Quesionting Justin Martyr's Knowledge of the Canonical Gospels

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks, Ben. Lots to think about. (I also added an edit to my post above regarding the dating of Polycarp and Papias.)

Yes, if Polycarp lived longer, then his liking of Paul and Papias' (possible) disliking of Paul may not coincide chronologically.

Regarding "the dating of Polycarp and Papias," I doubt they ever dated, BTW.

[Giuseppe]

BW's concern is to counter this concept and demonstrate that there is evidence that canonical Luke existed in Justin's time, and Justin was a (near?) contemporary of Marcion, meaning that canonical Luke was available to Marcion. Thusly, the church fathers would be absolutely correct to believe that Marcion "corrupted" the canonical gospel of Luke. Also, it is meet & right to assume that the canonical gospel of Luke would have preceded their times (early-middle 2nd century?) by several decades in order for it to have garnered a reputation such that Marcion would choose it as his primary source. Conveniently <phwew!>, that would put its final composition somewhere in the late 1st century, which is where most middle and conservative US Evangelicals like BW have no difficulty dating it.

I don't realize very the BW's ''argument''. Even if we assume the (according to common sense) ''radical'' scenario of Markus Vinzent (that Marcion wrote the Earliest Gospel, Mcn), he says that the other Gospels (hence also our canonical Luke) were written in very short time in reaction against Mcn, with Marcion still living to read all them. This is all part and parcel of the ''surprise'' provoked by the Earliest Gospel among the proto-Catholic communities. Evidence of the ''surprise'' is also in the character Trypho invented by Justin (...''you invent a Christ for yourselves''...).

Vinzent pays more attention to prove that Ignatius is later and/or that Aristides and Quadratus didn't know still a Gospel (since they are before Marcion, and not Justin).

But then I realize which is the real point of thse conservative scholars: they want that a Gospel becomes popular in a bottom-down way: the common Christian brothers like the Gospel X, and then it is ''approved'' by the vertices and leaders (Justin among them).

While the contrary (in a top-down way) may be true: the leaders approve a Gospel X, and accordingly the hoi polloi accept it.

In other terms, was an individual decision of a proto-catholic elite the fact that the canonical Gospels became popular among the Catholics. Just as it was the single decision of the Bishop Marcion the fact that his Gospel was popularized between marcionites.

[DCHindley]

Why, in your view, [Bernard,] is this the only time the memoirs are said to belong to Jesus? Why is it Peter in one case, the apostles in another, and their followers in the latter, as well?

Didn't Eusebius claim that the flatterers of Maximinus Daia, Caesar and later Augustus in charge of Asia/Syria, "... forged Acts of Pilate and our Saviour, full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ" [EH 9.5.1, Πλασάμενοι δῆτα Πιλάτου καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ὑπομνήματα, πάσης ἔμπλεα κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ βλασφημίας]?

The preposition kata used with the Genitive case normally has a meaning along the lines of "down upon," which was here translated "against." So, these "memoirs (here translated "Acts") of our savior" were published along with "memoirs (Acts) of Pilate." I would expect both to be of a similar kind.

In the case of Pilate, a Roman government official with juridical powers, he would be expected by Roman tradition to maintain a daily log summarizing his official activities (court actions against whom and for what, issue decrees, etc.). This kind of memoir is not an official document to formally submit to some higher authority during or after his term ended to officially document his activities (as, say, the financial details he would have to file in some sort of local archives). They are his private memoirs which he maintains and takes with him after his term ends, to use in his defense should charges be brought against him afterward. Whether these "memoirs" (more like the modern diary, really), published by Maximinus' flatterers with his assistance, were copies of Pilate's bona-fide memoirs, is an open question. To get them would mean locating heirs to Pilates estate in possession of these diaries, which in theory was possible (travel for commerce was not prohibited under the Tetrarchy instituted by Diocletian), but in fact time consuming and thus not highly likely.

As for "Memoirs of our Savior" they would probably also have taken the form of personal "diaries," which suggests it presents the Christian savior as officiating in a judicial manner, in other words, functioning as a king might, and keeping logs of what he enacted. Think of the personal missives Bar Kochba sent to his underlings fragments of which survive being summarized somewhere. Again, whether this "memoir of our Savior" was a real diary kept by Jesus is also an open question. Even though Christians maintained that Jesus Christ was a kind of lawgiver, they do not have a tradition that Jesus Christ left any written records, whether teachings or memoirs/diaries, but that does not mean that no one ever published Christian works purporting to be Jesus' own dairies. He supposedly wrote letters to king Abgar. Even though no such thing is preserved, Justin could have seen one then circulating in his time.

