to his New Testament, names which Justin never mentions in the First Apology, and even in his Dialogue with Trypho he only speaks once of the ‘New Testament’ in a passage that echoes the debate about Marcion’s Gospel.[21] After a short differentiation between prophecy and mythology or poetry Justin summarizes his pro-prophecy arguments and comes back to the same dissenters as before, the most important being Marcion:[22]
And, as we said before, the demons put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. This man (Marcion) many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say, but are carried away irrationally as lambs by a wolf, and become the prey of atheistical doctrines, and of demons.[23]
As before, Marcion is demonized, also seen as caught by ‘atheistical doctrines’. His teachings are given more detailed than before: He denies that God ‘is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth’, hence that God is not the creator of this cosmos. And as God cannot be equated with the creator, so his Son cannot be the Christ who was ‘predicted by the prophets’. And yet, Justin has to admit that Marcion is well known as a teacher, many believe him ‘as if he alone knew the truth’ – a statement that mirrors Marcion’s view of Paul – and, perhaps most difficult for Justin makes him feel ridiculed. Apparently, Marcion’s followers pointed to a set of proof (ajpovdeixi~) which Justin rejected (‘they have no proof of what they say’). Justin’s explication that they ‘are carried away irrationally as lambs by a wolf’, gives us a clue what he means by the proof which he did not recognize. The image is known from Matthew 7:15 (‘Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves’), but given in a slightly different version here in Justin. Despite some scholarly effort in the question of Justin’s source(s) for gospel-material, it is still not fully clear on what he drew. As in this case here, the wording comes close to Matthew, but is not identical to the known versions. His quote here is also parallel to one of Marcion’s core passages, the one on the good tree (// Luke 6:43-5), and to another of the mission of the 72 disciples (// Luke 10:3), where the Lord speaks about a plentiful harvest and the workers who are sent like lambs into the surrounding of wolfes. By pointing to the Lord’s saying in his own, rather Matthean sounding form, Justin’s remark that Marcion had no proof means that he had no proof which was recognized by Justin to rationally deducing the knowledge of ‘the truth’, but, instead acted like a rich wolf who carried away those poor lambs (// Luke 10:4: ‘Do not carry a money bag, a traveler’s bag, or sandals’). It also underlines that in the discussion between Marcion and Justin the question of scriptural reference texts becomes an issue. That we are not over-interpreting this passage can be seen below from Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho where he picks up again the Lord’s saying in the version is closes to what we read in Matthew.
After this passage from the First Apology, Justin embarks on a second attack directed specifically against those teachings that he has listed as Marcion’s. This time, however, he begins with philosophers like Plato who, according to Justin, borrowed their wisdom from the prophets, then writes on the creation, the cross,[24] baptism,[25] the eucharist,[26] and the Christian Sunday gatherings.[27] With each topic Justin wants to differentiate himself from Marcion,[28] but, as I have shown in an earlier study,[29] Justin also accepts many of his opponent’s views. As Marcion rejected the observance of ‘days, months, seasons and years’,[30] so did Justin rebuff ‘the Sabbath and in short all feasts’ of the Jews.[31] With Justin’s First Apology from the beginning of the 50th in the second century, Marcion not only ‘grew in influence’[32], but he also provokes firm criticism by those who at the same time show admiration and bewildering. Although we cannot date Justin’s other major work, the Dialogue with Trypho, we have to draw on it, as Marcion features there again. In the very first appearance of Marcion, Justin draws on the Lord’s saying that we mentioned before:
And Trypho said: ‘I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence.’
And I replied: ‘The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stedfast in the hope announced by Him. For what things He predicted would take place in His name, these we do see being actually accomplished in our sight. For He said: “Many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” And, “there shall be schisms and heresies.” And, “beware of false prophets, who shall come to you clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” And, “many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.” There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites). Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine. So that, in consequence of these events, we know that Jesus foreknew what would happen after Him, as well as in consequence of many other events which He foretold would befall those who believed on and confessed Him, the Christ. For all that we suffer, even when killed by friends, He foretold would take place; so that it is manifest no word or act of His can be found fault with. Wherefore we pray for you and for all other men who hate us; in order that you, having repented along with us, may not blaspheme Him who, by His works, by the mighty deeds even now wrought through His name, by the words He taught, by the prophecies announced concerning Him, is the blameless, and in all things irreproachable, Christ Jesus; but, believing on Him, may be saved in His second glorious advent, and may not be condemned to fire by Him.
