Redactor Antijudaicus, Jiingst, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, p. 9. Whether we view it from its critical or from its chronological standpoint, Clemen’s theory has not gained favour in England; for the former, see Ramsay, Sé. Paul, p. 11, and for the latter, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. xxxviii. But further, it cannot be said that Jiingst’s own theory is likely to find wider acceptance than that of his predecessor. To say nothing of the difficulties of the date which he proposes, and his advocacy of St. Luke’s dependence on Josephus, in which he is at one with Clemen (see further below), we find ourselves, as in dealing with Spitta’s theory, face to face with two sources, Aand B. The Paulinist of the second half of Acts is A, and the simplest and most natural view, according to Jiingst himself, is to identify this A with the beloved physician Luke, Col. iv. 14, Philem. ver. 24, 2 Tim, iv. 11, who was with Paul during his imprisonment at Caesarea and Rome; B represents the Petrine- Jewish Christian mainly of the first half, but whose hand may be seen in xiii. 40 f., xv. ver. 13 ἀπεκρίθη to ver. 19 κρίνω, and in ver. 20 ἐπιστεῖλαι to αἵματος, whose name and date remain unknown, and whose narrative is full of miraculous events and legendary stories. Jiingst’s redactor has an important part to play, and whilst on the one hand he advocates the abrogation of the Mosaic law (Jiingst does not hesitate to attribute to him ver. 39, xiii.), on the other hand he allows Paul to circumcise Timothy, xvi. 2, to undertake a Nazarite vow, xxi. 205.26, and to acknowledge himself a Pharisee, xxiii. 6. The redactor’s aim was to represent Christianity as a veligio licita, and he thus endeavours to bring it by a conciliatory process into close connection with the Jewish religion. It would be difficult to find in the range of criticism anything more purely arbitrary than Jiingst’s arrangement of his sections chronologically, see Table, p. 225, at the end of his book (and notes in commentary), and the instances given above are sufficient to show how he does not hesitate to split up a verse amongst his various sources: we cannot be surprised that Clemen retorted upon him the charge of over- ingeniousness with which Jiingst had greeted Clemen’s own subtle endeavours,
In the same year as Jiingst’s publication, the veteran Hilgenfeld explained his own views of the sources of Acts, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1895, 1896, following partly the lines upon which he had previously worked twenty years before in his Einleitung, but also taking into account either adversely or with different degrees of agreement, the theories since propounded. According to him the sources are three in number: (1) πράξεις Πέτρου,