Skip to main content

Full text of "Luke the physician : the author of the Third gospel and the Acts of the Apostles"

See other formats



^Testament &tutites 












\ OF 





Tavistock Street, London 


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 




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 

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 


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 


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. 


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 

A. H. 
BERLIN, January 10, 1907. 








ST. LUKE? 121 





ST. LUKE i. 39-56, 68-79; n. 15-20, 41-52 . 199 


IV. ST. LUKE AND ST. JOHN . . . 224 






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 



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. 


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 

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. 


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<yoVGi)<i TU> 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/>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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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." 


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 

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 


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. 


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," 


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 <yevo/jivov /cal ol \ot,rrol ol Iv TTJ 
OVT? curOeveias Trpoaijp^ovro /cal edeparrevovTo, 
01 Kal TToAAafc rtyuat? eri/nrjaav rjfjuas. In this narrative, 
which is also noteworthy for the precise medical defini- 
tion TrvpeTois Kal Svcrevrepiq), 1 we are struck by the 
concluding words : " we were honoured with many 
honours." It follows that the numerous sick folk (we 

i The plural wpfrol (here only in the N. T.) in combination with 
dysentery describes the illness with an accuracy which we can 
scarcely imagine in a layman. Besides, Hobart shows that <rvvfx f(T ^ ai 
also is used in the technical sense (pp. 3 f ). In illustration of the 
plural TTvpcro/ Hobart has collected instances from Hippocrates, 
Aretseus, and Galen. With Truperols Kal Svarcvrepltf he compares : Hip- 
pocr. " Judicat." 55 : Perots &V ^ rols irvpfro'is TO &TO. KuQwdri rovrfoiffi ph 
\vQevros TOV irvperov fAavfji/ai av&yKr], \uei 8* ^/c rwv pu/cov dlpa fivtv ^ 
SvffevTepi/) iiriyfvofj.vr]. L.c. 56 : Xvet 5i Kal irvperbs 
Hippocr. " Prsedic." 104 : ot Svarevrepiai vv irvpfrf /j.ev fy 
Hippocr. " Aer." 283 : TOV yap Oepeos Svo-fVTeplai TC iro\\al 
Kal . . . irvpeToi. Hippocr. " Epid." 1056 : Auct Se Kal 
Sutrej/TfptTj avfv oSw^rjs. L.c. 1207 : o 'Epio~To\dov SvfffVTepiKbs eyeVero 
Kal TrvpeTbs e?x e ' L.c, 1247 : avdyKr) TOV deptos irvpfTovs o|?s Kal 
6<t>6a\[ji(as Kal SvfffVTfpias 




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 

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. 


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~<t)(rat, (see also 
St. Luke xxiii. 35, St. Matthew xxvii. 42), and is 
especially characteristic of the disposition of the unbe- 
lieving Jewish people towards Jesus at the end of His 
ministry, though it is quite out of place at the begin- 
ning. The thought finds an evident parallel in Galen 
("Comm." iv. 9 ; "Epid." vi. [xvii. B. 151]): typify TOV 
iarpov eavrov Trpwrov iaeOai TO a-v^inw^a teal OUTCW? 
einxeipeiv erepovs OepaTrevew. 

(4) St. Luke was a companion of St. Paul. In the 
Acts, from chapter xvi. to the end of the work, the author 
throughout long stretches of his narrative concerning 
St. Paul writes as an eye-witness (using a u we "). The 



objection, which has been already mentioned, that he 
is here using foreign material and has either carelessly 
or of set purpose allowed the "we" to stand, will 
be investigated in the next chapter. The most natural 
conclusion is that behind this " we " stands the author 
of the whole work. There is yet another circum- 
stance which supports such a conclusion. We notice 
that the author of this work begins by laying for 
himself a broad foundation and seems to set himself 
the task of describing the victorious progress of the 
Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome through the opera- 
tion of the mighty power of God indwelling in the 
Apostles, and that yet in the last quarter of his book 
he loses himself in the history of St. Paul, and herein 
seems utterly to forget his aim in his detailed descrip- 
tion of the final voyage. Who, if not one who was a 
companion of St. Paul, can be regarded as responsible for 
what we must describe as a glaring fault in the com- 
position of a work of this kind ? Even in a companion 
of the Apostle such a fault is sufficiently astounding, 
but in a later writer of high literary gifts, personally 
unacquainted with St. Paul, it is absolutely unintelli- 
gible. And, further, it has been already noticed (p. 3) 
that St. Luke was probably not with St. Paul when the 
epistles to the Thessalonians, to the Corinthians, and to 
the Romans were written, and that he was not per- 
sonally, or at all events not intimately, acquainted with 
the Churches of Thessalonica and Corinth. Turning to 
the Acts, we find no " we " either in the passages which 
deal with Thessalonica or in those dealing with 
Corinth. On the other hand, we have evidence to show 


that St. Luke was in Rome with St. Paul, and accord- 
ingly in this city we fall in with the author of the Acts 
(or of the " we " sections) in the company of the 
Apostle, with whom he had made the voyage thither. 
Finally, wherever St. Luke is mentioned in the Pauline 
epistles St. Mark is mentioned with him. We should 
therefore expect that the author of the third gospel 
and the Acts would show himself intimately acquainted 
with St. Mark. Now we find that he has incorporated 
practically the whole gospel of St. Mark into his own 
gospel, and is so far acquainted with that evangelist 
that he is actually able to tell us the name of his 
mother's maid-servant ! 

(5) St. Luke was not only a companion but also a 
fellow-worker with St. Paul. The author of the Acts 
writes (chapter xvi. 10) : on Trpoa-KeK^fjrat, ij/za? o fleo? 
evayyeXicraadai auroO?, and (chapter xvi. 13) : fcaOlcrav- 
re<? e\a\ov/jiv rai? (rvve\6ov<rai,<i ^vva^iv. He also, 
with St. Paul, was therefore a missionary preacher. 1 

1 This fact becomes still more clear from the consideration of the 
great discourses scattered throughout the Acts. Such discourses 
(especially those of chapters, xiii. and xvii.) can only have been com- 
posed by a missionary practised in the work of evangelisation. To 
learn that this missionary was a disciple of St. Paul it suffices to 
read but one passage (chapter xiii. 38 f .) : yvutrrbv eo-rw fyui>, on 5ia 'ITJO-OU 
XpiffTov v/juv &,({>TIS a/jLapriuv Karayye\\7ai [al] airb ir6.vr<av wv OVK 
rjSwTJflrjTe Iv v6/j.(f Ma>i)<rea>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 


(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 

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\a<pp6s, 
s, v1ttos t &8r)y6s, o5vp/j.6s, oKVT}p6s y 
acpos, tyevSopdpTus, a>paTov 
(thus only four verbs). 

St. Paul and St. Mark : a.ftfid, dAaAaet/, a/zcSprrj/ia, o7ro(TTepe?i/, 
flpr)vfvfii' ) QauTys, fopvff<reiv, eu/catpelV, c 

rp6/j.os, viroSf'iffOai, vo-TTjprjcns (thus ten verbs). 

St. Paul and St. John ; warpetyeiv, <WpX 60 "0 a< > 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, <rvvf)dfia, TJ/VXOS (thus five verbs). 

St. Paul and St. Luke (gospel) : tf5r?Aoj, aicpvlSios, fxpoActrffcci', 
V) ovoAvetv, a.i/airf/j.irfi.v t av6r)Tos ) avTairdSo^a, di/Tairo- 
i, ai'Ti\a/j.ftdi>(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,, orrraaia, OO-^TTJS, bty&viov, 
'is, iravoir\ia, iruvovpyia, TrATjpo^ope?*', 7rp6<r)8yT7jy, irpoKdirTfiv, 

(rvvKaOifatv, ffvve\f'iv t avvox'h} <rv / x. ol/ /' 6t * / > (TWTTjptoc, viro(TTpe<ptv t VTTOD- 
irtdeiv, vffTfprjfjLa, $6pos, (ppovijffis, xap'C e<r ^ at > 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 


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. 


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 et<? 
'AvTidxeiav e\d\ovv fcal Trpo? rot>9 "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. 


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. 


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)<ria (see below), before the use of the word ftdprvs in 
the special sense of " martyr," but some time after the 
destruction of Jerusalem. 2 The tradition that the 

1 Local information concerning Jerusalem is given in Acts i. 12, 
Acts iii. 2, 10. See also St. Luke xxiv. 13. It should not be over- 
looked that the force of the typical discourse at Nazareth, with 
which the author of the gospel begins his presentation of the teaching 
of our Lord, culminates in the mention of Naaman the Syrian. This 
discourse begins with a medical metaphor and closes with a reference 
to the Syrian who was preferred to the Chosen People. Can this be 
accidental ? 

2 The time of Josephus need not be taken into consideration ; for 


author was a companion of St. Paul fits in with this 
hypothesis. He could thus have been a man of fifty or 
sixty years of age when he wrote his book. 

So far, then, it seems that the result of our investi- 
gation is that, according to all the rules of criticism, the 
tradition of the Lukan authorship is in a great measure 
accredited. We have by no means confined ourselves to 
the " we " sections, but have taken into equal considera- 
tion practically all parts of the work. 

Nevertheless we must still ask ourselves the questions, 
(1) Whether the " we " sections (with greater or smaller 
context) cannot be separated as a source from the rest 
of the Acts ? l (2) Whether the subject-matter of the 
Acts (more especially of chaps, i.-xii., xv.) does not 
oppose insuperable difficulties to the hypothesis that 
the book is the work of St. Luke ? 

the theory that the author of the Acts had read that historian is 
quite baseless. From St. Luke xxi. 32 it conclusively follows that 
we must not go beyond the time of Domitian. Wellhausen, of course, 
asserts that this utterance, simply taken from St. Mark, no longer 
suits the situation of St. Luke. That, however, is just the question. 
The arguments adduced above we may notice also that ol Zyioi as 
term, tec/in, for Christians, though used four times by St. Luke, is 
plainly dying out make it seem absolutely impossible to push 
forward the composition of the gospel and the Acts into the second 
century. Indeed, in the face of these arguments it is to me very 
improbable that the date was much later than 80 A.D. He who 
assigns the work to 80 A.D. will about hit the mark. 

1 In this case the considerations which seem to favour St. Luke's 
authorship of the whole work must be accounted as due to accident 
an hypothesis which is, indeed, difficult enough. 



IT has been often stated and often proved that the 
" we " sections in vocabulary, in syntax, and in style 
are most intimately bound up with the whole work, 
and that this work itself (including the gospel), 
in spite of all diversity in its parts, is distinguished 
by a grand unity of literary form. 1 Klostermann 2 
has given a splendid demonstration of this unity, 
dealing more particularly with the "we" sections. 
B. Weiss, in his concise, instructive commentary (1893), 
has done the best work in demonstrating the literary 
unity of the whole work. Vogel also ("Zur Charak- 
teristik des Lukas," 2 Aufl., 1899) has made admirable 
contributions to the treatment of the subject. Finally 
Hawkins ("Horae Synopticse," 1899), after a yet more 
careful and minute investigation, has proved the 
identity of the author of the "we" sections with 

1 Strongly emphasised by Zeller, " Die Apostelgeschichte," 

2 "VindicifE Lucanas," 1866. 


the author of the whole work. But all this valuable 
labour has not attained its purpose because it was not 
accurate nor detailed enough and because it seemed to 
prove too much. 1 Seeing that the prologue of the 
gospel, and still more the relation of this book to the 
gospel of St. Mark, show clearly that the gospel depends 
upon written sources, and seeing that it is therefore a 
priori probable that similar sources lie behind the Acts 
of the Apostles, it is obvious that a general proof that 
the whole work forms a literary whole is quite irrelevant 
to the question concerning sources. In every case i.e., 
in every considerable passage it must be found out 
whether, in spite of traits which betray the pen of the 
author of the whole work, an earlier source is not 
employed. Happily we possess the gospel of St. Mark, 
and therefore in respect to a source of considerable 
content we are in a position to ascertain the manner 
in which the author of the whole work has em- 
ployed it. 

Before, however, we enter upon a linguistic investiga- 
tion of the problem presented by the " we " sections we 
must by comparison discover the relationship in which 
the facts related in the " we" sections and the interests 
of their author stand to those of the author of the whole 

The narrative of the " we " sections runs somewhat as 
follows : 

i This is not true of Hawkins. The valuable work of this scholar 
is not so widely known as it deserves. 


(xvi. 10-17) 

a. A vision in Troas, which causes us to migrate to 

b. A list of halting-places on the journey from Troas 
to Philippi. 

c. We proceed on the Sabbath day to the Jewish 
place of prayer (this place of prayer is the scene of the 
activity of the evangelists, of whom the narrator is one 
he is not a mere companion). 

d. The conversion and baptism of Lydia, the purple 
seller of Thyatira, a Jewish proselyte, together with all 
her house. 

e. We are constrained by Lydia to lodge with her. 

f. The exorcism by St. Paul of the "spirit" of a 
female ventriloquist, a slave who was exploited as a 
prophetess by her masters. This u spirit " had recog- 
nised the evangelists (TlavXov teal ^yu,a?), and had 
described them as messengers of the Most High God 
which preach the " Way of Salvation." 

(xx. 5 [4]-15) 

a. A notice concerning the companions of St. Paul. 

b. The journey from Philippi to Troas, with exact 

c. An assembly of the Church (object in the first place 
K\daai aprov) in the upper story of a house, which lasts 


from evening to midnight indeed, even until dawn. 
St. Paul is the preacher; the narrator appears as a 
listener with the rest. 1 

d. A youthful listener, Eutychus, overcome by sleep, 
falls down from the upper story. He is called back to 
life by St. Paul, who stretches himself upon him. St. 
Paul then, as if nothing had happened, proceeds with 
his discourse. 

e. The journey from Troas to Miletus, with exact 

(xxi. 1-18) 

a. The voyage from Miletus to Tyre, with exact 

b. Sojourn with the "disciples" (of Jesus) in Tyre ; 
these warn St. Paul "Sia Trvevparos'" not to go to 

i There are grounds for questioning whether a definite Church was 
already in existence at Troas, and whether the assembly was not 
thus confined to the numerous companions of St. Paul and a few 
other believers or inquirers ; for brethren in Troas are not expressly 
mentioned, but are certainly included in the T\^V of xx. 7, especially 
as an ouroTs follows. (Many not very trustworthy authorities read, 
for intelligible reasons, ^aAi\Tuv for rinSus.) We notice also that there 
is no mention of a leave-taking in Troas (xx. 11). The whole situation 
has light thrown upon it by 2 Cor. ii. 12 : E\0kv 5e fh T^V TpcfaSa 
fts rb evayyeXiov TOV Xpiffrov, xal Qvpa.5 /uoi avc^/ieVrjs 4v Kvply, OVK 
effxyKa fotcriv T< iryeujuart juou T /u^ fvpsiv /it TITOJ> 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. 


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 

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). 



(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 

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 

. 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. 


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 

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 


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. 



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 <rol, *Iijcrov 
vie TOV Oeov TOV vTJrlaTov), here also at Philippi first pro- 
claims the evangelists as SoOXoi TOV Oeov vtyivTOV. 

In particular I would draw attention to the following 
important points of similarity : As in the Acts (and, 
mutatis mutandis, in the gospel), St. Paul, with his 
companions, betakes himself in the first place to the 
synagogue (or to the place of prayer) ; converts are bap- 
tised " with their whole house " ; St. Paul teaches " the 
Way of Salvation," or " the Way " ; in Christian assem- 
blies " the bread is broken " ; a college of Elders exists 
in the Church at Jerusalem ; St. James appears 
at the head of that Church (xv. 13, but xii. 17 is still 
more striking) ; Christians use the expression, " the will 
of God be done " (see St. Luke xxii. 42) ; St. Paul is 

1 St. Paul's stretching himself upon Eutychus is only a stronger 
measure than the laying on of hands, which is always found in 
St. Luke's accounts of healing. In St. Luke vii. 14 the touch- 
ing of the bier has the same significance, The only exception is 
Acts ix. 40. 

2 Hobart, l.c, p. 238, and infra in Appendix I. 


ready to die " for the name of the Lord Jesus " ; a 
classical reminiscence appears in xxviii. 4 (77 AUrj tfiv OVK 
efacre*/), an Homeric in the word aoy^eVo)? ; likewise a 
word (Odpcros) l occurs which is used by Homer and 
the tragedians ; St. Paul heals by means of laying on 
of hands ; a and we can trace no strong interest in 
what is purely ecclesiastical. 3 Wherever comparison 

i Also ti&pis and pdpQapoi should be mentioned. The classical 
reminiscences to be found in the Acts, outside the " we " sections, are 
well known (the quotation from Aratus [Cleanthes], 5ei<n8afyvj/, 
AiOTreTej, Ztvs, "ApTe/us, Stoics, Epicureans, and many others). In 
the gospel also may be found similar instances ; compare, for instance, 
Wellhausen on St. Luke xvi. 3. 

3 Also the somewhat sentimental expression (xxi. 13), rl iroie'irf 
/cAo/ovres Kal <rvv6pinrTovTfs /*ou r))v Kapftlav, fits in marvellously with 
many instances of sentimentality in the third gospel and the Acts 
(see ix. 39 : irapiffrriffav iraffai at xVP ai xXaiovarai Kal tiriSeuci'v/j.evai 
XtTwvas Kal 1/j.dna '6aa eVofet rj Aop/cos ; cf, also xx. 19, 23, 25, 31, 37, 
38). These coincidences in feeling seem to me of special importance. 
St. Mark and St. Matthew speak only of the bitter tears of St. Peter ; 
but there is much weeping in St. Luke ; our Lord Himself weeps 
over Jerusalem, and beatifies those that weep. We find the same 
trait in St. John, but not so strongly marked ; it is Hellenic in 

s Wellhausen has rightly emphasised this trait in the third gospel 
(" Luk.," s. 72). It is a remarkable coincidence that the author of the 
" we " sections never uses the word " Church. " He individualises the 
Christians in Tyre, Ptolernais, Cassarea, Jerusalem, Sidon, and Puteoli, 
and calls them "disciples," "brethren," "friends" (unless in this 
case special friends are intended, which, however, is less probable, 
for in this case their names would most likely have been given). In 
St. Luke, as is well known, the word 6/c/c\Tj<ria never occurs ; on the 
other hand, it is found twenty-three times in the Acts. But (1) the Acts 
uses the word both for Jewish and heathen assemblies (vii. 38 ; xix. 32, 
39, 41), and by this shows that the word had not yet gained for the 
author of the Acts a sacred significance ; (2) of the other nineteen in- 
stances, in fifteen the reference is to the Church in general and to the 
communities of Jerusalem and Antioch. Of the remaining four occur- 


is at all possible, we therefore find complete agree- 
ment. 1 

Indeed, no difference worthy of mention can be dis- 
covered. It is true that in the account of the ship- 
wreck the personality of St. Paul is presented in fresher 
colours, and more vividly impresses us with the sense of 
its grandeur than anywhere else in the book ; but is this 
strange? The author was upon this occasion an 
admiring eye-witness of the Apostle's heroic behaviour 
in an anxious and dangerous situation ! We cannot be 

rences, in three instances the word is used in the plural, for the Churches 
in Europe and Asia (xiv. 23, xv. 41, xvi. 5), and once for the Church in 
Ephesus. In this point, therefore, there is no noteworthy difference 
between the Acts and the " we " sections, for the latter also uses d5e\<f>of 
and /j.a0r]Tai though not tnK\r)ffia in a technical sense : aSe\<poi t 
i. 15 ; ix. 30 ; x. 23 ; xi. 1 (ol a.ir60To\oi KO.\ ol a.8c\<f>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 (7ri<rr6s) = Christians there are three examples 
in the Acts. One stands in the first half (x. 45), one in the second 
(xvi. 1), and one in the "we" sections (xvi. 15). 

i We may also notice such traits as the interest displayed in those 
persons with whom St. Paul lodged in the various cities. The " we " 
sections mention Lydia in Philippi, Philip in Csesarea, Mnason in 
Jerusalem, Publius in Malta. It is unnecessary to quote the numerous 
passages in the Acts of a similar kind ; think only of Simon in 
Joppa, Jason in Thessalonica, &c. It is most remarkable that the 
" we " sections share in the same by no means casual variation between 
lfpoo~6\vna and 'lfpovffa\-f)H which characterises the Acts. In xxi. 
4, 15, 17 we find 'IcpovAXvpa, and in xxi. 11, 12, 13'lpov<ro\4". Good 
reasons may be assigned for the variation. 


too thankful to him for this narrative ; for, apart from 
what we learn from the Apostle's own writings, this is 
the only record we possess which shows us how St. Paul 
by constant self-discipline had gained inward and out- 
ward peace for his own soul, and thus power over the souls 
of others. But the discussion of this point belongs to a 
later chapter. Here only one point must be mentioned 
namely, that the interest in travelling and halting- 
places which is displayed in the " we " sections is by no 
means absent in the author of the Acts. He could not 
give such strong expression to this interest in other 
parts of his work, because he is there writing not as a 
fellow-traveller and an eye-witness, but from the report 
of others. But one need only refer to Acts xiv. 21-26, 
viii. 26, 40, ix. 32, 35, 36, 43, and x. 1 to recognise 
that in this point also the two works are not quite out 
of relationship to one another. 

