LT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY^ ON THE EMPHASIS OF ST. LUKE. 267 



during early summer, and the}^ can then appropriately be alluded 

 to. Triplications are doubtless employed for purposes other than 

 emphasis ; but we must keep to our subject in this paper. 



Our Chairman says it is very difficult to suppose that Luke or 

 any other writer composed a narrative on a system so very elaborate 

 as that indicated in the paper. On the other hand, the Rev. 

 Harrington Lees writes with regard to the paper : " The elaborate- 

 ness of St. Luke's style makes the theory possible, though certainly 

 startling." . May we not expect methodical arrangement in St. 

 Luke's Gospel, particularly when it is remembered that the Greek 

 word KnOe^i'i^ in Luke i, 3, probably refers to literary as well as to 

 chronological order. 



The Dean's criticism that if there are two retrogressions in the 

 Gospel of St. Luke, the historic thread must be broken, merits 

 attention. It may truly be said that there is a retrogression on 

 each of the two occasions when St. Paul narrated his conversion and 

 commissioning in Acts xxii and xxvi, but there was no break in the 

 historic thread, because it is very evident that the Apostle referred 

 to past events. 



It is maintained that, when all the evidences have been carefully 

 examined, and when it is fully recognized that St. Luke has made 

 two retrogressions in his Gospel, then also the historic thread is 

 unbroken. The arrangements in the Gospel and in the Acts are 

 parallel to each other : in both it is clearly understood that an old 

 story is being repeated. The plan adopted in the Gospel of St. Luke 

 is not one with which we are familiar, but it is a reasonable one to 

 adopt. 



In reply to Professor Stanton's criticism (second paragraph) it 

 should be remembered that it is stated, on p. 5 of the paper, that 

 the connecting thread of No. 1 triplication in the Acts is the use of 

 the three Greek words, oSto? » '{r]aov<i. By what right, therefore, 

 should TovTou, etc., in Acts ii, 23, be admitted, as the Professor 

 suggests 1 ovTo^, alone, occurs frequently ; but the components 

 of this triplication are defined by the combination of the three words, 

 which do not occur elsewhere in the Acts, as pointed out in the 

 paper. 



With regard to the third paragraph of the Professor's letter, the 

 triplication here referred to (No. 3 in Table I) is not simply a 

 mention of the Holy Spirit, but it is a proclamation ; His actual arriva 



