its relative priority to the other NT writings. The terminus a quo is, of course, the year when Paul came to Troas: if the source is actually a diary written contemporaneously with the events which it records, it is to be placed between 54 and 62 A.D. Ramsay (CRE, pp. 6-8; SPT, p. 383 f.) dates it 62-64 A.D., and plainly it cannot be much earlier.

243-47.—As (3, 416) the healing of the lame man evidently is represented as the first miracle of the disciples, the reference in 243 is an anticipation. It is also difficult, in view of the later narrative, to see how 3000 people (ver. 41) could have lived as vers. 44a, 46 imply; while vers. 44–47 are practically parallel to 432-35. The previous story ends with vers. 41, 42, and is resumed with 31 (note the verbal connection, rais poσevxaîs . τῆς πроσευxĥs), whereas the intervening paragraph has all the appearance of a general summary added by the editor as he revised his sources. Feine refers it to his Jewish-Christian source, while Wendt (p. 100) conjectures that we have reproduced here the source which underlies 432-35 61f. But it is simpler to refer the section completely (Weiss), or at any rate in part (Sorof, ver. 46; J. Weiss, vers. 436, 44; Hilgenfeld, vers. 41b, 43, 45), to the editor himself, who regarded the community of goods 1 and the increase of the church as much more extensive than the sources warrant us in believing. Ramsay (SPT, pp. 365, 366) again, who believes chaps. 1-5 are based on two different and informal sources which have been worked over, regards the summaries 243-47 432-35 as partly proleptic.2 The historicity of the fact underlying this "communistic" phenomenon is supported by the consideration that such a practice would not be unnatural in the case of people who were living in momentary expectation of an eschatological crisis. The treatment of it by a later writer would, however, be dominated by the prevalent conception, both within and without Judaism, that the golden or ideal state of matters socially rested upon such an economic division of property.

1

44---An awkward insertion, which breaks the continuity of the narrative 43-5, and has no special point to contribute to the development of the situation. Evidently an editor's note, like 67, on the lines of 243-47. So Weiss (ver. 4b), Sorof, Jüngst, Clemen, and Hilgenfeld. Throughout the rest of the narrative it is hardly possible to distinguish source and editor precisely, though the analytic critics have correctly noted several discrepancies and improbabilities, which are in all likelihood the result of such a dual origin. The numbers here and elsewhere are treated by Zeller (i. pp. 207-209) and Weizsäcker (AA, i. pp. 24, 25) as artificial, while at the opposite extreme of criticism-others find in them circumstantial evidence of a written source. But inexactness in numerical data, equally with freedom in the composition of speeches, does not impair the trustworthiness of the general narrative either in Acts or in 1 Maccabees. These were simply elements in the contemporary literary atmosphere.

512-16-The roughnesses in this section, which is really a third general summary of events, are certainly due to the fact that a source has been revised by the editor. Opinion differs upon the limits of the revision,

1 On the fluctuating conceptions of this phenomenon in the early church as communism (in the Pythagorean sense) or charity, and the traces of that fluctuation in the record, see Schmiedel, EBi, i. pp. 877-880, PM; ii. pp. 367-378; Holtzmann, NTTh, i. pp. 387-391; and Zeller, Overbeck-Zeller, i. pp. 212-214, 306, 307. A conservative defence in Knowling, pp. 100-102.

2 Bartlet thinks they "do not aim at definite harmony with the facts immediately preceding or succeeding" (AA, p. 40).

but most agree that ver. 14 is at any rate either a parenthesis or more probably an insertion,1 as ver. 15 follows ver. 13b. Some (e.g. Spitta and J. Weiss) regard ver. 13 as editorial; Weiss, vers. 14 and 16; Hilgenfeld, vers. 14-16; Jüngst, vers. 12b, 13; Schmiedel, vers. 12b–14. Laurent (pp. 138, 139) most ingeniously transfers 12a to a place between γυναικῶν and ὥστε.

68-15.-The dual origin of this passage, and indeed of the whole Stephenstory, is brought out by its repetitions (e.g. vers. 11, 13, 14) and the apparent uncertainty, to which Weiss calls attention, whether the proceedings were judicial or tumultuary. The analytic critics clear up the difficulties more or less convincingly by means of their different sources (Spitta and J. Weiss most cleverly, giving vers. 1–6 and 9–12a to one, 7, 8 and 9b-15 to another source). But it is simpler with Weiss and Wendt to distinguish the two strata, marking perhaps (with the latter) at least vers. 11, 12, 15, as editorial additions inserted to represent the business as judicial. The subsequent speech in chap. 7 is probably to be regarded as based on some primitive source, although the editor has not reproduced it without a somewhat free treatment. But an analysis of the two elements is hardly possible.2 Kranichfeld, indeed, has recently argued that the whole passage 616-82 was taken by Luke from an old and excellent source of a special character, the speech of Stephen being practically authentic as it stands (SK, 1900, pp. 541-562, "Der Gedankengang in der Rede des St."). But he reduces the editorial faculty of the author too severely.

...

758-83.—The repetitions and inconsistencies of the section following Stephen's speech are most satisfactorily removed by the hypothesis 3 that the references to Saul (758b, κai oi μáρτνрes. Σαύλου ; 81, Σαῦλος . . auroû, 83) were inserted by the editor in a source which narrated the fanatical riot and the outbreak of persecution after Stephen's death, but which was ignorant of Saul. When these editorial glosses are set apart, the narrative runs more smoothly. By their incorporation its continuity is broken. Note the repetition of eλiloßóλovv (ver. 58, 59a), explicable only on the assumption that the editor in the second kai λ. resumes the thread of the source dropped at ver. 58. Also 83 repeats what has been already said in 81bc (though, e.g., Weiss and Schmiedel make even that an interpola

4

1 From the same source as the similar passages 243-47 432 f. 61f, which otherwise are due to the author's love of repeating himself. At all events, they concur in representing the Christian community as relatively small (Wendt), while the editor of Acts lays stress on the rapidity and importance of its growth. The miraculous activity of Peter is enhanced just as that of Jesus is in the third gospel (cp. Lk 440 with Mk 134, Lk 911 with Mk 634, Lk 721 with Mt 113.).

2 This remark applies further to the composite narrative of chap. 8, where Wendt ingeniously traces three sources: (a) an account of Philip's mission to Samaria (vers. 5-8), followed by the episode of vers. 26-40; (b) an account of Simon and his simony, probably due to the same tradition as the Ananias story, 51-11; (c) a notice of Simon the Samaritan conjurer and prophet, whom the author of Acts identified ("vielleicht mit Recht") with Peter's opponent, Simon. Renan (Les Apôtres, chap. xv.) wildly conjectures that Simon Magus was alive when Acts was written, and that he had not yet completely broken with Christianity (824).

3 So, besides the analytic critics who assign the section to different sources, Bleek, Weiss, Clemen, Sorof, Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel (EBi, i. p. 45), and (particularly for ver. 58') Wendt. Ramsay also finds Lucan touches in 758 81, and elsewhere.

4 It is needed for 84, unless that be also taken as an editorial interpolation to introduce 85. The original source, as Weiss correctly points out, closed with the remark that although persecution instantly broke out, the first martyr was honoured with a pious burial (a matter of great moment to Orientals). The alternat

tion), changing it into a personal attack of Saul's (as in 81a). The burial of Stephen (82) refers back to ekeivŋ Tŷ μ. in any case, the intervening clause being proleptic. It need hardly be added that from whatever source,1 written or oral, the editor draws his information, it represents an actual fact; Saul was an accomplice in the martyrdom and an agent in the subsequent persecution. Only, these details did not exist in the original source used by the editor at this point.

As the source described the state of matters in Jerusalem, the words Thy ev Iepoσoλúpos are evidently an editorial addition (as 67) for the sake of clearness; so is the phrase πλὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων. That the apostles remained in Jerusalem during so severe a persecution, which would naturally, as at other times, strike at the leaders, is a conception of history due to the author's pragmatism. He considered the apostles not only as indomitable heroes, but as an official body resident in Jerusalem and invested with dignity and authority. Also, he had the reference in 814 to explain and prepare for. The Samaritan mission would not have been legitimate apart from apostolic inspection_and superintendence. So Wendt, McGiffert, and Schmiedel, among others, after Zeller.

