We finished the prior article by examining the astonishing lack of quotes of the New Testament in early Christian literature up until the middle second century (roughly 150 A.D.). This is absolutely amazing when you see the silence of early Church writers as to any reference to the existence of "any" of the Four Gospels which we today are told to believer were written early and by the Apostles of Jesus. Such is not the case upon examination of early Patristic Literature.
Now we move to Justin Martyr about one hundred twenty years following the death of Jesus (roughly 150 A.D.). We again find no evidence of the existence of the Four Gospels. Justin Martyr flourished about 150 A.D. He is really the first writer who laid aside tradition, and appealed to records. In his works he frequently quotes from the Old Testament, and from what appears, at first sight, to be the New Testament, and the most strenuous exertions have been put forth by Christian apologists to show that he had our Four Gospels. But they utterly fail. Just makes three hundred and fourteen quotations from the Old Testament, and in one hundred ninety-seven of these-that is, in 2/3 of the cases, he names the book from which he is quoting. But in making his so-called New Testament quotations, he does not mention the name of any one of our Four Gospels.
Answer for yourself: Did you understand what I just shared with you? Justin made it a habit of quoting the Old Testament books by name when he quoted from them, but when quoting what one would believe to be "New Testament" quotes he NEVER mentions the name of the book from which the quotation comes. On the other hand, he states, distinctly and repeatedly, that the book from which he is quoting is the "Memoirs of the Apostles" (Apol. I. 66-67; Dial. C. Tryp. 100-104, 106), or the "Memoirs," "all things concerning Jesus Christ" (Apol., i. 33). He also quotes from the "Acts of Pilate" (Apol. I. 35, 48), giving the name of the book, and he refers to the "Memoirs or the Gospel of Peter" (Dial., 106).
Answer for yourself: Now, if he gives so often the names of the Old Testament books from which he quotes, and the names of what were to him the New Testament books which he used, why should he not give the names of the Four Gospels, if, as Christian apologists assert, he quotes from them?
The inference is plain. He was not quoting from our Four Gospels. He was using altogether different books. And yet, Christian theologians have asserted in the most positive manner that he distinctly recognizes all four of the evangelists! I give this as an illustration of the unfairness of orthodoxy and its statements.
To get around this sticky issue many Christian scholars, when advised of the above situation, retort that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" were in reality our Gospels under a different name. An evidence that this is not true, is that Justin makes nearly a hundred quotations from the "Memoirs," and in but two or three instances are they exactly the same as the parallel New Testament passages. In other words, his quotes don't agree with the New Testament passages in the vast majority of the cases. There is almost invariably some difference, either in sense or construction, showing that Justin's book was different from the Gospels which would come later. Moreover, he quotes from it things which are not even in the Gospels at all. He says that the "Memoirs" say that when Jesus went into the Jordan to be baptized a fire was kindles on the river (Dial., 88). There is no such thing in our Gospels. He says that the same devil which tempted Jesus on the Mount also tempted him as he was coming up out of the river (Dial., 108). Our Gospels say nothing to this effect.
You should find it very useful to keep these things in mind, for Justin Martyr's works are the great rallying point and battle-ground of orthodoxy. As he is the first polemical writer Christianity had the church has made every effort to show that he was acquainted with our Four Gospels. The efforts for those who study and read his works personally will show you that such endeavors by the church has been unsuccessful.
Answer for yourself: When was the first mention of the Gospels according to the names we not have for them?
The first writer who mentions either of the Evangelists by name as an author is Theophilus of Antioch in 180 A.D. He speaks of John's Gospel (Ad Adtol., ii. 22), but says nothing of the writer being an apostle. He simply calls the writer an "inspired man."
The first writer who mentions all four of our present Gospels by name was Irenaeus, who flourished in and about 200 A.D.
This is the whole of the "testimony of antiquity," to the beginning of the third century, as to the Four Gospels. The books are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them. Then comes the passages from Papias, which, as you now have seen, are rather the reflections of rumors rather than evidence for our Gospels. Justin Martyr does not mention the names of either of them. In quoting from other books, he mentions their names; and the inference is plain that he did not know of our Gospels in 150 A.D. Theophilus of Antioch, a 150 years after Jesus was dead, makes a slight mention of the Gospel of John. But not ill the year 200 A.D., nearly one hundred and seventy years after Jesus has died, do we hear of all Four Gospels.
One needs to understand that the earliest Church Fathers knew of no Gospels bearing the Apostle's names. It would be almost 170 years following the death of Jesus when the Latter Church Fathers would make reference to them. At the time of Irenaeus around 200 A.D. the Gospels are constantly quoted by the Christian Fathers, and when orthodoxy speaks of the "unanimous testimony of antiquity as to the authenticity of the Gospels," it usually states how many times the books were quoted by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and other later Fathers. The Gospels were indeed quoted by them, for they all lived this side of the year 200 A.D., when the books had commenced to circulate under their present names. But those later Fathers knew no more of the authorship of the books than we do, and in fact not as much, for they had not the critical ability that this age has. And they do not, when they quote the books, vouch for their authenticity. The Fathers simply give the names by which the books were known; and the earlier Fathers would have given the same names if the books had been known by those names earlier. As Dr. Westcott says:
"The main testimony of the Apostolic Fathers is therefore to the substance and not to the authenticity of the Gospels" (Canon, p. 52).
I sure you can not have but observed how few Christian writings of the first two centuries we have. Dr. Westcott calls it the "dark age of Christian literature" because so scant are its remains; and he practically concluded that the Four Gospels were not in existence up to the year 150 A.D. by saying:
"A few letters of consolation and warning, two or three apologies addressed to heathen, a controversy with a Jew, a vision, and a scanty gleaning of fragments of lost works, comprise all Christian literature up to the middle of the second century" (Canon, p. 11).
I have already made mention of the fact that the Christian writers previous to the years 150 A.D. quote from tradition or from Gospels other than our four, and that the most violent efforts are now made to have it appear that the quotations are form our present Gospels. For example, Ignatius, in his epistle to Polycarp, without intimating that he is quoting it from any book or that it is other than his own sentiment, says: "Be in all things wise as a serpent, but harmless as a dove," and modern apologist assert that this is from Matthew, "Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." Polycarp says: "Be merciful, and ye shall obtain mercy," and the claim is that this is the famous beatitude, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."There are a number of such passages as these, but they invariably differ more or less either in meaning or language from the New Testament parallels: and in no instance does the writer say that he obtained them from our Gospels! Even if passages were identical with those in the New Testament, they would not prove the existence of our Four Gospels, for there were many Gospels in circulation in the early ages of Christianity, which contained passages identical with those now in our four, and the quotations might have been made either from one of those or from tradition.
You will observe that when the different writers quote the words of Jesus or another person, they generally agree; but that in the narration of the story they differ. This shows that there may have been and probably was a manuscript in existence in those early days, containing the sayings of Jesus and others, and that this was made use of by later writers in composing their narratives. But the fact that the Apostolic Fathers use phrases or quotes sayings, with the prefatory explanation, "It is written," or "The Lord Jesus says," which agree more or less with the passages in our Gospels, does not prove the existence then of the Gospels. Dr Westcott admits this:
"No evangelical reference in the Apostolic Fathers can be referred certainly to a written period. It appears most probable, from the form of the quotations, that they were derived from oral tradition (Canon, 62).