^{page 361 note 1} The most recent comprehensive treatment was presented by D. Dormeyer and Frankemölle, H., ‘Evangelium als literarischer und als theologischer Begriff: Tendenzen und Aufgaben der Evangelienforschung im 20. Jahrhundert, mit einer Untersuchung des Markusevangeliums in seinem Verhältnis zur griechischen Biographie’, ANRW 2.25/2 (1984) 1541–1704.Google Scholar Dormeyer and Frankemölle also treat the history of scholarship and give extensive bibliographies.

^{page 361 note 2} On this question, cf. Friedrich, G., ‘EỦαγγέλιον, κτλ’, TWNT 2 (1935) 705–24.Google Scholar For the use of the noun in the Roman imperial period, see especially Schniewind, J., Euangelion: Ursprung und erste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium (BFChTh 13; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1927Google Scholar; reprint: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt, 1970) 113–258.

^{page 361 note 3} The noun εỦαγγέλιον occurs 48 times in the genuine Pauline letters. In 26 of these occurrences it is used absolutely, without a following genitive; 14 times the genitive ‘of God’ (τοû θεοû) or ‘of Christ’ ([τοû] Χριστοû) follows. To εỦαγγέλιον ήμάν (2 Cor 11. 4; 1 Thess 1. 5) means ‘the gospel that we preach’. ἔτερον εὑαγγέλιον (2 Cor 11. 4; Gal 1. 6) is used in such a way that the implication is unmistakable: there is no such thing as ‘another gospel’. The term has a somewhat different meaning in the phrase τò εỦαγγέλιον τς άκροβυστίας (Gal 2. 7): it is the office of preaching to the uncircumcised, but not a different gospel that is preached to them. ‘My gospel’ (τò εαγγέλιόν μου) in Rom 16. 25 is certainly not Pauline; Rom 3. 16 where the same phrase appears may also be a later interpolation; cf. 2 Tim 2. 8.

^{page 362 note 1} The verb appears 19 times in the genuine Pauline letters. It can be used in a technical sense insofar as it means not only ‘to announce’, ‘to proclaim’ (1 Cor 9. 16, 18; Gal 1. 16, 23; 4. 13; 1 Thess 3. 6), but also in the full sense ‘to preach the gospel’ (Rom 1.15; 15.20; 1 Cor 1.17; 2 Cor 10.16; Gal 1. 8–9). For emphasis, Paul can also say εαγγελίξεσθαι τò εỦαγγέλιον (2 Cor 11. 7; cf. Gal 2. 11; 1 Cor 15. 1).

^{page 362 note 2} Full equivalents of εỦαγγελίξεσθαι are κηρύσσειν (‘to proclaim’, Rom 10. 8, 14, 15; 1 Cor 1. 23; 9. 27; 15. 11; Gal 2. 2), καταγγέλλειν (‘to announce’, 1 Cor 2. 1; 9. 14; 11. 26; Phil 1. 17–18), λαλεîν (‘to speak’, Phil 1. 14; 1 Thess 2. 2, 4, 16). In the Acts of the Apostles, διαμαρτύρεσθαι appears frequently as the equivalent of εỦαγγελίξεσθαι (Acts 2. 40; 8. 25; 10. 42; 18. 5; 20. 21, 24; 28. 23).

^{page 363 note 1} ‘Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte’, EYXAPIΣTHPION für Hermann Gunkel (2 vols.; FRLANT 36; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923) 2. 50–135.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 2} ‘Über die Anfänge der patristischen Literatur’, Historische Zeitschrift 14 (1882) 417–72Google Scholar; reprinted in book form: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1954 and 1966.

^{page 363 note 3} In the discussion of the synoptic problem in his Christentum und Kultur (ed. by Bernoulli, Carl Albrecht, [Basel: Schwabe, 1919Google Scholar; reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963], 78–9) Overbeck characterizes the Gospel of Luke as a tasteless and disastrous attempt to transform the Urliteratur into a piece of literary historiography.

^{page 363 note 4} The History of the Synoptic Tradition (2nd ed.; New York: Harper, 1968).Google Scholar The first German edition had been published two years before the appearance of Schmidt's essay: Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 29; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921).Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 5} From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribner's, 1934).Google Scholar First German edition: Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1919).Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 6} Schmidt, Karl Ludwig, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin: no publisher, 1919Google Scholar; reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964, 1969).

^{page 363 note 7} ’Zur Synoptiker-Exegese’, ThR N.F. 2 (1930) 129–89.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 1} ibid., 183.

^{page 364 note 2} Cf. Bornkamm, Günther, ‘Evangelien, formgeschichtlich’, RGG 2 (3rd ed.) 750.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 3} Most of this literature is treated in Dormeyer and Frankemölle, ‘Evangelium: Gattung und Begriff’, cited above in note 1, p. 361.

^{page 364 note 4} Dihle, A., ‘Die Evangelien und die griechische Biographie’, in Stuhlmacher, P., ed., Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1983) 383–411.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 5} In Dormeyer und Frankemölle, ‘Evangelium: Gattung und Begriff’, 1545–1634.

^{page 364 note 6} Baltzer, K., Die Biographie der Propheten (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975).Google Scholar However, it is difficult to understand Dormeyer's hesitation with respect to the acceptance of this model which he justifies with the reference that this genre of the biography of the prophets had come to an end with the time of the exile. The biography of Nehemiah as well as the biographical substratum of Deutero-Isaiah are post-exilic. Moreover, Nickelsburg, G. (‘The Genre and Function of the Markar Passion Narrative’, HTR 73 [1980] 153–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar ) has shown that this biographical genre finds its postexilic continuation in the narrative of the suffering righteous and his vindication.

^{page 364 note 7} On this question, see also Lührmann, D., Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1987) 42–4.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 8} Dihle, ‘Die Evangelien und die griechische Biographie’, 407–11.

^{page 365 note 1} Dormeyer, Detlev, ‘Die Kompositionsmetapher “Evangelium Jesu Christi, des Sohnes Gottes” Mk 1.1: Ihre theologische und literarische Aufgabe in der Jesus-Biographie des Markus’, NTS 33 (1987) 452–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Dormeyer and Frankemölle, ‘Evangelium als Begriff’, 1639–94.

^{page 365 note 2} On the use of the term ‘gospel’ in Ignatius' letters see Köster, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (TU 65; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957) 6–10Google Scholar; Schoedel, W. R., Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia; Fortress, 1985)Google Scholar on Phld. 8. 2; 9. 2. There is no evidence that Ignatius used any of the written gospels known to us.

^{page 365 note 3} Other passages in which suffering or death and cross and resurrection appear together in formulaic language are Ign. Eph. 7.2; Mg. 11; Trall. 9.1; Sm. 5.3; 7.2; 12.2.

^{page 365 note 4} See on this passage and on its traditional elements Schoedel, William R., Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius (Hermeneia: Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985)Google Scholar on Sm. 1.1–2. Schoedel argues convincingly that Ignatius does not quote a long traditional formula here; rather he combines individual traditional phrases with sentences from Paul's letters.

^{page 366 note 1} Wetter, G. Pison (Altchristliche Liturgien: Das christliche Mysterium [FRLANT 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921] 1. 121–2)Google Scholar understands εỦαγγέλιον in the letters of Ignatius as a central feature of the enactment of Christian cult, a text that represents the Christian myth of salvation so that its reading ‘creates life’. Schlier, H. (Religions-geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Ignatiusbriefen [BZNW 8; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1929] 165–6)Google Scholar has further elaborated this suggestion.

^{page 366 note 2} See especially Sm. 7. 2: ‘…to pay attention to the prophets and in particular to the gospel, in which the passion is shown us and the resurrection accomplished’.

