"B "4T<@H. P al plu syrutr cop (sah) aeth Chr9, 86 (et9, 81 JT< "
"LJ@L BD@N0JT<. !* A B* C 61. 69. ]Souter cites, instead of 61. 69., 81. 429. al[
(B"<JT<) JT< "(4T< JT< "B "4T<@H "LJ@L BD@N0JT<. !c B3 E al cat JT< "(4T< "LJ@L (4. 13. add JT<) "B "4T<@H BD@N0JT<. 4. 13. Or3, 221 (vg) (Or3, 798) (B"<JT<) JT< "(4T< "LJ@L BD@N0JT< "B "4T<@H. P al plu syrutr cop (sah) aeth Chr9, 86 (et9, 81 JT< " (4T< "LJT BD@N0JT< JT< "B "4T<@H).
If the short reading preserved by D were original, then the varying position of "B "4T<@H in the other witnesses would be easily explained. The phrase was supplied from Lk. 1:70, but different scribes inserted it in different places.32 The position of "LJ@L before BD@N0JT< both in ! B and in P etc.33 would be explained as a survival from the original reading, where "LJ@L was construed with the preceding "(4T<.34 Furthermore the designation of the Old Testament prophets as "saints," though unusual, is not impossible in New Testament usage. If "B "4T<@H is thus not genuine in Acts 3:21, then the striking similarity between this passage and Lk. 1:70 disappears, and there is no longer any argument for unity of authorship. On the other hand, however, the textual phenomena in Acts 3:21 may also be explained on the supposition that the reading of ! B is correct. The phrase "B "4T<@H naturally gave difficulty to ancient as well as to modern readers—hence its omission in D etc. The reading of P with the mass of later witnesses /pg. 11/ may be due to re-insertion of "B "4T<@H into the D-text, or (more probably) represents an attempt at simplification of the ! B-text, the heaping of three adjective expressions )"(4T<, "B "4T<@H and "LJ@L) between article and noun being felt to be cumbrous.35 On the whole, there seems to be no sufficient reason for deserting ! B at this point in favor of the inferior Western documents.36 The coincidence, then, between Lk. 1:70 and Acts 3:21 probably remains.
This coincidence can hardly be due merely to an accident—the expression is too remarkable for that. The coincidence must be explained. But unity of authorship is by no means the only possible
explanation. For example, why may not the author of the expression in Acts have been dependent upon the author of Lk. 1:70? Suppose, for a moment, in opposition to Harnack, that the Benedictus )Lk. 1:68–79( is a Jewish Christian hymn. It was well known to Luke, and if rightly or wrongly he supposed it to have been produced by Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, he must have regarded it highly. He may then have allowed it to color his language in Acts 3:21. There is nothing at all improbable in such an hypothesis.37 It should be observed further that Acts 3:21 is part of a speech of Peter. The primitive, Jewish character of the speeches in the early part of Acts has often been noticed. Coincidence between one of these speeches, therefore, and Lk. 1 does not prove the Lucan authorship of both. Luke was perhaps not the /pg. 12/ author of Acts 3:12–26 any more than of Lk. 1:68–79. In both cases, he may have been merely the editor. But even if Acts 3:12–26 is pre-Lucan—indeed even if it is an actual speech of Peter in its original form—the hypothesis of direct dependence upon Lk. 1:70 remains possible. Why may not Peter himself have known the primitive hymn, the Benedictus, so that its language came naturally to his lips? It must be admitted that this hypothesis, though possible, is hardly probable. For there is no evidence that the narrative-cycle represented by Lk. 1–2 was known at the very earliest time by the Christian community in Jerusalem. Peter would hardly have had time to become so familiar with the Benedictus as to use its language spontaneously in a speech. If he did so, then it was probably because he was under the overpowering first impression made by the narrative of the infancy of John and Jesus. But such an hypothesis cannot here be argued. The problem of the speeches in Acts may fairly be left out of account. Even if Acts 3:12– 26 is genuinely Petrine, it hardly reproduces a verbatim report, or a literal translation of one. The wording, at any rate, is probably due either to Luke, or to his sources. But either Luke himself, or the earlier author of a Jewish Christian source may well have allowed the Benedictus to color his language, most of all, where, as in a speech of Peter, the Jewish Christian spirit was to be preserved.