2

1122-26a-As Wendt points out, the source dropped at 84 is resumed in 1119, in order to explain in rather an elliptic and colourless fashion (J. Weiss) the existence of a Christian Gentile community at Antioch, from which the prophetic mission of 131f started. That mission introduces Barnabas and Saul, who are evidently brought forward in the source for the first time, spoken of as if no previous reference had been made to either. This seems to throw back light on 1122-26a. 30 1225. These passages clearly were added by the editor (from some other source, perhaps 3) to the source with which he was working, in order to furnish an introduction and pave the way for the events of chaps. 13, 14, as well as to emphasise his dominant conception of the Jerusalem-church as the patron and promoter of missionary effort (McGiffert, pp. 108, 109). He also found the mention of the Antioch collection in his source, and naturally supposes that Paul and Barnabas were its bearers to the capital; although the evidence of Gal 21 f. leaves hardly any room for such a visit between that of chap. 9 and that in chap. 15. The subtle methods of reconciling Acts and Galatians upon the question of Paul's visits to the capital are not of primary interest to the critic of Acts, whose business is first of all to discover not what actually happened, but what the various documents

ive is to suppose, with Zeller (ii. p. 208), that the verses do not present successive events in an orderly way.

1 Ramsay (SPT, p. 379) regards 81a as a dramatic, agonised touch due to Paul himself (2220), while as a whole the narrative 69-839 follows closely a Philip-source.

2 The mention of Barnabas (436) and Saul (at Tarsus, 930) is due to another source. Wendt, reading with D in ver. 28, and attributing this passage to the we-source, rightly regards óvóμati "Ayaßos (1128) as an editorial addition (so previously, Jacobsen, Weiss, and Hilgenfeld). He is introduced in 2110 as a new-comer, of whom nothing has been said before. A much less probable conjecture is that the author of Acts had composed the second part of his work before the first (K. Schmidt); but it is not unlikely that 2110 is the original from which 1128 was drawn (Zeller).

3 Though Weiss considers they might have been written from hearsay by a Paulinist, so meagre and inexact they are. But they are a proof at least that Barnabas and Paul had some share in the development of Gentile Christianity at Antioch. 1130 is ignorant of the Seven (616), who would have been the most natural trustees and administrators of finance; it is ignorant also of the apostles. Zeller agrees that the record followed by the author in 131. knew nothing of the journey, 1127. 1225; but as usual he attributes the journey to the author's imagination.

intended to represent as having happened. Plainly, the author of Ac 1130 and 1225 meant to suggest a visit of both Paul and Barnabas to the capital. Paul may have stayed in Judaea or may have failed for some reason to meet the apostles in the city, but neither of these conceptions is the conception of the passage. Also, the chronological sequence of Gal 21-11 £. 113-210 preceding 211-16, is too plain to admit of the order being reversed (as by Mr. Turner, and Prof. R. A. Falconer, Exp. Ti. xi. pp. 487-490) and Gal 21-10 identified then with Ac 151.

1342-52.-The obvious interweaving of two narratives requires some analysis like the following:

To the present editor the narratives seem to run most coherently upon Clemen's scheme: ver. 52 at any rate forms the natural sequel to ver.

49.

142. 3. It is simplest and quite legitimate to reverse the order of these verses (Wendt), which have somehow got displaced; less probable here are interpolation-hypotheses and analysis-criticism, though Sorof and Spitta omit ver. 3 altogether as a foreign insertion, and Ramsay (SPT, pp. 107-109) regards it as an early gloss, admitting that some corruption underlies the obscure narrative given by the present text. The traditional order is obviously inconsistent beyond explanation: ver. 4, not ver. 3, is the sequel of ver. 2. But there is really nothing in ver. 3 to justify its exclusion because it is a fragment from the legendary accretion of the miraculous round Paul. It goes no further than the common belief in these phenomena which pervades Acts. The later addition to 142 (ó dè κύριος ἔδωκεν [ταχὺ] εἰρήνην) is a clear attempt to smooth down the contradiction, though Blass, Hilgenfeld, and Salmon all prefer the Bezan text of ver. 2 as a whole: "but the presidents of the synagogue of the Jews and the rulers [of the synagogue] directed a persecution against the upright, and embittered the minds of the Gentiles against the brothers. However, the Lord soon gave peace.'

164. 5.—With Spitta, Clemen, Jüngst, Hilgenfeld, McGiffert (AA, pp. 211, 212), and Wendt (pp. 256-257, 275), ver. 4 is to be taken as an interpolation, in accordance with the editor's peculiar conception of the decree as universally binding. Paul's letters are silent upon any such method of instruction.1 Like the previous and similar references, ver.

