ted no error when he thus wrote some things
as he remembered them, for he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of
the things which he had heard and not to state any of them falsely....
Matthew wrote the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language [Aramaic],
and every one interpreted them as he was able" (Euseb. Ch. Hist. iii. 39).
The result of many years' study by scholars of all shades of opinion is
the very general conclusion that the writing which Papias attributed to
Mark was essentially what we have in our second gospel.

28. It is almost as universally acknowledged that the work ascribed by the
second century elder to the apostle Matthew cannot be our first gospel;
for its language has not the characteristics which other translations from
Hebrew or Aramaic lead us to expect, while the completeness of its
narrative exceeds what is suggested by the words of Papias. If, however,
the matter which Matthew and Luke have in such rich measure in addition to
Mark's narrative be considered, the likeness between this and the writing
attributed by Papias to the apostle Matthew is noteworthy. The conclusion
is now very general, that that apostolic writing is in large measure
preserved in the discourses in our first and third gospels. The relation
of our gospels to the two books mentioned by Papias may be conceived,
then, somewhat as follows: The earliest gospel writing of which we know
anything was a collection of the teachings of Jesus made by the apostle
Matthew, in which he collected with simple narrative introductions, those
sayings of the Lord which from the beginning had passed from mouth to
mouth in the circle of the disciples. At a later time Mark wrote down the
account of the ministry of Jesus which Peter had been accustomed to relate
in his apostolic preaching. The work of the apostle Matthew, while much
richer in the sayings of Jesus, lacked the completeness that characterizes
a narrative; hence it occurred to some early disciple to blend together
these two primitive gospel records, adding such other items of knowledge
as came to his hand from oral tradition or written memoranda. As his aim
was practical rather than historical, he added such editorial comments as
would make of the new gospel an argument for the Messiahship of Jesus, as
we have seen. Since the most precious element in this new gospel was the
apostolic record of the teachings of the Lord, the name of Matthew and not
of his literary successor, was