Vinnie

Started a new blog and this was my first post:

Justin Martyr and the Memoirs

The apologist Justin Martyr wrote in the middle of the second century. In his Apology he refers to “the memoirs of the apostles” twice (1 Apol. 66, 67) and in Dialogue, he mentions them 13 time in chapters 98-107. Dialogue 106.3 is considered by the majority of scholars to be a reference to the Gospel of Mark since it contains material otherwise only found in Mark.

“It is said that he [Jesus or Christ] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his Memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’ . . .” (Dial. 106.3)

The joint name ‘Boanerges, suns of thunder’ occurs in Mark 3:17 and there alone in the New Testament. That Justin is also speaking of a written text makes it more probable he was referring to the Gospel of Mark which he probably refers to as “Peter’s memoirs” though some scholars remain convinced it could be “Christ’s memoirs” that he meant.

How many gospels does Justin accept? He uses material found in Matthew and Luke for sure, though it seems he was fond of harmonizing them as was his pupil Tatian who is reported to have composed the Diatessaron or harmony of the gospels. He also evinces knowledge of the text of Mark but the issue of whether or not Justin used John is hotly contested by scholars.

At any rate, Dial. 106.3 might hold a clue as to how many Gospels Justin used. He refers this time, not only to them as “the memoris of the apostles” but adds in a further caveat: “the memoirs of the apostles and those who followed them.” [emphasis mine]

It is amazing how often this statement is overlooked by critical exegetes. It clearly fits with the notion that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses but those who followed them. It appears Justin knew the presbyter tradition of Papias which existed before him and was known by so many after him and the memoirs he referenced should probably be interpreted as Peter’s though proof is not to be had on the matter.

At any rate, it seems that Justin’s comment excludes anything but at least four gospels. No less than four can be implied by the two groups -–the memoirs of those who followed Jesus (memoirs is plural) and of those who followed them (again plural).

The four-fold gospel might be traceable back to the middle of the second century. When coupled with Irenaeus, Tatian's Harmony and the Muratonian fragment, granted a second century date, this seems likely to begin with.

Though the question of Justin and John would still need to be addressed and Justin didn't seem to value the gospels for their individuality. He may have wanted to combine them into one true Gospel, as did Tatian.

Vinnie

Ben C Smith

You know, I love it when you post here, Vinnie, because your interests are always similar to mine.

Just FYI, I have all of the memoir passages in Greek and English up on my Justin Martyr page. Use the list toward the bottom of the page, in the appendix, for convenience.

Also, I think it was Jake Jones IV who pointed out another possible interpretation of the apostles and their followers. Justin has a few parallels to the gospel of Peter and (IIRC) to the infancy gospel of James, and it is possible that he divided the gospels into two groups based on anonymity (the followers) and pseudonymity (the apostles). I would be interested in your thoughts on that.

Finally, I find it very hard to believe that Justin did not possess something like our gospel of John. Apology 1.61.4-5:

Και γαρ ο Χριστος ειπεν· Αν μη αναγεννηθητε, ου μη εισελθητε εις την βασιλειαν των ουρανων.

For Christ also said: Unless you are born again, you shall not go into the kingdom of the heavens.

Οτι δε και αδυνατον εις τας μητρας των τεκουσων τους απαξ γεννωμενους εμβηναι φανερον πασιν εστι.

But that those who have once been born are unable to enter into the maternal womb is apparent to all.

I know there are other explanations, but surely the most natural is that Justin was aware of John 3.3-4.

Ben.

aa5874

It is completely illogical to claim Justin quoted from gMark when Justin claimed he was quoting from the Memoirs of the Apostles. It alnost certain that the Memoirs of the Apostles had no named authors other than the ambiguous reference to the apostles.

Justin Martyr was very meticulous, he was probably the only author to always mention the name of the author of any passages he quoted.

Justin referred to the Memoirs over 12 times only as the Memoirs of the Apostles, but the first time he mentioned Revelations, Justin claimed it was written by an apostle called John.

There is also no indication that the Memoirs of the Apostles as found in Justin Martyr's writings was comprised of several books. There would have been no benefit whatsoever for Justin to have in his possession four contradictory and chronologically erroneous books about Jesus when trying to convince Trypho the Jew that Jesus was the Messiah, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, who transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

And further, there is no evidence anywhere that showed any sect would have had four non-harmonised version of the Jesus story and would have used these four contradictions simultaneously.

It is not really reasonable to assume that Justin used material found in gMatthew and gLuke when Justin claimed he found the passages in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

It has been deduced by some scholars that the authors of Matthew and Luke used material in gMark, yet the authors of Matthew and Luke never acknowledge that they copied gMark, they never acknowledged that they knew or was aware of a writer called Mark.

The authors of Matthew and Luke quoted passages found only in Hebrew Scripture and never acknowledged the names of the authors or the names of the books. They used material from Isaiah, Daniel, 1&2 Samuel, Genesis, Numbers, Malachi, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Kings, Jeremiah, Proverbs, Micah, Job, and Zechariah and hardly ever acknowledge any name of the writers or the books. They mentioned only Daniel and Psalms only two or three times.

