I remark that it is far from clear that he attached no value to our Gospels from anything he says in the fragments extant, and of course we know nothing of those portions that are lost. We know that he was making a book, consisting of what he could gather from tradition about "the truth," "to set beside his interpretations" about the "commandments delivered by the Lord to faith." There were Gospel writings in circulation, and he was supplementing what they recorded. There is positively no evidence to make us think that our present Gospels were unknown to him. He does not, in the fragments we have, mention Paul's writings, nor the Gospel of Luke, nor the Fourth Gospel, but he does allude to a book by Matthew and another by Mark, and Eusebius tells us that Papias makes use of passages taken from Peter's first epistle and John's first epistle. So, on the whole, the testimony of Papias, instead of being against is in favour of the Synoptics, and also of the Fourth Gospel; for the silence inference applies no more to it than it does to Paul and Luke's writings, and the statement of Eusebius about John's Epistle is not to be set aside, for if John wrote it, it will be allowed he wrote the Gospel. His evidence respecting Mark is important, for the fragments contain a statement that "Mark recorded what fell from Peter, writing accurately, and taking especial care neither to omit nor to misrepresent anything;" and Papias says that "Peter preached with a view to the benefit of his hearers, and not to give a history of Christ's discourses." Our author's inference is that it is some other person of the name of Mark that is connected with the Second Gospel, and not the Mark that Papias refers to. This is very far-fetched and improbable, for the description tallies well with our Second Gospel, and quite admits of the supposition that Mark had every opportunity of obtaining from eye-witnesses the historical materials of his Gospel. No one supposes that every statement in the book emanated from Peter's discourses.
Papias is the only early writer that our author acknowledges furnishes any evidence in favour of the Synoptic Gospels. He cannot deny that he records that Matthew composed discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue, but he says "_that totally excludes the claim of our Greek Gospel to apostolic origin_." The boldness of this assertion can only be properly met by an equally explicit denial that it does anything of the kind. If the translation be a faithful one from a Hebrew version, it is of course entitled to the epithet apostolic if the original possessed it. Our author must have some peculiar notions about verbal inspiration if this be the rule he lays down. But he altogether overlooks the supposition that Matthew's Gospel was not originally written in Hebrew, notwithstanding this statement of Papias.