Here's a question someone out there in ye olde biblioblogosphere may be able to give me some direction on.

Has anyone seriously proposed and defended (or eviscerated ... I'm equal opportunity here) Paul as one of Luke's sources for the portion of Acts that deals with Paul? I realize (based on the 'we' passages, right?) that Luke himself could be primary source ... but aren't there portions where Luke wasn't with Paul? And couldn't some of those portions likely be traced back to Paul's own testimony?

After all, if you take the epistles attributed to Paul at their word, Luke and Paul were in contact with each other or actually with each other (cf. Col 4.14; 2Ti 4.11; Phm 24). Most do attribute Philemon to Paul, so even if one thinks Colossians and Second Timothy are non-Pauline, one still has to contend with the reference in Philemon.

If you have any pointers here (articles, books, commentaries with good initial discussions, or NT intro volumes, or anything else) I'd appreciate it!

Thanks!

Update (2006-12-18): Upon re-reading this entry, I think I need to supply a little more context for my request. The long and short of it is that I've been reading Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and thinking about the different ways that Bauckham posits eyewitness testimony in the text, and wondering about eyewitness testimony outside of the gospels. Acts seems the logical place to start poking around for various reasons I won't get into here.

So, I was wondering if anyone knew of any similar sort of work in Acts, but I'm guessing there isn't much (else Bauckham would've footnoted it).

Update II (2006-12-21): After a trip up north to the TWU Library, I am now reading H.J. Cadbury's The Making of Luke-Acts. I know it is a bit dated, but hopefully it'll provide some background. If anyone has similar references or pointers to criticism of Cadbury's work, I'd be obliged. Thanks!