[1] I cheerfully acknowledge that this puts me in the ‘school of thought’ pilloried by W. W. Gasque in his recent chronicle of Acts research, a ‘school’ founded by Dibelius, M. and now chartered under ‘the Dibelius - Haenchen - Conzelinann point of view’ (cf. A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles [Tübingen/Grand Rapids, 1975] 234 f.,249 f.Google Scholar). Indeed, because ‘the work of New Testament scholarship is an international enterprise’ (ibid. 252), one should renounce any regionally insulated biblical criticism, whether practised by German scholars or by Prof. Gasque. Even if one did share his Anglo-American preference, one could cite Cadbury, H. J., The Making of Luke-Acts (London, 1958) 184–90Google Scholar, in clear and compelling support of ‘the Dibelius - Haenchen - Conzelmann point of view’ on the Acts speeches, yet Cadbury mysteriously escapes Prof. Gasque's indictment (cf. op. cit. 188–92). Due respect for the ‘international enterprise’ of New Testament scholarship should also discourage premature and somewhat quixotic announcements of the demise of that ‘point of view’, as, for example, by Talbert, C. H. (JAAR 49Google Scholar [1981] 681; CBQ 45 [1983] 507). So long as Lucan research is kept in ‘continental’ and Anglo-American capsules, exegetes will not meet their cooperative responsibility of exposing this author's mind and his raw-materials (cf. the diagnosis of Plümacher, E., ‘Acta-Forsehung 1974–1982’, TRu 48 [1983] 1–56Google Scholar, here 7 f.).

[2’ The legitimacy, even urgency, of posing the traditio-historical question for the Acts discourses has been asserted repeatedly throughout the thirty-odd years since the beginnings of modern Lukas analyse, and by research-historians representing all shades of exegetical opinion. Cf. Kümmel, W. G., ‘Das Urchristentum’, TRu 22 (1954) 191–211Google Scholar, here 201 f.; Dupont, J., ‘Les discours missionaires des Actes des Apôtres d'après un ouvrage récent’, RB 69 (1962) 37–60Google Scholar (now in Études sur lea Actes des Apôtres [Paris, 1967] 133–55)Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London, 1961) 21–2Google Scholar; van Unnik, W. C., ‘Luke-Acts, a Storm-Center in Contemporary Scholarship’, in Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L., eds., Studies in Luke-Acts (Nashville, 1966) 15–32Google Scholar, here 26 f.; Gas, W. W. que, A History…, 229–32Google Scholar; Grässer, E., ‘Acta-Forschung seit 1960’, TRu 42 (1977) 1–68Google Scholar, here 36 f., 50; Schneider, G., Die Apostelgeschichte, 1. Teil (HTKNT V/i; Freiburg/Basel, 1980) 101 f.Google Scholar

[3] On the continuity and complementarity of the two discourses according to Luke's intention, cf. Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, 2. Aufl. (Tübingen, 1972) 39Google Scholar; and with fuller argumentation, Roloff, J., Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen, 1981) 71Google Scholar; Hahn, F., ‘Das Problem alter christologischer Überlieferungen in der Apostelgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Act 3, 19–21’, in K. Kremer, et al., Les Actes des Apôres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BETL XLVIII; Gembloux/Leuven, 1979) 129–54Google Scholar, here 137 f.: ‘So stellen die drei Petruspredigten formal und sachlich eine Einheit dar, sind aber in einzelnen sehr verschieden durchgefüihrt’. The close content-parallels which create the unique relationship between the Pentecost and temple speeches are set forth by Zehnle, R. F., Peter's Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter's Speeches of Acts 2 and 3 (SBLMS 15; Nashville, 1971) 19–24Google Scholar, but Zehnle posits a doubtful traditio-historical priority of the temple-speech and relates its predecessor to it as a ‘“keynote-address” to up-date the points treated in the discourse of Acts 3 from every point of view’ (136).

