Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/362

 LOOXA

323

LOOIA

(1168); Blessed Leone Palatini (1318), peacemaker between the Guelphs and Ghibellines; raolo Cada- mosto (1354), legate of Urban VI in Hungary; Car- dinal Gerardo di Landriana (1410), who discovered the "De Oratore" of Cicero: Cardinal Lodovico Simoiietta (1537), who presided at the Council of Trent; Antonio Scarampi (1568), founder of the seminary and friend of St. Charles Borromco; Carlo Amlnrogio Meuabarba (1725), Apostolic visitor for China and the Indies; Gian Antonio della Beretta (1758), who suffered exile for his opposition to the oath of the (Cisalpine Constitution. The diocese has 102 parishes, with 200,000 souls: 4 religious houses of men, and 37 of women; 4 schools for boys, and 23 for

girls.

OkPFBLUDm^ L« Chie»6 ff Italia, XXI (Venice); Hiatoria rentm Laudennumt ed. Pebtb in Man. Germ, Hist.: Script.t Vni; ViGNATi, Codiee diplonuUico laudense (2 vols., Milan* lS83-«0); Arehivio di Lodi (1905), XXIV. U. Benigni.

•

Logia Jetii, or " Sayings of Jesus ", found partly in the Inspired Books of the New Testament, partly in uninspired writings. The  Sayings ' ' transmitted in works not inspired are also called Agrapha (q. v.), i. e. not written" (under inspiration). The present article is confined to the canonical Logia Jesu. Even this title comprises a larger area than is technically covered by the term Sailings of Jesus, StrictI v speak- ing, all the words of Cnrist contained in the Inspired Books of the New Testament are canonical Logia Jesu, while the technical expression comprises only the "Sayings of Jesus" of which Papias speaks in a pas- aage preserved by Eusebius (Hist. EccL, III, xxxix, 16).

The question concerning the Logia Jesu, taken in this restricted meaning, has become important on account of its connexion with the so-called " Synoptic Problem". Lessing (Neue Hypothesen tiber die EvangeUsten, ed. Lachmann, XI, § 53) considered the " Gospel of the Hebrews " as the source of the three Sy- noptic Gospeb canonically received. Eichhom (Ein- leitung in das Neue Testament, 1804-) admitted a primitive gospel, containing the forty-two sections common to the Synoptics, as their source; composed by the Apostles shortl^r after Pentecost, in Aramaic, and later on translated into Greek, it gave a summary of Christ's ministry, and served as a guide to the early Evangelists in their preaching. Blcek and de Wette, in th^ "Introductions", substituted for Eichhom's which was the source of Matthew ana Luke; in our Second Gospel we have, then, a compendium of the First and the Third Gospel. A host of other writers endeavoured to solve the Synoptic Problem by the theory of mutual dependence of tnc first three Gospels; others again^ by a recourse to unwritten traditions. It was at this luncture that Schleiermacher ('' Ueber die Zeugniase des Papias von unscren beiden ersten EvangeBen" in "Studien und Kritiken", 1832, iv) tried to show that the texts of Papias concerning Ifatthew and Mark do not refer to our First and Second Gospels, but to a primitive Matthew and a primitive Mark. Shortly afterwards, Credner (Ein- leitung, 1836) found in the primitive Mark the source of all ue historical matter contained in the Synoptics, and in the primitive Matthew the source of the dis- ooiueee in the First and Third Gospels. Wcisse r Evangelisohe Geschichte ", 18.38; " Die Evangelien- nage", 1856) agrees with Cre<iner, but substitutes our emoniqJ Mark tor Credner's proto-Mark.
 * Gospel of the Hebrews " a gospel composed in Galilee

