We notice here, first, an important point, that Justin reproduces at the end of his quotation what appears to be not so much a part of the object-matter of the narrative as a comment or reflection of the Evangelist (’Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist’).  This was thought by Credner, who as a rule is inclined to press the use of an apocryphal Gospel by Justin, to be sufficient proof that the quotation is taken from our present Matthew [Endnote 119:1].  On this point, however, there is an able and on the whole a sound argument in ‘Supernatural Religion’ [Endnote 119:2].  There are certainly cases in which a similar comment or reflection is found either in all three Synoptic Gospels or in two of them (e.g.  Matt. vii. 28, 29 = Mark i. 22 = Luke iv. 32; Matt. xiii. 34 = Mark iv. 33, 34; Matt. xxvi. 43 = Mark xiv. 40; Matt. xix. 22 = Mark x. 22).  The author consequently maintains that these were found in the original document from which all three, or two Synoptics at least, borrowed; and he notes that this very passage is assigned by Ewald to the ‘oldest Gospel.’

The observation in itself is a fine and true one, and has an important bearing upon the question as to the way in which our Synoptic Gospels were composed.  We may indeed remark in passing that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when once this principle of a common written basis or bases for the Synoptic Gospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown; for there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotations from the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differences which exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showing that the Evangelists took liberties with their ground documents to an extent that is really greater than that of any subsequent misquotation.  But putting aside for the present this argumentum ad hominem which seems to follow from the admission here made, there is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in the present case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing his ground document.  There is one element in the question which the author has omitted to notice; that is, the parallel passage in St. Mark. This differs so widely from the text of St. Matthew as to show that that text cannot accurately represent the original; it also wants the reflective comment altogether.  Accordingly, if the author will turn to p. 275 of Ewald’s book [Endnote 120:1] he will find that that writer, though roughly assigning the passage as it appears in both Synoptics to the ‘oldest Gospel,’ yet in reconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking that of either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two.  All the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as I am aware, have done the same.  Holtzmann [Endnote 120:2] follows Ewald, and Weiss [Endnote 120:3] accepts Mark’s as more nearly the original text.