[14] Holtz, T., Untersuchungen über die alt testarnentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU 104; Berlin, 1968) 5–14, 71–81Google Scholar; Rese, M., Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (SNT 1; Gütersloh, 1969) 46–55, 66–77Google Scholar; Zehnle, R. F., Peter's Pentecost Discourse, 28–34Google Scholar; Kränkl, E., Jesus der Knecht Gottes. Die heilsgeschichtliche Stellung Jesu in der Reden der Apostelgeschichte (Bib. Unt. 8; Regensburg, 1972) 190–3, 198–202Google Scholar; Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘Some Quotations in Acts’, in J. Kremer, et al., Les Actes des Apôtres, 81–97).Google Scholar

[5] The difficulty of the phrase, and the obvious LXX-restoration done in the diverging mss., makes the choice of έν ταίς έσχάταις ήμέραις as the original wording methodologically inescapable (rightly Kränkl, E., Jesus, 190 f.Google Scholar), so it should not surprise us that none of the most recent scholarly commentary on our passage has endorsed the option of E. Haenchen in favour of μητά ταūτα (cf. Die Apostelgeschichte, Meyerkommentar 13th ed. [Göttingen, 1961] 142Google Scholar; also Holtz, T., Untersuchungen, 7–8Google Scholar, and Rese, M., Alttestamentliche Motive, 51 f.Google Scholar). It remains true, of course, that Luke does not use the expression αι έσχάται ήμέραί, or anything close to it, elsewhere; neither do the other Synoptics or Paul. But v. 18 already made unmistakably eschatological reference to ‘those days’ of the Spirit-outpouring (έν ταίς ήμέραίς έκηίναις = Joel 3. 2 LXX), so any excerptor of this prophecy, whether Luke or a predecessor, would have wanted to introduce that timing in the first line, in place of the colourless ‘afterwards’. The altered wording now makes it clear from the outset that Peter isannouncing the fulfilment of a divine promise held out for ‘the last days’ - understood, of course, in the expanded sense of a ‘time of the Church’ rather than properly the ‘turn of the age’ (cf. 2 Tim 3. 1; 2 Pet 3. 3; Schneider, G., Die Apg. I, 268Google Scholar; Grässer, E., ‘Die Parusieverzögerung in der Apostelgeschichte’, in J. Kremer, et a!., Lea Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie [BETL XLVIII; Gembloux, 1979] 99–127, here 11922).Google Scholar

[6] Cf. Acts 7. 6, where οθε⋯ς ειπεν is inserted in Gen 15. 13 f.; Acts 7. 49, where λέγει κὺριος is transposed in Isa 66. 1 LXX. In Acts 15. 17, λέγει κὺριος appears in its original position in Amos 9. 12. By themselves, these passages, and those of Paul's which add λέγει κὺριος to an O.T. citation (Rom 12. 19; 1 Cor 14. 21; 2 Cor 6. 17), need not indicate anything earlier than the writer's appropriation of the prophets' oracular style for citations whose quoted words do not explicitly identify God as the speaker (so Rese, M., Alttestamentliche Motive, 48 f.Google Scholar). The possibility of a special Christian tradition accounting for this usage deserves further, closer analysis; it has not yet been placed on a firm footing.

[7] Ellis, E. E., Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays (Tübingen/Grand Rapids, 1978) 137 f.Google Scholar, 184, 196. Cf. especially the essay, ‘ΛΕΓΕΙ ΚΤΡΙΟΣ Quotations in the New Testament’, ibid., 182–7.

[8] A tentative profile of Luke's Sondertradenten for both the ‘L’ material of the gospel and the Stephen-Philip cycle of Acts was ventured in my doctoral dissertation, From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24 (An. Bib. 82; Rome, 1978) chap. IV/1 (cf. especially pp. 265 f.). I judged that much of that material bore the stamp of itinerant charismatic prophets, whose harsh asceticism and renunciation of earthly ties would have projected, via their traditions, just the kind of idealized picture of the origins that Luke sought to paint in both segments of his opus historicum. Of course I have relied on the promising mixture of analytical and constructive methods of form-criticism of which Gerd Theissen has set the example (cf. note 36 below).

[9] Die Apg. 1, 269. Similarly Roloff, J., Die Apg., 53Google Scholar, and with caution, Zehnle, R. F., Pentecost Discourse, 33Google Scholar; Dietrich, W., Das Petrusbildder lukanischen Schriften (BWANT 94; Stuttgart, 1972) 201 f.Google Scholar

[10] Untersuchungen, 11 f. A careless dittography is not, however, the only alternative to a Lucan theologoumenon, pace Holtz and Haenchen, E., Die Apg., 142Google Scholar n. 4. Our pro phetic-testimonium hypothesis will present still another.