Justin, pursues a similar strategy as in his First Apology. The criticisms that are voiced, this time by Trypho, are not without foundation, but do not apply to Justin and his followers, but to others who, as Justin admits again, confess ‘themselves to be Christians’ and believe that ‘the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ’. Justin does not deny them being Christians, even though they are ‘not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error’. Such wrong teachings, he even sees as a stimulation for himself and his followers, the ‘disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ’, ‘to be more faithful and stedfast in the hope announced by Him’. And very similar to his explanation in the First Apology, he introduces the following sequence of Lord’s sayings that incorporates the one from Matth. 7:15 which we discussed before:
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho
|
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho
|
Matthew
|
Matthew
|
For He said: ‘Many shall come in My name,
|
πολλοὶ
ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου, |
5πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου λέγοντες, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Χριστός, καὶ πολλοὺς πλανήσουσιν
|
24:5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many.
|
outwardly clothed in clothes of sheep, inwardly, however, they are
ravening wolves.’
| ἔξωθεν ἐνδεδυμένοι δέρματα προβάτων, ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσι λύκοι ἅρπαγες |
15Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἔρχονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασιν προβάτων, ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσιν λύκοι ἅρπαγες
|
7:15 Beware of
false prophets, who will come to you in clothing of sheep, inwardly,
however, they are
ravening wolves
|
And, ‘there shall be
schisms
and
heresies.’
|
ἔσονται
σχίσματα
καὶ
αἱρέσεις
|
18πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν, καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω. 19δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, ἵνα [καὶ] οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν.
| |
And, ‘beware
of false prophets, who shall come to you outwardly
clothed
in cloth
of sheep,
inwardly, however, they are ravening wolves.’
|
καὶ Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἐλεύσονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς
ἔξωθεν ἐνδεδυμένοι δέρματα προβάτων,
ἔσωθεν δέ
εἰσιν λύκοι ἅρπαγες
|
15Προσέχετε
ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἔρχονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασιν
προβάτων,
ἔσωθεν δέ
εἰσιν λύκοι
ἅρπαγες
|
7:15 Beware
of false prophets, who will come to you in clothing
of sheep,
inwardly, however,
they are ravening
wolves
|
And,
‘there shall arise
many
false Christs and
false apostles,
and
shall deceive many of the faithful.’
|
11καὶ ἀναστήσονται
πολλοὶ ψευδόχριστοι καὶ
ψευδοαπόστολοι
καὶ πολλοὺς τοὺς
τῶν πιστῶν
πλανήσουσιν
|
11καὶ
πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐγερθήσονται
καὶ
πλανήσουσιν πολλούς
|
And,
‘many
false prophets shall arise,
and
shall deceive many.’ |
In his Dialogue with Trypho Justin becomes more explicit and harsher in dealing with dissenting Christians than he was already in his First Apology. Justin begins this sequence of Lord’s sayings accepting and recognizing that Christians – we will be reminded of the philosopher comparison – are diverse and yet are endorsed by the Lord in this diversity of people who come in His name. However, the differentiation is made between people who look and sound like Christians and others who are also Christians on their inside. Noteworthy is the remark that those who are not inward as outward are hidden wolfes who catch their prey, which indicates a certain success that Justin has admitted with regards to Marcion before. The next short saying (see the broadened one in Matth. 11:18f.) sees divisions or schisms in the community, not only diverse opinions. And, again, this is based on a prophecy of the Lord. Divisions and schisms are not something that the Christian community could have avoided: ‘We know that Jesus foreknew what would happen after Him’. However, Justin does not see that these schisms cannot be repared. He speaks of hate, but he prays for his opponent’s repentance and hopes for them being finally saved: ‘Wherefore we pray for you and for all other men who hate us; in order that you, having repented along with us, may not blaspheme Him who, by His works, by the mighty deeds even now wrought through His name, by the words He taught, by the prophecies announced concerning Him, is the blameless, and in all things irreproachable, Christ Jesus; but, believing on Him, may be saved in His second glorious advent, and may not be condemned to fire by Him’
Slightly awkward is the re-take of the Lord’s saying on the sheep and the wolves which is given in a second, fuller version that comes even closer to Matth. 7:15, although the last part is different. Where Matthew has ‘false prophets’, Justin notes ‘false Christs and false apostles’ – addressing Marcion’s claim that the Son of the God is not the Christ of the creator.[33]
This introductory passage with the Lord’s sayings leads Justin to develop his heresiological genealogy which associates schools of opinions not with the name of Christ, but with ‘the father of the particular doctrine’, those ‘from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin’. This removal of the name of ‘Christians’, then serves, to model his opponents to ‘confessors of Jesus in name only’ who are no longer seen as his ‘worshippers’, but as ‘atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful’ people. But even here, Justin has to concede that ‘they style themselves Christians’ and he adds to the philosopher example the one of pagan artists or scribes who ‘inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands’, but then ‘partake in nefarious and impious rites’. The self-styled Christians he gives as ‘Marcians’ (presumably Marcionites), ‘Valentinians’, ‘Basilidians’, ‘Saturnilians’ and ‘others’.
