partitions, that even Heitmiiller cannot give anything but modified commendation to his theory, Theol. Rundschau, p. 87, 1899, and that a still severer condemnation is inflicted by Zéckler, Greifswalder Studien, p. 114, cf. Knabenbauer, p. 1].
In the same year, 1890, Sorof published his Die Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte. He too has his two written sources. Of the first the physician Luke was the author; this source runs through the book, and has for its purpose to represent the missionary spread of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome, making prominent the figure of Paul. But this source was revised by another disciple of Paul, Timothy, who as the son of a Jewish mother stood nearer than Luke to Jewish-Christian interests. Timothy, to magnify Peter, introduced much legendary matter relating to him in the first portion of St. Luke’s account, and also revised and corrected the record of St, Paul’s missionary activity on the strength of his authorship of the “We” sections and his own eye-witness. (It is no wonder that Heitmiiller, µ. s., p. 85, again welcomes this theory with qualified praise, and considers the division of the parts of the book assigned to Luke and Timothy as improbable, if not impossible.) Another attempt in the succeeding year by Spitta gained much more notice than that of Sorof. He also has his two sources—A, an older source including the ‘‘We”’ sections, probably the work of Paul’s companion, Luke: a very valuable and erudite source con- taining the speeches of the book (see references in commentary) ; and B, a secondary source, unhistorical, depending on popular traditions, with a great tendency to introduce miraculous embellish- ments. B is the work of a Jewish Christian who writes with a desire to magnify Peter by miracles which equal those of the great Gentile Apostle. Spitta has further to suppose that these two sources, the one Pauline-Lucan and the other Jewish-Christian, were combined by a Catholic-Christian redactor R, with some additions of his own. Here again Heitmiiller, p. 91, sees no hope of a satisfactory solution of the problem under investigation, and can only wonder at the manner in which two sources of a directly opposite tendency can be so simply interwoven by the redactor; the part played by the latter is altogether unsatisfactory, as he does little else than effect this combination of the two sources, with an occasional interpolation of his own. Spitta’s attempt was also sharply criticised by Jiilicher, Einleitung, p. 270, and by Von Soden, Theolo- gische Literaturzeitung, 26, 1892, and its value will be seen by references in the commentary.
The most complicated of all these recent attempts at the