stephan huller

I have the absolute worst titles for my threads. I have come to a point in my personal research where I think I might be standing upon the threshold of a major discovery. It is all based on this - it is simply astonishing how widespread the use of the term hypomnema or hypomnemata is in earliest Christianity.

I don't believe that the term just means 'memoirs' as many have supposed. I don't think it is just the title of a gospel or a collection of sayings associated with Jesus or a term used to reference the 'gospel.'

I happen to believe that Christianity was started in Alexandria. I think it inherited technical terms from Greek literature including

The word “scholia” now has different meanings when used by different groups of scholars. In recent works on Greek literary texts it means “commentary or notes written in the margins of a text,” as opposed to “hypomnema,” which refers to an ancient self- standing commentary, and to “gloss,” which generally refers to a short definition found between the lines of a literary text ... the relationship between hypomnemata and scholia is more complex, and the differences between them more significant, than this formulation suggests. Hypomnemata were unified works by a single author; even composite commentaries like those of Didymus presented a fairly seamless appearance and smoothly integrated pieces of information from various sources. Though written on separate rolls, they were not intended to be read independently of the text but were connected to it by lemmata, short quotations indicating the word or passage under discussion When a hypomnema was intended to accompany a particular edition, like the texts and commentaries of Aristarchus, the two could be linked by marginal signs in the text pointing to notes in the commentary. At the same time marginal and interlinear annotation on papyrus texts is by no means unknown; we have numerous annotated papyri of literary texts from many genres. But such annotation normally consists of brief notes rather than the complex discussions found in hypomenata and in medieval scholia and it is clear that our scholia are descended from ancient hypomnemata rather than from ancient marginalia. [Eleanor Dickey Ancient Greek scholarship: a guide to finding, reading, and understanding (or via: amazon.co.uk) p. 10 - 12]

Dickey explains that all ancient hypomnemata have disappeared but "medieval scholia are not simply transcripts, or even abbreviated transcripts, of ancient hypomnemata, nor are many of them readers' casual notes; they are dense and systematic collections of extracts from different sources ... Scholia often represent severe abridgements, and sometimes mutilations, of hypomnemata, but at the same time the initial selection of material appears to have been excellent." (p. 12)

What I am wondering is whether Justin's apostolic υπομνηματα were works which 'explained' the true gospel - works which individually may have been called 'gospels' but were not understood to be 'the true gospel' itself.

The history of such υπομνηματα is very old indeed. For instance Origen cites from Heracleon's υπομνηματα on the gospels (Commentary on John 6.92). Pantaenus, the supposed head of the Alexandrian tradition wrote what was called a υπομνηματα on the prophets (Clement Ecl. Proph. 56.2). Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.10.4 ("Pantaenus . . . orally and in writing expounded [hypomnematizomenos] the treasures of the divine doctrine" cited by Zuntz, Text of the Epistles 273.

Most people reference Clement's great work as 'Stromateis' without realizing that it is also a similarly conceived υπομνηματα. He thinks of his work as a "υπομνηματα ... stored up against old age as a remedy against forgetfulness." [Stromata 1.1.1] and the actual title of the work is Patchwork of the Gnostic υπομνηματα According to the True Philosophy.

I have read the explanation of many who argue from 1 Apol 66.3 and 1 Apol 67.3 - 4 that Justin is identifying the υπομνηματα simply as 'gospel texts' themselves but I wonder whether that goes far enough. I wonder whether there was lurking behind these references is an understanding that there was one divine gospel and then a series of υπομνηματα ascribed to human beings.

Clement of Alexandria referred to Mark's υπομνηματα (To Theodore 1.20), by which he understood the notes that became the basis for his Gospel. I know it sounds paradoxical but there is always this idea in the Marcionite tradition that the 'true gospel' DID NOT have a human author. There is also a strong and early tradition that this gospel which had no human author was the gospel of Mark (its first words not only suggest the original title but its being authored by a divine source - i.e. 'the gospel of Jesus' etc).

As such Clement similarly can speak of "the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark" and - depending on how you translate the original Greek:

to them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath.

or Scott Brown's equally plausible translation:

To them, therefore as I said above, one must never give way, nor when they put forward their falsifications should one concede that it (i.e. the Carpocratian gospel) is Mark's mystical gospel, but should even deny it on oath.

I am just wondering now if someone like Justin would

And who will not be filled with wonder, when he goes back in thought to Him who then taught and said, This Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles, and beholds, agreeably to His words, the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached in the whole world under heaven to Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish alike? For the word, spoken with power, has gained the mastery over men of all sorts of nature, and it is impossible to see any race of men which has escaped accepting the teaching of Jesus. 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 υπομνηματα of Jesus 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. [Origen Contra Celsum 2.13]

What I am wondering is whether - between the testimony of To Theodore and the Marcionite gospel - we can argue that it was SECRETLY acknowledged by at least some Christians and potentially Justin himself that (a) there was a true gospel which represented a direct transmission from God Almighty and (b) all other gospels which freely circulated in the name of disciples and their associates were υπομνηματα?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

maryhelena

Joseph Hoffmann has a good article on 'Jesus and Anacreon' - dealing with the transmission of the gospels.