Let us just sum up – in Justin we see a development of the discussion between him and Marcion (and later also others) which goes from a critical address (Ad Marcionem), to a differentiation between others who the Emperor should persecute and Justin’s own followers who should be spared (First Apology), to grouping the Marcionites amongst other ‘heresies’ with Christians being in a state of divisions and schisms which are yet not unbridgeable, but where hope is shown for an overcoming of the divide (Dialogue with Trypho). The demonization theory is not only a form of accusation, but also of excuse that the divisions that happened were prophetically foreseen by Christ, but will not necessarily remain - Justin's fellow teachers, especially Marcion, were mislead by demons, but prayer and repentance will be able to restore the unity of Christians. Interestingly, despite all the information that Justin gives, and the number of quotes of Lord's sayings and references to the so-called Gospels, the memoranda and the one to the New Testament, there is not one word that suggests Marcion having distorted the Scriptures. Justin must have known Marcion's Gospel, as it will be shown that he may have even quoted from it, and we have seen that a certain rivalvry about the right Christian reference texts has become an issue. The Gospels themselves (Marcion's, Justin's memoranda and potentially our later canonical ones), however, are just about to becoming 'proof'-texts and still lack the (apostolic) authority which they will gain only with Irenaeus.
[1] Iren., Adv. haer. IV 6,2.
[2] Iren., Adv. haer. IV 6,2: o{ti aujtw/` tw`/ Kurivw/ oujd j a]n ejpeivsqhn, a[llon Qeo;n kataggevllonti para; to;n dhmiourgovn; Lat.: ‘Quoniam ipsi quoque Domino non credidissem, alterum Deum annuntianti praetor fabricatorem et factorem et nutritorem nostrum. Sed quoniam ab uno Deo, qui et hunc mundum fecit, et nos plasmavit, et Omnia continent et administrat, unigenitus Filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans, firma est mea ad eum fides, et immobilis erga Patrem dilectio, utraque Deon obis praebente.’
[3] Justin, 1Apol. 26: suvntagma kata; pasw`n tw`n gegenhmevnwn aiJrevsewn.
[4] As the Apology is addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius (147-161). In ch. 29 Justin refers to Felix as governor of Egypt (known from the Oxyrhynchus papyri as Lucius Munatius Felix, prefect from 13 September 151).
[5] 1Apol. 1.
[6] C. Markschies, Gnosis (2003), 10; see Justin, 1Apol. 7. 26. 35.
[7] See C.B. Kaiser, Creation (1991), 4.
[8] Justin, 1Apol. 26.
[9] See Justin, Dial. 7.
[10] See Justin, 1Apol. 57; Dial. 18.
[11] See Dial. 30.
[12] Justin, Dial. 19, 73.
[13] Justin, Dial. 55, 73 asf.
[14] See Justin, Dial. 78.
[15] Iren., Adv. haer. IV 6,2: o{ti aujtw/` tw`/ Kurivw/ oujd j a]n ejpeivsqhn, a[llon Qeo;n kataggevllonti para; to;n dhmiourgovn; Lat.: ‘Quoniam ipsi quoque Domino non credidissem, alterum Deum annuntianti praetor fabricatorem et factorem et nutritorem nostrum.’
[16] 1Apol. 16.
[17] 1Apol. 7; 16.
[18] See Justin, 1Apol. 58.1-2.
[19] With reference to Ps. 24; 1Apol. 51.
[20] Justin, 1Apol. 31.
[21] Justin, Dial. 51 on Luke 16:16: ‘The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist’.
[22] Justin 1Apol. 56-8.
[23] 1Apol. 58.
[24] 1Apol. 60.
[25] 1Apol. 61.
[26] 1Apol. 65-6.
[27] 1Apol. 67.
[28] Justin insists on baptism in ‘the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe’, directed against those who dare to ‘utter the name of the ineffable God’, obviously an element of Marcionite’s baptism rite, 1Apol. 61, refuted in the following chapters 62-3.
[29] M. Vinzent, Christ’s Resurrection (2011), ch. 3.
[30] Gal. 4:10-1.
[31] See similar views in Tert., Adv. Marc. I 20; Justin, Dial. 18:2; V Ezra 1:31; Diogn. 4:5; Arist., Apol. 14; J. Goudoever, Calendars (2rev1961), 152.
[32] Iren., Adv. haer. III 4.3.
[33] 1Apol. 58.
