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.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:44 am In addition, the fact that Justin didn't know the Acts of the Apostles supports even more the hypothesis that Justin didn't know a catholicized Paul. The exact goal of the Acts of the Apostles was to catholicize Paul. Could Justin use Paul before that Paul was catholicized by Acts? Obviously no.


How is Acts Catholic when it calls Christians Nazarenes and is pro-Torah observance for Jews?
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

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).

In any event, it doesn't seem any stranger to me that Justin doesn't mention Paul's letters any more than if he doesn't mention Revelation, 1 Peter, James, Jude and 1, 2 and 3 John, since they (and Paul's letters) are addressed to particular churches or people, while the gospels are essentially addressed to everyone.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

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.

///

Any thoughts, pro or con?
The earliest extant manuscript for Saint Justin is some form of "Omnibus edition" dated to the year 1364 CE. This is well over a thousand years after the date upon which Saint Justin supposedly wrote. How can modern scholarship invest so much time and energy in determining what Saint Justin supposedly wrote in the 2nd century from a physical manuscript dated to the 14th century?

My thoughts are that there is (relative to the actual physical evidence) a massive void of skepticism in modern scholarship.

And that the way forward (IMO) is to cast the net far wider for evidence supporting various propositions for Christian origins. By far wider I mean outside the remit of the "Fathers" and outside the chronological bounds of the 1st and 2nd centuries of the common era.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:44 pm What would Justin have gained by quoting Paul instead of/as well as Christ to the pagans?
he would have proved that even an early Christian exhorted to pay taxes, and not only Jesus did.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:14 am As an anti-Marcionite, Justin would have been aware that there was a Marcion version of Paul's letters and a proto-orthodox version.
That assumes that there were two versions of Paul's letters extant at the time of Justin. There is no evidence to support that assumption that I am aware of.
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:14 amBut in reality the name "Paul" wouldn't have meant much to the Roman Emperors and Senate in the 150s CE. I can't see any reason why Justin would include references to Paul in that context in his First Apology and Second Apology.
Except to point out that "true Christians" have been taught from their first apostle to the wider world that they are to be subject to and reverence the Roman rulers.
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:44 am As I argued in the OP, there is no unexpected silence about Paul in the three extant letters. Paul was irrelevant to the points he was making.
But there are places where it is relevant. See my thread here: viewtopic.php?p=147552#p147552

Justin makes the argument in Trypho 11 & 23 that Gentiles are to be included in the covenant with God made by Abraham because it was made before Abraham was circumcised. This is a very peculiar argument and on extremely shaky theological ground.

Every scholar agree that this is a bizarre argument to make.

Yet we find that same argument in the Pauline letters to the Romans and Galatians.

So, had Justin picked up this argument from conversation among people who had read teh Pauline letters? Was Justin making it himself based on his own reasoning?

Jesus never makes such a claim, so if Justin wants to call on any authority to support this claim he'll need to call on Paul. But he doesn't.

If Justin knows of Paul and considers him Marcionite, then why doesn't he renounce Paul and why would he rely upon what would then appear to be a Marcionite argument?

If Justin knows of Paul and does not consider him Marcionite, then why not ever mention him or mention that Marcion has misinterpreted him?

Or was this passage not originally in the Pauline letters, but is instead an orthodox interpolation into the Pauline letters that itself derives from Justin's arguments?

In any event, I would think that this was an occasion to call on Paul for support if Justin knew of Paul. And indeed in Trypho Justin commits a lot of ink to discussions of circumcision. Yet the Gospels barely discuss circumcision. Paul is pretty much the only early Christian authority we know of that discussed the matter and was on the side that Justin advocates. So why doesn't Justin call on Paul to support his arguments regarding circumcision?
Last edited by rgprice on Fri Feb 03, 2023 10:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

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

Post by lclapshaw »

rgprice wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:40 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:44 am As I argued in the OP, there is no unexpected silence about Paul in the three extant letters. Paul was irrelevant to the points he was making.
But there are places where it is relevant. See my thread here: viewtopic.php?p=147552#p147552

Justin makes the argument in Trypho 11 & 23 that Gentiles are to be included in the covenant with God made by Abraham because it was made before Abraham was circumcised. This is a very peculiar argument and on extremely shaky theological ground.

Every scholars agree that this is a bizarre argument to make.

Yet we find that same argument in the Pauline letters to the Romans and Galatians.

So, had Justine picked up this argument from conversation among people who had read teh Pauline letters? Was Justin making it himself based on his own reasoning?

Jesus never makes such a claim, so if Justin wants to call on any authority to support this claim he'll need to call on Paul. But he doesn't.

