There is a close agreement, if not always with the best, yet with some very old, text of St. Matthew in v. 22 (note especially the striking phrase and construction [Greek: enochos eis]), v. 28 (note [Greek: blep. pros to epithum].), v. 41 (note the remarkable word [Greek: angareusei]), xxv. 41, and not too great a divergence in v. 16, vi. 1 ([Greek: pros to theathaenai, ei de mae ge misthon ouk echete]), and xix. 12, all of which pa.s.sages are without parallel in any extant Gospel. There are also marked resemblances to the Matthaean text in synoptic pa.s.sages such as Matt. iii. 11, 12 ([Greek: eis metanoian, ta hupodaemata bastasai]), Matt. vi. 19, 20 ([Greek: hopou saes kai brosis aphanizei], where Luke has simply [Greek: saes diaphtheirei], and [Greek: diorussousi] where Luke has [Greek: engizei]), Matt. vii.
22, 23 ([Greek: ekeinae tae haemera Kurie, Kurie, k.t.l.]), Matt. xvi.
26 ([Greek: dosei] Matt. only, [Greek: antallagma] Matt., Mark), Matt.
xvi. 1, 4 (the last verse exactly). As these pa.s.sages are all from the discourses I do not wish to say that they may not be taken from other Gospels than the canonical, but we have absolutely no evidence that they were so taken, and every additional instance increases the probability that they were taken directly from St. Matthew, which by this time, I think, has reached a very high degree of presumption.
I have reserved for a separate discussion a single instance which I shall venture to add to those already quoted, although I am aware that it is alleged on the opposite side. Justin has the saying "Let your yea be yea and your nay nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of the Evil One" ([Greek: Mae omosaete holos. Esto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou; to de perisson touton ek tou ponaerou]), which is set against the first Evangelist"s "Let your conversation be Yea yea, Nay nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of the Evil One" ([Greek: ego de lego humin mae omosai holos... Esto de ho logos humon nai nai, ou ou; to de perisson, k.t.l.]). Now it is perfectly true that as early as the Canonical Epistle of James (v. 12) we find the reading [Greek: aeto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou], and that in the Clementine Homilies twice over we read [Greek: esto humon to nai nai, (kai) to ou ou], [Greek: kai] being inserted in one instance and not in the other. Justin"s reading is found also exactly in Clement of Alexandria, and a similar reading (though with the [Greek: aeto] of James) in Epiphanius. These last two examples show that the misquotation was an easy one to fall into, because there can be little doubt that Clement and Epiphanius supposed themselves to be quoting the canonical text. There remains however the fact that the Justinian form is supported by the pseudo-Clementines; and at the first blush it might seem that "Let your yea be yea" (stand to your word) made better, at least a complete and more obvious, sense than "Let your conversation be"
(let it not go beyond) "Yea yea" &c [Endnote 122:1]. There is, however, what seems to be a decisive proof that the original form both of Justin"s and the Clementine quotation is that which is given in the first Gospel. Both Justin and the writer who pa.s.ses under the name of Clement add the clause "Whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (or "of the Evil One"). But this, while it tallies perfectly with the canonical reading, evidently excludes any other. It is consequent and good sense to say, "Do not go beyond a plain yes or no, because whatever is in excess of this must have an evil motive," but the connection is entirely lost when we subst.i.tute "Keep your word, for whatever is more than this has an evil motive"--more than what?
The most important points that can be taken to imply a use of St. Mark"s Gospel have been already discussed as falling under the head of matter rather than of form.
The coincidences with Luke are striking but complicated. In his earlier work, the "Beitrage" [Endnote 123:1], Credner regarded as a decided reference to the Prologue of this Gospel the statement of Justin that his Memoirs were composed [Greek: hupo ton apostolon autou kai ton ekeinois parakolouthaesanton]: but, in the posthumous History of the Canon [Endnote 123:2], he retracts this view, having come to recognise a greater frequency in the use of the word [Greek: parakolouthein] in this sense. It will also of course be noticed that Justin has [Greek: par. tois ap.] and not [Greek: par. tois pragmasin], as Luke. It is doubtless true that the use of the word can be paralleled to such an extent as to make it not a matter of certainty that the Gospel is being quoted: still I think there will be a certain probability that it has been suggested by a reminiscence of this pa.s.sage, and, strangely enough, there is a parallel for the subst.i.tution of the historians for the subject-matter of their history in Epiphanius, who reads [Greek: par. tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou] [Endnote 124:1], where he is explicitly and unquestionably quoting St.
