At 1 Apology 66.3, the first instance of the noun in this text, Justin also calls these ἀπομνημονεύματα gospels; at Dialogue 100.2, only a few lines before his first mention of the ἀπομνημονεύματα in this text, he cites Matthew 11.25-27 = Luke 10.21-22 as having been written in the gospel; thereafter in the Dialogue he refers to such writings only as ἀπομνημονεύματα.
For the purposes of this thread I will translate ἀπομνημονεύματα as memorabilia. Ἀπομνημονεύματα was, in fact, the Greek title of Xenophon's Memorabilia, a Latin term which was not applied to that work until the medieval period, since in antiquity in Latin it was known as the Commentarii. But the term memorabilia will be a useful one to use as a translation here and now, since it retains the mem- root, meaning memory or remembrance, which corresponds to the μνημ- root at the heart of the Greek ἀπομνημονεύματα. Also, it helps to distinguish this Greek term from a similar one, ὑπομνήματα, built a bit differently on top of that same μνημ- root. Thus, while you are probably accustomed to seeing the gospel texts Justin Martyr is referring to translated as "memoirs," I will be using "memorabilia," since "memoirs" is also the term used to translate, for instance, the Ὑπομνήματα of Hegesippus. To summarize:
ὑπομνήματα = memoirs, Latin commentarii. [Link.]
ἀπομνημονεύματα = memorabilia, Latin commentarii. [Link.]
ἀπομνημονεύματα = memorabilia, Latin commentarii. [Link.]
(Yes, the same Latin term was used to translate both Greek terms, the distinction between which is quite fuzzy.)
I mention Xenophon because it is a fairly common supposition that Justin Martyr used the term ἀπομνημονεύματα of his gospel texts after the fashion of Xenophon's Ἀπομνημονεύματα (Memorabilia) of Socrates. Justin would, then — under the influence of the Second Sophistic — be attempting to elevate the status of those Christian texts which recounted the life and times of Jesus to that of a biographical outline of a philosopher.
There has been pushback to this idea, however:
Helmut Köster, Ancient Christian Gospels, page 39: 39 But this Latin title (= Memorabilia) was not used for Xenophon’s work in antiquity; it appears for the first time in the year 1569 in Johann Lenklau’s edition of Xenophon. In Plutarch and in Diodorus Siculus, ἀπομνημονεύματα means an anecdote that is heard or written down. The Latin equivalent of the Greek plural ἀπομνημονεύματα, commentarii, is first used for Xenophon’s writing in Aulus Gellius [2nd century CE] Noct. Att. 14.3.5 (quod Xenophon, in libris quos dictorum atque factorum Socrates commentarios composuit). The Greek term does not appear in Xenophon’s writings, but only as a title of his work in later manuscripts: “First Book of Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates” (Ξενοφῶντος Σωκράτους ἀπομνημονευμάτων βιβλίον πρῶτον), and in the pseudepigraphical letter #18 of Xenophon from the time of the Second Sophistic: “But I am composing some memoirs of Socrates” (πεποίημαι δέ τινα ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους). Xenophon himself uses the verb “to remember distinctly” (διαμνημονεύειν) once in this work: “I shall write that which I remember distinctly” (τούτων δὲ γράψω ο̒́ποσα ἂν διαμνημονεύω, 1.3.1).
Helmut Köster, From Jesus to the Gospels, pages 67-68: 67-68 This term has been explained as a title designed to raise these documents to the status of Greek memoirs of a philosopher. However, the term used by Justin, composed with the prefix ἀπο-, does not occur among the designations of philosophical memoirs.
Helmut Köster, From Jesus to the Gospels, pages 67-68: 67-68 This term has been explained as a title designed to raise these documents to the status of Greek memoirs of a philosopher. However, the term used by Justin, composed with the prefix ἀπο-, does not occur among the designations of philosophical memoirs.
Köster goes on to derive the term ἀπομνημονεύματα in Justin Martyr from Christian tradents' use of the verb μνημονεύω to cite the sayings of Jesus and from Papias' use of the corresponding verb, ἀπομνημονεύω, to describe Mark's writing down what he remembered of Peter's teachings involving what Jesus did or said. So Köster argues both a negative (Justin did not derive the term from the title of Xenophon's work about Socrates or from the titles of other memoirs concerning philosophers) and a positive (Justin did derive the term from the process described by Papias).
But the negative is probably to be discarded:
Wally V. Cirafesi & Gregory P. Fewster, “Justin’s ἀπομνημονεύματα and Ancient Greco-Roman Memoirs,” pages 5-6: In an article from 1989 (= “From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels,” in New Testament Studies, volume 35, number 3 (1989), pages 361–381) and, shortly after, in his book Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), Helmut Koester produced perhaps the most significant rebuttal to the idea that Justin used ἀπομνημονεύματα to invoke an association with Greek philosophical memoirs. In both works, he suggested that Justin was likely not aware of such an established literary genre, since apparently it was not until the Second Sophistic that Greek authors used ἀπομνημονεύματα to refer to works such as Xenophon’s Memorabilia. In 2004, French scholar Gabriella Aragione reexamined Koester’s argument and found problematic, in particular, his assertion that “the term used by Justin, composed with the prefix ἀπο- does not occur among the designations of philosophical memoirs.” Aragione argued to the contrary, that the use of the generic title ἀπομνημονεύματα was, in fact, firmly established in the second century CE, a point demonstrated particularly in the works of Pseudo-Aristides, Sextus Empiricus, Valerius Harpocration, and Aelius Theon, all of whom refer to Xenophon’s Memorabilia using ἀπομνημονεύματα. She thus concluded: “En effet, le genre littéraire des ἀπομνημονεύματα était répandu à l’époque de Justin: un examen attentif des sources le démontre aisément” (= Gabriella Aragione, “Justin, ‘philosophe’chrétien et les ‘mémoires des apôtres qui sont appelés évangiles,’” in Apocrypha, volume 15 (2004), page 55). [Link.]
