Another remarkable and characteristic illustration of the peculiarity of Justin's Memoirs is presented by the long passage (J), which is also throughout consecutive and bound together by clear unity of thought. [236:3] It is presented with the context: "For not those who merely make professions, but those who do the works, as he (Jesus) said, shall be saved. For he spake thus." [236:4] It does not, therefore, seem possible to indicate more clearly the deliberate intention to quote the exact expressions of Jesus, and yet not only do we find material difference from the language in the parallel passages in our Gospels, but those parallels, such as they are, can only be made by patching together the following verses in the order in which we give them: Matt. 7:21, Luke 10:16, Matt. 7:22, 23, 13:42, 43, 7:15, part of 16, 19. It will be remarked that the passage (J 2), Luke 10:16, is thrust in between two consecutive verses in Matthew, and taken from a totally different context as the nearest parallel to (J 2) of Justin, although it is widely different from it, omitting altogether the most important words: "and doeth what I say." The repetition of the same phrase, "He that heareth me heareth him that sent me," in Apol., i. 63, [236:5] makes it certain that Justin accurately quotes his Gospel, whilst the omission of the words in that place, "and doeth what I say," evidently proceeds from the fact that they are an interruption of the phrase for which Justin makes the quotation -- namely, to prove that Jesus is sent forth to reveal the Father. It may be well to compare Justin's passage, (J 1-4), with one occurring in the so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 4:11 Let us not, therefore, only call him Lord, for that will not save us. For he saith: 'Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that worketh righteousness' ... the Lord said: 'If ye be with me gathered together in my bosom, and do not my commandments, I will cast you off and say to you: Depart from me; I know you not whence you are, workers of iniquity.'" The expression ergatai anomias here strongly recalls the reading of Justin. This passage, which is foreign to our Gospels, at least shows the existence of others containing parallel discourses with distinct variations. Some of the quotations in this spurious Epistle are stated to be taken from the "Gospel according to the Egyptians," [237:1] which was in all probability a version of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. [237:2] The variations which occur in Justin's repetition, in Dial. 76, of his quotation (J 3) are not important, because the more weighty departure from the Gospel in the words, "did we not eat and drink in thy name" (ou tô sô onomati ephagomen kai epiomen), is deliberately repeated; [237:3] and if, therefore, there be freedom of quotation, it is free quotation not from the canonical, but from a different Gospel. Origen's quotation [237:4] does not affect this conclusion, for the repetition of the phrase (ou) tô onomati sou has the form of the Gospel, and besides, which is much more important, we know that Origen was well acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other apocryphal works from which this may have been a reminiscence. We must add, moreover, that the passage in Dial. 76 appears in connection with others widely differing from our Gospels. The passage (J 5) not only materially varies from the parallel in Matt. 13:42-43, in language, but in connection of ideas. [237:5] Here also, upon examination, we must conclude that Justin quotes from a source different from our Gospels, and, moreover, that his Gospel gives with greater correctness the original form of the passage. The weeping and gnashing of teeth are distinctly represented as the consequence when the wicked see the bliss of the righteous while they are sent into everlasting fire, and not as the mere characteristics of hell. It will be observed that the preceding passages (J 3) and (4), find parallels to a certain extent in Matt. 7:22, 23, although Luke 13:26, 27, is, in some respects, closer to the reading of Justin. (J 5) finds no continuation of parallel in Matt. 7, from which the context comes, but we have to seek it in 13:42, 43. (J 5), however, does find its continuing parallel in the next verse, in Luke 13:28, where we have "There shall be (the) weeping and (the) gnashing of teeth when ye shall see Abraham," etc. There is here, it is evident, the connection of ideas which is totally lacking in Matt. 13: 42, 43, where the verses in question occur as the conclusion to the exposition of the Parable of the Tares. Now, although it is manifest that Luke 13:28 cannot possibly have been the source from which Justin quotes, still the opening words and the sequence of ideas demonstrate the great probability that other Gospels must have given, after (J 4), a continuation which is wanting after Matt. 7:23, but which is indicated in the parallel Luke 13: (26, 27) 28, and is somewhat closely followed in Matt. 13:42, 43. When such a sequence is found in an avowed quotation from Justin's Gospel, it is certain that he must have found it there substantially as he quotes it. The passage (J 6) [238:1] "For many shall arrive," etc., is a very important one, and it departs emphatically from the parallel in our first Gospel. Instead of being, like the latter, a warning against false prophets, it is merely the announcement that many deceivers shall come. This passage is rendered more weighty by the fact that Justin repeats it with little variation in Dial. 35, and immediately after quotes a saying of Jesus of only five words which is not found in our Gospels; and then he repeats a quotation to the same effect in the shape of a warning: "Beware of false prophets," etc., like that in Matt. 7:15, but still distinctly differing from it. [238:2] It is perfectly clear that Justin quotes two separate passages. It is impossible that he could intend to repeat the same quotation at an interval of only five words; it is equally impossible that, having quoted it in the one form, he could so immediately quote it in the other through error of memory. The simple, and very natural, conclusion is that he found both passages in his Gospel. The object for which he quotes would more than justify the quotation of both passages; the one referring to the many false Christians, and the other to the false prophets of whom he is speaking. That two passages so closely related should be found in the same Gospel is not in the least singular. There are numerous instances of the same in our Synoptics. [239:1] The actual facts of the case, then, are these: Justin quotes in the Dialogue, with the same marked deviations from the parallel in the Gospel, a passage quoted by him in the Apology, and after an interval of only five words he quotes a second passage to the same effect, though with very palpable difference in its character, which likewise differs from the Gospel, in company with other texts which still less find any parallels in the canonical Gospels. The two passages, by their differences, distinguish each other as separate, whilst, by their agreement in common variations from the parallel in Matthew, they declare their common origin from a special Gospel, a result still further made manifest by the agreement between the first passage in the Dialogue and the quotations in the Apology. In (J 7) [239:2] Justin's Gospel substitutes ergôn for karpôn, and is quite in the spirit of the passage (H). "Ye shall know them from their works" is the natural reading. The Gospel version clearly introduces "fruit" prematurely, and weakens the force of the contrast which follows. It will be observed, moreover, that, in order to find a parallel to Justin's passage (J 7, 8) only the first part of Matt. 7:16 is taken, and the thread is only caught again at 7:19, (J 8) being one of the two passages indicated by de Wette which we are considering, and it agrees with Matt. 7:19, with the exception of the single word de. We must again point out, however, that this passage in Matt. 7:19, is repeated no less than three times in our Gospels, a second time in Matt. 3:10, and once in Luke 3:19, Upon two occasions it is placed in the mouth of John the Baptist, and forms the second portion of a sentence, the whole of which is found in literal agreement both in Matt. 3:10, and Luke 3:9, "But now the axe is laid unto the root of the trees, therefore every tree," etc. The passage pointed out by de Wette as the parallel to Justin's anonymous quotation, Matt. 7:19 -- a selection which is, of course, obligatory from the context -- is itself a mere quotation by Jesus of part of the saying of the Baptist, presenting, therefore, double probability of being well known; and as we have three instances of its literal reproduction in the Synoptics, it would, indeed, be arbitrary to affirm that it was not likewise given literally in other Gospels.

