signification (of the expression 'the oracles,' [Greek: ta logia])
became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as
well as sayings," and that "there is no linguistic precedent for
straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond
a collection of sayings of Jesus, which were oracular or Divine."
[124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has any
force it involves one or both of the two assumptions: "_first_, that
books which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be
called 'oracles,' unless they were occupied entirely with Divine
sayings; _secondly_, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular,
could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike
are contradicted by facts." [125:1] The second point he considers
proved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas. For the
discussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes.
[125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew's
Gospel was, at that time, considered "Scripture," but, on the contrary,
that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not.

Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts:

"The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St. Paul, for
instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that
they had the keeping of 'the oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we
suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures
by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books
of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such
fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God?
Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of
the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 _sq._), of the wanderings in the
wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 _sq._), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21