It is true that there are ‘indications of similar discourses’ in the Synoptics, but of none containing a trait at all closely resembling this.  The chances that precisely the same combination of words ([Greek:  ho apokteinas humas doxei latreian prospherein to Theo]) occurred in a lost Gospel must be necessarily very small indeed, especially when we remember that the original saying was probably spoken in Aramaic and not in Greek [Endnote 307:1].

Dr. Keim, in the elaborate monograph mentioned above, decides that Celsus made use of the fourth Gospel.  He remarks upon it as curious, that more traces should indeed be found ’both in Celsus and his contemporary Tatian of John than of his two nearest predecessors’ [Endnote 307:2].  Of the instances given by Dr. Keim, the first (i. 41, the sign seen by the Baptist) depends on a somewhat doubtful reading ([Greek:  para to Ioannae], which should be perhaps [Greek:  para to Iordanae]); the second, the demand for a sign localised specially in the temple (i. 67; of.  John x. 23, 24), seems fairly to hold good.  ’The destination of Jesus alike for good and evil’ (iv. 7, ’that those who received it, having been good, should be saved; while those who received it not, having been shown to be bad, should be punished’) is indeed an idea peculiarly Johannean and creates a presumption of the use of the Gospel; we ought not perhaps to say more.  I can hardly consider the simple allusions to ‘flight’ ([Greek:  pheugein], ii. 9; [Greek:  taede kakeise apodedrakenai], i. 62) as necessarily references to the retreat to Ephraim in John xi. 54.  So too the expression ‘bound’ in ii. 9, and the ‘conflict with Satan’ in vi. 42, ii. 47, seem too vague to be used as proof.  Still Volkmar too declares it to be ‘notorious’ that Celsus was acquainted with the fourth Gospel, alleging i. 67 (as above), ii. 31 (an allusion to the Logos), ii. 36 (a satirical allusion to the issue of blood and water), which passages really seem on the whole to justify the assertion, though not in a quite unqualified form.

We ought not to omit to mention that there is a second fragment by Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, besides that to which we have already alluded, and preserved like it in the Paschal Chronicle, which confirms unequivocally the conclusion that he knew and used the fourth Gospel.  Amongst other titles that are applied to the crucified Saviour, he is spoken of as ’having been pierced in His sacred side,’ as ’having poured out of His side those two cleansing streams, water and blood, word and spirit’ [Endnote 308:1].  This incident is recorded only in the fourth Gospel.

In like manner when Athenagoras says ’The Father and the Son being one’ ([Greek:  henos ontos tou Patros kai tou Uiou]), it is probable that he is alluding to John x. 30, ’I and my Father are one,’ not to mention an alleged, but perhaps somewhat more doubtful, reference to John xvii. 3 [Endnote 308:2].