206 SIR W. M. EAMSAY^ ON EXPLORATION OF ASIA MINOR, AS BEARING 



appeal to facts and by a simple narrative of history ; its effec- 

 tiveness depended on the nndeniableiiess of all that it records ; 

 and it came to a sudden end, because the author was over- 

 whelniecl in the persecution while he was composing this 

 eloquent and yet perfectly simple and unadorned history. 



But however this may be, it is a mere matter of interpre- 

 tation. The important point about which many scholars are 

 now united, is that the book of the Acts, as we have it, was 

 w^ritten by Luke. The recent work of Professor Harnack, 

 entitled Lnlcc the Physician, is an able argument on this 

 side. The distinguished Berlin Professor, and King's Librarian, 

 fully recognises the impossibility and utter failure of the 

 theories of second-century origin for the book of the Acts : no 

 one has condemned more strongly than he, the uselessness and 

 inadequacy of those theories. He sees the unity of authorship 

 and design throughout the two parts, Third Gospel and Acts ; he 

 proves in detail the identity of style throughout both parts, 

 he demonstrates that the two are entirely, from beginning to 

 end, the work of one writer, who impresses his own individuality 

 on both parts ; he accepts and summarises the arguments — or 

 I should rather say, the marshalling of the facts, as made by 

 Mr. Hobart, of Trinity College, Dublin — which show that the 

 author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts was a physician, 

 trained to observe medically, to take an interest in medical facts, 

 and to use naturally the terms and language of medical science. 



Further, Professor Harnack declares, as the result of a minute 

 examination, that in a considerable part of the Third Gospel, 

 where we possess the older authority which Luke used, the 

 physician made no changes beyond those of a verbal and 

 stylistic kind. He improved the Greek, but he left the facts 

 as they were recorded by his authority ; and he carefully and 

 everywhere refrained from inserting anything savouring of the 

 sentiment and thoughts of the later first century, when he was 

 writing. 



We can say with confidence that this was Luke's rule and 

 practice, because we have in one case the text of the original 

 autliority on which Luke founded one-third of his Gospel, and 

 in another case we can recover from the agreement of Luke and 

 Matthew an outline of another original authority which they 

 both employed, and on which they based about one-sixth of 

 their respective Gospels. These are Professor Harnack's results 

 in the detailed examination, clause by clause, and word by word, 

 of a large part of Luke's Gospel. Such is the opinion that he 

 expresses when he takes facts, weighs them accurately, and 