I have collected texts in a range from before to after Justin's own period to demonstrate that the term ἀπομνημονεύματα was indeed used of philosophical memorabilia or memoirs during the period at issue, as early as Plutarch and gaining momentum throughout century II, both of the famous work by Xenophon and of other treatments of philosophical figures by other authors:
Plutarch, Life of Alcibiades 2.1-2a: 1 His character, in later life, displayed many inconsistencies and marked changes, as was natural amid his vast undertakings and varied fortunes. He was naturally a man of many strong passions, the mightiest of which were the love of rivalry and the love of preeminence, as is clear from the stories recorded of his childhood [τοῖς παιδικοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν]. 2a He was once hard pressed in wrestling, and to save himself from getting a fall, set his teeth in his opponent’s arms, where they clutched him, and was like to have bitten through them. His adversary, letting go his hold, cried, “You bite, Alcibiades, as women do!” “Not I,” said Alcibiades, “but as lions do.”
Plutarch, Life of Pompey 2.5-6: 5 But though he was so extremely cautious in such matters and on his guard, still he could not escape the censures of his enemies on this head, but was accused of illicit relations with married women, to gratify whom, it was said, he neglected and betrayed many public interests. As regards his simplicity and indifference in matters pertaining to the table, a story is told as follows [ἀπομνημόνευμα λέγεται τοιοῦτον]. 6 Once when he was sick and loathed his food, a physician prescribed a thrush for him. But when, on inquiry, his servants could not find one for sale, for it was past the season for them, and someone said they could be found at Lucullus’s, where they were kept the year round, “What, then,” said he, “if Lucullus were not luxurious must Pompey have died?” And paying no regard to the physician he took something that could easily be procured. This, however, was at a later time.
Plutarch, Life of Brutus 13.3: 3 Porcia, as has been said, was a daughter of Cato, and when Brutus, who was her cousin, took her to wife, she was not a virgin; she was, however, still very young, and had by her deceased husband a little son whose name was Bibulus, and a small book containing Memorabilia of Brutus was written by him and is still extant [καί τι βιβλίδιον μικρὸν ἀπομνημονευμάτων Βρούτου γεγραμμένον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ διασῴζεται].
Plutarch, Life of Brutus 27.3: 3 So he sent and invited Antony to become his friend, and then, stationing his forces about the city, secured the consulship, although he was still a mere youth, being in his twentieth year, as he himself has stated in his Memoirs. / 3 καὶ τὸν μὲν Ἀντώνιον πέμπων εἰς φιλίαν προὐκαλεῖτο, τὰς δὲ δυνάμεις τῇ πόλει περιστήσας, ὑπατείαν ἔλαβεν οὔπω πάνυ μειράκιον ὤν, ἀλλ' εἰκοστὸν ἄγων ἔτος, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν εἴρηκεν. (I am including this one on the list only to show how similar the term ὑπομνήματα can be. — Ben.)
Pseudo-Xenophon, Epistle 18.2: 2 Εἰ δὲ μὴ ἴητε, ἡμῖν μὲν ἦν ἀναγκαῖον γράφειν ὑμῖν. πεποίημαι δέ τινα Ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους. ὅταν οὖν μοι δόξῃ εὖ ἔχειν παντελῶς, διαπέμψομαι αὐτὰ καὶ ὑμῖν· Ἀριστίππῳ μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φαίδωνι ἐδόκει ἁρμόδιά τινα εἶναι. προσαγορεύσατε Σίμωνα τὸν σκυτοτόμον καὶ ἐπαινέσατε αὐτόν, ὅτι διατελεῖ προσέχων τοῖς Σωκράτους λόγοις καὶ οὔτε πενίαν οὔτε τὴν τέχνην πρόφασιν ποιεῖται τοῦ μὴ φιλοσοφεῖν, καθάπερ τινὲς τῶν ἄλλων μὴ βουλόμενοι λόγους καὶ τὰ ἐν λόγοις ἐξειδέναι τε καὶ θαυμάζειν.
Galen, In Hippocratis Librum VI Epidemiarum Commentarii VI, Kühn 17b, page 145, lines 8b-14: 8b-14 ἔνιοι μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐσχάτως εἰσὶν ἀβέλτεροι τοιοῦτοί τινες ὄντες, οἷον ὁ <Ζεῦξίς> φησιν ὑπὸ <Βακχείου> γεγράφθαι <Καλλιάνακτα> γεγονέναι τὸν <Ἡροφίλειον> ἐν τοῖς Ἀπομνημονεύμασιν <Ἡροφίλου> τε καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ· νοσοῦντος γάρ τινος, εἶτ' εἰπόντος τῷ <Καλλιάνακτι> «τεθνήξομαι,» φασὶν αὐτὸν ἐπιφωνῆσαι τόδε τὸ ἔπος. [Link.]
