Nature?"-the possible answer being found in the full recognition of the Divine Immanence, as the consistent and persistent (though not of necessity rigidly uniform) expression of Transcendent Creative Thought and Will*; and the able paper by Dr. D'Arcy, supplemented by Bergson's Creative Evolution, lends strong support to the contention that any complete theory of Evolution must "include the immanence of Divine power." 4. The "revolt against mechanism" in recent years, and its necessary challenge to the mechanistic (so-called) philosophy of the Herbert Spencer school, following upon the re-affirmation of the reality of the spiritual side of existence, and the reference in that connexion to Henri Bergson, is upon the whole well considered. But one feels a sort of twinge at the phrase "the re-discovery of the soul." There is no "re-discovery" in our later advance, except to those whose acquaintance with science has been mainly formed from the superficial magazine literature of the last two or three decades, which too often displays a conceited unconsciousness of the limitations of science. 5. In the second part of his paper Dr. D'Arcy deals with the difficulties of belief which arise from modern criticism. Here he seems thoroughly at home. As the author leads on to the ineffable Personality of Jesus of Nazareth he reminds one of Archbishop Temple's Bampton Lectures (1884) "In the midst of present conflicts, in the war of opinion, and amid the fires of criticism, let us ever bear in mind the fact that Christianity is much more a living and life-giving principle than a theological system; that it is not so much a philosophy as loyalty to a life, as that life was manifested in the Son of God." *See my paper on "Light, Luminaries and Life," Trans. Vict. Inst., vol. xlii. 529TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. HELD IN THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS LECTURE HALL (BY KIND PERMISSION) ON MONDAY, MARCH 18TH, 1912. JAMES W. THIRTLE, LL.D., M.R.A.S., IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed, and the following elections were announced :— MEMBERS: Frank W. Challis, Esq., M.A.; R. Maconachie, Esq., B.A. ASSOCIATE: Mrs. G. Barbour. SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. By Lieut.-Col. G. MACKINLAY, late R.A. HE publication of the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem last year, edited by Canon Sanday, had long been looked forward to, and the volume is a very valuable one, because it embodies the carefully considered results of several years of study by leading scholars, with the added advantage that they had continuously conferred together on the topics with which they dealt. None of the Problems which they considered are more interesting than those which are to be found in St. Luke's Gospel. This Evangelist plainly states in his opening sentences that he writes" having traced the course of all things accurately from the first . in order."* Nevertheless, his central chapters seem to be arranged in a manner which has long defied explanation. These problems attract very considerable attention among thoughtful Christian people at the present time, and they may profitably be discussed at the Victoria Institute. We begin our investigation by considering the sources from which the inspired Evangelist may have derived his information. We must confess that we have no means of knowing with certainty what they are; many different theories of the dependence of the three synoptics on each other, and on other sources * Luke i, 3. have been put forward at different times; but the following is in broad outline, the scheme which is very generally accepted by scholars and Bible students at the present time. Without necessarily accepting it as a perfect statement of the case, it forms a convenient working hypothesis for our investigations. The Gospel of Mark is generally believed to be the oldest of the synoptics; rather more than three-quarters of Matthew and rather more than two-thirds* of Luke are in close verbal correspondence with it, and they are thought to be based upon it. A portion of the remaining third part of Luke has close verbal resemblance with the parts of Matthew, which are not similar to Mark; this portion of Luke, therefore, is thought to be founded upon Matthew's Gospel, or possibly on some unknown document, called (Q) for brevity, which may have served as a source for both Matthew and Luke. The remaining portion of Luke, which is not similar to either Mark or Matthew (though, of course, it may be similar to (Q)) is considered to come from some source or sources special to Luke. The sources of St. Luke's Gospel thus appear to be three(1) Marcan, (2) Matthaean (or Q), and (3) Special Lucan. As such a large proportion of the Gospel of Luke corresponds verbally with Mark, it is all the more strange to find that sources other than Mark are continuously employed in the numerous consecutive chapters (eight and a half, and one and two-thirds respectively) of the so-called "great" and "lesser Insertions" (Luke ix, 51, to xviii, 14, and vi, 20, to viii, 3). It is also very striking that all record of the incidents and sayings in the considerable period covered by Mark vi, 45, to viii, 26, is omitted by Luke. Not only is there a disuse of the Marcan narrative as in the cases of the two Insertions, but no information is supplied from any other source of the events and sayings of the period to which the Marcan chapters refer. This so-called "great Omission " is most abrupt, it occurs between the verses 17 and 18 of Luke ix. These then are the special problems which we propose to investigate (a) The great Insertion (Luke ix, 51, to xviii, 14). Three limitations to St. Luke's use of St. Mark's Gospel, p. 29, Rev. Sir John Hawkins, Bart., M.A., D.D., in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (abbreviated title S.S.P.). Edited by Rev. Canon Sanday, M.A., D.D., 1911. (b) The lesser Insertion (Luke vi, 20, to viii, 3). (c) The great Omission between verses 17 and 18 of Luke ix, of all the matter contained in Mark vi, 45, to viii, 26. We shall first of all briefly summarize the explanations of these problems suggested by the Rev. Sir John Hawkins in his very careful and scholarly paper in the recently published Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem. EXPLANATIONS OF THE LUCAN PROBLEMS. (a) and (b) The two Insertions. He states that in both of the Insertions Luke has certainly deserted his usual Marcan source. Our author suggests as an explanation of the great Insertion (Luke ix, 51, to xviii, 14), which very largely treats of journeying towards Jerusalem (1) Before Luke adopted the Gospel of Mark as his source, he may have drawn up this "travel document" and "he may thus have had it ready to his hand for incorporation here."† (2) Luke may have already been in possession of the Marcan document, but he may have deliberately laid it aside, in preference for another account, which may have been more in order and first hand than that of Mark. Our author, however, warns us that such conjectures "are easily made too much of, and when that is the case they bring discredit upon the serious study of the Synoptic Problem." But he offers no further explanation for the existence of the great Insertion, and he does not suggest any reason at all for the lesser one. (c) The great Omission. Sir John gives much fuller and very interesting suggested explanations for the employment of the great Omission§ which we briefly summarize— (1) The copy of Mark which Luke used may have been an early one, deficient of the verses under consideration. Our author, however, does not consider this more than a bare *S.S.P., pp. 33 and 59. + S.S.P., pp. 55, 56. S.S.P., p. 59. S.S.P., pp. 61-74, by Rev. Sir John Hawkins, see also pp. 24, 25, by Canon Sanday. || S.S.P., p. 66. possibility, and in this conclusion Canon Sanday* agrees with him. (2) If St. Luke referred to a copy of Mark such as we now have, he may have "accidentally left it unused, having perhaps been misled into doing so by passing in his MS. from the mention of feeding multitudes in Mark vi, 42-44, to that in Mark viii, 19-21, or from the name Bethsaida in vi, 45, to the same name† in viii, 22 (the place being nowhere else mentioned in Mark). . . The evidence for it is greatly strengthened by consideration of the physical difficulties that must have beset compilers and copyists in the first century as compared with our own literary conveniences."‡ Sir John Hawkins thinks that this is a more than possible solution, but he admits that some will be unable to accept this explanation. (3) St. Luke may have intentionally passed over this division of Mark's Gospel as unsuitable for his purpose for the following reasons: two of the miracles which it contains, the healing of a man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, and the giving of sight to a blind man, may seem to detract from the dignity of Christ; in the one case our Lord "spat, and touched his tongue," and in the other the healing was not immediately complete, because at first men were only seen "as trees, walking." A tendency has been observed in Luke to avoid the narration of events and sayings which are somewhat similar to others, thus the omission of (a) The feeding of the four thousand.” (b) The second storm on the lake.tt (c) The general account of many miracles. And (d) the refusal of Christ to give a sign,§§ may be accounted for. It is also thought that Luke generally limits the recital of antiPharisaic controversy, hence the omission of the discourse which contains the charge against the Pharisees, that "ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men."|| Another tendency of St. Luke is "to spare the twelve- to say comparatively little as to their faults and failings "TT; this may * S.S.P., pp. xxv, xxvi. ++ There is, however, our author points out, a Western reading Βηθανίαν. S.S.P., p. 66, by Rev. Sir J. Hawkins; also p. 16 ff., by Canon Sanday. ** Mark viii, 1-9 (c), with Mark vi, 34-44. T¶ S.S.P., p. 71. |