The Acts of the Apostles

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
yuaTa," nor when this hterary activity began. Why
must we suppose that the wording of the prologue
necessitates the lapse of a period of fifty years?
Would not about thirty-three years be sufficient?
Just as to-day in reference to the restoration of the
German Empire one could write : " Since many
have undertaken to describe this restoration KaOco^
irapiSoa-av rjij.lv ol air ap-)(r]s avTOTrrai yevojucevoi, &c.,'"
so also an author even at the beginning of the seventh
decade of the first century could have written con-
cerning the history of Jesus. And even if yevojuievoi
is pressed, no difficulty arises ; for even after the lapse
of only thirty years the great majority of the eyewitnesses
of events are no longer alive. We must
therefore dispense with the argument derived from
the prologue. There remain only the destruction
of Jerusalem and the above-mentioned legends; for
the arguments that are derived from the conception
one forms of the inward development of things are
quite unsafe, and therefore inadmissible, so long as the
chronological question remains unsolved. But if it
is pointed out that the idea that St. Luke wrote, so
to say, under the eyes of St. Paul is hampered with
psychological difficulties, it must be of course admitted
that this is undeniable ; but seeing that we can form
no accurate conception of the relations between these
two great men, it is a precarious proceeding to appeal
to such difficulties.^
1 If stress is laid upon the difficulties involved in the hypothesis
that St. Luke wrote as a personal acquaintance of St. Paul, and
even during the lifetime of the Apostle—but not under his eyes—it
is only necessary to point, in the first place, to the memorabilia
concerning great men of antiquity, which were confessedly written