But there are also slight _historical_ connections between the two portions. For example, in the earlier chapters some incidents are recorded, in which a certain Philip (one of the _Seven_) was concerned; and why should these have been selected? The writer was not present himself, and many far more important events must have occurred, of which he gives no account. But a casual verse in the _We_ sections explains everything: the writer, we are told, stayed _many days_ with Philip, and of course learnt these particulars then. And as it seems to have been his rule only to record what he knew for certain, he might well have left out other and more important events, of which he had not such accurate knowledge.[258] And the earlier reference, which ends with the apparently pointless remark that _Philip came to Cæsarea_, without saying why or wherefore, is also explained, since this was the place where the writer afterwards met him. It is then practically certain that the whole book was written by one man, and that he was a companion of St. Paul in many of his travels. [Footnote 258: Acts 6. 5; 8. 5, 26, 40; 21. 10.; Luke 1. 3.] It is also practically certain that he was a _medical man_. The evidence for this is overwhelming, but as the fact is generally admitted, we need not discuss it at length. All we need say is that 201 places have been counted in the Acts, and 252 in the Third Gospel, where words and expressions occur which are specially, and many of them exclusively, used by Greek medical writers, and which, with few exceptions, do not occur elsewhere, in the New Testament.[259] For instance, we read of the many proofs of the Resurrection; the word translated _proofs_ being frequently used by medical writers to express the infallible symptoms of a disease, as distinct from its mere signs, which may be doubtful, and they expressly give it this meaning. And we read of the restoration of all things; the word translated _restoration_ being the regular medical term for a complete recovery of a man's body or limb.[260] [Footnote 259: Hobart's Medical Language of St. Luke (1882); some of his examples are rather doubtful.] [Footnote 260: Acts 1. 3; 3. 21.] We conclude then, from the book itself, that the writer was an intimate friend of St. Paul and a medical man; and from one of St. Paul's Epistles we learn his name, _Luke the beloved physician_.[261] And this is confirmed by the fact that both this Epistle and that to Philemon, where St. Paul also names Luke as his companion, appear to have been written from Rome, when, as we know, the writer of the Acts was with him. And he seems to have remained with him to the last, _only Luke is with me_.[262] Yet this beloved and ever-faithful friend of St. Paul is not once named in the Acts, which would be most unlikely unless he were the author. [Footnote 261: Col. 4. 14; Philemon 24.] [Footnote 262: 2 Tim. 4. 11.] (_C._) ITS DATE.