u taxei] which does not agree with the character of
the canonical document" ("Introduction to the New Testament," Dr.
Davidson, p. 158). This Christian commentator is so disgusted with the
conviction he honestly expresses as to the unsuitability of the phrase
in question as applied to Mark, that he exclaims: "We presume that John
the Presbyter was not infallible.... In the present instance, he appears
to have been mistaken in his opinion. His power of perception was
feeble, else he would have seen that the Gospel which he describes as
being written [Greek: ou taxei], does not differ materially in
arrangement from that of Luke. Like Papias, the Presbyter was apparently
destitute of critical ability and good judgment, else he could not have
entertained an idea so much at variance with fact" (Ibid, p. 159). We
may add, for what it is worth, that "according to the unanimous belief
of the early Church this Gospel was written at _Rome._ Hence the
conclusion was drawn that it must have been composed in _the language of
the Romans_; that is, Latin. Even in the old Syriac version, a remark is
annexed, stating that the writer preached the Gospel in Roman (Latin) at
Rome; and the Philoxenian version has a marginal annotation to the same
effect. The Syrian Churches seem to have entertained this opinion
generally, as may be inferred not only from these versions, but from
some of their most distinguished ecclesiastical writers, such as
Ebedjesu. Many Greek Manuscripts, too, have a similar remark regarding
the language of our Gospel, originally taken, perhaps from the Syriac"
(Ibid, pp. 154, 155). We conclude, then, that the document alluded to by
the Presbyter John, as reported by Papias through Eusebius, cannot be
identical with the present canonical Gospel of Mark. Nor is the
testimony regarding Matthew less conclusive: "Of Matthew he has stated
as follows: 'Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and
every one translated it as he was able'" ("Eccles. Hist," Eusebius, bk.
iii., ch. 39). The word here translated "history" is [Greek: ta logia]
and would be more correctly rendered by "oracles" or "discourses," and
much controversy has arisen over this term, it being contended that
[Greek: logia] could not rightly be extended so as to include any
records of the life of Christ: "It is impossible upon any but arbitrary
grounds, and from a foregone conclusion, to maintain that a work
commencing with a detailed history of the bir