Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by John2 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:32 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:45 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:20 pmBut at the least, Justin was aware of material that supposedly went back to the apostles themselves, and material that was supposedly written by the apostles' followers. And his quote above appears to suggest he was to identify a passage as coming from a follower rather than an apostle.
My understanding (given the context) is that by "apostles" Justin means the gospels of Matthew and John (since they were thought to be written by apostles) and by "follower" he means the gospels of Mark and Luke (since they were thought to be written by followers of Peter and Paul).

And this ties in with whether Justin knew about Paul, since Luke (in his mind) would be one of "those who followed" the apostles (in this case Paul).
Yes, it's consistent with that at the least, though obviously we don't know for sure. It's conceivable that Justin might also have included 1 Peter, James, etc, also in the category of "memoirs", so not just the written Gospels.

I suppose that's possible.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by Irish1975 »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:28 pm

In his preserved works, Justin doesn’t mention the “Gospel According to” any author. Now, I have no reason to doubt that Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John is trickier). But the issue Larsen’s work raises is that Justin isn’t talking about the gospel(s) in that way. Justin is not distinguishing between discreet, independent writings, with individual attributed authors (it’s the “apomnemoneumata of the apostles”), and this point is what should be catching our attention.

To put it in more imaginative terms: I could be confronted today in 2018 with an ancient sheet of papyrus with Greek writing, recognize passages that are unique to what I know as the Gospel according to Mark, and therefore identify the manuscript (correctly, in our terms) as a copy of the Gospel According to Mark. Imagine Justin was confronted with that very same papyrus in the year 140. How would he have characterized it? A gospel? The gospel? An apomnemoneuma of the apostles? Or just the apomnemoneumata of the apostles? Would Justin, or other Christian writers prior to him, have at all differentiated between a copy of the Gospel According to Matthew and a copy of the Gospel According to Mark in the way that Irenaeus did a few decades later? (The question of titles is important here, but that will need to be a different post.)

https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/09/ear ... /#more-943




When Justin refers to texts very similar to what we would call the Gospel According to Matthew and the Gospel According to Mark, he consistently uses the plural (both apomnemoneumata and euangelia) and does not distinguish individual authorship (it’s nearly always “of/by the apostles” “and their followers”).*

All of this tends, in my view, to confirm Larsen’s argument about how Justin and earlier Christian authors characterize the gospel(s), which in turn supports his larger conclusions: “…early readers and users of gospel texts regarded the gospel not as a book, but as a fluid constellation of texts. … Ancient writing practices and textual fluidity present us with exciting challenges and interesting possibilities to rethink how texts became books, how writers became authors, and how we might describe how texts change.”



* 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.

Some translators have followed this emendation (“memoirs of his apostles”), while others have tried to the render the Greek as it is found in the manuscripts. In so doing, they tend to take the referent of the singular αὐτοῦ as either Jesus (Dods et al.: “When it is written in the memoirs of Him…”) or Peter. Either way, the association with the ἀπομνημονεύματα would not be individual authorship. It is either Jesus, the object of what the ἀπομνημονεύματα are about or Peter, who is the ultimate source of the ἀπομνημονεύματα but not the author of the text. It’s clear from context that the passage under discussion comes from (what we would call) the Gospel According to Mark, but Justin does not describe it that way.


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

I take this quotation from Nongbri as a validation of some important claims that are found in the work of Trobisch, Vinzent, and Klinghardt.

1. There is no evidence, for the environment in Rome before “The (Canonical) First Edition” was published, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John circulating as independent “Gospels.” On the contrary, the positive evidence supports a shared, “fluid” origin. That is, a mid-2nd century environment in which there was only one story of Jesus the Christ to be written. This “Gospel History” was being written and re-written as a single narrative. True for Marcion, true for Tatian, true for Justin, and also true in light of Celsus’ account in Contra Celsum 2.27. The creation of a 4-book Gospel (truly a stroke of genius) was achieved only with the first canonical redaction. Irenaeus then immediately inaugurated the tradition, still dominant today, of imagining separate origins for each of the 4 “Gospels.”
Corollary: the boom industry of texts entitled “The Gospel of (or according to) ___”—eg Philip, Thomas, Peter, etc— is most likely a post-1st-Edition phenomenon. When the “first edition” hit the religious marketplace, it completely dominated, and set a new pattern that others would emulate. Only then did the notion arise of writing Gospels attributed to this or that apostle. It was a very appealing formula for asserting religious truth.
All of this is consistent with Trobisch’s understanding, which many others before him had understood (eg John Knox), that the 4 Gospels are really a single, 4-book Gospel, rather than an arbitrary compilation of four independently existing texts. It’s still theoretically possible that original composition took place under any number of circumstances, but about that we have no evidence. The evidence from Justin, from Tatian, from Marcion, and even from Celsus suggest a common milieu.

