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



latter Gospel about half (or 50 per cent.) of these sayings of the 

 Lord are recorded as delivered at the same time as that implied 

 by St. Matthew, but Luke places the other half at later dates j 

 hence it would appear to be difficult to say when all the sentences 

 recorded in Matthew v, vi, and vii were actually delivered, as 

 there thus seems to be considerable chronological divergence 

 between Matthew and Luke. But if the threefold narrative is 

 accepted and also the "strange literary procedure" by Luke of 

 splitting up the Matthaean sermon — one part being contained 

 in Luke (A) (vi, 1-49) and the other in Luke (B) (xi, 1 — xii, 

 59) — it will be found that about 86 per cent, of the sayings recorded 

 in the Matthaean sermon (which are reproduced in Luke) agree 

 chronologically with the records of the first evangelist. Luke con- 

 sequently only records 14 per cent, of his extracts from the Matthaean 

 sermon as spoken at later dates — a much less chronological dis- 

 crepancy than under the ordinary assumption of one continuous 

 narrative in the third Gospel. Mr. Woods himself admits that the 

 teachings given in Luke xi indicate a retrogression in point of time. 

 It is usually admitted that our Lord gave a distinctive teaching at 

 the early part of His Ministry, while different truths were pro- 

 pounded by Him at the end other teachings, however, may well have 

 been common to several periods, and our Lord doubtless repeated 

 many of His sayings, hence we have a good reason for the 14 per 

 cent, of sayings which are recorded by Matthew and by Luke as 

 given at different times, without having much recourse (if any) to 

 a supposed "grouping" or "arranging" by Matthew. In his two 

 accounts, which each contain parts of the Matthaean sermon, Luke 

 (vi, xi and xii) adds other sayings, many of which are recorded by 

 Matthew (viii-xii) as spoken during the same summer, but this fact 

 does not affect the argument which we have just considered. 

 Mr. Woods further thinks that all the notes of travel contained in 

 the middle chapters of Luke refer to only one account of one 

 journey. Mr. Ghallis points out the chronological contradictions 

 which such a supposition involves. Although Mr. Woods allows 

 that his theory involves this discrepancy, he nevertheless holds to 

 it, because he objects to the threefold narrative explanation, that 

 there is not the least hint or suggestion in Luke xiv, 25, that we 

 are reading about the beginning of a journey. He misunderstands ; 

 no such claim has been made in the paper. The beginning of the 



