CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY HARNACK'S LUKE THE PHYSICIAN ^Testament &tutites I LUKE THE PHYSICIAN THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRD GOSPEL AND THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES BY ADOLF HARNACK PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN TRANSLATED BY THE REV. J. R. WILKINSON, M.A, LATE SCHOLAR OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND RECTOR OF WINFORD EDITED BY THE REV. W. D. MORRISON, LL.D, UNIVERSITY \ OF \>U!FO^N^X NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS LONDON ; WILLIAMS AND NORGATE 1908 \ Printed by BALLANTYNE & Co. LIMITED Tavistock Street, London AUTHOR'S PREFACE IT was my original intention that the following treatise should be included in the third part of my " History of Early Christian Literature." However, it .grew under my hands to such an extent that I now publish it in a separate volume. It must form the first of a few other treatises on the subject of Introduction to the New Testament which will appear shortly, for some of the cardinal problems of this branch of Biblical study are still far from being set in so clear a light as to permit of their being dismissed in a short essay. The genuine epistles of St. Paul, the writings of St. Luke, and the history of Eusebius are the pillars of primitive Christian history. This fact has not yet been sufficiently recognised in the case of the Lukan writings ; partly because critics are convinced that these writings are not to be assigned to St. Luke. And yet, even if they were right in their supposition, the importance of the Acts of the Apostles at least still remains funda- mental. However, I hope to have shown in the following pages that critics have gone astray in this question, and that the traditional view holds good. The Lukan writings thus recover their own excelling value as b 184841 vi AUTHOR'S PREFACE historical authorities ; for they are written by a Greek who was a fellow worker of St. Paul, and companied with Mark, Silas, Philip, and James the brother of the Lord. Ten years ago, in the preface to the first volume of the second part of my " History of Christian Literature," I stated that the criticism of the sources of primitive Christianity was gradually returning to the traditional standpoints. My friends have taken offence at this statement of mine, although I had already in part established its truth. I now offer them a new proof, and I beg for their impartial criticism. With my opponents, on the other hand, my statement has fared much more sadly. I saw myself suddenly brought for- ward as a witness to testify that in historical criticism we are returning to the conservative point of view. I am not responsible for this misapprehension of my position ; indeed, in that very preface I took care to guard myself against it as it seems, to no purpose. Let me, therefore, now express my absolute conviction that historical criticism teaches us ever more clearly that many traditional positions are untenable and must give place to new and startling discoveries. We do, of course, recover something of the old ground, in that we can now more accurately circumscribe the home and the time of the formation of the most primitive and funda- mental Christian tradition. We can now assert that during the years 30-70 A.D., and on the soil of Palestine more particularly in Jerusalem this tradition as a whole tool; the essential form which it presents in its later development, and that the only other factor which AUTHOR'S PREFACE vii has played an important part in this formation is the influence of Phrygia and Asia, with their populations so strongly intermixed with Jewish elements. This result of research is becoming clearer day by day, and is steadily replacing the earlier "critical" hypothesis which assumes that the fundamental development of Christian tradition extended over a period of some one hundred years, and that in its formation the whole Diaspora played a part as important as that of the Holy Land and its primitive churches. In regard to the chronological framework, the majority of the leading personages who are named, and the scene of action, the report of ancient tradition stands firm ; but when we proceed further i.e., when we attempt to realise historical situations we are thrown back upon our own groping judgment, and are often unable to accept the conceptions and explanations of the primitive annalists. Indeed, the problems which present them- selves are rendered the more difficult by the shortening of the period of fundamental development and by the weight which must be assigned to the testimony of persons who still belong to the first generation. If, for instance, St. Luke and not some other unknown com- piler is the author of the third gospel and the Acts, we are then left with a psychological and historical problem of extraordinary difficulty scarcely less diffi- cult, indeed, than that which the author of the fourth gospel presents when he includes in his narrative both the Miracle at Cana and the Final Discourses. The method which I have followed in this book is little in accord with the impressionalism that is the viii AUTHOR'S PREFACE ruling fashion in the Biblical criticism of to-day. I am also far from wishing to commend it in every case ; but the problem before us whether the author of the so- called " we "" sections is identical with the author of the whole work can be really mastered by a method which comprises close and detailed examination and discussion of vocabulary and style. It is possible to carry this examination further than I have done for instance, one might investigate the use of \eyeiv and \a\eiv or of crvv and jtwra in the " we " sections and in the whole work with always the same result, namely, that the author of both is one and the same person. A. H. BEELIN, Hay 17, 1906. PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION I HAVE looked through this book with a view to its translation into English. I have corrected it in a few places, and have amplified the last Appendix (St. Luke and St. John). Otherwise the book remains unaltered. I gladly seize the opportunity of expressing my thanks to the English scholars Hawkins, Hobart, and Plummer for all that I have learnt from their works. A. H. BERLIN, January 10, 1907. CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE I. GENERAL INVESTIGATION 1 II. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE SO-CALLED " WE " ACCOUNT OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES . . 26 III. Is IT REALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCRIBE THE THIRD GOSPEL AND THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES TO ST. LUKE? 121 IV. RESULTS 14-6 APPENDICES I. THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRD GOSPEL AND THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES A PHYSICIAN . . . .175 II. INVESTIGATION OF THE LINGUISTIC RELATIONS OF ST. LUKE i. 39-56, 68-79; n. 15-20, 41-52 . 199 III. THE EPISTLE FROM JERUSALEM, ACTS xv. 23-29 . 219 IV. ST. LUKE AND ST. JOHN . . . 224 ^ OF THE UNIVERSITY CHAPTER I GENERAL INVESTIGATION THE great historical work, which has come down to us in two parts, the third gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, is anonymous, but the unanimous report of ecclesiastical tradition, which ascribes it to an author Luke by name, can be traced back to the middle of the second century. In fact, there is no justifiable reason for " doubting that Justin already regarded the third gospel as the work of St. Luke ("Dial.' 1 103). Indeed, a further step backwards is permissible ; for those who first formed the collection of four gospels and this was done before the middle of the second century, perhaps long before gave this gospel the inscription KATA AOTKAN. It is therefore probable that Marcion, who assailed the other gospels while he accepted and edited the third gospel, was already acquainted with the name Luke as the name of its author. This, however, does not admit of stringent proof, 1 and one must therefore i In proof of Marcion's knowledge of the name of Luke we may bring forward the fact that Marcion in his text of Col. iv. 14 has erased the words 6 iarpbs 6 ayain)T6s, and thus seems to have had some interest in St. Luke (he could not have been a physician, for A 2 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN rest satisfied with the knowledge that the Lukan author- ship has been universally accepted since the years 140-150 A.D. Of necessity the gospel which begins with a prologue must have contained in its title the name of its author. If St. Luke was not the author, then the real author's name must have been purposely suppressed either when the book was combined with the three other gospels or at some previous time. Such a suppression or substitu. tion of names is, of course, quite possible, yet the hypothesis of its occurrence is by no means simple. Anonymous compilations in the course of tradition easily acquire some determining name, and it is easy to imagine an author writing under a pseudonym ; but in the case of a writing determined by a prologue and a dedication we require some very definite reasons for a substitution of names, especially when this is supposed to occur only one generation after the date of publica- tion. 1 That the " Luke " whose name is so closely connected with the third gospel and the Acts is the Luke mentioned in the Pauline epistles has never been questioned. care of the body is irreligious) ; but we may not build much upon this. If Iren. III. i. depends upon the authority of Papias, the latter also described the third gospel as Lukan ; but the source of Irenseus' information is uncertain. i The substituted name ought to be that of some recognised authority. But " Luke" was not this, so far as we know. On this very account, ever since the end of the second century these historical writings were carefully brought into such close connection with the Apostle St. Paul that the name "Luke" lost all importance. The name, therefore, was not authoritative enough at that time. GENERAL INVESTIGATION 3 According to these epistles (Col. iv. 14 ; Philem. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11), he was (1) a Hellene by birth, 1 (2) a physician, 2 (3) a companion of St. Paul, (4) a fellow- worker with St. Paul. 3 This Luke is first mentioned in those epistles of the Apostle which were composed in Rome (or Ca^sarea ?), but this does not exclude the con- jecture that he came into connection with St. Paul at an earlier period. It is not, however, probable that he was with the Apostle at the time of the composition of the epistles to the Thessalonians, to the Corinthians, and to the Romans ; for in this case we should expect some mention of his name. It is therefore improbable that he was personally, or at all events intimately, acquainted with the Christian communities of Thessalonica, Corinth, and Rome (before St. Paul visited that city). 4 Accord- ing to 2 Tim. iv. 11, he continued to the end in the company of the Apostle, while Demas, Crescens, and Titus had left him. 1 Compare Col. iv. 10 ff. with iv. 12 ff. 2 And also the physician of St. Paul ; for this is implied in the words AovKas 6 larpbs 6 ayaTrrjr6s. As "the beloved son" = "my son," so also the beloved physician = my physician. St. Paul would not have given such emphasis to the special profession of his companion in travel if he himself had not derived benefit there from. s This follows from Philemon 24, where Luke together with Mark Aristarchus, and Demas is described by the Apostle as "my synergos." He thus shared in the work of the mission. On the other hand, he is never mentioned as a fellow-prisoner of St. Paul like Aristarchus (Col. iv. 10) and Epaphras (Philem. 23) ; he therefore lived in freedom in Koine. * No conclusions may be drawn from Galatians and Philippians, because St. Paul in these epistles makes no mention of individuals who send greeting. 4 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN The report of tradition concerning St. Luke, apart from these references to him in the writings of St. Paul, is probably not altogether untrustworthy, though it will not here claim our attention. One statement, however, deserves to be regarded as specially reliable. 1 Both Eusebius 2 and the ancient " Argumentum evangelii secundum Lucan " agree in describing him as a native of Antioch. The style of the language used by both authorities is the same (Aov/cas TO /j,ev yevos wv TMV air* ^AvTio-^eia^y rr/v eiriaT^^v 8e larpos, ra ffVwy IlavXw, KCU rot? XO^TTO?? 8e ov rwv airovTo\wv a>/uX?7;a)? " Lucas Syrus natione An- tiochensis, arte medicus discipulus apostolorum, postea Paulum secutus ") ; but Eusebius is scarcely dependent upon the "Argumentum," since he defines the relations of St. Luke with the original Apostles more accurately than the latter. Rather we are here compelled to assume a common source, which must therefore be of very early date. 3 The fact that this record tells us 1 The " Argumentum evangelii secundum Lucan," which belongs at the latest to the beginning of the third century (Corssen., " Monarch- ianische Prologe. Texte u. Unters." Bd. 15, I. s. 7 ff.), asserts that he remained unmarried, that he died seventy-four years old in Bithynia, and that he composed his gospel in Achaia. This is probably correct. Tne statement that St. Luke was one of the seventy disciples of our Lord is quite untrustworthy. 2 " Hist. Ecc." iii. 4, 6. 3 See also Julius Africanus (" Mai. Nova. Patr. Bibl." IV. 1, p. 270) : & 5e AOUKMS rb fMtv yevos airb TTJS Po(a/j.fi>ir)s 'Aj/rtoxctas %v. It is not quite certain that these words together with the following account that St. Luke was better acquainted with Greek science than with Hebrew go back to Africanus. We may have here only the words of Eusebius. GENERAL INVESTIGATION 5 nothing of the place of composition, but simply fixes St. Luke's native city, speaks in favour of its relia- bility ; for in ancient times we find that a famous man's place of origin is generally noted, while records of the places where he composed his writings are much more rare. Nor can we assign any weight to a late tradition found in the pseudo-Clementine " Recognitions " (x. 71), that the Theophilus to whom St. Luke addressed his work was the principal citizen of Antioch ; for this report could have been easily manufactured from a combination of the prologue of the third gospel with the tradition that St. Luke was a native of Antioch. The latter tradition, however, could scarcely have arisen from the Acts itself ; for though it is evident, as we shall see later, that this book has a special interest in Antioch, this interest is nevertheless not so directly expressed as to lead at once to the conclusion that the author was a native of Antioch. 1 And since the tradi- tion seems to have no ulterior motive it may well pass for trustworthy. Can it be possible that Luke the Greek physician of Antioch, the companion and fellow-worker of St. Paul, composed the third gospel and the Acts of the Apostles ? " If the gospel were the only writing ascribed to his authorship," writes a recent critic, 2 we should probably raise no objection against this record 1 It is, however, possible that the noteworthy gloss in Acts xi. 28 (a-vvf(TTpa/j.iJ.fV(av r)/*ui>) already presupposes the tradition that St. Luke was an Antiochean. The supposition is not, however, necessary. 2 J. Weiss, " Die Schriften des N. T.'s, das Lukas-Evang.," 1906, s. 378. 6 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN of ancient tradition ; for we have no sufficient reasons for asserting that a disciple of St. Paul could not have composed this work." The difficulty, therefore, is assumed to lie in the Acts of the Apostles. This book must be subjected to a separate and stringent examina- tion so the critics demand ; but this examination, so they say, is already completed, and has led to the certain conclusion that tradition here is in the wrong the Acts cannot have been composed by a companion and fellow-worker of St. Paul. This is the judgment of Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Overbeck, Hansrath, Weiz- sacker, Wendt, Schiirer, Pfleiderer, von Soden, Spitta, Jiilicher, J. Weiss, Knopf, Clemen, and others, following the lead of Konigsmann, De Wette, Baur, and Zeller. In spite of the opposition of Credner, 1 B. Weiss, Klostermann, Zahn, Renan, Hobart, Ramsay, Hawkins, Plummer, Vogel, Blass, and others, the indefensibility of the tradition is regarded as being so clearly estab- lished that nowadays it is thought scarcely worth while to reprove this indefensibility, or even to notice the arguments of conservative opponents. 2 Indeed, i Credner, " Einleit. in d. N. T." i. s. 153 f. : " There is no sufficient reason for throwing doubt, with De Wette, upon the unanimous tradition of the Church which makes Luke the author of our gospel ; at least the way that faults in the Church are reproved by this author does not justify such doubts. He was at all events of the Pauline school, and for several years a companion of St. Paul the supposition that the ' we ' sections belong to a diary from another hand, which he has incorporated in his work, is disproved by the homogeneity of vocabulary and style throughout the book ; this of itself is enough to prove the indefensibility of those doubts, which are not at all removed by a change of names." a I have indicated my attitude towards this problem in the year GENERAL INVESTIGATION 7 it seems that there exists a disposition to ignore the fact that such arguments still exist. Jiilicher (Introduction, 447 ff.) feels compelled to regard the ascription of the book to St. Luke as a " romantic ideal." 1 So quickly does criticism forget its true function, with such bigoted obstinacy does it cling to its hypotheses. 2 And yet we find that even critics, in spite of their verdict, have actually made, and are still making, 1892 (" Texte u. Unters." Bd. 8, H. 4, s. 37 ff.). Since that date my continued studies have rendered it possible for me to speak more positively. 1 On the contrary, Plummer (" Commentary on St. Luke," p. xii.) writes : " It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that nothing in Biblical criticism is more certain than the statement that the author of the Acts was a companion of St. Paul." This, of course, is saying too much, but the exaggeration is nearer the truth than Jiilicher's opinion. 2 Even criticism has for generations its freaks and fancies. Very often one notices that, when some comprehensive critical theory has been in fashion for a long time and then has been refuted, particular fragments thereof still cling obstinately to men's minds although they have no intellectual basis. The critical school of Baur, in order to prove that the name Luke in connection with these writings was a forgery, used only one argument i.e., the work is not Pauline but conciliatory in its tendency, hence it belongs to a late period in the second century. Baur's method is now demolished ; and yet some planks of his critical structure still float upon the surface of the devastating flood. Seeing how one critic trustfully rests upon the authority of another, we may congratulate ourselves that some accident has prevented Scholten's hypothesis that the third gospel and the Acts have different authors from finding its way into the great stream of criticism and so becoming a dogma in these days. This might very easily have happened, for a difference in the author- ship of the third gospel and the Acts can be alleged with much more plausible reasons than a difference in the authorship of the Acts as a whole and the " we " sections. 8 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN considerable strides towards a compromise with tradi- tion. Certain passages are found in the Acts where the author introduces himself into the narrative with the word " we." The more than rash hypothesis that this " we " is a literary forgery has been renounced long ago, 1 and nowadays scarcely a voice is raised even against the hypothesis that this "we" proceeds from the pen of St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul. 2 We hear no more of those theories that would assign the authorship of these sections to Timothy or Titus or Silas, or some other companion of St. Paul. Indeed, the compromise goes still further : passages of con- siderable length in those chapters of the second part of the Acts in which the " we " does not occur must now be regarded as proceeding from St. Luke. The critics are not, of course, agreed on this point, but it is quite clear that there is a growing tendency to assign the greater part of chapters xvi.-xxviii. (and even of chapters xi.-xv.) to the Lukan source. 3 But say the 1 So Schrader, B. Bauer, Havet; so also the assumption, com- mended by Overbeck, that the " we " is, as a rule, authentic, but has been forged in some places by the author of the complete work. Neither has Zeller's theory that the author allowed the "we" to stand in order that he might pass for a companion of the Apostle so far as I know, found any champions in these days. 2 Julicher speaks on this point with hesitation (Introd. 447 ff.) ; according to him the hypothesis that St. Luke is the author of the 11 we " sections can only be regarded as probable ; so also Weizsacker. Holtzmann, for example ("Einleit.," 1892, s. 395), has given a distinct vote for St. Luke. s It is certain that the " we " record, if it was a source of the Acts, does not coincide only with the sum of those verses in which the " we " occurs ; it must have been more extensive. GENERAL INVESTIGATION 9 critics this must not be regarded as anything more than a source of the whole work. 1 Some anonymous writer, the author of the gospel, has used this excellent and most valuable source for the second part of his historical work, transforming it somewhat to suit his own purposes. If it be at once objected that it is improbable that so practised a writer should not have removed the u we " which he found in his source, it is answered that it is no less strange that an author should introduce himself abruptly, in the midst of his narrative, with an indefinite " we," and should then fall back again into narrative in the third person, only to appear afresh just as abruptly in the first person. The paradox in either case is not, of course, equally great, and it is mere perversity to describe the two hypotheses as equally difficult. The author who wrote in the first instance for the " excellent " Theophilus was not unknown to his correspondent. If he, then, in the midst of his text introduced himself with a " we," after he had begun his book with an "/" (chap. i. 1), Theophilus would at once know where he was ; it would scarcely be fresh news to him that the man who dedicated his book to him was once himself a com- panion of St. Paul. Under these circumstances the literary fault of neglecting to make special mention of i It does not seem to have been realised how precarious the whole hypothesis becomes if we (e.g., with Pfleiderer and von Soden) assign almost all in chapters xi. , xiii., xiv. , xvi.-xx viii. to this source. There then remains for the anonymous writer to Theophilus, the author of the gospel, only the substructure of the Acts, the history of the mission in Jerusalem and Palestine. 10 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN this fact at the right place l would be quite pardon- able ; indeed, one might say that this modest expedient for introducing oneself into the course of one's narrative is entirely in harmony with the general objectivity of our author's style throughout his history. If, on the other hand, the author was not a companion of St. Paul and yet allowed this " we " to appear so abruptly in his narrative, the negligence is so great that it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the author was influenced by some motive that was not altogether honourable (so Zeller). Such motives, of course, may possibly have existed, so that we may not at present accept the hypothesis of very insignificant negligence in prefer- ence to one of much greater negligence it is, indeed often the improbable that really happens but we are nevertheless bound to lay our finger upon a difficulty which it is usual to pass over far too cursorily. 2 1 We must notice besides that the author of the Acts is upon other occasions careless in introducing persons. In xvii. 5 he speaks of a certain Jason as if he were already known. The introduction of Sosthenes in xviii. 17 is awkward, and still more awkward that of two exorcists out of the number of the seven sons of Seeva inxix. 16. It is not at once clear why Gaius and Aristarchus are mentioned at all in xix. 29 ; Weiss and others ingeniously conjecture that they formed the author's authority for his narrative. Also in xix. 23 Alexander is very feebly brought upon the scene of action. In- stances in which other writers use " we " abruptly in the course of their narrative because they are copying the writing of an eye- witness have been sought for in the whole literature of the world. Some few have been discovered, and these not exactly analogous to the instance in point. 2 Kenan presents the correct view ("Die Apostel," German edition, s. 10) : " One might perhaps understand such negligence [allowing the "we" to stand] in some clumsy compilation ; but the GENERAL INVESTIGATION 11 There are accordingly two literary difficulties in which " criticism " is involved, and which are not so easily disposed of first, that the author of this book, who otherwise shows himself a skilful writer, carried over into long passages of his narrative an uncorrected " we r ' from one of his sources, and thus, volens aut nolens^ has given the impression that he was an eye- witness ; next, that in the course of a few decades his name was forgotten by tradition and was replaced by the name of the author of the source, although the real author had never in his book mentioned this name, and although, so far as we know, this name was not one that carried any special authority. Two literary paradoxes at once this is rather too much ! Where, then, lie the difficulties which absolutely for- bid us to follow tradition and to accept St. Luke as the author of the Acts ? According to the critical view they are twofold. The critics hold it for impossible that a companion of the Apostle St. Paul should have said and should have refrained from saying about him what is now found and not found in the Acts, and they hold it for just as incredible that a man who lived in the apostolic age could have given the account which this author gives of the Apostles and the early history of the Church at Jerusalem. They point, moreover, to several instances of unevenness and want of clearness in the author's presentation of his facts, and, besides, to third gospel and the Acts form a work which is very well composed. . . . We could not understand an editor committing so glaring an error ... the author is the same person as he who has used the ' we ' in several places." 12 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN many historical blunders. The question is thus one which belongs to the sphere of the higher historical criticism. In the face of these objections we must first investigate whether the " lower " criticism does not make the identity of the authorship of the Acts and the " we " source so evident that the " higher" criticism must hold its peace, and next we must find out whether the difficulties which higher criticism professes to find do not vanish with a franker and wider appreciation of the actual circumstances. I must refrain from entering closely into the truly pitiful history of the criticism of the Acts ; but in the following investigation I hope that I shall not be found to have overlooked anything of importance. If we test what we know of St. Luke (vide p. 3) by the historical work which bears his name, we obtain the following results : (1) St. Luke is never mentioned in the Acts, which is just what we should expect if he himself was the author of the book. On the other hand, Aristarchus is mentioned three times the man who is named with St. Luke in the epistles of St. Paul ! What reason, then, can we give for the omission of St. Luke's name in the Acts ? l (2) St. Luke was a Greek i The mention of Aristarchus in the Acts may be at once employed as a not inconsiderable argument for its Lukan origin. In the Pauline epistles he appears twice (only in greetings), and that in company with St. I/uke. The Acts makes no mention of so important a companion of St. Paul as Titus, and yet it mentions Aristarchus, and that twice ! The latter of these references shows that St. Paul on his last voyage had, besides Aristarchus, only one companion, namely, the author of the Acts (or of the " we" account, which hypo- thesis must be for the moment left open). Who, then, was this GENERAL INVESTIGATION 13 by birth. The gospel and the Acts show there is, indeed, no need of a proof that thev were composed not by a Jew by birth, but by a Greek. 