I. Relative Position. — Concerning the ord^r which thej^ occupy in the Scriptures, the oldest Latin and Gothic versions, as also the Codex CantaVirigiensis, place IMatthew and John first, and after them Mark and Luke, while the other JMSS. and old versions fol, low the order given to them in our Bibles. As dog- matical reasons render a different order more natural, there is much in favor of the opinion that their usual position arose from regard to the chronological dates of the respective composition of the four gospels (see Seller, De tempore et ordine qidbits tria Erangg. priora scripta snnt, Erlang. 1805 sq.): this is the opinion of Origen, Irenwus, and Eusebius. All ancient testimo- nies agree that Jlatthew was the earliest and John the
GOSPELS
934
GOSPELS
latest evangelist. — Kitto, s. v. For the dates, see each gospel. See also Tischendorf s tract, ]Va7in wur- den unsere Evanpelien verfasst? (2d ed. Lpz. 18G5).
II. A t) then f kit//. — It may fairly be said that the genuineness of these four narratives rests upon better evidence than tliat of any otlier ancient writings. They were all composed during the latter half of the 1st century. Before the end of the 2d centurj' there is abundant evidence that the four gospels, as one col- lection, were generally used and accepted. Ircnasus, ■wild suffered m:irtyrdoui about A.D. 202, the disciple of Pulyearp and I'apias, who, from having been in Asia, in Gaul, and in Kome, had ample means of know- ing the lielief of various churches, says that the au- thority of the four gospels was so contirmed that even the heretics of his time could not reject them, but were obliged to attempt to prove their tenets out of one or other of them (Contr. liar, iii, 11, § 7). Tertulliau, in a work written about A.D. 208, mentions the four gos- jiels, two of tiiem as tlie work of apostles, and two as that of tlie disciples of apostles (apostoUci) ; and rests their autliority on their apostolic origin (^Adi;. JSIurcion. iv, ch. ii). Origen, who was born about A.D. 185, and died A.D. 253, describes the gospels in a characteristic strain of metaphor as "the [four] elements of the Church's faith, of which the whole world, reconciled to God in Christ, is composed" (/w Jukan.). Else- where, in commenting on the opening words of Luke, he draws a line between the inspired Gospels and such productions as " the Gospel according to the Egyp- tians," " the Gospel of the Twelve," and the like (//o- mU. in Luc. iii, p. 932 sq.). Although Theophilus, who became sixth (seventh ?) bishop of Antioch about A.D. 1G8, speaks onh' of "the gospels," without adding, at least in that connection, the names of the authors (Ad .Autol. iii, p. 124, 125), we might fairly conclude with Gieseler tliat he refers to the collection of four, already' known in his thne. But from Jerome we know that Theophilus arranged the records of the four evangel- ists into one work (Epist. ad A If/as. iv, p. 197). Ta- tian, who died about A.D. 170 (?), compiled a Dkites- .mriW; or Harmony of the Gospels. Tlie Muratorian fragment (Muratori, Antiq. It. iii, 854 ; Routh, Eeliq. S. vol. i\'), which, even if it be not by Caius and of the 2d century, is at least a ver}' old monument of the Ro- man Church, describes the gospels of Luke and John ; but time and carelessness seem to have destroj-ed the sentences relating to Matthew and Mark. Another source of evidence is open to us in the citations from tlie gospels found in the earliest writers. Bai-nabas, Clemens Eomanus, and Pol3'carp quote passages from them, but not with verbal exactness. The testimony of Ju.-tin ]Martyr (born about A.D. 99, martyred A.D. 1C5) is much fuller; many of his quotations are sub- stantially found in the gospels of Matthew, Luke, prol)abh' of John, and possibly of Mark also, whose ■words it is more difficult to separate. The quotations from Matthew are the most numerous. In historical references, the mode of quotation is more free, and the narrative occasionally unites those of Matthew and Luke : in a very few cases he alludes tn matters not mentioned in the canonical gospels (see Sernisch, Apost. Denkwi'trdirjk. d. ^f. Justin. Hamb. 1818). Be- sides these, Matthew appears to be quoted by the au- thor of the epistle to Diognetiis, by Ilcgesippus, Ire- naMis. Tatian, Atlienagoras, and Theophilus. Eusebius records that Pantienus found in India (the south of Arabia?) Christians who used the gosjiel of IMatthew. All this shows that long before the end o.'the 2d cen- tury the gospel of Matthew was in general use. From the fact that Mark's gospel has few places peculiar to it. it is more difficult to identify citations not express- ly assit^ned to him ; l)ut Justin ^lartyr and Atlienago- ras apjiear to quote his gospel, and Irena-us does so by name. Luke is quoted l)y .kistin, Irenaeiis, Tatian, Atlienagoras, and Theophilus ; and John liy all of these, with the addition of Ignatius, the epistle to Di-
ognetus, and Pol3'crates. From these we may con- clude that before the end of the second century the Gospel collection Avas well known and in general use. There is yet another line of evidence. The heretical sects, as well as the fathers of the Church, knew the gospels; and as there was the greatest hostilitv be- tween them, if the gospels had become known in the Church after the dissension arose, the heretics would never have accepted them as genuine from such a quarter. Both the Gnostics and Marcionites arose early in the 2d centurj'; and therefore it is probable that the gospels were then accepted, and thus they are traced back almost to the times of the apostles (01s- hausen). Upon a review of all the witnesses, from the apostolic fathers down to the Canon of the Laodi- cean Council in 304, and that of the third Council of Carthage in 397, in both of which the four gospels are numbered in the Canon of Scripture, there can hardlj^ lie room for any candid person to doubt that from the first the four gospels were recognised as genuine and as inspired ; that a sharp line of distinction was drawn between them and the so-called apocryphal gospels, of which the number was very great; that, from the citations of passages, the gospels bearing these four names were the same as those which we possess in our Bibles under the same names; that unbelievers, like Celsus, did not deny the genuineness of the gospels, even when rejecting their contents ; and, lastly, that heretics thought it necessary to plead some kind of sanction out of the gospels for their doctrines : nor could they venture on the easier path of an entire re- jection, because the gospels were everywhere known to be genuine. As a matter of literary history, nothing can be better established than the genuineness of the gospels; and if in these latest times they have been assailed, it is jilain that theological doubts have been concerned in the attack. The authority of the books has been denied from a wish to set aside their con- tents. Out of a mass of authorities the following may be selected: Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels (Bost. 1846-8, 3 vols.); Kirchhofer, Quellensammlimrj zur Ge- sckicJite des N.-T. Canons (Zurich, 1844); De Wette, Lehrhuch der hist.-krit. Einlntunff. etc. (0th ed., B?rlin, 1860; tr. Bost. 1858) ; Hug's Einkitung (tr. with notes, Andover, 1836) ; Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar. In- troduction, and his Echtheil der 4 Conon. Evangelien (Konigsb. 1823) ; Jones, Method of settling the canoni- cal Authority of the N. T. (Oxf. i798, 2 vols.); Baur, Kril. Vntersuchiingen fiber die Canon. Ecangelien ( Tlib. 1847) ; Reuss, Gesch. des N. T. (4th ed., Brunswick, 1864) ; Alford's Greek Testament, Prolegomena, vol. i ; Westcott's History of X.-T. Canon (2ded. Lond. 1806); Gieseler, nistorisch-kiitlscher Versuch i'lher die Enste- hung, etc., der schriftlichen Evaiigelien (Lpz. 1818). — Smith, s. V.