Order of the Books of the New Testament
The order of the books of the New Testament is not uniform, in the Manuscripts, now extant; nor, as they are mentioned by the Fathers. Eu-SEBius arranges them thus; The Four Gospels? The Acts of the Apostles, The Epistles of Paul, The First Epistle of John, and The Revelation of John. “These,” says he, “were received (except the last mentioned) by all christians.” Then, he mentions those which were not unanimously received; as, The Epistle of James, The Epistle of Jude, The Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John.
Irenus, who lived long before Eusebius, has not given a regular catalogue of the books of the New Testament, but he seems to have followed the same order.
But Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, has given the following order; The Four Gospels, The Acts of the Apostles, The Seven Catholic Epistles, The Fourteen Epistles of Paul, and The Revelation. The ancient, and celebrated Alexandrian Manuscript follows the same order; as also does Cyrtl of Jerusalem, but he does not mentioa Revelation.
The arranajement in the cat;i]ogne of the Council OF Laodicea, is exactly the same as that of Cyril; the book of Revelation bei,io; lelt out. John Damascene, and Leontifs, follow the same order
The order of the Syrian cataloones as sjiven by Ebedjesit, is; The Four Gospels. The Arts of the Apostles, The Three Catholic Epistles, (their Canon at first contained no more) and The Fourteen Epistles of Paul.
Rufin’s order, is; The Gospels, The Acts, Paul’s Epistles, The Catholic Epistles, and The Revelation.
The Council op Carthage, has the same.
Gregoky Nazianzen the same; only, Revelation is omitted.
Amphilochius the same, and the book of Revelation, mentioned as doubtful.
NicEPHORus of Constantinople,the same, and Revelation omitted.
This, therefore, appears to have been the order, in which the books of the New Testament succeeded each other in most ancient copies; and is the one now in general use.
But EpipiiAxius has an order different from any of these, as follows; The Four Gospels. Paul’s Epistles, The Acts of the Apostles, The Seven Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation, p
Jekome follows the same order; and also Eu-THALIUS.
Augustine varies, in his arrangement of the Sacred books. In one place, he puts the Acts last, except Revelation; and in another, he places it iifter Revelation. He also varies in his arraiig;ement of the Epistles of Paul, and of the Catholic Epistles.
The order of Innocent the First, bishop of Rome, is; The Four Gospels, Paul’s Epistles, The Catholic Epistles, The Acts, and Revelation.
Isidore of Seville, has, in his writings, given several catalogues, in all of which, he pursues the order last mentioned. The same writer informs us, that the books of the New Testament were usually included in two divisions, or volumes; the first containing the Gospels; the second. The Acts and The Epistles; the book of Revelation being omitted.
Chrysostom follov’s an order, which appears to be peculiar: he places first. The Fourteen Epistles of Paul; next, The Four Gospels; then, the Acts; and in the last place, The Catholic Epistles.
Gelasius places Revelation before The Catholic Epistles.
The Apostolical Canon, as it is called, contains the following catalogue; The Four Gospels, Fourteen Ejiistles of Paul, Seven Catholic Epistles, Two Epistles of Clement, The Constitutions, and The Acts. If this were, indeed, the genuine t’anon of the Apostles, as the title imports, it would he decisive, and all other authorities would he superfluous; but it is acknowlcdojcd, by all good critics, that it is spurious, and of no authority in settling the early Canon.
The order of the Four Gospels has generally been, as in our copies, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, The council of Laodioea, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, The Syrian Catalogues, Jerome, Rufin, Augustine, The Alexandrian Manuscript with most others, agree in this order.
But that this order was not uniform, appears from Tertullian, who arranges them thus, Matthew, John, I^uke, JVIark. And the same order of the Gospels is followed, in the very ancient Manuscript, commonly called. Codex Cantabrgiensis.
There is very little variation observed, in the arrangement of Paul’s Epistles; they are generallj’’ found in the same order, as we have them in our copies; but this is not universally the case; for in some copies. The Epistle to the Hebrews occupies the Fourteenth place ainong Paul’s Epistles, and in others the Tenth. But in all copies. The E[)istle to the Romans, stands first; though not first, in the order of time.
