the second century; cf. Acta Pauli et Thecle (apparently a part of the Acta Pauli), which are frequently dependent upon our Acts for their notices of persons and places, and also Acta Petri dependent again upon our Acts, as in the notice of the meeting of Peter and Simon Magus, cf. Zéckler, Apostelgeschichte, p, 159, and Harnack, Chron., i., pp. 498 and 554 (although Harnack places the Acta Petri as late as the middle of the third century, whilst Zahn takes 170 as the terminus ad quem). From other writings and documents of the second century the testimony to our book is clear, cf. Epist. ad Diognetum, 3, cf. Acts xvii. 24; the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, cf. Acts vii. 59 ff. (Euseb., Η.Ε., v., 2; Didache, iv. 8, Acts iv. 32), and two other references to St. Paul’s address at Athens, in Tatian, Orat. ad Grec., 4, and Athenagoras, Legat., 13 (Wendt) (cf. possibly Dionysius of Corinth, Euseb., H.E., iv., 23); so too in Justin Martyr, references to the book are found in Afol., i. and Ἡ., and Dial. cum Tryph., cf., e.g., Acts i. 8, 9, ii. 2, Apol., 1,50; Acts xvii. 28, Apol., ii., 10; Acts xxvi. 22 f., Dial., 36 (Wendt, Zéckler, Headlam) ; and not only so, but it is definitely assigned to St. Luke and treated as Scripture in the Muratorian Fragment, {. 34; cf. Iren., Adv. Har., iii., 14, 15, Tertull., C. Marcion., ν., 2; De Fejun., 10; Clem. Alex., Strom., v., 12. Moreover, we must not lose sight of the fact that “all the evidence which testifies to the authorship of the third Gospel is available also for Acts, and conversely, and that the early testimony in favour of St. Luke as the author of the third Gospel is absolutely unbroken and undisputed for nearly eighteen centuries,” Lightfoot, 1. s., p. 30; Plummer, Sz. Luke pp. xiv., xvi.
Space forbids us to enter into the many vexed questions which surround the chronology of Acts, but an attempt is made to discuss some of them in the pages of the commentary. A glance at the various tables given us in Meyer-Wendt (1888), p. 31, or in Farrar’s St. Paul, ii., p. 624, is enough in itself to show us the number and complexity of the problems raised. But fresh interest has been aroused not only by Professor Ramsay, but by the recent return of Harnack and O. Holtzmann (cf. also McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 359; Blass, Proleg., p. 22) to the earlier chronology of Eusebius (although O. Holtzmann does not mention him, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, pp. 128, 192), formerly advocated by Bengel. Ac- cording to Eusebius the recall of Felix must be dated between October 55 and 56. Harnack places the entry of Festus upon office in the summer of 56, since Paul embarks for Rome some few months after the arrival of Festus in the autumn, Chvon., i., p. 257. The