These things are speculative, sure, but they are distinct possibilities that should be kept in the back of one's mind as we evaluate the evidence before us. I would not dare to simply wave them away as "obvious" forgeries as Eusebius wants his readers/hearers to do.

DCH

[Secret Alias]

Hypomnema could also be used in the sense of 'unfinished (work), notes' - not necessarily a memoir strictly speaking (or as I understand the term - perhaps incorrectly) but simply something short of a polished text. Perhaps - and again this is speculation - the fact that the text was transcribed in a codex gave it this unfinished appearance or suggested it to contemporaries.

[Secret Alias]

Consider the use of the terminology here - http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.cair.zen;3;59377 Could the term have been meant in the sense of 'summary' - the original sense of 'harmony' (viz. a summary because of harmonization of early sources)?

[Secret Alias]

Another meaning, which I have considered many times of the years, is that Justin knew there was something of an 'orthodox' or standardized text(s) of the gospel and Justin preferred a more primitive (in appearance at least) version of the gospel which he claimed stood behind this standardized text(s). That's why he refers to the these 'notes' or 'summaries' in this manner.

[Secret Alias]

The question for me has always been - if these texts described as 'hypomnemata' by Justin were the only versions of the gospel(s) known to Justin would he have described as such - viz. would he have called them 'hypomnemata'? This applies also for Hegesippus's work. When Josephus makes reference or alludes to an Aramaic hypomnema of his work there is a finished product it is related to. If there had simply been an unpublished or rustic gospel narrative and that that's all Justin knew, would this rough narrative have been referenced as a 'rough narrative'? It's a puzzle. My mother left a journal of her life to me after her death. She referred to it as a 'journal.' That can be a meaning of hypomnema. But the subject is her life. One can write a memoir only about oneself because presumably the book is intended to remind you of what happened in your life. I guess one can lay down unpolished notes about one's witness to another remarkable life. But can a holy book, a work that belongs along side the Pentateuch be referenced as a hypomnema or could many hypomnemata be reckoned equal to the rest of the Bible? No I don't think so.

That brings me to next point. There are so many references to a 'secret gospel' (Tertullian, Clement) that perhaps Christians weren't allowed to openly reference the contents of this holy book. So how might they have gotten around this? Perhaps by saying, 'oh let's make reference to the notes that served as building blocks for the holy gospel.' Consider Justin's silence regarding Paul. Surely he must have known the Pauline epistles. Why didn't he mention them? Because they were holy and it was forbidden to speak of them. Just a suggestion.

[Secret Alias]

I have always consider the remarkable understanding (and connection with Justin's words) found in Clement's To Theodore too brilliant for a modern scholar like Morton Smith. Clement here says that the gospel of Mark was written from two sets of hypomnemata - a remarkable coincidence with Justin's sense of hypomnemata.

Ὁ γοὖν Μάρκος, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Πέτρου ἐν Ῥώμῃ διατριβήν, ἀνέγραψε τὰς πράξεις τοῦ Κυρίου· οὐ μέντοι πάσας ἐξαγγέλλων, οὐδὲ μὴν τὰς μυστικὰς ὑποσημαίνων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκλεγόμενος ἃς χρησιμωτάτας ἐνόμισε πρὸς αὔξησιν τῆς τῶν κατηχουμένων πίστεως. Τοῦ δὲ Πέτρου μαρτυρήσαντος παρῆλθεν εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ὁΜάρκος κομίζων καὶ τα ταυτοῦ καὶ τὰ τοῦ Πέτρου ὑπομνήματα, ἐξ ὧν μεταφέρων εἰς τὸ πρῶτον αὐτοῦ βιβλίον τὰ τοῖς προκόπτουσι περὶ τὴν γνῶσιν κατάλληλα συνέταξε πνευματικώτερον εὐαγγέλιον εἰς τὴν τῶν τελειουμένων χρῆσιν

To this end, multiple sources for the standardized gospel texts was known to people outside of Justin. But given Clement's familiarity with Tatian, Clement's knowledge might ultimately have come from Justin - viz. Clement's hypomnemata might have been used in the sense of Justin's use of the same terminology or they in turn go back to even earlier common sources.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why, in your view, [Bernard,] is this the only time the memoirs are said to belong to Jesus? Why is it Peter in one case, the apostles in another, and their followers in the latter, as well?

