Justin's "which are called Gospels": interpolation?

[Ulan]

My problem with this idea is that by ~155 CE Mark's gospel has been widely disseminated. Adding an introductory sentence to the document at the 11th hour (acknowledging that some manuscripts are missing the "Son of God") seems problematic. Maybe I overestimate how many copies of Mark were in existence in 155 CE. Would anyone hazard a guess?

The gospel of Mark is documented only once before the big volumes of the 4th century (Sinaiticus etc.) by the snippets in p45. If manuscript frequency is anything to go by, it was the rarest of the gospels (for comparison: gMatthew is represented by 14 manuscripts, gJohn by 13). However, that's not really a statistically relevant statement. Let's just say that nobody knows, but it definitely doesn't look common or in any way popular.

Also, it was not uncommon in manuscripts to add or leave out single sentences. Simple scribal remarks at the margin of the text had the tendency to move into the text itself. We still see this for the 6th century. Also, the statement I made was quite specific. The title "kata Markon" became only then necessary when "gMark" was added to a gospel collection. Before that, it did not need any, so it's not a far-fetched assumption that a former title, added by whoever, now became part of the text. The manuscripts had no punctuation, no space between words, nothing. There was no easy way to distinguish a scribal note from a correction.

[Ulan]

Without meaning to be rude, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

I wonder if perhaps you are not following Ulan's prescient comment, because you are looking at the English word, "gospel", instead of looking at the Greek text, which could indicate in Mark 8, that ευαγγελίου represents verbal communication, rather than written, good news.

The noun can indeed indicate verbal communication. Justin does, however, use it of written communication in Dialogue 100.1:

ὅτι γὰρ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραὴλ καλεῖται ὁ Χριστός, ἀπέδειξα· καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ εὐλογίᾳ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Ἰούδα τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ κεκηρύχθαι ἐν μυστηρίῳ ἀπέδειξα, καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ γέγραπται εἰπών· Πάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, καὶ οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, οὐδὲ τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ οἷς ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ.

I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is an apparent reference to the so-called "Johannine thunderbolt" (Matthew 11.25-27 = Luke 10.21-22).

Ben.

Thanks, Ben. That's exactly the use of "evangelion" I referred to, the single time in Justin's writings where it is completely clear that he is talking about a written gospel, and it's also clear that he's talking about "the gospel", not "gospels". Markus Vinzent claims that the word order matches Marcion, not Matthew or Luke, from which he concludes that "Marcion's" gospel was the only written gospel Justin knew, whatever one may think of this statement (link here, with more sources concerning the thread question).

[Ben C. Smith]

The noun can indeed indicate verbal communication. Justin does, however, use it of written communication in Dialogue 100.1:

ὅτι γὰρ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραὴλ καλεῖται ὁ Χριστός, ἀπέδειξα· καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ εὐλογίᾳ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Ἰούδα τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ κεκηρύχθαι ἐν μυστηρίῳ ἀπέδειξα, καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ γέγραπται εἰπών· Πάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, καὶ οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, οὐδὲ τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ οἷς ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ.

I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is an apparent reference to the so-called "Johannine thunderbolt" (Matthew 11.25-27 = Luke 10.21-22).

Ben.

Thanks, Ben. That's exactly the use of "evangelion" I referred to, the single time in Justin's writings where it is completely clear that he is talking about a written gospel, and it's also clear that he's talking about "the gospel", not "gospels". Markus Vinzent claims that the word order matches Marcion, not Matthew or Luke, from which he concludes that "Marcion's" gospel was the only written gospel Justin knew, whatever one may think of this statement (link here, with more sources concerning the thread question).

Correct, and good point. Roth notes that the canonical version has οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱὸς, whereas Marcion seems to have οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ (which agrees with Justin in order).

Ben.

ETA: From the sources listed below the passage on that Marcionite gospel page I linked to:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.6.1: 1. Dominus enim ostendens semetipsum discipulis, quoniam ipse est Verbum, qui agnitionem Patris facit, et exprobrans Iudaeis putantibus se habere Deum, cum et frustrentur Verbum eius, per quem cognoscitur Deus, dicebat: Nemo cognoscit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis cognoscit nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare. Sic et Matthaeus posuit, et Lucas similiter, et Marcus idem ipsum: Iohannes enim praeterit locum hunc. Hi autem qui peritiores Apostolis volunt esse, sic describunt: Nemo cognovit Patrem nisi Filius, nec Filium nisi Pater, et cui voluerit Filius revelare; et interpretantur, quasi a nullo cognitus sit verus Deus ante Domini nostri adventum: et eum Deum qui a prophetis sit annuntiatus, dicunt non esse Patrem Christi. / 1. For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];" and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.

