Argument: Justin almost certainly knew the letters of Paul

[lclapshaw]

It occurs to me that Justin may not have used the Pauline letters simply because he considered only the Jewish scriptures as sacred texts and Paul wasn't Jewish yet.

I think that's the same idea as Justin considering that Marcionite Paul was the original writer. That seems to have been unlikely, based on the reactions of later Christian apologists, in my opinion.

Then, you have a serious problem imo. With Trypho at least, Justin should have said something like "Well, Paulos, who's Jewish name is Saul, says xyz. How do you respond to that?"

[MrMacSon]

It occurs to me that Justin may not have used the Pauline letters simply because he considered only the Jewish scriptures as sacred texts and Paul wasn't Jewish yet.

I think that's the same idea as Justin considering that [a] Marcionite Paul was the original writer [of the Pauline epistles]. That seems to have been unlikely, based on the reactions of later Christian apologists, in my opinion.

• What reactions of later Christian apologists? Even then, why would their reactions matter?

... Irenaeus knew both Justin's work and Paul's, and had read Justin's treatise against Marcion. Neither [Irenaeus] nor later writers ever indicated that Justin had unusual views that aligned with Marcion's with regards to Paul.

• That intent of that 2nd sentence isn't clear (ie. it doesn't make sense)

[MrMacSon]

With Trypho at least, Justin should have said something like "Well, Paulos, who's Jewish name is Saul, says xyz. How do you respond to that?"

• There was only room for one sockpuppet-literary-device in Justin's Dialogue
  (ie. Paul could well be a sockpuppet-literary-device of Marcion or the Marcionite community)

[Giuseppe]

On the taxes, Justin didn't mention Paul's Romans 13:1-7:

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear? And they said, Cæsar's. And again He answered them, Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's. Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required. Luke 12:48

(1 Apology 17)

Note that the Gospel logion "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's" is based midrashically on Romans 13:1-7 (assuming that the logion was fabricated by a paulinist).

Hence the paradox is that Justin ignored Paul while his source was based precisely on Paul.

[MrMacSon]

On the taxes, Justin didn't mention Paul's Romans 13:1-7:

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear? And they said, "Cæsar's." And again He answered them, "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's." Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment.

But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, " To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required" [Luke 12:48]

(1 Apology 17)

Note that the Gospel logion "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's"1 is based midrashically on Romans 13:1-7 (assuming that the logion was fabricated by a Paulinist).
.

1 Mark 12:17; Matthew 22:21; Luke 20:25 | https://biblehub.com/mark/12-17.htm#:~: ... %20God%27s.

Romans 13:1-7:

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor

[lclapshaw]

With Trypho at least, Justin should have said something like "Well, Paulos, who's Jewish name is Saul, says xyz. How do you respond to that?"

• There was only room for one sockpuppet-literary-device in Justin's Dialogue
  (ie. Paul could well be a sockpuppet-literary-device of Marcion or the Marcionite community)

True. Especially if Paul was not Jewish.

Hey m8, think you might be contributing to the experiment? Would be nice to see your results

[DCHindley]

With Trypho at least, Justin should have said something like "Well, Paulos, who's Jewish name is Saul, says xyz. How do you respond to that?"

• There was only room for one sockpuppet-literary-device in Justin's Dialogue
  (ie. Paul could well be a sockpuppet-literary-device of Marcion or the Marcionite community)

True. Especially if Paul was not Jewish.

Hmmm ... try something like this:

Identify all citations from Jewish sacred books and the final editor's comments & contextual words to fit it into the original narrative, including all the "lords" pertaining to God. I find that the citations from sacred texts themselves used an anarthrous (sp?) "kurios" for YHWH, while the commentary may translate as theos. Hebrew El is often translated as theos as well as kurios. Bracket them off for now.

Identify all the uses of kurios (lord). Can any be related to a household's "lord." The head of the household, the father at the head of a family, often an extended household as the wealthier had estates dotted here and there, sometimes in different provinces. I would also look at the ones that you had associated with the materials blocked off above.

Connect the dots. By that I mean find "arguments" (developed reasoning as a form of explanation). If the argument abruptly stops for a digression, and is often found, figure out where it might be picked up again later. Repeat as needed. Look for connected narratives. My analysis ended up connecting most arguments to a Judean of the Diaspora concerned about his many gentile associates in the final age. The christological statements I had bracketed off in my original analysis never seemed to make a coherent form. They were all about the Christ, a divine redeemer, and how much better that concept was to Circumcision & Mosaic Law observance. Hebrews does try to make a logical case for Jesus christ as a divine redeemer, but this is probably not Paul himself, but many doubt that this was written by Paul himself. Hebrews is someone else's attempt at explanation for the christological statements in the letters as we have them.

