where else in Greek literature
except among medical writers. What is thus true for one critical attack
on Luke's reputation is also true in another phase of recent higher
criticism. It has been said that certain portions of the Acts which are
called the "we" portions because the narration changes in them from the
third to the first person were to be attributed to another writer than
the one who wrote the narrative portions. Here, once more, the test of
the medical words employed has decided the case for Luke's sole
authorship. It is evidently an excellent thing to be able to use medical
terms properly if one wants to be recognized with certainty later on in
history for just what one's business was. It has certainly saved the
situation for St. Luke, though there may be some doubt as to the real
force of objections thus easily overthrown.

It is rather interesting to realize that many scholars of the present
generation had allowed themselves to be led away by the German higher
criticism from the old tradition with regard to Luke as a physician and
now will doubtless be led back to former views by the leader of German
biblical critics. It shows how much more distant things may influence
certain people than those nearer home--how the hills are green far away.
Harnack confesses that the best book ever written on the subject of Luke
as a physician, the one that has proved of most value to him, and that
he still recommends everyone to read, was originally written in English.
It is Hobart's "Medical Language of St. Luke,"[34] written more than a
quarter of a century before Harnack. The Germans generally had rather
despised what the English were doing in the matter of biblical
criticism, and above all in philology. Yet now the acknowledged
coryphaeus of them all, Harnack, not only admits the superiority of an
old-time English book, but confesses that it is the best statement of
the subject up to the present time, including his own. He constantly
quotes from it, and it is evident that it has been the foundation of all
of his arguments. It is not the first time that men have fetched from
afar what they might have got just as well or better at home.

Harnack has made complete the demonstration, then, that the third
gospel and the Acts were written by St. Luke, who had been a practising
physician. In spite of this, however, he finds many objections to the
Luke narratives and considers that they add very little that is valuable
to t