Who is the early Christian writer thus able to give us not only such an account of the Life of our Lord that Renan could describe it as the most beautiful book in the world (Les Evangiles, p. 283), but also an account of the origines of the Christian Church which Jiilicher regards as an ideal Church history, Einleitung, p. 270, and of which Blass could write “hunc libellum non modo inter omnes Novi T. optima compositione uti, sed etiam eam artem mon- strare, que Greco Romanove scriptore rerum non indigna sit”? One thing seems certain, that the writer, whoever he was, represents himself in four passages, xvi. 10-17, xx. 5-15, xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16 inclusive, cf. also Acts xi. 28, Codex D (on which see below, and in loco), as a companion of St. Paul. If we examine the phraseology of these sections (ninety-seven verses in all), we find that it is in many respects common to that employed in the rest of the book (Klostermann, Vindicie Lucane, p. 46 ff.; Nodsgen, A postelge- schichte, pp. 15, 16; Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 10; Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, p. 41; Hawkins, u. 5., p. 149; Spitta, A postelgeschichte, pp. 235, 257).1
Those who deny this identity of authorship are not only obliged to face the difficulty of accounting for this similarity of style and language, but also to account for the introduction of the “We” sections at all. Ifthe writer of the rest of the book had wished to palm himself off at a later period as a companion of St. Paul, he would scarcely have sought to accomplish this on the strength of the insertion of these sections alone, as they stand. It may be fairly urged that he would at least have adopted one of the unmistakable
1 Sir J.. Hawkins not only gives us, p. 151, seventeen words and phrases found only in the ‘‘ We’ sections and in the rest of Acts; twenty-seven words and phrases found in the ‘‘We” sections and Luke, with or without the rest of Acts also; thirty-seven words and phrases found in the “We” sections, and also used predominantly, though not exclusively, in the rest of Acts or Luke or either of them; but he remarks that out of the eighty-six Matthazan-words and phrases, ten, or rather less than one eighth occur in the ‘‘ We” sections; out of the thirty-seven Marcan words and phrases, six, or about one sixth; out of the 140 Lucan words and phrases, less than ome third, p. 14, ff.: “Is it not utterly impos- sible,”’ he asks, p. 150, ‘‘ that the language of the original writer of the ‘ We’ sections should have chanced to have so very many more correspondences with the language of the subsequent compiler than with that of Matthew or Mark?” The expressions peculiar to the ‘‘We” sections are for the most part fairly accounted for by the subject-matter, p. 153, ¢.g., εὐθυδρομέω, κατάγεσθαι, παραλέγοµαι, πλόος, ὑποπλέω. Part iii., Ο, Section iv., of the same book should also be consulted where the identity of the third Synoptist with a friend and companion of St. Paul is further confirmed by the similarities between his Gospel and St. Paul’s Epistles.