With respect to the time, when the Gospeh were written, no precise information can be obtained, as ancient authors differ considerably, on the subject. It seems to be agreed, however, that they were not published immediately after the ascension of Christ: nor, all at the same time. The best thin wliicl) we can do, is to place before the reader, the principal testinonies of the Fathers, and leave him to judge for himself.*
The earliest writer who says any thina; explicitly on this subject, is, Ieenus; but he does not inform us wh?t time intervened between the resurrection of Christ, and the writing of these Gospels. Bis words are; “For we have not received the knowledge of the way of salvation, from any others than those by whom the Gospel has been brought lo us, which Gospc) they first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, con)mitted to writing, that for time to ^ome it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Nor, may any say that they preached before they had a competerit knowlerlge of the Gospel; for after that our Lord rose from the dead, and they were endued, from above, with the power of the Holy Ghost, which had come down upon them, they received a perfect Ijnnwledge of all things. They went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the blessing of heavenly peace; having all of them, and every one of them, the Gospel of God”
Now let it be considered, that Irenaeus was the Disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the apostle J(.hn, and this testimony will have great weight, in confirming the fact, that the Gospels were written by the apostles, some time after they
* The testimonies here adduced, are for the most part, selected from the Collections of Lardner, to whose works the reader is referred.
lpes:an to proarh. And that, wherever the apostles went, they preached the same Guspel to thu people.
ErsEBius, to wlioni we arc ohIiyj;ed so often to have recourse, as a witness of ancient Ecclesiastical facts, does not fail us here; “Those admirable and truly divine men,” says he, “the apostles of Christ, did not attempt to deliver the doctrine of their master, with the artifice and eloquence of words.... Nor were they concerned about writing books, beinjj; eng;aired in a more excellent ministry, which is above all human power. Insomuch that Paul, the most al)le of all, in the furniture of words and ideas, has left nothing in writing; but a few Epistles. — ‘’ Nor were the rest of our Saviour’s followers unacquainted with these thin°;s, as the seventy disciples and many others, besides the twelve apostles. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of our Lord, Matthew and John only have left us any Memoirs; who, also, as we have been informed, were impelled to write, by a kind of necessity.”
Theodore of Mopsuesta, who lived in the latter part of the fourth century, has left us the following; testimony; “After the Lord’s ascension to heaven, the diciples staid a good while at Jerusalem, visiting the cities in the virinity, and preaching chiefly to the Jews: and the great Paul was appointed, openly to preach the Gospf’l to th? Gentiles.’’ “In nroefss of Divine Providence, they, not beins; allovverl to confine ihenis Ives to any one part of the earth, were conchicted to remote countries. Peter went to Rome; the others elsewhere. John took up his abode at Ephesus, visifina;, however, other parts of Asia.... About this time, the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, published their G pspels, which were soon soread over the world, and were received by all the faithful with great regard.... That, numerous Christians in Asia having brought these Gospels to John, earnestly entreated him to write a further account of such things as were needful to be known, and had been omitted by the rest; with which request he complied.”
By divers Christian writers of antiquity, it has been asserted, that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the earnest request of the bretheren at Rome, wrote a short Gospel, according to what he had heard related by Peter. This testimony among others is given byJ^ROME, in his book of Illustkious Men.
It is probable, that Peter did not visit Rome before the reign of Nero; perhaps, not until Paul had returned a second time to that city, which must have been as late as the year A. D. 63, or A. D. 64. Nnw, as the brethren requested of JSlark, to give them in writing the substance of Peter’s preachiig, his gospel could not have b-en written, at an earlier period. And, it would seem, if tlpis fiict l)P undoubted, that they had, until (his timr, n’.’t*r seen a writlcn (iu.spel; .n-!. probably, did not know that there was one in existence.
The Jewish war, according lo Josephns, began iii the year of our Lord Gli, and ended in September, of the year 70; when the city and temple were brought to desolation. Now, there is strong probable evidence, that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, w(M’e finished before this war commenced; that is, before the year of our Lord sixty six. Each of them contains the predictions of our Lord, respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, and there is no hint in any of them, that the remarkable ev’ents connected with this overtbrow, had begun to make their appearance. But there are some expressions in these (iospels, which probably indicate, that the writers thought, that these won<lerful events were at hand. Such as the following admonition, let him that reaiiethy understand.