^{page 366 note 3} See further on these letters G. Strecker, ‘Das Evangelium Jesus Christi’, in idem, ed., Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Festschrift Hans Conzelmann (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1975) 531–3.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 4} See Strecker, ibid., 533–5.

^{page 366 note 5} The phrase τò εỦαγγέλιόν μον in Rom 2. 16 and 16. 25 reflects this same later usage.

^{page 367 note 1} It occurs only twice here: 15. 7 and 20. 24; see above.

^{page 367 note 2} In both the Gospel of Luke and in the Acts of the Apostles the verb εỦαγγελίξεσθαι can simply mean ‘to announce’ (Luke 1. 19; 2. 10; Acts 14. 15). But in most instances, it designates the missionary proclamation. In Luke 3. 18; 4. 18 (= Isa 61. 1); 7. 22; 9. 6; 20. 1; Acts 8. 25, 40; 14. 7, 21; 16. 10, the verb has no direct object. Thus it either means simply ‘to preach’, or the direct object is implied: ‘to preach the gospel’. Sometimes, the object of the verb is made explicit: ‘the rule of God’ (Luke 4. 3; 8. 1; cf. 16. 16; Acts 8. 12), ‘Christ Jesus’ (Acts 5. 42; 8. 35; 11. 20), ‘the word (of the Lord)’ (Acts 8. 4; 15. 35), ‘peace’ (Acts 10. 36), ‘the promises to the fathers fulfilled’ (Acts 13. 32), ‘Jesus and the resurrection’ (Acts 17. 18).

^{page 367 note 3} Especially Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and its Development (New York: 1st ed. 1936; 2nd ed. 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 4} Wilckens, U., Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- and traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (WMANT 5; 3rd ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974).Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 1} There is a further occurrence of the term in the secondary longer ending of Mark: ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to every creature’ (Mark 16. 15).

^{page 368 note 2} For the meaning of the term in these Marken passages, see below.

^{page 368 note 3} All modern commentaries agree that ‘this gospel’ in Matt 26. 13 cannot refer to Matthew's Gospel. The phrase is variously understood as the gospel of Christ, the proclamation of the passion of Jesus, or the announcement of the coming of the kingdom of heaven.

^{page 369 note 1} Marxsen, W. (Der Evangelist Markus [FRLANT 67; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956] 81)Google Scholar argues persuasively that Matthew used Mark 1. 15 not only in 4. 17 but also in Matt 4. 23 and 9. 35. See further on this question, Helmut Koester, ‘History and Development of Mark's Gospel: From Mark to Secret Mark and “Canonical” Mark', in Corley, Bruce C., ed., Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1983) 43–4.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 2} P. Stuhlmacher argues for a close relationship between Mark's use of the term and the Pauline understanding of the content of the ‘gospel’. Das paulinische Evangelium I (FRLANT 95; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 3} Mark 13. 10 interrupts the close connection between 13. 9 and 13. 11. Can 13. 10 be considered a secondary intrusion into the text of Mark from the parallel in Matthew? Commentaries usually ask whether vs 10 was inserted into an older tradition, either by Mark or in a pre-Markan stage of the text; cf. Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.; Herders Kommentar; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 2. 285Google Scholar; see also idem, Naherwartungen (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968) 129–31.Google Scholar On the term in Markan usage in general, see Marxsen, W., Markus, 77–92Google Scholar; Lührmann, , Markusevangelium, 40–1Google Scholar and passim. Both Marxsen and Lührmann argue that all passages in which the term εỦαγγέλιον appears in Mark are redactional.

