double mistake is very far greater than the sum of
the improbabilities in the two several cases, great as this sum would
be.

The testimony of Papias therefore may be accepted as valid so far as
regards the recognition of our St Matthew in his own age. But it does
not follow that his account of the origin was correct. It may or may not
have been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know
exactly what he said. It cannot be inferred with any certainty from this
fragmentary excerpt of Eusebius, what Papias supposed to be the exact
relation of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew which he had before him to
the Hebrew document of which he speaks. Our author indeed says that our
First Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been
translated from the Hebrew at all. This, I venture to think, is far more
than the facts will sustain. If he had said that it is not a homogeneous
Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original, this would have been
nearer to the truth. But we do not know that Papias said this. He may
have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena.
Or on the other hand he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the
mistake which some later fathers made, of thinking that the Gospel
according to the Hebrews was the original of our St Matthew. In the
absence of adequate data it is quite vain to conjecture. But meanwhile
we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable either to
the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of the document itself.

Our author however maintains that the Hebrew St Matthew of which Papias
speaks was not a Gospel at all--_i.e._ not a narrative of our Lord's
life and ministry--but a mere collection of discourses or sayings. It is
urged that the expression, 'Matthew compiled the oracles' ([Greek:
xunegrapsato ta logia]), requires this interpretation. If this
explanation were correct, the notice would suggest that Papias looked
upon the Greek Gospel as not merely a translation, but an enlargement,
of the original document. In this case it would be vain to speculate how
or when or by whom he supposed it to be made; for either he did not give
this information, or (if he did) Eusebius has withheld it. This
hypothesis was first started, I believe, by Schleiermacher, and has
found favour with not a few critics of opposite schools. Attempts have
been made from time to time to restore this supposed document by
disengaging those portions of our