Finally, we have above (pp. 3 ff.) investigated the 
conditions which must be satisfied if the third gospel 
and the Acts of the Apostles are to be assigned to the 
authorship of the Luke who is named and characterised 
by St. Paul, and (apart from the " higher " criticism) 
we have found these conditions fulfilled in the work 
itself. In the same way, also, on the hypothesis of the 
identity of the authors of the Acts and the "we" sections, 
we may deduce from the latter (apart from the conformi- 
ties we have already noticed) certain conditions, and may 
find out whether they are satisfied in the book as a whole. 
In order to avoid repetition I refrain from dealing with 
these conditions at present (the question will be fully 
dealt with later), and confine myself to two points: 


(1) One passage of the " we" sections may be adduced 
which might seem to suggest that the author is to be dis- 
tinguished from the writer of the whole work. In xxi. 
10 Agabus is introduced as if he had not been before 
named ; and yet he is already mentioned in xi. 28 and 
that in a remarkably similar situation. The conclusion 
drawn is that the author of the complete work carelessly 
copied this passage (xxi. 10) from his source, in which, 
of course, nothing was known of an earlier appearance of 
Agabus. To this conclusion we would oppose the 
following considerations : In the first place, Aristarchus 
is introduced (xxvii. 2) in such a way as to lead one to 
believe that he is here mentioned for the first time, and 
yet he has already appeared in xix. 29 and xx. 4 
[the latter passage cannot possibly be separated from 
the " we " narrative]. And, in the second place, we 
would only point out that the occurrence of the name 
" Agabus " in xi. 28 is doubtful, and is probably due to 
an ancient interpolation from xxi. 10. In xi. 28, as we 
read /carf}\0ov CLTTO ^lepoaoXv^wv TrpocfrrJTai et? 
' avaffTas $e el? ef CIVTWV ovopaTi, "Ayaftos 
ta T. Trvevparos, /f.r.X., we are not led to ex- 
pect the mention of the name of an individual prophet. 
In xxi. 10, however, we read /carrjXBev rt9 CLTTO rfjs 
'JouSata? [and thus certainly not from Jerusalem] 
TrpotyiJTrjs ovo/JLari "A<ya/3o$ Kai elaeXOcbv Trpo? ^yua? KOI 
apas rrjv favrjv r. JTauXou, K.T.\. How easily it would 
occur to any one to complete the former passage by adding 
the name from the latter ! At all events, we cannot argue 
from one slight discrepancy, which admits of several 


explanations, so long as no gap in the narrative and no 
rough edge in the style can be traced at the points of 
junction of the " we " sections with the rest of the work. 
(2) On the other hand, we may point to one striking 
instance of inward relationship between the " we " 
sections and the first half of the Acts. In the " we " 
sections (xxi. 8) the author relates that he had fallen in 
with Philip the Evangelist at Caesarea, and with distinct 
reference to chap. vi. he speaks of him as " one of the 
seven." This reference is quite in order in fact, just 
what we might expect. But it is most strange, or 
rather it is only to be explained from identity of 
authorship, that in viii. 40 the account concerning this 
Philip concludes with the words, " But Philip was found 
at Azotus ; and passing through he preached the gospel 
to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea " [and nothing 
further is said of him]. If the two authors were not 
identical, how in the wide world can it be explained that 
the author of the whole work displays such interest in the 
residence of Philip at Caesarea without telling us what 
he did there ? The narrative admits only of the ideal 
conclusion: "there I met him at a later time" [not 
" there he was met by someone else whose diary I shall 
later on incorporate in my work "]. Nor even in xxi. 8 
are we told anything more concerning this Philip than 
that he with his four daughters dwelt in Caesarea. Thus 
the information given concerning him in x. 40 is simply 
purposeless if the author of the complete work is not 
speaking in xxi. 8. But this information is both 
intelligible and natural under the hypothesis of identical 





authorship ; it betrays the interest of the author of the 
whole work and of the " we " sections in a personal 
acquaintance which was made in Caesarea. 

We now proceed to our linguistic investigation. I 
have chosen the first and last passages of the " we "" 


sections for detailed consideration. To go through the 
whole ninety-seven verses in similar fashion would simply 
impose a useless burden upon the reader. And, besides, 
chap, xxvii. has been excellently, though not thoroughly, 
treated by Klostermann. 

(xvi. 10) G>9 
TO opapa el&ev, 



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 


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 <w9 is never found in 
St. Matthew and St. Mark, but it 
occurs about forty-eight times in St. 
Luke (gospel and Acts), and that in 
all parts of the work. 

TO opa/na appears eleven times in 
the Acts; elsewhere in the whole New 
Testament it is only found once 
(St. Matthew xvii. 9). TO opapa 
occurs x. 17 and xi. 5 with 
xii. 9, a><J>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 


does not occur else- 
where in the Acts 
(once in St. Luke viii. 

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- 


e eTTiovcrj 

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 



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) 


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 

[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" 

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 


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.] 


(xvi. 13) rrj re 

eo) TV? TTV- 
Trapa iroTa- 
ov evoplfo- 
KOL Ka6l- 

rat? o~vve\6ov- 
aai? yvvai^lv. 

Blass conjectures, 
in my opinion on in- 
sufficient grounds, 
(V Trpofffvxfj 
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- 

Vide Acts xiii. 1 4 : 

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 


yvvrj ovofjiaTi, Av- 


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 


(re/3ofj,evov rov 6ebv. The expression 
r/9 dvijp or avrjp (<yvvrj) ns is not 
found in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and 
St. John ; on the other hand, it is 
of constant occurrence in St. Luke 
(vide, besides the passages mentioned, 
St. Luke viii. 27, Acts iii. 2, v. 1, 
viii. 9, x. 1, xvi. 9, xxi. 10, xxv. 14). 
This ovofjiari, is found only once 
in each of the gospels of St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, but in St. 
Luke (gospel and Acts) about thirty 
times, and in several places the con- 
struction is exactly the same as it is 

7roXea>9 0.]. Often in St. Luke, 
never in St. Matthew and St. Mark. 
Cf. Acts xi. 5 : ev TroXet 
xxvii. 8 : TroXt? Aaaea. 


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 


(xvi. 15) o>5 & 

1, KOI 

00,' el ICCK pi/care 

//- 7Tl(TTr)V Tft) KV- 

elvai,, etVeX- 

9 TO!/ 


Interpolations : 
vas & oT/cos (Dw), 
[iropeK^Aeo-er] Pau- 
lum et nos (p 2 w), 
6ef for Kvpicf (D.), 

v ra? 7pa<a9, xxiv. 45: Bnjvoitfev 
avr&v TOV vovv TOV avvievai ra? 
7/oa</>a9 ; 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, 


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. 

<W9 8e]. Vide verse 10. 

KOI o ol/co9]. The same construc- 
tion as in xviii. 2. 

o'/eo9]. The mention of the house, 
and that in the sense of the family, is 
characteristic of St. Luke vide x. 2, 
xi. 14, xvi. 31 (awQijar) o~i> /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 


ei<reA<Wes for etVe\- very nearly = eVe The construction 
(D.). is just the same as in iv. 9, xi. 17. 

KeKpiKare\. Does not occur in 
this weakened sense in St. Matthew, 
St. Mark, and St. John ; see, on the 
contrary, St. Luke vii. 43 (6p0ws 
eicpivas), xii. 57, and several passages 
in the Acts e.g., xv. 19, xvi. 4 (TO, 
Boy/jLarara fcetcpifieva), XX.16(Xpi*A 
6 JlaOAo?), xxvi. 8, xiii. 46 (aj;lovs 
Kpivere eavrovs rfjs aiwviov fofjs). 

TTKrTrjv TW fcvptm]. Vide x. 1 : vlbs 
tyvvaiicos 'lovSa/a? TTMmfc, x. 45 : 

01 K 7TpLTOfl7]^ 7Tl(7TOi. TheSC are 

the only passages in the gospel and 
the Acts. For TO) icvplq, vide 
xviii. 8 : K/oterTro? eV/crreuo-ev T$ 


Paul says : TTwro? ev KVpiy. 

i<re\dovTe<s el? r. dlicov\. Vide 
ix. 17 : e!(rij\0ev et? TTJV olfclav ; xi. 
12 : io-rj\0ojAv 66? rbv ol/cov. For 
"house" in the ordinary sense St. 
Luke varies between oZ/eo? and oiicia. 

fjihere] = "take up your abode," 
as in ix. 43, i^elvat, ev 'loTnrrj nrapd 
TLVI Zifjiwvi,, and in xviii. 3, Sia TO 
ofjuore'xvov elvcu ejjLevev Trap' aurot?. 
Meveiv is found three times in St. 
Matthew, twice in St. Mark, twenty- 
one times in St. Luke. 

TrapaftLdcraTo]. This word does 
not occur again in the New Testa- 
ment except in St. Luke xxiv. 29, a 
passage which has a remarkable like- 
ness to the one we are dealing with : 
KOI Trapefiid&avTO avTov \eyov- 


(xvi. 16) eyei/e- 


. Kal 


, irai- 

aav Trvev/JLa TTV- 
6c0va \nravTr\aai 
THUV, JJTt? epyaai- 
av 7To\\rjv Trapel- 


gven in some an- 
cient authorities. In- 
terpolation: 5i& 
Tovrov parr. 

el<rri\6ev TOV fiewcu avv 

Concerning the different construc- 
tions with eyevero which St. Luke 
uses, vide Plummets " Commentary 
on St. Luke, 11 p. 45 f. The construc- 
tion with the ace. and infin., which 
is very common in St. Luke (twelve 
times in the Acts), is wanting in 
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John. 
For the temporal use of the gen. 
abs. vide St. Luke xi. 14 : eyevero 
rov Bai/jLOvtov e'fe\06i>T09, 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 

<ria (see also verse 19) is not found in 
St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. John ; 



(xvi. 17) avrrj 

TO) IIav\o> Kal 
rjfilv Kpaev Xey- 
ovaa' ovTOt ol av- 

6eov TOV infrlarov 



Kara.KoXovB-fia'affa : 
with good authority, 
and probably correct 

eA OVT at in 

on the other hand, vide Acts xix. 24: 
Trapel^ero rot? T6%viTais epja- 
o- iav ovtc o\l<yr)v, xix. 25: e/e Tavrqs 
T^? epyaalas. It is found also in 
the gospel (but in another sense) 
vide xii. 58 : So? epyaatav. If this is 
a Latinism ("da operam," Well- 
hausen) it is not the only one in 
St. Luke. We may consider as 
Latinisms the constant use of the 
relative to conjoin clauses (vide 
sup., on verse 14), and probably also 
the use of '^prjcrOai (xxvii. 3, 17). 
For Trape^eiv vide 7rape%eiv KOTTOV 
(St. Luke xi. 7, xviii. 5), Trlcmv 
(Acts xvii. 31 ), r](iv^iav (Acts xxii. 
2), fytXavOptoTTiav (Acts xxviii. 2). 

rot? Kvplois]. Also in St. Luke 
xix. 33. With singular exactness 
stress is laid upon the fact that the 
belonged to several masters. 

This use of OUTO? to re- 
peat the subject is very common 
in the Acts vide viii. 26, ix. 36, 
x. 6, 32, 36, xiii. 7, xiv. 9, xviii. 
25, 26, &c. 

KaraKo\ovdovora\. The word is 
found only once again in the New 
Testament, namely, in St. Luke 
xxiii. 55 : KaTa/co\ov9rjcra(ra(, at 
ryvval/ces. (N.B. rj^tv here does not 
include St. Paul.) 

etcpa^ev \e<yov(ra]. Vide St. Luke 
iv. 41 : ^ai^ovia Kpd^ovra Kal \eyov- 
ra ; Acts xix. 28 : eicpafyv Xeyovres. 

ovroi ol avdpwiroi]. Vide Acts iv. 


place Of Karayyf\- 16 I T<H5 aV0pa)7TOl$ TOUTOt?, cf. V. 25 

\ovaiv (D.). D. also v . 38 (the same phrase); xvi. 20: 

omits ftrtponroi. ^^ Q . foQ^^ vi . 13 . Q & v penr o<i 

OUTO?, xxvi. 31, 32 (the same phrase), 
xxviii. 4 (the same phrase). 

SoOXot T.. Oeov]. Vide Acts iv. 29 : 
809 ro?9 SovXois o~ov, St. Luke ii. 
29 : TOV 8ov\6v aov (sell. " of God"). 
Wanting elsewhere in the Gospels. 

TOV 6eov TOV vtyiaTOv\. Except 
in a doubtful passage of St. Mark 
(v. 7) and in Hebrews vii. 1 this 
expression is found only in St. Luke 
out of all the writings of the New 
Testament (Gospel five times, Acts 
twice). It occurs as a rule without 
6 0eo'?, but vide St. Luke viii. 28, vie 
TOV Oeov TOV vtyicrTov. Also TO in/ro? 
as the place of the Deity and 
vtyovaOat, of Christ occur only (each 
twice) in St. Luke. 

omi/69]. Vide notes on verses 12 
and 16. With the narrative here 
compare that of xix. 15, which is 
very similar. 

KaTayy6\\ovo-iv]. The word does 
not occur in the gospels, but eleven 
times in the Acts, and, indeed, in all 
parts of the book vide, e.g., iv. ^2 
(avd(TTaffiv\ xiii. 5 and xv. 36 (TOV 
\6yov), xiii. 38 (afaaiv apapT), xvi. 
21 (#77), xvii. 3, 23 (I^ovv). 

6ov 0-om7pta9]. Vide St. Luke i. 
79 : 0809 66/3771/779 (which is the same), 
xx. 21 : 6809 TOV Oeov, Acts ii. 28 : 
6801)9 0)779, ix. 2, xiii. 10, xviii. 25 : 
6809 TOU Kvplov, xviii. 26 : 6809 TOV 


0ov, xix. 9, 23, xxii. 4, xxiv. 22. 
2 wry p la is wanting in St. Matthew 
and St. Mark, and is found once in 
St. John ; in St. Luke (gospel and 
Acts) it occurs ten times vide, e.g., 
Acts xiii. 26 : 6 \6yos rfjs awry p las 
St. Luke i. 69: icepas 
, St. Luke i. 77 : yvw<n<; 
. Besides, we find TO 
T. Oeov in St. Luke ii. 30, 
iii. 6, Acts xxviii. 28. 1 

After this demonstration those who declare that this 
passage (xvi. 10-17) was derived from a source, and so 
was not composed by the author of the whole work, take 
up a most difficult position. What may we suppose the 
author to have left unaltered in the source ? Only the 
" we " ? For, in fact, nothing else remains ! In regard to 

i To show that in what directly precedes and follows the same 
relations of style and vocabulary prevail we would also compare 
verses 9 and 18 (where no "we" occurs). Verse 9 : Kal opapa 
(vide note on verse 10) Sia [rrj?] wKrbs (only in Acts v. 19, xvii. 10, 
xxiii. 31) T$ ITavAy &<pOrj (vide note on verse 10) avfyp Ma/ccSwj' TJS 
(this is Lukan vide note on verse 15) ^v etrrcbs (vide note on verse 
15) Kal irapaKa\S>v (vide note on verse 15) avrbv Kal \4ywv SiaQas 
(elsewhere only St. Luke xvi. 26) o^07j<rov wlv. Verse 18 ; rovro 
Se ciroiet tirl iro\\as j)/j.epas (duration of time with rf and ace., 
St. Luke iv. 25, x. 35, xviii. 4 ; Acts iii. 1, iv. 5, xiii. 31, xvii. 2, 
xviii. 20, xix. 8, 10, 34, xx. ll,xxvii. 20 ; never in St. Mark and St. 
John; once in St. Matthew, but only *>' 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). 


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,a<Ttoarj 7ov&ovXov auroi), Acts xxiii. 



e7re<yv(i)fj,ev on 
MeXm; rj vi)o~os 

(xxviii. 2) 01 


ov rrjv TV- 
Opwrriav r^lv* a- 
yjravresyap irvpav 
Trdvras ^yLta? Sia 
TOV verov TOV e</>e- 

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 : 
<yvvaiK&v OVK oXt/yat, xvii. 12: avSp&v 
OVK oX</yoj, xxvii. 20 : ^etfKyi/o? OVK 
oXryou. Also elsewhere in the Acts 
wherein a distinct preference is shown 
for such negative expressions, vide, 
e.g., xx. 12 : TrapeKhrjOrjaav ov 
fjnerplto9 9 xxi. 39: OVK do~ijfjbov TroXeo)?, 
xiv. 17; St. Luke xv. 13 (ov TTO\V) ; 
St. Luke vii. 6 (ov paKpav) ; Acts 


(xxviii. 3) (TV- 
(rTptyavTO? Se- 
TOV Hav\ov <ppv- 






rev -7-779 

i. 5 : ov /jb6Ta TroXXa? raura? ij 
xiv. 17 : OVK dpdpTvpov, xxvii. 14 : 
fjierd ov iro\v. This litotes, which 
thus occurs in St. Luke at least 
seventeen times (four of these in 
the " we " sections), is as good as 
absent elsewhere in the New Testa- 

ai/rai>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 : 
Upi<TKi\\a /cal 
@OVTO avTov. 

verbv]. Wanting in the gospels 
(which use instead the vulgar 
perils, ^po^). But see Acts xiv. 

e^eo-Twra]. e^Krrdvai is not found 
in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. 
John. On the other hand, it occurs 
eighteen times in St. Luke (gospel 
and Acts). Acts xxii. 20 : 

This word occurs 
elsewhere in the New Testament 
(apart from two interpolations in the 
Acts) only in St. Matthew xvii. 22 
(and this is doubtful). On the other 
hand, o-vo-rpocfrrj is found in Acts xix. 
40. and xxiii. 12. 

TrXfjflo?]. Elsewhere used only of 
men, except here and St. Luke v. 6 : 
irXrjQos lyBv&v. With this use of TC 
cf. St. Luke xxiii. 8, xxiv. 41, Acts v. 
2, viii. 36, xi. 5, xviii. 14, xxv. 19. 



(xxviii. 4) 


K Tr/9 



/e T?)9 

17 ^IKT; f?}i/ ou 

Within the New Testament it is 
characteristic of St. Luke. 

a?]. Weiss, and others with him, 
declare that dirb here = Attic VTTO 
vide St. Luke xxi. 26, Acts xi. 19, 
xii. 14, xx. 9, xxii. 11 ; but CLTTO 
here can be very well explained 
according to its fundamental sense. 
ee/o%ecr0<u aTro is very rare in St. 
Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John 
(altogether about six times) ; in St. 
Luke's gospel it is found twelve 
times vide Acts xvi. 18 (p. 52, note). 

a>9 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\<jai) ; Acts 
xxi. 22 : Trdvrcos See 7rXi}0o9 <yvve\- 

6 av9pa)7Tos OVTO?]. Vide note on 
xvi. 17 (Acts v. 28, vi. 13, xxii. 26, 
xxvi. 31). 

With the whole sentence cf. xxvi. 
32 : eXdXovv 7rpo9 d\\7JXou9 Myovres 
on ovftev Oavdrov afyov TTpdacrei, 6 

dvQpCOTTO? OUT09. 

J5Ji/]. Vide xxv. 19: ov tyaa-icev 
I7av\o9 J?)^, xxv. 24 : fjt,rj Selv avrbv 
%fjv, St. Luke xxiv. 23 : ot \ityovo~iv 
avrbv tftv, Acts xxii. 22 : ov KaOijicev 
avrbv tfjv. Peculiar to St. Luke. 

elWez/j. Not found in St. Mark 
and St. John, once in St. Matthew 
(xxiv. 43), in St. Luke (gospel and 


(xxviii. 5) 6 
ovv aTroTwd- 
a$ TO Oijptov 6/9 
TO 7rvp eiradev ov- 
8ev KCLKOV. 

(xxviii. 6) oloe 
TTpoo-eSofccov av- 
TOV fj,e\\eiv TrLfJi- 
irpaaOdi rj tcara- 
Trwreiv d(f>va) ve- 

KpOV. 67Tfc 7TO\V 

Kdl 0e- 



avrov elvai deov. 

Acts) ten times (of these ovic eav four 

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. 

d<f>vc0]. In the New Testament 
only here and in ii. 2, xvi. 26. 

veicpov]. As in v. 10 : 





9 : 


TToXu]. Vide xvi. 18 
rjij,epa$, xiii. 31 : eVl 




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;.]. <yi<yv(T0at els occurs 
only in St. Luke vide St. Luke iv. 
23 : fyevofjieva els rrjv Ka(f>apvaovfi. 
Vide also St. Luke v. 17 : Svva/jbis 
r)v els rb laaOai avTov. The par- 
ticipial use of <yi<yveaQai (except 
in determination of time) is also 

(xxviii. 7) ev TOLS irepl]. Wanting in St. Mat- 
8e Tot9 irepl TOV thew ; vide St. Luke xxii. 49, Acts 
xiii. 13. 

TOTTOV eiceivovl. Vide xvi. 3 : ovTas 
* / > / 

vTrrjpxev]. virdp^eiv is wanting in 
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. 
John ; is found thirty-three times 

TOTTOV eicevov 





(xxviii.8) e'ye- 
veroSe Tovirarepa 


perot? teal 



ov o Ilav- 
, e- 



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. 

%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. 

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. 



(xxviii. 9) TOU- 
5\ / 


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 

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. 


(xxviii. 10) 01 




rea vayo- 


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? <f>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 


(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) 



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). 


Dative of time, as in 
St. Luke viii. 29, Acts viii. 11, xiii. 

(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 

(xxviii. 14) ov 

Trap avTos em- 

fjLLVCU fj/JLepaS 7T- 

rd' Kal OI/TO)? et? 


irap' avro7s, 
vavrts 1 (some au- 
thorities, Blass). 

(xxviii. 1 5) KCL- 



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. 

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 : 



TTIOV <f>6pov real ra Trepl e/jbavrov, St. Luke xxii. 37 : 


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- 

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<rri\6ov. 

elarjKBopev el<i\. Vide xxiii. 33 : 
elcre\06vTe$ els r. Kaiaapetav, ix. 6 : 
19 T. TroXt^, xiv. 20 : 

TTIJ ra> 

peveiv Kad ' eavrov 

<rvv Ttf) fyvXaff- eis 
crovri avTov arpa- 


TOVS Seff- 

Occurring else- 
where in the gospels and the Acts 
only in Acts xxvi. 1. 

lieveiv\. Vide note on xvi. 15. 
. Vide\ii. 4: 


lovs T$ (TTparoTTf- <rTpaTi(t)Tai<; <t>v\d<r(7i,v avTov, xxiii. 
[-*]> T <? 5 35. 1 

naQ' Jay-roc (ea> 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) ; <Tvvt\Q6vT<av as in xvi. 13 ; irapeSJflTjy ets reky x*?P as T - 
'P<W;uaiW as in xxi. 11 : irapaSdffovfftv eh x*?P as ^v&v (only here). 

V. 18. Si& TO with infin. as in xxvii. 4, 9 (five times elsewhere in 
the Acts) ; virdpxetv four times in the " we " sections. 

V. 19. &s with the participle as in xxvii. 30 ; lx" ri KaTTjyopeTv 
as in xxi. 13 trolls ^x 60 a.ToOave'ii'. 

V. 20. vapfKd\fffa (to beg) as in xvi. 15, xxi. 12, xxviii. 14 ; 
6 ATI'S as in xvi. 19 and xxvii. 20 (five times elsewhere in the Acts). 

V. 21. 01 Se as in Acts xxviii. 6 ; wapayevSfJi.ei'os as in Acts 
xxi. 18. 

V. 22. fjifv without 5e as in Acts xxvii. 21. 

V. 23. ^\6ov irpbs avrbv <s, thus only in xx. 6 : %\6onev irpbs avrobs 
els. For |ej/taj/ see xxviii. 7 (|eWe/), xxi. 16. ir\eiovcs as in 
xxvii. 12 (ot 7i\6j'oj/s) ; elsewhere only in xix. 30. For the con- 
tinuation with a relative clause (ols) vide xvi. 14. For the con- 
tinuation with re vide xvi. 13. For rf-Kat ride xxi. 12, xxvii. 1. 



if he copied or used a source, can have taken over from 
it unchanged. He must have clothed the contents of 
his source in a perfectly fresh narrative, for everywhere, 
where the subject-matter in the least allows of it, we hear 
the voice, we see the hand, and we trace the style of the 
author of the whole work. Nothing anywhere strikes 
us as strange; for the a7ra!;-\6y6fi,va are easily explained 
from the special character of the subject-matter. That 
the narrative is more vivid and trustworthy than in 
those parts of the book where no " we " is to be found is 
surely no matter for wonder. For many sections as, for 
instance, for xxviii. 11-14, xx. 5, 6,13-15, xxi. 1-8, but 
especially for xxvii. the author must have possessed 
notes which refreshed his memory; * but more than this 
we may not say. 

V. 24. tvei6oi>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\ij<rfv, vide xxi. 11. Now follows the 
long quotation and its application in verse 28 (the gospel as rb 
ffurtpiov rov 0of), as in xvi. 17 as <55&s orwTTjp/as). V. 29 is an inter- 
polation which is no longer printed in the better editions. 

V. 30. ev iSlca jj.iff6</a/ji.aTi, vide xxi. 6 ; ctoreSe'xeTo as in xxi. 17. 

V. 31. T& irepl Kvpiov as in xxviii. 15 : ret irepl fifiuv. 

These coincidences within the space of a few verses are by no 
means few ; nevertheless in themselves they do not as yet afford a 
convincing proof of identity of authorship. 

* The theory which, indeed, first suggests itself is that which dis- 
penses with the hypothesis of notes, and, in consequence, supposes 
the whole work to have been written soon after the arrival of St. Paul 
in Rome (xxviii. 30 f. would then be a note added by the author 
when his work was published). But this view, though it is other- 
wise attractive, and even to-day is upheld by many critics, must be 
rejected because of the gospel, which cannot well have been written 
before 70 A.D., and also because of Acts xx. 25, where it seems pro- 
bable that the death of the Apostle is presupposed. 


But in order to bring to a conclusion the proof of the 
identity of the author of the " we " sections with the 
author of the whole work, it is necessary to make a 
thorough investigation of the vocabulary of these sec- 
tions. Statistics of words may be deceptive, and may 
lead to absurd conclusions if they are applied to objects 
of limited extent, or under false principles, or if the 
investigator is satisfied with doubtful results. Here, 
however, such imposing results have been gained on a 
wide basis of investigation that they may be called 
simply decisive. 1 

In what follows it must always be kept in view that 
we are dealing with only ninety-seven verses the whole 
extent of the " we " sections. 2 

I. Words which are found in the " we " sections and the 
Acts, hit are wanting in St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
St. Luke, and St. John. 

(a) In the " we " sections 3 and only in the second 
half of the Acts : xiii., xiv., xvi.-xxviii. 4 

afia with partic. [xxvii. 40] ; xxiv. 26. 
avikvai [xxvii. 40] ; xvi. 26. 

1 Hawkins has already dealt with this question in great detail (see 
especially pp. 13 ff., 148 ff.). I shall give a short summary of his 
results below ; they first came under my notice after I had finished 
my own studies on a different plan. 

2 The "we" sections form a small tenth part of the Acts, 
(97 : 1007). 

s The passages from the " we " sections are set in square brackets. 
* I give this division because chap. xv. seems to belong more 
closely to chaps, i.-xii. 


[xx. 15 ; xxvii. 1] ; xiii. 4 ; xiv. 26. * 
cu 2 [xx. 7, 9] ; xvii. 2, 17 ; xviii. 4 ; xix. 8, 
9 ; xxiv. 12, 25. 

SiaTpifiew ^povov or ^epa? [xvi. 12 ; xx. 6] ; xiv. 3 
28 ; xxv. 6, 14. 

8ta(j)6p6cr6at, [xxvii. 27] ; xiii. 49. 
Mrci], KaraSi/crj [xxviii. 4] ; xxv. 15. 
el with optat. [xxvii. 12,39] ; xvii. 11, 27 ; xxiv. 19 ; 
xxv. 20. 

e/eetcre [xxi. 3] ; xxii. 5. 

[xx. 7 ; xxvii. 43] ; xiii. 42 ; xvii. 15. 3 

* [xxi. 2, 4 ; xxvii. 2] ; xx. 18 ; xxv. 1. 
xxvii. 36] ; xxiv. 10. Vide also evOvpelv [only 
xxvii. 22, 25]. 

evxea-Oai [xxvii. 29] ; xxvi. 29. 

KCLTCLVTCLV [xx. 15; xxi. 7; xxvii. 12; xxviii. 13]; 
xvi. 1 ; xviii. 19, 24 ; xxv. 13 ; xxvi. 7. 
[xxviii. 6] ; xxvi. 14. 
xx. 9 twice] ; xxv. 7 ; xxvi. 10. 
fj,vew = to await [xx. 5] ; xx. 23. 

[xxvii. 26; xxviii. 1, 7, 9, 11]; xiii. 6. 
[xxviii. 13] ; xix. 13. 

1 The participle dcnra(ro/xei>oy 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. 


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\6<i>j> 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. 


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 

a<f>v(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. 


rivds [xvi. 12] ; ix. 19 ; x. 48 ; xv. 36 ; xxiv. 


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/oo</>r}9). 

veavlas [xx. 9] ; vii. 58 ; xxiii. 17 (elsewhere veavl<r- 

ra vvv [xxvii. 22] ; iv. 29 ; v. 38 ; xvii. 30 ; xx. 32. 
fafifav [xxi. 16 ; xxviii. 7] ; x. 6, 18, 23, 32 ; xvii. 

em 7r\elov [xx. 9] ; iv. 17 ; xxiv. 4. 
\eyet (or a similar word) TO Trvevfjua (TO ayiov) [xx. 
23; xxi. 11]; viii. 29; x. 19; xi. 12; xiii. 2; xxviii. 

ol TrpeafivTepot (Christian officials) [xxi. 18] ; xi. 30 ; 
xiv. 23 ; xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23 ; xvi. 4 ; xx. 17. 
[xxi. 5] ; xv. 3 ; xx. 38. 

(of God) [xvi. 10] ; ii. 39 ; xiii. 2. 
[xvi. 10] ; ix. 22 ; xix. 33. 

There are thus about sixty-seven words or phrases 
which are common to the " we " sections and the Acts of 
the Apostles ', while they are wanting in the four gospels. 
Of course, some of these coincidences may be put down 
to accidental causes ; but the larger half at least are of 
great weight, and must be regarded as highly cha- 
racteristic of style, especially when we consider how 


constant is the occurrence of particular words or 
phrases in the above lists. 

II. Words which are found in the " we " sections, in the 
Acts, and in St. Luke's gospel, but not in St. 
Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John. 

avd<ye<T0ai (of a ship) [xvi. 11 ; xx. 13 ; xxi. 1, 2 ; 
xxvii. 4, 12, 21 ; xxviii. 10, 11] ; St. Luke, viii. 22 ; 
Acts xiii. 13 ; xviii. 21 ; xx. 3. 

airoSexeo-Qat, [xxi. 17]; St. Luke viii. 40; ix. 11; 
Acts ii. 41 ; xviii. 27 ; xxiv. 3 ; xxviii. 30. 

dcrTpov [xxvii. 20] ; St. Luke xxi. 25 ; Acts vii. 43. 

aroirov [xxviii. 6] ; St. Luke xxiii. 41 ; Acts xxv. 5. 

axpis ov [xxvii. 33] ; St. Luke xxi. 24 ; Acts vii. 
18. 1 

/3ov\ij [xxvii. 12, 42] ; St. Luke vii. 30 ; xxiii. 51 ; 
Acts ii. 23 ; iv. 28 ; v. 38 ; xiii. 36 ; xx. 27. 

Siaa&ffai [xxvii. 43] ; St. Luke vii. 3 ; Acts xxiii. 24 
(the passive occurs besides three times in the " we " 
sections and once in St. Matthew). 

Wao-o-eo-tfai [xx. 13] ; St. Luke iii. 13 ; xvii. 9, 10 ; 
Acts vii. 44 ; xviii. 2 ; xxiii. 31 ; xxiv. 23. 

evwTTiov (irdvrwv) [xxvii. 35]; in St. Luke twenty 
times ; in the Acts, excluding the " we " sections, four- 
teen times (evtoinov TTUVTCW only again in Acts xix. 
19) ; occurs once, indeed, in St. John. 

i It is noteworthy that &XP IS is wanting in St. Mark and St. John, 
and occurs once in St. Matthew (xxiv. 38), but that in St. Luke (gospel 
and Acts) it occurs twenty times, four of which occurrences are in 
the ' c we " sections. 


[xxi. 1; xxvii. 18]; St. Luke vii. 11; ix. 37; 
Acts xxv. 17. 

7T/, with ace. of time [xx. 11 ; xxvii. 20] ; St. Luke 
iv. 25 ; x. 35 ; xviii. 4 ; Acts iii. 1 ; iv. 5 ; xiii. 31 ; 
xvi. 18 ; xvii. % ; xviii. 20 ; xix. 8, 10, 34. 

pjaaLa [xvi. 16] ; St. Luke xii. 58 ; Acts xvi. 19 ; 
xix. 24, 25. 

vayye\%6v0ai TI, nvd [xvi. 10] ; St. Luke i. 19 ; 
ii. 10 ; iii. 18 ; iv. 18, 43 ; viii. 1 ; ix. 6 ; xx. 1 ; Acts 
v. 42 ; viii. 4, 12, 25, 35, 40 ; x. 36 ; xi. 20 ; xiii. 32 ; 
xiv. 7, 15, 21 ; xv. 35 ; xvii. 18. 

efavTavai [xxviii. 2] ; St. Luke ii. 9, 38 ; iv. 39 ; 
x. 40; xx. 1; xxi. 34; xxiv. 4; Acts iv. 1 ; vi. 12; 
x. 17; xi. 11 ; xii. 7; xvii. 5; xxii. 13, 20; xxiii. 11, 
27 (e</>eo-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)<TW)(a&iv [xxi. 14] ; St. Luke xiv. 4 ; xxiii. 56 ; Acts 
xi. 18. 

tcardyeiv [xxvii. 3 ; xxviii. 12] ; St. Luke v. 11 ; Acts 
ix. 30 ; xxii. 30 ; xxiii. 15, 20, 28. 

Karep^eadai [xxi. 3, 10 ; xxvii. 5] ; St. Luke iv. 31 ; 
ix. 37 ; Acts viii. 5 ; ix. 32 ; xi. 27 ; xii. 19 ; xiii. 4 ; 
xv. 1, 30 ; xviii. 5, 22. 

icptveiv (in the wider sense) [xvi. 15; xxvii. 1]; St. 
Luke vii. 43 ; xii. 57 ; Acts iv. 19 ; xiii. 46 ; xv. 19 ; 
xvi. 4 ; xx. 16 ; xx xxi. 25 ;v. 25 ; xxvi. 8. 


ra \a\ovjjLva [xvi. 14] ; St. Luke i. 45 ; ii. 33 ; Acts 
xiii. 45 ; (xvii. 19). 

\arpeveiv [xxvii. 23] ; St. Luke i. 74 ; ii. 37 ; iv. 8 ; 
Acts vii. 7, 42 ; xxiv. 14 ; xxvi. 7. 1 

pev o$v [xxviii. 5] ; St. Luke iii. 18 ; Acts viii. 4, 
25 ; ix. 31 ; xi. 19 ; xii. 5 ; xiv. 3 ; xv. 3, 30 ; xvi. 5 ; 
xvii. 12, 17; (xviii. 14); xix. 38; xxiii. 18, 31; 
xxv. 4. 

fiepk [xvi. 12] ; St. Luke x. 42 ; Acts viii. 21. 

pfy> [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. 


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. <yovara [xxi. 5] ; St. Luke xxii. 41 ; 
Acts vii. 60 ; ix. 40 ; xx. 36. 2 

rvyxdvew [xxvii. 3; xxviii. 2]; St. Luke xx. 35 ; Acts 
xix. 11 ; xxiv. 2 ; xxvi. 22. 

inrdpxeiv [xxvii. 12, 21, 34 ; xxviii. 7]; St. Luke vii. 
25 ; viii. 41 ; ix. 48 ; xi. 13 ; xvi. 14, 23 ; in the Acts 
about twenty-two times, excluding the " we " sections. 

vTrovTpefaiv [xxi. 6] ; in St. Luke (gospel) about 
twenty-two times; Acts i. 12; viii. 25, 28; xiii. 13, 
34 ; xiv. 21 ; xx. 3 ; xxii. 17 ; xxiii. 32. 

'Xapifyadai, [xxvii. 24]; St. Luke vii. 21,42, 43; Acts 
iii. 14; xxv. 11,16. 

Xpovov ticavov [xxvii. 9] ; St. Luke viii. 27 ; xx. 9 ; 
xxiii. 8; Acts viii. 11 ; xiv. 3. 3 

also should be added here [xx. 16, which may well 
belong to the "we" sections]. Cf. St. Luke ii. 16, xix. 5, 6; 
Acts xxii. 18. 

2 TifleWes ret is found once in St. Mark (xv. 19). 

3 coil/ [xxvii. 32, 40, xxviii. 4] occurs elsewhere in the Acts five 
times, in St. Luke's gospel twice, is wanting in St. Mark and 
St. John, and is found once only in St. Matthew, ttos [xxviii. 17] 
occurs elsewhere in the Acts six times, in St. Luke three times, is 
wanting in St. Matthew and St. Mark, and is found once in St. John ; 
ra tOr) only occurs in the "we" sections and three times in the 


This group of forty -four words and phrases is of still 
greater import than the former, for the gospel of St. 
Luke is here included. We at once learn that the " we " 
sections are somewhat more nearly allied to the second 
half of the Acts than to the first, and yet that they are 
also closely connected with this first half. With the 
first half of the Acts they have in common about sixty- 
seven words which are wanting in St. Matthew, St. 
Mark, and St. John ; with the second half about eighty- 
eight words, of which forty-five are the same in both 

III. Words which are found in the " we " sections and 
in St. Luke's gospel, but not in St. Matthew, St. 
Mark, St. John, and the Acts of the Apostles. 

We must preface an observation of the first 
importance. In xxviii. 35 (a " we " section) we read : 
el'vra? (scil. o ITaOXo?) Be Tavra ical Xaflobv apTOV 
ev^apicrrr)a-ev rep Bey evaTriov irdvraov /cal tfXacra? ijp^aro 
ecr6leiv. This is a deliberate imitation of St. Luke 
xxii. 19: xal \aj3(ov dprov vxapurTij<ras eK\aaev 
(cf. xxiv. 30 : \a/3a>v TOP dprov v\6yr)(Tev /cal /cXao-a?, 
#.T.\. ; cf. 1 Corinthians xi. 23 : eKaftev dprov KOI 
ev%api,(rTrja-as eK\a<rev). The opinion of Wellhausen and 
others that the verses St. Luke xxii. 19-20 are not 
genuine is therefore scarcely tenable. We besides notice 
that <T0ieiv only occurs here in the Acts, whilst it is 
found twelve times in St. Luke's gospel. 

avafyaivew [xxi. 3] ; St. Luke xix. 11. 
avevpiaiteiv [xxi. 4] ; St. Luke ii. 16. 


i OLTTO [xxi. 1] ; St. Luke xxii. 41. 
[xxviii. 5] ; St. Luke ix. 5. 
\v%yov vel irvp [xxviii. 2] ; St. Luke viii. 16 ; 
xi. 33 ; xv. 8 ; xxii. 55. 

Bua Tavai [xxvii. 28] ; St. Luke xxii. 59 ; xxiv. 51. 
(eVtyu-eXeta) [xxvii. 3] ; only St. Luke x. 34, 35 ; in 
xv. 8 are found eVtyLteXeto-^at and eVtyteXw?. 

[xxvii. 20] ; St. Luke i. 79. 
, avevderos [xxvii. 12] ; St. Luke ix. 62 ; xiv. 

[xvi. 17] ; St. Luke xxiii. 55. 
[xxvii. 40] ; St. Luke iv. 42 ; viii. 15 ; 
xiv. 9. 

Opl% etc TT)? K6(f>a\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<rffa v6rov. 

2 But only in a quotation from the LXX. 


and phrases are found which also occur in St. Luke^s 
gospel while they are wanting in St. Matthew^ St. Mark, 
and St. John ! 

There are thus about 130 words (or phrases) 1 in 190 
places (in the 97 verses) which the " we " sections have in 
common with the Acts or with St. Luke^s gospel or with 
both together, and which are wanting in St. Matthew, 
St. Mark, and St. John ; 2 i.e., on an average we meet 
with two such words (or phrases) in every verse of the 
" we " sections. 

Let us now apply the following test, with very instruc- 
tive results : 

The " we " sections have in 
common with the Acts and 
St. Luke > 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. 


The " we " sections have in 
common with St. Mat- 
thew > St. Mark, St. 
Luke, St. John, and the 

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<r6ai. 

3 wpvfjLva. 

* Siarpifeiv and the active middle Ia<r0at. 
5 ffoivlo 

(but with another significance). 


The " we" sections have, besides, one word, a 
in common with St. Mark and St. John, which is not 
found in St. Matthew, St. Luke, and the Acts ; another, 
Kvpa, which is not found in St. Luke and the Acts, in 
common with St. Matthew and St. Mark ; and another, 
(rirelpa, not in St. Luke, in common with the Acts and 
the other three gospels. 

If one now considers that of the sixty-four words in 
common with St. Luke thirty-rive are verbs (of the 
110 in common with the Acts fifty-five are verbs) 
verbs have always great weight in questions of this 
kind while of the sixteen words in common with St. 
Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John only 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 7 
are verbs ; if one further considers that we have 
here omitted all the numerous words and phrases 
of constant occurrence in the " we " sections and the 
two great Lukan writings in case they appear, though 
only rarely, in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; if 
one finally considers that the case is the same with con- 
structions l and numerous particles which are sought for 
in vain, or almost in vain, in those other writings (e.g., 
multiplication of particles, &>? 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. 


a new sentence, the continuation of the narrative by 
means of a relative clause, ee?<re, icad ' ov rpoTrov, d(j>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 



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 


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. 


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 

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. 


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, avTO<f>8a\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, 


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, 
, 8v<T6VT6pla, ol evroTrioi,, efa/m'fetz;, rfj erepa, 

M, (et-a^eXtar?;?), evOvpeiv, Odpcros, 
k, KaOaTTTeiv, KOpevvvvat,, /mavreveo-dat,, 
Oat,, /i6T/3tft)?, Trapaivelv, Trapareiveiv, Tre&vew, ireptaipelv, 
Trl/JiTrpaaOai,, (Tro/o^v/ooTrwXt?), Trpo? with genitx, (TrvOwv), 
Trvpd, a-vvJTpi\a/jL^dviv, o-vvOpVTTTeiv, crvarpefaiv, 

This number (39-45), in proportion to the number of 
air. \y. in the whole work, is no longer too large. 
Striking singularities, of course, still remain. Among 
these I reckon ol fidpfiapot, ^ov\rj^a } Secr/acoT?;?, ol eV- 
roTTiot, Qdpcros, <j)i,\av6pco7ria,a,s also yLter/otw? and 
and among verbs SiareA-ew/, erotfto)? fyew, 
Kopevvvvcu, irapaivetv, Trapareivew, %pri<T6at,, and lastly 
rfi erepa and Trpo? with genit. 1 But the number of 
these singularities is scarcely greater than that we 

irpv/jiva, Trpdpa, ffavis, (TKaQr), (T/cev^, crxoiviov, TV<j>caviK6s, v&pis, viro~ 
favvvvai, uTroTrAetv, viroirvfeiv, virorpfxeiv, ^6t/ia^e<r0or, ^wpos, tyvxos. 
A few of these, although used here in connection with navigation, 
seem to have been borrowed from the vocabulary of medicine (vide 

i irp6s in this construction does not occur elsewhere in the whole 
New Testament. 


find in every chapter of the Acts. It is therefore 
hopeless to build upon them the hypothesis of a 
separate written source, especially as no difference 
of style (construction and particles) exists between the 
" we " sections and the remaining chapters of the 

As regards the question of the sources of the third 
gospel and the Acts, the subject is, as is well known, one 
of very strenuous controversy. But one fact stands 
fast: the third Evangelist copied the work of the 
second. Nearly three-fourths of the text of St. Mark 
appears again in St. Luke, and throughout almost 
exactly in the Markan order. We thus possess a 
source of considerable content, and are able to compare 
the copyist with the original. With what result ? In 
spite of all the freedom with which the author of the 
third gospel treats his source, 1 the style, the syntax, and 
also the vocabulary of that source are still everywhere 
apparent (cf. the works of Wernle and Wellhausen on 
the synoptists), although comparison is rendered diffi- 
cult by the fact that the Greek and the general lite- 
rary style of St. Mark are more closely allied to 
St. Luke than are, for example, the styles of St. 
Paul and St. John. I take the following two sections 
at random : 

i The text of St. Mark is considerably edited by St. Luke in the 
interest of a more correct Greek style. It is in places amplified by 
comments and other corrections which the editor regarded as im- 
provements. Moreover, in numerous sections it is combined with 
matter from other sources. 



St. Mark i. 21 : Kal 
flffiropfvovrat els Ka- 
(papvaov/j.. Kal fvBvs 

SaffKfv fls T)JV ffvva- 

St. Luke iv. 30 f. : 
Kal KarfjAflei' fls Ka<pap- 
I'aov/m. it6\iv TTJS FaAi- 
\aias. Kal i 
avrovs iv rots 

J. Because 
Jesus comes from 
Nazareth, the singu- 
lar also depends upon 
what precedes. v6\. 
T. ToA.]. St. Luke 
presupposes in his 
readers no knowledge 
of Palestine. fvQvs}. 
St. Luke avoids, on 
artistic grounds, the 
repetition of this fa- 
vourite word of St. 
Mark. See also iv. 33, 
37. avrovs], St. Luke 
here avoids leaving 
5t5o(TK6tv without an 
object. l\v SiSdffKoov]. 
From St. Mark i. 22. 

(22) Kal e' 
iirl rp 

OUTOU, fy yap SiSd 

Kal ov% ws ol 

(32) Kal e'e7rA?j(r- Simplification of 

ffovro firl T7? SiSo^p style ; the form and 

avrov, '6n iv Qovo-la sense is improved by 

^v 6 \6yos avrov. the insertion of o 


(23) Kal evdvs $v eV 
rp ffvvaywyfj avroov 
avOpcoiros tv tfvevfjLan 
aKaOdprtp, K 

(33) al cV rp ffvva- 
ycoyfj %v avOpwiros 


(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 

[Ae- aury 6 ' 
K al 


airb for ef is an im- 

(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 


cutdOapTOv KOI <f>(tivrjffat> 

air* avrov by ptyav, QUIT. <j><av. 

V. fMfy. by the better 

[Probably ava- word avaKpavy. The 

Kpavydffav re should addition of jurjSej/ 

be read in place of /3Ao|/. OUT. seemed 

ets rb juecroj'.] necessary to one who 
was a physician. 

(27) Kc 
aav airavrcs, 
ffvvr\Ttiv avTOvs Ae- 
yovras' Ti fffrivrovro; 

/ ros 


(36) Kal ^ tycvero tTrt Trcu'Tas, /^al 
trui'eAaAoui' irp^s oA- 
A^Aoi/s Aeyovres' T/S 6 
A^-yos ovroy, ort ^y 
t^ovrria Kal Swdfid 
firirdcrffft rois do- 
Gdprois i 

6a/j.0('i(r6ai never 
used by St. Luke, 
6dn&os only a few 
times. The more re- 
fined aira^Tfs occurs 
perhaps twice in St. 
Mark ; in St. Luke it 
is found thirty-six 
times. ffv\\a\tiv is 
more precise than 

ffvi)Tt1v. (da/j.13. 8>ff- 

Tf is awkward, and 
is therefore corrected. 
In what follows St. 
Luke adds touches 
which give greater 
clearness and preci- 

(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 


The corrections 
themselves emphasise 
the vulgarisms of St. 

