other three, it very distinctly differed from it.  If, therefore, Papias could quietly accept our Greek Matthew as an equivalent for the Gospel of the Hebrews, from which it presented considerable variation, we are entitled to reject such a translation as evidence of the contents of the original.  That Papias was actually acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews may be inferred from the statement of Eusebius that he relates “a story about a woman accused of many sins before the Lord” (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of St. John’s Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), “which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains.” [123:1] If he exercised any critical power at all, he could not confound the Greek Matthew with it, and if he did not, what becomes of Dr. Lightfoot’s argument?

Dr. Lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation, accepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to Matthew and called the “Oracles” ([Greek:  logia]) could not be the first synoptic as we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely of Discourses.  The argument will be found in Supernatural Religion, [124:1] and need not here be repeated.  I will confine myself to some points of Dr. Lightfoot’s reply.  He seems not to reject the suggestion with so much vigour as might have been expected.  “The theory is not without its attractions,” he says; “it promises a solution of some difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its acceptance.” [124:2] Indeed, he proceeds to say that it “is encumbered with the most serious difficulties.”  Dr. Lightfoot does not think that only [Greek:  logoi] ("discourses” or “sayings”) could be called [Greek:  logia] ("oracles"), and says that usage does not warrant the restriction. [124:3] I had contended that “however much the signification (of the expression ‘the oracles,’ [Greek:  ta logia]) became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as well as sayings,” and that “there is no linguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of Jesus, which were oracular or Divine.” [124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has any force it involves one or both of the two assumptions:  “first, that books which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be called ‘oracles,’ unless they were occupied entirely with Divine sayings; secondly, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular, could not at this time be regarded as Scripture.  Both assumptions alike are contradicted by facts.” [125:1] The second point he considers proved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas.  For the discussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes. [125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew’s Gospel was, at that time, considered “Scripture,” but, on the contrary, that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not.