the Last Supper and the conversation of Jesus with the two disciples on their way from Jerusalem show that a Liturgy of the Word was just not imaginable, let alone regarded as a constitutive element of the Eucharist. However stylized, the Eucharist is a kind of meal. It could have been followed by sympotic table-talk (Marcion/Luke) or preceded by the study session of a group of philosophers (Justin, see below). Neither a Liturgy of the Word, nor a philosophic study session, nor a (perhaps archaizing) bit of standardized table-talk was regarded as an indispensable constituent of a Eucharist.
3.2 Luke (not Marcion) 4:16–22
In the same way as the author of Luke’s Gospel corrected the story of Jesus’ meeting with Emmaus and Cleopas, he also added Jesus’ reading and exegesis in the Synagogue of Nazareth as an argument against Marcion.1 Jesus reads and expounds a passage from the Old Testament prophets. There is no hint to a meal following the service in Nazareth. In a similar way as Justin wanted the Emperor to understand his own group, Luke depicts Jesus as a teacher who expounds a passage of what should be regarded as Holy Scripture. He explains its importance and meaning for the listeners. There is no reason to doubt that certain Jewish groups met for the reading and discussion of the Hebrew Bible in the first and second centuries C.E. (see below). Elements of a rabbinic Sabbath morning liturgy can be read into the background of this very brief text, not out of it. The claim that the text should reveal a faint inkling of rabbinic celebrations of Torah reading becomes more plausible, if Luke 4:16–22 originated in the second half of the second century.
3.3 1 Corinthians 11–14
Matthias Klinghardt has shown that 1 Cor 11–14 is a literary unit that also represents a sequence of ritual acts that was immediately comprehensible as a Greek or Roman banquet. The chapters 12–14 collect rules and allude to literary conventions about proper table talk.1 Thus, the structure of the Christian meeting according the First Letter to the Corinthians does not only rule out that a Liturgy of the Word should have been performed before the meal. It also shows that a kind of reading of a Gospel text (that would have been composed after this letter) did not have a logical slot in this event—neither after nor before the meal.
For the time being, it is the most important structural lesson that must be learned from Paul’s letter that reading texts, learned discussions, and other forms of table-talk would take place after the meal rather than preceding it. The letter collects rules for the proper behavior at Christian banquets along the course of a sympotic celebration. Although any kind of text could be read, recited, sung, proclaimed, etc. in Christian meetings, none of them contains a ritual slot that requires or just favors Gospel texts.
4 A Liturgy of the Word in Justin’s Congregation?
The preceding discussion led to the conclusion that Gospels were not needed for Christian liturgies for roughly a century after the destruction of the Second Temple—a date that is often associated with the time of composition of the Gospels.1 In the course of this argument, one author had been passed over: Justin, the Philosopher2 and Martyr. This omission requires rectification, because the description of the Eucharist in Justin’s First Apology appears to prefigure the structure of the medieval mass: a Liturgy of the Word followed by the celebration of the Eucharist.
4.1 Philosophers Reading Texts
Justin’s group is convened weekly, on the “Days of Helios”.1 At their meetings, someone reads the “memorabilia of the Apostles (apomnēmoneumata tōn apostolōn) or the writings of the prophets (syngrammata tōn prophētōn) as long as possible”2. After that, the presider “makes a verbal admonition and stimulation for the imitation of these good things”3. The whole congregation rises and prays. The celebration of the Eucharist follows.4 Like other groups of this epoch,5 Justin’s community did not regard this kind of scripture study as compulsory component of Eucharistic celebrations. The group also performed the Eucharist right after a baptism.6
According to the Acts of his Martyrdom, Justin denies knowing any other Christian group in Rome except for his own (which is obviously wrong).7 The ancient editors of a younger recension of the Acts expanded the significance of Justin’s testimony making it a statement about all Christians of Rome (which is no less absurd).8 Justin depicts his group as philosophers, open to outsiders and generous to members who did not participate in the meetings. The group reads texts, because philosophers are interested in texts.9
4.2 The Memorabilia of the Apostles
Justin’s congregation reads “the memorabilia (apomnēmoneumata) of the apostles or the writings of the prophets”.1 The latter group of texts seems to comprise parts of the Hebrew Bible besides other material like the books of Hystaspes and the Sibyl.2 Tatian mentions that those books laid the foundation for his own conversion to Christianity.3 He had been “convinced” of their truth. This terminology echoes one of Justin’s elements of the definition of a Christian. One must be “convinced” of the community’s teachings.4 The study of the Sibyl, the Old Testament prophets, and the ancient philosophers support the community’s identity.
Christian authors use the term apomnēmoneumata infrequently for writings about famous persons. Thus Origen refers to apomnēmoneumata of (i.e. “about”) Apollonios of Tyana.5 The work was written by a “philosopher” not a Christian. For Origen, it is reliable, because it tells a story that is embarrassing for philosophers. It speaks about a philosopher who falls prey to the witchcraft of Apollonius. Kelsos had claimed that philosophers should be immune against the lures of wizardry.
In an exegetical catena fragment, Apollinaris of Laodicea (died ca. 392) expounds John 20:30. According to Apollinaris “John also teaches us, why he deemed the apomnēmoneumata of Christ’s (earthly) presence worthy of being written down; (viz.) that they (are recorded for) the greatest benefit of their readers …”.6 Apomnēmoneumata are stories about Christ contained within the (canonical) fourth Gospel.
The “memorabilia” of the Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation of Justin’s belief of the cosmic function of the Logos. The term is vague enough in order to require Justin to explain it—apomnēmoneumata, the “so-called Gospel(s)”.7 He prefers the term apomnēmoneumata over the term “Gospel” (euangelion/euangelia). The term euangelion could still have been tainted by the fact that Marcion had been the first one to adopt this term as a designation for a—i.e. his—Gospel.
Justin paraphrases the story of Heracles at the crossroads from Xenophon’s Apomnēmoneumata of Socrates in the Second Apology.8 He refers to this source as “that Xenophontic one (Xenophōnteion)”—apparently “(that) book” (Minns and Parvis: “story”). Xenophon did not name his book Apomnēmoneumata. Nevertheless, it seems to have been known under this designation already in Justin’s time. The term apomnēmoneumata is appropriate for the subject that Justin wants to refer to and for the persons who should understand this designation.9 Gabriella Aragione admits that many of the attestations of the term as designations for books come from florilegia like Diogenes Laertius which postdate Justin’s time,10 even though she assumes that it may have been in use already in the second century.11 Regarding Old Testament texts, Justin was able to refer to “the Prophets” or to Moses who enjoyed a reputation of honor and seriosity among Justin’s fellow philosophers.12 However, he had to appeal to other concepts with regard to the Gospels.
Justin neither invented nor liked the term “Gospel”,13 although he knew its positive connotations.14 His readers could be expected to understand this designation. The apomnēmoneumata are not, apparently, congruent with material that is extant in the four canonical Gospels.15 The term refers to a genre
