xviii, invectives against the Pharisees in ch.

xxvi, and long eschatological discourses in ch.
xxiv and xxv, which seem at once to give a handle to the theory that the Evangelist has incorporated a work consisting specially of discourses into the main body of the Synoptic narrative.

But the appearance of roundness and completeness which these discourses present is deceptive.

If we are to suppose that the form in which the discourses appear in St.Matthew at all nearly represents their original structure, then how is it that the same discourses are found in the third Gospel in such a state of dispersion?
How is it, for instance, that the parallel passages to the Sermon on the Mount are found in St.Luke scattered over chapters vi, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, with almost every possible inversion and variety of order?
Again, if the Matthaean sections represent a substantive work, how are we to account for the strange intrusion of the triple synopsis into the double?
What are we to say to the elaborately broken structure of ch.

x?
On the other hand, if we are to take the Lucan form as nearer to the original, that original must have been a singular agglomeration of fragments which it is difficult to piece together.