^{page 369 note 4} The expression πιστεỦειν ⋯ν is peculiar and without parallel in the N. T. However, it is hard to interpret this phrase in any other way than as an equivalent of the common πιστεύειν ειξ = ‘to believe in’; see Marxsen, , Markus, 90.Google Scholar Marxsen also argues that the term εỦαγγέλιον always occurs in redactional materials and never in any traditions or sources used by Mark. The peculiar phrase of Mark 1. 15 cannot be explained by recourse to an older Aramaic tradition used by Mark (against Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 105Google Scholar ). Dormeyer, D. (‘Die Kompositionsmetapher “Evangelium Jesu Christi, des Sohnes Gottes” Mk 1.1. Ihre theologische und literarische Aufgabe in der Jesus-Biographie des Markus’, NTS 33 [1987] 454–5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar explains the choice of the preposition ⋯ν as a deliberate Markar finesse by which Mark wants to indicate that the ‘gospel’ preached by Jesus in 1. 14–15 is not the entire gospel but only one of its ingredients (Teilmenge).

^{page 370 note 1} Cf. Schmithals, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum NT 2/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1979) 73–4.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 2} Cf. Lührmann, , Markusevangelium 33–4, 41.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 3} Marxsen, , Markus, 87–8.Google Scholar Dormeyer (‘Die Kompositionsmetapher’, 452–68) has recently tried to demonstrate that the ‘genitive-syntagma’ άρχἔ τοû εỦαγγελίον can be reversed to ‘gospel of the beginnings’ and thus become the title of a writing.

^{page 370 note 4} For the occurrences of the term in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, see above.

^{page 370 note 5} Most characteristic for this position is the very influential work of Zahn, Th., Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.; Erlangen: Deichert, 1888–1889) 1. 840, 916–41.Google Scholar Zahn even believed that Papias of Hierapolis, the second century bishop who argued strongly for the trustworthiness of the oral tradition, drew his ‘Sayings of the Lord’ from a written gospel.

^{page 371 note 1} The first challenge to the traditional view came from The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology (Oxford, 1905).Google Scholar I see no reason to alter the results of my Synoptische Überlieferung (1957) with respect to Ignatius’, 1 Clement's, and Barnabas' independence of any written gospel. For a more detailed discussion of the Didache and 2 Clement, see below.

^{page 371 note 2} This is borne out by their form and wording which does not reveal any redactional features of a known gospel author, and by the quotation formula which appears in the past tense: ‘he said’ (επεν), i.e., the Lord said when he was preaching and teaching. Cf. Köster, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern (TU 65; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956–1957) 6.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 3} Creed, J. M., ‘The Didache’, JTS 39 (1937) 370–8Google Scholar; Audet, J.-P., La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres (EtB; Paris: Gabalda, 1958) 104–20Google Scholar; more recently, with full discusion of literature, Wengst, K., Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet (Schriften des Urchristentums 2; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984) 18–32.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 4} Köster, , Synoptische Überlieferung, 103–9.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 1} It must be maintained (against Wengst, , Didache, 61–3Google Scholar ) that there is no external evidence that would force us to date the final composition of this book before the end of the second century. Materials and sources used in the final composition are certainly much older; but at least three of the four references to the ‘gospel’ come from the hand of the final redactor.

^{page 372 note 2} In order to maintain his hypothesis of the Didache's dependence upon Matthew, Wengst, (Didache, 18–20)Google Scholar calls these verses a later interpolation.

^{page 372 note 3} For the date of 2 Clement see Wengst (Didache, 222–7): 130–150 C. E. The use of sayings based on Matthew and Luke and of apocryphal materials would allow any date before the end of the second century. Hengel, M. (Die Evangelienüberschriften [SHW.PH 1984.3; Heidelberg Winter, 1984] 34Google Scholar: ‘einige Jahrzehnte vor Justin’) and especially Donfried, K. P. (The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity [NT.S 38; Leiden: Brill, 1974] 55–6)CrossRefGoogle Scholar give no convincing arguments for an earlier date.

^{page 372 note 4} Köster, , Synoptische Überlieferung, 70–99.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 1} The incipit of the work in its present form, ‘[James] writes to […] those: Peace …’ (1, 1–3), is secondary and was added by a later hand.

