n
repeated by another to the immediate and direct account of the same
events by the person himself. Nor again, is it consistent with the
language which Papias himself uses of the one Evangelical document about
which (in his extant fragments) he does express an opinion. Of St Mark's
record he says that the author 'made no mistake,' and that it was his
one anxiety 'not to omit anything that he had heard, or to set down any
false statement therein.' Is this the language of one speaking of a book
to which 'he attached little or no value'? [163:1]

But, if Papias used written documents as the text for his 'expositions,'
can we identify these? To this question his own language elsewhere
supplies the answer at least in part. He mentions Evangelical narratives
written by Mark and Matthew respectively; and it is therefore the
obvious inference that our first two Gospels at all events were used for
his work.

An obvious inference, but fiercely contested nevertheless. It has been
maintained by many recent critics, that the St Mark of Papias was not
our St Mark, nor the St Matthew of Papias our St Matthew; and as the
author of _Supernatural Religion_ has adopted this view, some words will
be necessary in refutation of it.

The language then, which Papias uses to describe the document written by
St Mark, is as follows:--

And the elder said this also: Mark, having become the interpreter
of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,
without however recording in order what was either said or done by
Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him;
but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted His
instructions to the needs [of his hearers] but had no design of
giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [_or_ discourses]
([Greek: all' ouch hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion]
_or_ [Greek: logon]). So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus
wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his
one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any
false statement therein.

Eusebius introduces this passage by a statement that it 'refers to Mark,
the writer of the Gospel;' and the authority whom Papias here quotes is
apparently the Presbyter John, who has been mentioned immediately
before.

Now it will be plain, I think, to any reader of common sense, that
Papias is giving an account of the c