1 (3) St. Luke was a physician, and thus belonged to the middle or higher plane of contemporary culture. To this plane we are directed not only by the prologue of the gospel, but by the literary standard attained in the whole work. The man who could compose speeches like those of St. Paul in the Acts to mention only the most important point who also possessed gifts of style and narrative like those of this writer, who knew so well how much to say and could so well arrange his material in accordance with the purpose of his work, this man possessed the higher culture in rich measure. But there is a still more striking coincidence : it is as good as certain from the subject-matter, and more especially from the style, of this great work that its author was a physician by profession. Of course, in making such a statement one still exposes oneself to the scorn of the critics, 2 and author? Scarcely Demas, though he too is not mentioned in the Acts, of whom it is, however, said in 2 Tim. iv. 10 that " he loved this present world." 1 Whether the author was a Jewish proselyte before he became a Christian cannot be definitely decided. No conclusion can be drawn from his mention of proselytes in the Acts. His masterly knowledge of the Greek Bible can well have been gained when he had become a Christian, of ftdpftapoi in xxviii. 2, 4 is in itself sufficient evidence of his Greek origin. 2 Jiilicher, Introd.,8. 407 f. : "The discovery that the Acts, and here and there also the gospel, but more particularly the " we " sections, are so full of medical technical terms as to afford strong reasons for suspecting the authorship of St. Luke the physician, will have little weight with those who perceive the elementary nature of these terms. 14 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN yet the arguments which are alleged in its support are simply convincing. These would have had much more influence if the man who devoted his life to the task of proving from the work itself the medical profession of its author had not gone too far with his evidence and had not brought forward much that has neither force nor value. Accordingly his book l has had quite the opposite effect to that he intended, especially with those who have read it cursorily. Those, however, who have studied it carefully will, I think, find it impossible to escape the conclusion 2 that the question here is not one of merely accidental linguistic colouring, but that this great historical work was composed by a writer who either was a physician or was quite intimately acquainted with medical language and science. And, indeed, this conclusion holds good not only for the " we " sections, but for the whole work. While I refer the reader to my special treatment of this question in Appendix I., may I here specially mention the following points which have escaped the notice even of Hobart ? Must we because of 1 Thess. v. 3 infer that St. Paul was a gynaecologist ? '' 1 Hobart, " The Medical Language of St. Luke. A Proof from Internal Evidence that ' the Gospel according to St. Luke ' and ' the Acts of the Apostles ' were written by the same Person, and that the Writer was a Medical Man" (Dublin, 1882, 305 pp.). Compare also Campbell, " Crit. Studies in St. Luke's Gospel, its Demonology and Ebionitism" (Edinburgh, 1891). 2 So Zahn and Hawkins. I subscribe to the words of Zahn ("Einleit." ii. s. 427) : "Hobart has proved for every one who can at all appreciate proof that the author of the Lukan work was a man practised in the scientific language of Greek medicine in short, a Greek physician," GENERAL INVESTIGATION 15 In the " we " sections, as is well known, the author dis- tinguishes very carefully between the " we " and St. Paul. Wherever he possibly can do so he modestly allows the " we " to fall into the background and gives St. Paul the honour, and thus the " we " here and there par- takes of a somewhat shadowy character, and we are often left in doubt how far the narrator was an eye- witness. In chap, xxviii. 8-10 he, however, writes as follows : eyevero rbv Trarepa TOV IIoTr\iov Trvperols ical SvcrevTepiw crvve^o^evov Kara/ceio-Oat, Trpb? ov 6 ITaOXo? elo-e\0GDV Kal TTpoa'Gv^d^evo^y eVt^et? ra? ^etpa? aura) avrov. TOVTOV e 6a\[ji(as Kal SvfffVTfpias OF THE UNIVERSITY 16 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN hear nothing of any who were " possessed ") were healed not only by St. Paul, but also by his companion, the writer of the narrative. If St Paul had been the sole agent upon this occasion, the author would not have written simply eOcpavevovro, bat would have added inrb IlavXov. This undefined iOepcnrewnm prepares, as it were, the way for the 17/10? which follows. Now of course it can be objected that the author need not therefore have been a regular physician ; he could, like St. Paul, have healed by means of prayer. We cannot with certainty refute this objection, but taken in con- nection with the exact description of the illness it has not much force. Faith-healers are seldom wont to trouble themselves about the real nature of an illness. The author was certainly no professional philosopher, nor a rhetorician or advocate * with all these profes- sions his acquaintance is only that of a man of culture. In matters of navigation he only shows the lively interest of the average Greek. If, then, we would classify the man, who certainly belonged to some liberal profes- sion, all indications seem to point to his having been a physician. Moreover, I would here draw attention to another point. Just as the author at the end of his i Philosophical reflections or demonstrations, dialectical proofs, &c. t are not his business. In respect to the latter, St. Lake shows a self -restraint which is strange in an educated Greek. Of interest in and knowledge of literature there are onl j faint traces; these things, at aQ event*, formed no essential element in the mental life of the Ule^assiftBasJoMlMMers^SflSiMatraB^aMAai; these, however, both in the gospel and the Aeta, are dosaly np with the general aim of the work, nor does St. Luke eren here betray special technical knowledge. GENERAL INVESTIGATION 17 great historical work clearly and yet unconsciously declares himself a physician, so also in a passage towards the beginning he employs a medical metaphor at the commencement of his description of the preaching of Jesus (I omit for the moment the consideration of the prologue). He is here the only evangelist who puts into the mouth of our Lord the words (chap. iv. 23), 7raz/ra>9 Ipelre fj,oi TTJV TrapajBoXyv ravrrjv' larpe, 6epd- irevcrov creavrov. The incident is in itself striking ; but it is still more striking when one perceives that the words do not fit into the context, but are, as it were, forced into it (cf. Vogel, * Charakteristik des Lukas," 1899, s. 28 : " The manner in which the proverb is introduced can scarcely be regarded as happy "). We may well believe that our author was better acquainted with the proverb than was our Lord, and that he could scarcely have re- ceived it from tradition, at least in its present form and context. It is, in fact, an anticipation of St. Mark xv. 31 : a\\ovs eaaxrev, eavrov ov Svvarcu o~, on 5ia 'ITJO-OU XpiffTov v/juv &,({>TIS a/jLapriuv Karayye\\7ai [al] airb ir6.vri)s SiKaiudTJvat eV rovrcf iras 6 irtarfvwv SiKaiovrat (cf. also the discourse at Miletus, xx. 28 : ... rV eKK\r)(riav rov cov V irepnroi-fiffaTo 5ia rov at>cros rov ioiov). Whether St. Paul's doctrine is here correctly reproduced or whether theologumena are to be found in the book which differ from those of the Pauline theology is a matter of indifference he who wrote this passage was a near disciple of St. Paul. The relative Paulinism of the author of the Acts and this is all we need establish can be proved from his 20 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN (6) St. Luke was most probably a native of Antioch. In the Acts the author never describes himself as an vocabulary (cf. Hawkins, " Horaj Synopticae," 1899, pp. 154 ff.). It will suffice for our purpose to neglect the much more numerous coincidences in vocabulary between the ten Pauline epistles and the Acts, and to draw our instances from the gospel alone : St. Matt, and St. Paul have twenty-nine words in common which are not to be found elsewhere in the gospels, St. Mark and St. Paul have twenty such words in common, St. John and St. Paul seventeen words ; St. Luke (gospel) and St. Paul, however, have eighty-four such words in common which are not to be found elsewhere in the gospels. St. Paul and St. Matt. : attaOapffia, d/ce'pcuoy, aKpaaia, cfyux, d^epi/ipos, ', aTrctj/TTja-ty, aTreVav-n, Sety^aTi^iv, SijAoy, e/tro'f, e\apaTov (thus only four verbs). St. Paul and St. Mark : a.ftfid, dAaAaet/, a/zcSprrj/ia, o7ro(TTepe?i/, flpr)vfvfii' ) QauTys, fopvff StSaKrJy, t\(v6epovt>, EAArjy, 'la-pctTjAeiTTjs, (Jia.ivtQa.1, 65onrop(a, 8/xw?, '6tr\ov y 007*77, ira.pafj.vdfi' ff6ai, treptron-fi, in}X6s, TroVty, (rOai, air(tOr]S, a.iroKpvirTeiv, diroAo- yeTcrOai, Spa, aporpiav, onr^aAem, aTevifaw, &TOTTOS, j8t&mKor, ' , firaiv7v, ^Trayairavttrdai, eVe'xet?', fpyatria, , Ka.rd.ysiV) Kara^iovcr6at, KaTevdvvetv, , KparaiovaOai) Kupievav, fifBij, fj-fBiffrdyat, /j.eBv- , fJicpis, /ueTaStSJj/ai, n^Tpa, olKovofj.la, orrraaia, OO-^TTJS, bty&viov, 'is, iravoir\ia, iruvovpyia, TrATjpo^ope?*', 7rp6 (TWTTjptoc, viro(TTpe X a P lT v v i tyahnds. Among these there are no less than forty-nine verbs which are found only in St. Luke and St. Paul and not in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and GENERAL INVESTIGATION 21 Antiocheau (for we need not pay attention to the gloss chap, xi.28 vide supra, p. 5, note 1, and "Sitzungsber.d. K. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch.," April 6, 1899), but the book nevertheless shows a distinct affinity to this city. When reading the first part of the Acts the conscien- tious historian in some passages breathes freely and feels firm ground under his feet. Every time that this happens (chap. xii. excepted) he finds himself in Antioch or con- cerned with a narrative which points his attention to that city. This happens for the first time in the account of the choice of the Seven (chap. vi.). The names of these seven Hellenists are all given, but only in the case of one of them and that not Stephen, as might be expected are we told his native place : " Nicholas, a proselyte of Antioch." And, moreover, the whole account dis- tinctly points towards Antioch ; for the choice of the Seven, with all its attendant circumstances, is narrated because of St. Stephen ; the history of Stephen leads on to the persecution, the persecution to the dispersion, the dispersion to the mission, the mission to the plant- ing of Christianity in Antioch, which city forthwith becomes, as it were, a second Jerusalem. This is the whole gist of chap. xi. 19 ff : ol ytter ovv airo T7 St. John. We may, then, speak without hesitation of a lexical affinity between St. Paul and the gospel of St. Luke even when, as is the case here, we neglect the Acts, in which thirty-three of the eighty-four words are also found, besides many others which this book has in common with St. Paul (Colossians and Ephesians in particular show a close affinity to the vocabulary of the Acts). After St. Luke the next nearest of the evangelists to St. Paul is St. Mark, but there is a wide gap between him and St. Luke. 22 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN KOI Kvirpov Kal ' TOV \6yov el /JLTJ /movov 'JouSai'ot?. r^aav Se rti/e? e' avr&v avBpe? KvTTpLot, Kal Kvpyvaloi, omz/e? e\66vres et9 "EXXrjvas, %6/j,evoi TOV Kvpiov 'Irjaovv. Kal rjv %el/> Kvpiov avrwv, TroXv? re dpi0fji,bs o Tncrrevaas eTrecrrpe^Jrev eirl TOV Kvpiov. Certainly this interest in Antioch is intelligible merely from the actual course of events ; * but the record that those who first preached to the Gentiles in that city were men of Cyprus and Cyrene presupposes local information. Also the verses which follow (chap. xi. 22-27) give us many similar details of information (among others that in Antioch the be- lievers in Jesus were first called Christians). The continuation of the story in chap. xiii. 1 f. is of a similar character. Here the five prophets and teachers of the Antiochean Church are enumerated. By the phrase Kara TTJV ovcrav eKKhij&lav they are definitely distinguished from the prophets which had come to Antioch from Jerusalem (chap. xi. 27). The enumera- tion of all five by name (and especially the distinguish- ing additions to the names) could have been interesting only to Antiocheans, or can be explained only from the interest it had for an Antiochean writer ; for Symeon, surnamed Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod theTetrarch, remained i One ought not, however, to forget that the Church of Antioch plays no part in the epistles of St. Paul is, indeed, only once men- tioned (Gal. ii. 11), though, of course, on a most important occasion. The emphasis with which this Church is mentioned in the Acts is not, therefore, to be explained simply from the facts themselves. GENERAL INVESTIGATION 23 obscure people. 1 The great missionary journey of St. Paul and St. Barnabas (chap. xiii. s.) appears as an Antiochean undertaking ; in Antioch (xv. 2) the burning question concerning circumcision is brought to a crisis by the Church in this city, which sends its representa- tives to the council at Jerusalem. Compare, moreover, chap. xiv. 26 (ei? 'Avrio^eiav o6ev rjaav TrapaSeSo/Aevot, rfj %dpiTi, rov 6eov e/9 TO epyov o 7r\ijpa)aav), chap, xv. 23 (/ccna rr\v 'Avrt6%iav KOI ^vpiav /cal Ki\iKiav) 9 chap. xv. 35 (notice //-era erepwv TroXXew, which has no parallel in any other part of the book), and the men- tion of Antioch in chap, xviii. 23. 2 All these instances surely permit the conclusion that the testimony of the Acts is not only not opposed to the tradition that its author was a native of Antioch, but even admirably accommodates itself thereto. The book does not, indeed, suggest that its author was a member of the Church in Antioch (nor is this asserted by tradition), but that he took special interest in, and had special knowledge of, the affairs of that community. Negative grounds in 1 No Cypriote is mentioned by name, though the Antiochean Church is said to have been founded by men of Cyprus and Cyrene. But in chap. xxi. 16 (a " we " section) Mnason, a Cypriote, with whom St. Paul and his companion lodged in Jerusalem is described as an old disciple having intimate relations with the brethren of Cassarea. May he not perhaps have been the Cypriote missionary of Antioch 1 This would well explain the interest which St. Luke takes in him. At all events, according to chap. xiii. 1, the Cypriote missionary of Antioch had left that community when Barnabas and Saul were sent thither, while the missionary from Cyrene still remained. 2 Let it be mentioned, only by the way, that Wellhausen describes the ffvutywvia of St. Luke xv. 25 (here only in the New Testament) as an Antiochean musical instrument. I do not, of course, know what grounds he has for this assertion. 24 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN support of tradition are also to be found both in the gospel and the Acts. The author is certainly not a native of Palestine, nor does he write for natives of that district, for he has no clear understanding of the geo- graphical relations of Palestine (see the gospel); neither does he write for Macedonians (see Acts xvi. 11). On the other hand, in addition to Antioch and the coastland of Phoenicia and Palestine (especially Csesarea), he knows Asia well (see Ramsay on this point). To Jerusalem he came as a stranger ; nor does it appear how long he abode there (chap. xxi. 15, 17). 1 (7) The time of the composition of this great historical work has been fixed (" Chronologie," Bd. I. s. 246 ff.) without reference to the question of authorship. It is limited to the years 78-93 A.D. The book must have been written before the persecution of Domitian, before the epistles of St. Paul had been widely circulated, before the name " Christians v had firmly established itself in Christian phraseology (seel Peter and the Ignatian epistles), before the canonising of the idea eKK\r) T^J> afie\(p6i' fji.ov aAA' a.iroTad/j.ei>os avro7s ef?jA.0oi/ ets MaKeSovtav. St. Paul had thus broken off his mission in Troas before it had scarcely begun. The two passages thus admirably support and explain each other. 30 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN c. Sojourn in " Ptolemais " with the brethren. d. Arrival in Caesarea ; we take up our abode in the house of the evangelist Philip, " one of the seven," who has three virgin daughters, prophetesses. No further reference is, however, made either to the father or the daughters. e. The prophet Agabus comes out of Judaea to Caesarea. He prophesies, with symbolic action, the binding of St. Paul by the Jews in Jerusalem, and his delivery into the hands of the Gentiles. f. Both his companions in travel and the brethren of Caesarea try to persuade St. Paul not to go to Jerusalem ; but St. Paul will not be persuaded ; he declares him- self ready even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. The brethren the narrator includes himself and his companions with the brethren of Caesarea cease their petition with the words, " The will of the Lord be done." g. Journey to Jerusalem ; certain brethren of Caesarea journey with us, taking with them an old disciple, Mna- son, a Cypriote, with whom we should lodge. (This man must therefore have been one in whom they had special confidence.) h. The brethren in Jerusalem receive us gladly. i. On the very next day Paul goes with us to James, with whom all the Elders are present (with a view to a conference). INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 31 IV. JOUENEY FROM C.ESAREA TO ROME (xxvii. 1 xxviii. 16) a. St. Paul and some other prisoners [altogether about seventy-six persons] are delivered to Julius, a centurion of the (nreipa ^eftaa-Tr), for transport to Italy (in a ship of Adramytium bound for Asia). b. " With us " was Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica (" we " here means only St. Paul and the writer). c. At Sidon the officer Julius treated St. Paul with kindness and allowed him to refresh himself among his friends in that town. d. Description of the voyage to Myrrha ; there they embark on board an Alexandrian ship bound for Italy (there are as yet no Christians in Myrrha, nor, indeed, at Lasea in Crete, nor in Malta, Syracuse, and Rhegium). . A detailed description of the unlucky voyage and of the storm up to the complete wreck of the ship (accompanied here, as before, by geographical data). f. St. Paul proves himself an experienced sailor who foretells the disastrous voyage (perhaps supernatural knowledge is implied ; yet this is improbable). g. St. Paul prophesies the destruction of the ship, with, however, no loss of life. He says that he had that night seen in a vision the angel of the Lord, who had told him that he would appear before Caesar and that God had granted him the lives of all that sailed with him. 32 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN h. St. Paul hinders the sailors from forsaking the sinking ship, declaring that if this happened they and all the rest would perish. i. St. Paul rouses the spirits of all, and, in order to restore confidence, in the midst of the storm he breaks and eats bread with thanksgiving ; the rest follow his example. Jc. At the moment that the ship is threatening to break up the soldiers propose to slay the prisoners, fear- ing lest they should escape. Julius forbids this because he wishes to save St. Paul. All save themselves either by swimming or upon planks from the ship, and reach land on an island (Malta). /. The " Barbarians " receive all with kindness, and light a fire for them on the sea-shore, so that they may warm themselves. m. A snake which had crept out of the faggots bites St. Paul in the hand [encircles his hand ?] ; he shakes it off without receiving any hurt. The Maltese regard him first as a murderer whom Dike suffers not to live, then as a god. n. St. Paul heals the father of Publius, the prin- cipal magistrate on the island, who was suffering from attacks of gastric fever, by laying his hands upon him. Publius had hospitably received us into his house. o. Other sick folk of the island also came and were healed. They honoured us with many honours and provided us with provision for our further voyage. p. The voyage from Malta to Puteoli (by Syracuse and Rhegium) in an Alexandrian ship bearing the name INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 33 of the Dwskur'i. At Puteoli we find brethren, who enter- tain us. q. The journey to Rome on foot. The Roman brethren who had heard of our arrival, came to meet us as far as Forum Appii and the Three Taverns. As he saw them Paul gave thanks to God and took courage. r. St. Paul was allowed to hire a private dwelling, living there under the guardianship of a soldier. The " we" sections thus contain narratives of an exorcism, of the healing by laying on of hands of a man stricken with fever, of a miraculous deliverance from the effects of snake-bite. They include also a summary account of many cases of healing, they tell of one who was raised from the dead, of prophecies delivered by brethren in Tyre, of a prophecy of the prophet Agabus, of the prophesying daughters of Philip, of several prophecies of St. Paul himself, of the appearance of an angel to St. Paul in the ship, and of a vision in Troas. Could one wish for more miracles within the compass of so few verses? 1 The author shows himself jmt as fond of the miraculous and in particular just as deeply interested in miracles of healing, in manifestations of the " Spirit" and in appearances of angels as the author of the third gospel and the Acts. So far as regards the subject- matter of the narrative, the relationship could scarcely be closer than it is ; 2 consider more especially the part played by the "Spirit" in both cases. Vain efforts 1 The detailed investigation of points of coincidence with the whole work is left to the reader. Cf. t e.g., xx. 12 with ix. 41. 2 Compare how St. Paul in xxviii. 6 is regarded as a god, just as at Lystra. C 34 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN have been made to show that the author of the " we " sections paints the miraculous " in less miraculous colours " than the author of the Acts and the gospel. But Eutychus is, as the author believes, really dead (not merely seemingly dead), 1 and even if St. Paul was not bitten by the serpent (which is by no means certain in- deed, is improbable) 2 his preservation from the bite is, according to the author, just as miraculous as his deliver- ance from its fatal effects. A noteworthy coincidence is also shown in the fact that the evil spirit, who in the gospel is the first to recognise Jesus as the Son of the Most High God (St. Luke viii. 28 : ri epol KOI of and /j.a0r]Tai though not tnK\r)ffia in a technical sense : aSe\ol of OVTCS KCIT& r^jv 'lovSalav) ; xi. 29 (ol eVr^'IovSoiot a.) ; xii. 17 ('Idxca&os K. of a.) ; xiv. 2 ; xv. 1, 3, 22 ; xv. 23 (twice of a. ol | Mv&v) ; xv, 32, 33, 36, 40 ; xvi. 2,40 ; xvii. 6, 10, 14 ; xviii. 18, 27 ; and jtaflTjTaf, vi. 1, 2, 7 ; ix. 1, 10, 19, 25, 26, 38 ; xi. 26 (here we see that it is the proper technical expression) ; xi. 29 ; xiii. 52 ; xiv. 20, 22, 28 ; xv. 10 ; xvi. 1 ; xviii. 23, 27 ; xix. 1, 9, 30 ; xx. 1, 30. In the Acts the Christians are called of ayioi only in chap. ix. (twice) and in xxvi. 10 ; it is not, therefore, remarkable that this designation is wanting in the " we " sections. Of of irto-roi (7ri9 TO opapa el&ev, MafceSo- vav fc 7T/30- o-K6K\rjTaL rjfAas o $609 (0 KV The interpolated recension accord- ing to Blass it is the earlier reads some- what as follows (Blass, 1896) : Steyep. 6els olv Sntiyfiffaro rb '6n 6 6 fbs fvayye\l- robs 4v r Noe/ is found in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, but not in St. Luke ; This temporal 0r) xvi. 9 iv opdpan ix. 10 ; ix. 12 ; x. a elv\. &Teiv is not characteristic, since it is of constant occurrence in all four gospels and the Acts ; yet see St. Luke xiii. 24 : r)Tij(Tovat,v el(re\6elv. St. Matthew has a different version here. For fyjreiv with the infin. vide Acts xiii. 8, xvii. 5, xxi. 31. egeXBew &]. Acts xi. 25 ; xiv. 20. <7i/A^yQaJb^T69]. Wanting in the gospels, but found in two other places INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 41 does not occur else- where in the Acts (once in St. Luke viii. 24). in the Acts : ix. 22, av^^d^v on OI/T09 ecrnv 6 Xpio-rds ; xix. 33, crvve- ftiftaa-av AXegavSpov. Also only in St. Luke fyfiipd^ew (xxvii. 6) and em/3i,l3dtfiv(St. Luke x. 34, xix. 35; Acts xxiii. 24). irpo(TKeK\r)Tai(o 0e'o?)]. This word is used of God only in the Acts vide Acts xiii. 2, efc TO epyov o Trpo- (TK.k.Kk^ai aiTou5, and ii. 39. Also the perfect middle is only found in xiii. 2 and in this passage. evayyeXtaao-Oat, avrovs]. This idiom does not occur in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, but is found in St. Luke's gospel eight times and in the Acts fifteen times. evay- ye\%ea0ai, Tivd: Acts viii. 25, 40, xiii. 32, xiv. 15, 21. There are numerous examples in the Acts of the construction &>? [It is to the point to note that according to this verse St. Paul's com- panion who writes here was not simply a fellow-traveller, but also a mission- ary together with the Apostle.] (xvi. 11) dv- devre^ (~(ovv ?) a7ro TpydSos ev- els 777 e eTTiovcrj Neav dvdye<70ac = navern solvere is ex- clusively Lukan ; it occurs eleven times in the " we " sections, and else- where in St. Luke viii. 22 and Acts xiii. 13, xviii. 21. Ty eTTiova-y is found in the New Testament only in the Acts (five 42 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN The interpolated recension reads somewhat as follows (Blass, I.e.) : rfl 5e firavpiov avaxdevres a. T. eu. els 2., /cal T?? iiriovffr) ?;,ue/m els N. TT. The expression T?? eiravpioi> is frequent in the Acts. (xvi. 12) /ca- KeWev els 7TOf9, ^T irptorr) T?}9 pep 1809 e eV ravrr) T Blass, following earlier scholars, pro- poses to read TT^TTJS /a p(5os because the usual reading does not coincide with facts. Interpola- tions : KeQaX-f) for irpcirrj (D.), multis (Grigas). times) videxvii. 26, xx. 15 ; xxi. 18, xxiii. 11. In the first passage it is accompanied by rj^epa, in the last by vv/crL [It is not true to say that interest in the stages of journeys is only dis- played in the " we " sections. The same trait is found elsewhere in the book cf. xiii. 4, xiii. 13, xiv. 19-26, (xvi. 6-8), xviii. 18-23. Of course we do not find dates indi- cated so closely as in the "we" sections.] Wev vide Acts vii. 4, xiii. 21, xiv. 26, xx. 15, xxi. 1, xxvii. 4, xxviii. 15. It does not occur else- where in the whole New Testament. iJTis]. Used for fj on the same ground (perhaps because it is Attic) as in verses 16 and 17 and vii. 53, x. 41, xiii. 31. St. Luke is fond of these compound relatives. With the feminine cf, v. 58. 7rpa)Trf\. Trpwro? in this secondary sense is a favourite word with St. Luke only vide St. Luke xix. 47 : ol vrp&Toi, T. XaoO, Acts xiii. 50 : 7Tp(f>Tovs T. vroXew?, xvii. 4 : TrpcoTwv, xxv. 2 : ol irpwroi 'lou&uW, xxviii. 7: o Trpwro? T. vija-ov (" we " section) ; xxviii. 17 : rwv 'lov&alow TTpwrou?. Elsewhere only once St. Mark vi. 21 : ol Trpwroi, 7779 Wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John. On the INVESTIGATION OF " WE " ACCOUNT 43 other hand, it is found in St. Luke x. 42, Acts viii. 21. biaTpifiovres]. The word is specifi- cally Lukan. It occurs eight times in the Acts, elsewhere in the whole New Testament only once (St. John iii. 22). It is accompanied by the accusative of duration of time also in xiv. 3 (licavov ^poz/oz>), xx. 6 eTTTa), xxv. 6 (^/xepa? ov o/CTa>), xxv. 14 (-TrXetous The construction of the participle with rjv (?](rav, &c.) is found about a hundred times in St. Luke (gospel and Acts), and in all the other writings of the New Testament to- gether about sixty times. 97/iepa? rtz/a?]. An expression characteristic of the Acts vide ix. 19, x. 48, xv. 36, xxiv. 24, xxv. 13 ; wanting in St. Matthew and St. Mark, fipepai TrXeiWe? is also characteristic of the Acts, and is found twice in the "we" sections (xxi. 10, xxvii. 20), twice in the remaining chapters '(xiii. 31, xxiv. 11), and nowhere else in the New Testament. Lastly, also rj^epat iKdval is peculiar to the Acts. It occurs once in the " we " sections (xxvii. 7), and elsewhere only in Acts ix. 23, 43, xviii. 18. [The author does not presuppose in his readers any knowledge of Macedonia; that he himself is not a Macedonian is clear from xxvii. 