is hard to say, unless the ȧxpißéoTepov of 2315 suggested to the editor that a previous and ineffective examination must have taken place. McGiffert admits the fact of an examination, but regards 231-10 as based on the hint in vers. 28, 29. These, however, probably fall with 231-10, although Wendt attributes the whole passage, vers. 23-35, to an expansion of the source. Blass finds it incredible also, that after the officer's discovery and terror (ver. 29) Paul is kept in chains till the next day; he regards the ordinary a text as a careless abridgment, and proposes audaciously to omit eraupiov altogether or to amend it to rn éorépa. The addition of 8 is obviously a correction : καὶ παραχρῆμα ἔλυσεν αὐτόν.

253b-Plainly a gloss introduced by the writer from 2312-21 to supply a motive for ver. 3a (so Wendt, after J. Weiss, who adds besides ver. 8, vers. 2a and 3a).

268. This verse, an erratic boulder in its present position, is to be transposed to a place between vers. 22 and 23, where it exactly fits in to the argument and sense. For other instances of transposition, cp. Jn 715-24, Ac 142 3, etc. The change of this passage was suggested by Nestle (Philologica Sacra, p. 54), and is approved by Wendt; it makes the ei-construction in ver. 23 run smoothly and naturally, while its removal from vers. 7 and 9 cannot be said to interfere with the current of the speech at that point.

2721-26. This speech of Paul on board ship is rejected as an interpolation of the writer in the second century who edited the whole work: so several critics, especially Zeller-Overbeck, ii. pp. 84f., 318, Hilgenfeld (Einl. pp. 592, 607; ZwTh, 1896, p. 550), and Holtzmann (HC, ad loc. p. 423); cp. also Clemen (Chron. pp. 144, 145), van Manen (Paulus, I. p. 81), Jüngst (pp. 187 f.), and J. Weiss (Absicht, p. 35). It is argued that the section interrupts the narrative, represents Paul in an elevated and assured mood foreign to him in the rest of the chapter (e.g. vers. 10, 31), where he appears anxious and cautiously on the alert, also that it betrays the wish to exaggerate the supernatural (e.g. the island, ver. 26). On the other hand, this excision would not be necessary if it were held that the context is meant to heighten dramatically the rôle of Paul (see Ramsay's discussion, SPT, pp. 336-339). Wendt agrees with the above-named critics in holding the passage as an insertion (-Meyer,8 p. 410), but thinks the source must have originally contained some basis for it. This is, however, wholly problematic. The parallelism between 723. 24 and 2311 proves nothing either way.

The passage resembles but does not involve the subsequent passage 2733-35(36), where a very similar attitude of Paul is represented. This section, however, Holtzmann, Jüngst, Clemen, and Wendt hesitate to cut out; it coheres with the context, and the saying in ver. 34° need not be taken as an insertion from Lk 2118, Mt 1080; it reflects quite as well 1 Sam 1445, etc. The historicity of vers. 33-35 can be reasonably used to explain the connection of vers. 21-26 with the facts and feelings of the whole situation, but the latter passage is in all likelihood an insertion.

Certainly the mention of hunger (2721) does not seem a particularly apt introduction to Paul's speech, in which the food question is entirely ignored, unless hunger be somewhat subtly brought forward as a reason for, or an element in, that dejection which Paul strove to overcome. Still, the explanation of this and other awkwardnesses may lie in considerations of the author's style ("non sunt haec bene constructa," Blass), rather than in the hypothesis that ver. 33 f. was added by a later hand "in order to give the impression made by the apostle even on the Romans, whose 1 "A fair hypothesis, and deserves fair and dispassionate consideration" (Ramsay).

prisoner he was," or that ver. 21 f. is a "vaticinium ex eventu on behalf of a tendency."

What is true of Acts holds true of the Apocalypse: the composite character of the writing is no longer a hypothesis, it is a postulate, of critical study. The keen and often arbitrary analysis to which the book has been subjected during the past fifteen years has yielded at least this general result, that sources have been used by the author (editor ?) to whom we owe the work in its present form. To some extent these sources can be almost disentangled. In certain chapters material lies, belonging to a date obviously older than the period of the book's final composition; here and there the heterogeneous nature of the book is evident, and with all their variations there is a remarkable amount of common ground among the competing theories. Still, the precise extent, character (Jewish or Christian), and date of these sources, even their original language, are largely matters of debate, although in recent years there has been a welcome tendency towards some agreement upon several of these matters. The main point is that no method which neglects source-criticism can satisfactorily explain the doublets, the varying climates of religion, the abrupt connections (e.g. between chaps. 3 and 4, 6 and 7, 11 and 12), the reduplications (e.g. chaps. 13 and 17), the isolation of passages like chap. 12, the conflicting standpoints (e.g. 111-3 and 2122) in situation and feeling, now particularistic, now universal, and the occasional divergences that even the author's artistic genius could not obliterate.

At the same time, the Apocalypse is no mosaic of earlier and scattered apocalyptic pieces. The author, whoever he was, worked over his sources with a free and independent spirit. He has fused elements, often diver[Continued on page 680.

