Added to these note may be made also of the famous pseudo- Dorotheus, and the lon;jer Sophronius. The text of the former ia sullicient to illustrate their character :
AouKttS 6 ei/ayyeAi'cTTT)? 'Ai'TioXfi'S f^f " to -yeVo? ^v, taTpbs Se riji' re^KJ;!'. <TvvcypQ.\^aro 6e to ^ikv evayyiXtov Kar' inLTpoTriqv Herpow Tov aTroo'ToAov, Taf £e Trpdjcts Tuiu clttocttoXiop Kar kizirponriv HauAov ToO drrocnoXov. avvane&rifj.'qo'e ydp toTs dTrocTToAots Kai fj.a\i(TTa T<j) Ilav'Ati), ou Kai /uii7/xoi'eiJ<ras 6 IlaCAos eypa>p€v ei» €7n<TTo\rj acTTrd^erat v/xay AouJcas 6 taTpb^ 6 dyarrrjTb? ev Kupt'w.' CLTTeOave Se iv *E(/i€'o"aj Kai irddT) cKet, fi^TeTeO-i} 6e vtrrepov iv Kuii'^TravTLVovTroXet fjLeTaKal'AvSpeov Kat Ti/-to0eov Twr d.TTOCTTdAwi' Kara, roif^ /catpou? Kun'CTavTiov ^atrtAew? viov KuivaTavTiVov ToO ftryoAou (the text, and that of Sophronius, are given in von Soden's Die Schri/ten des iVT, L 1, p. 306 ff.).
II. 'L UKE' as an a UTHOR. — The foregoing para- graphs summarize all that is known as to the 'historic Luke.' It now remains to discuss (1) the internal evidence supplied mainly by the Acts for and against the tradition which identifies the 'historic Luke' of the Epistles with the 'hterary Luke' who WTote the Gospel and Acts; (2) the sources used by the 'literary Luke'; (3) his Uterary methods. It would also have been desir- able to discuss his theology, but this has already been done in art. Acts of the Apostles.
1. The arguments for and against the Lucan authorship of the Third Gospel and Acts.— In favour of the Lucan attthorsliip Harnack argues that the redactor of Acts, like Luke, was (1) a fellow-worker with St. Paul ; (2) an Antiochene Greek ; (3) a physician ; (4) the -nTiter of the ' we- sections.' The reasons for this argument are stated in his Untersuchungen zu den Schriften des Lukas (Leipzig, 1906-08) with gi-eat power, but with a certainty which is sometimes too great.
(1) It is of course abundantly evident that the Acts represents in the 'we-sections' the evidence of a companion of St. Paul, but until the linguistic argument has been accepted as convincing it does
720
LUKE
not follow that the redactor of the whole was the author of the ' we-sections.'
(2) In the same way it is abundantly clear that a great part of the Acts is concerned with Antioch ; but if, as Acts states, Antioch was really the centre of the Gentile Christian movement, this is really a sufficient explanation, and throws no necessary light on the provenance of the writer. ^ If anyone were to wi'ite the history of economics in England in the 19th cent., he would constantly be speak- ing of Manchester, but it would not follow that he was a Mancunian : similarly, the writer of Acts constantly speaks of Antioch, but he need not have been an Antiochcne. That Luke was a Greek rather than a Jew is possibly true, but the evidence is poor. Harnack says :
' Lukas wargeborener Grieche — Evangelium und Acta zeigen, was eines Beweises nicht erst bedarf, dass sie nicht von einein geborenen Juden, sondern von einem Griechen verfasat sind,' and adds in a note : 'Ob der Verfasser bevor er Christ wurde jiidischer Proselyt gewesen ist, lasst sich nicht entscheiden. Seine Erwahnung dor Proselyten in der Apostelgeschichte liisst keinen Schluss zu. Seine virtuose Kenntnis der griech- ischen Bibel kann er sich sehr wohl erst als Christ angeeignet haben. Fiir seinen griechischen Ursprung zeugt iibrigens allein schon das ol fiap^apoi in c. 28, 2. 4' {Lukas der Arzi, ch. i. [Eng. tr., 1907, p. 12 f.]).
It may fairly be urged that Harnack does not sufficiently emphasize the complete absence of direct evidence that Luke was a Greek. The facts seem to be quite adequately covered if we suppose that Luke was a Hellenistic Jew.
(3) That Luke was a physician is argued by Harnack — following up and greatly improving on the methods of Hobart — on the ground of his use of medical language. The argument is of course cumulative, and cannot be epitomized. It is be- yond doubt that Luke frequently employs lan- guage which can be illustrated from Galen and other medical writers. The weak point is that no sufficient account has been taken of the fact that much of this language can probable be shown from the pages of Lucian, Dion of Prusa, etc., to have been part of the vocabulary of any educated Greek. It is, for instance, too 'keen' when it is alleged that the Lucan phrase Kal iir^arpe^pev rb irvedjxa avrij^ Kal avidrri Trapaxpv/J-O- in Lk 8^^ is a medical improvement on the Marcan Kal evO^s aviffTf] Th KopdffLov (5''-). Could we stamp a writer as a physician at the present time because he spoke of 'bacilli,' or described a state of mind as 'pathological'? Yet it is doubtful whether there is anything so 'medical' in the Third Gospel or Acts as these expressions. The truth seems to be that, if we accept on the ground of tradition the view that the Gospel and Acts were 'RTitten by a physician, there is a certain amount of corrobora- tive detail in the language ; but if we are not in- cUned to accept this view, the 'medical' language is insufficient to show that the writer was a physi- cian, or used a more medical phraseology than an educated man might have been expected to possess.
(4) Far more important than these lines of argument, which seem to attempt to prove too much from too little evidence, is the thesis that linguistic argument shows that the writer of the 'we-sections' is identical with the redactor of the Third Gospel and the Acts. Here again the cumulative nature of the argument prohibits its complete reproduction. The pages of Harnack must be studied in detail. But the main outline is that, if we study the Third Gospel in comparison with Mark and any sort of reconstructed Q, we shall find out which idioms are especially Lucan, in the sense of belonging to the redaction of the Gospel. If then we find that the 'Lucan' phrase- ology is especially marked in the 'we-sections,' it follows that the writer of the 'we-sections' was the redactor of the whole. John C. Hawkins, in Horce Synopticce (Oxford, 1899, ^1909), had al-