2.] LUKE THE PHYSICIAN (xvi. 13) rrj re cra/3- eo) TV? TTV- Trapa iroTa- ov evoplfo- Trpoo-evxrjv KOL Ka6l- rat? o~vve\6ov- aai? yvvai^lv. Blass conjectures, in my opinion on in- sufficient grounds, (V Trpofffvxfj Interpola- tions : &6icct irpo- ai (D.), trvvf- Trj rj/Jiepa rwv crafifiaTcov]. Want- ing in St. Matthew and St. Mark, but occurring in St. Luke iv. 16, xiv. 5 (rov a-aftpdrov in both these passages), Acts xiii. 14. re]. There is no trace of this use of re in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke ; it is, however, found in Acts i. 15, ii. 33, 37, 40, iv. 13, 14, 33, v. 19, xiii. 52, and in many other passages. Trapd TroTa/jbov]. Just as in x. 6 : olicia Trapa Od\aa(rav ; x. 32 : ez//fe- Tai ev oiKia ^fatovos Trapa (JdXaa-aav. ov]. Wanting in St. Mark and St. John, found twice (three times) in St. Matthew and fourteen times in St. Luke (nine of these in the Acts, in all parts of that book). evoui&uev]. vofjii&iv is wanting in St. Mark and St. John ; in St. Matthew it is found three times, in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) ten (nine) times. In St. Matthew, however, it is always followed by 6Vt, but in St. Luke by the accusative with infinitive. Only in Acts xxi. 29 does it take OTI (because of attrac- tion). Vide Acts xiii. 1 4 : e/cdOiaav. e\a\ovuev]. Without object (with the dative of the person), as in vii. 38, 44, ix. 27, x. 7 (x. 32), xi. 20, . GvveKOovaais y.]. Peculiar to the INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 45 (xvi.14) yvvrj ovofjiaTi, Av- Ova- rbv Oeov, ijfcovev, ^9 6 KVplOS Sllj- voi^ev rrjv /cap- VTTO IIav\ov. Interpolations : TT/STTOA.. (D.)> ^KOy(T6I/ (Dial.), audiebat ver- bum (gpw). Acts vide i. 6 : ol a-vveKOovres, i. 21 : rwv crvve\Q6vTwv az/Spoii/, x. 27 : (TVve\r}\v0dTa<; TroXXou?. Besides, c/! ii. 6, v. 16, xix. 32, xxi. 22,xxv. 17, xxviii. 17. [In connection with eXaXoO/iei/, vide verse 10, concluding note.] [Notice the correct variation of tenses imper. aorist and perfect in verses 12-15, just as is found in other parts of the Acts.] ical rt? yvvr) OVO/MITI AJ\. Vide ix. 10 : fy Se Tt9 fj,a0rjTrj^ ovofjuart, ''AvaviaS) xiv. 8 : /cat rt? dvrjp, St. Luke, xi. 27 : CTrdpaa-d rt? (frcwrjv yvvij, Acts xviii. 7 ; rj\6ev els oi/clav TWOS bvOfJbCLTI, TlTlOV 'loiHTTOV (re/3ofj,evov rov 6ebv. The expression r/9 dvijp or avrjp (9 0.]. Often in St. Luke, never in St. Matthew and St. Mark. Cf. Acts xi. 5 : ev TroXet xxvii. 8 : TroXt? Aaaea. 46 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN T. 0.~\. crefteaQai occurs in the gospels only in quotations. In the Acts it is found seven times, and, indeed, as here, in the technical sense vide xiii. 43 : T&V KOI TWV cre xiii. 50 : ras xvii. 4 : T>V ae/Bojmevcov xvii. 17 : T0t9 'JofSatot? teal rot? creftofJbivoiS) xviii. 7 : 'lovarov aefto- fjbivov TOV 6e6v, xviii. 3 : aefBeoOcu TOV 6e6v (once besides in another sense, xix. 27). rficovev]. Lukan vide the conclud- ing note on verse 13. The imperfect rfKovev is never found in St. Matthew and St. John ; in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) it is found eight times (in St. Mark three times). 979]. This continuation of the period by means of a relative is specially Lukan, and is not so com- mon in Greek as in Latin vide, e.g., Acts ii. 24, iii. 3, xi. 6, xxiii. 29, xxv. 16, and other passages. o icvplos]. That the Ascended Christ is represented as the actor in such cases and that He is called 6 fcvpios is characteristic of St. Luke vide Acts ix. 10 ff. and elsewhere. Siijvoigev]. Wanting in St. Matthew and St. John, found once in St. Mark (vii. 34) ; in St. Luke it is found seven times cf. St. Luke xxiv. 31 : SirjvolxOrjcrav ol xxiv.32 : ov%l f) /capSla rj r)v t 009 e\d\et fuv 009 INVESTIGATION OF " WE " ACCOUNT 47 (xvi. 15) o>5 & 1, KOI TTCtp- \eyov- 00,' el ICCK pi/care //- 7Tl(TTr)V Tft) KV- elvai,, etVeX- 9 TO!/ OIKQV Interpolations : vas & oT/cos (Dw), [iropeK^Aeo-er] Pau- lum et nos (p 2 w), 6ef for Kvpicf (D.), v ra? 7paa9 ; Acts vii. 56, xvii. 3. Trpocre^eiz/]. Wanting in St. Mark and St. John. In St. Matthew it occurs only in the sense of " take heed"; in this sense, moreover, it occurs often in St. Luke, but also in the sense " give heed " (as here) Acts viii. 6, Trpoo-efyov ol o^Xot TO?? and Acts viii. 10, TO Tot9 \a\ov fJLevois v. IT.]. Just as in Acts xiii. 45 : To?9 VTTO TIav\ov Vide also xvii. 19 : rj VTTO \a\ov/j,ev7) Sioa'xr)) xiii. 42 : et9 crdlBftaTOV \a\ij0fjvai, TCL pTJ/jiaTa ravTa. Cf. St. Luke ii. 33, ra \a\ovfj,eva irepl avTov, and i. 45. It does not occur elsewhere in the gospels. /cat 6 olfcds aov\ xviii. 8. Trape/cdXeaev X^youffaJ. Vide ii. 40 : TrapetcdXei Xeyo)z>. vrapafcdXeiv with- out an object also in ix. 38, xiii. 42, xiv. 22, xix. 31, xxi. 12, xxiv. 4, xxvii. 33. 7raparcd\ei,v = to entreat, as in xvi. 9. el . . . xetcp.]. This unassuming el 48 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN eiT09, Acts xxii. 17 : eyeveTO Be . . . irpoffev^ofjievov pov . . . yeveadat /z,e ev ewrdvei. 7ropevofj,evci)v]. A favourite word of St. Luke which is wanting in St. Mark. St. Luke says, Tropeveo-Qcu et? T. ovpavov (Acts i. 10, 11), Stci fjieaov avT&v eVopeuero (St. Luke iv. 31), TTOpevov et*9 TOV olrcov (St. Luke v. 24), &c. Traiota-fcrjv]. Vide Acts xii. 13. e^ovaav irvevfjLa\. Often in St. Luke in the gospel and the Acts vide St. Luke iv. 33, xiii. 11, Acts viii. 7, xix. 13. Wanting in St. Matthew and St. John. VTravTrjo-at]. Not found elsewhere in the Acts, but vide St. Luke viii. 27, xiv. 31. 777-49]. For ri Lukan, as in verse 12. Kal rjfilv Kpaev Xey- ovaa' ovTOt ol av- 6eov TOV infrlarov eav tcar- Kara.KoXovB-fia'affa : with good authority, and probably correct (Blass). Interpolation: eA OVT at in on the other hand, vide Acts xix. 24: Trapel^ero rot? T6%viTais epja- o- iav ovtc o\lv (vide note on verse 15) avrbv Kal \4ywv SiaQas (elsewhere only St. Luke xvi. 26) o^07j' foov, ix. 15), Smiro^eelr (else- where in the New Testament only Acts iv. 2) Kal fTriffrptyas (used as in Acts xv. 36) r$ irvcvpari elirev vapayye\\u (vide St. Luke viii. 29 : irapiiyy. T. Tn/tu/tari eeA0e/ air6 ; never in St. John, in St. Matthew and St. Mark once or twice each, in St. Luke fifteen times) iv ov6p.a.Ti 'ITJO-OU Xpiffrov eeA06' a7r' OUTTJS' Kal e^rjAflej/ avry r$ &pa ([eV] OUT^ rp &>pa is besides found in the New Testament only in St. Luke ii. 38 vii. 21, x. 21, xii. 12, xiii. 31, xx. 19, Acts xxii. 13). INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 53 vocabulary, syntax, and style he must have transformed everything else into his own language ! As such a pro- cedure is absolutely unimaginable, we are simply left to infer that the author is here himself speaking. We may even go a step further: It is quite improbable at least, so far as this narrative is concerned that this passage had been written down years ago in the author's " diary," and then had been simply copied into his work. Could he, when he was twenty or thirty years younger for this time, approximately, may have elapsed between the occurrence of the events and the composition of the Acts could he then have observed so closely the same rules of method and proportion, could he have written in so similar a style and with so similar a vocabulary as he did later ? No ! this passage was first written down together with, and in close connection with, the composition and writing of the whole work. No sen- sible person can judge otherwise. It may well have been that the author possessed short notes which refreshed his memory. Yet even this hypothesis is unnecessary here ; it will come up for consideration in connection with later sections of the " we " account. I now proceed with the section chap, xxviii. 1-16. In its contents it affords so few parallels to what has been before narrated that we should naturally be pre- pared for few or no instances of conformity with what has gone before. They are therefore the more striking and significant. (xxviii. 1) Kal SiavwOevTes]. Vide St. Luke vii. 3: rare St,ai\av- Opwrriav r^lv* a- yjravresyap irvpav 7rpo(re\d{3ovTO Trdvras ^yLta? Sia TOV verov TOV ee- teal &a TO 5e for re in good authorities ; likewise is wanting in some authorities. 24 : Siacrctxrwcri rbv Hav\ov, xxvii. 43, 44, xxviii. 4. Wanting in St. Mark and St. John ; found once in St. Matthew (xiv. 36). rore]. For this use see St. Luke xxi. 10, Acts i. 12, vi. 11, xxv. 12, xxvi. 1. eireryvafjiev]. In this construc- tion wanting in St. Matthew and St. John, occurs once in St. Mark, in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) nine times vide, e.g., Acts xix. 34 : S on 'JovSato?, xxii. 19 : on 'Pvpafa, &c. re]. Concerning this Lukan use of re vide note on xvi. 13. irapeL-^av]. Vide note on xvi. 16. ov rrjv Tv^ova-av]. Vide xix. 11 : Swa/jieis ov ra? TV%ovcras. Twy%dveiv is wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, but is found six times in St. Luke (gospel and Acts). For the negative expression vide Acts xii. 18 and xix. 23 : rdpa'xps OVK 0X1709, xix. 24: OVK, o\lyrjv epyaalav, xiv. 28 : %povov OVK o\lyov, xv. 2 : o-v&Tijo-ew OVK o\/7?79, xvii. 4 : T69 Trvpdv. Vide St. Luke xxii. 25 : difrdvTcov Be irvp. 7rpo(T\d/3ovTo]. Does not occur in this sense in the gospels. On the other hand, vide Acts xviii. 26 : Upi9 Se]. Vide note on xvi. 10. Trdvrcos]. Is not found in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John. On the other hand, vide St. Luke iv. 24 : TrdvTW e/oetre /iot (Acts xviii. 21, Set fji 7raz>Tft>9 rrjv eoprrjv r noir\va) ve- KpOV. 67Tfc 7TO\V Kdl 0e- (t)pOVVTO)V avrv e\eyov avrov elvai deov. Acts) ten times (of these ovic eav four times). fjiev ovv and pev ovv . . . Se are found in the Acts about twenty- eight times, in the gospel once (iii. 18) ; they are wanting in St. Mat- thew, St. Mark, and St. John. Notice that the occurrence of these narrative particles is equally spread over the Acts. aTTOTii/afa?]. In the New Testa- ment this word is only found besides in St. Luke ix. 5 ; here St. Matthew and St. Mark use eKTwdva-ew. ovoev Kaicov]. Similarly in the New Testament only in Acts xvi. 28 : ev Trpdgrjs (TO i /carcov. ol Se]. As in xxi. 20, 32. 7rpoo-6ooK,Q)i>]. Wanting in St. Mark and St. John ; occurs only twice in St. Matthew (xi. 3, xxiv. 50), in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) eleven times. /jLe\\Lv]. Constructions with /j,e\\eiv are very frequent in all parts of the Acts (thirty-five times). /caTaTTLTrreiv]. In the New Testa- ment only here and in xxvi. 14. dvc0]. In the New Testament only here and in ii. 2, xvi. 26. veicpov]. As in v. 10 : avrrjv vetcpos. vetcpv, and xx. 9 : evpov TToXu]. Vide xvi. 18 rjij,epa$, xiii. 31 : eVl 7rl 58 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN xviii. 20 : ITU , xxvii. 20 : eVl r jr\eiova^ , xvii. 2 : eV era/3/3aTa r/na, xix. 8 : eVt prjvas rpeis, xix. 10 : eVt T?7 8uo, xix. 34 : eVl wpa9 Suo, xx. 9 : CTU 7r\iov ^idXeyojJievov^ xx. 1 1 : e'$' IKCLVOV 6/j,i\r}cra<;) xxiv. 4 : eVl vrXetoz; o-e ev/coTTTO). St. Luke alone of the New Testament writers uses eVi in a temporal sense. aroTrov]. Wanting in St. Mat- thew, St. Mark, and St. John (/catcov used instead), but found also in St. Luke xxiii. 41 and Acts xxv. 5 (and, indeed, j ust as here : TO aroirov). The construction of the sentence both in sense and grammar is just as bad as it is in xxii. 17 f. and xxi. 34: p/rj Svvafjievov avTov els avT. 7;.]. apvaovfi. Vide also St. Luke v. 17 : Svva/jbis r)v els rb laaOai avTov. The par- ticipial use of / vTrrjpxev]. virdp^eiv is wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; is found thirty-three times TOTTOV eicevov 7Tp(t)Tty ovo/jbart, 09 INVESTIGATION OF WE" ACCOUNT 59 Vl<7V. (xxviii.8) e'ye- veroSe Tovirarepa TOV IIo7r\LOV 7TV- perot? teal repiaj vov ov o Ilav- /col , e- aura), TOV. av- in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) ; only twice besides with the dative Acts iii. 6, iv. 37. T. TTptoTy]. Vide xiii. 50: TOU? T. TroXeo)?, xxv. 2 : ol T&V 'louSaiW. See also the note on xvi. 12. Yet it ought to be mentioned that the title TrpwTo? Me\iTaia)v (municipii Meli- tensium primus omnium) has the authority of inscriptions. ovofjiari IT.]. Vide note on xvi. 14. %vl%iv does not occur in the gospels ; see, however, Acts x. 6, 18, 23 ( ai>Tov<; e'fewo-e), 32, xvii. 20, xxi. 16. For eyevero with ace. and inf. (Lukan) see the note on xvi. 16. dpcvav]. Combined with is found besides only in St. Luke iv. 38. The whole expression is of a distinctly medical character vide p. 15. avve^eiv occurs nine times in Lukan writings, never in St. Mark and St. John, once in St. Matthew. Vide Acts ix. 33 : KaratceifAevov e t Tr/oo? ov]. The narrative is con- tinued by means of a relative clause (Lukan). See note upon xvi. 14. elvrjkdev TT/QO?]. So also St. Luke i. 28, Acts x. 3, xi. 3, xvi. 40, xvii. 2. Wanting in St. Matthew and St. 60 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN (xxviii. 9) TOU- 5\ / TOV O6 fyCVOLLGVOV Kal ol \onrol ol n f >/ ev rfj T5 < John ; found in St. Mark only once (xv. 43). eTritfet? T? %6?/3a?]. As Campbell ("Crit. Studies in St. Luke's Gospel," 1891, p. 56) has shown, St. Luke in this connection makes a sharp dis- tinction : sick people are healed by laying on of hands, demoniacs by the word of exorcism. So it happens here. Faith is not demanded on the part of the one to be healed ; rather it first arises as the result of the miracle. Ido-aro]. The active middle is wanting in St. Mark and St. Matthew (in the latter it occurs only once, in a quotation from the LXX.) ; in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) it is found eleven times (vide also St. John). 01 XOOTTOI]. Wanting in St. Mark and St. John ; occurring in St. Mat- thew three times, in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) eleven times. acrflei/e/a?]. Wanting in St. Mark and St. Matthew (in the latter it occurs once, in a quotation from the LXX.) ; found in St. Luke's gospel four times vide xiii. 11 : 7rvevjj,a e^ovcra da-Qeveias, v. 15, viii. 2, xiii. 12. St. Luke xiii. 14 : epxp- pevot, OepaireveaOe, St. Luke v. 15 : a-vvrjpxpvTO o%Xot TroXXot Oepa- ireveo-Oai OLTTO TWV aa-Qevei&v avTwv, vi. 18, vii. 21. The passive Bepa- irevea-dai is not found in St. Mark, but in St. Matthew once and in St. INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 61 (xxviii. 10) 01 Kttl TV For rea vayo- TTOOC p 1 reads Luke ten times. In the gospel a general statement of this kind is often attached to an account of a particular miracle. ot]. The narrative is continued in a relative clause (Lukan) ; see notes on verse 8 and xvi. 14. For cit Kal vide Acts xi. 30 : 6 /cal eiroiijaav, xxvi. 10 : o KOI eirolrjaa, St. Luke x. 30 : ot teal aTrrjXdov. TLfi. erl/^ija-av]. This idiom is Lukan vide Acts iv. 17: 7rapr)yyel\afjL6v, St. Luke xxii. 15 : ,T](ra, xxiii. 46 : so also Acts xvi. 28). Cf. also St. Luke vi. 8 : avacrras ear?;, Acts v. 4 : fjuevov e/JLevev, St. Luke ii. 8: ^>uXa<7cro^Ta? v\aKds. Compare besides /3a7TTter0eVre9 TO , o/m'a (fropTl&v, aarpairr] ^ &c. Vide note on xvi. 11. ra TT/OO?]. Fw/^ St. Luke xiv. 32 : pcora ra 7T/005 eipijvrjv. %peta?]. Not found in the plural in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; it nevertheless occurs in Acts xx. 24. [Not St. Paul only, but his com- panions also were honoured (or re- ceived an honorarium ?) ; it follows from this that they also took part in the work of healing (vide p. 15 f.), which conclusion, indeed, is not for- bidden but rather suggested by the LUKE THE PHYSICIAN (xxviii. 11) )ite- ra 8e T0ei9 M- & ev TTJ Blass thinks that the construction ira- paff. AioffK. is quite impossible, and con- jectures, therefore, wording of verse 9. Blass, without sufficient grounds, holds it as pro- bable that a change of subject is to be assumed in verse 10, and that these expressions of honour pro- ceeded from the community in general. The simple sense is : Those who were healed honoured us with many honours because we had healed them.] See note on xvi. 11 (xxviii. 10). (xxviii. 12) es rpicrv. j)/j.4pas TpeT? in many authorities. Wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; found in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) eight times ; combined with 6/9, Acts ix. 30, (xxi. 3), xxiii. 28, xxvii. 3. eVe/itetW/iei/]. einpeveiv is wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, but is found six other times in the Acts (combined with x. 48, xxi. 4, 10, xxviii. 14). INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 63 Dative of time, as in St. Luke viii. 29, Acts viii. 11, xiii. 20. (xxviii. 13) ', Kal fJLer a rjfjuepav eVt- yevo/jievov vorov Bevrepaloi 7J\Oo- fjiev et? HOT to A.oi/9, Kal (KtlQfv &pavTfS for '69ev trepif\. Gi- gas 1 TTfpi\6vr(5 ac- cording to ancient authorities. (xxviii. 14) ov Trap avTos em- fjLLVCU fj/JLepaS 7T- rd' Kal OI/TO)? et? fJLV. irap' avro7s, vavrts 1 (some au- thorities, Blass). (xxviii. 1 5) KCL- ol dicovaavTes rjKdav Wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; but see Acts xix. 13. fcaravTav]. Wanting in St. Matthew,' St. Mark, and St. John ; occurring, however, nine times in the Acts (nearly always combined with t9 vide xvi. 1, xviii. 19, 24, xxi. 7, xxv. 13, xxvi. 7, xxvii. 21. Vide xx. 6 : (but the reading is uncertain). For the construction see St. Luke xxiv. 22) vevofjbevai bpQpival . . . ?)\Qov. ov]. Vide note on xvi. 13. 7rapK\ij6r)fjLv]. Vide note on xvi. 15. Trap 3 avrois e7Ti^elvai\. Vide note on verse 12 ; pevew irapd TLVI is not found in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke (gospel) ; see, however, Acts ix. 43, x. 6 (irapd TIVI Zificovi), xviii. 3, (20), xxi. 7, 8 (Trap' aurofc, Vide Acts vii. 8, xvii. 33, xx. 11, xxvii. 44. Vide note on xvi. 12. ra Trepi r]^S)v\. Vide Acts i. 3, ra viii. 12, xix. 8: ra Trepi Trj? ftacn- Xeta?, xviii. 25, xxviii. 31 : ra rov Kvplov, xxiii. 11 : ra Trepi /AOV, xxiii. 15 : ra Trepi auroO, xxiv. 10 : 64, LUKE THE PHYSICIAN TTIOV 6pov real ra Trepl e/jbavrov, St. Luke xxii. 37 : Tpi&v ra Trepl e/^ot), xxiv. 19 : 01)5 ISobv 6 Tlav- 'Irjaov, xxiv 27 : TO, Trepl eavrov. Xo? evyapiGTri- This idiom is wanting in St. Matthew, TOO uew eXa- St. Mark, and St. John. Thus in three places in xxviii. 7-15 ra stands before a preposition (7, 10, 15), a trait which is so characteristic of St. Luke's style when compared with that of the other evange- lists. a%pt]. Wanting in St. Mark and St. John ; occurring once in St. Matthew, in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) twenty times, in all parts of the two books. Lukan vide, c.g>^ Acts xvi. 19 : tSoWe? . . . eTTi\a/36fJievoi xiv. 29, xvii. 6, xviii. 23 : . . . e^rj\0ev . . . Siepftofji , xx. 22, 37. Many such examples have been collected by Klostermann (p. 59 f.). (xxviii. 16) ore ore K.T.\.]. Vide i. 13 : real ore 8e el(nj\0ofj,ev els el peveiv Kad ' eavrov v\d T TT)S /c.r.A. vide ' Sit- zungsber. d. K. Preuss. Akad. " d. W. 1895, p. 491 ff. One sees that the position here is the same as in xvi. 10 ff.; there is absolutely nothing left which the author, 1 Since those critics who separate the " we " account as a source from the work as a whole assert that the surest justification of this distinction lies in the contrast between xxviii. 1-16 and xxviii. 17 to end, a contrast which is here peculiarly striking (this point will be dealt with later), let us accordingly give a list of instances wherein kinship in language, matter, and style is shown between xxviii. 17 ff. and the " we " sections. It must not be forgotten in this connection that in xxviii. 17 ff. we are dealing with only a few verses, and that the " we " sections also consist only of ninety-seven verses, and that the subject-matter in either case is quite different. V. 17. /** TO, fipepas rpets as in xxviii. 7, 12 ; tycvero with ace. and infin. as in xxviii. 8 ; ot rS>v 'lovtiatwit irpuroi as in xxviii. 7 (xvi. 12) ; To TO?J \fyofifvois just as in xxvii. 11 (and here only): firfWero ro?s Aeyojwej/ois. V. 25. irpbs a\\-f]\ovs as in xxviii. 4 (three times elsewhere in the Acts) ; rb vvfv/jia rb S-yiov f\d\ijoy is not found in the gospels, but only in the " we " sections [xx. 1, xxi. 7], and in the second half of the Acts (xviii. 22, xxi. 19, xxv. 13) ; yiyvecrOai et* 'lepouo-aA^/u [xxi. 17], xx. 16, xxv. 15. 2 No account is here taken of the form 5ie\e'x0e (SteXe'x^Tjaoi') which is found once in St. Mark (ix. 34), and perhaps once in the Acts (xviii. 19). 3 Vide elffifvai and rf) firiovtrr) (p. 70) ; airtfvat in the New Testa- ment only in Acts xvii. 10, ffwifvai only in St. Luke viii. 4. * In the sense " to ride " t-mpalvfiv occurs once in St. Matthew xxi. 5, but only in a quotation from the LXX. INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 69 TV Oeat [xxvii. 25] ; xvi. 34. [xxi. 10 ; xxvii. 20]; xxiv. 11. aL redpere [xxviii. 2] ; xviii. 26. ol (refiopevoi, [xvi. 14] ; xiii. 43, 50 ; xvii. 4, 17 ; xviii. 7. ov TTJV TV)(ovo-av [xxviii. 2] ; xix. 11. V6T09 [xxviii. 2] ; xiv. 17 (in St. Matthew wrovoelv [xxvii. 27] ; xiii. 25 ; xxv. 18. at x/aewu [xxviii. 10] ; xx. 34. It remains also to be noticed that the narrative of St. Paul's abode in Athens concludes with almost the same words as that of his abode in Troas [vide xvii. 33, o{rra>9 o Uai)Xo? %rj\6ev, and [xx. 11], oi/rcw? [o ITaOXo?] er}X0ez/) ; further, that Sco with imper. occurs only in [xxvii. 25] and xx. 31 ; finally, that the participle is found only in [xxvii. 35], xxii. 24, and xxiv. 22. (b) In the " we " sections and only in the first half of the Acts Acts i.-xii., xv. [xxi. 17] ; ii. 41 (but the reading is doubt- ful here). ap^ato? (of an earlier period in the history of the Gospel) [xxi. 16]; xv. 7. el in the sense of fare I [xvi. 15] ; iv. 9 ; xi. 17. 1 [xxvii. 17, 26, 29, 32] ; xii. 7. l In xxi. 13 a.iroQa.vtlv els 'lepovffa^iJ. (with t\6j> omitted) is exactly parallel to viii. 40 : $i\tinros fvpeBri els A^WTOV. irXfy rtvos is only found (disregarding a quotation from the LXX. in St. Mark) in [xxvii. 22], viii. 1, xv. 28. 70 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN iv [xxvii. 39] ; vii. 45. 7rt,/j,ev6iv [xxi. 4, 10 ; xxviii. 12, 14] ; x. 48 ; xii. 16 ; (xv. 34). ere/jo*? ? [xxvii. 1] ; viii. 34. al fjpepai T. dtyfjuayv [xx. 6] ; xii. 3. [xxvii. 21] ; v. 29, 32. TTvev/JLaros [xxi. 4] ; i. 2 ; iv. 25 ; xi. 28. purpose [xxvii. 13] ; xi. 23. Ka6 y bv TpoTrov [xxvii. 25]; xv. 11. vTrep TOV ovofjLdTos [xxi. 13] ; v. 41 ; ix. 16 ; xv. 26. yov [xx. 8] ; Acts i. 13 ; ix. 37, 39. i= homines [xxvii. 37]; ii. 41, 43; vii. 14. (c) In the " we " sections and only in both halves of the Acts taken together. 1 av(o [xxviii. 6] ; ii. 2 ; xvi. 26. fr'a [xxvii. 41]; v. 26; xxi. 35; (xxiv. 7). elaievat [xxi. 18] ; iii. 3 ; xxi. 26. [xx. 6] ; xv. 39 ; xviii. 18. t? [xxvii. 20] ; ii. 26 ; xvi. 19 ; xxiii. 6 ; xxiv. 15 ; xxvi. 6, 7 ; xxviii. 20. r7 eiriovarj [xvi. 11 ; xx. 15 ; xxi. 18] ; vii. 26 ; xxiii. 11. l/caval [xxvii. 7] ; ix. 23, 43 ; xviii. 18. i We here omit the fairly numerous instances of words which are often repeated in the " we " sections and the Acts, but are of rare occurrence in the gospels for instance, f}ov\ecr8ai, which occurs only six times in all the gospels taken together (twice in St. Luke), but is found fourteen times in the Acts four times in the first half, ten times in the second half (once in the " we" sections, xxvii. 43). It is also a rare word with St. Paul. INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 71 rivds [xvi. 12] ; ix. 19 ; x. 48 ; xv. 36 ; xxiv. 24. KaiceWev [xvi. 12 ; xx. 15 ; xxi. 1 ; xxvii. 4 ; xxviii. 15] ; vii. 4 ; xiii. 21 ; xiv. 26. Karayye\\6Lv [xvi. 17] ; iii. 24 ; iv. 2 ; xiii. 5, 38 ; xv. 36 ; xvi. 21 ; xvii. 3, 13, 23 ; xxvi. 23. ff(r0ai, [xxvii. 10] ; xi. 28 ; xxiv. 15. ew [xxvii. 33, 34] ; ii. 46 ; xxiv. 25 (in the first three passages combined with T/oor}9). veavlas [xx. 9] ; vii. 58 ; xxiii. 17 (elsewhere veavleo-TW9, xxii. 20 and [xxviii. 2]). T 6 '%A te '*'?7 [ xx - 15] '-> St. Luke xiii. 33 ; Acts xxi. 26. Wepa with vtyveaBai [xxvii. 29, 33, 39] ; St. Luke iv. 42 ; Acts xii. 18 ; xvi. 35 ; xxiii. 12. airjpepcu avrcu [xxi. 15]; St. Luke vi. 12; xxiii. 7; xxiv. 18; i. 24; Acts i. 15 ; vi. 1 ; xi. 27 ; i. 5 ; xxi. 15 ; v. 36 ; xxi. 38 ; iii. 24. f) [xxviii. 11] ; St. Luke i. 24, 26, 36, 56 ; iv. 25 ; Acts vii. 20 ; xviii. 11 ; xix. 8 ; xx. 3. /xo'Xi9 [xxvii. 7, 8, 16] ; St. Luke ix. 39 ; Acts xiv. 18. xx. 11] ; St. Luke xxiv. 14, 15 ; Acts xxiv. 26. [xxviii. 4]; St. Lukeiv. 23; Acts (xviii. 21); xxi. 22. TreiOeaOai [xxi. 14; xxvii. 11]; St. Luke xvi. 31; xx. 6 ; Acts v. 36, 37, 40 ; xvii. 4 ; xxiii. 21 ; xxvi. 26 ; xxviii. 24. ra 7re/H TWOS [xxviii. 15] ; St. Luke xxii. 37 ; xxiv. 19, 27 ; Acts i. 3 ; (viii. 12) ; xviii. 25 ; (xix. 8) ; xxiii. 11, 15 ; xxiv. 10, 22 ; xxviii. (23), 31. ol TrXeiove? (TO 7r\elov) [xxvii. 12] ; St. Luke vii. 43 ; Acts xix. 32. rrot,el(TOai,=7Toieiv [xxvii. 18] ; St. Luke v. 33 ; xiii. 2 ; Acts i. 1 ; xx. 24 ; xxv. 17. 7roXi9, added to the name of the city [xvi. 14 ; xxvii. 8]; St. Luke ii. 4 ; Acts xi. 5. //.er* ov TTO\V (/-tex* ov 7roXXa9 rj/jLepas) [xxvii. 14] ; St. Luke xv. 13 ; Acts i. 5. i Once in St. Matthew (iv. 10) in a quotation from the LXX. INVESTIGATION OF " WE " ACCOUNT 75 irpoadyeiv [xxvii. 27] ; St. Luke ix. 41 ; Acts xvi. 20. 1 o-ra^e/9 [xxvii. 21] ; St. Luke xviii. 11, 40 ; xix. 8 ; Acts ii. 14 ; v. 20 ; xi. 13 ; xvii. 22 ; xxv. 18. avvapTrd&iv [xxvii. 15] ; St. Luke viii. 29 ; Acts vi. 12 ; xix. 29. o-vvpd\\etv [xx. 14] ; St. Luke ii. 19 ; xiv. 31 ; Acts iv. 15 ; xvii. 18 ; xviii. 27. Sevres (#619) TO. v TOP dprov v\6yr)(Tev /cal /cXao-a?, #.T.\. ; cf. 1 Corinthians xi. 23 : eKaftev dprov KOI ev%api,(rTrja-as eK\aa\rj<; aTroXemu [xxvii. 34] ; St. Luke xxi. 18. I/ore? [xxvii. 13, twice] ; St. Luke xi. 31 ; xii. 55 ; xiii. 29. 1 Ocu [xvi. 15] ; St. Luke xxiv. 29. [xxvii. 41] ; St. Luke x. 30. 7r\e/ [xxi. 3 ; xxvii. 2, 6, 24] ; St. Luke viii. 23. (of things) [xxviii. 3] ; St. Luke v. 6. u? [xxvii. 29] ; St. Luke iii. 5. 2 fjurj fofiov (with vocative) [xxvii. 24] ; St. Luke i. 13, 30 ; xii. 32. 2 This group of twenty words, taken together with the former group, is the most important of all. In the " we " sections, as we see, no less than sixty-four words 1 In all these instances used of the wind ; once in St. Matthew (xii. 42), &afft\i St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John . 44 words The " we " sections have in common with St. Luke > St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, and the Acts . . 20 words (in 23 places) 64 words The " we " sections have in common with the Acts and St. Matthew > St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John . 3 words 3 1 Proper names and numerals are, of course, omitted. 2 About sixty-seven in common with the Acts, about twenty with St. Luke's gospel, about forty-three with both. , clpa/ua, a/ta. INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 79 The " we " sections have in common with St. Mat- thew > St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John, and the Acts The " we " sections have in common with the Acts and St. Mark > St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John The " we " sections have in common with St. Mark > St. Matthew, St. Luke, St. John, and the Acts . The " we " sections have in common with the Acts and St. John > St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke . The "we 11 sections have in common with St. John > St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and the Acts . 3 words 1 (in 3 places) 6 words 2 words 2 1 word 3 (in 1 place) 3 words 2 words 4 words 5 (in 2 places) 4 words , irf\ayos, 2 SiayiyvcffOai and $ia\eye? in temporal clauses, el in the sense of eVet, el with optative, ph ovv, re connecting i The reader will pardon me for not over-burdening him with details on this point as well as on the question whether the words in common are always used with the same significance. If, however, such an investigation should be considered necessary for my part the dead weight of the facts disclosed in the lists seems conclusive enough I am prepared to show that from this side also we meet with confirmation, not refutation, of our position. Meanwhile, the remarks I have made on these points in the notes on the " we " sections of chaps, xvi. and xxviii., and those of Klostermann (loo. cit.) on questions of syntax in chap, xxvii., may suffice. INVESTIGATION OF " WE " ACCOUNT 81 a new sentence, the continuation of the narrative by means of a relative clause, ee?va) t tcdfceiOev, ra vvv y a^pis ov, eTrt with ace. of time, ftoXis, 7rai/TO)9, TO, irepL TWOS, &c., &c.) surely one can only say that there is but one unquestionable verdict to be given : the " we " sections and the Acts of the Apostles have one and the same author. We cannot explain such constant coincidence as due to accident ; nor can we suppose that some " source " has here been worked up by a later hand, for on this hypothesis the source must have been revised line by line, and even word by word, and yet the reviser actually allowed the " we " to stand ! There is no basis even for the hypothesis that the " we " source includes the greater part of chaps, xiii., xiv., xvi.-xxviii. ; for though the rela- tionship of the "we" sections with Acts i.-xii., xv., and St. Luke's gospel is not so close as with xiii., xiv., xvi.-xxviii. (the proportion is 88 : 67) it is never- theless close enough to remain unintelligible on such an hypothesis. 