If Justin knows of Paul and considers him Marcionite, then why doesn't he renounce Paul and why would he rely upon what would then appear to be a Marcionite argument?

If Justin knows of Paul and does not consider him Marcionite, then why not ever mention him or mention that Marcion has misinterpreted him?

Or was this passage not originally in the Pauline letters, but is instead an orthodox interpolation into the Pauline letters that itself derives from Justin's arguments?


In any event, I would that that this was an occasion to call on Paul for support if Justin knew of Paul. And indeed in Trypho Justin commits a lot of ink to discussions of circumcision. Yet the Gospels barely discuss circumcision. Paul is pretty much the only early Christian authority we know of that discussed the matter and was on the side that Justin advocates. So why doesn't Justin call on Paul to support his arguments regarding circumcision?
This would be my opinion.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

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

Post by Irish1975 »

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.

The 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.

Justin 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.
Can Justin have been aware of Marcion without being aware of Paul's letters? I doubt it very much.
It’s not only possible, but actually the case.
I think it is almost certain that Justin was aware of Paul's letters.
What you think is almost certain, or the fact that you think it, is not a reason for anyone to agree with you.
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.
Given the importance of Paul to Marcion, any work critical of Marcion would surely have included a view of Paul as well. As an anti-Marcionite, Justin would have been aware that there was a Marcion version of Paul's letters and a proto-orthodox version. It fits the evidence better that Justin took the proto-orthodox version of Paul as the 'authentic' one.
A flagrant example of the abuse of logic, of the concept of “evidence,” etc.
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.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

What about Carrier's argument that 1 Clement dates to the 60's CE? I found it persuasive, anyway (and thanks to whoever here brought it to my attention recently). Since I gather 1 Clement is not Marcionite and it knows Paul and at least one of his letters to the Corinthians, then Paul was known to non-Marcionites before Justin's time and therefore could have been known to him.

As for why Justin doesn't mention him, I stand by my guesses upthread.


https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/22313
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:40 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:44 am As I argued in the OP, there is no unexpected silence about Paul in the three extant letters. Paul was irrelevant to the points he was making.
But there are places where it is relevant. See my thread here: viewtopic.php?p=147552#p147552

Justin makes the argument in Trypho 11 & 23 that Gentiles are to be included in the covenant with God made by Abraham because it was made before Abraham was circumcised. This is a very peculiar argument and on extremely shaky theological ground.

Every scholar agree that this is a bizarre argument to make.

Yet we find that same argument in the Pauline letters to the Romans and Galatians.

So, had Justin picked up this argument from conversation among people who had read teh Pauline letters? Was Justin making it himself based on his own reasoning?

Jesus never makes such a claim, so if Justin wants to call on any authority to support this claim he'll need to call on Paul. But he doesn't.
But why should he? I don't understand. Justin would have considered the Old Testament and Jesus as more authoritative than Paul, just as Paul would have considered the Old Testament and Jesus as more authoritative than James and Peter.

What would referring to Paul here have added to his argument? Would Trypho (as a character representing the Jews) thought "well, if Paul said it, it must be true"? No. They would have been more impressed by a reference to the Old Testament.

I just feel that you are unable to detach from seeing Paul through modern eyes rather than seeing it in the context of the letters and the audience of that time. Justin was writing for them, not for us.
rgprice wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:40 amIf Justin knows of Paul and considers him Marcionite, then why doesn't he renounce Paul and why would he rely upon what would then appear to be a Marcionite argument?

If Justin knows of Paul and does not consider him Marcionite, then why not ever mention him or mention that Marcion has misinterpreted him?
He almost certainly did! Justin wrote a treatise against Marcion, which is referred to by later writers, even quoted from by Irenaeus.

So really you are asking "why didn't Justin denounce Paul in his three letters, two to the pagans and one in his Trypho dialogue?" And the answer is: please make a case that he should have done so within those three letters. Not just that he could have mentioned Paul, but that he should have mentioned Paul.
rgprice wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:40 amIn any event, I would think that this was an occasion to call on Paul for support if Justin knew of Paul. And indeed in Trypho Justin commits a lot of ink to discussions of circumcision. Yet the Gospels barely discuss circumcision. Paul is pretty much the only early Christian authority we know of that discussed the matter and was on the side that Justin advocates. So why doesn't Justin call on Paul to support his arguments regarding circumcision?
Well, make that case! I'd love to see it. Explain why Justin's frequent use of the Old Testament in his arguments against Trypho wasn't enough, and that he would have needed to refer to Paul. Start by explaining the standing of Paul in the Jewish community in the 150s CE and how they saw him as authoritative as the Old Testament.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply