The Acts of the Apostles

240 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
quite clearly—nor were they probably noticed by St.
Luke himself.^ How much of this " working up " is
due to St. Luke, how much to the source itself, cannot
be determined. It was only natural that this first
occasion of « speaking with tongues " should be dis-
tinguished from the later occasions in its miraculously
attractive power. The same considerations hold good
for the section v. 17-42. We are tempted to regard
the unnecessary verses 22-24 as an interpolation ; but
St. Luke could easily have been somewhat diffuse in
his narrative ; at all events the verses do not disturb
the context. Neither can I see why Weiss should
object to see the two reproaches of verse 28 standing
side by side.^ Here also it is enough to say that
the ordinary style of narrative loves to heap up
motives, and is not concerned about their consistency
with one another. Accordingly B may pass as a
source, but not as a written source. It is, however,
worthy of note that this source is related to the
Jerusalem-Antiochean source, in so far as it seems
to have sprung from Hellenistic circles. In ii. 5 ol ev
^ It is characteristic of by no means few of his narratives that he
has not quite thoroughly thought out his situations, as so easily
happens when one recounts an event of which one has not been an
eye-witness. From the instances of unevenness and of slight discrepancy
that must thus arise, to conclude the existence of a written
source free from such faults, which has been spoiled by abbrevia-
tion and interpolation, is not the first course that presents itself,
but rather the last resource. Many critics, however, prefer it because
they would sooner reckon with two rigid components than with a
single elastic one, although daily experience must teach them that
stories awkward in style and illogical in small points are everywhere
the rule.
* Weiss judges similarly concerning the incompatibility of the
two motives given in iv. 16 and iv. 21
.