THE AUTHOR 
 
 OF 
 
 THE ACTS or THE APOSTLES 
 
 AND OF 
 
 THE THIRD GOSPEL, 
 
 HOWARD HEBBR EVANS, B.A. 
 
 LATE VICAE OF MAPPERLEY, 
 ANTl FOEMEBLY SCHOLAE OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFOED. 
 
 Uavra doKiiiaZfrf 
 
 TO KoXov fcartx*"' — 1 Thess. t. 21. 
 
 1619: 
 
 SECOND PART. 
 
 LONDON : 
 WYMAN & SONS, 74-6, GREAT QUEEN STREET, 
 
 lincoln's-inn fields, w.c. 
 1886. 
 
 All rights reserved. 
 
MgyaXjj fi aXTjOeia, Kai virepiaxvei- 
 
 'Yirep 5e iravra viicq. fj aXrjdeia.—l Esdras iii. 12; iv. 41. 
 
 " Whatever our study, Truth should be our aim, to be loved 
 beyond the most trusted teacher and under all circumstances." — 
 Lord Justice Fry, a.d. 1885. 
 
 " Truth teacheth that the inquiry of Truth, the knowledge of 
 Truth, and the belief of Truth is the sovereign good of human 
 nature The poet saith excellently well, * No pleasure is com- 
 parable to the standing upon the vantage-ground of Truth.' " — 
 Lord Bacon, a.d. 1597. 
 
 '• I deem it impious to hold that the Creator would have given us 
 Reason, or that the Redeemer would have appealed to it, had it 
 been totally useless."— S. T. Coleridge. 
 
 " As rational beings we are obliged to shape our course according 
 to a fair and reasonable estimate of Probabilities." — Rt. Hon. W. 
 E. Gladstone. 
 
 " Language is Fossil History." — Archbishop Trench. 
 
 " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether 
 they are of God ; because many false prophets are gone out into 
 the world." — 1 St. John iv. 1. 
 
 Now I know in part." — 1 CoR. xiii. 12. 
 
 Knowledge puffeth up, but Love edifietb." — 1 Cor. viii. 1. 
 
 "Knowledge shall vanish away." "Love never faileth."- 
 1 Cor. xiii. 8, 
 
125 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION Page 12/ 
 
 ADDITIONS TO APPENDIX A. 
 
 I. (a). — Particles, or words used as Particles, peculiar to 
 
 the Third Gospel or the Acts, and to St. Paul J 30 
 
 I. (6). — Particles common to the Third Gospel or the Acts, 
 
 and to St. Paul 132 
 
 II. {a). — Words peculiar to hoth the Third Gospel and the 
 
 Acts, and to St. Paul 133 
 
 II. (6).— Words peculiar to the Third Gospel and to St Paul 133 
 
 II. (c), — Words peculiar to the Acts and to St. Paul 134 
 
 IE. {d). — Kindred words, of which one form is peculiar to the 
 Third Gospel or the Acts, and the other peculiar to St. 
 
 Paul 134 
 
 II. (e). — Proper names peculiar to the Acts and to St. Paul... 135 
 III. (a). — Phrases common to the Third Gospel and to St. Pa'd 136 
 
 III. (6). — Phrases common to the Acts and to St. Paul 143 
 
 IV. — Examples of absolute identity of language in the Acts 
 and the Epistles, especially with regard to the ^personal 
 
 history of St. Paul 150 
 
 V. — Examples of identical lexical and grammatical peculiarities 
 
 in the Third Gospel or the Acts, and St. Paul 1 65 
 
 ADDITIONS TO APPENDIX B. 
 
 Instances of verbal Parallelism between the history of 
 Christ in the Third Gospel, and the history of St. 
 
 Paul in the Acts and the Epistles 1 P9 
 
 A List of variations of the Third Gospel from the other 
 Synoptics which are coincidences with the language of 
 
 St Paul 172 
 
 K 2 
 
126 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 NOTE D.— On the Analogy between St. Paul and Ezra 176 
 
 NOTE E.— On the Tradition as to the Authorship of the Acts 182 
 
 NOTE F.— On the " We "-passages in the Acts 184 
 
 NOTE G. — On the alleged Discrepancy between the Acts of 
 
 the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians 188 
 
 NOTE H.-On the Medical Language in the Third Gospel 
 
 and the Acts 193 
 
 NOTE I.— On the Style of the Writer of the Acts 199 
 
 NOTE J.— On the Structure of the Acts 203 
 
 CONCLUSION 206 
 
S^ PAUL 
 
 THE ADTHOE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 ECOND PART. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 By far the greater immber of these 300 additional 
 phrases are peculiar to St. Luke and St. PauL There 
 are thus, altogether, about 500 phrases common — most 
 of them being also peculiar — to the Third Gospel and 
 the Acts, and to the Epistles of St. Paul. 
 
 It may be remarked, parenthetically, that not a few 
 of these phrases are taken from passages in the Third 
 Gospel which differ from the parallel passages in St. 
 Matthew and St. Mark, because they agree witli the 
 phraseology of St. Paul. This fact ought to throw 
 considerable light on the origin, and on the mutual 
 relations, of the Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 Some, however, of the phrases included in the list 
 are, strictly speaking, not phrases at all, but particular 
 words used by the writer in (more or less) close 
 connexion with, or vicinity to, one another. They 
 are thus (to borrow a quaint expression from the 
 
128 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 vocabulary of the late gifted, misguided, lamented 
 Professor Clifford) — they are thus specimens of" mind- 
 stuff," and afford a valuable proof of the identity 
 of mental fibre and texture, being a faithful photo- 
 graph revealing the very same inmost subjectivity and 
 idiosyncrasy in the writer of the Epistles and in the 
 writer of the Acts. There can, of course, be no vested 
 interest or private property in a phrase. But it is 
 absolutely impossible that two distinct minds should 
 continually express their ideas by means of the same 
 words and collocation of words. No two human minds 
 ever were — or, in the nature of things, ever can 
 be — identical ; even if originally so, they could not 
 continue to be exactly alike. It is impossible for 
 the simple reason that no two minds undergo precisely 
 the same experiences. There is a constant process 
 of differentiation going on, which must tend to make 
 them ever more and more distinct from each other. 
 Such a close correspondence and strange identity 
 of language can only admit of one reasonable explana- 
 tion, — namely, that we have here the utterance not 
 (as generally and traditionally supposed) of two distinct 
 minds, but, in reality, of one and the same mind. 
 
 I have now demonstrated that there are in the 
 Third Gospel and the Acts no less than — 
 
 1. One thousand words (many of which are com- 
 pound words, e.g,y 7rpoxaray'ys7^7\.siv) used by St. Paul 
 in his Epistles. 
 
 2. Two HUNDRED AND FIFTY WOrds (of which THIRTY 
 
 or more are Proper Names, and of which others are 
 rare and unusual words, e.g., sv^wafj^oov) peculiar to 
 St. Paul. 
 
 3. Two HUNDRED particles (or words used as par- 
 
Introduction. 129 
 
 tides) common — upwards of fifty of these being also 
 peculiar — to St. Paul. 
 
 4. Five hundred phrases common — the great majo- 
 rity being also peculiar — to St. Paul. 
 
 5. Fifty lexical and grammatical peculiarities 
 common to St. Paul. 
 
 6. Thirty-five figures of speech (including striking 
 examples of Paronomasia, Hendiadys, and Oxymoron) 
 common to vSt. Paul. 
 
 7. I have also shown that there are fifty instances 
 of absolute identity of language in the Acts and the 
 Epistles relating (almost exclusively) to the personal 
 history of St. Paul ; and that 
 
 8. The remarkable parallelisms, by which St. Paul 
 is compared to Christ in point of persecution^ and to 
 St. Peter in point of authority, not only correspond 
 exactly to the special circumstances of St. Paul at 
 Rome, but also precisely reflect the inner heart and 
 mind of St. Paul as exhibited to us in his Epistles. 
 
 Thus the structure, the subject-matter, and the 
 phraseology of the Third Gospel and the Acts all 
 combine to furnish us with an irrefragable scientific 
 proof that the only possible author of this unique 
 work was the unique, Jewish-Christian Apostle of the 
 Gi-entiles — St. Paul. 
 
leSO 
 
 ADDITIONS TO APPENDIX A. 
 
 L (a). 
 
 fir) — jUT/Se — /xr>S£ (l. xiv. 12; R. xiv. 21). 
 
 elg TO iLieXXov (l. xiii. 9 ; 1 T. vi. 9). 
 
 ovxh dWa (l. xii. 51 ; E. iii. 27). 
 
 airovdaiajg (l. vii. 4; Tl. iii. 13). 
 
 el Se — TTwc ; (l. xi. 18; 1 c. xv. 12). 5 
 
 Xoytj) Kot ipji^ (l. xxiv. 19 ; E. XV. 18). 
 
 tiri TTtto-t rouro/c (l. xvi. 26 ; C. iii. 14). 
 
 Kara iroXiv (a. xv. 21 ; Tl. i. 5). 
 
 KUT oIkov (a. ii. 46; E. xvi. 5). 
 
 TTfjog Kttipov (l. viii. 13 ; 1 C. vii. 5). 10 
 
 ivwTTiov iravTCJV (a. xxvii. 35 ; It. v. 20). 
 
 £v TravTi Kaip^) (l. xxi. 36; E. vi. 18). 
 
 fiTj yevoiTo (l. XX. 16; E. vi. 2). 
 
 Seofxai (Tov (a. xxvi. 3, Paul's speech; G. iv. 12). 
 
 Srj with the imperative (a. xv. 36 ; 1 C. vi. 20). 15 
 
 eKTog without the article (a, xxvi. 22 ; 1 c. xv. 27). 
 
 TO Kara (a. xvii. 11 ; R. i. 15). 
 
 fjioXig (a. xxvii. 7; E. v. 7). 
 
 OTTO TTjOwrrjc vixipag (a. xx. 18; P. i. 5). 
 
 ovBdv — from lxx — (a. xxvi. 26 ; 1 c. xiii. 2). 20 
 
 Iv oXiyu) (a. xxvi. 29 ; E. iii. 3). 
 
 £7rt -rrXeiov (a. xxiv. 4 ; 2 T. iii. 9). 
 
 17 arifxipov -njuspa — Hebraism — (a. xx. 26; E. xi. 8). 
 
 Kara TrpocFwirov (a. xxv. 16; G. ii. 11). 
 
 KuO' Iv UaaTov (a. xxi. 19; E. v. 33). 25 
 
 viro TOV oupavov (a. iv. 12; C. i. 23). 
 
 a^' rig rififpag (a. xx. 18 ; C. i. 6). 
 
 av ovv (a. xxiii. 21 ; 2 T. ii. 1). 
 
Additions to Ajjpendix A. 131 
 
 (cat TTtuc (li- xii. 50; 1 TH. i. 9). 
 
 Bh ovv (a. i. 21 ; 1 T. iii. 2). 30 
 
 KOI fia\i(TTa (a. XXV. 26 ; It. v. 8). 
 
 iSov vvv — iBov vvv (a. XX. 22, 25; 2 c. ii. 2). 
 
 Sia Xojov (a. XV. 27 ; 2 TH. ii. 2). 
 
 ovv TTojQ (l. viii. 18; E. v. 15). 
 
 TTtog oh; (l. xii. 56; 2 c. iii. 8). 35 
 
 ovre — ovre — oi<re — ovrs — Paul's speecli — (a. xxiv. 12; 
 1 c. vi. 9). 
 I i^ vxpovg (l. i. 78). 
 ( tig vxpog (e. iv. 8). 
 J KUT e^o)(r]v (a. XXV. 23). 
 ( Ka0' UTTf/OO^^TJV (1 C. ii. 1). 
 
 f lireKeiva (a. vii. 43). 
 
 ( VTitptKHVa (2 C. X. 16). 
 
 f avvTOfnoQ (a. xxiv. 4). 
 
 I tnroTofXMg (2 c. xiii. 10). 40 
 
 ( uaKpoOvfji(i)Q — Paul's speech — (a. xxvi. 3). 
 
 ( Iv /LiaKpoOvfiici (2 C. vi. 6). 
 
 f Iv iXa^KTTtf) (l. xvi. 10). 
 
 ( etc tXa)(^iaTOQ 1 C. iv. 3). 
 
 j fXT} Kat avToi (l. xvi. 28). 
 
 (. ij.ri Kui (TV (g. vi. 1). 
 
 j iireiSriTrep (l. i. 1). 
 
 ( Iweiwep (e. iii. 30). 
 
 Trag — /xaXtora (a. xxvi. 2, 3 ; It. iv. 10). 45 
 
 j irapa tov vopov (a. xviii. 13). 
 (. vofxifxwg (1 T. i. 8). 
 
 4 , , '..\ ' I as a distinct clause. 
 
 ( OX) TravTwg' (r. iii. 9). 
 J tv baioTi)Ti (l. i. 75). 
 i baiwg (1 TH. ii. 10). 
 ( aii)paTiKM hBh (l. iii. 22). 
 ( awfxaTiKwg (c. ii. 9). 
 / aawTwg (l. xv. 13). 
 ( tv Karriyopia aaiortag (ti. i. 6). 
 ct» before a proper name (a. i. 1 ; It. vi. 20). 
 
132 
 
 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 I. {b). 
 
 aXrjB(i)£. 
 
 a(j)o(5<jt)Q. 
 
 kqt' iBiav. 
 
 KuO' i)fji£pav. 
 
 TToWaKig. 
 
 eroifxwQ. 
 
 TraptKTOQ. 
 
 irepicraoTspov. 
 
 e/uLTTpoadev. 
 ore. 
 
 l(T(i). 
 l(T(jJ0£V. 
 
 Travraxpv. 
 
 Xioptg. 
 
 t^avTrtg. 
 
 avpiov. 
 
 ovTwg. 
 
 T£ — Ka<. 
 
 iraXai. 
 
 iraXiv. 
 
 evdewg. 
 
 OVTTIO. 
 
 ovTwg. 
 
 £V£fC£V. 
 
 Xapiv. 
 
 axpt. 
 
 bv rpoirov. 
 
 KOV. 
 
 tyyvg. 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 30 
 
 av(i)uev. 
 TrArjv. 
 
 KUTSVaVTl. 
 
 oi) — oi»o£. 
 pn — /xrjSe. 
 
 ^ig. 
 rpig. 
 
 povov. 
 
 paKpav. 
 
 Trpiorov. 
 
 Xiav. 
 
 8t' 17V aiTiav. 
 
 (jjcrei. 
 
 diari. 
 
 ptxpi- 
 liravu). 
 aai. 
 
 TpiTOV. 
 
 Ikei. 
 
 Ik pidov. 
 hi. 
 ava. 
 oirojg. 
 ^ivpo. 
 
 <l)(TavT(i)g Kai. 
 ar^pspov. 
 Bio Kai. 
 oTTOjg pri- 
 aWa Kai. 
 ^ a(f ov. 
 
 35 
 
 40 
 
 45 
 
 50 
 
 55 
 
 60 
 
 65 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 
 
 133 
 
 onoiwg. 
 
 
 TOT£. 
 
 f d)(pi davuTOv, 
 
 
 raxEwC- 
 
 i. n^XP^ davarov. 
 
 
 VVU OVK£Tl. 9( 
 
 firiTTOTi. 
 
 70 
 
 tlra. 
 
 £t OVV. 
 
 
 Tl OVV. 
 
 VaVTOTS. 
 
 
 d)Q Kai. 
 
 OV flJ]. 
 
 
 £K 4^vxnQ- 
 
 iva f.ij\. 
 
 
 OVTE. 9« 
 
 ovK — dXAa. 
 
 75 
 
 /ITJTE. 
 
 OV yap. 
 
 
 OVTS OVT£. 
 
 OTVKTU). 
 
 
 pr]T£—nr]Te. 
 
 KOI l^'OV. 
 
 
 avu). 
 
 a/XTjv. 
 
 
 el. 10( 
 
 oval. 
 
 80 
 
 yap. 
 
 vai. 
 
 
 oi/Se. 
 
 Ka\<t)g. 
 
 
 fin^e. 
 
 airo TrpoawTTov (Hebraism) • 
 
 OVV. 
 
 f fitra TrappT](Tiag. 
 
 
 apa. 10 
 
 { ev TTappr\(Ji^. 
 
 
 Tl yap. 
 
 birov. 
 
 85 
 
 Ktti yap. 
 
 TTOV. 
 
 
 The enclitic rrsp. 
 
 irOT£' 
 
 
 TO before quot. fr. 0. T. 
 
 11. (a). 
 
 amaTuv. 
 
 
 
 KivSvveveiv. 5 
 
 TO elpr)pivov. 
 
 
 
 ptyaXvvHv (in a meta- 
 
 iirexeiv. 
 
 
 
 phorical sense). 
 
 ipyaaia. 
 
 
 
 )(api!^ea6ai. 
 
 
 II. (h). 
 
 
 avTairo^opa. 
 
 
 
 XvTpovadai (Middle 
 
 ypappa (sing.). 
 
 
 
 voice). 
 
 Serjaeig (pL). 
 
 10 
 
 
 priTpa. 
 
 tyypa(l>£iv. 
 
 
 
 TrtVTaKO<noi. 15 
 
 KpoTaiovv. 
 
 
 
 irpa^ig (sing.). 
 
134 
 
 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 11. (c). 
 
 ajaOovpj^iv. 
 
 
 
 TrpOilTTOV. 
 
 cnrii)dei(j9ai. 
 
 
 
 TrpoOiCTig. 
 
 ejKOTTTeiv (Active voice). 
 
 
 TrpoBvfjLia. 
 
 l^aipeiadai (Middle 
 
 voice). 20 
 
 
 irpoKaTayyeXXsiv. 
 
 jmeXeTav. 
 
 
 
 cr£|3a(r/xa. 
 
 ^vpaaOai. 
 
 
 
 (TTivayiiiog. 
 
 iropdeiv. 
 
 
 
 virrfKOog. 
 
 irpoHdov. 
 
 
 
 ^oo-K£iv. 
 
 
 II. id). 
 
 
 St. Luke. 
 
 The Acts. 
 
 St. Paul. 
 
 
 dvaf^adfiog. 
 
 ^aSuog. 
 
 airo^exeaOai. 
 
 aTTO^e^taOai. 
 
 cnrodeKTog. 
 
 
 avavTippr]Tii}c;. 
 
 apprjTOQ. 
 
 
 aarifioq. 
 
 ev(Tr]ixog. 
 
 arsKvog. 
 
 
 (piXoTaKvog. 
 
 jSeXovrj. 
 
 
 jS^Xog. 
 
 |3Ar)T£0(.'. 
 
 
 aiTo(5Xr]Tog. 
 
 SaTTavi). 
 
 
 doairavog. 
 
 
 tKdiriyetaOai. 
 
 dveK^u]yriTog 
 
 71XW (fern.). 
 
 
 ilX^iv. 
 
 drjptVHV. 
 
 
 dtjpa. 
 
 
 upouvXoQ. 
 
 hpocTvXeiv. 
 
 
 KUTH^tliXog. 
 
 EiSwAetov. 
 
 KpVTTTr}. 
 
 
 KpiKprt. 
 
 
 vavQ. 
 
 vavayeiv. 
 
 odvvaaOai. 
 
 odvvaaOai. 
 
 O^VVI]. 
 
 TTEviXpog. 
 
 
 Trevt]g. 
 
 TTEpiOlKiLV. 
 
 
 oIkuv. 
 
 irpaynaTeveadai. 
 
 
 TrpayfxaTEta. 
 irpealieveiv. 
 
 7rjO£(T|3aa. 
 
 
 
 py]rwp. 
 
 pr\T(i)g. 
 
 
 anpiovv. 
 
 (TTepaojpa. 
 
 
 avZ,\]Tr\(JiQ. 
 
 av^tiTTiTTig. 
 
 aviKhvaaduL. 
 
 
 
 (TVp<{»VTOg. 
 
 25 
 
 30 
 
Additions to Appendiv A. 
 
 135 
 
 
 CKTVfKpOJVOg 
 
 
 TttKTOg. 
 
 VdpUJTriKOQ. 
 
 
 
 VTTOVOUV. 
 
 (ppovifiwC' 
 
 
 
 lyKXrifxa. 
 
 J IcrayysXog (Luke). 
 
 i lao^vxoQ (Phil.). 
 
 j TEKILir]piOV 
 
 (Acts). 
 
 i KpiT1]piOV 
 
 (1 Cor.). 
 
 j aVTOTTTTig 
 
 (Luke). 
 
 ( avTupKriQ 
 
 (Phil.). 
 
 J (ipOXTlfMOi 
 
 (Luke). 
 
 I XprjfTjjUOC 
 
 (Titus) . 
 
 J Qio(})iXog (Luke). 1 
 
 ( (piXodeog 
 
 (2 Tim.). 5 1 
 
 (Tvp.(f)U)vog. 
 
 25 
 
 The verbal adjectives j ^"^'''■o?- 
 (. oparog (c 
 
 aruKTog. 
 
 VCpOTTOTilV. 
 
 inrovoia' 
 (l>povr]fxa. 
 
 a.viyK\r]Tog. 30 
 
 f 6eopa\eiv (Acts). 
 ( BripLopa^HV (1 Cor.), 
 f o-TTfpjLtoAoyoc (Acts). 
 (. iltv^oXoyog (1 Tim.). 
 { ^lavvKTzptvHv (Luke), 
 i vv)^Br\jxtpov (2 Cor.). 
 recTcrapaKOVTaeTrig (Acts). 
 ^KaTOvraerrig (Rom.). 
 X^paywyog (Acts). 
 \upoypa(^og (CoL). 10 
 -St. PauFs speech (a. xxvi.). 
 ii.). 
 
 I 
 
 II. {e). 
 
 '\aab)v (A. xvii. 5; R. xvi. 21.). 
 
 'AvTio^f^ia, 'Ikoviov, Auarpa (a. xiv. 21 ; 2 T. iii. 11). 
 
 Bapva[5ag — MapKog (a. xv. 37 : C. iv. 10). 
 
 'lo-parjAirai (pi.) (a. ii. 22 ; E. ix. 4). 
 
 AovKiog (a, xiii. 1 ; E. xvi. 21). 6 
 
 MaKfSovm Kai ^A^aia (a. xix. 21 ; 1 TH. i. 7). 
 
 2vpia Kai KiXiKia (a. xv. 41 ; G. i. 21). 
 
 6 riauXoc Kui 6 Bapvajiag (a. xiii. 46 ; 1 C. ix. 6). 
 
 ritriooc Kai 'Iwavvrjc (a. iii. ] ; G. ii. 9, 11). 
 
 riavAoc nai "^iXovavog Kai Tinodeog (A. xvii. 15; 1 Th. i. 1). 
 f EvTv^og of Troas (a. xx. 9). 
 ( 2vvTvxTi of Philippi (p. iv. 2). 
 
 {'2iKovv^og, who accompanied St. Paul from Corinth (a.xx. 4). 
 Tepriog "J who were with St. Paul at Corinth (e. xvi. 22, 
 KovapTog j 23). 
 J SwTrarpoc^who accompanied St. Paul from Corinth (a. xx. 4), 
 (. ^wanrarpog, who was with St. Paul at Corinth (e. xvi. 21). 
 
136 St. Paul the Author of the Acti^ 
 
 III. (a). 
 
 av^avsiv — irepKrcriveiv. 
 
 av^avHv — KpaTGiovv. 
 
 TrawoiOevai i^' eavroig. 
 
 a-ap^ Kai oarta. 
 
 KaraKiiaBai Iv. 5 
 
 KarevOvvEiv — i7/i£tC — 6ooc« 
 
 Kai TravTsg. 
 
 Treaav tiri irpoauiTrov (Hebraism). 
 
 KTaaOaL iv. 
 
 ovTw Kai v/ieig. 10 
 
 TToXXa irapaKoXeiv. 
 
 dr)pit,uv — 6 — airapHv (Matthew in the parallel passage 
 
 has oTTov). 
 In wv. 
 
 rovTO Se jivwtTiceTe on (Matthew has £K£(vo). 
 £i7r£ ng Ik. 1 5 
 
 irapayyeXXeiv — StSacTKEtv. 
 irXsove^ia — Trspiaaeveiv. 
 oi) cvva/iai XaXrjcrai. 
 oi uKovovTeg. 
 
 ^(apit^eaOai — TrapuKaXetv. 20 
 
 TrapaKoXovOeiv — TrXr]po(popsiv. 
 7repi(T(jev£iv — vdTepsiaOai. 
 SwrjjjO — Kvpiog — XptcFTOg. 
 yevofxevog ev. 
 
 ■jreirsicTiiai yap (not in par. pass, of Matt, or Mark). 25 
 Kparaiovv — ttveujuo. 
 TTvsvfia KOI Svva/nig. 
 
 OsiueXiov ndevai (not in par. pass, of Matt.). 
 TvavTa iroiaiv. 
 
 ^vvafiai — avTKTTrivai (not in par. pass, of Matt.). 30 
 
 ev ^povTfcrei. 
 TrapaKoXiiv — sXe-y^ttv. 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 137 
 
 irapayyeXKeiv — TrapaKoXnv (TrapayyeXXeiv does not occur 
 in the parallel passage in Matthew or Mark). 
 
 aOtTEiv (avOpcoTTov) — aBiTS.iv (0£ov) {aBiTHv is not used 
 in the same connexion in Matthew or Mark). 
 
 17 avviaiq uov. 35 
 
 aXag — aprveiv. 
 
 TTUvTore dvai. 
 
 TravTOTS TTpoaiv\iaBai. 
 
 \iy(i) Se. 
 
 ^XiTTiTB ovv TTioQ (not in par. pass, of Matt, or Mark). 40 
 
 irav ptifia. 
 
 coKiiTS on ; 
 
 6 epxopevog — aWog {aWog is used with reference to 
 Christ; Matthew has hepog in the parallel passage). 
 
 irXrfpovaBai — aotpia. 
 
 7repi(T(Teveiv — ^wtj. 45 
 
 irpocrevxiaBai — TrautffOat. 
 
 TravTt T(j^ aiTovvTi (Matthew omits iravTi). 
 
 iraVTL TIO OVTl. 
 OV OOKijJ. 
 
 SoKO) yap. 
 
 oticrBai Trepi crov. 
 
 irpoaiv^^EcrBai Tripi rjfXMV. 
 
 <TrrXayxva kXeovg. | (Hebraism). 50 
 
 cnrXay)(ya oiKTtpfxov. j 
 J iravTiog speirs. 
 (. TTavTwg Xeysi. 
 
 I TparreZa jmov (XpiaTov) (not in par. pass, of Matt, or Mark). 
 ( rpaireZa Kvpiov. 
 ( irotfiaaov. 
 \ eroifiat^s. 
 ( (TV /lovog. 
 \ fiovog iyo). 
 ( avairavov. 
 
 \ avajravaov. 55 
 
 f irapsx^ (Matt, in par. pass, has (rrpixpov). 
 \ irapi\taBt. 
 
138 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 ( (j)i\oveiKia — TiQ So(C£t alvai. 
 { (piXoveiKOQ — Tig SoK£i elvai. 
 ( ev aTLjfxyj ')(^povov. 
 \ Iv aTOfxti^, Iv pLirri ocftdaX/iiOV. 
 
 (iXeireTe /xrj. ) 
 
 jurj irXavaaOe. J 
 
 ( aTa9r]vai. ) 
 
 -j |- (m a moral sense) (not in par, pass, of Mt.). 60 
 
 ( Zyv a<ju)T(i}g. 
 
 \ ^yv £v<Tij3(ijg. 
 
 j" aypvirveiTi: ovv ev ttuvti Kaipi^ ^eofievot (not in Matt.). 
 
 ( Trpo<Tev)(0/ji£voi — tv iravri Kaipto aypvjTvovvTeg. 
 
 ( TToXXoig l)(^api(TaTo to (iXeTreiv (uot in par. pass, of Matt.). 
 
 ( v/miv exapKrBrf to Tracrx^iv. 
 
 ( aXrjdwg Xcyw. 
 
 ( aXr}9eiav Xtyw. 
 
 ] / ^l"'^ 90|Oov. t (Matthew and Mark have Kjjvo-oc). 65 
 I aTrocicovaL (popov. ) 
 
 KUTrtpTiapevog tlvai (not in par. pass, of Matt.). 
 
 rv rv , r (not in par. pass, of Matt. : 
 
 C ueTacioovai rw ujj evovrt. * ' , ^_ , ^ ^ 
 
 ■I 5, ,> ^ , -< verb peculiar to Luke 
 
 I fXSTabibovaL t(^ ^p^iav ^x^vti. \^ ^^^ ^ 
 
 ^ c A f (In the parallel passage Matthew 
 
 ( ev (TOl AetTTSl. \ ^ . \ . ^ t mr t i 
 
 i ^ , X -< omits this clause, and Mark has 
 
 ( jurjOfv avToig AetTrrj. | , . 
 
 V V(TTap£lV.) 
 
 ( KaL IpOVaiV VU.LV. ),,;ri -, -mt ^ ^ ■> ■, \ 
 
 < n ^ ' ' I (Matthew and Mark have £01/ rtc ftTT??-) 
 
 Kara to elprt/xevov (referring to the Scriptures). 70 
 
 ( i]pb)Ta §£ avTOv, 
 \ epwTwixev Se vfiag. 
 
 ( ptXXuV TiXiVTC^V. 
 
 \ fXiXXuv a7ro9vri(TK£iv. 
 
 Ttt TTpOg EtjOrjVfJV. 
 
 va Tr]g ft/j^'vrjc. 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 139 
 
 \ Trepi(T(Tevtiv — irAovTOg. 
 ( a ■{]TOiixa(jag. 
 
 w06/jj 2ifi(i)VL (not in Matt, or Mark). 
 
 (pv\a(T(juv awo. 
 J ToiavTa 7racr;^£tv. 
 ( Tavra 7ra(T\£iv. 
 C pveaOai eK ^(^eipog. 
 { pvsaOai IK aTOfiaTOq. 
 
 7rapaaTr)(Tai rtji Kvpiw. 80 
 
 f (TKOTTH. \ (not in par. pass, of Matthew ; (tkottbiv is 
 i aKoirtiTB. ) pecidiar to Luke and Paul). 
 
 aywvt^ou (not in Matthew or Mark). 
 
 txapiaaro (not in par. pass, of Matthew). 
 
 (TvvearOieiv (not in Matthew or Mark). 85 
 
 <Tvv£)(^ofxai (not in Matthew or Mark). 
 
 Trapayivscfdai. 
 
 6 i^eWojv. 
 
 avOpcjire. 
 
 yvvai. 90 
 
 <x)(p9r}. 
 
 IcTy. 95 
 
 yivov. 
 
 irapadovvai. 
 
 iKavov. 
 
 Xpovoi (pi.) (not in Matthew or Mark). 
 
 dvayKT) (in the sense of distress) (not in Matt, or Mark). 100 
 
 lnvrinovevtTe. 
 
 BidoTt. 
 
140 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 aTrayofievoQ. ^^^ 
 
 TTov; (not in the parallel passage of Matthew or 
 
 Mark). 
 <I) avorjToi (not in Matthew or Mark). 
 d(}>pov (not in Matthew or Mark). 
 
 St. Luke. St. Paul. 
 
 1. xii. 15;xiii. 19 2C.ix. 10, 12. 
 
 2. i. 80 E. iii. 16; iv. 15. 
 
 3. xviii. 9 2 C. i. 9. 
 
 4. xxiv. 39 E. V. 30. 
 
 5. vii. 37 1 C.viii. 10. 
 
 6. i. 79 1 Th. iii. 11. 
 
 7. iv. 22 1 C. X. 2. 
 
 8. xvii. 16 1 C.xiv. 25. 
 
 9. xxi. 19 1 Th. iv. 4. 
 
 10. xvii. 10 C. iii. 13. 
 
 11. iii. 18 IC.xvi. 12. 
 
 12. xix. 21 G. vi. 7. 
 
 13. xxiv. 44 2 Th. ii. 5. 
 
 14. xii. 39 2 T. iii. 1. 
 
 15. xii. 13 Ti. i. 12. 
 
 16. V. 14, 17 1 T. iv. 11. 
 
 17. xii. 15 2 C. ix. 5, 8. 
 
 18. i. 20 1 C. iii. 1. 
 
 19. viii. 12 1 T. iv. 16. 
 
 20. vii. 4, 21 2 0. ii. 7. 
 
 21. i. 1, 3 2 T. iii. 10; iv. 5 
 
 22. XV. 14, 17 P. iv. 12. 
 
 23. ii. 11 P. iii. 20. 
 
 24. xxii. 44 2 T. i. 17. 
 
 25. XX. 6 E. viii. 38. 
 
 26. i. 80 E. iii. 16. 
 
 27. i. 17 1 0. ii. 4. 
 
 28. vi. 48 1 C. iii. 11. 
 
Additions to A^^endix A. 141 
 
 St. Luke. Si. Paul. 
 
 29. xvii. 10 1 C. X. 31. 
 
 30. xxi. 15 E. vi. 13. 
 
 31. i. 17 E. i. 8. 
 
 32. iii. 18, 19 Ti. ii. 15. 
 
 33. viii. 29, 31 2 Th. iii. 12. 
 
 34. X. 16 1 Th. iv. 8. 
 
 35. ii. 47 E. iii. 4. 
 
 36. xiv. 34 C. iv. 6. 
 
 37. XV. 31 1 Th. iv. 17. 
 
 38. xviii. 1 2 Th. i. 11. 
 
 39. xii. 4 G. iv. 1 . 
 
 40. viii. 18 E. V. 15. 
 
 41. i. 37 2 C. xiii. 1. 
 
 42. xiii. 2 2 C. xii. 19. 
 
 43. vii. 19 2 0. xi. 4. 
 
 44. ii. 40 C. i. 9. 
 
 45. xii. 15 2 Civ. 12, 15. 
 
 46. xi. 1 C. i. 9. 
 
 47. vi. 30 E. xii. 3. 
 
 48. xvii. 9 10. iv. 9. 
 
 49. xxii. 32 1 Th. v. 25. 
 
 50. i. 78 C. iii. 12. 
 
 51. iv. 23 1 C. ix.lO. 
 
 52. xxii. 30 1 C. X. 21. 
 
 53. xvii. 8 Phm. 22. 
 
 54. xxiv. 18 1 0. ix. 6. 
 
 55. xii. 19 Phm. 20. 
 
 56. vi. 29 C. iv. 1. 
 
 57. xxii. 24 1 C. xi. 16. 
 
 58. iv. 5 1 C. XV. 52. 
 
 59. xxi. 8 G. V. 15; 1 C. xv. 33. 
 
 60. xxi. 36 E. vi. 13. 
 
 61. XV. 13 Ti. ii. 12. 
 
 62. xxi. 36 E. vi. 18. 
 
 63. vii. 21 P. i. 29. 
 
 64. xii. 44 1 T. ii. 7. 
 
 L 2 
 
142 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 St. Luke. St. Paul. 
 
 65. XX. 22 R. xiii. 7. 
 
 66. vi. 40. 1 C. i. 10. 
 
 67. iii. 11 E. iv. 28. 
 
 68. xviii. 22 Ti. iii. 13. 
 
 69. xvii. 23 1 C. xv. 35. 
 
 70. ii. 24 R. iv. 18. 
 
 71. vii. 36 . 2 Th. ii. 1. 
 
 72. vii. 2 R. viii. 13. 
 
 73. xiv. 32 R. xiv. 19. 
 
 74. xii. 15, 16 2 C. viii. 2. 
 
 75. xii. 20 2 C. ii. 9. 
 
 76. xxiv. 34 1 C. xv. 5. 
 
 77. xii. 15 2 Th. iii. 3. 
 
 78. xiii. 2 2 T. i. 12. 
 
 79. i. 74 2 T. iv. 17. 
 
 80. ii. 22 2 T. ii. 15. 
 
 81. xi. 35 P. iii. 17. 
 
 82. xvi. 25 1 T. i. 18. 
 
 83. xiii. 24 1 T. vi. 12. 
 
 84. vii. 42 E. iv. 32. 
 
 85. XV. 2 1 C.v. 11. 
 
 86. xii. 50 P. i. 23. 
 
 87. viii. 19 1 C. xvi. 3. 
 ■ 88. xxii. 23 R. V. 14. 
 
 89. xxii. 58 R. ii. 1. 
 
 90. xxii. 57 1 C. vii. 16. 
 
 91. XV. 13 1 T. v. 6. 
 
 92. xxii. 17. P. iv. 18. 
 
 93. xvi. 5 Phm. 18. 
 
 94. xxiv. 34 1 C. xv. 5. 
 
 95. i. 20 1 T. iv. 6. 
 
 96. xix. 19 1 T. iv. 12. 
 
 97. xxii. 6 1 C. V. 5. 
 
 98. xxii. 38 2 C. ii. 6. 
 
 99. viii. 27 1 Th.v. 1. 
 100. xxi, 23 2 C. vi. 4, 
 
Addiiioiis to Appendix A. 143 
 
 St. Luke. St. Paul. 
 
 101. xvii. 32 E. ii. 11. 
 
 102. vi. 38 B. V. 27. 
 
 103. X. 40 1 C. ix. 9. 
 
 104. xiii. 33 2 0. v. 10. 
 
 105. xxi. 12 1 C. xii. 2. 
 
 106. xvii. 37 1 C. i. 20. 
 
 107. xxiv. 25 G. iii. 1. 
 
 108. xii. 20 1 C. XV. 36. 
 
 III. {h). 
 Kayu) Hfxi (PauPs speech). 
 
 aveaiv ix^iv {avecriQ is peculiar to Luke and Paul). 
 ■fj BiaKOVia avTov (of Paul). 
 opav TO irpoatoTTov pov (PauPs speech). 
 Aajuj3av£iv rrjv InajyiXiav tov uyiov TTvevfxaTog. 
 (TTOi\Hv (cat. 
 
 awax^aOai utto rrjc TropvHag. 
 tKStxsCT^at avTov. 
 ov TToXvg. 
 
 01 V£U)T£pOl. 
 
 TToc iravTaxov (PauPs speech). 
 
 Traca tro^ta. 
 
 oi irXsiovg. 
 
 ££ TTtjg Koravrnv alg. 
 
 ^of^eiaOai fxr] TTOjg. 15 
 
 KUKOv Tpaaaeiv. 
 
 TrXrjjoouy rrjv ^laxoviav (of Paul). 
 
 Trew lanvKiog rt^> ©ey. 
 
 ^lo TrapaKaXoj vfxag (Paul's speech). 
 
 TovTo yap. 
 
 TOVTO ovv. 
 
 TOVTO Se. 
 
 6 ayairr^rog juou. 
 TTavreg oi a^e\(poi, 
 lirtyvovQ oTi. 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
14di St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 Hvr]fxovivuv oTi (Paul's speech). 
 
 [iovXo/jiaL ovv. 
 
 ri XP^ia. fiov (Paul's speech). 
 
 ^ov\iveiv Tu) Kvpiu) (Paul's speech). 
 
 WHpat^eiv Tov Qcov. SO 
 
 linueaiQ twv )(^sipwv. 
 
 TrapayyeWiiv v/Xiv. 
 
 (duTTTl^HV oIkOQ. 
 
 TO ovofia TOV Kvplov rijuajv 'I»]aou Xptaroi/. 
 
 fXTj (peideaOai (Paul's speech). 35 
 
 TO (TviLKpspov (Paul's spccch). 
 
 Ot ^DVaTOl. 
 
 £^ dvacTTaacojg viKptov (Paul's speech). 
 
 TrXripovv — X^P°" 
 
 vXrjpovv — TTvev/xa. 40 
 
 ijueiviv iv (of Paul). 
 
 av^aveiv Kai TrX7}0vvEiv (Hebraism). 
 
 fiapTvg alvai (Paul's speech). 
 
 airopoXri — yap — alvai. 
 
 avnTTapaXaf.i{^avi.iv kqi (of Paul). 45 
 
 TrpoireiLKpOeig viro (of Paul). 
 
 £7r' tXin^i (Paul's speech). 
 
 ^X^tiv avviidrjaiv (Paul's speech). 
 
 aAX' aTTOTa^acrOai avToig (of Paul). 
 
 irappr](naZ,i.(jBai — XaXnv (Paul's speech). 50 
 
 fXiTa ivxapi-(TTiag. 
 
 liriTpiTTiTai aoi Xtyftp (of Paul). 
 
 irapaKaXnv — StSaaKEtv. 
 
 KoOwg KUt avTOi. 
 
 iKt:Xr}uia — oiKodofxeiv. 55 
 
 7r/ooar£i»X£(T0nt — TrpocprjTeveiv, 
 
 ^uXdeiv MaKi^oviav (of Paul). 
 
 J7 BlQKOVLa aVTTj. 
 
 KecpaXrj — KeipaaOai (of Paul). 
 
 Tapaacrsiv Vfiag. 60 
 
 dyaOr] (rvvii^rjaig (Paul's speech). 
 
 d(popi^iiv ilg (of Paul). 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 145 
 
 Aoyoc — irappricTia — XaXeiv. 
 
 KoXwg iTroiijcrag. 
 
 ayiog Kai ^tKaiog. 65 
 
 \tipoTOveiv — £(cicX)jcrm (of Paul). 
 
 TrapayyiWeiv — SiapaprvpitjOai. 
 
 wapaKoXiiv — XgXhv. 
 
 ov Svvapai yvtovai. 
 
 ovBev dvai. 70 
 
 ovTog pev ovv. 
 
 Tig WKTTI]. 
 
 vpeig TravTtg. 
 
 elg TpwaSa (of Paul) . 
 
 iiripeveiv i)pepag. 75 
 
 iraaa aap^ (Hebraism). 
 
 evayyeXiZeadai tov 'Itjo-owv. 
 
 Tig el ; 
 
 tdivKBv avTov (Hebraism). 
 
 irapaKaXeiv — Xoyoig. 80 
 
 ai Trpa^eig. 
 
 Sidovai iauTOv (of Paul). 
 
 alTaiauai — TrapaKaXeiv. 
 
 oiroiog uvai (PauPs speech). 
 
 Iriaovg — Xpicrrog — irvsvpa ayiov — i^e^tE. 85 
 
 oi Xoyoi TOV Kvptov 'Irj(7ou (PauFs speech). 
 
 rj oi/cra i:KKXr}<na Iv. 
 
 TO TTpaypa. 
 
 1? dg XpicTTov TTKJTig (of Paul preaching). 
 
 17 TaireiviDCTig avTOv. 90 
 
 ovTog l(TTiv 6 XpidTog 'Irjaouc (of Paul preaching). 
 
 Kara Kparog. 
 
 Kb)Xvaiv — XaXrjTai (of preaching the Gospel). 
 
 KpivtaOai tTTi (of Paul). 
 
 ovdev TovTwv. 95 
 
 Kipdr^aai — ^rj/xta (Paul's speech). 
 
 IpTrpoaOtv TOV Qiov. 
 
 tv oig Kai. 
 
 KQi avTog. 
 
146 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 avTog Se. 100 
 
 oHodvfxaZov — 6 0£og — aTOfxa. 
 
 bv l-yu) KarayyiWd) (of Paul preaching). 
 
