, having become the interpreter
of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,
without, however, recording in order what was either said or done
by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him;
but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his
instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of
giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses]
([Greek: all' ouch hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion]
or [Greek: logon).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus
wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his
one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any
false statement therein." [118:1]

The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here
given correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we now
possess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "without
recording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negative
answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar
enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has
consequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that
there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to
a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it.
However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of
argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the
value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our
second Gospel.

In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who
is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the
circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that
he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter.
It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy
of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false
statement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one
supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented
what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can
be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker.
The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition,
confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to
attest miraculous pretensions. The tra