once started that these sections, although not the work of St. Luke, were the work of an eye-witness (since their vividness and circum- stantiality could not otherwise be accounted for), and so derived from a source, the whole question of the authorship of this source was revived, and the claims of Timothy, Silas, Titus, again found advocates ; and not only so, but the further question was debated as to how far this source extended. Was it limited to the “We” sections only? But the view which prevailed (and which still pre- vails, cf., e.g., Holtzmann, Einleitung ὃ, p. 393, and see above) makes Luke the author of the “‘We”’ sections, although not of the whole book, which was referred to the close of the first, and even to the second century. This latter date (amongst the supporters of which may be included H. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Jilicher (100-105), Weizsacker, to say nothing of earlier critics, or of those mentioned below) finds no support in the general character of the book, and it depends upon other very precarious arguments, e¢.g., the dependency of the author upon Josephus. But if it cannot be substantiated, it is in itself fatal to the partition theories put forward by Van Manen (125-150), Clemen (60-140), and Jiingst (110-125).
With Van Manen we mark one of the earliest of the many -complicated attempts, to which reference has been already made, in proof of the use of sources throughout the whole of Acts. According to him, Acta Petri and Acta Pauli form the two sources, -of which the final redactor, writing about the middle of the second century, availed himself. In the Acta Pauli, H. Pa., which fill the second half of the canonical book of Acts, with the exception of xv. 1-33 and some other passages due to the reviser (although some of the incidents of these Acta which refer to Barnabas, Stephen, Paul, find a place in the first half of the book), a Gentile Christian, the first redactor, writing at the end of the first, or beginning of the © second century, has embodied the Lucan Travel-Document, probably written by Luke himself, consisting of the “ We” sections and the ‘bare recital of one of Paul’s voyages from Jerusalem to Rome. This document is, however, much revised, and according to it the Apostle travels to Rome not as a prisoner, but as a free man. The final redactor, moreover, seems to have forgotten that such a docu- ment had ever existed, and to have depended upon the Epistles of St. Paul and the notices of Josephus. The second source, Acta Petri, H. Pe., chaps. i.-xii., is of very small historical value; it was composed later than the Acta Pauli, and aimed at placing Peter on a level with Paul. It is not perhaps to be wondered at that Van ‘Manen himself seems to hesitate about the exact details of his