 6 0£OC dTTO^llKVVVai. 
 
 Kara iravTa. 
 
 Etc aVwXcmv. 105 
 
 vpoarXaixficivecrOai avrov. 
 
 Xpiarog — KarayyeXXuv (of Paul preaching) . 
 
 Karal^aiviiv hc. 
 C (Tvv Traai avroig. 
 \ (TVV Tracn roig. 
 
 C TTKTTOQ rt^ KvjOtft). 
 \ TTtOTOC El' KvpiOK 110 
 
 ^ Trapadidovat rag \pv)(^ag aiircov (of Paul). 
 [ jixeradidovai rag eavTwv ^l'V)(^ag. 
 ( oTi Kara ayvoiav lirpa^aTE. 
 \ on ayvowv liroirjaa. 
 ( avToi Se yLvwaKiTe. 
 \ avTOi yap oldars. 
 ( ovg 6 irarrip Wero Iv. 
 \ ovg fxev WiTo 6 Qeog Iv- 
 .r oi/K liravaafirfv vou^frwv (Paul's speech). 
 \ ov iravofxai zv^apicrTiiov. 115 
 
 I troXjua. 
 ( To\fia. 
 
 ( ov TrpocrwiroXriTTTrig o Oeog. 
 I Trpoa(i)TTOv Qeog ov Xafx[5avei. 
 C ciapapTvpscrOat — irapaKoXsiv, 
 ( fxapTvpeaOai — irapaKaXeiv. 
 r Tvx^eiv lirifxeXeiag (of Paul). 
 -| Tvx^iv liriKovpiag (Paul's speech, A. xsvi. 22). 
 V ri»;^£ti' awTTipiag. 
 ( Tovg fitv ovv. 
 \tovtov fiiv ovv. 120 
 
 r EITTE ^£ pOl TO TTVeVjUa, 
 
 { To dt TTvavfia Xeyei. 
 
 ( EITTE fXOl. 
 
 \ Xcyere fioi. 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 147 
 
 C ovTO)q elprjKBV. 
 { ovTwg \eyei. 
 
 (TTrfpi^tiv Tovg fxaOriTag (of Paul). 
 
 <TTj)jOt^£tv vfiag {= fxaOiirar). 
 ^ iroiHv xpovov (Hebraism). 
 ( TTOiEiv vv^(^dr]fxepov. 125 
 
 j" yVVT) TTLaTT]. 
 
 \ yvvrj cnriaTog. 
 
 ( XP^f^Oai Tf^ nai»X(;j ^iXavOpuiTTiog. 
 
 \ \pr\aQaL avrto vofUfxoig. 
 
 ( iva fiTnyvit). 
 
 \ iva 'yi'^t'* 
 
 ^ vovBeTwv iva iKaoror (of Paul). 
 
 ( vov6iT(i)v iravra avOpwirov. 
 
 ( avvr\yfitvoL 7\aav (of an assembly of the Churcli). 
 
 ( avva')(BiVT(t.w vfxiov. 130 
 
 ( TrapayyeXuiv TOiavrrjv — TrapariOccrdai (of Paul). 
 
 \ raurrjv rijv TrapayyeXiav TrapaTiBeadai. 
 
 f KpiVHV jU£ TTKJTrjV. 
 
 I iriarov fxt ^yuadai. 
 
 ^ ToiovTog — oTToiog — Kai — dvai (Paul's speech). 
 
 ( oiog — ilvai — roiovTog kui. 
 
 ( fiaivi^ (of Paul) . 
 
 ^ hi^ovaL — Xafi^avHv (Paul's speech). 
 
 ( Zoaig — \i]\pig. 135 
 
 f ETTtorat," avT(<j) 6 Kvpiog (of Paul). J Trapforrj juoi (Paul's ) 
 
 i 6 d£ Kvpiog fxoi TrapeaTTj. { speech),A.xxvii. 23. J 
 
 ( TTctpaKaXiiv — lTn(TTr\piZ,HV (of Paul). 
 
 ( irapaKoXsiv — arrjpit^Biv. 
 
 ( TrfpiTi/jLviadai — trravayKig — vofxog. 
 
 ( TTEpiTepvicrdai — avayKa^eiv — vop.og. 
 
 ( o Xoyog Tov tvayyaXiov, 
 
 \ 6 \oyog TTjc aXr}deiag tov evayy(\iov. 
 
 ( 17 cro^ta KOt TO irvivpa, 
 
 ( TTvtvpa aoijiiag. 140 
 
 C KOTO ayvoiav, 
 
 \ 6ia rr\v ayvoiav. 
 
148 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 ( iyd) yap olBa tovto otl, 
 \ otSa yap otl tovto. 
 
 I ^ ^^°^' ,^^^^^- jboth from LXX. 
 ( ev TTvpi (fkoyoq. ) 
 
 ( CTTt irXuova -^^povov fi^ivai (of Paul). 
 
 ( \povov Ttva kwifxtivai. 
 
 hpoavXog (in connexion with Paul). 
 
 EKKXr^aiag la-vXrjaa. 145 
 
 f ju?]Sev kokov TTpacrcreiv. 
 
 \ jUJjScV KaKOV TTOieiV. 
 
 ( (TwvSeo-juoc oBiKtaq. 
 
 \ (TwdecTfiog ttjq ilprivrjQ. 
 
 j' virrjKovov ttj Tnarei. 
 
 \ HQ VTraK0T]V TTtOTfWC,'. 
 
 7} (Tfj tinuKHa. 
 
 TO iTTUlKSg VpOJV. 
 ( ^li^OTO Se EKOCTTfi). 
 
 ( licafTTw Se ^tSorat. 150 
 
 /" EKaoTOc — KaOwg r)v7ropn~o tiq — a.Sa\(j)OL — 'louoata — inpTpai 
 
 ) (alms for the poor saints in Judaea by the hands of Paul) . 
 
 j ^KacTTog vp(i)v 6 ti av evodwTai — ayioi — 'lepovaaXrifX — 
 
 ^ Trmipai. 
 
 ( U iroXXojv Itivv (PauFs speech). 
 
 I OTTO woWwv trcuv. 
 
 (TV KoXXiov liriyiv(oaKHg (Paul's speech). 
 
 (SsXtiov av yivwaKug. 
 ( o£ oSeA^oi — yaipuv (farewell). 
 ( a^sXtpoi, ■\aiptTi. 
 CayvwGTog 0£oc (Paul's speech). 
 
 I ayvuxna Geou (cf. 77 yvu)Gig tov Qiov, to yvwaTOV Tov 
 \ Geov, 17 tTriyv(i)(ng tov ©eov. 155 
 
 C (TKEvog iKXoyrjc (of Paul). 
 I (TKivog iXeovg. 
 ( tiTHX^v avTOig. 
 \ ETTE^^e aeavTijo. 
 
 ^ 6 KaO'' vpag 'Koir]Tr]g (Paul's speech). 
 ( 17 Ka0' vpag TrioTig^ 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 140 
 
 I" TO S£<T/ia ravra (Paul's speech). 
 ( Ta deafxa jnov. 
 
 Be^efxai (of Paul). 160 
 
 Ira^av. 
 
 \aip(DV. 
 
 aXvmq (of Paul) . 
 
 ■hyrifiai (Paul's speech). 165 
 
 avayKaiov. 
 
 VOvdtTOJV. 
 
 KivSvvevofxsv. 
 
 avaara. 
 
 vofiitiwv. ] 70 
 
 (Pa(TKOVT£g. 
 
 iiroiKo^ofxeiv. 
 
 KpivaTe. 
 
 aveyvwpKxBt] {yvujpiadri). 
 
 yprjyopiiTt. 175 
 
 Kpatiov. 
 
 Beov. 
 
 jrapaTiBeadai. 
 
 Ktofiev. 180 
 
 6 Bvvapevog. 
 
 XaXwv, 
 
 Xoyiadtjvai. 
 
 ayvoovvTig. 
 
 TrapaXa[5ii)v. 185 
 
 a.veXr}fi(f)6i]. 
 
 paprvpovp^vog. 
 
 TToXiTeveaOai (in a moral sense) (of Paul). 
 
 avaXa(5ovTtQ. 
 
 tldwXoOvTa. 190 
 
 aaira^eaOai. 
 
 piXXwv. 
 
 pvpiaq {pvpiog) (Hebraism). 
 
 OipilXopeVt 
 
150 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 <po(5ovfxivog. 195 
 
 tTriGTafXivog. 
 
 I u, TifioOee. 200 
 
 The Acts. St. Paul. 
 
 1. xxvi. 29 P. ii. 28. 
 
 2. xxiv. 23 2 C. ii. 13. 
 
 3. xxi. 19 R. xi. 13. 
 
 4. XX. 25 C. ii. 1. 
 
 5. ii. 33 G. iii. 14. 
 
 6. xxi. 24 G.v. 25. 
 
 7. XV. 20 ] Th. iv. 3. 
 
 8. xvii. 16 ■ 1 C. xvi. 11. 
 
 9. i. 5 1 C. iv. 15. 
 
 10. V. 6 Ti. ii. G. 
 
 11. xxi. 28 1 Civ. 17. 
 
 12. vii. 22 C. i. 28. 
 
 13. xix. 32 1 C. XV. 6. 
 
 14. xxvii. 12 P. iii. 11. 
 
 15. xxvii. 29 2 C. xi. 3. 
 
 16. xvi. 28 E. vii. 19. 
 
 17. xii.25 Civ. 17. 
 
 18. xvi. 34 Ti. iii. 8. 
 
 19. xxvii. 34 2 C ii. 8. 
 
 20. xxvii. 34 1 Th. iv. 3. 
 
 21. xxi. 23 . E. XV. 28. 
 
 22. X. 16 2 C ix. 6. 
 
 23. XV. 25 E. xvi. 9. 
 
 24. XV. 3 1 Th. V. 26. 
 
 25. xxii. 29 E. i.32. 
 
 26. XX. 31 E. ii. 11. 
 
 27. xvii. 20 1 T. v. 14. 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 151 
 
 The Acts. St. Paul. 
 
 28. XX. 34 P. ii. 25. 
 
 29. XX. 19 E. xii. 11. 
 
 30. XV. 10 1 C. X. 9. 
 
 31. viii.18 1 T.iv. 14. 
 
 32. V. 28 1 Th. iv. 11. 
 
 33. xvi. 15 1 C. i. 16. 
 
 34. XV. 26 1 C. vi. 4. 
 
 35. XX. 29 R. xi. 21. 
 
 36. XX. 20 1 C. vii. 35. 
 
 37. XXV. 5 R. XV. 1. 
 
 38. xxvi. 23 R. i. 4. 
 
 39. xiii. 52 R. XV. 13. 
 
 40. xiii.52 B. V. 18. 
 
 41. xxviii. 30 2 T. iv. 20. 
 43. vi. 7 2 0. ix. 10. 
 
 43. xxii. 15 R. i. 9. 
 
 44. xxvii. 22 R. xi. 15. 
 
 45. xii. 25 G. ii. 1. 
 
 46. XV. 3 R. XV. 24. 
 
 47. xxvi. 6 R. iv. 18. 
 
 48. xxiv. 16 IT. i. 19. 
 
 49. xviii. 21 2 0. ii. 13. 
 
 50. xxvi. 26 E. vi. 20. 
 
 51. xxiv. 3 IT. iv. 3. 
 
 52. xxvi. 1 10. xiv. 34. 
 
 53. xi. 23, 26 1 T. vi. 2. 
 
 54. ii. 22 1 Th. ii. 14. 
 
 55. ix. 31 1 0. xiv. 4. 
 
 56. xxi. 5, 9 10. xi. 4. 
 
 57. XX. 2 1 0. xvi. 5. 
 
 58. i. 25 2 0. iv. 1. 
 
 59. xviii. 18 1 0. xi. 5, 6. 
 
 60. XV. 24 G. V. 10. 
 
 61. xxiii.l 1 T. i. 5. 
 
 62. xiii. 2 R. i. 1. 
 
 63. iv. 29 E. vi. 19, 20. 
 
152 St. Paul the Author of the Ads. 
 
 The Acts. St. Paul. 
 
 64. X. 33 p. iv. 14 (pi.). 
 
 65. iii. 14 R. vii. 12. 
 
 66. xiv. 23 2 C. viii. 19. 
 
 67. X. 42 1 Th. iv. 6, 11. 
 
 68. xiv. 22, 25 Ti. ii. 15. 
 
 69. xxi. 34 1 C. ii. 14. 
 
 70. XXV. 11 1 C. xiii. 2. 
 
 71. i. 18 P.ii.23. 
 
 72. xvi. 1 1 T. V. 16. 
 
 73. XX. 25 1 Th. i. 2 
 
 74. xvi. 8 2 C. ii. 12. 
 
 75. X. 48 G. i. 18. 
 
 76. ii. 17 G. ii. 16. 
 
 77. viii. 35 G. i. 16. 
 
 78. ix. 5 R. xiv. 4. 
 
 79. ii. 19;iv. 12 E. i. 22. 
 
 80. ii. 40 1 Th. iv. 18. 
 
 81. xix.l8 R. viii. 13. 
 
 82. xix. 31 1 T. ii. 6. 
 
 83. XXV. 2, 3 E.iii. 13; iv. 1. 
 
 84. xxvi. 29 1 0. iii. 13. 
 
 85. ii. 32, 33, 36 Ti. iii. 5, 6. 
 
 86. XX. 35 1 T. vi. 3. 
 
 87. xiii. 1 1 C. i. 2. 
 
 88. V. 4. 1 Th. iv. 6. 
 
 89. xxiv. 24 C. ii. 5. 
 
 90. viii. 33 P. iii. 21. 
 
 91. xvii.3 1 C. iii. 11. 
 
 92. xix. 20 C. i. 11. 
 
 93. xvi. 6 1 Th. ii. 16. 
 
 94. XXV. 9 1 C. vi. 1. 
 
 95. xviii. 17 1 C. ix. 15. 
 
 96. xxvii. 21 P. iii. 8. 
 
 97. X. 4 1 Th. i. 3. 
 
 98. xxvi. 12 E. ii. 3. 
 
 99. XV. 32 E. V. 23. 
 
Additions to Aiipendix A. 153 
 
 The Acts. St. Paul. 
 
 100. xiii. 14 1 C. iii. 15. 
 
 101. iv. 24,25 R. XV. 6. 
 
 102. xvii. 3 0. i. 28. 
 
 103. ii. 22 1 C. iv. 9. 
 
 104. xvii. 22 0. iii. 20. 
 
 105. viii.20 R. ix. 22. 
 
 106. xviii. 26 Phm. 17. 
 
 107. xvii. 3 P. i. 16. 
 
 108. vii. 15 E. iv 9. 
 
 109. XX. 36 IC. i.2. 
 
 110. xvi. 15 E. vi. 21. 
 
 111. XV. 26 1 Th. ii. 8. 
 
 112. iii. 17 IT. i. 13. 
 
 113. XX. 34 2 Th. iii. 7. 
 
 114. i. 7 1 C. xii. 28. 
 
 115. XX. 31 E. i.l6. 
 
 116. V. 13 1 0. vi. 1. 
 
 117. X. 34 G. ii. 6. 
 
 118. ii. 40 2 T. iv. 1, 2. 
 
 119. xxvii. 3 2 T. ii. 10. 
 
 120. xvii. 30 P. ii. 23. 
 
 121. xi. 12 1 T. iv. 1. 
 
 122. V. 8 G. iv. 21. 
 
 123. xiii. 34 R. X. 6. 
 
 124. xviii. 23 1 Th. iii. 2. 
 
 125. XV. 33 2 C. xi. 25. 
 
 126. xvi. 1 1 C.vii. 12. 
 
 127. xxvii. 3 1 T. i. 8. 
 
 128. xxii. 24 2 0. ii. 9. 
 
 129. XX. 31 C. i. 28. 
 
 130. iv. 31 1 C. V. 4. 
 
 131. xvi. 24, 34 1 T. i. 18. 
 
 132. xvi. 15 1 T. i. 12. 
 
 133. xxvi. 29 2 C. x. 11. 
 
 134. xxvi. 24 1 C. xiv. 23. 
 
 135. XX. 35 P. iv. 15. 
 
154 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 The Acts. St. Paul. 
 
 136. xxiii. 11 2 T. iv. 17. 
 
 137. xiv. 22 2 Th. ii. 17. 
 
 138. XV. 24, 28 G.vi. 12,13. 
 
 139. XV. 7 C. i. 5. 
 
 140. vi. 10 E. i. 17. 
 
 141. iii. 17 E. iv. 18. 
 
 142. XX. 29 P. i. 19. 
 
 143. vii. 30 2 Th. i. 8. 
 
 144. xviii. 20 1 C. xvi. 7. 
 
 145. xix. 37 2 C. xi. 8. 
 
 146. xvi. 28 2 C. xiii. 7. 
 
 147. viii. 23 E. iv. 3. 
 
 148. vi. 7 R. i. 5. 
 
 149. xxiv. 4 P. iv. 5. 
 
 150. iv. 35 1 C. xii. 7. 
 
 151. xi. 29 1 C. xvi. 1-3. 
 
 152. xxiv. 10 R. XV. 23. 
 
 153. XXV. 10 2 T. i. 18. 
 
 154. XV. 23 2 C. xiii. 11. 
 
 155. xvii. 23 1 C. xv. 34; cf. 2 C. x. 
 
 5; R. i. 19; C. i. 10. 
 
 156. ix. 15 R. ix. 23. 
 
 157. iii. 5 IT. iv. 16. 
 
 158. xvii. 28 B. i. 15. 
 
 159. xxvi. 29 C. iv. 18. 
 
 160. xxiv. 27 C. iv. 3. 
 
 161. XV. 2 .1 C. xvi. 15. 
 
 162. viii. 39 C. ii. 5. 
 
 163. xxviii. 20 E. vi. 20. 
 
 164. xxiv. 27 C. ii. 18. 
 
 165. xxvi. 2 P. iii. 7. 
 
 166. xiii. 46 P.ii. 25. 
 
 167. XX. 31 C. i. 28. 
 
 168. xix. 40 1 C. XV. 30. 
 
 169. xii. 7 E. v. 14. 
 
 170. xvi. 27 IT. vi. 5. 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 155 
 
 The Acts. St Paul. 
 
 171. xxiv. 9 R. i. 22. 
 
 172. XX. 32 1 C. iii. 10. 
 
 173. iv. 19 1 C. X. 15. 
 
 174. vii. 13 E. iii. 10. 
 
 175. XX. 31 1 C. xvi. 13. 
 
 176. xxi. 36 G. iv. 6. 
 
 177. xxiv. 26 1 T. iii. 14. 
 
 178. xix. 36 1 T. V. 13. 
 
 179. xvi. 34 1 T. i. 18. 
 
 180. xvii. 28 2 C. vi. 9. 
 
 181. XX. 32 E. iii. 20. 
 
 182. vii. 38 1 C. xii. 3. 
 
 183. xix. 27 R. iv. 11. 
 
 184. xvii. 23 1 T. i. 13. 
 
 185. XV. 39 1 Th. ii. 13. 
 
 186. i. 2 IT. iii. 16. 
 
 187. X. 22 1 T. V. 10. 
 
 188. xxiii. 1 P. i. 27. 
 
 189. xxiii. 31 E. vi. 16. 
 
 190. XV. 29 1 C. viii. 1. 
 
 191. xviii. 22 R. xvi. 16. 
 
 192. xxiv. 25 R. V. 14. 
 
 193. xxi. 20 1 C. iv. 15. 
 
 194. xvii. 29 R. xv. 1. 
 
 195. xxvii. 29 G. ii. 12. 
 
 196. XXV. 14 G. ii. 2. 
 
 197. xxiv. 10 1 T. vi. 4. 
 
 198. ii. 29 2 C. xii. 4. 
 
 199. ix.l7 Phm. 20. 
 
 200. i. 1 IT. vi. 20. 
 
156 
 
 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The Acts. 
 1. Tlie writer of tlie Acts 
 uses the word iropBuv to de- 
 scribe St. Paul's persecution 
 of the Christians. — A. ix. 21. 
 
 The Epistles. 
 St. Paul uses the word 
 tropOtiv to describe his perse- 
 cution of the Christians. — 
 Gal. i. 13. 
 
 {TTopOeiv is peculiar to Luke and Paul. 
 
 2. The writer uses the ex- 
 pression dcpopitisiv ilg of St. 
 
 St. Paul uses the expression 
 d(j)opi^eiv eig of his ordination 
 to the Apostleship of the Gen- 
 tiles. — Rom. i. 1,5. 
 
 Paul's ordination to the 
 Apostleship of the Gentiles. 
 — Acts xiii. 2. 
 
 (a^opt^e/v dg is peculiar to Luke and Paul. 
 
 3. The writer uses the ex- 
 pression TrpoTTefxcpOtig vto with 
 regard to St. Paul being 
 brought on his way by Chris- 
 tian converts. — Acts xv. 3. 
 
 St. Paul uses the expression 
 Trpoirefxcpdeig viro with regard 
 to his being brought on his 
 way by Christian converts. — 
 Rom. XV. 24. 
 
 {irpoirsfKpOrivai viro is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 4. The writer uses the ex- 
 pression avfiTrapaXafi^avuv 
 Kai with regard to St. Paul 
 taking with him a companion. 
 -—Acts xii. 25. 
 
 St. Paul uses the expression 
 avfXTTapaXafx^avuv Kai with 
 regard to his taking with him 
 a companion. — Gal. ii. 1. 
 
 {avfiTrapaXapfiavsiv is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 5. The writer applies the St. Paul applies the word 
 word pajSSt^Eiv to St. Paul. — /oaj3St^£/v to himself. — 2 Cor. 
 Acts xvi. 22. xi. 25. 
 
 (|oa/3St^£iv is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 157 
 
 The Acts. The Epistles. 
 
 6. The writer applies the St. Paul makes use of the 
 word vojuo^idacTKaXog to Ga- word vo/xoSiSacncaXoc. — 1 Tim. 
 maliel, at whose feet St. Paul i. 7. 
 
 was brought up. — Acts v. 34. 
 
 {vojuo^idaaKoXog is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 7. The writer applies the St. Paul makes use of the 
 word evnyyiXiaTTjg to Philip, word evayyeXitTTr^g. — 2 Tim. 
 in connexion with St. Paul's iv. 5. 
 
 visit to his house. — Acts xxi. 
 8. 
 
 {avayy£Xi(TTt]g is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 8. The writer says that St. St. Paul makes use of the 
 Paul uses the word TTjOEcrjSurf- word irpia^vTipiov. — 1 Tim. 
 piov in his speech. — Acts xxii. iv. 14. 
 
 5. 
 
 [irpta^vTipiov is peculiar to Luke and Paul. St. Paul uses it 
 in connexion with Timothy^s conversion to Christianity, and 
 the wi'iter of the Acts speaks of irpia^vT^poi in connexion 
 with St. PauPs visit to Lystra, the home of Timothy). — 
 Acts xiv. 21-23. 
 
 9. The writer uses the St. Paul uses the phrase 
 phrase iK^zytaBai avrov with iK^execrdai avrov with regard 
 regard to St. Paul expecting to his expecting Timothy to 
 Timothy to join him. — Acts join him. — 1 Cor. xvi. 11. 
 xvii. 16. 
 
 10. The writer says that St. Paul applies to himself 
 St. Paul applies to himself the phrase ^rjXwrrje virapxu)v. 
 the phrase ^jjXwrjje vTra/sx^v. — Gal. i. 14. 
 
 — Acts xxii. 3. 
 
 (^r/XwTjjc is peculiar to Luke and Paul ; virapxwv is peculiar 
 to Luke among the Evangelists, and is frequently used by 
 Paul.) 
 
 M 2 
 
168 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 The Acts. The Epistles. 
 
 11. Tlie writer applies the St. Paul applies the word 
 uncommon compound word ctuvekSijjUoc to " the brother 
 (TvvEK^rifxog to " Paul's com- chosen of the Churches to 
 panion in travel." — Acts xix. travel with him.'' — 2Cor. viii. 
 29. 19. 
 
 ((TuvfKSrjjuoc is peculiar to Luke and Paul,) 
 
 12. The writer says that St. St. Paul uses the phrase 
 Paul uses the phrase otto otto Trpwrjjc vfispag. — Phil. i. 
 TTp(DTr\Q vixEpag in his address. 5. 
 
 — Acts xs. 18. 
 
 (otto wp(x)TY\q i]p£pag is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 13. The writer says that St. Paul uses with regard 
 St. Paul uses with regard to himself the metaphor rsXeiv 
 to himself the metaphor, re- rov dpofxov. — 2 Tim. iv. 7. 
 Xeiovv Tov ^popov, in his ad- 
 dress. — Acts XX. 24. 
 
 (This metaphor is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 14. The writer applies to St. Paul applies to himself 
 St. Paul the phrase Ixeiv thephr&selxeivdvemv. — 2 Cor. 
 aveaiv. — Acts xxiv. 23. ii. 13. 
 
 {iX^iv avEaiv and dvtcrtg are peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 15. The writer uses with St. Paul uses with regard 
 regard to St. Paul the expres- to himself the expression ev 
 sion iv AapaaKif) — X"^?'^ — ^'" Aa/xacr/cf^ — X""^*}^ — ^'" '^^^ 
 TOV Tiixovg. — Acts ix. 22, 25. Teix_ovg. — 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33. 
 
 16. The writer uses with St. Paul uses with regard 
 regard to St. Paul the ex- to himself the expression 
 pression iropevecrdat elg Ma/ce- nopeveaOai elg MuKidoviav. — 
 ^oviav. — Acts XX. 1. 1 Tim. i. 3. 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 159 
 
 The Acts. The Epistles. 
 
 17. The writer uses witli St. Paul uses with regard 
 
 regard to St. Paul the expres- to himself the expression 
 
 sion ^i{KQhv ti]v MaKi^oviav. ^leXdsiv MaKsSoviav. — 1 Cor. 
 
 — Acts. xix. 21. xvi. 5. 
 
 18. The writer says that St. Paul speaks of his 
 St. Paul speaks of his otto- diroXoyia, and uses the verb 
 Xoyia, and uses the verb aVo- diroXoyuaOai. — 1 Cor. ix. 3 ; 
 XoyeiaOai. — Actsxxii.l; xxiv. 2 Cor. xii. 19. 
 
 10. 
 
 {aTroXo-ynKrOai is peculiar to Luke and Paul, and so is 77 
 
 airoXoyia fxov). — Acts xxii, 1 ; 2 Tim. iv. 16. 
 
 19. The writer says that St. St. Paul speaks of his 
 Paul speaks of his ^laKovia. — diuKovia. — Rom. xi. 13. 
 
 Acts XX. 24. 
 
 20. The writer says that St. Paul speaks of his 
 St. Paul speaks of his dXvcng. dXvaig. — 2 Tim. i. 16. 
 
 — Acts xxviii. 20. 
 
 21. The writer says that St. Paul speaks of ra Sto-jim 
 
 St. Paul speaks of ra dicrfxa jxov. — Col. iv. 18. 
 TuvTu. — Acts xxvi. 29. 
 
 22. The writer says St. St. Paul says he looked for- 
 Paul looked forward to rj ITev- ward to rj ITe vrrjKocrTj). — 1 Cor. 
 TjjkooTij. — Acts XX. 16. xvi. 8. 
 
 (IlEvrrjicocTTjj is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 23. The writer uses the St. Paul uses the word 
 word ^evia with regard to St. ^Evia with regard to himself. — 
 Paul.— Acts xxviii. 23. Philemon, 22. 
 
 {^ivia is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
160 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 The Acts. The Epistles. 
 
 24. The writer uses the St. Paul uses the word 
 word irapa^HfiaZyHv in con- TrapaxiifxaZ,uv witli regard to 
 nexion with St. Paul. — Acts himself. — Titus iii. 12. 
 xxvii. 12. 
 
 [■jrapa^unaZ^Hv is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 25. The writer uses the St. Paul uses the phrase 
 phrase with regard to St. with regard to his imprison- 
 Paul's imprisonment, ra Kara ment, ra kut IfXi. — Eph. vi. 
 Tov Havkov. — ^Acts XXV. 14. 21. 
 
 {ra Kara .... is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 26. The writer calls St. St. Paul calls himself 
 Paul aTToaroXog. — Acts xiv. 4. aTroaroXoc. — Gal. i. 1. 
 
 (Many denied that St. Paul was an Apostle.) — Of. 1 Cor. ix. 
 1-3 ; Gal. y. 11 ; vi. 17 ; 2 Cor. xii. 11, 12. 
 
 The reason why the Book of the Acts opens with the de- 
 tailed account of the election of an Apostle who, thougli not 
 one of the original Apostles, was yet numbered with the 
 Eleven Apostles (Acts i. 26) appointed by Christ Himself, 
 and who then, instantly and for ever, disappears from the 
 horizon of the historian — the reason of this seems to be that 
 the writer may demonstrate that St. Paul might be a true 
 Apostle of Christ, might be entitled to be numbered with 
 the other Apostles and to exercise the same apostolic 
 authority (cf. Gal. ii. 7-9), although he was not one of 
 the original Twelve who had known Christ after the flesh 
 (2 Cor. V. 16). St. Paul " was not a whit behind " Matthias. 
 
 The word ava^eiKwvai (only occurring in these two places) 
 connects Acts i. 24, the appointment of Matthias, with 
 Luke X, 1, the wider mission of the Seventy. 
 
 The word UXeyaaOai (which is not to be found in the parallel 
 passage of Matthew or Mark) connects Acts i. 24, the appoint- 
 ment of Matthias, with Luke vi. 13, the ordination of the 
 Twelve, and with Acts i. 2, the great mission of the 
 Twelve. 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 
 
 161 
 
 The word airoaroXr} (wliicli is peculiar to tlie Acts and 
 Paul) connects Matthias with St. Peter and the other Apostles 
 (Acts i. 2b), and also connects St. Paul with St. Peter and 
 the other Apostles (Gal. ii. 8, 9). 
 
 The phrase 17 ^laKovia auVrj (peculiar to the Acts and Paul) 
 directly connects Matthias — this new Apostle of the circum- 
 cision (Acts i. 25) — with St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 1), the Apostle 
 of the Gentiles (Eom. xi. 13). 
 
 The Acts. 
 
 27. The writer says St. Paul 
 uses the word vovdereiv in 
 speaking of his own ministry 
 as exercised in individual 
 cases. — Acts xx. 31. 
 
 [vovOeretv is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 The Epistles. 
 
 St. Paul uses the word 
 vovOezHv in speaking of his 
 own ministry as exercised in 
 individual cases. — Col. i. 28. 
 
 28. The writer says St. 
 Paul, in his speech, refers to 
 his TToXAa daKpva. — Acts xx. 
 19. 
 
 St. Paul refers to his TroXAa 
 BoKpva. — 2 Cor. ii. 4. 
 
 29. The writer says that St. 
 Paul uses the word oTrracFia 
 witli reference to his own ex- 
 periences. — Acts xxvi. 19. 
 
 St. Paul uses the word 
 oTTTaaia with reference to his 
 own experiences. — 2 Cor. 
 xii. 1. 
 
 The word oTrrao-m is peculiar to Luke and Paul. In 
 Acts xviii. 9 the word opofia is used of a vision of St. Paul (cf . 
 ch. ix. 12; xvi. 10). 
 
 30. The writer uses the 
 word rapaacniv about the 
 Gentile converts (whose cham- 
 pion St. Paul was) who were 
 troubled by the Judaisers. — 
 Acts XV. 24. 
 
 St. Paul uses the word 
 Tapaaauv about the Gentile 
 converts who were troubled 
 by the Judaisers. — Gal. v. 10. 
 
162 
 
 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 The Acts. 
 31. The writer says 
 
 that 
 St. Paul uses voXiTeveirOai in 
 a metaphorical and moral 
 sense. — Acts xxiii. 1. 
 
 (■rroXiTsveaOai is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 The Epistles. 
 
 St. Paul uses TroXiTtv^adai 
 in a metaphorical and moral 
 sense.— Phil. i. 27. 
 
 32. The writer says that St. St. Paul uses the word 
 
 Paul uses the word dirpoa- aTrpoo-Kon-oc with regard to the 
 
 Koirog with regard to his own rule of life which he lays down 
 
 rule of life. — Acts xxiv. 16. for his converts. — 1 Cor.x. 32. 
 
 (aTTjOOCTKOTToc is pcculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 33. The writer says that 
 St. Paul calls himself <I>a/>t- 
 aaiog. — Acts xxiii. 6. 
 
 St. Paul calls himself 
 'PapKjaiog. — Phil. iii. 5. 
 
 34. The writer says that St. 
 Paul calls himself 6 ^eafiiog 
 Uav\og. — Acts xxiii. 18. 
 
 St. Paul calls himself IlawXoc 
 6 geo-jutoc- — Eph. iii. 1. 
 
 35. The writer says St. Paul St. Paul uses with regard 
 
 uses with regard to himself to himself the phrase o Qeog (J 
 
 the phrase 6 Qsog w XaTpevw. Xarp^vw. — Rom. i. 9. 
 
 — Acts xxvii. 23. 
 
 36. The writer says that St. 
 Paul, addressing the Ephesian 
 elders, refers to the BXixpstg 
 awaiting him on account of 
 the Gospel. — Acts xx. 23. 
 
 St. Paul at a later date, 
 writing to the Ephesians, re- 
 fers to the 6Xix(/£ig he had 
 endured on account of the 
 Gospel. — Eph. iii. 13. 
 
 37. The writer says that St. Paul uses about him- 
 
 St. Paul uses about himself the self the phrase Bi kwv. — Gal. 
 
 phrase Si' Itujv. — Acts xxiv. ii. 1. 
 17. 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 
 
 163 
 
 The Acts. 
 
 38. The writer says that St. 
 Paul speaks about rj TntJTiQ dg 
 Xpiarov. — Acts xxiv. 24. 
 
 39. The writer says that St. 
 Paul, in his address to the 
 Ephesiaa elders, desires for 
 them KXi^povofiia tv roig 
 ■qyiacrijievoig iracnv. — Acts xx. 
 
 The 
 
 St. Paul speaks about 17 
 TTKTTig etc Xpiarov. — Col. ii. 5. 
 
 St. Paul desires the Ephe- 
 sians to know " what is the 
 riches of the g'lory of r) KXr^po- 
 vofxia avTOv iv roig ajioig." — 
 Eph. i. 18. 
 
 40. The writer says that St. St. Paul, at Rome, desires 
 
 Paul, at Eome, preached the to preach the Gospel with 
 Gospel with iracra irappricna. — Traaa Trapprjcria. — Eph. vi. 19, 
 Acts xxviii. 31. 20 ; Phil. i. 20. 
 
 {iraaa Tcappr]<jia is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 41. The writer says about 
 St. Paul that, in the time of 
 trial, o KvjOtoc liriaTag avrou 
 — Acts xxiii. 11 ; xxvii. 23. 
 
 42. The writer says that the 
 mob applied to St. Paul the 
 term 6 roiovrog. — Acts xxii. 
 22. 
 
 St. Paul says about himself 
 that, in the time of trial, 6 
 Kvpiog TTOjOEOTi^ fxoi. — 2 Tim.iv. 
 17. 
 
 St. Paul applies to himself 
 the term 6 Toiovrog. — 2 Cor. 
 xii. 2. 
 
 43. The writer says that St. St. Paul uses the phrase 
 
 Paul uses in his speech the 17 c/cKXrjo-ta tov Qeov. — Gal. i. 
 phrase 17 eicfcXijam row Qeov. — 13. 
 Acts XX. 28. 
 
 (17 tKK\r)aia tov Qeov is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 44. The writer says that St. 
 Paul uses about himself the 
 phrase juera Tracrrjc Tciirtivo- 
 (j)po(Tvvrig. — Acts XX. 19. 
 
 {waaa TaTreivofppotjvvt] is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 St. Paul uses about his con- 
 verts the phrase fAera iraar^g 
 Ta7rHvo(j)po(Tvvr}g. — Eph. iv. 2. 
 
164 
 
 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 The Acts. 
 45. The writer uses the word 
 dvayi'waig about the reading 
 of the 0. T. Scriptures in the 
 synagogue. — Acts xiii. 15. 
 
 The Epistles. 
 St. Paul uses the word 
 dvayvMoriQ about the reading 
 of the 0. T. Scriptures in the 
 synagogue. — 2 Cor. iii. 14. 
 
 {avajvojaii; is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 46. The writer applies to St. Paul applies to himself 
 
 St. Paul the word Iv^vvafiow the word ev^vvafiovv with re- 
 in reference to his preaching ference to his preaching the 
 the Gospel.— Acts ix. 22. Gospel.— 1 Tim. i. 12. 
 
 {IvSvvaiiovv in Luke, Paul_, Heb., LXX, only.) 
 
 47. The writer says that 
 St. Paul appHes the term 
 Trappyjcnat^iaOai to his preach- 
 ing. — Acts xxvi. 26. 
 
 {irappr]aiaZ>t(r9aL is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 St. Paul applies the term 
 irappricnateadai to his preach- 
 ing. — Eph. vi. 20. 
 
 48. The writer says St. St Paul uses the word 
 Paul uses the word dvaKpiveiv dvaKpivuv in reference to him- 
 in reference to himself. — self. — 1 Cor. ix. 3. 
 
 Acts xxviii. 18. 
 
 {avaKpivHv is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 49. The writer says that St. Paul uses in reference 
 St. Paul uses in reference to to himself the expression 
 himself the expression bpav bpc^v to irpoawTrov pov. — Col. 
 TO irpocrwirov pov. — Acts xx. ii. 1. 
 
 25. 
 
 50. The writer uses the 
 metaphor 6 Qeog — dvoiynv — 
 Ovpa in connexion with St. 
 Paulas preaching to the Gen- 
 tiles. — Acts xiv. 27. 
 
 St. Paul uses the metaphor 
 6 Qwg — dvoijHv — Ovpa in 
 connexion with St. Paul's 
 preaching to the Gentiles. — 
 Col. iv. 3. 
 
 (This metaphor is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 165 
 
 The Acts. The Epistles. 
 
 51. The writer says that St. St. Paul uses the phrase 
 Paul uses the phrase Sio irapa- Sto irapaKoXd) vfiag. — 2 Cor. 
 icaXtu vfiag. — Acts xxvii. 34. ii. 8. 
 
 (This phrase is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 52. The writer says that St. St. Paul makes use of a 
 Paul in his address makes use quotation from a Greek poet. 
 of a quotation from a Greek — 1 Cor. xv. 33 ; Titus i. 12. 
 poet. — Acts xvii. 28. 
 
 V. 
 
 1. iTTidvfiHv with the genitive of the thing (A. xx. 33 ; 
 
 1 T. iii. l).—Alford. 
 
 2. TTov without the copula (L. xvii. 17 ; 1 C. i. 20, as in 
 LXX, Gen. xviii. 9). 
 
 3. The Hebraistic use of koi tSou (A. xvi. 1 ; 2 C. vi. 9 ; 
 cf. Gen. i. 31). 
 
 4. The accusative, in a moral sense, after the passive verb 
 (A. xviii. 25; G. vi. 6, — the same verb KaTri^uaOai ; also 
 L. ii. 9; xii. 50; G. ii. 7). 
 
 5. Two negatives coalescing to make an affirmative (A. iv. 
 20; 1 C. xii. lb).— Winer, -p- 625. 
 
 6. eXirig with the genitive of the person (A. xxviii. 20 ; 
 
 2 C. i. 7).—Alford. 
 
 7. The dative of interest rw Gef^) after the verb Zyv 
 (L. XX. 38 ; P. xiv. 8}.— Winer, p. 265. 
 
 8. /uev placed as the fourth word in a sentence (A. iii. 21 ; 
 2C. X. 1). — Winer, p. 699. 
 
166 St. Paul the Author of the Ads. 
 
 9. fxev placed after a word to wliic]i in sense it does not 
 belong (A. xxii. 3 ; Ti. i. lb).— Winer, p. 700. 
 
 10. The very frequent use of Trac as an epithet. 
 
 11. The frequent use of the preposition Kara, e.g., Kara 
 aapKa ; Kara vo/nov. 
 
 12. The frequent use of words compounded with a privative. 
 
 13. The use of jiveaOai with an adjective, e.g., vtttjkooq 
 jivaaOai (A. vii. 39 ; Ph. ii. 8). 
 
 14. The use of Etc to express a purpose^ e.g., hc SiaKoviav. 
 
 15. The use of the masculine adjective, or participle, with 
 the article as equivalent to a substantive^ e.g., 6 dyawr]Toq, 
 6 TTKTTevcrac. 
 
 16. The use of the neuter adjective with the article as 
 equivalent to a substantive, e.g., to v\pri\ov, to a^warov. 
 
 17. The use of compound words, e.g., words compounded 
 with the prepositions Trpo and aw. • 
 
 18. The use of the infinitive in the place of the imperative 
 (L. ix. 3; A. XV. 23; E. xii. 15; Ph. iii. 16). 
 
 19. The combination of Trac with kindred words (A. xxi. 
 28 ; xxiv. 3 ; xvii. 30, Paul's speech ; 1 C. iv. 17 ; ix. 22). 
 
 20. The use of Alliteration, especially with regard to the 
 letter tt (L. xxiv. 28; A. xvi. 16; xvii. 30, 31; xxi. 18; 
 1 C. ix. 22 ; 2 C. ix. 8, 11 ; B. i. 23 ; iii. 12 ; IT. ii. 1). 
 
 21. The repetition of the same word, or the use of a 
 kindred word (L. vi. 32; E. i. 23). 
 
 22. The use of rrjc d^iKiag as a qualifying genitive — 
 Hebraism— (L. xvi. 8, 9; A. i. 18 ; A. viii. 23; 2 Th. ii. 10). 
 
Additions to Appendix A. 167 
 
 23. The use of the word (tuvSeo-juoc with a genitive, as in 
 Isaiah Iviii. 6 (A. viii. 2o ; Col. iii. 14). 
 
 24. The use of such Hebraistic forms from the LXX as 
 Ipyov tpya^eaOcu (Hab. i. 5 ; A. xiii. 41; 10. xvi. 10; 
 
 cf. L. ii. 9). 
 Xapq xaipHv (Is. Ixvi. 10; 1 Th. iii. 9; cf. L. vi. 38; 
 
 A. xxviii. 10). 
 Iv T(j) KpiveaOai (Ps. 1. 4 ; Rom. iii. 4 ; cf. G. iv. 18 ; L. ix. 
 
 33; A. xi. 15). 
 aareiog tio Qho (A. vii. 20); SvvuTog tu) 0£(j> (2 C. x. 4; 
 
 cf. Jonah, iii. 3). 
 
 25. The frequent use of ttXovtoq and -rrXovaiog. 
 
 ttXovtoq used fourteen times by Paul. 
 TrXovcnoQ used nine times by Luke. 
 
 26. The use of tlie word aKevog — Hebraism — with a quali- 
 fying genitive — Hebraism — (A. ix. 15; E. ix. 22). 
 
 27. The noun used in the place of the pronoun (L. xi. 17 
 A. iii. 16; E. iv. 16). 
 
 28. Singularis numerus (L. x. 19 ; 1 Civ. 17). — Bengel. 
 
 29. The adjective used for the adverb (A. xii. 10 ; 1 C. ix. 
 17).— But see Winer, p. 584. 
 
 SO. The accusative absolute (A. vii. 21 ; x. 36 ; xxvi. 3, 
 PauFs speech; R. xv. 20). 
 
