According to Eusebius, Papias wrote his Commentary in five books.(257) It is not improbable, therefore, that the “Logia” were broken into five parts or grouped in five discourses, and that he wrote an explanation of each discourse in a separate book or chapter. The statement of Papias, if it does not refer to the Gospel of St. Matthew as it now stands, does refer to one of the constituent parts of that Gospel, and does explain much that would be otherwise inexplicable. 1. St. Matthew’s Gospel differs from St. Mark’s in that it contains long discourses, sayings and parables, which are wanting or only given in a brief form in the second Canonical Gospel. It is therefore probable that in its composition were used the “Logia of the Lord,” written by Matthew. 2. If the collection of “Sayings of the Lord” consisted, as has been suggested, of five parts, then we find traces in the Canonical Matthew of five groups of discourses, concluded by the same formulary: “And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings” (τοὺς λόγους τούτους), or “parables,” vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53,. xix. 1, xxvi. 1. It is not, however, possible to restore all the “logia” to their primitive positions, for they have been dispersed through the Canonical Gospel, and arranged in connection with the events which called them forth. In the “Sayings of the Lord” of Matthew, these events were not narrated; but all the sayings were placed together, like the proverbs in the book of Solomon. 3. The “Logia” of the Lord were written by Matthew in Hebrew, _i.e._ in the vernacular Aramaic. If they have formed the groundwork, or a composite part of the Canonical Gospel, we are likely to detect in the Greek some traces of their origin. And this, in fact, we are able to do. α. In the first place, we have the introduction of Aramaic words, as Raka (v. 22),(258) Mammon (vi. 22),(259) Gehenna (v. 22),(260) Amen (v. 18).(261) Many others might be cited, but these will suffice. β. Next, we have the use of illustrations which are only comprehensible by Hebrews, as “One jot and one tittle shall in no wise fall.” The Ἰῶτα of the Greek text is the Aramaic Jod (v. 18); but the “one tittle” is more remarkable. In the Greek it is “one horn,” or “stroke.”(262) The idea is taken from the Aramaic orthography. A stroke distinguishes one consonant from another, as ח and ה from ד. With this the Greeks had nothing that corresponded. γ. We find Hebraisms in great number in the discourses of our Lord given by St. Matthew.(263) δ. We find mistranslations. The Greek Canonical text gives a wrong meaning, or no meaning at all, through misunderstanding of the Aramaic. By restoration of the Aramaic text we can rectify the translation. Thus: