206 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY^ OX SOME LUCAX PROBLEMS. 



This was Colonel Mackinlay's former thesis (assumed in to-day's 

 paper). It was helped by his recognition of three distinctly 

 prominent spiritual notes dominating these three passages of 

 incident. In Luke (A) the Lord's requirement from all, " the obedience 

 of faith " ; in Luke (B) the Lord's warning against that indifference 

 and worldliness which register themselves in unbelief and rejection 

 of the Gospel ; in Luke (C) the Lord's encouragement to individuals 

 who — while the shadows deepened through the general public 

 attitude of pride and hostility — might humbly and gratefully accept 

 His proffered grace to meet their need. 



This commends itself as possible to the spiritual mind. 



The following written communications have been received : — 



The Rev. Sir John Hawkins, Bart., M.A., D.D., writes : 

 I quite agree with you that " Insertion " is a better, because a more 

 neutral term, than " Interpolation."' I remember hesitating before 

 using the latter, but when I began to write on this particular 

 subject some ten years ago, it seemed to have estabhshed itself as 

 the ordinary designation of Luke ix, 51, to xviii, 14. And I consulted 

 the great Oxford dictionary, which shows that the word has been 

 by no means limited to unjustifiable insertions, though it has been 

 " especially " applied to them. 



The Rev. J. Orr, D.D., writes : I have read with care and much 

 interest your valuable discussion on the Lucan Problems. The 

 questions about Luke have naturally occupied my own mind a good 

 deal, and there are points in your view of the matter which are new 

 to me, and from which I hope I may derive help. AYhatever our 

 theory of the Synoptic Gospels, the facts of what you call the 

 " great Insertion " and the "great Omission," are there as problems 

 to be solved. I am more impressed by what you say about the 

 parallel narratives in the Gospel, than by your explanations of 

 Luke's " Omission " of a long Marcan passage. I agree fully with 

 Sir John Hawkins that the suggestions offered for the " Omission," 

 as detailed by you, and considered on pp. 189-191, are in no way 

 adequate. But the aesthetic reason — or artistic ("the cloud or 

 shadow " of p. 198) — hardly seems to me one which a critical treat- 

 ment of the Gospel is likely to regard as sufficient either. May I say 

 that my own feeling is perhaps sUghtly affected by the fact that I am 

 personally unable to accept the theory which regards Matthew and 

 Luke as based — in their common parts — on Mark's Gospel. 



