as the Messiah. Schmiedel goes further (HC. II. i. pp. 55, 56; EBi, i. pp. 263, 264), rejecting vers. 25, 26bc, and suspecting needlessly even ver. 28 (ver. 26a ?) as inconsistent with Apollos' subsequent preaching to a Gentile church (1 Co 36); while Spitta gives to the compiler ouros κυρίου and ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (ver. 25). As ἀκριβέστερον (ver. 26) seems to answer aκpißos (ver. 25), I think both passages must stand or fall together. There is no particular reason for doubting ver. 26bc, but ver. 26a repeats ver. 26, and is not necessary as an introduction to ȧkovσavres dè. Ver. 25€ must be given up at any rate, so that with the omission of emiráμevOS . . Ovvaywyn the narrative represents in all likelihood the original source. The editor added ver. 25¢ from 191-5, in order to account for Apollos deficiencies in Christian knowledge, while the definite mention of the synagogue (ver. 26a) was inserted partly to be in keeping with ver. 25, partly to explain his connection with Aquila and Priscilla (although the source had already provided for that, ελάλει καὶ ἐδίδασκεν).

...

The passage forms one of several in which a lucid and intelligible idea of the contents is only attainable by some use of source-criticism. The ordinary attempts to explain the passage in its textual status quo are unsatisfactory; and this applies even to such hypotheses as those of Blass (Exp. Ti. 1895, p. 241 f.; 1896, p. 541; PG, p. 30 f.), and Baldensperger (Prolog des 4 Evglms. pp. 93-99). It is very far-fetched to discover in the narrative motives such as the desire to throw light on Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, or the wish to represent Jewish Christianity as an inferior variety which required Pauline teaching to raise it up to the normal level. The latter motive is perhaps credible in 191-6, not in 1824-28. But for neither is there sufficient evidence in the Apollos incident.

196. If the narrative here rests on a good source, this verse is, upon the whole, to be regarded as an insertion modelled upon 87, where the Spirit is represented as a gift mediated by the apostles (Wendt; cp. McGiffert, p. 286). Ramsay's conception of Acts obliges him to give up the whole episode (191-7) as unintelligible and inferior to the literary standard of the author; and certainly 195. 6 is in strange contradiction to 1 Co 116, 15.

1911-20-Rightly and almost unanimously regarded as a detached and inferior fragment (cp. ver. 11 with the repetition in vers. 12-15), which, even apart from its contents, is to be taken as foreign matter, owing to its dislocation of the narrative (vers. 10, 21, where Anp. clearly goes back to the events of the two years with their preaching and teaching). The vulgarity of tone and general vagueness in this passage force Ramsay (SPT, pp. 272, 273) to regard it as a popular tale, in which the author "is rather a picker-up of current gossip, like Herodotus, than a real historian." But belief in superstition impairs an early writer's general title to credibility as little as belief in the Phoenix-myth discredits Tacitus as a historian. Cp. Addenda.

2026. 27. 33-35-The farewell speech does not belong to the we-source; but although it has been remodelled by the editor from some source of other, it rests upon good tradition, as it agrees in more than one point with the internal evidence of the Corinthian letters, and refers to much that the account (in Acts) of Paul's Ephesian stay omits. The editorial revision is seldom visible. But vers. 26, 27 clearly break the connection betweell the counsel of ver. 28 and its motive in ver. 25. Similarly the prayer of ver. 36 follows directly after ver. 32, which again forms the solemn and suitable close of the address. With Jüngst and Clemen (who go even further), followed by Wendt, these intervening passages, vers. 26, 27, 33-35, are to be marked as editorial glosses. Overbeck rejects the whole speech, vers. 16–38,

675 with 207-12 214. 8. 10-14 as interpolations in the original we-source, and Zeller views it as like the farewell address of Moses, with which the author of Deuteronomy a retrospect of the whole apostolic ministry of Paul," presents his new legislation (ii. 68).

219.-An editorial gloss, which adds nothing to the narrative, and is inserted by one who wished to make clear to his contemporaries the personality of Philip of Hierapolis. Later tradition (e.g. Euseb. HE, III. 30. 1) thus described Philip of the twelve, and the account here is due to a confusion between him and the member of the seven (851). So Gieseler (SK, 1829, pp. 139 f.), Renan (Les Apôtres, p. 151), and Hilgenfeld (ZwTh, 1896, p. 377 f.). The alternative is to reject the tradition as a mistake (Zeller); but such a confusion is not unparalleled in that age (EBi, ii. 2511).

In order to smooth out the narrative, when the verse is retained, Jüngst conjectures that it was one of Philip's daughters who bound Paul (ver. 11), but that the author, from motives of decency, attributed this action to a man (!). Not much more probable is the conjecture of Spitta, approved by Wendt, that in the source (interrupted at ver. 10) the daughters of Philip wept over Paul's fate, and thus led up, as it were, to the more solemn warning of Agabus.

2120b-26-With varying constructions, Spitta, Jüngst, Clemen, Hilgenfeld, and apparently Schmiedel, concur in viewing this passage as an insertion, which not only follows strangely after ver. 20a, but gives little point or meaning to ver. 27. Although the passover is not referred to in 2115-19, it is as legitimate to refer the seven days (ver. 27) to it, as to the rite of vers. 25, 26. In this case, 2119-20a. 271 might belong to the we-source as well, to which O. Holtzmann and J. Weiss (less 2124b) attribute even 2121-26.

In any case, ver. 25 falls with 164 as an insertion (perhaps from another source, J. Weiss) due to the editor's pragmatism: so Schürer (ThLz, 1882, p. 348), and Wendt (p. 347). Cp. McGiffert (p. 343) and J. Weiss (Absicht, pp. 35, 36) on ver. 24. Evidently the decree is supposed in ver. 25 to have been unknown to Paul, and issued without his cognisance. This can be historically justified only if we consider the decree of chap. 15 to have been promulgated during Paul's absence, and confined to the churches of Palestine and Antioch-a reconstruction which involves some bold hypotheses.

2130a-As the uproar took place in the temple, and the assault and ejection followed in quick succession, it is best to regard this clause as an editorial gloss derived from ver. 31; the rumour is as usual exaggerated, or else by that time the city had had time to be afoot, but between 2129 and 2130b there is no room for such a development. It must be taken as proleptic or else set aside (so J. Weiss and Wendt).

2230-2310. (11)-As is pretty generally admitted (e.g. by Spitta, Jüngst, Clemen, Hilgenfeld, J. Weiss, Wendt), this passage is an insertion which breaks the continuity of the narrative 2229 2312, and contains some elements of extreme difficulty. The words of 2312 follow most naturally the persecution of 2229. Paul's witness was given before the crowd, not before the council, and the narrative of 2312-15 shows no sign of a previous meeting like that narrated in 231-11. How it came to be inserted here

1 The resurrection-idea, which here, as in 42, is regarded as the bête noir of the Sadducees, would not have really been a cause of such dispute or a source of such strategic advantage to Paul. The Pharisees opposed Paul on much wider grounds (cp. Weizsäcker, AA, ii. pp. 116, 117, and Zeller-Overbeck, ii. pp. 75-81, 327). Besides, after the fiasco of 239-10, another meeting such as that asked in 2315 would have been hardly possible.

is hard to say, unless the ȧkpißéσrepov 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 eravρiov altogether or to amend it to rŷ éσnéра. The addition of ẞ 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, 1. 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 1030; 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." 1

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.