2. Vinzent’s thesis that “all of these texts” were written in Rome, during a relatively short period of literary creativity, is also confirmed. Justin, Marcion, Tatian at least are generally reported as being active in Rome. The evidence for Ephesus is weaker.

3. Klinghardt’s massive, painstaking vindication of Marcionite priority to Luke is at least a basis for considering the Marcionite Gospel as the predecessor and catalyst of the entire 4-Gospel tradition. As well as being a superior resolution of the Synoptic problem. It is at least a thesis to be weighed and taken seriously, even though many critics here and elsewhere feel they are justified in dismissing Klinghardt’s labor out of hand. (Have they read it?)
The fine-grained and exhaustive analysis of Klinghardt on the side of both textual criticism and source/tradition history, and likewise by Vinzent on the side of Patristic reception, is so overwhelming that, over time, people will not get away with dismissing it.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by John2 »

I've yet to see a satisfying allusion to NT letters in Justin though, but I have no doubt that he cites the NT gospels (in whatever form they were in in his time). I assume he knew the letters though (or at least that they all existed by his time), and it seems reasonable to suppose that he knew Paul's letters given your point about his lost work against Marcion.

Did Justin introduce the gospels to Rome though? I don't know. Church sources say that Mark wrote a version of his gospel in Rome in the 60's and I have no issue with that. And I date Papias before Justin so for me Mark and Matthew were at least well known before Justin's time, though perhaps not in Rome (at least for Matthew).

Could the same be asked of Hegesippus? He went to Rome around the same time, perhaps even a little before Justin, and he knew the gospel of the Hebrews (in Hebrew) and knew Greek. Maybe he introduced it to Rome via a translation of it that he or someone else made, and then it was combined with Mark by someone there and became the NT Matthew.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:38 pm
Justin Martyr uses the term ἀπομνημονεύματα of apostolic [memorabilia] at 1 Apology 66.3;1 67.3; Dialogue 100.4; 101.3; 102.5; 103.6; 103.8; 104.1; 105.1, 5, 6; 106.1, 3, 4; 107.1. Additionally, he uses the corresponding verb ἀπομνημονεύω at 1 Apology 33.5.

At 1 Apology 66.3,1 the first instance of the noun in this text, Justin also calls these ἀπομνημονεύματα "gospels"; at Dialogue 100.2 only, a few lines before his first mention of the ἀπομνημονεύματα in this text, he cites Matthew 11.25-27 = Luke 10.21-22 as having been written in the gospel; thereafter in the Dialogue he refers to such writings only as ἀπομνημονεύματα.

For the purposes of this thread I will translate ἀπομνημονεύματα as memorabilia ...
.
1 Justin's 1 Apology 66.3:


.Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται Εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς τὸν Ἰησοῦν·

via https://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/j ... rist.shtml
and/or viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1874#p41230 and
viewtopic.php?p=41226#p41226


...γενομένοις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται Εὐαγγέλια

.. produced by/from self . memory, ...... which are called euangelia / good news / gospel/s
.



Martijn gives "ἀπομνημονεύμασιν [as] dative plural" : viewtopic.php?p=149677#p149677

And
mlinssen wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:21 am
ἀπομνημόνευμα, from ἀπομνημονεύω

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... hmoneu%2Fw

1.to relate from memory, relate, recount, Plat.
2.to remember, call to mind, id=Plat.; ὄνομα ἀπεμνημόνευσε τῶι παιδὶ θέσθαι gave his son the name in memory of a thing, Hdt.
3.ἀπ. τί τινι to bear something in mind against another, Xen

γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ - written in the memories of him

Justin is explicitly referring to text(s) that he labels "things related from memory"
,
  • (I can't get the first url in Martjn's post to work so have omitted it
    (I only got the second to work by copying & pasting ie. not by clicking on it, but have fixed it here^)

The rest of Ben's post:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:38 pm
For the purposes of this thread I will translate ἀπομνημονεύματα as memorabilia. Ἀπομνημονεύματα was, in fact, the Greek title of Xenophon's Memorabilia, a Latin term which was not applied to that work until the medieval period, since in antiquity in Latin it was known as the Commentarii. But the term memorabilia will be a useful one to use as a translation here and now, since it retains the mem- root, meaning memory or remembrance, which corresponds to the μνημ- root at the heart of the Greek ἀπομνημονεύματα. Also, it helps to distinguish this Greek term from a similar one, ὑπομνήματα, built a bit differently on top of that same μνημ- root. Thus, while you are probably accustomed to seeing the gospel texts Justin Martyr is referring to translated as "memoirs," I will be using "memorabilia," since "memoirs" is also the term used to translate, for instance, the Ὑπομνήματα of Hegesippus. To summarize:


ὑπομνήματα = memoirs, Latin commentarii. [Link.]

