THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
                      BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

        There is not room here for a full discussion of all the
interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel
and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to
Plummer's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _International and
Critical Commentary_, in the Introduction to Ragg's volume on
Luke's Gospel in the _Westminster Commentaries_, in the
Introduction to Easton's _Gospel According to St. Luke_, Hayes'
_Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, Ramsay's _Luke the
Physician_, Harnack's _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic
Gospels_, Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake's _Beginnings of
Christianity_, Carpenter's _Christianity According to St. Luke_,
Cadbury's _The Making of Luke-Acts_, McLachlan's _St. Luke: The
Man and His Work_, Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light
of Research_, to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that
appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

               THE SAME AUTHOR FOR GOSPEL AND ACTS

        The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as
"the first treatise," 	on pr(9374)on logon, ( Ac 1:1 ) and both are
addressed to Theophilus ( Lu 1:3  Ac 1:1 ). He speaks of himself
in both books as "me" (kamoi,  Lu 1:3 ) and {I made}
(epoi(8873)am(886e),  Ac 1:1 ). He refers to himself with others as
"we" and "us" as in  Ac 16:10 , the "we" sections of Acts. The
unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is
discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and
Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the
author's statement. It is quite possible that the formal
Introduction to the Gospel ( Lu 1:1-4 ) was intended to apply to
the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer
argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the
Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury,
who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: "In my study
of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating
axiom." He adds: "They are not merely two independent writings
from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is
neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an
integral part of the author's original plan and purpose."

              THE AUTHOR OF ACTS A COMPANION OF PAUL

        The proof of this position belongs to the treatment of
Acts, but a word is needed here. The use of "we" and "us" in  Ac Ac