tense, [Greek: hermeneuse], as contrasting the time when it was
necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period
when, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no
longer necessary for them to do so [169:1].

Yet a few lines after, when he comes to comment upon it, he can write as
follows:--

The statement [of Papias] is perfectly simple and direct, and it is
at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that translation was
requisite: and, as each one translated 'as he was able,' that no
recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse.
There is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion
that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek version,
although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of
some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however,
imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them [169:2].

Our author has here imposed upon himself by a grammatical trick. Hard
pressed by the argument, he has covered his retreat under an ambiguous
use of tenses. The words 'each one translated as he was able' are
perfectly clear in the direct language of Papias; but adopted without
alteration into the oblique statement of our author, they are altogether
obscure. 'Translation _was_ requisite.' Yes, but at what time? The fact
is that no careful reader can avoid asking why Papias writes
'interpreted,' and not 'interprets.' The natural answer is that the
necessity of which he speaks had already passed away. In other words, it
implies the existence of a recognized Greek translation, _when Papias
wrote_. Whence our author got his information that Papias 'had no
respect for' any such translation, it is difficult to say. Certainly not
from 'the words used'; for Papias says nothing about it, and we only
infer its existence from the suppressed contrast implied in the past
tense.

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. As in the case of St Mark, so
here the contrary hypothesis is weighted with an accumulation of
improbabilities. The argument used there might be repeated _totidem
verbis_ here. It was enough that we were asked to accept the theory of a
mistaken identity once; but the same demand is renewed again. And the
improbability of this