Interesting that Irenaeus acknowledges the phrase to be absent from John but thinks it is found in Mark. Our canonical Mark bears no such passage.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

... which explains why the original author or the Against Marcion material thinks Marcion corrupted his Diatessaronic gospel.

[MrMacSon]

... which explains why the original author or the Against Marcion material thinks Marcion corrupted his Diatessaronic gospel.

Did you mean

• ... which explains why the original author *of* the Against Marcion material thinks Marcion corrupted his Diatessaronic gospel.

and, do you mean

• Marcion corrupted a Diatessaronic gospel that Marcion had attained?

or

• the Diatessaronic gospel author thinks Marcion had corrupted that author's Diatessaronic gospel?

[MrMacSon]

Justin Martyr directly equated his "memoirs of the apostles" with the Gospels, however some critics believe that clause to be an interpolation. I assume most would accept that the gospel of Mark existed in its final form by the time Justin wrote, and Justin certainly quotes Mark's gospel in Dialogue 106.3 (Mark 3:16-17). Does it lend credence to the case for genuineness of the disputed clause that Mark's gospel identifies itself as a gospel in 1:1? This would be supported via the reasoning that Justin knew gMark, gMark is self-described as a gospel, therefore Justin knew gMark as a "gospel" at the time of his writing...

Justin wrote in ~155 CE. Mark is widely held to be a first-century text, and widely held to be the textual and structural basis for much of Matthew and Luke, with Matthew's gospel also widely held to be a first-century text. Assuming that's the case, I find it hard to conceive of significant alteration of gMark in or after Justin's time. The first chapter of gMark, particularly, seems central to the structure of the text, and I don't see much motivation for "the good news / gospel about Jesus Christ" being an interpolation.

.... Without saying anything about the merits of a proto-Gospel / ur-Marcus, I work from the assumption that by 155 CE the "Markan literary effort" has resolved itself into a single stable text, whether named Mark by that juncture or not.

You've used assume, assuming, and assumption in those posts in reference to "the gospel of Mark [having] existed in its final form by the time Justin wrote".

Yet, I think oleg has raised a pertinent point, as you acknowledge -

I also wanted to acknowledge [oleg's] suggestion that Justin could be quoting a proto-Mark of some description.

as has Ulan -

The gospel of Mark is documented only once before the big volumes of the 4th century (Sinaiticus etc.) by the snippets in p45*. If manuscript frequency is anything to go by, it was the rarest of the gospels (for comparison: gMatthew is represented by 14 manuscripts, gJohn by 13). However, that's not really a statistically relevant statement. Let's just say that nobody knows, but it definitely doesn't look common or in any way popular.

Also, it was not uncommon in manuscripts to add or leave out single sentences. Simple scribal remarks at the margin of the text had the tendency to move into the text itself. We still see this for the 6th century. Also, the statement I made was quite specific. The title "kata Markon" became only then necessary when "gMark" was added to a gospel collection. Before that, it did not need any, so it's not a far-fetched assumption that a former title, added by whoever, now became part of the text. The manuscripts had no punctuation, no space between words, nothing. There was no easy way to distinguish a scribal note from a correction.

* writings attributed to Irenaeus also name the four canonical gospels (~185 AD/CE), but I doubt there is any document from the 3rd century that specifies Mark (other than Eusebius citing Origen's Commentary on Matthew, & Origin's Homilies on Joshua, viii. 1. (about 240) and Origens Homily on Luke (1:1), according to the Latin translation of Jerome: see below. The silence is glaring.

Origen's Homilies on Joshua 'exists only in a Latin translation, probably by Rufinus (d. 410). Some scholars think that Rufinus has contributed to the passage. The latin text here is copied from the text given in Christopher Wordsworth's On the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and on the Apocrypha (London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848), Appendix A, p. 8."

So too our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun, when he came sent his apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his epistles; and so also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his epistles and Apocalypse; 4 and Luke while describing the acts of the apostles. Lastly however came he who said, I think that God hath set forth us Apostles last of all, [1 Cor. 4:9] and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his epistles threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers.