Galen, In Hippocratis Librum de Articulis et Galeni in Eum Commentarii IV, Kühn 18a, page 301, lines 4b-11 (translation mine): 4b-11a καίτοι τινὲς εἰς τοσοῦτον ἥκουσι σοφίας ὥστε τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος Οἰκονομικῶν μνημονεύειν, οἰόμενοι μαρτυρεῖν αὐτοῖς ἔθος εἶναι τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγου χρῆσθαι τῷ δέ συνδέσμῳ· διὰ τοῦτό φασιν ἄρχεσθαι τὸν Ξενοφῶντα τοῦ συγγράμματος οὕτως, «Ἤκουσα δέ ποτε αὐτοῦ,» φησὶ, «καὶ περὶ οἰκονομίας τοιάδε {μοὶ} διαλεγομένου,» μὴ γιγνώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο τῶν Σωκρατικῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων ἐστὶ τὸ ἔσχατον. / 4b-11a Indeed some have come to such a kind of wisdom that they bring to remembrance the Economics of Xenophon, supposing therefrom to testify that it was the custom of the ancients to make use of the conjunction “and” at the beginning of a volume; it is on this account that they say that Xenophon made a beginning of the writing thus, “And I heard him once dialoguing also concerning the economy in such a manner,” not knowing that this book is the last one of the Memorabilia of Socrates. [Link.]
Aelius Aristides, Ars Rhetorica 2.10.1.2: 2 ἐνίοτε δὲ ὁ Ξενοφῶν καὶ πρὶν αὐτὸ ὃ βούλεται εἰπεῖν, δι' αὐτοῦ τοῦ παραδείγματος εἰσάγει· καὶ αἱ κατασκευαὶ αὐτῶν ἄνευ παραδειγμάτων εἰσίν, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον, ὡς δῆλον μέν ἐστι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασι, μάλιστα δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἀπομνημονεύμασιν· ἐκεῖ γὰρ τὸν Σωκράτην ὃν τρόπον περὶ ἑκάστων διαλεγόμενον καὶ ἀποδεικνύντα ἕκαστα πεποίηκεν ἔστιν ἀνασκοπουμένῳ καταμαθεῖν, ὡς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον προῆκται.
Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata, apud L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, volume 2, page 66, lines 7b-16a: 7b-16a ἀσμενέστατα μέντοι αὐτὰ ἀπέφυγον, ὥσπερ λυττῶντά τινα καὶ ἄγριον δεσπότην ἀποδράς.> μύθου δὲ ὁποῖός ἐστι παρὰ Ἡροδότῳ τοῦ αὐλητοῦ, καὶ παρὰ Φιλίστῳ τοῦ ἵππου καὶ τῶν ἐν ἑκατέρῳ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ καὶ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ, καὶ ἐν τῇ εἰκοστῇ Θεοπόμπου τῶν Φιλιππικῶν ὁ τοῦ πολέμου καὶ τῆς ὕβρεως, ὃν ὁ Φίλιππος διεξέρχεται πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοκράτορας τῶν Χαλκιδέων, καὶ Ξενοφῶντος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων ὁ τοῦ κυνὸς καὶ τῶν προβάτων.
Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mathematicos 7.8: 8 πλὴν οἱ μὲν τοῦ φυσικοῦ μέρους προστάντες εἰσὶν οἵδε, τοῦ δὲ ἠθικοῦ μόνου ἐπεμελεῖτο Σωκράτης κατά γε τοὺς ἄλλους αὐτοῦ γνωρίμους, εἴγε καὶ ὁ Ξενοφῶν ἐν τοῖς Ἀπομνημονεύμασι ῥητῶς φησιν ἀπαρνεῖσθαι αὐτὸν τὸ φυσικὸν ὡς ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς καθεστηκὸς καὶ μόνον σχολάζειν τῷ ἠθικῷ ὡς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὄντι.
Harpocration, Lexicon in Decem Oratores Atticos, listing for δυσωποῦμαι: δυσωποῦμαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ φοβοῦμαι, Δημοσθένης Φιλιππικοῖς καὶ Ξενοφῶν ἐν βʹ Ἀπομνημονευμάτων. / “I am abashed,” instead of, “I am affrighted,” Demonsthenes in the Philippics and Xenophon in the second of the Memorabilia (= 2.1.4).
Origen, Against Celsus 2.13: 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 Memoirs [ὑπομνημάτων] concerning Jesus [περὶ Ἰησοῦ] 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. (I am including this one on the list, too, only to show how similar the term ὑπομνήματα can be. — Ben.)