ἀπομνημονεύματα = memorabilia, Latin commentarii. [Link.]
.

(Yes, the same Latin term was used to translate both Greek terms, the distinction between which is quite fuzzy.)

I mention Xenophon because it is a fairly common supposition that Justin Martyr used the term ἀπομνημονεύματα...after the fashion of Xenophon's Ἀπομνημονεύματα (Memorabilia) of Socrates. Justin would, then — under the influence of the Second Sophistic — be attempting to elevate the status of Christian texts which [were thought to] recount the life and times of Jesus to that of a biographical outline of a philosopher.

There has been pushback to this idea, however:

Helmut Köster, Ancient Christian Gospels, page 39: 39 But this Latin title (= Memorabilia) was not used for Xenophon’s work in antiquity; it appears for the first time in the year 1569 in Johann Lenklau’s edition of Xenophon. In Plutarch and in Diodorus Siculus, ἀπομνημονεύματα means an anecdote that is heard or written down. The Latin equivalent of the Greek plural ἀπομνημονεύματα, commentarii, is first used for Xenophon’s writing in Aulus Gellius [2nd century CE] Noct. Att. 14.3.5 (quod Xenophon, in libris quos dictorum atque factorum Socrates commentarios composuit). The Greek term does not appear in Xenophon’s writings, but only as a title of his work in later manuscripts: “First Book of Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates” (Ξενοφῶντος Σωκράτους ἀπομνημονευμάτων βιβλίον πρῶτον), and in the pseudepigraphical letter #18 of Xenophon from the time of the Second Sophistic: “But I am composing some memoirs of Socrates” (πεποίημαι δέ τινα ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους). Xenophon himself uses the verb “to remember distinctly” (διαμνημονεύειν) once in this work: “I shall write that which I remember distinctly” (τούτων δὲ γράψω ο̒́ποσα ἂν διαμνημονεύω, 1.3.1).

Helmut Köster, From Jesus to the Gospels, pages 67-68: 67-68 This term has been explained as a title designed to raise these documents to the status of Greek memoirs of a philosopher. However, the term used by Justin, composed with the prefix ἀπο-, does not occur among the designations of philosophical memoirs.

Köster goes on to derive the term ἀπομνημονεύματα in Justin Martyr from Christian tradents' use of the verb μνημονεύω to cite the sayings of Jesus and from Papias' use of the corresponding verb, ἀπομνημονεύω, to describe Mark's writing down what he remembered of Peter's teachings involving what Jesus did or said. So Köster argues both a negative (Justin did not derive the term from the title of Xenophon's work about Socrates or from the titles of other memoirs concerning philosophers) and a positive (Justin did derive the term from the process described by Papias).

But the negative is probably to be discarded:

Wally V. Cirafesi & Gregory P. Fewster, “Justin’s ἀπομνημονεύματα and Ancient Greco-Roman Memoirs,” pages 5-6: In an article from 1989 (= “From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels,” in New Testament Studies, volume 35, number 3 (1989), pages 361–381) and, shortly after, in his book Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), Helmut Koester produced perhaps the most significant rebuttal to the idea that Justin used ἀπομνημονεύματα to invoke an association with Greek philosophical memoirs. In both works, he suggested that Justin was likely not aware of such an established literary genre, since apparently it was not until the Second Sophistic that Greek authors used ἀπομνημονεύματα to refer to works such as Xenophon’s Memorabilia. In 2004, French scholar Gabriella Aragione reexamined Koester’s argument and found problematic, in particular, his assertion that “the term used by Justin, composed with the prefix ἀπο- does not occur among the designations of philosophical memoirs.” Aragione argued to the contrary, that the use of the generic title ἀπομνημονεύματα was, in fact, firmly established in the second century CE, a point demonstrated particularly in the works of Pseudo-Aristides, Sextus Empiricus, Valerius Harpocration, and Aelius Theon, all of whom refer to Xenophon’s Memorabilia using ἀπομνημονεύματα. She thus concluded: “En effet, le genre littéraire des ἀπομνημονεύματα était répandu à l’époque de Justin: un examen attentif des sources le démontre aisément” (= Gabriella Aragione, “Justin, ‘philosophe’chrétien et les ‘mémoires des apôtres qui sont appelés évangiles,’” in Apocrypha, volume 15 (2004), page 55). [Link.]

