LUKE
ready drawn attention to the fact that this line of research pointed to the unity of the Lucan writings and the identity of the scribe of the ' we- sections' with the redactor of the whole, and in Lukas der Arzt Harnack elaborates the argument very fully ,_ and may be regarded as having proved his point, if it be granted that no redactor would have completely 'Lucanized' the 'we-sections' without altering the characteristic use of the first person. Unfortunately, this is a rather large assumption, and it is not impossible that the re- dactor kept the first person, because it implied that his source was here that of an eye-witness. It is clear from the preface to the Gospel that he at- tached importance to the evidence of eye-witnesses.
The arguments against the Lucan authorship of Acts (and the Third Gospel goes with them) have been given at length in dealing with Acts. In summary they are that a comparison between the Acts and the Epistles shows that, wherever Luke and St. Paul relate the same facts, they give discordant testimony, and that the Pauline and Lucan theology are evidently different (see Acts). It is not impossible to give an explanation of these facts consistent with the Lucan authorship, but their obvious bearing is to render that theory im- probable, so that the results of these two lines of investigation, the linguistic and the historical and theological, do not point in quite the same direc- tion. The linguistic argument as stated by Har- nack goes a long way towards proving that the redactor of the Third Gospel and Acts is identical with the author of the 'we-sections' and the nar- ratives immediately cohering with them. This conclusion is not seriously impaired if it be granted that in telUng his story the writer often makes use of cliches relating to miraculous episodes found in the Mterary work of this or a slightly later period, e.g. in Philostratus, * and perhaps in the lost writings of Apollonius of Tyana. On the other hand, the historical and theological argu- ments support the contention that the author can scarcely have been a companion of St. Paul. Whenever it is possible to compare Acts and Epistles, discrepancies of varying seriousness are to be found, and the Acts shows very few or no signs of acquaintance with the Atonement-theology or the Christology of the Epistles.
Two ways may be suggested of combining these confficting results. On the one hand, it is possible that the prima facie evidence of the linguistic facts is fallacious. The central point of Harnack's argiunent is that the same linguistic character- istics are to be found throughout the whole work as in the 'we-sections.' It is assumed that the latter and the cohering narratives may be taken as normative, and that they have been unchanged. But if this assumption be challenged, the argument falls to the ground. Suppose that the redactor found a source relating the greater part of St, Paul's life, and in places claiming that the writer was an eye-witness by the use of the first person, it would be not unnatui'al for the redactor care- fully to preserve these important indications of the value of his source, while at the same time re- writing or touching up the rest of the language. It would then present all those signs of identity of literary style with the rest of the book which Harnack has emphasized. This theory circum- vents the literary argument, and enables us to accept easily the historical and theological results which render doubtful the view that the redactor was a companion of St. Paul.
* This seems to be the most important result of E. Norden's AgtiotitDS Theos (Leipzig, 1913) ; he does not really prove that the story of St. Paul at Athens or similar incidents are free literary compositions, and void of all historical foundation, but does show that a considerable use was made of literary clichis in setting out, illustrating, and adorning a narrative.
LUKE
LUKE
721
On the other hand, it may be that we are de- manding too high a standard of accuracy in the Acts : after all, the inaccuracies and mistakes — for they can scarcely be anything less — are chiefly found in the earlier parts of Acts, and Luke may have been a companion of St. Paul, and yet never have thought of making very careful inquiry from him as to the events of his early career. This would be especially probable if, as the suggested use of Josephus imphes, Luke WTOte his two treatises for Theophilus late in life (c. a.d. 90). The theological difficulty is more serious : it is very difficult to understand how a companion of St. Paul can have had a theology and Christologj^ which are on the whole more archaic than those of the Epistles. To some extent, no doubt, this can be explained by the different objects of the works. To some extent also it is no doubt true that we have gone altogether too far in recon- structing a 'Pauhne theology' out of the Epistles ; these were St. Paul's answers to controversial points, not statements of his central teaching. Probably the preaching of St. Paul was much more hke the Acts than systems of Paulinismus reconstructed out of the Epistles. At the same time, it is doubtful whether these considerations really carry us all the way. The theology of Acts — not Hnguistic characteristics or historical inaccuracies — is the greatest difficulty which faces those who accept the authorship of the Third Gospel and Acts by a companion of St. Paul. At present the matter is sub judice, and Harnack's powerful advocacy has turned the current of feel- ing in favour of the traditional view, but he has really dealt adequately with only one side of the question and dismissed the theological and (to a somewhat less extent) the historical difficulty too easily. It wiU not be surprising if a reaction follows when these points have been more ade- quately studied and expounded.