Origen, Against Celsus 6.41: 41 In the next place, as if he had forgotten that it was his object to write against the Christians, he says that, “having become acquainted with one Dionysius, an Egyptian musician, the latter told him, with respect to magic arts, that it was only over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals that they had any power, while on philosophers they were unable to produce any effect, because they were careful to observe a healthy manner of life.” If, now, it had been our purpose to treat of magic, we could have added a few remarks in addition to what we have already said on this topic; but since it is only the more important matters which we have to notice in answer to Celsus, we shall say of magic, that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were ever led captive by it or not, can read what has been written by Moiragenes regarding the Memorabilia of the magician and philosopher Apollonius of Tyana [τῶν Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Τυανέως μάγου καὶ φιλοσόφου ἀπομνημονευμάτων], in which this individual, who is not a Christian, but a philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were won over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him as a sorcerer; and among these, I think, he especially mentioned Euphrates and a certain Epicurean. Now we, on the other hand, affirm, and have learned by experience, that they who worship the God of all things in conformity with the Christianity which comes by Jesus, and who live according to His Gospel, using night and day, continuously and becomingly, the prescribed prayers, are not carried away either by magic or demons. For verily “the angel of the Lord encamps round about those who fear Him, and delivers them from all evil” (= Psalm 34.7). And the angels of the little ones in the Church, who are appointed to watch over them, are said always to behold the face of their Father who is in heaven (= Matthew 18.10), whatever be the meaning of face or of behold.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 3.97, lines 31-42: 31-42 Even the excellent Xenophon in the Memorabilia [ὁ καλὸς Ξενοφῶν ἐν Ἀπομνημονεύμασι] (= 2.1.30) knows of the use of snow in drinking, and Chares of Mitylene in his Records of Alexander (= Müller, fragment 11) tells how to keep snow, when he recounts the siege of the Indian capital Petra. He says that Alexander dug thirty refrigerating pits which he filled with snow and covered with oak boughs. In this way, he says, snow will last a long time.
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.20 (translation slightly modified from R. D. Hicks): 20 Anniceris the Cyrenaic happened to be present and ransomed him for twenty minae — according to others the sum was thirty minae — and dispatched him to Athens to his friends, who immediately remitted the money. But Anniceris declined it, saying that the Athenians were not the only people worthy of the privilege of providing for Plato. Others assert that Dion sent the money and that Anniceris would not take it, but bought for Plato the little garden which is in the Academy. Pollis, however, is stated to have been defeated by Chabrias and afterwards to have been drowned at Helice, his treatment of the philosopher having provoked the wrath of heaven, as Favorinus says in the first book of his Memorabilia. / 20 λυτροῦται δὴ αὐτὸν κατὰ τύχην παρὼν Ἀννίκερις ὁ Κυρηναῖος εἴκοσι μνῶν — οἱ δὲ τριάκοντα — καὶ ἀναπέμπει Ἀθήναζε πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους. οἱ δ᾽ εὐθὺς τἀργύριον ἐξέπεμψαν· ὅπερ οὐ προσήκατο εἰπὼν μὴ μόνους ἐκείνους ἀξίους εἶναι Πλάτωνος κήδεσθαι. ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ Δίωνα ἀποστεῖλαί φασι τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὸν μὴ προσέσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ κηπίδιον αὐτῷ τὸ ἐν Ἀκαδημείᾳ πρίασθαι. τὸν μέντοι Πόλλιν λόγος ὑπό τε Χαβρίου ἡττηθῆναι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν Ἑλίκῃ καταποντωθῆναι τοῦ δαιμονίου μηνίσαντος διὰ τὸν φιλόσοφον, ὡς καὶ Φαβωρῖνός φησιν ἐν πρώτῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων.
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.25 (translation slightly modified from R. D. Hicks): 25 He was also the first philosopher who controverted the speech of Lysias, the son of Cephalus, which he has set out word for word in the Phaedrus, and the first to study the significance of grammar. And, as he was the first to attack the views of almost all his predecessors, the question is raised why he makes no mention of Democritus. Neanthes of Cyzicus says that, on his going to Olympia, the eyes of all the Greeks were turned towards him, and there he met Dion, who was about to make his expedition against Dionysius. In the first book of the Memorabilia of Favorinus there is a statement that Mithradates the Persian set up a statue of Plato in the Academy and inscribed upon it these words: “Mithradates the Persian, the son of Orontobates, dedicated to the Muses a likeness of Plato made by Silanion.” / 25 καὶ πρῶτος τῶν φιλοσόφων ἀντεῖπε πρὸς τὸν λόγον τὸν Λυσίου τοῦ Κεφάλου ἐκθέμενος αὐτὸν κατὰ λέξιν ἐν τῷ Φαίδρῳ. καὶ πρῶτος ἐθεώρησε τῆς γραμματικῆς τὴν δύναμιν. πρῶτός τε ἀντειρηκὼς σχεδὸν ἅπασι τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ζητεῖται διὰ τί μὴ ἐμνημόνευσε Δημοκρίτου. τούτου φησὶ Νεάνθης ὁ Κυζικηνὸς εἰς Ὀλύμπια ἀνιόντος τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἅπαντας ἐπιστραφῆναι εἰς αὐτόν: ὅτε καὶ Δίωνι συνέμιξε μέλλοντι στρατεύειν ἐπὶ Διονύσιον. ἐν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων Φαβωρίνου φέρεται ὅτι Μιθραδάτης ὁ Πέρσης ἀνδριάντα Πλάτωνος ἀνέθετο εἰς τὴν Ἀκαδήμειαν καὶ ἐπέγραψε· «Μιθραδάτης Ὀροντοβάτου Πέρσης Μούσαις εἰκόνα ἀνέθηκε Πλάτωνος, ἣν Σιλανίων ἐποίησε.»