The 'master-copy' of the Jesus story'? My money would be on the account preserved within Slavonic Josephus. Everything since has only been building upon that prototype. And of course, once the copying and embellishment was underway, either by the original author himself, or others, then all the more reason for the prototype to loose its raison d'être, loose its necessity, as the fledging idea was soon able to fly away from the nest....

And if 'War' is the updated version, ie the earlier Aramaic version of 'War' being lost - then dropping the Jesus prototype references, would be the way to go. The deed was done...And the TF in Antiquities - just a little nod to the earlier prototype. Nothing more being necessary at that stage of the developing Jesus story....

All the Jesus story needed was a once off reference within a 'history' book - and the rest is, as they say, history......well, at least, the history of an idea....

stephan huller

maryhelena

It is interesting that you bring up the point about Josephus. As you know I have been going through the Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War side by side for some time now in another thread. My guess is that both texts go back to a second century text which Clement of Alexandria attributes to a 'Josephus the Jew' and Eusebius to a Hegesippus the Jew. Both have to be the same text because the chronology for both is dated to the 10th year of Antoninus.

If these two later textual traditions go back to the same second century source just identified, it is very interesting to see what Eusebius identifies as the name of this text - the υπομνηματα of Hegesippus (a name that we know derives from Josephus).

Now the fact that all these υπομνηματα were circulating in early Christianity is not in itself strange. There must have been υπομνηματα being created for any number of ancient texts. But given all that I have shown about the nature of this second century υπομνηματα of Josephus I think we can finally go beyond Shaye Cohen's arguments in Josephus in Galilee and Rome regarding the existence of a first century υπομνημα developed by the Josephus who lived in the first century:

Thus in both sequence and (at least to some degree) content V has a more pristine form of the material than BJ. But, as we remarked in chapter one above in our criticism of Laqueur, that which is more pristine is not necessarily that which is earlier. Therefore a more significant example of V's primacy is the parallel V 86//BJ 615, from the episode of John at Tiberias. "He (Josephus) did not yet suspect the plotter (John)," BJ 615), makes little sense in BJ, after John's murderous plots of BJ 593-594 and the "Josephan gloss" of 599 and seems to be a careless paraphrase of V's "I did not suspect that he would do anything wicked." In V the words make sense because John's machinations, as described by V 70-76, were not such as to arouse suspicion. Here then is a good indication of the literary priority of V.

By priority we mean that V, although written after BJ, contains as its nucleus a document which was written much earlier and was utilized by BJ. The existence of this document is supported by more than just the parallel V 86//BJ 615. The relationship of BJ 2 to V is similar to the relationship of BJ 1 to AJ 15-16 (see above) and this analogy suggests that the "common source" behind BJ 2 and V was not just Josephus' memory but a written document. The "original sequence" preserved by V and thematically revised by BJ, is the sequence of this work. This theory also explains the literary peculiarities of V. If V were a mere sloppy retelling of the story of Josephus' career in Galilee, written all at one time some thirty years after the events in order to refute Justus and based primarily on Josephus' memory (perhaps refreshed by a quick perusal of BJ), we could not explain why the clear organization of BJ was not followed more closely, why Justus' role is so spotty and peripheral, and why his name often appears in sentences which have no connection with their context and no consequence for the action (see chapter five below, section C 1). This argument in favor of the common source theory was emphasized (actually overemphasized) by Laqueur. The only other systematic way to explain Justus' marginal role is to suppose that Josephus had written an autobiography, attached it to AJ, but later, after Justus' attack, converted it to serve his need for a self-defense. But if this autobiography is our V minus the glosses, it is amazing that even before the attack of Justus Josephus prepared a long apologetic account which included precisely those elements he would later need in his self-defense. Therefore it has been suggested that the original autobiography was a short work consisting mostly of information on Josephus' background and family. The frame of our V is a remnant of this alleged edition (V 1-27 and 414-430). A few years later, in order to respond to Justus, Josephus expanded his earlier work in order to produce an apologetic and polemic. But this suggestion does not solve our problem (why is the polemic against Justus so easily separable from the text?), and is intrinsically implausible (why did Josephus not write a separate retort to Justus if his autobiography were already complete?) as well as chronologically difficult (Agrippa probably died before 93/4 and so there is no reason to postulate two different editions of V).

