have been placed by the author of the first Synoptic was simply [------].(1) It might be argued, and indeed has been, that the inscription [------], "according to Luke," instead of [------] "Gospel of Luke," does not actually indicate that "Luke" wrote the work any more than the superscription to the Gospels "according to the Hebrews" [------] "according to the Egyptians" [------] has reference to authorship. The Epistles, on the contrary, are directly connected with their writers, in the genitive, [------], and so on. This point, however, we merely mention _en passant_. By his own admission, therefore, the superscription is simply tradition in another form, but instead of carrying us further back, the superscription on the most ancient extant MSS., as for instance the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices of the Gospels, does not on the most sanguine estimate of their age, date earlier than the fourth century.(2) As for the Acts of the Apostles, the book is not ascribed to Luke in a single uncial MS., and it only begins to appear in various forms in later codices. The variation in the titles of the Gospels and Acts in different MSS. alone shows the uncertainty of the superscription. It is clear that the "one ground," upon which Ewald admits that the evidence for Luke's authorship is based, is nothing but sand, and cannot support his tower. He is on the slightest consideration thrown back upon the quotations of the Fathers, which begin too late for the {39} purpose, and it must be acknowledged that the ascription of the third Gospel and Acts to Luke rests solely upon late and unsupported tradition. Let it be remembered that, with the exception of the three passages in the Pauline Epistles quoted above, we know absolutely nothing about Luke. As we have mentioned, it has even been doubted whether the designation "the beloved physician" in the Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14, does not distinguish a different Luke from the person of that name in the Epistles to Philemon and Timothy. If this were the case, our information would be further reduced; but supposing that the same Luke is referred to, what does our information amount to? Absolutely nothing but the fact that a person named Luke was represented by the writer of these letters,(1) whoever he was, to have been with Paul in Rome, and that he was known to the church of Colossae. There is no evidence whatever that this Luke had been a travelling companion of Paul, or that he ever wrote a line concerning him or had composed a Gospel. He is not mentioned in Epistles written during this journey and, indeed, the rarity and meagreness of the references to him would much rather indicate that he had not taken any distinguished part in the proclamation of the Gospel. If Luke be [------] and be numbered amongst the Apostle's [------], Tychicus is equally "the beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord."(2) Onesimus the "faithful and beloved brother,"(3)