6 5 v.-.-'s ?r 
 
 djornell Hmucraitg Slibratg 
 
 KtJfaca, Keid ^arfe 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 ALFRED C. BARNES 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 H2_l— 
 
 -'^r^' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN 
 
 U. 3. «. 
 
 (ttf 
 
 NO. 23233 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 BS2595 .R64 
 
 Luke the historian, in the light of rese 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 342 296 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029342296 
 
BOOKS BY A. T. ROBERTSON, D.D. 
 
 PUBLISHED Sr 
 
 CHARLES SCBIBNEB'S SONS 
 
 LUKE THE HISTORIAN IK THE LIGHT OF 
 RESEABCH 
 
 EPOCHS m THE LIFE OF JESnS 
 
 EPOCHS m THE LIFE OF PAUL 
 
 JOHN THE LOYAL: STUDIES IN THE MIN- 
 ISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 
 
LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 IN THE LIGHT OF RESEARCH 
 
LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 IN THE LIGHT OF RESEARCH 
 
 BY 
 
 A. T. ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Litt.D. 
 
 PBOrESSOB OF HEW TESTAUEHT IMTEBPBETATION, BOUTBJEBN BAPTIST 
 THBOLOOICAL SEMIRABT, LOUISTIULS, KT. 
 
 ' Having traced the course of all things 
 accurately from the first." 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 19S0 
 

 t;. 
 
 > a^<:^:2 
 
 COPTEIGBT, 19*0, BT 
 
 CHARLES SCEIBNER'S SONS 
 
 FubUshed September, 1920 
 
 
TO 
 
 THE MEMOKT OP 
 
 DR. AND MRS. J. B. MARVIN 
 
 DISTINGTnSHED LIKE LUKE 
 
 IN SERVICE FOR THE BODIES AND 
 
 SOULS OF MEN 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The work of the last fifteen years has created new interest 
 in the writings of Luke. The relation of Luke's Gospel to 
 Mark's Gospel and the Logia of Jesus has sharply defined his 
 own critical methods and processes. The researches of Har- 
 nack, Hobart, and Ramsay have restored the credit of Luke 
 with many critics who had been carried away by the criticism 
 of Baur, and who looked askance upon the value of Luke as 
 the historian of early Christianity. It has been like mining — 
 digging now here, now there. The items in Luke's books that 
 were attacked have been taken up one by one. The work has 
 been slow and piecemeal, of necessity. But it is now possible 
 to gather together into a fairly complete picture the results. 
 It is a positively amazing vindication of Luke. The force of 
 the argument is cumulative and tremendous. One needs to 
 have the patience to work through the details with candor and 
 a willingness to see all the facts with no prejudice against Luke 
 or against the supernatural origin of Christianity. It is not 
 claimed that every difficulty in Luke's books has been solved, 
 but so many have been triumphantly removed that Luke is 
 entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the rest or at any rate to 
 patience on our part till further research can make a report. 
 Luke should at least be treated as fairly as Thucydides or 
 Polybius when he makes a statement that as yet has no other 
 support or seems in conflict with other writers. Modern 
 scholars are no longer on the defensive about Luke. His 
 books can be used with confidence. The work of research has 
 thrown light in every direction and the story is fascinating to 
 every lover of truth. 
 
 These lectures, delivered to the Northfield Christian Workers' 
 Conference, August 2-16, 1919, at the invitation of Mr. W. 
 
viii PREFACE 
 
 R. Moody, have been greatly enlarged for publication. But 
 the toil has been brightened by the memory of the crowds in 
 Sage Chapel who first heard them. 
 
 "The long series of discoveries by Sir W. M. Ramsay and 
 his coadjutors in Asia Minor has established the Acts narra- 
 tive in a position from which later research is unlikely to de- 
 throne it." (London Times Idterary Suppleinent, March 13, 
 1920.) But the work of research goes on with vigor. New 
 books continue to come out concerning Luke's writings, like 
 Carpenter's Christianity According to S. I/uke and McLach- 
 lan's St. Luke : The Man and His Work. Both of them I found 
 useful and stimulating. Vol. I of The Beginnings of Christianity, 
 by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, came too late to use. 
 It is an ambitious attempt to set forth the historical atmos- 
 phere of the Acts, and assumes the thesis that Jesus preached 
 only repentance with no world programme such as later Chris- 
 tianity provided. Lieutenant MacKinlay also has in press a 
 new book on Luke. 
 
 I have to thank Rev. J. McKee Adams, Louisville, Kentucky, 
 who put the manuscript in typewritten form and for other 
 tokens of interest in the work. The splendid Indices were pre- 
 pared by Rev. J. Allan Easley, Jr., Manning, South Carolina, 
 whose careful work will make the volume more useful to stu- 
 dents. A few of the chapters have appeared as articles in jour- 
 nals, whose publishers have graciously agreed to their use in 
 this volume. 
 
 A. T. Robertson. 
 
 Louisville, Ky., 
 August, 1920. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGQ 
 
 I. The Authorship of the Gospel and the Acts . 1 
 
 II. A Sketch op Luke's Caeeeb . . ... 16 
 
 III. The Date of the Gospel and the Acts ... 30 
 
 IV. Luke's Method of Research . 42 
 
 V. The Sources qp the Gospel . . . . . 61 
 
 VI. The Sources op the Acts . ... 76 
 
 VII. The Use op Medical Teems by Luke ... 90 
 
 VIII. A Physician's Account of the Bieth of Jesus . 103 
 
 IX. The Romance op the Census in Luke's Gospel 118 
 
 X. A Physician's Report of the Miracles op Jesus 130 
 
 XI. A Liteeaey Man's Recoed of the Parables of 
 
 Jesus 142 
 
 XII. An Histoeian's Idea of the Deity of Jesus . . 153 
 
 XIII. Points of Cheonology in the Lukan Weitings . 166 
 
 XIV. AechjEological and Geographical Data in the 
 
 Acts . . . . .... 179 
 
 XV. Luke's Knowledge op Roman Law 190 
 
 XVI. Nautical Terms in Acts 27 206 
 
 XVII. The Speeches in the Acts. .... 217 
 
 XVIII. A Broad Outlook on Life 231 
 
 Index 243 
 
LUKE THE HISTORIAN IN THE 
 LIGHT OF RESEARCH 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 
 "The former treatise I made, O Theophilus" (Acts 1 : 1) 
 
 1. The Importance of the Lukan Writings. — ^Modern research 
 has revived interest in the Gospel according to Liike and the 
 Acts of the Apostles. In part this fact is due to the natural 
 reaction against the extreme view of Baur, who bluntly said 
 that the statements in Acts "can only be looked upon as 
 intentional deviations from historic truth in the interest of the 
 special tendency which they possess." ^ It is true that Luke in 
 Acts is not a blind Paulinist, as Moffatt^ shows. Both Peter 
 and Paul are heroes with Luke, but the weaknesses and short- 
 comings of both, apostles appear. Undoubtedly Luke reveals 
 his sympathies with Paul, but he is not hostile to Peter and is 
 quite capable' of doing justice to both Peter and Paul. The 
 work of Baur has not discredited Luke in the final result as a 
 writer who sought to cover up the friction between Peter and 
 Paul and between Barnabas and Paul. The struggles in early 
 Christianity stand out with sufficient clearness in the Acts, and 
 it is now seen to be quite possible that Luke has drawn the 
 narrative with a true perspective. Schweitzer* argues that the 
 account in Acts is more intelligible than that in the Pauline 
 Epistles: "When the Tubingen school set up the axiom that 
 Acts is less trustworthy than the Epistles, they made things 
 easy for themselves" — easy, one may add, by slurring over 
 plain facts in the Acts. 
 
 1 Baur, Paul, vol. I, p. 108. 
 s IrUr. to the Literature of the N. T., p. 302. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 302, * Paul and His Interpreters, p. 126. 
 
 1 
 
2 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 But Baur compelled diligent study of the Acts. The critics, 
 like the Beroeans after Paul preached, went to "examining the 
 scriptures daily, whether these things were so" (Acts 17 : 11). 
 As a result of a half-century of such research Maurice Jones* 
 can say: "There is no book in the whole of the New Testament 
 whose position in the critical world has been so enhanced by 
 recent research as the Acts of the Apostles." It cannot, how- 
 ever, be claimed that modern critics are at one either in cred- 
 iting the Gospel and the Acts to Luke or in attaching a higher 
 value to the so-called Lukan writings. The long prejudice 
 against these books has not entirely disappeared. Pfleiderer^ 
 can still claim that "the Gospel of Luke was probably written 
 at the beginning of the second century by an imknown heathen 
 Christian," though he admits that Luke, "the pupil of Paul," 
 wrote the memoirs of his journey with Paul (the "we" sections 
 of Acts). Jiilicher* considers it "a romantic ideal" to attribute 
 these books to Luke. And Weizsacker' as late as 1902 says: 
 "The historical value of the narrative in Acts shrinks until it 
 reaches a vanishing-point." But these are modern protests 
 against the new evidence that were to be expected. The judg- 
 ment of Maurice Jones about the new estimate placed upon 
 the Acts and upon Luke's Gospel remains true. 
 
 Much of the credit for this outcome is due to Sir W. M. 
 Ramsay, who was himself at first a disciple of Baur. It was 
 patient research that proved that Baur was wrong and that 
 enabled Ramsay to reconstruct the world of Luke and Paul 
 in the light of their own writings and the archaeological dis-' 
 coveries made by Ramsay and others in Asia Minor. The 
 results of this revolution in Ramsay's literary outlook appear 
 in his various volumes, like The Historical Geography of Asia 
 Minor, The Church in the Roman Empire, St. Paid the Traveller 
 and Roman Citizen, Luke the Physician, Pauline and Other 
 Studies, The Cities of St. Paul, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 
 The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 It is not too much to say that these volumes mark an epoch 
 
 1 The New Testamerd in the Twentieth Century, p. 227. 
 ^ Christian Origins, p. 238. 
 ' Introduction to the N. T., pp. 447 f. 
 
 * Apostolic Age, pp. 106 f. With this Von Soden agrees, History of Early 
 Christian Lit., p. 243. 
 
THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 3 
 
 in the study of the writings of Luke and Paul. Ramsay is 
 conscious that he began with a strong current of adverse criti- 
 cism against him. He boldly asks* the critics: "Shall we 
 hear evidence or not?" Ramsay^ sharply says: "Criticism 
 for a time examined the work attributed to Luke like a corpse, 
 and the laborious autopsy was fruitless. Nothing in the whole 
 history of literary criticism has been so waste and dreary as 
 great part of the modern critical study of Luke." This charge 
 is true, but Ramsay' is able to say: "It has for some time been 
 evident to all New Testament scholars who were not hidebound 
 in old prejudice that there must be a new departure in Lukan 
 criticism. The method of dissection had failed." Ramsay 
 took the new path that has led out of the wilderness. 
 
 Others were at work along diEFerent lines. Hawkins^ had 
 done real service on the synoptic problem and had brought 
 into sharp relief the place of Luke's Gospel in relation to Mark 
 and Matthew. Hobart^ had shown that the author of both 
 Gospel and Acts employed medical terms to a surprising de- 
 gree. The evidence pointed to Luke and reinforced the work 
 of Ramsay. 
 
 In time Adolph Harnack was led to notice the work of these 
 men. He was convinced that they were right and he reversed 
 his position and took up the cudgels for the Lukan authorship 
 of both Gospel and Acts. He says:^ "All the mistakes which 
 have been made in New Testament criticism have been focussed, 
 into the criticism of the Acts of the Apostles." That is a dar- 
 ing statement from the new convert who ridicules "the intol- 
 erable pedantry" of the critics who cannot see the facts for 
 their theories. Harnack is aware of the supercilious scorn of 
 many who have refused to notice the arguments in favor of 
 Luke. He sees also the great importance^ of Luke's writings: 
 "The genuine epistles of St. Paul, the writings of St. Luke, 
 and the history of Eusebius are the pillars of primitive Chris- 
 tian history. This fact has not yet been sufficiently recognized 
 in the case of the Lukan writings; partly because critics are 
 convinced that these writings are not to be assigned to St. 
 
 > Pavline and Other Studies, chap. I. 
 
 2 Luke the Physician, p. 3. 
 
 ' Ibid. * HoTce Symipticce. 
 
 ' The Medical Language of St. Luke. 
 
 ' Luke the Physician, p. 122. ' Luke the Physician, p. 1. 
 
4 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Luke. And yet, even if they were right in their suppositions, 
 the importance of the Acts of the Apostles at least still remains 
 fundamental. However, I hope to have shown in the follow- 
 ing pages that critics have gone astray in this question, and 
 that the traditional view holds good. The Lukan writings 
 thus recover their own excelling value as historical authorities." 
 Harnack, as we shall see, does not rank Luke as high as Ram- 
 say does, but he has definitely championed the Lukan author- 
 ship of both the Gospel and Acts. Renan felt the charm of 
 Luke's Gospel as a literary production when he pronounced it 
 "the most beautiful book ever written." 
 
 The historical worth of the Gospel and Acts comes up for 
 formal discussion in succeeding chapters. Sanday thinks that 
 Ramsay's "treatment of St. Luke as a historian seems too opti- 
 mistic" when he ranks him as the foremost ancient historian, 
 even above Thucydides. But, whatever view one holds of the 
 Lukan writings, no serious student of the New Testament can 
 neglect them. The author writes two books that interpret the 
 origins of Christianity. How far has he been successful in this 
 effort ? He claims that he took pains to do it with care. Crit- 
 icism has challenged his claims. One cannot complain of 
 criticism per se. Carpenter^ well says: "Let us by all means 
 have historical criticism, but let it be genuinely historical." It 
 is not best to prejudge the case before we examine the evidence, 
 and Chase' sums the matter up thus: "But it may be safely 
 said that the certain results of archaeological research strongly 
 confirm the accuracy and truthfulness of the author of the 
 Acts." Let the facts speak for themselves. 
 
 2. The Same Author for Both Gospel and Acts. — ^The author of 
 the Gospel and the Acts makes the distinct claim of identity 
 in Acts 1:1: "The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, con- 
 cerning all that Jesus began both to do and teach." Theophi- 
 lus is clearly a proper name, " not an imaginary nom de guerre 
 for the typical catechiunen, nor a conventional title for the 
 average' Christian reader."^ He was a Christian who had 
 already been catechized* (Luke 1 : 4) and who wished further 
 instruction. It is probable that Theophilus was a man of rank 
 
 * Christianity According to S. Luke, p. ix. 
 
 2 The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 8. 
 2 Moffatt, Inirodudion, p. 262. 
 
 * Kx-Tn^^z- Cf. ApolJos in Acts 18 : 25. 
 
THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 5 
 
 because of the epithet "most excellent"^ (Luke 1 : 3), which is 
 "technical and distinctive"^ for the equestrian rank (cf. Acts 
 24 : 3; 26 : 25). Ramsay doubts if a Roman oflBcer in the first 
 century would be willing to bear the name Theophilus, and 
 suggests that it was his baptismal name which Luke employs 
 because "it was dangerous for a Roman of rank to be recog- 
 nized as a Christian." Be that as it may, identity of author- 
 ship is claimed by the address to Theophilus. It is hardly 
 likely that there were two authors who used his name to prove 
 identity. It has been suggested that Luke was a freedman 
 brought up in the home of Theophilus, who was his patron, 
 and who defrayed the expense of the publication of both of 
 Luke's books.* Hayes* conjectures that Theophilus, who lived 
 in Antioch, educated Luke at the university, and that he was 
 also a schoolmate of Barnabas and Saul there. 
 
 We are not here arguing that the Acts shows unity of author- 
 ship. That point must be assiuned for the present. The 
 proof will be given later that the writer of the "we" sections 
 is the author of the whole of Acts, though he used a variety of 
 sources, as he did in the writing of the Gospel (Luke 1 : 1-4). 
 The point that is now urged is that whoever wrote one book 
 wrote the other. The same man wrote both Gospel and Acts. 
 It is not necessary to argue that the author contemplated a 
 third volume because of his use of "first" * in Acts 1 : L That 
 nicety in the use of language was not common in the Koin6° 
 where the dual form had nearly vanished. To-day we speak 
 of first wife when a man had only two, and we talk of the 
 first story of a two-story house. This item plays no real part 
 in the argument one way or the other. 
 
 1 jipiteore. ' Ramsay, St. Paid the Trcmeller, p. 388. 
 
 5 One thinks of Maecenas and Horace. "This was the recognized prac- 
 tice of the time." Moffatt, Irdrodudion, p. 313. 
 
 * The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts, p. 197. 
 
 ' thv xpuTov X6yov. Cf . Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testa- 
 ment in the Light of Historical Research, p. 280. Luke never employs 
 TcpiTepo?. The papyri nearly always use icpuToi;. 
 
 •The Koini is the name given to the Greek current throughout the 
 Greco-Roman world after the conquests of Alexander the Great. It was 
 the language common to all classes and nations and it was the means of 
 communication practically everjrwhere. It was employed in the vernacu- 
 lar, as is seen in the papyri of Egypt, and literary men like Polybius and 
 Plutarch wrote in it also. The New Testament writers used the Koin& 
 as a matter of course. 
 
6 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 In spite of the variety of sources employed in both the Gos- 
 pel and the Acts, there is the same general vocabulary and 
 style in both books. This argument has been well developed 
 by Friedrich.1 It ought not to be necessary to argue this 
 point, since "the Imguistic and other peculiarities which dis- 
 tinguish the Gospel are equally prominent in the Acts." " The 
 words peculiar to Luke in both Gospel and Acts are more 
 numerous than those peculiar to any other New Testament 
 writer, except Paul (counting the Pastoral Epistles).* The 
 argument of Hobart in his Medical Language of St. Luke applies 
 to both the Gospel and the Acts, as we shall see, and is proof 
 of identity of authorship. There is little opposition among 
 critics to the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. "If the Gospel 
 were the only writing ascribed to his authorship, we should 
 probably raise no objection against this record of ancient tra- 
 dition; for we have no sufficient reason for asserting that a dis- 
 ciple of Paul could not have composed this work." * It is with 
 the Acts that critics have trouble. De Wette doubted the 
 Lukan authorship of the Gospel, and Scholten argued that the 
 same man could not have written both Gospel and Acts. 
 Harnack' grows facetious over this argmnent: "Seeing how one 
 critic trustfully rests upon the authority of another, we may 
 congratulate ourselves that some accident has prevented 
 Seholten's hypothesis — that the third gospel and the Acts have 
 different authors — from finding its way into the great stream 
 of criticism and so becoming a dogma in these days." The 
 line of attack has not been to show that Luke's Gospel and 
 Acts are unlike, but that the Acts was not written by a com- 
 panion of Paul. To the Acts, then, let us go. Who wrote the 
 Acts? 
 
 3. The Author of Acts a Companion of Paul. — Here is where 
 the real battle has raged. Very few critics have the hardihood 
 
 1 Das LmTcos — Evangelium und die Apostelgesdiichte Werie desselben Ver- 
 fasser (1890). 
 
 ^ Supernatural Religion, vol. Ill, p. 32. This concession is noteworthy. 
 
 ' Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke, p. 3. Cf . also VogeL 
 Zur Charaderistik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, p. 11. 
 
 * J. Weiss, Die Schriften des N. T.; das Lukas-Evangelium, 1906, p. 378. 
 So, then, J. Weiss argues still that "the Lukan writings as a whole are the 
 work of a man of the postapostolic generation." But Loofs regards Luke 
 as the author of the Acts (What Is the TnUh aboui Jesus Christ?, p. 91). 
 
 5 Luke the Physician, pp. 7, 21, n. 2. 
 
THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 7 
 
 to say that Luke did not write any part of the Acts. Schmiedel 
 admits that the same man wrote lie Gospel and the Acts, but 
 denies that he was a companion of Paul. Holtzmann^ holds 
 Luke to be the author of the "we" sections only. Schleier- 
 macher had credited the "we" sections to Timothy. A host of 
 critics (Baur, Clemen, De Wette, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Holtz- 
 mann, Jiilicher, Knopf, Overbeck, Pfleiderer, Schiirer, Spitta, 
 Von Soden, Wendt, J. Weiss, Zeller) have reached " the certain 
 conclusion that tradition here is wrong — ^the Acts cannot have 
 been composed by a companion and fellow worker of St. Paul." ^ 
 But this judgment of critical infallibility has been reversed by 
 the steady work of Blass, Credner, Harnack, Hawkins, Hobart, 
 Klostermann, Plummer, Ramsay, Vogel, Zahn. Plummer* 
 courageously says: "It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that 
 nothing in Biblical criticism is more certain than the statement 
 that the author of the Acts was a companion of St. Paul." 
 There is no manner of doubt that the author of the "we" sec- 
 tions of Acts (16 : 10-40; 20 : 6-28 : 31) was a companion of 
 Paul. There is no other way to explain the use of "we" and 
 "us." It may have been a diary or travel document or travel 
 notes, but the author was with Paiil. 
 
 Is he the same writer as the author of the Acts as a whole ? 
 It is here that patient labor has borne results. Klostermann* 
 has dealt carefully with the "we" sections. B. Weiss in his 
 commentary on Acts and Hawkins in his Horce SynopticcB 
 have proven the unity of the Book of Acts. There may (or 
 may not) have been an Aramaic source for the earlier part of 
 Acts, as Torrey claims.^ We shall look into that later. Har- 
 nack* with great minuteness has compared the Greek of the 
 "we" sections with that of the rest of the Acts. He says:^ "It 
 has often been stated and often proved that the *we' sections 
 in vocabulary, in syntax, and in style are most intimately 
 bound up with the whole work, and that this work itself (in- 
 cluding the Gospel), in spite of all diversity in its parts, is dis- 
 tinguished by a grand unity of literary form." With great 
 detail Harnack follows this line of argument in his Luke the 
 
 ' Eiril., p. 383. ^ Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 6. 
 
 ' Commentary on Si. Luke, p. xii. 
 
 * Vindicice Lucanm, 1866. 
 
 ' The Composition and Date of Acts, 1916. 
 
 * Luke the Physician, pp. 2d~120. ' /fcid., p. 26. 
 
8 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Physician and The Acts of the Apostles. It is not merely agree- 
 ment in words that we see, but the same syntax and style. He 
 returns to the subject in The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic 
 Gospels (1911), and meets the objections of Clemen and others 
 to the identity of the author of the "we" sections with the 
 author of the whole book. He had said that "a difference in 
 the authorship of the third gospel and the Acts can be alleged 
 with much more plausible reasons than a difference in the 
 authorship of the Acts as a whole and the 'we' sections." "^ 
 The upshot of the whole investigation is seen to be this: "In 
 the 'we' sections the author speaks his own language and 
 writes in his usual style; in the rest of the work just so much 
 of this style makes its appearance as was allowed by the nature 
 of the soiu-ces which he used and the historical and religious 
 coloring which he aimed at imparting."'' Like a true artist 
 in style Luke reflects his sources in both the Gospel and the 
 Acts, but not to the obliteration of his own style and method. 
 
 It can hardly be maintained that a compiler of the Acts care- 
 lessly retained the "we" and "us" like slovenly mediaeval 
 chroniclers. This author is no unskilled writer and knows 
 how to work over his material. Overbeck' prefers Zeller's 
 theory that the "we" is left designedly because the compiler 
 wished to create the impression that he was one of Paul's com- 
 panions, so as to recommend his book. But Theophilus would 
 not be taken in by a subterfuge like that. The only other alter- 
 native is the view that the writer of the Acts is himself the 
 author of the "we" sections and the companion of Paul. Lin- 
 guistic considerations give strong support to this view.* Even 
 in Luke's Gospel there are eighty-four words common to it 
 and Paul's Epistles that are not found in the other gospels. 
 In the Acts the number is much greater. 
 
 McGiffert in his History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age 
 (1897) argues with great ability for the compilation theory of 
 the Acts and vigorously assails the Lukan authorship. He 
 dissects the book mercilessly and regards it as a second-hand 
 work. But Harnack bru&hed aside McGiffert's criticisms. 
 
 1 Luke the Physician, p. 7, n. 2. 
 
 ^ Hamack, Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, pp. 20 f. 
 ' Cf. Zeller, I, 43 (English tr.), and S. Davidson, Introduetimi to N. T., 
 II, 272. 
 * Hawkins, Horce Synopticce, p. 183. 
 
THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 9 
 
 Ramsayi says: "Doctor McGiffert has not convinced me; in 
 other words, I think his clever argumentation is sophistical." 
 In spite of McGiffert's attacks and Torrey's theory about the 
 Aramaic docxunent for the early part of Acts, the argument 
 holds, as the result of this long conflict, that the same man is 
 the author of both Gospel and Acts and he was a companion of 
 Paul. 
 
 4. This Companion of Pavl a Physician. — It can be stated 
 in the words of Hawkins^ that the linguistic argument for unity 
 of authorship of Acts appears "irresistible." There is, then, 
 "an immense balance of evidence" in favor of the view that 
 the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, since he was the 
 writer of the "we" sections.' The next step, and an inevitable 
 one, is the fact that this companion of Paul, the author of Acts, 
 was a physician. There is no such statement in the Gospel 
 or in the Acts. But the cumulative linguistic evidence to that 
 effect is compelling and quite conclusive to one who is open to 
 the proof. Zahn* puts the matter tersely and strongly thus: 
 "Hobart has proved for every one who can at all appreciate 
 proof that the author of the Lukan work was a man practised 
 in the scientific language of Greek medicine — in short, a Greek 
 physician." The detailed proof of this claim must be reserved 
 for Chapter VII. But at this point it is necessary for one to 
 realize the force of the argument as a whole. The credit for 
 this line of argument is due to Hobart's The Medical Langvage 
 of St. Luke (1882), in which with utmost precision and minute- 
 ness the medical terms in the Gospel and Acts are examined in 
 comparison with the writings of the leading Greek physicians 
 (Galen, Hippocrates, Dioscorides, Aretseus, and the rest). 
 Like most champions of a new line of argument, Hobart has 
 claimed too much. Some of the words employed by Luke and 
 the other physicians belong to the common speech of the time 
 and have no technical sense. But some of these common 
 words do acquire a technical significance with a physician. 
 Thus in Acts 28 : 6 the natives in Malta expected that Paul 
 "would have swollen," we read. This word* appears here only 
 in the New Testament and is the technical medical term for 
 
 • "The Authorship of the Acts," in Pauline and Other Studies, p. 305. 
 
 2 Hawkins, Harm Synopticce, p. 185. 
 
 ' Hawkins, Horce Synopticae, p. 189. 
 
 *Einl., II, 427. ' ic((i,xpao6at. 
 
10 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 inflammation in Galen and Hippocrates.^ The writer of the 
 Gospel shows a clear desire to avoid a reflection on physicians 
 that appears in Mark's Gospel. In Mark 5 : 26, we read that 
 the woman with an issue of blood "had suffered many things 
 of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was 
 nothing bettered, but rather grew worse." Now Luke (8 : 43) 
 describes her as one "who had spent all her living upon physi- 
 cians, and could not be healed of any." He took care of the 
 physicians very neatly in his restatement of Mark's sly "dig" 
 at the doctors. Hers was simply a chronic case that no physi- 
 cian could cure. 
 
 In the Acts we note the clear implication that the writer 
 practised medicine in Malta. Paul "prayed, and laying his 
 hands on him healed^ him" (28:8); we read of the cure of 
 Publius, an evident miracle that Luke reports. But he pro- 
 ceeds (verses 9-10): "And when this was done, the rest also 
 that had diseases in the island came, and were cured."' It is 
 to be noted that Luke employs a different Greek word for 
 "were cured," a word that was common for medical cases. 
 The natural implication is that Luke practised medicine here 
 in Malta while Paul healed by miraculous power. The medical 
 missionary and the preacher were at work side by side. Luke 
 may have used prayer like Paul. One hopes that he did, as 
 all physicians should. But he practised his medical art by the 
 side of Paul. The people of Malta honored both Luke and 
 Paul. Luke was no "wild enthusiast who cured diseases" but 
 a "man who continued to practise his profession of physician 
 with success, and who in it had earned the permanent esteem 
 of a man of such high temper as St. Paul."* Harnack^ is abso- 
 lutely convinced by the arguments of Hobart: "The evidence 
 is of overwhelming force; so that it seems to me that no doubt 
 can exist that the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were 
 composed by a physician" (italics his). Deductions have to be 
 made from Hobart's list of medical words in the Gospel and 
 Acts. "But, when all deductions have been made, there re- 
 mains a body of evidence that the author of the Acts naturally 
 
 ' Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, p. 50. ' [4uaxo. 
 
 ' ^9spaxe6ovTo. Ramsay {Luke the Physician, pp. 16 f.) insists that IBepa- 
 xsOovTo means ("received medical treatment" whether "cured" or not. 
 * Hamack, The Acts of the Apostles, p. xl. 
 6 Luke the Physician, p. 198. 
 
THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 11 
 
 and inevitably slipped into the use of medical phraseology, 
 which seems to me irresistible."' Chase'' actually complained 
 that for tvfenty years Hobart's work "remaiaed unnoticed by 
 the assailants of the traditional view of the third Gospel and 
 Acts." But this complaint can no longer be made. Clemen^ 
 has endeavoied to show that a physician could not have written 
 the Gospel and Acts: "Truly the author of these writings em- 
 ploys some medical terms in their technical sense, but in a few 
 cases he uses them in such a way as no physician would have 
 done." But it is very hard to prove a negative. Hobart 
 undoubtedly claimed too much, but Clemen has attempted the 
 impossible. "One cannot know to-day what an ancient phy- 
 sician could not have written. Of course the absence of marked 
 medical traits does not prove that a doctor did not write Luke 
 and Acts."* Cadbury's monograph is a reasoned attempt to 
 prove that "the style of Luke bears no more evidence of medi- 
 cal interest and training than does the language of other writers 
 who were not physicians."^ Cadbury claims that many of 
 these medical terms belonged to the language of culture of the 
 time and occur in the writings of Lucian, "the travelling 
 rhetorician and show lecturer," quite as much as in the Gospel 
 and Acts. There is something in this point beyond a doubt, 
 but Paul was just as much a man of culture as Luke. So was 
 the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet these two New 
 Testament writers of culture do not reveal a fondness for 
 medical language. It is difficult to make comparisons because 
 of difference in subject-matter and length of books. The mere 
 tabulation of lists of words does not carry one very far. Cad- 
 bury* admits that the selected lists of medical terms given by 
 Hamack, Moffatt, and Zahn "have greatly strengthened the 
 argimient by selecting from Hobart only the most convincing 
 examples." Cadbury is wholly right in insisting that these 
 examples need testing. He imdertakes to do it, though con- 
 scious of the difficulties in his way. His method is merely one 
 of tabulation, which means very little. The upshot of the 
 whole matter is that the impression of the most striking exam- 
 ples in the Gospel and Acts remains unshaken. Hobart gives 
 
 1 Chase, The CrediUlUy of the Ads, pp. 13 f . » IMd., p. 14. 
 
 ' Hibhert Journal, 1910, pp. 785 f. 
 
 * Cadbury, The Style and Ldterary Language of Luke, 1919, p. 51. 
 s/feid., p. 50. ' md., p. Z9, 
 
12 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 the full quotations from the Greek medical writers so that one 
 can see the context. We have the context in the Gospel and 
 the Acts. The effect of Hobart's argument remains with me 
 after a careful study of Cadbury's arguments. Most unpres- 
 sive of all is it to read Mark's reports of the miracles and then 
 Luke's modifications. And then the reading of the_ Gospel 
 and the Acts straight through leaves the same conviction that 
 we are following the lead of a cultivated physician whose pro- 
 fessional habits of thought have colored the whole in many 
 subtle ways. This positive impression refuses to be dissipated, 
 though Cadbury is quite right in saying that Luke could still 
 be the author even if he does not betray by his language that 
 he is a physician. Further details will be given in Chapter VII. 
 
 It ought to be added that the medical element is spread over 
 the Gospel and the Acts and is another argument for the unity 
 of Acts.* 
 
 5. This Physician and Companion of Paid Is Luke. — ^The 
 writer does not say so. In fact, the absence of any mention 
 of the name Luke in the Acts is one of the things to be ex- 
 plained. This "is just what we should expect if he himself 
 were the author of the book." So Harnack argues.* But it is 
 a bit curious that every other important friend of Paul, judg- 
 ing by his Epistles, except Luke and Titus, is mentioned in the 
 Acts. Aristarchus, coupled with Luke (Col. 4 : 10, 14; Phile- 
 mon 24), is mentioned in the Acts three times. Once (Acts 
 27 : 2) Aristarchus is mentioned as present with Paul and the 
 author of the book (Luke). Three reasons occur for the 
 omission of Titus. One, the view of Harnack,' is that Titus 
 is not coupled with Luke in the Epistles and hence the omis- 
 sion of his name in Acts is not strange. This is not quite sat- 
 isfactory. It is easy to see why Luke, though retaining "we" 
 and "us" in his travel diary, declines to mention his own 
 name. It would be known to Theophilus and thus to others. 
 But why omit Titus? Lightfoot* denies that Titus was im- 
 portant enough to be mentioned in Acts, but Ramsay^ rightly 
 rejects that explanation. It has been suggested by A. Souter 
 and others (cf. Origen's view of II Cor. 8 : 18) that Luke and 
 
 » Moffatt, Introduction to Lit. of the N. T., p. 300. 
 
 2 The Date of the Aets and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 28. 
 
 ' lUd., p. 28, n. 2. « Biblical Essays, p. 281. 
 
 6 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 390. 
 
THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 13 
 
 Titus were brothers and that for this reason Luke does not 
 call his name. It is possible to understand II Cor. 12 : 18 to 
 be a reference to Titus's brother. This use of the Greek article 
 is common enough.^ " I exhorted Titus, and I sent his brother 
 with him." The same translation is possible in II Cor. 8 : 18, 
 " his brother." Who is this brother of Titus ? One naturally 
 thinks of Luke. ' 
 
 Paul had other companions, but they have to be eliminated 
 one by one. Some are spoken of in a way that renders it diffi- 
 cult to think of them as writing the Acts. This is true of 
 Aquila and Priscilla, Aristarchus, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Tro- 
 phimus. Selwyn'' argues at length, but not at all convincingly, 
 that Luke and Silas are one and the same man. Crescens and 
 Titus Justus are rather too insignificant. There remain only 
 Titus and Luke. Curiously both names are absent in the 
 Acts, as already noted. "The movements of Timothy, Silas 
 and the others cannot be fitted in with the hypothesis that any 
 one of them was the companion at the time in question. The 
 hypothesis breaks down in every case. With the exception of 
 Titus, for whose authorship there is no other evidence, each 
 one of them can be shown to have been elsewhere at one or 
 more of the times. Luke 'is with me' at them all." ' No 
 one seriously argues that Titus wrote the Gospel and Acts. 
 Why not Luke ? Titus was not a physician. Was Luke ? 
 
 We know that Luke was with Paul in Rome (Philemon 24, 
 "Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers")* dur- 
 ing his first imprisonment. He is also called by Paul at this 
 time "Luke the beloved physician"^ (Col. 4 : 14). Harnack' 
 argues quite plausibly that Paul means to call "Luke my 
 beloved physician." At any rate it is quite possible, indeed 
 probable, that Luke was Paul's physician as well as helper in 
 the mission work. It is quite possible that Luke, called in as 
 physician either at Antioch during Paul's stay there, or in 
 Galatia during a sudden malarial attack (Gal. 4 : 13), or at 
 Troas, where we first note his presence with Paul, was con- 
 verted by his patient to the service of Christ. He is with 
 
 1 Robertson, GrammaT, p. 770. ^ St. Luke the Prophet. 
 
 ' Carpenter, The Christianity of S. Luke, p. 14. 
 
 *ol ouvepTof (xou. The "we" sectiona of the Acts show Luke's work 
 with Paul. Cf. Acts 16 : 10. 
 
 ' b taxpiq 6 i-(ixxt]t6q. ' Lidfe the Physician, p. 3, n. 2. 
 
14 LUKE THE fflSTORIAN 
 
 Paul at the last. "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4 : 11). 
 Luke, therefore, fulfils precisely the conditions called for by 
 the evidence unless there is positive external evidence to the 
 contrary. 
 
 But the external evidence is unanimously in favor of Luke 
 as the author of the Grospel and the Acts. "The unanimous 
 tradition that St. Luke is the author of the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles has come to us with the book itself." ^ The Lukan author- 
 ship of both Gospel and Acts has been universally recognized 
 since 140 A. D.^ Since it is all one way it is needless to cite 
 ' it. Specific statements of the Lukan authorship occur in 
 Irenseus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and the Mtura- 
 torian Canon. 
 
 The case seems to be made out. Certainly Kirsopp Lake 
 cannot be accused of partiality for traditional views any more 
 than Harnack. In the Hastings Dictionary of the Apostolic 
 Church (article "Acts of the Apostles") Lake concludes: "The 
 argument from literary aflBnities between the 'we-clauses' and 
 the rest of Acts remains at present unshaken; and, until some 
 further analysis succeeds in showing why it should be thought 
 that the 'we-clauses' have been taken from a source not written 
 by the redactor himself, the traditional view that Luke, the 
 companion of St. Paul, was the editor of the whole book is the 
 most reasonable one." That is cautious enough to suit any 
 timid soul and seems to express the rather reluctant admission 
 of Lake that is forced by the overwhelming evidence. Har- 
 nack' pays his respects to the "attitude of general mistrust 
 in the book, with airy conceits and lofty contempt; most of 
 all, however, with the fruits of that vicious method wherein 
 great masses of theory are hung upon the spider's thread of a 
 single observation." Moffatt* concludes that the Lukan 
 authorship of the Gospel and the Acts "has now been put 
 practically beyond doubt by the exhaustive researches of Haw- 
 kins and Harnack." As for myself, I am bound to agree to 
 this judgment of M. Jones :^ "This author of Acts and the 
 
 ' Harnack, Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 28. 
 ' Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 2. 
 ' The Acts of the Apostles, p. xlii. 
 
 * Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p. 295. See also 
 Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, pp. 115 f. 
 ' New Testament in Twentieth Century, p. 231, 
 
THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 15 
 
 third gospel is to be identified with St. Luke the companion, 
 friend, and physician of St. Paul." In the light of all the facts 
 known to-day, after a generation and more of the most exact- 
 ing criticism and research, the theory of the Lukan author- 
 ship holds the field, greatly strengthened by the new light that 
 has come. Scholarship can point with pride to what has been 
 done in this field of Biblical investigation. The picture of 
 Luke now stands before us in sharp outline. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 A SKETCH OF LUKE'S CAREER 
 "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4 : 11) 
 
 If Luke, the physician and friend of Paul, really wrote the 
 Gospel and Acts, as is now proven as clearly as a literary fact 
 can be shown, one naturally has a keen desire to know some- 
 thing about hun. He was evidently a modest man and kept 
 himself in the background in both Gospel and Acts, save in 
 the incidental allusions in the "we" sections of Acts. Indeed, 
 the anonymous author of Supernatural Religion seeks to 
 obscure the items that are given and to befog the picture of 
 Luke that has survived. "Let it be remembered that with 
 the exception of the three passages in the Pauline Epistles 
 quoted above, we know absolutely nothing about Luke."* 
 The writer then proceeds to throw doubt on the identity of the 
 Luke in Col. 4 : 14 and Philemon 24 and II Tim. 4 : 11. He 
 speaks of "this literary labyrinth" (p. 41) of the "we" pas- 
 sages in Acts and throws Luke into the waste-basket. But 
 modern scholarship, thanks to Lightfoot, Hawkins, Hobart, 
 Ramsay, Harnack and others, has thrown aside the three able 
 volumes on Supernatural Religion that were expected to destroy 
 the New Testament. Let us piece together the known facts 
 concerning Luke. 
 
 1. The Name Luke. — It is now known for a certainty that 
 Loukas^ is an abbreviation or pet-name (Kosennamen) for 
 Loukios.^ There used to be a deal of speculation on the sub- 
 ject. Lucanus, Lucilius, Lucianus, Lucius were all suggested. 
 Lucanus is common in inscriptions.* Several Old-Latin manu- 
 scripts of the fifth century read secundum Lukanum instead of 
 the usual secundum Lucam, probably " due to learned specula-! 
 tion and discussion about the origin of the form"^ Loukas. 
 
 ' Supernatural Religion, vol. Ill, p. 39. 
 
 * Aouxa?. ' Aofinto?. 
 
 * Plummer, Comm. on Luke, p. xviii. 
 
 » Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 371. 
 
 16 
 
A SKETCH OF LUKE'S CAREER 17 
 
 "We have to ask whether or not the Greek name LouMos, 
 borrowed from the Latin Lucius, could according to Greek 
 custom have as a familiar by-form the Kosennamen Loukas." ^ 
 It is purely a matter of evidence. The proof has been found. 
 On the walls of the peribolos which surrounded the sanctuary 
 of the god Men Asksenos in Antioch are written a nimiber of 
 dedicatory vows to the god. Some of them are in Latin, but 
 most of them "are the work of Greek-speaking people, who 
 bore Roman names."* One of these dedications in Greek is 
 by Loukas Tillios Kriton and Noumeria Venusta (evidently 
 his wife). Both names are Roman, and Loukas appears as 
 Greek for the Latin Lucius. In another instance the same 
 man makes two dedications. In one instance the name of his 
 son occurs as Loukios, in the other as Loukas.' There is no 
 longer room for dispute on this point. The vernacular Koin6 
 did employ Loukas as a pet-name (cf . Charlie and Charles) for 
 the Latin Lucius (Greek Loukios). We find this in Antioch. 
 It may have been true anywhere. In Acts 13 : 1 we read of 
 "Loukios the Cyrenian," but it is quite unlikely that he is the 
 same person as oiu: Luke, the author of the book, though it is 
 the same name, as has just been shown. If Luke is the author 
 of the Acts, he would hardly refer to himself as "Loukios the 
 Cyrenian." The use of abbreviated names is common in the 
 New Testament (cf. Silas and Silvanus, Prisca and Priscilla, 
 Apollos and Apollonius) as in the papyri and inscriptions.* 
 Plummer^ terms it "a caricature of critical ingenuity" to make 
 Lucanus = Silvanus because lucus = silva. Selwyn in his St. 
 Luke the Prophet argues for this identification in most incon- 
 clusive fashion. A name may count for nothing, it is true, and 
 then again a name may stand for much. "The name of a con- 
 temporary and eye-witness guarantees the truth of a probable 
 story, provided there is no other reason for raising objections." ' 
 
 ^Ibid. 
 
 ^ Ibid. ■ See article in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1912, pp. 144 ff., by 
 Mrs. Hasluck, where the evidence is given in full. 
 
 ' Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, pp. 376-380. 
 
 * Robertson, Grammar, pp. 171-3. 
 
 5 Comm. on Lmke, p. xviii. Moulton {Grammar of N. T. Greek, vol. II, 
 part I, p. 88) quotes AeOxio? for Latiu Lucius in P. Tebt., I, 33, 3 (B. C. 112). 
 Nachmanson (Beiirage zur Kenntnis der allgrieehischen Volkssprache, p. 61) 
 notes other instances and considers it a different name from AoAxco;. 
 
 ' Hamack, Luke the Physician, p. 146. 
 
18 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Fortunately Luke is no longer an obscure name and we can 
 "picture to ourselves the personality which stands behind the 
 name Luke."' 
 
 2. A Gentile, Probably a Greek. — In Col. 4 : 12-14 Paul sep- 
 arates Epaphras, Luke and Demas from Aristarchus, Mark 
 and Jesus Justus, "who are of the circiuncision " (4:10f.). 
 Paul here seems to imply that Luke was not a Jew. This is 
 the view of cormnentators generally, though Hofmann, Tiele 
 and Wittichen argue that Paul's language does not necessarily 
 mean this. It is possible that Luke could haVe been a proselyte 
 (a tradition mentioned by Jerome), but there is no hint of such 
 a thing in Acts or the Epistles. In Philemon 23 f ., Paul draws 
 no such line of cleavage between those who send greetings. 
 In Romans 16 : 21 Paul calls "Loukios and Jason and Sosipater, 
 my kinsmen." As in Acts 13 : 1, so here the name Loukios, 
 as we have seen, could be the formal spelling of the familiar 
 Loukas. But this kinsman* of Paul was a Jew and is ruled out 
 by the distinction drawn in Col. 4 : 10-14. The knowledge of 
 Aramaic shown by Luke's use of Aramaic sources in Luke 1 
 and 2 and in Acts 1-15 does not show that he was a Jew. In- 
 deed, Torrey^ argues that Luke did not always understand his 
 Aramaic document, if he had one. Per contra, the classic intro- 
 duction to the Gospel (1 : 1-4) seems quite impossible for a 
 Jew to have written, even if he were a man of culture. It ranks 
 with the int^'oductions of Herodotus and Thucydides for brev- 
 ity, modesty and dignity. It is couched in purest literary 
 KoinS. Other things in his writings confirm the view that he 
 was originally a heathen and not a Jew. He has the wide 
 sympathy of a Gentile of cultiu-e and approaches Christianity 
 from the outside. If he is a Gentile, as seems most probable, 
 he is the only writer of the New Testament (or the Old) of 
 whom this is true. 
 
 It is probable also that Luke was a Greek rather than a 
 Roman, since in Acts 28 : 2, 4 he speaks of the inhabitants of 
 Malta as "the barbarians," quite in the Greek fashion. The 
 
 ' Hamaok, ibid., p. 146. 
 
 2 Ramsay suggests that these six kinsmen of Paul in Romans. 16 : 7-21 are 
 fellow tribesmen and fellow citizens of Tarsus. Cf. The Cities of St. Paul, 
 p. 177. 
 
 ' The Composition and Date of the Acts. Kirsopp Lake ( " Luke," Has- 
 tings's Diet, of the Apostolic Church) holds that the facts about Luke can be 
 met on the hypothesis that he was a Hellenistic Jew, But not so easily. 
 
A SKETCH OF LUKE'S CAREER 19 
 
 Greek antithesis was "Greeks and barbarians," as Paul used 
 it in Romans 1 : 14. But Miss Stawell in a paper on "St. Luke 
 and VirgU" at the International Medical Congress in Oxford 
 in 1913 argued that Luke was a Roman and not a Greek. She 
 argues that gome of the greatest medical authorities of the 
 day were Romans, like Celsus (about 50 A. D.), who were 
 familiar with the Greek medical writers, as was Luke. She 
 pleads that Luke lived in PhUippi, a Roman colony, and had a 
 fondness for Rome, as the close of the Acts shows. She argues, 
 also, that Luke is a Latin name, " a surname in the gens Anncsa 
 to which Seneca, Gallio, and Lucan all belonged." ^ His ap- 
 parent liberty in Rome while Paul was a prisoner may be due 
 to his being a cadet of that house. She draws a parallel be- 
 tween the ^neid and the Acts. Jones agrees that the sugges- 
 tion is "both instructive and picturesque" (p. 235). Ramsay^ 
 allows as one of the possibilities about the name Luke that 
 "the evangelist might have been a Hellene bearing the simple 
 name Loukios." In that case he was not a slave and not a 
 Roman citizen, not a Roman at all, but "an ordinary free 
 Hellene." His full name thus was Loukios, without nomen or 
 cognomen. He says that the other alternative is that "Lucius 
 may have been his prcenomen as a Roman citizen; and in that 
 case it would follow almost certainly that the physician Lou- 
 kios was a freedman, who acquired the full Roman name when 
 he was set free." But in neither case would Luke be a Latin 
 by birth. We seem, therefore, shut up to the idea that Luke 
 was a native Greek, not Latin. Whether he acquired Roman 
 citizenship is uncertain, though possible. The use of Roman 
 names was very common and does not of itself prove that 
 Luke was not Greek. 
 
 3. Possibly a Freedman. — It has already been suggested by 
 Ramsay that "physicians were often freedmen; and freedmen 
 were frequently addressed by their -prcenomen, which marked 
 their rank." * And Loukios (Latin Lucius) could be the prceno- 
 men of our Luke (Loukas) as a Roman citizen. Ramsay adds 
 that "the custom of society would make it probable that this 
 physician, who led for many years the life of a companion of 
 Paul, was not born a Roman citizen (as perhaps Silvanus 
 
 * M. Jones, N. T. in Twentieth Century, p. 233. 
 2 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 382. 
 ' Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 382, 
 
20 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 was)."* Ramsay notes, however, that "a libertus usually 
 remained in close relation to his former master, who continued 
 to be his pcdronus." ^ But there were exceptions. There seems 
 no way to reach a positive conclusion on this point. Paxil had 
 a Roman name (besides the Hebrew name of Saul) and also 
 Roman citizenship. Paul was not a freedman, but free bom 
 (Acts 22 : 28). Luke's ready pen, his versatility and his inter- 
 est in the sea are Greek traits,' whether Luke was a free 
 Hellene or a Greek slave set free with Roman citizenship and a 
 Roman name. 
 
 Ramsay declines to express an opinion as to whether Luke 
 was a freedman. Dean Plumptre* has made the interesting 
 suggestion that the Roman poet Lucanus, bom A. D. 39 in 
 Corduba, Spain, was named after the physician Luke. It 
 was a common practice for children to be named after a be- 
 loved physician. Hayes* is quite taken with the idea. He 
 thinks that Luke "was bom a slave in the household of The- 
 ophilus, a wealthy government official in Antioch."^ If so, 
 Theophilus set him free, after educating him as a physician. 
 Luke then won Theophilus to Christ and Theophilus continued 
 Luke's patron. Gallio and Seneca were uncles of the poet 
 Lucanus. If Luke told Lucanus about Paul, it is easy to think 
 that he may have told Gallio and Seneca about the Apostle. 
 Thus the kindness of Gallio to Paul in Corinth is explained, 
 and the traditional friendship between Paul and Seneca has 
 some possible foundation.'' It is a pleasing fancy, but that is 
 all one can say. 
 
 4. Probably the Brother of Titiis. — ^There are other conjec- 
 tures about Luke that may be dismissed at this point. If he 
 was either a Greek or a Roman, free or freedman, he was not 
 one of the Seventy (Epiphanius) or the unnamed disciple with 
 Cleophas (Luke 24 : 13) according to "Theophylact's attrac- 
 tive guess, which still finds advocates." * Not being a Jew, he 
 is ruled out ipso facto. That is not true of the conjecture that 
 
 ' Ibid. 2 lUd., p. 383. 
 
 ' Rackham, Comm. on Acts, p. xxviii. 
 'Books of the Bibk, N. T., pp. 74 f. 
 = The Synoptic Gospels and the Ads, pp. 179 f ., 197 f. 
 6/6td.,p. 197. 
 
 ' Cf . Lightfoot's Essay on St. Paul, and Seneca, Comm. on Philippians, 
 pp. 207-333. 
 8 Plummer, Comm., p. xix. 
 
A SKETCH OF LUKE'S CAREER 21 
 
 he was one of the Greeks who came to Philip (John 12 :20). 
 It is possible in itself, but there is no proof for it and it seems 
 to be ruled out by the implication in Luke 1 : 1-4 that the 
 author is not one of the eye-witnesses. But it is possible that 
 Origen and Chrysostom are correct in thinking that Luke was 
 " the brother whose praise in the gospel was spread through all 
 the churches" and who was the companion of Titus (II Cor. 
 8 : 18; 12 : 18) .^ This can be true even if he is not the brother 
 of Titus, as is probable. If he is the brother of Titus, as the 
 Greek idiom natm-ally implies, then Luke is a Greek, not a 
 Roman by birth; for Titus is a Greek (Gal. 2 : 3). And if a 
 Greek, he is possibly, though not necessarily, a freedman. 
 Thus far we seem to be quite within the range of probability. 
 It may be added that in some manuscripts (of II Cor.) Luke 
 is mentioned in the subscription as one of the bearers of the 
 Epistle along with Titus. 
 
 5. Luke's Birthplace. — ^This matter is still in dispute. There 
 is something to be said for Anitioch in Syria, for Philippi and 
 for Antioch in Pisidia. "The Clementines tell us that The- 
 ophilus was a wealthy citizen of Antioch." ^ If Luke had been 
 the slave of Theophilus and was now a freedman, this would 
 indicate that he was born in Antioch, though the argument is 
 wholly hypothetical. But there are other considerations. 
 The Codex Bezae' after Acts 11 : 27 has the following peculiar 
 reading: "And there was great rejoicing; and when we were 
 gathered together one of them stood up and said." This may 
 be a mere Western addition, but it represents an early tradi- 
 tion that Luke was associated with Antioch during the stay of 
 Barnabas and Saul there. Blass* is confident that it is the 
 insertion of Luke himself in the revision: "Now this we, which 
 is also attested by St. Augustine, clearly shows that the author 
 was at that time a member of the church at Antioch, which is 
 the tradition given by Eusebius {Hist. Eccl. 3 : 4, 7) and 
 others." Eusebius speaks of "Luke being by birth of those 
 from Antioch."^ This certainly means that Luke's famUy 
 
 'See 6. in Chapter I. 
 
 ' Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 194. 
 
 'This remarkable reading in the B text is SJv S4 iroXXiJ iya'k'kiaaii;. 
 ouveoTpojiiiivcflv Zh ijinStv S^ eh ii aitHv xtX. 
 
 * Philology o/ the Oospds, p. 131. Cf . also Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 137 ; 
 " Lucuntissimum testimonium, quo audor sese Antiochenum fuisae monstrat." 
 
 ' Aouxas ti yiv flvos &y xfliv i%' 'Avxioxefoeq. 
 
22 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 came from Antioch, but it hardly "amounts to an assertion 
 that Luke was not an Antiochian," as Ramsay^ argues. The 
 expression of Eusebius is "awkward," but not "obviously 
 chosen in order to avoid the statement that Luke was an 
 Antiochian."^ In fact, Jerome' plainly speaks of "Luke the 
 physician of Antioch." Likewise Euthalius* describes Luke as 
 "being by birth an Antiochian." Once more the Proefatio 
 Lucce (placed in third century by Hamack) speaks of "Luke, 
 by nation a Syrian of Antioch." Plummer* concludes that 
 "this is probable in itself and is confirmed by the Acts. Of 
 only one of the deacons are we told to which locality he be- 
 longed, 'Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch' (6:5): and we see 
 elsewhere that the writer was well acquainted with Antioch 
 and took an interest in it (11 : 19-27; 13 : 1; 14 : 19, 21, 26; 
 15 : 22, 23, 30, 35; 18 : 22)." Antioch in Acts is the new cen- 
 tre of Christian activity. It cannot be said that this evidence 
 is absolutely convincing, but it renders it probable that Luke 
 was born and reared in Antioch in Syria, though he spent his 
 later years elsewhere, as in Philippi, Csesarea, Rome. 
 
 But Ramsay, like Renan, argues for Philippi as the place 
 of Luke's nativity. He suggests that, since Antioch was a 
 Seleucid foundation, there was a Macedonian element in the 
 population. "Thus it may very well have happened that 
 Luke was a relative of one of the early Antiochian Christians; 
 and this relationship was perhaps the authority for Eusebius's 
 carefully guarded statement." Ramsay* even suggests that 
 "perhaps Titus was the relative of Luke; and Eusebius found 
 this statement in an old tradition attached to II Cor. 8 : 18, 
 12 : 18, where Titus and Luke (the latter not named by Paul, 
 but identified by an early tradition) are associated as envoys 
 to Corinth." But in II Cor. 12 : 18 "the brother" can nat- 
 urally mean "his brother," but not "his relative," though it 
 can mean "cousin," as Ramsay^ notes. If Titus and Luke 
 were brothers, they were naturally born in the same city. 
 Ramsay admits that "there is not sufficient evidence to justify 
 
 1 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 389. ' Ramsay, ibid. 
 
 ' De Vir. 111., vii. Lucas Medicus Anliochensis. 
 
 * Migne, Pair. Gk., vol. LXXXV, p. 633. 'AvTioaeii? t^p oSto? iniipxuv tb 
 
 » Comm. on Luke, p. xri. ' St. Paul the Traveller, p. 390, 
 
 ' Luke the Physician, p. 18, a 1. 
 
A SKETCH OF LUKE'S CAREER 23 
 
 an opinion." He exaggerates the difficulty about Eusebius 
 and increases the problem in H Cor. 12 : 18. Ramsay urges, 
 also, the civic pride shown by Luke in pointing out that Philippi 
 is the first city of that division of Macedonia. But his long 
 residence in Philippi would amply explain such pride. Ram- 
 say also argues that in Acts 16 : 9-10 "the man from Mace- 
 donia" is Luke who had been speaking with Paul about Mace- 
 donia the day before the vision. This is plausible and quite 
 possible, though Luke, if now a resident of Philippi, may have 
 gone there from Antioch, either before his conversion or after- 
 ward. There is nothing in Acts 16 : 9-10 to indicate that Luke 
 and Paul have met for the first time. Rackham* holds that " it 
 is extremely unlikely that S. Ltike met S. Paul for the first 
 time at Troas," though Ramsay" argues this view. Carpenter* 
 thinks that "the two views may be combined by supposing 
 that he was an Antiochian who was in medical practice at 
 Philippi." 
 
 Rackham* urges Antioch in Pisidia as the place of Luke's 
 birth. He accepts the South Galatian theory that Paul wrote 
 to the churches founded in the first mission torn-. He holds 
 that Luke met Paul first at Antioch in Pisidia, where he 
 preached "because of an infirmity of the flesh" (Gal. 4 : 13), 
 when Luke was called in as physician. He suggests that Luke 
 descended from an old Philippian family that had settled here. 
 His theory is that Luke went to Antioch in Syria when Paul 
 came to the help of Barnabas, having been converted at Tar- 
 sus by Paul before going to Antioch. It can only be said that 
 this view is possible, though nothing like so plausible as the 
 tradition that Luke is a native of Antioch in Syria. The ques- 
 tion cannot be settled yet. Some day we may know. 
 
 6. Luke's Education. — It is plain enough that the man who 
 wrote the Gospel and the Acts was a man of genuine culture. 
 As a physician he "belonged to the middle or higher plane of 
 contemporary culture. To this plane we are directed not only 
 by the prologue of the Gospel, but by the literary standard 
 attained in the whole work."^ "This man possessed the higher 
 culture in rich measure,"* as his use of his materials in the 
 
 1 Comm. on Ads, p. xxx. ' St. Paul the Traveller, p. 201. 
 
 ' The Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 20. 
 
 * So Rendall on the basis of intaq in Acts 14 : 23. 
 
 6 Hamack, Luke the Physician, p. 13. * Ibid. 
 
24 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Gospel and the Acts proves. "He had at his command an 
 average education, and possessed a more than ordinary lit- 
 erary talent."' If a freedman of Theophilus at Antioch, he 
 would receive a good education in the schools there. As a 
 physician, he would be sent by Theophilus either to Alexandria, 
 Athens or Tarsus, the great universities of the time. Alex- 
 andria seems unlikely in the absence of any allusion to the 
 city.^ We know that Luke seems familiar with Athens 
 (Acts 17), but Tarsus is much more Ukely. Hayes' considers 
 it almost certain that Luke was sent to Tarsus and at the same 
 time with Paul and Barnabas, while ApoUos was in the Al€x- 
 andrian university. If ApoUos wrote Hebrews, it is easy to 
 see what a great part was played in early Christianity by these 
 college or university men who became fast friends. In Tarsus 
 Luke would receive a good classical education, and would study 
 medicine "where the great masters in that profession, Aretseus, 
 Dioscorides and Athenseus, had been educated. Just a few 
 miles away, at ^gse, stood the great Temple of ^sculapius, 
 which furnished the nearest approach to the, modern hospital 
 to be found in the ancient world. From the university lec- 
 tures Luke got the theory of medicine; in the Temple of ^scu- 
 lapius he got the practice and experience needed." Thus 
 Hayes* indulges his fancy in reproducing the probable educa- 
 tional environment of Luke. Pliunmer agrees that it is more 
 than probable that Luke studied in "Tarsus, where there was 
 a school of philosophy and literature rivalling those of Alex- 
 andria and Athens," for "nowhere else in Asia Minor could he 
 obtain so good an education." ^ 
 
 And yet Ramsay® quotes Strabo as saying that no students 
 ever came from outside Tarsus to the university, in this 
 respect falling behind Athens and Alexandria and other schools 
 that drew students to their halls. So one has to pause before 
 concluding that Luke went to Tarsus. Of course Strabo may 
 mean that not many outsiders came. The city of Tarsus was 
 dominated by the university of which they were proud. It 
 
 ' Ihid., p. 147. ' Rackham, Comm. on Acta, p. xxviii. 
 
 ' Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 197. 
 * Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 197. 
 
 " Comm. on Luke, p. xxi. Cf . Strabo, XIV, 5, 13, iptXocoipIav yuA d^v SXXtjv 
 icaiSstav IyxShXiov Si%a<jcev. 
 « "The Cities of St. Paul" (The VniversUy of Tarsus, p. 232). • 
 
A SKETCH OF LUKE'S CAREER 25 
 
 was a great university in the eagerness of the students for 
 knowledge, and in the great ability and experience of some of 
 the teachers and in the Hellenic freedom for teacher and pupil.' 
 Strabo "praises highly the zeal for philosophy and the whole 
 range of education which characterized the people of Tarsus 
 in his time. In this respect they surpassed Athens and Alex- 
 andria and every other seat of learning."* Their students went 
 to other great universities for further study, but were rich in the 
 heritage of Athenodorus, the Stoic philosopher, who spent his 
 closing years in the University of Tarsus. Seneca, in Rome, 
 quotes Athenodorus, and Paul must have felt the influence of 
 this "greatest of pagan Tarsians." Ramsay^ suggests that 
 Athenodorus's influence on both Seneca and Paul is the prob- 
 able explanation of the likeness in their phraseology. Athen- 
 odorus "was long worshipped as a hero by his country," and 
 he influenced the xmiversity hfe long after his death. If Luke 
 went to Tarsus, he entered into an atmosphere of great tradi- 
 - tions, young as the school was in comparison with some others. 
 Of one thing we may be sure. Luke received a liberal educa- 
 tion at one or more of the great technical schools of the time 
 and probably at Tarsus. 
 
 7. Luke's Conversion. — ^Here we are wholly in the field of 
 speculation. It seems clear that Luke was not a follower of 
 Jesus in the flesh. The Muratorian Canon says: "But neither 
 did he see the Lord in the flesh." It also states that Luke 
 became a follower of Paul after the Ascension of Christ. Jerome 
 mentions a tradition that Luke became a proselyte to Judaism 
 before he became a Christian, but it is unsupported. The 
 Western reading (Codex Bezse) of Acts 11 : 28 (the "we" sec- 
 tion at Antioch) "would require that his conversion to Chris- 
 tianity take place before St. Paul met him."* This might have 
 been under the influence of the "men of Cyprus and Cyrene, 
 fleeing from Jerusalem; and Luke was among the first to hear 
 it and to accept it. He told his master, Theophilus, about it, 
 and Theophilus himself became interested and at last con- 
 verted. Then about the first thing that Theophilus did as a 
 Christian was to give Luke his freedom."^ This is possible 
 
 1 lUd., p. 233. » Ibid., p. 232. = Ihid., p. 223. 
 
 <Bebb, "Luke the Evangelist," Hastings's D. B. 
 ^ Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 197. 
 
26 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 and plausible. The Prc^atio Luccb^ speaks of Luke as " a dis- 
 ciple of the apostle, and afterward a follower of St. Paul." 
 This could mean that Luke was a convert before he met Paul, 
 but that does not necessarily follow. Tertullian,^ however, 
 speaks of Paul as Luke's magister and illuminator. Plummer* 
 thinks that by these words "Tertullian perhaps means us to 
 understand that Luke was converted to the Gospel by Paul, 
 and this is in itself probable enough." If so, then Luke may 
 have been already converted when Paul came to Antioch at 
 the call of Barnabas. Rackham* argues that, as the Bezan 
 text for Acts 11 : 28 shows that Luke was in Antioch at this 
 time, it is probable that Luke had already been won to Christ. 
 "We can suppose that after much travel in the study and prac- 
 tice of medicine he paid a visit to Tarsus and its famous uni- 
 versity. There he met and was converted by S. Paul; and 
 when Barnabas came from Antioch and took back Saul with 
 him about the year 42 (11:25-26), S. Luke accompanied them." 
 Once more, one can only say that it is possible. If the Bezan 
 text for Acts 11 : 28 does record a fact, then Barnabas, Paul 
 and Luke are together in Antioch as early as A. D. 42. Once 
 more, if they were college mates at Tarsus, one can imderstand 
 afresh the new tie that now knit them together. " In all prob- 
 ability it had begun at a most impressionable age in college 
 life."* Luke met other men of prominence in Christian work, 
 we know; Silas, Timothy, James, Mark, Aristarchus and 
 others. 
 
 Harnack' sees no light on this phase of the subject: "We 
 have no knowledge where and by whose influence he became a 
 Christian, nor whether he had previously come into sympa- 
 thetic touch with the Judaism of the Dispersion; only one 
 thing is certain — ^that he had never been in Palestine." 
 
 Furneaux' thinks that the likelihood that Luke and Paul 
 had been fellow students at Tarsus explains "the absence of 
 any record of their first meeting. It is further possible that 
 they had worked together at Antioch; or that Paul, when 
 stricken down by illness in Galatia, had sent for 'the beloved 
 
 1 Disdipulus apostolorum, poatea Pavlum secvMis. 
 
 2 Adv. Mardon, IV, 2. ' Comm. on Luke, p. xx. 
 * Comm. on Acts, p. xxsd. 
 
 ' Luckock, The Special Characteristics of the Four Gospels, p. 119. 
 6 Luke the Physician, p. 146. ' Comm. on Acts, p. 258. 
 
A SKETCH OF LUKE'S CAREER 27 
 
 physician.' The 'us' of verse 10 shows that he was not a new 
 convert." It would be pleasing to think that Luke was won 
 to Christ when called in by Paul as his physician. This, to be 
 sure, could be true, whether at Antioch, in Galatia (4 : 13) or 
 at Troas. If Luke saved Paul's life in the frequent attacks of 
 malaria, Paul in turn saved his soul by leading him to Christ. 
 
 Ramsayi is positive that, though Luke was probably already 
 a Christian, he and Paul met for the first time at Troas. " Luke 
 became known to Paul for the first time here." Ramsay sug- 
 gests that Luke was a resident of Troas at this time and that 
 Paul called him in as a physician for one of his malarial attacks. 
 What is certain is that at this point Luke injects himself pur- 
 posely into the narrative, probably by using his own travel 
 diary. It may well be that Luke had been to Macedonia and 
 spoke to Paul about the need there. But that is not certain. 
 Least certain of all is Ramsay's insistence that Luke and Paul 
 had never met before the incident at Troas. If they had never 
 met before, it might be that here Paul won Luke to Christ but 
 for the implication in the context that Luke is already a Chris- 
 tian. Knowling considers it probable that Luke and Paul were 
 friends before. Whether Luke was Paul's trophy for Christ 
 or not, he is now ready to follow Paul in the service of Christ. 
 
 8. The Medical Missionary. — ^It seems plain that in the 
 passage before us the succeeding words in verse 10 lead to the 
 natural inference that Luke, too, was a preacher of the Gospel, 
 and had already done the work of an evangelist. "We sought 
 to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us 
 to preach the Gospel unto them." This call to preach in Mac- 
 edonia was answered by Luke as well as by Paul, Silas and 
 Timothy. At the place of prayer by the riverside near Philippi 
 " we sat down and spake to the women that were come together " 
 (Acts 16 : 13). The poor girl with the spirit of soothsaying 
 said: "These men are servants of the Most High God, who 
 proclaim unto you the way of salvation" (Acts 16 : 17). Luke 
 was left in charge at Philippi, when Paul and Silas departed, 
 and he apparently remained there over six years till Paul comes 
 back from Corinth on the third tour on his way to Jerusalem 
 (Acts 20 : 5). Thence he is with Paul to the close of Acts. So 
 he is Luke the Evangelist because he preached as well as be- 
 cause he wrote the Third Gospel. He had probably travelled 
 1 St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 200-5, 
 
28 LUKE 'i"HK HlSl'OKlAiN 
 
 a good deal for the study and practice of his medical profession. 
 Now he kept up his work as a physician and added that of a 
 preacher of the Gospel. Like the Great Physician, he went 
 about doing good to the souls and the bodies of men. The 
 Romans did not rank the physician high, but the Greeks placed 
 him on a par with the philosopher.' Certain it is that "his 
 medical skill would be of use in gaining an opening for preach- 
 ing the Gospel, as modern missionaries often find."^ We have 
 already seen that in Acts 28 : 9-10 Luke seems to mean that 
 he practised his profession as physician during the three months 
 in Malta. It is also plain that "his history owes much to the 
 fact that he joined"PauI at the critical moment when a special 
 revelation led him to Europe."' Various traditions report 
 Luke as preaching in Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy, Achaia, Mace- 
 donia, Africa, Bithynia. They are all of no value save that 
 they testify to his work as a preacher of Christ. One report is 
 that he became the second bishop of Alexandria. His presence 
 with Paul we do know. In Philemon 24 Paul calls him a " fel- 
 low worker," but not a fellow prisoner, with him in Rome. At 
 the same time (Col. 4 : 14) he alludes to him as "the beloved 
 physician." In Rome he was both preacher and physician. He 
 was Paul's friend and companion and trusted physician. It is 
 evident that Paul had frail health for many years. We prob- 
 ably owe Paul's living to old age, under God, to the slall of 
 Luke, his physician, who watched over him with tender solici- 
 tude. Luke is probably one of "the messengers {apostles; lit- 
 erally, missionaries) of the churches, the glory of Christ" 
 (II Cor. 8 : 23) . If so, he is one of the agents in the great collec- 
 tion for the poor saints in Jerusalem, and Paul demands that 
 the Corinthians show unto them in the face of the churches 
 the proof of their love (8 : 25). "He was beloved for his med- 
 ical skill and for his ever-aggressive and ever-attractive Chris- 
 tianity. He might well be a model for all in the medical pro- 
 fession."^ He was "a doctor of the old school," the first 
 scientific physician who laid his skill at the feet of Jesus. 
 Thousands have followed in his steps and, like Luke, have 
 
 ^ Rackham, Comm., p. xxviii. ' Fumeaux, Comm., p. 259. 
 
 "lUd. Canon G. W. Whitaker ("Barnabas, Luke and Bithynia," The 
 Expositor, December, 1919) seeks to connect Luke with Bithynia. The 
 Prcefatio vel argumentum Liuxs does say that Luke ohiit in Bithynia. 
 
 * Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 188. 
 
A SKETCH OF LUKE'S CAREER 29 
 
 taken Christ with them into the sick-room. Doctor W. T. 
 Grenfell, the "Labrador doctor" and missionary, is a modern 
 example of what Luke was in the first century. 
 
 9. Loyal to the Last. — ^We have Paul's own words to prove 
 that Luke was true when others fled from Paid as if he had the 
 pestilence. That is, If we credit II Tim. to Paul, as I do. 
 Paul is now in the second and last Roman imprisonment. He 
 is facing certain death and he knows it. Nero is persecuting 
 followers of Jesus for the crime of Christianity. Since the 
 burning of Rome in A. D. 64 the whole atmosphere has changed. 
 Before then Paul was allowed his own hired house and much 
 liberty (under guard), and his friends came and went at will. 
 Finally Paul was set free, as the case against him fell through. 
 But now the air is black with death. Many Christians have 
 already forfeited their lives for the faith. Paul is the next 
 victim. Now Paul's old friends in Asia, when they come to 
 Rome, avoid his dimgeon for fear of death. Onesiphorus dared 
 all and apparently lost his life (II Tim. 1 : 15-17). A faithful 
 band in Rome are firm (4 : 21), but most of Paul's companions 
 have left him — Demas, Crescens, Titus; probably for good rea- 
 sons, but they are gone. "Only Luke is with me." Luke 
 alone stood fast. Paul longs for Timothy and for Mark, even 
 Mark. Let us hope that they came before Paul was executed, 
 and were able to go with Paul and Luke to the execution. Luke, 
 doubtless, saw to the burial of the body of his great friend. 
 
 And then what? Who knows? Gregory Nazianzen ranks 
 Luke with Stephen, James and Peter as a martyr under Domi- 
 tian after a long and useful career after Paul's death. Another 
 story is that he died a natural death in Achaia or Bithynia. 
 He was loyal to Paul. He was loyal to Christ both as preacher 
 and physician. Irenseus speaks of Luke as inseparabUis a 
 Paulo. Jiingst actually denies any trace of Pauline influence 
 in the Gospel and the Acts. That would be amazing and is 
 not true. However, Luke does not copy Paul. He interprets 
 Paul and Peter as he interpreted Christ out of fulness of knowl- 
 edge and with largeness of view. Examination of the Lukan 
 books shows no undue Pauline influence. Indeed, the portrait 
 of Christ in the Gospel is distinctly drawn from pre-Pauline 
 sources. The picture of Paul in the Acts is not taken from the 
 Pauline Epistles. And yet Luke's very soul was knit to Paul's 
 in loving affection. Paul was one of Ids heroes to the last. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 
 
 "And he abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and 
 received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of 
 God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ 
 with aU boldness, none forbidding him" (Acts 28 : 30-31). 
 
 1. The Atmosphere of the First Century. — It may now be 
 stated definitely that the second-century date for the Gospel 
 and Acts has been abandoned save by a small number of ex- 
 ceedingly radical critics. The general acceptance of the Lukan 
 authorship of the two books disposes of the Baur theory that 
 it was a religious romance written for the purpose of reconciling 
 the opposition between Peter and Paul. The notion that 
 Luke's Gospel made use of that of Marcion has been given up. 
 It is now known that Marcion used a mutilated edition of 
 Luke's Gospel. Blass^ holds that Marcion had the Western 
 text of Luke's Gospel. The arguments for the second century 
 (105-130) are given at length by Schmiedel (Enc. Biblica) and 
 by Holtzmann.^ It is argued that the author made use of 
 Paul's Epistles, of Josephus, that he imitated Plutarch's 
 Lives in his picture of Peter and Paul, that he reflects the 
 atmosphere of second-century ecclesiasticism and takes inter- 
 est in the political side of the Roman Empire. It must be con- 
 fessed that these are not very weighty or very serious argu- 
 ments. It is by no means certain that he used Paul's Epistles, 
 but what if he did? Certainly the political outloojc of the 
 Acts is precisely that of Paul's Epistles (Headlam, Hastings's 
 D. B., art. "Acts"), but surely that argues for the early date. 
 As to Josephus, that is more important and will call for dis- 
 cussion a bit later. But that can be true and the author still 
 be Luke. The possible use of Josephus bears on the date of 
 the Acts, not on the Lukan authorship. "In this event he 
 must have been about seventy when he wrote Acts, which is 
 
 ^Philology of the Gospeh, pp. 145 f. » Eird.,^ 1892, p. 405. 
 
 30 
 
DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 31 
 
 by no means impossible or even improbable." ^ Ramsay'' 
 pointedly says: "We must face the facts boldly. If Luke 
 wrote Acts his narrative must agree in a striking and convinc- 
 ing way with Paul's: they miist confirm, explain and complete 
 one another." The writings of both stand that test. The 
 genuineness of nearly all of the Pauline Epistles is now admitted 
 by the mass of modern scholars. The Lukan authorship of the 
 Gospel and the Acts now carries the weight of modern opinion. 
 Ramsay's researches show in innumerable ways how Luke's 
 knowledge of first-centiu-y details can only be explained on the 
 view that he was a contemporary of these events. The fre- 
 quent changes in the Roman provinces (from imperial to sen- 
 atorial, and vice versa) make pitfalls for the unwary. Luke 
 steps with sure tread because he was on the ground and knew 
 the facts. He has been triumphantly vindicated, as will be 
 shown in future chapters. 
 
 2. The Date of the Acts. — ^The book was written after the 
 Gospel (Acts 1 : 1) and before Luke's death. Lightfoot de- 
 clined to discuss the date of the Acts in his article on the 
 Acts.' Plummer* states that Lightfoot regarded the question 
 of the date of Acts as dependent on the date of Luke. So it is 
 in so far as determining the date before which the Acts can 
 be located. But it is equally true that the date of the Acts 
 determines the time beyond which the Gospel cannot go. 
 Lake* puts the case fairly: "The evidence for the date is very 
 meagre. If the Lucan authorship be accepted, any date 
 before the last events chronicled, i. e., a short time before 
 A. D. 100, is possible." Both books must come within the 
 lifetime of Luke. There is no way to tell how much time 
 elapsed between the two books. Probably it was not long. 
 On the whole, it is simplest to take up the Acts first. There 
 are three dates that are at present argued for both the Gospel , 
 and the Acts as they hang together. But we shall confine the 
 argtunent here to the Acts. 
 
 (a) A. D. 94 to 100. — ^Those who hold to this date for Acts, 
 do so on the theory that Luke made use of Josephus. As 
 already stated, Luke need not have been more than seventy 
 
 1 Moffatt, Intr. to Lit. of the N. T., p. 312. 
 
 2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 14. ' Smith's D. B.,' pp. 25-43. 
 * Comm., p. xxix. 
 
 'Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Ch., article "Acts." 
 
32 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 at the end of the century, if a young man when he first became 
 associated with Paul. Burkitt' and Peake^ accept the view 
 that Luke drew on the writings of Josephus. Stanton' con- 
 cludes that Luke made use of the Jewish War, but not the 
 rest of the works of Josephus. If this is true, the late date is 
 not necessary. The date of the Antiquities is 94 A. D. It 
 may be said at once that most of the arguments employed to 
 prove that Luke knew the writings of Josephus are utterly in- 
 conclusive. Some of the arguments of Clemen* and Krenkel * 
 are criticised sharply by Belser* and Plummer/ who calls them 
 "childish." By like arguments of common Greek words one 
 may show that Luke was influenced by Thucydides. Some of 
 the likenesses are due to the use of the Septuagint by both 
 Luke and Josephus. The only matter of serious import is the 
 fact that both Josephus {Ard. XX., v. 1 f.) and Luke (Acts, 
 5: 36 f.) speak of Theudas and Judas the Galilean in this order 
 as if Theudas lived before Judas. The two are mentioned in 
 Josephus some twenty lines apart. The name Theudas is a 
 common one. It is quite possible that another man is meant, 
 as in the case of the tetrarch Lysanias in Luke 3:1. The dis- 
 crepancy only exists in case the same man is meant. Even 
 then it is the discrepancy of Gamaliel and not of Luke, unless 
 Luke wrote the speech. There are more divergences than like- 
 nesses in the two reports that suggest independent narratives, 
 as in the two reports of the death of Herod Agrippa I. Lake^ 
 considers the use of Josephus by Ltike too doubtful to be de- 
 cisive: "The decennium 90-100 seems, on the whole, the most 
 probable, but demonstrative proof is lacking." M. Jones* 
 thinks these inferences about the use of Josephus too "pre- 
 carious" to be conclusive. Plummer'" holds this hypothesis 
 "highly improbable." "Moreover, where the statements of 
 either can be tested, it is Luke who is commonly found to be ac- 
 curate, whereas Josephus is often convicted of exaggeration and 
 
 ' The Gospel History and Its Transmission, ch. iv. 
 
 * Introduction to the N. T., p. 135. 
 
 ' The Gospels as Historical Documents, part 11, pp. 263-273. 
 
 ' Die Chronologie der paulin. Briefe (1893). 
 
 ^Josephus und Lukas (1894). 
 
 ' Theol. Qmrtalschrift, TUbingm (1895, 1896). 
 
 ' Comm., p. XXX. « Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Ch., article "Acts." 
 
 ' New Testament in the Twentieth Century, p. 255. 
 
 " Comm., p. xxix. < 
 
DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 33 
 
 error." The supposed use of Josephus by Luke cannot, there- 
 fore, be held to be certain or, as I think, even probable. We 
 must look elsewhere for decisive evidence on this subject. 
 Harnack (Luke the Physician, p. 24, n. 2) says: "The time of 
 Josephus need not be taken into consideration; for the theory 
 that the author of the Acts had read that historian is quite 
 baseless." 
 
 Besides, there are strong argiunents against the date 94-100, 
 which Phimmer' summarizes forcibly. The use of "the 
 Christ"^ as the Messiah instead of a proper name Christ 
 would be hard to explain. The use of "the Lord" for Jesus, 
 not in Matthew or in Mark save in the disputed appendix, 
 would have been more common. Besides, would Luke have 
 kept 21:32 if written after "this generation" had passed 
 away? The historical atmosphere of Acts is not that of 
 95-135 A. D. Besides, what could have induced a com- 
 panion of Paul to remain quiet so long after his death ? These 
 arguments are very strong. 
 
