LIEUT. -COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 213 



generations, and there remained only the written documents. Then 

 came the Dark Ages, and subsequent translations of the New Testa- 

 ment into modern European languages. Is it wonderful that the 

 Gospel of Luke then came to be regarded as a chronological tangle, 

 instead of a well ordered record pointing emphatically to the Death 

 and Resurrection of the Lord 1 With the revival of learning the 

 Greek of the New Testament has been well studied with regard to 

 grammar and textual criticism, especially during the past few 

 years ; but is it not possible that we may still have something to find 

 out about the general arrangement and purport of the Gospel of 

 St. Luke ? Bearing the foregoing considerations in mind Mr. Wood's 

 assumption, if the threefold narrative plan has really been adopted 

 by St. Luke, that even/ reader has been deceived, seems to be too 

 sweeping ; as there is good reason to suppose that the first readers 

 must have thoroughly understood the threefold arrangement and its 

 intention. 



Dr. Irving proposes a solution of the problems of the Insertions 

 and of the great Omission by suggesting that, as Luke made additions 

 to the Marcan narrative, so he omitted from his own history 

 much which was to be found well recorded by Mark. But these 

 questions still remain : as Luke omitted some parts recorded by 

 Mark, why do about two-thirds of his Gospel closely correspond 

 with the record of the second evangelist 1 And why is this verbal 

 correspondence concentrated in some chapters of Luke, and entirely 

 absent from others 1 



Mr. Gaussen's suggestions for the reasons which Luke had for 

 the omission of all record of certain important events in his Gospel 

 and in the Acts, are worthy of careful consideration. 



Let us now consider the criticisms in the discussion of the 

 suggestion of a threefold narrative in the Gospel of St. Luke. 



Mr. Woods upholds the view (popular among many scholars), that 

 the sentences of the so-called Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 

 were not all spoken at one time, but the evangelist grouped or 

 arranged them without much regard to chronology from sayings 

 found in Q. It is difficult to see how this can be proved. The 

 surmise may probably be chiefly based on the following con- 

 siderations, if the ordinary view of the construction of St. Luke's 

 Gospel is accepted. The sermon consists of 111 verses, 72 of 

 these reappear in Luke slightly modified or abbreviated. In the 