 31. Emphatic accent (L. xiv. 26 ; 1 C. xiv. 2^).— Bengel. 
 
 32. Repetition of the preposition when two nouns are con- 
 nected by Kai (L. xxii. 33 ; A. xxvi. 29, PauPs speech ; 
 1 C. ii. 2,). — Winer, p. 523. 
 
 33. The word Geoc used without the article (L. iii. 2 ; 
 R. ii. 5). 
 
168 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 34. The gen. designedly placed before the noun (L. xii. 30; 
 E. ii. 10; not in par. pass, of Matthew). — Winer, p. 193. 
 
 35. Kemarkable repetition of the demonstrative. — Winer, 
 p. 200, however, denies that 2 C. xii. 2 is an instance of 
 this (L. xix. 2; 2 C. xii. 2). 
 
 36. The aorist participle expressing simultaneous action 
 (A. i. 24; E. iv. 20).— Winer, p. 430. 
 
 37. " The middle of ironiv is but seldom found in N. T., 
 being used by scarcely any writer but Paul and Luke.^' — 
 Winer, p. 320, n. 5. 
 
 38. "Luke and Paul are particularly fond of the participial 
 construction.'^ — Winer, p. 446. 
 
 39. " Sio is used most frequently by Paul and Luke.'' — 
 
 Wilier, p. 557. 
 
 40. " The compound diori is used most frequently by Paul 
 and Luke." — Winer, p. 557. 
 
 41 . The future participle is " rare in N. T." It is to be found 
 in L. xxii. 49 ; A. xxiv. 11 ; 1 C. xv. 2,1. —Winer, p. 428. 
 
 42. AarjOEVEtv used intransitively (L. ii. 37; A. xxvi. 7, Paul's 
 speech; Phil. iii. 3). — Farrar. 
 
 43. The word xapfCj "grace" (akin to xaipix), " I rejoice"), 
 is characteiistic of St. Luke and St. Paul. It occurs in St. 
 Luke's Gospel eight times, in the Acts seventeen times, and 
 incessantly in St. Paul. — Farrar. 
 
 44. XapiZofiai occurs twice in St. Luke's Gospel, three times 
 in the Acts, and often in St. Paul; but not elsewhere in the 
 New Testament. — Farrar. 
 
169 
 
 ADDITIONS TO APPENDIX B. 
 
 The Third Gospel 
 (of Christ). 
 
 The Acts or Epistles 
 (of St. Paul). 
 
 1. TTjooKOTTTetv applied to the vpoKoirTeiv applied to the 
 early years of Christ. — L. ii. early years of St. Paul. — C i. 
 52. 14. 
 
 (TrpoKOTTTeiv is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 2. KajcoujO-yoc used iu con- KUKOvpyog used in con- 
 nexion with Christ suffering nexion with the persecution 
 unjustly.— L. xxiii. 32. of St. Paul.— 2 T. ii. 9. 
 
 {KaKovpyog is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 3. The expression get jue 
 used by Christ in connexion 
 with his final journey to 
 Jerusalem. — L. xiii. 33. 
 
 The expression Sf/ jue used 
 by St. Paul in connexion with 
 his journey to Kome as the 
 ultimate goal of his labours 
 in the Gospel. — A. xix. 21. 
 
 4. The expression irojg awe- The expression (Tvve)(^ofxai 
 X'^f^^i^ used by Christ in the yap used by St. Paul in the 
 prospect of death. — L. xii. 50. prospect of death. — Ph. i. 23. 
 
 {crvvexop^ai is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 5. The expression TeXeiovfiai The expression (ovk oti 
 used by Christ in the prospect r/gjj) rcrfXftwjuat used by St. 
 of death. — L. xiii. 32. Paul in the prospect of death. 
 
 —Ph. iii. 12. 
 
170 
 
 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 6. The word lirSvunaa The word lTrSvfxr]aa used 
 used by Christ in connexion by St. Paul in connexion with 
 with his disciples. — L. xxii. his converts. — A. xx. 33. 
 
 15. 
 
 (The first aorist kTrSvfmaa is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 7. The word avairefnrsiv The word avaTrefXTreiv used 
 used thrice with regard to with regard to St. Paul when 
 Christ when a prisoner at a prisoner at Jerusalem. — 
 Jerusalem. — L. xxiii. 7, 11^ A. xxv. 21. 
 
 15. 
 
 [avaTrenireiv is peculiar to the Third Gospel and the Acts.) 
 
 8. iSei TraOnv tov Xpiarov — rov Xpiarov Idei iraOeiv — 
 WQ ^ir}V0Lyav i)fxiv rag ypa(l)ag, airo riov ypacptov Siavoiyuyv, 
 referring to Christ. — L. xxiv. referring to St. Paul. — A. xvii. 
 26, 32. 2, 3. Cf. 1 C. xv. 1-3. 
 
 9. Christ is spoken of as o St. Paul is spoken of as 
 rovQeovlKXeKTog. — Ti. xxiii. 35. oKevog i/cXoyrjc. — A. ix. 15. 
 
 (Recorded by St. Luke alone : cf. o vlog p.ov 6 iKXeXey fxevog, 
 L. ix. 35, not in the parallel passage of Matthew or Mark.) 
 
 10. The word v(5piZeiv ap- 
 plied to the persecution of 
 Christ (in this connexion to 
 be found in Luke alone). — 
 L. xviii. 32. 
 
 The word vjdpiZeiv applied 
 to the persecution of St. Paul. 
 —A. xiv. 5. Cf. 1 Th. ii. 2. 
 
 1 1 . The expression 17 aweaig 
 avTov applied to Christ in 
 connexion with his visit to the 
 Temple and his answers to the 
 Doctors. — L. ii. 47. 
 
 The expression 17 avveatg 
 fiov applied to St. Paul by him- 
 self in connexion with '^his 
 knowledge in the mystery 
 of Christ."— E. iii. 4. 
 
 {(Tvvecng is used four times by St. Paul, and is used only in 
 this passage by St. Luke. It occurs once in St. Mark, but 
 in an entirely different connexion.) 
 
Additions to Ajpioendlx B. 171 
 
 12. The expression otto tov The expression 6 0£oc 
 0£ou uTTohi^Hyfxtvog is applied aTreStt^sv r]fiaQ is applied by 
 to Christ. — A. ii. 22. St. Paul to Barnabas and him- 
 self.— 1 C. iv. 9. 
 
 {a-rto'BtiKvvvai occurs only in the Acts and St. Paul.) 
 
 13. The following expres- The following expressions 
 sion is used of Christ : — are used of St. Paul (by the 
 Kr]pv(T(T(x)v KUL evayjeXit^ofxevoQ writer of the Acts) : — o flauXoc 
 rrjv ^aaiXaav tov Qeov. — L. KJjjOucro-ft. — A. xix. 13. 
 
 viii. 1. K-qpvaauv Tr]v (iacriXeiav tov 
 
 Qeov. — A. xxviii. 31. 
 
 tvayyeXilieaBai. — A. xiii. 
 32. (By St. Paul himself) :— 
 evayyeXiev o Kiqpvaaii) Iv roig 
 Wvsffi. — Gr. ii. 2. 
 evayyeXiZeaOai. — E-. i. 15. 
 {avayysXi^eaOat in the middle voice is peculiar to Luke and 
 Paul.) 
 
 Note. — That St. Paul was far too humble and reverent to 
 presume to compare his own sufferings (as possessing the 
 slightest merit) to those of Christ, is evident from his own 
 words in 1 Cor. i. 13 : ''^ Was Paul crucified for you V and 
 in Phil. i. 20 : " As always, so now also Christ shall he mag- 
 nified in my body, whether it be by life or by death." 
 
 Nevertheless, St. Paul did venture to assert that his own 
 experience of the "fellowship of Christ^s sufferings " (Ph. iii. 
 10) was a plain proof that he was a true and faithful disciple 
 and Apostle of Christ. 
 
 This was strenuously denied by his opponents and adver- 
 saries, and it was a matter of vital importance to St. Paul 
 that this fact should be duly and fully recognised. He said, 
 therefore : " Henceforth, let no man trouble me ; for I bear 
 in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus" (Gal. vi. 17). 
 He did not hesitate even to say, " I am crucified with Christ " 
 (Gal. ii. 20), and "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, 
 
172 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 and /ZZ up on my part that which is lacking of the affl,ictions 
 of Christ in my fleah" (Col. i. 24). 
 
 To the Ephesians he speaks of himself as ''I, Paul, the 
 prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles'" (Eph. iii. 1), while 
 it was a fixed thought in his mind, and a not infrequent 
 injunction in his letters to his converts, "Be ye followers 
 (^(/xTjrat) of me, even as I also am of Christ^' (1 Cor. xi. 1). 
 
 Thus the manifest parallelism traced by the writer of the 
 Acts between St. Paul and Christ (Appendix B.) not only 
 fully met the necessities of the case, but also precisely reflected 
 St. Paul's own feelings and views (see pp. 47, 48). 
 
 There are two or three other remarkable coincidences of 
 language in the writings of St. Luke and of St. Paul which 
 may be noted here — 
 
 1. avaXi(TKeiv, used with reference to a divine act of judicial 
 destruction (Luke ix. 54; 2 Th. ii. 8). [avaXicTKHv is peculiar 
 to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 If aveXu be the true reading in 2 Th. ii. 8, the remarkable 
 coincidence still remains ; for avaipav occurs in no less than 
 iJiree of St. Paul's speeches recorded in the Acts (eh. xiii. 28 ; 
 xxii. 20; xxvi. 10), while it is to be found (out of St. Luke 
 and the Acts) only in two other passages — namely, once in 
 St. Matthew and once in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 2. avaXvuv is used in St. Luke (xii. 36, 40) with re- 
 ference to the coming of Christ, and in connexion with his 
 servants watching for his return. It is used by St. Paul (Ph. i. 
 23) with reference to his own desire to '^depart" and to be 
 with Christ. {a.va\vHv is peculiar to Luke and Paul.) 
 
 3. ai^pvL^Loq lipiaTavai occurs in St. Luke (xxi. 34) as 
 part of our Lord's eschatological discourse, and is used in 
 reference to "that day" (verse 34) — the "day of the Lord/' 
 " the day of Christ." St. Paul makes use of it in 1 Th. v. 3, 
 in reference to the " day of the Lord " (verso 2), the very 
 same expression ''that day," i) i^tEjoa tKeivri, occurring in 
 verse 4. 
 
 It may be added that the precise expression, ai(i)VLdtog 
 
The oilier Synoptists and St. Luke. 
 
 173 
 
 l(^iaTavai, is peculiar to Luke and Paul, and cannot be found 
 in any other Greek author whatever, though Wetstein's powers 
 of research were able to discover aK^tvi^iwQ (and ai^vtStor, 
 used as an aclverh) e^toravat. 
 
 1 Thess. ii. 
 opjT} dg reXog (with respect 
 
 Compare also 
 Luke xxi. 
 fieyakri avayKX] Kat opyr] Iv 
 
 TM Xofj) (the Jews), verse 23. to the Jews), verse 16. 
 
 TrXrjpovv (of fulfilling the avairXripovv (of filling up 
 
 predicted punishment), verse themeasureof iniquity), verse 
 
 22. 16. 
 
 hdiKr^cTig, verse 2i 
 
 iKdiKnmg (2Th.i. 8). 
 
 Besides the instances already noted, the variations of St. 
 Luke from St. Matthew and St. Mark in the following pas- 
 sages will be found to be coincidences with the language of St. 
 Paul :— 
 
 1. Iva (T(v9w(Tiv (Luke viii. 
 12; cf. ITh.ii. 16). 
 
 2. tK^i(i)Keiv (Luke xi. 49 ; 
 cf.l Th. ii. 15). 
 
 3. deicTog (Luke iv. 24; cf. 
 Ph. iv. 18). 
 
 4. /urj yevoLTo (Luke xx. 16 ; 
 cf.R. iii.6). 
 
 Mt. xiii. 19 ; Mk. iv. 15. 
 
 Mt. xxiii. 34. 
 
 Mt. xiii. 57; Mk. vi. 4 
 (both have arifiog). 
 
 Mt. xxi. 41. 
 
 The words, Sektoc, eKdiivKHv, fxt] yevoiTO, are not only not to 
 be found in the other Synoptists, Matthew and Mark, but they 
 are peculiar to Luke and Paul among all the New Testament 
 writers. 
 
 Precisely the same observations hold good also with respect 
 to the following Jifty words v^hich occur in St. Luke, though 
 they cannot be found in the parallel passage of St. Matthew 
 
174 
 
 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 or 8t. Mark. They can, 
 ■writings, and nowhere els 
 Any Greek concordance, 
 Bible, will soon convince 
 
 however, all be found in St. Paul's 
 e in the whole of tlie New Testament, 
 used in conjunction with a reference 
 the reader as to this matter. 
 
 avaKpiv£Lv 
 
 avaTTEjUTreiv 
 
 cnroXoyHaOai 
 
 jSouArj 
 ^layjiXXeiv 
 diairopEveaOai 
 l(l)LaTavai 
 
 Kurayeiv 
 Kara^iovv 
 vofio^i^aaKoXog 
 6vo/ja^8tv 
 
 bpiZ,HV 
 
 Trarpia 
 
 7r/)£O'/3i'r£j0tov 
 
 TT/ooSorrjc 
 
 (Tiynv 
 
 avvevdoKSiv 
 
 Tvy\^avHv 
 
 xfjaX/jiog 
 
 alcpvidiog 
 
 avaXveiv 
 
 ava{xvr](jLQ 
 
 avoia 
 
 aTTopia 
 aroirog 
 a\api(TTOQ 
 
 l3l(Ji)TlK0g 
 
 £ic^rj7£iy 
 
 BKcpevyeiv 
 
 e^awoaTeXXHV 
 
 Zhjypeiv 
 
 KUKOvpyog 
 
 pedt] 
 
 OlpUJVlOV 
 
 Trayig 
 TravoTrXia 
 iravuvpyia 
 TrepiTTOiHaOai 
 
 TTVKVOg 
 
 airovdaibjg 
 GvyKuB i1!Ihv 
 avyKXeieiv 
 avyxaip^iv 
 
 <T(i)p.aTiKog 
 vcTTeprjfxa. 
 
 Add to these the phrases [tiventy-jive in number) in St. 
 Luke (see p. 79). 
 
 7] ti^OVaLa TOV (TKOTOVg 
 
 Tt fiepog 
 Trpog Kaipov 
 
 ch. xxii. 
 xi. 
 ix. 
 viii. 
 
The other Synoptists and St. Luke. 
 
 175 
 
 ch. iv. 
 xi. 
 
 And (pp. 75-78; 109-112). 
 i^ovaia icai Bwafiig ... 
 7) (TO(pia Tov Qaov 
 tv iravTi Kaipo) 
 01 cnriaToi (Matt, has Jewish word viroKpiTm) 
 
 €V VTTOfiOVy ... 
 
 Seo/xai GOV 
 
 airocTToXoi kql TrpotprfTai 
 
 ev BvvafjiH TlvevfJiaTOQ ayiov .. 
 
 a^iog BavuTov 
 
 6 Kvpiog ^Ir}<jov(j 
 
 TrpocFOJirov Xapj^aveiv 
 
 OsheXlov Tidevai 
 
 iravra KaBapa Ian ... 
 
 dg — krepog ... 
 
 iiyv T(jj) Qe(o ... 
 
 al(l>vioiog l^iaravai ... 
 
 Scrjo-etc TTOUiadai 
 
 at apxai — at l^ovauu 
 
 BoKHTe OTt 
 
 (Matthew has fii) vofxicrriTe, x. 34.) 
 TO advvciTov... ... ... ... ... xviii. 
 
 (Matthew and Mark have Swarog without 
 the article.) 
 Thus no less than one hundred such instances of cwmcidence 
 with St. Paul have now been adduced (see also pp. 136-140). 
 What is the explanation ? 
 
 It is, moreover, most noteworthy that '^ the account of the 
 institution of the Lord's Supper is nearly verbatim the same " 
 [Alford) in Luke xxii. and in St. Paul (1 Cor. xi.) — and this, 
 although it decidedly differs from the account given by 
 Matthew and Mark, who here (as elsewhere) are in the closest 
 correspondence. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 xii. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 ix. 
 
 xi. 
 
 iv. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 XX. 
 
 vi. 
 xi. 
 
 XX. 
 
 xvii. 
 
 XX. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 V. 
 
 xii. 
 xii. 
 
176 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 Note D. 
 
 ON THE ANALOGY BETWEEN ST. PAUL AND 
 EZRA. 
 
 In Smitli's " Concise Dictionary of the Bible," article 
 " Ezra/' p. 264, the following statement is to be found : — 
 
 " Ezra's great design was to effect a religious reformation 
 among the Palestine Jews, and to bring them back to the 
 observation of the Law of Moses, from which they had griev- 
 ously declined. The functions he executed were purely of a 
 priestly and ecclesiastical character. But in such he filled 
 the first place. The principal works ascribed to him by the 
 Jews are (amongst others) : — 
 
 " (1) The settling the Canon of Scripture, and restoring, 
 correcting, and editing the whole sacred volume. 
 
 " (2) The authorship of Chronicles and Ezra, and other 
 books of the Old Testament. 
 
 " (3) The establishment of synagogues." 
 
 Ewald {'' History of Israel," Enghsh translation, vol. v. 
 p. 135) refers to Ezra's "lofty accomplishments as a scribe, 
 his ability in other respects," and to the fact that he was 
 " possessed, in a manner altogether new, by the purest and 
 most glowing zeal for the truth of the religion of his fathers, 
 and its recognition among men, marvellously strengthening 
 and inspiring his whole life." 
 
 After some further observations, Ewald adds: — ''This 
 would tend to produce amongst the Judeans born in foreign 
 countries an unutterable yearning to be able to work and to 
 help in this cause, and would result in the rise of men of such 
 extraordinary zeal as Ezra and Nehemiah now, and ultimately 
 of that son of Benjamin from Tarsus (St. Paul), who towers 
 above them all. Of such a Judean, born outside the fatherland, 
 
Analogy between St. Paul and Ezra. 177 
 
 but exercising the most powerful influence over tliedevelopmeut 
 of the community, Ezra affords us the first brilliant example/' 
 
 In connexion with these statements, it does not seem 
 altogether fanciful to attempt to trace a certain analogy or 
 parallelism between St. Paul and Ezra. More than this, 
 considering how intensely subjective was St. Paul's disposi- 
 tion and nature, it may not be too much even to assert that 
 St. Paul was more or less conscious of some such general 
 parallelism existing between himself and his great prede- 
 cessor, albeit separated from him by an interval of no less 
 than five centuries. 
 
 It is quite possible that St. Paul's important history, con- 
 tained in the Third Gospel and the Acts, may have been, — to 
 some extent, at least, — suggested and moulded by Ezra's 
 great history, contained in the books of Chronicles and Ezra, 
 with which St. Paul, as a devout Jew, must have been 
 thoroughly familiar. 
 
 It may be affirmed that 
 
 Ezra. 
 1. Ezra was a devout and 
 prayerful Jew. 
 
 8t. Paul. 
 St. Paul was a devout and 
 prayerful Jew. 
 
 2. Ezra belonged to the St. Paul belonged to the 
 Dispersion. Dispersion. 
 
 3. Ezra was possessed with 
 an ardent desire to benefit his 
 fellow-countrymen, who tem- 
 porally and spiritually were 
 in a depressed condition. 
 
 St. Paul was possessed with 
 an ardent desire to benefit his 
 fellow-countrymen (Rom. ix. 
 1-3), who temporally and spi- 
 ritually were in a depressed 
 condition. 
 
 4. Ezra was an unique per- 
 sonage in point of character. 
 
 St. Paul was an unique per- 
 sonage in point of character. 
 
 5. Ezra was an uniqve per- St. Paul was an unique per- 
 sonage in point of position. sonage in point of ])ositi<m. 
 
178 
 
 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 Ezra. 
 6. Ezra was an unique per- 
 sonage in point of experiences. 
 
 St. Paul. 
 St. Paul was an unique per- 
 sonage in point of experiences. 
 
 7. Ezra was an earnest St. Paul was an earnest 
 religious reformer. religious reformer. 
 
 8. Ezra represented and 
 pleaded the cause he had at 
 heart before the Persian king 
 (Artaxerxes), who was the 
 then ruler of the world (Ezra 
 vii. 6, 21, 25, 27, 28). 
 
 St. Paul represented and 
 pleaded the cause he had at 
 heart before the Roman Em- 
 peror (Nero), who was the then 
 ruler of the world (Acts xxiv. 
 5; XXV. 11; 2Tim.iv. 16, 17). 
 
 9. Ezra lived to see the St. Paul lived to see the 
 fulfilment of his wishes, and fulfilment of his wishes, and 
 the fruit of his arduous la- the fruit of his arduous la- 
 bours, bours. 
 
 10. Ezra was a wise master St. Paul was a wise master 
 
 builder in connexion with the builder in connexion with the 
 
 Temple and worship of the spiritual temple and worship 
 
 Jews. of the Gentiles (1 Cor. iii. 10). 
 
 11. Ezra occupied a com- 
 manding position of spiritual 
 influence among the Jews, at 
 Jerusalem, the capital of the 
 Jewish Lation. 
 
 St. Paul occupied a com- 
 manding position of spiritual 
 influence among the Gentiles 
 at Rome, the capital of the 
 Gentile world. 
 