1 The proof is thus complete ; 2 nor can its conclu- siveness be shaken by comparing the "we" sections 1 That the relationship with the second half of the Acts should be closer than that with the first half and St. Luke's gospel is not astonishing, seeing that in the former case the subject-matter of each is more nearly allied. 2 The internal evidence will be discussed later. I would here give a short sketch of the method of Hawkins in mars hailing the linguistic evidence for the identity of authorship. (1) At the beginning of his work he draws up lists of 86 words and phrases in St. Matthew, 37 in St. Mark, 140 in St. Luke, which very frequently occur in each of these writers, namely, 841 times, 314 times, 1435 and 1235 times respectively (the last number referring to F 82 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN and the remaining parts of the Acts with the vocabulary of St. Paul ; for the relationship with the Pauline the Acts apart from the " we " sections), while they are of much rarer occurrence in the other two. Now in the " we " sections these Lukan phrases occur in 110 passages, i.e. very nearly as of ten as in St. Mark, although the latter is just seven times as long. In St. Matthew they occur only 207 times, although it is eleven times the length of the "we" sections. On the other hand, the phrases characteristic of St. Matthew occur only eighteen times in the " we '' sections, those characteristic of St. Mark only eight times. What a contrast to the 110 occurrences of Lukan phrases 1 If, however, one considers only the phrases themselves, apart from the frequency of occurrence, we find of the 86 phrases characteristic of St. Matthew only 10 in the "we " sections, of the 37 Markan only 6, but of the 140 Lukan 43 ! That is, (St. Matthew), (St. Mark), (St. Luke) ! Hawkins may well say (p. 160) : " Such evidence of unity of author- ship, drawn from a comparison of the language of the three synoptic gospels, appears to me irresistible. Is it not utterly improbable that the language of the original writer of the ' we ' sections should have chanced to have so very many more correspondences with the lan- guage of the subsequent ' compiler ' than with that of Matthew or Mark ? " Next Hawkins draws up a list of the words of the whole New Testament (not only of the gospels and Acts, as we have done), which are found only in the " we " sections and in the Acts. There are 21 words occurring 28 times in the " we " sections, 46 times in the remaining chapters of the Acts. Then comes a list of the words which are found only in the " we " sections and St. Luke's gospel (" with or without the rest of Acts "). There are 16 words (29 times in the " we " sections, 25 times in St. Luke, 23 times in the rest of Acts). Then Hawkins, after giving another list of a great number of words (and phrases) which are characteristic of the " we " sections and the Lukan writings (though they occur rarely elsewhere in the New Testament), concludes with the remark : " On the whole, then, there is an immense balance of internal and linguistic evidence in favour of the view that the original writer of these sections was the same person as the main author of the Acts and of the third gospel, and, consequently, that the date of those books lies within the lifetime of a companion of St. Paul." An involuntary confirma- tion of these statements is given also by Vogel (" Charakteristik des INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 83 vocabulary is in the " we " sections not closer, but less close, than in the other chapters of the Acts. Lukas," 2 Aufl. s. 61-68). He has instituted a comparison of the vocabulary of St. Luke and the Acts without paying separate atten- tion to the "we" sections. He produces : I. 57 words (in 92 passages of Acts) which occur elsewhere in the New Testament only in St. Luke's gospel. II. 41 words (in 85 passages of Acts) occurring in St. Luke, but elsewhere in the New Testament of only isolated occurrence. III. 33 words (in 50 passages of Acts) which are especially charac- teristic of St. Luke and the Acts. Thus in all 131 words in 227 passages. Of these words the " we " sections show under I, 13 words in 14 passages, under II. 5 words in 8 passages, under III. 4 words in 5 passages ; thus altogetJier 22 words in 27 passages. As the " we " sections form a small tenth part of the Acts, we should expect 12 (13) words in 22 passages. The "we" section*, therefore, are in language more closely allied to St. Luke's gospel than are the remaining parts of the Acts. Finally Vogel has also gathered together a number of " favourite expressions " of St. Luke which are found in both his writings (far more than 100 occur- rences in each), while they are rare in the other writings of the New Testament. Again, he absolutely ignores the problem of the " we " sections, and yet of these twenty most important words no less than twelve occur also in this part of the Acts. I myself have made a calculation which affords a yet more striking result. St. Luke's gospel and the Acts have in common about 203 different words (a few phrases included) which are wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; of these 203 words no less than 63 occur in the "we" sections (20 exclusively here), although these sections comprise only a small tenth of the Acts. Now no one denies the identity of the author of St. Luke with the author of the Acts ; and yet the lexical and linguistic relationship between the "we" sections and St. Luke's gospel is supported by twice the amount of evidence that can be alleged for the relationship between the rest of the Acts and this gospel. How can it, then, be denied that the author of the " we " sections and of the Acts is one and the same man I In the 480 verses of Acts i.-xii. and xv. there stand about 132 words in common with St. Luke's gospel which are not found in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. 8* LUKE THE PHYSICIAN I therefore refrain from considering the matter in detail. 1 Against the proof of the identity of the author of the " we " sections with the author of the whole work 2 it is possible, so far as I can see, to raise the following objections : 3 (1) The a7ra Xeyopeva are more numerous in the " we " sections than in other parts of the Acts ; (2) the author of the third gospel and the Acts has plainly used written sources for other passages of his great work, transforming them in accordance with his own style ; it is thus possible that, in spite of all argu- ments to the contrary, the case is the same with the so- called " we " sections. As regards the first objection, the number of aira^ \ey6/j,eva in the " we " sections is certainly very large. We can, indeed, point to about 111 words which are not found elsewhere in the Acts and St. Luke's gospel. John, and in the 527 verses of Acts xiii., xiv., xvi.-xxviii., about 141 such words. But in the 97 verses of the "we" sections there are about 63 such words, when, judging from proportion, we should only expect to find about 26. * We have above (pp.19 ff.) described the relationship of St. Luke's gospel to St. Paul (so far as vocabulary is concerned) as compared with that of the other gospels. In order to illustrate the relation- ship of the "we" sections to the Apostle it may suffice to point out that of the 105 words of the " we " sections which are not found in the rest of the Acts and the gospel only 11 occur in the Pauline epistles. 2 Attempts to weaken the force of too striking coincidences between the " we " sections and the remaining parts of the work by the hypothesis of interpolations are unavailing ; for in this case more than three-quarters, if not all, the verses of the " we " sections would have to be regarded as interpolated. s I here for the moment neglect the objections raised by the Higher Criticism. INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 85 This proportion is much greater than in the remaining parts of the work. For example, in the 480 verses of i.-xii., xv., there are only 188 words which are wanting in the rest of the Acts and St. Luke. 1 According to this proportion, only 38 aira% \eyo/JLeva should occur in the " we " sections, while in reality there are nearly three times as many. We attain the same result by means of the following comparison : In the whole o the Acts there are about 657 words (proper names excluded) which are wanting in St. Luke. In the " we " sections, therefore, which form about one-tenth of the Acts, there ought to be about 67 such words ; but there are really 162 thus two and a half times as many as we should expect. As soon as we turn to the subject-matter it is at once seen what treacherous ground is afforded by these statistics. The twenty-seventh chapter of the Acts, which comprises nearly half of the " we " sections (forty- four verses), and some other verses besides of the same sections, contain subject-matter of a peculiar kind such as finds no parallel in the rest of the book narratives of voyages and of the shipwreck. Three-fifths of the aw. \ey. belong to the latter narrative, 2 and the wonder is 1 One must count upon a small error here, but I think that the numbers are right on the whole. 2 That is, about sixty -nine. They are as follows : Hyicvpa, alyia\6s, avriKpv, avTO8a\fji.f'iv [TO> dpe^], a.irofto\-i], cbro/c^TTTei*', arroppiirrfw, airo- iy aprffAuv, deraAeuToy, Zoffov, dorr/a, Sorroy, avr6xetp, ir\ovv'] t ', fvQvSpofJie'ii', evpaKv\uu, /cC/ia, KujSepj/^jTTjs, AtjW^v, Aty, vavK^pos, vavs, vavTys, vi\ff(ov, opyvid, Trapa/SoAAetJ', irapahfytffQai, ira.pdcrrnj.os, 86 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN not that their number is here so great, but rather that, even in chapter xxvii.^ in spite of this new subject-matter, the accustomed style and vocabulary of the writer are verse by verse most clearly distinguishable. Subtracting these termini technici, there then remain in the " we " sections the following air. \ey. : ava'oi- 26(70ai, a7raz/T?7O79, a7rao-7rae<70at, (aa^e^ft)?), avytf, ol /3dp/3apoi, f3ov\r)/j,a, Secy-tewr?;?, Sevrepalos, SiareXelv, , 8vcaviK6s, v&pis, viro~ favvvvai, uTroTrAetv, viroirvfeiv, virorpfxeiv, ^6t/ia^euvfj (24) T/ fjfuv Kal ffol, (34) [la], T _r. XT_/ j.x.\a,~ ffo l^ 'iffffot) o~c rts e?, 6 ayios rov olSd ffe rls eT, o ay to? Bfov. TOV Oeov. The indefinite ou- ruv is erased, the He- braic eV is replaced by exwy, the indefinite the weak \tywv by (25) /cal (35) [Ae- aury 6 ' K al auroi). airb for ef is an im- provement. (26) Kal o"irapdav Kal bfya.v avrbv rb St. Luke replaces aiirbv rb irvev/j.a rb aifj.6i'iov fls rb ^ffov the vulgar o"irapdav INVESTIGATION OF " WE" ACCOUNT 89 cutdOapTOv KOI (tivrjffat> air* avrov by ptyav, QUIT. ff- Tf is awkward, and is therefore corrected. In what follows St. Luke adds touches which give greater clearness and preci- sion. (28) Kal ef}A06i/ n aKo^i avrov fifBvs vav- raxov ets '6\t\v T^V irt- pi\(apov rrjs (37) KOI e'e7ropeueTo iffpl avrov ets TTOJ/TO T&TTOV TTJS TTfpl- The corrections themselves emphasise the vulgarisms of St. Mark. The source is, as one sees, on the whole only slightly altered (some characteristic idioms and solecisms of St. Mark are nevertheless erased) ; moreover, its peculiar style here stands out clearly in comparison with those parts in which St. Luke could give himself freer rein, for it is evident that in chap. iii. s.s. he has kept as closely as possible to the already existing type of gospel narrative. Compare the /cat beginning a new sentence ten times repeated (just as in the source, and quite in 90 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN Mark ii. 1: Kal els Ko- 5t* i]Kova6r) Sri eV (2) Kal ffv TTOAAol o5jj.ris TTJ Kal 'lovSalas Kal 'Ie- Kvpiov ^v fls rb iaadai avr6v. [The structure of the clause has been probably corrupted in course of trans- mission.] (3) Kal tpxovrai e- poi/rfs irpbs avrbv ira- (18) Kal Itiov avSpfs v KfpdfjMV Ka- OrJKav avTbv avv T< fls TO fj.fo'ov ev rov 'lr]epot>Tfs]. St. Luke has an objection to such subjectless verbs and supplies &v$pcs, and also a substan- tive (foepuvov) as ob- ject. irapaXcA.]. So always for irapa\vTi- wJy, which is a vulgar idiom. In verses 18 and 19 St. Luke has completely revised the text (the reason is probably correctly given by Wellhausen) ; the coincidences which remain are underlined. (5) Kal iotav 6 'irfffovs TT/' iriariv avr&v Ae-yei rtp irapaXvriKtf' TfK- vov y a.Qifvra.1 ffov at OXiAOTiCU* (20) K nv avroav (Iirtv' 'A.v- BpcaiTf, aapiffaioi \tyovTes' T/S fvnv OVTOS bs AoAet /3Ao, eyeipe Kal apas rb K\ivi$i6v ffov iropevov ets rbv The subject is placed first as so often with St. Luke. Note at the close the participial construc- tion so constant with this author. Kpdftar- rov is avoided as a vul- garism by St. Luke in the gospel. Neither does he care for 8^076 ; this word is wanting in the Acts, and is rare in the gospel, while it is found twenty times in St. Matthew and fifteen times in St. Mark. INVESTIGATION OF WE " ACCOUNT 93 Here also the constant occurrence of icai at the beginning of sentences is for every careful reader of the Acts an evident proof that the author is following a source and not speaking in his own words. Otherwise the narrative is in detail (in style) so much altered and polished that the special character of the source is not immediately discernible. The broad style of the narrative, however, facilitates such corrections. In so far this passage can scarcely be compared with the concisely written " we " sections of the Acts ; but it must be evident to every one that the author who wrote St. Luke i. 1 ff. or the " we " sections or the discourse delivered upon Areopagus could not have written St. Luke v. 17-24 as it stands if he had not been following a " source. " It is most instructive to notice here and in dozens of other places how St. Luke, in his correction and revision of the Markan text, endeavours to imitate the phraseo- logy of the Bible (or of St. Mark). As far as he can he patches the garment with cloth of the same material. Besides St. Mark, we can distinguish a second source underlying the third gospel, whence are derived those sections which in subject-matter coincide with St. Matthew. In regard to extent and exact wording this source cannot be determined with certainty, yet for a number of sections it may be made out quite clearly and unmistakably. How has St. Luke used this source, which consists principally of sayings and dis- courses of our Lord ? LUKE THE PHYSICIAN (St. Matthew vii. 3) rl 5e &\fireis rb Kap< crou' #$es eV/3aAaj rb Kapcpos eK rov 6 17 SoKbs ^ T 0a\- /J.OV ffOV TT)V SoK6v } Kal is e/cj8a- s n rov o(f>da\uov rov (TOU. (St. Luke vi. 41) TI' Sc jSAeVets rb KapQos rb rov (rov, r 5e 5o/cb>' rV eV T<^ tSfqj o ov jSAeTrav ; WTTO- Kptrd, e/c)8oAe irpwrov rijv SoKbv K rov o(pda\fj.ov ffov, leal r6rc diaft\e\^eis rb K&pos rb tv r<$ o(pOa\/ji.

o9 would scarcely have been written by St. Luke if he had not found it in his authority. 'T-Tro/f/jm;? is likewise quite alien to the Acts, and the very unusual word SiapXeTreiv never again occurs in the gospel and the Acts. And so, even if St. Matthew were not in existence, we should con- clude that our author here depends upon a written source. Let us consider one other passage : (St. Matthew viii. 8) (St. Luke vii. 6) avoKpidels 8e b eKarov- 6 tKarovrdpx"ns \eywv ffKV\- rapxos ftyij' Kvptf, OVK f- Kvpte, (jL^j or/cuAAou as in St. Mark v. 35 = St. Luke viii. 49, fl/j.1 LKai'bs Iva. fj.ov virb \ov' ov yap iK.a.v6s et/ut rV ffreyyv elffe\6r)s' 'Iva virb r^v ffryr)i> p.ov dAAo fji6vov flirt Xoytf, eureAflr??. Kal laQfifferai o Tra?y (7) aAAa *Vf \6y(p, JJ.QV. Kal ia07)T 6 TraTs /xou. INVESTIGATION OF WE" ACCOUNT 95 (9) Kal yap eyb av- (8) Kal yap iy& it v-rrb fou- 8pUTr6s ei/ui virb 4 UTT' ^/tourbi/ alav etc Acts vii. 45 (ea)9 T&V T^L. AaveiS). iepevs TIS ovopari]. St. Luke, and he only, presents this construction about a dozen times in the gospel and the Acts. OvyaTepwv 'Aapwv without the article, like OvyaTepa *AfBpadp (xiii. 16). Compare for the style Acts xviii. 2 : evpwv Tiva 'lovSaiov ovo/juaTi *Aicv\av . . . ical nplo-/ci\\av yvvai/ca ai>Tov. (6) faav & St- 'Aapcov, teal TO evavTiov TOV Qeov, 1' rat? eVro- Xat? Kal SiKaiw- fJLCKTlV TOV KVpLOV wanting in St. Mark and St. John, occurring nine times in St. Luke (in St. Matthew three times). evavTiov and evavn are found in the New Testament only in St. Luke (six times) vide St. Luke xx. 26, xxiv. 19, Acts vii. 10, viii. 21, viii. 32. Tropeveo~Qai is a G LUKE THE PHYSICIAN (7) KOI OVK T\V avTols TGKVOV, tca- QOTI r\v f) 'JEXt- 6j3o<; eVeV. 67r' avTov}. Besides, only in Acts xix. 17 : e'TreVec-e o/3o? eVl Trdvras. Also hrtwfarnw lirl is only found with St. Luke. elirev oe and el-rev TT/OO? very fre- quent with St. Luke ; the latter is quite a characteristic of his style, and he often uses el-rev 8e when one would expect /cal instead, pr) o/3ov never occurs in St. Matthew, once in St. Mark, in St. Luke seven times : vide i. 30, ii. 10, viii. 50, xii. 32, Acts 100 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN vlov aoi, Kal Ka- xviii. 9, xxvii. 24 (" we " section !). Xeiriov MTpQS TrdvTtoV) nearly the same in Acts avrov. xix. 9). ov ^J. Occurs in the Acts, as here, exclusively in quotations from the LXX. irvev^. ay. 7r\r)aO. is exclusively Lukan vide i. 41, i. 67, Acts iv. 8, iv. 31, ix. 17, xiii. 9 (Tr\r)dQr\vai in St. Luke twenty-two times, never in St. Mark and St. John, in St. Matthew once ; irvev^a ayiov in St. Luke about fifty-three times, rare in the other writers). /c Koi\ia<; /-iTjrpo? is found once in St. Matthew, never in St. Mark and St. John, three times in St. Luke (vide Acts iii. 2, xiv. 8). After these remarks there is, I think, no need for me to prove that St. Luke in the above passage has not copied from a Greek source, but has either translated from another language or else has reproduced oral information quite freely in his own literary form. The latter alternative, as every careful critic will allow, is the more probable. In my paper on the " Magnificat " of Elizabeth (" Sitzungsberichte," 1900, May 17) I have, however, shown, according to the same method, and in great detail, that our author could not have been dependent on a Greek source for St. Luke i. 39-56, i. 68-79, ii. 15-20, ii. 41-52 passages which, verse by verse, betray his own style and vocabulary. I have, moreover, demonstrated, certainly in the case of the " Magnificat " and " Benedic- tus," that here at last all possibility of even an Aramaic 102 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN source disappears, and that, apart from suggestions afforded by numerous verses of the Greek Old Testament, all is the creation of St. Luke himself. 1 Since, then, this has been proved for fifty-nine out of 128 verses, we may justly extend our result to the whole of the first two chapters, which form the prelude of St. Luke's gospel. We therefore assert that the hypothesis of a Greek source is impossible, 2 and that the hypothesis of an Aramaic source is, indeed, possible, but not prob- able, because not suggested by any dependible criteria. 3 1 In Appendix I. I have repeated this proof in a yet more detailed form. 2 There is no force in the objection that the passages which St. Luke has taken from St. Mark are so steeped in his own peculiar style that the source is scarcely discernible, and that it is thus possible that a source may form the basis of chaps, i. and ii. The circumstances are here quite different. The characteristics of the Markan text are still discernible through the Lukan veil, but nothing of the sort appears through the veil of St. Luke i. and ii. The some- what large proportion of 8.% \ty6^va in these chapters finds its explanation in the LXX., with the exception of irfpiKptnrrfiv (i. 27) ; but here we may note that such words as Trepiaipf'iv, ircptao-TpdirTuv, iffpifpyoSf irepiepxcffQat, irfpie^fiv, Vfpi^vvv(r6ai t irfputpaT-fis, irtpiKv- K\ovv y irfpt\d(ji.Treiv, irepineveiv, irfptoucfiv, irfploticos, irepivlirTciv, irfpi- jroiiitrBai, irfpipp-riyvvt'a.t, -irepunraadat, irfpirpeireiv, are found in St. Luke (gospel and Acts), while they are wanting in the other gospels. The first half of the hymn of Zacharias, in spite of its parallelismus mem- brorum, is, as I have shown (loc. cit.) t a regularly formed, continuous Greek period, and by this amalgamation of two distinct styles, as well as by the repeated avrov-ri^wv of the verse endings, it bears wit- ness more clearly even than the prologue to the stylistic talent of the author. s These sections therefore probably depend upon oral traditions which has been freely treated in regard to form. I may excuse myself from entering into detail upon the question whether St. Luke used for chaps, i. and ii. an Aramaic source (so, e.g., Kesch), or was dependent upon oral tradition, seeing that the solution of the problem INVESTIGATION OF " WE " ACCOUNT 103 The situation is, in fact, the same as in the " we " sections : the style and vocabulary of the writer is everywhere so unmistakably recognisable, even in the minutest details, that a Greek source is excluded. 1 And yet at the same time the situation is quite different from that of the " we " sections ; for the narrative of St. Luke i.-ii., regarded from the linguistic standpoint, is the product of a combination of two elements the Greek of the Septuagint and the Greek of the author. The former element is for the most part lacking in the " we " sections (and generally in the second part of the Acts). From the linguistic point of view and there are not many writers whose works present does not bear upon the criticism of the " we " sections. In this con- nection the question whether the narrative of St. Luke i. and ii. is based upon a Greek source is alone of importance. We may here mention that in St. Luke i. 5-ii. 52 there are no less than twenty-five words which occur neither in the remaining chapters of St. Luke nor in the other three gospels, though they are found in the Acts namely, the verbs avevpt, WTiXanftavf 080.1, SiaTypfw, 4iriSe7v t tirHpaivciv, irfpi\dlj.irciv t irpoiropfvr6ai, and also a.ya\\laffiSy airei&rjy, airoypa

-Tr^TTjj, $6y/Jia, SouArj, SvvdffTijs, ^ai/Tt, euAa/Jrjs, Kpdros, ret , irarpta, air\6. i yx va > 0"rpaTi<, (rvyycvtia, rairflvwais, as well as os eVi. Since St. Luke and the Acts have in all about 203 words in common which are wanting in the other gospels, the number twenty-five is a larger proportion than one would expect for St. Luke i.-ii. that is, these chapters are at least as closely allied to the Acts as is the rest of the gospel. i Wellhausen asserts that St. Luke ii. was composed without regard to chap. i. Hence one or two written sources must be postulated. But I cannot so interpret the repetitions in chap. ii. (verses 4, 5), which alone, so far as I can see, afford any support to this assertion. The repetition, it seems to me, is easily explained by the importance of the information given. And, moreover, the com- plete homogeneity of the narrative of i. 5-ii. 52 and its smooth and natural development are inconsistent with Wellhausen's hypothesis. 104 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN passages so clearly distinguishable from one another in style and language St. Luke's gospel may be analysed into the following elements : (1) The linguistic type, represented by a large group (not all) of traditional sayings and discourses of our Lord, which has been corrected with a light hand and reads like a translation from the Aramaic as, indeed, it is, though the transla- tion is not from the hand of St. Luke ; (2) narratives slightly tinged with the style of the LXX., and derived in the main from St. Mark, 1 which have, however, undergone a vigorous revision, both in form and some- times in subject-matter, so that they read almost like the reviser's own text, though in very many places the characteristics of the source may be clearly discerned and though in some of his corrections the reviser has imitated the style of St. Mark's narrative; (3) the legendary narratives of chaps, i.-ii., and of some other passages, which in style and characteristics are modelled with admirable skill upon the Greek of the Septuagint, and yet verse by verse disclose a second element in the characteristic style and vocabulary of the author him- self the hypothesis of written Greek sources is here excluded; (4) the style of the prologue and those very elements which we find represented weakly under (1) and strongly under (2) and (3). These, by com- parison with the style and vocabulary of the Acts (second half, but more especially the long speeches and letters therein), fall into their place in a consistent i In addition to the Markan material, there is much besides that is similarly treated (even sayings of our Lord). INVESTIGATION OF WE " ACCOUNT 105 whole, and can be clearly distinguished as a constant element in this writer i.e., as his own style and vocabu- lary. 1 Without the Acts all would be dubious and problematical. But and let this be our last word in this connection are not written Greek sources (or one such source) employed in the first half of the Acts although these chapters are so completely Lukan in their linguistic attire ? If this is so, then it is also possible that the " we " sections, in spite of their distinctly Lukan characteristics, depend upon a written Greek source. Let us for the moment set aside the question whether, after all that has been disclosed in our previous investi- gations, the above conclusion can be validly drawn. Is there any evidence that a written Greek source, or sources, lies behind the first half of the Acts ? I here pay no attention to those countless bubble theories which have exercised the ingenuity of so many critics, and will only deal with what seems to me the only noteworthy attempt to prove a source that, namely, of Bernhard Weiss. This scholar, with great ingenuity, seeks to show that a single and, as it seems, continuous written source can be traced at the background of chaps, i.-xv. He gives as his authority numerous i The Greek is excellent vide Hieron., " Epist.," 19 : " Inter omnes evangelistas Lucas Graeci serrnonis eruditissimus f uit." It occupies a middle position between the KotviJ and Attic Greek (the language of literature) ; it is closely allied to the Greek of the books of the Maccabees, especially of the second book, and also shows strong points of likeness with Josephus. There is an intermixture of Semitic idioms, which are not due solely to the influence of the LXX. ; but these are not numerous, and are scarcely unintentional. 106 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN instances of discord and discrepancy found in every passage of considerable extent, which declare that St. Luke is only an editor, standing here in the same relation to his subject-matter as in the gospel he stands to St. Mark. The first objection to be brought against this theory is that from a linguistic point of view the parallel is not exact. The style and linguistic character of St. Mark and the sayings of our Lord Semitic in a Greek dress can be distinctly and clearly discerned in St. Luke's gospel, while nothing so distinct in style and language can be discerned underlying Acts i.-xv. It is true that in general the style of the first half of the Acts is more nearly allied to the style of the LXX., and is accordingly more Hebraic than that of the second half, and therefore stands midway between the latter and the style of the gospel. 1 But in each of the three parts of the great historical work (gospel, Acts I., Acts II.), so distinct from one another in linguistic character, passages are found in which the styles of the other parts make their appearance. Thus the gospel contains the prologue, carefully composed in the classical style, which is nearly allied to that of the best sections of Acts II. ; it contains, also, chaps, i.-ii., xxiv., which partly remind us of Acts I. The situation is much the same in Acts I. Neither does the vocabulary of Acts I. afford us any grounds for the hypothesis of written, Greek sources. In chaps, i. xii. and xv. there are, indeed, found about 188 words (including 83 verbs) i It shows the literary style of the KotHj. INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 107 which occur neither in the four gospels nor in the second half of the Acts ; but in chaps, xiii., xiv., xvi.- xxviii. about 353 words are found which are wanting in the four gospels and the first half of the Acts thus nearly double. 1 We are led to the same negative result by a linguistic investigation of the positive relationship of Acts I. to St. Luke's gospel. The gospel has in common with Acts i.