document written not in Aramaic, but in the Greek language. (2) This material, unlike most of Q, has served as a source and model in many portions of Mark. (3) It is for the most part not included in the five great blocks into which Matthew has divided the Precepts by means of a special concluding formula (vii. 28; xi. 1; xiii. 53; xix. 1, and xxvi. 1) but appears outside, in the form of supplements to the Markan narrative (iii. 7--iv. 11; viii. 5-13, 18-22, xi. 2-27; xii. 38-45, etc.). Finally (4) the Q material of this type seems to be given more copiously by Luke than by Matthew, and with something more than mere conjecture of his own as to its historical occasion. In fact, since it appears that at least this element of Q was known to Mark, there is nothing to justify exclusion from it of such material as the Transfiguration story, though in this case it would be needful to prove that Mark was not the source. Similarly it would be reasonable to think of Luke's wide divergence from Mark in his story of the Passion as occasioned by his preference for material derived from this source. Only, since Matthew has preferred to follow Mark, we have no means of determining whence Luke did derive his new and here often valuable material. The existence, then, of an element of Q which quite fails to correspond to what we take the Matthæan _syntagma_ to have been by no means proves either the futility of criticism or the worthlessness of the ancient tradition. It only shows that our synoptic evangelists were not the first to attempt the combination of discourse with narrative, but that Luke at least had a predecessor in the field, to whom all are more or less indebted. Criticism and tradition together show that there are two great streams from which all historically trustworthy material has been derived. The one is Evangelic Story, and is mainly derived from Mark's outline of the ministry based on the anecdotes of Peter, though some elements come from another source, principally preserved by Luke, which we must discuss in a later chapter devoted to the growth of Petrine story at Rome and Antioch. The other stream, "Words of the Lord," comes from Jerusalem, and is always associated in all its forms with the name of Matthew. We have every reason for accepting the statement that as early as the founding of the church in Rome (45-50) the Apostle Matthew had begun the work of compiling the Precepts of Jesus, in a form serviceable to the object of "teaching men to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded." Our present Gospel of Matthew, however, is neither this work nor a translation of it; for the only three things told us about the apostle's work are all irreconcilable with the characteristics of our Matthew. The compilation of "Words of the Lord" was (1) a _syntagma_ and not, like Mark, an outline of the ministry. It was (2) written in Aramaic; whereas our Matthew is an original Greek composition.