Within the theory of two sources, Mark and Q, by which most modern critics explain the composition and interrelations of the Synoptic Gospels, certain questions still remain unanswered which deserve attention in spite of the present tendency to study the history of the tradition rather than the composition of the gospels.

A New era in Septuagint studies began in the autumn of 1891. In November of that year Hort drew up a scheme for the larger Cambridge edition: a few days later Lagarde, just before the operation from which he died on December 22, showed to his young pupil Alfred Rahlfs the works on which he was engaged, and explained his plans for their completion and publication. In these two schemes three scholars have found an arduous and self-sacrificing life-work. When A. E. Brooke and Norman McLean undertook the preparation of the Cambridge edition in 1895, they hoped that the Octateuch might be completed in five years: the final part of this first volume did not appear until 1917. But strenuous and untiring as their toil was through long years, it is now bearing rapid fruit. It is astonishing that the intricate editions of Samuel and Kings should have been published within the four years 1927–30, and Chronicles at the beginning of 1932.

In the Expository Times for November 1927 Dean C. A. Webster revived an explanation of the saying of Jesus on the mote and the beam made by Karl Furrer (Zeitschrift für Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft, 1890). Furrer held that we have in the saying of the mote and the beam an incorrect Greek translation of an Aramaic word which signified both ‘eye’ and ‘well,’ and that the Greek translator made a mistake and chose the former instead of the latter meaning. Webster offers an argument in support of this contention, which, again, is combatted by P. L. Hedley in the Expository Times for June 1928.