language quite consistent with the phenomena." How unlimited a field
for conjecture is thus opened out. We do not know more of what Papias
said than Eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may
have said something more, which may have been consistent with any
theory we may advance. "Or, on the other hand," Dr. Lightfoot
continues, "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." [122:2] Who would think
that this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me
for pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of
vague evidence extracted from the Fathers? It is true that Dr. Lightfoot
continues: "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." [122:3] He thus seeks to reserve for himself
any support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of Papias,
and set aside exactly as much as he does not like. In fact, he clearly
demonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the
Fathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions
upon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass.

In admitting for a moment that Papias may have mistaken the Gospel
of the Hebrews "for the original of our St. Matthew," Dr. Lightfoot,
in his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate Hebrew work of Matthew,
has perhaps gone further than is safe for himself. Apart from the general
flavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of Papias,
the obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake,
Papias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation
which Dr. Lightfoot supposes to have then been "recognised," and which
he declares to have been our first Gospel. It is well known at least