-xii., xv., about sixty-two words which are not found in the other gospels nor in Acts II. ; but the same gospel has about seventy words, wanting in the other gospels and Acts I. in common with Acts II. 2 No difference, therefore, exists here (especially as Acts I. has 480 verses and Acts II. 527 verses) rather the greatest possible likeness. Finally, the discovery that a series of important words only occurs either in the one or the other half of the Acts respectively cannot be decisive ; for, in the first place, these words are also often found in the gospel of St. Luke ; secondly, as has been already observed by others, St. Luke, after he has once used a word, is fond of holding on to it, only to let it drop again after some little time ; and, thirdly, the semi-evangelic style of the first chapters of the Acts required a somewhat different vocabulary 1 One hundred and seventeen words, which are wanting in the four gospels, occur both in the first and in the second half ; they are thus exclusively common to the two halves. Using the lexicon only, one would be led rather to assume written sources for the second half if its subject-matter were not so much more extensive and varied than that of the first half. 2 Both in the first and also in the second half about seventy-one words are found which are wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John. 108 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN from that of the second half. For example, the word , Kapir6s, (iv. 'Eitfid\\civ occurs twenty-eight times in St. Matthew, sixteen times in St. Mark (twice in the spurious conclusion), twenty times in St. Luke, but only five times in the Acts (vii. 58, ix. 40, xiii. 50, xvi. 37, xxvii. 38" we " section !). Kapvos occurs nineteen times in St. Matthew, five times in St. Mark, twelve times in St. Luke, ten times in St. John, but only once in the Acts (ii. 30, icapirbs TTJJ ocrv iroieiv is therefore never found in the Acts. 2Kcii>8a\(fiv occurs fourteen times in St. Matthew, eight INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 109 hand, while aeftecrOai, rbv 6eov, eiriwracrOat,, ly/AeTe/oo? (vfjLTpos) t aTToXoyeiaQcu are found exclusively, or almost exclusively, in Acts II., 1 one at once notices that these words are either foreign to the synoptic gospels or of very rare occurrence in those writings. 2 But Weiss does not base his hypothesis concerning sources ultimately upon phenomena of vocabulary and style (see, however, " Einl. i. d. N. T.," s. 546), but upon phenomena of subject-matter, upon instances of discord and discrepancy, and upon certain passages, of frequent occurrence at the close of a group of stories, which present the appearance of remarks interpolated by the author into a text which was not his own. All times in St. Mark, in St. Luke twice only, but it is absolutely want- ing in the Acts. Sc$C" occurs about fifty times in the four gospels, eleven times in the Acts, up to chap. xvi. inclusive, afterwards only twice, and then in the "we" sections (xxvii.), but in the profane sense. That the use of $i$6vai must be very widely spread in the Greek of the gospels might at once be concluded from the fact that after chap. xv. it occurs only five times in the Acts, while up to that point it occurs thirty times, and in St. Luke sixty times. 1 'HufTfpos (vnfrepot) is found three times in the second half of the Acts (including once in the " we" sections, xxvii. 34 I), once in the first half, twice in the synoptic gospels (in St. Luke). 2 Of course, we cannot ^say that this is always the case. Thus irovnp6s is only found in the Acts from chapter xvii. onwards (eight times), while it occurs in St. Luke eleven times (the rare KO-K^S is remarkably equally distributed ; it occurs in St. Matthew three times, in St. Luke and St. Mark twice each, in St. John once, in the first half of the Acts once, in the second half three times, including once in a "we " section). Ac KCU, which is of such frequent occurrence in St. Luke's gospel (twenty-five times, including one occurrence in chapter ii.), and is as good as wanting in St. Matthew and St. Mark (one and two times), is also remarkably rare in the Acts (nine times if I have counted correctly, including occurrences in the "we" sections). 110 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN passages in the first half which point towards Antioch, or describe events which either happen in that city or originate from thence, certainly belong to the author himself, for while they stand out prominently from the rest of the narrarative, and are distinguished by their superior historical worth, they are also most intimately connected with the second half of the book (vide supra, pp. 5, 21 if.). The question of sources, accordingly, is concerned with those sections referring to St. Peter and St. Philip, chaps, i. 15 v. 42, viii. 5-40, ix. 32 xi. 18, xii. 1-24, xv. 1-33. 1 Now it is true that in every chapter of this portion of the book are to be found several instances of startling discrepancy and anomaly, which seem to point to the conclusion that two hands have here been at work. 2 But the interpretation of these phenomena is not so simple, for (1) we possess 1 I pass by the account of the conversion of St. Paul, ix. 1-31. I will only remark that I consider that Zimmer (" Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol.," Bd. 25, 1882, s. 465 ff.) has conclusively proved that this narrative is founded on the accounts in chaps, xxii., xxvi. i.e. t that this impersonal narrative presupposes these accounts essentially in the form given in these chapters. Of course, it does not therefore conclusively follow that the second half of the Acts was written before the first half, nor that chaps, xxii., xxvi. formed a source for St. Luke ; rather the latter conclusion is only a possibility. The phenomenon is at once intelligible if St. Luke edited the narrative of the conversion of St. Paul in accordance with an older sketch of his own which rested upon an account which St. Paul himself had given. This older sketch is the foundation of the accounts in chaps, xxii. and xxvi., and is freely employed in chap. ix. We have already shown in our discussion of the " we " sections that it is necessary to suppose that St. Luke possessed such sketches or notes. 2 Yet Weiss, I think, sees sometimes with too critical eyes, and assumes a greater number of glaring discrepancies than are necessary. INVESTIGATION OF "WE" ACCOUNT 111 the text neither of the Acts of the Apostles nor of St. Luke as they left the hand of the author. Just as the gospel has certainly suffered from interpolation in chaps, i., iii., and xxiv., 1 so also the Acts has suffered at the hand of correctors from the very first ages. This follows not only from the phenomena presented by the ancient so-called /3-text which is really not a homogeneous text, but a compendium of corrections and glosses already belonging to the first half of the second century rather the /3-text itself shows that this form of corruption has also infected the so-called a-text. We must therefore take into account not the possibility only, but even the probability that there are passages in the Acts where neither the a-text nor the /3-text are genuine, where, indeed, both have already suffered at the hand of an interpolator. Whether we can point with certainty to many such passages is another question ; 2 yet we have in the hypothesis of very ancient corruption and interpolation a trusty weapon for removing difficulties in the text of the Acts which do not permit of being otherwise smoothed away. The recourse to the hypo- thesis of sources, ill or carelessly used, is accordingly not 1 The verses i. 34, 35, iii. 23, which are responsible for the discrepancies with chap, ii., and the word Ma/xcfyi in i. 46 are certainly interpolated. There are also several interpolations and alterations in chap. xxiv. In reference to Mapt6na.Ti Ta/3i6d, fy Siep/xTjpeuoyweVi/ \fyerai Aopitds. Knowledge of Aramaic and the ability to translate an easy Aramaic text may well be assumed in a native of Antioch, and one who was for many years a companion of St, Paul. 120 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN only say that the Petrine stories, which in fact give us the author's description of the Church of Jerusalem, form a consistent whole. However, from the investiga- tion of the first half of the Acts we gain nothing which helps us in the discussions of " we " sections, for in the most favourable case this investigation only justifies us in accepting one or more Aramaic sources, a conclusion which is quite irrelevant to the problem of the " we " sections. Seeing that no one could ever imagine that these sections presuppose an Aramaic source, all the observations which we have made in regard to their vocabulary, style, and subject-matter observations which bring home to us the absolute impossibility of separating the " we " sections from the work as a whole remain unaffected in their convincing force. CHAFFER III IS IT KEALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCRIBE THE THIRD GOSPEL AND THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES TO ST. LUKE? SINCE it has been shown that from the manner in which the author of this great historical work treats his authorities nothing can be deduced to contradict his identity with the author of the "we" account, this identity may therefore now be regarded as established. But here another objection presents itself. It runs somewhat as follows : Though this identity be ever so probable, it cannot really exist, but must be pro- nounced to be a delusion ; for considerations of his- torical criticism absolutely prevent us from assigning the Acts of the Apostles to a companion and fellow- worker of St. Paul. 1 i This, it seems, is not asserted in the case of the gospel (tide supra, the opinion of Joh. Weiss) ; in fact, he who attributes the second gospel to St. Mark can find no difficulty in assigning the third gospel to St. Luke. One is not easily convinced, especially after Wellhausen's comments, that an original member of the community at Jerusalem, a disciple and friend of St. Peter, a man in whose house the apostles and saints came together, wrote the former book. Nevertheless, there is no adequate reason to dispute the tradition that he did so, and there is much to be urged in its favour. If, however, this tradition is accepted, we may demand that critics 122 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN " Absolutely prevent- us " but why ? From whence have we such certain knowledge of the apostolic should, in their criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, make more allowances for its author. Seeing that St. Mark of Jerusalem chiefly deals with our Lord's mission in Galilee, and that his work pre- supposes strata of tradition, which must have taken form within a period of three, or at the most four, decades ; seeing, also, that he has almost transformed our Lord into a spirit-being of Divine power, or had found such a conception of Him already in existence ; seeing, finally, that he and his authorities have modified the tradition con- cerning Jesus in accordance with the experience of the Christian Church if we then consider that St. Luke was a Greek physician from Antioch who may have first joined the Church anywhere in the Koman Empire about fifteen or twenty years after the Crucifixion, and that he had heard nothing of Palestine and had but slight acquaintance with Jerusalem ; if, moreover, we consider that he had not seen any of the twelve apostles (he had come into contact only with St. James, the Lord's brother), and that he may have first written down his wonderful experiences about twenty years after they had happened, how indulgent should we be in our judgment of him as an evangelist and historian ! But no other book of the New Testament has suffered so much from critics as the Acts of the Apostles, although, in spite of its notorious faults, it is in more than one respect the best and most important book of the New Testament. All the mistakes which have been made in New Testament criticism have been focussed into the criticism of the Acts of the Apostles. This book has been forced to suffer above all because an incorrect conception had been formed of the nature and relationship of Jewish and Gentile Christendom. It has been forced to suffer because critics were still influenced by a strange survival of the old venera- tion for an apostolic man, and without any justification have made the highest demands of a companion of St. Paul he must thoroughly understand St. Paul, he must be of congenial disposition and free from prejudice, he must be absolutely trustworthy and his memory must never fail ! It has been forced to suffer because of a dozen other demands equally senseless or exaggerated ; but above all because the critics sometimes have posed as the sublime " psychologist," some- times have wrapped themselves in the gown of the prosecuting barrister, at one time patronising or censuring, at another time accusing and tearing the author in pieces. With their dry logic ancj CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR? 123 and post-apostolic ages that j} can set up our mere knowledge against a surely established fact? I regard the following investigation purely as a work of supererogation, but it shall be treated as though it were not so. Yet where shall we begin ? How can we be ex- pected to disprove everything which has been con- jectured and advanced in this connection ? I must confine myself to the main points. (1) It was just as possible for St. Luke the disciple of St. Paul to make historical blunders, like the hysteron- proteron in regard to Theudas (v. 36), 1 as for any one else. He certainly believes himself to be an historian (see the prologue) ; and so he is ; but his powers are limited, for he adopts an attitude towards his authorities which is as distinctly uncritical as that which he adopts towards his own experiences, if these admit of a mira- culous interpretation. (2) The picture of the Church at Jerusalem in the first five chapters and the Petrine stories in point of clear- ness and credibility leaves much to be desired ; 2 but the with intolerable pedantry they have forced their way into the work, and by doing this have caused quite as much mischief as by the columns of ingenious but fanciful theories which they have directed against it. Even two critics of peculiar intelligence Overbeck and Weiz- sacker who have both done good work on the Acts have in their criticism fallen into the gravest errors. The results of all their toil cannot be compared with those reached by Weiss and Wendt, Kamsay and Renan. 1 Besides, the hysteron-proteron is not proved beyond doubt. It is also possible that there is a mistake in Josephus. 2 But the instances of alleged incredibility have been much exaggerated by critics. 124 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN chief traits of that picture the thoroughly Jewish character of the Church (which was, in fact, not a dis- tinct community, but a Jewish sect nearly allied to those Jews believing in a resurrection), its relationship to the Jewish population up to the appearance of Stephen, and the motive assigned for the first great per- secution 1 all these stand the test of historical criticism so far as one can speak of such a thing when only one authority exists (cf., however, the gospel of St. Matthew, which comes to our help for the description in Acts i. v.). Moreover, the legendary element is certainly not more striking nor more strongly marked here than in the gospel, and could have been deposited just as rapidly as the strata of gospel tradition. Besides, St. Luke may not have acquainted himself with these stories at the time when he came with St. Paul to Jerusalem. We, indeed, have not the least idea how long he remained there at that time. He may easily have become acquainted with his subject-matter or his sources if there is a question of one or more Aramaic sources for the first time between his sixtieth and eightieth year. But even if we do not choose to accept this hypothesis, and if, with good grounds, we regard St. Mark (for the gospel) and the evangelist Philip (with his daughters who were prophetesses) as St. Luke's authorities, 2 there is no reason why these stories should 1 In particular the record that it was a question concerning the Temple is highly trustworthy. 2 He met the former in Rome, the latter in Csesarea (vide supra, pp. 39 f .). The way he speaks of the latter in chap. xxi. or, rather, does not speak of him, but only mentions him significantly suggests that he valued him as an authority. St. Philip must have been aij CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR? 125 not have been already current about the years 55- 60 A.D. In his veneration for the Church of Jerusalem which, indeed, for a long period was the Church par excellence St. Luke agrees with St. Paul. Nor can any objection be raised against the representa- tion, indirectly given in the Acts, that the believers of Jerusalem first collected round the Twelve and their immediate following, and that then, as soon as they really became a Church, they set the Lord's brother at their head. The very fact that St. Luke does not describe this revolution arouses our confidence. He has related nothing which had not been handed down to him, and he possessed no tradition on this point. He is perfectly trustworthy so long as his faith in the miraculous, and his interest in his own " spiritual " gift of healing, do not come into play. (3) Much fault has been found, in general and in detail, with his description of the origin and develop- ment of the non-Jewish Churches, and thus of the 11 ecstatic " par excellence if all his daughters became prophetesses. But this is just what is expressly testified by St. Luke in Acts viii. 6f. : ' ol #xAoi TO?? \yo/ji.vois virb TOV &i\[irirov ofj.oOv/j.aS^)i' tv T Tovs Kal P\fireiv Ta (Tr^mo & tiroifi' iro\\a>v yap TUV ^x^ vroiv a/caflapra ftouvra qxavrj ntydfir) f^pxovro' vo\\ol 5e irapa\t\v- Kal x*>A.ol tQepairev9i]ffav. Philip, therefore, like St. Luke, was endowed with the miraculous gift of healing, and his miracles were such as to provoke the admiration of St. Luke himself. The ecstatic nature of such a man could not but colour his memory of the past. Indeed, the story of St. Philip in viii. 26 ff. is a crying witness that this was so. Here an angel speaks to St. Philip, and the Spirit speaks to him (&yye\os Kvpiov and irvfv/j.a are thus identical here !) ; indeed) 41 the Spirit of the Lord " catches away (apird&iv) Philip from the side of the ^Ethiopian. As for St. Mark, Acts xii. is sufficient testimony that he, at least in part, was one of St. Luke's authorities. 126 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN Church Catholic ; but we forget that only a few decades later ideas sprang up which completely replaced our author's conception of this historic process. In com- parison with these, St. Luke's description is remarkably trustworthy. If he so conceives of the presbytery of Jerusalem under the leadership of St. James, even in the time of Nero, that he represents them as saying (xxi. 20), Oecopeis, nroa-ai /-tupmSe? elv OVK TJSuj^flTjTe *v vop.(? MwiWwj Su:at(i>6r)i>ai t 4v rovrtf was 6 irKTTfvwv SiKaiovrai proclaim a doctrine which is considerably different from the doctrine of St. Paul, but still only one which might very well be attributed to a disciple of that apostle. 2 But had St. Paul himself quite thoroughly thought it out ? CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR? 129 Keim and Pfleiderer have acknowledged, after the exaggerations of the Tubingen school, that more agreement than contradiction prevails between this account and the impassioned description in Gal. ii. The mistakes which occur, above all the wrong date of the so-called Apostolic decree, can easily be attributed to an early writer who was not himself present at the council. When in chap. xvi. 4 he relates that St. Paul imposed this decree upon the Churches of Lycaonia, we notice that here too he was not present ; 1 and if in chaps, xxi., xxv. he yet again refers to the decree, it is possible that in the meantime something of the kind had really been issued. 2 The speeches at the council as well as the letter (xv. 23-29) are composed by St. Luke ; but we should notice in regard to these speeches, and, indeed, in regard to the great discourses throughout the Acts, that St. Luke was conscious that he must make St. Peter speak differently from St. Paul. In these speeches we, of course, miss all kinds of things that we might justly require ; but the fact that the author does presuppose this difference, and, indeed, even distinguishes the standpoint of St. Peter from that of St. James, is of far more importance than these defi- ciencies of his. Finally, St. Luke has been blamed with 1 This comes out strikingly in the very summary account (or, rather, in the silence) concerning St. Paul's important mission in Phrygia and Galatia (xvi. 6). Kamsay's theory that St. Luke was called in as a physician by St, Paul during his severe illness in Galatia is thus untenable. The two men first met at Troas. 2 This passage, however, rouses a suspicion that it is a later inter- polation. It pays no regard to chap, xv., and the verse is not in any close connection with the preceding one. I 130 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN special severity because in his description of St. PauPs mission he does not enlarge upon his disputes with the Jewish Christians, but confines himself entirely to the malicious assaults of the Jews, 1 and because, according i Critics have withdrawn nearly all their earlier objections to the accounts given in the Acts (a few blunders excepted) concerning the attitude of the Jews towards the apostles and their mission (and vice versa). But critics still and all the more positively assert the absolute incredibility of St. Paul's last conference with the Jews (in Kome), and hence conclude with absolute assurance that the authentic record breaks off at chap, xxviii. 16, and thus is undoubtedly a source but not the work of the author of the complete book. Even here I cannot admit their justification (concerning the close agreement in language and style between this concluding passage and the " we " section, see above, p. 65, note). In the first place, it is clear that the passage xxviii. 17-31 was intended to be the conclusion of the complete work ; the whole point of the passage lies in the quotation from Isaiah vi. 9 f., and in the inference drawn from this quotation : yvooffTbv ofiv fffro) V/JLIV ftrt rots $Qvfffiv birfffrdXr) rovro rb ffur^jpiov rov 6fov" avrol KOI aKofaovTou. The Jews are hardened in heart and are rejected, the Gentiles are accepted this was just the thema probationis of the whole work. As an artist, the author had a right to invent a scene which illustrated this thema, but this conference with the Eoman Jews was certainly not invented by him, for it agrees very badly with the inference he draws from Isaiah's prophecy. At this conference St. Paul explains the Gospel to the Koman Jews who crowded into his dwelling, and the result is : ol /we" tirei6ovro rots Xryoncvois ol 5e i{vi(rrovv. This result is not at all in agreement with the terrible curse of the quotation from Isaiah, which comes abruptly from St. Paul's lips like a pistol shot. The preceding account, therefore, is not founded on pure invention, but on tradition. So much the worse, it may be said, and all the more impossible that St. Luke wrote this passage. But what is really contained in the account ? It relates that St. Paul invited the Jewish elders in Rome to his house and brought forward in his apology all those points which he had made against the Jews both in Jerusalem and Cassarea. If we reject this passage, then we must also reject the previous passages ; but it is quite credible that St. Paul, wherever it appeared to him useful and called for, professed himself to be simply CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR? 131 to his representation, all discords within the Christian communities are brought to an end with the holding a Jew believing in a Resurrection with the addition only that he waited for the appearance of the Messiah Jesus ; and there is also no reason to doubt that his protestations (that he had committed no offence against his people, that he did not come to accuse them, and that he wore his chain because of the Hope of Israel) are historical. There is therefore nothing here to which any one could take exception. But what is most perplexing is the reply of the elders, that they had neither received any (official) written communication concerning St. Paul, nor had they even been informed or prejudiced by the report of some brother travelling to Rome ; for up to that time all they knew of this sect was that it was everywhere spoken against. The absence of official news is, of course, just possible, but that no report had been brought by some travelling brother is quite im- probable, while the indirect assertion that there were no Christians in Rome or that the Jews on the spot knew nothing about them for this is the inference we seem compelled to make is an impossi- bility. Weiss seeks to escape this difficulty by pointing out that the dispute concerning the Messiahship of Jesus in the Jewish community at Rome lay far behind the time of the present elders, and that the Christian Church then in Rome, as an essentially Gentile Christian community, kept themselves quite apart from the synagogue. But this expedient is obviously quite unsatisfactory. The dispute concerning the Messiahship of Jesus having once begun among the Roman Jews, could never have ceased ; and even if it had ceased, it is incredible that the elders should not have remained well informed about it, and yet in the following narrative it almost seems as if St. Paul now preached to them the Gospel message as something quite unknown to them. There is therefore a serious blunder in the text. But is it made better by shifting the responsibility for it on to the shoulders of a third and later writer, at a time when the Epistle to the Romans had long been widely known ? How, then, is the difficulty to be explained ? Asiwe saw above, the accounts cannot have been invented by St. Luke. What, then, had been reported to him, and what did he know about it ? Naturally not the speeches made at the conference by St. Paul and the elders for he was not then present, nor does he even pretend that he was an eye-witness but the fact that St. Paul had a conference with the elders, whom he had invited to his hired dwelling, and, further, a second scene, 132 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN of the apostolic council of Jerusalem. In reply to this grave objection, we have no right to appeal to the fact that, with the exception of the first short meet- ing in Troas and Philippi (during the second missionary journey), St. Luke first joined St. Paul at the com- mencement of the apostle's last journey to Jerusalem, and that then the time of fierce internal discord was past. St. Paul, of course, must often have told St. Luke about his relations with the Jewish Christians. Three points, however, must be taken into considera- tion : (1) St. Luke has not kept silence concerning the attitude of the" Church at Jerusalem and of St. James towards the Law even as late as the time of Nero, as we likewise in St. Paul's house, on which occasion he had an opportunity of expounding the Gospel to a considerable number of Jews (we do not know whether the elders were present) and of winning a portion of them for Christ. Nothing can be alleged against the authenticity of either of these scenes. It is quite credible that the Apostle had invited the elders whose attitude towards his trial before the emperor was of the highest importance to his house (not, of course, for the purpose of at once converting them, but in order to dispose them favourably towards himself at his trial so much, indeed, is said in plain words) and that these had accepted the invitation of a Roman citizen. Absolutely no objection can be raised against the authenticity of the next scene. We may also well believe that the elders hesitated to mix themselves up in the matter, and took up a diplomatic attitude. The idea of being mixed up in an accusation against a Roman citizen, with the prospect of being prosecuted as a calumniator, was not an alluring one, especially as St. Paul could also turn the tables against them, as he himself hinted. St. Luke wished to reproduce in a written record this diplomatic attitude, with which he was acquainted. But he has come to sad grief in his attempt, because writing carelessly and thoughtlessly as he often does, except when he had been an eye-witness he so exaggerates the cautious attitude of the elders, expressed in the words " we knew nothing of thee until now," until it almost seems as if all the infor- CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR? 133 have seen, but he was no more scandalised by it than St. Paul himself, for the members of this Church were also Jews by birth. (2) The plan which guided him in the Acts did not oblige him to enter at all closely into the discussion of internal discords among Christians indeed, must rather have prevented him from doing so. He wished to show how the Gospel had spread from Jeru- salem to Rome through the power of the Holy Ghost, working in the apostles and in chosen men, and how in its triumphant progress it had won over the Gentiles, while