THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.*
Fos sixteen years and more a number of Biblical students have been accustomed to meet for the discussion of the Synoptic Problem under the presidency of the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity. In this volume we have a statement of some of the results. The most prominent of them is the development of theories about the source which is known by the symbol Q (Quelle). Even recent works of Biblical criti- cism have put this aside as something quite vague and indefinite. The Gospel of Mark is generally recognised as a " Source," and it is a significant fact that this general recog- nition is not fifty years old; but whence came the non- Marken portions of Matthew and Luke P Partly from " Q " is the answer. Here, of course, we are stepping at once into the region of hypothesis : but this hypothesis is definite, reasonable, and anything but excessive in the demands which it makes. What was " Q," then P It was the earliest answer to the appeal which would certainly soon come from the body of disciples for some written account of the Master and His teaching. W hat, then, did it contain ? Of the nar- rative element the account of the preaching of the Baptist, the temptation, and the healing of the centurion's servant ; of teaching, the discourse which Matthew puts together in the " Sermon on the Mount " and Luke gives in scattered portions the denunciation of the Pharisees, the cry over Jerusalem, the warning about False Christ, the parable which appears with " Talents " in Matthew and "Pound " in Luke. A complete Gospel it was not, for it contained nothing about the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. By whom was it written ? Probably by one or more of the Apostolic company, Matthew the Apostle (not the compiler of the First Gospel) having, it is probable, a hand in it. In what circumstances did it come into existence ? Almost certainly under the dominating belief that the Return of Christ and the end of all things was at hand. A subsidiary question of no little interest is, Did Mark know about " Q " ? Another important subject dealt with is the difference between Matthew and Luke in their
treatment of their authorities. We can see what this was in the case of Mark, and can infer what it was in the case of " Q." We cannot do more than give this quite rough sketch of one of the matters treated of—it occupies something like a fourth of the volume—but we would say with all emphasis that the whole book will well repay the most careful attention.
Previous page
