Thus there is an organic unity between S'* and ll'». But 8^ is the end of the story of the Hellenistic Jews, their seven representatives, and the persecution which befell them ; and the begin- ning of this story is in 6^. Between 6" and S'* there is no break — unless it be thought that the whole speech of Stephen is the composition of the editor, as may very well be the case. Is, then, 6^-8^ to be regarded as belonging to the Antiochene tradi- tion ? Harnack thinks so, and it is very probable. But it is also true that B^-S'* might have come either from Jerusalem or fi'om St. Paul himself, and it is hard to see convincing reasons why the Antiochene source which Harnack postulates should not have come from the ' Paul ' source.
The same sort of result is reached by considering the sections following 11'"'^. Is ir^5-3o * Pauline' or 'Antiochene'? The following section, 12'"^, is clearly part of the Jerusalem tradition, but what follows, 12-5-13^, might again be either Pauline or Antiochene, and the same is true of 15'"^, in which the account of the Council might be Antiochene or Pauline, but is less likely to represent Jerusalem tradition. These exhaust the number of the passages which are ever likely to be attributed to the Antiochene source. To the present writer it seems that, unless it prove possible (so far it has not been done) to find some
literary criterion for distinguishing between the ' Pauline ' and ' Antiochene ' sources, it will remain permanently impossible to draw any line of de- marcation between what Luke may have heard about the early history of Antioch from St. Paul and what he may have learnt from other Antiochene persons. It also seems quite impossible to say whether he was using written sources. This, of course, does not deny that the so-called ' Antiochene source ' represents Antiochene tradition. All that is said is that this Antiochene tradition may have come from St. Paul quite as well as from any one else. On the merits of the case we can go no further (for the possibility that Luke was himself an Antiochene see Luke).
(6) The Jerusalem, tradition.-^— \t is obvious that Ac l'-5''" represents in some sense a Jerusalem tradition, and it is scarcely less clear that 8"'""* 9^'- 2118 12'"^ represent a tradition which is divided in its interests between Jerusalem and Ciesarea. It is, therefore, necessary to deal first with the purely Jerusalem sections, and afterwards with the Jerusalem-Coesarean narrative, before considering whether they are really one or more than one in origin.
(a) The purely Jerusalem sections. — The most important feature of Ac l'-5*^ is that 2'"*'' seems to contain doublets of 3'-4^^, and that the suggestion of a multiplicity of sources is supported by some linguistic peculiarities.
21-13 xhe gift of the Spirit, accompanied by the shak- 4S1 lug of the house in which the Apostles were.
214-36 A speech of Peter. 31-28
237-41 The result of this speech is an extraordinarily 44 large number of converts (5000, 3000).
24247 The communism of the Early Church. 4S4. SB
Of this series of doublets the twice-told story of the early ' communism ' of the first Christians and the repetition of the shaking of the house at the outpouring of the Spirit are the most striking, but the cumulative effect is certainly to justify the view that we have two accounts, slightly varying, of the same series of events.
This result finds remarkable corroboration in certain linguistic peculiarities of Ac 3 f. as com- pared with ch. 2. In the former the word dfao-TTjo-aj is used in the sense ' raised up to preach ' (3-® ; cf. 3"), and ijyetpe is used of the Resurrection, but in the latter dvaarTjcras is used of the Kesunection. In Ac 3f. Jesus is described as a irah deoO (3i3-26 427. 3oj^ \^^^ jjj qI^ 2 as dfSpa dirodedeLy/jL^vov dwb roxi deoO. In Ac 3 f . Peter is almost always accompanied by John (3'- ^•*- '^ 4'"), but in ch. 2 he appears alone or 'with the other apostles.'
That Ac 2 and 3 f. are doublets is thus probable ; moreover, as the linguistic characteristics of 3 f . are peculiar and not Lucan, it is more probable here than anywhere else in Acts that we are dealing with traces of a written Greek document under- lying Acts in the same way as Mark and Q underlie the Lucan Gospel. To this branch of the Jerusalem tradition Harnack has given the name of ' source A,' and to Ac 2 the name of ' source B.' According to him, the continuation of A can be found in 5'"'^, and he also identifies it with the Jerusalem- Cresarean source (see below). B is continued in 5i7-42_ j^Q I more probably, he thinks, belongs to B than to A, but may have a separate origin.
If A be followed, we get a clear and probable narrative of the history of the Jerusalem Church, but it begins in the middle. According to it, Peter and John went iip to the Temple and liealed a lame man ; in connexion with the sensation caused by this wonder Peter explained that he wrought the cure in the name of Jesus, whom he announced as the predestined Messiah. As the result of this missionarj^ speech a great number of converts were made (about 5000 [4*]). Peter and John were arrested, but later on released after a speech by