the Jewish people became more and more hostile, until at last their heart was definitely hardened against it. What place had the internal disputes of Christians in such a plan, especially when these affairs after 70 A.D. had so changed in aspect from what they were before ? That grand optimism which inspires St. Luke mation they had received concerning Christianity up to this time had come from abroad. Still, it is important that this is not stated in the text in so many words, even if it almost sounds like it. Putting the matter shortly, we may say that the bare facts of xscmii, 17 f. are proved to be quite credible both in themselves and because they do not Jit in at all well with the quotation from Isaiah which is applied to them ; indeed a writer who has here divided his account into two scenes (one with the elders, the other with ordinary Jewish visitors) is worthy of all trust, and does not lose his right to pass as a contem- porary who was himself on the spot, though not present at the conference. We may also believe that both scenes ended with a definite result ; that the elders treated the case diplomatically and that some of the Jews were won over to the Gospel. One unfortunate sentence alone that is attributed to the elders is quite incredible. Now, according to all the rules of criticism, no conclusion at all can be drawn from one such sentence, especially if it becomes neither more intelligible nor more reasonable, when it is ascribed to that familiar scapegoat who has to bear the responsibility of all the errors of homines noti. 134 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN as he writes, and which already proclaims him to be a forerunner of the apologists and of Eusebius, did not allow him to dwell upon disturbing trifles. Moreover, (3) even in his gospel he has done a good deal in the way of omission ; this is apparent at once as soon as he is compared with his authority, St. Mark. 1 But why might not a disciple of the apostles purposely suppress things, and why, because he has acted thus, must he be divested of this his qualification? Had not history itself in its inexorable yet providential progress made i See the notes on this point in Wellhausen's " Commentar " (e.g., ss. 42, 45, 134). Just as he has suppressed in the gospel things con- cerning our Lord which might give offence (e.g., the cry, " Eli, Eli ") or that showed St. Peter and the disciples in an unfavourable light, or inconvenient details, such as the command that the disciples should set out for Galilee, so also in the Acts of the apostles we may be sure that he has purposely omitted much which was not to St. Peter's or St. Paul's credit. Thus he can scarcely have been ignorant of the scene in Antioch between the two apostles (Gal. ii.). It is therefore all the more surprising that he should relate the quarrel between St. Paul and St. Barnabas concerning St. Mark, and should apparently take a side against the two last named. This is most remarkable, considering the limits he observes elsewhere in his narrative, and can only be explained by supporting a certain animosity against St. Mark on the part of the author ; for he certainly revered St. Barnabas. Vide infra for further details on this question. The prophecy in St. Mark x. 39, together with the whole section in which it occurs, is also one of the passages suppressed by St. Luke. He suppressed it because it had not been fulfilled in the case of St. John. I cannot convince myself that the passage is a vaticinium post eventum, and that St. John really suffered a martyr's death. The negative evidence of Irenasus and Eusebius is, it seems to me, much stronger than that which, according to others, is alleged to have stood in Papias. St. Mark x. 35 ff. is a prophecy of our Lord which was only partly fulfilled. Accordingly, in order to correct it and to take its place, the other prophecy was invented (St. John xxi. 23) that St. John would not die at all. CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR? 135 evident what a writer about the year 80 A.D. must relate and what he had to pass over? However, in regard to the author's representation of the attitude of the Roman magistrates, all objections of this kind that critics have felt obliged to urge against St. Luke have been proved to be worthless. He is certainly biased in this part of his narrative. He wished to show that the Roman authorities were much more friendly to the youthful Church than the Jewish authorities and the Jews, who unceasingly strove to stir them up against the Christians. But Ms bias is in accordance with actual fact. And even if St. Luke has gone too far with it in some places, 1 as, for instance, in the gospel, where he exonerates Pilate beyond all bounds, yet this is far from being a proof that he cannot have been a companion of St. Paul. 2 In the section chaps, xvii.-xix. all kinds of in- equalities and small deviations from the facts related 1 I have not, however, been able to find instances of such exaggera- tion in the Acts, unless it be the case that the account of the progress of the trial in Caesarea (see also xxviii. 17-19) is somewhat too favourable to the Romans which is at all events probable. 2 And, besides, he has also recounted some things which tell against the authorities (as at Philippi), and, on the other hand, he has not suppressed the counsel of Gamaliel and its good effect on the Sanhedrin. I do not know how to solve the great problem which is presented in the two concluding verses in the Acts (could the author have intended to write a third book ? laying stress upon the irpwrov [instead of irp6T(poi>'\ in Acts i. 1). But to imagine that he did not relate the martyrdom of the apostle lest he should efface the impres- sion of the friendliness of the Eoman authorities is indeed a poor solution of the difficulty. How can we imagine an early Christian suppressing the account of an apostle's martyrdom for a political reason ! 136 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN in St. Paul's epistles have been pointed out some with reason, others are only alleged. On the whole, it may be said that these three chapters form a brilliant pas- sage in the Acts of the Apostles, although the author was not here an eye-witness. 1 The historical data in St. Paul's epistles confirm St. Luke's narrative in a really remarkable way, and show quite clearly that he had here one or more reliable sources of information. One or two of these have been with good reason found in chap. xix. 29 namely, Aristarchus and Gaius (see p. 10, note 1 ); it is difficult to understand why they should be mentioned here if they were not St. Luke's autho- rities ; we remember, also, that on a later occasion St. Luke took the long journey to Caesarea and from thence to Rome in company with Aristarchus. If we are astonished to find that we learn more concerning St. Paul from those passages of the Acts where the author does not write as an eye-witness than from the rest of the book, we forget that in the opinion of St. Luke and of his contemporaries nothing greater or more wonderful could be related of the apostle than what is recorded in the " we " sections. The incidents in question have been summarised above on page 33 (the exorcism of the girl " possessed with the spirit of divination," an instance of raising from the dead, the healing of a gastric fever, but above all St. Paul's con- duct during the storm, together with the apparition of the angel and his prophecy) ; these at least are in- ferior to nothing that St. Luke has imparted to us 1 Therefore mistakes made here must not be pressed without qualification against St. Luke as an author. CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR? 137 from reports he received. But if the " we " account offers a problem both in regard to what it contains and what it omits, yet this problem is surely not rendered less difficult by regarding it as a separate document. No one has as yet been able to fix with any probability the boundaries of such an hypothetical document. Some critics go back as far as chap, xi., and even include chaps, xxi.-xxvi., while others diminish the number of the existing ninety-seven verses by a theory of inter- polation. Perplexity also reigns in regard to the pur- pose of the supposed author of such a document whether he wished to write a diary for himself or a biography of St. Paul. But this perplexity disappears even if everything does not become clear when we once realise that St. Luke, who accompanied the apostle as a physician and a fellow-worker, and wrote his history at a much later date, first joined the apostle as his companion and helper during his last two great mis- sionary journeys (from Troas to Jerusalem and from Caesarea to Rome), while before this he had only once been with him from Troas to Philippi and then only for a short time. If we keep the fact well in view that, according to the " we " sections, St. Luke was not in St. Paul's company at the climax of his ministry that is, during the years between his sojourn in Philippi and his last journey to Jerusalem then most of these small difficulties find their explanation* Moreover, the pic- ture which he has given of St. Paul is not, according to the ideas of ancient days, such as an eulogist would draw, but is an historical portrait. All eulogistic touches are here wanting, while the picture of the 138 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN Church of Jerusalem, and of the activity of the apostles in its midst, abounds with them. 1 Of course, the Acts of the Apostles is not a mirror which allows us to gaze into the very soul of St. Paul ; but are we obliged to assume that a disciple of an apostle 2 must have been capable of seeing into the heart of the author of the Epistle to the Galatians and the two epistles to the Corinthians, and of portraying what he saw there ? Yet, on the other hand, all that St. Luke has performed in portraying St. Paul by means of the three great discourses (in Antioch, Athens, and Ephesus) deserves high praise. Judging simply from the epistles, we may well believe that the apostle would have spoken to receptive Jews, in substance at least, just as he speaks in the Acts at Antioch, and to Gentiles as he speaks at Athens, and that he would have exhorted his own converts just as he does at Miletus ; but this last dis- course also contains apart from the sentimental touches 3 peculiar to St. Luke several distinct utter- ances whose authenticity (as regards their content) is confirmed by the epistles. 4 Think only of his boast- * Dark shadows are, however, not wanting even here (the story of Ananias, the quarrel of the Hellenists and Hebrews, the division between those Christians who were Pharisees and the rest of the Church). 2 Moreover, we do not know whether St. Luke was a disciple of St. Paul in the exact sense of the word. The way in which he, in chap. xvi. 18, places himself side by side with St. Paul is not in keeping with this view, although he gives him all due honour in xvi. 14. 3 St. Paul could also yield to the same feelings at times, but the emotional always speedily gave place to the heroic. * It is well to notice that St. Luke was present at Miletus, but not at Antioch and Athens. CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR? 139 ing, his passionate assertion of his own personal dis- interestedness and the remarkable expression (xx. 28), TTJV KK\r)(riav TOV 6eov 9 rjv TrepnroLija'aTO Sia rov at/uiTOf TOV ISlov. 1 If the words of xiii. 38, 39 remind us of the epistles to the Galatians and Romans, so this ex- pression reminds us of Ephesians and Colossians ; indeed, this whole discourse to the Ephesians calls to mind the epistles to the Thessalonians. The author of the Acts of the Apostles not a disciple of the apostle ? Who, I ask, except one who knew St. Paul personally could portray him as he appears in this book ? Was it possible for an admirer of the apostle at the begin- ning of the second century to give so concrete a narrative and to avoid eulogy to such a degree ? Even if no " we " appeared in the whole book, it would scarcely admit of doubt that the author so far as concerns the history of St. Paul's missionary work from chap. xiii. to the conclusion wrote on the authority of an eye-witness with whom he was a contemporary. In truth no one has yet been able to draw a convincing portrait of St. Paul from his epistles alone. All attempts in this direction have led to productions which true historians have ignored. For these the portrait given in the Acts of the Apostles has always remained a concurring factor, because the abundance of actual fact which is therein afforded still makes it possible to pass behind the external action to the inward motive. But the Paulinism of St. Luke this has been just as often asserted as disputed. Here one point has been 1 The phrase is all the more remarkable in that this valuation of the Church is found in St. Luke alone. 140 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN already noticed namely, that in vocabulary (not only in words, but also in expressions) he resembles St. Paul much more closely than does St. Mark or even St. Mat- thew (vide mpra, pp. 19 ff., note). But Acts xxvii. 35 and St. Luke xxii. 19 are already sufficient in themselves to prove St. Luke's Paulinism in the superficial sense. St. Luke is even more of a universalist than St. Paul, because with the Greeks universalism was never a matter of question ; what insight, therefore, he shows in his story of the conversion of the centurion of Caesarea, in that he here, though theoretically, yet so thoroughly appreciates the difficulty felt by the Jew ! * Towards the unbelieving Jews St. Luke's attitude is almost more Pauline than that of St. Paul himself. He holds different views from St. Paul concerning the law and Old Testament ordinances, 2 and St. Paul's doctrine of sin and grace lies far outside his sphere of thought. He has a boundless indeed, a paradoxical love for sinners, together with the most confident hope of their forgiveness and amend- ment 3 an attitude of mind which is only tolerable when taken in connection with his universal love for mankind. 4 This is quite un-Pauline. Nor is it here simply a question of difference in temperament only ; in this point St. Luke is in no sense a disciple of St. Paul ; 5 and just because he does not pierce into the i Of course his respect for the religio antiqita helped him here. a Wellhausen (" Luk," B. 134) very rightly points out that, according to St. Luke, blasphemy against the Temple was not the alleged reason for our Lord's condemnation. s See Wellhausen, " Einleitung," 8. 69. * Herder has rightly named him the evangelist of philanthropy. 5 How St. Paul regarded sin and sinners is well known. We may r AN HE BE THE AUTHOR? 141 depths of the problem of sin, he has no deep into the doctrine of Redemption. His in spite of aJl the deep and precious things he tefls us of Christ, is his weakest point. In repress the suspicion thai with him ererjthing is centrated in the magical efficacy of the Christ* is the forms the test of the new religion. Faith is not in the least a necessary condition. First the miracle and its effect, then faith ; this is St Lake's order. How deep M .I _* , , _ a 1 !, , , _ _ T- _ _ _ _ __? _ _ AL f* ana precious appears mat cumbrous gnosis ot toe Cross *+f fJLj_i !.! n . .....I i, 1 *l^_ > i ? ^g c*. of Const wmcn occopiea toe mental energies ot 9C. Panl, how profound and worthy his difficult doc time of Justification by Faith, of Spirit and Sew Life, when compared with these Greek superficialities I It is true that St. Paul also believes in the magical sacrament, that he also recognises the Spirit of Christ operating as a power of nature ; but kg tf not eomtcmUd with Mag*. Became his nidi masters his it pierces to the very depths of his of magical rite. St. Luke, however, WE'" to tented in this lower sphere, and yet, at the same he m reproduce thg deeper things which be had 5. 10, ir. 4.;6aL vL 10; (ftfce GcBkOo an fc.frtKnidofatrr). 142 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN from others, from our Lord and St. Paul. He is no Paulinist, 1 but he shows quite clearly that he is acquainted with Paulinism and draws from its resources. Could, then, one so mentally constituted have been and have remained a companion of St. Paul ? We may answer with the counter question : What idea have we formed of those Greeks who were St. Paul's companions and friends ? If all of them, or even only the majority of them, were Paulinists in the strict sense of the word, how was it that the Gentile Church in Asia, in Greece and in Rome, became so entirely un-Pauline ? Where, indeed, did Paulinism remain, except with Marcion, and what did Marcion make of it ? We must determine not only to accept a more elastic definition of Paul- inism, but above all to form a different conception of what St. Paul tolerated in his nearest disciples. He who confessed Christ as the Lord, who shunned the riches and the wickedness of the world, who saw God revealed in the Old Testament, who waited for the Resurrection and proclaimed this faith to the Greeks, without imposing upon them the rite of circumcision and the ceremonial law this man was a disciple of St. Paul. In this sense St. Luke also was a Paulinist. 2 He 1 Neither are his ethics Pauline. His " Ebionitism" is Hellenistic in character ; it implies simply abnegation of the world and love for sinners. And yet the word aydtrrj never occurs in the Acts and only once in the gospel (xi. 42, " love of God ") ; ayaira.v also is wanting in the Acts. His attitude of aversion from the rich coincides with the attitude of the poor in Palestine, but its motive is different. 2 The problem which exists in regard to St. Luke's relation to the epistles of St. Paul (vide supra) is without significance for the question whether he was the author of the complete history. If, as CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR ? 143 was a Paulinist too because of his respect and reverence for the Apostle, which taught him to recognise in St. Paul an authority almost as great as St. Peter, 1 and led him to mould himself on St. Paul's preaching, as far as was possible for a man of his nationality and per- sonality. This personality, with all its large-hearted- ness, has its own distinct and unique traits. If we read the Acts of the Apostles guided by the ruling fashion of literary criticism, we may analyse it into some half- dozen separate strata of documents ; but if we read with discernment we discover one mind and one hand even in that which has been appropriated by the author. 2 The gulf which divides St. Luke as a Christian from St. Paul shows him at a disadvantage, but there is yet another and more favourable side presented in his works. Side by side with his predilection for the religious magic and exorcistic superstitions of Hellenism he possesses the mind and sense of form of a Greek ; through both these qualities he has become in his is believed, signs can be found of his having read these epistles, it would not be surprising ; if these signs are considered fallacious, it is not of much importance. Yet the hypothesis that these epistles were not used by our author becomes the more unintelligible the later the date which it is thought necessary to assign to the book. In my opinion, it cannot be claimed in the case of any one of St. Paul's epistles that the author of the Acts must have read it (see, on the contrary, Weizsacker and Jacobsen) 1 Thess., Coloss., and Ephes. are the first to suggest themselves. But, on the other hand, there is enough found in the Acts to show that the author had knowledge both of the system of thought and of the language of the author of those epistles. 1 Concerning St. Luke and St. Peter, see Wellhausen, "Luk," s. 124. 2 Apart, of course, from arbitrary changes and interpolations of later date. 144 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN writings an architect of that Gentile Church which has conquered the world and has spiritualised and indi- vidualised religion. This same man, like Philip a seer of spirits and an exorcist, was the first to cast the Gos- pel into Hellenistic form and to bring the clarifying influence of the spirit of Hellenism to bear upon the evangelic message. This would be evident even if he had written nothing else than St. Paul's discourse at Athens ; but in his gospel he has Hellenised the message of Christ, both in substance and form, by simple and yet effective means, and in the Acts he has become the first historian of the Church. In this work of art for the Acts of the Apostles is nothing less ; it is, indeed, a literary performance of the first rank, in construction 1 no less than in style he has produced something quite unique and lasting. We do not know the effect which the book produced, but we know that it was canonised, and that means a great deal. St. Luke is the first member and the archetype of a series of writers which is distinguished by the names of St. Clement of Rome (representing the Roman Church 2 ), the Apologists, St. Clement of 1 Much might be urged against the construction technically, be- cause of the way in which it narrows down, first to the history of St. Paul and at last to the account of the shipwreck ; but from a psychological point of view it is unsurpassable. The book begins with the solemn tones of the organ and the peal of the bells and with the vision of a new and heavenly world ; we are led gradually into the world of real things, and at last, in the company of the great apostle, we are caught in the storm, we look in his face and hear his words. 2 The significance of the Koman Church in this respect has not been sufficiently noticed. It may be gathered from the first epistle of St. Clement, which cannot be rated at its right value so long as this element in it is not appreciated. CAN HE BE THE AUTHOR ? 145 Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. The great process of transformation under the influence of the sober Hellenic spirit was begun by the very man who at the same time remained rooted in the twofold miracle- world of Palestine and Greece, and who yielded to no Jewish Christian in his ardent and passionate longing for the last great day of wrath. 1 This in itself is another proof that we really have here a man of the first Greek generation in the history of Christianity. 2 He stood in personal intercourse with Christians of the first generation and with St. Paul. In order to realise how absolutely differently those felt who were Hellenists and nothing else, and who had not breathed the air of the first ages, we need only study the works of St. Clement of Rome, whose date is so little later, and of St. Ignatius. St. Paul and St. Luke stand as contrasting figures. Just as the one is only comprehensible as a Jew who yet personally came into the closest contact with Hellenism, so the other is only comprehensible as a Greek who had nevertheless personal sympathy with primitive Jewish Christendom. Such a gift of sympathy could alone inspire a Greek with the tremendous courage that enabled him to write a gospel and to become the first historian of primitive Christen- dom. The other evangelists are all Jews by birth, the author of the gospel of the Hebrews included. 1 The fact that the Parousia was delayed can no longer be dis- guised, but as yet no doubts have arisen that it would still come. 2 Wellhausen lays great stress on this, and rightly so ("Luk," s. 97 and elsewhere). CHAPTER IV EESULTS A NAME counts for nothing in the case of history this aphorism is only partly true. No names, of course, can make an incredible story authentic or probable, but the name of a contemporary and eye-witness guarantees the truth of a probable story, provided that there is no other reason for raising objections. And, further, the name tells us, as a rule, where, under what circumstances, and with what motives a tradition took its final and definite form. But we must first of all picture to our- selves the personality which stands behind the name "Luke." If the Luke whom St. Paul has mentioned three times in his letters is identical with the author of the great historical work, then for us he remains no longer in obscurity, and the criticism of his narratives is confined within definite bounds. During the so-called second missionary journey, at Troas (or shortly before) Luke the Greek physician of Antioch encountered St. Paul. We have no knowledge when and by whose influence he became a Christian, nor whether he had previously come into sympathetic touch with the RESULTS 147 Judaism of the Dispersion ; only one thing is certain that he had never been in Jerusalem or Palestine. He had at his command an average education, and possessed a more than ordinary literary talent. HisjnedicaLpnis fession, seems to have leoljiirci to Christianity, for he embraced thajb religion in the conviction that by its Inearis and by^quite new methods he wouldTbe^enabied to heal diseases jind to drive out evil spirits, and above all to become an effectual physician" of the SOtrtT Directed by hfs very calling to the weak and wretched^ his philanthropic sympathy with the miserable was deepened in that he accepted the religion of Christ, and as a physician and evangelist proved and proclaimed the power and efficacy of the Name of Jesus and of the Gospel. He joined St. Paul at once in the capacity of a fellow-worker, crossing over with him and with Silas to Philippi and preaching the Gospel there (xvi. 13). But the companionship was only of short duration. He parted from the Apostle the reason is unknown while yet at Philippi, 1 to join him again after some years had passed this time also at Troas. Then he accompanied St. Paul from Troas by Miletus and Csesarea to Jerusalem, together with a number of com- panions, including the Jewish Christian Aristarchus of Thessalonica. In Jerusalem, where he saw James and the presbyters, but none of the apostles (not even St. Peter), he seems to have stayed only a short time, for i It is therefore not probable that Origen and Pseudo-Ignatius are right in their assertion that he is the unnamed brother (2 Cor. viii. 18), ov evaivos iv rip vayyf\icf 8ia iratrwit ruv iKKXf\ffiG>v, or the other who (2 Cor. viii. 22) is also introduced without a name, 148 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN he does not represent himself as having been an eye- witness of what befel the Apostle here and in Csesarea. 1 But when St. Paul set out as a prisoner on the long voyage to Rome, we find St. Luke again in his com- pany. With this exception, Aristarchus alone of the Apostle's friends voyaged with him. St. Paul was an invalid when he began the voyage (this was probably the reason why a physician went with him). Only one day after the Apostle had begun his voyage he was obliged to land at Sidon to take advantage of the special care of his friends, having obtained the per- mission of his humane commanding officer. In Malta, where they were compelled to make a considerable stay, St. Luke (together with the Apostle) had the oppor- tunity of practising his medical art (Acts xxviii. 2 f.), with the aid of Christian science. In Rome he tarried a considerable time with St. Paul as his physician (see Coloss. and Philipp.), and took part in the work of evangelisation (Philemon 24). Yet he did not, like Aristarchus, share the Apostle's imprisonment (Coloss. iv. 10). Besides Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Demas, and others, he there made the acquaintance of St. Mark, the nephew of Barnabas (Coloss. iv. 10). 2 u Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. iv. 11) that is the last we hear of him. But we know from his works that he survived the destruction of Jerusalem, and was still at work a 1 At least the fact of his being an eye-witness is uncertain. 2 St. Luke also came into personal acquaintance with four among the number of prominent men in the primitive community at Jerusalem Silas, Mark, Philip, and James. He was, however, more with the two former than the others. RESULTS 149 good time afterwards. We cannot discover with cer- tainty where he went after leaving Rome not, at all events, to Jerusalem and Palestine, nor even to Antioch or Macedonia (both these provinces are excluded because of the way in which he writes of them in the Acts). He could hardly have remained in Rome (though indeed this is not excluded by the Acts, it is neverthe- less not probable). We are therefore left to seek him either in Achaia (according to the earliest tradition) or in Asia. Asia, and more especially Ephesus, are suggested by the way in which he has distinguished this city and has made of St. Paul's parting discourse to the Church of Ephesus a farewell of the Apostle to his converts in general (see especially xx. 25 : ty/,e9 irdvres ei> ofc SirjXOov Krjpuaawv TTJV /3acrt,\elav). That he has special interest in this city appears still more clearly to me from the heartfelt tones in which he speaks and the great anxiety which he expresses, but above all because he knows and refers to the later history of the Church in that city. 1 Similar traits are not found in the author's reference to any other Church. 