| OCR Text |
Show THE DOCUMENT "Q." In tho currant nuinber of Tho Jlibbert Journal, thoro in a keenly interesting article by Goorgo Holloy Gilbert entitled en-titled "Tho Josus of 'Q.' " Tho theory of the article ia that thoro is imbedded in t.he gospels of Matthew and Luke tho oldest source of authority, and that this source is detachable from these gospels themselves. The "Q" is from the German word "Quolle," meaning "source." Mr. Gilbert treats the discovery dis-covery of this imbedded document as something new, and of an importance that cannot bo easily overestimated. Tho idea is that tho document "Q" was used by tho writer of Matthow, and rilso by tho writer of Luke, each taking from that document thoso parts of it that seemed best adapted to his uarra-tion. uarra-tion. Tho theory is that tho Book of Mjirk was contemporaneous with "Q," or substantially so, but that where there is a difference between Mark and "Q," then "Q" is to bo preferred. This document "Q" is supposed to be composed altogether of the sayings of tho Lord, something of the same order or-der as a document with that tiilo discovered dis-covered in Egypt a few years ago. But that Egyptian document would bo un-doubtcVUy un-doubtcVUy a lator production, and of nothing like tho authenticity or authority author-ity of the "Q" of Matthew and Luke. The greatest utterance in this document docu-ment "Q" of a personal nature is: "I thank thee, O "Father, Lord of heavon and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wiso and understanding, understand-ing, and didst reveal them unto babes: yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight. All things have been delivered de-livered unto nie of my Father: and no ono knowoth the Son save the Father; neither doth any know the. Father sa,vo the Sou, and he to whomsoever tho Son willcth to reveal him." Other sayings of the Lord in this imbedded document "Q" arc quoted, and these sa3-ings aro supposed to bo the most ancient of the Christian writings. writ-ings. The author very enriously seems to think it rather singular that the document "Q" sa3s nothing of the rising of Jesus from the grave, but one would hardly expect that a collection of merely tho saysings of the Lord would carry also the narrative of his birth, life, death, and resurrection. As the supreme teacher, his sayings were naturally held to bo of the highest possible pos-sible importance. The narration of his personal life would necessarily be subordinate sub-ordinate in the mind of the collector of those sayings, and in fact he would not be supposed to have in view any biography or narration of incidents. His purposo would bo to quote the great sayings as tho authoritative word of the Lord, binding upon all, leaving tho narration to bo completed by those of a later time. It is curious to sec that Mr. Gilbert considers that the church has gone far in her doctrine of Christ and his work from the teaching of the Master as contained in this oldest collection of his word; and he considers that there is a marked let-down irom the recorded words of .Jesus in this document "Q." in the various explanations of Jesus and his work which abound even in tho earliest of our gospel narratives, whore "we pass at onco into a different differ-ent sphere of tholight." This, however, how-ever, seems to us to be rather on the order of quibbling, because the sayings say-ings of the Lord as imbedded in the gospels arc, in fact, the natural expressions expres-sions that tho narrations lead up to, and in no way docs the narrator lower his standard or belittle the great words which ho quotes, either from "Q" or from Mark, or from any other source. It is perhaps not difficult for scholars" schol-ars" to do such work as this, and trace and build up a document of this sort. Possibly, it ina3' havo good foundation in the critical examination of tho text; but, as a matter of fact, when we recall re-call the difforont efforts at the construction con-struction of cryptograms, imbedded keys and the like in various classical works, one is naturally inclined to look with somewhat of skepticism upon such "discoveries" as this. It is possible, of eourtjo, that the authenticity of such a document as "Q" might bo critically criti-cally established; 'indeed, the liko has boon done before; but wc should consider con-sider it unlikely; and with tho as-Hiimplion as-Hiimplion that there was such document docu-ment from which the gospel w-rilers quoted and fitted into their narratives, this for tho purpose of showing that the narrative itself is vastly inferior in-ferior to the sayings, then ono is inclined to protest and to say that the double aSRiimptiou is needless; need-less; first, that there is such a document, docu-ment, and second, that it is so immeasurably immeas-urably superior to the narrative in which it is imbodded. Naturally, the authentic sayings of the Lord aro hold in the Christian world to be .t;ho supremo su-premo authority; but when it is assumed as-sumed that those sayings wore first written, separately, and that the gospel narratives carry these in dotached and fragmentary form, wo think it will be difficult to convince the Christian world of this now theory. |
