apologists which I have ignored is as follows:--

"Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion
of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by
Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict
interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in
his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative,
but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already
lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct,
entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and
its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main
question at issue." [22:1]

I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced
without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias
himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much
more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords
any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our
believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they
are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it
cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him,
the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch
as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;
and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so
clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written
documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a
discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence,
it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of
Divine Revelation.