There is evidence that the four New Testament gospels were largely hidden - in the writings of St. Justin Martyr. He knew nothing of Acts, a book that was never quoted until 177 AD (pages 150, 225, The Jesus Mysteries). Our four gospels were certainly unavailable to him, for what he did have differs significantly (ibid., page 224). He never mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John (page 224, The Jesus Mysteries). On one occasion, he quotes what may have come from the heretical Gospel of Peter (page 200, The Canon of Scripture).
Justin did know the four gospels before he died in 165 AD, for it was his disciple, the Encratite Tatian, who merged the gospels into one heretical and condemned book called the Diatessaron. Tatian might have inserted quotes into Justin's writings. If so, it is no wonder they differ so greatly from the four gospels and contradict Justin's statements—they were likely inserted in a hurry. When Justin had a heretic disciple who taught that it was a sin to eat meat or drink wine and frequently forbade marriage, the gospels must have been censored, for they do not sanction such asceticism at all, but rather the opposite.
Justin wrote his First Apology around 150 AD. It was addressed to the Roman Emperor and contains the following evidence.
Astonishingly, Justin argues that reason forbids humanity to follow the traditions of men who erred or did wrong. This contradicts what he said about relying on the apostles to find the true revelation that Jesus gave. The apostles denied that they were sinless or always infallible. Justin evidently could not access the New Testament gospels. The passages which approve of the apostles must have been later insertions. The real Justin held that reason was supreme, not the apostles, and believed in direct revelation from Jesus.
Justin—or his ghostwriter—gave many quotations from Jesus’ words as they appear in the gospels, but Christians had nothing to fear from publicizing them. They had plenty to fear from much of the historical material.
Justin told the Emperor to read the Acts of Pontius Pilate, which recorded the miracles of Jesus. But this book was rejected as rubbish by the Church. If Justin was prejudiced against evil men like Pilate, why did he tell the Emperor to read Pilate’s alleged book and not the works of the more holy apostles? Justin must really have been desperate. The gospels were censored.
Justin quoted Psalm 22, saying it referred to the nailing of Jesus to the cross and other events at that time, and told the Emperor he could check this in the Acts of Pilate. Why not the gospels? Justin gives no hint that this book was considered authoritative by anyone but himself. Nobody would have worried about obscure, wacky books in those days to destroy them. The four gospels, if they were considered scripture or close to it, would have had to have been hidden, for they were official books. They were hidden when Justin had to direct the Emperor to rubbish that nobody else would touch.
It is important that Justin turns to vague Old Testament “prophecies” that are not truly prophetic to support some of the things he believed were facts about Jesus’ life. Why not turn to the gospels? They were still censored in his day. You do not use weak arguments instead of strong ones unless the weak ones are all you have.
Justin taught that baptism remits sin by magical power and causes a person to be reborn or born into the divine family.
Justin made the mistake of assuming that when Jesus said, “you have to be reborn to get into the kingdom of Heaven,” anyone not born of water and the Spirit cannot enter the kingdom of God, meaning that water refers to baptism. Jesus more likely meant a birth from water and wind, both symbols of the Holy Spirit. He could not read the verse in its context because the gospels were hidden. The way Jesus said that the action of the Spirit was like the blowing of the wind—which is unpredictable—shows he was not thinking of a magical baptism ceremony. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:13 that we all drank from the same Holy Spirit, indicating that water was symbolic of the Spirit and not literal.
Justin seems to be quoting John 3:5 here, but it differs from John, so Ellegard is right to say that Justin never cited the Gospel of John (page 183, Jesus – One Hundred Years Before Christ). The quote could have come from Justin’s common sense. Tradition held that baptism was rebirth and necessary for Heaven, so it was natural for someone to claim that Jesus said this, and for Justin to quote it without having John’s Gospel. John mentions “kingdom of God” and “reborn of water and Spirit,” whereas Justin differs, showing significant variation. If Justin was quoting John, he had been told some of its content but could not access a copy to quote accurately.
Justin seemingly quoted Luke 22:19 in the First Apology, claiming it was a quote from an apostle. Either Justin quoted a verbal apostolic tradition, or he denied that Luke, who was not an apostle, wrote the gospel, and instead said an apostle did. It is absurd to claim he meant Luke was an apostle in the modern sense. Most likely, he meant one of the twelve. But the quote is skeletal and could come from any gospel, more likely from memory or liturgy.
Justin held that a person goes to everlasting torture or salvation according to their actions, contradicting the New Testament, mainly the Pauline epistles, which say salvation is without good works. This does not prove he did not know the New Testament, for the epistles would hardly have been censored, but that he did not consider their authors completely reliable.
