Justin tells us in his first "Apology" (A.D. 139), that the memoirs of the apostles called evangels were read after the prophets every Lord's Day in the assemblies of the Christians.
This must have reference to the writings which alone, a few years later, were universally known as the Four Gospels, or the Acts of the Apostles.
The second volume of the work opens with an examination of "the evidence furnished by the apocryphal religious romance generally known by the name of 'The Clementines,'" which includes the Homilies, the Recognitions, and a so-called Epitome—the Homilies and Recognitions being, he says, "the one merely a version of the other," and the Epitome a blending of the other two. As there are in the Clementine Homilies upwards of a hundred quotations of expressions of Jesus, or references to His history (not less than fifty passages from the Sermon on the Mount), it is important to ascertain, if possible, when they were written, and from what writings they quote. The date cannot be determined. The range of probability is from the middle of the second century. If much later, the inquiry does not amount to much, because we know, from ample evidence, such as that of Irenæus, that the Four Gospels as we have them were in existence, and read in the Churches, in the middle of the second century. We presume, therefore, our author takes an early date for granted, or he would not have occupied forty pages in their examination.
The first quotation which, he says, agrees with a passage in our Synoptics, occurs in the third Homily, p. 52: "And he cried, saying, Come unto me all ye that are weary;" which agrees with Matt. xi. 28. Because the quotation is not continued, but the following words are an explanation of what "Come unto me," &c., means—"that is, who are seeking truth, and not finding it,"—we are to deem it "evident that so short and fragmentary a phrase cannot prove anything." I exclaim, Indeed! Not in a book that contains a hundred references to the words of Jesus! Not, considering that they are especially the words of Jesus, that no one else so said to the weary, "Come unto me!" Most readers will surely think the contrary should be inferred!
Among the quotations are words resembling the text of Matthew xxv. 26-30: "Thou wicked and slothful servant: thou oughtest to have put out my money with the exchangers, and at my coming I should have exacted mine own."[33] If this were the only reference to the Gospels as we have them, the quotation is sufficiently near to make the inference certain that such writings, in some shape, must have been in existence when the Clementine Homilies were written. This our author acknowledges, but he says (vol. ii. p. 17): "If the variations were the exception among a mass of quotations perfectly agreeing with the parallels in our Gospels, it might be exaggeration to base upon such divergences a conclusion that they were derived from a different source. The variations being the rule, instead of the exception, these, however slight, become evidence of the use of a different Gospel from ours."[34]
I remark, supposing this be so, that the author of these Homilies had, in the year 160, other Gospel manuscripts before him, it is not pretended that our Gospels contain all that was known of the sayings of Jesus, and all the events of His public ministry. We are told in the Fourth Gospel: "There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."[35] If the author of the Fourth Gospel did not include many things which he knew had been previously written about, why should we be surprised to find the authors of the Synoptic Gospels record only portions?
We know that Paul wrote an epistle to the Church at Laodicea, which is not preserved to us. We hold that Paul was as much an inspired writer as any of the apostles, and instead of making all sorts of difficulties about the books we have, we ought to be grateful that they are extant. We read in Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 16: "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."
I wonder whether our author has an objection to the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians, because Epictetus, who was born at Hierapolis about A.D. 50, which was within a few miles of Colosse and Laodicea, and who would be likely to know, at that time, what was there going on, does not refer to Paul and the Churches there?
But it is useless to disprove the assertion that there are no quotations from the Gospels, for we are met at every turn with the objection that those specified are probably quotations from the numerous lost Gospels known to have been in circulation. He says: "The great mass of intelligent critics are agreed that our Synoptics have assumed their present form only after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier evangelical works. The primitive Gospels have entirely disappeared, supplanted by the later and more amplified versions (p. 459). The first two Synoptics bear no author's name, because they are not the work of any one man, but the collected materials of many. The third only pretends to be a compilation for private use, and the fourth bears no simple signature, because it is neither the work of an apostle nor of an eye-witness of the events it records" (p. 401). I remark, if Luke's Gospel does only pretend to be for private use, does that affect its value? If Matthew wrote at all, and our author acknowledges he did in Hebrew, his work would be likely to be translated into Greek, either by himself or some one else, and many copies circulated. Supposing the original in Hebrew to be lost, it is not probable the Greek copies could be all collected from various places, and all altered and supplemented. How could any one do this? He might write and issue a new version, but he could not suppress the original one unless all the existing copies were under his own control. As we have a certain work preserved, and no other, pretending to be Matthew's, it is highly probable that what Matthew contributed to the Church is that Gospel. A fictitious one would be less likely to be preserved than a real one, though we are asked to believe the contrary. Our author suggests that if we had the original writings we should find them minus the miracles, which is altogether inconsistent with what he has said about the prevalence of miraculous notions among the Jews at the time. At any rate, if the books in circulation did not relate miracles, they would not be in harmony with the gospel preached by Paul, and believed by the first Christians. Supposing that there were, as Luke intimates, and as our author asserts, many original writings, what more likely than that Matthew should collect some of them, and embody them, with his own record, in one book, under his own name? It is quite true that we meet with references to apostolic writings under other titles than those in the New Testament: we read of,—
"The Gospel according to the Hebrews."