Plutarch, Life of Pompey 2.5-6: 5 But though he was so extremely cautious in such matters and on his guard, still he could not escape the censures of his enemies on this head, but was accused of illicit relations with married women, to gratify whom, it was said, he neglected and betrayed many public interests. As regards his simplicity and indifference in matters pertaining to the table, a story is told as follows [ἀπομνημόνευμα λέγεται τοιοῦτον]. 6 Once when he was sick and loathed his food, a physician prescribed a thrush for him. But when, on inquiry, his servants could not find one for sale, for it was past the season for them, and someone said they could be found at Lucullus’s, where they were kept the year round, “What, then,” said he, “if Lucullus were not luxurious must Pompey have died?” And paying no regard to the physician he took something that could easily be procured. This, however, was at a later time.
Plutarch, Life of Brutus 13.3: 3 Porcia, as has been said, was a daughter of Cato, and when Brutus, who was her cousin, took her to wife, she was not a virgin; she was, however, still very young, and had by her deceased husband a little son whose name was Bibulus, and a small book containing Memorabilia of Brutus was written by him and is still extant [καί τι βιβλίδιον μικρὸν ἀπομνημονευμάτων Βρούτου γεγραμμένον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ διασῴζεται].
Plutarch, Life of Brutus 27.3: 3 So he sent and invited Antony to become his friend, and then, stationing his forces about the city, secured the consulship, although he was still a mere youth, being in his twentieth year, as he himself has stated in his Memoirs. / 3 καὶ τὸν μὲν Ἀντώνιον πέμπων εἰς φιλίαν προὐκαλεῖτο, τὰς δὲ δυνάμεις τῇ πόλει περιστήσας, ὑπατείαν ἔλαβεν οὔπω πάνυ μειράκιον ὤν, ἀλλ' εἰκοστὸν ἄγων ἔτος, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν εἴρηκεν. (I am including this one on the list only to show how similar the term ὑπομνήματα can be. — Ben.)
Pseudo-Xenophon, Epistle 18.2: 2 Εἰ δὲ μὴ ἴητε, ἡμῖν μὲν ἦν ἀναγκαῖον γράφειν ὑμῖν. πεποίημαι δέ τινα Ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους. ὅταν οὖν μοι δόξῃ εὖ ἔχειν παντελῶς, διαπέμψομαι αὐτὰ καὶ ὑμῖν· Ἀριστίππῳ μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φαίδωνι ἐδόκει ἁρμόδιά τινα εἶναι. προσαγορεύσατε Σίμωνα τὸν σκυτοτόμον καὶ ἐπαινέσατε αὐτόν, ὅτι διατελεῖ προσέχων τοῖς Σωκράτους λόγοις καὶ οὔτε πενίαν οὔτε τὴν τέχνην πρόφασιν ποιεῖται τοῦ μὴ φιλοσοφεῖν, καθάπερ τινὲς τῶν ἄλλων μὴ βουλόμενοι λόγους καὶ τὰ ἐν λόγοις ἐξειδέναι τε καὶ θαυμάζειν.
Galen, In Hippocratis Librum VI Epidemiarum Commentarii VI, Kühn 17b, page 145, lines 8b-14: 8b-14 ἔνιοι μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐσχάτως εἰσὶν ἀβέλτεροι τοιοῦτοί τινες ὄντες, οἷον ὁ <Ζεῦξίς> φησιν ὑπὸ <Βακχείου> γεγράφθαι <Καλλιάνακτα> γεγονέναι τὸν <Ἡροφίλειον> ἐν τοῖς Ἀπομνημονεύμασιν <Ἡροφίλου> τε καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ· νοσοῦντος γάρ τινος, εἶτ' εἰπόντος τῷ <Καλλιάνακτι> «τεθνήξομαι,» φασὶν αὐτὸν ἐπιφωνῆσαι τόδε τὸ ἔπος. [Link.]
Galen, In Hippocratis Librum de Articulis et Galeni in Eum Commentarii IV, Kühn 18a, page 301, lines 4b-11 (translation mine): 4b-11a καίτοι τινὲς εἰς τοσοῦτον ἥκουσι σοφίας ὥστε τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος Οἰκονομικῶν μνημονεύειν, οἰόμενοι μαρτυρεῖν αὐτοῖς ἔθος εἶναι τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγου χρῆσθαι τῷ δέ συνδέσμῳ· διὰ τοῦτό φασιν ἄρχεσθαι τὸν Ξενοφῶντα τοῦ συγγράμματος οὕτως, «Ἤκουσα δέ ποτε αὐτοῦ,» φησὶ, «καὶ περὶ οἰκονομίας τοιάδε {μοὶ} διαλεγομένου,» μὴ γιγνώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο τῶν Σωκρατικῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων ἐστὶ τὸ ἔσχατον. / 4b-11a Indeed some have come to such a kind of wisdom that they bring to remembrance the Economics of Xenophon, supposing therefrom to testify that it was the custom of the ancients to make use of the conjunction “and” at the beginning of a volume; it is on this account that they say that Xenophon made a beginning of the writing thus, “And I heard him once dialoguing also concerning the economy in such a manner,” not knowing that this book is the last one of the Memorabilia of Socrates. [Link.]