In his First Apology, Justin said that the Jews were wrong to think that the person speaking to Moses in the burning bush was God the Father, claiming it was God the Son. However, Jesus supported the Jewish belief in Mark 12, Matthew 22, and Luke 20.
In The Truth of Christianity, Turton claims Justin used the gospels, calling them the Memoirs of the Apostles: “Justin gives about sixty quotations from these Memoirs, and they describe precisely those events in the life of Christ recorded in our first three, commonly called the Synoptic Gospels, with scarcely any addition. Indeed, of all Justin’s references to the events of Christ’s life, whether quotations or not, of which there are over two hundred, only four refer to events not now found in our Gospels. This is remarkable and seems to show that even at this early time, our Gospels were the only recognized sources of information” (pages 282–283).
But “scarcely any of the quotations are verbally accurate, and it has been urged in consequence that Justin must have been quoting from some lost gospel. But this theory is hardly tenable. For Justin sometimes quotes the same passage differently, clearly showing that he was relying on memory; he had not looked up the reference, which in those days of manuscripts, without concordances, must have been tedious. Also, when quoting the Old Testament, he is almost equally inaccurate” (page 284).
A professional Christian apologist like Justin, who knew the importance of accurate quotations as a philosopher, would have jotted down useful quotations when he found them if he studied the manuscripts at all. It appears Justin learned much about what was in the gospels somehow but could not read them himself, probably receiving information from someone who read imitation gospels and revealed their contents rather than the four canonical gospels. Whatever his informant read included stories about wise men from Arabia and Jesus being born in a cave—details not in the canonical gospels.
Justin was careless with the Old Testament, forcing it to testify about Christ. He claimed Moses made a cross with a snake, which was why Plato said God placed a god crosswise in the universe. He even claimed Moses inspired Greek philosophy. Justin manipulated texts and added prophecies, such as raising the dead, cleansing lepers, and healing the blind to Isaiah 35:6, to appear as exact prophecies about Jesus. Isaiah 57:1, which refers to the prophet’s contemporary events, was made into a prophecy of Christ. Deuteronomy 30:15,19 was misrepresented as being spoken to Adam. These distortions show deliberate manipulation, even though the Old Testament was accessible.
Around 135 AD, a knowledgeable Jew named Trypho met Justin. Justin recorded their debate in his Dialogue with Trypho, trying to convert him. Justin claimed Jesus spoke to Moses from the burning bush, though Jesus said it was the Father—a deliberate misstatement or error. Justin did not have the complete gospels, for he misquoted Luke 20:35 and other passages. Trypho rightly rejected these as inadequate evidence. A man as intelligent as Justin would have used better texts if available. But he could not access the gospels or Roman records, only the dubious Acts of Pilate. Trypho even questioned Jesus’ existence, which indicates the gospels were hidden.
Justin seriously contradicted the gospels when he called Jesus a “Second God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 58–61). Neither he nor Trypho had heard of the gospels being strictly monotheistic.
St. Irenaeus advanced doctrines not in accord with the gospels, showing that they had just recently become known, and the Church had not yet derived a coherent theology from them. In Evil and the God of Love, Hick shows that Irenaeus taught that God allowed suffering for discipline and made Adam and Eve imperfect to allow growth through sin, rejecting the traditional gospel view that they were created perfect and fell, biasing humans toward sin and limiting the effectiveness of discipline.
The gospels, as four distinct books like we have today, were hidden or unknown in the time of Justin.
APPENDIX
The Acts of Pilate was a central tool in Justin’s apologetic strategy, a cornerstone of his attempt to show Christianity as historically grounded and credible in the eyes of Roman authorities. The seriousness of the text’s fabrication makes it even more striking — he relied on something that likely didn’t exist in the form he suggested, showing how much weight he placed on the “authority” it conferred.
Comparison of what Justin cites from the Acts of Pilate versus what’s in the canonical gospels, to see why scholars think he didn’t have access to the four gospels as we know them.
1. Jesus’ Trial and Crucifixion
Acts of Pilate (Justin’s version):
Pilate supposedly wrote or reported the trial.
Focuses on official proceedings and miraculous events: darkness, signs at the crucifixion.
Mentions Psalm 22 and other Old Testament “proofs” of Jesus’ fate.
Canonical Gospels:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John provide detailed narratives with dialogue between Jesus, Pilate, and the Jewish authorities.
Emphasis on theological meaning (Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecy, messianic role).
Crucifixion and resurrection events are framed in the life-story of Jesus, not as an official historical report.