No particular explanation of the coincidence between Lk. 1:70 and Acts 3:21 need here be defended. All that is insisted upon is that Lucan authorship of both passages is by no means the only possible explanation. A number of other explanations suggest themselves. •B, "ÆT$<@H38 occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Lk. 1:70, Acts 3:21, 15:18. But similar phrases39 are not uncommon in the Septuagint.40 It should be observed /pg. 13/ that both occurrences in Acts are in the speeches of Jewish Christians. Verse 71 )also verse 74(. ¦6 P,4D`H,41 though it recurs in just the same sense as here only in Acts 12:11,42 can hardly be regarded as specifically Lucan. It occurs in the passage )Ps. 106:10( quoted by Harnack as the basis for this verse, and elsewhere in the Septuagint. The phrase in Acts is attributed to a Jewish Christian )Peter( Verse 72. B@40$F"4 §8,@H :,JV,43 though it occurs again only at Lk. 10:37 in the New Testament, is not specifically Lucan. It is a common Septuagint phrase, produced in imitation of Hebrew.44
For the addition of ,(\"H45 see above on verse 70. Verse 73. ÓD6@< Ô< ê:@F,.46 Cf. Acts 2:30 ÓD6å ê:@F,<, the only other passage in the New Testament where Ï:<bT is used with ÓD6@H. The usage occurs in the Septuagint: Gen. 26:3 JÎ< ÔD6@< :@L Ô< ê:@F" $D"V:—a close parallel to Lk. 1:73 )Ex. 13:19 ÔD6å ((D òD64F,(, Nu. 3:3 ´ Ï:`F® ÓD6@<, Deut. 7:8 JÎ< ÓD6@< Ô< ê:@F,< J@4$H B"JDVF4< ß:T$<,aaa Josh. 9:20 *4( JÎ< ÓD6@< Ô< é:`F":,<.47 Such a use of accusative or dative is common in the New Testament; it is merely by chance that it occurs with Ï:<bT only in this passage and in Acts.
The use of BD`H c. acc.,48 though unusually common in Luke and Acts, is hardly any sure test of Lucan style. The fact, which is not noticed by Harnack, that this usage occurs almost exactly as frequently in Lk. 1–2 in proportion to /pg. 14/ the length of the passage as in the whole Gospel of Luke49 may possibly be significant for determining the authorship of the infancy narrative as a whole, but the one occurrence in the Benedictus surely proves absolutely nothing about the authorship of the hymn. BD`H c. acc. is nowhere
rare. It is true that Ï:<bT seems always to have the dative, never BD`H c. acc., in the Septuagint.50 But BD`H c. acc. in this connection cannot be proved to be specifically Lucan, for in the only other passage )Act 2:30( where Luke uses Ï:<bT he follows it with the dative. Verse 74. For *@L$<"4 c. infin.51 compare, for example, Gen. 31:7 6"Â @Û6 §*T6,< "ÛJå$ Ò 2,ÎH 6"6@B@40$F"\ :, and Job 22:27. J@L$ c. infin.,52 epexegetical or expressing purpose, which occurs three times in the Benedictus53 and once besides in Lk. 1– 2,54 is far more frequent in Luke and Acts than in the rest of the New Testament.55 But this usage is very common in the Septuagint.56 A Jewish Christian writer could hardly avoid it.