2 From the prominence given to Ephesus it does not necessarily follow that 1 Seethe detailed warning, xx. 29 f . : 'Eyw o/So 8ri li^iv [does this mean death or departure ?] /wow \VKOI jSoptts tis v/j.iis fj.i] 4i>ai Oavfjiaffiav virb r$>v rov $i\iirirov Ovyarepwv /ij/Tj/iOfeuei, T& vvv (T7j/*6J(OTeo>'* VfKpov y&p avdffTaiTiv KOT* avrbv ytyovviav IffTopf'i Kal a5 ird\iv eTfpov irapd8oov irepl lovffrov T))V ^iriK\t]6fVTa "Bapffa&av yeyovds, us STjA.Tj'Hjptoi' (pdpfjiaKOV p.iri6vTos Kal ^Sej/ ebjS^s 5i^ rfyv rov Kvpiov \dpiv viropflvavTos. . . Kal &\\a 54 6 aurbs a>s e/c irapa56fffus aypdfpov fls avrbv %Kovra irapaTtQcirai fvas re nvas irapafioAas rov ffurfjpos K. Si- Sos Kal avrbs rov KO.T' avrbi> ffvyypd/j./j.aros r^v alrlav jrpovOrjKfi' 5t' fyv 7re7TOtJ)Tai r^v o~vvraii>) 5tj\(/av a>s &pa TTO\\WV Kal a\\ci)V Trpoirtreff- rtpov ^7rtT6TTj5eu/cj/ Sffjyrjaiv woffiffaaOai u>v avrbs TreTr\T)pov atr^aXr) \6yuv uv avrbs IKO.VWS rty a.\T\Qeia.v KaTfi\^}V KK\t}v TOV Beov TU>V ovffuv tv rfj 'l XpiffrQ 'lij, Stephen). RESULTS 167 fluence in the gospels, in so far as that influence had not already infected the very blood of Judaism, are thus sharply defined. 1 It is a recognised fact that the gospel of St. Mat- thew speedily forced the two other gospels into the background in the Gentile Churches. If they had not been canonised, certainly St. Mark and probably St. Luke would have succumbed. What is the fault in St. Luke and St. Mark ? and wherein lies the strength of St. Matthew ? The gospel of St. Matthew was written as an apology against the objections and calumnies of the Jews, which were soon also adopted by the Gentiles. This evangelist alone has a distinct interest in our Lord's teaching as such ; he instructs, he proves, and all the while he keeps the Church well in the fore- ground. 2 Already in the period which immediately followed the composition of this gospel these charac- teristics were found to outweigh all other advantages. Here, indeed, as we draw our investigation to a con- clusion, we are brought face to face with a paradox. The gospel which in contents and bias is farthest removed from the Hellenic spirit the gospel which is throughout occupied with sharp and detailed con troversy with the unbelieving Jews of Palestine was soon seized upon by Greeks themselves as the 1 For example, it at once follows that the legend of the Virgin birth, first vouched for by St. Matthew, arose on Jewish Christian soil, more particularly among the Christians of Jerusalem. 2 Wellhausen rightly lays special stress on this point. Note how St. Matthew restricts or deletes all novelistic traits, while he intro- duces an element of ceremonious solemnity into the style of his narrative. 168 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN gospel most to their mind, 1 because it answered the requirements of apologetics and of the controversy with Judaism in short, because of its theological and doctrinal character and its solemn, ceremonious style. Hence it followed that this gospel replaced Paulinism in the Gentile Church that is, in so far as this Church went beyond universalism in the direction of distinctly Pauline doctrine, she interpreted St. Paul in accord- ance with St. Matthew. And yet this result is not so wonderful after all. Of course, if we grant the truth of the old theory that Paulinism is equivalent to Gentile Christianity, then it is all most perplexing. But as soon as we realise what Paulinism really was namely, the universalistic doctrine and dialectic of a Jewish Christian it becomes easily comprehensible that Paulinism should have been replaced by St. Matthew, the gospel which both in positive and negative qualities, both in aim and in method, is much more nearly akin to it than are St. Mark and St. Luke i Next to St. John, which in this respect is most like St. Matthew in fact, is St. Matthew glorified. "St. John" also is a Jew, and, indeed, like u St. Matthew," a Jew of Palestine, but he also pays regard to the circumstances of the Diaspora in which he lived. If we have called St. John a glorified St. Matthew, because his aim also is didactic and apologetic, we may with equal justice call him a glori- fied St. Mark and St. Luke, for he shares in the aims which domi- nate both these evangelists. By means of the historic narrative he strives, like St. Mark, to show that Jesus is the Son of God, and, like St. Luke, to prove that He is the Saviour of the world, in opposition to the unbelieving Jews and the disciples of St. John the Baptist. Thus the leading ideas of the synoptists are found in combination in St. John. This cannot be accidental. From this conclusion light is thrown upon one of the great problems which this book presents. RESULTS 169 (in the gospel). St. Paul was overshadowed by St. Matthew because of the Pauline dialectic, which very soon proved to be perilous, furthermore because with St. Paul the fulfilment of the Old Testament seemed to be overshadowed by his doctrine of the abrogation of the Law, and lastly because of the diffi- culty of reconciling the doctrine of the Freedom of the Will with his theology. And so the gospel which in every characteristic trait bears witness to its origin from Jerusalem, and which is absorbed in the con- troversy between the Jews and Jewish Christians, has become the chief gospel of the Gentile Church. How- ever, in regard to their subject-matter, all the gospels, that of St. Luke just as much as the others, are only varieties of the same species, because they are all of them built up upon traditions and legends which have one and the same native home, and are separated from one another in time by only a few decades of years. Two of the authors stand out in the light of history St. Mark and St. Luke, the companions of St. Paul. It is not to be wondered at that we do not know the real name of the third writer; for the gospel of St. Matthew is not in the least a book which reflects the views of one man or of a small circle. It was compiled for the use of the Church, and has been edited probably several times. 1 It may be called the first liturgical book of the Christian Church, in the first place of the Church of Palestine, in so far as the latter, i In its original form it was older than St. Luke ; in its present form it is probably the latest of the synoptic gospels. A whole series of passages are palpably later additions. 170 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN having outgrown its initial stage of legal Judaic Chris- tianity, was no longer a Jewish sect, and thus was also ahle to contribute something of its own to the Gentile Church. 1 This Gentile Church, indeed, so soon as it i This sketch of the peculiar character and of the circumstances of the origin of the synoptic gospels receives weighty confirmation if we institute a linguistic comparison of these works with the LXX. and at the same time note the unclassical words which occur in them (by unclassical words I mean those for which we have no evidence of occurrence previous to the time of the gospels ; this is, of course, an unsafe criterion, especially as we now have the papyri). The best books of reference on this point are Moulton and Geden's " Concordance " and Hawkins, locc.it. pp. 162-71. These show us that in point of language St. Luke stands by far the nearest of all to the LXX. , and has relatively the fewest unclassical words (of the 319 words which are peculiar to him in the New Testament here we omit the Acts 239 are found in the LXX., i.e. three-quarters, and only 40 of the 319 words, thus one-eighth part, are unclassical). St. Matthew stands in the mean position nearer, that is, to St. Luke (of the 112 words which are peculiar to him in the New Testament 76 are found in the LXX., i.e. less than two-thirds, and 18 of the 112 words, thus about one-seventh, are unclassical). St. Mark is furthest removed from the LXX. (of the 71 words which are peculiar to him in the New Testament only 40 are found in the LXX., i.e. little more than half, and 20 of the 71 words, thus more than a quarter, are un- classical). The relationship of St. Mark to the LXX. becomes yet more distant if we take into consideration the words not occurring in the LXX., which are common to him and St. Matthew, to him and St. Luke, and to all three, for they must all be set down to his account, This result is also confirmed in matter of detail. For instance, the plural ovpavoi is not frequent in the LXX. (for twelve places with ovpav6s there is one with ovpavoi). Accordingly the plural is also infrequent in St. Luke (for nine places with ovpav6s there is one with ovpavoi). But in St. Mark, for two passages with oi>pav6s we already find one with ovpavoi, and in St. Matthew he is accordingly here the most distant from the LXX. the proportion is just the reverse. What is the explanation of these facts ? They coincide with our results which are essentially the same as those of Wellhausen. There lies behind St. Mark not the Greek of the LXX., but Aramaic, which has RESULTS 171 became a teaching Church and that soon came to pass preferred St. Matthew, and let St. Luke fall into the background. Yet the influence of this gospel of the Saviour of Sinners still continued to work, and still carried on its own special mission in the Christian community, while in the portrait of St. Paul drawn in the Acts, far more than in his own epistles, the great apostle still lives in the Catholic Church. been translated into a rude Greek of its own. The author was thus not a Jewish Christian of the Diaspora, who lived in the atmosphere of the Greek Bible, even though he was acquainted with it, but a Jew of Palestine (this coincides with what we know of the person of St. Mark). In contrast with him, the author of the third gospel subtracting all that he has borrowed from St. Mark lives in the atmosphere of the LXX. ; he is accordingly by descent a Jew of the Diaspora or a Gentile by birth. The latter alternative suits St. Luke, The intermediate position occupied by St. Matthew (except in the case of olpavol) here also we subtract what is borrowed from St. Mark is explained excellently on the supposition that he was a Jew of the Diaspora living in Jerusalem or Palestine. APPENDICES APPENDIX I (to p. 15) THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRD GOSPEL AND THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES A PHYSICIAN 1 ST. LUKE, according to St. Paul, was a physician. When a physician writes an historical work it does not necessarily follow that his profession shows itself in his writing; yet it is only natural for one to look for traces of the author's medical profession in such a work. These traces may be of different kinds : (1) The whole character of the narrative may be determined by points of view, aims, and ideals which are more or less medical (disease and its treatment) ; (2) marked pre- ference may be shown for stories concerning the healing of diseases, which stories may be given in great number and detail ; (3) the language may be coloured by the language of physicians (medical technical terms, meta- phors of medical character, &c.). All these three groups of characteristic signs are found, as we shall see, in the historical work which bears the name of St. Luke. i The quotations from the Greek medical authors are taken from Hobart's " The Medical Language of St. Luke," 1882. He has proved only too much. A good summary, after Hobart, is given by Zahn, "Einl. i. d. N. T." ii. ss. 435 ff. 176 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN Here, however, it may be objected that the subject- matter itself is responsible for these traits, so that their evidence is not decisive for the medical calling of the author. Jesus appeared as a great physician and healer. All the evangelists say this of Him ; hence it is not surprising that one of them has set this phase of His ministry in the foreground, and has regarded it as the most important. Our evangelist need not, there- fore, have been a physician, especially if he were a Greek, seeing that in those days Greeks with religious interests were disposed to regard religion mainly under the category of Healing and Salvation. This is true ; yet such a combination of characteristic signs will compel us to believe that the author was a physician if (4) the description of the particular cases of disease shows dis- tinct traces of medical diagnosis and scientific know- ledge ; (5) if the language, even where questions of medicine or of healing are not touched upon, is coloured by medical phraseology; and (6) if in those passages where the author speaks as an eye-witness medical traits are especially and prominently apparent. These three hinds of tokens are also found in the historical work of our author. It is accordingly proved that it proceeds from the pen of a physician. THE EVIDENCE. (1) I begin with the last point (traces of medical knowledge in the " we " sections). It has been already shown in the text (p. 15) that the terms of the dia- gnosis in xxviii. 8, irvperol^ ical APPENDIX I 177 (attacks of gastric fever), are medically exact and can be vouched for from medical literature ; moreover, that it may be concluded with great probability from xxviii. 9 f. that the author himself practised in Malta as a physician. But this is not the only passage of the " we " sections which comes under consideration. It is immediately preceded by the narrative concerning St. Paul and the serpent. Here we read of the serpent which is also termed Qrjpi'ov, and of which it is said that it came forth OLTTO TT}? Oep/Mjs as follows : /caOfjifrev rrjv Xeipa avrov, and then : ol Se TrpoaeSoKoyv avrbv fJL\\iv irlfJLTTpacrdai, ij KaraTrlirTeLv *>&> vetcpov, and, lastly : 7rl TTO\V Se avT&v TrpoaSo/caivTcov KCU Oewpovvrwv fi,r)6ev droirov et? avrov yivofjuevov. The commentators almost universally translate KaOfjtyev * by " seized," 2 most of them imagining that the idea " bite " must be under- stood ; but Hobart has shown (pp. 288 f.) that KaOdineiv was a technical term with physicians, and that Dios- corides uses the word of poisonous matter which invades the body. Vide " Animal. Ven. Proem." : St' vXrjs (>0opo- TTOLOV Ka0a7TTOfjL6vr)dpfj,aicov, 144 : 77 Bia TWV 0r)plcov, 146 : rj Sta rwv , Aret, "Cur. Morb. Diuturn.," 147: TO Sta 0rjpla)v, T&V e%ioV9, cf. a similar instance, ii. 5 (xiv. 134) : /u,rjSez> aTOirov, /j,r]Be SrjXrjTijpiov avvKara- TreTTToj/cft)? (both passages, of course, according to Damocrates) ; but see also Hippocr., " Aph.," 1251 : OKOCTOL v Tola iv TTVpeToldiv TI ev TrjGiv aXkr)(Tiv apptoa-rlyat, Kara Trpoalpeaw Saicpvovo-w ovbev aroTrov ' OKOGOI, 8e /JLTJ Kara irpoaipecnv aroTrcorepov, Galen, "Comm.," ii. 50, "Progn.," (xviii. B. 185) : ev Se rtp fiaKpw xpovw 7ro\\a fjiev real rwv a\\wv arcnrwv eccoBe (TV/JLTrlTTTew, oaa re Sid, TOV Ka^vovra /ecu TOU? vTrrjperovvras avTat. Hobart quotes numerous other passages. There is accordingly no doubt that the whole section xxviii. 3-6 is tinged with medical colouring ; and seeing that in verses 7-10 both subject-matter and phraseology are medical, there- fore the whole story of the abode of the narrator in Malta is displayed in a medical light. Elsewhere the "we" sections afford little opportunity for the appearance of medical traits ; nevertheless the following instances are worthy of note. The whole 180 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN work, as is well known, is much concerned with persons possessed by evil spirits (vide infra), but only one story of an exorcism is narrated by the author as an eye- witness (in the " we " section xvi. 16 if.). Here he is not simply satisfied with speaking of the patient as one " possessed, 1 ' but he particularly characterises her as e^ovaav TTvev/ma irvOtova. This uncommon word, which accurately describes the case, only occurs here in the New Testament. Further, it is to be noticed that in the story given in the second u we " section of the raising of Eutychus the sleepy condition of the young man is twice described in xx. 9 by the same verb : Karafapopevos VTTV^ ftadel and Ka-reve^Oel^ airo rov VTTVOV. Hobart has (pp. 48 ff'.) pointed out that this word, peculiar to St. Luke in the New Testament, is so usual in medical phraseology (and only in it) for " fall- ing asleep " that the word " sleep " is often omitted, and that Galen speaks of two kinds of Karafopd (" De Comate Secund.," Hippocr., 2 [vii. 652] : #T 1 &vo eialv eWrj KaTacfropds, ft>? ot re iarpwv fyeypdcftaai KOL avra TO, ^v^vo^va fiapTVpel). Passow also only gives medical authorities for /cara- (f>epea-0ai, and Karafopd in the sense of sleep ; cf. the multitude of instances quoted by Hobart (from Hippo- crates to Galen), some of which closely coincide with the passage we are considering. 1 Lastly, in the descrip- tion of the voyage, which has nothing to do with medical affairs per se, we find two remarkable passages. In the i Hobart also makes an attempt to prove by examples that iraparfivfiv, jue'xpi yucaovuKTtoy, vvvos paOvs, and &XP 1 wyn* are specific medical phrases ; but I pass this by. APPENDIX I 181 first place, there is the occurrence of the word (xxvii. 3 only here in the New Testament), and this reminds us of eVt^eXetcr&u in the parable of the Good Samaritan (St. Luke x. 34, 35 ; only here in the gospels and the Acts). In both cases medical care for the sick is being spoken of, and for this, as Hobart shows (pp. 29, 269 f .), the words are technical terms ; also eVi/ieXo)? (occurring only once in the New Testament namely, in St. Luke xv. 8) is much used by physicians. Secondly, there is the strange expression occurring in xxvii. 17 : " /3o?7#eteu9 e%p>vTo vTrofovvvvres TO TrXoioi/." The word vTro&vvvvai, is never used of the undergirding of ships ; 1 but the phrase J3orj0eia<; fyp&vTO (" they used helps'") is also remarkable. Hobart (pp. 273 f.) now makes it probable that we have here a metaphor taken from medical phraseology. 'TTrofavvvfjLi, is a word in constant use by medical writers for " undergirding," as is shown by very numerous examples. /So7?0eta, however (a word that does not occur elsewhere in the gospels and the Acts), is a current medical term which is applied to all conceivable objects (ligaments, muscles, peritoneum, pancreas). 2 1 Polybius, it is true, in xxvii. 3, 3, uses v-no&wvvai of ships, but in another sense. 2 Hobart also refers to the medical use of the words itapaivelv , ((*.& i fidgety, avfvQeTos (^fleros), x l l j - l -& a at > "^os, &c., found in this chapter. These instances, however, have not much weight. There is perhaps more to be said for aa-tria and &&> iKavaJ ovtc eve^vcraro (g) In the story of the woman with the issue of blood we read (St. Luke viii. 43 = St. Mark v. 26): [laTpoi? TrpovavaXwdaaa o\ov TOV ftiov x ] ov/c i These five words are very probably a later interpolation, for they are wanting in some authorities (D., for instance). APPENDIX I 183 d-Tr' ovQevos OepaTrevOrjvat,, while in St. Mark we read : 7ro\\d TraOovaa VTTO TroXAwj/ larpwv KOI Sairavrjcraaa ra Trap* avrfjs Trdvra, icai firj^ev axf)6\r)()ei crco/iar^ ort larat OLTTO T}? (h) In the story of the raising of Jairus's daughter (St. Luke viii. 55 = St. Mark v. 42) the words of St. Mark, KOI eu^u9 dvearrj TO Kopdcnov Kal 7repi7rdri, are replaced by Kal eTreo-rpe^ev TO irvevfjua avrfs, Kal dvecnt] TrapaxpfjfJLa, and el-Trey SoQfjvai, avrfj (f>ayelv is transposed so as to come before the words telling of the wonder of the parents. (i) In the story of the cure of the epileptic boy (St. Luke ix. 38 ff. = St. Mark ix. 17 ff.) St. Luke has interpolated into the address of the father the words, eVt/SXei/rcu Girl rbv vlov fiov, OTI /Jiovoyevijs /JLOL e9 TOVTOU* Kal dtydfjbevos TOV Idaaro avTov. 1 " l D. reads : Kal e/cre/i/as rV X */> a ^^TO avrov Kal oTre/fareo-Ta^rj r avrov. Wellhausen seems to prefer this reading, but it is especially characteristic of that crafty and wanton treatment of the text so frequent in D. It is quite clearly fashioned according to vi. 10, 184 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN Only a very small portion of these additions can be explained from the well-known anxiety of St. Luke to improve the language of the Markan text; the great majority of them plainly reveal the pen of a man who was either a physician himself or at least had a special interest in medicine.* As regards (a), pLTrreiv is not only a verbal improvement, but it is also the technical term for the epileptic phenomenon in question, and the addition that the exorcised spirit did the man no harm both shows the interest of a physician and is also expressed in technical medical phraseology : ox^eX^cre /juev itcavws, e/3Xcn/re 8 ' ovSev (this phrase, or something similar, is of very frequent occurrence in medical writers). 2 In regard to (6), the medical writers distinguish between " slight " and " great " fevers ; 3 therefore the epithet "great''' in St. Luke is by no means insignificant. Moreover, while St. Mark contents himself with reporting that our Lord raised up the patient, taking her by the hand, St. Luke gives the method of healing that was employed : " He stood over her and rebuked the fever." He has therefore an interest in methods of healing. In regard to (c), where the ttcTeivetv T^V x^P a nas its appropriate place, while here it is quite superfluous. 1 One can easily convince oneself by comparison that St. Luke and St. Matthew are here diametrically opposed to one another in their attitude towards the Markan text ; for St. Matthew has deleted from the text of St. Mark all medical traits which are not absolutely necessary. 2 See Hobart's quotations, pp. 2 f. 3 Galen, " Different. Febr.," i. 1 (vii. 275) : KO.\ alvovTat. 1 Medical expressions occur constantly in this story ; and yet it cannot have been written by a physician if Well- hausen is right in saying : " Into a wound one pours oil, but not oil and wine. In the instance given by Land (' Anecd. Syr.,' 2, 46, 24) * oil and wine ' is most probably quoted from this passage." But he is mis- taken ; the physicians of antiquity used oil and wine not only internally, but also for external application (Hobart, pp. 28 f.) ; vide Hippocr., Morb. Mul.," 656 : rjv Be al fjLrjrpai efwr^oxrt, TrepivtycK; aura? vBari, ^Xtepaj Kal aAen/ra? e\aiy KOI olvw, and other passages. In the parable of Dives and Lazarus (xvi. 21-26) the following words occur which are wanting elsewhere in the gospels : eX/co9, eX/eovcr&u, Kara^jnj^eiv, oBvvdaQai, and %ao>ta (eVr^pt/crat). The first two words are technically used for sores. Likewise the relatively rare words oBvvaaOai and KaTa^rv^eiv are used technically in the medical writers from Hippocrates onwards, 2 and 1 One might almost imagine that Galen had read St. Luke. This is not impossible, for he had to do with Christians. Another passage, but not so much alike, occurs also in Galen, " De Kigore," 5 (vii. 602) : ws '6(Toi ye XGIH.&VOS ofioiiropovvTts, c?ra eV itpvei Kaprepy f)fjLt6vT)Tes re /cat rpo/j.u5eis ofrcaSe irapeyevovro, 2 See Hobart, pp. 32 f. APPENDIX I 191 we may perhaps say the same thing of (TTijplQiv. 1 The physician thinks of the absence of medical help : the dogs licked his sores. Of course, these things do not necessarily imply that the author was a physician ; but we have the same writer here as he who relates the story of the Good Samaritan. In the story of the lame man (Acts iii. 7 f.) the exactness of detail is remarkable : jfaeipev avrbv, Trapaxpfj/jLO. Be ca-repe^O^aav ol /3d(rei<; avrov KOI ra (T(f>vBpd, ical ej*a\\6/jbevos ecrrj teal TrepieTrdrei. Could one give a fuller and yet more concise description of a process of healing ? What kind of man is interested in the stages of such a process ? That which the physician observes during the months of the ordinary gradual cure of a lame man is here compressed into a moment. Now notice also how we are reminded that the man was ^wXo? etc KOiKias /^rpo? (iii. 2), and eVa>i> rjv ir\Gioi>(ov Teaa-apaKovra (iv. 2) an age at which such cures no longer occur. ^(frvBpov is a very rare word (e.g.) Passow does not give it) ; it is the term. tech. for the con- dyles of the leg- bones vide Galen, " Medicus," 10 (xiv. 708) : TO, Be irepara TWV TT}S K.vr)W$ ovrwv et? re TO evSov fjiepos KOI et9 TO efo) e^e^ovra, o-v$pa frpoa-ajo- peverai TO, Be CLTTO rwv a(f>vBpS>v KVpiws TroSe? \eyovrai. In the story of JEneas (Acts ix. 33) we are again struck by the exactness with which the time of the duration of the disease is marked (eight years), 2 and 1 See Hobart, pp. 33 f. 2 St. Mark and St. Matthew mention the length of an illness only in the case of the woman with an issue, but St. Luke not only here, but in two other instances, mentions that the illness was congenital 192 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN one is also reminded how many different expressions the author of this great historical work has for " a sick- bed " ; there are four of them : Kpd/3/3aTov 3 K\lvrj t K\wl&iov, ic\ivdpi,ov. The last two words are peculiar to him in the New Testament. 1 Can we not again see the physician ? The word dve/cdOiarev in the story of Tabitha has been already dealt with. The scene wherein St. Peter sets himself to perform the miracle is strikingly realistic : eVtoTpeA/ra? Trpb? TO erw/ia etirev ' TafitOd avdat^di. jua = a corpse. In the story of the cure of Saul's blindness (Acts ix. 17 ff.) we read : airenreaav avrov airo r&v 6? Xe-TT/Se?. Here Hobart (p. 39) remarks : " '-47ro7rt7rrai> 2 is used of the falling off of scales from the cuticle and particles from diseased parts of the body or bones, &c. ? and in one instance, by Hippocrates, of the scab, caused by burning in a medical operation, from the eyelid ; and XeTrt? 3 is the medical term for the particles or scaly substance thrown off from the body ; it and a7ro7r/7rmi> are met with in conj unction " ; vide Hippocr ., " De Videndi Acie," 689 : TO /3\eapov eiriKava-ai r) TOJ avOei OTTTO) XeTTTo) 7r/oo<7TetXat, OTav Se diroirearj r) eaxdpa, Irjrpeveiv TO, \onrd. Galen, " Comm.," ii. 23, " Offic.*" (xviii. B. 781) : 7ro\\dtcis yap aTroo-^iSe^ OCFTWV (Acts iii. 2, xiv. 8) ; the woman with a spirit of infirmity was ill for eighteen years, the lame man at the Beautiful Gate for forty years, ^Eneas for eight years. i He also makes a distinction between them vide Acts v. 15 : 2 Only here in the New Testament. 3 Only here in the New Testament. APPENDIX I 193 Kal Xe7rt'Se9 aTroTriTrrovaLv. Galen, " Med. Defin.," 295 (xix. 428) : ea6' ore jjutv Kal Xe7rt'8a9 a Galen, " De Atra Bile, 1 ' 1 4 (v. 115) : TO crw/^a irav %ijvdr)(76 /jue\a(nv e^avB^j/JLaanv o/Wot9, evlme Se Kal olov \67Tt9 aTreTTtTrre grjpaivofjievwv r Kal Stafopov/juevcov avrwv. Galen, "Med. Temper, et Facult.," xi. 1 (xii. 319) : Kal TOV Sep/taro? a^iararal re Kal T6 \67T05 1) In the story of Elymas (Acts xiii. 11) the blinding is thus described : irapa^pri^a eirevev [eVeTreo-e^ ?] eir' avrbv a^Xi/5 Kal (7^6x09, Kal Trepidywv ef^ret xeipaywyovs. Hobart (pp. 44 f.) shows that a^Xu?, according to Galen, is a distinct disease of the eyes (" Medicus," 16, xiv. 774 : a^Xv? Se ecrrt irepl o\ov TO ae\av air* 7rnro\alov, ov\rj XevrroTaTT; aept, a^XvcwS See also numerous other passages e.g., vee\i,6v ecrriv a^Xt^9 f\ eX/ca>(7t9 67rt7roXato9 eVl TOU /zeXai/09) ; but his remarks upon O-KOTOS are also worthy of notice. The additional statement that he sought for people to lead him is natural in a physician, who at once realises the sad consequences of the miracle. The man of Lystra, lame from his mother's womb, is described as an avrjp aSvvaros Tot9 Troalv (Acts xiv. 8) See the medical examples for a&vvaTo. The former seems to be entirely confined to medical litera- ture. Before St. Luke (I.e., and Acts xii. 23) instances of its use are found only in Hippocrates, and then in N 194 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN Aretaeus and Galen (see Hobart, p. 37). 1 On 0vcrTe\- \ew 2 Hobart remarks (I.e.) : " This word is met with in one other passage in the New Testament (1 Cor. vii. 29) o fcaipbs <7we<7TaAyiiej>oT6s, and who says ff aywviq yfv6/uLfvos and CTreaej/ CTT' avrbi/ s. In distinction from the ayuvla of our Lord, verse 45 speaks APPENDIX I 195 (4) There is no need to prove that the representation of our Lord given in the third gospel is dominated by the conception of Him as the wondrous Healer and Saviour of the sick, as, indeed, the Healer above all healers. But it is significant that St. Luke, when he sum- marises our Lord's activity and he often does so only mentions His cures of diseases, and at the same time dis- tinguishes sharply 1 between natural illnesses and cases of " possession " (because they required a completely diffe- rent medical treatment). See iv. 40 f. : Havre? 