Justin Martyr and the apostle Paul.

[neilgodfrey]

Evaluating the Ehorn or any other hypothesis on the Paul-Justin question is a perfect opportunity to explicitly apply the Bayesian steps. They are designed to help sift out and clarify exactly what we know, don't know, within broader contexts, etc.

[MrMacSon]

Ehorn takes these overlaps between Justin and Paul, over and against the LXX, as evidence that Justin knew and used the Pauline epistles. He is specifically arguing against the notion that both Justin and Paul accessed scriptural catenae; his main point against this possibility is that many of the changes made to the LXX text¹ seem to support Paul's argument in his epistle(s)². If the changes, then, are definitively Pauline, Justin's use of Paul's form of the quotation would point to his dependence upon Paul, not upon an independent catena of scriptural passages.
.

¹ What changes were being made to the LXX? When? Are they well documented?

I meant only that the quotations by Paul and Justin do not always match the LXX. The changes are not to the LXX text itself, but rather in the implementation of quotes from it. If Paul quotes the LXX, but makes a change to it, and then we find that same change in the same quote in Justin, that probably means something.

Cheers Ben. I just realised I had overlooked text in 'LXX text'

² What arguments of Paul? (theological arguments? that aligns with those of the LXX?)

No. Theological arguments by Paul which may or may not align with the quotation chosen from the LXX. For example, in one verse Paul changes the tense of a verb from the LXX of Deuteronomy because the original tense might suggest that the crucified/hung person was already cursed before having been hung, whereas Paul's point is that Christ became accursed in the process of being crucified/hung for us.

Cheers. I think we were 'on the same page' - "Theological arguments by Paul which may or may not align with the quotation chosen from the LXX"

Justin does, however, quote the Hebrew scriptures (in Greek)³ in ways reminiscent of what we find in the Pauline epistles, especially Romans and Galatians. Quite a few times they quote the same exact verses. Various scholars have used this overlap to demonstrate that Justin at various junctures was really quoting from the Pauline epistles rather than directly from the scriptures (presumably the LXX³).
.

³ How sure can we be that the version of the scriptures Justin was using were the LXX?

Well, in many/most of the instances, the wording is that of the LXX and not any other version. The only changes are either of the kind that authors regularly made for their own reasons, or to fit the quote grammatically to the sentence, or of the kind that is under discussion: that is, changes made in common with Paul's changes^x. In the end, however, it almost does not matter in the present context which translation was the source for the quotation; if Justin has textual stuff in common with Paul that is not found elsewhere, it must mean something, regardless of the exact source of the rest of it. The question under discussion is not whether Justin used the LXX, but rather whether Justin used Paul^y.

^x by "changes made in common with Paul's changes", I presume you're referring to changes of passages of Hebrew scriptures (like the LXX) that also appear in the non-canonical texts such as those of Justin.


^y or, as you alluded to in the opening-post -

What if, [for the passages in common between Paul and Justin (at least)], something resembling Justin's argument from the scriptures at hand was interpolated into the Marcionite version of the Pauline epistles? Granted that the changes to the LXX text are unlikely to be coincidental, what if some of them actually derive from Justin and only later made it into Paul?
.

To put this in context [for others], Ben had said, just before that rhetorical question [underling & extra paragraphing by me] -

Ehorn takes these overlaps between Justin and Paul, over and against the LXX, as evidence that Justin knew and used the Pauline epistles. He is specifically arguing against the notion that both Justin and Paul accessed scriptural catenae; his main point against this possibility is that many of the changes made to the LXX-text seem to support Paul's argument in his epistle(s). If the changes, then, are definitively Pauline, Justin's use of Paul's form of the quotation would point to his dependence upon Paul, not upon an independent catena of scriptural passages.

I personally think his argument is pretty decent in this connection. However, he does not consider a third alternative. Of the five passages above, one is unattested in the Marcionite version of Paul, while two others are attested as absent. What if, for those passages (at least), something resembling Justin's argument from the scriptures at hand was interpolated into the Marcionite version of the Pauline epistles? Granted that the changes to the LXX text are unlikely to be coincidental, what if some of them actually derive from Justin and only later made it into Paul?

I am by no means committed to this solution, and would be interested in arguments against it; and it of course fails to account for the passages attested as present in the Marcionite version, presumably before Justin came along^z. But perhaps not all of the connections between Justin and Paul have to go in the same direction; maybe some of them Justin got from a sparser (Marcionite) edition of the epistles, while others actually flowed from Justin's text(s) into the Pauline epistles. It is something to think about, anyway. I doubt Justin himself was responsible for the interpolations, since sometimes the focus or thrust is not quite the same between Paul and Justin. But perhaps someone else, in an attempt to round out the Pauline epistles and bring them into line with the emerging Catholic orthodoxy, used Justin in order to do so.

The passages above, by the way, are not intended to exhaust the possible connections between Paul and Justin. They are merely a start, albeit probably one which hits some of the more striking correspondences.

Ben.

^z This raises tricky questions about (a) dating people, especially Patristic Fathers and other concurrent key figures, such as 'Marcion' and (b) dating (i) initial texts attributed to them, or (ii) texts used by them, as well as considering (iii & iV) later versions of those texts.

Could many of these people - Marcion, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, [Papias, Clement of Rome,], etc, have overlapped more than has previously been considered (?)