^{page 373 note 2} M. Hengel, Evangelienüberschriften, has recently tried to renew the thesis that the titles of the canonical gospels, as they appear in the earliest manuscripts at ca. 200 CE, existed in the same form already at the beginning of the second century. Hengel is correct in his claim that these gospels must have circulated under the name of a specific author from the very beginning. But there is no evidence that their original book titles were identical with the later ‘Gospel according to …’ (EỦαγγέλιον κατά …). On the contrary, the incipits of some apocryphal gospels as well as the evidence from Papias (see below) prove that there was no uniformity in the original book titles, and that the term εỦαγγέλιον was not used as a designation for such books. See also Bovon, F., ‘The Synoptic Gospels and the Canonical Acts of the Apostles’, HTR 81 (1988) 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 373 note 3} ‘For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him …’ (48,8).

^{page 373 note 4} Acts 20. 35;1 Clem. 2. 8; 13. 1; 46. 8; ibid. 8. 2. Even the quotations of Jesus' sayings in 2 Clement, although they are drawn from a written source, are usually introduced as words of the Lord (3. 2; 4. 5; 5. 2–1; 6. 1; 8. 5; 9. 11; 12. 2); cf. also Polycarp Phil. 2. 3.

^{page 374 note 1} However, there is no particular tradition that is connected with the authority of the apostles. 1 Clem. 44 relates the offices of the church to the apostles, but in very general terms. 2 Pet 3. 2, where the apostles appear as guaranteeing the commandment of the Lord (μνησθναι … τς τν μν ντολς το κυρίου κα σωτρος), reflects the situation of a later time (probably after Marcion and Justin Martyr). Did. inscr. (διδαχἔ κυρίου διά τν δώδεκα άποστόλων) is difficult to date, but is most likely a title that was added later. On the entire question, see von Campenhausen, H., Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power (Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1969)Google Scholar; Koester, H., ‘La tradition apostolique et les origines du Gnosticisme’, RThPh 119 (1987) 1–16.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 2} The oldest witness for the teaching authority of the ‘elders’ (πρεσβύτεροι) is Papias of Hierapolis (in Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3. 39. 3–4). More abundant evidence comes from Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria; see Bornkamm, Günther, ‘ΠρεσβỦς κτλ.’, TWNT 6 (1959) 670–80Google Scholar; Campenhausen, von, Ecclesiastical Authority, 162–77.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 3} In the early church, prophets were not only concerned with predicting the future (e.g., Acts 11. 28; 21. 10–11; Rev 22. 6–7); they also occur often as instructors and church leaders, together with ‘teachers’ (διδάσκαλοι), cf. Acts 13. 1; Did. 10. 7; 11. 7–13. 7. Prophetic writings also claim authority for the regulation and the renewal of the life of the church; see the Revelation of John and the Shepherd of Hermas.

^{page 374 note 4} The date for his writings is usually given as some time between 100 and 150 CE.

^{page 374 note 5} Quoted in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3. 39. 14–16.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 6} It is worth noting that the incipit of the Apocryphon of James says that the book was written in ‘the Hebrew alphabet’. Papias' reference to Matthew writing in Hebrew may rest upon such a statement in the original incipit of the book.

^{page 375 note 1} Acts 20. 35;1 Clem. 13. 1–2; 46. 7–8.

^{page 375 note 2} This date was originally proposed by van Unnik, W., Evangelien aus dem Nilsand (New York: Scheffer, 1959) 93–101.Google Scholar Van Unnik's argument was that this writing contains gospel materials which are still dependent upon oral tradition. In spite of some criticisms of this early date (see Williams, F. E., ‘The Apocryphon of James’, in Attridge, H. W., ed., Nag Hammadi Codex 1 [NHS 22; Leiden: Brill, 1985] 26–7)Google Scholar, van Unnik's arguments have now been confirmed by Cameron, R., Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James (HTS 34; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 91–124.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 3} Vielhauer, Ph., Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975) 762.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 4} See on this entire question the chapter ‘Remembering the Words of Jesus’ in Cameron, , Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James, 91–124.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 5} See on this latter point, Koester, H., ‘La tradition apostolique et les origines du Gnosticisme’, RThPh 119 (1987) 1–16.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 6} Hengel, (Evangelienüberschriften, 8–18)Google Scholar argues that Papias already presupposes the title EỦαγγέλιον κατά … with the implied meaning that this is the one gospel according to Matthew, Mark, etc. This is anachronistic. That the one ‘gospel’ was extant in different written ‘gospels’ under apostolic names became a problem only after Marcion (see below). For Papias' time, all emphasis lies upon the apostolic names, no matter what title appeared in the incipit of a particular book.