Luke.
There are some marked coincidences of phrase in the account of the Annunciation--[Greek: eperchesthai, episkaizein, dunamis hupsistou] (a specially Lucan phrase), [Greek: to gennomenon]
(also a form characteristic of St. Luke), [Greek idou, sullaepsae en gastri kai texae huion]. Of the other peculiarities of St. Luke Justin has in exact accordance the last words upon the cross ([Greek: Pater, eis cheiras sou parat.i.themai to pneuma mou]). In the Agony in the Garden Justin has the feature of the b.l.o.o.d.y Sweat; but it is right to notice--
(1) That he has [Greek: thromboi] alone, without [Greek: haimatos]. Luke, [Greek: egeneto ho hidros autou hosei thromboi haimatos katabainontes]. Justin, [Greek: hidros hosei thromboi katecheito].
(2) That this is regarded as a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 14 ("All my tears are poured out" &c.).
(3) That in continuing the quotation Justin follows Matthew rather than Luke. These considerations may be held to qualify, though I do not think that they suffice to remove, the conclusion that St.
Luke"s Gospel is being quoted. It seems to be sufficiently clear that [Greek: thromboi] might be used in this signification without [Greek: aimatos] [Endnote 124:2], and it appears from the whole manner of Justin"s narrative that he intends to give merely the sense and not the words, with the exception of the single saying "Let this cup pa.s.s from Me," which is taken from St. Matthew. We cannot say positively that this feature did not occur in any other Gospel, but there is absolutely no reason apart from this pa.s.sage to suppose that it did. The construction with [Greek: hosei] is in some degree characteristic of St. Luke, as it occurs more often in the works of that writer than in all the rest of the New Testament put together.
In narrating the inst.i.tution of the Lord"s Supper Justin has the clause which is found only in St. Luke and St. Paul, "This do in remembrance of Me" ([Greek: mou] for [Greek: emaen]). The giving of the cup he quotes rather after the first two Synoptics, and adds "that He gave it to them (the Apostles) alone." This last does not seem to be more than an inference of Justin"s own.
Two other sayings Justin has which are without parallel except in St. Luke. One is from the mission of the seventy.
_Justin, Dial._ 76
[Greek: Didomi humin exousian katapatein epano opheon, kai skorpion, kai skolopendron, kai epano parsaes dunameos tou echthrou.]
_Luke_ x. 19.
[Greek: Idou, didomi humin taen exousian tou patein epano epheon, kai skorpion, kai epi pasan taen dunamin tou echthrou.]
The insertion of [Greek: skolopendron] here is curious. It may be perhaps to some extent paralleled by the insertion of [Greek: kai eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9: we have also seen a strange addition in the quotation of Ps. li. 19 in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. ii).
Otherwise the resemblance of Justin to the Gospel is striking. The second saying, "To whom G.o.d has given more, of him shall more be required" (Apol. i. 17), if quoted from the Gospel at all, is only a paraphrase of Luke xii. 48.
Besides these there are other pa.s.sages, which are perhaps stronger as separate items of evidence, where, in quoting synoptic matter, Justin makes use of phrases which are found only in St. Luke and are discountenanced by the other Evangelists. Thus in the account of the rich young man, the three synoptical versions of the saying that impossibilities with men are possible with G.o.d, run thus:--
_Luke_ xviii. 27.
[Greek: Ta adunata para anthropois dunata para to Theo estin.]
_Mark_ x. 27.
[Greek: Para anthropois adunaton, all" ou para Theo; punta gar dunata para to Theo].
_Matt_. xix. 26.
[Greek: Para anthropois touto adunaton estin, para de Theo dunata panta].
Here it will be observed that Matthew and Mark (as frequently happens) are nearer to each other than either of them is to Luke.
This would lead us to infer that, as they are two to one, they more nearly represent the common original, which has been somewhat modified in the hands of St. Luke. But now Justin has the words precisely as they stand in St. Luke, with the omission of [Greek: estin], the order of which varies in the MSS. of the Gospel. This must be taken as a strong proof that Justin has used the peculiar text of the third Gospel. Again, it is to be noticed that in another section of the triple synopsis (Mark xii. 20=Matt. xxii.
30=Luke xx. 35, 36) he has, in common with Luke and diverging from the other Gospels which are in near agreement, the remarkable compound [Greek: isangeloi] and the equally remarkable phrase [Greek: huioi taes anastaseos] ([Greek: tekna tou Theou taes anastaseos] Justin). This also I must regard as supplying a strong argument for the direct use of the Gospel. Many similar instances may be adduced; [Greek: erchetai] ([Greek: aexei] Justin) [Greek: ho ischuroteros] (Luke iii. 16), [Greek: ho nomos kai hoi prophaetai heos] ([Greek: mechri] Justin) [Greek: Ioannon] (Luke xvi. 16), [Greek: panti to aitounti] (Luke vi. 30), [Greek: to tuptonti se epi] ([Greek: sou] Justin) [Greek: taen siagona pareche kai taen allaen k.t.l.] (Luke vi. 29; compare Matt. v. 39, 40), [Greek: ti me legeis agathon] and [Greek: oudeis agathos ei mae] (Luke xviii. 19; compare Matt. xix. 17), [Greek: meta tauta mae echonton] ([Greek: dunamenous] Justin) [Greek: perissoteron]
(om. Justin) [Greek: ti poiaesae k.t.l.] (Luke xii. 4, 5; compare Matt. X. 28), [Greek: paeganon] and [Greek: agapaen tou Theou]
(Luke xi. 42). In the parallel pa.s.sage to Luke ix. 22 (=Matt xvi.
21= Mark viii. 31) Justin has the striking word [Greek: apodokimasthaenai], with Mark and Luke against Matthew, and [Greek: hupo] with Mark against the [Greek: apo] of the two other Synoptics. This last coincidence can perhaps hardly be pressed, as [Greek: hupo] would be the more natural word to use.
In the cases where we have only the double synopsis to compare with Justin, we have no certain test to distinguish between the primary and secondary features in the text of the Gospels. We cannot say with confidence what belonged to the original doc.u.ment and what to the later editor who reduced it to its present form.
In these cases therefore it is possible that when Justin has a detail that is found in St. Matthew and wanting in St. Luke, or found in St. Luke and wanting in St. Matthew, he is still not quoting directly from either of those Gospels, but from the common doc.u.ment on which they are based. The triple synopsis however furnishes such a criterion. It enables us to see what was the original text and how any single Evangelist has diverged from it.
Thus in the two instances quoted at the beginning of the last paragraph it is evident that the Lucan text represents a deviation from the original, and _that deviation Justin has reproduced_. The word [Greek: isangeloi] may be taken as a crucial case. Both the other Synoptics have simply [Greek hos angeloi], and this may be set down as undoubtedly the reading of the original; the form [Greek: isangeloi], which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and I believe, so far as we know, nowhere else in Greek before this pa.s.sage [Endnote 128:1], has clearly been coined by the third Evangelist and has been adopted from him by Justin. So that in a quotation which otherwise presents considerable variation we have what I think must be called the strongest evidence that Justin really had St. Luke"s narrative, either in itself or in some secondary shape, before him.
We are thus brought once more to the old result. If Justin did not use our Gospels in their present shape as they have come down to us, he used them in a later shape, not in an earlier. His resemblances to them cannot be accounted for by the supposition that he had access to the materials out of which they were composed, because he reproduces features which by the nature of the case cannot have been present in those originals, but of which we are still able to trace the authorship and the exact point of their insertion. Our Gospels form a secondary stage in the history of the text, Justin"s quotations a tertiary. In order to reach the state in which it is found in Justin, the road lies _through_ our Gospels, and not outside them.
