Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I recall visiting a university library some years ago and coming across a journal article that offered reasons for thinking that Justin's references to the Memoirs of the Apostles may not have been in Justin's original work. One detail I recall is pointing out that mention of the Memoirs appears only in a narrow section of Trypho (chapters 100 to 106) and nowhere else.

Unfortunately I have no recollection of who wrote that article or in what journal.

Does anyone here by any chance happen to know of any studies raising this question of authenticity?

neilgodfrey wrote:I recall visiting a university library some years ago and coming across a journal article that offered reasons for thinking that Justin's references to the Memoirs of the Apostles may not have been in Justin's original work. One detail I recall is pointing out that mention of the Memoirs appears only in a narrow section of Trypho (chapters 100 to 106) and nowhere else.

They also appear in the first Apology. Here are all of the instances:


I am reminded of this post of yours: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1817#p40280.

Ben.

Are we convinced that the reference to 'Memoir(s) of the Apostles' is somehow separate from the gospel citation in the text? As far as I can see the gospel references are already starting in chapter 99.

Secret Alias wrote:Are we convinced that the reference to 'Memoir(s) of the Apostles' is somehow separate from the gospel citation in the text? As far as I can see the gospel references are already starting in chapter 99.

I am not "convinced" but I am cautious. We often find echoes of canonical sayings in the patristic writings but without attribution to those gospels. And Justin sometimes gives us recollections of canonical passages but with an unexpected twist as if they he has a different source or context. Don't know.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:I recall visiting a university library some years ago and coming across a journal article that offered reasons for thinking that Justin's references to the Memoirs of the Apostles may not have been in Justin's original work. One detail I recall is pointing out that mention of the Memoirs appears only in a narrow section of Trypho (chapters 100 to 106) and nowhere else.

They also appear in the first Apology. Here are all of the instances:

Apology 1.33.5.
Apology 1.66.3.
Apology 1.67.3.
Dialogue 100.4.
Dialogue 101.3b.
Dialogue 102.5.
Dialogue 103.6a.
Dialogue 103.8.
Dialogue 104.1b-2.
Dialogue 105.1.
Dialogue 105.5b.
Dialogue 105.6.
Dialogue 106.1.
Dialogue 106.3.
Dialogue 106.4.
Dialogue 107.1.

I am reminded of this post of yours: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1817#p40280.

Ben.

god you have a way of embarrassing my memory, Ben.

neilgodfrey wrote: We often find echoes of canonical sayings in the patristic writings but without attribution to those gospels. And Justin sometimes gives us recollections of canonical passages but with an unexpected twist as if they he has a different source or context.

Yep, and those points are likely to be highly significant ones in considering the origins of Christianity.

If the gospels & the Pauline texts were written mid 1st c. why the silence about them for over 100 yrs??!

But surely all signs point to Justin using a harmony gospel no? Tatian his student had one. Is that part in doubt or just the specific references to it being called memoirs of something or other.

MrMacSon wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: We often find echoes of canonical sayings in the patristic writings but without attribution to those gospels. And Justin sometimes gives us recollections of canonical passages but with an unexpected twist as if they he has a different source or context.

Yep, and those points are likely to be highly significant ones in considering the origins of Christianity.

If the gospels & the Pauline texts were written mid 1st c. why the silence about them for over 100 yrs??!

Rhetorical questions are dangerous. They dig us deeper into our furrowed thinking. That's how the Ehrman's and Hurtados and Hoffmanns and McGraths and Wests and Crossleys and Keiths etc etc argue

We have a range of possible answers. Note that by the time we do read about Paul's letters he is already a controversial figure. He is the apostle of those on the "wrong side". The records that survive are by and large the records of the victors. It is quite reasonable to think that Paul's work produced a movement or movements that remain unknown to us and that did not lead directly to the "proto-orthodox" christianity until we suddenly read about its state of play in the second century.

But I know there are other arguments, too.

Yes, the records that survive are largely the records of the victors, but there are also likely hints of pre-victory history too.

Saying "by the time we do read about Paul's letters" and "until we suddenly read about ''proto-orthodoxy Christianity's" state of play in the second century" are deflections to tradition. Maybe the Pauline texts were developed later then we think eg. 80-120 AD/CE??

MrMacSon wrote:Yes, the records that survive are largely the records of the victors, but there are also likely hints of pre-victory history too.

Saying "by the time we do read about Paul's letters" and "until we suddenly read about ''proto-orthodoxy Christianity's" state of play in the second century" are deflections to tradition. Maybe the Pauline texts were developed later then we think eg. 80-120 AD/CE??

No, it's not a deflection to tradition but a reasonable conclusion because of the explanatory power of the idea. Warring parties apparently each with considerably widespread influence don't just emerge overnight complete with their foundation myths.

But there is a difference between saying Paul was active in the mid first century and that the texts we now attribute to him were written by him.