 12. Ezra instituted syna- 
 gogues among the Jews. 
 
 13. Ezra 
 forced the 
 literally. 
 
 upheld and en- 
 Law of Moses 
 
 St. Paul founded churches 
 among the Gentiles. 
 
 St. Paul upheld and enforced 
 the Law of Moses spiritually, 
 as fulfilled in Christ (Rom. ii. 
 25-29; XV. 8; 2 Cor. iii. 14). 
 
Analogy between St. Paul and Ezra. 179 
 
 Ezra. 
 
 ] 4. Ezra wrote several books 
 of the Old Testament. 
 
 15. Ezra compiled and 
 composed a history (Chroni- 
 cles) of his CO - religionists, 
 from the beginning of their 
 religious history (the time of 
 Abraham) . 
 
 8L Paul. 
 St. Paul wrote several books 
 of the New Testament. 
 
 St. Paul compiled and com- 
 posed a history (the Third 
 Gospel and the Acts) of his 
 co-religionists, from the be- 
 ginning of their religious his- 
 tory (the time of John the 
 Baptist) . 
 
 16. Ezra wrote his history 
 — one continuous history — in 
 two books (Chronicles and 
 Ezra, the two books of Chroni- 
 cles originally forming one). 
 
 St. Paul wrote his history 
 — one continuous history — in 
 two books (Luke and Acts). 
 
 17. Ezra wrote the history St. Paul wrote the history 
 
 of his own times, and brought of his own times, and brought 
 
 his narrative down to his own his narrative down to his own 
 
 day. day. 
 
 18. Ezra made use of exist- 
 ing books of the Old Testa- 
 ment (Kings, &c.) in com- 
 piling his own history. 
 
 St. Paul made use of exist- 
 ing books of the New Testa- 
 ment (Matthew and Mark) in 
 compiling his own history 
 (see Luke i. 1). 
 
 19. Ezra, in his narrative, 
 related his own great share in 
 the great work of religious 
 reformation, giving the history 
 of his own life-work (see Ezra, 
 which, like the Acts, contains 
 '^ we '^-passages). 
 
 St. Paul, in his narrative, 
 related his own great share in 
 the great work of religious 
 reformation, giving the his- 
 tory of his own life-work (see 
 the Acts). 
 
180 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 Ezra. St. Paul. 
 
 20. Ezra, from his own St. Paul^ from his own raen- 
 mental standpoint making a tal standpoint making a se- 
 selection of the available ma- lection of the available ma- 
 terials, wrote his history from terials, wrote his history from 
 a definite point of view, and a definite point of view, and 
 for a particular purpose. for a particular purpose (see 
 
 Lukei. 1-4). 
 
 21. Ezra, at Jerusalem, be- St. Paul, at Rome, besides 
 sides writing a complete re- writing a complete religious 
 ligious history, made additions history, made an addition to 
 to the existing books of the one of the existing books of 
 Old Testament. the New Testament, namely, 
 
 the last Twelve "Verses of St. 
 Markka Gospel.* 
 
 The assertions as to the authorship and object of the books 
 of Chronicles and Ezra are borne out by the following extracts 
 from well-known authorities. Turning again to the "Dic- 
 tionary of the Bible '* (art. "Chronicles, " p. 155), we find 
 that :— 
 
 " The constant tradition of the Jews, in which they have 
 been followed by the great mass of Christian commentators, 
 is that these books were, for the most part, compiled by 
 
 Ezra As regards the plan of the book, of which the hooh 
 
 of Ezra is a continuation, it becomes apparent immediately 
 we consider it as the compilation of Ezra, or some one nearly 
 contemporary with him." 
 
 Hartwell Home (" Compendious Introduction to the Study 
 of the Bible,'^ pp. 367-368) says : — "The Jews comprise the 
 two books of Chronicles in one book, which they call ' Dibre 
 Hajamim.' .... In the Septuagint version, they are termed 
 
 •irapaXHWoin£V(t)v, or of Things omitted The appellation 
 
 Chronicles was given to these books by Jerome." 
 
 * See my work " St. Paul the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of the 
 Second Gospel." 
 
Analogy between St. Paul and Ezra. 181 
 
 " The Yulgate retains both the Hebrew and Greek names 
 in Latin characters'' ("Diet, of Bible/' p. 155). 
 
 Ewald ("History of Israel/' vol. i. pp. 177, 178) says :— 
 " This book of Chronicles was intended to be a universal 
 history, .... acknowledging the sacred character of the Book 
 of the Law .... Where even the fullest details given by his 
 authorities appear to him not to do justice to the subject, he 
 has no scruple in introducing a more vivid colouring, to 
 testify to his warmer sympathy with the narrative." 
 
 Dr. Kitto (" Popular Cyclopa3dia of Biblical Literature," 
 p. 197) says that in the books of the Chronicles "the historical 
 tendency is subordinated to the didactic." 
 
182 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 Note E.* 
 
 ON THE TRADITION AS TO THE AUTHORSHIP 
 OF THE ACTS. 
 
 The unsupported notion that the Third Grospel was written 
 by St. Luke has been alluded to as the " verdict of the 
 Church.'' There is_, I believe,, no verdict of the Church with 
 regard to this matter. There is nothing but the baseless 
 fabric of a vague tradition. And we all know that the value 
 of a tradition depends, not so much on the remote antiquity 
 of its origin, nor even on its world-wide tacit acceptance, as 
 on its intrinsic reasonableness, and on the firmness of its 
 foundation of fact. Nothing, increased and multiplied a 
 thousand-fold, remains, after all, nothing more than nothing. 
 Is the venerable tradition that St. Peter was the first Pope 
 binding on us all as "the verdict of the Church ? " No chain 
 can be stronger than its weakest link, and here, so to speak, 
 the very first link of all (or rather the staple itself) is alto- 
 gether wanting. The first testimony in favour of the author- 
 ship of Luke (so says Zeller,t and I cannot contradict him) 
 is a full century later than the presumptive date of the Acts. 
 Evidence only produced to-day with reference to the famous 
 " Letters of Junius," in the last century, would be by no 
 means necessarily decisive as to the authorship. 
 
 Just as the tradition of St. Paul's mythical journey into 
 Spain, of which there is no tangible trace — no historical evi- 
 dence whatever — arose from his words in Rom. xv. 24, 28, — 
 so this tradition, as to St. Luke being the author of the Acts, 
 arose (in the absence of direct testimony not forthcoming 
 after the confusion incident on the terrible persecution 
 under Nero, which so speedily and so suddenly followed), — 
 so this tradition arose from St. Paul's words in 2 Tim. iv. 6, 11 : 
 
 * Some portions of the following notes appeared in the numbers of the 
 Ecclesiastical Gazette for 1884-5. 
 
 + " The Acts of the Apostles," vol. ii. p. 263. 
 
Tradition as to the Autliorsldp of the Acts. 183 
 
 *' The time of my departure is at hand .... Only Luke is with 
 me.^^ The tradition is really evidence that the Acts were 
 written at Kome, under the superintendence of St. Paul ; 
 and this, as it establishes the authority and fixes the date, is 
 all for which I care to contend. 
 
 Irenasus says that " Luke, the follower of Paul, set down 
 in a book the Grospel which he (Paul) used to preach. ^^ Ter- 
 tullian speaks of St. Paul as the '' illuminator of Luke,^^ and 
 says that " the summary [dlgestum] of Luke was generally 
 assigned to Paul" (Westcott, "Study of the Gospels," pp. 
 184, 185). Eusebius refers PauFs words, "according to my 
 GospeP' (2 Tim. ii. 8), to that of Luke, in which Jerome 
 concurs (Smith's "Bible Diet.,'' art. "Gospel of Luke"). 
 
 " St. Chrysostom finds in it the style of St. Paul. In the 
 ' Synopsis,' ascribed to Athanasius, it is affirmed that the 
 Gospel of Luke was dictated hy the Apostle Paul, and written 
 and published by the blessed Apostle and physician Luke .... 
 Critics remark that there is often great affinity in their 
 phrases." — {Toivnson, " On the Gospels," i. pp. 35, 205). 
 
 Bengel says, on Luke i. 1-4 : " Luke's lively pen, which is 
 excellently well suited to the very joyous narrative of the Acts, 
 seems to have caught something from his many years' inti- 
 macy with Paul" (cf. Dean Plumptre, "Int. N. T.," p. 147). 
 
 Wetstein, on Luke i. 3, states : — " Quidam existimant pro- 
 bari, Lucae, quod dicitur, Evangelium ad Paulum potius 
 auctorem esse referendum." 
 
 Dean Alford says (" Gr. Test.," i. Prolog., p. 42) :— " It is a 
 very remarkable coincidence, that the account of the institu- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper should be almost verbatim the same 
 in Luke xxii. and 1 Cor. xi." 
 
 Bishop Wordsworth says : — " The statements of Christian 
 antiquity concerning St. Luke's connexion with St. Paul . . . 
 are confirmed by the internal evidence presented by the 
 Gospel of St. Luke." And again : — " As St. Paul .... was 
 eminently the Apostle of the Gentiles, so St. Luke .... may 
 be entitled the Evangelist of the heathen world. It is his spe- 
 cial purpose and fixed resolution, as it was of St. Paul, to preach 
 Christ crucified" (" Gr. Test.," Int. to St. Luke's Gospel). 
 
184 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 Note F. 
 
 ON THE " WE "-PASSAGES IN THE ACTS. 
 
 St. PauPs authorship of the Acts has been denied on the 
 ground that therein " he is invariably spoken of in the third 
 person." In answer to this objection, it seems sufficient to 
 state that — 
 
 1. Ceesar, in his " Commentaries," invariably speaks of 
 himself in the third person, as " Caesar." 
 
 2. Josephus, in his " Wars of the Jews," also usually refers 
 to himself in this manner as '^Josephus." 
 
 3. St. Paul himself, in his Epistles, more than once views 
 himself objectively, and speaks of himself as Paul, e.g., in 
 1 Cor. i. 13 : " Was Paul crucified for you? " and in chap, 
 iii. 5 : " Who, then, is Paul ? " See also 2 Cor. xii. 2 : " I 
 knew a man in Christ " (where St. Paul is speaking of 
 himself) ; Philemon 9 ; and the opening clause in each of his 
 Epistles. 
 
 4. Every educated man has occasion sometimes to write 
 letters or documents in which he speaks of himself in the third 
 person. Compare, for instance, the recent coi'respondence 
 between her Majesty the Queen and her late Prime Minister, 
 Mr. Gladstone, wherein occurs not only the third person, but 
 also a complication of pronouns, in the awkward phrase, — 
 which, however, is in strict accordance with precedent, — " Mr. 
 Gladstone presents liis humble duty to your Majesty." 
 
 It has been further pointed out as an objection that " the 
 writer of the Acts clearly distinguishes himself aud his com- 
 panions from the Apostle Paul, as in Acts xvi. 10 : * After 
 he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured'" (so 
 also in Acts xxi. 12-14). As to this, it may be observed 
 that — 
 
 1. It is evident that the "ice" must have lived on terms 
 
The *' We^'-Passages in the Acts. 185 
 
 of the greatest possible intimacy witli the '' he," — the writer 
 must have been the alter ego of St. Paul, — to be able to place 
 thus on public record those secret inner experiences of St. 
 Paul, — even the visions of the night (Acts xvi. 10), — which 
 originally could have been known only to St. Paul himself. 
 
 2. As these passages clearly were penned by the companion 
 and secretary of St. Paul, and as they relate to the life-work 
 and the personal heart-history of St. Paul, there is every 
 reason to suppose that St. Paul himself was not far off, dic- 
 tating, or at least revising. If this is admitted, that is all I 
 care to maintain, as it fixes the early date of the Third 
 Gospel, and is a sufficient answer to Strauss. 
 
 Whoever denies this contradicts that most able, acute, and 
 luminous modern commentator, Bengel, who says that '^ un- 
 doubtedly the Acts were published by St. Paul's desire " 
 (''Gnomon," Acts xxviii. 30). 
 
 St. Paul was the author of the Acts, without having neces- 
 sarily penned every single word. The design and publication 
 of this full and important history of his own life-work were 
 due to the master-mind of St. Paul ; but he probably had 
 more than one amanuensis to help him in the work. St. Paul, 
 in dictating the Acts to his alter ego, ''his dearly-beloved 
 son, Timothy '^ (2 Tim. i. 2), "who had, as a son with the 
 father, served with him in the Gospel'' (Phil. ii. 22), may well 
 have permitted Timothy, in one or two passages, to tell his 
 own tale for himself in his own words. 
 
 3. Ezra is usually acknowledged as the author of the book 
 of Ezra, although, in chap. vii. 6, we find "this Ezra"; in 
 chap. viii. 15 "I"; in chap. viii. 21 " we" ; and in chap. x. 
 1, 10, "Ezra" again. 
 
 Bishop Wordsworth, on Ezra vii. 6, observes : — " Ezra is 
 here spoken of in the third person. In verses 27, 28, the 
 writer speaks of himself in the first person, as Ezra himself. 
 This change of person does not indicate any difference of 
 
 authorship Nothing is more common in Hebrew writers 
 
 than such changes of person He looks on himself ab 
 
 extra, and uses the third person." 
 
186 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 4. Josephus, in tlie concluding chapter of the " Wars of 
 the Jews," refers to himself, in section 3, as '' JosephuSj" and 
 then, a few lines further on, uses the personal pronouns " I " 
 and "we^^ almost in the same breath. 
 
 5. Ca9sar (" Commentaries," book vii. chap. 17) appears to 
 distinguish himself from the author by speaking of " Caesar " 
 in one line, and in another adding " ut supra diximus." 
 
 6. In the first chapter o£ his Epistle to the Romans, St. 
 Paul, in verse 1, speaks of " Paul " ; in verse 5, of "we " ; in 
 verse 8, of "I" ; and again, in verse 22 of the last chapter, 
 we find the statement, " I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle.-*' 
 We see at once that St. Paul was the author, and Tertius only 
 the writer, the amanuensis or private secretary. And so 
 the unexpected and perplexing pronoun " we," in Acts xvi. 
 10 (and in two or three other places), represents nothing more 
 than the suppressed personality of St. Paul's private secretary 
 suddenly asserting itself, and thus for a brief moment coming 
 to the surface. This is no reason why we should not still main- 
 tain that St. Paul was the author of the Acts, — that is, as long 
 as the established maxim holds good, Qui facit per alium,facit 
 yer se. 
 
 7. It is plain that the " we ''-passages really run through 
 and give the colour and clue, so to speak, to the whole 
 work j for, besides the verses usually quoted, there is a 
 "we "-passage in Luke i. 1, and also in Acts i. 1 (570;), 
 and in chap. xiv. 22, in connexion with St. Paul's first mis- 
 sionary journey to the home of Timothy (cf. 2 Tim. iii. 11). 
 St. Paul constantly uses "we" in his Epistles, and sometimes 
 apparently when referring to himself alone (1 Thess. ii. 18 ; 
 iii. 1, 2, compared with Acts xvii. 16; xviii. 5). 
 
 It may be added that, while St. Paul had every reason to 
 publish this able, timely, much-needed defence of his life and 
 actions, which was to set hira right with his fellow-Christians 
 (the Judaisers), with his fellow-countrymen (the Jews), and 
 with the political authorities (the Homans), there were also 
 most excellent reasons why this defence should not ostensibly 
 proceed from himself, then a prisoner in chains, lying under 
 
The " We "-Passages in the Acts. 187 
 
 the most grave suspicion and the most serious accusa- 
 tions. 
 
 " The name of Paul was obnoxious to Judaising Christians 
 . . . His name was still more offensive to the Jeivs. . . . Suppose 
 That St. Paul had followed his usual practice, and prefixed 
 his name to the Epistle to the Hebrews, what bitter feelings 
 of rancour would the sight of that name have excited .... 
 they would have recoiled from it with disdain and execration.''^ 
 — Bishop Wordsworth, " Gr. Test.," Int. to Hebrews, p. 369. 
 
 Testimony to character, which is most weighty when given 
 from the witness-box, becomes altogether worthless when 
 uttered from the dock. The evident parallelisms, intentional 
 though unavowed, between St. Paul and Christ, and St. Paul 
 and St. Peter, would have entirely missed their mark had 
 they been acknowledged by St. Paul as emanating from his 
 own mind. The Jews had rejected Christ because they had 
 not understood nor obeyed their own pi-ophets. Paul was 
 merely preaching the Gospel of Christ, and following in 
 Christ^s footsteps ; so that, if the Jews persecuted him, it was 
 only because they still perversely misread their own sacred 
 books (Acts xxvi. 22). The Judaisers acknowledged St. Peter 
 as the chief Apostle of Christ. If they denied that St. Paul 
 was an Apostle (1 Cor. ix. 1-3 ; 2 Cor. xi. 5), then they struck 
 likewise at St. Peter ; for both were preaching the same 
 Gospel with eq^ual authority against equal opposition, and with 
 equal success (Gal. ii. 7-9). The distinct statements of the 
 chief captain, Claudius Lysias (Acts xxiii. 29), of the Roman 
 governor of Judaea, Festus (Acts xxv. 25), and of the king, 
 Herod Agrippa (Acts xxvi. 31, 32), ought thoroughly to 
 satisfy the Roman Government (to whom St. Paul had ap- 
 pealed) that there was no element of political danger in Paul, 
 the leader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts xxiv. 5), or in 
 the Gospel which he preached. 
 
 From the " we "-passages (A. xvi. 17; xx. 5), " St. Luke 
 seems to have stayed at Philippi seven years." — Farrar. 
 How, then, could Luke, seven years absent from Paul, make 
 himself perfect master of Paul's words and thoughts ? 
 
188 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 Note G. 
 
 ON THE ALLEGED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE 
 ACTS AND THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Another objection to St. PauPs authorship of the Acts is, 
 that the accounts given of the same events in the book of the 
 Acts and in St. PauPs Epistle to the Galatians are, as it is 
 said, contradictory. I must leave to abler scholars and 
 better divines the task of dealing with this difficulty. I 
 •will only point out that the difficulty, whatever it may be, 
 will not be lessened one iota by saying that one account is by 
 St. Paul and the other by a totally distinct and independent 
 writer. I have shown that the writer of the Acts is not such 
 an independent writer. He thought St. Paul's thoughts, 
 spoke St. Paul's words, wrote the history of St. Paul's life- 
 work, knew the workings of St. Paul's mind, and has given 
 us information as to St. Paul's hopes, wishes, purposes, and 
 even visions. The writer of the Acts, if not St. Paul himself, 
 could only have been St. Paul's alter ego. He could not 
 possibly have been ignorant of St, Paul's experiences, either 
 at Jerusalem or at Antioch. Whatever St. Paul knew, the writer 
 of the Acts knew also, 
 
 I suspect that allowance must be made for our ignorance 
 — at this distance of time — of some of the collateral circum- 
 stances which might throw light on the subject. Something 
 must be allowed for the lapse of time between the Epistle and 
 the Acts, for the new environment, for the altered circum- 
 stances, both of St. Paul and of the Church, for the different 
 audience addressed, for the entirely opposite aim and object ; 
 and something, too, must be set down to the tact and versa- 
 
The Alleged Discre^fancy. 189 
 
 tility of St. Van], who made himself " all things to all men " * 
 (1 Cor. ix. 22). 
 
 Reuss, quoted by Professor H. B. Bruce ('^F. C. Bauer/^ 
 p. 45) :- 
 
 " The author of the Acts merits not the reproach of having 
 altered the facts to make them speak in favour of his view^ 
 butj gliding more lightly over the opposition Paul encountered 
 at Jerusalem, his aim was to insist more upon the result 
 obtained; while Paul, preoccupied with the need of raising 
 the question to the height of principles, is led to insist more 
 on the efforts required to vindicate principles." — " Theologie 
 Chretienne," ii. p. 335. 
 
 Archdeacon Farrar's "Messages of the Books/^ pp. 133, 
 134:— 
 
 " Let it be granted that the writer of the Acts wished to 
 prove that there was no irreconcilable opposition between 
 St. Paul and the Twelve, between Jewish and G-entile 
 Christians ; let it be granted that the Epistle to the Galatians 
 gives a glimpse of severer struggles and keener heart-burnings 
 
 * Archdeacon Farrar, in his " Life of St. Paul," takes for his uiotto the 
 words of St. Chrysostom, ti /cat UavXoQ rjv dW dvOpuTrog I'jv, and speaks 
 of the " consummate skill with which St. Paul's speech at Athens was framed 
 .... with arguments exquisitely conciliatory y — " St. Paul," i. 544. 
 
 Dean Howson alludes to " St. Paul's versatility, tact, and presence of 
 mind."—" Bohlen Lectures," p. 100. 
 
 An instance of this was St. Paul's calling out, " I am a Pharisee, the son 
 of a Pharisee," before the Sanhedrin (some members of which he perceived to 
 be Pharisees, Acts xxiii. 6). To the mob at Jerusalem he proclaims in the 
 Hebreio tongue that he is a Jeiv (Acts xxii. 3). To the chief captain (who is 
 a Roman) he states that he also is a Roman (Acts xxii. 27). 
 
 " It is in the Book of the Acts, perhaps, more than elsewhere that we still 
 feel the effects of the theory of Inspiration current chiefly in the seventeenth 
 
 century Where the idea of human agency has been well-nigh lost, 
 
 and each minute detail has been ascribed to direct Divine dictation, the re- 
 action is apt to be great when it is found that this view is untenable .... 
 So in regard to the author of the Acts ; if it is shown, I do not say that 
 he makes positive mistakes, but that his account is in some particulars 
 exaggerated, partial, imperfect, or incomplete, the numerous instances in 
 which his accuracy is confirmed .... are practically ignored." — Professor 
 Sanday, " The Study of the New Testament," pp. 34, 35. 
 
