from time to time as Peter delivered them, and it is not said that Mark ever reduced these notes into the form of a more perfect history” ("Christian Records,” Rev. Dr. Giles, pp. 94, 95).  “It is difficult to see in what respects Mark’s Gospel is more loose and disjointed than those of Matthew and Luke....  We are inclined to agree with those who consider the expression [Greek:  ou taxei] unsuitable to the present Gospel of Mark.  As far as we are able to understand the entire fragment, it is most natural to consider John the Presbyter or Papias assigning a sense to [Greek:  ou 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,