The Acts of the Apostles

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 163
sharply distinguished by their sobriety from the
sources for the first half of the book.^
As for the first half of the book, every attempt to
make a scientific analysis of the sources on the basis
of vocabulary and style has proved abortive. A most
thorough and detailed investigation has taught me
that everything here is so " Lukan "" in character that
by the method of linguistic investigation no sure
results can be attained. The style of the first half
is certainly distinguishable from that of the second
half by certain obvious and tangible characteristics
(vide « Luke the Physician," pp. 106^.) ;
yet not only
is the agreement much greater than the difference,
but the problem which here exists is only part of the
problem which dominates the whole question of the
relationship between the gospel and the Acts. St.
Luke is an artist in style, and always modifies his
style in accordance with the content of his narrative
and the geographical scene of action (vide he. cit,
103 ff.) ; from this established fact it follows that
differences of style do not necessarily imply different
sources. It is true that sources mai/ lie in the back-
ground—in the gospel, for instance, by noting differ-
ences of style it might perhaps have been possible to
arrive at a source like St. Mark and another like Q,
even if we did not possess the gospels of St. Mark
and St. Matthew (vide my " Sayings of Jesus," Williams
and Norgate, 1908) ; but in no part of the Acts can
the use of sources be proved on the basis of linguistic
investigation.
^ Local colouring is found in the second half only in the narra-
tive of events in Bphesus and in the account of the voyage.