Aelius Aristides, Ars Rhetorica 2.10.1.2: 2 ἐνίοτε δὲ ὁ Ξενοφῶν καὶ πρὶν αὐτὸ ὃ βούλεται εἰπεῖν, δι' αὐτοῦ τοῦ παραδείγματος εἰσάγει· καὶ αἱ κατασκευαὶ αὐτῶν ἄνευ παραδειγμάτων εἰσίν, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον, ὡς δῆλον μέν ἐστι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασι, μάλιστα δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἀπομνημονεύμασιν· ἐκεῖ γὰρ τὸν Σωκράτην ὃν τρόπον περὶ ἑκάστων διαλεγόμενον καὶ ἀποδεικνύντα ἕκαστα πεποίηκεν ἔστιν ἀνασκοπουμένῳ καταμαθεῖν, ὡς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον προῆκται.
Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata, apud L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, volume 2, page 66, lines 7b-16a: 7b-16a ἀσμενέστατα μέντοι αὐτὰ ἀπέφυγον, ὥσπερ λυττῶντά τινα καὶ ἄγριον δεσπότην ἀποδράς.> μύθου δὲ ὁποῖός ἐστι παρὰ Ἡροδότῳ τοῦ αὐλητοῦ, καὶ παρὰ Φιλίστῳ τοῦ ἵππου καὶ τῶν ἐν ἑκατέρῳ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ καὶ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ, καὶ ἐν τῇ εἰκοστῇ Θεοπόμπου τῶν Φιλιππικῶν ὁ τοῦ πολέμου καὶ τῆς ὕβρεως, ὃν ὁ Φίλιππος διεξέρχεται πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοκράτορας τῶν Χαλκιδέων, καὶ Ξενοφῶντος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων ὁ τοῦ κυνὸς καὶ τῶν προβάτων.
Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mathematicos 7.8: 8 πλὴν οἱ μὲν τοῦ φυσικοῦ μέρους προστάντες εἰσὶν οἵδε, τοῦ δὲ ἠθικοῦ μόνου ἐπεμελεῖτο Σωκράτης κατά γε τοὺς ἄλλους αὐτοῦ γνωρίμους, εἴγε καὶ ὁ Ξενοφῶν ἐν τοῖς Ἀπομνημονεύμασι ῥητῶς φησιν ἀπαρνεῖσθαι αὐτὸν τὸ φυσικὸν ὡς ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς καθεστηκὸς καὶ μόνον σχολάζειν τῷ ἠθικῷ ὡς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὄντι.
Harpocration, Lexicon in Decem Oratores Atticos, listing for δυσωποῦμαι: δυσωποῦμαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ φοβοῦμαι, Δημοσθένης Φιλιππικοῖς καὶ Ξενοφῶν ἐν βʹ Ἀπομνημονευμάτων. / “I am abashed,” instead of, “I am affrighted,” Demonsthenes in the Philippics and Xenophon in the second of the Memorabilia (= 2.1.4).
Origen, Against Celsus 2.13: 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 Memoirs [ὑπομνημάτων] concerning Jesus [περὶ Ἰησοῦ] 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. (I am including this one on the list, too, only to show how similar the term ὑπομνήματα can be. — Ben.)
Origen, Against Celsus 6.41: 41 In the next place, as if he had forgotten that it was his object to write against the Christians, he says that, “having become acquainted with one Dionysius, an Egyptian musician, the latter told him, with respect to magic arts, that it was only over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals that they had any power, while on philosophers they were unable to produce any effect, because they were careful to observe a healthy manner of life.” If, now, it had been our purpose to treat of magic, we could have added a few remarks in addition to what we have already said on this topic; but since it is only the more important matters which we have to notice in answer to Celsus, we shall say of magic, that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were ever led captive by it or not, can read what has been written by Moiragenes regarding the Memorabilia of the magician and philosopher Apollonius of Tyana [τῶν Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Τυανέως μάγου καὶ φιλοσόφου ἀπομνημονευμάτων], in which this individual, who is not a Christian, but a philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were won over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him as a sorcerer; and among these, I think, he especially mentioned Euphrates and a certain Epicurean. Now we, on the other hand, affirm, and have learned by experience, that they who worship the God of all things in conformity with the Christianity which comes by Jesus, and who live according to His Gospel, using night and day, continuously and becomingly, the prescribed prayers, are not carried away either by magic or demons. For verily “the angel of the Lord encamps round about those who fear Him, and delivers them from all evil” (= Psalm 34.7). And the angels of the little ones in the Church, who are appointed to watch over them, are said always to behold the face of their Father who is in heaven (= Matthew 18.10), whatever be the meaning of face or of behold.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 3.97, lines 31-42: 31-42 Even the excellent Xenophon in the Memorabilia [ὁ καλὸς Ξενοφῶν ἐν Ἀπομνημονεύμασι] (= 2.1.30) knows of the use of snow in drinking, and Chares of Mitylene in his Records of Alexander (= Müller, fragment 11) tells how to keep snow, when he recounts the siege of the Indian capital Petra. He says that Alexander dug thirty refrigerating pits which he filled with snow and covered with oak boughs. In this way, he says, snow will last a long time.