This however does not exclude the possibility that Justin may at times quote from uncanonical Gospels as well. We have already seen reason to think that he did so from the substance of the Evangelical narrative, as it appears in his works, and this conclusion too is not otherwise than confirmed by its form. The degree and extent of the variations incline us to introduce such an additional factor to account for them. Either Justin has used a lost Gospel or Gospels, besides those that are still extant, or else he has used a recension of these Gospels with some slight changes of language and with some apocryphal additions. We have seen that he has two short sayings and several minute details that are not found in our present Gospels. A remarkable coincidence is noticed in "Supernatural Religion" with the Protevangelium of James [Endnote 129:1]. As in that work so also in Justin, the explanation of the name Jesus occurs in the address of the angel to Mary, not to Joseph, "Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost and bear a Son and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." Again the Protevangelium has the phrase "Thou shalt conceive of His Word," which, though not directly quoted, appears to receive countenance from Justin. The author adds that "Justin"s divergences from the Protevangelium prevent our supposing that in its present form it could have been the actual source of his quotations," though he thinks that he had before him a still earlier work to which both the Protevangelium and the third Gospel were indebted. So far as the Protevangelium is concerned this may very probably have been the case; but what reason there is for a.s.suming that the same doc.u.ment was also anterior to the third Gospel I am not aware. On the contrary, this very pa.s.sage seems to suggest an opposite conclusion. The quotation in Justin and the address in the Protevangelium both present a combination of narratives that are kept separate in the first and third Gospels. But this very fact supplies a strong presumption that the version of those Gospels is the earliest. It is unlikely that the first Evangelist, if he had found his text already existing as part of the speech of the angel to Mary, would have transferred it to an address to Joseph; and it is little less unlikely that the third Evangelist, finding the fuller version of Justin and the Protevangelium, should have omitted from it one of its most important features. If a further link is necessary to connect Justin with the Protevangelium, that link comes into the chain after our Gospels and not before. Dr. Hilgenfeld has also noticed the phrase [Greek: charan de labousa Mariam] as common to Justin and the Protevangelium [Endnote 130:1]. This, too, may belong to the older original of the latter work. The other verbal coincidences with the Gospel according to the Hebrews in the account of the Baptism, and with that of Thomas in the "ploughs and yokes," have been already mentioned, and are, I believe, along with those just discussed, all that can be directly referred to an apocryphal source.
Besides these there are some coincidences in form between quotations as they appear in Justin and in other writers, such as especially the Clementine Homilies. These are thought to point to the existence of a common Gospel (now lost) from which they may have been extracted. It is unnecessary to repeat what has been said about one of these pa.s.sages ("Let your yea be yea," &c.). Another corresponds roughly to the verse Matt. xxv. 41, where both Justin and the Clementine Homilies read [Greek: hupagete eis to skotos to exoteron o haetoimasen ho pataer to satana (to diabolo] Clem. Hom.) [Greek: kai tois angelois autou] for the canonical [Greek: poreuesthe ap" emou eis to pur to aionion to haetoimasmenon k.t.l.] It is true that there is a considerable approximation to the reading of Justin and the Clementines, found especially in MSS. and authorities of a Western character (D. Latt. Iren. Cypr. Hil.), but there still remains the coincidence in regard to [Greek: exoteron](?) for [Greek: aionion] and [Greek: skotos] for [Greek: pyr], which seems to be due to something more than merely a variant text of the Gospel. A third meeting-point between Justin and the Clementines is afforded by a text which we shall have to touch upon when we come to speak of the fourth Gospel.
Of the other quotations common to the Clementines and Justin there is a partial but not complete coincidence in regard to Matt. vii. 15, xi.
27, xix. 16, and Luke vi. 36. In Matt. vii. 15 the Clementines have [Greek: polloi eleusontai] where Justin has once [Greek: polloi eleusontai], once [Greek: polloi aexousin], and once the Matthaean version [Greek: prosechete apo ton pseudoprophaeton oitines erchontai k.t.l.] There is however a difference in regard to the reading [Greek: en endumasi], where the Clementines have [Greek: en endumatie], and Justin twice over [Greek: endedumenoi]. In Matt. xi. 27, Justin and the Clementines agree as to the order of the clauses, and twice in the use of the aorist [Greek: egno] (Justin has once [Greek: ginosko]), but in the concluding clause ([Greek: ho [ois] Clem.] [Greek: ean boulaetai ho nios apokalupsai]) Justin has uniformly in the three places where the verse is quoted [Greek: ois an ho uhios apokalupsae].
