LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 215 



journey in Luke (C) is stated in the diagram and elsewhere in the 

 paper to be narrated in Luke xvii, IL Whereas Luke xiv, 25, 

 gives the beginning of Luke (C) narrative — a very different thing. He 

 also objects that the impression left on the reader's mind is that 

 Luke xiv, 24, 25, is continuous — there is nothing to indicate a 

 chronological break between the two verses. This objection has 

 been anticipated on pp. 193, 194 and 201, of the paper, where it is 

 pointed out that Luke had a habit of frequently not indicating 

 fresh beginnings, but he left his readers to infer when they occurred. 

 Mr. Woods fails to see an analogy between the thrice repeated 

 narratives of St. Paul's conversion and St. Peter's visit to Cornelius — 

 and a supposed threefold narrative in the Gospel of Luke, because 

 he states that in the repetitions in the Acts not the slightest literary 

 difficulty is involved. It may be questioned if such repetitions as 

 those referred to in the Acts are usual among authors ; most 

 historians would surely prefer to give but one full narrative of 

 each incident, with perhaps subsequent incidental allusions, and 

 they would thus save space which they would use for recording 

 other events. It is of course granted that the threefold method of 

 repetition adopted by Luke in the above cases in Acts is not exactly 

 the same as the arrangement of the suggested threefold narrative 

 in the Gospel ; Luke had a beautiful variety in his methods of 

 threefold narrative in order to give emphasis, and some of them 

 demand a little searching in order to be recognized, as is briefly 

 indicated in the second note on p. 195 of the paper. 



Mr. Eouse's argument that the request by Christ's disciples to be 

 taught how to pray, Luke xi, 1, indicates an early period in Christ's 

 ministry appears to be unanswerable, and it is a strong argument 

 in favour of a second or repeated narrative. 



Mr. Rouse is correct in saying that the lament and the parable of 

 the Great Supper in Luke could not have been spoken at the same 

 time as the same lament and the similar parable of the marriage of 

 the King's son in Matthew, because he has shown that the Lucan 

 utterances were before Christ's entry into Jerusalem on the colt, and 

 the Matthaean utterances were both after it. But I think it can be 

 shown that the lament and parable in each Gospel must have been 

 spoken within a few days of each other, though probably to different 

 audiences. Not unfrequently we find the same subject discussed 

 in the Gospels at different places, but at consecutive, or nearly 



