Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/734

 GOSPEL GOSPEL etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenseus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Strom., I, xxi), and St. Iremeus (Adv. Haer., Ill, xi, 7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual nar- rative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies, whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as a common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy. . . did it become worth while for the Christian teacher or apol- ogist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was 'according to' this or that special compiler, and to state his ciualifications". It thus appears that the present titles of the Gosjjels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves. The first word common to the headings of our four Gospels is Eiayy^Xiov, some meanings of which remain still to be set forth. The word, in the New Testament, has the specific meaning of "the good news of the kingdom" (cf. Matt., iv, 23; Mark, i, 15). In that sense, which may be considered as primary from the Christian standpoint, E6ayy4tov denotes the good tid- ings of salvation announced to the world in connexion with Jesus Christ, and, in a more general way, the whole revelation of Redemption by Christ (cf. Matt., ix, 35; xxiv, 14; etc.; Mark, i, 14; xiii, 10; xvi, 15; Acts, XX, 24; Rom., i, 1, 9, 16; x, 16; etc.). This was, of course, the sole meaning connected with the word, so long as no authentic record of the glad tidings of salvation by Christ had been drawn up. In point of fact, it remained the only one in use even after such written records had been for some time received in the Christian Church : as there could be but one Gospel, that is, but one revelation of salvation by Jesus Christ, so the several records of it were not regarded as several Gospels, but only as distinct accounts of one and the same Gospel. Gradually, however, a derived mean- ing was coupled with the word Evayy^u)i/. Thus, in his first Apology (c. Ixvi), St. Justin speaks of the " Memoirs of the Apostles which are called Biayy^Xia", clearing referring, in this way, not to the substance of the Evangelical history, but to the books themselves in which it is recorded. It is true that in this passage of St. Justin we have the first undoubted use of the terra in that derived sense. But as the holy Doctor gives us to understand that in his day the word Eiay- V^Xiov had currently that meaning, it is only natural to think that it had been thus employed for some time before. It seems, therefore, that Zahn is right in claiming that the use of the term Eua77<'Xio;', as denote ing a written record of Christ's words and deeds, goes as far back as the beginning of the second century of the Christian era. The second word common to the titles of the ca- nonical Gospels is the preposition Kara, " according to ", the exact import of which has long been a matter of discussion among Biblical scholars. Apart from vari- ous secondary meanings connected with that Greek particle, two principal significations have been ascribed to it. Many authors have taken it to mean not "written by", but "drawn up according to the conception of", Matthew, Mark, etc. In their eyes, the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship, but to state the authority guaranteeing what is related, in about the same way as " the Gospel according to the Hebrews", or "the Gospel according to the Egyptians", does not mean the Gospel written by the Hebrews or the Egyptians, but that peculiar form of Gospel which either the Hebrews or the Egyp- tians had accepted. Most scholars, however, have preferred to regard the preposition (card as denoting authorship, pretty much in thesame way as, inDiodorus Siculus, the History of Herodotus is called 'H Ka8' 'llp6SoToii liTTopia. At the present day it is generally admitted that, had the titles to the canonical Gospels been intended to set forth the ultimate authority or guarantor, and not to indicate the writer, the Second Gospel would, in accordance with the belief of primi- tive times, have been called " the Gospel according to Peter", and the third, "the Gospel according to Paul". At the same time it is rightly felt that these titles denote authorship, with a peculiar shade of meanuig which is not conveyed by the titles prefixed to the Epistles of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. John, etc. The use of the genitive case in the latter titles IlauXou 'Ettio-toXoi, ' AiroKaXvpis 'ludvvov^ etc.) has no other object than that of ascribing the contents of such works to the writer whose name they actually bear. The use of the preposition Kara (according to), on the contrary, while referring the composition of the con- tents of the First Gospel to St. Matthew, of those of the second to St. Mark, etc., implies that practically the same contents, the same glad tidings or Gospel, have been set forth by more than one narrator. Thus, "the Gospel according to Matthew" is equivalent to the Gospel history in the form in which St. Matthew put it in writing; "the Gospel according to Mark" designates the same Gospel history in another form, viz. in that in which St. Mark presented it in writing, etc. (cf.Maldonatus, "InquatuorEvangelistas",cap.i). (2) Nvmher of the Gospels. — The name gospel, as designating a written accoimt of Christ's words and deeds, has been, and is still, applied to a large number of narratives connected with Christ's life, which cir- culated both before and after the composition of our Third Gospel (cf. Luke, i, 1-4). The titles of some fifty such works have come down to us, a fact which shows the intense interest which centred, at an early date, in the Person and work of Christ. It is only, however, in connexion with twenty of these "gospels" that some information has been preserved. Their names, as given by Harnack (Chronologie, I, 589 sqq.), are as follows: — -4. The Canonical Gospels. . The Gospel according to the Hebrews. . The Gospel of Peter. . The Gospel according to the Egyptians. . The Gospel of Matthias. . The Gospel of Phihp. . The Gospel of Thomas. . The Prolo-Evangdium of James. . The Gospel of Nicodemus (Ada Pilali). Despite the early date which is sometimes claimed for some of these works, it is not likely that any one of them, outside our canonical Gospels, should be reck- oned among the attempts at narrating the life of Christ, of which St. Luke speaks in the prologue to his Gospel. Most of them, as far as can be made out, are . The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles. . The Gospel of Basilides. . The Gospel of Valentinus. . The Gospel of Marcion. . The Gospel of Eve. IS. The Gospel of Judas. . The writing Viwa Mapi'a;, . The Gospel Teci«i<r«cii!.