put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he
gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his
account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition,
which he states to have been John's receiving the other three
Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did
not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this
reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings
of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very
extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully
considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at
variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably
omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them.
[54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking
of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and
interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings
attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting
traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities,
would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any
information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so
frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any.

In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius
quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark,
[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative
regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in
confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose
that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not
have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their
information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if
Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of