1 In closing these notes on the structure of Acts, one must add a couple of sentences. First, it is to be admitted that Schmiedel's remark upon the general composition of the book is amply borne out by the internal evidence: "in general, the editor has dealt with his sources in so masterful a manner that an unlucky hit in the selection and arrangement of the pieces has but rarely to be noted." But this in no way justifies the hauteur with which source-criticism continues to be treated in some circles. Stripped of extravagant fancies and verbal rigidity, it is a legitimate science; and its disparagement is one cause of the prevalent ineffectiveness in English efforts to reconstruct early Christian ideas. Krüger is amply justified in the recent rebuke he has administered to the subjective and arbitrary performances of literary criticism, as applied by a critic like Völter to the literature of the first and second centuries (ThLz, 1900, pp. 535, 536). But the warning is not urgently needed, as yet, upon this side of the channel, where the reign of timidity and superficiality lingers on in the treatment of writings such as Acts and the Apocalypse. Here it is the rights, not the limits, of analytic criticism that have still to be asserted, and Mr. Bartlet is entirely warranted in protesting, à propos of Knowling's commentary on Acts, that "as long as Quellenkritik is discounted, there will remain the element of unreality and artificial combination which haunts one's mind in reading typical English work' (CR, 1900, p. 440). The other point which requires to be emphasised in dealing with such historical treatises as Acts, is that they must be taken primarily as compositions, products of a given mind in a given age. There is a constant temptation to plunge into the story, and to forget that the story exists for us as the output of an author. To understand its "why" and "how" is impossible, if we break such historical relationships either in a speech or in a story; it has ties with the age of its birth and growth in the human mind which must not be severed, and it passes to us through a medium which cannot be ignored. "The first question is not, what objective reality is possessed by this or that narrative per se? but rather, what is the relation of the narrative to the mind of the narrator, through the medium of which it becomes an object of historical knowledge for us?" (Baur). There are plenty of conscientious writers on the NT whose work would be doubled in value by some attention to this neglected canon of historical research.

* Exc. καὶ κ. τὸ ὀν. αὐτ. ὁ λ. τ. θ. 130 ; ὁ ψευδ-καὶ οἱ λ. 20, 21.

† Exc. καὶ τ. ψ. τ. π.-αύτων, 4; ὅπ. καὶ τ. θ. καὶ ὁ ψ. 10.

9-17

gent and alien, into a glowing unity which is unmistakably marked in style, structure, and conception. The whole book is a religious and artistic masterpiece of its class; and the process of analysis which scientific criticism is amply justified in applying to the completed work, merely brings out by its very success the greater synthesis dominating the author's mind amid the heated visions of earlier seers and the medley of traditional pieces, which were often impressive and enigmatic as runes. The hypothesis which practically set in motion the modern work of analytic criticism upon this book was Völter's. His arrangement differed from time to time, especially during the controversies with Vischer and others; but the variations never affected the main outlines of the scheme as given in the second edition of his Die Entstehung der Apocalypse (1885). Cp. the reviews by Jülicher, GGA (1886), pp. 25–38; Schürer, ThLz (1888), p. 135 f.; and Milligan, Discussions on Apocalypse (1893), pp. 20-34; besides the notices in the commentaries. The chief change made by Völter in the scheme as here printed, was the subsequent discovery of a new source in several parts of D (e.g. 511-14 616 79-17 1211 144-5 and also 141).

Vischer's analysis (TU, ii. p. 3) proceeds upon a simpler principle, and hardly requires detailed exhibition. The groundwork of the present book he finds in 4-225, a Jewish apocalypse dating from the years 66-70 A.D., but in part due to a period slightly later. This writing has been interpolated (e.g. in the Lamb-passages) by Christians, and issued under the name of John. Chaps. 1-3, 226-21 represent the Christian prefix and appendix which were added-with a double recension of the whole-(a) in Domitian's reign, (b) in ± 136 A.D. Chaps. 11, 12 form for Vischer the clue to this dissection; he is on stronger ground when he emphasises not the Jewish basis, but the final and essential unity of the whole book. Cp. approving reviews by Simcox, "Revelation " (CGT); Exp.3 v. pp. 425– 443; Martineau, Seat of Authority, pp. 224-227; Overbeck, ThLz (1887), p. 28 f.; Ménégoz, Revue de theol. et phil. 1887, p. 161; also Krüger, GGA (1887), pp. 26-35; otherwise Milligan, op. cit. pp. 35-44.

The Jewish element is further developed by G. J. Weyland (Theol. Tijd. 1886, pp. 454-470, etc.), whose scheme is printed alongside of Völter's, with which it has some distinct correspondences. Similarly Pfleiderer (Urc. pp. 318-356) finds in 4-225 a Jewish apocalypse dating from Vespasian's reign, and including (111-13 12) a still older fragment composed between 60 and 70 a.d. The book has been twice edited, first by a Christian redactor in the age of Domitian, and later by another, not earlier than Trajan's reign, to whom are due the prefix (1-3) and appendix (226-21). This general view, analogous to Vischer's, is partly shared by O. Holtzmann (in Stade's Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. pp. 658-664), who finds embedded in the extant book a Jewish apocalypse of Nero's age, containing, however, an older fragment (13, 146-13) dating from Caligula's age (reading deka for é§ýkovтa, 1318, and interpreting it as Taïos Kaîoap).1 On a different line, Schön (L'origine de l'apocalypse de Saint Jean, 1887)

I strongly suspect that in its original form chap. 13 contains, more or less completely, a Caligula-apocalypse, as Erbes, O. Holtzmann, Spitta, and Zahn contend. The details suit Caligula's period so well (e.g. 3, 6, 8), that even the editorial touches do not altogether obliterate the original sketch. Bousset (-Meyer, pp. 433-435) rejects the reference, though not confidently, but J. Weiss seems to favour it (SK, 1892, p. 261 f.).