Justin, the contemporary and coreligionist of Papias, was no more successful than the latter in acquiring anything from the Apostle to the Gentiles. That is even more peculiar in his case since he carried on his activity in Rome, where “Peter and Paul” was the watchword, and at least Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians were available. But in the case of Justin also, one must sharply minimize the claims of Pauline reminiscences in order to arrive at an acceptable result. Such allusions are of no help to me, since at best they spring up occasionally from the subconscious but evidence no kind of living relationship with Paul. Or what is one to think of this matter in view of the fact that it does not occur to the apologist to mention Romans 13 when he argues that the Christians have always patriotically paid their taxes (Apol. 17) — Theophilus of Antioch refers to this chapter (Autolycus 1.11,3.14); or that 1 Corinthians 15 in no way plays a role in Justin's treatise On The Resurrection — Athenagoras calls the apostle to mind in his treatment (On the Resurrection 18)? Rather, for Justin everything is based on the gospel tradition. And if a third question may be allowed, how is one to explain the fact that in the discussion of the conversion of the gentiles and the rejection of the Jews (Apol. 49) any congruence with Romans 9-11 is omitted, despite the fact that they both, apologist and apostle, appeal to Isaiah 65.2? In this light, 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. In one passage we hear of John, the apostle of Christ, as the author of Revelation (Dial. 81.4); and even though the names of the apostles are not mentioned on other occasions, there are repeated references to their “Memoirs”. With respect to Paul, not only is his name lacking, but also any congruence with his letters. But for a learned churchman who carried on his work in Rome around the middle of the second century to act thus can only be understood as quite deliberate conduct. [36] And if pressed to suggest a reason for this, it would seem to me that the most obvious possibility here would also be the reference to Marcion.
(Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and heresy in earliest Christianity, p. 215-216, my bold)
Important note 36 reads:
It is fitting also to be reminded of Celsus, who could hardly have gained his insight that orthodoxy represented the “great” church over against the heretics (Origen, Against Celsus 5.59; cf. 5.61 where the ecclesiastically oriented Christians are hoi apo tou plēthous, “those of the multitude”) anywhere but in Rome, and thus it was apparently there that he pursued his basic studies of the religion he combatted. For him also, the gospels are overhelmingly of the synoptic type, and he also surely knows certain Pauline ideas, but not letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles, ...
(my bold)