In Matt. xix. 16, 17 (Luke xviii. 18, 19) the Clementines and Justin alternately adhere to the Canonical text while differing from each other, but in the concluding phrase Justin has on one occasion the Clementine reading, [Greek: ho pataer mou ho en tois ouranois]. In Luke vi. 36 the Clementines have [Greek: ginesthe agathoi kai ioktirmones], where Justin has [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai oiktirmones] against the Canonical [Greek: ginesthe oiktirmones]. On the other hand, it should be said that the remaining quotations common to the Clementines and Justin have to all appearance no relation to each other. This applies to Matt. iv. 10, v. 39, 40, vi. 8, viii. 11, x. 28; Luke xi. 52. Speaking generally we seem to observe in comparing Justin and the Clementines phenomena not dissimilar to those which appear on a comparison with the Canonical Gospels. There is perhaps about the same degree at once of resemblance and divergence.
The princ.i.p.al textual coincidence with other writers is that with the Gospel used by the Marcosians as quoted by Irenaeus (Adv.
Haer. i. 20. 3). Here the reading of Matt. xi. 27 is given in a form very similar to that of Justin, [Greek: oudeis hegno ton patera ei mae ho uhios, kai (oude Justin) ton uhion, ei mae ho pataer kai ho (ois] Justin) [Greek: an ho uhios apokalupsae].
This verse however is quoted by the early writers, orthodox as well as heretical, in almost every possible way, and it is not clear from the account in Irenaeus whether the Marcosians used an extra- canonical Gospel or merely a different text of the Canonical.
Irenaeus himself seems to hold the latter view, and in favour of it may be urged the fact that they quote pa.s.sages peculiar both to the first and the third Gospel; on the other hand, one of their quotations, [Greek: pollakis epethuaesa akousai hena ton logon touton], does not appear to have a canonical original.
On reviewing these results we find them present a chequered appearance. There are no traces of coincidence so definite and consistent as to justify us in laying the finger upon any particular extra-canonical Gospel as that used by Justin. But upon the whole it seems best to a.s.sume that some such Gospel was used, certainly not to the exclusion of the Canonical Gospels, but probably in addition to them.
A confusing element in the whole question is that to which we have just alluded in regard to the Gospel of the Marcosians. It is often difficult to decide whether a writer has really before him an unknown doc.u.ment or merely a variant text of one with which we are familiar. In the case of Justin it is to be noticed that there is often a very considerable approximation to his readings, not in the best text, but in some very early attested text, of the Canonical Gospels. It will be well to collect some of the most prominent instances of this.
Matt. iii. 15 ad fin. [Greek: kai pur anaephthae en to Iordanae]
Justin. So a. (Codex Vercellensis of the Old Latin translation) adds "et c.u.m baptizaretur lumen ingens circ.u.mfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent onmes qui advenerant;" g[1]. (Codex Sangermanensis of the same) "lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua," &c. See above.
Luke iii. 22. Justin reads [Greek: uhios mon ei su, ego saemeron gegennaeka se]. So D, a, b, c, ff, l, Latin Fathers ("nonnulli codices" Augustine). See above.
Matt. v. 28. [Greek: hos un emblepsae] for [Greek: pas ho blepon].
Origen five times as Justin, only once the accepted text.
Matt. v. 29. Justin and Clement of Alexandria read here [Greek: ekkopson] for [Greek: exele], probably from the next verse or from Matt. xviii. 8.
Matt. vi. 20. [Greek: ouranois] Clem. Alex. with Justin; [Greek: ourano] the accepted reading.
Matt. xvi. 26. [Greek: opheleitai] Justin with most MSS. both of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac (Crowfoot), Clement, Hilary, and Lucifer, against [Greek: ophelaethaesetai] of the best Alexandrine authorities.
Matt. vi. 21. There is a striking coincidence here with Clement of Alexandria, who reads, like Justin, [Greek: nous] for [Greek: cardia]; it would seem that Clement had probably derived his reading from Justin.
Matt. v. 22. [Greek: hostis an orgisthae] Syr. Crt. (Crowfoot); so Justin ([Greek: hos]).
Matt. v. 16. Clement of Alexandria (with Tertullian and several Latin Fathers) has [Greek: lampsato ta erga] and [Greek: ta agatha erga], where Justin has [Greek: lampsato ta kala erga], for [Greek: lampsato to phos]. Both readings would seem to be a gloss on the original.