I have collected texts in a range from before to after Justin's own period to demonstrate that the term ἀπομνημονεύματα was indeed used of philosophical memorabilia or memoirs during the period at issue, as early as Plutarch and gaining momentum throughout century II, both of the famous work by Xenophon and of other treatments of philosophical figures by other authors:

Plutarch, Life of Alcibiades 2.1-2a: 1 His character, in later life, displayed many inconsistencies and marked changes, as was natural amid his vast undertakings and varied fortunes. He was naturally a man of many strong passions, the mightiest of which were the love of rivalry and the love of preeminence, as is clear from the stories recorded of his childhood [τοῖς παιδικοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν]. 2a He was once hard pressed in wrestling, and to save himself from getting a fall, set his teeth in his opponent’s arms, where they clutched him, and was like to have bitten through them. His adversary, letting go his hold, cried, “You bite, Alcibiades, as women do!” “Not I,” said Alcibiades, “but as lions do.”

Plutarch, Life of Pompey 2.5-6: 5 But though he was so extremely cautious in such matters and on his guard, still he could not escape the censures of his enemies on this head, but was accused of illicit relations with married women, to gratify whom, it was said, he neglected and betrayed many public interests. As regards his simplicity and indifference in matters pertaining to the table, a story is told as follows [ἀπομνημόνευμα λέγεται τοιοῦτον]. 6 Once when he was sick and loathed his food, a physician prescribed a thrush for him. But when, on inquiry, his servants could not find one for sale, for it was past the season for them, and someone said they could be found at Lucullus’s, where they were kept the year round, “What, then,” said he, “if Lucullus were not luxurious must Pompey have died?” And paying no regard to the physician he took something that could easily be procured. This, however, was at a later time.

Plutarch, Life of Brutus 13.3: 3 Porcia, as has been said, was a daughter of Cato, and when Brutus, who was her cousin, took her to wife, she was not a virgin; she was, however, still very young, and had by her deceased husband a little son whose name was Bibulus, and a small book containing Memorabilia of Brutus was written by him and is still extant [καί τι βιβλίδιον μικρὸν ἀπομνημονευμάτων Βρούτου γεγραμμένον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ διασῴζεται].

Plutarch, Life of Brutus 27.3: 3 So he sent and invited Antony to become his friend, and then, stationing his forces about the city, secured the consulship, although he was still a mere youth, being in his twentieth year, as he himself has stated in his Memoirs. / 3 καὶ τὸν μὲν Ἀντώνιον πέμπων εἰς φιλίαν προὐκαλεῖτο, τὰς δὲ δυνάμεις τῇ πόλει περιστήσας, ὑπατείαν ἔλαβεν οὔπω πάνυ μειράκιον ὤν, ἀλλ' εἰκοστὸν ἄγων ἔτος, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν εἴρηκεν. (I am including this one on the list only to show how similar the term ὑπομνήματα can be. — Ben.)

Pseudo-Xenophon, Epistle 18.2: 2 Εἰ δὲ μὴ ἴητε, ἡμῖν μὲν ἦν ἀναγκαῖον γράφειν ὑμῖν. πεποίημαι δέ τινα Ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους. ὅταν οὖν μοι δόξῃ εὖ ἔχειν παντελῶς, διαπέμψομαι αὐτὰ καὶ ὑμῖν· Ἀριστίππῳ μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φαίδωνι ἐδόκει ἁρμόδιά τινα εἶναι. προσαγορεύσατε Σίμωνα τὸν σκυτοτόμον καὶ ἐπαινέσατε αὐτόν, ὅτι διατελεῖ προσέχων τοῖς Σωκράτους λόγοις καὶ οὔτε πενίαν οὔτε τὴν τέχνην πρόφασιν ποιεῖται τοῦ μὴ φιλοσοφεῖν, καθάπερ τινὲς τῶν ἄλλων μὴ βουλόμενοι λόγους καὶ τὰ ἐν λόγοις ἐξειδέναι τε καὶ θαυμάζειν.

Galen, In Hippocratis Librum VI Epidemiarum Commentarii VI, Kühn 17b, page 145, lines 8b-14: 8b-14 ἔνιοι μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐσχάτως εἰσὶν ἀβέλτεροι τοιοῦτοί τινες ὄντες, οἷον ὁ <Ζεῦξίς> φησιν ὑπὸ <Βακχείου> γεγράφθαι <Καλλιάνακτα> γεγονέναι τὸν <Ἡροφίλειον> ἐν τοῖς Ἀπομνημονεύμασιν <Ἡροφίλου> τε καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ· νοσοῦντος γάρ τινος, εἶτ' εἰπόντος τῷ <Καλλιάνακτι> «τεθνήξομαι,» φασὶν αὐτὸν ἐπιφωνῆσαι τόδε τὸ ἔπος. [Link.]