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 



Mark ii. 1: Kal 
els Ko- 
i]Kova6r) Sri eV 

(2) Kal ffv 

TTOAAol o5<TT6 

X<apfiv ju?j5e TO 
T}\V Ovpav, Kal e 
avroTs r))v \6yov. 

St. Lukev. 17:.fcai 

Kal ^< 
ot 3\< 



opposition to his own style) ; 1 also the expressions 
o ayio? rov Oeov and fapovv, which are not found else- 
where in St. Luke. 

This Kal e^eVero, al- 
though not a Greek 
literary idiom, is yet 
Lukan. St. Luke has 
purposely adopted 
this Biblical phrase. 
Elsewhere this pas- 
sage does not afford 
points for compari- 
son ; note only that 
parts of St. Mark ii. 
6 are transferred here 
quite appropriately, 
and are therefore 
wanting in St. Luke 
v. 21. St. Luke has 
thus considered the 
whole section before 
he transformed it in 

K(*>jj.ris TTJ 

Kal 'lovSalas Kal 'Ie- 

Kvpiov ^v fls rb iaadai 


[The structure of 
the clause has been 
probably corrupted 
in course of trans- 

(3) Kal tpxovrai </>e- 
poi/rfs irpbs avrbv ira- 

(18) Kal Itiov avSpfs 
<f)(povT(S firl /cAiVrj? 
avQpwirov &s 3}v irapa- 
AeAujueVoy, Kal ^rovv 
aurbv elffftyKf7v Kal 


(19) Kal IJL)) 

Kal iSov never found 
in St. Mark ; in St. 
Luke Kal I5ov and *5oi; 
ydp occur thirty times 
in the gospel and 
about a dozen times 
in the Acts chaps, i., 
v., viii., ix., x., xi., 

i Vogel (" Charakteristik des Lukas," 2 Aufl., 1899, s. 32) has dis- 
cussed St. Luke's various methods of beginning a sentence, but he 
has not drawn the final conclusion. If we, with him, compare 100 
beginnings of sentences in the gospel with a similar number in the 
second part of the Acts we arrive at the following result ; 

KO.I 5e re Other particles Without particle 
Gospel . 50 36 1 6 7 

Acts . 16 51 9 16 8 

Accordingly Kal preponderates in the gospel by three times. If, how- 
ever, one subtracts all the cases in which the Kal is derived from St. 
Mark, then the relation of Kai to 5e is much the same in both writings. 






oirov 6 irapa\vriKos 


avaftdvTfs tirl rb Sw/ua 
Sia r>v KfpdfjMV Ka- 
OrJKav avTbv avv T< 
fls TO'ov 
ev rov 'lr]<rov. 

xii., xiii., xvi., xx., 
xxvii. ("we" section). 
<t>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 

(5) Kal iotav 6 'irfffovs 
TT/' iriariv avr&v Ae-yei 
rtp irapaXvriKtf' TfK- 
vov y a.Qifvra.1 ffov at 


(20) K 

nv avroav (Iirtv' 'A.v- 
BpcaiTf, a<pf(i)VTai ffoi at 
a/uaprtat (rov. 

o 'Irjffovs is deleted 
as superfluous; so also 

vov perhaps seemed 
too familiar. The 
addition of <roi is 
difficult to explain 
(see also verse 23). 

(6) -fiffav Strives ruv 

voi tV rats KapSiais 

(7) ri OVTOS ovrcos 
AoAeT; jSAoo-^TJ^e? TIS 
Svvarat a<pifi/ai a/uap- 
Ttos et fj.)] efj & Of 6s ; 

(21) KaltfpavTo Sia- 
\oyifeffOai ol ypafj.- 
/xartV Kal ol 4>apiffaioi 
\tyovTes' T/S fvnv 
OVTOS bs AoAet /3Ao<r- 
(pfjfjLias ; rls Sv^arai 
HOVQS 6 df6s; 

Vide the note on 
verse 1 7. eV T. KapS. is 
here omitted because 
it occurs again in 
verse 8 of St. Mark = 
verse 22. The jagged 
sentences are fitted 
together ; the slovenly 
efs is changed into 
the more correct 
n6vos. At the begin- 
ning tfpavTo is in- 
serted (not in accord- 
ance with St. Luke's 
own style, but with 
that Biblical style 
which he imitates). 


(8)at evdvs tiriyvovs 
6 'Iijffovs rep irv*vp.ari 
avrov ori ovrus 5ta\o- 
yl^ovrai eV eavro7s 
auTo?s' ri ravra 


(22) tiuyvovs 5e 6 
'Irjffovs rovs 8ia\oyur- 
fiovs avruv airoKptQels 
tlirev irpbs avrovs' ri 
8ia\oyifffQ ei/ rais 

(vide supra), likewise 
T. -jrvevfji. OUT. as quite 
superfluous ; the ob- 
jective clause is re- 
placed by a simple 
substantive ; airoKpi- 
Bfis is inserted ac- 
cording to St. Luke's 
custom, giving a cer- 
tain effect of solem- 
nity ; the awkward 
ravra is omitted. 

(9) Tl fffTIV eVKO- 

eiireiv ry 
$' cupievrai 
of a/j.apriai, fy 
fyeipe Kal apov 
rbv Kp&ftarr6v ffov Kal 

(23) rt fffriv 

wvrai ffoi at apapriai 
<rou, ^ eliriiv eytipe 

r<p trapa\vr. is 
omitted as superflu- 
ous, likewise Kal ap. 
r. Kpd0. ffov. The 
Word of Jesus gains 
in force through this 
abbreviation ; be- 
sides, these words oc- 
cur in the following 
verse, where they are 
in a more suitable 


#TI Qovcriav ex 6 
vlbs rov avBp&irov e?rl 
rfjs 7^$ a<picvai a/xap- 
Tias, \eyfi r<p irapa- 
\vriK$' ffol \7<w, 
fyetpe, apovrbvKpdfiar- 
r6v crov Kal viraye et$ 
rbv olK^v ffov. 

(24) 'tva 5e etS^re '6ri 
6 vlbs rov ai'Opunrou 


ffol \fyu>, 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. 


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 

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 ? 


(St. Matthew vii. 3) 
rl 5e &\fireis rb Kap<pos 
rb fv T$ oc0aAju< rov 
aScA^oD ffov, rfyv 8e fv 
Ty ff(p o(^0aA/.ta} So/cbf 
ov Karavo'is ; 

(4) ^ irwy pf?s T< 
ti5eA(>< crou' #$es 
eV/3aAaj rb Kapcpos eK 
rov 6<pda\f4.ov <rou, ai 
t5ot> 17 SoKbs ^ T 
<j(p6a\ij. crov ; 

(5) vtroKpird, ^KjSaAc 
irpwrov ftc TOV o<t>0a\- 

/J.OV ffOV TT)V SoK6v } Kal 

is e/cj8a- 
s n rov 
o(f>da\uov rov 


(St. Luke vi. 41) TI' 
Sc jSAeVets rb KapQos rb 


(rov, r 5e 
5o/cb>' rV eV T<^ tSfqj 
o<pOa\fj.<p ov Karavof'is ; 
(42) irws 8vyo<rat 
Ac-yen/ T^) a.8f\<f)cp ffov' 

Almost all the di- 
vergences of St. Luke 
from St. Matthew in 
this passage are evi- 
dently and clearly 
stylistic corrections. 

fV rip 

Kap(pos rb 

^ 6(f)0a\/j.y ffov 
5obj> ov jSAeTrav ; WTTO- 
Kptrd, e/c)8oAe irpwrov 
rijv SoKbv K rov 
o(pda\fj.ov ffov, leal r6rc 
diaft\e\^eis rb K&p<f>os 
rb tv r<$ o(pOa\/ji.<p rov 
aov ^ 

i occurs only twice in the Acts (in v. 38 
edaare should probably be read), and is therefore to be 
regarded as a word which has come into the gospel, 
where it frequently occurs, as a rule from the sources. 
Also K/3d\\eiv TO /eap(/>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 

Let us consider one other passage : 

(St. Matthew viii. 8) (St. Luke vii. 6) 
avoKpidels 8e b eKarov- 6 tKarovrdpx"ns \eywv 


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. 


(9) Kal yap eyb av- (8) Kal yap iy& 

it v-rrb fou- 8pUTr6s ei/ui virb 4 

UTT' ^/tourbi/ alav 

<rr pander as, Kal \fyta UTT* ifjLavrbv ffrpa 

rovrcp' iropfvdriTi, Kal TH&Tas, Kal 
Tfoptverai, Kal a\\(p' 

raffff6/j.fvos]. A sty- 
listic improvement. 

t(f $ov\(p irov" irotijffov 
rovro, Kal 

' vopevOrjTt, Kal 
Kal a\\<?' 


-s t6avfj.a(rev Kal 
O?S a.Ko\oQovffiv' 

(9) aKovffas Se rav- 
ra 6 'lijvovs tOavfj.a<rcv 
avrbv Kal ffrpaQflt Tcfi 

tltrev \4yu 
eV rtf 'lo-porjA 
iriamv fvpov. 

The insertion of 
the objects is Lukan. 
(TTpaQeis is wanting in 
St. Matthew and St. 
Mark ; with St. Luke 
it is found eight times 
in the gospel (similar 
words yet oftener). 
The foreign word d^v 
is also elsewhere 
omitted by St. Luke. 
ovSf Iv r. 'Iffp. is sim- 
pler, better, and more 
nervous Greek. 

The corrections of St. Luke have not obliterated the 
special characteristics of the source. 'I/cavb? 'iva is 
never used by St. Luke in the Acts, and even in the 
gospel we find only i/cavo? \v<rai. Elaep^eadat, VTTO is 
found nowhere else in the gospel and Acts, although 
ai is used about eighty-six times. Also, 
with the dative \dy<p is an idiom foreign to St. 
Luke, as also virb e^ovaiav. Kal yap occurs only once 
in the Acts (xix. 40) ; in the gospel it is more frequent, 
because derived from the sources. 

There is no need to continue this comparison or 
sayings of our Lord which are common to St. Luke 
and St. Matthew. Wernle (Joe. cit., s. 81) has rightly 
perceived that all the alterations made by St. Luke as 


regards a definite, fairly large body of these sayings l 
are of a very slight nature, and testify rather to the 
faithfulness with which, on the whole, these sayings 
have been reproduced. 2 This faithfulness extends even 
to the preservation of the style of the language ; so 
that no one can fail to perceive that we here have to 
reckon with a written source. 

But, it is said, though in the gospel (iii.-xxiv.) the 
linguistic character of the sources employed is clearly 
preserved, yet St. Luke i. and ii. and Acts i.-xii., xv., 
are certainly based upon written sources, in spite of 
the fact that the style and vocabulary of these chapters 
is entirely and absolutely Lukan ; therefore it is 
possible that the " we " sections also, in spite of their 
Lukan character, are based upon a written source. Let 
us, then, first investigate St. Luke i. and ii. I begin 
by stating the result of this investigation : 

The vocabulary and style characteristic of St. Luke 
i. and ii. are so absolutely Lukan that, in spite of all 
conjectures that have been made, the hypothesis of 
a Greek source is impossible, for there is almost nothing 
left for it. Two things only are possible: either St. 
Luke has here translated an Aramaic source, or he was 
dependent for his subject-matter upon no written source 
at all, but has followed oral tradition, with which he 
has dealt quite freely, so far as form is concerned. Yet 

1 The case is, of course, different with some other sayings, but it is 
to me doubtful whether these come from the same source. I conjec- 
ture, partly on the ground of Wellhausen's remarks, that St. Luke 
also possessed an Aramaic source, which he translated himself. 

2 Of. also Vogel, loc. cit., s. 38. 


these two hypotheses are not of equal probability ; for 
the second alone is free from difficulty, while the first 
presupposes much that is hard to reconcile with the 
facts. At all events, the two great psalms of St. 
Luke i. and ii. were not handed down to the author 
(either in Greek or Aramaic), but were composed by 

I investigate i. 5-15. 

eevs TI? 


(5) eyeveTo ev It is well known how characteristic 
rat 9 ?5^epai9 of St. Luke is this eyeveTo. St. Mat- 
j3ao~i- thew writes ev r}fJLepcu,<; 'HpwSov ; St. 
Luke, however, adds the article here 
and in iv. 25 (ev rat? rjiiepaw *H\ov), 
xvii. 26 (ev rafc rfftepais Nwe), 
xvii. 28 (ev ra?9 r)/*epai<; AOJT), 
/cal yvvrj avru> 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, 


rat? eVro- 
Xat? Kal SiKaiw- 


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 



(7) KOI OVK T\V 

avTols TGKVOV, tca- 
QOTI r\v f) 'JEXt- 
<rd/3eT aTeipa, Kal 

j3rjKOTe$ ev 

(8, 9) eyeVero 
8e ev TO) ieparev- 
etv ambv ev TTJ 
rd^ei T^? e(j)r)[jL- 
pia<$ avTOv evavn 
TOV Oeov, Kara TO 



vaov TOV 

(10) KOI irav TO 
7T\riOos r]V TOV 
\aov 'TTpoaev^o- 
fievov efft) TTJ &p a 

favourite word of St. Luke. Si/cal- 
cofjia and a/ie/^ro? are not found in 
the gospels (yet compare St. Paul). 

occurs in the New Testa- 
ment only in St. Luke vide xix. 9, 
Acts ii. 24, ii. 45, iv. 35, xvii. 31 
(here in the discourse at Athens, 
which was certainly composed by St. 
Luke himself). With the concluding 
words compare St. Luke xvii. 24: 
ev TTJ rj/Jiepq CLVTOV vide note on 
verse 5. 

ev To5 . . . eXa^e . . . 
is one of the constructions 
of the New Testament which is 
specifically Lukan, though it is con- 
fined to the gospel. Concerning 
evavTi, see note on verse 6 (exclu- 
sively Lukan). KOTO, TO e^o? is 
likewise exclusively Lukan vide ii. 
42 and xxii. 39 ; moreover, also, the 
word e'0o9 is found in St. Luke in all 
ten times, elsewhere only in St. John 
xix. 40 and Hebrews x. 25. Also 
KCLTO, TO ewotfos is found only in St. 
Luke (iv. 16, and Acts xvii. 2), and 
KdTa TO eldio-fjuevov only in St. Luke 
ii. 27. 

r)v Trpoaev^ofjuevov^. As is well 
known, a favourite construction with 
St. Luke, which occurs five times in 
many chapters. 77X7)^09 twenty-five 
times in St. Luke, elsewhere in the 
gospels only twice in St. Mark and 


twice in St. John, rrav (arrav) r. 
7rX?7#o9 in St. Luke viii. 37, xix. 37 
xxiii. 1, Acts vi. 5, xv. 12, xxv. 24- 
7r\i}6o<i TOV Xao]. This charac- 
teristic combination is also found 
in St. Luke vi. 17 (TrXfjOos rroXv TOV 
Xaou), xxiii. 27 (TTO\V 7r\f)6o<; TOV 
XaoO), Acts xxi. 36 (TO 7r\ij0os TOV 
XaoO), and nowhere else. 


piOV 0-TO><? 6K $- 

%iwv TOV 6vo~t,a- 

TOV 6v 


IScov, /cal 


(13) elirev Se 
avTOV 6 ay- 

76X05* fJLTJ <j)OJ3oV y 


17 e- 

o~ov t teal rj 

occurs once in both St. Mat- 
thew and St. Mark, in St. Luke 
(gospel and Acts) thirteen times. 
ayyeXos Kvpiov is also found in the 
Acts vide v. 19, vii. 30, viii. 26, xii. 
7, 23, xxvii. 23 ; it is wanting in St. 
Mark and St. John ; in St. Matthew 
it is found at the beginning and end 
of that book. This angel is there- 
fore quite a speciality of St. Luke, 
and is introduced by him into trust- 
worthy narrative. 

locov, Lukan. /cal <f>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) <f>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 



vlov aoi, Kal Ka- xviii. 9, xxvii. 24 (" we " section !). 
Xe<ret9 TO OVO/JLO, That the name of the person ad- 
avrov 'lovdvvrjv. dressed is added is an exclusively 
Lukan trait vide i. 30, xii. 32, Acts 
xxvii. 24. &IOTI occurs in the New 
Testament only in St. Luke ii. 7, 
xxi. 28, Acts (x. 20), (xvii. 31), 
xviii. 10 (twice), xxii. 18. elar)icov<r- 
Orj 9 of prayers, occurs besides only in 
Acts x. 31 : ela-rjKova-6'rj aov f) Trpoa- 
V Xn (elsewhere in the gospels found 
only once in St. Matthew vi. 7). 
Serjcris wanting in St. Matthew, St. 
Mark, and St. John ; see, however, 
St. Luke ii. 37, v. 33, Acts i. 14 
(not certain). e^evvrj^ev^ of the 
mother, only found besides in St. 
Luke i. 35, 57, xxiii. 29 : KoiXlai, at 
OVK eyevvrjaav. crov . . . 0*01]. As 
in St. Luke v. 20, 23. 



TroXXol eVl TJJ 

aVTOV %a- 



KVpov, Ka ovov 
Kal (TiKepa ov firj 
77/77, Kal TTvev/jia- 

T09 djiOV 7r\7J(7- 

dya\\la<ri<; wanting in St. 
Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John ; 
see, however, St. Luke i. 44, Acts 
ii. 46 ; a/a\\iav four times in St. 
Luke (among these Acts xvi. 34), 
wanting in St. Mark, once in St. 
Matthew, ^alpeiv eVt is found also 
in xiii. 17 and Acts xv. 31 (once in 
St. Matthew). 

Cf. Acts viii. 9 : elvai 
eavrbv fjue^av. ev&iriov]. Want- 
ing in St. Matthew and St. Mark ; 
found once in St. John ; occurs 
in St. Luke about thirty-six times, 
including one occurrence in the 


ercu en, e/c " we " sections (xxvii. 35, ev<i>iriov 
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 


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 

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 

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 


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<rKii>, WTiXanftavf 080.1, SiaTypfw, 4iriSe7v t tirHpaivciv, 
irfpi\dlj.irciv t irpoiropfvr6ai, and also a.ya\\laffiSy airei&rjy, airoypa<p i f]> 

-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. 


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). 


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 

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. 


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. 

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. 


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. 


from that of the second half. For example, the word 
<rr)ij,eia is not found in the second half, while it occurs 
thirteen times in the first half and forty-five times in 
the gospels ; neither is the word repa-ra found in Acts II., 
though it occurs nine times in Acts I. and three times 
in the gospels (but not in St. Luke). npovKaprepeiv 
occurs six times in Acts I. ; it is wanting in Acts II., 
but it is found in St. Mark. 'E^a-rdvat, is found eight 
times in Acts I. ; it is wanting in Acts II., but it is 
found eight times in the gospels (three times in St. 
Luke). 'Apveiadai is found four times (three times ?) in 
Acts L, not at all in Acts II., but fourteen times in the 
gospels (four times in St. Luke). It seems at first very 
remarkable that the word o<roi (oca) occurs no less than 
seventeen times in Acts i.-xv., while it is wanting from 
Acts xvi. to the end ; but it is found in the gospels 
fifty-four times (ten times in St. Luke), and therefore 
belongs to the gospel style, which St. Luke has allowed 
to colour the first half of the Acts. 1 On the other 

i Compare also alveTv. It occurs a few times in the first half of 
the Acts, never in the second, but in St. Luke's gospel three (four) 
times. Also irpoafdTjKf (irpocreQero) with the infin., which occurs only 
in St. Luke and in Acts xii. That there exists a distinct gospel 
vocabulary may be seen from studying the occurrence of such words 
as lKf}d\\eu>, Kapir6s, <TKav8a\i(iv, and <rd>(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 ocr<pvos, parallel only to St. Luke 
i. 42, napirbs TTJS Koi\ias~). Kap7Tt>v iroieiv is therefore never found in 
the Acts. 2Kcii>8a\(fiv occurs fourteen times in St. Matthew, eight 


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" 


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 


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 Mapt</x, in i. 46, see my 
paper in " Sitzungsber.," May 17, 1900. I there reckoned Irenseus 
among the authorities for Mapta/i ; but now Burkitt ("Journ. of 
Theol. Studies," 1906, pp. 220 ff.) has convinced me thatlrenaeus also 
read "Elizabeth." 

2 It seems to me quite certain that the text of i. 1-6 has been 
corrected ; but it also seems necessary to suppose that something has 
fallen out between verses 5 and 6. 


the only means, and certainly in many cases not the 
most likely means, for removing serious stumbling- 
blocks in the text. 

