Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

[Peter Kirby]

ἀπομνημόνευτις means “recounting, summarizing, commemoration” and apparently was elsewhere used to refer to the memories of a philosopher as written down by others: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... e-gospels/

So the word places a stress on the ones doing the remembering, and the phrase "memoirs of the apostles" refers to the apostles' account (and not the account about the apostles). It seems reasonable to assume that "his memoirs" likewise refers to his account (and not an account about him). On the assumption that Jesus left no account - and certainly no account of someone else? - it seems reasonable to assume that Peter's account of Jesus is meant.

However, I agree it's not 100% clear. I've puzzled over it before too.

Hmm, this seems important. Because I was thinking that this was the source of the claim that the Gospel of Mark was associated with Peter. Maybe it still is. Does it seem possible that it is from this statement that it came to be believed that the Gospel of Mark, which is the only Gospel that talks about the renaming of John and James to Boanerges, was written by an associate of Peter?

In other words, was this statement taken to mean "Peter's memoirs"?

Are we talking about how the tradition in the second century started?

I would first think about how much influence Justin's apology (and one line in it) would really have.

[rgprice]

Are we talking about how the tradition in the second century started?

I would first think about how much influence Justin's apology (and one line in it) would really have.

They seem to have been quite influential. Irenaeus certainly cites them and makes significant use of them. And it seems that almost all of orthodoxy stems from Irenaeus...

[Peter Kirby]

Are we talking about how the tradition in the second century started?

I would first think about how much influence Justin's apology (and one line in it) would really have.

They seem to have been quite influential. Irenaeus certainly cites them and makes significant use of them. And it seems that almost all of orthodoxy stems from Irenaeus...

I suppose it's possible.

There's also a vast unknown that isn't captured in the sources available to us, and we can fall into an our-first-source trap. Our first source for X is this, so this is where X started.

[rgprice]

Are we talking about how the tradition in the second century started?

I would first think about how much influence Justin's apology (and one line in it) would really have.

They seem to have been quite influential. Irenaeus certainly cites them and makes significant use of them. And it seems that almost all of orthodoxy stems from Irenaeus...

I suppose it's possible.

There's also a vast unknown that isn't captured in the sources available to us, and we can fall into an our-first-source trap. Our first source for X is this, so this is where X started.

Very true, but this is an intriguing issue.

We know that Irenaeus and those following him claimed that the Gospel of Mark was associated with Peter. Where did this idea come from? There is nothing in particular about the Gospel that would give this impression. Indeed I have argued that the Gospel is a polemic against Peter.

Here in a writing from Justin, Justin refers to exclusive content from the Gospel of Mark in a confusing way, that can be taken to imply that the writing later known as the Gospel of Mark was "Peter's memoir".

So we have two known facts:
1) After Justin people refer to the Gospel of Mark as "Peter's account" of Jesus' ministry.
2) Justin describes unique statements found only in the Gospel of Mark as having come from "memoirs of him" referring to Peter.

[GakuseiDon]

As I pointed out earlier, in his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin explains that the memoirs, called 'Gospels' ("for the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels") were drawn up by Jesus' apostles and "those who followed them":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying...

The "sweat like blood" is from Luke 22:44. I'm guessing this suggests that Justin is aware of Gospels drawn up by apostles (John?) and those who followed them (Mark? Matthew? Luke?). Justin does seem to pull quotes from more than one synoptic Gospel.

So by the time of Justin, there was already a tradition that the Gospels (whether they are the ones we know or not) had been written by Jesus' apostles and their followers. So Justin seemed convinced of a date of authorship around 70-90 CE assuming the followers were of the next generation after the apostles.

Also from Dialogue with Trypho, Justin notes the apostle John as the author of Revelation:

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...

While he doesn't refer directly to John writing a Gospel, he does use the term "Logos"/"Word" often in his First Apology to the pagans, e.g. "... Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ..."

[andrewcriddle]

The earliest supposed source for the association of Mark's Gospel and Peter is Papias according to Eusebius

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Andrew Criddle

[rgprice]

The earliest supposed source for the association of Mark's Gospel and Peter is Papias according to Eusebius

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Andrew Criddle

Right, "according to Eusebius", writing in the 4th century using who knows what as his source. I don't give credence to these supposed quotations by Eusebius. There is truly no way for Eusebius to know the authenticity and validity of the materials he is using, nor for us to know the faithfulness of Eusebius' citations. And there are very good reasons to conclude that the statements Eusebius attributes to Papias could not have been produced at the time it is implied that they were produced, i.e. before 150.