 (b) A. D. 70-80. — ^The majority of modern critics date the 
 Acts here. But nothing of a very positive nature can be 
 adduced for this date. Ramsay' thinks that he has found "a 
 clew, though in itself an uncertain one, to suggest the date 
 when Luke was at work" on the Acts. The reign of Titus was 
 reckoned from association with his father on July 1, A. D. 71. 
 Hence, Ramsay argues, Luke wrote the Gospel (and the Acts) 
 about that time, because he speaks of the reign of Tiberius 
 (Luke 3 : 1-2) in the fifteenth year, reckoning from A. D. 12, 
 when Tiberius was associated with Augustus in the empire. 
 But this is too precarious an argument for so solid a conclu- 
 sion. The chief argument relied upon for the date shortly 
 after A. D. 70 is Luke 21 : 20. It is argued by Sanday, B. Weiss 
 and others that Luke here changes the language of Daniel 9 : 27 
 in Mark 13 : 14 and Matt. 24: 15 ("the abomination of deso- 
 lation") to the definite statement about Jerusalem being "en- 
 compassed with armies." It is held to be a vatidnium post 
 eventum. The omission of scripture quotation makes it neces- 
 sary also to omit the explanatory notes: "Let him that readeth 
 
 ' Comm., pp. XXX, xxxi. 
 
 2 4 xptircfiq. Cf. Luke 2 : 26; 3 : 15; 4 : 41; 9 : 20; 20 : 41; 22 : 35> 39; 
 24 : 26, 46. 
 'St. Paul the Traveller, p. 387. 
 
34 LUKE THE fflSTORIAN 
 
 understand." But the mention of armies is very vague. 
 Furneaux' is very positive and says that "the Third Gospel 
 cannot have been written earUer than A. D. 70, the year of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. Hence, the Acts cannot have been 
 written much before A. D. 75." But such a vigorous pronounce- 
 ment carries little weight. "Savonarola foretold, as early as 
 A. D. 1496, the capture of Rome, which happened in 1527, 
 and those sermons of 1496 were printed in 1497."^ Surely 
 Jesus could foretell as much as Savonarola, and Luke cannot be 
 charged with writing this prophecy after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem. Lake,* who holds to the late date, as we have 
 seen, sees very little in the idea that the Gospel of Luke must 
 be after the destruction of Jerusalem: "It is doubtful if there 
 are really any satisfactory proofs that this was the case." 
 Torrey {Composition and Date of Acts, p. 70) holds that all the 
 items in Luke's report of the prediction occur in Old Testament 
 prophecies and denies that the passage in Luke can be called a 
 vatidnium ex eventu. Plummer* makes much of the idea that 
 the date A. D. 70-80 allows time for the "many" to draw up 
 narratives about Christ, but there was time enough between 
 A. D. 30 and 55 for that. Harnack^ had already given up this 
 argument in his Acts of the Apostles. He had himself ® in 1897 
 argued for A. D. 78 as the earliest possible date for Acts. Now 
 in 1909 he writes "to warn critics against a too hasty closing 
 of the chronological question." He concludes:' "Therefore, 
 for the present, we must be content to say: St. Luke wrote at 
 the time of Titus or in the earlier years of Domitian, but per- 
 haps even so early as the beginning of the seventh decade of 
 the first century." So astonishing a siu-render on the part of 
 Harnack created consternation among many critics. It was 
 clear that the matter could not rest thus. 
 
 (c) About A. D. 63. — The early date for the Acts has always 
 nad able advocates. Men like Alford, Blass, Ebrard, Farrar, 
 Gloag, Godet, Headlam, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Maclean, 
 Oesterzee, Resch, Schaff, Tholuck, Wieseler, have reasoned that 
 Luke closes the Acts as he does and when he does for the simple 
 
 ' Comm., p. X. 2 Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 42. 
 
 ' Hastings's Dictionary of Ap. Ch., art. "Acts." 
 
 * Comm., p. xxxi. ^ ^^gi tr., 1909, p. 291. 
 
 » Chronologie der aU-christl. Idtt. I., pp. 246-250, 718. 
 
 ' Acts of the Apostles, p. 297. 
 
DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 35 
 
 reason that events have proceeded no farther with Paul. " In 
 investigatmg the date of a book, the first step is to look for the 
 latest event mentioned."^ And yet after A. D. 63 some of 
 the most stirring events in Christian history occurred, like the 
 burning of Rome in A. D. 64 with the persecution of Christians 
 which is reflected in 1 Peter, the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, 
 and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A. D. 70. 
 How are we to explain the absence of any allusion to these 
 great events? There are three ways of doing so. One is the 
 view already stated. Rackham* puts the argument clearly. 
 It seems incredible that Luke should betray no knowledge of 
 Paul's death if he had known it. That would be the natural 
 climax to the Acts. The martyrdom of Stephen and of James 
 would have been crowned with that of Paul. Besides, Acts is 
 a joyful book and Paul remains full of cheer to the very end. 
 If Luke knew that Paul went back to Ephesus, would he have 
 left the prediction in Acts 20 : 25 that he did not expect to see 
 their faces again? Besides, in the Acts the attitude of Rome 
 toward Christianity is still undecided, whereas after A. D. 64 
 it became openly hostile. It was clear that Harnack must 
 continue his studies on the date of Acts. This he does in his 
 Daie of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (tr. 1911). In 1909 
 he pleads for fresh investigation. After an exhaustive survey 
 of the whole question, he says:^ "We are accordingly left with 
 the result: that the concluding verses of the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, taken in conjunction with the absence of any reference 
 in the book to the result of the trial of St. Paul and to his 
 martyrdom, make it in the highest degree probable that the 
 work was written at a time when St. Paul's trial in Rome had 
 not yet come to an end." With this conclusion I heartily 
 agree and I had long held and taught it before Harnack reached 
 it. Maclean* considers this view " the more probable." Blass,^ 
 indeed, would place the Acts as early as A. D. 59. 
 
 Lake^ says that all this important argument is weakened by 
 two other possibilities. One is that Luke contemplated a 
 third volume in which he meant to go on with the story of Paul, 
 
 1 Rackham, Acts, p. 1. ' Ibid., pp. li S. 
 
 ' Daie of the Acts and Synoptic Oospeh, p. 99. 
 
 * Hastings's One Volume D. B., art. "Acts." 
 
 ' Philology of the Gospels, pp. 33 ff. 
 
 8 Hastings's Diet, of the Ap. Ch., art. "Acts." 
 
36 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 though, he adds, this theory is not very probable. Ramsay 
 argues for it, but it is a mistaken notion to press Luke's use of 
 "first" in Acts 1 : 1, as we have seen. The current Koine gives 
 no support for such an idea. The other consideration ad- 
 vanced by Lake against the sudden and apparent abrupt end- 
 ing of Acts is that Luke really implies that the case fell through 
 and that Paul was released by his mention of "two years." A 
 passage in Philo's in Flaccwm tells of a certain Lambon who 
 was kept in prison for two years, which Philo calls the longest 
 period. The idea seems to be that, if the case did not come to 
 trial in two years, dismissal came as a matter of course. This 
 is by no means certain, but even if it is, it would still not prove 
 that Luke did not write the Acts just at the close of the period 
 when there was prospect of Paul's release. Rackham, like 
 Harnack, is impressed with the joyous and optimistic note of 
 the Acts. 
 
 Bartlet in his Apostolic Age and article on "Acts" in the 
 Standard Bible Dictionary argues that Luke closed the Acts 
 with Paul's arrival in Rome for artistic and literary reasons. 
 This event marked the grand consummation of the Gospel in 
 the early age. Paulns Romw apex evangelii. This natural 
 climax would be spoiled by the fruitless story of Paul's release, 
 journeys, arrest, trial and death. Certainly something can 
 be said for this interpretation. E. J. Goodspeed* presses this 
 argument against the force of Harnack's conclusion for the 
 early date of Acts, which "carries with it important conse- 
 quences for early Christian literature." "If the subject of 
 Acts is the Rise and Progress of the Greek Mission, it has 
 reached in Paul at Rome a climax beyond which it could not 
 go."2 "When Acts is written Paul is a hallowed memory, 
 and already the sects are beginning to appear."' Possibly so, 
 but one feels that all this is too subjective for Luke. He shows 
 literary skill and great ability as an historian, but he does not 
 write like a novelist for artistic effect by concealing important 
 facts. In the case of the Gospel he carries the story on to its 
 actual climax, the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. It is 
 hard to believe that, knowing of Paul's death, Luke avoided 
 mention of the subject for fear of spoiling his story. Believe 
 it who can. Headlam* notes that the arguments against the 
 
 1 The Expositor, London, May, 1919, p. 387. « Ibid., p. 388. 
 
 " Ibid., p. 391. ' Hastings's D. B., art. "Acts." 
 
DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 37 
 
 early view are not very strong, while it is the obvious way to 
 treat the close of Acts. Besides, if Luke wrote after the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, why did he not change "flee to the 
 mountain" in Luke 21 : 21 when the Christians fled to Pella? 
 On the whole, the early date has the best of it. We, therefore, 
 date the Acts about A. D. 63 and in Rome. Torrey^ puts the 
 date for the supposed Aramaic Document (Acts 1-15) A. D; 50, 
 and the translation of it by Luke and the writing of Acts 16-28 
 not later than A. D. 64 and in Rome. It is needless to discuss 
 Ephesus, Corinth, and the other places alleged in place of Rome 
 as Luke's abode when he wrote the Acts. 
 
 3. The Date of the Gospel. — Our conclusion concerning the 
 date of the Acts carries with it the early date of the Gospel. 
 We have seen that Lake admitted as much. "It has usually 
 been assumed that this (the date of the Lukan Gospel) must 
 be posterior to the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, but it is doubt- 
 ful whether there are really any satisfactory proofs that this 
 was the case."'' We have seen that there are no such proofs. 
 The date of the Gospel turns on that of the Acts. The earliest 
 evidence for the date of Luke's Gospel is Acts 1:1. Here Luke 
 definitely refers to the book. Harnack' states the matter suc- 
 cinctly: "Hence, it is proved that it is altogether wrong to say 
 that the eschatological passages force us to the conclusion that 
 the Third Gospel was written after the year 70 A. D. And 
 since there are no other reasons for a later date, it follows 
 that the strong arguments, which favor the composition of the 
 Acts before 70 A. D., now also apply in their full force to the 
 Gospel of Luke, and it seems now to be established beyond question 
 that both books of this great historical work were wr-Uten while St. 
 Paul was still alive" (italics Harnack's). I do not think that 
 Harnack has put the matter more strongly than the evidence 
 justifies. He ejects that some critics will be slow to accept 
 so firm a conclusion after a century of turmoil and dispute. 
 The rapid conversion of Harnack to the early date is viewed 
 with suspicion by some as unscientific. Lake* admits that 
 "Harnack's powerful advocacy has turned the current of feel- 
 ing in favor of the traditional view, but he has really dealt 
 
 ' Composition and Date of Acts, p. 67. 
 " Hastings's Diet. Ap. Church, art. "Acts." 
 ' Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, p. 124. 
 'Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Ch., art. "Luke." 
 
38 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 adequately with only one side of the question and dismissed 
 the theological and (to a somewhat less extent) the historical 
 difficulty too easily." The theological argument strongly con- 
 firms the early date, for the picture of Christ in the Gospel of 
 Luke is distinctly more primitive than that of Paul in the Epis- 
 tles of the first Roman imprisonment (Philippians, Colossians, 
 Ephesians, Philemon), A. D. 61-63. Indeed, the same thing 
 is true of Acts, particularly of the first half of the book. The 
 historical question is dealt with in great detail by Ramsay in 
 his various books. It cannot be said that the proof here argues 
 strongly for 63 as against 75 A. D., but there is nothing that 
 is hostile to the 63 date. The historical argument is decidedly 
 against A. D. 95 to 100 A. D. Lake wishes to leave the ques- 
 tion of the date sub judice for the present. Jones^ gives a fair 
 resume of Harnack's arguments for A. D. 63, but stUl holds to 
 A. D. 75-80 as " on the whole more satisfactory." But the 
 facts brought out concerning A. D. 63 as the date for Acts will 
 meet with increasing acceptance from scholars, in my opinion. 
 
 If Luke wrote Acts while Paul was alive and in Rome, then 
 he wrote the Gospel either before that, while in Csesarea (two 
 years), or he finished it after reaching Rome, before he wrote 
 the Acts. Torrey^ argues, naturally, that the Book of Acts was 
 an afterthought when Luke wrote the prologue to the Gospel. 
 But Chase' is positive that Luke had the Acts in mind and 
 meant the same prologue for both books. It matters little. 
 The extreme brevity of the address to Theophilus in Acts with 
 the reference to the prologue in the Gospel argues for a short 
 period between the two volumes. Torrey therefore suggests 
 A. D. 61 as the latest date for the Gospel. Moffatt* thinks it 
 unsafe to contend that nine or ten years should elapse between 
 the two books. 
 
 There remains only one further difficulty of importance in 
 the way of dating the Gospel of Luke so early as 59 or 60 in 
 Csesarea or 61 in Rome. It is certain that Luke used the 
 Gospel of Mark as one of his many sources for his Gospel. 
 Synoptic criticism has proved this as clearly as seems possible.* 
 
 1 N. T. in Tweniieth Century, p. 260. 
 ' Composiiion and Date of Acts, p. 68. 
 
 ' Credibility of the Acts, p. 16. ' Mr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 313. 
 
 ' See Sanday et alii, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (1911); Haw- 
 kins, HorcB Synoptica? (1911); Robertson, Studies in Mark's Gospel (1919). 
 
DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 39 
 
 Can the Gospel of Mark be dated before A. D. 59? Jones ^ 
 is convinced that Mark's Gospel does not stand in the way. 
 Edmundson^ holds that Luke had an earher recension of Mark 
 "for the use of Greek-speaking converts in Judea." But this 
 hypothesis is by no means necessary. Luke made use of the 
 Logia of Jesus (Q) as did Matthew, but no trouble arises from 
 this source. It probably belongs to the period before 50 A. D. 
 I have discussed the date of Mark's Gospel at some length in 
 my Studies in Mark's Gospel and need not repeat the arguments 
 here. Tradition and internal evidence combine to show that 
 Mark wrote the Gospel while Peter was still alive. There is 
 good ground for thinking that Mark^ was in existence by 
 A. D. 50. Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of 
 Luke make use of Mark's Gospel. We know from Col. 4 : 10, 14 
 that Mark and Luke were with Paul in Rome. Harnack* 
 finds that the latest recension of Mark's Gospel must come in 
 "the sijrth decade of the first century at the latest." It is 
 therefore quite possible that Luke either in Csesarea or in 
 Rome saw a copy of Mark's Gospel. NoUoth^ places the 
 Gospel of Luke 57 or 58 A. D. 
 
 4. The Historical Worth of the Lukan Writings. — ^The remain- 
 der of the present volume is an investigation of the reliability 
 of Luke as a historian and the credibility of his works. The 
 evidence must be discussed in detail. The proof will be cumu- 
 lative and varied. But at this stage of the discussion the point 
 can be justly made that the early date of both Gospel and 
 Acts gives a strong presumption in favor of the historical value 
 of the books. There was less time for legends to grow. The 
 author was nearer to his sources of uiformation. The historian 
 who is a near contemporary is not always able to give a true 
 and large perspective for his facts, though Thucydides did it. 
 But, at any rate, since Luke the physician, the friend of Paul, 
 wrote these two books, they cannot be thrown aside as second- 
 century romances written to deify Jesus and to idealize Peter 
 and Paul.® The writer is so close to the facts of which he 
 
 ' N. T. in the Twentieth Century, p. 258. 
 
 ' The Church in Rome During the First Century, p. 67, n. 4. 
 
 ' NoUoth, The Rise of the Christian Religion, 1917, p. 18. 
 
 * The Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, p. 133. ' Op. cit., p. 15. 
 
 ' The Tubingen view has been abandoned. Cf. Chase, Credibility of the 
 Acts, p. 9. Jiilicher {Einl., p. 355) still speaks of "a genuine core" in Acts 
 which is "overgrown with legendary accretions." 
 
40 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 writes that he has to receive serious consideration to see if, 
 after all, he has not drawn his characters to the life. 
 
 Even Harnack* balks at the miraculous element in Luke's 
 Gospel and the Acts. He ranks Luke far above Josephus in 
 historical worth,* but his prejudice against anything super- 
 natural explains his reluctance to rank Luke among the very 
 highest historians. "The book has now been restored to the 
 position of credit which is its rightful due. It is not only, 
 taken as a whole, a genuinely historical work, but even in the 
 majority of its details it is trustworthy."* That is all true, 
 but Harnack fails to appraise Luke's work as highly as it de- 
 serves. But his witness is remarkable when one considers how 
 far Hamack has come. 
 
 But Ramsay has made the same journey, only he has been 
 longer coming and has come farther. Let him tell his own 
 story :^ "I began with a mind unfavorable to it (the value of 
 the Acts), for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the 
 Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. . . . 
 It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the 
 narrative showed marvellous truth." The leaven worked in 
 Ramsay's mind as he kept up his researches in Asia Minor. 
 He came to the study of Luke and Paul from the side oi classi- 
 cal scholarship and the archaeology of the Grseco-Roman civili- 
 zation. The whole drift of modern criticism is reflected in 
 Ramsay's own experience. "The question among modern 
 scholars now is with regard to Luke's credibility as a historian; 
 it is generally conceded that he wrote at a comparatively early 
 date, and had authorities of high character, even when he 
 himself was not an eye-witness. How far can we believe his 
 narrative? The present writer takes the view that Luke's 
 history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."^ 
 This testimony of Ramsay is of the greatest value. Ramsay is 
 not infallible, but he is sincere and able, and relates with im- 
 mense power his own conversion to the high estimate of Luke 
 as a historian. "The first and the essential quality of the 
 historian is truth."* "The more that I have studied the nar- 
 
 'Cf. his "Primitive Legends of Christendom" in his Daie of the Acts 
 and the Synoptic Gospds, pp. 136-162. 
 " The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 203-229. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 298. * St. Pavl the TraoeUer, p. 8. 
 
 5 The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 81. ° St. Paul the Traveller, p. 4. 
 
DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 4L 
 
 rative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year 
 about Grseco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions and 
 organizations in those provinces, the more I admire and the 
 better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the border- 
 land where Greece and Asia meet, and foxmd it here. You 
 may press the words of Luke in a degree far beyond any other 
 historian's, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hard- 
 est treatment, provided always that the critic knows the sub- 
 ject and does not go beyond the limits of science and justice." ' 
 That judgment will be foimd to be true if one looks at all the 
 facts with an open mind. 
 
 There is hardly need to say more, but for one thing. No 
 plea is made that Luke could not make any mistakes because 
 he was inspired. He himself makes no direct claim to inspira- 
 tion. That is a matter of opinion. We know very little about 
 the nature of inspiration. It is a fact as life is a fact, but we 
 imderstand neither one. The writings of Luke are just as 
 much inspired after research has confirmed them as they were 
 before; no more, no less. Luke is entitled to be trusted like 
 any other ancient historian. It is not necessary to show that 
 he never made a mistake or to be able to solve every difiiculty 
 raised by his writings in order to form an intelligent opinion 
 about the value of his works.^ Ramsay^ puts the case justly: 
 " Our hypothesis is that Acts was written by a great historian, 
 a writer who set himself the task to record the facts as they 
 occurred, a strong partisan indeed, but raised above partiality 
 by his perfect confidence that he had only to describe the facts 
 as they occurred, in order to make the truth of Christianity 
 and the honor of Paul apparent." Ramsay, after a hfetime of 
 research, ranks Luke as the greatest of all historians, ancient 
 or modem. The Gospel stands the same test that the Acts 
 has xmdergone. It is not only the most beautiful book in the 
 world, but it is written with the utmost care and skill. Luke 
 himself tells us his methods of work upon this book, methods 
 that he undoubtedly applied also to his work upon the Acts. 
 We are now in a position to let Luke speak for himself concern- 
 ing his habits and motives as a historian. 
 
 • Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 89. 
 
 2 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 16. ' Hid., p. 14. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH' 
 "It seemed good to me also" (Luke 1 : 3) 
 
 1, The Habits of a Literary Man. — ^Luke alone has a literary 
 prologue to his Gospel (1 : 1^) that answers also for the Acts, 
 whether he meant it to do so at the time or not. It is imma- 
 terial whether or not Luke consciously imitated the prefaces 
 of Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybius, or that of Dioscorides, 
 the famous medical writer on plants {materia rnedica), and of 
 Hippocrates. There are verbal parallels to one or all of them 
 and Luke's does not suffer by comparison with any one of them. 
 The preface of Luke's Gospel "is modelled on the conventional 
 lines of ancient literature," ^ as is natural for one who under- 
 takes to write a history. "Luke's method is historical, but 
 his object, like that of John (20 : 31), is religious."^ The point 
 to note here is that it is "Luke's intention to write history, 
 and not polemical or apologetic treatises." * Hence he reveals 
 his method of work in these opening verses of the Gospel in a 
 clear manner. All that we really know about the composition 
 of early narratives concerning the life of Christ we obtain from 
 these verses.* Their value is therefore inestimable. With 
 utter frankness Luke lays bare his literary plan, method and 
 spirit. " Great historians are the rarest of writers." ® Ram- 
 say undertakes to show that Luke measures up to the standard 
 of Thucydides, and in some respects surpasses him. It is 
 important, therefore, to see what Luke has to say about him- 
 self and his habits of work. 
 
 The preface is not only literary in structure and vocabulary, 
 but it is also periodic in form. It is written in the grand style. 
 Blass" would call it Atticistic, but it is enough to say that it is 
 in the literary Koine. The sentence* is composed of six mem- 
 
 1 The Biblical Review, April, 1920. 
 
 2 Moffatt, Mr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 263. « lUd. 
 * Plummer, Comm. on Luke, p. xxxvi. 
 
 ' Plummer, Comm. on Luke, p. 2. 
 ' Ramsay, St. Paid the Traveller, p. 3. 
 
 ' Philology of the Gospels, p. 9. ' Ibid., p. 10. 
 
 42 
 
LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH 43 
 
 bers, three in the protasis and three in the apodosis, and they 
 correspond with each other in the style of the finished literary 
 writer. The language is ornate rather than colloquial. But, 
 withal, it is precise and there is not any display of rhetoric. 
 There is literary skill beyond a doubt, that no one but a man 
 of real culture can show. Luke nowhere else in his writings 
 employs just this style, because elsewhere he follows more or 
 less closely his sources. 
 
 But we are fortunate in this glimpse of the historian in his 
 study. It is not hard to see the pile of notes of conversation 
 or of investigation lying near at hand. Here are papyri rolls 
 of previous monographs on various phases of the life of Christ. 
 Luke himself sits by his own small desk with his own roll 
 spread out before him. He writes after he has gotten ready to 
 write and with all available data at hand. The papyri dis- 
 covered in Egypt^ help us to reproduce the workshop of Luke, 
 who proved to be the greatest of all historians, by the skill 
 that he displayed in the use of his materials. Renan* rightly 
 terms the Gospel of Luke "the most literary of the Gospels," 
 as well as the most beautiful book in the world. Sanday* says: 
 "St. Luke has more literary ambition than his fellows." The 
 prologue has the aim of an educated man with scientific train- 
 ing and habits. "Something of the scholar's exactness is 
 included in the ideal of Luke."* The writer undoubtedly 
 employs the same literary methods for the Acts that he men- 
 tions in the preface to the Gospel.* 
 
 Luke has taken great pains to make himself understood in 
 his prologue and has given a great deal of valuable information 
 
 ' Not all students have access to the great printed collections of papyri 
 like the Amherst Papyri by GrenfeU and Hunt (P. Amh.), the Mgypiische 
 Urkunden aus den Kaeniglichen Museen zu Berlin [B. G. U.), Greek Papyri 
 in the British Museum {P. Brit. Mus.), Fayum Towns and their Papyri by 
 GrenfeU and Hunt and Hogarth (P. Fay.), the Hiheh Papyri by Grenfell 
 and Hunt (P. Hih), the Oxyrhynchus Papyri by Grenfell and Hunt 
 (P. Oxy.). There are convenient handbooks that give valuable informa- 
 tion concerning the papyri like Milligan's Greek Papyri, Deissmann's Bible 
 Studies and his Light from the Ancient East, Milligan's New Testament 
 Documents, Cobem's The New Archoeological Discoveries and Their Bear- 
 ing upon the New Testament, Souter's Pocket Lexicon of the Greek New 
 Testament, and in particular Moulton and MiUigan's Vocabulary of the New 
 Testament. Abbott-Smith's Manual Lexicon of the Greek N. T. is in press. 
 
 2 Les Evangiles, chap. XIII. ' Book by Book, p. 401. 
 
 * Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 217. 'Fumeaux, Acts, p, 1. 
 
44 LUKE THE HISTUKIAJN 
 
 in condensed fonn, but he has been seriously misunderstood at 
 several points as will be shown.^ Luke knows that what he 
 says must be trustworthy, but he is entitled to be judged by 
 what he undertook to do, not by our theories of what he ought 
 to have done. "It is necessary to study every historian's 
 method, and not to judge him according to whether or not he 
 uses our methods." ^ So then we must study Luke's method, 
 not that of the modern critic of Luke. Let Luke himself speak 
 to us. What does he say of his own qualifications for his great 
 task? 
 
 2. Stimulated by the Work of Others. — "Forasmuch as many 
 have taken in hand to draw up a narrative ... it seemed 
 good to me also." The reason is stated in a formal manner, 
 but with perfect directness. The grammatical construction' is 
 like that in Acts 15 : 24, 25: "Forasmuch as we have heard . . . 
 it seemed good imto us." How "many" had made such 
 "attempts"? No one knows, but "this preface gives a lively 
 picture of the intense, universal interest felt by the early 
 Church in the story of the Lord Jesus: Apostles constantly tell- 
 ing what they had seen and heard; many of their hearers tak- 
 ing notes of what they said for the benefit of themselves and 
 others: through these gospelets acquaintance with the evan- 
 gelic history circulating among believers, creating a thirst for 
 more and yet more; imposing on such a man as Luke the task 
 of preparing a Gospel as fidl, correct and well-arranged as pos- 
 sible through the use of all available means — previous writings 
 or oral testimony of surviving witnesses." * Cicero employed 
 shorthand in the trial of Catiline and shorthand was much in 
 vogue in the first century A. D. Salmon^ thinks that the 
 Logia of Jesus (Q) was written down in notes during the life of 
 Jesus. The discovery of Sayings of Jesus in the Oxyrhynchus 
 Papyri illustrates how this was done. 
 
 There is no real objection to thinking of a considerable num- 
 ber of fragmentary reports of the life and words of Jesus. 
 
 ^ Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 7. 
 
 2 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 17. 
 
 ' Plummer, Comm., p. 2. The word iicetS'/ixep (litef, S-ft^irfp) is common in 
 ancient Greek and the Lxx, but not elsewhere in the N. T. In Acts 15 : 24 
 it is licetSi^. 
 
 * Bruce, Expositors' Greek Test., on Luke 1 : 4. 
 
 ' Human Element in the Gospels, p. 274. So Ramsay, The Expositor, May, 
 1907. 
 
LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH 45 
 
 Only the so-called apocryphal Gospels are ruled out because 
 they belong to a much later time. "Probably all the docu- 
 ments here alluded to were driven out of existence by the 
 manifest superiority of the four canonical Gospels." So Plum- 
 mer^ argues, imless, forsooth, Luke included Mark's Gospel and 
 the Logia of Matthew in the list, as now seems certain. The 
 Logia of Matthew is largely preserved by the Gospel of Matthew 
 and the Gospel of Luke. Mark's Gospel, used by both Matthew 
 and Luke, has survived intact save for the ending. But the 
 other sources have disappeared. 
 
 Does Luke mean to disparage the other attempts at writing 
 accoimts of Jesus ? He certainly does not mean censure since 
 he brackets himself, "me also," with the other writers.^ The 
 word' for "attempted" literally means "to take in hand, to 
 undertake," and does not of itself imply failure or error. There 
 is nothing in this contejct to suggest that previous efforts were 
 heretical or unreliable. Luke does imply that they were in- 
 complete and so inadequate for the needs of Theophilus and 
 for others like him. Theophilus had received instrufction* of a 
 more or less formal nature, like a catechumen, concerning 
 Jesus, but Luke wishes him to have a fuller and more compre- 
 hensive story. Bruce^ suggests that there was a widespread 
 impulse to preserve in writing the evangelic memorabilia that 
 stimulated Luke to do likewise. His active mind was seized 
 with the desire to make a more adequate and orderly presenta- 
 tion of the words and deeds of Jesus while it was still possible 
 to do so. In doing this great service he was conscious of meet- 
 ing a widespread demand, the author's usual sense of filling a 
 long-felt want, that sometimes is true, though publishers can- 
 not always know it. 
 
 There was, therefore, "extensive activity in the production 
 of rudimentary gospels," Bruce* argues. It was a time of lit- 
 erary activity concerning Jesus. Great literature is usually 
 produced under the incentive of some great impulse or excite- 
 ment, like love, war, discovery. New ideas spur the mind to 
 fresh effort. The years at Caesarea offered Luke an oppor- 
 tunity for new research and for first-hand knowledge that set 
 his soul aflame. Luke, instead of bemg deterred by the mul- 
 
 1 Crnnm., p. 2. * Plummer, Comm., p. 2. 
 
 ' licexelpTjoocv. ' xaTuxhH'ii 1 : 4. 
 
 6 On Luke 1:1. ' lUd. 
 
46 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 tiplicity of efforts, was the rather incited to one more attempt 
 on a more ambitious scale, one that would conserve the best 
 in all of them and thus give a richer and a more exact portrayal 
 of Christ than had yet been drawn. That he accomplished 
 this purpose is plain in respect to Mark's Gospel, which has 
 fortunately survived. It seems true, also, of the Logia (Q). 
 It was all the more true of the others that have perished pre- 
 cisely because Luke did his work so well. 
 
 It is certain that Luke is not hostile to the Twelve in the 
 writing of his Gospel. The book itself refutes that idea.^ It 
 is open to him to improve upon the words of others if he can. 
 It is certain, also, that though Luke is the friend and follower 
 of Paul, he is not a narrow partisan of Paul. He cannot in the 
 Acts be accused of distorting history in the interest of Paul or 
 of Peter or of promoting a reconciliation between them.^ In 
 spite of the fact that Paul is Luke's hero in the Acts, Ramsay* 
 can say, "It is rare to find a narrative so simple and so little 
 forced as that of Acts. It is a mere uncolored recital of the 
 important facts in the briefest possible terms." The same 
 thing is true of the Gospel. Luke is a master artist in his 
 grouping of the facts, but they are facts. "St. Luke remains 
 unconvicted of the charge of writing party pamphlets under 
 the cover of fictitious history." 
 
 3. A Contemporary of the Events, but a Participant in None 
 Save Part of the Acts. In the "we" sections of Acts Luke was 
 an eye-witness and a fellow-worker. But in the rest of the Acts 
 and all of the Gospel he has to rely upon others for his informa- 
 tion. This is the natural implication of his language about the 
 Gospel. " Eye-witnesses and ministers of the word have de- 
 livered unto us" the story of "the things that have been fulfilled 
 among us." The "us" here, occurring twice, is clearly not the 
 literary plural, which Paul sometimes employs, but " among us 
 Christians," "to us Christians." "Christendom is the sphere 
 in which these facts have had their accomplishment." * The 
 use of "delivered"* shows that some time has elapsed since 
 the events took place. Plummer* says: "If these things were 
 
 ' Plummer, Comm., p. xxxvi. 
 
 2 Moffatt, Intr. to the Lit. of N. T., pp. 301-2. 
 
 5 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 20. 
 
 * Plummer, Comm., p. 3. 
 
 ' wapiSoaav. Cf. icapciSoatc; for tradition. ' Ibid, 
 
LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH 47 
 
 handed down to Luke, then he was not contemporary with 
 them." Not in the strictest sense, to be sure, and yet, if Luke 
 was only forty years old in A. D. 60, he was ten years old in 
 A. D. 30, old enough to hear echoes of what was going on in 
 Palestine if he was within reach. He was more likely fifty 
 than forty. Luke comes in between the first generation of 
 eye-witnesses and the second generation, whose lives come 
 wholly after the great era of the life of Christ on earth. For 
 the life of Paul he is both contemporary with all and partici- 
 pant in much of it. 
 
 But he looks backward quite distinctly upon the story of 
 Jesus "concerning those matters which have been fulfilled 
 among us." The perfect tense^ emphasizes the idea that the 
 story has been preserved as well as finished. It is not clear 
 what the sonorous verb means. Eusebius takes it in the sense 
 of "convince," as Paul does in Rom. 14: 5; Col. 4: 12. But 
 Paul uses it of persons, not of things. Others take the word 
 in the sense of "believe," "surely believed" (A. V.), following 
 Tyndale, but that hardly seems suitable. Others make it 
 "fully proved." Bruce'' suggests "fulness of knowledge," but 
 that is a bit strained. The natural way is to take it in the 
 sense of "fulfil," "complete" as in II Tim. 4:5, 17.* This is 
 Jerome's translation "completw sunt." Luke writes after the 
 close of Christ's earthly ministry and yet it is not in the dim 
 past. 
 
 If Luke is writing in Csesarea, he includes himself naturally 
 among the " us." He is in the midst of the atmosphere of the 
 life of Jesus, At every turn he finds fresh reminders of word 
 and deed of Jesus. The Christian community in Judea still 
 recall the wonderful words of the matchless teacher.* He could 
 not be insensible to his environment. Though a Greek of An- 
 tioch, let us say, yet he was now a Christian, and everything 
 that concerned Jesus interested him. Through the centuries 
 since men have made pilgrimages to Palestine to get the proper 
 orientation for the study of the life of Christ. Luke had time 
 enough to gratify his eagerness for details and his scholarly 
 desire for accuracy. He had come to Christ from the heathen 
 fold and had looked upon Christianity as a great moral and 
 
 1 TOxXTipo<t)opT]iiivo)v. " Comm., p. 458. 
 
 > Like icXi)piu (Acts 19 : 21). 
 
 * Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 14. 
 
48 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 spiritual revolution. It is diflBcult for a contemporary to get 
 the right perspective. But Luke is a man of ability, culture 
 and wide sympathy. He has a large horizon and draws his 
 picture upon a large canvas. He knows that he is discussing 
 the life story of the Man of the Ages. It is important that he 
 be sure of his facts. 
 
 4. Talks wiih Eye-witnesses. — One would feel siu"e that Luke 
 would make it his business while in Palestine to seek interviews 
 with important persons who could add bits of color to his nar- 
 rative about Christ, if he had any idea of writing the story of 
 Jesus. He would listen to those talk who saw and heard Jesus. 
 But we are not left to conjecture. These "eye-witnesses" ' 
 were primary authorities and spoke from personal experience 
 and knowledge. They saw with their own eyes and gave their 
 own interpretations of what took place. People would be 
 eager to tell what they knew of this or that incident, whether 
 they knew of Luke's purpose or not. A few questions would 
 draw out much information which Luke would be quick to jot 
 down. But the public preaching of the word consisted largely 
 in the recital of the great events in the life and death of Jesus, 
 as we can see from the sermons of Peter and Paul in the Acts. 
 Luke had only to make notes as he listened to these "ministers 
 of the word," 2. many of whom were also eye-witnesses, to add 
 to his store of oral testimony. 
 
 They not only had personal experience, but they had also 
 practical experience of the power of the preached word on 
 human lives.' Many of them had followed Christ from the 
 start and were thus able to speak with authority. They knew 
 the outstanding facts connected with the ministry of Christ 
 from the beginning. Some of them may have known the still 
 earlier details of the childhood, though it is almost certain 
 that the preaching of the time began with the ministry of 
 Jesus (Acts 10 : 36-43). Luke later (Acts 1 : 1) explains that 
 his Gospel treated " all that Jesus began to do and to teach." 
 
 » aOTiircai. In II Peter 1 : 16 we have licfiicrat for the eager beholders 
 of the majestic glory on the mount of transfiguration. Cf. iiroxteiovTe? 
 in I Pet. 2 : 12. 
 
 2 litcTifitai ToO Xdirou. It is hardly likely that Luke here employs X(>-{dz 
 in the Johannine sense of the personal Word. These "under-rowers" had 
 much to teU that was worth while. Cf. Luke 4 : 20; Acts 13 : 5. 
 
 * Plummer, Comm., p. 3. 
 
LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH 49 
 
 The Jews lay great store by oral witness. Books were ex- 
 pensive and scarce in spite of the remark in Ecclesiastes about 
 the making of so many books. People had to rely largely on 
 the memory for the retention of knowledge. The Jews them- 
 selves developed a vast system of oral law in elucidation of the 
 written law, and finally came to think more of it than they did 
 of the Mosaic law. Westcott and A. Wright look to the oral 
 teaching as the main, if not the only, source of the gospels. 
 In this they are not sustained by modern research. But we 
 must not overlook the fact that, when Luke wrote his Gospel, 
 he had easy access to eye-witnesses whose testimony was of 
 inestimable value. He himself speaks (Acts 21 : 16) of "one 
 Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should 
 lodge." There were many more. Philip and his four daugh- 
 ters were in Csesarea, and had but recently entertained Paul 
 and his party (Acts 21 : 8 f.). James, the brother of the Lord, 
 and aU the elders met Paul and Luke in Jerusalem (21 : 18). 
 Hamack {Luke the Physician, p. 122) thinks that Luke did 
 not at this time know the Twelve Apostles. He certainly 
 knew Mark and his mother Mary, whose home was the centre 
 of the Christian life in Jerusalem (Acts 12 : 12). It is possible 
 that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was still alive. She may have 
 lived in Jerusalem with James, now that he is a firm believer 
 and leader. But, if Mary was no longer living, James may 
 have had her narrative of the great events that she alone knew. 
 Each one would have his own story to tell. Each would sup- 
 plement the other. The true historian knows how to prize 
 and to weigh oral testimony. That Luke did not follow old 
 wives' fables and foolish legends is proven by a comparison of 
 his books with the apocryphal lives of Jesus. 
 
 5. Examination of Documents. — ^Luke expressly says that 
 "many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative." It is not 
 perfectly clear what Luke means by "draw up a narrative." ' 
 The word for "narrative" "implies more than mere notes or 
 anecdotes." ^ It is a carrying through a connected story to 
 the end (cf. Sirach, 6 : 35; II Mac. 2 : 32). Luke draws a dis- 
 tinction between the oral testimony of eye-witnesses in verse 2 
 and the written documents in verse 1.* Both verb and sub- 
 stantive occur here alone in the New Testament. The verb is 
 
 ' dvati^aoOat ivfymmv. ' Plummer, Comm., p. 3. 
 
 ' Blass, Philology of ths Gospels, p. 16. 
 
50 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 a rare one in Greek literature.* In both instances the notion 
 of repetition or practice is present. Plutarch has an elephant 
 practising by moonlight from memory what his keeper taught 
 him. Irenseus describes Ezra as restoring from memory the 
 words of the prophets. Blass," therefore, plausibly argues that 
 Luke's meaning must be this: "Since many writers have under- 
 taken to restore from memory a narrative of the things which 
 have come to pass among us." The oral tradition was liable 
 to pass into oblivion unless it were written down while still a 
 living memory. This is probably the true idea. 
 
 It may well be that some of the "many" themselves had 
 access to written dociunents. Luke uses a general expression. 
 But he undoubtedly means to affirm that he had access to a 
 number of written dociunents concerning the life of Jesus. 
 This statement, as already shown, effectually disposes of the 
 idea that our Gospels relied entirely upon oral testimony. But 
 the next verse shows plainly that Luke employed oral testi- 
 mony, also. He made use of both kinds of testimony, as any 
 sensible man in his position would do. He has before him, 
 as he writes, some of these narratives which have incited him 
 to his task. 
 
 But it is not enough to be in possession of priceless historical 
 treasures, absolutely essential as this fact is for all historical 
 research. The true historian cannot and dare not "invent" 
 his facts save in the etymological sense of that word. He must 
 find his facts before he writes. Research is the first step, long 
 and patient gathering of the data. I may be excused a per- 
 sonal word at this point. My first book. The Life and Letters 
 of John A. Broadus (1901), was written after reading some 
 twenty-five thousand letters, besides other biographical mate- 
 rial. Before anything else was done, these letters had to be 
 read, all of them. A selection of all that threw light upon the 
 life of Broadus was made and placed in chronological order. 
 This was the first step, but it was not all. What was the rela- 
 tive value and importance of this varied assortment of material ? 
 
 6. Sifting the Evidence. — We can picture Luke in his study 
 with his papers piled around him, papyrus rolls and scraps at 
 
 ' Plutarch (De Soil. Animal, xii), Iremeus (III, 21 : 2), and v. 1 in Eccles. 
 2:20. 
 
 ^ Phil, of the Gospels, p. 15. The Latin and English versions vary greatly 
 in the translation of this word. 
 
LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH 51 
 
 every turn. But he Is not yet ready to write his book. He 
 himself tells what his next step was. He only began to write 
 after "having traced the course of all things accurately from 
 the first." 1 Eusebius' takes "all" as masculine, a reference 
 to the eye-witnesses and ministers. Epiphanius' expressly says 
 that Luke followed closely the eye-witnesses and ministers of 
 the word. This is the literal meaning of the verb, following 
 closely by one's side. Certainly Luke was not a constant fol- 
 lower of the Twelve from the beginning or of other eye-witnesses 
 of Christ, though he probably knew some of them. Besides, 
 this literal sense of this compound verb occurs nowhere else in 
 the New Testament. "But Polybius and other Hellenistic 
 authors employ the verb in the sense of studying, and there 
 can be no doubt that Luke's use is the same." * Luke means 
 that he had instituted a process of research in his inquiries con- 
 cerning the life of Christ that covered "all things." It was, 
 therefore, a thorough and careful investigation that began at 
 the beginning, "from the first," ^ meaning with the birth of 
 John the Baptist, as the sequel shows. " He has begun at the 
 beginning, and he has investigated everything." * Bruce ' 
 thinks that Luke made this research "long antecedent to the 
 formation of his plan." The tense of the verb is perfect and 
 naturally bears that meaning, if by "plan" is meant the out- 
 line of the Gospel, not the purpose to write it. The idea of 
 Luke seems to be that, having decided to write another and a 
 fuller narrative than those in existence, he first made an inves- 
 tigation of all the available material that he could lay his hands 
 upon. 
 
 But he adds one other word* that is quite pertinent. He 
 has done it " accurately." There is no idle boast in these three 
 qualifications for his task.' In a straightforward way Luke 
 reveals his literary method. He has aimed at full research 
 and accurate use of his material. He has not dumped it all 
 out. in anecdotal form with no appraisement of its value. He 
 
 ' icapTixoXou9i(ix6Ti iSvuOev xaoiv dtxpipo?. Cf. Demosthenes, De Corona, ch. 
 LIII, 344 (p. 285) icapir)XoXou6T)x6i:a, TOt? xpivsiotoiv 4§ dpx^s. 
 ' III, 24, 15. So the Syrian Translation. ' Ag. Her., 51, 7. 
 
 * Blass, Philology o/ the Gospels, p. 18. 
 ' a principio, the Vulgate has it. 
 
 • Plummer, Comm., p. 4. ' Comm., p. 459. 
 
 » ixptga?. ' Plummer, Comm., p. 4. 
 
52 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 has weighed the worth of the information before he told it. 
 He has tried to tell it as it happened. Accurate writing can 
 only follow accurate investigation. In a word, Luke has sifted 
 the evidence and has given us the wheat, not the chaff. This 
 is a necessary task for the historian if he is to be more than a 
 mere romancer. Even Harnack,' though championing the 
 Lukan authorship of Gospel and Acts, is still skeptical about 
 his use of his authorities. "He certainly believes himself to 
 be an historian (see the prologue) and so he is; but his powers 
 are limited, for he adopts an attitude toward his authorities 
 which is as distinctly uncritical as that which he adopts towards 
 his own experiences, if these admit of a miraculous interpreta- 
 tion." Harnack here charges Luke with giving a miraculous 
 coloring to natural occurrences, when he was probably less dis- 
 posed to do that than any man of his day. Luke distinctly 
 claims accurate research. It is quite compatible'' with this 
 historical research and love for the truth that one should have 
 a sense of decorum and reverence. But Luke is not the man 
 to be charged with mere credulity without proof. 
 
 Luke does not say that the previous writers were not accu- 
 rate. He only claims that he has covered the whole field and 
 has done it in harmony with the facts as he could ascertain 
 them after careful investigation. "And, in spite of the sever- 
 est scrutiny, his accm-acy can very rarely be impugned." ' 
 And thp results of modern research confirm the justice of 
 Luke's claim wherever his works can be tested by new dis- 
 coveries. This will be shown to be true in detail in succeeding 
 chapters in a most astonishing degree. 
 
 Ruskin* has a good word about misjudging a writer: "Be 
 sure that you go to the author to get at his meaning, not to 
 find yours and to judge it afterwards, if you think yourself 
 qualified to do so; but ascertain it first. And be sure, also, if 
 the author is worth anything, that you will not get at his 
 meaning all at once; nay, that at his whole meaning you will 
 not for a long time arrive in any wise." Luke, like any other 
 writer, is entitled to be credited with his own conception of 
 his task. He disclaims being a slipshod writer in the use of 
 his material. He has the Greek love for clarity and for truth. 
 He has the physician's skill in diagnosis that will stand him in 
 
 ^ Luke the Physician, p. 123. ' Bruce, Comm., p. 460. 
 
 ' Plummer, Comm., p. 4. * Se»ame and Lilies, p. 15. 
 
LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH 53 
 
 good stead as he dissects the data before him. He has traced 
 the story of Jesus from its origin with historical insight and 
 balanced judgment. He is already in possession of the evi- 
 dence before he begins to write, as the perfect tense shows. 
 He does not jot down scraps of information in a haphazard 
 way as he gets hold of it. "Luke claims to have studied and 
 comprehended every event in its origin and development." • 
 He has gotten ready to write before he begins to write. 
 
 7. Orderly Arrangement. — "To write unto thee in order," 
 Luke declared to be his purpose. What kind of "order" ^ is 
 it ? He does not say that it is chronological order, though one 
 naturally thinks of that. Papias' states that Mark's Gospel 
 was not "in order," but he employs a different word,* which 
 suggests military order. Luke's word occurs in Acts 11:4 con- 
 cerning Peter's discourse in Jerusalem about the events in 
 Csesarea which Blass* interprets to be a full recital without 
 important omissions, a complete series rather than chrono- 
 logical sequence. Ramsay* takes it to be "a rational order, 
 making things comprehensible, omitting nothing that is essen- 
 tial for full and proper understanding." Such an order would 
 be chronological in its main features. That is true of the 
 great turning points in the Gospel, most assuredly. As a mat- 
 ter of fact, both Luke and Matthew follow the general order 
 of Mark's Gospel. Matthew departs from it mainly in the 
 first part and Luke in the last part, where each introduces new 
 material on a large scale. Plummer' thinks that Luke gen- 
 erally aims at chronological order and on the whole attains it 
 without, however, slavishly following chronology in every de- 
 tail. In the Acts the chronological order is plain, as a rule. 
 But there is no proof that Luke deliberately formed a scheme 
 of theological development in the life of Christ and then 
 selected his material to illustrate it.* Luke sometimes prefers 
 another order to the chronological, but it is always a systematic 
 treatment and not a mere hotch-potch. 
 
 He has a proper proportion, also, in his use of his material, 
 
 * Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 11. 
 
 * 7MQe^(;. Peculiar to Luke in the N. T. 
 
 " Eus., Hist. Ecd., 3 : 39, 151. • tiiSee. 
 
 " Philology of the Oospek, pp. 18 f. 
 
 8 Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 14. 
 
 * Comm., p. xxxvli. ' Ibid. 
 
54 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 and writes the story with due regard to scale and space.^ Each 
 event receives treatment according to its importance in rela- 
 tion to the whole. "The historian who is to give a brief his- 
 tory of a great period need not reproduce on a reduced uniform 
 scale all the facts which he would mention in a long history, 
 like a picture reduced by a photographic process." ^ He must 
 omit a great deal, he must seize the critical points, he must 
 interpret the great personalities, he must make the whole 
 vivid, and give a true perspective. The outstanding feature 
 of Luke's Gospel is its completeness. It charms one with its 
 sheer beauty and power. 
 
 There is no discounting the artistic skill of Luke in his lit- 
 erary workmanship. He must be attacked on some other 
 ground. But there is no trace of literary affectation or arti- 
 ficial whimsicalities. Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay' makes 
 out an interesting case for his theory that Luke is fond of 
 "triplications" in his Gospel. But one wonders if Luke made 
 conscious use of such a literary device. He is writing a serious 
 history, not mere memoirs, not a biographical puzzle. He is 
 full of the historic spirit and sets forth the grand development 
 of the life of Christ toward the great Tragedy and the grand 
 victory of the Resurrection. 
 
 Luke's Gospel is the nearest approach to a biography* that 
 we have, since he begins with the birth and carries on, at inter- 
 vals, to the grand close. It is not only the most comprehen- 
 sive, but it is also the longest of the gospels. If we think of 
 the whole course of Christian history in the Gospel and Acts 
 the work is chronological.^ The figures are drawn with life- 
 like power and the greatest drama of human history is set forth 
 with supreme literary skill. The book is a scholar's attempt 
 to picture and to interpret the life of Christ for the world at 
 large. Theophilus is the representative of this outside world 
 beyond Palestine. Luke has supreme equipment for such an 
 undertaking by birth, education and diligence. As a scien- 
 tific physician he learned to make generalizations from speci- 
 mens. So as the historian he knows how to make the miracles 
 and parables of Jesus picture the Great Physician and Teacher. 
 
 1 Eamsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem f, p. 14. 
 
 2 Ramsay, St. Paid the Traveller, p. 7. 
 
 3 The Literary Marvels of St. Luke (1919). 
 
 * Plummer, Comm., p. jdi. ' Chase, Credibility of the Ads, p. 17. 
 
LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH 55 
 
 8. Reliable Results. — Luke is able to assure Theophilus, who 
 had already received technical instruction* in the matters per- 
 taining to the life of Christ, and whose deep interest in the 
 subject can be assumed, that he can feel confident concerning 
 "the certainty" of the new narrative. Luke wrote pointedly 
 "that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things 
 wherein thou wast instructed." Theophilus had received many 
 details^ about the various events which the ministers of the 
 word had related to Luke.' Now he will have the same full 
 knowledge* that the Christians in Judea have enjoyed, with 
 the advantage that he will have it in a comprehensive and 
 unified treatise that will preserve in written form much that 
 would else be perishable.^ Luke may not have perceived what 
 a treasure for mankind he had prepared, but he wishes The- 
 ophilus to understand "that the faith which he has embraced 
 has an impregnable historical foundation." ' 
 
 There is a solemn emphasis in the conclusion of Luke's pref- 
 ace. Harnack ^ admits, as we have seen, that Luke "certainly 
 beHeves himself to be an historian." Ramsay' has a luminous 
 chapter on "Luke's History: What it professes to be" in his 
 Was Christ Bom ai Bethlehem f He shows that it is distinctly 
 imcritical to accept the Gospel and Acts "as the work- of the 
 real St. Luke, the follower and disciple and physician and inti- 
 mate friend of Paul," and then "to write about the inadequacy 
 of his authorities, the incompleteness of his information, the 
 puzzling variation in the scale and character of his narrative 
 according as he had good or inferior authorities to trust to." ' 
 Certainly Luke would repudiate that estimate of his work. 
 "He claims to state throughout what is perfectly trustworthy. 
 It may be allowed, consistently, that his information was not 
 everywhere agreeably good and complete." *" Ramsay" presses 
 the argument of Luke to a conclusion: "Either an author who 
 
 ' 5«zTiix-^9tjs. This verb is used in 21 : 21 of wrong infonnation, but 
 that is not the essential idea, as Blass {Philology of the Oospels, p. 20) seems 
 to think. The verb imttix^u means to sound down or din into the ears. 
 
 ' X6yoi in verse 4, not %pif[ia'za of verse 1. 
 
 ' Plummer, Comm., p. 5. 
 
 * exiYvvs. Additional (lici-) knowledge. 
 
 5 Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 20. 
 
 5 Plummer, Comm., p. 5. ' huke the Physician, p. 123. 
 
 8 Pp. 3-21. » Wa^ Christ Bom at Bethkhemf p. 16. 
 
 ^oibid. "76id., p. 18. 
 
56 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 begins with a declaration such as that (in his preface) had 
 mixed freely with many of the eye-witnesses and actors in the 
 events which he proceeds to record, or he is a thorough impos- 
 tor, who consciously and deliberately aims at producing belief 
 in his exceptional qualifications in order to gain credit for his 
 History." "If the author was an impostor, his work remains 
 one of the most incomprehensible and unintelligible facts in 
 literary history." 
 
 Luke has made his bold claim. It has been viciously at- 
 tacked by various critics. Nothing but "the demonstration of 
 hard facts" will clear the issue. Who is right, Luke or his 
 modern critics? Enough has been discovered to test Luke's 
 accuracy in crucial and important points, in the very points 
 where he has been attacked. Meanwhile, we shall assume that 
 Luke has made a careful use of his material and is entitled to 
 make his confident claim to Theophilus. He aims to give a 
 record of the truth in both Gospel and Acts.^ 
 
 9. The Stamp of Luke's Personality. — ^Luke was no mere 
 chronicler of dry details. He was not a scrap-book historian 
 who simply spliced together documents. He used literary 
 sources as every real historian must. They influenced his 
 style, in certain parts more than in others, but he put his own 
 stamp upon all the material that he incorporated. Luke, im- 
 like Shakespeare, reveals his personality in the Gospel and the 
 Acts. "Carlyle could not write another man's biography 
 without writing his autobiography between the lines. No 
 more could Luke." ^ Hence we can rejoice all the more that 
 Luke felt impelled ("it seemed good to me also") to write. 
 "It was such a book as a lover of men could write for a lover 
 of God." * But it is the self-revelation of a soul that was 
 humble and Christ-like. "There are times when one wishes 
 that he had never read the New Testament Scriptures — ^that 
 he might some day open the Gospel according to Luke^ and the 
 most beautiful book in the world might come upon his soul 
 like sunrise." * 
 
 He was called a painter by the ancients. Plummer^ traces 
 it to the sixth century to Theodorus Lector, reader in the 
 Church in Constantinople. He states that the Empress 
 
 * Rackham, Acts, p. xxxvii. 
 
 ^ Hayes, The Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 265. 
 
 ' Ibid. * Ian Maclaren. » Comm.f p. xxii. 
 
LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH 57 
 
 Eudoxia found at Jerusalem a picture of Mary the mother of 
 Jesus, painted by Luke. There is, at least, this much of truth 
 in the legend. Luke has exerted a profound influence upon 
 Christian art by his lifelike portrayals of character in the 
 Gospel and the Acts. He painted with his pen, if not with 
 his brush. His pictures are drawn to the life and glow with 
 life. 
 
 It is interesting to note that all the early writers assign the 
 ox or calf to Luke, though differing greatly concerning the 
 other three symbolical figures for the other Gospels (the man, 
 the lion, the eagle). It is probable that Luke's Gospel was 
 so called^ because it is the Gospel of propitiation, of sacrifice. 
 The priesthood of Christ comes to the fore in the Gospel of 
 Luke and Jesus is pictured with the priestly attributes of sym- 
 pathy, compassion and mercy.^ 
 
 The most astoiushing trait in Luke's style is his versatility. 
 He is not only the most versatile writer in the New Testament, 
 but one of the most versatile of all historians. "He can be 
 as Hebraistic as the Septuagint, and as far from Hebraisms as 
 Plutarch." ' Certainly he is Hebraistic because of his Ara- 
 maic sources in Luke 1 and 2 and Acts 1-5, but it is at least 
 open to one to think "that he has here allowed his style to be 
 Hebraistic because he felt that such a style was appropriate 
 to his subject-matter." * The contrast is sharpest in Luke 
 1 : 1-4 and the rest of chapter 1 and all of 2, but we see it also 
 in the Acts. Moffatt* sees "the literary finish of the third 
 Gospel" in the careful rhythm of the prologue, his versatility 
 in using the "archaic semi-Biblical style" and in "leaving the 
 rough translation of an Aramaic source practically imchanged 
 for the sake of effect." But the unity of Luke's style is pre- 
 served throughout both Gospel and Acts in his characteristic 
 freedom of expression and in the range of his vocabulary.* 
 Luke exhibits the science of the trained student and the skill 
 of the artist in giving "an harmonious picture" ' by the use of 
 varied material. "St. Luke exhibits constant proof of his 
 Greek origin in the substitution of more cultured terms for the 
 
 ^Ihid. 
 
 ^ Luckock, Special Characteristics of the Four Gospels, pp. 166-181. 
 
 3 Plummer, Comm., p. xlix. * Ibid. 
 
 5 Intr. to the Lit. of the N. T., p. 278. ' Ibid., p. 279. 
 
 ' Milligan, N. T. Documents, p. 151. 
 
58 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 colloquialisms of the other synoptlsts, while his treatment of 
 Q is marked by various stylistic alterations." ^ In a number of 
 passages in the Gospel and the Acts "the phraseology seems 
 to be purposely varied for no other reason than that of impart- 
 ing a certain literary elegance to the narrative." ^ Luke em- 
 ploys some 750 words in the Gospel and Acts not found else- 
 where in the New Testament. Some of these are due to the 
 medical terminology of Luke and some to the nautical terms 
 in Acts 27. A few occur nowhere else, so far as known. Nor- 
 den' and Blass* see Atticistic influence in Luke's style, but this 
 is not necessary. Certainly he has a fine command of the 
 literary Koine as well as of the vernacular.^ He is fluent, but 
 not prolix. His style reveals the same finish that we saw in 
 his research. 
 
 Hayes* describes Luke as a musician because he is the first 
 great Christian hymnologist. He has preserved the psalms of 
 praise from Elizabeth, Mary, Zacharias, the angels and Simeon. 
 We do not have to think that Luke composed these noble 
 songs of praise and prayer. But he alone has preserved them 
 because he had a soul for music and for poetry. 
 
 Carpenter^ has a chapter on "S. Luke the Artist." By this 
 expression he means that he was "a master of style." Style 
 is difficult of definition. Style is the man, to be sure, but 
 style varies with the subject, and style varies with one's age. 
 Stalker says that style is shaped by full knowledge of the sub- 
 ject. Certainly Luke's "supreme delineation of the Saviour 
 of the world" rests primarily on fulness of knowledge on the 
 part of the man of culture whose heart is loyal to Jesus as 
 Lord. There are abundant proofs of Luke's artistic skill. 
 He has touches that would please cultured Gentiles like "the 
 good and honest heart" in 8:15.* Carpenter' suggests that 
 Luke's fondness for "table-talk" (Luke 7:36f.; ll:37f.; 
 14 : 1 f .) may be due to his knowledge of the symposia of Greek 
 
 1 Ihid., p. 149. " Milligan, iV. T. Documents. 
 
 ' Kunstprosa, II, pp. 485 fE. 
 
 * Die Rhythmen der agianischen und rimischen Kunstprosa, p. 42. 
 ' Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N. T., p. 122. 
 ' Synoptic Gospels and Acts, pp. 188 f . 
 ' Christianity According to S. Lvke, pp. 18&-202. 
 
 ' xapSC? %.akxi xal i^a.^. Plato and other Greek writers use xaXb? xdtYaflis 
 as the equivalent of "gentleman." Carpenter, op. cit., p. 190. 
 9 Ibid., p. 191. 
 
LUKE'S METHOD OF RESEARCH 59 
 
 literature. Luke knows how to make a cumulative effect by- 
 contrast as in parables in rapid succession in chapters 14-18. 
 Carpenter* shows that Lulce is " a master of tragic irony." He 
 knows how to make the climax tell by saying just enough and 
 no more. The intellectual surprise is complete and abiding. 
 The story of the two disciples going to Emmaus in Luke 24 
 is the most beautiful story in all the world. It is told with 
 consummate skill. Luke can depict a situation with supreme 
 art. 
 
 As a painter of short portraits Luke also excels. He has 
 drawn the pictures of Jesus, Peter and Paul on large canvas 
 with the master's hand. Luke has made his story vivid both 
 in the Gospel and the Acts by the use of the power of person- 
 ality. He imderstood the true principle of dealing with so 
 vast a subject. He found the secret in personality.^ "His 
 short pen pictures of Zacharias, the Virgin Mother, Martha 
 and Mary, Zacchaeus, and the repentant robber are masterly." ' 
 
 But, scholar as Luke is, he is also a mystic of the true kind. 
 "Strange and unexpected touches occur in Luke's narrative, 
 corresponding to the astonishing and inexplicable psychological 
 experiences of ordinary life." * The proofs are many. " They 
 yet believed not for joy" (Luke 24:41). "What a natural 
 touch that was ! They believed it, and yet it was too good to 
 be true." ° Carpenter* devotes a whole chapter to "S. Luke 
 the Psychologist." It is not only fine workmanship that Luke 
 gives us. He exhibits insight into human nature. He knows 
 also the ways of God's Spirit with man. Carpenter' quotes a 
 theologian who said to him that Luke was the Evangelist that 
 he should like most to meet. "S. John was a saint, but I 
 think I know the kind of thing that he would say to me. But 
 S. Luke is different. He was not a saint. He was a psycholo- 
 gist. I should like to meet him." Loisy* finds the chief charm 
 of Luke in "a certain psychological note, a profoimd sense of 
 the things of the soul." So Luke is a psychologist among the 
 saints for the benefit of the saints. 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 194. ' Rackham, Acts, p. xl. 
 
 ' Carpenter, Christianity according to S. Luke, p. 195. 
 
 * Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 225. 
 
 6 Ibid. « Op. dt., pp. 177-188. 
 
 ' Op. dt., p. 177. 
 
 ' Les Svangiles Synoptiqms, I, p. 260. 
 
60 ■ LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 He is certainly a lover of mankind who fell in love with 
 Jesus. "From being interested in the singular case of one 
 Paul, a travelling sophist, whose restless zeal begins to play 
 havoc with the constitution, he passed to the consideration of 
 'one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive' 
 (Acts 25 : 19)." ^ He had the devotion to Jesus that Plutarch 
 calls pietas, when a biographer loves his subject. Luke was 
 not a formal theologian, but he had the sense of mystery in 
 the presence of Christ's overwhelming personality. Chester- 
 ton^ says: "Christ had even a literary style of his own, not to 
 be found, I think, elsewhere; it consists in an almost furious 
 use of the a fortiori. His 'how much more' is piled one upon 
 another like castle upon castle in the clouds." Carpenter^ 
 notes that in the use of this figure Luke's Gospel is in affinity 
 with the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 Carpenter* observes also how Luke understood the loneliness 
 of Jesus. "One of the penalties of greatness is loneliness. 
 The great artist is, perhaps, never understood by his contem- 
 poraries. The consummate Artist has twelve pupils, but they 
 do not understand him. And the Evangelist, himself an artist, 
 has not failed to indicate this in his picture. One of the chief 
 impressions taken from the Gospel is that Our Lord lived 
 alone." As one instance, note that " it came to pass as he was 
 praying by himself" (Luke 9: 18). Carpenter^ does not claim 
 that Luke "understood all the pathos and the glory of Our 
 Lord's life, that he was fully sensitive to the whble wonder of 
 its sweetness and its tragedy and its triumphs," but in Luke 
 we learn how Jesus " experienced in the days of His flesh some- 
 thing of that which may be called, perhaps unworthily and 
 foolishly, but not altogether inexcusably, the loneliness of 
 God." * The humanity of Jesus in Luke is not the deity of 
 humanity so much as the humanity of deity. 
 
 » Carpenter, Op. ciU, p. 178. ^ Orthodoxy, p. 269. 
 
 3 Op. cit, p. 184. * Ibid., p. 186. 
 
 « Op. cit., p. 187. ' Ibid., p. 188. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 
 "Even as they delivered them unto us" (Luke 1 : 2). 
 
 Luke tells us frankly that he used sources of information in 
 writing his Gospel which were of two kinds, oral and written. 
 It is possible to tell in a broad way some of these sources and 
 how he used them. 
 
 1. Assimilation rather than Quotation. — ^This was the method 
 of the ancients. It is a fine exercise to read First Maccabees 
 in the translation Greek in which we have it, an evident trans- 
 lation from a Hebrew or Aramaic original, and then turn to 
 the corresponding passage of the Antiquities of Josephus where 
 the same ground is covered as in the story of Judas Macca- 
 beus. It is perfectly manifest that Josephus has followed the 
 narrative of First Maccabees. He has written his account in 
 flowing, idiomatic Greek of the literary Koine, at times really 
 Atticistic in conscious imitation of the Attic literary models. 
 He has avoided the frequent Hebraisms in First Maccabees, 
 but has used the material freely and faithfully, without any 
 mention of his source. That is his usual practice. Occasion- 
 ally Josephus does allude to some of the writers whom he con- 
 sulted, but there is little formal quotation. Josephus did not 
 consider himself a copyist, but a historian, and used his data 
 with freedom. 
 
 Luke employed the literary devices of men of his age. "In 
 using his materials Luke's methods are in the main those of 
 other writers of the same period. They are quite unlike those 
 of modem writers. A writer of the present day seeks to tell 
 his story in his own words and in his own way, giving refer- 
 ences to, and, if necessary, quotations from, his sources, but 
 carefully avoiding all confusion between traditional fact and 
 critical inference, and certainly never altering the direct state- 
 ment of the earlier docimient without expressly mentioning 
 the fact. The method of antiquity was, as a rule, almost the 
 reverse. The author of a book based on earlier materials 
 
 61 
 
62 LUKE THE HISTORIAN / 
 
 strung together a series of extracts into a more oj* less coherent 
 whole, giving no indication of his sources, and modifying them 
 freely in order to harmonize them." In this paragraph Lake' 
 has given a fair statement of ancient usage. There was no 
 idea of plagiarizing in failing to give credit. It was simply a 
 different Uterary habit. Lake thinks that it is "obviously 
 inferior to modern procedure," but he agrees that Luke used 
 it well. That is putting it mildly when critics treat the Gos- 
 pel as a work of consummate literary skill. And yet Luke 
 does make quotations from the Old Testament, though nothing 
 like so frequently or so formally as Matthew's Gospel. There 
 were regular formulas for scriptural quotations, but these were 
 not always employed. The early Christian writers, as J. Ren- 
 del Harris* shows, were fond of quoting Testimonia or strings 
 of quotations like what Paul has in Romans 3. 
 
 And yet Luke was not a slavish copyist. The stamp of his 
 own personality is on all his work. Sanday' has some wise and 
 true words on the folly of complaining at the Gospels for free- 
 dom in the use of their sources: "The Evangelists thought of 
 themselves not merely as copyists but as historians. They are 
 not unconscious of a certain dignity in their calling. They are 
 something more than scribes tied down to the text which they 
 have before them. They considered themselves entitled to 
 reproduce it freely and not slavishly. They do not hesitate to 
 tell the story over again in their own words." Luke does not 
 hesitate to use what others have written, if it suits his purpose, 
 but he does not confine himself to any one source. He is writ- 
 ing his own book. His Gospel is more elaborate than the other 
 Gospels. "Accordingly, there is perhaps in his case a little 
 more of the blending or fusion of different authorities. He has 
 a somewhat higher ambition in the matter of style. In a 
 word, he approximates rather more nearly to the ancient sec- 
 ular historian." * " It was very much their (secular historians') 
 ideals which guided his hand." * But, with all the freedom in 
 the use of their sources, it is amazing how much alike the pic- 
 ture of Jesus is in all the Synoptic Gospels. "Verse after verse, 
 saying after saying, might be quoted to you from the three 
 
 'Art. "Luke," Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Church, pp. 771 f. 
 
 ' Various articles in The Expositor 
 
 ' Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 12. 
 
 * Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 13. ^ Ibid., p. 14. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 63 
 
 Synoptic Gospels, and, unless you happened to have special 
 knowledge or had given special attention to such matters, you 
 would be unable to say to which Gospel they really belonged." * 
 
 Sanday^ reminds us that the physical diflBculties in the way 
 of quoting books played a large part in their literary method. 
 The ancients used tables for eating, not for writing, and for 
 paying out money. They had desks, "but they were not like 
 our desks, on a writing-table. They were quite small, like the 
 reading-desks that we attach to the arm of an armchair. As 
 a rule they are affixed to a raised stand, which is independent 
 of other furniture." One can easily see that the roll was not 
 a convenient form for a book or for such a little desk. The 
 pictures of early writers, as of Virgil,' represent one as sitting 
 with the open roll on his knees and the desk at his side. The 
 ancient writer had great difficulty in keeping one roll open 
 from which he was copying, and the other open on which he 
 was writing. There would be the constant tendency to trust 
 one's memory, as in oral transmission, though the habits of 
 writers would vary. 
 
 Luke's habit was to give a series of separate pictures with 
 local color. He individualized the separate incidents and gave 
 "editorial notes," as A. Wright calls them, that gave the fin- 
 ishing touches to the story. 
 
 We must remember, moreover, that we do not know all the 
 sources that Luke employed nor his precise method in the use 
 of all of them. 
 
 2. Primitive Semitic Sources. — Where did Luke get his infor- 
 mation for 1 : 5-2 : 52 of his Gospel? Wellhausen drops this 
 portion from his edition of Luke's Gospel as not worthy of 
 consideration by the modern historian. At once, therefore, 
 we see Luke put on the defensive in the use of his sources, 
 when he finishes his prologue. The instant change in his style 
 shows that he is using Semitic material imless he is inventing 
 the whole story of the infancy narratives, and by supreme 
 literary skill is giving them a Semitic flavor to create the im- 
 pression of their genuineness. It is possible to think that 
 Luke has been influenced by reading the Septuagint, and that 
 there may be intentional imitation by Luke, though a Greek. 
 
 * Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, p. 216. 
 ^ Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 16 ff. 
 ' Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst, p. 178. 
 
64 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 But, if so, why did he not keep the Aramaic or Hebrew color- 
 ing throughout? There are scattered Hebraisms in the Gos- 
 pel, but not to the extent that we see them in Chapters I and 
 II. Allen^ is confident that "conscious imitation of the Sep- 
 tuagint will quite adequately account for" these Hebraisms. 
 Dalman^ thinks that Luke "does not shrink from using those 
 Hebraisms which are most foreign to the feeling of the Greek 
 language." Bartlet' holds that "he consciously writes his 
 Gospel on the lines of the Greek Bible." Probably so, but 
 one can hardly think of so careful and faithful a writer as 
 Luke consciously using Hebraisms to give a sacred flavor to 
 his narrative. To me Luke seems quite incapable of such a 
 literary artifice. Least of all can one think of the Greek Luke 
 inventing the hymns of Mary and of Zacharias. 
 
 If Luke "is a historian of the first rank" and worthy of 
 being "placed along with the very greatest historians," as 
 Ramsay* argues, then he meets a severe test at once in these 
 opening chapters. He has just claimed that his narrative is 
 trustworthy and reliable in its use of the sources. The very 
 first instance that we have is the story of the infancy. Cer- 
 tainly Luke means his report of the birth of Jesus to be taken 
 seriously.^ We have seen already that "Luke did not rest 
 his narrative on unsifted traditions." ° We. cannot except the 
 opening chapters from this statement. Indeed, "the author 
 must have regarded this part of his work with special interest, 
 and been impelled to work it up with peculiar care, on account 
 of the authority on which it rested." ^ It is urged by some 
 that this section was a later addition, because Marcion omits 
 Chapters 1-4 from his edition of Luke, but the Lukan char- 
 acteristics are in these early chapters. Wright' holds that 
 
 1 "Aramaic Background of tlie Gospels" {Oxford Studies in the Synoptic 
 Problem, p. 293). 
 
 2 The Wards of Jesm, p. 83. 
 
 ° "Sources of St. Luke's Gospel" {Oxford Stvdies in the Synoptic Problem, 
 p. 317). Aramaisms in Luke's style here are seen in such constructions 
 as ii^i(;, ijpSaTO, e09uc;, the use of e!iji( with the participle, while genuine 
 Hebraisms appear in Iv tcJ) and the infinitive, kxX iyivs^o, ctxoxptOels elicev, 
 Ixi8uia£(? Ixe66ij.iti(:a. Cf . Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 17 S. 
 
 * Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 222. 
 
 ^ Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem f, p. 73. 
 
 6 Moffatt, Intr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 263. 
 
 ' Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 73. 
 
 8 Oospel According to St. Luke in Gk., pp. viii f . 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 65 
 
 Luke wrote it, but added it last to the book. We have noted 
 that it is unlikely that Luke would have written a free com- 
 position in archaic style. 
 
 The remaining hypothesis is that Luke used Semitic sources 
 for the infancy narrative. It is not certain whether Luke's 
 authority here was oral or written, Hebrew or Aramaic. Plum- 
 mer (Comm., p. xxiii) thinks that "we need not doubt the first 
 two Chapters are made up of written narratives, of which we 
 can see the conclusions at 1 : 80, 2 : 40 and 2 : 52." It is 
 argued that Luke had a written source in original Hebrew.^ 
 Dalman^ holds that a Greek like Luke could not have known 
 Aramaic. But that is not certain. There is no real reason 
 why Luke could not know enough Aramaic to translate it 
 himself.' There are some traces of an Aramaic original. 
 
 But Ramsay argues at great length that the Aramaic source 
 was oral and not written, and that Mary herself was that 
 source, either directly or indirectly. The story "is an episode 
 of family history of the most private character."* Sanday^ 
 thinks that Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, was 
 probably Mary's confidante, and told Luke the wonderful 
 story. We may take it as certain that Luke did >not record 
 " the narrative of the birth and childhood of Christ from mere 
 current talk and general belief: he had it in a form for which 
 Mary herself was in his opinion the responsible authority."* 
 The story is told from the standpoint of Mary, as in Matthew 
 the birth of Jesus is given from the standpoint of Joseph. 
 Luke himself says that Mary "kept all these sayings hid in 
 her heart" (2 ; 19), and once more he states that "Mary kept 
 all these sayings, pondering them in her heart" (2 : 21). "The 
 historian, by emphasizing the silence and secrecy in which she 
 treasured up the facts, gives the reader to understand that 
 she is the authority." ^ With this judgment Harnack* agrees: 
 " Indeed, from 2 : 19, 51 it follows that the stories are intended 
 to be regarded in the last instance from Mary herself." "His 
 
 1 "Aramaic Background of the Gospels" (Oxford Studies in the Synoptic 
 Problem, p. 292). 
 
 2 Words of Jesus, pp. 38 f . 
 
 3 Moffatt, Inir. to Lit. of N. T., p. 267. 
 * Was Christ Born at Bethlehem f, p. 74. 
 6 Expository Times, XIV, p. 299. 
 
 ' Ramsay, op. cit., p. 80. ' Eamsay, op. at., p. 75. 
 
 ' Date of the Ads and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 155. 
 
66 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 practice elsewhere as an historian proves that he could not 
 have himself invented a fiction like this." ' The physician is 
 brought into close relation with the inner life of women, who 
 will reveal to him what they would shrink from mentioning to 
 other men. There is no known reason why Luke could not 
 have seen Mary herself if she was still living. Certainly the 
 current oral Gospel (see Mark) would not contain the birth 
 narrative. The delicate tact and restraint with which Luke 
 gives the story add to the impression of genuineness and 
 remove the narrative entirely from the mythological stories of 
 the gods and goddesses of Babylon and Greece.^ 
 
 The story of John's birth was matter of common talk (Luke 
 1 : 65 f.). It is not hard to understand how Luke could get 
 the data for his narrative. It may have come from the circle 
 of the disciples of John.' Luke presents John as the forerun- 
 ner and the Inferior of Jesus.* 
 
 The genealogy in Luke 2:23-38 would come, of course; 
 "from some legal or tribal or temple document." ^ 
 
 There is every reason to conclude that Luke had solid ground 
 for his narrative in the early chapters of his Gospel. 
 
 3. Mark's Gospel. — It Is now practically demonstrated that 
 Luke and Matthew made use of the Gospel of Mark. One can 
 test this for himself, even in the English translation, by a use 
 of a harmony of the Gospels. Thus we are able to test Luke's 
 literary method. If one reads Mark 2 : 9-11 and then Matt. 
 9 : 5-6 and Luke 5 : 23-24, it is obvious that both Matthew 
 and Luke had Mark's text before them, for both preserve the 
 parenthetical clause ("He saith to the paralytic," "Then salth 
 he to the paralytic," "He said to the paralyzed man") and 
 both follow Mark in placing the clause at the same place in 
 the midst of a saying of Jesus. The oral theory will not ex- 
 plain a case like this. Both Matthew and Luke had a docu- 
 ment before them. That document is our Mark. It is not 
 absolutely certain that Matthew and Luke had Mark's Gospel 
 in precisely the form in which we have it, or in the same form 
 for each. Holdsworth* suggests that Mark edited three edi- 
 
 1 Ibid. ^ Hamack, op. dt., p. 156. » Ibid., p. 154. 
 
 * Cf . Wilkinson, A Johannine Document in the First Chapter of S. Luke's 
 Gospel (1902). 
 
 ' Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 199. 
 ' Gospel Origins, pp. 109-129. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 67 
 
 tions of his Gospel. The first form was used by Luke, the 
 second by Matthew, and the third is our canonical Mark. 
 Stanton' follows the same line of argument. N. P. Williams'' 
 thinks that Mark's earlier edition omitted Chapter XIH, and 
 the so-called great interpolation (Mark 6:45-8:26). But, 
 apart from this, Williams will have no "Ur-Marcus" after the 
 theory of Wendling.' Sanday* sees no necessity of either an 
 "Ur-Marcus" or of a threefold edition of Mark's Gospel. He 
 calls attention to the fact that Luke did not have to make a 
 slavish use of Mark or of any of his sources. He felt free to 
 make minor variations at will. There were probably varia- 
 tions in the text of Mark as used by Matthew and Luke. 
 M. Jones^ is inclined to agree with Sanday, Hawkins^ thinks 
 that a later edition may have added a few details, but sees no 
 need of an appeal to various editions. Swete sees no cause for 
 such editions, but is wUling to consider some editorial revision.^ 
 It is clear that Luke had Mark before him and practically in 
 the form in which we possess it to-day.* We know that Luke 
 was with Mark m Rome about A. D. 63 (Col. 4 : 10; Phile- 
 mon 24). 
 
 Mark is one, but only one, of Luke's sources. Luke follows 
 Mark's general order of events, especially in the first part of 
 the Gospel. One needs a deal of common sense in matters of 
 criticism to avoid one-sided and erroneous conclusions. Rather 
 more than half of Luke's material is now found in his Gospel 
 alone.' The rest is divided between what Mark has and the 
 non-Markan matter common to Luke and Matthew. But in 
 a broad view of the material about two-thirds of Luke's Gospel 
 follows the track of Mark, while three-fourths of Matthew's 
 Gospel uses Mark's Gospel as a framework.'" Apart from a 
 few transpositions, Matthew and Luke do not desert Mark's 
 
 ' The Gospels as Historical Documents, part II, p. 203. 
 
 ' Oxford Studies, p. 421. 
 
 ' Urmarcus (1905); Die Entstehung des Marcusevangeliums (1908). 
 
 * Oxford Studies, pp. 11-22. See also my Studies in Mark's Gospel, 
 pp. 14 f . 
 
 « N. T. in the Twentieth Century, p. 203. 
 
 ' Harm Synopticce, p. 152. 
 
 ' Commentary, p. lix. ' Plummer, Comm., p. xxiii. 
 
 » Bebb, art. "Luke," in Hastings's D. B. 
 
 " Hawkins, "Three Limitations to St. Luke's Use of St. Mark's Gospel" 
 {Osftyrd Studies, p. 29). 
 
68 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 order, except in Matt. 7 : 13 and Luke 9 : 51-18 : 14. Luke 
 uses three-fourths of Mark's Gospel, but Luke does not always 
 follow Mark in matters of detail. Sometimes Matthew repro- 
 duces Mark, where Luke takes another turn. Harnack' thinks 
 that Luke is somewhat prejudiced against Mark and "wrote 
 his Gospel in order to supplant Mark." I doubt that, but it is 
 remarkable that Mark has survived, since Matthew and Luke 
 incorporated nearly all of Mark, all but some fifty verses. 
 
 Mark's Gospel has the vivid touches of Peter's picturesque 
 portrayal which gives the lifelike coloring of an eye-witness.^ 
 Luke cares less for these delicate nuances and has dropped 
 Mark's "green grass" and "flower-beds" (Mark 6 : 39 f.; Luke 
 9: 14 f.). Luke has a more polished style and smoothes out 
 apparent roughnesses or lack of exactness in Mark. In Mark 
 1 : 4 we have the picture of digging through' the roof of a Pal- 
 estinian hut, and the picture describes what actually occurred. 
 Luke (5 : 19) seems rather to have the picture of a Roman 
 house with a tile roof.* Carpenter* thinks that nearly all of 
 the changes and omissions in Luke can be explained. Both 
 Matthew and Luke largely avoid Mark's frequent use of the 
 historical present. There are a few other instances, probably 
 due to textual variations, in which Matthew and Luke agree 
 against Mark, but they are unimportant.^ 
 
 It seems imlikely that Luke made any use of Mark at all for 
 2 : 51-18 : 14. Here, as we shall see, Luke had other sources. 
 But Luke did not use Mark 6 : 45-8 : 26, what is termed the 
 great omission. It is not clear why Luke made no use of this 
 portion of Mark. It may have been accidental, but it is more 
 likely intentional on Luke's part, because he had so much 
 other matter which he desired to use.' Hawkins* thinks that 
 the material was such that Luke wovdd not be indisposed to 
 
 ' Luke the Physician, p. 158. 
 - " Robertson, Studies in Mark's Gospel, ch. IV. ' l5opO§avTes. 
 
 * Sii T&v xepii((jui)v. Cf. Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p. 46. 
 ^Christianity According toS. Luke, p. 130. Cadbury {The Treatment of 
 
 Sources in the Gospel, p. 96) thinks that in some instances Luke misunder- 
 stood Mark. 
 
 * Hawkins, Horce Synopiicce, pp. 201 f.; Carpenter, op. cU., pp. 130 f. 
 In Luke 5 : 19 Klostermann {Handbuch zum N. T., 1919, in loco) calls xaB^xav 
 " lukanisch " for ^a^wocv. 
 
 ' See Hawkins, "The Great Omission" (Oxford Studies, pp. 60-74). 
 8 Op. cit., p. 74. 
 
THE SOURCES OP THE GOSPEL 69 
 
 pass it by. Holdsworth, Williams, and Wright say that Luke's 
 edition of Mark did not contain this section. 
 
 In the Passion narrative (Luke 22 : 14-24 : 10) Luke follows 
 Mark, but with more freedom than elsewhere, and apparently 
 with other soiu-ces at hand. Hawkins^ has a thorough discus- 
 sion of the subject and seems to prove the point. In Luke 
 22 : 15-22 reference to the betrayal by Judas comes after the 
 supper, and there are two cups in Luke's account of the sup- 
 per. What other source or sources did Luke possess? It is 
 clear that he had at least one other document, besides oral 
 witnesses, almost certainly two, and possibly more. He used 
 Mark in common with Matthew. Did Matthew and Luke 
 have any other document that both show signs of using? 
 
 4. The Logia (Q). — ^About one-sixth of Luke's Gospel agrees 
 with Matthew's Gospel in non-Markan material. Whence did 
 they get it? This matter consists mainly of sayings of Jesus. 
 Hence, it is supposed that there was a collection of such say- 
 ings, called Logia of Jesus. Indeed, we know that such was 
 the case, for scraps of such collections have been foimd in the 
 papyri of Egypt.^ Besides, Papias' expressly says that "Mat- 
 thew composed the oracles* in the Hebrew^ language, and each 
 man interpreted them as he was able." To what does Papias, 
 as quoted by Eusebius, refer ? It is hard to think that Papias 
 is describing our present Gospel of Matthew, which does not 
 seem to be a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew.* True, the 
 term "oracles" need not be confined to discourses, though that 
 is the natural way to take it. "One or two critics suppose it 
 to be the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Professor Bvu-kitt 
 and some others believe it to have been a collection of Testi- 
 monia or Messianic proof-texts from the Old Testament. But 
 the most probable view is that which identifies the Logia with 
 Q." ' Now what is Q ? Q stands for the German word for 
 source (Quelle) and simply acts as a symbol for the non- 
 
 > Op. cit, pp. 76-95. 
 
 ' Lock and Sanday, Two Lectures <m the Oxyrhynchtcs Sayings of Jesiis 
 (1889); Taylor, The Oxyrhynchus Logia (1899); Taylor, The Oxyrhynchus 
 Sayings of Jesiis (1906). 
 
 3 Eusebius, Hist. Ecd., Ill, 39. * ti Xd-fta. 
 
 ^Probably Aramaic, as in Paul's case (Acts 22 : 2). 
 
 ° See Introduction to my Comm. on Matt. {Bible for Home and School) for 
 discussion. 
 
 7 Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 140. 
 
70 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Markan matter common to both Matthew and Luke. It is 
 not hard to see what this material is. Hawkins* gives a care- 
 ful list of the passages where Matthew and Luke agree in the 
 use of the non-Markan matter. Harnack^ gives the Greek 
 text of these passages with critical notes and appraisement. 
 It is possible, even probable, that Matthew himself wrote this 
 collection of Logia which critics call Q.' But Q is used to 
 avoid begging the question on that subject.* Only the use of 
 Q must not be allowed to prejudice one against the idea that 
 Matthew did write it.^ The use of so many parallel passages 
 of considerable length seems to prove a conunon written source.^ 
 It would be possible' to explain these passages on the theory 
 that Luke made use of our present Gospel of Matthew but for 
 the great divergence between Luke and Matthew in the birth 
 narrative, the genealogy and various matters of detail. It is 
 not necessary to decide here whether Matthew himself wrote 
 in Greek the present Gospel of his name, as is quite possible, 
 as well as the Logia (Aramaic or Greek or both). What is cer- 
 tain is that Luke had access to the same source for this material 
 that our present Matthew had.^ Streeter' thinks that "had 
 Matthew written, it would have been a book like this." The 
 hope has been expressed that a copy of Q may yet be found, 
 but Carpenter*" considers it "exceedingly unlikely." J. H. 
 Moulton" has pointed out that " in no soil outside of Egypt 
 could a papyrus copy of Q have lain hid and yet safe from 
 inevitable decay." It may be thought possible that such a 
 copy was made and taken to Egypt. 
 
 As to the date of Q, it is clear that it is earlier than Mark. 
 Streeter** makes a good case for the view that Mark knew and 
 made some use of Q. Certainly Q is older than Mark. " Noth- 
 ing prevents it from being assigned to the year fifty, or even 
 
 • HoTce Synopticm, pp. 107-113. ^ Sayings of Jesus (1908). 
 
 • Hamack, ibid., p. 249. 
 
 • Robinson, Study of the Gospels, pp. 69 f . 
 
 " Hawkins, op. cit., p. 107. « lUd., p. 66. 
 
 ' As Holtzmann, Simons, Wendt and others do in fact. 
 
 B. Weiss, Intr. to the Lit. of N. T., II, p. 294. 
 
 « Oxfm-d Studies, p. 216. 
 
 '" Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 141, n. 3. 
 " Expositor, July, 1917, p. 17. 
 '^Oxford Studies, pp. 165-183. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 71 
 
 earlier." i Streeter' adds: "If our characterization of Q above 
 is correct, it was probably written twenty years before Mark, 
 and might well have reached Rome before him." Ramsay* 
 thinks that Q was written down during the life of Jesus and did 
 not include the account of the death and resurrection of Jesus. 
 Ramsay* has developed this contention with great plausibility 
 that Q is "a document practically contemporary with the 
 facts, and it registered the impressions made on eye-witnesses 
 of the words and acts of Christ" (p. 89). Streeter^ suggests 
 that Mark wrote to supplement Q as Luke wrote to supplement 
 both Q and Mark. He makes much of the point that Q is 
 close to the living oral tradition. "At that period and in that 
 non-literary society of Palestine only that was written down 
 which one would be likely to forget." * All this would suit the 
 idea that Matthew, the publican, took down notes of the say- 
 ings of Jesus, if necessary in shorthand, which was in common 
 use at that time. Allen' agrees with Ramsay that Harnack's 
 notion of Q forbids its circulation in the early years of Chris- 
 tian history, and holds, at any rate, that Harnack abbreviates 
 Q too much. But Harnack only presents a minimum. 
 
 As to the original extent of Q, Streeter* shows it was almost 
 certainly larger than the non-Markan material common to 
 Luke and Matthew. But Matthew and Luke differ in their 
 use of Mark. The common Markan material amounts to 
 only two-thirds of our Mark. Each uses portions of Mark not 
 used by the other. Precisely this situation probably exists as 
 to Q. If so, we must greatly enlarge our idea of the extent 
 of Q. Besides, Hawkins' shows that Matthew and Luke put 
 three-fourths of Q, as used by them, b. different places. It 
 must be still further admitted that Q may have contained mat- 
 ter not used by either Matthew or Luke. 
 
 Streeter i" thinks it possible that Matthew and Luke had dif- 
 ferent editions of Q. Bartlet " takes up this idea and carries it 
 still further. He holds that, when Luke got hold of Q, it had 
 
 1 Harnack, Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 125, n. 1. 
 
 2 Oxford Studies, p. 219. ' Expositor, May, 1907. 
 
 * "The Oldest Written Gospel" (Luke the Physician, pp. 71-101). So 
 Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels, p. 274. 
 6 Oxford Studies, p. 219. ' Oxford Studies, p. 215. 
 
 '/Wd., p. 239. ' Ibid., p. 185. 
 
 » Oxford Studies, p. 120. " Ibid., p. 205. 
 
 " "The Sources of St. Luke's Gospel" (,0:^(rrd Studies, pp. 313-363). 
 
72 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 already been combined with another special source, so that 
 Bartlet can talk of QM, QMk, QL. Stanton^ agrees with 
 Bartlet in this view of Luke's special source. This is a special 
 two-document theory for Luke. The commonly accepted two- 
 document hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke used 
 Mark and Q. Both Matthew and Luke had, of course, other 
 sources of information, but these two explain most of what we 
 find in them. Sanday^ assumes this "Two-Document Hypoth- 
 esis" and cannot follow Bartlet in his special interpretation.' 
 
 Before we proceed to the discussion of Luke's special soiu-ces 
 it is pertinent to inquire what view of Christ is given in Q. 
 Harnack* discusses "the Personality of Our Lord" in Q and 
 seeks to give a depreciated view of Christ in our oldest known 
 Gospel record. But the facts do not justify this interpreta- 
 tion, as I have shown in The Contemporary Review^ in an article 
 on "The Christ of the Logia." The Christ of Q is in essence 
 the Christ of Mark, of Matthew, of Luke, of Paul, of John. The 
 earliest known picture of Christ is drawn on the same scale 
 and plan as the latest. Jesus of Nazareth is pictured in Q as 
 the Son of God as well as the Son of Man. 
 
 5. Other Sources of Information. — It is plain that Luke had 
 special sources of knowledge beyond Mark and Q and beyond 
 the infancy narrative. Bartlet would make his second source 
 cover practically the whole of what Luke gives us, parallel 
 even with Mark's narrative.* But that theory is not likely to 
 win a foothold. Bartlet thinks that Luke's second source 
 came to him in oral form and was first written down by him. 
 It is not surprising that we are not able to find all of Luke 
 in Mark and Q, though we must admit that some of what we 
 discuss at this point may well have been in Q. It is worth 
 saying that Luke probably had sources that can never be 
 traced. He said that he had "many," both oral and written. 
 The facts seem to justify his statement. Kirsopp Lake'' holds 
 that Luke used only Mark, Q, the LXX and possibly Josephus. 
 But our failure to find all of Luke's sources does not of neces- 
 sity limit his resources. The misfortune is ours, not Luke's. 
 
 * Gospels as Historical Documents, II, pp. 239 f. 
 
 ' Oirford Studies, p. 2. ' Ibid., pp. xx f . 
 
 * The Sayings of Jesus, pp. 233-246. 
 
 6 August, 1919. 6 Oa^ord Studies, p. 323. 
 
 ' Hastings's Diet, of the Ap. Church. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 73 
 
 The "Two-Document Hypothesis" does not undertake to 
 refer all of Luke's Gospel to Mark and Q. There is a large 
 residuum outside, or apparently outside, for we are bound to 
 note that we do not know the limits of Q. Luke 9 : 51-18 : 14 
 is generally called the Great Interpolation, because in this sec- 
 tion Luke fails to follow the Markan material. Hawkins* 
 terms it "the Disuse of the Markan Source." Burton'' calls it 
 " the Persean Document." But Streeter' objects to this desig- 
 nation and notes that of the block 9 : 51-12 : 59, "nearly four- 
 fifths, as occurring also in Matthew, is verifiably Q, as in the 
 case, also, with all but a few verses of 13 : 18-35." Certainly, 
 then, a large part of the so-called Great Interpolation comes 
 from Q. It is in this section that many of the "doublets" in 
 Luke's Gospel occur. Sanday* urges strongly that "allowance 
 should, however, be made for the possibility of what may be 
 called real doublets as well as literary doublets. I believe that 
 similar sayings were spoken by Our Lord more than once." 
 This is certainly true, as every popular preacher or teacher 
 knows in his own experience. Repetition is not only common 
 with the public speakers to different audiences in different 
 localities, but to the same audience, if one is to be understood. 
 Not only may one use similar sayings, but he must repeat the 
 same sayings to drive the point home. Those critics forget 
 this fact who insist that Luke has here dumped together a 
 mass of material that he did not know what else to do with, 
 material that really belongs elsewhere, as we see from Matthew. 
 But such criticism forgets, also, Luke's express claim to an 
 orderly discussion. It is just as easy to think of repetition of 
 similar incidents and like sayings in the life of Jesus. It is 
 precisely in the Great Interpolation that the great parables in 
 Luke occur. "The more we consider his collection, the more 
 we are entranced with it. It is the very cream of the Gospel, 
 and yet (strange to say) it is peculiar to Luke." ' Wright 
 terms this a "Pauline collection," not because he derived it 
 from Paul, but because it breathes Paul's cosmopolitan spirit. 
 But Jesus was cosmopolitan before Paul and more so. Haw- 
 
 » Oxford Studies, pp. 29-59. 
 
 ^ Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the 
 Synoptic Problem, p. 49. 
 ' Oxford Studies, pp. 189 f. * Oxford Studies, p. xvii. 
 
 ' Wright, Hastings's Did,, of Christ and the Gospels. 
 
74 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 kins* calls it "The Travel-Document," but cannot believe that 
 Luke was one of the seventy sent forth by Jesus. He thinks 
 that Luke may even have drafted this document himself be- 
 fore he began the Gospel narrative. He may have obtained 
 first-hand information from one of the eye-witnesses who was 
 with Jesus, possibly one of the seventy. So the matter must 
 rest for the present. Only we must note that Luke may well 
 have had a special source (written or oral) for the later Peraean 
 and Judean Ministry, which parallels in many respects the 
 great Galilean Ministry. It is possible that in John's Gospel 
 we have a parallel to the three journeys of Jesus to Jerusalem 
 in this section. John describes three journeys to Jerusalem in 
 the later ministry (7:2; 11:17; 12:1). These may corre- 
 spond^ to Luke's journeys (9 : 51; 13 : 22; 17 : 11). 
 
 Did Luke have any other special sources? It has already 
 been noted that in Luke's account of the Passion Week Luke 
 "does not abandon Mark, but uses him with freedom, and 
 makes a number of additions." ' Did Luke have another 
 written record of the Passion of Christ, or did he supplement 
 Mark from oral tradition ? Some hold that the copy of Q that 
 Luke used had received this narrative addition. It is to be 
 noted that Luke uses much more freedom in the arrangement 
 of his material here than in the early parts of his Gospel. But 
 Hawkins* holds that here, beyond a doubt, Luke makes use of 
 oral material, and probably as a result of Paul's preaching. 
 Paul preached largely about the death and resurrection of 
 Jesus. The account of the institution of the Lord's Supper in 
 Luke 22 : 19 f. is almost precisely the language of Paul in 
 I Cor. 11 : 23-25. Luke was a fellow worker with Paul (Phile- 
 mon 24). Moulton has suggested that Paul was in Jerusalem 
 before the Crucifixion and collected evidence against Jesus, 
 that he had witnessed the death of Christ and that the face 
 he saw on the road to Damascus he had first seen on the 
 Cross. All this is quite possible, but Luke was not confined 
 to Paul's preaching and Mark's Gospel. He knew James, the 
 
 * Oxford Studies, pp. 55 fF. 
 
 ' See Broadus's Harmony of the Gospels, p. 251. 
 
 ^ Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 145. McLachlan {St. 
 Luke: The Man and His Work, p. 19) holds that Luke shows the same 
 " decided literary abiUty " in the use of these unknown sources. 
 
 * Expositor, July, 1911. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 75 
 
 brother of Jesus (Acts 21 : 18), Manaen, a foster-brother of 
 Herod (Acts 13:1), Joanna (Luke 8:3; 24:10), the wife of 
 Herod's steward Chuza, who could tell much about the trial 
 before Herod as well as before Pilate. Luke knew Philip and 
 his daughters at Csesarea (Acts 21 : 8). During the two years 
 at Csesarea, Luke had abundant opportunity to secure full and 
 precise information for his Gospel. Hamack^ seeks to dis- 
 credit these eye-witnesses of the word: "These we must think 
 of as ' ecstatics.' Altogether wanting in sober-mindedness and 
 credibility, like PhiUp and his four prophesying daughters 
 who came to Asia." " Papias, who himself saw the daughters, 
 expressly states that they transmitted stories of the old days." 
 But why discredit them? They may, indeed, partly explain 
 Luke's interest in the work of women for Christ, but that fact 
 throws no shadow on his record as a historian. In the Galilean 
 section of the Gospel, Luke adds various items (Luke 4 : 3-13, 
 16-30; 5 : 1-11; 6 : 21-49; 7 : 1-8) to Mark's narrative. Bur- 
 ton would suggest a special Galilean document for these varia- 
 tions, but Wright thinks "anonymous fragments" sufficient 
 to explain the phenomena. We cannot claim that we have 
 traced all of Luke's sources for his Gospel. It is not necessary 
 to do so. Enough is now known to justify Luke's claim to 
 the use of "many" records and reports of eye-witnesses and 
 others who told the story of Jesus by voice or pen. "The 
 conclusion to which we must come is that S. Luke's Gospel, 
 as has been often pointed out, is a new work." ^ He has not 
 been a mere annalist or copyist. He has made careful research 
 for the facts and has taken equal pains to write a narrative 
 that is more complete than any in existence and that is accu- 
 rate and reliable. He has done it with the skill of the literary 
 artist and with the stamp of his own style and personality at 
 every turn. He has woven the material together into a unified 
 whole that is to-day the joy of all lovers of Jesus and the de- 
 spair of all imitators. Luke has made the whole world see 
 Jesus as he saw him, in the vivid stories and narratives that 
 made his own soul glow with the Light of the ages. 
 
 ' Liuke the Physician, p. 153. 
 
 'Carpenter, op. cU., p. 147. Mr. Lummis (How Luke Was Written, p. 
 46) thinks that Luke was a young man when he began the Gospel. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 
 "We sought to go forth into Macedonia" (Acta 16 : 10) 
 
 1. Both Oral and Written Sources. — ^There is no formal state- 
 ment of Luke's method of study in the Acts, but one is entitled 
 to believe that what Luke said in the Gospel applies to the 
 Acts.^ Certainly he would be no less industrious and pains- 
 taking. He would use all available material that would help 
 him in his laudable ambition to picture the growth of Christi- 
 anity in the Roman Empire. Luke has not told us what his 
 aim is in the Acts, and modern scholars differ greatly about 
 it. It is clear that the book is not a history of the work of all 
 the apostles nor of all the work of any one of them. It is not 
 a biography of Paul, for great gaps exist in the story of Paul's 
 work, as we can see from Paul's Epistles. It is not a sketch of 
 Peter and Paul for the purpose of reconciling two factions in 
 Christianity that followed these leaders. And yet it is true 
 that "the most superficial examination of Acts shows that it 
 is divided most obviously into a 'Peter' part and a 'Paul' 
 part." ^ But this is true because in the stages of the apostolic 
 period Peter was the chief figure, while Paul took the leader- 
 ship later on. So in chapters 1-12 Jerusalem is the centre 
 of Christian activity, while in Chapters 13-28 the centre has 
 shifted to Antioch. An elaborate " source-criticism " has arisen 
 on the basis of the outstanding facts. A complicated system 
 of "redactions" for the result has been worked out that is theo- 
 retical and unsatisfactory. Moffatt' gives a careful sketch of 
 the theories of Blass, Briggs, Clemen, Harnack, Jiingst, Sorof, 
 Spitta, B. Weiss. Headlam* thinks that the statement of most 
 of the speculations refutes them. Harnack thinks that for the 
 
 'Luke probably had both books in mind when he wrote the Gospel. 
 Certain it is that both books at first circulated together, parts of one 
 whole. Chase, Credibility of the Acts, p. 16. 
 
 ^ Lake, Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Church. 
 
 » Mr. to LU. of N. T., pp. 286-9. * Hastings's D. B., art. "Acts." 
 
 76 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 77 
 
 first twelve chapters of Acts Luke has no written documents, 
 while C. C. Torrey holds that Luke translated an Aramaic doc- 
 ument for Chapters 1-15. So the doctors differ. We do not 
 have the benefit of actual comparison of Acts with the original 
 sources to help us, as was true of the Gospel of Luke with Mark 
 and Q. Hence the result is more inconclusive. But some broad 
 facts are clear. One is the use of both oral and written sources. 
 Another is that Luke himself is a participant in a large part of 
 the story. Another is the fact of Paul's presence and Epistles. 
 Another is the stay of Luke in Csesarea and Palestine, when 
 he had opportunity to learn much about the earlier stages of the 
 history before he became a Christian. It is plain, therefore, that 
 Luke had exceptionally good opportunities for obtaining his- 
 torical data for the Acts. And yet the trustworthiness of the 
 Acts has been more severely criticised than has that of the 
 Gospel. It is precisely the Acts that has been more helped by 
 recent discovery and criticism than any other book of the 
 New Testament. The Gospel of Luke, as we shall see, was 
 sharply criticised in 3 : 1-3 for alleged historical blunders, but 
 the Acts was attacked in scores of places. Luke has been 
 vindicated in nearly all of these instances where once he stood 
 alone and is entitled to respectful consideration in the rest. 
 
 Ramsayi holds that the Acts has been the victim of a false 
 interpretation of the relation of Roman history and Chris- 
 tianity. For long it was assimied that Christianity was not 
 persecuted by the state before Trajan's famous "Rescript" 
 about A. D. 112. Hence all documents, like Acts, which 
 showed evidence of such persecution, were relegated to the 
 second century. But it is now plain that Pliny and Trajan 
 are discussing a standing procedure, not a new order or atti- 
 tude. "Yet a long series of critics misunderstood the docu- 
 ments, and rested their theory of early Christian history on 
 their extraordinary blunder."^ Ramsay' makes it clear how 
 important this point really is: "This change of view as regards 
 the attitude of the Roman state toward the Christian Church, 
 while it affects the whole New Testament, has been the turn- 
 ing-point in the tide of opinion regarding the Acts. That is 
 the history of Christianity in the Roman Empire; there were 
 indubitably some attempts to propagate Christianity toward 
 
 1 Pauline and Other Studies, p. 195. " lUd. 
 
 » lUd., pp. 195 f . 
 
78 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 the east and south, beyond the limits of the empire, but the 
 author of Acts regards these efforts as unimportant, and omits 
 them entirely from his view." So, then, "what is lurgently 
 required at the present time in early Christian histoid is a 
 completely new start, free from all assumptions, whether on 
 the 'critical' or on the 'traditional' side." ^ Paul (Acts 19 : 21) 
 had an ambition to evangelize the Roman Empire, and Luke 
 is seized with this conception and carries Paul to Rome, the 
 capital, where they both are at the time of writing the Acts. 
 Ramsay" explains how his studies in Roman provincial history 
 in Asia Minor compelled him to see how the Acts "must have 
 been written in the first century and with admirable knowl- 
 edge. It plunges one into the atmosphere and the circum- 
 stances of the first century; it is out of harmony with the cir- 
 cumstances and spirit of the second century." 
 
 The Acts as a whole bears the stamp of one mind, in spite of 
 the variety of sources, as truly as does Luke's Gospel. We 
 must think of Li^e as drafting the plan of the book to suit his 
 purpose and using the material that suited his aim. He first 
 gathered his data and then went to work on his facts. The 
 result is one of the great books of all time. 
 
 2. Personal Experiences of the Author. — It is best to begin 
 with the "we" sections of Acts (16:9-40; 20:5-28:31), for 
 here Luke himself was an eye-witness (cf . Luke 1:2) of the 
 story which he tells. He is Paul's companion and minister 
 foi: that part of the second journey from Troas to Philippi, 
 and on the return trip in the third tour from Philippi to Jeru- 
 salem, in Csesarea for two years (most of it), on the voyage to 
 Rome and for two years there. Here Luke was a participant 
 in the events and could speak from personal knowledge. We 
 do not have to think that Luke remained constantly with Paul 
 during the whole of the two years and more in Gsesarea, but he 
 evidently made Csesarea headquarters and probably heard 
 Paul make his several defenses in Jerusalem and Csesarea. 
 Thus we can best understand the great fulness of detail for 
 these parts of Acts. Luke had the glowing interest of one 
 who lived through those exciting days. The style is in all 
 essentials the same in the "we" sections as in the rest of the 
 Acts, but with an added freedom and vividness. 
 
 It is probable that Luke kept a diary for the time that he 
 
 » Ibid., p. 197. ^ Ibid., p. 199. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 79 
 
 was with Paul and is rewriting that for the Acts. For this 
 reason Luke retains the "we" and "us." Luke was too care- 
 ful a writer to retain the pronoun if he was using the travel 
 diary of another person. He was too honest a historian to 
 seek to create the impression that he was present when he was 
 not.^ He was not the kind of man to pose as an eye-witness. 
 Some preachers are accused of appropriating illustrations and 
 applying them to their own experiences for rhetorical effect. 
 Carpenter^ aptly says: "If he had wanted to pretend, he would 
 have been clever enough to do it more efficiently. He would 
 have stated roundly that he had been there. It is true that 
 he was a literary artist. But one of the first duties of a lit- 
 erary artist is to use language that will convey his meaning 
 and be understood by those for whom he writes." It is not 
 necessary to repeat the arguments that prove conclusively that 
 the "we" sections of Acts are written in the same style as the 
 rest of the Acts and of the Gospel. Harnack' sums the mat- 
 ter up by saying: "In no other part of the Acts of the Apostles 
 are the pecuUarities of vocabulary and style of the author of 
 the twofold work so accumulated and concentrated as they 
 are in the "we" sections. 
 
 Blass* thinks that, whatever is true of the Gospel, for the 
 Acts there is no need to raise any question concerning the 
 sources, least of all for the "we" sections. He argues that 
 Luke was so constantly with various participants in the events. 
 Ramsay^ has no patience with the idea that Luke had access 
 to reliable sources here and there, but not as a whole: "That 
 way of juggling with the supposed authorities of Luke, too, 
 has been abandoned since then by all competent scholars. 
 The idea that the writer of the Acts had good authorities to 
 rely on for one or two details alone would not now be suggested 
 or tolerated. That writer had a certain general level of knowl- 
 edge and information and judgment. He has to be estimated 
 as a whole." That is obviously true, and yet it is pertinent 
 to show, where possible, the nature of the sources at Luke's 
 disposal. It is important that we do not expect too much of 
 the Acts. It is not a biographical monograph with exhaustive 
 
 * Caxpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 13. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 14. ' Date of the Acts and the Gospels, p. 12. 
 
 * Acta Apostolorum, p. 10. 
 
 <■ Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 80. 
 
80 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 details concerning any one character.^ From Acts 13 : 1 on 
 the book "becomes practically a biographical sketch of some 
 phases of Paul's life and work." ^ Note the careful language 
 of Moffatt. Luke does not aim at a complete narration of all 
 events about Paul, but he tells what falls in with his purpose. 
 Von Soden' notes that it was a common custom for distin- 
 guished travellers to have a diary kept by some member of the 
 party as an aid to memory and for future use. It has been 
 suggested that Xenophon did this for his Anabasis. It is 
 noteworthy that Luke had the historical insight to keep such 
 a diary while with Paul. In particular, Luke may have made 
 notes of Paul's speeches which he heard (see later). Hayes* 
 thinks that Luke is a hero-worshipper of the first order, and 
 but for his devotion to Paul he might never have written the 
 Acts. 
 
 3. Paul. — It is certain that Luke was with Paul some five 
 or six years (at Troas, Philippi, the journey to Jerusalem, 
 Jerusalem, Csesarea, voyage, Rome), most of the time, if not 
 all the time. It would have been very strange if Luke did not 
 consult Paul at all about matters relating to their companion- 
 ship and fellowship. It is here assiuned, of course, that Luke 
 wrote the Acts in Rome before Paul was set free from the first 
 Roman imprisonment. Paiil may have had notes of some of 
 his speeches on which Luke could draw for the course of his 
 argument if his own notes were deficient. He could ask Paul 
 to fill in a gap here or there. He could use Paul's recollection 
 to supplement and to check his own memory concerning de- 
 tails. It is incongruous to think that Luke was with Paul 
 while writing the book and yet failed to avail himself of Paul's 
 store of knowledge. This remark applies not only to Paul's 
 supplementing Luke's diary or recollection of the "we" sec- 
 tions, but also to the rest of the Paul narrative. 
 
 On the hypothesis that Luke was Paul's companion, Lake^ 
 sees clearly that "if this be so, we have for the rest of the 
 'Paul' narrative a source ready to our hand in the personal 
 information obtained by Luke from St. Paul himself, or from 
 other companions of St. Paul whom he met in his society. This 
 
 ' Chase, Credibility of the Gospel and Acts, p. 24. 
 
 2 Intr. to Lit. of the N. T., p. 293. ' Intr. to N. T., p. 243. 
 
 ' Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 335. 
 
 5 Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Church. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 81 
 
 may cover as much as Acts 9 : 1-30; 11 : 27-30; 12 : 25-31, or 
 even more." Most assuredly, and we must include the story 
 of the first mission tour (13 and 14), since Luke was not pres- 
 ent, and the great conference in Jerusalem and after events in 
 Antioch (15). It is inconceivable that Luke would fail to get 
 the benefit of Paul's first-hand knowledge of all this period if 
 Paul was at hand in Rome with him. Paul may not have 
 been Luke's only source for this period, but he did have Paul 
 as a reservoir of information on all disputed points. Carpen- 
 ter feels that " a certain amount is surely from Paul himself." ' 
 We do not have to know how much. The important thing is 
 for us to recognize that Luke wrote in the very atmosphere of 
 his hero. Out of the Pauline environment then came both the 
 Gospel of Luke and the Acts.^ Luke was with Paul during the 
 time when he was finishing the Judaizing controversy and was 
 full of the Gnostic controversy. He saw Paul at the height of 
 his powers. It is small wonder that in the Gospel and the 
 Acts Luke reflects the Pauline conception of Christ. And yet 
 Luke preserves the historical perspective. The early chapters 
 of Acts faithfully preserve the primitive Christology, in essence 
 the same as that of Paul. Carpenter* thinks that Luke the 
 physician would be deeply interested " in the enthusiastic con- 
 versation of the friend, who was so bad a patient, so lovable a 
 man." He would note the power of the Spirit in Paul, his 
 fondness for the fellowship of his friends, his doctrine of Christ, 
 his world outlook, his doctrine of the Kingdom, his eschatology. 
 Paul could be of service to Luke for the work in Thessalonica, 
 Athens, Corinth, Ephesus (Acts 17-19). We do not have to 
 think that Luke simply gives Paul's view of things. He used 
 various sources. Silas and Timothy could supplement much 
 for this period. And there was Titus for the Corinthian 
 troubles, with whom Luke seems to have been associated 
 (brother and delegate). Aristarchus was with Luke and Paul 
 for the journey to Jerusalem and to Rome (Acts 19 : 29; 20 : 4; 
 27:2; Col. 4:10; Philemon 24). Luke had all these to re- 
 inforce Paul and himself for much of the Acts. Ramsay* is 
 willing to admit that in Acts 19 : 2-16 Luke drops from his high 
 
 1 Op. at., p. 11. ^ Ibid. 
 
 ^Op. cit., p. 16. Harnack {Ads of the Apostles, p. 232) thinks that 
 Luke relied on oral testimony for all this part of the Acts. 
 * St. Pavl the Traveller, p. 272. 
 
82 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 standard and reports "a popular tale," but he is not sure. 
 Better give Luke the benefit of the doubt for the present, at 
 any rate. 
 
 Did Luke have the help of Paul's Epistles? Some of them 
 were written before Acts. If Acts appeared in A. D. 63 or 64, 
 certainly I and II Thessalonians had been written (A. D. 
 51-53); I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans (55-57) were 
 also accessible to Luke. Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, 
 and Ephesians (61-63) were written from Rome, apparently 
 while Luke was there, though he seems to have been absent 
 when Philippians was despatched (2:20). But scholars are 
 not agreed as to whether Luke knew Paul's Epistles or not. 
 Lake' bluntly says: "There is no reason to suppose that Luke 
 was acquainted with any of the Pauline Epistles. There is 
 nothing in the Acts which resembles a quotation, and in relat- 
 ing facts alluded to in the Epistles there is more often diifer- 
 ence than agreement, even though it be true that the differ- 
 ence is not always serious." This is the opinion of most 
 scholars — that Luke had not read Paul's Epistles. It is only 
 insisted here that he could have done so in so far as the date is 
 concerned. His own movements would play some part in the 
 matter. Ramsay,* however, says: "But personally I am dis- 
 posed to think that Luke knew the letters, though he does 
 not make them his authority, because he had still higher and 
 better, viz., Paul's own conversation." With this opinion I 
 cordially agree. Luke had probably read the Epistles (not the 
 Pastorals), but he did not have them with him as he wrote. 
 He made no effort to copy them or to square his narrative with 
 them. 
 
 Some difficulties exist (cf. Gal. 2 : 1-10 and Acts 15 : 1-30), 
 which will come up for discussion later. One must always 
 bear in mind the purpose of Luke in Acts and the aim of Paul 
 in his Epistles. In Gal. 2 Paul is discussing his independence 
 of the Twelve, not his visits to Jerusalem. He is describing 
 a private interview with the great Trio (Peter, James and 
 John) in Jerusalem, not the public meetings of the whole Con- 
 ference, as in Acts 15. Thus the two accounts can be recon- 
 ciled if the same meeting is intended in both passages. Some 
 take Gal. 2 : 1-10 to refer to another visit. Harnack' finds a 
 special Antiochian source for Acts 15 : 1-30. 
 
 1 Hastings's Ap. Church. ^ Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 52. 
 
 ' Acts of the Apostks, p. 199. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 83 
 
 But there Is no denying the light that the Acts and the 
 Epistles throw upon each other, as Paley long ago showed in 
 his Horce Paulims. " Acts rightly understood is the best com- 
 mentary of the letters of Paul, and the letters on the Acts. If 
 Luke had never known or read these letters, then all the more 
 remarkable is it as a proof of the truth and historicity of both 
 that the agreement is so perfect." ' Harnack^ has shown 
 thirty-nine striking coincidences between Paul's Epistles and 
 Acts 1-14 in the section before Luke came into contact with 
 Paul. The agreement, Harnack argues, "is so extensive and 
 so detailed as to exclude all wild hypotheses concerning those 
 passages of the Acts that are without attestation in those 
 Epistles." ' And yet Luke has remained himself everywhere.* 
 His style is his own, his intellectual independence is main- 
 tained, he is not obsessed by Paul so as to lose his perspective. 
 "One of the most assured results of recent research is that he 
 was not a Paulinist masquerading as a historian." * The spirit 
 of Paul is in the Acts and Paul's picture is drawn on bold can- 
 vas, but Luke has drawn the portrait in his own manner. 
 
 4. Other First-Hand Reporters. — It is certain that Luke was 
 Pavd's companion and so had his own notes and recollections 
 for that portion of the history. It is certain, also, that he 
 enjoyed the benefit of Paul's own suggestions for the same 
 period and for the Paul narrative, where Luke was not a par- 
 ticipant. Besides, Luke had access to others of the Pauline 
 circle, Aristarchus, Silas, Erastus, Timothy, Titus, Gains, 
 Sopater, Tychicus, Trophimus, Mark, Demas, Epaphras, 
 Mnason, and possibly Barnabas, Symeon Niger, Lycius of 
 Cyrene, and Manaen. We are certain of all in this Pauline 
 group save the names beginning with Barnabas. If the Bezan 
 text is correct in Acts 11 : 28, then Luke knew Barnabas and 
 all those named in Acts 13 : 1. Thus we can see Luke's sources 
 for two-thirds of the Acts, for nearly all of chapters 9-28 (ex- 
 cepting Peter's ministry in Lydda, Joppa, Csesarea, and Jeru- 
 salem). That of Barnabas in Csesarea and Jerusalem could 
 have come from Paul, if not from Barnabas. 
 
 So far so good. But what about the rest ? "The problems 
 
 ^ Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 52. 
 
 ' Acts of the Apostles, pp. 264-274. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 272. * Ibid., p. 274. 
 
 6 Moffatt, Mr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 281. 
 
84 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 presented by the earlier chapters are much more complicated." • 
 Here again we are confronted with the problem of oral or 
 written sources. Lake^ holds that it "seems quite impossible 
 to say whether he was using written sources." There is, un- 
 doubtedly, an Antiochian tradition and a Jerusalem tradition 
 for the material that Luke employs for chapters 1-12 (save 
 the story of Paul's conversion, 9 : 1-30). But it cannot as yet 
 be shown that it was all written unless C. C. Torrey is right in 
 his theory of an Aramaic document for chapters 1-15, about 
 which we shall have more directly. 
 
 But we can feel our way backward in Acts by means of 
 persons with whom Luke came into personal contact. Cor- 
 nelius, if still living, could certainly tell Luke of the work of 
 grace in Csesarea when Peter came. We know that Luke met 
 James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem (Acts 21 : 18) and 
 the other elders. James was present during the days of the 
 great Pentecostal outpouring (Acts 1 : 14) and could give Luke 
 valuable data for this epochal event. It is not known that 
 Luke met Peter in Jerusalem or in Rome, though both are 
 possible occurrences. In that case, Peter himself would be 
 Luke's main source. But we do know that Luke was with 
 Mark in Rome. Mark, as the disciple of Peter and cousin of 
 Barnabas, could furnish testimony concerning chapters 9 : 31- 
 13 : 13. And there were Philip and his daughters, who dwelt 
 in Csesarea. We know that Luke made a visit to this home 
 (Acts 21 : 8) on his way to Jerusalem. During the two years 
 in Csesarea Luke had abundant opportunities to learn from 
 Philip the story of his work in Samaria and Philistia (chapter 
 8) as well as the appointment of the seven and the career 
 of Stephen (chapters 6 and 7). Besides, Paul was present at 
 the delivery of Stephen's speech and at his stoning (Acts 
 8 : 1 ; 26 : 10) and could help Liike materially at this point. In 
 all these instances notes may have been made concerning the 
 various sections, and turned over to Luke, or he may have 
 made notes of his conversations. There is no way to decide. 
 
 There remains the period covered by chapters 1-5. It is 
 in this section, in particular, that Luke confronts supernatural 
 phenomena, and where modern writers find most diflBculty in 
 crediting his narrative. Carpenter' is sure that Luke worked 
 
 » Lake, Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Church. * Ibid. 
 
 ' Chriatianity According to S. Luke, p. 23. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 85 
 
 backward from Paul to Pentecost. He agrees with Doctor 
 Figgis "that it is right to begin history at this end," as, he 
 argues, " Peter and Paul did in their preaching." " The thinker 
 instantly works backward." This is an important point and 
 confronts us squarely as we face Acts 1-5. "Did S. Paul, at 
 his conversion, or before, or after, engage for his own satisfac- 
 tion in any kind of historical research? And if so, how thor- 
 oughly did he (and, we may add, S. Luke) carry through the 
 process?"^ Paul knows the fundamental facts of the life, 
 death and resurrection of Jesus, whether he obtained them by 
 personal acquaintance with Jesus or from others.'' Paul stands 
 in the path of the "Christ-Myth theory" and in the way of 
 the idea of Loisy' that "Pauline Christianity was simply a 
 mystery-cult, and that Paul cared no more, and perhaps be- 
 lieved no more, about the historicity of Jesus than the Osiris- 
 worshipper cared or believed about the historical existence of 
 Osiris."* As to Pentecost, Carpenter^ feels certain that "the 
 physician as an educated man, with at least something of the 
 historical spirit, would inquire how and when the immanence 
 of the Spirit in the commimity had begun." 
 
 Harnack' thinks that nothing clear can be learned concerning 
 the sources of Luke for the early chapters. He looks with 
 suspicion on chapter 1 as a late legend, and sees a doublet in 
 chapters 2 and 3-5, as does Lake. Harnack manifestly has a 
 lower opinion of Acts 1-12 than he has for the worth of 13-28. 
 Ramsay^ admits the difficulty raised for modern people con- 
 cerning the miracles and demons in passages like Acts 5 : 12 
 and 8:7. " It is matter for a special book to study the author- 
 ities whom Luke used for the first part of his history."* He 
 argues for patience about psychic phenomena, and pleads that 
 Luke must be credited with special interest in such cases, since 
 he was a physician and a scientist. As a historian he would be 
 careful to weigh the cases that he records. Ramsay* thinks 
 that Luke used some official data or acta of the early Christian 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 25. 2 Christianity According to S. Lntke, pp. 28-32. 
 
 *Hibhert Jmimal, Oct., 1911. 
 
 * Carpenter, op. cU., p. 25. ^ Ibid., p. 21. 
 
 ' Ads of the Apostles, p. 163. 
 
 '^ Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 200. 
 
 ' Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 205. 
 
 » Expositor, VII, 7, pp. 172 f., 262 f., 358 f., 450 f. 
 
86 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 community in Jerusalem for the record in Acts 1-5 with the full 
 report of Peter's great sermon at Pentecost, "which is in some 
 ways one of the most archaic passages in the New Testament." * 
 Ramsay holds that Philip could have reported Peter's speech, 
 though hardly Acts 2 : 1-13. 
 
 The earlier chapters of Acts show plainly enough that Luke 
 was not a participant. There is care for accuracy about the 
 historical origins of Christianity. "The subject in them is 
 handled in a vague way with a less vigorous and nervous 
 grasp." ^ As compared with the Gospel, Luke "had not the 
 advantage of formal historical narratives such as he mentions 
 for the period described in the First Book (the Gospel)."' 
 However, one is not entitled to discredit Luke's narrative in 
 Acts 1-5, since he had ready access to numerous converts at 
 the great Pentecost. Prejudice against Luke in these chapters 
 is primarily prejudice against the supernatural demonstration 
 of the power of the Holy Spirit and is on a par with prejudice 
 against the Virgin Birth of Jesus and his Resurrection from 
 the dead, all of which events are recorded in Luke's Gospel 
 after due research and reflection. We shall see whether Luke 
 is a mere recorder of tales, like Herodotus. 
 
 5. The Theory of an Aramaic Document for Chapters 1-15. — ■ 
 We know that Luke was acquainted with Aramaic, from his 
 use of original sources for Luke 1 and 2 (except 1 : 1^). In 
 Acts 1 : 19 and 9 : 36 Luke translates Aramaic words. " Knowl- 
 edge of Aramaic and the ability to translate an easy Aramaic 
 text may well be assimied in a native of Antioch, and one who 
 was for many years a companion of St. Paul." * Harnack con- 
 siders the results of present knowledge "ambiguous": "There 
 are, on the one hand, weighty reasons for the conclusion that 
 St. Luke in the first half of the Acts has translated an Aramaic 
 source, and yet it is impossible to refute the theory that he 
 was only dependent upon oral information." ^ Harnack feels 
 sure that Luke did not follow a single Aramaic source. He is 
 positive* that Luke did not follow a written Greek source for 
 
 » Lake, Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Church. 
 
 " Ramsay, St. Paid the Traveller, p. 19. ' Ibid., p. 20. 
 
 * Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 119. McLachlan {St. Luke; the Man 
 and His Work) devotes chap. II to "Luke the Linguist." He argues that 
 Luke knew something of Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew, but was not expert 
 in them as in Greek. 
 
 6/&i(i., p. 119. 6 /6id, p. 116. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 87 
 
 this part of the Acts. Lake/ per contra, is confident that Luke 
 had a written Greek source for Acts 3 and 4, possibly 5, and 
 probably 8 : 5-40. So the doctors disagree again. 
 
 Blass* suggests that Mark wrote out the first narrative of the 
 apostolic period in Aramaic, and that Luke employed this 
 Aramaic document for Acts 1-12. "I say that the language of 
 the Acts is markedly different from that of the later chapters: 
 in the former Aramaisms abound, in the latter they are com- 
 paratively very scarce; from these facts I argue that the second 
 part is an independent work by Luke, but the former depends 
 on an Aramaic soiu-ce."* Blass thinks it doubtful if Luke 
 knew Aramaic, and thinks it likely that he had an interpreter 
 for Mark's book. Nestle* had suggested a Hebrew document 
 for the early part of Acts. Moffatt^ states his view thus: 
 "Oral tradition of a heterogeneous and even of a legendary 
 character may be held to explain most, if not all, of the data. 
 There is fair ground for conjecturing, however, that Luke used 
 and translated an Aramaic source." But no one has been 
 able to show specific Aramaisms to any considerable extent. 
 The first half of Acts seems as distinctly Lukan as the second. 
 
 C. C. Torrey argued in 1912 that "the compiler of the Third 
 Gospel was an accomplished translator of both Hebrew and 
 Aramaic." * He returns to the subject in his monograph, "The 
 Composition and Date of Acts" (1916), and attempts to show 
 that Acts 1-15 is translated from an Aramaic document by 
 Luke, the author of the "we" sections and of the Third Gos- 
 pel. "The whole book, however, shows unmistakable uni- 
 formity of vocabulary and phraseology, so that it is obvious 
 (to him who recognizes the Semitic source) that the author of 
 16-28 was the translator of 1-15." Professor Torrey proceeds 
 to give what he considers numerous "translation Aramaisms," 
 not Hebraisms. "The truth is that the language of all fifteen 
 chapters is translation-Greek through and through, generally 
 preserving even the order of words." ^ It may be admitted at 
 once that, if Torrey proves his case, the question of the sources 
 
 1 Hafltings'a Diet, of Ap. Church. 
 
 2 Philology of the Gospels, pp. 141, 193 f., 201. 
 
 5 Ibid., p. 194. * Expositor, 1895, p. 238. 
 
 6 Intr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 290. 
 
 ' Studies in the History of Bdigians, Presented to Crawford H. Toy, pp. 
 269-317. 
 ' Op. cit., p. 7. 
 
88 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 of Acts is greatly simplified. The Aramaic docimient (Mark ?), 
 Luke and Paul would cover the whole story. It must be said, 
 however, that Torrey apparently weakens his argument by 
 what he calls "especially striking cases of mistranslation in 
 Acts 1-15." ^ The Aramaic list is wholly hypothetical. The 
 supposed mistranslation is not very convincing. Burkitt re- 
 views Torrey's pamphlet in the July, 1919, Journal of Theologi- 
 cal Studies. He says (p. 326) : " I venture to submit that Pro- 
 fessor Torrey has not produced a compelling demonstration," 
 though he recognizes "an occasional use by St. Luke of Ara- 
 maic sources, written or oral" (p. 329). This is precisely my 
 own feeling in the matter. Besides, Torrey (pp. 14 ff.) presses 
 entirely too far the use of "his name" in Acts 3 : 16 as "a bit 
 of popular superstition," "a certain quasi-magical power in 
 the Name of Jesus." The trouble with this view is that in 
 the Septuagint and in the papyri "name" occurs in the sense 
 of "person" with no necessary "magical" sense.^ Torrey 
 claims too much and tries to prove too much. He puts all his 
 eggs in one basket. But, as the case now stands, it must be 
 admitted that an Aramaic docmnent (or documents) is possi- 
 ble as one of the sources for the early chapters of Acts. I can- 
 not yet agree that Luke confined himself to one document for 
 the early chapters of Acts when he had access to so many per- 
 sons who knew various parts of the story. 
 
 Torrey's argument for an Aramaic source for Acts 1-15 has 
 started discussion on an extensive scale. Foakes-Jackson in 
 the Harvard Theological Review for October, 1917, feels con- 
 vinced by Torrey's arguments that there were Aramaic sources 
 for the first part of Acts. "That nothing but Aramaic sources 
 were used is, I consider, not proven. That there was only one 
 document appears to me extremely doubtful" (p. 360). He 
 does think, however, that we must agree that Acts was com- 
 pleted by A. D. 64, and hence that Luke made no use of Jose- 
 phus, and that the Acts is in no sense a Tendervz writing (p. 352). 
 In the January, 1918, issue of the same journal W. J. Wilson 
 says of Torrey's work (p. 74): "By his demonstration of a 
 
 » Op. cit., pp. 10-22. 
 
 ' Cf . Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 146, 197. An inscription of Caria 
 has ets -A tm 6eo0 Svoixa, where a purchaser acts as the representative of 
 Zeus. The papyri show Svona in sense of person. Cf. B. U. 113. 11 (143 
 A. D.), k»ioT(i) iivonairt. So Fay, p. 531, ii. 9 f. (Ill A. D.), upb? gxaoTov Bvoiw. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 89 
 
 document in Aramaic, underlying Acts 1 : lb-15 : 35 and trans- 
 lated by Luke with painful fidelity into Greek, he has opened 
 up a whole new field for the criticism of the Book of Acts." 
 He then proceeds to make "some observations" on the basis of 
 the Aramaic source. In the Harvard Theological Review for 
 July, 1918, W. J. Wilson replies to Foakes-Jackson in defense 
 of Torrey's plea for a single Aramaic document for Acts 1-15. 
 He concludes that "the argument for the new theory appears 
 very strong indeed" (p. 335). Bacon accepted Torrey's theory 
 as a demonstration {American Journal of Theology, January, 
 1918). In the January, 1919, issue of this quarterly Torrey 
 discusses "Fact and Fancy in Theories Concerning Acts" and 
 answers the criticisms of his critics. As has already been 
 noted, Burkitt replies to Torrey in the July, 1919, Journal of 
 Theological Studies. So the matter rests for the present.* 
 However it may be decided, the whole discussion has strength- 
 ened the argument for the early date and historical worth of 
 the Acts, particularly the early chapters which were mainly 
 imder attack. 
 
 'McLachlan (.St. Luke, p. 67) thinks that the Aramaic source is es- 
 tablished. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 
 
 "Luke the Beloved Physician" (Col. 4: 14) 
 "Physician, Heal Thyself" (Luke 4: 23) 
 
 Can it be shown that Luke deserves to be called a man of 
 science ? 
 
 1. The Point at Issue. — In Chapter I. 4 it was shown that 
 the companion of Paul who wrote the Gospel and Acts was a 
 physician. The only known friend and companion of Paul 
 who was a physician is Luke. The proof seems complete, but 
 it is now argued by Lake and by Cadbury that Hobart and 
 Harnack make too much of the medical terms in the Lukan 
 writings. Lake^ sums up his view thus: "That Luke was a 
 physician is argued by Harnack— following up and greatly 
 improving on the methods of Hobart — on the groimd of his 
 use of medical language. The argument is, of course, cumular 
 tive, and cannot be epitomized. It is beyond doubt that 
 Luke frequently employs language 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 probably be shown from the pages of 
 Lucian, Dion of Prusa, etc., to have been part of the vocabu- 
 lary of any educated Greek." 
 
 It should be admitted at once that the proof that Luke wrote 
 the Gospel and Acts is complete without the linguistic argu- 
 ment concerning medical terms. That argument simply adds 
 to the general effect. We know from Paul that Luke was a 
 physician, and we are naturally interested in a physician's use 
 of medical language. Other people employ medical terms. 
 We find such language in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and 
 John. Lake and Cadbury rather miss the mark in their reply 
 to Hobart and Harnack. It is not the mere tabulation of 
 medical words that have entered the general vocabulary that 
 is pertinent. "When a physician writes an historical work it 
 does not necessarily follow that his profession shows itself in 
 
 ' Hastings's Diet, of Ap: Church. 
 90 
 
THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 91 
 
 his writing; yet it is only natural for one to look for traces of 
 the author's medical profession in such a work."' Harnack 
 notes six ways in which a physician will be likely to betray 
 his profession. Medical points may determine the narrative 
 (disease and its treatment), preference may be shown for 
 stories of healing, the language may be colored by technical 
 medical terms, traces of medical diagnosis may occur, medical 
 phraseology may appear apart from cases of healing, and where 
 the writer is an eye-witness medical traits are particularly 
 noticeable. Harnack holds that in all these ways Luke reveals 
 his medical side. Hobart divides his book. The Medical Lan- 
 guage of St. Luke, into two parts ("Medical Language Em- 
 ployed in the Account of Miracles of Healing " and that " Used 
 Outside of Medical Subjects"). He gives numerous details 
 from Greek medical writers. 
 
 Cadbury^ argues that the medical bias in Luke's vocabulary 
 must be more considerable than in that of non-medical writers 
 like Lucian to be of value as an argument. The reply is that 
 it is not merely a matter of vocabulary, but of medical interest, 
 that crops out in incidental ways. Jerome {Comm. on Isaiah 
 43:6) says that ancient writers assert that Luke "was very 
 learned in the medical art." ' Naylor* finds Luke the "trained 
 physician and a Greek — probably the only one in the Christian 
 Church in his time." He concludes that Luke differed widely 
 from "the spirit and teaching of Greek medicine from Hippoc- 
 rates down to his own day" because he reports cases of demo- 
 niacal possession and cure. But Homan observes that "he 
 nowhere claims for himself the possession of miraculous powers 
 or intimates their exercise by him." Homan* adds that Luke's 
 report of miracles was "a possible compromise between the 
 science of the physician and the faith of the disciple." But 
 Homan* attempts to show "that Luke must be ranked as one 
 of the choicest medical minds known to any age." " In short, 
 it is felt that the time has come when physicians should take 
 
 1 Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 175. 
 
 2 Style and lAterary Method of I/uke, p. 50. 
 ' MedicincB artis fuisse sdentissimum. 
 
 ♦ "Luke the Physician and Ancient Medicine" {Hibbert Journal, Octo- 
 ber, 1909, p. 40). 
 5 Luke the Greek Physician, p. 7. 
 ' Luke the Greek Physician, p. 13. 
 
92 LUKE THE fflSTORIAN 
 
 steps to reclaim Luke as one of their own in the name of that 
 profession of which he was one of the greatest ornaments." 
 
 If it be said that it is merely the wild assmnption of a mod- 
 ern apologist to say that Luke was in any true sense a scientist, 
 it is refreshing to note some remarks by the late Sir William 
 Osier, M.D., F.R.S., Regius Professor of Medicine in the Uni- 
 versity of Oxford, in a recent (May 16, 1919) presidential 
 address before the Classical Association on The Old Humanities 
 and the New Science, in which he says: "And the glories of 
 Greek science should be opened in a sympathetic way to 
 'Greats' men" (p. 28). "Few 'Greats' men, I fear, could tell 
 why Hippocrates is a living force to-day, or why a modern 
 scientific physician would feel more at home with Erasistratus 
 and Herophilus at Alexandria, or with Galen at Pergamos, 
 than at any period in our story up to, say, Harvey" (p. 19). 
 "In biology Aristotle speaks for the first time the language of 
 modern science, and indeed he seems to have been first and 
 foremost a biologist, and his natural history studies influenced 
 profoundly his sociology, his psychology, and his philosophy 
 in general" (p. 20). Sir William Osier laments modern igno- 
 rance of the Greek scientists and physicians. "And yet the 
 methods of. these men exorcised vagaries and superstitions 
 from the human mind, and pointed to a clear knowledge of 
 the laws of nature" (p. 20). "To observation and seasoned 
 thought the Greek added experiment, but never fully used it 
 in biology, an instriunent which has made science productive, 
 and to which the modern world owes its civilization" (p. 24). 
 Luke lived in the atmosphere of Greek science. But Luke 
 cannot be taken from Christ, even in the name of science. 
 He brought his science and laid it at the feet of Jesus, the 
 Great Physician. He preached the Gospel and practised the 
 science of medicine, as many a man has done since Luke's day. 
 But now let us see the illustrations of Luke's medical knowl- 
 edge in his writings. 
 
 2. Changes from Mark's Account. — Harnack^ has grouped 
 the examples from Hobart with great skill. The point to 
 observe here is whether Luke made any changes that a physi- 
 cian would be likely to desire. We have seen already (Chap- 
 ter I. 4) that in Luke 8 : 43 Mark's caustic comment that the 
 poor woman "had spent all that she had, and was nothing 
 * Luke the Physician, pp. 182-8. 
 
THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 93 
 
 bettered, but rather grew worse" (Mark 5 : 26), has been soft- 
 ened to " she was not able to be healed by any" (a chronic case 
 for which physicians were not to blame). But this striking 
 case does not stand alone. 
 
 In the account of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1 : 26 
 = Luke 4 : 35) Luke adds "having done him no hurt," showing 
 the physician's interest in the details of the case. Luke also 
 noted the fall of the man, "threw him down in the midst." 
 One can observe all through the Gospel Luke's pleasure in pic- 
 turing Christ as the physician. 
 
 The healing of Simon's mother-in-law (Mark 1 : 30 f . = 
 Luke 4 : 38 f . = Matt. 8 : 14 f.) has some striking touches. 
 Luke alone notes that she "was holden with a great fever." ^ 
 Precisely this medical phrase of "great fever" occurs in Galen 
 and Hippocrates. Galen says that Greek physicians divided 
 fevers into "great"" and " small." ^ Luke, like a doctor, adds 
 also two items concerning Christ's method of treatment. " And 
 he stood over her," * as if in careful contemplation of the symp- 
 toms of the patient by way of diagnosis. One thinks of the 
 famous pictiu-e "The Doctor," wherein the physician sits 
 with his head in his hand and watches the rapid breathing of 
 the sick child on the bed. Luke adds "and rebuked the 
 fever," showing that Jesus spoke words of authority and cheer 
 like the wise physician. Jesus spoke not for mere psychologi- 
 cal effect on the patient, but also to show his instant mastery 
 of the disease. So Luke observes that the fever left her "im- 
 mediately."* It is not a matter of vocabulary here, but we 
 note the physician's interest and insight that give these touches 
 to the story not present in Mark and Matthew. 
 
 The "leper" (Mark 1:40 = Luke 5 : 12 = Matt. 8:2) is 
 described by Luke as "a man full of leprosy,"* a very bad 
 case. "This particular is given only by the beloved physi- 
 cian. His face and his hands would be covered by ulcers and 
 sores, so that every one could see that the hideous disease 
 was at a very advanced stage." ^ In such a severe case, 
 strange to say, the law allowed the leper to have freedom to 
 come and go (cf. Lev. 13 : 12 f.). Once again the physician 
 describes the case as Mark and Matthew do not. 
 
 * mcpcEXpiiiuE. ° i^WlP icMpis Xlxpa?. ' Plummer, in loco. 
 
94 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 In Luke 5 : 18 (= Mark 2:3 = Matt, 9:2) we have the 
 phrase "a man that was palsied"' rather than the popular 
 term "paralytic"" of Mark and Matthew. "St. Luke's use 
 is in strict agreement with that of medical writers."* Luke 
 never employs the popular term for this disease, but always 
 the medical phrase. 
 
 In the story of the man with the withered hand (Luke 6 : 6 
 = Mark 3:1 = Matt. 12 : 10), Luke, with a physician's eye for 
 details of diagnosis, notes that it was his "right hand." So 
 in Luke 22:50 (= Mark 14:47 = Matt. 26:51) Luke first 
 notes it is the "right ear" of the servant of the high priest 
 that is cut off. He was followed later in this item by John 
 (18 : 10), who also gives the name Malchus. But in the case 
 of Malchus Luke alone adds "And te touched his ear, and 
 healed him" (Luke 22 : 51), a miracle of surgery that evidently 
 interested him. 
 
 In the account of the Gadarene demoniac (Luke 8 : 27 = 
 Mark 5:2 = Matt. 8:28), Luke alone observes that "for a 
 long time he had worn no clothes" (the physician's care again). 
 Both Mark (5 : 15) and Luke (8 : 35). note that, when cured, 
 he is "clothed and in his right mind." 
 
 In the story of the raising of Jairus's daughter (Luke 8 : 55 
 = Mark 5 : 41 f. = Matt. 9 : 25), Luke alone gives the detail 
 that Jesus "commanded that something be given her to eat." 
 Once more the physician's interest in the child's welfare appears 
 (cf. Acts 9: 18). 
 
 In the case of the epileptic boy (Luke 9 : 38 f . = Mark 9 : 17 f . 
 = Matt. 17 : 15), each Gospel describes the symptoms differ- 
 ently. It was a hard case, that baffled the disciples. Luke 
 represents the father as beseeching Jesus "to look upon my 
 son," * as if for a fresh diagnosis of the case after the failure of 
 the disciples. Alas, how many of us know what it is to see 
 the consulting physician called in I Luke adds the pathetic 
 plea, "for he is mine only child." Hobart adds also: "It is 
 worthy of note that Aretseus, a physician about Luke's time, 
 admits the possibility of this disease being produced by dia- 
 bolical agency." 
 
 ' ^v TOepaXeXu(ilvo?. ' irapaXuTixii;. 
 
 ' Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, p. 6. 
 
 * lxc^X£t|/oEt. Hobart cites this word and ij^yi; dnoxupec as medical terms 
 hera 
 
THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY 'LUKE 95 
 
 Once more Luke (18 : 25 = Mark 10 : 25 = Matt. 19 : 24) em- 
 ploys a diiferent word for " needle," ' the surgeon's needle, not 
 the ordinary needle,* as in Mark and Matthew. Luke employs 
 the word that Galen uses for the surgeon's needle, a distinct 
 trace of medical authorship. 
 
 The point about these changes lies in the professional inter- 
 est of the physician, not in the linguistic improvements of an 
 educated man. Luke did make many such changes because 
 of his literary taste, but another explanation clearly holds 
 here. The argument stands, but it does not stand alone, 
 strong as it is. 
 
 3. Items Peculiar to Luke's Gospel. — Luke reveals a pro- 
 fessional interest in medical matters in the portions of the 
 Gospel which he alone has. Hayes' has made an admirable 
 summary of this argument. Luke was a medical evangelist 
 and had a vital interest in both forms of the work of Christ 
 (teaching and healing). "And he sent them forth to preach 
 the Kingdom of God, and to heal the sick" (Luke 9:2). So 
 Christ commanded the Twelve as he sent them on the tour of 
 Galilee, as Matthew (10 : 8) also gives: "Heal the sick, raise the 
 dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons." But Luke alone 
 gives the following. To the seventy Jesus said: "And heal 
 the sick that are therein, and say imto them. The Kingdom 
 of God is come nigh unto you" (Luke 10 : 9). When the sev- 
 enty returned from their tour of Judea, they say to Jesus: 
 "Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name" 
 (Luke 10 : 17). 
 
 In Christ's Messianic sermon at Nazareth he had quoted 
 Isaiah 40 : 1 f., and applied to himself the mission "to preach 
 good tidings to the poor" and "recovery of sight to the blind." 
 Luke makes a specialty of the double mission of Jesus to heal 
 both soul and body. In harmony with this conception it must 
 be noted that Luke alone gives Christ's proverb, "Physician, 
 heal thyself" (Luke 4: 23). Galen speaks of a physician who 
 should have cured himself before practising on his patients. 
 The saying was evidently common with physicians and Christ's 
 use of it interested Luke. We to-day say that a doctor ought 
 to take his own medicine. The Chinese do not pay physicians 
 
 ' peXfivj). A magic papyrus (P. Lond., 121, 442, 3 A. D.) has the more 
 general use of the word. 
 * pa(t)(;. ' Synoptic Gospels and Acts, pp. 224 f. 
 
96 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 if the patient gets sick, but only when he is well. The Chris- 
 tian doctor to-day in China has an open door to the souls of 
 the people. 
 
 Luke uses a number of general expressions, as do the other 
 Gospels, that picture the vast extent of Christ's work of heal- 
 ing (of. Luke 4 : 40 f. ; 5 : 15 f. ; 6 : 17-19; 7 : 21 ; 13 : 32). He 
 has six miracles not in the other Gospels, and all but one (the 
 draft of fishes, 5 : 1-11) are miracles of healing (the son of 
 the widow of Nain, 7:11-17; the woman with the spirit of 
 infirmity, 13:10-17; the man with the dropsy, 14:1-6; the 
 cleansing of the ten lepers, 17: 11-19; the restoration of Mal- 
 chus's ear, 22:51). 
 
 In each instance we see signs of the physician's love of de- 
 tails about the case and the cure. The son of the widow of 
 Nain "sat up" in the bier like a patient in bed, to the con- 
 sternation of the pall-bearers (Luke 7: 15 f.). The word for 
 "sat up"' is used by medical writers in the intransitive sense 
 for sitting up in bed.^ 
 
 In the case of the woman with the spirit of infirmity Luke 
 gives an exact description of her disease (curvature of the 
 spine) and of the cure in technical language: "She was bowed 
 together,' and could in no wise lift herself up." * "And imme- 
 diately she was made straight." ^ This verb is common in the 
 Septuagint, but medical writers employ it for "to straighten, 
 to put into natural position, abnormal or dislocated parts of 
 the body." 6 
 
 The "dropsical man"' (Ltike 14:2) is described by a word 
 that does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, though 
 this adjective as a substantive, as in Luke, "is the usual way 
 in medical language of denoting a person suffering from 
 dropsy."* Hobart cites examples from Hippocrates, Dios- 
 corides, Galen. 
 
 ^ <ivex(i9tjsv. In a Christian letter of 4 c. A. D. we have (JvaxaBsaBsTaa used 
 of a convalescent woman who is still sickly. P. Oxy., VI, 939, 25. 
 
 'Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, pp. 11 f. So Hippocrates 
 {Proenot. 37) has ivaixaBft^ety ^oOXesBai x^v voa^ovTa i^i; v6aou ivi,\i.a'C,o(iar)<;. 
 
 ' ouvxOitTOuaa. 
 
 * (iva)i6i|«!!t. Note same root. For el? xb xavxeX^s, see Heb. 7 : 25. There 
 is a play on the words ivav.Ci'^ai and auvxdxtouoa. In Luke 21 ; 28 Jesus em- 
 ploys (ivaxiittiaTe with lic&paxe. See P. Par., 47, 23 ff. for similar use, "a very 
 grandiloquent, but ill-spelt letter" (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the 
 Greek N. T., p. 35). 
 
 ' (ivb>p6(d6Y). ' Hobart, op. cit., p. 22. ' &Spuic(x6;. 
 
 ' Hobart, op. cit., p. 24. 
 
THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 97 
 
 In the healing of the lepers (Luke 17 : 11-19) Luke uses the 
 ordinary term " leper," ^ not "full of leprosy/' as in 5:12. 
 Hobart* thinks that Luke, by the use of these two ways of 
 describing the disease that had three forms,' according to Hip- 
 pocrates, means to draw a distinction in accord with the Hip- 
 pocratic diagnosis. The ten lepers had the milder form of 
 the disease. 
 
 It has already been stated that Luke first mentions the 
 healing of Malchus's ear (Luke 22:51). Jesus "touched the 
 ear, not the place where the ear had been" (Plummer, in loco), 
 and thus Luke means to record the " solitary miracle of surgery " 
 in the New Testament, again with the physician's interest in 
 such a case. It was necessary for Jesus to undo the result of 
 Peter's rash act to show that he was not the leader of danger- 
 ous persons. 
 
 Luke alone records the parable of the Good Samaritan 
 (Luke 10 : 30-37) with its accoimt of the care of the wounded 
 traveller. Modem hospitals carry out the point of this story 
 which caught Luke's heart, and largely because of what Jesus 
 said. Hobart* quotes Galen as saying "that it was not un- 
 usual for persons when seized with Ulness on a journey to take 
 refuge in inns. Galen, too, uses the word 'half-dead'^ in de- 
 scribing their case." This word occurs here only in the New 
 Testament (see 4 Mace. 4:11). But Wellhausen sets aside 
 the medical details in the story by saying: "Into a wound one 
 pours oil, but not oil and wiae." But Wellhausen is set at 
 naught by Hippocrates, who recommended for wounds "anoint- 
 ing with oil and wine."* Hobart' observes that "wine and oU 
 were usual remedies for sores, wounds, etc., and also used as 
 internal medicine." The words ^ for binding up, woimds, pour- 
 ing, are all common as medical terms. 
 
 In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16 : 19-31) 
 a number of medical terms appear. Lazarus was "full of 
 sores." * The word is peculiar to Luke in the New Testament, 
 
 ' Xeitp6s. ' Op. cU., p. 5. ' dX^iis, Xefixij, (UXa?. 
 
 * Op. cU., p. 27. * i)\i.aavii<;. 
 
 « Mosh. Mul. 656, (SXefipas IXafcp w\ oTwp. See P. Petr., II, 25 (a)» for 
 uBe of xpfotv for "the lotion for a sick horse" (Moulton and Milligan, Vo- 
 cabulary), in opposition to the view that (iXe[<]x>> was used for profane an- 
 ointing and xpf(i) for sacred uses only. 
 
 ' Op. cit., p. 28. ' x«T«5&), xpaOna, Ixtjclci). ' elXxuiilvos. 
 
98 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 and is "the regular medical tenn for to be ulcerated."* Hip- 
 pocrates has a treatise on "ulcers."^ "The physician thinks 
 of the absence of medical help: the dogs licked his sores."* 
 The dogs gave "the only attention, and, so to speak, medical 
 dressing, which his sores received" (St. Cyril). The words 
 for "cool"* and being "in anguish"^ are common in medical 
 writers, the latter for pain and the former for alleviation. 
 
 It is now evident that Luke has betrayed in his Gospel the 
 habits of mind of a physician. There is no straining after 
 effect in this, argument. It is cumulative and overpowering. 
 
 4. Medical Matters in Acts. — ^How is it in the Acts ? Does 
 Luke reveal his professional interest to the same extent here? 
 To this question we now turn. As in the Gospel, so in the 
 Acts, Luke has general statements concerning the great num- 
 ber of ciures wrought by the Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 5 : 16) 
 and by Paul in Ephesus (Acts 19: 11). Hamack* thinks that 
 "this invariable disposition to see in the miracles of healing 
 the chief function of the mighty forces of the new religion, 
 and at the same time on each occasion to distinguish with 
 anxious care between ordinary sick folk and the 'possessed,' 
 points to a physician as the author." Ramsay^ criticises Har- 
 nack for bemg "too purely verbal," and for having "too httle 
 hold upon realities and facts" in his treatment of Luke. There 
 is something in this indictment, but Harnack sees dearly the 
 weight of Hobart's proof that a physician wrote the Gospel 
 and the Acts. Ramsay* ss right, also, in seeing that Hobart's 
 proof stands in spite of his overstatements here and there. 
 "The valuelessness of one detail, the lightness of one stone, 
 does not take away from the strength and the weight of the 
 other details, though it may annoy and mislead the hasty 
 reader who Judges by a sample, and by chance or design takes 
 the poorest." In cumulative evidence one feels the force of 
 the whole. In this argument we have simply selected a few of 
 the most striking examples given by Hobart. These hold true, 
 whatever is true of the rest. And these prove the point. 
 
 > Hobart, op. eU., p. 31. ^ axi) (Luke 16 : 21). 
 
 ' Hamack, Luke the Physician, p. 191. 
 
 * xaTai))flxw- Luke has four of these compounds which "were very much 
 used in medical language" (Hobart). 
 ' 6SuvS|Mti. ' Luke the Physician, p. 196. 
 
 ' Luke the Physician, p. 59. * Ibid., p. 225. 
 
THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 99 
 
 When we come to details in Acts the story of the Gospel is 
 repeated. In Acts 1 : 3 Luke alone in the New Testament has 
 the word "proofs which "was technically employed in medi- 
 cal language."^ In fact, Dioscorides uses the word in his 
 Proem to his work De Materia Medica. In familiar language 
 "proof" and "sign"' were synonymous {Wisd. 5:11), yet 
 Aristotle {Rhet. 1 : 2) makes the technical distinction which 
 "was strictly maintained by medical men, although Luke may 
 no doubt have met the word elsewhere." * One need not press 
 this point nor the use of "wait for" ^ in 1 : 4, used only by Luke 
 in the New Testament, and common in medical writings for 
 awaiting the result of medicine or other medical treatment.* 
 In Acts 1 : 18 the word for "headlong"^ is peculiar to Luke 
 and is common to medical writers in a technical sense. The 
 word occurs in classical writers. 
 
 In Acts 3 : 7 f ., Luke has a remarkable description of the 
 sudden healing of the lame man. Note "ankle-bones" * which 
 is found here alone in the New Testament and is the technical 
 language of a medical man.* Besides, the word for "feet" ^° is 
 unusual in this sense outside of medical works. The word for 
 "received strength"" is common enough, but medical writers 
 use it. Luke's word for "immediately"'^ is frequent in both 
 Gospel and Acts, and in the great majority of instances he uses 
 it concerning cases of healing or of death as it appears in medi- 
 cal writers.^' Notice also Luke's interest in the proof of the 
 sudden cxae (leaping, standing, beginning to walk). 
 
 In Acts 5 : 5 and 10 Luke says that both Ananias and Sap- 
 phira "gave up the ghost."'* He uses it also of the death of 
 Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12 : 23). It occurs in Ezek. 21 : 7, but 
 " seems to be almost confined to the medical writers, and very 
 seldom used by them." " So in Acts 5 : 6 Luke has "wrapped 
 him round" " or "shrouded him." This verb occurs only once 
 in classical Greek in this sense of "shroud," but "in medical 
 
 » TexjA'^ptov. ' Hobart, op. cU., p. 184. 
 
 ' OTiiteiov. 
 
 * Knowling, Ads, in loco. 
 
 * icspii<.£vetv. 
 
 8 Hobaxt, op. cit, p. 184. 
 
 ' icpijvts. 
 
 8 (j<j)puSpi4. 
 
 
 ' Hobart, op. cit, pp. 34 f.; Knowling, Acis, in loco. 
 
 
 " gicjstS. 
 
 " loTepe<49i)O0tV. 
 
 ^ Ttapaxp^iia. Mark uses e096i;. 
 
 
 " Hobart, op. cit., pp. 97 f. 
 
 " l?i>|;u?ev. 
 
 " Hobart, op. cit., p. 37. 
 
 w duv^uipstXaev. 
 
100 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 language the word is very, frequent and its sense varied," ' for 
 bandaging, binding, etc. 
 
 In the account of Saul's conversion Luke says (Acts 9 : 18) 
 that " scales " ^ " fell " ' from his eyes. Both words are peculiar 
 to Luke in the New Testament, but are common in medical 
 writers and in conjunction for the falling off of scales from the 
 cuticle or any diseased part of the body.* 
 
 In the case of ^neas (Acts 9 : 33) Lxike employs the same 
 technical word for "sick of the palsy" that he has in the Gospel 
 (5 : 18), but he also gives "a medical note of the length of time 
 the disease had lasted"^ (eight years), as he does in other cases: 
 "The woman with a spirit of infirmity was eighteen years ill; 
 the woman with an issue of blood twelve years; the lame man 
 at the gate of the temple was forty years old, and his disease 
 congenital."* Luke has four words ^ for "sick-bed," and this 
 fact itself is remarkable. One for couch or bed, and two 
 diminutives (peculiar to Luke in N. T.) from that and one for 
 the pallet of the poorer classes, ^neas was lying on the pal- 
 let. In Acts 5:15 Luke notes that the sick were laid "on 
 beds and pallets." » In Acts 10 : 10; 11 : 5; 22 : 17 Luke em- 
 ploys a word for "trance" (our "ecstasy"), common enough 
 for "wonder," but Luke alone in the New Testament has it 
 for vision or trance. It is frequent in medical works in this 
 sense. 
 
 Hobart® notes that the " mist "i" and darkness that fell on 
 Elymas (Acts 13 : 11) was a distinct eye-disease. Galen uses 
 the word for one of the diseases of the eye, and Dioscorides 
 applies it to the cataract. It is not in the Septuagint, and 
 Liike alone has it in the New Testament. 
 
 In the case of the lame man at Lystra (Acts 14 : 8) who was 
 "impotent in his feet," *' Luke employs a word common enough 
 in the sense of " impossible," but only here in the New Testa- 
 
 1 Hobart, op. cU., p. 38. ^ Xsic£Se?. 
 
 ' dtx^TOuov. In P. Par., 47, 27 (B. C. 153) we have iiTOicdrroi in the sense 
 of "collapse." 
 * Hobart, op. eU., p. 39. ' Hobart, op. dl., p. 40. 
 
 "im. 
 
 ' xWvi), xXivdptov, xXivfSiov, xpdpgato? (pallet). 
 ^ i%\ xXtvapCuv xocl xpa^TTuv. 
 
 ' Op. at. i» iiXkdz. 
 
 " dWvaToq TOl? icocjfv. In P. Lond., 971, 4 (iii-iv A. D.) we have <iS6v«T0? 
 used of a woman who was not strong, Sid ctsS^vecscv xiji; <t)&aE(i>i;. 
 
THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 101 
 
 ment in the sense of "impotent." Medical writers use it 
 freely as Luke has it here.^ One thinks of "foot-drop," "fall- 
 ing arch" and many other weaknesses of the foot. 
 
 In Acts 20 : 9-12 Luke twice observes that the lad was borne 
 down by sleep, once by "deep sleep," like Galen and Hippoc- 
 rates and other medical writers. Luke mentions also that 
 there were "many lights" in the room. Hobart^ thinks that 
 the heat and oily smells helped to make the lad sleepy and not 
 alone Paul's long sermon. He notes also that he fell from the 
 third story and naturally was taken up dead. "They brought 
 the lad aUve." Luke was in the company and doubtless was 
 one of the first to pick up the boy. He saw Paul heal the lad 
 and was deeply impressed by the incident. 
 
 In Acts 21 : 1-10 several interesting items call for notice. 
 Luke, like the barbarians, was interested in the fact that Paul 
 did not fall down dead suddenly when bitten by the "viper" 
 or "constrictor," which Ramsay' urges as the translation. 
 Constrictors have no poison-fangs and do not technically bite, 
 but they cling or "fasten on"* as this snake did to Paul's hand. 
 The word ("fastened on") is peculiar to Luke in the New Tes- 
 tament, and is common in medical writers. "Dioscorides 
 uses it of poisonous matter introduced into the body."^ Ram- 
 say insists that the constrictor, not the viper in the technical 
 sense, alone occurs in Malta, and Luke uses a general term* 
 once, and the word for viper^ is not always strictly used. In 
 any case Luke is in no trouble. The word for swelling* is also 
 a medical term : ^ it is the usual word for inflanmaation. Besides, 
 Luke's word for "e3q)ected" ^° is used eleven times by Luke and 
 only five in all the rest of the New Testament. It is common 
 in medical writers. And then Luke notes that the father of 
 Publius had "fevers" " as well as dysentery. The word in the 
 plvu-al for one person is peculiar to Luke in the New Testa- 
 ment, but it is strictly medical, as in Hippocrates, who uses it 
 in connection with dysentery, as Luke does here.^ Luke alone 
 uses this medical word also in the New Testament. It has 
 
 1 Hobart, op. eU., p. 46. " lUd., p. 48. 
 
 ' I/uke the Physician, p. 63. * xa6^())Ev. 
 
 6 Hobart, typ. eit, p. 288. ' Bigpfov. 
 
 ' ?XtSva. ' ic(nxpaj6ai 
 
 ' Hobart, op. cit., p. 50. " icpoaSojuivruv. 
 
 >* Hobart, op. (»<., p. 62. 
 
102 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 been already observed that Luke employs one verb^ for the 
 miraculous cure of Publius by Paul and another* for the gen- 
 eral practice of medicine in which he engaged. The rest came 
 and received medical treatment at Luke's hands. 
 
 It is impossible in the light of the foregoing facts not to agree 
 with Harnack' that the evidence is of "overwhelming force." 
 The author of both the Gospel and the Acts was a physician. 
 Even if Paul had not told us that Luke was a physician, we 
 could now see it to be true. It is good to be able to see the 
 facts. It is not claimed that Luke knew modem scientific 
 theories, but that he had the spirit and method of the man of 
 science of his day. 
 
 ^ E&aata. ' ISepanefiovro. 
 
 3 Luke the Physician, p. 198. - 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 A PHYSICIAN'S ACCOUNT OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS' 
 
 "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 Most High shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1 : 35). 
 
 It is hard to overestimate the world's debt to Luke. But 
 for Luke we should not have the Christmas story. How poor 
 we should be without it. 
 
 1. A Vital Element in Luke's History. — ^It is manifest that 
 the more we have stressed the general culture of Luke, his 
 scientific training as a physician and his painstaking research 
 as a historian, the more difficult it is to say that Luke just 
 dumped in the story of Christ's birth because he picked it up 
 and because he wished to have a fuller report than Mark had 
 given. If "Luke is a historian of the first rank," ^ he must be 
 credited with a serious purpose in giving the account of the 
 Virgin Birth of Jesus. "We can argue, then, with perfect 
 ■ confidence that Luke did not take the narrative of the birth 
 and childhood of Christ from mere current talk and general 
 belief." * To say that he was credulous and told legends about 
 Zacharias and Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary, John and Jesus, is 
 to fly in the face of Luke 1 : 1-4 and to brand Luke either as 
 a hypocrite or an incompetent. Every man is a child of his 
 time save Jesus, who is that and also the child of all time. 
 In this discussion no claim is made that Luke is infallible or 
 even inspired. It is only asked that all the facts involved be 
 honestly faced. 
 
 One may pass by occasional bias, personal prejudice, or a 
 slip now and then in a historian without throwing him to the 
 discard, if one sees proof of these things. An occasional fly 
 in the ointment can be discounted. But in a crucial matter 
 like the birth of Jesus in Luke 1 and 2 one cannot overlook 
 carelessness or credulity. "If a historian is convicted in a 
 vital error on such a vital point, he ceases to be trustworthy 
 
 » See Sunday Sdu)o\ Times, May 29, 1920. 
 
 2 Ramsay, Bearing o/ Recent Discovery, p. 222. 
 
 3 Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 80. 
 
 103 
 
104 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 on his own account." ^ We cannot deny the fact that Luke, 
 great historian and great physician as he was, soberly recorded 
 the superhuman birth of Jesus.^ Luke reports that Jesus had 
 a human mother, but not a himaian father. This is the core of 
 the problem but not all of it. Luke likewise narrates the visits 
 or visions of the angel Gabriel to Zacharias and to Mary. He 
 also tells the message of the angel of the Lord to the shepherds 
 near Bethlehem and the song of the heavenly host and the 
 visit of the shepherds to Mary and the child. And then he 
 records the prophetic insight of Simeon and Anna, besides the 
 noble hymns of Elizabeth, Mary and Zacharias. He has 
 written these narratives with consummate care and skill. One 
 has only to turn to the silly legends about the buth of Jesus in 
 the Nativity of Mary, the Pseudo-Matthew, the Arabic Gos- 
 pel of the Infancy, the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of 
 Thomas, to see the restraint and simple dignity of Luke's 
 narrative. "The frigid miracle-mongerrng of the so-called 
 Gospels of the Infancy, when compared with the transparent 
 honesty and delicate reserve of our Evangelists, offers one of 
 the most instructive contrasts in all Uterature." ' 
 
 It is impossible to separate Luke the physician and Luke 
 the historian. It is the cultured Greek physician, the man of 
 science, who contributes the story of the miraculous birth of 
 Jesus. It is easy enough to some to dismiss the whole story as 
 due to heathen myth or Jewish legend, with the desire to satisfy 
 devout demands for the deification of Jesus. The Roman 
 emperors were worshipped. Why not attribute deity to Jesus ? 
 But heathenism had no influence on Christianity thus early, 
 and it was repellent to Judaism to worship Jesus. Harnack* 
 holds that one "must cherish serious doubts as to whether the 
 idea of the Virgin Birth would have ever made its appearance 
 
 1 Ramsay, ibid., p. 6. 
 
 2 Some modem writers profess to see in Luke 1 : 31-33 natural paternity 
 and in 1 : 34-35 supernatural causality, claiming that the original docu- 
 ment gave only the first, while Luke added the second. So Weiss in his 
 ed. of Meyer, p. 303. But that is purely hypothetical. See Bruce, Exjiosi- 
 tor's Greek Testament, p. 465. There is no doubt at all as to the genuine- 
 ness of Luke 1 : 34-35, since all the documents give it. Here we have the 
 view of Luke whatever was in the source (oral or written). He attributes 
 the origin of the birth of Jesus to the Holy Spirit, and calls the child the 
 Son of God, 
 
 ' J. Aimitage Robinson, Some Thoughts on the Incarnation, p. 38. 
 * Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 145. 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS 105 
 
 on Jewish soil if it had not been for Isaiah 7 : 14." He thinks^ 
 that orthodox Jews may have brooded over the idea that the 
 Mother of the Messiah was to be a virgin. At any rate Har- 
 nack is sure that Luke "could not have himself invented a fic- 
 tion like this." 2 But "fiction" he takes it to be. Matthew 
 Arnold* bluntly. asserts: "I do not beheve in the Virgin Birth 
 of Christ because it involves a miracle, and miracles do not 
 happen." Thus science and history are turned against Luke's 
 narrative. But scientists to-day are not so dogmatic against 
 the possibility of miracle. The eminent scientist Professor 
 Sir George Stokes says in the Gifford Lectures for 1891, p. 23 : 
 "If we think of the laws of Nature as self-existent and self- 
 caused, then we caimot admit any deviation from them. But 
 if we think of them as designed by a Supreme Will, then we 
 must allow the possibility of their being on some particular 
 occasion suspended." Miracle is difficult of definition. The 
 English word is from the Latin miraculum, meaning a wonder- 
 ful thing. But in the New Testament the word for wonder 
 {teras) never occurs alone, but in connection with the words for 
 mighty works (dunameis) and for signs (semeia). The New 
 Testament conception of miracle is thus that it is something 
 out of the ordinary, wrought by the special interposition of the 
 Divine Will, for a high moral purpose. Sir Oliver Lodge {Life 
 and Matter, p. 198) holds that life transcends and yet also 
 combines and controls the physical forces of the world. 
 
 The point is not made here that one "must" believe in the 
 Virgin Birth of Jesus or be damned. It is doubtful if the 
 Twelve Apostles knew the facts about Christ's birth at first. 
 Indeed, it cannot be positively proven that any of them ever 
 became familiar with the facts about the Virgin Birth, unless 
 the Apostle Matthew is the author of our Greek Gospel bearing 
 his name and the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel. Cer- 
 tainly they would not preach them during the lifetime of Mary 
 out of regard for her. In the nature of the. case the subject 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 148. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 155. Carpenter (Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 156) 
 observes that "the Jews had no particular reverence for virginity. . . . 
 Isaiah's words were never regarded by the Jews as a prediction of Mes- 
 siah's birth of a yirgin." See also Box, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, p. 220. 
 PhUo's teaching is too vague and at most implies divine generation for the 
 Messiah, not Virgin Birth. 
 
 ' Preface to Literature and Dogma. 
 
106 LUKE THE HISTORIAN ■ 
 
 was not, and is not, one for public discourse. Jesus made no 
 reference to tlie matter so far as we know. Soltau* is rather 
 fierce in his protest: "Whoever makes the further demand that 
 an evangelical Christian shall believe in the words ' conceived by 
 the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,' wittingly constitutes 
 himself a sharer in a sin against the Holy Spirit of the true 
 Gospel as transmitted to us by the apostles and their school." 
 But surely Soltau is a bit excited in these words. The simple 
 truth is that the only record in the Gospels gives the Virgin 
 Birth. Mark beguis with the public ministry and, of course, 
 has nothing at all on the subject. John writes after Matthew 
 and Luke and seems to refer to the Virgin Birth in John 1 : 14. 
 The reference is certainly to the Incarnation and it is not in- 
 consistent with the Virgm Birth. If it be asked why John 
 makes no explicit mention of the Virgin Birth, it may be 
 replied that he was content with what Matthew and Luke tell 
 and saw no occasion to add to what they narrate. There are 
 those who interpret John 1 : 14 as a denial of the Virgin Birth, 
 but that surely is a misinterpretation of John's language. Both 
 Matthew and Luke narrate the birth of Jesus as superhuman 
 without a human father. They give independent narratives, 
 but they agree on this crucial point. 
 
 We are concerned with Luke the physician. "Some day 
 we may know how a Greek physician came to write the story 
 of Bethlehem."" Luke as a physician had written his birth 
 reports (and death reports), but never one like this. He knew 
 the silly legends about the Csesars and the Greek gods and god- 
 desses. He has reverence for childhood and for motherhood. 
 He has the soul of the saint and the insight of the scientist. 
 He is perfectly conscious of the importance of this part of his 
 story, but he is not posing. There are no stage theatricals as 
 at the birth of Louis XIV at St. Germain. With matchless 
 art he pictures the Babe in the manger at Bethlehem. We 
 may be sure that this story came out of the Christian circle, 
 out of the inner circle. 
 
 2. Did Luke Believe His Narrative ? — ^The question is quite 
 pertinent. We are bound to say that he did. Hamack* has 
 no doubt of Luke's sincerity. He clearly thinks that he is 
 narrating facts, not pious legends. Hamack suggests that 
 
 ' The Virgin Birth, p. 65. = Naylor, The ExpostUrr, 1909. 
 
 ' Date o/ the Ads and the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 154 f. 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS 107 
 
 Luke may have been an adherent of John the Baptist before he 
 became a Christian, because of his knowledge of the birth of 
 the Baptist. That is quite unlikely, and Luke's two years in 
 Palestine, with headquarters at Csesarea, offer abundant oppor- 
 tunity for obtaining such information. Luke tells the Christ- 
 mas story with utter sincerity, sheer simplicity and transcen- 
 dent beauty. Christianity thus owes Luke a tremendous 
 debt. The influence of the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel 
 on the race has been incalculable. So far from being a mere 
 teUer of old wives' fables in chapters 1 and 2, Ramsay' holds 
 that "Luke attached the highest importance to this part of 
 his narrative." "The elaboration and detail of the first two 
 chapters of the Gospel form a sufficient proof that Luke recog- 
 nized the importance of the central incident in them." We 
 may argue, therefore, that as a historian of the first rank Luke 
 took particular pains with the birth of Jesus. His reputation 
 as a man of science was involved, as was his character as an 
 honest historian. Whether he translated Aramaic documents 
 or oral traditions or rewrote the whole in his own language, 
 Luke makes himself responsible for the narrative. 
 
 It is inconceivable that he put in these stories without due 
 reflection. He saw what was at stake and wrote them out 
 deliberately. He would not have done so if he had considered 
 them merely idle tales. He believed in the supernatural birth 
 of Jesus. Was he incompetent ? Was he superstitious ? Was 
 he credulous? Was he gullible? We may ask these questions 
 if we will. But we are not at liberty to question Luke's intel- 
 lectual honesty. He may have been mistaken. That is a 
 matter of opinion. But, at least, he is entitled to be heard 
 concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus on the assumption of his 
 own belief in that event with whatever weight his proved worth 
 as an accurate historian and his opinion as a medical expert of 
 his time may carry. Luke himself says "that he had inves- 
 tigated from their origin the facts which he is going to narrate." ^ 
 "St. Luke has been proved to be a writer of great historical 
 accuracy, and we may be certain that he admitted nothing 
 within his record of which he had not thoroughly tested the 
 truth."' The presimiption, then, is in favor of the truthful- 
 
 ' Was Christ Born at Bethlehem f, p. 73. 
 
 2 Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem f, p. 78. 
 
 • Grierson, Hastings's Owe Vol. B. D. 
 
108 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 ness of the Birth narrative so far as Luke's character as a 
 man and writer goes, unless, forsooth, the matter in question 
 is inherently impossible in itself. That condition we pass by 
 for the present, but it must be considered before we reach a 
 conclusion. For the moment Luke predisposes one to belie^^e 
 his narrative. ' 
 
 3. Where Did Luke Get His Information ? — In Chapter III, 
 The Sources of the Gospel, it was shown that Luke probably 
 obtained the facts about the birth of Jesus from Mary herself, 
 either directly or indirectly. It is quite possible that Mary 
 herself was still living in Palestine during the years 57 and 58, 
 when Luke was there.* If not, Luke could easily have talked 
 with some one who knew Mary's heart on this subject. Ram- 
 say thinks that the directness of the whole story implies oral 
 origin rather than formal autobiography. " There is a womanly 
 spirit in the whole narrative, which seems inconsistent with 
 the transmission from man to man, and which, moreover, is 
 an indication of Luke's character: he had marked sympathy 
 with women." ^ It is impossible to think that Luke deliberately 
 attempted to create the false impression by literary skill that 
 Mary was the source of his knowledge.* There were only two 
 persons who knew the facts concerning the supernatural birth 
 of Jesus. These were Mary and Joseph. 
 
 At first Mary alone knew. But Joseph had to know if he 
 was to be the protector of his espoused wife. Matthew's report 
 is from the standpoint of Joseph, and it is plain that Joseph 
 was disposed to put Mary away privily instead of making her a 
 public example according to law and custom (Matt. 1 : 19). 
 It is not stated in Matthew whether Joseph simply became 
 suspicious or whether he disbelieved the story of Mary, though 
 it is implied that she did not tell for a while. Note "she was 
 found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 1:19). Cer- 
 tainly Mary's predicament was awkward and embarrassing in 
 the extreme. The appearance of the angel of the Lord to 
 Joseph was necessary to clear her in Joseph's eyes (Matt. 
 1 : 20-25). Then Joseph was willing to bear the obloquy of 
 public reproach with Mary and to shield her as his wife. It 
 is plain from both Matthew and Luke that, outside of Mary's 
 confidence to Elizabeth, they kept their secret to themselves. 
 
 ' Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 88. ^ Ihid. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 78. 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS 109 
 
 It is undoubted that the neighbors in Nazareth regarded Jesus 
 as the son of Joseph and Mary. Talk would die down in the 
 course of time. Joseph planned to go back to Bethlehem on 
 his retiu-n from Egypt, possibly to avoid the gossip of Naz- 
 areth. But because of the change in Herod's will he came 
 back to Nazareth, for Antipas was to be preferred to Arche- 
 laus (Matt. 11 : 22). Mary could carry her head erect, for 
 she knew the facts and kept them hid in her heart (Luke 
 2 : 19, 51). It was enough that Joseph understood and trusted 
 her. The effort of Herod to kill the Babe would close Mary's 
 mouth all the tighter. Fortunately Mary would not hear all 
 the talk which reappears even in the Talmud. Any claim on 
 her part that her son was to be the Messiah would have made 
 matters worse. 
 
 But was Mary to remain silent always? Did she not owe 
 it to herself and to Joseph and to Jesus to tell the facts before 
 she died ? Both Mary and Joseph might die. Joseph appar- 
 ently did die before the ministry of Jesus, but not before telling 
 his story to some one, or drafting it so that Matthew ultimately 
 got hold of it. Jesus was now dead. Elizabeth had long 
 since died. Mary alone was left. She had a sacred responsi- 
 bility to clear her own honor.^ Clearly, then, sooner or later, 
 Mary told some one, either her intimate friend Joanna, or 
 Luke, the sympathetic physician who would understand her 
 inmost heart. We can be gratefid that she revealed the secrets 
 of her soul. "In these chapters, in short, we seem looking 
 through a glass into Mary's very heart. Her purity of soul, 
 her delicate reserve, her inspired exaltation, her patient com- 
 mitting of herself into God's hands to vindicate her honor, her 
 deep, brooding, thoughtful spirit — ^how truth-like and worthy 
 of the fact is the whole picture." ^ 
 
 It is not hard to imagine the intense interest with which 
 Luke first listened to this story from Mary or read her narra- 
 tive of her unexampled experience. He satisfied himself of its 
 truthfulness by all the tests that were open to him. His Greek 
 science and Christian theology offered objections and raised 
 diflBculties, we may be sure. After accepting Mary's r^ort of 
 her experiences Luke was naturally anxious to do justice to 
 Mary and to Jesus. Doctor Len G. Broughton, of Knoxville, 
 
 1 Orr, The Virgin Birth 0/ Christ, p. 86. 
 
 2 lUd., p. 84. 
 
110 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 himself long a physician of skill, remarked ' to me that Luke 
 naturally gives Mary's version of the event because that is the 
 practice of the physician. He talks to the mother before he 
 makes his birth-report. 
 
 4. But Why Did Luke Tell It At All ?— Why not keep silent 
 on the subject as the Apostles did in their preaching and as 
 Mark did in his Gospel? It is customary to say that Luke 
 wished to write a complete life of Jesus and not a mere sketch 
 of his ministry and death, as Mark has done. It is more 
 complete but it is not a full life of Christ. Luke adds the 
 Birth narrative and gives only one glimpse of Jesus thereafter, 
 the visit to Jerusalem of the twelve-year-old boy, till his appear- 
 ance by the Jordan. The crux of the matter is the supemat- 
 iu"al birth of Jesus. He evidently felt that this must be told 
 whatever else was left out. And he naturally tells it first of 
 all. 
 
 It is usually said that the Logia of Jesus (Q) did not contain 
 an account of the birth of Jesus. This is probably true, 
 though it cannot be affirmed positively. Matthew and Luke 
 do, indeed, give different versions of the birth of Jesus, but it 
 does not follow that Luke was not acquainted with that of 
 Matthew. Q may very well have included matter that is 
 represented by either Matthew or Luke and not used by 
 both Gospels. Q was chiefly discourses. But both Matthew 
 and Luke, apart from Q, may have known the story from 
 Joseph's standpoint as Matthew tells it. It is wholly possible 
 that Luke knew the Gospel of Matthew. "It is now most 
 probable that Luke had heard the ^tory which Matthew gives, 
 and it would have been easy to fit this into his own narrative 
 without disturbing either account. But they do not rest on 
 equal authority; and Luke would not mix the two."^ If 
 Joseph's story was already known among the disciples and 
 written down in Q or in Matthew, all the more Luke would feel 
 called upon to give Mary's side of the story which had never 
 been written in a Gospel and which was not generally known 
 from the very nature of the case. He would do this with no 
 thought of reflection on or correction of the Joseph version. 
 Ramsay* thinks that he prefers Mary's version because he 
 
 1 At Northfield, August, 1919. 
 
 2 Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 79. 
 'Ibid. 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS 111 
 
 had it on the highest authority, from Mary herself. The con- 
 fidence of Mary to Luke, if given personally, he took as a 
 sacred trust. 
 
 It is plain that Luke's purpose is different from that of 
 Matthew whether he had Matthew's story or not. Matthew 
 writes to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. 
 He gives the legal genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, his legal 
 father, though it is made plain that Joseph is not the actual 
 father of Jesus. Even the Sinaitic Syriac, which says in 
 Matt. 1 : 16 that Joseph begat Jesus, contradicts that state- 
 ment ia 1 : 18-20 by retaining the conception of Jesus by the 
 Holy Ghost and the refusal of Joseph to keep his troth with 
 Mary till reassured by the angel of the Lord. It is evident 
 that some scribe, probably Ebionite or Cerinthina Gnostic, 
 changed the text in 1 : 16 to get rid of the superhuman birth 
 and deity of Jesus, but failed to alter 1 : 18-20. The lineage 
 of Joseph, given by Matthew, was the only way for Jesus to 
 have a legal genealogy from the Jewish standpoint. But Luke 
 is not writing to convince Jews that Jesus is the Jewish Mes- 
 siah. He is writing for the Gentile world, to prove to all men 
 everywhere that Jesus of Nazareth is the Saviour of the world. 
 All tibat Matthew has about the birth of Jesus may be true, but 
 it is beside the mark for Luke's purpose. Luke dedicates his 
 Gospel to Theophilus, but he has his eye on the Grseco-Roman 
 world. Hence he gives the actual genealogy of Jesus through 
 his mother Mary. He does not even combine her story with 
 that of Joseph, but gives hers alone. The two accounts sup- 
 plement each other in a way not possible if both are romances. 
 "No two imaginary portraits ever agreed unless one copied 
 the other— which is evidently not the case here." * Luke had 
 lived in Macedonia, where women had more freedom than in 
 most places at that time. Luke shows himself the friend of 
 women both in the Gospel and in the Acts. So Luke has 
 every reason for giving the story of the Nativity as he got it 
 from Mary. His narrative comes from a woman who is He- 
 brew and who is saturated with Hebrew thought, spirit and 
 imagery.* 
 
 It is sometimes objected that the Birth narratives in Luke 
 and Matthew are legendary because they do not appear in 
 
 1 Sweet, art. "Mary" in Int. St. Bible Encyd. 
 
 2 Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p. 13. 
 
112 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Mark and John. The objection about Mark is quite beside the 
 point, since he begins with the Baptist's ministry. His work 
 is a torso. As to John, the case is different. John evidently 
 was familiar with the accounts of both Matthew and Luke. 
 "But John, in particular, assumes that his readers know the 
 facts recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, and his work is an 
 unintelligible phenomenon in literature unless this is recog- 
 nized."' It is a gross misunderstanding of John 1 : 14, "the 
 Word became flesh," * to say that John here ignores or denies 
 the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Indeed, his language only becomes 
 intelligible when we see that he has that fact in mind. John 
 in his Prologue has given a philosophical statement of the 
 Incarnation of Christ under the term Logos. He has taken 
 the Memra of the Hebrew, the Logos of the Stoics and Philo, 
 the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, and has put 
 them together in one grand conception on a par with the Jew- 
 ish idea of Messiah.' The Logos is personal and pre-existent 
 and divine (John 1 : 1) before his Incarnation (1 : 14). Thus 
 he becomes "God only begotten" (1 : 18) and is in the bosom 
 of the Father, the true Interpretation (Exegesis*) of the Father, 
 the Son of God in the flesh. Jesus is the Son of God (1 : 34, 49). 
 Here John says nothing, it is true, about Mary, or Joseph, or 
 the angel Gabriel, or the Holy Ghost. He gives the picture of 
 the eternal Son of God becoming flesh, not entering into flesh 
 from the outside and not seeming to be flesh as the Docetics 
 taught, but actual union of God. and man. Every word that 
 John employs is in perfect harmony with the records in Mat- 
 thew and Luke. Indeed, by implication John denies that 
 Jesus is the actual son of Joseph. 
 
 We do not know whether Paul was acquainted with the 
 birth narrative in Luke's Gospel. There is no reason for it 
 
 I Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 98. 
 
 ' If it be objected that John's failure to speak of the Holy Spirit shows 
 that he did not believe that the Incarnation was due to the Holy Spirit, 
 the answer is that by the same reasoning his failure to mention Mary here 
 might show disbelief in her as the Mother of Jesus, but for later mention 
 as his Mother. What can be truthfully said is that the historical details 
 of the birth of Jesus are not considered by John germane to his argument 
 covering the Incarnation [of the Logos, a philosophical concept stated in 
 broad general terms. 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS 113 
 
 not to be so if the Gospel was written in Csesarea. He may or 
 may not have heard of the Virgin Birth of Jesus before that 
 time. In Gal. 4 : 4 Paul speaks of Christ as "born of woman," 
 which, of course, is true of all men. But his language allows 
 the Virgm Birth. In Romans 1 : 3 f . Paul presents the human 
 nature of Christ, "who was born of the seed of David accord- 
 ing to the flesh," and the divine nature also, "who was declared 
 to be the Son of God with power," language certainly in har- 
 mony with the Virgin Birth. It cannot be complained that 
 Paid gives no details on this subject. Why should he do so? 
 The language of Paul is not decisive either way. It may well 
 be that he knew nothing at all about the Virgin Birth though 
 he says nothmg that is inconsistent with it. If he was famiUar 
 with the narratives in Matthew or Luke or with the fact itself, 
 there was no necessity for his use of the fact in connection with 
 the Resurrection or with the doctrine of the Atonement. The 
 real humanity and the real deity of Christ are the pertinent 
 facts for Paul's argument. He was not giving infancy narra- 
 tives, as Matthew and Luke did. 
 
 5. Is the Virgin Birth Credible To-day ? — Can a modern man 
 accept the story of the birth of Jesus? Each age is sure of 
 itself and credidous of others. Our own is characterized by a 
 species of cocksureness in its own wisdom that has no foimda- 
 tion in matter of fact. This question of the Virgin Birth of 
 Jesus, attested by both Matthew and Luke in two independent 
 narratives, has been attacked from every standpoint. 
 
 On scientific grounds it is argued that it is impossible. At 
 least that argument was once made. Modern science is 
 familiar with parthenogenesis or "virgin birth" in the lower 
 forms of life.^ Hence science cannot set aside the Virgin 
 Birth of Jesus. However, Luke does not present the birth of 
 Jesus as in accord with nature. He distinctly asserts that it 
 was due to the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Ghost, 
 like the Shekinah or Presence of God. It is miracle that we 
 have, not natmre, but miracle cannot be ruled out unless it is 
 ruled out everywhere. To do that rules out God and leaves 
 
 1 See interesting axticle on "ParthenogeneBis" in the New International 
 Eneydopcedia, where a fairly full discussion of the subject appears. The 
 aphis (plant-louse), gall-gnats and other lower forms of animal life show 
 examples of parthenogenesis. Loeb has succeeded in developing sea- 
 urchins in unfertilized eggs by artificial stimulation. 
 
114 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 us with materialism, the biggest miracle of all. Besides, men 
 of science to-day do believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, just as 
 Luke did before them. And he was also a man of science. 
 
 It is objected that Luke has simply followed blindly the 
 heathen myths which tell of gods becoming men. Some have 
 foxmd analogues in Babylonian mythology, some in Greek 
 mythology, some in Jewish theology. But none of them gives 
 us a real Virgin Birth. They each contradict the other. No 
 real connection with Christianity is shown. "The Jewish 
 theories confute the Gentile; the Gentile the Jewish; the new 
 Babylotiian theory destroys both and itself perishes with 
 them." ^ Harnack,^ who counts the story as legend, yet knocks 
 the "myth" theories in the head: "Nothing that is mytho- 
 logical in the sense of Greek or Oriental myth is to be found 
 in these accoimts; all here is in the spirit of the Old Testament, 
 and most of it reads like a passage from the historical books of 
 that ancient volume." 
 
 It is objected that the very beauty and charm of Luke's 
 narrative proves that it is all a legend. "That, as an a -priori 
 statement, I deny. S. Luke may be artistic, but so is God." ' 
 The point is that the persons and the poems in Luke 1 and 2 
 suit the actual events eyen better than they suit Luke's story. 
 The steps of God have a rhythm that puts to shame our noblest 
 measiu-es. If God is at work in the birth of Jesus, everything 
 else is simple enough. The supreme art of Luke lies in telling 
 the story as it was. Ramsay* has biting sarcasm for critics 
 that cannot be satisfied: "Luke has already been proved in the 
 process of discovery to be correct in almost every detail of his 
 statement" (in Luke 2 : 1-3). "The story is now established, 
 and the plea now is that Luke's story is a legend because it is 
 true to facts." We do not have to say that Luke had the 
 same concepts that Mary had at each point. "That there was 
 a more anthropomorphic picture of the messenger in Luke's 
 mind than there was in Mary's I feel no doubt. Yet I believe 
 that Luke was translating as exactly as he could into Greek 
 that which he had heard. He expresses and thinks as a Greek 
 that which was thought and expressed by a Hebrew."' I 
 
 ' Orr, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, p. 181. 
 
 ^ Date of the Ads and Synoptic Gospels, p. 156. 
 
 ' Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 166. 
 
 ^ Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 226. 
 
 ^ Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p. 13. Cf. p. 255. 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS 115 
 
 heartily agree with Carpenter^ when he says of these events: 
 " I believe that they were beyond the power of either Luke or 
 Mary to invent, though their meaning was not beyond the 
 power of Mary to apprehend. That experience, described so 
 briefly, so simply, so plainly, yet without a single word that 
 could offend the most delicate purity, I take to be the Con- 
 ception of the Holy Child." 
 
 It is even objected that the silence of Jesus concernLag his 
 divine birth discredits the narrative in Matthew and Luke. 
 That is an utterly absurd demand. From the nature of the 
 case Jesus could not say anything on that subject. But when 
 only twelve years old he does reveal a consciousness that God 
 is his Father in a peculiar sense (Luke 2 : 49). He often in- 
 sisted on this point (John 5: 18; 8:19; 10:25) in a way to 
 enrage his enemies, who finally accused him of blasphemy for 
 this very thmg (Matt. 26 : 63 f.). 
 
 It is not claimed that all the difficulty concerning the Virgin 
 Birth of Jesus has been removed. We live in a world that has 
 recovered the sense of wonder. The greatness of God over- 
 shadows aU. The discovery of radium has made men of 
 science humble. Astronomy has enlarged our ideas of God. 
 Einstein has modified Galileo and Newton. Scientists gaze 
 into the heavens with fresh awe. And even men to-day can 
 fly in the air. Loeb claims that by artificial stimulus he has 
 made fertile infertile eggs of some forms of sea-life (the sea- 
 urchin). If Loeb can do this, cannot God? "God laid his 
 hand on the deepest spring of man's being when His Son came 
 to us ' conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.' " ^ 
 All things considered, it seems to me that the Virgin Birth of 
 Jesus is overwhelmingly attested. We have seen the strength 
 of the witness of Luke and the independent testimony of 
 Matthew. John's Gospel really supports them. There is 
 nothing contrary to this view in the New Testament save the 
 erroneous reading of the Sinaitic Syriac for Matt. 1 : 16, which 
 is itself contradicted by its own text for Matt. 1 : 18-20. 
 
 But the question goes deeper than the witness of dociunents 
 or the interpretation of Luke. Carpenter* puts it fairly: 
 "Matters of this sort, involving belief or disbelief in the doc- 
 
 > Op. cit., p. 168. 
 
 ' Father Paul Bull, God and Our Soldiers, p. 244, 
 
 * Op. cU., p. 158, 
 
116 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 trine of the Virgin Birth, are not determined, and cannot be 
 determined, by sheer literary and historical criticism." 
 
 We are confronted by the fact of Christ, the most tremen- 
 dous fact in human history. Ail efforts to prove that Jesus 
 never Uved, but is a myth, have failed signally. All efforts to 
 separate "Jesus" and "Christ" have likewise failed from the 
 days of Cermthus with his "Mon Christ" commg upon "Jesus" 
 at his baptism to the recent "Jesus or Christ" controversy.* 
 The historic Jesus and the Christ of faith confront us in Mark 
 and in Q (the Logia of Jesus), our eariiest known documents 
 concerning Jesus. Besides, Christianity is the vital force for 
 human uplift in the world. Christ to-day is the hope of the 
 race. 
 
 Thinking men have to account for the fact and the force of 
 Christ. We have the view of Luke. It does account for the 
 phenomenon of Jesus. If we reject it, we must have an alter- 
 native view. There are those who think that the natural 
 birth of Jesus meets all the demands of a real Incarnation and 
 who are disposed to reject the reports in Matthew and Luke as 
 legends or myths. Every one must speak what he sees on 
 this subject. For myself, apart from setting aside these two 
 narratives and the consequent slur on Mary, who was not yet 
 married, the philosophical difficulty is measurably enhanced 
 by denial of the Virgin Birth. That view gives us the picture 
 of a God-possessed man, but not quite the essential union of 
 God and man. The Cerinthian Gnostic held that the divine 
 Christ came upon the man Jesus at his baptism and left him 
 on the Cross. 
 
 Carpenter** has no doubt that the "Incarnation principle is 
 more clearly exhibited in the doctrme of a Virgin Birth than 
 in any other." For myself I cannot conceive of a real Incar- 
 nation of God in any other way. Some men think that they 
 can conceive of an Incarnation of God in Jesus even if Joseph 
 was his actual father. They are certainly honest in thefr view, 
 but it does not satisfy one. It greatly increases the difficulties 
 for me. Sir W. F. Barrett » quotes F. C. S. Schiller as saying: 
 "A mind unwilling to believe, or even undesirous to believe, 
 our weightiest evidence must ever fail to impress. It will 
 insist on taking the evidence in bits and rejecting item by item. 
 
 ' Cf . Hihbert Journal Supplement for 1909. ^ Op. dt., p. 159. 
 
 ^ Preface to On the Threshold of the Unseen, 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS 117 
 
 The man who announces his mtention of waiting until a 
 single bit of absolutely conclusive evidence turns up, is really 
 a man Tiot open to conviction, and if he be a logician, he knows 
 it." 
 
 The testimony of Luke concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus 
 is part of the larger problem of Jesus as the Son of God in 
 human flesh. That question raises the greatest of all issues, 
 the fact and the nature of God, of man, of sin, of redemption,* 
 of law, of miracle, of life, of matter, of spirit. The angel 
 Gabriel said to Mary: "Wherefore also that which is to be 
 bom shall be called holy" (Luke 1:35). Peter says that 
 "he did no sin" (I Peter 2:22). John asserts that "in him 
 was no sm" (I John 3:5). Paul declares that "he knew no 
 sin" (11 Cor. 5 : 21). The author of Hebrews (4 : 15) says that 
 Jesus was "without sin." Jesus himself claimed sinlessness 
 (John 8:46). "This problem of an absolutely Holy One in 
 our sinful humanity: How did it come about? Can nature 
 explain it?"^ Bruce* has the answer: "A sinless man is as 
 much a miracle in the moral world as a Virgin Birth is a mira- 
 cle in the physical world." It remains true that the best 
 explanation of the whole truth about Jesus lies in the inter- 
 pretation given by Luke in the opening chapters of his Gospel. 
 
 ^ The sinlessnees of Jesus is not without moral value if he is God as 
 well as man. He fought temptation, as we know, and kept himself free 
 from sin. He had a clean start, and because of his sinlessness did not 
 have to make atonement for sin of his own. 
 
 2 Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, p. 191. 
 
 ' Apologetics, p. 410. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE ROMANCE OF THE CENSUS IN LUKE'S GOSPEL i 
 
 "This was the first enroknent made when Quirinius was governor 
 of Syria. And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his 
 own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city 
 of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called 
 Bethlehem, because he was of the house anrf family of David; to 
 enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great 
 with child" (Luke 2 : 2-5). 
 
 Was Ltike bom in Bethlehem? Did the Romans have a 
 periodical census? Was Quirinius twice governor of Syria? 
 Is Luke a credible historian ? 
 
 1. A Crucial Passage. — Luke 2 : 1-7 has been furiously 
 assailed by the critics as a bundle of blunders, if not worse. 
 "Wilcken speaks of the passage Luke 2:1-3 as 'the Lukan 
 legend' (das Lukas-legende)."'' The theological critics were 
 more severe than historians like Mommsen and Gardthausen. 
 It is only fair to say that we owe the clearing up of the com- 
 plicated issues in this passage to Ramsay just as we can thank 
 Hawkins and Hamack for strengthening the case for Luke's 
 use of Mark and the Logia and Hobart for the light on the 
 medical language of Luke. Ramsay* tells how a German 
 critic sharply challenged his championship of Luke in St 
 Paul the Traveller by asking this query: "If Luke is a great 
 historian, what would the author of this book make of Luke 
 2:1-3?" Ramsay adds that "nothing more was needed. 
 This brief question was sufficient. It was at that time ad- 
 mitted on all hands that the statements in that passage are 
 entirely unhistorical. Not only did theological critics brush 
 them aside as incredible, every one that had any acquaintance 
 with Roman imperial history regarded them as false and due 
 either to blundering or to pure invention."* The issue was 
 put up squarely to Ramsay, who had ranked Luke as a his- 
 torian of the first rank. "A number of the German critics, 
 
 » The Biblical Emeu), October, 1920. 
 s Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 225. 
 * Bearing of BecerU Discovery, p. 223. * JUd, 
 
 .118 
 
THE CENSUS IN LUKE'S GOSPEL 119 
 
 followed by many outside of Germany, used until recently to 
 say without hesitation that Augustus never issued any decree 
 ordering a census, that there never was under the empire any 
 regular system of census, that where any casual census was 
 held the presence of the wife was not required but only of the 
 husband, and that his presence was never required at his origi- 
 nal home." ^ Luke said all these things which the modern 
 critics flatly deny. 
 
 Who is right, Luke or the critics? The unfair attitude 
 toward Luke has been the assiunption that he was bound to 
 be wrong because he stood unsupported by other ancient 
 authorities. It is not so much that they contradict Luke as 
 that they do not give the items that he records. It is coolly 
 assumed that Luke is of no value as a historian when he stands 
 alone. As a matter of fact, it is precisely when the historian 
 stands alone that his real worth as a writer is put to the test. 
 We see then whether he is a mere traditionalist or has made 
 original investigation for the facts. "Their hostility to Luke 
 arose out of their refusal to admit the superhuman element 
 in the government of the world."* This prejudice led Baur 
 and the Tubingen school to deny that Luke wrote the Gospel 
 and the Acts and to claim that the books were late party pam- 
 phlets of the second century. 
 
 Even now the same distrust of Luke as a reliably writer sur- 
 vives on the part of some who accept the Lukan authorship 
 and the early date of both Gospel and Acts. There is a dis- 
 tinct "return to tradition" on both these points, a movement 
 led by Hamack and followed by men like Kirsopp Lake and 
 C C. Torrey. "The real significance of the 'retiu-n to tradi- 
 tion' in literary criticism consists in the support that it affords 
 to those who have not decided to reject the supernaturalistic 
 view of Christian origins."* The great majority of radical 
 critics have refused to follow Harnack in his conclusions about 
 Luke's writings. Those who do follow him refuse to admit 
 the reality of the miraculous element. But it has become 
 difficult to discredit Luke on that ground if he wrote within 
 twenty years of the events. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 225. 
 
 2 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 225. 
 
 ' Machen, "Recent Criticism of the Book of Acts" (Princeton Review, 
 October, 1919, p. 592). 
 
120 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 But did Luke make a bad bungle of the facts in the Gospel 
 2 : 1-7 ? To the testimony let us turn. 
 
 2. The Two Bethlehems. — It is actually charged that Luke 
 has confused the Bethlehem in Galilee (Zebulon) about seven 
 miles northeast of Nazareth with Bethlehem of Judea. Usener 
 makes this charge* and urges also that the author of the Fourth 
 Gospel (7 : 41 f .) was ignorant of the fact that Jesus was bom 
 in Bethlehem of Judea. This is surely a curious argiunent 
 when the people in John 7 : 42 quote the passage in Micah 5 : 2 
 with the prophecy that the Messiah was to be bom there. 
 There are two Bethlehems,* to be sure, but it does not follow 
 that Luke is wrong. He is supported by Matt. 2 : 6. The two 
 distinct traditions (from Joseph and from Mary) locate the 
 birth of Jesus at Bethlehem in Judea. It is true that Mark 
 is silent as he is about the fact of the birth itself. We have 
 seen that John' assumes a knowledge of Matthew and Luke. 
 But for Matthew and Luke one might suppose (cf. Luke 2 : 39) 
 that Jesus was born at Nazareth. But Luke is held to be dis- 
 credited on this point because of his alleged blunders concern- 
 ing the census and Quirinius, but without any real basis in 
 fact. 
 
 3. "The Whole World." — ^Liike is charged with historical 
 Idoseness in saying that "all the world"* was to be enrolled. 
 He might at least be allowed the use of a harmless hyperbole 
 in the popular language of the time. Surely, no one wduld 
 accuse Luke of meaning that Augustus meant his decree to 
 apply to India and China or even to Parthia and western 
 Germany, where Rome did not rule. The civilized world at 
 that time was the Roman world, the Mediterranean world. 
 Luke reports the Jewish rabbis in Thessalonica as accusing 
 Paul and his company of having "turned the world upside 
 down" (Acts 17 : 63), meaning, of course, the Roman Empire. 
 Demetrius in Ephesus called a meeting of the workmen and 
 roused them to fury by saying that Paul brought mto disrepute 
 the worship of Diana, "whom all Asia and the world worship- 
 peth" (Acts 19:27). It is pettifogging criticism to pick at 
 Luke's language in the Gospel (2 : 1) on this point. 
 
 • Encycl. Biblica. 
 
 * Cf. Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, p. 25. 
 
 3 Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem f, p. 98. 
 
THE CENSUS IN LUKE'S GOSPEL 121 
 
 4. Herod's Kingdom. — Ramsay* makes a sober argmnent to 
 prove from Strabo and Appian that the subject or vassal 
 kmgdoms were as really under the Roman rule as the prov- 
 inces (imperial and senatorial). It is perfectly plain that the 
 kingdom of Herod in Palestine was required to pay tribute to 
 Rome, but critics deny that the decree of Augustus applied 
 to Syria, and if it did, not to Palestine. Herod was in high 
 favor with Augustus, but he came near losing his crown and 
 his head when he sent Nicolaus of Damascus to Augustus, to 
 defend him against the charge of treason against Rome made 
 by Syllffius in the matter of the Arabian uprising.'' Herod was, 
 after all, only a vassal king. Herod knew after that beyond 
 question that his was a dependent kingdom, as were all king- 
 doms in the Roman Empire. But if the order of Augustus 
 for a general census came shortly after his estrangement, 
 Herod would naturally be a bit reluctant to respond readily. 
 It was a bitter pill, no doubt, for Herod and for the Jews to 
 swallow, for it was a public and general acknowledgment of 
 subjection to Rome. 
 
 5. The Census. — In particular it has been objected that 
 Augustus never ordered a general census of the empire. Ram- 
 say' is careful to note precisely what Luke does say. He does 
 not represent Augustus as ordering "that a single census should 
 be held of the whole Roman world," but "there went out a 
 decree from Csesar Augustus that all the world should be 
 enrolled."* Ramsay properly insists on the present tense of 
 " should be enrolled." Malalas^ wrongly uses the aorist tense 
 in referring to what Luke says. "It is not stated or implied 
 by Luke that the system was actually put into force univer- 
 sally. The principle of universal enrolments for the empire 
 was laid down by Augustus; but imiversal application of the 
 principle is not mentioned. That point was a matter of indif- 
 ference to Luke." * But, while this is true, the natural infer- 
 ence from Luke's words is that the principle was applied and 
 that there was a regular system of periodic censuses not only 
 
 1 Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, pp. llS-124. 
 
 2 Cf. Josephus, Ant. XV, x. 
 
 2 Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 123. 
 
 * eifq}Sev S6-{fia itapi jiatoapo? AOYofio^o" ixoyp&^ecGai xaaav T^v oIxouiiIvtjv. 
 
 ■* Quoted by Ramsay, ibid., p. 124. (iicoYpa<i>^vac. 
 
 " Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 125. 
 
122 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 for Syria and Palestine, but for the whole of the empire. Be- 
 sides, we now know, what Ramsay did not in 1898, that Augus- 
 tus's bold governniental plan for a census was successful. We 
 have evidence for its operation in both West and East, though 
 most for the East.^ 
 
 But twenty years ago we had no knowledge of such a period- 
 ical census system in the Roman Empire. "The idea that 
 such a system could have existed in the East, without leaving 
 any perceptible signs of its existence in recorded history, would 
 have been treated with ridicule, as the dream of a fanatical 
 devotee, who could believe anything and invent anything in 
 the support of the testimony of Luke." ^ But epigraphic and 
 archaeological research has proven this very thing, and Luke 
 stands vindicated before all the world against a generation of 
 infallible critics who applied the argiunent from silence against 
 him with deadly effect. Was there such a periodical enrol- 
 ment in the Syrian province? Was Christ bom at Bethlehem 
 at the time of the first of the series? Ramsay* frankly admits 
 that Luke's "credit as a historian is staked on this issue." 
 Luke not only speaks of "the first enrolment"* in Luke 2 : 2, 
 but in Acts 5 : 37 he speaks of "the days of the enrolment."^ 
 In Acts 5: 37 Luke means by "the census" the great census, 
 "the epoch-making census taken about A. D. 7, when Judea 
 had just been incorporated in the Roman Empire as part of 
 the province of Syria."* Luke is clearly committed to the 
 idea of a distinction between the first census in Luke 2 : 2 and 
 the great census in Acts 5 : 37. Is he correct ? 
 
 The proof is at hand. Ramsay'' shows that already Clement 
 of Alexandria "knew of some system of enrolment, either in 
 the empire as a whole, or at least in the province of Syria. His 
 
 ' Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 246. 
 
 2 Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem f, p. 126. 
 
 » Ibid., p. 127. 
 
 ' diuoTpa^rf) xpiroi. A very large number of the papyri are census papers. 
 The oldest certainly dated is probably A. D. 34, but P. Oxy., 11, 254 
 "probably belongs to A. D. 20" (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 
 p. 60). Grenfell and Hunt think that P. Oxy., II., 256 may even belong 
 to A. D. 6. A very early instance of the annual household enrolment, 
 Kopt' oEjiIav (ixoYpa<M, is seen in P. Petr., Ill, 59 (d), of the Ptolemaic period. 
 
 ^ Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 127. 
 ' Ibid., p. 128. Clement's words {Strom, 1, 21, 147) mean this: Kts lupfiiTov 
 Ix^Xeusgev i%o-{fa^q ysviaOai. 
 
THE CENSUS IN LUKE'S GOSPEL 123 
 
 use of the plural and the word 'first' force this inference upon 
 us." Clement of Alexandria lived, of course, in Egypt and 
 knew conditions there. Did he have any other information 
 than that which Luke gives us? He makes the definite state- 
 ment that the system of enrolments in Syria began with the 
 one at which the birth of Jesus took place.^ 
 
 It had been suggested that the "Indictional Periods" of 
 fifteen years, known in the fourth centiu-y (see Rainer Papyri), 
 began with the first census of Quirinius.^ If so, the first cen- 
 sus would come B. C. 3. But three scholars,^ one after the 
 other, made the discovery that fourteen years was the cycle 
 for the enrolments in Egypt in the early Roman empire. The 
 same Greek word occurs in the papyri that Luke employs for 
 "enrolment." * The actual census papers have been found for 
 these enrolments in Egypt. "It is proved that enrolments 
 were made for the years ending in the summer of A. D. 90, 104, 
 118, 132 and so on till 230."^ No papyrus as yet shows a 
 census for A. D. 76 under Vespasian, but it is obvious that one 
 was held. 
 
 "Actual census papers have been found of the periodic year 
 62 (and also 34) after Christ. Indirect references occur to the 
 census of A. D. 20 and 48. Grenfell and Hunt rightly argue 
 that Augustus must have originated this cycle. Beyond this 
 there is no certainty, and we must await the discovery of fresh 
 material." ^ The next census would be A. D. 6, the one that 
 Luke mentions in Acts 5 : 37. The first census (Luke 2 : 2) 
 would then come B. C. 8. An enrolment paper has been found 
 in Egypt with the same oflBcials that belong to the sixth year 
 of Tiberius. "Hence the paper belongs to the census of 
 A. D. 20 and proves conclusively my theory as to the origin 
 of the Periodic Enrolments from Augustus." ^ Surely, after the 
 overwhelming evidence of the papyri on the periodical enrol- 
 ments in Egypt, one hardly has the hardihood to accuse Luke 
 of error in mentioning the first two, for which as yet we have 
 
 1 Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 129. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 130. 
 
 'Kenyon, Classical Review, March, 1893, p. 110; Wilcken, Hermes, 
 1893, pp. 203 ff.; Viesreck, PhUologus, 1893, pp. 219 ff. 
 
 6 Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 132. 
 ' Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 256. 
 ' Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethkhem f, p. x. 
 
124 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 no papyri data. The inference is now wholly on Luke's side 
 and in his favor. The Augustan census system^ has been 
 established by irrefragable evidence. 
 
 It is true that B. C. 8 comes too soon for the other evidence 
 for the birth of Jesus, which pomts to B. C. 6-5 as the probable 
 time. But it has to be remembered that in Egypt and Asia 
 Minor the year began, not January 1, as in Rome, "but on 
 some day in the late summer and autumn." ^ We have seen 
 that Herod sat uneasily on his throne in Judea. He had to 
 please both Augustus and the Jews. The Jews hated the 
 Roman yoke and Roman customs and held tenaciously to 
 their own traditions. The second census after the deposition 
 of Archelaus in A. D. 6 caused incipient insurrection against 
 Rome, as Josephus tells us {Ant. XVIII, 1 : 1). Hence it is 
 more than probable that the census was slow in moving off in 
 Palestine. Herod would postpone it as long as he could and 
 until brought to time by Augustus. The first census, besides, 
 would be harder to execute on time. Ramsay' tells us that 
 "the first enrolment in Syria was made in the year 8-7 B. C, 
 but a consideration of the situation in Syria and Palestine 
 about that time will show that the enrolment in Herod's 
 Kingdom was probably delayed for some time later." Besides, 
 Herod was probably a year or more in putting it through after 
 it was started in Palestine. There is, therefore, no real difficulty 
 as to the date. The new discoveries concerning the cycle of 
 the Augustan census will allow a date around 6-5 B. C., and 
 that is in accord with what we know otherwise concerning the 
 date of Christ's birth. Turner in his article on "Chronology 
 of the New Testament" (Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible) 
 concludes by five converging lines of evidence that 7-6 B. C. 
 is the probable date of the birth of Jesus. Luke has met a 
 trimnphant vindication in the fact of the census cycle under 
 Augustus and Christ's birth at the time of the first. But the 
 critics are not yet done with this famous passage in Luke 2 : 1-7. 
 
 6. The Enrolment by Households. — ^Luke says (2:3): "And 
 all went to enroll themselves, every one to his own city." It is 
 charged that, even if there was a Roman census by Augustus, 
 
 'Ramsay devotes Chap. XX to this subject {Bearing of Recent Dis- 
 covery, pp. 255-274). 
 ' Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 255. 
 ' Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem f, p. 174. 
 
THE CENSUS IN LUKE'S GOSPEL 125 
 
 the people would not have to go to their homes for the enrol- 
 ment to be made. And even if Joseph went, he did not have 
 to take Mary, "to enrol himself with Mary who was betrothed 
 to him" (2:5). So the critics made merry with Luke's pious 
 fiction and legend to make it appear that Jesus was born at 
 Bethlehem in Judea instead of in Nazareth.^ Plummer in his 
 great Commentary on Luke in 1896 stands by Luke's veracity, 
 though he is not able to show that it is true (p. 46): "How 
 Bethlehem came to be the Birthplace of Jesus Christ, although 
 Nazareth was the Home of His Parents. This explanation has 
 exposed Luke to an immense amount of criticism, which has 
 been expressed and sifted in a manner that has produced a 
 voluminous literature." 
 
 But once again Luke is vindicated in his view that it was 
 a household enrolment. The periodic enrolment shown in 
 Egypt ^ was by households. The Romans had the annual 
 enrolments for property valuations as we do, but every four- 
 teen years the enrolment by households took place, like our 
 ten-year census, in which one "gave a complete emmieration 
 of all individuals who lived in the house, children, relatives, 
 etc. In one case twenty-seven persons are enumerated in one 
 paper by a householder." * 
 
 But why did Joseph and Mary and all the rest go to their 
 homes ? We take our census in the homes as the Romans did. 
 Well, for one thing, it was done in Egypt. In Deissmann's 
 Light from the Ancient East (1910, tr., pp. 268 ff.) the proof is 
 found "that this was no mere figment of St. Luke or his author- 
 ity, but that similar things took place in his age." Deissmann 
 adds: "Perhaps the most remarkable discovery of this kind 
 in the new texts is a parallel found some time ago to the state- 
 ment in Luke 2 : 3, which has been so much questioned on the 
 strength of mere book learning." It is an edict of G. Vibius 
 Maximus, governor of Egypt, 104 A. D.: "The enrolment by 
 household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for 
 any cause are outside their homes to return to their domestic 
 hearths, that they may also accomplish the customary dispen- 
 sation of enrolment and continue steadfastly in the husbandry 
 
 * So Loisy, LeslSvangUes synoptigues, I, p. 169, calls it "un anachronisme" 
 "pour faire naltre le Christ dans la patrie de David." 
 ^ The title is always iTcoypa^ii xax' otxfocv. 
 ' Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 146. 
 
126 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 that belongeth to them." This is certainly a most amazing 
 vindication of the record in Luke. Deissmann (p. 269) com- 
 ments on the "cultm-al parallelism between Egypt and the 
 birthplace of Christianity." 
 
 It is really not necessary to give further proof of Luke's 
 accuracy on this score. But Ramsay makes a sharp distinc- 
 tion between the enrolment in Luke 2 : 1-7 and that in Acts 
 5 : 37. The latter was a census and a valuation of property 
 because Palestine was now in A. D. 6 made a Roman province. 
 "But the census of Herod was tribal and Hebraic, not anti- 
 national. It was wholly and utterly unconnected with ar^y 
 scheme of Roman taxation." ^ The "Roman census would be 
 made according to the existing political and social facts, and 
 would not require that persons he enrolled according to their 
 place of birth or origin." ^ We have only to think that Herod 
 agreed to the first census on condition that it be a tribal cen- 
 sus of the various families, a thing that the Jews were used to 
 and would not resent so much. "And Joseph also went up 
 from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the 
 city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of 
 the house and family of David" (Luke 2:4). If that system 
 of household enrolinent with the "return to their domestic 
 hearths" was allowed in Egypt, it would surely not be refused 
 in Palestine. The proof, once more, is complete. Luke has 
 not made up his facts to suit a theory. He has told the facts 
 as they occurred and has given the precise reason for the 
 journey of Joseph from Nazareth to Bethlehem, "because he 
 was of the house and family of David." The enrolment in 
 Palestine is both by household (the Roman method) and by 
 tribes (the Jewish). 
 
 But it is still objected that Mary need not have gone along 
 with Joseph. "It remains difficult to understand why Mary 
 should have accompanied Joseph, especially if it be a fact that 
 she was at that time only 'betrothed' to him."^ Luke does 
 not plainly say that Mary was enrolled with Joseph, though 
 that is the natural way to take his language "to enroll him- 
 self with Mary."* The Sinaitic Syriac manuscript does say, 
 
 '■ Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem f, p. 108. " Ihid., p. 106. 
 ' Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 153. 
 * ctiuoYpiiil/aaBat oiv MapiiiiJi.. Plummer {Comm., p. 52) says that o6v MaptAjji. 
 must be taken with &vi^i), three lines away. But that is wholly imnatural. 
 
THE CENSUS IN LUKE'S GOSPEL 127 
 
 "because they were both of the house of David." That I 
 believe to be the fact. I think also that Luke gives the gene- 
 alogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. At any 
 rate Mary "would be anxious at all risks not to be separated 
 from Joseph," and "after what is related in Matt. 1:19 he 
 would not leave her at this crisis."^ It is pertinent also to" 
 think that both Joseph and Mary would be anxious for the 
 child to be born in Bethlehem, since he was to be the Messiah 
 of promise. Before the birth of Queen Victoria her father 
 made it a point to get the mother back on English soil, so that 
 the possible heir to the British crown should be bom in Britain. 
 Ramsay^ thinks that "the wife, as well as the head of the 
 house, had to go to the proper city (or for some reason felt it 
 her duty to go), so that the household as a whole might be 
 numbered in the tribal and family centre." Certainly, these 
 are reasons enough to justify Mary in her course. But, alas, 
 Wilcken calls the narrative a legend, "because every detail 
 has been demonstrated to be historically correct. There is 
 no way of satisfying those people who have made up their 
 minds." * 
 
 7. The Problem of Quirinius. — ^This has been the hardest 
 tangle to unravel of all in the tissue of errors woven roimd 
 Luke 2 : 1-7. Luke seemed so obviously in error. "This was 
 the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria" 
 (Luke 2:2). He himself in Acts 5:37 refers to "the enrol- 
 ment" when Judas of Galilee rose up and drew away some of 
 the people after him and perished. We know that QuirLuius 
 was governor of Syria in A. D. 6, when that census was taken 
 whi(i so angered the Jews (Josephus, Ant. XVIII, i, 1). 
 Hence it was argued that Ltike simply blundered and dated 
 this census imder Quirinius at the time of the birth of Christ, 
 instead of A. D. 6. Lake* actually argues that the birth of 
 Jesus occurred A. D. 6, but that view is wholly unlikely to 
 win favor. Plummer* says about Quirinius: "We must be 
 content to leave the difficulty unsolved," but he considers it 
 "monstrous" to throw away the whole narrative because of 
 this "mistake as to Cyrenius." 
 
 1 Plmnmer, Comm., p. 53. 
 
 2 Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem?, p. 101. 
 
 ' Eamsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 273. 
 
 * The Expositor, Nov., 1912, pp. 462 f. » Comm., p. 60. 
 
128 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 It is Ramsay again who has cleared the matter of confusion 
 by a series of inscriptions that bear on the career of Qnirinius. 
 "The conclusion of Mommsen, of Borghesi, and of de Rossi, 
 that Quirinius governed Syria twice has been generally ac- 
 cepted by modern scholars."' The "Lapis Tiburtinus" is 
 accepted as referring to Quirinius,^ and contains the words 
 "iterum Syriam," "a second time Syria." The Inscriptions of 
 iEmilius Secundus (Lapis Venetus)^ have "P. Sulpicio Quirinio 
 legatus Augusti Cossaris" and "idem jiissu Quirini censum." 
 It is not clear to which of the two times when Quirinius was 
 governor in Syria this inscription about the census refers. 
 
 But Ramsay* gives an inscription from Antioch in Pisidia, 
 examined by himself in 1912 and in 1913 and photographed 
 by Lady Ramsay, which speaks of Gaius Coristanius Fronto 
 as "pr^ed of P. Sulpicius Quirinius duumvir."^ This inscrip- 
 tion belongs to the date B. C. 10-7. In the village of Hissar- 
 ardi, close to Antioch, Ramsay foimd another inscription* 
 where the same man is called "pr^ect of P. Sulpicius Quirinius 
 duumvir" and "chief of engineers, tribime of soldiers, prefect 
 of a Bosporan cohort," and also "prefect of M. Servilius." 
 This inscription shows "Quirinius as engaged in the war (the 
 Homonadensian War), and therefore as governor of Syria 
 before 6 B. C." "It is also a crowning step in the proof that 
 the story in Luke 2 : 1-3 is correct." The proof is complete 
 that Quirinius was twice "governor" in Syria, though not 
 necessarily in the same way each time. Luke does not say 
 that Quirinius was propraetor or procurator in the first census, 
 but only governor. 
 
 "Thus Quirinius and Servilius were governing the two ad- 
 joining provinces, Syria-Cilicia and Galatia, around the year 
 8 B. C, when the First Census was made." " Surely, it is a 
 remarkable demonstration. "The exact year is a matter of 
 chronological interest; it was in the reign of King Herod. 
 Every circumstance narrated by Luke has been conclusively 
 shown to be natural and prftbable. The circumstances are 
 those which ordinarily accompanied a Roman census, and 
 
 ' Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem ?, p. 109. 
 
 " Ibid., p. 273. 'Ibid.,p.2n. ' 
 
 * Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 285. 
 
 ' Proefecto P. Sidjdci Quirini duumviri. ' Ihid., p. 291. 
 
 ' Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 300. 
 
THE CENSUS IN LUKE'S GOSPEL 129 
 
 Quirinius was in office about that time for several years." ^ 
 For all these years the record in Luke 2 : 1-7 has stood all by 
 itself, the butt of ridicule by historians and theologians. Now 
 the rubbish-heaps of Egypt and the stones of Asia Minor cry 
 aloud in support of the narrative. The enemies of Luke are 
 put to rout. 
 
 But it may still be said that Tertullian (Adv. Marc, iv, 19) 
 states that Jesus was bom when Sentius Saterninus was gov- 
 ernor of Syria (B. C. 9-6). But Ramsay has a ready solution 
 for this objection. He admits that Tertullian attempts to 
 correct Luke because "the first periodic enrolment of Syria 
 was made under Saterninus in B. C. 8-7. The enrolment of 
 Palestine was delayed by the census described rnitil the late 
 summer or autumn of B, C. 6. At that time Varus was con- 
 trolling the internal affairs of Syria, while Quirinius was con- 
 trolling its armies and directing its foreign policy." Tertullian 
 "inferred too hastily" that the enrolment in Palestine was 
 made under Saterninus. "Luke, more accurately, says that 
 the enrolment of Palestine was made while Quirinius was act- 
 ing as leader in Syria." Once it seemed a hopeless task to 
 clear up all the blunders charged against Luke in these verses. 
 But it has been done. If Ramsay had done nothing else for 
 New Testament scholarship, his name would deserve to be 
 cherished wherever Luke is known and loved. Luke is shown 
 to be the careful and accurate historian that he professed to 
 be. There is a veritable romance in the discovery of scraps 
 of papyri in Egypt that confirm Luke concerning the census 
 system of Augustus, which is ignored by all the ancient histo- 
 rians except Luke, the greatest of them all. 
 
 «/6ta.,p. 293. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 A PHYSICIAN'S REPORT OF THE MIRACLES OF JESUS' 
 
 "And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he gave 
 him to his mother" (Luke 7 : 15). 
 
 There is no doubt that the miracles of Jesus greatly attracted 
 Luke. Was he credulous in his report of the wonders wrought 
 by Jesus ? They puzzle us and they probably puzzled him. 
 We do not have to think of miracle as a violation of the laws 
 of nature. God is the source of all power and of all the laws 
 of nature. They are all expressions of his will. If a personal 
 God controls the universe, there is no real objection to believ- 
 ing that he can do what he wills to do at any time. The mod- 
 ern theory of evolution is not less, but more, favorable to the 
 belief in miracle (Garvie, Hastings's One Vol. Diet, of the Bible). 
 Sanday says: "I fully believe that there were miracles in the 
 age of the Gospels and Acts, in the sense of 'wonderful works' 
 or 'mighty works.' But I do not think that they involve any 
 real breach of the order of nature" {Divine Overruling, p. 66). 
 He thinks that miracles can be explained as all in harmony 
 with laws of nature, that were once unknown, except those 
 that have been exaggerated in the telling. It is not necessary 
 for us to be able to explain the miracle in order for it to be 
 true. We must remember that God is greater than the laws 
 of nature and that our knowledge of nature and of God is still 
 very limited. It is doubtless true that some miracles then 
 would not be called miracles by us to-day. The heart of the 
 question is whether God ever interposes at all with his personal 
 will. I believe that he does and that is miracle. 
 
 1. Luke a Man of Science. — ^This point has been made before, 
 but it is well to stress it again just here, for the fact has been 
 often overlooked. Luke's witness to the miracles of Jesus has 
 been brushed aside as the credulous ignorance of a non-scien- 
 tific age. Each age plumes itself upon the scientific progress 
 over the rest. The word science is simply Latin for the Greek 
 gnosis, our knowledge. Progress in knowledge has not been 
 
 1 The Christian Worker' a Magaiine, June, 1920. 
 130 
 
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 131 
 
 steady and uninterrupted and uniform. Reactions and lapses 
 come. The Renaissance followed the Dark Ages. The Dark 
 Ages belong to the Christian era and succeeded a period of 
 pagan enlightenment. We must not forget that Plato and 
 Aristotle lived long before Luke's day. In the spring and sum- 
 mer semester of 1905 at the University of Oxford over a hun- 
 dred courses of lectures on Aristotle were offered. Aristotle is 
 still king in the realm of pure intellect. The late Doctor W. H. 
 Whitsitt, for long Professor of Church History and then 
 President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, used 
 to talk to his classes of the time when "Plato was king in Zion" 
 and then of the time when "Aristotle was king in Zion." 
 Both Plato and Aristotle have left their mark on Christian 
 thought. 
 
 Not simply was Luke a man of general culture, a university 
 man familiar with current literature and literary methods, 
 but he was a man of technical training. Since Hobart's re- 
 searches concerning the medical language of Luke, it is no 
 longer possible to treat Luke as a "quack," a charlatan, or an 
 ignorant practitioner. He was a trained physician like Galen 
 and Hippocrates, and is one of the best products of Greek cul- 
 ture. So far as we know, he was the first man of science to 
 grapple with the facts and forces of faith and science. He was 
 superbly equipped for his task. He had a passion for the 
 truth, for the facts of nature and of grace. "No other man 
 of his time was so well fitted to judge rghtly in questions in- 
 volving both science and faith; and this ability sprang from 
 the nature of his vivid and varied Greek mentality."' So 
 then we approach Luke's report of the miracles of Jesus with 
 sincere interest. "His testimony to the miracles is, therefore, 
 the nearest thing possible to the evidence which has often been 
 desired in that of a man of science." ^ 
 
 And yet Luke is discounted by some for the very reason 
 that he is a physician. So Harnack' instances the healing of 
 Malchus's ear as a case in point: "This is a flagrant instance of 
 the way in which a story of a miracle has arisen, and of what 
 we expect from Luke. He certainly is not following a separate 
 source here; but because he thinks it ought to have been so, 
 
 ' Homan, Luke the Greek Physician, p. 12. 
 "Wace, Intr. St. Bible Encycl. (art. "Miracles")- 
 ' Luke the Physician, p. 187, note 4. 
 
132 LUKE THE fflSTORIAN 
 
 he makes it happen so." That Is simply intolerable in Har- 
 nack. Luke is here ranked no higher than a peddler of tales 
 or a writer of mediaeval miracle-plays, or a dispenser of marvel- 
 lous cures by a group of "Christian Science" dupes. When 
 Luke has been vindicated by modern research against the 
 whole array of historians and critics who attacked Luke 2 : 1-7, 
 he is entitled to be heard on his own account before it is assumed 
 that he is incompetent and insincere and even hypocritical. 
 Percy Gardner^ follows the cue of Harnack and says: "But 
 when we speak of him as a physician, the modern mind is apt 
 to be misled, and to attribute to him a scientific education, 
 and methods of investigation such as are commonly used in 
 the great schools of medicine. From this point, of view our 
 author is very far removed." Luke, to be sure, did not know 
 the evolutionary hypothesis or the germ theory of disease, but 
 he did have the Greek physician's love of the study of actual 
 cases and of drawing his theories from the facts. This is the 
 heart of scientific progress and Luke is in the line of succession. 
 Gardner' even says, "He loves a good miracle," as if to dis- 
 credit Luke's testimony on the subject. Carpenter* accepts 
 this view of Luke: "Physician though he was, he was uncritical 
 about miracles." Agam:* "He was undoubtedly what we 
 should call a truthful person, but it cannot be pretended that 
 he had the scientific zeal of the best modern historians. He 
 took pains to ascertain facts, but he was not alive to some 
 of the perils that surround historical inquiry." But I submit 
 that the new discoveries justify precisely this claim concerning 
 Luke. . 
 
 It is not "pretended" that he had modern views of science 
 and medicine, nor will a true scientist to-day pretend that 
 present-day theories are finalities. The twentieth century has 
 brought a more reverent temper on the part of scientists con- 
 cerning both God and man. No one claims that he has dis- 
 covered the ultimate facts concerning nature. The very 
 "atom," once thought to be absolute and indivisible, is now 
 divided into electrons. Modern chemists, like the alchemists 
 of Luke's day, claim to be able to transmute metals by the aid 
 of radium, and to make diamonds to order out of charcoal. 
 He is a bold man to-day who will dare to say what man can or 
 
 I Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 386. ' Ibid., p. 390, 
 
 » Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 83. *Ibid, p. 82. 
 
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 133 
 
 cannot do. The Atlantic Ocean has been spanned by the 
 aeroplane in a single flight. One disease after another is con- 
 quered by science. Shall we limit the power of God while we 
 enlarge the powers of man? It is easier to believe in mighty 
 works by God because man himself has achieved so much. If 
 there is a God at all, He is greater than any man or than all 
 men. He is greater than the universe about us. We see the 
 influence of spirit upon matter in our own bodies. It is easier 
 to understand how God who is Spirit rules over matter and 
 makes all things subject to His will. There has never been a 
 day when it was easier to believe in miracles than now and 
 harder to tell what is a miracle. We can well believe that 
 some of the miracles wrought by Jesus would not be called 
 miracles by all men to-day. The use of language varies with 
 the growth of ideas. The fimdamental question is the fact 
 of Jesus (his birth, his work, his teaching, his character, his 
 resurrection from the dead, his power to-day over the lives of 
 men). 
 
 At bottom we face the same problem that Luke faced. In 
 reality we know not one whit more concerning the ultimate 
 reality than Luke did. The new knowledge of our day has 
 filled us with awe in the presence of God. It is no disgrace for 
 us to-day to bow before the fact of God in Christ as Luke did. 
 We must open our minds to learn all we can, but the pride of 
 intellectual arrogance must not blind us to the glory of God in 
 Christ. Luke saw God at work in Christ the Great Physician. 
 No physician to-day can tell precisely how medicine cures 
 disease or what part the mind plays in the cure, or how far the 
 will of God operates in the whole, both in the fight that nature 
 makes and in the special exercise of His will in the individual 
 case. The physician himself often rouses the will of the 
 patient to victory over disease. Can God not do the same ? 
 
 2. Luhe as an Eye-Witness of Paul's Miracles. — Carpenter' 
 has a curious conunent concerning Paul's view of miracles: 
 "It may readily be conceded that S. Paul's attitude toward 
 the miraculous is much truer than S. Luke's." That remark 
 can only mean that Paul is sceptical concerning the miraculous 
 or that Luke is credulous. But Paul claimed that he himself 
 wrought miracles, a thing that Luke never does. "Truly the 
 signs of the apostle were wrought among you with all patience, 
 ' Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 83, 
 
134 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 by signs and wonders and mighty works" (II Cor. 12:12). 
 Paul here employs precisely the three words* that Ltjke reports 
 Peter as using in his address at the great Pentecost (Acts 2 : 22). 
 So in Romans 15 : 18 f . Paul speaks of what the Holy Spirit 
 wrought through him among the Gentiles "in the power of 
 signs and wonders." We have Paul's first-hand testimony 
 concerning his own miracles. Besides, Paul testifies to the 
 greatest of all miracles in his own experience, the vision of the 
 Risen Christ (I Cor. 9 : 1; 15 : 8; Gal. 1 : 16). Paul even claims 
 that some of his own converts wrought miracles (I Cor. 12 : 9 f ., 
 28-30; 14:22; Gal. 3:5). These instances all come from 
 Paul's universally acknowledged Epistles. It is hard to set 
 aside the witness of a man of Paul's intellectual acumen. 
 There were " Counterfeit Miracles " (Warfield) then as there are 
 now, but Paul's miracles do not come in that category. 
 
 We have other autoptic witnesses to the miracles. Mark's 
 Gospel reports Peter's description of the miracles of Jesus. If 
 John the Apostle is the author of the Fourth Gospel, we have 
 another eye-witness to the miracles of Jesus. See John 21 : 24. 
 In John's Gospel we have healings of the sick (4 : 16 ff.; 5:8; 
 6:2; 9:6f.), raising the dead (11:44), the Resurrection of 
 Christ (20 and 21) and miracles over inanimate nature (2:9; 
 6 : 11 f., 19; 21 : 6). 
 
 Percy Gardner^ thinks that Luke "was attracted to the new 
 faith by its power over disease and evil spirits." Even so, we 
 have no right to say that Luke was "taken in" by Paul's "pre- 
 tense" to work miracles. Luke not only had Paul's word 
 for working miracles, but in the "we" sections of Acts Luke 
 records miracles which he himself witnessed. "It should 
 always be borne in mind that they are recorded by a physician, 
 who was an eye-witness of them." ' In these cases, therefore, 
 we have a sort of double proof, Paul's general claim that he 
 worked miracles and Luke's testimony to seeing him do them. 
 It is wholly gratuitous to say that Luke's judgment as a his- 
 torian lapsed when miracles came before him. Let us examine 
 some of the cases in question and see if Luke's treatment of the 
 miracles wrought by Paul disqualifies him for discussing in a 
 credible manner the miracles of Jesus. 
 
 ' UTjliEfoti; xa\ Tipaatv %,a\ SuvdtiJ^aiv. 
 
 ' Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 386. 
 
 s Wace, Intr. St. Bible Encycl. (art. "Miracles"). 
 
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 135 
 
 The cure of the ventriloquist girl (Acts 16 : 18) is in point. 
 The poor girl had a "python." ' Plutarch says that a ventrilo- 
 quist was called a python. The slave giri may have been 
 diseased in her mind and was the object of superstition and the 
 victim of a group of men who exploited her fortune-telling for 
 gain as men, alas, exploit girls for base gain. The poor girl 
 troubled Paul, Luke and the rest, "the same following after 
 Paul and us" (Acts 16: 17). Luke reports Paul as charging 
 "the spirit in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. 
 And it came out that very hour." The whole subject of 
 demonology is a dark one, but modem scientists are no longer 
 so positive that evil spirits cannot dominate human beings. 
 Luke saw the cure of this girl, sudden and instantaneous. 
 
 Luke was a witness also of the earthquake and the release of 
 the prisoners, with the consequent conversion of the jailer 
 (Acts 16:26-34). He does not report the earthquake as a 
 miracle, but as a dispensation of providence for Paul and 
 Silas. 
 
 Luke saw Paul restore to life the lad who had fallen out of 
 the window at Troas during Paul's long sermon (Acts 20 : 9-12). 
 Luke is careful here in his language. He says the boy was 
 "taken up dead," but he implies that Paul brought him round 
 to life and not by medical means. Luke was evidently greatly 
 impressed. 
 
 We have already discussed Luke's description of Paul s 
 shaking off the viper unharmed (Acts 28 : 5), which Ramsay 
 considers a constrictor, a non-poisonous snake. But even so, 
 that explanation cannot apply to the cure of Publius by Paul's 
 prayer (Acts 28 : 8) and to Luke's further practice of medicine 
 in the island (28: 9f.). Luke does not create the impression 
 in these narratives that he is credulous and anxious to tell the 
 marvellous. His language is restrained and simple and quite 
 that of a scholar who weighs his words. 
 
 3. Luke's Report of Miracles in Q and Mark. — In Luke 
 7 : 20-23 (= Matt. 11 : 4-6) Luke reports the record m Q (pos- 
 sibly by Matthew the publican, himself an eye-witness of the 
 miracles of Jesus) of the words of Jesus concerning his miracles. 
 The two messengers from the Baptist in prison brought his 
 despairing question in his hour of gloom: "Art thou he that 
 cometh or look we for another?" (Luke 7:19). But Jesus 
 
 ' ■TC69(i>va. 
 
136 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 went on with his work, as if not heeding the inquiry. "In that 
 hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits; 
 and on many that were blind he bestowed sight" (Luke 7 : 21). 
 Then Jesus turned to the messengers and said: "Go your way, 
 and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; the blind 
 receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and 
 the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good tid- 
 ings preached unto them." This was the cure for John's 
 d(?ubt and despair. 
 
 We have seen that Q preserves the oldest tradition about 
 'Christ that we have. It may even belong to the time when 
 Christ was alive on earth. There is no escape from the fact 
 that Jesus claimed to work miracles and that people believed 
 that he wrought them. Luke had seen Paul work miracles. 
 He would not be prejudiced against the testimony for the mira- 
 cles of Jesus. But did he not sift the evidence for the miracles 
 of Jesus, as he claims to have done (Luke 1 : 1-4) about every- 
 thing else? In Luke 7 : 1-10 (= Matt. 8 : 5-13) we certainly 
 have a quite independent record of the same event that Mat- 
 thew narrates. Luke gives the two embassies from the cen- 
 turion to Jesus, while Matthew fails to bring out these details. 
 
 Mark gives a detailed report of eighteen miracles of Jesus. 
 Of these Luke also reports thirteen. Luke modifies the lan- 
 guage in certain instances, but he does not weaken the argu- 
 ment for the real interposition of divine power by Christ. 
 Two of them are nature miracles (the stilling of the storm 
 and the feeding of the five thousand). The rest (counting the 
 drowning of the swine with the cure of the demoniac) are cases 
 of healing. 
 
 Few to-day will take the position of Hume that miracles 
 cannot be proven, or even that of Huxley that we can know 
 nothing about the matter at all. Fewer still assert that mira- 
 cles cannot happen. Goethe said that a voice from heaven 
 would not convince him that water burned or that one rose 
 from the dead. But water can be made to burn by certain 
 chemicals. The more we know about natxire and God the 
 more modest we become in our dogmatic statements about 
 God's limitations. Many are now willing to admit that Jesus 
 cured nervous troubles by psychic force, since we have learned 
 that the mind has a great influence on the body. Professor 
 Hyslop even suggests that hospitals be set apart for the curing 
 
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 137 
 
 of certain forms of insanity by casting out demons. And then 
 many cases of insanity are now cured by pulling out diseased 
 teeth. So we learn slowly. But demoniacal possession is no 
 longer scouted by all scientists. 
 
 We must remember that nothing is miraculous to God or 
 Christ. With God and Christ nothing is miraculous because 
 all the forces of knowledge and of power are at their com- 
 mand. If we had all knowledge and all power, nothing would 
 be miraculous to us. Christ was not limited to the powers 
 and laws known to us. If God made the universe, all the laws 
 of nature come from him. He still exercises sway over them. 
 Paid says that all things have been created through Christ 
 and unto Christ and all things hold together in Christ (Col. 
 1 : 16-17). It is a Christocentric imiverse. Christ is Lord of 
 all. 
 
 If modem science could learn all the secrets of nature, and 
 by the use of the laws of God do the things that Jesus did, 
 surely this would not disprove the cures wrought by Jesus or 
 his claim to divine energy in doing them. "My Father work- 
 eth even until now, and I work" (John 5 : 17). With amaze- 
 ment and with difficulty we milock a few of the mysteries of 
 nature and pride ourselves on our own attainments. Jesus 
 played with the forces of nature as a master musician. The 
 more we learn of the marvels of nature, the more we marvel at 
 Jesus. There is only one explanation of his person and his 
 claim and his prowess. He was the Son of God. 
 
 4. Five Cases of Healing in Luke Alone. — Of the thirty-five 
 miracles described in detail in the Gospels Luke gives twenty. 
 Of the twenty-six miracles of healing Luke gives sixteen and 
 five are peculiar to him. For discussion on these, see Chapter 
 VII, "The Medical Language of Luke." These five excited the 
 special interest of Luke. They were all chronic or incurable 
 cases like the old woman with curvature of the spine (Luke 
 13 : 10-17), the man with the dropsy (14 : 1-6), the ten lepers 
 (17 : 11-19), the case of surgery (22 : 51), and the restoration 
 to life of the son of the widow of Nain (7 : 11-17). They were 
 all cured instantaneously by Jesus and were genuine miracles. 
 Not one of these was a case of nervous disorder. These can- 
 not be explained by any theory of modem psychology. Luke 
 was a psychologist, like all true physicians, but he has no hesi- 
 tation in recording these cases that go beyond all human 
 
138 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 power now as then. Luke alone reports the remarkable case 
 of the raising of the son of the widow of Nain. The funeral 
 procession was stopped and the boy given back to his mother. 
 It is one of the tenderest touches in the Gospels. It manifestly 
 touched the heart of Luke. "There is no need to prove that 
 the representation of our Lord given in the Third Gospel is 
 dominated by the conception of Him as the wondrous Healer 
 and Saviour of the sick, as, indeed, the Healer above all heal- 
 ers." ^ But we are not at liberty to distort this fact into mean- 
 ing that Luke attributed supernatural powers to Christ in 
 order to create that impression. We may, if we will, say that 
 Luke was incompetent to distinguish a miracle from an ordi- 
 nary case of healing or was a poor judge of evidence, though 
 our opinion makes no change in the facts of the case. Gilbert " 
 endeavors to explain away Luke's belief in the miraculous: 
 "We cannot doubt that Luke, who was little interested in the 
 miraculous element . . . was profoundly moved by what he 
 learned of the depth and the universality of the Master's sym- 
 pathy." But how does Gilbert know that Luke took little 
 interest "in the miraculous element"? Percy Gardner says 
 that Luke loved a good miracle so much that he would lug it 
 in to brighten his narrative. It is hard to satisfy critics of 
 Liike. Luke gives no evidence of being an excitable physician 
 or a poor diagnostician. He writes calm and serious history 
 after prolonged and thorough research. We are bound to give 
 due weight to what he records as true, whether we accept it or 
 not. It is easier to ask questions than to answer them. Who 
 to-day can tell what is the origin of life, or the true nature of 
 life, or what death is and means? 
 
 5. Miracles of Christ Over Nature. — ^Luke did not hesitate to 
 record evidences of the power of Christ over animate and 
 inanimate natm-e outside of man. It is here that some mod- 
 ern scientists take a more positive stand against miracles. 
 Possible explanations have been offered for some of the mira- 
 cles of healing, so that men of science are less sceptical about 
 the rest. But it must never be overlooked that the fact of 
 the miracles of Jesus by no means depends upon our being 
 able to offer intelligible theories about them. They may thus 
 be rendered easier for some men to beheve, but the miracles 
 of Jesus are grounded on the central fact of God's mastery 
 
 ' Hamack, Luke the Physician, p. 195. ' Jesus, pp. 46 f. 
 
