In his summaries of or allusions to the Gospel history, Justin introduces a limited amount of matter—a certain number of touches and incidents —not found in our Gospels. From the presence of this element it has been argued that he did not use our Gospels. But to reason thus is to defy every principle of sound criticism. For there is no evidence that any other work or works existed which could have supplied him with the bulk of his facts about the life and teaching of Christ, together with the language in which he relates them, besides our Gospels. Moreover, that these were already in existence, and that he must have had opportunities of becoming acquainted with them, is certain, as will more clearly appear from facts to be considered presently. It is now, indeed, admitted by critics of more than one school that the first three Gospels ranked among Justin's principal authorities, and that the fourth was known to him. The chief questions still sub lite are (a) to what extent he used other records in addition to our canonical ones, and whether he regarded any of them as possessed of apostolic authority ; and (δ) whether there was a difference between his attitude to the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics.
(a) The question of the source or sources whence Justin drew what we may for convenience briefly call the ‘apocryphal’ matter in his accounts of the Gospel history has received new and special interest from the recovery, since 1892, of a fragment of the so-called *‘ Gospel of Peter’ (see The Akhmim Frag- ment, or the Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter, by H. B. Swete). In some points in which Justin diverges from the canonical Gospels he is found to coincide with ‘Peter.’ The importance of the inquiry whether Justin used ‘Peter’ is greatly increased by the fact that, if he did, it must in all probability have been the work which he describes as ‘Peter’s Memoirs’ (Dial. cvi.), and he must have given it an equal, if not a pre-eminent, place among the authorities for the Gospel history. The use of ‘ Peter’ by Justin is maintained by Harnack (Bruchstiick des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus, 2nd ed. p. 37 ff.), and is accepted by Sanday (Jnspiration, pp. 805, 310) ; but against it see Swete, 1.6. pp. xxxili-xxxv. Swete’s argument
NEW TESTAMENT CANON
536 may also be greatly strengthened by observing the contrasts between Justin and ‘ Peter.’ It is certain that the former has been but slightly influenced
by the latter on the whole, and it is difficult to | understand how, if he knew the book and regarded |
it as the work of the chief of the apostles, which it claims to be, his use of it should have been so limited.
In Justin’s age information concerning the Gospel history was gleaned not only from tradi- tion, but also from documents other than our Gospels, less unsuspectingly than came to be the case a generation or so later. We have seen an example of this in the so-called Second Ep. of Clement ; we learn also from Eusebius (ΜῈ iv. 22) that Hegesippus, the contemporary of Justin, made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Justin's practice illustrates the same attitude of mind. With the matter supplied by our Gospels, he weaves in traits which he has probably derived from such sources, though we are unable to say from which of them he obtained most, or whether indeed he made special use of any one. There is, however, no reason to think that any work of the nature of a Gospel, other than ours, held practically the same position as they did for Justin, or for the Church of his time.
(b) Some critics who admit the cogency of the evidence that Justin was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel, yet maintain that he clearly did not place it on the same level as the Synoptics (see Keim, Jesus of Naz. i. p. 186 ff.; Holtzmann, Fini. p. 479). The only ground for supposing this is that he makes more sparing use of it. But there was good reason for this difference. In view of the persons addressed both in the Apology and in the Dialogue, and also the tenor of the arguments in these works, it was natural that he should have fewer quotations from and parallels with it than the others.
Before leaving this quarter of the century we must touch upon the question of the use of the Gospels by Gnostic heretics. In discussing it we shall be taken back even to the earlier part of the time. It has, however, been reserved till this point, both on account of the different relation to the Christian faith of the persons to be considered, mas because the evidence is of a more indirect
ind.
Basileides had begun to teach at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian. He was the author of a work in 24 books entitled Expositions of the Gospel, from which we have a few extracts in extant works of Clem. Alex. One of these seems like a portion of a comment on a passage of Mt. There are two others, which may be comments on sayings of our Lord taken from Lk and Jn respectively (Zahn, Kanon, i. pp. 766, 767). The possibility of coming to any fuller conclusion as to the use of the Gospels by Basileides must depend on the estimate formed of the account of Basileides and his school given by Hippolytus, and of the citations which it includes. Some have supposed Hippolytus to have been misled when he took the work from which he quotes as a product even of the school of Basileides (e.g. Zahn, ib. 765). But the result of a comparison with the extracts in Clem. Alex. is strongly in favour of the view that the treatise used by Hippolytus gave a genuine exposition of Basileidean doctrine (see Hort’s art. ‘ Basileides’ in Dict. of Christian Biog.). Whether it was the Exzegetica or some other work is more questionable. That the quotations are from Basil- eides himself, at least in some cases, and those the most important for our present purpose, is the most natural view of Hippolytus’ language (cf. Westcott, Canon, p. 297 n., and Hort, J.c.). The theories expounded bear the marks of great meta-