 2 
 
190 St. Paul the AutJior of the Acts. 
 
 than we miglit have divined from the narrative of St. Luke ; 
 let it be assumed that subjective and artificial considerations 
 played their part in the selection and arrangement of the 
 narratives which are here (in the Acts) brought together. 
 These concessions in no wise detract from the credit due to St. 
 
 Luke as a genuine historian St. Luke has misrepresented 
 
 nothing. There were divisions of opinion in the apostolic 
 
 Church St. Luke has not concealed the existence of 
 
 those conflicting views ; but^ under this partial divergence, 
 there was an essential and fundamental unity.'^ 
 
 Compare also Zeller {" The Acts of the Apostles/^ vol. ii. 
 p. 197) : — " It is true that, in the accounts of Paul's 
 conversion, and of the period immediately subsequent to 
 that event, variations exist which we found of sufficient 
 importance in estimating its historical value. Yet how little 
 these variations justify us in attributing a different origin to 
 the narratives concerned is incontrovertibly proved by the 
 circumstance, that between the three accounts of St. Paul's 
 conversion, especially between those in the ninth and twenty- 
 second chapters, there is an accordance, in a great measure 
 verbal, which renders it im/possihle to attribute them to different 
 authors." 
 
 As to the matter in the last quotation from Zeller, Dean 
 Ilowson ('^ Bohlen Lectures,'' p. 94 ff.) writes : — 
 
 '' There are thi'ee accounts of St. Paul's conversion : one 
 given directly by St. Luke in the ninth chapter ; the others 
 by St. Paul himself, as related in the 22nd and 26th chapters, 
 under apologetic conditions, but conditions extremely different 
 from one another. ... If they were true to the circumstances 
 under which they are alleged to have been uttered, and true 
 likewise to the character of the speaker as a man of good 
 judgment and fine tact, they must exhibit corresponding 
 variations." 
 
 " Speaking to the angry mob in the Temple court, it was 
 essential that St. Paul should be conciliatory, by presenting 
 his subject as much as possible on the Jewish side. . . . This 
 he does with remarkable skill He speaks in Hebrew. 
 
The Alleged Discrepancy. 191 
 
 Our part, as critics, iu the scrutiny of this speech (Acts xxii.) 
 is to observe how all the omissions, the additions, the varia- 
 tions of emphasis, on comparison with the direct narrative, 
 fit the occasion, and also harmonise with what we know from 
 other sources of St. Paul's versatility, tact, and presence of 
 mind/' 
 
 " If, next, we turn to the speech before Festus and 
 Agrippa, we find the story of his conversion told with what 
 might be termed a strong Gentile colouring; and this was in 
 harmony with the occasion, and quite according to the tone 
 and habit of St. Paul's mind and character." 
 
 Compare also Zeller (vol. ii.p.l99) : '^ Little as the Ascension, 
 iu our book (the Acts), can be reconciled with that in Luke's 
 Grospel, we must not infer from this circumstance a diversity of 
 authorship;" and Dean Burgon ("The Last Twelve Verses of St. 
 Mark," p. 189) : — " What would be gained by demonstrating 
 (as I am, of course, prepared to do) that there is really 
 710 inconsistency ivhatever between anything which St. Mark 
 here says and what the other evangelists deliver ? . . . . It 
 is only one of many places where a prima facie discrepancy, 
 though it does not fail to strike, yet, happily, altogether fails 
 
 to distress, faithful readers If sufficient critical skill 
 
 were brought to bear on the highly-elliptical portion of 
 narrative contained in these twelve verses .... any apparent 
 inconsistency .... would be found to be imaginary." 
 
 Archdeacon Farrar {" St. Paul," ii. 325-8), with reference to 
 St. Paul crying out before the Sanhedrin " I am a Pharisee," 
 has the following remarks : " We cannot defend his subse- 
 quent conduct at that meeting .... Seeing, therefore, that 
 he would meet with neither justice nor mercy from that 
 tribunal, he decided to throw among them the apple of dis- 
 cord .... The plan showed great knowledge of character, 
 and the diversion thus caused was for the time eminently 
 successful ; but was it worthy of St. Paul ? . . . . Was there 
 not the least little touch of a snggestto falsi in what he said ? 
 .... We cannot in this matter wholly see how St. Paul 
 could say without qualification, in such an assembly, ' I am a 
 
192 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 Pharisee/ .... We cannot but think that this .... was 
 hardly worthy of St. Paul." 
 
 Bishop Lightfoot (" Galatians," 4th ed., p. 125):— "The 
 articles of the so-called Apostolic Council were ' Articles of 
 Peace/ " 
 
 For an examination o£ this whole matter, see Lightfoot, 
 " Galatians," pp. 124-127. And, as to the alleged discrepancy 
 between Acts ix. and Galatians i., see pp. 91, 92 of the same 
 work. 
 
St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 193 
 
 Note H. 
 
 ON THE MEDICAL LANGUAGE IN THE THIRD 
 GOSPEL AND THE ACTS. 
 
 It has been stated by more than one commentator, that in 
 the Third Gospel there are manifest tokens of medical know- 
 ledge on the part of the writer ; and Dr. Hobart asserts 
 ("The Medical Language of St. Luke/' Dublin University 
 Press Series) that the author imtst have been a medical man. 
 On this subject the following observations are offered : — 
 1 . The Third Gospel and the Acts were written by a Jew. 
 No Gentile could have written the Third Gospel and the Acts. 
 No uncircumcised Gentile would have spoken of the Law of 
 Moses as the Law of the Lord (Luke ii. 24). To a Gentile, 
 Moses was of no more authority than Confucius is to a Chris- 
 tian ; the Jewish prophets of no more account than Socrates 
 to ourselves. Any one who likes to examine the phraseology 
 of St. Luke's writings with the aid of Grinfield's '' Novum 
 Testamentum, Editio Hellenistica/' can easily satisfy himself 
 that the author was a Jew, who thought, as well as wrote, 
 in a Hebraistic manner. Trace, for instance, the use through- 
 out the Third Gospel and the Acts of lyevero (used no less than 
 sixty times) as in Gen. vi. 2 ; lytmo iv tm, with the in- 
 finitive, as in Gen. xlii. 35; ft7r£ §£, as in Gen. xiv. 21; jcat 
 \^ov, as in Gen. i. 31. To the suggestion that the writer 
 was a proselyte, we may answer at once, it is impossible. 
 You cannot change a Jew into a Gentile, or a Gentile into 
 a Jew. They are radically and vi<"ally distinct now, and were 
 radically and vitally distinct then. To the Jew, the Gentile 
 was " Qj heathen man," if not a publican (Matt, xviii. 17)> 
 '' common and unclean " (Acts x. 28) . The Jew was brought up 
 amid peculiar modes of thought, and with peculiar customs as 
 to food and other matters, which prevented his mixing with 
 
194 St. Paul the Author of the Ads. 
 
 the Gentiles. The writer of tlie Acts was a devout Jew, born 
 and bred, so to speak, in the atmosphere of the Temple and 
 the synagogue, and reverently familiar, from childhood and 
 the dawn of thought, with his own sacred Law and Prophets, 
 in the Greek version. No amount of study, by one who was 
 not born a Jew, could, in later years — when the character 
 was formed and the opinions jSxed — make up for his want of 
 familiarity with the substance and diction of the Scriptures 
 in youth, when the growing mind is most easily coloured and 
 permanently impressed. Would an Englishman, however long 
 might be the time he spent in Ireland, ever acquire the brogue 
 and Irishisms of a real native of the Emerald Isle ? Would a 
 Mohammedan who became a Christian ever be able to write a 
 long history in the phraseology of the Authorised Version of 
 the Bible ? " Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard 
 his spots V Can you alter nature, or habit, — which is second 
 nature, — when that habit has grown hard, and strong, and 
 fixed with time ? It is simply and absolutely impossible. A 
 Jew did not think and write as a Gentile, and a Gentile neither 
 did nor could think and write as a Jew. The words of Canon 
 Westcott as to St. John apply with equal force to the author 
 of the Acts : — " The whole narrative shows that the author 
 was a Jew. He is familiar with Jewish opinions and customs ; 
 his composition is impressed with Jewish characteristics. His 
 special knowledge, his literary style, his religious faith, all 
 point to the same conclusion.-'^ We may confidently affirm 
 of such a thoroughly Hebraistic writer (as of the poet), Nasci- 
 tur, non jit. Whatever the materials used, Zeller has shown 
 that the Third Gospel and the Acts are the work of a single 
 author. That author is certainly a Jew, a Greek-speaking 
 Jew, thoroughly familiar with the LXX, and steeped, so to 
 speak, in its peculiar phraseology (see " St. Paul the Author 
 of the Acts," pp. 50-52). 
 
 2. Luke was not a Jew, — not even a proselyte received by 
 the rite of circumcision into the Jewish Church, — but a Gen- 
 tile. As to this, Colossians iv. 11-14 is quite conclusive. — 
 Bishoj) Lightfoot, in loc. 
 
The Medical Language. 195 
 
 3. Hence it is evident tliat^ whether the writer of the Third 
 Gospel and the Acts was a medical man or not, Lithe, at any 
 rate, could not have been the writer. It might as well be 
 asserted that Macaulay's History of England was the work of 
 a Frenchman. 
 
 4. Galen, the most voluminous, if not the chief, of the 
 medical writers quoted in Dr. Hobart's learned work, was 
 not born (a.d. 130) till several years after the Gospel of St. 
 Luke (at the latest computation) v/as written ; so that it is 
 rather a case of Galen copying Luke than of Luke copying 
 Galen. I doubt, too, if medical phraseology in those early 
 times was quite so fixed and technical as it is to-day. Although 
 the author of the Acts could not have studied Galea, he may 
 perhaps have read Hippocrates ; but that would not of itself 
 entitle him to a medical diploma. 
 
 5. Almost all the words, however, which Dr. Hobart ad- 
 duces as evidence of medical knowledge on the part of the 
 writer of St. Luke's Gospel are to be found in the LXX 
 version of the Old Testament Scriptures, with which any 
 devout Greek- speaking Jew would have been suflBciently 
 familiar. Take, for instance, vjiaiveiv (Gen. xxix. 6) ; lacrtg 
 (Ezek. XXX. 21). 
 
 Was Jeremiah a medical man because in one verse he 
 speaks of halm, 2^Mlsician, and healing (Jer. viii. 22), and 
 uses the verb to heal twice in another verse (Jer. xvii. 14) ? 
 
 Dr. Hobart (p. 132) says : — '' The usual division of the 
 day and night in the writers of the New Testament is into 
 hours and watches. St. Luke, however, employs another 
 division of time as well, namely, — 
 
 Midday, 
 
 jUfCTTJjUjSpta. 
 
 Evening, 
 
 eo-TTE/oa. 
 
 Midnight, 
 
 (XtaOVVKTlOV. 
 
 Morning, 
 
 opdpoq. 
 
 The first two of which are peculiar to him, and the last two 
 almost so. ^OpOpiog is used by him alone. 
 
 '^ Now these latter were the usual times, and the usual terms 
 
196 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 to denote them, for the accession or abatement of diseases, 
 visiting patients, applying remedies, &c. In the following 
 passage we meet with three of them, used in describing the 
 visiting of a patient/' Dr. Hobart then quotes a passage 
 from Galen, in which the words opdpog, iairepa, jueo-rj^/B/Jta are 
 to be found. 
 
 Long before Galen's time, however, these same words had 
 been used in a work with which the Jewish author of the 
 Third Gospel must have been perfectly familiar, I mean the 
 Septuagint Version of the Old Testament Scriptures, which, 
 in St. Paul's day, was the Authorised Version for all Greek- 
 speaking Jews. We have only to turn to Schleusner's " Lexi- 
 con Veteris Testamenti" to find that — 
 
 opdpog occurs in Ps. Ixii. 6, and cxviii. 148 ; also in Genesis, 
 Exodus, Joshua, Judges, and Proverbs. 
 
 juEo-ovuKrtov occurs in Ps. cxviii. 62 ; also in Judges, Ruth, 
 and Isaiah. 
 
 /x£o-»jju/3pm occurs iu Genesis xviii. 1 (and twice besides) ; 
 also in Deuteronomy, 2 Kings, and Isaiah. 
 
 eairepa occurs in Genesis xix. 1 ; also in Numbers, Judges, 
 1 Chronicles, Isaiah, and Daniel. 
 
 opOpiog occurs in Job xxix. 7 ; and twice in 3 Maccabees, 
 chap. V. 
 
 Moreover, //£(7rj;i|3pta is coupled with kainpa in Ps. liv. 17, 
 and with iJieaovvKTiov in Isaiah lix. 10. 
 
 So, too, the word (iacng, Acts iii. 7. Dr. Hobart, p. 34, 
 says that " it is peculiar to St. Luke. The words employed 
 to describe the seat of the lameness tend to show that the 
 writer was acquainted with medical phraseology, and had in- 
 vestigated the nature of the disease under which the man 
 suflfered," The word (3aaig, however, is used more than once 
 in Exodus, chap. xxvi. 19, 21, 25, &c. Moreover, 
 
 ojov, ''peculiar to St. Luke," p. 135, occurs in the LXX, 
 Deut. xxii. 6. 
 
 avafiaXXuv, "peculiar to St. Luke," p. 138, is to be found 
 in Jer. xiii. 20; Ps. Ixxvii. 21 ; ciii. 2. 
 
 StajSaXXfiv, "" peculiar to St. Luke," p. 139, in Dan. iii. 8. 
 
The Medical Language. 197 
 
 ^ia-)(h)piZf:iv, avinr£p(\afil5aveiv, '^peculiar to St. Luke/' 
 p. 12G, both occur in the LXX, namely, in Gen. i. 4, and 
 Ezek. V. 3. 
 
 6\oK\r}pia, " peculiar to St. Luke/' p. 193, is to bo found 
 in Isaiah i. 6. 
 
 " St. Luke alone uses the very rare word avmrapepx^oOat.'^ 
 — Dr. Hohart, p. 30. This very rare word may be found in 
 the book of Wisdom, chap. xvi. 10 (included in the LXX). 
 
 Again, p. 149, " t^evyog is peculiar to St. Luke, and is the 
 word used in medical language for a pair of nerves,'' &c. 
 
 But was not this, let me ask, the natural and ohvious word 
 for St. Luke to use for a yoke of oxen (chap. xiv. 19), — just 
 the very word and phrase (^Evyoc /Bowv) which he found ready 
 to his hand in the LXX (3 Kings xix. 21) ? 
 
 I may add that Iv^vvajxovv, peculiar to the so-called writings 
 of St. Luke and to St, Paul (including Hebrews xi. 34), 
 is to be found in no Greek author whatever out of the 
 Septiiagint. St. Paul knew every word of the LXX. 
 
 The radical defect (if I may venture so to speak) in Dr. 
 Hobart's laborious work (unless I am much mistaken) is, that 
 he takes so little account of the Septuagint. It would be easy 
 to add further examples, but it is needless. I will only point 
 out that apparent resemblance does not always mean real 
 identity. 
 
 6. The few remaining distinctly medical terms and allusions 
 may be explained by the fact that the writer of the Third 
 Gospel was undoubtedly a man of high education and con- 
 siderable culture. An Englishman is not, necessarily, a doctor 
 because he uses such words as diagnosis and phthisis, or even 
 because he talks of microbes and bacilli. The writer of 
 the Acts (in chap, xxvii.) uses a good many nautical expres- 
 sions, but it would certainly be rash on that account to draw 
 the conclusion that he must have been a professional mariner 
 and an able-bodied seaman. (Cf. pp. 96, 97.) 
 
 Archdeacon Farrar ("Messages of the Books," p. 74, note) 
 says : — " The theme of St. Luke's medical knowledge has 
 been greatly (and perhaps unduly) expanded by Dr. Hobart." 
 
198 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 7. The following seems to me to be no unfair criticism of 
 Dr. Hobart^s work : — 
 
 " The author presses the matter beyond reason^ as, for ex- 
 ample, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus .... where 
 even common words, which any man writing on the themes in 
 question would naturally use, are gravely set forth as evidences 
 of Luke's medical character and training, just because these 
 words happen to be employed in a different connexion by the 
 old writers on medicine." 
 
 8. Every scholar must appreciate the labour and the learn- 
 ing which have been expended on Dr. Hobart's handsome 
 and interesting volume. But, notwithstanding, I venture to 
 assert that the correct solution of the problem of the author- 
 ship of the Third Gospel and the Acts is not the solution 
 propounded by Dr. Hobart. There was only one man who 
 by any possibility could have been the author of this remark- 
 able work (for it is one work in two parts), and he was the 
 remarkable man whose life-work is so minutely recorded 
 therein, namely, St. Paul. 
 
 Luke, it has been pointed out, was an uncircumcised 
 Gentile,* and, if he had anything to do with the writing of the 
 Gospel which bears his name, it could only have been as the 
 amanuensis of St. PAUL.f 
 
 * Farrar, " St. Paul," i. 480. 
 
 + Cf. Bishop Wordsworth on Gal. vi. 11 : " In those times authors 
 usually dictated their productions to secretaries, but did not write them with 
 their own hand (Horace, 1 Ep. x. 49 ; 1 Sat. x. 92) . . . . St. Paul's oini 
 previous practice and general intention was to dictate his Epistles to an 
 amanuensis." Archdeacon Farrar, with reference to the same passage, 
 ssiys, " That this was St. Paul's normal condition," — " a condition that ren- 
 dered it difficult and painful to write at all," caused by his suffering " from 
 actde Ojihthahnia,"—" seems to result from his almost invariable practice of 
 employing an amanuensis." — " St. Paul," i. pp. 659, 660. 
 
St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 199 
 
 Note I. 
 
 ON THE STYLE OF THE WRITER. 
 
 Another objection that has been made is, that '' while the 
 style of St. Luke is clear and pellucid, that of St. Paul is 
 vigorous, animated, with parentheses, often going off at a 
 tangent, and decidedly, in places, abrupt. ^^ Now, I grant 
 that there is a certain ajpjparent difference of style between the 
 Acts and the Epistles ; but I say, at once, that the cause of 
 this difference is connected rather with the subject than with 
 the author. " The tone of the Acts confessedly differs some- 
 what from that of the Epistles.-" — Bisliop Lightfoot, ^^Gala- 
 tians," p. 333. The Epistles of St. Paul are personal, familiar, 
 argumentative, hortatory. The Acts, on the other hand, are 
 a formal historical and apologetic treatise. A Idstory written 
 " abruptly, with parentheses,^' while the writer from time to 
 time " goes off at a tangent,'' would not be calculated to 
 impress or benefit the readers, even if any such could be found. 
 In his Epistles St. Paul was attacking enemies, in the thick 
 of the fight — or else speaking familiarly to his own converts. 
 In the Acts he aims at peace and reconciliation between con- 
 tending factions, he desires to give a favourable view of 
 Christianity to enemies, and as '' Paul the aged," in his 
 enforced retirement from active service, takes a calm review 
 of those stirring scenes in which he had acted so prominent a 
 part, rejoicing in the triumphant success with which, after so 
 many struggles and in spite of so many hindrances, his labours 
 had at last been crowned. " G reat masters can paint in different 
 manners, and great authors can write in different styles. 
 What more different than St. Cyprian's Epistle to Donatus, 
 and the rest of his works ? What more different than the 
 beautiful lyrical effusions of Aristophanes, and his comic 
 raillery ? "What more different than the exuberant luxuriance 
 
200 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 of ' Lycidas ' and ' Comus/ and the sober severity of ' Samson 
 Agonistes ' and ^ Paradise Eegained ? ' " — Bishop Wordsworth , 
 '' Gr. Test./' Int. to Hebrews, p. 371. 
 
 But, in point of fact, this difference in style is more apparent 
 than real. St. Chrysostom said that he thought that he could 
 detect St. Paul's style in the writings of St. Luke, and Bengel 
 made a similar assertion. I am well content to shelter myself 
 behind the opinion of such critics ; and, when microscopically 
 examined, the style of the Acts does show a remarkable sub- 
 stratum of resemblance to St. Paul's Epistles. Let me give 
 an example or two. Besides the Hebraistic phraseology and 
 the figures of speech common to the two. Paronomasia, Hen- 
 diadys. Oxymoron, and many others, there is the use of fitv 
 without the following Se, and the frequent use of virapx'^v 
 (not in any other Evangelist), while the usual formula, yvtuorov 
 IcTTii) vfxiv, of the Acts (chap. iv. 10) (from the LXX) seems to 
 correspond closely with the favourite yvwpiZ,^) vfxiv (1 Cor. xii. 3) 
 of St. Paul's Epistles (see also above, p. 183). 
 
 1. It has also been objected that '^ the accusative after the 
 passive in a moral sense is found only in St. Paul." On 
 looking, however, at Luke ii. 9, I find i^o^r\dr]aav tpoliov (as 
 in Jonah i. 10 — evidence, by the way, that the writer was a 
 Jew), and at Acts xviii. 25, ovTog r]v KaTr)\r\pitvoQ ttjv oSov. 
 What, may I ask, are 0o/3ov and oSov here but accusatives after 
 the passives l(po(iri9rjaav and K:arr}\i}^£i'Oc in a moral sense ? 
 
 2. " The omission of the copula elaiv, in the third plural, is, 
 probably, seldom or never found out of St. Paul's Epistles." 
 But, let mo ask, is not the copula elaiv, in the third plural, 
 omitted in Luke xii. 37, fiuKapioi ol dovXoi eKeivoi, and in 
 Luke xvii. 17, ol Se Ivveu ttov ; to say nothing of Luke xiii. 23, 
 el oXiyot 01 (TUit^ojuevoi ? Moreover, the omission of ilcnv was 
 not unusual in the LXX, which was familiar enough to the 
 author of the Acts, e.g., Isaiah lix. 7, quoted by St. Paul in 
 Horn. iii. 16. 
 
