^{page 37 note 1} Cf., for example, Conzelmann, H. in his recent commentary on Acts: ‘Es bleibt die Möglichkeit…daß nicht durchlaufende Quellen, sondern umlaufende Einzelgeschichten verarbeitet sind’. Die Apostelgeschichte, vol. 7 of Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. by Bornkamm, G. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1963), pp. 4 f.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 2} Now in English: Dibelius, M., ‘Style Criticism of the Book of Acts’, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. by Greeven, H. (London: S.C.M. Press Ltd, 1956), p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 3} Haenchen, after showing that Luke had no continuous written sources for Acts such as he found in Mark and Q for his Gospel, continues: ‘Damit ist jedoch keineswegs bestritten, daß Lukas auch in der Apg in manchen Abschnitten schriftliche “Quellen” verwerten konnte.’ E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, vol. 3 of Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, begründet von Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1961) p. 74.

^{page 37 note 4} It is usual to ascribe this to a conscious imitation of LXX style by Luke. Cf., for example, Conzelmann, : ‘Lk will erbaulich-biblisch schreiben…’, op. cit. p. 3Google Scholar; also Haenchen, , op. cit. pp. 66f.Google Scholar N. Turner, however, argues that it is Luke's usual style to speak and write LXX Greek. Cf. his article ‘The Relation of Luke i and ii to the Hebraic sources and to the Rest of Luke-Acts’, New Test. Stud. II (1955–1956), 100–9, especially pp. 108fGoogle Scholar

^{page 37 note 5} Cf. Haenchen, , op. cit. p. 73Google Scholar: ‘Lukas hat seine Quellen stylistisch derart bearbeitet, daß wir sie aus seinem Text allein nicht rekonstruieren können…. Stylistisch lassen sich in der Apg keine Quellen erkennen.’

^{page 37 note 6} Cf. Conzelmann, , loc. cit.Google Scholar and especially Sparks, H. F. D., ‘The Semitisms of Acts’, J. Theol. Stud. n.s.I (1950), 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} For the statistics in this study all material set in bold-face type in the Nestle edition has been disregarded in order to eliminate as much as possible the influence of direct LXX quotation.

^{page 39 note 2} It is to be regretted that the excellent study of Semitic syntax in the N.T. undertaken recently by Beyer, Klaus [Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament, vol. I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1962)]Google Scholar; does not distinguish the different sections of Acts (or of the Gospels) in his statistical charts concerning the various syntactical features. Thus the many charts may give a false impression of unity of style in each of the Synoptics and in Acts. It would be best to distinguish at least Acts i–xii from the rest of Acts; and the Markan, Q, Special Matthean and Special Lukan material of the Gospels. Perhaps this can be done in future volumes of that work. For example, there is significant syntactical variation between Acts i–xii and the rest of Acts with respect to the following features, among others: present and aorist indicatives, use of the optative; frequency of the infinitive, aorist imperative, adverbial participles; placement of genitives; frequency of pronouns; position of ούτος and of various adjectives; ways of expressing purpose; constructions with the articular infinitive in prepositional phrases; frequency of adverbs and particles.

^{page 40 note 1} Cf. Cadbury, H., Style and Literary Method of Luke (Cambridge University Press, 1920), pp. 143 ff.Google Scholar and the literature cited there; also Vogel, T., Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache and Stil (Leipzig: Verlag der Dürrschen Buchhandlung, 1899), p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} Cf. op. cit. pp. 107 ffGoogle Scholar. and more recently in Syntax, vol. III of A Grammar of New Testament Greek begun by Moulton, J. H. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963), pp. 331 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 3} ‘Luke I and II’ op. cit. p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 4} Syntax, p. 332Google Scholar. Turner here follows Thackeray's proposed division of Exodus, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Cf. Thackeray, H. St John, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge University Press, 1909), pp. II, 66.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 1} The following sampling of non-biblical Greek writings (cf. the discussion below, pp. 9f.) offers further confirmation of this: Papyri 1:0·92; Epictetus 1:06·6; Josephus 1:0·34; Plutarch 1:0·24; Polybius 1:0·07.

^{page 41 note 2} Note Turner's figures of 547 to 573.

^{page 41 note 3} Hereafter for convenience xiii–xv and xvi–xxviii will be used to represent the sections xiii. I–xv. 35 and xv. 36–xxviii. 31 respectively.

^{page 41 note 4} Martin, R. A., ‘Some Syntactical Criteria of Translation Greek’, Vetus Testamentum, x (1960), 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Martin, R. A., op. Cit. p. 295.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} It will be noted that these percentages differ from those on p. 308 of the V. T. article. This is due to the fact that in the Count for the present study all matter in the O.T. quotations has been om itted. Bold-face type calls attention to those numbers which are within translation Greek frequencies.

^{page 42 note 3} Rife, J. M., ‘The Mechanics of Translation Greek’, Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), p. 247.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} These papyri span the period about 200 B.C. to A.D. 150.

page 44 note † Bold-face type calls attention to those numbers which are within translation Greek frequencies.

^{page 47 note 1} For example, Thackeray, H. St John writes: ‘At the head [of all translated books of the Old Testament] stands the Pentateuch, distinguished from the rest by a fairly high level of style (for Greek), combined with faithfulness to the original, rarely degenerating into literalism’. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge University Press, 1909), p. 9.Google Scholar

page 48 note † Italicized type calls attention to those numbers which are not within translation Greek frequencies.

page 49 note † Italicized type calls attention to those numbers which are not within translation Greek frequencies.

page 50 note † Italicized type calls attention to those numbers which are not within translation Greek frequencies.

page 53 note † Bold-face type calls attention to those figures which are within translation Greek frequencies.

page 54 note † Bold-face type calls attention to those figures which are within translation Greek frequencies.

^{page 54 note 1} Winter, P., ‘Some Observations on the Language in the Birth and Infancy Stories of the Third Gospel’, New Test. Stud. I (1954–5), 111–21. Cf.Google Scholar also Oliver's, H. H. survey of recent study of the sources in Luke i and ii: ‘The Lucan Birth Stories and the Purpose of Luke-Acts’, New Test. Stud. x (1964), 205–15 especially.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 2} Also in this study of Luke i and ii all material in bold-face type in Nestle was omitted, including of course i. 46–55 and i. 67–79—the hymns of Mary and Zachariah.

^{page 55 note 1} Wieand, D. J., ‘Subject-Verb-Object Relationships in Independent Clauses in the Gospels and Acts’. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation for Chicago University, 1946.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 249ff.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} Cf. op. cit. p. 107Google Scholar. He studied chapters xxiv, xliv, xlv.

^{page 56 note 2} Cf. ibid. p. 115.

^{page 56 note 3} Cf. ibid. pp. 101f. He studied parts of II Cor., Gal., I Thesis. and Philippians.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 4} Rife states that he counted in each writing studied until he obtained a total of ten examples.

^{page 57 note 1} Op. cit. p. 91.

^{page 58 note 1} Op. cit. p. 249.

^{page 58 note 2} He writes: ‘ … in the first two chapters of Luke the predominance of the initial position of the verb may indicate Hebraic influence’ (op. cit. p. 28). Cf. also the earlier discussion of Howard, W. F. in Accidence and Word Formation, vol. II of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, begun by Moulton, J. H. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1929), pp. 416–18.Google Scholar