The passage (K) [239:3] is very emphatically given as a literal quotation of the words of Jesus, for Justin cites it directly to authenticate his own statements of Christian belief. He says: "But if you disregard us both when we entreat, and when we set all things openly before you, we shall not suffer loss, believing, or rather being fully persuaded, that everyone will be punished by eternal fire, according to the desert of his deeds, and in proportion to the faculties which he received from God will his account be required, as Christ declared when he said: 'To whom God gave more, of him shall more also be demanded again."' This quotation has no parallel in the first Gospel, but we add it here as part of the Sermon on the Mount. The passage in Luke 12:48, it will be perceived, presents distinct variation from it, and that Gospel cannot for a moment be maintained as the source of Justin's quotation.

The last passage, (L), [240:1] is one of those advanced by de Wette which led to this examination. [240:2] It is, likewise, clearly a quotation; but, as we have already shown, its agreement with Matt. 5:20 is no evidence that it was actually derived from that Gospel. Occurring, as it does, as one of numerous quotations from the Sermon on the Mount, whose general variation, both in order and language, from the parallels in our Gospel points to the inevitable conclusion that Justin derived them from a different source, there is no reason for supposing that this sentence also did not come from the same Gospel.

No one who has attentively considered the whole of these passages from the Sermon on the Mount, and still less those who are aware of the general rule of variation in his mass of quotations as compared with parallels in our Gospels, can fail to be struck by the systematic departure from the order and language of the Synoptics. The hypothesis that they are quotations from our Gospels involves the accusation against Justin of an amount of carelessness and negligence which is quite unparalleled in literature. Justin's character and training, however, by no means warrant any such aspersion, [240:3] and there are no grounds for it. Indeed, but for the attempt arbitrarily to establish the identity of the Memoirs of the Apostles with our Gospels, such a charge would never have been thought of. It is unreasonable to suppose that avowed and deliberate quotations of sayings of Jesus, made for the express purpose of furnishing authentic written proof of Justin's statements regarding Christianity, can, as an almost invariable rule, be so singularly incorrect, more especially when it is considered that these quotations occur in an elaborate apology for Christianity addressed to the Roman emperors, and in a careful and studied controversy with a Jew in defence of the new faith. The simple and natural conclusion, supported by many strong reasons, is that Justin derived his quotations from a Gospel which was different from ours, although naturally, by subject and design, it must have been related to them. His Gospel, in fact, differs from our Synoptics as they differ from each other.

We now return to Tischendorf's statements with regard to Justin's acquaintance with our Gospels. Having examined the supposed references to the first Gospel, we find that Tischendorf speaks much less positively with regard to his knowledge of the other two Synoptics. He says: "There is the greatest probability that in several passages he also follows Mark and Luke." [241:1] First taking Mark, we find that the only example which Tischendorf gives is the following. He says: "Twice (Dial. 76 and 100) he quotes as an expression of the Lord: 'The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees (ch. 100, by the 'Pharisees and Scribes'), and be crucified, and the third day rise again." [241:2] This agrees better with Mark 8:31 and Luke 9:22 than with Matt. 16:21, only in Justin the 'Pharisees' are put instead of the 'Elders and Chief Priests' (so Matthew, Mark, and Luke), likewise 'be crucified' instead of 'be killed.'" [241:3] This is the only instance of similarity with Mark that Tischendorf can produce, and we have given his own remarks to show how weak his case is. The passage in Mark 8:31 reads: "And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Elders and the Chief Priests (hupo tôn presbyterôn kai tôn archiereôn) and the Scribes, and be killed (kai apoktanthênai), and after three days (kai meta preis hêmeras) rise again." And the following is the reading of Luke 9:22: "Saying that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Elders and Chief Priests (apo tôn presbyterôn kai tôn archiereôn) and Scribes, and be killed (kai apoktanthênai), and the third day rise again." It will be perceived that, different as it also is, the passage in Luke is nearer than that of Mark, which cannot in any case have been the source of Justin's quotation. Tischendorf, however, does not point out that Justin, elsewhere, a third time refers to this very passage in the very same terms. He says: "And Christ ... having come ... and himself also preached, saying ... that he must suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees and be crucified, and the third day rise again." [242:1] Although this omits the words "and be rejected," it gives the whole of the passage literally as before. And thus there is the very remarkable testimony of a quotation three times repeated, with the same marked variations from our Gospels, to show that Justin found those very words in his Memoirs. The persistent variation clearly indicates a different source from our Synoptics. We may, in reference to this reading, compare Luke 24:6: "He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee (5:7), saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." This reference to words of Jesus, in which the words (kai staurôthênai) occurred, as in Justin, indicates that, although our Gospels do not contain it, some others may well have done so. In one place Justin introduces the saying with the following words: "For he exclaimed before the crucifixion, the Son of Man," etc., [242:2] both indicating a time for the discourse and also quoting a distinct and definite saying in contradistinction to this report of the matter of his teaching, which is the form in which the parallel passage occurs in the Gospels. In Justin's Memoirs it no doubt existed as an actual discourse of Jesus, which he verbally and accurately quoted. With regard to the third Gospel, Tischendorf says: "It is in reference to Luke (22:44) that Justin recalls in the Dialogue (103) the falling drops of the sweat of agony on the Mount of Olives, and certainly with an express appeal to the 'Memoirs composed by his Apostles and their followers.'" [242:3] Now we have already seen [242:4] that Justin, in the passage referred to, does not make use of the peculiar expression which gives the whole of its character to the account in Luke, and that there is no ground for affirming that Justin derived his information from that Gospel. The only other reference to passages proving the "probability" of Justin's use of Luke or Mark is that which we have just discussed -- "The Son of Man must," etc. From this the character of Tischendorf's assumptions may be inferred. De Wette does not advance any instances of verbal agreement either with Mark or Luke. [242:5] He says, moreover: "The historical references are much freer still (than quotations), and combine in part the accounts of Matthew and Luke; some of the kind, however, are not found at all in our canonical Gospels." [243:1] This we have already sufficiently demonstrated.