What is the nature of this hypothetical common source? The least uncertain thing about it is that it was arranged chronologically much like V. If it was a literary work, a polished account like, say, that of Nicolaus of Damascus, we must explain why there are so many discrepancies between V and BJ, many more than between AJ 15-16 and BJ 1. Some of these, no doubt, are Josephus' response to Justus (see chapter five below). but many are too picayune to be of any significance. It is apparent that Josephus' memory, in addition to this written source, must have played a large part in both V and BJ. Thus we need a document fixed enough to have a definite order but free enough to allow remarkable divergences caused by shifts in memory. The most likely candidate is a hypomnema, a dry sketch or outline of the events in Galilee, which Josephus prepared before writing BJ. CA 1.50, "when my entire narrative was prepared" may well refer to this sketch. Ancient historians were expected to prepare such hypomnemata before proceeding to their literary works. BJ, a rhetorical history, drastically shortened, thematically rearranged, and freely modified the hypomnema. V, a hasty polemic and apologetic, retained the scope, structure, and, in general, the dryness of the original but added anti-Justus material (including the "glosses") and extensive self-defense. A similar theory has been advanced to account for the differences between the Vita Constantini and the sections parallel to it in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius. The one, a biography, and the other, a history, describe events of Eusebius' own lifetime but disagree on many details and on the order of events. Perhaps these two works derive from a Eusebian hypomnema.

We cannot now determine the exact content and form of this work. Josephus has rewritten everything not only because this was his normal procedure (see chapter two), but also because the hypomnema was meant to be rewritten.[p. 81 - 83]

The assumption here is that υπομνημα should be taken to mean 'notes' that get developed into a fuller narrative later.

I am starting to think that this assumption has it all wrong both with regards to Josephus and the gospels. First Josephus.

I am starting to understand how it was that Clement could have found a chronology by 'Josephus the Jew' which dated to the tenth year of Antoninus. He writes again:

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three years.

If we assume that 'Josephus the Jew' wrote the 'history of the Jews' mentioned by Clement, it may have been possible that what survived down to the time of Clement was a υπομνηματα of the lost original Aramaic text. In other words, Clement is citing from a commentary rather than the original text. Eventually as the narrative became more polished the term υπομνηματα was taken to mean 'memoirs' but initially it was clearly a commentary where the second century author is deliberately using Josephus to prove the Christian εὐαγγέλιον (taken in the loosest sense i.e. the way Paul is understood to have used the term).

Notice the way Origen takes the 'gospel of Jesus Christ' to be 'about' the destruction of the temple. This is why the second century author developed a υπομνηματα of Josephus - i.e. to prove the truth of the εὐαγγέλιον message.

In the same way I am beginning to think that 'the gospel' was originally taken to mean the heavenly message that came out of Jesus's mouth not necessarily a literary text (look at the way the early Fathers think that Paul is referring to something other than a literary text when he speaks of 'his gospel'). The υπομνηματα would then be understood as commentaries written by a single individual attempting to explain the meaning of this original message (notice also the gnostic emphasis on the transmission of truth through viva voce stressed in Irenaeus AH iii.2.3).

I think To Theodore tells us that at some point AFTER the establishment of various υπομνηματα Mark laid down the divine truth in the 'secret gospel' which became the basis for the Alexandrian Church.

Why was Mark's gospel established after the various υπομνηματα? I think we have to go back to the Aramaic origins of the term εὐαγγέλιον. You see 'gospel' is a very strange word to use for the title of a book.

My friend Professor Ruairidh Boid pointed out to me a long time ago that the term has a very specific significance in association with the Jubilee (i.e. the year after seven Sabbatical years or 7 x 7) which solves the mystery of why the announcement of Jesus is called 'the gospel.'

The Samaritan Arabic commentary on the Torah, on Leviticus XXV:9. Slightly condensed translation. “The High Priest and the King acting together are to send heralds out on the Day of Atonement to go into all countries over the next six months blowing the shofar in every land and region [not just Canaan] with the announcement [bashâ’ir, plural of bashîrah] of the information of the approach of the Jubilee Year and the release of captives”. The Arabic bashîrah = the Hebrew bassorah. The person doing it is the mubashshir = Hebrew mevasser, or the bashîr. Notice carefully that the bashîrah is not the information, but the announcement of it. This is the connotation of the Greek euangelion. Notice that the meaning only becomes clear and sharp in the context of the SAMARITAN halachah.

In other words, Jesus is announcing the coming of the Jubilee year, the year after seven times seven years - or in this case the 'year of favor' (Isa 61.2) which comes after the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesy of seventy weeks (i.e. 7 x 70).

