the Gospel as an authority on the same level as the Synoptics, and therefore viewed it as non-Apostolic. Schmiedel (Encyc.Bibl., art. ' Jolm, Son of Zebedee,' ii. 2546) states that ' his employment of it is not only more sparing but also more circumspect ' than his use of tne Synoptics. There are occasions on wliich it would be open to him to use it in proof of his doctrine of the Logos and of the pre-existence of Christ. Why has Justin not used the Fourth tiospel more ? It is perfectly relevant to reply that we do not know, and perhaps never shall know, with complete certainty. At the same time, there are certain considerations that ought to be borne in mind. Justin is certainly the first writer who displays the tendency to attach a separate value to the four Gospels ; he is the first to speak of (vayyiXia instead of tvaYt^iov ; but he can scarcely be expected to have completely emancipated him- self, at this transition stage, from the older concep- tion of the gospel as embracing equally the contents of the four. Justin's purpose and his audience must be borne in mind, and these would insensibly lead him to rely mostly on the SynuptiL Cusjicls. It is specially noticeable that the witness of Christ to Himself, so prominent in the Fourth Gospel, is no- where used liy .Justin as an argument, and in one place in the iJinlogur u-ifh Trypho (ch. 18) he even apologizes for citing tlie words of Christ alongside the words of the prophets. His Apologies are ad- dressed to the Emperor, Senate, and People of Rome, and to quote to them the Christian writings in proof of Christian doctrine would have been to reason in a circle. Moreover, it may be suggested that not even at that date was the Gospel regarded as, strictly sneaking, historical, and its spiritual or reflective character rendered it hardly so suitable for Justin's purpose as the Synoptics.
(3) Evidence as to Apostolic authorship. — Is there any evidence in Justin that he attributed the author- ship to St. John the Apostle ? In the first place, if the Memoirs are composed of our four Gospels, we may answer the question with certainty in the affirmative. Justin describes them as composed by ' the Apostles and those that followed them,' a description which tallies completely with the four Evangelists. The plural ' Apostles ' could be used only if he believed in the Apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Again, the strongest argument adduced against Justin's evidence is still the argu- ment from his silence as to the name of the author. It seems, however, to have been the custom among apologists not to mention the Evangelists by their names, which would carry no weight -with un- believers. Moreover, it has been pointed out that Justin never mentions the name of St. Paul, al- thougli it is ( ertain that at least four of his Epistles from wlucli lu' cinutes are of undoubted authenticity. Justin (ince nuiiic s St. John as the author of Reve- lation (Dialogue Si), but 'lie nowhere quotes this work, wliicli he regarded as inspired, apostolic, prophetic, though it contains so much which might seem to favour his view of the person of Chnst' (Ezra Abbot, p. 61). In the passage he speaks of the author as one whose name is not likely to carry weight ('a certain man with us, whose name was John '), but it is essential to his argument, in thus making use of a Revelation or \ision, that he should mention the recipient. (Cf. Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, i. p. 89).
3. Tatlan was a native of Syria, and, like Justin, travelled as a wandering philosopher. His con- version to Christianity took place at Rome about .\.D. 150. He became a disciple of Justin, during wliose lifetime he wrote the Oratio ad Grcecos. After Justin's death in 166, Tatian taught in Rome, and ultimately adopted a heretical jjosition. He died about .\.D. 180.
Tatian clearly quotes the Gospel in his Oratio,
JOHX, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
which was written perhaps as early as lo3 (so Zahu and Harnack), although he does not refer to the author by name. The important work, however, for our purpose is the Diatcssaron. It is a com- pendium of the Life and Teaching of our Lord, founded on our four Gospels, and containing also some material taken from the Apocryphal Gospels. The book hatl apparently an ancient place in the worship of the Syrian Churches. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, in 453, tells how he found more than 200 copies of the work in the churches of his district. These he collected and, with considerable difficulty, put away, substituting for them the/oier Gospels.
The Diatcssaron includes the whole of the Fourth Gospel, except V, the first half of 2=^, the Pcricojje Adulterce, and some other passages that are common to the Synoptics.
The .significance of Tatian's work lies in the fact that an authoritative value is attached to the con- tents of our four Gospels, and that the Fourth Gospel is placed on a level with the Synoptics. Moreover, Tatian's use of the Fourth Gospel renders it very difficult to doubt that it was also one of the Memoirs of his contemporary, Justin.
4. The Apostolic Fathers.— (1) Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. Unfortunately his testi- mony has given rise to more questions about the Gospel than it solves. Only one or two fragments of his work preserved by Eusebius have come down to us. We know that in the time of Eusebius the only writing of Papias to which he had access was a work in five books, entitled ' Exposition(s) of the Oracles of the Lord ' (Ao7i«i' KvpiaKdv i^-qytjiri.^ [or -ets]). Cf. Drummond, op. rit. note 4, p. 195.