prepares for ver. 35 (very clumsily it is true); ver. 35 is to be
Elisabeth, and in the second place, it is merely subjective at the best. /pg. 58/
7. After the necessary changes have been made in 1:27 and 3:23, the Gospel of Luke knows nothing of the virgin birth, except in 1:34, 35. "After these few and easy deletions, which are required, as soon as we are convinced of the interpolation of vers. 34, 35, but which otherwise also obtrude themselves upon us, the narrative is smooth and nowhere presupposes the virgin birth."
As we have already shown, Harnack has no ground for saying that the removal of B"D2X<@H in 1:27 has its own reasons, apart from the theory about 1:34, 35. Other objections also have already been noticed.
8. The composition of vers. 34, 35, is easily discerned. Ver. 34 prepares for ver. 35 (very clumsily it is true); ver. 35 is to be explained from Luke 1:31, 32, and Matt. 1:18–25. It is rather suspicious that the redactor should be so clumsy in one point, and should yet exhibit positive genius in imitating (ver. 35) so admirably the style and spirit of the narratives.
9. So Matt. 1:18–25 becomes the starting-point for the representations of the virgin birth, which simplifies matters in the history of the legend. In our judgment, however it may be in Harnack's, this is merely begging the question.
10. Whether Luke himself subsequently or an interpolator inserted the virgin birth in the Gospel cannot be decided, though the former alternative is less probable. This does not seem to be intended as an argument at all, and so demands no answer. Against all these minuter arguments may be balanced the important consideration of the parallelism with the annunciation to Zacharias. In vers. 11–20 we have (1) the appearance of the angel, (2) fear of Zacharias, (3) promise by the angel, (4) surprised question of Zacharias, (5) reiteration of the promise, with a sign. To these details we have in the