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.20 (translation slightly modified from R. D. Hicks): 20 Anniceris the Cyrenaic happened to be present and ransomed him for twenty minae — according to others the sum was thirty minae — and dispatched him to Athens to his friends, who immediately remitted the money. But Anniceris declined it, saying that the Athenians were not the only people worthy of the privilege of providing for Plato. Others assert that Dion sent the money and that Anniceris would not take it, but bought for Plato the little garden which is in the Academy. Pollis, however, is stated to have been defeated by Chabrias and afterwards to have been drowned at Helice, his treatment of the philosopher having provoked the wrath of heaven, as Favorinus says in the first book of his Memorabilia. / 20 λυτροῦται δὴ αὐτὸν κατὰ τύχην παρὼν Ἀννίκερις ὁ Κυρηναῖος εἴκοσι μνῶν — οἱ δὲ τριάκοντα — καὶ ἀναπέμπει Ἀθήναζε πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους. οἱ δ᾽ εὐθὺς τἀργύριον ἐξέπεμψαν· ὅπερ οὐ προσήκατο εἰπὼν μὴ μόνους ἐκείνους ἀξίους εἶναι Πλάτωνος κήδεσθαι. ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ Δίωνα ἀποστεῖλαί φασι τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὸν μὴ προσέσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ κηπίδιον αὐτῷ τὸ ἐν Ἀκαδημείᾳ πρίασθαι. τὸν μέντοι Πόλλιν λόγος ὑπό τε Χαβρίου ἡττηθῆναι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν Ἑλίκῃ καταποντωθῆναι τοῦ δαιμονίου μηνίσαντος διὰ τὸν φιλόσοφον, ὡς καὶ Φαβωρῖνός φησιν ἐν πρώτῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων.
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.25 (translation slightly modified from R. D. Hicks): 25 He was also the first philosopher who controverted the speech of Lysias, the son of Cephalus, which he has set out word for word in the Phaedrus, and the first to study the significance of grammar. And, as he was the first to attack the views of almost all his predecessors, the question is raised why he makes no mention of Democritus. Neanthes of Cyzicus says that, on his going to Olympia, the eyes of all the Greeks were turned towards him, and there he met Dion, who was about to make his expedition against Dionysius. In the first book of the Memorabilia of Favorinus there is a statement that Mithradates the Persian set up a statue of Plato in the Academy and inscribed upon it these words: “Mithradates the Persian, the son of Orontobates, dedicated to the Muses a likeness of Plato made by Silanion.” / 25 καὶ πρῶτος τῶν φιλοσόφων ἀντεῖπε πρὸς τὸν λόγον τὸν Λυσίου τοῦ Κεφάλου ἐκθέμενος αὐτὸν κατὰ λέξιν ἐν τῷ Φαίδρῳ. καὶ πρῶτος ἐθεώρησε τῆς γραμματικῆς τὴν δύναμιν. πρῶτός τε ἀντειρηκὼς σχεδὸν ἅπασι τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ζητεῖται διὰ τί μὴ ἐμνημόνευσε Δημοκρίτου. τούτου φησὶ Νεάνθης ὁ Κυζικηνὸς εἰς Ὀλύμπια ἀνιόντος τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἅπαντας ἐπιστραφῆναι εἰς αὐτόν: ὅτε καὶ Δίωνι συνέμιξε μέλλοντι στρατεύειν ἐπὶ Διονύσιον. ἐν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων Φαβωρίνου φέρεται ὅτι Μιθραδάτης ὁ Πέρσης ἀνδριάντα Πλάτωνος ἀνέθετο εἰς τὴν Ἀκαδήμειαν καὶ ἐπέγραψε· «Μιθραδάτης Ὀροντοβάτου Πέρσης Μούσαις εἰκόνα ἀνέθηκε Πλάτωνος, ἣν Σιλανίων ἐποίησε.»
The root, meaning "memory," is not to be ignored:
Denis M. Searby, “The Unmentionable Greek Apothegm,” page 9: The word ἀπομνημόνευμα (apomnēmoneuma) derives from the strengthening prefix ἀπο (cf. note 4 above), the verb μνημονεύω (remember), and the common ending -μα signifying the result of a process (etc.): a thing to be especially remembered. It may be rendered as memoir, mention, recollection, reminiscence.... Remembrance or memory is the key concept; an apomnēmoneuma is a record of some words or some incident worth remembering.... The key thing is that the apomnēmoneuma is presented as something remembered, something historical, even if, in fact, one may question its historicity; it need not be witty or pointed, just memorable. The apomnēmoneuma is longer than the apothegm or chreia, even if the latter is defined as a short apomnēmoneuma. Apomnēmoneumata is a relatively common word in titles, occurring most famously as the title of Xenophon’s recollections of Socrates. Both Athenaeus and Plutarch cite various works by this title, as does Diogenes Laertius; by far the most important for the latter is Favorinus’ Ἀπομνημονεύματα. Unlike apophthegmata, it does not seem to occur, as far as I know, in the titles of anonymous collections of anecdotes in extant manuscripts. [Link.]