(2) St. Luke is an author whose writings read smoothly 
but one has only to look somewhat more closely to dis- 
cover that there is scarcely another writer in the New 
Testament who is so careless an historian as he. Like 
a true Greek, he has paid careful attention to style and 
all the formalities of literature he must, indeed, be 
called an artist in language ; but in regard to his 
subject-matter, in chapter after chapter, where he is 
not an eye-witness, he affords gross instances of care- 
lessness, and often of complete confusion in the 
narrative. This is true both of the gospel and the 
Acts. Overbeck, indeed, in his commentary on the 
latter book, in a spirit of pedantic criticism and from 
the standpoint of an inflexible logic, has grossly 
exaggerated the number of such instances ; l yet after 
making allowance for cases of exaggeration there still 
remains, both here and in the gospel, an astounding 
number of instances of discrepancy. These are, how- 
ever, also found in the second half of the book. In this 
connection I would not only mention the discrepancy 
between the three accounts of the conversion of St. 
Paul here the narrator alone is to blame, for he 
possessed only one account but also, e.g., the story of 
the imprisonment of St. Paul in Philippi, or the dis- 
course at Miletus. As regards the former of these two 
passages, one is at first inclined to regard the verses 

i His explanations also are, for the most part, false, in that he 
suspects tendency where, in fact, carelessness is the sole cause. I 


24-34 simply as a later interpolation or as derived from 
another special source ; for the decision of the strategi 
to set the Apostle at liberty is not in the least determined 
by the miraculous earthquake ; it seems rather that they 
considered one day's imprisonment sufficient. Yet these 
verses betray such unimpeachable tokens of the style of 
St. Luke as to prevent us from even thinking of them as 
interpolated. The following instances of discrepancy in 
detail are also found in this passage. In verse 23 we read, 
" the strategi cast them into prison "; in verse 24, " the 
jailor cast them into the inner prison." According to 
verse 27, the jailor did not notice the great earthquake, 
but only its consequence the opened doors ! In verse 28 
St. Paul is represented as perceiving or knowing the 
jailor's intention to kill himself, although he could not 
have seen him from his cell. According to the same 
verse, the Apostle cries out to the jailor that all the 
prisoners were present, although he certainly could not 
have known this. According to verse 32, St. Paul 
preaches to the jailor and all that were in his house, and 
baptises them, and yet it is not until verse 34 that we 
find him first brought into the jailor's house. Accord- 
ing to verse 36, the jailor reports to St. Paul the 
message which the lictors have brought from the 
strategi ; in 37 St. Paul directly addresses the lictors. 
According to the same verse, St. Paul appeals to his 
Roman citizenship ; we ask in amazement why he did 
not do this before. These cases of inaccuracy and 
discrepancy are very similar to those occurring in many 
narratives of the Jirst half of the Acts? and the 

i In particular such hystera-protera as occur in verse 32 in its 



majority of them have been noticed by Weiss him- 
self. Here, however, Weiss rightly neglects the hypo- 
thesis of a written source that has been badly edited, 
and explains everything from the carelessness of the 
author himself; it follows, therefore, that the similar 
instances of discrepancy in Acts I. by no means 
necessarily involve the adoption of the theory of a 
written source in order to explain them. Nor is it 
otherwise with the discourse at Miletus. At the be- 
ginning of this discourse St. Luke reports that St. Paul 
reminded the Ephesians " of the many tears and tempta- 
tions which befell him by the lying in wait of the Jews " 
during the long period of his sojourn with them (xx. 19), 
and yet nothing is said about these trials in the fore- 
going narrative. We are at once reminded of a similar 
instance in St. Luke's gospel. Here the same writer, 
represents our Lord as speaking, at His first appearance 
in Nazareth, of His mighty works at Capernaum (iv. 23), 
and yet of these works absolutely nothing has been 
previously told us. Again, in verse 23 St. Paul says 
that the Holy Spirit testifies to him in every city that 
bonds and afflictions await him in Jerusalem ; and yet 

relation to verse 34, or such duplications as verses 23 and 24, are 
often found in Acts I. It is, besides, to be noted that two 
hystera-protera are found even in the " we " sections. In chap. xx. 
verse 12 comes logically before verse 11, and in chap, xxviii., 
strictly speaking, verse 15 should precede verse 14. In these same 
sections we also meet with an instance of serious discrepancy. The 
author tells us with complete equanimity that St. Paul, urged by the 
Spirit, goes up to Jerusalem, and that the disciples at Tyre, inspired 
ly the very same Spirit, seek to restrain him from his journey 
(xxi. 4). Lastly, the prophecy of Agabus in the "we" sections 
(xxi. 11) is not fulfilled exactly to the letter. 


up to this point in the history nothing has been said 
about these prophecies on the contrary, we hear of 
them for the first time in the following section (xxi. 4, 
10 ff.). Lastly, St. Paul's reference to his own example, 
in his exhortation to self-denying works of love, can only 
be regarded as very loosely connected with the context 
of this farewell discourse. 1 

These parallel instances perhaps throw upon the 
anomalies of the first half of the book a different light 
from that in which Weiss regards them. If one first 
learns in i. 12 that the scene of i. 6 ff. is the Mount of 
Olives, and not Jerusalem, as one would expect (of 
course, we must assume that the scene of i. 6 ff. is the 
same as that of i. 4 f.) ; if in i. 17-20 we are left in 
doubt as to what is meant by the eiravXw of Juda 
Iscariot, whether his plot of ground or his apostolic 
office ; if impossible qualifications are required as a con- 
dition of apostleship (i. 21 f.) ; if the description of the 
speaking with tongues (ii. 4) is involved, not to say self- 
contradictory, and if the same must be said of the 
passages concerning the community of goods (ii. 44 f. 
and elsewhere) ; if in the double narrative of chaps, x. 
and xi. small points of difference are found ; if in xii. 3 f. 
TrpoaeBero (rv\\a/3elv anticipates Trtaera? in an awkward 
way ; then all these anomalies may, at a pinch, be ex- 
plained, here as in the gospel and the second half of 
the Acts, by the carelessness of a writer who has 

i Also the prophecy concerning false teachers (verses 29 f.) who 
would arise partly from without, partly from within the community 
itself is strange, and points, at all events, to the author's interest in 
this community and to his knowledge of its after-history. 


not thought out and realised what he is about to 

Yet, after making all due allowance for this vera 
causa, there still remain other phenomena and these by 
no means few which cannot be satisfactorily explained 
thereby : (1) Even the involved account of the Pente- 
costal miracle is most easily explained by postulating an 
earlier account that has been misunderstood, and similar 
instances are not altogether rare ; (2) those short pas- 
sages above mentioned, which form the conclusions of 
groups of narrative, demand an explanation, and the 
hypothesis that the author here adds something of his 
own to a source which he employs is the most likely 
explanation ; (3) the stereotyped combination of St. 
John's name with that of St. Peter in several passages, 
although the former apostle plays no part in the narra- 
tive, points to a source in which even the name of 
St. John was not mentioned ; (4) the merely casual 
notice of such an important event as the execution of 
St. James is not in the manner of our author, who likes 
to set his facts in a dramatic framework ; (5) two 
passages are produced which, it is said, prove that an 
Aramaic source has been employed in the first half of 
the Acts. 

Here, however, the following points must be taken 
into consideration : (1) The hypothesis of a written 
Greek source for Acts I. is compassed by the greatest 
difficulties. For its refutation I do not appeal to the 
vocabulary of these chapters, although its likeness to 
the Lukan vocabulary is of great weight in the balance 
(vide supra), but I fall back upon the phenomena of style. 


Weiss, beyond all others, has shown in his commentary 
("Text. u. Unters.," Bd. 9) that in these chapters the 
characteristics of the Lukan style reappear verse by 
verse. Indeed, it often happens that those verses, which 
Weiss assigns to the text of the source as distinguished 
from the additions of the editor, are often more Lukan 
in style than the additions themselves ! We must thus 
assume that the editor has remodelled his source, or, 
rather, has absolutely transformed it. But St. Luke in 
his gospel has not treated his sources in this way ; and, 
indeed, how improbable such treatment is ! Weiss, 
therefore, rightly warns us against attempting to fix 
the wording of the source in any part of the Acts. (2) 
The strange introduction of St. John as a kind of lay 
figure in company with St. Peter the most striking 
instance occurs in iv. 19 l is certainly not original ; 
but it admits of two explanations: either St. Luke 
himself has inserted St. John's name into an account 
which dealt only with St. Peter, or some later editor is 
responsible for this interpolation. Either alternative is 
in itself alike possible 2 ; but it is, at all events, a point 
in the favour of the alternative that St. Luke was the 

1 Compare i. 13, iii. 1, 3, 4, 11, iv. 13, 19, viii. 14 (note the re-mi 
in i. 13). St. John does not appear in the later part of the book except 
in xii. 2, where St. James is described as his brother, in distinction 
from St. James the Lord's brother. Since all mention of St. John 
in the Acts is due to interpolation either by the author or some later 
editor, E. Schwartz's idea that the Acts once contained an account 
of St. John's violent death, which has been suppressed, is quite 

2 Compare an instance in chap. xxiv. of the gospel, where verse 12, 
concerning St. Peter, is interpolated, 


interpolator, 1 and therefore in favour of the hypothesis 
of a source, that the martyrdom of St. James should be 
treated so strangely. If St. Luke were not here depen- 
dent upon a source which concerned itself essentially 
with St. Peter, if it had been possible for him to fashion 
his text as he liked upon the basis of information he had 
acquired, he could scarcely have so cursorily passed over 
an event which must have seemed to him of quite special 
importance in connection with the aim of his history. 
This passage, therefore, and many other similar passages, 
together with those short remarks which form the con- 
clusion of groups of narrative, strongly incline the 
balance of probability towards the hypothesis that for 
the Petrine sections of the Acts our author used a 
source ; but this source must have been in Aramaic, and 
must have been translated by the author himself. This 
hypothesis remains an hypothesis, and the two pieces 
of direct evidence which Nestle thinks that he has 
discovered are by no means conclusive. He shows us 
that in iii. 14 Cod. D. and Irenaeus read effapvvaTe where 
the rest of the authorities have rjpvrjcraffOe ; here, how- 
ever, the former reading must be correct, because it 
is the more difficult, but it was early replaced by 
ripvijo-ao-Qe, which occurs in the preceding verse. We 
need not, therefore, assume with Nestle the confusion of 
D/VISD and DJVO3- 2 Again, in ii. 7 D. reads e 

i Note also that in St. Luke xxii. 8 St. Peter and St. John are 
mentioned together. They are the only disciples named here, 
and the other evangelists give no names at all in their parallel 

2 ftapvixa is also found in St. Luke xxi. 34 (cf. also the use of this 
word in the LXX.), and in Acts, xx. 19 we hear of \faoi jSapeTs, 


pos o\ov rov KOO-JAOV ; but this is a simple clerical 
error for o\ov rbv \aov (the scribe mechanically wrote 
Koa-fjiov after o\ov TOV) ; 1 it is therefore unnecessary to 
postulate a confusion of ND 1 ^ and tffty in order to 
explain it. 

The result of our investigation is, accordingly, 
ambiguous ; there are, on the one hand, weighty reasons 
for the conclusion that St. Luke in the first half of the 
Acts has translated and used an Aramaic source, 2 and 
yet it is impossible to refute the theory that he was 
only dependent upon oral information. We have no 
certain means of judging the extent of this source, nor 
of deciding whether there existed only one or more 
than one of such sources. The hypothesis of a single 
source is exceedingly improbable, because in v. 19 ff. evi- 
dently the same story is told as in xii. 3 ff., though St. 
Luke himself does not notice this. Only one of these two 
passages could have stood in his source, and that the 
first (if the hypothesis of a written source is to be 
accepted at all). On the other hand, the narratives 
concerning St. Peter and St. Philip are, indeed, con- 
nected together by the episode of Simon-Magus, but 
the connection is perhaps only artificial. We can 

1 "OA.OJ 6 it6ff/j.os occurs six times in the New Testament. 

2 In the gospel St. Luke, with a view to Greek readers, omits, as a 
rule, Aramaic and foreign words (even names of places) ; in a few 
instances only he translates them, and then correctly. In Acts i. 19 
he writes : &<rrt: K\i)9riva.i rb xvpiov tKetvo TT? SmXe/cry avTutv 'Ax^^Sa^dx 
TOUT' fffnv x<apiov afyiaros, and in ix. 36 : bi>6na.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. 


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. 



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 


" 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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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? el<rlv ev rot? 'lof&uot? 
TWV "TreTria-TevKOTtoV) KOI irdvre^ fyjXwTal rov vofjiov 
vTrdpxovo-w, and if he then allows St. Paul, during his 
trial at Jerusalem and Caesarea, to lay the greatest 
emphasis upon his unity with those Jews that believed 
in a Resurrection, 1 what better can one wish ? And, 
again, the way he leads up to the council at Jerusalem 
in chap. xv. (the conversion of Samaritans, the baptism 
of the ^Ethiopian eunuch, and then the baptism of the 
centurion of Caesarea by St. Peter) 2 is by no means so 
clumsily conceived as to prevent him from recognising 
that the chief merit of having carried the Gospel to the 
Gentiles belongs to Jewish Christians of Cyprus and 
Cyrene and to St. Paul and St. Barnabas. 3 If he has 

1 Chap, xxiii. 6 ff., &c. That St. Luke here explains to his readers 
who the Pharisees and Sadducees were is the strongest proof that he 
has in his eye only Gentile readers. 

2 It may be doubted whether the baptism of the ^Ethiopian eunuch 
should be taken in this connection, for it is not exploited in this sense 
by our author. It is true that the conversion of the Samaritans also (see 
especially viii. 25) is not so exploited, and yet it is certain (see also 
the gospel) that it is narrated in the interest of the Gentiles. 

s St. Peter does not really begin the mission to the Gentiles, but in 
a particular case, and by his agency, the Holy Spirit leads up to and 
sanctions that mission. The story itself, which must have attracted 
great attention, is certainly not entirely legendary, but has an 


here assigned less honour to St. Paul than from his 
epistles seems to be due to him, and if in chaps, xxi. ss. 
he makes him appear more Jewish in his behaviour 
than we, judging from the same epistles, should imagine 
possible, it is at least permissible to ask which is right 
our imagination or the representation given in the Acts. 
But even supposing this representation is incorrect, 
why could not a companion of St. Paul who honoured 
St. Peter above everything (as apparently did all 
Christendom, and St. Paul too, nolens volens, if he did 
not happen to be provoked) accept a tale current in 
Jerusalem that already "a good while ago" 1 St. Peter 
had baptised a Gentile ? And why could not a Chris- 
tian historian who, as a Gentile by birth, could not 
comprehend or describe the subtle line which bounded 
the path of St. Paul as a Jew and a Christian repre- 
sent that apostle in one place as more Jewish, in another 
place as freer in his behaviour than he really was? 
From everything that we know and can conjecture of 
St. Paul in this connection, he must more than once 
have appeared very incomprehensible to his Gentile 
Christian as well as to his Jewish Christian com- 
panions. And we must also remember that St. Luke as 
a " theologian,"" like all Gentile Christians, was more a 
man of the Old Testament than St. Paul, because he had 
never come to a real grip with the problem it presented. 2 

historical nucleus. St. Luke, of course, first decked it up into its 
present form and significance. 

1 This is the expression in xv. 7. In those days every year must 
have felt like a generation. 

a See St. Luke xvi. 17. 


In hostility to the Jews so far as that people had rejected 
the Gospel he certainly cannot be surpassed ; but just 
as certainly (see also the gospel, especially chaps, i. and 
ii.) he had a theoretical reverence for Old Testament 
ordinances and Old Testament piety an attitude in 
which he was, indeed, strongly affected by the problem 
which moved St. Paul (see xiii. 38 f.), 1 though he had 
not thoroughly thought it out. 2 Just as in the gospel 
he considers it quite in order that the same Jesus Who 
brings salvation to the Samaritans and to every sinner 
should in His own Person respect the law of the Old 
Testament (see xvii. 14 and elsewhere), so also Jews 
devoted to their law and at the same time believers in 
Christ are apparently the Christians who impress him 
most forcibly. They are, in fact, not only Christians, 
but also homines antiquce rellgionis ; while the Gentile 
Christians come only in the second place. How could 
St. Paul, who himself acknowledged the permanence of 
the promises to the Jews (Rom. xi.), have shaken our 
author in this faith ? And if he drew somewhat 
different conclusions from St. Paul, are we to regard 
the great apostle as the head of some theological 
school, to which he propounded a definite system of 
Divine Revelation ? As regards, however, the grand 
crisis and the settlement recorded in Acts xv., even 

1 I have already referred to this passage above (p. 19, note). Exactly 
interpreted, the words airb iravrwv 3>v 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 ? 


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. 



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 


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, 


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- 


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. 


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. 


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 ! 


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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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. 


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 

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. 


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). 



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 

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 


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, 


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. 


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 l<re\fvcrovrai 
fjifTa r^v &<l>i^iv [does this mean death or departure ?] /wow \VKOI jSoptts 
tis v/j.iis fj.i] <p('oi rov irui/uLviuv, Kal e' v/j-uv avrtav]ffovra.i 
HvSpfS \a\ovvrfs Sieo-rpa/x/ieVa rov airoffirav rovy jUafli-jrets 6iriffu favrwv. 
Cf. Rev. ii. 2. 

2 St. Luke leaves his reader in no doubt that the foundation of the 
Church in Corinth was the grandest achievement of St. Paul's so- 
called second missionary journey; but the author himself has no 
relations with that Church. 


the author wrote his book in that city itself, but it 
surely follows that it was written in some region for 
which Ephesus was an important centre (Achaia 
therefore remains open). It appears from the gospel, 
and also from the Acts, that the community of the 
disciples of St. John the Baptist was for ever irritating 
the Christian community, and the author's interest in 
this controversy is shown in close connection with 
Ephesus (xix. 1 ff.). 1 Here we have the first and very 
clear instance of relationship between St. Luke and the 
gospel of St. John. But St. Luke also shows that he 
is interested in St. Philip and his prophesying daughters 
(xxi. 9) ; these people we Jc?iow lived at a later time in 
Hierapolis, in Phrygia 2 another point in favour of the 
theory that St. Luke himself took up his abode at a 
later time in Asia. In this connection it must be 
further noticed that he has seven times smuggled St. 

1 According to Weiss and others, the men spoken of in this passage 
were not disciples of St. John, and even Apollos could not have been 
one (xviii. 25). I cannot go into this intricate question here. In my 
opinion, we must regard them as disciples of St. John, because they 
had received their sacrament of baptism from him ; but, on the other 
hand, they believed in Jesus. We can reconcile these two articles of 
their faith by supposing that they believed in Jesus as the future 
Messiah i.e., that they looked upon His first appearance as in every 
sense only preparatory. It is a most astonishing fact but unfortu- 
nately this is not the only instance of the kind that the critics 
actually presume to correct the essential characteristics of the infor- 
mation which St. Luke has given concerning the standpoint of 
Apollos and of the other disciples, advancing hypotheses of two 
sources and the like, as if they had complete information concerning 
these disciples. They thus destroy for us one of the most precious 
relics of early Christendom, which, short as it is, represents a com- 
plete department in the primitive Christian movement. 

2 Papias, in Eusebius, "H. E.," Hi, 39. 


John into the source which contains the Petrine stories, 
and this without any apparent reason (vide supra, 
p. 117). This circumstance, of course, need not neces- 
sarily be connected with the author's interest in Ephesus; 
indeed, it is not at all likely that it is so, since when 
speaking of Ephesus he is never reminded of St. John. 
Therefore his interest in St. John may very well have 
had another incentive. Yet in relation to the problem 
concerning the later history of St. John the son of Zebedee 
it is of high significance that he alone among the apostles, 
with the exception of St. Peter , is the one in whom St. 
Luke shows interest. 1 This interest is not easily accounted 
for otherwise than by assuming that the author had 
knowledge of some mission undertaken by St. John at 
a later time. Here let us remember that this apostle 
is introduced in a very artificial way into the account 
of the mission in Samaria. According to our author, 
St. John comes next in honour to St. Peter, and in the 
primitive community he is represented as inseparable 
from the chief apostle. As this idea concerning 
St. John can scarcely have arisen from the fact 
that he was one of our Lord's nearest disciples for in 
that case our author must have placed St. James the 
son of Zebedee (whose martyrdom only is mentioned 
quite cursorily) as near to St. Peter as he does St. John 
and as our author possessed absolutely no source 
of information concerning any specially prominent 
achievement of St. John in the early community at 
Jerusalem, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that 

i Strange that he has passed him over in Acts xv. 1 This fact alone 
shows that he had not read the Epistle to the Galatians, 


he has thus smuggled him as an important person into 
the history of the early Church because of some later 
achievements of that apostle which were known to 

Let us now return to St. Luke. At Ephesus, or some 
place in Asia or Achaia, and about the year 80 A.D., he 
wrote his history for the " excellent " Theophilus. His 
chief authority for the gospel was the work of St. 
Mark, his late companion in Rome ; besides this, he 
employed for the Lord^s life a second source, which he 
shared with St. Matthew ; 1 and, thirdly, he is dependent 
upon special traditions which had their origin in Jeru- 
salem or Judaea, whose authenticity is almost entirely 
dubious, and which must, indeed, be described as for 
the most part legendary. It is most unlikely that he 
collected these during his probably only very short stay 
in Jerusalem during the first years of Nero's reign, for 
then they must also have been incorporated in St. Mark ; 
but, so far from this being the case, they go beyond 
and even correct the conceptions and accounts of the 
latter gospel. This material, therefore, must have 
reached St. Luke at a later period. That it is con- 
nected with, or, rather, leads up to, what underlies the 
fourth gospel 2 has been emphasised by many writers, 
and lately by Wellhausen. 3 In all probability it did 
not reach either St. Luke or St. John in written form, 4 

1 Concerning this source, see my book " Die Spriiche und Keden 
Jesu," 1907, an English translation of which will appear shortly. 

2 Concerning the relation between St. Luke and St. John, see 
Appendix IV. 

a Wellhausen, "Luk," ss. 8, 11, 20, 45, 53, 123 ; " Einleit.," s. 65. 
4 If in writing, then in Aramaic, 


but depended upon the oral tradition of Christians of 
Jerusalem or Judaea who had wandered from Palestine 
or Jerusalem at or after the time of the Great War. 
These we must think of as " ecstatics " altogether 
wanting in sober-mindedness and credibility, like Philip 
and his four prophesying daughters who came to Asia. 
Were not the latter, indeed, of just such a character ? 
It is known that St. Luke made their acquaintance in 
Csesarea, and it is very probable that on a later occasion 
he encountered them yet again in Asia. Papias, who 
himself saw the daughters, expressly states that they 
transmitted stories of the old days. 1 Doubtless we must 
picture to ourselves the people who were the authorities 
for the separate source allied to the fourth gospel, which 
St. Luke has so wonderfully and beautifully edited, as 
being something like the Philip of Acts viii., and like 
what we may imagine his daughters to have been, both 
from the fact that they were prophetesses and from 
Papias' notice concerning them. It is now most re- 
markable that very distinct prominence is given in this 
special source of St. Luke not only to prophecy 
(inspired by the Holy Ghost), but still more to the 
feminine element, as Plummer (" Comm. on St. Luke, 1 ' 

1 Papias, in Eusebius, " H. E.," iii. 39, 9 : T& u,\v ovv Kara rty 'lcpdiro\tv 
<bl\nrirov rbv a.ir6<rro\ov a/xa rots 6vyarpd<riv Starptyat Sia rSiv irp6ff0tv 
5t5'f)\(t)rai. &5 84 wareb rovs avrovs 6 Hairlas yf6/j.fvos t St^yrjcrw irapti- 
\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- 
S<HffKa\ias avrov Kai riva $ A Aa 


p. xlii. s.) and others have already pointed out. 1 St. 
Mark, and also St. Matthew, still leave women very 
much in the background in the Gospel story. St. Luke 
is the first to give them such a prominent place therein. 
We find mentioned in his gospel (besides St. Mary, the 
Mother of our Lord) : 

1. The prophetess Elizabeth. 

2. The prophetess Hanna. 

3. The widow of Nain. 

4. The woman who was a sinner. 

5. The notice in chap. viii. 1 ff : ol SeoSe/ca ovv avro) 
/ecu yvvai/ces rives al rjcrav redepajrevfjievaL curb irvev- 
fjidrtov Trovijpwv KOI aaOevei-toV, Mapia 77 KdXov^evrj May- 
SaX'rjvij, a<fi 179 Scufjbovia evrra e%e\r]\vQei, f KOL *Icodvva 
yvvrj Xov^a eTTirpoTrov 'HpwSov 2 /cal Sov&dvva KOI 
erepat, 7ro\\a, aiTives StrjKovovv aurot9 .etc 
T&V vTrap^ovTcav avTais. According to St. Luke 
(who knows more about them than he tells us see 
Wellhausen on this passage), these women ministered to 
the necessity, not only of Jesus, but also of the whole 
inner circle of disciples 3 (the gist of the passage was, 
moreover, already given in St. Mark xv. 40 f.). 

1 In St. John also the feminine element is more prominent than 
in St. Mark and St. Matthew, but not nearly so much so as in St. Luke 
(vide the Mother in chap, ii., the woman of Samaria, Mary and 
Martha, St. Mary beside the cross, the words to St. Mary from the 
cross, the Magdalene as the first who saw the Eisen One). 