^{page 375 note 7} The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 147–63.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 1} The phrase τò εύαγγέλιόν μου appears in Rom 2. 16 (Rom 16. 25 is part of a secondary addition to Paul's letter); τò εỦαγγέλιον ήμν is found in 2 Cor 4. 3; 1 Thess 1. 5; 2 Thess 1. 8; 2. 14, but see also Gal 1. 11. Since Marcion did not know the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Tim 2. 8 is not relevant.

^{page 376 note 2} The evidence assembled by Hengel (Evangelienüberschriften) to demonstrate the early use of this title for the canonical gospels consists exclusively of materials from the second half, or even the very last decades, of the second century. Hengel simply projects these data back into the beginning of the second century and assumes that no changes took place in the course of the century. For a critique of Hengel's thesis, see Bovon, ‘The Synoptic Gospels’, especially p. 23.

^{page 376 note 3} Harnack, Adolf von, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (reprint: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960) 184^*.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 1} On Justin about Manion, , see I Apol. 26.Google Scholar 5–8; 58. 1–2. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4. 11. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 2} The designation occurs rarely in 1 Apol. (only 66. 3 and 67. 3); but cf. also I Apol. 33. 5: ‘As those who remembered (οά άπομνημονεύσαντες) everything about the savior Jesus Christ have taught’ (a quote of Luke 1. 31 follows). All other occurrences of the term are found in Dial. 100–107 where Justin systematically uses gospel materials for his interpretation of Psalm 21 (Dial. 100.4;101. 3; 102. 5;103.6, 8;104. 1;105. 1, 5, 6;106. 1, 3, 4;107. 1).

^{page 377 note 3} This suggestion was first made by Köpke, E., Über die Gattung άπομνημονεύματα in der griechischen Literatur (Programm der Ritterakademie zu Brandenburg, 1857).Google Scholar It has been repeated by most authors, because the name seemed to be ‘well-chosen and very appropriate in order to give to the educated Greeks the right ideas about the character of the gospels’ (Zahn, , Kanon, 1. 471Google Scholar ). However, the term was not used for philosophers' memoirs before the Second Sophistic in the 2nd century C. E. The primary older example commonly cited is Xenophon's Memorabilia of Socrates (this Latin title was used for the first time by Johann Lenklau in the year 1569 for the Latin version of his edition of Xenophon). The term άπομνημονεύματα – Latin Commentarii (the latter first in Aulus Gellius [2nd century CE] Noct. Att. 14. 3. 5: quod Xenophon, in libris quos dictorum atque factorum Socrates commentarios composuit) does not appear in Xenophon's writings, but only as a title of his work in later manuscripts, ενοϕάντος Σωκράτους άπομνημονευμάτων βιβλίον πρτον, and in the pseud-epigraphical letter #18 of Xenophon from the time of the Second Sophistic (πεποίημαι δέ τινα άπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους, [11] ed. Hercher, , Epist. Graec., 623Google Scholar ); cf. also Diog. L. 4. 2; 7. 4, 36, 163. Xenophon uses the term διαμνημονεύω once in his Memorabilia (τουτòν δά γράψω òπόσα ἃν διαμνημονεύω, 1. 3. 1). That Justin should have known this term from its very occasional use in the Second Sophistic is possible. But it is highly unlikely that his choice of the term as a designation for the gospels was dependent upon this usage.

