Probably Walt relied on an evangelical source (whom I shall call A) who
in turn had not done his research properly. 'A' had quickly referenced
some articles or a book in turn done by evangelical B. B noted lots of
cases where Justin Martyr's language was similar to Paul's, or his
theology was similar and noted these down in footnotes with reference to
the correct passage in Paul's letters. So when A was scanning through
B's work to prepare a defense of the truth, he counted up the number of
footnote citations referring to Paul and used this figure. A, of course,
already knew the correct answer, i.e. that Justin Martyr was a faithful
disciple of Paul, so had no need to check the information. Walt, of
course, knows that A is a sound apologist, and because Walt already
knows the correct answer he merely copies from A without checking the
writings of Justin Martyr.
CARR
The Aussies are slaughtering us at cricket and Rubgy League again (-:
I don't know why we invite them over here, I really don't.
There is something strange about Paul. We know there were big rows in
early Christianity and we know that Paul's letters were lapped up by
Gnostics. It is strange that such a major figure as Paul is not used
very much by early orthodox Christians, such as Justin. The Psuedo-
Clementine literature, for example, tries to write Paul out of history
and leaves him as Saul, hitting James on the head in the Temple and
saying nothing of any conversion.
Could it be the that the early Christian church was not as united as is
sometimes made out and that every single regional church believed
something different and that orthodox Christians (as defined today) were
in the minority?
Even a figure as late as Tertullian had to concede that the majority of
believers were baffled by the Trinity and believed something else.