8"JD,b,4<57 which occurs twice in Lk. 1–3, once in the rest of Luke )citation(, once in Matthew )same citation(, five times in Acts, four times in Paul,58 six times in Hebrews, twice in the Apocalypse, is rather common in the Pentateuch, and in Joshua and Judges. It is certainly no clear indication of Lucan style. /pg. 15/
Verse 75. ¦<fB4@<59 occurs five times in Lk. 1–2 )twice in the Benedictus(, about eighteen times in the rest of Luke, thirteen times in Acts, not at all in Matthew and Mark, once in John, seventeen times in Paul, twice in Hebrews, four times in the Catholic Epistles, and about thirty-two times in the Apocalypse. The word is very common in the Septuagint, especially in Samuel-Kings and in the Psalms.60 Its frequency is due to its adoption by the translators from vernacular Greek as a convenient translation of the Hebrew -51* and "3*"*.61 Its relative frequency in Luke and Acts is due to Luke's imitation of the Septuagint. It is certainly no clear indication of Lucan style. Luke was probably not the only early Christian writer who imitated the Septuagint—witness the very common employment of ¦<fB4@< in the Apocalypse. The word would very naturally be used by any Christian writer, but especially by a Jewish Christian. The entire absence of ¦<fB4@< from Matthew and Mark and its very sparing use in John remain very surprising.62
Verse 76. ßR\[email protected] ßR4FJ@, as a designation of God, occurs three times in Lk. 1–2, twice in the rest of Luke, twice in Acts )one of these in the speech of a Jewish Christian, Stephen(, once in Mark, )where, despite Harnack, it is scarcely doubtful(, and once in Hebrews. It is rather common in the Septuagint, and is therefore no clear mark of Lucan style. Anarthrous àR4FJ@H as a designation of God occurs in the New Testament three times in Lk. 1–2, and once in the rest of Luke. That is surely insufficient to stamp the usage as Lucan; especially since it is exceedingly common in Sirach, and occurs a few times elsewhere in the Septuagint. /pg. 16/
BD@B@D,bF®.64 BD@B@D,b,F2"4 occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Acts 7:40 )in the speech of Stephen(. But that passage is a citation from Exodus 32:1, 2, 3, and the word occurs elsewhere in the Septuagint as well.65 The argument has absolutely no weight. BDÎ BD@FfB@L66 is probably not the correct reading. It is supported by D it and the mass of the Syrian documents. It was probably inserted by a scribe under the influence of the Septuagint of the well-known passage, Mal. 3:1. If, however, it is original, it is no mark of Lucan style. BDÎ BD@FfB@L occurs elsewhere in the New Testament three times in the rest of Luke )once in the Malachi citation(, once in Acts, once in Matthew )Malachi citation(, once in Mark )Malachi citation(; but it is frequent in the Septuagint, and Mal. 3:1 made its employment in Lk. 1:76 very natural.
Verse 77. (<T$F4H67 is not peculiarly Lucan. Though it occurs in the Gospels only here and in Lk. 11:52, it is frequent in Paul, and not infrequent in parts of the Septuagint. –N,F4H ,:"DJ4T$<68 occurs twice in the rest of Luke, five times in Acts, once in Matthew, once in Mark )Mk. 1:4 = Lk. 3:3(, and once in Paul. It does not occur at all in the Septuagint. The argument for Lucan authorship is stronger here than in the cases which have been discussed before. But in view of Mk. 1:4 )Lk. 3:3(, the hypothesis suggests itself that the Greek expression is derived from a phrase current in the circles from which John the Baptist came. Compare •NZF,4 ,:"DJ\"H in Ps. Sol. ix. 14.69 Verse 78. ¦> àR@LH70 occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only
in Lk. 24:49.71 But compare 2 Sam. 22:17, /pg. 17/ Ps. 17:16, 101:19, 143:7, Si. 16:17, La. 1:13. Verse 79. ¦B4N"$<"4.72 ¦B4N"\<T occurs elsewhere in the New Testament once in Acts and twice in Titus. But it is not specifically Lucan. It occurs a number of times in the Septuagint, nearly always of the manifestations of God )often it is transitive(. See especially the notable passage, Nu. 6:25 )the Benediction(, and Ep Jer 60, where the word occurs in connection with •FJD"BZ, which is somewhat related in idea to the •<"J@8Z of the present passage.
Ò*Î< ,ÆDZ<0H.73 The expressions Ò*Î< FTJ0D\"H )Acts 16:17( and Ò*@×H .T0$H )Acts 2:28( are somewhat similar. But the latter passage is simply a citation from Ps. 15)16(:11. Furthermore, Ò*Î< ,ÆDZ<0H itself occurs in Rom 3:17, and a similar expression )Ò*Î< *46"4@Fb<0H in 2 Pet. 21. Ò*ÎH ,ÆDZ<0H is a Septuagint expression. Rom. 3:17 is derived from Ps. 13:3. For similar expressions, compare Gen. 24:48, Ps. 15:16, etc. The word ,ÆDZ<0 itself occurs in Hawkins' list of Lucan characteristics.74 But it is very common in the Septuagint.
