Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by Giuseppe »


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)
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by GakuseiDon »

This is a splinter from this thread that I started here, so might provide further context: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10398

From what I've read, Bauer believes that Justin Martyr knew about Paul, but was deliberately ignoring using Paul in his letters. I'll break up the quote that Giuseppe kindly provided:
Bauer wrote: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)
This is what Justin wrote at the start of First Apology Chap 17:

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 Caesar; and He answered, "Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?" And they said, "Caesar's." And again He answered them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

I can't see the need for Justin to quote Paul on this, when he had Christ or the Old Testament to quote from. I'd like to see Bauer's justification for this.
Bauer wrote: — 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
Most scholars believe that Justin didn't write On The Resurrection, and that it was written at some time after him.
Bauer wrote: — Athenagoras calls the apostle to mind in his treatment (On the Resurrection 18)? Rather, for Justin everything is based on the gospel tradition.
There are two texts attributed to Athenagoras of Athens: (1) On the Resurrection of the Dead, (2) A Plea for the Christians.

Athenagoras refers to Paul (though as "the apostle" and not by name) once in On the Resurrection of the Dead:

in the language of the apostle, "this corruptible (and dissoluble) must put on incorruption," in order that those who were dead, having been made alive by the resurrection

Athenagoras doesn't refer to Paul at all in A Plea for the Christians, which is directed to the pagans. How can we explain this? Athenagoras obviously knows Paul, and obviously regards him as authoritative. This is the same situation that we find for Justin in his two Apologies to the pagans. I'd consider this as supporting my view that Justin knew about Paul but didn't mention him in his Apologies due to Paul not being relevant.
Bauer wrote: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?
The explanation is simple. Why quote Paul when Justin can quote Isaiah? Justin quotes often from the Old Testament and for good reason: ancient texts had credibility because they were old. What would Paul have meant to the pagans?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by MrMacSon »


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)? 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?

(Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and heresy in earliest Christianity, p. 215-216)
A lot of that is quite contradictory. The first sentence says, in light of the fact that Papias didn't seem to know Paul, afaik, that Justin either didn't know Paul; or didn't 'acquire anything [meaningful] from Paul. Yet Bauer then bemoans the fact that Justin does not mention Romans 13 or have any congruence with Romans 9-11. Bauer goes on to say:

the name of Paul is nowhere mentioned by Justin ... With respect to Paul, not only is his name lacking, but also any congruence with his letters.

To then assert it is deliberate conduct is a bit weird, too.

As is

Rather, for Justin everything is based on the gospel tradition.

There's no evidence for that
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by Giuseppe »

The ignorance of Celsus about Paul can be justified only if Celsus was based on proto-catholic sources from Rome as Justin.

Hence these same Catholic sources from Rome (as Justin) ignored deliberately Paul.

I find decisive this argument from Celsus's ignorance about Paul. It can't be a mere coincidence that the catholic sources and who was based on catholic sources ignored Paul, while Paul was named by Marcionites again and again.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by MrMacSon »

I've said this below, but I'll put it here too:
  • It could be that Catholics ignored Paul because Justin was ignorant of Paul.



Giuseppe wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:04 pm
The ignorance of Celsus about Paul can be justified only if Celsus was based on proto-catholic sources from Rome as Justin.

Hence these same Catholic sources from Rome (as Justin) ignored deliberately Paul.
  • What Catholic sources are you talking about ??
  • What do you mean by "as Justin" ?
    • Celsus was based on proto-catholic sources such as those of Justin ? Or: those derived from Justin ?? Something else??
  • What do you mean by, "if Celsus was based on proto-catholic sources from Rome as Justin" ?
    • "from Rome as Justin was" ?
      • What does Rome have to do with this ??
  • Are you saying that
    1. Celsus's arguments are based on his knowledge of proto-catholic sources ?
    2. Celsus is a literary character ? (+/- used to promote or shore-up catholic sources)

Coming back to
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:04 pm Hence these same Catholic sources from Rome (as Justin) ignored deliberately Paul.
  • It could be that Catholics ignored Paul because Justin was ignorant of Paul.
  • But there's other potential dimensions to this including but not limited to:
    1. David Trobisch thinks the Johaninne corpus was key to Luke and other "Catholics"
    2. There were different factions:
      1. the Marcionites aligned with and using Paul; and
      2. the Catholics developing other theology/ies independent of Paul
    3. There was eventual joining of the differing theologies and texts, anyway: mainly through the production of Acts
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by Giuseppe »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:14 pm
  • What does Rome have to do with this ??
[/list][/list]
The following points are all easily proved:
  • Justin was writing from Rome.
  • Celsus was based on catholic sources from Rome.
  • Celsus ignored Paul, even while he attacked marcionites (as filtered by his catholic sources)
  • Celsus's ignorance about Paul is a direct consequence of the deliberate silence about Paul in the catholic sources used by Celsus.
  • Therefore: Justin, just as the proto-catholic sources used by Celsus, ignored deliberately Paul.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by Giuseppe »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:14 pm I've said this below, but I'll put it here too:
  • It could be that Catholics ignored Paul because Justin was ignorant of Paul.
Which is very improbable, since Justin knew Marcion, and who knew Marcion knew ipso facto also the Evangelion + the Apostolikon + the Antitheses.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:07 am
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:14 pm It could be that Catholics ignored Paul because Justin was ignorant of Paul
Which is very improbable, since Justin knew Marcion, and who knew Marcion knew ipso facto also the Evangelion + the Apostolikon + the Antitheses.
Not necessarily. Justin may only have known the Evangelion or he and Marcion may only have had theological conversations before it was written
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by robert j »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:16 am
Justin may only have known the Evangelion or he and Marcion may only have had theological conversations before it was written

Perhaps Justin and Marcion shared a theological conversation over a meal of someone’s liver, with fava beans and a nice Chianti.


And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you. (Justin, First Apology, 1.26)

lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by lclapshaw »

robert j wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:44 am
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:16 am
Justin may only have known the Evangelion or he and Marcion may only have had theological conversations before it was written

Perhaps Justin and Marcion shared a theological conversation over a meal of someone’s liver, with fava beans and a nice Chianti.


And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you. (Justin, First Apology, 1.26)

If anyone is going to make a movie about this, they really need to get on it while Anthony Perkins is still available. :D
Post Reply