It is certain, that the Acts of the Apostles could not have been finished before A D. 6si, or 63, because the history which it contains comes down to that time. The Gospel by Luke, was probably written a short time before. At least, this seems to be the common opinion of learned men. Jerome supposes, that he composed his Gospel at Home: Grotius thinks, that when Paul left Rome, Luke went into Greece, and there wrote his Gosxil an* the Acts.
Prom the introduction to Luke’s gospel, it would seem, that he knew nothing of any authentic, wj itten gospel at that time; for he cannot be supposed to refer to such, when he says, Forastnuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed atnons; tis; and if he had known that Matthew had written a gospel, he could not easily have avoided some reference to it in this place. But the inference of Lardner from this fact, that no authentic gospel had been written before this time, is unauthorized, and repugnant to all the testimony which we have on the subject. The gospel of Matthew might have been circulating for some time among the churches in Judea, and yet not be known to Luke whose labours and travels led him, in company with Paul, to visit the Gentile countries and cities. If we pay any regard to the opmions of tnose, who lived nearest the times of the Apostles, we must believe, that the Gospel of Matthew was lirst written, and in the vernacular dialect of Judea, commonly called Hebj ew. The writer of this gospel is also called Levi, ‘he son of Alpheus. He was a Galilean, by n tiion, anfl a Publican by profession. When called to followChr’St, he was sitting at the receipt of custom, where the taxes were paid, but he immediately left all these temporal concerus,ynd attached himself to Christ, who afterwards selected him as one of the Twtslve. From this time he seems to have been conslantly with Christ until his crucifixion, of which event he was doubtless a witness; as lie was also of tlic resurrcciion and asqension of his Lord. On the day of Pentecost, he vlas present with his brethren, and partook of the rich spiritual endowments, which were then bestowed on the apostles. ]3ut, afterwards, there is no explicit mention of him in the New ‘I’estament. In his own cataloojue of the Twelve, his name occupies th*^ eig;hth place, as it does in the Acts; but in tlip lists of the apostles, contained in the e;ospels of Luke and Mark, it occupies the seventh place.
There is an almost total obscurity, resting on the history of this Apostle and Evang;elist. The scene of his labours, after he left Judea, seems to have been in regions, of which we possess very little accurste infnrmntion lo this day. But whether he had Parthia and Persia, or P^thiopia, for the field of his apostolical labours, the ancients are not agreed. It is by no means impossible that he shouM have preached the gospel. and planted churches, in each of these countries. The historian Socrates in his distribution of the apostles among the countries of the globe, assigns Ethiopia to Matthew, Parthia to Thomas, and India to Bartholomew.
The testimony of EusEBirs is as follows; “This then was the ptate of the Jews, but the apostles and disciples of our Lord, being Uispersod abroad, prPThed in the whole worlH, Thomas in Parthia; An irew in Sythia; John in Asia, who having lived there a long; time, died at Ephesus. Peter preached to the dispersed Jews, in Pontus, Galutia.Bytliinia, Cappadocia, and Asia; at length, coniipo:; to Rome, he was thtre crucified, with his liPi’d turned down towards the earth, at his own r* quost. Paul also died a martyr at Rome, as we are informed by Origen, in the third Tome of his work on CJenesis.” But P^usebius makps no mention of the arostle Mathew; nor does Jerome, in his account of Illustrious IMen.
Clement of Alexandria mentions a circumstance of this apostle’s mode of life, but nothing more; he says, ‘’That he was accustomed to use a very spare diet, eating veii;etablf,s, but no flesh.”
Chrysostom, in one of his Homilies, gives the character of Matthew, but furnishes us with no facts.
It is probable, therefore, thit very little was linown ill the West, respi cting th; lives, labours, and death, of those apostles who travelled far to the East. None of thei)i,it is probable, ever returned; and there existed no regular channels for the comnmnicaiionof intelli/ence., from ihose tlisiant regions. The honour of marty rdom has been given to them all, and the thing is not imy)robable, but there are lO authentic records, from which we con derive any certain information on this subject i he Fathers, whose wriungs have come down to us,seem to have been a.s much in the dark as we arc, respectills’ the preaching and death, of the majoriiy ol’ the apostles. There are, it is true, traditions in Ethiopia an(i the East, in regard lb sbnie of »hem, but they arc too uncertain lo deserve any serious consideration.