dating the birth stories?

[hakeem]

Indeed Cora, that is very perceptive.
The funny thing on top of that is that Justin keeps hammering on the bloodline of the virgin, instead of that what it turned out to be in the gospels

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho:

Code: Select all

Chapter  23 ... Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham ...
Chapter  43 ... Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David ...
Chapter  45 ... and be born of this virgin of the family of David ...
Chapter 100 ... the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family ...
            ... His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham
Chapter 101 ... He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born

I'm not even sure this is complete, I just checked for 'virgin'

This is interesting. I'm not sure what to make of it.

Matthew 1:
1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
...
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

It's funny because no matter how you slice it Jesus can't be "of the seed" of David.

But you make a good point that Martyr is focusing on the bloodline of Mary, while both Matthew and Luke tie Jesus' Davidic bloodline to Joseph. Yet at the same time, if Martyr didn't get this idea from Matthew then where did he get it from?

Could it be that Martyr simply missed the subtly of the fact that the bloodline was tied to Joseph? His account sounds very much like Matthew, he's just focused on the wrong parent.

It is Justin Martyr who specifically identified his sources for his Jesus stories. He got it from the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin's First Apology

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them...

[mlinssen]

It is Justin Martyr who specifically identified his sources for his Jesus stories. He got it from the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin's First Apology

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them...

I certainly don't trust any church father on anything, and most certainly not Sweet Jus who even dares to accuse the Judeans of mistranslating Isaiah 7:14

Dialogue with Trypho chapter 43

But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;' and [since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavor to [discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ

Regarding your quote: the Greek doesn't add up to that, the word "gospels" is missing

https://archive.org/details/sjustiniphi ... 0/mode/2up

Screenshot_20210220-211918_Chrome.jpg (999.85 KiB) Viewed 4601 times

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

The fact that Tertullian doesn't call this out can only mean that the text doesn't even exist in Tertullian's version of Paul's letters. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have jumped all over this. This would be, in effect, the smoking gun that Tertullian needed to clearly show that Marcion was wrong. For Tertullian to simply pass by this statement is unimaginable. That statement literally is THE smoking gun of orthodoxy. It is, arguably, the single most important statement in all of the Pauline letters to put into service against Marcion. The only explanation for why Tertullian wouldn't have brought this bazooka to bear is because it wasn't in his arsenal.

Tertullian knew about "made of a woman": On the Flesh of Christ "when he says, "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman."[279]

There is another view than yours (bolding mine):
Detering [a mythicist] writes,

“There is a consensus of all scholars that the words γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον were missing in Marcion’s edition. The fact is unambiguously confirmed by Tertullian. He surely would not have omitted the words that showed Christ’s genuine human nature to be true and that therefore could be used as an excellent argument against Marcion’s docetism, if then he had found them in Marcion.”

(The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 65-66)

Also Peter Kirby, who rejects the passage because of criterion 3, which stipulates:

"Unattested passages that Tertullian is likely to have cited were they present in the Marcionite version."

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Justin mentions writings (Memorabilia) called Gospels thrice:

