[27] NOTE. {ton prõton logon}. The commentators universally regard this as an example of the misuse of {prõtos}; but they give no sufficient proof that Luke elsewhere misused that word. In Stephen's speech (VII 12) the adverb {prõton} misused for {proteron} occurs, but a dispassionate consideration of the speeches in Acts must convince every reader that they are not composed by the author, but taken verbatim from other authorities (in this case from Philip at Caesareia, XXI 8). Blass, p. 16, points out with his usual power, that the character and distinction of the comparative and superlative degrees was decaying in the Greek of the N.T., and that in many adjectives one of the two degrees played the part of both. But such changes do not affect all words simultaneously; and the distinction between {proteros} and {prõtos} might be expected to last longer than that between most other pairs. We observe that Paul uses both, and [28] distinguishes them correctly (though he blurs the distinction in other words): {to proteron} as the former of two visits Gal. IV 13, {tên proteran anastrophên} Eph. IV 22. Blass, with the grammarian's love for making absolute rules, conjectures the last example away, in order to lay down the law that the adjective {proteros} is not employed in N.T.; but we follow the MSS., and find in them the proof that the distinction was only in process of decay, and that the pair {proteros - prõtos} still survived among the more educated writers in N.T. So long as Paul could distinguish {proteros} and {prõtos}, there is a probability that Luke would not utterly confuse them; and the fact that John uses {prõtos} in the most glaring way for {proteros} has no bearing on Luke, who was a far better master of Greek. We find several instances where Luke uses {prõtos} correctly: in Acts XII 10 there were obviously three gates and three wards to pass (Peter was allowed to pass the first and the second, being taken presumably as a servant; but no servant would be expected to pass beyond the outermost ward at night, and a different course was needed there): in Luke II 2 a series of census are contemplated as having occurred, p. 386: in Luke XI 26 the man is described as passing through several stages: cp. XIII 30, XIV 18, XVI 5, XIX 16, XX 29. And, if there survived in Luke the slightest idea of any difference between comparative and superlative, the opening of a book is the place where we should expect to find the difference expressed. We conclude, then, that the use of {prõtos} there is more easily reconcilable with the plan of three books, than of two; but certainty is not attainable, as {proteros} does not actually occur in his writings.