we must concentrate the space now at our disposal on the short period containing the more immediate premonitions of the coming death of the Lord, in order to give emphatic attention to this great theme of my gospel." This idea is supported and emphasized by the greater Omission in Luke (B), the existence of which has not, apparently, hitherto been noticed.

*

We may notice incidentally that the abruptness of the great Omission and also of the two other greater ones, are good examples of Luke's habit of hiding his methods. A reply is thus suggested to meet an objection which has been made by some to the existence of the three parallel narratives, that it is unlikely that the Evangelist would have employed them, unless he had said so, and unless he had plainly indicated the beginning and end of each. He did not do so, because it is the habit of the Evangelist often to conceal his methods.

Our study of these Lucan problems causes the intellect to admire the wondrous skill which the Evangelist has displayed in the presentation of the Gospel story, and the heart is deeply impressed with the immense grandeur of his sublime theme.

NOTE. In the foregoing paper each of the two interruptions of the ordinary Marcan source is called an "Insertion," a designation which has been employed for some time, and which seems to be suitable. In the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem this term is also employed by one of the authors, but the three others, who write on the subject, use the word " Interpolation" instead. Surely this is an unfortunate designation, because, according to the English Student's Dictionary, J. Ogilvie, 1908, the meaning of the word to interpolate, is "to insert a spurious word or passage in a MS. or book."

DISCUSSION.

Mr. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., said: I was very pleased that Colonel Mackinlay in his valuable paper spoke of the additions made by St. Luke to the synoptic narrative as the greater and lesser "Insertions" rather than "Interpolations." To interpolate is "to insert" some foreign material in a fabric or substance in order to improve its appearance; it is, in short, adulteration.

* Luke iv, 13, 14, and xiii, 21, 22.

When the word is applied to manuscripts or documents it necessarily has the same significance, it is falsification. So Cicero, in his second oration against Verres, accuses the latter of having falsified the judicial registers during his term of office by deleting names, by altering them, and by interpolating them. And St. Ambrose uses the word in the same sense with respect to attempts to falsify the Holy Scriptures. It is true that in modern science (as in astronomical calculations) "Interpolation" is the name given to a well recognized and perfectly legitimate process. But in general, and especially where we are dealing with documents, "Interpolation" has a sinister meaning, and hence it is not right that it should be used in the present connection.

The Rev. A. IRVING, B.A., D.Sc., welcomed Colonel Mackinlay's attempt to present some results of recent research, he thanked the author for the great pains and labour bestowed upon his paper and for the ingenious construction of the diagram. But he could not resist the conclusion that the facts had been represented in an untrue perspective.

In the first place the fact that the Lucan evangelium was only the first of two volumes of one continued history seemed to have been lost sight of. It appeared to be a fundamental misconception to make Luke's arrangement of his materials focus on the Crucifixion of the Lord Jesus as the final goal. Luke looked forward beyond the gloom of Calvary, to the great Pentecostal Illumination, and to the opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles.

In the second place it appeared that the author seemed to have forgotten that St. Luke, as an educated Gentile, had the instruction and edification of the Gentile churches for his primary object and a careful perusal of the remarks relating to both the great Omission and the two main Insertions dealt with in the paper might enable anyone to see that our Evangelist had made his additions to the Marcan narrative, while omitting from his own history large portions of what had been already well recorded by Mark.

Mr. MARTIN ROUSE, B.A., said: Most assuredly Colonel Mackinlay is right in saying that Luke, from the end of his tenth chapter, goes back to a time just preceding the Sermon on the Mount, when the Saviour had taught men how to pray, and had given the same pattern of prayers that we find at the outset of chapter xi. Now the sermon was delivered in the middle of the

second year of His Ministry, and the Transfiguration (which Luke has narrated in his ninth chapter) took place at the end of the third year; therefore, if Luke's account were consecutive from his tenth to his eleventh chapters, we should have one disciple on behalf of the rest (including the twelve) asking his Master how to pray nearly two years after He had taught them how to do so, although they had been in His company ever since.

But by comparing Matthew's with Luke's story of the Sermon on the Mount, we perceive that the Saviour first spent a whole night in prayer high up on the mountain; then at daybreak called His disciples around Him, discoursed with them privately and chose from among them His special witnesses, the twelve; and then descended with them and the rest to a "level place," where He preached to multitudes (cf. Matt. v, 1, 2; Luke vi, 17-20 et seq.; Luke vii, 1; Matt. vii, 28, 29). In His more private discourse He uttered the blessings generically, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, etc."; in His fully public discourse, "lifting up His eyes upon His disciples," and thus pointing them out to the multitude, He said specifically, "Blessed are ye poor, etc." (cf. Matt. v, 2-12, with Luke vi, 20-23). In the same way, as we may well conclude, one of Christ's disciples, who had been standing near Him while He was still at prayer at the close of that night on the mount, requested, as soon as He called them around Him, that He would teach them how to pray, even as John the Baptist had done for his disciples. In response the Blessed One taught them His pattern of prayer, and afterwards, when He went down with the disciples to the level place, He repeated this pattern as a sequel to other counsel regarding prayer.

