49). To this is added what was intended by the Evangelist to be a statement of the ascension (xxiv. 50-53)—a statement which is enlarged bv him in the opening verses of the Book of Acts (i. 1-12).
While it is generally admitted that the third Gospel is the latest of the three Synoptic Gospels (see GOscEui, Synoptic Problem). it is a matter of considerable critical debate whether, in his narrative, the author made use of Matthew as well as of Mark. But whatever sources he used, canonical and extra-canonical (cf. the statement in i. 1-4), it is characteristic of his work that it is done, not only with an historical aim in view, but in a literary spirit. This is clear from his constant tendency to enrich the narrative rhetor ically—his ability to do which is evident from the literary character of his prologue. At the same time no other Evangelist uses such strik ing, Hebraisms and uses them so conspicuously as this one. The combination of these two ele ments gives a versatility to his style which is not possessed by any other of the Evangelists. A marked example of this quality of style is seen in the sharp change from the classical prologue (i. 1-4) to the Hebraistic narrative of the nativity (i. sell. 52). That this Hebraism comes from the linguistic character of the sources used dmy he granted; but the author's willingness to use it, as he does, in the narrative of purely Hebrew events (note the difference in the linguistic char acter of the story of the Jerusalem Church and the record of Paul's travels in the Book of Acts, and notice that the Hebrew- element is practically nearly absent from the Palestinian narrative which the Gospel gives) shows on his part a cer tain literary conception of what was proper in the treatment of the different lines his narrative pursued.
It is generally admitted that, whoever the author was, he was identical with the author of the Book of Acts—and further that he was not an eyewitness of the Gospel events, though he was not necessarily outside of the Gospel gen eration. In fact, the latter point is practically
stated by the author himself in his prologue (ef. i. 2).
From the evident literary eharaeter of the au thor's it is most natural to infer that he was a Gentile Christian of Greek culture. This is questioned, indeed, by only a few scholars. At the same time, from a survey of its theologi cal views, as well as its vocabulary and its phraseology, it is plain that the author is of a strikingly Pauline cast of mind, the only ques tion practically being as to the degree of his Paulinity. Unlike the other Gospels. this one names the reader for whom it was intended—a certain Thcophilns 3). From the term used in addressing him (Kpdrtare), Ile was evidently a man of rank: while, from the general Gentile tenor of the narrative—especially the evident ignorance regarding Palestinian geography and Jewish customs which it implies on its reader's part—he was clearly a Gentile Christian. The Gospel gives no hint of Theophilus's residence, though such tradition as exists makes it An tioch. The author's motive is clearly given in the prologue—that Theophilus might have cer tain knowledge of the words regarding which he had been instructed 4). Front this it is evi dent that the reader, who was either a convert or well advanced toward an acceptance of Chris tianity, stands as a type of the general class fur which the (gospels were written. They had been instructed orally and largely on religious, if not doctrinal lines, its candidates for baptism (note the significant use of the word xaTilxiiOitc, in 1. 4), the historical background not having been prominent, to say nothing of complete. 'CO such, especially if gathered from paganism, it 1(ecamo a matter of interest and of importance to know the full history which stood behind the salvation which had been taught them. see ACTS Or Tilt: