Lwa
423
LUSK
large number remain that seem auite unassailable.
Hamack (Luke the Phvsician^ 13) says: "It is as
good as certain from the subject-matter, and more
especially from the style, of this great work that the
author was a physician by profession. Of course, in
making such a statement one still exposes oneself to
the scorn of the critics, and yet the arguments' which
are alleged in its support are simply convincing. . . .
Those, however, who have studied it [Hobart's book]
carefully, will, I think, find it impossible to escape the
conclusion that the question here is not one of merely
accidental linguistic colouring, but that this great
historical work was composed by a writer who was
either a physician or was quite intimatelv acquainted
with medical language and science. And, indeed,
this conclusion holds good not only for the 'we' sec-
tions, but for the wh^e book." Hamack gives the
subject special treatment in an appendix of twenty-
two pages. Hawkins and Zahn come to the same con-
clusion. The latter observes (Einl., 11, 427): "Ho-
bart has proved for everyone who can appreciate proof
that the author of the Lucan work was a man prac-
tised in the scientific language of Greek medicme —
in short, a Greek physician" (quoted by Hamack, op.
cit.). In this connexion, Plummer, though he speaks more
cautiously of Hobart's argument, is practically in agreement with these writers. He says that when Hobart's list has been well sifted a considerable num- ber of words remains. " The argument", he goes on to say, "is cumulative. Any two or three instances of coincidence with medical writers may be explained as mere coincidences; but the large number of coinci- dences renders their explanation unsatisfactory for all of them, especially where the word is either rare in the LXX, or not found there at all" (64). In "The Ex- positor" (Nov, 1909, 385 sqa.), Mayor says of Hamack's two above-cited work^" fie has, in opposition to the Tubingen school of crit ^jOjccessf ully vindicated for St. Luke the authorship^T^S^e two canonical books ascribed to him, and has further proved that, with some few omissions, they may be accepted as trust- worthy documents. ... I am glad to see that the English translator . . . has now been converted by Hamack's argument, founded iiBj>art, as he himself confesses, on the researches of Euied Ififibsi^rs, espe- cially Dr. Hobart, Sir W. M. R JLfTKIjp^^it ti tf i y n Hawkins." There is a striking JK^^^flblance blSween the prologue of the Gospel and ^n^preface written by Dioscorides, a medical writer wbw^tudied at Tarsus in the first century (see Blass, "Philology of the Gos- pels") . The words with which Hippocrates begins his treatise "On Ancient Medicine" snould be noted in this connexion: *OK6<Tot iirtxeipriffav xepl IrjrptK^t X^ir 1j ypd4>€iy, K. r. X. (Plummer, 4). When all these con- siderations are fully taken into account, they prove that the companion of St. Paul who wrote the Acts (and the Gospel) was a physician. Now, we learn from St. Paul that he had such a companion. Writ- ing to the Colossians (iv, 11), he says: "Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you." He was, there- fore, with bt. Paul when he wrote to the Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians; and also when he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy. From the manner in which he is spoken of, a long period of intercourse is implied.
(2) The Author of Acts was the Author of the Go€h pel.— "This position", says Plummer, "is so generally admitted by critics of all schools that not much time need be spent in discussing it." Hamack may be said to be the latest prominent convert to this view, to which he gives elaborate support in the two books above mentioned. He claims to have shown that the earlier critics went hopelessly astray, and that the traditional view is the right one. This opinion is fast gaining ground even amongst ultra critics, and Har- uack declares that the others hold out because there
exists a disposition amongst them to ignore the fact!
that tell against them, and he speaks of "the truly
pitiful history of the criticism of the Acts". Only the
oriefest summary of the arguments can be given here
The Gospel and Acts are both dedicated to Theophilus,
and the author of the latter work claims to oe the
author of the former (Acts, i, 1). The style and ar-
rangement of both are so much alike that the supposi-
tion that one was written by a forger in imitation of
the other is absolutely excluded. The required power
of literary analysis was then unknown; and, if it were
possible, we know of no writer of that age who had the
wonderful skill necessary to produce such an imita-
tion. It is to postulate a literary miracle, says Plum-
mer, to suppose that one of the books was a forgery
written in imitation of the other. Such an idea would
not have occurred to anyone; and, if it had, he could
not have carried it out with such marvellous success.
If we take a few chapters of the Gospel and note down
the special, peculiar, and characteristic words, phrases
and constmctions, and then open the Acts at random,
we shall find the same literary peculiarities constantly
recurring. Or, if we begin with the Acts, and proceed
conversely, the same results will follow. In addition
to similarity, there are parallels of description, ar-
rangement, and points of view; and the recurrence of
medical language, in both books, has been mentioned '
under the previous heading.
We should naturally expect that the long intercourse between St. Paiil and St. Luke would mutually in- fluence their vocabulary, and their writings show that this was really the case. Hawkins (Horse Synopticse) and Bebb (Hast., "Diet, of the Bible", s. v, "Luke, Gospel of) state that there are 32 words found only in St. Matt, and St. Paul; 22 in St. Mark and St. Paul: 2rin St. John and St. Paul; while there are 101 found only in St. Luke and St. Paul. Of the characteristic words and phrases which mark the three Synoptic Gospels a little more than half are common to St. Matt, and St. Paul, less than half to St. Mark and St. Paul, and two-thirds to St. Luke and St. Paul. Sev- eral writers have given examples of parallelism be- tween the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. Among the most striking are those given by Plummer (44), The same author gives long lists of words and ex- pressions found in the Gospel and Acts and in St. Paul, and nowhere else in the New Testament. But more than this, Eager in "The Expositor" (July and Au- gust, 1894), in his attempt to prove that St. Luke was the author of Hebrews, has drawn attention to the remarkable fact that the Lucan influence on the language of St. Paul is much more marked in those Epistles where we know that St. Luke was his con- stant companion. Summing up, he observes: "There is in fact sufficient ground for believing that these books, Colossians, II Corinthians, the Pastoral Epis- tles, Firat (and to a leaser extent Second) Peter, pos- sess a Lucan character." When all these points are taken into consideration, they afford convincing
Eroof that the author of the Gospel and Acts was St. luke, the beloved physician, the companion of St. Paul, and this is fully home out by the external evidence.
B. External Evidence, — The proof in favour of the unity of authorship, derived from the internal char- acter of the two books, is strengthened when taken in connexion with the external evidence. Every ancient testimony for the authenticity of Acts tells equally in favour of the Gospel; and every pa;ssage for the Lucan authorship ot the Gospel gives a like support to the authenticity of Acts. Besides, in many places of the early Fathers both books are ascrioed to St. Luke. The external evidence can be touched upon here only in the briefest manner. For external evidence in favour of Acts, see Acts of the Apostles. The many ^^ssaj^^ss^ vcw ^V ^^^lws^^^^^J^iw^^^^5fi.^ >>sssw
