Some writers endeavour to find a confirmation of the tradition, that the Gospel and Acts were written by Luke "the beloved physician," by the supposed use of peculiarly technical medical terms,(2) but very little weight is attached by any one to this feeble evidence which is repudiated by most serious critics, and it need not detain us. As there is no indication, either in the Gospel or the Acts, of the author's identity proceeding from himself, and tradition does not offer any alternative security, what testimony can be produced in support of the ascription of {37} these writings to "Luke"? To this question Ewald shall reply: "In fact," he says, "we possess only one ground for it, but this is fully sufficient. It lies in the designation of the third Gospel as that 'according to Luke' which is found in all MSS. of the four Gospels. For the quotations of this particular Gospel under the distinct name of Luke, in the extant writings of the Fathers, begin so late that they cannot be compared in antiquity with that superscription; and those known to us may probably themselves only go back to this superscription. We thus depend almost alone on this superscription."(1) Ewald generally does consider his own arbitrary conjectures "fully sufficient," but it is doubtful, whether in this case, any one who examines this evidence will agree with him. He himself goes on to admit, with all other critics, that the superscriptions to our Gospels do not proceed from the authors themselves, but were added by those who collected them, or by later readers to distinguish them.(2) There was no author's name attached to Marcion's Gospel, as we learn from Tertullian.(3) Chrysostom very distinctly asserts that the Evangelists did not inscribe their names at the head of their works,(4) and he recognizes that, but for the authority of the primitive Church which added those names, the superscriptions could not have proved the authorship of the Gospels. He conjectures that the sole superscription which may {38}