"literary" dependence on canonical Acts; and (2) an intertextual testament to Luke's literary achievement in early Christian thought, story, and practice. With this argument, Matthews moves beyond historical-theological intertextuality into literary-cultural intertextuality without including rhetorical-cultural intertextuality. For him, Lukan Acts has become culturally internalized by the writer of Acts of Peter in a manner that allows the writer to transfer themes from one person to another in later literary composition.

While interpretation of Acts of Peter in this volume takes us from historical-theological intertextuality to rhetorical-cultural and literary-cultural intertextuality, analysis and interpretation of Acts of Paul takes us through these modes of intertextuality into linguistic-cultural intertextuality. Willy Rordorf's essay shares with Matthews's essay a literary-cultural approach to intertextuality. Rordorf argues that both canonical Acts and Acts of Paul know Galatians 1. Again, the relation is not oral-scribal but literary-cultural. This means that the content of Galatians 1 has been internalized by the writers of canonical Acts and Acts of Paul in a manner that allows the writers to compose various stories and speeches that reflect the content and themes of Galatians 1. The bold step in Rordorf's argument is to assert that Acts of Paul is not dependent on canonical Acts in its portrayal of the conversion of Paul. Julian Hills continues in the domain of literary-cultural analysis, but his approach to the entire text of Acts of Paul and canonical Acts calls attention to common devotional language that, in his view, must derive from canonical Acts. Again, this is not an argument for oral-scribal dependence but for literary-cultural dependence. For him, a significant range of expressions distinctive to canonical Acts has been internalized by the writer who composed Acts of Paul. This writer, then, is a participant in what could appropriately be called a canonical Acts culture. Especially the devotional language of the writer of Acts of Paul reveals, in Hills' view, a relation to expressions distinctive to use of language in canonical Acts.

Richard Bauckham's essay continues the literary-cultural mode of analysis and interpretation characteristic of a number of essays in this volume, but his eye is on 2 Timothy, Titus, and 1-2 Corinthians as he investigates Acts of Paul. Bauckham's essay brings to mind Ferdinand Christian Baur's introduction of a new understanding of the chronological emergence of NT and early Christian literature while holding to an intuitive truth that the Gospel of Matthew was the earliest and most reliable Gospel, even though trends were moving in another direction in the context (Kümmel: 139; Baird: 268). Bauckham will not entertain the possibility that Acts of Paul did not know canonical Acts. For him, this is an established, "intuitively accurate" tradition of scholarship that he cannot challenge. Bauckham argues that Acts of Paul is rewritten Bible, a mode of composition to be found in the Old Testament apocrypha and Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities. This gives both canonical Acts and Acts of Paul a form of canonical validation, placing canonical Acts in the