On the other hand, Mr. Rouse objected that the lament over Jerusalem (Luke xiii, 34) and the parable of the great Supper (Luke xiv, 16-24) could not have been spoken at the time of the similar lament in Matthew xxiii, 37, and of the somewhat similar parable of the Marriage of the king's son narrated in Matthew xxii, 1-14. Because the two latter were spoken after Christ's entry into Jerusalem upon the colt (Matthew xxi, 1-11), while the two former must have been spoken before it; for the Lucan Parable (spoken after the Lucan lament) was on a Sabbath (Luke xiv, 1). It is readily seen that the entry into Jerusalem must have been on a later day than Christ's last Sabbath on earth (John xii, 1-12).

Mr. Rouse thought that the words "Get thee out, and go hence, for Herod would fain kill Thee" (Luke xiii, 31), pointed to the fact that Christ was far from Jerusalem, and so he considered that the days in the passage "I must go on My way to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following" (Luke xiii, 33) could not mean literal days, as Jerusalem could not be reached so quickly, especially as one of the days just before the entry on the colt was a Sabbath. Mr. Rouse therefore concluded that the days mean years, as in Ez. iv, 4-6, and therefore the lament recorded by Luke was spoken two years before the Crucifixion, at the time of the Sermon on the Mount. He said of the lament, "the words are prophetic, not beginning to be fulfilled until after the Crucifixion; so they may have been uttered upon an occasion noticed by Luke and have been repeated upon the Lord's last visit to Jerusalem, as told by Matthew." He also thought that the Lucan lament could not have been spoken near the very end of the Ministry, because in a later chapter (Luke xvii, 11) our Lord is spoken of as travelling between Samaria and Galilee; he therefore did not see any reason for supposing that Luke made a third beginning just after the parable of the great Supper at chapter xiv, 25.

Mr. SIDNEY COLLETT said: I am sure we all recognize that Colonel Mackinlay must have spent an immense amount of time and pains on the preparation of this subject, but is there really after all such a "Lucan Problem" with its "Insertions" and "Omission" as he has submitted to us this afternoon?

I notice that the whole argument of his lecture is based upon a pure supposition, as stated by himself (p. 188), that "the Gospel of Mark is generally believed to be the oldest of the synoptics." But we do not really know for certain in what order those gospels were written. And if it is some day discovered that St. Mark did not write his gospel first, then the whole structure of this elaborate argument falls to the ground.

St. Luke tells us himself his source: in his opening sentences in chapter i, 3, he makes the remarkable statement that he had "perfect understanding of all things from the very first." Therefore, as his understanding, according to his own testimony was both perfect and complete, how could there be any necessity for him to borrow any of his matter from Matthew or from Mark?

After describing the purpose of each Gospel, Mr. Collett drew

attention to the many striking differences between them, which he thought clearly precluded copying one from the other; and he pleaded for a more simple reading of scripture recognizing the Divine statement of 2 Peter i, 21.

Mr. F. W. CHALLIS, M.A., said: While heartily endorsing the principle on which Mr. Collett has just been insisting―viz., the supernatural guidance afforded the Evangelists in framing the Scripture-I cannot altogether appreciate his present application of it.

I

Broadly speaking, it seems to me that the whole drift of Colonel Mackinlay's able paper has been missed in this discussion. attribute this largely to the evident fact that most of the present audience have not perused his previously published brochure, which elaborated the original thesis-that there is in St. Luke's Gospel a threefold narrative of the last journey to Jerusalem. It is this thesis which has been attacked in discussion to-day; and the main point of the paper (which applied that thesis to the particular problem of "Omission" and "Insertions") has evoked practically no

comment.

Now the matter of the thesis (since this is the point of attack) stands thus :-The words of Luke i, 3 ("in order "), suggest some kind of chronological sequence. Grant this, and the question arises: Is the sequence unbroken, or is it interrupted by retrogressions?

Some say that there is only one line of narrative, and they deny retrogression. But is this possible? For if chapter ix admittedly deals with the last journey to Jerusalem, in chapter x we reach Bethany, on the outskirts of the city. Yet in chapter xix we are passing through Jericho!

Mr. Rouse admits this and agrees that a fresh thread of narrative begins in chapter xi, 1, but he admits only this and claims uninterrupted sequence from chapter xi, 1, onwards. But can we accept Mr. Rouse's contention that chapter xiii, 32, etc., dates back two years from the end? He is asking us to believe that the lament over Jerusalem and the doom pronounced (34, 35) were in the third year before the completion of the Lord's ministry!

It seems, therefore, that the closing verses of chapter xiii provide a further clear landmark, and that a threefold narrative must be admitted.