Galen, In Hippocratis Librum de Articulis et Galeni in Eum Commentarii IV, Kühn 18a, page 301, lines 4b-11 (translation mine): 4b-11a καίτοι τινὲς εἰς τοσοῦτον ἥκουσι σοφίας ὥστε τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος Οἰκονομικῶν μνημονεύειν, οἰόμενοι μαρτυρεῖν αὐτοῖς ἔθος εἶναι τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγου χρῆσθαι τῷ δέ συνδέσμῳ· διὰ τοῦτό φασιν ἄρχεσθαι τὸν Ξενοφῶντα τοῦ συγγράμματος οὕτως, «Ἤκουσα δέ ποτε αὐτοῦ,» φησὶ, «καὶ περὶ οἰκονομίας τοιάδε {μοὶ} διαλεγομένου,» μὴ γιγνώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο τῶν Σωκρατικῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων ἐστὶ τὸ ἔσχατον. / 4b-11a Indeed some have come to such a kind of wisdom that they bring to remembrance the Economics of Xenophon, supposing therefrom to testify that it was the custom of the ancients to make use of the conjunction “and” at the beginning of a volume; it is on this account that they say that Xenophon made a beginning of the writing thus, “And I heard him once dialoguing also concerning the economy in such a manner,” not knowing that this book is the last one of the Memorabilia of Socrates. [Link.]

Aelius Aristides, Ars Rhetorica 2.10.1.2: 2 ἐνίοτε δὲ ὁ Ξενοφῶν καὶ πρὶν αὐτὸ ὃ βούλεται εἰπεῖν, δι' αὐτοῦ τοῦ παραδείγματος εἰσάγει· καὶ αἱ κατασκευαὶ αὐτῶν ἄνευ παραδειγμάτων εἰσίν, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον, ὡς δῆλον μέν ἐστι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασι, μάλιστα δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἀπομνημονεύμασιν· ἐκεῖ γὰρ τὸν Σωκράτην ὃν τρόπον περὶ ἑκάστων διαλεγόμενον καὶ ἀποδεικνύντα ἕκαστα πεποίηκεν ἔστιν ἀνασκοπουμένῳ καταμαθεῖν, ὡς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον προῆκται.

Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata, apud L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, volume 2, page 66, lines 7b-16a: 7b-16a ἀσμενέστατα μέντοι αὐτὰ ἀπέφυγον, ὥσπερ λυττῶντά τινα καὶ ἄγριον δεσπότην ἀποδράς.> μύθου δὲ ὁποῖός ἐστι παρὰ Ἡροδότῳ τοῦ αὐλητοῦ, καὶ παρὰ Φιλίστῳ τοῦ ἵππου καὶ τῶν ἐν ἑκατέρῳ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ καὶ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ, καὶ ἐν τῇ εἰκοστῇ Θεοπόμπου τῶν Φιλιππικῶν ὁ τοῦ πολέμου καὶ τῆς ὕβρεως, ὃν ὁ Φίλιππος διεξέρχεται πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοκράτορας τῶν Χαλκιδέων, καὶ Ξενοφῶντος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων ὁ τοῦ κυνὸς καὶ τῶν προβάτων.

Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mathematicos 7.8: 8 πλὴν οἱ μὲν τοῦ φυσικοῦ μέρους προστάντες εἰσὶν οἵδε, τοῦ δὲ ἠθικοῦ μόνου ἐπεμελεῖτο Σωκράτης κατά γε τοὺς ἄλλους αὐτοῦ γνωρίμους, εἴγε καὶ ὁ Ξενοφῶν ἐν τοῖς Ἀπομνημονεύμασι ῥητῶς φησιν ἀπαρνεῖσθαι αὐτὸν τὸ φυσικὸν ὡς ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς καθεστηκὸς καὶ μόνον σχολάζειν τῷ ἠθικῷ ὡς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὄντι.

Harpocration, Lexicon in Decem Oratores Atticos, listing for δυσωποῦμαι: δυσωποῦμαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ φοβοῦμαι, Δημοσθένης Φιλιππικοῖς καὶ Ξενοφῶν ἐν βʹ Ἀπομνημονευμάτων. / “I am abashed,” instead of, “I am affrighted,” Demonsthenes in the Philippics and Xenophon in the second of the Memorabilia (= 2.1.4).

Origen, Against Celsus 2.13: But let this Jew of Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to Him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of the Romans. For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the Memoirs [ὑπομνημάτων] concerning Jesus [περὶ Ἰησοῦ] contained in their works. Now in these it is recorded, that when you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with armies, then shall you know that the desolation thereof is near. But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God. (I am including this one on the list, too, only to show how similar the term ὑπομνήματα can be. — Ben.)