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3-4: 3 For the apostles, in the Memorabilia made by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them, that Jesus took bread and, when He had given thanks, said, “This do in memory of Me; this is My body,” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood,” and gave it to them alone, 4 which the wicked demons have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. / 3 Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ´ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς, τὸν Ἰησοῦν λαβόντα ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν, «Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἀνάμνησίν μου· τοῦτ´ ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου,» καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὁμοίως λαβόντα καὶ εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν, «Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου,» καὶ μόνοις αὐτοῖς μεταδοῦναι, 4 ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις παρέδωκαν γίνεσθαι μιμησάμενοι οἱ πονηροὶ δαίμονες. ὅτι γὰρ ἄρτος καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος τίθεται ἐν ταῖς τοῦ μυουμένου τελεταῖς μετ´ ἐπιλόγων τινῶν, ἢ ἐπίστασθε ἢ μαθεῖν δύνασθε.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 10.1-4: 1 And when they ceased, I again addressed them thus, “Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed than this, that we do not live according to the Law and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and we do not observe Sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this. Have you also believed concerning us that we eat men; and that after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous concubinage? Or do you condemn us in this alone, that we adhere to such tenets, and believe in an opinion, untrue, as you think?” 2 “This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speaks are not worthy of belief, for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so called Gospel are so wonderful and so great that I suspect no one can keep them, for I have carefully read them. 3 But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and you do not alter your mode of living from the nations in that you observe no festivals or Sabbaths and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, ‘That soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day’ (= Genesis 17.14)? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. 4 But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the Law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations.” / 1 Ὡς δὲ ἀνεπαύσαντο, ἐγὼ οὕτως αὐτοῖς πάλιν ἠρξάμην, «Μὴ ἄλλο τί ἐστιν ὃ ἐπιμέμφεσθε ἡμᾶς, ἄνδρες φίλοι, ἢ τοῦτο ὅτι οὐ κατὰ τὸν νόμον βιοῦμεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως τοῖς προγόνοις ὑμῶν περιτεμνόμεθα τὴν σάρκα, οὐδὲ ὡς ὑμεῖς σαββατίζομεν; ἢ καὶ ὁ βίος ἡμῶν καὶ τὸ ἦθος διαβέβληται παρ´ ὑμῖν; τοῦτο δ´ ἐστὶν ὃ λέγω, μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς πεπιστεύκατε περὶ ἡμῶν, ὅτι δὴ ἐσθίομεν ἀνθρώπους καὶ μετὰ τὴν εἰλαπίνην ἀποσβεννύντες τοὺς λύχνους ἀθέσμοις μίξεσιν ἐγκυλιόμεθα, ἢ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καταγινώσκετε ἡμῶν μόνον, ὅτι τοιούτοις προσέχομεν λόγοις καὶ οὐκ ἀληθεῖ, ὡς οἴεσθε, πιστεύομεν δόξῃ;» 2 «Τοῦτ´ ἔστιν ὃ θαυμάζομεν,» ἔφη ὁ Τρύφων, «περὶ δὲ ὧν οἱ πολλοὶ λέγουσιν, οὐ πιστεῦσαι ἄξιον· πόρρω γὰρ κεχώρηκε τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως. ὑμῶν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ εὐαγγελίῳ παραγγέλματα θαυμαστὰ οὕτως καὶ μεγάλα ἐπίσταμαι εἶναι, ὡς ὑπολαμβάνειν μηδένα δύνασθαι φυλάξαι αὐτά· ἐμοὶ γὰρ ἐμέλησεν ἐντυχεῖν αὐτοῖς. 3 ἐκεῖνο δὲ ἀποροῦμεν μάλιστα, εἰ ὑμεῖς, εὐσεβεῖν λέγοντες καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οἰόμενοι διαφέρειν, κατ´ οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ἀπολείπεσθε, οὐδὲ διαλλάσσετε ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν τὸν ὑμέτερον βίον, ἐν τῷ μήτε τὰς ἑορτὰς μήτε τὰ σάββατα τηρεῖν μήτε τὴν περιτομὴν ἔχειν, καὶ ἔτι, ἐπ´ ἄνθρωπον σταυρωθέντα τὰς ἐλπίδας ποιούμενοι, ὅμως ἐλπίζετε τεύξεσθαι ἀγαθοῦ τινος παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, μὴ ποιοῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐντολάς. ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνως, ὅτι ‹Ἐξολοθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτῆς, ἥτις οὐ περιτμηθήσεται τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἡμέρᾳ;› ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀλλογενῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀργυρωνήτων διέσταλται. 4 ταύτης οὖν τῆς διαθήκης εὐθέως καταφρονήσαντες ὑμεῖς ἀμελεῖτε καὶ τῶν ἔπειτα, καὶ πείθειν ἡμᾶς ἐπιχειρεῖτε ὡς εἰδότες τὸν θεόν, μηδὲν πράσσοντες ὧν οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν. εἰ οὖν ἔχεις πρὸς ταῦτα ἀπολογήσασθαι, καὶ ἐπιδεῖξαι ᾧτινι τρόπῳ ἐλπίζετε ὁτιοῦν, κἂν μὴ φυλάσσοντες τὸν νόμον, τοῦτό σου ἡδέως ἀκούσαιμεν μάλιστα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα δὲ ὁμοίως συνεξετάσωμεν.»

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 100.1: 1 And the following, “But You, the praise of Israel, inhabit the holy place” (= Psalm 22.3) declared that He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about to rise again from the dead on the third day after the crucifixion; and this He has obtained from the Father. For 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” (= Matthew 11.27a), and, “No man knows the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him” (= Matthew 11.27b). / 1 Τὸ δὲ ἀκόλουθον, «Σὺ δὲ ἐν ἁγίῳ κατοικεῖς, ὁ ἔπαινος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ,» ἐσήμαινεν ὅτι ἐπαίνου ἄξιον καὶ θαυμασμοῦ μέλλει ποιεῖν, μετὰ τὸ σταυρωθῆναι ἀνίστασθαι μέλλων τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ νεκρῶν, ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ λαβὼν ἔχει. 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.»

