Grouping of the Four It is plain from the prologue of Luke that there were in existence at that time various narratives in relation to Jesus which presumably had gained some currency. To say nothing of the Apoc ryphal Gospels, most of which are certainly much later, it appears that the so-called "Gospel of the Hebrews" and "Gospel of Peter" found considerable acceptance for some time. Gradu ally, however, these other narratives were set aside in favor of the present fourfold gospel. This can scarcely have taken place in the 1st century, for John cannot have been composed till nearly the end of the century. But by the middle of the 2d century the "Diatessaron° of Tatian, a single narrative formed by combining the four which we now have, shows that the grouping was already a fact, and by implica tion that it had been accomplished long enough so that it was a familiar and accepted fact. The testimony of Papias shows that long before the middle of the century this process was taking place in Asia Minor, if it had not been already accomplished. This fact may be suffi cient to justify that it was in Asia Minor and perhaps in Ephesus itself whither the first three gospels had been carried and where the fourth was written, that there came about this grouping of narratives which has given to the Christian Church its permanently fourfold gos pel. While the accepted group of gospels has always consisted of the same four books, it is interesting to note that the order in which the books stand in the MSS. varies greatly. Almost every possible order of books is to be found, and the order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, is found only less often than the order which finally prevailed.
Historicity of the Very positive assertions were formerly often to be met with as to the unhistorical character of the Gospels, and every variation in statement was urged as a proof of their untrustworthiness. But later
and more careful criticism shows that the au thors were honestly trying to set forth facts as they knew them, and the discovery of the sources which underlie them increases their trustworthiness. Not only have the commonly accepted dates of the Synoptics been pushed back to points far earlier than the dates proposed by older scholars, but the sources carry us back much earlier still. The "Marcan Source" and the "Logic" cannot be separated by 30 years from the events which they record, and may not be more than 15 or 20 years from them. This fact makes the growth of myth and legend prac tically impossible, and shows that many eye witnesses of the ministry of Jesus were still living at the time of the composition of the "sources," on which the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels largely, but by no means ex clusively, depends. That our Gospels embody so fully and exactly these early sources goes far to guarantee their trustworthiness.
Buckley, E. R., 'An Intro duction to the Synoptic Problem' (1912) ; Bur kitt, F. C., 'The Gospel History and Its Trans mission' (1906) ; Harnack, A., 'The Sayings of Jesus' (1908) ; Holdsworth, W. W., 'Gos pel Origins' (1913) ; Moffatt, James, 'Intro duction to the Literature of the New Testa ment' (1911) ; Salmon, George, 'The Human Element in the Gospels' (1907); Sanday, W., (ed.), 'Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Prob lem' (1911) ; Stanton, V. H., 'The Gospels as Historical Documents' : Part I, The Early Use of the Gospels' (1903) ; Part II, 'The Synop tic Gospels' (1909) ; Zahn, Th., 'Introduction to the New Testament' (Eng. tr. 1909).