when describing the lake of Galilee. He uses three distinct words for bed in the description of the healing of the paralytic (vv. 18-25), avoiding the vulgar «pa@BBatos of Mark. The Jat- ter word, it is true, oceurs in two passages in the Acts (v. 15; . ix. 33), but both these passages are Petrine. So, too, we find émistatys, master, instead of Rabbi; vopuKot, lawyers, for ypappatets, scribes ; val, ddnIas, ér arndelas, yea, truly, of a truth, for dunv, verily ; popos, tribute, for the Latin form, Khveoos, census. Tle uses several Latin words, as dnvapiov, de- narius ; deyedv, legion ; covddpiov, napkin ; aocaptov, far- thing, though he avoids ce8pdvtns, farthing, in xxi. 2 (compare Mark xii. 42); pdds0s, bushel. He is less Hebraic than the other evangelists, except in the first two chapters—the history of the infaney—which he derived probably from Aramaic tra- ditions or documents, and where his language has a stronger Hebrew coloring than any other portion of the New Testament. “ The songs of Zacharias, Elizabeth, Mary, and Simeon, and the anthem of the angelic host, are the last of Hebrew psalms, as well as the first of Christianhymns. They can be literally trans- lated back into the Hebrew without losing their beauty ” (Schaff).
His style is clear, animated, picturesque, and unpretentious. Where he describes events on the authority of others, his man- ner is purely historical; events which have come under his own observation he treats in the minute and circumstantial style of an eye-witness. Compare, for instance, the detailed narrative of the events at Philippi with that of the occurrences at Thessa- lonica. The change of style at Acts xvi. 10, from the histori- cal to the personal narrative, coincides with the time of his join- ing Paul at the first visit to Mgcedonia, and a similar change may be noted at Acts xx. 4-6.
But the style of Luke also acquires a peculiar flavor from his profession. His language, both in the Gospel and in the Acts, indicates a familiarity with the terms used by the Greek medi- cal schools, and furnishes an incidental confirmation of the com- mon authorship of the two books. As we have seen, Luke was probably a Greek of Asia Minor; and, with the exception of Hippocrates, all the extant Greek medical writers were Asiatic Greeks. Hippocrates, indeed, can hardly be called an excep-