[11] According to U. Wilckens and others, the prophet-model came to Luke from a ‘tradition of prophet-christology’; which he allowed to come to expression in the words of ‘outsiders’ but stead fastly corrected with his own higher christology of the exalted Messiah fulfilling the Scriptures (cf. Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschfchte, 3rd ed. [WMANT 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1974] 201 n. 5).Google Scholar In basic agreement, most recently, is Bovon, F., Luc le théologien: Vingt-cinq ans de recherches, 1950–1975 (Neuchatel-Paris, 1978) 193Google Scholar. See the contrary view in Dillon, R. J., From Eye-witnesses, 117 ff.Google Scholar, with an accompanying survey of exegetical opinion. To the greater number of authorities cited there (n. 141) in favour of the importance of the prophet-christology to Luke himself, one may now add Busse, U., Die Wunder des Propheten Jesus (FzB 24; Stuttgart, 1977) 393–402Google Scholar, and passim; Tiede, D. L., Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia, 1980) 124Google Scholar, and passim; Johnson, L. T., The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (SBL Diss. 39; Missoula, 1977) 67.Google Scholar

[12] On the formula σημηία καί τέρατα as prophetic accreditation, in particular of the ‘prophet like Moses’, cf. LXX Exod 7. 3; Deut 13. 2 f.; especially Deut 34. 11–12 in relation to 18. 15 ff. The added words of Acts 2. 19 seem to tailor the Joel passage precisely to the context, involving the Spirit ‘from heaven’ (v. 2), the certifying ‘mighty works and wonders and signs’ of Jesus' ministry (v. 22), and the ‘many wonders and signs by the apostles’ (v. 43). The formula occurs in five additional Acts passages, four of those showing the customary order σημηία καί τέρατα (4. 30; 5. 12; 14. 3; 15. 12; reversed in 6. 8). The persistence of the reverse order in 2. 22 and 2. 43 shows the intent of punctually applying the edited prophecy. The point of the application is that Jesus and his apostolic witnesses were certified as prophets ‘not by just the ability to perform extra ordinary miracles…, but by the foundation of those miracles in the salvation-history directed by God, already charted and predetermined in the Old Testament’ (Stolz, F., ‘Zeichen und Wunder. Die prophetische Legitimation und ihre Geschichte’, ZThK 69 [1972] here 143Google Scholar). Although Luke's own hand is clear enough in the close contextual coordination of 2. 19 (cf. Dillon, R. J., From Eye-Witnesses, 126Google Scholar), the question whether it was he who originated the enlargement of Joel 3.3 for contemporary application may still be considered open. Cf. Holtz, T., Untersuchungen, 12 f.Google Scholar, on the LXX textual problem.

[13] Cf. n. S above. This as against Schneider, G., Die Apg. I, 269Google Scholar, and Kränkl, E., Jesus, 192Google Scholar, who judge that Luke's interest in appropriating the Joel text was only in its beginning and end, hence v. 19 obtained no special application in the context.

[14] Cf. Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Greeven, H. (tr. M. Ling; New York, 1956) 111, 165Google Scholar; Wilckens, U., Missionsreden, 54, 87 ff.Google Scholar, 98–100, 119–21; Dupont, J., Études sur les Actes des Apôtres (L.D. 45; Paris, 1967) 433–40Google Scholar, 460–5; Zehnle, R. F., Pentecost Discourse, 35 f.Google Scholar

[15] Pointed out by Rese, M., Alttestamentliche Motive, 67Google Scholar, citing F. Overbeck's commentary. Rese, crediting the connection to Luke, writes: ‘Schon allein daran lässt sich sehen, dass die beiden Reden aufeinander bezogen sind und dass die zweite Rede den Gedankengang der ersten fortführt’. In our view, however, a linkage between 2. 21 and 3. 23, with the space of a chapter lying in between, would be a rather recondite communication by Luke to his reader, were he the first to create it. One sooner thinks of a linkage created when the two O.T. passages were brought together in a pre-Lucan catena, whose existence as a Lucan source we shall suggest below.

[16] ‘Christologie und Geschichtsbild in Apg. 3. 19–21’, BZ 13 (1969) 223–41Google Scholar, esp. 228, 233. Cf. also Wilckens, U., Missionsreden, 234–5Google Scholar; Kränkl, E., Jesus, 197–8Google Scholar; Schneider, G., Die Apg. 1, 323 ff.Google Scholar; Hahn, F., in Les Actes…, 139 f.Google Scholar; Grässes, E., in Les Actes…, 119Google Scholar; Kurz, W. S., ‘Acts 3:19–26 as a Test of the Role of Eschatology in Lukan Christology’, in Achtemeier, P. J., ed., SBL Seminar Papers 1977 (Missoula, 1977) 309–23Google Scholar, esp. 313 ff., 318. -For the older (Bauernfeind) view that vv. 20 f. contain an intact tradition-fragment unassimilated to Luke's viewpoints, cf. Roloff, J., Die Apg., 72 f.Google Scholar

[17] The clearest explanations of this passage in relation to the overall Lucan historiography are offered, in our opinion, by Lohfink, G.. Cf. Die Himmelfahrt Jesu (SANT 26; Munich, 1971) 225Google Scholar, and Die Sammlung Israels (SANT 39; Munich, 1975) 60–1.Google Scholar What is presented is the ultimate summons to repentance, and therewith the great judgment of Israel, out of which the gathering of the true people of God is being made. ‘Aber die Darstellung der Krisis lsraels und der Sammlung des wahren lsraels ist nicht nur der Sinn der zweiten Missionsrede, sondern überhaupt weiter Teile der Apostelgeschichte’ (Sammlung, 61).

[18] Cf. Rese, M., Alttestamentliche Motive, 68 f.Google Scholar, on the present context, and Dillon, R. J., From Eye-Witnesses, 136 ff.Google Scholar, on the general Lucan usage.

[19] Studied in detall by 0. Steck, H., Israel und das gewalt same Geschick der Propheten (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1967).Google Scholar See the digests of his analysis in Wilckens, U., Missionsreden, 202 ff.Google Scholar; Dillon, R. J., From Eye-Witnesses, 257 ff.Google Scholar; Schnider, F., Jesus der Prophet (OBO 2; Göttingen, 1973) 130 ff.Google Scholar Cf. also Tiede, D. L., Prophecy and History, 76.Google Scholar

[20] Neh 9. 26; Jub 1. 12; Josephus, Ant. IX. 13.2Google Scholar; Luke 11. 49–51/Matt 23. 34–36; Luke 13. 34 f./Matt 23. 37 f. - O.T. samples of the Deuteronomic prophet-parenesis to which the murder element had not yet been added: 2 Kings 17. 13ff.; Jer 44.4–6; 2 Chron 36. 14–16;Ezra 9. 10ff.

[21] Pace E. Kränkl, Jesus, 199, who would suppress Luke's interest in Jesus' Mosaic-prophet function altogether. It is important to recall that our text demonstrates both the judgment upon the disobedient Israel (v. 23) and the blessing of the obedient Israel (vv. 25–26), the difference being a matter of the response given to Jesus, the prophet like Moses, in his Easter proclamation of repentance. A duly repentant λα⋯ς is thus being gathered by the call of the ‘resurrected’ escha tological prophet (rightly C. M. Martini, ‘L'esclusione dalla communitl del popolo di Dio e il nuovo Israele secondo Atti 3, 23’, Bib 50 [1969] 1–14, here esp. 12).

[22] The combination of άναστήσας with άπέστειλεν in V. 26 appears to favour the application of the Mosaic figure to the earthly mission of Jesus, and many exegetes continue to favour that interpretation (so Wilckens, U., Missionsreden, 43, 137, 163Google Scholar; Rese, M., Alttestamentliche Motive, 70 n. 19Google Scholar; Kr, E.änkl, Jesus, 198 f.Google Scholar, 201; Roloff, J., Die Apg., 78Google Scholar). On the other hand, I would agree with J. Dupont (Etudes, 249) and F. Schnider (Jesus der Prophet, 93) that Luke's distinctive usage of the intransitive άνιστάναι in Easter kerygmata can hardly be ignored in the interpretation of vv. 22 and 26. Cf. the comprehensive and, in my view, conclusive presentation of the case for Easter reference in O'Toole, R. F., ‘Some Observations on Anistēmi, “I Raise”, in Acts 3:22, 26’, Science et Esprit 31 (1979) 85–92.Google Scholar - On the consistent Mosaic typology throughout the temple sermon, rightly Zehnle, R. F., Pentecost Discourse, 47ff., 76ff.Google Scholar

[23] R. F. O'Toole, ‘Some Observations…’, 90, scores an especially strong point with this comparison. Acts 26. 23 explicitly makes the risen Christ the speaker of Paul's prophetic message to the nations.

[24] So, following Bultmann and others, Taeger, J.-W., Der Mensch und sein Heil (StNT 14; Güters loh, 1982) 200 f.Google Scholar Cf. also Schneider, G., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Bd. II, Kap. 11–24 (OTKNT 3/2; Gütersloh, 1977) 377.Google Scholar

[25] On the importance of this perspective, and the abundant evidence for an active role of the exalted Christ in the mission of the Church, cf. Kränkl, E., Jesus, 177–86, esp. 185Google Scholar; MacRae, G. W., ‘“Whom Heaven Must Receive Untll the Time”: Reflections on the Christology of Acts’, Int 27 (1973) 151–65Google Scholar; O'Toole, R. F., ‘Activity of the Risen Jesus in Luke-Acts’, Bib 62 (1981) 471–98.Google Scholar On the other hand, still insisting on the ‘absentee’ Christ, and thus weighting earthly mediations of the mission, is Bovon, F., Luc le théologien, 62, 144, 145, 207.Google Scholar

[26] On this Qumran comparison and favouring the ‘testimony’ hypothesis for our passage, cf. Hodgson, R. Jr., ‘The Testimony Hypothesis’, JBL 98 (1979) 361–78Google Scholar, here 373 f. (lit. in n. 28). This origin of the combined quotation was favoured by J. Rendel Harris and has been frequently advocated since. Recent proponents include Holtz, T., Untersuchungen, 74Google Scholar; Schneider, G., Die Apg. I, 316Google Scholar; Roloff, J., Die Apg., 78.Google ScholarE contra, insisting on Luke's own fashioning of the full citation, Rese, M., Alttestamentliche Motive, 69 f.Google Scholar, 77; but cf. 222.

[27] The persistence of peculiar readings in more than one N.T. instance of an O.T. quotation is one of the classic arguments for the ‘testimony’ hypothesis (cf. R. Hodgson, ‘The Testimony Hypothesis’, 366–69).

[28] Hodgson, art. cit., 374. I should not agree, on the other hand, with Hodgson's contextual argument (373), stressing the ‘historical ministry’ of Jesus as the focus of vv. 22 ff., in supposed collision with w. 17–21. - The attachment of commentary to biblical ‘testimonies’ also is illustrated in the Qumran testimonia (IVQTest. 20–31) and messianic florilegium (IVQFlor.). Cf. Fitzmyer, J. A., Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London, 1971) 85.Google Scholar

[29] The Qumran testimonia and florilegium both display catchword associations linking the texts quoted, just as we find in the series of Rom 3. 10–18 and 2 Cor 6. 16–18 (cf. R. Hodgson, ‘The Testinlony Hypothesis’, 364). Formal and thematic principles could presumably also draw texts together, just as they drew logia of Jesus together in both oral and written transmission. Cf. Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 3rd ed. (Göttingen, 1957) 349 ff.Google Scholar

[30] On the interpretation of Scripture as a Christian prophet's function, according to the Acts evidence, cf. Ellis, E. E., ‘The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts’, in Prophecy and Hermeneutic, 129–44.Google Scholar And the Spirit-guided enthusiasm of the movement associated with the ‘Hellenists’, typified by the Acts portraits of Stephen and Philip, is brought out by Hengel, M., ‘Zwischen Jesus und Paulus’, ZThK 72 (1975) 151–206Google Scholar, here esp. 193–4. Cf. also Dillon, R. J., From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers, 256 f.Google Scholar

[31] Jesus' ‘reading’ in the Nazareth synagogue, purportedly from a ‘scroll opened’ to Isa 61. 1f., is really a fusion of that passage with a line from Isa 58. 6 ad vocem ăфεσις. No such text was ‘found’ in an Isaiah scroll; it was a Christian testimonium to the principal prophetic function undertaken by Jesus (Haenchen, E., ‘Historie und Verkündigung bei Markus und Lukas’, in Die Bibel und wir. Gesammelte Aufsätze II [Tübingen 1968] 156–81Google Scholar, here 164).

[32] But for the first line of the Acts quotation (28. 26a), the passage is matched to the letter by Matt 13. 14 f., and both hew closely to the LXX. The alteration of the first line in Acts, however, seems more deliberate than T. Holtz allows (Untersuchungen, 36). The transposition of the indirect object in Acts: πορεύθητι πρός τόν λαόν τουτον και ειπον, in place of Isa 6. 9 LXX, πορεύθητι Kgr;αίείπον τῷ λααῷ τούτψ, may just reflect a specific mission-mandate being legitimated by Christian propagandists who carried it out. At least the ‘blinding’ passage was aheady in Christian use as proof-text before Luke and independently of him (cf. Matt). Holtz acknowledges this even as he imagines Luke closely consulting his LXX copy.

[33] The very complex citation in the James speech hardly belongs to the narrative tradition underlying Acts 15; nor is it likely to be a free construction of Luke's (pace Holtz, T., Untersuchungen, 25Google Scholar). Rather, it seems most likely that the author of Acts received and incorporated this compounded citation from ‘a compendium of numerous scriptural citations pertaining to the Gentile mission’ (Dömer, M., Das Heil Gotres. Studien zur Theologie des lukanischen Doppelwerkes [BBB 51; Köln/Bonn, 1978] 179Google Scholar; similarly Conzelmann, H., Die Apg., 92Google Scholar; Schneider, G., Die Apg. II 182).Google Scholar

[34] Cf. n. 8 above.

[35] Cf. Dillon, R. J., From Eye-Witnesses, 239, 246–9.Google ScholarTaeger, J.-W., too, finds Jesus' visit to Zacchaeus ‘an example of how the Christian missionaries knocked on doors in a strange town’ (Der Mensch und sein Heil, 200).Google Scholar

[36] Theissen's researches are now set forth for a broader readership in The Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (tr. Bowden, J.; Philadelphia, 1978).Google Scholar His development of earlier form-critical methodology was most clearly stated in his earlier article, ‘Wanderradikalismus…’, ZThK 70 (1973) 245–71Google Scholar; and the continuity is exhaustively demonstrated in his monograph, Urchristliche Wundergeschichten (SNT 8; Gütersloh, 1974)Google Scholar, now available in English translation.

[37] Cf. Radi, W., Paulus und Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk (Bern/Frankfurt, 1975)Google Scholar; Mattill, A. J. Jr., ‘The Jesus-Paul Parallels and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: H. H. Evans Reconsidered’, NovT 17 (1975) 15–46Google Scholar; R. F. O'Toole, ‘Activity of the Risen Jesus…’, 479–82. This perspective in Acts study has been ‘astonishingly long neglected’, according to Roloff, J., ‘Die Paulus-Darstellung des Lukas’, EvT 39 (1979) 510–31, here 516.Google Scholar

[38] The Christus praesens in the Acts ‘witnesses’ was most strongly promoted by Stolle, V., Der Zeuge als Angeklagter (BWANT 102; Stuttgart/Berlin, 1973) esp. 171–84.Google Scholar His arguments were reviewed, admired, and modified by Chr. Burchard, , ‘Paulus und die Apostelgeschichte’, ThLZ 100 (1975) 881–95, here 885 ff.Google Scholar, 893. Cf. also G. W. MacRae, ‘“Whom Heaven Must Receive…”’, 165; R. F. O'Toole, ‘Activity of the Risen Christ…’, 482.

[39] According to E. Grässer, the ‘early Catholic’ criticism of Luke paralyzed itself as hyper-criticism and has remained without sequel (contra E. Käsemann, 5. Schulz). It brought the down-fall not of Luke but of his attackers (‘Acta-Forschung…’, TRu 41 [1976] 275 f.). Cf. the full discussion and bibliography in Schneider, G., Die Apg. I, 147–54.Google Scholar

[40] Roloff, J., ‘Die Paulus-Darstellung.…’, 521 f.Google Scholar; Schneider, G., Die Apg. 1, 150 f.Google Scholar