vi. 9 to the end of the seventh chapter, in order to discover what

linguistic analogy it bears to the rest of the Acts and to the third Synoptic, which for the sake of brevity we shall simply designate "Luke." With the exception of a very few words in general use, every word employed in the section will be found in the following analysis, based upon Bruder's 'Concordance,'(2) and which is arranged in the order of the verses, although for greater clearness the whole is divided into categories.

We shall commence with a list of the words in this section which are not elsewhere used in the New Testament. They are as follows:--[------], vi. 11; [------]t vi. 12; [------], vii. 16;(3) [------], vii. 19, but [------], occurs several times in Acts, see below, vii. 21; [------], vii. 24; [------], vii. 26; [------], vii. 45, this word, which is common amongst

{165}

Greek writers,(1) is used in lxx. 2 Chron. xxxi. 12; [------], vii. 52. These nine words are all that can strictly be admitted as [------], but there are others, which, although not found in any other part of the Acts or of the Gospel, occur in other writings of the New Testament, and which must here be noted. [------], vi. 11, occurring 1 Tim. i. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 2, 2 Pet. iL 11, Rev. xiii. 5; [------], however, is used four times in Acts, thrice in Luke, and frequently elsewhere, and [------] in Luke v. 21. [------] vi. 13, used Rev. ii. 2, xxi. 8; [------], vi. 14, Rom. i. 23, ' 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52, Gal. iv. 20, Heb. i. 12, almost purely a Pauline word; [------], vii. 5, elsewhere fourteen times; [------], vii. 16, also Gal. i. 6, Heb. vii. 12, xi. 5 twice (lxx. Gen. v. 24), Jude 4; [------], vii. 24, also 2 Pet. ii. 7; [------], vii. 26, also John vi. 52, 2 Tim. ii. 24, James iv. 2; [------], vii. 38, also Rom. iii. 2, Heb. v. 12, 1 Pet. iv. 11; [------], vii. 39, also 2 Cor. ii. 9, Phil. ii. 8; [------], vii. 53, also Rom. xiii. 2, cf. Gal. iii. 19, but the writer makes use of [------], see vii. 44, below; [------], vii. 58, also Rom. xiii. 12, Eph. iv. 22, 25, Col. iii. 8, Heb. xii. 1, James i. 21, 1 Pet, ii. 1. If we add these ten words to the preceding, the proportion of [------] is by no means excessive for the 67 verses, especially when the peculiarity of the subject is considered, and it is remembered that the number of words employed in the third Gospel, for instance, which are not elsewhere found, greatly exceeds that of the other Gospels, and that this linguistic richness is characteristic of the author.

There is another class of words which may now be

{166}

dealt with: those which, although not elsewhere found either in the Acts or Gospel, are derived from the Sep-tuagint version of the Old Testament. The author makes exclusive use of that version, and in the historical survey, of which so large a portion of the speech is composed, his mind very naturally recalls its expressions even where he does not make direct quotations, but merely gives a brief summary of its narratives. In the following list where words are not clearly taken from the Septuagint version(1) of the various episodes referred to, the reasons shall be stated:--

{167}

We shall now, by way of disposing of them, take the words which require little special remark, but are used as well in the rest of the Acts and in the Gospel as in other writings of the New Testament:-- [------]

{168}

[------]

{169}

[------]

We shall now give the words which may either be regarded as characteristic of the author of the Acts and Gospel, or the use of which is peculiar or limited to him:-- [------]

{170}

[------]

{171}

[------]

{172}

[------]

To this very remarkable list of words we have still to add a number of expressions which further betray the author of the Acts and Gospel:--

{173}

[------]

{174}

[------]

{175}

[------]

It is impossible, we think, to examine this analysis, in which we might fairly have included other points which we have passed over, without feeling the certain conviction that the speech of Stephen was composed by the author of the rest of the Acts of the Apostles. It may not be out of place to quote some remarks of Lekebusch at the close of an examination of the language of the Acts in general, undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining the literary characteristics of the book, which, although originally having no direct reference to this episode in particular, may well serve to illustrate our own results:--"An unprejudiced critic must have acquired the conviction from the foregoing linguistic examination that, throughout the whole of the Acts of the Apostles, and partly also the

{176}

Gospel, the same style of language and expression generally prevails, and therefore that our book is an original work, independent of written sources on the whole, and proceeding from a single pen. For when the same expressions are everywhere found, when a long row of words which only recur in the Gospel and Acts, or comparatively only very seldom in other works of the New Testament, appear equally in all parts, when certain forme of words, peculiarities of word-order, construction and phraseology, indeed even whole sentences, recur in the different sections, a compilation out of documents by different earlier writers can no longer be thought of, and it is 'beyond doubt, that we have to consider our writing as the work of a single author, who has impressed upon it the stamp of a distinct literary style' (Zeller, Theol. Jahrb..1851, p. 107). The use of written sources is certainly not directly excluded by this, and probably the linguistic peculiarities, of which some of course exist in isolated sections of our work, may be referred to this. But as these peculiarities consist chiefly of [------], which may rather be ascribed to the richness of the author's vocabulary than to his talent for compilation, and in comparison with the great majority of points of agreement almost disappear, we must from the first be prepossessed against the theory that our author made use of written sources, and only allow ourselves to be moved to such a conclusion by further distinct phenomena in the various parts of our book, especially as the prologue of the Gospel, so often quoted for the purpose, does not at all support it. But in any case, as has already been remarked, _the_ opinion that, in the Acts of the Apostles, the several parts are strung together almost without

{177}

alteration, is quite irreconcilable with the result of our linguistic examination. Zeller rightly says:--'Were the author so dependent a compiler, the traces of such a proceeding must necessarily become apparent in a thorough dissimilarity of language and expression. And this dissimilarity would be all the greater if his sources, as in that case we could scarcely help admitting, belonged to widely separated spheres as regards language and mode of thought. On the other hand, it would be altogether inexplicable that, in all parts of the work, the same favourite expressions, the same turns, the same peculiarities of vocabulary and syntax should meet us. This phenomenon only becomes conceivable when we suppose that the contents of our work were brought into their present form by one and the same person, and that the work as it lies before us was not merely _compiled_ by some one, but was also _composed_ by him.'"(1)

Should an attempt be made to argue that, even if it be conceded that the language is that of the Author of Acts, the sentiments may be those actually expressed by Stephen, it would at once be obvious that such an explanation is not only purely arbitrary and incapable of proof, but opposed to the facts of the case. It is not the language only which can be traced to the Author of the rest of the Acts but, as we have shown, the whole plan of the speech is the same as that of others in different parts of the work. Stephen speaks exactly as Peter does before him and Paul at a later period. There is just that amount of variety which a writer of not unlimited resources can introduce to express the views of

{178}

different men under different circumstances, but there is so much which is nevertheless common to them all, that community of authorship cannot be denied. On the other hand, the improbabilities of the narrative, the singular fact that Stephen is not mentioned by the Apostle Paul, and the peculiarities which may be detected in the speech itself receive their very simple explanation when linguistic analysis so clearly demonstrates that, whatever small nucleus of fact may lie at the basis of the episode, the speech actually ascribed to the martyr Stephen is nothing more than a later composition put into his mouth by the Author of the Acts.