The four authentic Gospels were recognized by the Church very early as the four and only four Gospels worthy to be read in Church services. Ancient writers even wrote down oral traditions about which apostles or co-workers of apostles were the authorities behind the four Gospels. For example, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, Exposition of the Logia of the Lord (circa AD 100–130) wrote: “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.… So then Matthew in Hebrew dialect [Hebraḯdi dialéktōͅ] compiled the oracles [lógia], and each [person] interpreted them as he was able” (Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσε δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος). Hebraḯdi dialéktōͅ can refer to either the Hebrew language (in the strict sense) or to the Aramaic language as spoken by Jews. The phrase might possibly refer to a composition in the Greek language that was written in a Hebraic, Jewish, or Semitic style. In antiquity, Jewish Aramaic was frequently referred to as “Hebrew.” There are several reasons why Aramaic is the more likely meaning. The idea of a Greek-language work in a Semitic style is probably excluded by the statement that “each [person] interpreted them as he was able.” Some kind of interpretation might be required because of a Semitic style of Greek, but “interpreted” most likely refers to actual translation from Aramaic to Greek. Indeed there are several ancient references to an original Semitic-language gospel associated with the Apostle Matthew. The expression lógia could refer to sayings, to both sayings and accounts of actions, and to scriptures. Papias most likely is referring to an early collection of gospel sayings and possibly accounts of actions compiled by the Apostle Matthew in Aramaic that was translated by various individuals into Greek. The final canonical Gospel of Matthew in Greek may have been completed by the Apostle Matthew's disciples, similarly to how the Gospel of John is a result of both the apostle himself and a disciple or disciples of the apostle. All four Gospels are based on authentic eyewitness testimony from those who knew the Lord directly. Several late first-century or second-century writers had close connections with apostles or disciples of apostles: such as Saint Clement, Bishop of Rome; Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch; and Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who wrote in the later second century, may have had direct access to some of these traditions through Polycarp. On Saint Justin Martyr, see Larry Hurtado's comments below.
FROM LARRY HURTADO'S BLOG
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/
APRIL 10, 2018
Justin Martyr and the Gospels
...
... let’s have a look at Justin, whose major writings to consider are his Apology (addressed the Emperor Antoninus Pius) and his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (presented as a debate/discussion between Justin and three Jewish interlocutors about the validity of the Christian faith, particularly claims about Jesus).[1] ...
Justin’s frequent use of the term apomnēmoneumata (15x, often translated “memoirs”) comes in for attention. Nongbri seems to doubt that we can view the term as referring to the familiar NT Gospels. Well, it’s surely important to note that Justin actually identifies the writings in question as the writings also called “gospels” (ἅ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, 1 Apology 66.3). So, clearly, Justin knows this term as a label for certain specific texts. For him the term “gospel” is the Christian message and the tradition about Jesus, to be sure, but the term has also come to designate a certain set of texts.
Moreover, in Dialogue 103.8, Justin refers to these “memoirs” as “composed by his [Jesus’] apostles and those who accompanied them.” This implies that Justin not only knew certain texts as “gospels,” but also thought of them as composed/authored by specific individuals. Indeed, his reference to their authors as “apostles and those who accompanied them” suggests to many scholars that Justin has in mind here our familiar NT Gospels, two of which were (at a very early point) ascribed to apostles (Matthew and John), and two of which were ascribed to figures linked with apostles (Mark, linked to Peter; and Luke, linked to Paul).[2]
One might ask why Justin refers to these texts as “apomnēmoneumata,” and the obvious answer is that both of the writings in which he uses the term are posed as addressing non-Christians, for whom the term had an established and respected meaning for a genre of literature (whereas, “gospel” did not). As Oskar Skarsaune observed, apomnēmoneumata had an association with Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates.[3] The term didn’t designate loose notes or sub-literary texts, but, instead, connoted texts that conveyed the authentic remembrances of a great teacher, whether Socrates or (for Justin) Jesus.
Moreover, detailed studies of Justin’s use of his scriptures (which became the “Old Testament”) and early Christian material shows that he sometimes quotes the Gospels directly, and at other points uses writings that appear to have been composed by drawing upon the NT Gospels (and perhaps also other texts such as Gospel of Peter).[4] This is a somewhat similar to Justin’s use of “Old Testament” scriptures, which involved both direct (sometimes extended) citation and also the use of “testimony sources” (Christian compilations of “proof texts” and accompanying interpretations).[5]
In sum, Justin (writing mid-second century CE) gives us what I take to be evidence that (1) certain texts had come to be known in Christian circles as “gospels,” (2) these texts were regarded as composed by known figures of apostolic standing or linkage, (3) these texts were among those read in the worship gatherings of Christians (1 Apology 67.3), which made them what we may call the corporate property of these circles, and (4) these texts enjoyed a particular value and authority.[6] ...
[1] For those who can handle Greek, Edgar J. Goodspeed (ed.), Die ältesten Apologeten: Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914; reprint 1984) is a handy resource; but especially for Justin’s Apology see now Denis Minns and Paul Parvis (eds.), Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Older English translations of Justin’s works are in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (orig. 1885; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
[2] E. g., Oskar Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, eds. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 72 (53-76). This essay is essential reading for any view of Justin’s use of the Gospels and other texts.
[3] Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” 71-72. “Justin evidently sees considerable argumentative value in the fact that these Memoirs were put into writing at an early stage, by Jesus’ closest disciples, the apostles, or by their immediate followers” (73, emphasis his).
[4] See the full discussion in Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” 64-74. In the same volume, see Paul Foster, “The Relationship between the Writings of Justin Martyr and the So-Called Gospel of Peter,” 104-12. And also see C. E. Hill, “Was John’s Gospel among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs?” 88-94, arguing cogently “yes.”
[5] Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” 55-61.
[6] See now Brian J. Wright, Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017).
...