A, a Jewish-Christian source, i. 15-v. 42, describing the origin and development of the mother-Church; from it were also derived ix. 31-42, xi. 2, Cod. D, a passage relating a missionary circuit, xii. 1-23; (2) πράξεις τῶν ἑπτά, a Jewish-Christian document hellenised, commencing with vi. 1, and continuing to viii. 40, including the choice of the Seven, and describing what was known of two of them, St. Stephen and St. Philip; (3) πράξεις Παύλου: this C source commences with (vii. 58>, viii. 15, 3) ix., and includes nearly the whole of that chapter, xi. 27-29, and the greater portion of xiii.- xxvili., with the “We” sections. But it will be noticed that, according to Hilgenfeld, we owe this source C probably to one of the. early Christians of Antioch (xi. 28 D), and that it affords us a trust- worthy account, and partly that of an eye-witness, of the missionary work of St. Paul begun at Antioch and spread over the heathen world. Each of the three sources is revised and added to by the “author to Theophilus,’ who as a unionist-Pauline makes it his chief aim to represent the origin of the Gentile Church as essentially dependent upon the mother-Church of Jerusalem, and Paul as in full agreement with the primitive Apostles, and as acting after the precedent of St. Peter; thus to C is referred the whole episode of Cornelius and the account of the Church in Antioch, x. 1-xi. 18 (except xi. 2 B text), xi. 19-26, 30, xii. 24, 25. Hilgenfeld is not only often greatly dependent upon the Western text (see below and in commentary), but it will be seen that the reference of large sections to his ‘‘author to Theophilus” is often quite arbitrary (cf. notes in comment.).
One more well-known name follows that of Hilgenfeld—the name of J. Weiss. In 1893, Studien und Kritiken, Weiss had already to some extent given in his adhesion to Spitta’s theory, and had treated Clemen’s redactors R.J. and R.A.. one of whom always follows the other to undo the effects of his working, with little ceremony; but in opposition to Spitta he sees in i.-v. only source B, a strong Jewish-Christian document, and in this respect he ap- proaches more nearly to B. Weiss and Feine, although he does not attach equal weight to the historical value of the document in question. Unlike Spitta, he refers the speech of Stephen (upon the unity of which Spitta so strongly insists) not to A, but to B. In 1897 J. Weiss admits only A as the source for the second half of Acts, except in some passages in which he cannot refrain from introducing a redactor, Uber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der A. G., 1897, p. 38. The view taken by J. Weiss certainly has the merit of appearing less complicated than that of Jiingst and Clemen:.