GOSPEL
GOSPEL late productions, the apocryplial cbaraetcr of which is generally admitted by contemporary scholars (see Apocrypha). It is indeed impossible, at the present day, to de- scribe the precise manner in which out of the numerous works ascribed to some Apostle, or simplj' bearing the name of gospel, only four, two of which are not ascribed to Apostles, came to be considered as sacred and canonical. It remains true, however, that all the early testimony which has a distinct bearing on the number of the canonical Gospels recognizes four such Gospels and none besides. Thus, Eusebius (d. 'MO), when sorting out the universally receied books of the Canon, in distinction from those which some have questioned, writes: "And here, among the first, must be placed the holy quaternion of the Gospels ' ', while he ranks the "Gospel according to the Hebrews among the second, that is, among the disputed writings (Hist. Eccl., Ill, xxv). Clement of Alexandria (d. about 220) and TertuUian (d. 220) were familiar with our four Gospels, frequently quoting and commenting on them. The last-named writer speaks also of the Old Latin version known to himself and to his readers, and by so doing carries us back beyond his time. The saintly Bishop of Lyons, Irena-us (d. 202), who had known Polycarp in Asia Minor, not only admits and quotes our four Gospels, but argues that they must be just four, no more and no less. He says: "It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pil- lar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life; it is fitting that we should have four pil- lars, breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying our flesh. . . The living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord" (.-^dv. Haer., Ill, xi, 8). About the time when St. Irenieus gave this ex- plicit testimony to our four Gospels, the Canon of Muratori bore likewise witness to them, as did also the Peshito and other early Syriac translations, and the various Coptic versions of the New Testament. The same thing must be said with regard to the Syriac har- mony of the canonical Gospels, which was framed by St. Justin's disciple, Tatian, and which is usually re- ferred to under its Greek name of Diatessaron (T6 Sii, Tecra-dprnK Ei)a77Aioi'). The recent discovery of this work has allowed Harnack to infer, from some of its particulars, that it was based on a still earlier har- mony, that made by St. Hippolytus of Antioch, of our four Gospels. It has also set at rest the vexed ques- tion as to St. Justin's use of the canonical Gospels. "For since Tatian was a disciple of Justin, it is incon- ceivable that he should have worked on quite different Gospels from those of his teacher, while each held the Gospels he used to be the books of primarv' impor- tance" (Adeney). Indeed, even before the discovery of Tatian's "Diatessaron", an imbiased study of Jus- tui's authentic writings had made it clear that the holy doctor used exclusively oiu- canonical Gospels under the name of Memoirs of the Apostles. Of these testimonies of the second century two are particularly worthy of notice, -iz. those of St. Justin and St. Irenaeus. As the former writer belongs to the first part of that centun,', ami speaks of the canonical Gospels as a well-known and fully authentic collection, it is only natural to think that at his time of writing (about A. D. 145) the same Gospels, and they only, had been recognized as sacred records of Christ's life, and that they had been regarded as such at least as early as the beginning of the second centurj' of our era. The testimony of the latter apologist is still more impor- tant. "The verj' absurdity of his reasoning testifies to the well-established position attained in his day by the four Gospels, to the exclusion of all others. Ire- na;us' bishop was Potinus who lived to the age of 90, VI.— 12 and Irena'us had known Polycarp in Asia Minor. Here are links of connexion with the past which go back beyond the beginning of the second century" (Adeney). In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers one does not, indeed, meet with unquestionable evidence in favour of only four canonical Gospels. But this is only what one might expect from the works of men who lived in the very century in which these inspired records were composed, and in which the word Gospel was yet applied to the glad tidings of salvation, and not to the written accounts thereof. (3) Chief Differences between Canonical and Apoc- ryphal Gospels. — From the outset, the four Gospels, the sacred character of which was thus recognized very early, differed in several respects from the numerous uncanonical Gospels which circulated during the first centuries of the Church. First of all, they com- mended themselves by their tone of simplicity and truthfulness, which stood in striking contrast with the trivial, absurd, or manifestly legendary character of many of those uncanonical productions. In the next place, they had an earlier origin than mo.st of their apocrj'phal rivals, and indeed many of the latter pro- ductions were directly based on the canonical Gospels. A third feature in favour of our canonical records of Christ's life was the purity of their teachings, dog- matic and moral, over against the Jewish, Gnostic, or other heretical views with which not a few- of the apocrjTjhal gospels were tainted, and on account of which these unsound writmgs found favour among heretical bodies and, on the contrarj', discredit in the eyes of Catholics. Lastly, and more particularly, the canonical Gospels were regarded as of Apostolic au- thority, two of them being ascribed to the Apostles St. Matthew and St. John, respectively, and two to St. Mark and St. Luke, the respective companions of St. Peter and St. Paul. JIany other gospels indeed claimed Apostolic authority, but to none of them was this claim universally allowed in the early Church. The only apocrj^ihal work which was at all generally received, and relied upon, in addition to our four ca- nonical Gospels, is the " Gospel according to the He- brews". It is a well-known fact that St. Jerome, speaking of this Gospel imder the name of " The Gos- pel according to the Nazarenes", regards it as the Hebrew original of our Greek canonical Gospel accord- ing to St. Matthew. But, as far as can be judged from its fragments which have come down to us, it has no right to originality as compared with our first canon- ical Gospel. At a verj- early date, too, it was treated as devoid of Apostolic authority, and St. Jerome him- self, who states that he had its Aramaic text at his disposal, does not assign it a place side by side with our canonical Gospels: all the authority which he ascribes to it is derived from his persuasion that it was the original text of our First Gospel, and not a distinct Gospel over and above the four universally received from time immemorial in the Catholic Church. (4) Order of the Gospels. — While the ancient lists, versions, and ecclesiastical writers agree in admitting the canonical character of only four Gospels, they are far from being at one with regard to the order of these sacred records of Christ's words and deeds. In early Christian literature, the canonical Gospels are given in no less than eight orders, besides the one (St. Matthew, St. JIark, St. Luke, St. John) with which we are famil- iar. The 'ariations bear chiefly on the place given to St. John, then, secondarily, on the respective posi- tions of St. Mark and St. Luke. St. John passes from the fourth place to the third, to the second, or even to the first. .s regards St. Luke and St. Mark, St. Luke's Gospel is often placed first, doubtless as being the longer of the two, but at times also second, perhaps to bring it in immediate connexion with the Acts, which are traditionally ascribed to the author of oiu- Thirtl Gospel.