2 Compare, moreover, Maya^? 'Hpcpdov TOV rerpdp^ov vvvrpofyos 
(Acts xiii. 1). 

3 'AuroTy is to be read. Wellhausen follows the insufficiently 
attested reading CIUT$. 


6. Mary and Martha. 

7. The woman who called the Mother of our Lord 
blessed (xi. 27). 

8. The woman who had a spirit of infirmity for 
eighteen years (xiii. 10 ff.). 

9. The widow and the unjust judge (xviii. 1 ff.) 

10. The woman and the lost piece of silver (xv. 
8 ff.). 

11. The widow's mite (xxi. 1 f.). 

12. The daughters of Jerusalem weeping over our 
Lord's sufferings (xxiii. 27 ff.). 

13. The women of Galilee beside the cross (xxiii. 

14. Women as the first evangelists of our Lord's 
Resurrection (xxiv. 10) contrary to St. Mark. 

And we may perhaps add (though on very slender 

15. The story of the woman taken in adultery. 

A very considerable portion of the matter peculiar to 
St. Luke is thus feminine in interest. It is therefore, 
perhaps, not too presumptuous to assign these traditions 
to Philip and his four prophesying daughters. 1 We 
may also remember that another collection of stories 
in St. Luke is distinguished by the interest shown for 
the Samaritans a trait which is wanting in St. Mark 

i Also in the Acts St. Luke is greatly interested in converted 
women a trait which is purposely attenuated in the text of D. See 
my essay on Priscilla and Aquila in the " Sitzungsber. der Preuss. 
Akad.," 1900, January 11. But this interest is here determined by the 
facts themselves, and does not seem to be anywhere exaggerated. 


and St. Matthew l and that, according to the Acts, St. 
Philip^s own grand achievement was the evangelisation 
of Samaria (viii. 14 : dtcovoravTe? ol ev c lepoo-oXv/jiois 
a-noarroXoi, on SeSeKrai, 97 ^ap.apia [sell, through the 
preaching of Philip] rov \6yov rov deov). Villages of 
Samaria in which the gospel was preached are only 
mentioned in the gospel of St. Luke (ix. 52-56) and in 
the Acts (viii. 25). 2 This coincidence of interest in the 
feminine element, in prophecy (the Holy Spirit), and in 
the Samaritans, taken together with the general stand- 
point that of Jerusalem of this source peculiar to St. 
Luke, makes it probable that we have here a body of 
tradition which rests upon the authority of St. Philip 
and his daughters. 3 

But this impression is confirmed by the Acts of 
the Apostles. We have already shown that (apart 
from the source common to St. Matthew and St. Luke) 
St. Mark certainly, and tradition originating with St. 
Philip most probably, formed the two chief authorities 
of St. Luke in the gospel ; now our confidence in this 
conclusion is strengthened by the fact that it simply 
and easily fits in with the phenomena presented in the 
Acts of the Apostles. It is true that for the second 

1 This interest is also shared by the fourth evangelist. 

2 But in the fourth gospel compare with the words of the Acts 
(viii. 25 : iro\\ds re K&nas rcav 2a/xapctTci}p f vayye A i^ovro) the informa- 
tion of St. John iv. 39 : e' rrjs w6\6os eKetnjs iro\\ol ir(ffTfv(ra.v ets 
aurbc TWV ^a/j-aptiTuy. 

3 Amongst the number of later accounts concerning St. Philip 
(and his daughters) we must reckon that of St. Clement, " Strom.," iii. 
4, 25. There it is asserted, as if it stood in the gospel, that St. Luke 
ix. 60 was spoken to him, Has St. Clement confused matters here ? 


half of the book the author's own recollections and the 
records of other companions of St. Paul were at his 
disposal (e.g., for the tumult in Ephesus, judging from 
xix. 29, probably the record of Aristarchus vide supra, 
p. 136) ; but for the first half we see it at a glance 
he relies entirely (apart from his account of St. Paul's 
conversion and all that concerns Antioch) on tradition 
concerning St. Peter and St. Philip. It is probable 
that the stories concerning St. Peter reached him 
through St. Mark, because St. Mark alone was closely 
connected both with St. Peter and, by kinship, with 
St. Barnabas (Coloss. iv. 10 : 6 ai/e^/rto? Bapvdpa), two 
very prominent persons in the Acts of the Apostles ; 
and also because St. Luke shows (Acts xii.) that he is 
well informed concerning the house of St. Mark's 
mother in Jerusalem indeed, he even knows the name 
of one of her maid-servants (Rhoda). In regard to St. 
Philip, however, there is no need of many words to 
show that St. Luke possessed traditions about him, and 
resting on his authority. It is possible that St. Luke 
received them only during his stay with Philip in 
Caesarea (ix. 30 and xxi. 9 vide supra, p. 39), though it 
is more probable that he also at a later date conversed 
with St. Philip's prophesying daughters in Asia. How- 
ever this may be, even if he received the tradition at 
an early date, from Philip and his daughters in Caesarea 
and from St. Mark in Rome, we should never forget that 
St. Luke first composed his history at a considerably 
later date, and, moreover, has elaborated in his own way 
their somewhat questionable records. 1 

i It does not seem to me difficult to distinguish broadly between 


But his connection with St. Mark requires some 
further comment. St. Luke has incorporated three- 
fourths of the gospel into his book, yet he does not 
show great respect for its wording. He has neither 
mentioned this gospel by name in his prologue, nor has 
he there expressed an altogether favourable opinion con- 
cerning his predecessors, 1 amongst whom he must have 
reckoned St. Mark in the first rank. But more than 
this we may even say that St. Luke wrote his gospel 
in order to supplant the gospel of St. Mark, in the 
sense, at least, in which every author writing after another 
author on the same subject intends to supersede the 
work of his predecessor. He regarded it as containing 
in the main authentic tradition, but, apart from 
numerous corrections in style and other small points, 
on the ground of what he considered better information 
he has in important details condemned it as wrong in 
its order of events, too unspiritual, and imperfect and 
incorrect. 2 This is shown most clearly in the accounts 

that which St. Luke obtained from St. Mark and that which he 
obtained from St. Philip or his daughters. In the mission to the 
Samaritans both streams of tradition flow together. Here doubt 
exists as to the share to be assigned to each, and, moreover, to the 
editor, St. Luke. 

1 Rather he indirectly criticises them. Eusebius (" H. E. ," iii. 22, 15) 
who could certainly appreciate Greek style and the intention of an 
author, paraphrases the prologue of St. Luke as follows : 6 5e Aoy/cas 
apxo/>os 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/c<iTa>j/ Sffjyrjaiv woffiffaaOai u>v avrbs TreTr\T)po<p6pi)ro 
\6ytav, avayKalws aTra\\dTro' i) rrjs irfpl rovs &\\ovs a/JKprjpia'Tov 
wTroAr^ews, ri>v atr^aXr) \6yuv uv avrbs IKO.VWS rty a.\T\Qeia.v KaTfi\^}<pfi 

. 8th rov iSiov irapfSwKfv vayyt\(ou. 

2 Numerous examples may be adduced from the comparison of 


of the Passion and the Resurrection. With regard to 
the latter, St. Luke, following his special source, has 
replaced St. Mark's account by later legends which had 
arisen in Jerusalem, and, in direct opposition to St. 
Mark, has ascribed the first announcement of the 
Resurrection to women. Moreover, a special light is 
thrown upon his connection with St. Mark by the Acts 
of the Apostles. The only apostolic man about whom 
something unpleasant is therein recorded is St. Mark 
a point which has been noticed above (p. 134, note). 
He is accused of breach of faith (xiii. 13, cf. xv. 37 ff.), 
and he is made answerable for the separation of St. 
Barnabas and St. Paul. That is a bitter reproach 
which St. Luke has not shrunk from perpetuating. 1 
But the Church that is, the Church of Asia, followed 
by the other Churches did not reject the work of 
the Jewish Christian of Jerusalem, when it came into 
her hands ; though she, indeed, criticised it, she never- 
theless acknowledged it as excellent, and set it quietly 
side by side with the work of the Greek physician 
of Antioch. 

The traditions concerning Jesus which we find in St. 

the two gospels to show that St. Luke criticised the gospel of St. 
Mark from these points of view. Some of them agree remarkably 
with those from which the presbyter John, as recorded by Papias, 
has criticised the book. The presbyter admits (1) the incomplete- 
ness of St. Mark, and, moreover, (2) its faulty order ; but he main- 
tains its exactness, its veracity, and the conscientious effort of the 
evangelist to give a full reproduction of the information which he 
had received. 

i It already struck Irenaeus as strange that St. Luke in the Acts 
parts St. Mark from the fellowship of St. Paul. 


Mark and St. Luke are older than is generally supposed. 
This does not make them more credible, but it is a fact 
of no slight significance in relation to their criticism. 
In St. Mark we have the deposit of several strata of 
tradition originating entirely in Jerusalem. Wellhausen 
has brought forward good reasons for the view that they 
were first written in Aramaic. I do not profess to offer 
an independent opinion on this difficult question. The 
presbyter John maintains that the gospel was based 
upon the mission sermons of St. Peter ; only it is diffi- 
cult to understand why a native of Jerusalem like St. 
Mark, whose maternal home had formed a centre for the 
primitive Church, and who knew the whole community, 
should have taken the mission sermons of St. Peter 
and these, indeed, exclusively as the basis of his work. 
This piece of information, therefore, does not seem 
reliable ; it looks rather like a story that was invented 
for the purpose of excusing the deficiencies and omissions 
of this gospel. It is another point in its disfavour if it 
be true that St. Mark was still a boy and growing youth 
during the twelve years which St. Peter probably spent * 
with the primitive community ; and this supposition, 
judging from the nature of his connection with his 
uncle St. Barnabas and with St. Paul, is probably true, 
and fits in with the very emphatic statement of tradition 
(presb. John, Murat. fragment) that he had neither seen 
nor heard the Lord. We can also unreservedly accept 
the old tradition which tells of him that, after having 
accompanied St. Paul, first for a short time, then longer 
(in Rome), he also acted as interpreter to St. Peter, and 
* It seems that later he only visited Jerusalem by the way. 


thus heard something also from this apostle. But from 
this tradition little or nothing can be concluded in 
regard to the relation this gospel bears to St. Peter, if 
it be true that it was only after his death that St. Mark 
determined to give a written account of the gospel of 
Jesus Christ (see Irenaeus). He then collected together 
all the material that he could lay hands upon, 1 and that 
would serve his purpose of proving Jesus to be the 
Christ from His mighty deeds and words. Though in 
this gospel we find different strata of tradition lying 
side by side or confused together, yet they serve but 
one and the same purpose, and this was all that St. 
Mark cared for. And yet everything that stands in 
this gospel was already in circulation before the year 
70 A.D., or, as others think, soon afterwards. At that 
time contradictory and discrepant stories were mingled 
together in peopled brains and minds, just as thoughts 
are nowadays. But it is probable that this same Mark 
also related either by word of mouth or in an Aramaic 
writing " classic " stories of the primitive community 
at the time when St. Peter was at the head of the 
brethren and St. James had not come to the helm of 
affairs. Thus the first attempt to crystallise the tradi- 
tion concerning our Lord and the primitive " classic " 
days in a written account was made by one who was a 

i Wellhausen rightly says (" Einl.," s. 53) : " It seems that the tradi- 
tion narrated by St. Mark does not rest mainly upon the authority 
of close acquaintances of Jesus. It has for the most part a some- 
what rough, popular style, as if it had passed for a long time from 
mouth to mouth among the people, until it took the simple dramatic 
form in which it now lies before us." 


disciple both of St. Peter and St. Paul ; x and yet we 
must not expect to discover behind his work either St. 
Peter or St. Paul as his authorities. It may seem very 
strange to us that neither the intercourse of our Lord 
with his disciples nor St. Paul's theology is really 
reflected in this gospel, though it was written by a 
disciple of the apostles ; but let us not forget that St. 
Mark was so possessed by his own conception of our 
Lord, and so convinced of its truth, that, paradoxical as it 
may sound, he was relieved of the duty of drawing His 
portrait in the closest possible accordance with historic 
fact, and was prevented from burdening the absolute 
simplicity of his doctrine concerning the Christ with 
the conceptions of systematic theology. 2 Neither the 
teaching of our Lord nor His mission as a Saviour and 
Healer, as such, specially interested him. His concern lay 
with words and deeds of Divine power ; and the later 
tradition doubtless presented more striking instances of 
these than the earlier. It cannot be said with certainty 
for what readers St. Mark wrote. Not for Jewish 
Christians ; very probably for Roman Christians ; at all 
events, for those who knew Alexander and Rufus, the 
sons of Simon of Cyrene and in Rome we hear that 
there dwelt one Rufus, a Christian, and his mother, who 
was a believer (Rom. xvi. 13). 3 

1 There is no certain proof that St. Mark was dependent upon 
written sources which were already in existence. 

2 Even the argument from prophecy is almost entirely wanting, 
and this was the beginning of all theology. In other respects 
St. Mark among the synoptists is the nearest to St. Paul. 

3 The old " Argumentum," dating from about 220 A.D. (Corssen, 
"Texte und Unters,," Bd. 15, H. 1, s. 9), expressly states that St. Mark 


After him comes St. Luke, a second disciple of St. 
Paul. It is, indeed, a fact not without significance that 
it was companions of St. Paul even if they were not 
the only ones who undertook this task of literary 
crystallisation. The great mental gulf between St. Luke 
and St. Mark must not be measured by years ; for we 
cannot place St. Luke as an author much later than the 
year 80 A.D. He was a Greek and a native of Antioch, 
while St. Mark was a Jew and a native of Jerusalem. 
Under his hands the universalistic and humane, the social 
and individualistic tendencies of Hellenism, the ecstatic 
and magical elements of Greek religion, yet also Greek 
thought and sense of form, gain the mastery over the 
subject-matter of the traditional narratives. And yet, 
at the same time, great respect is shown for the religio 
anliqua of the Old Testament, as St. Luke depicts it, 
for instance, in Zacharias and Elizabeth. He lays the 
foundation of the second stage in the crystallisation of 
the Gospel tradition, and at once proceeds to record the 
history of the extension and triumph of the youthful 
religion. 1 For both parts of his narrative he depends 

wrote his gospel in Italy (this does not exclude, but includes Home). 
It also says that St. Mark was a Levite, and had cut off his thumb in 
order to avoid becoming a priest. That this is a Roman tradition, 
and that St. Mark bore the nickname & KoA.oj8o5oKTiM.os in Eome, 
follows from the fact that Hippolytus also bears witness to it 
("Phil.," vii. 30). For further details see my essay " Pseudopapia- 
nisches," in the "Ztschr. f. N. Tliche. Wissensch.," 1902, iii. s. 159 ff. 
i What a trumpet-note of joy, courage, and triumph sounds 
through the whole Lukan history, from the first to the last pages ! 
Vexilla regis prodeunt ! We listen in vain for this note in the other 
evangelists. They are all burdened with a far heavier load of cares, 
of thoughts, and of doctrines than this Greek enthusiast for Christ, 


upon St. Mark. In the gospel, however, he has at least 
two other sources (Q = that which St. Luke has in 
common with St. Matthew, P = that originating in 
Jerusalem and related to St. John), the latter of which, 
distorted by many different tendencies, seems to be 
connected with those traditions in the Acts which have 
been referred to St. Philip. There is very much to be 
said in favour of the view that St. Philip and his 
prophetic daughters have contributed the truly ample 
material for both parts of this source. The chief point, 
however, is that the whole, in its main features at least, 
had its origin in Jerusalem (or in Judaea), that in St. 
Mark and St. Luke there are to be found only a few 
traditions and legends which sprang up as a secondary 
growth in Gentile-Christian soil, 1 and that the whole of 
St. Luke's material was already in existence about the 
year 80 A.D. If we consider the gulf that yawns 
between the latest accounts in St. Luke and the earliest 
in St. Mark we are astounded that such a tremendous 
development should have been accomplished in so short 
a time and exclusively on the soil of Judaea and 
Jerusalem. Both in St. Mark and St. Luke it is almost 
always only the history of the primitive community of 

who courageously marches forward, surmounting every difficulty. 
He amply compensates us for his faith in magic, his enormous 
credulity and theological superficiality, by his own peculiar quality of 
confident, happy hopefulness and his genuine Greek delight in telling 
stories. As a story-teller, " all is grist that comes to his mill." 

i But it is, of course, not without significance that the literary 
crystallisation of this material (except that of Q) took place outside 
Palestine (in Kome and Asia). St. Luke refers to the circumstances 
of the Diaspora in his accounts of the disciples of St. John, and 
perhaps in some parables. 


Jerusalem or of the communities of Judaea which is 
reflected in the tradition these evangelists record. 1 The 
history of Gentile Christianity is scarcely touched upon 
in the gospel and the first half of the Acts, except in so 
far as Gentile communities are expressly mentioned. But 
in what is told us of this subject in the second half of 
the Acts, St. Luke writing partly as an eye-witness 
and partly from accounts given by eye-witnesses has 
produced a splendid piece of work, and has given an 
historical account which, though it indeed leaves much 
to be desired, needs nevertheless only a few corrections, 
and excellently supplements the Pauline epistles. What 
a wealth of matter of all kinds is found in peaceful 
juxtaposition in these two books ! The subject-matter, 
indeed, is even more varied than the forms of 
expression ! From this significant fact we may estimate 
and realise what a multitude of various conceptions 
could be accepted and reconciled with one another in 
one a ndthe same mind. St. Luke writes absolutely with- 
out bias ; or, rather, he is biased in one direction only 
his one object is to prove that our Lord is the Divine 
Saviour, and to show forth His saving power in His 
history and in the working of His Spirit (in the mission 
of the apostles among the Gentiles, in contrast to the 
stubborn Jews). In his gospel he, like St. Mark, al- 
most entirely disregards theology, more particularly the 

i Hence it is the picture of the primitive Church of Jerusalem 
(or of the Judaic Churches), shining forth in the gospels side by side 
with the portrait of our Lord, which has edified the Gentile Churches 
up to this very day. In this sense Jewish Christianity still survives : 
i/j.7]ral e"yj/T]0ijTe T>V KK\t}<riS>v TOV Beov TU>V ovffuv tv rfj 'l 

XpiffrQ 'lij<rov (1 Thess. ii. 14). 


argument from prophecy ; in the Acts (first half) he makes 
copious use of it. This historical work, originating in 
Asia or Achaia, is even less Paulinistic in teaching than 
the gospel of St. Mark. In both these works St. Paul 
lives on in only the most general and universal aspects 
of his teaching ; but with him the most general and 
universal was also the greatest and noblest. 

No proof is required to show that Q and " St. 
Matthew" are based exclusively on traditions origi- 
nating in Palestine or Jerusalem ; for the horizon 
of " St. Matthew " is bounded by Palestine, and this 
gospel is the work of the Church of Palestine, 1 which 
therein shows itself to be free from the yoke of the 
Law and kindly disposed towards the Gentiles. The 
fact that St. Mark also forms the groundwork of 
this gospel is in itself a proof of liberal views in 
regard to the Law, and, moreover, affords strong 
evidence that the second gospel was written by St. 
Mark, a native of Jerusalem ; for how could the Church 
of Palestine have so readily accepted a gospel which 
did not rest upon the authority of a native of Jeru- 
salem ? Our position is therefore unassailable when we 
assert that the whole synoptic tradition belongs to 
Palestine and Jerusalem, and has had no connection 
with Gentile Christian circles except in the redaction 
of St. Luke. The limits of the play of Hellenic in- 

1 Most probably the work is to be assigned to the Hellenistic por- 
tion of the primitive community of Jerusalem to those circles, indeed, 
which had developed, both within and side by side with the primitive 
community, out of those Jews of the dispersion, described in Acts vi., 
who lived at Jerusalem (e.g>, Stephen). 


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 


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 


(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. 


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, 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 


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. 


APPENDIX I (to p. 15) 


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. 


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. 


(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 


(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)<i rwv (Tcofjidrmv (JLOVCOV OLTTO /i-epeo? 
, cf. Galen, " Medicus," 13 (xiv. 754): ovBe 
TOLS rpo^la'KOL^ [certain pills] * ov jap 
dvov<n,v eVl ra TreirovOoTa efyicveladai ' TWV yap 
KadaTTTO^evoL oXeBpov epyd^ovTai,, dvcore- 
ls &e (frap/jidKois xprjadat,. Hence the serpent really 
bit the Apostle and the poison entered into his hand. 
Thus the passage only receives its right interpretation 
when brought into connection with the ordinary 

1 It occurs in the New Testament only in the Lukan writings. 

2 Blass rightly renders it momordit. 



medical language of the times. Further, the fact that 
the viper (estiva) is called 6rjpiov is not without sig- 
nificance ; for this is just the medical term that is used 
for the reptile, and the antidote made from the flesh of 
a viper is accordingly called OrjptaK^. The same sort 
of remedy is signified in the passages, Aret., "Cur. 
Diuturn. Morb.," 138 : TO Sta TWV Oripiwv [vipers] 
<f>dpfj,aicov, 144 : 77 Bia TWV 0r)plcov, 146 : rj Sta rwv 
, Aret, "Cur. Morb. Diuturn.," 147: TO Sta 
0rjpla)v, T&V e%ioV<wz/. Hobart further remarks 
(loc. cit. p. 51) that " Dioscorides uses ^pioS^/cTo? to 
signify ' bitten by a serpent. 1 " " Mat. Med.," iv. 24 : 
OrjpioSrjfCTOis /3or)06iv fjia\icrra $6 e^toS^/cTot?, Galen, 
" Natural. Facul., 11 i. 14 (ii. 53) : ocra TOI><? tou? TWV 
ave\Ki T&V Tot9 tou? ekKowrwv, ra [lev TOV 
e'%^5, Galen, " Meth. Med.," xiv. 12 (x. 986) : TO 
BLO, TWV exiSvwv OTrep ovofJid^ovcn O 
likewise in several other passages (Sia rl 6 ' 
r-nv e%ivav ua\\ov rj a\\ov TWO. o$iv rrj 
&ia TO ^6t,v avTr)V T^? (rap/cos T&V e 
avrrjv OrjpiaKYiv). Nor is it without significance that 
the heat is described as Oep/^rj ; for this word, rare, 
I believe, in ordinary use, and only found here in 
the New Testament, is among physicians the general 
term used for ^/D/UOTT;?, as Hobart (p. 287) shows by 
very numerous examples. When we proceed to read 
that the natives expected that St. Paul would have 
swollen or would have fallen down dead suddenly, here 
again the two possible results of snake-bite are 
described with extraordinary precision. If this were a 
layman's narrative, the latter result, the only one 


required to give a realistic effect, would alone have been 
mentioned. But the terminology also is medical ; for 
TTLfjLTTpaaBai, (here only in the New Testament) is the 
technical term for " to swell," and KaraTriiTreiv (Kard- 
TTTftxrt?) here only in the New Testament can also be 
vouched for from medical language (Hobart, pp. 50 f.). 
Finally, pybev aroirov must also be noted a phrase used 
by St. Luke alone among the evangelists. It is used by 
physicians not only to describe something unusual, but 
also to describe something fatal. Thus Galen says in 
" Antid.," ii. 15 (xiv. 195), that those who drink a certain 
antidote after having been bitten by a mad dog a? 
ovbev aroirov efjiTrea-ovvrat, pa8/a>9, 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 


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. 


