(not with historical accuracy but) sufficiently to show that he was
acquainted with the beginning of Luke ii.; and in order to account for
the fact that Christ was not born in the inn, but in a more sordid place
(whether stable or cave matters not, for if it was a cave it was a cave
used as a stable, for there was a "manger" in it), he reproduces Luke
ii. 6-7.

Justin then, in a single consecutive narrative, expressed much in his
own words, gives the whole account, so far as it was a fulfilment of
prophecy, made up from two narratives which have come down to us in the
Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and in these only. It would have
been absurd for him to have done otherwise, as he might have done if he
had anticipated the carpings of nineteenth century critics, and assumed
that Trypho, an unconverted Jew, had a New Testament in his hand with
which he was so familiar that he could be referred to first one
narrative and then the other, in order to test the correctness of
Justin's quotations.

Against all this the author of "Supernatural Religion" brings forward a
number of trifling disagreements as proofs that Justin need not have
quoted one of the Evangelists--probably did not--indeed, may not have
ever seen our synoptics, or heard of their existence. But the reader
will observe that he has given the same history as we find in the two
synoptics which have given an account of the Nativity, and he apparently
knew of no other account of the matter.

We are reminded that there were numerous apocryphal Gospels then in use
in the Church, and that Justin might have derived his matter from these;
but, if so, how is it that he discards all the lying legends with which
those Gospels team, and, with the solitary exception of the mention of