Didn't Eusebius claim that the flatterers of Maximinus Daia, Caesar and later Augustus in charge of Asia/Syria, "... forged Acts of Pilate and our Saviour, full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ" [EH 9.5.1, Πλασάμενοι δῆτα Πιλάτου καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ὑπομνήματα, πάσης ἔμπλεα κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ βλασφημίας]?

The preposition kata used with the Genitive case normally has a meaning along the lines of "down upon," which was here translated "against." So, these "memoirs (here translated "Acts") of our savior" were published along with "memoirs (Acts) of Pilate." I would expect both to be of a similar kind.

In the case of Pilate, a Roman government official with juridical powers, he would be expected by Roman tradition to maintain a daily log summarizing his official activities (court actions against whom and for what, issue decrees, etc.). This kind of memoir is not an official document to formally submit to some higher authority during or after his term ended to officially document his activities (as, say, the financial details he would have to file in some sort of local archives). They are his private memoirs which he maintains and takes with him after his term ends, to use in his defense should charges be brought against him afterward. Whether these "memoirs" (more like the modern diary, really), published by Maximinus' flatterers with his assistance, were copies of Pilate's bona-fide memoirs, is an open question. To get them would mean locating heirs to Pilates estate in possession of these diaries, which in theory was possible (travel for commerce was not prohibited under the Tetrarchy instituted by Diocletian), but in fact time consuming and thus not highly likely.

As for "Memoirs of our Savior" they would probably also have taken the form of personal "diaries," which suggests it presents the Christian savior as officiating in a judicial manner, in other words, functioning as a king might, and keeping logs of what he enacted. Think of the personal missives Bar Kochba sent to his underlings fragments of which survive being summarized somewhere. Again, whether this "memoir of our Savior" was a real diary kept by Jesus is also an open question. Even though Christians maintained that Jesus Christ was a kind of lawgiver, they do not have a tradition that Jesus Christ left any written records, whether teachings or memoirs/diaries, but that does not mean that no one ever published Christian works purporting to be Jesus' own dairies. He supposedly wrote letters to king Abgar. Even though no such thing is preserved, Justin could have seen one then circulating in his time.

These things are speculative, sure, but they are distinct possibilities that should be kept in the back of one's mind as we evaluate the evidence before us. I would not dare to simply wave them away as "obvious" forgeries as Eusebius wants his readers/hearers to do.

This is a lot of good information, and I think I agree with most or even all of it, but my question is actually a lot more basic than this. To wit, why does it seem to be only here that Justin says the memoirs are of Jesus, rather than of his apostles (or their followers)? Justin sometimes speaks of "the memoirs" without any referent, but when he does give a referent he mentions "those who have made memoirs of all things about our savior Jesus Christ" (Apology 1.33.5), "the apostles in the memoirs made by them, which are called gospels" (Apology 1.66.3), "the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets" (Apology 1.67.3), "the memoirs of his apostles" (Dialogue 100.4), "the memoirs of his apostles" (Dialogue 101.3), "the memoirs of his apostles" (Dialogue 102.5), "the memoirs of the apostles" (Dialogue 103.6), "the memoirs which I say were ordered together by his apostles and those who followed them" (Dialogue 103.8), "the memoirs of his apostles" (Dialogue 104.1), "the memoirs of the apostles" (Dialogue 106.1), and "the memoirs of his apostles" (Dialogue 106.4).

Granted, Dialogue 106.3 would be the only time a singular apostle is given the nod, but it is the only time a singular anyone in Justin is said to have memoirs, so this case already stands out for both scenarios (Peter's memoirs, Jesus' memoirs). But the memoirs being "of Jesus" adds another distinction, which is that Justin, given numerous chances elsewhere, never ascribes memoirs to Jesus but commonly ascribes them to the apostles. Peter is an apostle, so that equation is easy. The equation with Jesus would stand out as unique.

[Peter Kirby]

Hypomnema could also be used in the sense of 'unfinished (work), notes' - not necessarily a memoir strictly speaking (or as I understand the term - perhaps incorrectly) but simply something short of a polished text. Perhaps - and again this is speculation - the fact that the text was transcribed in a codex gave it this unfinished appearance or suggested it to contemporaries.

+1, good point.