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 139 
 
 over nature. Jesus presents God as personal, ana not as an 
 abstract philosophical conception or as misty pantheism. God 
 is like Jesus as Jesus is like God. Personal will rules the uni- 
 verse, the Will of God expressed in his laws, but superior to 
 his laws, the Source of all Energy and Life. This is the view 
 of Jesus and he acts upon it. Luke accepts it and records 
 proofs of Christ's power and claims. It is not unscientific 
 that a real God should be at the heart of the universe. Mod- 
 ern scientists hesitate to say that God cannot or does not 
 guide the universe by his Will. Wonderful powers have been 
 discovered in certain forms of matter, like radium. We must 
 either be materialists or spiritualists (in the proper use of this 
 word). Either matter is eternal and self-suflScient and the 
 source of life and energy, or God is eternal and before matter 
 and the creator of matter and the guide of the universe. No 
 one to-day conceives of a mechanical God who started the 
 universe and then took his hand off of the machine. God is 
 working to-day as much as ever. He works by his laws, by 
 the laws of his own nature, some of which we have discovered. 
 But he works on, whether we are ignorant or whether we know. 
 Nothing is miraculous to God. His Will is the supreme law 
 of the universe. It is thus an ordered world of law, but not a 
 merciless machine that, like a juggernaut, overrides all. Pre- 
 sumption pays the price in such a universe. But we are not 
 hopeless and helpless before the perils of nature red in tooth 
 and claw. Law at bottom is love and God is love. God does 
 not act by whims and caprice, but he is our Father. 
 
 So Jesus lets the demons rush into the swine to save the man 
 (Luke 8 : 33 f.). "He gave them leave," Luke says, following 
 Mark's record (5 : 13). Whatever our explanation of the rea- 
 son that prompted Jesus, Luke puts down what Mark has. 
 The result proves that the people cared more for the hogs 
 than they did for the poor demoniac, for they begged Jesus 
 to leave their shores (Luke 8 : 37). It mattered little that 
 the man was now clothed and in his right mind (8 : 35). This 
 miracle is usually counted as one and the same with that of 
 the Gerasene Demoniac. Huxley had his fun with Gladstone 
 over "the Gadarene Pig Affair," but all the same hogs are sub- 
 ject to mass attacks like sheep and like mobs of men. Hux- 
 ley's point about Gerasa and Gadara vanishes, for we know 
 that the village of Khersa (Gerasa) by the lake is meant (not 
 
140 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Gerasa thirty miles away), the village tributary to Gadara 
 some six miles distant. 
 
 Luke alone gives the draft of fishes (5:1-11). Some 
 critics find here another version of the draft of fishes in 
 John 21 : 1-14, but without adequate justification. Peter plays 
 a leading part both times, it is true, but that is not strange. 
 One of the strangest of all theories is that of Schmiedel, who 
 thinks that Luke is giving an allegory of Paul's conflict with 
 the Judaizers about the GentUes.^ No wonder Carpenter^ 
 calls this interpretation "an interesting example of the over- 
 subtlety with which S. Luke can be treated." And that is 
 termed scientific and historical exegesis ! The allegorizing is 
 that of Schmiedel, not of Luke. Luke (8 : 22-25) reports the 
 stilling of the storm, following Mark's Gospel (4 : 35-41 = 
 Matt. 8 : 23-27). The mastery of Christ over wind and wave 
 is clearly shown to the mafvel of the disciples, who gain a 
 fresh revelation of the person and power of Jesus. 
 
 The feeding of the five thousand is given in all the four 
 Gospels, the only one of the miracles wrought by Jesus that 
 is thus attested. Huxley does not ridicule this witness, which 
 is on a par with the Resurrection of Christ in its full testi- 
 mony. And yet Luke records this amazing incident with 
 much detail (9:10-17). Mark's Gospel here preserves the 
 vivid details of Peter's description, the garden-beds and the 
 green grass (Mark 6 : 39 f.), but Luke follows Mark with the 
 orderly arrangement of the crowd and the manifest miracu- 
 lous multiplication of the loaves and the fishes in the presence 
 of all the multitude. Jesus stood on the hillside and blessed 
 and broke the loaves as the disciples rapidly bore and dis- 
 tributed the baskets. This miracle is a stumbling-block to all 
 who believe in an absentee God or in no God. But we see 
 here Jesus as Lord of nature and of man, with infinite pity 
 and boundless power. He hastened or skipped the usual 
 processes of nature. The miracle created a crisis in the min- 
 istry of Jesus and led to his withdrawal from Galilee, because 
 of popular excitement and misunderstanding. It is hard to 
 think that the great crowds were fed by a trick and so pur- 
 posely misled by Jesus. The picture of Jesus on the eastern 
 slope of the Sea of Galilee near Bethsaida Julias challenged 
 
 ^Encycl. Bibl, pp. 4573-76 (art. "Simon Peter"). 
 2 Op. clt., p. 84. 
 
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 141 
 
 the] interest of Luke as it compels men to-day to pause. The 
 crowd wanted to take him by force to Jerusalem and crown 
 him political king, as the panacea for earthly ills. If we crown 
 him king of our lives we shall find Jesus to be what Luke took 
 him to be, the Great Physician for soul and body, the Saviour 
 from sin and sickness, the Lord of all nature, the Giver of all 
 grace and good, the Lord of life and of death. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 A LITERARY MAN'S RECORD OF THE PARABLES OF JESUS 
 
 "And his disciples asked him what this parable might be" 
 (Luke 8:9). 
 
 It is not straining after effect to call Luke a man of literary 
 tastes and habits.^ There is a modern parallel to Luke in 
 Doctor W. T. Grenfell, the Oxford University man who has 
 given himself to work in Labrador as medical missionary, 
 and who writes of life in Labrador with exquisite charm 
 and grace. Luke knew the great literature of his time, one 
 can well believe, and he had, besides, the sure touch of genius 
 in the expression of his ideas. Sir W. Robertson NicoU says 
 that Mark Rutherford always found the right word in the 
 right place. Luke was not a professional stylist. He did not 
 strive after artificial effects, but he had full knowledge and 
 fine discrimination. , 
 
 1. The Beauty of Christ's Parables. — ^They made a powerful 
 appeal to Luke. " It is one of the many signs of inferiority in 
 the apocryphal gospels that they contain no parables. While 
 they degrade miracles into mere arbitrary and unspiritual acts 
 of power, they omit all that teaches of the deep relations be- 
 tween the seen and the unseen." ^ But, just as Luke was not 
 credulous in reporting miracles, so he had the insight to see 
 the worth of the parables of Jesus. The true biographer 
 reveals himself in the choice that he makes of the material in 
 his hands and in the skill with which he presents it to create 
 the picture. 
 
 There is a literary charm in Luke's report of Christ's para- 
 bles that marks his Gospel apart from the others. But the 
 beauty of these parables is not due to the genius of Luke. 
 There is a beauty in the Bible facts as well as in the Bible 
 story.' Luke is faithful to Christ's words, and yet he gives a 
 
 'McLachlan (St. Luke) has his first chapter on "Luke the Man of 
 Letters." "He is a man of literary attainment and scientific culture " 
 (p. 8). 
 
 2 Plummer, Hastings's D. B. ("Parable in the N. T."). 
 
 ' Cf . Stalker, The Bemty cff the Bible. 
 
 142 
 
THE PARABLES OF JESUS 143 
 
 turn here and there in the setting of the story that one may 
 call literary finish if he will. 
 
 The literary perfection of the parables belongs to Jesus and 
 appears in the parables in all the Gospels. Sanday calls the 
 parables of Jesus the finest literary art of the world, combining 
 sunplicity, profundity, elemental emotion and spiritual inten- 
 sity. They were spoken chiefly in the Aramaic, and yet their 
 originality is attested in the Greek translation and even in the 
 English by their freshness, beauty and moral earnestness. 
 They possessed a matchless charm for the people who heard 
 them for the first time as they fell from the lips of the Master 
 Story-teller of the ages. For sheer witchery of words and 
 grip upon the mind and heart, the short stories of Jesus stand 
 alone. Edgar Allan Poe, Hawthorne, Bret Harte, O. Henry 
 and all the rest are on a lower plane. 
 
 And yet Jesus did not invent parables. They are common 
 in the Old Testament and in the Talmud. Some of the Jew- 
 ish rabbis were very fond of using them. Parables are com- 
 mon enough to-day. But Jesus is the master in the use of 
 them. He made the parable preach his gospel — "a picture- 
 gospel" (Pliunmer). He knew "the book of nature and of 
 human nature" and threw a flash-light on both by means of 
 the parable. The people saw the sins and frailties of the 
 Pharisees in the parables of Jesus, and then their own photo- 
 graphs stamped before their very eyes. The parables of Jesus 
 were so vivid that they were like moving pictures of the soul. 
 Augustine says that Christ's miracles are acted parables and 
 his parables are miracles of beauty and instruction. John 
 Foster says that the miracles of Jesus were like ringing the 
 great bell of the universe for the people to come and listen. 
 The parables caught their attention and drove the lesson 
 home. Christ drew his parables from the life of the people. 
 They are transcripts from the life of the time and so of all 
 time. Those in Luke are the most wonderful and beautiful 
 of all. If Luke loved a good miracle, he was equally fascinated 
 by the parables of Jesus. 
 
 2. Christ's Reasons for Using Parables. — Scholars have 
 sought to find one reason that covers all the ground. This is 
 not possible, for Jesus himself gives two reasons for the use of 
 so many parables after the blasphemous accusation by the 
 Pharisees, when the atmosphere was electric with hostility. 
 
144 LUEE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Jesus had frequently employed parabolic sayings and brief 
 isolated parables before this "Busy Day." But on this occa- 
 sion "with many such parables spake he the word unto them, 
 as they were able to hear it: and without a parable spake he 
 not unto them: but privately to his disciples he expounded all 
 things" (Mark 4 : 33 f.)- There are nine given by the Synop- 
 tic Gospels and there were probably more. The very first 
 one, the parable of the sower, puzzled the disciples so that 
 they asked Jesus "what this parable might be" (Luke 8:9). 
 Then Jesus explained why he spoke on this occasion in parables. 
 It was a condemnation to the enemies of Christ "that^ seeing 
 they may not see, and hearing they may not understand" 
 (Luke 8 : 10). And yet the same parable is meant to be a 
 revelation to the disciples: "Unto you it is given to know the 
 mysteries of the Kingdom of God" (Luke 8 : 10 = Mark 4:11 
 = Matt. 13: 11). One thinks of the "mystery-religions" and 
 their initiations and secrets, like modern Masons and other 
 secret orders. Mark reports Jesus as saying: "But unto them 
 that are without, all things are done in parables." The great- 
 est secret order of the world is the Kingdom of God. Jesus 
 opens the mysteries of grace with no incantations and mock- 
 ing mmnmeries, but with the illumination of the Holy Spirit 
 that floods the soul and the life with light. So the parables of 
 Jesus were a pillar of cloud and darkness to the Pharisees, but 
 of fire and light to the disciples when their eyes were opened 
 to see. They were a spiritual smoke-screen to shut off those 
 who were blaspheming Jesus. Thus Jesus keeps from casting 
 pearls before swine (Matt. 7 : 6) and is able to go on with his 
 teaching in an uncongenial atmosphere. Paul later noted 
 that the gospel message was a savor of life unto life or of death 
 unto death (II Cor. 2 : 17 ff.). It is literally true that preach- 
 ing hardens the heart, the eye, the ear, the mind, or stirs one 
 to a richer life with God. Jesus himself was set for the falling 
 and the rising of many in Israel, as old Simeon saw (Luke 2 : 34). 
 But there are other reasons why Jesus used parables in his 
 teaching. They served to put truth in crisp form that was 
 easily remembered and that would be afterward understood. 
 The story would stick and would hold the lesson that it car- 
 ried. The Apostles were not so well educated as the Pharisees. 
 
 ' Both Mark (4 : 12) and Luke here have Tva, which may express pur- 
 pose or result (in the Koin6). Matthew (13 : 13) has Zxi (because). 
 
THE PARABLES OF JESUS 145 
 
 They had less intellectual training and dialectical acumen, but 
 they could catch the stories of Jesus, for they had less preju- 
 dice and fewer predilections. They did see the point of the 
 parables after the private explanation by Jesus (Matt. 13 : 51). 
 
 And then there is power in a good story to win attention 
 and to hold it when interest begins to flag. Jesus had often 
 to say "Listen," as the minds of his hearers began to wander 
 or they were disconcerted. " If any man has ears to hear, let 
 him hear" (Mark 4 : 23). "Take heed therefore how ye hear" 
 (Luke 8 : 18), where Mark (4 : 24) has "what ye hear." 
 
 Once more the parables of Jesus stimulated inquiry on the 
 part of the disciples. On this very occasion the disciples 
 twice asked him to explain his parables, that of the sower 
 (Luke 8:9 = Mark 4 : 10 = Matt. 13 : 10) and that of the 
 tares (Matt. 13 : 36). 
 
 Jesus thus spoke in parables to the multitudes (Matt. 13 : 34) 
 what he could not so well have said to a popular assembly 
 already excited by the charges of the Pharisees. But the new 
 style of teaching became a marked characteristic of the min- 
 istry of Jesus. 
 
 3. The Meaning of Parables. — ^The etymology of the word is 
 simple enough. The Greek word' means to place beside for 
 purpose of comparison. The parable^ is thus a so:^of measur- 
 ing-rod for spiritual and moral truth. Just as the yardstick 
 measures ofiE a yard of silk, so the parable takes a concrete 
 example from life to illustrate the truth in mind. The word 
 illustration is a Latin word and means to throw light upon a 
 subject. This is the purpose, likewise, of parable. The little 
 girl was not far wrong when she said that a parable was an 
 earthly story with a heavenly meaning. The Hebrew word 
 for parable (mdshai) was used for a discourse that implied 
 comparison. But the Hebrew term had a wide application. 
 It might be similitude, allegory, proverb, paradox, or even 
 riddle. So no one type covers all the uses of parable in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 The word is used in various ways in the Gospels. We have 
 a proverb called parable by Jesus in Luke 4: 23: "Physician, 
 heal thyself." There is analogy in such a proverb wluch the 
 
 ' Tcafa^okf) from ■xafa^Wat. 
 
 2 John employs xctpoitifa, a wayside saying, for shorter sayings of an 
 obscure nature (John 16 : 25, 29) and for longer narratives (John 10 : 6). 
 
146 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 hearer must catch. So Luke terms Christ's proverb about 
 the blind leading the blind a parable (Luke 6 : 39). Hence 
 we can apply the word parable to the proverb of the reed 
 shaken with the wind (Luke 7 : 24) and the green tree and the 
 dry (23 : 31). See also the proverb of the whole and the sick 
 (Luke 5 : 31 f.) and of the bridegroom (5 : 34). Jesus did not 
 always call his parables by the word nor do the Gospels. See 
 Luke 16 : 13 about serving two masters. Sometimes the 
 similitude is drawn by the word "like" or "likened," as in the 
 brief parable of the leaven (Luke 13 : 20 f.). The parable of 
 the fig-tree (Luke 21 : 29-33) is also a good example of formal 
 comparison. See also the foolish rich man in Luke 12 : 16-21, 
 where Jesus draws the lesson clearly. 
 
 A parable may be a paradox. W. J. Moulton* notes three 
 kinds of paradox in Christ's parabolic teaching. One sort 
 shocks the hearer by its violent contrast, as when Jesus said 
 that it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle's eye 
 than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God (Luke 
 18 : 25). Such a parable is meant to provoke reflection, as 
 when Jesus spoke of hating one's father and mother (Luke 
 14 : 26). The paradox may become clearer in time, as, for 
 instance, Christ's denunciation of the Pharisees as hypocrites 
 (Luke 6 : 42) with "beams" or long sticks of wood in their 
 eyes trying to get a little mote out of the other people's eyes. 
 But the third kind of parabolic paradox retains its inherent 
 difficulty with the lapse of time, as in conquering by the cross 
 and in saving one's life by losing it (Luke 9:23f.; 14:27). 
 So as to making friends by the mammon of unrighteousness 
 (16:9). 
 
 The longer parables have the narrative form, like the sower 
 (Luke 8:4-15), the prodigal son (15:11-32). In these the 
 formal comparison is not drawn, though it is plainly implied. 
 The great bulk of the longer parables are of this nature. 
 
 The parable need not be fact, but it must be truth. The 
 fable is a caricature of animal life, where the animals in a 
 grotesque way act contrary to nature. The parable is always 
 in harmony with nature, whether the lily of the field, the spar- 
 row that falls, the lost sheep in the mountains, the lost coin, 
 or the lost boy. It is not possible to tell whether or when 
 Christ's parables are purely imaginative or have a basis of 
 ' Hastings's Diet, of Christ and the Gospels. 
 
THE PARABLES OF JESUS 147 
 
 concrete fact in specific instances. The parable of the pounds 
 (Luke 19: 11-27) seems to have as its background the deposi- 
 tion of Archelaus in A. D. 6, when Jesus was a boy about 
 twelve years old. But most of Christ's parables are drawn 
 from nature or from human life about him. They are true to 
 form, and picture in lasting colors the life of men then and 
 now. 
 
 The allegory is a variety of parable, but scholars do not 
 agree in their use of the term allegory. Plummer^ puts the 
 matter clearly: "In an allegory figure and fact, or, rather, 
 figure and interpretation, are not mixed, but are parallel, and 
 move simultaneously, as in the allegory of the True Vine or 
 of the Good Shepherd." And Pliunmer might have added 
 the allegory of the sower and of the prodigal son. The allegory 
 is a narrative parable that is self-explanatory. It means 
 speaking something else.^ The point of the story is plain as 
 it proceeds for those who have eyes to see, though the disciples 
 did not understand the story of the sower till Jesus explained 
 it. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is the great modern allegory. 
 WeineP even says that Jesus never spoke in allegory and 
 Jiilicher* admits that the Gospels report him as doing so, but 
 misrepresent him in the matter. Jesus did not, it is true, 
 employ the allegorical method of interpretation in the whimsi- 
 cal manner of Philo with his fantastic "spiritualizing" that 
 had such a disastrous influence on the Alexandrian theology 
 of Origen and Clement of Alexandria. All of the parables of 
 Jesus have a point and he uses the parable to point the moral 
 in his teaching. The allegory in the mouth of Jesus follows 
 the line of the parable in beiag true to nature. The deeper 
 spiritual truth that Jesus expounds lies on the surface for 
 those with spiritual insight. W. J. Moulton^ regards the alle- 
 gory with Christ as imperfectly developed, because he does 
 not explain all the details of the story. Compare the sower 
 (Luke 8 : 5-15) and the wicked husbandman (Luke 20: &-19). 
 But in all of Christ's parables he holds to the main point with 
 less concern for the setting and the details. 
 
 1 Hastings's Diet, of the Bible (art. "Parable in N. T."). 
 '' iXkrifofla. The substantive does not occxir in the N. T., but Paul 
 has the participle in Gal. 4 . 24. 
 
 ' Die Gleichnisse Jesu, p. 30. * Die Oleichnisreden Jesu, I, pp. 61 f . 
 
 ^Hastings's Did. of Christ and the Gospels (art. "Parable"). 
 
148 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 4. The Interpretation of Parables.— The wildest speculation 
 has appeared in the interpretation of the parables of Jesus. 
 We must be sure that we understand the language that Jesus 
 used, as, for instance, "that, when it shall faU, they may 
 receive you into the eternal tabernacles" (Luke 16:9). The 
 word "receive" simply means a welcome on the part of those 
 benefited by the use of one's money, not the purchase of sal- 
 vation by means of one's money. 
 
 The context must be noted to see the precise light in which 
 the story appears. All three stories in Luke 15 are justifica- 
 tions by Jesus of his association with publicans and sinners 
 against the sneer of the Pharisees and the scribes in verses 
 1 and 2. The lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son are pic- 
 tures of the lost (publicans and sinners) whom Jesus came to 
 save. The elder brother is a picture of the carping Pharisee 
 who provoked the stories. Again in chapter 16 we have the 
 parables about the wise and the unwise use of money, and 
 Luke adds (16 : 14) that " the Pharisees, who were lovers of 
 money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him." 
 
 Each parable of Jesus teaches a great truth, and this is the 
 first thing to find and sometimes the only thing that we need 
 learn as to the teaching. Certainly in the case of the unjust 
 steward (Luke 16 : 1-13) this is true, and nothing can be made 
 of the fact of the steward's rascality. The same thing is true 
 of the discovery of the hid treasure and of the story of the 
 Lord's coming like a thief in the night. 
 
 And yet Jesus did sometimes make use of the minor details 
 as in some of those in the tares and practically all in the sower. 
 The early commentators went to such excesses that Chrysos- 
 tom (Horn, on Matt., 64 : 3) says that the details should be 
 ignored altogether in the interpretation of the parable. 
 Broadus {Comm. on Matt., Chap. XIII) thinks that we are safe 
 where we have the guidance of Christ, but that elsewhere 
 we should err on the side of restraint rather than license. 
 Trench' has good words in his third chapter. Augustine says 
 that the parable is not to be used as the basis for argument 
 unless one has a categorical teaching elsewhere. The three 
 loaves in Luke 11:5 have been made to teach the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and the two shillings in the parable of the good 
 Samaritan (10 : 35) to mean baptism and iJie Lord's supper 1 
 > Notes on the Parables, 
 
THE PARABLES OF JESUS 149 
 
 In particular, it should be said that one must be careful 
 about building schemes of theology in the interpretation of the 
 kingdom parables, especially as to the number seven in Matt. 
 13 or three in Luke 14 and in 15. Luke's kingdom parables 
 deal more with the individual experience rather than with the 
 gradual growth of the kingdom itself. There is an apocalyp- 
 tic or eschatological element in some of the parables in Luke 
 as in Mark and Matthew, but the parable of the pounds 
 (Luke 19 : 11-27) was spoken expressly to discourage the wild 
 excitement of the multitude who " supposed that the kingdom 
 of God was immediately to appear" (19:11). And Luke's 
 report of the great eschatological discourse on the Mount of 
 Olives is quite brief (21 : 5-36). He uses the parable of the 
 fig-tree to warn the disciples about the coming culmination of 
 the kingdom (29-33). But, on the whole, the parables of 
 Jesus in Luke are a stern rebuke to the wild eschatologists who 
 fail to see the spiritual and ethical side of Christ's teaching. 
 The parables show the gradual expansion of the work of the 
 kingdom, and Luke has the pregnant saying of Christ to the 
 Pharisees that the kingdom of heaven is within* men, not an 
 external and political organization as the Pharisees expected 
 (17:20f.). "The truth about Jesus is too great to be seen 
 from any single standpoint. No single category is able to 
 contain him. The truth is more comprehensive than is sup- 
 posed by either the Mystery school or the thoroughgoing 
 Eschatologists."^ Jesus "transmuted eschatology" to serve 
 his purpose, but he was not a dupe of eschatological schemes 
 and programmes. Christ is glorified in the Transfiguration, 
 the Resurrection, the Ascension. Pentecost and the Destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem were forecasts of the end of the world and 
 the coming of Christ in person to judge the world. 
 
 5. Luke's Special Contrtbution to Our Knowledge of the Para- 
 bles of Jesu^. — Scholars differ greatly in counting Christ's para- 
 bles. Bruce' gives thirty-three and eight "parable-germs." 
 Koetsweld counts seventy-nine. I have listed some fifty of 
 them in Broadus's Harmony of the Gospeb (pp. 270 f.). The 
 speech of Christ was full of metaphor and similitude like the 
 lilies of the field and the birds of the air. Of the thirty-five of 
 some length that are usually discussed in the books on the 
 
 ^ iv^iq. ^ Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 153. 
 
 3 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, pp. xi f. 
 
150 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 parables of Jesus, Luke has twenty-three and eighteen occur 
 in his Gospel alone. Three are also in Matthew and Mark 
 (the sower, the mustard-seed, the wicked husbandman) and 
 two are in Matthew (the leaven, the lost sheep). 
 
 The eighteen that occur in Luke alone are beautiful and 
 give a distinct grace and glory to his Gospel. They are the 
 two debtors (Luke 7 : 40-43), the good Samaritan (10 : 30-37), 
 the friend at midnight (11 : 5-8), the rich fool (12 : 16-21), the 
 waiting servants (12 : 35-48), the barren fig-tree (13 : 6-9), the 
 chief seats at feasts (14 : 7-11), the great supper (14 : 15-24), 
 the rash builder (14:28-30), the rash king (14:31-33), the 
 lost coin (15:8-10), the lost son (15: 11-32), the unrighteous 
 steward (16 : 1-12), the rich man and Lazarus (16 : 19-31), the 
 unprofitable servants (17:7-10), the unrighteous judge 
 (18 : 1-8), the Pharisee and the publican (18 : 9-14), the pounds 
 (19: 11-27). We could ill afford to give up these wonderful 
 parables. 
 
 Luke, like Matthew (13, 21, 24 and 25), is fond of bunching 
 the parables, as in 5:36-39; 13:18-21; 14:28-32; chapters 
 15, 16, 18. It looks as if Jesus at times piled parable upon 
 parable in his teaching, to drive the point home, as in Luke 15 
 (three) and in Matt. 21 and 22 (three). Sometimes there 
 are pairs of parables in Luke, as in Matthew. Plummer' notes 
 how the effect of Christ's parables is intensified by contrasts, 
 as in the heartless clergy and the charitable Samaritan (Luke 
 10 : 30), the rich man and Lazarus (16 : 19), the Pharisee and 
 the publican (18 : 9). 
 
 There is a trace of Luke's own style in some of the parables 
 which he may have translated from the Aramaic into the 
 Greek,'' but in the main we may feel sure that Luke has pre- 
 served the story with the flavor that Jesus gave it. Stanton' 
 thinks that the good Samaritan, in particular, has Lukan 
 characteristics. 
 
 As a rule parables are drawn from a different realm to illus- 
 trate one's point. But Luke gives some that come from the 
 same sphere by way of example, as the good Samaritan, the 
 fooUsh rich man, the rich man and Lazarus, the Pharisee and 
 the publican, the friend at midnight, the unjust judge. These 
 
 ' Hastings's B. D. 
 
 " Carpenter, op. cit., p. 195. 
 
 ' Gospels as Historical Documents, II, p. 300. 
 
THE PARABLES OF JESUS 151 
 
 are parables of the personal touch. The parallel consists in 
 the application of the story to the life of the hearer. Luke is 
 fond of the personal touch in Christ's stories. "The Lukan 
 parables are not formal expositions of the nature of the kmg- 
 dom, they are appeals cd hominem. And they are drawn, for 
 the most part, not from the processes of nature, but from the 
 facts of human life and character." ^ 
 
 Glover* thinks that Jesus was fond of telling parables of his 
 home life in Nazareth. He watched his own home life. "It 
 was Mary, we may believe, who put the leaven in the three 
 measures of meal . . . and Jesus sat by and watched it. In 
 after years the sight came back to Him. He remembered the 
 big basin, the heaving, panting mass in it, the bubbles strug- 
 gling out, swelling and breaking, and the level rising and fall- 
 ing. 'It came to Him as a picture of the Kingdom of Heaven 
 at work in the individual man and in the community." ' 
 
 It matters little how we classify the parables of Jesus. That 
 is all subjective and more or less artificial. We shall get bet- 
 ter results by studying the parables as they come in their own 
 context than by tearing them out by the roots and making 
 them live in our theological pots and pans. They are alive 
 and will bleed if mistreated. They throb with life as Luke 
 has preserved them in his Gospel. 
 
 It is doubtless true that Luke's interest in the parables of 
 Jesus was largely that of a literary man who was charmed by 
 these matchless stories of the new life in the kingdom of God. 
 But he had also the interest of a sober theologian* to combat 
 the wild eschatological views of the time. Jesus at times used 
 the apocalyptic method and the eschatological motive, but it 
 was always with restraint and reserve. The teaching of Jesus 
 concerning the kingdom of God in Luke's report of the para- 
 bles discountenances all millennial programmes and set times 
 for the second coming of Christ. The keynote of the parables 
 of Jesus in Luke's Gospel is personal salvation and growth of 
 Christian character. 'The larger aspect of the kingdom in its 
 social and world relations is present, but it is grounded in the 
 new life of the individual in Christ. The social redemption of 
 
 1 Carpenter, op. cit., p. 112. 
 
 2 The Jesus of History, p. 30. 
 
 ' Glover, The Meaning and Purpose of a Christian Society, p. 18. 
 <MoLachlan (St. Luke) has a clapter on "Luke the Theologian." 
 
152 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 the race is the goal and Luke makes that clear. He has a 
 world outlook and a world sympathy, and Jesus stands forth 
 as the teacher for all the world and for all time with a pro- 
 gramme for world reconstruction. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 AN HISTORIAN'S IDEA OF THE DEITY OF JESUS » 
 "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" (Luke 3 : 22) 
 
 Luke had to face the problem of the person of Christ when 
 he decided to write his Gospel. The picture of Jesus Christ 
 was already drawn in the Logia of Matthew and in Mark's 
 Gospel, as we know. It was probably clearly presented in his 
 other sources. Luke had heard Paul and others preach that 
 Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. There was no escap- 
 ing this question. Jesus himself had pressed his claim as the 
 Son of Man toward the close of his ministry, so that his enemies 
 and his friends took sides sharply. Luke tells the whole story 
 of the person of Christ as the issue was developed during the 
 life of Jesus and during the period covered by the Acts. He 
 has written an objective narrative, but he did not attempt to 
 conceal his own loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. 
 
 1. The Jesus or Christ Controversy. — ^Luke was not one of 
 the eye-witnesses^ of Christ, but he was one of the witnesses' 
 to the work of Christ. He was a critic of the effect of Christ's 
 personal influence on men who knew him in the flesh and who 
 worshipped him as God and Saviour. Luke had to face 
 squarely the problem of Jesus as the Christ (the Messiah). It 
 was put up to him by the eye-witnesses. Luke, as we have 
 seen, was not a Jew, and so was not expecting a Messiah. He 
 was not prejudiced against Jesus as were the Pharisees, with 
 their theory of a political and eschatological kingdom for the 
 Messiah. But the heathen myths made it more difficult, if 
 anything, for him to accept the facts about the incarnation of 
 Christ, the virgin birth, and Christ's resurrection from the 
 dead. Certainly, the emperor-worship was enough to disgust 
 
 1 The Expositor (London), 1920. 
 
 * aiT6ircat. There is a striking example of ocSxiim)? in P. Oxy., VIII, 
 1154, 8 (late 1 A. D.), oiTixn)? f&p el\i.i tOv "c6x(i>v xal oSx e!iJi.l ?^v[o]oc; tuv 
 M&he, translated by Moulton and Milhgan: "For I am personally ac- 
 quainted with these places, and am not a stranger here." 
 
 " (juipTups?. 
 
 153 
 
154 • LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 any intelligent man, as it did most of the men of light of that 
 time. It was not easy for an educated man in Luke's day to 
 accept the deity of Jesus and to worship a man. The cross of 
 Jesus was a stumbling-block to the Jew and foolishness to the 
 Greek. Luke felt the force of both objections. 
 
 Luke is the typical man of culture of his time. He does not 
 tell the mental processes by which he came to take Jesus as 
 the Christ. But we may be sure that he would understand 
 the temper of the modem college man or woman who finds 
 difficulty in reconciling the deity of Jesus with modern Dar- 
 winism. It was just as hard for Luke to make the person of 
 Christ square with the scientific theories of Galen and Hippoc- 
 rates. We must try to understand the problems of the college 
 and university life of our day. I wish to recommend Mc- 
 Kenna's The Adventure of Life as a book admirably adapted to 
 help the really sincere spirits who wish to face the facts of 
 nature and of grace. This English physician and devout 
 Christian wrote his book in his den at the front in France in 
 the midst of death and life. He is a man after Luke's own 
 heart, and looks at all the facts with a calm and clear gaze. 
 He is an evolutionist and gives his conception of the develop- 
 ment of the universe up to man. Then he finds a place for 
 Jesus, the Son of God, in the scientific universe of Darwin, 
 and he worships him as his saviour from sin. It is utterly 
 frank and very able and helpful. It is just as gratuitous to 
 accuse Luke of credulity as McKenna. One is bound to 
 believe that Luke had an experience of Christ in his heart and 
 life before he clearly grasped the conception of the person of 
 Christ. Glover in his Jesus of History likewise understands 
 Luke and the temper of modern young people of culture with 
 a craving to know Christ. We may be sure that Luke did not 
 write carelessly the tremendous statements concerning the 
 deity of Jesus. He writes in the light of his own extensive 
 researches, after long investigation of the claims and the power 
 of Christ, and out of a full heart. He had himself put Jesus 
 to the test in his own life. He had seen others live for Christ 
 and die for Christ. Luke loved his medical science, but he 
 loved Jesus more. He was a "doctor of the old school," who 
 was able to make the sick-room a sanctuary of God. He was 
 a partner with God and looked to the Great Physician to bless 
 his work. 
 
THE DEITY OF JESm 155 
 
 Luke wrote with the Logia before him. The Logia (Q) had 
 precisely the same elements^ in its picture of Christ that we 
 find in the Gospel of John.* Mark' wrote before Luke, and 
 Mark's picture of Christ agrees with that of the Logia. Luke 
 was Paul's bosom friend. Luke knew Paul's idea of Christ. 
 So Luke had to face the Jesus or Christ controversy of mod- 
 ern theologians.* He identified the theological Christ with 
 the historic Jesus. He did not do so blindly. From the be- 
 ginning he found the evidence that convinced him. It is a 
 modern intellectual impertinence that men of culture do not 
 accept the deity of Jesus. Gladstone says that out of sixty 
 master minds that he knew, fifty-five of them took Jesus hum- 
 bly as God and Saviour. 
 
 Luke the historian records his idea of the person of Christ. 
 He does not use Pauline terminology. He follows the lan- 
 guage of his primitive sources. He lets us see that the witness 
 is very old and goes back to the very life of Christ. It is not 
 a theological dogma of a late date, invented to suit the deifica- 
 tion of Jesus. Luke writes in a true historic spirit, and lets 
 us see how Jesus impressed the men of his time and how 
 Jesus regarded himself. 
 
 2. The Son of God. — Luke does not write as a theologian. 
 He does not express his own views in theological language, as 
 Paul does in his Epistles. He makes no theological arguments 
 or definitions. He keeps his own personality in the back- 
 groimd, but he reveals his own views by the nature of the 
 material that he presents. We may agree or disagree with 
 Luke's picture of Christ, but he has drawn it with absolute 
 clearness and after mature reflection and with manifest convic- 
 tion. He comes to the interpretation of Christ without Phar- 
 isaic limitations and from the standpoint of a cosmopolitan. 
 Wright^ thinks that Luke had conversations with John, the 
 author of the Fourth Gospel, since both mention the fact 
 that the sepulchre in which our Lord's body lay was a new 
 one, "where no one had yet lain" (Luke 23 : 53). He thinks 
 
 1 See my article, " The Christ of the Logia," in the Contemporary Review, 
 August, 1919. 
 
 2 See my Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John (1916). 
 ' See my Studies in Mark's Gospel (1919). 
 
 * Cf . The Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909. 
 6 Hastings's Did. of Christ and the Gospels, 
 
156 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 that much of John's teaching was "esoteric, intended for ad- 
 vanced disciples only," but there are Johannean patches in 
 Luke's Gospel, as, for instance, Luke 10 : 21-24 (cf. Matt. 
 11 : 25-30). Be that as it may, it can be shown that Luke 
 conceived Jesus as the Son of God in the full sense of that 
 phrase. He has not written his Gospel to prove that thesis 
 as John has done in his Gospel (20 : 30 f.), but in numerous 
 instances he shows clearly what he means his readers to under- 
 stand about Jesus. 
 
 Luke records the angel Gabriel as saymg to Mary of the 
 promised child: "He shall be great, and shall be called the 
 son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him 
 the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the 
 house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shaU be no 
 end," (Luke 1 : 32-33). This is, to be sure, the Old Testament 
 picture in broad outline of the Messiah, but not the Pharisaic 
 conception. In II Sam. 7 : 5-17 Nathan's words to David 
 from Jehovah are recorded. David's son is to build Jehovah 
 a house and the throne of his kingdom is to be established 
 forever. This covenant with David is referred to at length 
 in Psahn 89, where it is interpreted in Messianic language. 
 Nearly all of the language of Christ's words to Peter in Matt. 
 16 : 18 f. appears in Psalm 89. We need not think that David 
 or Nathan or the author of Psalm 89 understood the language 
 about the perpetuity of the Davidic throne in the spiritual 
 sense as Jesus interprets it in Matt. 16 : 18 f. Luke clearly 
 understands the words of Gabriel to Mary in the sense of the 
 spiritual Israel that Paul teaches in Gal. 3 and Romans 9 : 11. 
 The context in Luke's Gospel shows that he means us to un- 
 derstand that by "the son of the Most High" he is describing 
 the real deity of Jesus. 
 
 He is human on the side of his mother Mary, but is begot- 
 ten of the Holy Spirit. When Mary expressed her wonder 
 and surprise, Gabriel replies: "The Holy Spirit shall come 
 upon thee, and shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the 
 holy thing which is begotten of thee shall be called the Son 
 of God" (Luke 1 : 35). The idea of the Shekinah is suggested 
 here (Ex. 40:38). "The cloud of glory signified the Divine 
 presence and power." ^ The unborn chUd is called "holy" as 
 free from all taint of sin.^ There is no discounting the fact 
 
 1 Plummer, in loco. • IMd. 
 
THE DEITY OF JESUS 157 
 
 that Luke indorses these words of Gabriel as a true forecast 
 of the life of Jesus which he will present in his Gospel. Luke 
 believed the simple story of Mary about the birth of Jesus. 
 Thus he interprets the incarnation of the Son of God. Efforts 
 have been made to empty the words "the Son of God"^ of 
 their natural content, but with no success. True, Adam is 
 called by Luke the Son of God in 3 : 38, but the context is 
 utterly different. God created Adam, but begot Jesus by the 
 Holy Spirit. Adam was not an incarnation of God, but God's 
 offspring, as all men are (Acts 17 : 28). 
 
 And then Elizabeth greets Mary as "the mother of my 
 Lord"^ (Luke 1 :43). Here the word "Lord" is not a mere 
 title of rank or even in the sense ascribed in the papyri so often 
 to Caesar, but it is the Old Testament usage as in Psalm 90 : 1. 
 Elizabeth means Messiah by Lord. Plummer^ properly notes 
 that the expression "Mother of God" does not occur in the 
 Bible. Didon* wrongly translates the language of Luke 1 : 43 
 by "la mere de mon Dieu." But the Greek word for Lord in 
 the Septuagint commonly occurs for the Hebrew Jehovah. 
 
 The shepherds hear the angel describe the Babe of Bethle- 
 hem as "a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord." ^ It is possible to 
 say that Luke, if translating an Aramaic source, whether oral 
 or written, may have followed the Septuagint in Lam. 4 : 20, 
 where "the anointed of the Lord" is rendered by "the Anointed 
 Lord."* The same peculiar expression occurs in Psalms of 
 Solomon 17:36. "The combination occurs nowhere else in 
 N. T., and the precise meaning is uncertain. Either 'Messiah, 
 Lord,' or 'Anointed Lord,' or 'the Messiah, the Lord,' or 'an 
 anointed one, a Lord.'"^ But it is, at any rate, plain that 
 the highest dignity is here ascribed to the child Jesus. 
 
 In Luke 2 : 26 we read that Simeon had had a revelation 
 
 • ulb? 9soa. The use of 6 Mq xoO BeoO would have made the point 
 clearer. Luke probably translates from the Aramaic. Deissmann (Bible 
 Studies, pf. 131) quotes an inscription of Cos with 6eo0 uloO SePautou for 
 Augustus and a Fayxun papyrus (Pap. Berol. 7006) where xa£<rapo? 6eou 
 uloij again refers to Augustus. 
 
 " ^ [I'^TTip Tou xupfou (lou. The use of xOpio? as imperial title is very common 
 in the papyri. See P. Oxy., 375 (A. D. 49) tipepfou xXauSfou xafoapos tou 
 xupfou. 
 
 ' Comm., p. 29. * Jisus Christ, p. 111. ' ocorJip 8? loxiv xptoriK; jiOpto?. 
 
 « Xptorb? xfipio?. Cf. Ps. 90 : 1 and Sirach 51 : 10. 
 
 ' Plummer, in loco. 
 
158 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 that he shoxild not die before he had seen "the Lord's Christ"* 
 or "the Lord's Anointed" (cf. Lam. 4:20). Here the deity 
 of Jesus is not brought out save as it belongs to the vord 
 "Anointed" or Messiah. One may compare Luke 9:20, 
 where Luke has "the Christ (the Anointed) of God" (Mark 
 8 : 29, "the Christ," Matt. 16 : 17, "the Christ, the Son of the 
 livmgGod"). 
 
 In Luke 2 : 49 the boy Jesus expresses surprise that Joseph 
 and Mary do not understand that "I must be in my Father's 
 house." 2 This is the correct translation, as the papjri show, 
 not " about my Father's business." But here is the Messianic 
 consciousness in the boy of twelve. God is his Father in a 
 sense not true of other men. The Jews later accused Jesus of 
 blasphemy for calling God "his own Father, and making him- 
 self equal with God" (John 5 : 18). 
 
 At the baptism of Jesus " a voice came out of heaven, Thou 
 art my beloved Son;' in thee I am well pleased" (Luke 3 : 22 = 
 Mark 1:11 = Matt. 3 : 17). It is possible that the voice of 
 the Father suggested Psalm 2 : 7, which D (Codex Bezae) here 
 follows. But it is beyond question that the Synoptic Gospels 
 here present the deity of Jesus as cleariy as does the Gospel of 
 John. It is given, moreover, at the very beginning of Christ's 
 ministry, not merely at the close. It comes not as a new revela- 
 tion to Jesus, but as confirmation of his peculiar relation to the 
 Father. John the Baptist saw the descent of the Holy Spirit as 
 the sign (John 1 : 33) and he heard the voice of the Father: 
 "And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of 
 God" (1 : 34). This is no mere Bath-Kol of the rabbis, an echo 
 of God's voice. It is not the Cerinthian Gnostic idea of an 
 emanation upon Jesus, the "Christ" coming upon the man 
 Jesus. Jesus does not here "become" God or the Son of God. 
 As the Son of God, he is recognized by the Father on the for- 
 mal entrance upon his Messianic mission in the presence and 
 with the sanction of the forerunner. Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit unite on this august occasion in setting this seal upon 
 the solemn event. 
 
 In the temptations the devil twice (Luke 4 : 3, 9) challenges 
 Christ's relation to God by the words "If thou art the Son of 
 
 ' xbv xpioxiv xuptsu. 
 
 ^ Iv Toiq Tou xatpfi? |i.ou Set elvaf (is. 
 
THE DEITY OF JESUS 159 
 
 God " ' or, more exactly, " If thou art Son of God," There is no 
 article with Son in the Greek. There is undoubted allusion 
 to the voice of the Father at the baptism (Luke 3 : 22), but 
 the reference is "to the relationship to God, rather than to 
 the office of Messiah." ^ The condition, being of the first 
 class,' assumes the fact of Christ's peculiar relationship to 
 God, though possibly enjoyed by others. The devil does not 
 throw doubt on his own temptation, but seeks to incite doubt 
 in Jesus by urging him to prove that he is in reality God's 
 Son by the exercising of the power of God. 
 
 In the discourse in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4 : 16-30) 
 Jesus read from the roll of Isaiah (61 : 1-2; 58 : 6) and defi- 
 nitely claims that this Messianic passage is fulfilled in him 
 (Luke 4:21). There is no specific claim to deity here save 
 as that is involved in Christ's conception of the Messiah. " In 
 applying these words to Himself the Christ looks back to His 
 baptism. He is more than a Prophet; He is the Son, the 
 Beloved One, of Jehovah" (3 : 21, 22).* 
 
 The Pharisees challenged the right of Christ to forgive sins by 
 saying: "Who can forgive sins but God alone ? " (Luke 5 : 21). 
 Jesus does not dispute the point raised, but accepts the chal- 
 lenge and heals the man on purpose, " that ye may know that 
 the Son of Man hath authority on earth to forgive sins" 
 (5 : 24). He acts on his own authority in perfect accord with 
 the will of God (John 5 : 19, 21). He allows the Pharisees and 
 the" people to draw the conclusion that he claims divine pre- 
 rogatives. 
 
 In Luke 6 : 5 Jesus claims to be "Lord of the Sabbath," with 
 power to change or cancel the day as it suits best his work. 
 This is not a direct claim to equality with God, but is a revo- 
 lutionary position from the usual Pharisaic theology which 
 made men slaves of the Sabbath. 
 
 One does not care to press the point in the language of the 
 demoniac in Luke 8:28, who says: "Jesus, thou Son of the 
 Most High God." The word "God" is not certain in the 
 text, and "Most High" is a common name for Jehovah among 
 heathen nations.^ Perhaps the man was a heathen. The 
 
 1 el ulb? si Tou Beou. Note emphatic position of u\bq. On absence of arti- 
 cle, see Robertson, Grammar, p. 781. 
 
 ' Plummer, in loco. ' Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 1009. 
 
 * Plummer, in loco. ^ See proof in Plummer's Comm., p. 229. 
 
160 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 demoniacs quickly acknowledge the deity of Jesus, a fact that 
 was turned against Jesus by the rabbis, who used it as a proof 
 that he was in league with the devil. But Luke records the 
 fact and lets his readers draw their own inferences. Devil 
 and demons alike acknowledge Jesus as God's Son in Luke's 
 Gospel. 
 
 We have already seen that in Luke 9 : 20 Peter addresses 
 Jesus as "the Christ of God," while Matt. 16:16 has "the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God." Luke's briefer form in- 
 volves Matthew's longer report. 
 
 On the Mount of Transfiguration Luke (9 : 35) records that 
 "a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is my Son, my 
 chosen; hear ye him." Here many manuscripts,* like 
 Matt. 17:5 and Mark 9:7, have "my beloved Son" as in 
 Luke 3 : 22. But the variation in the verbal or participle cuts 
 no figure in the testimony of the Father to the peculiar sonship^ 
 of Jesus. Luke has points of his own concerning this great 
 event (Christ's praying, the talk about Christ's decease). 
 
 In Luke 10 : 22 (= Matt. 11 : 27) Jesus claims equality with 
 the Father by the use of "the Father," "the Son," as so often 
 in John's Gospel (cf. 5: 19-20). "And it contains the whole 
 of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. It is like ' an aerolite 
 from the Johannean heaven';' and for that very reason it causes 
 perplexity to those who deny the solidarity between the Johan- 
 nean heaven and the Synoptic earth." * 
 
 When on trial before the Sanhedrin Jesus is finally asked 
 pointedly by Caiaphas if he is the Christ (Luke 22 : 67) and 
 then by all: "Art thou then the Son of God?" (22:70). To 
 this he replied, "Ye say that I am," a virtual affirmative. 
 Luke only gives the ratification after dawn (22:66) of the 
 illegal condemnation before day given in detail by Matthew 
 and Mark, Matthew (26:63) represents Christ as put on 
 oath by Caiaphas to tell "whether thou be the Christ, the Son 
 of God," to which Jesus gives an affirmative answer (Matt. 
 26 : 64; Mark 14 : 62). It is all perfunctory repetition in Luke, 
 but the same point is clearly made that Jesus before the San- 
 hedrin solemnly claims to be the Son of God. On this con- 
 fession of his the vote was twice taken to convict him of blas- 
 phemy. Clearly, therefore, the Sanhedrin understood Jesus to 
 
 1 A C D P R. H Mq [I.OU. Note article. 
 
 ' Hase, Oeschichte Jesu, p. 527. ' Plummer, p. 282. 
 
THE DEITY OF JESUS 161 
 
 make divine claims. Jesus had said in so many words: "But 
 from henceforth shall the Son of Man be seated at the right 
 hand of the power of God" (22:69). "In the allusion to 
 Daniel 7 : 13 they recognize a claim to Divinity." ' In simple 
 truth Luke records that the Sanhedrin voted Jesus to be 
 worthy of death because he claimed to be the Son of God, and 
 so equal with God. 
 
 Once more Luke represents the risen Christ as claiming 
 that he is the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy, whose suf- 
 ferings were already foretold (Luke 24:26,46). 
 
 The case is made out with abundant clearness that Luke's 
 Gospel gives us a picture of one who claimed to be the Son of 
 God in the full sense of that phrase. Luke presents the real 
 deity of Jesus, not the mere divinity of humanity. In a word, 
 Jesus is the Son of God in the same sense that he appears in 
 the Fourth Gospel, though John's philosophical language in 
 the Prologue is not employed. We see this conception of 
 Christ in Mary's memorials in chapters 1 and 2, in the portions 
 of Luke drawn from Mark and from Q, in the Perean and 
 passion narratives. It is futile to try to make Luke's Christ 
 a mere man, even the best of men. From the virgin birth to 
 the ascension we see the Son of God limned by Luke the 
 painter and the historian. 
 
 3. The Son of Man. — But Luke is not a Docetic Gnostic any 
 more than a Cerinthian Gnostic. If Jesus is the Son of God 
 in Luke's Gospel, he is none the less the Son of Man. Jesus 
 is a real man and not a make-believe man without genuine 
 humanity. Luke's Gospel is that of "Jesus, our Brother- 
 Man." ^ The Jesus of Luke's Gospel is no pale-faced dreamer 
 out of touch with his environment. As a physician Luke takes 
 special delight in showing the phases and features of his human 
 birth and development side by side with the manifest deity of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Jesus is the child of Mary and is from the most humble sur- 
 roundings, with no comforts for mother or child (Luke 2 : 4-7). 
 Here we see the physician's tender interest in the details of 
 the birth. 
 
 Like any other child, Jesus "grew, and waxed strong, filled 
 with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him" (2:40). 
 
 ' Pliimmer, p. 519. 
 
 2 Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Ads, p. 253. 
 
162 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Luke alone gives the picture of the boy Jesus in the temple 
 and his obedience to Joseph and Mary. " And Jesus advanced 
 in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" 
 (2 : 52). Luke does not moralize or dogmatize about the 
 wonder of these words. With wondrous skill he helps us to 
 see the human growth of the Son of God, who is also the Son 
 of Man. 
 
 The tender sympathy of Jesus is apparent at every turn in 
 Luke's Gospel in his love for sinners and his pity for the sick 
 and the suffering. Luke pictures Jesus as weeping over Jeru- 
 salem, that was to reject him (19 : 41-44). Luke says that in 
 the agony in Gethsemane "his sweat became as it were great 
 drops of blood falling down upon the ground" (22 : 44). Even 
 after the resurrection of Jesus Luke emphasizes the fact that 
 Jesus was more than a mere ghost by his asking his disciples to 
 handle him and by his eating a piece of broiled fish (24 : 38-43), 
 difficult as it is to comprehend this transition stage in the 
 body of Christ. 
 
 Like the other Gospels, Luke's Gospel reports Jesus as 
 claiming to be the Son of Man, and yet no one of the Evangel- 
 ists calls Jesus by this term. It is always used by Christ in 
 the more than eighty instances in the Gospels. This agree- 
 ment is not mere coincidence, and argues strongly for the 
 genuineness of the language. And yet there is great agree- 
 ment among modern scholars as to the origin and the signifi- 
 cance of the expression. Abbott has an exhaustive treatment 
 of every phase of the subject in his notable monograph.^ It is 
 vain to try to find the Aramaic bamasha, a man, any one, in 
 some of the crucial passages in the Gospels, however possible 
 in others. It is plain in Luke, as in the other Gospels, that 
 Christ's enemies understood him to make a Messianic claim 
 by the use of "the Son of Man." That is seen in Luke 22 : 69 
 where Jesus calls himself "the Son of Man," who will "be 
 seated at the right hand of the power of God." The Sanhedrin 
 then retort: "Art thou then the Son of God?" The two 
 terms are not interchangeable, but evidently there is a bond 
 of imity. If Jesus had simply claimed to be a man, there 
 would be no meaning in the question. So also in John 12 : 34 
 the multitude identify "the Christ" (Messiah) with "Son of 
 Man." In the Book of Enoch the Son of Man has a Messianic 
 
 ■ The Son of Man, or Contrihutions to the Slvdy of the Thoitghts of Jesas. 
 
THE DEITY OF JESUS 163 
 
 connotation, though it is not clear whether all of the book is 
 pre-Christian or not. The word occurs in Ezekiel as his title 
 and it is in Daniel 7 : 13 f. as "one like a Son of Man." The 
 expression emphasizes the humanity of Christ and also hia 
 representative position as the ideal and perfect man. But it 
 ajso presents in popular apprehension the claim to the Mes- 
 siahship without using the technical word Messiah. Thus 
 Jesus avoided a technical issue with his enemies till his hour 
 had come. But the very phrase that reveals the true human- 
 ity of Jesus implies that he is more than a man. The Son of 
 Man is the Son of God, else he could not really be the Son of 
 Man. 
 
 So, then, Luke really means that Jesus in his human life, 
 though absolutely genuine, is in a state of voluntary humilia- 
 tion, as Paul explains in II Cor. 8 : 9 and Phil. 2 : 5-11. He 
 had the limitations of weariness and suffering and sorrow and 
 pain and death. Jesus battled with wrong at every turn. 
 He clashed with the ecclesiastical hypocrites of the time who 
 crucified In'm for his spiritual reality and hostility to sham. 
 In his very humanity Jesus reveals his deity and is the hope 
 of the race. 
 
 4. The Saviour of Sinners. — Christ is the great humanitarian 
 of the ages, but he is more. Jesus has drawn the picture of 
 the good Samaritan with his disregard for caste and race and 
 religious prejudice and his sheer pity for a man in trouble. 
 Jesus was the friend of the poor, of the sick, of the suffering. 
 The lepers were not afraid to draw nigh to him. The blind 
 cried out after Jesus when he passed by. Even the dead heard 
 his voice and came back to life. Jesus brought health and 
 healing at every step. He carried light and life with him to 
 all who wished it. Jesus is the true philanthropist. Nowhere 
 is he pictured with such attractive power as he went about 
 doing good as in Luke's Gospel. The very heart of Luke 
 went out to Jesus in his deeds of mercy. 
 
 But there is a deeper note than all this blessed work of social 
 amelioration. Jesus is the saviour from sin in Luke's Gospel. 
 He is the friend of publicans and sinners, not to condone their 
 sins or to join in them, but to win them from their sins. Luke's 
 Christ is Mr. H. G. Wells's "Limited God" right down in the 
 midst of sinners, right down in the trenches, struggling and 
 fightmg evil in its lair. Jesus not merely has sympathy with 
 
164 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 the suffering and the sinful. He has love for the souls of the 
 lost. He has power to help men. Jesus sees the cross ahead 
 of him as the way to win the lost. He makes the plain predic- 
 tion (9 : 43 f .) to Peter (Luke 9 : 20-27) and repeats it. He 
 knows the cost of redemption from sin and he means to pay 
 the price with his life. It is no mythical "dying god" of the 
 autumn who rises, according to the myth, in the spring, as the 
 mystery religions teach. Jesus sees his baptism of death 
 (12:49-53) before it comes. Jesus is conscious that he is 
 dymg for men (22:19ff.). Substitution is not so hard to 
 understand now as it was before the Great War. Luke's 
 account of the death on the cross (23 : 32-54) and of the 
 resurrection from the dead is all in harmony with the Paulme 
 gospel of the death of Christ for the salvation of the sinner. 
 In Luke we have the Son of God and the Son of Man giving 
 himself as the victim of sin to save the sinner. The Gospel of 
 Luke has often been called the Gospel of Sacrifice. "The Son 
 of Man must suffer many things" (Luke 9:22). And Jesus 
 himself will explain to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus: 
 "Behoved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter 
 into his glory?" (24:26). 
 
 5. The Captain of Our Salvation. — Luke gives us a Christ 
 with a world programme. The risen Christ on Olivet (a 
 wondrous picture) interprets his sufferings, death and resur- 
 rection as preliminary to the proclamation of repentance and 
 remission of sins to the whole world (Luke 24 : 46-49). The 
 disciples were to tarry in Jerusalem till clothed with power 
 from on high, and then they were to fare forth to the conquest 
 of the world. The Gospel closes with this promise of divine 
 energy (power, dunamis, dynamite) to carry out this vast 
 undertaking. The Acts opens with the same promise of the 
 Father for which they were to wait, but which was near, and 
 which did come at the great Pentecost. Jesus did not leave 
 the disciples in gloom. They were in darkness at his death, 
 but were full of joy at his ascension (Luke 24:52). The 
 greatest revolution in himian history took place in the short 
 space of fifty days. Defeat was turned into victory. The 
 cross became the sign of conquest. 
 
 Jesus lives as the leader of men with the forward look, who 
 hope for better days and better men. Luke's Christ is the 
 risen Jesus, who carries on the work that he began (Acts 1:1). 
 
THE DEITY OF JESUS 165 
 
 The Acts, like the Gospel, records the words and deeds of 
 Jesus. This is Luke's conception of Christ. He would prob- 
 ably not have written those two books at all if they only 
 recorded ancient history that was over and done. Luke had 
 a profound conviction that he was recording the origin of a 
 movement that was to go to the uttermost part of the earth. 
 The kingdom of Christ was to overturn the kingdom of 
 Satan. Christ was to overcome Csesar, Luke saw victory in 
 the future. Hence he wrote. He lived to see the proof of the 
 promise. The Acts justifies the Gospel. Paul answered the 
 call of Christ. The Roman Empire would fall at the feet of 
 Jesus. The conflict was to be longer than Luke knew, but he 
 was sure that in the end of the day Jesus would win, for he is 
 the Son of God who is now leading the forces of righteousness 
 on earth from his throne in heaven. 
 
 The Holy Spirit is the vicegerent of Christ on earth, not 
 the Pope of Rome. The Holy Spirit is the power of Christ 
 on earth for all men who will let him use them. So the battle 
 goes on. The programme of Christ is not yet completed. He 
 is coming back some day. But that promise and that hope 
 should be an incentive to greater zeal in carrying out Christ's 
 programme, not a sedative to endeavor. Optimism, not pes- 
 simism, is the key-note of Luke's Gospel and the Acts. Jesus 
 is risen and reigns. Paul carries the Gospel over the Roman 
 Empire. You and I are to carry the torch to the uttermost 
 part of the earth. We have Luke's Gospel with its wondrous 
 pictm-e of Christ to take with us. We have the Acts with the 
 marvellous story of the power of the Holy Spirit to cheer us. 
 Jesus is king. Let us crown him. That is what Luke means 
 by his Gospel and Acts. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 POINTS OF CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS' 
 
 " Now, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pon- 
 tius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of 
 Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Iturea and 
 Trachoniti3, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priest- 
 hood of Annas and Caiaphas " (Luke 3 : 1-3). 
 
 1. The Beginning a^ John's Ministry. — ^Ancient historians 
 had great difficulty in giving precise dates for historical events. 
 Chronological data give modern scholars no end of trouble. 
 The ancient writers often made little effort to give the exact 
 time. The years were counted in so many different ways. 
 The commonest way is that pursued by Luke in his Gospel, 
 3 : 1-3, where by seven synchronisms he dates the beginning 
 of the active ministry of the Baptist. Evidently Luke is tak- 
 ing pains to make plain wheij John began his work and when 
 Jesus entered upon his ministry. Jesus was "about thirty 
 years old" (Luke 3:23). John was six months older than 
 Jesus (1 : 26). John was thus probably about thirty when he 
 began his ministry. If we assimie that the crucifixion of ^ 
 Jesus took place at the Passover of A. D. 30 and that there 
 were four Passovers in the ministry of Jesus, "we reach the 
 conclusion that the synchronisms of Luke 3 : 1, 2 are calculated 
 for the summer (say July) of A. D. 26." ^ There is no trouble 
 with any of the seven names given by Luke save those of 
 Tiberius and Lysanias. Luke has been sharply criticised for 
 alleged blunders concerning these two rulers, as he has been 
 for his mention of Quirinius in Luke 2 : 2. We have seen how 
 Luke has been triumphantly vindicated about Quirinius and 
 the census of Augustus. This victory for Luke should at 
 least make us pause before attacking him blindly. 
 
 Now Tiberius began to reign in A. D. 14, upon the death 
 of Augustus. The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, 
 however, gives us the year A. D. 28, not A. D. 26, two years 
 
 »The Methodist Review (Nashville), Oct., 1920. 
 > Ramsay, St. Paid the Traveller, p. 386, 
 166 
 
CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 167 
 
 later than the other data call for. Has Luke made a slip here ? 
 We know from Suetonius {Tib. xxi) that Tiberius was asso- 
 ciated with Augustus in the administration of the provinces.'^ 
 Tacitus (Ann. I, iii, 3) speaks of Tiberius as " son, colleague in 
 empire, consort in tribunician power." ^ Besides, some coins 
 of Antioch, not accepted as genuine by Eckert, count Tiberius's 
 rule from A. D. 12 instead of A. D. 14. Pliunmer' is doubtful, 
 but is inclined to think that Lxike means to count from A. D. 14, 
 not A. D. 12. The argument from silence is always pre- 
 carious. The Romans counted the beginning of a reign on the 
 death of a previous ruler. But in the case of Titus it was not 
 done. Ramsay* argues that thus we get a clew to the date of 
 Acts: "So that Luke, being familiar with that method, applied 
 it in the case of Tiberius. Now that was the case with Titus. 
 His reign began from the association with his father on 1st 
 July, A. D. 71." That is plausible, to be sure, but it is not the 
 only interpretation of the fact about Titus. If it was done 
 with Titus, as we know, it may have been done with Tiberius, 
 though we have no other knowledge of it. If others did it in 
 the case of Titus, Luke could do it in the case of Tiberius, 
 even if he did not know of the Titus case when he wrote. 
 Luke lived in the provinces where Tiberius shared the rule 
 with Augustus. We must remember Quirinius and the census 
 again before we dare to convict Luke of a blunder concerning 
 Tiberius. 
 
 The difiBculty about Lysanias is more acute. Plummer^ puts 
 the case clearly: "Not merely Strauss, Gfrorer, B. Baur and 
 Hilgenfeld, but even Keim and Holtzmann, attribute to Luke 
 the gross chronological blunder of supposing that Lysanias, son 
 of Ptolemy, who ruled this region previous to B. C. 36, when 
 he was kiUed by M. Antony, is still reigning sixty years after 
 his death." That is the charge, put baldly and bluntly. 
 What can be said in reply? Carpenter® admits that "it is in 
 any case possible that the reference to Lysanias is a chrono- 
 logical error." It is even suggested that Luke "somewhat 
 carelessly read Josephus" (Ard. XX, vii, 1) where he says that 
 Trachonitis and Abila "had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias." 
 
 ' Ut promndas cum Auguslo comvmnUer administraret. 
 
 ^ Films, coUega imperii, consors trihunicioB potestati adsumitur. 
 
 ' C<mm., p. 82. * St. Paul the Traveller, p. 387. 
 
 ' Comm., p. 84. ' Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 229. 
 
168 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Carpenter admits that it is possible that there was a second 
 Lysanias, a tetrarch. Plummer notes -the pure assumption 
 that only one Lysanias ruled in those parts. Critics had over- 
 looked the fact that Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, was king, not 
 tetrarch, as Luke and Josephus say. Besides, an inscription 
 has been known for a century that ought to have taught critics 
 the truth. Plummer notes "that at the time Tiberius was 
 associated with Augustus there was a 'tetrarch Lysanias.'"' 
 Moffatt' called special attention to the bearing of this inscrip- 
 tion, a new and improved copy, found at Suk Wadi Barada, 
 the site of Abila. It is the dedication of a temple and has the 
 words "on behalf of the salvation of the Lords Imperial and 
 their whole household" by "Nymphaios a freedman of Lysa- 
 nias the tetrarch." Ramsay' has seized upon the new copy 
 with avidity and shows that "the Lords Imperial" can only 
 be "Tiberius and Julia" (his mother). Julia Augusta died 
 A. D. 29, and the time of this inscription must come in between 
 A. D. 14 and A. D. 29. Here, then, is an inscription from 
 Abila itself, which says plainly that there was a tetrarch 
 Lysanias in Abilene at the very time to which Luke refers. 
 Plummer had already said that such a mistake on Luke's part 
 was "very improbable." Now we know that it is the subjec- 
 tive critics who were wrong, not Luke. Once more the very 
 stones have leaped up from the ground and have cried out in 
 defense of the historical accxu-acy of Luke concerning Lysanias 
 the tetrarch. 
 
 2. The Length of Christ's Stay in the Tomb. — ^There are vari- 
 ous other chronological problems in Luke's Gospel, such as the 
 three joumeyings to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11), 
 interpreted by some as only one, but most likely the three 
 mentioned in John (7:2ff.; ll:17f.; 12:1). Lieutenant- 
 Colonel G. Mackinlay* seeks to prove that Luke has three 
 parallel narratives. I have endeavored to show^ that Luke 
 (like Matthew and Mark) really has the death of Christ on 
 the same day as John, and ate the Passover at the regular time. 
 Luke agrees with all the Gospels as to the length of Christ's 
 stay in the tomb, but makes the matter clearer than any of 
 
 1 Cf. Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Gr., 4523, 4521. 
 
 2 The Expositor, January, 1913. 
 
 3 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 298. * A Difficulty Removed, 1919. 
 ^ Broadus's Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 253-7. 
 
CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUICAN WRITINGS 169 
 
 them. Luke notes (23:54) that the day of the death and 
 burial of Jesus "was the day of the Preparation, and the Sab- 
 bath drew on" (or dawned). The word for "Preparation" ^ is 
 to-day the name for Friday in modern Greek. It was the 
 technical name for the day before the Sabbath. The word for 
 "drew on"" literally means the coming of light, but it was 
 used not simply of the dawning of the twelve-hour day, but 
 also of the twenty-four-hour day. Matthew (28 : 1) uses it as 
 Luke does here: "Now late on the Sabbath day, as it began 
 to dawn toward the first day of the week." The first day 
 began at sundown, the Jewish way of reckoning. Luke adds 
 that "on the Sabbath they (the women) rested according to 
 the commandment." Thus we have a part of Friday after- 
 noon (the burial) and all of the Sabbath day. Then Luke adds 
 (24 : 1) : "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn,' they 
 came imto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had pre- 
 pared" (cf. Matt. 28 : 1 and Mark 16 : 1). At sunrise (Mark 
 16 : 1 ; John 20 : 1) Jesus was already risen from the tomb. 
 It is not possible to escape this piece of chronology as Luke 
 has recorded it, unless Luke is in error. There is no evidence 
 that he is incorrect. The use of "after three days" a few 
 times cannot set aside so plain a narrative. Luke represents 
 Christ as saying that he rose on the third day (24 : 7). Luke 
 has "on the third day" (9:22) where Mark (10:34) has 
 " after three days." Free vernacular in all languages uses the 
 fuller phrase without meaning full seventy-two hours. "On 
 the third day" cannot be imderstood as meaning "on the 
 fourth day," while "after three days" can be understood to 
 mean "on the third day." So the matter stands against all 
 theories to the contrary. 
 
 3. Theiidas. — ^The case of Theudas is a test case of one's 
 confidence in Luke. As yet there is no clear solution of the 
 apparent contradiction between Luke and Josephus. In Acts 
 5 : 36 f . Luke mentions the revolt of Judas the Galilean as 
 after the revolt of Theudas. Josephus* mentions both of 
 them in the same order as Luke (Theudas and Judas), though 
 twenty lines apart, but Josephus explains that the revolt of 
 Judas took place in the time of the great census under Quirinius 
 in A. D. 6, while the revolt under Theudas occurred under the 
 
 8 BpBpou gae&os. *-^w^- XX, v, 1 f. 
 
170 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 Emperor Claudius, when Cuspius Fadus was Roman procura- 
 tor (A. D. 44-46). Luke not only has the chronology reversed, 
 but reports Gamaliel as speaking of the revolt of Theudas 
 that, according to Josephus, took place some thirty years 
 after his speech. 
 
 One explanation is that Luke read Josephus and was misled 
 by the mere order there, and failed to see the real dates, and 
 so misrepresented Josephus. But that makes Luke very care- 
 less in this use of Josephus, if he did use him. But the differ- 
 ences are so great that scholars life Schuerer,' who dates Luke 
 after Josephus, say that Luke either did not read Josephus at 
 all or forgot all that he had read." We have seen already that 
 Luke in all probability wrote the Acts before 70 A. D. So we 
 may dismiss the idea of any use of Josephus. 
 
 But the discrepancy remains. It is suggested by some that 
 Luke merely reports Gamaliel, who is responsible for the error, 
 if it is one. But Luke would hardly let it pass in that case 
 with no comment. 
 
 At bottom we are called on to choose between the accuracy 
 of Luke and of Josephus, unless both are right. Both can only 
 be right on the hypothesis that there were two men by the 
 name of Theudas who raised a revolt. Rackham* thinks that 
 " in all probability both are right. There were similar disturb- 
 ances throughout this period, as Josephus himself testifies. 
 Theudas is a contracted form, which may stand for a number 
 of names — ^Theodotus, Theodosius, Theodorus, etc., so it is 
 quite possible that different persons are referred to." Ram- 
 say* holds that "there is no real difficulty in believing that 
 more than one impostor may have borne or taken the name 
 Theudas." Nosgen^ observes that "Josephus describes four 
 men bearing the name Simon within forty years, and three 
 that of Judas within ten years, all of whom were instigators of 
 rebellion." 
 
 But, suppose both do refer to the same man and event, who 
 is to be believed? Fumeaux" says: "There is no reason for 
 doubting the accuracy of Josephus* chronology at this point; 
 and the remarkable accuracy of Luke's historical narrative is 
 
 ' Lntcas wnd Joieyhw (Zeitsehriftf. Krit. Theol., 1876, p. 574). 
 " Cf . Sanday, BampUm Lectures, 1^93, p. 278. 
 » Comm., p. 74. * Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem 1, p. 259. 
 
 s Apostelgeschichte, p. 147. ' Comm., in loco. 
 
CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 171 
 
 no sufficient ground for denying the possibility of inaccuracy 
 in a speech composed, at least to some extent, by himself." 
 We are not assuming in our studies that Luke could not be 
 inacairate in any particular. We only ask that he be treated 
 as faiily as Josephus. Who has the best reputation as a reli- 
 able historian, Luke or Josephus? To-day Luke stands far 
 above Josephus. "In his Antiquities Josephus corrects many 
 mistakes which he made in his earlier work on the Jewish 
 War." I 
 
 But in all candor we must admit that this difficulty has not 
 yet been solved. "We have to leave the difficulty unsolved. 
 We must hope for the discovery of further evidence. Mean- 
 time, no one who finds Luke to be a trustworthy historian in 
 the rest of his History will see any difficulty in this passage." 
 Thus Ramsay* avows his willingness to trust Luke till he is 
 proven to be wrong. That has not been done as to Acts 5 : 36 f . 
 Luke has won the right to be credited till he is shown to be in 
 error. We can wait here for further light. 
 
 4. Paul's Visits to Jerusalem. — ^There are certainly four, 
 probably five, of these visits of Paul to the Jewish metropolis 
 after his conversion (Acts 9:26-30; ll:29f. and 12:25; 
 15 : 2-29; probably 18 : 22; 21 : 17-23 : 30). In themselves they 
 offer no difficulty. It is only when we turn to'Galatians that 
 trouble arises. In Galatians 1:18 and 2:1 Paul speaks of 
 two visits to Jerusalem. The visit in Acts 9 : 26 and Gal. 1 : 18 
 is the same. But where does Gal. 2 : 1 come in ? Is it the 
 visit in Acts 11 : 29 or 15 : 2? Galatians was certainly written 
 before the visits in Acts 18 : 22 and 21 : 17. It would not seem 
 to matter much except that in Gal. 2 : 1-10 and Acts 15 : 2-29 
 the Judaizing controversy is up for discussion. Lake,' how- 
 ever, denies this and says "the subject is not the same at all." 
 He holds that in Galatians the subject "is merely whether the 
 mission to the uncirciuncised should be continued, while in 
 Acts the circmncision of the Gentiles is the main point." But 
 surely that is a misapprehension of Gal. 2 : 1-10, where Paul 
 so stoutly refused to allow Titus to be circumcised on the 
 demand of the timid brethren to satisfy the Judaizers. Ram- 
 say has urged that Paul means that he was not compelled to 
 
 1 Rackham, Comm., note 2, p. 74. 
 
 ' Was Christ Bam at Bethlehem ?, p. 259. 
 
 'Hastings's Did. of the Ap. Ch. ("Acts"). 
 
172 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 circumcise Titus, but did it voluntarily. But that theory 
 makes incomprehensible Paul's vehemence in the matter. 
 
 Quite a group of modern scholars obviate the apparent con- 
 tradiction between the two reports in Gal. 2 : 1-10 and Acts 
 15 : 2-29, by making them accounts of different events. It is 
 argued that in Gal. 2 : 1-10 Paul really has in mind the visit 
 to Jerusalem in Acts 11 : 29. It is urged that this view is 
 necessary because Paul in Galatians records all the visits that 
 he made to Jerusalem. But that is not the point in Galatians. 
 There Paul is asserting his independence of the Twelve Apos- 
 tles and showing that his authority was on a par with theirs. 
 He mentions in Gal. 1 : 18 f. that he saw only Cephas of the 
 Twelve, and made only a pleasant visit. In Acts ll:29f. 
 only "the elders" are mentioned. It is possible that the 
 Apostles were absent on this occasion. If so, Paul would not 
 need to refer to this visit. Lightfoot in his Commentary on 
 Galatians has made a powerful argument for the identification 
 of Gal. 2 : 1-10 with Acts 15 : 2-29. His view is that in 
 Galatians Paul refers to the private conference that took 
 place between the two public gatherings, in which Paul won 
 Peter, James and John to his view of Gentile freedom from 
 Jewish ceremonialism. This is what concerned Paul's argu- 
 ment. In Acts Luke is not interested in that point, but nar- 
 rates the public gatherings when the programme was carried 
 through. On the whole, this view still seems to be the most 
 plausible explanation of the situation. One has only to keep 
 clearly before him the purpose of Luke in the Acts. 
 
 It is not necessary here to discuss what was done at the 
 Jerusalem conference in Acts 15, and whether the text in D is 
 to be followed which omits "things strangled," and adds the 
 golden rule in negative form. This text makes no demands 
 of the Gentiles at all save purely moral issues (fornication, 
 murder, idolatry). On the whole, the other text is most likely 
 genuine. 
 
 It is even argued by some that Galatians was written before 
 the conference m Acts 15, and so Gal. 2 : 1-10 could not refer 
 to the same event. This view is advocated by Round,' Emmet,* 
 Bartlet,' Lake* and Ramsay.* But M. Jones* holds that 
 
 ' The Date of Galatians. ' Comm. on Galatians. 
 
 ' Apostolic Age, p. 84. ' Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paid. 
 
 5 Expositor, viii, 5, pp. 127 f. 'N. T. in Twentieth Century, p. 248. 
 
CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 173 
 
 such a view utterly discredits Luke. "Acts has, however, an 
 equal claim to be heard on this point, and if the early date of 
 Galatians is adopted it becomes exceedingly difficult to credit 
 the author with any historical accuracy, much less regard 
 him as a historian of first rank." Jones is not able to under- 
 stand how Ramsay, in particular, "the strongest living advo- 
 cate of the historical value of Acts," is able to reconcile the 
 early date of Galatians "with the repudiation of his (Luke's) 
 clear statement which this date of Galatians involves." Jones* 
 feels that "tke historical value of the book reaches its climax 
 in the discussion of the story of the Apostolic Council in Jeru- 
 salem in Acts 15." The very fact that Ramsay has come 
 roimd to the early date of Galatians and still takes the view 
 that Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthi- 
 ness^ is enough to make one pause. But, on the whole, I 
 sympathize with Jones in his contention that the straight- 
 forward narrative of events in Acts calls for a date for Gala- 
 tians subsequent to the Jerusalem conference. We are not 
 called upon here to settle the Galatian controversy, but only 
 to say that it is gratuitous from the standpoint of Acts to 
 create a difficulty by the early date of Galatians which does 
 not exist on the theory of the late date. The data in Gala- 
 tians are wholly indecisive in themselves and readily allow the 
 later date between II Corinthians and Romans which Light- 
 foot proposed. That theory leaves both Paul and Luke intelli- 
 gible and reliable. It is not scientific and fair to Luke to foist 
 upon Acts a view of Galatians that throws his historical data 
 into a jiunble. Once more we can say that Luke's credit as a 
 historian is too great to be upset by a mere speculative theory 
 as to the date of Galatians. I am not willing to say with 
 Jones' that, "if the Epistle to the Galatians was written at 
 this period, St. Luke must have entirely misconceived the 
 situation, and he ceases to have any claim to our respect as a 
 serious historian." But I do say that Luke's proved veracity 
 as a historian stops the acceptance of a mere theory, by no 
 means the most probable one, of the date of Galatians. Luke 
 
 » Ibid., p. 242. 
 
 2 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 81. 
 
 ^Op. dt., p. 249. Jones stands by this position against Plooij, who 
 also adopts the view that Galatians is before the Jerusalem conference in 
 Acta 15 (.Expositor, June, 1919, pp. 444 f.). 
 
174 LUKE THE fflSTORIAN 
 
 is entitled to that much consideration unless the earlier date 
 can be proved true beyond controversy. 
 
 5. The Death qf Herod Agrippa I and the Famine in Jvdea.— 
 In Acts 11 : 27-30 Luke mentions the prophecy of the famine 
 by Agabus and the contribution to the poor saints in Jerusalem 
 by the Gentile (Greek) Church in Antioch which Barnabas and 
 Saul turned over to the elders. Luke does not specifically say 
 that the famine had actually begun when the money was sent, 
 but Ramsay* rejects Lightfoot's view that the money was 
 brought a year or more before the famine as not " a natural or 
 a useful procedure." What was the date of the famine? 
 Josephus {Ant. XX, v) places it in the procuratorship of 
 Alexander, which ended in A. D. 48 and could not have begun 
 before 45. So, then, A. D. 46 is the probable year. Orosius 
 (VIL vi), a writer of the fifth century, locates the beginnmg of 
 the famine in the fourth year of Claudius, which would be 
 A. D. 45. The beginning of the current year of reckoning has 
 always to be borne in mind, and Ramsay" notes a failure 
 always to do this in Turner's "Chronology of the N. T." in 
 Hastings's D. B. So, then, the years 45 and 46 can very well 
 be the years of the famine. 
 
 Luke (Acts 12 : 20-23) gives the death of Herod before men- 
 tioning the return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch (12 : 25), 
 though verse 24 suggests an interim of some sort, and verse 25 
 really belongs to the story of chapter 13. The precise sequence 
 of events in chapters 11 and 12 is not clear. Herod Agrippa 
 killed James the brother of John (12:2) and put Peter in 
 prison, who, on his miraculous release, left the city (12 : 17). 
 Was this persecution of the Apostles by Herod after the visit 
 of Barnabas and Saul or before? The corns' say that Herod 
 Agrippa I reigned nine years, while Josephus asserts that he 
 died in the seventh year of his reign. The coins are considered 
 spurious by some, and others think that Josephus reckons 
 from A. D. 39, when the tetrarchy of Antipas was addedto 
 the rule of Herod, instead of 37, when he was appointed king 
 of the tetrarchy of Philip. In A. D. 41 Judea, Samaria and 
 Abilene were added, so th9,t till A. D. 44 Herod Agrippa I 
 ruled over all of Palestine. Josephus contradicts himself m 
 
 1 St. Paul the TroBdler, p. 69. 
 
 2 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 222 f. 
 ' Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 130. 
 
CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 175 
 
 the War and the ArUiguiiies. On the whole, A. D. 44 appears 
 as the most likely date for the death of Herod (so Turner). 
 
 If this is true, we must think of the events of Acts 12 : 1-23 
 (up to the death of Herod in A. D. 44) as happening before the 
 famine in Judea of Acts 11 : 27-30 (A. D. 45-46) with the visit 
 of Barnabas and Saul. In that case, the Apostles had left 
 Jerusalem, and Barnabas and Saul performed their mission 
 with the elders (11 : 30) and went back to Antioch with John 
 Mark (12:25). The story is intelligible and Luke is con- 
 sistent. These two dates (A. D. 44 and 45-46) give us a fairly 
 definite point of contact between Luke's narrative and the 
 outside world. 
 
 6. The Expulsion of the Jews from, Rome.-^ln Acts 18 : 2 
 Luke says that Aquila and his wife Priscilla had "lately come 
 from Italy," "because Claudius had commanded all the Jews 
 to depart from Rome." Paul found them in Corinth on his 
 arrival there from Athens (18: 1 f.). Here again Luke gives 
 a point of contact with general history. When were the Jews 
 expelled from Rome? Suetonius^ mentions the event, but 
 gives no date. Josephus and Tacitus fail to mention the fact. 
 If Suetonius had not done so, this would have been another 
 error charged up to Luke. Orosius (VII, vi, 15) says that it 
 was in the ninth year of Claudius, which would put it about 
 A. D. 50 as he counted the years.^ This year suits very well 
 Luke's narrative in Acts 18 : 1 f. 
 