It is now time to attempt to draw some conclusion with regard to the hymns. Of Hawkins' one hundred and fifty-one "Lucan" words and phrases,75 no less than eighteen occur in the Magnificat or Benedictus, the total number of occurrences there being twentyfour.76 In addition, Hawkins has placed in his "subsidiary lists"77 two words one of which occurs once in the Benedictus, and the other once in /pg. 18/ the Magnificat and twice in the Benedictus. At first sight, such statistics seem formidable. But the argument which might be drawn from them for Lucan authorship has been weakened by the investigations of Spitta, which have been supplemented for the Benedictus by the preceding discussion. The Lucan expressions are found to be also Old Testament expressions, which would occur naturally to any Jewish Christian. Whether he was translating Aramaic hymns or composing the hymns originally in Greek, he could hardly fail to be influenced profoundly by the Septuagint.78 One argument of Harnack remains—an argument drawn not from
details, but from the structure of the hymns.79 The skilful management of the repeated :@L and "ÛJ`H in the Magnificat, and of "ÛJ`H and º:,4$H in the Benedictus, and in general the elaborate character of the poetic composition /pg. 19/ is thought to indicate the hand of the artist Luke. With regard to the Benedictus, Harnack is particularly confident. "The first three strophes of the Benedictus )verses 68–75; in all, there are five strophes with four lines each( are only superficially put into the form of the Hebrew psalm; a closer examination reveals a single, complicated, genuinely Greek period which is altogether to the credit of the author of the prologue )Lk. 1:1( and of numerous excellent Greek sentences. The period is merely forced into the Hebraising covering: the hands are Esau's hands, but the voice is the voice of Jacob."80
How many of the niceties discovered by Harnack were intended by the authors of the hymns is a matter of doubt. At any rate, in order to prove Lucan authorship, Harnack should have exhibited by example )1( the likeness of these hymns to undisputed works of Luke and )2( their unlikeness to non-Lucan hymns. The former requirement is impossible of fulfilment. Luke has unfortunately left to posterity no certain examples of his poetry, if he ever wrote any. The most that could possibly be done would be to show that these hymns are Greek rather than Semitic in poetical form; that they are such as a native Greek must have produced, without a Semitic original, merely by moulding Hebrew materials into an imitation of a Hebrew poem. Obviously, examples in point are rather hard to find; at any rate, they have not yet been produced by Harnack. In the second place, if Harnack is unable to exhibit the likeness of the Magnificat and the Benedictus to undisputed Lucan works, he should have exhibited their unlikeness to non-Lucan and particularly Old Testament hymns. That could have been done only by examples. Until it is done, the proof remains incomplete. If some of the psalms of the Septuagint were to be examined by the same kind of minute scrutiny which Harnack has applied to the two hymns of Lk. 1, perhaps similar peculiarities of composition might be discovered. /pg. 20/ Harnack lays particular stress upon the first part of the Benedictus,
Lk. 1:68–75. But if he means to compare this sentence with the prologue, Lk. 1:1–4, the comparison is particularly unfortunate. The two sentences are totally different. Lk. 1:1–4 is one complete period; it could not grammatically be broken off until almost the very end. But Lk. 1:68–75 could be broken off at the end of almost any one of the nine lines of which it is composed, and still make complete sense. The sentence is not planned as though the end were in view from the beginning, but is lengthened out, by adding one epexegetical phrase or clause after another, loosely and almost as an after-thought. Is that a characteristic Greek form of sentence? Does it not look more like the simplicity of Semitic poetry, forced into the restraints of Greek grammar? Compare for example such a passage as Ps. Sol. xviii. 7–9,81 which certainly is translated from a Semitic original:
:"6VD4@4 @Ê (4<`:,<@4 ¦< J"4$H º:XD"4H ¦6,\<"4H Æ*,4$< J( •("2( 6LD\@L, Ÿ B@4ZF,4 (,<,($ J®$ ¦DP@:X<®, ßBÎ ÕV$*@< B"4*,\"H PD4FJ@L$ 6LD\@L ¦< N`$å 2,@L$ "ÛJ@L$, ¦< F@N\( B<,b:"J@H 6"Â *46"4@Fb<0H 6"Â ÆFPb@H, 6"J,L2L$<"4 –<*D" ¦< §D(@4H *46"4@Fb<0H N`$å 2,@L$, 6"J"FJ0$F"4 BV<J"H "ÛJ@×H ¦< N`$å 6LD\@L.
This passage is very much shorter than the passage from the Benedictus; but the sentencestructure, if "structure" it may be called, is very similar.