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 &<TITOS, which are wanting 
in the LXX., and only found here (xxvii. 21, 33) in the New Testa- 
ment, but, as may be well imagined, are of constant occurrence in 
medical language. Galen, in fact, writes (" Ven. Sect.," 9 xi. 242) 
"&<riTos Siere'Aecrej'," exactly like the " Hvtrot StareAetre of Acts 
xxvii. 33. 


(2) I now proceed to deal with those stories of 
miraculous cures which the author of the third gospel 
has taken from St. Mark, and to investigate the manner 
in which he has reproduced them. 

(a) In the story of the demoniac in the synagogue 
at Capernaum (St. Luke iv. 35 = St. Mark i. 26) 
" airapd^av " is replaced by " ptyav " and the phrase 
" fjirj&ev f$\dtyav avrov " is added. 

(b) In the story of the cure of St. Peter's wife's 
mother (St. Luke iv. 38 = St. Mark i. 30) "^ o-^e- 
XOfjuevrj TTVpera) u,eyd\a) " is put for " icare/ceiTo 
Trvpecrffovcra" and " KOI eV terra? eiravw avrfjs e 

TM TTVpera) " for " 7rpoG\6a)v ijyetpev avrrjv 

(c) In the story of the healing of the leper (St. Luke 
v. 12 = St. Mark i. 40) the afflicted one is described, not 
as XeTTjOo?, but as " 7r\^prj<; Xe-Trpa?." 

(d) The paralytic is called TrapaXeXu/i-eVo? instead of 
7rapa\vTifc6s (St. Mark ii. 3 = St. Luke v. 18). 

(#) In the story of the healing of the man with a 
withered hand (St. Luke vi.6 = St. Mark iii. 1) St. Luke 
adds that it was his right hand. 

(f) In the story of the demoniac at Gadara 
(St. Luke viii. 27 = St. Mark v. 2) it is added concern- 
ing the " possessed " that %poi>&> 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). 


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<Ta, a\\a 
pa\\ov et9 TO x&pov e\Qovaa. Moreover, St. Luke 
(viii. 44) writes : ea-Trj f) pvais rov ai^aro^ avrrj^ while 
we read in St. Mark (v. 29) : efrpdvOrj 97 7777777 rov 
avTrjs, teal eyvco ra> 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 e<rriv 9 
and in the description of the patient he adds : e%afyv 779 
Kpd^ei [scil. the evil spirit] . . . Kal fjboyw aTro^copcl dir' 
avTOV (Twrpiftov avrov. 

(Jc) In the story of Malchus (St. Luke xxii. 50, 51 = 
St. Mark xiv. 17) St. Luke says it was the right ear, 
and then further interpolates the words, diroKpiOel^ Be 
6 '177(701)9 elirev' eare eo>9 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, 


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 

2 See Hobart's quotations, pp. 2 f. 

3 Galen, " Different. Febr.," i. 1 (vii. 275) : KO.\ <rvvr)0es ^877 rols larpols 

is a technical term. 


XeTrpa? " is probably a by no means insig- 
nificant variant for Xe-Trpo?, for the more serious stages 
of diseases are distinguished in medical language by 
the word " 7r\ijpr)s " ; vide Hippocr., " De Arte," 5 : 
7r\ijp6<; rrj? vovov. 1 In regard to (d), irapaXeXv^evo^ is 
linguistically an improvement, but it is also the techni- 
cal word of the physicians who do not use TrapaXvriKos. 
In regard to (e) and (fc), the addition in both these 
cases that it was the right hand and the right 
ear respectively is a token of an exactness which is 
specially intelligible in a physician. In regard to 
(/*), the additional notice that the demoniac had for 
a long time refused to wear clothes answers to the 
precise diagnosis of a distinct form of mania, which 
was recognised by the ancients just as it is still 
recognised by us ; cf. the statement of the physician 
Aretaeus about the year 160 A.D. ("Sign. Morb. 
Diut.," 37): 7Tpl fjiavlw eV0' ore eVflrJra? re epprjgaro. 2 
In regard to (g\ here the medical feeling of the 
author is especially obvious : he simply erases St. 
Mark's somewhat malicious remark about physicians* 
how intelligible if he himself were a physician, and how 
unintelligible if he belonged to the general public ! 
The layman's phraseology of St. Mark, ^rjpdvBrj 17 

1 Hobart, pp. 5 f., quotes other passages. 

2 Hobart, pp. 13 f. 

3 It is also wanting in St. Matthew. But this means nothing, for 
that gospel here and in the other parallel sections has omitted all 
" unnecessary " detail. Zahn (" Einl.," ii. s. 437) speaks of this inter- 
pretation of St. Luke's action here as an unworthy insinuation ; but 
his own explanation is forced, and does not take into consideration 
the main point at issue, 


rj TOV at/iaro?, is replaced by the technical expres- 
sion, eo-TT? fj pvdis TOV aificiTo? (cf. Hippocr., " Praedic.," 
80 : olo-iv e'f ap%fis alfjioppaylai Xa/3/oai, piyos Lo-Trjai pvcrw, 
Hippocr., "Morb. Sacr.," 306 : 'icrTrjai, TO al/^a, Hippocr., 
" Morb. Mul.," 639 : eTreibav 8e TO peO/aa O-TT), Dioscor., 
" Mat. Med.," i. 132 : iwrjo-i KOL povv yvvcufcelov Trpoo-ri- 
66p,voV) ib. 148 : urnyo** 8e /cal aifjuoppolBas, and other 
passages quoted by Hobart, pp. 14 ff.), and he has 
discreetly suppressed the somewhat indelicate words 
which St. Mark has added. In regard to (h\ in the 
story of the raising of Jairus's daughter St. Luke 
keeps the word dveo-rrj, but he has omitted the word 
TrepieTTaTet, which immediately follows, as offending 
against the natural order of things. The physician at 
once thinks that the maiden restored to life must have 
something to eat immediately, while St. Mark first tells 
us that our Lord forbade the bystanders to spread 
abroad the miracle, and only then proceeded to com- 
mand that something should be given her to eat ; so 
that this detail almost loses its significance in St. Mark. 
Again, in Acts ix. 18 St. Luke gives expression to the 
fact that with convalescents the first thing to be thought 
of is to bring them nourishment. Here, in his account 
of the healing of Saul, he writes : avacrras eftaTnivOr] 
KOI Xafiwv rpo^rjv evLa^va^v. Would a layman have 
made such an observation ? It is possible, too, that TO 
irvev^a in TO 7rvev/j,a avrrjs e7rea"Tpe"^rev is to be under- 
stood as signifying 17 irvor) yet this is not certain. 
In regard to (i), here the second and third interpola- 
tions elucidate the description of the disease by telling 


of symptoms that are characteristic of epilepsy. 1 Also, 
the word eV^XeTretv in the first interpolation is not 
without significance ; 2 for Hobart teaches us 3 that 
this verb is used technically for a physician's examina- 
tion of his patient. *A Set rov iarpov eiriffrffirsw, says 
Galen, and 7n,/3\e7reiv Be %prjvai Kal et? TCL v oar) par a KOI 
rrjv Svvafjiiv rov icdfjivovTos, &c. In regard to (fc), all 
four evangelists record the cutting off of the ear, but 
St. Luke alone allows it to be healed again by our 
Lord ; thus he alone was scandalised by the fact that 
the poor fellow had lost his ear. As he before defended 
the credit of the medical profession in general see 
under (g) so now he stands forth in championship of 
our Lord the Physician. It would have been inexcusable 
if He had not exerted His miraculous powers of healing 
on this occasion. 4 

It follows from these remarks that very nearly all of 
the alterations and additions which the third evangelist 
has made in the Markan text are most simply and 
surely explained from the professional interest of a 
physician. Indeed, I cannot see that any other explana- 
tion is even possible. We may also add that the third 
evangelist avoids popular medical expressions vide 

1 Vide the examples given by Hobart, pp. 17 f. 

2 The " only " son is an addition which is characteristic of the 
somewhat sentimental pathos of the author. 

3 Pp. 18 f. 

4 This is a flagrant instance of the way in which a story of a 
miracle has arisen, and of what we may expect from St. Luke. He 
certainly is not following a separate source here ; but because he 
thinks it ought to have been so, he makes it happen so. 


supra, p. 185 f., under (g). Here note that he does not 
use /Sacra^o? as does St. Matthew of diseases, but only 
in a parable (chap, xvi.) of the pains of Hell. Also, 
o-Oai occurs with him only once (viii. 28) ; 
la is altogether wanting. 

(3) St. Luke in the gospel narrates three other 
miracles of healing peculiar to himself (the widow's 
son at Nain, the woman with a spirit of infirmity, 
and the man with the dropsy), and, moreover, two 
pertinent parables (the Good Samaritan and Dives 
and Lazarus), while in the Acts excluding the " we " 
sections he narrates the cure of the lame man at 
the Beautiful Gate, of JEneas, of Tabitha, of Saul's 
blindness, of the lame man in Lystra, and the story of 
Elymas. There are also pertinent notices in the story 
of Ananias and Sapphira and the vision of St. Peter. 
Everywhere in the stories (which are, moreover, remark- 
able for their fulness of detail) traits appear which 
declare the interest or the sharp eye or the language of 
the physician. 

The stories of the raising of the young man at 
Nain and of Tabitha (St. Luke vii. 15, Acts ix. 40) 
agree in describing the first movement after the 
restoration to life by the word " dvefcdOurev." This 
word x in the intransitive sense seems to be met with 
only in medical writers, 2 who use it to signify " to sit up 
again in bed" see, for example, Hippocr., "Praenot.," 
37 : avaicaOi^eLv /3ov\ea6ai rov vo&eovTa rfj? VOGOV 

i Only here in the New Testament. 

3 See the instances given in Hobart, pp, 11 f. 


In the story of the woman with the spirit of infirmity 
(St. Luke xiii. 11-13) we are at once struck by the 
exact description of the disease and the cure an 
exactness which is not required in order to bring out 
the point of the narrative (healing on the Sabbath 
day) : r\v ffvvKvirrovaa real fjbrj Swa/JLewrj avaK.\y]rai et? 
TO Traz/reXe?. 1 Also ajroXvea-Oai, and dvopOovadat, sound 
quite professional see the parallels given by Hobart 
(pp. 20 ff.). Both avatcvTTTeiv and uTroXveiv (used here 
only in the New Testament of a disease) are corre- 
sponding termini technici, and avopdovv likewise is the 
usual medical word for the restoring of the members or 
parts of the body to their natural position. Notice also 
how the loosening of the curvature is first described, and 
then the standing upright. What sort of person is 
interested in such exactness ? 

An " vSptoTTTitcos " (St. Luke xiv. 2) is not again 
met with in the New Testament, though the word is of 
frequent occurrence (and just as here, the adjective for 
the substantive) in Hippocrates, Dioscorides, and Galen. 2 
The diseases dropsy, " great 11 fever, acute leprosy, 
dysentery with feverish symptoms, and the hysterical 
disease of the woman with a spirit of divination at 
Philippi are found in St. Luke alone of the writers of 
the New Testament. 

The parable of the Good Samaritan (St. Luke x. 
30 ff.) sounds like a typical medical instance to enforce 
the lesson never to deny help to the helpless. Hobart 

1 Cf. the parallels in the description of Eutychus asleep (vide 
supra, p. 180) : 

2 See Hobart, p. 24. 


(p. 27) quotes a very remarkable parallel from Galen, 
in which, indeed, the word " r}^i6avr\^ " (St. Luke x. 30, 
and here only in the New Testament) is also found. 
"De Morb. Different. ,"'5 (vi. 850): ofa rots 
pijaaaiv ev Kpvei /caprepi^ rylryvercu' TroXXot jap 
ol /j,ev ev avrals rats 6 Sot 5 airedavov, ol Be els TravBo- 
irplv rj ol/cdBe 7rapayeveo-0ai (frOdaavTes 
re KOI Karetywy pivot, <f>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. 


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-<f>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 


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<f)0a\iJ,ct)v &>? 
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\e<f>apov 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. 


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., ve<f>e\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<s in Hobart, 
p. 46. 

In the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 5, 8) 
are found the words e/njrin^z/ and <rv<7TeXXeM>. 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 



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>o<j and is found only once 
in classical Greek in the sense it bears in this passage, 
4 to shroud ' Eurip., 4 Troad., 1 378 : TreTrXot? cvve- 
(TTd\r)<rav. In medical language the word is very 
frequent, 3 and its use varied ; one use was almost 
identical with that here, viz., 4 to bandage a limb, 1 
4 to compress by bandaging.' " 

In the story of the vision of St. Peter the word 
e/eoraoY? is used (Acts x. 10 : eyevero eV J avrbv eWrao^?). 
Although visions constantly occur in the New Testa- 
ment, St. Luke alone uses for them this word (here and 
Acts xi. 5, xxii. 17). It is of constant use in a technical 
sense in medical language (Hobart pp. 41 f.). 

This review of the stories of diseases and subjects 
of allied character peculiar to St. Luke confirms the 
impression we receive from the character of his correc- 
tions of the narrative of St. Mark. 4 

1 It occurs once in the LXX. (Ezek. xxi. 7), and also in Jarn- 

2 In the context in which it occurs the sense is not " they covered 
him" (so Weiss), but " they enfolded him." 

3 Examples are quoted from Hippocrates, Galen, and Dioscorides. 
* If the verses St. Luke xxii. 43 f. are genuine and I think that 

I have shown that this is very probable in the " Sitzungsber. d. Preuss. 
Akad.,"1901, February 28 then St. Luke has used in them technical 
terms which are wanting elsewhere in the New Testament i.e., 
fisiffxvtu', a.ywia, 6 itip&s wffel Op6(J.&oi afytaros nara^aivovr^s (see the 
striking instances quoted by Hobart, pp. 79 ff.). It is the same 
medical writer who writes CO-TT? rj pv<ris TOV afytaroy and ep6/j.&oi al/jtaros 
KaTaaiYoi>T6s, and who says ff aywviq yfv6/uLfvos and CTreaej/ CTT' avrbi/ 
s. In distinction from the ayuvla of our Lord, verse 45 speaks 


(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 a7TT<T0at avTov, on Svvafjus Trap' avrov 
/cat laro Trdvras, vii. 21 : eOepdirevaev TroXXou? dirb 
fcal fiacrriycov 2 Kal irvev^dr^v Trovrjpwv, KOI 
TroXXot? eaL(raTo /SXeTretv, xiii. 32, I8ov 

only of a \\>iri\ 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 


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 : <rvvrjpX6To 8e KOI TO 7r\fj0o$ rwv Treptj; 
TroXeow ^lepovcrakru-ij fyepovres d<r0evi<; teal o^Xov/ae- 
i/oi>? 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 

(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 


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 


which was already frequent with Hippocrates then it 
is clear that Acts x. 11 and xi. 5 were written by a 

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) 

ST. LUKE I. 39-56, 68-79, II. 15-20, 41-52 

ev rals r)fj,epai<; 

es rrjv 



(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 ava<rraaa 
7ropevdrj 9 vide St. Luke xv. 18 : 
avdGTCis Trope v<70/iat, xvii. 19 : dvacr- 
ra? TropeiW, Acts viii. 26 : dvdcrrrjOi 
KOI Tropevov, ix. 11 : avacTas Tropeu- 
Orjri, xxii. 1 : avaa-ras iropevov. 
ev rat? 77//.epat5 raurat? (or similar 
words) wanting in St. Matthew, 
St. Mark, and St. John, but found 
again twelve times in St. Luke (six 
times as here, in vi. 12, xxiii. 7, 
xxiv. 18, Acts i. 15, vi. 1, xi. 27 ; 
also jji6Ta Be Tavras ra? ^yu-epa?, i. 24, 
Acts i. 5, xxi. 15 Trpo TOVTWV T&V 
vjpepmv, Acts v. 36, xxi. 38 ra? 17/4. 
Tauras, Acts iii. 24). rrjv opeivtjv]. 
Vide i. 65. Wanting elsewhere in 
the New Testament, but occurring 
in the book of Judith. //.era 
Occurs elsewhere in the 




New Testament only in St. Mark 
25. Tro\LV 'lou&a, like TroXis 
, St. Luke ii. 4, 11, is copied 
from the style of the LXX. (<yfj, 
oZ/co?, <j>v\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 ? 


I/ 619 


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\i<r- 
dfteT, ea-tclprrjcrev 
TO /3pe$o5 ei/ T 
KOL\ia avrfjs, Kal 


For the construction with eyevero 
see the note on i. 8 (above, p. 98). 
J>5 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). 



(42) /cal dve- 
(fxavrjo-ev Kpavyfj 
/jLeydXy /cal elTrev* 
EvXoyijfjLevrj <rv 
ev ywcu&v, teal 

/cpavyrj peydXrj is found elsewhere 
in the New Testament only in Acts 
xxiii. 9 and Rev. xiv. 18. With 
dvecf). /cp. fj,ey. compare the dva/cpav- 
ydo-av which St. Luke has inserted 
in the Markan text (St. Luke iv. 35 
= St. Mark i. 26). In both works 
St. Luke shows a preference for 
strong expressions. There is no- 
thing in the gospel to compare with 
o KapTcbs 7% KOikia^ but in Acts ii. 
30 we find o icapiros TTJ? 

(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 

(44) od 


crov 6t5 TCL ewra 

/JLOV, eo-KipTrjaev 

ev dya\\i,d<Ti TO 

/8/3^>o5 ev T KOI- 


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. 



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. 

pla <Y] 
aa on ea-Tai re- 
XetftXTt? ro?9 Xe- 
\a\Tjfjievois avrfj 
Trapa tcvpiov. 

wanting in St. Mark, 
and occurring in St. Matthew, apart 
from the Beatitudes, only four times ; 
in St. Luke's gospel, however, eleven 
times. reX/o)(7t9 found elsewhere 
in the New Testament only in 
Hebrews vii. 11. rofc XeXaX^.]. 
This use of the perfect (or present) 
participle passive of \a\eco is only 
found in ii. 33, Acts xiii. 45 (xvii. 
19). The passive \a\etcr0at, is found 
twelve times in St. Luke (gospel 
and Acts), in St. John not at all, in 
St. Matthew and St. Mark once (in 
the same passage). A noteworthy 
parallel is found in Judith x. 9 : 

eXaXT/a-are fier* e/xoi). 

(46) teal elirev* "Not a change of speaker, but of 
the mode of speech " ; cf. St. John 
i. 50 f., St. Mark vii. 8, 9 (Burkitt). 

In what follows I place the passages of the LXX., 



from which the " Magnificat " has been composed, side 
by side with the text. I call no special attention to 
the many stylistic improvements made by St. Luke. 

(46, 47) Meya\vi>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<wHjp for God (and 
Christ) is found else- 
where in the synop- 
tists only in St. Luke 
ii. 11 ; in the Acts, 
however, twice (v. 31, 
xiii. 23). 

(48) '6n tp\ct*v M 
TV Tairftvoxru' TTJS 
SouAr/s auToO' fSoii yap 
cbr& rov vvv juaa/oD- 
atv fjieiraffai at yeweai' 

(2) 1 Sam. i. 11; 
lav fin&\4ir(av tirifi\e- 
tJ/Tjy r^vraireivooffiv rys 
8ov\i)s <rou, Gen. xxx. 
13: /xa/capia eyci>, 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). 



(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. 

tv fipax'iovi avTOv, 

Ps. Ixxxix. 11 

Stavoia KapSias avr&v vov y Kal v T< Bpa\it 


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- 



(53) irfifwvras *W- 
ir\ri(Ttv a.ya.Qwv Kal 
ir\ovTovvras 4air4- 

(7) 1 Sam. ii. 7 : 
Kvpios irruxffci *J 
irAouTie, rairftvot Kal 
awtyol, Ps. cvii. 9 : 
iJ/uxV ircifwerav eW- 
irAr/tre?, a.ya.6<ai>, Job 
xii. 19 : airoffr(\\wi' 


where in the gospels 
only in St. Luke VI. 
25 and St. John vi. 
25, but also in Acts 
xiv. 17. The verb 
eairo<TTeAAii> 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- 

(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\<TQi\ rov 
\eovs avrov ry 'IoKw/8. 

ai>Ti\a./jipdi't<T6a.i is 

not found elsewhere 
in the gospels ; yet it 
occurs in Acts xx. 35 : 
dj>TiAa/i/8. T. 

pbs Tois 

ai TO; (TTre'p^toTt auroO 
ts rot' atwra. 

(9) Micah vii. 20: 

KaOori &fj.o- 
(Tas TO?$ 
2 Sam. xxii. 51 
eAeos . . 


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 
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. 



occurs twenty-two 
times in St. Luke's 
gospel, eleven times 
in the Acts, and is 
wanting in the other 
gospels. vTro<TTpf(pfiv 
fls rbv olicov is also 
found in St. Luke 
vii. 10, viii. 39, xi. 24. 

(68) EuAo7TjTbs (KU- (1) Ps. xli. 14(lxxii. The weakly sup- 
ptos) 6 Qebs rov 18, cvi. 48) : fv\oyrj- ported nvptoi should 
'lo-ptMjA, STI firfffKf- rbs Kvpios 6 Qfbs 'l<rpa- be deleted. St. Luke 
^aro Kal tiro'n\fffv ^A, Ps. cxi. 9 ; Xv- evidently felt that 
\vTpwffiv rcf Aa$ av- rpaxriv air4<TTfi\fv T<? this word, without 
TOV, \acp avrov. the article, coming 

before 6 0e(k, was a 
solecism. rov is a 
grammatical im- 

provement. - CTTfffKf- 

tyaro (used absolutely 
as in Acts xv. 14). 
St. Luke alone of 
the New Testament 
writers uses this word 
of God ; vide i. 78, vii. 
16, Acts xv. 14. 
e7rot7j(rej/, a verbal im- 

(69) KO! tfyfipev K- (2) Ps. cxxxii. 17 : tfyeipev with an 

pas (Twrriplas rj/juv eV favarf\> 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 

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. 



(70) Ka6bs e'Act- 

Arj(TJ/ 5tO (TT^/WOTOS T&V 

ayiwv (TWI/) air' 


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}T<av. 
Also air' alwvos is only 
found in St. Luke 
(Acts xv. 18 : 
air' aiwot). 

(71) ffurrjpfav e 
Tj/twi/ Kal e/c 
wctCTwi/ TO;*' 

(4) Ps. cvi. 
eo'wfffi' avrovs tK 

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, 

6pS>v pvaQivras Aorpev- 
fiv avrf ev &ffi6ri\n 

(5 - 8) Numerous 
passages in the Old 
Testament vide 
Micah vii. 20 : Scotret 
eAeos r<f 'A^poa/u, KO- 
66ri tiftoffas rots Trarpd- 
ffiv f]nuv, Ps. cv. 8, 
cvi. 45 ; Exod. ii. 24 ; 
Lev. xx vi. 42 ; Jerem. 
xi. 5 ; Ps. xviii. 18 ; 
Jerem. xxxii. 39 : 
<t>o/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- 



\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. 