 7. Gallio's Proconsvlship. — ^Luke (Acts 18 : 12 ff.) says that 
 Paul was brought to trial in Corinth "when Gallio was pro- 
 consul of Achaia." Turner in his notable article on the 
 "Chronology of the N. T." (Hastmgs's D. B.) had concluded 
 that Gallio entered upon his proconsulship probably not before 
 A. D. 50. But Deissmann in his St. Paul ' has discussed the 
 meaning of an inscription at Delphi, which refers to Gallio as 
 proconsul, with the date the 26th "acclamation" of the Em- 
 peror Claudius. A Russian, A. Nikitsky, first published this 
 inscription,* but Deissmann has shown^ that "St. Paul must 
 have come to Corinth in the first month of the year 50, and 
 left Corinth late in the summer of the year 51," unless, for- 
 
 1 Claudius, 25. Jvdoeos, impulsore Christo, assidue tumuUuantes Roma 
 exjndsvt. 
 " Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem f, p. 223. ' Appendix I. 
 * Eirigraphical Studies at Delphi, 1898. ' Op. cit., p. 256. 
 
176 LUKE THE fflSTORIAN 
 
 sooth, the years are 51 and 52 respectively.^ The date of the 
 27th acclamation of Claudius is known by an inscription to be 
 August 1, A. D. 52. So, then, Gallio was proconsul before 
 that date. We know that "the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th acclama- 
 tions all came in the 11th tribunician year" of Claudius (Lake), 
 which was January 25, A. D. 51, to January 24, A. D. 52, 
 The date of the 25th acclamation has not been found, " so that 
 really the end of 51 is the earliest probable date for the 26th 
 acclamation."^ So, then, the Delphi inscription with the 
 26th acclamation, while Gallio was proconsul, falls between 
 the end of A. D. 51 and August 1, A. D. 52. The proconsul 
 usually entered upon his office July 1. Gallio, then, began his 
 office either July 1, A. D. 51, or July 1, A. D. 52. The latter 
 date, though possible, would put less than a month between 
 the 26th and the 27th acclamations. Paul had been a year 
 and six months in Corinth before Gallio came (Acts 18:1). 
 He did not stay long thereafter. Gallio was probably procon- 
 sul July 1, A. D. 51, to July 1, A. D. 52. If the Jews brought 
 Paul before Gallio soon after he came into office, Paul probably 
 left Corinth in the late summer or early autumn of A. D. 51. 
 He came to Corinth in the early months of A. D. 50, which 
 date agrees with the previous date already arrived at in this 
 chapter. While in Corinth, during A. D. 50-51, Paul wrote the 
 two Epistles to the Church in Thessalonica. 
 
 All things considered, the Delphi inscription gives us the 
 one certain date in Paul's ministry and in the Book of Acts. 
 All other dates must now be made to conform to the new light 
 here turned upon the chronology of the Acts and of Paul's 
 Epistles. The first mission tour (A. D. 46 and 47, or 47 and 
 48) follows the famine and visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jeru- 
 salem (A. D. 45-46). The Jerusalem conference could come 
 also in A. D. 48 and the new tour begin in A. D. 48, with the 
 arrival in Corinth, A. D. 50. All dates in Acts and Paul's 
 Epistles have to be on a sliding scale. M. Jones' has made a 
 fine survey of A New Chronology of the Life of St. Paul, by 
 Plooij,^ a Dutch scholar, who has gone over the whole ground 
 afresh. But we strike terra firma in the Delphi inscription. 
 
 8. The Coming of Festus.—Lvke says (Acts 24:27): "But 
 
 » Ibid., p. 255. ' Lake, Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Ch, 
 
 > The Expositor, May, June and August, 1910. 
 * De Chronologie van het leven van Paulua. 
 
CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 177 
 
 when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius 
 Festus." Here again we come upon a note of time in touch 
 with the Roman world, but unfortunately the date is pecu- 
 liarly uncertain. Lightfoot picked out the death of Herod 
 Agrippa I in A. D. 44 (45 for Paul's second visit) and the 
 voyage of Paul and Luke to Rome in A. D. 60 as the foci for 
 fixing Paul's career. "We have thus ascertained two fixed 
 dates in the chronology of St. Paul's life — A. D. 45 for his 
 second journey to Jerusalem and A. D. 60 for his voyage to 
 Rome. The former of these being an isolated event in St. 
 Luke's narrative is of little value comparatively for our pur- 
 pose; but from the latter the whole of the known chronology of 
 St. Paul's life is determined, by means of the notices in the 
 Acts of the sequence of events and the time occupied by them, 
 together with occasional allusions in the Epistles."^ But, 
 unfortimately, the date of the coming of Festus is by no means 
 clear. Lightfoot argued that Paul on his arrival at Rome was 
 turned over "to the prefect of the prsetorium"* according to 
 the reading of some manuscripts for Acts 28 : 16, and so it was 
 while Burrhus was in office. He died in 62, and 61 would be 
 a good date. But Ramsay' shows that this officer was most 
 likely the Princeps Peregrinorum, and the argument about 
 Burrhus is beside the point. Eusebius places the coming of 
 Festus in place of Felix in the last year of Claudius, A. D. 54, 
 but if Eusebius is right Luke is wrong, for we cannot add two 
 years in Csesarea and time for other events from Corinth 
 (A. D. 51) to Antioch, the three years in Ephesus, and the 
 trip to Macedonia and to Corinth and then to Jerusalem, and 
 then two years in Csesarea under Felix, all by A. D. 54. The 
 thing cannot be done. We have stuck a peg in Corinth when 
 Gallio came in A. D. 51. Who is right here, Eusebius or 
 Luke? Ramsay* confesses that his prejudices were all in 
 favor of Eusebius, and he was not wilUng to admit that he had 
 " committed an inexplicable blunder." But Erbes' gave Ram- 
 say® the clew to the mistake of Eusebius. Eusebius overlooked 
 
 1 "The Chronology of St. Paul's Life and Epistles" (Biblical Essays, 
 pp. 220 f.). 
 
 2 T^ oTparoxeSiipxT). ' "S'- PC'i^ i^ Traveller, p. 347. 
 ♦ "The Pauline Chronology" (Pauline and Other Studies,p. 349). 
 
 5 "Todestage Pauli und Petri" (Gebhardt and Hamack's Texte und 
 Untermch., XIV, 1). 
 ' Pauline and Other Sttidies, p. 350. 
 
178 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 the interregnum between Herod Agrippa I, who died m A. D. 44, 
 and Herod Agrippa II, who began to reign A. D. 50, not A. D. 
 45. So the tenth year of his reign when Festus came was 
 A. D. 59. This comes very close to the date of Lightfoot, 
 who made A. D. 60 as the date of the recall of Felix and the 
 coming of Festus. We may, therefore, accept A. D. 59 as the 
 time when Festus came to Csesarea. Ramsay' even thinks 
 that Acts 20 : 5 fF. shows that Paul celebrated Passover in 
 Philippi Thursday, April 7, A. D. 57. At any rate, that is in 
 accord with the other dates shown to be probable. Jones^ 
 agrees that "Felix was relieved by his successor Festus, some 
 time in the summer of 59." The two years of Paul's imprison- 
 ment in Csesarea, therefore, were the summer of A. D. 57 to 
 summer of A. D. 59. Zenos' still argues for A. D. 60 for the 
 coming of Festus, but A. D. 59 has the best of it at the pres- 
 ent. Luke comes out with flying colors in these various chron- 
 ological tests in every instance save that of Theudas. In that 
 instance, for the present, we must suspend judgment. 
 
 Harnack* gives an interesting summary of the chronological 
 data in the Acts, where occur statements of years, months, 
 days, feasts and indefinite dates. They make a considerable 
 list. Harnack notes that nowhere in Acts does Luke give a 
 scientific dating of any event, as in Luke 3 : L That is true, 
 but, as we have seen, he frequently connects his narrative with 
 the stream of history in his time, so that we are now able to 
 draw a reasonably accurate and clear outline for the chronol- 
 ogy of the whole of Acts. Ramsay' says that "Luke was 
 ddBcient in the sense for time; and hence his chronology is 
 bad." That is only true so far as making definite dates and 
 keeping the relative proportion of dates. He is far better in 
 this than most of the ancients, who did not have our concern 
 for outstanding dates. 
 
 I Pauline Studies, p. 352. 
 
 ' " A New Chronology ot the Life of St. Paul" (The Expositor, August, 
 1919, p. 117). 
 'Article "Dates" in Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Church. 
 * Ads of the Apostles, pp. 6-30. 
 »S<. Paul the Traveller, p. 18. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 ARCttaiOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL DATA IN THE ACTS 
 
 "And the lictors reported these worda Unto the piEetore" (Acts 
 16:38). 
 
 1. The Test of Historical Geography. — ^The historian, if he is 
 not a mere rhetorician and word-painter, must call names and 
 titles and places as well as dates. We have seen how Luke 
 fares under the test of modem scholarship in the matter of 
 chronology. It remains to examine his treatment of points of 
 archaeological and geographical interest. If Josephus crosses 
 Luke's path in historical details, Strabo in his geography trav- 
 erses much of the same groimd that Luke traces in the Acts. 
 But both Strabo and Xenophon tell much less than Luke 
 does concerning certain parts of Asia Minor through which 
 Paul joxuneyed. When Ramsay' began his researches for the 
 reconstruction of the history and geography of Asia Minor, he 
 was confronted with the fact that "if Luke's narrative was 
 trustworthy, it was for me exceptionally valuable, as giving 
 evidence on a larger scale. There was nothing else like it. 
 No other ancient traveller has left an account of the journeys 
 which he made across Asia Minor; and if the narrative of 
 Paul's travels rests on first-class authority, it placed in my 
 hands a dociunent of unique and exceptional value to guide 
 my investigations."" With this idea in mind Ramsay set to 
 work to test Liike's record in Acts from the standpoint of a 
 modern archaeological expert. Ramsay had made Asia Minor 
 under Roman rule his peculiar province, and by years of travel 
 and research on the ground had gained a mass of fresh knowl- 
 edge possessed by no other living scholar. He endeavored to 
 treat Luke as he would Strabo or Xenophon .-* "This prepos- 
 session, that Christian authors lie outside the pale of real 
 literature and that early Christians were not to be estimated 
 as men, has been the enemy for me to attack ever since I beijan 
 
 ' See his Historical Geography of Asia Minor. 
 
 ' Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 81. ' Ibid., p. 83. 
 
 179 
 
180 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 to look into the Christian authors with unprejudiced eyes." 
 As an instance of how men allow prejudice to shut their eyes 
 to the truth, Ramsay^ notes that in Acts 21 : 15 Luke says 
 that "a large party of travellers used horses, a statement inter- 
 preted and confirmed by Chrysostom," though, he adds, "it 
 has seemed almost sacrilegious to some modem scholars to 
 suggest that Paul even made a journey except on foot." Ram- 
 say^ has found about the New Testament writers that "in 
 becoming Christians those writers did not cease to be men: 
 they only gained that element of thoroughness, of sincerity 
 and enthusiasm, the want of which is. so unpleasing in later 
 classical literature." 
 
 Luke has stood the test with wonderful success. Moffatt' 
 speaks of "Luke's remarkable degree of accuracy in geographi- 
 cal, political, and social data," though he insists that "he must 
 be judged by the canons of his age, and in the light of his 
 opportunities." Lightfoot,* Vigoroux^ and Ramsay* have all 
 borne testimony to the value of Luke in these respects. Head- 
 lam'' observes that "a great test of the accuracy of the writer 
 in the last twelve chapters is given by the evidence from archae- 
 ology." The opportunity for pitfalls is here very great. Har- 
 nack' devotes a whole chapter to "Lands, Nations, Cities, and 
 Houses" in the Acts. One of Ramsay's most helpful volumes 
 is his Cities of St. Paul. The inscriptions have been found of 
 great value in their sidelights on Luke's story. One of the 
 most modern ideas is to note the influence of geography upon 
 the life of a people, as in Palestine, Egypt, Greece and Asia 
 Minor. We see it to-day in America and in Eiu-ope. The 
 point of it all is that Luke was in the atmosphere of the first 
 century himself, else he could not have stepped so securely 
 in the mass and maze of shifting political scenes. 
 • 2. Roman Provinces. — Luke wrote of the Roman world and 
 in the Roman world, but "Luke is throughout his work a 
 Greek, never a Roman," and " speaks of things Roman as they 
 
 ' Ibid. ' Church in the Raman Empire, p. 176. 
 
 ' Introdudion to the Lit. of N. T., p. 304. 
 * Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 291-305. 
 ° Le nouveau Testament, 1889, et les dicmivertes archceologigues modemet, 
 1896. 
 » Church in the Roman Empire, chaps. II-VIII. 
 ' Hastings's D. B. (" Acts "). 
 ' The Acts of the Apostles, chap. 11. 
 
ARCILEOLOGY IN THE ACTS 181 
 
 appeared to a Greek." i He may have been a Roman citizen, 
 but his outlook was that of a Greek. "To Luke the great 
 antithesis — Gentile and Jew — quite obliterated the lesser dis- 
 tinction between Roman citizen and Roman provincial, when 
 the provincial was a Greek." ^ Luke "regularly uses the pop- 
 ular phraseology, and not the strictly and technically accurate 
 terms for Roman things," but all the same "he is never guilty 
 of the blunders that puzzle the epigraphist in Asian or Gala- 
 tian inscriptions." All the more surprising, therefore, is the 
 minute accuracy of Luke in the matter of the Roman prov- 
 inces. In the Roman Empire there were provinces and vassal 
 kingdoms. There were constant changes, as can be seen in 
 Palestine, which was a vassal kingdom under Herod the Great. 
 On his death, B. C. 4, it was divided into several tetrarchies 
 (Luke 3:1) or petty provinces (Herod Antipas, tetrarch of 
 Galilee and Samaria; Herod Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and 
 Trachonitis; and Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea and Samaria, 
 with hopes of a kingship). But Archelaus lost his rule in 
 A. D. 6, and a Roman procurator (cf. Pontius Pilate) ruled 
 over the secondary province of Judea (and Samaria). But 
 from A. D. 41-44 Herod Agrippa I was king of all Palestine, 
 when Roman procurators come back, with headquarters in 
 Csesarea, like Felix and Festus, termed "the governor" by 
 Luke (Acts 24:1, 27). The temporary reign of Herod 
 Agrippa I over Judea explains how he was able to compass 
 the death of James the brother of John (Acts 12 : 1 f .) and to 
 put Peter in prison (12 : 3 fif.). He clearly deserved the fate 
 that befell bim (12 : 20-23). Judea was rather a sort of client- 
 state than a full province. It was imder the supervision of 
 the province of Syria and Cilicia and Phoenicia. The imperial 
 provinces embraced about three-fourths of the empire. The 
 proprsetors held oflSce indefinitely while proconsuls were chosen 
 annually. 
 
 Maclean observes that it is a good test of accuracy in a 
 writer in the first century A. D. to examine whether he names 
 the Roman governors rightly. There were two kinds of prov- 
 inces in the empire: the senatorial and the imperial. The 
 senatorial provinces were under the control of the senate, and 
 the governor was called proconsul.* The emperor governed 
 
 1 Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at BetMehem f, p. 52. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 53. ' 'AveOwtTo?. 
 
182 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 the imperial provinces and the governor was termed proprae- 
 tor.i Luke mentions six senatorial provinces: Achaia (Acts 
 18:12; 19:21, etc.), Asia (2:9; 19:10,26, etc.), Crete and 
 Cyrene (2:10,11; 27:7, 21, etc.), Cyprus (4:36; 13:4, 8, 
 etc.), Bithynia and Pontus (2 : 9; 16 : 7, etc.), Macedonia 
 (16 : 10, 11, etc.). So Luk^ rightly calls Gallio proconsul in 
 Acts 18 : 12. Achaia had been joined to Macedonia and made 
 imperial in A. D. 15, but in A. D. 44 it was again senatorial. 
 So Luke is right. It was once claimed that Luke blundered 
 in calling Sergius Paulus "proconsul" (Acts 13:8, 12) instead 
 of "propraetor," on the ground that Cyprus was an imperial 
 province. So it was once, but at this time it was a senatorial 
 province, though soon afterward imperial again. But General 
 Cesnola^ has discovered an inscription on the north coast of 
 Cyprus which is dated "in the proconsulship of Paulus," 
 clearly the Sergius Paidus of Acts 13 : 8, 12. Ramsay^ makes 
 this year A. D. 47. Once more Luke is vindicated by the 
 rocks. 
 
 The six imperial provinces mentioned by Luke are Cappa- 
 docia (Acts 2:9), CUicia and Syria and Phoenicia (Acts 15 : 41, 
 etc.), Egypt with title of prefect for governor (2 : 10), Galatia 
 on the south Galatian theory (16:6; 18:23), Lycia (27:5), 
 Pamphylia (2 : 10; 13 : 13; 27 : 5, etc.). There is, besides, the 
 subordinate province of Judea, with its procurator subject to 
 the propraetor in Syria. 
 
 There was constant interchange of provinces between the 
 emperor and the senate, but Luke ploughs his way safely 
 enough. 
 
 3. Ethnographic Terminology. — ^The Romans did not destroy 
 the life of the peoples whom they conquered. They let the 
 various nations keep up their customs and languages. In a 
 broad and general way they allowed many religions to be 
 observed, though all had to be licensed {religio lieita) and 
 legalized. The prevalence of the emperor-cult led to severe 
 persecution of Christianity when it came to be differentiated 
 from Judaism. But the Roman provinces and kingdoms were 
 admmistrative for convenience and eflBciency. They were not 
 drawn upon national and racial lines. But the old lines of 
 
 * See Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire. 
 2 Cf. Hogarth, Devia Cypria, p. 114. 
 
 • Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 157. 
 
ARCHEOLOGY IN THE ACTS 183 
 
 race and national cleavage remained. The old languages con- 
 tinued to be spoken along with the current Greek (the Koine) 
 and the oflGicial Latin. Thus Paul addressed the people of 
 Lystra in Greek, as usual, but the multitude spoke "in the 
 speech of Lycaonia" (Acts 14 : 11). Ramsay^ thinks that "the 
 issue of events showed that the Empire had made a mistake in 
 disregarding so completely the existing lines of demarcation 
 between tribes and races in making its new political provinces. 
 For a time it succeeded in establishing them, while the energy 
 of the Empire was still fresh, and its forward movement con- 
 tinuous and steady. But the diiferences of tribal and national 
 character were too great to be completely set aside; they 
 revived while the energy of the Empire decayed during the 
 second century." But in the first century the Roman system 
 was at its height. 
 
 The popular terminology, however, survived all the while. 
 There are abundant evidences of it in Acts, instances where 
 Luke uses popular names for coimtries rather than official 
 names of provinces. Thus we find Pisidia (Acts 13 : 14), 
 Lycaonia (14 : 6, 11, etc.), Phrygia (16 : 6; 18 : 23) and Galatia 
 (16:6; 18:23), if north Galatia is meant. Ramsay^ points 
 out how in southern Galatia (the southern part of the Roman 
 province of Galatia), distinct Regiones^ existed like Phrygia, 
 Pisidia, Lycaonia (as distinct from Lycaonia Antiochiana which 
 was ruled by King Antiochus). Ramsay insists on the accu- 
 racy of Luke in the description of these various regions. In 
 any case he preserves the old ethnographic names. Ramsay^ 
 argues that Iconium was not a part of Lycaonia, like Lystra 
 and Derbe, though in the province of Galatia. We are not 
 yet able to trace every detail in Roman provincial history and 
 administration, but Luke is wholly in accord with all known 
 facts in his use of names for the various divisions of Asia 
 Minor in the first century. He sharply distinguishes Antioch 
 in Pisidia from Antioch in Syria. 
 
 4. Colonies. — Philippi alone is termed a colony* by Luke 
 (Acts 16 : 12), though various other cities are mentioned that 
 were colonies at the time of the events narrated by Luke,* 
 
 1 St. Paul the TraveOer, p. 136. « Ibid., p. 104. 
 
 ' xOpat. « Cities of St. Paul, pp. 350 fif. 
 
 *> yuzhavla, Latin cohnia. 
 
 'Cf. Souter, "Colony," Hastings's Did. cf Ap. Chwrch. 
 
184 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 such as Corinth (sbce 27 B. C), Lystra (since 12 B. C), 
 Pisidian Antioch (since before 27 B. C), Ptolemais (since 
 before A. D. 47), Puteoli (since 194 B. C.), Syracuse (smce 
 21 B. C), Troas (smce about 20 B. C), eight with Philippi. 
 It is possible that Luke mentions the fact that Philippi was a 
 colony because of his long residence there and his natural 
 interest and pride in the city. It used to be said that Luke 
 had blundered badly in applying the word "district"* to a 
 division of a province like Macedonia at this time. The 
 Romans had divided the province into four districts B. C. 167. 
 But an ancient Macedonian coin uses the word in this sense.^ 
 At this time Amphipolis claimed the title of first city of the 
 district in which Philippi was. But Philippi had its own pride 
 in the matter and would not yield the title to its rival city. 
 Lightfoot (in hco) suggests that by "first city of the district" 
 Luke merely means geographical location, not importance. 
 But Luke gives the touch of life to his narrative by this detail. 
 
 The Roman colonies were small editions of Rome itself. 
 Normally some three hundred Romans went out to establish 
 the colony. These men remained Roman citizens, "a portion 
 of Rome itself planted amidst a community not itself possessed 
 of Roman citizenship" (Souter). These cities were advance- 
 guards of the mother city. They were military outposts to 
 hold in subjection the surrounding country. The various col- 
 onies were connected by military roads with each other and 
 with Rome itself. At first the men were citizen-soldiers, but 
 in time of peace the military aspect was not so prominent. 
 "It was an honor for a provincial city to be made into a colonia, 
 because this was proof that it was of special importance, spe- 
 cially dear to the Emperor, and worthy to be the residence of 
 Roman citizens, who were the aristocracy of the provmcial 
 towns in which they lived" (Souter). The Greeks knew how 
 to colonize with skill. The Romans followed a different plan, 
 but with success. The British have learned how to plant 
 colonies and to give them freedom that stood the strain of the 
 World War. 
 
 There were other cities that had special privileges. These 
 free cities, as they were called, had self-government within the 
 Roman province where they were. Luke mentions Athens, 
 Ephesus, Thessalonica and Tarsus. The Romans did not 
 
 * (lepf?. ' Cf. Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 158. 
 
ARCHEOLOGY IN THE ACTS 185 
 
 give a provincial constitution to a country without a certain 
 amount of civilization. The free cities and the colonies were 
 points of power. Paul went to the colonies and to the free 
 cities as centres of influence. The colonies held themselves 
 above the other cities. 
 
 5. Roman Citizenship. — One could be a citizen of a free city 
 like Tarsus and not be a Roman citizen. Paul was proud of 
 'his native city and had a right to be: "I am a Jew, of Tarsus 
 in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city" (Acts 21 : 39). Ramsay* 
 has shown what it meant to Paul to live as a boy in this great 
 educational centre, this Greek city in the Orient. Those who 
 were not bom Roman citizens could acquire it by purchase,^as 
 Claudius Lysias did (Acts 22 : 28), sometimes through infamous 
 court favorites. Roman citizenship was sometimes bestowed 
 as a reward for services to the state, as may have been the case 
 with Paul's father or grandfather, according to Maclean's 
 conjecture.* Proud as Paul was of being a citizen of Tarsus, 
 he was much more so of his Roman citizenship. With simple 
 dignity he said to Claudius Lysias: "But I am a Roman born" 
 (Acts 22 : 28). Luke takes careful note of Paul's pride in and 
 use of his Roman citizenship. Souter* observes that the an- 
 cient Greeks and Romans had a higher conception of citizen- 
 ship than we have to-day: "To the ancient member of a polis 
 or civitas citizenship was life and life was citizenship." When 
 Paul spoke to the Sanhedrin in Acts 23 : 1, "Brethren, I have 
 lived before God in all good conscience until this day," he used 
 the word to live as a citizen.* Paul made use of his rights as 
 a Roman citizen to carry on his work of evangelization. " It 
 was no doubt this citizenship which gave Paul such an advan- 
 tage as the Apostle of the Gentiles, and which inspired him 
 with the great plan of utilizing the civilization of the Roman 
 state to spread the gospel along the lines of communication." ^ 
 
 It has been objected that Paul did not take advantage of 
 his citizenship in time to prevent the scourging in Philippi 
 without a fair trial. But it is doubtful if the magistrates 
 allowed Paul to say aught in reply to the claptrap of the mas- 
 ter of the girl whom Paul had freed (Acts 16 : 21-23). Itlooks 
 
 1 Cities of Si. Paul, part II. 
 
 2 One Vol. Hastings's D. B. (" Paul "). 
 'Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Church ("Citizenship"). 
 
 * TOicoXfTeujAac. ^ Maclean, ihid. 
 
186 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 as if the mob made such a clamor that Paul had no chance to 
 defend hunself. But next morning, when the magistrates 
 sent word for Paul and Silas to be released, Paul had his oppor- 
 tunity: "They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men 
 that are Romans, and have cast us into prison; and do they 
 now cast us out privily? Nay verily; but let them come them- 
 selves and bring us out" (16 : 37). His words had the desired 
 effect, for the magistrates "feared when they heard that they 
 were Romans." Silas was evidently a Roman citizen also. 
 In Philippi Roman citizenship was properly appreciated and 
 Paul won his freedom and an apology. The rights of Roman 
 citizenship included exemption from degrading pimishment, 
 like scourging and crucifixion, the right to a fair trial, the right 
 of appeal to the Emperor for sentence after trial and in the 
 case of capital offense the right of appeal to Caesar before trial. 
 Paul was wholly within his rights, therefore, when he grew 
 weary of the insincerity of Festus after the long delays of 
 Felix and said: "I appeal to Caesar" (25:11). Festus recog- 
 nized Paul's right in the matter (25 : 12), though he felt embar- 
 rassed by the lack of definite charges against Paul (25:27). 
 There was grim humor in Agrippa's conclusion: "This man 
 might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed unto 
 Caesar" (26 : 32). He could have been set at liberty any time 
 for more than two years if Felix and Festus had really wished 
 to do what they knew was right in the case. 
 
 Paul was a citizen of heaven as well as of Tarsus and of 
 Rome. He employs the word for the Christian life: "Only let 
 your manner of life^ be worthy of the gospel of Christ" (Phil. 
 1 : 27). In Phil. 3 : 20'' Paul says: "For our citizenship is in 
 heaven" (Moffatt has it: "For we are a colony of heaven"). 
 
 Luke was a Greek and may himself have been a Roman 
 citizen. At any rate, he alone employs the word "citizen"* 
 in the Gospel: "He went and joined himself to one of the citi- 
 zens of that country" (Luke 15: 15); "But his citizens hated 
 him" (19: 14). 
 
 6. Local Color. — ^There are many touches of local color b 
 Luke's writings, particularly the Acts, that are of great inter- 
 est. In some of these cases difficulties once existed that dis- 
 
 ' icoXiTeieoBe. See my book on The New Citizenship. 
 
 ' In P. Heid. 6 (4 A. D.) we find: xfyt icoXtTC(a[v a]ou ew oSpctvip. 
 
 ' iroXf'n)';. 
 
ARCILEOLOGY IN THE ACTS 187 
 
 coveries have removed. In Acts 7 : 16 Luke quotes Stephen 
 as saying that Abraham bought the burial-place in Shechem. 
 According to Gen. 23 : 16 Abraham purchased the cave of 
 Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite in Hebron. Jacob bought 
 a field of the sons of Hamor in Shechem (Gen. 33 : 19; Joshua 
 24 : 32). There were two purchases and Knowling {in loco) 
 suggests that, since Shechem was the earliest settlement of 
 Abraham, and he set up an altar there, he probably bought a 
 piece of land there also. But even so Jacob was buried in the 
 cave of Machpelah according to Gen. 1 : 13, while Joseph was 
 buried in Shechem (Joshua 24:32). There were two burials, 
 also. Jerome says that the tombs of the Patriarchs were 
 shown at Shechem. It must be admitted that no clear solu- 
 tion of this matter has yet been found. If it is an error, it 
 may belong to Stephen or to Luke. Moffatt^ observes that 
 Luke was not as much at home in the topography of Palestine 
 as of Asia Minor. 
 
 In Pisidian Antioch Luke speaks of "the first men of the 
 city" as a title. These were the Duumviri and the "First 
 Ten." Greek cities in the East had a board of magistrates 
 with this title. Luke uses the correct title for these officers, 
 as he does in Acts 28 : 7, where he calls Publius " the First 
 Man" of the island of Malta. A Latin inscription and a 
 Greek inscription both apply the same title to two officers of 
 Malta. Knowling (in loco) and Ramsay^ argue that it is not 
 a mere honorary appellation, but a technical official title in 
 the island. 
 
 In Acts 14 : 8-18 Luke gives a vivid picture of heathen 
 superstition in Lystra and of their notion that Barnabas and 
 Paul were Jupiter and Mercury (Zeus and Hermes). Ovid 
 has a story of the visit of these two gods to two Phrygian 
 peasants, Baucis and Philemon. The Greeks looked on 
 strangers as possible gods in human form. A coin of Lystra 
 has a picture of a priest leading two oxen to sacrifice just as 
 they were proceeding to offer them for Paul and Barnabas. 
 The whole story is true to life as we now know it was lived in 
 Lystra. Ramsay* says that excavation at Lystra is greatly 
 needed and probably more discoveries will be made here. 
 
 In Philippi Luke (Acts 16 : 20)' mentions both "praetors"* 
 
 I Intr. to LU. of N. T., p. 305. ^ gt. Paid the Traoeller, p. 343. 
 
 ' Cities oj St. Paul, p. 413 ' oTpaTtjYoI. 
 
188 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 and "lictors,"' the correct technical titles in a colony and as- 
 sumed by the magistrates in Philippi. 
 
 In Thessalonica, however, Luke (Acts 17 : 6) notes a curious 
 official title found nowhere else. The rulers of the city are 
 called politarchs.* No classical author employs this word for 
 the magistrates of any city. Critics once scoffed at Luke for 
 his carelessness and ignorance here. But now seventeen in- 
 scriptions have been found that use the title, thirteen of them 
 in Macedonia and five in Thessalonica.' One of the inscrip- 
 tions spans an arch in Thessalonica and has the title politarch 
 with the names of some of Paul's converts there (Sosipater, 
 Gains, Secundus). There were usually five or six politarchs 
 at a time in Thessalonica. 
 
 In Athens Luke not only knows the Areopagus (Acts 17 : 34) 
 but he reproduces the local color with such skill that it is 
 charged that he composed Paul's address in the classical at- 
 mosphere of the Parthenon. Stoics and Epicureans and the 
 Athenian curiosity and ennui are drawn to the life. 
 
 In Ephesus the worship of the temple of Diana is pictured 
 (Acts 19 : 34) with the graphic portrayal of Demetrius and his 
 labor-union (craftsmen), who are ready to do his bidding when 
 self-interest was aroused. The Asiarchs* and the town clerk^ 
 and the assembly* all belong to Ephesus. The Asiarchs super- 
 intended the worship of the Emperor in cities where there was 
 a temple of Rome for the emperor-cult. "Their friendliness 
 to St. Paul is a sure sign of an early date, for the book could 
 only have been written while the Imperial policy was still 
 neutral to Christianity." ^ Proconsul in 19 : 38 is the correct 
 title for this senatorial province of Asia. Only one ruled at a 
 time, however. 
 
 It is not too much to say that Lxike has come out mag- 
 nificently as the result of archaeological research. Ramsay's 
 researches have proven that Luke in Acts reflects the nomen- 
 clature and the geography of the first century A. D. The dis- 
 
 1 fagSouxoi. " icoXiTipxai. 
 
 3 See Burton, American Jaumal of Theology, July, 1898, pp. 598-632. 
 
 < 'Aouipxat. See Ramsay's article in Hastings's D. B. for copious data 
 and bibliography. 
 
 ' ■rpa[inaTe6(;. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the N. T., for 
 numerous quotations from the papyri illustrating this and other uses of 
 ypa[i.\i.ac:s{tq. 
 
 « ixxXijota ' Maclean, One Vol. Hastings's D. B. 
 
ARCHJX)LOGY IN THE ACTS 189 
 
 coveries have vindicated him at every turn. Percy Gardner' 
 rather condescendingly admits that Luke " shows, it is true, a 
 good deal of local and geographic knowledge, to which Sir 
 W. M. Ramsay has rightly called attention." In a footnote' 
 he adds: "Of course, if a writer is at sea in his geographic and 
 local facts, it is a proof of his general untrustworthiness." 
 Quite so. But that is not the case with Luke. It is true that 
 Harnack' wrote: "St. Luke is an author whose writings read 
 smoothly, but one has only to look somewhat more closely to 
 discover that there is scarcely another writer in the New Tes- 
 tament who is so careless an historian as he." That is a care- 
 less criticism that Harnack has not made good in his books 
 on the Lukan writings. The facts in this chapter favor the 
 view of Ramsay rather than that of Harnack. Ramsay rightly 
 criticises Harnack for too much verbal quibbling over Luke's 
 sources and for not enough knowledge of the actual environ- 
 ment in Asia Minor and in Europe. Ramsay has appealed to 
 the inscriptions from the critics. The rocks in every instance 
 have taken the side of Luke. 
 
 1 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 391. ' Ibid. 
 
 ' Luke the Physician, p. 112. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 
 "An orator, one TesTtullus" (Acts 24 : 1) 
 
 Christianity had to find its place under Roman law. Luke 
 seems well aware of this problem.* 
 
 1. Varimis Kinds of Law in the Roman Empire. — Luke was 
 not a lawyer, but he lived under Roman rule, and Roman law 
 shows its hand toward Christianity in the Acts. "The student 
 of Christian origins cannot neglect the influence which the law 
 of the Roman Empire had on the infant Church." * Two law- 
 yers are mentioned by name in the New Testament, one a pro- 
 fessional Roman pleader and probably a heathen, Tertullus 
 (Acts 24 : 1), the other a Christian worker, "Zenos the lawyer" 
 (Titus 3 : 13). One must not confuse these Roman lawyers 
 with the lawyers (or scribes) and doctors of the law in the 
 Gospels. The Jewish lawyer was also a theologian, a doctor 
 of canon and civil law (LL.D.). They were ecclesiastical law- 
 yers and preachers or teachers. 
 
 So in tibe New Testament we see the reflection of Jewish, 
 Greek and Roman law. And Greek law varied in different 
 cities under local influences. Roman law appears in its pro- 
 vincial aspects as well as in its imperial forms. Roman judi- 
 cial procedure had a long historical development, and was 
 finally codified {Jiistinian's Code) and lies at the basis of mod- 
 ern jurisprudence. But the Ten Commandments and the 
 Sermon on the Mount have played a powerful part m making 
 modern law more than mere technicalities. English common 
 law is rooted in hviman rights, and Christ's demand for right- 
 eousness dominates the upright judge to-day. But in the 
 
 'Plooij, of Leyden, has argued (The Expositor, December, 1914, and 
 February, 1917) that Luke wrote the Acts, specifically as an apology for 
 Paul and for Christianity before the Roman council. Plooij goes so far 
 as to call Luke juris stvdiosus. M. Jones replies to Plooij in The Expositor 
 for March, 1915, but Plooij has made a point that deserves consideration. 
 
 2 Maclean, Hastings's Did. of Ap. Ch. ("Roman Law in the N. T."). 
 
 190 
 
LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 191 
 
 first century A. D. one met various kinds of law and Chris- 
 tianity had to square itself with existing institutions. Paul 
 took his stand squarely on the side of law and order and urged 
 "subjection to tive higher powers" (Romans 13: 1) as in the- 
 ory, at least, the agents of God for the preservation of order 
 and justice. He urged prayer for all rulers, "that we may 
 lead a quiet and tranquil life in all godliness and gravity" (I 
 Tim. 2:2).i 
 
 In the Greek cities of Asia Minor, which in many cases had 
 an excellent system of law already in force, the Romans re- 
 spected the old law and customs and did not enforce Roman 
 legal procediu"e, just as they did not interfere with the Greek 
 language, "reserving Latin for state occasions" (Maclean). 
 
 So in Heb. 9 : 16 f . the will ^ seems to be of the Roman kind, 
 like ours, which is in effect only on the death of the testator. 
 We get our Old Testament and New Testament from the Latin 
 translation of the Greek word, which also means covenant, as 
 in Gal. 3 ; 15, though here the Greek idea of will is possible. 
 The Greek will, once recorded, was irrevocable. With us, alas, 
 one never knows when a will is binding, once the lawyers get 
 hold of it. The best way to-day to give money is to give it 
 before one dies. A man can be his own administrator, as 
 Andrew Carnegie was. In Gal. 4 : 2 the father names the 
 date at which the child becomes of age, according to Greek 
 law. Roman law made the child stay under a tutor^ (or 
 guardian) till fourteen, and imder a curator* (or steward) till 
 twenty-five. Gal. 4 follows Roman law in respect of the 
 tutor and curator but Greek law in the matter of appointing 
 the term of their ofiBce. In Greek and Roman law the mas- 
 ter's son by a slave was also slave, but free under Hebrew law. 
 So in Gal. 4 : 21-31 (Isaac and Ishmael) we see Greek and 
 Roman law interpreted in a way to appeal to the Galatians 
 who lived under it. So Luke writes in a world of complicated 
 legal processes. 
 
 '■ See Ball, St. Paid and the Roman Law (1901) ; Buss, Roman Law and 
 History in the N. T. (1901); EHcks, Traces oj Greek Philosophy and Roman 
 Law in the N. T. (1896); Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (1893). 
 
 2 8to(6^xT). Same word (for will and covenant. Moulton and MilUgan 
 (yocabulary, p. 1480) say: "In papjoi and inscrr. the word means testa- 
 ment, wUl, with absolute unanimity and such frequency that illustration 
 is superfluous." 
 
 ' lmTp6xou? (Gal. 4:2). ' oi>tov6[iiouq (Gal. 4 : 2). 
 
192 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 In Gal, 3 : 23-25 the picture of the law (Jewish law) as the 
 child-guardian or pedagogue^ before the age of faith is after 
 the Greek, not the Roman idea of guardian. Ramsay' calls it 
 "that characteristic Greek institution" which the Galatians 
 considered "salutary and good." "Their duty was not to 
 teach any child under their charge, but simply to guard him." ' 
 The Roman pedagogue was not so highly esteemed, and had 
 no regard to the moral side of the child's life, though he also 
 accompanied the child to school, as did the Greek pedagogue. 
 The Roman failure with the education of the children, Ram- 
 say thinks, led to the disintegration of the moral fibre and of 
 the national life. Luke, like Paul, wrote in a world where the 
 Grseco-Roman civilization flourished. He makes his way 
 safely. 
 
 2. Law in the Colonies. — Here Latin was used in municipal 
 deeds and in trials, though Greek would usually be the language 
 of commerce and every-day life. There was no senate* in the 
 colonies, but councils {decurionesY and Roman names for the 
 oflScers as magistrates* (prcBtores) in Acts 16 : 20, 22, 35 f., and 
 Serjeants'' (lictors) at Philippi. The business interests of 
 Philippi used Roman legal procedure against Paul. The forms 
 of Roman law are insisted upon by the masters of the poor 
 girl (16 : 21), while Paul pointedly shows the various items in 
 the Roman law that the magistrates or rulers (archons) (16 : 19) 
 had violated (16 : 37). Paul does not mean that it would have 
 been proper to flog them if they had been condemned. That 
 was simply another item in their mistreatment of Roman citi- 
 zens. Luke has not misunderstood Roman law in his report 
 here. He aptly pictures the fear of the Roman magistrates 
 because of their cowardice before the business men and the 
 mob. 
 
 In Antioch of Pisidia, another colony, Paul left before he 
 faced the civil authorities, "the chief men of the city"* (Acts 
 13 : 50), the technical title for the city ofiicials here. The Jews, 
 especially the rabbis, "were filled with jealousy" (13 : 45), and 
 "urged on the devout women of honorable estate" (13:50), 
 probably Gentile women of the aristocracy who had become 
 
 ' icaiSaYUT*?- * St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians,. p. 382. 
 
 » lUd., p. 383. * gouX-ft. 
 
 ' Ramsay, Galatians, pp. 117, 182. 
 
LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 193 
 
 attendants at the synagogue, "God-fearers" like Cornelius in 
 Csesarea (Acts 10 : 1 f.). These women were open to the4nflu- 
 ence of the rabbis and were able to reach the city officials. 
 The combination of religious jealousy, social prestige and 
 civil power was too great for Paul and Barnabas. Rackham* 
 notes that the word "honorable" is common in the inscrip- 
 tions at Antioch. The persecution here was effective, appar- 
 ently without any legal process. The civil authorities were 
 reached by private influence without a public arraignment, 
 but the pressme was too great to resist. Public trial Would 
 have come if Paul and Barnabas had remained. The rabbis 
 would have found some charge for the arrest and trial of the 
 preachers, who had become entirely too popular. Roman law 
 did not forbid this recourse to personal spleen. Modem in- 
 quisitors have often followed suit as they gained the ear of the 
 men at the helm of city and state. 
 
 Lystra was another colony where Paul and Barnabas had 
 trouble at the hands of the set of jealous Jews who had so 
 successfully driven them out of Antioch and out of Iconium. 
 "But there came Jews thither from Antioch and Iconimn" 
 (Acts 14:19). Paul and Barnabas had remained a "long 
 time" (14: 3) in Iconium (not yet a colony, not till Hadrian's 
 time^), till the Jews had stirred the Gentile multitude against 
 them and there came an actual "onset' both of the Gentiles 
 and the Jews with their rulers, to treat them shamefully and 
 to stone them" (14: 5). Paul and Barnabas fled just in time 
 to escape a lynching at the hands of a mob led by "the rulers" 
 (archons) of the city. But in Lystra the Jews waited till Paul 
 and Barnabas had become the heroes of the hour by reason 
 of healing the crippled man. They (had with difficulty dis- 
 suaded the populace in Lystra from offering sacrifice to them 
 as Jupiter and Mercury (14 : 8-18). And now the fickle crowd, 
 like a pack of wolves, led by the same jealous rabbis, turned 
 on Paid and stoned him and dragged him out of the city, sup- 
 posing that he was dead (14 : 19). This time they thought 
 that they had put the pestilent preacher out of their way for 
 good and all. Their wrath had grown from Antioch to Ico- 
 nium and now to Lystra. Here it was a real lynching party 
 and not a near one, as in Iconium. The city officials do not 
 
 • Acts, p. 222. ^ Ramsay, Gaiatians, pp. 123, 218. 
 
 ' iput, a "rush" like a modem football team. 
 
194 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 here appear in the matter at all. There was no legal process. 
 The Jews made their appeal directly to the mob and trusted 
 to the connivance of the city authorities whom they had 
 reached by private appeal in Antioch and by public demon- 
 stration in Iconimn. They were apparently safe in their judg- 
 ment. If one wonders how a lynching like this could have 
 taken place in a Roman colony under Roman law, let him 
 recall recent occurrences in the United States, not alone in the 
 South, where race prejudice has long existed, but in Washing- 
 ton, in Chicago, in Omaha, in East St. Louis, in Springfield, 
 Ohio, and in Springfield, Illinois, the home of Abraham Lin- 
 coln. The appeal to the mob is anarchy and Bolshevism. It 
 is always possible, even in enlightened communities, but it 
 never settles, anything. It always inflames men's passions 
 and whets the appetite for blood. Paul himself knew only 
 too well what it was to arouse popular prejudice against the 
 followers of Christ. Now a small circle of the faithful, prob- 
 ably Timothy among them, gathered roimd his dead body, as 
 they thought, when he rose up to their joy (14 : 20), but he 
 did not tarry long in Lystra. He knew when to leave. 
 
 At Corinth, another colony, Patil was arraigned by the 
 jealous rabbis again after Crispus, a ruler of the synagogue, 
 had gone over to Paul's side (18:8). The present ruler of 
 the synagogue, Sosthenes, took advantage of the arrival of a 
 new proconsul, Gallio, to bring Paul into court for violating 
 Roman law: "This man persuades men to worship God con- 
 trary to law" (18: 13). The Roman law was strict about the 
 introduction of new religions, strict when the Romans cared 
 to be. Judaism was a legalized religion (religio licita), hoary 
 with age and allowed by Roman law, though the Romans, like 
 all Gentiles, despised the Jews. Mithraism and Isisism were 
 new religions and were winked at by Roman oflBcials. Chris- 
 tianity had no legal standing before Roman law. Technically 
 it was unlawful {religio illiciia) save as it passed as a form or 
 sect of Judaism. Paul, as we know, claimed that Christianity 
 was the real Judaism of the prophets (Gal. 3; Romans 9-11): 
 "After the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of 
 our fathers" (Acts 24 : 14). The Jews before Gallio mean for 
 him to understand that Paul has violated Roman law, but 
 their charges made it plain to him that Christianity which 
 Paul preached was really a form of Judaism and so not illegal. 
 
LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 195 
 
 They failed to make a case against Paul in Gallio's interpreta- 
 tion of Roman law. He ruled that the dispute was one be- 
 tween Jews on questions of Jewish theology, and hence not a 
 case in Roman law at all. He would not allow Paul to speak, 
 but threw the case out of court with the famous words: "If 
 indeed it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villainy, O ye 
 Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: but if they 
 are questions about words and names and your own law, look 
 to it yourselves; I am not minded to be a judge of these mat- 
 ters" (18:14f.). The decision was a boomerang. For the 
 moment, and in the province of Achaia, Christianity was 
 given a legal standing before Roman law as a religio licita and 
 as a form of Judaism. The rage of the Jews was tremendous. 
 They laid hold on their own leader, Sosthenes, and beat him 
 right before the judgment-seat, but "Gallio cared for none of 
 these things" (18:17). He had a blind eye for the poetic 
 justice that came to the jealous Sosthenes. Gallio was a 
 brother of Seneca and was apparently a man of intelligence 
 and with a sense of justice, a Roman oflBcial of the higher type, 
 quite other from the kind seen in Palestine in the cases of Pilate, 
 Felix and Festus. There were Roman governors like Gallio. 
 The administration of Roman law depended, after all, upon 
 the character of the officer, as, in truth, is true of all law ev- 
 erywhere. 
 
 3. Law in the Free Cities. — We have examples in the Acts of 
 legal processes in such free cities as Athens, Ephesus and 
 Thessalonica. 
 
 In Thessalonica there was probably a senate and an assem- 
 bly. Certainly they had poUtarchs, "rulers of the city" 
 (Acts 17 : 6), as the inscriptions prove. In Thessalonica a 
 great multitude of the devout Greeks or God-fearers, who had 
 been attending the synagogue services, were converted by 
 Paul's preaching as well as a large number of the chief women 
 (17 : 4). Here Paxil had a large body of aristocratic women on 
 his side, in contrast with the situation in Antioch in Pisidia, 
 where they were lined up against him. Here the jealous Jew- 
 ish leaders make their first appeal to the rabble, "certain vile 
 fellows of the rabble "' (17: 5), certain evil men of the crowd 
 
 ' TGiv atyopafuv (icvSpas Tcvck? ■KovttfoOi;. Lake (Earlier EpislUs of Paul, p. 
 69, n. 1) takes ifopofuv here to be "agitators" because of Plutarch, /Emil- 
 ius Paulus, 38, livOptiirouqiiifevvcii; xol SsSouXeuxiTaq, liYopafouc; S4 x«l Suvanlvouc; 
 Zxkay ouvaTfaYCiv, 
 
196 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 in the market-place. The life of a Greek city centred in the 
 agora or market-place. Here the idlers were found very much 
 as professional jurors hang aroimd the court-house in our 
 modern cities. Even some of the Thessalonian converts showed 
 a reluctance to work (II Thess. 3 : 10). So the Jewish rabbis 
 got the ear (probably for pay or by appeal to prejudice) of 
 these "bums," who were ready for any enterprise or excite- 
 ment. They deliberately imdertook to set the city in an up- 
 roar. It was a mob made to order that clamored at the 
 door of Jason's house for Paul and Silas. So faiUng to find 
 them, they dragged Jason before the politarchs and accused 
 him of entertaining Paul and Silas, "these that have turned 
 the world upside down."^ Certainly this was a tribute to 
 Paul and Silas, though, as a matter of fact, the rabbis and 
 their confederates from the agora had set the city by the ears. 
 Now the Jews appeal to Roman law, as the Sanhedrin posed 
 as friends of Csesar when Pilate weakened once more (John 
 19:12, 15): "And these all act contrary to the decrees of 
 Csesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus" (Acts 
 17 : 7). The Jews in Thessalonica, as the Jews before Pilate, 
 knew that Paul did not preach Jesus as a political king or 
 emperor* in opposition to Csesar, but they wished the politarchs 
 to think so. The crime of which they accuse Jason and Paul 
 and Silas is high treason, the very charge placed against Jesus 
 (Luke 23 : 2). The charge of treason "cast into a panic both 
 the politarchs and the crowd." ' So Jason was compelled to 
 give security* for good behavior against treason (17 : 9), pay- 
 ing money like a bond or baU. Thus the politarchs saved 
 their face in the presence of this charge of a revolution. It is 
 interesting to note that in writing to the Thessalonians Paul 
 describes the "man of sin," "the son of perdition, he that 
 opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or 
 that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, 
 setting hunself forth as God" (II Thess. 2 : 3 f.). "Remember 
 
 ' ol T^v oixouiUvTjv dvooTatciaavTei;. Used in the papyri for driving one out 
 of hearth and home, B. G. V. 1179, 20 (A. D. 41). So of upsettingone, P. 
 Oxy., 119, 10 (A. D. 2-3). 
 
 * The word ^<itXs6i; was applied to the Emperor. 
 
 ' Rackham, in loco. 
 
 'XapSvTesxklxavAv. Cf. Mark 15 : 15. In P. Oxy., 294, 23 (A. D. 22), we 
 have 5o[uv]at elx(zy6y for "give security" till the inquiry or trial, a case pre- 
 cisely in point. 
 
LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE OP ROMAN LAW 197 
 
 ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things ? " 
 (2:5). Evidently, Paul, while in Thessalonica, had been 
 stirred by the worship of the Roman Emperor and may have 
 employed language that gave some color to the specious charge 
 of his enemies. Here in Thessalonica Paul began to face the 
 inevitable conflict between Christ and Csesar. The shadow 
 of Rome was cast upon the Cross. So Paul and Silas were 
 "immediately" sent away by the brethren to Bercea (Acts 
 17 : 10). It was a serious moment for Paul. When in Bercea 
 the same Jews came to attack Paul, "then immediately the 
 brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as the sea" (17 : 14). 
 The haste in both instances suggests that Paul's zeal and ear- 
 nestness against emperor-worship had made it inexpedient 
 for him to tarry. 
 
 In Athens Paul was not put on trial before the court of the 
 Areopagus. No criminal charge was laid against him at all. 
 After a roimd of public discussion with the Stoics and the 
 Epicureans in the agora at Athens, with ridicule from some 
 of the people (Acts 17 : 18), others more courteously proposed 
 that Paul go up imto the Areopagus and in a more formal 
 address expound his strange teaching (17 : 19 f.). In Athens 
 there was always a crowd ready to hear some new thing. Paul 
 was in an embarrassing situation. Like Socrates of old, he 
 had crossed swords with the sophists of the new time. But 
 the crowd passed quick judgment on Paul as a mere babbler 
 or seed-picker' (17 : 18), like the birds that hopped about in 
 the market-place. They little knew that a greater than Soc- 
 rates was here, one with an infinitely greater philosophy, the 
 wisdom of God. Socrates was tried and condemned for intro- 
 ducing strange divinities. The same charge is made against 
 Paul. Three views exist as to what took place on the Areopa- 
 gus. One is that Paul made a popular philosophical exposi- 
 tion of Christianity to the crowd that invited him up there. 
 The conduct of the hearers lends some color to this view 
 (17 : 32-34). Another view is that a real trial before the 
 court of the Areopagus took place. Rackham argues ably 
 that Paul was arraigned before the court for introducing new 
 divinities as Socrates had been. He suggests that the exami- 
 nation took place before the court of the Areopagus, but in the 
 Stoa Basilica, and that Paul took advantage of the occasion to 
 
 * otophoXSyoi;, 
 
198 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 proclaim the gospel. There was one Areopagite (Dionysius) 
 present who was converted. But this view is not convincing. 
 Ramsay' is positive that Paul was brought before the council 
 of Areopagus, but not for trial. He thinks that the Stoics 
 wanted him examined by the coimcil to see if he was entitled 
 to a permit to lecture in the university atmosphere. "Cer- 
 tain powers were vested in the council of Areopagus to appoint 
 or invite lecturers at Athens, and to exercise some general 
 control over the lecturers in the interest of public order and 
 morality." " It is not certain that the hill of Mars is meant 
 by the Areopagus, which can mean simply the court of Are- 
 opagus, whether held on Mars Hill or in the agora. In any 
 case it hardly seems likely that it was a court trial for a crime, 
 but a University court in which Paul made his defense as a 
 teacher. Ramsay' shows that the Areopagus is not always 
 topographical. Certainly, this is a plausible view, and on the 
 whole the most likely to be true. At any rate, in Athens 
 Paul is in a Greek atmosphere of freedom, and does not feel 
 the hand of Roriian law or the jealousy of Jewish rabbis or the 
 hatred of business interests. The intellectuals of Athens soon 
 lose interest in the wild theories of the new and raw philoso- 
 pher. They laugh him out of court and out of town. 
 
 But in Ephesus we see all the forms and processes of Graeco- 
 Roman law (proconsul,* town clerk,^ assembly,* courts'). 
 Ephesus had thus a Greek constitution besides the Roman 
 proconsul. The popular assembly met every three months 
 and oftener on occasion. The town-clerk was an important 
 official. The proconsul represented the supreme authority of 
 Rome. The Asiarchs (19 : 31), who were friendly to Paul and 
 would not allow him to face the mob in the amphitheatre, were 
 provincial officers who had charge, among other things, of the 
 provincial worship of the Emperor. "A temple and altar to 
 Rome and the emperor were erected in some city, which there- 
 upon was designated Neocoros* or Sacristar (literally, temple- 
 sweeper), i. e., of the imperial temple."' Thessalonica and 
 BercEa were also "temple-sweepers." Ephesus was exceed- 
 
 ' St. Pavl the TrwteUer, p. 246. 
 
 2 nnd. ' Ibid., pp. 244 f. 
 
 * (iv96icoTO<; (19 : 38). " TpaniiotTaii; (19 : 35). 
 
 • Zfiiioq (19: 33), ixxXTjjta (19 : 39). ' dTopaiot (19 : 38). 
 
 8 vsux6po? (19 : 35). » Rackham, Acts, p. 363. 
 
LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 199 
 
 ingly proud of this honor as well as of the title of "temple- 
 sweeper" for the temple of Diana. Inscriptions show that 
 the name "temple-sweeper" was also used in reference to the 
 worship of Diana (Artemis), so that Luke is vindicated on this 
 point. "Great Artemis" was the usual title given this god- 
 dess. Inscriptions call her "Great Artemis" and "Most Great 
 Goddess" (cf. "Most High God" in Acts 16: 17, also in in- 
 scriptions). One of the decrees at Ephesus speaks of the 
 decline of the worship of Artemis as Luke does. "Mr. Wood's 
 excavations of this temple and the numerous inscriptions there 
 discovered have given a revelation of this worship which 
 entirely corroborates the lifelike picture in the Acts."^ It is 
 probable that the Asiarchs induced the town clerk to dismiss 
 the mob. We see here Grseco-Roman law invoked in defense 
 of Paul, as Gallio took his side in Corinth. In Antioch in 
 Pisidia the Jewish rabbis got the city officials to act on their 
 side against Paul. In Ephesus Paul had lived three years, 
 and so had won the friendship of the Asiarchs who befriended 
 him. Perhaps, also, Paul in Ephesus was more careful about 
 references to the emperor-worship than he had been in Thessa- 
 lonica. He seems here to have directed his energy more against 
 the worship of Diana than against the emperor-worship. At 
 any rate the Asiarchs were not charged with the worship of 
 Diana. The town clerk skilfully parried the charge of Deme- 
 trius about Diana's proud magnificence and showed that Paul 
 and his friends were not temple-robbers^, or blasphemers of the 
 goddess Diana (19 : 37). Demetrius had followed the line of 
 the masters in Philippi and had gone a step farther. He had 
 aroused the self-interest of the craftsmen (guild or labor-imions, 
 common enough at that time) by appeals to the peril to the 
 trade and so to their jobs (19 : 24-27). Capitalist and workmen 
 here imite against Paul. In public, however, the cry of peril 
 to Diana was raised (19 : 26 f.), and nothing was said about 
 the business interests hit by Paul's preaching. We see here a 
 close parallel to the modem struggle with the liquor trade. 
 The hatred of vested business interests was turned against 
 Paul and only the quick action of his powerful friends in office 
 saved him and his friends Gains and Aristarchus. They would 
 have gotten Paul in time had he remained in Ephesus. So he 
 quickly left (Acts 20 : 1). 
 1 Rackham, Acts, p. 364, ' UpooOXou?. 
 
200 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 4. The Sanhedrin and Jewish Law. — ^We have seen how Luke 
 pictures Paul in touch with Greek and Roman law. It remains 
 i to see how he fares with Jewish law. Paul was certainly at 
 home before the Sanhedrin, whose agent he had been in the 
 persecution of Christianity (Acts 8 : 3; 9 : 1 f.; 22 : 4 f.; 26 : 10 f.) 
 and of which he was possibly a member (26 : 10). The powers 
 of the Sanhedrin had been greatly limited since the days of 
 Herod the Great. Rome reserved the right of capital punish- 
 ment (John 18 : 31) and the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in 
 Galilee and Samaria/ yet local synagogues were allowed to 
 have a good deal of authority .^ The stoning of Stephen 
 (Acts 7 : 58) was lynch-law, an illegal murder. Stoning was 
 the old Jewish penalty for blasphemy, but the Sanhedrin no 
 longer had that right. Stephen so enraged this body that 
 they took the law into their own hands, and the Roman proc- 
 urator seems to have let it pass, if indeed he was in office at 
 this juncture. The persecution of other Christians by the 
 Sanhedrin (Acts 5 : 33; 22 : 4; 26 : 10) was either ignored or 
 winked at by the Roman officials as a matter of slight impor- 
 tance from the standpoint of Roman law and order. The 
 Sanhedrin could arrest persons and imprison them and flog 
 them (Acts 5 : 18, 40; 22 : 4; 26 : 10; II Cor. 11 : 24 f.). The 
 death of James in Acts 12 : 2 was by order of Herod Agrippa I 
 while he was King of Judea. And Peter would have fared the 
 same fate but for the interposition of God and Peter's ffight 
 (12 : 3-17). 
 
 Stephen stirred up the Pharisees (6 : 11-14) as Peter had 
 aroused the Sadducees (4 : 1 f.; 5 : 17 f.). Paul carried on the 
 persecution of the disciples as a Pharisee, and Gamaliel, his 
 great teacher, no more interposed to stay his hand as he had 
 done once in behalf of the Apostles, to score a point against 
 the Sadducees (5 : 33-42). Paul, on his last visit to Jerusalem, 
 met the hatred of the Jewish mob as he had faced mobs of 
 Jews or Gentiles in Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Beroea, Cor- 
 inth, Ephesus. The rage of the Jerusalem mob is due to 
 charges made by Jews of Asia, probably old enemies in Ephe- 
 sus, who were angered by Paul's association with Trophimus, 
 a Greek Christian of Ephesus, in Jerusalem (21 : 27-31). The 
 mob mind is very much alike anywhere. The crowd-conscious- 
 ness of these Jews is outside of the pale of law. It is the same 
 
 ' Maclean, Hastings's Did, of Ap. Ch. 
 ' Biggs, St. Peter and Jvde, p. 25. 
 
LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 201 
 
 thirst for blood that Paul had once felt as a persecutor. It is 
 the Roman chief-captain who rescues Paul by the aid of sol- 
 diers from death by the mob (21 : 33-36). The position of 
 Paul is now peculiar. He appears to Claudius Lysias as a 
 criminal of some sort. He first suspects him of being the 
 famous Egyptian leader of the band of "assassins" (21 : 38) 
 and is astonished that Paul speaks Greek. On learning that 
 Paul is a Jew of Tarsus he allows him to speak to the mob from 
 the steps of the tower of Antonia, which he does in Aramaic, 
 so that the chief-captain did not imderstand his address, but 
 saw only the wild confusion at the end (21 : 39-22 : 23). He 
 tried to ferret out the guilt of Paid by scourging only to find 
 that he was dealing with a Roman citizen and was in peril of 
 a crime himself (22 : 24-29) : "The chief -captain also was afraid 
 when he knew that he was a Roman, and that he had bound 
 him." 
 
 In his perplexity Claudius Lysias called a meeting of the 
 Sanhedrin^ in order to see if that body could define Paul's guilt 
 to guide his course (22 : 30). Paul was at home before this 
 body of the fathers, but at once lost all chance of a fair inquiry 
 by the claim that he had lived in all good conscience up till 
 now, including his conversion to Christ. The upshot was the 
 claim by Paul that he was still a Pharisee on the subject of the 
 resurrection and this claim was followed by the violent cleav- 
 age of the body who were about to tear Paul in pieces in the 
 effort to get at each other. Once more Claudius Lysias res- 
 cued Paul from the Jewish court and he was still in the dark 
 about his prisoner (23 : 1-10). 
 
 The conspiracy against Paul and the wit of Paul's nephew 
 led the chief-captain to send Paid away from Jerusalem by 
 night under guard of a company of soldiers in order to get him 
 away from the forces of Jewish hate in Jerusalem. His letter 
 puts the best face on the matter for Claudius Lysias, and is 
 not in accord with the facts (23 : 26-30). So Paul has escaped 
 the toils set for him in Jerusalem, but he is still a prisoner in 
 Csesarea in Herod's palace.^ 
 
 1 Ramsay ("Trial Scenes in the Acts," Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 90) 
 is sure that this was not a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, but was a 
 hurried called meeting. 
 
 2 Or preetorium (icpaitdptov). On the meaning of this word and other 
 legal and technical terms, see Ferguson, "The Legal Terms Common to 
 the Macedonian Inscriptions and the New Testament" (Historical and 
 Linguistic Studies of University of Chicago, vol. II). 
 
202 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 5. Roman Law in Palestine. — Paul has escaped the jaws of 
 death from the mob, the Sanhedrin and the conspirators in 
 Jerusalem. He now stands at the bar of the Roman proc- 
 urator in Csesarea. Once before Paul had faced the Roman 
 governor, the proconsul Gallio, in Corinth. Then, as now, it 
 was the Jews who made accusations against him. Then he 
 was set free, with the result that Christianity was given a legal 
 standing in Achaia as a religio licita, a form of Judaism. That 
 was in a heathen city, where the Jews were disliked as they 
 were everywhere. "Beware of the Jews"' Serapim wrote to 
 Heraclides, who was in money difficulties A. D. 41. In Pales- 
 tine, at least, Christianity is no longer regarded as a form of 
 Judaism by the Jews. Peter and John once worshipped in 
 the temple. Slowly the lines have been drawn. Paul's great 
 Gentile propaganda has stirred many of the Jewish Christians, 
 the Judaizers, against him. But the Roman government has 
 not yet assumed a hostile attitude toward Christianity. The 
 case of Paul really carries with it the future of Christianity in 
 the Roman Empire. It is for this reason that Luke devotes 
 so much space to the details of his imprisonment and trials in 
 Caesarea. Paul stands at the bar of Roman provincial jus- 
 tice, but he is in Palestine, where the Roman governor feels 
 the full force of Jewish hate and Jewish power, as Pilate did 
 when he surrendered to the demand of the Sanhedrin. Luke 
 told that story with great power in the Gospel. What will 
 Felix now do with the case of Paul? Will he surrender him 
 to the Sanhedrin as Pilate did Jesus ? 
 
 Felix makes a fair start. He would wait for the accusers to 
 come (23 : 35). Ananias, the high priest, appeared with five 
 elders and a Roman lawyer or pleader (orator), TertuUus, who 
 argued the case against Paul after the accusations of Ananias 
 (24:1-9). It -is a characteristic demagogical harangue with 
 flattery of Felix and denunciation of Paul. Paul pleads his 
 own case (24:10-21). He shows the falsity of the charge 
 about profaning the temple, the vagueness of that about caus- 
 ing disturbances and admits that he is a member of the sect 
 of the Nazarenes, which he claims is in accord with the Jewish 
 hope. Luke adds a curious comment about Felix "having 
 more exact knowledge concerning the Way" (24:22). More 
 exact than what? The Way is Christianity. Felix is acute 
 
 ' B. G. U., 1079, 24 f., xal aO pXdxe oarbv dicb rav 'louSaluv. 
 
LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 203 
 
 enough to see that in reality Christianity is on trial for its legal 
 status in Palestine. He probably knew of the decision of 
 Gallio. At any rate, he knew enough to be unwilling to con- 
 vict Paul and yet he feared the Jews too much to set him free. 
 So he put off the case, possibly influenced, also, by the men- 
 tion of "alms" by Paul, as holding out hope of a bribe. At 
 any rate, that came to be a definite motive' with him (24 : 26) 
 after he recovered from the shock of Paul's powerful sermon 
 to hun and to Drusilla (24 : 24 f.). But Felix dallied with the 
 case for two years, and left Paul a prisoner, when recalled, to 
 please the Jews (24:27). Felix makes a sorry spectacle of 
 Roman justice, but Luke's picture is in keeping with what is 
 known of him elsewhere. 
 
 The coming of Festus revived the hopes of the Jews, who at 
 once (cf. coming of Gallio to Corinth) undertook to induce 
 Festus to bring Paul from Csesarea, plotting again to kill him 
 on the way (25 : 1-5). But Festus was not so easily caught 
 and he also began well. He demanded that the accusers come 
 to Csesarea, where he held court. So they came again with 
 the same old charges, which Paul promptly denied. Now 
 Festus asked Paul if he were not willing to go up to Jerusalem 
 and be tried there before him (25 : 9) indeed, but probably 
 according to Jewish law. The procurators sometimes applied 
 Jewish law in such cases. It was a trap set for Paul for the 
 purpose of pleasing the Jews. Paul's patience was at last 
 exhausted. He knew what Jerusalem held in store for him. 
 He now knew that Festus was no better than Felix, and that 
 he lacked the courage tb stand up against the Jews. He had 
 waited two years on Felix. There was but one hope left, and 
 that lay in the right of appeal to Caesar, which he could make 
 as a Roman citizen. This he did and at once took the case 
 out of the hands of Festus (25 : 10-12). Luke has told this 
 story with great detail and vividness. He was probably pres- 
 ent during these arraignments of Paul, though he may not 
 have remained in Csesarea all of the two years. Ramsay'' 
 thinks that Luke regarded Paul's trials in Csesarea and the 
 appeal to Csesar as a test case for Christianity. Hence he felt 
 
 ^ Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 310) thinks that Paul came into his 
 patrimony about this time and was thus able to bear the expense of his 
 long lawsuit. 
 
 2 Si. Paid the Travelkr, p. 308. 
 
204 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 justified in devoting so much space to it. He evidently com- 
 pleted Acts when it was clear that Paul would be acquitted, 
 and hence a new day would dawn for Christianity in the 
 Roman Empire. Incidentally, this is an argument for dating 
 Acts before A. D. 64, when all of a sudden Nero turned against 
 Christianity. There is no hint of this outcome in the Acts. 
 "The importance of the trial for Luke is intelligible only if 
 Paul was acquitted," "^ and, one may add, Luke wrote in igno- 
 rance of the reversal of Roman policy by Nero in A. D. 64. 
 Felix and Festus show the Roman governors at their worst. 
 
 The so-called trial of Paul before Herod Agrippa II was no 
 trial at all. The case was no longer in the hands of Festus. 
 It was really a sort of mock trial or entertainment arranged 
 by Festus to relieve the ennui of Agrippa and Bernice on their 
 visit to Festus, as Luke makes plain (25 : 13-27). It is evident 
 that Paul need not have spoken unless he cared to do so. No 
 charges were placed against Paul. Agrippa, as a fellow Jew, 
 was more likely to understand Paul and so he took advantage 
 of this opportunity to state his case and make an apology for 
 his whole life (26 : 1-23). The plea of Festus that he had no 
 charge against Paul to send to Caesar was doubtless true, nor 
 did he secure one on this occasion (26 : 24^32). Ramsay^ 
 notes how true Luke is to the facts in each case: "Legal pro- 
 ceedings are taken against Paul and his friends in many places, 
 and accusations have to be made in each case, according to 
 the forms of Roman law. The accusation varies in each case; 
 it is nowhere the same as in any other city; yet it is everywhere 
 in accordance with Roman forms." Ramsay lucidly shows 
 how the accusers had to find some crime in Paul's conduct at 
 Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Jerusalem 
 and Csesarea, and how skilful they were in relating their 
 grudges to the Roman legal forms, as we have already shown. 
 
 The Acts closes with Paul still a prisoner in Rome, but with 
 a hope of release implied, as in Paul's Epistles to Philippians 
 and Philemon. But at the close of Acts the future attitude 
 of Rome to Christianity is problematical. It seems probable 
 that Paul was set free by Nero without a trial, the case going 
 by default. But the burning of Rome by Nero in A. D. 64 
 quickly' changed the whole atmosphere. He laid that crime 
 
 ' Ibid. ' Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 97. 
 
 s Probably by A. D. 65. 
 
LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 205 
 
 at the door of the Christians and began to treat them as crim- 
 inals. There are echoes of this attitude in I Peter 4 : 16. 
 
 \he Romans learned to distinguish between Christians and 
 Jews. The Jews drew the line against Christians. The 
 author of Hebrews (13 : 13) will urge the Christians to follow 
 Christ without the camp. The Christians had already had to 
 choose between Lord Caesar and Lord Jesus (cf. I Cor. 12 : 1-3). 
 When Trajan writes to Pliny it is unlawful to be a Christian 
 and the natural implication is that it had long been a crime to 
 be a Christian. Paul saw the fight coming between Christ 
 and Caesar for world conquest. Luke has drawn in Acts the 
 picture of the events that led up^ to that conflict which lasted 
 for centuries, which in essence still rages. The Christian still 
 has to face the problem of loyalty to Christ or to Caesar when 
 Caesar tramples the cross beneath his feet. But at first 
 Roman law did not seriously interfere with the spread of 
 Christianity. Judaism was tolerated and Christianity was 
 treated as a sect of Judaism. "This tolerance of the Jewish 
 religion was of incalculable importance to infant Christianity, 
 which at first professed to be no more than a reformed and 
 expanded Judaism." ^ When the distinction was finally drawn 
 by Roman law, Christianity was too powerful to be suppressed. 
 It was able to fight the mightiest empire of earth. 
 
 1 Hamack, Acts of the Apostles, p. 288. Luke "reflects very early con- 
 ceptions and expresses historical relations which existed at the time of 
 St. Paul." 
 
 ! Angus, Int. St. B. Encyd. ("Roman Empire"). 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 
 NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27» 
 
 "And casting off the anchors, they left them in the sea, at the same 
 time loosing the bands of the rudders; and hoisting the foresail to 
 the wind, they made for the beach" (Acts 27 : 40). 
 
 Few chapters in any book have a fascination surpassing that 
 in Acts 27. Here we see Luke the sailor, the man of travel, 
 the man of observation. The habits of diagnosis as a doctor 
 played him in good stead in seeing the points of interest in the 
 voyage and shipwreck. He had quick eyes that saw the sa- 
 lient points at issue. He may have made notes during the 
 storm, or he may have written out his vivid recollections after 
 reaching Rome. He had doubtless made many voyages before 
 and knew the ways of tiie sea. 
 
 1. The Immense Value of Acts 27. — ^Luke makes it plain that 
 Paul made frequent voyages to carry on his work. He sailed 
 from Seleucia to Cyprus (Acts 13 : 4), from Troas to Neapolis 
 (16 : 11), possibly from Beroea to Athens (17 : 14), from Cen- 
 chrese to Ephesus (18 : 18), from Ephesus to Csesarea (18 : 21 f.), 
 to Macedonia again (20 : 1), from Philippi to Troas (20 : 6), 
 from Assos with various stops to Csesarea (20:13-21:14). 
 But it is plain that Luke has not recorded, even in this sum- 
 mary fashion, all the voyages of Paul, for he himself says: 
 "Thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been 
 in the deep" (H Cor. 11 : 25), and he also spoke of "perils in 
 the sea" (II Cor. 11 : 26). These experiences were several 
 years before the famous voyage narrated at length and with 
 such power in Acts 27. 
 
 But it is Acts 27 that really shows Luke and Paul at their 
 best in the sea. "The story is told with such a wealth of 
 detail that in all classical literature there is no passage which 
 gives us so much information about the working of an ancient 
 ship." ^ We have other narratives of ancient voyages in mer- 
 chant vessels. Josephus' tells that the ship on which he was 
 
 » The Record of Christian Work, August, 1920. 
 » Rackham, p. 476. » VUa, in. 
 
 206 
 
NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 207 
 
 wrecked carried about six hundred persons. Lucian' pictures 
 the voyage of an Alexandrian wheat-ship on its course from 
 Alexandria to Myra and to Athens. The ship had a tonnage 
 of twelve hundred tons. Herod the Great had a shipwreck 
 also on his way to Rome from Alexandria. In stormy weather 
 he took ship to Pamphylia and was shipwrecked at Rhodes, 
 with loss of the ship's cargo. There he built a three-decked 
 ship and set sail with his friends for Brimdisium in Italy and 
 so reached Rome.^ In the Periodoi of Barnabas we have the 
 description of "a voyage from Seleucia in Syria to Cyprus in 
 the face of a prevailing steady westerly wind the work of a 
 person familiar with the circumstances."* But these narra- 
 tives all fall short of the one by Luke in Acts 27. "It is to 
 Luke that we owe the most vivid as well as the most accurate 
 account of sea-voyaging that has come down to us from an- 
 tiquity. Experts in naval science agree that it is without a 
 parallel." * There is no trouble in believing that the second 
 vessel in Acts 27 carried two hundred and seventy-six souls 
 (27 : 37), or that the third vessel, the Castor and Pollux, carried 
 these besides its crew and cargo (28 : 11). 
 
 The Phoenicians and the Greeks were the sailors of antiquity. 
 They were those "who go down to the sea in ships and occupy 
 themselves in great waters." The Book of Revelation 
 (chap. 18) speaks of Rome as the city whose ships cover the 
 Mediterranean, whose merchants trade with all the earth. 
 That is true, for Rome drew the commerce of the world to her 
 doors. The mariners of all nations, "who work the sea"^ 
 (Rev. 18: 17) set sail for Rome. "Woe, Woe, the great city, 
 wherein all that had their ships in the sea were made rich by 
 reason of her costliness" (Rev. 18 : 19). The ancients dreaded 
 the sea, for they were without chart or compass and at the 
 mercy of wind and wave with their rowboats and sailing-ves- 
 sels. One of the joys of heaven will be that "the sea is no 
 more" (Rev. 21 : 1). "The modern joy and delight in the sea 
 Tvas a sentiment almost unknown to the peoples of antiquity. 
 One Greek poet, ^schylus, could write of 'the many-twinkling 
 
 1 The Ship or Wishes (IIXoiov fl EizaO. 
 
 ' Josephus, Ant. XIV, xiv. 
 
 ' Ramsay, St. Pavl the Traveller, p. 317. 
 
 < Robinson, Hastings's Diet, o/ Ap. Ch. ("Ship"). 
 
208 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 smile of ocean,' but to the ancients generally the sea inspired 
 only emotions of dislike and dread. The incommodious ships 
 and the possibilities of long delays owing to contrary winds 
 made the voyage anything but a pleasure." * There was lack 
 of knowledge of navigation, and winter closed down the seas 
 on the Mediterranean. Neptune had terrors for the ancients 
 that appear in the allusions in classical literature, terrors 
 enough, one may add, without the modern agent of the devil, 
 the submarine. And yet some of the Greeks loved the sea. 
 Ramsay" says that Luke "shows the true Greek feeling for 
 the sea." It is interesting to observe that Nelson had been 
 reading Acts 27 on the morning of the battle of Copenhagen. 
 
 2. The Same Note of Accuracy in Acts 27. — ^We have come 
 to have confidence in Luke the historian as we have tested him 
 in so many ways. It was to be expected that Acts 27 would 
 be subjected to the most minute research. Luke uses a great 
 deal of technical detail from the nature of the case. Every 
 statement here has been challenged by experts in naval mat- 
 ters. The literature is now considerable.' Far the most val- 
 uable is the work of Smith, of Jordanhill, The Voyage and Ship- 
 wreck of St. Paul. He made a minute study of every aspect 
 of the voyage. There is a discussion of each of the three ships 
 (Csesarea to Myra, Myra to Malta, Malta to Puteoli) in which 
 Paul and Luke sailed, the size of the ships, the winds, the ton- 
 nage, the number of passengers, the direction and speed of the 
 second ship in the storm, the island of Malta and every point 
 that is involved. It is all done with great thoroughness and 
 fairness, with the use of all knowledge that can be obtained 
 about ancient ships and seafaring. 
 
 Smith* says that Luke possesses two great qualifications for 
 writing this chapter. "The first of these is his perfect acquain- 
 tance with nautical matters, and the second is his accuracy. 
 No man who was not in an eminent degree gifted with this 
 quality could have given a narrative capable of being tested as 
 
 ' Rackham, Acts, p. 475. " St. Paul the Traveller, p. 21. 
 
 ^ J. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paid, 4th ed., 1880; A. Breus- 
 ing, Die Nautik der Alien, 1886; J. Vars, L'Art nautique dans I'antiquiU et 
 specialemerU en grlc, 1887; H. Balmer, Die Romfahrt des Apostels Paulus, 
 1905; C. Torr, Andent Ships, 1894; Everitt, St. Paul's Journey to Rome, 
 1904; cyclopaedic article; E. Smith, "Last Voyage and Shipwreck of St. 
 Paul" (Homiletic Review, August, 1919). 
 
 * Op. cit., pp. 25 f. 
 
NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 209 
 
 his has been in the following examination. He must not only 
 have been an accurate observer, but his memory must have 
 been accurate, and his habits of thought and reasoning no less 
 so." This judgment Smith renders after thorough and pains- 
 taking examination of every detail. "St. Luke, by his accu- 
 rate use of nautical terms, gives great precision to his language, 
 and expresses by a single word what would otherwise require 
 several." 1 As one illustration of his accuracy take the dis- 
 tance and direction from Clauda to Malta. Luke has only a 
 few disjointed allusions to these matters in his narrative, and 
 yet they work out Uke a modern log-book the dead reckoning 
 of the ship's course and speed. The distance was four hun- 
 dred and seventy-six miles, and this would take a little over 
 thirteen days (on the fourteenth day, 27 : 27), at the rate of 
 drifting of one and one-half miles an hour. The direction, as 
 the result of the Euraquilo or east-northeast wind (27 : 14) and 
 tacking eight points to the north (as close to the wind as was 
 safe), would bring one to the island of Malta.^ "Hence, ac- 
 cording to these calculations, a ship starting late on the eve- 
 ning from Clauda would by midnight on the fourteenth be less 
 than three miles from the entrance of St. Paul's Bay." ' 
 
 And this is not all. The measurements by fathoms, twenty 
 and fifteen (27 : 28), corresponds to the coast there. And there 
 is a bay with a place where two seas meet (27 : 41), and to this 
 day it is called St. Paul's Bay.* Surely, then, Luke is entitled 
 to consideration in the details to be examined. 
 
 3. The Personality of Paul Dominant in the Narrative. — Fas- 
 cinating as the story is, Luke did not write his narrative just 
 to depict a shipwreck. He is not consciously writing a "pur- 
 ple" passage. He describes the voyage at all only because of 
 his interest in Paul. "The very desperateness of the situation 
 throws into the strongest relief the personality of S. Paul. 
 At the moment of utter despair he rises up in the midst and is 
 found a rock on which all can trust, the inspirer of hope and 
 the master-mind which is able to direct and command as the 
 crisis requires — in a word, their saviour. Nowhere in the Acts 
 is there a finer display of sympathy and strength. Thus the 
 very passages which glorify the apostle — and for that reason 
 suspected by some critics — are those which contain S. Luke's 
 
 ■ Ibid., p. 61, note. « Smith, op. dt., pp. 122-6. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 126. * lUd., p. 172. 
 