0001 el^ov daOevovvras voaois iroiKikaw ijyayov avrov? Trpo? avrov' 6 Be evl e/cdcrrtoavrwvTas xeipas eTMTiOels eBepdjrevev avTOVs. er)p%eTO 8e teal Sai/Jiovia CLTTO 7roXXwi>, Kpd^ovra /cal \eyovra cm (TV el 6 vibs TOV 6eov } KOI eiriTii^wv OVK eia avTa \a\elv, vi. 18 f. : rjKOov dtcovo-ai avTOV fcal Ia6f)vai dirb TWV voawv avrwv, KOI ol evox\ovfj(,vot, airb dicaOdpTcov eQepcnrevovro' KOI Tra? 6 W a7TTiri\ of the disciples, and this word (airb TT)S AUTTIJS), wanting elsewhere in the synoptists, is expressly added to the Markan phrases " sleeping " and " their eyes were heavy." Hobart shows (p. 84) how closely \VTFIJ is connected with medical phraseology. Lastly, notice that here again we have another example (vide supra) of St. Luke's practice of replacing ordinary lay expressions by accurate medical phrases. St. Mark had written of our Lord : fy>|aro e'0a/i- j8e?(T0at [unclassical ; St. Matthew also has expunged the word] Kal aSrjuovfTv ; St. Luke substitutes the exacter phrase, ycvtptvos eV aywvia. 1 Differently from the other gospels. 2 These are serious and acute diseases, in distinction from 196 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN e/c/3aXXft> Sai/Jiovia teal Idcreis aTroreXw o"tj(jLpov KOI avpiov. Nor is it otherwise (in the case of the apostles) in the Acts see v. 16 : ? UTTO Trvevfjudrcov dtcaOdprcov, omz>65 eOepaTrevov- TO aTrapres, Acts xix. 11 : Swdfiei? re ov ra? ru^outra? 6 0eo5 circlet Bia TMV fteipwv IlavXov, ware KOI CTTL rou? dcrQevovvras dTrotfrepeo-Oai, diro TOV ^pwro? avrov aov- Sdpia TI arifJbLKivdia KOI a7raXXao~o-6(70at a?r' avr&v r9 vocrovs, ra re irvev^aTa ra Trovrjpa eKTropeveeOai. This invariable disposition to see in the miracles of healing the chief function of the mighty forces of the new religion, and at the same time on each occasion to distinguish with anxious care between ordinary sick folk and the " possessed," points to a physician as the author. (5) Hobart has only too amply shown, in two hundred pages of his book, that the language of St. Luke elsewhere is coloured by medical phraseology. It is difficult here to offer convincing proofs. It is cer- tainly of no slight significance that it is only in St. Luke that our Lord inserts in His discourse at Nazareth the proverb, "Physician, heal thyself" (iv. 23; vide supra, p. 17). Let me select some other examples. napaxpfjfjua (seventeen times in St. Luke, only twice elsewhere in the New Testament in St. Matthew) is in medical language a technical term for the prompt taking effect of a medicine in utramque partem. Hobart (pp. 97 f.) quotes sixteen occurrences of the word from one work of Hippocrates (" Intern. Affect."), and a superabundance from the writings of APPENDIX I .197 Dioscorides and Galen. With Zahn I further quote irpoaSo/cav (Hobart,p. 162), avdireipo^ (Hobart, p. 148), o\OK\7)pia (p. 193), diro^v^eiVy KaTa^v^eiv^ avatyvfys together with eic-^v^eiv (pp. 166, 32, 37), 7rvorj, evrrveew, (p. 236), faoyoveiv (p. 155), et9 paviav Trepirpe- (pp. 267 f.), Kpanrd\rj (p. 167), %po>9 (p. 242). Even the phrase ov/c atr^o? TroXt? of Acts xxi. 39 may be paralleled from Hippocrates (Hobart, p. 249). Lagarde ("Psalter. Hieron.," 1874, p. 165) was the first to assert that the style of the prologue, little as it might seem at first sight, is akin to that of the medical writers. To prove his point he brought forward in- stances from Dioscorides, and, indeed, from a prologue of that author. The point has been somewhat better established by Hobart (pp. 87 ff., 229, 250 f.) with special reference to numerous passages in Galen. One of these (a prologue ! 4 ' Theriac. ad Pis.," 1, xiv. 210) runs as follows : ical TOVTOV crot, TOV irepl T^S 0r)pia,Kf)s \6yov, eferao-a? airavra, api&Te JZYcrwi', crTrouSato)? (vide Acts i. 1, eVo^c-a^z/). Finally, as Zahn rightly says (ii. 436) : " Seeing that the needle in surgical use is as a rule called fleXovrj, and not pa/9, and the eye of the needle is named rpfj/jia, not Tpvirrjiia or Tpvfj,a\ta, and seeing that we read in Galen TOV Kara rrjv fteXovrjv TprffJiaro^ or TOV Starp^aTo? TT)? fieXovrjs (Hobart, pp. 60 f.), then St. Luke xviii. 25, when compared with St. Matthew xix. 24 = St. Mark x. 25, shows distinct traits of medical authorship. And seeing that Galen expressly reflects upon his use of ' apyaC as the name for the ends (jrepara) of the bandage (ol eVtSeoyx*(H, often also bdovia and odovrj) a use 198 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN which was already frequent with Hippocrates then it is clear that Acts x. 11 and xi. 5 were written by a physician." The six conditions which were propounded at the beginning of this appendix are amply satisfied in the case of the third evangelist. The evidence is of over- whelming force ; so that it seems to me that no doubt can exist that the third gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were composed by a physician. APPENDIX II (to p. 102) INVESTIGATION OP THE LINGUISTIC RELATIONS OF ST. LUKE I. 39-56, 68-79, II. 15-20, 41-52 ev rals r)fj,epai<; es rrjv opewrjv 6/5 (i. 39) 'Avaa-- THIS pleonastic avurrdvai is found racra Se Mapiafj, once or twice in St. Matthew, four times in St. Mark, never in St. John, a few dozen times in St. Luke (gospel and Acts). For avav\r) 'lovSa). Or is 'lov&a the corrupted form of the name of the town, as in St. Luke TroXt? Na^aper, TToXt? 'loTTTT?;, TToXt? Gvdreipa, Aacrala ? (40) I/ 619 tea For dltcos see the note on Acts xvi. 15 ; it is much more frequent in St. Luke than in the other evange- rrjv lists, who prefer olxla. ^crTraa-aro]. Vide x. 4, Acts xviii. 22, xx. 1 ; xxi. 7, 19 (eurget icdl d< "* " o), xxv. 13. (41) tcaleyeve- TO d>5 rjfcovaev TOV Mapia? 17 *E\i5 temp, wanting in St. Matthew and St. Mark, but found in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) about forty- eight times .., Acts xxi. 12 : &>? rjKovaafjLev. eaKipr^o'ev}. Found elsewhere in the New Testament only in St. Luke i. 44 and vi. 23 ! /3pe$o9]. Wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; occurring in St. Luke not only in chaps, i. and ii., but also in xviii. 15 (where it replaces the rd traiSla of the Markan text) and in Acts vii. 19. eVX. TTV. dyJ]. See the note on i. 15 (above, p. 101). APPENDIX II 201 (42) /cal dve- (fxavrjo-ev Kpavyfj /jLeydXy /cal elTrev* EvXoyijfjLevrj Tov. (43) Kalirodev fjLOL TOVTO 'iva e\0r) rj fJLrjTrjp TOV KV- piov LLOV Trpo? TOVTO) &s in St. Matthew xiii. 54, 56, xv. 33, St. Mark vi. 2 (rroOev TOVT^ Tavra). iva\. This use in the Kowr) in place of the infin. is not, I think, found else- where in St. Luke, though it, indeed, frequently occurs in the New Testa- ment. It is well known that St. Luke constantly uses o /cvpio? for Christ. (44) od TOV crov 6t5 TCL ewra /JLOV, eo-KipTrjaev ev dya\\i,do5 ev T KOI- \ia See note on verse 40. ISov yap wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; occurring in St. Luke's gospel five times and in the Acts once. eyeveTo 17 tfxovij]. Want- ing in St. Matthew, St. John, and St. Mark (in i. 11 it is interpolated from St. Luke) ; on the other hand, it occurs seven times elsewhere in St. Luke, viz., iii. 22, ix. 35, 36, Acts ii. 6, vii. 31, x. 13, xix. 34. 202 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN 669 TO, wTa fjLov], Wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; but cf. St. Luke ix. 14 : 0ea0e ek ra wra u/tw^, and Acts xi. 22 : 6 X0709 6t9 T^ WT T7) eV aya\\td(7ei^. See the note on i. 14 (above, p. 100). The word is wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, but occurs again in St. Luke in i. 14 and Acts ii. 46. (45) pla i (1) 1 Sam. ii. 1 : pfya\vveiv is not TI tyvxt P-ov r))v KV- IffTcpeAOrj T\ KapSia pov found in St. Mark ptov, Kal iiya\\iaff(v rb tv itvpifp, vtytadrj Kfpas and St. John ; found irvtv/j.d fj.ov tir\ T$ 0e< fiov Iv Q /uou. in St. Matthew once (xxiii. 5), and in a quite different sense ; in St. Luke, on the other hand, five times (i. 58, Acts v. 13, x. 46, xix. 17). o7aA- AtWis wanting in the other gospels, occur- ring three times in St. Luke (i. 14, 44, Acts ii. 46) ; aya\\i$i> oc- curs four times in St. Luke, is wanting in St. Mark, occurs once in St. Matthew and twice in St. John. 2, tin fj.aitaplovati> /u,6 a* yvisaiites. brifiMireiv bri found elsewhere in the sy- noptists Only in St. Luke ix. 38. Con- cerning the exclu- sively Lukan phrase i5oi ydp, vide supra, note on verse 44. &irb rov vvv found elsewhere in the New Testament only in St. Luke (v. 10, xii. 52, xxii. 18, 69, Acts xviii. 6). 204 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN (49) &Vt 6 Swards, KOI oiyiov r uvojj.0. avruv' (3) Deut. x. 21 : iroil)(Tl' &V ffO\ TO fjieydXa, Ps. Cxi. 9 : ayiov . . .TO f?a found else- where in the New Testament only in Acts ii. 11. Swards (of a person) occurs in the gospels only in St. Luke (xiv. 81, xxiv.19 of our Lord ; also Acts vii. 22, xi. 17, xviii. 24). (50) Kal rb f\eos ouroG els yeveas Kal yevcas ro'is (4) Ps. ciii. 17 : rJ> 5e eAeos rov Kvptov airb TOV atoij'os Kal &os ruv aiuvus eirl rovs rb H\fos peculiar to St. Luke of the evan- gelists (i. 54, 58, 72, 78, x. 37. oi <(>ofioi>/j.e- voi r. Qf6v is probably intended by St. Luke to be understood in its technical sense (also of the Gentiles devoted to the wor- ship of God), as so often in the Acts. (51) tv fipax'iovi avTOv, Ps. Ixxxix. 11 Stavoia KapSias avr&v vov y Kal v T< Bpa\it Opovsaov. Kpdros elsewhere throughout the gos- pels and the Acts found only in Acts xix. 20, and there used in the same sense as here. (52)^Kadt?\(v Swd- (6) Job xii. 19: KoflaipelV found (TTas 7rb Qp6vwv Kal Swaffrasyris Karevrpe- again five times in St. vtytixrev TOTTfirous, i^ci/, v. 11 : T^i/ wot- Luke ; elsewhere in ovvra rairtivovs fls the gospels only in ityos. St. Mark xv. 36, 46 (but in the signifi- cance "to take down"). Here and in the next verse St. Luke's well - known Ebionitism is promi- nent. APPENDIX II 205 (53) irfifwvras *W- ir\ri(Ttv a.ya.Qwv Kal ir\ovTovvras 4air4- KWOVS. (7) 1 Sam. ii. 7 : Kvpios irruxffci *J irAouTie, rairftvot Kal awtyol, Ps. cvii. 9 : iJ/uxV ircifwerav eW- irAr/tre?, a.ya.6, Job xii. 19 : airoffr(\\wi' else- where in the gospels only in St. Luke VI. 25 and St. John vi. 25, but also in Acts xiv. 17. The verb eairo is found ten times in St. Luke ; elsewhere in the New Testament only in Galatians. The re- markably singular phrase Qavoffr. K^VOVS occurs twice again in St. Luke viz., n*. 10, 11 but never else- where. (54) o>TeAa/3eTO 'Itr- TratSos auroD (8) Is. xli. 8: (ru 5e, 'lapo^A, ircus /AOW, o5 etvTeAo)8d/irji', Ps. xcviii. 3 : i^vi\Ti\a./jipdi'tTiAa/i/8. T. (55) pbs Tois ai TO; (TTre'p^toTt auroO ts rot' atwra. (9) Micah vii. 20: KaOori &fj.o- (Tas TO?$ iro.rpa.vi 2 Sam. xxii. 51 eAeos . . avrov AaAtti/ irp6s wanting in the other gospels (AoAetV fls also want- ing) ; on the other hand, it is found again five times in St. Luke's gospel and nine times in the Acts e.g., xxviii. 25: ^At- Arj(Tj/ irpbs TOVS pas v/j.ui>. (56) "Eytteti/ei/ Se Mo- pia/j. (rvv avrr) Tpr?, Kal virearpf els rbv olKov avrijs. trvv in the NewTestamentfound again onlyin St. Luke xxiv. 29 : eirjev TOU /ieli/ot avv avro'ts. ws = circiter occurs again seven times in St. Luke (gospel and Acts), never in St. Matthew, twice in St. Mark. 206 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN occurs twenty-two times in St. Luke's gospel, eleven times in the Acts, and is wanting in the other gospels. vTro Kfpas T$ implied reference to ofrcy Aoiei5 iratibs av- Aave^S, Ps. xviii. 3 : the Kesurrection of rov Kvpios . . . Kfpas tru- Christ. With ijfj.1v rripias, 1 Sam. ii. 10 : cf. Acts ii. 39, xiii. fydxrti Kfpas xP lffT v 26 : r]fjuv 6 \6yos r. OUTOU, Ezek. xxix. (rcorrjpias ravrtjs c'a- 21 : avaT\f7 Kfpas iravrl T$ otKcp 'l 7reo-ToA.7j. avrov see verse 54. SwTTjpt'a is a favourite expression with St. Luke (wanting in St. Matthew and St. Mark, occurring only once in St. John) ; St. Luke xix. 9: ffwTTipia rif ofay rov- T(f fyfVfTO. APPENDIX II 207 (70) Ka6bs e'Act- Arj(TJ/ 5tO (TT^/WOTOS T&V ayiwv (TWI/) air' avrov This parenthesis (like verse 55) is just in St. Luke's style. Aia (TTo/xoTos is only found with him of the New Testament writers (Acts i. 16, iii. 18, 21, iv. 25, xv. 7). The epithet ayios is also Lukan vide verse 72, and the exactly verbal paral- lel in Acts iii. 21 : 6 0eby Sia r. ayiuv air' aiwvos avrov trpo$>T}Tv xviii. 18). 10 : ffwTTipiav]. In very xei- effective apposition to Kal Kfpas avrovs e'/c (ef. Ps. (72-75) TTOt^JTOJ 6- A.COS /iera TWJ/ irarfpuv 5ia6iiKr)s ayias avrov, rpbs 6pS>v pvaQivras Aorpev- fiv avrf ev &ffi6ri\n Kal (5 - 8) Numerous passages in the Old Testament vide Micah vii. 20 : Scotret eAeos ro/3riOr)vai /** iraffas r. tyuepas. All the ele- ments of the verse are given here. (eAeos) /uerei is in the New Testa- ment exclusively Lu- kan; cf. x. 37: 6 irot-hffas TO eAeoy /ier' avrov. ayias is a distinc- tively Lukan epithet ; see note on verse 70. This use of irp6s is Lukan ; vp6s with ace. occurs in St. Matthew 44 times, in St. Luke's gospel 166 times, in the Acts 140 times; videsupra, note on i. 13 (p. 99). For Sovvai with infin. see Acts iv. 29 : Sbs T. Sov\ots ffov uera irap- 208 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN \a\f"iv. pvff- 0eVras after ijfuv is not un-Hellenic. \arpcv- ' wanting in St. Mark and St. John, and found in St. Matthew only in a quotation ; see, on the other hand, St. Luke ii. 37, iv. 8, Acts vii. 7, 42, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 7, xxvii. 23. tv 60-. K, Siit.']. <7/.Wisd.ofSol. ix. 3 and Ephes. iv. 24. tvuwiov wanting in St, Matthew and St. Mark, occurring once in St. John, but in St. Luke (gospel and Acts) about thirty-six times. (76 idl ffrov pevff piov 77) KO! (rv Se, Trpo(p"fjrr)S vtyt- A7j0T?(r77' irpoiro- yap kvuiriov KV- (9, 10) Mai. iii. 1: S8bs irpb irpoirov /uou, Is. xl. 3 : 4rot- /uarrctTe T}>V dSltv Kvpiov, Deut. xxxi. 3 : TOV Sovvai yvu- avrov (v afj.ap- xxxi. 34. ffov, Jerem. See note on Acts x vi. 1 7 (above, p. 61) ; it is Lukan. irpoiropfvea'dai IS found again in the New Testament only in Acts vii. 40. lv- iriov]. Vide verse 75. 5ovi/ot]. Vide verse 74. yvGxriv]. Occurs in the gospels only here and in St. Luke xi. 52 (T. fcAetSo T. Acts s. (T( TT Vide verse 69, xvi. 17 p(as. eight times in St. Luke, wanting in St. John, once each in St. Matthew and St. Mark. (78, 79) 5*o a-Ktrei Kal ffKt% Bavarov Ko.Brnj.4- voiti TOV KartvOvvai. TOUS Tr^Sa vlov avrov, Ps. cvii. 10 : Ka0i)Hvovs 4v ffKdTfi Kal oys vide St. Luke xxiv. 49 : &>5D- ffrj .); ii. 28: tools fays. The construc- tion here is exactly the same as that of verse 72 (iroiTjo-cu) in its relation to verse 74 (TOW Sovvat) and of verse 76 and 77 (? Acts xi. 9 : Si,f)\0ov eco? ; Acts xi. 22 : 8ie\6eiv eo>5 ias (only in St. Luke). , in the sense of res qiwedam, is found again in i. 37 and Acts v. 32, x. 37, and never elsewhere in the New Testament. T. prj/na TOVTO]. St. Luke loves this pleonastic use of the demonstrative pronoun (see also verses 17 and 19). TO 7670^05], Occurs once in St. Mark, never in St. Matthew and St. John, again in St. Luke viii. 34 (ISovres ol {36o~icovT<; TO 7670^05), 35 (ISeiv TO 7670^05), 56, [xxiv. 12], Acts iv. 21, v. 7 (/a?) ei&vta TO 767.), xiii. 12 (ISobv TO 767.). (16) Kal avevpav TTJV re MapiajjL ical TOV \ \ KCLI TO TTJ ) intrans., is found in the New Testament only with St. Luke (xix. 5, 6, Acts xx. 16, xxii. 18) ; as a transitive verb it occurs only once in the New Testament (2 Peter iii. 12). avevplo-/ceiv occurs only once again in the New Testament, viz., APPENDIX II 211 in the " we " section Acts xxi. 4. Concerning the Lukan word /3peTa see the notes on Acts xvi. 14 (above, p. 47) and on St. Luke i. 45. TOVTOV]. See note on verse 15. 7rai/TeT65 ol afcovovres). eOavfjiaaav irepi is singular. For \a\elv Trpo? see note on i. 55. avv^d\\eiv is confined to St. Luke in the New Testament ; vide xiv. 31 and Acts iv. 15, xvii. 18, xviii. 27, xx. 14 (" we " section). Concerning the Lukan eiv, see note on i. 56. This word is found seven times in St. Luke (ii. 13, xix. 37, xxiv. 53 [doubtful], Acts ii. 47, iii. 8, 9); else- where only in Rom. xv. 11 (LXX.) and Rev. xix. 5. ol?]. This attrac- tion is frequent in St. Luke (not in the other gospels) ; videiii. 19, v. 9, 212 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN ix. 43, xii. 46, xv. 16, xix. 37, xxiv. 25, Acts iii. 21, x. 39, xiii. 39, xxii. 10, xx vi. 2. For \a\r)0rj 777)69 see verse 18. (ii.41) pevovTO ol yovei? avTov /car' 6x05 6*5 'lepova-aXrjfjL Ty eoprfj TOV A favourite word with St. Luke. ero9]. Once in St. Mat- thew, twice in St. Mark, three times in St. John, twenty-seven times in St. Luke ; /car' ero? occurs here only. rfj eopry T. TT.]. Vide xxii. 1 : eoprrj T. aty/jLow. The expression is not found in St. Matthew and St. Mark. The dative of time is frequent in St. Luke. ^ (42,^ 43) teal ore eyeveTo erwv iff, dvafBaivov- TGDV avT&v Kara TO e^ TOU? ev TW av- o Trat? ev iJL ical ol OVK 701/66? avrov. eyevero IT. ift']. So also in iii. 23, viii. 42, Acts. iv. 22. vara TO e#o?]. Again only in i. 9 and xxii. 39 ; no- where else in the New Testament. See note on i. 8 (above, p. 98). vTroaTpe- eiv]. Lukan ; see note on i. 56. vTreiJi6Lvev\. In the sense of " to stay behind," only again in Acts xvii. 14. The whole sentence is genuinely Lukan, also in the variation of tense in avaftaivbvTwv and (44, 45) i/o/i^- (rai/re? Se CLVTOV elvai ev Ty dvvo- 8 La ri\Qov wyu-epa? *s \ \ > ooov Kai ave- &JTOVV aVTOV V i/o/uVaz/re?]. Nine times in St. Luke, wanting in St. Mark and St. John, three times in St. Matthew. avvo&la is CLTT. \ey. in the New Testa- ment, but avvobevelv is found in ix. 7. dvaty]-relv is found elsewhere APPENDIX II /ca /U,T evpvre? ava- avrov. TO?? avyyevea-tv in the New Testament only in St. Kalroisyvwo-rois, Luke ii. 45 and Acts xi. 25. (rvyyevels is found six times in St. Luke, once each in St. Mark and St. John ; wanting in St. Matthew. firj\. A delicate Lukan touch (causal) vide iii. 9. Note also the use of the participle imperf. as a Lukan trait. yvwaros is found eleven times in St. Luke, in all the rest of the New Testament only three times ; ol yvcocroi occurs again only in St. Luke xxiii. 49. vrce- o-rp-*}rav]. Lukan ; see note on i. 56. (46, 47) Kal cyevero fjuera^/jbe- pas y f evpov avrov ev roJ iepq Kade- ev Ka tcovovra av- T&V Kal 7TpO)- TWVTO, O.UTOU9* - f taravTo 8e irdv- T69 ol aKovowres avTov eirl rfjauve- o~i Kal rat? Kp l(76a iv avrov. eyevero Lukan. Ka0e^6/JL.]. See Acts xx. 9. e'f rraiTo]. Eleven times in St. Luke, elsewhere in the New Testament only six times ; with eW (like BavfJid^eiv) here only. Traz/re? ot arc.]. See note on ii. 18, and Acts ix. 21 : ef/o-raz/TO oe iravre^ ol 4861/769 avrov efe- 7r\dyr)(Tav } Kal elrrev rrpos avrov avrov" Vide ix. 43, Acts xiii. 12. oSvvQ)fjLvoi]. Occurs again in the New Testament only in St. Luke xvi. 24, 25 and Acts xx. 38. ri ori]. Again in the New Testament ,^1 I \ I. A C\ \ / ~~\ r&vov, ri erroi- only in Acts v. 4, 9. ra 214 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN rjfjuv oirro>9 ; loov 6 TTCLTIJP aov Kayo) oSwco/jLevoi etyjTovfJiev ae. ical enrev 7rpo9 avrovs' TI, on e&Teire /j, ; OVK rjSeire OTL eV T0i9 TOV Trar/009 /JLOV BI elval /tie ; (50, 51) xal avrol ov avvfJKav TO prjfjia o e\a- \r)ia Kal rj\L- Wanting in St. Matthew and St. KKL Kal ;apm Mark, occurring in St. John only in irapa Oeaj Kal dv- the prologue, but found twenty-five times in St. Luke. For St. Luke's exemplar in this verse see 1 Sam. ii. 26 : Kal TO Tra&dpiov 2a/j,ovr)\ 7ropeuTO . . . Kal d^adbv Kal /JLerd KVpiOV Kal fJLCTa < From the above investigation (together with that APPENDIX II 215 given on pages 97-101 ) it is perfectly clear that a Greek source cannot lie at the foundation of the first two chapters of St. Luke's gospel. The agreement of the style with that of St. Luke is too close. The source, indeed, must have been revised sentence by sentence. 1 It is possible that for the narrative an Aramaic source has been used, but this hypothesis is not probable. In any case, the " Magnificat " and " Benedictus " are works of St. Luke himself. The " Magnificat " falls into nine verses of two clauses each. The nine verses are, however, so composed that they form four divisions, 1, 2-4, 5-7, 8-9, each with its own characteristic thought. 2 Of the eighteen clauses, six end with avrov (avrov, avT&v), which also occurs twice in other positions. Notice also the pov which occurs three times in the first verse, then the avrov which follows in 2 a and 3 b ; further, the avrov in the middle of 4 a which refers back to 3 b , and the avrov avrwv in 5 which answers to the avrov avrov in 4. Thus the first verse is still more closely held together by the pov, and verses 2-5 by avrov (note also how verse 5 answers to the same word in verse 3). 1 But the verses i. 34, 35 are a later interpolation. See my essay in the " Ztschr. f. N. Tliche. Wissenschaft," 1901, ss. 53 ff. 2 So, at least, the arrangement appears to the thoughtful reader of to-day. I will not discuss the mysteries of ancient versification. A number of scholars divide the canticle into four strophes of three verses each, making the first verse end in the middle of verse 48, the second after verse 50, the third after verse 53. This method of division is more artificial than that into four strophes of four verses each (46-48, 49-50, 51-53, 54-55), in which the verses 52 and 53 are counted each as one (not each as two). I think that St. Luke him- self intended the latter system of division. 216 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN Moreover, just as the fjLov which is characteristic of verse 1 is echoed in verse 2 (fjue) and verse 3 (AH), although these verses are dominated by the avTov, so also the latter word is continued in verse 5, although this verse both in thought and form belongs to verses 6-7, and thus occupies a double position. The three verses 5-7 are most closely bound together by the parallelism of their construction, verses 6-7 still more so by the rhyme (6 a Opovcov, 7 a cvyaO&v, 6 b TaTreivovs, 7 b /eez/ous). In verses 8 and 9 avrov (of God) appears again ; moreover, the JJLOV of the introductory verse is also taken up and amplified in the f)nol ol ef- edvwv is a phrase that one would expect St. Luke to use to describe the Gentile Christians. With ol Kara r. 'AvTo. K. APPENDIX III 221 compare xi. 1 : ol ovre? Kara T^V 'louSaiW, also viii. 1 : Sie(T7rdpr)cov is wanting elsewhere in St. Luke. Verse 26. 'AvdptoTroi? : This use of avQp. is Lukan (numerous examples). ra? ^ir^a?, meaning " the life," as in St. Luke vi. 9, xii. 20. virlp TOV oj/o/^aro? /CT\ vide Acts xxi. 13: 6Totynft> irvev^an TO> aylq : We have here the Lukan conception of the Holy Spirit ; c/*., .g\, Acts v. 3. TT\eov is only found again in St. Luke iii. 13. : Only here in St. Luke, but occurring elsewhere in the New Testament. ir\r]v 9 with the genitive, is not found in St. Matthew and St. John ; it occurs once iii St. Mark, and again in the Acts viii. 1 and xxvii. 22. TOVTWV T&V eTrdvaytces : This use of OUTO? is Lukan ; eirdvayKes is only found here in the New Testament. Verse 29. Aiar^pelv occurs again in the New Testa- ment only in St. Luke ii. 51. Hobart (pp. 153 ff.), moreover, makes it very probable that the Lukan words TrapaTijp'rjo-is (also found in the New Testament only in the Lukan writings), Traparrjpelv, SiaTypeiv, TtjpTjcris are technical medical terms. The concluding formulae (the reading is doubtful) are irrelevant, because the New Testament affords no material for comparison. The result of our investigation is that the epistle is Lukan in style and vocabulary (in opposition to Zahn). The few CLTT. \ey. whose occurrence, however, may in part be explained from medical phraseology are not sufficient to disturb this impression. St. Luke, there- fore, has manufactured this document. APPENDIX IV (to p. 152) ST. LUKE AND ST. JOHN THE sections of Holtzmann's article " Das Schriftstel- lerische Verhaltnis des Johannes zu den Synoptikern " ("Ztschr. f. Wissensch. Theol.," 1869, Bd. 12, ss. 62 ff.) which deal with the relation of St. John to St. Luke form the foundation of all investigations into this question. Since the publication of that article addi- tional observations have been contributed from many quarters, but the last word has not yet been said. Neither is completeness aimed at in the following remarks. (1) St. Luke and St. John have added narratives to the Gospel history, and have made corrections therein, in accordance with tradition originating in Jerusalem or Southern Palestine. The most important of these are the Resurrection narratives, wherein we are told that the first appearances of our Lord took place in Jerusalem, that they were such as proved His corporal Resurrection, that He was first seen by women (a woman), l and that there were two angels at the i St. Matthew xxviii. 9, 10 is, I believe, a later interpolation. Compare also the r6le which St. Mary, the Mother of our Lord, plays APPENDIX IV 225 sepulchre. Almost as important are the new accounts, which correct the more ancient tradition concerning our Lord's behaviour during His Crucifixion, and also supply other details in the history of the Passion (Wellhausen, on St. Luke xxii. 26 f., points out the correspondence between our Lord's SLaicovla towards His disciples and the " washing of the feet " in St. John). Also, the high priest Annas is only mentioned in St. Luke and St. John (St. Luke iii. 2, Acts iv. 6, St. John xviii. 13, 24), and the conduct and character of Pilate is similarly conceived in both gospels. In this connection we may further adduce the stories of Mary and Martha, 1 the journey through Samaria and the interest shown in the Samaritans, in St. Luke the local Judaic colouring of the narrative of the first two chapters of the gospel, 2 and much else of the same kind in St. John. (2) St. Luke and St. John first introduce the words (E/3pa'iz> rov KOCT/JLOV (iv. 6 f.) compare also the use of 6 /eoV/Ao? in both gospels ; (d) also in St. Luke our Lord knows thoughts before they are uttered (vi. 8) ; (e) in this gospel also Jesus passes through the midst of His foes without their being able to lay hands upon Him (iv. 29 f.) ; (f) in both gospels our Lord affords a miraculous draught of i TvStvis ai>cpd>0fj 'irjcroGs TO?S fj-adijTois tycpOels e'/c vfKpwv). St. Luke, or his authority before him, has boldly trans- formed and transplanted this story of the Kisen Christ into the earthly history of our Lord ; but, in my opinion, even as it stands in St. Luke it presupposes St. Peter's denial, as we see from the words of St. Peter in verse 8 : 6A0e air' e/*ov, 8-n avfyp a/j.apTu\6s dpi /cupte, and, moreover, the promise that he should be a " fisher of men," to which the " Feed my sheep " is parallel, is more appropriate in the mouth of the Kisen Christ than as spoken at a very early period of the earthly ministry. I therefore cannot but regard it as extremely probable that this narrative formed the genuine conclusion of St. Mark, especially as the author of the gospel of Peter reproduces St. Mark xvi. 1-8, and then, without any joint or hiatus in the narrative, proceeds to describe the flight of the disciples to Galilee and the lake of Gennesareth, mentioning, moreover, in this connec- tion, Levi, the son of that Alphseus whose name is given by St. Mark alone (ii. 14). This first appearance of the Kisen Lord to St. Peter an appearance which is historical, and is vouched for by St. Paul and St. Luke (by the latter abruptly in xxiv. 34), and which the later tradition of the Church of Jerusalem endeavoured to depose from its premier position or to suppress altogether really took place at the lake of Gennesareth after St. Peter had again returned to his ordinary occupation (as is expressly stated in the gospel of Peter, 228 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN (g) in both gospels Jesus speaks of fiao-Td^eiv TOV o-ravpov ; in both (h) of 6 i\oi, fiov (St. Luke xii. 4 and St. John xv. 14) ; (i) the use of o rcvptos for Jesus in both gospels is important ; (&) in St. Luke as a rule God is called " Father " in relation to the Son just as in St. John ; (/) the passage St. Luke xxii. 29 (/ectyw SiarlQe/jiai, vplv fcaOoDs SieOero JJLOI 6 Trartjp fjLov fBa 1 Also <5 peap, ((^cori^iv). (2) The gospel of St. John has in common with the Acts of the Apostles the following words which do not occur in St. Mark and St. Matthew : aXXetr&u, dfjivos, (direiOelv) , dpecrTOs, fiaea), eX- Kveiv, eTTtXeyetz/, e%#9, (J^Xo?), fvT?;<749, kpvvvvaiy /cairoi, (XtOd^ew) , (\oi8opeiv), \ovetv, (naLveadai) , fjidxeadai, veveiv, 'jrepacrrdvaiy (Trepiro^rf) , (TTtafeti/), 7T\evpd, (797/W- veiv, (Trod, GVpeiv, a"^piviov t (TUTTO?), ^0^09. (%) The gospel of St. John has in common with St. Luke's gospel and the Acts the following words which do not occur in St. Matthew and St. Mark : (dvTi\eyeiv) , (aTropeiv), (dpiOfios), (dri/JLa^eiv) , /3a6vtXot, (%dpi,s). These eighty-eight words, 1 of which thirty-eight are also found in St. Paul's epistles, 2 would prove abso- 1 Cf. also dSoiiropelffOai (St. Luke) and 6Soiropia (St. John). 2 Of the fifty remaining words, twenty-four are also found in other writings of the New Testament (principally Hebrews and Revelation), viz. : fiaineiv, fipaxvs, tvrevdev, p.ovoytvi}S, inrofAtfivfjffKfiVf typtap, dfii/Jy, fta(Tl\iKos } exec's, Kairoi, \oveiv, fffpiiffTavai, fi&Qvs, SiatiiSdvai, edos, KVK\OVJ>, Aa7x"iv, 6