We might now well terminate the examination of Justin's quotations, which has already taken up too much of our space; but before doing so it may be very advisable briefly to refer to another point. In his work, On the Canon, Dr. Westcott adopts a somewhat singular course. He evidently feels the very great difficulty in which anyone who asserts the identity of the source of Justin's quotations with our Gospels is placed by the fact that, as a rule, these quotations differ from parallel passages in our Gospels; and whilst on the one hand maintaining that the quotations generally are from the canonical Gospels, he on the other endeavours to reduce the number of those which profess to be quotations at all. He says: "To examine in detail the whole of Justin's quotations would be tedious and unnecessary. It will be enough to examine (1) those which are alleged by him as quotations, and (2) those also which, though anonymous, are yet found repeated with the same variations either in Justin's own writings or (3) in heretical works. It is evidently on these quotations that the decision hangs." [243:2] Now under the first category Dr. Westcott finds very few. He says: "In seven passages only, as far as I can discover, does Justin profess to give the exact words recorded in the Memoirs; and in these, if there be no reason to the contrary, it is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact language of the Gospels which he used, just as in anonymous quotations we may conclude that he is trusting to memory." [243:3] Before proceeding further, we may point out the straits to which an apologist is reduced who starts with a foregone conclusion. We have already seen a number of Justin's professed quotations; but here, after reducing the number to seven only, our critic prepares a way of escape even out of these. It is difficult to understand what "reason to the contrary" can possibly justify a man "who professes to give the exact words recorded in the Memoirs" for not doing what he professes; and, further, it passes our comprehension to understand why, in anonymous quotations, "we may conclude that he is trusting to memory." The cautious exception is as untenable as the gratuitous assumption. Dr. Westcott continues, as follows, the passage which we have just interrupted: "The result of a first view of the passages is striking. Of the seven, five agree verbally with the text of St. Matthew or St. Luke, exhibiting indeed three slight various readings not elsewhere found, but such as are easily explicable; the sixth is a compound summary of words related by St. Matthew; the seventh alone presents an important variation in the text of a verse, which is, however, otherwise very uncertain." [244:1] The italics of course are ours. The "first view" of the passages and of the above statement is indeed striking. It is remarkable how easily difficulties are overcome under such an apologetic system. The striking result, to summarise Dr. Westcott's own words, is this: out of seven professed quotations from the Memoirs, in which he admits we may expect to find the exact language preserved, five present three variations; one is a compressed summary, and does not agree verbally at all; and the seventh presents an important variation. Dr. Westcott, on the same easy system, continues: "Our inquiry is thus confined to the two last instances, and it must be seen whether their disagreement from the synoptic Gospel is such as to outweigh the agreement of the remaining five." [244:2] Before proceeding to consider these seven passages admitted by Dr. Westcott, we must point out that, in a note to the statement of the number, he mentions that he excludes other two passages as "not merely quotations of words, but concise narratives." [244:3] But surely this is a most extraordinary reason for omitting them, and one the validity of which cannot be admitted. As Justin introduces them deliberately as quotations, why should they be excluded simply because they are combined with a historical statement? We shall produce them. The first is in Apol., 1:66: "For the Apostles, in the Memoirs composed by them which are called Gospels, [244:4] handed down that it was thus enjoined on them that Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks, said: 'This do in remembrance of me. This is my body.' And similarly, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said: 'This is my blood,' and delivered it to them alone." [244:5] This passage, it will be remembered, occurs in an elaborate apology for Christianity addressed to the Roman emperors, and Justin is giving an account of the most solemn sacrament of his religion. Here, if ever, we might reasonably expect accuracy and care; and Justin, in fact, carefully indicates the source of the quotation he is going to make. It is difficult to understand any ground upon which so direct a quotation from the Memoirs of the Apostles could be set aside by Dr. Westcott. Justin distinctly states that the Apostles in these Memoirs have "thus" (outôs) transmitted what was enjoined on us by Jesus, and then gives the precise quotation. Had the quotation agreed with our Gospels, would it not have been claimed as a professedly accurate quotation from them? Surely no one can reasonably pretend, for instance, that when Justin, after this preamble, states that, having taken bread, etc., Jesus said: "This do in remembrance of me: this is my body"; or, having taken the cup, etc., he said: "This is my blood" -- Justin does not deliberately mean to quote what Jesus actually did say? Now, the account of the episode in Luke is as follows (22:17): "And he took a cup, gave thanks, and said: "Take this and divide it among yourselves. 18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God shall come. 19. And he took bread, gave thanks, brake it, and gave it unto them, saying: This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20. And in like manner the cup after supper, saying: This is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you." [245:1] Dr. Westcott, of course, only compares this passage of Justin with Luke, to which, and the parallel in 1 Cor. 11:24, wide as the difference is, it is closer than to the accounts in the other two Gospels. That Justin professedly quoted literally from the Memoirs is evident, and is rendered still more clear by the serious context with which the quotation is introduced, the intention being to authenticate his explanations by actual written testimony. His dogmatic views, moreover, are distinctly drawn from a Gospel, which, in a more direct way than our Synoptics do, gave the expressions: "This is my body," and "This is my blood," and it must have been observed that Luke, with which Justin's reading alone is compared, not only has not: Tout esti to aima mou, at all, but makes use of a totally different expression: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you."

The second quotation from the Memoirs which Dr. Westcott passes over is that in Dial. 103, compared with Luke 22:42-43, [245:2] on the Agony in the Garden, which we have already examined [245:3] and found at variance with our Gospel, and without the peculiar and distinctive expressions of the latter.

We now come to the seven passages which Dr. Westcott admits to be professed quotations from the Memoirs, and in which "it is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact words of the Gospels which he used." The first of these is a passage in the Dialogue, part of which has already been discussed in connection with the fire in Jordan and the voice at the Baptism, and found to be from a source different from our Synoptics. [245:4] Justin says: "For even he, the devil, at the time when he also (Jesus) went up from the river Jordan when the voice said to Him: 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,' is recorded in the Memoirs of the Apostles to have come to him and tempted him even so far as saying to him: 'Worship me'; and Christ answered him (kai apokrinasthai autô ton christon), Get thee behind me, Satan' (Hupage opisô mou, Satana), 'thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.'" [246:1] This passage is compared with the account of the temptation in Matt. 4:9, 10: "And he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou will fall down and worship me. 10. Then saith Jesus unto him (tote legei autô ho Iêsous) Get thee hence, Satan (Hupage Satana): it is written, Thou shalt worship," etc. All the oldest Codices, it should be stated, omit the opisô mou, as we have done, but Cod. D. (Bezae) and a few others of infirm authority insert these two words. Dr. Westcott, however, justly admits them to be "probably only a very early interpolation." [246:2] We have no reason for supposing that they existed in Matthew during Justin's time. The oldest Codices omit the whole phrase from the parallel passage, Luke 4:8, but Cod. A. is an exception, and reads: Hupage opisô mou, Satana. The best modern editions, however, reject this as a mere recent addition to Luke. A comparison of the first and third Gospels with Justin clearly shows that the Gospel which he used followed the former more closely than Luke. Matthew makes the climax of the temptation the view of all the kingdoms of the world, and the offer to give them to Jesus if he will fall down and worship Satan. Luke, on the contrary, makes the final temptation the suggestion to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. Justin's Gospel, as the words, "so far as saying to him" (mechri tou eipein autô), etc., clearly indicate, had the same climax as Matthew. Now, the following points must be observed. Justin makes the words of Satan, 'Worship me' (Proskunêson moi), a distinct quotation; the Gospel makes Satan offer all that he had shown "if thou wilt fall down and worship me" (ean pesôn proskunêsês moi). Then Justin's quotation proceeds: "And Christ answered him (kai apokrinasthai autô ton Christon); whilst Matthew has "Then Jesus saith to him" (toto legei autô ho Iêsous), which is a marked variation. [246:3] The opisô mou of Justin, as we have already said, is not found in any of the older Codices of Matthew. Then the words, "it is written," which form part of the reply of Jesus in our Gospels, are omitted in Justin's; but we must add that in Dial. 125, in again referring to the temptation, he has, "it is written." Still, in that passage he also inserts the whole phrase, "Get thee behind me, Satan," and commences: "For he answered him: It is written, Thou shalt worship," etc.

We must, however, again point out the most important fact that this account of the temptation is directly connected with another which is foreign to our Gospels. The Devil is said to come at the time Jesus went up out of the Jordan and the voice said to him: "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee" -- words which do not occur at all in our Gospels, and which are again bound up with the incident of the fire in Jordan. It is altogether unreasonable to assert that Justin could have referred the fact which he proceeds to quote from the Memoirs to the time those words were uttered, if they were not to be found in the same Memoirs. The one incident was most certainly not derived from our Gospels, inasmuch as they do not contain it, and there are the very strongest reasons for asserting that Justin derived the account of the temptation from a source which contained the other. Under these circumstances every variation is an indication, and those which we have pointed out are not accidental, but clearly exclude the assertion that the quotation is from our Gospels.

The second of the seven passages of Dr. Westcott is one of those from the Sermon on the Mount, Dial. 105, compared with Matt. 5:20, adduced by de Wette, which we have already considered. [247:1] With the exception of the opening words, lego gar humin hoti, the two sentences agree, but this is no proof that Justin derived the passage from Matthew; while, on the contrary, the persistent variation of the rest of his quotations from the Sermon on the Mount, both in order and language, forces upon us the conviction that he derived the whole from a source different from our Gospels.

The third passage of Dr. Westcott is that regarding the sign of Jonas the prophet, Matt. 12:39, compared with Dial. 107, which was the second instance adduced by Tischendorf. We have already examined it, [247:2] and found that it presents distinct variations from our first Synoptic, both linguistically and otherwise, and that many reasons lead to the conclusion that it was quoted from a Gospel different from ours.

The fourth of Dr. Westcott's quotations is the following, to part of which we have already had occasion to refer: [247:3] "For which reason our Christ declared on earth to those who asserted that Elias must come before Christ: Elias indeed shall come (êlias men eleusetai), and shall restore all things: but I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him (autô) whatsoever they listed. And it is written that then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist." [247:4] The "express quotation" in this passage, which is compared with Matt. 17:11-13, is limited by Dr. Westcott to the last short sentence [248:1] corresponding with Matt. 17:13, and he points out that Credner admits that it must have been taken from Matthew. It is quite true that Credner considers that if any passage of Justin's quotations proves a necessary connection between Justin's Gospels and the Gospel according to Matthew, it is this sentence: "And it is written that then the disciples," etc. He explains his reason for this opinion as follows: "These words can only be derived from our Matthew, with which they literally agree; for it is thoroughly improbable that a remark of so special a description could have been made by two different and independent individuals so completely in the same way." [248:2] We totally differ from this argument, which is singularly opposed to Credner's usual clear and thoughtful mode of reasoning. No doubt, if such Gospels could be considered to be absolutely distinct and independent works, deriving all their matter from individual and separate observation of the occurrences narrated by their authors and personal report of the discourses given, there might be greater force in the argument, although even in that case it would have been far from conclusive here, inasmuch as the observation we are considering is the mere simple statement of a fact necessary to complete the episode, and it might well have been made in the same terms by separate reporters. Now, such an expression as Matt. 17:13 in some early record of the discourse might have been transferred to a dozen of other Christian writings. Ewald assigns the passage to the oldest Gospel, Matthew, in its present form, being fifth in descent. [248:3]

Our three canonical Gospels are filled with instances in which expressions still more individual are repeated, and these show that such phrases cannot be limited to one Gospel; but, if confined in the first instance to one original source, may have been transferred to many subsequent evangelical works. Take, for instance, a passage in Matt. 7:28, 29: "... the multitudes were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as having authority, and not as their scribes." [248:4] Mark 1:22 has the very same passage, [248:5] with the mere omission of "the multitude" (oi ochloi), which does not in the least affect the argument; and Luke 4:32: "And they were astonished at his teaching: for his word was power." [248:6]

Although the author of the third Gospel somewhat alters the language, it is clear that he follows the same original, and retains it in the same context as the second Gospel. Now the occurrence of such a passage as this in one of the Fathers, if either the first or second Gospels were lost, would, on Credner's grounds, be attributed undoubtedly to the survivor, although in reality derived from the Gospel no longer extant, which likewise contained it. Another example may be pointed out in Matt. 13:34: "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitudes in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them," compared with Mark 4:33, 34, "And with many such parables spake he the word unto them ... and without a parable spake he not unto them." The part of this very individual remark which we have italicised is literally the same in both Gospels, as a personal comment at the end of the parable of the grain of mustard seed. Then, for instance, in the account of the sleep of the three disciples during the Agony in the Garden (Matt. 26:43, Mark 14:40), the expression, "and he found them asleep, for their eyes were heavy," which is equally individual, is literally the same in the first two Gospels. Another special remark of a similar kind regarding the rich young man, "He went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions," is found both in Matt. 19:22 and Mark 10:22. Such examples [249:1] might be multiplied, and they show that the occurrence of passages of the most individual character cannot, in Justin's time, be limited to any single Gospel.

Now, the verse we are discussing, Matt. 17:13, in all probability, as Ewald supposes, occurred in one or more of the older forms of the Gospel from which our Synoptics, and many other similar works, derived their matter, and nothing is more likely than that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in many respects was nearly related to Matthew, may have contained it. At any rate, we have shown that such sayings cannot, however apparently individual, be considered evidence of the use of a particular Gospel simply because it happens to be the only one now extant which contains it. Credner, however, whilst expressing the opinion which we have quoted, likewise adds his belief that by the expression, kai gegraptai, Justin seems expressly to indicate that this sentence is taken from a different work from what precedes it, and he has proved that the preceding part of the quotation was not derived from our Gospels. [249:2] We cannot, however, coincide with this opinion either. It seems to us that the expression, "and it is written," simply was made use of by Justin to show that the identification of Elias with John the Baptist is not his, but was the impression conveyed at the time by Jesus to his disciples. Now, the whole narrative of the baptism of John in Justin bears characteristic marks of being from a Gospel different from ours, [250:1] and in the first part of this very quotation we find distinct variation. Justin first affirms that Jesus in his teaching had proclaimed that Elias should also come (kai Êlian eleusesthai), and then further on he gives the actual words of Jesus: Êlias men eleusetai, k.t.l., which we have before us, whilst in Matthew the words are: Êlias men erchetai and there is no MS. which reads eleusetai for erchetai; and yet, as Credner remarks, the whole force of the quotation rests upon the word, and Justin is persistent in his variation from the text of our first Synoptic. It is unreasonable to say that Justin quotes loosely the important part of his passage, and then about a few words at the close pretends to be so particularly careful. Considering all the facts of the case, we must conclude that this quotation also is from a source different from our Gospels.

Another point, however, must be noted. Dr. Westcott claims this passage as an express quotation from the Memoirs, apparently for no other reason than that the few words happen to agree with Matt. 17:13, and that he wishes to identify the Memoirs with our Gospels. Justin, however, does not once mention the Memoirs in this chapter; it follows, therefore, that Dr. Westcott, who is so exceedingly strict in his limitation of express quotations, assumes that all quotations of Christian history and words of Jesus in Justin are to be considered as derived from the Memoirs, whether they be mentioned by name or not. We have already seen that amongst these there are not only quotations differing from the Gospels, and contradicting them, but others which have no parallels at all in them.