 3. " A peculiar use of the dative is entirely absent from the 
 Gospels and Acts, but very frequent in St. Paul, such as 
 Zyv T(x> Qecf), Kvpi(^." Now, if my critic will only look at 
 
The Style of the Writer. 201 
 
 Luke XX. 38, he will find this very phrase, the absence of 
 which he somewhat prematurely laments, viz., Z,r^v no Gew, 
 and in Luke ii. 23, ayioq ti^ Kvpito, and in Acts xvi. 15, ttio-t-oc 
 Ti^ Kupttj). These instances certainly serve to show that this 
 ^' peculiar use of the dative, frequent in St. Paul " (the dative 
 of interest, Winer, p. 265), is also to be found in the so-called 
 writings of St. Luke. This particular idiom, perhaps, may not 
 be found in the speeches of St. Paul ; but this is of the less 
 importance, as the speeches of St. Paul do undoubtedly con- 
 tain very many of the identical phrases used by the Apostle 
 in his Epistles. 
 
 4. '^ The elliptical usage, ov fxovov Sc . . . . aWa icai is pecu- 
 liar to St. Paul.^^ This, then, let me say, tends to support St. 
 Paul's authorship of the Acts, for this expression, peculiar to 
 St. Paul, may be found in Acts xix. 27 {not a speech of St. 
 Paul). 
 
 5. The particular use of /xt] yivoiTo, in answer to the ques- 
 tion jurjrt, may not occur; but the phrase itself does occur in 
 Luke XX. 16 (and this although it is not used in the parallel 
 passages of St. Matthew and St. Mark). As, too, it is not 
 an uncommon expression in the LXX, it must have been 
 well known to the Jewish author of the Third Gospel. 
 
 6. As to apa ovv, no doubt it was a very effective utterance 
 whenever St. Paul wished " to conclude a point of reasoning; " 
 but its absence from the Third Gospel and the Acts may not 
 unnaturally be accounted for (as also the absence of the par- 
 ticular usage of fit] 7£votro) by the fact that these constitute 
 an Idstorical, and not an argumentative, treatise. 
 
 7. " Subjoined are some Pauline phrases which are not to 
 be found in St. Luke's Gospel or the Acts, Iv Kvpiuj joined 
 with j^aipsTi. In Romans xii. 12, he has ry iXirtdi xaipovn^." 
 
 I grant, at once, that these precise phrases cannot be found; 
 but then we may be allowed to ask the pertinent question, 
 "Why should they be found ? Let me add a noteworthy fact, 
 which is certainly deserving of some reasonable explanation. 
 One phrase from this very verse (Romans xii. 12) and two 
 phrases from the preceding verse all occur in the Acts — 
 
202 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 namely, ry irpoaevxy TrpoaKaprepeiv (Acts vi. 4) t(^ Trveu/zart 
 Zeeiv (Acts rviii. 25) t(jj) Kvpuo SovXeveiv (Acts xs. 19). Why- 
 does Luke so largely borrow St. PaaFs phrases ? Has he 
 none of his own ? I may also mention that o Kvpiog, as applied 
 to Christ, occurs twenty times (scarcely ever in Matthew or 
 Mark) and ■)^aipeiv or x°P« twenty times in the Third Gospel 
 and the Acts. Dean Howson points out (Paley's " Hora3 
 Paulinse," p. 424) " the remarkable profusion which St. Luke's 
 Gospel contains of words expressive of joy and exultation." 
 The word iXirig occurs six or eight times in the Acts, being 
 applied (in the mouth of St. Paul) to the hope of Israel (ful- 
 filled in Christ, Romans xv. 8), and to the hope of the resur- 
 rection (1 Cor. XV. 22-26). It may be added that the 
 rejoicing in the Acts is due to the triumph of the Gospel 
 preached by Paul (Acts xv. 3). Hence I think we may fairly 
 say that St. Luke and the Acts contain implicitly the sense 
 and substance of the two phrases alluded to (which were 
 written explicitly in St. Paul's Epistles), and may, therefore, 
 well have proceeded from the same author as these Epistles. 
 
 As to the awkward and unaccountable phrase, ?} (TO(pia 
 Tov Qeov, in St. Luke xi. 49, I am quite content merely to 
 point out, that a difficulty which has puzzled and baffled all 
 the most acute and learned commentators (including Meyer) 
 is very easily explained by the authorship of St. Paul. I 
 will only, in passing, observe (on the authority of Dean 
 Plumptre), that the Prophets in this passage are not the Old 
 Testament Prophets, but the Christian Prophets of the New 
 Testament (1 Cor. xii. 28). 
 
 In conclusion. Bishop Wordsworth's remark may be 
 quoted : — '^ It can scarcely be supposed that the divinel}'- 
 inspired Apostle, St. Paul, could not write in different styles 
 on different occasions, and to different persons."-^" Gr. Test.," 
 Int. to Hebrews, p. 371.* 
 
 * For many other striking pecnliarities of St. Paul's style, which are to be 
 found in the Third Gospel and the Acts, see "St Paul the Author of the 
 Acts," p. 25. and supra, pp. 165-168, 
 
St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 203 
 
 Note J. 
 ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACTS. 
 
 I. It is worthy of remark that the opening event in the 
 narrative of the Acts is the detailed account by the writer of 
 the appointment of an Apostle, Matthias, who was not one of 
 those originally chosen by Christ, but who, nevertheless, was 
 recognised as possessing equal authority, and " was numbered 
 with the eleven Apostles^' (Acts i. 26). This clearly was not 
 inserted on account of Matthias, who is never mentioned again. 
 Was it not inserted with reference to St. Paul, whose right to be 
 called an Apostle was so persistently questioned and so bitterly 
 disputed (cf. Gal. i. 1, 8; 1 Cor. ix. 1-3; 2 Cor. xii. 11, 12; 
 and Col. iv. 10, 11) ? The writer in Luke i. 1-4 states that 
 existing histories do not satisfy him, and that he is going to 
 give his own account with a definite object from his own point 
 of view. The Acts hegin, as well as end, with St. Paul. 
 
 II. — The only leaders of the Church in the Acts are Peter, 
 John, James — just the very three named by St. Paul (Gal. i. ii.). 
 Barnabas, Stephen, Philip, Mark, all pave the way for Paul. 
 " Coming events cast their shadows before.'' 
 
 III. The other Apostles are not mentioned at all, except in 
 the bare list of names given in Acts i. Their names are 
 mentioned, and then the writer finishes with them. And even 
 these leaders disappear from the history in a most remarkable, 
 because in an almost imperceptible, manner ; whilst the writer 
 constantly speeds onward, tracing the progress and success 
 of St. Paul's preaching among the Gentiles, and conducting 
 him to Rome, the capital of the world, the goal of his labours, 
 and therefore also of the historian's narrative. 
 
 IV. Matthias is numbered with the Apostles ; that is the 
 end. James appears only in connexion with Paul, then 
 disappears. John, without comment, early passes from the 
 scene. Even Peter goes to another place (chap. xii. 17), and 
 
204 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 is never alluded to again by the historian (except for a single 
 instant in the account of the conference at Jerusalem, 
 Acts XV.). Barnabas sets out on his missionary journey (Acts 
 XV. 39), but we are told nothing ef his doings, and he is never 
 heard of again. St. PauFs work alone is recorded with ever- 
 increasing interest in its ever-increasing success. His alone 
 is the commanding figure left impressed in large outline and 
 vivid colouring on the reader's mental retina, as preaching 
 the Gospel with all boldness, and with all success, at Rome, 
 the capital of the Gentiles and the centre of the world ; 
 aKdikvTiog, — the last word in the history, — being "^ evidently 
 chosen for the emphatic weight of its cadence, expressive of 
 motion succeeded by rest, of action settled in repose " (cf. 
 p. 89). — Farrar, '^Messages of the Books,'' p. 130. 
 
 V. The parallelism with respect to persecution between St. ■ 
 Paul and Christ tended to show that St. Paul, having experi- 
 enced *^the fellowship of Christ's sufferings" (Phil. iii. 10), 
 must be a true disciple, — a matter that some strenuously 
 denied. 
 
 The fact that Matthias, though not one of the original 
 twelve Apostles appointed by Christ himself, was numbered 
 with those Apostles, and was considered to possess equal 
 authority with them (Acts i. 17-25), tended to show that 
 St. Paul also might be a true Apostle, possessed of full 
 apostolic authority, though not one of the original Twelve. 
 
 The parallelism between St. Paul and St. Peter tended to 
 show that St. Paul was as much an Apostle as St. Peter, 
 preaching the same Gospel, with equal authority, and with 
 equal success. 
 
 These matters, and the mention of Apollos, as being in an 
 inferior stage, and having only an imperfect knowledge of the 
 Gospel (Acts xviii. 24-26), in connexion with the Baptism of 
 John and with those twelve disciples of his at Ephesus, on whom 
 St. Paul afterwards laid his hands, in order to admit them to 
 full Christian privileges (Acts xix. 1-6), seem also to cor- 
 respond to, and fit in with, the disputes at Corinth, where the 
 Christians were divided into factious parties, one saying, "I 
 
The Structure of the Acts. 205 
 
 am of Cephas "; and another, " I of Paul"; and " I of Apollos"; 
 and "I of Christ" (1 Cor. i. 12). And they seem precisely 
 to express St. Paul's view that Christ was not divided (1 Cor. 
 i. ] 3), but all, — Peter, Paul, and Apollos, — were members of 
 Christ, preaching the same Gospel (1 Cor. iii. 21-23) ; and that, 
 at all events, no precedence could be claimed for Apollos, who 
 had only ivatered what Paul h.a,d planted (1 Cor. iii. 4-8). 
 
 It may be added, that while the name " Theophilus," in 
 Luke i. 3, was probably suggested by its own inherent suit- 
 ability, and because it so well expressed St. Paul's affectionate 
 feelings towards his converts, whom he was wont to call 
 i]-yairr]fxtvoL vVo Kvpiov (2 Th. ii. 13), and ayaTrrjrot 0eou 
 (Rom. i, 7) — which latter expression, in the abstract, exactly 
 coincides with the concrete 0€o^tXoe) — and while the very for- 
 mation of the word was pleasantly associated in St. Paul's mind 
 with the name of Timothy (T</lio^£oc), St. Paul's ''own dearly- 
 beloved son in the faith" (1 Tim. i. 2 ; 2 Tim. i. 2), ''who, 
 as a son with the father, had served with him in the Gospel " 
 (Phil. ii. 22) — while this, doubtless, was so, it seems to me 
 not impossible that St. Paul, a prisoner accused by his own 
 countrymen, may have felt with regard to the dedication of thia 
 important work, containing the vindication of his own conduct 
 (especially as a Jew), and the defence of Christianity, — the his- 
 tory of its rise in, and progress beyond, Judaism, of its resistless 
 advance and triumphant success, — it seems to me by no 
 means impossible that St, Paul may have felt that there was 
 a special appropriateness in placing in the forefront of such 
 a work the name of that high priest (the official repre- 
 sentative of St. Paul's own race and nation), armed with 
 whose letters and authority (Acts ix. 2) he had, before his 
 conversion, wrought such " havoc " among the first Christian 
 disciples, when "beyond measure he persecuted the Church 
 of God and wasted it" (Gal. i. 13). That St. Paul had not 
 forgotten the high priest is clear from the fact that, not long 
 before the Acts were written, he alluded to him in his Hebrew 
 speech to the Jerusalem mob (Acts xxii. 5) : '" The high priest of 
 that day, who is still living/ — i.e., Theophilus." — Alford, in loc^ 
 p 2 
 
206 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I. In reply to the statement tliat " very respectable authori- 
 ties have failed to see '' the strange and striking similarity of 
 Luke to Paul, I can only say, " So much the worse for these 
 very respectable authorities/^ Scholars do not turn even to 
 the magnutn opus of Dean Alford, — nomen venerabile, — for 
 the latest results of Biblical criticism. This, having been 
 published fully thirty years ago, really belongs to the past 
 generation. I have no hesitation in saying that Alford is 
 entirely mistahen in asserting that there is no trace in the 
 Acts of St. Paul's peculiar diction, — a fact which even Chry- 
 sostom was able to observe. I am prepared to maintain that 
 many such traces are to be found in every page, — notably 
 (though not by any means exclusively) in the speeches of 
 St. Paul. These, however, require (like the fossil organisms 
 in the chalk) a microscopic examination before they can be 
 satisfactorily discerned or fully appreciated. But even Alford 
 allows that there is a ''similar cast of mind and feeling" 
 between the unique Apostle Paul, Jetv, Pharisee, and once a 
 persecutor of the Church, and the beloved physician Luke, 
 who remained, to the last, an uncircumcised Gentile. Even 
 Alford allows that the identity of the account of the Lord's 
 Supper in Luke xxii. and 1 Cor. xi. is " a remarkable coin- 
 cidence," and that the use of dediKaKv/mevoQ in Luke xviii. — in 
 connexion with justification without works — is "remarkable." 
 This paradox disappears, these coincidences are accounted 
 for, and what is remarkable is very simply explained by the 
 authorship of St. Paul. 
 
 II. I admit that " it is very natural to suppose that an 
 intimate friend of St. Paul, who recorded his life^ should adopt 
 
Conclusion. 207 
 
 many evangelical expressions which he had often heard from 
 St. Paul/^ But, let me ask, does this explain the writer's 
 use of many expressions which are not evangelical, and which 
 are to be found in those parts of the history in which 
 St. Paul's name does not occur ? Does this explain the 
 writer's use of several hundreds of St. Paul's words and 
 phrases, his use of St. Paul's figures of speech, of his lexi- 
 cal and grammatical peculiarities ? Is there any instance on 
 record in all the history of mankind in which tioo human 
 minds have been so precisely identical as to appear like one ? 
 It was not so in the typical case of Dr. Johnson and Boswell. 
 St. Paul was confessedly unique — unique in character, unique in 
 experience, unique in position. Yet, if we are to follow the 
 vague, unsubstantial tradition as to the authorship of St. Luke, 
 we have to rest content with the absurd and impotent con- 
 clusion that St. Luke was the exact image of the unique St. 
 Paul ! "We are to believe that St. Luke had no personality 
 of his own, his only raison-d'etre being to absorb and reflect 
 St. Paul's own peculiar and unique individuality. We have 
 to believe that St. Paul not only taught him the distinctive 
 doctrines of Christianity, but also the doctrine of the Greek 
 article, the intricacies of the Greek particles, — that he not 
 only instructed him in theology, but also in grammar, logic, 
 and rhetoric, as well as in Jewish phrases, prejudices, and 
 peculiarities. In a word, we are asked to believe that St. 
 Paul transformed the uncircumcised Gentile, Luke, into a 
 devout and enthusiastic Jew ! " Can the Ethiopian change his 
 skin, or the leopard his spots ? " Of the Jew, most of all, can 
 it be emphatically afl&rmed, iVasciVwr, nan fit. Could any hypo- 
 thesis or tradition be more absurd, unreasonable, and im- 
 possible ? 
 
 III. The writer has the entree to the innermost recesses of 
 St. Paul's mind, and is able, without any difficulty, to tell us 
 as much as he chooses of St. Paul's thoughts, wishes, hopes, 
 fears, purposes, plans, and visions. What more could St. 
 Paul himself do ? 
 
 The whole matter really depends on this : Is the Paul pre- 
 
208 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 sented to us in the Acts the objective Paul^ as he appeared 
 to Timothy (or Luke), or is he the subjective Paul, as he 
 appeared to himself, and as he describes and represents him- 
 self in his Epistles ? Now, in the Acts, the Paul is wholly 
 and entirely the subjective Paul, — there is no trace of any 
 objectivity whatever. The St. Paul of the Acts is the very 
 SAME St. Paul of the Epistles reproduced with photographic 
 accuracy, — reproduced, too, in tlie veey identical words and 
 phrases of St. Paul's OWN Epistles.* There is no estimate at 
 all of St. Paul's character and work, such as must unquestion- 
 ably have been found in the Acts, had they been memorials of 
 Paul the Martyr, published by a friendly biographer. Any one 
 who chooses may soon satisfy himself that the Acts are not 
 memorials of Paul the Martyr, but the defence of Paul the 
 Prisoner (Acts xxiii. 18; Eph. iii. 1). 
 
 IV. Ever since the time of Bacon, facts have been apt to 
 be, not only stubborn, but formidable ; and, after all, in the 
 long run. Truth cannot fail to prove herself stronger even 
 than Tradition. 
 
 If (as more than one critic has pointed out) I speak some- 
 what confidently, it is only because (adopting the inductive 
 method recommended by Lord Bacon) I have examined, — 
 laboriously and microscopically examined, — the facts. To my 
 mind (applying Bishop Butler's aphorism as to probability 
 
 * " Drawing a character from the exterior is possible, from the interior 
 scarcely ever so, just as it is very difficult to succeed in dnaling with a 
 hero of a different nationality.'' — From a review in the Guardian, Feb. 
 1884. 
 
 Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes has pointed out, in a humorous passage, that 
 connected with any given person (A) there are three distinct individualities. 
 These are — 
 
 1. The objective A, as he appears to another person, B. 
 
 2. The subjective A, as he appears to himself, A. 
 
 3. The real A, as he truly is, in point of fact. 
 
 The real A may be a very different individuality from either the objective 
 A or the subjective A. In the Acts, as I have said, we have the subjtctive 
 Paul of the Epistles. This appears to be incontrovertible from the following 
 
Conclusion. 209 
 
 being tlie guide of life*), these facts uumistakably and inevit- 
 ably prove the authorship of St. Paul. 
 
 V. In conclusion, I may be permitted to say that I shall 
 
 considerations : First, the author of the Acts does estimate character, does 
 criticise motive, e.g., he tells us that the Pharisees were covetous (L. xvi. 
 14), that Sergius Paulus was a prudent man (A. xiii. 7), and that Barnabas 
 was a good man (A. xi. 24), and he tells us that Felix and Festus perverted 
 justice to gratify the Jews (A. xxiv. ; xxv.). Secondly, he relates the personal 
 history of St. Paul (often with the detailed minuteness of a diary), — St. 
 Paul, in fact, is the Hero of the book, —he reveals to the reader the inner 
 workings of St. Paul's mind, and he has the keenest interest in, and the 
 fullest sympathy with, St. Paul's work (A. xix. 20). Thirdhj, the author 
 of the Acts does not estimate St. Paul's character, does not criticise St. 
 Paul's motives. He never applies to St. Paul any distinctive epithet such 
 as noble, heroic, good, great, glorious (see p. 59). He does not even, as would 
 have been only natural if writing after St. Paul's martyrdom — in anti- 
 cipation of Irenseus, who referred to his martyred master as "the 
 blessed Polycarp'— he does not even call him "the blessed Paul." The St. 
 Paul of the Acts is quite colourless, simply Paul and nothing besides. 
 There is no indication of any separate individuality in the author — no trace 
 of the slightest difference of standpoint between him and St. Paul in respect 
 of time, place, circumstances, purpose, or opinion. If I might borrow an 
 astronomical expression, I should say that, as regards the author of the 
 Acts, the parallax of St. Paul is nil. He not only sees everything eye to 
 eye with St. Paul, but he sees everything with the eyes of St. Paul. The 
 Paul of the Acts is the subjective Paul, and none other ; and only St. Paul 
 himself could have exhibited the sxibjective Paul with his peculiar idiosyn- 
 crasy, his " intense individuality " (see also pp. 57-59 and 65-67). It 
 may be added that the authorship of St. Paul possibly explains the curious 
 fact that in all the detailed account of St. Paul's life in the Acts there 
 is no mention of his having ever penned one single epistle, " weighty and 
 powerful" (2 Cor. x. 10) as these, his "letters," were. 
 
 * The late Archdeacon Hardwick wrote : " Who, so long as we continue 
 in the present stage of our existence, will approximate more closely to the 
 right solution of the hardest problems of humanity than such men as 
 Bacon, Butler, Pascal, and Leibnitz ? " (" Christ and other Masters," p. 7). 
 Mr. Gladstone, with his great and unique experience of human affairs, 
 has endorsed Bishop Butler's aphorism, and has also designated him " the 
 greatest and most profound writer among the divines and prelates of the 
 Church of England during many centuries," predicting that " the future will 
 secure for him a degree of fame beyond even that which he has attained in 
 the past." 
 
210 St. Paul the Author of the Acts. 
 
 greatly rejoice if my researches should serve to stimulate the 
 (now sorely-needed) scientific study of the Historic Gospel; 
 and I may add that, although Conventional Christianity appears 
 to be decaying, and even mere Theological Christianity seems 
 waxing old and ready to vanish away* — " lost in the gloom of 
 doubts that darken the schools "-f — (and would that the same 
 might be said of the odium theologicum and 'Hhe pigmy spites 
 of the village spire ! ") f — Spiritual Christianity, with its thrice- 
 blessed fruits of practical Christian Love for the healing of 
 the nations, the true balm for the sin and suffering of man- 
 kind, was never more vigorous or full of life than it is to-day. J 
 
 * Mr. Herbert Spencer speaks of " the theological thaw going on so fast 
 on all sides." — " Study of Sociology," tenth ed., p. 313. 
 
 t Lord Tennyson. 
 
 J The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in his recent Visitation Addresses 
 (October 1885), "Are we to modify Fundamental Doctrine V p. 11, says : 
 " The position of the believer is now stronger than ever it has been before 
 .... Wherefore, let us hope and believe." 
 
 WYMAK AND SONS, PSiNIBBS, GBBAT QUBBir BTBliai, tONBON, W.C. 
 
 \W 
 
 A 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 f<!tNC» 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A.