Origen, Against Celsus 6.41: 41 In the next place, as if he had forgotten that it was his object to write against the Christians, he says that, “having become acquainted with one Dionysius, an Egyptian musician, the latter told him, with respect to magic arts, that it was only over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals that they had any power, while on philosophers they were unable to produce any effect, because they were careful to observe a healthy manner of life.” If, now, it had been our purpose to treat of magic, we could have added a few remarks in addition to what we have already said on this topic; but since it is only the more important matters which we have to notice in answer to Celsus, we shall say of magic, that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were ever led captive by it or not, can read what has been written by Moiragenes regarding the Memorabilia of the magician and philosopher Apollonius of Tyana [τῶν Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Τυανέως μάγου καὶ φιλοσόφου ἀπομνημονευμάτων], in which this individual, who is not a Christian, but a philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were won over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him as a sorcerer; and among these, I think, he especially mentioned Euphrates and a certain Epicurean. Now we, on the other hand, affirm, and have learned by experience, that they who worship the God of all things in conformity with the Christianity which comes by Jesus, and who live according to His Gospel, using night and day, continuously and becomingly, the prescribed prayers, are not carried away either by magic or demons. For verily “the angel of the Lord encamps round about those who fear Him, and delivers them from all evil” (= Psalm 34.7). And the angels of the little ones in the Church, who are appointed to watch over them, are said always to behold the face of their Father who is in heaven (= Matthew 18.10), whatever be the meaning of face or of behold.

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 3.97, lines 31-42: 31-42 Even the excellent Xenophon in the Memorabilia [ὁ καλὸς Ξενοφῶν ἐν Ἀπομνημονεύμασι] (= 2.1.30) knows of the use of snow in drinking, and Chares of Mitylene in his Records of Alexander (= Müller, fragment 11) tells how to keep snow, when he recounts the siege of the Indian capital Petra. He says that Alexander dug thirty refrigerating pits which he filled with snow and covered with oak boughs. In this way, he says, snow will last a long time.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.20 (translation slightly modified from R. D. Hicks): 20 Anniceris the Cyrenaic happened to be present and ransomed him for twenty minae — according to others the sum was thirty minae — and dispatched him to Athens to his friends, who immediately remitted the money. But Anniceris declined it, saying that the Athenians were not the only people worthy of the privilege of providing for Plato. Others assert that Dion sent the money and that Anniceris would not take it, but bought for Plato the little garden which is in the Academy. Pollis, however, is stated to have been defeated by Chabrias and afterwards to have been drowned at Helice, his treatment of the philosopher having provoked the wrath of heaven, as Favorinus says in the first book of his Memorabilia. / 20 λυτροῦται δὴ αὐτὸν κατὰ τύχην παρὼν Ἀννίκερις ὁ Κυρηναῖος εἴκοσι μνῶν — οἱ δὲ τριάκοντα — καὶ ἀναπέμπει Ἀθήναζε πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους. οἱ δ᾽ εὐθὺς τἀργύριον ἐξέπεμψαν· ὅπερ οὐ προσήκατο εἰπὼν μὴ μόνους ἐκείνους ἀξίους εἶναι Πλάτωνος κήδεσθαι. ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ Δίωνα ἀποστεῖλαί φασι τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὸν μὴ προσέσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ κηπίδιον αὐτῷ τὸ ἐν Ἀκαδημείᾳ πρίασθαι. τὸν μέντοι Πόλλιν λόγος ὑπό τε Χαβρίου ἡττηθῆναι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν Ἑλίκῃ καταποντωθῆναι τοῦ δαιμονίου μηνίσαντος διὰ τὸν φιλόσοφον, ὡς καὶ Φαβωρῖνός φησιν ἐν πρώτῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.25 (translation slightly modified from R. D. Hicks): 25 He was also the first philosopher who controverted the speech of Lysias, the son of Cephalus, which he has set out word for word in the Phaedrus, and the first to study the significance of grammar. And, as he was the first to attack the views of almost all his predecessors, the question is raised why he makes no mention of Democritus. Neanthes of Cyzicus says that, on his going to Olympia, the eyes of all the Greeks were turned towards him, and there he met Dion, who was about to make his expedition against Dionysius. In the first book of the Memorabilia of Favorinus there is a statement that Mithradates the Persian set up a statue of Plato in the Academy and inscribed upon it these words: “Mithradates the Persian, the son of Orontobates, dedicated to the Muses a likeness of Plato made by Silanion.” / 25 καὶ πρῶτος τῶν φιλοσόφων ἀντεῖπε πρὸς τὸν λόγον τὸν Λυσίου τοῦ Κεφάλου ἐκθέμενος αὐτὸν κατὰ λέξιν ἐν τῷ Φαίδρῳ. καὶ πρῶτος ἐθεώρησε τῆς γραμματικῆς τὴν δύναμιν. πρῶτός τε ἀντειρηκὼς σχεδὸν ἅπασι τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ζητεῖται διὰ τί μὴ ἐμνημόνευσε Δημοκρίτου. τούτου φησὶ Νεάνθης ὁ Κυζικηνὸς εἰς Ὀλύμπια ἀνιόντος τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἅπαντας ἐπιστραφῆναι εἰς αὐτόν: ὅτε καὶ Δίωνι συνέμιξε μέλλοντι στρατεύειν ἐπὶ Διονύσιον. ἐν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων Φαβωρίνου φέρεται ὅτι Μιθραδάτης ὁ Πέρσης ἀνδριάντα Πλάτωνος ἀνέθετο εἰς τὴν Ἀκαδήμειαν καὶ ἐπέγραψε· «Μιθραδάτης Ὀροντοβάτου Πέρσης Μούσαις εἰκόνα ἀνέθηκε Πλάτωνος, ἣν Σιλανίων ἐποίησε.»

