p. 274 ff. More recently the German philologist Vogel, 1897, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, p. 17, draws attention to the fact that a large number of words peculiar to the Acts are found in Luke’s contemporary, the physician Dioscorides of Anazarbus in Cilicia, not far from Antioch, and he speaks of the use of Dioscorides by the Evangelist as highly probable. But the fullest recognition of Dr. Hobart’s work comes to us even more recently by Zahn: “ Dr. Hobart has proved for every one for whom anything can be proved, that the author of the Lucan work (by which Zabn means both the third Gospel and Acts) is a Greek physician, acquainted with the technical terms of the medical art,” Einleitung, ii., pp. 427, 435 (1899). The language is strong, and it may perhaps be fairly contended that some of the instances cited by Dr. Zahn may well have been subjected to the cross- examination instituted so carefully and fully by Dr. Plummer, οἱ. Luke, pp. lii., Ixiii-Ixvi., in his inquiry into the validity of Dr. Hobart’s position.1 The evidence in favour of this position must be cumulative, but it depends not merely upon the occurrence of technical medical terms in St. Luke’s writings, but also upon his tendency to employ medical language more frequently than the other Evangelists, upon the passages in his Gospel in which we come across medical terms which are wanting in the parallel passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark, upon the account which he gives of miracles of healing not only in comparison with the other Evangelists, but also of the miracles peculiar to his own narratives; upon the way in which he abstains from using in a medical sense words which medical writers abstain from so using, although em- ployed in this sense elsewhere in the Gospels; upon the frequency with which he uses medical language and phraseology in a secon- dary sense. Ilflustrations of some of these characteristic peculiar- ities are noted in the commentary, and a passing reference (space allows this only) may be made to two others. Each of the Synop- tists gives our Lord’s comparison between the passage of a camel through the eye of a needle and the entrance of a rich man into the kingdom of heaven, St. Matt. xix. 24, St. Mark x. 25, St. Luke xviii. 25. St. Matthew and St. Mark have the same word for
i Whatever strictures may be passed upon Dr. Hobart’s book, it must not be forgotten that the following authorities amongst others are persuaded that the author’s main thesis has been abundantly proved: Bishop Lightfoot, ‘‘ Acts,” B.D.%, i., Ρ. 313 Dr. Salmon, Introd., p. 129; Professor Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 205; Dr. Plummer, St. Luke, u. s. (of. Sit J. Hawkins, Hore Synoptice, p. 154, 1899) ; and it is significant that Dr. B. Weiss in the 3rd edit. of his Einleitung refers to the book, and no longer speaks of the argument as mere “‘ trifling”.