Now, I myself lean toward the notion that Justin Martyr applied the term ἀπομνημόνευμα to his Christian gospel texts in imitation of Xenophon; he knew the Ἀπομνημόνευμα, since in 2 Apology 11.2-5 he summarizes Memorabilia 2.1.21-34. Or, at the very least, he was alluding to the loose genre of the philosophical ἀπομνημόνευμα. This dressing up of Christianity in philosophical garb is very much what Justin is about.
However, I do not think that Köster is entirely wrong in his derivation of the term ἀπομνημονεύματα from Christian tradents' usage of the verb μνημονεύω and from Papias' usage of the term ἀπομνημονεύω with relation to the transmission of information about Jesus. Papias himself writes in the literary jargon of the time, and I think that the term ἀπομνημονεύματα came to be applied to texts offering memorable information about any significant figure, from Socrates to Jesus, because in ancient literary criticism there was an emphasis on remembering the words and deeds of such figures. Justin was able to apply the term ἀπομνημονεύματα to the gospel texts because those gospel texts were already being treated (by the likes of Papias) in ways which paralleled how philosophical memoranda and memoirs were being treated. The conjunction of memory, words and deeds, and the informal literary genre can be seen in the following passages:
Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata, apud L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, volume 2, page 66, lines 23b-24a: But the memorandum is also a deed or a word useful for life. / καὶ τὸ ἀπομνημόνευμα δὲ πρᾶξίς ἐστιν ἢ λόγος βιωφελής.
Papias apud Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.15: 15 “And the elder would say this, ‘Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered [ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν] of the things either said or done [ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα] by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered [ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν] them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them.’”
Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 14.3.5 (translation slightly modified from John C. Rolfe): 5 Moreover, they think that this also is added to what I have already said, that Xenophon, in the book which he wrote as Commentaries of the sayings and doings of Socrates, 2 asserts that Socrates never discussed the causes and laws of the heavens and of nature, and that he never touched upon or approved the other sciences, called by the Greeks mathēmata which did not contribute to a good and happy life; accordingly, he says that those who have attributed discourses of that kind to Socrates are guilty of a base falsehood. / 5 Praeterea putant id quoque ad ista, quae dixi, accedere, quod Xenophon, in libris quos dictorum atque factorum Socratis commentarios composuit, negat Socraten de caeli atque naturae causis rationibusque umquam disputavisse, ac ne disciplinas quidem ceteras, quae μαθήματα Graeci appellant, quae ad bene beateque vivendum non pergerent, aut attigisse aut comprobasse, idcircoque turpiter eos mentiri dicit, qui dissertationes istiusmodi Socrati adtribuerent.
Papias apud Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.15: 15 “And the elder would say this, ‘Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered [ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν] of the things either said or done [ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα] by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered [ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν] them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them.’”
Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 14.3.5 (translation slightly modified from John C. Rolfe): 5 Moreover, they think that this also is added to what I have already said, that Xenophon, in the book which he wrote as Commentaries of the sayings and doings of Socrates, 2 asserts that Socrates never discussed the causes and laws of the heavens and of nature, and that he never touched upon or approved the other sciences, called by the Greeks mathēmata which did not contribute to a good and happy life; accordingly, he says that those who have attributed discourses of that kind to Socrates are guilty of a base falsehood. / 5 Praeterea putant id quoque ad ista, quae dixi, accedere, quod Xenophon, in libris quos dictorum atque factorum Socratis commentarios composuit, negat Socraten de caeli atque naturae causis rationibusque umquam disputavisse, ac ne disciplinas quidem ceteras, quae μαθήματα Graeci appellant, quae ad bene beateque vivendum non pergerent, aut attigisse aut comprobasse, idcircoque turpiter eos mentiri dicit, qui dissertationes istiusmodi Socrati adtribuerent.
To summarize:
Author | Genre | Content |
| Papias | Mark writing as he remembered [ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν] | τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα = things either said or done by the Lord = quae a domino dicta sunt vel facta (Rufinus) |
| Aelius Theon | τὸ ἀπομνημόνευμα = the memorandum | πρᾶξίς ἢ λόγος βιωφελής = a deed or a word useful for life |
| Aulus Gellius | Commentarios = Memorabilia | dictorum atque factorum Socratis = the sayings and doings of Socrates |
Note that ἀπομνημόνευμα is the singular of ἀπομνημονεύματα. The singular means a memorable story or anecdote about the person, whereas the plural means a book filled with memorable stories or anecdotes about the person. And those stories or anecdotes consist either of words or of deeds, or both, a fitting enough description, from a Christian point of view, for what a gospel is supposed to be.
It is not my contention that Christian gospel texts belong to the same genre as the Memorabilia by Xenophon. Not at all. Rather, Christians with a Greek education sought for analogies within their own literary cultures and naturally hit upon this biographical genre as the lens through which they would view the gospels.
Ben.