testimony.  “But it does not follow that his account of the origin was correct.  It may be; it may not have been.  This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what he said.” [120:1] What a pity it is that Dr. Lightfoot does not always exercise this rigorous logic.  If he did he would infallibly agree with the conclusions of Supernatural Religion.  I shall presently state what inference Dr. Lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the general correctness of which he does not consider as at all certain.  If this doubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from Papias be as evidence?

I cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the ground of possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubt as to what the actual statement was.  “Matthew composed the Oracles in the Hebrew language,” and not in Greek, “and each one interpreted them as he could.”  The original work of Matthew was written in Hebrew:  our first synoptic is a Greek work:  therefore it cannot possibly be the original composition of Matthew, whoever Matthew may have been, but at the best can only be a free translation.  A free translation, I say, because it does not bear any of the traces of close translation.  Our synoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but if it be a version of the work referred to by Papias, or the Presbyter, a translation it must be.  As it is not in its original form, however, and no one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of Matthew may be, the whole value of the statement of Papias is lost.

The inference which Dr. Lightfoot considers himself entitled to draw from the testimony of Papias is in most curious contrast with his severe handling of that part of the testimony which does not suit him.  Papias, or the Presbyter, states regarding the Hebrew Oracles of Matthew that “each one interpreted them as he could.”  The use of the verb “interpreted” in the past tense, instead of “interprets” in the present, he considers, clearly indicates that the time which Papias contemplates is not the time when he writes his book.  Each one interpreted as he could when the Oracles were written, but the necessity of which he speaks had passed away; and Dr. Lightfoot arrives at the conclusion:  “In other words, it implies the existence of a recognised Greek translation when Papias wrote ...  But if a Greek St. Matthew existed in the time of Papias we are forbidden by all considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any other than our St. Matthew.” [121:1] It is very probable that, at the time when Papias wrote, there may have been several translations of the “Oracles” and not merely one, but from this to the assertion that the words imply a “recognised” version which was necessarily “our St. Matthew” is a remarkable jump at conclusions.  It is really not worth while again to discuss the point.  When imagination is allowed to interpret the hidden meaning