Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

Xliv THE COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS.
adduces from a work of Papias, now not extant, some notices of
Matthew and Mark. It is certainly true that nothing is said of
Luke and John ; but this is undoubtedly because the ancient
bishop had not made any particular observations on these two
Gospels. His silence respecthig them is the less an evidence that
he was not acquainted with them, as the theatre of the labours of
Papias was in the vicinity of Ephesus, where John lived so long,
and moreover wrote his Gospel. On this account Papias must
necessarily have been acquainted with it, Eusebius, moreover, re-
marks, in the same place, that Papias was acquainted with the first
Epistle of John. How much rather, then, with his Gospel '> Thus
Eusebius says nothing concerning Luke and John, only because it
was a matter of course that Papias was familiar with them, and the
latter had not said anything special in regard to their origin. There
were, moreover, some heretics who made use of but one Gospel, e. (/.,
Marcion used Luke, and the Ebionites Matthew ; but they had
special reasons for doing so in their doctrinal opinions. They did
not, by any means, deny the three other Gospels to be genuine ;
they only asserted that their authors were not true disciples of our
Lord. Marcion held the erroneous notion that all the disciples,
with the exception of Paul, still continued lialf Jews. The Jewish
Christians maintained that all the disciples, except Matthew, had
strayed away too far from Judaism, and on that account did not
receive their writings. In this state of the case there is clear evidence
from their opinions also that the Gospels are genuine, and
were in that day generally diffused in the church. Now, as the col-
lection of our four Gospels existed so very early and so universally,
the inquiry occurs, how it could have originated ? Shall we say
that a particular individual or church may have formed it, and it
may then have spread itself everywhere abroad ? This supposition
seems to be countenanced by the circumstance of the general uni-
formity as to the order of the four Gospels. A very few MSS. place
John next to Matthew, in order that the writings of the apostles
may be by themselves. Clearly, however, this transposition arose
from the fancy of some copyist, and has no historical foundation.
There is still, therefore, positive authority for the universally received
arrangement. The most weighty circumstance against the opinion
that the first collection of the Gospels was made in a particular
j)lace, and difiused itself abroad from thence, is, that we have no
account respecting such a process, though we should expect one,
from the fact that John lived, and moreover wrote his Gospel, at so
late a period. For this reason had the Evangelist John himself, as
some suppose, or any other man of high authority in the church,
formed the collection of the Gospels, we should, one would think,
have had an account of its formation, as it could not have taken