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!Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:58 amIt 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.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.
Actually, I'm arguing that it is reasonable to assume that Justin knew Paul, not "must have", not "proof".
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)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.
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.
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.
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 amBig difference between Justin and Irenaeus. Or between Justin, and the author of Acts. Or between Justin, and subsequent Christian tradition.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.
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.Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:58 amNo 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.So, why didn't Justin refer to Paul in his letters?
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.