The root, meaning "memory," is not to be ignored:

Denis M. Searby, “The Unmentionable Greek Apothegm,” page 9: The word ἀπομνημόνευμα (apomnēmoneuma) derives from the strengthening prefix ἀπο (cf. note 4 above), the verb μνημονεύω (remember), and the common ending -μα signifying the result of a process (etc.): a thing to be especially remembered. It may be rendered as memoir, mention, recollection, reminiscence.... Remembrance or memory is the key concept; an apomnēmoneuma is a record of some words or some incident worth remembering.... The key thing is that the apomnēmoneuma is presented as something remembered, something historical, even if, in fact, one may question its historicity; it need not be witty or pointed, just memorable. The apomnēmoneuma is longer than the apothegm or chreia, even if the latter is defined as a short apomnēmoneuma. Apomnēmoneumata is a relatively common word in titles, occurring most famously as the title of Xenophon’s recollections of Socrates. Both Athenaeus and Plutarch cite various works by this title, as does Diogenes Laertius; by far the most important for the latter is Favorinus’ Ἀπομνημονεύματα. Unlike apophthegmata, it does not seem to occur, as far as I know, in the titles of anonymous collections of anecdotes in extant manuscripts. [Link.]

Now, I myself lean toward the notion that Justin Martyr applied the term ἀπομνημόνευμα to his Christian gospel texts in imitation of Xenophon; he knew the Ἀπομνημόνευμα, since in 2 Apology 11.2-5 he summarizes Memorabilia 2.1.21-34. Or, at the very least, he was alluding to the loose genre of the philosophical ἀπομνημόνευμα. This dressing up of Christianity in philosophical garb is very much what Justin is about.

However, I do not think that Köster is entirely wrong in his derivation of the term ἀπομνημονεύματα from Christian tradents' usage of the verb μνημονεύω and from Papias' usage of the term ἀπομνημονεύω with relation to the transmission of information about Jesus. Papias himself writes in the literary jargon of the time, and I think that the term ἀπομνημονεύματα came to be applied to texts offering memorable information about any significant figure, from Socrates to Jesus, because in ancient literary criticism there was an emphasis on remembering the words and deeds of such figures. Justin was able to apply the term ἀπομνημονεύματα to the gospel texts because those gospel texts were already being treated (by the likes of Papias) in ways which paralleled how philosophical memoranda and memoirs were being treated. The conjunction of memory, words and deeds, and the informal literary genre can be seen in the following passages:

Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata, apud L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, volume 2, page 66, lines 23b-24a: But the memorandum is also a deed or a word useful for life. / καὶ τὸ ἀπομνημόνευμα δὲ πρᾶξίς ἐστιν ἢ λόγος βιωφελής.

Papias apud Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.15: 15 “And the elder would say this, ‘Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered [ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν] of the things either said or done [ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα] by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered [ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν] them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them.’”

Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 14.3.5 (translation slightly modified from John C. Rolfe): 5 Moreover, they think that this also is added to what I have already said, that Xenophon, in the book which he wrote as Commentaries of the sayings and doings of Socrates, 2 asserts that Socrates never discussed the causes and laws of the heavens and of nature, and that he never touched upon or approved the other sciences, called by the Greeks mathēmata which did not contribute to a good and happy life; accordingly, he says that those who have attributed discourses of that kind to Socrates are guilty of a base falsehood. / 5 Praeterea putant id quoque ad ista, quae dixi, accedere, quod Xenophon, in libris quos dictorum atque factorum Socratis commentarios composuit, negat Socraten de caeli atque naturae causis rationibusque umquam disputavisse, ac ne disciplinas quidem ceteras, quae μαθήματα Graeci appellant, quae ad bene beateque vivendum non pergerent, aut attigisse aut comprobasse, idcircoque turpiter eos mentiri dicit, qui dissertationes istiusmodi Socrati adtribuerent.