The fifth of Dr. Westcott's express quotations occurs in Dial. 105, where Justin says: "For when he (Jesus) was giving up his spirit on the cross he said: 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,' as I have also learned from the Memoirs." This short sentence agrees with Luke 23:46, it is true; but, as we have already shown, [250:2] Justin's whole account of the Crucifixion differs so materially from that in our Gospels that it cannot have been derived from them.

We see this forcibly in examining the sixth of Dr. Westcott's quotations, which is likewise connected with the Crucifixion. "For they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads, each one of them, and distorted their lips, and sneeringly, and in scornful irony, repeated among themselves those words which are also written in the Memoirs of his Apostles: He declared himself the son of God: (let him) come down, let him walk about: let God save him." [251:1] We have ourselves already quoted and discussed this passage [251:2] and need not further examine it here. Dr. Westcott has nothing better to say regarding this quotation, in an examination of the accuracy of parallel passages, than this: "These exact words do not occur in our Gospels, but we do find there others so closely connected with them that few readers would feel the difference"! [251:3] When criticism descends to language like this, the case is, indeed, desperate. It is clear that, as Dr. Westcott admits, the words are expressly declared to be a quotation from the Memoirs of the Apostles, but they do not exist in our Gospels, and consequently our Gospels are not identical with the Memoirs. Dr. Westcott refers to the taunts in Matthew, and then, with commendable candour, he concludes his examination of the quotation with the following words: "No manuscript or Father (so far as we know) has preserved any reading of the passage more closely resembling Justin's quotation; and if it appear not to be deducible from our Gospels, due allowance being made for the object which he had in view, its source must remain concealed." [251:4] We need only add that it is futile to talk of making "due allowance" for the object which Justin had in view. His immediate object was accurate quotation, and no allowance can account for such variation in language and thought as is presented in this passage. That this passage, though a professed quotation from the Memoirs, is not taken from our Gospels is certain, both from its own variations and the differences in other parts of Justin's account of the Crucifixion, an event whose solemnity and importance might well be expected to secure reverential accuracy. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles were not identical with our Gospels, and the systematic variation of his quotations thus receives its natural and reasonable explanation.

The seventh and last of Dr. Westcott's express quotations is, as he states, "more remarkable." We subjoin the passage in contrast with the parallel texts of the first and third Gospels:
 

It is apparent that Justin's quotation differs very materially from our Gospels in language, in construction, and in meaning. These variations, however, acquire very remarkable confirmation and significance from the fact that Justin in two other places [252:2] quotes the latter and larger part of the passage from oudeis in precisely the same way, with the sole exception that, in both of these quotations, he used the aorist egnô instead of ginôskei. This threefold repetition in the same peculiar form clearly stamps the passage as being a literal quotation from his Gospel, and the one exception to the verbal agreement of the three passages, in the substitution of the present for the aorist in the Dialogue, does not remove or lessen the fundamental variation of the passage from our Gospel. As the egnô is twice repeated, it was probably the reading of his text. Now it is well known that the peculiar form of the quotation in Justin occurred in what came to be considered heretical Gospels, and constituted the basis of important Gnostic doctrines. [252:3] Dr. Westcott speaks of the use of this passage by the Fathers in agreement with Justin in a manner which, unintentionally we have no doubt, absolutely misrepresents important facts. He says: "The transposition of the words still remains; and how little weight can be attached to that will appear upon an examination of the various forms in which the text is quoted by Fathers like Origen, Irenaeus, and Epiphanius, who admitted our Gospels exclusively. It occurs in them as will be seen from the table of readings [253:1] with almost every possible variation. Irenaeus in the course of one chapter quotes the verse first as it stands in the canonical text; then in the same order, but with the last clause like Justin's; and once again altogether as he has given it. Epiphanius likewise quotes the text seven times in the same order as Justin, and four times as it stands in the Gospels.î [253:2] Now in the chapter to which reference is made in this sentence Irenaeus commences by stating that the Lord had declared: "Nemo cognoscit Filium nisi Pater; neque Patrem quis cognoscit nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare," [253:3] as he says, "Thus Matthew has set it down and Luke similarly, and Mark the very same." [253:4] He goes on to state, however, that those who would be wiser than the Apostles write this verse as follows: "Nemo cognovit Patrem nisi Filius; nec Filium nisi Pater, et cui voluerit Filius relevare." And he explains: "They interpret it as though the true God was known to no man before the coming of our Lord; and that God who was announced by the Prophets they affirm not to be the Father of Christ." [253:5] Now in this passage we have the egnô of Justin in the "cognovit," in contradistinction to the "cognoscit" of the Gospel, and his transposition of order as not by any possibility an accidental thing, but as the distinct basis of doctrines. Irenaeus goes on to argue that no one can know the Father unless through the Word of God, that is through the Son, and this is why he said: "'Nemo cognoscit Patrem nisi Filius; neque Filium nisi Pater, et quibuscunque Filius revelaverit.' Thus teaching that he himself also is the Father, as indeed he is, in order that we may not receive any other Father except him who is revealed by the Son." [253:6] In this third quotation Irenaeus alters the egnô into ginôskei, but retains the form, for the rest, of the Gnostics and of Justin, and his aim apparently is to show that, adopting his present tense instead of the aorist, the transposition of words is of no importance. A fourth time, however, in the same chapter, which in fact is wholly dedicated to this passage and to the doctrines based upon it, Irenaeus quotes the saying: "Nemo cognoscit Filium nisi Pater; neque Patrem nisi Filius, et quibuscunque Filius revelaverit." [253:7] Here the language and order of the Gospel are followed with the exception that "cui voluerit revelare" is altered to the "quibuscunque revelaverit" of Justin; and that this is intentional is made clear by the continuation: "For revelaverit was said not with reference to the future alone," [254:1] etc. Now, in this chapter we learn very clearly that, although the canonical Gospels, by the express declaration of Irenaeus, had their present reading of the passage before us, other Gospels of considerable authority even in his time had the form of Justin, for again, in a fifth passage, he quotes the opening words: "He who, was known, therefore, was not different from him who declared: 'No one knoweth the Father,' but one and the same." [254:2] With the usual alteration of the verb to the present tense, Irenaeus, in this and in one of the other quotations of this passage just cited, gives some authority to the transposition of the words "Father" and "Son," although the reading was opposed to the Gospels; but he invariably adheres to ginôskei and condemns egnô, the reading maintained by those who, in the estimation of Irenaeus, "would be wiser than the Apostles." Elsewhere, descanting on the passages of Scripture by which heretics attempt to prove that the Father was unknown before the advent of Christ, Irenaeus, after accusing them of garbling passages of Scripture, [254:3] goes on to say of the Marcosians and others: "Besides these, they adduce a countless number of apocryphal and spurious works which they themselves have forged to the bewilderment of the foolish, and of those who are not versed in the Scriptures of truth." [254:4] He also points out passages occurring in our Gospels to which they give a peculiar interpretation, and, among these, that quoted by Justin. He says: "But they adduce as the highest testimony, and, as it were, the crown of their system, the following passage. ... 'All things were delivered to me by my Father, and no one knew (egnô) the Father but the Son, and the Son but the Father, and he to whomsoever (o an) the Son shall reveal (apokalypsê). [254:5]

In these words they assert that he clearly demonstrated that the Father of truth whom they have invented was known to no one before his coming; and they desire to interpret the words as though the Maker and Creator had been known to all, and the Lord spoke these words regarding the Father unknown to all, whom they proclaim." [255:1] Here we have the exact quotation twice made by Justin, with the egnô and the same order, set forth as the reading of the Gospels of the Marcosians and other sects, and the highest testimony to their system. It is almost impossible that Justin could have altered the passage by an error of memory to this precise form, and it must be regarded as the reading of his Memoirs. The evidence of Irenaeus is clear: The Gospels had the reading which we now find in them, but apocryphal Gospels, on the other hand, had that which we find twice quoted by Justin, and the passage was, as it were, the text upon which a large sect of the early Church based its most fundamental doctrine. The egnô is invariably repudiated, but the transposition of the words "Father" and "Son" was apparently admitted to a certain extent, although the authority for this was not derived from the Gospels recognised by the Church, which contained the contrary order.

