(Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and heresy in earliest Christianity, p. 215-216, my bold)
Important note 36 reads:
(my bold)
This is what Justin wrote at the start of First Apology Chap 17: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)
Most scholars believe that Justin didn't write On The Resurrection, and that it was written at some time after him.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
There are two texts attributed to Athenagoras of Athens: (1) On the Resurrection of the Dead, (2) A Plea for the Christians.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.
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?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?
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: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)
The following points are all easily proved:
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
If anyone is going to make a movie about this, they really need to get on it while Anthony Perkins is still available.robert j wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:44 am
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)