ously
misrepresented it.

We may next turn to the essential part of Dr. Wace's citation
(_Nineteenth Century_, p. 365) touching the first Gospel:--

St. Matthew evidently deserves peculiar confidence for the
discourses. Here are the "oracles"--the very notes taken while the
memory of the instruction of Jesus was living and definite.

M. Renan here expresses the very general opinion as to the existence of
a collection of "logia," having a different origin from the text in
which they are embedded, in Matthew. "Notes" are somewhat suggestive of
a shorthand writer, but the suggestion is unintentional, for M. Renan
assumes that these "notes" were taken, not at the time of the delivery
of the "logia" but subsequently, while (as he assumes) the memory of
them was living and definite; so that, in this very citation, M. Renan
leaves open the question of the general historical value of the first
Gospel; while it is obvious that the accuracy of "notes" taken, not at
the time of delivery, but from memory, is a matter about which more than
one opinion may be fairly held. Moreover, Renan expressly calls
attention to the difficulty of distinguishing the authentic "logia" from
later additions of the same kind ("Les Evangiles," p. 201). The fact is,
there is no contradiction here to that opinion about the first Gospel
which is expressed in "Les Evangiles" (p. 175).

The text of the so-called Matthew supposes the pre-existence of
that of Mark, and does little more than complete it. He completes
it in two fashions--first, by the insertion of those long
discourses which gave their chief value to the Hebrew Gospels; then
by adding traditions of a more modern formation, results of
successive developments of the legend, and to which the Christian
consciousness already attached infinite value.

M. Renan goes on to suggest that besides "Mark," "Pseudo-Matthew" used
an Aramaic version of the Gospel, originally set forth in that dialect.
Finally, as to the second Gospel (_Nineteenth Century_, p. 365):--

He [Mark] is full of minute observations, proceeding, beyond doubt,
from an eye-witness. There is nothing to conflict with the
supposition that this eye-witness ... was the Apostle Peter
himself, as Papias has it.

Let us consider this citation by the light of "Les Evangiles":--

This work, although composed after the death of Peter, was, in a
sense, the work