210 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 motive for relating the history of the voyage, and the multitude 
 of details supply the necessary background." ^ » 
 
 It is true that Paul is a prisoner, but he is treated with the 
 utmost consideration'' by Julius the centurion, who has charge 
 of all the prisoners and the soldiers' and is the ranking Roman 
 officer on each of the ships, outranking the captain, who with 
 us would be in complete control of the vessel. Ramsay* argues 
 plausibly that Luke and Aristarchus were able to accompany 
 Paul by offering themselves as his slaves for the voyage. Pris- 
 oners would not be allowed to have mere friends. In Luke's 
 narrative "Paul admonished them" (27 : 9 f.) at Fair Havens, 
 where the centurion* called a council to determine what to do 
 now that it was so late in the season, for "the Fast was already 
 gone by" (27 : 9), the Great Day of Atonement, about Octo- 
 ber 5 in A. D. 59, and it was now necessary either to spend 
 the winter in Fair Havens or to find a better harbor like Phoenix 
 near by in Crete (27 : 12). Luke does not mention that it 
 was a formal council, but Ramsay* feels sure that one was 
 held else Paul would not have dared to offer his advice. Prob- 
 ably Paul, though not Luke, was invited to the council because 
 of his prominence. Those nejct to the centurion in rank were 
 "the pilot' and captain* of the ship" (27: 11), and not "the 
 master and owner of the ship," as even the Revised Version 
 has it. The captain and sailing-master (pilot) were merely 
 advisers of the centurion in this council. Paul gave his advice 
 with his warning and prophecy along the line of common sense 
 and experience, but he was brushed aside as not a technical 
 expert. Preachers are not credited with business sense, but 
 he laughs best who laughs last. The centurion found the soft 
 south wind proof of his wisdom and set sail (27 : 13). The 
 sequel justifies Paul up to the hilt, though he remained quiet 
 till neither sun nor stars had shone upon the ship for many 
 days, and all hope of being saved was now taken away and 
 
 1 Raokham, Ads, 476. '' <t>i>.av6p(ixo)? (Acts 27 : 3). 
 
 ' oxsipa SepaoT^ (27 : 1), "the troop of the Emperor," Ramsay calls it 
 (Si. Pavl the Traveller, p. 315), in popular Greek language. 
 
 * St. Paul the TraoeUer, p. 316. | ^ Haxom&pxnz- 
 
 * Op. cii., p, 323. ' xupepvi^TH)?, our "governor." 
 
 » vaixXijpol;. Ramsay, (yp. dt. (p. 324), shows by inscriptions that 
 llixopo? is the name for "owner" of the ship and vaOxXripoq "captain." 
 Knowling, in loco, agrees with Ramsay, though Breusiag argues for 
 f owner "for vauxXnipo?. 
 
NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 211 
 
 they had been long without food (27 : 20). Then he was able 
 to say with telling effect: "I told you so." But he did it 
 courteously and aimed to help the despairing company. He 
 urged courage and confidence in God, who will spare their 
 lives, though the ship wiH be lost, as an angel of God has 
 shown him. Paul himself is to stand before Csesar, and God 
 has spared them in answer to his prayers (27 : 21-26). It is a 
 crowning moment for Paul. From henceforth he is the real 
 master of the company. All now look to Paul for light and 
 leading. 
 
 Once again Paul stepped to the front to expose the dastardly 
 plot of the sailors to escape in the life-boat and to leave the 
 ship and all on board to the mercy of the storm (27 : 30-32). 
 Now the centurion was quick to hearken to Paul and he had 
 the soldiers "cut away the ropes of the boat, and let her fall 
 off." 
 
 Once more as they waited for dawn on the fourteenth day 
 Paul urged that they break their long fast and eat something, 
 appetite or no appetite, so as to have strength for the work 
 of rescue, promising that God would spare all their lives 
 (27:33-36). Thus he restored the courage of all. "Then 
 were they all of good cheer, and themselves also took of food." 
 
 Paul was never more Luke's hero than on these great occa- 
 sions. Rackham^ thinks that Luke also meant to draw a 
 spiritual lesson in the obvious parallel between the experience 
 of Paul to that of Jonah in the Old Testament, with the differ- 
 ence that the New Testament prophet of the Gentiles, unlike 
 Jonah, was obedient to the heavenly vision, and did not bring 
 on the storm, but, rather, was the reason for the rescue of all 
 on board. The glory of the occasion was that Paul so led the 
 crew and passengers to trust God and to be courageous that 
 "they all escaped to the land" (27:44). One may thinly as 
 he will about the parallel to Jonah, but there is no dispute^as 
 to the dignity of Paul's bearing throughout the whole voyage. 
 His conduct on the island of Malta was of a piece with that 
 on board the ship. Paul won power with the barbarians as 
 he had gained power on the ship (28 : 1-10). 
 
 4. The Language of a Cvltivated Landsman. — ^The autoptic 
 character of Luke's narrative is obvious to all. And yet, in 
 the main, he "regularly uses the terms of educated conversa- 
 
 > Acts, p. 477. 
 
212 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 tion, not the strict technical names. " ' Lieutenant Edwin 
 Smith notes that " St, Luke fails to make any reference to the 
 condition of the ship (on the arrival at Fair Havens), an omis- 
 sion which a real sailor would not have made." ^ Lieutenant 
 Smith, of Toronto, was in command of a patrol ship that 
 patrolled from Dunkirk to Zeebrugge and assisted in putting 
 up a smoke-screen for the monitors during the bombardment 
 of Zeebrugge. From November, 1918, to March, 1919, he 
 was in the Mediterranean service. He spent some time with 
 his ship in Valetta harbor in the island of Malta, "within ten 
 miles of the very spot where this, the most famous shipwreck 
 in the world's history, took place." ' Hence his interest in 
 Luke's narrative. 
 
 Smith, of Jordanhill,* says that "although his descriptions 
 are accurate, they are, as I have already observed, unprofes- 
 sional." Smith explains what he means by "unprofessional": 
 "The seaman in charge of the ship has his attention perpetu- 
 ally on the stretch, watching every change or indication of a 
 change of wind or weather. He is obliged to decide on the 
 instant what measures must be taken to avail himself of favor- 
 able changes or to obviate the consequences of imfavorable 
 ones. Hence in describing them he naturally dwells upon 
 cause and effect. He tells us not only what he has done, but 
 why it was done." We do not see this seaman's interest in the 
 technical matters. The landsman notes what the seaman 
 would take for granted and omits scientific details for which 
 he would care most. "Now these are exactly the peculiarities 
 which characterize the style of St. Luke as a voyage-writer." * 
 This judgment can be shown to be correct by ample illustra- 
 tions. 
 
 Luke speaks of loosing the bands of the rudders (27:40), 
 but does not tell how it was fastened. He speaks of hoisting 
 the boat on board (27:16) with difficulty, but does not say 
 what the difficulty was. He gives picturesque details that 
 interest the general reader like the frequent allusions to the 
 wind, "because the winds were contrary" (27:4), "the wind 
 not farther suffering us" (27:7), evidently the northwest wind, 
 though he does not say so. He mentions the south wmd 
 
 • Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 315. 
 
 2 Homiletic Review, August, 1919, p. 104. 
 
 » Op. cit., p. 102. « Op. «■«., p. 21. 5 Op. dt., p. 21. 
 
NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 213 
 
 (27 : 13) and the sudden Euraquilo or E. N. E. wind that "beat 
 down from it (Crete) and caught the ship" (27 : 14 f.). Ram- 
 say^ quotes a ship-captain who told him his experience in the 
 Cretan waters: "The wind comes down from those mountains 
 fit to blow the ship out of the water." The mountains tower 
 seven thousand feet high and the sudden squall is typhonic" 
 in violence. The ship "could not face the wind" (27:15), 
 "look the wind in the eye,"* as Luke picturesquely puts it. 
 The effect of the wind on the waves appears often, as in 
 27 : 27, 41. This E. N. E. wind evidently blew steadily for 
 fourteen days on the second ship as the northwest wind had 
 blown on the first ship and the second to Fair Havens. There 
 is some doubt as to what Luke means in 27 : 12 about the har- 
 bor at Phoenix, "facing northeast and southeast," or "looking 
 down the southwest wind and down the northwest wind."* 
 The harbor faces east, not west. The language is that of sailors 
 on inbound vessels, as they sailed into the harbor. The men- 
 tion of Syrtis, the quicksands, the rapid measures taken for 
 safety and the drifting before the wind (27 : 15-17) shows that 
 Luke is thinking of the main features of the events. 
 
 The use of the term the Sea of Adria (27 : 27) is also popular. 
 The technical use of the name was for the present Adriatic 
 Sea, but ancient writers sometimes applied it, as Luke does, 
 to the lower and wider expanse from Malta to Greece. The 
 fear and treachery of the sailors is a human touch, as is the 
 lightening of the ship of the cargo. It is not clear what Luke 
 meant by "driven to and fro in the Sea of Adria" (27:27), 
 probably the tossing of the waves by the wind as the ship 
 neared land. The beaching of the ship where two seas mef* 
 (27 : 41) probably refers to ciurents meeting between Fahnouth 
 Island and Malta, where "the two seas continue to meet until 
 this day."* But the main points of the story stand out in 
 sharp relief and the four stages of the voyage in three ships 
 (Csesarea to Myra, Myra to Fair Havens, Fair Havens to 
 Malta, Malta to Puteoli). 
 
 5. Technical Terms in the Narrative. — ^Luke was not a sailor, 
 
 1 St. Paid the TrtweOer, p. 327. » w<(>uvix6s (27 : 14). 
 
 ' dycoit>OoiX|ieiy Tq) (ivl|U|> (27 : 15). 
 
 * ^X^xovca xade X(pa xat xcrrd x^fO'^' 
 
 ° el<; t6tcov SiMXaaoov lic^xetXov •rijv vauv. 
 
 ' Lieutenant Smith, Horn. Rev., August, 1919, p. 110. 
 
214 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 but a landsman. And yet he was not a landlubber. He 
 loved the sea and knew the sea by experience, else he could 
 never have written this chapter. No study of books could 
 have given him the ready and accurate use of technical terms 
 that we see. Lieutenant Smith* holds that Luke spent years 
 on the sea as a traveller. He suggests that Luke may have 
 been a surgeon on some of the Mediterranean vessels. Luke 
 knew the language of the sea. "We sailed under the lee of 
 Cyprus" (27:4), "keeping northward with a westerly wind 
 on the beam." " So "we sailed under the lee of Crete" (27 : 7), 
 but "running under the lee' of a small island, Clauda" (27 : 16). 
 "Here they ran before the wind under the lee of Clauda." * 
 
 The officers (27 : 11) on the second ship are the pilot or sail- 
 ing-master or steersman,^ and the captain. These are both 
 under the control of the centurion. The sailors^ (27 : 27, 30) 
 detected the nearness of land by the soundings. The ship is 
 called by the old classic Greek word^ only once (27:41) and 
 it occurs here alone in the New Testament. The skiff or life- 
 boat was towed behind. 
 
 The word for the gear* or sail (27 : 17) which was lowered 
 in the storm was used of the sheet seen by Peter in his vision 
 at Joppa (10:11). There was another word for the small 
 foresail ' which was hoisted up to the wind in time of storm 
 (27 : 40). Roman ships did not usually have a sail at the 
 stern.*" The large mainsail was fastened to a long yard. It 
 was reefed" in time of storm: "We gave way to it and were 
 driven" (27:15). Robinson ^^ thinks that Paul may have 
 made sails as well as tents, and may have thus earned his 
 passage in some of his voyages. Some (Blass, Breusing) inter- 
 pret "gear" (27 : 17) to mean cables with weights attached to 
 retard the progress of the ship. Luke does not speak of masts, 
 though they are implied. The Romans had three-masted ves- 
 sels, though most of them, like the corn-ships, had only the 
 mainmast and the foremast. 
 
 ' Op. eit., p. 103. " Ramsay, op. dt., p. 328. aiteicXeOoaiiev. 
 
 ' iiTcoZpa^insi;. * Ramsay, op. eU., p. 328. 
 
 ' Called b eae6v(i)v in Jas. 3:4. ' vauTai. 
 
 ' vaus. Elsewhere icXotov for the ship (27 : 15, 30) and the little boat 
 was termed oxi^"! (27 : 16). 
 
 ' oxeuo?. ' tiv ifxi\mva. 
 
 i» J. Smith, op. cit., p. 192. " liciSivce? I<tiap6(ieea. 
 12 Hastings's Diet, of Ap. Ch. ("Ship"). 
 
NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 215 
 
 The word "helps" ^ (27 : 17) was applied to cables for under- 
 girding and strengthening the hull of the ship to prevent the 
 ship's timbers from straining too much in a storm. They 
 were used either transversely amidship under the keel or 
 lengthwise from stern to stern. The tackling^ of the ship 
 (27 : 19) included all the ship's necessary furniture, everything 
 movable lying about or on the deck. The cargo or lading' 
 (27 : 10) was wheat* (27 : 38) and it was thrown out only 
 toward the last. The ropes^ (27 : 32) held the little life-boat. 
 
 The ship was impelled only by sail and not by rowers, as 
 many of the Greek ships were. The only paddles were the 
 rudders' (27 : 40), which were braced up with bands' so that 
 the anchors* cotdd more easily be lowered at the stern 
 (27 : 29, 40). Four anchors are here mentioned, but others 
 were probably for use both at the prow (27 : 30) and the stern. 
 Anchors, now of iron with hooks or teeth-like extremities for 
 gripping, and no longer mere stones, were needed to keep 
 the vessel from dashing upon the rocks. As soon as they cast 
 off the anchors, the vessel, under the impact of the wind, made 
 for the beach (27 : 40). The anchors from the stern made it 
 unnecessary to turn the vessel in the storm, which was very 
 dangerous. Nelson lowered anchors from the stern at Copen- 
 hagen. In Heb. 6 : 19 a beautiful use is made of hope, as the 
 anchor which lays hold of Jesus, the rock of our salvation, 
 out of sight within the veil, but sure and steadfast. This 
 anchor holds in every storm. 
 
 Each ship then, as now, had its individual ensign' (28 : 11). 
 The third ship in this memorable voyage in which Paul and 
 Luke and Aristarchus embarked for Puteoli from Malta had 
 the sign of Dioscuri^" (sons of Zeus) or twin brothers. As a 
 rule the sign was painted on the prow." A flag usually floated 
 from the stern*^ and the whole hull was painted. The ancients 
 may not have used camouflage, though ornaments (a swan or 
 a goose head) were panted on the stern-post. Sometimes 
 eyes^' were painted on the prow of the vessel (27 : 15). 
 
 ' oxeu^. ' ' ^opxfov. Cf. Gal. 6 : 5. 
 
 * oiTOV. ' oxotvfa. 
 
 ° injSaXtuv ' l^suxTigpfai;. 
 
 ' ifY-ttpaq. ' icapiaijuov. 
 
 " Aiooxofipots. Castor and Pollux. "Ixxp^pirii; (27:30). 
 
 " Ix icpO(ivi]? (27: 29). '' So had the wind eye to eye. 
 
216 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 The sounding^ was done by sounding-leads* or plumb-lines 
 dropped at intervals. Modern sailors follow the same method 
 for telling the approach of land. 
 
 It is a wonderful story that Luke has told in Acts 27. He 
 knew the lingo of the sailors and was at home on the sea. He 
 employs fourteen verbs about the progress of a ship, and all 
 but three occur in Luke alone in the New Testament.' 
 
 Ramsay* concludes that the only difficulty that remains in 
 Smith of Jordanhill's identification of St. Paul's Bay in Malta 
 as the scene of the shipwreck is the fact that it is not now a 
 sandy beach. But the waves may have washed away tlie 
 sand during the centuries. It is a wonderful story and one is 
 content to leave it now as it stands. "We have seen in our 
 examination that every statement as to the movements of the 
 ship from the time when she left Fair Havens imtil she was 
 beached at Malta, as set forth by St. Luke, has been verified 
 by external and independent evidence of the most exact and 
 satisfying nature."^ What more has one a right to demand 
 of Luke or of any historian ? This chapter alone would rank 
 Luke among the great writers of the world. 
 
 » J. Smith, vp. eU., pp. 27 f. * Op. cU., p. 241. 
 
 s Lieutenant Smith, Horn. Bev., August, 1919, p. 110. 
 
CHAPTER XVn 
 
 THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS^ 
 
 "Paul, standing on the stairs, beckoned with the hand unto the 
 people; and when there was made a great silence, he spake unto 
 them in the Hebrew language" (Acts 21 : 40). 
 
 The decision that Luke wrote the Acts does not necessarily 
 show that the speeches in the book are authentic.^ This sep- 
 arate question calls for special inquiry. 
 
 1. The Custom of Ancient Historians. — ^We have the example 
 of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Livy, Josephus, 
 Tacitus, Dio Cassius, to go no further. These writers record 
 niunerous speeches. Are they verbatim reports such as a mod- 
 ern stenographer takes down or like the speeches in the Con- 
 gressional Record, printed even if not delivered? We know 
 that the ancients did have a system of shorthand. Speakers 
 then, as now, would make notes of speeches that were not 
 written out in full. Part of the business of advocates, like 
 Lysias in Athens, was to compose speeches for men to make 
 in self-defense before the Athenian assembly. The speeches of 
 Demosthenes were written by himself, and bear the marks of 
 the most elaborate preparation and finish to the last detail. 
 The same remark applies to the speeches of Cicero, which he 
 himself wrote out. But the funeral oration of Pericles does 
 not stand upon the same level of genuineness. Thucydides 
 composed such an address as was suitable to represent the 
 ideas of Pericles for the occasion. To-day we have modem 
 reporters for addresses of importance that are not in manu- 
 script form. Percy Gardner says: "We know very well that 
 there was no class of reporters of speeches in antiquity. Nor if 
 there had been would they have reported the words of an 
 obscure itinerant Jew."* But Luke was not wholly dependent 
 upon official reporters for his knowledge of the various ad- 
 
 •Homiletic Review, Vol. 80. 
 * M. Jones, St. Paul the Orator, p. 9. 
 
 » "The Speeches of St. Paul in Acts" (Cambridge Bible Essays, p. 392). 
 
 217 
 
218 LUKE THE fflSTORIAN 
 
 dresses that he has preserved in Acts. Still, we must not try 
 to hold ancient historians to the precise methods and aims of 
 modern writers. Gardner' insists that ancient writers cared 
 more for style and convention, and were more conventional 
 when they were composing works df art. "When an ancient 
 historian inserts in his narrative a speech by one of the char- 
 acters of his history, it is only in quite exceptional cases that 
 we are to suppose that such a speech was actually delivered, 
 or that he means to say that it was actually delivered. It 
 was a regular convention of historical writing that the his- 
 torian should express his views of a situation by making the 
 chief actors in that situation utter speeches in which it is ex- 
 plained." ^ That is true, but it does not follow that Luke nec- 
 essarily did the same thing. At any rate, one must look at 
 the facts as far as they can be obtained. Gardner* refuses to 
 put the speeches of Paul in Acts on a par with Romans and 
 Galatians in historical value. 
 
 There were three methods employed by ancient writers in 
 reporting addresses. One plan was to write a sort of prose 
 drama with free composition of speeches for the characters like 
 the English and Roman historical plays of Shakespeare. One 
 sees this method in Herodotus and Tacitus. Another method 
 was rhetorical rather than dramatic and is seen in Thucydides 
 and Sallust. Thucydides frankly acknowledged his practice. 
 These are free compositions of the writer, but they embody 
 reminiscences of the author and of witnesses of the events who 
 heard the address. Machiavelli as late as the sixteenth cen- 
 tury had the same method. Here the address was a fact and 
 the report contains a modiciun of the real ideas of the speaker 
 as touched up by the writer. Another method was to give a 
 condensed report of the address such as we find in the Gos- 
 pels, where often extracts from Christ's sermons occur rather 
 than the full discourse. There was freedom in the rendering of 
 the sense of the sayings of Jesus, though the substance be the 
 same. One can test Luke's own method here in using Mark, 
 the Logia and the other sources for his Gospel. Gardner* 
 thinks that each writer had his own custom in the matter. 
 "And that which at present concerns us is what conventions in 
 this respect were observed by Luke, who must, as has already 
 
 i76id., p. 392. i* 7Wd., p. 393. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 392, ■* Ibid; p. 393. 
 
THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 219 
 
 be?n observed, be regarded as a Greek literary man, and one 
 of very great talent." ' 
 
 2. Luke as a Reporter. — One class of writers regards the 
 speeches in the Acts as mere rhetorical exercises without any 
 historical worth (Schmiedel, S. Davidson, Bacon). These men* 
 argue that the picture of Paul in the speeches in the Acts is 
 contradictory and unlike that in his Epistles. If Luke followed 
 the method of Herodotus and Tacitus, we must not appeal to 
 the speeches in Acts for the ideas of any one but Luke himself. 
 
 Gardner* holds that "Luke in his use of speeches stands be- 
 tween the ethical and dramatic tendency of Herodotus and 
 Tacitus and the rhetorical tendency of Thucydides and Sal- 
 lust." That is to say, Gardner ranks Luke above Herod- 
 otus, but below Thucydides. "In the Gospel the rhetor- 
 ical bent is far less clearly to be traced than in the Acts." 
 That is to say, Gardner considers the birth stories in Luke 1 
 and 2 to be "in a region of myth," "hymns, very beautiful 
 and very Christian, but freely composed for the persons in 
 whose mouths they are put." Gardner* offers us this consola- 
 tion that "if so, we gain a very high view of the extraordinary 
 versatility and literary skill of the Evangelist." He thinks 
 that Luke is more of a compiler than a composer in the sayings 
 of Jesus. In the Acts " the circumstances are different." " It 
 is impossible to deny the possibility or even the probability 
 that the author may have built in some degree upon reports 
 and rumors of speeches made upon striking occasions by the 
 leaders of the Church. But the language is certainly Lukan." ^ 
 Gardner* thinks it far more likely that a careless historian like 
 Luke would freely compose the speeches than that he "woidd 
 search out hearers of these speeches and make precise notes of 
 their recollections." That is plausible, but it is wholly a priori, 
 as one can see, and rests upon a theory of Luke's historical 
 worth that has been discredited by the researches of Ramsay. 
 Moffatt^ holds that "the excellent historical sense of the 
 author" restrained Luke, "who, while following in the main 
 the ordinary methods of ancient historiography in the compo- 
 sition of such speeches, was careful to avoid moulding and 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 394. ' See Schmiedel, "Acts" in Eneycl. BiUica. 
 
 ' Op. dt., p. 394. * Op. cU., p. 394. 
 
 6 Ibid. ' Ibid., p. 395. 
 
 ' Mr. to LU. of N. T., p. 306. 
 
220 LUKE THE fflSTORIAN 
 
 shaping his materials with a freedom which should obliterate 
 the special cast of their aim and temper. These materials 
 were probably furnished in tiie main by oral traditions." 
 Certainly, this is a much more likely picture of the facts than 
 that of either Schmiedel or Gardner. 
 
 But, a,fter all, with Luke's own account of the sayings of Jesus 
 in the light of Mark and Q, one cannot help wondering why 
 we are forbidden to think that Luke followed the same method 
 in the Acts. If he consulted soiurces, written and oral, for the 
 addresses of Jesus in the Gospel, as can be proven, it is natural 
 to think that he pursued the same careful research in the Acts. 
 He made selections from the material in the Gospel, as he 
 apparently did in the Acts. His reports in the Acts vary in 
 the degree of completeness, as in the Gospel. We know that 
 Luke heard some of Paul's addresses, which he reports. He 
 had abundant opportunity to consult those who heard others, 
 as we have seen in the study of the sources of the Acts. Luke 
 was in touch personally with James and Paul. Philip and 
 Paul heard Stephen. Mark and Philip and Manaen heard 
 Peter. "The speaker in the earlier part may represent not 
 untrustworthily the primitive Jewish-Christian preaching of 
 the period." ' 
 
 Besides, one can test the speeches of Peter, James, and Paul 
 by their Epistles. No one claims that Luke read those Epis- 
 tles and aimed to reproduce their style and teaching. It is 
 admitted on all sides that the speeches of the different speakers 
 in the Acts differ and have a striking verisimilitude to the 
 probable facts.* If Luke composed them all, he was a remark- 
 able literary genius. It is worth while to examine the facts 
 and see if it is not true that, while Luke's own style appears in 
 various ways in the condensed reports, after all the reports 
 faithfully represent the substance and the essential language 
 of the original addresses. 
 
 3. The Speeches of Peter. — ^Fortunately there are a number 
 of these, such as the address to the one hundred and twenty 
 concerning the fate of Judas and the choice of his successor 
 (1:15-22), the great address at Pentecost (2:14-39), the 
 
 » MofFatt, ilrid., p. 305. 
 
 2 Blass, Acta Apostolorwm, p. 11: "Quo intentvus has orationes inspexeris, 
 eo plura in eis reperies, qiue cum sint temporOms personisque egregie accom- 
 modata, ad rhetoricam Ucentiam scripioris referri se vetent." 
 
THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 221 
 
 speech at Solomon's porch (3 : 12-26), three before the Sanhe- 
 drim (4 : 8-12, 19; 5 : 29-32), one to Ananias (5 : 3-4) and one 
 to Sapphira (5:9), the address to Cornelius and his household 
 (10:28-29, 34-43, 47), the defense in Jerusalem (11:4-17), 
 the address at the Jerusalem conference (15 : 7-11). Here we 
 possess data suflBcient for a comparison with I Peter and 
 II Peter, also, if one does not reject it as a basis of comparison. 
 Biggi ia his excellent Commentary does not draw any com- 
 parison between the language and theology of I Peter and 
 Peter's speeches in Acts. He thinks it likely that Silvanus 
 polished up Peter's Greek in this Epistle, and as Luke's own 
 style appears to some extent in the speeches the comparison is 
 not easy. 
 
 And yet the fundamental ideas in Peter's theology appear 
 in his speeches. Peter's speeches reflect the new light and the 
 new courage that came with Pentecost and that shine in his 
 Epistles. It is probable that Peter delivered all these ad- 
 dresses in Aramaic, as was his later custom, with Mark as 
 interpreter, except that at Pentecost, where Jews from all over 
 the world were present, and that at Caesarea to Cornelius. 
 These two were probably in Greek. Peter was bilingual, as 
 was Paul, though he was far less at home in the Greek than 
 Paul. If Luke made use of Aramaic sources for the Gospel 
 (chapters 1 and 2), he could do so for Peter's speeches when 
 necessary. Knowling thinks that Luke had written sources 
 for Peter's speeches besides the benefit of the recollections of 
 those who heard them. We know that Peter's addresses are 
 not reported in full, for "with many other words he testified 
 and exhorted them" (Acts 2:40). It is quite possible that 
 Peter himself made brief notes of some of his more important 
 addresses after they were delivered, or others may have done 
 so at Luke's request. Moffatt^ quotes Overbeck as saying: 
 "To the doctrinal discourses of Peter we may in a certain sense 
 grant that they faithfully represent the primitive preaching of 
 the Messiah by the Apostles, and that so far they possess a 
 certain originality." That is a very cautious statement and 
 far short of the whole truth. The Christology of Peter's 
 speeches is primitive and is to be compared with that of Mark 
 and Q. It is primitive in comparison with that of Paul's 
 Epistles and of Peter's Epistles. " It is clear that these early 
 
 ' P. 6. 2 Op. cU., p. 305. 
 
222 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 chapters give a picture of the primitive community which is 
 quite different from what existed within the experience of the 
 writer, and Jwhich is in itself probable." ^ The speeches of 
 Peter reproduce an early stage of development, just as the 
 birth narratives in Luke 1 and 2 are the most primitive things 
 in the New Testament. There is no doubt whatever about 
 the primitive picture of Christianity in Acts 1-12, where Peter 
 figures. It is natural to think that Luke drew this pictiu-e 
 from actual data. 
 
 4. The Speech of Stephen.— This speech (7 : 2-53, 56, 59) has 
 every mark of genuineness. It will not do to say that Luke 
 could not have gotten a report of this address. Paul himseK 
 heard it (Acts 8 : 1; 26 : 10). Philip almost certainly heard it. 
 Either could have reproduced the line of argument for Luke. 
 Stephen himself may have made a full outline of his address 
 in Aramaic, since it was a formal defense or apologia. There 
 are Lukan turns of thought in the report, but not more than 
 is natural if Luke translated an Aramaic document. There are 
 in the speech a niunber of variations from and additions to the 
 Old Testament, some of which appear in Philo, Stephen dis- 
 puted in Jerusalem in "the synagogue of the Libertines, and 
 of the Cyrenians and of the Alexandrians" (Acts 6:9). He 
 was a Hellenistic Jew, like all the seven (6:5), and may have 
 been from Alexandria, and probably disputed with Saul in the 
 synagogue of Cilicia (6:9). It is not necessary here to survey 
 the points where Stephen and Philo agree. Rackham'' has 
 presented them fully. They are chiefly extrascriptural details, 
 such as appear also in the Talmud and in Josephus. In the 
 ministry of the angels in the giving of the ten commandments 
 (Acts 7 : 53) Stephen is followed by Paul (Gal. 3 : 19). But 
 the significant thing is that Luke preserves these items, which 
 are so different from the Old Testament and from the rest of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 The speech itself fits in perfectly with the picture that Luke 
 has drawn in the Gospel and in the Acts. Jesus himself was 
 arraigned before the Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy, 
 because false witnesses were bribed to say that he was going 
 to destroy |the temple, with the pretense that he could build 
 it again in three days. Jesus kept silent and only confessed 
 on oath that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, but they 
 
 " Headlam, Hastings's, D. B. (" Acts ") . ^ y/je 4,^^ pp. 99-102. 
 
THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 223 
 
 crucified him. Stephen made a formal apology, and they 
 stoned him in a rage, lynched him like a mob, as they tried to 
 do to Jesus several times, and probably would have done if 
 he had made a defense as Stephen did. 
 
 The inner connection of the spirit of Stephen with the his- 
 tory argues for the authenticity of the speech. The Twelve 
 Apostles had trouble from the Sadducees because they pro- 
 claimed the resmrection of Jesus, while the Pharisees held 
 aloof. Stephen, himself a Hellenist, was the first to see the 
 wider reach of the mission of Jesus, that not only included 
 Gentiles and Jews, but treated Gentiles as on a par with Jews. 
 Stephen saw that Jesus thought the spiritual nature of wor- 
 ship independent of place or race, as Jesus expounded to the 
 Samaritan woman in John 4. The Hellenistic Jews in the 
 synagogues in Jerusalem saw that Stephen robbed the Jews of 
 their prerogatives and privileges, and bluntly charged him 
 with preaching against Moses and God. Thus quickly Stephen 
 had created a revolution of which he was the victim. He 
 roused the Pharisees, who turned on him as they had on Jesus, 
 but more suddenly and more fiercely. Stephen's passionate 
 speech is the longest in the Acts, as long as any three of Paul's 
 sermons, and is justified, because of the importance and sig- 
 nificance of it to Luke's narrative. Stephen's career marks 
 the second stage in the apostolic history. "He, being made 
 perfect in a short time, fulfilled a long time; for his soul pleased 
 the Lord. Therefore it hasted from the midst of wickedness" 
 (Wisdom 4 : 13 f.). ^ 
 
 Stephen is the bridge (Rackham) from Peter to Paul in the 
 interpretation of Christ. Like Peter, Stephen makes Jesus a 
 second Moses, a prophet like unto Moses, but, unlike Peter at 
 this stage, he saw beyond the temple and the law to the free- 
 men in Christ among the Gentiles who would come to Christ 
 without becoming Jews. Peter saw that later at Joppa and 
 Csesarea (Acts 10). Paul will one day become the great 
 champion of Gentile liberty against the Judaizers (see Gala- 
 tians). But now his soul raged against the man who had 
 struck at the glory of Moses, as he thought. Some day Paul 
 will find the true Israel in those very Gentiles (Romans 9-11). 
 At Athens Paul will expound eloquently to the cultured Greeks 
 the very gospel that God dwells not in temples made with 
 hands, for which he helped to stone Stephen now. Stephen 
 
224 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 appealed to the covenant with Abraham before the law, as 
 Paul will do in Gal. 3 : 17. Stephen finally turned on the stiff- 
 necked and uncircumcised Jews who always resisted the Holy 
 Spirit (7 : 51), precisely as Paul will one day turn away from 
 the Jews to the Gentiles at Antioch in Pisidia (13 : 46) and at 
 Corinth (18 : 6). "If Stephen had not prayed, Paul had not 
 preached." Paul finally took up the torch of Stephen and 
 passed it on. Peter will preach the same glorious message, 
 also. Stephen was the man of vision, who saw the full truth 
 ahead of his time and dared to proclaim it. 
 
 Luke has given the trial and defense of Stephen a dramatic 
 setting and has shown the historian's insight in the way that 
 he has presented the whole story. The speech bears every 
 mark of a real report. It is full of life and power. It left its 
 mark on Paul. It blazed the way for the future expansion of 
 Christianity. It broke the shackles of Judaism. It defied 
 Pharisaism. It flashed before the Jewish world the heart of 
 Christ's message and mission to the whole wide world. 
 
 5. The Speech of James. — In Acts 15 : 13-21 Luke has a 
 speech delivered by James, the brother of Jesus, who presided 
 over the conference in Jerusalem. In 15 : 23-29 he gives the 
 circular epistle drawn up apparently by James and adopted by 
 the conference and sent to Antioch by Judas and Silas, along 
 with Paul and Barnabas (15 : 22 f.), and later carried by Paul 
 and Silas to the churches of Galatia (15 : 4). It was conunon 
 enough to send a formal epistle by messengers or "apostles," 
 as Paul did (cf . II Cor. 8 : 23) and as the diurches did. The 
 Second Book of Maccabees begins with a letter about the puri- 
 fication of the temple. It was easy enough for Luke to obtain 
 a copy of this circular epistle, since so many were distributed 
 to the churches. But this epistle embodied the resolution of 
 James in his address, and was almost certainly written by 
 James and read to the conference for their indorsement. In 
 the epistle the order is "Barnabas and Paul" (15:25), for in 
 Jerusalem it is still "our beloved brother Barnabas" who has 
 more influence with the Christians then than Paul. In Galatia 
 and Antioch it had already become "Paul and Barnabas." 
 
 The style of the epistle and the speech of James is the same. 
 James calls Peter "Symeon," the i^amaic form of Simon, seen 
 also in II Peter 1:1. James indorses the speech of Peter and 
 proves by Scripture that Peter is right. James shows the 
 
.2 
 
 THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 225 
 
 same kind of practical wisdom in his speech^ which settles the 
 controversy with freedom for the Gentiles and in harmony 
 with the teaching of the Old Testament in a way to satisfy all 
 Jewish Christians save the extreme Judaizers. It was a real 
 eirenicon, but no half-way compromise, and is strikingly like 
 the discussion in the Epistle of James (1 : 5; 3 : 10-18). Luke 
 was with James (Acts 21 : 18 f.) and would have no trouble in 
 getting the speech of James and the circular epistle to which 
 James refers (21 : 25), practically claiming to be the author of 
 the letter: "We wrote, giving judgment." James may have 
 delivered his speech in Aramaic, but he knows Greek well, as 
 his Epistle shows. If Luke translated the speech and the cir- 
 cular letter, that would explain any Lukan traits discernible 
 in them. 
 
 The Epistle of James shows striking similarities to the speech 
 of James and the circular letter written by James. Mayor 
 says: "I cannot but think it a remarkable coincidence that, 
 out of two hundred and thirty words contained in the speech 
 and the circular, so many should reappear in our Epistle, 
 written on a totally different subject." It is possible that the 
 Epistle of James was written before the conference in Jeru- 
 salem.^ If so, James has written the first Epistle which has 
 come down to us, unless Galatians comes earlier, which I 
 consider quite imlikely. The circular letter, also written by 
 James, would then be the second Epistle preserved for us. 
 The Epistle of James bears a resemblance to the Cynic dia- 
 tribe,* but the Jews were long familiar with this form of lit- 
 erature.* Once more the data fit all the known facts, without 
 saying that Luke made up the speech of James and the circu- 
 lar letter. 
 
 6. The Speeches of Paid. — ^These addresses are the most 
 important items on this phase of the subject. They are the 
 basis of special treatises by Bethge,* Percy Gardner^ and 
 M. Jones.* We may agree at once that these speeches of Paul 
 
 1 Rackham, Acts, p. 254. ' Comm. on James, p. iii. 
 
 ' Robertson, Practical and Social Aspects of Christianity, p. 35. 
 * Ropes, Ep. of James, p. 16. 
 
 ' Cf. letters in II Chron. 21 : 12; 30 : 1; 32 : 17; Jer. 29 : 1, 25. 
 < Die paidinischen Reden. 
 
 " "The Speeches of St. Paul in Acts" (flambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 
 379-418). 
 8 St. Paul the Orator. 
 
226 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 in Acts must all be examined separately, and that they do not 
 necessarily stand on the same level in point of proof as to 
 authenticity, Bethge* argues that the speeches of Paul all 
 show the marks of an eye-witness. We may agree with Gard- 
 ner' that the speech to the elders of Ephesus at Miletus (Acts 
 20 : 18-35) has the best claim of all to be historic. But that 
 admission does not discredit the others as Gardner thinks. 
 He holds the speech at Athens (17:22-31) to be "the least 
 authentic of the Pauline discourses in Acts." That is pre- 
 cisely the point to be examined. It is plain that the speeches 
 of Paul in Acts are only a small selection of an immense num- 
 ber of addresses made by Paul.* It is true, also, that Luke 
 has chosen the occasions for the speeches which he does give, 
 so "as to bring into strong relief the various sides of his min- 
 istry and of his doctrine." * But it is just as easy to suppose 
 that Luke, being with Paul in Rome when he wrote the Acts, 
 drew upon Paul's memory and upon Paul's notes and outlines 
 of his discourses as to imagine that Luke made a free composi- 
 tion of Paul's addresses for the purpose of representing Paul 
 properly on various occasions. To me it is far simpler and 
 more natural to conceive that Luke followed his usual plan of 
 using all available data for his narrative. It is hard to see 
 why he should pass Paul by in the matter of his own speeches, 
 which he would siurely wish to win Paul's sanction. 
 
 One must not make too much of Paul's reference to the 
 charge of his enemies in Corinth that "his speech is of no 
 accoimt" (II Cor. 10 : 10), as if Luke had to write out eloquent 
 addresses for Paul on the set occasions in the Acts. Paul him- 
 self did make disclaimers of rhetorical oratory after the order 
 of the Greek dialectic' He preached the Gospel "not m wis- 
 dom of words" (I Cor. 1 : 17) and "my speech and my preach- 
 ing were not in persuasive words of wisdom" (I Cor. 2:4). 
 That is, from the standpoint of the false taste of the Corin- 
 thians, some of whom later made the very charges agamst 
 him. But we have abundant proof of Paul's real power of 
 speech in his Epistles. There is no lack of passion and of 
 power in them and, at times, Paul rises to the heights of real 
 
 1 Die patdinischen Reden, p. 174. 
 
 ' Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 401. 
 
 ' M. Jones, St. Paul the Orator, p. 3. 
 
 « Gardner, op. cU., p. 395. ' Jones, op. at., p. 2. 
 
THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 227 
 
 eloquence (cf. I Cor. 13, 15; Romans 8; Phil. 3). There is 
 variety in the style of Paul's Epistles according to subject- 
 matter and time and mood. It is no surprise, therefore, to 
 find like adaptations in his addresses to time and place and 
 theme. Paul spoke, as he wrote, to the audience before him. 
 He went after the verdict, though he always applied the eternal 
 principles of the Gospel to the topic in hand. 
 
 Gardner' thinks that two influences helped Luke to make a 
 good report of Paul's speeches: (1) his close relation to Paul 
 and (2) his fine dramatic sense, which would keep him from 
 grossly misrepresenting Paul. On the other hand, he thinks 
 that Luke was handicapped (1) by his sense of the conventions 
 of historic writing, and (2) "looseness and carelessness of state- 
 ment, which almost obliterates for him the line between fact 
 and rumor, between that which actually occurred and that 
 which ought to have occurred." It is pure hypothesis to 
 shackle Luke with the conventional theories of Thucydides 
 and Josephus, when we can test his critical habit by his use 
 of Mark and Q. The alleged "carelessness" of Luke lies in 
 the imagination of Baur and Schmiedel. The facts of modern 
 discovery have effectually disposed of those wholesale charges 
 as we have already abundantly seen. The thing to do is to 
 test the reports of Paul's speeches by the canons of criticism. 
 
 Gardner* divides Paul's speeches into two classes: (1) those 
 at Antioch and Athens, which were "free compositions of 
 Luke"; (2) the later speeches, "which would naturally be 
 largely affected by personal memories." Gardner' denies that 
 he has taken away the "value" of Paul's speeches, for Luke 
 knew Paul's views so well that "his fine dramatic sense would 
 render bim apt at expressing Paul's usual way of proceeding." 
 Chase* holds that Luke had actual data for all the speeches, 
 and retained Paul's original ideas, though he may have given 
 them "greater fulness and elaboration, and a more distinctly 
 literary flavor." Per contra, one must bear in mind that the 
 reports all bear evidence of great condensation. Hence Jones* 
 is right in contending that "while they betray considerable 
 proofs of editing on St. Luke's part, in the way of summarizing 
 and epitomizing, many expressions and phrases being undoubt- 
 
 • Op. dt., pp. 415 f. " Op. cU., p. 396. 
 
 ' Op. dt., p. 396. * The CredMlUy of the Acts, pp. 108 f. 
 
 « Op. dt., p. 17. 
 
228 LUXE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 edly Lukan, the utterances are, in the main, those of the 
 Apostle, and^hat through the major portion of their contents 
 we are listening to the voice of St. Paul himself." I feel sure 
 that this is a very moderate statement of the facts. The voice 
 of Paul is heard in these addresses as the voice of Jesus comes 
 to us ia Luke's Gospel. 
 
 This judgment is reinforced by a consideration of the prob- 
 able sources of the speeches of Paul. We know that Luke 
 was present at Miletus: "We came to Miletus" (Acts 20 : 15). 
 So he heard that notable address to the elders, the noblest of 
 all talks to preachers, save the many to the disciples by Jesus 
 in the Gospels. We know also that he was present in Jerusa- 
 lem (21 : 17 f.) where Paul spoke to the mob from the steps of 
 the tower of Antonia (22 : 1-21). There is no reason for 
 thinking that he was not present in Csesarea, where Paul spoke 
 before Felix, Festus and Herod Agrippa II (24-26). Jones' 
 argues that beyond a doubt the report of the address before 
 Agrippa is "the work of an eye-witness, or a copy from an 
 original source." We know that Luke was with Paul in Rome 
 (28 : 14, 16), and so heard Paul's two addresses to the Jews 
 there (28 : 17-28). Luke was also with Paul in Philippi 
 (Acts 16), but he was not present in Thessalonica, Beroea, 
 Athens or Corinth. We do not know that he was with Paul 
 in the first campaign in south Galatia. Jones* thinks that 
 the extremely vivid narratives and reports of Paul's extended 
 address at Antioch in Pisidia (13:16-41), and the striking 
 speech in Lystra (14 : 12-17) argue for Luke's presence with 
 Paul. But that is very uncertam. What we do know is that 
 Luke was with Paul and had every opportunity to obtain 
 Paul's recollections or notes of these addresses, which he him- 
 self did not hear. "The trustworthiness of the speeches is, 
 therefore, in some measure, guaranteed by the fact, in the 
 case of many of them, that they are reported by one who 
 actually listened to them, and where this is not the case, they 
 are reproduced from materials supplied either by the speaker 
 himself or by his companions."* 
 
 It is hard to overestimate the value of the Pauline speeches. 
 "The primary Pauline Gospel we owe ahnost entirely to the 
 speeches, and from this aspect they are mvaluable. By means 
 
 " Ov- eU., p. 236. = Op. cit., p. 19. » Hid., p. 20. 
 
THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 229 
 
 of these we are able to trace the PauUne system of doctrine 
 from its very rudiments." ' 
 
 The genuineness of the speeches alone explains Luke's report 
 of two addresses so much alike as those in Acts 22 and 26, and 
 that cover the conversion of Paul already adequately told in 
 Acts 9. Besides, there are apparent inconsistencies on minor 
 points in these three accounts of Paul's conversion that yield 
 to plausible explanations on close study, but that are unnatural 
 if Luke composed all three reports. The repetition is other- 
 wise needless and the discrepancies superfluous. 
 
 Ramsay^ calls attention to the marvellous adaptation of 
 Paul's speeches to the local atmosphere, a coincidence hardly 
 possible for a writer composing at a distance. He cites the 
 address at Antioch in Pisidia, Lystra and Athens as instances. 
 Local color is reproduced precisely in each case. Ramsay 
 notes a likeness of tone in the speeches in Antioch and Lystra 
 and the Epistle to the Galatians. The speech in Athens is 
 attacked as imlike Paul in language and in spirit. But it is as 
 unlike Luke as it is Paul. The Attic flavor can be proof of 
 Paul's versatility. The appeal to natural theology occurs also 
 in the speech at Lystra and is precisely in harmony with Paul's 
 argument in Romans 1 and 2. It is not true that Paul sur- 
 rendered his Gospel message in the presence of the Stoic and 
 Epicurean philosophers, for he accented repentance, judgment 
 and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He probably 
 meant to stress other great doctrines, if the whimsical Athe- 
 nians had not cut short his address. Ramsay' notes that the 
 address at Lystra was more simple while that at Athens before 
 an educated audience took on a more philosophical turn. But 
 Paul attacked idolatry as courageously in Athens as in Lystra. 
 The sermon at Antioch in Pisidia is remarkable for its Pauline 
 doctrine of justification by faith instead of by works, and for 
 its grasp of the salient points concerning the life and death of 
 Christ. By means of the speeches we see Paul the preacher 
 as we could not otherwise know him.* 
 
 There is no doubt that Luke has shown consummate skill 
 in reproducing strategic and dramatic staging for Paul's vari- 
 ous addresses. That was his task as the historian. But he 
 has not been convicted of merely following the conventional 
 
 ' Jones, ibid., p. 21. ' St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 144 ff. 
 
 ' Op. dt., p. 147. 'See Eosser, Paul the Preacher. 
 
230 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 practice of inventing the discourses for Peter, Stephen, James 
 and Paul which cut so large a figure in his book. 
 
 The very diversity exhibited is more readily explained by 
 the use of actual data for the various addresses. The short 
 speech of Tertullus (Acts 24 : 2-28) was made in public, as was 
 that of Festus in 25 : 24-27. The letter of Claudius Lysias in 
 23 : 27-30 was a public document. It is not so easy to explain 
 how Luke got the data for the conversation between Festus 
 and Agrippa in 25 : 14-22. But Luke may have resources of 
 which we know nothing. It is really amazing, all things con- 
 sidered, how we can follow his tracks for nearlj^ the whole of 
 the many discourses that adorn the Book of Acts. "He chose 
 rather to include the speeches as we possess them, with their 
 many difiiculties, their manifest inconsistencies on some points, 
 because they represent the genuine utterances of his master." * 
 We may thank Luke for this fidelity as for his other gifts and 
 graces. 
 
 » Jones, op. cU,, p, 291. 
 
CHAPTER XVm 
 
 A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 
 
 "There was a man of Macedonia standing, beseeching him, and 
 saying. Come over into Macedonia and help us" (Acts 16: 9). 
 
 This man was probably Luke, as we have seen. At any 
 rate, the sentence properly pictures Luke as a man of his times 
 who was interested in the world problems of his day. 
 
 1. The Versatility of Luke. — ^We cannot have come thus far 
 in the discussion of the writings of Luke without seeing that 
 he was a man of great gifts and of fine culture. He had the 
 opportimity of scholastic training. He was accurate without 
 pedantry. Plummer^ terms him "the most versatile of all the 
 New Testament writers." He was a man of genius who toiled 
 at his task like a plodder. "The humanism of the Hellenistic 
 world pervades him " * and yet he is simple in his love and 
 loyalty to Jesus as Lord and Saviour. He is a skilful physician 
 who reverently sees in Christ the Great Physician for both 
 soul and body. He can write literary Koini like Plutarch and 
 yet closely follows his Aramaic sources. He hides himself all 
 the while, a;nd yet his own beautiful style crops out at every 
 turn. He has "the power of merging himself, all but his 
 style, in the persons of those whose story he is telling." ' He is 
 a Greek and a Christian, a friend of Paul and of Theophilus, 
 a physician and a preacher, a literary man and a friend of the 
 poor, a champion of women and of children, a friend of the 
 good and of sinners, a historian and a poet, a mystic and a 
 musician, a humanitarian and a humanist, a traveller on land 
 and on sea, a student of the Scriptures and a medical mission- 
 ary, a harmonizer of science and of theology, the interpreter 
 of Peter and of Paul, but most of all the lover and interpreter 
 of Jesus Christ, a man of prayer and of faith. "One cannot 
 help feeling how delightful and lovable as a man he must have 
 been."" 
 
 ^ Comm., p. xlix. ' ^ Gardner, op. cU., p. 387. 
 
 ' Ibid. * Ibid. 
 
 231 
 
232 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 I cannot close this volume without some expression of my 
 own admiration for Luke. Even Percy Gardner' can say: 
 "All these qualities color the Gospel and the Acts alike, mak- 
 ing them exquisite works of literary art and great monuments 
 of refined Christian feeling." It is small wonder that this 
 man so won the heart of Paul that he calls him "the beloved 
 physician." He has won the heart of the whole world. Ram- 
 say'' has a chapter on "The Charm of Paul." One could easily 
 write on the charm of Luke who charmed Paul. It is impossi- 
 ble to exaggerate the importance of Luke's contribution to 
 Christianity. Luke and John and Paul and the author of 
 Hebrews (ApoUos?) represent the acme of cultiu-e in early 
 Christianity. The author of Hebrews is the masterful inter- 
 preter of Christianity in the light of Judaism and as its suc- 
 cessor and superior. John is the rapt and clear-eyed mystic, 
 the eagle soaring above the clouds and the stofm. Paul is the 
 mighty and masterful protagonist of Christ, the "Illuminator 
 of Luke," as Tertullian calls him. Luke is the versatile scholar 
 and the humane and gentle scientist who has painted his pic- 
 ture-gallery of Jesus and his followers on broad canvas and in 
 bold and yet delicate lines. 
 
 2. Luke a Cosmopolitan. — Luke was a citizen of the world 
 like Paul and even more so. Paul was a Jew with a touch of 
 the Greek and of the Roman who became a Christian. Luke 
 was a Greek in a Roman world who became a Christian. He 
 was without the racial and religious prejudices of the Jew, 
 though he came to take a lively interest in all things Jewish in 
 his study of Jesus. He shows great knowledge of the Septua- 
 gint. But Luke did not have to overcome the Jew's hostility 
 to the Gentiles. The Greek and the Roman were not taboo to 
 him as they were once to Peter and Paul. "He is a Universal- 
 ist who would have all men to be saved, and for whom the 
 difference between Jew and Gentile does not present itseK 
 with the same rigidity which it has in the mind of Paul." ^ It 
 is Luke who records the parable of the Good Samaritan who 
 does good to a poor wounded Jew by the roadside whom the 
 pious priest and the Levite pass by in dread of contamination. 
 
 For this reason Luke has no trouble in doing justice to the 
 Gentiles. He draws a kindly picture of Gallio, the Roman 
 
 1 Ibid. ' Pauline Studies, pp. 25-45. 
 
 * iwtu. 
 
 » Gaxdner, op. cit., p. 387. 
 
A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 233 
 
 proconsul, of Cornelius and Julius, the Roman centurions, of 
 Gamaliel, the Pharisaic leader and sage, of the kindly curiosity 
 about Paul in Athens. "He has got the sympathetic insight 
 which can thoroughly enter the feelings of different parties — 
 such as Pharisees and Sadducees, Hebraists and Hellenists; 
 different classes of society — Jews and Greeks, the populace and 
 better classes, local magistrates, Roman officials, Herodian 
 princes; different interests — Pharisaic rabbis and Sadducaic 
 priests, Ephesian silversmiths and Jewish sorcerers, Roman 
 aristocrats and Greek citizens; differences of culture — Athenian 
 philosophers and rustic Lycaonians; different professions — sol- 
 diers and sailors. Then this appreciativeness is made effective 
 by a gift of style. By a few vigorous touches he can make a 
 scene live before us."' Carpenter^ devotes one chapter to 
 "S. Luke the Universalist." Hayes' calls his Gospel "The 
 Gospel for the Gentiles" because it was written by a Gentile 
 with Gentiles as well as Jews in mind. 
 
 He wrote for the whole Christian world. "Of the three 
 synoptic Gospels this is by far the most catholic in its sym- 
 pathies and universalistic in its outlook."* Luke traces the 
 genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. He is fond of the words 
 grace. Saviour, salvation and evangelize. He makes Simeon 
 say that Jesus is "a light for revelation to the Gentiles" (2 : 32). 
 He alone calls three Roman emperors by name (Augustus, 
 Tiberius, Claudius). Van Oosterzee says that Luke raised 
 " sacred history from the standpoint of Jewish national nation- 
 ality to the higher and holier ground of universal humanity." 
 Hayes' puts it thus: "It is the Gospel of the real humanity of 
 Jesus. It is the Gospel of Jesus as our Brother-Man. It is 
 the Gospel of the Kinsman-Redeemer of the race." It is the 
 Pauline Gospel and it is our Gospel, for we are mostly Gentiles, 
 but it is most of all the Gospel of Jesus the Saviour. 
 
 Chesterton* says of Jesus: "What nobody can possibly call 
 Him is a Galilean of the time of Tiberius." He was that, but 
 he was much more than that. He was the Son of Man as well 
 as the Jewish Messiah. This Luke saw clearly. Carpenter,' 
 
 • Rackham, The Acts, p. xlvi. 
 
 ' Christianity According to S. Luke, pp. 212-227. 
 
 ^ Syn. Gospels and Acts, pp. 205-216. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 206. « Op. dt., p. 253. 
 
 8 HibbeH Journal, July, 1909, p. 748. ' Op. cit., p. 223. 
 
234 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 however, adds: "Some of the Jews themselves had formed the 
 habit of speaking of their expected Hero as the Son of Man. 
 Who is this Son of Man? God is His Father, and the holy 
 nation is his mother. And for all his Jewish outlook, His 
 national patriotism, and His Galilean accent. He has over- 
 leaped the bomids of nationality, and transcended the limita- 
 tions of station, century, and sex. ... He has created, inci- 
 dentally, and almost casually, in the course of His redeeming 
 man's soul, the only true democracy that is ever likely to exist." 
 Luke sees and seizes the universal humanity of Jesus and traces 
 with masterful pen the expansion of the kingdom of God from 
 the handful of Galilean Jews to the confines of the Roman 
 Empire with the conquest of the world and of the ages as the 
 legacy of the risen (Sirist. 
 
 3. Luke's Pidure-Gallery. — But Luke is no abstract dreamer. 
 He is an internationalist, but a patriot first. He is not carried 
 away by ideas to the neglect of personalities. Luke is a lover of 
 his human kind. He draws pictures of persons in the Gospel 
 and in the Acts by a few artistic touches. One can never for- 
 get the picture of Zacharias, of Mary, of Elizabeth, of Simeon, 
 of Anna, in the opening chapters of the Gospel, or of Martha 
 and Mary in Luke 10, or of Cleopas and his companion in 
 Luke 24. But in the Gospel these all radiate around Christ. 
 Hamack^ devotes a chapter to Luke's "Treatment of Persons." 
 In the Acts there are two chief characters, Peter and Paul, but 
 many others of second and third rank rotate around these. 
 Harnack sees nothing of value in the supposed parallelism be- 
 tween Peter and Paul in the Acts, though he thinks that Luke's 
 picture of Paul is much more distinct than that of Peter, prob- 
 ably because Paul was so much better known to Luke and be- 
 cause, also, Paul was a bolder figure. 
 
 In the Acts there are mentioned one hundred and ten names, 
 besides groups of persons whose. names are not given, "and of 
 these how extraordinarily their individuality is preserved."^ 
 After all, persons are the most interesting data for the his- 
 torian. One can easily recall in the Acts Peter and John, 
 Ananias and Sapphira, Annas and Caiaphas and Gamaliel, 
 Stephen and Philip, James the brother of John and James the 
 brother of Jesus, Barnabas and Judas, Simon Magus and Bar- 
 jesus, John Mark and Silas, Ananias and Judas of Damascus, 
 1 The A(As, pp. H7-132. ^ Rackham, Acts, p. xlvii. 
 
A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 235 
 
 Saul also called Paul, Sergius Paulus and Gallic, Cornelius and 
 Juliiis, Dorcas and Lydia, Timothy and Erastus, Aristarchus 
 and Trophimus, Agabus and ApoUos, Herod Agrippa I and IL 
 Aquila and Priscilla, Claudius Lysias and Tertullus, Felix and 
 Festus, Drusilla and Bernice, Demetrius and Publius. 
 
 Of this number Harnack' notes only five personages of sec- 
 ondary rank from Luke's standpoint (Stephen, Philip, Barna- 
 bas, James and Apollos). He observes, also, that all of these 
 save James the brother of Christ are Hellenists. Harnack 
 thinks that the emphasis upon Stephen lies in the fact that his 
 message was the bridge from Judaism to the Gentile world, 
 and that this motive dominates Luke in all his use of persons 
 in his story. At any rate, Luke writes his book largely by the 
 use of biographical sketches. 
 
 But it is not a haphazard jumble. He has two heroes, Peter 
 and Paul, but Paul is the dominating figure of Acts next to 
 Christ, whose words and deed overshadow all (Acts 1:1). 
 
 It is interesting to note that Luke reveals his true historical 
 insight by his estimate of Paul, who by no means cut so large a 
 figure with his contemporaries as he does with us. Luke has 
 the love of the disciple for his master in the case of Paul, but 
 he does not mar the history because of this attachment. 
 " Finally, S. Luke has demonstrated his artistic skill by welding 
 this complex variety of persons and places, times and seasons, 
 characters and circumstances, into one whole — a whole in 
 which no tendency or side-issue dominates: and a whole so 
 complete that we entirely forget the variety, we are uncon- 
 scious of the author and his method." ^ We are swept on with 
 the onward march of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome. 
 We see the greatest of all revolutions transforming Peter and 
 Paul from Jewish pride of privilege to world evangelization 
 and Christian freedom in Christ. 
 
 4. Sympathy imth Sinners. — ^We judge the sympathies of 
 Luke by his choice of material. The Christ of Luke is the 
 friend of sinners. A physician is brought into close contact 
 with the outcasts of society, those who are "down and out." 
 In a pre-eminent sense Luke pictures Christ as the friend and 
 saviour of sinners. The matchless parables in Luke 15 (the 
 Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, the Lost Son) are told by Christ, as 
 Luke explains (15 : 1 f.), because, when "all the publicans and 
 
 1 Acts of the Apostles, p. 119. ' Rackham, Acts, p. xlvii. 
 
236 •. LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 sinners were drawing near unto him to hear him," "both the 
 Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying. This man rebeiv- 
 eth smners, and eateth with them." The charge was true, 
 gloriously true as we see, as Luke saw, but as the ecclesiastics 
 of the time did not see. "S. Luke's Gospel is a Gospel of sac- 
 rifice and a Gospel for smners. It contains the word 'sinners' 
 more often than all the other three put together." ' In Luke 
 7 : 37 the woman that was a notorious sinner anoints our 
 Lord, but Luke does not identify her with Mary Magdalene 
 m 8 : 2 or with Mary of Bethany. That is a gratuitous insult 
 that mediaeval theologians and painters have cast upon these 
 two noble women. But Jesus did forgive the sinful woman 
 who showed more love for Christ than his host, the proud 
 Pharisee (7 : 47), Luke rejoices in the courage of Jesus, as in 
 the case of Zacchseus (19:2-10): "The Son of Man came to 
 seek and to save that which was lost." Luke's Christianity 
 is for the bad as well as for the good, to cure sm as well as 
 sickness. Glover'' quotes the German Jew Borne as saying: 
 "Christianity is the religion of all poor devils." 
 
 5. Sympathy with the Poor. — So pronounced is the sympathy 
 of Luke with the poor that his Gospel has actually been charged 
 with Ebionitism and with cl^ss prejudice, with the modern 
 "Soviet" conception of class domination, the poor ruling the 
 rich. That is not true at all. Luke is interested in the rich 
 (19 : 2; 23 : 50), but he champions the poor because they needed 
 a friend (1 : 53; 2 : 7, 8, 24; 4 : 18; 6 : 20, 21; 7 : 22; 14 : 13, 22; 
 16:20, 23). Luke reports the special form of communism 
 among the early disciples in Jerusalem (Acts 4 and 5), but he 
 would not be a modern syndicalist, certainly not a Marxian 
 Socialist, or a Bolshevist. The physician sees the need and 
 hears the cry of the poor. "The physician who works only 
 for fat fees and who goes only when summoned by the well- 
 to-do may make his fortune, but he will miss his greatest pro- 
 fessional opportunity in the service to the poor.' ' ' Luke records 
 Jesus as saying at Nazareth that the spirit of the Lord had 
 "anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor" (4:18). 
 Luke has simply "Blessed are ye poor" in 6 : 20. In the story 
 of Lazarus and the wicked Rich Man the beggar comes out 
 
 ^ Carpenter, op. cit., p. 219. 
 
 2 Nature and Purpose of a Christian Society, p. 34. 
 
 f Hayes, op. cit., p. 237. 
 
A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 237 
 
 ahead In the end (16 : 19-31). No fiercer indictment of a rich 
 fool was ever drawn than in the parable of Jesus recorded by 
 Luke in 12: 16-21. Luke represents Christ as invitmg "the 
 poor and maimed and blind and lame" to the supper in the 
 parable (14: 21). One of the amazing things about Jesus was 
 his interest in the poor. This great fact was reported to John 
 the Baptist as proof that Jesus was the Messiah (7 : 22). 
 
 Certainly, then, Luke believed in the dignity of man. Luke 
 wrote the gospel for the poor that Burns sang. "S. Luke's 
 conception of the Church was that it was a body in which the 
 poor and needy for the first time had a fair and equal chance." ^ 
 We need not ask whether Luke wished to abolish slavery, 
 though he may have once been a slave himself, as we have 
 seen. Professor Gilbert Murray" thinks that what made 
 Christianity conquer in the Roman Empire was "its intense 
 feeling of brotherhood within its own bounds, its incessant care 
 for the poor." We see that in I Cor. 1 : 26-31, where Paul 
 glories in the choice of the poor by God to confound the rich 
 and the mighty. Christ calls the men from the bottom up. 
 That is his crown of glory. There is no doubt about Liike 
 being a democrat. He traces the babe in the manger in Beth- 
 lehem to the ascension on Olivet. Luke was a democrat who 
 was striving for a spiritual aristocracy, not of money, not of 
 blood, not of privilege, not of power, but of character, the 
 brotherhood of the cross of Christ, that is stUl the hope of the 
 world, the salt of the earth. Luke does not teach that it is a 
 virtue to be poor, but a poor man is, after all, a man, a man 
 worth saving, a man who may be rich toward God, and who 
 may enrich man by the noblest qualities of manhood and 
 service. "Even when Christianity had risen from the work- 
 shop and the cottage to the palace and the schools of learning, 
 it did not desert the workshop and the cottage. The living 
 roots of Christianity remained in their native soil and in the 
 lower ranks of society." ' 
 
 6. Understanding Women. — Christ made an appeal to 
 women, who early formed a band to help support him and his 
 disciples (Luke 8 : 1-3). The rabbis in their litiu-gy thanked 
 God that they were not bom women. But Jesus is the eman- 
 
 1 Carpenter, op. cit., p. 204. 
 
 2 Four Stages of Greek Religion, p. 180. 
 
 ' Deissmann, lAght from the Ancient East, p. 404. 
 
238 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 cipator of women. Luke sees this truth and emphasises it. 
 One of the traditions ' about Jesus is that once when asked 
 "When shall the kingdom come?" he replied: "When the 
 two shall be one, and that which is without as that which is 
 within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female." 
 One may think what he will of the logion, but Paul in Gal. 3 : 28 
 says that in Christ "there is neither male nor female." To 
 the women of Palestine Jesus appeared as their sole champion 
 and hope because he treated them as personalities on a par 
 with men. "Mithraism, the most popular of the heathen 
 religions, was, like Islam, a religion for men only."^ The 
 humanity of Christ is deeper than sex. Christianity made 
 great headway in the first century, partly because of its pow- 
 erful appeal to women. 
 
 Luke was a physician and was brought into close contact 
 with women and their problems. He also lived in Philippi for 
 some years, where women had unusual privileges and oppor- 
 tunities, Macedonia being in this respect far ahead of Achaia 
 or Asia. Luke knew how both Gentile and Jew looked down 
 on women. He saw the difference in Jesus. So we have 
 sketches of Elizabeth and Mary the mother of Jesus, the 
 prophetess Anna and the widow of Nain, the sinful woman in 
 the house of Simon and the woman with an issue of blood, 
 Mary Magdalene and the others of her band, Mary and Martha 
 of Bethany, the widow with the two mites and the daughters 
 of Jerusalem, the women at the tomb, Dorcas and Mary the 
 mother of John Mark, Sapphira and Priscilla, Drusilla and 
 Bemice, Lydia and Damaris. Luke wrote the gospel of woman- 
 hood, full of sympathy and tenderness, full of understanding 
 of their tasks' and their service. Dante describes Luke as " the 
 writer of the story of the gentleness of Christ." If women 
 have understood Christ often better than men, it is in part 
 due to Luke's representation of Christ's interest in women. 
 Christ has enfranchised women in the true sense of spiritual 
 privilege and prowess and service. They are entering into 
 their heritage after centuries of indifference and hostility. 
 But the women were last at the cross and fii-st at the tomb. 
 They have been loyal to Christ through the ages. 
 
 7. In Touch with Children.— The good physician loves chil- 
 dren and seeks to save the child from death and from disaster. 
 
 1 Ps. Clem., xii. " Carpenter, op. cit, p. 217. 
 
A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 239 
 
 The hope of the race is in the children. The real wealth of the 
 world is in the children, who give promise of being better and 
 of doing better than we have been and have done. Hayes 
 observes that there is not a child in the Gospel of John, but 
 that is not quite true, for Andrew tells Jesus of the lad with 
 five barley loaves and two fishes (John 6:8f.). Mark and 
 Matthew both tell of the little children that were brought to 
 Jesus, but Luke notes that they were "babes" (Luke 18 : 15). 
 Luke alone gives the raising of the son of the widow of Nain 
 (Luke 7), and Luke notes that the epileptic boy was the 
 father's "only son" (9:38). Luke tells us most about the 
 birth and childhood of Jesus, and gives us the only glimpse 
 that we have of the boy Jesus, with a boy's hunger for knowl- 
 edge and yearning for future service, this boy who already had 
 the consciousness of peculiar relationship to God his Father, 
 and yet who went back to Nazareth in obedience to Joseph 
 and Mary to toil at the carpenter's bench for eighteen more 
 years, till the voice of the Baptist should call him to the Jor- 
 dan. No one who did not love and understand children could 
 have so graphically pictured the boyhood of Jesus in this one 
 short paragraph. 
 
 8. Spiritual Insight. — Luke's Gospel makes a point of prayer 
 in the life of Jesus. He gives the example of Jesus and the 
 instruction of Jesus on the subject. The Synoptic Gospels all 
 tell of Christ's praying in Gethsemane. Luke' does not men- 
 tion the praying of Jesus given in Mark 1 : 35 at Capernaum 
 and in Matt. 19:23 (= Mark 6: 46) after feedmg the five 
 thousand. But Luke alone notes that Jesus prayed at the 
 baptism of Jesus (3 : 21), on his first clash with the Pharisees 
 over forgiving the paralytic (5 : 16), before choosing the Twelve 
 Apostles (6 : 12), before the first prediction of his death (9 : 18), 
 at the transfigiu-ation (9 : 18), before teaching the model prayer 
 (11 : 1), on the cross (23 : 34, 46). Besides, as Plummer^ fur- 
 ther points out, Luke alone mentions Christ's special prayer 
 for Peter (22 : 31 f.), the special command to the disciples to 
 pray while in Gethsemane (22 : 32, 40) . Luke alone gives the 
 parables about persistence in prayer (11:5-13; 18:1-8) and 
 the command to pray "at every season" (21 : 36). The para- 
 ble of the Pharisee and the publican shows th^ difference be- 
 tween real and perfunctory (and hypocritical) prayer 
 1 Plummer, Comm., p. xlv. * Ibid. 
 
240 LUKE THE HISTORIAN 
 
 (18 : 11-13). Plummer's summary proves the point up to the 
 hilt. Luke was himself a man of prayer, because of his interest 
 m this aspect of Christ, who practised what he preached 
 (11:9). "If the disciples of Jesus had learned to pray as 
 their Master prayed, their victory would have been as sure 
 and as continuous as his own." ^ 
 
 Luke's Gospel is not only the Gospel of Prayer, but also the 
 Gospel of Praise. Plummer'' notes that it begins and ends 
 with worship m the temple (1 : 9; 24 : 53). Luke alone gives 
 the Greeting of Elizabeth (1 : 42-45), the Magnificat, or Song 
 of Mary the Mother of Jesus (1 : 46-55), the Benedidus, or 
 Song of Zacharias (1 : 68-79), the Gloria in Excehds, or Song 
 of the Angels (2 : 14), the Nunc Dimittis, or Song of Simeon 
 (2:29-32). Luke is fond of the expression "glortfymg God" 
 (2 : 20; 5 : 25 f.; 7 : 16; 13 : 13; 17 : 15; 18 : 43), "praising God" 
 (2 : 13, 20; 19 : 37; 24 : 53 ?; Acts 2 : 47; 3 : 8 f.) and "blessing 
 God" (1:64; 2:28; 24:53?). 
 
 So also it is the Gospel of Joy. Rejoicing is mentioned by 
 verb or substantive twenty-two times in the Gospel and the 
 Acts. All through the Gospel and the Acts there rmgs the 
 note of praise and joy. The hymns in Luke's Gospel have 
 thrilled the heart of the world. The Magnificat "is the highest 
 specimen of the subtle influence of the song of purity, so ex- 
 quisitely described by Browning. It is the 'Pippa Passes' 
 among the liturgies of the world."' 
 
 Luke is fond of the ministry of angels. They are common 
 in the Gospel and in the Acts, where they are mentioned 
 twenty-two times. "Here and there throughout the Gospel 
 we hear echoes of angel songs and catch glimpses of angel 
 wings." * To be sure, some would term this trait superstition 
 and lack of the scientific and the historical spirit. But that is 
 a superficial attitude toward the deepest problem of humanity. 
 The nineteenth century saw a recrudescence of materialism 
 under the influence of the evolution hypothesis. But this very 
 hypothesis now knocks at the door of the unseen and refuses 
 to be satisfied with the negation of Mill and Huxley and 
 Spencer and Haeckel. Wistfully scientists of the twentieth 
 century are looking over the brim of eternity, if haply they 
 
 • Hayes, op. cU., p. 259. * Cmnm., p. xlvi. 
 ' Alexander, Leading Ideas of the Oospeh, p. 114. 
 
 * Hayes, op. eit., p. 264. 
 
A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 241 
 
 may catch echoes from the other side. The wall seems thin 
 at times to those who have loved ones who have passed over 
 to be with Jesus. 
 
 Luke was a mystic, as every real Christian is. Scientist as 
 he was, he had not lost his sense of wonder and awe in the 
 presence of God and nature. He found in Christ the key to 
 the mystery of life here and hereafter. Like McKenna {The 
 Adventure of Death), another Christian physician of to-day 
 who looked to Christ with a scientist's eyes from the trenches 
 of France and Flanders, Luke saw in Christ the hope of the 
 world. He gave himself with utter devotion to the task 
 of recording the results of his years of research and of experi- 
 ence of Christ in his own life and in 1^ lives of others. He 
 wrote with whole-hearted consecration of his great gifts and 
 with high standards before his eyes. He set his eyes upon 
 Jesus, who alone makes life worth while. A man without 
 spiritual insight has missed the meaning of his own life and 
 the meaning of the world. Luke had the eyes of his mind 
 opened (Luke 24 : 45) by the vision of Jesus which he saw. 
 He saw Christ and he saw the world for which Christ died. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 Abraham 
 
 Achaia 28, 29, 175, 182, 
 
 Acts of the Apostles: Importance 
 of, 1 ff . ; author — same as that of 
 Gospel of Luke, 4 S., 30, a com- 
 panion of Paul, 6 S., a physician, 
 9flr., 27 fl., 65 f., 90 fl., 131 ff., 
 Luke, 13 ff., 30 f.. 52, 55; Paul's 
 Influence In, 29, 77, 80 ff.; date 
 of composition, 30 ff., 82; opti- 
 mistic note of, 35, 36, 165; place 
 of composition, 37, 38, 80; pic- 
 ture of Christ in, 38; historical 
 worth of, 39 fl., 46, 56, 77 f., 89; 
 literary method of author, 43; 
 chronological order of, 53, 54; 
 character portraits in, 57, 234 f. ; 
 TersatUity of author, 57 f.; "we 
 sections," 5, 7, 8, 14, 16, 25, 46, 
 78 ff., 87, 134; sources — oral and 
 written, 48, 76 ff., 219 ff.; sup- 
 posed Aramaic Document of, 37, 
 77, 84, 86 ff.; first century at- 
 mosphere of, 78; personal expe- 
 riences of author, 78 ff., 228; un- 
 fairly treated by critics, 77, 79; 
 in relation to the Epistles of Paul. 
 
 82 f . ; first-hand reporters for, 
 
 83 ff.; medical matters In, 98 fl., 
 133 ff. ; crowns Jesus king, 164 f. ; 
 chronology with respect to— 
 Paul's visit to Jerusalem, 171 fl., 
 death of Herod Agrippa, 174 f., 
 expulsion of Jews from Borne, 
 175, Gralllo's proconsulshlp, 
 175 f., coming of Festus, 176 fl.; 
 archsBological and geographical 
 accuracy with reference to — 
 Boman provinces, 180 fl., ethno- 
 graphic terminology, 182 f., col- 
 onies, 183 ff., Boman citizenship, 
 185 f ., local color, 186 ff. ; chapter 
 27 — its value, 206 ff., its accu- 
 racy, 208 f., dominated by Paul's 
 personality, 209 ff., its language, 
 211 ff., 213 fl. ; report of speeches 
 of Peter, 220 fl.; speech of Ste- 
 phen, 222 fl. ; speech of James, 
 224 f. ; speeches of Paul, 225 fl. 
 
 Adam 
 
 Mgae 
 
 .^milius Secundus 
 
 Mneas 
 
 iSneld 
 
 .^schylus 
 
 iSscalaplus 
 
 AfHca 
 
 Agabus , 174, 
 
 Alexander, the procnrator 
 
 Alexandria 24, 25, 28, 92, 
 
 Alford 
 
 Ampbipolis 
 
 Ananias of Damascus 
 
 Ananias of Jerusalem 99, 
 
 187 Ananias, the high priest 202,221 
 
 195 Anna 104, 238 
 
 Annas 234 
 
 Antloch in Plsidla 21, 23, 128, 183, 
 
 184, 187, 192, 195, 228, 229 
 
 Antloch in Syria. . . 5, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22, 
 
 23, 24, 56, 76, 86, 174 f., 183 
 
 Antony, Mark 167 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels 45, 49, 142, 104 
 
 Apollos 17, 24, 235 
 
 Apostles, the Twelve 46, 49, 82, 98, 
 
 105, 110, 144, 172, 174 ff., 200, 223 
 
 Appian 121 
 
 Aquila 13, 175, 235 
 
 Arabic Gospel of the Infancy 104 
 
 Aramaic Document of Acts, 37, 84, 86 ff . 
 Aramaic Sources of Luke. . . 7, 9, 18, 67, 
 
 107 
 Archelaus (see Herod Archelaus). 
 
 Aretaeus 9, 24, 94 
 
 Arlstarchus . . 12, 13, 18, 26, 81, 83, 199, 
 
 210, 235 
 
 Asi£i 29 182 
 
 Asia Mi'ndr .'.'.'.■ .40, 78, i2'4,129, 179 f., 
 
 183, 187, 191 
 
 Aaiarchs 188, 198 f. 
 
 Assos. 206 
 
 Atheneeus 24 
 
 Athenodorus 25 
 
 Athens. .24, 25, 81, 184, 188, 197 f., 206, 
 226, 228, 229 
 
 Augustine 143, 148 
 
 Augustus 119-124, 129, 157, 166 fl. 
 
 Babylon 66 
 
 Bar-Jesus 234 
 
 Barnabas 1, 5, 21, 23, 24, 26, 83. 84, 
 
 174 f., 193. 234 
 
 Baur 27. 167. 227 
 
 Bemice 204. 235. 238 
 
 Beroea 197, 198, 206, 228 
 
 Bethlehem of Galilee 120 
 
 Bethlehem of Judea 104, 106, 109. 
 
 118. 120. 125 
 
 Bethssiida Julias 140 
 
 Bithynia 28, 29, 182 
 
 Borghesi 128 
 
 Brlggs 76 
 
 Brougbton 109 
 
 167 Bunyan 147 
 
 24 Burrhus 177 
 
 128 
 
 100 CcBsarea 22, 38, 39, 46, 47, 53, 75, 77, 
 
 18 78, 80, 83, 84, 107, 113, 177 f., 181, 
 
 207 202 fl., 206, 228 
 
 24 Caiaphas 160, 234 
 
 28 Cappadocia 182 
 
 235 Caria 88 
 
 174 Catiline 44 
 
 222 Celcus 19 
 
 34 Cencbreee 206 
 
 184 Census in Luke 118 fl. 
 
 234 Cerinthian Gnosticism 116, 158 
 
 234 (see ateo ill) 
 
 243 
 
244 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 Oesnola 182 
 
 Oblna 96, 120 
 
 Chuza 65, 75 
 
 Cicero 44, 217 
 
 Cllicia 181. 182, 222 
 
 Clauda 209 
 
 Claudius 170, 174 IT. 
 
 Claudius Lysias 185, 201, 2,30, 23S 
 
 Clemen 7, 8, 11, 76 
 
 Clement of Alexandria. . . 14. 122 f.. 147 
 
 " Clementines " 21 
 
 Cleophas 20 
 
 Codex Bezffi 21, 25, 26, 83, 158 
 
 Colossians, Epistle to the 38, 82 
 
 Constantinople 56 
 
 Corinth 27, 37, 81, 175 f., 177, 184, 
 
 194 f., 226, 228 
 
 I Corinthians 82 
 
 II Corinthians 21, 82, 173 
 
 Cornelius 84, 193, 221, 233, 235 
 
 Credner 7 
 
 Crescens 13, 29 
 
 Crete 182, 210, 222 
 
 Crispus 194 
 
 Cusplus Fadus. . , 170 
 
 Cyprus 25, 49, 182, 206 
 
 Cyrene 25, 182 
 
 Dalmatia 2S 
 
 Damaris 238 
 
 Dante 238 
 
 Darwin 154 
 
 David 156 
 
 Delphi 175 f. 
 
 Demas 13, 18, 29, 83 
 
 Demetrius 120, 188, 199. 235 
 
 Demosthenes 51. 217 
 
 Derbe 183 
 
 De Rossi 128 
 
 De Wette 6, 7 
 
 Diana, worship of 120, 188, 199 
 
 Dio Casslus 217 
 
 Dion of Prusa 90 
 
 Dlonysius 198 
 
 Dioscorldes ... 9. 24. 42, 96, 99, 100, 101 
 
 Docetics 112 
 
 Domitian 29, 34 
 
 Dorcas 235 
 
 Drusilla 235, 238 
 
 Ebionitism 236 (see also 111) 
 
 Ebrard 34 
 
 Eccleslastes 49 
 
 Eckert 167 
 
 Egypt. . .70. 123. 124. 125. 126. 129. 182 
 
 Einstein 115 
 
 Elizat>eth. . .68. 103. 104, 108, 109, 157. 
 
 238 
 
 Elymaa 100 
 
 Emmaus 58 
 
 Emperor worship 188, 197 tl. 
 
 Enoch. Book of 162 f. 
 
 Epaphras 18, 83 
 
 Ephesians, Epistle to the 38, 82 
 
 Ephesus . . .35. 37, 81, 98, 177, 184. 188. 
 198 f., 206 
 
 Epicureans 188. 197. 229 
 
 Erasistratus 92 
 
 Erastus 83, 235 
 
 Eudoxia 67 
 
 Euthalius 22 
 
 Eutychus 101. 185 
 
 Ezefciel 163 
 
 Ezra... 60 
 
 Fair Havens 210. 213 
 
 Famine in Judea 174 f. 
 