If the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from the Memoirs of the Apostles it is very likely that they would not have acknowledge that they did.

Justin acknowledged that he used material from the Memoirs of the Apostles and Revelation written by an apostle called John. And he also mentioned that he used passages from Isaiah over 90 times, Jeremiah about 10 times, Hezekiah over ten times, Ezekiel about 9 times, Daniel over 12 times, Psalms 40 times, Job 3 times, and the names of numerous other authors and books found in Hebrew Scriptue.

If Justin used passages found in books named Matthew or Luke it was likely that Justin would have acknowledged the names of the books or the names of the authors.

By mentioning the "memoirs of the Apostles and those who followed them" does not in any way provide a clue to how many Gospels Justin used. Jesus and the disciples, according to the NT, had thousands of followers.

The phrase confirms that Justin did not know the name of the author of the memoirs and assumed that the Memoirs were written by people who followed Jesus.



It is not necessary for a writing that is called "Memoirs of the Apostles" to be compiled in more than one book. It may be a book of memoirs supplied by more than one person.

There is a book titled the "Memoirs of my Life".

There is a problem with the Diatessaron, it contains John 21, based on Tertullian there was no chapter 21 gJohn when he wrote "Against Praxeas". The date of writing of the Diatessaron must be reviewed. Tatian's Diatessaron may have been written in the 3rd century or later.

the_cave

This is a quibble--we are talking about the text of gMark, not a document called "Kata Markon". Likewise with "gMatthew" and "gLuke".

Not so--Jn 21 may not have originally belonged to gJohn. It may, for example, have been a part of gMark originally (and I would argue its absence from "Against Praxeas" is evidence of this.) See David Ross on the subject:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/Mark/

aa5874

If two books have similar information, it must be logical that one or the other may have used the same source or copied one from the other.

It cannot be automatically assumed Justin Memoirs of the Apostles must have been from the Gospels which should have been named according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for at least a half century, it is logically possible that it was the reverse.

The named Gospels were mentioned for the first time in the writings of Irenaeus after Justin mentioned the anonimous Memoirs and it has been deduced the authors of Matthew and Luke did use some common source.


What do you mean by, "Not so?". It is exactly so. Tertullian in Against Praxeas claimed the Gospel of John terminated with the following words.

"Against Praxeas"
These words are found in John 20.30, the last verse.

Now, how in the world can you argue that John 21 was part of gMark when you are not able to find any source that show John 21 was part of gMark?

Neither the short-ending or long-ending of gMark show any resemblance to the information in John 21.

Jesus was a chef or some kind of cook at the beach in John 21. In gMark Jesus found the disciple already eating when he appeared unto them.

You cannot just simply use guesswork as an argument.

Vinnie

That page is rather useful. More convenient on this matter than digging up passages through Kirby's site or the CCEL. I think that interpretation by JJ is possible. There is no way to get a four--and no more--fold gospel out of Justin. We would be reading the views of Irenaeus back on to him and he treats the material different from Irenaeus anyways.

I think it strengthens the case that the memoirs are Peter's not Christ's. To me, the presbyter tradition predates him by 25-50 years and dependence upon it appears in those just after him: Irenaeus, Clement, Muratonian Fragment, etc. He mentions two types of written documents: 1) memoirs of the apostles and 2) memoirs of those who followed them. There is little doubt IMHO that he applied the latter category to Luke granted Luke's prologue and Justin's extensive use of Luke's material. He also mentions something found in Mark, and only Mark, in the context of a written gospel, and refers to it as "his memoirs" which to me indicates Peter's. It is not proof but the evidence clearly leans in that direction. What is often not realized is that if the his refer's to Christ's memoirs and not Peter's, he calls the material in the gospel of Mark Christ's memoirs. So even without the connection to Peter he puts it on the same footing. On second thought, we don't even know if he would include Mark in the first category or the second. If Mark was merely writing down Peter's preaching it can easily be called a "memoir of an apostle".

As an FYI, I tend to think Justin knew of John as well.

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

Vinnie

We can't disagree on EVERYTHING!

the_cave

Why "should have been named"? You yourself agree the gospels were probably unnamed for some time.

I mean, your claim that "Tatian's Diatessaron may have been written in the 3rd century or later" is not so. But I will amend my statement: it may have been written that late, but there is better evidence for a different explanation: Jn 21 was extant, but attached to a different gospel.

Did you read the David Ross page I linked to? (Probably not.)

Oh, come on, aa, this is silly and you know it. Mk 16:9ff is a very late addition to the gospel, and is largely a gloss on the endings of gMatthew and gLuke.

aa5874

Well, why don't you present the better evidence? Which Gospel was John 21 attached to?


So, why can't John 21 be a late addition to gJohn? I can't recall anyone claiming that the long-ending of gMark was attached to another gospel.