We must briefly refer to the use of this passage by Clement of Alexandria. He quotes portions of the text eight times, and, although with some variation of terms, he invariably follows the order of the Gospels. Six times he makes use of the aorist egnô, [255:2] once of ginôskei, [255:3] and once of epiginôskei. [255:4] He only once quotes the whole passage; [255:5] but on this occasion, as well as six others in which he only quotes the latter part of the sentence, [255:6] he omits Boulêtai, and reads "and he to whom the Son shall reveal," thus supporting the apokalypsê of Justin. Twice he has "God" instead of "Father," [255:7] and once he substitutes mêdeis for oudeis. [255:8] It is evident, from the loose and fragmentary way in which Clement interweaves the passage with his text, that he is more concerned with the sense than the verbal accuracy of the quotation; but the result of his evidence is that he never departs from the Gospel order of "Father" and "Son," although he frequently makes use of egnô and also employs apokalypsê in agreement with Justin, and, therefore, he shows the prevalence of forms approximating to, though always presenting material difference from, the reading of Justin.

Epiphanius refers to this passage no less than ten times, [256:1] but he only quotes it fully five times, and upon each of these occasions with variations. Of the five times to which we refer, he thrice follows the order of the Gospels, [256:2] as he does likewise in another place where he does not complete the sentence. [256:3] On the remaining two occasions he adopts the same order as Justin, with variations from his readings, however, to which we shall presently refer; [256:4] and where he only partially quotes he follows the same order on other three occasions, [256:5] and in one other place the quotation is too fragmentary to allow us to distinguish the order. [256:6] Now, in all of these ten quotations, with one exception, Epiphanius substitutes oide for epiginôskei at the commencement of the passage in Matthew, and only thrice does he repeat the verb in the second clause as in that Gospel, and on these occasions he twice makes use of oide [256:7] and once of egnô. [256:8] He once uses egnô with the same order as Justin, but does not complete the sentence. [256:9] Each time he completes the quotation he uses hô ean with the Gospel, and apokalypsê with Justin; [256:10] but only once out of the five complete quotations does he insert ho uios in the concluding phrase. It is evident from this examination, which we must not carry further, that Epiphanius never verbally agrees with the Gospel in his quotation of this passage, and never verbally with Justin, but mainly follows a version different from both. It must be remembered, however, that he is writing against various heresies, and it does not seem to us improbable that he reproduces forms of the passage current amongst those sects.

In his work against Marcion, Tertullian says: "With regard to the Father, however, that he was never seen, the Gospel which is common to us will testify, as it was said by Christ: Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius," [256:11] but elsewhere he translates "Nemo scit," [256:12] evidently not fully appreciating the difference of egnô. [256:13] The passage in Marcion's Gospel reads like Justin's: oudeis egnô ton patera, ei mê ho uios, oude ton uion tis ginôskei, ei mê ho patêr. [256:14] The use of egnô as applied to the Father and ginôskei as regards the Son in this passage is suggestive. Origen almost invariably uses egnô, sometimes adopting the order of the Gospels and sometimes that of Justin, and always employing apokalypsê. [257:1] The Clementine Homilies always read egnô and always follow the same order as Justin, presenting other and persistent variations from the form in the Gospels. Oudeis egnô ton patera ei mê ho uios, hôs oude ton uion tis eiden [257:2] ei mê ho patêr, kai ois an Boulêtai ho uios apokalypsai. [257:3] This reading occurs four times. The Clementine Recognitions have the aorist with the order of the Gospels. [257:4]

There only remain a few more lines to add to those already quoted to complete the whole of Dr. Westcott's argument regarding this passage. He continues and concludes thus: "If, indeed, Justin's quotations were made from memory, no transposition could be more natural; and if we suppose that he copied the passage directly from a manuscript, there is no difficulty in believing that he found it so written in a manuscript of the canonical St. Matthew, since the variation is excluded by no internal improbability, while it is found elsewhere, and its origin is easily explicable." [257:5] It will be observed that Dr. Westcott does not attempt any argument, but simply confines himself to suppositions. If such explanations were only valid, there could be no difficulty in believing anything, and every embarrassing circumstance would be easily explicable.

The facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows: Justin deliberately and expressly quotes from his Gospel, himself calling it "Gospel," be it observed, a passage whose nearest parallel in our Gospels is Matt. 11:27. This quotation presents material variations from our canonical Gospel, both in form and language. The larger part of the passage he quotes twice in a different work, written years before, in precisely the same words as the third quotation, with the sole exception that he uses the aorist instead of the present tense of the verb. No MS. of our Gospel extant approximates to the reading in Justin, and we are expressly told by Irenaeus that the present reading of our Matthew was that existing in his day. On the other hand, Irenaeus states with equal distinctness that Gospels used by Gnostic sects had the reading of Justin, and that the passage was "the crown of their system," and one upon whose testimony they based their leading doctrines. Here, then, is the clear statement that Justin's quotation disagrees with the form in the Gospels, and agrees with that of other Gospels. The variations occurring in the numerous quotations of the same passage by the Fathers, which we have analysed, show that they handled it very loosely, but also indicate that there must have been various readings of considerable authority then current. It has been conjectured with much probability that the form in which Justin quotes the passage twice in his Apology may have been the reading of older Gospels, and that it was gradually altered by the Church to the form in which we now have it for dogmatic reasons, when Gnostic sects began to base doctrines upon it inconsistent with the prevailing interpretation. [258:1] Be this as it may, Justin's Gospel clearly had a reading different from ours, but in unison with that known to exist in other Gospels, and this express quotation only adds additional proof to the mass of evidence already adduced that the Memoirs of the Apostles were not our canonical Gospels.

We have already occupied so much space even with this cursory examination of Justin's quotations that we must pass over in silence passages which he quotes from the Memoirs with variations from the parallels in our Gospels, which are also found in the Clementine Homilies and other works emanating from circles in which other Gospels than ours were used. We shall now only briefly refer to a few sayings of Jesus, expressly quoted by Justin, which are altogether unknown to our Gospels. Justin says: "For the things which he foretold would take place in his name, these we see actually coming to pass in our sight. For he said: 'Many shall come," etc., [258:2] and 'There shall be schisms and heresies,' [258:3] and 'Beware of false prophets,' [258:4] etc., and 'Many false Christs and false Apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the faithful.'" [258:5] Neither of the two prophecies here quoted is to be found anywhere in our Gospels, and to the second of them Justin repeatedly refers. He says in one place that Jesus "foretold that in the interval of his coming, as I previously said, [258:6] heresies and false prophets would arise in his name." [258:7] It is admitted that these prophecies are foreign to our Gospels. It is very probable that the Apostle Paul refers to the prophecy, "There shall be schisms and heresies" in 1 Cor. 11:18-19, where it is said "... I hear that schisms exist amongst you; and I partly believe it. For there must also be heresies amongst you," etc. (akouô schismata en humin huparchein, kai meros ti pisteuô. Dei gar kai aireseis en humin einai, k.t.l.) We find also, elsewhere, traces both of this saying and that which accompanies it. In the Clementine Homilies, Peter is represented as stating, "For there shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires for supremacy," etc. (esontai gar, hôs ho kurios eipen, pseudapostoloi, pseudeis prophêtai, aireseis, philarchiai, k.t.l.) [259:1] We are likewise reminded of the passage in the Epistle attributed to the Roman Clement, 44: "Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention regarding the dignity of the episcopate." [259:2] In our Gospel there is no reference anywhere to schisms and heresies, nor are false Apostles once mentioned, the reference being solely to "false Christs" and "false prophets." The recurrence here and elsewhere of the peculiar expression "false apostles" is very striking, [259:3] and the evidence for the passage as a saying of Jesus is important. Hegesippus, after enumerating a vast number of heretical sects and teachers, continues: "From these sprang the false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the union of the Church by corrupting doctrines concerning God and concerning his Christ." [259:4] It will be remembered that Hegesippus made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Clementine literature points to the same source. In the Apostolic Constitutions we read: "For these are false Christs and false prophets, and false apostles, deceivers, and corrupters," etc., [259:5] and in the Clementine Recognitions the Apostle Peter is represented as saying that the Devil, after the temptation, terrified by the final answer of Jesus, "hastened immediately to send forth into this world false prophets, and false apostles, and false teachers, who should speak in the name of Christ indeed, but should perform the will of the demon." [259:6] Justin's whole system forbids our recognising in these two passages mere tradition, and we must hold that we have here quotations from a Gospel different from ours.

Elsewhere, Justin says: "Out of which (affliction and fiery trial of the Devil) again Jesus, the Son of God, promised to deliver us, and to put on us prepared garments, if we do his commandments, and he is proclaimed as having provided an eternal kingdom for us." [259:7] This promise is nowhere found in our Gospel.

Immediately following the passage (J 3 and 4) which we have discussed [259:8] as repeated in the Dialogue: "Many shall say to me, etc., and I will say to them, 'Depart from me,"' Justin continues: "And in other words by which he will condemn those who are unworthy to be saved, he said that he will say: Begone into the darkness without, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and his angels." [260:1] The nearest parallel to this is in Matt. 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels."
 

It is apparent that Justin's quotation differs very widely from the reading of our Gospel. The same reading, with the exception of a single word, is found in the Clementine Homilies (19:2); that is to say, that "Devil" is substituted for "Satan," and this variation is not important. The agreement of the rest, on the other hand, seems to establish the conclusion that the quotation is from a written Gospel different from ours, and here we have further strong indications of Justin's use of the Ebionite Gospel.

Another of the sayings of Jesus which are foreign to our Gospels is one in reference to the man who falls away from righteousness into sin, of whom Justin says: "Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said: In whatsoever things I may find you, in these I shall also judge you." [260:2] (Dio kai ho êmeteros kurios Iêsous Christos eipen, "En ois an humas katalabô, en toutous kai krinô.") A similar expression is used by some of the Fathers, and, in some cases, is ascribed to the prophets. [260:3] Clement of Alexandria has quoted a phrase closely resembling this without indicating the source. Eph' ois gar an eurô humas, phaesin, epi toutois kai krinô. [260:4] Grabe was of opinion that Justin derived the passage from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, [260:5] an opinion shared by the greater number of modern critics, and which we are prepared to accept from many previous instances of agreement. Even the warmest asserters of the theory that the Memoirs are identical with our Gospels are obliged to admit that this saying of Jesus is not contained in them, and that it must have been derived from an extra-canonical source.

Other passages of a similar kind might have been pointed out, but we have already devoted too much space to Justin's quotations, and must hasten to a conclusion. There is one point, however, to which we must refer. We have more than once alluded to the fact that, unless in one place, Justin never mentions an author's name in connection with the Memoirs of the Apostles. The exception to which we referred is the following: -- Justin says: "The statement also that he (Jesus) changed the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is also written in his Memoirs as having been done, together with the fact that he also changed the name of other two brothers, who were sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges; that is, sons of Thunder," etc. [261:1] According to the usual language of Justin, and upon strictly critical grounds, the autou in this passage must be referred to Peter; and Justin, therefore, seems to ascribe the Memoirs to that Apostle, and to speak of a Gospel of Peter. [261:2] Some critics maintain that the autou does not refer to Peter, but to Jesus, or, more probable still, that it should be amended to autôn, and apply to the Apostles. The great majority, however, are forced to admit the reference of the Memoirs to Peter, although they explain it, as we shall see, in different ways. It is argued by some that this expression is used when Justin is alluding to the change of name, not only of Peter, but of the sons of Zebedee, the narrative of which is only found in the Gospel according to Mark. Now, Mark was held by many of the Fathers to have been the mere mouthpiece of Peter, and to have written at his dictation; [261:3] so that, in fact, in calling the second Gospel by the name of the Apostle Peter, they argue, Justin merely adopted the tradition current in the early Church, and referred to the Gospel now known as the Gospel according to Mark. It must be evident, however, that, after admitting that Justin speaks of the Memoirs "of Peter," it is hasty in the extreme to conclude from the fact that the mention of the sons of Zebedee being surnamed Boanerges is only recorded in Mark 3:17, and not in the other canonical Gospels, that, therefore, the Memoirs of Peter and our Gospel according to Mark are one and the same. We shall, hereafter, in examining the testimony of Papias, see that the Gospel according to Mark, of which the Bishop of Hierapolis speaks, was not our canonical Mark at all. It would be very singular indeed, on this hypothesis, that Justin should not have quoted a single passage from the only Gospel whose author he names, and the number of times he seems to quote from a Petrine Gospel, which was quite different from Mark, confirms the inference that he cannot possibly here refer to our second Gospel. It is maintained, therefore, by numerous other critics that Justin refers to a Gospel according to Peter or according to the Hebrews, and not to Mark.

