Chapter II.—On the Order of the Evangelists, and the Principles on Which They Wrote.

3. Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation4    Notissimi. over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four,—it may be for the simple reason that there are four divisions of that world through the universal length of which they, by their number as by a kind of mystical sign, indicated the advancing extension of the Church of Christ,—are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John. Hence, too, [it would appear that] these had one order determined among them with regard to the matters of their personal knowledge and their preaching [of the gospel], but a different order in reference to the task of giving the written narrative. As far, indeed, as concerns the acquisition of their own knowledge and the charge of preaching, those unquestionably came first in order who were actually followers of the Lord when He was present in the flesh, and who heard Him speak and saw Him act; and [with a commission received] from His lips they were despatched to preach the gospel. But as respects the task of composing that record of the gospel which is to be accepted as ordained by divine authority, there were (only) two, belonging to the number of those whom the Lord chose before the passover, that obtained places,—namely, the first place and the last. For the first place in order was held by Matthew, and the last by John. And thus the remaining two, who did not belong to the number referred to, but who at the same time had become followers of the Christ who spoke in these others, were supported on either side by the same, like sons who were to be embraced, and who in this way were set in the midst between these twain.

4. Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left out as matters about which there was no information things which another nevertheless is discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint compositions. For Matthew is understood to have taken it in hand to construct the record of the incarnation of the Lord according to the royal lineage, and to give an account of most part of His deeds and words as they stood in relation to this present life of men. Mark follows him closely, and looks like his attendant and epitomizer. 5    [This opinion is not only unwarranted, since Mark shows greater signs of originality, but it has been prejudicial to the correct appreciation of the Gospel of Mark. The verbal identity of Matthew and Mark in parallel passages is far less than commonly supposed.—R.] For in his narrative he gives nothing in concert with John apart from the others: by himself separately, he has little to record; in conjunction with Luke, as distinguished from the rest, he has still less; but in concord with Matthew, he has a very large number of passages. Much, too, he narrates in words almost numerically and identically the same as those used by Matthew, where the agreement is either with that evangelist alone, or with him in connection with the rest. On the other hand, Luke appears to have occupied himself rather with the priestly lineage and character6    Personam. of the Lord. For although in his own way he carries the descent back to David, what he has followed is not the royal pedigree, but the line of those who were not kings. That genealogy, too, he has brought to a point in Nathan the son of David,7    Luke iii. 31. which person likewise was no king. It is not thus, however, with Matthew. For in tracing the lineage along through Solomon the king,8    Matt. i. 6. he has pursued with strict regularity the succession of the other kings; and in enumerating these, he has also conserved that mystical number of which we shall speak hereafter.

CAPUT II. Ordo Evangelistarum, et scribendi ratio.

3. Isti igitur quatuor Evangelistae universo terrarum orbe notissimi, et ob hoc fortasse quatuor, quoniam quatuor sunt partes orbis terrae, per cujus universitatem Christi Ecclesiam dilatari, ipso sui numeri sacramento quodammodo declararunt, hoc ordine scripsisse perhibentur. Primum Matthaeus, deinde Marcus, tertio Lucas, ultimo Joannes. Unde alius eis fuit ordo cognoscendi atque praedicandi, alius autem scribendi. Ad cognoscendum quippe atque praedicandum, primi utique fuerunt qui secuti Dominum in carne praesentem, dicentem audierunt, facientemque viderunt; atque ex ejus ore ad evangelizandum missi sunt. Sed in conscribendo Evangelio, quod divinitus ordinatum esse credendum est, ex numero eorum quos ante passionem Dominus elegit, primum atque ultimum locum duo tenuerunt; primum Matthaeus, ultimum Joannes: ut reliqui duo qui ex illo numero non erant, sed tamen Christum in illis loquentem secuti erant, tanquam filii amplectendi, ac per hoc in loco medio constituti, utroque ab eis latere munirentur.

1044 4. Horum sane quatuor solus Matthaeus hebraeo scripsisse perhibetur eloquio, caeteri graeco. Et quamvis singuli suum quemdam narrandi ordinem tenuisse videantur, non tamen unusquisque eorum velut alterius praecedentis ignarus voluisse scribere reperitur, vel ignorata praetermisisse quae scripsisse alius invenitur; sed sicut unicuique inspiratum est, non superfluam cooperationem sui laboris adjunxit. Nam Matthaeus suscepisse intelligitur incarnationem Domini secundum stirpem regiam, et pleraque secundum hominum praesentem vitam facta et dicta ejus. Marcus eum subsecutus, tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur. Cum solo quippe Joanne, nihil dixit; solus ipse, perpauca; cum solo Luca, pauciora; cum Matthaeo vero, plurima; et multa pene totidem atque ipsis verbis, sive cum solo, sive cum caeteris consonante. Lucas autem circa sacerdotalem Domini stirpem atque personam magis occupatus apparet. Nam et ad ipsum David non regium stemma secutus ascendit, sed per eos qui reges non fuerunt, exiit ad Nathan filium David (Luc. III, 31), qui nec ipse rex fuit. Non sicut Matthaeus, qui per Salomonem regem descendens (Matth. I, 6), caeteros etiam reges ex ordine persecutus est, servans in eis, de quo postea loquemur, mysticum numerum.