The reason why Origen thinks the 'gospel' is about the destruction of the temple is because Jesus frames the explanation in the 'little apocalypse' in terms of Daniel. According to the original Israelite understanding the 'year of favor' - i.e. the Jubilee year - would already have started BEFORE the destruction of the temple. This is why Josephus and the gospel went hand in hand for the earliest Church. Josephus is necessarily being used to show that what is described in his original narrative is proof that Jesus's εὐαγγέλιον is true and holy.

The claims of Christianity NEEDED a historical witness to demonstrate that all things came about EXACTLY as described in scripture - or in this case - according to the word of Daniel.

maryhelena

Stephen - I'm not buying into your argument re Josephus I and Josephus II - as I think you are misreading that quotation from Clement re the 10th year of Antoninus.

I'm with you re Agrippa II and the early developments of christianity - I will just go a step further and say that it was Agrippa II behind the writing of 'Josephus'. And in this case Agrippa II would have access to whatever history his secretary Justus wrote.....

Interesting point re the Jubilee year being prior to an application of Daniel ch.9. 7 x 7 = 49 years - a grand Jubilee, if you will, that has some relevance to a time period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

I would interpret these 49 years as being years in which a 'messiah' figure actually ruled. And, seeing that I am equating Philip the Tetrarch with Agrippa I........he would have ruled from 4 bc to 44/45 ce = 48/49 years. (Philip becoming Agrippa I around 37 ce - giving him a rule of 7/8 years as Agrippa I. The earliest Josephan manuscripts have Philip ruling until the year 22 of Tiberius.....not the 20th year as in present Josephus. Philip's sole rule as Tetrarch being 37 years from the death of Herod. This would indicate a co-regency with Herod from 4 BC - same for Antipater. Herod's death would then be in 1 bc - seemingly a date that has an attraction in some quarters.)

stephan huller

The suggestion that Philip might have been Agrippa I is intriguing. Some immediate difficulties. Marcus Julius Agrippa is always identified as 'Agrippa' Philip as 'Philip.' I think there is only one coin where Agrippa is identified as 'Marcus Agrippa.' Why this is I don't have the foggiest clue. Philip also wasn't king of Israel but then again that would leave Gaius free to appoint Philip's son as king of Israel. You will come across the same objections as I get with regards to the writings of Josephus saying that Philip and Agrippa I were two different people (although Agrippas praenomen is strangely never identified anywhere).

Leaving that aside the citation of 'Josephus the Jew' in Clement and Eusebius's citation of Hegesippus the Jew both represent chronologies which end in the tenth year of Antoninus. In other words, Eusebius's testimony strengthens the idea that there was a Josephus in the second century writing in 147 CE.

maryhelena

Philip was not King of Judea under the name of Philip the Tetrarch.....my point is that as Agrippa I he did become King of Judea. Name changing seems to have been a common enough practice - even the gospels get into this act.....As for his son - Agrippa II was far too young to become ruler when his father died - and he never did rule Judea.....

anyway, that's not the point of your thread.... - but the whole Agrippa issue is itself relevant to the goings on re early christian developments....if we don't have a handle on 'Agrippa' then we could be on the wrong track....

stephan huller

Another more dangerous question regarding Justin's use of the term υπομνηματα is whether this is an admission on his part that these texts were composite in nature. I stumbled across this article Johannes Engels, Augusteische Oikumenegeographie und Universalhistorie im Werk Strabons von Amaseia. Geographica Historica 12. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 1999. Pp. 464. ISBN 3-515-07459-7. DM 188. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2000/2000-02-11.html and look what it says about Strabo;

Anyone accusing the Church Fathers of 'corrupting' the gospels has always faced the difficulty in attempting show why these false texts were preferred to the true texts which presumably existed from the beginning. The idea that there might have been a tradition of establishing υπομνηματα in the name of apostolic figures AND the apparent sanctioning of the free distribution of such υπομνηματα immediately gets around that difficulty.

As I noted earlier To Theodore assumes that even Mark employed υπομνηματα to establish the 'true text' which founded the Alexandrian community and eventually became identified as 'the gospel of Jesus.'

In other words, I can't help but see that at least according to the Alexandrian formulation expressed in To Theodore that there is a sense that only the Alexandrian secret gospel is properly defined as 'the gospel of Jesus.' All the rest are properly defined as human υπομνηματα (commentaries) on what Jesus said.

Trobisch points out with considerable force that the earliest New Testament canons we see four texts with “kata Matthaion”, “kata Markon”, “kata Loukan”, “kata Iôannên” splashed across the top of each document. For Trobisch at least - and Know before him - this implied the concept of a SINGLE Gospel divided into four and this is turn is what Trobisch regards as the original 'editorial concept' - i.e. that the gospel is four-faced.

Trobisch would argue that none of these texts on its own was ever identified as 'the gospel' on its own. So what were they originally considered to be on their own? In some sense I imagine that the canonical gospels represent redeemed υπομνηματα.