Credner's hypothesis was followed with slight modi* ficationsbyReuss ("Geschichte der heil. Schrift N.T.", Srd ed.. 1860), Holtsmann (" Die synoptischen Evan- gel]ea",1863),Weixsftcker(^'Unter8uchungenaberdie evang. Gesch., 1864), Beyschlag (Die apostolLsche Spnichflammlung" in ^'Studien und Kritiken", 1881, hn, de Preasensd (" J^sus-Christ, son temps", etc., 7tn ea., 1884)^ and ouien, all of whom accepted the Logia

and the proto-Mark as the sources of the S^nioptics. The Logia and our Mark have been considered as the sources of the first three Gospels, though with various explanations, by such scholars as G. Meyer ('' La ques- tion synoptique ", 1878), Sabatier (in Encycl. des sciences religieuses, XI, 781 sq.), Keim (Geschichte Jesu, I, 72, 77), Wendt (Die I-ichre Jesu, 1), Nosgen (cf . Stud. u. Krit., 1870-80), Grau (Entwicklungsge- sdiichte des N. T. Schrifttnums, 1871), Lipsius (cf. Peine, " Jahrb. f. prot. Theol.", 1885), and B. Weiss ("Jahrb. f. deutsch. Theol.", 1864; "Das Markus- evang. u. seine synopt. Parallelen", 1872; "Das Matt- hausevang.", 1876; " Einl. in das N. T.", 1886).

As to the contents of the Logia, the work must have contained most matter common to Matthew and Luke, excluding that which these Gospels share with Mark. This material amounts to about one-sixth of the text of the Third Gospel, and two-elevenths of the text of the First Gospel. In these portions, the First and the Third Evangelists depend neither on Mark nor on each other; they must have followed the Logia, a document now denoted by " Q". When Eusebius (loc. cit.) copied the words of Papias that " Matthew com- posed the Logia in Hebrew [Aramaic], and each one mterpreted them as he was able ", he probably under- stood them as referring to our First Uospel. But the critics insist that Papias must have understood his w^ords as denoting a collection of the "Sayings of Jesus", or the Logia (Q). This hypothetical docu- ment Q has been much w^ritten about and investigated by Weiss, Iloltzmann, Wendt, Wemle, Wellhausen, and recently by Ilamack (" New Testament Studies ", II: "The Sayings of Jesus", etc.; tr. Wilkinson, New York and London, 1908), and Bacon ("The Beginning of Gospel Story", New Haven, 1909). A reconstruc- tion of the Logia is attempted in Resch's " Die Logia Jesu nach dem griechischen und hebr&ischen Text wie- derhergest<^llt", 1898 (cf. also his "Aussercanonische Parallcltexte z\x den Evangelien" in "Texte und Untersuchungcn", X, i-v, 1893-90), and in Hamack's work already quoted.

A numljer of questions has been raised in this in- vestigation, but no altogether satisfactory answer has been forthcoming. Is it possible to settle the text of the il source of the First and Third Gospels, seeing that one Gospel may have been corrected from the other? Did St. Matthew and St. Luke use the same transla- tion or recension of Q? Did either Evangelist pay attention to the Aramaic original? In which of the two Gospels is Q best reproduced both in regard to extent and arrangement? How much of the materisd peculiar to either the First or the Third Gospel has keen taken from Q? Again, was the original form of Q a gospel, or was it a collection of real Logia? These are some of the fimdamental questions which the critics must answer. Then come the further Questions as to the authorship of the Logia; the time and place of their origin, their relation to St. Paul, their influence on St. Mark, the cause, manner, and time of their disappearance, and other similar prol^lems. The an- swer to manv, if not to all, of these questions is thus far not satisfactory.

The student of the Eusebian record of the words of Papias will have his doubts as to the sense of XA7ta advocated by the critics. (1) In several other ancient writers the word has not the narrow meaning of mere "sayings": Rom., iii, 2, applies it to the whole Old Testament; Heb., v, 12, to the whole body of Christ's doctrine; Flavius Josephus makes it equivalent to tA Icpd ypdftnara (Bel. Jud., VI, v, 4); St. Irenseus uses rd TiAyia toO Kvplov of the Gospels; other instances of a wider meaning of X^Yta have been collected by Funk (Patres Apostol., II, 280), and Schanz (Matthfius, 27- 31). (2) The \iyta of Papias at least may refer to the Gospel of St. Matthew. Eu8e])ius (Hist. Eccl., Ill, xxxix, 16) understands the words in this sense. The context of Papias, too, suggests this interpretation;