Loose any already conceived notions about what is authentic or spurious or an interpolation. You will have to look at the totality of the picture and form your own impressions. When I first looked closely at Pauline letters I still considered myself "christian" and had hoped to find an explanation for the "flip/flop" style (abrupt changes in direction of, or interruption of, narrative which is suggestive of seams). I found

The best bet for a non-Jewish Paul would be someone who was a retainer for a wealthy household. "Household rules" are common in the pastorals.

Well, gotta log into work.

[lclapshaw]

With Trypho at least, Justin should have said something like "Well, Paulos, who's Jewish name is Saul, says xyz. How do you respond to that?"

• There was only room for one sockpuppet-literary-device in Justin's Dialogue
  (ie. Paul could well be a sockpuppet-literary-device of Marcion or the Marcionite community)

True. Especially if Paul was not Jewish.

Hmmm ... try something like this:

Identify all citations from Jewish sacred books and the final editor's comments & contextual words to fit it into the original narrative, including all the "lords" pertaining to God. I find that the citations from sacred texts themselves used an anarthrous (sp?) "kurios" for YHWH, while the commentary may translate as theos. Hebrew El is often translated as theos as well as kurios. Bracket them off for now.

Identify all the uses of kurios (lord). Can any be related to a household's "lord." The head of the household, the father at the head of a family, often an extended household as the wealthier had estates dotted here and there, sometimes in different provinces. I would also look at the ones that you had associated with the materials blocked off above.

Connect the dots. By that I mean find "arguments" (developed reasoning as a form of explanation). If the argument abruptly stops for a digression, and is often found, figure out where it might be picked up again later. Repeat as needed. Look for connected narratives. My analysis ended up connecting most arguments to a Judean of the Diaspora concerned about his many gentile associates in the final age. The christological statements I had bracketed off in my original analysis never seemed to make a coherent form. They were all about the Christ, a divine redeemer, and how much better that concept was to Circumcision & Mosaic Law observance. Hebrews does try to make a logical case for Jesus christ as a divine redeemer, but this is probably not Paul himself, but many doubt that this was written by Paul himself. Hebrews is someone else's attempt at explanation for the christological statements in the letters as we have them.

Loose any already conceived notions about what is authentic or spurious or an interpolation. You will have to look at the totality of the picture and form your own impressions. When I first looked closely at Pauline letters I still considered myself "christian" and had hoped to find an explanation for the "flip/flop" style (abrupt changes in direction of, or interruption of, narrative which is suggestive of seams). I found

The best bet for a non-Jewish Paul would be someone who was a retainer for a wealthy household. "Household rules" are common in the pastorals.

Well, gotta log into work.

Have a good day at work David!

Hope you decide to be a contributor to the experiment.

[GakuseiDon]

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.

I also thought so, but there are two strong items of evidence going against your point:

• If Marcion was the first Christian author who had made Paul known in all the world, then Justin had to deal with it. If I know that Dugin is the "philosoph of Putin", then I have to deal with it when I am going to read Dugin: even more so if I am against Putin.

Sure, but I don't see the same for Justin pleading his case to the Emperor and Senate to be more considerate of Christians, and bringing in Paul to support that case. What Roman elite would think "well if Paul said it, it must be true"? Whereas they might have been more impressed in ancient texts, which is why Justin refers to the Hebrew Scriptures and Platonic writings so often in his Apologies to the pagans.

• I am reading in Orthodoxy and heresy in earliest Christianity (p. 215-216, available freely on archive.org) by Walter Bauer a list of cogent points where Justin was expected to mention Paul, even more so when, dealing with the same points, Athenagoras and other Christian apologists mentioned de facto Paul.

Yes, Irish has a thread that covers that, and that was partly what inspired me to make this separate thread on Justin. From what I can see there, it seems Bauer isn't claiming that Justin didn't know about Paul but rather was ignoring him due to Paul's use by Marcion.

I know Athenagoras's writings fairly well due to my long discussions with Doherty. I see you've created a new thread on this here, so I will respond about Athenagoras and the others over there. I'll note here that in his Apology to the pagans, Athenagoras doesn't refer to Paul or his writings once.

[GakuseiDon]

On the taxes, Justin didn't mention Paul's Romans 13:1-7:

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear? And they said, Cæsar's. And again He answered them, Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's. Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required. Luke 12:48

(1 Apology 17)

Note that the Gospel logion "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's" is based midrashically on Romans 13:1-7 (assuming that the logion was fabricated by a paulinist).

Hence the paradox is that Justin ignored Paul while his source was based precisely on Paul.

Justin, writing an apology for Christians to the Roman Emperor and Senate, refers to the words of Christ. Can you explain why he should have mentioned Paul's view on this? Please unpack the paradox.

That's the challenge: is there anywhere in the two Apologies to the pagans where Justin should have quoted Paul over Christ and the Hebrew Scriptures, or in tandem with Christ and the Hebrew Scriptures? What is your reasoning with regards to the paying of taxes? What would Justin have gained by quoting Paul instead of/as well as Christ to the pagans?