according to Matthew,” “Gospel according to Mark”—­the first characterized by its long discourses; the second, above all, by anecdote—­much more exact than the first upon small facts, brief even to dryness, containing few discourses, and indifferently composed.  That these two works, such as we now read them, are absolutely similar to those read by Papias, cannot be sustained:  Firstly, because the writings of Matthew were to Papias solely discourses in Hebrew, of which there were in circulation very varying translations; and, secondly, because the writings of Mark and Matthew were to him profoundly distinct, written without any knowledge of each other, and, as it seems, in different languages.  Now, in the present state of the texts, the “Gospel according to Matthew” and the “Gospel according to Mark” present parallel parts so long and so perfectly identical, that it must be supposed, either that the final compiler of the first had the second under his eyes, or vice versa, or that both copied from the same prototype.  That which appears the most likely, is, that we have not the entirely original compilations of either Matthew or Mark; but that our first two Gospels are versions in which the attempt is made to fill up the gaps of the one text by the other.  Every one wished, in fact, to possess a complete copy.  He who had in his copy only discourses, wished to have narratives, and vice versa.  It is thus that “the Gospel according to Matthew” is found to have included almost all the anecdotes of Mark, and that “the Gospel according to Mark” now contains numerous features which come from the Logia of Matthew.  Every one, besides, drew largely on the Gospel tradition then current.  This tradition was so far from having been exhausted by the Gospels, that the Acts of the Apostles and the most ancient Fathers quote many words of Jesus which appear authentic, and are not found in the Gospels we possess.

[Footnote 1:  In Eusebius, Hist.  Eccl., iii. 39.  No doubt whatever can be raised as to the authenticity of this passage.  Eusebius, in fact, far from exaggerating the authority of Papias, is embarrassed at his simple ingenuousness, at his gross millenarianism, and solves the difficulty by treating him as a man of little mind.  Comp.  Irenaeus, Adv.  Haer., iii. 1.]

[Footnote 2:  That is to say, in the Semitic dialect.]

It matters little for our present object to push this delicate analysis further, and to endeavor to reconstruct in some manner, on the one hand, the original Logia of Matthew, and, on the other, the primitive narrative such as it left the pen of Mark.  The Logia are doubtless represented by the great discourses of Jesus which fill a considerable part of the first Gospel.  These discourses form, in fact, when detached from the rest, a sufficiently complete whole.  As to the narratives of the first and second Gospels, they seem to have for basis a common document, of