 Farrar 34 
 
 Felix. . . 177 f., 181, 186, 195, 202 f., 204, 
 
 228 235 
 
 Festus ...176fl., 181. 186. 196. 203 f.. 
 
 228. 230. 235 
 
 Figgis 85 
 
 Foster 143 
 
 Gabriel 104, 112, 117. 156 f. 
 
 Gadera 139 f. 
 
 Gaderene demoniac 94, 139 
 
 Gains 83, 188, 199 
 
 Galatia 13, 26, 27. 128, 182. 183. 228 
 
 Galatlans. Epistle to the 82, 229 
 
 Galen . . .9, 10, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100. 
 101. 131, 154 
 
 Galilee 95. 140. 181. 200 
 
 Galileo 115 
 
 Gallia 28 
 
 Gallio. . . 19, 20, 175 f., 182, 194 f., 202, 
 232 235 
 
 Gamidiel 32, 170, 200. 232i 2.34 
 
 Gardthausen 118 
 
 Gerasa 139 f. 
 
 GfOrer 167 
 
 Gladstone 139. 155 
 
 Gloag 34 
 
 Gnostic controversy 81 
 
 God the Father. . 112. 114. 115. 117. 130. 
 132 f.. 136. 137, 138 f., 157 fl.. 196. 211 
 
 Goethe 136 
 
 Greece 66 
 
 Greek law 190 ff. 
 
 Greek manuscripts 160, 172 
 
 Gregory Nazlanzen 29 
 
 GrenfeU 29. 142 
 
 Hadrian 193 
 
 Haeckel 240 
 
 Harvey 92 
 
 Hausrath 7 
 
 Hebrews. Epistle to the 24 
 
 Hebrews. Gospel a<x:ording to ... . 69 
 
 Herod Agrlppal..32. 99, 174 f.. 177. 
 
 178 181 235 
 
 Herod Agrlppa II . . . 178. 186, '200. 204. 
 
 228. 230. 235 
 
 Herod Antlpas 85. 75. 109. 181 
 
 Herod Archelaus 109. 124. 147. 181 
 
 Herod Philip 181 
 
 Herod the Great 109. 121. 123. 124. 
 
 126, 128, 181, 207 
 
 Herodotus 18, 42, 86, 217 f ., 219 
 
 Heropbilus 92 
 
 Hilgenfeld 7, 167 
 
 Hippocrates 9, 10, 42, 91, 93, 96, 
 
 97, 98, 101, 131, 154 
 
 Hoftnann 18 
 
 Boltzmann 167 
 
 Holy Spirit, the. . .81, 85, 86, 104, 111, 
 
 112, 113, 115. 134. 144, 156 f., 158, 
 
 164 f. 
 
 Horace 5 
 
 Hume 136 
 
 Huxley 136, 139, 140, 240 
 
 Hyslop 136 
 
 Iconium 183, 193 
 
 India 120 
 
 Inscriptions 17, 128, 157. 168, 175 f. 
 
 182, 187, 188, 193, 199 
 
 Irensras 14, 29, SO 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 245 
 
 Isism 194 
 
 Italy 28, 175 
 
 Iturea 181 
 
 Jacob 187 
 
 Jairus's daughter 94 
 
 James, son of Zebedee. . .26 fl., 35, 82, 
 172, 174, 181, 200, 220, 224, 234 
 
 James, the Epistle of 225 
 
 James, the Lord's brother 49, 75 f ., 
 
 84,234 
 
 Jason 196 
 
 Jerusalem 25, 28, 34, 35, 37, 49, 53, 
 
 57, 74, 76, 78, 80 ft., 86, 98, 141, 149, 
 162, 171 ff., 176 f., 200 f., 228 
 
 Jerusalem conference 81, 82, 172 f., 
 
 176 221 224 f 
 Jesus Christ: Vlrghi Birth, i03 ff.; 
 
 glace of birth, 120, 125; date of 
 irth, 124; loneliness, 60; ain- 
 lessness, 117; transfiguration, 
 149, 160; stay in the tomb, 168 f. ; 
 resurrection, 36, 85, 86, 113. 134, 
 140, 149, 153; ascension, 136, 
 149; as seen and loved by Luke, 
 29, 38, 54, 57, 59, 92, 93. 95 ff., 
 110, 133, 137 f., 141, 155 fl., 241; 
 as pictured by Logia, Mark, 
 Matthew. Luke. Pam, and John 
 the same, 72, 155; as seen by 
 Paul, 81, 85: as seen by Stephen, 
 233; the Jesus or Cbnst contro- 
 versy, 153 ff. ; Son of God. 155 ff . ; 
 Son of Man. 161 fl.; Saviour of 
 sinners, 163 f.; great humani- 
 tarian, 163; Captain of our sal- 
 vation, 164 f.: Lord of all, 137. 
 138 f., 140 f. ; most tremendous 
 fact in history, 116, 133; his 
 mlradea, 96, 130 ff., 135 fl.; the 
 Great Physician, 28, 92, 93, 95 ff., 
 133, 137 f.. 141: his parables— 
 their beauty. 142 f.. reason for 
 using. 143 f., meaning of. 145 ff.. 
 interpretation of, 148; his lit- 
 erary style, 60 
 
 Jesus Justus 18 
 
 Jewish law 49, 190 ff., 200 f. 
 
 Jews 49, 111, 121, 124, 127, 158, 175 
 
 Joanna 65, 75, 109 
 
 John. Gospel of 74. 90, 105, 112, 
 
 115, 134, 155 f., 158, 160 
 
 John, the Apostle 82, 105, 134. 172. 
 
 232 234 
 
 John the Baptist. .51. 66. 103. 107,112. 
 
 135 f.. 158. 166 ff.. 239 
 
 Jonah , 211 
 
 Joppa 83 
 
 Joseph, husband of Mary. . .30. 31, 32, 
 65, 103, 108. 109, 110 f., 112, 120, 125, 
 126 f.. 158, 162 
 
 Joseph, son of Jacob 187 
 
 Judaism.. 25, 26, 104, 182, 194 f., 205, 
 
 224 
 Judaizlng controversy. . . .81, 140, 171, 
 
 224 f. 
 
 Judas Barsabbas 234 
 
 Judas Iscariot 69, 220 
 
 Judas Maccabeus 61 
 
 Judas of Damascus 234 
 
 Judas the Galilean 32, 127, 169 
 
 Judea, 39, 47. 55,E95, 124, 174 f., 181, 182 
 
 Julia Augusta 168 
 
 Julius, the centurion 210, 233, 235 
 
 JOngst 29, 76 
 
 Keil 34 
 
 Keim 167 
 
 Khersa 139 
 
 Kingdom of God. . . 81, 95, 144, 146, 149 
 
 Knopf. 7 
 
 Koetsweld 149 
 
 Koine. .5, 17, 18, 36, 42, 58, 61, 144, 183 
 
 Lange 34 
 
 Livy 217 
 
 Loeb 115 
 
 Logia (Q) . .39, 44, 45, 46, 58, 69 ff., 77, 
 110, 116. 118, 135 f., 153, 155 
 
 Lucan 19 
 
 Lucanus 20 
 
 Lucian 11. 90, 91, 207 
 
 Luke: His name, 16 ff.: a Gentile, 
 probably a Greek, 18 f., 180 f.; a 
 possible freedman, 19 f. : possibly 
 a brother of Titus, 20 f.; birth- 
 place, 21 fl.; education. 23 ff.; 
 conversion, 25 ff . : medical mis- 
 sionary, 27 fl. : Paul's companion, 
 friend, and admirer, l,6fl., 29,39, 
 46, 78fl.. 83, 209fl., 235; physi- 
 cian, 9 fl.. 13. 24, 27 fl.. 65 f., 85, 
 90 ff., 102, 104, 106, 109, 131 ff.. 
 231, 236, 241: traditions as to 
 death, 29 ; personality, 56 ff . ; in- 
 terest in the supernatural, 52, 85, 
 103 fl., 130 fl., 240: interest in 
 escbatology, 149; cosmopolitan, 
 46, 155, 232 fl. ; friend of women. 
 65 f.. 75, 108, 111. 237 f.; interest 
 in children, 238 f : sympathy 
 with sinners, 235 f . ; sympathy 
 with poor, 236 f.: spiritual in- 
 sight, 239 fl.; understanding of 
 and consecration to Jesus Christ. 
 60. 92. 241; faces the Jesus or 
 Christ controversy, 153 ff. ; hia 
 picture of Christ not theological 
 but historic, 155 : his conception 
 of Jesus as — Son of God, 155 fl.. 
 Son of Man, 161 ff.. Saviour of 
 sinners, 163 f.. Captain of our 
 salvation, 164 f. ; interest in Jesus 
 the Physician. 92, 93, 95 fl., 133, 
 137 f., 141; knowledge of flrst- 
 centiu? details, 31; contempo- 
 rary of events, 46 fl. : literary 
 man, 18, 23 ff., 42tfl., 58, 142 f, 
 150 f., 211 fl.; man of science, 
 130 fl. : appreciation of music and 
 poetry, 58, 240; understanding of 
 Boman law, 190 fl., of nautical 
 matters, 206 fl. ; leveaiB own 
 personality, 56 ff., 62; iwrtrait- 
 painter, 56 fl,. 234 f.; master of 
 style, 57 fl., 68; Hebraisms in 
 writings, 64; at work as a his- 
 torian, 50 fl.; versatility, 57 f., 
 231 f.: author of Gospel and 
 Acts, 4 fl. ; date of writing Acts, 
 31 ff.; use of oral and written 
 sources, 76 ff . ; consultations with 
 Paul, 80 ff . ; use of Paul's Epis- 
 tles, 82 f . : other first-hand re- 
 porters, 83 ff . ; tise of Josephus. 
 31 ff.; date of writing Gospel. 
 37 fl. ; stimulated by work of 
 others. 44 fl.; Interest Id full life 
 of Jesus. 45. 47 f. ; method and 
 object, 42 fl., 50 fl., 63, 66; order- 
 liness, 53 f . ; use of early docu- 
 
246 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 IMka— Continued 
 
 menta for OosneL 44 f., 49 1., 
 63 S., 66 ff., 69 S., 72 ff.; use 
 of oral testimony for Gospel. 
 48 ff., 74; assiniilatlon of soorcee, 
 61 ft. ; account of tbe Virgin 
 Birth — ^vital to his history, 
 103 ff., lielleved by himself. 
 106 ff., based on reliable evi- 
 dence, 108 ff., why given, 110 ff.; 
 account of the miracles of Jesus, 
 130 ff., 135; eyewitness of the 
 miracles of Paol, 133 ff.; his ac- 
 curacy — ^in general, 46 ff., 50 fl., 
 55 f., 64, concerning the cen- 
 sus of Luke 2 : 1 ff., 120 ff., in 
 chronology, 166 ff.. in archsB- 
 ological and geographical details. 
 179 ff., in the narrative of Acts 
 27, 208 f.; historical worth of 
 Lukan writings, 39 ff., 46; their 
 importance, 1 fl. 
 
 Luke, Gospel of: Imi>ortance of. 
 Iff.; identity of author, 4ff.. 
 6 ff., 9 fl., 12 fl., 30, 31, 52; cul- 
 ture of author, 18 ft., 23 ff.. 
 42 ff., 211 ff.; Pauline influence 
 in, 29, 74, 81 ; date of, 30 f., 33 f.. 
 37 fl. ; dimax of , 36 ; prologue, 38, 
 42 ff.; historical worth, 39 ff.; 
 author's method and object. 
 42 ff.. 44 f., SO ff.. 63, 66; literary 
 beauty, 43, 62; orderly arrange- 
 ment of material, 53 f . ; com- 
 pleteness and charm, 43, 54; 
 bears stamp of author's irarson- 
 ality, 56 f, 62; pen portraits, 
 57 fl., 234 f.; poetry in, 58, 240; 
 sources — ^written documents, in 
 general, 44 fl., 49 fl., 61 ff.. 
 72 fl.; oral testimony, 48 f., 50, 
 61, 72 ff.; sources assimilated, 
 61 ff.; Semitic sources, 63 ff.; 
 Mark as a source, 38 f., 66 ff.; 
 Matthew as a source, 70; Logia 
 as a source, 69 fl.; Great In- 
 terpolation, 68, 73; one author, 
 78; medical terms used, 90 ff.; 
 changes from Mark's account, 
 92 a. ; items of medical interest 
 peculiar to Luke, 95 ff . ; account 
 of birth of Jesus — vital to Luke's 
 history, 103 ff., author's belief in 
 it, 106 ff., based on reliable evi- 
 dence, lOS ff., why told, 110 ff., 
 credible to-day, 113 fl.. most 
 satisfactory explanation of 
 Christ, 116 f.; account of census 
 — crucial, 118 f., two Bethle- 
 hems, 120. "the whole world," 
 120; the account trustworthy — 
 as to date, 121 ff., as to enrol- 
 ment by households, 124 fl., as 
 to Qulnnius, 127 fl. ; account of 
 miracles — miracles In Q and 
 Mark, 135 fl., in Luke alone, 
 137 f. ; miracles over nature, 
 138 fl.; account of parables — 
 their beauty, 142 f., why Christ 
 used them, 142 ff., their mean- 
 ing, 145 fl., their interpretation. 
 148 f , Luke's special contribu- 
 tion, 149 fl. ; picture of Jesus— es 
 Son of God, 155 S., as Son of 
 Man, 161 ff., as Saviour of sin- 
 
 nets, 163 f., as OapUdn of our 
 salvation, 164 f., as the Great 
 Physician, 93, 95 ff., 137 f.: 
 nearest approach to a biography^ 
 54; chronology in the matter of 
 — beginning of John's ministry. 
 166 fl., length of Christ's stay in 
 the tomb, 168 f.. Theudas. 
 169 fl.; gospel of human sym- 
 pathy, 233 f., 235 fl.; gospel of 
 sacrlflce, 57, 236; gospel of joy 
 and praise, 165, 240; emphasb 
 on prayer, 239 f. 
 
 Lumby 34 
 
 Lycaonia " 133 
 
 Lyda. . 182 
 
 Lycius of Cyrene 83 
 
 Lydda §3 
 
 Lydia 238 
 
 Lysanias. 32, 166, 167, 168 
 
 Lysias 217 
 
 Lystra 100, 183, 184, 187, 193 f., 
 
 228, 229 
 
 I Maccabees 61 
 
 II Maccabees 222 
 
 Macedonia. . .27, 28, 111, 177, 182, 184, 
 „ , 188,206 
 
 Madaren 55 
 
 Maecenas 5 
 
 Malalas 121 
 
 Malchus 94, 96, 97, 131 
 
 Malta. .9, 10, 18, 27, 101, 187, 209, 211 
 
 Manaen 75, 83, 220 
 
 Mardon 26, 30, 64 
 
 Mark, Gospel of. .3, 10, 12, 33, 38 f.. 
 
 45 f., S3, 66 ff., 70 ff., 72, 73, 74, 75, 
 
 77, 87, 90, 112, 116, 118,1120, 134, 
 
 136, ISO, 153, 175 
 
 Mark, John 13, 18, 26, 29, 49, 83 f.. 
 
 106, 220, 234 
 
 Martha 59, 238 
 
 Mary Magdalene 236 
 
 Mary, mother of Jesus . . 49, 57 ff . , 64 fl. , 
 
 103 fl., 116 f., 120, 125 fl., 151, 156 fl.. 
 
 161 f., 238 
 
 Mary, mother of Mark 49, 238 
 
 Mary, of Bethany 59, 236, 238 
 
 Matthew 105, 135 
 
 Matthew, Gospel of. .33, 39, 45, 53, 62, 
 
 65, 66 fl., 69 ff., 90, 105 f., 108, 110 fl., 
 
 115 f., 120, 150, 155 
 
 Meyer 104 
 
 Miletus 226, 228 
 
 Mill 240 
 
 Mithraism 194 
 
 Mnason 49, 83 
 
 Mommsen 118, 128 
 
 Muratorian Canon 14, 25 
 
 Mythology 114, 187 
 
 Nathan 156 
 
 Nazareth 95, 109, 120, 125 
 
 Neapolls 206 
 
 Nero 29 204 
 
 New Testament.'.49, 51,'56,'58,'77', 86, 
 
 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 105, 115, 147, 190 
 
 Newton 115 
 
 Nicolas ; 22 
 
 Nicolaus of Damascus 121 
 
 NicoU 142 
 
 Old Testament, 34, 62,'69, 114, 143, 156 
 
 Onesiphorus 29 
 
 Oosterzee 34, 233 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 247 
 
 Or!g«a 12, 31, 147 
 
 Oder 92 
 
 Overbeds: 7,8 
 
 Ovid 187 
 
 Palestine. .26, 47, 54, 77, 107, 108, 121, 
 122, 124. 126, 174, 181, 187, 202 fl. 
 
 Famptaylia 182 
 
 Paplas 63, 69,75 
 
 Papyri. .5, 17, 43, 50, 69, 88, 122, 123 f., 
 129, 157, 158, 188 
 
 Parthia 120 
 
 Paul: Luke's subject and hero, 1, 
 29, 46, 209 fl.. 235; world of, 2; 
 possible schoolmate of Tbe- 
 ophllus, 5; and the author of 
 Acts, 6fl., 9fl., 12 ft., 27 fl., 
 78 fl.: freeborn, 20; at Antioch 
 in Syria, 2; meeting Luke, 23, 
 27; at Tarsus, 24 f.; agent in 
 Luke's conversion, 25 fl. ; pris- 
 oner and martyr, 29, 35 f., 39; 
 converdon, 100; and contribu- 
 tion for the poor, 174 f. ; knowl- 
 edge of the life of Christ, 74, 85, 
 112 f.; Luke's informant. 80 fl., 
 84; on Malta. 101 f.; miracles 
 of. 101 f.. 133 fl.; at Corinth, 
 175 f., 194 f. ; his Roman citizen- 
 ship. 185 f.. 201 ; on side of law 
 and order. 191; at Antioch in 
 Pisidla, 192 f.; at PhUippi. 191; 
 at Lystra. 193 f. ; at Thessa- 
 lonica. 195 fl.; at Athens, 197 f.; 
 at Ephesus, 198 f. ; and Jewish 
 law, 200 f . ; and Jewish mob, 
 200 f . ; before Roman officials In 
 Palestine, 202 fl. ; a sea traveller. 
 206 fl. ; his personality dominant 
 In Acts 27. 209 fl. ; and Stephen, 
 223 f.; his speeches, 48, 225 fl. 
 (see also 30, 32, 38, 47, 49, 73, 
 74, 76, 81, 98, 101, 120, 140, 165) 
 Paul, Epistles of . . 1, 3, 8, 12, 16, 18, 29, 
 30 f., 38, 76, 77, 82, 134, 176, 219, 221, 
 226 f. 
 
 Pella 37 
 
 Pentecost. .84, 85, 86, 134, 149, 164, 220 
 
 Pergamos 92 
 
 Pericles 217 
 
 "Periodoi of Barnabas" 207 
 
 Peter. .1, 29, 30, 35, 39, 46, 48, 53, 76, 
 84, 86, 97, 134, 140, 172, 174, 181, 
 200, 220 fl., 223 f., 234 f. 
 
 I Peter 35,221 
 
 II Peter 221 
 
 Pliarisees, the . 143 f., 145, 146, 148, 159, 
 
 200 223 233 
 
 Philemon, Epistle to 38, 82i 204 
 
 Philip, the disciple 21 
 
 Philip, the evangeUst. .49, 75, 84, 86. 
 
 220 222 234 
 
 Phmppi..l9. 22. 23. 27. 78. 'sO. 'l78, 
 
 183 f.. 186. 187 f., 192, 206, 228 
 
 Phlljstia 84 
 
 Phllo 36, 112, 147, 222 
 
 Phoenicia 181, 182 
 
 Phoenix 210, 213 
 
 Phyrigla 183 
 
 Pilate 75, 181, 195, 196, 202 
 
 Pisidia 183 
 
 Plato 58, 131 
 
 Pliny 77, 205 
 
 Plutarch 5, 30, 50, 57, 60, 135, 195 
 
 Polybius 5, 42, 51, 217 
 
 Pontos 182 
 
 "Prtefatlo Lucsa" 22, 26, 28 
 
 PrisciUa 13, 17, 175, 236, 238 
 
 Protevajigelium of James 104 
 
 Pseudo-Matthew 104 
 
 Ptolemais 184 
 
 PubUus 10, 101, 102, 135, 187 
 
 PuteoU 184 
 
 Qulrinius 118, 120, 123, 127 fl., 
 
 166 f., 169 f. 
 
 Renan 4, 22 
 
 Rendall 34 
 
 Resch 34 
 
 Roman citizenship 185 f., 201 
 
 Roman colonies 183 fl., 192 fl. 
 
 Roman Empire. .30, 76, 77 f., 120, 121, 
 122, 123, 165, 181, 183, 190 fl. 
 
 Roman law 190 fl. 
 
 Roman provinces 180 fl. 
 
 Romans, Epistle to the 82, 173 
 
 Rome. . 19, 22, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37. 
 
 38, 39, 67, 71, 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 120, 
 
 121, 123, 175, 184, 207, 228 
 
 Sadducees 200, 223, 233 
 
 Saint Cyril 98 
 
 Sallust 218, 219 
 
 Samaria 84, 174, 181, 200 
 
 Sanhedrin 160, 200 f., 221 
 
 Sapphira 221, 234, 233 
 
 Savonarola 34 
 
 Schafl 34 
 
 Schiller 116 
 
 Scholten 6 
 
 Sea of Adria 213 
 
 Sea of GaUlee 140 
 
 Secundus 188 
 
 Selucia 206 
 
 Seneca 19, 20, 25, 195 
 
 Sentius Saterninus 129 
 
 Septuagint. .32, 63, 64, 72, 88, 96, 100, 
 157 232 
 
 Sergius Paulus 182,' 235 
 
 Servillus 128 
 
 Shechem 187 
 
 SUas 13, 17, 19, 26, 27, 81, 83, 135, 
 
 186, 196 f., 221, 234 
 Silvanus (see Silas) 
 
 Simeon 58, 144, 157 f. 
 
 Simon Magus 234 
 
 Sinaitic Syriac Ill, 115, 126 
 
 Socrates 197 
 
 Sopater 83 
 
 Sorof 76 
 
 Sosipater 188 
 
 Sosthenes 194 f . 
 
 Spencer 240 
 
 Spitta 7,76 
 
 Stephen ... 29, 35, 187, 200, 222 fl., 235 
 
 Stoics 112, 188, 197 f., 229 
 
 Strabo 24, 25, 121, 179 
 
 Strauss 167 
 
 Syllaeus 121 
 
 Synoptic Gospels. . .62 f., 112, 144, 158, 
 
 233 
 
 Syracuse 184 
 
 Syria. . . 118, 122, 124, 128, 129, 181, 182 
 Syrtis 213 
 
 Tacitus 217 fl. 
 
 Talmud 109, 143, 222 
 
 Tarsus 18, 24 f., 27, 184, 185 
 
 Tertullns 190, 202, 230, 235 
 
248 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 "TestlmoDia" 62,69 
 
 Theodora Lector 66 
 
 TheophUuE. .4f., 8, 12, 20, 21, 24, 25, 
 38, 46, 64, 56, 111 
 
 Theophylact 20 
 
 I Thessalonians 82, 176 
 
 n Thessaloiilans 82, 176 
 
 Thessalonica. .81. 120. 184. 188, 196 0., 
 198 228 
 
 Theudas 32, 169 fl..' 178 
 
 Tluduck 34 
 
 Thomas, Gospel of 104 
 
 Thucydldes, 4, 18. 32, 39, 42, 217 f., 227 
 
 Tiberius 33, 123, 166 f. 
 
 Tiele . . 18 
 
 Timothy .'.'.7, 13, 26, 27", 29, Si', i^', 194, 
 
 235 
 
 I Timothy 29 
 
 Titus 12 f., 20 f., 22, 29, 81, 83, 171 
 
 Titus, Flavins S. V 33 f., 167 
 
 Titus Justus 13 
 
 Trachonitis 167, 181 
 
 Trajan 77, 205 
 
 Troas 13. 23, 78. 80. 184, 206 
 
 Trophimus 13, 83, 200, 235 
 
 Tttbingen school 1,40, 191 
 
 Tychlcus 83 
 
 Tyndale 47 
 
 Varus 129 
 
 Vespasiaii 123 
 
 Vimns Mazimus 125 
 
 VJlKil 63 
 
 Vut^te 51 
 
 Warfleld 134 
 
 WeUhausen 63, 97 
 
 Wells 163 
 
 Wendt 7,70 
 
 Westcott 49 
 
 Whitsltt 131 
 
 Widow of Nain 96, 137 f., 238 
 
 Wieseler 34 
 
 Wittichen 18 
 
 Xenophon 80, 179, 217 
 
 Zacchsus 69 
 
 Zacharias 58, 69. 64. 103 f. 
 
 Zenos 190 
 
INDEX OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS 
 REFERRED TO 
 
 Abbott, "The Son of Man" 162 
 
 Abbott-Smith, " Manual Lexicon 
 of the Greek N. T." 43 
 
 "jS^yptische Urkunden aus den 
 Koeniglichen Museen zu Ber- 
 lin," 43 (see Index of Scripture 
 and Papjrri) 
 
 Alexander, "Leading Ideas of the 
 Gospels" 240 
 
 Allen, ^'Oxford Studies in the Sy- 
 noptic Problem" 64, 71 
 
 Angus, "Int. St. B. Encycl." 
 ("Koman Empire") 205 
 
 Aristotle, "Bhetoric, 99 (see also 
 92, 131) 
 
 Arnold, "Literature and Dogma" 105 
 
 Bacon, " American Journal of The- 
 ology," 89 (see also 219) 
 
 Ball, " God and Our Soldiers " 115 
 
 , "St. Paul and the Roman 
 
 Law" (1901) 191 
 
 Balmer, "Die Bomfahrt des Apo- 
 
 atels Paulus" (1905) 208 
 
 Barrett, "On the Threshold of the 
 
 Unseen" 116 
 
 Bartlet, "Apostolic Age" 36, 172 
 
 , "Oxford Studies in the Sy- 
 noptic Problem" ... .64, 71, 72 
 
 , " Standard Bible Dictionary" 
 
 ("Acts") 36 
 
 Baur, "Paul," 1 (see also 2, 7, 227) 
 Bebb, Hastings's "D. B." ("Luke 
 
 the Evangelist") 25, 67 
 
 Belser, " Theol. Quartalschrlft, 
 
 Tttbingen " (1895-1896) 32 
 
 Bethge, Die paulinischen Beden" 
 
 22S, 226 
 
 "Biblical Review" 42, 118 
 
 Bigg, "Commentary" 221 
 
 Biggs, "St. Peter and Jude" 200 
 
 Birt, "Die Burchrolle in der 
 
 Kunst" 63 
 
 Blass, "Acta Apoatolorum" 21, 79, 220 
 
 , "Die Rhythmen der asla- 
 
 nischen und rdmischen 
 
 Kunstprosa" 58 
 
 , "Philosophy of the Gospels "..21, 
 
 30, 34, 35, 42 f., 44, 47, 49, 50, 
 51, 63, 55. 87 
 
 Boeckh, "Corp. Inscr. Gr." 168 
 
 Box, " The Vir^ Birth of Jesus ". . 105 
 Breusing, " Die Nautik der Alten " 
 
 (1886) 208 
 
 Broadus, "Commentary on Mat- 
 thew" 148 
 
 , "Harmony of the Gospels". .74, 
 
 149, 168 
 
 Bruce, "Apologetics" 117 
 
 , "Expositor's Greek Testa- 
 ment" ... 44, 45. 47, 51, 52, 103 
 
 249 
 
 , "Parabolic Teaching of 
 
 Christ" 149 
 
 Burkitt, "Gospel History and Its 
 
 Transmission" 14, 32, 62 f. 
 
 , "Journal of Theological 
 
 Studies" 88,89 
 
 B^lrton, "American Journal of 
 
 Theology" 188 
 
 , " Some Principles of Literary 
 
 Criticism and Their Ap- 
 plication to the Synoptic 
 
 Problem" 73 
 
 Buss, "Roman Law and History 
 in the N. T." (1901) 191 
 
 Cadbury, "The Style and Literary 
 
 Method of Luke'' (1919) 6, 11, 91 
 
 , "The Treatment of Sources 
 
 in the Gospels " 68 
 
 Carpenter, "Christianity Accord- 
 ing to S. Luke". . .4, 13, 23, 58 f., 60, 
 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 79, 81, 84, 85, 105, 
 114, 115 f., 126, 132, 133, 140, 149, 
 150 f., 167 f., 233 f., 236, 237, 238 
 Chase, "The Credibility of the 
 Book of the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles". .4, 10, 11, 38, 39, 54, 76, 80, 227 
 Chesterton, " Hibbert Journal " . . . 233 
 
 , "Orthodoxy" 60 
 
 "Christian Worker's Magazine". . 130 
 Chrysostom, "Horn, on Matt. 
 
 64:3," 148 (see also 21, 180) 
 Clemen, "Die Chronologic der 
 paulin. Briefe" (1893), 32 (see 
 also 7, 8, 76) 
 
 , " Hibbert Journal" 11 
 
 Cobem, "New Archseological Dis- 
 coveries and Their Bearing on 
 theN. T." 43 
 
 Dalman, "The Words of Jesus" 64, 65 
 Davidson, "Introduction to the 
 
 New Testament," 8 (see also 
 
 219) 
 Delssmann, "Bible Studies" 43, 88, 157 
 , "Light from the Ancient 
 
 East" 43, 125 f., 237 
 
 , "St. Paul" 175 
 
 Didon, "Jesus Christ" 157 
 
 Edmundson, "The CThmrch in 
 
 Rome During the Plrst.Century " 39 
 Emmet, "Commentary on Gala- 
 
 tians" 172 
 
 "Encycl. Biblica" 30, 120, 140 
 
 Epiphanius, " Ag. Her." 51 
 
 Erbes, Gebhardt and Hamack's 
 
 "Texte und Untersuch" 177 
 
 Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." . .61, 53, 69 (see 
 
 also 3, 21, 22, 23, 47, 177) 
 
250 
 
 INDEX OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS 
 
 Everitt, "St. Paul'a Journey to 
 
 Borne" (1904) 208 
 
 "Expositor" (1920) 153 
 
 Ferguson, "Historical and Lin- 
 guistic Studies of University of 
 Chicago" 201 
 
 Foakes-Jaclcson, "Harvard The- 
 ological Review" 88 
 
 Frledrich, " Das Lukas-Evangelium 
 und die Aposteigescblchte Werlce 
 desselt>en Verfasser" (1890) .... 6 
 
 Fumeaux, "Commentary on Acts" 
 
 26, 27, 34, 43, 170 
 
 Gardner, "Cambridge Bible Es- 
 says".. 132, 134, 189. 217 fl., 225. 
 226, 227, 231, 232 
 
 Garvie, Hastings's "One Vol. 
 D. B." 130 
 
 Gilbert, "Jesus" 138 
 
 Glover, " Nature and Purpose of a 
 Cliristian Society" 236 
 
 , "The Jesus of History" 151, 154 
 
 , "The Meaning and Purpose 
 
 of a Cliristian Society ■'.... 151 
 
 Goodroeed, "The Expositor ... . 36 
 
 "Greek Papyri in the British Mu- 
 seum," 43 (see Index of Scripture 
 and Papyri) 
 
 Grenfell and Hunt, "Amherst 
 Papyri" 43 
 
 , "Hibeh Papyri" 43 
 
 , "Oxyrhynchus Papyri," 43. 
 
 44 (see also Index of Scrip- 
 tm:e and Papyri) 
 
 Grenfell and Himt and Hogarth, 
 "Fayum Towns and Their 
 Papyri," 43 ^ee also Index of 
 Scripture and Papyri) 
 
 Grierson, Hastings's "One Tol. 
 D. B." 107 
 
 Hamack, "Cbronologie der alt- 
 
 diristl. Litt." 34 
 
 , "Luke the Physician". .3, 5, 7, 
 
 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, IS, 23. 24, 26. 
 
 33, 49, 52, 55, 68, 75, 86, 90 f.. 
 
 92, 98, 101, 131 f., 138, 189 
 
 , " Sayings of Jesus " 70, 71 
 
 , "The Acts of the Apostles" 8, 10, 
 
 14, 34, 40, 81, 82, 83, 85, 178. 
 
 180, 205, 234, 235 
 , "The Date of the Acts and 
 
 the Synoptic Gospels". .8, 12, 
 
 14, 35, 37 f., 39, 40, 65 f., 70 f.. 
 
 79, 104 f., 106, 107, 114 
 
 Harris, "The Expositor" 62 
 
 Hase, " Gescliichte Jesu" 160 
 
 Hasluck, "Journal of Hellenic 
 
 Studies" (1912) 17 
 
 Hastings, " Dictionary of the 
 Apostolic Church". .14, 18, 31, 32. 
 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 72, 76, 80 f., 82, 
 83 f., 86, 87, 178, 183, 185, 190, 200, 
 207, 214 
 , "Dictionary of the Bible "..25, 
 
 30, 36 f., 67, 76, 124, 142, 147, 
 
 150, 174. 175, 180, 188, 222 
 , "Dictionary of Christ and 
 
 the Gospels " 146, 147 
 
 , "One Volimie Dictionary of 
 
 the Bible" 35, 107, 130, 185 
 
 Hawldns, " The Expositor " 74 
 
 , "Horse Synopticae" (1911). .3, 7, 
 
 8, 9, 38, 67, 68 ft. 
 
 , " Oxford Studies " 67, 68, 71, 
 
 „ .„, 73,74 
 
 Hayes, TThe Synoptic Gospels and 
 the Book of Acts" . .5, 20, 21, 24, 25 
 28, 43, 56, 58, 59, 66, 80, 95, 161, 233, 
 236, 240 
 Headlam, Hastings's "D. B." 
 
 ("Acts") 30, 36 f., 76, 180, 222 
 
 " Hibbert Journal Supplement for 
 
 „1909" 116,155 
 
 Hicks, "Traces of Greek Philos- 
 ophy and Soman Law in the 
 
 „N. T." (1896) 191 
 
 Hobart, " The Medical Language of 
 St. Luke" . .3, 6, 9, 10, 91, 94, 96. 97. 
 98, 99, 100. 101 
 
 Hogarth, " Devia Cypria" 182 
 
 Holdsworth, " Gospel Origins " 66 f 
 
 Holtzmann, "Einleitung''^(1892), 7, 30 
 
 (see also 167) 
 Homan, "Luke the Greek Phy- 
 sician" 91 f., 131 
 
 " Eomiletic Review " 217 
 
 "Int. St. Bible Encycl.". .ill, 131,205 
 
 Jerome, "Commentary on Isaiah" 91 
 
 , "De Vkis Illustribus," 22 (see 
 
 also 18, 25, 47, 187) 
 
 Jones, "St. Paul the Orator".. 217, 
 
 225, 226, 227 f.. 229, 230 
 
 , "The Expositor". .173, 176, 178, 
 
 190 
 
 , "The N. T. in the Twentieth 
 
 . Century". .2, 14 f., 19, 32, 38, 
 39, 67, 172 f. 
 Josephus, "Antiquities". .32, 61, 121, 
 124, 127, 167, 169 fl. 
 
 , "Jewish War" 32, 174 f. 
 
 , "Vita" 206 
 
 Jlilicher, " DieGleidmisreden Jesu " 147 
 
 . "Einleitung" 39 
 
 , "Introduction to the New 
 
 Testament" 2 
 
 Kenyon, " Classical Review" 123 
 
 Klostermann, "Handbuch zum 
 
 N. T." 68 
 
 , " VindicsB Lucanee " (1866) . . 7 
 
 Knowling, "Acts" 99, 187, 210 
 
 Krenkel. "Josephus und Lukas" 
 
 (1894) 32 
 
 Lake, "Earlier Epistles of St. 
 Paul" 172, 195 
 
 , "The Expositor" 127 
 
 , Hastings's " Dict.of the Apos- 
 
 toUc Church" ("Acts of 
 the Apostles") . . 14, 31, 32, 34, 
 35 f.. 37, 76, 80 f., 82, S3 f., 86, 
 87. 171 
 
 , Hastings's " Dict.of the Apos- 
 tolic Church" ("Luke").. 18, 
 37 38 62 72 
 
 Lightfoot, "BibUcal Essasrs". . .12, 177 
 
 , "Commentary on Gala- 
 
 tians" 172 
 
 , "Commentary on Philip- 
 
 pians" 20 
 
 , "Essays on Supernatural 
 
 Religion" 180 
 
 , Smith's "D. B." ("The 
 
 Acts").,, 31 
 
INDEX OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS 
 
 251 
 
 LcKi and Sanday, "Two Lectures 
 01 the Oxyrhyncbus Sayings of 
 
 Jesas" (1889) 69 
 
 Iiodge, "Life and Matter" 105 
 
 Loisy, " Hibbert Journal " 85 
 
 , " Les Evanglles Synoptiques" 
 
 59, 125 
 
 Loofs, *'What Is the Truth about 
 Jesus Christ? " 6 
 
 Luckock, "The Special Character- 
 istics of the Four Gospels " 26, 57 
 
 Limimls, " How Luke Was Written " 75 
 
 Machen, "Princeton Review" 119 
 
 Maddnlay, "A Difficulty Re- 
 moved" (1919) 168 
 
 , " The Literary Marvels of St. 
 
 Luke • (1919) 54 
 
 Maclean, Sastings's " Diet, of the 
 Apostolic Church" ("Roman 
 
 Law in N T.') 190. 200 
 
 , Hastings's "One Vol. D. B." 
 
 ("Acts") 35 
 
 , Hastings's "One Vol. D. B." 
 
 ("Piul") 185 
 
 Madden. " Coins of the Jews " . . 174 
 Mayor. "Commentary on James" 225 
 McGlflert, "History of Christi- 
 anity in the Apostolic Age " . . . . 8. 9 
 McKenna. " Adventure of Life" . . 154 
 
 , "Adventure of Death" 241 
 
 McLacblan, "St. Luke: the Man 
 and His Work". . .74, 86, 89, 142, 151 
 
 "Methodist Review" 166 
 
 Migne. "Patrologia Grseca" 22 
 
 MiUlgan, " Greek Papyri " 43 
 
 , "New Testament Docu- 
 ments" 43, 57 f. 
 
 Moffatt, "The Expositor" 168 
 
 , "Introduction to the Litera- 
 ture of the N. T." ..1,4, 5, 12, 
 14, 30 f., 38, 42, 46, 57, 64, 65, 
 76, 80, 83, 87, 180, 187, 219, 
 220, 221 
 Mommsen, "The Provinces of the 
 
 Roman Empire" 182 
 
 Moulton, J. H.," The Expositor".. 70 
 
 . "Grammar of N.T.Greek".. 17 
 
 Moulton, W. J., Hastings's " Diet. 
 
 of Christ and the Gospels " . . 146. 147 
 Moulton and MllUgan, "Vocab- 
 ulary of the N. T.*^^. .43. 96, 97, 122, 
 153, 188, 191 
 Murray, "Four Stages of Greek 
 Religion" 237 
 
 Nachmanson," Beitrftge zur Kennt- 
 nls der altgrlechischen Volks- 
 
 sprache" 17 
 
 Naylor, "The Expositor" 106 
 
 , " Hibbert Journal " 91 
 
 Nestle. "The Expositor" 87 
 
 Nlkitsky, " Epigraphical Studies at 
 
 Delphi" (1898) 175 
 
 Nolloth. "The Rise of the Chris- 
 tian Religion " 39 
 
 Norden, " Kunstprosa" 58 
 
 NJisgen, " Apostelgeschlchte " 170 
 
 Oroslus, "Adversus Paganos His- 
 
 torlarum" 174, 175 
 
 Orr, "The Virgin Birth of Christ" 
 
 109, 114, 117 
 
 Paley, "Hone Paullnn" 83 
 
 Peake, " Introduction to the N. T." 32 
 Pflelderer, "Christian Origins,". .2 (see 
 
 also 7) 
 PlooU, "De Chronologie van het 
 
 leven van Paulus" 176 
 
 , "The Expositor" 173, 190 
 
 Plummer, "Commentary on St. 
 Luke". .7, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26, 31, 
 32, 33, 34, 42, 44, 45. 46, 48, 49, 51, 
 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 65, 67, 93, 97, 
 125, 126, 127, 156, 157, 159, 160. 161, 
 
 167, 231, 239, 240 
 
 , Hastings's " D. B." . . 142, 147, ISO 
 
 Plumptre, "Books of the Bible". . 20 
 
 Rackham, " Commentary on Acts " 
 20. 23. 24. 26, 27. 35, 36, 56, 59, 170, 
 171, 193, 196, 198, 199, 206, 208, 210, 
 211, 222, 223, 225, 234, 235 
 
 Ramsay. "The Bearing of Recent 
 Discovery on the Trustworthi- 
 ness of the N. T.". .2. 16. 17, 19, 20, 
 40 f., 64, 79, 82, 83, 85. 103, 114, 
 118 f., 122, 123, 124, 127. 128, 129, 
 
 168. 173. 179 f . 182. 201. 204 
 " The Church in the Roman 
 
 Empire" (1893). 2. 180. 184. 191 
 
 "The Cities of St. Paul". .2. 18, 
 
 24 f , 180, 183. 185, 187 
 
 "The Expositor "..44. 71. 85. 172 
 
 " Galatians " 192. 193 
 
 Hastings's "D. B." ("Asl- 
 
 sirchs") 188 
 
 'The Historical Geography 
 
 of Asia Minor" 2. 179 
 
 , "Luke the Physician". .2, 3. 10, 
 22. 71, 98, 101, 111, 114 
 , " Pauline and Other Studies " 
 
 2, 3, 8, 77 f., 177 f., 232 
 'St. Paul the Traveller and 
 Roman Citizen". .2, 5, 12, 22. 
 23, 27, 31, 33, 40, 41. 42. 44, 46. 
 54. 81. 86. 166, 167. 174. 177. 
 178. 183. 187. 192. 198. 203. 
 204, 207. 208. 210. 212, 213, 
 214, 216. 229 
 . "Was Christ Born at Beth- 
 lehem? "..2, 53. 55 f.. 64, 65, 
 103 f., 107. 108. 110 f.. 112. 119, 
 121, 122. 123, 124. 125. 126, 
 127, 128, 170, 171. 174, 175, 
 180 f. 
 "Recordof Christian Work, The" 206 
 
 Renan. "Les Evanglles " 43 
 
 Robertson, "Bible for Home and 
 
 School " 69 
 
 , "Contemporary Review" 72, 155 
 
 , "The Divinity of Christ in 
 
 theGospelof John" (1916) 155 
 
 , "A Grammar of the Greek 
 
 N. T. In the Light of His- 
 torical Research" 5. 13. 17, 
 
 58, 159 
 
 , "The Life and Letters of 
 
 John A. Broadus" 50 
 
 , "The New Citizenship" 186 
 
 , "Practical and Social As- 
 pects of Christianity " 225 
 
 , "Studies in Mark's Gospel" 
 
 (1919). . . .38, 39, 67, 68, 70, 155 
 Robinson, Hastings's "Diet, of the 
 
 Apostolic Church" ("Ship") 207,214 
 , "Some Thoughts on the In- 
 carnation" 104 
 
252 
 
 INDEX OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS 
 
 Bopes, "Epistle of James" 22S 
 
 Rosser, "Paul the Preacher" 229 
 
 Bound, "The Date of Oalatians" 172 
 Busldn, " Sesame and Lilies " 52 
 
 Salmon.V' The Human Element in 
 
 the Gospds" 44, 71 
 
 Sanday, "Hampton Lectures" 
 
 (1893) 170 
 
 ."Book by Book" 43 
 
 , "Expository Times" 65 
 
 , " 0:dord Studies In the Sy- 
 noptic Problem" (1911).. 38. 
 62, 63, 67. 71, 73 
 — , " Sacred Sites of the Gos- 
 pels" 120 
 
 Schmiedel, "Enc. Blblica," 30, 140, 219 
 
 (see also 7, 227) 
 Scnuerer, "Zeitschrift f. Krit. 
 
 Theol.'' (1876), 170 (see also 7) 
 Schweitzer, "Paul and His Inter- 
 preters" 1 
 
 Selwyn, "St. Luke the Prophet" 13, 17 
 Smith, "Dictionary of the Bible".. 31 
 Smith, E., "Homuetic Bevlew". .208, 
 212, 213, 214, 216 
 Smith, J., "The Voyage and Ship- 
 wreck of St. PauP (1880).. 208 f., 
 212, 214, 216 
 
 Soltau, "The Virgin Birth" 106 
 
 Souter, "Pocket Lexicon of the 
 
 Greek N. T." 43 
 
 Stalker, "The Beauty of the 
 
 Bible," 142 (see also 58, 104) 
 "Standard Bible Dictionary, The" 36 
 Stanton, "The Gospels as Histori- 
 cal Documents " 32, 67, 72, 150 
 
 Stawell, " St. Luke and Virgil" ... 19 
 
 Stokes, "Gifford Lectures" 105 
 
 Stouter, Hastings's "Diet, of the 
 Apostolic Church" ("Oitizen- 
 
 dapl") 185 
 
 , Hastings's " Diet of the Apos- 
 tolic Church" ("Colony") 183 
 Streeter. "Oxford Studies".. .70,71,73 
 Suetonius, "Livesof theCsesars". .167, 
 
 175 
 
 "Sunday School Times" 103 
 
 "Supernatural Religion" .6, 16 
 
 Sweet, "Int. St. Bible Encycl." 
 
 ("Mary") HI 
 
 Swete, "The Gospel According to 
 St.Mark" 67 
 
 Tacitus, "Annals," 167 (see also 175) 
 Taylor, " The Oxyrhynchus Logia " 
 
 (1899). : ■ • • o -.i- • ■ ®^ 
 
 . "The Oxyrhynchus Sayings 
 
 of Jesus ••(1905) 69 
 
 Tertulllan, "Adv. Marcion," 26, 129 
 (see also 14) 
 
 Torr, " Ancient Ships " (1894) 208 
 
 Torrey, " American Journal of The- 
 ology": 89 
 
 , " The Composition and Date 
 
 of Acts ''^(1916). .7, 9, 18, 34, 
 37, 38, 87 f. 
 
 , "Studies in the History of 
 
 Religions" 87 
 
 Trench, "Notes on the Parables".. 148 
 Turner, Hastings's" D. B." (" Chro- 
 nology of the N. T.") ... 134, 174, 175 
 
 XJsener, "Encycl. Blblica" 120 
 
 Vars, "L'Art nautique dans I'an- 
 tiqultfi et specialement en grSc" 
 (1887) 208 
 
 Viereck, "Philologus" 123 
 
 Vlgoroux, "Le nouveau Testa- 
 ment" 180 
 
 Vqgel, "Zur Characterlstik des 
 Lukas nach Sprache und Stil," 6 (see 
 also 7) 
 
 Von Soden, "History of Early 
 Christian Literature" 2 
 
 , "Introduction to the N. T." 80 
 
 Wace, "Int. si. Bible Encyd." 
 
 ("Miracles") 131, 134 
 
 Wainel, " Die Gleichnlsse Jesu" . . . 147 
 Weiss, B., "Introduction to the 
 Literature of the N. T.," 70 (see also 
 7. 33) , „ 
 
 Weiss, J., " Die Schriften des N. T. ; 
 das Lucas-Evangelium," 6 (see also 7) 
 
 Weizsacker, " Apostolic Age" 2 
 
 Wendllng, "Die Entstehung des 
 
 Marcusevangellums" (1908) 67 
 
 , "Urmarcus" (1905) 67 
 
 Whitaker, "The Expositor" 28 
 
 Wilcken, "Hermes,"^ 123 (see 118) 
 Wilkinson, "A Johannine Docu- 
 ment in the First Chapter of S. 
 
 Luke's Gospel" 66 
 
 Williams, N. P., "Oxford Studies" 67 
 Wilson, J. N., "Harvard Theologi- 
 cal Review" .88,89 
 
 Wright, "Gospel According to St. 
 
 Luke in Greek" 64 f. 
 
 , Hastings's " Diet, of Christ 
 
 and the Gospels" 73, 155 f. 
 
 Zahn, "Einleltimg," 9, 11 (see also 7) 
 Zenos, Hastings's "Diet, of the 
 ApostolicOhurch'^ ("Dates").. 178 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND PAPYRI 
 QUOTATIONS 
 
 A. NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 MlTTHEW 
 
 Chap. 1:16.... 111. 115 
 :l»-20 
 
 Chap. 2 
 
 Chap. 3 
 
 Chap. 7 
 
 Chap. 8 
 
 Chap. 9 
 
 Chap. 10 
 Chap. 11 
 
 Chap. 12 
 
 Chap. 13 
 
 13 
 
 Chap. 16 
 
 Chap. 17 
 
 Chap. 19 
 
 Chap. 21 
 Chap. 22 
 Chap. 24 
 24 
 Chap. 25 
 Chap. 26 
 
 Chap. 28 
 
 
 Ill, 115 
 
 19... 
 
 108, 127 
 
 20-25 
 
 .... 108 
 
 R... 
 
 ... 120 
 
 17... 
 
 ... 158 
 
 6.... 
 
 ...144 
 
 IX... 
 
 ... 68 
 
 2. . . 
 
 ... 93 
 
 .VI H. 
 
 ... 136 
 
 T4f.. 
 
 ... 93 
 
 23-27 
 
 .... 140 
 
 28... 
 
 ... 94 
 
 2.... 
 
 ... 94 
 
 5f... 
 
 ... 66 
 
 25... 
 
 ... 94 
 
 8.... 
 
 ... 95 
 
 4-6.. 
 
 ... 135 
 
 22... 
 
 ...109 
 
 2.'»-,3C 
 
 156 
 
 27... 
 
 ...160 
 
 10... 
 
 ... 94 
 
 
 .149,150 
 
 10... 
 
 ... 145 
 
 IT... 
 
 ... 144 
 
 13... 
 
 ... 144 
 
 ,'54. . . 
 
 ...145 
 
 .36... 
 
 ... 145 
 
 51... 
 
 ... 145 
 
 16... 
 
 ...160 
 
 17... 
 
 ... 158 
 
 18 f.. 
 
 ... 156 
 
 5.... 
 
 ...160 
 
 15... 
 
 ... 94 
 
 2.'*... 
 
 ... 239 
 
 24... 
 
 ... 95 
 
 
 . . . 150 
 
 
 . . . 150 
 
 
 . . . 150 
 
 1.5... 
 
 ... 33 
 
 
 . .. 150 
 
 .51... 
 
 ... 94 
 
 «3... 
 
 ...160 
 
 63 f.. 
 
 ... 115 
 
 64... 
 
 ...160 
 
 1.... 
 
 ... 169 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Mabe 
 
 1:4 
 
 :11 
 
 :26.... 
 
 :30f... 
 
 :35.... 
 
 :40.... 
 2:3 
 
 :9-ll.. 
 
 68 
 158 
 93 
 93 
 239 
 93 
 94 
 66 
 
 Chap. 3 
 Chap. 4 : 
 
 Chap. 5 
 
 Chap. 6 
 
 Chap. 8 
 Chap. 9 
 
 Chap. 10 
 
 Chap. 13 . 
 13: 
 
 Chap. 15 
 Chap. 16 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 33 f.... 
 35-41.. 
 45-8 : 26 
 
 2 
 
 13... 
 
 15... 
 
 26... 
 
 41 f.. 
 
 39 f.. 
 
 45-8:26 
 
 46.. 
 
 29.. 
 
 7... 
 
 17 f. 
 
 25.. 
 
 34.. 
 
 14..' 
 47.. 
 62.. 
 15.. 
 1 
 
 10, 
 
 68, 
 
 94 
 
 145 
 
 144 
 
 144 
 
 145 
 
 145 
 
 144 
 
 140 
 
 67 
 
 94 
 
 139 
 
 94 
 
 93 
 
 94 
 
 ,140 
 
 68 
 
 239 
 
 158 
 
 160 
 
 94 
 
 95 
 
 169 
 
 67 
 
 33 
 
 94 
 
 160 
 
 196 
 
 169 
 
 litTKE 
 
 Chaps. 1-4 64 
 
 Chaps. 1 and 2. .18, 57, 
 64, 65, 86, 103, 
 107, 161, 219, 
 221, 222 
 Chap. 1:1-4 
 
 5, 18, 21, 42, 
 57, 86, 103. 
 136 
 :1 
 
 44, 47, 49 f., 
 55,72 
 :2 
 
 48, 49, 55, 78 
 :3 
 
 5, 42, 44, 45, 
 51 a., 56 
 
 :4 4,55 
 
 : 5-2: 52. 57. 63 
 
 :9 240 
 
 : 26 166 
 
 : 31-33.... 104 
 
 :32f. 156 
 
 :34f. 104 
 
 :35 
 
 103, 117, 156 
 
 : 42-45 240 
 
 :43 157 
 
 : 46-55.'. .. 240 
 
 253 
 
 Chap. l:65f. 66 
 
 : 68-79 240 
 
 : 80 65 
 
 Chap. 2:1-7 
 
 118, 120, 124, 
 
 126, 127, 129, 
 
 132 
 :l-3 
 
 114, 118, 128 
 
 :1 120 
 
 :2-5 118 
 
 :2 
 
 122, 123, 127, 
 
 166 
 
 :3 124,125 
 
 :4-7 161 
 
 :4 126 
 
 :5 125 
 
 :7 236 
 
 :8 236 
 
 :13 240 
 
 :14 240 
 
 :19 65 
 
 : 20 240 
 
 :21 65 
 
 : 23-38 66 
 
 : 24 236 
 
 : 26... 33. 157 f. 
 : 29-32.... 240 
 
 :32 233 
 
 :34 144 
 
 : 39 120 
 
 :40..65,161,221 
 
 :49 115,158 
 
 : 51-18 : 14 68 
 
 :51 65,109 
 
 :52 65,162 
 
 Chap. 3: 1-3.... 77. 166 
 
 :lf. 33,166 
 
 :1..32, 178, 181 
 
 : 15 33 
 
 :21f. 159 
 
 :21 239 
 
 • 22 
 
 133,158,159, 
 
 160 
 
 :23 166 
 
 :38 157 
 
 Chap. 4:3-13 75 
 
 :3 158 f. 
 
 :9 158 f. 
 
 : 16-30.. 75, 159 
 
 :18 236 
 
 : 20 48 
 
 :21 159 
 
 :22 159 
 
 :23..90,95, 145 
 
 :40f 96 
 
 :41 33 
 
254 
 
 INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 
 
 JjMke— Continued 
 
 
 
 Chap. 
 
 5 : 1-11 
 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 ,»e 
 
 . T4n 
 
 
 :12.... 
 
 ..93.97 
 
 
 :15f... 
 
 
 96 
 
 
 :16.... 
 
 
 2,39 
 
 
 : 18. . . . 
 
 .94 
 
 ,100 
 
 
 M9.... 
 
 
 68 
 
 
 :21 
 
 
 159 
 
 
 :23f... 
 
 
 66 
 
 
 : 24. . . . 
 
 
 169 
 
 
 :25f... 
 
 
 240 
 
 
 : 31 f. . . 
 
 
 Ufi 
 
 
 : 34 
 
 
 146 
 
 
 : 36-39 
 
 
 150 
 
 Chap. 
 
 6:6 
 
 
 1.59 
 
 
 :6 
 
 
 94 
 
 
 :12.... 
 
 
 239 
 
 
 : 17-19 
 
 
 96 
 
 
 :20.... 
 
 
 236 
 
 
 : 21-49 
 
 
 75 
 
 
 :21.... 
 
 
 236 
 
 
 : 39. . . . 
 
 
 146 
 
 
 : 42 
 
 
 146 
 
 Ohap. 
 
 7 
 
 
 239 
 
 
 7 : 1-10. . 
 
 
 1,36 
 
 
 : 1-8. . . 
 
 
 75 
 
 
 : 11-17 
 
 .9f 
 
 ,1,37 
 
 
 : 15. . . . 
 
 .9f 
 
 ,1.30 
 
 
 :16.... 
 
 
 240 
 
 
 :19.... 
 
 
 1.35 
 
 
 : 20-23. 
 
 
 1,35 
 
 
 :21.... 
 
 .9(1 
 
 ,136 
 
 
 :22 
 
 
 
 
 136, 
 
 236, 237 
 
 
 :24.... 
 
 
 146 
 
 
 :36f... 
 
 
 .58 
 
 
 :37.... 
 
 
 236 
 
 
 : 40-43. 
 
 
 1.50 
 
 
 :47.... 
 
 
 2,36 
 
 Chap. 
 
 8:1-3... 
 
 
 2.37 
 
 
 : 2 
 
 
 2.36 
 
 
 :3 
 
 
 76 
 
 
 :4-15.. 
 
 
 146 
 
 
 :5-15.. 
 
 
 147 
 
 
 :9..142, 144,145 
 
 
 :10.... 
 
 
 144 
 
 
 : 16 
 
 
 58 
 
 
 : 18. . . . 
 
 
 145 
 
 
 : 22-25. 
 
 
 140 
 
 
 :27.... 
 
 
 94 
 
 
 :28.... 
 
 • . . 
 
 1.59 
 
 
 :33f... 
 
 
 139 
 
 
 : 36. . . . 
 
 .94 
 
 ,1.39 
 
 
 :37.... 
 
 
 139 
 
 
 :43.... 
 
 TO, 
 
 92 f. 
 
 
 :66.... 
 
 
 94 
 
 Ohap. 
 
 9:2 
 
 
 95 
 
 
 : 10-17. 
 
 
 14(1 
 
 
 :14f... 
 
 
 68 
 
 
 :18.... 
 
 .60,239 
 
 
 : 20-27. 
 
 
 164 
 
 
 :20 
 
 
 
 
 33, 
 
 I.W 
 
 160 
 
 
 :22 
 
 164 
 
 169 
 
 
 :23f... 
 
 
 146 
 
 
 : 35. . . . 
 
 
 160 
 
 
 :38f... 
 
 
 94 
 
 
 : 38. . . . 
 
 
 239 
 
 
 :43f... 
 
 
 164 
 
 
 : 51-12 : 
 
 59 
 
 73 
 
 
 :51 
 
 74 
 
 168 
 
 Ohap. 
 
 10 
 
 
 234 
 
 
 10 : 9 
 
 
 95 
 
 
 : 17. . . . 
 
 
 95 
 
 Chap. 10 : 21-24. ... 156 
 
 :22 160 
 
 : 30-37.. 97, 150 
 
 :30 150 
 
 : 35 148 
 
 Chap. 11:1.. .i 239 
 
 : 5-13 239 
 
 : 5-8 150 
 
 : 5 148 
 
 : 9 240 
 
 :37f. 58 
 
 Chap. 12 : 16-21 
 
 146, 150, 237 
 
 : 35-48 150 
 
 : 49-53.... 164 
 
 Chap. 13 : 6-9. . . ^ . . 150 
 : 10-17.: 96, 137 
 
 :13 240 
 
 : 18-35 73 
 
 : 18-21 150 
 
 :20f. 146 
 
 :22 74,168 
 
 : 32 96 
 
 Chaps. 14-18 59 
 
 Chap. 14 149 
 
 14: 1-6.... 96, 137 
 
 :lf 68 
 
 :2 96 
 
 :7-H 150 
 
 : 13 236 
 
 : 15-24. ... 150 
 
 :21 237 
 
 :22 236 
 
 : 26 146 
 
 : 27 146 
 
 : 28-32 150 
 
 : 28-30.... 150 
 : 31-33 150 
 
 Chap. 15 
 
 148. 149, 150, 235 
 15: If.... 148, 235 
 
 : 8-10 150 
 
 : 11-32 
 
 146, 150 
 : 15 186 
 
 Chap. 16 148,150 
 
 16 : 1-13. . 148, 150 
 :9 
 
 146, 148, 231 
 
 :13 146 
 
 :14 148 
 
 : 19-31 
 
 97, 150. 237 
 
 : 19 150 
 
 : 20.187 f., 236 
 
 :21 98 
 
 :23 236 
 
 Chap. 17 : 6 188 
 
 :7-10 150 
 
 : 11-19 
 
 96, 97, 137 
 
 :H 74,168 
 
 :15 240 
 
 :20f. 149 
 
 Chap. 18 150 
 
 18: 1-8... 150, 239 
 
 :9-14 150 
 
 : 9 150 
 
 : 11-13. ... 240 
 
 :15 239 
 
 :25 95,146 
 
 :43 240 
 
 Ohap. 19 : 2-10 236 
 
 :2 236 
 
 : 4 186 
 
 Chap. 19:11-27 
 
 147, 149, 150 
 
 :11 149 
 
 : 37 240 
 
 : 41-44. ... 162 
 
 Chap. 20 : 9-19 147 
 
 Chap. 21 : 5-36 149 
 
 :8 75 
 
 :20 33 f. 
 
 :21 37 
 
 :28 96 
 
 : 29-33 
 
 146, 149 
 
 : 32 33 
 
 : 36. . 239 
 
 Chap. 22 : 14^24:' id 69 
 : 15-22.... 69 
 
 :19fl 164 
 
 :19f. 74 
 
 :31f. 239 
 
 : 32 239 
 
 : 35 33 
 
 : 39 33 
 
 :40 239 
 
 :44 162 
 
 : 50 94 
 
 :51 
 94, 96, 97, 137 
 
 :66 160 
 
 : 67 160 
 
 : 69 161 
 
 :ro 160 
 
 Chap. 23 : 2 196 
 
 :31 146 
 
 : 32-54.... 164 
 
 : 34 239 
 
 : 46 239 
 
 : 50 236 
 
 :53 155 
 
 : 54 169 
 
 Chap. 24 234 
 
 24:1 169 
 
 :7 169 
 
 : 10 75 
 
 : 13 20 
 
 :26 
 
 33, 161, 164 
 : 38-43.... 162 
 
 :41 59 
 
 :45 241 
 
 : 46-49.... 164 
 
 :46 33,161 
 
 :52 164 
 
 :63 240 
 
 John 
 
 Chap. 1:1 112 
 
 : 14.... 106, 112 
 
 :18 112 
 
 :33 158 
 
 : 34.... 112, 158 
 
 :49 112 
 
 Chap. 2:9 134 
 
 Chap. 4 223 
 
 4:16fl 134 
 
 Chap. 5:8 134 
 
 : 17 137 
 
 : 18.... 115. 158 
 
 : 19 f 160 
 
 :19 159 
 
 : 24 159 
 
 Ohap. 6:2 134 
 
 :8f 239 
 
 :llf. 134 
 
 :19 134 
 
INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 
 
 255 
 
 John— Continued 
 
 Chap. 7:2fl 168 
 
 :2 14 
 
 :41f. 120 
 
 :42 120 
 
 Chap. 8:19 115 
 
 ,:48 117 
 
 Chap. 9:6f 134 
 
 Chap. 10 : 6 145 
 
 :25 115 
 
 Chap. 11:17 f 168 
 
 : 17 74 
 
 : 44 134 
 
 Chap. 12:1 74,168 
 
 : 20 21 
 
 :34 162 
 
 Chap. 16 : 25 145 
 
 : 29 145 
 
 Chap. 18 : 10 94 
 
 :31 200 
 
 Chap. 19 : 12 196 
 
 : 15 196 
 
 Chaps. 20 and 21 . . . 134 
 
 Chap. 20: 1 169 
 
 :30f 156 
 
 :31 42 
 
 Chap. 21 : 1-14 140 
 
 :6 134 
 
 :24 134 
 
 Acts 
 
 Chaps. 1-15 
 
 18, 37, 77, 84, 86 fl. 
 
 Chaps. 1-14 83 
 
 Chaps. 1-12 
 
 76f.. 84, 85, 87, 222 
 Chaps. 1-5 67, 84, 85, 86 
 
 Chap. 1 85 
 
 1:1. ...1.4, 5, 31. 
 36, 37, 48, 
 164, 235 
 
 :3 
 
 :4 
 
 : 11-15 : 35 
 
 :14 
 
 : 15-22 
 
 :19 
 
 : 64 
 
 2 
 
 2:1-13 
 
 :9 
 
 :10 
 
 Ill 
 
 : 14-39.... 
 
 :22 
 
 : 28 
 
 :47, 
 
 Chap. 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 89 
 
 84 
 
 220 
 
 86 
 
 240 
 
 85 
 
 86 
 
 182 
 
 182 
 
 182 
 
 220 
 
 134 
 
 240 
 
 240 
 
 Chaps. 3-6 85,87 
 
 Chap. 3:7f. 99 
 
 :8f. 240 
 
 : 12-26 221 
 
 :12 85 
 
 : 16 88 
 
 Chaps. 4 and 5 236 
 
 Chap. 4:lf. 200 
 
 :8-12 221 
 
 :19 221 
 
 :35 93 
 
 : 36 182 
 
 :38f. 93 
 
 Chap. 5:3-4 221 
 
 :5 99 
 
 :6 99 
 
 :9 221 
 
 ;10 99 
 
 Chap. 5 : 15 100 
 
 : 16 98 
 
 : 17 f 200 
 
 : 18 200 
 
 : 29-32 221 
 
 : 33-42 200 
 
 :33 200 
 
 :36f. 
 
 32. 169, 171 
 :37 
 
 122, 123, 126. 127 
 . 6 and 7 84 
 
 6:5 22.222 
 
 :9 222 
 
 : 11-14 200 
 
 7:2-53 222 
 
 : 16 187 
 
 :51 224 
 
 : 53 222 
 
 : 56 222 
 
 :58 20 
 
 :59 222 
 
 8 84 
 
 8: 1 84.222 
 
 :3 200 
 
 :6-40 87 
 
 :7 85 
 
 .9-28 83 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Chaps. 
 Chap. 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Chaps. 
 Chap. 
 
 229 
 
 1-30 81-84 
 
 If 200 
 
 18 94.100 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Chaps 
 Chap. 
 
 : 26-30. . 
 : 31-13 : 13 
 
 : 33 
 
 :36 
 
 171 
 
 84 
 
 100 
 
 86 
 
 223 
 
 193 
 
 100 
 
 214 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 48 
 
 221 
 
 174 
 
 221 
 
 53 
 
 100 
 
 22 
 
 26 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Chaps 
 Chaps. 
 Chap. 
 
 10 : 1 f 
 
 : 10 
 
 :11 
 
 : 28-29.... 
 
 : 34^43. . . . 
 
 : 36-43. . . . 
 
 :47 
 
 11 and 12... 
 11:4-17 
 
 : 4 
 
 :5 
 
 : 19-27. . . . 
 
 : 26 f 
 
 : 27-30 
 
 81, 174, 175 
 
 : 27 31 
 
 : 28... 25, 26, 83 
 
 :29f. 171 f. 
 
 : 30 175 
 
 12 : 1-23 175 
 
 : If. 181 
 
 :2 174,200 
 
 :3fl 181 
 
 : 12 49 
 
 : 13-17.... 200 
 
 :17 174 
 
 : 20-23 
 
 174, 181 
 
 :23 .. . 99 
 
 : 25-31 181 
 
 :25 
 
 171, 174, 175 
 
 . 13-28 76,85 
 
 . 13 and 14 . . . 81 
 
 13 174 
 
 13: 1 
 
 17, 18, 22, 75. 
 80,83 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Chaps. 
 Chap. 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 182, 206 
 
 
 5 
 
 ... 48 
 
 
 8 
 
 ... 182 
 
 
 11.... 
 
 ... 100 
 
 
 12.... 
 
 ... 182 
 
 
 13.... 
 
 ... 182 
 
 
 14. . . . 
 
 ... 183 
 
 
 16-41 
 
 ... 228 
 
 
 45. . . . 
 
 ... 192 
 
 
 46.... 
 
 ... 224 
 
 
 50.... 
 
 ... 192 
 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 ... 193 
 
 
 5 
 
 ... 193 
 
 
 6 
 
 ... 183 
 
 
 8-18.. 
 
 187, 193 
 
 
 8 
 
 ... 100 
 
 
 11 
 
 ... 183 
 
 
 12-17 
 
 ... 228 
 
 
 19 
 
 .22,193 
 
 
 20. . . . 
 
 ... 194 
 
 
 21.... 
 
 ... 22 
 
 
 23. . . . 
 
 ... 23 
 
 
 26 
 
 ... 22 
 
 15 
 
 81,82, 
 
 172, 173 
 
 15 
 
 1-30. . 
 
 ... 82 
 
 
 2-29. 
 
 ..171f. 
 
 
 4 
 
 ... 224 
 
 
 7-11. . 
 
 ... 221 
 
 
 13-21 
 
 ... 224 
 
 
 18 f... 
 
 ... 225 
 
 
 22 f... 
 
 ... 224 
 
 
 22.... 
 
 ... 22 
 
 
 23-29 
 
 ... 224 
 
 
 23.... 
 
 ... 22 
 
 
 24. . . . 
 
 ... 224 
 
 
 26 
 
 ... 224 
 
 
 30.... 
 
 ... 22 
 
 
 35.... 
 
 ... 22 
 
 
 41 
 
 ... 182 
 
 Chaps. 
 Chap. 
 
 . 16-28 37,187 
 
 16 228 
 
 16 : 6 182, 183 
 
 : 7 182 
 
 :9-40 178 
 
 : 9 f 23 
 
 : 10-40. ... 7 
 : 10.. 27, 75, 182 
 
 :11 182,206 
 
 :12 183 
 
 : 13 27 
 
 : 17..27,135,199 
 
 : 18 135 
 
 : 19 192 
 
 :20 192 
 
 : 21-^23 
 
 185, 192 
 
 : 22 192 
 
 : 26-34 135 
 
 : 35 f 192 
 
 :37 186 
 
 :38 179 
 
 .17-19 81 
 
 24 
 195 
 195 
 195 
 196 
 196 
 197 
 2 
 
 : 14 197, 206 
 
 :18 197 
 
 :19f 197 
 
 : 22-31 226 
 
 :28 157 
 
 :4... 
 :5... 
 :6... 
 :7... 
 :9... 
 :10.. 
 : 11. 
 
256 
 
 Acts— Continued 
 
 INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 
 
 Cbap. 17 
 
 32-34.... 197 
 
 
 34 188 
 
 
 .63 120 
 
 Chap. 18 
 
 : If.... 175, 176 
 
 
 :2 175 
 
 
 :6 224 
 
 
 :8 194 
 
 
 :12fl 175 
 
 
 :12 182 
 
 
 :13 194 
 
 
 •.14f. 195 
 
 
 :17 195 
 
 
 :18f. 225 
 
 
 :18 206 
 
 
 :21f. 206 
 
 
 :22 22,171 
 
 
 :23 182.183 
 
 Chap. 19 
 
 :2-16 81 
 
 
 .10 182 
 
 
 :11 98 
 
 
 :21 78,182 
 
 
 :24r-27.... 199 
 
 
 :26f. 199 
 
 
 :26 182 
 
 
 :27 120 
 
 
 :29 81 
 
 
 :31 198 
 
 
 :33 198 
 
 
 :34 188 
 
 
 :35 198 
 
 
 :37 199 
 
 
 : 38.... 188, 198 
 
 
 :39 198 
 
 Chap. 20 
 
 :1 199,206 
 
 
 : 4 81 
 
 
 :5-28:31. 78 
 
 
 :5a 178 
 
 
 :5 27 
 
 
 : 6-28 : 31 . 7 
 
 
 :6 206 
 
 
 : 9-12.. 101, 135 
 
 
 : 13-20 : 14 206 
 
 
 :16 228 
 
 
 : 18-35.... 226 
 
 
 :25 35 
 
 Chap. 21 
 
 :1-10 101 
 
 
 :8{f. 49 
 
 
 :8 84 
 
 
 :16 180 
 
 
 : 16 49 
 
 
 : 27-23: 30 171 
 
 
 :17f. 228 
 
 
 : 18... 49, 75, 84 
 
 
 :21 55 
 
 
 :25 225 
 
 
 : 27-31 200 
 
 
 •33-36.... 201 
 
 
 38 201 
 
 
 39-22:23 201 
 
 
 39 185 
 
 Chap. 22 
 
 229 
 
 22 
 
 1-21 228 
 
 
 2 69 
 
 
 4f. 200 
 
 
 4 200 
 
 
 17 100 
 
 
 24-29..., 201 
 
 
 28 20,185 
 
 
 30 201 
 
 Chap. 23 
 
 1-10 201 
 
 
 1 185 
 
 
 26-30.... 201 
 
 
 27-30 230 
 
 
 35 202 
 
 Chap. 24 
 
 Chap. 25 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Cbap. 
 
 Chap. 28 
 
 1-9 202 
 
 1 181,190 
 
 2-28 230 
 
 3 5 
 
 10-21.... 202 
 
 14 194 
 
 22 202 
 
 24f. 203 
 
 26 203,228 
 
 27 
 
 176 f., 181,203 
 
 1-5. 
 
 9 
 
 10-12.. . . 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13-27.... 
 14-22.... 
 
 19 
 
 24-27 
 
 27 
 
 203 
 203 
 203 
 186 
 186 
 204 
 230 
 60 
 230 
 186 
 229 
 204 
 200 
 
 1-23. 
 10 f.. 
 10 
 
 84, 200, 222 
 
 24-32 204 
 
 25 5 
 
 32 186 
 
 58,206 8. 
 
 1 210 
 
 2 12,81 
 
 3 210 
 
 4 212,214 
 
 5 182 
 
 7 
 182, 212, 214 
 
 9f. 210 
 
 9 210 
 
 10 215 
 
 11 210,214 
 
 12 210.213 
 
 13.... 210, 213 
 
 14r. 213 
 
 14.... 209, 213 
 
 15-17 213 
 
 15 
 213, 214, 215 
 
 16 212,214 
 
 17.... 214. 215 
 
 20 211 
 
 21-26 211 
 
 21 182 
 
 27 
 209, 213, 214 
 
 28 209 
 
 29 215 
 
 30-32.... 211 
 
 30 214.215 
 
 32 215 
 
 33-36 211 
 
 37 207 
 
 38 215 
 
 40 
 
 206. 212. 214, 215 
 41 
 209.213,'214 
 
 4«. 211 
 
 1-10 211 
 
 :2 18 
 
 :4 18 
 
 :5 135 
 
 t6 9 
 
 :•? 187 
 
 :8 10,135 
 
 Chap. 28:9 f. 10,27,135 
 : 11.... 207, 215 
 
 :14 228 
 
 : 16.... 177, 228 
 : 17-28.... 228 
 : 30-31.... 30 
 
 BOUAHS 
 
 Chap. 1 229 
 
 l:3f. 113 
 
 :14 19 
 
 Chap. 2 229 
 
 Chap. 3 62 
 
 Chap. 8 227 
 
 Chaps. 9-11 194. 223 
 
 Chap. 9:11 156 
 
 Chap. 13 : 1 191 
 
 Cbap. 14 : 5 47 
 
 Cbap. 15:18f. 134 
 
 Chap. 16:7-21 18 
 
 :21 18 
 
 I CoBIMiaiANS 
 
 Chap. 1:17 226 
 
 : 26-31 237 
 
 Chap. 2:4 226 
 
 Chap. 9:1 134 
 
 Chap. 11 : 23-25 74 
 
 Chap. 12 : 1-3 205 
 
 :9f. 134 
 
 : 28-30 134 
 
 Chap. 13 227 
 
 Chap. 14:22 134 
 
 Chap. 15 227 
 
 15:8 134 
 
 II COBINTHIANS 
 
 Chap. 2:17fl 144 
 
 Chap. 5:21 117 
 
 Chap. 8:.9 163 
 
 :18 
 12.13.21.22,23 
 
 :23 28,224 
 
 :25 28 
 
 Chap. 10:10 226 
 
 Chap. ll:24f. 200 
 
 :25 206 
 
 :26 206 
 
 Chap. 12:12 134 
 
 :18 13.21 
 
 Oalatiaks 
 
 Chap. 1:16 134 
 
 : 18 171 f. 
 
 Chap. 2 82 
 
 2:1-10.82, 171 f. 
 
 :1 171 
 
 * 3 .21 
 
 Chap. 3.'..".!!!i56,194 
 
 3:6 134 
 
 :15 191 
 
 :17.. 224 
 
 :19 222 
 
 : 23-25.... 191 
 :28 238 
 
 Chap. 4 191 
 
 4:2 191 
 
 :4 113 
 
 : 13... 13, 23, 27 
 :21-31.... 191 
 :24 147 
 
 Chap. 6:5 215 
 
INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 
 
 257 
 
 FaiLIFPIANB 
 
 Chap. 1:27 186 
 
 Chap. 2:5-11 163 
 
 :20 82 
 
 Chap. 3 227 
 
 3:20 186 
 
 ColobsWnb 
 
 Chap. l:16f 137 
 
 Chap. 4:10-14.... 18 
 
 rlOf 18 
 
 :10 
 
 12, 39, 67, 81 
 
 : 12-14.... 18 
 
 :12 47 
 
 :14 
 12,13,16,28.39.90 
 
 II Thbbsalonians 
 
 Chap. 2:3f. 196f. 
 
 :5 197 
 
 Chap. 3:10. 196 
 
 I Timothy 
 Chap. 2:2 191 
 
 II TlHOTHT 
 
 Chap. 1:15-17 29 
 
 Chap. 4:5 47 
 
 :11 14,16 
 
 :17 47 
 
 :21 29 
 
 TiTUB 
 
 Chap. 3:13 190 
 
 Philemon 
 
 V. 23f 18 
 
 24 12, 13, 16, 28, 
 
 67, 74, 81 
 
 Hebbews 
 
 Chap. 4:15 117 
 
 Chap. 6 : 19 215 
 
 Chap. 7 : 25 96 
 
 Chap. 9:16f. 191 
 
 Chap. 13:13 205 
 
 James 
 
 Chap. 1:5 225 
 
 Chap. 3:4 214 
 
 :10-18.... 225 
 
 I Peter 
 
 Chap. 2 : 12 48 
 
 :22 117 
 
 Chap. 4 : 16 205 
 
 II Peteb 
 
 Chap. 1:1 224 
 
 :16 48 
 
 I John 
 
 Chap. 3:5 117 
 
 Revelation 
 
 Chap. 18 207 
 
 18 : 17 207 
 
 Chap. 21 : 1 207 
 
 Genesis 
 
 Chap. 1:13 187 
 
 Chap. 23:16 187 
 
 Chap. 33:19 187 
 
 ExODTIB 
 
 Chap. 40:38 156 
 
 Leviticub 
 
 Chap. 13:12 93 
 
 n Samuel 
 
 Chap. 7:5-17 156 
 
 II Chbonicleb 
 
 Chap. 21:12 225 
 
 Chap. 30:1 225 
 
 Chap. 32:17 225 
 
 Fbalms 
 
 2:7 158 
 
 89 156 
 
 90:1 157 
 
 B. OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Ecclebiasteb 
 Chap. 2 : 20 50 
 
 Ibaiah 
 
 Chap. 7:14 105 
 
 Chap. 40: If. 95 
 
 Chap. 43:6 91 
 
 Chap. 58:6 159 
 
 Chap.61:lf. 159 
 
 Jbbemiah 
 
 Chap. 29:1 225 
 
 :25 225 
 
 Lamentations 
 Chap. 4:20 157 f. 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 Chap. 21: 7 99 
 
 Daniel 
 
 Chap. 7:13f. 163 
 
 :13 161 
 
 Chap. 9:27 33 
 
 Micah 
 Chap. 5:2 120 
 
 APOCRYPHA 
 
 Wisdom 
 
 Chap. 4: 13f. 223 
 
 Chap. 5:11 99 
 
 Sibach 
 
 Chap. 6 : 35 49 
 
 Chap. 51:10 157 
 
 II Maccabees 
 Chap. 2:32 49 
 
 rV Maccabees 
 Chap. 4:11 97 
 
 Psalms of Solomon 
 Chap. 17:36 157 
 
 B. V. 
 
 No. 113,11 157 
 
 107g,24f. 202 
 
 1179,20 196 
 
 P. Fat. 
 
 No. n,9f. 88 
 
 P. OXT. 
 
 No. 119,10 196 
 
 254 122 
 
 C. PAPYRI 
 
 No. 256 122 
 
 294,23 196 
 
 375 157 
 
 939,25 96 
 
 1154,8 153 
 
 Faf. Bebol. 
 No. 7006 167 
 
 F. 
 
 No. 
 
 Fab. 
 
 47,23ff 96 
 
 47,27 lOO 
 
 F. 
 
 No. 
 
 F. 
 
 No. 
 
 P. 
 
 No. 
 
 Heio. 
 
 6 186 
 
 LoND. 
 
 121 95 
 
 442 95 
 
 971.4 100 
 
 Petb. 
 
 11,25 97 
 
 III, 59 122