The Acts of the Apostles

238 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
that because of these passages no companion of St.
Paul could have written the Acts. Those who advance
such an assertion make upon both author and
Apostle demands which are too rigorous, too heroic,
and too abstract.
Seeing that there is no proof that the second half
of the book depends upon written sources, we may
not forthwith build up the hypothesis of written
sources for the first half upon the basis of faults
similar to those which are found in the second half.
III. Passing to chapter i. and the " source " B (chap,
ii. ; V. 17—42), we find that the instances of discrepancy
and unevenness are so numerous in the first verses of
the first chapter that we cannot well reject the hypo-
thesis that they have been subjected to later correc-
tion. We can, however, no longer ascertain the extent
of this correction, nor the wording of the original
text.
In the passage concerning the election of Matthias
(i. 15—26) Weiss distinguishes a written source and
editorial touches due to St. Luke. He bases his con-
clusions upon the different significance given to the
word r} ewauXL^ (the Apostleship and the plot of ground
of Judas), as well as upon the grammatical and prac-
tical difficulties that are to be found in the verses
21^' '', 22. The latter verses may be a later inter-
polation—though we are by no means forced to this
conclusion ; but the fact that eiravXis is used in a
double significance gives no ground for assuming a
written source. Double interpretations of a word are
out of place according to our ideas of exegesis, but
they were not so according to ancient ideas (espe-