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.