aa5874

Come on Sheshbazzar, was Josephus an UNKNOWN 1st century source that christian authorities DESTROYED?? I mention KNOWN sources for gMark not for Justin. You must name your UNKNOWN 1st century sources that was used by Justin.

Examine an excerpt from your own post.

tanya

Thank you David, excellent job, as always.

so, Justin here, goes on to quote Matthew 11:27, well of course, we don't know if Justin was quoting Matthew, or Matthew subsequently copied Justin. The text of "Dialogue with Trypho", at this particular point in chapter 100, corresponds precisely with the text of Matthew 11:27. Who came first, chicken or egg?

Unfortunately, this text, here in chapter 100, does not read:
"according to The Memoirs of the Apostles", but rather,
"In the Gospel (εὐαγγελίῳ) it is written....", without attribution to Matthew, or anyone else....

Expanding, further in chapter 100, including David's quote above, we find:
....καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ γεγραμμένον αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες ....
and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God,...

So, then, my question is now answered. Thank you David. Here's a second question: Can ἀπομνημονεύμασι also mean "memories of", rather than "The Memoirs of", or, another way of posing the same question, is there another method to express the specific title of a book, in Greek? How does one know, reading this, that Justin here is a referring to a title, marked: "Memoirs of the Apostles", and not, simply, "my recollection of the (writings ???) of the Apostles? Are we certain Justin is describing extant written texts authored by the Apostles, and not simply oral tradition, handed over to Justin, who is now creating the text, using his memory of their accounts?

Duvduv

Of course it would be perfectly natural for a reader to ask "Justin", "Well, if they are called gospels, then why do you call them Memoirs through your entire Apology? Surely good news is far more appropriate than mere memoirs. And if they have authors, why don't you mention a single one?!"

A copyist/scribe simply inserted the phrase later, it doesn't mean much. And of course we never get an inkling as to whether the author distinguished among at least 3 "memoirs" in the story lines, preferring to identify them all as a singular collective of non-contradictory narratives.

aa5874

Please, identify the copyist/scribe that inserted the phrase?? Do you have a copy of Justin's writings without the copyist/scribal insertion??

Again, you are using your imagination as facts. You have nothing.

Duvduv

Did you follow what I said? There is no evidence thst justin called the writings gospels. If he had, it would have shown up. Reread my posting.

tanya

In post 261, above, I quoted Justin using
συγγράμματα, which is translated as "textbooks", in modern Greek.

So, Justin uses three different words to describe, what we would call: "scripture".

In that sense, ἀπομνημονεύμασι (memoirs), συγγράμματα (writings), and εὐαγγέλια (gospels), could be regarded as synonyms.

More to the point, it would appear to me, at least, that:

a. There was no intent, by Justin Martyr, to suggest the existence of a particular text (= book, or "harmony", or synthesis a la Tatian, his pupil's Diatessaron), named,
"THE Memoirs of the Apostles".

In my opinion, there were extant in the middle of the second century, when Justin wrote Dialogue with Trypho, at least Mathew and Luke, if not all four gospels. I think Justin used those texts as his written source of information, about Christianity. Perhaps those texts did not yet have the names, which we employ today, MML&J. Was Irenaeus the first to explicitly name them?

I am unsure whether εὐαγγέλια uniquely connoted, in those days, "sacred texts, inspired by the Holy Spirit", as is explicit in the thinking of Christians today, or simply represented "good news".

b. For Justin, at least, and maybe for many others, in those days, these works were not yet elevated to the status of "Canon of the New Testament", else, he would have specifically named the documents, from which he quoted, just as he named Timaeus by Plato, as well as citing Isaiah by name.

Thank you Duvduv, for an inspirational thread.

Duvduv

Except that this does not eliminate the question of why only once the author introduces the parenthetical phrase to clarify that memoirs are gospels. Or why the author cannot name a single source for a memoir about his Savior.
The whole thing is peculiar as are other things as we have discussed.

DCHindley

Duvduv,

In 1st Apology 106, Justin equates "memoirs of the apostles" (describing the genre) with "what we call gospels" (that is, what Christians call these memoirs).

"Memoirs" is in the plural, meaning more than one was circulating (I do not think that one document was formed from several individual records, but there have been arguements made that Justin may have created a gospel harmony that Tatian translated into Syriac, so it is possible).

"Gospels" is also plural. He claims they are memoirs of the Apostles. "Apostles" are also plural. Three of the Four Gospels that have been handed down are attributed to an Apostle. Mark is supposed to be Peter's "interpreter," so Mark would be the indirect source for Peter's memoirs.

Tatian, Justin's pupil, translated and edited a single Syriac gospel that harmonized all four of the preserved four gospels.

This shows that Justin was aware of as many as 3 gospels that we know today. Or are you saying something different?

DCH

Justin, Dialogue ch 100: … we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God …

καὶ	υἱὸν	θεοῦ	γεγραμμένον	αὐτὸν
and	son	of God	reported	him (i.e., Christ)

ἐν	τοῖς	ἀπομνημονεύμασι	τῶν	ἀποστόλων	αὐτοῦ
in	the	memoirs	of the	Apostles	of him

Justin, 1st Apology 106: For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, ...

οἱ	γὰρ	ἀπόστολοι	ἐν	τοῖς	γενομένοις	ὑπ'	αὐτῶν
the	for	apostles	in	the	composed	by (authority)	of them

ἀπομνημονεύμασιν,	ἃ	καλεῖται	εὐαγγέλια
memoirs	which	are called	gospels

Sheshbazzar

Why would Peter need an "interpreter"?

Acts 2:1-14 records that the Apostles all received the gift of xeonoglossia and that every person listening heard the words in their own language
In verse 14 it was PETER who stood up with the eleven and addressed the crowd, evidently needing no other Apostle to serve as his "interpreter".

Duvduv

That's true, but as I mentioned earlier the mere appearance of a single parenthetical mention of the word "gospels" doesn't mean anything, since if they WERE known as gospels, i.e. the canonical ones, why doesn't he use the term throughout?

The reader, i.e. the emperor, doesn't know or care about the distinction mentioned in passing. But Christians looking for reinforcement of the antiquity of their 4 gospels sure would care.

And not a single time does "Justin" mention a single name of who a veritable venerable APOSTLE would be who would be a source for his so-called memoirs, NOR does he allude to choosing among three contradictory story lines. Thus it is clear that the author was quoting aphorisms and stories that were floating around which had not yet been committed to writing.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the emperor ever got this apology, or that it was even ever mailed to him. And here you have an official appeal to the highest official in the empire on behalf of a beleaguered minority. Yet on this so-called opportunity there is not identification of WHERE his community is, WHO they are, who their leaders are, who his predecessors are, or any other identification information to help the Office of the Emperor deal with the appeal! Heck, he doesn't even mention anything about the so-called Old Man, or the origin of his or the Old Man's source for his knowledge of the Christ.

And lo and behold this "important" document is based on a single complete manuscript "copied" by a 14th century scribe.
The context of the Apology in all these aspects makes the authenticity of the text into the 2nd century highly questionable.