Argument: Justin almost certainly knew the letters of Paul

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Argument: Justin almost certainly knew the letters of Paul

Post by GakuseiDon »

Irish1975 wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:58 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:14 am Here I'll argue that it is reasonable to assume that:

1. Justin knew Paul's letters and
2. Justin regarded Paul as proto-orthodox.
It is really something to argue—IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT JUSTIN EVIDENTLY DIDN’T MENTION PAUL OR ECHO HIS WRITINGS—that ACTUALLY Justin must have known Paul’s letters. It reminds me of some recently published author who claimed that Josephus, likewise, must have known about Paul, since his silence about Paul is so very deafening.
I find that convincing about Josephus! Mind you, I also argue that Paul must have known about a historical Jesus since he is silent about a historical Jesus, or so I've been told many times by others on this board!

Actually, I'm arguing that it is reasonable to assume that Justin knew Paul, not "must have", not "proof".
Irish1975 wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:58 amThe claim is made that Justin must have known Paul, for no other reason than that he referred to Marcion. But many Patristic writers did exactly this. They denounced Marcion, while saying nothing about Paul. Why is it inconceivable that someone such as Justin could have opposed Marcion and his heresy, while also being ignorant of Paul’s writings? There is no logical connection, unless we project our own biased assumptions.
I am using my own biased assumption: that Marcion was regarded as a heretic because he claimed to have a set of Paul's letters that were uncorrupted. That suggests that Marcion knew a set of corrupted letters. (Otherwise, why claim corruption? This is a point Tertullian makes, for what it's worth)

If there were both corrupted and uncorrupted Pauline letters, then it's reasonable to assume that Justin, writing against Marcion, would have known both. If Marcion was a heretic because of his views about Paul (and the Gospel as well), then that suggests that Paul was considered authoritative.

It's all guesswork, but I think it is reasonable guesswork.
Irish1975 wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:58 amJustin is our earliest known reference to Marcion. He said very little about him, and we have no clue what knowledge he held in reserve. He denounced Marcion, and made no reference to Paul or to his letters. That’s the evidence we have.
We have a little bit more than that. We have views about Marcion's beliefs from other writers (that Marcion believed that there is a set of Pauline letters corrupted by the proto-orthodox) and that Justin wrote a treatise against Marcion.
Irish1975 wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:58 am
Irenaeus, writing perhaps 25 years later, notes that Justin wrote a "Treatise against Marcion", from which he quotes. Eusebius seems to have been aware of Justin's work against Marcion as well.

Can Justin have been aware of Marcion without being aware of Paul's letters? I doubt it very much. I think it is almost certain that Justin was aware of Paul's letters.
Big difference between Justin and Irenaeus. Or between Justin, and the author of Acts. Or between Justin, and subsequent Christian tradition.
All true. If I am wrong about Irenaeus and Tertullian believing that Marcion claimed there were corrupted letters, then my argument is greatly weakened.
Irish1975 wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:58 am
So, why didn't Justin refer to Paul in his letters?
No argument can explain convincingly why some event X didn’t happen. One cannot prove a negative. Bauer was writing on the conventional assumption (still the default paradigm, of course) that Paul’s letters had been circulating among churches, and most certainly in Rome, for an entire century when Justin penned his treatises. Against those assumptions, it makes perfect sense to infer a specific reason for Justin’s silence. But again, there is no proving a negative. We can never know specifically why Justin had nothing to say about Paul or his writings.
I agree. My argument is only as strong as the premises on which it rests. If you disagree with my premises, then you disagree with my argument. Fair enough. But I'm not claiming "proof", just a series of propositions that I think form a reasonable argument.

Possibly the main sticking point is: When Justin wrote, had Marcion claimed that he had two sets of Gospel and Paul's letters, one corrupted and one uncorrupted? I think he did, using as evidence the writings of later Christian writers. I'm not aware of evidence for any claims that Marcion didn't.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Argument: Justin almost certainly knew the letters of Paul

Post by John2 »

Irish1975 wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:58 am
It reminds me of some recently published author who claimed that Josephus, likewise, must have known about Paul, since his silence about Paul is so very deafening.
I buy the argument that Josephus does mention Paul (as Saul), since Paul and the Saul in Josephus were both violent hotheads who harassed their Jewish enemies, were (at least arguably in Paul's case) related to the Herodians, were anti-rebellion, moved in the circle of Caesar's household and mysteriously disappeared from the record in the mid to late 60's CE.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Argument: Justin almost certainly knew the letters of Paul

Post by andrewcriddle »

John2 wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:11 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:14 am
I've clipped below three recent comments from various sources on this:

Justin, the contemporary and coreligionist of Papias, was no more successful than the latter in acquiring anything from the Apostle to the Gentiles... the fact that the name of Paul is nowhere mentioned by Justin acquires a special significance that can hardly be diminished by the observation that the names of the other apostles also are absent.


The part I bolded works for me (even if the source doesn't agree). And does Justin cite any NT letters (or Revelation)? Maybe he just valued the gospels and the OT more or found them more suitable for his purposes (as per your reasoning).

Justin alludes to the book of Revelation in his Dialogue with Trypho.
And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.
Andrew Criddle
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Argument: Justin almost certainly knew the letters of Paul

Post by John2 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:51 pm
Justin alludes to the book of Revelation in his Dialogue with Trypho.



Nice! Thank you.
Post Reply