Veniens vero Dominus noster Jesus Christus, cujus ille prior filius Nave designabat adventum, misit sacerdotes Apostolos suos portantes tubas ductiles, praedicationis magnificam coelestemque doctrinam. Sacerdotali tuba primus in Evangelio suo Matthaeus increpuit, Marcus quoque, Lucas et Joannes, suis singulis tubis sacerdotalibus cecinerunt. Petrus etiam duabus epistolarum suarum personat tubis. Jacobus quoque et Judas. Addit nihilominus atque et Joannes tuba canere per epistolas suas et Apocalypsim, 4 et Lucas Apostolorum gesta describens. Novissime autem ille veniens, qui dixit: Puto autem nos Deus novissimos Apostolos ostendit, [1 Cor. 4:9] et in quatuordecim epistolarum suarum fulminans tubis, muros Jericho et omnes idololatriae machinas et philosophorum dogmata usque ad fundamenta dejecit.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html

Origen's Homily on Luke (1:1), according to the Latin translation of Jerome:

That there have been written down not only the four Gospels, but a whole series from which those that we possess have been chosen and handed down to the churches, is, let it be noted, what we may learn from Luke's preface, which runs thus: 'For as much as many have taken in hand to compose a narrative'. The expression 'they have taken in hand' involves a covert accusation of those who precipitately, and without the grace of the Holy Ghost, have set about the writing of the gospels.

Matthew to be sure, and Mark and John, as well as Luke, did not 'take in hand' to write, but filled with the Holy Ghost have written the Gospels. 'Many have taken in hand to compose a narrative of the events which are quite definitely familiar among us' . The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many, of which one is entitled 'The Gospel according to the Egyptians', and another 'The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles'. Basilides also has presumed to write a gospel, and to call it by his own name. 'Many have taken in hand ' to write, but only four Gospels are recognized. From these the doctrines concerning the person of our Lord and Savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called 'The Gospel according to Thomas' and a 'Gospel according to Matthias', and many others have we read - lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Origen.shtml

[MrMacSon]

This recently published book may well provide some insights -

• The Gospel on the Margins: The Reception of Mark in the Second Century
  
  Michael J. Kok
  Fortress Press, Feb. 2015
  
  "Scholars of the Gospel of Mark usually discuss the merits of patristic references to the Gospel’s origin and Mark’s identity as the “interpreter” of Peter. But while the question of the Gospel’s historical origins draws attention, no one has asked why, despite virtually unanimous patristic association of the Gospel with Peter, one of the most prestigious apostolic founding figures in Christian memory, Mark's Gospel was mostly neglected by those same writers. Not only is the text of Mark the least represented of the canonical Gospels in patristic citations, commentaries, and manuscripts, but the explicit comments about the Evangelist reveal ambivalence about Mark’s literary or theological value. Michael J. Kok surveys the second-century reception of Mark, from Papias of Hierapolis to Clement of Alexandria, and finds that the patristic writers were hesitant to embrace Mark because they perceived it to be too easily adapted to rival Christian factions. Kok describes the story of Mark’s Petrine origins as a second-century move to assert ownership of the Gospel on the part of the emerging Orthodox Church."

[Peter Kirby]

Justin Martyr directly equated his "memoirs of the apostles" with the Gospels, however some critics believe that clause to be an interpolation.

Not sure who they are, but it's a very weak case. I think you're correct to call them out on it.

[gmx]

Justin Martyr directly equated his "memoirs of the apostles" with the Gospels, however some critics believe that clause to be an interpolation.

Not sure who they are, but it's a very weak case. I think you're correct to call them out on it.

So let's assume the "which are called Gospels" is original. It means Justin knows multiple individual Gospels, and they are probably the documents he's been referring to when (sometimes loosely) quoting our canonical Gospel content.

Was "memoirs of the apostles" a Justinian idiosyncrasy? Possibly a dressing up of the work "gospel"?
Was Justin aware of the foursome, but still using a harmony of some kind for his quotations?
Was Justin aware of the foursome, but they were still anonymous at that juncture?

[gmx]

BTW my use of foursome did not mean to imply all four Gospels. It was more meant "our Gospels", not some other hypothetical Gospels that hypothetically have been lost.