^{page 378 note 1} Such writings did not enjoy a special technical designation; they could be called by several terms, such as ύπομνήματα (= commentarii), συγγράμματα, see LSJ, svv.

^{page 378 note 2} Acts 20. 35; 1 Clem. 13. 1; cf. 46. 7; Polycarp, Phil. 2. 3Google Scholar; cf. 2 Clem. 17. 3; cf. Koester, , Synoptische Überlieferung, 4–6Google Scholar; see above.

^{page 378 note 3} Cf. Heard, R., ‘The άπομνημονεύματα in Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus’, NTS 1 (1954–1955) 122–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This hypothesis has been criticized by Hyldahl, Nils, ‘Hegesipps Hypomnemata’, StTh 14 (1960) 70–113.Google Scholar However, Hyldahl does not appreciate the differences between Ủπομνήματα, συγγράμματα, and άπομνημονεύματα, nor the fact that the latter term occurs relatively late in Greek literature; see above n. 1, p. 377.

^{page 378 note 4} Abramowski, Luise, ‘Die “Erinnerungen der Apostel” bei Justin’, in: Stuhlmacher, Peter, ed., Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1983) 341–53.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 5} ibid., 352.

^{page 378 note 6} See ibid., 350. Abramowski (p. 353) agrees that Justin must have known Papias or analogous traditions, because his reference to the ‘Remembrances of Peter’ in Dial. 106. 3 in the context of a citation from Mark (3. 16–17) shows that he was familiar with the tradition which connected the Gospel of Mark with Peter like the Elder of Papias (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3. 39. 15). However, the general observation that second-century authors prefer the oral tradition and do not value the written documents very highly, is no longer valid for Justin (pace Osborn, E. F., Justin Martyr [BHTh 47; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1973] 125–6).Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 1} 1 Apol. 32. However, Justin does not ascribe the inspiration to the text of the Septuagint translation or to the Hebrew text, but rather to the prophets themselves whose words were recorded in Hebrew and translated into Greek.

^{page 379 note 2} Justin uses the quotation formula ‘it is written’ also in connection with the ‘Memoirs of the Apostles’ (Dial. 103. 6, 8;104.1;105.6;106.3, 4; 107. 1).

^{page 379 note 3} On Justin against Marcion, , see 1 Apol. 26. 8Google Scholar (Syntagma against all heresies); Irenaeus, Adu. haer. 4. 6. 9Google Scholar; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4. 11. 8Google Scholar (Syntagma against Marcion).

^{page 379 note 4} In addition to numerous allusions to Paul's letters, there are several explicit references in 1 Clement: 32. 5–6 = Rom 1. 29–32; 1 Clem. 37. 5 = 1 Cor 12. 21–22; 1 Clem. 47. 1–3 = Phil 4. 15; cf. 1 Clem. 49. 5 = 1 Cor 13. 5. With respect to the debated question of the dependence of 1 Peter (also written in Rome) upon Paul, see Beare, Francis Wright, The First Epistle of Peter (3rd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1970) 28–9, 212–16Google Scholar (cf. also the literature cited on p. 28, n. 1).

^{page 380 note 1} Justin, 1 Apol. 12. 10Google Scholar: ‘It is the work of God to announce something before it happens and then to demonstrate that it happened as it was predicted.’ In a brilliant formulation, this principle occurs in Tertullian, Apologeticum 20. 3Google Scholar: testimonium divinitatis veritas divinationis (The testimony of divinity is the truth of divination’).

^{page 381 note 1} I wish to acknowledge gratefully a suggestion that was made by Professor Henry Chadwick at the annual meeting of the Societas Novi Testamenti Studiorum in Cambridge in August 1988. He pointed to the likelihood that the liturgical reading of written gospels had been established by that time. Such readings could have been introduced as ‘the gospel’. This might have given rise to a more common understanding of the εάαγγέλιον as a written document. In this case, Marcion would have elevated such popular understanding to a theologically conscious literary usage.