LT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON THE EMPHASIS OF ST. LDKJC. 268 



Scriptures, and particularly the Gospels, that anything he writes 

 like this deserves the most careful study, and I should not like to 

 give any definite opinion upon it without more time than I can 

 bestow just now. 



I must quarrel with one statement in which he savs that the 

 style of St. Luke is like that of Thucydides, because I think St. 

 Luke is so much more simple ; and T have a little quarrel with his 

 statement about the w^ord jurjuu^, and his suggestion that it 

 should have been kvIo^, the glory instead of the wrath of 

 Achilles, for the whole account of the Iliad depends on " wrath " 

 and not on "glory." Therefore the word " wrath " appears to be 

 correct. 



I sympathise with Professor Stanton (who has sent a letter on 

 the paper) in thinking that it is very difficult to suppose that 

 St. Luke or any other writer composed a narrative on a system so 

 very elaborate as that indicated to-day. It seems to me that if the 

 retrogressions spoken of in the paper are accepted, the historic 

 thread is broken in the Gospel of St. Luke. I join most cordially 

 in the expression of thanks to Colonel Mackinlay for the infinite 

 labour he has bestowed on the production of the paper, and I am 

 sure it will be a benefit to us to study, at greater leisure, the truths 

 laid before us. 



Written Communications. 

 The following written communications were received : — 



The Rev. Professor V. H. Stanton, D.D. : "All study of the Gospels 

 is valuable, and theories as to the arrangement of the matter, even if 

 greatly mistaken, may yet help to direct attention to the main 

 themes. I do not doubt that the great themes on which you lay 

 stress are the themes which most occupied the mind of St. Luke. 

 But whether he intended to emphasize those themes by a system of 

 triplications, extending through large portions of his two works, is 

 far more questionable. 



" When one looks into instances that are ofTered of some such 

 cryptic plans, one often finds that there has been something 

 arbitrary in the selection of cases, e.g., in the very first of yours. 

 I do not know by what right you omit Acts ii, 23, 24, ' toDtou . . . 

 ou 6 0GO9,' where then is the triplet ? 



