Argument: Justin almost certainly knew the letters of Paul

[GakuseiDon]

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.

In the three letters attributed to Justin -- First Apology, Second Apology and Dialogue with Trypho -- Justin doesn't mention Paul at all, which leads to speculation about what this means. I've clipped below three recent comments from various sources on this:

Justin, the contemporary and coreligionist of Papias, was no more successful than the latter in acquiring anything from the Apostle to the Gentiles... 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.

Paul... has no appeal to any public whatsoever - his texts are confusing, contradictory, repetitive and boring as hell, and it can only have fulfilled the role of an addendum to a much better text, a gospel of some kind... Justin doesn't know him nor anybody else until Irenaeus...

What's more interesting in the case of Justin though, more than anything, is it doesn't even mention Paul's name. That's the bit that really surprises me... I think that one of the reasons Justin stays away from Paul is because he's associated with Marcion. I think that's the reason. I think that, to my mind, the canonical account of Paul is post-Justin and therefore, in his mind, these Pauline texts are Marcionite texts. He doesn't want to be associated with Paul...

When we read Justin we can see he knows Marcion, to whom he refers a couple of times:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

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...

"These men" are Marcion, and Simon and Menander of Samaria, whose followers all call themselves "Christians". Justin is telling the Roman Emperor and Senate that there are "bad" Christians inspired by demons.

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.

Might Justin have thought that Marcion's version of Paul's letters were the authentic ones, so avoided referring to Paul (as "the apostle to the heretics"), as per one of the comments I provided above?

I don't think it's likely. Irenaeus refers to Justin as well as Paul in his works against heresies a few times, citing botn against Marcion. Neither Irenaeus nor later writers who refer to Justin ever imply Justin had such a view about Paul as far as I'm aware. Justin's work critical of Marcion seems to have survived to Eusebius at the least. 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.

So, why didn't Justin refer to Paul in his letters? I think we in modern times see Paul's shadow looming over early Christianity to such an extant that it is difficult to not think ancient people thought the same.

But in reality the name "Paul" wouldn't have meant much to the Roman Emperors and Senate in the 150s CE. I can't see any reason why Justin would include references to Paul in that context in his First Apology and Second Apology.

The Dialogue with Trypho might have been a more relevant work to quote Paul, but even there I can't see why his character Trypho might have been impressed by references to Paul's letters. Justin uses some quotes from the Old Testament that Paul also quoted, but surely the Old Testament would have been more authoritative than Paul. Why quote Paul's use of the OT when Justin can use the source?

Any thoughts, pro or con?

[Giuseppe]

My view is that in nuce in your same argument there is a confutation of the your thesis:

So, why didn't Justin refer to Paul in his letters? I think we in modern times see Paul's shadow looming over early Christianity to such an extant that it is difficult to not think ancient people thought the same.

But in reality the name "Paul" wouldn't have meant much to the Roman Emperors and Senate in the 150s CE. I can't see any reason why Justin would include references to Paul

More you insist that Paul was marginal, not important, etc, more reason there would be for Marcion alone being the first Christian author who discovered Paul and, by logical implication, the author in possession of the version more close to the original.

[GakuseiDon]

More you insist that Paul was marginal, not important, etc,

In this case, not important to the Roman Emperor and the Senate.

[the] more reason there would be for Marcion alone being the first Christian author who discovered Paul and, by logical implication, the author in possession of the version more close to the original.

Fair point, but my argument isn't concerned about whether Marcion had the original letters or not. Only that Justin knowing about Marcion strongly implies he also knew about Paul.

[Giuseppe]

Only that Justin knowing about Marcion strongly implies he also knew about Paul.

Correct. And the obvious corollary of the fact that Justin knew a Paul only filtered by Marcion is that a such "Paul" represented (for Justin) a threat. Hence his deliberate silence about Paul.

The alternative (i.e. that Justin knew already a Paul filtered also by proto-Catholics, not only by Marcion) has to be proved, since the position of default is what I have just described above.

[Giuseppe]

In addition, the fact that Justin didn't know the Acts of the Apostles supports even more the hypothesis that Justin didn't know a catholicized Paul. The exact goal of the Acts of the Apostles was to catholicize Paul. Could Justin use Paul before that Paul was catholicized by Acts? Obviously no.

[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.

[GakuseiDon]

Only that Justin knowing about Marcion strongly implies he also knew about Paul.

Correct. And the obvious corollary of the fact that Justin knew a Paul only filtered by Marcion is that a such "Paul" represented (for Justin) a threat. Hence his deliberate silence about Paul.

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.

The alternative (i.e. that Justin knew already a Paul filtered also by proto-Catholics, not only by Marcion) has to be proved, since the position of default is what I have just described above.

As I argued in the OP, Irenaeus knew both Justin's work and Paul's, and had read Justin's treatise against Marcion. Neither he nor later writers ever indicated that Justin had unusual views that aligned with with Marcion's with regards to Paul.

[MrMacSon]

It could be, with Justin knowing Marcion and not appearing to know Paul, that, beyond Giuseppe's proposal - "that Justin didn't know a catholicized Paul" - the Pauline letters are post-Marcion and post-Justin ie. even Marcionite versions of the Pauline letters, which almost certainly preceded catholicized versions (based on scholarship of Jason BeDuhn and Markus Vinzent, at least), are post-Marcion.

[GakuseiDon]

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.

[Giuseppe]

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.

• 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.