The mere process of subtraction above described to obtain the element Q offers no serious difficulties, and for those who attach value to the tradition of 'the Elders' it is natural to anticipate that the remainder will show traits corresponding to the description of an apostolic _syntagma_ of sayings of the Lord translated from the Aramaic, in short the much-desired _Logia_ of Matthew. The actual result is disappointing to such an expectation. The widely, though perhaps somewhat thoughtlessly accepted equivalence Q = the _Logia_ is simply false. Q is _not_ the _Logia_. It is not a _syntagma_, nor even a consistent whole, and as it lay before our first and third evangelists it was not (for a considerable part at least) in Aramaic. True, Q does consist _almost_ exclusively of discourse material, a large part of which has only topical order, and is wholly, or mainly, destitute of narrative connection. Also we find traces here and there of translation at some period from the Aramaic, though not more in the Q element than in Mark. But to those who looked for immediate confirmation of the tradition the result has been on the whole disappointing. Some, more particularly among English critics, have considered it to justify a falling back upon the vaguer generalities of the once prevalent theory of oral tradition. In reality we are simply called upon to renew the process of discrimination. Most of the Q material has the saying-character and is strung together with that lack of all save topical order which we look for in a _syntagma_. But parts of it, such as the Healing of the Centurion's servant (Matt. viii. 5-10, 13 = Luke vii. 1-10), or the Preaching of the Baptist and Temptation Story (Matt. iii. 7-10, 12; iv. 2-11 = Luke iii. 7-9, 17; iv. 2-13), obstinately refuse to be brought under this category. Moreover, the latter section has the unmistakable motive of presenting Jesus _in his character and ministry_ as "the Son of God," precisely as in Mark. It begins by introducing Jesus on the stage at the baptism of John, after the ancient narrative outline (Acts i. 22; x. 37 f.), and cannot be imagined as forming part of anything else but a _narrative_ having the conclusion characteristic of our own type of gospel. Other considerable sections of Q, such as the Question of John's Disciples and Discourse of Jesus on those that were 'Stumbled' in him (Matt. xi. 2-11, 16-27; Luke vii. 18-35; x. 13-22), share with the Baptism and Temptation section not only the doctrinal motive of commending Jesus in his person and ministry as the longed-for Son of God, but in a number of characteristics which set them quite apart from the general mass of precepts and parables in Q. We can here mention only the following: (1) the coincidence in language between Matthew and Luke is much greater in these sections of Q, often even greater than in the sections borrowed from Mark, showing clearly the existence of a common