To summarize:

Author
Genre
Content
PapiasMark writing as he remembered [ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν]τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα = things either said or done by the Lord = quae a domino dicta sunt vel facta (Rufinus)
Aelius Theonτὸ ἀπομνημόνευμα = the memorandumπρᾶξίς ἢ λόγος βιωφελής = a deed or a word useful for life
Aulus GelliusCommentarios = Memorabiliadictorum atque factorum Socratis = the sayings and doings of Socrates

Note that ἀπομνημόνευμα is the singular of ἀπομνημονεύματα. The singular means a memorable story or anecdote about the person, whereas the plural means a book filled with memorable stories or anecdotes about the person. And those stories or anecdotes consist either of words or of deeds, or both, a fitting enough description, from a Christian point of view, for what a gospel is supposed to be.

It is not my contention that Christian gospel texts belong to the same genre as the Memorabilia by Xenophon. Not at all. Rather, Christians with a Greek education sought analogies within their own literary cultures and naturally hit upon this biographical genre as the lens through which they would view the gospels.

Ben.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:38 pm
Justin Martyr uses the term ἀπομνημονεύματα of apostolic [memorabilia] at 1 Apology 66.3; 67.3; Dialogue 100.4; 101.3; 102.5; 103.6; 103.8; 104.1; 105.1, 5, 6; 106.1, 3, 4; 107.1. Additionally, he uses the corresponding verb ἀπομνημονεύω at 1 Apology 33.5.2

For the purposes of this thread I will translate ἀπομνημονεύματα as memorabilia ...
.
2 1 Apology 33.5:

καὶ ὁ ἀποσταλεὶς δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν παρθένον κατ’ ἐκεῖνο τοῦ καιροῦ ἄγγελος θεοῦ εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτὴν εἰπών · Ἰδοὺ συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν,* ὡς οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν, οἷς ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ διὰ Ἠσαίου τοῦ προδεδηλωμένου τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα τοῦτον γεννησόμενον, ὡς προεμηνύομεν, ἔφη And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news, saying, "Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins",* as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that He should be born as we intimated before.

via viewtopic.php?p=41228#p41228 and https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

* Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:32.

I think that citing Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:32 and then saying "as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught" is pretty good evidence that Justin was citing something that had those passages, such as G.Matthew and G.Luke (unless "Behold...thou shalt call His name Jesus...He shall save His people from their sins" and "as they ...have taught" would be concurrent later interpolations, but to claim that would be special-pleading and wishful-thinking)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by GakuseiDon »

John2 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:45 pm I've yet to see a satisfying allusion to NT letters in Justin though...
It may not be what you are looking for, but Andrew Criddle kindly provided a reference to Justin referring to Revelation in Dialogue with Trypho on the other thread:

And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.'

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by John2 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:27 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:45 pm I've yet to see a satisfying allusion to NT letters in Justin though...
It may not be what you are looking for, but Andrew Criddle kindly provided a reference to Justin referring to Revelation in Dialogue with Trypho on the other thread:

And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.'

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

I did see that and thanked Andrew there for it. The letters are another matter though, but I suppose it can't hurt to take another look at that question.
rgprice
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by rgprice »

A few comments:

#1) This seems to have gotten way off track in questions about whether Justin even knew Gospels at all. Of course Justin knew Gospels.
#2) I am very doubtful about the supposed testimony from Papias because, as has been pointed out, I doubt very seriously that any such "Gospels" were known as having been "According to X" prior to the creation of the four Gospel collection. In their independent forms, these were not attributed to specific apostles (with the possible exception of the Gospel of John).
#3) The question of whether Justin knew the four Gospel collection or indeed the larger NT collection is valid. I have assumed that he did not since he seems to refer to works outside the collection with regularity.
#4) My question still stands, which is: Did anyone in Rome know of any narrative about Jesus prior to Justin?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by Giuseppe »

rgprice wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:56 am
#4) My question still stands, which is: Did anyone in Rome know of any narrative about Jesus prior to Justin?
It depends from the dating of Sheperd of Hermas, since in this latter book (written in Rome) there is no knowledge of an earthly Jesus.
rgprice
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by rgprice »

From Justin's Dialog with Trypho:

The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' Numbers 24:17 and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

This is quite important I think for many reasons.

#1) Clearly Justin is here reading from what we call the Gospel of Mark.

#2) Justin appears here to be the first person (that we can reliably identify) to associate the Gospel of Mark with Peter.

Justin here appears to be arguing that Jesus was a "name changer" and that his pattern of changing people's names among his disciples reflects the same behavior as the figure who changed the name of Jacob to Israel.

But at any rate, what's important is that he seems to call the account he is reading from the memoirs of Peter.
Post Reply