[rgprice]

to rgprice,

The fact that Tertullian doesn't call this out can only mean that the text doesn't even exist in Tertullian's version of Paul's letters. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have jumped all over this. This would be, in effect, the smoking gun that Tertullian needed to clearly show that Marcion was wrong. For Tertullian to simply pass by this statement is unimaginable. That statement literally is THE smoking gun of orthodoxy. It is, arguably, the single most important statement in all of the Pauline letters to put into service against Marcion. The only explanation for why Tertullian wouldn't have brought this bazooka to bear is because it wasn't in his arsenal.

Tertullian knew about "made of a woman": On the Flesh of Christ "when he says, "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman."[279]

There is another view than yours (bolding mine):
Detering [a mythicist] writes,

“There is a consensus of all scholars that the words γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον were missing in Marcion’s edition. The fact is unambiguously confirmed by Tertullian. He surely would not have omitted the words that showed Christ’s genuine human nature to be true and that therefore could be used as an excellent argument against Marcion’s docetism, if then he had found them in Marcion.”

(The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 65-66)

Also Peter Kirby, who rejects the passage because of criterion 3, which stipulates:

"Unattested passages that Tertullian is likely to have cited were they present in the Marcionite version."

Cordially, Bernard

Good to know. Still very strange that he didn't address Marcion's apparent removal of the text in Against Marcion. It seems like something he would have called out. It's hard to imagine why he would have passed up the opportunity to call him out on removing it.

[GakuseiDon]

Notice that Tertullian never calls out Marcion for erasing "born of a woman, born under the law." Tertullian goes on about how the God who sent Jesus must be the Creator God, but never calls out the most obvious thing, which would be the statement that God's Son was, "born of a woman, born under the law."

The fact that Tertullian doesn't call this out can only mean that the text doesn't even exist in Tertullian's version of Paul's letters. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have jumped all over this. This would be, in effect, the smoking gun that Tertullian needed to clearly show that Marcion was wrong. For Tertullian to simply pass by this statement is unimaginable. That statement literally is THE smoking gun of orthodoxy. It is, arguably, the single most important statement in all of the Pauline letters to put into service against Marcion. The only explanation for why Tertullian wouldn't have brought this bazooka to bear is because it wasn't in his arsenal.

(My highlighting above) I agree that it wasn't in his arsenal, but I think you misunderstand what was in his arsenal. Tertullian recognises that something was missing from Marcion's version of Galatians at that point. That he doesn't cover it is perfectly logical: his point is stronger against Marcion if he uses what Marcion actually includes rather than what he excludes. After all, Marcion could argue that "Born of a woman, born under the law" wasn't in Paul's original, so what good is it for Tertullian to claim points from the fact that Marcion doesn't refer to it? It's no smoking gun in that case. There's no shot fired at all!

Here is Gal 4:4-5:

4. But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Here is what Tertullian writes at that section:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... an125.html

Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained. "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son"--the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age...

"Born of a woman, born under the law" would be a smoking gun for Tertullian if it was in Marcion's version. Tertullian isn't clear on what he thinks Marcion's sponge has taken away, but I agree with you that if Marcion had included that statement, Tertullian would have used it against him. It's reasonable to assume that it wasn't in Marcion's version. But the evidence isn't there to conclude that it wasn't in Tertullian's version as well. That Tertullian recognises that Marcion has erased something suggests that it might have been in Tertullian's version. (ETA: And I see that Bernard has confirmed above that Tertullian did know that statement)

[hakeem]

Virgin birth stories of Jesus were known since at least c u 117-138 CE or during the time of composition of Aristide's Apology addressed to the Emperor Hadrian.
The Gospel was already written with a story that God came down from heaven and lived in the daughter of man.

