In edition 46.1 of Neotestamentica, Mikeal Parsons and Heather Gorman wrote a timely and thorough review essay of my book, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence (Walters 2009). The review essay assessed the strength of the argument in my book that, based on a five-part statistical analysis of Greek prose compositional style in the seams and summaries of Luke and Acts, the common authorship hypothesis must be abandoned (Parsons and Gorman 2012, 139–152). Given the conviction that my work has the strength and robustness to stand on its own, a reply to their review did not seem necessary until now. Because my results have received noteworthy independent corroboration (Mealand 2016), however, a reply to Parsons and Gorman is in order. Briefly, the analysis in my book proceeds in three stages. First, it uncovers the least contested authorial passages in Luke and Acts, which turn out to be seams and summaries: the literary sutures that connect pericopes (Walters 2009, 43–89). Second, it culls out the often subtle and secondarily-studied Greek prose compositional style conventions popular during the first century CE, of which five were most pertinent: hiatus, dissonance, prose rhythm, final syntax and clausal connectives (Walters 2009, 90–136). Third, by statistical testing, it analyses whether the five conventions, present or not, in the Luke and Acts seams and summaries show verifiable similarities—expected with single authorship—or significant differences (Walters 2009, 137–189). In all five cases, the analysis shows statistically significant differences, which I argue must lead to the conclusion of different authorship (Walters 2009, 140– 149).

中文翻译：

---

回复 Mikeal Parsons 和 Heather Gorman

在 Neotestamentica 的 46.1 版中，Mikeal Parsons 和 Heather Gorman 为我的书撰写了一篇及时而彻底的评论文章，《路加和使徒行传的假定作者统一：证据的重新评估》（Walters 2009）。这篇评论文章评估了我书中论点的强度，基于对《路加福音》和《使徒行传》的接缝和摘要中希腊散文写作风格的五部分统计分析，必须放弃共同作者假设（Parsons and Gorman 2012， 139–152）。考虑到我的工作具有独立存在的力量和稳健性的信念，直到现在似乎都没有必要对他们的评论进行回复。因为我的结果得到了值得注意的独立确证（Mealand 2016），但是，对 Parsons 和 Gorman 的回复是有序的。简而言之，我书中的分析分三个阶段进行。第一的，它揭示了《路加福音》和《使徒行传》中争议最少的作者段落，结果证明这些段落是接缝和摘要：连接 pericopes 的文学缝合线 (Walters 2009, 43-89)。其次，它剔除了在公元 1 世纪流行的通常微妙且经过二次研究的希腊散文作文风格惯例，其中五个最相关：间断、不和谐、散文节奏、最终句法和小句连接词（Walters 2009, 90-136 ）。第三，通过统计测试，它分析了在路加福音和使徒行传接缝和摘要中的五个约定，无论是否存在，是否显示出可验证的相似性——预期为单一作者——或显着差异（Walters 2009, 137-189）。在所有五个案例中，分析显示出统计上的显着差异，我认为这必然导致不同作者的结论（Walters 2009，