analysis of Clemen's, which is an extreme but ingeniously contrived attempt to carry the criticism of the sources into elaborate detail, combining in some degree the principle of divergent sources and that of editorial initiative. [It is no longer held exactly in this form by the author.]

Spitta's hypothesis 2 involves two primary sources. (A), a wellinformed source which underlies the third gospel also, is probably from the pen of Luke, contains the most trustworthy passages of the book, and is superior in historical insight to (B). The latter, like (A), contains supernatural" elements, but these are drawn from popular traditions, and appear to be more highly coloured and less coherent; the stress falls on "wonders" throughout, whereas in (A) the preaching of the apostles is emphasised. Both sources, independent in origin and individually featured, have been combined, arranged, and edited by a redactor (R) before the end of the first century, though (B) was composed by a Jewish-Christian admirer of Peter much earlier-after 70 a.D.

Jüngst (Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, 1895) confines himself, like several of the more sober critics, to a bisection of the book. (A), including the we-journal, extends through the whole book, the latter part of which has been interpolated by the final editor (R), who is not Luke but a companion of Paul, writing in the early part of the second century. He has used in the first half of the work an Ebionitic source (B) already employed in the gospel of Luke, but here rearranged to suit (A). The final redaction is supposed to have taken place 110-125 A.D. (cp. 1349, 1910, which are taken to imply a wide diffusion of Christianity). (R) is differentiated chiefly by his style and his conception of Paul's work and teaching, (B) is anti-Jewish, and (A) possibly Lucan. This theory of Jüngst evidently approximates in part to Spitta's. Upon the other hand, Hilgenfeld (loc. cit.) finds three sources used by the final editor (R): like van Manen, he assigns the chief importance to (C) =πpáεeis Пavλov, an account of Paul's work and person by Luke, to which the final redactor, a Pauline unionist, subordinated his other source (B)=páέeis Tv Tá, and especially (A)=(Jewish-Christian) págeis Hérpov, adding passages of his own:

(A)=115-542 981-43 121-23 [R. mainly in 11-14 239b. 41b, 43, 45 313b, 21b, 25b 42b, 4. 12a, 27-28, 33b-35 514-16, 36]

(B)=6-840.

(C)=91-30 1117-29 (see p. 663).

Schwanbeck's analysis is self-explanatory (Ueber die Quellen der Schriften des Lk. 1. 1847); as is Sorof's (Die Entstehung der Apg. 1890), which includes in its Lucan source, 11.2 246 433-37. [Continued on page 664.

1 Chron. pp. 97-162; and in SK (1895), p. 296 f. With his statement (Chron. § 5) upon the unhistorical elements in the book, compare the discussion in Zeller-Overbeck's edition, which still possesses educative value for the student of this question; also the paragraphs in Martineau's Seat of Authority, pp. 248-257, 283-285.

Partially modified by J. Weiss (SK, 1893, p. 480 f.; Die Absicht, especially p. 38 f.), who finds only (B) in chaps. 1-5, only (A) in the second half of the book, and in the middle chapters a blending of material from (A) and (B). Cp. the notices by Cone (New World, March 1896), von Soden (ThĹz, 1892, 639 f.), and Wrede (GGA, 1895, p. 497 f.), of Spitta's volume.

3 Cp. Wrede (LC, 1896, pp. 369, 370).

Feine's Disection, e.g., includes an original Jerusalem source (composed before 70 A.D.) extending up to Ac 12, and already used in the gospel. Paul's journeys, etc., are due to other sources and to a redactor (R). The Jerusalem-source includes 14. 5. 8. 9-12. 13-17. 20-86 21-4a. 12. 13. 14*-42 (43-47) 31-8a. 11-26 44. 7b-14. 18 (21). 22 (23), 24-31. 33. 36. 37 51-11. 12-16*. 24-35. 37-42 6(8). 9-11. 15 722-28, 35-43, 51-56. 59. 60 81b-2. 4-9. 11-13 931-43 101-27. 29b-33. 36-42a, 44-48 112-17. 19-33 121-24*.

Van Manen (Paulus I., de handelingen der Apostelen, 1890), detects two leading sources, HPE= περίοδοι οι πράξεις Πέτρου, HPA similarly = Paul. The latter (written +100 A.D.) is superior to, and formed the model for, the former; when it came into the final editor's hands, it had been already incorporated with a travel-source, the basis of the "we-journal." This editor, van Manen conjectures, was at work about the middle of the second century (125-150 A.D.), and used Josephus as well as the Pauline epistles. The strength of this theory primarily lies in the unmistakable parallelism drawn between Paul and Peter; for although several critics have recently denied or minimised this feature of Acts, it cannot be safely overlooked. Cp. the classical statement, reproduced partly from Schneckenburger, in Zeller-Overbeck, ii. pp. 113-132.

Clemen, again, starts from two elements in the life of Paul as that is portrayed in Acts: his occasionally hostile attitude to Judaism and the Jews, and the equally marked instances of a more friendly relationship. These he regards as incompatible within the limits of a consistent personality. Consequently the former class of passages is to be assigned to a Redactor (Ra) of anti-Jewish tendencies acquainted with Paul's letters and with Josephus: the latter class, in which Paul appears in a more favourable and conciliatory position towards his old religion, were already in existence when the book came into the hands of the abovenamed universalist editor (Ra), being due to a previous redactor (Rj) of pro-Judaistic tendencies. Another and an earlier redactor, whose tendency cannot be exactly determined, is also to be traced as having revised and enlarged the sources. The primitive nucleus of the work was composed of three early narratives: a history of the Hellenists, a history of Peter, and a history of Paul (written in Rome). These latter all date from an early period in the apostolic age. The date of the various recensions, however, cannot be determined with precision; but they fall into the second century, as Rj knew Josephus' Antiquities (93-94 A.D.), possibly towards 150 A.D. Of his earliest source (HH) Clemen remarks, it is "thoroughly trustworthy." The genealogical plan of the book is thus:

(The passages with an asterisk on p. 662 represent paragraphs which have been recast: vi.1-6 was added by (R) from a separate and unknown source).

The discussion of these analyses has anticipated but not exhausted the problem of the circumstantial and isolated "we-sections," 1610-17 205-16 211-18 271-2816. These passages, marked by the use of an anonymous μeis, profess to be memoranda from the journal of an eye-witness, and they raise two problems in regard to the whole book and its sources: (a) Were they composed by the author of the Acts; and if so, what was his name and date? (b) Can the source be traced elsewhere in Acts? [Continued on page 666.