The Acts of the Apostles

a THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
thorough and connected investigation. And yet
more accurate knowledge on this point is of interest
in two respects, both in relation to the question of
the trustworthiness of the work (or of the literary
conscientiousness of the author) and in relation to
the question of its unity.
In the first place, the book is disappointing in so
far as it gives evidence of no trace of a connected
chronological framework. The construction of such
a framework, for at least the principal part of the
narrative, could not have presented special difficulties
to a man with the author's culture and access to
sources of information, even if he were not the companion
of the Apostle.^ He must, therefore, have
regarded it as of no importance, and have used
KaOe^rj^ not in this sense. In this attitude he,
moreover, shows himself an adept in the historical
writing of those days which, especially if it aimed
at edification or amusement, set up no chronological
framework and was sparing in the use of definite
dates. So also St. Luke is content to refer to con-
temporary history in only a few passages where such
reference seemed to him fitting—if these few passages
may be so understood—elsewhere he only gives rela-
tive dates. Even the passages where the succession of
years is mentioned are few in number ; on the other
hand, the author shows interest in times of festivals,
in days, and in hours—again in accordance with the
custom of writers of his day. These references are
intended to give life to the narrative, i.e. to the narra-
1 And yet all chronological systems of those days were wanting
in connection, in clearness, and exactitude.