The Acts of the Apostles

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 173
also shows evident traces of the hand of an editor,
for while its depreciatory attitude towards the Temple
is still clearly recognisable, its attitude towards the
Law is quite obscure. It is not, therefore, too bold
a conjecture to suppose that at the background here
there lies a source in which the accusations concern-
ing the Temple and the Law (vide "The Trial of
Christ") were not described as false accusations, and
in which the speech of St. Stephen had a sharper tone
(in reference to the Law), and also contained at its
close the declaration that "^Itjcroug KaraXvcreL top toitov
TOVTOV KOLL oXXa^ei TO, eOrj a TrapeSwKCV IS/LcoVo-rj^. It
would be quite in correspondence with St. Luke's
reverence for the Old Testament and for the pious
ordinances of the ancient religion—which was all the
greater because he did not know them from within
that he should have softened the tones here. Then,
however, it is probable that for vi. 1—viii. 4, and xi. 19—
—
XV. 35 (xii. 1—24) may be neglected in this connection)
he possessed a written source. The unity of this source
cannot, of course, be absolutely proved, but when we
consider how the passages vi. 1—viii. 4 and xi. 19—30
carry on a connected and purposeful development
of events whose goal is Antioch, and as we note
the Antiochean setting of chaps, xiii. and xiv., as
well as of XV. 1—35, this hypothesis seems at all
events probable. We may also point out that in the
first half of the Acts it is only in these Antiochean
passages (and in chap, ix., a chapter which stands
by itself) that the Christians are called ol /uLaOtjTal,
and that the Apostles (vi. 2) are called ol ScoSeKa ;
and that such detailed accounts as those of vi. 5
;