[mlinssen]

Justin mentions writings (Memorabilia) called Gospels thrice:

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3-4: 3 For the apostles, in the Memorabilia made by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them, that Jesus took bread and, when He had given thanks, said, “This do in memory of Me; this is My body,” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood,” and gave it to them alone, 4 which the wicked demons have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. / 3 Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ´ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς, τὸν Ἰησοῦν λαβόντα ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν, «Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἀνάμνησίν μου· τοῦτ´ ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου,» καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὁμοίως λαβόντα καὶ εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν, «Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου,» καὶ μόνοις αὐτοῖς μεταδοῦναι, 4 ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις παρέδωκαν γίνεσθαι μιμησάμενοι οἱ πονηροὶ δαίμονες. ὅτι γὰρ ἄρτος καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος τίθεται ἐν ταῖς τοῦ μυουμένου τελεταῖς μετ´ ἐπιλόγων τινῶν, ἢ ἐπίστασθε ἢ μαθεῖν δύνασθε.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 10.1-4: 1 And when they ceased, I again addressed them thus, “Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed than this, that we do not live according to the Law and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and we do not observe Sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this. Have you also believed concerning us that we eat men; and that after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous concubinage? Or do you condemn us in this alone, that we adhere to such tenets, and believe in an opinion, untrue, as you think?” 2 “This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speaks are not worthy of belief, for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so called Gospel are so wonderful and so great that I suspect no one can keep them, for I have carefully read them. 3 But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and you do not alter your mode of living from the nations in that you observe no festivals or Sabbaths and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, ‘That soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day’ (= Genesis 17.14)? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. 4 But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the Law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations.” / 1 Ὡς δὲ ἀνεπαύσαντο, ἐγὼ οὕτως αὐτοῖς πάλιν ἠρξάμην, «Μὴ ἄλλο τί ἐστιν ὃ ἐπιμέμφεσθε ἡμᾶς, ἄνδρες φίλοι, ἢ τοῦτο ὅτι οὐ κατὰ τὸν νόμον βιοῦμεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως τοῖς προγόνοις ὑμῶν περιτεμνόμεθα τὴν σάρκα, οὐδὲ ὡς ὑμεῖς σαββατίζομεν; ἢ καὶ ὁ βίος ἡμῶν καὶ τὸ ἦθος διαβέβληται παρ´ ὑμῖν; τοῦτο δ´ ἐστὶν ὃ λέγω, μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς πεπιστεύκατε περὶ ἡμῶν, ὅτι δὴ ἐσθίομεν ἀνθρώπους καὶ μετὰ τὴν εἰλαπίνην ἀποσβεννύντες τοὺς λύχνους ἀθέσμοις μίξεσιν ἐγκυλιόμεθα, ἢ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καταγινώσκετε ἡμῶν μόνον, ὅτι τοιούτοις προσέχομεν λόγοις καὶ οὐκ ἀληθεῖ, ὡς οἴεσθε, πιστεύομεν δόξῃ;» 2 «Τοῦτ´ ἔστιν ὃ θαυμάζομεν,» ἔφη ὁ Τρύφων, «περὶ δὲ ὧν οἱ πολλοὶ λέγουσιν, οὐ πιστεῦσαι ἄξιον· πόρρω γὰρ κεχώρηκε τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως. ὑμῶν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ εὐαγγελίῳ παραγγέλματα θαυμαστὰ οὕτως καὶ μεγάλα ἐπίσταμαι εἶναι, ὡς ὑπολαμβάνειν μηδένα δύνασθαι φυλάξαι αὐτά· ἐμοὶ γὰρ ἐμέλησεν ἐντυχεῖν αὐτοῖς. 3 ἐκεῖνο δὲ ἀποροῦμεν μάλιστα, εἰ ὑμεῖς, εὐσεβεῖν λέγοντες καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οἰόμενοι διαφέρειν, κατ´ οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ἀπολείπεσθε, οὐδὲ διαλλάσσετε ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν τὸν ὑμέτερον βίον, ἐν τῷ μήτε τὰς ἑορτὰς μήτε τὰ σάββατα τηρεῖν μήτε τὴν περιτομὴν ἔχειν, καὶ ἔτι, ἐπ´ ἄνθρωπον σταυρωθέντα τὰς ἐλπίδας ποιούμενοι, ὅμως ἐλπίζετε τεύξεσθαι ἀγαθοῦ τινος παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, μὴ ποιοῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐντολάς. ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνως, ὅτι ‹Ἐξολοθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτῆς, ἥτις οὐ περιτμηθήσεται τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἡμέρᾳ;› ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀλλογενῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀργυρωνήτων διέσταλται. 4 ταύτης οὖν τῆς διαθήκης εὐθέως καταφρονήσαντες ὑμεῖς ἀμελεῖτε καὶ τῶν ἔπειτα, καὶ πείθειν ἡμᾶς ἐπιχειρεῖτε ὡς εἰδότες τὸν θεόν, μηδὲν πράσσοντες ὧν οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν. εἰ οὖν ἔχεις πρὸς ταῦτα ἀπολογήσασθαι, καὶ ἐπιδεῖξαι ᾧτινι τρόπῳ ἐλπίζετε ὁτιοῦν, κἂν μὴ φυλάσσοντες τὸν νόμον, τοῦτό σου ἡδέως ἀκούσαιμεν μάλιστα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα δὲ ὁμοίως συνεξετάσωμεν.»