The Psalms of Solomon, from which this passage has been taken, afford material for other interesting comparisons with the hymns of Luke 1.82 Of the parallels cited by Ryle and James a few are striking. Compare, for example, with Lk. 1:50 )6"Â JÎ §8,@H "ÛJ@L$ ,ÆH (, <,(H 6"Â (,<,(H J@4$H N@$@L:X<@4H "ÛJ`<( Ps. Sol. xiii. 11 )¦BÂ *¥ J@×H ÒF\@LH JÎ §8,@H 6LD\@L, 6"Â ¦BÂ J@×H N@$@L:X<@LH "ÛJÎ< JÎ §8,@H "ÛJ@L$(, and with Lk. 1:69 )+Û8@(0JÎH 6bD4@H Ò 2,ÎH J@L$ FD"Z8, ÓJ4 /pg. 21/ ¦B,F6XR"J@ 6"Â ¦B@\0F,< 8bJDTF4< Jå$ 8"å$ "ÛJ@L$( Ps. Sol. vi. 9 ),Û8@(0JÎH 6bD4@H Ò B@4T$< §8,@< J@4$H •("BT$F4< "ÛJÎ< ¦< •802,\((. Although direct parallels are few, a certain
similarity in spirit and in ideas can hardly be denied. This is one more indication of the Palestinian and Semitic origin of the Lucan hymns; since the Psalms of Solomon reflect the events of the Palestinian invasion of Pompey, and were produced in Palestine at about the middle of the first century before Christ.83 The date of the Greek translation is placed by Ryle and James between 40 B.C. and 40 A.D. There can be no question of direct literary dependence one way or the other between the Psalms of Solomon and the hymns of Lk. 1. In order to explain the parallels, Chase84 suggests the hypothesis of common dependence upon the "Greek Jewish prayers of the Hellenistic Synagogues," and to support this hypothesis constructs an extended list of parallels between the Jewish prayers and the Lucan hymns.85 Even granting that the Jewish prayers in question, which in their present form are later products,86 are in substance earlier than the /pg. 22/ Magnificat and Benedictus, the parallels are quite insufficient to establish direct dependence. The correspondence between the Lucan hymns and the Jewish Prayers, so far as it is verbal, is amply explained by common dependence upon the Old Testament.87 However, although all thought of direct dependence must be dismissed, the similarity of thought and feeling between the hymns of Lk. 1–2 on the one hand, and the Palestinian Psalms of Solomon and certain Palestinian Jewish prayers on the other, furnishes subsidiary evidence for a primitive Jewish Christian origin of the Magnificat and the Benedictus.
The primary evidence is discovered simply by an examination of the two hymns themselves. It has already been observed that the Magnificat is made up altogether of Old Testament phrases. These phrases are derived from no one passage, but from the most various parts of the Jewish Scriptures. The Magnificat is no mere imitation, for example, of the song of Hannah in 1 Sam 2:1–10. Yet the various elements are welded together into a song of perfect unity and great beauty, which preserves the parallelism of Hebrew poetry in its noblest form.88 Harnack supposes that the result was accomplished by the conscious art /pg. 23/ of a Gentile. But it is no wonder that the vast majority of scholars and of simple readers are opposed to him. A
single passage from the Old Testament might have been imitated; but that almost numberless passages should have been united without disclosing the joints, without making the slightest impression of artificiality, must always remain very improbable. The author of such a hymn must have lived in the atmosphere of the Old Testament, and must have been familiar from earliest childhood with its language. Only so could elements derived from so many sources have been incorporated without artificiality in a single poem. The synthesis must have been made in life, long before it was made in literary form.aaa The Benedictus, it is true, is somewhat different in form—probably different enough to disprove at once Harnack's contention that the two hymns must have been composed by the same person. The parallelism is not quite so simple, there are more subordinate clauses and appositions and epexegetical phrases.89 The basic Old Testament passages are perhaps not quite so easily designated. But the Hebrew parallelism and the genuine Old Testament spirit are really almost as clear as in the case of the other hymn.90 /pg. 24/
The form of the hymns, then, is genuinely Semitic.91 The Greek translation, like some of the better parts of the Septuagint, has preserved the spirit of the original, though without doing unnecessary violence to the idiom of the Greek language. But an even stronger argument for a primitive Palestinian origin is to be derived from the content of the hymns. There is nothing which can by any possibility be stretched into an allusion to Christian dogma, or even to the later history of Jesus. In the Magnificat there is no clear allusion even to the person of the Messiah.92 In the Benedictus the allusion is merely to salvation in the house of David. The Messianic king has come at last; but nothing more is known about Him than what was contained in Old Testament prophecy. The child John is thought of as a forerunner, not particularly of the Messiah, but of Jehovah. The coming salvation is conceived as applying not to the world, but primarily at least, to Israel. /pg. 25/ Israel is to be delivered from its insolent oppressors.93 That the salvation is to be not merely political, but also moral and religious )Lk. 1:75ff.(