77) KO! (rv Se, 

Trpo(p"fjrr)S vtyt- 

A7j0T?(r77' irpoiro- 

yap kvuiriov KV- 

(9, 10) Mai. iii. 1: 
S8bs irpb irpo<T(>irov 
/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<i>- 
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. 


s. (T( TT 
Vide verse 69, 
xvi. 17 
eight times in St. 
Luke, wanting in St. 
John, once each in 
St. Matthew and St. 

(78, 79) 5*o <nr\dy- 
va e'Aeous 8eov 

(11, 12) Test. Levi : 

]. Wanting 
n the gospels ; vide 
Coloss. iii.l 2 : 



fyovs, eVi- 
Qni/at rois <f> a-Ktrei Kal 
ffKt% Bavarov Ko.Brnj.4- 
voiti TOV KartvOvvai. 

vlov avrov, Ps. 
cvii. 10 : Ka0i)Hvovs 
4v ffKdTfi Kal <TKiq.Qa.v6.- 
roy, Ps. xl. 3 : e- 

Kal KaO-riudwev TO. 

. For ^TTI- 
aK\f/. vide verse 68. 
For * tfi/>oys vide St. 
Luke xxiv. 49 : &>5D- 
ffrj<r0 t vfovs dvva- 
fj.iv. It does not occur 
elsewhere in the gos- 
pels and the Acts. 
fvupavai]. Wanting 
elsewhere in the gos- 
pels ; but c/. Acts 
xxvii. 20 : Harpuv 
in<pa.ivovTU)v. Acts 
xvi. 17 : &obi> <rwTripias 
(this is the same as 
65. (>.); 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 (<?TOI- 
fj-daai and ruv Sovvai). 
We thus see what a 
delicate sense of style 
St. Luke has. Three 
times he gives a final 
clause in the infin. 
without the article 
when this final clause 
is subordinate as a 
means to another final 
clause ; and he distin- 
guishes the latter in 
each instance by a 
TOV before the infin. 

6ov aT 


(ii. 15) Kal Concerning the Lukan construc- 

a-TnJA- tion with eyevero, see note on Acts 

air' avT&v xvi. 16 (above, p. 49). airrfkdov ol 

TOV ovpavov "77. ]. The only parallel is Acts 

dyye\oi, ol x. 7 : <*><? Se a7rfj\0ev 6 ayyekos 

e\d\ovv (differently in St. Luke vii. 24 : 
a7T6\06vT(0v T. ayy.). \a\elv irpos 

Srj eo)5 is exclusively Lukan. See note on 



fca t 

TO 7670^09 O 


i. 55 (above, p. 205). Sie 
occurs thirty times in St. Luke, else- 
where in the gospels six times (but the 
occurrences are not all well attested) ; 
in the weaker meaning it occurs only 
in St. Luke. Stf with the imperat. 
is found again in Acts xiii. 2 and 
xv. 36 ; elsewhere in the New Testa- 
ment only in 1 Cor. vi. 20, where 
it is not quite certain. &eX0. &W9 

Vide Acts ix. 38: %ie\0elv &>? 

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 

(16) Kal 

avevpav TTJV re 

MapiajjL ical TOV 
\ \ 



) 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., 



in the " we " section Acts xxi. 4. 
Concerning the Lukan word /3pe<o?, 
see above on i. 41. (frdTvr)]. Except 
in i. 2 this word is only found again 
in the New Testament in St. Luke 
xiii. 15. 

(17, IS) ioov- 
T6? Be e 


TOV \a\ti6evTes 

aVTOlS 7T6pl TOV 

teal 7rai/T<? ol 
irepl T&V 

T(OV 7TOl,fjLVCi)V 


(19) 17 Se Ma- 
pia irdvTa avve- 
TripGi TO, prj/jiaTa 
Tavra (rvvftak- 
\ovcra ev Trj /cap' 

& I 


(20) teal V 

l TTOt- 


/) \ \ n 


0*9 riKovcrav KOI 
elSov /caOtas e\a- 
\tjdrj 7rp09 av- 


For the passive \a\ei00at, and Tct 
\a\r)6ei>Ta see the notes on Acts 
xvi. 14 (above, p. 47) and on St. 
Luke i. 45. TOVTOV]. See note on 
verse 15. 7rai/Te<? ol aicovcravTes}. 
Only in i. 66, ii. 47, and Acts ix. 21 
(7rai>T65 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 
<t>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, 



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. 

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^ 


ev TW 

o Trat? ev 
iJL ical 


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- 
<f>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- 


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 


/ca /U,T evpvre? 


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- 

Ka tcovovra av- 

T&V Kal 7TpO)- 

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 

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 



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)<rev aurot?. KOI 

/JLCT av- 

tea rv 



pei frvra ra fnj- 
fjuara ev -rf) tcapota 

St. Luke is fond of such construc- 
tions ; see note on Acts xxviii. 15 
(above, pp. 63 f. and elsewhere). 

i is wanting in St. 
Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, and in 
the Acts ; is found, however, in St. 
Luke x. 17, 20. fy with participle 
is especially frequent in St. Luke, 
and is characteristic of his style. 
Siarrjpelv occurs again in the New 
Testament only in Acts xv. 29. 



Here only in the 
gospels ; but cf. St. Paul. ^apm]. 
Ty ao(f>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 


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. 


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)n<av of the conclud- 
ing verse ; while the whole poem comes to a solemn 
conclusion in the words efc TOV alwva. The excelling 
art of St. Luke first clearly appears when we realise 
that a poem so noble in form and so consistent in 
thought is purely a collection of reminiscences from 
the Old Testament (LXX.). A close examination of 
the poem verse by verse brings out with convincing 
clearness the author's method. We then see how he 
edits his material in regard to vocabulary, style, and 
poetic form, and recasts the whole in better Greek with- 
out obliterating its Hebraic (LXX.) character. Such 
an examination has been already carried out by me in 
the number of the "Sitzungsberichte" quoted above. It 
is, moreover, evident from the comparison already made 
in this appendix that nearly all the words in the 
* Magnificat" which vary from the words of the parallel 
verses of the Old Testament are the special property of 
St. Luke i.e., belong to his vocabulary (the words are : 
fjLya\vveiv, ayaXXiav, 6 (r&rfjp, e7n,/3\67reiv eW, IBoif 


yap, OLTTO TOV vvv t ycvcal, fjbya\eia t 6 

Sidvoia KapSias, icadcupetv, efaTrooreXAew icevovs, \a\elv 


Exactly the same may be said of the " Benedictus," 
though here the material from the Greek Bible has 
been more severely edited than in the case of the 
"Magnificat," and hence a finer poem has been produced. 
That both these canticles were composed by the same 
author is shown not only by several important cases of 
coincidence and by the same discreet manner of referring 
to the Messiah, but in detail also in the auro? and 
77^6??, which are as characteristic of the " Benedictus " as 
the auro5 and fiov are of the "Magnificat" ; above all, it 
is shown by the fact that in the " Benedictus " also the 
peculiar vocabulary of St. Luke is unmistakably present. 
Lastly, the first three strophes of the " Benedictus " 
(verses 68-75 ; the whole canticle contains five strophes 
of four verses each) are only superficially fashioned 
according to the style of the Hebrew psalm. On closer 
view they present the form of a single, complicated, 
correctly constructed Greek period that does all honour 
to the author of the prologue (St. Luke i. 1 fF.) and of 
numerous other excellent Greek periods. This period 
is simply forced into its Hebrew dress. The hands are 
Esau's hands, but the voice is that of Jacob. But if 
this is so, then it is plain that St. Luke in composing 
these canticles has purposely kept to the language of the 
Psalms and prophets (LXX.). The Hebraisms, whether 
adopted or inserted from the Old Testament, are 
intentional ; the whole style is artificial, and is intended 
to produce an impression of antiquity a purpose 


which has been really fulfilled. A continuation of the 
examination into the style of St. Luke undertaken by 
Vogel and Norden (" Antike Kunstprosa," s. 483) leads 
to the conclusion that he was a master in the imitation 
of style (in the gospel, chaps. 3-28, how excellently 
he imitates the typical gospel narrative style even 
where he corrects it !), and that at the same time, by 
sober avoidance of all exaggeration, as well as by the 
introduction of his own peculiar vocabulary and style, 
he has understood how to give to his work a by no 
means indistinct individuality of its own and a tone and 
colouring which is truly Hellenic. 

APPENDIX III (to p. 129) 


IF the epistle from Jerusalem were genuine, it would be 
the most ancient Christian document that we possess. 
Its genuineness is strenuously upheld by Zahn ("Einl.," 
ii. ss. 344 f., 353 f., 397, 418, 431 f., 438), who says : 
" The style does not bear the stamp of St. Luke, and 
the secular tone of the introductory and concluding 
formulae does not favour the hypothesis that the 
author has fabricated the document out of his own 
head or from some indefinite tradition." But is the 
secular tone of the introductory formula which, more- 
over, is also found in St. James i. 1 more suitable in 
the case of the apostles and elders of Jerusalem than 
in the case of the Greek physician ? Zahn also 
produces a list of air'. \ey. occurring in the epistle and 
wanting in St. Luke (those which are wanting elsewhere 
in the New Testament are marked with an asterisk) 
viz. : ava(TKevd%iv 9 * fidpos, Siaa-Te\\ecr6aL, e 
eft 7TpaTTiV,* ol ayajrrjrol rip&v (without 
the appositional use of aSeX^ot'* (after 7rp<rfiv- 

We may not dismiss the question with the hasty 


sentence that in ancient historical narratives of this 
kind the epistles are always fabricated. Here the 
circumstances are different. We may not without 
hesitation assume that St. Luke dared to fabricate such 
an important historical document. And we have just 
as little justification for concluding, from the fact that 
the text which precedes the epistle presents many 
striking points of connection with it, that the epistle is 
therefore a forgery ; for the narrator could easily have 
used the document lying before him for his narrative, 
before he copied the letter itself into his work. We 
must therefore examine into the matter without prejudice. 
Such an investigation has been most thoroughly carried 
out by Weiss, among others. In his commentary this 
scholar has examined the epistle both in regard to 
subject-matter and language, and has arrived at the 
conclusion that the epistle was put together by St. Luke. 
I do not wish to repeat the evidence derived from the 
subject-matter, although this is perhaps the more im- 
portant, but I wish to investigate the linguistic pheno- 
mena yet more closely than Weiss, paying the while 
special attention to the arguments of Zahn. 

Verse 23. Here the reading ol aTroo-roXot ical ol 
Trpeapvrepoi [real oi\ a8eX<ot is doubtful. " ical ol " is, 
at all events, the more difficult reading, as we are not 
told in what comes before of any participation of the 
whole community in the decision. The remarkable 
expression ol irpeo-flvrepoi-dSeKtyoL is thus of at least 
doubtful authority. ol aSe\</>ol 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. 


compare xi. 1 : ol ovre? Kara T^V 'louSaiW, also viii. 1 : 
Sie(T7rdpr)<Tav Kara ra<? ^copa? T. 'JouSata?, and ii. 10 : 
Aifivr)<; T^? Kara Kvprjvyv. 

Verse 24. ^E-jre^rj . . . &o%ev ^Iv, as in St. Luke 
i. 1 ff. eirei^r) is not found in St. Mark, St. Matthew, 
and St. John ; it occurs, however, in St. Luke vii. 1, xi. 
6, Acts xiii. 46, xiv. 12. rti^e? ef f)n<av, thus only in 
xi. 20 : rjaav Se rtves e avT&v (rtV and rives play an 
important rdle in St. Luke's style). efeX0oWe?, as in 
xii. 17, xvi. 36, 40. The following words, erdpagav 
v/jias, Xo7ot? avaa-K6vd%ovTS ra? i|ru^a5 i//xa)t/, of which 
Zahn has described avaa- Kevd^ovre^ as un-Lukan, are 
coloured by medical phraseology. St. Luke uses in his 
writings the words rapo^o?, rapdcrffeiv, SiaTapdcrareiv, 
ercTapda-a-eiv (the last two are confined to St. Luke 
in the New Testament). These words, together with 
TapaKTiKos, Tapa / )((t)Sr)<ij eKTdpafys, 7riTapd<T(Ttv, (rvvra- 
pdara-eiv, vTrorapda-aeiv, are shown by Hobart (pp. 93 f.) 
to be frequently used in medical language " to express 
disturbance of body and mind." The same is true of 
avaa-Kevd&w. This word, it is true, only occurs here in 
St. Luke's writings; yet in Acts xxi. 15 diroa-Kevaad^e- 
voi is found (and nowhere else in the New Testament). 
Hobart (p. 232) shows how often avaaicevd^eiv occurs in 
Galen, and, moreover, in Dioscorides in the sense of 
subvertere ; it is a technical term for the dispersion 
(as a rule) of some pathological symptom. With the 
pleonastic use of " your souls " for " you " compare 
xiv. 22 : ra9 i|rv%a5 TWV yLta^rw^, also xx. 24, xxvii. 10, 
22. Stao-reXXecrftu occurs, indeed, only here in St. Luke; 
but cases of attraction such as ol? SteareiX. are in great 


favour with our author (vide, e.g., Acts i. 1, and else- 

Verse 25. For eSofey see verse 22. The participle 
yv6fj,evos occurs in St. Mark and St. Matthew almost 
always in temporal clauses (it is only once used in St. 
Mark of a person) ; on the other hand, cf. St. Luke 
xxii. 40, 44, Acts i. 16, 18, (iv. 11), vii. 32, 38, x. 4, 
xii. 11, 23, xiii. 5, xvi. 27, 29, xix. 26, 28, xxi. 17, 
xxiv. 25, xxv. 15, xxvii. 7, 36. opoQvpabov occurs 
in the Acts eleven times, and only once elsewhere in the 
New Testament (Romans xv. 6) ; cf. especially Acts v. 
12 : TI<JO,V opoOv/Jbao'bv ajravres, also xii. 20. e/eXefacr&u 
is wanting in St. Mark and St. Matthew, is found eleven 
times in St. Luke's writings. avbpas as in Acts vi. 3 : 
7riaKe\lfaa-Be aVS/aa? ef vp&v, vi. 11: virefiaXov avSpas, 
x. 5: TrefjL^frov avSpa? 6/5 'loTTTnjv. ire^^rai'. See the 
passage just quoted. ol cvyaTrijTol r)fj>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><? e^w airodavelv inrep r. 6 
TOV Kuplov'Irjcrov (v. 41, ix. 16), Acts xx. 21 : 
TOV KvpLov 'lyaovv XpwTov (never again in the Acts). 

Verse 27. ' * ATrecrTakKapev : " air ear a\. alternates with 
7T6//Ajr. of verse 25 just as in Acts x. 5, 8 " (Weiss). 
The perfect of aTroo-reXXw is not found in St. Matthew 
and St. Mark ; in St. Luke's writings it occurs five 
times. KOI CLVTOVS is specially distinctive of the Lukan 
style ; it is unnecessary to give examples. a7rajye\\eiv 
is found twice both in St. Mark and St. John, but 


twenty-five (twenty-six) times in the Lukan writings. 
Unless I am mistaken, ra avrd is found again in the 
gospels and the Acts only in St. Luke vi. 23, 26. 

Verse 28. Tu> 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) 


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 

(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 


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'i<TTi), "EXXyves, t E\\vjvia'T t r P(Ofj,atot, 
ai, [/leuTrat], ^roa ^oXo/zwz/ro? into the 
sacred history, and in certain passages speak of the 
Jewish people as TO Wvos. In critical situations in 
their narrative they both use the same quotation from 

both in St. Luke and St. John, while the other evangelists say 
almost nothing of her. 

1 " St. John " professes to know that they lived at Bethany. 

2 It is only an accidental coincidence that both speak of things 
which happened at Siloam. The apostle Judas "of James" is 
mentioned only in St. Luke and St. John. St. Peter and St. John 
appear together in St. Luke xxii. 8 and in the Acts ; cf. St. John 
xx. 3 ff . Some scholars have held that the Philip of the fourth gospel 
and of the Acts are one and the same person. 



the Old Testament to describe the hardening of the 
heart of the Jewish people and their rejection by God. 

(3) In respect to St. John the Baptist, both evange- 
lists (vide St. Luke iii. 15) regard the disciples of St. 
John as a phenomenon irritating to the Christian 
community, and they adopt a polemical attitude towards 
the question whether the Baptist was " He that should 
come" (see St. Luke iii. 15 and the other sections in the 
gospel and the Acts concerning the disciples of St. 

(4) In Christology St. Luke approaches to the 
Johannine type, (a) Jesus is 6 acor^p (St. Luke ii. 11, 
Acts v. 31, xiii. 23, St. John iv. 42, 1 John iv. 14 ; the 
word is wanting in St. Mark and St. Matthew) ; He 
brings TTJV (rcoTyplav (St. Luke i. 69, 71, 77, Acts iv. 
12, [vii. 25], xiii. 26, xvi. 17, St. John iv. 22, wanting 
in St. Mark and St. Matthew); 1 (b) for St. Luke also 
the goal of the earthly history of our Lord is His 
ascension into Heaven (ix. 51) ; (c) also in St. Luke 
Jesus is brought into contrast with the devil as the 
being into whose power the world is delivered, who 
is accordingly 6 a/o%ft>z> 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 <rwTT)ptas (St. Luke i. 77) suits St. John even better than 
St. Luke. 


fishes to St. Peter and appoints him to be " the Fisher 
of Men," or (in St. John) the Shepherd of the Faithful ; 1 

i The view that St. John xxi. depends upon St. Luke v. 1 flf. 
(according to Wellhausen and others) is one that I cannot bring 
myself to accept (the argument drawn from the comparison of St. 
Luke v. 6 with St. John xxi. 11 is by no means convincing, for 
though, indeed, in St. John the net signifies the Church, yet this 
trait is secondary). The narrative of St. John xxi., even in its 
present form, shows that this legend, before it was adopted and 
edited by the fourth evangelist, was described as the first appearance 
of the Kisen Christ, and this impression is confirmed by the conclu- 
sion of the fragment of the gospel of Peter, lately discovered, which 
breaks off just as it is about to give an account of the appearance 
(and that the first appearance) of the Kisen Christ by the lake of 
Gennesareth. The fourth evangelist emphatically asserts that this 
was the third appearance, and accordingly adopts a distinctly an- 
tagonistic attitude towards the view that it was the first appearance 
(xxi. 14 : TOVTO $5ri rpirov f<j>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, 


(g) in both gospels Jesus speaks of fiao-Td^eiv TOV 
o-ravpov ; in both (h) of 6 <f>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<ri\eiav) 
sounds quite Johannine. 

(5) The words paprvpelv and papTvpia are very pro- 
minent in St. John and in the Acts. 

(6) Both evangelists speak of the "love of God*" 
(vide St. Luke xi. 42) ; the phrase does not occur in St. 
Matthew and St. Mark. 

(7) With the conception " life," so prominent in the 
Johannine writings, compare Acts iii. 15, v. 20, xiii. 48. 

(8) With St. John iii. 21, epya ev 0ec3 elpyaafjueva, 
compare St. Luke xii. 21, el? 6ebv ir\ovTO)v. 

(9) The Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) plays an impor- 

verses 59 ff. It could not but happen that this inconvenient narra- 
tive of St. Mark should be suppressed). By this appearance of the 
Eisen Christ St. Peter was again established in his calling as a 
disciple, and became the " Fisher of Men " and the chief of the 
apostles. St. Luke, of course, does not depend upon St. John as his 
source, but goes back to the authority upon which St. John depends 
that is, probably, to the original conclusion of St. Mark. 

The word povoyeviis does not belong to the cases of coincidence 
between St. John and St. Luke ; for St. Luke never uses it of Christ. 
It is, however, worthy of note that r~b fvayyeXiov is not found in St. 
Luke (gospel) and St. John, while it appears in St. Mark and St. 
Matthew (it, however, occurs twice in the Acts) ; also that both 
evangelists use i5e/ in the metaphorical sense (to see death, life, &c.), 
and that both speak of a " choosing " of the apostles from the rest of 
the disciples (these two traits also are foreign to St. Mark and St. 


tant part in both gospels (this is not yet the case in 
St. Mark and St. Matthew). 

(10) Both evangelists assign great importance to the 
<rr]fj,eia first the miraculous sign, then comes faith. 

(11) Both evangelists either translate (ep/jLiivevew, 
/jLedepfjLrjvevew) Aramaic words or leave them out alto- 

(12) The critical attitude which St. Luke in his 
gospel practically adopts towards St. Mark is similar 
in character to the judgment which John the presbyter 
(in Papias) passes upon the gospel of St. Mark. John 
the presbyter, however, is probably the author of the 
fourth gospel. 

There is something to be said for the view that 
" St. John " had knowledge of the Lukan writings, but 
no real evidence can be adduced in its favour. It is 
possible that they both are only dependent upon a com- 
mon source. An examination of the linguistic relations of 
the two gospels speaks rather against the hypothesis of 
direct dependence, for the results of such an examina- 
tion are exceedingly scanty. I proceed to give a list 
of all the words which St. John has in common with 
St. Luke while they are wanting in St. Mark and St. 
Matthew. Words which are also found in the ten 
Pauline epistles are included in brackets. The impor- 
tant proper names, already given above, are omitted. 1 

(1) St. John's gospel has in common with St. Luke's 
gospel the following words which do not occur in 
St. Mark and St. Matthew : (d^wvi^eaOai), (dKriOivos), 
diroKpHns, dpivrav, pdirreLV, (J3ov<})> 
1 Also <5 <ruT-f}p and rj ffwrrjpla. 


, (ei 805), fcpd(r<Ti,v, VT6v6ev, KTJTTO^, (XuTn?) , /JLovoye- 

, <f>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, fia<n\LK6<$, SiaTplpeiv, (&/>ea), 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) , /3a6v<?, 

, (71/0x7709), 

(eviavrds), (CVCOTTLOV) , egriyelaQcu, 
IdcrOai (with active significance), ^oA,7ro9, KVK\OVV, \ay- 

(Trpd<T(reiv) t aovbdpiov, 
ol ^>tXot, (%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, <rij/j.aivfiv } ffvptiv, ^^X oy > fi&Qvs, SiatiiSdvai, edos, 
KVK\OVJ>, Aa7x"iv, 6 <pi\os, so that altogether only twenty-six words 
in the New Testament are exclusively common to St. Luke and 
St. John. 


lately nothing if it were not that the vocabulary of 
St. John is so very scanty; but even taking account 
of this fact, we can scarcely give another verdict than 
that no traces of the dependence of St. John upon the 
Lukan writings can be discovered by means of the 
lexicon. There is no connection between them in 
vocabulary scarcely a single word characteristic of 
St. Luke can be found in St. John. Nor does it appear 
that the style of St. John shows any trace of the in- 
fluence of the Lukan style. Nevertheless on other 
grounds the possibility that the fourth evangelist 
read the Lukan writings must be left open. 





Tavistock Street, London 




This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 

on the date to which renewed. 
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 


INTER :. r ".'A 


^- V-"'J.- - 



ftftdSEB 1 


. OA M ut:P^ 


General Library 

University of California