"Lucan"
characteristics as they appear in our third Gospel, but these
characteristics are due to the third evangelist, and not to St. Mark.
So, it can be urged, the "Lucan" characteristics in the "we sections"
are due not to the author, but to an expert editor of a later time. In
reply, we can answer that the cases are not strictly parallel. For if
the "we sections" are not by the writer of Acts, he must have almost
entirely rewritten them, and, at the same time, have been guilty of a
gross fraud, which he stupidly dropped in passages where it could have
been effectively used.

To this linguistic evidence of authenticity we can add _archaeological
evidence_. The discoveries of the last thirty years have greatly
confirmed the accuracy of the writer in points where a writer of the
2nd century would have betrayed his ignorance. In fact, we are able to
compare his accuracy with the inaccuracy of the writing known as the
_Acts of Paul and Thecla_, a 2nd century blend of sensationalism and
piety based on a document of the 1st century. Now, in almost every
point where we are able to test the knowledge possessed by the author
of Acts with regard to the topography of Asia {105} Minor and the
details of Roman government, it can be pronounced correct. This has
been admirably shown by Prof. Ramsay's works on _The Church in the
Roman Empire and St. Paul_. St. Luke knows that Cyprus was governed by
a pro-consul, which had ceased to be the case early in the 2nd century;
that the magistrates at Philippi were called _strategoi_, and were
attended by lictors, while those at Thessalonica were called
_politarchai_ (xvii. 6), a title which has been verified by
inscriptions. He is aware that the governor of Malta was only called
the head-man (xxviii. 7). He knows that Derbe and Lystra, but not
Iconium, were cities of Lycaonia, and that "great Artemis" was the cry
used at Ephesus in invoking the patronal goddess of the city (xix. 28).
We must not assert that these and similar details absolutely prove that
the writer was a companion of St. Paul; but we can say that he was
peculiarly well acquainted with the life of that period. The account
of St. Paul's voyage and shipwreck is equally accurate.

A very favourite argument against the genuineness of Acts is that Acts
xv., in its account of St. Paul's third visit to Jerusalem, A.D. 49, is
inconsistent with Gal. ii. It is asserted that the author deliberately
falsified the story in o