It also highlights we cannot be certain about directions. or we have to be very careful how we do it, as you explained on the other thread, 'NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers' (where the focus seems to be Justin M, 1 Clement, and Barnabas; which is good) --

the Marcan version [of Isaiah 29:13 from the LXX (I think); Mk 7:6.] could not have come from 1 Clement [15] alone; Mark had to consult the LXX to get ἀπέχει. But 1 Clement could have come from Mark alone. Since the verb change aligns neither with the LXX nor with Matthew or Mark, it is Clement's own innovation; and none of the rest of the quote evinces any use of anything that is not also present in Mark. This does not absolutely prove that 1 Clement used Mark, but it makes that possibility very easy, whereas other explanations would require more steps.
.

.

[Ben C. Smith]

Well, in many/most of the instances, the wording is that of the LXX and not any other version. The only changes are either of the kind that authors regularly made for their own reasons, or to fit the quote grammatically to the sentence, or of the kind that is under discussion: that is, changes made in common with Paul's changes^x. In the end, however, it almost does not matter in the present context which translation was the source for the quotation; if Justin has textual stuff in common with Paul that is not found elsewhere, it must mean something, regardless of the exact source of the rest of it. The question under discussion is not whether Justin used the LXX, but rather whether Justin used Paul^y.

^x by "changes made in common with Paul's changes", I presume you're referring to changes of passages of Hebrew scriptures (like the LXX) that also appear in the non-canonical texts such as those of Justin.

Right. "Misquoted" parts shared by Justin and Paul.

[Secret Alias]

Evaluating the Ehorn or any other hypothesis on the Paul-Justin question is a perfect opportunity to explicitly apply the Bayesian steps.

I am not sure the complexity involved in what I have brought forward can be addressed by Bayes Theorem.

[hakeem]

We know that the writer called Justin knew nothing of Paul based on his supposed "First Apology". This writer claimed it was twelve ILLITERATE men who TAUGHT the Gospel to EVERY RACE of men in the world. In addition, Justin claimed it was the Gospels [Memoirs of the Apostles] that were read in the Church.

Justin's First Apology XXXIX

For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God

Justin's First Apology LXVII

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits..

Paul is completely unknown in the writings attributed to Justin.

[lsayre]

What probability is there that at some juncture the writings of Justin were redacted or interpolated?

Or what is the possibility that some of the material credited to Justin were written by a pseudo-Justin?

And lastly, what is the probability that Justin himself is merely the total fabrication of someone who came along later and perceived a need to add historical credence to his own works? (this being my take on Polycarp, so I thought I might extend it to Justin)

[Secret Alias]

Hakeem

You never can certainly prove ignorance. Ignorance is indistinguishable for a well kept secret. Since there were secret gospels (cf. Tertullian Praescr) there could well have been secret gospel authors (such as Paul in the Marcionite tradition, author of the gospel of Christ). Take the western marriage rite for example. Most men get married. It is usually centered around a vow of monogamy. Most married men don't engage in extra marital sex. They have publicly professed they never will and likely continue to proclaim their faithfulness to their original promise. But some men cheat and rarely discuss this secret.

[hakeem]

Hakeem

You never can certainly prove ignorance. Ignorance is indistinguishable for a well kept secret. Since there were secret gospels (cf. Tertullian Praescr) there could well have been secret gospel authors (such as Paul in the Marcionite tradition, author of the gospel of Christ). Take the western marriage rite for example. Most men get married. It is usually centered around a vow of monogamy. Most married men don't engage in extra marital sex. They have publicly professed they never will and likely continue to proclaim their faithfulness to their original promise. But some men cheat and rarely discuss this secret.

Your post is a contradictory. If you never can certainly prove ignorance then it makes no sense to tell me about secret gospel authors for which you cannot prove with any certainty.

[Secret Alias]

Are you arguing that there is no evidence for secrecy in Christianity, that Christians as such were understood to have gathered into secret associations at the very beginning of knowledge about Christianity or for the existence of 'secret gospels' or 'secret canons' of Pauline writings - or all of the above? Which? I don't think you know what you are talking about.

[hakeem]

But, of course, just because Justin virtually had to have known (of) the Pauline epistles does not necessarily mean that he thought of them as authoritative. Perhaps they were considered a purely Marcionite property, or at least tainted by Marcion too much to touch. Whatever the case, in his extant writings Justin never explicitly mentions the apostle Paul. (It must be remembered, though, that we do not have his book against Marcion, referenced by Irenaeus.

Your cannot show that Justin had to have known of the Pauline Epistles when he did not mention Paul or Pauline Epistles. We know the sources for Justin because he mentioned them by name.

Justin explicitly used almost exclusively the books of the prophets and the memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels.

Justin identified by name the writings and made references to passages in books of so-called prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Daniel, Zechariah, Malachi, Hopsea, Joel and Amos.

Justin wrote about the teachings or named so-called heretics like Basilides, Valentinus, Marcus, Saturnilus, Simon Magus, Menander and Marcion.

If there was a writer who would have mentioned Paul and the Epistles or even Acts of the Apostles if they were known and read in the Church it would have been Justin.

The writings attributed to Justin never mentions Paul, the Epistles and Acts.

The writings attributed to Justin have exposed that the so-called history of the Church with characters called Paul and bishops of Rome were invented at least after his time.