210 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY^ ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS, 



day " (vii, 11) simply means " later on." Again, his tenses have to be 

 carefully watched, especially the imperfect journeying tenses. The 

 chapters peculiar to St. Luke do not give new teaching but new 

 illustration of the teaching. He leaves his readers to intercept 

 spaces, as in the case of the forty days (chapter xxiv), the treading 

 down (xxi, 24, 25), the mission of the seventy (x, 16, 17), Saul's 

 stay at Damascus (Acts ix, 19). He was in one sense quite original, 

 and used many words not found elsewhere, and I think his 

 conception of Christ's Ministry was also original. He always looked 

 forward to the " Eeceiving up" (ix, 51), just as Christ looked 

 forward to His departure to the Father. What a debt we owe to 

 him ! You will see from this note that I have no scientific solution 

 as to " sources," for I think that the personal Christ was the true 

 source. 



Sir William Herschel, Bt., writes : The idea you put forth is 

 evidently to my mind vrai semblaUe, as a suggestion of what may 

 have been working in St. Luke s mind. But Sir William adds later 

 on, I think Luke found the difficulty of attaining the chronological 

 " order " (at which of course such a man did aim), to be insuperable. 



The Eev. T. J. Thorburn, M.A., writes : I think your view is 

 — speaking broadly — quite borne out by the inner structure of the 

 Gospel, and moreover is the only scheme I know of that takes away 

 the reproach of confusion in the historical order of events in the 

 narrative. Assuming Luke as the author of both Gospel and Acts, 

 each of them seems to be compiled by a writer with ideas of 

 sequence and arrangement, peculiar, in a sense, to himself, and both 

 are difficult to reconcile with modern notions of history. Your 

 theory of a threefold narrative from various sources, put 

 together on the oriental principle of embodying every account that 

 is to be met with, so that nothing may be omitted, and arranging the 

 whole for purely didactic purposes, seems fully to explain the 

 difficulty. 



The Rev. T. NicOL, D.D., Professor of Biblical Criticism, 

 University of Aberdeen, writes : It is a very helpful contribution 

 to the discussion of the Synoptic Problem, and the diagram which 

 you have provided enables the reader to take in the situation better 

 than any amount of description. I hope to devote special attention 

 to the questions you have raised and discussed. Meanwhile, my 

 view of your solution is most favourable, and I feel indebted to 



