In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter.  It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false statement, but this does not add much value to his record.  No one supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker.  The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition, confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to attest miraculous pretensions.  The tradition that Mark derived his information from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability.  Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says so, is not strong evidence of the fact.  It was the earnest desire of the early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the Gospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so Luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with Paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason whatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus.  Comparison of the contents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as it lies before us, but is really opposed to it.  Into this I shall not here go.

Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability of the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have been written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself seen nor heard Jesus.  It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer examination of the supposed evidence.

“But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]:  ’So then Matthew ([Greek:  Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.’” [119:1]

Dr. Lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposing that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the Presbyter, and, although I think it probable that it was, I agree with him in this.  The doubt, however, is specially advanced because, the statement of Papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists, Dr. Lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it.  He accepts it in so far as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, but for the rest he proceeds to weaken the