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 100.1: 1 And the following, “But You, the praise of Israel, inhabit the holy place” (= Psalm 22.3) declared that He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about to rise again from the dead on the third day after the crucifixion; and this He has obtained from the Father. For 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” (= Matthew 11.27a), and, “No man knows the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him” (= Matthew 11.27b). / 1 Τὸ δὲ ἀκόλουθον, «Σὺ δὲ ἐν ἁγίῳ κατοικεῖς, ὁ ἔπαινος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ,» ἐσήμαινεν ὅτι ἐπαίνου ἄξιον καὶ θαυμασμοῦ μέλλει ποιεῖν, μετὰ τὸ σταυρωθῆναι ἀνίστασθαι μέλλων τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ νεκρῶν, ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ λαβὼν ἔχει. 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.»

What is most important in here is what Brent phrased very well

https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/11/jus ... e-gospels/

* The lone exception to this “plural” rule in Justin’s surviving writings is actually quite telling: At Dialogue 106.3, the manuscripts read καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ. The singular αὐτοῦ is so out of keeping with Justin’s normal practice that some modern editors have emended the text at this point; Goodspeed and Bobichon follow the manuscripts; Otto reads ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ; I’m unable to consult Marcovich, but according to Bobichon’s apparatus, he follows Otto in adding the words τῶν ἀποστόλων.

Of course, the rewriting of history continues

Note how the word is not the vague memorial or record, but explicitly tries to point to the alleged fact that it was all done "from memory", http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... =1#lexicon

[hakeem]

In writings attributed to Ignatius it is also claimed Jesus was born of a virgin.
It must also be noted that manuscripts of the Gospels have been found and dated to the 2nd century

[Ben C. Smith]

Justin mentions writings (Memorabilia) called Gospels thrice:

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3-4: 3 For the apostles, in the Memorabilia made by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them, that Jesus took bread and, when He had given thanks, said, “This do in memory of Me; this is My body,” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood,” and gave it to them alone, 4 which the wicked demons have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. / 3 Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ´ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς, τὸν Ἰησοῦν λαβόντα ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν, «Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἀνάμνησίν μου· τοῦτ´ ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου,» καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὁμοίως λαβόντα καὶ εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν, «Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου,» καὶ μόνοις αὐτοῖς μεταδοῦναι, 4 ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις παρέδωκαν γίνεσθαι μιμησάμενοι οἱ πονηροὶ δαίμονες. ὅτι γὰρ ἄρτος καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος τίθεται ἐν ταῖς τοῦ μυουμένου τελεταῖς μετ´ ἐπιλόγων τινῶν, ἢ ἐπίστασθε ἢ μαθεῖν δύνασθε.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 10.1-4: 1 And when they ceased, I again addressed them thus, “Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed than this, that we do not live according to the Law and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and we do not observe Sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this. Have you also believed concerning us that we eat men; and that after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous concubinage? Or do you condemn us in this alone, that we adhere to such tenets, and believe in an opinion, untrue, as you think?” 2 “This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speaks are not worthy of belief, for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so called Gospel are so wonderful and so great that I suspect no one can keep them, for I have carefully read them. 3 But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and you do not alter your mode of living from the nations in that you observe no festivals or Sabbaths and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, ‘That soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day’ (= Genesis 17.14)? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. 4 But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the Law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations.” / 1 Ὡς δὲ ἀνεπαύσαντο, ἐγὼ οὕτως αὐτοῖς πάλιν ἠρξάμην, «Μὴ ἄλλο τί ἐστιν ὃ ἐπιμέμφεσθε ἡμᾶς, ἄνδρες φίλοι, ἢ τοῦτο ὅτι οὐ κατὰ τὸν νόμον βιοῦμεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως τοῖς προγόνοις ὑμῶν περιτεμνόμεθα τὴν σάρκα, οὐδὲ ὡς ὑμεῖς σαββατίζομεν; ἢ καὶ ὁ βίος ἡμῶν καὶ τὸ ἦθος διαβέβληται παρ´ ὑμῖν; τοῦτο δ´ ἐστὶν ὃ λέγω, μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς πεπιστεύκατε περὶ ἡμῶν, ὅτι δὴ ἐσθίομεν ἀνθρώπους καὶ μετὰ τὴν εἰλαπίνην ἀποσβεννύντες τοὺς λύχνους ἀθέσμοις μίξεσιν ἐγκυλιόμεθα, ἢ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καταγινώσκετε ἡμῶν μόνον, ὅτι τοιούτοις προσέχομεν λόγοις καὶ οὐκ ἀληθεῖ, ὡς οἴεσθε, πιστεύομεν δόξῃ;» 2 «Τοῦτ´ ἔστιν ὃ θαυμάζομεν,» ἔφη ὁ Τρύφων, «περὶ δὲ ὧν οἱ πολλοὶ λέγουσιν, οὐ πιστεῦσαι ἄξιον· πόρρω γὰρ κεχώρηκε τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως. ὑμῶν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ εὐαγγελίῳ παραγγέλματα θαυμαστὰ οὕτως καὶ μεγάλα ἐπίσταμαι εἶναι, ὡς ὑπολαμβάνειν μηδένα δύνασθαι φυλάξαι αὐτά· ἐμοὶ γὰρ ἐμέλησεν ἐντυχεῖν αὐτοῖς. 3 ἐκεῖνο δὲ ἀποροῦμεν μάλιστα, εἰ ὑμεῖς, εὐσεβεῖν λέγοντες καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οἰόμενοι διαφέρειν, κατ´ οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ἀπολείπεσθε, οὐδὲ διαλλάσσετε ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν τὸν ὑμέτερον βίον, ἐν τῷ μήτε τὰς ἑορτὰς μήτε τὰ σάββατα τηρεῖν μήτε τὴν περιτομὴν ἔχειν, καὶ ἔτι, ἐπ´ ἄνθρωπον σταυρωθέντα τὰς ἐλπίδας ποιούμενοι, ὅμως ἐλπίζετε τεύξεσθαι ἀγαθοῦ τινος παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, μὴ ποιοῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐντολάς. ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνως, ὅτι ‹Ἐξολοθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτῆς, ἥτις οὐ περιτμηθήσεται τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἡμέρᾳ;› ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀλλογενῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀργυρωνήτων διέσταλται. 4 ταύτης οὖν τῆς διαθήκης εὐθέως καταφρονήσαντες ὑμεῖς ἀμελεῖτε καὶ τῶν ἔπειτα, καὶ πείθειν ἡμᾶς ἐπιχειρεῖτε ὡς εἰδότες τὸν θεόν, μηδὲν πράσσοντες ὧν οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν. εἰ οὖν ἔχεις πρὸς ταῦτα ἀπολογήσασθαι, καὶ ἐπιδεῖξαι ᾧτινι τρόπῳ ἐλπίζετε ὁτιοῦν, κἂν μὴ φυλάσσοντες τὸν νόμον, τοῦτό σου ἡδέως ἀκούσαιμεν μάλιστα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα δὲ ὁμοίως συνεξετάσωμεν.»

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 100.1: 1 And the following, “But You, the praise of Israel, inhabit the holy place” (= Psalm 22.3) declared that He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about to rise again from the dead on the third day after the crucifixion; and this He has obtained from the Father. For 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” (= Matthew 11.27a), and, “No man knows the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him” (= Matthew 11.27b). / 1 Τὸ δὲ ἀκόλουθον, «Σὺ δὲ ἐν ἁγίῳ κατοικεῖς, ὁ ἔπαινος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ,» ἐσήμαινεν ὅτι ἐπαίνου ἄξιον καὶ θαυμασμοῦ μέλλει ποιεῖν, μετὰ τὸ σταυρωθῆναι ἀνίστασθαι μέλλων τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ νεκρῶν, ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ λαβὼν ἔχει. 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.»

What is most important in here is what Brent phrased very well

https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/11/jus ... e-gospels/

* The lone exception to this “plural” rule in Justin’s surviving writings is actually quite telling: At Dialogue 106.3, the manuscripts read καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ. The singular αὐτοῦ is so out of keeping with Justin’s normal practice that some modern editors have emended the text at this point; Goodspeed and Bobichon follow the manuscripts; Otto reads ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ; I’m unable to consult Marcovich, but according to Bobichon’s apparatus, he follows Otto in adding the words τῶν ἀποστόλων.

What connection are you drawing between (A) Justin's threefold use of "gospel" to indicate a written text, including once in the first Apology which hakeem referenced and again on that page you linked to at archive.org, and (B) Nongbri's discussion of the singular αὐτοῦ in Dialogue 106.3? I am not following.