23, containing the conception, the nativity, the visit of the Magi, and the flight into Egypt, all of which were found in Justin's Gospel; while in its Ebionite form it left out the first two chapters altogether.
There is not a tittle of evidence to show that the Gospel according to Peter was any more complete; in proportion as it resembled the Gospel according to the Hebrews the presumption is that it was not.

And the Protevangelium of James makes no mention of Arabia, while it expressly says that the star appeared 'in the East' (instead of 'in the heaven' as Justin); it also omits, and rather seems to exclude, the flight into Egypt.
It is therefore clear that whether Justin used these Gospels or not, he cannot in any case have confined himself to them; unless indeed this is possible in regard to the Gospel that bears the name of Peter, though the possibility is drawn so entirely from our ignorance that it can hardly be taken account of.

We thus seem to be reduced to the conclusion that Justin's Gospel or Gospels was an unknown entity of which no historical evidence survives, and this would almost be enough, according to the logical Law of Parsimony, to drive us back upon the assumption that our present Gospels only had been used.

This assumption however still does not appear to me wholly satisfactory, for reasons which will come out more clearly when from considering the matter of the documents which Justin used we pass to their form.
* * * * * The reader already has before him a collection of Justin's quotations from the Old Testament, the results of which may be stated thus.

From the Pentateuch eighteen passages are quoted exactly, nineteen with slight variations, and eleven with marked divergence.