Whilst the greatest effort has been made to ensure the quality of this text, due to the historical nature of this content, in some rare cases there may be minor issues with legibility. This one example will serve to indicate at least part of the method which Torrey uses. An examination of the other striking examples of mistranslation would exceed the limits of the present article, and would require expert knowl edge of the Aramaic dialects. Whatever may be thought of the alleged mistranslations, however, the argument for an Aramaic original of Acts i. Ih – XV. 3 5 is at least impressive. Certainly a good deal can be said for Torrey’s view that the language of the former half of Acts is translation – Greek. As over against the rival explanations of the Semitic color ing of I Acts (and of such passages as Luke i. 5 – ii. Even if one is not quite ready to characterize as a grotesque performance the imitation of the Septuagint on the part of Luke which is posited by Harnack, the hypothesis of trans lation has at least the advantage of simplicity. It will per haps repay further examination.