Difference:
Justin’s Acts of Pilate presents Jesus’ trial as a quasi-official Roman record, almost like a historical document for outsiders.
The gospels present it as theological and narrative history. Justin never mentions the four gospel accounts or their authors.
2. Miracles
Acts of Pilate:
Reports miracles connected to the trial and death:
Darkness over the land
Earthquakes
Resurrection-like events
Focused on validating Jesus’ divine authority in a way a Roman might recognize.
Canonical Gospels:
Miracles occur throughout Jesus’ ministry, not just around the crucifixion.
Many miracles (healing, exorcisms, feeding the multitudes) are absent in Justin’s citations.
Difference:
Justin’s miracles are selective and mainly proofs for non-Christians, not complete records.
3. Old Testament Fulfillment
Acts of Pilate:
Uses passages like Psalm 22 to justify events in Jesus’ life.
Justin seems to rely on OT prophecy as “evidence” for Jesus’ crucifixion.
Canonical Gospels:
Fulfillment of prophecy is integrated into the narrative (e.g., Matthew 2:15, 27:46).
Specific prophecies are linked to detailed stories of Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, and resurrection.
Difference:
Justin does not cite or rely on gospel narrative fulfillment. His citations are selective and patchy, suggesting he didn’t have the gospels themselves.
4. Other Episodes
Acts of Pilate:
Mentions Jesus speaking to figures like Abraham and Moses (Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho).
Jesus’ role at the burning bush and appearances to Joshua (Joshua 5) are cited as miraculous authority.
Canonical Gospels:
Jesus does not speak to Moses or appear to Joshua in these ways.
All of Jesus’ interactions are within his earthly ministry (mostly in Galilee and Judea).
Difference:
Justin’s accounts contradict the gospels. He’s relying on apocryphal or oral traditions, not the canonical texts.
WRITINGS CONSULTED
Bible Dictionary and Concordance, New American Bible, 1970
Conspiracies and the Cross, Timothy Paul Jones, Front Line, A Strang Company, Florida, 2008
Decoding Mark, John Dart, Trinity Press, Harrisburg, PA, 2003
Early Christian Writings, Translated by Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin, London, 1987
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Evil and the God of Love, John Hick, Fontana/Fount, Glasgow, 1979
Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, Karl Von Hase, Vols 1& 2, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906
He Walked Among Us, Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, Alpha, Cumbria, 2000
Jesus – One Hundred Years Before Christ, Professor Alvar Ellegard, Century, London, 1999
Jesus and the Four Gospels, John Drane, Lion, Herts, 1984
Jesus the Evidence, Ian Wilson, Pan, London, 1985
JR Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1988 (from 1891 Edition published by Macmillan and Co. London)
New Age Bible Versions, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation, Tennessee, 1993
On the True Doctrine, Celsus, Translated by R Joseph Hoffmann, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987
The Apostolic Fathers, B Lightfoot and JR Harmer, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1988, from 1891 Edition published by Macmillan and Co. London
The Bible Fact or Fantasy, John Drane, Lion, Oxford, 1989
The Canon of Scripture, FF Bruce, Chapter House, Glasgow, 1988
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick Pelican, London, 1987
The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief, Volume 1, Gordon Stein, Editor, Prometheus Books, New York, 1985
The First Christian, Karen Armstrong, Pan Books, London, 1983
The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels, Penguin, London, 1990
The History of Christianity, Lions, Herts, 1982
The History of the Church, Eusebius, Penguin, London, 1989
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, Corgi, London, 1982
The Jesus Event, Martin R Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Thorsons, London, 1999
The Jesus Papyrus, Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona, Phoenix, London, 1997
The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought, Tony Lane, Lion Publishing, Herts, 1984
The Nag Hammadi Library, Edited by J A Robinson, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990
The Newly Recovered Gospel of St Peter, J Rendle Harris, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1893
The Original Jesus, Tom Wright, Lion, Oxford, 1996
The Reconstruction of Belief, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
The Secret Gospel, Morton Smith, Aquarian, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1985
The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark by Shawn Eyer Alexandria: The Journal for the Western Cosmological Traditions, Volume 3, 1995
The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
WHO CHOSE THE GOSPELS? C E Hill, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010
THE WWW
WERE THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AUTHENTIC AND UNAUTHENTIC BOOKS? GLENN MILLER
www.christian-thinktank.com/dumdad2.html
THE GOSPEL OF MARCION AND THE GOSPEL OF LUKE COMPARED, CHARLES B WAITE
www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
THE STRANGE CASE OF THE SECRET GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK, SHAWN EYER
www.globaltown.com/shawn/secmark.html
The “Historical” Jesus by Acharya S
www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm