NEW TESTAMENT CANON
Apology was written soon after the First. The Dialogue was written after the Apologies, but how long after cannot be determined. We shall not be far wrong if we say that all three writings were composed c. A.D. 150. The Apologies were written in Rome, as was also probably the Dialogue, though it may be inferred from the latter (c. i.) that Justin was teaching as a Christian philosopher in Ephesus soon after A.D. 135. He was the most eminent Christian of his generation, while he writes, not as one who is putting forward his own views, but who is representing and defending the faith and practice of the Church; and he well knew what they were in at least two of its chief centres.
Now, Justin twice in his First Apology and many times in the Dialogue describes the main authori- ties for the Life and Teaching of Christ as ‘the Memoirs of the Apostles’ or simply ‘ the Memoirs.’ We have to ask whether by this name he intended at least principally our Gospels, whether he recog- nized all these, and whether they held a place in his estimation which no other accounts of the whole or a portion of the Lord’s Life and Teaching shared. His use of the term itself just referred to affords no ground for doubting that he has the Gospels which we acknowledge in his mind. It is probable that the name ‘Gospels’ was only be- ginning in that generation to be applied to the writings which contained the Gospel even among Christians, and he was addressing those who were not Christians. It would be natural for him to employ some term which would be to them more easy of comprehension and more expressive. The course he adopts in this case has an exact parallel in his treatment of other Christian terms, e.g. Baptism and the Eucharist (First Apol. 1xi. and Ixvi.). In First Apol. Ixvi., after using the word
‘Memoirs,’ he adds, ‘ which are called Gospels.’ And this, it may be observed in passing, is the earliest instance of the application of the name
‘Gospels’ to the books. Justin himself commonly writes of ‘the Gospel’ in the manner which we have observed to be customary in the writings of his predecessors and elder contemporaries. ΤῸ pro- ceed: in one place he characterizes ‘ the Memoirs’ with special fulness as ‘composed by the Apostles and those who followed them.’ The suitabilitv of this twofold description to our Gospels wit be noticed, and it gains in point from the circam- stance that in the context he preserves one trait which is peculiar to St. Luke’s account of the Agony in the Garden (Dial. ciii.). In another place he refers to a fact, mentioned only by St. Mark, as contained in Peter’s Memoirs (see, further, below). Again, he speaks of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, which he defines in part in terms peculiar to Jn, as derived from ‘the Memoirs.’ Further, in five of the cases in which Justin distinctly quotes from evangelic writings, using the formula γέγραπται, he agrees almost verbally with Mt or Lk. (For these and for a discussion of the remain- ing two, comp. Westcott, Canon, p. 130 ff., and Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, p. 88 ff.). For the most part, however, Justin does not adhere closely to the words of any one evangelist in his accounts of and references to the facts of the Lord’s Life and His Teaching. He gives the sub- stance of their narratives, and to a certain extent combines what is found in different Gospels. In doing this he acted in accordance with the very natural tendency of which we have already seen examples in early Christian writings. Moreover, it is quite obviously his purpose in a considerable portion of his First Apology to give a summary of the evangelic history and of some chief points in Christ’s teaching for the enlightenment of heathen readers. And not less obviously in a large part οἱ
NEW TESTAMENT CANON 535 the Dialogue he is rapidly reviewing the facts, which was all that was required, in connexion with an argument from the fulfilment of prophecy. This being so, it was to be expected that he should avail himself now of one, now of another Gospel, and should be satisfied with giving what he con- ceived to be their general meaning and purport. With the object he had in view, he would often find it sufficient to rely upon his memory of their narra- tives. And, indeed, even his quotations from the OT are marked to a considerable extent by the same characteristics of combination and compression, and want of minute accuracy. Nevertheless, the general character of the representation which Justin gives of the evangelic history, and which he derives, as he repeatedly indicates, from records which were acknowledged in the Church to have apostolic authority—its contents, with compara- tively slight exceptions, its main outline, the style of the language, and many of the actual words— are those of our Gospels. The features of the Synoptics are, indeed, more fully and directly reproduced than those of the Fourth Gospel, though there are striking coincidences with special points in it also; while it is most natural to sup- pose that the conception of Christ as the Logos, which holds a prominent place in Justin’s works, was derived by him from the same source, although he develops it in part in his own way, in accord- ance with philosophical ideas that were familiar to hin.