ON THE HISTORICAL TRDSTWOETHINESS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 207 



founds his judgment on them. Since in every case where this 

 writei'b use of his written authorities can be tested, he is found 

 to employ them carefully, and report them accurately, surely 

 it would be quite justifial3le to generalise the principle, that in 

 other cases where we do not know the origin-il words that Luke 

 had before him, and worked up in his history, he presents an 

 accurate report of tlieir meaning, and that he does not inter- 

 polate thoughts and interpretations which belong to his own 

 later period. 



Accordingly, in estimating Luke's trustworthiness as an 

 historian, we have to start from these results which Professor 

 Harnack's minute examination I'urnishes, regarding about half 

 of the Third Gospel. We have to bear in mind that he was for 

 many years in close association with St. Paul, that he had come 

 into personal relation with many of the persons to whom he 

 alludes in the book of the Acts, that he had abundant oppor- 

 tunity of learning all his facts from eye-witnesses, that he was 

 in many cases himself an eye-witness. Then in regard to his 

 qualifications for writing the Gospel, we must take into account 

 that he had travelled in Palestine as early as a.d. 57, and had 

 met the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem, that he was two 

 years in Cesarea in close relations with the Church there, that 

 he had (as he tells us) opportunity of knowing the certainty of 

 those thino-s. 



Such are the conditions on which you have to form an 

 opinion as to the historical credibility of Luke now. Is there 

 any historian of ancient time about whose authorities we are 

 better instructed than we are about Luke's original sources 

 of information ? Is there any ancient historian who can furnish 

 us with better credentials than these ? Certainly, there is none. 



In passing, I nmst for a moment allude to the singular 

 contrast between the results attained by Professor Harnack 

 about the facts of Luke's history, when he is dealing with facts, 

 and the judgment which he expresses about Luke as an historian 

 when he is stating opinions. He finds no words too strong to 

 condemn the looseness, the inaccuracy, and the untrustworthi- 

 ness of Luke. Luke was, he declares, unable to tell what he 

 had himself seen without misrepresenting it. No authority 

 attaches to his statements; he aimed at historical and literary 

 effect, not at truth. 



I tind it impossible to reconcile Harnack with Harnack : his 

 opinions in summing up disagree utterly with the facts as he 

 determines them in collecting the evidence. Were la" Higher 

 Critic " of the fine old-fashioned nineteenth-century kind, I 



