Lastly, all arguments against the Lucan author- ship, or the historical character of the work, drawn from the f.act that the writer clearly h.as a definite plan and jiurpose, are ijuite beside the mark. The distinction between a history and a chronicle is just this, that a history hits a plan. The writer, from personal knowledge or other sources, forms a conception of the course of events, and writes his history from that point of view. In the present case the writer wishes to illustr.ate and describe the steps by which the Christian Church h;us developed. From that point of view he .seU'cLs his materials; from that point of view he describes the events and the periods which are to liim important ; from that point of view he empliasizes the careers of ,St. Ste]ihen, of .St. Peter, of St. Paul. Ills view may be right or may be wrong, but l)ecau.se a writer h.as a view he is not neces,sarily unhistorical. We hope to show that the merit of .St. Luke lies in having brought out just the point of view which w;us important, and that, although there are points
in which he is perhaps incorrect, substantially his history is true and trustworthy.
2. The AcCs and St. P<turs Epistles. — A consider- able portion of the narrative of the Acts is con- temporary with certain of .St. Paul's Epistles. Here, then, we have some opporiunity of controlling the narrative, and here we have to meet a very curious couibiuation of arguments. It is now niaintaiiied that the Acts is late, and its narrative unauthentic because of differences from St. Paul's Eiiistles, and then that these Epistles are its sources. To prevent these arguments conHicting, we have to suppose a deliberate falsification of the narrative of (ialatians by the author of the Acts, and an e.xtracu'diiiary capacity on his part to conceal his obligations. The parallels quoted are very slight, but most numerous in the case of the Epistles ot the captivity. Even here they have little value as implying literary obligations ; but if, as we believe, St. Luke, the author of the Acts, was St. Paul's companion in captivity, and possibly acted as his amanuensis, it is natural that his phraseology should be influenced by that personal contact.
Tliere are three pa.ssafres -wblch demand a more e.xiict com- parisuD.
(<l) Oiil l"-"=Ac !!'«-'». («) Oiil 2<-"> =Ac l.')'-". (c) Galanf- =Ae isss-".
(a) If we examine the first pnssapes we notice fjiiite definitely certain discrepancies. Tlie Acts contain no reference to llie visit to Aral)ia ; we stionld not salluT tV(»m tile narrative that tliree years had elapsed before the visit to Jernsnlem : while tlie state- ment that lie was nnlinown by face to the Churches that were in Jndiea. is supposed to be inconsistent with the fact that lie preached In the synapoirues of ,)erusa1em. Hut how far do these discrepancies talie us ? It is quite clear tliat St. Lulce selects what he rcijutres for bis purjiose. and it is possible tliat he linew of the journey to Arabia and did not tliiiik it necessary to record it ; nor. afrain. does he (-ive exact indications itf tlie time elapsed. There is no necessary inconsistency ; but stiit tlie obvious Impression created by tiie narrative is that the writer did not know of the Arabian Journey, nor of the len{,'tli of time which b.ad elapsed before the .lerusalem visit, and tlie two narratives pive a somewliat ditlVrent impression. St. Paul wisties to emphasize his independence of theajtostles ; St. Luke wishes to siiow that St. I'aiil was received liy them. Hut each hints at tiio other side. St. Paul clearly implies that tie was reeeive<i by them : St. Luke as clearly, that there was some hesitation about doint; so, and St. Luke's lanpuajie makes it plain that even if lie had preached in synajjofjues in .lerusalem he had not preached in ,Iuda-a. The accounts arc dilferent and to all appearance lnde[iendent, they represent ditferent points of view, they supplement one another; they are not incon- sisttnt.
(b) The same may be said in the main concerninir the next narrative (Oat '2'-i''=.\c 1.')'-"), The very careful examination of IJK^itfoiiHOtriirfiifn/,. p. \t^9) reltresents. on the whole, a very fair historical conclusion. No sensible person will find any dis- crepancy if St, Paul, plvlnc his internal motive, states that he went by revelation, and St, Luke pl\es the external motive. It Is <|aite natural that St. Luke should pive tlie public liistory, St. Paul tile private. What Is more important to notice is the incidental testimonv that eacli account ^'ives to tlie other. Wo gather IVom St, Paul Ills treat desire to be on pood terms with the leadtnp apostles— if he is not. he fears he will run In vain and tabour In vain ; we patlier that they receive him in a friendly manner— lliey pive him the rlpht hand of fellowship : althouph llley are looked upon by some of tlieir followers as belnp antagonistic to St. Paul. St. Paul does not think so, Apain. from llie Acts we pallier that the conclusion was not carried out without much dispute, and itresiimahiv was not acceptable to all; and we e<|ually pnther. as we would from St. Paul, that those who had caused the disturtianee had claimed that they represented the opinions of lh<- chief apostles.