We learn from Eusebius that Serapion, who became Bishop of Antioch about A.D. 190, composed a book on the Gospel, called "according to Peter" (peri tou legomenou kata Petron euangelion), which he found in circulation in his diocese. At first Serapion had permitted the use of this Gospel, as it evidently was much prized, but he subsequently condemned it as a work favouring Docetic views, and containing many things superadded to the Doctrine of the Saviour. [262:1] Origen likewise makes mention of the Gospel according to Peter (tou epigegrammenou kata Petron euangelion) as agreeing with the tradition of the Hebrews. [262:2] But its relationship to the Gospel according to the Hebrews becomes more clear when Theodoret states that the Nazarenes made use of the Gospel according to Peter, [262:3] for we know by the testimony of the Fathers generally that the Nazarene Gospel was that commonly called the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Euangelion kath' Hebraious). The same Gospel was in use amongst the Ebionites, and in fact, as almost all critics are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles, the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, etc., with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church. [262:4] A quotation occurs in the so-called Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, to which we have already referred, which is said by Origen to be in the work called the Teaching of Peter [263:1] (Didachê Petrou), but Jerome states that it is taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes. [263:2] Delitzsch finds traces of the Gospel according to the Hebrews before A.D. 130 in the Talmud. [263:3] Eusebius [263:4] informs us that Papias narrated a story regarding a woman accused before the Lord of many sins which was contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. [263:5] The same writer likewise states that Hegesippus, who came to Rome and commenced his public career under Anicetus, quoted from the same Gospel. [263:6] The evidence of this "ancient and apostolic" man is very important, for, although he evidently attaches great value to tradition, does not seem to know of any canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, and, like Justin, apparently rejected the Apostle Paul, he still regarded the Gospel according to the Hebrews with respect, and probably made exclusive use of it. The best critics consider that this Gospel was the evangelical work used by the author of the Clementine Homilies. Cerinthus and Carpocrates made use of a form of it, [263:7] and there is good reason to suppose that Tatian, like his master Justin, used the same Gospel; indeed, his Diatessaron, we are told, was by some called the Gospel according to the Hebrews. [263:8] Clement of Alexandria quotes it as an authority, with quite the same respect as the other Gospels. He says: "So also in the Gospel according to the Hebrews: 'He who wonders shall reign,' it is written, 'and he who reigns shall rest.'" [263:9] A form of this Gospel, "according to the Egyptians," is quoted in the second Epistle of pseudo-Clement of Rome, as we are informed by the Alexandrian Clement, who likewise quotes the same passage. [263:10] Origen frequently made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, [263:11] and that it long enjoyed great consideration in the Church is proved by the fact that Theodoret found it in circulation not only amongst heretics, but also amongst orthodox Christian communities; [264:1] and even in the fourth century Eusebius records doubts as to the rank of this Gospel amongst Christian books, speaking of it under the second class in which some reckoned the Apocalypse of John. [264:2] Later still Jerome translated it; [264:3] whilst Nicephorus inserts it, in his Stichometry, not amongst the Apocrypha, but amongst the Antilegomena, or merely doubtful books of the New Testament, along with the Apocalypse of John. In such repute was this Gospel amongst the earliest Christian communities that it was generally believed to be the original of the Greek Gospel of Matthew. Irenaeus states that the Ebionites used solely the Gospel according to Matthew and reject the Apostle Paul, asserting that he was an apostate from the law. [264:4] We know from statements regarding the Ebionites [264:5] that this Gospel could not have been our Gospel according to Matthew, and besides both Clement [264:6] of Alexandria and Origen [264:7] call it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Eusebius, however, still more clearly identifies it, as we have seen above. Repeating the statements of Irenaeus, he says: "These indeed [the Ebionites] thought that all the Epistles of the Apostle [Paul] should be rejected, calling him an apostate from the law; making use only of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, they took little account of the rest." [264:8] Epiphanius calls both the Gospel of the Ebionites and of the Nazarenes the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," and also the Gospel according to Matthew, [264:9] as does also Theodoret. [264:10] Jerome translated the Gospel according to the Hebrews both into Greek and Latin, [264:11] and it is clear that his belief was that this Gospel, a copy of which he found in the library collected at Caesarea by the Martyr Pamphilius (†309), was the Hebrew original of Matthew; and in support of this view he points out that it did not follow the version of the Septuagint in its quotations from the Old Testament, but quoted directly from the Hebrew. [265:1] An attempt has been made to argue that, later, Jerome became doubtful of this view, but it seems to us that this is not the case, and certainly Jerome in his subsequent writings states that it was generally held to be the original of Matthew. [265:2] That this Gospel was not identical with the Greek Matthew is evident both from the quotations of Jerome and others, and also from the fact that Jerome considered it worth while to translate it twice. If the Greek Gospel had been an accurate translation of it, of course there could not have been inducement to make another. As we shall hereafter see, the belief was universal in the early Church that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Attempts have been made to argue that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was first written in Greek and then translated into Hebrew, but the reasons advanced seem quite insufficient and arbitrary, and it is contradicted by the whole tradition of the Fathers.

It is not necessary for our purpose to enter fully here into the question of the exact relation of our canonical Gospel according to Matthew to the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is sufficient for us to point out that we meet with the latter before Matthew's Gospel, and that the general opinion of the early Church was that it was the original of the canonical Gospel. This opinion, as Schwegler [265:3] remarks, is supported by the fact that tradition assigns the origin of both Gospels to Palestine, and that both were intended for Jewish Christians, and exclusively used by them. That the two works, however originally related, had by subsequent manipulation become distinct, although still amidst much variation preserving some substantial affinity, cannot be doubted; and, in addition to the evidence already cited, we may point out that in the Stichometry of Nicephorus the Gospel according to Matthew is said to have 2,500 stichoi, whilst that according to the Hebrews has only 2,200.

Whether this Gospel formed one of the writings of the polloi of Luke it is not our purpose to inquire; but enough has been said to prove that it was one of the most ancient and most valued evangelical works, and to show the probability that Justin Martyr, a Jewish Christian living amongst those who are known to have made exclusive use of this Gospel, may well, like his contemporary Hegesippus, have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and this probability is, as we have seen, greatly strengthened by the fact that many of his quotations agree with passages which we know to have been contained in it; whilst, on the other hand, almost all differ from our Gospels, presenting generally, however, a greater affinity to the Gospel according to Matthew, as we might expect, than to the other two. It is clear that the title "Gospel according to the Hebrews" cannot have been its actual superscription, but merely was a name descriptive of the readers for whom it was prepared, or amongst whom it chiefly circulated, and it is most probable that it originally bore no other title than "The Gospel" (to euangelion), to which were added the different designations under which we find it known amongst different communities. [266:1] We have already seen that Justin speaks of "The Gospel," and seems to refer to the Memoirs of Peter, both distinguishing appellations of this Gospel; but there is another of the names borne by the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which singularly recalls the Memoirs of the Apostles, by which Justin prefers to call his evangelical work. It was called the Gospel according to the Apostles (euangelion kata tous apostolous), and, in short, comparing Justin's Memoirs with this Gospel, we find at once similarity of contents, and even of name. [266:2]

It is not necessary, however, for the purposes of this examination to dwell more fully upon the question as to what specific Gospel, now no longer extant, Justin employed. We have shown that there is no evidence that he made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore, be cited even to prove their existence, and much less to attest the authenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once name. On the other hand, it has been made evident that there were other Gospels, now lost, but which then enjoyed the highest consideration, from which his quotations might have been, and probably were, taken. We have seen that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles contained facts of Gospel history unknown to our Gospels, which were contained in apocryphal works, and notably in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; that they further contained matter contradictory to our Gospels, and sayings of Jesus not contained in them; and that his quotations, although so numerous, systematically vary from similar passages in our Gospels. No theory of quotation from memory can satisfactorily account for these phenomena, and the reasonable conclusion is that Justin did not make use of our Gospels, but quoted from another source. In no case can the testimony of Justin afford the requisite support to the Gospels as records of miracles and of a Divine Revelation.