1 The district in question lay outside that covered by Ac 1523. Upon the literary and historical difficulties of chap. 15, cp. the literature quoted in Wendt-Meyer, pp. 255, 256. The original basis and the time of the so-called decree are variously reconstructed, and the passage has been analysed into different sources and strata of revision, but (as it seems to the present editor) unconvincingly. The clue to its problem lies in the interests and conceptions of the final editor, who has at this point treated whatever source he used with such freedom that the extant result defies analysis.

5 is also inserted to mark progress. If the grave difficulties which beset the statement in ver. 3 are (as many feel) insoluble, that verse also would require to be taken as a later addition to the narrative (cp., besides Holtzmann, ad loc., McGiffert, pp. 232-234). The passage in vers. 5-8 is a genuine transition, however, and does not deserve to be ranked (by Weizsäcker) as a link freely composed to fill up a gap.

1625-34. On this insertion, which is almost unanimously regarded as editorial, cp. the critical editors ad loc., Overbeck-Zeller, ii. pp. 45-51, and the parallels from Lucian and Euripides' Bacchae (436-441, 602-608) quoted respectively by Zeller (ZwTh, 1864, p. 103 f.) and Schmiedel (ZSchz, 1894, p. 47). Weizsäcker (AA, i. p. 246) groups it with the greater speeches of Paul as the work of the editor, one of a series of passages (e.g. 148-18 and 1913-19) which represent freely constructed narratives of the marvellous based upon certain facts in the tradition.

185b. Apart from the other points in this section which render it difficult (Weizsäcker, AA, i. pp. 307 f.; McGiffert, pp. 268, 269) to reconcile the narrative entirely with Paul's own account of his Corinthian experiences, the passage διαμαρτυρόμενος . . πορεύσομαι seems to betray itself as an editorial interpolation. The purport of the original narrative which flows on continuously from vers. 4 to 7 is plain. Paul changed, not his sphere of teaching, but his quarters (μeraßàs); and he changed not from but towards the synagogue. The removal from Aquila's house was one result of his growing anxiety (ovveíxero) to reach especially the Jewish proselytes, and showed his apparently good prospects of success. He resolved to further his mission by this alteration of ground, maintaining his connection with the Jews, but choosing a more feasible and convenient field of operation (σvvoμopovσa τ ovvaywyn). The editor of the source has confused this narrative and introduced quite a different motive. Jewish obstinacy must justify Paul's mission to the Gentiles, he conceives. Accordingly in his addition (vers. 5b. 6), based probably upon 1345-51 or 199, Paul's change of settlement forms a retreat, the result of an open rupture with the synagogue, and also a defiance, the climax of unconciliatory behaviour. This is a view which finds no support in 1 Corinthians. It is best then to preserve the original source by regarding this passage as a gloss superimposed by an editor who probably had no acquaintance with Paul's epistles, and wished as far as possible to conform Paul's various experiences with the Jews to a uniform standard. The interpolation 2 is upheld by Spitta, Jüngst, O. Holtzmann (ZwTh, 1889, p. 404), Clemen (adding ver. 4), Hilgenfeld (adding vers. 4, 8a), and Wendt (p. 301).

1 To carry back izeibe to Aquila's house is not any more difficult than to refer it to the synagogue (ver. 4). Perhaps, as Schmiedel (HC, II. i. p. 52) suggests, it was added with vers. 5, 6 to the extant narrative. Vers. 5, 6 partly repeat ver. 4 by mentioning the Jewish mission, partly contradict it by omitting to mention any corresponding topic of preaching to the Greeks. The bold attitude of the apostle (ver. 6) reads strangely beside his own reflection (1 Co 23), ver. 8 is more intelligible after ver. 7 than after vers. 6, 7, and the fact of a preliminary and original Jewish mission is contrary to the outline of events in 1 Co 1. Upon the whole, it may be said that while even the primitive source in Ac 181-12 presents features which diverge from Paul's account, these are seriously accentuated by this editorial comment on the situation. Ramsay explains the status quo of the text with the obvious but unsatisfying remark that "Paul had not a very conciliatory way with the Jews when he became angry." 2 Weizsäcker (AA, i. pp. 308-310) regards vers. 1-4 as an interpolated introduction, in which "Eaanves is introduced prematurely. He gives up ver. 6, and retains merely the conception of "an extensive and successful work." Sorof (Entstehung d. Apgeschichte, pp. 26-29) takes the whole section 185-18 as a graphic description inserted by Timotheus, who was himself a spectator of the various occurrences.